Readings: Acts 1. 15-17, 21-end, Psalm 1, 1 John 5. 9-13, John 17. 6-29
‘They do not belong to the world, just as I do not belong to the world.’
What does Jesus mean when in John’s gospel he refers to ‘the world’? The world is mentioned several times in our gospel reading. God has given the disciples to Jesus ‘from the world’. The disciples are in the world but the world has hated them because they do not belong to the world. Nevertheless just as Jesus was sent into the world, so now he is sending his disciples into the world. We might be forgiven for feeling not a little confused by all this. What kind of world do we live in?
The confusion arises because John can use ‘the world’ to mean several different things. Of course it can mean simply the physical universe but John’s use of the world always has a moral and spiritual dimension. This is a world which needs saving from itself. It is not wholly evil, but it is dominated by evil – evil so easily has the upper hand in human inclinations. And yet John says, ‘God so loved the world that he sent his only son to save the world’. Jesus is to give life to the world; he takes away the sin of the world; he is light to the world. In the first half of John’s gospel the emphasis is on saving the world. But as the ministry of Jesus progresses so the opposition of the world grows. In the second half of the gospel the world represents those who have turned against Jesus and so Jesus judges the world. Jesus and his disciples cannot be of the world because the world has become incompatible with faith in Jesus and love for him. The world responds with hate. So in his death and resurrection Jesus has to overcome the world. And this becomes the task of his disciples also. In their ministry they too have to overcome the world. They do so by offering faith to the world and in the face of that offer, that mission, the opposition of the world will pass away.
So what does all this mean for Christians in the world of today? Back in the year I was born, 1951, the American theologian Richard Niebuhr published a book called ‘Christ and Culture’. In it he analysed the different types of relationship Christians have had with the world, with the culture in which they live.
So we might think of those who see Christ as being against culture. Their understanding of church is to cut themselves off from the world as much as they can. Conflict and renunciation dominate their experience of faith.
At the other end of the spectrum is the Christ of culture. Here Christian and cultural values are identified with one another and seen as one – as most dangerously in the relationship between the Lutheran church and the Third Reich.
Then there is the Christ above culture. This is where the church seeks to synthesise culture and to create a unity in diversity. Then the cultural church becomes strong enough to allow within itself a place for self criticism and loyal opposition. This can sometimes be seen as the Anglican model.
Next there is the church in which Christ and culture are in paradox. Here there is a profound awareness of divine grace and human sinfulness in dramatic tension. Here culture is continuously questioned and challenged about the way in which the poorest and most vulnerable of our neighbours are being served.
And finally there is Christ the transformer of culture. This final stance is the hardest to define, in that it contains elements of other approaches. It is both critical of culture and open to the potential within it for serving the gospel. The secular and the sacred are brought together in mutual exploration of the gospel. Perhaps a modern example might be seen in the church’s attempts to engage with the many types of spirituality which have sprung up in our culture, revealing people’s thirst for spiritual growth while providing inadequate answers which the church seeks to transform.
So to return to the Jesus of John’s gospel we certainly see something of the Christ against culture; but we also see Christ and culture in paradox and Christ the transformer of culture.
So where does that leave us in relation to the world around us? Where does it leave us in relation to the sacred and secular cultures of art and music and literature and politics and social action?
It points us I think in thee directions: to a deep devotion to the Church as well as a deep suspicion of the institutional forms which the church can take; to a deep commitment to the poor and vulnerable and underprivileged in our culture and a deep suspicion of our own comfort and self regard as well as our over simplified solutions to social need; to a deep appreciation of the drama and beauty of artistic performance and creativity as well as an awareness of our ability to idolise these things to the neglect of the gospel’s demands.
For us the world is a source both of inspiration and temptation; it is a place of never ending spiritual warfare; it is the place Christ came to save and it is the place where Christ was killed; and yet God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Amen.