A SERMON PREACHED AT THE ST. ANDREW
PARISH CHURCH, ALSO BEING THE 1ST ANNIVERSARY OF THE NATIONAL
INTEGRITY ACTION, DECEMBER 9, 2012.
Let us pray.
Gracious God, who sent your own Son to
prepare the way for our salvation, give us the grace to heed his word and
accept his forgiveness of our many sins. In the name of Jesus Christ who lives
with you and with us, now and forever. Amen.
Luke 3:4-6
The voice of one crying out in the wilderness:
Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths
straight.
Every valley shall be filled, and every mountain and
hill shall be made low,
And the crooked shall be made straight, and the
rough ways made smooth; and all flesh shall see the salvation of God.
Today is the second Sunday in
Advent. As such, it has that
over-arching theme of the season, namely, the second coming of Christ in
triumph and the need for human readiness in face of such an impending
reality. This Sunday, however, has as a
particular focus, the messengers of God –
those who have served to herald the activity of God through the ages, including
those who heralded the coming of Christ in humility the first time, and those
who seek to herald his second coming, and the reality of the Kingdom which he
has already inaugurated, but which he will bring to fulfillment on his return.
In the context of the readings and the
Advent season, the person of the messenger of God, seems to be a reference to
the religious leader, whether prophet or priest. Nevertheless, it is true to say that the messenger
of God is not restricted to a religious functionary within institutional
religion. Just the very thought of
assigning the designation of “messenger of God” to anyone, is likely to create
difficulties for some in the modern and increasingly secular world. Indeed, it is true to say that even when
identified with religious figures, developments within the life of individual
ministers/church leaders in the international and national arenas, have at
times raised serious questions in the minds of people concerning the
credibility and integrity of individuals who dare to claim the designation of messengers
of God. In the wider context though, we
are also seeing, as part of the functioning of the post-modern society, a sense
of suspicion toward, and the questioning of every institution and person of
authority, the messenger of God being no exception. So in the midst of a modern and pluralistic
world we question the relevance and authority of such a person, since after
all, much of life is organized around our subjective perceptions and choices.
Notwithstanding these realities, we are
still left with the fact that there are persons who through the ages have been
faithful messengers of God and, as such, had an authentic word from God to
deliver to those who would listen and those who refuse to listen. In the gospel for today we encounter one such
messenger, namely, John the Baptist, as he undertook his mission as presented
by St. Luke.
One
of the features of Luke's Gospel is that it employs temporal markers to situate
the Good News within a historical landscape (cf. Luke 1:1-5). So while the word
being proclaimed by John the Baptist is "in the wilderness" around
the Jordan, it is in reality being proclaimed within the wider context of the
wilderness of the political world: during the reigns of emperor
Tiberius, governor Pilate, and "ruler" Herod. Luke is
quite intentional in situating the advent of the revelation to John the
Baptizer in the context of the temporal framework of the native ruler Herod,
the local but foreign governor Pilate, and the final authority who sits above
all, Tiberius. Luke is making it clear
at this point that the drama that is to be played out is not a religious one
which has no contextual relevance to the political system of governance. Clearly, Luke is from the outset pointing us
to the fact that the activities and the word which the messenger of God has to
deliver is not just for some kind of esoteric community of the religious but,
the wider reality of the civil and religious community.
Additionally, as one
commentator points out, “this is a top-down look at the political reality of
the day. In a sense, this would situate the word, which comes to John, and the
Messiah whose path John prepares, in very bottom-up terms; the small, the
unexpected, the apparently trivial comes as answer to the problems of the
hierarchical political structure under which it is apparently pinned. So the
messenger and the one who becomes the very embodiment of the message, the
Messiah, Jesus, are not just part of the status quo, but voices and actors from
the very bottom of the rung with a word that speaks to the highest reaches of
the system of governance”. Here is
clearly a word to those who constitute the system of governance and are not
favourably disposed toward those at the bottom of the rung who would call them
to account, even as it is a word to those at the bottom of the rung who seek to
retreat behind the claim of impotence and inability to influence what happens
in governance.
But Luke does not allow
the religious community to somehow drift into the background as if the
revelation to be manifested in John is for a secular and unholy order of
governance and civil society. So Luke
does not stop with his focus on the political order. He goes on to list the
"spiritual" or "religious" power-structure as well. Not
only are Tiberius, Pilate, and Herod noted, but the high priests Annas and
Caiaphas are highlighted as well. There may be a sense in which the religious
parallel to the political hierarchy is intentional, representing another strand
of leadership which must also be addressed by the revelation of the messenger.
It
is then into a world that stands under the jurisdiction and control of these
various authorities that John makes his entry as the messenger of God. The word comes to John in the midst of the
messy reality of a world defined by both secular and religious powers. It is a wounded world, and like a two-edged
sword, the word comes to John, dividing religion and politics, interjecting
itself in both the political and religious realms?
What then is the nature
and content of the message which John has to deliver? The first thing to note is that it points to
God as the principal actor rather than focusing on the person of the
messenger. By drawing on the quotation
of Isaiah 40:3-5, which forms the text, Luke wants us to see this new initiative
that is coming to fruition as the fulfillment of God’s promise made to Israel.
In its original context, this quotation, in Isaiah, had to do with a promise of
return from Exile. God will make straight paths through the wilderness, a
smooth and easy return -- in essence a new "exodus" -- bringing the
people of Israel out of bondage and back to the Promised Land. The path is for
the people; God-made, God-led. This is the proclamation of the prophet
(Isaiah), made to the people; it is declarative,
promising, hopeful.
Luke then locates John
the Baptist, the contemporary messenger, within the framework of God’s liberating
activity by recalling and renewing the promise of old, and giving it current
application, even while noting that the current application requires a new
interpretation. So John is now the one who is out in the wilderness, preparing
the way of the Lord. The path is by the people, who are called to repentance,
to return themselves to their Lord; God-focused, human-centered action. This is
the promise of the prophet himself (John) who calls for a different kind of
return to God; his message is one of exhortation,
challenge, command. So then, here are two aspects to the message: one
promises God's action, the other calls for human action/response. And, for the Church, that two-fold action of
God on the one hand and human action on the other continues through subsequent
ages.
That ongoing divine activity was
highlighted a few Sundays ago, when the Church observed the feast of Christ the
King, which has as its central focus the fact that Christ our risen and
ascended Lord has begun his reign, and that all the powers of this world are
subject to him, and furthermore, all evil is being brought down. The ultimate end of human existence in the
divine providence is the return of Christ and the final defeat of all
principalities and powers which have been purveyors of evil and have rejected
the message of the gospel. That is at
the centre of Christian hope, and I am prepared to affirm that there is nothing
that politicians, economists, or the managers of this global environment have
to offer which contains for me any sense of an alternative hope to the
Christian hope, and which is credible.
In the meanwhile, the role of the
Church, that is, all of us, is to proclaim the truth of the message of the
gospel. We will never be able to do it
by matching forces with the powers of this world. Indeed, our efforts may look very feeble and
we may even be perceived as weaklings and the vulnerable of the world, but the
day of judgment comes and Christ will call persons to account.
Another
manifestation and affirmation of the divine activity in human affairs is in the
Church’s observance of the season of Advent in which we have now entered. It is a time of preparation for the reception
of that great divine activity known as the Incarnation, in which God not only
affirms his power and control in entering the world with all of its distortions
and frailty, but that he has the power to redeem human life and the world from
the grip of any force of evil. That
reality was demonstrated at the birth of Jesus Christ and is recalled and
celebrated each succeeding Christmas. Advent
points us to the ultimate fulfillment of our hope of the coming of the end of
the age, while affirming that the climax of the story is the supremacy of God,
and the participation in his reign and rule by those who in their own time have
been alert, watchful, prayerful, and pursuing a life of holiness.
But
one of the things about faith affirmations is that they run the risk of lifting
us into the realm of the ethereal whereby we lose our sense of being grounded
in the realities of life. It is for this
reason that I am pleased to have worshipping with us members and supporters of
the National Integrity Action Jamaica. [The
National Integrity Action (which began
with its antecedent institution National Integrity Action Forum) was
launched in January 2009 with its main purpose being “to build public awareness
of the critical importance of and steer a comprehensive action plan in the
national struggle against corruption in Jamaica.”
The
aims are to help:
-
Combat the corruption plaguing the
Jamaican society
-
Reduce the level of frustration amongst
champions of integrity
-
Contribute to concrete results which can
dispel the pervasive perception that Jamaica is amongst the most corrupt of
Caribbean countries.]
Many
of us Jamaicans make corruption a partisan political issue which one party and
its followers use to gain political mileage over against the other. Indeed, it often becomes a kind of comic
circus of a tragic nature, by which millions of dollars and creative energy are
put into investigations of the outgoing political party by the incoming one, in
one of the most wasteful exercises, achieving absolutely nothing of consequence
at the end of the day. So what then is
corruption?
In a
release issued by the Office of the Contractor General on December 9, 2010,
corruption was defined as follows:
“Defined
generally as the abuse of public office for private gain, corruption, which is
often driven by individual greed, will manifest itself in ways which are
inimical to the national security and political and socio-economic interest of
the world community of countries, of which Jamaica is a part. Its impact is incredibly wide.
Corruption
erodes the quality of life, leads to human rights violation, steals political
elections, distorts financial markets, reduces investor confidence, increases
the price of goods and services, undermines or destroys confidence in critical
public institutions, and enables organized crime, terrorism and other threats
to human security to flourish”.
Corruption comes in many
guises: bribery, extortion, fraud, trafficking, embezzlement, nepotism and
cronyism. For some of us Jamaicans,
corruption is a kind of conversation piece for the verandah, as it is deemed
not to have anything to do with us but with politicians, public servants, the
“big man”, and the party “faithfuls”. And
yet corruption is something which involves all of us as members of this
society. Yes, when we pass cash to a
policeman to avoid getting a ticket; do not bother to have our car go to the
Examination Depot to have it passed for a certificate of fitness, but send
along some extra cash with the papers; or when we purchase goods from persons
we know are not legitimate and boast of the bargain price, we are complicit in
the corruption in this society. I
recently learnt of the man who was caught stealing orchids from someone’s
garden in Upper St. Andrew, and who was chased and held. It turned out that he was on a mission to
steal the orchids for the “big man” who was waiting on him in his BMW parked
further down the road.
In a similar vein, the
nation would have heard the Minister of National Security giving a speech in
Montego Bay recently, in the wake of the rape of that household of women and
girls. In that speech he appealed to his
audience to report wrongdoing in their neighbourhood, and his offering as a
specific example the fact that if scamming is known to be going on in their
neighbourhood they are to report it. To
which a loud chorus of “NO!” was forthcoming from a gathering of women. Not surprisingly, there are persons who would
like to see the government and the police ease up the pressure on scammers.
The National Integrity
Action may cringe at the thought of being identified as messengers of God, but
they are certainly calling us as a nation to confront and reject in our system
of governance, our social and economic relations, and in our own lives the
moral evil of corruption which is plaguing our society and contrary to the will
of God for his people. For the Christian,
as I hope for the NIA, the call to stand against corruption is grounded in God,
constitutes a part of the divine action, even as it demands human action and
response. But, the messengers of God,
whether prophet, priest, or lay persons, must not only be persons who are
possessing of a sensitive moral conscience.
The
messenger of God understands that the message which he or she has to deliver to
the society is of God, so that the locus of authority does not merely reside in
self and the dictates of one’s moral conscience, because, not only can the
conscience be deceived but, the truth is that not everyone who presents
himself/herself as having a call and message from God is duly called of
God. As the old gentleman was heard to
say after having to deal with an ill-natured, and ill-tempered minister, “Look
at it eh, some went, but were not sent”, echoing a prophetic condemnation of
false prophets found in the Old Testament.
With that strong sense of being called and entrusted with a message, the
messenger of God in Scripture was able to claim the formula of the messenger –
“Thus says the Lord”- authority. And the
truth of the matter is that to be a faithful messenger of God, the very people
and institutions to which you are sent will wear you out, without heeding the
message. The mission to get legislation passed to allow for accountability and
the prosecution of corrupt public servants who are found to be corrupt, to get
legislation to have a single agency deal with matters related to corruption, and
the mission to get legislation to govern election campaign finances, will weary
the spirit of the most committed messenger.
Have you not noticed that it is with the departure of Contractor
General, Greg Christie, from office that the society is not ready to beatify
him? At last he is in no position to
cause offence to those whose social status he apparently overlooked and so
belittled them by bringing them under the microscope of his jurisdiction! Thankfully,
renewal for the messenger comes from God.
The
messenger of God must have the capacity to empathize with human hurt and alienation
– individual and social. As such, the messenger must be related to the actual
context of “political power, social crises, economic needs, and cultural
transformations” within which people live.
The messenger of God of old did not have on blinders which allowed them
to see only that thing called the “religious”.
They saw life as people lived it.
They saw the suffering, the injustice, the frustration, and with
particular reference to corruption, they knew that in the long run the primary
victims are the poor. Those politicians
and others who love to say that the Church must not concern itself with
politics but only with religion, have no idea what the Judeo-Christian religion
is about. Not to mention the fact that
Christians who subscribe to this view have no appreciation of the prophetic
condemnation of religion that is focused on ritual and worship experiences but
which neglect the weightier matters of justice, hospitality, care for the
outcast and stranger, etc.
Think also of the cutting words of a
Hosea, Joel or Amos, with the plea for justice.
For example, Amos 5:24:
Let justice roll
down like waters,
And
righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.
The truth is that authentic messengers
of God do not make good friends of those who control society, because the
latter do not want things to change in favour of those who hurt and are
oppressed. Attempts to discredit
messengers in our world are many and some of us choose to remain naïve or to
simply maintain our loyalties.
The messenger of God never loses sight
of those who hurt and the context of life.
The
messenger of God offers credible moral leadership arising out of prophetic
moral imagination (moral vision). It was
the prophet Jeremiah who said, “where there is no vision, the people perish”,
and which words are embedded in our national anthem. Another way of expressing the same idea is
that the society looks at things in terms of how they are, while the messenger
of God looks at things in terms of how they should be. If a society is to move
ahead it needs men and women of vision who can imagine things as they could
become. People who simply maintain
things outlive their usefulness eventually.
So, the society needs people possessing of moral vision to guide it.
At various times we have been blessed
with such persons of moral vision within Caribbean society. Part of the tragedy of the situation is that
we often lack the kind of social, political and religious leadership necessary
to build on the moral vision bequeathed to us.
We need the messengers of God more than ever who have the moral and
spiritual imagination which serves as a guide and critique for society.
The
messenger of God stands under the judgment of the message which he/she
proclaims. So the messenger of God lays no claim to an “holier than thou”
posture. This is one of the most
difficult aspects of being a messenger, but it is based on the premise that the
truth of what is proclaimed does not originate with the messenger but is of
God. The prophet Ezekiel had some very harsh words of judgment for the false prophets
who claimed to have been receiving their vision from God and speaking on behalf
of God. In Ezekiel 13:1+ we read:
The word of the
Lord came to me: Mortal, prophesy against the prophets of Israel who are
prophesying; say to those who prophesy out of their own imagination: “Hear the
word of the Lord!” Thus says the Lord
God, Alas for the senseless prophets who follow their own spirit, and have seen
nothing! …… They have envisioned falsehood and lying divination, they say, “Thus
says the Lord,” when the Lord has not sent them, and yet they wait for the
fulfillment of their word!
Pray, therefore, my brothers and sisters,
that:
1. God
will raise up men and women, ordained or lay, who will be messengers to our
community of faith and the world;
2. That
our messengers will be persons of sensitivity to the hurt, alienation, and the
realities of life in our context;
3. That
they will be persons of moral and religious vision and that we may be
responsive to their proclamation;
4. Pray
also that the messengers of God will be faithful and sincere knowing the
account that we must give to the one who has called us.
AMEN.
