Scars & Doubts
John 20:19-29
Today we hear of Thomas the Doubter – the disciple Thomas is either vilified for his lack of faith or applauded for his scepticism. He is, in some sense, a candidate for patron saint of those who do not believe.
We know the story well. The other disciples tell Thomas that Jesus is alive and they have seen him. He has been told the women had seen Jesus as well. The story of Mary Magdalene at the tomb would have begun to take iconic shape amongst the hangers on.
Somehow, in the midst of all this, Thomas has been absent, not present for any of the sightings. Unlike all the other disciples he is not locked away in the upper room. Thomas was a pragmatist, a down to earth practical bloke who dealt with the circumstances as he saw them. Jesus promised much, upset the ruling clique, was crucified and died. That he knew to be the facts, and facts are facts. The rest, all a little fanciful, did not add up to his way of thinking. He went about putting his life back together, and those who wanted to sit locked up in a room waiting for a miracle could do so if they wanted to, but not him.
For some reason he returns, and when challenged, says I will only believe if I see it for myself. I need undeniable, verifiable, measurable and reportable proof. The rational mind of the pragmatist.
Richard Dawkins, Richard Hitchens and the God is dead protagonists have adopted the position of Thomas as dogma. For them the only proof is scientific. They need to be able to lay God on the trolley to be dissected by CSI, Bones and Numbers, and access the DNA which prove that God exists beyond any doubt. Then they will believe. I suspect the god they will end up with will be too small for this world and not very useful to them.
Thomas doesn’t believe.
• Perhaps he was so disappointed that he had been taken in by this charlatan that he was embarrassed to admit it; but it stops now. Perhaps in the back of his head he hears the words of parents and friends who said, ‘nothing good will come of this; look at the company he keeps; he’s just another political wannabe, etc.”
• Perhaps life had let him down just one time too many. Disappointments in relationships, failure in business, lack of achievement, death of someone close and more had occurred, and now this. If there is a God, where is he or she? Why do bad things keeping happening to me? Sorry, he says, am not being sucked in again.
• Perhaps he had such high hopes for this project and he is as shattered as his hopes are. He wanted so much for Jesus to be the Messiah, for the kingdom of God to come, for the oppressors to be gone, and then it all turned to dust. Jesus was picked up and crucified in such a short time and nothing happened. Jesus did nothing to prevent it, there was no miracle; God appeared to be absent, it was all too much.
Thomas doesn’t believe for all the reasons we don’t – disappointment (life has not lived up to its promises), absence of God (where is God when needed?), the presence of evil in the world (there can be no God if bad things happen), unsupported expectations (God will give us EVERYTHING WE WANT, and doesn’t), and the voices of others, the tapes from our parents, our friends, our family which consistently play as the soundtrack to our lives.
Yet when he is confronted, not by stories or rumours, but by the personal presence of Christ, all this falls away. Like Mary at the tomb who recognises Jesus because Jesus recognises her, Thomas recognises Jesus by the way Jesus recognises him. Jesus takes his hand and places it in the scars. (There is a whole series of sermons in that act alone!)
He confronts him with the stark, horrific truth – the scars where the nails and the sword that pierced his side went in, the scars from the crown of thorns and the floggings. Jesus was no airbrushed magazine cover; he was physically a scarred man. The truth was, and never is, easy to view.
Several years ago I visited a morgue in the Mt Isa hospital. I had gone there to inspect it for registration purposes. On entering the small airtight room I became aware of the smell of too many deaths. Along one wall was a small bay of cool room doors where the bodies were kept. Along another wall were containers in which bloody and torn clothes had been placed. A stark white light illuminated the trolley in the centre of the room where the body of an older aboriginal man lay. An eighteen-wheel road train had run him over while he was sleeping on the road. His body was broken yet his face was untouched. The truth of the inequality and racism that lives in our country, and of which I too had been apart of, was there stark, brutal and compelling. It was nothing like watching CSI on tv.
This is what confronted Thomas - the truth, the truth about Jesus and the truth about himself. Not just his lack of faith in what he had been hearing, but his lack of faith at a deep level in Jesus and in himself. Had he, by his thoughts and actions, been complicit in the death of Jesus? Had he only gone missing after the event, or like the other disciples, had he gone missing earlier? Was he in fact any less complicit in the death of Jesus than Judas? Was his pragmatism a front for his doubts about himself?
Watching THE wedding on Friday evening and talking about it afterwards I realised the exploitation of lives is not just the domain of them, the TV moguls, the gossip mongers. No. Whether it is the royal wedding, the asylum seeker riots, the Japanese disaster, the war on terror, our participation through watching and continuing to watch voyeuristically maintains the exploitation.
In the 1979 film Being There, Peter Sellers plays Chance the gardener who has never left the estate of his wealthy employer until the old man dies. Chance is intellectually challenged and spends all his spare time watching TV. He meets a wealthy politically motivated couple who take him in. Over time, his banal repeating of sitcom lines makes him sound profound and he rises to the top as Chancey Gardener, yet he remains what he is. The watcher becomes the watched and is exploited by those who now watch him, yet they fail to see the truth.
Jesus confronts Thomas with his presence in such a way it shakes him out of his self-imposed doubt. Jesus recognised Mary by using her name and saying it in a way which was unique to her, here he recognises Thomas and is recognised by him in a way unique to Thomas, through his doubts about his faith and about himself.
The questions we live with will be the means by which we discover life. Our doubts, if embraced with integrity and honesty, over time will strip away the fronts we hide behind, the excuses we give, the false self we have become. The Divine will appear in these questions and confront us with the truth about ourselves in ways particular to us.
The stories of Mary and Thomas prepare us to come to the Eucharist to be confronted by the risen Christ who wears the scars of doubt. Allow this moment to be the moment when you believe in him as he believes in you.
******************************************
The recent you tube video of the bullied schoolboy retaliating and throwing the aggressor onto the concrete path has created somewhat of a media storm, if not in fact, media bullying. Two rival stations bullying each other to capture ratings success out of the trauma of two teenage boys, one 12 years of age. I am not sure which is worse, the video itself or the exploitation of the boys by others.
Or is it how we have vilified one of the boys while making the other an unlikely saint – elevating him to the status of a crusading knight rescuing all those that are bullied from the clutches of the evil ones who relentlessly bully them every hour of every day. Right must win out and we attach value to the person who seems to be righteously angry. Depending upon your perspective, we either see this as a good thing or not. Often, because of experience, philosophy, values or our own worldview, we side with one against the other.
What does that say about our society and us? Are we that latently angry and bullied ourselves we need to side with violence in its response to violence? Or is it how we always deal with situations – acting out is not just for teenagers!
The recent furore over banners at an anti-carbon tax rally points to the latent anger in our society, which is simply looking for a place to be expressed. Alcohol fuelled violence is another example of an excuse being used to do what is inherently within us – be violent.
Maybe, as James Hillman has written, we have a terrible love of war – in all its forms.
The woman Jesus meets at the well is there because of violence – the violence of innuendo and isolation because of her life history. The truth about her life history is a little hazy; we know she has had 5 husbands and that she is now living with someone-else. We do not know why she had 5 husbands but her community has made an assumption and ostracised her as a result. Did she leave them, did they leave her, or did they simply die? No matter; she is not fit to gather water in the evening at the same time as the other women. She comes to the well at lunchtime. Bigotry is violence too.
She is also ostracised by birth – she is from Samaria. Racism is another form of violence. By dint of birth she is deemed as not appropriate for polite society. She is not allowed the normal courtesies that others are. She may have come to accept these as just how things were but she is acutely aware of her heritage and, with some feeling, reminds Jesus that even the dogs (outcasts, illegal refugees, Samarians) are welcome to gather up the crumbs that drop from the table.
The recent Facebook comments by soldiers when referring to locals in Afghans highlights how this can arise. We dehumanise people so we can make them our enemies, our labelling of them hides a greater violence: those who we dehumanise we can shoot and kill. It is what we train soldiers to do. A comment from a reader of a daily paper said: “So it is ok to shoot to kill but not ok to call them names?”
She is ostracised by gender. She is a woman and while the disciples do not chastise Jesus directly, John notes what they were thinking – ‘Why are you speaking with her?’ Men were not to speak to women, particularly women with her reputation in the public. She was to maintain her place, lower her eyes and slink away. This conversation was not to occur – at least not between these two. Even in our enlightened world single mums, women who choose not to marry find the world, if not vocally, silently making judgements. Women have still to reach parity with men in the wages market and there are fewer women at the top of the business world than should be the case for 50% of our well educated society.
Some commentators raise a case for making a ‘saint’ out of the woman because of her conversation and seeming insight. Yet, like the furore about the bullying victim, we do so at our peril. She was not special, just ordinary. She was an ordinary woman going about her ordinary life and dealing with the life she found herself living. Her responses are not the product of deep insight or special intuition, they come from the frustration and emotion dwelling within her and found their expression with in this encounter. She is orthodox in her understanding and tells it as it is to this stranger.
Jesus makes no judgements, he does not chastise her, he does not tell her to go and fix up her life, he does not call her a sinner or move away from her – he accepts that her life is her life and she is doing the best she can with it. It is not for him to make her a moral example as many who read this passage do. Jesus engages her in ordinary conversation using well-known images (living water for example = spring water that never dries up) and the orthodox viewpoints of society (that Samaritans and adulteresses are outside the kingdom of God). Out of that encounter she reflects on the significance of his words and his personal relationship with her and comes to the conclusion that he is different, special, unusual – not automatically saying he is the Messiah but asking the question: “He cannot be the Messiah, can he?”
It is the question, which becomes the catalyst for the rest of the society to seek and decide on Jesus.
‘It is no longer because of what you said that we believe, for we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this is truly the Saviour of the world.’
We are not told whether the woman herself actually came to that conclusion personally – we can only assume so if we want to – I prefer to think she lived for some time with that question and came to her own conclusions sometime later. Note also that it wasn’t the Jews who answered her question but other Samaritans. Some believed her because of what she said – so maybe she wasn’t as outcast as some may have her be. Others tested out her thesis for themselves and arrived at an affirmative answer.
What does this say to us? That in our society violence comes in many forms and that love expressed in the ordinary actions and moments of life changes violence, not further violence. It reminds us to deal with the violence that lives within us ourselves and not to find ways to express it through the violence of others. It reminds us that our assumptions are often wrong and that we are to remember as Plato said, “Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a harder battle.”
There is little that is miraculous in what Jesus does in this story for what he does is validate the experience of life in the other and open the door of hope within her. We are challenged to do that in all our relationships and interactions with others in the every day ordinariness of life. And it begins today
John 4:5-42
Matthew 4:18-22 – Jesus’ Selection Criteria
30 January 2011
Sometimes the gospel stories can resemble instant porridge – all the ingredients are in one place, just add water and bingo, 90 seconds later you have porridge. Sometimes it seems as if the story being told happened in a few short moments. That instantly Peter, James and John met Jesus they abandoned their fishing boats and walked off into the sunset like the 3 Amigos.
Matthew provides us with a pericope – a story that contains all the necessary information to tell the story, but cuts out all the unnecessary detail. Like a movie with a complex story line leaves out much of the detail to give us the key story, Matthew just tells us what happens, not what had been happening to get to this place.
I would suggest that this story took place over a lengthy period of time. Peter, James and John would have been aware of Jesus, would have heard him speak in the synagogue, would have been aware of the traditional teachings and the Jewish stories. Peter’s brother Andrew was a disciple of John the Baptist who surely would have talked to his brother about Jesus. They would have analysed and discussed amongst themselves this new teacher, and would have been digesting their response to him. What was required of them in response to what they heard?
Likewise Jesus would have been aware of Peter at least. He was not one to simply pick up people without good reason. He knew of Phillip, he would have been aware of Andrew and had earmarked him to be one of the team, so he would be looking closely at Peter. He was a gatherer of men and women and astutely aware of the type of people he wanted around him. He was an early church recruitment consultant and knew his business.
This was no random moment, no rash decision.
Jesus - What seems like a rash decision isn’t
Jesus wasn’t in the habit of making rash decisions. Jesus was an observer – he watches and evaluates – he collects people. It is his way. His selection of key people followed, and follows, a selection criteria which, it seems to me, to be same today. People challenged by Jesus to join him in bringing in the kingdom of God are not insignificant people, they are not weak or intellectually soft, they are not easily lead or gyped.
Jesus isn’t one for instant porridge either – he works with those he calls over a long period of time, slowly inviting and helping them to clarify their position so that when they make their decision to become fishers of men it is no idle decision.
In one of his parables he talks of the difference between those who make quick decisions and those who make long lasting well thought out decisions in the parable of the sower and the seeds. Those who make quick emotionally charged decisions may flourish for a moment but wither and disappear, while those who work through the process are the seeds which fall on well prepared soil. They last.
So what is Jesus selection criteria?
To answer this question, lets look at the men he recruited.
Peter James & John – What seems like a rash decision isn’t.
What type of men were Peter, James and John?
Ordinary people with ordinary experience – they were in touch with life at its most basic. Fishermen – career fishermen – fishing was the economy of that part of the country – everyone relied on fishing for their survival. They were older men – 30+, these were no emotionally charged teenagers who are off to convert the world. These are experienced older men – 30+ - well aware of their responsibilities and the consequences of their decision. It is not a spur of the moment action at all.
Educated – in the world (as noted above) and in spiritual matters. While they sometimes seem not to get what Jesus is about doesn’t mean they are dumb on spiritual matters. They are simply responding from what they have been taught and Jesus provides a whole new way of seeing they have to get used to. They have a foundation on which to build a new way of looking. Education forms the platform on which new experiences and ideas can be evaluated,assimilated and acted upon.
Responsible and with responsibilities – business owners, employers, businessmen. They had responsibilities and this move to follow Jesus would have required planning and leadership to ensure that all who relied on them were appropriately cared for. The businesses went on, they needed an income on the road, their families needed an income and so did their employees. While they may have turned their backs on their nets, their nets were not idly thrown aside. They were kept in work by those they delegated the responsibility to.
Family Support – this decision wasn’t theirs alone, their families were involved – their father, in the case of James and John, wives if there were any, and their children, the wider family network they cared for – all had to have been supportive of this decision. Otherwise there was no going. Unless all were adequately cared for and involved to ensure the business and family responsibilities were shared, there was no way they would have left.
Religious – They recognised Jesus, not as a revolutionary leader, but as a spiritual leader. They were Jewish men. They had synagogue responsibilities and they would have been well schooled in the Torah and in their faith. They were Sabbath men. Matthew sets out to show us that those who followed Jesus were orthodox Jews and that the Messianic Jews, who he is writing on behalf of, are the authentic Jewish synagogue, not the Torah synagogue. This was a battle that the messianic Jews, synagogue Jews who accepted Jesus as the messiah ultimately lost, leaving us with the traditional Jewish synagogue.
Leaders – They had teams of men working for them who they left in control of the businesses. They were leaders, men who lead others. They were not followers. They were men who lead others in their community with authority and respect. They were people suitable to lead others in the church Jesus was founding and it is no wonder Peter is given that task. It was one he had trained for in his life before discipleship.
Here we have six criteria against which these men were assessed over a lengthy period of time. This was no rash decision on behalf of either the he men or Jesus. They were chosen because they were up to the task.
For each of us, it is well to remember that Jesus invites us to join him only after he has watched and schooled us through life in the skills and attributes he seeks for a fisher of men. We are not here by mistake – we are called with and for a purpose – we have something to offer the kingdom of God and although we like Peter may fail and fall we too are to be the foundation on which God’s kingdom is built. It is our calling.
