SERMON PREACHED IN AN UPPER ROOM
TO A COMPUTER AND TO AN INTERNET
FOURTH SUNDAY OF EASTER (May 3rd)
2020
READINGS
Acts 2:42-47
Psalm 23
1 Pet 2:19-25
John 10: 1-10
In tomorrow’s reflection
I shall reflect more directly, if a little whimsically, on the image of Christ
the Gate. But let’s now dwell with this good shepherd, much beloved of
stained-glass windows and other Christian art.
How different he is to the kiwi
or Australian shepherd; I hope that message has well and truly reached
us in preaching and exegesis over the last forty years. There are similarities,
of course: sheep. But the role was different, as were the sheep. The sheep were more Awassi than Southdown. The shepherd more like a sheepdog than a kiwi shepherd: closer to rugged Italian Maremma sheepdogs, sleeping out
amongst a herd (a less fluffy term, perhaps, than flock), protecting sheep from wolves. Maremma continue the role in Italy and parts of outback Australia; near Warrnambool they even protect penguins.
Context is everything. John’s context of gate
and shepherd metaphors is Jesus’ acerbic exchange with the Pharisees. Pharisee
noses have been put firmly out of joint by Jesus healing a man blind
since birth. Chapter nine is given over to the encounter the man has, first
with Jesus, then with the crowds, then with skeptical Pharisees. The last group
had heard very clearly the implications of Jesus’ healing action.
Jesus made no secret of the fact that he saw parallels between the man’s entrapment
in physical blindness and the Pharisees’ oppressive exploitation of him. The
Pharisees were deeply implicated in Jesus’ implicit criticism of their hypocrisy; they wanted revenge despite Lev. 19:18.[1]
Sadly some forms of pseudo-Christianity determinedly fleece gullible believers for large slices of their income. These forms of Christianity are currently conspicuous in the USA, demanding that
the US government’s economic stimulus
cheques are handed over to church leadership. Are there equivalents here? Possibly.
Religious avarice knows no political boundaries, and there
are almost certainly hypocritical opportunists within our culture too.
As John narrows his focus on the
good shepherd he calls for integrity. Integrity
surveys of the last few decades have seen the collapse of faith-based integrity in public perception. When I was in theological
college 35 years ago clergy were at the top of the list of those who
could be trusted in society. I was, to be honest, proud to be on the pathway. In 1983 85% of respondents rated clergy as
trustworthy,[2]
ahead of any other profession.
Ten years later we had fallen behind doctors
and teachers. By 2017 we clergy had
fallen behind doctors, teachers, academics, judges, scientists, television news
(even weather!) readers and police, though we continue to remain ahead of car
and real estate salespersons, footballers and politicians. By 2017 30% of
respondents believed that clergy do not tell the truth – the highest proportion
of categories listed.[3]
Nurses deservedly now maintain the highest level of trust in the community.
Whether the trust placed in Christians generally can be extrapolated from the levels of trust in clergy is
debatable, but the trends are tragic. To some extent it reflects a
growing distrust in that which cannot be rationally proven, but the roots of
the malaise are far deeper. Headlines ear-marking the Christian community
reflect not a desire to persecute Christians, as some claim, but in large doses
a desire to expose double standards. Nurses do not reflect, as a profession, a
double standard. Politicians? Clergy? Christians generally?
Jesus set about exposing
the hypocrisy of religious leadership. We may well suspect that the current
Royal Commission into institutional abuse, like its predecessors in Australia
and Canada, will focus a similarly searing light on predation and other
self-interest within the churches. Kudos to the leadership of the New Zealand
mainline churches who have welcomed such investigation. We who are punters in
the process should understand all that is happening as a prophetic exposé, well over-due. As it happens we
might understand Covid-19 in a similar light. I am not suggesting that nearly
250,000 deaths worldwide is a work of God’s Spirit, but rather that in the
tragedies of pandemic there are opportunities for us to learn much about
ourselves, and throw us back on the central, cruciform (Christlike), self-sacrificial tenets of
our faith.
John the Evangelist pans
his camera across Jesus as gatekeeper, gateway, shepherd, Son of God … God.
These are not options but glimpses of the totality of who Jesus is. In the
first metaphor the relationship of trust is highlighted: the sheep recognize
the authenticity of the shepherd and follow him. The reference of course is to
Jesus himself, and the encounter with Jesus can only be effectively based on the
Jesus we find revealed in the scriptural records. While being honest about the
authorial techniques of the gospel writers, is the Jesus we encounter there
compassionate, just, loving, authentic? His credibility is daily damaged by the
raconteurs who use his name in vain – conning the gullible for money,
re-creating him in the image of political causes (of Right or Left: the litmus
test is once again that of consistency with the Jesus of the scriptures), using
the name of Jesus in ways that put the lives of the financially or medically
vulnerable at risk, giving not life abundant but life destroyed.
The critical image is the
shepherd, calling. Does the voice speak with authenticity, echoing the morals,
standards, priorities and attitudes of the Jesus of the gospels? If he is
bigoted, avaricious, predatory … it’s not rocket science to realize he is not
the good but a counterfeit shepherd. We are better of doing our best to live
with integrity without a conterfeit than to follow a lie. Does the voice reveal
a shepherd who transforms us, challenges us to be caring, compassionate, living
for others’ good? For that matter do we who claim to follow Jesus know the
scriptures well enough to recognize his hallmarks?
In times of crisis we should ask ourselves tough questions. Let us strive not to be the charlatan
hired hands but the authentic follower of one who was willing to lay down his
life for the sheep – even the sheep that
let him down.
[1] In Hebrew the word for revenge is naqam, specifically abolished at Lev. 19:18. But sometimes we hear even in English the word utu, payback. Utu, traditionally the Mesopotamian
god of justice, was frequently associated with revenge. Coincidentally, in Māori utu refers to ritualized revenge.
[3]
in the USA the results for
clergy are similar. According to Forbes, only 43% of adults surveyed indicated
they would trust clergy. See https://blogs-images.forbes.com/niallmccarthy/files/2018/01/20180103_Trusted_Jobs.jpg
No comments:
Post a Comment