April 26 NOTES FOR REFLECTION Fourth Sunday of Easter
Texts: Acts 4:5-12; 1 John 3:16-24; John 10:11-18
Theme: A number of possibilities again this week. But the overall theme is surely something about the "ongoing resurrection": because God raised Jesus to life, these things are happening. So, to pinch a line from St Paul, what about "And We Are Raised Up With Him"? The epistle reading can also serve the purpose of illustrating the consequences of the resurrection: as children of God our nature and actions are being transformed. Perhaps "We are Children of God" would enable this line of thought to be explored. More problematic is the gospel, though those wishing to explore an ANZAC theme might find this a useful starting point. For all sorts of reasons I am going with "The Stubborn Persistence of Facts".
Introduction. We open this week with an outrageously truncated version of one of the great stories from the Book of Acts. So, while I do not usually advocate rebellion by those called upon to read a lesson, this is the time to make an exception. This reading should begin at verse 1 and continue through to verse 22! The nub, of course, is that the power demonstrated by the raising of Jesus from the dead has now been released into the world at large, demonstrated by the undeniable fact that a forty-year-old man who had been lame from birth was now displaying a gift for break-dancing good enough to get him a place on "Judea's Got Talent". Our epistle reading follows on from last week, and is certainly no easier. Perhaps this reading ought to be shortened: verses 16-18 may stun us so much that we become unable to hear the rest of it. In short, what Christ has done for us, we are called to do for others. Even if we are to understand "others" as limited to fellow Christians, we have a long, long way to go, haven't we? After that reading, the gospel passage comes as something of a relief, as it appears to be only about Jesus – it seems to be far less specific and personal than the epistle.
Background. Stories of the kind that we have in our reading from Acts this week always call to my mind some of my experiences in my former life as a parliamentary counsel. One of my specialist areas in those days was health legislation, including the Medicines Bill and the Mental Health re-write. It was while recalling some of these that the phrase "The Stubborn Persistence of Facts" popped into mind.
The Medicines Bill, of course, established the legislative framework for the importation, sale, prescription, dispensing and so on of medicines. Much of this was dry, technical stuff, which made for difficult drafting, but did not suggest that we were in for much emotional excitement. All that changed when the Bill got to the Select Committee when it attracted the ire of those who saw it as an attack on "alternative therapies and remedies". The episode that stands out in my memory was one particular witness, a very calm lady, who was not going to be brushed off by any politician on the Committee. She recounted her own experience, typical of many, of long periods of suffering, and many visits to many doctors, none of whom could identify the cause of her problem or offer any means of relief. Finally, she had been persuaded by a friend to take an alternative remedy, and within a fortnight all her symptoms disappeared and had not returned. She had returned to her GP, who had assured her that the there was no scientific ground for believing that the "remedy" had been of any use to her, and that he could only suggest that the "condition" had simply run its course.
One of the MP's challenged her. "So you doubt the view of a highly trained and experienced doctor in this case, do you?" The calm lady kept calm: "Not at all! I merely pointed out to him that in my experience my headaches generally run their course after I have taken the pills he had recommended, and it had never occurred to me until then that that was mere coincidence!"
The second case was far more exciting. During the Select Committee hearings on the Mental Health Bill the vexed question of electro-convulsive treatment came under scrutiny. A senior psychiatrist gave evidence that he very rarely used it in the course of his practice, but would not support a legislative ban on its use because in a small number of cases it had proved very efficacious when nothing else had. He then cited a particular case of a highly successful business man who had become seriously unwell to the point that he was barely able to function. Medication had been tried but without success. Finally, as a last resort, he had undergone ECT which had almost immediately restored him to good health. When asked how it had worked, the psychiatrist admitted he had no idea, and he didn't think anyone else had either.
His evidence infuriated one of the MP's on the Committee so much that she twice had to be told by the Chairperson to control herself. She then morphed into St Thomas: all this was mere hearsay. Unless she saw the patient herself and heard his own testimony she would not accept the psychiatrist's evidence. This was arranged, and the patient confirmed the psychiatrist's evidence in every respect. Unlike the original St Thomas, the MP maintained her opposition. During the discussions it appeared that her real worry was that if this sort of case "got around", it would boost the case for the continued use of ECT. She could not deny that in this particular case this particular patient had been healed by the use of ECT, but she didn't want it widely known.
Which is exactly what is going on in the unexpurgated version of our story from Acts. Something very similar was going on with the healing of the man born blind in John 9, and in the aftermath of Lazarus' return to life. Above all, of course, it is what drives the cynics and disbelievers today to deny the fact of Jesus' resurrection, and to ridicule the idea of healing prayer. Some of that cynicism is our fault: sometimes we claim too much, sometimes not enough. When it happens, we should say so, when it doesn't we should do the same. When asked awkward questions – how does it work, or why doesn't it always work – we should follow the lead of the psychiatrist and admit that we have no idea. Perhaps one day we will. In the meantime we can only acknowledge the stubborn persistence of facts.
Acts 4:(1-4) 5-12 (13-22). We know (from last week) the story so far. Peter and John had gone to the Temple, and outside the Beautiful Gate they had encountered a lame beggar who was hoping for a bit of coin from them. Instead, in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth they had commanded him to "stand up and walk". To his own astonishment, and that of the onlookers, he had done just that, followed by his un-choreographed tour de force. Peter had followed that up with some teaching, and now the heavy brigade had arrived on the scene. Like ruling elites everywhere and always, they wanted to control the narrative, to shut down opposition voices, and generally to impose their version of events on everyone else. Peter (now filled with the Holy Spirit) was not for turning. Verse 9 displays a pleasing touch of light humour ("are we really, like, being taken to task for, like, doing a good deed to someone who, like, was sick? How uncool is that!"). But then he gets serious and spells out our faith in one sentence (verse 12). Verses 13 and 14 are pure gold, too. On the one hand, a couple of country yokels, on the other this guy who won't stop dancing and carrying on! What's to be said? Verse 16 spells out the dilemma. The rulers resorted to what they always do in such cases – threats. To no avail. Torture is not an option in the presence of crowds. And denial is not an option in the presence of the cured patient: the stubborn persistence of facts wins again!
Taking It Personally.
· Complete the following sentence: "I believe Jesus was raised to life from death, and my evidence for that belief is...
· Have you ever been anaesthetised before undergoing surgery? Are you aware that medical science is not sure how anaesthetics work? Does that make any difference to your understanding of what happened to you? If you need anaesthesia in the future, will you demand a convincing explanation of how it works before giving your consent?
· Do you pray for healing for individuals known to you? Why or why not? Have you ever asked for such prayer for yourself? Why or why not?
· Read slowly through the whole passage – verses 1-22. How does it strike you? Does it ring true? Which bits (if any) sound far-fetched to you?
· Can you recall an occasion when you own preconceptions have been challenged by the stubborn persistence of facts? Are you in general open to new revelations, ideas, and understandings?
1 John 3:16-24. We often think of John as the Apostle of Love, a man of advanced age, who keeps muttering platitudes, and is unfailingly sweet and kind to everyone. That is, we might think of him that way if we don't spend more than a minute or two actually reading some of his teaching, including today's passage. Although I have suggested that verses 16-18 might be quite enough for one meal, those who are really hungry could try verses 14-15 as an entree. We usually think of James as the chief advocate for the "social gospel", but John gives us the same message. Verse 17 was tough enough before the advent of television, videos and all the other things that enable us "to see a brother or sister in need" anywhere in the world. Today, our blindness can only be wilful. Well then, do our hearts (we would say our consciences) condemn us or not?
Taking It Personally.
· Clearly a classic passage for a spiritual stock-take. Go slowly through the reading: which verse do you find personally most challenging? What are you being called to do differently?
· Consider the Church as a whole in the light of verse 17. What is the Church as a whole being called to do differently?
· Do passages such as this affect the way you vote? Should they?
· Are you sure that the Spirit is abiding in you? How is that manifested in your life at present?
John 10:11-18. It is unfortunate that the gospel passage comes this year on the day following ANZAC Day as it increases the temptation to use it (or its even more tempting counterpart in 15:13) in reference to those who lost their lives in war service. Verse 18 of this week's passage should be enough to lead us away from this particular error, but it has often proved ineffectual in the past. In my view such an approach, well-meant though it undoubtedly is, fails to honour those who were killed. They did not voluntarily lay down their lives – they were killed (against their will) by the brutal horrors that go with war, including disease, accident and sheer bad luck, as well as the deliberate intent of those they considered their enemies. One of the great ironies of our Gallipoli commemorations is that they take place in Turkey, the very place we were illegally invading. Perhaps, if we must use readings from the gospels on such occasions, we should go for Matthew 5:43-48, and accept in all humility that our Turkish hosts have much to teach us on this text.
Taking It Personally.
· Focus on verse 13. Call to mind Peter in the High Priest's garden, and the fact that all the other disciples ran away. Why did they act like hired hands?
· In this context are you more of a hired hand or a faithful shepherd?
· Do you find the shepherd/sheep analogy helpful or unhelpful? Why?
· Reflect on verses 17 and 18. Is the emphasis on "voluntary surrender" compatible with Peter's accusatory tone in his "early sermons" in Acts? What might be the point the Fourth Evangelist is trying to make here?
· In what way, if any, do you feel called to lay down your life for others?
No comments:
Post a Comment