Thinking Anglicans

Breaking the Rules

The gospel narrative for Passion Sunday, of Mary anointing Jesus, is a story of the crossing of boundaries. The rules of thrift and the responsible use of resources are cast aside, as what may have been the most valuable item in the house is dissipated in a grand gesture and few moments of fragrance. A routine act of hospitality is elevated from a mundane kindness to an eye-catching drama. There is a physical intimacy in public between a man and an unrelated woman, as Mary bends to wipe Jesus’s feet with her hair.

Of course, if it had happened last Friday it could be a ‘red nose’ stunt, pouring a bottle of perfume over a dinner guest. I’m sure you could get sponsorship, upload the video, send it to wing its way through the social media.

Comic Relief, and similar undertakings, tame the unusual and domesticate the extravagant gesture. Boundaries are transgressed, but only with careful planning; generosity is harnessed to a date, and eccentricity given its place on the calendar. All is made safe, if occasionally embarrassing, and care for those in need is slotted neatly into a consumerist culture, where we buy our red noses at the tills of major supermarkets.

Even with that domestication, however, such events retain an association between giving and the breaching of what are normally considered the limits of acceptable behaviour. Like the licensed fools of previous centuries, participants act out a defiance of the rules by which we live so much of the time, the rules of the market, of contract and commerce, of the exchange of goods and services. For this action I should receive this payment: with this money I can purchase these things. Sit in a bath of baked beans, and someone will give you money because he is mildly entertained by your humiliation (but not as much as if he paid the same to see a really good comic), or she feels an obligation to support a friend or workmate; not because there is an identifiable value or outcome to your action.

By attribution, at least, it was Ignatius Loyola who prayed for the generosity of spirit which gives without counting the cost and acts without expecting reward; I doubt if Red Nose Day is part of the cultural heritage of Francis I, the first Jesuit pope, but there is a pleasing coincidence in his election as this country engages in one of its periodic exercises in communal altruism.

Flagrant generosity, without palpable reward, is the generosity of God, which breaks all the rules about what is deserved or earned or due. In God’s giving of God’s very self in the passion, the rules of parenthood are breached; the primary loving relationship, as experienced and valued in most human lives, is ruptured.

Yet this Passion Sunday story, of course, is one of the few in which Jesus is the recipient, not the giver. He accepts it all, the perfume, the careful wiping of his feet, the symbolic preparation. Accepting the gift, he values the giver, and accepts the identity she gives him.

So much of our tradition emphasises our inadequacy, and disables us from that acceptance. May we learn to accept that lavish gift of God’s love, which breaks the rules of the market place and pre-empts any question of deserving, and allow ourselves also to accept the identity offered us, as God’s beloved children.

Jane Freeman
Canon Jane Freeman is Team Rector of Wickford and Runwell in the diocese of Chelmsford.

7
Leave a Reply

avatar
3000
7 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
6 Comment authors
JohnFather Ron SmithTomLocuste IsteFather Ron Smith Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest
Notify of
Father David
Guest
Father David

Don’t popes – like monarchs – have to wait until there is a second bearing the same name before they get a regnal/papal number? Elizabeth I was simply Queen Elizabeth until the advent of Queen Elizabeth II. Similarly Pope John Paul I was simply Pope John Paul until the election of Pope John Paul II. Therefore should the present pope who advocates simplicity – simply be known as Pope Francis not Pope Francis I?

Father Ron Smith
Guest

What a beautiful discernment of inner meaning to the story of Mary Magdalene – who because the ‘Apostle to the Apostles’ after offering her ‘all’ to Jesus. I suspect that Mary could never have be emboldened to offer this sacrifice, if she had not been pretty sure of his acceptance and care for her as sinner! Perhaps our Church needs to reach out a little more extravagantly in love and forgiveness – to sinners (like ourselves) – in order to really experience and know the compassion of Jesus that can actually change ordinary lives into treasure for God. Pray for… Read more »

Locuste Iste
Guest
Locuste Iste

@Father David: The Pope has made it clear that he is Pope Francis, not Pope Francis I.

Tom
Guest
Tom

@ Fr David: Whilst Francis is as noted not Francis I, John Paul I was always John Paul I – or at least that was how he was announced in the ‘habemus papam’ speech. See video here:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8umNO-Dsaw

The speech starts about 1:30, actual announcement of the name is at 2.40 ish.

In this he was unusual, the last pope who was a first was Pope Lando, who is is still known simply as such. There is no youtube of him, but then he was Pope 913-914.

John
Guest
John

Two reactions:

(1) Father David, hope you’re here exhibiting signs/vestiges of your ‘Reformed’ lineage;

(2) As for the woman’s ‘anointing’ of Jesus, instead of these unfocused maunderings, isn’t it crucial (operative word) that this occasion marks the ‘anointing’ of the ‘Christ’?

Father Ron Smith
Guest

“instead of these unfocused maunderings,” – John

Bang goes the Sacred Triduum! For some, anyway.

I’m sure there were people in the crowd on Good Friday who would have made the same remark as John here. They couldn’t bear the thought of suffering.

John
Guest
John

Don’t understand your comment, Father Ron. Mine put the emphasis – precisely – on ‘suffering’ (cf. ‘crucial’).