Sermon

Doubting Thomases

The Rev. Jack D. Bryant

Hope Unitarian Church

November 27, 2005

First Reading: John 20: 19-31

¹⁹When it was evening on that day, the first day of the week, and the doors of the house where the disciples had met were locked for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said, ‘Peace be with you.’ ²⁰After he said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples rejoiced when they saw the Lord. ²¹Jesus said to them again, ‘Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.’ ²²When he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. ²³If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.’ ²⁴But Thomas (who was called the Twin), one of the twelve, was not with them when Jesus came. ²⁵So the other disciples told him, ‘We have seen the Lord.’ But he said to them, ‘Unless I see the mark of the nails in his hands, and put my finger in the mark of the nails and my hand in his side, I will not believe.’

26 A week later his disciples were again in the house, and Thomas was with them. Although the doors were shut, Jesus came and stood among them and said, ‘Peace be with you.’ ²⁷Then he said to Thomas, ‘Put your finger here and see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it in my side. Do not doubt but believe.’ ²⁸Thomas answered him, ‘My Lord and my God!’ ²⁹Jesus said to him, ‘Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have come to believe.’ ³⁰Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book. ³¹But these are written so that you may come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through believing you may have life in his name.

Second Reading: Excerpt from a letter from Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Benjamin Rush. April 21, 1803.

Dear sir,

In some of the delightful conversations with you in the evenings of 1798-99, and which served as an anodyne to the afflictions of the crisis through which our country was then laboring, the Christian religion was sometimes our topic; and I then promised you that one day or other I would give you my views of it. They are the result of a life of inquiry and reflection, and very different from that anti-Christian system imputed to me by those who know nothing of my opinions. To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed, but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished anyone to be: sincerely attached to his doctrines in preference to all others, ascribing to himself every human excellence, and believing he never claimed any other.

Sermon

Doubting Thomas. I suspect that is one of the best known phrases in the English language. It comes directly out of the bible, out of the story of Thomas, one of the disciples of Jesus who is said to have doubted the resurrection of Jesus. In simple terms, he’s the disciple who just didn’t “get it.” But he’s not the only doubting Thomas we have. There is also Thomas Jefferson, the deist and unitarian (the little “u” means he was unitarian in his theology, but didn’t belong to a “Unitarian” church) and all round religious maverick who - because of his religious beliefs - was the target of some of the vilest political attacks in the history of our country. But the story of each is deeper than their critics will allow.

Elaine Pagels, the renowned religious scholar, has a recent book, Beyond Belief, in which she examines the basis for the claims of the Gospel of John about Thomas. Her book and arguments flow from a comparison between the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of John. The Gospel of John, of course, is one of the four canonical gospels. For over a thousand years most people thought there were only four gospels. Scholars, however, have known for some time that there are other gospels, although they didn’t have copies of some of them. That’s because Bishop Athanasius of Alexander ordered all of the competing gospels destroyed during the fourth century. Athanasius was also the champion of Trinitarianism in the dispute with the priest named Arius who favored a unitarian understanding of Jesus. Fortunately, copies of a number of the lost Gospels have been discovered and recently I’ve been discussing the Gospel of Thomas with the Tuesday group that meets with me for lunch and a discussion of the bible. Their reaction has been interesting. They find Thomas confusing and difficult to understand. My recent suggestion to them has been to look not for what’s in the Gospel of Thomas, but what’s not in it. When you do that you quickly discover what I believe drew the attention of Elaine Pagels.

The Gospel of John and the other Gospels of the bible - Matthew, Mark and Luke - tell stories about miracle births, miracle’s performed by Jesus, blood sacrifice and death and resurrection. And along the way John slams Thomas as the disciple who just didn’t get it, as the one disciple who foolishly doubted the official party line about Jesus. But look in the Gospel of Thomas and guess what isn’t there. There is no miracle birth, no miracles performed, no human sacrifice, no last Supper and Eucharistic meal, no death and resurrection and no claim that Jesus is the Messiah. There is much talk of the light, but it is a light that is in everyone, not just Jesus.

That’s not to say that the Gospel of Thomas is easy to understand. It’s not. There’s much of it that sounds strange to my ears, much of it that I don’t understand. I suspect that is so because it was written in a particular time to a particular audience confronting a particular set of issues. I think it is the lack of context that makes much of Thomas difficult to understand. But what is easy to understand when reading the Gospel of Thomas is that it paints a radically different picture of who Jesus was, a picture inconsistent with orthodox Christianity as it developed.

The essential message of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John portrays Jesus as the Messiah, the Son of God, an absolutely unique messenger who says people have to be saved and saved through Jesus. The Gospels differ substantially in how this message is presented and in where the emphasis is placed. The Gospel of John is far and away the most aggressive in terms of its theology. Without John I’m not sure what Christianity would look like today. But the interpretation of the overall message has become consistent.

The Gospel of Thomas presents a very different Jesus. He is a man telling people to stop worrying about whether your neighbor is righteous and just start being righteous yourself. He is a man who came from the light - that’s how it’s said - but it is a light that is not just his, but something that can be found in everyone if you will but look. And there is no hint of divinity in him beyond the divinity that is in everyone. There is nothing of original sin. There is just the man Jesus - albeit an extraordinary man. And who is it who understands this Jesus - the real Jesus? Why it’s Thomas - the same Thomas who in the Gospel of John just doesn’t “get it.” Pagel’s conclusion - not in these words, but I think this is a fair description of her conclusion - is that the Gospel of John is engaged in character assassination. The author or authors of John didn’t like the message the followers of Thomas were presenting, so they attacked Thomas and tried to portray him as inept and confused, as just not “getting it”. Aren’t you glad such behavior is limited to the bible? Aren’t you glad nothing like that ever happens in politics - national or local?

Now compare this vision of Jesus with the other Thomas. Twice in his life Thomas Jefferson took the New Testament and redacted it. Jefferson was convinced that Paul had corrupted the essential message of Jesus. Jefferson’s edited version of the New Testament eliminates everything except a few passages from the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke. He removed all references to miracle births, miracles by Jesus, and death and resurrection. What comes through in Jefferson’s version of the New Testament is a Jesus interested in life before death, not life after death. Erik Reece, writing in the current issue of Harper’s magazine says it this way.

“[T]o read Jefferson’s version [of the bible] . . . is to face a relentless demand that we be much better people - inside and out - than most of us are. Which leads, as Jefferson must have suspected, to this unfortunate conclusion: the relevance of Christianity to most Americans - then and now - has far more to do with the promise of eternal salvation from this world than with any desire to practice the teachings of Jesus while we are here.

But Jefferson’s gospel also leads to an impressive clarification of what those teachings are. One can make a list, and it need not be long.

Be just; justice comes from virtue, which comes from the heart.

Treat people the way we want them to treat us.

Always work for peaceful resolutions, even to the point of returning violence with compassion.

Consider valuable the things that have no material value.

Do not judge others.

Do not bear grudges.

Be modest and unpretentious.

Give out of true generosity, not because we expect to be repaid.

Not a bad list, is it? And it is a list not exactly like the Gospel of Thomas, but much closer to that renegade Gospel than the Gospel of John. Which leads me to the conclusion that it’s no wonder the followers of John didn’t like Thomas. The idea that one should be promoting goodness here and now instead of the promise of the hereafter is shocking and obviously an idea that needs to be eliminated. No wonder Athanasius wanted all the competing gospels destroyed. No wonder the Jefferson Bible is considered heretical. And no wonder I’m proud to be able to say that Beacon Press, owned and operated by our national association of Unitarian Universalists that continues to publish the Jefferson Bible.

But why is this important? Why not take the list that Erik Reece extracts from the Jefferson Bible and throw the rest away? I think that’s a fair question. I can’t answer for you, but I will give you the answer I have found for myself. Robert Frost, the poet, always wrote in verse. Many of his contemporaries wrote poetry in what’s called blank or free verse, but Frost refused to even try it. Often, when talking about how he wrote poetry, he would say that he would as soon play tennis without a net as write free verse.

That’s how I’ve come to feel about religion. I gave up calling myself a Christian when I was nineteen years old. There is much of Christianity and bible that I reject, much that I think is wrong and some that I think is worse than wrong. One option would be to reject it, to reject all sense of history and tradition and just start with a fresh page. But I believe that would be as foolish as embracing Christianity - or any other religious tradition - without thinking. I choose to embrace and study the biblical tradition because I see it as the foundation on which I stand. I choose to embrace and study the biblical tradition for the same reason I would not play tennis without a net. I believe I need that tradition against which I can be in tension, against which I can struggle and from which I can learn - learning both from the tradition itself and from how I struggle with it.

One of the great truths I believe I have come to recognize in life is the truth that learning comes from failure. If you always do everything right when will you ever have a chance to learn? It is when we fail and recognize that we have failed and realize how we can do it differently that we learn. The biblical tradition has - at times - succeeded magnificently. And at times it demonstrates failure. When I look at the great figures of the bible guess what I find? Moses was a murderer and a stutterer. Noah was a drunkard. King David was an adulterer and a murderer. Jesus partied too much and hung around with the wrong kind of people and wasn’t respectful of his parents. The list goes on and on. It is a list of people who failed as often as they succeeded. But it is such people we remember. Yes, we also remember Solomon who was supposed to be so wise, but read the stories carefully and you will discover that it was the always wise, always perfect Solomon whose behavior led to the collapse of the Kingdom that the morally challenged David united.

The Thomas of the Gospel of Thomas and Thomas Jefferson were both imperfect. Perhaps the Thomas of the Gospel really didn’t “get it”. And we know Thomas Jefferson was imperfect. He was financially irresponsible, owned slaves and may have fathered children by Sally Hemmings. In contrast with them is the apostle John whose followers described him in the Gospel of John as the “beloved” apostle, the perfect apostle. I prefer the doubting Thomases. And I would add to it this question. Who are the real doubters? Is it the two Thomases who doubted the divinity of Jesus, who doubted the miracles, who doubted the resurrection? Or is it the true believers such as the apostle John? What was it, what is it that the true believers doubt?

They doubt that within every human being is a light, a divine spark. They doubt that every human being has the potential to discover the spark within, to nurture it and to see it grow. They doubt that it is how we behave that makes us righteous, not how we believe. They doubt the true measure of righteousness is not what others will do for us, but what we are willing to do for others. And most of all they doubt that salvation can come from anyone who is not perfect and absolutely free of blemish.

Having to choose between these two sets of doubts I choose the doubting Thomases. I choose all those imperfect, doubting figures who stay in connection with and struggle with an imperfect and flawed tradition of the bible because I believe it is in the doubts and the struggle that the ultimate truth I believe we are all seeking is most likely to be found. And I choose the doubting Thomases because I much prefer the gospel they offer, especially the Gospel of Thomas Jefferson. A Gospel with a simple message:

Be just; justice comes from virtue, which comes from the heart.

Treat people the way we want them to treat us.

Always work for peaceful resolutions, even to the point of returning violence with compassion.

Consider valuable the things that have no material value.

Do not judge others.

Do not bear grudges.

Be modest and unpretentious.

[And] Give out of true generosity, not because we expect to be repaid.

Amen.