14.v.95. John 13:31-35.

O holy Jesus, most merciful Redeemer, Friend and Brother... may I see Thee more clearly, love Thee more dearly and follow Thee more nearly, day by day.

Sunday morning somewhere in the Maritimes. Mother calls up the stairs, ‘‘Son, get up and go to church.’’ Son pulls the bedclothes higher up around his ears. Ten minutes later, mother calls up the stairs again, ‘‘Son, get up and go to church.’’ ‘‘I don’t want to get up and go to church.’’ ‘‘Give me two reasons why you shouldn’t get up and go to church.’’ ‘‘I don’t like the people and the people don’t like me.’’ Five minutes later, ‘‘Son, get up and go to church.’’ ‘‘Give me two reasons why I should get up and go to church.’’ ‘‘In the first place, you’re forty years old; and in the second, you’re the Rector.’’¼

In today’s Gospel reading Jesus said:

[Jn. 13:33-35] I am giving you a new commandment, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, that you too love one another. It is by this that everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for each other.

Nobody having given me a title for this sermon, I have given myself this one: Holy Spirit is thicker than blood. As we shall see, the New Commandment is not without mystery, but this much is clear: it has to do with love within the Christian fellowship. I always seem to get handed these huge subjects, and to be expected to handle them in under three days and three nights! The subject of love is enormous, and for all the fathoms of ink spilled in technical New Testament or Biblical study, virtually ignored in print; a fact which will come as no surprise to the theologians among you, as you are familiar with the academics’ ability to ignore the obvious. I can recommend for further reading three books, none of them super-academic: C.S. Lewis’ The Four Loves, Leon Morris’ Testaments of Love and Paul Vitz’ Psychology as Religion. In his first book about religion in our country, Fragmented Gods, Reginald Bibby stated that people’s fundamental concerns were God, self and society. He added that these are the core concerns of our faith. He is surely right; the Eternal Triangle in Holy Scripture and in Christian doctrine has as its corners God, you and me, and is joined up with love, God’s for us, ours for God and ours for each other. Everything that God is to us, or that we are supposed to be to God or to one another, may be subsumed under love.

 

So it is a topic so big that, like the biggest letters on the map, we can easily miss it, as in an atlas of Canada you might be hunting around for Québec when the name is right under your nose, splashed huge across the page. It’s therefore not surprising that, as I pointed out in an article as long ago as ’69, people of various theological stripes have tried to cut it down to bite-sized chunks. In some minds souls are so vital that we haven’t time for works of service. Others reverse these priorities. Still others split love into the so-called simple Gospel and the so-called social Gospel, recently renamed Liberation Theology. For at least thirty years I have been trying to find those two Gospels, or the distinction between them, in the New Testament. I find only the Eternal Love-triangle. In his latest book, Reg Bibby has summed up our typical aberrations as follows:

Roman Catholics have scored high on God and society low on self.

The United Church has been strong on society, acceptable on self weak on God.

Anglicans have been solid on God and society spotty on self.

Conservative Protestants have been strong on God, terrible on self weak on society beyond the evangelical community.

[UNKNOWN GODS p. 237]

 

Our thinking is not assisted by the fact that after nearly twenty centuries we’ve sold the world on love, so unbelievers now come back at us with very definite ideas as to what we Christians should be doing. It is assumed that all pleasant people who try to be loving must be Christians. Many believe in a kind of UNICEF Christ, and a platitude about the brotherhood of mankind. The New Commandment here in today’s Gospel is not about such a platitude. It’s about the vital distinction that made the terrified but obedient Ananias go to the new-minted Apostle Paul and say to him ‘‘Brother Saul...’’, that makes the writers of the Epistles hammer away at the necessity of love for fellow-believers, love that is genuine. And it’s about how unpleasant people who are not trying to be loving can have their personal lives transformed.

 

This passage is from those chapters of St. John’s Gospel that are called the ‘‘farewell discourses’’, which Jesus intended to be understood in the light of His dying and rising again. Since He frequently taught in parables, sometimes, as in the many miracles which this Evangelist called ‘‘signs’’, acting the parable out, and given that he said ‘‘...as I have loved you’’, it is reasonable to look at what has just gone before. Let’s therefore go back earlier, to the start of the chapter. Let’s see what Jesus meant by love according to this object-lesson. So would you find the Fourth Gospel, the thirteenth chapter, and the first verse.

 

[Jn. 13:1] Before the Passover festival, Jesus, who was fully aware that his time had come for returning from this sinful world to the Father, and had loved his own people who were in that world, loved them to the limit.

Our Lord is now within a few hours of His dying, and knows it. He makes no separation between show and tell. His love is one thing. His life of love and His dying love are a seamless robe. His love does not give up or let go; it goes through to the bitter end.

[2] Dinner was already in progress, and the devil had already put the idea of doing the dirty on him into the heart of Judas Iscariot Simon’s son.

The meal is already started. None of the disciples is obviously more spiritual than the others, and all of them have dismissed the work of washing feet from the effects of heat and dust as beneath them. There should be servants for those things.

[3] He knew that the Father had put everything into his hands and that he had come forth from God and was returning to God.

Jesus knows exactly who He is. He has no compulsion to prove by a show of love anything at all about Himself, either to God or to human beings. His love comes out of a pure heart. There’s nothing in it for Him.

[4] He got up from the meal, took off his things, and taking a towel put it round his middle.

He took the initiative and started in on meeting the need. Love is now or never.

[5] Then he poured water into a basin and started to rinse off the disciples’ feet and to dry them with the towel that he had round his middle.

This is not at all romantic nor does it make Him look glamorous.

[6] So he came to Simon Peter. He said to him, ‘‘Master, are you going to wash my feet?’’

The always-so-human Peter doesn’t want his need met by the Lord in this way.

[7] Jesus answered him, ‘‘What I am doing you do not know just now, but later you will understand.’’

Jesus refuses to be deflected, knowing that human beings take a long time to sort out their wants from their needs.

[8] Peter said to him, ‘‘You are never ever going to wash my feet.’’ Jesus replied, ‘‘If I do not wash you, you share nothing with me.’’

Peter still insists that he won’t receive such service from Jesus. The Lord says flatly that without it their lives will not be joined.

[9] Simon Peter said to him, ‘‘Master, not just my feet but my hands and my head too.’’

Peter now insists that he dictate to the Lord precisely how He is to do the job.

[10] Jesus said to him, ‘‘Some one who has been washed needs only to have his feet washed: he is clean all over. You are clean, but not all of you.’’

This love cleanses thoroughly whatever we think. It washes away the dead past which pollutes the present and prevents the future. The only exceptions are those who will not respond to it and so exclude themselves.

[11] He knew exactly who was going to do the dirty on him. That was why he said, ‘‘You are not all clean.’’

Love treats everyone however hurtful and untrustworthy just the same. It is realistic about evil. It is not sentimental. It has nothing to do with the emotions. It does not hold back, waiting for a nicer mixture of people, easier to deal with.

[12] So when he had washed their feet, he put his things back on and reclined at table again. Then he said, ‘‘Do you understand what I have done for you?’’

The love of Jesus doesn’t wait for us to grasp all of Christian doctrine before it makes a move. It is not rationed out to those with insight. If it were, would any of us get any?

[13-15] ‘‘You call me ‘Teacher and Master’, and you are right, because that is what I am. If then I have washed your feet when I am your Master and Teacher, you certainly ought to wash one another’s feet: I have given you a model so that you too should act as I have done to you.’’

Love like this does not reside, according to the Bible, in the human anima. We can’t just decide to turn it on or work it up in ourselves. We see it in Jesus first, then we get it from Him through His Spirit.

[16] ‘‘Truly, truly I tell you, the slave is not bigger than his master nor the representative bigger than the one he represents.’’

There is only one kind of dignity, one kind of status. The Lord from heaven made the Church the purpose of his life. Who are we to have bigger ideas for ourselves?

[17] ‘‘If you know all this, you are blessed if you do it.’’

These are beautiful thoughts. If they never become more than that, if they remain spiritual titillation, there is no lasting joy for us. Love is a decision. It is salutary to bear in mind that Judas witnessed all this, but as the next few verses tell us, it left him cold.

 

These are some of the aspects of the meaning of the New Commandment which it seems to me are clear from all this. We must come to terms first of all with the fact that those who are Jesus’ own people are our relatives. This is neither a metaphor nor a polite fiction. The Church is not a club for those who are interested in religion. This peculiar assortment of people, this unlikely social, intellectual, racial and temperamental mix, none of whom we chose, most of whom we never would have chosen, people with whom in most cases we have only one thing in common, are our family, if you and I are Christians. We can deny the relationship, but the facts are not altered. Holy Spirit is really thicker than blood.

 

We are to address the needs of the whole person. We are not to think that ministry is for the others to do. It can’t wait till we’ve got the crisis over, our toothache stops, we hear our exam result, we’ve found a mate, are out of psychotherapy, have got a job or are not one way or another still victims in traction. In most cases, if we sit and wait, we are going to wait for ever. We are not to act out of a desire to impress others with how spiritual we are, but rest in the knowledge that we are God’s children. If we see a need, we should not wait to be prompted. Dirt sticking to a fellow-Christian should not surprise or repel us. This is a hard doctrine for those of us who are idealists and don’t yet know ourselves very well. We should not let human beings dictate to us the terms of our service. While obviously we can add nothing to the washing of Jesus’ atoning sacrifice, we can ‘‘fill up what is lacking’’ in His sufferings by forgiving freely and keeping short accounts with our brethren. Incidentally, if we do not, Scripture is quite clear that we cannot communicate without eating and drinking to our own condemnation. We must not dig up the dirt that Christ has washed away, whether our own or other people’s. We must love without sentimentality; it is my testimony that the person met in this church who has shown me the most practical and imaginative love is about the most unsentimental I have ever known. We must not try to evade the issue by church-hopping, imagining that we can escape from the Church of Jesus Christ in this city, or by sermon-tasting, blowing in and out of a fellowship according to how much religious entertainment we expect to get from this preacher or that. We must not struggle to create, or get ourselves accepted by, a spiritual élite of the mature or enlightened, an Inner Ring in the church. What-ever our official position in an organised fellowship, the people of God, whether in microcosm, as in marriage, family and close Christian friendship, or in the larger sense, must become humanly speaking the purpose of our lives, and our gifts must be poured out for them. Perhaps some of us feel, as one former member of our fellowship did, frustrated because we can’t now do anything practical for people. There is room in the church for you too. Bring your need as your gift, giving the young and well the opportunity to do things for you. There are some others to whom this applies very obviously, and that is the extremely young, who can’t do anything for anybody. And there may be times in our lives when all of us must depend like that, in accordance with Paul’s teaching in his first Corinthian letter about the parts of the body which we treat with greater honour.

 

This, frankly, is where my questions begin. To some of them I have some answers to offer; to others each of us must supply our own. I will ask them in what to me is the ascending order of difficulty and nosiness. My first is this: Why did the Lord make mutual love the proof to everyone of our genuineness as His disciples? I am certain that the answer is this: because fallen mankind still remembers Eden, and knows what was lost there. The true opposite of sin is love. We are meant to function turned outwards from ourselves towards God and man. This is the truth which one fine day validated itself to the completely pagan Vitz, who got converted teaching modern selfism at the university level. Conversion when it’s the real thing is conversion into a life of love; if there are any hearing me today whose conversion was not in some sense that, I should welcome the privilege of explaining this central doctrine further. ‘‘We know’’, wrote John the apostle in his first letter, ‘‘that we have passed from death to life, because we love the brethren’’. It was said very early, and without sarcasm, ‘‘How these Christians love one another!’’. That most violently anti-Christian of philosophers, Nietzsche, said that he would take Christianity seriously when the Christians looked more saved. Christian after Christian would testify with me that nothing induces a sense of sin like seeing a bunch of other human beings functioning normally. We don’t know what is wrong, what’s missing in our lives till we see it; but when we do see it, we recognise normality. If God is seen to have set sinners doing the impossible He passes the test of reality, not for outsiders only, but for us; we too need to have our faith confirmed in this way. What else is Our Lord saying here? Dr. Billy Graham takes the view that his mass evangelism would have been superfluous if in every place the churches had been doing their thing. God’s chosen evangelistic instrument is not the golden-tongued evangelist or the Lone Ranger for Jesus, but the Church, whose community life, even writ small in your marriage, is the proof that there is really God, really a Holy Spirit. Please note that I am not claiming that one is never right to leave a particular fellowship; I do say that many of us take this step far too lightly.

 

Then there’s this one: Isn’t it all a bit cliquey? If love for fellow-believers becomes central don’t we finish up with a classic exclusive ‘holy huddle’ every time? And isn’t this just too easy compared with love for those who aren’t in fellowship with us? I have thought long and hard about this, and my answer is ‘‘No’’. To start with, we’re not allowed to stick labels on the others, or to claim certainty about anybody else’s spiritual condition. On top of this, someone who claims to be our fellow-believer is by definition not now going to have a spectacular change of heart and personality. He is going to carry some faults, some irritating habits, with him to the grave. So are we. When one forgives, there’s often a sneaking hope that there’ll be no repetition. What if repetition is the pattern? Personally I prefer to run away from what is really my sin. I am one who, far from being able to be patient with ‘repeaters’, can bear a grudge for forty years against someone whose name and face I have forgotten. Then there’s the ‘‘Come live with me and you’ll know me’’ alias the Nearest Neighbour factor. My mother used nothing personal implied to say that it was easy for the parishioners to adore the Rector, given that none of them had to live with him.

 

Thirdly there’s this, not a theoretical problem in our society. What’s the relation of the New Commandment to the moral law? Are the Ten Commandments now fulfilled in the sense of being abrogated? I don’t believe they are, if only because when we think ‘love’ we so easily deceive ourselves. The rules give shape to our love, as the mould does to the jelly. It’s true that you can’t eat the mould, but without it you may not be able to pin down any jelly either. Love will therefore obey the moral law.

 

Fourthly, what exactly is new about the New Commandment? Is it ‘‘new’’ because unlike the old Great Commandments it is addressed to a community? Is it that the love must be mutual? Does it ever exclude anyone? Does it let us love our unbelieving neighbour to some lower standard, or what? Does being Jesus’ disciples have something to do with the ‘‘newness’’? Am I a disciple, i.e. one who is learning from Him?

 

Finally, under the Old Covenant, only God gave commandments. The motivation for obedience was grace (‘‘I am the Lord your God Who brought you out of the land of Egypt’’...‘‘You are to remember that you were a slave in Egypt’’) i.e. the people were expected not to earn His love but to love Him back. If Jesus gives a commandment, who is He? What has He brought you out of, and what were you before? Is He the Lord your God? When He asks all of us here in this church ‘‘Do you know what I have done for you?’’, how do we reply? Answer Him now in the silence.

 

                                    Most glorious Lord of life! that, on this day

                                    Didst make thy triumph over death and sin;

                                    And, having harrowed hell, didst bring away

                                    Captivity thence captive, us to win:

                                    This joyous day, dear Lord, with joy begin;

                                    And grant that we, for whom thou didest die,

                                    Being with thy dear blood clean washed from sin,

                                    May live for ever in felicity!

                                    And that thy love we weighing worthily,

                                    May likewise love thee for the same again;

                                    And for thy sake, that all like dear didst buy,

                                    With love may one another entertain:

                                                So let us love, dear Love, like as we ought;

                                                Love is the lesson which the Lord us taught.

From Amoretti by Edmund Spenser.