Intro to Luke 1:68 reading: Eight days after John the Baptist’s birth came time for the rite of circumcision and naming. His father, Zechariah, who had been struck dumb because he did not believe that his wife could have been pregnant in her advanced years, signalled to the priests, “Don’t call him after me as tradition demands. Call him John.” This departure pointed to the beginning of a new reality which was said to loose Zechariah’s tongue. And these Psalm-like words are given him to proclaim the significance of the birth of this child. We will read them aloud, this side and then the other led by…..
Sermon
One of our temptations is to read the bible as history. As though someone kept a diary of everything that was said and done as it happened, and all the writers had to do was compile it into a book.
Nothing could be further from the truth. The writers of books of the bible had an enormous range of previous writings, bits of tradition, remembered stories and anecdotes, poems, hymns, creeds, legends and theories, not to mention styles to choose from. Just like any modern writer. And they chose from amongst them to make a testimony of their belief or testament – more like a sermon than history.
For this reason I believe we need to give far more than we do, credit for the formation of the Christian tradition to the writers of New Testament books.
So the question “Did Zechariah really say those things?” is not relevant. More relevant is the question, “Why did the gospel writer choose this piece of tradition?” and better still, “What did the writer mean by including this piece?”
So we ask ourselves, “What did Dr Luke mean by including this poetry or psalm attributed to Zechariah? And, “Why refer to John the Baptist at all?”
John the Baptist was indeed Jesus’ cousin and a gifted child born notably late in the marriage of a priestly family. He, no doubt, like Jesus, grew up knowing that life demanded of him something special.
He eventually led a significant movement of many followers dedicated to personal renewal, asceticism and to the reform of the Jewish church against injustice and oppression that was going on within. A sign of renewal was the use of the ancient Jewish rite of baptism which Jesus himself submitted to at the beginning of his ministry and endorsed as a sign of discipleship and renewal.
John was the Billy Graham of his time, both Baptists and not dissimilar in style. John always deferred to Jesus naming him as the real Messiah ‘whose sandals he was not fit to untie’ you remember.
So why did Luke include so much about John the Baptist? Most probably because he had by that time become a seminal part of the tradition, appearing as he does to a lesser extent in all four gospels.
But perhaps even more significantly because Luke wanted to promote the idea that JB pointed forward to a life, death and resurrection that would change the world.
Today’s lectionary gives us no less than two references to the Baptist. His conception was said to be miraculous – announced by the Angel Gabriel and filled with the Spirit – a pointer towards what was said about Mary’s conception of Jesus. John’s conception was so late in the marriage that Zechariah was flummoxed, rather like Joseph but for different reasons. Zechariah refused to believe it was possible and it was said he was struck dumb for this lack of faith.
Even the unborn child was said to leap in the womb to point to Jesus and his sacred role when Elizabeth and Mary met. Then at John’s circumcision and unprecedented naming, Zechariah found his voice again and the words we read were given to him by the writer to point to a new truth. The child would herald a new era and John’s role as a prophet was to point towards the one who would redeem Israel.
In our second reading, set very deliberately at a specific point in time, John’s ministry is announced. It will be a call to change through the power of God – and everybody will see it! The change is to be at the heart of religion and is to do with justice and truth.
Was John the Messiah? No! But one more powerful was coming ‘who will baptise you with the Holy Spirit. And the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.’
This kind of preaching shook the ruling classes and set in train the theme of trust in the rule of God as opposed to the rule of the church of the time which was such a large part of Jesus ministry. It was this questioning of the religious status quo which led to the beheading of John and the crucifixion of Jesus.
So we are beginning to get an idea why Luke included all this about John. Wasn’t it to point toward and prepare for the unique ‘God sent’ truth of Jesus Christ, and the meaning of his life, death and resurrection?
It would be a world shaking phenomena that would change human consciousness, eventually making a new world, but not without the pain and suffering represented by the cross.
That, I believe, was the intention of the New Testament writers; not to justify a new religion but to sketch an entirely new way of looking at the world and a new way of living within it. Not so much about human behaviour as about how we view ourselves within creation, totally dependant on a creation in the hands of a Creator Spirit, or as Jesus would have said, ‘children of our Father who is in heaven, whose kingdom is one of love and compassion, and we might add, constant renewal.
How counter cultural that was then under the iron grip of absolute rule of the Roman Empire and the sycophantic despotism of the Jewish Temple system.
How counter cultural now! Against the insidious domination of the great god “Market”, the post enlightenment scourge of human arrogance and the creeping cancer of individualism. How repugnant to the modern mind bent on instant gratification, personal aggrandisement and unlimited selfish acquisition in this “Age of Me.”
How difficult it is in this self assured Western World to advocate the view that we as human beings should have a completely different idea of our own identity. Not like god’s on Mount Olympus, owning and in charge of all the earth, but needy and dependent self-limited beings that are mutually dependent on every other part of creation and ultimately on the grace of a loving God.
For that is what I believe God in Christ has revealed to human kind – along with a realization about the essential part that suffering plays in a freely evolving universe. Thus we are called to take a much more contrite view of ourselves, characterized by humility and self denial rather than the currently fashionable human hubris.
It means we must learn to give up some of what we crave, to let go the idea that we are ultimately in control of the earth, and let God guide us.
In a recent program on the ABC called “All in the Mind” two top ranking anthropologists, Mike Hulme and Jonathan Marshall, discussed the psychology of climate change and the importance of myth in our perceptions and ability to make good decisions.
(Myths are not untruths, as sometimes believed, but stories that contain truths stronger than facts, that guide, often subconsciously, our assumptions, understanding and thinking on very basic issues, such as the meaning of life and the means of survival.)
The program discussed the various myths that drive the climate change debate both for and against and how we need to recognize what is going on within our own psyches if we are to squarely face the costs of taking action.
For instance one driving myth is that a free market system is capable of bringing impartial wisdom and truth, justice and equity.
Another is that nature will always provide for human kind whatever we do.
Another is that human kind will find the answer to everything, given time.
A very strong myth in our Western Society is that we are valued by what we can do or achieve and what we can get and possess. All around us is the proof that material wealth and experiential opportunities are what we value most and how we rate ourselves.
The two speakers agreed we need a new myth that enshrines the idea of giving up things and letting go as a basis for living on this shrinking globe.
Only two of many who responded by email reminded us of what you and I already know. We already have a myth that tells us that it is better to give than to receive and that in order to live we must be prepared to die to ourselves and that the means of gaining fullness of life is to let go, and let God.
It’s called Christianity, but our society has all but forgotten it. It is a metaphor that points to the nature of the Creator Of All That Is as a self giving, freedom allowing God, a God of love, and to the very nature of life and faithful living.
No wonder the gospel writers used every device they could muster to point to the revolutionary nature of the revelation of God in Christ. No wonder they put into the mouth of Zechariah, the world challenging words we read.
How difficult for us to be prepared to give up the very things we count as security, comfort and status in a quest to save the earth and share the riches of creation more fairly with all living creatures.
How difficult it is for leaders to talk about it.
How difficult it is for nations to do anything about it.
How difficult it is for human-kind to be truly human.
How gracious it is of God to put up with us.
Let me read to words written by that other great determiner of Christian thought, Paul of Tarsus, when he wrote from prison to the Philippians (the lectionary reading from Chapter 1 that we didn’t read this morning):
And this is my prayer, that your love may overflow more and more with knowledge and full insight to help you determine what is best, so that in the day of Christ you may be pure and blameless, having produced the harvest of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ for the glory and praise of God.
Amen.
A B Pritchard