Zig Zag

The scriptures referred to are Acts 16:9-15, Revelation 21:10,22-22:5 and John 14:23-29.

Ever turn on a TV episode and find yourself instantly in the middle of the action, confused as to whether you missed something? You try to figure how what's happening but just when it gets to a very dramatic point, the scene stops, the screen goes black and suddenly the words “24 hours earlier” flash up. Then the story rewinds or jumps back and the rest of the episode proceeds in chronological order so you can catch up on how this situation got started. When you get to the same point in time where the episode began, you now know what is going on. Scripture doesn't do that. And without knowing what happened before our passage from the book of Acts begins, you would never know that we are in the middle of a major plot twist. So let's go back before Paul's vision and see what he was doing then.

We need to go more than a day back. Having gotten the approval of the council of Jerusalem to make Gentiles Christians and baptize them without the need for circumcision, Paul and Barnabas are back in Antioch, their home church and home base, and thinking about setting out to visit the churches they established on their first missionary journey. They have a falling out over taking Barnabas' nephew John Mark with them, since he deserted them the last time. So they split, Barnabas taking Mark as they go to the churches on the island of Cyprus and Paul and Silas going to the churches in what is today Turkey. These churches are all clustered in the southeastern part of the region, not terribly far from Antioch or indeed his hometown of Tarsus, and Paul wants to take the gospel farther. So we read, “They went through the region of Phrygia and Galatia, having been forbidden by the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia.” (Acts 16:6) The region called Asia was to the southwest of them. We don't know why the Spirit stopped them or exactly how but Paul then decided to go north. But we are told, “When they had come opposite Mysia, they attempted to go into Bithynia, but the Spirit of Jesus did not allow them.” (Acts 16:7) Again no explanation of why or how. Did a member of Paul's team get a vision? I think not or Luke would probably have said so. Perhaps there was some practical difficulty. Whatever the obstacle, Paul and his companions are funneled directly west and end up at Troas, an important port on the Aegean Sea and a Roman colony. That brings us to the beginning of our reading.

Paul gets a vision of a man from Macedonia asking him to come and help. Now this is significant. By answering this call, Paul will be taking the gospel out of the Middle East and Asia and into Europe. Not quite 20 years after the resurrection of Christ, his good news is coming to a new continent.

Note also that our text in Acts for the first time says “we”: “We set sail from Troas...” On this trip Paul has brought Silas, also known as Silvanus, who would later also accompany Peter on missions in Pontus and Cappadocia. He is credited with writing 1 Peter, and so acted as that apostle's scribe. (1 Peter 5:12) In addition, Paul takes under his wing his protege Timothy, with whom he will co-write his letters to the Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians, the second letter to the Corinthians and the letter to Philemon, (cf. the first verse of each) and to whom Paul will write 2 letters. And the sudden “we” here tells us that Luke, Paul's beloved friend and physician (Colossians 4:14), has come aboard. Later, during his final imprisonment, when facing death, Paul would write to Timothy, “only Luke is with me.” (2 Timothy 4:11) One theory is that Luke wrote his gospel and its sequel at that time and that the Theophilus, to whom both works are addressed, was a Roman official, as well as a Christian, who was helping with Paul's defense before the emperor.

Back to our passage: Luke tells us how they went to Samothrace, an island midway between Troas and Neapolis, the port city of Philippi. Phillippi was not only a gold-mining town but had been the base for Alexander the Great's campaigns of conquest. It was also the site of the decisive battle where Octavian and Anthony's forces defeated the army of Brutus and Cassius. In honor of the victory, it was made a Roman colony and settled by soldiers. It was, as Luke wrote, a leading city of that district of Macedonia and as it turns out the writer and physician would stay there for a while to supervise the fledgling church.

Usually Paul would go to a synagogue and show from the scriptures that Jesus was the Messiah the Jews had been awaiting. But there doesn't appear to be a synagogue in Philippi because instead we are told that on the Sabbath they go outside the city gate to a place beside the river, where they had heard that people met to pray. It looks like the worshipers are all women and they seem to be Godfearers, Gentiles who are attracted to Judaism but haven't actually converted.

The first European Gentile convert to Christianity is Lydia, a woman who ironically came from a town in the very province of Asia which the Spirit kept Paul from visiting. She was a dealer in purple cloth. The dye was made by crushing thousands of shellfish and thus such fabric was expensive, often worn as a sign of nobility or royalty. Which means Lydia was wealthy. In fact since another name for the area she came from was Lydia, it is possible that this was not her actual name. Some have suggested she is one of the 2 women in the Philippian church whom Paul mentions as coworkers of his in his letter to that church. (Philippians 4:2-3) The reason she was on the other side of the Aegean from her hometown of Thyatira was because she was selling purple cloth from the East to Romans and Greeks in the West.

We are told that “the Lord opened her heart to listen eagerly to what was said by Paul.” Not only does she listen, she believes and she and her household are baptized. There is no mention of her being married so this may mean her servants or slaves. This was not unusual. The head of the household in Greek and Roman societies, while usually the father, was also the person in charge of family worship.

And then she offers to put up Paul and his entourage in her home, which indicates it was a big house and is a further sign of her wealth. Greek and Roman homes had a front room, off to the side of the entrance, where visitors were entertained and household worship took place. Lydia's home probably became the first house-church in Europe.

This is all very interesting and really important but why did I make such a fuss that the lectionary hadn't included the 5 verses prior to the beginning of our passage? Because none of this might have happened had Paul's original plans been followed. Paul was originally doing what might be thought of as a bishop's visitation schedule of established churches in the region and then he was going to push just a bit into neighboring regions. But thanks to the Spirit blocking him, he was taken farther west, across the water to a new continent.

Often we think we know better than God what we should be doing for him. We stick to what's safe and prudent and logical. We don't take big chances and we try not to go into unknown territory. But often what God wants us to do is something entirely different from what we expected. So we need to listen as well as speak when we pray to him.

God answers all prayer. Sometimes it is “Yes!” As it says in 1 John, “This is the confidence we have in approaching God: that if we ask anything according to his will, he hears us.” (1 John 5:14) This is what Jesus meant when he said he will do anything if we ask in his name. (John 14:14) “In his name” means in accordance with his Spirit and God's will. Thus if you ask for things that run contrary to God's will, like things for your personal power or pleasure, things that are not really your needs or that are not good, you will get a different answer.

And indeed God sometimes answers “No.” He is a wise and loving parent who knows better than to say “yes” to everything we think we want. What we ask for may not be good for us or it may not be good for others. The most famous example of this is Jesus' request in the garden of Gethsemane that the cup of his suffering and death on the cross pass him by. I think he was sincere but he also says something that should be understood in all our prayers: “Yet not what I will, but what you will.” (Mark 14:36) Sometimes we have to go without or go through a rough experience for our sake or for the sake of someone else, as Jesus did.

But sometimes God is saying “Not yet.” We may have to grow till we get to the point we can handle what we ask for wisely. Or it may be that the situation is not ripe for what we ask. An example of this is found in the story of Joseph. (Genesis 37-50) His dreams of his family bowing to him do not endear him to his brothers. So they fake his death and sell him into slavery. He is in turn sold to Potiphar, the captain of the Pharaoh's guard. He does well and is put in charge of all his master's household. But he is falsely accused by Potiphar's wife and thrown into prison, albeit one that handles Pharaoh's prisoners as well. He is made chief trustee at the prison and comes across two of Pharaoh's disgraced officials. He interprets their dreams and tells the cupbearer, the one whom he knows will get back in good with Pharaoh, to remember him and to get him out of prison. Sure enough, the man is restored to his position of trust but he promptly forgets Joseph. Then scripture tells us that 2 full years pass before Pharaoh starts having weird dreams and only then does the cupbearer remember Joseph and his ability to interpret dreams accurately. You just know that for those 2 years Joseph had to be asking God in his daily prayers why he was not being released. Did he not interpret the dreams properly? If so, what gives?

You know the rest: Joseph tells Pharaoh the dreams predict 7 years of bumper crops and 7 years of famine and he advises Pharaoh to save the surplus for the lean years. Pharaoh puts Joseph in charge of that. Later Joseph's brothers find out what happened to him and they are afraid that Joseph, now the second in command in Egypt, will get them back. But he says, “Don't be afraid. Am I in the place of God? You intended to harm me but God intended it for good to accomplish what is being done, the saving of many lives.” (Genesis 15:19-20) Joseph was able to see in hindsight that had he not been forcibly taken to Egypt, enslaved by a high ranking official, accused and thrown into the prison for high ranking prisoners, met Pharaoh's cupbearer and then kept in place till the time for him to interpret the warning and get ready for the famine, he wouldn't be where he was. He wouldn't have been able to save all those people, including his starving father and brothers. He saw that the answer to his prayers wasn't “No” but “Not yet.” God's timing is not ours.

But sometimes God's answer to our prayers is “I have something else for you.” One example is Moses, who flees Egypt after committing a murder and lives as a shepherd. Then he sees a burning bush and the next thing he knows God is commissioning him to return to Egypt to lead the Israelites out of slavery. He is reluctant but finally goes and it turns out to be the job he was suited for. Then there is Gideon, who is working in the fields when the angel of the Lord tells him to save Israel from the hand of the Midianites. He is so reluctant he devises a test to see if God is really calling him to be a warrior. He is and so Gideon manages to liberate his people using a much smaller force than was considered adequate for the job. Finally, none of the disciples could have imagined what they would end up doing when Jesus called them. Peter, Andrew, James and John went from being fishermen to being emissaries for God to people both great and small throughout the known world. And Paul went from being a rabbi and zealous opponent of Christ to being his ambassador to the Gentiles. They say if you want to make God laugh, tell him your plans.

I myself came to the Keys for a radio job. I was working as a home health nurse on weekends. Many years earlier back in St. Louis I had intended on going into the ministry. Then I had kids and found out I was making more as a nurse than I would as a minister. Once here I joined St. Francis as a member of the church. Then I started leading Morning Prayer on Sundays when our priest wasn't there and giving talks. Our priest encouraged me to become this diocese's first licensed lay preacher. Then, before she left, she approached me about becoming what was called then a Canon 9 priest and leading St. Francis. Later I was invited to become the interim Pastor at Lord of the Seas. And at about the same time, I was asked to become the chaplain at the county jail. Each time the offer came out of the blue. I prayed and talked to my wife and said “Yes” to the task God was putting before me. I couldn't have predicted 40, 30 or even 20 years ago the curious path on which God would lead me to where I am.

Just as I eventually got to the ordained ministry in what seemed like a roundabout way, so Paul eventually did get to the region he wanted to visit before he got diverted to Macedonia and Greece. On his way back he stopped at Ephesus, planted the seeds and left Priscilla and Aquila in charge. On his next journey he returned to Ephesus and spent almost 3 years there. In the end there were 7 churches in major cities in Asia and Lydia and they are the ones specifically addressed in the book of Revelation. The message of Jesus came to the area, just not in the way Paul originally had planned.

Our God is the God of zig-zags, of detours, of plot twists and unexpected turns. But it only looks that way to us. He is like a master chess player, moving the pieces into position according to his plan. We can't always see where he's going with this. We can't always see exactly how the endgame will come together. We can only put our trust in his love for us. Paul tells us, “And we know that all things work together for good for those who love God, who are called according to his purpose.” (Romans 8:28)

But we do know his ultimate goal: a world where, as we read last week, “There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain,” a world where the old patterns of human behavior are over and past and everything and everyone is being made new. It will be a world where, as Jesus says, “Those who love me will keep my word, and my Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them.” We will live with the God who is love. But even now the God who is love lives within those who listen to his Spirit and go where he leads us, even if it is surprising or counterintuitive.

Of course, there are things that do divert us from the way God wants us to go. There are stories that the wreckers of Key West would put out false lights to misdirect ships to run aground on the reef so they could salvage them for their cargo. Some say these are only legends but this world is full of false lights promising to guide us to happiness or success. However as it says in Revelation, God is our light, the Lamb is our lamp and we must walk by his light. As it says in the hymn we are about to sing: “In him there is no darkness at all. The night and the day are both alike. The Lamb is the light of the city of God. Shine in my heart, Lord Jesus.”

Othering

The scriptures referred to are Acts 11:1-18, Psalm 148, Revelation 21:1-6, and John 13:31-35.

If you are racist, you can't be scientific. For one thing scientists will tell you that race, classifying people according to a bunch of superficial physical characteristics, is a social construct. We are not like cats and dogs, different species, but like pugs and chihuahuas, which are different breeds but can be interbred. So can the different “races” of people. And they have for millennia. I remember being told at a museum in the UK that archaeologists found many graves where tiny Celtic women were buried next to tall Anglo-Saxon men. My own DNA test revealed that, despite my Scottish surname, I was part Scandinavian, as indeed are most Scottish and English people. I also have hitherto unsuspected Eastern European ancestors. My mom never uncovered any of that when she researched our family tree decades ago. It seems that the Angles and Saxons and Vikings and others may have come to invade Britain but they remained to intermarry. That is the story of all peoples everywhere, as white supremacists are finding out to their horror as they in turn get genetic tests to prove their racial purity. They have found instead that no one is wholly one race or another. And indeed this discussion came up many years ago on white power message boards on the internet. The administrators were trying to figure out who was really white and who wasn't. They decided that they just had to go with the person's self-identification and whether most folks accepted them as white. Because ultimately race is in the eye of the beholder. That's something comedian Dave Chappelle ably skewered in his skit where a popular white supremacist author turns out to be a blind black man. He is so valuable to the movement that his supporters keep him ignorant of his real race and bring him to a book signing in head-to-toe KKK regalia, lest his fans find out the truth. When Chappelle's character pulls off his hood, one white supremacist's head literally explodes.

And yet it wasn't that long ago that science supported the theory of different races. The eugenics movement was all about improving the human race by trying to stop various groups of people from reproducing. People like J.H. Kellogg, Alexander Graham Bell, Luther Burbank, Margaret Sanger and the heads of many prestigious universities believed that upper class people achieved and maintained their position in society because of their superior genes. Even African American sociologist and historian W.E.B Du Bois supported eugenics, though he felt that “the best blacks were as good as the best whites and 'The Talented Tenth' of all races should mix.' (Wikipedia) This supposedly scientifically valid idea led to the first immigration laws, which restricted the number of “less-civilized” and “less-evolved” people like the Chinese, Japanese, Italians and Jews. It led to even classifying certain people within races as unfit, feeble-minded and/or morally degenerate. And that in turn led to the compulsory sterilization of those deemed mentally defective or criminal, which was largely confined to poor whites, African Americans and Native Americans. 2/3s of the American people supported this and these efforts were cited by the Nazis as proof that mass sterilization was feasible.

Yeah, it was that last thing, and seeing the results of a society ruthlessly committed to racial purity, that killed the eugenics movement in the US, long before DNA was discovered to totally blow that philosophy out of the water. As Shakespeare said 400 years ago “There is no art to find the mind's construction in the face.” Nor in skin color.

The origin of the idea of race probably goes back to when we lived in nomadic tribes and used family resemblance to judge if someone was friend or foe. But this rule of thumb was never that accurate. In times of peace, the clan chieftain was more likely to be killed or deposed by a relative or a group insider than a foreigner. And indeed most crimes take place within so-called racial groups. You are 4 to 5 times more likely to be a victim of someone your own race than of another.

Yet the cooperation of different peoples can accomplish much more than one group alone. As roving tribes gave way to settled communities and they grew into cities and nations and empires, they had to figure out ways to bind together people of different kinship groups. Shared languages and similar cultures helped. Scientists now think that religion was the key element in bringing together large groups of people. It helps a civilization adhere if we all worship the same God or gods and share the same rituals and moral code. But then a new barrier arises: can we cooperate with those outside our religion?

In our lectionary today all of the readings touch on this question. In our passage from the book of Acts, we see the church confronting for the first time a major hurdle to the spread of the gospel. Peter is reporting back to the Christians in Jerusalem, all Jews, on his baptizing a group of Gentiles. And not just any Gentiles: Cornelius was an officer in Rome's occupying forces in Judah and Galilee. So that isn't winning Peter any points. But notice that the first thing that concerns them is Peter breaking the dietary taboo of eating with non-Jews. “Why did you go to uncircumcized men and eat with them?” That was one of 3 fundamental things, along with idolatry and marrying a Gentile, a Jew would never do.

So Peter repeats his vision where God lowers a big sheet full of all kinds of non-kosher animals. Peter is told to kill and eat them. He tells God he has never eaten anything considered unclean. God says, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.” In essence God is declaring the Gentiles clean. The vision occurs 3 times to make its point sink in. And then Peter is invited to the house of Cornelius. It turns out Cornelius had a vision in which he was told to contact Peter. Peter goes and while he preaches to Cornelius, his family and close friends, the Gentiles suddenly start speaking in tongues. This is a sign that pops up as each new group outside Judaism, such as the Samaritans (Acts 8:17) and followers of John the Baptist (Acts 19:6), accept the gospel. It's like an echo of Pentecost.

When Peter saw this display of the power of God, he said to himself, “If then God gave them the same gift that he gave us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could hinder God?” And at this Peter's critics were silenced. Instead they praised God, saying “Then God has given even to the Gentiles the repentance that leads to life.”

It is interesting that they need to be taught this since it is right there in the Hebrew Bible. God chooses Abraham and his descendants in order to bless the whole world. (Genesis 12:3) Our psalm calls on “kings of the earth and all peoples, princes and all rulers of the world” to praise the Lord. The great-grandmother of King David was Ruth, not a Jew but a Moabite. (Ruth 4:13-17) Jesus' genealogy includes 4 women who were not Jews or who had been married to a Gentile. (Matthew 1:3-6) God's people tended to interpret his choosing of them as a validation of their worth rather than of their instrumentality in bringing the world to God. Yes, God loves his people but he wants them to share that love with others.

In our passage from John, where Jesus gives the disciples the command to love one another as he loves them, John uses the term “the Jews” even though Jesus and the Twelve are all Jews themselves. This reflects the fact that John was the last canonical gospel written. It was composed after Christians and Jews had consciously split from each another. Judaism had been a legal religion in the Roman Empire and when the emperor decided to persecute the Christians, Jews were anxious that they not be seen as a legitimate sect within Judaism. And when the Jews in Palestine revolted against Rome, Christians were likewise not interested in being lumped in with them. So John uses “the Jews” anachronistically in his gospel to differentiate Jesus' opponents from his followers. Today it would be clearer to replace the term with “Jewish religious leaders.” After all, during his earthly life all of Jesus' followers were Jews.

But the minute non-Jews began to follow Jesus, his command that Christians love one another applied to Gentile believers as well. And that would become a major problem in the church in the New Testament period. Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, emphasizes the importance of unity in most of his letters to the churches. (Romans 12:4-5; 1 Corinthians 1:10; Galatians 3:27-28; Ephesians 2:14-20; Philippians 2:1-2; Colossians 3:11-15) Unlike the kingdoms of this world, there are no second class citizens of the kingdom of God.

Again Jesus said, “I have other sheep that do not come from this sheepfold. I must bring them too, and they will listen to my voice, so that there will be one flock and one shepherd.” (John 10:16) Jesus knew the good news of God's kingdom, where forgiveness rather than fighting, love rather than hate, and healing rather than harming were the rule, would spread to all the world. And in Revelation we get a vision of a world where the God who is love lives and reigns.

But how do we get there? Not by forcing people to become Christians. Sadly, that has been the preferred method ever since the church allied itself with the kingdoms of this world and used their methods of violence and conquest to spread the faith. But the kingdom of God can only be entered voluntarily. Cornelius invited Peter to come to him; Peter didn't barge into Cornelius' home and start forcibly baptizing people. The Christian way of dealing with people of other religions is, as Paul says, “If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all people. (Romans 12:18)

Notice that Paul does not say, “Hector your neighbors and acquaintances with religious talk every time you encounter them.” That will engender tension, not peace. But if you live according to the commands Jesus gave us and treat others the way you would like to be treated, seek reconciliation, forgive, and act lovingly even towards those who would be classified as an enemy, you will win some people over. As Jesus says in our gospel, love is how people will know we are his disciples. And, yes, if they show curiosity about why you act as you do, in the words of 1 Peter, “always be ready to give an answer to anyone who asks about the hope you possess. Yet do it with courtesy and respect, keeping a good conscience, so that those who slander your good conduct in Christ may be put to shame when they accuse you.” (1 Peter 3:15-16)

Unfortunately, a lot of so-called Bible believing Christians either haven't read those verses or are ignoring them. They seem to think they can win people over by insulting them and their religion. But as science, experience and common sense tells us, that just makes people double down on their beliefs. I have never heard anybody say, “It was all of the abuse and disparaging of my intelligence when I was an atheist that brought me to Jesus.”

Nor are we going to convert people by changing laws so they have to behave as we do. I find it amazing that preachers who spend much of their time in the book of Romans talking about how the Law cannot save, will then turn around and work to enact laws that reflect the way certain Christians feel people should behave or not behave. If God's law cannot save people's souls, how can they argue that man's laws can? Laws restrain external behaviors; they cannot change hearts.

What changes people's minds and hearts are the people they know and care about. Many a person has changed his or her mind about an issue when they see its impact on a child, a relative or a friend. We need to befriend people, treat them with kindness and understanding and genuine interest. Which means, paradoxically, not having an agenda. Don't befriend someone with the ulterior motive of converting them. Love them because they are created in God's image. And if you really listen to and observe and interact with them, eventually they will reveal something you didn't know about themselves, about you and about God. And hopefully it will be mutual.

Jesus famously compared evangelism to sowing seeds. The word of God will grow when, and only when, it lands in good soil. We can't change that and so we needn't worry about it. We are called to sow seeds and when they are ripe, harvest their fruit. To switch the metaphor, Jesus said his sheep will hear and recognize his voice. We are called to relay his message. His sheep will respond.

But often people came to Jesus initially to have some other need taken care of: to be healed or to be fed. It's hard to care about your spiritual needs when you have physical or social or psychological needs that are going unmet. Historically, what attracted the pagans in the Roman Empire to our faith was the example of Christians nursing people suffering from plague. It wasn't talk of “pie in the sky in the sweet by and by”; it was people giving their time and talents and treasure, and sometimes their lives, to helping others here and now.

As a nurse, I have at times found myself in situations where patients had spiritual questions or problems. They thought God was punishing them or they feared death. I was glad to have along with my nursing skills and equipment the spiritual tools needed to help them. We know that faith helps people heal. Because we are both physical and spiritual beings.

But we live in a world where people think they can get along with just having their physical needs met. And in our 24/7 world loudly selling you entertainment and every kind of pleasure and a million self-help books, it's easy to see how it can be hard to hear the voice of Jesus amid the cacophony. But I remember how, when healing a man who was deaf and had a speech impediment, Jesus communicated to him in actions. He took the man to a place where they had privacy, and put his fingers into the man's ears to indicate he was going to restore his hearing. The Jesus spit and touched the man's tongue to indicate he was going to heal his ability to speak. Then Jesus looked up to heaven and sighed dramatically, showing that he was praying to God from whom the healing would come. And it did. (Mark 7:31-35)

Our way to cut through the noise of this babbling world is with actions. As Jesus showed what God was like through his actions as well as his words, we, as the body of Christ, must communicate God's love and grace in what we do as much as in what we say. Because actions still speak louder than words. And when those from another flock get Jesus' message, they will respond. They will reach out to us. And we must be like Peter, who said, “The Spirit told me to go with them and not to make a distinction between them and us.” Because there is no distinction. God made us all in his image and God loves us all and Jesus died for us all. It's just that some of us haven't realized that yet.

Mothering

The scriptures referred to are mentioned in the text.

Despite coming out of a patriarchal culture, the Bible spotlights a large number of exceptional women and mothers. Yes, many of them are married to men who are considered the main protagonists but they are by no means 2 dimensional characters. For instance, Sarah, desperate to give Abraham an heir, resorts to a culturally accepted practice: giving her maid to her husband. That way any child born to the slave would be considered Sarah's. And yet Sarah cannot help but get irrationally jealous of the slave, Hagar, once the plan works and her surrogate gets pregnant. We then see a less than admirable side of Sarah, as well as the cowardly side of Abraham, who lets Hagar and their son Ishmael get expelled from the camp after the birth of Isaac. And though the boy is not the son God promised, the Lord nevertheless saves and protects the slave and her son and Ishmael goes on to prosper.

As you can see, the mothers in the Bible are real people, not idealized figures. Isaac's wife Rebekah prefers one child over the other and helps Jacob in an elaborate ruse to steal his brother's blessing from her blind husband. Jacob's wives Leah and Rachel get into a farcical baby-making “arms race” that draws in both their maids as surrogates. At one point Jacob's sleep schedule depends on bartered vegetables. Moses' wife, Zipporah, performs their son's circumcision, which her husband, the lawgiver, was too squeamish to do. All of which says to me that the Bible is the recollection of actual folks. If not, then the writers pioneered the historically recent trend in fiction of creating flawed and complex protagonists. As we've said, these are not paragons of virtue, but real people.

That said, there is an portrait of the ideal woman in the last chapter of the book of Proverbs. (Proverbs 31:10-31) It begins: “A wife of noble character who can find? She is worth far more than rubies.” Now, considering the patriarchal culture that existed then, and which still exists in much of the church, you would expect this peon to the perfect wife to describe someone meek and mild. Instead we get a picture of a strong, business savvy woman. Yes, we are told that “She gets up while it is still dark; she provides food for her family and portions for her servant girls.” (v. 15) But immediately after that it says, “She considers a field and buys it; out of her earnings she plants a vineyard.” (v. 16) Yes, she makes clothes for her family but also, “She makes cloth and sells it, and offers a girdle to the merchant.” (v. 24, Jewish Publication Society) And “She sees that her business thrives. Her lamp never goes out at night.” (v. 18, JPS) We are told that “Her husband has full confidence in her...” (v. 11) and it is implied that his success is at least partially due to her. (v. 23) She is not simply interested in her family's welfare: “She gives generously to the poor; her hands are stretched out to the needy.” (v. 20, JPS) Nor is she merely a workhorse; she has a brain: “Her mouth is full of wisdom, her tongue with kindly teaching.” (v. 26, JPS) The poem ends : “Her children arise and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praises her, 'Many women do noble things, but you surpass them all.' Charm is deceptive, and beauty is fleeting; but a woman who fears the Lord is to be praised. Give her the reward she has earned, and let her works bring her praise at the city gate.” (vv. 28-31) It really is rare in that time period and culture to find such an acknowledgment of the importance of a smart, capable woman, especially one with such agency in her life.

And in the early church women were valued and given authority. While some point to the statements that Paul makes of women being submissive, which one should not be surprised to find in a patriarchal culture, he is also the apostle who calls a woman, Junias, an apostle (Romans 16:7) and who, when speaking of the married ministry team of Priscilla and Aquila, always names them both and almost always puts her first. (Romans 16:3-4; 2 Timothy 4:19; 1 Corinthians 16:19; cf. Acts 18:19,25) He asserts that women can preach and pray in church, provided they are wearing the head covering the culture of the day deemed proper. (1 Corinthians 11:4) And of course it is Paul who says “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:28) And indeed the Bible says from the outset that both man and woman are created in the image of God. (Genesis 1:27) Inequality is due to sin.

That said, there aren't an overwhelming number of scriptures that portray God as mother. They do exist, however. In the Torah, in the Song of Moses, it says, “You ignored the Rock who gave you birth; you forgot the God who gave birth to you.” (Deuteronomy 32:18, HCB) In fact, in the notes of the Jewish Study Bible it says, “The Hebrew much more vividly presents God as going through childbirth: 'The Rock who gave birth to you...who writhed in labor (to bear) you.' The same verb is elsewhere applied to Sarah, who 'writhed in labor' to bring forth Israel...” (cf. Isaiah 51:2) In Isaiah, God is so worked up by the enemies of Israel that he says, “I will scream like a woman in labor, I will pant and I will gasp.” (Isaiah 42:14, JPS) Again in Isaiah God says to his people, “Can a woman forget her baby or disown the child of her womb? Though she might forget, I could never forget you.” (Isaiah 49:15, JPS) And later, “As a mother comforts her son, so I will comfort you.” (Isaiah 66:13, JPS) In Hosea there is an image of God, not necessarily as mother, but as a nurturing parent: “I have pampered Ephraim, taking them in My arms; but they ignored My healing care. I drew them with human ties, with cords of love; but I seemed to them as one who imposed a yoke on their jaws, though I was offering them food.” (Hosea 11:3-4, JPS) What parent can't identify with that kind of ingratitude?

Another motherly image of God that pops up in scripture is that of a bird. Again in the Song of Moses it says that God is “like an eagle that stirs up its nest and hovers over its young, that spreads its wings to catch them and carries them aloft.” (Deuteronomy 32:11) And Jesus famously said, “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often have I longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing.” (Matthew 23:37)

So we see a few themes in these passages. Such as that God is not only our creator but his feelings for his people are as intense and intimate as if he had physically given birth to them. God's love is not theoretical. It is as fierce as a mother's, which is why he protects his people.

And while the image of God as Father predominates in scripture, we see this shift to maternal metaphors in order to highlight his nurturing, healing love and care. The Bible offers images of God picking up, pampering and feeding his people. There is nothing to prevent us from seeing those as something a loving father would do but we more readily see those as things a mother would do. And indeed I remember in college one of my professors pointing out that the Christian virtues tend to be those our culture considers feminine. For instance imagine someone like John Wayne telling other men to manifest the fruit of the Spirit: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. There is nothing in that particular passage about being tough, or strong or certain that you are right. Probably because it doesn't take divine inspiration to remind us of those things. Our culture touts those things continually. But we often forget the so-called softer virtues, the ones that make life endurable, if not possible. Somebody once pointed out that the hyper-masculine, super-aggressive culture dreamed up by the writers of Star Trek for the Klingons wouldn't actually work for long. Like the real life hyper-masculine, ultra-military Spartan society, it would fall apart and collapse. The virtues Christianity emphasizes are the glue that holds groups, communities and even nations together.

Mothers are usually the glue that hold families together. There is not only a lot of wisdom in that phrase “happy wife, happy life” but also, as a recent Rutgers University study found, actual scientific truth. And another scientific study from the Netherlands found that people with happy spouses tend to live longer. And this result remained true regardless of the spouse's gender, ethnicity, education level, household income or sexual orientation. The scientists are not exactly sure why. It may be that a happy spouse will take care of you when you are sick. It may be that the marriage is less stressful. It may be that happy couples are more physically active. Personally I think that if you keep your spouse happy they are less likely to kill you.

And while we know that a mother has a great impact on the child, science now has some clues as to the exact way that works. It seems that a mother's love physically increases the size of the child's hippocampus, the part of the brain which affects learning, memory and stress responses. Those kids tend to do better in school and are more emotionally developed than kids who were not nurtured. (Fathering is important, too, but this is Mother's Day!)

In our movies and in our culture we tend to overemphasize exaggerated hyper-masculine traits like physical strength, violent aggression, callous sexual attitudes toward the opposite sex and the equating of danger with fun. And then we wonder why rudeness, belligerence, violence, sexism and reckless behavior are rampant in our society. We need to recover the things our mothers taught us about being polite, being respectful of others, using words not fists, using helpful and not hurtful words, listening to others, admitting it when we are wrong, apologizing to others, forgiving others, and being a decent person. Mothers generally want what is best for their children and they want them to grow up into good people. I sometimes wonder how much of the state of the world is due to people not only not listening to God but not even listening to their mothers. The world would be a better place if a lot more people were sent to their room until they could behave themselves.

Mothers aren't perfect, of course. Someone once said parenthood is the last stand of the amateur. But some people have a real instinct for caring for and raising children. And some people who never gave birth are better at being mothers than some who have. But most of us would not be here were it not for a mother, or someone who acted as a second mother to us, who stepped up to the challenge, nurtured, taught and protected us and displayed self-sacrificial love. And you know who else modeled self-sacrificial love for us? God in the person of Jesus Christ. He may not have physically birthed us but he created us, cares for us, and gives us wisdom and kindly teachings to live by. He gave over his whole life to us and wants us to grow up to be good people. May we never let him down, nor his surrogates, our mothers.

Changed

The scriptures referred to Acts 9:1-20 and John 21:1-19.

We've all had experiences we wish would never end. They were moments when all seemed right with the world and we never wanted it to change. We wish we could pause it like a video, or barring that, fade out like the perfect movie ending. But time doesn't stop. Everything changes. We get older. Things fall apart. Nothing stands still. As the ancient Greek philosopher Heraclitus observed, the only constant is change. So the question is whether it is a change for the better or the worse.

I used to be effortlessly slim. I was naturally thin and if I gained a few pounds, I could just skip a meal and lose the weight. My wife hated me for that. Not anymore. Like most people, as I got older, I got heavier. Now to lose weight I have to do like everyone else: eat less, especially less sweet, salty, fatty things, and exercise more. If I cheat, I gain weight overnight. There's no magic pill or cure. You just have to keep working at it.

Left to themselves things get worse. They decline, fall apart, or get wrecked. That's true of cars, houses, relationships and people. To keep things functional requires constant maintenance and the readiness to repair or upgrade as needed. Sometimes, however, major renovation is necessary. And that can be painful. Which is why we avoid it.

And that's just with inanimate things. When it comes to our relationships or ourselves, we avoid major changes like the plague. Weirdly, though, we act this way even if we are unhappy with a relationship or ourselves. As bad as they may be, they are familiar. Change is not only painful, it can be scary precisely because the results of that change, and where we will find ourselves afterward, are unfamiliar. A lot of people don't leave an abusive partner because of fear of what will happen. Where will they go? How will they manage on less money? What about the kids if they are any? Better to stay with a miserable certainty than to venture out into a future that is both unfamiliar and uncertain.

The same thing applies to people who live in an unstable or violent country. Things have to get extremely painful and scary for them to leave home, family, friends, their language and culture to try to find a better life in another country. Refugees are very brave and resourceful people. Accepting them is getting an extremely valuable infusion of what made this country great. Albert Einstein fled the Nazis as did the family of former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright; Gloria Estefan's family fled Castro; Mikhail Baryshnikov fled Russia. Our country has been enriched by refugees and their children like Elie Wiesel, Nadia Comaneci, Thich Nhat Hanh, Mila Kunis, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Google co-founder Sergey Brin and the Von Trapp family.

At age two, Jesus and his family fled from Bethlehem in Judea to Egypt to escape the murderous King Herod the Great. Later they moved to Nazareth in Galilee, making Jesus the new kid in town at least twice in his early life. So he knew the pain of dealing with major changes in your life even before he began his ministry. And the reason he ran into opposition was because of the changes he was proposing. As we said, changes in your relationships or yourself are the most painful ones to make. Yet that is exactly what Christianity is about: changing relationships and changing people.

In Acts we see one of the most dramatic turnarounds in someone's life imaginable. Saul was, in his own words, “circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for legalistic righteousness, faultless.” (Philippians 3:5-6) His religion was his life and he was so invested in it he was willing to go after those he thought were perverting it. In fact he was willing to go all the way to Damascus, 135 miles from Jerusalem, in order to keep this Jesus heresy from spreading to the estimated 10 to 18 thousand Jews living there. He also may have been going to apprehend Christians who had fled after the stoning of Stephen to bring them back to Jerusalem for trial before the Sanhedrin. (Acts 8:1) Saul went to the high priest because, though at the time the high priest no longer had jurisdiction over Jews in that area, any letters of introduction from him would see to it that Saul was taken seriously by the Jewish community in Damascus.

So after traveling for maybe 6 days on foot, Saul is within sight of Damascus when he is dazzled by a light he describes elsewhere as “brighter than the sun.” (Acts 26:13) Saul falls to the ground and hears a voice say, in Aramaic, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” (cf. Acts 26:14) He answers, “Who are you, Lord?” and while “Lord” at that time could be the equivalent of “Sir,” given the circumstances, it looks like he really thinks this might be the voice of an angel or even God.

“I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.” There's an vital point being made here. Saul is persecuting Christians, not Christ. But Jesus doesn't see this as an important distinction. One commentary speculated that in this exchange we find the seed of Paul's teaching that we are all members of the body of Christ. Also it is interesting that the word for “persecute” could also mean “pursue.” Thus it could be “I am Jesus, whom you are pursuing.” Saul was on a collision course with Jesus even though he didn't know it.

Then Jesus tells Saul to go to the city and await instructions. Easier said than done, since Saul, previously spiritually blind to who Jesus is, was now physically blind. His traveling companions, who had seen the light but not Jesus and heard a noise but not a voice, had to lead Saul by the hand. Meanwhile he had lost not only his sight but his appetite and thirst as well. It was like he was back in the womb, not yet ready to enter the new life before him.

Jesus then contacts a disciple named Ananias and asks him to go to Saul and heal his sight. Ananias is not wild about this command because Saul's reputation has preceded him. He had done a lot of harm to Christians in Jerusalem and his mission to Damascus was well known to the church here. Is Jesus asking Ananias to walk into a trap?

“Go!” says Jesus, “for he is my chosen instrument to proclaim my name to the Gentiles and their kings and to the people of Israel. I will show him how much he must suffer for my name.” I find it a little surprising that Jesus shares with Ananias his reasons for sending him to Saul. He needn't have done that but Jesus is letting him in on how important both Ananias' and Saul's roles are. And rather than Ananias suffering at the hands of Saul, Saul will discover what is it like to become a persecuted Christian.

We aren't told what Saul was thinking at this time. And I doubt that he was thinking about his future role in Christianity. I think he was rethinking his whole concept of God. And I don't think he was contemplating any future pain he would suffer as a Christian so much as he was presently undergoing the pain of realizing he was completely wrong about the very thing he had dedicated his life to. That would be mortifying for anyone but for an intellectual like Saul, it must have been excruciating. He had to have known the arguments the Christians made about Jesus. Now what he thought were lies turned out to be the truth. What else was he mistaken about?

So an uncharacteristically quiet Saul fasts in darkness, trying to fit together what he had learned all his life before with what he now knows. And then Ananias, once an enemy whom Saul would have arrested, shows up, addresses Saul as a brother in Christ, and lays hands on him. God's Spirit heals him and fills him. Immediately Saul is baptized. Once he is spiritually restored, he begins to eat to restore his physical strength.

What Saul did was really tough. But he at least had a face to face encounter with the risen Christ. People today have to navigate this change through a spiritual encounter with Jesus instead. It can be just as profound and life changing but obviously, because we are physical as well as spiritual beings, we miss the visual and tactile elements. Also the order of the process is reversed. Saul first faced Jesus and then had to face himself. Today people first have to face themselves—their sins, their failures, their imperfections—and then turn to Jesus for help and healing.

Our account in Acts omits one part of the story. In Galatians Paul says, “But when God, who set me apart from my mother's womb and called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being. I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those were apostles before I was, but went into Arabia. Later I returned to Damascus.” (Galatians 1:15-17) By this, Paul doesn't mean modern Saudi Arabia but the area to the west of Damascus, which was also called Nabatea, where they spoke Arabic. We are not sure if he does so before or after he spends time with the Christians in Damascus as it says in Acts 9:19. We don't know how long he was there but it looks as if Saul needed time to work out how Jesus related to the Torah, the Prophets and the Writings of the Hebrew Bible. I imagine him living like a monk, surrounded by his scrolls and books, studying and praying and seeking a new understanding of God.

But eventually, satisfied that Jesus really is the Messiah foretold in scripture and that his mission was to save not just Jews but all humanity through his death on the cross, Saul begins to preach this in the synagogues. He is a changed man, so much so that eventually he no longer calls himself Saul, the name of the first king of Israel, but goes by his Latin name Paul, which means “little.” He is, in his own words, “a new creation in Christ,” whose old ways of thinking, speaking and acting are in the past and for whom, everything has become new. (2 Corinthians 5:17)

Making major changes in your life are hard and so are making changes in relationships. In our passage from John, Peter and a few of the Twelve decide to go on a nostalgic fishing trip in Galilee. They hadn't done it in a while, what with following Jesus all over the landscape. Little do they know, this is probably their last time at their old profession.

They don't have any luck and then someone on shore suggests they cast their net on the other side of the boat. They do so and soon the net is bursting with fish. Perhaps recalling the similar incident that happened early in their time with Jesus, (Luke 5:1-11) the beloved disciple realizes the man on shore must be Jesus. Impulsive as ever, Peter leaps into the water and swims to Jesus. After they eat a breakfast that Jesus has already prepared, Jesus turns to Peter and asks him something. It must have been awkward. The last time Peter was in the open air next to a fire, he was in the courtyard of the high priest, denying 3 times that he knew Jesus.

“Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” A couple of interesting things to note here. First, Jesus does not use the nickname he gave the man: Peter, from the Greek for rock. His declaration that Jesus is the Messiah, the son of the living God, was the rock-solid foundation on which Jesus would build his church. Simon has not been so firm and steadfast of late. They are starting over.

There are a lot of ways to interpret what Jesus is referring to by the word “these.” Is he asking Simon if he loves Jesus more than the other disciples? It's possible since at the last supper when Jesus said they will all fall away when he is betrayed, Simon said, “Even if all fall away, I will not.” (Mark 14:29) Simon thought he was more faithful than the other disciples. He wasn't. But Jesus may have meant “Do you love me more than these things in your old life, like fishing?” Because after that first massive haul of fish, Jesus said to Peter, “From now on you will fish for people.” Right after that, Peter left his boat and fishing business. Is this fishing expedition in Galilee a return to things as they were, or is Simon still willing to follow Jesus' mission?

Simon replies to Jesus' question, “Yes, Lord: you know I love you.” It is intriguing that he uses a different word for love than Jesus does. Greek had many different words that differentiated between familial love, romantic love, friendship, etc. Jesus uses agapao, a verb which refers how God loves us, as well as the love God is. Simon responds with phileo, the verb for loving like a friend. Perhaps, in the light of his denials, Simon is being cautious about making rash claims about the extent of his devotion.

But that's OK with Jesus. At the last supper, he called his students his friends and says, “Greater love has no one than this: that he lay down his life for his friends.” (John 15:13-15) Friendship was considered a very strong kind of love. So Jesus just says, “Feed my lambs.”

Just when Simon thinks the awkward moment is over, Jesus asks again, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” using the word for divine love and again Simon replies using the word for friendship. Jesus replies, “Shepherd my sheep.” And when Jesus asks a third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter is hurt. And there is something interesting in the Greek. Jesus uses the same word for friendship as Peter. The effect is of Jesus saying, “Very well, do you in fact love me as a friend?” Peter, doubtless on the verge of tears, says, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” To which Jesus says one last time, “Feed my sheep.”

Jesus addresses the elephant in the room: Peter's 3 denials. He doesn't pretend it's nothing. It needs to be discussed. Jesus even listens to what Peter says and modifies his speech to mirror Peter's. Jesus gives him 3 chances to reverse his denials by answering the question of whether he loves him. And Jesus gives Peter a way to show that love: do what he is supposed to do. Jesus said, "If you love me, you will obey my commandments." (John 14:15) Jesus is not just Peter's friend but his Lord and Peter pledged to obey him. In fact, at the last supper Peter said he would even follow Jesus to prison and to death. Here Jesus in effect says, “Yes, you will.” And Jesus ends with the command, “Follow me.” Whatever happens, the important thing is to follow Jesus wherever he takes us.

The two men we discussed become new men after encountering Jesus. Saul becomes Paul and Simon becomes Peter. Jesus creates a new relationship with Paul and renews his broken relationship with Peter. Neither man is perfect but they show they are capable of change for the better. They do not cling to their problematic pasts but embrace new if uncertain futures. Because they put their trust in a greater certainty: that Jesus, who can forgive enemies and flawed friends, will stick with them through anything they must endure and that it will be worth it to become the people Jesus saw in them and called them to be.