sermonboy.com

Seventh Sunday in Easter

Acts 1
21So one of the men who have accompanied us throughout the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us—one of these must become a witness with us to his resurrection.’ 23So they proposed two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was also known as Justus, and Matthias. 24Then they prayed and said, ‘Lord, you know everyone’s heart. Show us which one of these two you have chosen 25to take the place* in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place.’ 26And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias; and he was added to the eleven apostles.


Time for honesty: Hands up if you have read your horoscope in the last week. How specific was it? Was it correct? Those of you making a full confession here are participants in the ancient art of astrology, a sub-set of the overall category divination.

Isn’t it time to branch out a little, find some new, equally ancient way to divine what the future holds? Here are a few alternatives, in no particular order (and no specific endorsement).

Alectryomancy means studying grain on the ground after a bunch of birds have been pecking at it.
Aeromancy is looking for patterns in clouds.
Abacomancy is looking for patterns in the dirt.
Arithmancy is looking for patterns in numbers.
Axiomancy is the quivering of the blade of an axe that has been thrust into a wooden table.
Aeluromancy involves interpreting the movement of cats.

And this is only a section of the “A’s.” There is no shortage of practices under the general category of divination, with the ancients recording and practicing countless ways to discover the future or interpret events. The fact that cleromancy (casting lots) is mentioned seventy-seven times in the Bibles gives you a sense of it’s common usage in the ancient world. Almost as common as astrology.

So the eleven remaining disciples of Jesus are faced with a problem: somehow they must replace Judas and restore themselves to the number that Jesus seemed to intend for such a group. In a sense, then, we are seeing the first example of church polity, or maybe the second, if you include Jesus appointing Peter the leader of the group in Matthew 16. Either way, the eleven must come up with some process to become twelve once more.

They begin with scripture. Looking at Psalm 109, they discern that one who falls to wickedness must be replaced. Peter then sets out some criteria:

21So one of the men who have accompanied us throughout the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us.

So basically there are two criteria set out here: the new disciple must be a man and he must have been around for a very specific timeframe, from the baptism of Jesus to the day of resurrection (or ascension, the text is vague). It is more than a little sad that the first act of policy-making within the nascent church is sexist. This is not a sermon about sexism in our tradition, but of the 120 men and women cited as followers at this moment in the Christian story, we know that many were women. We also know that many of them played a key role in the development of the tradition and some might argue the defining role since John makes a woman the first witness to the resurrection. Peter’s stock hits a low at this point in the story.

Having set out some criteria, two candidates are brought forward: Barsabbas (aka, Joseph, aka Justus) and Matthias. I’m not sure why Barsabbas wasn’t automatically excluded for having too many aliases, but somehow he remains in the running. It may be that of the 120 followers in Acts 1 only Barsabbas and Matthias fit the criteria, but the text is silent on the matter. Now somehow the disciples must decide.

And once again, while the text is silent on the matter, it might be fair to assume that Barsabbas and Matthias were equally qualified for the job. Two resumes, side by side, equal in every way, the trick is to come up with a fair and unbiased way to make the decision. A vote would be a popularity contest, and certainly not appropriate for something as important for choosing a member of the twelve. So they turn to cleromancy, casting lots.

The assumption here is that God will provide the answer. Confronted by two strong candidates, the disciples remove themselves from active decision making and trust that God will direct the outcome to provide for the best choice. I find it fascinating that something that appears seventy-seven times in scripture as a decision-making tool is completely absent from out tradition. Maybe we’re just not ready to surrender the power over decisions in the way that the ancients seemed willing.

The job for which Matthias was selected also deserves a look. Acts says “one of these must become a witness with us to his resurrection.” It’s a very concise job description and one that seemed covered in the original criteria for the job itself. Remember the successful applicant had to be present “until the day he was taken up from us” and was therefore a witness to resurrection. The only way to make sense of this is to translate the job description into a job title called “Witness to the Resurrection.”

So want does a Witness to the Resurrection do? What makes this the alternate job title for one of the twelve and to what extent is this still relevant to our life together? If we accept the premise that we are all disciples now, then Witness to the Resurrection is our job title too, the task we have inherited. The idea of identifying the twelve fades quickly from the tradition, but the job remains.

St. Paul said “if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.” In other words, the message of new life, the message of the end of death through the resurrection of Jesus is the very centre of our faith. It seems a fitting way to end the season of Easter: to be reminded that resurrection is the centre, and the central task we receive is to witness to this reality. We proclaim the end of death, the triumph of life, and God’s desire that each of us have life in abundance (John 10).

***

So we have a promise and a task and we have the reality on the ground. We can laugh a little at all the divination that happened in the ancient world, following cats around to figure out the future, but the same lack of direction that leads people to find meaning in completely random things plays itself in our world every day. You have likely noted that I’m generally not one to condemn the modern world or the state of society, but this week I feel like I’ve had about enough.

The death of little Tori Stafford, and the news items that describe the details of all the participants in the story, amounts to some of this most depressing stuff I’ve read in a while. The wreckage of personal lives, stories of “hillbilly heroine,” and the death (once more) of innocence in a small community are all too much to bear. I read the paper in a mixture of sadness and disgust knowing that the promise of abundant life is far from every person in the story, before and after the murder of little Tori.

In time, lawyers and sociologists will put all this wreckage in perspective for us. Reasons will be given, sentences will be set, and we will gradually put this story out of our mind until the next tragedy comes along. It is hard to face the actual reality of life on earth, so we look away, we go to the mall or we pour a second glass of wine and try to put things out of our mind.

After a week like this, the job description of Witness to the Resurrection becomes more critical than ever. First we have to witness to ourselves. We have to remain confident in the belief that death is not the last word and that God desires for each of us a life with abundance and the promise of something more. Then we must witness beyond these walls, witness to the potential for resurrection in everyone’s life, the potential for new life for those with ears to hear and hearts open to the message entrusted to us.

In a few minutes we will gather to hear about the latest Habitat build, this one in our community, where volunteers will construct homes for people the banks have said do not deserve home ownership. Bands of counter-cultural people with hammers and nails will get together to reject the values of the marketplace to say that having a good home should have less to do with a credit score and more to do with commitment to the community and the willingness to expend a little sweat equity. It is good news story.

And we need more. We need more drop-ins and Habitat builds and more Meals on Wheels to counteract the stories that too often fill our newspapers and our minds. We need new neighbourhood stories that witness to the resurrection whether done by believers or not. We need new stories, stories of resurrection and stories of hope, stories to lead us to God’s abundance, amen.

posted by michael jacob kooiman @ 7:26 AM