“I am the Good Shepherd; I know my own and my own know me, as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep” (Jn 10:14f.). These verses present two striking sets of interrelated ideas that we need to consider if we are to understand what is meant by “knowing.”
First of all, knowing and belonging are interrelated. The Shepherd knows the sheep because they belong to him, and they know him precisely because they are his. Knowing and belonging (the Greek text speaks of the sheep as the Shepherd’s “own,” ta ídia) are actually one and the same thing. The true shepherd does not “possess” the sheep as is they were a thing to be used and consumed; rather, they “belong” to him, in the context of their knowing each other, and this “knowing” is an inner acceptance. It signifies an inner belonging that goes much deeper than the possession of things.
Let us illustrate this with an example from our own lives. No human being “belongs” to another in the way that a thing does. Children are not their parents’ “property”; spouses are not each other’s “property.” Yet they do “belong” to each other in a much deeper way than, for example, a piece of wood or a plot of land, or whatever else we call “property.” Children “belong” to their parents, yet they are free creatures of God in their own right, each with his own calling and his own newness and uniqueness before God. They belong to each other, not as property, but in mutual responsibility. They belong to each other precisely by accepting one another’s freedom and by supporting one another in love and knowledge – and in this communion they are simultaneously free and one for all eternity.
In the same way, the “sheep,” who after all are people created by God, images of God,* do not belong to the shepherd as if they were things – though that is what the thief and robber thinks when he takes possession of them. Herein lies the distinction between the owner, the true Shepherd, and the robber. For the robber, for the ideologues and the dictators, human beings are merely a thing that they possess. For the true Shepherd, however, they are free in relation to truth and love; the Shepherd proves that they belong to him precisely by knowing and loving them, by wishing them to be in the freedom of the truth. They belong to him through the oneness of “knowing,” through the communion in the truth that the Shepherd himself is. This is why he does not use them, but gives his life for them. Just as Logos and Incarnation, Logos and Passion belong together, so too knowing and self-giving are ultimately one.
[*That is, God, Holy Trinity: Father (Origin) begetting Son (Word, Image), together breathing forth the Spirit (Love, Gift).]
What a beautifully challenging picture of the world we indeed live in: We are indeed responsible for each other, challenged to accept one another's freedom, and to support one another in love and knowledge. And the true shepherd is the one that reveals the truth and offers his love - and so we become free to enter into that life, to seek to cling to him so as to be (and to live as) one of his own (so as to in turn lay down our lives...).
But the true shepherd has competitors, enemies. There are others who would like to take charge of the sheep and make a different kind of world. Still, the true shepherd lays down his life for all, even for the ideologues and dictators, those who are rather rapists and seducers than lovers,* who pursue an empty kind of freedom which is divorced from communion in truth and so who despise and fear reality, and hate life, hate others, hate the truth (and who thus ultimately hate themselves), and who thus suppress any natural compunction they might feel about spitting on those who dare to challenge the idol they have made of their ideology. They know - deep-down, at least - their own guilt: they know that hatred of truth and complicity in lies are deeply shameful; and they know, deep-down, that they are in fact decidedly humble and fallible little creatures, subject to the truth, not Lord over it; they know that they should thus always be open-minded, open to the possibility of correction, so as to be open to the truth; and yet they are afraid to reveal themselves - most of all to themselves - so they hide in dishonest rhetoric and malicious venom. It seems too great a risk to enter into a genuine dialogue, and so to be open to communion in the truth. They know deep down their own pettiness and guilt, but because they haven't encountered divine mercy, they are afraid to trust and to open themselves up to something bigger than themselves, something that transcends the familiar and comfortable ideological tent they inhabit, which they have learned to embrace as their reality and source of security, and over which they do their desperate best to reign as little tyrants.
And yet, as long as they live, as long as they are still able to choose life, the true shepherd continues to lay down his life for all these sheep. That is, he continues to offer us the gift of a share in his life, whereby we can know and love the truth, know and love the Shepherd (first of all acknowledging that we need one - we need help, we need guidance, we need redemption!), and thus know and love even ourselves, so that finally we can freely rejoice together in the beautiful gift of life. Some people are too afraid or confused or too accustomed to a life of hedonism or of spitting on others with violent self-righteous ideology to take seriously the gospel, this offer of the gift of life. Nonetheless, conversion is possible, the offer is there.
Eternal Father, for the sake of His sorrowful passion, have mercy on me and on the whole world.
[*Wayne Brockriede wrote an article entitled "Arguers As Lovers" (see Philosophy and Rhetoric, 1972) in which he classifies, in a rather simplistic but useful way, three kinds of arguers, that is, three possible ways of presenting and promoting truth-claims: as a rapist, as a seducer, as a lover. The rapist openly tries to force his view on the other person by the use of power (by censorship, for example, simply refusing to allow the other to even express his point-of-view - which can be accomplished simply by plugging one's ears, refusing to honestly listen to his point of view). The seducer likewise is indifferent to the humanness of the other person, but uses charm and deceit in an effort to "eliminate or limit his coarguer's most distinctively human power, the right to choose with an understanding of the consequences and implications of available options" (this is a standard device of ideologically motivated teachers, professors, politicians, journalists, parents, etc.). The lover, finally, sees the other person as a person, not as an object or victim. As Brockriede explains it, "the lover wants power parity." Rather than simply facing an adversary, "the lover...is willing to risk his very self in his attempt to establish a bilateral relationship." There is a clear resonance here between Brockriede's "lover-arguer" and Ratzinger's description of the true shepherd, who lays down his life in order to offer us freedom in relation to love and truth, freedom to belong to him (and him to us) in love, through oneness in knowing and through communion in the truth.]
But the true shepherd has competitors, enemies. There are others who would like to take charge of the sheep and make a different kind of world. Still, the true shepherd lays down his life for all, even for the ideologues and dictators, those who are rather rapists and seducers than lovers,* who pursue an empty kind of freedom which is divorced from communion in truth and so who despise and fear reality, and hate life, hate others, hate the truth (and who thus ultimately hate themselves), and who thus suppress any natural compunction they might feel about spitting on those who dare to challenge the idol they have made of their ideology. They know - deep-down, at least - their own guilt: they know that hatred of truth and complicity in lies are deeply shameful; and they know, deep-down, that they are in fact decidedly humble and fallible little creatures, subject to the truth, not Lord over it; they know that they should thus always be open-minded, open to the possibility of correction, so as to be open to the truth; and yet they are afraid to reveal themselves - most of all to themselves - so they hide in dishonest rhetoric and malicious venom. It seems too great a risk to enter into a genuine dialogue, and so to be open to communion in the truth. They know deep down their own pettiness and guilt, but because they haven't encountered divine mercy, they are afraid to trust and to open themselves up to something bigger than themselves, something that transcends the familiar and comfortable ideological tent they inhabit, which they have learned to embrace as their reality and source of security, and over which they do their desperate best to reign as little tyrants.
And yet, as long as they live, as long as they are still able to choose life, the true shepherd continues to lay down his life for all these sheep. That is, he continues to offer us the gift of a share in his life, whereby we can know and love the truth, know and love the Shepherd (first of all acknowledging that we need one - we need help, we need guidance, we need redemption!), and thus know and love even ourselves, so that finally we can freely rejoice together in the beautiful gift of life. Some people are too afraid or confused or too accustomed to a life of hedonism or of spitting on others with violent self-righteous ideology to take seriously the gospel, this offer of the gift of life. Nonetheless, conversion is possible, the offer is there.
***
Eternal Father, for the sake of His sorrowful passion, have mercy on me and on the whole world.
[*Wayne Brockriede wrote an article entitled "Arguers As Lovers" (see Philosophy and Rhetoric, 1972) in which he classifies, in a rather simplistic but useful way, three kinds of arguers, that is, three possible ways of presenting and promoting truth-claims: as a rapist, as a seducer, as a lover. The rapist openly tries to force his view on the other person by the use of power (by censorship, for example, simply refusing to allow the other to even express his point-of-view - which can be accomplished simply by plugging one's ears, refusing to honestly listen to his point of view). The seducer likewise is indifferent to the humanness of the other person, but uses charm and deceit in an effort to "eliminate or limit his coarguer's most distinctively human power, the right to choose with an understanding of the consequences and implications of available options" (this is a standard device of ideologically motivated teachers, professors, politicians, journalists, parents, etc.). The lover, finally, sees the other person as a person, not as an object or victim. As Brockriede explains it, "the lover wants power parity." Rather than simply facing an adversary, "the lover...is willing to risk his very self in his attempt to establish a bilateral relationship." There is a clear resonance here between Brockriede's "lover-arguer" and Ratzinger's description of the true shepherd, who lays down his life in order to offer us freedom in relation to love and truth, freedom to belong to him (and him to us) in love, through oneness in knowing and through communion in the truth.]
No comments:
Post a Comment