Character

Simeon said to his mother Mary “This child is destined for the falling and rising of many in Israel” (Luke 2:34).

            There are certain points in History that are turning points, whether for a nation, parish or individuals. When a nation goes to war, there is usually one battle where the tide turns leading to victory or defeat. In a parish facing a major crisis, there is a moment when the community unites behind a plan to overcome it or falls apart. During a rough patch, a married couple has to choose whether they are still committed to each other or go their separate ways. These turning points are character defining moments. They decide the kind of nation, parish or individual a community or person really is despite how it is perceived by others or itself.

            In this text from Luke, Simeon tells Mary her son will be cause of the rising and falling of many in Israel. By doing so, he foretells how an individual’s character will be defined by that person’s response to Jesus.

            Within the Hebrew Scriptures/Old Testament there were several religious leaders whose character was determined by how they responded to a crisis situation. King David, at the height of his power, committed adultery with Bethsheba and had her husband killed in battle. When the prophet Nathan confronted him about the crime, David had a decision to make: deny and further cover up the sin or admit it and seek forgiveness. By choosing the latter, he defined himself as a person of integrity and humility. After Queen Jezebel threatened to kill Elijah, the Prophet fled to Mount Horeb where he encountered God who told him to return to Israel. Elijah had to make a decision: remain in the safety of the wilderness or obey God and risk death. His choice to do the latter defined him as an individual of courage and fidelity. Jeremiah preached against the idolatry and unjust social conditions which existed within Judah during his lifetime. The response of the political and religious elites as well as the people was resentment, ridicule and even an attempt to kill him. Finally, the prophet even considered no longer proclaiming God’s message. He is faced with a decision: avoid further hostility or continue his mission. By choosing the latter he defines himself as a person of toughness and perseverance. In each case, it was an encounter with God under adverse conditions which defined the character of these leaders.

            Luke’s account of Simeon’s meeting with Mary suggested how an individual’s response to Jesus was also a character defining moment. After he had worked all night and caught no fish, Peter was asked by Jesus to set out on the sea again and let down his nets. Peter was faced with a decision: remain at the shore or obey an itinerant preacher who knew little about fishing. After he chose the latter and landed a large catch of fish, he understood his unworthiness before Jesus. Then the fisherman left everything and followed Christ. By his decisions, Peter defined himself as a person who was trusting and modest. When he met Jesus, the rich ruler was likely convinced his situation was secure: he had followed the Jewish Law all his life and had wealth and power. His piety and earthly success were linked. Yet, when Jesus challenged him to give up his wealth to gain Eternal Life, he became sad because this link was destroyed. He had a decision to make: trust in the security which comes from either earthly or heavenly things. His choice defined his character as someone who was possessive and self-interested. When the Jewish leaders brought Jesus before Pontius Pilate, the Roman knew the evidence presented to him was insufficient for a conviction. Yet, urged on by their leaders, the crowds wanted Jesus crucified. Pilate had to make a decision: uphold the Law or give in to the crowd. His choice demonstrated his character to be someone who was unjust and susceptible to pressure. In all three situations, Simeon’s prophecy that the character of an individual was defined by an interaction with Jesus proved correct.

            This Covid 19 pandemic will probably be a turning point in our History. It will define our character as nations, parishes and individuals. Medical researchers have displayed ingenuity and persistence in trying to produce an effective vaccine as quickly as possible. Health care workers have exhibited courage and professionalism in caring for patients while putting their own safety at risk. Ordinary people have demonstrated concern and altruism by checking in on their elderly and vulnerable neighbours. Yet, there are some who have shown no regard for the common good by disregarding measures which would limit the spread of the virus. Others have promoted false information which has undermined the efforts of medical experts to teach people about Co-vid 19. Another group has tried to make money during the pandemic by hoarding critical supplies or selling ineffective remedies. These actions define the character of the individuals doing them for good or bad. Our parishes and nations are also confronted with some important decisions. Do we allow our Covid 19 fatigue and desire to get things back to normal prompt us to forget about the health measures or continue to look out for each other? Do we care for those who have suffered economic hardship during the pandemic when they lost their jobs or businesses and assist them to recover or leave it up to “market forces”? Do we protect the vulnerable in our nation like those who risk exposure to the virus by stocking shelves in grocery stores or clean the rooms in Long Term Care facilities and get rewarded with low pay, no benefits and little job security, both now and after the crisis, or do we eliminate social programs so we can cut taxes? The decisions we make over the next months and years will define our character for generations to come.

            Turning points with their character defining potential don’t happen very often. When they do, we need to ask ourselves how we will respond to Jesus through our decisions and what they say about us.

February 2, 2021