I Once Was Blind But Now I See John 9:1-7 The Miracle part 2. Sin and Grace

This was to be the third installment of the work on John 9.  But I've been out of town and am getting ready for another project.  So this will have to suffice.

Have you ever known someone whose intimate relationship was destroyed because that person cheated on his/her spouse or lover?  Have you ever just shaken your head in disgust and thought, "Well, if you're going to do the crime, you gotta do the time?  S/he's just getting the fruits of the folly."

It's quite possible you did this with the news of the killing of Osama bin Ladan.  He got what he deserved.  He sewed the wind and reaped the whirlwind.

Cause and effect.  If you do wrong you will pay for it.  If you do right you will be rewarded.  In Bible study circles  this is called Deuteronomic theology, as in the 5th book of the Bible, Deuteronomy.  Especially in Deuteronomy the major theme is blessings and curses.  God says, "If my people will obey the commands I give this day I will bless them and they will prosper in the land.  But if they disobey my commands I will turn my face and they will live with adversity."

There is sense to this theology.  You can see it played out in life.  Cause and effect.  If you smoke you are much more likely to have all sorts of cancers, heart disease, and other fatal lung diseases.  If you drink and drive your likelihood of serious or fatal accidents rises exponentially.  But it has its limits.  We begin getting into trouble when we begin assigning who is good and bad on the basis of our observations of others based solely on deuteronomic theology.  It has not served our nation well.

The Pilgrims, the Puritans gave this heritage to America.  They believed some were destined to be God's people (specifically themselves) and were blessed by God, while others were destined to NOT be God's people and were cursed by God.  It was the basis of the American philosophy of Manifest Destiny.  It was great justification for genocide against the Indians that were there before us.

Our fore-bearers found it convenient to identify those in their own community who were the chosen or un-chosen of God.  If your land grew good crops it was clear that you were blessed by God and deserved to be wealthy.  If you had poorly producing land then you were cursed by God and deserved to be poor.  What was overlooked, of course, was that some already the "haves", and were among those who got to choose land first.  So those who had less to start with or ended up with the poor plots of ground really never had a chance.

What was nice for the "haves" was that they had justification for not helping the "have-nots."  After all, who were they to question God's choices.  If your neighbor had continually failing crops why should you help him?  You could even tell yourself it was not your place to meddle with God's choice!  If you're neighbor would get right with God he wouldn't be in that fix, right?

This theme of justifying the rich and condemning the poor has played out on the American political scene ever since.  Ronald Reagan, a very savvy politician, won lots and lots of votes by demonizing the poor as frauds and thieves at the public trough.  It was politically applied Deuteronomic theology.  And it worked.  Under President Reagan the rich got significant government support and got richer while most of the rest of America either stayed where they were or got poorer.  Should you question this, talk to some of the young family farmers who lost the family farm during the manufactured "farm crisis" of the mid-1980's.

What does this have to do with John 9:1-7?

"As [Jesus] went along he saw a man blind from birth.  His disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?"  John 9:1-2

This man is poor.  Because he is blind he can't work. He is forced into a life of beggary and poverty, living on the cast-offs of his community.  The deuteronomic theology of the day could see that clearly this man was cursed by God to this life.  Is it his fault or his parents fault?  Implicit in the question is that it is certainly not their fault, and if not their fault, then not their responsibility to do anything about.  (You could justifiably challenge that statement, but it would lead to another subject, off-topic.)

In the deuteronomic system "who sinned" is a nice question for seminary students (the disciples) to ask of their professor (Jesus.)

But Jesus turns it upside down . . . again.  He regularly challenged the wisdom of day.  "Neither sinned.  This happened so the work of God might be displayed in his life."  John 9:3

A man is forced to live like this so God's glory can be shown?  Did God make this man blind so Jesus could do a healing trick?  Doesn't that sound mean . . . at the least?  What kind of a God behaves like that?

"You miss the point."  That is what Jesus says to the disciples, to us as his learners.

There is night and there is day.  There is darkness and there is light.  Move it out of esoteric conversations about what came first or who deserves what and start with this:  Is existence in our lives a struggle, groping in the dark to find a way to life that is not fearful but secure?  Yes.  Does life have on-going components of struggle, adversity and loss?  Yes.  Does this occur regardless of whether we would like it not to?  Yes.

In the prelude to this miracle Jesus changes the conversation from whether this guy's parents did a naughty or he was being punished for something he did in-vitro.  Jesus says that the blindness in the world -- physical and spiritual -- is the reason why God became flesh among us.  God came to us to confront and dispel the darkness in which we live.

We cannot overcome the dark of this life on our own.  Even if our whole lives are wonderful there will come a moment when the darkness of death rolls over us.  The facts are that none of our lives ARE just wonderful.  To quote the bumper sticker on the battered '92 Plymouth, driven by people who appear to have been battered by life, "Shit Happens."  Sorry to be so indelicate, but it's an accurate descriptor, isn't it?

As Jesus gazes at this man who wouldn't have even been able to drive that battered old Plymouth, he says, "I came to do something about THIS darkness but also so that all of you can have new eyes to see the vistas that God intends to be in your lives.  I come to heal the blindness of your sight and the blindness of your soul."

Jesus declares, "While I am in the world, I am the light of the world."

Carl Jung, the eminent theoretical Psychiatrist, called our darkness the shadow side.  Jesus comes to cast out this darkness.

Jesus moves from theory to practice.  He steps out of the classroom, steps into this mans life and heals him.  It begins the rest of the story that will move the conversation from the physical to the metaphysical.  If someone who is supposed to be blind because he is God-cursed gets sight from God, can it be that those who think they are God-blessed have the taint of darkness within them?  and if that is true then the "righteous" have an equal need for healing from God as the "unrighteous," right?

Therein lies the rest of the story.  Stay tuned.