Lent 4, Year A
The Rev. Dena Cleaver-Bartholomew
Often the way we choose to phrase a question reveals the answer we expect to receive. The disciples asked Jesus “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” Their question reveals a cultural assumption that illness or disability is a consequence of sin, so the question to be asked is who is responsible. Jesus rejects the framework of the question: “Neither… he was born blind so that God’s works might be revealed in him.” The question is not longer ‘Whose fault is it?’ The question instead is ‘Why?’
Given Jesus’ response to the question it is no surprise he then demonstrates how the man’s blindness can lead to a revealing of God’s glory. With minimal details we hear that Jesus makes mud with dirt and spit, places it on the man’s eyes, and sends him to the pool of Siloam to wash. The man does as he is instructed and returns able to see. The miracle itself is accomplished in two simple sentences. Now we hit the complicated part: the reactions.
The neighbors are the first to encounter the newly sighted man. Is this the same man they have known to sit and beg? The answer is yes and no. It is him, yet he is changed. How do we understand someone who has undergone a profound transformation? The man is clear “I am the man.” His experience is outside their realm of understanding, so the neighbors bring him before the Pharisees. Who better to put this new reality in perspective than the religious experts?
The Pharisees offer a second wave of reactions. After recounting the story of his healing the Pharisees discuss not the man, not the miracle, but Jesus. Once again, the questions they ask belie their assumptions: “How can a man who is a sinner perform such signs?” Jesus healed a man born blind. Only one from God could do such a thing. Yet he did it on the Sabbath. That makes him a sinner. How to deal with the paradox? They must decide whether or not to believe. Do they believe the man? Do they believe in Jesus? In order to decide they go on a fact finding mission.
The text says the Pharisees do not believe the man, so they question his parents. The parents testify only to what they know. “Just the facts, ma’m,” as Detective Joe Friday would say. He is their son. He was born blind. Ask him if you have other questions. So the Pharisees command the man “Give glory to God!” This was a formula for a solemn oath that required a person to tell the truth or confess a sin. The irony is that by telling the truth, which is what he is doing, the man is indeed giving glory to God—the very objective of his healing that Jesus stated at the beginning of the story when he said “…he was born blind that God’s works might be revealed in him.”
The Pharisees decide they do not believe. Again their way of understanding reality is made clear by their words: “You are his disciple, but we are disciples of Moses. We know that God has spoken to Moses, but as for this man, we do not know where he comes from.” First, being a disciple of Moses and being a disciple of Jesus are placed in opposition. This assumes that one must make an either/or choice between Moses and Jesus. They tell the truth that they do not know where Jesus comes from, yet they do not express openness to learning the answer. The newly sighted man is trying to help them “see” but they reject his efforts, saying “You were born entirely in sins, and are you trying to teach us?” They drive him out of the community.
One
of the most common ways to deal with paradox is not to deal with it, to push it
away. When two things we hold to be true
clash it can make for an earthquake we would rather avoid. After all, if I question two of my basic
assumptions there might be others that become suspect. The whole framework could unravel. Helen Keller once observed that “People do not like to think. If one thinks, one must reach
conclusions. Conclusions are not always
pleasant.”
In the book The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe the main character, Lucy, has ventured into a wardrobe during a game of hide and seek, only to discover it opens into an entirely different land called Narnia. When she shares this news with her siblings they are not able to travel through the wardrobe as she did, so they do not believe her story. Lucy insists that her experience was real, that she is telling the truth. Finally her two older siblings speak with the Professor in whose house the wardrobe resides. They get a surprising response:
There are only three possibilities. Either your sister is telling lies, or she is
mad, or she is telling the truth. You
know she doesn’t tell lies and it is obvious that she is not mad. For the moment then and unless any further
evidence turns up, we must assume that she is telling the truth.
When the Pharisees are debating whether Jesus could be of God, since he appears to have healed a man born blind, yet be a sinner, since he performed the healing on the Sabbath, the text tells us “they were divided.” The word in the original Greek is schism, which is still a word we use to describe what happens when religious communities tear apart over questions of belief. It is a word that is used in the church today. There is always controversy when there is a challenge to what we think we know about God and how God chooses to work. God often chooses paradox. How are we supposed to believe what seems unbelievable? Would God choose to act through a sinner? Of course! Other than Jesus there’s been little option.
Today’s Gospel story began with a question about one who cannot see and why. It comes full circle to end with a question about who will not see and why. Perhaps, like the man born blind, we do not always need to understand, but we do need to be open to seeing in a new way.
Amen