|
Viewpoint Goal of public humiliation is protection of status quo
By SANDRA SCHNEIDERS
Public executions, especially of
political enemies (whether civil or ecclesiastical), always intend not only
lethal vengeance against the challenger of the status quo but also the
terrorizing of any witness who might be tempted to similar offenses. Public
humiliation, character assassination, subversion of cherished ministries, and
vocational destabilization are perhaps as lethal to the spirit as the stake and
rack to the body. Such tortures of the loyal opposition do not leave untouched
anyone involved in ministries similar to those targeted.
The first temptation, in the face of moral violence inflicted on
friends and co-ministers, is to rage and retaliation. Or perhaps, for the more
easily frightened, withdrawal behind closed curtains in hopes that the tumbrel
will pass by ones dwelling one more time. But neither vengeance nor
cowardice, though understandable reactions, are worthy responses from the
disciples of Jesus, the prophet who was executed by the combined forces of the
religious and political establishment and who died praying for his
executioners.
Recent events have driven me back to the gospels to ask what the
life of Jesus can contribute to reflection on ministry to the morally
marginalized of society and church. Clearly, Jesus taught the ignorant and
cured the sick of body and mind, ministries to which no one could object
(unless, of course, he did it on the Sabbath!) But the most remarkable aspect
of Jesus ministry is surely that he reached out to the morally
marginalized, to those the religious establishment declared beyond the pale:
prostitutes and adulterers, extortionist tax collectors who were collaborators
with the oppressor government, and even military enforcers of that government,
as well as heretics and schismatics and pagans, to say nothing of gluttons and
drunks. Jesus let these people touch him and he touched them. He was a guest in
their homes and ate with them. But, perhaps even more shocking, he also forgave
their sins without requiring humiliating and detailed confessions of guilt or
even firm purposes of amendment. For this he was roundly castigated by the
religious authorities, the guardians of public morality.
When we meditate on Jesus treatment of these
sinners some strange, disturbing and consoling features leap to
view. The story of the woman taken in adultery may be the most evocative. This
is a story of which no one knows the original literary location, but it was so
dear to the early church that it was inserted in a very unlikely place (John
7:53-8:11), lest it be lost. Here if anywhere we encounter objective
disorder and intrinsically evil acts. Furthermore, there was
no question at all about the womans guilt. She was
apprehended in the very sexual act for which the Mosaic Law prescribed death by
stoning. The ecclesiastical authorities try to implicate Jesus, the minister to
the marginalized, in their righteous judgment, just sentencing and
plans for execution. But Jesus just stoops down and silently writes on the
ground (what?) and then, when pressed to clarify his position, says, Let
the one among you who is without sin cast the first stone.
When the obviously convicted stoners slink away, Jesus is left
with the woman. He does not lecture her on the sinfulness of adultery nor even
ask her if she is guilty, much less sorry. Such humiliation and mastery of the
sinner apparently holds little interest for Jesus who, in
Matthews Gospel, applied to himself Isaiahs description of the
Suffering Servant: A bruised reed he will not break, a smoldering wick he
will not quench. Surely this desperate woman is a bruised reed. Although
he admonishes her to sin no more (which he surely says to each of
us every day), Jesus does not extract from her a promise to that effect or even
inquire about her firm purpose of amendment. Instead, he says: Has no one
condemned you? Then neither do I condemn you.
One has to ask whether Jesus confused the people or
even the woman herself by this refusal to clarify the intrinsic evil of her
behavior and extract a self-condemnation before granting forgiveness, or his
failure to publicly condemn the woman herself as a disgrace to Judaism. Did
Jesus thereby undermine the moral authority of the law or only threaten its
self-righteous guardians whose own behavior could not withstand his quiet
challenge? Was Jesus preference for the one who had broken the law rather
than the laws enforcement, was his compassionate gaze into the heart of
the frightened, suffering, marginalized woman rather than clinical examination
and exposure of her behavior -- was all this sign of his own moral weakness,
vacillation about doctrine, ambiguity about evil? Or was it the manifestation
of the God he called his parent, the God slow to anger and abounding in
kindness and compassion even in the face of Israels infidelity? Has
anyone, down through history, taken Jesus behavior in this episode as
permission from Jesus to commit adultery?
One could examine other instances: the woman who anointed the feet
of Jesus (Luke 7:36-50) whom Jesus declared forgiven -- not because she
groveled before the Pharisee host, publicly accused herself or repented, or
hated herself too much to even enter the room in the first place or touch the
Master (which Simon obviously thought should have been her attitude) -- but
because he, Jesus, was generous and compassionate. In fact, Jesus says not that
she was forgiven because she loved, but that she loved much because she had
been forgiven! Who among us does not recognize that experience as our own? And
are we not thereby obliged to offer unconditional acceptance to others,
regardless of their offenses (which we can hardly judge unless we want to have
Jesus speak to us as he did to Simon the Pharisee), as the gospel way to invite
the people to repentance rather than humiliation, threat or expulsion?
Jesus even invited himself into the home of the hated tax
collector Zacchaeus, not in order to convince him by moral argument that
collaboration with those who oppressed Israel was objectively wrong and force
him to reform, but in order to give him the experience of compassion and
affirmation that would move Zacchaeus to examine his own life and decide what
he was called to be and do (Luke 19:1-10). Significantly, we are not told that
Zacchaeus gave up his profession (perhaps he could not, but he did deal with
some of its issues, such as fraud). Jesus ends this visit by declaring that
salvation had come to Zacchaeus house: For the Son of Man came to
seek and to save what was lost. Apparently such seeking and saving did
not require public condemnation, shaming or ostracizing.
Jesus invited another tax collector, Matthew, into his inner
circle of disciples, thus risking his own ministerial credibility by not only
associating with the morally marginalized but by recognizing them as partners
in Gods work. The religious authorities accused Jesus (to his other
disciples, rather than to his face!) of eating with tax collectors and sinners.
Jesus replied, Those who are well do not need a physician, but the sick
do. Go and learn the meaning of the words, I desire mercy, not
sacrifice. I did not come to call the righteous but sinners
(Matthew 9:9-13). We are fortunate when we can honestly recognize ourselves
among the sinners. Who among us can claim to be righteous? And in any case, it
is very dangerous to do so, for it excludes us from Jesus compassion.
The gospels suggest that there was only one type of person for
whom Jesus expressed moral repugnance and even contempt: the self-righteous who
condemned others from a position of ecclesiastical power. We are not even told
that the publican praying in the temple who begged, God have mercy on me,
a sinner (Luke 18:13) made a firm purpose of amendment or reformed, but
we are told that he went down to his house justified, while the Pharisee who
thanked God that he was more righteous than the publican did not. Jesus
castigates the whitened sepulchers (Matthew 23:27-28), those who bind heavy
moral burdens for others to carry, who keep the minutest regulations of the Law
while driving their neighbors to self-hatred and despair of Gods
goodness, who marginalize and exclude from the table those they judge unworthy
(Luke 6:41-42), their elaborate defenses against the moral gnats as they
swallow the camel of religious abuse of the downtrodden (Matthew 23:24).
Public executions do make the witnesses reflect. But rather than
being intimidated or terrorized or, even worse, driven to hatred and
retaliation, we who mourn the sacrifice exacted of our colleagues in ministry
need to return again and again to the gospel so as to pattern our own lives and
ministries ever more closely on the life and ministry of Jesus who never
encouraged condemnation, marginalization or humiliation of the other, even of
someone who seems to be a sinner, but who commissioned his
followers to feed and care for his flock even to laying down their lives at the
hands of those who will claim to be glorifying God by executing his ministers
(John 16:2). Perhaps there is no clearer vindication of ones ministry
than the fact that it associates one with the fate of Jesus.
Immaculate Heart Sr. Sandra Schneiders teaches at the Jesuit
School of Theology in Berkeley, Calif.
National Catholic Reporter, August 27,
1999
|
|