There is an old adage among trial lawyers that goes like this: "If you have the facts, argue the facts. If you have the law, argue the law. If you don't have either the facts or the law, stand up and pound on the table." It is another way of saying that if you can't win a case on the merits-- either of the facts or the law-- then best shot is just to distract, confuse and divert the attention of the judge or jury. Make the case about who is the better table-pounder, or who shouts the loudest, or about the race or ethnicity or appearance of your opponent or your opponent's lawyer. Try your best not to let the discussion focus on what really matters, where you are weak. That sort of thing is exactly what is going on in today's Gospel (Jn 7: 40- 53). People are disagreeing on who Jesus is, and the Pharisees send guards out to arrest Him. The guards hear what Jesus is saying, and that changes their minds about Him, so they don't arrest Him. The Pharisees complain that the guards haven't done their job, and one of the Pharisees, Nicodemus, takes the side of the guards, saying: "Does out law condemn a man before it first hears him and finds out what he is doing?" In other words, Nicodemus is suggesting that the guards shouldn't be criticized for informing themselves about Jesus and His teaching before arresting Him. You shouldn't condemn someone before you know what that person is doing, he says. Nicodemus presents a tough argument to the other Pharisees. Of course, we would say, you have to know the facts before jumping to a conclusion. The Pharisees seem to see that as well, because their reaction is to change the subject, and to attack Nicodemus as someone from Galilee. They don't say that Nicodemus is wrong on the merits-- that they have informed themselves of the facts or that the facts don't matter-- but they stand up and pound on the table. "You're from Galilee," they say. The fact that Nicodemus is or is not from Galilee is completely irrelevant to the argument, but the Pharisees hope to put Nicodemus on the defensive and change the topic to one where they have a better chance of winning the argument. One of the great things about spending time with the Scriptures is that you see things people did thousands of years ago and realize that folks play the same games today. For that reason, the Scriptures can give us powerful insights into what is going on around us and how we ought to respond. When we see people doing what the Pharisees did in today's reading-- avoiding the real discussion by attacking the person making the argument, by mockery or name-calling or attacking the person's motive or affiliations-- we might think back to today's reading and realize that tactic is just what people do who can't win on the merits. So we might watch out for that technique. And we might think about whether we fall into the trap of arguing like the Pharisees did. I have friends whose knee-jerk reaction when confronted with facts or studies is to ask about the source-- was it a Democrat or Republican, rich or poor, white or black, young or old, male or female. When provided with the information, my friends then resort to saying: "Well, that's what liberals always say," or something like that. The hope is that the conversation will then turn to whether or not "liberals always say" whatever it is that is being discussed, and we'll go down that rabbit-hole and never come back to the topic at hand. Sadly, it often works. This sort of thing is a form of table-pounding that is beneath us as people to whom God gave brains, and the requirement that we use them. And, it is the way folks talked themselves into crucifying Christ. We might be alert for it in our public, and private, discourse, and resist the temptation to use it ourselves. Putting ourselves in the company of the Pharisees is not where we want to be.