There are a few undervalued heroes in the biblical story -- and my contention is that Thomas gets a bad rap.
Here is how the day after Easter unfolds, at least in John's Gospel; the disciples are afraid for their lives, and hiding in a locked room. Jesus shows up, not having knocked, and convinces them that he is really back from the grave. They all rejoice and are happy and unlock the door.
What happens next is a little sketchy, but we know two things: First, Thomas was not there, and does not believe them. Second, within a week they have let fear get the best of them and are back behind locked doors.
I mean, it is not like these guys are the heroes of the day; even after supposedly encountering the risen Christ, they are still too afraid to do anything about it. And they turn on Thomas. As if it would be any different if the situation were reversed: If Thomas had been alone when Jesus showed up and he tried to convince them all of resurrection, they would have called him crazy, right?
Strange story; and Thomas goes down in history as "the doubter" when, in fact, he is just being realistic.
In fact, according to the story, Jesus himself doesn't berate Thomas, simply shows him the wounds and nods...
Since this story was written anywhere from 50-100 years after the events of Jesus life, and since Thomas has already gone on to be a hero, along with the rest of them; I'm thinking it is not really meant to be history -- it is meant to illustrate something about human nature.
We all have doubts. We all have fears. We all hide from the unknown. There is an opportunity with God's help to move beyond this.
It is not just Thomas who has a bad reputation; it is the whole concept of doubt, which is unfortunate.
Doubt is a safety valve for the human imagination. Doubt is the driving force for scientific research. Doubt allows faith to become praxis, which is a fancy way of saying action.
Somewhere along the way a lot of Christians got it mixed up, and doubt became the enemy of faith. To have faith became the exact same as "believing without doubt in..."
So, if you believe the Bible is entirely without error and you have no doubts about that, you are faithful.
If you believe that Jesus died on the cross to save you without doubt, you are faithful. If you believe that God created the world in exactly six days out of nothing, you are faithful. It was not so long ago that being faithful had nothing to do with belief. It had to do with the way you acted.
There is biblical precedence for this as well. Almost every prophet, major and minor, was only thought to speak on behalf of God after a good majority of their prophecies seemed to work out. It was the actions that determined the reliability of the witness, not some confession of faith.
That's the thing. A whole lot of people show up in church on holy days like Easter and never darken the door otherwise -- but do so as fully and faithfully as they can; and a whole lot of other people come every Sunday and mouth their parts.
I am not pointing any fingers here: I just think we should all keep in mind, even those of us who would never think of going to church that what really counts when you get down to the nitty-gritty is what you do from Monday to Saturday; and not simply what you do on Sunday morning.
