In the planning for the next ikon gathering (which will be exploring the idea of miracle). Both myself and my friend Casi simultaneously thought of a parable that would express something of our exploration. So this morning I have written it down. I will avoid offering a commentary for now and let it speak for itself (like many of my parables this could be open to various interpretations – many I would not personally endorse – but I must resist ‘explaining’ it as I am keen to hear how others interpret it first).
---
After Jesus descended from the Mount of Olives he came across a man who had been blind from birth. And his disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?"
Jesus answered, "It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him. We must carry out the works of him who sent me while it is day for night is approaching, when no one can work. As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world." Having said these things, he spat on the ground and made mud with the saliva. Then he anointed the man’s eyes with the mud and said to him, "My friend, go, wash in the pool of Siloam". So he went and washed and returned in jubilation shouting, “I can see”.
The neighbours and those who knew him as a beggar began to grumble saying, "has this man lost his mind, for he was born blind”. Some said, "It is he." Others said, "No, but he is like him." In response to all of this the old man simply kept repeating, "I am the one you speak of, Jesus anointed my eyes and said, 'Go to Siloam and wash.' So I went and washed and now can see everything."
To ascertain what had happened to this man since his meeting with Jesus they brought him to the Pharisees. "Give glory to God” they said, “We know that this man is a sinner." But the old man answered, "Whether or not he is a sinner I do not know. One thing I do know, that though I was blind, now I see."
But the Pharisees began to laugh. “Old man, meeting Jesus has caused you to lose your mind, you had to be carried into this room by friends, you still stumble and fall like a fool, you are still as blind today as the day you were born”.
“That may be true”, replied the old man with a long deep smile, “as I have told you before, all I know is that yesterday I was blind but today, today I can see”.
Posted at 11:02 |
Link to this post
Comments:
Ok, I'll be the first to jump in with my comments. I'd be really interested to hear yours though.
This post has really had me thinking and that is a good thing! First off I am struck by the implied denial of the material miracle. It feels like being cheated in some way. But also I can see that the 'seeing' the (ex) blind man receives is developed into something perhaps far deeper than just the material healing. I like the fact that the blind man has not lost this gift when faced with the Pharisee's view of reality. It seems so often that I get to a place of 'seeing' and then lose it the next day!
Posted by: David
on 13/09/07 at 09:22
The meaning of this allegorical parable is obvious but you have to be intelligent enough to work it out:
The man who is blind from birth is extremely naive and foolish for he believes in the Reality of God. He is brought before the High Priest of the Sect of Caputo (Peter rollins ie JC)to be enlightened into the higher Truths of Deconstruction. Members of the Sect mutter that his parents must have indocrinated him from birth to believe such ridiculous things. PR utters mysterious long winded incantational words such as Derrida and Religion without Religion to help this unfortunate deluded individual to see the TRUE PATH of Caputos revelations. The man appears to be delighted as the truth has been revealed to him - God is a fiction.
At the next meeting of Caputos Sect at the black box he is brought before the Ruling Council called the Cyndicate in order to investigate the orthodoxy of his conversion but there is great weeping and gnashing of teeth as he still says - I believe in the Reality of God
Posted by: ???????????
on 13/09/07 at 11:21
The end of the parable is :
the Worthy Cazi, heir apparent to the High Priests throne, pronounced a terridle curse upon the man. You will read abstract jargonised theological tomes by (May his a name be praised) DERRIDA and (bleesed be his name) CAPUTO until you have reached ENLIGHTENMENT as we have!
Posted by: ????
on 13/09/07 at 14:21
Naughty naughty ???????????, or should I say ????. Hiding behind question marks, but then again I hide behind the name Pete! Worthy Casi? He wishes. I love the interpretation you give, although this idea of me denying the reality of God is not quite on the mark.
I have a mixed feeling about satirical critique - you are the second person to try it on me. I feel it trys to make a point by caricature rather than reason. And am not sure if that is an appropriate mode of dialectic. What do people think? I love critique and disagreement, hence I do philosophy... but not sure if such remarks count. Should I keep these comments, or delete them?
Thanks Martin for the comments... one thing I was exploring in this experimental parable was the idea that the profound miracle of Christianity is that it transforms ones way of being in the world. The point for me was not to affirm or deny the reality of physical miracles but rather to say that they are perhaps the least interesting type of miracle (which I think Jesus affirms by refusing such tricks when asked and by Paul who prefers to talk about the miracle of transformed lives rather than doing physical miracles). That is just one reading however.
Posted by: Pete R
on 13/09/07 at 20:19
I reckon ??? has a very good sense of humour (it made me laugh) but it is only in trying to be humorous that (s)he could actually write such stuff.
If not however, then in my opinion you have completely misjudged the movement of ikon. But I commend Pete for posting those comments as I am sure others would have been sorely tempted to delete them.
Onto the parable - I don't know what it means to be honest, my simple understanding is that it acknowledges a miracle has happened, but not the one everyone thinks, indeed it seems to suggest the actions of Christ were deliberately confusing - leading people to believe the man had his sight restored, but then that never happened at all.
The man does not deny Christ performed a miracle on him, it is that the miracle Christ performed was not recieved by the man, or perhaps all he needed was the reminder Jesus wanted to heal him, and even though his faith did not make him well (the bleeding woman story), it was his lack of faith in the work of Christ, and his total faith in the work of Christ that both denied him the physical gift of sight and granted him the spiritual freedom to be restored.
Perhaps all he wanted was to be reminded that even in his lack of faith, Jesus still reached out and touched him...
I just thought that out while typing it, I like it - sort of makes sense to me. I would be interested in your take on it...
Posted by: Martin Montgomery
on 13/09/07 at 21:19
Pete can you delete that second post of mine, I don't know why it resubmitted it - I just refreshed the page!!
Anyway, on your thoughts of satirical critique. I say keep them - it simply makes the person who posted them look ill informed, misguided, naive, uneducated, presumptuous, contrite, sarcastic and ultimately immature. Need I go on?
I reckon denying them their stage simply will affirm their misguided beliefs and assumptions and denies others the chance to speak out against their waffle.
On your take on the miracle, I do like it. I think I have issues with miracles - perhaps it is because my inability to perform them somehow suggests my faith is weaker than those who claim they can heal the sick.
Also healing is something I have issues with, healing one and not another again suggests the one who was healed had more faith than the one who didn't. Churches subtly preach this week in week out, yet it is immensely damaging to people suffering from cancer or other diseases. Anyway I am starting to waffle myself now as I am really not sure what to believe about the whole thing.
I do however acknowledge miracles exist - but I wonder is that because if I don't am I denying some fundamental bit of my faith - also denying physical miracles happen any more opens up a whole can of worms, perhaps it is easier to say I believe they exist but secretly wonder to myself (??).
I definitely concur with you however on the importance of changed lives over physical healing - that to me is definitely what Jesus is all about.
Posted by: Martin
on 13/09/07 at 21:31
Keep the comments. I don't like editing. Is it a valuable form of argument I don't know, I'm a forester not a philosopher, but it's humorous and a form that we come across a lot. I like the idea that Christianity transforms our 'way of being' in the world. Do you have more to say on that?
Posted by: David
on 13/09/07 at 21:37
Time to come clean Pete - it is me Rodney who is ?????. I am the Iconic heretic !!!!!
'informed, misguided, naive, uneducated, presumptuous, contrite, sarcastic and ultimately immature. Need I go on?' I am indeed been accused of being all these things ........
Rodney (you always decontruct the one you love)
Posted by: rodney
on 13/09/07 at 22:19
lol... I knew it was someone who knew me... and perhaps even loves me! I am glad it was you. To be honest it is much easier taking such things from a friend than from someone I do not know. From yourself I know you are both playing and serious, both dialoging with me and with yourself, both fighting with my ideas and perhaps even your own. Now they definitely stay! I have been away a lot recently... but are you around for a Saturday coffee next week?
Posted by: Pete R
on 13/09/07 at 23:52
The greatest miracle is how we love
Posted by: Gary Manders
on 14/09/07 at 08:10
'The greatest miracle is how we love'. I completely agree, I don't know if that was directed to me, but it certainly struck me - which is why I regret my 'naive, imature etc' post.
I tend to get carried away on the internet and say things I would never say in a real life situation. But I think while I went overboard with the words, I was annoyed about the tone of the post. I think mainly cos I know on ignite Pete has his critics and the mostly hide under pseudonyms which bugs me a little bit.
Anyway apologies for coming across as an arsehole!
Posted by: Martin Montgomery
on 17/09/07 at 00:08
Hey Martin. I don't think you came across like that at all (but let me know if u want me to remove any of your comments). You were standing up for me, which is itself an act of love. And we all say things from time to time (actually I wish it were only 'from time to time') which seem harsh.
A kind of woolly middle-class niceness can sometimes colonize the word 'love' making it very PC. I am not sure what love is but I hope it can involve heated and pointed debates. For instance, whatever Rodney's post sounded like I know that he respects me. I would hate that we all couldn't have a good fight (including getting pissed off with each other) as long as we could all go down to the pub after for a drink!
Hey dave... just noticed that you asked if I could say anymore on this subject. I will perhaps post a few more things on this, however I would say that this approach allows for the idea of miracle without nessesarily needing to endourse (or deny) physical intervention. For instance Forgiveness is something which brings healing and transformation of a miraculous kind, yet at the same time nothing changes.
Conservative theological thought affirms the miracle while liberal thought questions the legitimacy of physical intervention as part of an antiquated worldview. This approach (called 'a weak theology') allows for the insights of both but bracketing out the least important issue
Posted by: Pete R
on 17/09/07 at 09:30
Matin,
You were just right to have a go at me - I was too cheeky in the way I wrote the post. I sometimes rant,criticise etc whilst making comments on the Net. I do not mean to deliberately mislead anyone but play a game with Pete
Pete - I will ring you soon. Sorry for the post - it was a bit naughty !!
Rodney ( I will give you my opinion on weak (nee liberal0 theology)
Posted by: rodney
on 17/09/07 at 15:23
Our unique broken-ness is our own personal door way into the Fathers heart that no one else has or ever will understand. To me the miracle Jesus performed on that day walking down from the Mount of Olives was one of invitation. If you revisit this parable you may hear a word or two of the invitation but at the time only the blind man had ears keen enough to hear it. âIn your broken-ness come and let my Father nourish and cherish your cracked body, broken heart and lonely spirit.â
This parable speaks of a different agenda than a physical miracle. For the blind man to be in-wrapped by the love of God in his blindness was, to nourish and cherish all of what he was and still is. It was as though Jesus was demonstrating His uncontrollable and unconditional love that said (and says) I am in love with you not because of what you might be able to become or accomplish but because of you.
Now as the story carries on, you see the once âblindâ man living out of that âhealedâ broken-ness. His actions and relations to world where coming from a place of healing rather than shame. Lets not forget the major infliction this man suffered was not his life-long blindness but the life long shame-ing that his culture inflicted on him. It was obvious, he sinned or he came from a sinful family. "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" Through the invitation to the meeting place of broken-ness this manâs shame and guilt was released and an experience of acceptance and sight washed over him.
It is in our broken-ness, human-ness that we might make perfect the icon of the Almighty that we are. Let us not pray that we be healed of our pain but let us pray that Father might walk us into our pain and thus become all that we are and all that He is in love with.
Posted by: Brett Ellis
on 18/09/07 at 14:39
Those who look to him are radiant; their faces are never covered with shame. ps. 34:5
Posted by: Brett Ellis
on 18/09/07 at 15:42
My comment was not aimed at anyone personally. I believe the way people on this thread have been able to disagree passioantely and apologise if they felt they had gone too far, it what love is all about. Jesus sets us a clear challenge to love our enemies, now that's a hard one to live up to. I for one am not into PC wooly niceness but I am passionate about living out the miracle of love, even when I radically screw it up.
Posted by: Gary Manders
on 19/09/07 at 23:14
Absolutely Gary. I should have said that I didn't think that comment was connected in any way to the discussion but rather a comment that cuts to the heart of the Christian notion of miracle... it was Aquinas who said that to give a true gift (rather than an exchange) requires that you love someone first - thus the first gift in any gift is the gift of love!
Posted by: Pete R
on 20/09/07 at 09:12
My interpretation:
The most basic point is that a miracle needs not be a physical one.
The fact that the pharisees tell the man that he is blind is either because they are too focused on the material world to acknowledge the value of the spiritual transformation, or because they are spiritually blind, so that they cannot see the spiritual transformation.
Another interpretation would be to say that the spiritual miracle is more important than the physical one, as I suppose Jesus (or the author) made a choice between the physical and the spiritual healing.
At the very least Jesus didn't say "Sorry, I can't help you with your vision, but at least I can make you see the spiritual realm", he claimed that the spiritual blindness was more essential than the physical.
Also, I guess some people will read this parable as a denial of physical miracles. But to me, that is not the case. What the parable does is putting the physical miracle in it's right perspective, beneath the spiritual.
Let me add some comments on the parable itself.
I think it's brilliant that the place this parable divide from the original (where the blind man is not physically healed) is not the same place the reader discover the division (which is where the pharasees say he stumble and fall).
That require the reader to go back and re-read or re-memorize the parable, and discover that the men claiming the blind man to be a different man were not the doubters.
They were the ones who could see the change in the man, making him essentially different.
I think it would be interresting to invert the parable.
Meaning Jesus does heal the man's eyes, but he remain spiritually blind. And he end up in despair, because his spirit is still dark.
...and a personal note:
Hi Pete.
I talked to you when you were speaking at my DTS in Closkelt, 2005.
Still thinking a lot about those speaches.
Posted by: Bo P. Jensen
on 24/09/07 at 14:17
thank you Bo P for your insightful comments. I think you have offered a wonderful commentary! I also like your idea for another parable... I am a big fan of rewriting the parables in different ways in order to help expose the radical meaning of the original. Please do write that parable! I am still doing the Closkelt stuff and very much enjoy it.
Posted by: Pete R
on 24/09/07 at 17:29
I will try to write it.
But now that I try to do that, it suddently seems a more complicated task than when I first thought of it.
Posted by: Bo P. Jensen
on 24/09/07 at 20:41
I will try to write it.
But now that I try to do that, it suddently seems a more complicated task than when I first thought of it.
Posted by: Bo P. Jensen
on 24/09/07 at 21:06
(Sorry, refreshing the page apperantly post the comment twice.
Please remove my dublicated post, and this note as well.)
Posted by: Bo P. Jensen
on 25/09/07 at 13:34
+ Post your comment
