Easter 6 – 2021
John 15:9-17 (1 John 5:1-12)
Marian Free
May I speak in the name of God who created us, Jesus who redeemed us and the Spirit who enlivens us. Amen.
There are a number of fault lines in the Anglican Church today – some theological and some ethical or practical. Under the heading of “theological differences” we could include the theology of substitutionary atonement and the headship of men (over women). In the ethical or practical arena are issues such as the ordination of women as priests and the acceptance all people are beloved by God regardless of their sexuality. With regard to substitutionary atonement, at issue is whether we believe that Jesus died instead of us (which suggests that God demands a bloody sacrificial death in order for us to be restored to a relationship with God) or whether Jesus’ death is a consequence of Jesus’ integrity and of his obedience to God.[1] Support (or not) for gay marriage has driven a deeper wedge between the two positions. Some on the more conservative side of the debate have effectively split from the more liberal side, as is evidenced by their refusal to attend the Lambeth Conference and their establishment of a rival gathering – GAFCON.
Such significant differences between members of the Christian community are far from new but go back to the very origins of the Christian church. As early as the letters of Paul there were differences of opinion in regard to whether or not non-Jewish converts would have to be circumcised and whether those who believed in Jesus could eat meat sacrificed to idols. Paul’s letters to the Galatians, the Corinthians and the Romans are all an attempt to work through the differences and to keep the various communities together.
The situation referred to in the letters attributed to John[2] is polemical. It is clear that there has been a major split in the community, and some have “gone out”. This situation explains the strong language used against those with different views – they are ‘deceivers’ antichrists, false prophets, who speak by the Spirit of error.’ Their desertion makes it clear – at least according to the author – that they did not belong to the community, for if they did they would have remained (2:19). “They went out from us, but they did not belong to us; for if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us. But by going out they made it plain that none of them belongs to us.” Members who remained as part of the community were urged to have nothing to do with them.
Our only evidence for the situation in the community is the letters. From them, it appears that the nature of Jesus is at the heart of the dispute. Those to whom the letter is written (the remainers) believe that Jesus was fully human. Those who have left the community do not[3]. The break-away group deny that Jesus is the Christ or that he was sent by God. The letter-writer accuses them of failing to love their brothers and sisters and suggests that this is evidence that they do not love God. He also alleges that they love the world and its attractions.
The author of the letter is drawing a clear line between those who believe that Jesus came in the flesh and those who do not. He uses strong language for those who have left the community because he is anxious to protect what he believes to be the truth[4].
Such strong language – ‘deceivers’, ‘antichrists’ – stands in strong contrast with the language of the gospel and Jesus’ command to love. It is a clue that the gospel and the letters do not share an author and that the letters are written at a later date when the Christian community was beginning to feel the strain of differences of opinion regarding the nature of Jesus.
Both the gospel and the letters have found their way into our scriptures and as a consequence we are challenged to consider how we deal with the tensions between them. Do we use the example of the first letter of John to disparage and demonise those whose understanding of the gospel differs from that of our own or do we stress the gospel message of love for all who claim to be disciples of Jesus? Do we arrogantly insist that our interpretation of scripture is the only valid one, or do we try to understand and accommodate difference?
It is a difficult issue, especially when those on either side of a debate believe that their interpretation of scripture is true and leads to salvation and that any other way of understanding leads to the path of destruction at worst and at best leads good people into error. Yet, Jesus commands us to love, even to the point of laying down our lives for our friends (members of the community). In the final analysis, we are all human. No one of us can claim to speak with the voice of God. Instead of slandering and abusing those who are different, may we learn to listen, struggle to understand, value difference and, above all endeavour to love all our sisters and brothers in Christ.
[1] Cf Philippians 2:1-11
[2] We attribute authorship to John because of the similarity between the letters, the Gospel named John and the Book of Revelation. (Of these, the only one that names the author is the Book of Revelation which begins “John to the seven churches in Asia” Rev 1:4).
[3] It is possible that what we are seeing here is the emergence of what was later called a heresy. Docetism held that Jesus only appeared to have come in the flesh.
[4] (We do not how the ‘secessionists’ spoke about those who chose to stay. Nor do we know how the dispute ended. What we do know is that in 395CE at Nicea, a Council of Bishops declared that Jesus was both fully human and fully God, putting to rest any notion that Jesus had not come in the flesh.)
Swallowsrest 