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.

Our Turn

The scriptures referred to Revelation 1:4-8 and John 20:19-31.

I know I started my Easter sermon with a reference to superheroes but bear with me for a minute or two. I was talking to someone about how superheroes today are like the cowboys of my youth, something I heard echoed later in the week on NPR! When I was a child, the most popular genre in TV and films was the Western. I grew up watching Bat Masterson, Maverick, Have Gun, Will Travel, Roy Rogers and The Lone Ranger. The adults watched Bonanza, The Virginian, Wagon Train and Gunsmoke. The biggest star in the movies was John Wayne, who was slowly being edged out by a newcomer named Clint Eastwood. The answer to all the problems that arose in these dramas tended to be the same: who was the fastest draw? We even had a series that was named after the weapon the good guy was proficient with: The Rifleman. Today it's all about superheroes but the appeal is the same: it depicts a mythical world where the problem of evil is solved by might in the right hands.

But as much as I love the genre, superheroes would be much less effective in the real world. Could Superman solve the problem of poverty? Could Spiderman stop the escalating rate of suicides in our country? Could Batman end the political polarization that is paralyzing just about every country? Of course not. Because our problems are not super strong bad guys, or mad scientists with death rays, or mutated monsters, or magical items you wear. They are the results of human nature. As Jesus said, evil is not external; it comes from our hearts. (Mark 7:20-23) Mere might cannot solve problems created by masses of people interacting in numerous short-sighted and selfish ways.

Ever so often, the comics and movies acknowledge this. Occasionally we hear of the Wayne Foundation which funds philanthropic, medical, and educational programs, though one wonders if Gotham City wouldn't have less of a crime problem if Bruce Wayne spent more time focusing on solving social problems than on personally punching every thug who lurked in an alley. In fact, given how often the Joker states that Batman is the whole reason he does what he does, Bruce Wayne's war on crime seems to be making things worse. In the second Avengers film, Tony Stark's high tech attempt to make the world better actually creates the robotic villain of the story. As one Doctor Who episode set in the old West makes clear, violence just begets more violence. A Cracked.com video pretty much proves that super powered people would actually make the world worse. [Here]

One thing I like about the revived Doctor Who series is that it does address the problem of relying on some hero to solve everything magically. One episode actually dealt with the inevitable way all wars end. When a splinter group of Zygons, aliens living on earth disguised as humans, is tired of sharing the planet with us, they decide to reveal their existence and start a war. Eventually the Doctor manages to get their leader and the person in charge of earth's defenses in a room and presents each with a box. Each box has two buttons. One button will give the human or alien who pushes it what they desire—either revelation of all the Zygons or their death by a specially formulated gas. The other button will give them what they don't want—the Zygons made permanently human or the detonation of nuclear warheads under London. But neither the alien nor the human know which button will trigger which consequence. By pushing them, they could win...or they could lose. When they object that the Doctor has reduced this deadly situation to a game, the Doctor says he hasn't. “This is a scale model of war. Every war ever fought right in front of you. Because it's always the same. When you fire that first shot, no matter how right you feel, you have no idea who's going to die. You don't know who's children are going to scream and burn. How many hearts will be broken! How many lives shattered! How much blood will spill before everybody does what they're always going to have to do from the very beginning—sit down and talk!” The Doctor can't solve all the problems leading to war. Only the parties involved can do that.

The alien figures out that the buttons don't do anything. Right, the Doctor says. They were just a way to make the two sides stop and think. “Do you know what thinking is?” the Doctor says. “It's just a fancy word for changing your mind.”

Last Sunday we looked at how the resurrection of Jesus got the disciples to change their minds about his mission. Like most Jews in Galilee and Judea, they were unhappy with the brutal military empire that occupied their homeland. They wanted what everyone wants when things are bad: a Messiah, a superhero who will solve all our problems. They were hoping Jesus would be a King David 2.0, who would use his power to defeat and expel the Romans. They wanted a holy war. That's why they simply could not wrap their minds around the idea that Jesus would die. And when he did, they went into despair. Then when he rose again, they didn't know what to think.

Jesus takes advantage of this state of mind to retrain them. In Acts 1:3 it says that Jesus “appeared to them over a period of 40 days and spoke about the kingdom of God.” What did he say? Considering that the gospels are written from a post-resurrection perspective, what they say he taught before his crucifixion is probably what he was reinforcing afterward. So let's look at that.

The phrase “kingdom of God” and the equivalent in Matthew, “kingdom of heaven,” a euphemism to avoid using God's name, do not mean a physical, political region. It means “royal rule.” It might be better translated as “God's reign as king.” It is about life lived by God's people in obedience to God's rule. Nor is it an exclusively end-times event. It will culminate at some future point in a world ruled by God but the kingdom begins now as people enter the kingdom and willingly become citizens of it. The church is meant to be the kingdom in embryonic form, a community where people have pledged their allegiance to Jesus as God's anointed prophet, priest and king and live according to the commands he gave us. And the two primary commands are to love God with all we have and all we are and to love our neighbors as we do ourselves. All other commands are derived from these two.

Jesus spoke of the kingdom as being near when he started his ministry (Mark 1:15), as being present in his ministry (Luke 11:20), and as yet to come (Matthew 25:34). This has caused all kinds of theological debates on whether the kingdom is present or future. Yet Jesus frequently depicted the kingdom as something that starts small and grows, rather like a seed (Matthew 13:1-43). It takes time to see the results. (Mark 4:26-29) My feeling is that is similar to the end of the Second World War in Europe. The D-Day landings at Normandy broke the Nazis' absolute control over occupied Europe. Then the Allies pushed the Nazis back and as they did, they reclaimed territory. Those places were now under Allied control. But the Allies did not totally liberate western Europe till the fall of Berlin. God's entrance into history in his son Jesus established a beachhead in this world. He broke the absolute reign of sin over humanity. But there is a lot more work to be done before the task is complete. God's reign exists now where people have accepted his rule over their lives. But God's royal reign will not be total until, as it says in Revelation 11:15, “the kingdom of this world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he will reign forever and ever.”

Entrance to the kingdom of God requires repentance or a turning from sin and to God (Mark 1:15) and a childlike faith or trust in the gospel, or good news about God's royal reign (Matthew 18:3). That trust must be sincere and not just lip service. As Jesus says, “Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter into the kingdom of God, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.” (Matthew 7:21-23) Doing God's will, that is, obeying the commands to love God and other people, are evidence that one is part of God's kingdom. In his parable about the last judgment Jesus says, “Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat. I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink. I was naked and you clothed me. I was a foreigner and you took me in. I was sick and you took care of me. I was in prison and you visited me....Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of these, the least of my siblings, you did for me.” (Matthew 25:34-36, 40) In other words, treating other people the way you would like to be treated (Matthew 7:12)—with love—is obeying God's commandments to love both him and our neighbor, since God created them in his image and Jesus died to redeem them.

Central to the idea of a kingdom is the king itself and so Jesus is central to the kingdom of God. Jesus called himself the Son of Man, a messianic title from Daniel 7:13-14, where it says, “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.” The Son of Man is the supernatural person who is God's agent in bringing about his kingdom. Consequently the people of Jesus' day were expecting to see some big Hollywood-style miraculous signs. They saw the Son of Man as a superhero. But as Jesus said, “...the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many.” (Mark 10:45) Indeed Jesus' healing, his mastery over demons, disease and death, is the principle sign of his being the Son of Man, which is why he gets exasperated when people demand more flashy, magical signs (Luke 11:14-16). Even his cousin, the Baptist, had questions about whether Jesus, who was a lot less fiery than John, was the Messiah. Jesus said to John's followers, “Go back and report to John what you hear and see: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is proclaimed to the poor.” (Matthew 11:4-5) The signs of God's reign being present are the Messiah's works of restoring order and health and life to the world. Where Jesus is, the kingdom is.

In superhero stories, ordinary humans are just there to be attacked by bad guys or rescued by good guys. Even in classic Doctor Who, his companions were just there to ask questions, trip while running from monsters and be used as hostages to stop the Doctor. In the rebooted series, this changed. The companions were given more personality and more to do. They even became heroes. This was underlined by a villain steering at the title the time traveler had given himself: the Doctor, the one “who makes people better.” And indeed a consistent theme is that the ordinary people the Doctor encounters are inspired by his example to be braver, wiser, more compassionate. In some stories it has become quite obvious that the Doctor has become a Christ figure, creating disciples.

But aren't we as Christians just supposed to believe and wait for Jesus to return? Not according to the Bible. We are to be actively applying the principles of the royal reign of God in our everyday lives. When Jesus talks about the delay in his coming, he says, “Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom the master has put in charge of the servants in his household to give them their food at the proper time? It will be good for that servant whose master finds him doing so when he returns.” (Matthew 24:45-46) We are to be taking care of one another, nourishing one another. When confronted with 5000 hungry people, Jesus says to his disciples, “You give them something to eat.” (Mark 6:37) But they just talk about how impossible it would be and so Jesus steps in to show them how. But at the last supper Jesus says, “I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father.” (John 14:12) How is that possible? Well, for one thing, we are not asked to do this under our own power. In fact we can't without Jesus. He says, “you are in me and I am in you.” (John 14:20) Specifically, he gives us God's Holy Spirit, who lives with and in us. (John 14:17)

In the recent Shazam! movie, a wizard gives Billy Batson tremendous power when he says the wizard's name. When faced with enemies too numerous for him to defeat, Billy has his foster family say the name and thereby shares his power with them, enabling them to do what he does. I don't know if the writers realized they were mirroring what happens in today's gospel passage but it makes a very good cinematic parable. Here we see Jesus giving his Spirit and authority over sins to his disciples. Jesus wants us to be like him. That's the whole point of following him.

Every ambassador is a representative of the government which sends him or her and is empowered to act on its behalf. And Paul says, “We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us.” (2 Corinthians 5:20) Similarly, every embassy, wherever it is geographically, is still considered part of the country it represents. Just so, the kingdom of God is not limited to one place or time. In Luke 17:20-21, we are told “Once, on being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, 'The coming of the kingdom is not something that can be observed, nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the kingdom of God is in your midst.'” You could say, “it is within your grasp.” The kingdom of God exists wherever the people of God are doing the will of God.

What is his will? That we love God above all and love our neighbors as ourselves. That we even love our enemies and act as peacemakers. That we put our trust in Jesus and proclaim the good news. That we go into all the world, make disciples, baptize them and teach them to obey everything Jesus commanded of us. That we be the light of the world so that people may see our good works and praise God.

After shooting up the town and killing the bad guys, the cowboy rides off into the sunset, leaving the townfolk to bury the bodies and repair all the broken windows. Jesus didn't kill anyone; he let himself be killed in place of all us bad guys. Most superheroes fly away when they are done, leaving the ordinary people behind to clean up the destruction they wrought. But Jesus took upon himself the brunt of the evil we wrought and then gives us his power to spread the healing he brought. And though we no longer see him in the flesh, he hasn't left us. (John 14:18) Jesus said, “If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.” (John 14:23) We are to embody the love of God, the love of the Father for the Son and the Son for the Father in the unity of the Spirit throughout all eternity. Having God's Spirit in us makes us all parts of the body of Christ. He anoints us in his name to continue his mission to a sick and broken world. During his earthly ministry Jesus paired up the Twelve, and later the seventy, and gave them the power and authority they needed to overcome the forces of evil they would encounter. As Luke puts it, “ And he sent them out to proclaim the kingdom of God and to heal.” (Luke 9:2) Go and do likewise.