The Second Sunday after Pentecost, June 6, 2010
1 Kings 17:8-16(17-24)
Psalm 146
Gal 1:11-24
LUKE 7:11-17
This is the day the Lord has made; let us rejoice and be glad in it.
Stories about healing are this morning's lessons. I'm going to speak about them briefly and then do as our Bishops have asked us to do: consider the Archbishop of Canterbury's 28 May letter, with our Presiding Bishop's reply of Thursday, and some comments from various sources. It is not my way, but this is important material, and a way to think on it is with the material itself.
The healing of the son of the widow of Nain parallels that of Elijah's healing of the destitute widow's son, the widow with whom he was staying. Each son was the only son of a widowed mother. Each was found dead, but at a time when a great prophet was nearby. In the first story the prophet was desperate, but the widow had helped provision and shelter him, and so he had regained himself. Then when she told him her son had died, he flung himself on the boy, until his spirit, renewed by her sharing what she had, filtered into the boy and he returned him to living. Then the widow identified Elijah as clearly a person of God.
Jesus had already been identified as such a person of God, because he had just healed a centurion's slave, When he saw a dead man being taken out of a widow's house in Nain, he had compassion for the man and the widow, his mother. His compassion was immediate, and he identified with the need from the earlier story. Again, whether the person writing this account shaped the story with the earlier one in mind, and/or whether Jesus remembered Elijah's actions, or whether the Lectionary setters have put both stories in our ears together to make the parallel simply is unknowable. The Psalm's line of "The Lord loves the righteous; the Lord cares for the stranger; he sustains the orphan and widow" puts these two healings under its umbrella.
What then do we make of this pair of narratives? When he touched the dead person Jesus violated purity laws, For him, alleviating the widow and son's woe was more important than the letter of the law. For us, too, Jesus was demonstrating his power over death, foreshadowing his resurrection.
His followers linked his healing the widow's son, with Elijah's action, while, because of his resurrection, we link this story ahead, as a demonstration of Jesus' own trampling down death. If we read this healing with two sets of ears the pair with Elijah and the pair with the resurrection, then we can consider how we are to hear it. Some people are troubled that in similar or parallel circumstances, Jesus doesn't come to heal our sons, daughters, loved ones, or the people we name and pray for. They, and sometimes we, pout that Elijah and Jesus didn't help them/us, didn't bring back their/our named person back to life. It's the wrong pair we're pairing our prayers with. Jesus promises that he'll bring every person to life with him in the eternity of paradise with him, pairing the new death we are focused on, with his in the resurrection. We want our prayers to effect Elijah or Jesus into action, fixing the person we pray for, as the two widows' sons were fixed. Instead, we need to recognize that the groups around each widow's son saw in that healing action the work of a great prophet, much loved and empowered by God. For us, though, we need to understand that Jesus was aligning himself with Elijah's action, and God's trust in each healer. Then we need to see Jesus as showing us that he could even triumph over death, and in the resurrection will do that for all who follow him, for all. That is the promise that this narrative points to, and is foundational to our understanding Jesus' work and salvation. That's the good news of the Gospel. ---
Now-and there's no sensible way or artistic way to transition to a consideration of the Pastoral Letters now mushrooming throughout the Anglican Communion, and particularly here, Canada, and a few other places-I'll read some of the Pentecost missives. The Archbishop of Canterbury set his comments in a Letter based on his understanding of Pentecost as the time when all heard the Spirit speak. He recognized that there have always been divisions, but that the goal is to focus on mission. In section 4 (and there's a copy of this in the back of the church, and you can find both letters on line.) ..."We began by thinking about Pentecost and the diverse peoples of the earth finding a common voice, recognizing that each was speaking a truth recognized by all. However, when some part of the fellowship speaks in ways that others find hard to recognize, and that point in a significantly different direction from what others are saying, we cannot pretend there is no problem.
"And when a province through its formal decision-making bodies or its House of Bishops as a body declines to accept request or advice from the consultative organs of the Communion, it is very hard...to see how members of that province can be placed in position where they are required to represent the Communion as a whole...
"I am therefore proposing that, while these tensions remain unresolved, members of such provinces-should not be participants in the ecumenical dialogues in which the Communion is formally engaged. I am further proposing that members of such provinces serving in IASCUFO should for the time being have the status only of consultants rather than full members..."
To be clear, what he's saying is that since our province permitted the election of Mary Glasspool and her consecration, and that Canada has permitted gay marriages as a whole church, they/we should see themselves as consultants in the Anglican Communion, and consultants in the international ecumenical conversations on unity and other such high level, on-going dialogues, instead of as full members. That's the heart of the position he wants to assert.
The Presiding Bishop of the USA, The Rt. Rev. Katharine Jeffers Schori, wrote as follows.
"Pentecost continues!
"Pentecost is most fundamentally a continuing gift of the Spirit, rather than a limitation or quenching of that Spirit..."
(Then she elucidates the situation from her, and I'd guess in large part, our understanding of what's going on.) She continues:
"We do not seek to impose our understanding on others. We do earnestly hope for continued dialogue with those who disagree, for we believe that the Spirit is always calling us to greater understanding.
"We live in great concern that colonial attitudes continue, particularly in attempts to impose a single understanding across widely varying contexts and cultures. We note that the cultural contexts in which The Episcopal Church's decisions have generated the greatest objection and reaction are also often the same contexts where women are barred from full ordained leadership, including the Church of England. "As Episcopalians, we note the troubling push toward centralized authority exemplified in many of the statements of the recent Pentecost letter. Anglicanism as a body began in the repudiation of the control of the Bishop of Rome within an otherwise sovereign nation. Similar concerns over self-determination in the face of colonial control led the Scottish Episcopal Church to consecrate Samuel Seabury for The Episcopal Church in the nascent United States - and so began the Anglican Communion. "We have been repeatedly assured that the Anglican Covenant is not an instrument of control, yet we note that the fourth section seems to be just that to Anglicans in many parts of the Communion. So much so, that there are voices calling for stronger sanctions in that fourth section, as well as voices repudiating it as un-Anglican in nature. Unitary control does not characterize Anglicanism; rather, diversity in fellowship and communion does. "We are distressed at the apparent imposition of sanctions on some parts of the Communion. We note that these seem to be limited to those, which 'have formally, through their Synod or House of Bishops, adopted policies that breach any of the moratoria requested by the Instruments of Communion.' We are further distressed that such sanctions do not, apparently, apply to those parts of the Communion that continue to hold one view in public and exhibit other behaviors in private. Why is there no sanction on those who continue with a double standard? In our context bowing to anxiety by ignoring that sort of double-mindedness is usually termed a 'failure of nerve.' Through many decades of wrestling with our own discomfort about recognizing the full humanity of persons who seem to differ from us, we continue to work at open and transparent communication as well as congruence between word and behavior. We openly admit our failure to achieve perfection! "The baptismal covenant prayed in this Church for more than 30 years calls us to respect the dignity of all other persons and charges us with ongoing labor toward a holy society of justice and peace. That fundamental understanding of Christian vocation underlies our hearing of the Spirit in this context and around these issues of human sexuality. That same understanding of Christian vocation encourages us to hold our convictions with sufficient humility that we can affirm the image of God in the person who disagrees with us. We believe that the Body of Christ is only found when such diversity is welcomed with abundant and radical hospitality. "As a Church of many nations, languages, and peoples, we will continue to seek every opportunity to increase our partnership in God's mission for a healed creation and holy community. We look forward to the ongoing growth in partnership possible in the Listening Process, Continuing Indaba, Bible in the Life of the Church, Theological Education in the Anglican Communion, and the myriad of less formal and more local partnerships across the Communion - efforts in mission and ministry that inform and transform individuals and communities toward the vision of the Gospel - a healed world, loving God and neighbor, in the love and friendship shown us in God Incarnate. "May God's peace dwell in your hearts," Diana Butler Bass opines that this is not so much a debate between conservative/liberal positions. (She does observe that the PB essentially accused Williams "- in a nice sort of Anglican way-of being a theological dictator." As she says in understated fashions 'unitary control does not characterize Anglicanism.' For non-Anglicans, trust me those are fightin' words".... This is a fight between rival versions of Anglicanism... his of top-down, and hers of bottom-up... for example, the British church remains primarily hierarchical (even referring to the bishops as 'My Lord Bishop'); while the American church is primarily democratic (God alone is the Lord). [She also characterizes the other churches, Ugandan, South African, Australian churches also affected with the Canadian and our churches for their actions.] Bass continues "At its best, Anglicanism manages these tensions-often creating locally innovative expressions of a church that is both hierarchical and democratic, bishop-an parish-centered, bounded and liturgically open at the same time. Over the centuries, this has been called the Anglican art of comprehension, or the via media (the "middle way"). Finally Bass adds, "For what it is worth, the river of history does not seem to be on the side of hierarchical church control; rather, history seems to be moving in the direction of what Thomas Friedman might call "flat church." The tides are pulling most ecclesiastical boats toward bottom-up versions of faith. Hierarchical church control is, as Harvey Cox argues in his book The Future of Faith, a 'rearguard attempt to stem a more sweeping tidal change' toward a new experiential, inclusive, and liberationist view of God and faith." "Despite their smack down, I think that Rowan Williams and Katharine Jefferts Schori might actually agree on the fundamental questions of identity, mission, and 21st century change. I also suspect the Rowan Williams would secretly find the "sweeping tidal change" more spiritually interesting than trying to keep the Anglican institutional ship afloat in the waters, But he thinks that he's in charge- and he'll be captain of this Titanic until the last and may well go down with the ship. As for me [still Bass writing] I kinda like this American Episcopal river raft. Better for navigating strong currents." Much to think about, Much to pray about. Ours to work on alone and together. Ours to find the on going Good News together.
© Katharine C. Black 6 June 2010, Proper C5
