Before I wrote this morning’s post on Jesus being the Door, I read and re-read John 9 and 10. In the preparation for these posts I would often spend some time pondering on my assumptions about certain references and how they match up to other perspectives on those same scriptures.
For example John 10:10 is a pretty popular verse in a lot of Christian circles. That Jesus has come to give life in abundance is a promise and hope that we should find great joy and comfort in. As is often the case, however, we can neglect some elements of the context that can help illuminate, reinforce and provide vital depth to those phrases we treasure.
I never saw the connection between 9 and 10 before. Maybe there isn’t one. Maybe there’s a clear cut between both episodes. And yet … and yet the connections between Jesus’ outlining of the sheep who follow the voice and the blind man who could see and committed his life to believing the Son of Man. I just couldn’t shake the connection. Read as a whole, both chapters and sections offer so much more depth that provide greater hope, greater clarity and a challenging perspective on an issue that has been very close to home for me.
Disclaimer: The following is more a stream of thought than casting aspersions against people and organisations. In as much as I expect some to read otherwise, this is just a stream with bits still to be sorted.
My background, the formative years of my life and introduction to the Christian faith involved a lot about claims of truth. The expression of those claim lead me to believe that anyone who didn’t hold those claims could not be said to be following the truth. Such adherence to this perspective also implied and openly expressed the exclusive nature of our beliefs. That is to say, if you didn’t believe what we believed then you weren’t a part of the truth.
So access to acceptance was based on adhering to our understanding of those critical claims to the truth – all the claims. Such a view kept certain people out and only allowed certain people in. The way we held the exclusive claims gave way to a lot of spiritual pride and virtually obnoxious behaviour. There was more of a pursuit to nail people on these truth claims than anything else and otherwise there was a tolerance of others who claimed to be Christians but didn’t subscribe to the critical claims.
The other problem with that position was that it was based on a certain reading of Scripture that was assumed and never explored. Of course when you assume things and don’t explore the basis of those assumptions you leave yourself open to all manner of challenges. In that position you either force you to address the foundations or stick your head in the sand and ignore the counter claims as ‘the devil’s distractions’.
After a while of the ostrich game it becomes apparent that at least your neck might hurt and being stiff-necked is not an endearing quality in a believer.
I spent quite a while in a very different Christian environment where the ethos stressed being inclusive. Almost like the antithesis of the culture in which I grew there was a big push to not allow doctrinal positions to be barriers to people coming to faith. Denominationalism was questioned, especially in the light of what Jesus says later on in John 10 about other sheep in other folds being brought together so that there is one fold with one shepherd. Being inclusive crossed social as well as doctrinal lines and was very much in line with a view of the gospel that was not about keeping anyone out, but allowing people to know that everyone was allowed in – everyone and anyone.
Disturbingly, there was something about being inclusive that almost bent over backwards not to exclude anyone. This was done even at the cost of making Jesus Christ to be more of a door – a door among many other doors – to a life that inevitably the ‘loving God’ would allow everyone to experience.
So exclusivity and being inclusive. Two approaches that had elements of truth, but for one reason or another were far too extremist in their expression. One valued statements above spiritual and relational. Another valued relational above truth as if the end could justify the means.
Implicit in Jesus’ confrontation with the Pharisees in John 9 is his statement that there are those who can see that become blind and those who are blind that will now see. Then in 10 there is a classification of thieves, robbers and hirelings, as opposed to the sheep. Indeed throughout Jesus’ ministry, He has no problems making distinctions between those who will be accepted and those who will not. Sheep and Goats. Four different soils in which the seed falls. The very demands of discipleship establish what Jesus will summarise as many being called but a few being chosen.
Christianity makes exclusive claims. Jesus’ claims are as exclusive as they come. There are no options to what he puts forward.
At the same time, the nature of the exclusivity of the claims of Jesus is only focussed on Him – not other claims, not statements divorced from a living, spiritual, dynamic with the Father through Him. Indeed, those who would have thought themselves part of the ‘excluded’ are precisely the people who are the ‘blind’ given sight. All to the glory of the God who makes Himself known to whoever He chooses regardless of background.
Access remains exclusively in Jesus – He is the Door. Yet it is opened to whoever will only go through Jesus. Those who respond to that invitation experience the abundant life that He is only too willing to offer to the sheep who hear His voice.
For His Name’s Sake
Shalom
dmcd
Life With CD 