Tuesday, April 17, 2007

To Love More Than These

John 21:15-19

Jesus asks Simon Peter three times "Do you love me?" This mirrors the three times Peter denied Jesus, but is without malice or vengeance. It is a literary purification, a forgiveness, a verbal baptism. Each time, Peter's response is "Of course I do," and Jesus replies: "Tend my sheep." Whatever love Peter genuinely has for Jesus, whatever lengths Peter is willing to go in service of Jesus, let him direct that devotion to the people.

And then, what is usually left out of the scene: Jesus gives a signal of what it means to be a disciple, what it means to tend the flock of Jesus. "When you were younger," Jesus says, "you knew your own way about. You went where you wanted to go, to did what you wanted to do, you were your own master and you were confident that you knew everything (or at least more than those around you).

"But you're not a kid anymore. You know better now. Being a disciple means being led by others, by others' needs and others' wills. Instead of going where you want to go, you will be led where you don't want to go. This is servant leadership. And, this applies to your spiritual life - you will be led to uncomfortable conclusions, led to acceptance of people you do not want to accept, challenged to do things and in places you could not have imagined yourself doing or being in. You are dedicating yourself to the Spirit, to Christ - which is why Jesus asked if you loved him more than 'these.' All 'this,' laws and money, respect and comfort, security and 'the world.'" All these are subject to one's devotion to Jesus, to the Spirit, to Christ. And devotion to Christ above all else means that we must be willing to sacrifice even our most dearly-held beliefs or possessions in the service of Christ, in the service of love, in the service of the flock of would-be followers of Jesus.

Most people see that statement of Jesus' as a reference to Peter's martyrdom. I suppose I can see that. But for the disciple, everyday is a martyrdom, a sacrifice. And if we love Jesus, we must feed his sheep. And if we want to feed his sheep, we must sacrifice ourselves and our high-born notions of ourselves to their service.

Labels:

Thursday, April 12, 2007

putting the meta in metamorphosis

Acts 9:1-6

Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of Jesus, heads to Damascus to flush some more messianic-Jews out. I love that the text describes Saul "breathing" these things - such a dramatic word, but also a very good image. Part of becoming a disciple is to breathe in the story, to make it what informs you and fills you, what comes in and goes out, the most common and most intimate things about you. And whatever you breathe in is who you are - disciples of Jesus breathe Jesus, Saul breathes threats and hatred. The text seems to tell us that persecution had become itself a god and identity for Saul; it was what he breathed.

Also jumping out of this text for me is that Saul is on his way, he's on the road. How often the Spirit confronts us in the midst of our doing something very important, very intent, when we think we're very busy and perhaps even doing the right thing! On the road to Damascus. On the road to Emmaus. On the road to (or away from) Nineveh.

It seems that when we're in the midst of something we think is desperately important, God blinds us with insight. God knocks us down and speaks to us. We're stunned and confused and a little affronted, and we need to be led by the hand a few steps because we're unsure of our legs.

We can say our God is a God of Love, but I think just as much God is Change, Transformation, Newness, Difference. And sometimes change doesn't come easy or painless.

Saul gets knocked on his butt with the realization that what he is doing is profoundly wrong, and has to spend some time in the dark before he is ready to see the world through new eyes. There is some truth to this period of waiting, too, the in-between time after you realize what you were but not what you will yet become. It isn't a "twilight" period, or even darkness, it is just "not-seeing." A chrysalis.

Labels: ,

Friday, April 06, 2007

"This Man's Blood"

Acts 5:27-32

Jesus' disciples cannot stop talking about Jesus - and talk about Jesus is teaching about Jesus (which is why, incidentally, neo-orthodox theologians get so upset by historians and people like The Jesus Seminar who want to talk "about" Jesus... their "talk" becomes teaching about Jesus). As soon as the apostles get out of jail (either by escaping or by being set free), they return to talking all over Jerusalem about Jesus. And at this point, it is likely that whatever they say, even if it is the most orthodox Jewish claim, will be spoken and heard through the filter of making some statement about Jesus.

Is Luke being deliberately ironic when he has the high priest say to the disciples that they "are determined to bring this man's blood on us"? What the high priest means, of course, is the guilt of a condemned and executed criminal, perpetuating whatever crime of treason or disorder of which Jesus was convicted. But in another way, what the disciples are doing is precisely that: to bring Jesus' blood on all of them - spread recognition of Jesus' act(s) of sacrifice and opening the way to redemption. The high priest was exactly right about what the apostles were wanting to do, but misunderstanding it himself. (The continuation of the motif of misunderstanding is another link to Luke's Gospel - but here the high priest is in the position of the disciples in the Gospel: having heard the teachings but misunderstanding what they mean or imply, and being instead filled with confusion and fear of reprisal from earthly powers.)

The apostles do want to bring Jesus' blood on the people - but not as condemnation but as redemption, not as imprisonment but as liberation, not as a death-sentence but as new life.

Peter answers, however, the question of the high priest: "We must obey God rather than any human authority." What a perfect summary of principled disobedience. It is a more-articulate echo of an earlier similar confrontation a few verses previous (4:19). This is why Martin Luther penned his 95 theses; why Martin Luther King, Jr., led the bus boycott and spoke against the Vietnam War; why Gerrard Winstanley, Conrad Noel, Cesar Chavez, John L. Lewis, Rev. Lewis Bradford, and Hugh Thompson Jr., disobeyed and acted righteously: Holy (Dis)Obedience. Obedience to God supplants obedience to any human authority - something American Christians would do well to remember when the nation calls for war and vengeance. This new loyalty (and its political dimensions) is referenced again when Peter describes Jesus as "Savior": the Greek word "soter" was used to describe the Roman Emperor and the Roman gods. By using this politically-charged word Peter was making a statement about political loyalties and calling the religious leaders of Jerusalem on their collusion with an oppressive occupying power (instead of, presumably, principled disobedience of some kind).

Peter continues this inversion of expectations by actually highlighting Jesus' criminal conviction and violent end. Luke has Peter reference Jesus being hung on a tree. Is Luke taking some dramatic poetic license here in describing the cross as a tree? (It seems most contemporary Christians sing with this kind of language this way, as if Peter was euphemistically describing the wooden cross as a tree.) In Deuteronomy (21:22-23) hanging the body of an executed criminal on a tree was an act emphasizing his accursedness. It was a such a potent symbol of accursedness that it was not allowed to remain overnight, lest it defile the whole of the country. Luke is taking poetic license here, but not in describing the cross as a tree. Luke is using hyperbole in describing the general sense of accursedness attributed to Jesus. He wasn't just condemned, tortured and executed as a criminal by the Romans, the general impression is that Jesus was condemned and cursed by God! How much more powerful is the reversal of fortunes if this man so profoundly cursed is not only redeemed but exalted to the right hand of God, and declared Soter?!

Peter here is one-upping the high priest in describing the misfortune of Jesus, as if to say that no matter how bad you think Jesus was, we can go even further. Even more to say: no matter how much we describe his accursedness in this world, so much more profound is the work God has done (is doing) in/through Jesus and his redemption. Luke has Peter almost grandstanding in court (reflecting a fine twist of language that is characteristic of skilled Greek rhetoric), which makes it more understandable why the council before which Peter is speaking becomes enraged at his statements.

Finally, something that impresses me is that in this confrontation the apostles make no reference to Jesus' resurrection as part of the kerygma or message. They speak of exaltation, but not resurrection. Why is that? Was it just an oversight on the part of the author, or something more deliberate? Was the bodily resurrection (a notion popular at that time, so there was no reason to exclude it from the testimony of the apostles) not important to the message the disciples were spreading?

Something for me to chew on... and take comfort in. The fundamental of the kerygma is transformation, repentance, metanoia.

At least, in front of that council.

Labels: , , ,