1.
There are possibly some “instructions”
for the disciples. One is NOT TO BE QUICK in saying that anyone outside the
group (of Jesus) is already against Jesus. In Mk it is recorded that the
disciples tried to prevent someone doing exorcism “because he does not follow
us” (Mk.9/38). Jesus then told his disciples not to prevent the man because “whoever
is not against us is for us” (9/40).
2.
The second instruction is
to feel assured that even anyone outside the group “who gives you a cup of
water to drink because you belong to Christ” will surely not lose a reward
(9/41).
3.
The third instruction is
for the “little ones”, that is, the fragile, among the disciples. It is
prohibited to force the vulnerable to sin. It is a serious offense to make them
sin. These “little ones” will be led away from their belief. Jesus uses the
classical image of penalty against the offenders: “…better for him if a great
millstone were put around his neck and he were thrown into the sea” (9/42).
4.
The fourth instruction is
for “you”…the disciple directly addressed by Jesus. Jesus speaks of the danger that
threatens each one for the enemy against communion with God lies also within
the disciple. It is better to enter life maimed, crippled and blind “than with
two eyes to be thrown into Gehenna, where ‘their worm does not die, and the
fire is not quenched.’” (9/47). Indirectly this raises the question of what the
disciple is willing to give up in order to remain with God.
5.
The word “Gehenna” is
intriguing. There the worm does not die and there is a fire that does not
extinguish. There is torment without end. It is said that south of the city of
Jerusalem was a place to where the city garbage was thrown. That place was
called Hinnom (Hebrew) or Gehenna (in Greek). So there was an opposition
between Jerusalem and the garbage dump area. Jerusalem symbolized the glory of
the just. The dump area was the valley of the dead where the worms ate the
corpses. As for the image of the fire, it is said, by Bible experts, to
represent the refusal to adhere to God.
6.
There is a flow: from the “outside
the group” to the “inside the group”.
7.
The disciples were angry
against anyone “outside” but behaving “in the name of Jesus”. Do they have the “K”…
the “karapatan”—the “right? Then there are those possibly “outside” but
sympathizing with those “inside”.
8.
How are those people “outside”
situated? What is curious is that Jesus himself shows that even those “inside”
can be causes of sin—they can make the fragile sin. Being “inside” does not
guarantee being “so good and righteous”. So to be “inside” is to be possibly
maimed, crippled and blind. Imagine a community of handicapped people—yes,
handicapped by “in life”.
9.
Ok, we need to understand
the “literary style” of the story and the images and other matters—like worms
and fire. But one point is worth noting. Notice that Jesus recognizes the “outsider”
exorcist. Do not prevent him. We are together!
10.
I have always been
wondering about how this fits in the contemporary call for “inter-religious
dialogue” which, for Asian bishops, is part of mission INTER-GENTES (and not so
ad gentes). The Church has been so accused of being so “inside” and arrogant
and imperialistic.
11.
Jesus did not invite the
Church to be arrogant and imperialistic. Mission is not for the self-glorification
of the Church. It is to share the impact of having encountered Christ.
12.
Over the course of time in
mission theology, from Vatican II to today, we can notice an evolution—a strong
effort to address the problem of Church arrogance and shift to a more
dialogical Church, possibly maimed, crippled and blind. The terminology of
Vatican II, for example, had the term “Church implantation” to mean
geographical and territorial installation of a hierarchy and a structure. The
terminology of the newer documents does not use this term anymore and new
theology speaks of the Church as a “discipleship” motivated by intimacy with
Christ. And add to this is the effort of mission theologians to recognize the
reality and positive status of religious pluralism without compromising the
faith in Christ. It is unfair to make a sweeping accusation today that in terms
of mission and dialogue the Church continues to be imperialistic.
13.
In a recent audience with
persons engaged in inter-religious dialogue Pope Francis spoke of dialogue as “walking
with” people of other religious traditions addressing the problems facing
humanity today. This is no longer the language of the arrogant.
No comments:
Post a Comment