Sarx

Today’s Gospel Reading at Mass (the Man Born Blind) prompted our preacher to ask the congregation to envision their own souls - as a painting, if you will - what do you see?

And while she continued on in that vein, I jerked, suddenly, seeing a couple of different images and reaching a new (to me) way to hear this story.

First: how do you see your soul? I had no answer. The image that came to me was from Alice Walker’s Temple of My Familiar: two older folks, artists and deep in love, die. Their daughter (or Granddaughter?) comes to clean out their studio and finds “Self Portraits” done by each artist. But Each “Self portrait” is, in fact, of the other’s shape. The Husband has painted his wife and vice versa. But only the outlines are there, identifiable: the insides of the shapes thus drawn are filled with rainbows and light. And I wondered how my lover might see my soul…

And at that moment of wondering the preacher said that Jesus - God - sees *us* as we really are, sees into our souls.

And that one line dropped the entire passage of Gospel into a different perspective.

To ancient Jews (and to more-devout Orthodox modern ones) as to some Christians: sin results in sickness. You do the wrong thing and get sick. St Paul bought into this superstition, saying that people could get sick by taking communion wrongly. But one needn’t be a Catholic or even a Sacramentlist to get superstitious: Newagers are always saying “you get what you want.” And for every teaching to “visualise health” is the implication that sick people are just not doing the right Wooji-Wooji. From St Paul to Oprah Winfrey, what a petty universe this paints - and a petty god to live in it.

The people in today’s reading - Jesus’ disciples, and the local religious authorities - all wonder how a man could be born blind: was it because of his sin or his parents’ sin? (We’ll skip over the fact that Jesus didn’t poo-poo the previous life teaching implied in the question.)

Then, after the healing, the authorities it can’t really be the guy it looks like…

I am he, says the not-blind-now man.

They get his parents and try to get the man convicted of telling lies - maybe he wasn’t blind at all?

Nope, he was blind, say the parents, but we don’t know how he sees now. But ask him: he is of age.

Then they ask the not-blind-now man again and he tries to debate with them about Jesus.

The he finds Jesus and Jesus reveals himself to him. And the not-blind-now man worships him. And Jesus tells the Pharisees that because they claim to see, they will get into more trouble than this man who knew he was blind.

And the preacher says, “How do you see your soul?”

And I suddenly realised that this story could be read about incorrect ways of seeing: are you the superstitious? the legal? the parental? the not-blind-now man? or are you Jesus?

The superstitious in this story immediately assume something is wrong in the past tense: who sinned, this man or his parents? They go looking for whatever is wrong. They want to talk about it, limiting God: if you had seen Jesus healing everyone in the countryside, why would you still be asking him about the state of people’s souls? These people assume the worst from the get-go. We’re all going to die. Jesus sees something else.

The legalistic in this story immediately assume that something is wrong in the present tense. You know these people, too: they go looking for whatever one might be doing wrong. They are perfectionists nothing you do is good enough for them. They only see how you fail to live up to what they imagine is your potential (although clearly they live up to their potential). The legalists tell him “You were born in your sins and you try to teach us?” No… Jesus sees something else.

Are you the parental? Yes, I did this, no, I don’t know, I have nothing to do… I call this parental, because parents are used in the story, but I welcome other terms - certainly not all parents are like this). These folks have just been robbed of some serious income: their blind beggar son is no longer able to beg money all day and come home to them. Yes, he was blind. No, he’s not now. We hatched him. He’s “free white and over 21″ why bother us? People who think like this try to absolve themselves of any responsibility to others. Yes, ok, we’ll answer your legal questions, that is your right and out obligation, but we’re going home for supper right after we’re done. The parental see only an obligation, but Jesus sees something else.

Jesus sees the not-blind-now man exactly as he is: broken, worthy of love, and repairable. And he promptly does so. And as he is doing so, he reminds the not-blind-now man that, in fact, he is not any of the things others see: A sinner. A point of legal debate. A parental obligation. Jesus sees that this man - like all of us - is a nexus manifesting God’s works to God’s glory.

And he not only gives the man his sight, but Jesus gives the man his vision as well. The man claims for himself the name of God: I AM the man. He demands to be seen as an equal - a demand that falls on deaf ears. Only a person can see a person - when we judge another, we not only tear down the other, destroying their position and denying their personhood, but we also destroy ourselves and our own ability to see as God sees and our own ability to be as God would have us be.

Jesus restores this gift to us by demanding that we see and be in love. This is a novel position in the world. By Jesus gift, we learn to see - and be - as God intended.