Page 14, 24th January 2003

24th January 2003
Page 14
Page 14, 24th January 2003 — are those of God

Report an error

Noticed an error on this page?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it.


People: Teresa


Related articles

The 'little Flower' Will Bring Grace To England

Page 10 from 14th March 2008

A Wilful Go-getter Who Didn't Hang On To Life

Page 7 from 28th September 1990

What Makes A Doctor Of The Church?

Page 5 from 24th October 1997

The 'little Flower' Was One Tough Cookie, Says Bess Twiston

Page 11 from 5th December 2003

Of Lisieux And A Fateful Childhood

Page 4 from 4th February 1972

are those of God

ecently, inside church circles, a debate took place as to whether St Therese of Lisieux should be named a "doctor" of the Church. Her proponents pointed to her influence within the faith and argued that few theologians or writers, at least not within the last century, have touched as many lives as Therese.

Another constituency argued against it: she died at 24, not exactly the age of wisdom. Moreover her writings consist of just three short manuscripts which, while moving and aesthetically exceptional, are hardly in the same theological league with Augustine, Aquinas, Rahner, Barth.

or Tillich. Nor do her writings, in terms of academics, measure up to the standards demanded even of graduate-level students in our theological institutions. So why declare her a "doctor"?

We know who won this argument. Therese is today a "doctor" of the Church. A wise choice. Why? Because doctors heal people and her writings have healed persons in a way that many other writings that are academically and theologically superior have not. That's not to say that the writings of the academy of theology don't have their place, but it is to say that the power to heal depends upon things beyond brilliance, learning, professional standards, and authority or position.

We see that clearly already in the gospels. We're told there that Jesus "spoke with authority, unlike the scribes and the pharisees" (many of whom were, no doubt, brilliant, learned, and sincere).

What set Jesus' teaching apart? Its effect. He cured people and changed their lives in a way none of the other preachers and teachers of his time could. The word of God coming from his mouth simply affected things in a way that this same word coming from other mouths didn't.

His words made sick people healthy. made sinners change their lives, and even brought some dead people back to life. As a teacher or preacher, I can only envy that!

And envy it I do! Allow me a little self-indulgence. I will offer a personal reflection here, not because I think that my teaching and preaching are exceptional, but rather, the opposite, because I sense myself as typical, the norm.

So here's the reflection: I've been in the business of teaching and preaching for 30 years and, from the normal indicators, have been successful enough. I'm in demand as a speaker, my writings are popular, and I receive my share of affirmation and compliments. After speaking to congregations and various audiences, I generally sense a positive reaction. So far so good.

What I don't sense is that! speak "with authority", even when people do positively affirm me in words. Why do I say that? Because the longer I teach, preach, and write, the more sceptical I become about the effect of my efforts. I'm not sure that I ever say and do things "with authority", I've never affected a physical cure. not that I've ever tried; never raised anyone from the dead, licit that I've tried; and I wonder to what extent my teaching and writings have ever empowered anyone to truly convert and change his or her life morally.

It's one thing to be told you're wonderful, it's quite another to have someone actually change his or her lilt on the basis of your preaching.

That isn't true for everybody. Mother Teresa used to go out on a stage, face a thousand people, say "Godloves your, and everyone's eyes would fill with tears and they would know that nig, the deepest of all realities, was trot, She spoke with authority. I envy her:oo. When I speak or write I still need an infinitely more complex message to hare any effect.

There's a lesson here, but i shouldn't be misread. The lesson is this: air preaching and teaching can be powefil and tansformative, though not on thbasis of brilliance. scholarship, or doctrinal accuracy. We can have all of these and still not speak with any authority, bbrilliant and not change anything.

People will recognise us as speaking with authority only when thy sense that, like Jesus, we are under clisne authority ourselves. that our message is not our own. that our actual lives sttd behind the message, that our words re meant to reveal God and not ourselves, that we love others enough to givesp protecting ourselves, that our real corern is God's kingdom and not how we itpress others, that we consider the comninity bigger than ourselves, and that were wiling to sweat blood rather than getitter or walk away.

I wonder whether our hare today to pass on our faith to our cnechildren, to effect forgiveness and haniony within our families and commnities, ar to inspire others to any kintaf religious vocation, isn't predicatedirecisely on our incapacity to speak Geis wordwith authority. We can speak itvith insight, accuracy, sensitivity, and eel brilliance. but, too often, we can't :eal or really change anyone, including ir own children.

The miracles we need, irould seem, aren't wrought by brillianealone.

blog comments powered by Disqus