One of the most frequent starting questions during mutual meetings is the question: “What’s new?” We are naturally curious about the news. As if it sometimes goes so far that well means always having something new. And on the other hand, without news, a person ceases to be interesting. Almost every area throws something new at us: cars, computers, programs, laws, decrees, publications, recipes… And the modern winner is the one who manages to keep up with this fast time. Otherwise, we are classified as “dinosaurs” or “cave people”, or in the best case, we have just been pushed aside, somewhere in the historical dustbin of the Middle Ages…
On the one hand, we perceive something similar in the field of Christianity. There is much talk today about the new evangelization, even in church circles. Pope Francis constantly calls for the necessary creativity to invent new – more modern alphabets to transmit the Gospel to contemporary people; to be in and “keep our finger on the pulse of the times”. Undoubtedly, it is very important, but even here we run into certain barriers. Recently, I once again picked up the book In the Footsteps of Pope Francis. It is a book about the so-called theology of tenderness. This is what some theologians call the current Pope’s special way of thinking and approach. And right at the beginning, its author Alvaro Grammatical tries to show how this theology of tenderness came about and how it can be beneficial.
He first tries to diagnose the time from the point of view of Christianity and the Church. He says that we are not only living in a time of change, but rather that we are experiencing a change in time. About the Church, this means something NH has not been here before and which we must not overlook: people no longer see the Church as the only place of salvation as they once did. It is related to a change in values: I can do what I like, and what I feel is true. Truth is no longer perceived as an idea, but as a movement, a constant change; the truth is modified according to the current circumstances – everything depends on the context. And the question arises from this: How will I, a Christian, react to this change? And here a fundamental problem arises, which some then squeeze into a provocative question: Should man change according to doctrine, or doctrine according to man?
If we follow the first path – man is supposed to change according to the doctrine – then according to some we risk losing the man of today; we are in danger of not addressing him in his real situation. But where will I get if I go the other way and change the doctrine according to the person? Won’t I end up in the same relativism as the world around me? Won’t we end up with Christianity, which promises prosperity and well-being, i.e. paradise only here on earth? Is this the new way?
We don’t have to give an answer right away, let the gospel answer. In it we find the well-known story of a young man who comes to Jesus with the question: “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” (Lk 18:18) And we know that the Lord Jesus gives a breakthrough answer for that time: for he places the beginning of eternal life already in this world; the bold views of the time dating the beginning of eternal life to the moment of death. However, Jesus says that eternal life begins already during earthly life and is reflected in our relationships. And here he hits on the young man’s problem: The security he has invested in his possessions. When Jesus calls him to give up his confidence and lean only on Christ, the young man ends up in sorrow.
And what did Jesus not do at that moment? He didn’t run after this young man, kneel before him and beg him to change his mind. Christ did not do this, even though he could calmly say to him: “Listen, don’t make forums, we will somehow agree. I didn’t think so. You don’t have to sell everything. Maybe even half will be enough. I was just testing you. Come back.” Why didn’t Jesus do that? Because this would not help the young man – this would harm him. This would perhaps strengthen him in his self-sufficiency – in the assumption of his perfection. Therefore, this man got what he needed: he needed to leave Jesus sad; he needed to bump. Possibly this impact stopped him, maybe it healed him, led him in a new direction. Maybe he couldn’t do it and in the end, he decided for Christ. We do not know. But therein lies the answer to the question posed.
To change a person or to change a doctrine? What is the answer? Neither one nor the other! But first of all: Enable a meeting with the real Jesus Christ! When Jesus compares us Christians to salt in one place, we can guess that there may not be a lot of salt in the food. But what does he warn against? So that we don’t lose our typical taste – the taste of the true gospel. Because the old well-known truth says that the world does not read the Gospel, but it reads the life of a Christian – it reads my life. And what will he read in it? Superficiality, formalism, moralizing? Is this the flavor of Christianity today? That is why the gospel constantly gives us back the true taste of Jesus Christ. And he always mixes at least two ingredients: truth and love.
The evangelist Mark complements his colleague Luke and states that before Christ revealed his problem to the young man, he looked at him with love; and then revealed his problem to him. Truth together with love, and love together with truth: for truth without love is legalism and condemnation, and love without truth is blindness and naivety. But love with truth is the living Jesus Christ. Therefore, Pope Benedict XVI could introduce his encyclical Caritas in Veritate (Love in truth) with the words: “In Jesus Christ, love in truth becomes the face of his person and for us a calling to love our brothers in the truth of God’s plan. After all, he is the truth (cf. Jn 14:6).
