To love or not to love the world
 |
| Where in the World?? |
 |
| "He owns the cattle on a thousand hills . . ." |
It seems evident that at the time of the writing of the John letter, his audience was a young church struggling to survive, almost as a Jesus-cult under siege. The letter draws severe lines in the sand regarding conditions of faithfulness, even using the term “Antichrist” to refer to those who have left the fold (1 John 2:18 & 19). Acknowledging what audience the writer(s) had in mind is critical; modern-day Christians not experiencing persecution, not looking toward an imminent rapture should probably not read this material as if addressed to them. That would be too much like reading a wilderness survival manual and attempting to apply its methods to life in downtown Saskatoon.
We can, of course, be mightily reinforced regarding key principles of faith through the John letter if we recognize its position in time, place and context. A skilled reader of a wilderness survival manual can likely gain some bits of understanding about himself and fellow 21st Century Saskatonians, but not by cutting down a neighbour’s hedge and building a shelter on the lawn with the sticks.
The writers and the addressees of the John letter expected Christ’s literal return in their lifetimes. The “being prepared” for the event was therefor urgent to a degree and in a fashion that is not the case today. Neither do such severe lines between those who are in and those who are out exist today, at least not where I live. The John letter repeats a ubiquitous New Testament admonition to refrain from conformity to “the world,” and says that what is meant by “the world” includes “the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride of life.” A life of severe self-denial and obedience is emphasized throughout, in preparation for the final judgment. Laying aside sex, beauty and pride of life makes perfect sense when the ship you’re on is sinking, or when the apocalypse is quite possibly scheduled for next weekend.
We latter-day followers have no need to apologize when our discernment leads us to embrace the essence of early-church distinctives while re-visioning the substance so that it might speak to our time. Attempts to apply literally the rigours of the John letter (and letters of Paul and the gospels themselves) have too-often resulted in Cult-like retreat into isolation and a piety based on a new version of legalistic, ritualistic thinking. Trading in the courageous, often risk-taking discipleship implicit in following Christ into the world has too often been traded in for the assurance of personal security at the judgment seat. It’s not a competition!
In such “saving of life,” the
losing of it predictably follows. Conservative Christian colonies
have been no more successful than liberal Christianity in keeping “
the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride of
life” at bay; fundamentalist Christianity in North America consumes
pornography at the same rate as the general population, Mennonite
colonies in Mexico and Bolivia have had to deal with rape, incest,
even drug-running to a greater degree than exists among their more
liberal cousins in North America.
And, liberal
Christianity has failed to defend itself vigorously. In part, it is
what it is because it follows a liberal (in his time) theologian in
Jesus Christ, who fought tirelessly against the stultifying orthodoxy
of his time. That human perfidy should struggle against
the freedom Jesus pronounced is regressive and unworthy of His
sacrifice. (I’m reminded of a line in Loving Arms. If
you like this song in country style, the Dixie Chicks
do it HERE):
“Looking back and a-longing for the freedom of my chains.”
The mandate of the church
doesn’t rest in the comfortable, born-again pew. It rests in the
reinterpretation of the cry for mercy, justice and peace in each
time—in our time. Clear in the gospels is the message that however
we understand heaven, it’s where peace, justice and mercy
live, and Jesus’ “thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven”
is a prayer and a longing that should shape discipleship. Remaining
disengaged from the grand project—with whatever talents we’ve
been endowed—is tragic.
What is “the world”
to you, to me? By all means, we need to read the John letter,
alongside, maybe, “Go ye into all . . . the
world?” And, of course,
The Sermon on the Mount, and . . . and . . ..
_____________________
1
“The
'little learning' version is widely attributed to Alexander Pope
(1688 - 1744). It is found in his An
Essay on Criticism,
1709 and I can find no earlier example of the expression in print:
‘A
little learning is a dangerous thing;
drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
and drinking largely sobers us again.’” - https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/a-little-knowledge-is-a-dangerous-thing.html
drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
and drinking largely sobers us again.’” - https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/a-little-knowledge-is-a-dangerous-thing.html
2 For
example, in his book, Surprised by Hope,
N.T.Wright delves into the meaning of resurrection and death and
points out that in our hymnody, our conduct of funerals, our
wrestling as Christians with the our mortality, it’s evident that
we have largely grown up with garbled views of what the gospels and
the early church understood about life after death (See Chapter 2).
He also makes the point that how we understand death and
resurrection makes a big difference in how we live our lives, from
where we derive hope. By implication, these confused and confusing
views are passed on to each generation as we conduct Sunday Schools,
prepare sermons and curricula, write about issues in our
periodicals. It matters.
Comments
Post a Comment