Do We Want A God Who Leaves Us Free Or A God Who Controls Us?

February 11, 2024

There are many occasions in the Gospel, where we are told that Jesus does not want anyone (whether it be the demons whom he exorcises out of people, or those whom he has healed) to proclaim that he is the Messiah.  We have one such instance of this in today’s Gospel too. Why does Jesus refuse to allow those he healed to speak publicly about his own identity? This is known in Scriptural studies as the Messianic Secret and there has been much speculation on why Jesus wanted his ‘calling’ to be kept secret.

The most common answer among mainline Biblical scholars is that Jesus, of course, knew that the Jews were expecting a Messiah, but he also knew that the common expectation was that this religious messiah would also be a political messiah, one who would bring back the lost glory of Israel and set them free from all oppression and subjugation. In fact,  the prayer of Zechariah at the naming ceremony of his son John (later to be known as John the Baptist) tells us that this Messiah would be “a mighty savior” and it would be because of him that the Israelites would be saved from their enemies and from the hand of all who hate them.(Luke 1:68-76)

And Jesus, while quite clearly believing that he did have a special place in God’s plan, was, nevertheless, quite sure that the kind of political messiah (or ‘king’) the Jews were hoping for, was not what he was called to be. And so we read in John’s Gospel (6:15). “Then Jesus, knowing that they were about to come and take him by force to make him king, withdrew again to the mountain by himself alone.”   And when he stands before Pilate who asks him: So you are a King?, Jesus answers (and as one translation puts it), “KING, is the term you use’, (or the more normal translation, ‘You say that I am King’) and then continues:  “For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world—to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice.”  (John 18:37).  And it is significant that the board ordered by Pilate to hang on the cross above a crucified Jesus reads, IESVS-NAZARENVS- REX·IVDÆORVM (shortened to INRI by painters and artists),  which translates to ‘Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews’ - a completely different kind of KING!!!

As I have explained in an earlier blog when trying to understand the  temptations of Jesus, (see September 3, 2023 Blog: What was Jesus’ greatest temptation?) this was one of Jesus’ greatest temptations – the temptation to use power (hence ‘kingship”) to bring about the kingdom of God. The entire tenor of his teachings showed that he believed that the kingdom of heaven had to be entered into in freedom, not because one is enamoured by a powerful  messiah, or because one is forced into it in any way (whether from loyalty or fear or the desire for some favour or some economic or physical force).  

But this, however, was not only a temptation for Jesus.  It is a temptation that all of us face, for POWER is the greatest intoxication.  And because most of us tend to believe that we know what is good, when we do have power, there is a huge (almost impossible to refuse) temptation to impose our own ‘good’ on others - of course, always for the ‘good of the other’.  Right from those with political and religious power, right down to the power we may wield in our own individual families or social  units, when we have power, we ‘naturally’ tend to want to make people around us to do things our way.  And since most of us grow up in environments (family, school, work-place, etc) where those who have power, decide what is right, and try to enforce it, this becomes our own ‘natural’ way of functioning in our world when we ourselves have power.

For example, many of us parents, heads of educational institutions, teachers, and other care-givers often believe we have the right to use our power to unilaterally choose what is ‘good’ for the young adults under our care -  whether it is the kind of education they should pursue, who they should have relationships with, what they should wear, and even what they should know and what they shouldn’t - without making them part of the decision-making process. We believe that we who have power (perhaps because they depend on us for money or housing or whatever) have a right to do this, because we know what is good for them. And yet is that always true?  I remember my son, when he was five years old, telling me once: “Just because you are big, doesn’t mean you are right!” - a lesson I took to heart. Even in our work-environments, those with the power of capital or those having power because of their position in the hierarchy, are usually the ones making the choices - they decide who performs well, not the other way around, they decide what is fair or unfair, good or bad, even when they may not have the competence of those below them on the hierarchical ladder. How many of us are willing to give due respect to the autonomy and freedom of choice/expression of those under us? Again, don’t we see this use of power in our own religious institutions - where bishops decide unilaterally (or with their own acolytes) as to what is good for those under them, or priests do the same with parishioners, or superiors do the same in religious congregations. In practice at least, fostering ‘freedom’ and respect for the autonomy of the other, does not have many takers.  Of course, there is need for ‘order’ but when does the desire for order, destroy the freedom and dignity of individuals and other less powerful groups.

All throughout history, both in the political and religious worlds for example, when a person/group gains significant power (or ‘kingship’) we see that there has been almost a ‘natural’ temptation to use this power to ‘force’ on to others what the ‘king’ considers good. Furthermore, the acolytes of those who have power are so eager to protect the idea of ‘good’ propagated by their leader, that they are even willing, if they have the power of course, to unleash violence of various kinds on anybody who questions or challenges the power of the ‘king/leader’ to whom they offer fealty.  And so we see in many fascist and dictatorial regimes the many attempts made by those in power (and their followers) to censor all alternative viewpoints, and also any criticism of those in power - with the justification being given that this was for the sake of the integrity of the country or the group or the church. Even in allegedly democratic countries we see the same pattern. In Harvard, USA, when a large group of students spoke up against Israel, they were targeted in many ways and there was a demand that their names be made public so that they could be prevented from holding jobs, even as many funders threatened to withdraw their funds to Harvard.  Again, earlier when the US went to war to search for the imaginary Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, only embedded journalists (those who accepted vetting of their reports by the military) were allowed to report, as the US had learnt during the Vietnam war how a free press could undermine their war efforts.  In India, many international civil society organisations, like Amnesty International and Oxfam, and a large number of individuals and small groups have been hounded and made immobile, primarily because they raised a mirror to the inequities, injustices and other negative elements that they perceived in the country.

In the religious world, we have seen this enforcement of good in the history of the Church as well (from the time the Church gradually became the centre of power in Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire right up till the time of the Inquisition), and in the fundamentalist regimes or groups in other religions too, like Islam, Judaism  and Hinduism.  

Jesus, however, saw any political or religious leadership that takes away people’s freedom, as a huge temptation.  And in this, Jesus was only following his Father, who allowed “Adam’ (i.e. all human beings) in the Garden of Eden, to make choices, even if it was wrong, and go their own freely chosen ways. Perhaps the freedom of choice that Jesus valued so much is best summarised in Voltaire’s credo -  ‘I may disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.’

But strangely, even many of us who do not have much power, are quite comfortable with somebody else holding power over us, as long as it doesn’t greatly inconvenience us. We are so willing to accept this that many of us may even feel that a benevolent dictatorship is better than a democracy, because many of us would tend to believe the general population doesn’t know what is good for them!!!   And similarly, where religion is concerned, when leaders of religious institutions direct and control the ‘sheep’, many of the ‘flock’ agree with this.   So do we even want for ourselves this freedom that Jesus so valued?

Do we want a God who allows us to choose? Or do we want a God who controls our lives? Strangely, like most followers of almost any religion, most Christians too want a God who is all powerful, who controls everything.  And so, though Jesus fought against being called a King, we ourselves are not willing to accept this. So, we have established a feast of Christ the King - out of a claimed faithfulness or fealty to him.  I say this, because the use of the term KING is itself problematic and the reason is that we know today that words (language) actually tend to control how we think.  So, for instance, a 1954 study found that Zuñi speakers (in New Mexico and Arizona in the USA), who don’t have words to differentiate between orange and yellow, actually have trouble in telling these two colours apart. Or for example, why are many Christians uncomfortable using the phrase, ‘God our Mother’, instead of ‘God our Father’, even though intellectually they know that God has no gender. It is precisely because language tends to control thinking that feminist writers have pushed for the use of non-gendered language. That is why there is a great danger in speaking of Christ as King - because the term ‘king’ has connotations, both during his time and now, that go completely against what Jesus understood. We have converted Jesus, the ‘king’ on the cross,  the master who like a slave washed the feet of his disciples, into the image and likeness of our own understanding of ‘King’.  Can this be one of the reasons why there are so few bishops and priests who come across as servants - and why many of the faithful are not only quite comfortable with that, but actually expect and approve that? 

First Reading: Leviticus 13: 1-2, 44-46

The Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying: “When a person has on the skin of his body a swelling or an eruption or a spot and it turns into a defiling disease on the skin of his body, he shall be brought to Aaron the priest or to one of his sons the priests.   And The priest shall pronounce him unclean; the disease is on his head.

The person who has the defiling disease shall wear torn clothes and let the hair of his head be disheveled, and he shall cover his upper lip and cry out, ‘Unclean, unclean.’  He shall remain unclean as long as he has the disease; he is unclean. He shall live alone; his dwelling shall be outside the camp.

 

Second Reading: First Corinthians 10: 31 – 11: 1

 

So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do everything for the glory of God. Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God, just as I try to please everyone in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, so that they may be saved. Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.

Gospel: Mark 1: 40-45

A man with leprosy came to him and begged him on his knees, “If you are willing, you can make me clean.” Jesus was indignant. He reached out his hand and touched the man. “I am willing,” he said. “Be clean!” Immediately the leprosy left him and he was cleansed. Jesus sent him away at once with a strong warning: “See that you don’t tell this to anyone. But go, show yourself to the priest and offer the sacrifices that Moses commanded for your cleansing, as a testimony to them.” Instead he went out and began to talk freely, spreading the news. As a result, Jesus could no longer enter a town openly but stayed outside in lonely places. Yet the people still came to him from everywhere.