Third Sunday of Advent

December 14              NOTES FOR REFLECTION             Third Sunday of Advent

Texts: Isaiah 61:1-4, 8-11; 1 Thessalonians 5:16-24; John 1:6-8, 19-28

Theme:  The drama queen in me wants to suggest "Light, Sound, and Action" as a reasonable summary of the gospel passage and the related reading from Isaiah.  Certainly "light" is a key element in John's gospel, and a very appropriate theme for the Season of Advent as a whole.  Perhaps "The Light of the Lord" would follow rather nicely after the last few weeks considering "the Day of the Lord."  Another thought is to link back to the first creation – "And There Was Light" or "The Light that Shines in our Darkness" (particularly if you are using the 476 liturgy this week).  Alternatively, the passage from Isaiah is so important you might wish to base the theme on this – something like "The Lord is Coming to Do Great Things". And if you are one of those who can only cope with St Paul in small doses, this could be your chance: try "Rejoicing Always."

Introduction.  What can I say?  Isaiah is once again on peak form – read it, listen to it, soak in it, and emerge refreshed, renewed and full of hope and joy!  No one does it better than Isaiah, though St Paul comes close on occasions.  This week's passage may not be one of those occasions – in this very early correspondence (his juvenilia, we might be tempted to say if we wanted to show off) he has not yet found his "voice" – yet it has the very great virtue of being both clear and brief.  Although it sets the bar rather high, it does capture the mood of this Season very well.  We finish with this rather refined passage about St John the Baptist that does not capture his earthy humanity as well as it might.  (I'm left wondering what John himself might have made of it.  Did he really introduce himself by quoting from Isaiah?   And was that before or after he called people "You brood of vipers!")  We need to remember that the author of this gospel was trying to explain the role of John the Baptist rather than to record him accurately.

Background.  It has been an extraordinary week for those who believe that the way to defeat evil is to bring it into the light.  The prime example, of course, is the US Senate Report on the treatment of prisoners by National Security personnel in what the US likes to call its war on terrorism.  As always, euphemism is the first clue that all is not as it should be.  As soon as those in and around the corridors of power started talking of "enhanced interrogation techniques" it was pretty clear that torture had been approved at the highest political level and was being carried out routinely.  Perhaps the only shock in the Senate's report was that the methods used were even worse than had been previously suspected, and carried out in far more countries than were previously identified.

These disclosures follow those of Edward Snowden in 2013, and our own Nicky Hagar this year, but with one important exception.  They had no political power or protection.  The Senators who produced this latest report do: the worst they can be accursed of is political partisanship.  Perhaps a better parallel from our own country would be the recent report from the Inspector-General of Security Intelligence.  Those whose actions have been brought into the light can hardly subject the US Senators, or Cheryl Gwynne, to the personal abuse that was hurled at Snowden and Hagar.  (The worst that Mr Key has managed so far is that some of the findings in Ms Gwynne's report are "contested" or even "strongly contested".)  

The debate in the US will be fascinating to watch.  Stripped of all the political mud-slinging – and legitimate issues about the effect the release of the report may have in inciting further hatred of, and action against, the US and its citizens – the issue comes down to this.  Is it ever, in any circumstances whatsoever, justifiable to torture someone else?  We may not wish to go as far as the former US Vice-President of the US, Dick Cheney, who has said those security personnel who carried out the "enhanced interrogation techniques" (a.k.a. torture) should be "decorated, not criticised", but if (and this is contested) lives were saved through such methods, what then?  Would that justify torture, at least in those specific cases where it could be shown to have produced information that enabled lives to be saved?  Or is torture always wrong – whatever the outcome?

And can our answer to that ever depend on who is carrying out the torture, on whom, and whose lives are saved in the process?  The response of Senator John McCain, the only US senator (as far as I know) who has actually experienced torture while held as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, will be particularly interesting.  But of far more interest to me will be whether or not there is any discernible difference in the response of those who identify themselves as Christians, and those who do not.  Early signs are not encouraging: then President Bush, who certainly did identify himself as a Christian, has already explained that he took legal advice and the lawyers said it was okay.  For him, it seems, torture is a legal issue, not an ethical or a religious one.

And this gets me to the related issue of accountability.  Already, some are demanding that the major players should be charged with war crimes or whatever – they must be called to account, and it is assumed that the only way people can be called to account is through prosecution and punishment.  Despite my legal background, I find myself less and less attracted to that approach.  The threat of prosecution often obstructs the search for truth – whether in "ordinary" cases of criminal offending, or in cases of major wrongdoing by States and their leaders.  Evil is much more likely to be defeated by exposure to light, than by threat of punishment.  The Truth and Reconciliation Commission model offers us far more hope for the future than the International Court of Justice.  The Fourth Evangelist knew that:

And this is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and people loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil.  For all who do evil hate the light and do not come to the light, so that their deeds may not be exposed.  But those who do what is true come to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that their deeds have been done in God.  {3:19-21).

This was the light to which John was sent to witness.  It is the light borne ever since, knowingly or unknowingly, by all those who have spoken the truth about deeds done in darkness.  For the One who called himself the Light of the World tells us that it is the truth that sets us free.

Isaiah 61:1-4, 8-11.  The language and style is similar to the Servant Songs, but now the Servant who was to suffer for Israel has morphed into the Anointed one who is to heal and restore Israel.  The opening two verses were adopted by Jesus as his manifesto when he proclaimed his mission in the synagogue at Nazareth: Luke 4:16-19, except that he omitted the reference to "the day of vengeance of our God".  That omission helps to underline that the principal thrust of this passage is to rescue Israel, not to punish her.  The Anointed One is sent to bring good news to the oppressed, comfort to the distressed, and liberty to the captives.  Verse 4, in particular, shows the depth of the healing and restoration intended here: it reaches way back into the past to restore even "the devastations of many generations".  And the healing will affect the generations to come, as verse 9 makes clear.  In verse 10 the joyful response of the Anointed One himself is a model for us, and ties in well with St Paul's exhortation to "rejoice always".  Verse 11 is redolent of the original creation, so beautifully captured in our 476 liturgy – "For you the earth has brought forth life in all its forms".

Taking It Personally.

• Take time simply to enjoy this passage.  Read it slowly – hold the individual phrases in your mouth and taste their full flavour.  If you are alone and in private, you may even wish to respond by skipping or jumping up and down with delight – a sort of free-flow Morris dance might be in order!
• Reflect on your present feelings and circumstances.  Is there any respect in which you feel oppressed?  Are you broken-hearted about something or someone?
• Are you in any sense held captive or feel imprisoned?  Perhaps by the expectations of others, or by the sheer busyness of your life?
• Bring your personal needs to God in prayer and ask for healing or release accordingly.
• Are you aware of any deep-seated wound from the past?  Pray that any part of you that feels ruined may be raised up and restored to God's glory.

 

1 Thessalonians 5:16-24.  The whole of this chapter 5 would go well with the theme of darkness and light: see particularly verses 4-8.  And verse 9 again emphasises that what God is about in Jesus Christ is not punishment but healing and restoration.  Verses 14 and 15 should be tattooed on the hands of all of us in such a way as to be particularly visible to us when we clench our fists.  I seem to recall years ago a favourite question in a Bible quiz concerned the shortest verse in the Bible.  The expected answer was John 11:35, which in some translations read "Jesus wept." This week St Paul equals the record with verse 16 – "Rejoice always".

 

Taking It Personally.

 

• A good passage for a spiritual stock-take, either in the short form (set reading) or long form (the whole chapter).  Which phrases or verses do you find the most challenging?
• Focus on verse 14.  Notice the responsibility of believers towards others in the community of faith.  How well do you fulfil these responsibilities?  Are other members fulfilling these responsibilities towards you?
• Make verse 23 your prayer for yourself this week.

 

John 1:6-8, 19-28.  The first mini-passage is the fourth Evangelist's description of John's mission.  John saw himself simply as a prophet, in the tradition of Elijah and the others.  He had a message to proclaim and the words he spoke were from God.  I personally find it unlikely that he adopted the words of Isaiah to explain himself, but the tradition says he did.  There is much evidence in the gospels that the exact relationship between Jesus and John – and even which of them was the greater – caused considerable difficulty and dispute in the infant Church.  With the benefit of hindsight, and 2,000 years of history, we now know that St John the Evangelist saw the deepest truth and expressed it in this wonderful Prologue.    Guided by the author of the marvellous creation hymn with which the Book of Genesis opens, we are shown the beginning of the new creation in terms of light and life.  Verse 9 is especially interesting with its insistence that the true light "enlightens everyone".  Does that mean that everyone who is enlightened owes that happy state to Jesus, or does it mean that everyone is offered enlightenment but some choose to reject it?  John the Baptist is clear about his mission: he, like us, is called to draw attention to Christ.

 

Taking It Personally.

 

• Suppose a friend rings you up and asks for your opinion about X.  You warmly commend X to your friend.  You subsequently discover that the call was recorded, and replayed to X.  How upset would you be?  Would you be more upset if you had been critical of X in that call?  Why?
• Reflect on John 3:19-21.  How do you feel about that?  Review your last week: can you think of anything you did that you would not have done if you knew that you were being watched?
• Do you agree or disagree that it is more important to expose wrong-doing than to punish it?