I am the vine you are the branches
My wife preached on mothers day this year and she was given the text in John where Jesus says "I am the vine and you are the branches".
She found something I wanted to note here for discussion.
Jesus uses a lot of imagery relating to agriculture: seeds, farmers, soil, vines, etc. While Paul uses a lot of imagery related to "body": Christ is the head of the church, we are the body of Christ, one body many members, etc. There is a very interesting difference between these two images of Jesus and Paul and American Christianity seems to favor Paul.
I am not sure what sort of vine/branch Jesus is talking about, and I am not a vine/branch expert but I have seen a few vines in my day. And in seeing these vines it was brought to my attention by Estee's research that it is very difficult to differentiate vines from branches. They are entangled and interwoven with each other to create a 'oneness'. So what is the difference between the vine and branches, that is to say, how can you tell the two apart? According to Jesus, you should not be able to see a difference at all.
Paul uses this idea of different parts of the same body. There are hands, and feet and eyes, and mouths which are all on the body but all are different and separated by space and function/purpose and physical make up. Paul uses this image which in some ways argues that we are not keep our individuality and use it for the body. But the image of Jesus is that we are to "die to oneself" we are to "abide" we are to become entangled with one another that we no longer are 'individuals' but we are all ONE.
A slight difference but an interesting one.
It is part of the American psyche of this rugged individualism and self reliance. It is an idea that is very Pauline, but I am not sure it is very Jesus-ish (Jesusian? Jesusine? What is the right word there?).
I am not sure what I am getting at other than I think it is interesting to consider the differences there and meditate on them.
Am I willing to give up my individualism for the sake of the whole? Or am I more libertarian and feel the individual is more important than the whole? What does Jesus say to all that?
She found something I wanted to note here for discussion.
Jesus uses a lot of imagery relating to agriculture: seeds, farmers, soil, vines, etc. While Paul uses a lot of imagery related to "body": Christ is the head of the church, we are the body of Christ, one body many members, etc. There is a very interesting difference between these two images of Jesus and Paul and American Christianity seems to favor Paul.
I am not sure what sort of vine/branch Jesus is talking about, and I am not a vine/branch expert but I have seen a few vines in my day. And in seeing these vines it was brought to my attention by Estee's research that it is very difficult to differentiate vines from branches. They are entangled and interwoven with each other to create a 'oneness'. So what is the difference between the vine and branches, that is to say, how can you tell the two apart? According to Jesus, you should not be able to see a difference at all.
Paul uses this idea of different parts of the same body. There are hands, and feet and eyes, and mouths which are all on the body but all are different and separated by space and function/purpose and physical make up. Paul uses this image which in some ways argues that we are not keep our individuality and use it for the body. But the image of Jesus is that we are to "die to oneself" we are to "abide" we are to become entangled with one another that we no longer are 'individuals' but we are all ONE.
A slight difference but an interesting one.
It is part of the American psyche of this rugged individualism and self reliance. It is an idea that is very Pauline, but I am not sure it is very Jesus-ish (Jesusian? Jesusine? What is the right word there?).
I am not sure what I am getting at other than I think it is interesting to consider the differences there and meditate on them.
Am I willing to give up my individualism for the sake of the whole? Or am I more libertarian and feel the individual is more important than the whole? What does Jesus say to all that?
God as projector; Jesus as slide
Dr. Osiek had a metaphor for Jesus she uses to understand the Jesus in the Gospel of John. Slides into a projector.
At first the projector is just a white square, but putting a slide in gives the white light box color, shape and tone. The slide gives the light meaning.
God is this flood of light. And white light has all color. Light is also a mystery in that it has both properties of a wave and a particle. Light is this which can be seen but not totally understood. So as the projector shines white light, so is God. Just as white light is incomprehensible, so is God.
But as a slide is put into the projector the white light gains meaning. The light is able to be understood and comprehended but us who are not able to fully see the white light. Likewise, Jesus is that slide for God. Jesus gives us the ability to see God in a way we would otherwise not be able to understand.
Hitler, Sucide Bomber and God
Last week I had mentioned the idea Marcia McFee writes about, Metaphor-aging. I firmly believe followers of Christ need to be creative thinkers in this world in order to make the gospel alive for people.
In an exercise with the youth the last time we did this as a group, I was asked to fill in the blank:
"God is like Hitler and/or a suicide bomber because ___________."
The only thing I could think of is this:
"God is like Hitler and/or a suicide bomber because they are all three in heaven."
This is not to say that I approve of the the actions of Hitler and/or a suicide bomber. Not at all! Rather, I think that it is not our job to condemn or send people to hell.
I note this example because, I think, this is the sort of thinking we need in the church in order to get people to wake up. I can talk theology, Jesus, and the Bible all day long, but I have come to find this is not the case for many people. There are many reasons for this but perhaps one of the reasons is because we all assume we all know what each other believes or, more likely, we are afraid we might offend someone. But I think being offended results in some of the most important change.
Hitler offended people.
Gandhi offended people.
Jesus offended people.
The question I think becomes, what is offensive to us? How are we responding to the offense?
In an exercise with the youth the last time we did this as a group, I was asked to fill in the blank:
"God is like Hitler and/or a suicide bomber because ___________."
The only thing I could think of is this:
"God is like Hitler and/or a suicide bomber because they are all three in heaven."
This is not to say that I approve of the the actions of Hitler and/or a suicide bomber. Not at all! Rather, I think that it is not our job to condemn or send people to hell.
I note this example because, I think, this is the sort of thinking we need in the church in order to get people to wake up. I can talk theology, Jesus, and the Bible all day long, but I have come to find this is not the case for many people. There are many reasons for this but perhaps one of the reasons is because we all assume we all know what each other believes or, more likely, we are afraid we might offend someone. But I think being offended results in some of the most important change.
Hitler offended people.
Gandhi offended people.
Jesus offended people.
The question I think becomes, what is offensive to us? How are we responding to the offense?
Be the change by Jason Valendy is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.