I am reminded of the kinds of knowing found in [some] stories from Genesis with Adam and Eve in the Garden. As I told the third graders several years ago during a liturgy . . . the tree of knowledge of good and evil is not simply about knowing in our minds what is bad vs what is good. Instead, the passage refers to a deeper, more intimate way of knowing good and evil, namely, deep within ourselves. To "eat of this tree" is quite literally to take good and evil and the act of judging [into ourselves by choosing them]. The way I illustrated this for 3rd graders was to ask how many of them knew what it felt like to stand on one foot for fifteen minutes. Several hands came part way up and then dropped down again. The kids knew they could imagine what it would be like, but they also saw clearly that only in doing it would they REALLY know in their muscles, memory, emotions, etc. (After the liturgy one of the adults present told me one little girl tried the whole time to stand on one foot!!)
I am also reminded of the conversation between Eve and the serpent as the two of them theologize ABOUT God rather than speaking TO or WITH him. These are two forms or levels of knowing, the first which is interesting and maybe even important for Eve, but which involves only a part of her being until she commits to the definition she has come to in her dialogue with Satan --- a definition which is not the same as God's self-revelation --- and establishes herself as estranged from God.
Finally, I am reminded of my perpetual eremitical profession [sixteen] years ago on September 2, when I responded to the Bishop's question about what I desired, with a statement that publicly included the claim of Jesus Christ as "Lord and Spouse." Though my experience of Christ is nuptial, I had never used the term "Spouse" before in this way, and never publicly! The question in Mark's Gospel, "Who do YOU say that I am?" was on my mind and heart as the bishop posed a series of questions to me, and at this moment, there was [a call to go beyond my theological education or the results of intellectual theologizing]. Instead, I was being asked to bring my whole self before God and the assembly and ask the Church to accept this self-gift in the name of Christ. Theologizing and speculation had no place in this exchange. Wishfulness and indecisiveness were definitely out of line here. Instead, it was time to claim that identity publicly which had been given privately many years earlier. This was my moment to answer Jesus' question, "Who do you say that I am?" from the knowledge I carried in my heart. I was actually surprised, and perhaps a little scared by my response.
There are all kinds of ways to avoid a genuine response to Jesus' question. Rote answers carved from creeds and catechesis are the most common. But, as we see from the Gospel story, it is not enough to answer Jesus' question with answers others have told us are the truth --- not even what we have been taught by the Church. Another common way of avoiding a genuine response is playing it safe and refusing to answer for fear of what others will think. I answered on that day of perpetual profession and consecration by referring to, ". . . Jesus who is my Lord and Spouse. . ." but in another situation, I might as easily have responded, "You are the one in the hospital all those years ago who called me "little one" and [managed] to coax me to drink a glass of milk when I was so very frightened"; and I might have continued, "you have been my elder Brother present at every bedside ever since, reminding me of the steadfast compassionate love of God." There are many other ways to answer Jesus' question in my own life. I call him Christ, and Lord, and Brother, and the content of those terms, consistent as they are with Catholic Tradition, is always rooted in my own experience. So, I think, should all such answers to Jesus' question be.
Peter apparently answers the question Jesus asks, and does so in the terms of personal experience and the trust this requires: "You are the Christ", but when Jesus begins to redefine what being God's anointed one means in terms of suffering and death, Peter rebukes him and belies the authenticity of his own confession. Once again Divine reality conflicts with human theologizing --- and once again theologizing is estranged from the human heart and the trusting knowledge of faith. Peter even takes Jesus aside to instruct him in the truth of what the term Christ REALLY means (certainly not suffering and ignominious death!)! And Jesus' criticism is devastating: "Get behind me Satan. You are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do!" He might well have said, Get behind me pseudo-theologian! You are thinking like human beings do, but I need you to know me, and claim that knowledge in a different and more exhaustive way!
The challenge of this Gospel is the same as the challenge to Adam and Eve in the garden, viz, allow God to reveal himself on his own terms. It is the same as Jesus' series of questions to Peter after Peter's triple denial. In these Jesus draws Peter deeper into his own experience of Jesus and helps Peter transcend that horrific failure. Implicitly, Jesus' question in Sunday's Gospel puts us into contact with the One we know profoundly and says, trust in that revelation; claim it here and now; live from it and for it! And of course, it encourages us to spend some time answering Jesus' question for ourselves. He knows who the Church says he is, and what textbooks in dogmatic theology claim and expound on, but we ourselves, who do WE say that he is?
.jpg)
Posts
