Trust

Trust is something that is earned. It is not merited purely because one is a priest or a religious. At times there is this tussle in some of our encounters where confreres ask, ‘Do you trust that lay person or his word over and above your own confreres?’ Unfortunately, there is no relation between trust and one’s responsibility or role in an institution. Just because one is a lay person, does not make his or her word less authentic than a priest or nun in the same institution. It is not about one’s state of life that determines whether one is trustworthy or not; rather it is the life lived and the work ethics followed that makes one trustworthy.

Silence and trust

St Joseph, among the many things he teaches, shows us the importance of silence. Because, in silence, one is open to listen... listen to His voice. 

And then have the humility and the TRUST that He will take care of things! 

The first miracle

Hearing the gospel event of the first miracle of Jesus at Cana, this afternoon, it struck me that Mary did not know what Jesus would do.  Or perhaps she did?  We don't know. But the fact is that she knew he'd do something. 

Secondly, this first miracle of Jesus is no great life-saver.  At the most it is matter of saving the family hosting the wedding from some embarrassment. And that too what does he do?  Produce wine!  Not some food for the starving or cure for the terminally ill.  Wine for recreation! 

More than anything I think this event is one of trust and obedience. Trust that Mary had in Jesus, that he'd do 'something' to address the evident embarrassment of the host.  Obedience of Jesus to Mary, just a word and he does it.  

The young leading the way

When Don Bosco was writing the regulations for the oratory of St Francis de Sales and the rules for the fledgling Salesian congregation, he adopted varied tactics.  When it came to the oratory itself, he was no stickler for rules.  But he did write down 'guidelines' more as a reflection and help to others working with him, rather than as a formal code book.  That he had to greatly alter this style, he learnt it the hard way, while writing and submitting his Rules for the congregation to the Vatican. 

Another aspect that comes out more strikingly in his guidelines for the oratory (more than the boarding schools, which came under the jurisdiction of the State and needed formal approval) is the direct engagement of the young people themselves in the everyday running of the house.  While it is true that there were priests and teachers and Don Bosco himself, but it was the boys themselves who were actively involved in the running of the place.

Young people need to be trusted and given responsibilities, rather than shielded from them.  One of my own greatest learnings and joys at Navajeevan, Ramanthapur was this pedagogy of letting boys take charge of things. These boys (just like most of those with Don Bosco then) were already living their life out on the street - all on their own.  They certainly knew what decision-making means, especially the consequences of them.  Adding my trust to their abilities and giving them that freedom made a huge difference to the way things were carried out in the house. 

Peter's proclamation and denial

In the Gospel of the day, we hear Jesus foretelling Peter denying him.  To which, Peter vehemently affirms his loyalty.  For us listeners who know the whole story, the passionate rebuttal of Peter to Jesus' prophecy seems like a joke.  We already know he is going to deny Jesus.  This present passion and loyalty are only fleeting. 

We may smirk at Peter's fierce loyalty, but we are no better off. We have our own convictions and principles, and if someone were to challenge them, we'd give them a good fight. But somewhere down the line (in three years, or three months or even three days!) we may give up those very convictions or principles for the slightest of trouble or risk to our more basics of life.  It does not take long for convictions to become opinions.  Jesus knew the depth of Peter's faith.  Peter thought he had seen it all and that there was nothing that could separate him from Jesus! 

Another dimension of this proclamation of loyalty and then the u-turn is basically because the primary proclamation is made solely on the strength of one's own power.  God does not feature in the future plans.  It's all about me battling it out, making it on my own accord.  None of us really know all that will unfold in our lives.  Not next year, not next month, not even the next minute.  So our reply need not change.  But our attitude to what will come can very well be that of trust - trust that we will not be alone. 

"Well then, at least give me the strength to make that denial temporary!" could have been Peter's reply, if he knew Jesus well. 

"I know that you are with me, help me too to be with you!" 

The fragility of discernment

Reflecting on the action of the three wise men, one cannot but admire them for their courage.  The risk they undertook to find this divine revelation.  On the one hand, we call them 'wise', and on the other, they start off with nothing but an intuition/inspiration and a star in the night sky!  No certainty.  No guarantee of success.  Furthermore, tradition states that they set off alone - no convoy, no military escort.  And if they are to follow the only practical guiding principle - the star - they could only travel at night.  The risk of brigands and thieves.  And it was not coal or grass they were carrying! 

Yet, they undertake the journey.  They weigh the positive outcome as far more superior to the risk they undertake in that journey.  They trust the star.  They trust their intuition.  They trust themselves.  They believe it is a divine power leading them.  For placing their confidence in all such criteria, I wonder if they'd be called 'wise' by today's standards.  Yet our Christian tradition always held them to be 'wise men from the East'.  

Trust

The whole phenomenon of trust and hope is a very illogical one.  Nothing exemplifies this more than the following verse from Hebrews (10:23):

Let us keep firm in the hope we profess, because the one who made the promise is faithful. 

We persevere in hope not because we trust in our capabilities or strength but because we trust God to be faithful - even if we are not! 

Contrast this with one Anthony DeMello's quotes:

A bird sitting on a tree is never afraid of the branch breaking, because her trust is not on the branch but on it's wings. 

Perhaps the only difference here is that trust is not in a material object but a living person.  Only that logic makes sense - some sense.  But still this aspect of trust can never be fully explained away.  Nonetheless we trust.  We hope! 

A questioning faith

For the first time today, I had the opportunity to gladly counter an argument that faith meant 'not questioning'.  When sharing about faith and merely accepting what is told, I feel that my faith does not call me to be blind.  In fact, I find my faith more meaningful, strong and supportive, when I really question!

Someone said, children question but then easily believe what is being told.  I replied, they do certainly believe, but that does not prevent them for asking questions.  To every reply you offer, there's always a question ready - almost instantly.  However, they do not ask questions to everyone.  They approach people whom they trust... not so much to get the 'right answer' but under all that inquisitiveness is the need to be listened to.

Faith is not about 'not questioning', or 'merely accepting'; it is about trusting the one whom I approach with those questions.  And often, like children, I'm actually not looking for the 'right answer', I'm just looking for someone who will listen - listen with love and care!

Loneliness

An interesting understanding of loneliness, something that did not occur to me earlier...

By ‘loneliness’ Arendt did not simply mean solitude, in which – as she points out – you have your own self for consolation. In the solitude of our minds, we engage in an internal dialogue. We speak in two voices. It is this internal dialogue that allows us to achieve independent and creative thought – to weigh strong competing imperatives against each other. You engage in it every time you grapple with a moral dilemma. Every clash of interests, every instance of human difference evokes it. True thought, for Arendt, involved the ability to put ourselves in someone else’s shoes. True loneliness, therefore, was the opposite. It involved the abrupt halting of this internal dialogue: ‘the loss of one’s own self’ – or rather, the loss of trust in oneself as the partner of one’s thoughts. True loneliness means being cut off from a sense of human commonality and therefore conscience. You are left adrift in a sea of insecurity and ambiguity, with no way of navigating the storms. (Aeon)

And this loneliness is the common thread running through all extremists and belonging (to the extremist or terrorist group) gives them a sense of identity, a place where they no more feel lonely but valued.  So it is not that only those who are physically alone or isolated that are prone to loneliness, even those living amidst people and even those who are actively involved in the lives of others also can be victims of this loss of trust in oneself.  The key as I see it is communication and empathy.  

Owning up... being the Church

The revelations about the abuse of minors by priests and religious has driven a knife into the heart of the Church.  There is no going back on this.  What has been done cannot be undone.  The church will have to live through this.  It cannot deny or escape this guilt. 

The direct consequence of this uncovering has significantly contributed to the departure of many a faithful from the church.  People no more feel safe in the church and prefer to stay away.  Vocations to priesthood and religious life had drastically fallen.  Many even prefer to be categorized as 'irreligious', if not atheists. 

Yet, it is interesting to note that the priests and religious are not the only sex-offenders to be exposed.  Football coaches, Hollywood bigwigs, famous politicians, too have been charged, and found guilty.  Yet parents have not stopped enrolling their sons for football training camps;  young women still try their hand at modelling and in the movie industry;  youngsters still aim and strive for a political career... there hasn't been a reduction of these (at least not significantly or recorded).  Why then is the whole church singled out for this treatment, unlike football, or movies or politics?

The basic difference is a matter of trust.  The Church was considered the moral conscience of the society and priests and religious the models of virtue.  This was something the Church leaders aimed for, took pride in and the lay faithful joyfully and sincerely endorsed.  However some took advantage of this trust and let their human tendencies prey on innocent believers.  Others instead of confronting it, covered it up.

So it is not the media coverage and the ensuing outrage that has wounded the church but the very act itself.  The church is betrayed by the ones most trusted.  Again, not the whole church but individuals. Yet the church will have to take the blame, if it still wishes to be true to its name.  The victim and the abuser, both are the church! 

Theological parable

Here's another of Fr Jose Louis Plascencia's reflection:
The reflection is based on the gospel parable of the poor widow putting in her only two pence in the collection box (Lk. 21: 1-4). 

... all of them contributed out of their abundance, but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live on. 

In an ordinary sense it offers a very powerful ethical and moral lesson to trust God completely. A great moral motivator indeed. 

However, it one day struck Fr Jose that it could also be read as a remarkable theological parable!  Is the God of Jesus Christ like one of those rich people who "contributed much" but out of their abundance, or is he not rather like the poor widow who gave everything for our sake, all that was dearest to him, his only Son? 

Joseph called Barsabbas

In the selection process for the replacement of Judas, Joseph and Matthias are the finalists.  Unable to decide upon which one, the apostles pray and cast lots (initially reminded me of the soldiers at the foot of the cross casting lots for the robe of Jesus).  The lot falls for Matthias and he is announced as one of the apostles. 

What became of Joseph called Barsabbas?  Simple: He carried on his life and ministry!  That's how I would like to remember him.  If among all the people they had to choose from, the apostles zeroed in on these two men, they surely must have been men of faith, men dedicated to the ministry and truly in love with Jesus.  So I don't think being granted the title of an 'apostle' would have made any big difference to their personal character.  All that happened was that one got an additional role and responsibilities, the other didn't get that role... but the ministry and life of faith continued.

How often in life, have we seen people give up everything for a particular goal or post?  And once they do get the post, life is totally different.   It happens all the time in politics and with politicians.  It happens also with priests, religious and bishops..., especially those whose aim is the post (religious politicians?).  I wish Luke the author of the Acts had enumerated the qualities of Joseph and Matthias and a bit more of the selection criteria.  But honestly speaking all that was needed is clearly mentioned:

...it is necessary that one of the men who accompanied us the whole time the Lord Jesus came and went among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day on which he was taken up from us, become with us a witness to his resurrection.

...been with Jesus and his people and a genuine witness of all that Jesus stood for... we get the role for being this, with the confidence that we would do better.  If those basic qualities for which we were granted the role and related responsibilities are compromised with, then one has no right to continue in that role or claim anything related to it.  That would be the story of Judas, not Joseph Barsabbas!

A matter of trust

The whole idea of fake news and alternative facts is coming round to haunt the very notion of news and truth. While some blame it on the proliferation of social media and communication channels, others to the failure of authority to be true to their call for universal representation and fairplay.  Some blame it on our own long standing demand for authenticity, transparency and freedom.  Some blame it on postmodern thinkers who ushered in this sort of 'fringe-thinking'. 

Mere pieces of information without any perspective is not news.  And there is no news that is not biased or 'from a particular angle'.  And even if one has merely pieces of information, but no context or plan or perspective, they are all useless entities.  Just like lego pieces to a rat.  A cat may atleast play with them. A dog may perhaps chew them.  Even a child who has no clue of what they are, or never seen them before, will merely use them for throwing around.  No such child in the first instance is going to build a house or plane with them! 

The call for transparency, authenticity, accountability cannot be blamed for generating conflict and confusion.  The plethora of social media cannot be blamed for generating stuff.  (The fault of fake news is not the crime of the media but of individuals lacking accountability and authenticity.)  The worth and value of social media arose for lack of credibility of erstwhile institutions which were once held in esteem for being authentic.  Institutions like the leading newspapers, court judges, experienced academia, religious authorities.... Social media needs to keep these on their toes, not usurp their roles.  When these established institutions continue to repeatedly fail to live up to the trust people have in them, the general population is left at the mercy of any and every media.  Authority is so distributed that everyone believes everyone or no one believes anyone (both the same!). 

God's Rosebud!

An interesting anecdote and poem about discernment. 

A new minister was walking with an older, more seasoned minister in the garden one day. Feeling a bit insecure about what God had for him to do, he was asking the older preacher for some advice.

The older preacher walked up to a rosebush and handed the young preacher a rosebud and told him to open it without tearing off any petals. The young preacher looked in disbelief at the older preacher and was trying to figure out what a rosebud could possibly have to do with his wanting to know the will of God for his life and ministry. But, because of his great respect for the older preacher, he proceeded to try to unfold the rose, while keeping every petal intact. It wasn't long before he realized how impossible this was to do.

Noticing the younger preacher's inability to unfold the rosebud without tearing it, the older preacher began to recite the following poem...

It is only a tiny rosebud, 

A flower of God's design; 

But, I cannot unfold the petals 

With these clumsy hands of mine. 

The secret of unfolding flowers 

Is not known to such as I. 

GOD opens this flower so easily, 

But, in my hands they die.

If I cannot unfold a rosebud, 

This flower of God's design, 

Then, how can I have the wisdom 

To unfold this life of mine?

So, I'll trust in God for leading 

Each moment of my day. 

I will look to God for guidance 

In each step along the way.

The path that lies before me, 

Only my Lord and Savior knows. 

I'll trust God to unfold the moments, 

Just as He unfolds the rose.

Certain hope

We do so many things in life, some of which are clearly geared towards a far distant dream.  We are hopeful and in a sense sure of achieving that dream - we wouldn't be spending all that time and energy if we were not 'so sure'.  However, not everything has to go our way either.  Things may go haywire and our sustained and years of effort may be totally lost, in view of the intended purpose.  It certainly causes pain and heartache. But I think what causes real pain and suffering is when you realize that the effort is 'wasted' not because it was worthless or you failed, but for some silly and absolutely ridiculous reason as your caste, or religion, place of birth, or some else's like or dislike. How to face angst? Helpless anger?

To see a life, especially a young promising and enthusiastic life, killed in some senseless violence.   To see an activist being murdered for fighting what everyone knows is a just cause.  To hear of a whole family shattered by the rape of a young daughter, only because they belonged to a particular caste, or religion or section of society.  To come to know of a friend who has been denied promotion or benefits due to him only on account of him being of a different group than the one in authority... all of this puts to question the notion of having a dream, slogging it out for it... If all one works for can be wiped off by something so trivial and for no reason, then why strain? 

Yet we do!  We invest our time and energy in our plans.  We slog it out for our dreams.  We plan for years ahead of us.  We hope! If we let doubts or fears grow, we'd not be able to do anything at all! 

(But merely having hope is like walking carefully through a minefield - hoping that we do not step on one!  As long as I'm not the one stepping on, everything is fine.  Doing something about the minefield itself is an act of courage.)  

The Father and I are one

Yesterday's gospel bears witness to Jesus saying that anyone who believes in the Father will not only do good works but will do greater works than himself.  Today we hear him say 'without me you can do nothing'.  Appears paradoxical! 

On the one hand, there is the assurance that trust in God is all that is expected.  On the other is the demand to take the side of Jesus...

Looks confusing, but only if we miss another important lesson of the gospel:  The Father and I are one! Furthermore there is the assurance of Jesus: Remain in me, as I remain in you.

An echo chamber

Read an interesting article on Aeon today: Why it is hard to escape an echo chamber?

As I read this article all I could think, at every instance or para of it was the present grip of Mr Modi on the Indian electorate.  The BJP that is presenting itself is very different from that of the BJP represented by Vajpayee or even Advani.  The former, was distinctly clear about its agenda, course of action and vision.  It made no veiled presentation of itself.  Everyone, not just members of the party, knew what its aims and objectives were.  Not so with the present BJP.  What it has succeeded indeed is turn the Indian mind into an echo chamber.  In doing so it has not blocked itself from 'other voices', merely branded them untrustworthy, corrupted and therefore not worth anything.  Far from doublespeak, or even momentary epistemic glimpses, the echo chamber sounds rational, interested in the truth, active throughout and resonates with voices; but merely endorsing its own principles.  Even the contrary voices somehow are so manipulated (not by changing their content, but by changing the mind of the listener), that they endorse the principles of the 'ghetto'. 

The solution out of this echo chamber?  Trust!  There are numerous voices that resonate in a society.  However we know not whom and what to trust.  Unless we begin to trust a voice and that voice proves itself trustworthy, we will only further entrench ourselves in the echo chamber. 

To be more fair to the reading of the article, I can even look at my own Catholic upbringing as a echo chamber.  However, as long as one is willing to look at, evaluate and even trust other contrary sources, is open minded about the authority of sources other than Catholic sources, am willing to be won over by the goodness I observe, acknowledge and appreciate in others, especially non-Christians... I would think I'm not an ostrich in an echo chamber.  

Beginning from Jerusalem

Jesus appears to his apostles and assures them that He is not a ghost.  He shares a meal with them and then explains the Scriptures and its fulfillment in him (may not have been the best time to do so, especially after a meal, but given the circumstance, I'm sure they were all awake and perfectly attentive!).  The gospel of the day concludes with these words of Jesus

Thus it is written that the Messiah would suffer and rise from the dead on the third day and that repentance, for the forgiveness of sins, would be preached in his name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things.

Three weeks ago was Easter.  In these three weeks much water has passed under the bridge, especially in world politics.  Syria has just been bombed.  What course of action - or reaction - would follow is awaited.  And that is not the only tension and confusion in the globe.  Practically every part of the world is plagued with unrest and war-like situation.  Even the very place mentioned in the gospel is at the heart of some unrest.  In such a situation, it is ironic to hear that 'repentance, forgiveness of sins' would be preached to all nations, that too beginning from Jerusalem!  Really?

However, hope is always there to assure us of things different.  But hope is not the only thing.  There is the ground-reality of goodness too.  While media, national and international, trains its lenses on the war-games, deaths, scandals, and every sort of evil one knows and at times even of those unheard, there are the untold stories of good deeds being carried out by ordinary folks all over the world.  Perhaps there are too many to be spoken of or broadcasted and that's why the media chooses to ignore them or offer some only by way of closing notes.

And so we live, by hope and trusting in the goodness of humanity...

Post-truth and trust

For quite sometime now, this notion of post-truth has been in circulation.  Ever since Donald Trump took up the presidency of the US, it has gained all the more prominence.  Perhaps that's the only rational explanation one can offer to the otherwise seemingly bizarre and totally 'wrong' things one encounters or sees others hold as right. 

The age old debate between science and religion, as to which of them is right is now no more the central argument.  Why so?  Has it been resolved? Or is it that the issue is no more relevant?  Or is there is a sort of tiredness to keep getting at one another's throat that there is now a declared 'peace'? 

Perhaps the way science has reviewed itself over the past few decades has something to do with it.  Something religion is still shy of doing or at least some feeble attempts are being made in some parts.  In 1970 W. V. Quine and J. S. Ullian in their book The Web of Belief made a strange argument:  that scientific statements are truths not because of their fidelity to external facts but due to their internal coherence and persuasiveness they share with other narratives and statements.  Our beliefs face the test of experience not as each individual compartmentalized fact but as a web or layered body.  Moreover our interaction of individual experience is only with the margins of our belief, not the core of what we hold as true.  So whenever there is something that contradicts or challenges our belief, we are prompted to restore consistency.  But in choosing what to revise or change, we are not guided by facts alone.  The central challenge is not fidelity to external facts but semblance of the entire web.  And in this process, we might end either changing one of the marginal beliefs or even the core of the web.  What plays a crucial role in this whole process is the authority we choose to trust. 

If this principle is right, then it does explain how one can have two seemingly and 'apparent' contradictory beliefs which for one person are totally opposite and for another perfectly compatible.  It is just that they both choose a different authority source.  What then of the external fact? Does that no more have a say in what holds as true or false?  It does but again, what guarantee that what you see is right?  After all, for centuries science believed in geo-centrism.  Technology experts could think of mega data storage only in terms of cabinet files and godowns. 

Well, if that is the case of observable external facts, what about non-material unperceivable realities of life?  Of values and principles?  Though the complications are multiplied, the basic argument of Quine and Ullian about a 'web of belief' still holds true. 

From unbelief to belief

It is Mary Magdalene who is the first witness to Jesus' resurrection.  Of all the people, she first reports the incident to the apostles - evidently.  Then He appears to the two disciples on the way to Emmaus. They too run back to Jerusalem to tell this to the apostles.  Yet the apostles are skeptical.  It is only when Jesus appears to them that they believe in his being risen.  Thomas is the only one among the apostles who misses seeing Him when He appears first.  He too does not believe - not Mary Magdalene, not the two disciples, not even his fellow apostles!  It is only when he sees Jesus for himself that he begins to believe. 

There may be many a thing we may spread and bear witness to.  Most people do believe when they hear or see someone testify about something they themselves have not seen or experienced.  However, personal experience, in most cases endorses that belief and leads to deepening of the conviction.  For some that personal experience may be the trigger. 

It all hinges on trust.  We basically trust people.  We believe that they will tell us the truth.  We trust that they will not mislead us.  However, in today's world, in spite of and perhaps because of the growth of communication channels there is a growing amount of suspicion about things.  Fake news. Alternative facts.  Post-truth.  Very many think it is due to growth of technology.  Not necessarily. It still boils down to human nature. The real antidote to suspicion and fear is trust; not regulation.