Preaching at GMC 29.12.13. Sermon
Sermon 29.12.13 GMC
The last time I preached here on the second Sunday on
Advent, we talked about seeing or experiencing the Kingdom of God arriving in
great power. Well, I guess you might
agree that this is pretty much what happened to the people in Bethlehem on that
first Christmas. If we look at the
accounts from Matthew and Luke, we might well agree that the Kingdom of God had
just hit the town and people of Bethlehem square in the face. A group of Shepherds, minding their own
business had had their lives turned upside down. Suddenly they are given a place at the top
table at Jesus’ birth! And then they
get a visit from a diplomatic mission from somewhere near Babylon probably. These VIP visitors bring a selection of gifts
to a young teenage couple who have recently given birth to their first child,
in less than palatial surroundings.
Quite literally, the world will not be the same again because God has
arrived… albeit in a manger. What happens
next of course is perhaps suggestive of the way this child’s life is going to
pan out. Almost immediately, someone in
power and authority wants to kill him.
Mmm…That bit doesn’t quite fit with the tinsel and turkey festival that
we have managed to turn Christmas into does it.
I would like to use this opportunity to paint for you an
alternative picture of the first Christmas.
One that is light years away from the nice fluffy image we have
developed in nativity scenes played out in schools and churches up and down the
country in the run up to Christmas. A
few weeks ago someone said to me that they felt angry with people for messing
with “our Nativity”. And there is part
of the problem. It’s just not OUR
nativity at all. At least not the real
one. It happened approximately 2000
years ago in a middle eastern village/town about 5 miles outside
Jerusalem. The story we play out is one
our own creation. Mary being carried in
by a giant Rabbit probably gives the game away to some extent! I have to say that was priceless, but back to
my story. Reality of course was
something, well…. Different.
In the words of Nick Page, “beginning with shame and scandal
and ending in massacre” Probably not
really suitable for the Church nativity then.
Mary and Joseph were betrothed, when Joseph finds out his
bride to be is pregnant. Awkward moment
for Joseph, and for Mary, who stands to lose everything – perhaps even her
life. Don’t forget she was probably
about 15 years old. Joseph not that much
older. Only a piece of literature
written some 200 years after the event suggests that Joseph is an elderly
widower, and only made that way so that Mary can be a virgin for ever. It’s a piece of story telling to explain away
the awkward truth of Jesus having brothers and sisters. They had to come from somewhere, so a
previous marriage for Joseph was invented.
No, what we have here is a young teenage couple, coping with rumour and
heresay, heading off to Bethlehem for what we are told is some sort of
registration by the occupying power – Rome.
It’s not clear whether Joseph had family in Bethlehem, or
whether they had travelled to Bethlehem en Masse, but considering that Joseph
stood by Mary, it makes sense in Jewish custom for Joseph and Mary to be
staying with Joseph’s family. It’s just
what the bride did, she went to live with the grooms family. So perhaps May and Joseph did have somewhere
to go after all. She went to the inlaws!
Now let’s see what Luke actually tells us. Tellingly a word that has traditionally been
translated as an “inn” is Kataluma. This
is the same Greek word he also uses when he describes the disciples looking for
a place to hold the Last Supper. It was
a guest room, or upper room. In the well
known parable of the Good Samaritan, Luke presents us with a real inn or
hostel, and this time he uses a different word, Pandocheion. Well that’s odd. Could it be that Luke wasn’t suggesting an
inn at all in the nativity Story. Not so
much no room at the inn, as no inn.
Sorry to all the little boys, this means no innkeeper. Well at least the hotel establishments get a
better press now.
Lets take a look at a typical 1st century
Bethlehem house.
The kataluma meant the upper room, where the family
lived. There was no room here for the
baby so he was kept in a manger near the livestock that routinely lived inside
the house downstairs. Their body heat
would help heat up the area so was a good place to keep a baby safe and
warm. It is not a story of exclusion
then at all. Mary, despite all the
rumour and gossip which must have followed her, damaged goods etc, is welcomed
in by Joseph’s family and the population
of Bethlehem, as is her child.
And then horror.
Herod sends out his foot soldiers to kill Jesus and decides
that in order to make sure, he will just kill all baby boys under the age of
2. Just to be on the safe side. Remember, Herod had quizzed the magi regarding
the exact timing of their astrological observations, so he was just covering
all the bases really. Totally
understandable in a maniacal dictator sort of way. He is just using a scatter gun approach.
The massacre of course isn’t recorded anywhere, which has
led some people to question whether it actually happened. But why should it be. Bethlehem was a small village, probably no
more than 20 infants at any one time, and taking into account infant mortality,
probably less. This wasn’t worth
recording, it was just a cull, and in anyway who does the recording – those in
authority. This was highly illegal so
are they really going to incriminate themselves? Anyway it is just a handful of peasants, no
one will miss them.
The thing is, today we have almost cleansed this episode
totally out of Christmas. But it is
critical. It is a story of the price
paid for being willing to shelter and protect Jesus. The inhabitants of Bethlehem, perhaps
including some of the shepherds, would pay the price for being associated with
Jesus. Would any parent stand by and let
their child be killed. What do you think
probably happened to the parents? If we
think this behaviour is so crazy, consider that in N Korea, their beloved
leader is currently engaging in a purge.
This has included the execution of his own Uncle. In WW2, the Nazis destroyed a French village
for giving shelter to the resistance.
Women and children were burnt in the village Church.
In the light of these more recent examples of dictatorial
atrocities, and I’m sure we could all name more, it is not too hard to see
Herod; increasingly paranoid in the final stages of his illness, acting in an
out of hand fashion without any regard for human life.
The story of the massacre talks into the cost of
discipleship. When we choose to follow
Jesus, we place ourselves at risk because we will be in one way or another
putting ourselves in opposition to the ways of the world. Or we should be. Are you ready to accept this cost?
The cost of living out a life modelled by Jesus himself, of
not seeking power or status for its own sake.
Of seeking peace rather than war.
Of making sure that the poor and the disabled are cared for rather than
vilified or patronised. Of welcome the
outcast rather than creating an exclusive club.
As we contemplate our covenant service next week, let us
spend some time thinking of the phrase that we will all say; “put me to what
you will, rank me with who you will; put me to doing, put me to suffering”.
The first martyrs in Bethlehem welcomed Jesus into their
home, and looked after him. Some of them
paid for that with their lives.
Will you?
In Jesus’ name.
Amen
Comments
Post a Comment