Think Nineveh is the Bad Guy? God's Trying To Convert Jonah.

The people who know this story of Jonah understand that Jonah is called to Nineveh, that “great city”. Jonah does not want to go to that city and he runs only to end up being spit up on the shores of Nineveh. However, I think this is a misreading the story.

God is not trying to convert Nineveh.

God is trying to convert Jonah. And for us reading the story, God is trying to convert the reader.

When Jonah arrives to the city, he walks one day into it and tells the people God is going to destroy the city. Upon hearing this message the people repent. The king hears about the people repenting then the king repents and makes a city wide declaration. It is as thought the people of Nineveh had already heard about this God Jonah is talking about and the people in the city repent right away. Jonah does not have to convince people about this God at all, just one day’s worth of work and the people get the message.

The people of God in the Hebrew bible and the followers of Jesus did not even get this message that quickly.

Then after the city repents, Jonah could have gone back home as the greatest evangelist of all time. This could have been the most effective and remarkable sermon of all time by getting the entire city of Nineveh - including the King - to repent. Instead of celebrating that all of these people repent and turn toward the very God Jonah says he follows, Jonah gets mad.

The name Jonah means ‘dove’. Among the many different thoughts on what this means, one of the thoughts is that Jonah knew the Bible so well that when he prayed he “cooed” like a dove.

He knew the Bible but he did not know God. Perhaps Jonah was never really following God to begin with.

Today, many of us know the Bible. We are convinced that we know what is a sin and who the bad guys are. We are confident that we are already converted to God. We are convinced that our sin is not as bad as the other person’s sin and that our repenting is somehow more complete than the one we think is not repenting. We are convinced that we have a pure soul.

So did Jonah.

And yet, the book of Jonah ends with a question - is it right for Jonah to be angry that destruction did not come upon the very people who repented and turned their heart? It has been said that if you look up on the hill you can still see Jonah sitting there. Sulking in his distain of the other. Convinced that he knows the Bible and he knows that he is right.

So many of us in the Christian tradition are like Jonah. We think that God is using us to convert others, when in fact God is using the other (the evil and insincere sinner) to convert us. If I leave the church because there is a sinner in the church and that I only will attend the church if all the sinners repent and have as pure of a soul as me, then I might as well join Jonah on that hill.

In his Church of one pure, angry and bitter soul.

The Great Commission's Subversive Wisdom

Photo by Kyle Glenn on Unsplash

The Great Commission of Jesus in Matthew 28 is what many of us evangelical Christians point to as our motor for action. We recall how the resurrected Jesus “said to them, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.’”

It is a powerful conviction to any disciple of Jesus to go into the world and make disciples. This scripture is the basis for the mission statement of the UMC which says that we are “To make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world.” The primary way of understanding this is that we are to go out to baptize, teach so that we may grow the number of followers of Jesus Christ.

However, the subversive wisdom of the great commission is not that other people are converted but rather that we are converted.

Before we can baptize and teach others about Jesus we have to go to all the nations. This going to all the nations has been used as a mission to conquer others. This is a misreading of the commission. We are not to conquer others. If we go into the nations then we would have to first leave our little nations - our bubbles of thought, theology, comfort etc.

To go to the nations means that we have to set aside ourselves, meet, befriend and come to love the ones who are not of our “nation”. When we leave our bubbles, when we leave our homelands of comfort, when we like Abraham set out to the lands unknown, we live by faith. Living by faith converts us.

Superficially the great commission is about spreading the message of Jesus Christ. However, the subversive wisdom in the commission is it is we who are converted because we discover how to love outside our nation (i.e. our enemies).

Christianity marked by not in how we agree

Reverend Ryan Kiblinger is a doctoral candidate for a PhD in the area of Christian catechism. He and I have known one another for a while now and we have come to engage in a handful of intellectual spats over the years. It is clear that am very much out of my intellectual league when I am in his presence. It is also clear that he and I do not agree on a number of what many might consider to be "critical aspects of what it means to be Christian". And, to be clear, every time I see him, I rejoice in our interactions and friendship. 

After a heated bit of conversation at a meeting of laity and clergy around the area I live (this meeting is called "Annual Conference"), Ryan gave me a hug.

He and I spoke with one another and I thanked him for his kind words of support. Then Ryan said what I am not smart enough to come up with on my own and was the best part of my whole three day experience. To paraphrase Ryan:

Christianity marked by not in how we agree but how we disagree.

The best part of my annual conference experience was being affirmed by someone who I disagree with and being reminded once again that they will know we are Christians by our love.

Thank you Ryan. 

How to debate to change the world

There are all sorts of tips and strategies about how to debate. I am not a debate coach, but from what I understand, at the cor, debates are something that is understood as something as you either win or loose. As we conclude the last Republican party debate for 2015, there is chatter about who won and who lost. The underlying assumption is that debates are to be done in a manner that if you "win" you change the minds of others and if you loose you failed to do that. 

Some in the Church feel like religion is a big debate. That is a series of conversations that happen in order to "convert" someone to their team through arguments. I have yet to meet anyone who has ever been persuaded to much of anything  though debates and arguments. And this is an unfortunate byproduct of the original goal of debates - that is to change the world.  

I would like to share with you a secret I learned from very wise clergy mentors on how to debate in order to change the world. It is easy to understand and yet perhaps the most difficult thing to do. I have learned through this practice however that this simple yet difficult act can and has changed people's minds and even the world. 

Here is what you do.

When you are in a debate with someone, stop for just one moment and try to hear what it is the other person values in their argument. Then, affirm that value. 

That is it. If you are able to affirm the value of the other person something happens. 

First, you have to listen, and I mean really listen in order to identify the underlying value. Second, you have to give your conversation partner credit for something that is, in your mind, good and valid. Giving credit to one you are in a debate with is often seen as weakness in a debate as though you are conceding the argument. Third, when you affirm the other person's value you are affirming them as a person of worth and value. You no longer see them as opposition but as equal peer. 

For instance if you are opposed to individuals owning a certain type of gun and you are en ganged in a conversation with someone who owns the exact type of gun you oppose and you wanted to create a change: try first to listen to the underlying value to their reasons for owning such a gun(s). Perhaps it is freedom or safety or a right. Whatever the value is, can you then make a statement that affirms that value. It might sound like, "I think your appreciation for personal freedom is really excellent and I wonder if you would be willing to share more about other ways you desire to safeguard freedom." 

And therein lies the way to debate to change the world. If we are able to listen to another, share in words of grace and affirm the "other" as a person and not an enemy, then the debate model is turned on its head. It no longer is about trying to get another person to come to your side as it is about you growing in empathy and compassion to try to see the world through their eyes.

And with more empathy in the world, the world will change.