Sermon preached at St James’s Piccadilly London - PDF document

sjp.org.uk Sermon preached at St James’s Piccadilly London The Revd Hugh Valentine 19 April 2015 / Easter 3 Acts 3.12 - 19; Luke 24.36b - 48 Not minuted but lived I had, of course, intended to speak on Christ’s Resurrection, and of how our lives and our sometimes frightening sense of being lost are changed (changed radically) by the claims of it. But then I c ame across a document only recently discovered, and believed by scholars to date from the time of that very first Easter. We here may not be exactly at the forefront of biblical scholarship but nonetheless I am sure that you would want to be amongst the f irst to hear this newly discovered text. It has been difficult for the experts to piece together the damaged fragments, but it appears to be headed Minutes of Church Meeting – 33AD. It begins: “Welcome And Apologies For Absence: Simon Peter was in the Ch air and welcomed Matthias to the meeting as the elected successor to the late Judas Iscariot. There were no apologies for absence. Someone from the floor asked whether Matthias' appointment was for a fixed term and whether further elections would be held by lot or secret ballot. After some discussion it was decided that (1) as none of the other disciples had fixed term contracts neither should he and (2) and that the method of election to fill future vacancies should be referred to a working party. Under ‘Matters Arising’ It was proposed that John Mark be questioned about his conduct at the arrest of Jesus. It was suggested that his membership be discontinued. It was stated that when Jesus was arrested John Mark ran away, but not only that, his garme nt fell off and he ran away naked. This had disturbed some of the more traditional members of the crowd, who considered it unseemly. John Mark said in his defence that this was a one off experience and that he was not in the habit of running about naked, as his mother would confirm. He apologised to the meeting. His apology was accepted: 34 in favour to 12 against. It was recommended that he receive counselling. Under the item ‘Finance And General Purposes’ there was a complaint that the upper room where the meeting was being held was rather draughty. There was in fact a strong breeze blowing through it. The Chair of the General Purposes Committee said that she would investigate the matter. Finances were tight but she would get quotations and arrange any necessary repairs. This was accepted by the meeting after further discussion on the desirability of double glazing and under - floor heating. Under ‘communications’ the chairman proposed that the members of the meeting communicate their experiences about Je sus to the people in the streets of Jerusalem. After lengthy discussion it was decided that this was not feasible for the following reasons: (1) People in Jerusalem spoke a variety of languages, (2) Members were not trained in public speaking or consumer e ngagement skills, (3) the necessary permissions had not been obtained from the local authority and (4) what they might say could upset some people. It was agreed that a small sub - committee look into the suggestion and report back in six months’ time. The following guidelines were suggested for the sub - committee: that the possibility of language courses at the local college be explored; that a course in sjp.org.uk presentation skills and assertiveness training be organised; that the costs of the project be contained w ithin the agreed budget; that the feasibility of a weekend away to discuss these proposals be considered. In closing the meeting the Chair thanked Mary and Martha for refreshments and food, and expressed the hope that some of the men might in future volun teer for the catering rota (adding that he was not holding his breath).” Some of us here will easily recognise the mind - set revealed in that spoof account of the post - resurrection life of the church. We’ll recognise it from groups we’ve been involve d with and committees we have served on way - beyond the church, and from meetings we’ve attended or observed. We’ll recognise it even in our own, private internal lives (in which of course we are convening meetings and committees all the time) where too often clarity of vision and thought and action get way - laid by caution, fear, conflict and doubt. We are not long out of Holy Week. If you were able to participate in some or all of the liturgies you would have been reminded of the work and words and act ions of Christ but also of our own divided, cautious, contradictory natures. One moment we welcomed and acclaimed him; then we called for his blood. At another we slept in his presence when we should have remained alert and with him. We took some risks bu t at other times lurked in the shadows. Cocks crowed. Accusations were made. Denials, too – aplenty. We watched him on Good Friday’s Cross but did not want to go too close, not close enough to give comfort. Then early on Easter morn, before dawn, we ca me together – some of us – and went into the garden here and set alight a great blaze which illuminated the half - light of dawn. You perhaps know that as the Easter Fire, from which the Paschal Candle is lit, and which represents the breaking of God’s ligh t into our darkness in the form of the resurrection of Christ, as it did too at his birth. The newly lit paschal candle was carried in procession here, into the church, still largely dark, and there was sung the Exsultet , an ancient invocation calling upo n heaven to rejoice. And then later on Easter morning many more of us gathered here and continued the celebration, praising God for our redemption in Christ, for our being made new women and men. Although we did not use these exact words, I found myself t hinking of the rhetorical words in the Letter to the Corinthians [1 Cor 15:55] O death, where is your sting? O grave, where is your victory? A great liturgical raspberry was blown in the face of death. Up yours! we exclaimed, for Christ is risen. But I’ ll let you into a secret. I quite often find the gear change between the pathos and challenge of Holy Week and the quasi - triumphalism of Easter Day too much to manage. I have to remind myself that liturgy can’t be blamed for that and that it is not out t o contradict the realities of our current experiences. I recalled an Easter Day when I was an ordinand. I felt bleak and hopeless, and fled the church before the communion. Not only did I feel overwhelmed by despair, I felt ungrateful, for how could I no t celebrate with God on her Big Day? Yet the point I just made seems important. The Christian Year was not designed to tell you how to feel, and it does not seek to contradict – in any way – the realities of your life. It exists as a framework, so that t he story – our story – is kept before us, in a great annual cycle, and through a growing familiarity with it we are invited to discover sjp.org.uk its seemingly inexhaustible nuances and meanings. It is not there to contradict, or to dictate: it is there to add dime nsion to our lives, to bathe them in a greater light. We happen to be celebrating Easter, but you may be - emotionally, intellectually, physically, spiritually - somewhere else. Wars are being fought. People are being killed. An airliner is crashed by its pilot. Desperate seekers of safety and asylum are being drowned. Islamic State carries out a suicide bomb in Jalalabad. Everywhere we look, people are not free but in bondage: to unjust regimes, to their own illusions, to power, to materialism. And he re amongst us and amongst our circles there is also suffering: illness, depression, fear. To see, to feel and to understand brings distress as well as joy. The Christian Year and Story reflects the great courtesy of God. It does not say – this is how yo u should feel, it says instead: come, understand your experiences in the light of me. The point about Easter is that it reminds us of a change of backcloth, not a change in the scripts of our individual lives. Sure, the change in backcloth is of so monum ental a kind that our experiences may well be seen and felt in a different light, but that can’t happen in some quick “everything in the garden is lovely” kind of way. The new backcloth is – to use the traditional language – that the dominion of death is over. In less traditional language we can say that meaninglessness has been overcome by purpose; that the broken connections we call sin are not irrevocably broken; that life and love have purpose and possibility, through which we can be made whole. To us e a phrase attributed to Edith Sitwell: ‘Nothing is lost, and all, in the end, is harvest’. [So] Don’t worry if that is not apparent to you this morning. Don’t worry if the resurrection seems not to touch you just now. We have heard in recent weeks of the disciples not recognising the risen Christ when he stands in front of them. And this morning’s reading alludes to the same. We are in good company. How might we best witness to God in Christ, the Ch rist who was resurrected? Perhaps by being most fully ourselves, and being, as Luke notes, ‘witnesses’. Not of the post - resurrection events (we weren’t around), but of God at work today, nearly always in oblique ways, in our lives and world. We witness t o that not by coshing potential converts with an evangelistic bombardment of words or claims but by being faithfully ourselves; by praying and doing, loving others and ourselves, by being as far as we can God’s eyes and feet and hands in the adventure we c all life. And by always resisting the worst forms of institutional drag illustrated by those minutes from 33AD and by so many committees and meetings ever since. Whatever we might make of the resurrection we're likely to sense it is something to be lived , not minuted or referred to a Working Party. For Christ is risen! He is risen indeed. Alleluia. Hugh Valentine