Being vs. Becoming

What's the difference in being and becoming? For instance, what's the difference in being an electrician and becoming an electrician? With 'being,' you're already there; you already are. With 'becoming,' you're headed that way, and when you get there, you will be something new.
Being is static, unchanging; becoming is moving toward something.
Jesus was God, and he became a person.
We are people, and Jesus has given us the ability to become children of God.
Jesus moved toward us and reached us; once he got here, he began helping us move toward God.

Popeye

Let's consider Popeye for a minute. You know, Popeye the Sailorman... What is his philosophy of existence?

I yam what I yam

Popeye and God think of themselves in a similar way. Moses once asked God what his name was, and God said,

I AM WHO I AM.

Verbs in Hebrew are different than in English. In English, we're very concerned with when something happened (past, present, future); Hebrew is more interested in whether the action is finished or not. So "I am who I am" could be translated "I will be who I will be" or some other combination of tenses that imply continuing action. God's name may also mean "I am who I have been" "I am who I will be" "I will be who I have been" "I will be who I am"
In the Middle Ages, philosophers and theologians got very interested in the idea of perfection and whether God changes. For the most part, they decided that, if God is perfect, God can't change. So, they figured that God always has been who God always will be. You can't improve on perfection.
But we're not God, although it's unclear whether we know that, from the way people talk about themselves. "It's hard to improve on perfection" – I've seen that on T-shirts and truck windows. Actually, such a statement is ridiculous. Really? You're just like God? For us to wave off a call to change, for us to say 'Hey, I am what I am' is not even close to a valid comparison.
We can change; we need to change.
Instead of "I am what I am," it's much more appropriate for us to say
"I'm not who I wanna be and
I'm not who I'm gonna be,
but, thank God, I'm not who I was."

Hamlet

Let's change characters. When you hear 'Hamlet' what's the first thing you think of? Give me a line.

To be or not to be: that is the question...

This is another angle from which to consider being.
Hamlet is definitely emo; but he's the star of a tragedy, so... And this is his darkly-shining moment – wrestling internally to figure his way forward in an exquisite, impossible situation. He only sees two options – to be or not to be. Both bad choices – to continue as he is and suffer or to end his life, not knowing what waits on the other side of death.
But just because he only sees two options doesn't mean there only ARE two options. His problem is a lack of imagination. He can imagine only being like he is (which doesn't take any imagination at all, since he is like he is) or not being. And actually, he can't imagine not being, which scares him, so he decides to stick being as he is, even though he doesn't like it.
One of the many angles he doesn't consider is whether he or his situation, or anyone else in it, might change.
God is in the business of transformation. You are what you are, but this doesn't have to determine who you become. You have already changed in countless ways to become someone neither you nor anyone else could imagine when you first began to be.

Human 'Beans'

When your parents discovered they were going to have a baby, you were probably about the size of a bean.

Who were you then?

Who have you become?

Who was Jesus when he was the size of a bean, growing in Mary's womb?
Who did he become?

Remember the difference in being and becoming?
'Being,' you are. 'Becoming,' you're getting there, and when you get there, you will be something new. Because of Jesus, who we are doesn't have to determine who we become. With his help, we can become something new.

Amen.