Today, the Gospel gives us a glimpse of Peter and his role in the early Church. What image of Peter do you think the Gospel is proposing to us?Now, we know that the world is sorely in need of heroes. One of the principles that defines democracy is the principle of equality. According to this principle, everyone is equal before the law and everyone has equal access to power. I am not as interested in the definition as I am in how it is worked out. In a world that celebrates victimhood [1], this would mean that everyone also has access to “weakness”; and not just to power. As we wallow in weakness, we also search for models of weakness; models to be like us. Thus, the rise in scandals should not be a surprising revelation. The mushrooming revelations might seem like a world-wide crusade to expose the truth. But, could this crusade suggest that the search for “weakness” is also an attempt to excuse ourselves? There is a palpable sense that lawlessness is unbridled or uncontrollable in this country. We attribute this to a failure in enforcement. But what is closer to the truth is that it reflects the paucity or shortage of inspiring heroes. First, if “leaders” were weak, why should we then hold on to ideals? Second, the result of the current Church scandal has been people leaving the Church. If the co-called shepherds can behave like this, what hope do the folks in the pews have? Third, on a smaller scale, if parents behave like this, why should children behave otherwise?
More profound than an excuse, the glorification of weakness is also an evidence of our stunted search for eternity—there is a divine longing for eternity which is unfulfilled. When our ideal is bereft of the vision of eternal life, we begin to wallow in the mud of sins and more.
Now, as a digression, if there is anything that the quest for the historical Jesus can teach us, it is this: we look for a Jesus who is like us. Albert Schweitzer remarked that the many histories of Jesus tended to exhibit the biases of the historians—each historical version of Jesus was a reflexion of the personal ideals of the researching scholar. For example, in countries where there is socio-political injustice, it is common to read into Jesus the characteristics of a freedom fighter or a liberator.
So in our search for heroes, we have in a way invested on them weakness. Today’s Gospel is frequently read as the rehabilitation of Peter. In a sense, it is true for if we follow strictly the Gospel of John, then last week’s Gospel passage should be considered the end of the Gospel. But, today’s Gospel is taken from an additional part, an epilogue added to make Peter look good. We interpret the triple affirmation as a correction to the triple denial. We do this because we can deal better with a broken Peter. We like this interpretation because it resonates with who we are: “weak”.
But why do we do that? Why predilection or preference for weakness? Why do we like heroes who are weak? Well, the truth is that we are weak. Nowhere is this clearer than in the lives of saints for they acknowledge the first truth about themselves: that they are weak. Still the question remains: Why weakness? Just maybe, it is because we fear the resurrection. We do not think beyond this world. Or even if we did, we cannot really imagine it. Many of us take this position with regard to faith, to God and to heaven: everything to gain and nothing to lose. If there is a heaven, I gain. If there is not, I have not lost anything.
A “weak” Peter as an "excuse" may be the case that misery seeks company. His weakness allows us to accept our weakness. But, look at Peter in the 1st Reading: He rejoiced at being humiliated. Do we not have difficulty resonating with him in this instance? We can relate to a weak Peter because he is so much like us BUT, we do not think that we can stand with him and rejoice at suffering and being humiliated. If anything is characteristic of us, it is this: we shy from pain.
When we glorify weakness, we feel pain more acutely. Why? When we fear the resurrection, that is, if our vision of life does not stretch into eternity, then suffering is accentuated. It is true that life is contingent and our medical care is so much better and yet we seem to “suffer” more. Is it because we are unaccustomed to pain or we have grown soft? I wager that this is because we have lost the sense of eternity. When we do so, we naturally shy from pain. To shy from pain is symptomatic of a loss in the vision of heaven. Take a moment to think of our reaction to the pains of childbirth. We have traditionally explained the pains associated with childbirth as the punishment for sin but there is another way of looking at it. The pains of childbirth is an earthly glimpse into eternity. “A woman in childbirth suffers, because her time has come; but when she has given birth to the child she forgets the suffering in her joy that a man has been born into the world”. Pain is necessary to the birth of anything good.
In a weakened world, when our models fall short of the ideal, we will avoid pain at all cost. Thus, any link between this world and eternity must be severed. In the case of childbirth, epidural is the solution. But, we cannot stamp out the vestiges of the Garden of Eden from our memory. The addiction to adrenaline rushes is the memory’s mechanism to cope with this loss of the sense of eternity. For example: when a skydiver jettisons his body out of a plane, there suspended in the air, neither on earth nor in heaven, he catches a glimpse of eternity.
So, the three questions may not be corrections to Peter’s denial. Like I said, we are accustomed to reading weakness into Peter because it suits us better. But think of Peter as being set on course by Christ. Listen to the Gospel acclamation: Lord Jesus, explain the scriptures to us. Make our hearts burn within us as you talk to us”. Peter has been tasked with the specific mission of feeding the flock—to make our hearts burn within for Christ. And this mission has nothing to do with weakness. Even Christ’s advice to Peter can be read from the position of strength: “When you have overcome Satan, strengthen your brothers”. Why? Because "weak" Peter bears the strength of Christ. Even Peter’s impetuousness can be read not as a weakness but rather a sign of his passion. His impetuosity was indication that his “love” was bigger than his heart can contain.
Peter, despite all his faults, is the model of strength for us and in the light of the resurrection, this is the question each Christian must ask: Not “Is my heart weak enough to deserve God?” but “Is my heart big enough to contain God?”[2] The heart is enlarged by the vision of the resurrection, a vision that enables one to bear all sufferings, trials and tribulations for Christ. There is no such thing as Christianity 1.0 or Christianity for Dummies because with Christ there will always be pain and suffering. There is no "Christianity Made Easy" and certianly no "beta version" of Christianity to be tested before it can be "fully marketed". The "full version" of Christianity is the one released on 26th Dec. The memorial of St Stephen, protomartyr. Immediately after the "joys" of Christmas, we encounter the reality of a world hostile to Christianity. Therefore, no less than the resurrection is needed to enlarge our heart so that we can stand up and proclaim Christ just like Peter, [and Stephen] not with weakness or fear but with strength and courage.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] I am not referring to the victims of abuse nor am I downplaying the pain that victims feel. The reference is to the general sense that “we have been done to”.
[2] It is true that we are creatures, dependent on God. But, when we begin celebrate “weakness” or victimhood, we create a culture of sensitivities, dependence. There is no need to elaborate on this for we know what sort of “victims” we have in this country and certainly we know what sort of pernicious dependency this victimhood has created.
