The following is the sermon preached at the service of recommitment of the People’s National Party (PNP) to nation-building held at the Boulevard Baptist Church on Sunday, January 17, 2021. Parts one, two, and three were published on Wednesday, January 27, 2021, Thursday, January 28, 2021, and Friday, January 29, 2021, respectively. This is the final instalment: 

After dealing with the matter of nation-building, this provides a useful bridge to the second reading for this occasion from St Paul. The text chosen from Philippians 3:12-16 is a reflection by St Paul as he recalls aspects of his past life as a person of faith, where he locates himself at the present, and what it means for him in looking towards the future.

It is clear that Paul has been asserting his pedigree in terms of spirituality as he understood it in relation to his past, but now he dismisses any virtue in that in which he once took pride and declares that this now counts as nothing because of Christ and the righteousness which comes from God through sharing in the death and resurrection of Christ through faith. Yet, even then he dismisses any claim to having achieved perfection, and that he is still at a point of pursuing the higher calling of God in Christ.

This moment of recommitment of the People’s National Party makes little sense if there isn’t anything of the past and the history which is of a celebratory nature. However, listening to the words of Paul we could safely assert from what he is saying that the individual or party that lives in the past and the glories of that time may ultimately lose its relevance to the present and faces an unpredictable future.

At this point in his life St Paul claims that he is solely engaged on “one thing”; that is, “in stretching forward to the things which are before”. But “one thing”, says he, “forgetting the things which are behind, and stretching forward to the things which are before, I press on toward the goal unto the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus”.

It is argued that Paul is here drawing on an athletic imagery to drive home his point. What made him reach forward unto the things which are before was his forgetting the things that are behind. As one commentator expresses it, “He who thinks that he is still distant from the goal, will never cease running… for the runner reckons not on how many circuits he hath finished, but how many are left.” So, then, it is not for the party and its leadership to revel in the glories of the past and how far it has advanced in virtue, but how much remains to be achieved by way of contribution to nation-building through governance, whether as parliamentary Opposition or Government.

Returning to the Old Testament text we note that what follows Joshua’s unquestioning commitment regarding where he stands and his call for a decisive commitment on the part of his people, is an extraordinarily effective dialogue that underlines what is at risk for the believing community.

First, the people affirm God’s saving power, elaborating on what Joshua had narrated with new phrases that demonstrate the depth of their understanding of their own history of God’s many acts of redemption for them. They commit themselves to the Lord in no uncertain terms: “He is our God,” (verse 18). But Joshua heightens the drama of the moment, emphasising the terrible risk they face in undertaking to serve the Lord. This God will turn and consume them if their faith and their observance ever waver.

While it may not be an act of God as in the case of Israel, nevertheless, if this recommitment being made today is not embraced and sustained by the leadership and followership of the party it may be the basis of its own undoing (as a viable political alternative).

Joshua, in the challenge he poses, invites each one of us today into a recall and experience of profound gratitude for the unmerited graciousness of God, the God who has led this nation and this party, and in making this act of recommitment to discern who God has been to us, and who we are called to be as we now meet in this place to invoke the name of God as each executes his office and work within this party.

Joshua, having declared his faith commitment, receives a response from the crowd indicating that they endorse the position he has taken. He is not convinced by their response and confronts them further in Joshua 24:19, “you cannot serve the Lord…” But they are insistent about their commitment and in verse 21 say, “Nay, but we will serve the Lord.” It may be that Joshua doubts the sincerity of their expressed commitment, but it may also be that Joshua wants to rivet in their minds the seriousness of the commitment they are making. So Joshua presses the point a third time in verse 22, and they respond again in verse 24, “The Lord our God we will serve, and his voice we will obey.” It is only then that Joshua binds the people to a covenant with God and sets up a large stone monument as a reminder of the covenant they had made — clear movement from smugness and complacency to commitment, obedience and service.

But lest we think that Joshua’s approach is harsh and an overkill, we may turn to the example of Jesus as he prepares Peter to takes on the leadership of his colleagues apostles and the Church. In St John 21:15-19 we have the encounter with the risen Jesus in which he poses the question to Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” three times. The text tells us that Peter was hurt that the question was posed to him three times. However, it was only then as he made the third response that he received his final word of commission from the risen Lord.

I close in similar manner in addressing you, the leadership of the People’s National Party and its followership:

Do you this day recommit yourself to nation-building?

Do you, this day, recommit yourself to nation-building?

Do you, on this day, recommit yourself to nation-building?

Go forward, then, to fulfil this mission on behalf of the party and in conjunction with the people of this nation.

Amen. 

Howard Gregory is Anglican bishop of Jamaica and the Cayman Islands as well as archbishop of the Province of the West Indies, primate and metropolitan.