On wedding banquets and diocesan synod.
Ordinary Sunday 28: 13th October, 2002
Fr John Davis, Vicar of St Peter's, Eastern Hill
Go therefore into the main streets, and invite everyone you find to the wedding banquet....[S]o the wedding hall was filled with guests. (Mtt 22:9-10)
A parable of the kingdom of God that talks about the good and the bad all gathered together in a large hall. And that in the week of the diocesan synod at the Festival Hall. This preacher cannot avoid the temptation of running a little with that one. I do imagine that most of the participants would have been hard-pressed to see the synod as being like a parable of the kingdom, though this is perhaps a sad reflection on what might be.
It is not impossible that the meeting together in synod of a bishop with clergy and people to consider the matters of concern and interest can work in a creative way. It is not. But the current and more recent experience of those who are taking part is not all that encouraging. This relates to a number of factors including subject matter, process, venue and size. The body as it is now constituted in Melbourne is far too large for effective engagement and interaction. This is taking into account the fact that there are serious responsibilities that the synod has. They would come under two broad categories: legislation, either from this diocese or from the General Synod at the national level, and the passing of resolutions or motions, which expressions of opinion or attitude. So far as types of resolutions are concerned, I have made some comments in today's pew sheet as well. This time certainly, we were not bogged down with legislation – there was very little. But perhaps apart from the Monday night when a number of reasonably interesting things were under discussion, the overall experience was pretty dull. As Bishop Curnow has remarked in the latest Northern News, it is not the most participatory of gatherings: most of those attending speak very little or not at all and a small number speak too much. This is a shame.
For this is the most significant representative coming together of the people of God from Anglican Melbourne that happens. For nearly 150 years something like this has been a significant aspect of our governance. When first introduced, and we here were amongst the first in the Anglican world to do this, this was trail blazing stuff. This was a radical step. By this meeting formally constituted in this way, the functioning and operation of the diocesan bishop is placed into a wider context. In temporal non-exclusively spiritual matters, the bishop does not decide alone.
There is a very important principle here that is not to be lightly dismissed. The principle is that the clergy and representative laity have a legitimate voice. They have the right and the responsibility to share in the decision-making process and in the considered expression of opinion. Each of the three houses of bishop, clergy and lay people has to agree before the legislation or the rules under which we organise ourselves and function as an institution can come into effect. This is the way we Anglicans have developed, particularly over the century or so. Other models of being Church of course do exist: they can be entirely congregationally based, they can be a spiritual monarchy – the rule by one – or many other organisational variations. We Anglicans would claim to be episcopally led and synodically governed. That government though meets only annually. So the day to day, ongoing work and deciding is obviously being done elsewhere. So there are some difficulties here.
As we consider how these familiar processes are perhaps becoming more evidently tired and at the very least not raising what one might call a high level of excitement or creative energy, we are left with some questions then. Is this the best we can do?
So we might in due course consider for instance how and where we use the time of synod – at the moment three evenings and one full day, with one of those evenings at the cathedral. We do need to bear in mind that there are some procedural matters, not in themselves too exciting, that must be done. That is acknowledged. But even so, in our regional Bishop's own comments on this last synod there is a provocative observation. Perhaps he has in the back of his mind the difference between the synod and the meetings of the much less formal and of course not law-making Northern Regional Council. He asks this question:
"At the end of it all however, I am left wondering, have we really been honest? Have the issues really confronting the future of our Diocese and the Church generally been engaged? Have we really been able to discern the call and will of God through the business of Synod? Ultimately what have we achieved to advance the Kingdom of God? In the end I think we need to ask: 'Is Synod impacting on the life of the Church and Nation?'"
'Exploring other ways of discovering God' is where our Bishop says he is left, at the end of his comments. And that is surely at the heart of the spiritual quest that we all would hope to share.
So what then of that other big gathering in that wedding hall in the parable that was today's gospel? Isn't it an interesting point, that so many of the major events in the Lord's life and teachings revolve around food? Hospitality, generosity, boundless provision, abundant overflowing gift and grace. So much offered and so much centring on table fellowship, and the relationship that that indicated. And there were numerous social conventions and expectations surrounding food, that all who heard these teachings and stories would have understood.
So what then of all these who found themselves saying yes and arriving in that hall? They were a pretty mixed bag as well it seems. Both good and bad alike found themselves there, gathered in from the streets and lanes. All who would come. That is always so very encouraging to hear, just when we start to feel that we couldn't possibly be worthy enough to get such an invitation. But do not relax too soon: there is a lot in this parable. Generous provision, first round invitation, rejection, anger, still generous provision, second round invitation, appropriate response from just about all, assessment and a final statement about God's call and God's choice.
One commentator summarised the whole episode in this way: '...with consummate skill, Matthew has developed a simple parable about a meal into an allegory of the whole of salvation history, from the initial invitation to the Jews to the final judgment of Christians.' Meier p 249
It is easy enough to understand a parable about a generous invitation to a wonderful wedding feast being received. It is received by people who find all sorts of excuses not to say yes. This rejection is met by distress or anger on the part of the royal host and that was followed up by the extending of further invitations to a lot of other less obvious invitees. And the hall was filled and everyone lived happily ever after. Well no.
Because the part of this story that has proven to be difficult for many is the part that relates to the one guest who is not wearing the wedding garment. This is the one who had not taken any trouble to change, either in the superficial sense of clothing or perhaps more deeply in terms of attitude and heart. Everyone else had. There is no place for this person at this banquet. There remains the matter of judgment.
The Church Fathers would see this in allegorical terms along the lines of the clothing that we put on when we put on Christ. One at least (Origen) directed me to Col 3:12ff:
"As God's chosen ones, holy and beloved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, meekness and patience.... Above all, clothe yourself with love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony." Everyone then responding the invitation to share in the banquet that is offered to us in Jesus Christ is invited to put on these new clothes, this new and richer way of living and interacting with each other, and with God. They are invited to do this and they are expected to do this.
Others point out that the wedding garments can be seen as simply garments, clean and neat, that are appropriate for such an occasion. Anything less would be recognised by all involved as an insult to the host and to the occasion. Not then, as it were, a tracksuit. Dirty, rumpled clothing in this story symbolises a life that has undergone no basic change.
All this also makes clear to us that just as those in the earlier part of the story who chose not to come or who made excuses obviously were not to share in this feast, neither will there be a place for those second round invitees, say like us, who might take it all for granted and who might consider that there is nothing at all that needs to be done or changed in their own lives and attitudes. So we can now see what that earlier commentator I referred to meant about Matthew really turning his presentation of this potentially simple parable into solid and careful teaching.
Maybe then what our synod needs too is more of a sense of awareness of great occasion and opportunity and gift. Maybe more of an acknowledgment of the need to be prepared, in terms of those spiritual garments. And maybe too attention to the catering – what is actually offered at that table, metaphorically speaking.
That one guest in our parable who found himself in so much trouble, after all, had taken everything for granted, didn't have a word to say and got nothing out of the whole experience. Maybe there is another parable there.
The Lord be with you.
|
Views is a
publication of
St Peter's Eastern Hill, Melbourne Australia.
|
