Advent 1
Advent 3
December 13, 2009
by Chris Heath

'even tax-collectors came ..' Luke 3.12

Shock! Horror!

I thought I'd begin by considering bringing this gospel snippet into the present generation. What would happen today if John the Baptist cames and baptised. Crowds, in our day, predominantly 'christian' would come. How would John welcome them? 'You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bear fruits worthy of repentance.' Do not begin to say to yourselves: 'We are sons and daughters of Jesus'. Why would we presume to claim adopted hereditary from Jesus when those of John the Baptist's day couldn't claim descent from Abraham? Claiming something from God as a **right** - implicitly at the expense of those who couldn't claim such status is ruled out right at the very beginning of the gospel, even by Jesus' forerunner.

And who might we as 'christians' be shocked and horrified to find coming to the Baptist with us? If one took the present conflicts raging in the churches, and I should add, not just Anglican, it would be gay and lesbian persons. 'Even gay and lesbian persons come ..' I note that neither the tax collectors or the soldiers were expected to give up their occupations, a rather easier demand than some modern day 'christians' who expect gay and lesbian persons to change their whole personalities.

I have to say that right at the beginning of the gospel the idea of hereditary right is explicitly excluded. Surely this has implications for apostolic succession. If birth-right is ruled out, if adoption at baptism is ruled out, then any special status conferred by the laying on of hands by an episcopally ordained bishop is surely distinctly suspect as well. In the OT, the use of the pagan Cyrus of Persia (2 Chron 37.1) as a minister of God's sovereign will surely teaches us that we must see the possibility of God speaking to us through people other than the chosen people of God. The outpouring of the Spirit on those of the household of Cornelius who were listening to Peter speaking **before** they were baptised is as much a lesson to us as it was to Peter, that God is not restricted to using those who are baptised. (Acts 10).

Peter, the chief disciple of Jesus, the one on whom Jesus would build his church, the one who had followed Jesus all of his public life, and one of the last to desert him – all this – but he **still** had to learn the lesson that 'God shows no partiality'.

Now I want to immediately say that I'm not having a shot of the apostolic succession, for it is right and proper that the church orders the ministry in ways that are appropriate. Sadly, of course, such apostolic succession is no guarantee that persons so ordained will act ethically or morally. But God is not confined to such ordination, and any suggestion to the contrary is rather **precious**.

If Peter, the one from whom all apostolic succession begins, had to learn the lesson that 'God shows no partiality', then I suspect that it is an eternal lesson that succeeding generations of 'christians' have to continue to learn.

Indeed **the** Christian message is that others are included. If we define our 'christianity' as separating ourselves from others, we have lost the distinctiveness of Christianity!

If we define priesthood as something exclusive, in the sense that is a priori exclusive to those of the male gender, then we have failed to grasp not only what Christian priesthood is, but more fundamentally what the gospel is!

Much of my thoughts here are informed by the rather exclusively Australian Anglican debate over the issue of lay presidency of the Eucharist, propounded particularly by a powerful faction in our sister diocese of Sydney, Australia. In one sense I believe that we should be grateful for this issue being raised, because it should cause us to re-examine the foundations of priesthood that is long overdue. My thoughts are also informed as I work alongside a female lay catholic chaplain, who does not act liturgically as a priest, but is essentially regarded as one. For far too long the ministry has been the special preserve of an exclusive elite. But proper issues of governance cannot be ignored. It is not an issue of opening up more for lay people to take leading roles liturgically, for Christian ministry is far, far wider than what happens on Sunday mornings by those in white dresses. I'm pointing to something more fundamental, and perhaps we have a long time before we can get over the effects of clergy privilege. Lay participation can actually focus the Christian mission exclusively on worship, and this can happen as easily in high-church as in low-church settings.

As I often say to patients in the hospitals, if you want to know where I see God at work, it is in hospitals rather than churches, for this is where people are cared for, whatever their colour, language, faith, gender or sexuality. People are cared for in order for them to return healthy to the real world, whereas so often the church wants to keep people dependent, so that they stay within the cloistered community.

One of the best known of the Christian commandments is: 'In everything do to others as you would have them do to you; for this is the law and the prophets.' Matthew 7.12 How often do we interpret this in a personal way? In our personal dealings with others we ought to take the initiative to establish relationships with those around us. We are cautioned not to wait for others to take the initiative and then to respond in kind. But when it comes to our faith, we wait for others to present themselves for baptism or one of the other ministries of the church. I was reflecting recently that the command to baptise was not 'baptise only those who have an appropriate level and expression of faith' or 'baptise anyone who comes to seek it', but **go** and baptise the nations. Indeed it is precisely our being incarnated into society that does 'baptise' the nations, not the sprinkling of water. It was Peter going to the house of Cornelius that brought salvation, not the subsequent baptising of Cornelius' household.

So in response to my text today: 'even tax-collectors came ..' I want to say that the Christian mission is not just to accept tax collectors, prostitutes and sinners in our midst. How often do I hear congregations priding themselves on their ministry of welcome – sometimes even explicitly to all. Of course this is right and proper – my beautiful friends in the string ensemble of which I am part are wonderful in their welcoming of possible new members. But the authentic and distinctively Christian mission is not to wait for others to come, but to go and be incarnated into real society, as Jesus did, and for which he was crucified for doing so. We are to go, not to celebrate the Eucharist in the midst of one and all, but to accept the hospitality that others offer us.

(Comments to Chris at frsparky@bigpond.net.au.)

http://web.me.com/frsparky/iWeb/
Chaplain – Orange Health Service