Third Sunday of Easter

 

 

April 19                       NOTES FOR REFLECTION             Third Sunday of Easter

Texts: Acts 3:12-19; 1 John 3:1-7; Luke 24:36b-48*

[*Hopefully these are the right readings.  Last week, after sending the Notes off on Thursday as usual, I received from the Diocesan Office notice the next day that the reading from Acts in the Lectionary was wrong.  It was fortunate in a way, because if there is any passage in Scripture more foreign to our own present-day reality than Acts 4:32-35 I can't immediately think what it is.]

Theme:  We're rather spoilt for choice this week, with two great stories and a relatively lucid passage of John's First Letter.  It's hard to go past "In the Breaking of the Bread", or some variation along those lines.  But if the reading from Acts captures your imagination, there are a whole number of possibilities: "As the Master, So the Servants"; "The Power of the Resurrection": or (my personal choice) "Speaking the Truth".  The first part of our epistle reading suggests something like "Becoming Evermore Like Christ"; or "Looking into Our Future".  The second part suggests that you don't base your theme on it.

Introduction.  We start with the second "sermon" we have in the Book of Acts.  Peter's basic approach remains unchanged: he tells it as it is to people as they are.  Populism has not yet invaded the Church.  St John starts off in his "kindly old grandfather" tone, marvelling at the goodness and love of God and how we are all God's beloved children; but suddenly in verses 4-7 he shows another side of his character – either naive or mongrel, depending on how you read these few verses.  We finish with the glorious but rather contrived conclusion to the story set on the Road to Emmaus.

Background.  I am becoming increasingly alarmed by Pope Francis.  If he manages to hang around much longer I might be in danger of concluding that the Reformation was a terrible mistake and we should all head back to Rome as fast as possible!  Quite how the Holy Spirit was able to lead the College of Cardinals to choose such a Christ-like man to sit on the throne of St Peter I have no idea; but it does help to put the so-called miracles in the gospels and the Book of Acts into some sort of perspective – in fact, it makes some of them seem almost mundane by comparison.  How could it be that a group of elderly men from various parts of the world, many chosen by such well-known conservatives as Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, elects a man who believes that it is possible to be Pope without wearing hand-made red slippers and without living in a virtual palace?  A man who, immediately following his election, rides on a bus back to his hotel and pays his own hotel bill?  A man who believes that the Vatican Bank should conduct its business ethically and honestly?  A man who believes that Moslem female feet are just as worthy to be washed as those of a Cardinal?  A man who not only lives out the teachings of Christ in his own life and ministry, but also expects his fellow bishops and priests to do the same?  Since when has gross self-indulgence by clergy been a sackable offence?

But above all these things, it seems to me, what most gives this remarkable man the authentic stamp of Christ is his habit of speaking the truth.  Just before Christmas (as I commented in these Notes a few weeks ago) Pope Francis gave a break-up office party speech like no other to the members of the Curia - not in a carefully nuanced formal document, but face to face straight from the lip and hip.  Sir Graham Henry (or for soccer fans, Sir Alec Ferguson) could not have been more direct in telling his team to lift their game.

But in-house stuff is one thing.  This week Pope Francis took his truth-speaking outside, naming the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Armenians by the fast collapsing Ottoman Empire as the first act of genocide of the 20^th century.  As the victims were victimized on grounds of race (and religion), it is hard to know what other word would do ("ethnic-cleansing" is a possibility, I guess).  Predictably, Turkey threw a hissy fit, called the Pope all sorts of rude words, and withdrew its Ambassador to the Holy See.  That would not have surprised the Pope: if he had told the Vatican diplomatic team what he was going to say they would have begged him not to, not because it was untrue, but because it was undiplomatic.  It could even (perish the thought) damage trade!

Meanwhile a very brief news item caught my ear on the radio on Monday, only to disappear without trace.  Someone asked our Prime Minister if he thought the time had come when New Zealand should apologise to Turkey for invading their country 100 years ago.  Without a moment's thought the Prime Minister said "no".  No surprise there, but the fact that someone thought fit to ask that question was an interesting, particularly as it again featured Turkey, this time not as the aggressor but as the victim.  Far more Turkish soldiers died defending their land than the invading forces (including our troops) died in attacking them.  Does that not deserve even a moment's thought – if not an apology?

Peter – like his latest and very worthy successor, Francis – will never be recognised as a man of great diplomacy, although he did weaken a bit and throw them a sop in verse 17.  (Conversely, Paul showed great diplomatic skills in Athens - Acts 17:16-32 – but, of course, spoilt it all at the end by lapsing into speaking the truth about resurrection.)  His only excuse is that he learned from the Master.  (Years ago I realised just how blunt Jesus was when I heard a marvellous priest who hailed from Burnley in Lancashire reading from chapter 23:13 onwards of Matthew's gospel: I tell you, if you have a friend with a broad Lancashire accent, ask him to read that passage to you and you will never think of Jesus as meek and mild again!)

Of course, we know better than that today.  Threatened by falling numbers, dropping revenues, and all the resulting problems of gaps on our lawn-mowing and church-cleaning rosters, we seek to be ever-more diplomatic to avoid giving offence to anyone inside or outside the Church.  After all, didn't St Paul say we are called to be Ambassadors for Christ?  Perhaps Pope Francis needs to give that a moment's thought.

Acts 3:12-19.  If we didn't already know that the author of St Luke's gospel is also the author of the Book of Acts this particular story (beginning at verse 1) should be enough to convince us.  It is beautifully told, with all the characteristics we expect to find in a Lukan story.  Notice the details he gives us, which are not essential to the story itself, but are Luke's way of telling us that this is no parable or fairy story – this stuff actually happened.  He tells us the precise time (3.00pm): he tells us a lot about one of the central characters in the story – he was not just a beggar, or a lame beggar, but one who had been lame from birth, and who was regularly carried to a prime begging spot at the Beautiful Gate.  Then comes a detailed account of the encounter between this man and Peter and John.  There is much eyeballing between the three of them, before they get down to business.  And what a business it is!  There is something far more valuable in this world than money!  (Who'd have thought?)  And the whole drama is written out in a way that is clearly intended to remind us of Jesus' healing of the paralytic.  Complete with the astonished crowd.  The only difference is the impromptu choreography – everyone (with the probable exception of Peter and John) are dancing, leaping and running.  Fishermen – even ex-fishermen – don't dance, at least in public.  What they are good at is recognising a shoal when they see one and knowing how to make a good catch.  (Think Mark 1:17 here).  And as in his first "sermon", Peter does not use subtlety and patience – he's no fly-fisherman : he whacks them with the cudgel of Truth.  Terrible diplomacy but great preaching!  Of course, it got him arrested – but it got the Church about 5,000 new members (Acts 4:4)!  (Who'd have thought?)

Taking It Personally.

·        Read through the whole story (3:1-4:4) slowly.  Notice the mix of action and teaching, so common in the gospel accounts of Jesus' ministry.  How do your feelings change as you work though the narrative?  What word, phrase or line sticks in your memory?

·        If you're a visual person, spend time imagining the scene.  What is your impression of the beggar as he "lies in wait" for Peter and John?  How do they look at him?  Now watch as the newly-healed man goes bananas.  Can you feel his joy?

·        Are you interested in Peter's "explanation", or do you find it dry and boring after the "main event".

·        Imagine John and Peter coming towards you now.  What would you seek from them?

 

1 John 3:1-7.  This is quite a dense passage, full of deep truth.  The author is struck by the incredible thought that God has adopted us (as Paul would put it), making us his children.  That is wondrous enough.  But, of course, children grow up, and as we do it often happens that we come to look more like our parents than we did in infancy or childhood.  Perhaps that thought is behind the early verses of this passage.  The point is that the Christian life is not static – it is one of growth, which means that we are not yet what we finally will be.  What we will be is a unique manifestation of God's incarnation.  So far, so wonderful.  But then comes the dark side.  Verse 6 is about as scary as Scripture gets.  Well, actually verses 8-10 are just as scary, but fortunately we are spared these for now.

 

Taking It Personally.

 

·        Find some old photographs of yourself.  Can you see any resemblance between you and either of your parents, or some other close relative?  Now look in a mirror: have you become more like any of those people over the intervening years?

·        Have you become more like God (Christ) over those years?

·        Use verses 4-7 to guide a period of self-examination and reflection.

 

Luke 24:36-48.  Sad to say, this story, full of deep theological insight though it is, is, for me, one of the least convincing of the Easter stories.  It seems to lack the raw authenticity of the others.  In contrast to our reading from the Book of Acts, we might note in particular none of the "hard" detail of that other passage.  The attempt at comedic drama (Shakespeare would have done it so much better) doesn't quite work for me.  Recognising Jesus in the breaking of the bread is helpful confirmation that, by the date of this gospel (say, 70-80 AD) the ritual of Holy Communion was well-established in the various nascent Christian communities, but the "recognition" of the sacramental presence of Christ is all-too contrived to be convincing as an actual account.  Similarly, Luke's "amended" version of the Risen Christ appearing among the Eleven in the locked room smacks of "planted evidence".  He is trying too hard to establish that Jesus really was there and his body really was real by having the Risen Christ eat fish.  For my money that detail ruins the story as told in John's gospel, which we had last week.  As for the repetition of the importance of understanding how Jesus fulfils the Scriptures, again this is Luke the lecturer rather than Luke the marvellous  storyteller.

 

Taking It Personally.

 

·        Do you agree or disagree with "my review" of this passage?  Why?

·        How real for you is the sacramental presence of Jesus in the Eucharistic bread?  Do you "feel" the reality of it, or is it more in your mind and understanding?  Or neither?

·        Of what things, then, are you a witness – and to whom?

·        As we move on next week from the Appearances, which of them do you find most convincing?  How would you explain your belief in the resurrection of Jesus to an interested but unconvinced friend?