"Teacher, by saying this you are insulting us too." (Lk 11:45)
To be insulted by another man, albeit God, in your own house or in public. And not only once, but routinely insulted: "Woe to you!", ignoring traditions in Law such as dietary or hygienic rules as a dinner guest. A mad man? Defiant and rebellious? Today we have the protection of state and law, but even so at the least a black eye might be the result of our perceived insult.
But could Christ or St. Paul reveal God's new covenant in no other way? "You, O man, are without excuse, every one of you who passes judgment" (Rom 2:1), St. Paul tells the Romans. The Dutch have an expression that tall trees gather the most wind, which implies the same as 'the bigger they are, the harder they fall'. Couldn't the message be circulated with more political correctness? Perhaps less accusational and more therapeutic, sensitive, humble, taught silently through example, etc? The Buddha taught some very unappealing lessons and did so for many, many years. He taught by personal example. If he did not like a gift (anger), he did not accept it. To me, anger is fear and loss of control. Sow anger and insult and reap anger and revenge, no? In the East, anger is something not publicly displayed as it is seen as a weakness and inappropriate. In the West, anger is rife. Throughout the Bible, old and new, there is anger, wrath, open threats of punishment to hostile crowds, nations put to the sword, etc. It makes me think that public stoning must have been as common as drawing water from the well under that Middle Eastern midday sun.
Sometimes a father must punish his children, even if his anger is more show than real. And then, the anger may only be the regret that in his role he is forced to hurt the ones he loves; just punishment for misbehaviour. The father usually has a long term view; the child, short term. In this, i would say that the Christ would have the long term view for his Father's children.
Yet, Jesus' earthly life ends with torture, public humiliation and Crucifixion. Standing among the wild crowds along the via Dolorosa, one would think that rabbi certainly didn't win many friends. In some ways he was like the Pharisees that he accuses in today's reading as being so rigid with their Laws. Jesus is just as uncompromising with his new Law, his Gospel, the need to pay "attention to judgment and to love for God". As for being politically correct, that might be the Pharisees, those in power, those who need not lift their fingers to help, those who would cast the first stone if the Laws they so officiously upheld in the public eye were to be transgressed.
Is that the danger of being politically correct? By doing as one is told by those in power, one is kept safe? Perhaps then the message is to not be politically correct. To not care about what others think of you, how they judge you, especially when the Lord is on your side [but then, don't both sides of the battlefield claim God is on their side]. A slippery slope, me thinks, and one that will include many black eyes, death threats and prison sentences, just like St. Paul experienced.
But when do i leave my comfort zone to insult my host if i think my truth shall set him free? Perhaps the Holy Ghost will let me know...
Deo gratias.
To be insulted by another man, albeit God, in your own house or in public. And not only once, but routinely insulted: "Woe to you!", ignoring traditions in Law such as dietary or hygienic rules as a dinner guest. A mad man? Defiant and rebellious? Today we have the protection of state and law, but even so at the least a black eye might be the result of our perceived insult.
But could Christ or St. Paul reveal God's new covenant in no other way? "You, O man, are without excuse, every one of you who passes judgment" (Rom 2:1), St. Paul tells the Romans. The Dutch have an expression that tall trees gather the most wind, which implies the same as 'the bigger they are, the harder they fall'. Couldn't the message be circulated with more political correctness? Perhaps less accusational and more therapeutic, sensitive, humble, taught silently through example, etc? The Buddha taught some very unappealing lessons and did so for many, many years. He taught by personal example. If he did not like a gift (anger), he did not accept it. To me, anger is fear and loss of control. Sow anger and insult and reap anger and revenge, no? In the East, anger is something not publicly displayed as it is seen as a weakness and inappropriate. In the West, anger is rife. Throughout the Bible, old and new, there is anger, wrath, open threats of punishment to hostile crowds, nations put to the sword, etc. It makes me think that public stoning must have been as common as drawing water from the well under that Middle Eastern midday sun.
Sometimes a father must punish his children, even if his anger is more show than real. And then, the anger may only be the regret that in his role he is forced to hurt the ones he loves; just punishment for misbehaviour. The father usually has a long term view; the child, short term. In this, i would say that the Christ would have the long term view for his Father's children.
Yet, Jesus' earthly life ends with torture, public humiliation and Crucifixion. Standing among the wild crowds along the via Dolorosa, one would think that rabbi certainly didn't win many friends. In some ways he was like the Pharisees that he accuses in today's reading as being so rigid with their Laws. Jesus is just as uncompromising with his new Law, his Gospel, the need to pay "attention to judgment and to love for God". As for being politically correct, that might be the Pharisees, those in power, those who need not lift their fingers to help, those who would cast the first stone if the Laws they so officiously upheld in the public eye were to be transgressed.
Is that the danger of being politically correct? By doing as one is told by those in power, one is kept safe? Perhaps then the message is to not be politically correct. To not care about what others think of you, how they judge you, especially when the Lord is on your side [but then, don't both sides of the battlefield claim God is on their side]. A slippery slope, me thinks, and one that will include many black eyes, death threats and prison sentences, just like St. Paul experienced.
But when do i leave my comfort zone to insult my host if i think my truth shall set him free? Perhaps the Holy Ghost will let me know...
Deo gratias.
No comments:
Post a Comment