Guy Nave

Making All Things New (Including Ourselves)

by GUY NAVE, Professor of Religion SEPTEMBER 22, 2021

At the beginning of the fall semester, I received an email reminder that I was scheduled to give today’s chapel talk. The email stated that our fall theme to begin the 202122 academic year is: “A New Creation.” The email, read, “This theme, grounded in Isaiah 65: 17-18, invites us to reflect on God’s work in continually making all things new. It reminds us that we are beloved creations of God and emphasizes our response to this new creation through gladness and rejoicing.” I have to be honest with you, as the current chair of the Curriculum Committee, a committee tasked with helping the faculty develop a new general education curriculum, I’d welcome a little more of this idea of us responding to newness with “gladness and rejoicing.” I’d also welcome a little more “gladness and rejoicing” related to our work as a college community developing a DEI statement. My experience after 21 years of teaching at Luther College is that “gladness and rejoicing” are not always the FIRST or dominant reactions exhibited in response to change. Regarding faculty reception toward change, I’m actually a little more reminded of a New Testament passage from the Gospel of Luke. In Luke 4:1429 we find the following words:

Then Jesus, filled with the power of the Spirit, returned to Galilee, and a report about him spread through all the surrounding country. He began to teach in their synagogues and was praised by everyone. When he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, he went to the synagogue on the Sabbath day, as was his custom. He stood up to read, and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was given to him. He unrolled the scroll and found the place where it was written: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because the Lord has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. The Lord has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.” Then Jesus rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant, and sat down. The eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on him. Then Jesus began to say to them, “Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.”

All spoke well of him and were amazed at the gracious words that came from his mouth. They said, “Is not this Joseph’s son?” Jesus said to them, “Doubtless you will quote to me this proverb, ‘Doctor, cure yourself!’ And you will say, ‘Do here also in your hometown the things that we have heard you did at Capernaum.’” And Jesus said, “Truly I tell you, no prophet is accepted in the prophet’s hometown. But the truth is, there were many widows in Israel in the time of Elijah, when the heaven was shut up three years and six months, and there was a severe famine over all the land; yet Elijah was sent to none of them except to a widow at Zarephath in Sidon.

There were also many lepers in

Israel in the time of the prophet Elisha, and none of them was cleansed except Naaman the Syrian.” When they heard this, all in the synagogue were filled with rage. They got up, drove Jesus out of the town, and led him to the brow of the hill on which their town was built, so that they might hurl him off the cliff. According to the text, when Jesus began speaking everyone in the synagogue “spoke well of him and were amazed at [his] gracious words.” By the time he finished speaking, however, they were all ready to throw him over the edge of a

Guy Nave

cliff (Talk about an address going terribly wrong!). Over the course of the past 12 years or so, I’ve been doing quite a bit a research on “change.” As a result of my research, I’ve noticed that much of the literature and conversation about change seem to frequently bring me back to a common point: It seems that most of the time when people are talking about change, what they are really talking about is convincing other people to see things the way they see them. While in some way I guess this makes sense, the problem I have with this way of thinking about change is that change is ALWAYS one directional— it is always “the other” who needs to change. This understanding of change rarely involves the ones demanding change needing to change as well. As I struggled (and continue to struggle) with this, I found myself asking, “What would happen, if change were multidirectional rather than one directional? What would happen if those of us clamoring for change were also required to change?” I find it somewhat ironic that it is

during a period in human history that many have identified as possibly the most deeply divided period in global politics and culture—a time when political gridlock is the norm rather than the exception—that there has been an exponential increase in the rhetoric of change. Everyone is dug in; everyone is entrenched and unwilling to move from their own ideological positions, but at the same time everyone is demanding and talking about change. Few of us are willing to change, but many of us are demanding change. What kind of change is possible, however, when few of us think we need to change and many of us think “others” are the ones who need to change? We often tend to resonate most favorably with change that demands more change of others than of ourselves and least favorably with change that demands more change of us than of others. In other words, we’re often all right with doing things differently, as long as it’s consistent with how we’ve always done them (hmm?). In some way I think this is what we are witnessing in the story before us this morning. A detailed examination of Luke’s gospel reveals that the author places a strong emphasis on the idea of “change.” In Luke, there are two words that the author uses more than any other gospel writer. The words are metanoeo and metanoia. The words are commonly translated “repent” and “repentance.” The words literally mean a “change of mind”—an alteration in thinking that results in an alteration in living. The words are found in Luke over four times more than in Mark and Matthew combined. The words are consistently used by the author to express a fundamental change in thinking that leads to a fundamental change in behavior and/ or living. Jesus was born during a time when many Jewish people were expecting a “Messiah” to come and deliver them from Roman oppression and establish a new kingdom—the kingdom of God, a kingdom where the “justice of God” would prevail over the “injustices of the kingdom of Rome.” Such a kingdom surely meant God’s people would be liberated, and those who had oppressed them would be punished for what they had done. Through this story, however, the author seeks to demonstrate that change often entails MORE than what we think it should entail. The author seeks to demonstrate that change doesn’t simply mean a change in “the other”—it also means a change in us. When the characters in the story thought the “poor” and “oppressed” in Isaiah’s prophecy referred to them, and that Jesus’ words stating that “today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing” referred to their liberation, they were pleased, and marveled at the “gracious words” spoken by Jesus. However, when they realized that Jesus was suggesting that the change God desires to bring about involved them needing to change their way of thinking as well, they became furious and actually wanted to kill Jesus. It is clear from Jesus’ reference to Elijah being sent by God to the widow of Sidon rather than to any of the widows of Israel and to Elisha being sent to the leper of Syria rather than to any of the lepers of Israel, that Jesus was insinuating that the poor and captive, the blind and oppressed to whom he had been sent by God were people other than (or at least included people other than) those listening to him. Furthermore, not only was Jesus insinuating that he had been sent to others, but that God was concerned about (and even on the side of) those whom they considered to be enemies—people they believed needed to change. How dare Jesus insinuate God’s preference for a widow of Sidon rather than all the widows of Israel! How dare he insinuate God’s preference for a leper of Syria rather than all the lepers of Israel! During the time of Elijah, Zarephath of Sidon was in the heartland of those who worshipped Baal rather than Yahweh. It was the home of Jezebel, who had mercilessly slaughtered countless prophets of Israel. And during the time of Elisha, Syria had long been an enemy of Israel. How dare Jesus suggest that the God of Israel was concerned about their enemies! According to the author of Luke, however, the God of Israel is not simply a God of some people—the God of Israel is a God of all people, a God who is on the side of ALL those who are despised and rejected, even when they are despised and rejected by us. The idea that throughout Israel’s history God had also been concerned for Israel’s enemies infuriated those listening to Jesus—so much so that they were ready to throw Jesus over a cliff! When the one promising change brings the change that we think needs to happen, the change that agrees with our way of seeing things, the change that benefits us directly and that requires everyone other than us to change, then we’re often happy with that “change.” However, when change brought by the one promising change requires us to change as well, requires us to see things differently and do things differently, we often become extremely upset. Based upon years of reading the Gospel of Luke, it seems somewhat apparent to me that this author was trying to get his readers to understand that genuine “change” requires a change in thinking and living by everyone, not just by the ones that others think need to change. As I continually reflect upon the idea of change, as I observe us becoming what to me appears to be a nation and a world more and more divided and stuck in ideological differences, I am convinced that the only type of change that is going to make a lasting and meaningful difference is that type of change in which WE ALL experience a transformation in thinking that leads to a transformation in living and experiencing the world. Here’s to making all things new.