a lawless bloggle



Asking questions can lead to unexpected possibilities. The first reading is an account of the
ordination of the first deacons and the establishment of a new level in the hierarchy. Commentators observe that the author does to call them ‘deacons’ but only says they were appointed ‘to serve tables’. This makes me ask, why should such a simple task be given such prominence?  And why such a solemn commissioning? ‘They presented these to the apostles, who prayed and laid their hands on them.’ Was this formal investiture an imitation of the rituals of the Jerusalem temple - and why? Or was it just a simple blessing? Anyway, why didn’t the apostles simply tell the people to sort it out for themselves?

The narrative has such a pompous ring to it:

 'It would not be right for us to neglect the word of God so as to give out food; you, brothers, must select from among yourselves seven men of good reputation, filled with the Spirit and with wisdom; we will hand over this duty to them, and continue to devote ourselves to prayer and to the service of the word'.

As I reflect on this, I see it as more than an admirable statement about the priority to be given to
‘prayer and to the service of the word’. This statement sets the apostles apart and defines their standing in the new community; it dispenses them from ordinary jobs like serving the human needs of the community. This is the beginning of clericalism. In view of what clericalism has become with the passage of time we are forced to ask whether this was not perhaps a mistake, one of the many items to be found in Acts and the Epistles that may be considered as conditional and no longer applicable.

There is no evidence in the gospels that Jesus made this sort of choice. There are accounts of his being moved to tears by the plight of the people, of not having time to eat or sleep, of needing to get away to be alone. But never, as far as I know, he did allocate the role of serving the needs of the people to others to allow him to focus on prayer and the word. He sent out his apostles to lay hands on the sick and cast out devils as they proclaimed the good news, but the prime example he gave was in serving. He saw service as the ultimate way to express what he was on about, as in washing their feet in the climactic lesson at the last meal with his friends.

As clericalism comes under severe criticism, I wonder will future ages recognise that those
who serve are the real prophets, teachers and inspirational leaders in the way of Christ.

At risk of being too long, similar questions arise in the second reading, about priesthood. It would be best to read the commentary by Fuller and Westberg at http://liturgy.slu.edu/5EasterA052211/theword_indepth.html:

‘Special stress is laid upon the priestly aspect of the community... The community expresses its priestly character by offering up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ and declares the wonderful deeds of him who calls it out of darkness into light.’

The authors go on to underline the distinction between
(1) the priesthood of the community as expressed in Exodus 19:6 ‘You shall be to me a kingdom of priests, a holy nation. That is what you must tell the Israelites’, and the cultic priesthood of the Book of Leviticus, and

(2) ‘the sacrifice offered by the Christian community, which is not cultic but ethical — the
living of a Christian life in the world.’

It seems that the notion of priesthood in the church owes more to the cultic priesthood of the
temple than it ought.

Finally, John’s gospel continues with material for reflection and meditation/contemplation from the last meal of Jesus with his friends.

Philip said, 'Lord, let us see the Father and then we shall be satisfied'. 'Have I been with you all this time, Philip,' said Jesus to him 'and you still do not know me? '

    To have seen me is to have seen the Father,
    so how can you say, "Let us see the Father"?
    Do you not believe that I am in the Father
    and the Father is in me?’

To have seen me is to have seen the Father. I wonder what Philip made of this, or what the gospel writer expected his readers to make of it. It is hard for us to go back that far, by- passing the trinitarian formulas of the creeds. But Jesus’ friends knew nothing of those formulas. They saw him as a man, a wonderful man, a godly man. They could only have felt he was insisting: To understand me you’ve got to know me as I am, in all my human reality. Know me in all my human dimensions, in all the depth of understanding and love that I have. All my humanity.

No way could the apostles have thought that they were meant to see in Jesus the One whose name they could not even speak. At face value he said: When you see me, you see the Father  who sent me. You can never ‘see’ the mysterious other who is the Lord, J-W-H, but right before your eyes you have an image of him beyond your wildest dreams. This man who stands before you, who has explained and illustrated what it is to be fully human, fully alive, he is the image of the Father. You are missing nothing here. This is all there is. This is enough.

And what I say of me I say of all: whenever you see another being truly human you see the image of god.