Thinking and Believing Today

 ‘…Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have come to believe … (John 20:29)

John 20:19-31 (Year C: Easter +2)

(Sometimes this is called ‘Low Sunday’ after the ‘High’ of last Easter Sunday. In some traditions this Sunday is referred to as ‘Mercy Sunday’ marking a special celebration of Jesus’ mercy.)

‘Thinking’ and ‘believing’ go together. However, since the age of enlightenment people have pushed the boundaries of thinking and human reason to a point where, in the fullness of time, and here in Europe belief in a supernatural being has been relegated to the domain of private opinion and choice.  This is a pity because ‘reason’ and ‘faith’ can and do complement each other. As pointed out last Sunday the act of, and will to, believe that Jesus rose from the dead and is now alive among us and within the hearts and minds of each one is central to Christian belief and practice. Without this cornerstone our faith would be in vain and we, of all people, would be most to be pitied (1 Corinthians 15:19).

The evangelist, John, is about to finish his book with a bang. In the space of one half of the second last chapter (or was it the last until chapter 21 was added?) we hear about the resurrection, the primary role of women in witnessing and telling of the resurrection, the struggles of doubting Thomas, the call to mercy and a ministry of forgiveness, the sending out on mission, the few words spoken by Jesus in the period after his resurrection and, finally, the statement of purpose in this gospel of John:

Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book. But these are written so that you may come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through believing you may have life in his name.

‘that through believing’ we might have life in the name of Jesus. That’s it. Grace, Response through faith and eternal life in the time to come as well as here and now. Very simple! But, does any of this make sense in a 21^st century world someone asks? 

Making sense of if today

We need to enter into a respectful and learning attitude towards the world that has, in many ways, moved beyond the core beliefs and practices of orthodox Christianity (taking the word orthodox in its widest application to all Christians who profess Jesus as both Saviour and as God).  We are, after all, asked to love God with all our faculties including our minds (Luke 10:27):

You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbour as yourself.

With all our mind and not just part of it …. Tragically, some Christian folk distrust the mind as something separate and subordinate along with that other untrustworthy thing called the body. Yet, all of these faculties, which form part of the whole are to be cherished and used lovingly to bring glory to God and freedom to humanity. Instead we fall into the trap of incomplete human development. A form of this is a type of belief and practice that is born out of fear and ignorance. When confronted with a world of ideas, relationships and evidence we may retreat into the ‘certainties of our age’. Now the certainties of our age can take many forms. I will refer to only three of them that seem particularly relevant to this Sunday’s reading:

• Scientific reductionism
• Biblical literalism
• Absolute and unqualified ecclesial infallibility across the board.

Ecclesial infallibilism

Let’s get the third one of the way first.  Finding solace and refuge in religion many a ‘convert’ elevates ‘mother church’ or some leader in same to a pedestal and status that is not consistent with faith as living, growing and personal relationship.  Put another way, ‘the church teaches’ or ‘the pope says’ are convenient ways of avoiding painful, sometimes bitter but always fruitful struggles on the part of thoughtful and grounded disciples. The hard work of thinking through, reviewing, changing, adapting but above all listening to others and to one’s heart and mind does not come easy for some of us.

Biblical literalism serves a very similar role to that of ecclesial infallibilism – it elevates some version or other of sacred scripture to a position of exact, legal and rational interpretation that admits of no living tradition, experience and depth. Everything is set in stone (sometimes literally) so that each one must follow a blueprint and believe in the exact same formulations. Now, unity of doctrine and practice on the ‘essentials’ is a good and necessary thing any time in the history of church. However, we need to go back to the sources with informed minds and open hearts. Even ‘the devil can cite scripture’ as William Shakespeare has it in The Merchant of Venice.  The sad reality today whether in Lahore, London or Limerick is that this insight of Shakespeare is very true. Of course, any serious scholar will quickly spot that the biblical literalists are selective in which passages or extracts they cite to advance their particular theological project or schema.

And, then, there are the scientific reductionists. These come in different forms and guises from the half-informed scientist or would-be-scientist as well as the people who live and move in a very incomplete world lacking in trust and imagination.  In many ways classical scientific reductionism is dead and along with it 20^th century ‘scientific socialism’ (the very term insults both socialism and science).  Thanks to science we are, perhaps, more aware than was the case in previous generations that our knowledge is limited and that there is much that we do not know or cannot know.

One characteristic binds together the ecclesial infallibilists, the biblical literalists and the scientific reductionists together is fear and deep insecurity masquerading as certainty. They know they are right (and by inference others are wrong) because they have it on high authority from a book, a pronouncement or a some scientific tract – so they claim. However, the pretenders to certainty remain locked behind closed doors as the 10 disciples were (where was Thomas?) because they had not still met the Risen one and had not yet fully received his Holy Spirit for the mission at hand.

A 21^st century Thomas

In a way Thomas – who was chided for lack of faith – was a very pre-modern character for us today.  He didn’t take the word of his ecclesial comrades because he wanted to ‘see the evidence’ for himself. Neither was he prepared to entrust himself to some biblical certainty in the prophets.  Ultimately, it was for Thomas a personal encounter with the living Christ – but crucially in the company, life and mutual love of others –  that made all the difference. And though we may not be able to see or touch or reason in the way our ancestors in faith did we are no less vulnerable to the challenge of faith in a world crying out for the risen life of Jesus.  Grounded in the here and anchored to the present moment we, too, can taste this risen life to such an extent that we cry out ‘My Lord and my God’. There we will find that peace (v. 19), that joy (v. 20) and that freedom (v. 23) that stands out in this story of the resurrection.