Arthur Chichester of Fisherwick, Marquess of Donegall, is remembered in street names and buildings throughout central Belfast (Photographs: Patrick Comerford, 2024)
Patrick Comerford
As Donegal celebrates its 450th anniversary this year, I wonder whether any connections are being made with Donegal House in Lichfield. But Donegal House in Lichfield and Donegall Square in Belfast take their name not from the town and county in the north-west Ireland but from the family who lived for generations at Fisherwick Hall, 6 km (4 miles) east of Lichfield, and a similar distance north of Comberford and Tamworth.
The street patterns of central Belfast and their names date from the second half of the 18th century, and many of the names are derived directly from Arthur Chichester (1739-1799), 5th Earl of Donegall and later 1st Marquess of Donegal. He owned a quarter of a million acres in Ireland and was the principal landlord of Georgian Belfast. Yet he had his main residence at Fisherwick Hall, near Lichfield, where the gardens were laid out by Capability Brown.
I have had a long-standing interest in the Chichesters of Fishwerwick because Arthur Chichester bought Comberford Hall, including the Manors of Wigginton and Comberford, on 1 August 1789 from Thomas Thynne (1734-1796), Viscount Weymouth – who was about to become the 1st Marquis of Bath – and his son, Thomas Thynne.
Chichester Street, Belfast, is named after the Chichester family of Fisherwick, between Lichfield and Tamworth (Photograph: Patrick Comerford, 2024)
Lord Donegall became the greatest landowner of his day in Ireland. His estates included 11,000 acres at Dunbrody, Co Wexford, almost 90,000 acres in Co Antrim, 160,000 acres in Co Donegal, the whole town of Belfast, and the townland of Ballynafeigh, Co Down, totalling over quarter of a million acres in all.
However, Arthur Chichester chose to live not in Ireland but at Fisherwick Hall near Lichfield. He tore down the Skeffington family’s old Tudor manor house, replacing it with a vast Palladian mansion set in a park of 4,000 acres, all designed and constructed by Lancelot ‘Capability’ Brown.
He was accused of ‘draining a manufacturing country of £36,000 a year and having raised fines’, paid by tenants to get leases, ‘sufficient to impoverish a province, and transported them out of the kingdom to build palaces in another land, where he is unknown and disregarded.’
Donegal House, Bore Street, Lichfield … takes its name from the Chichester family, Earls of Donegall (Photograph: Patrick Comerford, 2024)
Lord Donegall is said to have rebuilt Comberford Hall, replacing the original half-timbered Tudor manor house dating back to the late 15th century, at the same time as he rebuilt Fisherwick Hall. However, Mrs Valerie Coltman, who lived at Comberford Hall for many years, believed it is more likely that Comberford Hall was rebuilt more than 70 years earlier in 1720.
He also gave his name to Donegal House in Bore Street, Lichfield, although the house was built in 1730 by a local merchant James Robinson.
Within a year of buying Comberford Hall, Lord Donegall had raised £20,000 from the banker Henry Hoare, using the manors and lands of Comberford and Wigginton as security. In 1791, he received additional titles of Marquess of Donegall and Earl of Belfast in the Irish peerage and of Baron Fisherwick of Fisherwick, Staffordshire in the British peerage. The mortgages he raised on Comberford and other Staffordshire properties probably paid the fees and administrative costs involved in receiving these elevated titles.
Arthur Chichester, Earl of Donegall, bought Comberford Hall on 1 August 1789 (Photograph: Patrick Comerford, 2024)
Meanwhile, underneath the veneer of aristocratic splendour, domestic life for the Chichester family of Belfast and Fisherwick was in turmoil.
His eldest son, George Augustus Chichester (1769-1844), would eventually inherit the family titles as 2nd Marquess of Donegall and Earl of Donegall and Earl of Belfast. In his youth George was known as Lord Chichester, a courtesy title. At an early age, he developed a gambling addiction. One source says he ‘was licentious and profligate in proportion to his status and fortune.’
Arthur paid his son’s debts several times but eventually allowed him to be sent to the debtors’ prison. While in jail, George was offered financial assistance by Sir (James) Edward May (1751-1814), to secure his release in return for marrying his daughter Anna. May has been described as ‘a moneylender who also ran a gaming house’. He secured Lord Chichester’s release in 1795, and George was now obliged to return the obligation and marry Anna.
Five days before his 26th birthday, George Chichester married 18-year-old Anna May on 8 August 1795. But Anna was an illegitimate child and was also underage. In her circumstances, marriage required the consent of the Lord Chancellor and the permission given by her Welsh guardians was insufficient. Years later, the marriage was declared unlawful.
The Donegall title, with its unusual spelling, is repeated in street names in Belfast (Photographs: Patrick Comerford, 2024)
Anna’s father Edward May, had married Anna’s mother, Eliza Bagg in Saint George’s Church, Holborn, in 1773. But Eliza was already legally married. She was neither divorced nor widowed, and her first husband, a man named Lind, was living in the East Indies. Eliza May was never charged with bigamy, but their children – two sons and two – were deemed illegitimate.
George Chichester succeeded as 2nd Marquess of Donegall when his father died in 1799. He and Anna fled to Belfast in 1802 to escape his debtors once again and brought the May family with them, including Edward and Eliza and their four children.
Edward May became the agent for the Chichester family estates in Belfast. He was MP for Belfast in 1801-1814, was twice Sovereign (Mayor) of Belfast (1803-1806, 1809-1810), and in 1811 he also succeeded to the title of baronet first given to his father in 1763.
As Sir Edward May, he pioneered land reclamation on the edges of Belfast Lough, and gave his name to Edward Street, Great Edward Street, which merged with Victoria Street, May Street, May’s Dock and May’s Market. On his orders, the gravestones and memorials in Saint George’s Churchyard were destroyed or removed in 1806 and large parts of the graveyard were sold off in 1811 for the development of Church Lane and Ann Street.
When May died on 23 July 1814, it emerged that Eliza and Edward had not been legally married and that Eliza was a bigamist. All their children were deemed illegitimate, including their younger son, the Revd Edward May, who had become the Vicar of Saint Anne’s, Belfast, only weeks after his ordination in 1809.
May Street Presbyterian Church, Belfast … May Street is named after Sir Edward May and his family (Photograph: Patrick Comerford, 2024)
The elder son, Stephen Edward May, had taken his father’s seat as MP for Belfast in 1814. He also presumed he had succeeded as the third baronet and was styling himself Sir Stephen Edward May. But in the eyes of the law, he had been born out of wedlock and the title was removed from him. Feeling he had been shamed publicly, he resigned as MP and the title reverted to his uncle, Sir Humphrey May, as the third baronet.
The revelations about the May bigamy also meant that Anna May, Lady Donegall, was illegitimate. In addition, she had been underage when she married, and it emerged in 1815 that under the terms of legislation in 1753 her marriage was invalid. Not only was she under-age when she married, but the marriage was under special licence without calling banns, and her marriage had not received the consent of the Lord Chancellor.
The couple’s adult children now faced being cut out of the succession to the Chichester family titles and estates in Ireland and in England and being disinherited. The eldest son, who had been using the courtesy title of Earl of Belfast, became plain Mr George Chichester.
Lord Belfast failed in his efforts to sort out his legal position in the consistory court and in chancery, and the Lord Chancellor referred the case to the House of Lords in 1821. The case was not heard, but a Marriage Act amendment bill in 1822 retrospectively legalised past formal breaches of the marriage laws, and finally Lord Belfast’s legitimacy was resolved 27 years after his parents’ irregular and forced marriage.
Celebratory dinners were held in Belfast and other places in August and September. On 8 December 1822, he married Lady Harriet Butler (1799-1860), a daughter of Richard Butler (1775-1819), 1st Earl of Glengall. She had been partly brought up by the Empress Josephine in France, she had a fiery temper and the couple were known as ‘Bel and the Dragon’.
Lord Belfast came to a new, but ultimately disastrous, financial arrangement with his father, and the Chichester properties in Belfast were sold in a vain attempt to ward off mounting debts.
His father, the 2nd Marquess of Donegall, died in 1844, aged 75, and Lord Belfast succeeded as the 3rd Marquess of Donegall. But by then, the debts of father and son had mounted to over £400,000 – the equivalent of about £64 million today. He had already lost control of almost all his property and influence in Belfast, and now saw the town sold off forcibly through the encumbered estates court in 1850. He died in October 1883. Both his sons had died before him, and his titles and remaining estates passed to his brother, Lord Edward Chichester (1799-1889), Dean of Raphoe.
Church House on Fisherwick Place … Fisherwick Place takes its name from Fisherwick, between Lichfield and Tamworth (Photograph: Patrick Comerford, 2024)
Meanwhile, when the 1st Marquess of Donegall died in 1799, Comberford Hall and his other Staffordshire estates, including Fisherwick, again heavily mortgaged, passed to a younger son, Lord Spencer Stanley Chichester (1775-1819). He also inherited Dunbrody Abbey, Co Wexford, with a townhouse in Saint James’s Square, London, 20,000 acres on the Inishowen Peninsula in Co Donegal, the townland of Ballymacarrett, Co Down, the lands through which the Lagan Canal passed … and the family’s Gainsborough portraits.
But Spencer Chichester’s gambling debts also caught up with him. In 1801, he sold some of his lands in Lichfield, Alrewas, Whittington, Wichnor, Comberford, Coton, Tamworth and Hopwas, including two public houses and various burgage tenements in Lichfield, to the Lane family of King’s Bromley.
By January 1805, Spencer Chichester was seeking legal opinion on his title to the Manor of Comberford and Wigginton. Eventually, he was forced to sell Fisherwick, where the great house was demolished. This branch of the Chichester family, crippled by the gambling debts of profligate sons, found it impossible to pay off their loans, and were forced to sell Comberford Hall and the manorial rights and lands that went with it.
Lord Spencer Chichester’s son, Arthur Chichester, was given the title of Baron Templemore in 1831, and his branch of the family eventually inherited the Donegall titles.
A collection of Arthur Street names in Belfast (Photographs: Patrick Comerford, 2024)
Athur Chichester of Fisherwick, Marquis of Donegall, and many of his family members are remembered to this day in street names throughout the city centre in Belfast.
Arthur Street, Arthur Place, Arthur Lane, Arthur Square and Upper Arthur Street take their name from Arthur Chichester.
Chichester Street leads from Donegall Square east to Victoria Street, and then onto Oxford Street. Chichester Avenue, Chichester Close, Chichester Court, Chichester Gardens, Chichester Park and Chichester Road are off Antrim Road.
Fisherwick Presbyterian Church … moved from Fisherwick Place to Malone Road in 1901 (Photograph: Patrick Comerford)
Fisherwick Place takes its name from Fisherwick Hall near Lichfield. It is a small street running from Great Victoria Street to College Square, and the corner with Howard Street is dominated by Church House, the headquarters of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland.
Church House stands on the site of Fisherwick Place Presbyterian Church, which was founded in 1823. When Church House was built on the site, the church moved to a site on Malone Road, and the new church opened as Fisherwick Presbyterian Church in 1901.
Marquis Street was originally known as Ferguson’s Lane after the family of Sir Samuel Ferguson, the Belfast-born lawyer and poet. Its name was changed in deference to the Marquis of Donegall.
Donegall Square and City Hall in the heart of Belfast (Photograph: Patrick Comerford, 2024)
The name Donegall appears in several places in Belfast, including Donegall Square, Donegall Road, Donegall Place, Donegall Gardens, Donegall Lane and Donegall Parade.
But it is worth noting tha the spelling of the name throughout Belfast is with two Ls, the way the Chichester family spelt it in their titles since the 17th century.
When the first Marquess of Donegall built a new church in Belfast, he named its Saint Anne’s Church in honour of his first wife, Lady Anne Hamilton, daughter of the Duke of Hamilton, whom he married in 1761. It has since been replaced by Saint Anne’s Cathedral.
Charlotte Street and Little Charlotte Street off Donegall Pass (Photographs: Patrick Comerford, 2024)
Charlotte Street and Little Charlotte Street, in a loyalist heartland off Donegall Pass, are named after either his eldest daughter, Lady Charlotte Anne Chichester, who was born in 1762 and died in infancy, or his second wife, the widowed Charlotte (née Spencer) Moore. They were married on 24 October 1788, she had no children and she died less than a year after their marriage, on 19 September 1789.
The name of My Lady’s Road near Ormeau Road is intriguing. When the 2nd Marquis of Donegall went to live at Ormeau House about 1807, the former Anna May did not appreciate the journey along a row of dilapidated cottages with broken windows. A special way was made for Lady Donegall and became known as My Lady’s Road. Ormeau Avenue and Ormeau Road take their name from Ormeau House.
Templemore Avenue, Close, Park, Place and Street and the Templemore Baths in East Belfast take their name from the title held by Lord Spencer Chichester’s descendants. But during last weekend’s visit, I never managed to visit Lichfield Avenue, off Bloomfield Road in East Belfast.
Arthur Square in Belfast city centre … the streets off it include Ann Street, Arthur Street, Castle Lane, Cornmarket and William Street (Photograph: Patrick Comerford, 2024)
19 September 2024
Daily prayer in Ordinary Time 2024:
132, Thursday 19 September 2024
Peter Paul Rubens, ‘The Feast of Simon the Pharisee’
Patrick Comerford
We are continuing in Ordinary Time in the Church Calendar and this week began with the Sixteenth Sunday after Trinity (15 September 2024). Today, the calendar of the Church of England in Common Worship remembers Saint Theodore of Tarsus (690), Archbishop of Canterbury.
Before today begins, I am taking some quiet time this morning to give thanks, for reflection, prayer and reading in these ways:
1, today’s Gospel reading;
2, a reflection on the Gospel reading;
3, a prayer from the USPG prayer diary;
4, the Collects and Post-Communion prayer of the day.
James Tissot, ‘The Ointment of the Magdalene’ (‘Le parfum de Madeleine’) … however, the woman in Simon’s house, Mary Magdalene and the woman caught in adultery are three different people (Photograph: Brooklyn Museum)
Luke 7: 36-50 (NRSVA)
36 One of the Pharisees asked Jesus to eat with him, and he went into the Pharisee’s house and took his place at the table. 37 And a woman in the city, who was a sinner, having learned that he was eating in the Pharisee’s house, brought an alabaster jar of ointment. 38 She stood behind him at his feet, weeping, and began to bathe his feet with her tears and to dry them with her hair. Then she continued kissing his feet and anointing them with the ointment. 39 Now when the Pharisee who had invited him saw it, he said to himself, ‘If this man were a prophet, he would have known who and what kind of woman this is who is touching him – that she is a sinner.’ 40 Jesus spoke up and said to him, ‘Simon, I have something to say to you.’ ‘Teacher,’ he replied, ‘speak.’ 41 ‘A certain creditor had two debtors; one owed five hundred denarii, and the other fifty. 42 When they could not pay, he cancelled the debts for both of them. Now which of them will love him more?’ 43 Simon answered, ‘I suppose the one for whom he cancelled the greater debt.’ And Jesus said to him, ‘You have judged rightly.’ 44 Then turning towards the woman, he said to Simon, ‘Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave me no water for my feet, but she has bathed my feet with her tears and dried them with her hair. 45 You gave me no kiss, but from the time I came in she has not stopped kissing my feet. 46 You did not anoint my head with oil, but she has anointed my feet with ointment. 47 Therefore, I tell you, her sins, which were many, have been forgiven; hence she has shown great love. But the one to whom little is forgiven, loves little.’ 48 Then he said to her, ‘Your sins are forgiven.’ 49 But those who were at the table with him began to say among themselves, ‘Who is this who even forgives sins?’ 50 And he said to the woman, ‘Your faith has saved you; go in peace.’
Christ in the House of Simon, by Dieric Bouts (1440s)
Today’s Reflection:
In today’s Gospel reading in the lectionary for Holy Communion (Luke 7: 36-50), Jesus is a guest, but the unwelcome guest at the meal, when he is invited to the house of Simon the Pharisee.
Jesus is accused at different times of eating with publicans and sinners. As we read yesterday, he knows that his detractors point to him and say: ‘Look, a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ (Luke 7: 34).
But Jesus also eats with Pharisees too. Indeed, he may have had many meals with Pharisees, although the Gospel writers simply make a passing reference to the host without naming him (see Luke 14: 1-24), or perhaps ignore the meals altogether.
However, at this meal, I imagine an evening when Jesus is found eating with an eminently respectable member of society, a Pharisee, and a leading Pharisee at that too.
Jesus is invited to dinner by a leading Pharisee, Simon, although it is some time before we learn the name of the host that evening. Nor is it clear which city he lives in. Is it Capernaum? Is it Nain or Bethany? I don’t know, I don’t know that it really matters. What does matter is that the man who should have been the host fails at his task, and the guest at the dinner becomes the true host.
Have you ever been at a dinner where you know some of the guests were invited simply to boost the ego of those who had invited them? Do you know what I mean by the dinner-party-name-dropping-syndrome?
Some might think Simon was suffering from DPND syndrome when he invited Jesus to dinner. I am not inclined to think so: after all, just a few verses earlier, Jesus has come in for some severe criticism, and has given a robust response.
Simon may have thought he was doing the decent thing … a Pharisee inviting a visiting rabbi and preacher to dinner would have been common courtesy and a common experience.
Nor is there is nothing unusual, anything offensive, about the behaviour of Jesus at this meal. He takes his allotted or allocated place at the table, and he probably enjoyed the conversation with the people beside him and opposite him.
But then the drama begins.
A woman in the city, a woman known as a sinner, manages to get in. Now, despite popular portrayal and the myths of centuries, it does not necessarily mean that this woman was an open and public sinner, a figure who was known for her sinful ways.
Those who were blind or who were suffering from leprosy or a physical ailment were often treated as sinners. They were seen as having brought their visible scars on themselves, or to be suffering because of the sins of their parents or their ancestors.
Perhaps she was not the easy woman of popular story-telling. Perhaps she was blind, or was disabled physically in some way. We are not told.
And some people ask: how did she get into the house anyway?
But on a balmy summer’s evening in a Mediterranean house, people will normally eat in the inner courtyard that is the part of any house of substance. I just love those long evening dinners in Greece, where you break bread and pour wine for each other at long tables, and as you hand the bread to and pour the wine for the person next to you, the natural response is σε ευχαριστώ (seh efcharisto, thank you), the very phrase that gives us the word Eucharist, thanksgiving.
Anyway, as they were sitting around, perhaps in the inner courtyard, giving thanks to each other, this woman slips in, unnoticed. There was no need for her to gatecrash, she probably just slipped in silently and unnoticed.
At first, even Jesus would not have noticed her, for she stands behind him.
What hurt this unnoticeable woman on the margins so much that she cried so profusely? She cries so much that she must have been deeply hurt, thoroughly dejected and rejected.
I think Rubens and the other great painters get it wrong when they show her in front of Jesus, washing and drying his feet. This woman’s very marginalisation is symbolised in four ways:
• No-one noticed her coming in, or if they did, she was not worth going to the bother of throwing out.
• When she is noticed, she is regarded by all present as being a sinner, although Jesus tells us that she has been forgiven … probably long before this incident took place.
• She remains unnamed, anonymous, throughout this story. At the beginning, Simon is unnamed, but eventually we get to know who he is. This woman is obviously well-known in her town, but no-one calls her by her name. And in Christian tradition, we have continued to deny her identity, often confusing her with Mary Magdalene and with the woman caught in adultery – two completely different people altogether.
• And by her physical place at the table: she is standing behind Jesus, at the back, perhaps just where the servants would have stood as they waited to bring more dishes, or clear away some empty plates. But she takes the place of the servant at the table … in other words, she is a true deacon.
The woman’s behaviour is embarrassing for Simon. He never went through the normal courtesies and formalities of welcoming a guest into the house, seeing that his shoes were taken from him, his feet washed, his head anointed.
But her alabaster and tears used for anointing and washing Jesus, his head and his feet, also prefigures something else: the women who come to wash the corpse of the Crucified Christ, and to anoint him in his grave (Luke 24: 1-11).
This woman prefigures those women who will be the first witnesses of the Resurrection … perhaps she even is one of them.
Wanting to eject her is a rejection of the Easter faith.
Simon thinks Jesus should know who this woman really is, failing to realise that Jesus knows what is really going on in Simon’s heart.
Simon is embarrassed, not by what Jesus might know about him, but by the woman.
But Jesus is not embarrassed at all. Instead of confronting the woman, he confronts Simon, and he commends this woman for her faith. He sends her out in peace – the very dismissal that we should experience at the end of the Liturgy every Sunday, week-by-week. She is sent out as a disciple, as an apostle, as a missionary.
And Simon wants to eject her.
Not because of who she is, or because of her reputation, but because she has shown him up to be a poor host.
There is a sharp contrast between the shallow faith of Simon, the pillar of the Church, and the woman, who has been pushed to the margins, a sharp contrast between those with apparent faith and no response, and those dismissed for having no faith but who are full in their response to Christ’s presence among us.
Simon fails in offering the proper hospitality to his guest. This woman on the other hand receives the full and generous hospitality of God.
Simon has no place in his house for this woman – and to be honest, no place in his house for Jesus. But God has a place for her in his kingdom.
The conversations between Jesus and this woman is a model for all our encounters with people we see as different or as strangers.
Am I like Simon, and only willing to count in within my inner circle those who are like me and who behave according to my standards?
If I am going to enter into conversation with the stranger, am I open to listening to them, to talking openly and honestly with them about where they come from and what they believe?
When the conversation is over, will they remain strangers?
How open am I to new friendships?
How often do I think people get what they deserve rather than sympathising with their predicaments?
Do I live up to my weekly commission to go out into the world in peace and in the name of the Risen Christ?
The anointing of Christ’s feet … an illuminated manuscript, ca 1500 (Wikipedia/ the National Library of Wales)
Today’s Prayers (Thursday 19 September 2024):
The theme this week in ‘Pray With the World Church,’ the Prayer Diary of the Anglican mission agency USPG (United Society Partners in the Gospel), is ‘The 5-finger prayer from the Diocese of Kuching, Malaysia.’ This theme was introduced on Sunday in reflections as told to Rachel Weller, Communications Officer, USPG.
The USPG Prayer Diary today (Thursday 19 September 2024) invites us to pray:
Ring Finger (those in need): Today we pray and remember those who are sick or are treated badly. Pray that Jesus would give them new strength.
The Collect:
O Lord, we beseech you mercifully to hear the prayers
of your people who call upon you;
and grant that they may both perceive and know
what things they ought to do,
and also may have grace and power faithfully to fulfil them;
through Jesus Christ your Son our Lord,
who is alive and reigns with you,
in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
one God, now and for ever.
The Post Communion Prayer:
Almighty God,
you have taught us through your Son
that love is the fulfilling of the law:
grant that we may love you with our whole heart
and our neighbours as ourselves;
through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Additional Collect:
Lord of creation,
whose glory is around and within us:
open our eyes to your wonders,
that we may serve you with reverence
and know your peace at our lives’ end,
through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Yesterday’s reflection
Continued tomorrow
Mary anoints the feet of Jesus in Bethany (see John 12: 1-8) … a window in the north aisle of Saint Mary’s Church in St Neot’s, Cambridgeshire (Photograph: Patrick Comerford, 2024)
Scripture quotations are from the New Revised Standard Version Bible: Anglicised Edition copyright © 1989, 1995 National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide. http://nrsvbibles.org
Patrick Comerford
We are continuing in Ordinary Time in the Church Calendar and this week began with the Sixteenth Sunday after Trinity (15 September 2024). Today, the calendar of the Church of England in Common Worship remembers Saint Theodore of Tarsus (690), Archbishop of Canterbury.
Before today begins, I am taking some quiet time this morning to give thanks, for reflection, prayer and reading in these ways:
1, today’s Gospel reading;
2, a reflection on the Gospel reading;
3, a prayer from the USPG prayer diary;
4, the Collects and Post-Communion prayer of the day.
James Tissot, ‘The Ointment of the Magdalene’ (‘Le parfum de Madeleine’) … however, the woman in Simon’s house, Mary Magdalene and the woman caught in adultery are three different people (Photograph: Brooklyn Museum)
Luke 7: 36-50 (NRSVA)
36 One of the Pharisees asked Jesus to eat with him, and he went into the Pharisee’s house and took his place at the table. 37 And a woman in the city, who was a sinner, having learned that he was eating in the Pharisee’s house, brought an alabaster jar of ointment. 38 She stood behind him at his feet, weeping, and began to bathe his feet with her tears and to dry them with her hair. Then she continued kissing his feet and anointing them with the ointment. 39 Now when the Pharisee who had invited him saw it, he said to himself, ‘If this man were a prophet, he would have known who and what kind of woman this is who is touching him – that she is a sinner.’ 40 Jesus spoke up and said to him, ‘Simon, I have something to say to you.’ ‘Teacher,’ he replied, ‘speak.’ 41 ‘A certain creditor had two debtors; one owed five hundred denarii, and the other fifty. 42 When they could not pay, he cancelled the debts for both of them. Now which of them will love him more?’ 43 Simon answered, ‘I suppose the one for whom he cancelled the greater debt.’ And Jesus said to him, ‘You have judged rightly.’ 44 Then turning towards the woman, he said to Simon, ‘Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave me no water for my feet, but she has bathed my feet with her tears and dried them with her hair. 45 You gave me no kiss, but from the time I came in she has not stopped kissing my feet. 46 You did not anoint my head with oil, but she has anointed my feet with ointment. 47 Therefore, I tell you, her sins, which were many, have been forgiven; hence she has shown great love. But the one to whom little is forgiven, loves little.’ 48 Then he said to her, ‘Your sins are forgiven.’ 49 But those who were at the table with him began to say among themselves, ‘Who is this who even forgives sins?’ 50 And he said to the woman, ‘Your faith has saved you; go in peace.’
Christ in the House of Simon, by Dieric Bouts (1440s)
Today’s Reflection:
In today’s Gospel reading in the lectionary for Holy Communion (Luke 7: 36-50), Jesus is a guest, but the unwelcome guest at the meal, when he is invited to the house of Simon the Pharisee.
Jesus is accused at different times of eating with publicans and sinners. As we read yesterday, he knows that his detractors point to him and say: ‘Look, a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ (Luke 7: 34).
But Jesus also eats with Pharisees too. Indeed, he may have had many meals with Pharisees, although the Gospel writers simply make a passing reference to the host without naming him (see Luke 14: 1-24), or perhaps ignore the meals altogether.
However, at this meal, I imagine an evening when Jesus is found eating with an eminently respectable member of society, a Pharisee, and a leading Pharisee at that too.
Jesus is invited to dinner by a leading Pharisee, Simon, although it is some time before we learn the name of the host that evening. Nor is it clear which city he lives in. Is it Capernaum? Is it Nain or Bethany? I don’t know, I don’t know that it really matters. What does matter is that the man who should have been the host fails at his task, and the guest at the dinner becomes the true host.
Have you ever been at a dinner where you know some of the guests were invited simply to boost the ego of those who had invited them? Do you know what I mean by the dinner-party-name-dropping-syndrome?
Some might think Simon was suffering from DPND syndrome when he invited Jesus to dinner. I am not inclined to think so: after all, just a few verses earlier, Jesus has come in for some severe criticism, and has given a robust response.
Simon may have thought he was doing the decent thing … a Pharisee inviting a visiting rabbi and preacher to dinner would have been common courtesy and a common experience.
Nor is there is nothing unusual, anything offensive, about the behaviour of Jesus at this meal. He takes his allotted or allocated place at the table, and he probably enjoyed the conversation with the people beside him and opposite him.
But then the drama begins.
A woman in the city, a woman known as a sinner, manages to get in. Now, despite popular portrayal and the myths of centuries, it does not necessarily mean that this woman was an open and public sinner, a figure who was known for her sinful ways.
Those who were blind or who were suffering from leprosy or a physical ailment were often treated as sinners. They were seen as having brought their visible scars on themselves, or to be suffering because of the sins of their parents or their ancestors.
Perhaps she was not the easy woman of popular story-telling. Perhaps she was blind, or was disabled physically in some way. We are not told.
And some people ask: how did she get into the house anyway?
But on a balmy summer’s evening in a Mediterranean house, people will normally eat in the inner courtyard that is the part of any house of substance. I just love those long evening dinners in Greece, where you break bread and pour wine for each other at long tables, and as you hand the bread to and pour the wine for the person next to you, the natural response is σε ευχαριστώ (seh efcharisto, thank you), the very phrase that gives us the word Eucharist, thanksgiving.
Anyway, as they were sitting around, perhaps in the inner courtyard, giving thanks to each other, this woman slips in, unnoticed. There was no need for her to gatecrash, she probably just slipped in silently and unnoticed.
At first, even Jesus would not have noticed her, for she stands behind him.
What hurt this unnoticeable woman on the margins so much that she cried so profusely? She cries so much that she must have been deeply hurt, thoroughly dejected and rejected.
I think Rubens and the other great painters get it wrong when they show her in front of Jesus, washing and drying his feet. This woman’s very marginalisation is symbolised in four ways:
• No-one noticed her coming in, or if they did, she was not worth going to the bother of throwing out.
• When she is noticed, she is regarded by all present as being a sinner, although Jesus tells us that she has been forgiven … probably long before this incident took place.
• She remains unnamed, anonymous, throughout this story. At the beginning, Simon is unnamed, but eventually we get to know who he is. This woman is obviously well-known in her town, but no-one calls her by her name. And in Christian tradition, we have continued to deny her identity, often confusing her with Mary Magdalene and with the woman caught in adultery – two completely different people altogether.
• And by her physical place at the table: she is standing behind Jesus, at the back, perhaps just where the servants would have stood as they waited to bring more dishes, or clear away some empty plates. But she takes the place of the servant at the table … in other words, she is a true deacon.
The woman’s behaviour is embarrassing for Simon. He never went through the normal courtesies and formalities of welcoming a guest into the house, seeing that his shoes were taken from him, his feet washed, his head anointed.
But her alabaster and tears used for anointing and washing Jesus, his head and his feet, also prefigures something else: the women who come to wash the corpse of the Crucified Christ, and to anoint him in his grave (Luke 24: 1-11).
This woman prefigures those women who will be the first witnesses of the Resurrection … perhaps she even is one of them.
Wanting to eject her is a rejection of the Easter faith.
Simon thinks Jesus should know who this woman really is, failing to realise that Jesus knows what is really going on in Simon’s heart.
Simon is embarrassed, not by what Jesus might know about him, but by the woman.
But Jesus is not embarrassed at all. Instead of confronting the woman, he confronts Simon, and he commends this woman for her faith. He sends her out in peace – the very dismissal that we should experience at the end of the Liturgy every Sunday, week-by-week. She is sent out as a disciple, as an apostle, as a missionary.
And Simon wants to eject her.
Not because of who she is, or because of her reputation, but because she has shown him up to be a poor host.
There is a sharp contrast between the shallow faith of Simon, the pillar of the Church, and the woman, who has been pushed to the margins, a sharp contrast between those with apparent faith and no response, and those dismissed for having no faith but who are full in their response to Christ’s presence among us.
Simon fails in offering the proper hospitality to his guest. This woman on the other hand receives the full and generous hospitality of God.
Simon has no place in his house for this woman – and to be honest, no place in his house for Jesus. But God has a place for her in his kingdom.
The conversations between Jesus and this woman is a model for all our encounters with people we see as different or as strangers.
Am I like Simon, and only willing to count in within my inner circle those who are like me and who behave according to my standards?
If I am going to enter into conversation with the stranger, am I open to listening to them, to talking openly and honestly with them about where they come from and what they believe?
When the conversation is over, will they remain strangers?
How open am I to new friendships?
How often do I think people get what they deserve rather than sympathising with their predicaments?
Do I live up to my weekly commission to go out into the world in peace and in the name of the Risen Christ?
The anointing of Christ’s feet … an illuminated manuscript, ca 1500 (Wikipedia/ the National Library of Wales)
Today’s Prayers (Thursday 19 September 2024):
The theme this week in ‘Pray With the World Church,’ the Prayer Diary of the Anglican mission agency USPG (United Society Partners in the Gospel), is ‘The 5-finger prayer from the Diocese of Kuching, Malaysia.’ This theme was introduced on Sunday in reflections as told to Rachel Weller, Communications Officer, USPG.
The USPG Prayer Diary today (Thursday 19 September 2024) invites us to pray:
Ring Finger (those in need): Today we pray and remember those who are sick or are treated badly. Pray that Jesus would give them new strength.
The Collect:
O Lord, we beseech you mercifully to hear the prayers
of your people who call upon you;
and grant that they may both perceive and know
what things they ought to do,
and also may have grace and power faithfully to fulfil them;
through Jesus Christ your Son our Lord,
who is alive and reigns with you,
in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
one God, now and for ever.
The Post Communion Prayer:
Almighty God,
you have taught us through your Son
that love is the fulfilling of the law:
grant that we may love you with our whole heart
and our neighbours as ourselves;
through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Additional Collect:
Lord of creation,
whose glory is around and within us:
open our eyes to your wonders,
that we may serve you with reverence
and know your peace at our lives’ end,
through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Yesterday’s reflection
Continued tomorrow
Mary anoints the feet of Jesus in Bethany (see John 12: 1-8) … a window in the north aisle of Saint Mary’s Church in St Neot’s, Cambridgeshire (Photograph: Patrick Comerford, 2024)
Scripture quotations are from the New Revised Standard Version Bible: Anglicised Edition copyright © 1989, 1995 National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide. http://nrsvbibles.org
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)