In the Gospel assigned to tomorrow, Christ reprimands those who follow him because of his miracles. We will not hear this tract tomorrow because it is the feast of the Transfiguration and so we will hear that story instead.
Like many others, I have long struggled with the question of leadership and discipleship. What makes one person a leader and another a follower? One willing to make decisions and another more willing to delegate that duty?
Christ's charismatic personality and wonderful feats attracted many followers. In a very similar way, there are charismatic preachers and personalities who still attract us. It is sad, therefore, that when we get closer to one of these people we often find them sadly lacking. What we perceive when we get closer is not always a fair representation of the person - what we seem to find is that the person is not as great as they seemed to be, not as charismatic, not as perfect.
But the person is not lacking. We simply expect too much sometimes of those whom we have placed in positions of authority. When great leaders are examined under the critical microscope of history and journalism, they are often seen to be just frail, dull and ordinary, just like the rest of us. You see, they are really just like the rest of us.
Despite the popular misconception, leadership is not a quality that some people are born with. There is no such a thing as a born leader. There are people who have learned how to lead, how to attract and entertain, to inspire and cajole, to serve and be served. Leadership is more a role granted to those who are willing to take it than a skill that others recognise and then affirm.
This leaves the world divided unevenly between leaders, followers and celebrities. Most of us belong quite happily in the second category and we often have to struggle to remain there. Equally, the leaders have to struggle and play politics to get to where they want to be, but there are some who seem to simply arrive at that point by virtue of their personality - the celebrities. These people often impress us at first. They are warm, attractive, fresh and charismatic, but they rarely stand the test of time. Christ was one of these. They loved him and followed him and then they crucified him. He may have gained a band of faithful followers, but the hordes who loved him got tired of him and disposed of him just as quickly as they had accepted him.
It is ironic that this Gospel challenge to our reasons for discipleship is displaced this week by the story of the Transfiguration. In that story the disciples reach the moment of insight when they recognise Jesus for who he is and understand better why they should follow him. In a similar way we could use this irony to challenge ourselves as to why we bear his name as Christians. Do we follow him because he means something to us, or because of his miracles and name?
I often think that we treat our religion much as we treat our politics. Is our faith there because it means something to us, or do we keep it because his father had the seat before him? Is it all right to be an armchair Christian who supports the ideals but doesn't feel inspired to get actively involved? Is religion a way of living - or is it something that needs to be bothered with only every four years and then forgotten about?
An interesting feast indeed!
F. MacE.