Why do we refer to various occupations as a “practice?” A lawyer practices law; a physician practices medicine and a pharmacist practices the “art” of pharmacy. Why do you suppose we refine their practice as “art”… e.g., the “art” of medicine? William Osler, regarded as the “father of modern medicine” said that the practice of medicine is an art not a trade; a calling not a business; a calling in which your heart will be exercised equally with your head. Often the best part of your work will have nothing to do with potions and powders but with the exercise of an influence of the strong upon the weak, of the righteous upon the wicked, or the wise upon the foolish.
Practice and art distinguishes the need for practitioners to continue a life-long learning process and that the need to hone respective skills are required to maintain even minimum proficiency. This need is most apparent in the field of medicine and most especially in its sub-specialties. Today’s fast moving stream of information that requires constant learning, occurs at warp speed, likely beyond anything Dr. Osler could have imagined. We as consumers require, if not demand it from our health care providers.
But should this ongoing practice of honing one’s skills be relegated only to the professions? Shouldn’t ongoing learning and self-improvement be a life-long process, consistent with living an enriched, fruitful life in everyone?
So what does this have to do with our Gospel reading (John 3:14-21)? What does this have to do with the repentance and faith Jesus calls us to embrace? I think there is a parallel. We are on a continual spiritual journey when it comes to loving God and loving others. I’m not sure that this comes about naturally. Speaking for myself, I know that learning to become a person who is aware of and open to God’s loving presence, and who much less, allows that love to flow through to others, is something that has required ongoing continued practice. Yet, ironically as opposed to other learned or acquired skills, the love of God has always been there like a burning bright light hidden beneath reams of ego. But my openness to its presence and willingness to let go are works in progress. The minute I think I feel all is right with my relationship with God, something gets in the way and turns my head. I guess I’m a slow learner. In reality we are engaged in something that requires constant attention and practice.
Yet in this Gospel reading we can sense the potential for what appears to be a paradox or a tension between God’s unconditional love for those who get the “message” and those who don’t get it. Its interpretation can set the stage for exclusivity and earning salvation: Someone’s in; someone’s out. You win; you lose
I suppose it’s important to frame John’s words in the time frame, and for the purpose of and to whom they were written. At the time of his writing, the Jewish Christians were undergoing considerable pain. They were ostracized from their homes, congregations and cut off from their families and friends. When one experiences that kind of painful rejection, it’s easy to fall into an oppositional way of thinking. Are they for or against me?
But we should not let this frame or distort the truth in John’s words. It clearly affirms God’s unconditional love and suggests the response that love requires of us. In John, it’s not about the words… it’s about the doing. Our love, faith and convictions are not static but meant to be put into practice. Learning a musical instrument or a specific skill requires action beyond words and lip service. If we are truly committed, we are always learning and practicing our faith in real life.
As for me, I’m still learning. I’m still learning to get beyond my own selfishness so that I can truly love the people around me. I am still learning how to open myself so that the love of God can flow through me. I’m still learning to relate to the people around me with compassion, understanding and kindness… and I hope I never stop practicing.
You are correct about the context of conflict in John's gospel. He had to give some explanation of why Jesus the Messiah had not been embraced by all Jews and Gentiles, so the in-out theme appears often.
ReplyDeleteI have concluded that there were two main parts to Jesus' teaching: to correct people's notions about the character of God, and to invite people into the Kingdom of God.
The oft-quoted John 3:16 does this. First it asserts that God is not about condemning, but about life-giving. This would have been contrary to Nicodemus' ideas, and it is also contrary to the basic story of creation - fall - condemnation - redemption that has been the foundation of Christianity for the last 1800 years, which essentially makes God a judge meting out justice.
Then it asserts that anyone who is willing to embrace the Jesus way is welcome into the life of the Kingdom.