I would like to thank Reverend Victoria Guthrie for sharing this story.
There once was a king whose kingdom was very small. Because the kingdom was peaceful and bucolic, their treasury was also very small. All was well in the kingdom for many generations, and the people were happy.
One night things changed. A murder was committed. The perpetrator was immediately caught and confessed to his crime. He was taken to the kingdom's only judge, who deliberated greatly, as there was no precedent in kingdom history, and pronounced a sentence of death for the criminal.
The king's advisors deliberated as to how to carry out the sentence imposed by the judge. They had no jail or jailer. They had no gallows. So the advisors consulted with the royal treasurer, who could perhaps allocate the funds needed to provide the necessary implements to build a gallows, contract an executioner, and secure a jailer to oversee the prisoner until such time as a proper gallows could be established.
The royal treasurer assured the king's advisors that funding for such an endeavor was not available. Together, they all went to see the king and ask for his advice.
Because he was a wise and good king, he did not see the logic of imposing any new taxes on the people of the kingdom to pay for a circumstance that everyone knew was not likely to occur again. So the king exercised his royal prerogative and commuted the prisoner's sentence to life in prison. He ordered that one of the storerooms in his own palace be cleared out and basic amenities, including a bed from the king's own furnishings, be placed in the storeroom for the prisoner.
So it was ordered and so it was done.
Not long after, the royal treasurer approached the king. "Sire," he said, "I have calculated carefully and pondered solutions, but if my calculations are correct - and they are - the cost of housing, feeding, and tending to the prisoner are taxing the treasury, as all of this outside of budgeted expenses. At some point, when considering the number of years that the prisoner could be expected to live, this expense will bankrupt the king's treasury."
The king pondered the royal treasurer's words. Then he ordered that the lock be removed from the prisoner's door and the guard be excused. "When the prisoner escapes," he said, "give chase, but not too strenuously, so that the prisoner can find his own way in the world." All of the king's advisors and the royal treasurer applauded the king for his brilliant solution to their dilemma.
Days passed. Weeks passed and still the prisoner did not escape. Exasperated by the prisoner's reluctance to escape and the wearying repetition of the treasurer's warnings, the king decided to go see the prisoner himself.
"Why are you still here? Everyone knows that freedom is preferable to imprisonment. There is no jailer here, nor lock to prevent you from regaining your life. Do you fear that you would be harmed if you were to try to leave this place?"
The prisoner responded, "Sire, I have no reputation, no skills, no work, no family, and no home. There is nothing outside of these walls that tempts me. I am comfortable here and well-cared for. I have no need or desire to leave this place."
There is another story about what everyone knows. John 9:1-41 tells the story of a day when Jesus restored the sight of a man who had been blind from birth. Conventional wisdom of the time dictated that physical afflictions were the result of the sin of the afflicted person or their parents. As Jesus and his disciples came upon the blind man, his disciples asked him (because "everyone knew") whether this man had sinned or his parents had sinned. Jesus told them that this man was not born blind because his parents had sinned, nor because he had sinned, but to show God's glory. Then Jesus spit on the ground to make some mud, put the mud on the man's eyes, and told him to go to the wash in the pool of Siloam (which means "sent"). The blind man did as Jesus said and his sight was restored.
Now the Pharisees of that time were something akin to a cross of the Supreme Court and Congress today. The Torah was the written law, and the Pharisees interpreted the written law and the oral law (what "everyone knew") under the principle that men must use their reason in interpreting the Torah and applying it to contemporary problems. Because the blind man was healed on a Sabbath day, and word travelled fast, the Pharisees took this matter upon themselves to investigate for a potential violation of law. They sent for the previously blind man so that they could question him.
The Pharisees had already heard about Jesus, and the majority did not like what they had heard. The Pharisees asked the man before them if he was the same man who had previously been blind, and he assured them he was. They asked him how it was possible that his sight had been restored. He replied that he did not know, but Jesus put mud on his eyes and told him to wash, and when he did, he could see. So the Pharisees wanted to know where Jesus was, and the man told them he did not know. Some of the Pharisees decided that Jesus could not be a man of God, because he did this on a Sabbath day, and some said a sinner could not have done this, so they were divided. They drew the conclusion that this man could not be the same man who was blind, so they sent for his parents to testify.
Intimidated is not a strong enough word to describe how the parents of the previously blind man felt about being summoned by the Pharisees. They could be cast out, excommunicated, from their church and their community; cut off from all resources. So they told the Pharisees that yes, this was their son; but since he was of age and they didn't know anything the Pharisees should talk to their son.
So the Pharisees sent for the previously blind man again. This time they said to him that they knew Jesus was a sinner because they didn't know where he came from, and wanted him to say so. The man who had been blind said he didn't know whether the man who healed him was a sinner or not. All he knew was that he had been blind from birth and now he could see. And they asked him the same questions again, but even more insistently. The man said, "I have already told you. Why do you want me to tell you all of this again? Do you want to be his disciples?...Never before has anyone heard of sight being restored to someone who was blind, yet this man restored my sight. If this man were not from God, he could do nothing." Of course this infuriated the Pharisees, who pronounced the man who had previously been blind a sinner and cast him out.
When Jesus heard that the man had been cast out, he went to find him. He asked him if he believed in the Son of Man. The man said, "Who is he, Sir, that I might believe?" Jesus said, "You have seen him, and he is talking to you." The man said, "Lord, I believe."
Not only did word travel quickly, but some of the Pharisees were never far from where Jesus and/or his disciples were; and some overheard this exchange. Being men accustomed to entitlement, they immediately addressed Jesus directly and asked, "Are we also blind?" Jesus said to them, "If you were blind, you would have no guilt; but now that you say, 'We see,' your guilt remains."
There is a powerful lesson in these stories. We need our communities, and some of what "everyone knows" is useful information instinctive to us through generations of shared wisdom. We know, for example, that roller skating on broken glass, jumping out of airplanes without a parachute, or drinking Drano is not good for us. We do not need to test these theories to know that they are true for us. However, group-think can also lead us like lemmings to our destruction. David Koresh, Charles Manson, Adolph Hitler and Kim Jung Un come to mind as recent examples of dictating group-think in evil and destructive ways. Many of us have experienced mean-girl cliques who dominate the behavior of entire groups of people through intimidation.
The loudest voices are not always speaking truth. What "everyone knows" can be turned on it's head.
Phillipians 4:8 gives us the test that we can apply:
Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things.
If a belief or a behavior recommended to us is not the fruit of the test of truth, pureness, nobility, and right; in turn creating something beautiful - no matter how many people around you support it - it does not pass the test and cannot become part of what "we know."
Related References
John 9:1-41
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Pharisee
No comments:
Post a Comment