Saturday, April 11, 2015

Poor Thomas and the Chai Latte...

Thanks go out to D. Mark Davis and Lance Pape for their scholarship in helping build this sermon.

Honorable mention to my current soundtrack for the audio caffeine:

John 20:19-31

When it was evening on that day, the first day of the week, and the doors of the house where the disciples had met were locked for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you.” After he said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples rejoiced when they saw the Lord. Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” When he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”
But Thomas (who was called the Twin), one of the twelve, was not with them when Jesus came. So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord.” But he said to them, “Unless I see the mark of the nails in his hands, and put my finger in the mark of the nails and my hand in his side, I will not believe.”
A week later his disciples were again in the house, and Thomas was with them. Although the doors were shut, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you.” Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here and see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it in my side. Do not doubt but believe.” Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!” Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have come to believe.”
Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book. But these are written so that you may come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through believing you may have life in his name.

This is the Word of the Lord.

Poor Thomas. Can you imagine being alive during the greatest event in human, history, being one of the people closest to the epicenter, able to see the resurrected Christ in person... and after three days holed up in a stuffy, smelly, dark upper room in the middle of Jerusalem, shoulder to shoulder with a bunch of people scared to death that the soldiers will be coming for them next, you pick this moment to go out for a chai latte?

I don't know that a chai latte is the reason Thomas left, but it's why I woulda left. And I really identify with Thomas in a lot of ways, and I think that's not only OK, I think that maybe the Scriptures encourage us to do just that.

After all, while he is listed in Matthew and Luke, Thomas doesn't act or speak in any other Gospel account than John's. What's more, he doesn't really have a name. “Thomas” means “twin” in Hebrew... so if we go with the reading, it's “this guy, The Twin, I mean, they called him The Twin, was not with them when Jesus came...” What better place to insert your name, my name? “But John Harrison wasn't with them when Jesus came.” After all, I wasn't. I am a couple thousand years too late.

There are other ways I tend to identify with Thomas. He was more courageous than I am, to be sure, but he was passionate, and somewhat reactionary, speaking with his heart more than he spoke with his head.

Here’s what I mean: We only hear from Thomas three times in the Gospel of John. When, in the 11th chapter, Jesus sets off toward Bethany, it is apparent to every one of the disciples that it’s far too close to Jerusalem, far too close to those who want Jesus killed. Everyone listening to Jesus knows that for him to go to Lazarus is to sign his own death warrant. Thomas is the one who stands up, dusts himself off, and says, “Let us also go, that we may die with him.” There is no doubt in those words, but resolution, even courage. The worst is yet to come, yes, but we’ve come this far with Him, let’s finish the journey.

In Chapter 14, at the Last Supper, at one point Jesus says to his disciples, “I am going there to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am. You know the way to the place where I am going.” It is left to Thomas to blurt the one question which had to be pounding in the disciples’ heads: “Lord, we don't know where you are going, so how can we know the way?” Thomas is not rebuked for “doubting,” but is rewarded with one of the clearest Scriptural statements about who Jesus is and why He came to live and die among humankind: “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”

And the Scriptures never, ever call him “Doubting Thomas.” We've done that, and unfairly, I think. After all, Peter and John had seen the empty tomb, Mary had seen the risen Christ there in the burial garden, the travelers on the road to Emmaus had walked and talked with him, had seen him revealed in the breaking of the bread. And there in that room where Thomas was not, every one of the disciples had seen Jesus, had seen the wounds the nails and the spear had left, had heard his words, had felt the blessing of his breath.

Thomas wasn't there. And it may have been deeper than him just stepping out for a breath of fresh air. One of my favorite go-to resources for preparing the sermon every week is Rev. D. Mark Davis, who runs a blog where he translates the Gospel reading every week from the original Greek. He points out something very interesting with this week's reading. Greek has a lot of nuances and tenses, and when we read, “But Thomas... was not with them when Jesus came,” we interpret it as Thomas just being physically not present. And if the Greek had used what's called the aorist tense, that would be a solid interpretation. The writer of John's Gospel uses what's called the imperfect tense for what we translate as “was not with them,” which might just mean that he was not only not there physically, but emotionally, spiritually, as well. Thomas, the reactionary, the passionate, speak-with-his-heart, act before you think guy, saw Jesus die (albeit, like the rest of the disciples, from a safe distance), and gave up.

Maybe he didn't even go back to the room with the others. Maybe he walked off in another direction. Maybe he wanted to be alone in his pain, his mourning, his loss. He just wasn't there. Wasn't interested.

This makes even more sense when you couple with it the fact that, when we read the phrase “...the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord...” the word translated “told him” is also imperfect tense... perhaps better translated, “were telling him,” as in not a single act, but an ongoing activity. Maybe the conversation was about bringing Thomas back into the community.

This excites me, and I'll tell you why: Jesus breathes on the ten remaining disciples and says, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.” Perhaps the first work of the Holy Spirit in the life of the church is forgiveness and reconciliation, and perhaps it plays out in the narrative with Thomas, this broken, mourning man who has given up.

With this interpretation, the disciples never give up on Thomas, and he finally throws down the gauntlet. “Fine, I get it, you believe because you've seen him. But unless I get the same – unless I see what you've seen, unless I can touch his wounds, I can't. I won't. Take it or leave it.”

So, follow this to its logical conclusion. Faced with a take it or leave it choice in reconciling with Thomas, the disciples took it. A week later, they were all in the room, with the door closed and locked. Thomas was with them.

Yes, Jesus appears, and gives Thomas what he demands. Yes, Thomas responds, in what I imagine to be typical style: blurting “my Lord and my God!” But he was able to do this because he was present. And he was present because, even though he didn't agree with them... even though he desired more than just hearsay evidence... the community of believers let him come on his own terms... and he was willing to be there.

Thomas got his proof. Good for him, huh?

I admit it. I'm kind of jealous of Thomas when it all comes down to it. After all, there's nothing abnormal, nothing twenty-first century about the desire for experiential proof. And Thomas was not the only disciple who wouldn’t take someone else’s word for it. Mary announced the good news of resurrection to the disciples, and they most definitely didn't take her word for it. When Jesus came to them that evening, he found the doors locked in fear, and he offered to each of those present the same signs that Thomas would later demand.

Proof is what everyone prefers. But we must come to terms with our place in history. God, in God’s manifold wisdom, has not ordained that we should “be there” no matter how sincerely and audaciously we wish it. We live in an age of wonders, no doubt, but when it comes to the resurrection we walk by faith and not by sight.

Instead, God has given us the chance to be blessed according to the last of the beatitudes. “Blessed are the poor,” said Jesus, and yet the least well off among us are wealthy by any realistic historical or global standard. “Blessed are you who hunger,” and yet we are only hungry when we are dieting. “Blessed are the meek,” and yet we can scarcely avoid pride at all that we have achieved.

No, this last beatitude may be our best shot at the designation “blessed of God.” Blessed are they who can’t be absolutely sure. Blessed are they who believe the hearsay. Blessed are the eyes of faith that continue in hope despite the frustrations and ambiguities. “Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have come to believe.”

Alleluia, amen.

Saturday, March 14, 2015

What Does It Mean to Believe?

Thanks to the writing of D. Mark Davis and the resources provided by Gil Bailie at "Girardian Reflections on the Lectionary," where I got even more help from Sarah Dylan Breuer and Tom Truby.

JOHN 3:14-21
“And just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.
“For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life.
“Indeed, God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Those who believe in him are not condemned; but those who do not believe are condemned already, because they have not believed in the name of the only Son of God. And this is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and people loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil. For all who do evil hate the light and do not come to the light, so that their deeds may not be exposed. But those who do what is true come to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that their deeds have been done in God.”

This is the Word of the Lord.

What does it mean to believe? Is it a simple process of mentally agreeing to a set of doctrinal statements, does it involve training ourselves to think and act differently? Is “belief” something more – or something wholly different?

Our passage this morning starts out with Jesus making reference to a frankly troubling passage in the Book of Numbers: the Children of Israel, making their journey to the Promised Land, are complaining that there isn't anything to eat or drink, and what there is to eat – manna – is terrible. God responds to the complaints by sending a plague of poisonous snakes.

And even though one of the things the Jewish people were never ever supposed to do was to make graven images, when the people repent and ask Moses to ask God to save them, what does God tell Moses to do?

Yep. A graven image. Of a snake, on a pole. God doesn't take the snakes away, but when someone is bitten, all they have to do is look at the snake on the pole, and they won't die.

By the way, many years later, one of the Kings of Israel, Hezekiah, destroyed the bronze snake that Moses made, because people had started worshiping it – which was why God had said not to make graven images in the first place. But I digress, sort of.

Jesus is referring to this incident in the life of the Jewish people to draw a parallel between the lifting of the snake on the pole as a means of saving the people from death, and his own lifting up on the cross as a means of salvation to the world. We know this because the very next sentence Jesus utters in today's passage is possibly the most well-known Bible passage in the universe: John 3:16. “For God so loved the world – a better translation might be “God loved the world in this way:” – that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life.”

Now, I would argue first that we do a disservice by quoting John 3:16 by itself. It is an incomplete thought, made whole by the next verse: “Indeed, God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.”

And it's my inclination to stop there, honestly. As uncomfortable as I am with the idea of God sending poisonous snakes because a bunch of people are tired of eating manna for every meal – manna sausage for breakfast, manna sandwiches for lunch, manna pot roast for dinner, bamanna bread for dessert... I see 'way too much condemnation in popular Christianity today as it is, so all the talk about nonbelievers being condemned in the next verses feels like overkill. It frankly sounds a little like God sent Jesus as a reason to condemn people... turn or burn, agree with my set of doctrinal statements (because that's what the word “believe” has come to mean) or go to Hell...

And I don't think it's that simple. I don't think God can be distilled down to a choice between a benevolent Grandparent or a heavenly vending machine or an angry, vengeful deity with his hand poised over the “smite” button.

And I do not think we are using the word “believe” in the right way. Yes, “believe” does mean “to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so,” that is technically correct... but I do not think it is theologically correct.

As I understand it, the Greek word group pistos tends to be shaded less as “belief” and more as “faithfulness” and “trust” – because in doing so, it denotes more of a relationship than a state of thinking – so why, when we see its verb form, pisteuo, should we satisfied with the word “believe?” Is faith in the risen Christ, the One who was lifted up for us, a simple matter of intellectual assent? Is Christianity a mental exercise, is it just a way of thinking?

What does it mean to “believe?” It means to trust.

And while we're on the subject of Greek... I am not a Greek scholar, but more than one scholar and commentator that I have read this week brings up a very important point about krino and krisis, the words translated “condemn” and “condemned,” respectively. Both Gil Bailie and Mark Davis, for example, make a very compelling argument for krino and krisis to be translated rather as “judge” and “judgment,” respectively.

And make no mistake, this is not a matter of rewriting Scripture, but of making a choice in translating Scripture – it's a question of, if I may quote Paul from the epistle to Timothy, “rightly dividing the Word of Truth.”

The word “krino” doesn't, in and of itself, have a negative connotation. It's more ambiguous, like our English word “judge.” We can judge things in positive and negative ways, but the word “condemn” just means “condemn.”

So here's the way the verses might read: “And just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever trusts in him may have the life of God's new age. For God loved the world in this way: he gave his only Son, so that everyone who trusts in him may not perish but may have the life of God's new age. Indeed, God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Those who trust in him are not judged; but those who do not trust are judged already, because they have not trusted in the name of the only Son of God. And this is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and people loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil.”

Do you see the difference? To say God condemns isn't wrong, necessarily. God condemns a lot of things – idolatry and injustice, for example. But is God in the business of condemnation? Is there a divine game of whack-a-mole going on, with you and I playing the moles?

It's interesting to note that, when the snakes came on the Hebrews in the wilderness, they didn't go to Moses talking about the evil that God had visited upon them, they said, “We have sinned...” Whoever sent the serpents, they understood them to be the product of their own actions, their own choice to complain. Theirs was the active role, not God's.

“Those who trust in him are not judged; but those who do not trust are judged already, because they have not trusted in the name of the only Son of God. And this is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and people loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil.”

Who or what we trust has consequences, doesn't it? If we trust in money, or power, or politicians, or drugs, or alcohol, or food, or fame, or security, what are we in fact placing our faith in? One more dollar, one more rich old man who might vote our way this time, one more buzz, one more bite, one more FaceBook like, one more lock on the door? Because in the end, when they close the lid and lower the casket, what are any of those things worth?

Putting our trust in the risen Christ saves us from the cesspool of self-absorption, rescues us from the idolatry of things, and releases us from the certainty that this life, this existence, this here-and-now is all that there is and ever will be. When we put our trust in Christ, we enter into relationship with the eternal.

Make no mistake about it: following Jesus is not a program for self-improvement; it's an invitation to a relationship; it is inclusion in a community. It's dislocation from a worldview that perpetuates injustice, death, and alienation, knitting us into a network of relationships that bring healing, reconciliation, and abundant life rooted in the eternal.

Think about how many things are set by our birth in this world: We are born in a geographical location that can accustom one person to unjust privilege and prevent another person from access to clean water, education, the chance to live to adulthood. One person is born to a family that instills a sense that he or she is loved, while another person's family leaves them with a sense that he or she is deeply inadequate. We are born with a skin color that will also condition our sense of who we are, what we deserve, whom we may love or fear. This world is set up in ways that try to lock us into patterns of relationship based on our birth -- patterns that separate us from one another and from God.

How might the world be different if those patterns were disrupted, if you and I could be sisters and brothers in healthy relationship? ... Let me put it this way:

What would our relationships look like if we shared one birth and were raised in one loving, supportive family? What would the economy look like if we took seriously the fact that we live and work in a world that is our common inheritance, instead of a set of disconnected chunks of land and resources to be conquered like a board game? What would the world look like if we saw every child as our own little sister or brother, if "family first" included them all as our own flesh and blood?

That's what it means to put our trust in Jesus. Jesus offers us freedom from relationships that ensnare, and the choice to relate to one another as beloved children of one loving God. It's a choice not just for a new name, it's a new world of new relationships, of new and abundant life.

“And just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever trusts in him may have eternal life.”

The serpent in the wilderness represented more than just a poisonous snake. The Hebrew people had become poisoned with doubt, with fear, they had become disgusted by the gift that God sent them every morning with the dew – manna. Looking at the serpent meant looking directly at the worst of themselves, it meant facing what they were and trusting enough to turn away from it.

God did not nail Jesus to the cross. We did. Think about it: it was the rage of the scribes and Pharisees against a man challenging the religious status quo, it was the greed of Judas, it was the fear that the chief priests and the Sanhedrin had of upsetting the Roman occupiers, it was the fear of the crowd that turned Pilate's resolve to capitulation, and it was the bloodlust of that crowd shrieking “Crucify him!” that killed Jesus.

When Jesus is lifted up on the cross, we see what happens when we put our trust in our pedigree, our won wealth, our own theological and doctrinal purity, like the scribes and Pharisees. We see what happens when we put our trust in cold hard cash, like Judas. We see what happens when we put our trust in political systems and corporate power structures, like the chief priests and the Sanhedrin. We see what happens when we bow to the whim of popular opinion, like Pilate. We see what happens when we give ourselves over to sensationalism and the thrill of immediate gratification, like the crowd.

This is the Good News: God's love is so complete, so irrevocable, so egregiously immense that it survived the worst that we could do to God's only begotten son! We look at the cross, and we see the worst in ourselves, the product of the idols and the temporal things we put our trust in, but we do not see our end in those things. Rather, in moving our trust from the temporary, the self-serving, the idolatrous, to the risen and living Christ, we find the light of God's eternal love, and the truth that indeed sets us free.

This is what it means to believe.

Saturday, February 14, 2015

Transfiguration and Transformation...

Thanks to the writings of Lawrence Moore, Matt Skinner, and D. Mark Davis for their insights into today's reading.

MARK 9:2-9
Six days later, Jesus took with him Peter and James and John, and led them up a high mountain apart, by themselves. And he was transfigured before them, and his clothes became dazzling white, such as no one on earth could bleach them. And there appeared to them Elijah with Moses, who were talking with Jesus. Then Peter said to Jesus, “Rabbi, it is good for us to be here; let us make three dwellings, one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah.” He did not know what to say, for they were terrified. Then a cloud overshadowed them, and from the cloud there came a voice, “This is my Son, the Beloved; listen to him!” Suddenly when they looked around, they saw no one with them any more, but only Jesus. As they were coming down the mountain, he ordered them to tell no one about what they had seen, until after the Son of Man had risen from the dead.

This is the Word of the Lord.

How many times have you heard sermons and lessons on the Transfiguration? I mean, Transfiguration Sunday happens every year, the last Sunday before Lent begins. And while not every preacher follows the church calendar, I would think that it's a pretty safe bet that a preacher can't resist telling a cool story like this at least once a year...

So if you come to church regularly, you've heard about the Transfiguration a whole lot. So have I. I've preached a sermon on the Transfiguration every year I've been here, obviously, but if you were to back me in a figurative corner and ask me to state, definitively, what the transfiguration of Jesus means... well, I couldn't give you one answer, and honestly, I think that if we were to package this event into one specific, over-arching explanation, we'd be selling the narrative short. God always speaks to us where we are, individually and as a church.

And God speaks to us directly in the Transfiguration: “This is my Son, the Beloved...” One translation of this phrase reads, “This is my beloved son in whom I take delight.” Far from an event that invokes sober reverence and awe, for God, Transfiguration is an opportunity to declare love, to be delighted with Jesus the Son.

And it is a shared delight – Jesus is not alone, after all, Peter and James and John, not to mention Moses and Elijah, are there in the presence of God, enjoying the delight that God feels! Delight is an aspect of the holy – and this holiness is a participatory, shared holiness. God loves, so God interacts. God gives of God's self, because self-giving is just what happens when someone adores and celebrates someone else.

So Transfiguration is an opportunity to simply enjoy the presence of God in Jesus Christ, to be ourselves transformed by the light of his grace and love.

Because, make no mistake, we cannot stand long in the presence of God without being transformed. The word for “transfiguration” and for “transformation” is the same one: “metemorphothei,” the word we get “metamorphosis” from. Romans 12:2 tells us “Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.” Which is all well and good, but I like being told the “what” without the “how” just about as much as I like paying sales tax. The good news is that God tells us the “how.” In 2 Corinthians 3:18, “And we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his image with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.”

The light of Transfiguration lives within us in God the Holy Spirit, bringing us into the image and presence of our loving Creator! That's something to delight in, isn't it?

So yes, the Transfiguration is for us. It is, perhaps, Mark's Resurrection account, a picture of the risen and glorified Christ in a Gospel which, in its original form, doesn't really have one – it ends like it begins, with a sentence fragment, and empty tomb and some terrified women.

On this mountain, we have Jesus, the Christ, as King of Kings and Lord of Lords, robed in the blinding glory of God, attended by Moses, who represents the Law, and Elijah, who represents the Prophets. This is the Jesus of the Final Judgment, prepared to separate the sheep from the goats.

From this perspective alone, it makes sense that Peter and James and John were terrified (in fact, a literal translation might be that they were “freaked out”). After all, it's all well and good to talk about the Final Judgment, especially when we're talking about all those other people who'll get judged for their sins. Face to face with the reality of the Judge Himself, we might not be so quick to point at others... just sayin'.

On the other hand, the promise of a resurrected Christ is, after all, why we believe in the first place, isn't it? Without the real and physical resurrection of Jesus Christ, we might as well just sleep in on Sunday, we might as well live our lives as if this is all there is, and once we are dead we are dust.

But God identifies Jesus as the beloved, in whom God is delighted! The resurrection is God's seal of approval on the completed work of Jesus the Son, and the promise of our faith is that in the same way that Jesus rose and lives eternally, we will rise, and we will live.

But yet again, I think if we leave it at this, settle for the triumphalism, we may well be missing something that God is saying to us.

After all, it is no small matter that, in order for Jesus to rise, he must die. And not a simple death, what Rush Limbaugh might refer to as “assuming room temperature.” Yes, I just quoted Rush Limbaugh in a sermon, and no, I am not proud of it.

There is one path down from that mountaintop for Jesus. One path that leads to Jerusalem, one path to the Garden of Gethsemane, one path to the Pavement and the whip and the crown of thorns, one path to Golgotha and the nails, one path to the cold, cold tomb.

It's easy, far too easy, to simply view the crucifixion of Jesus in the light of the Resurrection, and what I mean by that is to too easily dismiss the fear Jesus felt, the mortal terror that caused him to sweat blood at Gethsemane, the hopelessness of his cry, “My God, my God, why have you forgotten me?”

Our passage today begins with the words, “six days later.” That's how long it had been since Peter had declared that Jesus was the Messiah, and Jesus had begun trying to prepare his disciples for what was to come: “...that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again.”

But the disciples don't get it – they either can't or won't understand. Peter and the rest continue to impose their own terms on what following Jesus means. Before and after the Transfiguration, the disciples refuse to accept Jesus' political fate, they discuss who will be greatest among them when Jesus takes over and imposes Empire upon the face of the earth; James and John try to do an end-run around the rest to get the best seats in the house.

So on the Mount of Transfiguration, Moses and Elijah meet with Jesus to talk about what's to come – I think that this was for Jesus, reassurance that the path down from the mountaintop was the right one; and when God speaks from the cloud, he says something to Peter and James and John – and to us – “...listen to him!”

For Peter, James, and John, this means to stop trying to frame the Kingdom of God in their own template. Yes, life under the boot of Rome was tiresome and unjust, and yes it would be nice to overpower, overthrow, destroy the Romans, grind them to dust, and establish David's throne on earth by force. But the Kingdom of God is more than mere earthly empire. There is more to the Messiah than who gets to sit next to him in the throne room.

And – this was for the disciples and it is for us, today – we will never transform the world, we will not change people, by force. It simply cannot be done, not in the name of Christ, and Christ knows we've tried. Kings and emperors and Presidents and prime ministers too numerous to count have conquered and ruled and have claimed to do so within the will of God. One after another over the millenia, each on the ashes of the one before, and what do we have to show for it?

Poverty is still rampant. Government is rife with corruption. People the world over die every day from a lack of food and clean water, people die of easily preventable diseases, and even more despicable, far more shameful: children in our own city go to bed hungry, and far too many without a roof over their heads, every night. I will disagree with the governor and with the chief justice and with the senator and the attorney general in that it is this above all else which is the greatest sin in our state, that if Alabama is to incur the wrath of God it is for our inattention to the least of these in our midst, and the fact that we do it in the name of God.

Jesus was transfigured by the love of his Father, who delighted in him. We are transformed through the love of God in the risen Christ, through the renewing of the Holy Spirit.

It is love – not power, not weapons, not empire, which will ultimately transform this state, this country, and this world into one where all are fed and can drink clean water, where all are healthy and freed of poverty, where every child and every veteran has a home, a world where men and women and children from all walks of life enter the Kingdom of God not from fear of damnation or promise of prosperity, but because of what God's people have done to demonstrate the love of God in their lives, a world where God truly is glorified not just with our lips, but with our lives.

What does the Transfiguration mean to you, today? By that I mean, how is God speaking to you? How are you being transformed by the renewing of your mind? Which path is yours, off the mountaintop of your transfiguration? How will you, in turn transform your world?

Saturday, January 17, 2015

"Come and See..."

Many thanks today to D. Mark Davis, Mick Bradley, and Michael Rogness for their insights into today's reading.

The quote from Aaron Weiss comes from "Linear," by his group mewithoutYou.

JOHN 1:43-51
The next day Jesus decided to go to Galilee. He found Philip and said to him, “Follow me.” Now Philip was from Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter. Philip found Nathanael and said to him, “We have found him about whom Moses in the law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus son of Joseph from Nazareth.” Nathanael said to him, “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?” Philip said to him, “Come and see.” When Jesus saw Nathanael coming toward him, he said of him, “Here is truly an Israelite in whom there is no deceit!” Nathanael asked him, “Where did you come to know me?” Jesus answered, “I saw you under the fig tree before Philip called you.” Nathanael replied, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!” Jesus answered, “Do you believe because I told you that I saw you under the fig tree? You will see greater things than these.” And he said to him, “Very truly, I tell you, you will see heaven opened and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man.”

This is the Word of the Lord.

I can't help but identify with Nathanael right off the bat: He has some pretty strong opinions, and you know that filter that most people have, that little voice in their heads kind of helps keep them from blurting out stuff they shouldn't? He doesn't have that. Most of the time I don't have one, either.

Nathanael only appears by that name in the Gospel of John. Most of the commentators I've read think that he's Bartholomew in the other Gospels. Why John didn't remember his name correctly is beyond me; it may have some symbolic significance, since Bartholomew means “son of Tolomei,” and Nathanael means “gift of God,” but that's just a guess.

And make no mistake, that's only one of the things about this passage that leaves me guessing. I don't know, for example, why, so many times in the Gospels, just like here with Philip, the disciples just drop whatever they're doing and follow Jesus. I don't know why it is important for John to note that Philip is from Bethsaida. It is translated like a toss-off comment, but I don't think there are any of those in Scripture. I don't know why Nathanael thinks nothing good exists in Nazareth, or why his reaction to Jesus having already seen him is so strong.

At its core, this reading is a passage about evangelism, but I don't know if it can be so easily categorized. I've struggled to find a word for what's going on here – intentionality, maybe? After all, in addition to the fact that Philip specifically sought out Nathanael, Jesus found Philip in the first place. Oh, Philip and Nathanael had been looking, in their own way, too – looking for the Messiah, the Hope of Israel. Something in Jesus convinced Philip, apparently on sight, that his search was over. And though, this side of the Resurrection, I'd like to think I'd react that same way to Jesus, I think it's more honest to say that I am more familiar with Nathanael's first reaction to news of the Messiah.

After all, what do we most associate this kind of evangelism with? “Come and see” usually translates to “come to church,” “come to this or that meeting,” “let me tell you about Amway,” that kind of thing. There is an entire industry built around evangelism – marketing tools, how-to-guides, videos and websites and tracts and training programs... you can use the Five Spiritual Laws or the Romans Road or any more of dozens of mnemonics and other catchy devices, all built around the idea that any time we mention Jesus or Christianity, whoever we are speaking to will react in the same way Nathaneal did: “Nazareth? Yeah, right.” And we are to react with well-thought-out rebuttals and systematic theological arguments.

All Philip said was, “Come see for yourself.” Period.

If it had been me, getting invited to someone's church meeting or some such, I probably wouldn't have gone. Or maybe...

I guess it would have to do with who invited me. If it was some random stranger, or a FaceBook invitation, or someone at work? Not likely. One of you, or a family member, on the other hand, I would be more likely to go, and I'm not just saying that because you're here and it sounds good. What I mean is that I am more likely to respond positively to someone I have a relationship with – friends and family trump strangers and FaceBook notices any day.

If Nathanael in John's Gospel is the same disciple as Bartholomew in the other three, then we have an idea of the relationship between Philip and Nathanael. Every time we read Bartholomew's name in the other Gospels, it is in association with Philip. Those two were inseparable friends, like they were joined at the hip. Jesus found Philip and the first thing he thought was, “I gotta tell Nathanael, he'll love this!”

Yes, there are times when people come to a church meeting or a revival and whatever they see or hear causes them to respond to Christ. There are times when a stranger's word can bring a person to faith in Jesus. There are examples in the New Testament of this: Peter preaches in Acts and five thousand people become Christians, before they even had a word for it. Philip – the same Philip we meet today – comes across an Ethiopian eunuch reading Isaiah and ends up baptizing him into the faith.

But there are so many more times, in Scripture and in day-to-day life, where it isn't a chance meeting or a preacher that makes the difference in whether or not someone chooses to follow the risen Christ. It's personal. Friends and family. It's relationships.

Words only do so much, after all. Philip seems to have known this, and when Nathanael scoffed at the idea of a Messiah coming out of Nazareth (since nothing in Scripture said anything about that), he didn't try to beat him down with superior logic, or by yelling louder. He just said, “Come and see.”

But let's just wait a second. When you think about it, however much I've tried to frame it as personal, as relationship, up until the point Jesus greets Nathanael, “Here is truly an Israelite in whom there is no deceit,” the whole passage reads like an advertiser or marketer's dream: “come to church, come to my meeting, come try this new-and-improved cheese spread, come see my movie, come try this more comfortable bed.”

In response to Nathanael’s skepticism Philip replies, “Come and see,” an invitation akin to offering a ‘money back guarantee’ or a “Don’t take my word for it, try it on for yourself!” Nathanael approaches Jesus as one who is in the position of power to judge, to test, to evaluate whether this one whom Philip has found is indeed the Messiah.

But is God like a garment, hanging on display, subject to our choosing? Are we even capable of looking at God, trying God on, or deciding if God fits our criteria? Is the Messiah an exhibition at which one comes to gawk and make judgments? Are we really able, on our own, in our power of vision, to decide whether or not Jesus is “good enough?”

It's what we're comfortable believing, after all. We've bought into the myth of the market, where something’s worth lies solely in the eyes of the beholder.

Jesus turns that idea on its head when he says to Nathanael: “Before Philip called you … I saw you.” Suddenly, Nathanael is no longer in the position of power, to question, to doubt, to press Philip for convincing proof. Before we see, we are seen; before we know, we are known; before we choose, we are chosen.

In our Reformed theology, we believe that we don't save ourselves, after all, and if it weren't for God's grace, we wouldn't give a first or a second thought to faith. We believe that God seeks us out, God in Jesus Christ calls us to faith, we love because he first loved us.

It is not that humans have no free will, no capacity to see, no power to evaluate, judge, or choose. It is, rather, that human will has been contextualized, human capacity has been circumscribed, and the human power of vision has been dethroned as the ultimate power of the universe.

In God's vision, things have value, even if we treat them like nothing; in God's vision, some are worthless, even if we would choose to kill for them; in God's vision, some things are necessary, even if we would not buy into them in a million years. Our estimation of utility is not the final arbiter of value; the customer is not always right; and what something costs may have nothing to do with what it is worth.

Maybe... maybe this is why Nathanael reacts so strongly? The fact that Jesus saw him before he even knew Jesus existed, that he had value in Jesus' eyes before he approached, he was known and had worth before Nathanael decided one way or the other about Jesus...

Arguments and theologies and doctrines are fine, as far as they go. But in the end, they are words, and nothing more. Poet and vocalist Aaron Weiss puts it like this: “However much you talk, however well you talk, you make a certain sense, but it's still only stupid talk.”

In the end, all we can do – all we must do – is, like Philip, invite people to “come and see” - but not come to church, not come see this preacher or that musician, not come hear this convincing argument or that flawless doctrine...

We have to show them Jesus. And the scary part is that all we have that can and should show Jesus... is us. Our lives. Our actions. Our selves.

“Come and see.”