Perspective

This past week, in Shiloh's regular Thursday Bible study, we were discussing the texts that are designated for this past Sunday by the Revised Common Lectionary. Among the four designated texts were the two that we had decided to use as the focal point of worship for the fourth Sunday in Lent: Ephesians 2:8-10 and John 3:14-21.

The conversation arose naturally, as we were attempting to tie our modified Historical/Critical Method to a direct application for that upcoming Sunday. We discussed the Pauline concentration on the grace of God in the Crucifixion/Resurrection of Christ Jesus and the typical epistolary elements of his letters. We determined that, given those typical and necessary elements, Ephesians seems only slightly like Pauline material. The theology is similar, but the essence of the epistle is missing. We discussed that the theology of grace is always juxtaposed with a theology of the law. The question is whether Jesus and Paul reflected a conditional relationship with God, as one would expect under a theology of law, or if it is unconditional, as one would experience with a theology of grace.

In the course of the conversation, in order to make transition to consideration of the gospel texts, I said that most biblical texts can be interpreted from either perspective. In order to support the point, I demonstrated to the class how John 3:16 can be read as either conditional or unconditional statement of faith. (I did the same at the 10:25 service on Sunday morning.)

John 3:16 can reflect both a conditional (law) or unconditional (grace) relationship with the God of Jesus Christ. Here is what is written: For God so loved the world that God gave God's own begotten Son, that whomsoever should but believe in him would not perish but have eternal life (my translation). Does this mean that everyone receives salvation in Jesus Christ, or that only those who believe (rightly) in him do? The difference in how one reads the text reflects how one was raised, how one thinks, and what one embraces as a truth of life. Those who believe that their relationship with God is conditional will read the text from that perspective. Those who believe that their relationship with God is unconditional will read the text from that perspective. Neither, it turns out, tends to entertain the alternative perspective.

Some in the class understood that the text itself could be interpreted from alternative perspectives. The text is not definitive, but open to interpretation. Some in the Sunday service understood that the text leaves the interpretive door ajar and that neither perspective is certain, at least not according to the text itself. Most wanted to argue the point, from one perspective or the other.

It was clear, however, that the intent of the Revised Common Lectionary authors was that this text should be interpreted as the theology of grace. Tying John 3:16 to Ephesians, the notion that we are saved solely through faith and not works, with works as faithful response to the free gift of God's grace, is testament to the theology of grace. The Revised Common Lectionary interprets John 3:16 as belonging to the theology of grace, and approaches the theme from that perspective.

While not a definitive answer to how we should interpret John 3:16, the action of the Revised Common Lectionary authors is informative. But the question for us is clear. Is John 3:16 a conditional or unconditional statement? Does it paint the picture of relationship with the God of Jesus Christ according to the theology of law or according to the theology of grace. The answer, it turns out, tells us more about our perspectives than it informs us about the faith.

By the way, almost every scriptural text can be read from either perspective. In fact, the divisions between unconditional and conditional perspectives on faith have been the chief dividing factors within, among, and from religious traditions of every kind and every place throughout time. I wonder if we can move past those perspectives and find common ground from which to practice the mission and ministry to which our faith calls us? Perhaps faith relies more on the outcomes of what we do than the path that we follow in order to get to them?