Blindness VII

Don: The story of the man blind from birth reveals the entire spectrum of Man’s spiritual blindness. Some, like the blind man himself before his encounter with Jesus, have zero spiritual context. Some, like the neighbors, have some limited spiritual insight but are so confused that more information only confuses them more. Some, like the parents, seek to preserve their perceived spiritual standing in the community and see more information as a threat to that standing. Some, like the disciples, have had a long and deep spiritual relationship yet given new information they remain unwilling to give up their most cherished preconceptions and cherished viewpoints. They follow a messiah who they believe will use miraculous powers to overcome evil—as they define it, which is as the physical and political oppression they suffer under.  And finally are those, like the Pharisees, so studied in the scriptures, so deeply committed to the given interpretation of them, that when God himself appears before them they mistake him for the Devil.

The message could not be clearer: All Mankind is spiritually blind, in one way or another. The key to the story is this:

And Jesus said, “For judgment I came into this world, so that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may become blind.” Those of the Pharisees who were with Him heard these things and said to Him, “We are not blind too, are we?” Jesus said to them, “If you were blind, you would have no sin; but since you say, ‘We see,’ your sin remains. (John 9:39)

In response to the existential human question: “Are we blind before God?” Jesus said unambiguously that we will be judged as sinners if we claim spiritual insight. The entire story began with a question about sin (the disciples asked Jesus whose sin caused the man’s blindness) and ended with this statement about sin. Sin is related to spiritual arrogance: Any claim to have penetrated the secrets and the heart of God, to be his spokesperson, and to be righteous before God, is sinful.

Jesus was saying that all of us, without exception, are spiritually blind and sinful. We are all in need of God’s forgiveness and grace. Any claim to spiritual insight—to know all about God and how he thinks—is linked, Jesus implied, to our readiness to rely on that “knowledge” on the day of Judgment. We saw it clearly at the start of the story in the question “Who sinned?” The disciples arrogantly assumed that they more-or-less knew how God works; they were just a little unclear on the details. Jesus swiftly disabused them of their assumption, and told them essentially that sin was not the point: God’s grace was the point. The works of God that are manifest are the works of love and grace and compassion… and yet, I am forced to admit that even the claim to understand God’s grace is a claim of insight!

Our spiritual blindness comes from our desire to know God, but the more we think we know, the blinder we become. That desire to see, to know, to discern, first surfaced in the Garden of Eden. It is true that we prefer to walk by sight rather than by faith—the opposite of how scripture enjoins us to behave. We seek constantly to improve our knowledge of God and our insight into his works. It seems hardwired into us, and society urges us on.

What we can and should and must know (and not know) is highlighted in this passage:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. (Romans 1:18-25)

This highlights the contrast between what God reveals to us and how we deal with the revelation. In the passage above, what is revealed through “what has been made” is God’s power, divinity, and works. The following passage confirms it, in different words:

The heavens are telling of the glory of God;
And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands. (Psalms 19:1)

Mankind is inclined to exchange “the glory of the incorruptible God” for images of its own. We exchange worship of the Creator for worship of the creature. We exchange the truth about God for a lie. We exchange faith for sight. Are all our efforts to see, to know, God—especially, through religion—thus futile? And if so, could we retreat into blindness, even if we wanted to? Could religion play a role in such a retreat?

Jay: Blindness is our pre-Fall state. To me, the basic principle is that we can approach some aspects of God but we can never fully understand them and therefore will never be able to predict what God is going to do. The problem is that we would rather worship something we can understand.

Don: How many of the world’s religions proclaim that it is impossible to understand God? Even if they talk that talk, none walks that walk! When an adherent has a question about God, they are usually ready with an answer from their scripture or their catechism or their litanies or their rituals. They are ready to speak for God whenever and whatever anyone asks.

David: That may be true of Buddhism which, though uncomfortable with the idea of a Creator god, nevertheless accepts the existence of a “divine nature” which I equate to God.  But it is evidently not true of (the present incarnation of!) the Dalai Lama, as a speaker at a recent TED conference described:

For eight straight Novembers, recently, I traveled every year across Japan with the Dalai Lama. And the one thing he said every day that most seemed to give people reassurance and confidence was, “I don’t know.”

“What’s going to happen to Tibet?” “When are we ever going to get world peace?” “What’s the best way to raise children?”

“Frankly,” says this very wise man, “I don’t know.”

The TED speaker (Time magazine writer Pico Iyer) preface that story with this clearly connected philosophical point:

The opposite of knowledge … isn’t always ignorance. It can be wonder. Or mystery. Possibility. And in my life, I’ve found it’s the things I don’t know that have lifted me up and pushed me forwards much more than the things I do know. It’s also the things I don’t know that have often brought me closer to everybody around me.

So what can religions and churches do to help us retreat into blindness? I have tended to view the Bible with scepticism but have come to accept Don’s thesis that it is enlightening if viewed as a book of questions rather than answers.

Ryan: To me, God is known through experience, not through cognition. Could religion be based on this?

Donald: Religions are based on beliefs. The problem is not in trying to understand but in trying to impose our beliefs on others, which we do in order to endorse and justify our own belief.

Ryan: Problems occur when one moves away from “I believe that…” towards “The truth is that….”

Donald: Perhaps it’s good to have a variety—a choice, a menu!—of perspectives, as presented by our various Christian denominations, for example. But it’s less good for me to point to one menu item as being better than the rest, as being the right taste for you.

Jeff: How do we get to beliefs in the first place? If I hear your beliefs, how am I to get there? I can’t share your experience, and without data, all you can have is experience.

Anonymous: The experience is personal. Church and Bible can provide some knowledge, but a life experience that is explained by the Bible leads to belief. A series of such events leads to a way of life which, in and of itself, serves as a witness to one’s beliefs about God. In other words, we share our experience of God with others through our behavior. Our behavior is God’s witness. Our beliefs are shared with everyone but not forced on anyone. Jesus told Nicodemus that the holy spirit is like the wind: Felt but not seen. It cannot be put into words, therefore it cannot be shared in words.

Donald: If I do not appreciate your character, I would probably be reluctant to accept your views about God.

David: The Dalai Lama’s most common answer to big questions is “I don’t know.” His physical and cognitive life experiences have apparently not helped him with the big questions, and he cannot express his spiritual experiences in words; hence, “I don’t know” is the only possible honest answer. Jesus himself went through the most awful of physical experiences yet was still unable to express what he knew spiritually except through his life and—to some extent—through parable and question.

Don: The blind man shared a personal testimony: “I was blind, and now I see. Therefore, Jesus is a prophet.” His claim is entirely based on his personal experience. The Pharisees, on the other hand, took pains to discredit this because Jesus did not fit their handed-down knowledge of how a prophet would behave. He broke the rules regarding the Sabbath, therefore he was a sinner, therefore he could not be a prophet.

Anonymous: The problem with evangelism is that we simply broadcast the verbiage of scripture. It’s not enough. It’s not effective. Only when I experience the word of God, believe it, and live it can I bear true and effective witness to it.

Don: Is there no role for the study of God using an analytical approach based on knowledge and cognition? Is that what Jesus meant when he told the Pharisees they were blind? It was a strong indictment. And yet, in our evangelism, aren’t we just like the Pharisees? Or is it a matter not of method but of attitude? Is arrogance the real problem?

David: Sam Harris and other well-known atheists base their condemnation of theology on the historical record of its violent outcomes. Were it not for this class, I might be right alongside them. It’s arrogant to claim that I know better now, so I am reluctant to argue my case—or the case for God. Sam has every right to his conclusions from the data, as do I. Spiritually, his conclusions are a matter between him and God, and so are mine. The relationship between Sam and me is a matter of how we treat one another, not of whether or not we share a particular point of view.

So yes, I think attitude is critical, and arrogance is downright dangerous. The humble approach of this class to spiritual inquiry is that there are no answers, only questions; that we are the ignorant in search of enlightenment. So there is not much to get arrogant about. The equation of ignorance with enlightenment seems not something that organized religion could easily adopt in its theological analytics, but for our small group of disparate people, led by someone who never seeks to impose views but only to raise and elicit questions, it seems to work to some extent.

Don: Job sought to encounter God through collecting and analyzing knowledge. It confused him because he had a preconception of a God who would rationally counter his rational analysis. But the God he encountered was nothing like that. He would not even deign to answer Job’s questions but instead plied Job with questions! Not one of Job’s questions was answered, yet he ended up with a sense of completeness and a harmonious perception of who God really is.

David: He began by saying “I don’t know!” in frustration. He ended by saying “I don’t know” in wonderment.

Donald: To undertake our spiritual journey on the premise that we are sinners and that we cannot know and understand everything is reassuring. It’s the opposite of the evangelical claim to have all the answers.

Chris: It is only through their own personal awareness of God that people will come to believe in him. The ministry of Jesus was all about bringing awareness of God to people. The blind man had been totally unaware, others had varying degrees of awareness. It’s not our job to get others to believe what we believe, as evangelists do. Our job is to bring an awareness of God, to make people aware of him. God has many different vehicles, including our various religions and denominations, to help in that effort. This seems to go a bit against the grain of organized religion, including my own.

Jeff: The blind man’s instant conversion to believer came about through the restoration of his sight. To him, it was a miracle. But to many people today, cataract surgery seems just as miraculous in its effects.

Don: This highlights the conflict between knowledge and spiritual truth.

Jeff: And it highlights the difficulty of sharing belief.

* * *