Truth. Dr. Gregory Robertson Anderson University School of Theology 3/5/2013

Transcription

1 2013 Truth Dr. Gregory Robertson Anderson University School of Theology 3/5/2013

2 The Stained Glass Image of Truth Dr. Gregory Robertson, Associate Professor of Christian Theology March 5, 2013 Text: John 14:1-14 When the Dean, Dr. David Sebastian, led the faculty into Miller chapel at the start of last fall semester and asked us to choose which of the terms and images on which we would want to preach this semester, I was drawn to several: righteousness, fellowship, healing, etc. However, my eyes were invariably drawn to the right-hand side of this beautiful work of art, and more specifically to the term Truth with the symbols of bible and cross. You might find that somewhat strange, considering the state of what passes for truth in our societal context. However, you would need to know that I have had a 20-year struggle with this term and both its philosophical and theological meanings. I thought, maybe I would have something to say about truth that would be from a somewhat different perspective. However, as this day approached through this semester, I have become much less confident in my abilities to convey what I think Scripture conveys about truth, so much so that I have been tinkering with the sermon all the way up to this morning. Why would I have such angst about something that I have studied for decades? As I have reflected upon what I think truth is, part of the difficulty is the utter lack of cohesion around this term, whether in broader society in general or within Christianity in particular. I would hazard to say that if I asked each of you what you think truth is, there would be some commonalities but even greater dissimilarities. There are numerous reasons for our current state when thinking about truth, some stemming from previous misconceptions about the nature of truth to more recent developments that suggest that any claim to truth is nothing more than an unwarranted power grab, an attempt at domination over those with whom we might disagree. To illustrate this, think merely about the political debate that has ensued in the last week: is the budget sequester the worst event in our nation s recent history which will invariably crush Dr. Gregory Robertson, Truth Page 1

3 the most vulnerable in our society, or is it a necessary tool to bridle uncontrolled spending by our federal government? I would posit that how one responds will be greatly influenced by the presuppositions with which one approaches the question. In reality, there is no easy response that will satisfy everyone in this room. In the face of such a contentious issue (and in the grand scope of human history a very minor consideration), what does it mean to speak of truth. Has human hope and understanding degenerated into merely parochial opinions which ultimately have no deeper foundations? Unfortunately, I am reminded of Sir Walter Scott s language: Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive. In the passages that I chose for our reflection this morning, I find guidance for an attempt to reconceive or recast what we mean as Christians when we invoke the language of truth. John 14 presents an interesting passage of Scripture that without question was troublesome to some in the early church. It follows the audacious actions of Jesus in washing the disciples feet and foretelling of his coming death, as well the prediction of Peter s denial of Christ and the new commandment to love one another, and the ensuing passage on the promise of the Holy Spirit s coming upon Jesus followers and metaphor of the vine and the branches. Between these weighty considerations the writer of John s Gospel places a passage about not being consumed by fear, and the reason for such an attitude. And while my focus will come to verse 6, we need to understand its context if we are to try and comprehend what is conveyed. John 14:1 begins with a negative imperative, mē parassesthō, which carries a meaning of Do not let your hearts be overwhelmed with confusion or perhaps, more colloquially, Don t allow yourself to be browbeaten by the situation. This statement is immediately followed by a call to evidence confidence through the double use of the Greek pisteuete, which can be either an indicative or an imperative. For me, I take it as an imperative: Believe in God, believe also in me. Then comes the reassurance that Jesus impending departure indicates not the end, but the beginning of the promise that Jesus brings from the Father. In my Father s house are many dwelling places. And I go to prepare a place for you. Yet, even more is at stake, for Jesus indicates that the disciples know the way to the place where I am going, so the disciples are somehow already aware of the way that Jesus is going to process. Dr. Gregory Robertson, Truth Page 2

4 This claim evokes a question by Thomas, a question directly related to the way. In his response Thomas divides the goal as destination ( where ) from the route or the way (hodon). Thomas wanted specific directions to this new reality of the Father s house, but he did not know how to do this since he did not know where he was to end his trip. Thomas s problem, however, was that in the metaphor of the house and the rooms Jesus had told him the destination. Yet, Thomas had misinterpreted the metaphor to be a statement of taking a journey. In contrast, Jesus seems to be talking about the ultimate relationship of life that humans are to enjoy with God, a relationship that has eternal implications, as was declared in Dr. Lozano s sermon last week (see the February 26, 2013 Stained Glass Sermon by Lozano on the image of judgment). When understood properly, the metaphor of the way then indicates something more akin to a way of life. Not surprisingly, this concept of a way of life that was foundational to the preaching and teaching of Jesus was not something he invested out of hand, for it was already present in Israel and was central to the teachings of the rabbis. The Hebrew word halak ( walk ) is instructive at this point. The Torah was not to be understood primarily as a set of rules, but as guidelines for a life or walk with God. Accordingly, the rabbis designated the strict commands of God as halakah. In contrast, interpretations and approved liturgies were designated as haggadah. We find this imagery also in Paul. For instance, when Paul instructs Christian to embody lives of integrity as Christians, he calls them to walk not according to the flesh (Rom 8:4, NRSV), to walk in love (Rom 14:15), and to walk by the Spirit (Gal 5:16). But others, he laments, walk instead as enemies (Phil 3:18). Christians are called to walk worthy of God (1 Thess 2:12). In John s Gospel to follow Jesus is portrayed by the metaphor of walking in the light or in the daytime (11:9; 12:35). Both in Paul and John, this way of life, indicated by the verb peripatein, suggests that one is to conduct one s life in a particular way or manner. Jesus response to Thomas question opens with another occurrence of Jesus use of ego eimi, a familiar phrase characteristic of John s Gospel. In the preceding chapters egō eimi has been used to indicate that Jesus is the Messiah (4:28), the bread or sustenance of the community (6:35, 48, 51), the light of the world (8:12; 9:5), the one who is from above and not from the world (8:23), the gate or entrance way to the sheepfold (10:7, 9), the good shepherd (10:11, 14), Dr. Gregory Robertson, Truth Page 3

5 and the resurrection and life (11:25). Now, the writer of John joins three powerful ideas of way, truth, and life to produce a classic statement concerning the significance of Jesus in the salvation God brings to pass in him. To do that, the writer identifies these three terms, a way of life founded in the truth that Jesus enacts. Yet, in terms of John s Gospel, one cannot read this statement ascribed to Jesus without thinking about Pilate s statement during his interrogation of Jesus a few chapters later: when Jesus states that he was born and came into the world to testify to the truth, Pilate retorts in John 18:38, What is truth? That is a question that continues to haunt us even into our own times. Philosophers and others have pointed out that, in Greek, truth bears a specific semantic valence that is significant for understanding how Jesus may be understood as the truth, one that has implications for how we may and should understand the reality of truth. Aletheia, the Greek word generally translated by the English term truth, consists of a term, letheia, which suggests covering, as well as an alpa-privitive, which denotes not. Thus, the term suggests nonconcealment, or, in another vein, revelation or the active manifestation of something which has to this point been hidden or previously concealed. As Kittle and Bultmann suggests, alethia denotes that which it bears or denotes, certainty and force, that which is consistent with righteousness before God (other than ourselves). Yet, what we perceive as reasonable and ordinary are not reducible to our preconceived notions. God desires so much more for whom we may be! What might truth suggest for whom we are called to be? How does it expose one s misconception of who we are and what is possible with whom God has demonstrated God to be? In other words, what does truth expose? Of what does it make one aware? It is very telling that, first, truth is not something, not a thing (which parallels how I understand the Gospel) but fundamentally is someone. As John s Gospel asserts in this verse, truth is nothing other than Jesus of Nazareth. Yet, who is Jesus of Nazareth? He is none other than the one who loves and gives himself for you and for me. Remember, John is a part of Jesus final instructions to the disciples, and culminates in what is commonly referred to as Jesus high-priestly prayer, in which Jesus prayers that both his disciples and subsequent followers Dr. Gregory Robertson, Truth Page 4

6 might be one just as he and the Father are one. How is this even possible in a world of such division and hatred? Because Jesus has already lived such a life, so what in our minds seems improbable if not impossible has become actualized in human history. Yet, what does it mean to claim that Jesus is the truth, not merely as one who bears witness to truth, but as the one whom embodies truth? What does that mean for how we should and must seek the truth? Since truth is a person, it means that we cannot come to know this truth as if it is a neutral datum. This is part of why I think we must be cautious in reducing truth to only its inscriptuated form, the Bible. Yes, the Bible is one of the primary means by which God brings us into God s truth, but it can never replace the one whom is truth. Why does this matter? It shapes how we will seek to interact with the biblical witness. If truth is a thing, a simple statement of a proposition, we read Scripture looking for those propositional statements on which we can hang our understanding. Now indubitably there are propositional statements in the Christian Bible, but they always are framed in a narrative context. An abstract concept is not at the heart of that to which the Bible witnesses. Rather, it is a story of God s love and commitment to God s creation, a creation that sought to reject God but this obstinacy is overcome by God s love. As those redeemed in and by God s love, this means truth is about our lived existence, our attempts to be those who embody love for God in our love of neighbor. For us, truth must be enacted, not merely confessed. To fail to enact this truth is to deny the very hope that Jesus has brought to and for us. Secondly, as truth, Jesus acts to make his being known rather than something we find through our own aptitudes. Truth s reality, our new being in Christ, is made possible only because of the Spirit which Jesus sends from the Father. That means that, at the end of the day, we are neither the controllers nor the arbiters of truth. We may be its witnesses, but we certainly do not control truth s reality. Thirdly, the reality of truth means we must listen in hope about how we are seeking to exist. In the Old Testament, truth seems to indicate something solid or valid, and thus Dr. Gregory Robertson, Truth Page 5

7 particularly true. Within the Law, truth hinges upon the verity of the one bringing witness or testimony. That meant truth had to be enacted, it could never be reduced to an abstract idea or opinion. In much the same way, in John s Gospel Jesus calls us to concrete action: to live in love for God and neighbor since we have been redeemed by God. I would like to close with one more illustration. To what degree are you comfortable with the execution of Osama ben Laden? Do we have any foundational concerns about that event? He was accused of one of the most egregious criminal actions in our nation s history. What I must ask is fundamentally not what I might hope to transpire, but what should occur? To what degree does his death remediate his human actions? I ask these questions not to elevate a mass murder whose actions are so foundationally contrary to whom God seems to present God s self in my understanding of human history. Yet, I help but ask what my government did in my name, and if it was consistent with the Gospel we proclaim? Jesus died so that the hatred expressed by cheering Americans at the death of bin Laden may be forgiven. This morning, we are given the opportunity to once more remember this gracious action of God for us in Jesus. I invite you now to follow the Dean and I as we lead our community in the grace-filled act of Communion. Dr. Gregory Robertson, Truth Page 6