Commitment

"Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life."

Earlier I used to watch a programme called "The Devil's Advocate" on an Indian television channel, hosted by Karan Thapar, who also did other similar programmes like "The Last Word," "To the Point," and "Nothing But The Truth." In fact, many channels do have similar programmes. A politician or prominent public figure is confronted in front of the cameras by one or more interviewers on some issues. Or better known are the various talk shows (even during the evening news time) with umpteen number of politicians or personalities, who are allowed to debate, confront, and in some channels, even to shout at each other. Many of these programmes, in my opinion, are less a quest for truth than a ploy to force the interviewees into making damaging admissions. The public is led to believe that the politicians (or other persons) are putting their reputation, if not their career, on the line. The journalists have raked through previous recorded statements of their victims to show their inconsistency and lack of credibility. But, as you know, politicians have become very adept at deflecting these types of assaults, claiming their previous statements are misquoted or taken out of context. For the public, the talk shows are just another form of spectator sport. They are more interested in the performance of the politicians (the interviewees) than in the truth. Never once do I remember a show like this coming to a sort of consensus or conclusion or even a compromise. Never once do I remember that truth has prevailed in any of these shows (though some of the programmes did have title connected to "truth"). But, shockingly, I realise now that I was being carried away by or reacting to the stuff presented on the idiot box. I was not interested in the truth. Was I?

Jesus, our Lord, would have made a bad politician, a failure in all the senses. Today's gospel reading (John 6:60-69) is a witness to it. When some followers said, "This is intolerable language. How could anyone accept it?," Jesus asked them to make their choice. "Does this upset you?" "Do you also want to go away?" Neither surprised nor disappointed at their reaction, Jesus did not take back anything he had said nor try to make his teaching more acceptable. It was the parting of the ways. Jesus was not worried about defending himself or his doctrine that he is the true bread from heaven. He was concerned about truth, nothing but the truth. He did not water down his teachings or his position.

As Christians, are we concerned about truth or convenience? Are we concerned about public image than our private conviction? In any case there are enough question marks hanging over our religious commitment to cause concern. What is important is the true level of our commitment, which can never be adequately expressed publicly. Only the believer herself will know in the depth of her heart. We could even say many Christians have stopped believing in the "hard sayings" of the gospel. It is symptomatic of our time. We go more for convenience than truth itself. We are worried about our lifestyle and social securities than profess our faith in the Lord. God is secondary to our comfort-seeking. We give time to Him only if we can afford it.

There are many occasions when Christ could say to us, as he asked his disturbed followers, "Does this upset you?" He was prepared to lose his followers rather than compromise the truth. The gospel records the outcome carefully, "After this, many of his disciples left him and stopped going with him." This was a moment of crisis. What Jesus was demanding of them was not understanding, but faith in himself. There was no way they could avoid making a choice of being for or against Jesus. But Peter, who too would have found Jesus' teaching strange, said, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the message of eternal life." Also for us, what other alternative have we?