"Can Anything from ___ be Good?"

Lectionary: Epiphany 2(B)

Text: John 1:35-51 (extended reading)

Introduction

Last Sunday we celebrated the Baptism of Jesus. Today’s gospel reading follows that. In the Synoptic gospels, Jesus faces the wilderness temptation immediately afterward. But gospel account of John is quite different from the other three in that the baptism of Jesus is only tangentially alluded to[1], the temptation account doesn’t exist, and Jesus seems to hang around the Jordan River with John the Baptist for at least a day or so.

The narrative around the initial gathering of Jesus’ disciples is also different between the Synoptics and the gospel account in John. In the Synoptics, Jesus seems to show up to where the disciples are and calls them to leave behind their former lives and occupations and follow him. In John’s gospel, it starts out with disciples of John, who have already committed to following a master, who then seek out Jesus.

Witnesses

Let’s pick up the gospel text by starting just before where the reading started and continuing into the first few verses that we already heard,

²⁹ The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! ³⁰ This is the one about whom I said, ‘He who comes after me is really greater than me because he existed before me.’ ³¹ Even I didn’t recognize him, but I came baptizing with water so that he might be made known to Israel.” ³² John testified, “I saw the Spirit coming down from heaven like a dove, and it rested on him. ³³ Even I didn’t recognize him, but the one who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘The one on whom you see the Spirit coming down and resting is the one who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’ ³⁴ I have seen and testified that this one is God’s Son.”

³⁵ The next day John was standing again with two of his disciples. ³⁶ When he saw Jesus walking along he said, “Look! The Lamb of God!” ³⁷ The two disciples heard what he said, and they followed Jesus. (John 1:29-37 CEB)

From this text the implication is that only John saw the Spirit come down and rest on Jesus and who heard a voice explaining the vision. The two disciples of John who follow Jesus have only the words of John to go on. Jesus has not yet said anything, preached anything, performed any signs or wonders, and hadn’t had any notable interactions with anyone. There is no tangible evidence that Jesus is anything more than an ordinary human being. The only thing that the two disciples of John have is their trust in the words of their current master commending Jesus as the one who is greater, and by implication, possibly the Messiah that they are looking for.

A Web of Trust

The next verses read,

³⁸ When Jesus turned and saw them following, he asked, “What are you looking for?” They said, “Rabbi (which is translated Teacher), where are you staying?” ³⁹ He replied, “Come and see.” So they went and saw where he was staying, and they remained with him that day. It was about four o’clock in the afternoon. (John 1:38-39 CEB)

These few verses capture the essence of many thematic materials elaborated upon in the remainder of the gospel. The first of these is the motif of seeking. Throughout the gospel, the question of seeking for Jesus repeatedly appears. The second is the motif of staying. It is also translated into English as “to abide” and “to remain”. Its first occurrence is found in the description of the Holy Spirit resting on Jesus (v. 32). Its most well-known use is probably the parable of the vine and the branches in chapter 15. The third motif is found in Jesus’ response to these potential disciples, “Come and see.” We will see Philip use this exact same phrase, and just a few stories later the Samaritan woman says the same phrase to bring the rest of the town to Jesus.

From here one of the two, identified as Andrew, goes to find his brother Simon Peter. He tells Peter, “We have found the Messiah,” and brings Peter to Jesus. Once again I want to note that there is no record Jesus saying or doing anything noteworthy during the time spent with Andrew and the other disciple. From that I think we are to understand that the mere presence of being in (or staying in) Jesus’ presence was something unusual and different, and that was enough to convince the two that Jesus was the Messiah.

Then Jesus goes to Galilee and the now three disciples follow. The group encounters Philip, who is already acquainted with Andrew and Peter. When Jesus calls to Philip to “Follow me”, there is already a web of trust and familiarity that exists.

Can Anything Good…?

Philip immediately goes to find Nathanael. The text does not describe any time passing of travel, so it is likely the case that the two are in the same town and know one another well. Philip does not describe Jesus as the Messiah, but as one whom “Moses wrote about in the Law and the Prophets”. And then Philip adds that this person is “Jesus, Joseph’s son, from Nazareth.”

It is at this point that one of the well-known words in the gospel are spoken by Nathanael, “Can anything from Nazareth be good?” or perhaps more familiar to many is how you might have heard from the King James Version, “Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth?”

Various interpretations have been put forward to explain Nathanael’s response. Among them include suggestions that Nazareth was somehow more decadent and secular than desirable, or perhaps it was more evil and sinful than similar towns in the area. Or perhaps Nathanael was expressing bigotry toward Nazareth that was common in the area.

The best and most probable explanation to my mind can be inferred from the text. Recall that Philip said, “[We have found the one whom] Moses wrote about in the Law and the Prophets: Jesus, Joseph’s son, from Nazareth.” It doesn’t require much to realize that what Philip said simply doesn’t add up. Nowhere did Moses (or any Hebrew writer) write about “Jesus, Joseph’s son.” Nor is Nazareth ever mentioned in the Hebrew scripture. Shouldn’t someone as important as the Messiah come from some place more well known and at least is mentioned in scripture?

Nathanael is expressing an honest skepticism and asking a genuine question about Philip’s statement. Philip does not try to defend his statement or argue with Nathanael. He imitates Jesus and says to Nathanael, “Come and see.” Nathanael trusts Philip sufficiently enough that he follows to examine for himself Philip’s claims.

Honesty

As Jesus sees Nathanael approach, before Nathanael can say anything, Jesus speaks and says, “Here is a genuine Israelite in whom there is no deceit.” What did Jesus mean by this? Of the various explanations offered, there are two that I find most convincing. The first is that Nathanael is honest about his misgivings and doubt, and that he freely expresses his skepticism and questions, but at the same time he is open and willing to pursue new information and evidence that could change his mind.

The second explanation comes in light of Jesus’ final spoken sentence in today’s narrative. It is where Jesus says, “I assure you that you will see heaven open and God’s angels going up to heaven and down to earth on the Human One.” This is an allusion to the dream Jacob had of a ladder extending between earth and heaven, upon which angels were traveling up and down. This was the night after which Jacob fled his home because he had deceived his father to obtain the birthright blessing and was attempting to escape his brother’s wrath.

Jacob would be renamed “Israel” some years later during his return journey and he would become the father of all Israelites. So, Jesus’ statement to Nathanael, “Here is a genuine Israelite in whom there is no deceit,” touches on two key moments in Jacob’s story. In this interpretation, Nathanael may be seen as the prototype for a new kind of Israelite that Jesus is forming.

Witnessing in the Modern World

When Christians talk about effective witnessing and evangelism, what is often discussed are methods, techniques, information and content, and programs. What this opening portion of John’s gospel shows includes pretty much nothing that would be recognizable in modern evangelism.

What I see as the common thread through the first four disciples is trust. There is a thread and a web of trust. Not trust in information, but a trust in relationships. The first two trusted John the Baptizer. Peter trusted Andrew. Philip knew Peter and Andrew. Nathanael trusted Philip enough to at least give Philip’s strange statement a benefit of the doubt and check Jesus out for himself.

What is being increasingly lost in modern society is trust.[2] People do not trust institutions. That includes government and churches and nearly everything else in-between.

The first disciples came to Jesus and decided to join and follow him, not because of great programming, a convincing message, or any message. There was something about Jesus’ mere presence, of being with him, that was different. There was something trustworthy about Jesus.

Conclusion

When so much of society can rightfully ask, “Can anything from Christianity be good?”, perhaps our response shouldn’t be to try to defend Christianity through appeals to the many good things that have been accomplished historically, or to become defensive and say, “Not all Christians”, or to try to attempt to communicate doctrines more powerfully and effectively. Rather, maybe our response should be, “Come and see.” Come and see where trust and trustworthiness are values that are lived out, where honest skepticism and questions are welcomed, where care and concern is offered freely, not as a hook to conversion and membership.

When people see us and experience our presence, may they experience Jesus Christ among us and who is the ladder that connects humanity to divinity.

Bibliography

Bartlett, D. L., & Taylor, B. B. (2008). Feasting on the Word: Year B, Volume 1 (Preaching the Revised Common Lectionary). Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.

Britton-Purdy, J. (2024, January 8). We’ve Been Thinking About America’s Trust Collapse All Wrong. Retrieved from The Atlantic: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/01/trust-democracy-liberal-government/677035/

Dunn, J. D., & Rogerson, J. W. (2003). Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

Jarvis, C. A., & Johnson, E. E. (2015). Feasting on the Gospels: John, Volume 1. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.

Lewis, K. M. (2014). Fortress Biblical Preaching Commentaries: John. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.

 

---

[1] In fact, if John’s account was the only gospel account, it could easily be read that Jesus never underwent baptism. If Jesus was baptized in John’s account, the timeline is rather fuzzy about when it took place.

[2] (Britton-Purdy, 2024)

Sermon: Faith and Faithfulness

Abraham's Journey to Canaan - 1614

Lectionary: Proper 5A

Texts: Genesis 12:1-9; Romans 4:13-25; Matthew 9:9-13, 18-26

Introduction

For what would you give up all your comforts and stability of life? Is there anything for which you would pull up all roots, cut all relational ties, and embark on a nomadic life, not knowing whether you would ever settle down again?

Given our modern context with its technology and communications, it’s difficult to imagine the Bronze Age world in which leaving one’s place of belonging – the land on which one was born and would inherit and all the family, clan, and tribal ties – meant risking one’s own very life and survival.

Yet Abraham (or technically, at the time, Abram) did just that. Why?

This turns out to be yet another instance where the story is quite familiar, and because it has been heard so many times, we assume a lot about it that just isn’t there in the actual text. But there are also other details that aren’t in the immediate text of the narrative but can help fill in the broader context. Some of these can be found by looking at other texts in the Bible, and others from historical and cultural studies of the times and places in question.

Gods of Abram’s Household

The text reads that Yahweh spoke to Abram and told him to “Go from your country and your kindred and your father’s house to the land that I will show you.” (Gen 12:1[1]) Because God commands, Abram obeys. It’s as simple as that. Or is it?

Most of us read these patriarchal narratives with the assumption of monotheism, where the one true God is already known and worshiped. But that is not at all the case. When archaeology is examined, monotheism among the Israelites does not take hold until the Jews return from their Babylonian Exile. Up until their captivity into exile, most Israelites assumed the existence of, and often worshiped, multiple gods.[2]

Abram and his father’s household was no different. There is evidence that their primary deity was Sin, or the moon god of Sumeria. Many of the names found in the family may have references to the worship of the moon god.[3] The city of Haran is known to have had a temple to Sin.[4]

Abram does descend from the line of Shem, so it shouldn’t be surprising to find Yahweh among the household gods. But it is quite possible and (in my opinion) likely Yahweh had been relegated to one of the minor household deities.[5] We aren’t told how Yahweh speaks to Abram. It could be through divination, it could be through omens, it could be through a dream.[6]

The One Thing that Matters to Abram

However it happens, Abram hears from Yahweh. But why heed the words of one god among so many? As for Abram, there is nothing special about Yahweh. Except one thing. Yahweh promises Abram that he will have descendants. Back in Genesis 11:30, it was noted that Abram was married to Sarai, who was barren. We read that when Abram hears from Yahweh, he is about seventy-five years old. It would seem nearly impossible to have a child under these circumstances. Yet that is Yahweh’s promise. And it is the one thing for which Abram would and does leave his father’s family and ancestral lands. It is the one and only thing that is of value to him.

It was no simple or easy matter to leave one’s household behind.

A man was identified in the ancient world as a member of his father’s household. When the head of the household died, his heir assumed that title and its responsibilities. It is also identified with ancestral lands and property. By leaving his father’s household, Abram was thus giving up his inheritance and his right to family property.

Land, family and inheritance were among the most significant elements in ancient society. For farmers and herdsmen land was their livelihood. For city dwellers land represented their political identity. Descendants represented the future. Children provided for their parents in old age and enabled the family line to extend another generation. They gave proper burial to their parents and honored the names of their ancestors. In some of the ancient Near Eastern cultures these were considered essential to maintaining a comfortable existence in the afterlife. When Abram gave up his place in his father’s household, he forfeited his security.[7]

Abram was not only forfeiting his own security, but he was also turning his back on caring for his ancestors and the rest of the household. I strongly suspect that there was tremendous pushback and appeals to change his mind. Yet the one thing – having descendants of his own – was stronger. And one of the gods, Yahweh, promised that one thing to him. 

Abram’s Self-Interest

Lest we assume that Abram is just that devoted and willing to follow words he hears from a god, we only need to go a few verses into the next narrative to discover that Abram is self-serving and conniving. At least at this point in life, Abram’s primary interest is making sure he prospers.

¹⁰ Now there was a famine in the land. So Abram went down to Egypt to reside there as an alien, for the famine was severe in the land. ¹¹ When he was about to enter Egypt, he said to his wife Sarai, “I know well that you are a woman beautiful in appearance, ¹² and when the Egyptians see you, they will say, ‘This is his wife’; then they will kill me, but they will let you live. ¹³ Say you are my sister, so that it may go well with me because of you and that my life may be spared on your account.” (Genesis 12:10-13)

When Abram hears from Yahweh the promise of descendants and a great nation to boot, I’m sure he notices there are no conditions other than leaving his ancestral ties. There are no ongoing requirements. There is nothing required to be given to Yahweh once the promise is fulfilled. It’s all win for Abram. Subsequent promises and covenants Yahweh makes with Abram do not contain conditions either. This Yahweh seems to be all about giving and not requiring nor expecting anything in return. This is about as unconditional a promise as one can be.[8]

Although Abram left behind security of land, belonging to a household, and the comforts of living in a city, he did take along sufficient wealth that could be carried or walk on their own – livestock, portable wealth, his wife Sarai, his nephew Lot, and slaves. Abram gave up much, but according to the text, certainly not everything.

Definitions of Terms Matter

Although the Genesis 12 text does not explicitly state that Abram believed Yahweh, farther into the Abraham cycle of stories, in chapter 15 we read that Abram believed Yahweh. I think it is appropriate to read Abram’s believing back into chapter 12.

But what does it mean to believe? What is faith? In the reading from Romans, we heard the two terms faith and believe multiple times in Paul’s use of the story of God’s promise made to Abraham. The first verse that we heard from Romans reads:

¹³ For the promise that he would inherit the world did not come to Abraham or to his descendants through the law but through the righteousness of faith. (Romans 4:13)

Righteousness is yet another term that pops up in frequent association with faith and belief. Many of Paul’s references to Abraham in this section of Romans comes from Genesis 15, including one that is the key to Paul’s argument, “And he [Abram] believed the LORD, and the LORD reckoned it to him as righteousness.” (Genesis 15:6)

Frameworks for Defining Theological Terms

Those of us who were raised in the modern Western world traditionally approach the concepts of faith, belief, and righteousness from a perspective of science and law. We tend to emphasize knowable facts and attributes of God. Faith and belief then, becomes accepting and believing those data points about God. Righteousness is a term weighed with judicial and moral overtones. So, a righteous person is one who is morally good and does their best to always keep the law.

Maybe it comes as a surprise that this kind of thinking is exactly what Paul is writing against in Romans chapter 4. Or maybe it shouldn’t be a surprise at all. The Roman Empire was fastidious in its laws and observances. There were detailed and specific rituals to be performed to maintain one’s good standing with the gods. It is to those who were raised in this environment, immersed in this way of thinking about the law, to whom Paul writes. And it should be noted that we in the West are inheritors of this way of thinking, both in secular politics and in religion.

Paul, even though he is a Roman citizen, is thoroughly Jewish and Hebrew in the way he approaches the concepts of faith, belief, and righteousness. Instead of a legal framework for these terms, Paul understands and utilizes them within a relational framework.[9] The starting point of faith for Paul is not accepting facts about God, but rather, trust in the reliability of a relationship. Belief is not about an intellectual assent about God’s attributes, but rather, the confidence that God will deliver on God’s promises. And righteousness is primarily not about being in good moral or legal standing with God, but in a trusting relationship with God.

That is why Paul writes about Abraham, “No distrust made him waver concerning the promise of God, but he grew strong in his faith as he gave glory to God, being fully convinced that God was able to do what he had promised. Therefore ‘it was reckoned to him as righteousness.’” (Romans 4:20-22)

Stated another way, faith is trust in God’s absolute faithfulness. And that is the only human response necessary and appropriate to God’s invitation to be in right relationship with God; aka, righteousness. Unlike with other deities and nearly all human relationships, there are no conditions, no rituals, and no imposed penalties. The offer from God is unconditional.[10] This is grace.

Examples of Faith (Trust)

This is the framework in which we can read the gospel text for today. Yes, it begins with the call of Matthew into Jesus’ group and Matthew seems to get up and follow Jesus, leaving behind his prior life, much like Abraham. But in the broader textual context, the call appears to be just a minor detail. It seems mostly a narrative hook to bring us to the series of other vignettes that follow.

The thematic thread that I see going through the vignettes of our gospel reading is the question, “What kinds of people place their trust in God (or more precisely here, in Jesus)?”

First, there is Matthew and then all his family, friends, and acquaintances. They were generally thought to be socially unacceptable at best, and treasonous at worst. Jesus invites Matthew to trust in him, and Matthew does and brings many others to get a chance to meet Jesus. Those who thought they could never be fully accepted by God are now being invited into a relationship with God.

But then, a leader of the people (Mark identifies this person as a synagogue leader) comes to ask Jesus for help. Jesus does not turn aside the request from someone with higher social standing.

And then a woman with a flow of blood for twelve years quietly approaches Jesus, not wanting to make a scene nor to be known. Here is a person who is ritually impure, to be avoided. When she does get her wish to touch Jesus’ cloak and is healed, Jesus notices and commends her for her faith (or shall we say, trust?). With her healing, she can return to normal society and restore relationships that had been ruptured due to her condition.

And finally, Jesus touches a dead girl (although he does say that she “is not dead but sleeping”). Touching a corpse rendered a person ritually unclean. Yet that fact does not stop Jesus. Instead of being contaminated, Jesus restores life to the girl and restores relationships that moments ago were, metaphorically speaking, dead.

Faith Begins and Ends with God

Each of these is a vignette of someone placing their trust in God and God’s promises, and God holding to the promise. A broad range of social standing, gender, and age are included as an example of God’s encompassing acceptance and faithfulness.

God’s faithfulness does not depend on human response. It is God’s to unilaterally and unconditionally offer. I think that is the most important point that is being made across the three readings. Human faith in God is fallible. Abraham’s trust in God faltered many times. The churches to whom Paul wrote often had serious issues. Jesus’ had to often rebuke his disciples for lack of faith. Yet God remained and remains faithful to any and all who dare take a chance on God’s promises and begin the walk of trust in God’s reliability. That is faith and faithfulness.

In the name of God who provides and sustains,

In the name of God who walked the path of faith,

In the name of God who stirs us to walk in faith…

---

[1] Bible texts from the NRSV Updated Edition, unless otherwise noted.

[2] Many of the references to monotheism in the Old Testament may be seen as aspirational or idealistic; it can be seen as exilic and post-exilic editors attempting to explain the reason for being conquered and exiled, and a polemic against their prior history of religious unfaithfulness.

[3] New International Commentary, Old Testament, Genesis 1-17. Commentary on Genesis 11:27.

“Yet the possible connection of Terah (Heb. teraḥ) with the word yārēaḥ, “moon,” and yeraḥ, “lunar month,” if substantiated, would suggest that Abram’s family and ancestors were worshipers of the moon. One suggestion is that Terah means “Têr is (the divine) brother (or protector, Heb. ʾaḥ),” têr being a dialectal variant of šhr, a South Arabic term for the moon. Sarai (Sarah) is the equivalent of šarratu, “queen,” an Akkadian translation of a Sumerian name for Ningal, the female partner of the moon-god Sin. Milcah is the same name as the goddess Malkatu, the daughter of Sin. Laban (Heb. lāḇān) means “white,” and leḇāná, “the white one,” is a poetic term for the full moon. In addition, both Ur and Haran were thriving centers of moon worship; thus it is probable that the theological milieu in which Abram lived for a good bit of his life was one in which the cult focused its adoration on moon worship.”

[4] IVP Bible Background Commentary, Old Testament. Commentary on Genesis 11:31.

[5] Wondrium, Understanding the Old Testament: Lecture 5; Abraham, the Father of Three Faiths.

               “There is no suggestion in the text that Abraham has met God or knows anything about him. Later Jewish tradition filled in all sorts of stories from Abraham’s earlier life, but those are not in the text here.

               According to verse 1, Abraham is being asked to relinquish “his land and his family.” He is being asked to leave Mesopotamia—that is, ancient Iraq. Essentially, Abraham is asked to relinquish rich mercantile cities for a life of nomadism, leaving behind gold and jade.

               There is no indication that Abraham has any established credentials for this deity that has made this command.”

[6] It should be noted that there are many behaviors and actions that are taken by the patriarchs that would later be proscribed in Israel. Divination is one. Marriage and sexual relations with siblings or half-siblings is another.

[7] IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament. Commentary on Genesis 12:1.

[8] Wondrium, Understanding the Old Testament: Lecture 5; Abraham, the Father of Three Faiths.

               “In chapter 15, God reiterates an earlier promise that Abraham will have abundant descendants. God provides him a visual image of how many descendants he will have, but that supplies no basis at all to shore up any confidence. Still, Abraham accepted God as reliable…

               God is making promises to Abraham that are unconditional. There’s nothing Abraham has to do in order for God to keep his side of the bargain. Symbolically, God binds himself in this treaty ceremony without asking Abraham to do the same.”

[9] Richards, E. Randolph and James, Richard. Misreading Scripture with Individualist Eyes. “Grace and faith are the language of relationship.” (108)

[10] Richards. “God, however, is not like the typical patron. God generously gives patronage to all, including undeserving and treacherous clients, because he can and wants to.” (108)

Sermon: Getting Unstuck

Lectionary: Lent 2A

Texts: Genesis 12:1-4; Psalm 121; Romans 4:1-5, 13-17; John 3:1-17

Confusion

Nicodemus is confused with what Jesus is saying to him. And Jesus seems to be have gotten a little bit frustrated with Nicodemus’ continued confusion.

Why is Nicodemus confused? This story is a familiar one and is visited frequently in sermons.

The explanation usually begins with the word for “anew” that Jesus uses to speak about birth. The word could also mean “again” and “from above.” Great. So, the word could be used to refer to different ways of being born.

But that merely raises another question: why is Nicodemus only able to see one meaning of the word? Why is Nicodemus unable to comprehend that Jesus is speaking about the need to be “born from above?” Reading the rest of the discourse, one of the possible reasons that can be derived is that Nicodemus is unable to understand because his perspective is darkened, and it is from earthly, not from the Spirit. And I think that is true in a broad sense, but it seems like there could be more to it.

Assumptions and Barriers to Understanding

Looking through a reference text this week, I had my own “aha” moment that offered what to me was an improved reason for Nicodemus’ confusion, and one that is (unfortunately) more relatable.

The concept of being “born from above” means that one is metaphorically birthed from God. Nicodemus saw himself and his people as already having been birthed by God, through Abraham. They already belonged to God. So, even if Nicodemus could hear the “born from above” intent of Jesus, Nicodemus could not comprehend why he or his fellow Jews would need to “born from above.”[1] Therefore, he assumes Jesus might be using hyperbole or speaking nonsense and questions how one could be physically reborn.

Nicodemus likely held to a belief that privileged Jews spiritually over the rest of the world. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were chosen by God out of all the other nations. They were given a special revelation of God, the Torah, at Mt. Sinai through Moses. They had a special relationship with God.[2] He could not comprehend why they would need another conversion to enter the kingdom of God. His cultural, ethnic, and religious environment prevented him from considering any other possibility.

And here is where Nicodemus’ problem becomes relatable to me and perhaps to many of us today. Does our cultural, social, ethnic, political, religious, and theological assumptions, beliefs, and traditions hinder us from alternative ways of seeing and understanding others, and perhaps even hearing from God?

A Personal Illustration

By way of illustration, I will offer an example from my own life. But I need to make clear that it is one person’s journey, mine, and that others can and do have very different experiences; but also that even though I come from one specific religious upbringing, the issue of religious exclusiveness and privilege can be found in other groups.

I was born into and raised in the Seventh-day Adventist denomination. For thirty-plus years it was pretty much the entirety of my life and world. Everything about life pretty much revolved around the church and its functions and events.

One of the good aspects that I can look back on are the friendships and connections that were made. Because the denomination has some unique and distinctive beliefs and practices, those who belong to the denomination tend to cluster together, and that bond can begin in childhood and last a lifetime.

Another good aspect of it, looking back, is that it regarded the Bible very highly. Since I went to sixteen years of denominations schools, that meant I had sixteen years of increasingly advanced biblical and theological studies. The annual reading through the Bible was highly encouraged. Back when I was actually living through those times though, I thought it was tedious and unnecessary; but it has benefits now, as those ingrained memories provide helpful sparks of insights, especially when I prepare sermons.

But there were negative aspects as well. As I look back from the outside now, I can see how much fundamentalism was present in the experience. Although the denomination does not hold to an inerrant view of scripture, it takes most of what is found in the Bible as quite literal and historical facts and truth.[3],[4] The set of articulated beliefs form rigid boundaries around what is deemed to be correct biblical truth. The denomination sees its beliefs as the “most correct” and sees itself as called by God to convert not just non-Christians but other Christians to itself. It considers itself as the “remnant” that is mentioned in scripture;[5],[6] i.e., it sees itself as particularly favored by God. In many ways how I experienced God and religion in my first two or three decades looks very similar to how Nicodemus understood God and his religion.

Breaking Down Assumptions and Barriers

It was only after having moved to this town, Petersburg, and began to associate with other pastors and their churches that I saw that Christianity has much broader parameters with allowances for much wider and richer practices and experiences. Previously I had understood this to be possible from an intellectual perspective, but I only came to experience it here. You might say that my former assumptions had been broken, the walls around what I believed held correct truth was breached, and I became unstuck from the smallness of exclusivity.

Jesus challenges Nicodemus’ assumptions about what is means to be a part of the kingdom of God and how one enters it. Jesus tells him that simply being born a Jew or observing Jewish religious traditions and practices is insufficient. Jesus tells him that entering God’s kingdom requires a radical change in perspective. The gospel account does not go into detail here as to what that change is – Jesus just tells Nicodemus, “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.”[7] The word “believes” often connote intellectual assent to a set of facts or teachings, but in this gospel it is about trust. What or who does one trust to bring life? Is it ancestry or religious teachings? Or is it found in a person?

Jesus tells Nicodemus, “The wind blows where it chooses, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”[8] From the rest of this gospel account, what we hear and learn is that trust in God involves becoming unstuck from preconceptions about God and becoming open to unexpected ways in which God works in the world.

Childhood me, teenager me, and even young adult me would never have imagined the kinds of unexpected twists and turns my spiritual journey would take.

Basis of Belonging to God

The Apostle Paul had his own experiences of having his assumptions and beliefs completely changed by Jesus. A large portion of his letter to the Romans is his working out how the history of Israel and Judaism now fit into God’s plan. Paul is clear that they have not been done away or replaced. But what Jesus has done is expand what it means to be included in God’s family.

Today’s reading from Romans is a small part of that. In it Paul explains that God’s plan is for all of the world to be included in God’s family. Whereas Israel often pointed to the Exodus and the Law as the beginning of a special relationship with God, Paul goes back to Abraham. Having been physically descended from Abraham was thought to confer a special relationship to Israel and the Jews, but in Romans chapter 4 Paul argues that Abraham is the father of all the nations.[9] Abraham is the father of all the nations not because of physical birth or because the Law would eventually come through Moses, a descendant, but because Abraham demonstrated trust in God.

And what was this trust?

Abram Trusted God

This brings us to the reading from Genesis. When God called Abram (before he was given Abraham as a new name) to leave his ancestral lands and family, and go to where God would lead him, Abram got up and left.

Where one’s identity was tied to both land and family, to get up and leave both behind was almost unthinkable. God was telling Abram to leave behind literally everything that he had known and had given him identity, meaning, and place in life for his seventy-five years. He had no son to carry on his name. God told Abram that he would have to start his life completely over, to begin life as if he was born again. Instead of being born into a physical family and tribe, God would become his father and family for this new life that Abram would enter into.

That brings us full circle back to where we began with Nicodemus. Nicodemus knew the scriptures. He knew the history of Israel. But his assumptions about God and his ethnic and religious belonging blocked him from seeing how broader God’s inclusiveness and blessings were.

Jesus’ Invitation to Trust God

Jesus was inviting and pleading for Nicodemus to be like Abram, to leave behind those things that he thought brought identity, meaning, and place in life, be born anew, be born from above, and follow the Spirit’s leading into the kingdom of God.

When Paul encountered Jesus on the Damascus Road, he accepted Jesus’ invitation to leave behind the hindrances of the past and follow the Spirit into a new life and God’s kingdom.

The same invitation remains for each of us. Part of Lent is introspection and reflection. This week my encouragement to you is to consider ways in which your journey with God might have become stuck, and to consider ways in which you might get unstuck.

Are expectations of others keeping you from following God more authentically? Do you have negative experiences from the past that make it difficult to trust, especially God? Do you have conflicts or problems with the church? These are just a few suggested placed to start.

The important thing is to acknowledge that not all is well and identify things that are possibly contributing to stress and discomfort. The Psalms contain numerous examples of where the psalmists unleash their complaints and problems with God onto God. It may be a cliché, but it is good to be reminded that God’s lovingkindness can handle our biggest complaints and accusations hurled at God.

Letting go of some of the hurts and complaints we have can allow us to hear God more clearly and sense the presence and leading of the Spirit. And in response we can follow, again, the example of the psalmists in offering praise. Many of the psalms that begin with complaints and accusations end with praise. The psalmists offer praise even before God has responded. They hold on to God’s faithfulness and trust that God will respond.

Let me close by reciting Psalm 121 once more as one of our bases for trust in God.

A Song of Ascents.

¹ I lift up my eyes to the hills—
    from where will my help come?
² My help comes from the Lord,
    who made heaven and earth.

³ He will not let your foot be moved;
    he who keeps you will not slumber.
⁴ He who keeps Israel
    will neither slumber nor sleep.

⁵ The Lord is your keeper;
    the Lord is your shade at your right hand.
⁶ The sun shall not strike you by day
    nor the moon by night.

⁷ The Lord will keep you from all evil;
    he will keep your life.
⁸ The Lord will keep
    your going out and your coming in
    from this time on and forevermore. (Psalm 121 NRSVue)

 

---

[1] IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament, volume 2. Entry for John 3:3-4, 5. “Jesus speaks literally of being born “from above,” which means “from God” (“above,” like “heaven,” was a Jewish circumlocution, or roundabout expression, for God) … Most evidence for Greek traditions about individual rebirth come from a later period, possibly formulated in light of Christianity, but some Jewish analogies probably lack direct Christian influence. Because Jewish teachers spoke of Gentile converts to Judaism as starting life anew like “newborn children” (just as adopted sons under Roman law relinquished all legal status in their former family when they became part of a new one), Nicodemus should have understood that Jesus meant conversion; but it never occurs to him that someone Jewish would need to convert to the true faith of Israel… Converts to Judaism were said to become “as newborn children”; their conversion included immersion in water to remove Gentile impurity. “Born of water” thus could clarify for Nicodemus that “born from above” means conversion, not a second physical birth.”

[2] John 8:31-59 describes how the writer of this gospel account perceives as the Jewish perspective on belonging to God through ancestry and ethnicity. Jesus challenges this perspective and can be seen as an elaboration on what he says to Nicodemus.

[3] Seventh-day Adventist Fundamental Belief #1. “The Holy Scriptures, Old and New Testaments, are the written Word of God, given by divine inspiration. The inspired authors spoke and wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. In this Word, God has committed to humanity the knowledge necessary for salvation. The Holy Scriptures are the supreme, authoritative, and the infallible revelation of His will. They are the standard of character, the test of experience, the definitive revealer of doctrines, and the trustworthy record of God’s acts in history.” (https://www.adventist.org/holy-scriptures/)

[4] Seventh-day Adventist Fundamental Belief #6. “God has revealed in Scripture the authentic and historical account of His creative activity. He created the universe, and in a recent six-day creation the Lord made “the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them” and rested on the seventh day. Thus He established the Sabbath as a perpetual memorial of the work He performed and completed during six literal days that together with the Sabbath constituted the same unit of time that we call a week today. The first man and woman were made in the image of God as the crowning work of Creation, given dominion over the world, and charged with responsibility to care for it. When the world was finished it was “very good,” declaring the glory of God.” (https://www.adventist.org/creation/)

[5] Seventh-day Adventist Fundamental Belief #13. “The universal church is composed of all who truly believe in Christ, but in the last days, a time of widespread apostasy, a remnant has been called out to keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus. This remnant announces the arrival of the judgment hour, proclaims salvation through Christ, and heralds the approach of His second advent. This proclamation is symbolized by the three angels of Revelation 14; it coincides with the work of judgment in heaven and results in a work of repentance and reform on earth. Every believer is called to have a personal part in this worldwide witness.” (https://www.adventist.org/remnant-and-its-mission/)

[6] Seventh-day Adventist Fundamental Belief #18. “The Scriptures testify that one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is prophecy. This gift is an identifying mark of the remnant church and we believe it was manifested in the ministry of Ellen G. White. Her writings speak with prophetic authority and provide comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction to the church. They also make clear that the Bible is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested.” (https://www.adventist.org/gift-of-prophecy/)

[7] John 3:14-15.

[8] John 3:8.

[9] Romans 4:17.

Book Review - Broken: Restoring Trust Between the Sacred & the Secular

Broken: Restoring Trust Between the Sacred & the Secular by Greg Fromholz
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

Trust is the foundation on which relationships are built. But we are not very good at it. Institutions and individuals have betrayed us. We have betrayed trust given to and received from others. We live in an environment permeated by fear. How can relationships possibly exist in such a climate?

Greg Fromholz examines the issue of trust and how to build it in Broken: Restoring Trust Between the Sacred & the Secular. He uses personal stories, Bible stories and passages, and research data to suggest ways in which we as individuals, groups, and churches can return to a trusting environment. The writing is engaging, and humor is frequently used to release tension in an otherwise heavy topic.

There are sixteen chapters across 222 pages (excluding endnotes). Each chapter discusses an aspect of trust - what hinders trust and what can help build it. Among the issues discussed are: forgiveness, fear, faithfulness, love, peace, and hope.

Gromholz issues a stinging indictment against the modern church and how it has communicated a separation between faith and trust, and how faith (the believing, intellectual kind) has become the most important thing in many churches. He that because faith has become so predominant, it has diminished and has even hidden love in the life of the church, communicating to any who participate and observe that love isn't that important to God. His indictment extends to the structures and systems that the church has placed around herself, to protect and to control; that such systems have replaced love in churches and in church life. The implicit message: where systems, structures, and control are important, trust is not. Organizations, small and large, seek to conserve and maintain -- by their very nature, they fear freedom. But without freedom, there can be no trust.

God allows great freedom to untrustworthy humans. God does not impose his will, but seeks to collaborate with humanity. As the bride of Christ, the church (and her individual members) should take a look at how God relates to us and seek to model our interactions with the world around us in the same way. This, I believe, is the message that Fromholz is communicating to his audience through this book.

View all my reviews