Stones, Rocks, Nominative Determinism

 

Acts: 4:1-22

A long time ago, back and back and back, it used to be that you got your name from your father, of course, but, more specifically, from the trade in which your father worked, and thus, the trade in which you would also eventually work. Your last name was a reflection of where you were from or what you would do for the rest of your life. You didn’t just “have” a name; you lived it. Thus, all the Bakers, Hunters, Masons, Taylors, Carpenters, Smiths, and Archers that we know of today. Your vocation and purpose in life was tied to your name, and it was passed down to you by your father. You did what your name said. 

These days, of course, we’ve left that behind, at least, for the most part. Just because your last name is Haymaker doesn’t mean you have to spend your life around hay. Just because your last name happens to be Cleaver doesn’t mean you are destined to be a butcher. There’s freedom now. More opportunity. At least for those of us living in the developed world. We get to choose. And thank goodness. Millers don’t have to work at the flour mill. Cooks don’t have to be stuck in the kitchen. Brewers can make something other than beer, if they so choose, (but why would they?) and Farmers can run insurance companies instead of plowing fields, if that is what their hearts desire. 

Except. Except there’s this strange thing happening. Folks are starting to notice that there are strange coincidences between people’s names and how they tend to show up in the world. Joe Smileys tend to be pretty optimistic. People with the name “Dennis” are more likely, statistically speaking, to become dentists. And maybe it’s not such a coincidence that Mrs. Sternson was your fourth grade teacher. Or that David Counsell grew up to be a lawyer. 

There’s this hypothesis roaming around out there that people tend to gravitate toward areas of work and ways of showing up in the world which reflect their names. It may be that people, maybe subconsciously, live their lives in a way that reflects their names. They call this “nominative determination.” Their names, maybe, just might determine who they will become.  Rather than just being told that because your father is a Baker, so you, too, will be a baker, there are actually an awful lot of Bakers who are choosing to become…bakers. A classic example is Usain Bolt. Now that’s a perfect name for the fastest man on earth if ever I’ve heard one. Did he, somehow, subconsciously, live in to his name? Was he influenced by his name to work hard and thus bolt out of the starting blocks to become the world’s fastest sprinter? Maybe? Or what about William Wordsworth, who would, indeed, write many words of great worth? Or my favorite is a musician that Dan and I love named Andrew Bird. He’s a brilliant violinist, a talented singer-songwriter, and, fascinatingly, and expert whistler. He really does sound like a bird. Other examples are Daniel Snowman, a leading researcher of the Arctic and Antarctic poles. Sue Yoo is an actual, real life lawyer. One of my colleagues in ministry who is a Lutheran pastor and Spiritual Director has the last name of “Devine.” In fact, researchers even found that if your name started with the letter A or B, you were more likely to get better grades in school than those with other names. It’s almost as if your name determines who you become. It’s almost as if, even though the cultural tradition of living the life your father lived has long ago died off, it still, to a curious frequency, has some influence on who we become. Nominative Determinism - your name, however subconsciously, just might determine how you live, what you choose, how you act, what you do. 

This could absolutely just be coincidence. A load of hogwash. Something for Redditors to argue over at 3 am in internet chatrooms. But then, I was reminded that “Frayer” is a form of “friar” - a devout religious leader who works among the people…

Perhaps what we’re named has some influence on who we become. Maybe we really do, to some extent, consciously or subconsciously live in to what we’re named. Seems safe to say that Jesus thought so. Jesus gives Simon the name “Peter” which means rock. Jesus calls Peter “rock.”  When Jesus called Peter “The Rock,” it wasn’t because he was such a solid stand up guy at the time. It wasn’t because Jesus was picking the most stable person upon which to build his church. But, as we read through the Acts of the Apostles, Peter does, eventually, become “Peter” - The Rock.

And in our reading today, names become vitally important. One’s name and one’s power went hand in hand. A bunch of uneducated peasant nobodies are performing miraculous healings, and Mr. Judge and Reverend Powerful and Doctor Moneybags demand to know under whose name, under what power, they’ve been doing these things. Who gave you the power to do this? Under what name does your power come from? 

And Peter could have responded, “well, I did it. The power came from me.” But he doesn’t. He says it’s Jesus; the power is in Jesus’s name. But he says it in a strange sort of way, a way that not only refers back to scripture, but also, however tangentially, refers back to the name given to Peter by Jesus, the name that he would one day, live in to. And I don’t know what to do with this, or if it means anything at all, but Peter says it’s the stone that the builders rejected - Jesus - that has given him this power. It’s all about Jesus here, absolutely, 100%, but strangely, there is a connection to Peter as well. If Jesus is the stone, and Peter is the rock, then is there all that much difference between the two? I mean, how much difference is there between a stone and a rock? Could Peter be saying something to the effect of, “Well, it was me, but it was absolutely not me.” It’s in the name of Jesus that I have found in myself, that I have somehow determined myself to be, that any of these good things are done.

Was Peter yet another example of Nominative Determinism? Did Peter become who Jesus named him to be?

It’s very possible that I’m seeing connections where there are none. But it’s also possible that Peter, in this passage, is becoming who Jesus named him to be - the rock who heals by the power of the stone that the builders rejected. Jesus tells Peter that upon him - upon this rock, Jesus will build his church. And Peter tells these religious elites that the stone that they have rejected - Jesus - is the chief cornerstone. Peter is called by Jesus to be a cornerstone. And Peter tells these religious leaders that Jesus is the cornerstone. Jesus gave him a new name, a new name to live in to, and well, that name also so happens to be Jesus’s, too. And maybe, just maybe, it’s our nominally determined name as well. What is the difference between a rock and a stone? Not much. So what is the difference between Jesus and Peter? Well, everything, but also, if the power of Jesus is working through Peter, if Peter is living in to the name that Jesus gave him, then, well, not much. The two merge. Jesus is present in and among Peter. Present in and among us.

I think that when we are being our truest, realest, holiest selves, Jesus is present in and among us. Stones and rocks become so similar, that in many practical ways, they’re the same thing. And that’s just a crazy, wild thing to think about.

Peter tells these religious elite that Jesus is the name that determines his actions. And Jesus is the name that will determine his actions from now on. Nominative Determinism. This name, the name of Jesus, will determine who we become. There’s no other name than the one we’ve been given that will determine what will save us. Only the name that Jesus gives. And Jesus gives his very name, his very self. 

Jesus, Yeshua, literally means, “God saves.” And Jesus, Yeshua, is one of the most common names used in the region at the time. Just a common name. And the one name under heaven whereby we must be saved.

C.S. Lewis said that we are to become “little Christs.” 

Saint Teresa of Avila said, “Christ has no body but yours. No hands, no feet on earth but yours. Yours are the eyes through which Christ looks with compassion on the world.”

Are we little Christs? Are we the hands and feet of Christ? Do we all carry the very common name of Jesus inside us all?

Has God determined us to be the way through which God saves the world? 

Have we been nominally determined to be rocks and stones and Christs to this world? 

The religious elites see that these guys are just plain, ordinary men. But they couldn’t deny that this “aged” forty year old man had been healed. What would happen if this power from God were to spread to all of the plain, ordinary people throughout the land? What would happen if you, too, were given the name of Jesus under which to perform amazing, God-saving deeds? Sounds like the kingdom of God might come.

Peter and the gang are warned, while still prisoners, to stop using this name. They’re told to cut it out. It’s too wild. Too powerful. The world would be turned upside down if they kept living in to this nominative determinism. They command them to stop preaching and teaching in the name of Jesus. And Peter and John respond, “we can’t help but speak about what we have seen and heard.” Jesus is in us now. In us and through us and among us. Our identities are in Jesus now. There is no other way through which to look at the world. I am the rock. Jesus is the stone. There is no longer any difference.

Are we living our lives in such a way that the Powers that Be must ask us, “Under whose name do you do these deeds?” Are we living our lives in such a way as to respond, “Jesus of Nazareth. And he has given his name to us all”? Are we, too, rocks and stones? I guess that’s for us to choose.

Will we accept the nominative determinism that is ours? Maybe it's influencing us and we don't even realize it.

It’s our namesake. It’s our future. It’s our right now. As inheritors of the name of Christ, as Christians, may it determine who we are, and who we become. Let us live in to the name that has been given to us, the name of Jesus Christ our Lord.

Thanks be to God. 

Toxic Positivity or Tragic Optimism? Doubting Thomas and My Favorite Lectionary Passage

John 20:19-31

  It might be true that “everything happens for a reason.” It might even be true that I need to just “look on the bright side,” “think positive,” and that “it could always be worse.” But when I’m struggling, like really struggling, these are the last words I want to hear. When something has gone wrong, when I’m experiencing anxiety, or having intrusive thoughts, if somebody comes up to me and says, “Well, it could be worse,” I just want to punch them in the nose. I don’t of course. I say, “thank you.” I say, “you’re so right.” And then I remember not to call that person the next time I’m going through something. 

They call this type of language “toxic positivity,” and most of the time, when it’s used, people mean well. This language usually comes out of the best of intentions. Maybe folks don’t know what to say to someone when they’re grieving, so they just say the first so-called “upbeat” thing that comes to their minds. Maybe folks even really, truly believe that we should do as they say, we should just “think happy thoughts,” or that we’re “too blessed to be stressed,” or that we should be grateful to know another angel in heaven, and so they share their wisdom with us. And hey, if these words are comforting to you, by all means, hold on to them. 

But for many of us, in the midst of the break-up or the death, the foreclosure or the lost job, these words only remind us of what we’ve lost, of how we’ve failed, of how others have let us down. Worse than, you know, bopping someone on the nose, when we take in this toxic positivity, we bypass our real feelings, we stuff them down or away, and then our grief or anger or sadness comes bubbling up days or even years later, stronger, and able to do much more damage on our psyches, our relationships, and our lives. 

Even when we say things like “God is in control,” or that I just need to “rise above,” it can be a form of spiritual bypassing. We’re trying to avoid the hurt rather than deal with it, because we are desperate to end the pain we’re experiencing as quickly as possible. And again, it very well may be true that God really does have a plan, and that God is good all the time, and all the time, God is good, but when I’m really in the thick of it, when I’ve really been put through the wringer, at best, it simply goes in one ear and out the other, and at worst, somebody ends up with a bloody nose.

I wonder if that’s what Thomas thought, after he knocked the secret knock, shook the secret handshake, and the disciples let him in to the dark house. Thomas’s arms are full of the necessities that only he was brave enough to go out and fetch - the toilet paper, the canned Vienna sausages, the bread and milk - and he’s about to complain to the rest of the disciples for being their errand boy and how they’re all a bunch of cowards, when they take all these things out of his hands, set him down at the table, and say, “We have seen the Lord!” Yeah. Right. Sure. You’ve “seen him in your hearts.” You’re “feeling a little better now.” We can “keep our chins up.” “Everything happens for a reason.” 

I wonder if Thomas receives this good news as simply another well-meaning attempt to make him feel better after the devastating events of the last week. Does Thomas hear these words and want to punch them all in the nose? Is this just another case of toxic positivity?  

His refusal to believe them is so adamant that he finally has to tell them what it would take for him to believe — to see the wounds, to see the hands and the feet where the nails went in, to see the evidence of the trauma that Jesus went through, that they all went through. 

Thomas needs to be believed, to be reminded that what he went through this past week was real, that all this horrible stuff really truly did happen. He refuses to give in to the gaslighting that it seems like these disciples are trying to do to him. “We have seen the Lord!” - as if the betrayal, the denials, the flogging and the crucifixion didn’t even happen. As if everything could go back to the way it was before. As if they could all just pick up where they left off as if nothing ever happened. All better now! Jesus is back! I don’t know why we were so upset in the first place! We’re too blessed to be stressed! God doesn’t give us anything we can’t handle! 

No. Thomas can’t take that kind of whitewashing over the events of these past few days. He is forever changed by the heartbreak he’s experienced, and no amount of idealism or positivity is going to get him to deny the reality of what has happened. “No. Unless I see the mark of the nails in his hands, and put my finger in the mark of the nails in his hands, and put my hand in his side, I will not believe.” No. I’ve got to see evidence that something impossibly awful happened, before I can believe that something impossibly amazing has occurred. Without the cross, there is no resurrection. Resurrection without the cross is meaningless.

Victor Frankl says that the antidote to this kind of toxic positivity is what he calls “tragic optimism.” Frankl was a Holocaust survivor and a renowned psychologist, so he has both scholarly expertise and what the kids call “street cred.” Tragic optimism isn’t the whitewashing of events, or the ignoring of the trauma, or taking a short cut around the hard feelings; rather it is a “search for meaning in the midst of the inevitable tragedies of our lives.” 

The search for meaning in the midst of the inevitable tragedies of our lives. 

Now, listen carefully to what I’m not saying. I’m not saying that “when life gives you lemons, make lemonade,” but rather, “when life gives you these hard, impossible, tragical experiences, it’s not the experience itself that is of value, no not at all, but there can be growth in the aftermath of the event, if we take the time to fully process what has happened. If we take the time to go through the pain, the hard thing, and not try to find a short cut around it, we will come out the other side new, changed, and, dare I say resurrected, people. So it’s not that we’re grateful for the tragic event. No. Not at all. But as we try to sort through the rubble of our lives afterward, we can find that something new is being built, something different is being reborn, something is coming from the ashes. 

In order for us to find the meaning in the resurrection, we have to find the meaning in the cross. In order to find meaning in the cross, we have to go to the cross. We have to stick our fingers in it. We have to feel the gash in his side. And then we have to sit in how utterly horrible it was. We have to mourn. We have to get angry. We have to feel all the feelings. The only way out is through. 

And, I think Thomas gets this. Unless he finds meaning in the cross, he will not believe the resurrection. And I don’t mean a utilitarian kind of meaning, a kind of meaning that says, “Well, you gotta crack a few eggs if you want to make an omelet,” but a kind of growth, a strength, a new perspective, a better understanding, that only comes from walking through the fire and coming out the other side. 

Interestingly, Jesus doesn’t expect any of them to “just have faith” to just “let go and let God.” The disciples just don’t happen to mention it to Thomas, at least not in our text. But the disciples really did get the full truth of it. Jesus didn’t come to them all bright and new and full of toxic positivity. He didn’t jump through the window with bunny ears and a tale and say, “Surprise! April Fools!” He showed them his hands. He showed them his side. He showed them both the tragedy and the meaning of the tragedy. And then they believed. They didn’t believe because of some kind of toxic optimism, some pipe dream, or crazy delusion. They believed because what they saw was honest and real and hard. Jesus gave them tragic optimism.

And he gives Thomas the same. Look and my wounds. Touch the hurt. Get close to the pain. Be real about it. This is the only way you’ll be changed. The only way you’ll be transformed. The only way that you’ll be resurrected. If you find some kind of truthful, honest, real meaning in the scars. 

I am here with you. Right here. Right now. Right in the midst of what you’re feeling. 

When we are present with one who is suffering, we are in the presence of the holy.

Platitudes and quick solutions are not going to fix this. Only Christ’s presence.

I used to think that this was a horrible berating of Thomas at the end of the story, when Jesus says, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have come to believe.” As if Thomas is this anti-hero or antagonist to show us why we all should do better, believe harder, and trust more than he did. “Don’t be a doubting Thomas!” folks say whenever there’s struggle or a so called “lack” of faith. I see it differently now. 

I think we need to remember the first words that Jesus says to the disciples - “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” As the Father has sent me to show you my scars and that yet I still live, so does God send you to show your scars, and that you, too, still live. 

Blessed are those see Christ’s crucifixion everywhere there is suffering and still refuse to believe that that is the end of it. Blessed are those who carry their scars, who witness the scars of others, and stubbornly wait for a resurrection. Blessed are those who are not content with toxic positivity, but who hold out a little longer to get to the tragic optimism. There is no resurrection without the cross.

Thanks be to God.