Pentecost 16 (Year B)
Whoever receives one such child receives me.
Regime change is a term which has come into the political lexicon over
the last 30 odd years thanks to the less than subtle attempts of the United
States of America to effect a world order that will provide stability (for them)
and a fair degree of security for their interests. It first came to prominence
in the late seventies when they helped the Chilean generals led by Pinochet
overthrow the democratically elected govt. of Salvador Allende. Allende wasn’t a
bad man; they had no reason to believe ill of him but he was a communist & the
people of Chile put their trust in him. The Americans were having none of it.
Since that period there has been other situations particularly in Sth. America
(with Vietnam in Sth East Asia) being their most notable failure) where they
have sought regime change because the govt. of that particular country did not
correspond with what they saw as their best interests. The Americans are not
particularly evil for wanting to do this they are following in the well worn
path of many before them most notably the French & the British but, unlike those
two, the Americans were a bit more open.
I was reminded of this regime change philosophy the other morning when
on Radio 4 Sue McGregor presented her programme called the Reunion in which she
brings together a number of people who have been involved in some major event.
On Friday the broadcast involved Desmond Tutu the former Archbishop of Capetown,
Dr Nial Barnard the former head of the S A intelligence Service Wilie Esterhuyse
an Afrikaaner Academic Thabo Mbeki, formely President of the S A Republic & the
journalist Allister Sparks. This group were all involved in the negotiations
that led to the release of Nelson Mandela & bring about the transfer of rule
from the minority white Afrikaaners to the majority black. What was interesting
was that the then President, F W De Klerk was, like Desmond Tutu & others
determined, there would not be a blood bath in Sth. Africa in the way that so
many transfers of power had taken place in so many countries. It was an
interesting programme in that it dealt with the issues of power & authority &
the importance of using this authority for the benefit of the population of that
country.
Our gospel story this morning takes up power issues as a way of life &
tries to explain what Jesus attitude was in the matter. It comes about in a
seemingly innocuous series of exchanges while the group travelled on their way
ultimately to Jerusalem the seat not only of provincial secular power in the
Roman Empire but also the religious powers of ancient Israel.
You will remember two weeks ago the lesson from the gospel was the
previous chapter, chapter eight & the teaching about Jesus being the Christ with
all that this meant. The rebuke to Peter was to the fore because his
understanding of what it meant to be the Christ was different from that of Jesus
& he refused to countenance the possibility that Jesus as Messiah or Christ
would suffer. This passage this morning continues this teaching because here
again we have Jesus speaking of his impending confrontation with the authorities
& the disciples not wanting to know anything of it. They did not want, like most
folk, to face the possibility of a clash yet their understanding was that the
Christ would overthrow the old order & replace it with the new kingdom. For
them, as it has all too often down thru’ the centuries, this meant some kind of
revolution because people who hold power are not always willing to surrender it
voluntarily particularly if their grasp of it in the first place is considered
immoral or illegal. How they thought Jesus was going to take power from the
religious authorities without some kind of major conflict I cannot imagine but
they saw this as the end game – they just didn’t want to think about it. So they
were afraid to ask................
Worse, when Jesus asks what has been on their mind about all of this,
“what were you discussing”, ............................... they are embarrassed
into silence. They were discussing who would be important or more important.
Their conversation was about power. Funnily enough they saw regime change as
many have since, an exercise in changing the names of the people at the
seats at the top table, It is amazing how tyranny is often replaced with tyranny
of another kind & this lot as much as they were not baddies fell into the same
trap as many revolutionaries have since. They saw power as being theirs. They
would no doubt have liked to exercise that power with a human gentle face but
that is the claim of many tyrants down thru’ the centuries & Jesus was trying to
make them understand it is not about power....... well not that of power.
He illustrates what the new kingdom will be like in the only way he can
because he realises this lot, disciples as they may have been, are still a wee
bit thick when it comes down to the real issues. He places a child in front of
them & states quite categorically they must be able to receive this child, any
child, in the way they would receive him. Dead easy, dead wrong. Children had,
unlike today with children’s commissioners, children’s czars and children’s
rights, absolutely no status, at all. They were in many ways not recognised in
even their own households. There was nothing sentimental or sickly sweet about
Jesus saying let’s all cuddle the children the way modern politicians do in
order that they might endear themselves to the electorate. His action in this
was to get this lot to see how radical would be the change required if they were
to see the kingdom of God become a reality. God’s kingdom is not about changing
the names but allowing the old power structures to remain: it is far more
radical than that. God’s kingdom will see the old order pass away as we are
often told in holy scripture yet I imagine people do not believe or even
possibly want; but pass away it must if the new kingdom is to become a reality.
How will we see this change? We will see it in the way we see others.
The child was a non-person almost, yet the non-person will be received as if he
or she is the very person of Christ himself. It is that important for Jesus – if
we do not accept the non-person, the man or woman we do not respect because he
or she is weak, ill, black, poor or whatever then we cannot be members of
Christ’s kingdom. You see regime change for Jesus was not about replacing
one group of leaders with another but about changing those around him, you and
me from thinking about power as being something we must grasp to something we
must give to others who until now have been the powerless.
Sherbrooke-St Gilbert's Home