Full circle (Y-not question the Sunday Readings)

by Ynot , Monday, January 30, 2012, 09:50 (481 days ago) @ Sue

Sue, this morning you bring us full circle. Thanks. I was going to write a paragraph to round it off, but you have closed your post with that very paragraph, well, almost. I have one word to add, but first this matter of the scribes.

I wrote:

"The scribes were scholars whose task was to explain and clarify the text of scripture, comparing one interpretation with another."

And I called it a necessary and noble profession, and claimed we cannot conclude from this passage that Mark is knocking the Scribes. Two points: a) Whatever criticism is levelled at the scribes and pharisees later, we should not assume that it is meant in this episode. b) I wonder why we allow ourselves to fall into this trap. Is it that we secretly enjoy a feeling of superiority that Our Man is better than those stupid academics? The kind of 'authority' that was recognised in Jesus is not inborn. It has to be developed through experience, study, reflection, testing. To me the image of Jesus as such a one is far more engaging than the image of a born genius whose 'authority' was not the fruit of human work but an endowment from birth. But all that said, there's nothing to be despised about the scholars who slog away at their learning craft, and through steady grind do grow in 'authority'.

One of the great theologians of the pre-Vatican II era was Garigou-Lagrance OP. He knew about this. Every year without fail he would tell his class: 'The young professor teaches more than he knows; in middle age he teachers all that he knows; in old age he teaches what is useful to the students.' And Dr Teresa of Avila said: if you have a choice of directors, between a pious one and a learned one, choose the learned one!

And your concluding paragraph that says it all:

Jesus didn't teach like the scribes, from books and much learning, but from personal experience, probably the mystical experience and metanoia coming out of his baptism in the Jordan, and his reflection on that, in his forty days in the desert.  The result was that, when he opened his mouth to speak, people could sense that he knew what he was talking about.  He didn't need others to tell him the core meaning of scripture passages.  He knew. He had experienced the meaning.  Moreover, his way of life and the sort of person he was, showed that he genuinely believed what he was teaching.  He walked the talk.

May I just add that in this context perhaps a better word for exousia today would be conviction. Not the superficial conviction of the young, but the deep conviction of the one who has looked at life from both sides and tasted it, sweet and sour.

Now back to the beginning. Englishwoman originally wondered whether the 'authority' Jesus manifested came from the being of the Father or from the being of the Son:

EX - out (from the midst) of; OUSIA - being.

But whose "being"? Is it Jesus' own personal being - the resource of his understanding and character? Or is it the primary Being ie God?

Now in a way it doesn't matter, does it. But once this theological question is raised, we should look for a theological answer. It seems to me that the source of this exousia, in theological terms, is neither the Father nor the Son, but the Spirit. This is the whole intention of the gospels: The Spirit comes upon Jesus in the Jordan, leads him into the wilderness, impels him to speak, and is experienced by the Caphernaum people as convincing power in his words so that even the unclean spirits obey him.

It is also the primary thrust of the New Testament writers to teach that this Spirit is in us too, with that same power. Paul in various places speaks of this. When we allow the Spirit to be in us we also will embody that 'power'.

And there must always be a final question left hanging in the air: Do I trust this word? Do I trust this spirit?

'TonyL
"A post is a free gift, and it will go where it pleases."'