St. Stephens Blog

It is common that I hear people saying that biblical interpretation is purely about individual interpretation.  One person believes that scripture says this and another person believes that the same passage of scripture says something else.

On one hand, I have some agreement with this approach to scriptural interpretation, because I think that the written words are only the carrier of the word of God. 

Before I go on, let me explain this to you.  I find it really irritating when I hear scripture spoken of as the word of God.  Firstly, the Word of God is what God has spoken, incarnate in the person of Jesus Christ.  The second person of the Trinity is the Word of God.  Secondly, if scripture is the word of God, I find this a terrible limitation on what God want to say to us.  The word of God is what God speaks and scripture, therefore, is a carrier of the word f God but is not, in itself the word of God.

So, scripture is the carrier of the word of God.  Therefore, in our personal reading and studying of scripture, we can hear what God is saying to us in the context of our life, what is going on in our life, our struggles, our celebrations, and our choices that may be life changing.  In this sense, scripture is not dead, like the Latin language, it is a living thing. 

Having said that, however, what I hear God saying to me as an individual may need to be tested to make sure it is God speaking and no just me, or even worse, the Deceiver.  Secondly, what I hear God saying to me as an individual may not necessarily what God is saying to everyone.  It may be that I have heard completely wrongly.

There is a story about a man who was having difficulty in his life and he wanted to find a solution to it.  He turned to the bible to see what it is that God may have to say to his situation.  He opened the bible and began reading, the story of Judas committing suicide after his betrayal of Jesus.  Naturally, he thought that this was purely a coincidence, so he closed the bible and opened it again, to read, “Go and do likewise.”  I would want to test my interpretation of scripture.

But this is not the only account of times I hear when people get it wrong.  I have often listened to sermons and discussion where scripture has been used to make an argument, but because it has been taken out of context, it has been interpreted.  Of particular note, the passage from Ephesians concerning women submitting to their husbands, but failing to read about the demands of husbands to love their wives.

And so often I find myself asking, and hear others saying the same thing, is this just me, is this just my interpretation of scripture, of the events, of the word of God?

It is with this question in mind that I hear the passage from Peter’s second letter to the church this morning, “We ourselves heard this voice come from heaven, while we were with him on the holy mountain. So we have the prophetic message more fully confirmed. You will do well to be attentive to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by human will, but men and women moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. (1:18-21)

The first thing that we notice about this reading is its plurality.  We ourselves have heard… so we have the prophetic message.  The hearing of the message, “This is my Son, the Beloved, with whom I am well pleased,” is not dependent upon a lone listener, but all those who were on the mountain with Peter, James and John, when Jesus was transfigured.  the account then has stronger validity, it is “more fully confirmed” more authenticate because it has been witnessed and heard by more than one person.

In my first curacy there were many people who were rather charismatic and assertive in their belief concerning things God had said to them.  When they felt that God was telling them something about the leadership of the Church, which was in contradiction to the vision and direction, my Rector used to respond, “That’s funny, God has not told me that.”   

Yes, we can feel more certain that what we have read and consequently heard is from God, but it is not until someone else says, “I interpret it the same way, or I heard, I felt, I saw the same thing!” that we feel confident in what we have heard.

Listen to what Peter says in verse 20 and 21, “no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by human will, but men and women moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.”  No prophecy of scripture is a matter of an individual’s interpretation.  It is not to be done alone, but with others.  We are told that this is because the prophecy of scripture is not of human origin; it is of the Holy Spirit that speaks to men and women in the plural.  Scripture, and its interpretation, is not a matter of an individual’s interpretation, but is done in the context of, and with, others, that is, the church.

This understanding of the interpretation of scripture in the context of a group, not on our own, should stir us into a response, “You will do well to be attentive to this,” writes Peter, “as to a lamp shining in a dark place.”

I have always been a little afraid of the dark.  As a kid, I would run from the bedroom light switch on the wall near the door, to my bed after turning off the light.  Even when I was older and had to go up to tend the farrowing sows, at night, having finished my tending, I would run back to the house.  I still find empty, dark churches rather creepy at night, particularly those old ones.  I don’t know where this had its origins, but I can imagine, if I was in a strange place, in the dark, one of the most important things would have to be my source of light. 

This is what Peter means, I think, as he says, “You will do well to be attentive to this, as to a lamp shining in a dark place.”  The lamp he is talking about, f course, would be an oil lamp.  To be attentive would involve topping up the oil and trimming the wick so as not to go out, lest we find ourselves plunged into darkness.  You might find yourselves drawn to the parable of the 10 bridesmaids, 5 wise ones tended their lamps, 5 foolish ones did not, and found themselves locked out in the dark.

So, Peter is saying, like tending a lamp, we must tend our reading of scripture, we must tend our interpretation of scripture.  We must test what we believe it is to be sating with others.

I think this is one of the reasons that God gave us the gift of Church and Christ called us into it.  We were never meant to do it, grow in our knowledge and love of God, alone; it was always meant to be in the context of others.  Coming to church, being a part of the church services does not make us a Christian.  We do not even have to go to church if we are a Christian.  But we do need to be a part of the church in order that we can discern with others the prophetic message of scripture and be more assured of its truth.

This is what is meant by the old catholic saying, “outside the church there is no salvation.” Its not that we are saved by our attendance at church, going to church does not, in itself, make us right with God.  However, without being attentive to our reading of Scripture, without being attentive to our faith, with others, we are putting our salvation at risk.

The words of The Prayers of the BCP read, “grant that all who confess your holy name may agree in the truth of your holy word, and live in unity and godly love.”  I don’t believe that this means that we will should simply agree on the interpretation of scripture, but that we will find agreement as we do that work of interpretation together, not individually.

Can I encourage you, because the preaching at worship services is a particularly one way street, and believe me I am no position stand above contradiction, I am happy if you want to have conversation with me about what I have said and you have heard,  to consider being a part of our house group ministry.  The importance of our house groups is to enable us to be in an environment where we can discern the prophetic message of scripture with others and not on our own.

I was amused, during the prerecording of an interview of me by Guryel at Rhema Christian Radio, that I as referred to as the Senior Minister of St Stephens Anglican Church in Belmont.  This was amusing because, compared to the usage of this phrase, St Stephens is a lone ministry, it is hard to be a Senior Minister when there are no ‘junior’ or ’subordinate’ ministers.  I was tempted during the process of preparing for the interview to correct Guryel, but I found myself liking the description.  Except for the ‘corporate church’ implications of Senior Minister, and perhaps there is a better phrase that could be used, the reality of the Church is that all members are meant to be ministers.  IN this sense, then, I could be described as the Senior Minister.  So, I live with it.  I would love to hear from you if you have a suggestion of a title for ordained ministry that does not sound like corporate jargon and affirms that every member of the Church is a minister.

In the Star Wars movies, particularly the Satanic Myth of the original movie, Part IV, to create confusion, the battle between good and evil is, in fact, a battle between might and weakness. It is ironic that the power of Darth Vader is the same as the power of the Jedi, except, we are being continually told, Darth Vader has crossed over to the dark side of the force. The difference is that the same power is being used for might rather than for… and here I am struggling, because I can’t think of a word that is opposite to ‘might’ that does not sound like ‘doormat’.

Perhaps this difficulty in trying to find a word that expresses the opposite of ‘might’ without misusing the amoral idea of ‘power’ expresses a general position in society that is opposed to the idea of weakness, that is, being weak.

If you have any doubt about this social opposition to weakness, then may I suggest our consideration of genetic testing of embryos to eliminate disease, the selection based on intelligence history at sperm banks, the use of unused embryos to provide material for stem cell research, the abortion of children because the foetus is the wrong gender or because there is something wrong with the foetus, and recent brain scanning of children for identification of genius potential, and the list could go on.

As Maxwell Smart, Agent 86, would have it, ‘If only they would use their power for good instead of evil.’

This general social attitude to weakness has found its place in the life of the church and the believers, as well. We hold up big successful churches as senior clerical positions, we expect special people to do the ministry and work of the church, we put ourselves down as too old, or not knowing enough, and we describe sin in terms of weakness. This is not a new phenomenon, it is a part of the historical issue that Paul found himself addressing as he wrote to the Corinthians.

Listen to what he said the first time he wrote, ‘When I came to you, brothers and sisters, I came to you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling. My speech and my proclamation were not with plausible words of wisdom, but with a demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith might rest not on human wisdom but on the power of God.’ (1 Corinthians 2:1-5; NRSV) He continues that idea in his second letter to the Corinthians, ‘power is made perfect in weakness.’ (1 Corinthians 12:9; NRSV) According to Paul, it seems, weakness is something to be owned, at least, and celebrated, at best, because it enables the power of Christ to be at work amongst us.

‘Weakness’ is the essence of the gospel: Jesus victory over sin was achieved because he chose to be weak. Since you desire proof that Christ is speaking in me. He is not weak in dealing with you, but is powerful in you. For he was crucified in weakness, but lives by the power of God. For we are weak in him, but in dealing with you we will live with him by the power of God. (2 Corinthians 13:3-4; NRSV) and For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who in every respect has been tested as we are, yet without sin. (Hebrews 4:15; NRSV)

‘Weakness’ overcomes idolatry, because as humans, we are weaker than God, to try and deny our weakness is a continuation of Genesis and our desire to be like God. I am speaking in human terms because of your natural limitations (lit. weakness of the flesh). For just as you once presented your members as slaves to impurity and to greater and greater iniquity, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness for sanctification. (Romans 6:19; NRSV)

Society has an inclination to consider weakness as the dark side of existence. If that is the case, I want to invite you to take a walk on the dark side, to come over to the dark side.

One of the most amazing witnesses of faith to me came for a young lady in my first parish. This young lady suffered Downs Syndrome and she served at the Lord’s table as a server. She was diligent, precise, careful, respectful, prompt, all the things you would want in a server. By today’s standards, she may have been aborted at the discovery of her Down’s syndrome. Had she been, we would have missed her joy in fulfilling her task of ministry and witness of her faith in Jesus. My wife and I, for a long time, continued, even after leaving that parish, receiving encouraging letters and cards from that young lady.

My mentor, when I first became a Christian, was in a wheel chair. He had lost the use of his legs because of a motorbike accident when he was eighteen. At first, he prayed continually that God would heal him, that he would be able to walk again. In the end, he realised, that he was doing more, and had more opportunity to talk about his faith, because of the wheelchair, than most other, able-bodied Christians could.

It seems to me that, if Christ’s power, Christ’s strength, is made known in our weakness, then we should be allowing our weakness, not just the strengths of our talents, to be a factor in discerning what our ministry should be.

My wife doesn’t like helping me when I am cooking in the kitchen, because I take over, and do it all my way. Likewise, as soon as we operate in a ministry that is purely based on our strength, unless we are a truly disciplined person, we will take over and get in the way of what Christ wants to do in us and through us.

I am an introvert. I know that there will be some of you that do not believe that. Perhaps you should let that speak for itself. My weakness, then, is not being on my own, it is being with others. For this reason, I think, I find it better, easier, and more effective, to pray with others. Christ can speak more powerfully to me when I am in my weakest mode of operation. Christ strength is made known in my weakness.

When I came to this parish, I could not play the guitar. I know that many of the music ministry group still think that I can’t play the guitar. I would agree with you. However, when I consider where we have come in our expression of worship, I am reminded that my weakness should not hold us back. Christ strength is made known in weakness.

Consider your own call, brothers and sisters: not many of you were wise by human standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, things that are not, to reduce to nothing things that are. (1 Corinthians 1:26-28; NRSV)

It is ironic that the same weakness expressed as power in the dark side caused Darth Vader to save his son, Luke Skywalker. It seems to me, if we want to grow in our experience of the power of God then you will need to choose to be involved in the things of God, which are not just our strengths, but also weakness. We will need to be a people who are working in weakness, amongst the weakness of our society and with those who are weak. No longer can we use the excuse: I am too old, I am too young, I am too weak, I don’t know enough, I don’t know what to do. When you own your weakness then in that weakness, Christ’s power can take over.

We continue to explore the basis of John’s understanding of God. The conclusion of John’s first epistle, what follows in his epistle, is basically a sermon by John.
Beloved, let us love one another, because love is from God; everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. (1 John 4:7; NRSV)

One commentator put it, “here is concentrated the theology John”, God is love. How do you preach a sermon on a sermon? You let it stand in its integrity and identify the points it is highlighting.

In this day and age we could be mistaken of thinking that love is God and, where love is being practiced, there God must be. We might wonder, however, about the nature of the definition of love, particularly where the act of sexual intercourse is so commonly described as “making love”. Love does not equal God, but love, according to John, is the very nature and action of the Godhead. As someone once put it, God did not have to create everything there is, especially humans, but did so because it is in the nature of the Godhead to want to love outside of itself. God created us, because it is in God’s nature to love, “Whoever does not love does not know God, for God is love.” (1 John 4:8; NRSV)

The greatest evidence of God’s love towards us is declared in the work of Jesus on the cross.
God’s love was revealed among us in this way: God sent his only Son into the world so that we might live through him. (1 John 4:9; NRSV)

The telling aspect of God’s love for us is not just in the work of the cross, not even our broken relationship that needed to be restore, reconciled. The power of God’s love is that despite the brokenness, God desires and works to fix it.
In this is love, not that we loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the atoning sacrifice for our sins. (1 John 4:9-10; NRSV)

Not that we loved God, but that he loved us and it was for this reason he sent his Son into the world. You can almost hear the words of Paul to the Romans, “While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” (Romans 5:8)

I can’t help wondering whether the greatest problem we have in our evangelism, our work of helping others to have a relationship with God, is because we are continually inviting them to be a part of church, being involved in the things which are concerned with our work of reaching out to God. On the contrary, our greatest task is to help people become aware of the love of God for them.
Beloved, since God loved us so much, we also ought to love one another. No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God lives in us, and his love is perfected in us. By this we know that we abide in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit. And we have seen and do testify that the Father has sent his Son as the Saviour of the world. God abides in those who confess that Jesus is the Son of God, and they abide in God. So we have known and believe the love that God has for us. God is love, and those who abide in love abide in God, and God abides in them. (1 John 4:11-16; NRSV)

We often speak about God as a God of love, it just rolls off our tongues, but I can’t help wondering whether the problem we have in helping others to know that God is love is because we have not yet grasped this reality deeply for ourselves. Consequently, we are not very good at witnessing that love, putting that love into practice with those around us, because we do not know it for ourselves.
One of the problems, I suspect that we have, is that we have a misplaced understanding of what love means. We can get so caught up in the idea of love that is about being nice. Such kind of love does not expect another to take responsibility for their life, their own choices and their own mistakes.

The word for love here is ????? (agape), the love that a father has for his children. It is the work of a father to enable his children to grow up into adults, not by age, but to be able to take responsibility for their own life: choices and mistakes, and in turn be able to raise their children to do the same. A father does not keep his children as children.

I don’t see anything in the love of God, described by John, that pretends there is not a problem, after all, that is why he sends his Son (v 10), he acts to fix the problem. This does not mean that the cause of the problem is overlooked for we will still need to give an account “on the day of judgement” (v 17), but because of the action of God in Jesus, we can have boldness in the face God’s judgement. We can stand assured that we are right with God.

I know I have said it to you before, that every relationship begins in fear. What I mean by that is, when we first meet someone, we are guarded in what we say and do, because we are afraid that, if we reveal certain aspects of ourselves, this new person will not like us, will reject us.

In God, however, “There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear; for fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not reached perfection in love.” (v 18) So often, it seems, that Christians are in a constant fear of God. They will speak of God’s love, but the legalism of the religious life, the purely literal, or fundamental, reading and interpretation of the Bible, the condemnation of others for approaching things differently, all speak of a fear of getting it wrong. They are not in the love of God, they are in a perceived fear of being punished by God.

This must have been stirring in the camp of Christians to whom John was writing. The false teachers expressing the importance of having right knowledge, the fear of those Christians that they would miss out on the promises of eternal life, the kingdom of heaven, because they did not have the secret knowledge.

So John condemns such misguided understanding of a love that has no action and of a fear of God.
We love because he first loved us. Those who say, “I love God,” and hate their brothers or sisters, are liars; for those who do not love a brother or sister whom they have seen, cannot love God whom they have not seen. The commandment we have from him is this: those who love God must love their brothers and sisters also. (1 John 4:19-21; NRSV)

“Hate” is a very powerful word here and it is a word that receives bad press. We know that God himself hates so does Jesus. Hate comes out of passion. But I am sure that, while God hates our sin and Jesus hates the practices of the Nicolaitans, (Revelations 2:6) he does not hate a person. If “God sent his Son to be our atoning sacrifice”, even though he hates our sin, he does not reject us. Those false prophets who would condemn those who disagree with them, do not know God’s love and are, therefore, liars if they do. Their actions are a contradiction to what is revealed about God’s love in Jesus Christ death on the cross.

So the love of God that John is presenting to us here is an act of the will, a choice, to enable another, or ourself, to grow physically (body), psychologically (mind) and spiritually. It is an act of the will because we are inspired, compelled, to love when we realise the full extent to which we are loved by God.

So here is the basis of our faith, “We love because he first loved us.” (V 19) Love is the essential nature of God, according to John, and if we do not know that we are deeply loved by God, we will not be able to love God in return, as he deserves, and we will not be able to love those around us because we do not love ourselves.

We have been exploring the Epistles of John.
Jesus was a real fleshed human being
The first thing that we have noted is that John is responding to the presence of false teachers who are proclaiming that Jesus was not truly human, but retained his “heavenly” spiritual nature and only appeared human. Our knowledge of God determines our behaviour
The second thing that we explored is that we are not saved by simply having knowledge of God nor are we made right with God by our good works. John is making it clear that good works are determined by how we understand the identity and nature of God and it is our knowledge of God, having an intimate relationship with God that determines the righteousness of our behaviour and actions.
There is right and wrong knowledge of God and, therefore, right and wrong behaviour

As a counter argument to the false teachers, John is affirming that the human person is essentially good and is not evil. Having said this, he is arguing that we cannot be ruled and controlled by the desires of the flesh.
“Little children, let no one deceive you. Everyone who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous. Everyone who commits sin is a child of the devil; for the devil has been sinning from the beginning.” (1 John 3:7-8a; NRSV)

The freedom we have in Christ Jesus does not mean anything goes! The question is how we understand righteous and unrighteous behaviour, or right and wrong action, and how to work out the difference.

I have to confess being a little puzzled as to how to reconcile,
“Those who have been born of God do not sin, because God’s seed abides in them; they cannot sin, because they have been born of God.” (1 John 3:9; NRSV)

The reality is the human condition is corrupted by the sinful nature, and we do go on sinning. I would like to suggest that, in the same way that I can’t imagine life without Sandy, my wife, friends, people in this church and from previous churches, and communities in which I have lived, who have had an influence over my becoming who I am, I can’t imagine life without God in it. Those who have truly entered into a relationship with God cannot later say that God does not exist, cannot afterwards choose not to have a relationship with God. So, perhaps John is speaking about sin as the particular, and only unforgivable, sin of not having a relationship with God and his Son, Jesus Christ. Those who have been born of God cannot commit the sin of denying him.

So, the determining factor of righteousness, according to John, is our knowledge of God, “The Son of God was revealed for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil.” (1 John 3:8b; NRSV) If you want to know what God is like, look to Jesus, he is God in the flesh, and knowing Jesus is knowing God, and knowing God is what enables us to discern what is right behaviour and this destroys the works of the Devil, our bad behaviour.

There is no lack of responsibility here. “The Devil made me do it,” does not stand up in the court of heaven. However, remember John’s black and white language, we can know God and choose to act according to that relationship, but to not know God is to choose to know the Devil and we are, then, choosing to act according to that relationship.

There are only two options, according to John, those who know God and those who do not, and this equates to knowing the Devil. “The children of God and the children of the Devil are revealed in this way: all who do not do what is right are not from God, nor are those who do not love their brothers and sisters.” (1 John 3:10; NRSV)

There are different pictures, or roles, given of the Devil through the bible. Job sees him as a kind of legal prosecutor. I think it is clear that John understands the Devil to be one who is working in opposition to God, “sinning from the beginning.” (v According to biblical legend, the Devil was one of the first creative acts of God. His role was like that of heavenly Prime Minister. What led to his being cast to earth was his desire to be God. He wanted to be the one with who people had their most important relationship. In the story of the Garden of Eden, we read of how the Devil continued that desire. Even though Adam and Eve had a relationship with God, who walked with them in the Garden, the Devil invited them to listen to him rather than God. They chose to take more notice of the Devil than God. He had won their relationship and Adam’s hiding from God revealed how his relationship with God had become broken.

Sin, for John, seems to be those things, in thought, word and, particularly, action, which express our lack of relationship with God, our lack of righteousness. He goes on, then, to express the fruit of that lack of relationship with God in the brothers Cain and Abel. What is interesting is that, even though John recognises murderers “do not have eternal life abiding in them” (v 15), it is not the murder that he wants to identify as the evil and unacceptable behaviour. Cain murdered his brother Abel, “Because his own deeds were evil and his brother’s righteous.” (v 12) There was something in him before the murder that was considered his base sin.

We could be mistaken in thinking that it was very unfair of God to accept Abel’s offering of lamb and not Cain’s offering of grain. But there is more to it than this.
For Cain and his offering he had no regard. So Cain was very angry, and his countenance fell. The LORD said to Cain, “Why are you angry, and why has your countenance fallen? If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is lurking at the door; its desire is for you, but you must master it.” (Gen 4:5-7; NRSV, italics are mine)

Remember that John seems to understand sin as being those things which express a broken relationship with God. What makes Cain’s offering unacceptable, is not that it was a grain offering, but that he made an offering when “sin’s desire was for him”, when he was predisposed to not accept relationship with God. God cannot accept an offertory from Cain because Cain has no relationship with him. It is God who ought to be angry, not Cain. It is God’s countenance that ought to have fallen, not Cain’s. It is because Cain did not know God that his action was unacceptable and led him in misplaced anger to take his brother out and murder him.

Not all behaviour is acceptable to God. Things which may be in themselves good, such as coming to worship or financial contribution to the life of the church, are not acceptable to God, even if they are done in God’s name, if they are done without a relationship with God. Although we are not inherently evil, we mortals do not have the power or freedom to determine what is and is not acceptable to God.

Growing in our knowledge and love of God, our relationship with God, is a process and a journey to which we must commit ourselves, as Jesus committed himself to us.
We know love by this, that he laid down his life for us—and we ought to lay down our lives for one another. (1 John 3:16; NRSV)

It is a journey that needs to be undertaken with others for their, and our, mutual benefit and growth.

He goes on to say,
And by this we will know that we are from the truth and will reassure our hearts before him whenever our hearts condemn us; for God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything. Beloved, if our hearts do not condemn us, we have boldness before God. (1 John 3:19-21; NRSV)

If we are created in the image and likeness of God, there should be, within us, this working out of a relationship with God is not a religious one, separate from our human one, but a normal and part of who we are. It is truly human to desire and have a sense of peace with God and be able to stand before God in boldness.

Even though Jesus is no longer present on earth, seated at the right hand of the Father, “by this we know that he abides in us, by the Spirit that he has given us,” (1 John 3:24b; NRSV) we are given the Holy Spirit to continue that work of revealing God to us and by the Holy Spirit “every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God,” (1 John 4:2; NRSV) helps us to have security in the knowledge of God in which we are growing.

Finally, and what sounds like it carries a tinge of arrogance, John says,
Whoever knows God listens to us, and whoever is not from God does not listen to us. From this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error. (1 John 4:6; NRSV)

I find it curious that, once upon a time, if I heard or saw a Christian programme on the radio or television, I would turn off or onto another channel. Today, I am inclined to listen. I may not agree, but those who know God will be willing to discuss and work it out together.

For those who truly know God, they understand that, although everything is permissible because we have freedom in Christ, not everything is beneficial, it is not anything goes. What is righteous, and is right behaviour, is that which is consistent with the nature of God. And God has not left us alone to work this out, he has given us his Holy Spirit to help us grow in our knowledge and love of God, and of his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord and express that knowledge in action.

The epistles of John are probably not written by the same person who wrote the gospel according to John. It was probably written just a little later than the gospel. There is, however, one characteristics that is present in both, and that is the strong dualistic language. What I mean by that is that it is black and white, it is either one thing or the other, there is no grey area: above and below, dark and light, good and evil, spirit and flesh, for example. There is a substantial shift from the gospel, the focus is not about the opponents to Jesus and the gospel who are outside the life of the believers, “the world”, “the Jews”, but the false teachers that are amongst the community of believers and what they are teaching.

I had a member of one of the congregations in my previous parish who believed that John 3:16, “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,” was an error. How could God love the world, which was so sinful that he had to send his Son to die in order to save it and, I guess, how could he love a world that would do what it did to his Son.

These false teachers, about which John is writing to the church, are those Christians who have taken this kind dualism to the heart of their understanding of God. These false teachers believe that the world and the flesh were essentially evil, therefore, God could not have taken on human flesh in the incarnation as Jesus. Consequently, Jesus maintained his true spiritual nature and only appeared to be in the flesh. This is the basis of the heresy “docetism”, from the Greek meaning “I seem”; Jesus only seemed to be human.

So it is that we heard in the reading from the epistle, last week,
We declare to you what was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the word of life—this life was revealed, and we have seen it and testify to it, and declare to you the eternal life that was with the Father and was revealed to us—we declare to you what we have seen and heard so that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. (1 Jn 1:1-3; NRSV)

In other words, we heard, we saw, we touched with our hands, Jesus was not simply a spirit presence, he was a fully fleshed human being.

It would seem that the false teachers, if they were arguing that Jesus was not in the flesh, then the purpose of being a Christian was to free oneself from the world, to seek to become a truly spiritual person. This is a theology that we see present in the Eastern World Religions such as Buddhism, the desire to achieve Nirvana, other worldliness, what our young people have described as being so super-spiritual they are of no earthly good.

The epistle of John, however, calls his readers, and us, to an understanding of what it means to be a person of God, a person in Christ, based on the reality, the truth, the light, that Jesus was God in human flesh present in the world. John’s epistle it is defining what Christianity actually is and describing the life of a Christian, that is, how we understand God to be is the determining factor of how we behave, and we will be able to determine someone’s knowledge of God by their behaviour. In other words, how do I understand the nature and person of God, made known to us in the historical person of Jesus, what response does that invite me to enter into and what behaviour does that create in me?

This is nothing new, John goes on to say, but the essence of the old, as we hear it, uniquely, in the Gospel of John,
I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another. (John 13:34-35; NRSV)

This is the “word that [they] have heard.” What John is going to add, as new, is a sermon on the last part of Jesus’ words in John’s Gospel. It is new “because the darkness is passing away and the true light is already shining.” When Jesus first gave his eleventh commandment, he was looking to the future, now it is the present, and because Jesus is no longer physical present but with them by his Spirit, the disciples are to live out the commandment.

So John makes a contrast to the false teachers who would be encouraging those who listen to them not to worry about those things that are going on around them, not to be concerned about the needs of the people who around them, because their only task was to have knowledge of God. You cannot, according to John, be a person who really knows Jesus and not respond in love toward the world and those around you. If you say you know Jesus and you do not respond to the needs of those around you, you are lying about knowing Jesus.

John warms his readers that there is a fine line here. We are not to despise our human flesh, for if it is good enough for God in Jesus, it is good enough for us. Because God took on the material in the incarnation of Jesus, Christianity is the most material of all the world religions. There is, however, a difference between having love toward the world and loving the world. Sex is a wonderful thing, but it if we are controlled by our lust it is of the world. I have always wanted to have a flash sports car, but to envious of those who have one is of the world. It is OK to have a nice house to live in, but to set your status in the community by the size of your house is of the world. Without thinking of the material world is purely evil, we are not made right by these things.

John is writing to the infants in the faith, “your sins are forgiven”, “because you know the Father”. He is writing to the elders in faith, marked as elders because they “know him who is from the beginning”. He is writing to the young ones, “you have conquered the evil one”, “because you are strong and the word of God abides in you.” There is nothing else but having a relationship with God, as he is revealed in Jesus, that can mark us as belonging to God and this is what determines our behaviour.

Those who argue anything else, according to John, are the antichrist. The antichrists are those who deny the Father and Jesus as his anointed Son. The antichrists are not those who have thorns in their head and forks in their hands, they are simply those who consider themselves believers, but, by their actions, reveal that their belief is based on something other than a real knowledge of God. They are those who might argue that Christianity is concerned with teaching morality and citizenship, where a church youth group leader will gather the youth group in the church hall while worship is taking place in the church building, sending subliminal messages to others that God is not important.

Finally, for this portion of John’s first epistle, today, he gets to the base essence of how he understands the nature of God to be, as one commentator put it, “[The epistle’s] greatness consists in the penetration with which it expounds a single thought, that God is love,” John writes, “See what love the Father has given us, that we should be called children of God; and that is what we are.” (1 Jn 3:1; NRSV)

The essence of Christian faith is this, having just celebrated the death and resurrection of Easter, we are affirmed that by that death and resurrection we have a relationship with God are God’s children now and those who do not yet have that relationship with God, can be one of God’s children. The reason for Easter, the making of us his children, is because God is love, because God has immense love for us, so much so, that he was willing to die in order to make that happen.

If we understand the immensity of this love, if we know that God loves us, then we know God and this will effect our behaviour. A study some time ago revealed that we are more inclined to be attracted to people because we knew they were attracted to us, that physical attractiveness as secondary. The first behaviour that the knowledge of God’s love for us brings about is a desire to respond to that love. A desire to accept God’s invitation to become one of his children, to make a commitment to God through Jesus Christ. This commitment continues in our desire to get to know God as he is revealed is the Bible, in the prayer of conversation with God and as he is revealed in action and word by our fellow believers.

We are confronted by John’s final words in our portion of Scripture today, “No one who abides in him sins; no one who sins has either seen him or known him.” (1 Jn 3:6; NRSV) If we are honest we know we are still sinful, we are still inclined to damage our relationship with God and others. This does not mean that we do not know God. It does mean that we do not know God completely yet, nor will we know God completely in this life, “what we will be has not yet been revealed. What we do know is this: when he is revealed, we will be like him, for we will see him as he is”. (1 Jn 3:2; NRSV) Even having given ourselves into the love of God, committed ourselves to him, our acts of sin, by what we do and do not do, reveal those things we do not yet know about God. For when we do know God completely, as he is, we will be like him.

There are some who say that the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead proves that Jesus was the Son of God. I don’t know whether it proves anything about the identity of Jesus. But it does prove something about the nature of Jesus. He was, as we Australians unfashionably say, fair dinkum. He was willing to go all the way for what he believed to be his purpose in the world. And, as God, it proves something about God. God’s love is fair dinkum. There can be no doubt, as a result of the resurrection of Jesus, that God so loved his creation, so loves humanity, so loves you and me.

I listened to a woman ring up a talk-back show during this week. She had been ‘studying’ her Bible to find out why Easter did not fall on the same date each year. She had found a connection between the Sabbath and the resurrection, which is next to meaningless except explaining why it was Sunday that the women found the empty tomb. What was interesting was that she rang the radio station to find out the reason, not the representatives in a Christian church.

Conversations on radio and television have indicated two realities. That we are losing more and more the reason for Easter, becoming more and more a celebration of chocolate, and even if we do know the facts concerned with the death and resurrection of Jesus, we seem to be more and more not recognising the significance of the event. Despite 27% of the residents of Greater Geelong describing themselves as Anglican, only 2% of those residents of Belmont are participating in the life of the church. The significance of the death and resurrection of Jesus is not affecting the choices we make for our life.

The result of this ignorance or insignificant response to the death and resurrection has led to those distinctions which appear within our language from time to time. Phrases from within the church like, ‘committed’ Christian as a opposed to being just Christian, sorting out the fair dinkum Christians from the Christians by name only. And from outside the active life of the church comes the description of someone as ‘a religious person’, or a ‘bible basher’, or a ‘holy roller’. It is often from those Christians who are not actively involved in the life of the church that the fear of Islam comes. Not because faithful Islam is anything to be feared, but, I suspect, simply because there is a lack of understanding of what it means to be fair dinkum about faith in a God who is fair dinkum with us.

A remarkable aspect about the appearance of the resurrected Jesus to Mary Magdalene and the other Mary is that Jesus tells them to gather with the other disciples to tell them about what they had seen and discovered. The resurrection appearance was not for them, as individuals. It was for other to share. It was to be spoken about with others and it became the reason for them being. Their identity as a group was based on the knowledge and experience of the resurrection of Jesus.

Ultimately this means that to be a Christian is not an invitation to be a person, it is an invitation to be a people. It is true that in living out Christian faith we will grow into full maturity and potential as an individual, but such growth is dependent upon the relationships we have with others including a relationship with the living, resurrected Christ. Jesus did not die on the cross and was not raised from the dead to call us to be a person; he calls us to be God’s people.

As a people whose identity is based on the death of Jesus that led to his resurrection; we are called to be people of the resurrection. We are not just individuals who are saved from their sin, restored to relationship with God, we are participants with God in bringing about resurrection in this world. The kingdom of God which Jesus came to bring, is a kingdom which new and different from the usual way our world and society works. It is concerned with bringing about something new – in our own life as the church, and as church in our community. This is why, often, the church enters into the domain of politics challenging what it sees as unfairness that we describe as a failure to be fair dinkum to all.

Admittedly, the church is not perfect. It fails and it sometimes fails appallingly. It has failed appallingly in its past dealings with clergy protection of children and trust relationships. It has failed in its care of its members and its welcome of those searching for God. It has even failed because it has been working so strongly within the political and welfare sphere that it has forgotten to proclaim the good news of the death and resurrection of Jesus.

But this is recognising that in order to be a people of the resurrection, we need to put to death some things in order that we can be raised again, by God.

It is true that going to church does not make any person a Christian, in the same way that going to the garage does not make you a car. But this does not equal that you do not have to go to church to be a Christian. If God is fair dinkum in his love for us through the resurrection, then Jesus Christ deserves to be declared Lord of our lives. And if the Lord of life calls us to be a people and we choose to remain on our own, then we are denying that Jesus Christ is Lord of our life.

The very fact that our society has lost touched with what Easter means and why things are the way they are, that there are parts of the church that make us all uncomfortable with the message they proclaim, that individuals claim their personal revelation is the only truth, all indicates the need we have to be within a people to discern the nature and being of God and the behaviour and choices we make toward one another.

My personal experience and relationship with the risen Christ, tested within the life of God’s people, is proof of the existence of God. Although the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ does not by itself prove the existence of God, it does prove the extent to which Jesus Christ, now risen, is willing to go in order to enable people to have relationship with the heavenly Father. Jesus put his money where his mouth was, he was fair dinkum about his belief in God. The death and resurrection of Jesus demands that we are fair dinkum about our response, too.