May 10 NOTES FOR REFLECTION Sixth Sunday of Easter
Texts: Acts 10:44-48; 1 John 5:1-6; John 15:9-17
Theme: From the gospel reading a good choice might be "Becoming the Friends of the Lord", which seems to me to offer a range of possible avenues to explore. A shorter, but also interesting, option might be "From Servanthood to Friendship", if only because it would be interesting to see what any suggestion that we are no longer servants of the Lord might do to the blood-pressure of someone of a more conservative bent. From our second lesson we might go for something bold, if not brassy, with "Faith that Conquers the World". But once again the reading from Acts seems to me the most fertile field to plough this week. Try "Breaking Down the Walls that Divide", or "Making the Two One". My choice of the week is "Thinking the Unthinkable".
Introduction. We start with a small extract from a much longer, and probably the most significant, story in the whole Book of Acts, which begins at the start of chapter 10 and comes to a formal conclusion in chapter 15. The Spirit falls upon Gentiles, as well as Jews! In the second lesson the elderly John is still largely repeating himself, but verses 4 and 5 add a new sharpness to this period of his teaching. In the gospel reading we continue with the Farewell Discourse as Jesus appears to raise the status of the apostles from that of servants to that of friends.
Background. My mind has had a rather lazy time this week; it seemed more interested in trivia than usual. It started off musing about the Royal Birth; how appropriate it would be if the happy event occurred on 1st May, International Labour (get it?) Day; and developed the theme by hoping the little girl would be named May, so one day she might become "May the First". Of course, in the event her mother delayed for 24 hours, but May the Second could still be a remote possibility. On reflection the names chosen for the new little princess are probably more suitable and certainly more domestically and politically savvy.
Midweek brought the end of the U.K. football season; at least, it did for Sheffield Wednesday, which is all that matters. In their last game they drew against Watford, a result that cost Watford the championship, and secured 12th-equal place for my team. Given its performance in the last two seasons this was such a glorious achievement I fully intended to celebrate with a whole bottle of cider, but alas, the cupboard was bare. I had consumed the last bottle celebrating the Northland by-election. Winston can be such a mixed blessing sometimes.
Undaunted, my mind continued on its free-wheeling jaunts, this time pondering the British election campaign. It has always loved irony, and Scottish accents, so it was revelling in the fact that the Conservative and the Labour Parties, having fought so hard against Scottish independence, and against changing the electoral system from First-Past-the-Post to some form of proportional representation, are now aghast at the possibility of a hung Parliament with the balance of power held by the Scottish National Party, led by a woman with a glorious Scottish accent!
And, of course, what is good enough for Scotland, my roaming mind thought, ought to be good enough for the other Celtic nations suffering so grievously in the English-dominated 'United Kingdom'. It turned what little attention it was capable of giving to Mebyon Kernow, the Party for Cornwall, and its (comparatively) charismatic leader, Dick Cole, who, as I'm sure you all know, is contesting my home constituency of Newquay and St Austell and is strongly tipped to finish in the top 5 in that seat on election day.
And then came the launch of the campaign to help us agree with our Prime Minister that the most pressing issue facing our country at the moment is the need for a new flag. A whole parade of real Kiwis (or possibly unemployed drama students glad of any gig) are flitting across our screens inviting us to ponder what we stand for. Still in flippant mood my first thought was "I stand for pregnant women and old ladies, but only on public transport" – and then suddenly with a sharp jolt my mind returned to its usual more serious and even logical self.
That is a very good question. What do we stand for? As friends of Christ, that is. And do we friends of Christ all stand for the same thing? And if not, why not? If we are to have the mind of Christ, surely we should stand for the same thing, for Christ is single-minded, isn't he? So how would it be if all of us who consider ourselves friends of Christ agreed on one answer to that question and then found someone to express that in a suitable design to be used on a new flag? Say, an outline of New Zealand under a cross? How would that be?
It was at this point that I realised that in all my its idle wanderings my mind kept coming across the same word – "unthinkable". Pundits love that word. It was "unthinkable" that Prince William would not insist that his daughter should bear the name of his late and fabled mother, even if it had to be tucked away in third place. It was "unthinkable" that the Scottish National Party should have power in the U.K. Parliament to influence policy and even, horror of horrors, to determine who should be the next Prime Minister. (It was so unthinkable that Mebyon Kernow should win any seats in Cornwall that nobody seems to have thought about it.)
So is it unthinkable that we friends of Christ should have a collective say on the design of a new flag for this country? The logical part of my mind tells me that nothing can be unthinkable if we are thinking about it. So what do you think? And may I particularly address that question to my fellow Anglicans in the Diocese of Dunedin as we are about to go into yet another period of reflection on who and what we are as 21st Century followers of Christ.
What do we stand for? Under what flag, banner or sign do we live and move and have our being? Do we really "lift high the cross" or do we just sing about it?
Acts 10:44-48. When pundits want to be even more portentous than usual they substitute for the word "unthinkable" the phrase "the day the world changed for ever". Here in this story from Acts we are probably closer to seeing the day the world changed for ever than we have been since. Okay, it took longer than a day, but think for a moment how different the world would have been – at least the Western World – if the unthinkable hadn't been accepted by the early church and it had remained to this day a minority sect within Judaism. That's what these chapters are all about, and in Peter we see embodied the enormous struggle that went on before God managed to convince these faithful Jews that his love was as strong for Gentiles as it was for them. We are used to the story in chapter 9 of the king-hit that was necessary to turn Saul around; but read through this chapter 10 about Peter from the beginning and decide for yourself which of the two was the harder nut to crack. It took an angel to recruit Cornelius, who wasn't even a Jew, and two of his slaves plus one of his army subordinates just to get a message through to Peter. Then a vision, repeated three times, was needed to convince Peter that arguing with a "voice from heaven" was not only unfaithful but ultimately futile. Slowly the penny dropped, and Peter began to follow instructions. This week's passage is the result. Even Peter recognised the action of the Holy Spirit when he saw it. But, as newly elected leaders like to say while trying not to look smug, the hard work was only just beginning. Peter had to face down the "circumcised" in Jerusalem, and the issue presumably rumbled on until the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15. (Acts 11:4 is a special favourite of mine: Peter began to explain everything to them "step by step". The inference seems to be that "they" were so thick and slow on the uptake, whereas he had got it first time!)
Taking It Personally.
- Notice how the fundamental change in understanding came about through spiritual manifestation(s), not through radical thinking: in that sense it was unthinkable. I have found this whole story very helpful in considering radical changes in the practice and policy of the Church. One female priest exercising a ministry that is clearly blessed by God is a far more convincing argument for the ordination of women than any ideological treatise based on the concept of human rights. What do you think?
- Can you recall any issue in the Church on which your own position changed (new Prayer Book, new type of music, ordination of women, etc)? Who or what brought you to a different view on that issue?
- Read slowly though chapter 10 and map the process through which Peter came to his new understanding. Notice how it started around the issue of "clean" and "unclean" food at a time when he was "hungry and wanted something to eat". What do you make of that?
- In this week's passage, the coming of the Holy Spirit precedes baptism? What, if any, significance do you attach to that?
1 John 5:1-6. In John 16:33 Jesus assures the disciples that he has "conquered" (or "overcome") the world. Here John presumably has this thought in mind as he assures us that those who believe that Jesus is the Son of God "conquer the world". Notice the choice of tenses in these different texts. Jesus "has conquered", even before his death and resurrection; his believers "conquer" the world in the present. Again, the Spirit is at work – this is a spiritual, not an intellectual, truth. The challenge is to conquer the world daily, refusing to accept the ethos and God-denying views of the world. To the extent that we stand and withstand in the name of Christ so we are overcoming or conquering the world.
Taking It Personally.
- In what ways do you find yourself at odds with "the world" as you seek to live out your faith in Christ?
- Can you recall an incident when you stood firm in your faith – conquered or overcame the world?
- Take an issue that is "hot" at the moment. For example, suppose you were offered a lower price by a tradesman for a "cash-only" job. How would you respond to that offer? Do you agree that your faith should inform your response?
John 15:9-17. This passage contains some extremely difficult questions, which we usually deal with by ignoring them. Here are some of them. If, as we constantly tell ourselves, God's love is unconditional and unearned, what does verse 10 mean? It seems to mean that Jesus' obedience to God has "earned" an abiding place in God's love; and likewise, IF we obey Jesus' commandments we will earn an abiding place in his love. Verse 14 raises the same issue: our friendship with Jesus depends on our obedience. As already noted, verse 15 seems to suggest that his disciples have been raised to the status of friend from the previous lower status of servant. Are we not then "servants" of Christ? And finally (for now), how does verse 16 equate with our supposed responsibility to evangelise? Could it be that our mission is to preach, but the willingness and ability to respond is entirely due to the gift of God? That, in fact, it is not for us to choose who should and shouldn't join us – that is God's prerogative? Perhaps when Christ said he would build his church (Matthew 16:18) he meant it. Certainly that would seem to fit with some of the earlier passages we have had in this Easter Season from the Book of Acts: see, for example, 4:4. A similar idea seems to arise from 2:41-2: the new converts do not seem to have engaged in evangelism, perhaps because they have much to learn before they can preach to others.
Taking It Personally. The questions, plus any of your own, are already before you. Read through the passage slowly. Imagine someone is asking you these questions. What answers are you offering?
No comments:
Post a Comment