Water into wine is not a miracle

Last week in the sermon at SUMC we had the makings of a dialogical sermon in which the community was asked for a number of responses to a number of questions. As we heard from the community there were a few things that struck me and while you can hear the sermon on the Saginaw UMC website, there is one thing that I would mention about the wedding in Cana story that came into my head as the conversation was going on. 

Jesus does not preform a miracle by turning the water into wine. A miracle is rather easy to get bogged down in. Either we are caught up in the mechanics of the miracle: I read a debate about this story in which one side argued that the wine Jesus made was not sitting long enough to ferment and so while Jesus may have made wine, it was non-alcoholic! OR we use science to dismiss the supernatural aspects of the story and we miss the point all together.

The water to wine is not a miracle because miracles are also centered on the miracle worker. When someone today preforms a "miracle" (from the miracle on ice to the miracle on 34th street) then it is that person who preforms the miracle who gets all the credit. The miracle stops with the miracle worker. 

But if the water to wine story is not a miracle, then what is it? Look no farther than what the story says - it is a sign. 

And by definition, a sign is something which points to something beyond itself.

So what is the sign of water to wine pointing us to? I submit the gospel writer leaves little guess work. Take a look at just a few of the connections to the wedding to another episode in the story:

1. Jesus' mother appears only at the wedding feast and and at the crucifiction. 
2. There are stone jars and a stone tomb.
3. The wedding happens on the 7th day of the John's story, inaugurating a new creation.
4. The wine (a connection to Christ's blood) is what replaces water that removes sin.
5. The sign takes place during a wedding, a place in which a new a "new covenant" is established between two people.

Who cares?

Well, if the story is a miracle, then we cannot participate in the miracle. It is something that is locked in the past for us to debate and get bogged in the wrong conversation.

A sign is something we can participate in. You and I can be a sign maker. 

Related post: You may recall my efforts to stop random acts of kindness?

Spa spirituality

Spa spirituality is rampant these days. Not that going to a spa is bad, we all could use a little self care that is for sure. But when we see religion as primary a place we go to in order to get our needs met or our souls tended or a place where we feel good and get our warm fuzzies, then we have fallen into trappings of spa spirituality. 

Rather than seeing religion as a spa day that we go to and get our treatment for the week, would we be willing to see religion as our workout class.

It is the place were we go to get sweaty and dirty. We stretch and even pushed beyond our comfort level. It is the place were we work hard that we might actually walk a little funny the next few days. The place where the leaders are the trainer rather than the  masseuse. The place where we work out our salvation with fear and trembling. The place where we are unwilling to settle for the status quo. 

The invitation is extended to consider religion as workout (more yoga than spin class) and not a spa treatment. 

[Echos of a 2009 post (was it that long ago!) in which I submit that Sunday might be better served at the end of our week rather than the beginning.]

The problem with "fruitfulness"

Many UMC members and leaders these days are using the buzzword of fruitfulness. For a number of reasons fruitfulness is attractive language to a church that is in numeric decline. It also has strong biblical support, it is said that we should bear fruit. 

The problem with the emphasis of fruitfulness is that it is results oriented. If we have a tree in the back yard that is not bearing fruit, then we cut the thing down. Because what good is a fruit bearing tree if it bears no fruit?

Likewise, the assumption goes, what good is a fruit bearing church that bears no fruit?

Rather than having an emphasis on fruitfulness, perhaps we could have an emphasis on faithfulness. 

Sometimes a tree will not bear fruit because it is barren. This does not mean the tree is unfaithful (see the story of Sarah who was barren but faithful).

Focusing on faithfulness also is supported in the scriptures. In fact, we are called to be faithful and it is God through the power of the Holy Spirit produces fruit. If we are focused on bearing fruit than are we taking the role of the Holy Spirit? 

Finally, fruitfulness is another word that I tend to associate with the extrovert in all of us. The past two posts has touched on the need to bring balance to the over-valuing being extroverted in our understanding of our faith. I tend to assume that the image of bearing fruit (fruitfulness) is a verb associated with being extroverted. I mean fruit is an outward appearance on the tree.

No one can see the roots that provide for the fruit. Roots are not sexy. Roots are not fun to talk about. Roots are dirty and roots are unseen. Yet, the introvert side of us all might rather talk about the quality of our roots rather than the production of fruit. 

If we tend to our roots we may not be fruitful, but we are faithful.