Drawing Lines
We learn most of what we know about the life of Jesus and his teachings from the gospels — Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Then there’s the book of Acts, which picks up where the gospel of Luke leaves off and was likely written by the same author. It tells us about the earliest days of the Christian church.
It’s important to remember, though, that these writings were recorded decades after the events they describe. For the people who lived at that time, most information about Jesus and what it meant to follow him was shared in conversations or worship gatherings. Not much was written down, so many folks were only familiar with parts of the story, or heard different interpretations. Plus, many of the followers of Jesus left the vicinity in the years following his death, so interpretations were sometimes affected by that as well.
One of the communities that left Jerusalem was associated with the apostle John. It relocated to a city — perhaps Ephesus in Asia Minor (Anderson, 69) — while a lot of debates were underway in the early Christian church. Biblical scholars refer to these folks as the Johannine community, and their beliefs are reflected in the gospel of John, as well as the three letters that bear his name: 1, 2, and 3 John.
Today’s passage from 1 John talks a lot about love, and includes the bumper sticker-friendly phrase, “God is love.” Taken at face value, it’s a nice passage that encourages us to care for one another to the extent that we put the needs of others ahead of our own. God cared for us enough to send Jesus to live among us, and to do so in such as way as to ensure our reconciliation with God. Thus we should be inspired to love one another, because that completes God’s love in us.
If you look closer, though, there’s some exclusivity present in this passage: Everyone who loves knows God; people who don’t love don’t know God. As if loving is something either ever-present or ever-absent in a given individual. I hope you know someone who represents the former, but if you’re like me, most of the people you know are probably selfless *some* of the time.
Use of this exclusive language might be due to the many conflicts that existed in the early Christian church, and it’s understandable considering the challenges they faced. During the first few decades following the death and resurrection of Jesus, his followers scattered. Their community included Christians who had been Jews, and others who had been gentiles; both groups brought their own customs and beliefs. Some Jews left the community to return to the synagogue. Others were still following John the Baptist — they weren’t yet aware of the entire gospel message. (Anderson, 84–85)
The Roman occupation became more intense later that century, and Domitian in particular enforced worship of the emperor and persecution of those who refused to do so. This led some Christians to soften their stance on festivals related to Greek Gods, and to do what they had to in order to avoid persecution. Scholars suspect that the first edition of John’s gospel was recorded around this time. (Anderson, 84–85)
Late in the century, a belief emerged that Jesus never had a human body. The church was also facing issues with how it should be institutionalized, and as with any human institution, there were differing opinions on that. Scholars suspect that 1, 2, and 3 John were written — and that John’s gospel was finalized — around this time. (Anderson, 84–85)
Being aware of all of these issues helps me understand why some of the language in today’s passage (and the rest of 1 John) is so definitive. The author was trying to take a stand amidst conflicting voices. Sometimes that’s necessary when a message needs to be refined.
I can relate. Two thousand years later, we’re still trying to figure out what it means to be a Christian. Now, we don’t have the same arguments they did in the first century. Circumcision rarely comes up in conversation about church membership (thankfully). There aren’t many disciples of John the Baptist running around. Most Christians believe that Jesus was God in human form.
You do find significant discrepancies in beliefs, though, even just in our country. I doubt many would say that we shouldn’t love one another, but there sure is a lot of disagreement on what that love should look like. You’ll find Christians on both sides of many issues, including how to address poverty, health care, gun violence, the climate catastrophe, war, racial justice, gender equity, LGBTQ rights, crime, and taxes.
To make matters worse, on many occasions we oversimplify these issues — perhaps the same way the author of today’s passage did — by creating a false dichotomy. For instance, are there only two sides to the debate on gun control? You would think so, the way the issue is often presented to us in the media. But I don’t think there are many people who want to outlaw all gun ownership, and I don’t think there are many people who think every form of weapon should be legal in every context. Somewhere in between is a span of compromise that many would find palatable, perhaps including laws that allow weapons that are practical for home defense and hunting, and prohibit those made to kill large numbers of people in seconds.
It’s an issue that invites nuanced conversation. Sadly, news headlines and social media algorithms aren’t friendly to nuance. They reward those on the extremes with the most attention, encouraging the rest of us to pick a side. As a result, we’re divided into tribes, and our ability to engage in discussion with those of different opinions suffers. We might find ourselves quick to label someone as being too far in one direction based on one of their beliefs, when in fact we have more in common with them than we realize.
This makes me think of recent news stories about US relations with China. We’ve seen this pattern before, when the behaviors of a foreign government are applied to everyone who resides in that country. Making the actions of a foreign government sound threatening plants seeds for what becomes the othering of a country’s citizens. That makes it easier, when the time comes, to carry out military action against them, and to accept the inevitable collateral damage that occurs along with it. After all, once they’ve been othered, the civilians from that country don’t hold the same value as those in ours.
Returning to the Jesus-followers in the Johannine community, it seems that forming schisms is part of human nature. Here they were, having split from or been forced out of the faith tradition in which they had been raised, and yet a few years later they were forcing further division. This was over an issue that was important to some of the core beliefs of the church, though: That being whether Jesus was human or not.
Keep in mind this occurred during a time when there was no authoritative collection of Christian texts; Jesus-followers formed their beliefs from what they heard from different sources (if they didn’t witness events firsthand). So it’s understandable that all of the new language relating God to the person of Jesus could lead some to believe he never actually put on skin, especially when you take the resurrection into account.
Consider also the cultural view of the mind versus the body at that time. Greek philosophy taught that “[the physical world] is deemed as evil and transitory. Likewise, the body is a tomb of the soul, and the true hope of salvation must be spiritual only. But this view is not held in the Gospel of John, in which the world is loved by God (John 3:16). Moreover, in John, God sends Jesus to bring God’s word to this world.” (Smith & Kim, loc. 6692)
This was one place where the early Christian community took a stand. It was such an important part of their theology and what the life and death of Jesus meant that they were willing to exclude those who didn’t share their beliefs. They were deciding what they were about, and the humanity of Jesus was a key aspect.
Love was as well, and the love mentioned in today’s passage was a counter to the evil in the world. As Wilda Gafney writes about this scripture, “the Epistle also leaves the image of God’s love as not yet, not quite, completed, and extraordinarily, dependent upon us . . . Our love is part of God’s love; God’s love is not complete without our love for one another.” (Gafney, 89)
The early Christian church came to be known for its love, its willingness to put the needs of others ahead of its own. This hasn’t always been the case since that time, but such a reputation is not out of reach.
How does the Christian church in our country become known for its love? In recent years, the dominant narrative about the church has been driven by associations with intolerance and hypocrisy. Certainly these elements exist in any large organization comprised of humans, but it’s unfortunate that they are prominent in the body of Christ, whose core principles are love and justice.
Sadly, there’s been some confusion about what justice means. Often in our country, which imprisons more of its citizens than any other nation in the world, justice is equated with revenge and punishment. Justice is what is meted out by the heroes in action movies.
Yes, that type of justice is sometimes mentioned in the Bible, but it is also claimed by God, who states, “Justice is mine” (Romans 12:19). The kin-dom of God proclaimed by Jesus does not involve imprisonment and revenge killing. The justice championed by Jesus, which echoes the justice mentioned so often by Hebrew Bible prophets, is often known as “social justice.” And what is that? As Cornel West said, “social justice is what love looks like in public.”
Sadly, some who call themselves Christian claim that social justice is somehow not biblical. This denial stems from the fact that it doesn’t fall in line with their political beliefs. But if your faith informs your politics rather than the other way around, you know that scripture is full of messages about social justice, from those about care for the widow and orphan to those about lifting the poor at the expense of the wealthy. I invite you to do a search for instances of the word “justice” in the Bible if you need further evidence.
Considering the importance of social justice to the practice of Christianity informs our discussion about where we take a stand on some key issues. While there are countless topics that are up for discussion within faith communities, there are others where the way forward has already been made clear to Jesus-followers, including those of us who are part of Intertwined.
For instance, we will not spend time discussing whether racism exists in our country. We know that it does, and our time and energy will be spent exploring how to become better anti-racists.
We will not spend time discussing whether those from the LGBTQ+ community should be considered differently from other members of Intertwined. We embrace the diversity in God’s creation. Thus, our time and energy will be spent exploring how to be better allies to and within the LGBTQ community.
We will not spend time discussing whether there is a climate catastrophe underway, nor whether human behaviors are its cause. We trust science and the scientific method. Thus, our time and energy will be spent exploring how to limit climate change-related suffering through individual and systemic change, with special consideration given to the marginalized.
Does this mean we in Intertwined have no lively discussions, or that diverse viewpoints are not welcome? Of course not, but as you can see there are some places where we take a stand. Truth and science are embraced at Intertwined, and we aspire to live according to the love and justice proclaimed in scripture.
As in the first century, there is still much to be sorted in the ongoing exploration of what it means to be a Jesus-follower. Ultimately, though, each of us is part of the story that leads to eventual reconciliation with all of our siblings. We may not always see eye-to-eye now, but eventually we will all know fully, just as we are fully known. (1 Corinthians 13:12) In the meantime, we will love one another, and in doing so help complete the love of God in us.
Thanks be to God.
Amen.
Works Referenced
Anderson, Paul N. “The Community that Raymond Brown Left Behind: Reflections on the Johannine Dialectical Situation.” In Communities in Dispute: Current Scholarship on the Johannine Epistles, edited by R. Alan Culpepper and Paul N. Anderson. Atlanta, Georgia, SBL Press, 2014.
Clark-Soles, Jaime. “1, 2, 3 John.” In Fortress Commentary on the Bible: The Old Testament and Apocrypha, edited by Gale A. Yee, Hugh R. Page, Jr., Matthew J. M. Coomber. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2014. Kindle edition.
Gafney, Wilda C. A Women’s Lectionary for the Whole Church, Year W. New York City: Church Publishing, 2021.
Smith, Mitzi J. & Yung Suk Kim. Toward Decentering the New Testament: A Reintroduction. Eugene, Oregon: Cascade Books, 2018, Kindle edition.
