Exposition III

Jesus said, By your words, you will be condemned' (Matt.12:37). Who then is Jesus Christ? We have to be careful how we answer this because it is a boomerang question; it is not primarily an academic matter. Some people think that they can sit down and discuss the Christian faith as they might discuss a scientific hypothesis. This isn't so. God does not prove His existence by a series of propositions; He reveals Himself in a person, and how we respond to a living person is very different, and much more demanding, than our response to a logical proposition. Christ's teaching, therefore, can not be grasped by the intelligence. Paul said that judgement would come upon 'those who don't know God and who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus' (2Thess. 1:8). Therefore, the question is ultimately not one of understanding, but one of obeying. *A Christian is called a 'disciple': one who follows Jesus, listen to Him and obeys Him.* People commonly ask the wrong questions about the Christian faith. Is it helpful? Is it satisfying? Is it worth my while? These are relatively unimportant. The vital issue is: *Is it true?* And Christ replies, 'I am...the Truth...no one comes to the Father but by me' (John 14:6). *Therefore one who wants to know God and find Him as a real person in...**in his life must come to Jesus.* He alone can bring him into a living relationship with God himself. People often say to me, 'But it requires tremendous faith to believe all that! You cannot prove it conclusively. It goes far beyond logic and reason. Perhaps you're wrong.' One cannot, in fact, prove, logically, any person's existence, even one's own; it is a matter of experience. The Christian belief is, therefore, a step of faith, and it cannot be proved mathematically or scientifically (Hebrews 11:6). But it needs far greater faith to believe that Christianity is not true; that the historical facts of the Christian faith are fairy tales, that Christ's teaching is false; and that the...experience of Christians all down the centuries has been based on a delusion. There is a mass of evidence for what the Christian believes. But where is the evidence for the agnostic position? He has to believe, with the authority only of his personal opinion, that all that Christ taught was either not true or not important. Christ, with His life and actions supporting all that He said, stressed repeatedly that His teaching was authoritative and urgent. Any man who tries to think honestly must ask himself what it was that made Christ speak with such authority and that is why His message is so relevant for the modern world.

*SIN: A CHRISTIAN NEUROSIS?*

We shall see something of the relevance of Christ in the story of one likeable rebel, the young woman of Samaria, whose meeting with Christ is recorded in John 4. So, like many of her generation, she was disillusioned because she saw that the established traditional life of her country had nothing to offer her, that was real and satisfying. Socially, the Jews were not on speaking terms with the Samaritans. Economically, times were hard; and here she was, poor, having to collect water every day from the only well in the neighbourhood! Morally, there was a hypocritical veneer of respectability! The very people who complained about the morality of her generation were by no means innocent themselves. Spiritually, of course, the country was dead. Theologians spent their time arguing whether God ought to be worshipped in Samaria or Jerusalem. They were hopelessly out of touch with real life, and their teaching was completely irrelevant. In particular, she could not stand the religious preoccupation with sin, always so guilt-ridden and introspective. 'Positively a neurosis,' she might have said. 'What's the point of being morbid all the time? Life's bleak enough as it is !' The answer? Well, of course, to throw religion overboard. She was no fool. She was determined to get some kick out of life in a set-up that was otherwise extremely dreary. Unless she found some excitement, life was scarcely worth living. Therefore she let go of some of her inhibitions, experimented with free love, and drew a large circle of friends. Three words more or less summed up her total ambition: _happiness, freedom, life._ That, perhaps, is a fair description of what most people are looking for today. *DISILLUSIONED:* However, she met with a number of surprises. _In the first place, her pursuit of happiness left her curiously unhappy and dissatisfied._ Playing around with men merely convinced her that most men were selfish creatures, out to satisfy their lusts but knowing very little about love. Further, her search for happiness proved to be increasingly frustrating. Free love soon lost its initial thrill and left a great deal of pain and sorrow behind it. The wide circle of 'friends' proved to be unreliable and selfish; she was still lonely at times and had no one else whom she could turn to nor could she finally throw overboard all notions of God. There were various questions which still required an answer, and there was something else, a conscience, which nagged-maybe not very often, but now and then. She had very little peace in her heart, although you might not have guessed it on casual acquaintance. In short, she was not particularly happy. Of course, she was beginning to discover the hard way, the truth about human nature. William Golding, in his book, reminds us what human nature is really like. For too long, we 'have never looked further than the rash appearing on the skin'; it is time we began to look 'for the root of the disease instead of describing the symptoms'. Therefore in his writing, he lifts the lid and peers inside. He is not concerned with the externals: what man would like to be and what he tries to be in front of other people. He is concerned, as God is, with what man is like in his innermost being, in the secret of his heart. And he shows us, undeniably, that beneath the surface of our much-prized rationality there is a 'seething cauldron of untamed desire'. Yet, when we see this extremely unattractive picture, it is extraordinary how we try to talk ourselves out of it. We talk about inhibitions, complexes, twists in our nature, mistakes, and temperament. We do not like using the word which the Bible uses, and which Christ frequently used: *SIN.* Sometimes I hear the protest: 'I don't understand this concept of sin. I don't know what you mean.' However, it is also my experience that no one has any real problem about this concept. Everyone knows what it is to be selfish, to lie, hate, steal, cheat, lust, criticise, and judge other people. Paul wrote: "Therefore you are without excuse, whoever you are, when you judge someone else.

For on whatever grounds you judge another, you condemn yourself, because you who judge practice the same things. Now we know that God’s judgment is in accordance with truth against those who practice such things. And do you think, whoever you are, when you judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself, that you will escape God’s judgment?"

(Romans 2:1-3). There is a common fault today- blaming someone else. 'It's them!' 'It's him!' 'It's her!' But it's never 'me!' That is why the word sin is so unpopular. It is too personal. Once I accept the concept of sin, I have to face up to the fact that I am responsible for my actions. I am guilty, and I need to be forgiven.

Thanks for reading. Merry Christmas

J.matty