May 20 NOTES FOR REFLECTION Sunday after the Ascension
Texts: Acts 1:15-17, 21-26; 1 John 5:9-13; John 17:6-19
Theme: Perhaps something like "In the Meantime", or simply "Waiting". This is a strange little period of time juxtaposed between two major events, the Ascension and Pentecost. The Church is under divine orders to pause: timing is always in God's hands.
Introduction. Our readings begin in betrayal and end with pleas for unity. That is surely no accident. There is also a strange combination of the heavenly (Ascension and Pentecost) interspersed with the mundane (the synodical election of a new apostle). The Church makes no attempt at spin: Judas was one of us who shared our ministry, admits Peter (the one who thrice denied knowing Christ). Guided by the psalms he concludes that they must choose someone to replace Judas. The method chosen is again an interesting mix of the heavenly and the earthly: prayer followed by the drawing of lots. In the epistle reading, John draws his comments to a conclusion, insisting that eternal life is given only to those who believe in the Son. Sub-text: leave our community of faith and you will lose the gift of eternal life. The gospel gives us the main part of Jesus' so-called priestly prayer. Again, there is no hint of universalism here. He does not pray for the world but only for those who have accepted the word of God.
Introduction. If there is one part of the Christian narrative that troubles me it is this bit. The Ascension event is troubling enough, with its unavoidable ability to give us an image of Jesus taking off from earth like a rocket. But the rest of this story is troubling, too. And it's all the fault of Luke, whose story-telling genius is usually so evident. Notice that he is the creator of the Easter Season timetable. He alone has an Ascension story. Mark knows nothing of it. St Matthew has a story of a final gathering of the eleven apostles at which the Risen Christ gives them the Great Commission, but also has Christ promising to be with them until the end of the age. In fairness to Luke, John's gospel has many references that are consistent with the idea of returning to the Father, and at least one of these contains the idea of 'up and down'. Thus: You are from below; I am from above. You are from this world; I am not from this world. [John 8:23] I came from the Father and entered the world; now I am leaving the world, and going back to the Father. [John 16:28]
So what was Luke up to? In some ways, we can see what he was trying to do. If people heard the apostles preaching that Jesus had been raised from the dead and that they had heard and seen him, the obvious question was, well, where is he now? And the second question might have been this: how do we know that this strange Pentecost experience had anything to do with Christ? So perhaps Luke felt the need for some sort of continuity story. In his careful way he may have discovered that the apostles last saw the Risen Christ when they were together, a few days before the coming of the Spirit at Pentecost. At that time, they received certain instructions from the Risen Christ, including what we now call the Great Commission and an instruction to wait until they had received the power necessary to be effective. After that none of them saw the Risen Christ again. So far so good, and so plausible. Perhaps they also recorded the Risen Christ simply disappearing as he had in other resurrection appearances. Luke's account of the Ascension at the end of his gospel would reflect that sort of scenario pretty well. Perhaps he shouldn't have given us a more detailed account in his Book of Acts.
But there are two other things that still trouble me here. First, this is a very tight timetable. Could the apostles be sure that this really was the final resurrection appearance; or was it only in retrospect that they realised no one had seen the Risen Christ for quite some time? Secondly, if they are gathered together awaiting the coming of the Spirit before setting out on their worldwide mission of evangelism, why would they give priority to the election of a new member of the mission team? Surely there must have been other matters of concern of greater priority?
Enough of this heretical musing. Perhaps one important theme today is that whole idea of waiting. Enthusiasts are naturally not very good at waiting; they either get frustrated and blunder ahead; or sit around while their ardour cools. God's mission can only be carried on in God's time. And, of course, with God's empowerment. The converse side of this is a lack of punctuality. It always amazes me how often Christians keep other people waiting; and that includes, of course, being late for services or other church gatherings. We honour people when we wait for them; we dishonour people when we keep them waiting. The same applies to God. Wait on him, we are frequently urged: I can think of no text that suggests we should keep God waiting!
Acts. Peter, it seems, has already emerged as the leader of the infant church, at least among the believers in Jerusalem. The number of 120 presumably applies to those still in the city; but even so it is a surprisingly low number after three years of mission and ministry by Jesus himself. Peter acknowledges that Judas was one of the team, and suggests that a successor must be chosen to replace him. Such a successor must have been with Jesus from the beginning of his ministry (John's baptism) through to the Ascension, so that he can testify to the resurrection. Here is further confirmation that from the beginning the resurrection was at the heart of Christian preaching, rather than something invented much later, as many critics have argued. Two nominations are received, both presumably meeting the criterion spelled out by Peter (even though there has been no mention of either of them up until now). After praying for God's guidance they draw lots and Mathias is chosen.
Taking It Personally.
· Think about the qualities of leadership in the Church. How might they differ from leadership in the secular world? What are Peter's credentials for leadership? Why no reference to personal piety, as there was when deacons were being chosen in chapter 6?
· What would you think if it were suggested that the best way to choose a bishop would be to call for nominations, pray, then draw lots?
· Read psalm 109, which the infant church appears to be applying to Judas. How does this approach fit with Jesus' command to love our enemies?
1 John. John does not pull his punches here. You're either in or you're out. You either believe that Jesus is the Son of God or you are calling God a liar. You either have eternal life, or you do not.
Taking It Personally.
· What do you think of this black or white approach?
· Would a 'grey' approach mean anything at all? (Jesus might be the Son of God; we might have eternal life, etc). If Jesus is the Truth, can we be vague about what we believe that truth to be?
John's Gospel. We are coming to the end of the so-called Farewell Discourses. Today we have Jesus' great prayer for his disciples. The overwhelming them is the need for unity. Again this may reflect the ructions going on in John's own faith community. Notice the clear line between insiders (those who belong to God) and outsiders (the world). Jesus prays only for the former group. John also stresses that the disciples "know" the truth; it is not mere believe in the possibility any more. The key matter is Jesus' relationship with the Father. That was obviously one cause of dispute within the community of faith. The good guys are the ones who believe in the divinity of Christ, the baddies do not.
Taking It Personally.
· Have you ever felt tempted to walk out of the Church? Would that be a contradiction of Christ's prayer?
· Is it better to stand up for what you believe on an issue, or seek to protect your relationship with those who disagree with you?
· What do you feel about Jesus praying only for the members of the Church, and not for the world? How might this chapter shape your own prayers?
· Do you have a sense of being sent into the world? To do what?
No comments:
Post a Comment