Presumption & Prejudice: Sunday Readings 14 B (Y-not question the Sunday Readings)

The question is asked: Do we need the institution? Do we need organised religion? At the very least, this can be said with confidence: In the absence of better guidance from knowledgeable leaders, christians today have to launch into the deep, alone or in small groups, with that trust in the Spirit which is the only touchstone of true spirituality.

Thanks, Tony, for another thought-provoking reflection. Amidst all the disturbing and negative news of recent days I have found myself pondering how we "move forward" in positive and affirming ways? I was particularly moved by this line at the end of Tom McMahon's commentary on Wednesday:

"Revenge" will be the battle cry and even though 7% of the clergy are thought to have offended the whole crew of the Bark of Peter is branded and must go ... and ... when having accomplished this task victims will find that vengeance is not the healing answer to their pain.

I think Tom McMahon is correct. No matter how many grand juries, royal commissions, parliamentary inquiries and other legal procedures take place around the world the critical issue we face is "the healing of God's people" — the healing of society. How do we bring that about?

I don't want to downplay the importance of "grand juries, royal commissions, parliamentary inquiries and other legal procedures" — they have their place and ARE important (especially in helping frame the future "culture" and "law" within which society lives out its destiny — but, at the end of each day, the really important thing is our own "peace of heart" and equilibrium within our world. How do we help bring that about — for ourselves, and also for the people who society abuses and leaves in the gutter to fend for themselves?

...to be continued

Brian Coyne
[Editor & Publisher]

Thank you Tony for yet again giving us a fresh (and somewhat challenging!) insight into a well-worn Gospel passage. This particular passage, though well-known, must also be one of the most puzzling sections of the Gospels. You would expect that Jesus' former neighbours and his kinsfolk woud be proud of their local boy made good, or at the very least, if they are offended by him, it would be because he said or did something offensive! Instead, they object to his wisdom, and to the amazing deeds of power that he is capable of - qualities that you would expect would arouse admiration, not hostility and anger. Puzzling texts like this can, of course, give rise to many different interpretations. Tony has given us one, and while I am impressed by his reasoning, I would take an entirely different view.

At one level, the townspeople/ Jesus' relatives are simply astonished that someone who is so ordinary - someone who grew up among them in an ordinary family, and worked at an ordinary trade - has turned out to be a remarkable holy man, a man of outstanding wisdom and almost supernatural powers. Quite mind-boggling! Yet the question they ask, about where these great gifts came from, contains its own answer: it is in ordinary life, among ordinary people and doing ordinary things, that God can be experienced. You don't need to spend all your time in the Temple, or on a mountain top, or anywhere like that, to encounter the divine and to let your own life be filled with the divine.

There's an even deeper level of meaning here, I think. Jesus is a living example to the townsfolk of what they could potentially be, because they also have the presence of God within them. So, they resent Jesus not because he has become "above" them, but because his very being challenges them to realise what they themselves could do and be, if only they would believe. We are told that Jesus did not do any "mighty deeds" there, not because he objected to their reaction, but because he could not. He was so powerful, but he was rendered powerless if others were not able or willing to cooperate with him. Surely this is still the same today?

All this reminds me of that inspiring quotation from Marianne Williamson (sometimes incorrectly attributed to Nelson Mandela). I hope I won't be breaking any copyright rules if I quote it here, because it is actually a small part of a much larger book:

“Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourselves, Who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, fabulous? Actually, who are you not to be? You are a child of God. Your playing small does not serve the world. There is nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won't feel insecure around you. We are all meant to shine, as children do. We were born to make manifest the glory of God that is within us. It's not just in some of us; it's in everyone. And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others"

http://skdesigns.com/internet/articles/quotes/williamson/our_deepest_fear/

Cathy Taggart

I splash in my poetry puddle
and try to keep God amused. - James Broughton

There is something in this Gospel reading that needs untangling here.  Jesus comes back to his home town.  Those to whom he was a stranger were impressed by the wisdom of his teaching.  Those to whom he was not a stranger, those who knew him previously as Josh the carpenter, the son of Joe and Mary, were not at all impressed.  Indeed, their reaction was strong enough to be described as feeling offended.

They would certainly have been amazed to hear that, a few centuries later, his followers would be proclaiming his divinity, announcing that he was 'one in being with the Father' and being described as the Son of God.

But why did they feel offended?

I'm glad you picked up on this too Cathy, when you say

You would expect that Jesus' former neighbours and his kinsfolk woud be proud of their local boy made good, or at the very least, if they are offended by him, it would be because he said or did something offensive!'

They had known Jesus as a young man, known his family.  Was the contrast between that young man, and the man who now came before them as a teacher, just too great for them?  The problem is, we can only guess.  Seeing the following that he was attracting, perhaps they saw him as the leader of a cult, of which they wanted no part.

In today's world there have been a number of very skillful spiritual gurus or teachers who have attracted thousands of seekers who have found  inspiration and encouragement for the journey.  And many of those teachers, particularly those recognized as teachers within their own country, have apparently been genuinely good people,  I say apparently, because often we know only the public face of a teacher.  What is happening with CSA issues, with the hidden lives of a few priests whom we held to be spiritual exemplars, is an example of this.

In recent years there have been revelations of scandals associated with some of the 'celebrity' gurus, when it has become obvious that these teachers have not been the enlightened sages they seemed to be.  This has lead to great deal of disillusion and cynicism towards living spiritual teachers among both spiritual seekers and the general population.

While I would not for one moment suggest that Jesus' private face differed significantly from his public one, the question remains as to why those who knew him well could not have faith in his teaching.  The most plausible reason I can think of was his encouraging men (and women?)  to leave home and follow him in a radical reorientation that would make the Kingdom of Heaven the focus of their lives - whether that kingdom was recognized as an earthly or spiritual one.  I suppose it would be like having a son coming home and encouraging brothers and sisters, and other members of the local community, to join him in a frugal, wandering lifestyle with a religious cult of which he was the leader!

But as you say, Tony,

'The start of the journey of faith for every least one of us can only be in leaving, in going out. Leaving is up to us: the place of our arrival is in God's hands. The only mistake we can make is to refuse to leave, to sit tight, holding fast to our traditions and protecting our accomplishments.'

On a deeper level, this reading throws up questions about the nature of the relationship between a spiritual teacher and one who looks for spiritual guidance.  Such a relationship is not a social one.  If it is to be effective, it must to be a spiritual one only.  If it dissipates into a social relationship, or intensifies into an actual sexual relationship, then it loses effectiveness on a spiritual plane.

With the current betrayals of trust by a few priests, how can we ourselves know who to trust in this delicate matter of spiritual guidance?

Tony, you offer one solution,

'In the absence of better guidance from knowledgeable leaders, christians today have to launch into the deep, alone or in small groups, with that trust in the Spirit which is the only touchstone of true spirituality.'

But, as one with deep gratitude towards those who have given me spiritual guidance along the way,  I don't think that relationship of spiritual guidance can be effectively replaced by 'going it alone' or even by a small group, unless it is under the leadership of a spiritually wise person.

I would be interested to hear what others think about this, what has been their experience.
Sue

Thank you Tony!
Here is my tuppence worth......

“He was amazed at their lack of faith.”
He was not able to perform any mighty deed there, because the people did not trust him, had no faith in him.
So ‘mighty deeds’ seem to only be possible when there is great faith and trust, when the people really want them.
In this case the people did not trust him.
They were not open to new ideas for whatever reasons.
In another message Helen provided a link to an article by Ron Rolheiser entitled “Labels and Truth”
The people were busily making judgments about Jesus that could well be seen to be labelling and that got in the way of hearing or seeking ‘truth’.

So ‘mighty deeds’ are possible when we commit ourselves to values that Jesus taught; when we are open to change in light of these values; when we seek out ways of applying those values in modern life.
The challenge then becomes what relevant actions we can take, should take.
I once attended a retreat a long time ago. It pointed to a faith based on 3 cornerstones:
Prayer – Study – Action
This reading seems to point us to the importance of being open to further learning, the search for understanding and making sense of our lives. If we are not open to learning then we are living static lives and we vegetate!
So we renew and refresh our intentions to seek a better understanding of where we are, where society is heading and how creation is being fulfilled.
I also like the ‘See – Judge – Act’ method of reviewing where we are and where we need to go. LINK, LINK
It is a means of responding to the needs of our times in light of Gospel values.
We are challenged to act.