Zephaniah, Matthew, Diana Ross, and Karl Marx
Zephaniah 3.14-end, Matthew 28:1-10, 16-end
Kitty Price
This evening’s sermon is brought to you by Zephaniah, Matthew, Karl Marx, and Diana Ross. In the name of God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Amen.
“Upside down, Boy, you turn me, inside out, and round and round.” Why, Kitty Price, why have you started with those lyrics? If you ask some of those sitting in the front row, they will know how embarrassing I can be as I’m always singing in lessons. I think there’s a song for every occasion. I also think that these words sum up the emotional rollercoaster of Zephaniah. It is a short book, written in the 7th Century BC; it contains a lambasting oracle of judgement against Judah, and other nations, with a promise that God will eventually deliver the righteous and rule over the world from Jerusalem. We are turned upside down and round and round by God.
Before this evening’s passage, Zephaniah explains how things have gone awry with God’s people, how he will punish them, and eventual judgement. What are they doing to bring about God’s wrath? The priests and people have been worshipping idols. There is laziness and apathy in their commitment to belief in monotheism. Civil and religious leaders are breaking God’s laws, have taken their feet off the pedal in terms of religious duties, giving the rich and powerful free rein to oppress the weak and the poor. There is too much arrogance and pride in people, so Zephaniah talks about the ‘Day of the Lord’ when God will judge them and other nations. In the meantime, the humble are encouraged to put their trust in God as they await divine action.
Is this promise good enough? Karl Marx, amongst other, would say not. The 19th Century economic theorist and philosopher is famously quoted as describing religion as “the opium of the people.” The quotation continues with “It is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of our soulless conditions.” So, Marx wasn’t necessarily critical of religion itself, but how we might use it to create fantasies for the poor, such as you can put up with the miseries and injustices of this life because you will find true happiness in the next. Like a drug, he argued, religion can help you forget the pain of an injury, but not fix the problem. The people who ‘prescribe’ or ‘administer’ the drugs are the people in power who are responsible for causing the pain and suffering.
Marxist thinking underpinned Liberation theology, the Christian movement which originated in South America in the 1950s and 60s, where there were many corrupt governments kept most of the population in poverty. The division between the wealthy – who owned the means of production – and the poor would continue to increase unless the capitalist system was brought down by struggle, a violent struggle. Liberation theologians used aspects of Marx’s work to argue that the Church should be freeing the poor from the shackles of their oppression. Liberation theology attempted to turn things upside down and round and round.
One of the most famous liberation theologians, Gustavo Gutierrez, said that humans have the power and responsibility to change the world we live in. Our economic and social liberation must come before our individual liberation from sin.
Juan Segundo, another liberation theologian, thought it was the other way around – we need to be freed from our own sin first. He referred to “God’s preferential option for the poor”, arguing that biblical teachings about poverty and injustice show that God is on the side of the poor and oppressed, not the rich and oppressors.
People rightly challenged the idea that God actively sides with the poor over the rich, though consider the parable of the lost sheep – the shepherd looks for the lost sheep knowing that the other 99 are okay for now, they don’t need him in the way the lost one does.
Another weakness is that it aligns itself directly to a non-Christian political ideology, one that is critical of the role of religion. Another criticism is the call to violent struggle to free the poor and oppressed. Should a Church be condoning or even promoting violence?
I think Liberation is right to call out structural sin. It isn’t enough to be saved from personal sin, but we need to challenge the unfair systems / structures that keep people oppressed and poor. Its focus on increasing wellbeing not wealth resonates with many today. The Kingdom of God is not just about what happens after death in heaven, but we are to strive in this world to bring it about NOW, particularly for the poor.
Liberation theology was heavily criticised by the Vatican. Pope John Paul II talked about poverty as being not just material but spiritual poverty, but I think you can see its influence in the approach of Pope Francis, with his eschewing of the fancy papal trappings, selling his Harley Davidson motorbike, sneaking out of the Vatican to visit with and feed the poor, plus his hugely controversial 2019 Maundy Thursday when he washed the feet of prisoners.
Over two millennia lie between Zephaniah and Marx and listening to both is a reminder that we still haven’t got things right. Stephen Morgan, MP for Portsmouth South, has spoken of the impact of the rising cost of living on his constituency, which already sees “36.04% of children in Portsmouth South are living in poverty. In Charles Dickens Ward, the percentage is even higher at 50.31%.” Over a quarter of adults go without meals so that they can afford to feed their children. This is only going to get worse. Is it fair to say that those affected must wait for their happiness, whilst others are enjoying it now? Karl Marx would say that this is unacceptable. So would Pope Francis. And so should we.
The challenge is to get the balance between belief and action, and I am can categorically admit that I struggle with this on a daily basis – this sermon is directed at me as well…! Some say that Liberation theology went too far into action not faith yet teaching after teaching throughout the Bible talks about how we should behave towards one another, particularly those less fortunate than ourselves. In the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats we are told we won’t make the cut if we do not respond by feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, caring for the sick and so on.
We are not let off from putting our faith into action, but I don’t think the promises of the Day of the Lord from Zephaniah, and those of Jesus telling us he will be with us always, until the end of the age, are worthless. The Beatitudes in the Sermon on the Mount also talks of eventual yet surprising reward / punishment and justice. Indeed, words from our first psalm, “They that sow in tears, shall reap in joy.” God turns things around, upsetting the status quo. I don’t think these are empty phrases. We are called to turn things upside down and round and round, and to be turned upside down and round and round.
The Book of Zephaniah ends with this evening’s passage, which is a promise of pure joy, “I will remove disaster from you”, “I will bring you home”, “I will make you renowned and praised among all the peoples of the earth….” In this passage there are six imperatives or orders / instructions about how they should behave: “sing aloud O daughter Zion; shout, O Israel”. The word ‘will’ is used ten times, showing the promises of what God WILL do.
The passage from Matthew is one of excitement and promise. The women “left the tomb quickly with fear and great joy” to hear the news from the angel of the Lord that Jesus “has been raised” and that “He is not here.” There are ten imperatives here, including “Come, see the place where he lay”, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations”. Indeed, we also have two wills – the angel says not to look for the living among the dead but go out and there you will see him. Towards the end, Jesus says to his disciples to go to Galilee because that is where they will see him. It’s not a maybe or a perhaps, or an if you’re lucky, but a WILL. Then we have the last sentence, an absolute corker – “And remember, I AM with you always, to the end of the age.” It’s not a maybe or a perhaps, or an if you’re lucky, but “I AM.” You WILL find him; you WILL see me. God WILL do something about it. Will you? Amen.