Tuesday, May 07, 2013

Acts 16:16-34

Easter 7 - Year C 

Isn’t it amazing how we are able to separate our revelation from someone else’s fortune-telling? In this particular the “fortune-teller” was saying the same thing as our "revelator". Even so, there seems to be a push to have only an authorized speaker get credit. This same putsch shows up later in church history with attempts to equate the morality of an eucharistic celebrant with the sacrament itself. Does Communion have value, regardless of the officiant? And all along the way there were pushes against one identity group or another and their ability to carry an authorized word.

It would seem that Paul was upset at not having the only word about salvation. In muzzling his perceived opponent's similar message, he escalated things to the point of getting thrown in the local hoosegow.

Of course all things work for some and Paul comes off smelling like a rose. One slave girl put in danger and one jailer and family baptized. I’m sure there is an equation somewhere that sees this as normal cost/benefit spirituality, but so far it has eluded me. Hints?

If this is Easter season and we are still looking for death and resurrection models, here a girl dies that a jailer can come to Jesus. Not quite your standard model. Where else have we modified resurrection to justify our privilege?

No comments:

Post a Comment

Thank you for blessing us with your response.