I preached on the parable of the faithful and wise servant (Mt 24:45-51) on the weekend, and found the commentaries pretty pedestrian (a common fault when it comes to Matthew, I've found...). Call me pious, but I'm of the opinion that Jesus doesn't waste his breath, and so if he felt the need to say more after the parable of the thief and the householder that precedes this one, then he must have had something to say other than 'be ready' again.
So I dug around for a while, looking for something that made this a parable and not just another example or metaphor, and I think the answer's in the 'household' bit. That is, Jesus isn't just posing a question about his own disciples, he's also taking aim at the Temple leadership, prompted by the assumptions his disciples appear to display at the start of ch. 24. They look like they're being faithful because the Temple's in great physical condition...but Jesus says a faithful servant looks after the other servants, not the house.
Plus, there's also the fact that ch. 23 is a fairly serious hosing for the Jewish authorities for their failings in precisely this, and Jesus concludes with the reflection that Jerusalem's house, the temple, has been left desolate by them.
Tuesday, 29 May 2007
Tuesday, 22 May 2007
What's Taken For Granted
In an effort to live up to that 'largely after the fact' bit, I'm finally getting around to something I spotted last week. This story was much like any other (well, much like the ongoing Wolfowitz saga, writ smaller, anyway), but the last few paragraphs caught my eye.
"No one is arguing about Ms Swaffield's qualifications for her positions ... but the perception in the House is that quite possibly the best applicant was not appointed." It's a bit of a Clayton's accusation of corruption, isn't it? She was qualified for the positions she was promoted to, but they're still unhappy.
Why is it, do you think, that sufficient is no longer seen as sufficient? She could do the job, but maybe somebody better could have done it too. But wait, if somebody more capable had been appointed, wouldn't that have been a waste of their greater ability anyway?
The whole idea of merit advancement was an Enlightenment-era reaction against their equivalent of jobs for the boys, the preferral of the aristocracy for anything that mattered. The rising middle classes wanted access to the plumb jobs, and thought that merit was a better means for selecting people. And hey, they had that right.
But does it really mean that you take the most overqualified person? Isn't it really meant to guard against getting a moron with good connections? I suspect that the pendulum might have been pushed too far on this score.
As for the next quote, "I treat all anonymous letters with the contempt they deserve." What makes anonymity contemptible, I wonder? A priori, that is, without any consideration of the reason for anonymity? I'd hate to have amnesia and have to write to this guy. Does he read the mail he gets from the government? His tax refund? Conversely, does he really believe the Readers Digest letters about how he's WON THE ULTIMATE whatever, simply because they have a signature printed at the bottom?
Or does he just like it as an easy cop-out for not doing his job...?
As for the idea of the same individual being in charge of the Sydney Opera House and Foxtel...
"No one is arguing about Ms Swaffield's qualifications for her positions ... but the perception in the House is that quite possibly the best applicant was not appointed." It's a bit of a Clayton's accusation of corruption, isn't it? She was qualified for the positions she was promoted to, but they're still unhappy.
Why is it, do you think, that sufficient is no longer seen as sufficient? She could do the job, but maybe somebody better could have done it too. But wait, if somebody more capable had been appointed, wouldn't that have been a waste of their greater ability anyway?
The whole idea of merit advancement was an Enlightenment-era reaction against their equivalent of jobs for the boys, the preferral of the aristocracy for anything that mattered. The rising middle classes wanted access to the plumb jobs, and thought that merit was a better means for selecting people. And hey, they had that right.
But does it really mean that you take the most overqualified person? Isn't it really meant to guard against getting a moron with good connections? I suspect that the pendulum might have been pushed too far on this score.
As for the next quote, "I treat all anonymous letters with the contempt they deserve." What makes anonymity contemptible, I wonder? A priori, that is, without any consideration of the reason for anonymity? I'd hate to have amnesia and have to write to this guy. Does he read the mail he gets from the government? His tax refund? Conversely, does he really believe the Readers Digest letters about how he's WON THE ULTIMATE whatever, simply because they have a signature printed at the bottom?
Or does he just like it as an easy cop-out for not doing his job...?
As for the idea of the same individual being in charge of the Sydney Opera House and Foxtel...
Friday, 4 May 2007
Not My Greatest Idea...
...chiefly because it's not mine at all, but comes from an astute Bible study group member.
We've been working through Acts, and this week was ch. 8. It's a chapter I love for the last pericope - the way the Ethiopian eunuch finds a welcome at last in the good news of Jesus, having been shut out of everything that matters previously. He looks powerful, but knows his emptiness.
I made an observation that this is somewhat parallel to Simon Magus, earlier in the chapter - a reputed Great Power who is really an outsider, as a Samaritan, to true religion. And Isaiah 53 is a hugely appropriate starting point for a gospel presentation to someone in such a position as these two are, with its promise that the outsider can be valued by God and exalted.
I also suggested that it was no coincidence to find these two stories in a chapter that opens with a new persecution of the church: the very stories are encouraging to the church that has been recently ostracised.
But the nice idea was this: that ch. 8 leads up to Saul's conversion in the next chapter, as the chief of outsiders comes in from the cold, 'as one unnaturally born'.
We've been working through Acts, and this week was ch. 8. It's a chapter I love for the last pericope - the way the Ethiopian eunuch finds a welcome at last in the good news of Jesus, having been shut out of everything that matters previously. He looks powerful, but knows his emptiness.
I made an observation that this is somewhat parallel to Simon Magus, earlier in the chapter - a reputed Great Power who is really an outsider, as a Samaritan, to true religion. And Isaiah 53 is a hugely appropriate starting point for a gospel presentation to someone in such a position as these two are, with its promise that the outsider can be valued by God and exalted.
I also suggested that it was no coincidence to find these two stories in a chapter that opens with a new persecution of the church: the very stories are encouraging to the church that has been recently ostracised.
But the nice idea was this: that ch. 8 leads up to Saul's conversion in the next chapter, as the chief of outsiders comes in from the cold, 'as one unnaturally born'.
Inter Mission
Nothing profound today, I suspect - just a chance to raise my head above water and reflect on the week of mission we've nearly finished.
The coolest outcome has to be something that happened right at the start. We arranged letterbox advertising in the week or so leading up to the mission, and one guy turned up the week before with his son, prompted by seeing our flyer. He'd been thinking that he should look into finding a church, and there was the prompt in his letterbox. Well, it was a pretty slick flyer... And so he came back last Sunday, heard the sermon on John's prologue, and repented. On his way out, he farewelled me with a 'definitely see you next Sunday' that meant more when I read his comment card. How good is God?!
Another highlight has been the opportunity to do scripture seminars in the high schools. We had half of the year 11/12 school in a seminar on Tuesday, and it generated piles of follow up - more than a tenth of the school. Some of that is spoof responses, but even so...God is good.
It's been interesting to coordinate the mission - particularly in thinking about the impact of advertising/branding. My impression is that for many, it was when they started seeing the same fonts, slogans and colours that they started to recognise that the mission was on. Or perhaps, more accurately, that they started to have confidence in it. Momentum was negligible for most of the months leading up to mission, but has picked up markedly in the last couple of weeks. We've been well served by the mission team, which has reinforced the impression that the whole thing is worthwhile.
The tricky part now is managing follow-up, which isn't very public, and avoiding a post-mission slump around the church. Providentially, we've arranged to have a baby next month, so that might help keep people focused.
The coolest outcome has to be something that happened right at the start. We arranged letterbox advertising in the week or so leading up to the mission, and one guy turned up the week before with his son, prompted by seeing our flyer. He'd been thinking that he should look into finding a church, and there was the prompt in his letterbox. Well, it was a pretty slick flyer... And so he came back last Sunday, heard the sermon on John's prologue, and repented. On his way out, he farewelled me with a 'definitely see you next Sunday' that meant more when I read his comment card. How good is God?!
Another highlight has been the opportunity to do scripture seminars in the high schools. We had half of the year 11/12 school in a seminar on Tuesday, and it generated piles of follow up - more than a tenth of the school. Some of that is spoof responses, but even so...God is good.
It's been interesting to coordinate the mission - particularly in thinking about the impact of advertising/branding. My impression is that for many, it was when they started seeing the same fonts, slogans and colours that they started to recognise that the mission was on. Or perhaps, more accurately, that they started to have confidence in it. Momentum was negligible for most of the months leading up to mission, but has picked up markedly in the last couple of weeks. We've been well served by the mission team, which has reinforced the impression that the whole thing is worthwhile.
The tricky part now is managing follow-up, which isn't very public, and avoiding a post-mission slump around the church. Providentially, we've arranged to have a baby next month, so that might help keep people focused.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)