SERMON 19 December 2004 (ADVENT 4 Year A )
Readings: Isaiah
7: 10-14 Psalm
80: 1-7, 17-19 Romans
1: 1-7 Matthew
1: 18-25
In
the name of God, for whom we wait. Amen.
The
cover story for last week’s issue of Time magazine carried the banner headline
‘Secrets of the Nativity’. It was a bit like ‘Palace secrets – Diana’s
butler/footman/ lady-in-waiting tells’. The article promised to tell us ‘why
the story of Jesus’ birth inspires so much scholarly interest – and
faith’.
Much
to my surprise, however, the article itself turned out to be a thoughtful and
interesting discussion of the latest scholarly work on the gospel stories about
Jesus’ birth. The author, David Van Biema, discusses major themes such as the
annunciation (was it a visit by Gabriel to Mary, as Luke would have it, or
indeed an anonymous angel dropping in on Joseph, as Matthew recounts – or
perhaps an angel visited both, or neither?). Van Biema considered the virgin
birth; the birthplace – Bethlehem or Nazareth?; the star (or was it a comet?);
the three kings (or was it one, or 12? And were they kings at all? where might
they have come from, and when?); the manger – or stable, or cave, or house;
and, last but not least, the angels.
As
well as drawing out both the parallels between the two gospel accounts and the
enormous differences in detail and focus between them, Van Biema discusses some
of the modern scholarly efforts to understand the context of the accounts. For
example, the names given to Jesus in Luke’s Gospel and the titles of the Roman
Emperor at the time are very similar – was this accidental, was it perhaps
intended to be a parody, or did it embody the hope that Jesus’ coming kingdom
would turn political as well as religious worlds upside down?
All
in all, it is an interesting article and I commend it to you. It may be hard to
get hold of – they had sold out by the time I got to the newsagent, clutching
in my hand a photocopy (minus p.59 which had got lost in the copying). What it
does do, amongst other things, is highlight the degree of uncertainty there is
about the actual details surrounding the conception, birth and early life of
Jesus. Not only do the two accounts we have disagree on major points, but there
is no clarity on their accuracy where they do agree. This is not a comfortable
read for anyone wanting to take a literalist approach to the texts!
Van
Biema makes the point that the gospel writers were all writing at different
times and from different perspectives with different audiences in mind. Just as
we modify our story-telling depending on the audience, so too did the Gospel
writers. I know that the males in my family could not care less about what
someone was wearing or what colour their eyes and hair are – the women, on the
other hand, would feel any story that didn’t include that kind of detail was
impoverished and boring. Similarly, the sorts of detail that interested and
convinced Luke’s probably non-Jewish readers were of no interest to
Matthew’s Jewish readers who were, on the other hand, much more concerned to
hear about the ways in which Jesus could be seen to be a fulfilment of the
Hebrew prophecies about the Messiah.
As
is the case with so many other events surrounding the life of Jesus, the
Biblical witness about his birth is not uniform, nor indeed, was it ever
intended to be.
Fact, as we modern Western people would construct it, was of much less
importance two thousand years ago than it is now. The picture of Jesus that is
presented to us through the scriptures is rich and multi-faceted. He connects
with people in many different ways, always bringing challenge, healing and
wholeness. This richness and diversity is expressed in the many names given to
him throughout the scriptures: Jesus means Saviour; Immanuel – God with us;
Christ – the Messiah, the anointed one of God; Lord; Son of Man; Son of God;
Rabbi – teacher; Prince of peace; Counsellor, Advocate … the list goes on.
At
the heart of it is the sense that God meets us where we are. The names of Jesus
reveal the many faces of God. Whatever our needs, there is a face of God which
can be presented to us and reach us, if we are but willing to see, to hear, to
reach out and to touch. The stern teacher reviling the scribes and the Pharisees
for their self-righteousness and ungodly teaching, the welcoming healer touching
the untouchables, the frustrated leader trying to communicate his message to his
followers, the friend weeping for Lazarus – all these are faces of the one who
knows what it is to be human and who seeks to bring us closer to God.
At
various points of our spiritual journey there will be different aspects of God,
different faces of Jesus which speak to us. The longer I am a Christian the more
astonished I am by the reach of God. Every corner I turn, every little change I
make, every challenge life throws up, there is God, pushing me further, opening
up some new understanding, encouraging me to greater compassion, deeper prayer.
As
you explore your spiritual life, it is worth giving some attention to your image
of God, to the names you give Jesus, even to the mental pictures you have both
of God and of Jesus. Do you have a white-haired, white-bearded God sitting on a
throne, hurling thunderbolts? Is Jesus dressed as a Palestinian Jew would have
been dressed 2000 years ago or, as one friend of mine pictures him, in jeans and
a t-shirt? What name speaks to you – Prince of Peace? Friend? Brother?
Teacher?
These
may seem trivial questions but they are deeper than they at first appear. There
is one of those little chorus things that goes ‘Jesus, we appreciate you’
– it offends me mightily and I regularly cite it as evidence of a complete
failure on the part of the writer to come to grips with the reality of God. And
yet, when I look at it more dispassionately I am forced to ask, ‘is it really
so bad? What is it about it that offends me?’ And the answer is, of course,
that it offends my sense of who Jesus is. The maker of the universe, God
incarnate, redeemer of the world and the best we can do is appreciate him? How
about a bit of love, honour and awe? It’s like standing in front of the Grand
Canyon and saying ‘that’s nice’ or saying that Chartres Cathedral has some
pretty glass in it. Some basic appreciation of what’s going on is missing.
How
we talk about God, what we call Jesus, says at least as much about our theology
and about our experience of the divine as it does about the divine itself. A
reflection on our images of God can be a helpful tool in understanding where we
are at spiritually. A reflection on the images of God which do not speak to us
can also be a very useful spiritual tool. Is there a resistance of some kind -
is there some aspect of God which we have difficulty accepting? For example, is
my contempt for the idea of ‘appreciating’ Jesus a reluctance to accept a
closeness of relationship? Am I more comfortable with an ‘out there’,
awesome Jesus than with the idea of him as a good mate?
Our
lives are spiritual journeys just as much as they are journeys through time.
This same point is made in Van Biema’s article as he reflects on the
simplicity of a child’s approach to the Christmas pageant and compares it to
the complexity of the scholarly discussion about the Biblical texts. ‘Small
children’, he says, ‘progress from incomprehension to playtime participation
to the beginnings of actual Christmas understanding’. At each point, however,
authentic encounter with God happens and can transform our lives.
As
you prepare to hear again the Christmas story, be open to a new encounter with
God, to seeing a new face, to being challenged, healed, transformed in a new
way, knowing that you are being drawn ever closer to the all in all, the alpha
and the omega, Emmanuel, Jesus.
Amen.
Sarah
Macneil