Paul – not our role model

(Monday musings)

The apostle Paul is often put forward as an example for all Christians to follow in sharing the gospel with others. And when it comes to his love for Christ, his obedience, his courage and his commitment, he is certainly a great example.

But I wonder if Paul is really the best guide for the ‘average’ Christian to be urged to follow when it comes to delivering the message of the gospel. Paul was a single man with (as far as we know) no dependents. His occupation (making tents) could be carried out anywhere. His Roman citizenship gave him the right to go anywhere in the Roman Empire, and to some extent provided him protection. He was free to travel from place to place.

As a former Pharisee, Paul had a well-respected theological education and the skills to expertly interpret scripture. He was trained to lead, teach and write.

More importantly, as an Apostle, Paul had a very specific calling to be an evangelist which followed his dramatic conversion on the Damascus road. Clearly he was well equipped for the role, or perhaps we should say, the Lord had wonderfully prepared him for it.

The problem with Paul being held up as an example is that few of us can identify closely with him. We may have families. We have jobs that may not easily be transferred from place to place. Our theological education is limited (though we can certainly always learn more.) We may not have leadership skills, speaking skills, or the ability to teach. And most of us have not received a clear calling to be evangelists. We are all called to be witnesses of what we have seen and heard and know of the Lord Jesus.

The risk is that, in comparing ourselves with Paul, we feel inadequate for the task we think we’re called to do and give up. What we really need to know is what Paul had to say to the Christians he was writing to about how they were to go about being witnesses to Christ. He didn't ask them all to join him in his travels. What did he tell them to do? What were they to say to the people around them? How were they to demonstrate the good news of the gospel to their neighbours? The answers to these questions, rather than Paul himself, are where we will find our guide to being witnesses.

If you had been here - Martha's lament

Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died" (John 11:21)

The raising of Lazarus
by Duccio di Buoninsegna

Unless you are reading this story for the first time, you already know the outcome. Lazarus has died, and his sisters Mary and Martha have called for Jesus. When he eventually arrives, Jesus tells Martha that her brother Lazarus will rise again. Martha responds "I know he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day." After assuring Martha that he is the resurrection and the life, Jesus asks Martha if she believes that whoever believes in him will never die. Her answer? "I believe that you are the Messiah, the son of God".

So Martha's initial words "Lord, if you had been here my brother would not have died" can simply be read as a statement of faith: "I know that you can heal the dying." After all, she goes on to add "I know that even now God will give you whatever you ask." (11.22) Martha expresses a faith in Jesus that is more than justified when Jesus raises Lazarus from the dead.

But let's look back at the situation before Jesus' arrival, from Martha's point of view. Her brother Lazarus becomes ill and is obviously dying. She and Mary are desperate - not only do they love Lazarus, but the prospects for two unmarried women with no male family support are grim.

They hear that Jesus is not far away and send a message "Lord, he whom you love is ill". They have been friends of Jesus for some time, they have lovingly ministered to him and believe that he cares about them. They have also seen and heard enough about what Jesus has done amongst the sick and dying to believe that he will surely be able to do something for Lazarus.

Doubting Thomas

Now Thomas, one of the Twelve, called the Twin, was not with them when Jesus came. So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord.” But he said to them, “Unless I see in his hands the mark of the nails, and place my finger into the mark of the nails, and place my hand into his side, I will never believe.”  
John 20:24-25 (English Standard Version)

I once thought of Thomas as someone with a sceptical outlook on life - a first century scientist who looked for evidence to support his hypotheses. I assumed he was like the many people I know who reject the Christian gospel because (they assume) there is not enough evidence to support it.

But these are people looking at Christianity from the outside. Thomas was not like that. He'd lived alongside Jesus for three years. He'd watched Jesus, listened to him, learned so much about him first hand. He'd been as committed to following Jesus as any of the disciples. When Jesus set out on his last journey to Jerusalem, it was Thomas who had urged them, "Let's go and die with him".

Detail from Carl Heinrich Bloch "Doubting Thomas"

Nor was Thomas like the Pharisees who wilfully disbelieved Jesus because he threatened their own position. As Jesus had predicted in his story of Dives and Lazarus, they would not believe even though someone were to return to them from the dead. (Luke 16:31) Thomas wasn't refusing to believe whatever evidence might be presented to him. He was adamant that he would only believe if he saw for himself, but later, having seen, he believed whole-heartedly.

Why did Thomas refuse to believe the words of ten men who were all well known to him? The other disciples had not believed the women who brought the news of the resurrection. "It seemed an idle tale to them", something the women, in their emotional turmoil, had dreamed up. The word of a woman was not admissible as evidence in a Jewish court, and no doubt the disciples had something of this attitude still with them even after spending three years with Jesus. But the word of two men had authority, and here were ten men all in agreement.

The disciples were no doubt so excited that they could hardly get the words out, as they told Thomas that they had seen the Lord. They must have told him, too, about Jesus showing them the wounds in his hands and side. Yet their collective enthusiasm and explanation didn't persuade him. Thomas insisted, “Unless I see in his hands the mark of the nails, and place my finger into the mark of the nails, and place my hand into his side, I will never believe.”

Other versions of this verse say "I will not believe". Either way, Thomas is quite emphatic. Nothing anyone can say will ever persuade him that Jesus has risen. Only seeing the evidence in front of him will make him change his mind.

It's difficult and risky to draw conclusions from the few sentences we have about Thomas. Yet there seems a definite movement in Thomas' attitude to Jesus in John's account, from the courageous commitment he showed on the road to Jerusalem, through the confused questioning in the upper room, to this determination not to believe without seeing for himself.

This willful doubting of Thomas is often taken as an example of arrogance or stubbornness towards Jesus. But could it be that Thomas' is guarding himself from further hurt and confusion? Is his refusal to believe perhaps a means of protecting himself from being disappointed and mistaken again, a case of 'once bitten, twice shy'?

It would seem, from his words in the upper room, "Lord, we don't know where you are going, so how can we know the way?" that his recent determination to follow Jesus to his death was based on a less than accurate understanding of what Jesus was going to do in Jerusalem. He thought he knew where Jesus was going and why, but somehow what Jesus said in that last conversation with his disciples rattled Thomas. There's a desperation, almost exasperation in his question "How can we know the way?"

Then came the furtive arrest, the mockery of a trial and Jesus brutal death. Thomas did not go to his death with Jesus after all, he fled with the other disciples. Like Peter with his broken promise to remain with Jesus, Thomas had more on his mind in those days after the crucifixion than just his grief at the loss of a good friend and teacher. He was surely struggling with guilt at his own act of betrayal, and a continuing sense of confusion and disappointment.

Detail from Rubens
 "The incredulity of St Thomas"

There are many people like Thomas. Once upon a time they were deeply committed Christians who sincerely thought that they would go to great lengths, even to death, for the Lord and the gospel. They were the Youth workers in their churches, the best students in theological college, the people everyone knew was destined for the mission field or a great preaching ministry. Then something happened that stopped them in their tracks. Perhaps it was a tragedy in their own lives or the life of someone close to them. Perhaps it was a bitter, destructive conflict in their church, or the moral failure of someone they looked up to as a model and mentor.

Suddenly the gospel they thought they understood no longer made sense, it didn't help them describe what was happening, it didn't cover their wounds. At that point they decided that the only way they would be able to go on believing would be to have evidence that the gospel was really true. In the past they had believed because of what they heard and read, but now other people's words are not enough. Now they need evidence from Jesus himself. In order to protect their shattered confidence, they will not believe unless they see.

Yet they also struggle with their own shame at having promised so much and then walked away. Their pride has to deal with the fact that they've spent years trying to convert others, and now they no longer believe themselves. They look back on their past enthusiasm with embarrassment. This only adds to their determination not to go this way again without strong evidence. The merely wounded might declare that they cannot believe, the shamed insist that they will not.

The risen Jesus deals with the failings of each of his disciples gently, graciously, personally. He doesn't issue a blanket pardon. In fact, he doesn't actually rebuke any of them for their abandonment of him. He takes Peter aside on the beach and by asking three times "Do you love me" allows Peter to undo each of his three denials of him. How, then, does he deal with Thomas?

It's strange, really, that Jesus appeared first to his disciples when Thomas was absent. He could surely have arranged things so that all eleven disciples were together. John's account makes it sound as though Thomas arrived not long after Jesus left. That raises the question, did Jesus actually intend for Thomas to be absent on that first occasion? And if so, why? And why wait eight days before appearing again with Thomas present? We're not told.

We can imagine what those eight days must have been like for Thomas, with the other disciples all insisting that they'd seen Jesus and all talking about what they had seen, what he had said, what they had felt, what it could mean. Like the odd man out on a jury deliberation, he must have felt some pressure to accept what they were saying. Yet he apparently continued to insist on withholding belief until he saw the evidence for himself. Did Jesus wait those eight days, hoping that Thomas would change his mind? Or did he have some other intention in waiting?

Caravaggio "The incredulity of Saint Thomas"

When Jesus did appear, dramatically through a locked door, he wasted no time in speaking to Thomas. And he knew exactly what Thomas had been demanding. “Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe.”  With Jesus standing in front of him, Thomas surely didn't need to put his fingers in the nail holes to believe, but Jesus meets the full demands of Thomas unbelief. He holds out his hands to him.

Written dialogue does not always convey the tone in which something is said, nor the expression on the face of the speaker, and John does not tell us how Jesus spoke these words to Thomas. Often the verse is read as a stern rebuke or a command "Do not doubt!" and the words are used to warn those whose faith is wavering that doubt is not acceptable to Jesus.

These words could just as easily be said gently, compassionately, perhaps even ironically. "Don't be doubting, but believe". The original Greek text could be literally translated "Don't become disbelieving". Jesus loved Thomas just as he loved each of his disciples. He understood Thomas better than Thomas understood himself. Jesus' living presence in the room was rebuke enough to someone who had been denying that possibility.

Again, we can ask why John recounts this episode about Thomas in his gospel. In Luke's account of Jesus appearing to his disciples, Thomas is not mentioned by name. Instead, Jesus says to all of his disciples "Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts?" (Luke 24:38) Then he shows them his hands and feet and invites them to touch him.

It is often said that this incident with Thomas is included by John to encourage those who have come to faith in Jesus through the witness of the apostles (directly, in John's day, or indirectly through scripture since then.) They may not have seen the risen Lord Jesus, but Jesus himself said that those who believe without seeing are 'blessed'. (John 20:29)

But if the emphasis is on  the blessing of believing without seeing, why not provide an example of someone who did believe solely on the word of the disciples. And why single out Thomas as the doubter, when John says none of the disciples believed the women's account, and when Luke makes clear that even with Jesus standing amongst them, some of the other disciples doubted? Jesus words in John 20:29 (“Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” ) could be inserted after Luke 24:40 and make perfect sense.

We might also ask what Jesus meant when he used the word 'blessed' for those who believe without seeing. Did he mean that they are commended or even rewarded by God for their faith? Or is their faith somehow a blessing in itself?

In that week of suspended belief Thomas was surrounded by friends who were no longer grieving but ecstatic in their joy at having seen Jesus alive. He must surely have longed to have their faith, to share their joy with them. And yet he's afraid to let go of that commitment never to believe unless he sees. The cost of being proved wrong and disappointed again seems just too great to bear. So while they're rejoicing, he's in a state of emotional turmoil and sadness. What if Jesus should never appear to his disciples again. He will have missed out forever on settling his doubts.

And now suppose he meets someone who has been told by the disciples about the resurrection and they have believed and are full of the excitement of a new convert. Wouldn't he describe their state as 'blessed' compared to his own?

But Jesus doesn't leave Thomas in his doubts. He comes to him. He gives him all the evidence he needs. And just in case he should later doubt that it happened, he comes to him while he's with others who can recall and confirm what took place and what was said.

It's worth noting three things in  this story. First, Thomas never stopped being a disciple.The other disciples did not exclude him because of his doubts. He was not numbered with the Pharisees who refused to believe for very different reasons. Second, Jesus is gracious to Thomas, and doesn't exclude him either. Instead he meets his need. But third, Jesus says those who believe without needing proof are far better off than those who will never believe without seeing.

The first two statements encourage us to be gentle towards those who struggle with doubt (including ourselves), and to continue to include them in our fellowship. The third precludes us from thinking that there is any merit in doubting, though we may have good reasons for having doubts. Waiting for proof is a risky path to take if proof comes only by a gift of grace.

(This is the second of an occasional series of articles on Biblical characters who experienced doubt. See also Jesus, are you the one? )

Looking back

When things become difficult, it's always tempting to look back to the "good old days".

Sometimes, like Lot's wife, we look back in regret. We compare the genuinely good things we've lost - the relationships, the comforts, the circumstances - with what we have now. It's easy then to become bitter, or to live mentally and emotionally in the past instead of the present. Unwilling to let go of what has gone, we resist moving forwards into the future. It's as if we become rigid and immobilised, a "pillar of salt".

At other times we become nostalgic for a past that looks far better in hindsight than it really was at the time. Out in the desert and feeling hungry, the people of Israel forgot the hardships they had endured as slaves in Egypt. They began to grumble and longed for the supposedly good things they had left behind - trivial things like leeks and onions.

Regret and nostalgia are seldom helpful. They prevent us from dealing with the reality in which we now live, and keep us from having hope for the future. Neither Lot's wife nor the people of Israel benefited from their backward-looking attitude. It only left them doubting God's faithfulness.

Yet the Bible does tell us to "remember". We're told to remember what God has done and the way that he has provided for us in the past. But rather than mourning for what we have lost, we are called to be thankful for the blessings we have received.  Remembering God's goodness to us in the past is a means of reminding us to live in hope that he will continue to provide what we need in the future.

We're also told to remember the way that God has been with us through difficult times. Instead of becoming nostalgic, we can live in the reality of the present, knowing that the same God is still with us now and will continue to be with us forever. Remembering will give us the strength to endure.