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.
Amen
ReplyDelete