The lectionary passage for
this week is the story of the man who was born blind (John 9:1-41). His disability prevented him from working, and
he needed to beg to survive. In the tale, Jesus was walking along, saw the man,
spit in some mud and put it into his eyes and sight was restored.
It is a long passage, I’m
not going to try and go through the intricacies of the whole story and the
discourse around it. I’m just going to pick out three themes which stood out on
reading it.
The first is blame. How
quick we, as human beings, are to point a finger. The first question in the
story was from the disciples who asked, “Who sinned, this man or his parents, that
he was born blind.?” It is an interesting question as it implies the
unborn child could sin. However, I want to remain with the concept of casting
blame. The idea that someone, somewhere, at some time had caused something to
happen is still quite consuming in our society.
I had an acquaintance many
years ago who suffered from a chronic illness which was quite debilitating, even
requiring the use of a wheelchair on occasion. While her preference would have
been not to be sick she had come to terms with the limitations of her
condition. She was part of a church that from time to time held healing
crusades. She had come to dread them. She felt there was always an expectation
that she would be miraculously cured, and it had never happened. Then were the
comments and glances that indicated that somehow it was her fault, she was to
blame as she wasn’t healed, perhaps her faith wasn’t strong enough, perhaps she
was doing something wrong, etc.
It is a hard concept to think about. Yet blame
happens in our society all the time. Something goes wrong and the first response
often is, “Who is to blame.” I have many
thoughts swirling around in my head. Too many to put on paper. They all revolve
round the idea that in the story blame came first, it came even before
compassion for the blind man.
It is still true today. Think
about it, whenever anything happens, locally, nationally, internationally. The first
question, the first media headline, the first task is often finding who is to
blame.
On Wednesday there was an
attack in London which I’m sure has been seen worldwide. Five people lost their
lives and many more were injured, some are still critical. Our hearts, thoughts
and prayers go out to the families and friends of those who were killed and
injured. I was alerted to it late morning while I was at work and immediately
went to media sites for details. Those early headlines were all asking the
question, who is to blame? Later, of course, there was much compassion for the
victims and their families, tangibly shown by the many flowers left at the site
of the attack.
In the USA on Friday, the proposed
new health care bill was overturned. The immediate response of the government
was to comment on who was to blame. The Washington Post headlined, “Who is to
blame for the failure of the health-care overhaul? The finger pointing begins.”
(https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/who-is-to-blame-for-the-failure-of-the-health-care-overhaul-the-finger-pointing-begins/2017/03/25/d799fc94-115d-11e7-9d5a-a83e627dc120_story.html?utm_term=.04a129353dc1)
The second idea I want to
pick up from the story is proof. In the story the man’s word was not
sufficient. The crowd wanted something more. It is an interesting sequence of
events, first they didn’t believe it was the same man, then they didn’t believe
the word of the man, then they asked his parents, then they went back to the
man (I wish he had a name). Then still they didn’t want to associate with the
man.
In the current times research
needs to be backed up with proofs. In my current research on child abuse I am
reading many studies and meta-analyses on the subject so I can present statistical
proof about the harm caused by spanking children.
Yet, it is not really that
sort of statistical proof I am meaning. It is simply not taking this man at his
word. They didn’t believe him and had to check several times to verify his
words. It is a sad reflection that the same thing still happens in contemporary
times. Yet it begs the question, which I will leave for pondering. “Can a
person’s word be taken as truth, or does it need verifying?”
The third and final concept
I took from the story was about blind spots. The story may be read as an
allegory, indeed that is hinted at in the text (5, 39-41). The passage talks
about the need to gain sight. The trouble with blind spots are that they are
not noticed until light shines on them. Over the years, I have had many blind
spots revealed in various ways. Often, they are on serious issues and once
revealed I cannot walk away from the issue exposed. These are experiences that
change lives, attitudes and behaviours.
In my work looking at
spanking children I see one such blind spot which I’ll mention. That is the
biblical justification for hitting children. According to the UNICEF “Hidden in
Plain Sight” report (2014) around 6 in 10 children between the ages of two and
fourteen worldwide (almost one billion) are subject to physical punishment by
their caregivers on a regular basis. Many children are spanked on the basis of
a few verses in the book of Proverbs. That actual phrase, “spare the rod and
spoil the child” is not even in Proverbs, but from a very old poem.
Nevertheless, it expresses the sentiment and reasoning behind the use of
spanking. Yet, when one looks at the language it is impossible to derive that
using the rod means spanking. Psalm 23 was the lectionary psalm for today. Exactly,
the same word for rod and staff is used as the one in Proverbs. Yet here it is
used for guidance, care and comfort. Try inserting those words in the verses in
Proverbs where rod is used. It gives a whole different sense to them.
I think it is important that
when light shines on a blind spot I have (and I’m sure I’ll encounter many more
in the future) that I can approach them with strength and fearlessness and find
the ability to change.
