Success redefined

The Globe and Mail has chosen Canada’s 2008 nation builder:  Jean Vanier.

Jean VanierM. Vanier was instrumental in changing the way that mentally handicapped people are cared for. In L’Arche communities, founded by M. Vanier, volunteers live round the clock with the mentally handicapped people they serve.

M. Vanier is a devout Roman Catholic. It seems to me that L’Arche (= “the ark”) follows a monastic model of ministry:  devoting one’s entire life to carrying out God’s work in a community set apart from the way people ordinarily live.

The L’Arche model is certainly rooted in the Gospels:  specifically, in Jesus’ admonition to serve “the least of these, my brethren“. Vanier tells the Globe and Mail that he wants to announce a message:

That people who are weak have something to bring us, that they are important people and it’s important to listen to them. In some mysterious way, they change us. Being in a world of the strong and powerful, you collect attitudes of power and hardness and invulnerability. [… But] it is vulnerability that brings us together.”

Vanier maintains that we need to redefine success:

Recently, a couple came to him with their one-and-a-half-year-old son, who had an undiagnosed disorder and screamed incessantly. Mr. Vanier asked the mother how she was, and she muttered, “Okay.” He asked the father, a military man, the same question. “Sometimes,” the father said, “I want to throw him out the window.”

Mr. Vanier leans forward in his chair. “And I said to him, ‘I understand. I’ve lived the same thing.’”

He is referring to Lucien, a severely handicapped man who used to live with him and whose endless shrieking began with his mother’s death and rarely stopped. Mr. Vanier often returns to Lucien in his writing: Suffering through that noise helped him understand not only his own limitations but what the families of disabled people must go through, isolated as they often are.

“It obviously penetrated through all my protective systems and awoke anguish, and I could see violence within me,” he says. “If I hadn’t been in a community, I don’t know what I would have done.”

Lucien died a few years ago; his screaming never ceased entirely. It is easy, when hearing this story, to understand why L’Arche is always facing a shortage of volunteers. Most people would find such a life too taxing to endure.

What Mr. Vanier finds surprising is that very often it’s the volunteers’ parents who don’t want them to work at L’Arche.

“Parents will say, ‘We gave you education, university, and now you want to live with these people?’” […]

This leads to one of the cornerstones of Mr. Vanier’s philosophy, which is essentially that we’ve lost track of the different ways to measure a successful life. [… Vanier muses,] “How to find a world where the essential thing is to work for peace, to work to build something together?” […]

One of those who came and stayed was Cariosa Kilcommons. Disillusioned with her pre-med studies, Ms. Kilcommons dropped out of St. Francis Xavier University more than 20 years ago to live at the L’Arche home in Cape Breton. Four years later, she came to stay in Trosly; now, she returns to her family home in Pincher Creek, Alta., only for the occasional holiday.

“It was pretty radical,” she says of her decision to make L’Arche her life. “But I was filled with inner certitude. It’s true that a lot is asked of us here, but we get a lot back. The hours are long, but the experience is so rich.”

Certain public figures maintain that the world would be a better place without religion. And it’s true that religion does a lot of harm in the world. Some of the most prominent religious leaders stand for intolerance, division, and violence (whether overt or covert).

Maybe those religious leaders have absorbed the wrong definition of success. They pursue publicity, glory, money, deference, and access to the corridors of power. Perhaps they also mobilize people for ministry. But it’s difficult to keep one’s motives pure when those things begin to blend together.

How many of those leaders would show the same dedication to ministry if God called them to toil anonymously in a L’Arche community?

Jean Vanier hasn’t sought the public spotlight. Nor has he developed a personal fiefdom, where he can reign as a little pope. Instead, he has poured out his life in service to people who might otherwise be forgotten by the world.
Read the rest of this entry »

Theological development, part three

(the conclusion to a three part series:  part one; part two)

(f) Jesus behaves petulantly:

Matthew 21:19 Mark 11:13-14 Luke
And seeing a fig tree by the wayside, he went to it and found nothing on it but only leaves. And he said to it, May no fruit ever come from you again! And seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to see if he could find anything on it. When he came to it, he found nothing but leaves, for it was not the season for figs. And he said to it, May no one ever eat fruit from you again. no parallel account

The issue:  This is a notorious problem passage, because it is the only occasion on which Jesus used his miraculous powers destructively. Moreover, Mark heightens the moral problem by stating, “… for it was not the season for figs”. The comment makes Jesus appear quite unreasonable — even petulant — expecting figs out of season and then destoying the tree when he found none.

The solution:  Matthew drops the egregious phrase, “it was not the season for figs.” Luke has no parallel account. Perhaps that was Luke’s way of avoiding a passage that shows Jesus in an unflattering light, though we cannot know for sure.

(g) Incompetent apostles:

Several passages in the synoptic Gospels depict the apostles in an unflattering light:

issue Matthew Mark Luke
Peter rebukes Jesus;
Jesus calls Peter “Satan”
16:22-23 8:32-33 no parallel account
the ambition of James and John Then the mother of the sons of Zebedee came up to him with her sons, and kneeling before him she asked him for something. And he said to her, What do you want? She said to him, Say that these two sons of mine are to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your kingdom. (20:20-21) And James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came up to him and said to him, Teacher, we want you to do for us whatever we ask of you. And he said to them, What do you want me to do for you? And they said to him, Grant us to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your glory. (10:35-37) no parallel account
asleep in Jesus’ hour of need, in Gethsemane three times
(26:36-45)
three times
(14:32-42)
only once:
Jesus found the disciples sleeping “for sorrow.” (22:39-46)

For the sake of space, I have condensed my account of the three passages.

The issue:  As time passed, the apostles became the guarantors of orthodoxy against heresies of every sort. How embarrassing, then, to read Mark’s account, which depicts the apostles as misguided, worldly, and unreliable. Peter, who in some respects was chief among the apostles, comes in for particularly rough treatment when Jesus labels him “Satan”.

The solution:  Luke is particularly zealous to defend the apostles’ reputation. He has no parallel account to the first two passages. As for the third passage, he reduces the three instances of sleep in Gethsemane to only one; then he provides the apostles with a peculiar excuse (they were sleeping “for sorrow”, a phrase which is not found in the other two accounts).

Matthew is less embarrassed by Mark’s unflattering portrayal of the apostles, but he does modify the middle passage. According to Matthew’s account, it wasn’t James and John who displayed naked ambition, but rather their mother.

Conclusion

Now that we have analysed the data in these seven tables, what shall we conclude?
Read the rest of this entry »

Theological development, part two

Continued from my previous post.

(c) A healing that partly fails:
 

Matthew Mark 8:22-25 Luke
no parallel account And some people brought to him a blind man and begged him to touch him. And he took the blind man by the hand and led him out of the village, and when he had spit on his eyes and laid his hands on him, he asked him, Do you see anything? And he looked up and said, I see men, but they look like trees, walking. Then Jesus laid his hands on his eyes again; and he opened his eyes, his sight was restored, and he saw everything clearly. no parallel account

The issue:  Jesus’ first attempt to heal the blind man was imperfect; it failed, insofar as people looked like trees, walking. This is the only miracle story where Jesus has to perform a second act before the miracle is perfected.

The solution:  Matthew and Luke both left this story out of their Gospels. Note that very few passages in Mark’s Gospel are missing from both Matthew and Luke.1 Is it coincidental that this is one of them? I doubt it.

(d) No divorce, even in cases of adultery:

Matthew 5:32 Matthew 19:9 Mark 10:11-12 Luke 16:18
I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery. And whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery. And he said to them, Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her, and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery. Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.

Note that there are four versions of this saying in the three Gospels. There is a Markan version (paralleled in Mt. 19:9) and a Q version (Luke 16:18 // Mt. 5:32). In other words, Matthew has two accounts because he found it in both of his major sources (Mark and Q).2

The issue:  In Mark, Jesus forbids divorce absolutely. Divorce is never permissible. Scholars believe Mark (and Luke/Q) accurately preserved Jesus’ saying. The absolute prohibition of divorce is consistent with the radical demands of the kingdom, one of Jesus’ consistent emphases.

The solution:  Matthew softens Jesus’ demand by inserting, “except on the ground of sexual immorality” (the text highlighted in yellow has no parallel in Mark and Luke). Matthew “corrects” both the Markan version (Mt. 19:9) and the Q version (Mt. 5:32) of the saying.

Note that Paul introduces another exception, contrary to Jesus’ radical saying. According to Paul, in cases where an unbelieving spouse deserts a believing spouse, the believer is no longer bound (1Co. 7:15). Presumably Paul means that the believer is free to remarry.

(e) Jesus is not good:
Read the rest of this entry »

Theological development in the synoptic Gospels

I believe that Mark is the earliest of the canonical Gospels. I believe that Matthew and Luke copied Mark:  i.e., that they used Mark as one of the sources for their Gospels.

Moreover, I believe there is a clear pattern of Matthew and Luke introducing changes that improve on Mark’s account. They refined Mark’s Greek. And they refined Mark’s theology.

Here are the data that I find persuasive on the latter point:

(a) Wrong high priest:

Matthew 12:4 Mark 2:26 Luke 6:4
… how [David] entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence … … how [David] entered the house of God, in the time of Abiathar the high priest, and ate the bread of the Presence … … how [David] entered the house of God and took and ate the bread of the Presence …

The issue:  Mark contains an error. Ahimelech, not Abiathar, was the high priest when David entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence (1Sa. 21:1-6).

The solution:  Matthew and Luke both eliminate the error by dropping the erroneous detail, “in the time of Abiathar the high priest”.

(b) Jesus unable to heal:

Matthew Mark Luke
[Jesus] healed all who were sick. (Mt. 8:16) And [Jesus] healed many who were sick with various diseases. (Mark 1:34) … and [Jesus] laid his hands on every one of them and healed them. (Luke 4:40)
And he did not do many mighty works there, because of their unbelief. (Mt. 13:58) And he could do no mighty work there, except that he laid his hands on a few sick people and healed them. (Mark 6:5) no parallel account

The issue:  In the first text, Mark says that Jesus healed “many”, inevitably giving rise to the question, “Why didn’t he heal all?” The second passage is even more problematic. Mark says that Jesus could do no mighty work on this occasion:  i.e., that he was unable to do so.

The solution:  In the first passage, Matthew changes “many” to “all”. Luke makes the same point more graphically:  he says that Jesus laid his hands on every individual and healed him or her. Note that here we have a direct contradiction. Did Jesus heal “many” or did he heal “every one”? The alternatives cannot both be historically accurate.

Turning now to the second passage:  Luke has no parallel account. It is impossible to say whether the omission is because of Mark’s claim that Jesus was unable to heal. Matthew solves the theological difficulty by changing “could not” to “did not”. According to his account, Jesus was able to heal but for the unbelief of the sick people.

Note:  I accept that Matthew’s explanation might be correct. I’m not objecting to the explanation itself:  I’m merely trying to establish that Matthew saw something objectionable in Mark’s account and he set out to correct it.

(to be continued …)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Scripture quotations are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, copyright 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a division of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved. I sometimes take the liberty of inserting paragraph breaks where I deem them appropriate.

The Gospels as biographies

“[Rudolph] Bultmann led questers [for the historical Jesus] up another false trail by his strong assertion that ‘There is no historical-biographical interest in the Gospels’.

“The influence of this view, that the Gospels are not biographies of Jesus, persists to the present day. However, it is too little recalled that on this point Bultmann was reacting against the Liberal questers’ confidence that they could penetrate back into Jesus’ self-consciousness and could trace the development of his self-understanding as Messiah (messianic self-consciousness). …

“The original questers were attempting to write biographies on the model of the nineteenth-century biography, with its interest in the personal life and development of the biographical subject. So what Bultmann was actually decrying was the attempt to write a modern biography of Jesus.

“Since the 1970s, however, the question of the Gospels’ genre has come under increasingly close scrutiny, and it has become much clearer that the Gospels are in fact very similar in type to ancient biographies (Greek bioi; Latin vitae).

“That is, their interest was not the modern one of analysing the subject’s inner life and tracing how an individual’s character developed over time. Rather, the ancient view was that character was fixed and unchanging; and the biographer’s concern was to portray the chosen subject’s character by narrating his words and deeds. Which is just what we find in the Synoptic (indeed all the canonical) Gospels, though not, it should be noted, in the other [apocryphal] Gospels now frequently drawn into the neo-Liberal quest.

“Moreover, it is clear that common purposes of ancient bioi were to provide examples for their readers to emulate, to give information about their subject, to preserve his memory, and to defend and promote his reputation. Here again the Gospels fit the broad genre remarkably well.

“Of course, it remains true that the Gospels were never simply biographical; they were propaganda; they were kerygma [proclamation intended to win converts]. But then neither were ancient biographies wholly dispassionate and objective (any more than modern biographies).

“In other words, the overlap between Gospel and ancient biography remains substantial and significant.”

— James Dunn, Jesus Remembered, pp. 184-85. I have broken up Dunn’s paragraphs to make this excerpt easier to read.

« Older entries