Sun, May 16, 2021
Where do we look?
Luke 24:44-53 & Acts 1:15-11 by Craig de Vos
A sermon for Ascension
Series: Sermons

History is never a simple matter of dates and names.

History is––

and always has been––

contested.

By its very nature it involves reconstruction and interpretation––

it reflects both conscious and unconscious bias.

And, there’s a slogan that we-historians like to throw around:

“History is always written by the winners”.

All of that came into sharp focus very recently…

on the occasion of the bicentenary of the death of Napoleon Bonaparte.

As celebrations kicked off in Paris, the President of France––

Emmanuel Macron––

rebuffed calls from some to tear down statues of Napoleon…

and he sought to defend his legacy.

For good and for bad––

he suggested––

Napoleon “is part of all of us” who are French.

He suggested that it was wrong to try to judge him by modern standards…

that we shouldn’t “give in to the temptation to judge history anachronistically”…

and we shouldn’t try to ‘erase’ history.

But is not Macron, in effect, guilty of that too?

Let’s not forget…

Napoleon came to power by means of a coup;

he invaded and plundered neighbouring countries;

he was responsible for wars in which several million died;

and he reintroduced colonial slavery eight years after it had been abolished in France…

sending more than a quarter of a million into bondage.

For Macron, Napoleon “shows us what is possible, because his life invites us to take risk, and to trust our imagination, to fully be ourselves”.

For many in the English-speaking world, Napoleon is frequently portrayed…

or even remembered…

as a little man with an inferiority complex;

a megalomaniacal dictator and warlord.

For those who are descended from the colonised he enslaved––

the indigenous people upon whom he inflicted violence, disease, and bondage––

he ought to be remembered for his crimes against humanity…

not celebrated and honoured.

 

History is never a simple matter.

How it is told reflects ideologies and vested interests.

It’s always told from a certain perspective…

and it’s always told to make a point.

In a sense, all history is a form of propaganda.

And while the Bible is not history––

certainly not from the principles, perspectives, and parameters of modern history––

the same still holds true.

Its stories reflect certain theological convictions;

they seek to persuade their readers of a certain point of view;

and they reflect certain ideologies and vested interests.

And that’s true of all Scripture.

But it’s perhaps especially true of the Ascension stories.

And we heard both of them read this morning––

the one from the end of Luke’s Gospel…

and the one from the start of the Book of Acts.

And, despite the fact that the same author wrote both of these stories…

they’re quite different––

indeed, seemingly contradictory.

 

Although it’s not a story that many of us probably read very often…

and we don’t necessarily hear it every year…

when we do read or hear it, it’s normally the version from Acts.

And, as the author constructs the story in Acts, the Ascension occurs forty days after Easter Day––

that is, forty days after the resurrection.

That’s why we’re remembering and celebrating it now.

And that period of forty days is quite intentional.

It directly parallels the forty days that Jesus spent in the wilderness… 

before he began his ministry…

according to Luke’s Gospel.

So, in effect, the author is suggesting that this was a ‘wilderness period’ for the disciples.

It was a time of reflection and preparation for their own ministry––

a time of continued teaching and instruction…

before they would continue the ministry of Jesus.

And that’s the focus in the Acts story.

The Ascension serves as a narrative beginning.

But it also begins the story of the church.

So, in Acts, we learn that the disciples are meeting…

and praying…

and waiting…

in the Upper Room––

that is…

the place where they had all gathered with Jesus before the crucifixion.

In a sense, then, their earthly ministry begins where his left off.

In Acts, the Ascension––

the end of the story of Jesus’ earthly life and ministry—

is the beginning of the church’s life and ministry. 

 

But the Ascension story in Luke’s Gospel is quite different.

It’s simpler…

almost pared back.

More significantly, however, it doesn’t occur forty days after the resurrection…

it occurs on the same day.

It occurs on Easter Day itself.

Now, narratively speaking, that works better as a conclusion to the whole book.

But it also more firmly connects the Ascension to the resurrection itself.

The Ascension, in a sense, becomes a continuation of the Easter story––

even a completion of the Easter story––

rather than a separate story…

or the start of a new story.

By placing it here, the author further emphasises God’s vindication of Jesus––

not just of his ministry… 

but, especially, a vindication of who he was.

In the Ascension story from Luke’s Gospel…

there’s no interaction between Jesus and the disciples—

he “opens their minds”

and he instructs them…

but there’s no conversation.

In a way, there’s something much more other-worldly… 

much more transcendent… 

much more God-like…

about this Jesus.

And, as he ascends, the author has Jesus pronounce a blessing on the disciples––

by word and by gesture.

The author emphasises, in effect, the High Priestly ministry of the risen-ascended Jesus.

But, even more than that…

their response is to fall down in worship.

We see here, not just a developing notion of Jesus as a heavenly High Priest…

but also Jesus as an object of devotion and worship.

And, indeed, that theme continues.

Despite telling them to wait…

and that they will be his witnesses…

upon their return to Jerusalem––

and we’re specifically told that they return “with great joy”––

rather than returning to the Upper Room…

the disciples go instead to the temple and they praise God.

In Luke’s Gospel, the Ascension––

the end of the story of Jesus’ earthly life and ministry—

is the beginning of the church’s worship of Jesus.

 

All of which is…

in a sense…

slightly ironic.

 

The Ascension story that we know the best––

the one that we read and remember…

that one that shapes our liturgical tradition and celebration––

is not the one that focusses upon worship.

Rather, it’s the story that calls us to continue the ministry of Jesus in our world…

and to our world.

And yet, for many of us…

I suspect… 

that the Ascension story from Luke’s Gospel is the one that sits better.

In practical terms––

in our everyday lives––

we prefer a Jesus who’s a bit more transcendent…

and who exists to bless us…

rather than one who actually engages us in dialogue.

And we prefer to gather for worship… 

rather than doing something as confronting as bearing witness to Jesus…

and continuing his ministry.

 

The stories from the Bible are always told from a certain perspective…

and they’re always told to make a point.

The fact that the author of Luke and Acts crafts two quite different Ascension stories…

means…

we have to choose which one we’ll hear;

and which one we’ll live out.