Reading the Gospel of John in November makes the mind turn to politics, the dark art.  Politics stakes out its version of the truth, and filters everything through that lens. In John  the political conflict begins with “He came unto his own and his own received him not” and keeps building to the Crucifixion.

John seems to be privy to conversations within the Pharisees and Temple leadership that show the intrigue involved in the conspiracy to capture and nullify Jesus. Especially the second half of the Gospel shifts our attention back and forth between the plotting and Jesus stepping into the path of the plot.

The healing of the man born blind in Chapter 9 runs the whole gamut of a discourse on sin, a physical healing, interrogating the evidence, challenging Jesus’ authority, and a discourse on spiritual blindness. On the one hand Jesus demonstrates he is the “light of the world” through a miraculous healing of the blind, and on the other, the Pharisees show their blindness by challenging the plain facts. The Pharisees ultimately challenge Jesus by saying “Are we also blind?” and Jesus turns their question around by showing that they are not merely blind, but willfully blind. In other words, they have made the world conform to their political vision.

The conflict turns on the Pharisees politicizing a miracle. The first twelve verses of chapter 9 describe a well-documented healing. All kinds of evidence is brought forth: the process of applying the clay to the man’s eyes, the washing in the pool of Siloam, the neighbors witnessing the miracle and verifying he is the same man born blind, and finally bringing the man to the Pharisees for further confirmation.

Here is where the clay hits the fan. The Pharisees cannot accept a healing from Jesus, because he is a sinner: he does not keep the Sabbath. Suddenly we have a political investigation challenging what is manifestly true. This is the true nature of politics. Nothing is accepted at its face value; it is all subject to scrutiny and re-framing. The Pharisees question the former blind man, who says, “He is a prophet.” Wrong answer.

They called the parents, who would at least verify this was their son. Would they affirm that Jesus had performed a miracle? Not to get into the political fray, they say “He is of age, ask him.” Wrong answer.

So they ask the son with more force. “Give God the praise; we know that this man is a sinner.” Now the Pharisees begin to sound like a Senate investigating committee. The son, in response, becomes more strident. “I have told you already and you would not listen. Why do you want to hear it again?” Then with a touch of irony, “Do you too want to become his disciples?”  Wrong answer. The heat of the investigation is revealed in the growing sarcasm of the man formerly known as “blind.” He begins to argue for the authenticity of Jesus until the exasperated fact-finding committee pulls out their final card. “’You were born in utter sin and would you teach us?’ And they cast him out.” Ironically the whole episode had begun with Jesus denying that sin had anything to do with the man’s blindness.

The next scene shows how Jesus deals with politics. Having heard of the man being cast out of the synagogue, Jesus seeks him out and says,“ Do you believe in the Son of man?” The man ultimately says “I believe” and “worshipped him.” That is how the miracle narrative concludes, or almost concludes. Jesus tends to the man’s spiritual health. He doesn’t go to the synagogue to debate with the Pharisees, but seeks out the outcast man to complete the healing.

This would be the end of the story, but apparently some Pharisees had tracked down the man formerly known as “blind” to see what mischief he would pursue. Jesus antagonizes them with a meaningful indictment.  ”For judgment I came into the world, that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may become blind.”  And when the Pharisees rise to the challenge, Jesus replies “now that you say ‘We see’ your guilt remains.” This distinguishes politics from the spiritual quest. The political stance is to never re-consider, unless for political gain. The spiritual quest is for finding the truth, no matter what it costs.

Jesus did not avoid conflict, but he was more interested in healing. His first concern was for the blind man, not his political and spiritual opponents. He was not apolitical, but he was not distracted by politics. The story shows Jesus focusing on his calling and letting the Pharisees investigate and accuse in their own way.

Politics is all about telling the story your way.  Jesus knew that willful blindness prevented dialogue. There was no use trying to convert the willfully blind, when there was so much more productive work to do.  The parable of the Lost Sheep reinforces this message. Jesus would always choose the single needy person over the battalion of religious leaders. Healing, not politics.

In the entire Bible there are no such stories about the events of a day or few days told over the expanse of 41 verses. This one is reported to show how Jesus dealt with the political firestorm raging around him. He drew boundaries that kept him away from senseless arguments, but never backed off from stating the truth as he saw it. The story of the blind man at the pool of Siloam is a case study of focus on the kingdom of God, while keeping the kingdom of this world at bay.  Healing, not politics.