The face of the other

Doing the right thing is what we are used to emphasize. But right is not necessarily good, for rightness does not give respect to situation. In order to be fairness, rightness requires one to close his/her eyes, and the other is faceless. This is what the statue of Lady of Justice represents. This is the concern of today scripture (John 12:1-8).

According to John, the comment raised by Judas is invalid, ‘not because Judas cared about the poor, but because he was a thief; he kept the common purse and used to steal what was put into it.’ (v.6) I do not know how reliable John’s accusation was, for John might have prejudice against Judas after Judas betrayed Jesus. Even though John’s accusation is valid, we still have to deal with the comment raised by Judas, that is to say, it is right to give money to the poor instead buying perfume for anointing Jesus. Regarding this, how do we decide which one is more right to do? Some would suggest the criteria of the degree of necessary and for others. Spending money on the poor is more convinced than buying perfume for anointing. But Jesus holds different view. He argues that ‘it is for the day of his burial’ (v.7). On the one hand, it means that death allows one to over-ride the normal logic of rightness in everyday life. On the other hand, since human beings can only have one death, over-riding the normal logic of rightness is acceptable, for it would not turn to become the new logic of rightness. But is Jesus’ argument acceptable? What Jesus has argued is simply a matter of goodness, not rightness. Goodness can be amoral and even immoral, for goodness is largely determined by context. In other words, we can argue what goodness is in a context, but no absolute conclusion can be made, for goodness means differently to different people. Otherwise, it is rightness. In the case of Jesus, the goodness of spending money on perfume for anointing him is good, and it justifies over-riding the rightness of spending money on the poor. John shared Jesus’ preference, but Judas and other might not share. Those who disagree with Jesus’ argument do not mean that they are bad people, for goodness is not solely determined by moral law, but also by the analysis and assessment of the situation. For instance, some argue that flowers in the altar should be fresh, but some suggest plastic, because the latter consider that the fresh flower wastes money, and it is better to spend this amount of money on the poor. Who are more Christians? Who are more devoted to God? I would say that this is not a matter of rightness, but goodness. Since it is goodness, understanding is more important than argument.

Despite the fact that spending money on the poor or the perfume for anointing Jesus is not a moral issue, Jesus’ response has raised an important but neglected dimension of our decision-making, that is, our passion and the face of the other. An emphasis on morality is vital, for it challenges a kind of instrumental rationality that is widespread in society. Therefore, it is absolute right and important to uphold values like helping the poor, but another question is whether the poor in the value of helping the poor are faceless remains a question. The faceless of the poor is not the result of the seriousness of poverty, but comes from the heartless of the helpers. My critique is not to suggest those who give money to the poor are always heartless, but it is not enough to satisfy the moral demand of taking care of the poor. It is a charity, but a charity without passion. This is what Judas is in accordance with John. However, this is not to suggest that spending on the perfume for anointing Jesus is an act of passion. It can still be a heartless act, but this is not the case of Mary. According to Jesus’ word, she is doing with passion. It is this passion that Mary finds it is worth to spend a whole salary on the perfume, and it is good to use it for Jesus instead of the poor. Giving attention to the importance of heart and passion is often criticized as too subjective and emotional. Ironically, in order to be objective, we have lost our passion and heart. More seriously, we fail to turn to see the face of the people, for a faceless value is more importance than the face of the other. My comment has no intention to justify any amoral and immoral act in the name of passion, heart and the face of the other, but the moral value remains coldness if the face of the other has not been seen. One of the lessons we learn from today scripture is that it is not enough to have a right value and even right action, but also to retrieve our passion and heart so that we see the face of the people whom we meet. The latter gives us the context to determine what the goodness is.

On Sunday worship, the pastor announced that Alice would be getting married on coming Tuesday. The pastor continued to say that the church would pray for her marriage and advise her to be faithful in her faithful. I felt a little bit strange of what the pastor had said. Later, I noticed that Alice was pregnant. It is not my position here to discuss whether the pre-marital sex is right or wrong, but I am very appreciated for what the pastor has done, for he sees the face of Alice and responds with passion and heart, not just the moral rightness.

Whether spending money on the poor or the perfume for anointing Jesus is right. The issue is not that it is Jesus and therefore, every act for Jesus is right, but rather it is about an act with passion, heart and the face of the other that matters. This demands us to respond to Jesus as well as others with such qualities.