John
3.1-17
Now
there was a Pharisee named Nicodemus, a leader of the Jews. He came to Jesus by
night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from
God; for no one can do these signs that you do apart from the presence of God.”
Jesus answered him, “Very truly, I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God
without being born from above.” Nicodemus said to him, “How can anyone be born
after having grown old? Can one enter a second time into the mother’s womb and
be born?” Jesus answered, “Very truly, I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom
of God without being born of water and Spirit. What is born of the flesh is
flesh, and what is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not be astonished that I
said to you, ‘You must be born from above.’ The wind blows where it chooses,
and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know where it comes from or where
it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.” Nicodemus said to
him, “How can these things be?” Jesus answered him, “Are you a teacher of
Israel, and yet you do not understand these things? “Very truly, I tell you, we
speak of what we know and testify to what we have seen; yet you do not receive
our testimony. If I have told you about earthly things and you do not believe,
how can you believe if I tell you about heavenly things? No one has ascended
into heaven except the one who descended from heaven, the Son of Man. And just
as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be
lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life. “For God so
loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him
may not perish but may have eternal life. “Indeed, God did not send the Son
into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved
through him.
So
today I have probably the most famous Gospel text known to Christians to preach
on.
No
pressure then.
Last
weekend I was at a residential with all the other curates I trained with. The
subject was evangelism and when I was preparing for this morning much of what
we discussed then fell into place.
But
let me start with an anecdote which, to me, illustrate the problem we face with
evangelism and with the key verse in this passage.
I
used to have a teaching colleague, an African Christian. I would give him a lift
home most evenings and it had become something of a nightmare because he
insisted on talking to me about Jesus - and it really got on my nerves. This
caused great hilarity amongst some of our other colleagues:
“Doesn’t
he know you’re going to be ordained?”
“Yes,
but that seems to make him worse.”
“This
must be your Lenten discipline.” (That was a Muslim friend)
“Look,
I gave up chocolate, cake, alcohol, biscuits and second helpings. They were my
choice. I didn’t choose this.”
“Maybe
it’s Allah’s will for you at this time.” (She’s very sharp, that one.)
I
tried to analyse why this was becoming such an issue for me and I drew the
uncomfortable conclusion it is because our Christianities were so different.
His is a very black and white, literalist approach with no scope for nuance,
areas of grey or holy doubt, whereas I am very much at the radical end of
liberal.
“I’ve
given up Alcohol for lent.”
“You
drink alcohol?”
What
followed was a diatribe against the laxness of the west.
“It
is to do with low standards: with fornication and homosexuality.”
“Now
let me just stop you there …”
Can
I stop on the M621 and ask him to get out between junctions? Would that seem
too inhospitable? I tried to bite my tongue, I really did, but sometimes I just
couldn’t rise above it.
“…
I’ve just read a very detailed biblical study of why the so-called traditional
teaching on homosexuality is a gross misinterpretation of the various texts.”
Sounds
of apoplectic gasping from the passenger seat.
“But
it says in Leviticus and Romans …..”
“I
know what it says, but that depends on whether you accept everything in the
Bible as literally true, rather than seeking to understand the various types of
holiness codes and laws to say nothing of the different genre, and whether you
believe that we are the implied audience of the various passages rather than
the people they were written to. We mustn’t assume that we are. Much of the
Bible was written in a very specific religious and cultural climate which is
not ours.” (Who’s on his soapbox now?) Note
to self: triumphalism is not a nice characteristic in a trainee vicar ….. but
it felt so good.
There
was ominous silence for a while and I realised that I had been driving
progressively faster.
There
is a change of tack:
“What
do you understand about the crucifixion?” he asked me.
I
explained the theology of the atonement.
“Not
all will be saved.” He says. “People who do not confess Jesus will go to Hell.
It says in John 3.16…”
And
here we have it: one of the most misunderstood and misused texts in scripture.
This single verse has provided motivation for some of the most destructive and
unchristian impulses in those who call themselves Christian.
“For God so loved the
world that he gave his only begotten son so that all who believe in him may not
perish but have everlasting life.”
Now
some of you know that I am a bit of a keyboard warrior: “I’ll be up in a moment
Love. I’m just telling someone on the INTERNET that they’re wrong.” There seems
to be a recurring theme in this activity: every two or three months I seem to
end up in strident cyber debate with some other Christian, usually from either
the Anglican diocese of Sydney or U.S. Southern Baptists or Nigerian Christians.
The “discussion” is usually about the nature of salvation and the fate of those
who do not accept Jesus as Lord and Saviour.
I
am clearly a masochist: here I was in my own car having the same discussion.
Taken
literally this passage from John suggests that those who do not believe in the
Son will perish.
It
is difficult to overestimate the damage that has been done by a literal
interpretation of this text. It is difficult to overestimate the hurt, harm and
abuse that have been encouraged by this passage. It shapes the way Christians
throughout history have treated people of other faiths and cultures and the
outcome of that has been conflict and violence and the crushing of indigenous
culture and languages in the name of Christ.
And
yet I can (just) remember in those far off heady days of my late-teenage
post-conversion years, when I was a lot more evangelical than I am now, that
this text was one I learnt by heart and which informed my attitude to other
people. It didn’t matter who they were: they were either saved or they weren’t.
Simple as.
My
movement away from that stance happened gradually as I matured in my faith and
God took me in directions and into experiences where I began to question the
old certainties. I will always remember one particular joke a wise vicar told
me.
A new arrival at the
pearly gates was met by St. Peter and shown round Heaven. At one point they
came to a very high wall.
“What’s behind
there?” she asked.
“Keep your voice
down” said St. Peter. “That’s where the Anglicans are. They think they’re the
only ones here and we don’t want to upset them.”
Actually,
it wasn’t the Anglicans in the original –just trying to be topical - I’ll leave
you to guess: suffice to say that it works with any Christian group.
I
have a number of Muslim and Sikh friends. We often talk about religion and I’ve
learnt a lot about them and from them. When other Christians berate me about
mission and witness and how we must bring others to a saving knowledge of
Jesus, I always think of them … and I always think that bringing them to Jesus
sounds so simple but in reality is very far from it.
Of
course it is never me who convicts and converts, it is the Holy Spirit. I know
that and, yes, I sometimes wonder what the Holy Spirit makes of my witness by
word and deed to anyone, not just Muslims and Sikhs.
But
let me ask you two things:
· What
does it take for someone – anyone to come to faith?
· What
is it that we ask others to believe and accept as part of that act of faith?
You
see I don’t think it matters whether you are Muslim or Sikh or Atheist or
whatever: in order to come to faith you have to not only hear but to understand
the Gospel, although if you come from a culture which is broadly Christian I
suspect that it may be easier for you.
“How”
I ask these other Christians “does a Muslim born and brought up in rural Saudi
Arabia hear, let alone understand the Gospel? How does a Jew brought up in the
most orthodox part of Jerusalem or a Sikh brought up in Amritsar, the Holy
City? And yet you are telling me that God – my God, the God I believe in and
follow – condemns to Hell a whole swathe of people for not following an
injunction they could not possibly have known about. In terms of God’s justice,
how does that work, then?”
“The
Bible is clear.” I am told.
Right.
Taken
literally John 3.16 becomes the foundation for the rejection of the “other” in
society: the ones who are not like us. By that I don’t just mean race and religion,
but gender, sexuality.
The
irony here is that of the Gospel writers John was the one who was least likely
to take a literalist approach to his writing and would most certainly have
rejected that sort of literalist reading. The passage immediately before
today’s Gospel reading is the encounter between Jesus and Nicodemus. This is
the same John who tells us that Jesus was amazed that Nicodemus understood
Jesus’ comment about being born again in a literal way. If the life and
teaching of Jesus gives us cause to be literal in our reading of Jesus’ words
it is not John 3.16, but John 3.17 that we should look to: “God did not send his son into the world to condemn the world, but that
the world might be saved through him.”
Neither
Jesus nor John was interested in establishing a belief system based on
rejection by God. What they were very interested in was the question concerning
how one came to have faith and the supplementary question about how one grows
in one’s experience of God.
There
seem to be a number of positions in the New Testament and the one I favour is
“Believe and be baptised.” (Mark 16.16) but that raises other issues such as
“Believe what?” or “Believe in what?”
So,
I think my challenge to you this morning, and perhaps as a Lenten discipline,
is to think of those Biblical passages which most closely represent to you what
the life of faith is about.
Of course, there are many passages, but for me
here are few ideas which sum it up: repent, believe, be saved by God’s grace,
show the change in your life but recognise that you are still vulnerable to
temptation. Be open to the spirit, continue to repent and seek the strength of
the Spirit to grow more into the likeness of the Saviour.
Hang
on, though. Weren’t you concerned about the Muslim in rural Saudi Arabia, the
Orthodox Jew and the Sikh - and the
Hindu and the Buddhist who have no chance of hearing, let alone understanding
the Gospel?
Yes.
But we must leave that to God. My responsibility is not to go with John 3.16
without John 3.17. We may turn out, like the Christians behind the wall in
Heaven in the joke, to be surprised by the extent of the grace of God, but it
is most certainly not for us to second guess the mind of God on this or to seek
to put limits on his grace. Remember, righteousness was ascribed to Abraham
through his faith in God and he predated Jesus.
So,
I’ll leave you with a tantalising insight into the theology of C.S. Lewis on
this topic: a theology which has become known as the theology of the unknowing
disciple.
For
those of you who are unfamiliar with his writings, Lewis writes a series of
what appear to be children’s adventure stories, set in the land of Narnia, the
most famous of which is “The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe”. However, Lewis
wasn’t simply a children’s writer but a perceptive theologian and the Narnia stories
are a Christian allegory.
In
“The Last Battle”, which is a story dealing with the end times and judgement,
there is an exchange between Aslan the Lion, the Christian God figure, and Emeth,
a follower of the God Tash. Emeth is surprised to find himself on the right
side of Aslan’s judgement and says
to Aslan: “Alas, Lord, I am no son of thine, but a servant of Tash.” Aslan
answered “Child, all the service thou hast done to Tash, I account as service
done to me. If any man swears an oath to Tash and keeps the oath for the oath’s
sake, it is by me that he has truly sworn, though he knew it not and it is I
who reward him.” Emeth replied “Yet I have been seeking Tash all my days.”
“Beloved”, said the Glorious one, “unless thy desire had been for me thou
wouldst not have sought so long and so truly. For all find what they truly
seek.”
It is my personal challenge during Lent to
concentrate on my own walk with God. I look beyond that to my immediate family.
I must also continue to take responsibility for my witness through word and
deed but it is also my challenge to let God be God and to work his grace where
he will. It is not for me to misuse his word in a theology of exclusion.
Amen
No comments:
Post a Comment