I Call You Friends
a sermon based on John 15:9-17
by Richard Gehring

            The twelve disciples had spent three years of their lives with Jesus.  They had seen him perform incredible miracles.  They had heard him deliver moving sermons.  They had been with him through the clashes with the authorities and the adulation of the crowds.  But in spite of all the time they had spent together, and in spite of all that had happened, there was still so much that they didn't understand about this Jesus.  He had been their leader, their teacher, their companion.  But there was something special about Jesus that they still hadn't quite comprehended.
            So on the night before Passover began, when Jesus gathered with the twelve for supper, he did something very unusual.  He began to wash the disciples' feet.  This was normally the sort of menial task done by slaves.  It was rather disconcerting and very humbling for the disciples to see the man they had considered their master down on his knees scrubbing their dusty feet. 
            This famed foot-washing incident marks a change in the nature of the relationship between Jesus and his disciples.  Part of the meaning of the foot-washing is found I think in Jesus' words to the disciples later that evening, words that are found in our text for today.  In the midst of what would prove to be Jesus' final teaching before his death, he says a very striking thing:  "I do not call you servants any longer, because the servant does not know what the master is doing; but I have called

you friends, because I have made known to you everything that I have heard from my Father."(v. 15)
            It is on the basis of this relationship, then, this friendship, that Jesus gives one final command to his disciples, his friends:  "Love one another as I have loved you.  No one has greater love than this, to lay down one's life for one's friends."(vv. 12-13)
            These words of Jesus give us some reason to consider how we think about friendship and role of friends in our lives.  It seems that many people in our society apply the term "friend" to nearly everyone they know, not distinguishing between casual acquaintances and truly intimate relationships.  And when persons of the opposite sex have a relationship, we want to know if it's "serious" or if they're "just friends," implying that it's less important to have friends than to have a spouse.  The term has become even more broadly applied thanks to Facebook, which will actually help you keep track of how many hundreds of “friends” you have.
            Now I want to make it clear that I'm not against marriage and families.  My own parents, brother and sister, their spouses and children are very important to me.  My relationships with

my in-laws are also highly valued.  And I  take my responsibilities as a father very seriously. 
            Family can and should be among the primary relationships that we have.  It is from our families that we usually gain most of our values, our habits, our models on how to relate to others.  These may be good or bad depending on how healthy or dysfunctional our families of origin may have been.  And those who contend that many of our societal problems have their roots in dysfunctional families certainly have some very valid arguments.  So please don't think that I'm trying to preach against families only a week after Mother's Day.
            However, there is a problem I see with the way many in our society approach this subject of "family values."  The problem is that we generally have only one model of what a family is supposed to look like.  A "real" family is seen as a married couple with 2-3 kids, a pet and a nice picket fence around their house.  Now, there's nothing exactly wrong with this model.  In fact, it's pretty close to what my own family is like.  But it becomes a problem when this model, or any single model, becomes the only acceptable definition for family.
            There's no question in my mind that the ideal situation for kids to grow up in is one in which both parents are present and both are involved in raising the children.  But I have known many single mothers and fathers who have done an excellent job of parenting by themselves.  On the other hand, I have been aware of far too many situations in which people have endangered themselves and their children by remaining in the same household with an abusive parent and spouse.  So if we really believe that the answer to all of our society's problems is for everyone to grow up with both their mother and father around, we are seriously deluding ourselves.
            The traditional model of "family" which is accepted by our society also leaves out so many people.  Couples who choose not to have children or are unable to do so are excluded from this

definition.  Society's definition of "family" simply adds to the frustration and pain which they already experience.
            Also, in a society based on the "nuclear family" model, those who remain single have no place, either.  I remember an encounter when a new acquaintance mistook a single friend of mine for my wife.  When I explained that, while I am married, I'm not married to this person, the response I got was, "Oh, then where does she belong?"  The assumption is that those who are not married, and I think particularly single women, have no place to belong because they are not seen as part of a family.
            Finally, the traditional model also fails to take into account the importance of extended family:  grandparents, aunts & uncles, nieces & nephews, cousins and so on.  All parents need a network of support beyond one another, and this has often come from the extended family.  When I was growing up, all of my uncles and aunts and cousins and grandparents lived within an hour's drive of where I lived.  We saw one another frequently.  There were large gatherings at least three times a year plus one-on-one Sunday afternoon visits about every month.  These relationships were very important to me as a child.
            But this sort of relationship with an extended family is one that my own children have experienced in the way I did.  Their aunts, uncles and cousins are scattered from Chicago to Los Angeles to Oregon.  And this is where I think the words of Jesus to his disciples on that Maundy Thursday night come into play.
            When Jesus declared to his disciples that they were his friends, when he commanded them to love one another as he had loved them, he instituted a different kind of model than the family model that we have embraced.  Jesus never rejected or abandoned his family.  His cousin, John the Baptist, prepared the way for his ministry.  His mother, Mary, was present when he began his ministry at the wedding in Cana.  And she was there when it came to an end on the cross at Calvary.  His brother, James, was the leader of the church in Jerusalem. 
            But none of these people are central characters in the gospel stories that take place during Jesus' ministry.  Instead we find his friends:  Peter, James and John; Mary, Martha and Lazarus; and Mary Magdalene, just to name a few.  These were his support group.  These were the people he depended on the most.  A rabbi or teacher in Jesus time was expected to get married and raise children.  But Jesus didn't follow the expected pattern of his day.  He broke a lot of rules and customs.  And one of changes he made was a shift from "family values" to "friendship values."
            Throughout his ministry, Jesus emphasized the importance of relationships and community.  And while he generally affirmed the role of the family, he also challenged the prevailing ideas that

excluded other sorts of relationships.  And it seems to me that we need to re-examine his teachings regarding what family and friendship are all about.  What I am suggesting, and what I think Jesus taught, is not that we take family any less seriously, but that we take friendship more seriously than we have in the past.

            In many churches today, the members rarely see one another for more than an hour or so on Sunday mornings.  They don't take the time to spend with one another in more informal settings.  There may be some who think that social gatherings aren't a necessary part of church, but I am convinced that there are some very good reasons for developing our friendships with one another.
            To begin with, in order to love God and to love people around the world, we must see that love modeled in our community of faith.  If we cannot model God's love in our relationships within the church, what good are all the wonderful things we do?  If we cannot even be true friends with those who sit next to us every Sunday, then all of our talk about justice loses much of its meaning.  For if we cannot develop deep friendships with those who are gathered here, how can we claim to love the poor and oppressed?  The Letter of I John is very clear:  whoever claims to love God, but does not love their fellow believers, is lying.  It is not possible to love an invisible God when one does not love the visible members of the faith community.(I John 4:20)
            Furthermore, we need the care and support of one another in order to carry out the various ministries with which we have been entrusted.  There will always be times when, even though we are

doing God's will, things will get tough.  We will meet opposition and apathy.  We will feel overwhelmed with the demands placed upon us.  We will encounter failure and face difficult choices.

It is in these times that our friendships can comfort and sustain us.  Friendship gives us courage and strength to carry on in our tasks.  I think that's what Jesus meant when he invited the disciples in our passage today to abide in his love so that his joy may be in them, and their joy may be complete.(vv. 9,11)
 Finally, if we are true friends to one another, others will be able to see this and will be more interested in becoming a part of our community of faith.  Here I think a note of caution must be sounded.  For true friendship is inclusive, not exclusive.  True friendship is open to growth and change. It doesn't say "These are my friends and no one else."  Rather, it says, "I am open to having friends and relating to a variety of people."  Now, no one can be on intimate terms with everyone.  But each of us should be able to list at least several others in the church among our close friends.  And that list should be able to change and grow as the church also changes and grows.
 These are all important reasons for being more intentional about being friends to one another. The problem, though, is that we aren't always sure how to work on these relationships.  Whose job is it to foster more social interaction?  Is that my job as pastor?  Is it the responsibility of the deacons or elders or church council?  Or is this why we have a social committee?
 The answer, I believe, is that it is the responsibility of each of us to be friendly to others.  It's true that the pastor, the lay leaders of the church, the social committee and other groups can help with setting up more formal structures that encourage interaction.  But ultimately we can't make anyone be friendly.  It is, in the end, up to each individual to take some initiative in reaching out.  Try giving someone a call whom you think might be able to use a friend.  Or try taking an even bigger risk and call someone when you feel like you need a friend yourself. 

            For it is in reaching out to others in their need, and in admitting to one another our own needs that true intimacy, true friendship develops. May we indeed abide in Christ and with one another that our joy may indeed be complete.