Notes for Reflection

September 28                                    NOTES FOR REFLECTION

Texts:  Ezekiel 18:1-4, 25-32; Philippians 2:1-13; Matthew 21:23-32

Theme:  Not as clear as it might be this week.  Try as I might, I can't quite see in what way the passage from Ezekiel is "related" to the gospel passage.  Come to that I struggle a bit with the relationship between the first part and the second part of the passage from Ezekiel.  So a couple of ideas from Philippians: "The Mind of Christ" might appeal, or the more traditional "The Humility of Christ".  From this lesson, I would go for "The Interests of Others".  From the gospel, one obvious choice would be "Doing What We Say", or (a little more subtle) "Saying Yes In Deed": another might be "The Question of Authority".

Introduction.  We start with Ezekiel, and we seem to have come into an ongoing argument half-way through.  The issue seems to be about accountability to God.  "God is being unfair – we have done nothing wrong yet he is punishing us for the sins of our ancestors."    Their complaint is refuted through Ezekiel.  St Paul is on peak form this week, with a perfect response to the election campaign!  (Yes it is, read verses 3 and 4, and then argue with me!)   And the gospel passage asks some very searching questions of us.  By what authority do we speak and act?   Are we obedient with our lips only?  There is no let up as we continue to journey ever closer to Jerusalem and the Cross.

Background.  If you subscribe to the Diocesan news email you will know that Archdeacon Stu Crosson has suggested that we in the Church may seek to learn from the electoral fate of the Labour Party.  I must confess that my immediate response was a little sceptical, to say the least; but once I decided to give it a go I have found it quite a helpful exercise.  Listening to some of the Pretenders to the Labour Throne it seems that there is a fundamental conflict between those who what a broad centre party, much like the National Party but wearing red shirts instead of blue, and those who want an unashamedly left-of-centre party more in keeping with its origins and traditions.  What relevance has that debate to the Church?

Quite a lot, as it has already turned out.  There is no doubt that the membership of the Church, and certainly of the Anglican Church, has been in serious decline for some decades now.  I think I'm right in saying that Bishop Kelvin informed Synod that attendance at Anglican churches in this diocese declined by about 8% in the last year.  So there are certainly some similarities with the Labour Party there!  And the parallels become even more obvious when we start considering what we should do about it.  Should we accept that our message is no longer relevant to the people of today and change our message?  Or should we accept that to do that is to deny the very reason for our existence?

Where to start?  Well, one of the Pretenders quoted something attributed to Julia Gillard:  "Labour needs to pay more attention to those who work hard, and less to those who complain the loudest."  I have spent quite a bit of time reflecting on that, and have found it surprisingly fruitful.  It is just the sort of statement that on its face sounds eminently sensible, doesn't it?  But try this quick exercise for yourself.  Consider the phrase "those who work the hardest" and see what sort of people come to mind.  Entrepreneurs, business people, farmers, doctors, and other professionals?  Or did you immediately think of solo Mums doing two or three cleaning jobs while the rest of us sleep?  And try the same exercise with that other phrase "those who complain the most".  What sort of people came immediately to mind for you?  Did you immediately think of the Pike River families discovering this week that Solid Energy has been misleading them for at least the last year?  Or the Christchurch people still in an insurance-created limbo four years after their homes were damaged or destroyed?  Are they too loud and persistent in their complaints?

The implication of Julia Gillard's reputed remark is that all those who are working hard are good guys, and all those who are complaining the loudest are whingers and moaners who won't get off their backsides to help themselves.  That might be a popular view – that might appeal to the voting centre – but should it appeal to those of us who seek to follow Christ?

In the middle of all this the ODT included a comment from an Auckland priest who "confessed" to being a National Party supporter, and quoted from St Paul's Second Lesson to the Thessalonians (probably the only person to do so in the entire election campaign and aftermath!)  "Anyone not willing to work should not eat."  Again, it all sounds so reasonable and sensible – and coming from St Paul it must be right.  Never mind that it was quoted completely out of context; and never mind, too, that the same St Paul wrote this to the Ephesians: "Thieves must give up stealing; rather let them labour and work honestly with their own hands, so as to have something to share with the needy."  It's that last phrase, surely, that distinguishes the Christian ethic from the "work" ethic.  Think bigger barns here.  Are we working hard in order to build up our own asset base, or are we working hard in order to "have something to share with the needy"?

And this week we have another unambiguous teaching from St Paul to digest: "Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility regard others as better than yourselves.  Let each of you look not to your own interests, but to the interests of others."  How's that for a winning campaign slogan?

And here's the rub for the Church.  We are not in charge of the message: we cannot change it to increase our popularity.  We have been called and sent into the world to proclaim the kingdom of God, not to conform to the world as it is.  To a culture obsessed with selfies we must proclaim a message of self-denial.  That ain't easy, and it never has been.  The only person ever to succeed in building a broad church was Emperor Constantine.  Without his imperial authority and military might, conversion is a long, slow and difficult process.

But perhaps Stu Crosson is on to something.  The Labour Party also started from scratch, with a sense of mission and a message of fairness and justice.  It was unashamedly on the side of the powerless and the dispossessed: it challenged the ruling elite of its time, and it won power, not through toning down its message to become popular, but by converting more and more people to its cause.  Could the Church learn something from that?

Ezekiel.  The passage starts off with those important words we find in many prophetic utterances: "The word of the Lord came to me".  This is the answer to the question, "By what authority are you doing these things?"  Then we learn of this strange proverb.  In the first parish in which I served the idea of "inter-generational sin" suddenly had its moment in the sun, and for some reason it was linked with Lodge membership.  One of the parishioners had assured a woman that the reason for her present illness was that her Great- Grandfather had been a mason.  I suspect that this was the last desperate throw of the dice: unable to find anything in the woman's own "record", and quite sure that all illness is sent by God as a punishment, the parishioner "explained" that the sufferer was bearing the guilt of her Masonic forbear.  Perhaps the people of Ezekiel's time were running a similar wacky theological line in his day.  But the second part of the passage raises a more interesting point.  Was God being too forgiving of those who had offended but had turned over a new life?  Conversely, was God too harsh on first offenders who had previously led blameless lives?

Taking It Personally.

·        Reflect on that opening phrase, "The word of the Lord came to me."  How seriously do you take it?  Is it just a formula used to add a little extra grunt to Ezekiel's own idea, or does it mean what it says?  Have you experienced occasions when the word of the Lord has come to you?

·        Think about the way in which our Judges take into account an offender's previous record.  Should an offender convicted of offence number 15 be given a greater penalty because of the preceding 14?  Conversely, should a first offender be given a lighter sentence because he has not offended before?

·        Should genuine remorse (repentance) be taken into account?

 

Philippians.  This really is a passage that needs no comment or explanation.  It is pure gold all the way through.  First, a plea for unity – we are to be of one mind.  Selfies are absolutely prohibited – group photos only are allowed in the Church!  Oh, and by the way, the one mind we are to be of is none other than the mind of Christ, and in case we're not sure of what that entails, we are given this glorious hymn of praise to Christ's humility.  Yes, all this is a big ask, but doable when we remember "it is God that is at work in [us], enabling [us] both to will and to work for his good pleasure".  St Paul will now take your questions.

 

Taking It Personally.

 

·        A passage for slow reflection and self-examination.  Start with your own spiritual stock-take.

·        Now reflect on your local community of faith.  Are the members of one mind? 

·        What about the wider church?  How well does that stand up to your scrutiny in the light of this passage?

·        Are you aware of God working in you and enabling you to will and do what he wills?

·        What do you think it means to "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling"?

 

Matthew.  We should take a moment to understand that we there is something of a disconnect between where the gospel narrative is now and where we are in the Church year.  This passage is set in Holy Week.  Jesus has entered Jerusalem, cleansed the Temple, had a bit of a go at a fruitless fig tree, and now come back to the Temple.  Things must be rather tense, to say the least.  The chief priests and the elders demand an explanation from him, but Jesus is evasive.  He turns their challenge back on themselves by asking them about the source of John the Baptist's authority.  It's interesting that John the Baptist is still such an important figure that the chief priests and the elders cannot risk upsetting the crowd by denying his prophetic calling.  Jesus follows up this win with a rather contrived parable about two sons.  One presumably represents Israel, and the other those who are turning to him.  For those who think we should never say anything challenging or hurtful and always be unfailingly nice, Jesus shows us his approach.  Prostitutes and tax-collectors get it – why can't you?

 

Taking It Personally.

 

·        This really is the nub of the issue for the Church.  By what authority does the Church speak?  Does that authority come from heaven or is it of human origin?

·        Which of the sons are you most alike?  The one who instantly says the right things, but doesn't carry through; or the one who says the wrong thing, cools down, thinks about it, and does the right thing?

·        Should priests and lay preachers be free to believe and teach whatever they wish, or would that exceed the authority given to them?  Should they be held to account if they contradict the orthodox beliefs of the Church?

·        Should those seeking ordination be "tested" for orthodoxy before they are accepted for ordination?

·        Is the Church best served by a unified message or by a diversity of views?