Skip to main content

The Touchstone


Last Sunday we began this sermon series I am calling “Little Lost Letters”. We looked at the first part of the Second Letter of John.

 

With the advent of email, letter writing as a whole has become a lost art. Back when I was just starting to use email, in 1996, I corresponded with a man by the name of Sheldon Vanauken, who, along with C. S. Lewis, is one of my favorite authors. Van, as he was known to friends, made a commitment, early on in his writing career, that he would write back to every fan who wrote to him. That is how our correspondence began, I wrote to him as a fan, and he wrote back, not by email, but with handwritten letters. Do you remember those? 

 

Over the course of several months, we exchanged about seventeen letters.  The correspondence came to an end, sadly, because Van died in October of 1996 at the age of 82. Now, because I was just one of hundreds of people that Van was corresponding with, every now and then he would write me a postcard instead of a more formal letter sealed inside an envelope. I am sure it saved him time and energy on especially busy days when he had several letters to respond to. But because Van was a very skillful writer, he could get more content on a postcard than anyone I have ever known.

 

I share that little story to point out that this letter of 2 John is sort of like a postcard. 2 John consists of 300 Greek words. It is as though John crammed as much as he could on a little postcard and then he just ran out of room. Nonetheless, in those 300 Greek words, John has conveyed certain ideas that are still worth remembering 2000 years later.

 

Listen for God’s word to you as we read the second half of John’s postcard from 2 John 1:7-13…

I say this because many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist. Watch out that you do not lose what we have worked for, but that you may be rewarded fully. Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take them into your house or welcome them. Anyone who welcomes them shares in their wicked work.

I have much to write to you, but I do not want to use paper and ink. Instead, I hope to visit you and talk with you face to face, so that our joy may be complete.

The children of your sister, who is chosen by God, send their greetings.


It seems to me that the first point John makes here is that Jesus must be the touchstone of all our thinking.

 

Let me put this in the form of a question: Would your faith be the same without Jesus? If so, it is not really Christian faith.

 

Would your faith be the same if you removed everything from it that is not Jesus? I believe that if any of us were to lose everything in our lives but still have Jesus, we would still have everything we need. For, after all, it was Jesus who said, “Seek ye first the kingdom of God and all these things shall be added unto you.”

 

How does this work out in practice?

 

Let me give you just one example. Over the past year, as we have struggled through this pandemic, I have heard many people ask, “How can God allow suffering?”

 

One answer to that question, that I have heard many people offer, and I have offered myself, is that in the beginning, God created everything in the universe perfect. But then, because human beings chose to live their lives apart from God, suffering entered the world. God’s good gift to us of free will, and our human abuse of that free will is what has led to all suffering.

 

That answer has some plusses and minuses to it. But I have come to believe that the main problem with that answer is that it leaves out Jesus. 

 

The same God who created the world perfect, and who gave us free will, is also the God who became incarnate in Jesus of Nazareth in response to the abuse of our free will. When we chose to run away from God, he came running after us in Jesus. And in Jesus, God has taken all of our suffering upon himself. He bore that suffering on the cross, and through the resurrection of Jesus, he has turned the minus of the cross into a plus. That same God who suffers with us, his creation, can enable us to turn our minuses into plusses as well.

 

So, John’s first point is that Jesus must remain the touchstone of all our thinking. Any theology that leaves out Jesus is incomplete.

 

This leads to John’s second point, namely: Saying “yes” to Jesus necessarily involves saying “no” to all that is not compatible with him.

 

Now, why is this the case?

 

Well, it’s like this… I was having a conversation over breakfast a few months ago with a friend of mine who has served as a missionary in southeast Asia. I said to him, “You know, out of all the non-Christian religions, I bet Hindus have the easiest time accepting Jesus.” My friend Bill agreed with me. 

 

Why is it that Hindus have an easier time accepting Jesus than people of any other religion? It’s because Hindus are polytheists. They believe in a countless number of gods. And so, when a Christian talks to them about Jesus, and they see how wonderful Jesus is, they accept him and add him to their pantheon of gods.

 

And so, you may ask, “What is wrong with that?” 

 

The only problem with that is that to add Jesus to a pantheon of other gods is not to accept Jesus on his own terms. That’s true because Jesus said, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”

And so, to accept Jesus on his own terms involves recognizing him as the way, the truth, the life, the only way to the Father. Jesus is the king of kings and lord of lords. We must put him on a pedestal far above all other gods, or not accept him at all.

 

This is sometimes a hard teaching for some of us to accept. Many of us prefer to be positive in our dealings with others, especially those of other religions, rather than negative.

 

I had a professor in seminary whose name was Bryant Kirkland. Dr. Kirkland was the former senior minister of the Fifth Avenue Presbyterian Church in New York City. He was, in many ways, the Presbyterian equivalent of Norman Vincent Peale or Robert Schuller. Dr. Kirkland used to tell our preaching class, “You can turn every negative statement in a sermon into a positive statement.” 

 

Dr. Kirkland was probably right. And I try to do that in my sermons. But I imagine that if the author of this little New Testament letter were in Dr. Kirkland’s class, they would have come to blows. The author of the Second Letter of John definitely sees certain issues in black and white, wrong and right. He makes both negative and positive statements.

 

And so, our ears, trained by our modern cult of “tolerance”, are bound to prick up and cause us to react sharply to what John says here. “Don’t be taken in by the deceiver, the anti-messiah.” Anything that waters down the truth of Jesus coming in the flesh is not to be tolerated.

 

This may seem very unloving. But I wonder, is it unloving or intolerant to shout to people when the house is on fire? Is it intolerant to insist that if we are to worship the God revealed in Jesus, then we cannot simultaneously worship one of the many other gods on offer today? If we deny this central teaching of Christianity, that Jesus has come in the flesh, then certainly our house of faith will eventually collapse.

 

Now, John talks about not receiving those who are anti-Messiah into one’s home. Does this mean not inviting the Jehovah’s Witnesses or the Mormons into your home?  Not necessarily. I have, on more than one occasion, invited Mormons into my home. It is one thing to invite them into your home, it is quite another to provide them with a platform for their teaching.

 

Let me tell you about one of the best conversations I ever had with a Mormon. In a town where we used to live there was an annual event called “Community Days”. Our church, along with many others, had a table at the event. One year, the Mormons were just a few tables down from us. 

 

Eventually, two young Mormon missionaries strolled over and engaged me in conversation. I decided to take a different approach than I had ever taken in conversation with a Mormon. I simply asked these two young men questions about their faith. I allowed my curiosity to run wild. 

 

After a while, these Mormon missionaries started asking me questions about my faith. I got to talk with them about everything I would want to tell anyone about the Good News of Jesus Christ, and it wasn’t received as a sermon. We were just having a good conversation.

 

However, part way through our delightful conversation, a member of another church walked up. Realizing the two young men were Mormon missionaries, he started “preaching” to them, and tearing down their faith. You could see the “wall” go up in the countenance of these two young men. The talk changed from a conversation to an argument. And so, I simply walked away.

 

Saying “yes” to Jesus definitely means we need to say “no” to all that is not of Jesus. But it doesn’t mean we have to be obnoxious about our faith.

 

Let me give you another example of how one might deal with holding to the truth while still being loving. I once had a discussion about the resurrection of Jesus with a member of a previous church. She communicated to me quite clearly that she did not believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus. Furthermore, as a consequence, she said she did not believe in the bodily resurrection of believers in Jesus in the future. After I talked on for quite some time about the importance and centrality of both of these teachings to Christianity, she asked me, “Are you saying that I am not a Christian because I do not believe in the resurrection?”

 

I don’t know how you would have answered this person, but here is how I answered… I said, “No I am not saying that you are not a Christian. I do not believe God has made me the judge of anyone or their faith. However, I am saying that belief in the bodily resurrection of Jesus and our future resurrection has always been a central teaching of Christianity up until modern times, and even down to the present day in most major Christian denominations.”

 

That answer allowed me to remain friends with this member of my church without compromising the truth. I believe Jesus wants us to be tenacious in holding on to the truth and, at the same time, tenacious in holding on to others in love. It is, after all, possible to state what we believe to be the truth and leave the judgment of others up to God.

 

The great New Testament scholar, C. H. Dodd, once said, “The problem is to find a way of living with those whose convictions differ from our own upon the most fundamental matters, without either breaking charity or being disloyal to the truth.” Precisely!

 

I also like what Abraham Lincoln once said… “The best way to destroy our enemies is to make them our friends.”

 

The third thing John says as he closes this letter, raises this question: How are we to “flesh out” our faith today?

 

John says, “I have much to write to you, but I do not want to use paper and ink. Instead, I hope to visit you and talk with you face to face, so that our joy may be complete.”

 

There is an interesting expression John uses here. In the Greek it is literally “mouth to mouth” not “face to face”. The same expression appears in the Hebrew Scriptures. God spoke with Moses “mouth to mouth” in Numbers 12:8. John wants to perform spiritual “mouth to mouth” resuscitation with the Christians he is writing to.

 

We have a tendency to feel that this little letter is not as important as, say, 1 John, because it is so brief. Yet, it may be that John was showing great wisdom by not writing more. 

 

Here is what I mean by that. Any adult who has spent a good bit of time in church circles has probably seen this happen. Someone in the church gets upset about something that has been done, or left undone, in the church. And so, they write to someone else, maybe to the pastor, to complain. This has been made even easier by the advent of email. Our tendency, as human beings, is to respond in kind, and write an email back saying why we agree or disagree with the person’s complaint. The disagreement, if there is one, soon turns into an ongoing argument with emails flying back and forth, sometimes involving multiple people in the church. (Please note, I am not saying that any of this has happened recently in our church, but it does often happen in churches.)

 

The whole thing usually ends with several people having their nose out of joint, and maybe some people even end up leaving the church over an argument that could, perhaps have been settled by a face-to-face meeting. That is why William Barclay once wrote, “Church courts and Christian people would do well to make a resolution never to write when they could speak.” I think Barclay’s statement is so true, especially in regard to the discussion of controversial matters.

 

I also see a second practical application of what John says about speaking face to face…

 

Because belief in the incarnation and resurrection of the Son of God is so central to Christianity, this means that Christianity itself can never be a disembodied religion that cares only for things “of the spirit”. In this time of Covid-19, we have all had to meet less face-to-face than we would like. The technology of Zoom and all the rest has been invaluable to the Church and other endeavors in this strange time. But as Christians, we must remember that this is only an interim solution to a temporary problem. We need to return to worship and fellowship that is face-to-face as soon as we possibly can. We need it for our own physical and spiritual well-being.

 

My friend, Tim Hansel, used to say, “God decided 2000 years ago that human flesh was a good conductor for his Spirit, and he has not changed his mind since.”

 

God became incarnate in Jesus of Nazareth 2000 years ago and he wants us to continue “fleshing out” his truth today.

 

Here is a prayer I learned recently from Tim Hansel’s wife, Anastasia. She says that she has often made this the focal prayer of her daily life… “Lord Jesus, if you were me, with all my weaknesses and strengths, what would you be doing in my little corner of the world?”

 

I urge you to make that prayer your own this week and then ask the Holy Spirit to flesh out your faith in your little corner of the world in some practical way. Perhaps, in this time of Covid-19, that might mean writing a note of encouragement to a friend, or picking up the phone and calling them, or even going by their house to visit them, albeit while wearing a mask and social distancing. 

 

We need to find ways of staying in touch with each other, now more than ever. As the writer to the Hebrews says, “And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds, not giving up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but encouraging one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching.” (Hebrews 10:24-25)

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

C. S. Lewis on Homosexuality

Arthur Greeves In light of recent developments in the United States on the issue of gay marriage, I thought it would be interesting to revisit what C. S. Lewis thought about homosexuality. Lewis, who died in 1963, never wrote about same-sex marriage, but he did write, occasionally, about the topic of homosexuality in general. In the following I am quoting from my book, Mere Theology: A Guide to the Thought of C. S. Lewis . For detailed references and footnotes, you may obtain a copy from Amazon, your local library, or by clicking on the book cover at the right.... In Surprised by Joy , Lewis claimed that homosexuality was a vice to which he was never tempted and that he found opaque to the imagination. For this reason he refused to say anything too strongly against the pederasty that he encountered at Malvern College, where he attended school from the age of fifteen to sixteen. Lewis did not rate pederasty as the greatest evil of the school because he felt the cruelty displa

Fact, Faith, Feeling

"Now Faith, in the sense in which I am here using the word, is the art of holding on to things your reason has once accepted, in spite of your changing moods. For moods will change, whatever view your reason takes. I know that by experience. Now that I am a Christian I do have moods in which the whole thing looks very improbable: but when I was an atheist I had moods in which Christianity looked terribly probable. This rebellion of your moods against your real self is going to come anyway. That is why Faith is such a necessary virtue: unless you teach your moods 'where to get off', you can never be either a sound Christian or even a sound atheist, but just a creature dithering to and fro, with its beliefs really dependent on the weather and the state of its digestion. Consequently one must train the habit of Faith." Mere Christianity Many years ago, when I was a young Christian, I remember seeing the graphic illustration above of what C. S. Lewis has, here, so

C. S. Lewis Tour--London

The final two days of our C. S. Lewis Tour of Ireland & England were spent in London. Upon our arrival we enjoyed a panoramic tour of the city that included Westminster Abbey. A number of our tour participants chose to tour the inside of the Abbey where they were able to view the new C. S. Lewis plaque in Poets' Corner. Though London was not one of Lewis' favorite places to visit, there are a number of locations associated with him. One which I have noted in my new book,  In the Footsteps of C. S. Lewis , is Endsleigh Palace Hospital (25 Gordon Street, London) where Lewis recovered from his wounds received during the First World War.... Not too far away from this location is King's College, part of the University of London, located on the Strand, just off the River Thames. This is the location where Lewis gave the annual commemoration oration entitled The Inner Ring  on 14 December 1944.... C. S. Lewis occasionally attended theatrical events in London.

The Shepherds' Perspective on Christmas

On December 21, 2015, the following headline appeared in the International Business Times: “Bethlehem Christmas 2015 Cancelled”. To be fully accurate, religious celebrations of Jesus’ birth went forward last year in Bethlehem, but many of the secular celebrations of Christmas that usually surround it were toned down due to instability in the area. Looking back a decade, there was even one year when Christian Arabs canceled community celebrations of Christmas in support of the Palestinian uprising. However, the Jewish government would have no part of that, so the Israeli military sponsored its own holiday celebrations in the area. It is also interesting to note who celebrated the first Christmas and who didn’t. The first Christmas was not celebrated by the emperor Caesar Augustus, nor Quirinius, the governor of Syria, nor was it celebrated by the lowly innkeeper. But Christmas was celebrated by a few lonely shepherds along with Joseph and Mary and the angels of heaven. How

Does the Bible mention treating animals with kindness?

When I solicited questions to be addressed in this series, a member of the congregation wrote this to me: “Animals are mentioned in the Bible as beasts of burden and sacrificial animals.  Is there any mention of treating animals with kindness?” The short answer to that question is: yes. However, it is important to note that what the Bible says about caring for animals comes in the midst of a great narrative. It is a narrative of  Creation, Fall, and Redemption.  Let’s look at these three great acts in the narrative play of world history one by one. First, let’s look at creation. Creation At the very beginning of the Bible, in the book of Genesis, chapter 1, verses 26 through 28, we read this: Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the

A Prayer at Ground Zero

Christmas Day Thought from Henri Nouwen

" I keep thinking about the Christmas scene that Anthony arranged under the altar. This probably is the most meaningful "crib" I have ever seen. Three small woodcarved figures made in India: a poor woman, a poor man, and a small child between them. The carving is simple, nearly primitive. No eyes, no ears, no mouths, just the contours of the faces. The figures are smaller than a human hand - nearly too small to attract attention at all. "But then - a beam of light shines on the three figures and projects large shadows on the wall of the sanctuary. That says it all. The light thrown on the smallness of Mary, Joseph, and the Child projects them as large, hopeful shadows against the walls of our life and our world. "While looking at the intimate scene we already see the first outlines of the majesty and glory they represent. While witnessing the most human of human events, I see the majesty of God appearing on the horizon of my existence. While

C. S. Lewis on Church Attendance

A friend's blog written yesterday ( http://wesroberts.typepad.com/ ) got me thinking about C. S. Lewis's experience of the church. I wrote this in a comment on Wes Robert's blog: It is interesting to note that C. S. Lewis attended the same small church for over thirty years. The experience was nothing spectacular on a weekly basis. For most of those years Lewis didn't care much for the sermons; he even sat behind a pillar so that the priest would not see the expression on his face. He attended the service without music because he so disliked hymns. And he left right after holy communion was served probably because he didn't like to engage in small talk with other parishioners after the service. But that life-long obedience in the same direction shaped Lewis in a way that nothing else could. Lewis was once asked, "Is attendance at a place of worship or membership with a Christian community necessary to a Christian way of life?" His answer w

Sheldon Vanauken Remembered

A good crowd gathered at the White Hart Cafe in Lynchburg, Virginia on Saturday, February 7 for a powerpoint presentation I gave on the life and work of Sheldon Vanauken. Van, as he was known to family and friends, was best known as the author of A Severe Mercy , the autobiography of his love relationship with his wife Jean "Davy" Palmer Davis. While living in Oxford, England in the early 1950's, Van and Davy came to faith in Christ through the influence of C. S. Lewis. Van was a professor of history and English literature at Lynchburg College from 1948 until his retirement around 1980. A Severe Mercy tells the story of Davy's death from a mysterious liver ailment in 1955 and Van's subsequent dealing with grief. Van himself died from cancer in 1996. It was my privilege to know Van for a brief period of time during the last year of his life. However, present at the White Hart on February 7 were some who knew Van far better than I did--Floyd Newman, one of Van&

Glenmerle

Glenmerle in the 1950s In 2013 I published a biography on one of my favorite authors, Sheldon Vanauken. If you are interested, you can learn more and/or purchase a signed copy here:  Signed Copy  or an unsigned copy here:  Amazon . One of the things that got me writing the book was my search for the location of Glenmerle, Vanauken's childhood home, so lovingly described in his book, A Severe Mercy . A visit to Van's alma mater, Staunton Military Academy, alerted me to the fact that Van grew up in Carmel, Indiana. Then, with the help of a local historian, we identified the location of Glenmerle.  Because Van had suggested, in my first conversation with him, that Glenmerle was destroyed, I naturally assumed that the house no longer existed. However, another one of Van's fans recently contacted me to let me know that she believed she had found Glenmerle still in existence. I was able to look up the house on a real estate web site and compare current interior photos o