by Cardinal Stephen Chow, S.J.
When Jesus asked his disciples who did they think that he was, they gave some rather unusual replies. They could have described him as a great rabbi, a wonderful healer, or a miracle worker. These descriptions were rather ‘factual’ as these identities could well be perceived by those who came across Jesus, should they have the good fortune to witness him teaching, healing, or performing miracles.
However, according to the different responses relayed by the disciples, people did not see Jesus in the above categories. Jesus for them is someone with a formidable identity, such as John the Baptist, Elijah, Jeremiah or another prophet [Matthew 16:14]. In other words, they encountered Jesus at a deeper level, where he manifested himself with the identity of one of these great prophets in Jewish history. To be taken for one of these great figures must be a great honour for the recipients at Jesus’ time.
However, none of these identities were ‘factual’ or ‘truthful’ about Jesus. As a matter of fact, he was not John the Baptist, Elijah, Jeremiah or one of the prophets. But the response given by Simon Peter went even deeper than fact, much deeper than what could be perceived by the five senses, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God” [Matthew 16:16]. Indeed, this ‘true’ identity of Jesus could not be appreciated through casual encounters or attained through some hearsay of others. It is a spiritual understanding of Simon Peter, gained through divine revelation and probably his soulful connection with Jesus.
Truth is not something to be scanned but held with appreciation through the passing of time, patience, willfulness, openness, and with love. We certainly need to be open to the truth before we can recognise it.
And with our love for truth, we can come to appreciate it. It is noteworthy that without time, patience and willfulness, truth is not likely to be grasped.
How difficult it is for us to attain truth when we mostly let ourselves be distracted by superficiality, rumours, misleading facts and partial truth? How tricky it is to hold the truth in our palms when we would rather cling to comforting lies and reinforcing our own prejudices, especially when the truth is inconvenient or far from pleasing?
It is said that we are now living in the “post-truth” era, when appeals to personal emotions and beliefs are more readily deployed to shape public opinion than objectivity, while facts are created and manipulated to suit particular agendas. With the development of artificial intelligence in leaps and bounds, the authenticity of fact becomes increasingly illusive.
The line between truth and falsity in a post-truth era appears to be deliberately blurred and misleading. A typical example is the partial truth, which is more damaging than blatant falsity. A partial truth is what appears to be true but is mixed with misleading facts or claims. It is for making the whole package appealing and convincing. And the misleading facts or claims are for leading the unsuspected further into the wicked ploys of the schemers. Ideology, though a partial truth at best, cannot be an advisable pathway leading us to the truth upheld by God.
Not all authors of partial truths are evil or malicious. Many of us have assumed that role unwittingly or even knowingly. While it is virtually impossible to secure the whole truth, we are morally responsible to adopt prudence in our pursuit of truth and being open to differences that can lead us to a greater truth.
Hence, we are responsible for continuing our sincere quest for reliable facts, listening respectfully to diverse voices, understanding with empathy the depth, discerning with balanced judgment, and being able to stand firm in our beliefs until new, credible facts urge us to review them.
Happy quests for Truth as pilgrims of hope!
+ Cardinal Stephen Chow, S.J.
