Thoughts going in, Sunday March 30th

John 9:1-41...

The Gospel reading for this coming Sunday is actually so long, I’ve decided to summarize it rather than cut/paste the entire text here. This is the story of the man born blind—encountered by Jesus & the disciples. They ask Jesus “who sinned, this man or his parents, that he should’ve been born blind.” Jesus responds “neither,” and then takes the opportunity to illustrate something that is a common theme in John’s Gospel: LIGHT vs DARKNESS. Way back in chapter 1 we read these words about the coming of Jesus into the world: “4 in him was life, and the life was the LIGHT of all people. 5 The LIGHT shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it.” What follows throughout the Gospel of John, then, are the detailed stories and preserved sayings of Jesus that show and prove just how it is that the LIGHT is shining in the DARKNESS.

But there’s a problem, according to John. The true LIGHT has come, but DARKNESS likes being dark. In Jn chapter 3, the same chapter in which we hear that God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, we also hear in vs 19: This is the verdict: LIGHT has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.

And so we come to this Sunday’s passage, the story of the man BORN BLIND....BORN in darkness. He is a real person, but his situation is used by John as a spiritual metaphor for all of humanity. All of humanity is BORN BLIND, BORN IN DARKNESS, not because of personal sin or parental sin, but rather because of original sin. Original sin does NOT MEAN that every person born has the capacity to be a Hitler, or a Stalin. The same human race that has produced mass murderers and other workers of great evil has also produced great philanthropists and humanitarians. “BLINDNESS” is not a metaphor for evil; it’s a metaphor for spiritual darkness. It’s a metaphor for not being able to see God truly and worship Him above all. Yet, while all humanity is BORN BLIND, in darkness, John informs us again & again that LIGHT is here; LIGHT that is capable of ENLIGHTENING. And so, from vs 5 of Sunday’s text: [Jesus said] While I am in the world, I am the light of the world." And with that he spit in the clay and made mud...

One of the many fascinating nuances of this story is that the whole miracle begins with a conversation between the disciples & Jesus. The man himself is just sitting there. He asks for nothing, and is completely passive as Jesus puts the spit/dirt/mud gunk on the guy’s eyes. This initial passivity is heavily weighted in theological terms. Theologians call this “divine monergism,” meaning, the work of salvation is accomplished solely by God. But it should be noted that while this miracle is accomplished solely by Jesus, he uses **stuff** in accomplishing it. When I teach on sacramental theology, John 9 is a prime proof-text. The early church saw BIG-TIME baptismal themes at work in this passage which is how/why it appears on the lectionary in late Lent (looking forward as all Lenten passages do to Easter’s baptismal themes). But **part of one’s baptismal catechesis (education) is the acknowledgement that this is HOW God’s hand reaches out to us. He does so using **stuff**....ordinary things like dirt......water.......bread/wine...etc. It is essential that this truth be emphasized because the most popular expressions of the Christian religion that we encounter (radio/tv) are radically anti-sacramental. WHY, they ask, would God **need to work through the waters of baptism? WHY, they ask, would God **need to work through bread & wine? To which the Gospel of John responds: WHY would Jesus **need to use spit & dirt to heal the man born blind? Why not just say the word? ANSWER: Because he didn’t want to simply just say the word; he **wanted to use stuff. And so, in the miracle, spit and dirt were combined with Jesus’ command and promise—with only one possible result: the man was cured.

Obviously there is no “sacrament of anointing with spit/dirt,” as the Lord never commanded his church to perpetuate this action. However, it goes a long way in illustrating the theology of sacraments. It goes a long way toward explaining Matthew 28:19: therefore go and make disciples by BAPTIZING THEM...

Of course there’s so much more that could be said about the text. The man, for instance, though he did not ask to be healed, though he was entirely passive during the whole spit/dirt thing, was nonetheless an obedient respondent. Jesus told him to go & wash in a specific pool, and he did. He could’ve gone away and just wiped his eyes; he could’ve done a LOT of other things—all of which, I assume, would’ve invalidated the offer of grace in the miracle. This, too, has baptismal overtones. The grace that is conferred in baptism NEEDS TO BE NURTURED with continued obedience within the life of faith. A very thin line separates the SACRAMENTAL understanding of baptism from that of a MAGICAL understanding. Sadly, these days I think I encounter more of the latter. If baptism were “magic,” then every baby/person baptized would receive the saving grace of God and would never need to be attached to the life of faith whatsoever. And, in spite of my best attempts at teaching, I know that I have performed baptisms on people who have never attached themselves to the life of faith. Baptism is not MAGIC. It’s a sacrament. It endows the recipient with NEW LIFE, the LIFE OF CHRIST, but that life must be **nurtured. This, by the way, is also where the general Lutheran dialectic of “Law/Gospel” breaks down [Law= the bad news of what’s required that we fail fully to comply with, Gospel = the good news of what God has done for us in Christ in spite of our sins]. As, surely nurturing the life of faith (hearing the word proclaimed, partaking in the sacramental life of the church) is all Gospel, but the fact that it MUST be done is Law. Lutherans call such dilemma’s “Gospel Imperatives”....which is another way of saying “Gospel Laws.”

No doubt, part of the **original understanding of this passage was the hard line that was drawn between the Messianic community that worshiped Jesus vs the current synagogue establishment. This comes to a head in vss 28-34 Then they hurled insults at him and said, "You are this fellow's disciple! We are disciples of Moses! 29 We know that God spoke to Moses, but as for this fellow, we don't even know where he comes from." 30 The man answered, "Now that is remarkable! You don't know where he comes from, yet he opened my eyes. 31 We know that God does not listen to sinners. He listens to the godly person who does his will. 32 Nobody has ever heard of opening the eyes of a man born blind. 33 If this man were not from God, he could do nothing." 34 To this they replied, "You were steeped in sin at birth; how dare you lecture us!" And they threw him out. The Pharisees draw the false distinction that THEY are the current spokespersons for Moses, when in fact, the entire story of the New Testament (specifically, passages like the Transfiguration account, etc.) point out that Jesus is the true latter day spokesperson and “prophet like Moses.” Notwithstanding, confessing one’s allegiance to Jesus, all of the Gospels warn us, will not lead to accolades, but rather, to rejection. So we are not surprised that those who love darkness rather than light cast out this newest “enlightened” person from their midst.

The passage ends very starkly: 35 Jesus heard that they had thrown him out, and when he found him, he said, "Do you believe in the Son of Man?" 36 "Who is he, sir?" the man asked. "Tell me so that I may believe in him." 37 Jesus said, "You have now seen him; in fact, he is the one speaking with you." 38 Then the man said, "Lord, I believe," and he worshiped him. 39 Jesus said, "For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind." 40 Some Pharisees who were with him heard him say this and asked, "What? Are we blind too?" 41 Jesus said, "If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains. On one side of Jesus, you have the man born blind, but now healed, KNEELING/WORSHIPING Jesus, and on the other side you have a group STANDING/DEFYING Jesus. In the world view of the Gospel of John EVERYONE falls into one or the other category. The Gospel is that the TRUE LIGHT has come into the world...but take note: there is NO GOSPEL behind door #2. There is no “alternative light.” Kneel in worship of him, or stand in defiance of him.

Cheers,

T.M.

Thoughts going in, Sunday March 23

John 4:5 So Jesus came to a town in Samaria called Sychar, near the plot of ground Jacob had given to his son Joseph. 6 Jacob's well was there, and Jesus, tired as he was from the journey, sat down by the well. It was about noon. 7 When a Samaritan woman came to draw water, Jesus said to her, "Will you give me a drink?" 8 (His disciples had gone into the town to buy food.) 9 The Samaritan woman said to him, "You are a Jew and I am a Samaritan woman. How can you ask me for a drink?" (For Jews do not associate with Samaritans. ) 10 Jesus answered her, "If you knew the gift of God and who it is that asks you for a drink, you would have asked him and he would have given you living water." 11 "Sir," the woman said, "you have nothing to draw with and the well is deep. Where can you get this living water? 12 Are you greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well and drank from it himself, as did also his sons and his flocks and herds?" 13 Jesus answered, "Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, 14 but those who drink the water I give them will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give them will become in them a spring of water welling up to eternal life." 15 The woman said to him, "Sir, give me this water so that I won't get thirsty and have to keep coming here to draw water." 16 He told her, "Go, call your husband and come back." 17 "I have no husband," she replied. Jesus said to her, "You are right when you say you have no husband. 18 The fact is, you have had five husbands, and the man you now have is not your husband. What you have just said is quite true." 19 "Sir," the woman said, "I can see that you are a prophet. 20 Our ancestors worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem." 21 "Woman," Jesus replied, "believe me, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. 27 Just then his disciples returned and were surprised to find him talking with a woman. But no one asked, "What do you want?" or "Why are you talking with her?" 28 Then, leaving her water jar, the woman went back to the town and said to the people, 29 "Come, see a man who told me everything I ever did. Could this be the Messiah?"
39 Many of the Samaritans from that town believed in him because of the woman's testimony, "He told me everything I ever did." 40 So when the Samaritans came to him, they urged him to stay with them, and he stayed two days. 41 And because of his words many more became believers. 42 They said to the woman, "We no longer believe just because of what you said; now we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this man really is the Savior of the world."

As usual in John’s Gospel, there’s a **LOT going on in this passage. The reading is quite long, even after I omitted a few ‘sideroad’ sections. Of course it appears on the Lenten cycle of readings due to its obvious baptismal overtones—the mention of “living water.”
By the way, this is a good time for a ‘sideroad’ comment of my own. I’ll never forget a particular seminary prof from back in the day who used to make the point that a sacramental reading/understand of the scriptures was a matter of having ‘eyes to see’.....or even more bluntly...a *willingness to see. This prof never named the colleague, but he routinely quoted another Lutheran professor who ostensibly said, “after all, the bible really doesn’t have that much to say about sacraments.” It’s a true statement—so long as one is stubbornly looking for the actual words “baptism” or “holy communion.” But such a statement, and such an intentionally narrow perspective is foreign to the Lutheran tradition as a whole, foreign to the historic creedal faith we all claim to hold, and certainly foreign to the bible itself. The ‘living water’ passage of John 4 is a perfect example. NOWHERE is the word baptism mentioned—and yet, what else could possibly be implied? Attaching an entirely non-sacramental (or worse, anti-sacramental) understanding to this story completely removes Jesus’ offer from the physical and entirely into the metaphorical. With no hook to baptism, “living water” becomes a **metaphor of the gracious favor & relationship of belonging that Jesus offered this woman. But why settle for just a metaphor when the dots are so easily connected to the tangible reality that what Jesus offers is actually **conferred in baptism? Hence, have NO DOUBT that baptismal themes run rampant through this passage even though the word itself is never mentioned.
The theme for the day suggested for this Sunday is “Called to drink AND share living water.” And there are so many potential angles that suggest themselves when it comes to exploring this theme in a group. For instance, we could and should take some time to examine what “Living Water” looks like in the person of Jesus. In so doing, it would strike us (and challenge us) to note that Living Water in the person of Jesus is immensely BOUNDARY DESTROYING.
If you live in a floodplain, you’ve probably heard the phrase “water takes the path of least resistance,” and that’s certainly true. Living Water, in the person of Christ, however, overcomes our prejudicial resistances. The woman in this story is a 3-time loser. First, she is a woman (duh)...but the point is that no pious Jew would be seen talking to a woman in public. Such behavior constituted the seeds of scandal. Second, Samaritans and Jews had a centuries-old hatred for each other; they did not mingle. From the Jewish perspective, a Samaritan was lower than a common Gentile. Finally, the nuances of the story seem to indicate that within her own community, this woman was something of an outcast. Both Wright and Barclay point out that it’s highly curious that she would be (a) using this well....a half mile outside the village of Sychar, as it is, when surely there would’ve been a village well; and (b) that she would be getting water at this hour of the day, rather than the more common/cooler hours of morning or evening. Both commentators surmise that the woman was such an outcast in her own community (the five+ husbands thing) that the other village women drove her away, and that she took steps altering a normal routine so as to avoid contact with them. In other words, Jesus dares to converse, dares to enter relationship with an ostracized person of a marginalized group. As Barclay says, this is what “For God so loved the world” looks like at ground level.
Certainly a key point we can take from this text is that WHEN we’ve been changed by our encounter with The Living Water, we too will have eyes to see the worth & dignity of the ‘outcasts’ we come into contact with. Put another way, no one could *ever accuse Jesus of adopting a “holier than thou” attitude—even though, ironically, he **is holier than thou! Again & again, the story of Jesus reflects for us the truth that real holiness embraces the unwanted.

Thoughts going in, Sunday March 16th

John 3:1 Now there was a Pharisee, a man named Nicodemus who was a member of the Jewish ruling council. 2 He came to Jesus at night and said, "Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the signs you are doing if God were not with him." 3 Jesus replied, "Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born again. " 4 "How can anyone be born when they are old?" Nicodemus asked. "Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother's womb to be born!" 5 Jesus answered, "Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and the Spirit. 6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. 7 You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You must be born again.' 8 The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit." 9 "How can this be?" Nicodemus asked. 10 "You are Israel's teacher," said Jesus, "and do you not understand these things? 11 Very truly I tell you, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. 12 I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things? 13 No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven--the Son of Man. 14 Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, 15 that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him." 16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. (TNIV)

This great baptismal passage from John’s gospel goes a long way in highlighting that Lent is inexorably hooked to baptism.

Vss 1 & 2: Way too much has been made in the past about how Nicodemus came to Jesus at night because he was afraid of being seen by others. That is ONE explanation, but there’s another. The rabbis declared that the best time for Torah study was at night (often true due to the fact that daytime was for earning one’s living). This is just as plausible of an explanation for Nicodemus’s night-time visit to Jesus. As a rich member of the Sanhedrin, it is doubtful that Nicodemus would have much to fear from anyone.

Vss 2-12: constitute a typical “conversation” in John’s gospel. Typical, from the standpoint that it’s not really two people talking. It’s almost more like a “catechism-dialog” with words set into the mouths of two people. Here, much has been made about what a simpleton Nicodemus is, and how he cannot understand what Jesus is saying. This is unfortunate. True, Jesus is hitting Nicodemus with some heavy stuff, but Nicodemus is no simpleton.

In essence, Nicodemus begins the discussion by saying that he’s darned glad to make the acquaintance of the new rabbi on the block. Imagine a hot young political prospect coming to the attention of the power brokers of a national political party. Someone from the power-brokers of the national party would be sent to “court” the hot young prospect; to help convince & encourage the hot young prospect that they belong on the national stage, and that with the help of the power brokers of the party, this can become a reality.

THAT’S WHY NICODEMUS, as a Pharisee & member of the Sanhedrin was there that night. The power brokers have seen the signs he can do; they’ve identified him as a potential hot prospect for **something (perhaps even as Messiah, though it’s a bit early to think of that just yet).

The plot twist of the conversation is that Jesus turns the tables on Nicodemus. Instead of allowing himself to be ‘courted,’ **Jesus….the young upstart…informs Nicodemus that his current standing with the kingdom of God is deficient. Jesus takes control of the conversation, and a flip/flop of power/position occurs. Rather than Nicodemus—on behalf of the power-brokers in Jerusalem—“interviewing” Jesus, Jesus, on behalf of God, begins interviewing Nicodemus…..pointing out in a ‘dual of the rabbis’ type manner the deficiencies in Nicodemus’s own faith standing. **HE**, yes, even this wealthy, religious, leader of Israel must be re-born from above (the true dual meaning of the greek word ‘anothen’).

Again, it’s not that this teacher of the Torah suddenly turns into an idiot & thinks that Jesus is saying he must “enter again into his mother’s womb.” That phrase merely illustrates the complexity of the problem for Nicodemus. The sort of “beginning all over again” “rebirth from above” that Jesus is talking about—language that is usually used for pagan converts—seems to Nicodemus to be so radical, that it’s as if Jesus had suggested re-entry into his mother’s womb.

In other words, what’s going on here is a verbal joust between Nicodemus (and by extension, non-believing members of the Jewish community where John’s gospel circulated) and Jesus/the church regarding the radical nature of (a) God’s salvation and (b) Jesus’ status as Savior.

Vss 14-16 make this very clear when Jesus references the Torah story about Moses in the wilderness (Numbers 21:8-9). Those who were ‘saved’ in that story were not per se the high born, were not the leaders of Israel, were not the most holy ones, etc. etc. All in the camp stood on level ground; all were in dire need. And the offer of healing was FOR ALL, based solely on the faith it took to look up. In other words, even though this Torah story would’ve been familiar to a teacher such as Nicodemus, he’d totally forgotten the key points: ALL STAND EQUALLY IN NEED of God’s gracious activity, and RECEIVING this gracious activity was based merely on faith.

What we can learn from this passage, especially with our Lenten focus in mind:

-- Nicodemus is representative of that part of us that thinks that we may rate some sort of **acquired status with God. It’s wonderful that God has grace; it’s wonderful that he has a LOT of grace….cuz we all know that **some people need a lot. But the Nicodemus mindset says that we’ve got it mostly covered ourselves, thank you.

-- The passage reminds us that EVERYONE comes to God the same way, through rebirth from above. BAPTISM is rebirth from above. It is a very humbling and passive thing to BE BAPTISED, and that is precisely what God requires. As the old hymn says, “nothing in my hands I bring…”

-- The passage reminds us that life in Christ **IS NEW**. Part of the problem Nicodemus had was letting go of his old thinking, his old understanding of things.

-- Finally, this passage reminds us that Christ, and hence the Christian life, is to be motivated by LOVE (specifically for undeserving others) and not condemnation. How ironic it is that Christians of all people need to be reminded of the non-condemnatory nature of the mission of the Church.

cheers

TM

Thoughts going in, Sunday March 9th

Matthew 4:1 Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. 2 After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. 3 The tempter came to him and said, "If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread." 4 Jesus answered, "It is written: 'People do not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.' " 5 Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. 6 "If you are the Son of God," he said, "throw yourself down. For it is written: " 'He will command his angels concerning you, and they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.' " 7 Jesus answered him, "It is also written: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.' " 8 Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. 9 "All this I will give you," he said, "if you will bow down and worship me." 10 Jesus said to him, "Away from me, Satan! For it is written: 'Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.' " 11 Then the devil left him, and angels came and attended him.

            The first Sunday of Lent is always a very thematic Sunday. We begin the same way we do every year--using one of the three accounts of Jesus in the wilderness being tempted by Satan. This year we're using Matthew's account. The general story is the same, although some of the wording is a bit different from one gospel to the next. For us, the matter is two-fold... wring as much detail out of the specific narrative as possible, and then see what it has to do with us, especially now, as a Lenten passage.

            Textually, a few interesting thing pop right up from the beginning. Vs 1 Jesus was "led" (anago, Gk). This is a nautical term, as in, the navigator of the vessel plotting a course. Matthew's version of the story isn't quite as dramatic as Mark, who says Jesus was "driven" by the Spirit out into the wilderness. Here, it's more like in following the Spirit's plotted course, that's where he ends up. Regardless, we as believers might be scratching our heads. WHY would the Spirit do such a thing? Does the Spirit knowingly/intentionally navigate our path into the way of temptation? For that matter, how does Jesus' experience comport with the line in his prayer: and lead us NOT into temptation? I think it's important to remember the root meaning of the word 'temp.' It's to be 'tested.' Many careers have what's called a 'practicum.' After the book-learning, one is thrust into the position of having to DO THE TASK. It can be frightening, especially the first time, but it's necessary in order to move to the next level. If one views such temptation/testing in that light, it's easy to see how from our perspective we'd just as soon avoid it, but how from God's perspective it is necessary from time to time in order to advance our faith life.

            Vs 1 finishes up with the words in order to be tempted by the devil (diablos, Gk). Both words "devil" and "satan" appear in this story. "Devil/diablos" is the narrator's word. It means slanderer. And in that sense it is a well-chosen word, as the very first thing he says is a slander: **IF you are the son of God. Grammarians explain to us that the way the phrase is worded, it's an implied negative. In other words, it would be just as correct to translate it: since I really don't think you are the son of God... As more intelligent persons than myself have often pointed out, there's something very real about this diabolical slander happening on the heals of baptism. Christ heard the Father declare him to be his son at his baptism, and here, not long after, the diablos shows up & says no you're not. The same is often true in the life of faith for all believers. We know that we've attained new identity in our baptism as children of God, yet the diablos slanders us and would have us doubt it. In our case it's most often due to sin. The diablos would say, "Sooooo you call yourself a Christian. But would a Christian really have done x, y, or z? In Christ's case he cannot cite a sin, but he can **TEMPT.

            And then the specific temptations come next. A temptation to fulfill his physical needs; a temptation to test God's love for him; and a temptation to reach his goals through invalid means.

            The climax of the story is in vs 10 Jesus said to him, "Away from me, Satan! (satan = adversary). In these words Jesus loudly proclaims what we would call the first renunciation in our baptismal vows: Do you renounce the Devil and all the forces that defy God? As we begin our Lenten journey, we do so reminding ourselves of the story of our Savior and his encounter with the diabolical adversary. His renunciation empowers our renunciation. His renunciation made the Cross of Calvary the most powerful event in the world. For, by that cross and its power, his renunciation of the Devil becomes OURS, even at those times when we've failed our practicum. His renunciation means that even in our failures, God looks at his victory as ours.

Cheers,

T.M.