Servants Of The King
Sermon
Here Comes The King
Sermons And Children's Lessons For Advent, Christmas And Epiphany
The cover of the August 1991 issue of Vanity Fair has generated a controversy in the United States. It has been praised by some critics and withdrawn from some supermarket checkout counters because other persons were deeply offended by it. The cover features an entirely nude and very pregnant woman, Demi Moore, who has been praised for her courage to reveal herself to the world as she approached the limits of her term, while being castigated by those who were offended by her public pose. Ellen Goodman wrote about the photo and the controversy in a syndicated article, "Photo exposes a visual taboo." Annie Liebovitz, editor of Vanity Fair, who dared to publish the photo, reveals why she made the decision to place the photo on the cover. She said, according to Goodman, "There is nothing more glorious than the sight of a woman carrying a child." Goodman observes that "Pregnancy seems to turn women into public property. Co-workers who wouldn't touch your shoulder are suddenly rubbing your stomach." At the conclusion of her aritcle, Ellen Goodman writes: "Giving credit where credit is due, I give it more to Liebovitz than to Moore. She's taken a strong, unexpected image and thrown it on the national screen - a conflict wrapped in amniotic fluid. Some pictures are worth 1,000 words. This one's a bargain."20
On that night/day we call Christmas, God threw a similar image on a worldwide and eternal screen. It had to do with another pregnant woman and the birth of her son. No one, of course, has a photograph of how Mary looked when she was pregnant, since the invention of photography was more than 1,800 years in the future. But artists have created images of Mary and, more often than not, her son, Jesus - which is as it should be. We know very little about Mary's pregnancy, except for the visit of the angel Gabriel and her three-month stay with Elizabeth, and the actual delivery of baby Jesus in a cattle cave, according to Luke (Matthew tells why Joseph accepted her pregnancy; an angel - Gabriel, again? - told him of God's plan in a dream). The Christmas story highlights the purpose of her pregnancy - to give birth to Jesus, the very Son of God and the King of kings, who is to rule forever. That birth generated a controversy that will continue to the end of time. Is he, or is he not, the Son of God almighty? Is he the king of all people? Will his reign last forever? Or is he just another illegitimate child, born out of wedlock to a teen-ager and her lover?
The Christmas story is a tall tale, indeed, isn't it? Mary was a kind of surrogate mother, becoming pregnant by the Holy Spirit, then bearing and rearing a boy who is supposed to be the Son of God almighty. Many of you know the story of this surrogate mother. Arlette Schweitzer was to be the grandmother of the twins to whom she gave birth. It seems that her daughter is the victim of a genetic accident. She was born without a uterus and, of course, cannot bear a child. She fell in love and married, desperately wanting a baby. Her mother took her to a physician and, when they heard about her physical shortcoming, Arlette said to her doctor, "I wish you could transplant my uterus (to her daughter, Krista). I have no use for it any more." The look on the doctor's face, registered with mother and daughter and they felt like a "lightbulb had been turned on."21 That "light," or "thought," was simply that the mother might become a surrogate mother, thus at 42 years of age, Krista's mother received an egg produced by her daughter, which was impregnated by her husband's sperm. The ensuing controversy has not been over the scientific achievement," but it has an ethical polemic - should this type of pregnancy be allowed or encouraged? Is it really ethical for the mother to bear her daughter's children? Arlette insists that it is, because it is an act of love for her daughter and son-in-law that has resulted in a priceless gift to be cherished as long as they live.
According to Luke, the shepherds must have fueled the controversies that developed over Jesus' birth, identity and destiny, simply because they became the first missionaries. Did Mary tell them about the circumstances of her pregnancy which led to Jesus' birth? Could they have related that part of the story? I doubt it. I think that they simply preached the gospel of the incarnation, telling all who would listen what they had heard and seen. It seems that they couldn't contain themselves; they just had to tell the story of their experience as "they kept watch over their flocks" that one special night. From time to time, newspapers, magazines and journals run features on UFOs. In a recently published story, I read about the experience of a policeman who had never believed in UFOs until he saw one. He was certain of what he had seen. The experience deeply affected him, but he kept quiet about it for years, never revealed his secret to anyone. Finally, he felt that he had to come forth and tell his tale, regardless of the consequences. The shepherds seem to have told their tall tale to anyone who would hear their story immediately after their return from Bethlehem.
That's where they become models for you and me. We seldom think of a connection between Christmas and evangelism, do we? But there is one, nevertheless, and it is incumbent upon all of us, not simply to listen to the story once more, and to marvel and worship at the birth of Jesus once more, but to go out and tell the story - the whole story - beginning, perhaps, with the story of Jesus' birth. By itself, this story is so beautiful, convincing, and so profound that those who hear it and are caught up in it are compelled - as were the shepherds - to tell and, by their loving actions, show the story to other people. We surely ought to be aware of the opportunities we have within the Christmas worship setting. Churches are full of people, many of whom have not attended worship since Easter, if then. There are the "Christmas Christians," people who go to church only at Christmas. And, not infrequently, the lonely people are there, seeking assurance, warmth, companionship and hope. Christmas is for the outsider, for those people who for various reasons don't belong to the regular assembly of the believers, just as much as it is for the faithful who attend worship every week. Jesus was born for the sake of every single human being on earth; that's one reason that the gospel has to be preached and witnessed to, especially at Christmas. The message is: "This birth, this child, is for you and your salvation." And if this is true, it means that the heart of the gospel must be preached in Christmas worship services for all to hear (a right understanding of the eucharist prods us to do this), and the "outsiders" must be invited and welcomed to any genuine Christmas worship service.
If the birth story were all we know about Jesus and the total content of our preaching and worship, it would be more obscene than critics judge the Vanity Fair photo (August, 1991) of Demi Moore to be; hers must have been the first photograph of a nude soon-to-be-mother on the cover of a national magazine. Jesus' birth wouldn't be the heart of the good news that God has for the world, would it? It would be a fanciful story about how a teen-ager got pregnant in a world that gave her no support, yet she got away with it! No doubt, some contemporary persons would find comfort and support in it when they found themselves in similar situations, but the full impact of the good news of the gospel would be lost. It takes the rest of the story - Jesus' teaching, healing, suffering, dying, rising from the dead and his ascension, with the promise of his ultimate return - to warm our hearts and stir up our hearts for this world and our eternal destiny. But the shepherds didn't know any of that. They only knew what they had heard and seen and they related that to others. But that was enough - all that was needed - at that time. They apparently told the story with enthusiasm and conviction, because it got beyond the environs of Bethlehem very quickly and, logically, into the court of King Herod at Jerusalem.
The motivating factor in all of this seems to have been the combination of the revelation and their sense of having been singled out by God to witness what he was doing through Mary and in the birth of Jesus. They surely knew themselves to be blessed by God. They had received a precious gift from their Creator-God - a bargain from God which cost them nothing and they knew it would never be taken away from them. And so, they "returned, glorifying and praising God for all they had heard and seen," as it had been told them. Christmas was no one-night experience for them and that reflects on us, doesn't it? We dispose of the Christ Child and his mother and father so quickly, don't we? Once we open our presents, engage in the festivities of the day - get these things behind us - it is back to business as usual. It is too easy to put behind us what we have "heard and seen," isn't it?
That's why the church has a 12-day Christmas season from Christmas to the Epiphany of our Lord, a time for reflection, for worship, for praising and glorifying God. It is a time for telling the story to other people. The birth of Jesus is God's offer of a bargain to all the world - not the photo of a mother-to-be on a magazine cover. But the image and true story of the birth of a king to a Jewish girl named Mary, and he is to rule the world forever! All we have to do is receive his gift, praise and thank him, and tell the story to the rest of the world.
On that night/day we call Christmas, God threw a similar image on a worldwide and eternal screen. It had to do with another pregnant woman and the birth of her son. No one, of course, has a photograph of how Mary looked when she was pregnant, since the invention of photography was more than 1,800 years in the future. But artists have created images of Mary and, more often than not, her son, Jesus - which is as it should be. We know very little about Mary's pregnancy, except for the visit of the angel Gabriel and her three-month stay with Elizabeth, and the actual delivery of baby Jesus in a cattle cave, according to Luke (Matthew tells why Joseph accepted her pregnancy; an angel - Gabriel, again? - told him of God's plan in a dream). The Christmas story highlights the purpose of her pregnancy - to give birth to Jesus, the very Son of God and the King of kings, who is to rule forever. That birth generated a controversy that will continue to the end of time. Is he, or is he not, the Son of God almighty? Is he the king of all people? Will his reign last forever? Or is he just another illegitimate child, born out of wedlock to a teen-ager and her lover?
The Christmas story is a tall tale, indeed, isn't it? Mary was a kind of surrogate mother, becoming pregnant by the Holy Spirit, then bearing and rearing a boy who is supposed to be the Son of God almighty. Many of you know the story of this surrogate mother. Arlette Schweitzer was to be the grandmother of the twins to whom she gave birth. It seems that her daughter is the victim of a genetic accident. She was born without a uterus and, of course, cannot bear a child. She fell in love and married, desperately wanting a baby. Her mother took her to a physician and, when they heard about her physical shortcoming, Arlette said to her doctor, "I wish you could transplant my uterus (to her daughter, Krista). I have no use for it any more." The look on the doctor's face, registered with mother and daughter and they felt like a "lightbulb had been turned on."21 That "light," or "thought," was simply that the mother might become a surrogate mother, thus at 42 years of age, Krista's mother received an egg produced by her daughter, which was impregnated by her husband's sperm. The ensuing controversy has not been over the scientific achievement," but it has an ethical polemic - should this type of pregnancy be allowed or encouraged? Is it really ethical for the mother to bear her daughter's children? Arlette insists that it is, because it is an act of love for her daughter and son-in-law that has resulted in a priceless gift to be cherished as long as they live.
According to Luke, the shepherds must have fueled the controversies that developed over Jesus' birth, identity and destiny, simply because they became the first missionaries. Did Mary tell them about the circumstances of her pregnancy which led to Jesus' birth? Could they have related that part of the story? I doubt it. I think that they simply preached the gospel of the incarnation, telling all who would listen what they had heard and seen. It seems that they couldn't contain themselves; they just had to tell the story of their experience as "they kept watch over their flocks" that one special night. From time to time, newspapers, magazines and journals run features on UFOs. In a recently published story, I read about the experience of a policeman who had never believed in UFOs until he saw one. He was certain of what he had seen. The experience deeply affected him, but he kept quiet about it for years, never revealed his secret to anyone. Finally, he felt that he had to come forth and tell his tale, regardless of the consequences. The shepherds seem to have told their tall tale to anyone who would hear their story immediately after their return from Bethlehem.
That's where they become models for you and me. We seldom think of a connection between Christmas and evangelism, do we? But there is one, nevertheless, and it is incumbent upon all of us, not simply to listen to the story once more, and to marvel and worship at the birth of Jesus once more, but to go out and tell the story - the whole story - beginning, perhaps, with the story of Jesus' birth. By itself, this story is so beautiful, convincing, and so profound that those who hear it and are caught up in it are compelled - as were the shepherds - to tell and, by their loving actions, show the story to other people. We surely ought to be aware of the opportunities we have within the Christmas worship setting. Churches are full of people, many of whom have not attended worship since Easter, if then. There are the "Christmas Christians," people who go to church only at Christmas. And, not infrequently, the lonely people are there, seeking assurance, warmth, companionship and hope. Christmas is for the outsider, for those people who for various reasons don't belong to the regular assembly of the believers, just as much as it is for the faithful who attend worship every week. Jesus was born for the sake of every single human being on earth; that's one reason that the gospel has to be preached and witnessed to, especially at Christmas. The message is: "This birth, this child, is for you and your salvation." And if this is true, it means that the heart of the gospel must be preached in Christmas worship services for all to hear (a right understanding of the eucharist prods us to do this), and the "outsiders" must be invited and welcomed to any genuine Christmas worship service.
If the birth story were all we know about Jesus and the total content of our preaching and worship, it would be more obscene than critics judge the Vanity Fair photo (August, 1991) of Demi Moore to be; hers must have been the first photograph of a nude soon-to-be-mother on the cover of a national magazine. Jesus' birth wouldn't be the heart of the good news that God has for the world, would it? It would be a fanciful story about how a teen-ager got pregnant in a world that gave her no support, yet she got away with it! No doubt, some contemporary persons would find comfort and support in it when they found themselves in similar situations, but the full impact of the good news of the gospel would be lost. It takes the rest of the story - Jesus' teaching, healing, suffering, dying, rising from the dead and his ascension, with the promise of his ultimate return - to warm our hearts and stir up our hearts for this world and our eternal destiny. But the shepherds didn't know any of that. They only knew what they had heard and seen and they related that to others. But that was enough - all that was needed - at that time. They apparently told the story with enthusiasm and conviction, because it got beyond the environs of Bethlehem very quickly and, logically, into the court of King Herod at Jerusalem.
The motivating factor in all of this seems to have been the combination of the revelation and their sense of having been singled out by God to witness what he was doing through Mary and in the birth of Jesus. They surely knew themselves to be blessed by God. They had received a precious gift from their Creator-God - a bargain from God which cost them nothing and they knew it would never be taken away from them. And so, they "returned, glorifying and praising God for all they had heard and seen," as it had been told them. Christmas was no one-night experience for them and that reflects on us, doesn't it? We dispose of the Christ Child and his mother and father so quickly, don't we? Once we open our presents, engage in the festivities of the day - get these things behind us - it is back to business as usual. It is too easy to put behind us what we have "heard and seen," isn't it?
That's why the church has a 12-day Christmas season from Christmas to the Epiphany of our Lord, a time for reflection, for worship, for praising and glorifying God. It is a time for telling the story to other people. The birth of Jesus is God's offer of a bargain to all the world - not the photo of a mother-to-be on a magazine cover. But the image and true story of the birth of a king to a Jewish girl named Mary, and he is to rule the world forever! All we have to do is receive his gift, praise and thank him, and tell the story to the rest of the world.
