Readings: Jonah 1 – 2: 10, Luke 7: 36-50
This is the fourth in a series of sermons on the Lord’s
Prayer and in preparing for it I have been asking people which verse in the
Lord’s Prayer they think is the most important. And perhaps – at this point we should all
pause and reflect for ourselves which we think is the most important verse.
….
Well what did you decide?
Perhaps the first verse – ‘Our
Father in Heaven’ - because it is the first.
If you haven’t eaten recently perhaps you went for ‘Give us today our
daily bread’. But I hope – some of you
at least - came to the conclusion that it is a stupid question because, of
course, no verse in the Lord’s Prayer is any more important than any other and
that includes the verse we have come to today: ‘Forgive us our sin as we
forgive those who sin against us’. But
having coming to this verse in our sermon series, we do, of course, need to concentrate
it upon it.
In this
sermon I want to discuss three questions in relation to this verse:
Firstly: what do we mean by sin?
Secondly: what do we mean by
forgiveness?
Thirdly: what is the connection
between the first half of the verse ‘forgive us our sins’ and the second ‘as we
forgive those who sin against us’?
So, firstly, what is sin? Now those of you who heard Steve’s – our
vicar’s - excellent sermon on sin at this year’s carol service will need no
reminding. At the end of the carol service
someone said to him, ‘Steve, I am so glad that you disobeyed the Church Times’. Apparently: earlier that week the Church
Times had run an article exhorting preachers at carol services to avoid the
subject of sin because irregular church goers might be put off by such a
subject.
Of course
you won’t have forgotten what Steve said but I’ll remind you anyway. Basically Steve said that when Christians
talk about sin they are expressing three basic convictions, that:
1.
Something is wrong and needs restoring, fixing,
sorting, personally, relationally, and globally.
2.
And that that something is not just in other
people but is an issue in all of us.
3.
Our moral wrongdoing is not only about harming
ourselves, or other people, or the planet, but is an offence against the God
who made us.
But I guess that the Church Times article reflects the fact
that sin is not as fashionable a subject for sermons as it used to be. Sin is of course a religious term that you now
hardly ever hear out of church. But is
the fact that sin as a subject for sermons is on the wane a good thing? Actually I do think it is - but not because the use of the
word sin might discourage people from coming to church. Rather because I think forgiveness of sins –
whilst being an important part of the good news that is the gospel - is not the
whole of that good news. It’s only one
verse in the Lord’s Prayer. Now this
might sound controversial to some but bear with me and, of course, feel free to
disagree with me.
In the Book of Common Prayer Communion Service – a service
which we hold most Sundays at 8 o’clock at St Matthew’s - the topic of sin
comes up in virtually every part of the services: the Collect for Purity, the
Prayer of Humble Access, the Prayer of Consecration, the Prayer of Oblation,
the Gloria and of course the Confession.
This isn't to discourage you from coming to this 8 o’clock service by
the way.
Not all churches have made sin the central focus of their
liturgy and their sermons. And perhaps
it’s just me who seems to have been subjected disproportionally, over the
course of my life to, what are known in my family, as ‘I in sin’ sermons.
The basic and take-home message of such a sermon was/is that:
We all have sinned. Sin cuts us off
from God. Jesus cane to save us from this
situation. Through his death on the
cross we can, if we have faith, be restored in our relationship with God. If we truly accept this we will go to Heaven
instead of to Hell. They are called ‘I
in sin’ sermons in my family because in such sermons it was common to point out
the ‘coincidence’ that the letter I – which is, of course, also the first
person personal pronoun - is in the middle of the word S I N – sin. This was to reinforce the sermon’s message
that we are all enmeshed, downing in sin or some such appropriate metaphor.
I should, at this point, say that is of course a caricature of a
certain type of sermon which is very rare indeed at St Matthew’s so what I am
about to say should not be taken as criticism of sermons here.
These I in sin sermons used to leave me feeling more
doubtful and guilty than anything else.
They made the gospel all sound so simple but I could never be sure
whether I believed it sufficiently or not: whether I had enough faith. My problem was that I had come to a growing
awareness of the existence of God but I wasn’t utterly certain of what God’s
existence meant for me. I doubted – and I
still am not sure - that salvation is just or even mainly about salvation from
sin.
I also wasn’t at all sure I was as sinful as all that. These sermons seemed to be suggesting that I
was – in the eyes of God – a wicked, unworthy, miserable offender even if I had
been saved (and I wasn’t entirely sure that I was). I didn’t feel particularly wicked. OK I knew I wasn’t perfect. But
when I checked out, say, the 10 commandments or the seven deadly sins I seemed
to doing OKish even with Jesus’ qualifications about sinning in your thoughts
as well as by deed. I also didn’t really
want to feel unworthy. Depending on my stage in life I thought I was
doing reasonably well at school, at my job, at being a parent OK, again, I hadn’t done as well as perhaps
I could have. And I didn’t feel particularly
miserable about my sins either. I always
left the church- after such a sermon - feeling guilty about not feeling more
guilty.
I think if you go back and look at the basic message of such
‘I in sin’ sermons’ you can see there are several things missing. To remind you: their take-away message was: ‘We all have sinned. Sin cuts us off from God. Jesus cane to save us from this
situation. Through his death on the
cross we can, if we have faith, be restored in our relationship with God. If we truly accept this we will go to Heaven
instead of to Hell.’
Firstly this account misses out both the life and the
resurrection of Jesus as if they are of lesser importance than his death. Of course the cross is central to the good
news that is the Gospel but Jesus’ crucifixion needs to be seen in the light of
his resurrection otherwise where is the assurance that the cross had or has any
meaning at all. Furthermore the
crucifixion and the resurrection make no real sense unless we can see who Jesus
was though the accounts of his life.
Secondly there is no mention of love here and in particular
God’s love for us. If we are all wicked,
unworthy, miserable offenders why would God – in the shape of Jesus - want to
die for us? The answer is that God
loves us and he loves us because we are loveable. And we are loveable because God made us in
his image. An image that may be marred
but not entirely covered up.
Thirdly this message seems to all about the future: what
happens when we die – and tells us nothing about Jesus’ saving work in the here
and now.
Fourthly and perhaps most importantly in relation to today’s
sermon - this basic story doesn’t really mention forgiveness. OK forgiveness might be implicit in the
message. The idea that Jesus’ death on
the cross restores our relationship with God implies, somehow, that henceforth
our sins provide no barrier to that relationship. But does this mean those sins are forgiven or
what?
Which brings me to my
second question: what is forgiveness? But before seeking to answer this question and perhaps it
doesn’t need saying but I’ll say it anyway: ‘God can and does forgive us’. This ability on God’s part is assumed when we
ask him to forgive us when we say ‘Forgive us our sins’ as part of the Lord’s
Prayer and indeed similar words in our ‘Confessions’ - which are integral part
of all our services. We are going to
say a Confession later.
But then I think we can distinguish two sorts of
forgiveness: one that might be called forensic or technical and one that is
felt. There is a type of forgiveness
which seems to be a technicality but not felt on the part of the person who is
the forgiven and perhaps even the forgiver.
Going back to those ‘I in sin’ sermons just for a
moment. And I really do want to leave
them behind. Does the restoration of our
relationship with God through the cross mean that our sins have been covered up
or washed away or what?
I prefer the idea that our sins are washed away – as in
Psalm 51 verse 2 where the psalmist asks God to ‘Wash me thoroughly from my
iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin’.
But the idea of covering up our sins rather than washing them away is
also common. Psalm 31: 1 says ‘Happy are
those whose transgression is forgiven whose sin is covered.’ [And
this is verse quoted by Paul in his letter to the Romans [4:7]]
Now asking God to cover up our sins and him doing so without
removing our sins – is a type of technical forgiveness. But I also think we can experience God’s
forgiveness – and indeed need desperately to do so. If nothing else I would like you to leave
this service today with the more certain knowledge and hopefully feeling that
you are forgiven.
But how are we to feel/experience God’s forgiveness. I have been scouring the Bible for stories
of forgiveness to see if we can learn more from them. There are, if you begin to think about it,
hundreds of stories about forgiveness – or rather hundreds of stories where
forgiveness is an aspect of people’s encounter with God and in particular
Jesus. Jesus also tells stories of
forgiveness in his parables. The
picture behind me – of the return of the Prodigal Son – depicts an act of
forgiveness. We have, in our readings today two stories of forgiveness.
First the Old Testament story of Jonah. Actually the whole of the book of Jonah is
about forgiveness but Michael read to us just the first half. The bit where Jonah deliberately disobeys
God’s instructions to go to Nineveh and ‘cry out against the wickedness’ of the
people there. In consequence Jonah gets
swallowed by a whale. Jonah begs God
for his forgiveness, God gives him that forgiveness and rescues him from the
belly of the whale and Jonah proceeds to obey God’s previous instructions. Nowhere in Jonah does it say that God forgave
Jonah for his disobedience but we can see that God did through his action in
rescuing Jonah.
The second story – from the New Testament – tells the story
of a so-called ‘sinful’ women who anoints Jesus’ feet with perfume. In this story we don’t know what the woman
had done to be labelled sinful. What
these sins were isn’t important to the story.
What is important is that Jesus gracefully accepts the woman’s gift and
tells the woman that her sins are forgiven and to go in peace.
The two stories about forgiveness are, in some ways, quite
different. In the first we know what the
fault was, in the second we don’t. In
the first there is no pronouncement of forgiveness but in the second there
is. In the first the forgiveness comes
in the form of an action on God’s part: his rescue of Jonah from the belly of
the whale. In the second we know nothing
about what happens to the women after Jesus has forgiven here only that she was
to ‘go in peace’.
But the two stories do also have some fundamental similarities:
both are basically about relationships between God and human beings that come
to be restored – not primarily though the action of the human participants in
the stories but through the action of God.
Even so the actions of the human participants are important. Jonah has to ask to be rescued. The woman has to buy the perfume and
interrupt a party. They also show us
that God cares for us who we are – warts and all. He wants us to be and do certain things in a
different, better ways but he also rescues from the consequences of sin: guilt and shame.
Now these two things: guilt and shame are quite
different. Crudely speaking we can see
guilt as a good thing – it’s an emotion that tells the person that he or she
has done something wrong, that they need, if possible, to repair the wrong and to
do things differently in the future.
Shame on the other hand is generally a bad thing. It’s not necessarily related to anything
immoral that we have done. For example
many people these days feel ashamed of their bodies when they have done nothing
wrong to justify feelings of guilt.
Similarly many are ashamed of their gender or sexuality when this is inappropriate. Shame is related to sin – but this is likely
to be the sin of others rather than the person themself.
In our first Bible story we know that Jonah disobeyed God in
a specific action – setting off in different direction to Nineveh. Jonah’s guilt was relieved when he repented
and turned to God. In our second Bible
study we do not know what the woman had done.
It is perhaps clear that she was ashamed in that she wept, yet Jesus
accepted her for what she was and relieved her of her shame. I think shame is much more common than might be thought. Most people don’t talk about what they are
ashamed of. What I think is clear to
everyone is that we all need more relief from guilt and shame. And this relief is a promise of God.
So finally the
relationship between the first half of the verse ‘forgive us our sins’ and the
second ‘as we forgive those who sin against us’? Again – as with choosing the most important verse in the
Lord’s Prayer -one might be tempted to think that the first half of this verse
is more important than the second. Surely,
you might say, it’s more important for God to forgive us than for us to forgive
other people. Actually I don’t think it
is. These are two halves of one verse
and one half of the verse is no more or less important than the other.
But the problem I have always had with the second half of
this verse is understanding quite what it means. Does it mean that God forgives us in the same
way as we forgive other people, or that if we are to be forgiven by God we must
forgive others? The first reading seems
problematic because clearly we are good at forgiveness ourselves and God is
surely so much better at it than we are.
The second reading is a problem because it seems to suggest that God’s
forgiveness is conditional upon something we do – albeit related to forgiveness.
Matthew clearly recognises that there might be a problem with
this verse and after giving us the Lord’s Prayer he adds a couple of verses seemingly
to explain it. He records Jesus as
saying: ‘For if you forgive others their sins your heavenly Father will also
forgive you; but if you do not forgive others, neither will your Father forgive
your sins’. [Matthew 6: verses 14 and 15.]
This makes the second of the two ways of reading this verse:
that God’s forgiveness is conditional upon our forgiveness of others more
likely and if so it makes any simple model of forgiveness – such as all we need
to obtain God’s forgiveness is to have faith in it - somewhat doubtful.
But it also means that God’s forgiveness isn’t just a
personal thing but something which binds communities together. We forgive because we have been forgiven and
we dare to ask for forgiveness because we forgive. St
Augustine called this verse in the Lord’s Prayer that we are thinking about
today a terrible petition because of the burden he thought it put on those who
pray it. He thought it meant that if we
asked God for forgiveness with an unforgiving heart we are, in effect, asking
him not forgive us. But if you see the
verse as a request to God for help with our forgiveness of others then it becomes
less terrible.
So to summarise. In this sermon I have talked about what I think sin and
forgiveness are. Or rather Steve told us
what sin is at the carol service and I have tried to say that the concept of
sin is not as important to the Gospel as it can be made out to be. Forgiveness, on the other hand, is something
we need to experience more of. I hope
that doesn’t sound paradoxical. I think
we even need more forgiveness for imagined sins for which we are ashamed. We need more forgiveness: both from God and
for each other. Forgiveness from God is
a gift – a costly gift – we should accept it with gratitude and it's wroth
praying for.
No comments:
Post a Comment