|
Responding to Christ in humble idealism
By Mark Schemper
Staff Writer
FILE PHOTO
Judas and Peter's responses differed following their betrayals of Christ.
|
As Easter draws near, I want to consider the events that led up to Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection. Often at this time of year, and appropriately so, the spotlight tends to be on Christ himself. We like to focus on that aspect of the story that allows us eternal life. The ethic taken is that of Christ’s sacrificial love. This is important, but, I
think that limiting our focus in this way sometimes blinds us to lessons that can be learned by looking
at the other characters in the drama.
The gospel accounts of the days leading up to Easter are full of references to Peter and Judas. The similarities and differences between the two disciples are instructive. Both Peter and Judas betray Christ. At the Last Supper when Christ tells the disciples that one of them will betray him, they all recoil at the suggestion with, “Surely not I?” Of course, at this point Christ is talking only about Judas. But later, at the Mount of Olives, Christ tells the disciples that they will all desert him after the crucifixion. At this prediction, Peter balks: “Even though all become deserters, I will not.” Here, Christ foretells Peter’s betrayal: “Truly I tell you, this day, this very night, before the cock crows twice, you will deny me three times.” Despite Peter’s insistence, Christ’s prophesy is fulfilled.
It certainly is not the case that Peter’s betrayal is of the same severity as Judas’. Judas was a trusted disciple -- trusted to handle the finances, trusted to eat at Christ’s table. Temptation consumes him and he betrays Christ to the priests for thirty pieces of silver. Wholly appropriate is that the betrayal occurs by virtue of a kiss. Peter denies Christ three times when accused of associating with him at a time when discipleship of Christ was not the most popular occupation. Peter’s denials are morally objectionable, we say, but certainly not as thoroughly loathsome as Judas’ betrayal.
I have always seen the two disciples this way, but the more I look at the story the more I see that the key difference between Judas and Peter is located not between their actual betrayal, but in the events following their respective betrayal. They both betrayed Christ, but why is Peter held up as a saint and Judas as a demon? Asking this question shows us that, degrees of severity aside, we all have to come to the realization that we all betray Christ. This is a frustrating prospect.
This realization leads us to a question. While acknowledging that, to paraphrase Isaiah, even our righteous deeds are like filthy cloth, how do we respond to Christ’s sacrifice? The responses of Peter
and of Judas might serve as two models.
It is difficult to evaluate what happens to Judas after he betrays Christ. Matthew’s gospel tells us that after seeing that Jesus had been condemned, Judas repented, threw down the thirty pieces of silver and hung himself. Luke tells us in Acts, though, that Judas used the silver to buy a field and “falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out.” This apparent contradiction is a disputed one
and I do not want to get lost in the minutiae of that debate. Rather, I think if we take Matthew’s version, we see that Judas realizes the gravity of his sin, but cannot overcome
what must have been an incredible amount of guilt (and after
repenting). Again I am making myself vulnerable to dispute, but my own uneducated opinion is that we are told Judas repents and, thus, must believe that he received salvation. After repenting, Judas hangs himself. Judas’ realization of his own moral inadequacy causes him to give up even after he received salvation.
Peter’s response to Christ’s resurrection is quite different. Despite his earlier protests to Christ’s prophesy on the Mount of Olives, Peter had denied Christ three times. Peter knows that he has betrayed Christ. Despite this though, we see a disciple not racked by guilt. Rather we see a disciple who eagerly rushes to the empty tomb upon hearing the news of Christ’s resurrection and goes out to spread the gospel, ready to go and follow Christ’s command to “make disciples of all nations.” We see a disciple who realizes his sin and realizes his inadequacy, but becomes what I want to call a humble idealist. In acknowledging his moral inadequacy and asking for forgiveness, Peter does not give up hope like Judas. Rather, he acts
humbly out of gratitude, realizing that only by God’s grace and
Christ’s sacrifice is he able to
realize his created potential.
I am not sure that this Peter-like enthusiasm is embraced as much as it should be. I know that I often resort to the “lesser of two evils” strategy. We think that it is not possible to do better, so we give up hope. Perhaps the most influential Christian political thinker of the twentieth century has been Reinhold Niebuhr. Niebuhr’s political thought is symptomatic of this attitude. Niebuhr, a reactionary in his youth, suggested in his later years that we should develop our “instinct for the possible, only a little advanced beyond the actual, instead of the utopian and ideal which hovers so precariously between the impossible and the possible.”
Acting on this instinct is the “fruit of Christian wisdom, which has learned the fragmentariness of all human striving and the measure of egoistic corruption in all human virtue.” We should be realistic because “the final victory over man’s disorder is God’s and not ours.” We only have responsibility for “proximate victories.”
Niebuhr’s attitude as expressed here smells of giving up. It does not take into account the implications of Pentecost. It does not account for the fact that we have been given the gift of the Holy Spirit and are able, perhaps in a limited fashion, but still able, to act by God’s grace as agents of his divine will on this earth before the second coming. By tempering this sort of idealism with the realization that we are enabled only by grace to not choose sin, we come to an idealism that is not arrogant but humble. It might be said that this sort of utopian attitude is drunk with idealism. I will not deny this objection. I realize that I will fail. But the prospect of failure should not stop us from being more like Peter and ineptly plodding along towards idealistic goals.
|
