Catholic Journal

The Virtue of Parrhesia within the New Testament

One of the main keywords which feature prominently in Pope Francis’ teaching magisterium is parrhesia. It is interesting to trace back this word in order for us to appreciate its usage within the Pope’s speeches. Let us go back to what the New Testament tells us about it, although first let us have a glance at it in the Graeco-Roman world.

This ancient Greek word, parrhesia, has, in fact, a long past. Let us, for instance, take the example of the Romans. The latter liked to translate this word as libertas or as licentia (meaning “faculty” or “capacity”). The Christian Latin sense of constantia or fiducia tends to lose the basic connection to the word. With parrhesia we are surely not talking about adulation which opportunists ardently practice or senseless rhetoric that is a sweet honey of the ears of the powerful and a marvellous stepping stone for opportunists to gain favours.

Real rhetoric, meaning the “art of speaking”, amply champions the virtue of speaking appropriately as well as effectively. Let us never forget that when one speaks openly and freely it implies a risk, particularly if the speaker is speaking in front of powerful people or by boldly challenging public opinion. In fact, due to the great and horrible repercussions of speaking openly many simply opted for silence or extremely praising the rulers so as not to face the dreadful punishment.

The Graeco-Roman world shows us that speaking the truth was, in fact, a distinctive feature of both the Cynic and Stoic philosophers. In his book Josephus and the New Testament, Steve Mason writes: One of the goals of the philosophers of the first century was the parrhesia, that is, audacious, frank and courageous discourse (also in front of the Emperor), “whatever the consequences might be. […] Many famous philosophers of the end of the first century, especially under Nero and the Flavian dynasty, had to face death or exile for their interminable moral discourses. Within the Graeco-Roman world, Christians were among those people who preferred to risk their lives for speaking the truth than just go against themselves and lead the cheap life of adulators.

If the secular world really appreciated freedom of speech up to the point of risking one’s life we cannot be surprised that this may have influenced the New Testament writers too. Take, for instance, the synoptic Gospels scenario. At a closer look we find that it is only Mark who employs the term parrhesia. Biblical scholars argue that parrhesia is fundamental in the rendition of his Gospel. We find this word used by the evangelist when narrating Peter’s profession of faith as well as the first prophesy concerning the passion of Jesus. He spoke about this plainly (παρρησίᾳ, parrhesia)(Mk 8:32). Even in the Gospel of John we find out that Jesus frequently speaks “plainly”) (parrhesia) to two kinds of audiences, to his disciples (Jn 11:14; 16:25, 29) and to the world (Jn 18:20). While acknowledging the fact that Jesus resorted to parables when communicating the “mysteries” of the kingdom of God, however, when giving his ethical teachings Jesus’ language was open and put on a standard for everyone: Let what you say be simply `Yes’ or `No’; anything more than this comes from evil (Mt 5:37).

Parrhesia was the quality in Jesus that his very adversaries acknowledged although they did not cherish it at all. The Markan text makes this point as clear as possible. Teacher, we know that you are true, and care for no man; for you do not regard the position of men, but truly teach the way of God (Mk 12:14). For Jesus, freedom of speech (parrhesia) is important because in itself it is capable of showing who is trailing on the path of righteousness (Blessed are you) and who, on the other side of the spectrum, is fasting going on the path of perdition (Woe to you). Obviously, Jesus knows very well how to speak words which heal by the kindness they give such as in the story of the paralytic when he told him: My son, your sins are forgiven (Mark 2:5) and to the woman who suffering from the loss of blood he told her: Daughter, your faith has made you well; go in peace, and be healed of your disease (Mark 5:34). But to his opponents, Jesus did not mince not even a single word. To the scribes and Pharisees Jesus simply spoke to them so harshly: But woe to you, scribes and pharisees, hypocrites! (Matt 23:13.15.23.25.27-29). Again, within the same chapter the same people are referred by Jesus as blind guides! (Mark 23:16.24) whereas this phrase is already found in chapter 15:14 in the same Gospel. The harshness of the Matthean text against the scribes and pharisees is also to be detected in the other phrase whitewashed tombs (Matt 23:27).

When we go to the Acts of the Apostles we notice that frankness in proclaiming the Gospel is, in itself, the gift donated by the Holy Spirit particularly in moments of persecutions. For instance, in Acts 4:31 we encounter the following verse: they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God with boldness (παρρησίας, parrhesias). In this perspective, parrhesia becomes the fundamental apostolic virtue.

Let us not forget that Christianity is, first and foremost, concerned with one’s relationship with God. Thus, when the Christian becomes filled with the Holy Spirit who is given to him and her at baptism, that person can turn to the Father in total confidence of a child dares to say Abba, Father! (Gal 4:6; Eph 3:12; Heb 4:14-16). Therefore, parrhesia becomes this trust in God’s love, a love which God shows as he hears the prayers that are addressed to him. It is a love that God will show on judgement day. As the First Letter of John tells us: So we know and believe the love God has for us. God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him (1 John 4:16).

According to the New Testament, the virtue of parrhesia is also to be transferred and become wholly integrated with the Christian community. As a matter of fact, relationships should be defined by open frankness and ultimately intended to foster charity. Obviously, that much needed “fraternal correction” from itself demands gradualness. Nevertheless it should be practiced as the texts Matthew 18:15-17 and Galatians 6:1 clearly show. In the context of parrhesia, immoral behavior, such as the one described in 1 Cor 5:1 (where the Pauline text gives us the scenario where a Christian is living with the wife of his father) cannot be accepted. Paul addresses this issue directly: Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? Cleanse out the old leaven (1 Cor 5:6-7). The Christian community spirit offers Paul the possibility to speak with “great confidence” (πολλή παρρησία, pollē parrēsia). As a true shepherd and a brother to the community, Paul ardently desires that among the believers there should be authentic love not a fake and a hypocritical one. In the Letter to the Romans Paul writes to them: Let love be genuine; hate what is evil, hold fast to what is good (Rom 12:9). In the First Letter to the Thessalonians, Paul kept reverberating the theme of fraternal correction when he writes: We exhort you, brethren, admonish the idlers, encourage the fainthearted, help the weak, be patient with them all (1 Thes 5:14). The Pauline corpus also speaks of situations where a community member just keeps disobeying and rebels. It gives room for public correction. In the Second Letter to the Thessalonians, Paul writes: If any one refuses to obey what we say in this letter, note that man, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed. Do not look on him as an enemy, but warn him as a brother (2 Thess 3:14-15).

At the end we have also to say that as the Gospel was under trial Christians practiced the virtue of parrhesia when they stood in front of public authorities. In this way they took on them that same attitude which so characterised the prophets of the Old Testament who were so bold to proclaim God’s word, to the point of putting their lives at grave risk. Hence, those who are animated by the Gospel’s spirit deny the theocratic ideal which puts God’s reign at a parallel with the State as well as the totalitarian aspirations of a pagan state.

From what we know Christians were, in fact, loyal citizens. They respected the authority of the Emperor and his public officials and even prayed for him and them. Obviously they only refuted those orders or customs which promoted idolatry or denigrated human dignity. In this sense, as Michel Foucault put it in his book The courage of truththe martyr is the ‘parrhesist’ par excellence. In this context one can appreciate how parrhesia can be communicated even without uttering a single word, simply by an act of the will in refusing to do a determined act because one’s conscience judged so. Obviously, in the martyr’s case, the courage in professing a confession goes side by side with renouncing a particular demand which entails a rejection of the faith, ranging from an act of idolatry or a blasphemy against Christ.

As we have seen from the New Testament, we can conclude that parrhesia is that frankness, that openness of the heart, that opening of word, that openness of language together with that freedom of speech. Having said that we cannot infer from this that one simply and haphazardly says what one wants. Let us not forget that in itself parrhesia shows an ethical approach and responsibility in what one says and does too. What is said is intimately connected with what is necessary and useful and, most of all, true. Real parrhesia is geared towards the truth and the good and excludes any traces of evil from it.

Holy Spirit, fill me to the brim with this necessary virtue of parrhesia. Amen.

Fr Mario Attard OFM Cap

FR MARIO ATTARD OFM Cap was born in San Gwann on August 26 1972. After being educated in governmental primary and secondary schools as well as at the Naxxar Trade School he felt the call to enter the Franciscan Capuchin Order. After obtaining the university requirements he entered the Capuchin friary at Kalkara on October 12 1993. A year after he was ordained a priest, precisely on 4 September 2004, his superiors sent him to work with patients as a chaplain first at St. Luke's Hospital and later at Mater Dei. In 2007 Fr Mario obtained a Master's Degree in Hospital Chaplaincy from Sydney College of Divinity, University of Sydney, Australia. Currently, he is one of the six chaplains working at Mater Dei Hospital. Furthermore, he is a regular contributor in the MUMN magazine IL-MUSBIEĦ and hosts radio programmes about the spiritual care of the sick.