Okay - it's been awhile since I've waxed theological and I recall having committed myself, some time ago, to blogging more about the Gospel of John, but before getting into that I need to say that for much of my life I considered The Gospel of John my favorite book of Bible. I even read it and studied it as part of my course in New Testament Greek, which oddly didn't deter me from considering it my favorite. That was years ago.
SERMON PREPARATION
In the church I'm a member of, I am a licensed lay reader and preacher, amongst other things. [And yes, they allow this faithful agnostic to preach every now and then, and I actually enjoy it (once I've figured out my homily or sermon)].
Giving a homily or sermon is something I take seriously. For me, it's about giving an honest, thoughtful, and applicable talk about a reading from that Sunday's or day's lectionary (appointed scripture readings). Doing so demands that I actually do some research about the scripture I'm going to use, to put it in context before trying to distill a message that is both true to the text and applicable to today. It also has to be something I can deliver in eight to ten minutes. (That is a benchmark for me - anything over ten minutes better be damn well worth the time or heads will start nodding off and eyes will start closing.)
Writing sermons actually led me to fully read and listen to scripture in whole new way that I hadn't done before. Before giving sermons, I read the Bible "devotionally." Devotional reading of scripture never led me to think too much about what I was reading. I was fulfilling some sort of spiritual obligation just reading it (part of my pious Lutheran upbringing). If something caused me to wonder about it, I dutifully put my mind at rest in the knowledge that I didn't know everything or, just as dutifully, kept my doubts to myself which I eventually couldn't do.
When I started writing sermons something came over me, a troublesome sense of having to be honest about what I was going to say. I don't worry about whether what I say will please the congregation or not. In fact, I suspect that if the congregation knows I'm going to be giving the sermon or homily on certain Sunday, some regulars are noticeably absent which is fine with me. I believe the mark of a good sermon is when it prompts a congregation to think and to ask questions rather than provide answers to questions they have no need to ask, and I get that some don't like to go to church and have to think.
Standing in a pulpit or by a lectern or in front of a congregation requires the person in that position is being truthful about what he or she is going to say. Sermons are particularly weighty matters. So when I find something in a reading that doesn't strike me as being correct or right, I have two choices: 1) Point it out in the sermon, which I have done on more than one occasion, or
2) Use another reading.
While I don't write sermons to please people, I see no need to go out of my way to disturb them if it can be avoided.
THE PROBLEM WITH JOHN
I'm scheduled to preach this Sunday (August 2, 2015) and the lectionary has us reading from the Letter to the Ephesians and the Gospel of John. Generally speaking, the Gospel lesson is what is largely chosen as the main source for sermon development.
Now - I know I've complained about and discussed John in several other posts, and it would be nice if I could like the Gospel of John. I wish I could, but to be honest, I don't.
The fact is I thought I could give it a go this week and write a sermon based on a little known portion of John's account of the Feeding of the Five Thousand. The story where a group of people (after being at the feeding event) get in a boat and cross the Sea of Galilee to look for Jesus.
I could see a theme develop about "Looking for Jesus" and started trying to put what I thought I could say within the context of the rest of Gospel reading, in order to say what I thought could be derived from this reading, but what I found myself doing was spending an inordinate amount of time trying to explain John and how I was getting from it a message about seeking Jesus which wasn't really there.
I know some preachers wouldn't have batted an eye about just going ahead and preaching on it anyway, but I can't. Lectionaries cherry-pick the scripture the way it is, and I would have ended up cherry picking this gospel reading to the point of where what I was saying had little in common with what John's gospel was saying or, the more likely scenario, I would have taken so much time to explain John that whatever other point I was trying to make would have been lost.
If your interested in the reading, it is John 6:24-35. My problem with this selection is the writer(s) of John have Jesus telling these seekers that they've got it all wrong with seeking him out in order to perform more signs (a not too subtle slam by John about Jews). Jesus, as usual in John, is depicted as the divine "know-it-all" who basically ignores their questions and instead gives them answers to the questions they should have been asking. In the end, John has Jesus telling these seekers (making John's point about Jesus), "I am the Bread of Life;" an answer to a question they never originally asked, but John has Jesus getting them there.
There is something so dishonest and twisted about the Gospel of John and the way its written. In fact, almost all the writings attributed to "John" have this problem. I understand that the writer(s) of John were using a literary device of positing their views about Jesus by making Jesus state them himself, to lend them authority, if not authenticity. I get it, but I don't appreciate it. At any rate, have no fear. I'm sure any number of sermons will be given on the theme, "I am the Bread of Life" come Sunday.
I was on my third attempted draft of this sermon when I realized that there is no way I can preach about anything from the Gospel of John, with the possible exception of John 8, the story of the adulterous woman. I certainly couldn't do so in the eight to ten minutes I allow. I could give a two hour lecture on the Gospel reading for this Sunday, or a whole year's course on John, but not a sermon. John is just too complex and, in my opinion, too opinionated; has too much of an agenda about turning Jesus into God for me to distill an honest message that I could deliver in a short period of time. So I abandoned John and wrote a very concise sermon on the Ephesians reading for the day; on the topic, "Speaking truth in love," Ephesian 4:14-16.
ON THE JOHNS
In my opinion the Gospel of John is not really a gospel at all. If anything, I would call it a gospel about the Gospels; in that it cherry-picks what the writer wants to talk about found in the other gospels. John is largely a theological work and a poor one at that, in my estimation. I know most Christians love the Gospel of John. It contains some of the most quoted sayings attributed to Jesus that are to be found in the New Testament, but I find most of them very deceptive in that there is little explanation at to why Jesus is saying what he is saying. There are all those "I am" metaphors that sound nice, but really say very little in explaining why they're being said. John assumes the reader knows what's in the other gospels because he certainly doesn't take time to explain the conclusions he comes to.
Perhaps the most disturbing thing I find in John is the "I got you" quality to most of these sayings. You start reading something that sounds lovely and kind until you read on for the next two or three verses and find out that if you don't agree with this, you're as good as going to hell. What also upsets me with John is how anti-Jewish it is. I just want to scream when it talks about "The Jews did this. The Jews did that." Jesus was a Jew, for crying out loud! He didn't talk that way, and I'm totally convinced he wouldn't have appreciated those who follow him talking that way. As such there is a vindictive quality and air about the Gospel of John. In fact, the more I think about it, I feel the vindictive, judgmental spirit that is present in a number of churches and expressed by a number of Christians to the fact that the Johns passively promote it.
The Gospel of John is a club house gospel. There is nothing inclusive about John unless you're a Christian, and an unquestioning one at that. I know that people see the Gospel of John as the Gospel of Love, but it isn't. For all the love talk in the Johns, there's an edge. God loves everybody, but if you don't love God back (and most seem incapable of doing so according to the Johns) you can go to hell. In that regard it has little in common with the teachings of Jesus found in the three synoptic Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke which are inclusive and where we find Jesus talking about loving our neighbors as ourselves, to love our enemies, etc. You're not going to find that in the Johns. The Johns talk about love, but only in the context of the club house church.
I used to think that if the Gospel of John was the only gospel, we would know and understand all there is to know and understand about Jesus. Wow - has that thought changed!
Frankly, I don't see Jesus in John. What I see is a very pointed theology about Jesus being put in Jesus' mouth to give it unquestionable authority. I understand John to be a period piece, written at a difficult time in a early church setting that was trying to figure itself out, trying to differentiate itself from its parent religion, Judaism; trying to make God more accessible by turning Jesus into God; trying to give assurance through the certainty of belief as opposed to living in the faith, hope, and love that Paul talks and that Jesus exemplified and taught as found in the other gospels.
I realize that the Johns are not going any place and I'm not advocating that they do, but I think it is important to very careful with them. I don't find them very helpful or very encouraging in facing the problems of our current world. They foster the certainty of belief in a narrow, closed-hearted theological understanding of God's love that can lead one to ignore the practicality of faith that I find helpful when dealing with the uncertainties of life.
Until next time, stay faithful.
No comments:
Post a Comment