Preacher: Chris Green
Readings:
Acts 2, 14a, 22-32
1 Peter 1, 3-9
John 20, 19-31
Today is sometimes called Low
Sunday, standing in contract to the High Sunday of Easter. Perhaps also after
the exultation of Easter, it may signal a time to take stock and reflect with
cooler heads. It could be appropriate therefore that it is also called St.
Thomas Sunday, as we commemorate the one apparently jarring note in the
resurrection appearances – the disciple who didn’t believe the testimony of his
peers, who demanded proofs.
Who was this doubter? Uniquely in
the fourth gospel, Thomas has a distinct part and character. He seems loyal and
impulsive, but not very imaginative. There is an incident in chapter 11 when
Jesus proposes to return to Bethany where the Jews previously tried to stone
him. Thomas says dramatically “Let us also go that we may die with him”. And
later on, as he is preparing the disciples for his death, Jesus says that he is
going ahead of them, and they will know the way. When Thomas says "Lord,
we don't know where you are going, so how can we know the way?" he shows
how little he has understood.
We see both his down-to-earth
approach and his impulsiveness in today’s gospel. Jesus appears to some of the
disciples on the evening of that first Easter. Thomas, who was not there, is
having none of it- "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my
finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe
it." Never was a more devoutly sceptical sentiment expressed about the
resurrection. But a week later, when Thomas is present, Jesus appears once
more- seemingly for his particular benefit- and Thomas commits himself
immediately and completely, saying “My Lord and my God”. So doubting Thomas
becomes believing Thomas- and utters the most far-reaching confession of the
Christian faith of any character in the Gospels.
This story appears at the very end
of the fourth gospel. John clearly wishes the example of Thomas to remain with
us as we ponder what he has written “that we may believe”. Why is this,
especially as at first sight the example is not a wholly positive one?
I think that Thomas stands for all
of us would-be followers of Jesus who were not there on that first Easter-
which must include the first readers of this gospel. We may be fascinated by
this man Jesus, we hear his teaching, we are amazed by the wonders he works, we
are moved by his suffering and death- all of these are more or less definite,
historical events. But the resurrection seems different! How can Jesus be
alive, and in what way? It is the lynchpin of our faith, but yet we doubt.
Along with Thomas, we long for something concrete to convince us.
In our scientific era the problem
seems particularly urgent. We demand evidence about all kinds of things- and
rightly. We want to base our historical understanding on documentary proof. But
critics have seen this as a weak point in Christianity. Richard Dawkins has
said, with typical disrespect: “Accounts of Jesus' resurrection and ascension
are about as well-documented as Jack and the Beanstalk”.
We may try to present the Gospel
accounts of the resurrection as historical evidence, but there are
difficulties. The trouble is that it is just in the accounts of the
resurrection where the gospels are most inconsistent between themselves.
In Matthew, Jesus first meets the
disciples in Jerusalem and tells them to go to Galilee, where he appears to
them on a mountain and commissions them. In Luke he appears to two disciples on
the Emmaus road, then in Jerusalem to an assembled company including the
eleven. In John, he first appears to Mary Magdalene in the garden, then to an
assembled company not including Thomas, then to the company including Thomas-
all in Jerusalem; and then we have the epilogue in Galilee.
What then can we say to a
determined sceptic?
Firstly, something dramatic
certainly happened, to turn a fearful and leaderless band into the bold
proclaimers of the risen Christ- as Gordon said last week, and we see in the
speech of Peter, in our reading from Acts this morning.
Secondly, in reading the Gospels
we have to be sensitive to the kind of literature they are. In our reading this
morning the evangelist himself comments on this-
“Jesus did many other miraculous
signs, but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the
Christ, and that by believing you may have life in his name.”
This signals to us that John is
selecting and presenting his material carefully in order to help us towards
faith. As always, John does this by working on different levels. On one level
is apparently an historical account of the first Easter. But on another level is
a series of parables of how we may ourselves encounter the risen Lord.
Let us turn back to the story of
Thomas. How does he come to belief? On the face of it he is given the evidence
he has asked for, and therefore is bound to be satisfied. But this is not
really how it sounds. True physical evidence would have been that of a
resuscitated corpse. If he had been convinced that Jesus the man had come back
to life, Thomas might perhaps have greeted him as Rabbi, as did Mary. But his
response is not this- it is, so to speak, to fall on his knees and worship.
I don’t think that ‘seeing the
evidence’ is the right term for Thomas’ experience. Beforehand he thought what
he needed was physical proof, material evidence. What he received was
something different that went beyond ‘mere’ seeing- what we might call “a
revelation”. The Lord himself seems to be gently chiding him even as he invites
Thomas to explore his wounds- as if to say: “do you not now see how
superfluous, how far from the mark, were your demands for a physical proof?”
And the Lord’s final remarks might almost be addressed to us: “Blessed are
those who have not seen but have believed”.
The appearance of Jesus to Mary
Magdalene- part of last week’s gospel- is another story that for me has these
layers of meaning. Remember that Mary mistakes Jesus for the gardener, until he
calls her by name. This recalls Luke, in the story of the road to Emmaus- where
you will remember Jesus talks to two disciples on the road, explaining the
scriptures to them. But they only recognise him in the breaking of the bread at
the end of the day. What is going on here? If this was their beloved Lord, how
was he so difficult to recognise? We could start theorising about the peculiar
properties of glorified bodies, but I think these details are telling us
something else- something about our own experience of Christ.
To sum up, the story of Thomas,
and these other accounts, tell us this- the resurrection is not something that
depends on a piece of evidence, about which we can be detached, but on an encounter
that requires us to change our point of view. This might be with a stranger,
whose words “make our hearts burn within us”. It may be a feeling of being
called by name by the Lord. And it may be in the breaking of the bread at the
Eucharist. But I leave you with this disturbing thought. For the world at
large, we ourselves- with the rest of the contemporary church- may be
taken as evidence- or otherwise- for the resurrection.
I wish you all a very joyful
Eastertide.