Sermon: The Wind Blows Where It Chooses

Lectionary: Year B, Trinity Sunday
Text: John 3:1-17

Introduction

This week I learned I might have quite a bit in common with Nicodemus, a Pharisee.

I was born into a church denomination that has a wide range of perspectives on various things. But on average, it could be described as traditional, conservative, and even fundamentalist in some respects. It was a denomination founded through the study of biblical prophecies, and when the initial interpretations failed to materialize, interpretations were revised, and its apocalyptic message continues to be taught. It is a denomination with an emphasis on its unique traditions that keeps it somewhat separate from other Christian denominations. From an early age, within education classes in the church and in church-run schools, I was taught the importance of watching for signs of the end times and even possible broad outlines of how the end of the world will come about.

In many ways, what I grew up in has similarities to how the Pharisees viewed their times, lived in it, and looked for the coming kingdom of God.

Before continuing, I should note that although the Pharisees are often perceived negatively by modern Christians, it was not at all the case back in their time. Although some were certainly wealthy and privileged, as a whole they were considered coming from the masses and could relate to the common folk.[1] Their concern was the study of scripture and accurate interpretations of them so that all could live in holiness and purity as God would have them live. This contrasted with the Sadducees, who were given the priesthood by the Romans, and was the aristocracy of the Jewish nation. Their concerns were more pragmatic in that they were more interested in maintaining the status quo and their place in society.

The Pharisees were expecting the Messiah and the arrival of a new kingdom. They had certain assumptions and expectations of who the Messiah should be, how he would appear, and what he would do. They had an outline of how the present age should end and how the new age with the new kingdom would begin. They read the prophecies in scripture with apocalyptic vision.[2]

As I said earlier, I find several parallels between what I grew up in and some of the characteristics of the Pharisees.

Nicodemus

Nicodemus was a Pharisee. Which means all that I had just said is part of the backstory that is not explicitly written in the gospel, because everyone reading or hearing it at that time would have known much of this. Nicodemus is interested in figuring out Jesus, because in Nicodemus’ view, Jesus fits more than a few checkboxes of the expected Messiah.

First, Jesus appears out of nowhere. Secondly, Jesus is performing miraculous signs. Thirdly, Jesus appears to be performing his acts on behalf of God.

In the gospel text immediately preceding today’s reading, Jesus had driven out the merchants selling animals and the moneychangers. The arrival of the new kingdom was also expected to be preceded by a purification of the temple.[3] What Jesus performed could be interpreted by some to fit into that scheme.

Nicodemus comes to Jesus at night. On the most literal level, this simply is an indication that Nicodemus wants to avoid any discourse from turning into an honor contest.[4] This could certainly happen if it was in the daylight with masses of the public around. So, coming at night for a private conversation shows Nicodemus’ sincerity. But on the literary level, the gospel writer uses night and darkness symbolically in the gospel to show a lack of understanding.[5] So Nicodemus is genuinely interested, but the writer foreshadows his lack of understanding as this narrative will continue.

I’ve always wondered why, after Nicodemus greets Jesus with honorific praise, Jesus seems to abruptly change the topic to the kingdom of God. Understanding the background information, I’ve mentioned so far shows that the coming kingdom was what was primary in Nicodemus’ mind, even though he does not explicitly ask about it.

The Pharisees expected that they, because of their devotion to the Torah, would naturally be among those entering the new kingdom with the Messiah. Jesus’ first statement to Nicodemus disagrees with the Pharisee’s beliefs about who is eligible to enter the kingdom. Only those who are born from above, only those who are Spirit-born, can enter the kingdom of God. No natural human person can enter the kingdom. Lineage and ancestry don’t confer qualifications. Only those who have been renewed and reborn of the Spirit can enter the kingdom.

Another messianic belief that the Pharisees had was that as part of the inauguration of the new kingdom, the Messiah would judge the world. But at the end of what is today’s reading, the text reads that in fact the Messiah was not sent to judge, but to save. And salvation is not just for Jews and those that follow the Torah, but the entire world – the cosmos. The kingdom of God would not be a perfect practice of Judaism, but something completely different, something discontinuous with anything found to that point in human history.

In this short section we see at least three messianic ideas that were a part of the Pharisaic tradition that are contradicted by Jesus as he offers different interpretations. First, it is not careful obedience to the Torah that offers entry into the kingdom, but rather, it is being born from above, with the Sprit, that allows someone entry into the kingdom. Secondly, the Messiah did not come to judge, but to save. And thirdly, this salvation and entry into the kingdom is for the entire world, not just Jews.

It shouldn’t be surprising that Nicodemus didn’t understand, at least at that immediate time. But he shows up a couple more times in John’s gospel account and we can infer through those episodes that his understanding about Jesus changes and deepens.

I started this sermon by briefly relating my Christian environment and understandings during the first thirty years or so. The next twenty including now has been a period of both deconstruction and reconstruction. There are many things I used to believe and accept that I no longer do. I’ve changed the ways in which I read and interpret the Bible. There are some things I used to accept that I can’t believe I ever did. And there are things that seem plain and obvious to me now that twenty or thirty years ago, I would have considered heresy.

And that leads me to this next part – the historical context in which the gospel of John was written.

Context of the Writing of the Gospel According to John

This gospel was written toward the end of the first century C.E. It was a good sixty years since Jesus left Earth. It’s been twenty years since the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. The Pharisees are on their way of transforming into rabbinical Judaism, which is the precursor of Judaism today. The Christians, who for the most part still see themselves as Jews, have been cast out of their synagogues.

The Christian believers looked at their Jewish scriptures and found quite different ways of interpreting the text. They read the prophecies and found a very different fulfillment. Jesus Christ fulfilling the promised Messiah of Israel was now plain and obvious. How could the rest of the Jewish community not see and accept this?

I think that it is in this context that the writer of John utilizes the story of Nicodemus and Jesus to address what is going on in the writer’s community. A strong evidence for this occurs beginning with verse 11 where the writer transitions from Jesus speaking to the community speaking: “I assure you that we speak about what we know and testify about what we have seen…” Although traditionally it is Jesus who continues speaking through the rest of this discourse, from verse 11 onward, it is better to read this as their understanding of Jesus and his Messianic fulfillments, from the community that produced this gospel text.

The Jews had lost their Temple and their nation. They were scattered around the Roman Empire. As long as the Temple stood, and they had a land to call their own they could see a glimmer of messianic hope. But with all that taken away what was to become of God’s promise to them of a new kingdom?

Reconstruction and Reinterpretation

The early Jewish Christians found their answer and comfort in reinterpreting the scriptures in the light of Jesus and the words that he left for them. These reinterpretations were not just minor revisions to what they understood and accepted previously. They had to reimagine and reinterpret texts in new ways that often stood in contradiction to their past understandings. The new kingdom was not just an updated continuation of what already exists, but a radical interruption of former history and a departure into a new trajectory.

This might be seen as the work of the Spirit, a part of being born from above, that is promised by Jesus much later in the gospel:

John 16:13-14 (CEB)

13 However, when the Spirit of Truth comes, he will guide you in all truth. He won’t speak on his own, but will say whatever he hears and will proclaim to you what is to come. 14 He will glorify me, because he will take what is mine and proclaim it to you. 

Just as these first generation of Christ followers experienced upheaval and uncertainties, we too, seem to be in a time of upheaval and uncertainties. We live in chaotic times, and what we assumed to be true about society and the world doesn’t always seem to hold up.

The story of Nicodemus and the development of early Christian beliefs tells us that we must be open to the Spirit in forming and changing how we understand the world around us. Sometimes that might mean radically changing our beliefs, however sincerely held they may be. In my personal experience, that has meant dropping some beliefs and ideas that, looking back now, were quite insular and exclusionary. In their place I found beliefs that I think are more inclusive and hopefully align more closely with Jesus’ teachings that salvation is for all who trust in God. Deconstruction and reconstruction are not easy; but I believe it is often necessary to continue in spiritual growth and maturity.

The Spirit of God, the breath, the wind – it was present at the creation of the world [c.f., Genesis 1:1-2]. Through the Spirit, God brought order to chaos. And in the same way, the Spirit brings order to chaos found in every age. We may not always understand how the Spirit works, but it is present in the world. When we are open to the Spirit, we should assume that our journeys will take unexpected turns and paths.

Will we let go of trying to control our lives, and of trying to bring certainty into them? Will we instead trust and allow God to work through the Spirit of Christ, and to do and go wherever she leads? Will we allow God to work through us as agents of the new kingdom to bring the offer and reality of salvation – from God, through Jesus Christ, and guaranteed by the Holy Spirit – to the entire world?

---

[1] Wicher, Edward A. “Ancient Jewish Views of the Messiah”, https://www.jstor.org/stable/3141950

[2] Kampmeier, A. “The Jewish Expectation of God’s Kingdom in Its Successive Stages”, https://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2581&context=ocj

[3] Hiers, Richard H. “Purification of the Temple: Preparation for the Kingdom of God”, https://www.jstor.org/stable/3262987

[4] Richards, E. Randolph. Misreading Scripture with Individualist Eyes, p. 167ff.

[5] Paulien, Jon. John: The Beloved Gospel, p. 35-36.

Sermon: Honor Among Friends

 

Lectionary Year B, Easter 6

Text: John 15:9-17

Also: Luke11:5-8

Introduction

What is a friend? I supposedly have 756 “friends” on Facebook. But clearly, most of these don’t fit even a very broad or loose definition of friend.

A definition from the Oxford Dictionaries via Bing reads, “A person whom one knows and with whom one has a bond of mutual affection, typically exclusive of sexual or family relations.” Some synonyms from the same source includes words such as: companion, confidante, schoolmate, workmate, pal, and buddy. I think that for most of us, friend is certainly someone that we know well and share some commonalities and can often include those that we know somewhat superficially but do spend some occasional time with. We typically include in our category of friend many with whom we share group membership: this might include workplaces, organizations, school, and church.

An acquaintance, by comparison, seems to be a far more restricted term, applied to those that we know just enough about to not fit the category of strangers.

In our culture, most of the people that we have in our regular circle of contact, if not family members and not pure business contacts, they tend to fall into the category of friends. We also tend to think of friends as not too different from us in socio-economic status. Friends are relationships based on mutual choice. We might call on friends for assistance, but we generally accept that they are free to help or not help. We might expect more from our close and closest friends, but even then, we allow them the choice to offer assistance or not.

We make these assumptions when seeing “friend” in the text of the Bible. And that can potentially limit what we get from reading it or can even mislead us. We can miss the rich layers of meaning in the biblical text when we project our own cultural readings onto it.

Patronage and Friendship

Today’s reading is steeped in the patronage systems that was the air that Jesus and his disciples lived in daily. It was part of the Roman society and systems that the writer of this gospel and its audience lived in.[1]

We see this at work in the first two sentences of today’s reading:

⁹ “As the Father loved me, I too have loved you. Remain in my love. ¹⁰ If you keep my commandments, you will remain in my love, just as I kept my Father’s commandments and remain in his love.  

The Father is the patron. He offers love to Jesus, the broker or mediator. And in turn, Jesus loves his disciples, the client. Through Jesus, the broker, the Father offers love to the disciples.

In a patronage system, there are always strings attached. We, in the Western world might think this to be a negative, but the collectivists see this as a primary reason for patronage: it establishes, builds, and strengthens relationships. Independence is not a highly thought-of value; mutual dependence is. Efficiency is far less valuable than working with a large web of relationships.

The string attached to God’s love is for the clients to keep Jesus’ commandments, which can be understood to be the same as God’s commandments, when we read this text as Jesus brokering communication between the Father and Jesus’ disciples.

Another point that those of us who are not familiar with the patronage system is that the term friend can be used of any of these relationships just described. It certainly can be a term used among the clients, but friend can be used to describe the client-broker, broker-patron, and even the patron-client relationships. Equality in status is not assumed by the usage of friend and we should not assume it when we see it in the Bible.

What the word friend, when used in collectivist societies means, is loyalty and interdependency. It certainly can include affection, closeness, and mutually shared interests, but these are secondary. A friend is not as close as kin, but almost as close. And they are a part of the common community in which they all should have a vested interest in maintaining and upholding the shared honor. Here too, is something we might often miss when discussing honor: although individuals have honor, it is derived from relationship with a community.

Parable of the Friend at Midnight

Some of these ideas can be found in a parable Jesus told, found in the Lucan gospel, chapter 11.

⁵ He also said to them, “Imagine that one of you has a friend and you go to that friend in the middle of the night. Imagine saying, ‘Friend, loan me three loaves of bread ⁶ because a friend of mine on a journey has arrived and I have nothing to set before him.’ ⁷ Imagine further that he answers from within the house, ‘Don’t bother me. The door is already locked, and my children and I are in bed. I can’t get up to give you anything.’ ⁸ I assure you, even if he wouldn’t get up and help because of his friendship, he will get up and give his friend whatever he needs because of his friend’s brashness.  

Jesus uses the term friend ironically in this parable. When Jesus asks his audience to imagine that one of the listeners’ friends might refuse an inconvenient request, particularly in the middle of a night, their response is, “No, they cannot imagine a friend refusing a request.” Especially when it involves another friend and hospitality.

The parable doesn’t state the social statuses of each of the individuals. They might be equal, but they don’t have to be. If so, who might be of higher status? We can imagine different scenarios. Perhaps the friend asking is of higher status, perhaps a patron asking his baker client. Or perhaps the friend is the client, asking his patron for extra bread that he might have that the client, being of lower economic status, might not have at the end of each day. But the point that the audience of Jesus would have understood is that no one in the community possesses everything that might be necessary for any given day or night. Mutual dependence is key to their survival. In fact, as another parable of Jesus – the parable of the Rich Man’s Barn [Luke 12:15-20] – shows how not wanting to depend on and contribute to his community is considered a curse and the one seen as cursed.

But this so-called “friend” that is asked for some bread does fulfill the request. Not because of the so-called “friendship” that clearly is being ignored or does not exist. But because of the word at the end of the parable. The CEB translated it as brashness, but others translations include importunity, shamelessness, and boldness. The traditional interpretation is that it is because the friend asking is bold and persistent, that the request is finally fulfilled.

But Kenneth E. Bailey in Poet and Peasant and in many translation notes that are often supplied with Bibles suggest that a better interpretation is to see this as affecting the honor of the friend being asked, and for him to refuse it is to cast aspersion on the honor of the entire community. So, in order to avoid shame, the so-called friend gives the requestor not just bread but everything else needed to fulfill the hospitality duties expected of a host.

The point of the parable is that if a mere person who might not behave with loyalty that a friend relationship expects, will still fulfill requests in order to avoid shame, how much more will God, who is far more loyal and honorable, grant requests of those who ask.

What Does It Mean to Be Called Jesus’ Friend?

When Jesus, in the gospel of John (today’s reading), declares that he no longer calls his disciples servants but friends, all of this comes into play. Jesus laid down his life for his friends. Therefore, those who are in a friend-relationship with Jesus are also expected to lay down their lives for their friends. And just in case someone didn’t quite get it the first go around, Jesus states the expectation explicitly:

¹² This is my commandment: love each other just as I have loved you. ¹³ No one has greater love than to give up one’s life [Gk., psyche] for one’s friends. ¹⁴ You are my friends if you do what I command you. 

To do what Jesus commands is to love as Jesus loved. To love as Jesus loved is to be willing to give up one’s life for another friend. Now, life, as used here does not necessarily refer to physical life, although it may. There are at least three Greek words that are translated as “life” in English: bios, zoe, and psyche. The one used here is psyche and generally is used for what we would think of as being critical to a person’s identity: thoughts, emotions, motivations, and one’s worldview.[2] One way of applying this may be in my willingness to not assert or even relinquish my rights in order to bring equity and justice to another.

We also read here how Jesus was the broker for the Father’s message. Through Jesus, the disciples have come to know God’s will. It is for this reason that they are no longer servants but friends. Friends understand how their community operates: its values and its principles. Friends are able to behave and act in ways that honor the community, even if no direct command is given as would be the case from a master to a servant. And because the loyalty that friends have to the patron is expected, and because that loyalty means friends will only ask of the patron what brings honor to the entire community, all of those requests will be granted through Jesus, who is the broker. (We should note, however, that Jesus promised “another broker”, or mediator, just minutes before – John 14.)

We’ve discussed what the disciples hearing Jesus’ words might have understood. But why did this gospel writer include this text? What did it mean to his community?

Conclusion: How Do We Remain in Jesus’ Love?

I think that John’s community might have had some questions about what it means to “abide in Jesus’ love.” How does a community remain in Jesus’ love when Jesus is no longer physically around? This gospel’s answer, through Jesus’ words, is that the community loves one another as Jesus loved the disciples: by not insisting on one’s rights and privileges, or by using these for the benefit of another, or by willing to relinquish them so others can be given equity and justice, or perhaps in some cases giving one’s own physical life. When all members of the community love in this way, there should be no need unmet.

Mutual interdependence is not about “me giving to you, and you giving to me,” but “we giving to we.”[3] In this type of society, resources are not used up, they are not hoarded; they are continuously recycled and renewed. And in this way, this becomes a type of resurrection and life that Jesus embodies and offers.

We live in a vastly different culture than when these words were spoken and written. I don’t think that becoming collectivist is expected or desirable. But do we as a culture overvalue independence and individualism? Do we, consciously or not, look down on those who need assistance? Is it possible to elevate the value of dependence upon one another? Can we eliminate the stigma and shame often accompanying asking for help? I think that these might be a few ways in which we might think of better loving one another. By doing so, we keep Jesus’ command, remain in his love and bear fruit, which then honors and brings glory to God.

---

[1] The concepts of patronage and how it works and how it might be applied to biblical texts taken from Misreading Scripture with Individualist Eyes: Patronage, Honor, and Shame in the Biblical World, by E. Randolph Richards and Richard James. Also Feasting on the Gospels: John, Volume 2, “John 15:11-17, Exegetical Perspective” section.

[2] I am indebted to Liberation Lectionary on Facebook for a discussion on this week’s reading and pointing out the particular use of psyche as the term translated as “life”.

[3] Misreading Scripture with Individualist Eyes, page 67.

Sermon: Viticulture

Lectionary Year B, Fifth Sunday of Easter

Text: John 15:1-8

Introduction

This week, I learned how the word “Op-Ed” originated and what it means. First, the word is younger than I am, even if only by nine months. But more importantly, I had the wrong definition for it. Maybe I’m the only one here, but for my entire life, I thought “op-ed” was synonymous with “opinions and editorials.” But no. It is shorthand for “opposite the editorial page.” It originated with the New York Times, and in this week’s Opinion article explaining why they have chosen to retire, the piece begins:

The first Op-Ed page in The New York Times greeted the world on Sept. 21, 1970. It was so named because it appeared opposite the editorial page and not (as many still believe) because it would offer views contrary to the paper’s. Inevitably, it would do that, too, since its founders were putting out a welcome mat for ideas and arguments from many points on the political, social and cultural spectrums from outside the walls of The Times — to stimulate thought and provoke discussion of public problems.[1]

The Times made the decision to retire the term, because in the digital world, there is literally and physically, no longer an “opposite the editorial page.” Instead, they have switched to using “Guest Essays” for these signed pieces from authors outside the Times staff. It more accurately reflects what these pieces are and corrects the oft-mistaken idea that these opinion pieces are necessarily contrary to the editorial position.

This is just one personal example of an assumption that I made that was wrong. And its origin is younger than my own. So it shouldn’t be surprising that when we read texts in the Bible, we might make far more assumptions about them and they might not be entirely accurate.

I attended college in Napa County – where vineyards are everywhere, sometimes stretching as far as the eye can see. So you’d think I would have absorbed some ideas about how grapes are cultivated. But no.

You see, even though I saw the rather bare vines in the winter and very full vines by the end of summer, I had no idea about viticulture – the agriculture of growing grapes.

Part of it might have something to do with hearing many sermons and reading about the very text for this morning. I can’t recall specifics, but they all tended to focus on how we (as individuals) are the branches and that we need to keep connected to Christ so that we can bear fruit. And from that I assumed that the same branches were attached to the trunk year after year, and that the vinegrower merely pruned and trimmed the same branch year after year. I assumed that only when the branch, for whatever reason, stopped bearing fruit would it then be cut down.

I learned, however, that the branch that produces fruit is always in its second year, and that after producing fruit, it will never fruit again. Shoots, called canes, come out from the trunk and from the branches every season and some of these become branches for the next season when they become fruit-bearing branches. In order for the vine to produce the best and most fruit, most of the canes have to be pruned away and, depending on the type of viticulture, only a handful of canes are allowed to become branches. In some systems it may be as few as two canes. At the end of the fruiting season, after the harvest, all the second-year branches are cut down and discarded, often burned.

Discussion

As you might guess, this new knowledge dramatically altered the way in which I read today’s grape vine metaphor.

“I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinegrower.”

Somehow, all this time I imagined that when Jesus said this, he meant that he was the trunk (and only the trunk), because if the rest of us are branches and we are to abide in him, he must be the trunk to which we are connected. But now I think that it is best to understand that Jesus is speaking of the entire grape vine plant as himself, the true vine.

“He removes every branch in me that bears no fruit.”

All the old branches that have already borne fruit gets removed. The branches are not a one-to-one correspondence to individual Christians. May I suggest that perhaps the branches might more aptly refer to methods, practices, and even some traditions?

“Every branch that bears fruit he prunes to make it bear more fruit.”

Every branch that is entering the fruiting year will be trimmed of any extra, unnecessary growth, so that it can bear more fruit this year, and so that it can produce promising new canes for the following year on which more fruit will be borne.

I think that this may be closer to how the original audience of Jesus and John’s gospel would have understood this vine metaphor. None of the viticulture practices had to be explained to them, because they all knew it, and many had direct experience.

It may be likened to how fishing metaphors don’t have to be explained when used here, because most of us (even those of us who don’t fish) have observed and at least have cursory knowledge of how fishing in Southeast Alaska works. Whereas if you went to the middle of the Lower 48 and started telling a story using fishing metaphors that involved longlining, seining, gillnetting, your audience will probably be completely lost and make numerous assumptions based on their experience with fishing, which may be limited to lake and river sportfishing.

“You have already been cleansed by the word that I have spoken to you.”

More precisely, the word cleansed is the root of the word prunes found in the previous sentence. Also important to note is that when Jesus says “you” in this entire section, the word is a collective plural. Reading in context, I think that Jesus is not primarily referring to individuals but to the community as a whole.

“Abide in me as I abide in you. Just as the branch cannot bear fruit by itself unless it abides in the vine, neither can you unless you abide in me.”

Yes, part of abiding is each individual Christian’s connection with Christ. But in context, it seems more appropriate to interpret this as Jesus telling the entire community of faith that their collective effectiveness and fruitfulness depends on collectively abiding in him. What this abiding is, specifically in this part of Jesus’ speech, comes after today’s reading and is part of next week’s. Hint: it’s about love.

Although most of this section is addressed in the plural, verses 5 and 6 change to the singular form. The older RSV renders a more literal reading.

“I am the vine, you are the branches. [This is where the pronouns become singular.] He who abides in me, and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing. If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned.”

A cursory reading might seem that this text does, in fact, equate the branch to an individual. But a more careful reading shows that a simile is used within the metaphor. Jesus says the one who does not abide “is cast forth as [or like] a branch…” Jesus does not say that the individual is a branch. I think that this is a subtle, but important distinction.

But even more, the original audiences probably would have heard or read this as a shaming and rebuke of their community’s collective failure. In the collectivist world, it is the responsibility of the community to care and nurture all their members. For one of them to somehow escape abiding in Christ, is a collective failure. When we read the text from a Western, individualistic perspective, we frequently end up reading our own culture into it and making it about individual responsibility.[2]

The pronouns return to the collective plural.

“If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask for whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. My Father is glorified by this, that you bear much fruit and become my disciples.”

The reading concludes with a few of the results (or fruits) of the community abiding in Christ. It is not a blanket “yes” response to any request, but that the goals and desires of the church are so aligned with God’s that all the requests to be more loving witnesses, and to bear the fruit of love in the communities in which we are planted, will be answered.

Concluding Thoughts

One of the key changes to the grape vine metaphor that I now see is that the vine is never the same. It is always growing and changing. It is still the same plant, but the branches are in constant state of renewal and change. It is not any individual or groups that are specifically one branch or another, but collectively we are all a part of this ever-changing vine.

Even though the vine as a whole changes, there is a constant: the trunk that connects to the ground and draws up nutrients and water. There are a few unchanging elements of the Christian faith, and one specifically that next week’s reading makes more clear: God’s love. The implications of this will be discussed more thoroughly next Sunday.

In the meantime, if we take the approach of looking at the vine metaphor as encompassing the entire community, if we see this metaphor as one representing the lifecycle of birth, growth, maturity, death, and renewal, what does it mean for the church? I think that one of the aspects of Christ’s resurrection is the promise and power to meet the needs of every community in which Christ’s disciples are located. It also means that methods, ministries, and how we communicate needs to adapt and change to fit places, peoples, and times.

At one point in the lifecycle, it might mean spreading efforts broadly into many places. At other times it might mean paring back to strengthen the most promising efforts. As these mature, they bring a fruitful harvest of love. But then as times and people change, we must not be afraid to allow some things to die so that room may be made for better harvests in the future.

The New York Times is retiring the term “Op-Ed” that served it well for fifty years. But it no longer fits the context and is now a source of misunderstanding about the purpose of some of its content. It has changed the term for this content to “Guest Essays.”

In a similar manner, it may serve us as faith communities to look at how we do ministry – how we are currently attempting to fulfill Jesus’ command to abide in love and to love. Are there things we need to allow to die and for God to remove? Are there promising areas that could use some extra care and nurture? What is currently growing fruit where more concentrated effort could yield even more fruit?

John 12:24 records Jesus saying, “Very truly, I tell you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains just a single grain; but if it dies, it bears much fruit.” I think that the seed metaphor and the vine metaphor could be similar. Jesus’ resurrection is the firstfruit and an archetype of the resurrections that are supposed to be an ongoing part of the community that he birthed.

The one constant is God’s love for the world. As long as we abide in it, we should not be afraid of change and renewal that is inevitable and even, dare say, necessary everywhere else.

---

[1] Opinion | Why the New York Times's Opinion Redesign Drops 'Op-Ed' - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

[2] This interpretation based on application of collectivist responsibilities found in the parable of the Good Shepherd and the Prodigal as discussed in Misreading Scripture with Individualist Eyes: Patronage, Honor, and Shame in the Biblical World; E. Randolph Richards and Richard James.