A sermon preached by Mike Miller on November 13, 2011
I recall decades ago watching a Billy Graham Christmas special on TV. Rev. Graham made a compelling urgent case that we all needed to accept Jesus and be saved. He made it sound so very simple and easy that I felt I would be a fool not to. So I called the number, said a prayer, and they even sent me a bible full of guidance about what Christians believe.
I read that Bible and when I came to the passion narrative, Jesus is on the cross and says, "My God, my God why have you forsaken me?" From what I had read in the Christian guidance part of my new bible, that statement could be re-stated, "Myself, myself, why have I forsaken myself?"
I asked a pastor about this and he said: "Jesus was fully human and fully God, so he felt all the pain and anguish like any man." But then I asked, didn't he even remember he was God as well?
"Not while he was bearing all mankind's sins", was the pastor's answer. This is when the seeds of Unitarianism were planted in my heart.
Later I asked: What about some kid who grew up in a Muslim country and died as a young man, having never really been told about Jesus? Would he go to Hell? "It is not my place to judge", said the pastor, "but as I read the scripture, I think he unfortunately would". And that Hell is a place of never ending fire and torment for all eternity? "Yes, you don't want to go there." And the God of love, who is love, would send this young man there? "Yes", was the pastor's answer. The seed of Universalism was planted on that day.
And so for decades, I have waxed and waned toward then away from Christianity -- in the end, always being told by some scholarly reverend that the bible is God's word, that I can't just decide for myself that I don't believe that some of it isn't inspired instruction, that you have to accept all of it or you're just fooling yourself and, on judgment day, you will be sent to the lake of fire. Christians have made it very hard for me to be Christian. But today I do say with confidence that I am a Christian. I do accept the authority of scripture, but not like anyone else I've ever met. Let me tell you that story.
I felt that if I am destined to be stuck in this place of doubt, maybe I should try to understand this fundamentalist viewpoint of the bible better. I'm not sure, maybe it was just a "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em feeling. I conducted an experiment to try to study the bible as a fundamentalist. I still felt leanings toward Unitarian and Universalist viewpoints, but I would try. If I could understand some of the bible as a fundamentalist, maybe that would be a starting point for more understanding.
If I was going to REALLY understand the bible as a Christian fundamentalist, I had to start somewhere. The Gospels seemed the logical starting point for a Christian. Of the four gospels, Matthew and John would appear to be the most reliable testimonies, bearing the names of Jesus' disciples. But the author of Matthew's gospel is not identified within the work. Even the Catholic Church's bible states the idea that a disciple of Jesus wrote Matthew is "untenable". So I was left with John's gospel, or as it calls itself, the gospel written by the disciple Jesus loved.
So I reasoned: If I can't understand and accept the book of John as a fundamentalist, I will never truly understand fundamentalism on a visceral level. The experiment was on. I would hope to keep my UU leanings intact, but I would try to make it through this one gospel. John's gospel has a brief prologue, the bulk of the book where the seven miracles are performed, the passion narrative, and a short resurrection narrative and epilogue.
So I dove in trying to view the book as a fundamentalist would, by seeing the book as a simple, straightforward work. I tried not to be clouded by past explanations of passages' meanings. I tried with fresh eyes to see the words to mean just what they say and all with the authority of God. John's gospel won't challenge one's Universalist leanings too much; the book does mention a final judgment where evil will be condemned. But it is mute on what that condemnation will be like or how long it will last,
The book does mention the devil and demons, but never speaks of an otherworldly realm that they inhabit. No one would come up with nonsense like Calvin's predestination or an eternal fiery torment to scare children with, based on John's gospel.
The prologue to John is said to be some of the greatest biblical evidence of Jesus' divinity. As a Unitarian, I thought my experiment would be over very quickly. But I didn't see evidence of divinity in the prologue's words:
In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came to be through him, and without him nothing came to be.
As I have read in the Genesis creation story, God speaks things into existence. God SAID let there be light, and there was light. So yes, in the beginning was THE word, the word that God spoke all things into existence with. Why people want to see the WORD as meaning JESUS instead of God's force or Holy Spirit is unbiblical to me, reading the text in a very simple and fundamentalist way. So I found no issue with John's prologue.
The bulk of John's gospel concerns the happenings around and about the seven miracles. Miracles are a trouble area for many UUs. I think the issue is exacerbated when Jesus is said to have performed a miracle. I think more people accept God's ability to perform a miracle, but no one else. In the direst situations, I will be praying for God's help, and I suspect most of you will, too. In John's gospel (John 11:42), Jesus states during the final miracle:
Father, thank you for hearing me, I know you always hear me; but because of the crowd here I have said this.
Then the raising of Lazarus occurs. In my simple reading, it seems quite clear that God performed the miracles. I have no problem with that. One could legitimately state that God may have performed these miracles without Jesus' presence, that perhaps Jesus just had insight into God's working. The book doesn't provide these answers.
The passion narrative is familiar us all. It has been the subject of major motion pictures. About the only superhuman act I see is that Jesus has an insight about his fate and faces it instead of running away. I don't think I could be so brave. There are some teachings in this section and some before that I will address in a minute, but let me close out the book by mentioning the resurrection and epilogue.
We have already seen God bring Lazarus back to life; it's not shocking that God brings Jesus back to life. The resurrection does not offend my Unitarian or Universalist leanings: As a Universalist I hope every one of you will experience everlasting life with God.
Allow me a moment to address "God talk". Jesus is very loose with his "God talk"; Jesus even calls Pharisees "gods". In John 10:34, Jesus states to a group of Pharisees: "Is it not written in your law: 'I said you are gods'." Jesus is also not concerned about God being someone's parent: When a group of Pharisees say God is their father, Jesus states that IF God WERE their father, they would love him. He spoke no objection about another making the God-as-Father claim. When the author of the gospel calls Jesus God's only son in John 3:16, I can only assume it's because John hadn't met any of God's other kids. Jesus talks to and listens to God, but doesn't consider that to be unique. Whoever belongs to God hears the words of God, says Jesus. So why do so many Christians consider Thomas' statement in John 20:28: "My Lord and my God" to be so revealing and important? It doesn't seem to be very unique, perhaps a strange custom of the time. Of course if Thomas had merely been looking at Jesus for "my lord", and then raised up his eyes toward heaven for the "my God" part, the whole meaning changes. In any event, the "God talk" is so loose, I don't see how anyone could form a trinity concept based on John's gospel.
Next I came to the most shocking part of my experiment, the epilogue. I had read through twenty chapters trying to let the words mean just what they say, not relying on any teachings about what a passage is supposed to mean. My experiment was going well. I was wondering what bible book I would read next when I read John 20:30-31:
Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples that are not written in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, and through this belief you may have life in his name.
In John 10:10 Jesus states: "I have come so you may have life and have it more abundantly." So we have Jesus saying I have come that you may have life and the apostle John telling us he wrote this book so you may have life in Jesus. We have the expressed intent of Jesus' ministry and its complete, documented fulfillment in John's gospel. John's gospel even closes with a warning that the entire world can't contain the volumes of books needed to document all the works of Jesus' life. Taken together it seems simple and clear that the apostle John felt his book was all you needed to be a Christian and to gain all the rewards of that. Certainly it was no introduction to the book of Acts.
John's gospel has the strongest apostolic authorship claims of any book. Even the other books attributed to John do not state they are by the disciple John or the beloved disciple. Most scholars agree that the disciple John didn't write any book other than his gospel of Jesus. I don't know who decided what books and letters should be in the New Testament. But the apostle and beloved disciple of Jesus wrote a gospel that clearly states it contains all you need to be a fully accepted follower of Jesus. I don't care who else has anything to say on the matter living or dead. No one has more biblical authority than the eyewitness John; no book has more scriptural authority than John's gospel.
And what is the payoff of all this? If you believe in Jesus' command to love one another, than don't ever let someone tell you that you're not a Christian. I don't care if you repeated any particular salvation formula prayer or not. I don't care who you sleep with. I don't care if you're a women preaching to men, probably with your hair uncovered, and may even make more family decisions than your husband.
I don't care if you're rich or poor, young or old, have a saintly past, or have left a trail of destruction in the wake of your life. Jesus said that whoever believes in him will have everlasting life. What does it mean to believe? Jesus said love one another, by this you will be known as my disciples.
Jesus promises an abundant life. How? Jesus said "I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when the spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all truth." Mind you he said all truth. Not a part, all. We need no other book, no priest to tell us what to believe; we just have to get in tune with the Holy Spirit. When you commit to the command to do your best to love one another, you are a Christian. You will have life more abundantly in this life and eternal life in the hereafter.
You will have the Holy Spirit to guide you toward better decisions, and your mistakes will be forgotten by God. This is not MY proclamation. It is the very word of God as told to us by the only eyewitness writer of any New Testament book. And the only book I rely on as God's word.
So if you're a confused seeker as I was, try giving a fundamentalist look at John's gospel. Maybe you, too, will find the "good news". This is my prayer.
Posted by Sue Mosher at December 10, 2011 12:31 PM