09 April 2017

Broken Hosannas

Matthew 21:1-17

Palm Sunday

As Jesus made his way up to Jerusalem, the crowds ahead of him and behind him shouted, “Hosanna to the Son of David!  Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord!  Hosanna in the highest heaven!” The crowds swarm around, almost swallowing him.  He’s surrounded by hosannas. Not unlike us, in our worship this morning.  We’re swimming in hosannas. Why was the crowd chanting, “Hosanna!”? What are they saying?  Why are we saying, “Hosanna!”? What are we saying?  Should we be shouting “Hosanna!”?

It’s a curious word that has changed in meaning over time.  Originally, in Hebrew, hosana was an invocation, an address to God.  It was a prayer of petition, meaning,“Help!” or “Save!” or “Save now!” or “Rescue!”  We hear it embedded in Psalm 118:25, “Save us, we beseech you, O LORD!  O LORD, we beseech you, give us success.” Followed these words, in verse 26, “Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the LORD.”  Hosanna is a cry for divine deliverance, for liberation.  Save us!  In Jesus’ time, the meaning of the word had morphed into something else. It had become an acclamation of joy, adoration, praise.  In the Gospels (and the Church) it’s become a synonym for “hurrah” or “hooray” or, as the British would say, “huzzah!”

It’s a fun word.  It’s fun shout and chant in festive procession.  It’s a fun word to say.  I remember as a boy singing along with the soundtrack from the rock opera Jesus Christ Superstar:
I sang it over and over again, playing with the words.

Today, hosanna is almost synonymous for hallelujah.  The story is told that architect Frank Lloyd Wright (1867-1959), after finally securing a commission, breaking a dry spell in his career, once shouted, “Hosanna! A client!”.  Hosanna.  Hallelujah.  They’re almost interchangeable, aren’t they?

So, which is it here in Matthew?  Does hosanna suggest praise, adoration, or does the word carry something of its older meaning, a cry for liberation? Pay attention to who’s voicing these words and pay attention to the entire flow of Matthew’s narrative.

The suggested lectionary for this morning ends at verse 11, before Jesus enters the Temple.  This doesn’t make sense to me because stopping at verse eleven obscures the reason Jesus entered the city in the first place, which was to go directly to the Temple, which is what it says in verse 12.  And when he entered the Temple all heaven broke loose!  He drove out those who were selling and buying in the Temple, he overturned the tables of the moneychangers.  He said, “My house shall be called a house of prayer and you are making it a den of robbers” (Mt. 21:13).  Then we learn that the blind and the lame arrived at the Temple, and he cures them. 

The chief priests and scribes, the religious authorities, were furious to see such praise being given to Jesus from the children, “Hosanna to the Son of David” (Mt. 21:15).  Now, this wasn’t harmless pious musings of children.  Why are the religious authorities troubled? Because the children are shouting politically-charged theological slogans about Jesus—the children are doing this!—in the Temple precincts.  The religious authorities asked Jesus, “Do you hear what these children are saying?” (Mt. 21:16). “Hosanna to the Son of David.”  Who was David?  The king of the Jews!  Right?  And who was the King of the Jews at the time of Jesus?  Tiberius Caesar Divi Augusti Filius Augustus. Tiberius Caesar, Son of the Divine Augustus, the Emperor.  Caesar Tiberius (42 BC – 37 AD). 

Remember, the imperial might of Rome conquered Palestine in 63 BC and oppressed the nation. And here in Matthew’s Gospel the Romans are always in the shadows.  The Roman legions stand guard, watching over everything.  Every year extra legions were brought up from Caesarea Philippi, along the coast, to Jerusalem, for Passover.  They were sent to Jerusalem, not because they were Jewish, but because Jerusalem during Passover was a powder key waiting to explode.  The legions were stationed in the Antonia Fortress, built by Herod the Great (37-4 BC) next to and above the Temple, so that from its towers they could keep watch over what was going on down in the Temple precincts.  They were they to keep the piece, to watch for days like this one: when a radical rabbi orchestrates a demonstration, gets the entire city stirred up, overturns the economy of the Temple (which profited Rome), and claims the Temple, itself, as his personal house of prayer!  Oh, and the children are shouting, “Hosanna to the Son of David,” giving to Jesus the honor that belongs to David, King David.  “Tell the daughter of Zion, Look your king is coming to you…” (9:9) Matthew interjects into his account these words from Zechariah (9:9).  This verse alone is a politically charged claim, which should get our attention.  What an entrance.  What a visit.  And after raising this ruckus, Jesus leaves the city and spends the night in Bethany.

Can you see why we need to read all the way through verse 17, to complete the narrative?  Otherwise, we are left with a parade of palms and praises, with no real context or reason for the parade.  So, what was the reason?  To shut down the Temple.  New Testament scholar Obery Hendricks (who was my classmate at Princeton Seminary) writes “that it is no exaggeration to say…the was fundamentally an economic institution.”  Jesus’ outrage was directed, not to a group of merchants who happened to set up shop in the Temple precincts the day Jesus came to town; it was “a very public attack aimed at Israel’s center of power….it was,” Hendricks makes clear, “an overtly political act.”[2]  Jesus and his followers shut down the Temple—they shut it down; it was a religious-political-economic demonstration that sought to expose the corruption at the heart of the Temple authority.  Why?  “Because despite its veneer of holiness and religiosity, beneath its proclamations of justice and concern, the Temple did not treat the people and their needs as holy.”[3] As the prophets have said for centuries, it’s the Temple’s responsibility to care for the needs of the poor.   As Hendricks makes clear, Jesus’ demonstration in the city was a protest, it “was a repudiation of the Temple and those who ran it, repudiation of their abuse of the people’s trust, their haughty dismissal of the people’s worth, their turning the Temple of God into a profiteering enterprise, their exploitation of the people in the name of God and for the benefit of themselves and the Romans.  It was a prophetic pronouncement to the priestly aristocracy that they must change or be judged by God.”[4]

 As we know, by the end of the week Jesus would be judged by the Temple—judged by both the religious authorities and by Rome, and condemned to die on a Roman cross.  We know this.  We might be shouting hosannas today, but we know that Friday’s coming.  And, yes, we know that next Sunday’s coming, resurrection, Easter.  But knowing how the story resolves itself is, at some level, not helpful, because it eclipses, it undercuts the intensity of this text.  Jesus’ arrival into the city was a match to a powder keg.  It’s explosive.  It should make us uncomfortable.

Which brings me back to those hosannas.  Praise?  Adoration?  Joy?  Knowing what we know, these hosannas sound hollow. Save us?  Rescue us?  Help us?  The older meaning of the word makes more sense, given the context.   Although even these sound hollow.  We might say they’re broken hosannas.  I’m intentionally playing with a line from Leonard Cohen’s (1934-2016) song “Hallelujah.”  Cohen wrote this song in 1984, but it wasn’t all that popular.  Other artists, such as John Cale, Jeff Buckley, U2, and Rufus Wainright, later recorded it.  It became very popular with the release of the movie Shrek. It’s the song we hear in the background when Shrek and Princess Fiona part ways as she prepares to marry the tiny prince.  Cohen wrote, “Love is not a victory march/ it’s a cold and it’s a broken hallelujah.”  A broken hallelujah.  It’s a powerful image, isn’t it?  I remember singing this song with a group of pilgrims, last year in Spain, at the Church of Santa Maria in Carrión de los Condes, in one of the most moving and memorable experiences on the Camino de Santiago de Compostela. 

When I imagine the crowds around Jesus entering Jerusalem, putting so much trust and confidence in him, and knowing what the city will do to him, I can’t help but hear these hosannas as broken.  They praised him for what they thought he would do for them, that he would release them from their suffering.  He didn’t bring about the political revolution they hoped for. 

We could also say that these are the hosannas of broken people, people oppressed, economically impoverished, scared, weighed down by force of Roman power.  For these are the people Jesus came to save, not through a political coup d’etat or military might, but through the stronger force of love and mercy.

Remember, the religious and political authorities were not the ones rejoicing the day when love came to town.  They were not among the people in the streets; they were not in the crowds shouting hosannas, happy to see Jesus. Those in power, the dominant culture, those with authority, privilege, financial means, all those who lived comfortable, undisturbed lives with no theological qualms about being part of an Empire were not glad to see Jesus.  Empire is never happy when Jesus shows up. 

Where would we—you and I—have been on that day?  With the crowds? In the street?  With the religious authorities telling Jesus to keeping it down, the Romans are watching? 

We need to be very careful with our hosannas, especially if we find ourselves in positions of power and authority and privilege, part of the dominant culture, people with financial security, comfortable. Jesus’ humble arrival was political statement about the proper use of power, as it mocked the pomp of imperial Rome.  I’m not trying to give a politically, socially charged spin on the text.  Instead, a politically, socially, economically charged reading of the text is there in plain sight.  It’s there for us to see when we remove the wall between religion and politics and economics—a wall that the West erected in the 17th and 18th centuries.  A wall, by the way, that often serves those with political and financial power and separates those with power from those without it.  I’m not saying that we shouldn’t support the separation of church and state in this county, because we should.  I’m saying that this separation, of dividing religion and politics is alien to the Bible.  In the Bible, there is no separation between sacred and secular domains, between faith and politics and economics.  “The earth and all that it contains belongs to the LORD” (Psalm 24:1).  It’s all one.  Everything is connected.  When we interpret Jesus, his ministry, his preaching, his healings and miracles, his death on the cross as having only to do with spiritual things, as having no direct bearing upon the rest of our lives, including our political and economic choices, then we’re guilty of spiritualizing the gospel, of distorting Jesus’s message; we are guilty of undermining the gospel, and, therefore, cannot hear and see the radical and scandalous message of the cross. 

The feminist theologian Dorothy A. Lee-Pollard writes, “The cross reveals where God’s kingdom is to be found—not among the powerful or even the religious, but in the midst of powerlessness, suffering and death.”[5]  This is not good news for those in power.  But it’s really good news for those with broken hosannas, for those lost in grief and pain and sorrow, for the oppressed, for the marginalized. 

The theologian James Cone, father of Black theology, wrote in his recent work The Cross and the Lynching Tree, a theological tour de force, “God’s salvation is a liberating event in the lives of all who are struggling for survival and dignity in a world bent on denying their humanity.”[6]  In other words, the cross is for people whose hosannas are broken.  “We cannot find liberating joy in the cross,” Cone says, “by spiritualizing it, by taking away its message of justice in the midst of powerlessness, suffering, and death.  The cross, as a locus of divine revelation, is not good news for the powerful, for those who are comfortable with the way things are, or for anyone whose understanding of religion is aligned with power.  The religious authorities of Jesus’ time were threatened by his teachings about the reign of God’s justice and love, and the state authorities executed him as an insurrectionist.”[7] 

So, yes, the cross is good news—but it’s not good news for everyone.  But it’s most definitely good news, maybe especially good news, for those whose hosannas are broken, because the message of the cross tells us, shows us, that the Lord of the universe shares in the suffering of God’s people, participates in our inhumanity, and can and will triumph over death and sin and evil, not through brute force, but through the force of love.

What about us? What’s behind our “Hosannas!” this Sunday?  Praise?  Adoration? Hallelujah?  Rescue?  Save us?  Liberated me?  Perhaps a little of both? 

How you answer, how you understand this cry is crucial, because it will inform how you approach all the events of Holy Week.  It will shape how you understand the cross.  It will shape your understanding of Jesus.  And how you understand Jesus shapes everything else.
-->




Image: Triumphal Entry from the Codex Purpureus Rossanensis, the Rosanno Gospels, Rosanno, Italy, 550 AD.
[1] Jesus Christ Superstar (1970), written by Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice.
[2] Obery Hendricks, The Politics of Jesus: Rediscovering the True Revolutionary Nature of the Teachings of Jesus and How They Have Been Corrupted (New York: Doubleday, 2006), 114
[3] Hendricks, 114.
[4] Hendricks, 122.
[5] Cited in James Cone, The Cross and the Lynching Tree (Orbis, 2013), 157.
[6] Cone, 151.
[7] Cone, 157.

02 April 2017

Love Liberates

John 11:1-44

Fifth Sunday in Lent

“So from that day on,” John’s Gospel tells us, “they planned to put Jesus to death” (John 11:53).  “They,” being the chief priest and Pharisees.  “From that day”—the day they convened an emergency meeting of the Sanhedrin to answer the question, “What are we to do?” (Jn. 11:47).  Do about what?  Do about Jesus and what he did just outside Jerusalem, in Bethany, about raising Lazarus from the dead.  If the religious authorities were furious over the healing of the man born blind (Jn. 9), which they were, with the raising of Lazarus they’re apoplectic.  Not only are they seething toward Jesus and scheming to kill him, the chief priests are also planning to put Lazarus to death (Jn. 12:10).  They want to remove any evidence of Jesus and his miraculous signs, because people were beginning to trust Jesus, they we starting to see with their own eyes and believe him when he said, “I am the resurrection and the life” (Jn. 11:25).

In John’s Gospel, the raising of Lazarus is the catalytic event that leads to the crucifixion.  We’re told that after raising Lazarus, Jesus “no longer walked about openly..., but went out from there to a town called Ephraim in the region near the wilderness; and he remained there with his disciples” (Jn. 11:54).  He “no longer walked about openly.”  It was too risky.    

Raising Lazarus was an enormous risk for Jesus—and he knew it.  His claim about being resurrection and life provoked his death.  His use of power, his enactment of resurrection, of life, led directly to his death. 

In John’s Gospel, Jesus is fully in command of the situation; there’s intentionality around everything he says, everything he does. He’s driving the narrative.  Jesus knows exactly what he’s doing.  And in this story, and throughout John’s Gospel, it’s Jesus’s love that’s guiding his every step.

Love permeates this story.  Jesus loves Lazarus and even though Jesus delays his visit to Bethany for two days, it’s love that determines his decision to stay behind.  Love leads him to Mary and Martha, lost in grief.  He appears on a scene drowning in tears and sorrow.  Lazarus is dead.  It’s been four days.  In Jesus’s time, the dead were buried immediately.  The mourners came later.  And Jewish belief held that the soul hovered near the body for three days and then departed.  John tells us, twice, that Lazarus has been in the tomb for four days, so there’s no chance of resuscitation.  Lazarus is truly dead.

Martha is the first to see Jesus.  “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died”!  Why did you not come sooner?  Jesus assures her, “Your brother will rise again.”  Listen carefully to what Martha says, “I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day.”  In other words, Yes, I believe in the resurrection, but that’s no consolation for me, now, today, in my grief, for my brother is dead.  And what does Jesus say in response?  “I am the resurrection and the life.”

Yes, Jesus agrees with Martha about a future resurrection of the dead.  But he’s also pointing to something else. Claiming for himself the divine name I AM, first revealed to Moses in Exodus (3;14), Jesus says, “I am”—not I will be, I am—“the resurrection and the life.”  He is resurrection, now, not in some far-off future.  His entire life embodies resurrection.  And resurrection is available to us—now—in him. 

What is resurrection?  Yes, it refers to renewed life, life where once was death, physical death.  But resurrection also means more than this for Jesus.  Just as there was more than physical healing going on in the story of the man born blind (Jn. 9), so, too, here there’s more going on here than bodily resurrection.  The physical resurrection is affirmed, but the physical is an entrĆ©e to something beyond the physical, which includes the physical.

It is significant that Jesus says, “I am the resurrection and the life.”  “Life” here is zōē, one of the most important theological words in John’s Gospel.  He uses it thirty-six times.  The verb form zaō occurs seventeen times. In the previous chapter of John we find Jesus saying, “I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly” (Jn. 10:10).  This life, zōē, is full life, meaningful life, purposeful existence; it’s about more than breathing.  John tells us, “In him was life and the life was the light of all people” (Jn. 1:4).  Jesus says, “I am the light of the world.  Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life” (Jn. 8:12). This zōē-life is God’s life embodied in Jesus.  He is full life, brimming with life that is here and now infused with God’s love.  And this what John means by “eternal life”—it’s not only experienced in some far-off distant future, but also here and now. “Eternal life” refers to a quality of life, life touched by eternity.  This is resurrection—everything that calls us to zōē-life!

Martha leaves Jesus and then Mary arrives.  She falls at his feet exhausted from grief. “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died.”  Jesus sees her weeping.  He sees the others also weeping.  Jesus allows himself to be affected, to be touched by their grief.  The Greek here is very strong.  Jesus is “greatly disturbed in spirit and deeply moved.”  He’s deeply troubled, to his core.  The Greek suggests that Jesus was shuddering, shaking with grief. 

“Where have you laid him?” he asks.  “Lord, come and see.”  Then Jesus begins to weep.  And the mourners say, “See how much he loved him!”

Nowhere else in scripture do we see Jesus so emotional, vulnerable, so human.  The place where he is most vulnerable, overcome by grief, is exactly the place where the crowd sees his love. And what happens next is the strongest expression of his love, and its power.  Then he acts. 

“Roll away the stone.”  In, with, and through love, Jesus confronts death and cries, “Lazarus, come out!” And the dead man comes out.

“Unbind him,” Jesus says, “and let him go.”

Resurrection.  Life.  Love.  They’re almost synonymous. Jesus’s life, like God’s life, is the outflow of love.  Love flows into life, which generates life, new life where life had been lost or absent, yielding resurrection.  Resurrection is both an event and a force; it’s an experience that flows from the depths of God’s love. 

And, this isn’t sentimental love—there’s nothing sentimental about this story.  Neither is it romantic love.  This love is more than a feeling.  It’s a force and it’s fierce and it’s strong. This is how the Mexican priest in Graham Greene’s (1904-1991) novel, The Power and the Glory, talks about God’s love.  It is often unrecognizable, he says, “it might even look like hate, it would be enough to scare us—God’s love.  It set fire to a bush in the desert, didn’t it, and smashed open graves and set the dead walking in the dark.”  And it’s powerful.  It’s unsettling.  It’s disturbing.  It’s never what we expect.  “Love is as strong as death” (Song of Solomon 8:6).  Stronger, even.  In the strength of this love, Jesus cries with a loud voice, yells into death, into non-existence, into nothingness; Jesus shouts into the void itself and commands: “Lazarus, come out!”  And then the “dead man came out”.

Poet Maya Angelou (1927-2014) once said, “Love liberates. It doesn't just hold—that's ego. Love liberates. It doesn't bind.”[1]  She knows.  That’s what God’s love looks like in our lives.

God’s love confronts death.  This love speaks life into dark places, places of deterioration and decay.  Love speaks into death itself and forces it to yield life, to yield resurrection. God’s love summons us into life.  Love liberates.  It sets us free.  It releases us.  This love doesn’t hold on, doesn’t possess.  It doesn’t limit and narrowly define.  God’s love is not confining.  It doesn’t bind.  Instead, this love unbinds us from that which seeks to destroy and obliterate us.  This love unbinds us from the hold of death, from all that is lifeless in us.  God’s love releases us from the past, from events of the past that bind and hold us.  Just as love unraveled the strips of burial cloth inviting a dead man to walk out from death, alive and free, God’s love continues to unravel that which binds us, that holds us, which holds us back, setting us free and giving us life.

Love liberates Lazarus.  Love liberates Mary and Martha.  Love even liberates Jesus from his grief.   This love is fierce and strong.  It’s often unsettling, disturbing, because it has the power to conquer death.  Then, why is it such a threat?  Because there are plenty of forces and individuals and ideas and even religious communities that want to keep people wrapped up, bound in lifeless tombs. 

Love liberates us!  This is the gospel.  This is the good news!  And we are called to share the good news by liberating one another.  Jesus says to the crowd, to the community around him witnessing resurrection, you (plural), or better, y’all, “Unbind him, and let him go” (Jn. 11:44).[2]  It’s our task as a community to do the unbinding. We are here to unbind one another. We are called to release one another from that which binds us, so that we can walk free and unbounded into God’s light and life.  This is what God’s love continues to do in us and through us.

As we move closer to Holy Week:

Where is God calling you out by name?
What’s needing liberation, unbinding in your life?
What’s needing liberation, unbinding in this church?
Who do you need to unbind?
Who needs freeing to walk out into God’s light and life?





Image: Raising of Lazarus, twelfth century, Byzantine and Christian Museum, Athens, Greece.

[1] See Maya Angelou’s Master Class interview with Oprah Winfrey:.
[2] I am grateful to Jaime Clark-Soles for this insight in Reading John for Dear Life: A Spiritual Walk with the Fourth Gospel (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2016), 77ff.

26 March 2017

Sight Unseen


Fourth Sunday in Lent

“Look, with all your eyes, look.”  So wrote Jules Verne (1828-1905), the French adventure writer, in his novel Michael Strogoff: The Courier of the Czar, written in 1876.  These words come at a moment when the main character is about to be blinded.

“Look, with all your eyes, look.” They could have been said by Jesus.  Or John. It’s what John’s Gospel wants from us.  Look.  Observe.  Perceive.  See, not the surface of things, but into the depths.  Allow your sight to sink deep into what stands before you.  John invites us to see with our eyes, yet with more than our eyes.  He summons us to observe what’s not obvious, to perceive what’s not immediately apparent.  Poets know how to do this.  Artists and novelists, too.  Sometimes philosophers, even theologians show us how to see, less with our eyes than with our hearts, the eyes of the heart, the eyes of the soul.  The great Renaissance writer Marsilio Ficino (1433-1499) called us “…to see with the eyes of the soul, the soul of things.”[1]

John wants us to see Jesus.  Really see him.  And that’s not easy.  Seeing isn’t always believing.  Sometimes you can see and still be blind.  Sometimes being formerly blind is an advantage because one later perceives things in different ways.  John intentionally plays with metaphors of sight and blindness in this brilliant, somewhat comical story of the man born blind.

We don’t know much about the man.  He was a beggar.  He was probably a familiar sight near the pool of Siloam.  Jesus’ disciples noticed the man and start to engage in a theological discussion on the nature of sin and suffering—all at his expense, mind you!  “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?”  It’s a natural question.  We love to find fault, blame someone, blame God for suffering, for illness.  Jesus answered, “Neither this man nor his parents sinned.  In order that God’s works might be revealed in him, we must work the works of him who sent me while it is day” (Jn. 9:3-4).[2]  Jesus wasn’t saying that God caused his blindness in order to reveal something through him.  He’s just blind.  Jaime Clark-Soles, in her wonderful book on John’s Gospel, tells Christians to, “Stop repeating stupid stuff about sin and suffering.”[3] Just stop.  The man was blind.  Asking who was to blame is a waste of time.  Instead, be attentive to what’s before you. Now.

Jesus didn’t ask the man if he wanted to be healed.  He just healed him.  He mixed saliva and some mud and spread the mud on the man’s eyes.  Then he said, “Go, wash in the pool of Siloam.”  He was sent.  And he went.  And washed.  And when he came back he was able to see—and that’s when everyone started freaking out!

His neighbors didn’t recognize him because they identified him with his condition, with his disability.  His identity was wrapped up in his blindness. And because they only saw his disability, he became blind to them.  And so now they’re blind. They can’t see him.  “It can’t be him,” they say.  They only know him as the blind beggar and because this man can see, it can’t be him.  Some said, “It is he.”  But others said, “It must be someone who looks like him.”  “No, no, it’s me,” he says.  “I am the man!” But they still can’t see him.  “How?” they ask.  “The man called Jesus.”  “Where is he?”   “I do not know.” 

Then the religious authorities get involved because they’re furious.  Jesus had the nerve to heal on the Sabbath, of all days! The Pharisees, sticklers for the Jewish Law, were more concerned that Jesus dishonored the Sabbath than the healing of the formerly blind beggar.  They’re not celebrating his ability to see.  The Pharisees don’t like him healed, as his healing was a threat to their authority.  It’s an affront to the system.  So they say, “Well maybe he really wasn’t born blind.  Let’s talk to his parents.”  But his parents are of no help, because they’re afraid of the Pharisees.  “Ask him; he is of age,” the parents says.  “He will speak for himself.”  So the Pharisees go back to the blind man and ask, “How could Jesus, someone who violated the Sabbath, therefore a sinner, how could someone like him bring about healing?”  “One thing I do know,” the man answers, “that though I was blind, now I see” (Jn. 9:25). The formerly blind man tried to teach the Pharisees, which they didn’t like so much.  So they drove him out.

When Jesus heard that he had been driven out of the synagogue, he went to find him and asked, “Do you believe in the Son of Man?”  “And who is he, sir?  Jesus said, “You have seen him, and the one speaking with you is he.”  And he said, “Lord, I believe, I trust in you.” And he began to worship Jesus.  “I came into this world for judgment,” Jesus said, “so that those who do not see may see, and those who do see may become blind” (Jn. 9:39).

Now we begin see that while this story is about a man who regains his sight, it’s also about something more.  It’s not only about a physical healing.  The physical is an entrĆ©e into the spiritual, because it’s spiritual blindness that Jesus is trying to heal.  Spiritual blindness cannot see the work and presence of the Spirit in the world.  This kind of blindness prevents us from seeing Jesus as the “Word made flesh” (John 1:14).  This kind of blindness cannot see the light of the world shining in our midst.  This kind of blindness is oblivious to God’s kingdom right before our eyes.

What causes this kind of blindness in us?  Are you, am I, are we spiritually blind?  We each have blind spots.  That’s for sure.  “Look, with all your eyes, look.”  That’s easier said than done.  It’s been said, “There are none so blind as those who will not see.” First coined by the sixteenth century playwright, John Heywood (c.1497 – c.1580), the rest of the saying goes like this, “The most deluded people are those who choose to ignore what they already know.”

Sometimes we can’t see what’s in front of us because we don’t expect to see it. This is called “inattentional blindness.” It’s not a physical defect or a disease; it’s a condition.  Psychologically, it’s caused by poor attention.[4]  For example, there several awareness tests, videos that demonstrate how this works, which you can find online.  Here’s one:  


There are two teams of four, one wearing white, the other black.  There are two basketballs.  The two teams start to move about on the court and you’re asked to count the number of times the team in white passes the ball to each member of their team.  After several seconds, they stop.  You’re asked for the answer.  The correct number is given.  Then you’re asked, did you see the man dressed as a bear doing a moonwalk across the screen?  What?  Huh?  Reverse the video and there you see him, a man in a bear suit doing a moonwalk (like Michael Jackson) across the screen and waving as he goes.[5]  Most people don’t see the bear because they’re not told to look for it, which is the point of the exercise.  By following the directions to focus on the number of passes, we miss everything else going on in front of our eyes. This is called “cognitive capture” or “cognitive tunneling.” 

When we focus too much upon what is before us, our view is narrowed, constricted. We see only what we think we’ll see or want to see, instead of what is really there.  When we look too hard and narrowly focus on what we think we need to look at, it’s easy to miss what’s before us.

But there’s another way to see.  In her sublime classic Pilgrim at Tinker Creek, Annie Dillard dedicates an entire chapter to seeing.  (This remarkable, extraordinary book has had an enormous influence in my life.)  Dillard spent a year living along Tinker Creek, near Roanoke, VA, and wrote a Pulitzer Prize-winning account of what she discovered there, watching, observing, reflecting, exploring. If one way of seeing is gained through intense concentration, narrow focus, “cognitive capture” and “cognitive tunneling,” looking really hard, the other way of seeing Dillard says, “involves a letting go.  When I see this way,” she says, “I sway transfixed and emptied.”  It’s the difference between walking with and without a camera.  “When I walk with a camera I walk from shot to shot, reading the light on a calibrated meter,” moving from frame to frame.  When I walk without a camera, my own shutter”—her eyes—“opens, and the moment’s light prints on my own silver gut.  When I see this way I am above all an unscrupulous observer.”[6] Letting go, relaxing the eye, allows her to see something new.

Dillard is fascinated with Marius von Senden’s book Space and Sight, written in 1932. When Western surgeons discovered how to perform safe cataract operations, they ranged across Europe and America operating on dozens of men and women of all ages who had been blinded by cataracts since birth.  Space and Sight tells the stories of what it was like for people to see for the first time, to experience light and color and spatial dimension.  There’s one account, from a young girl, which captivated Dillard.  “When her doctor took her bandages off and led her into the garden, the girl who was no longer blind” saw a tree.  And this is how she described it; she said, she saw “‘the tree with the lights in it.’”  The tree with the lights in it.  A tree ablaze.  What did she see?  Who knows? With no preconceived notions of what she expected to see, she saw a tree—yet more than a tree, a tree that dazzled her in the sunlight.

This story, this image becomes a symbol for Dillard’s own spiritual quest.  She wants to find the equivalent in her life, to let go in order to see something more than a tree, to see the “the tree with the lights in it.”  She writes, “It was for this tree I searched through the peach orchards of summer, in the forests of fall and down winter and spring for years. Then one day I was walking along Tinker Creek thinking of nothing at all and I saw the tree with the lights in it. I saw the backyard cedar where the mourning doves roost charged and transfigured, each cell buzzing with flame. I stood on the grass with the lights in it, grass that was wholly fire, utterly focused and utterly dreamed.  It was less like seeing,” she says, “than like being for the first time seen, knocked breathless by a powerful glance. The flood of fire abated, but I’m still spending the power. Gradually the lights went out in the cedar, the colors died, the cells unflamed and disappeared. I was still ringing. I had been my whole life a bell, and never knew it until at that moment I was lifted and struck. Dillard says, “I have since only very rarely seen the tree with the lights in it. The vision comes and goes, mostly goes, but I live for it, for the moment when the mountains open and a new light roars in spate through the crack, and the mountains slam.”[7] 

This!  I resonate so much with this experience.  Eyes that see more than they can tell.  Isn’t that what the light of the world gives to our eyes?

Jesus notices us sitting along the road, blind beggars that we are. He sees us.  And we are seen.  He opens our eyes.  He illumines our lives, allowing us to see ourselves, our neighbors, the world, even God in a whole new light.  With our new eyes, our “born again” eyes (Jn. 3:3), we come to see who he really is.  “I am the light of the world,” Jesus said.  “Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness but will have the light of life” (John 8:12). 

In and with and through his light our eyes—the eyes of our heart, the eyes of the soul—are able to see more than we can tell, more than we could ever imagine. 







Image:  Healing of the Man Born Blind (4th century), sarcophagus, Pio Cristiano Museum, Vatican.

[1] Cited in James Hillman, Re-Visioning Psychology (New York: Harper & Row, 1975), 201. I first came across the Ficino quote in Hillman, when I was in college, and it has stayed with me ever since.
[2] In the NRSV, John 9:3 is translated, “Neither this man nor his parents sinned; he was born blind so that God’s works might be revealed in him.”  However, the Greek text omits “he was born blind.”  I’m using Jaime Clark-Soles’ translation in Reading John for Dear Life: A Spiritual Walk with the Fourth Gospel (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2016), 48ff.
[3]Clark-Soles, 48, 57.
[4] Siri Carpenter, “Sights Unseen,” Monitor on Psychology, a publication of the American Psychological Association, April 2001 (Vol. 32, No. 4): 254. 
[6] Annie Dillard, Pilgrim at Tinker Creek (Harper Perennial, 2016), 36. Emphasis mine.
[7] Dillard, 29, 39.  Emphasis mine.  See also, Marius von Senden, Space and Sight: The Perception of Space and Time in the Congenitally Blind Before and After Operations (Free Press, 1932, 1960).