What do you want me to do for you?

The Gospel for this Sunday told the story of the blind son of Timaeus, sitting by the Jericho Road when Jesus, Son of David, came by.

Everyone knows what a preacher is going to say about this, but I wasn't happy to go there. The phrase that stuck out for me as I read and reread it was the question of Jesus "What do you want me to do for you?"

In the context of this narrative I would have thought that was bleedingly obvious but again I wasn't content with the trite answer to that.

The reason was that last Sunday we read the story of James and John asking Jesus if they could ask him a favour. He responds to them with exactly the same question "What do you want me to do for you?"

Why were these two stories side by side immediately preceding the Narrative of Holy Week and the Passion?

As I struggled with this question it seemed to me that if I was to interpret the question that the son of Timaeus asked in response to the question of Jesus was not so much about his specific need to SEE and more about his general need to be WHOLE then how we should respond to the question became much more open to real conversation.

Every one of us can answer the question of Jesus with the statement "I want to be WHOLE," but the content of that wholeness not only will be different for each one of us, but will change from day to day, as we struggle with how to be the people God wants us to be.

An acquaintence of my wife said she had meditated on this question every day for the past 14 years. Here is a life's work.

Here is true discipleship!

The Case for "Faith" not "Belief"

American theologian Karen Armstrong published a piece with the Washington Post by this title at this URL in which she she wishes to push people out of the confines of their logical and propositional approach to Faith.

She says "When we are talking about God, nobody has the last word because what we call God lies beyond the reach of speech. It also violates the Western rationalist tradition: a Socratic dialogue was a spiritual exercise and, Socrates insisted, would not work unless it was conducted throughout with gentleness and courtesy. Nobody 'won' the argument: a Socratic dialogue always ended with participants realizing that they knew nothing at all, an insight that was indispensable to the philosophic quest."

How often have you seen Christians debating matters among themselves, thinking they were following the best rationalist traditions, but at the same time seeking to verbally belt their opponants into pulp in order to win the argument?

While I "live and move and have my being" in an Anglican tradition these days I can remember being part of the Churches of Christ tradition where it was proudly proclaimed to me that there were certain "Facts of the Faith" that were indisputable. It seemed to me at the time to be a convenient piece of double talk and left me somewhat puzzled about what the problem was with having to believe something for which the rational realm had not viable explanation.

I have for some time used a term for such matters of faith - TRANSRATIONAL - and until recently thought I had invented a word. However there was a school of Futurists in the early 1900's who developed the term and by it I think meant what we nowadays talk about as "counterintuitive" that it goes against common sense.

Since then, others like me have wanted to add a nuance of meaning that allows for you to know something is TRUE without FACTS or LOGIC to back you up in that conviction. Some might say such a position was IRRATIONAL because they couldn't see it as RATIONAL. I would want to say it is TRANSRATIONAL because it transcends the rational realm.

I still struggle in the company of those who want everything about the faith to be able to be expressed in propositions or rationalistic terms. For me there is more to life and faith than that.

What do you think?

The Go-Between God

A man, greatly respected in Nyoongar circles and church circles once told me of the place of the Djitty Djitty in their law.

When someone is killed by another and it is not possible to be sure if it was accidental or intentional, one of the elders takes on a special role to determine whether or not the family of the deceased will be given an opportunity for "pay-back".

This elder becomes the Djitty Djitty and meets with all members of the families involved to try and work out what happened. If he is still uncertain a special ceremony is arranged by which the family of the deceased is able to throw some spears as if in pay-back at the person involved in the death of their family member. However, the Djitty Djitty and the person who may have caused the death intentionally, enter into an elaborate dance with the Djitty Djitty leading the other with the words "When I go this way, you go this way; when I go that way you go that way." The Djitty Djitty goes-between the family with the spears and the one who may deserve pay-back. He is generally very skillful at ducking the spears and so long as the person copies his movements exactly they will be safe.

This ancient Nyoongar practice is such a wonderful echoe of what many believe about the work of Jesus that it has inspired me in the special place the Djitty Djitty has in my life.