A Reflection on John 4
Jesus asks an expert in the law, “How
do you read?” (Luke 10:26) He might well have asked the corollary question, “How
do you listen/speak?” After all, speaking and hearing in conversation is more
than an exchange of facts. It is a way of framing our culture, relationships,
and identities. Conversations are central to the life and ministry of Jesus. Eugene
Peterson points out that “Jesus’ words flourish into conversations and
discourses … with all sorts of people.” [1]
As my friend and mentor Barnett
Pearce said many times, it is helpful to look at conversation to see what is
done and made. This differs from looking through a conversation to determine what
is said and what facts are behind it. Walter Brueggemann points out, “We have
become critically knowing and busy with explanation … insisting the Biblical text
yield dogmatic certitudes it does not offer.”[2] By
looking at the text and not through it, we can focus on its mystery,
and discover how people do or do not provide ways to move forward in their
relationships.
The meeting between Jesus and the
woman at the well (John 4:1-30, 39-42) is presented by John as a
person-to-person conversation. Jesus’ request for a drink of water leads to her
request for the water he offers. “She begins to realize he is no ordinary man
and calls him at first a prophet (v. 19), drawing on Samaritan traditions, and
then a Messiah (v. 25), a term which takes her out of her own traditions.”[3]
In this conversation the woman
shifts her perception of Jesus as “a Jew” (v. 8) to “the man who told me
everything I ever did.” (v. 29) It is her sense of curiosity about water and
worship, and the willingness of Jesus to
address her as a person rather than an object, that allows the conversation and
thus their relationship to continue, constructing a new social reality. As a
result many more Samaritans “became believers.” (v. 42)
By approaching dialogue in this way
we observe several questions and responses that lead to a new cultural
situation. When Jesus asks for a drink the woman might have said, “No. You are
a Jew.” Instead she opens the door to move forward by asking, “You are a Jew
and I am a Samaritan woman. How can you ask me for a drink?” (v. 9) She is
intrigued with his response about living water and how it might benefit her.
Jesus explains that this water “wells
up to eternal life.” (v. 14) When she doesn’t understand the distinction Jesus
challenges her about her husband, and she identifies Jesus as a prophet. Then
she goes further, inquiring about what kind of worship is valid. Jesus responds
by saying, “A time is now coming and has now come when the true worshipers will
worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the
Father seeks.” (v.23) She “knows” that
Messiah is coming, and Jesus reveals, “I who speak to you am he.”
Compare this to the many times in
John where responses and statements truncate relationships instead of moving
them forward. The man Jesus heals of blindness is met by the Pharisees, not
with curiosity but with animosity. Their adversarial responses result in “they
threw him out.” (9:34) Likewise Jesus is accused of blasphemy (10:33),
effectively ending any further relationship with him.
In our adversarial political system
it is common to find truncating responses. Democrats, Republicans, and
Socialists alike find many ways to converse. Too often they spend time thinking
of ways to refute what the other person is saying, solidifying their own
positions instead of listening to the other. They do not attempt or consider
how to move forward; instead they set the existing relationship in concrete.
The same is true in our church
conversations. Too often suggestions for new approaches to music in worship,
building renovation, or leadership structure are met with “That won’t work;” “We
can’t afford it;” or “We’ve never done it that way.” These responses, devoid of
curiosity or an effort to gain deeper understanding, allow neither the
conversations nor the relationships to move ahead and construct something new
and better.
Interfaith dialogue is often just
as barren. We frequently enter it with broad, unfounded assumptions about what
the other believes and intends. “Christians want to deprive us of our culture –
That’s what they’ve always done.” “Muslims wish to invoke Sharia Law in the
United States and take over the country.” Actions are performed with little or
no consideration to what the reaction of others might be. “We draw cartoons of
Muhammed because we’re entitled to freedom of speech,” without thinking about
the violence that may result when others find the drawings deeply offensive to
their culture, relationships, and selves.
As with Brueggemann’s description
of textual criticism, the same can be applied to our conversational approaches.
We have become critically knowing and busy with explanation. By doing so we empty them of their unfamiliarity
– and mystery. The woman at the well and her community are left with a
multitude of questions they might pose to Jesus as he returns with them to
Sychar. “Can you tell us more about the nature of living water – about what
worship means to you – about what it means to you to be the Messiah? How do you
understand spirit? Truth? How might we Samaritans and you Jews settle our
differences and act more respectfully to each other?”
The same sort of curiosity can
equip us to be inviting in our political and religious conversations. To do so
it’s necessary to take a breath before we make or respond to a statement and
ask, “How can I move this conversation – and our relationship, forward, instead
of saying something that will terminate it, demonize the other, or prove them
wrong?” We make our social worlds in our conversations, and we can strive to
make them better.
Pastor Mike
