The Trinity: what is it, where did it come from?
Soon it will be Trinity Sunday, following hard on the heels of the Spirit as celebrated at Pentecost. But there is something important about the spirit that generally does not figure in the sermons of Pentecost. And it is this missing element that will form the basis of this dialogue. So this dialogue is offering some thoughts designed to challenge and develop our thinking about the Spirit. Is the Trinity really what we think it is? Or are some surprises lurking within?
There is a joke about ministers managing to be ill, take holidays, or be struck temporarily dumb on Trinity Sunday, usually because the various technical explanations of the trinity prove too dense and headache-inducing to tackle. There is an assumption that the complex history of the development of the doctrine of the trinity is just too intricate for the ordinary person in the pew. John and I disagree, and think that the basics are understood enough that we can build on them by engaging in a dialogue about this particular topic.
We should warn you that this is not meant to be an inspiring and enthusing sermon. Rather, through the technicalities of the development of the doctrine, we hope to encourage you to think about our understanding of God, and how we experience God’s presence in our lives.
The first character to open our dialogue is Rufinus, who was present at the council of Nicea in the year 325, when the first formal declaration of the doctrine of the trinity was made by a council of bishops. Rufinus was one of the scribes at the council, taking notes for the eminent historian, Eusebius of Caesarea. Rufinus is full of enthusiasm for what has taken place at Nicea. He is anxious to address you on the topic. He is quickly joined by a mysterious and rather shadowy character, who questions the whole foundations of the Nicean decision on this topic.
*********
RUFINUS: What do we mean when we speak of the Trinity? This is a good question, and one frequently asked by Christians. The answer that you receive to this question will depend upon the person you ask. However, I will attempt a definition of what we mean when we talk about ‘trinity’.
The monotheism of Christianity is rather unique. We believe that God is One; but we also hold that the one God has three distinct “persons”: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This unique threefold God of Christian belief is referred to as the Trinity (from Latin trinitas, “three”).
It is true that the word “Trinity” does not appear in the Bible. However, we believe that some of the texts of the bible point to this doctrine – in fact, you have heard a number of them this morning. But while this concept is rather scarce in the biblical texts, there is no reason we should doubt the words of the early church fathers, where it appears often. After all, the word “Trinity” was first used by Tertullian, the great Latin lawyer and theologian (c.155-230). So it already has quite a history, stretching from my time in the fourth century back into the early years of the third century.
We should consider the early councils of the church—and especially the one held at Nicaea under the patronage of our great emperor, Constantine—to be authoritative. In these councils, doctrine is formally and correctly defined by the doctors and fathers of the church. The Nicene Creed declares Jesus to be: “God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father.” That is the trinity in essence.
And we can also consider this affirmation:
“We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son, he is worshipped and glorified.”
This testifies to the fact that the Holy Spirit came because of the death of Jesus. Jesus promised that when he died, the spirit, the Comforter would come. As Jesus was in the father, so the spirit was in Jesus. You see—it is simple!
SOPHILLA: Now just a minute. This is not as beautifully simple as you claim, at all. There are lots of reasons for questioning this doctrine of the Trinity. For example, as you said, the word ‘trinity’ is not mentioned anywhere in the Bible. And think about it – it simply doesn’t make philosophical sense. It isn’t taught in the scripture of the Jewish people, the Old Testament. These were the scriptures of Jesus, and he never mentioned such a thing. Whoever heard of such strangeness as this ‘one in three’ business?
Further, the idea of trinity is not compatible with monotheism. In fact, this is really why it was invented. The church fathers needed to explain away why they were worshipping two gods—God the Father, the supreme God; and Jesus, also regarded as a God. This would be polytheism. So they threw in the holy spirit for good measure, and came up with this notion of the “three in one”. Lastly, this Council at Nicea was really also about refuting the so-called Arian heresy.
RUFINUS: Yes, that’s right, Arius claimed that Jesus was not one with God the Father, as he was not fully divine—a false view that had to be dealt with.
SOPHILLA: Have you ever noticed how doctrine is always developed when there is an alleged heresy at large?
RUFINUS: Well, this is the way that good ideas are shaped and refined. However, I will ignore this polemical statement and take up your earlier point. You may be right about the word ‘trinity’ not being biblical, but I have to point out that the concept is found indirectly in various statements in the Bible. The three figures of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are associated in such great New Testament passages as the Great Commission: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19); and in the apostolic benediction: “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all” (2 Corinthians 13:14). And this idea explains the divinity of Jesus and the Holy Spirit, and shows how this idea fits with monotheism. And anyway, it should not be expected that the nature of God is going to make sense to us humans. We have to allow room for some complexity.
SOPHILLA: I do not believe that Matthew intended this verse to become proof of a trinity. In fact, I am unconvinced that Matthew the evangelist even wrote such words. Matthew records a special connection between God the Father and Jesus the Son (for example, Matthew 11:27), but he falls short of claiming that Jesus is equal with God (as in 24:36). I do not need a trinity to explain to me that Jesus was special.
RUFINUS: Come, come, you surely cannot mean that. The coming of Jesus Christ, the belief that he represented the presence and power of God, clearly had implications for the very early Christians, and planted seeds of understanding in their minds. Think of the Holy Spirit, whose coming was connected with the celebration of the Pentecost. Surely you will agree that the Holy Spirit is divine.
SOPHILLA: Of course the holy spirit is divine. She is sent by God, to increase human understanding, to bring change and renewal, and to announce the will of God.
RUFINUS: She???!!!! What do you mean, she? The holy spirit, the blessed third person of the trinity, is male. Father, Son, Holy Spirit. Three persons in one being. Of course the spirit is male. How could it be otherwise? All three persons are male. And come to think of it, just who are you anyway, to be putting forth such ridiculous ideas?
SOPHILLA: I thought you would never ask. I am Sophilla, handmaiden to Wisdom, and one of the keepers of the feminine tradition. Wisdom has been described in many and various ways—as an aspect of God, as a divine entity existing in her own right, even as something approaching a feminine deity. All of these have some truth to them. Wisdom’s primary function is, of course, to be a mediating force between God and the world. Wisdom is very old; as it says in the book of Proverbs: “The Lord created [Wisdom] at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of old” (Proverbs 8:22). Wisdom also functions as a vehicle of God’s self-revelation, granting knowledge of God to those who pursue her.
RUFINUS: I am sorry, this is getting out of hand here. What you are talking about is the function of Jesus. These are the things Jesus does. Let us consider these verses which come early in the letter to the Colossians:
“He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; for in him all things in heaven and on earth were created, things visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or powers — all things have been created through him and for him…For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him God was pleased to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, by making peace through the blood of his cross.”
This makes it very clear.
SOPHILLA: All that this makes clear is that the New Testament writers usurped Wisdom’s function and gave it to Jesus. The name of Wisdom was used by you men at the early Church gathering at Nicea to try and explain how a ‘three persons in one’ related to the created world. You just conveniently forgot that Wisdom is female. It is time to give you a history lesson to prove my point.
The first recorded use of the word “Trinity” in Christian theology was in the first century (around 180) by Theophilus of Antioch. He used it, however, to refer to a “triad” of three days: the first three days of Creation, which he then compared to “God, his Word, and his Wisdom.” Later great Christian thinkers such as Maximus the Confessor and Gregory Palamas made Wisdom integral to their theory of knowledge and understanding of the created and uncreated orders.
RUFINUS: What about Tertullian, that great theologian of the early third century? He explained the trinity properly. He made it clear that words “Trinity” and “person” are to explain that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit were “one in essence—not one in Person.” What do you have to say to that?
SOPHILLA: Only this: how can you be so sure that Tertullian is right and Maximus is wrong? And what about the rabbis? Consider the words of Rabbi Rami Shapiro: “You are intimate with Wisdom. She has known you from the beginning. You cannot hide from Her. On the contrary, you can take refuge in Her. This is what She offers you. You do not have to earn Her love or be other than you are…she knows you and loves you for who you are”. These teachings of Wisdom can be found in lots of Writings: the Psalms, Proverbs, Job, the Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes, as well as the Greek texts, the Wisdom of Solomon and the Wisdom of Jesus Ben Sirach. The New Testament, therefore, has clearly associated Wisdom with the person of Jesus Christ. Wisdom had to go because she was feminine. The Divine Feminine through which God created the world was replaced with the divine masculine.
RUFINUS: I am astonished by your heretical views. The New Testament shows you are wrong. What about the section of Paul’s letter that we heard today? 2 Corinthians 13:14 is such early evidence for a trinity. The apostle Paul understood God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit as the Trinity. Jesus is referred to as Lord and Christ, God is referred to as a source of love, and the Spirit promotes sharing within Paul’s churches. Now you cannot dispute this.
SOPHILLA: I can and I will. Paul does not refer to Jesus as son, but as the means of God’s grace. He refers to God as a source of love, not as father. And by your own admission, the Spirit promotes sharing within the community, and is not physically connected with either.
RUFINUS: All right then, what about the Gospel of Rufinus? Rufinus suggests the equality and unity of Father and Son. “I and the Father are one” Jesus says in Rufinus (Rufinus 10:30). And this Gospel starts with the statement that in the beginning Jesus as Word “was with God and ...was God” (Rufinus 1:1) and ends with Thomas’s confession of faith to Jesus, “My Lord and my God!” (Rufinus 20:28).” You cannot deny that these two verses identify Jesus with God.
Furthermore, Rufinus’s gospel says that of the role of Holy Spirit is to be a parakletos, an advocate and comforter for believers, and will be sent after the death of Jesus:
“I will not leave you orphaned; I am coming to you [said Jesus]. In a little while the world will no longer see me, but you will see me. .. the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything, and remind you of all that I have said to you.” (Rufinus 14:18-19)
Here we see Father, Son and the Holy Spirit, both distinctly yet functioning as a unity. What more proof could you ask for?
SOPHILLA: Since you have raised the topic of the spirit, let us focus on her for a minute.
RUFINUS: Her???!!! My dear Sophilla, the spirit, as part of the trinity, is masculine. The parakletos, the comforter, the spirit, is of masculine gender. This is female bias gone mad!
SOPHILLA: I would remind you that the holy spirit was alive, well and active in the Old Testament, and the ruach, which is one of her names, is most definitely feminine gender in the language of Hebrew. Let us consider her role: the ruach is frequently coupled with the name of God; in Hebrew, the ruach Elohim is literally the Spirit of God who descends on kings and prophets alike, anointing them for the role of leadership of the people. Here again we have proof that this doctrine of the trinity has replaced the ruach with a masculine persona. Further, we find in the Hebrew scriptures the presence of two other figures: the Shekinah, also known as the glory of God, who always indicates God’s “presence”; and the bat kol, “the Daughter of the Voice,” which is how any proclamation made by God is described. Every action of God in the ancient writings is feminine. What have you to say to that?
RUFINUS: What are you talking about, with bat kols and Shekinahs? These are not words I have heard; we did not discuss these at Nicea.
SOPHILLA: Let me spell it out for you then. The Hebrew word “ruach” means “spirit”, just as the Latin word “spiritus” means spirit, but in Hebrew, ruach is a feminine noun, while in Latin, spiritus is a masculine noun. The Holy Spirit changed its sex somewhere in the last few centuries.
I have further evidence that this notion of trinity has swallowed up the feminine. According to ancient Rabbis, where two or more of the faithful are gathered together in prayer, or study of Torah, the Shekinah is in their midst. Does this sound familiar? I seem to recall a saying in the New Testament that says ‘wherever two or more are gathered in my name, I am with them’. This is clearly describing the role of the Shekinah – and when the gospel writers get to work, this role has been taken over by Jesus.
Further more, the ancient Rabbis also said that the Shekinah appeared before Moses at the burning bush, where the bat kol (or daughter of the voice) was heard speaking to Moses. It was the guide to Israel in the wilderness. Now, I seem to recall this idea of spirit in the wilderness is also found in the writings of the New Testament.
RUFINUS: You cannot possibly be suggesting that this nonsense is somehow related to the deeds of Jesus or the spirit in the wilderness!
SOPHILLA: Well, I was suggesting this. The feminine spirit and Shekinah are well attested in the Jewish writings. Why did you Western church fathers need to remove them? Look at Justin Martyr – he claimed that Jesus was Wisdom, Logos and the Glory, thereby removing the feminine ruach, Wisdom and Shekinah all in one stroke. He did not consider the ancient teachings.
For example, Rabbi Hillel, contemporary of Jesus, understood that the Hebrew understanding of Wisdom and spirit was the same as the Greek understanding of the Logos, and therefore feminine. It was Paul and Rufinus who first claimed that the Word or Logos was Christ, and therefore masculine.
In the Eastern Church, the Spirit was always considered to have a feminine nature. She was the life-bearer of the faith. Clement of Alexandria states that “she” is an indwelling Bride. Instead of recognizing this feminine aspect of the divine, you have tried to satisfy women throughout the world by presenting them with models of martyrs and virgins, thereby setting a standard that no normal female can aspire to. You tried to turn Wisdom into the mother of Jesus, rather than seeing her as true divinity.
RUFINUS: You still haven’t explained what you mean by bat kol.
SOPHILLA: The bat kol, the ‘daughter of the voice’, was the voice of God that proclaimed God’s will and intention, his judgments and his promises, his warnings and his commands to various people, communities, and sometimes to all of Israel. Jewish tradition always spoke of the bat kol. When the Law was given at Sinai the Bible says,
“And the LORD spoke to you out of the midst of the fire. You heard the sound of the words, but saw no form; you only heard a voice.” (Deut 4:12)
This voice is the bat kol. There are hundreds of examples of the bat kol in the Old Testament. And believe it or not, the bat kol is alive and well in the New Testament writings – do you recall the baptism of Jesus? A voice was heard from to make a pronouncement about Jesus. This was the bat kol.
RUFINUS: I am glad you mentioned this scene. This is another part of the New Testament that is considered to show the trinity at work. We have Jesus, the son, being baptised by the holy spirit, and the voice of God is heard. Surely you must accept this as proof.
SOPHILLA: No, I do not. The writers have taken the bat kol and made her masculine! And I see this scene very differently. The ruach, the spirit of God, who descended from the heavens was changed into the pneuma, or spiritus, and made masculine. The qualities of Wisdom and the Shekinah were grafted onto Jesus – again the feminine became masculine. And the bat kol, the voice of God and the means of communication between God and the people, morphed into a male. So you could say that all three ‘persons’ of this newly invented trinity were in fact, originally female. And did I mention that the bat kol is represented in Jewish tradition by the symbol of the dove?
**********
JOHN: At this point, we shall leave our analysis of the history of the doctrine of the trinity. However we approach this subject, it is clear that it is, by its very nature, complex. We need to recognise that the concept of the trinity was developed over a long period of time. It was not only an expression of divine revelation. It was just as much about refuting heresies, and explaining how belief in what seemed to be three divine entities was still consistent with a faith that was monotheistic. And, of course, it had to do with the church politics of the time. This is well-recognised by theologians and church historians today.
ELIZABETH: What is not so well known is that the many attributes of the three persons of the trinity were taken from the older religion of Jesus – that of the Jewish people. An analogy to this might be seen in the Christian festivals of Easter and Christmas, where older traditions were redefined or subsumed under the Christian banner. As we have seen, the trinity contains Jewish ideas which have been reshaped into a new doctrine. In this process, the female figures so important in Jewish tradition were lost. Today, we hope that we have helped you to recover the missing element—the female figures of Wisdom, Shekinah, the ruach, and the bat kol.
The view we have presented here of the trinity is not meant to discredit the traditional doctrine. On the contrary; what we hope to have done is to open up new possibilities for further exploration of the idea of the divine attributes and the different aspects of God. The trinity can be a stimulus for such exploration in our thinking about God, and how we experience God’s presence in our lives.
Sunday, 12 May 2013
Wednesday, 24 April 2013
When the sacred and the secular collide - the meaning of ANZAC
I posted this on Anzac Day last year, and it seemed like a good idea to do so again, after reading quite a few Facebook comments on the topic.
Today is Anzac Day, and much of Australia will stop what it is doing, and in religious ceremonies all over the country, will observe what is increasing described as the most sacred day in our national calendar.
It has also been described as the day that best describes the nature of our national character. Even for those who don’t normally participate in the worship life of the Church, Anzac Day is the day where many of the public gather in reverent public rituals or liturgies. At shrines, memorials and monuments in every town and municipality across the country, people gather to remember and honour the fallen, and to honour and express gratitude to those who survived and can participate in marches.
I remember as a small child going to the Anzac march in Newcastle with my grandfather, who has served in the 12th Light Horse in Palestine in WW1. This would be followed with beer and two up (though not by me I hasten to add!) in the Merewether RSL. I also remember ceremonies at my school, where at a certain time we would all stop, go out into the playground, and recite the ode and sing the recessional hymn. While I was struck with the hushed solemnity of both march and service, I am not sure I really understood exactly what it was all about. While feeling sorry for soldiers who had died, the ceremony was little more than a solemn religious occasion which I was required to take part in once a year.
What is it about this day that makes it ‘sacred’? What do the public mean when they speak of some of the larger memorials as ‘shrines’? Why is that we find bible verses inscribed at these monuments and shrines? In an increasingly secular and atheistic society, why do more and more people – particularly young people – gather each year at religious services?
The war memorial in Hyde Park is a great example of a place where the sacred and secular collide in an outstanding way. For those of you who have not seen it, the shrine itself is in the style of classical architecture and its only inscription, “Let silent contemplation be your own only offering” is from the Greek leader Pericles. The first thing to note is that it is called a ‘cenotaph’, which is NT Greek for ‘empty tomb’. Already in the name, we find the Christian idea of resurrection subtly woven into the structure. At the centre of this ‘empty tomb’ is a sculpture called ‘The Sacrifice’. It comprises a bronze group of sculptures depicting the recumbent figure of a young warrior who has made the supreme sacrifice; his naked body lies upon a shield which is supported by three womenfolk, representing his mother, wife or lover and sister. In the arms of one is a child, representing the future generations for whom the sacrifice has been made. You can see it at http://www.flickr.com/photos/_autumn_leaf/225122586/
The group rises phoenix-like from symbolic flames of sacrifice, which radiate from the base. The women represent the living — the soldier the dead. He signifies the past — they hold the future in the child one of them carries. Together the figures are meant to embody the abstract concept of sacrifice. The description tells us that the figures are welded together structurally into one form, so they also represent a complex unity signifying national sacrifice. The figure of the young man is clearly cruciform, and evokes the cross of Jesus.
Rayner Hoff, the sculptor, intended two other figures to be placed in the memorial. One, called The Crucifixion of Civilisation, was denounced by the church. It depicts a naked female figure on a cross representing peace, with a pyramid of broken soldiers, corpses, weapons, helmets, and the debris of battle at the foot. Hoff described the symbolism of his central figure: "Adolescent Peace is depicted crucified on the armaments of the ravisher, the war god, Mars."
This monument, had it ever been built, would have undoubtedly contradicted the glorification of war. Interestingly, it was opposed primarily by the Catholic church of the day, who denounced it as “only fit for Protestants”. You can make of that what you will! The National War Memorial in Adelaide is similar. On the front, the figure within the arch represents the spirit of Duty, bearing in its hands a sword shaped as a cross. This figure is the vision seen by the group standing on the stage in front. http://www.anzacday.org.au/education/tff/memorials/sthaust.html Also like the Hyde Park memorial, we have a depiction of the aftermath of war on the reverse wall. Another winged spirit is depicted in the arch, but this time it symbolises the attributes of womanhood, and reminiscent of the Pieta, the spirit carries on its left arm the limp figure of a dead hero, while in its right hand it holds a cross-like sword.
The inscription reads: ALL HONOR GIVE TO THOSE WHO NOBLY STRIVING, NOBLY FELL THAT WE MIGHT LIVE.
In other less dramatic memorials around the country we find quotations from the bible, the most popular being John “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends”. Such memorials are frequently described as sacred places, and often have a small daily service, invoking ritual and religion for those who are present.
The feeling of sacrifice that permeates Anzac Day surely can only be explained by its conscious and unconscious references to the sacrifice of Jesus. Hence on Anzac day, we find the non-church going public willing to speak of fallen soldiers as making the ultimate sacrifice. Canon David John Garland, the man credited with the instigation of the modern Anzac day in the early 1920s, described it thus: The memorial in its noble dignity proclaims, as befits a Christian people, the great sacrifice of Calvary; and unites therefore the sacrifice of those who also laid down their lives for their friends. Its inscription is no less dignified than the memorial itself: Their Name Liveth for Evermore…On Anzac Day we gather collectively, and plead for them the Sacrifice of Calvary, to which they united themselves by offering their souls and bodies as a reasonable, holy and lively sacrifice, after the example of Him who by word and from the pulpit of the Cross taught that “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.”
Clearly, Jesus’ death and resurrection was related to the meaning of the sacrifice of young lives in war. It was, after all, the death and resurrection of Jesus that made it possible to see any hope at all in the mass slaughter of young men. In Jesus’ sacrificial act on Calvary, and his subsequent resurrection, we see the groundwork for the belief that those who had died defending others would still live on, and their memories would continue to be honoured.
So Anzac day has a theology that is capable of bringing thousands of people in touch with the divine, and it offers them a fleeting experience or encounter with the Godhead, though perhaps not too many who attend would articulate their feelings quite in these terms.
Despite these heavily religious overtones, or even perhaps because of them, Anzac Day commemorations do not always sit comfortably with many Christians. While we recognize the meaning in Jesus’ sacrificial death, we also hear his words when he calls us to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us. When his enemies came against him with military force, Jesus did not resort to reciprocal violence to defend himself or his cause. He allowed the machinery of might and power to add him to its seemingly endless blood-stained list of sacrificial victims. Jesus gave us no endorsement and no precedent for taking up arms in military conflict.
So where does that leave us on the day when our nation commemorates those who have fought and fallen in war? How do we meet our communities as they attend religious ceremonies to mourn the sacrificial dead? Can we participate in honouring the fallen without betraying the gospel of the Prince of Peace? Does Anzac Day provide us with a bridge into the secular community?
I think it possible, as long as we can resist aspects of the commemoration that have been manipulated to support the system that produced all the killing in the first place. In the verses we have heard from the book of the Revelation (Rev. 7:9-17), we find an enormous crowd, from every nation and all tribes and peoples and languages, gathered before the Lamb who was slain, dressed in white robes and waving palm branches as they worship God with loud voices. And Revelation tells us that this enormous crowd are “they who have come out of the great ordeal; they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb?
This is interesting in light of our question, because here we have a great crowd of the fallen, those who have made the ultimate sacrifice of being martyred in the great ordeal. This passage invites us to think about how the vision it presents might connect with the Anzac commemorations. We could go in at least two very different directions with it.
The biblical vision could be used quite uncritically to support the standard Anzac agenda. Here are the great crowd of the glorious fallen gathered before the throne of the God in whose service they laid down their lives in the great ordeal. We could easily connect that with the Anzac Day services and blithely go along with using the honouring of the fallen to reinforce the implied message that the idea of ‘fighting to defend God, King and country’ is indeed a sacred purpose for which one should be prepared to make such a sacrifice.
But honouring the fallen does not require us to swallow the propaganda of war. We can honour the fallen and acknowledge their sacrifice without having to support the system that sacrificed them. We can even hope and pray that those who were killed in war might find their place among the great multitude of white-robed martyrs who worship God before the Lamb who was slain without suggesting that there is some sort of moral equivalence between them and the Lamb. They do have this in common: they are both the sacrificial victims of a system that relied on the notion that some must be sacrificed in order to preserve the security of established interests.
We can honour the memory of those who have been sacrificed in war without having to endorse either the ideologies that they were sacrificed to defend, or the actions by which they defended them. For at the same time as Jesus accepts the worship of the white-robed multitude, he honours them as fellow victims with him and wipes away every tear from their eyes. Far from neglecting their memory, it is in remembering and honouring this multitude of victims that Jesus turns the spotlight of truth on the violent system that demanded their lives.
Perhaps, on Anzac Day, we too can bring these things together. Just as Jesus exposed the systemic oppression of the people and called all to the kingdom of God, so too we can honour the fallen while allowing their memory to raise pertinent questions about the powers that were prepared to sacrifice them. The Great War has often been described as the war to end all wars, and the Christian notion of sacrifice to improve the lot of others seems to have been adopted in this explanation. It is quite likely that those that survived the war across the various nations felt that they owed the fallen a debt of blood, and it was necessary to ensure that the millions had not suffered and died in vain.
The soldiers of the Great War in particular believed that they had laid the groundwork for building a renewed society under God, one that guaranteed justice and equity to all citizens at home and an international order that made the recurrence of such destructive conflict impossible in the future – an ideal that closely parallels the Christian ideal of the Kingdom of God. But anyone who studies history knows that any war appears to only sow the seeds of the next war.
Without resorting to violence, Jesus confronted, challenged and resisted the victim-makers to such an extent that they had to sacrifice him to protect their various interests. He proclaimed love for enemy. When God raised him from the dead and he returned, he appeared to speak powerful words of reconciliation, love, peace and forgiveness.
Perhaps on Anzac Day especially, at the rising of the sun, and at its going down, we should remember the victims of war sacrificed to earthly empires, and remember all those who have become victims of the corruption, madness and greed that characterises our world. As we gather here as the people of God, we should stand with all of the victims, and with all those who have been sacrificed down through the ages. And we should bear witness along with them that the powers of corruption and death can be defeated by the power of love and life, through words of reconciliation, love, peace and forgiveness, spoken not just to our friends, but to our enemies as well. Perhaps then can peace be a real possibility in our world.
Today is Anzac Day, and much of Australia will stop what it is doing, and in religious ceremonies all over the country, will observe what is increasing described as the most sacred day in our national calendar.
It has also been described as the day that best describes the nature of our national character. Even for those who don’t normally participate in the worship life of the Church, Anzac Day is the day where many of the public gather in reverent public rituals or liturgies. At shrines, memorials and monuments in every town and municipality across the country, people gather to remember and honour the fallen, and to honour and express gratitude to those who survived and can participate in marches.
I remember as a small child going to the Anzac march in Newcastle with my grandfather, who has served in the 12th Light Horse in Palestine in WW1. This would be followed with beer and two up (though not by me I hasten to add!) in the Merewether RSL. I also remember ceremonies at my school, where at a certain time we would all stop, go out into the playground, and recite the ode and sing the recessional hymn. While I was struck with the hushed solemnity of both march and service, I am not sure I really understood exactly what it was all about. While feeling sorry for soldiers who had died, the ceremony was little more than a solemn religious occasion which I was required to take part in once a year.
What is it about this day that makes it ‘sacred’? What do the public mean when they speak of some of the larger memorials as ‘shrines’? Why is that we find bible verses inscribed at these monuments and shrines? In an increasingly secular and atheistic society, why do more and more people – particularly young people – gather each year at religious services?
The war memorial in Hyde Park is a great example of a place where the sacred and secular collide in an outstanding way. For those of you who have not seen it, the shrine itself is in the style of classical architecture and its only inscription, “Let silent contemplation be your own only offering” is from the Greek leader Pericles. The first thing to note is that it is called a ‘cenotaph’, which is NT Greek for ‘empty tomb’. Already in the name, we find the Christian idea of resurrection subtly woven into the structure. At the centre of this ‘empty tomb’ is a sculpture called ‘The Sacrifice’. It comprises a bronze group of sculptures depicting the recumbent figure of a young warrior who has made the supreme sacrifice; his naked body lies upon a shield which is supported by three womenfolk, representing his mother, wife or lover and sister. In the arms of one is a child, representing the future generations for whom the sacrifice has been made. You can see it at http://www.flickr.com/photos/_autumn_leaf/225122586/
The group rises phoenix-like from symbolic flames of sacrifice, which radiate from the base. The women represent the living — the soldier the dead. He signifies the past — they hold the future in the child one of them carries. Together the figures are meant to embody the abstract concept of sacrifice. The description tells us that the figures are welded together structurally into one form, so they also represent a complex unity signifying national sacrifice. The figure of the young man is clearly cruciform, and evokes the cross of Jesus.
Rayner Hoff, the sculptor, intended two other figures to be placed in the memorial. One, called The Crucifixion of Civilisation, was denounced by the church. It depicts a naked female figure on a cross representing peace, with a pyramid of broken soldiers, corpses, weapons, helmets, and the debris of battle at the foot. Hoff described the symbolism of his central figure: "Adolescent Peace is depicted crucified on the armaments of the ravisher, the war god, Mars."
This monument, had it ever been built, would have undoubtedly contradicted the glorification of war. Interestingly, it was opposed primarily by the Catholic church of the day, who denounced it as “only fit for Protestants”. You can make of that what you will! The National War Memorial in Adelaide is similar. On the front, the figure within the arch represents the spirit of Duty, bearing in its hands a sword shaped as a cross. This figure is the vision seen by the group standing on the stage in front. http://www.anzacday.org.au/education/tff/memorials/sthaust.html Also like the Hyde Park memorial, we have a depiction of the aftermath of war on the reverse wall. Another winged spirit is depicted in the arch, but this time it symbolises the attributes of womanhood, and reminiscent of the Pieta, the spirit carries on its left arm the limp figure of a dead hero, while in its right hand it holds a cross-like sword.
The inscription reads: ALL HONOR GIVE TO THOSE WHO NOBLY STRIVING, NOBLY FELL THAT WE MIGHT LIVE.
In other less dramatic memorials around the country we find quotations from the bible, the most popular being John “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends”. Such memorials are frequently described as sacred places, and often have a small daily service, invoking ritual and religion for those who are present.
The feeling of sacrifice that permeates Anzac Day surely can only be explained by its conscious and unconscious references to the sacrifice of Jesus. Hence on Anzac day, we find the non-church going public willing to speak of fallen soldiers as making the ultimate sacrifice. Canon David John Garland, the man credited with the instigation of the modern Anzac day in the early 1920s, described it thus: The memorial in its noble dignity proclaims, as befits a Christian people, the great sacrifice of Calvary; and unites therefore the sacrifice of those who also laid down their lives for their friends. Its inscription is no less dignified than the memorial itself: Their Name Liveth for Evermore…On Anzac Day we gather collectively, and plead for them the Sacrifice of Calvary, to which they united themselves by offering their souls and bodies as a reasonable, holy and lively sacrifice, after the example of Him who by word and from the pulpit of the Cross taught that “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.”
Clearly, Jesus’ death and resurrection was related to the meaning of the sacrifice of young lives in war. It was, after all, the death and resurrection of Jesus that made it possible to see any hope at all in the mass slaughter of young men. In Jesus’ sacrificial act on Calvary, and his subsequent resurrection, we see the groundwork for the belief that those who had died defending others would still live on, and their memories would continue to be honoured.
So Anzac day has a theology that is capable of bringing thousands of people in touch with the divine, and it offers them a fleeting experience or encounter with the Godhead, though perhaps not too many who attend would articulate their feelings quite in these terms.
Despite these heavily religious overtones, or even perhaps because of them, Anzac Day commemorations do not always sit comfortably with many Christians. While we recognize the meaning in Jesus’ sacrificial death, we also hear his words when he calls us to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us. When his enemies came against him with military force, Jesus did not resort to reciprocal violence to defend himself or his cause. He allowed the machinery of might and power to add him to its seemingly endless blood-stained list of sacrificial victims. Jesus gave us no endorsement and no precedent for taking up arms in military conflict.
So where does that leave us on the day when our nation commemorates those who have fought and fallen in war? How do we meet our communities as they attend religious ceremonies to mourn the sacrificial dead? Can we participate in honouring the fallen without betraying the gospel of the Prince of Peace? Does Anzac Day provide us with a bridge into the secular community?
I think it possible, as long as we can resist aspects of the commemoration that have been manipulated to support the system that produced all the killing in the first place. In the verses we have heard from the book of the Revelation (Rev. 7:9-17), we find an enormous crowd, from every nation and all tribes and peoples and languages, gathered before the Lamb who was slain, dressed in white robes and waving palm branches as they worship God with loud voices. And Revelation tells us that this enormous crowd are “they who have come out of the great ordeal; they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb?
This is interesting in light of our question, because here we have a great crowd of the fallen, those who have made the ultimate sacrifice of being martyred in the great ordeal. This passage invites us to think about how the vision it presents might connect with the Anzac commemorations. We could go in at least two very different directions with it.
The biblical vision could be used quite uncritically to support the standard Anzac agenda. Here are the great crowd of the glorious fallen gathered before the throne of the God in whose service they laid down their lives in the great ordeal. We could easily connect that with the Anzac Day services and blithely go along with using the honouring of the fallen to reinforce the implied message that the idea of ‘fighting to defend God, King and country’ is indeed a sacred purpose for which one should be prepared to make such a sacrifice.
But honouring the fallen does not require us to swallow the propaganda of war. We can honour the fallen and acknowledge their sacrifice without having to support the system that sacrificed them. We can even hope and pray that those who were killed in war might find their place among the great multitude of white-robed martyrs who worship God before the Lamb who was slain without suggesting that there is some sort of moral equivalence between them and the Lamb. They do have this in common: they are both the sacrificial victims of a system that relied on the notion that some must be sacrificed in order to preserve the security of established interests.
We can honour the memory of those who have been sacrificed in war without having to endorse either the ideologies that they were sacrificed to defend, or the actions by which they defended them. For at the same time as Jesus accepts the worship of the white-robed multitude, he honours them as fellow victims with him and wipes away every tear from their eyes. Far from neglecting their memory, it is in remembering and honouring this multitude of victims that Jesus turns the spotlight of truth on the violent system that demanded their lives.
Perhaps, on Anzac Day, we too can bring these things together. Just as Jesus exposed the systemic oppression of the people and called all to the kingdom of God, so too we can honour the fallen while allowing their memory to raise pertinent questions about the powers that were prepared to sacrifice them. The Great War has often been described as the war to end all wars, and the Christian notion of sacrifice to improve the lot of others seems to have been adopted in this explanation. It is quite likely that those that survived the war across the various nations felt that they owed the fallen a debt of blood, and it was necessary to ensure that the millions had not suffered and died in vain.
The soldiers of the Great War in particular believed that they had laid the groundwork for building a renewed society under God, one that guaranteed justice and equity to all citizens at home and an international order that made the recurrence of such destructive conflict impossible in the future – an ideal that closely parallels the Christian ideal of the Kingdom of God. But anyone who studies history knows that any war appears to only sow the seeds of the next war.
Without resorting to violence, Jesus confronted, challenged and resisted the victim-makers to such an extent that they had to sacrifice him to protect their various interests. He proclaimed love for enemy. When God raised him from the dead and he returned, he appeared to speak powerful words of reconciliation, love, peace and forgiveness.
Perhaps on Anzac Day especially, at the rising of the sun, and at its going down, we should remember the victims of war sacrificed to earthly empires, and remember all those who have become victims of the corruption, madness and greed that characterises our world. As we gather here as the people of God, we should stand with all of the victims, and with all those who have been sacrificed down through the ages. And we should bear witness along with them that the powers of corruption and death can be defeated by the power of love and life, through words of reconciliation, love, peace and forgiveness, spoken not just to our friends, but to our enemies as well. Perhaps then can peace be a real possibility in our world.
Sunday, 24 March 2013
Jesus and the politics of power: the triumphal entry into Jerusalem
Now and again as a rural reverend I feel called to put something religious on this blog, usually something I consider to be significant in terms of the gospel. So below you will find an imaginary dialogue that formed the basis of our Palm Sunday service today. It takes a somewhat different view from the norm for this event, and presents a Jesus that may have deliberately set out to be provocative and revolutionary rather than the meek and mild figure of Sunday School. It sets Jesus at the heart of political change, a change that aimed to challenge the structures that oppressed and the powers which kept such structures firmly in place. It is meant to help people gain some fresh perspectives on this familar story, and there are questions at the end to ponder.
Luke 19:28-40
28 After he had said this, he went on ahead, going up to Jerusalem.
29 When he had come near Bethphage and Bethany, at the place called the Mount of Olives, he sent two of the disciples, 30 saying, "Go into the village ahead of you, and as you enter it you will find tied there a colt that has never been ridden. Untie it and bring it here. 31 If anyone asks you, 'Why are you untying it?' just say this, 'The Lord needs it.'" 32 So those who were sent departed and found it as he had told them. 33 As they were untying the colt, its owners asked them, "Why are you untying the colt?" 34 They said, "The Lord needs it." 35 Then they brought it to Jesus; and after throwing their cloaks on the colt, they set Jesus on it. 36 As he rode along, people kept spreading their cloaks on the road. 37 As he was now approaching the path down from the Mount of Olives, the whole multitude of the disciples began to praise God joyfully with a loud voice for all the deeds of power that they had seen, 38 saying,
"Blessed is the king
who comes in the name of the Lord!
Peace in heaven,
and glory in the highest heaven!"
39 Some of the Pharisees in the crowd said to him, "Teacher, order your disciples to stop." 40 He answered, "I tell you, if these were silent, the stones would shout out."
In this way, Luke tells us the story of Jesus’ triumphal entry into the city of Jerusalem. The details of this exciting acclamation of Jesus are well known: Jesus, the humble king on a donkey, the innocent man of God, enters the holy city of Jerusalem. We can easily picture to ourselves the excitement of the crowd, the waving of the palm branches, the road lined with cloaks, and hear the cries of the crowd as they called out:
“God bless the king who comes in the name of the Lord!”
We may think we are on familiar territory with this story. It is one of the stories of Jesus that has been told and re-told, and we have heard it from our earliest days. We all know who was to blame for Jesus’ death, we all know that Pilate was afraid of the Jews and thought Jesus was innocent, we all know that it was crowd that turned on Jesus after celebrating his arrival. We all know that Jesus did not set himself up as an earthly king, that he was intentionally humble by riding a donkey, and that he died what was considered to be an ignoble death on the cross.
We think we know all this, but do we? Can we be sure this is the real story? Or is there another side to all of this? It may surprise you to learn that the Roman governor had an extensive intelligence network, and kept tabs on all activity within his jurisdiction. It may also surprise you to learn that the Romans had some significant things to say about Jesus and the early Christians in their own letters and documents.
Today, we want you to join us on an imaginative journey. We invite you to imagine that Pilate’s intelligence dossier on Yehoshua ben Joseph has just been discovered by some diligent archaeologists. It contains the full record of an interview between Gaius Scipio, a Roman centurion, and Amon, a Jewish priest. And so we invite you to listen to this interview…
*********************
Thank you for agreeing to meet with me, Amon. We have received some quite alarming reports about Yehoshua ben Joseph, the alleged teacher who is now strongly suspected of terrorist activity. We have been keeping an eye on this man, but until recently saw him as just another one of the fanatics that you Jews seem so fond of producing. Sure, there were crowds following him around but while he confined his activity to the countryside we were not too concerned. The incidents of the last week, however, are of a serious nature. I need answers for Pilate, the procurator. He is concerned, as it is your festival of Passover, which always causes problems for us Romans. As you know, the city is more than treble its normal population, the zealots are always ready to stir up trouble, and as usual we have had to put the troops on high alert, and call in extra legions from Syria. The watchtower over the temple courtyard now has to be manned 24 hours a day. So we want some answers.
I want to ask you about what happened yesterday on the roadway leading from Bethphage into Jerusalem. You know what happened, don’t you? Yehoshua ben Joseph led some sort of triumphal march into the city.
I certainly have heard of it. Everyone has. The word spread quickly. It’s been the talk of the Temple precincts since late yesterday evening.
Well, what were the people calling out? Some reports say that they were calling out in prayer. Why were they doing this? It is clear this Yehoshua character has made a mark on the people, and he was recognised and celebrated and hailed as “the one who comes in the name of the Lord.”
They were saying, “Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord” What did they mean by that?
They were quoting one of our special festival hymns. We know it as Psalm 118, the last of our special set of Hallel psalms. We sing them every year at the special festivals. This psalm, we sing at the Festival of Tabernacles. But originally, it was used as a hymn to celebrate the arrival of the king in the temple. Long ago, the king used to ride up to the Temple on the top of Mount Zion, for a ceremony to re-enact his enthronement. The king used to do this every year. Yehoshua was wanting to remind the people about the good times in the past, how our people used to celebrate. But I don’t think you should read too much into it, really.
But why did they cry out these words, from this particular psalm? It sounds like it was a political psalm. Yehoshua was riding up to the Temple to be crowned as King.
Well, we haven’t had a king for a long time, now; and the Herods don’t count. After all, they are in your pay – and they are not really true Jews. We’ve been ruled by foreigners like you for such a long time. But I’m not so sure that Yehoshua was wanting to make any kind of political statement with the way that he entered the city. He didn’t want to be King.
How can you be so sure? Wasn’t it his own followers who were stirring up the crowd to cry out these words? Didn’t he plant people in the crowd to try to get them all to acknowledge him as someone special?
Well, it is true that it was some of his followers who started this chant. But others picked it up. They just liked the atmosphere of celebration and rejoicing. They were heading into the city for a festival, for goodness sake! It is coming near to Passover, you know. Lots of people come to the city for this Festival. It’s a happy time.
As far as we are concerned, your festival of Passover is not a happy time – it always causes headaches for us Romans. Do I have to remind you that all of the Caesars have been more than willing to punish any rebellious behaviour on the part of you Jews? Do you not recall the time at the end of the rule of King Herod the Great (a most worthy client king of Rome) when Roman soldiers massacred 3,000 Jews as they celebrated the Passover in the Temple in Jerusalem? And this was just for pelting the soldiers with stones. The disruption of temple activities, and the claims that were made at the time by Yehoshua ben Joseph were all seen and heard by the Roman guard in his tower. And our current emperor, Tiberius, is no friend of the Jews either. Tiberias had the Jews expelled from Rome, and 4,000 Jewish freedmen were deported to Sardinia.
I am not sure that Caesar would not see this as just a fun time. From what you have said, “Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord” sounds like a challenge to our Roman rule, to me. Are you sure that the followers of Yehoshua weren’t trying to claim that he was going to take on the role of this king, now?
Well, to do that, he would have to try to provoke some kind of military action. And he didn’t do that. All he did was ride into the city while people sang psalms of celebration.
I’ve heard that the people were crying out “Hosanna”. What does that mean, “Hosanna”?
Well, it’s just an old Hebrew word for praise. They were crying out to Adonai, to our Lord, to thank him for what he had done. It was a prayer of thanks.
A prayer of thanks—I see. But what were they giving thanks for? What had he done, this invisible Adonai god of yours? He hadn’t done anything, really, had he?
Well, no, not really, But the people were happy. They were calling out to our Lord, crying out their “thank you”, so that everyone could hear how happy they were.
But I can’t understand what they were thankful for. You lot are always complaining about being oppressed by Roman laws, taxes and our religious traditions. Did the crowd forget that this day? Come on, what does the word really mean? What are its origins? I can ask the scribes, you know, and they’ll tell me the truth. You wouldn’t be hiding anything from me, would you?
Oh, well, I suppose I have to tell you, it comes from the word hosa, to save. So “hosanna” literally means something like, “save us, now”.
Save us! Save us! That doesn’t sound like it was just a prayer of thanks. It sounds like a call to arms! Save us – from those horrible Romans, no doubt.
Oh, no, I don’t think that was what they meant at all. Save us from doing silly things. Or save us from doing the wrong thing. That’s what they meant.
Well, that doesn’t sound like a very happy thing to be saying. Are you sure they were saying prayers of thanks? Weren’t they really asking Yehoshua to save them from us Romans?
Well, I don’t think I can help you any more on that question.
I am not convinced by your explanations as yet. Well, what about his mode of transport. Why was he riding on a colt?
Oh, he had a long way to go. People often ride on animals when they are going long distances.
But he wasn’t really going very far, was he? Just from Jericho to Jerusalem – that’s only 17 miles, isn’t it – not really a long distance.
Well no, I suppose not.
So why was he riding on a colt? Why wasn’t he walking like everyone else?
I guess it was just the first thing that his people were able to find for him. They wanted to make him comfortable.
Are you sure? Wasn’t there a reason for him to choose a colt to ride on?
Hmm, I’m not sure. I thought it was just by chance that he was riding an animal. But maybe there was something more to it. Hmm… Oh, no, it couldn’t be.
Couldn’t be what? Out with it.
Well, in our scriptures, one of the prophets refers to riding on a donkey – Zechariah, I think it is – and says that it would be a humble person who would ride on a donkey. “Humble and riding on a donkey”, it says. Chapter 9 of Zechariah – Zechariah the prophet.
Listen, whether he was on a donkey, an ass or a colt, he is clearly making a statement. Humble people walk into the city. Humble people don’t draw attention to themselves. People with an agenda ride in triumphantly on beasts, and let the “happy” crowd sing political songs at them.
Well, I don’t know about that. I think you are making a bigger thing of this incident than it is.
Tell me more about what this prophet of yours says.
Well, it is part of another hymn of praise. “Rejoice”, it goes, “rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout aloud, O daughter, Jerusalem!”
So, it is like your psalm, is it? A psalm of praise, which is really a call for political salvation!
Oh no, not at all. “Rejoice”, it goes, “shout aloud, for lo, your king comes to you, triumphant and victorious is he, humble and riding on a donkey”.
Oh really – “triumphant and victorious”, indeed! Only a Jew would try to be simultaneously triumphant and humble! And what was that reference to a king?
A king? Oh yes, a king. Oh well, I suppose you could argue that there was some small hint about that in his decision to ride into Jerusalem, mounted on an animal.
You must know how we Romans feel about kings. We do not have a king ourselves, you will note. History has shown that kings are always to be associated with arrogance, and misuse of power. Look at Alexander the Great. Great general, dreadful king. He let power really go to his head and of course this leads to bad political decisions, and civil disobedience and unrest. And even the great Julius Caesar – as soon as he set himself up as a king he was assassinated. The only kings we Romans tolerate are our client kings, who do exactly as they are told. The governor will take a very dim view of anyone setting themselves up as a king, you know.
So, onto another matter. The people that were watching your Yehoshua ride along the road – why did they take off their cloaks and throw them over the animal he was riding on?
Well that was just a sign of respect, a sign that they were showing deference to the travelers.
No, I don’t believe it. Isn’t there more to it that than this? If it was a common sign of respect, then we would witness it daily. I want to know where your scriptures refer to this particular sign of respect.
Oh, I think it is in the books of the history of the kings of Israel.
I see, the books of the Kings – indeed this is a surprise!
Well, yes. But this was back in the days when we had our own kings, before your Caesar ruled over us, with all of his soldiers and tax-collectors and so on. Anyway, in the second book of the Kings, in chapter 9, there is the story about when the prophet Elisha anointed the young commander, Jehu, as the new king of Israel. When he came back to his troops in their barracks and announced to them what had happened, all the men took their cloaks off and spread them on the bare steps.
And what did they say to him, I wonder?
Why, the trumpeters blew their trumpets and all the people cried out, “Jehu is king! Jehu is king!”
Well, isn’t that interesting. And so I suppose you don’t expect me to think that yesterday, the people were about to call out, “Yehoshua is king! Yehoshua is king!”? Do you take me for a fool? I can see that their shouts were disguised cries acknowledging Yehoshua as king.
Oh no, not at all!
We hear that some people were waving leafy branches as he rode into the city. Why was this? Was this another royal symbol?
Of course not. It had an entirely different meaning. The branches relate to the Temple. They are part of our celebration, each year, when we remember how the Temple was purified and restored so that we could worship our Lord once again.
And when was this?
A long time ago, many years ago, when Antiochus brought the time of shame to our people, and burned our Torah scrolls and polluted our Temple, and we had to stop offering sacrifices at the altar. The time when the blessed Matthias and his seven sons were victorious over the foreigners and restored the Temple worship. That’s when the people waved their branches and shouted in praise to our Lord. It was a glorious time in the history of our people. You can read about it in the second book of our Maccabees heroes (2 Maccabees 10).
Indeed – a time when armed insurrection took place, when brigands and scoundrels fought against the armed might of the emperor, when they sought to appoint another King!
No, no, no…it was a glorious time because we remember how wonderful it was that we could worship again in our Temple. And that is what we can do now – worship in our Temple, thanks to your wonderful ruler and your brave Roman troops.
Enough – don’t make me sick. I know that’s not what you really think about us Romans. And anyway, since you bring up the topic of the Temple, tell me – what do you make of this? When Yehoshua ben Joseph arrived in Jerusalem, he went straight to the Temple and looked around at everything. Then he came back the next day and caused havoc in the courtyard of the Gentiles. What was he trying to do? It’s a good thing that he settled down and disappeared before our soldiers got there, or else he would be gone by now.
I tell you, the governor and the Herodians are not going to stand for any of this nonsense. The last time general unrest broke out in Palestine, the rebellions were easily put down. It is amazing how the crucifixion of 2,000 Jewish insurgents and the selling of another 20,000 into slavery can quieten a restless population. The zealot movement has been a right headache to us since then. And I did hear that one member of the Yehoshua movement is a zealot. There have been rumours also that Yehoshua disciples carry swords.
Well, travel is dangerous, you know – and the road from Jericho to Jerusalem is particularly dangerous for travel, especially at this time of the year, when lots of people are making their way to Jerusalem for the Passover. With such large crowds moving along the road, it is easy for those robbers to hide behind rocks and under cliffs and spring out onto the road and take what they can from the pilgrims and businessmen on their way to Jerusalem. I reckon that if you stopped every traveler and checked them to see if they were carrying a dagger or a small sword, then most of them would be – or most of the adult males, at any rate. Self-protection is pretty important, you know – and making sure that you could protect your wife and daughters and sons, if you were traveling as a family, would be sensible, too.
But Yehoshua and his friends weren’t traveling as a family group, were they?
Well, no, but that didn’t mean that they wouldn’t be carrying arms. I mean, business people carry swords, too. It’s just common sense. You just never know when someone might attack you. And you can’t depend on other people coming to your aid if you do get attacked. It has been known for people to lie, injured, on the side of the road for some time before somebody stops to help them.
Hmm…you make it sound so matter-of-fact and normal for people to be wandering along the road armed to the teeth with swords and daggers and weapons.
No, not at all. It’s not like we are talking about a full-scale armed rebellion, you know. We would not dare to contemplate such a treacherous activity against the wonderful rule of the Romans. But you have to realize that the Pax Romana doesn’t guarantee full safety for everybody on all occasions. There is still an element of trouble-makers in our midst, you know.
Precisely my point. And how do we tell if someone is a potential trouble-maker, a threat to public order, a secret terrorist? Why, we listen to what the crowds are saying about him, and we keep out ears open for news of political activity. Just like your Yehoshua was doing yesterday. And what about his companion, Simeon the Zealot? Now he is a worry, isn’t he?
Well, he is a bit of a wild card, I must admit. But I don’t know that he is still stirring up trouble, like in the old days. I’ve heard it said that he has reformed – that he has changed, he’s a different person, now.
Well, at this point I’m not interested in Simeon, or in any of the others – until they show their hand in the same way as Yehoshua. For the moment, we have him in our sights, and we will be watching him carefully. And if anyone else steps out of line, we will go after them, too. But it is Yehoshua that we are most interested in. He’s our main target. He’s just been acting too suspiciously. And you know, anyone who claims to be a King is setting himself against the Emperor. Amon, tell me, in confidence, what do you make of him? Do you think that his friends really do believe that he is the King of the Jews, like some of them are saying?
Oh, I think that is stretching things just too far. This man cannot be the Messiah, the Anointed One, the man chosen by God for the special task that is reserved for the Holy One of Israel. He doesn’t have any of the qualities of the Messiah. I know that some of my fellow Jews think that he is a special person. But then again, we have a track record of making this kind of claim. I mean, there was that Egyptian some years ago, and that fellow from Samaria, and the prophet called Hezekiah who gathered quite a following, and there were others; but none of them came to anything. Their movements just fizzled out. They weren’t the Messiah, despite what their followers said.
Yes, but none of them went into the temple courtyard and overturned the tables and caused such a commotion, did they? Most of them went out into the desert, much like that strange man, Johannan, the one who wants everyone to be baptised and to repent and follow him. Yes, they were all strange figures – but they were not political threats. Yehoshua is different. There is something about him, something that worries us. You know, even some of your own race have seen this man for what he is. I have heard that there were moves afoot to have him stoned because he practices sorcery and is leading Israel astray. If what you say about him merely celebrating an ancient custom is true, why have these rumours arisen?
I wouldn’t want to comment on this. I think that it is up to Adonai to judge whether a person is a sorcerer or not. If he is dabbling in this kind of activity, he will get his punishment soon enough. What Yehoshua should be doing is coming to the Temple and making his sacrifices, like an obedient and pious Jew. Like so many of us are doing, even as we speak.
But that is precisely the problem – when he came into the city, with people shouting out and waving branches and singing in praise of him, he wasn’t acting in a humble way – he was acting like the King of the Jews! And when he went into the Temple, he didn’t make his sacrifices like you require. He caused a commotion! And some of his friends carried swords! And this is the man who says, again and again, that he is here to bring in the Kingdom of God. What does that mean? Surely a man who plans a kingdom plans to be King of it. It doesn’t sound to me like he has an obedient attitude towards the Caesar of Rome, our exalted ruler.
Look, Scipio, calm down, will you. You are getting over-excited here. Don’t make too much out of what is really nothing. I’m sure he is no threat to Caesar. I’m positive.
No, I’m not convinced. I think he is more of a threat than you are making out. We have to do something. And if you don’t help us to act, you will find yourself in trouble. Do I have to remind you, that you priests are appointed by us Romans? The members of your Jewish priestly aristocracy retain their powers only by Rome’s grace. We can easily remove them. If you know what is good for you, you will co-operate with us, and you will find a way to silence him.
Well, just let me deal with it. I will ask around and see what we can do. I will take steps to have him silenced. We can work with you. Rest assured, we don’t want to upset you. We are prepared to do whatever it takes to keep the peace with our Roman overlords. Leave it for the moment, and let me see what we can do. I promise. I’ll work out some sort of plan. We can deal with him. Don’t you worry.
No, it is you that has to worry, my friend. It is you that has to do something about Yehoshua. And if you don’t, then we will make sure that he is dealt with. We can deal with your problem people, if you can’t fix it. You well know that Pilate has a serious lack of sympathy for Jewish sensibilities. Don’t you remember the incident of the ensigns in the temple? Pilate ordered us soldiers to bring our ensigns into the temple precincts. We had the images of the emperor painted onto the ensigns. We brought them in by night, but you lot soon discovered their presence. Though multitudes of you Jews hastened to Caesarea to petition Pilate for the removal of our so-called obnoxious ensigns, for five days he refused to even listen to you, and on the sixth day, when he took his place on the judgment seat, he had all the Jews surrounded with soldiers and threatened with instant death unless they ceased to trouble him with the matter. It wasn’t until all the Jews flung themselves on the ground and declared that they preferred death to the violation of their laws, that Pilate, unwilling to kill so many, gave in and removed the ensigns. Do you seriously think that the governor is going to give your terrorist Jew a fair trial? With all this evidence against him?
And don’t forget, either, that Pilate was the one who appropriated funds from your Temple to build the Jerusalem aqueduct – the aqueduct that brings you water for your daily needs. Although the crowd protested against him, Pilate had already planted soldiers dressed as civilians among the multitude, and when he gave the signal, they fell upon the rioters and beat them severely with clubs. It was only then that the riot was quelled – thank goodness Pilate intervened!
And remember, Pilate also arrested and executed many Samaritans during a religious uprising in Samaria. Also, much closer to home for your Yehoshua, Pilate, displeased by the attitude of a number of Galileans, had them killed and their blood mixed with the sacrifices. So don’t for a minute think that we are going to sit back and let things get out of hand! We will act!! And you will be sorry!!!
Alright, Scipio, I get the point. I’ll get the other priests together and work on them. It might take a few days, but let me assure you that we will sort this. You won’t have to intervene. Consider it done. After all, it is surely better that one man die for the people, than to have the whole of our nation destroyed.
*********************
As we come back to the twenty-first century, and leave behind our imaginary interview concerning Yehoshua ben Joseph, we are left with lots of questions.
We take for granted so many things about this story.
We assume that Jesus was the Messiah. But there were other ways he would have been seen in his time.
Was he acting humbly? Or was he acting in a provocative fashion?
Did he deliberately set out to become a target of the Romans, when he rode into the city?
Can we afford to keep on talking about “humble Jesus, meek and mild”, if what he really wanted to achieve was a radical re-ordering within society?
At what point would the Messiah have been seen as a serious threat to the Roman Empire and its stability and order?
Is the “job description” of the Messiah actually a threat to the way that society operates today?
Is it better that one man die rather than a whole nation be destroyed?
Luke 19:28-40
28 After he had said this, he went on ahead, going up to Jerusalem.
29 When he had come near Bethphage and Bethany, at the place called the Mount of Olives, he sent two of the disciples, 30 saying, "Go into the village ahead of you, and as you enter it you will find tied there a colt that has never been ridden. Untie it and bring it here. 31 If anyone asks you, 'Why are you untying it?' just say this, 'The Lord needs it.'" 32 So those who were sent departed and found it as he had told them. 33 As they were untying the colt, its owners asked them, "Why are you untying the colt?" 34 They said, "The Lord needs it." 35 Then they brought it to Jesus; and after throwing their cloaks on the colt, they set Jesus on it. 36 As he rode along, people kept spreading their cloaks on the road. 37 As he was now approaching the path down from the Mount of Olives, the whole multitude of the disciples began to praise God joyfully with a loud voice for all the deeds of power that they had seen, 38 saying,
"Blessed is the king
who comes in the name of the Lord!
Peace in heaven,
and glory in the highest heaven!"
39 Some of the Pharisees in the crowd said to him, "Teacher, order your disciples to stop." 40 He answered, "I tell you, if these were silent, the stones would shout out."
In this way, Luke tells us the story of Jesus’ triumphal entry into the city of Jerusalem. The details of this exciting acclamation of Jesus are well known: Jesus, the humble king on a donkey, the innocent man of God, enters the holy city of Jerusalem. We can easily picture to ourselves the excitement of the crowd, the waving of the palm branches, the road lined with cloaks, and hear the cries of the crowd as they called out:
“God bless the king who comes in the name of the Lord!”
We may think we are on familiar territory with this story. It is one of the stories of Jesus that has been told and re-told, and we have heard it from our earliest days. We all know who was to blame for Jesus’ death, we all know that Pilate was afraid of the Jews and thought Jesus was innocent, we all know that it was crowd that turned on Jesus after celebrating his arrival. We all know that Jesus did not set himself up as an earthly king, that he was intentionally humble by riding a donkey, and that he died what was considered to be an ignoble death on the cross.
We think we know all this, but do we? Can we be sure this is the real story? Or is there another side to all of this? It may surprise you to learn that the Roman governor had an extensive intelligence network, and kept tabs on all activity within his jurisdiction. It may also surprise you to learn that the Romans had some significant things to say about Jesus and the early Christians in their own letters and documents.
Today, we want you to join us on an imaginative journey. We invite you to imagine that Pilate’s intelligence dossier on Yehoshua ben Joseph has just been discovered by some diligent archaeologists. It contains the full record of an interview between Gaius Scipio, a Roman centurion, and Amon, a Jewish priest. And so we invite you to listen to this interview…
*********************
Thank you for agreeing to meet with me, Amon. We have received some quite alarming reports about Yehoshua ben Joseph, the alleged teacher who is now strongly suspected of terrorist activity. We have been keeping an eye on this man, but until recently saw him as just another one of the fanatics that you Jews seem so fond of producing. Sure, there were crowds following him around but while he confined his activity to the countryside we were not too concerned. The incidents of the last week, however, are of a serious nature. I need answers for Pilate, the procurator. He is concerned, as it is your festival of Passover, which always causes problems for us Romans. As you know, the city is more than treble its normal population, the zealots are always ready to stir up trouble, and as usual we have had to put the troops on high alert, and call in extra legions from Syria. The watchtower over the temple courtyard now has to be manned 24 hours a day. So we want some answers.
I want to ask you about what happened yesterday on the roadway leading from Bethphage into Jerusalem. You know what happened, don’t you? Yehoshua ben Joseph led some sort of triumphal march into the city.
I certainly have heard of it. Everyone has. The word spread quickly. It’s been the talk of the Temple precincts since late yesterday evening.
Well, what were the people calling out? Some reports say that they were calling out in prayer. Why were they doing this? It is clear this Yehoshua character has made a mark on the people, and he was recognised and celebrated and hailed as “the one who comes in the name of the Lord.”
They were saying, “Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord” What did they mean by that?
They were quoting one of our special festival hymns. We know it as Psalm 118, the last of our special set of Hallel psalms. We sing them every year at the special festivals. This psalm, we sing at the Festival of Tabernacles. But originally, it was used as a hymn to celebrate the arrival of the king in the temple. Long ago, the king used to ride up to the Temple on the top of Mount Zion, for a ceremony to re-enact his enthronement. The king used to do this every year. Yehoshua was wanting to remind the people about the good times in the past, how our people used to celebrate. But I don’t think you should read too much into it, really.
But why did they cry out these words, from this particular psalm? It sounds like it was a political psalm. Yehoshua was riding up to the Temple to be crowned as King.
Well, we haven’t had a king for a long time, now; and the Herods don’t count. After all, they are in your pay – and they are not really true Jews. We’ve been ruled by foreigners like you for such a long time. But I’m not so sure that Yehoshua was wanting to make any kind of political statement with the way that he entered the city. He didn’t want to be King.
How can you be so sure? Wasn’t it his own followers who were stirring up the crowd to cry out these words? Didn’t he plant people in the crowd to try to get them all to acknowledge him as someone special?
Well, it is true that it was some of his followers who started this chant. But others picked it up. They just liked the atmosphere of celebration and rejoicing. They were heading into the city for a festival, for goodness sake! It is coming near to Passover, you know. Lots of people come to the city for this Festival. It’s a happy time.
As far as we are concerned, your festival of Passover is not a happy time – it always causes headaches for us Romans. Do I have to remind you that all of the Caesars have been more than willing to punish any rebellious behaviour on the part of you Jews? Do you not recall the time at the end of the rule of King Herod the Great (a most worthy client king of Rome) when Roman soldiers massacred 3,000 Jews as they celebrated the Passover in the Temple in Jerusalem? And this was just for pelting the soldiers with stones. The disruption of temple activities, and the claims that were made at the time by Yehoshua ben Joseph were all seen and heard by the Roman guard in his tower. And our current emperor, Tiberius, is no friend of the Jews either. Tiberias had the Jews expelled from Rome, and 4,000 Jewish freedmen were deported to Sardinia.
I am not sure that Caesar would not see this as just a fun time. From what you have said, “Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord” sounds like a challenge to our Roman rule, to me. Are you sure that the followers of Yehoshua weren’t trying to claim that he was going to take on the role of this king, now?
Well, to do that, he would have to try to provoke some kind of military action. And he didn’t do that. All he did was ride into the city while people sang psalms of celebration.
I’ve heard that the people were crying out “Hosanna”. What does that mean, “Hosanna”?
Well, it’s just an old Hebrew word for praise. They were crying out to Adonai, to our Lord, to thank him for what he had done. It was a prayer of thanks.
A prayer of thanks—I see. But what were they giving thanks for? What had he done, this invisible Adonai god of yours? He hadn’t done anything, really, had he?
Well, no, not really, But the people were happy. They were calling out to our Lord, crying out their “thank you”, so that everyone could hear how happy they were.
But I can’t understand what they were thankful for. You lot are always complaining about being oppressed by Roman laws, taxes and our religious traditions. Did the crowd forget that this day? Come on, what does the word really mean? What are its origins? I can ask the scribes, you know, and they’ll tell me the truth. You wouldn’t be hiding anything from me, would you?
Oh, well, I suppose I have to tell you, it comes from the word hosa, to save. So “hosanna” literally means something like, “save us, now”.
Save us! Save us! That doesn’t sound like it was just a prayer of thanks. It sounds like a call to arms! Save us – from those horrible Romans, no doubt.
Oh, no, I don’t think that was what they meant at all. Save us from doing silly things. Or save us from doing the wrong thing. That’s what they meant.
Well, that doesn’t sound like a very happy thing to be saying. Are you sure they were saying prayers of thanks? Weren’t they really asking Yehoshua to save them from us Romans?
Well, I don’t think I can help you any more on that question.
I am not convinced by your explanations as yet. Well, what about his mode of transport. Why was he riding on a colt?
Oh, he had a long way to go. People often ride on animals when they are going long distances.
But he wasn’t really going very far, was he? Just from Jericho to Jerusalem – that’s only 17 miles, isn’t it – not really a long distance.
Well no, I suppose not.
So why was he riding on a colt? Why wasn’t he walking like everyone else?
I guess it was just the first thing that his people were able to find for him. They wanted to make him comfortable.
Are you sure? Wasn’t there a reason for him to choose a colt to ride on?
Hmm, I’m not sure. I thought it was just by chance that he was riding an animal. But maybe there was something more to it. Hmm… Oh, no, it couldn’t be.
Couldn’t be what? Out with it.
Well, in our scriptures, one of the prophets refers to riding on a donkey – Zechariah, I think it is – and says that it would be a humble person who would ride on a donkey. “Humble and riding on a donkey”, it says. Chapter 9 of Zechariah – Zechariah the prophet.
Listen, whether he was on a donkey, an ass or a colt, he is clearly making a statement. Humble people walk into the city. Humble people don’t draw attention to themselves. People with an agenda ride in triumphantly on beasts, and let the “happy” crowd sing political songs at them.
Well, I don’t know about that. I think you are making a bigger thing of this incident than it is.
Tell me more about what this prophet of yours says.
Well, it is part of another hymn of praise. “Rejoice”, it goes, “rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout aloud, O daughter, Jerusalem!”
So, it is like your psalm, is it? A psalm of praise, which is really a call for political salvation!
Oh no, not at all. “Rejoice”, it goes, “shout aloud, for lo, your king comes to you, triumphant and victorious is he, humble and riding on a donkey”.
Oh really – “triumphant and victorious”, indeed! Only a Jew would try to be simultaneously triumphant and humble! And what was that reference to a king?
A king? Oh yes, a king. Oh well, I suppose you could argue that there was some small hint about that in his decision to ride into Jerusalem, mounted on an animal.
You must know how we Romans feel about kings. We do not have a king ourselves, you will note. History has shown that kings are always to be associated with arrogance, and misuse of power. Look at Alexander the Great. Great general, dreadful king. He let power really go to his head and of course this leads to bad political decisions, and civil disobedience and unrest. And even the great Julius Caesar – as soon as he set himself up as a king he was assassinated. The only kings we Romans tolerate are our client kings, who do exactly as they are told. The governor will take a very dim view of anyone setting themselves up as a king, you know.
So, onto another matter. The people that were watching your Yehoshua ride along the road – why did they take off their cloaks and throw them over the animal he was riding on?
Well that was just a sign of respect, a sign that they were showing deference to the travelers.
No, I don’t believe it. Isn’t there more to it that than this? If it was a common sign of respect, then we would witness it daily. I want to know where your scriptures refer to this particular sign of respect.
Oh, I think it is in the books of the history of the kings of Israel.
I see, the books of the Kings – indeed this is a surprise!
Well, yes. But this was back in the days when we had our own kings, before your Caesar ruled over us, with all of his soldiers and tax-collectors and so on. Anyway, in the second book of the Kings, in chapter 9, there is the story about when the prophet Elisha anointed the young commander, Jehu, as the new king of Israel. When he came back to his troops in their barracks and announced to them what had happened, all the men took their cloaks off and spread them on the bare steps.
And what did they say to him, I wonder?
Why, the trumpeters blew their trumpets and all the people cried out, “Jehu is king! Jehu is king!”
Well, isn’t that interesting. And so I suppose you don’t expect me to think that yesterday, the people were about to call out, “Yehoshua is king! Yehoshua is king!”? Do you take me for a fool? I can see that their shouts were disguised cries acknowledging Yehoshua as king.
Oh no, not at all!
We hear that some people were waving leafy branches as he rode into the city. Why was this? Was this another royal symbol?
Of course not. It had an entirely different meaning. The branches relate to the Temple. They are part of our celebration, each year, when we remember how the Temple was purified and restored so that we could worship our Lord once again.
And when was this?
A long time ago, many years ago, when Antiochus brought the time of shame to our people, and burned our Torah scrolls and polluted our Temple, and we had to stop offering sacrifices at the altar. The time when the blessed Matthias and his seven sons were victorious over the foreigners and restored the Temple worship. That’s when the people waved their branches and shouted in praise to our Lord. It was a glorious time in the history of our people. You can read about it in the second book of our Maccabees heroes (2 Maccabees 10).
Indeed – a time when armed insurrection took place, when brigands and scoundrels fought against the armed might of the emperor, when they sought to appoint another King!
No, no, no…it was a glorious time because we remember how wonderful it was that we could worship again in our Temple. And that is what we can do now – worship in our Temple, thanks to your wonderful ruler and your brave Roman troops.
Enough – don’t make me sick. I know that’s not what you really think about us Romans. And anyway, since you bring up the topic of the Temple, tell me – what do you make of this? When Yehoshua ben Joseph arrived in Jerusalem, he went straight to the Temple and looked around at everything. Then he came back the next day and caused havoc in the courtyard of the Gentiles. What was he trying to do? It’s a good thing that he settled down and disappeared before our soldiers got there, or else he would be gone by now.
I tell you, the governor and the Herodians are not going to stand for any of this nonsense. The last time general unrest broke out in Palestine, the rebellions were easily put down. It is amazing how the crucifixion of 2,000 Jewish insurgents and the selling of another 20,000 into slavery can quieten a restless population. The zealot movement has been a right headache to us since then. And I did hear that one member of the Yehoshua movement is a zealot. There have been rumours also that Yehoshua disciples carry swords.
Well, travel is dangerous, you know – and the road from Jericho to Jerusalem is particularly dangerous for travel, especially at this time of the year, when lots of people are making their way to Jerusalem for the Passover. With such large crowds moving along the road, it is easy for those robbers to hide behind rocks and under cliffs and spring out onto the road and take what they can from the pilgrims and businessmen on their way to Jerusalem. I reckon that if you stopped every traveler and checked them to see if they were carrying a dagger or a small sword, then most of them would be – or most of the adult males, at any rate. Self-protection is pretty important, you know – and making sure that you could protect your wife and daughters and sons, if you were traveling as a family, would be sensible, too.
But Yehoshua and his friends weren’t traveling as a family group, were they?
Well, no, but that didn’t mean that they wouldn’t be carrying arms. I mean, business people carry swords, too. It’s just common sense. You just never know when someone might attack you. And you can’t depend on other people coming to your aid if you do get attacked. It has been known for people to lie, injured, on the side of the road for some time before somebody stops to help them.
Hmm…you make it sound so matter-of-fact and normal for people to be wandering along the road armed to the teeth with swords and daggers and weapons.
No, not at all. It’s not like we are talking about a full-scale armed rebellion, you know. We would not dare to contemplate such a treacherous activity against the wonderful rule of the Romans. But you have to realize that the Pax Romana doesn’t guarantee full safety for everybody on all occasions. There is still an element of trouble-makers in our midst, you know.
Precisely my point. And how do we tell if someone is a potential trouble-maker, a threat to public order, a secret terrorist? Why, we listen to what the crowds are saying about him, and we keep out ears open for news of political activity. Just like your Yehoshua was doing yesterday. And what about his companion, Simeon the Zealot? Now he is a worry, isn’t he?
Well, he is a bit of a wild card, I must admit. But I don’t know that he is still stirring up trouble, like in the old days. I’ve heard it said that he has reformed – that he has changed, he’s a different person, now.
Well, at this point I’m not interested in Simeon, or in any of the others – until they show their hand in the same way as Yehoshua. For the moment, we have him in our sights, and we will be watching him carefully. And if anyone else steps out of line, we will go after them, too. But it is Yehoshua that we are most interested in. He’s our main target. He’s just been acting too suspiciously. And you know, anyone who claims to be a King is setting himself against the Emperor. Amon, tell me, in confidence, what do you make of him? Do you think that his friends really do believe that he is the King of the Jews, like some of them are saying?
Oh, I think that is stretching things just too far. This man cannot be the Messiah, the Anointed One, the man chosen by God for the special task that is reserved for the Holy One of Israel. He doesn’t have any of the qualities of the Messiah. I know that some of my fellow Jews think that he is a special person. But then again, we have a track record of making this kind of claim. I mean, there was that Egyptian some years ago, and that fellow from Samaria, and the prophet called Hezekiah who gathered quite a following, and there were others; but none of them came to anything. Their movements just fizzled out. They weren’t the Messiah, despite what their followers said.
Yes, but none of them went into the temple courtyard and overturned the tables and caused such a commotion, did they? Most of them went out into the desert, much like that strange man, Johannan, the one who wants everyone to be baptised and to repent and follow him. Yes, they were all strange figures – but they were not political threats. Yehoshua is different. There is something about him, something that worries us. You know, even some of your own race have seen this man for what he is. I have heard that there were moves afoot to have him stoned because he practices sorcery and is leading Israel astray. If what you say about him merely celebrating an ancient custom is true, why have these rumours arisen?
I wouldn’t want to comment on this. I think that it is up to Adonai to judge whether a person is a sorcerer or not. If he is dabbling in this kind of activity, he will get his punishment soon enough. What Yehoshua should be doing is coming to the Temple and making his sacrifices, like an obedient and pious Jew. Like so many of us are doing, even as we speak.
But that is precisely the problem – when he came into the city, with people shouting out and waving branches and singing in praise of him, he wasn’t acting in a humble way – he was acting like the King of the Jews! And when he went into the Temple, he didn’t make his sacrifices like you require. He caused a commotion! And some of his friends carried swords! And this is the man who says, again and again, that he is here to bring in the Kingdom of God. What does that mean? Surely a man who plans a kingdom plans to be King of it. It doesn’t sound to me like he has an obedient attitude towards the Caesar of Rome, our exalted ruler.
Look, Scipio, calm down, will you. You are getting over-excited here. Don’t make too much out of what is really nothing. I’m sure he is no threat to Caesar. I’m positive.
No, I’m not convinced. I think he is more of a threat than you are making out. We have to do something. And if you don’t help us to act, you will find yourself in trouble. Do I have to remind you, that you priests are appointed by us Romans? The members of your Jewish priestly aristocracy retain their powers only by Rome’s grace. We can easily remove them. If you know what is good for you, you will co-operate with us, and you will find a way to silence him.
Well, just let me deal with it. I will ask around and see what we can do. I will take steps to have him silenced. We can work with you. Rest assured, we don’t want to upset you. We are prepared to do whatever it takes to keep the peace with our Roman overlords. Leave it for the moment, and let me see what we can do. I promise. I’ll work out some sort of plan. We can deal with him. Don’t you worry.
No, it is you that has to worry, my friend. It is you that has to do something about Yehoshua. And if you don’t, then we will make sure that he is dealt with. We can deal with your problem people, if you can’t fix it. You well know that Pilate has a serious lack of sympathy for Jewish sensibilities. Don’t you remember the incident of the ensigns in the temple? Pilate ordered us soldiers to bring our ensigns into the temple precincts. We had the images of the emperor painted onto the ensigns. We brought them in by night, but you lot soon discovered their presence. Though multitudes of you Jews hastened to Caesarea to petition Pilate for the removal of our so-called obnoxious ensigns, for five days he refused to even listen to you, and on the sixth day, when he took his place on the judgment seat, he had all the Jews surrounded with soldiers and threatened with instant death unless they ceased to trouble him with the matter. It wasn’t until all the Jews flung themselves on the ground and declared that they preferred death to the violation of their laws, that Pilate, unwilling to kill so many, gave in and removed the ensigns. Do you seriously think that the governor is going to give your terrorist Jew a fair trial? With all this evidence against him?
And don’t forget, either, that Pilate was the one who appropriated funds from your Temple to build the Jerusalem aqueduct – the aqueduct that brings you water for your daily needs. Although the crowd protested against him, Pilate had already planted soldiers dressed as civilians among the multitude, and when he gave the signal, they fell upon the rioters and beat them severely with clubs. It was only then that the riot was quelled – thank goodness Pilate intervened!
And remember, Pilate also arrested and executed many Samaritans during a religious uprising in Samaria. Also, much closer to home for your Yehoshua, Pilate, displeased by the attitude of a number of Galileans, had them killed and their blood mixed with the sacrifices. So don’t for a minute think that we are going to sit back and let things get out of hand! We will act!! And you will be sorry!!!
Alright, Scipio, I get the point. I’ll get the other priests together and work on them. It might take a few days, but let me assure you that we will sort this. You won’t have to intervene. Consider it done. After all, it is surely better that one man die for the people, than to have the whole of our nation destroyed.
*********************
As we come back to the twenty-first century, and leave behind our imaginary interview concerning Yehoshua ben Joseph, we are left with lots of questions.
We take for granted so many things about this story.
We assume that Jesus was the Messiah. But there were other ways he would have been seen in his time.
Was he acting humbly? Or was he acting in a provocative fashion?
Did he deliberately set out to become a target of the Romans, when he rode into the city?
Can we afford to keep on talking about “humble Jesus, meek and mild”, if what he really wanted to achieve was a radical re-ordering within society?
At what point would the Messiah have been seen as a serious threat to the Roman Empire and its stability and order?
Is the “job description” of the Messiah actually a threat to the way that society operates today?
Is it better that one man die rather than a whole nation be destroyed?
Wednesday, 20 March 2013
The poltics of power: the media and the (Prime) Minister
I found myself unexpectedly angry, nay, furious, over the nonsense that is floating around the ether this afternoon in regard to Australian federal politics. We have another leadership spill in the offing, with Kevin Rudd again allegedly challenging for the top job. This, despite his repeated denials in the last week. As they say, truth is the first casualty of war, particularly when that war is political.
What has made me furious is the way this current Prime Minister has been spoken about, and the part the media have deliberately played in this. Since assuming the leadership, she has been the subject of unprecedented vilification, unprecedented in the sense that no other Australian Prime Minister has been subjected to such hatred and such scrutiny. I have just been arguing her case to a some blokes on Facebook, who have basically seen me as just another idiot Labor voter who needed to be put right.
Well, people, as a result of this exchange I have metaphorically sharpened my pencils and my tongue.
I know that there have been some problems with this government, but no worse than any other, and really important substantial legislation has been put and passed during this term. The country is in good economic shape. So what is really going on here?
I think there are two issues. The first is the Prime Minister’s gender. I am sure that by just being female, this has been enough to set off misogynistic males such as Ray Hadley and Alan Jones, the infamous shock jocks of Sydney’s 2GB. The second is media bias. I have repeatedly noticed that Julia Gillard cops a lot more flack than any other politician in the House. She is described in ugly and emotive terms. She is labelled as a liar, as incompetent and as having a bad hair style. We don’t like her shoes either, apparently. Impractical and she keeps falling over. And we can’t have that in the parliament, can we?
This PM is clearly not incompetent. There is plenty of important and needed legislation that has been introduced and passed through this parliament. Australia now has the Clean Energy Future package, the National Broadband scheme, the Gonski report on education and a National Disability Insurance Scheme. The PM ordered a Royal Commission into child sex abuse at the hands of the church. These are just a few really good important things this government has done. And while economics and the GDP of our country worries me not all (I think we need a new way of measuring national security and wellbeing), the world economic indices I have read and seen have Australia sitting near the top. We could even argue that Australia is now better off than when the last Coalition Government was in power. So why all the media flack squarely aimed at Ms Gillard?
Tim Dunlop of the ABC’s The Drum (http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3985592.html ) agrees with me in relation to this media bias. He notes that “Violent metaphors dominate the discussion of the Gillard Government. A recent article in (appropriately enough) The Punch managed to use all of these expressions in the course of its ranting: "assassination", "bloody execution", "swung a sledgehammer into its own political heartland", "knifed".”
He also noted that the Punch article “put the PM's problems down, in part, to her not having had a baby”.
Oh, please. In this day and age women in power have to put up with this sort of tripe?
The curse of Gillard seems to boil down to her being a liar. In fact she is, according to Alan Jones, “Juliar”. Very witty, Alan.
Why this obsession with her alleged lying and scurrilous behaviour? The famous carbon tax lie is usually what this boils down to. The tape where she said there will be no carbon tax is played over and over. However, the next bit is never played – the bit where she goes on to say quite unequivocally that in a Labor government there would be a price on carbon and an emissions trading scheme. Even Joe Hockey has defended her on this score. People, get over it. It was hardly a great big lie that has caused a war, drowned boat people and impoverished Australians.
Which leads me to my next point. The carry on about “Juliar” would make reasonable people think that she is obviously the first parliamentarian or Prime Minister in the history of Australia to lie. They appear to forget the Howard years, where John Howard’s shaky relationship with the truth hovered around 'uncomfortable'. His lies were, somehow, not lies. Confused yet?
Tim Dunlop says that the “standard theme of commentary throughout the Howard years, recycled as holy writ by journalists and other sage readers of the political entrails, was that 'the punters’ didn't care about Howard's lying.” But now apparently they do about Gillard’s lying. Why?
And just for the record, we will briefly raise some of this remarkably loose truth of Mr John "just watch my lips, the GST is dead and buried" Howard. Remember when he reneged on a number of election promises and referred to them as “non-core” promises? Do we recall that our whole involvement in the Iraq war was based on non-existent weapons of mass destruction? Let us not forget the children overboard affair, where he and his Minister Peter Reith lied about boat people throwing their children into the water – despite being advised to the contrary by our defence personnel. And I could go on. The shady dealings of the Australian wheat board, his blatant lie about not introducing a GST are all testament to a Prime Minister who apparently couldn’t lie straight in bed. But Alan Jones was very quiet about his. The Murdoch Press seemed not to notice. Curious, no?
And of course, Julia knifed poor Kevin. Leadership spills are always messy, and this one was no different. But this PM came to power in the same way the current leader of the Opposition became leader of his party – by deposing someone. Heard any criticism of Abbott?
It is only now that a lying politician is unacceptable to the great Australian public, who have suddenly become moral watchdogs. Why?
Tim Dunlop believes it is because of three things. He says:
“This is a Labor Government, it is a minority government, and the current prime minister is a woman."
Well, the fact that it is Labor and therefore unacceptable is somewhat mystifying. The Coalition has produced Barnaby Joyce and Peter Reith. ’Nuff said. Secondly, I see no problem with a 'hung' parliament - it has managed to introduce and get plenty of important legislation through. I happen to like and trust the Independents Windsor and Oakeshott, and think they do a fine job. Rob Oakeshott is my Federal member and he is a man of integrity and keeps himself well informed on issues. So there are no problems with this minority government making sensible decisions, as far as I can see.
But the fact we have a hung parliament that requires consultation and cooperation seems to be seen as horrifying by our media, has been milked by the Opposition, and has hoodwinked the great unwashed. It has showed no signs of being unstable, and manages to get quite a lot of legislation passed. So again, what is going on here?
Gillard may not be my favourite person but research shows the level of hate and animosity directed against her is unprecedented. Take a bow, media, for your role in this.
She has suffered unfairly because of her gender. This bias has been researched. It is clearly there. It is wrong and unfair. What other PM in this country has endured a “ditch the witch” sign aimed at him/her? What other PM has Alan Jones wanted to send to out to sea in a chaff bag? And what other Opposition leader stood in front of the aforesaid sign and addressed the approving crowd, giving tacit acquiescence to these things?
Being a woman means that Gillard is judged differently. It is unfair and it is unnecessary and it is scary.
As Dunlop says “When she is tough, she is seen as treacherous and unbecoming. When she prefers compromise and negotiation, she is seen as weak. Oh yeah, and she doesn't have kids: how can she relate to ‘normal’ people?”
The PM is a good negotiator, and these skills secured her the support of the Independents and the Greens to form the government, something that Tony Abbott completely failed to do. She is no more dishonest than anyone else in the house as far as I can ascertain and she is as honest than the others – the Opposition Leader included.
There is plenty of media frenzy now about the leadership spill and about Gillard. And they aren’t just commenting, which I know and accept is their job. It is the biased, ugly, emotive words and images that the media chooses when discussing Gillard. It is the deliberately negative words that are used to play to a very low baseline in the electorate.
This vilification of our first female prime minister should concern us all. It is unfair and it is disturbing in this age of supposed equality of men and women.
So whether you prefer Labor, the Coalition or the Greens, think about it. Is this how we want women in politics treated? What does this say of our society, and the increasing violence against women?
It is time to restore dignity and respect to the office of Prime Minister. It is time for the media to moderate its comments and play fair. Or we will be a much poorer society.
What has made me furious is the way this current Prime Minister has been spoken about, and the part the media have deliberately played in this. Since assuming the leadership, she has been the subject of unprecedented vilification, unprecedented in the sense that no other Australian Prime Minister has been subjected to such hatred and such scrutiny. I have just been arguing her case to a some blokes on Facebook, who have basically seen me as just another idiot Labor voter who needed to be put right.
Well, people, as a result of this exchange I have metaphorically sharpened my pencils and my tongue.
I know that there have been some problems with this government, but no worse than any other, and really important substantial legislation has been put and passed during this term. The country is in good economic shape. So what is really going on here?
I think there are two issues. The first is the Prime Minister’s gender. I am sure that by just being female, this has been enough to set off misogynistic males such as Ray Hadley and Alan Jones, the infamous shock jocks of Sydney’s 2GB. The second is media bias. I have repeatedly noticed that Julia Gillard cops a lot more flack than any other politician in the House. She is described in ugly and emotive terms. She is labelled as a liar, as incompetent and as having a bad hair style. We don’t like her shoes either, apparently. Impractical and she keeps falling over. And we can’t have that in the parliament, can we?
This PM is clearly not incompetent. There is plenty of important and needed legislation that has been introduced and passed through this parliament. Australia now has the Clean Energy Future package, the National Broadband scheme, the Gonski report on education and a National Disability Insurance Scheme. The PM ordered a Royal Commission into child sex abuse at the hands of the church. These are just a few really good important things this government has done. And while economics and the GDP of our country worries me not all (I think we need a new way of measuring national security and wellbeing), the world economic indices I have read and seen have Australia sitting near the top. We could even argue that Australia is now better off than when the last Coalition Government was in power. So why all the media flack squarely aimed at Ms Gillard?
Tim Dunlop of the ABC’s The Drum (http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3985592.html ) agrees with me in relation to this media bias. He notes that “Violent metaphors dominate the discussion of the Gillard Government. A recent article in (appropriately enough) The Punch managed to use all of these expressions in the course of its ranting: "assassination", "bloody execution", "swung a sledgehammer into its own political heartland", "knifed".”
He also noted that the Punch article “put the PM's problems down, in part, to her not having had a baby”.
Oh, please. In this day and age women in power have to put up with this sort of tripe?
The curse of Gillard seems to boil down to her being a liar. In fact she is, according to Alan Jones, “Juliar”. Very witty, Alan.
Why this obsession with her alleged lying and scurrilous behaviour? The famous carbon tax lie is usually what this boils down to. The tape where she said there will be no carbon tax is played over and over. However, the next bit is never played – the bit where she goes on to say quite unequivocally that in a Labor government there would be a price on carbon and an emissions trading scheme. Even Joe Hockey has defended her on this score. People, get over it. It was hardly a great big lie that has caused a war, drowned boat people and impoverished Australians.
Which leads me to my next point. The carry on about “Juliar” would make reasonable people think that she is obviously the first parliamentarian or Prime Minister in the history of Australia to lie. They appear to forget the Howard years, where John Howard’s shaky relationship with the truth hovered around 'uncomfortable'. His lies were, somehow, not lies. Confused yet?
Tim Dunlop says that the “standard theme of commentary throughout the Howard years, recycled as holy writ by journalists and other sage readers of the political entrails, was that 'the punters’ didn't care about Howard's lying.” But now apparently they do about Gillard’s lying. Why?
And just for the record, we will briefly raise some of this remarkably loose truth of Mr John "just watch my lips, the GST is dead and buried" Howard. Remember when he reneged on a number of election promises and referred to them as “non-core” promises? Do we recall that our whole involvement in the Iraq war was based on non-existent weapons of mass destruction? Let us not forget the children overboard affair, where he and his Minister Peter Reith lied about boat people throwing their children into the water – despite being advised to the contrary by our defence personnel. And I could go on. The shady dealings of the Australian wheat board, his blatant lie about not introducing a GST are all testament to a Prime Minister who apparently couldn’t lie straight in bed. But Alan Jones was very quiet about his. The Murdoch Press seemed not to notice. Curious, no?
And of course, Julia knifed poor Kevin. Leadership spills are always messy, and this one was no different. But this PM came to power in the same way the current leader of the Opposition became leader of his party – by deposing someone. Heard any criticism of Abbott?
It is only now that a lying politician is unacceptable to the great Australian public, who have suddenly become moral watchdogs. Why?
Tim Dunlop believes it is because of three things. He says:
“This is a Labor Government, it is a minority government, and the current prime minister is a woman."
Well, the fact that it is Labor and therefore unacceptable is somewhat mystifying. The Coalition has produced Barnaby Joyce and Peter Reith. ’Nuff said. Secondly, I see no problem with a 'hung' parliament - it has managed to introduce and get plenty of important legislation through. I happen to like and trust the Independents Windsor and Oakeshott, and think they do a fine job. Rob Oakeshott is my Federal member and he is a man of integrity and keeps himself well informed on issues. So there are no problems with this minority government making sensible decisions, as far as I can see.
But the fact we have a hung parliament that requires consultation and cooperation seems to be seen as horrifying by our media, has been milked by the Opposition, and has hoodwinked the great unwashed. It has showed no signs of being unstable, and manages to get quite a lot of legislation passed. So again, what is going on here?
Gillard may not be my favourite person but research shows the level of hate and animosity directed against her is unprecedented. Take a bow, media, for your role in this.
She has suffered unfairly because of her gender. This bias has been researched. It is clearly there. It is wrong and unfair. What other PM in this country has endured a “ditch the witch” sign aimed at him/her? What other PM has Alan Jones wanted to send to out to sea in a chaff bag? And what other Opposition leader stood in front of the aforesaid sign and addressed the approving crowd, giving tacit acquiescence to these things?
Being a woman means that Gillard is judged differently. It is unfair and it is unnecessary and it is scary.
As Dunlop says “When she is tough, she is seen as treacherous and unbecoming. When she prefers compromise and negotiation, she is seen as weak. Oh yeah, and she doesn't have kids: how can she relate to ‘normal’ people?”
The PM is a good negotiator, and these skills secured her the support of the Independents and the Greens to form the government, something that Tony Abbott completely failed to do. She is no more dishonest than anyone else in the house as far as I can ascertain and she is as honest than the others – the Opposition Leader included.
There is plenty of media frenzy now about the leadership spill and about Gillard. And they aren’t just commenting, which I know and accept is their job. It is the biased, ugly, emotive words and images that the media chooses when discussing Gillard. It is the deliberately negative words that are used to play to a very low baseline in the electorate.
This vilification of our first female prime minister should concern us all. It is unfair and it is disturbing in this age of supposed equality of men and women.
So whether you prefer Labor, the Coalition or the Greens, think about it. Is this how we want women in politics treated? What does this say of our society, and the increasing violence against women?
It is time to restore dignity and respect to the office of Prime Minister. It is time for the media to moderate its comments and play fair. Or we will be a much poorer society.
Thursday, 17 January 2013
Thunder and lightning very very frightening me
A Public Prayer Meeting for rain was held last Sunday. And lo, results were delivered. The Lord did what He had in mind. The thunder and the lightening in the sky as well as the storm rain falling on the roof were all reminders that He is the Lord Almighty and has His plans and will perform them. Hopefully His plan is to continue to bless the area with on-going moisture. More meetings are planned to ensure the Lord does just that, apparently. And we will just ignore the disconcerting fact that the Bureau of Meteorology had actually predicted Sunday’s rain two days before.
I admit that I have real trouble with the fundamentalist notion of prayer. The idea that we can ask God for anything that ails us, and get an answer has worried me for some years. In my student days, I was blessed to live next door to a very Pentecostal type, who laid hands on his car when it wouldn’t go, on the drain pipe when it was blocked, and on my thumb when it was stung by a bee and I was looking for tweezers.
I can’t get past the notion that God will happily unblock the drain of a wealthy (comparatively speaking) first world white person but let many small black children die of dehydration, starvation and various nasty diseases, even as their mothers cry out for mercy.
I also can’t get my head around the idea that climate change is bunk and that the Lord has the climate completely under control (except of course, for the times he forgets and we have to pray to get it Him—capital H, thanks very much—to change it) and that there is nothing we can, indeed should, be doing to modify our lifestyles and standard of living to reduce the emissions that are causing the problem. We can pray, because that is what Christians who believe everything is foreordained by the Lord, do.
You might well be asking at this time why bother praying for something the Lord has already ordained. Good question. I haven’t worked out the answer yet, but I am sure my Calvinistic friends would have some piece of cognitive dissonance to offer me. Apparently the dry weather has been caused by human sinfulness, and if people repent, things will no doubt change. Amazing how this sinfulness has coincided with the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere. Maybe it is a symbolic representation of it. Certainly it is caused by sinfulness of a sort, though not the kind our Calvinistic friend is talking about.
I notice that prayer is getting a similar sort of publicity in America at the moment. In the light of President Obama’s announcement about gun control, the Texan Governor, Rick Perry, has revealed he has his own plan for combating America's gun violence problem. Where President Obama has suggested banning certain automatic weapons and controlling sales of guns etc, the Texan governor announced that what was needed was not tougher gun control legislation, but prayer. Yep, Americans should simply pray for protection against being shot. If this was a successful strategy, I suggest that the casualty lists in both world wars would have been considerably smaller, peace in the Middle East would now be a reality, and in Northern Ireland the Orange marches would have disappeared into the realm of past history.
Like my friend the evangelical, Gov. Perry believes that there is a cause other than our own actions. Instead of sin, he talked about an "evil prowling" in the world that has found its way into vulnerable minds. I would suggest the evil is thinking that guns are the answer to violence, but then I am not a gun owner wedded to a constitutional amendment.
I think relying on prayer for protection against gun violence might prove difficult, as nearly 14,000 people die each year in the USA as a result of being shot. It is a sobering statistic. Australia, on the other hand, was far more pragmatic when faced with a gun massacre 14 years ago. In the aftermath of the Port Arthur massacre in 1999, the then Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, banned semi-automatic and automatic weapons. There was a gun buy-back, and such weapons were handed in. Australia hasn’t had a gun massacre since this time.
John Howard is a conservative politician and a deeply religious Christian man. Yet he saw the light and the light was direct action. This doesn’t mean we can’t pray, of course, but surely prayer is meant not so much to manipulate God into doing stuff, but to also change us, and change us to change how we do things.
In the lectionary this year we are reading the Gospel of Luke. Luke’s Jesus makes it clear that prayer is to be backed up with action. This action entails giving our possessions to the poor, not extorting money from them, releasing them from debt and freeing the oppressed from the bonds of poverty and political oppression. It is sharing our coats and our homes and our hearts. Luke’s gospel is about enacting justice, and not praying the poor of the world out of sight and out of mind by asking God to fix the poverty that we created in the first place.
I am sure my friend will continue to pray for rain. For my part, I will be praying for the strength to challenge the industries and interests and governments that continue to pollute our lovely earth, and whose actions are right on track to render it uninhabitable. I will be praying that God will give me the courage to champion what is right, and to keep hope alive that somehow, the inhabitants of this earth will find a way to work together and move forward into a future of hope.
Friday, 11 January 2013
Agenda 21 and how the science of climate change was influenced by a talking snake
I am really looking forward to 2013. Especially since I learnt that Lord Monckton, that well-known climate change denier, will be heading down under to remind us Aussies that there is no such thing as Global Warming. Lord Monckton, that wall of the West, the redoubt of reason, the sentinel of science, the fortress of freedom, and the defender of democracy, will be here in person.
His three month speaking tour of Australia and NZ is entitled “Carbon tax, climate scam, Agenda 21: can democracy survive all three? Lord Monckton does due diligence”.
This is serious stuff. Our very way of life is clearly under threat in a way never imagined before. Never mind about wars, plagues and natural disasters- Agenda 21 (a cunningly disguised form of communism) is the real threat to civilization.
For those of you unfamiliar with Agenda 21, it was an item during the Copenhagen meeting on climate change. Those of right wing bent believe that a treaty was going to be signed, rubber stamped by left wing loonies, that was designed to transfer all the wealth of the west to poor third world countries, and in doing so, create a world government run by bureaucrats. All those communists who crashed through the Berlin wall joined the environment movement, took over Greenpeace, and plotted to impose a communist world government on the world.
Yes, times are tough. We groan under the weight of carbon taxes and climate scams.
But things will be OK, because Lord Monckton is doing due diligence for us. What is this “due diligence” I hear you ask?
Definition of DUE DILIGENCE
1: the care that a reasonable person exercises to avoid harm to other persons or their property
2: research and analysis of a company or organization done in preparation for a business transaction (as a corporate merger or purchase of securities)
As I assume that the good peer will not be preparing a business transaction, I am guessing he is here to exercise care in regard to persons and property. How this is precisely to happen is anyone’s guess. Perhaps by telling us we have all imagined the soaring temperatures of the last week – remember the earth has not warmed in 16 years. Those record temperatures are a but a blip in the weather. He has clearly not seen our weather charts.
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/temperatures-off-the-charts-as-australia-turns-deep-purple-20130108-2ce33.html
The deep purple in the middle of this red weather chart represents 129.2° F or 54 °C. Our Australian bureau of meteorology was forced to find new colours for its heat index because the country is under a dome of heat. “The scale has just been increased today and I would anticipate it is because the forecast coming from the bureau’s model is showing temperatures in excess of 50 degrees,” David Jones, head of the bureau’s climate monitoring and prediction unit, told The Sydney Morning Herald. The previous record high was 50.7°C (123°F), recorded in 1960 at Oodnadatta Airport. We have now had seven consecutive days above 39°C. That’s a record too.
Australia’s vile heat wave has set homes and property burning from bushfires, but I doubt if Lord Monckton’s due diligence will be of much help.
The good peer is apparently untroubled by such annoying facts as fires and tumbling records. Well, it is summer, isn’t it? As self-proclaimed head and intellectual leader of the global warming denial movement, he has set sights on different things. He is now expanding his influence from aging National Party members and Alan Jones’ listeners to the conservative Christian Church here in Australia.
Lord Monckton is being sponsored by his good friend Pastor Daniel Nalliah, leader of Catch the Fire ministry and president of the nearly formed political party Rise Up Australia. Pastor Daniel has some particularly interesting views on matters of science, the climate, abortion and multiculturalism.
Apparently Lord Monckton will be the man to give the keynote speech at the official launch of his Rise Up Australia political party.
So why Lord Monckton? According to deSmogBlog (http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/11510), he and Pastor Danny are old friends. In January 2012, Nalliah and his Christian evangelical Catch the Fire ministry hosted Lord Monckton for a lecture as part of his nationwide speaking tour that year – one which was prefaced by a scandal surrounding Monckton’s use of Nazi swastikas.
Quite apart from these somewhat alarming Fascist tendencies, Pastor Danny is what is euphemistically called a ‘young earther’. These ‘young earthers’ are Christians that believe the earth is no more than 6,000 years old. In old terms, they are biblical literalists, creationists and fundamentalists that think Genesis is a factual scientific account, complete with that well-established scientific fact, the talking snake. Further, such people are very keen on sin. Sin is responsible for most of our ills (well, the ones you can’t blame on the talking snake and womankind generally). Sin is punished swiftly by God in this world view, thus Pastor Danny also interpreted the 2009 Victorian bushfires as God's punishment for Victoria's abortion laws. (here he is at odds with another fundamentalist who spammed the Uniting Church, and who blamed the fires on the Uniting Church’s acceptance of homosexuality). Pastor Danny is also Islamophobic, with at least half of his website dedicated to denigrating Moslems. To describe him as a fundamentalist is probably an understatement.
His views on climate change aren’t any better. The rising trend in global temperatures, identified by climate scientists to be caused by the emission of greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels and other human activities, is neither here nor there. Pastor Danny believes God is in charge of climate…therefore we cannot change the climate. His website states that climate change science is “a quasi-religious hypothesis unproven by objective scientific facts.” Beautifully simple, and explains why the planet hasn’t warmed in 16 years. God didn’t want it to, of course.
All of this stuff is terribly scientific. Is this the bar and the rigorous testing that Monckton and his ilk would have us measure climate science with? Young earths of 6,000 years old, talking snakes and a God that capriciously punishes people by burning them and their property? No due diligence there, Lord Monckton. No scientific rigor either. Are these two serial pests seriously thinking this ‘science’ is convincing? And that we should extrapolate this rigorous scientific belief to their skeptical climate science claims? Surely they are kidding us!
I can’t wait to see if Prof. Ian Plimer, one time geologist, climate skeptic (we won’t talk about his interests in the coal industry) and absolute atheist (he took creationists to court and wrote a book called ‘Telling Lies for God: Reason vs Creationism’ for goodness sake), turns up to fete Monckton on his tour. Will he be invited to the launch of Pastor Danny's new political party?
Will our friends the National Party, chockers with climate skeptics, see a 6,000 year old young earth and intelligent design as perfectly reasonable scientific hypotheses, and a perfectly reasonable measure of whether climate science is reputable?
Will the Opposition leader, well known for his skeptical views on climate change and his less than skeptical views on limiting abortion, line up to shake the hand of them both?
Both Lord Monckton and Pastor Danny should thank the lord there's no need to mention any factual and demonstrable science when they are discussing climate science to all those skeptics out there.
The rest of us should probably pray, and hope someone is listening.
His three month speaking tour of Australia and NZ is entitled “Carbon tax, climate scam, Agenda 21: can democracy survive all three? Lord Monckton does due diligence”.
This is serious stuff. Our very way of life is clearly under threat in a way never imagined before. Never mind about wars, plagues and natural disasters- Agenda 21 (a cunningly disguised form of communism) is the real threat to civilization.
For those of you unfamiliar with Agenda 21, it was an item during the Copenhagen meeting on climate change. Those of right wing bent believe that a treaty was going to be signed, rubber stamped by left wing loonies, that was designed to transfer all the wealth of the west to poor third world countries, and in doing so, create a world government run by bureaucrats. All those communists who crashed through the Berlin wall joined the environment movement, took over Greenpeace, and plotted to impose a communist world government on the world.
Yes, times are tough. We groan under the weight of carbon taxes and climate scams.
But things will be OK, because Lord Monckton is doing due diligence for us. What is this “due diligence” I hear you ask?
Definition of DUE DILIGENCE
1: the care that a reasonable person exercises to avoid harm to other persons or their property
2: research and analysis of a company or organization done in preparation for a business transaction (as a corporate merger or purchase of securities)
As I assume that the good peer will not be preparing a business transaction, I am guessing he is here to exercise care in regard to persons and property. How this is precisely to happen is anyone’s guess. Perhaps by telling us we have all imagined the soaring temperatures of the last week – remember the earth has not warmed in 16 years. Those record temperatures are a but a blip in the weather. He has clearly not seen our weather charts.
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/temperatures-off-the-charts-as-australia-turns-deep-purple-20130108-2ce33.html
The deep purple in the middle of this red weather chart represents 129.2° F or 54 °C. Our Australian bureau of meteorology was forced to find new colours for its heat index because the country is under a dome of heat. “The scale has just been increased today and I would anticipate it is because the forecast coming from the bureau’s model is showing temperatures in excess of 50 degrees,” David Jones, head of the bureau’s climate monitoring and prediction unit, told The Sydney Morning Herald. The previous record high was 50.7°C (123°F), recorded in 1960 at Oodnadatta Airport. We have now had seven consecutive days above 39°C. That’s a record too.
Australia’s vile heat wave has set homes and property burning from bushfires, but I doubt if Lord Monckton’s due diligence will be of much help.
The good peer is apparently untroubled by such annoying facts as fires and tumbling records. Well, it is summer, isn’t it? As self-proclaimed head and intellectual leader of the global warming denial movement, he has set sights on different things. He is now expanding his influence from aging National Party members and Alan Jones’ listeners to the conservative Christian Church here in Australia.
Lord Monckton is being sponsored by his good friend Pastor Daniel Nalliah, leader of Catch the Fire ministry and president of the nearly formed political party Rise Up Australia. Pastor Daniel has some particularly interesting views on matters of science, the climate, abortion and multiculturalism.
Apparently Lord Monckton will be the man to give the keynote speech at the official launch of his Rise Up Australia political party.
So why Lord Monckton? According to deSmogBlog (http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/11510), he and Pastor Danny are old friends. In January 2012, Nalliah and his Christian evangelical Catch the Fire ministry hosted Lord Monckton for a lecture as part of his nationwide speaking tour that year – one which was prefaced by a scandal surrounding Monckton’s use of Nazi swastikas.
Quite apart from these somewhat alarming Fascist tendencies, Pastor Danny is what is euphemistically called a ‘young earther’. These ‘young earthers’ are Christians that believe the earth is no more than 6,000 years old. In old terms, they are biblical literalists, creationists and fundamentalists that think Genesis is a factual scientific account, complete with that well-established scientific fact, the talking snake. Further, such people are very keen on sin. Sin is responsible for most of our ills (well, the ones you can’t blame on the talking snake and womankind generally). Sin is punished swiftly by God in this world view, thus Pastor Danny also interpreted the 2009 Victorian bushfires as God's punishment for Victoria's abortion laws. (here he is at odds with another fundamentalist who spammed the Uniting Church, and who blamed the fires on the Uniting Church’s acceptance of homosexuality). Pastor Danny is also Islamophobic, with at least half of his website dedicated to denigrating Moslems. To describe him as a fundamentalist is probably an understatement.
His views on climate change aren’t any better. The rising trend in global temperatures, identified by climate scientists to be caused by the emission of greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels and other human activities, is neither here nor there. Pastor Danny believes God is in charge of climate…therefore we cannot change the climate. His website states that climate change science is “a quasi-religious hypothesis unproven by objective scientific facts.” Beautifully simple, and explains why the planet hasn’t warmed in 16 years. God didn’t want it to, of course.
All of this stuff is terribly scientific. Is this the bar and the rigorous testing that Monckton and his ilk would have us measure climate science with? Young earths of 6,000 years old, talking snakes and a God that capriciously punishes people by burning them and their property? No due diligence there, Lord Monckton. No scientific rigor either. Are these two serial pests seriously thinking this ‘science’ is convincing? And that we should extrapolate this rigorous scientific belief to their skeptical climate science claims? Surely they are kidding us!
I can’t wait to see if Prof. Ian Plimer, one time geologist, climate skeptic (we won’t talk about his interests in the coal industry) and absolute atheist (he took creationists to court and wrote a book called ‘Telling Lies for God: Reason vs Creationism’ for goodness sake), turns up to fete Monckton on his tour. Will he be invited to the launch of Pastor Danny's new political party?
Will our friends the National Party, chockers with climate skeptics, see a 6,000 year old young earth and intelligent design as perfectly reasonable scientific hypotheses, and a perfectly reasonable measure of whether climate science is reputable?
Will the Opposition leader, well known for his skeptical views on climate change and his less than skeptical views on limiting abortion, line up to shake the hand of them both?
Both Lord Monckton and Pastor Danny should thank the lord there's no need to mention any factual and demonstrable science when they are discussing climate science to all those skeptics out there.
The rest of us should probably pray, and hope someone is listening.
Tuesday, 8 January 2013
Praying for rain?
(Note: this blog is not meant to smear all evangelical Christians, as I know there are many socially and environmentally aware evangelical Christians out there. It is meant to highlight a particular sort of evangelical Christian, a sort that is rather prolific up here in rural reverend land)
I admit I find the local evangelical Protestants hard to understand. Some of the ideas and beliefs that particularly male evangelical Christians subscribe to are difficult to fathom, and they seem to live in a very small world dominated by a stern and humorless deity. They tend to be conservative politically, and feel women’s place is in the home. They could enter the TV set of Madmen and just be themselves, and no one would think they were out of place.
This week an email arrived in my inbox that announced that one of our evangelical colleagues had decided to call a Public Prayer meeting to pray for rain in our local area.
While public prayer meetings aren’t quite our style of ministry, we were happy to support it, and thought it might be an opportunity to also acknowledge that we should be concerned about where our planet is heading. Such a meeting could encourage people to also think about the causes of these current extreme weather events, and to consider the impact of changes in the climate on the earth, and think about taking some action themselves.
The other ministerial inhabitant of the house replied to the email, and suggested that we could perhaps also offer prayers that took into account the multiple effects that climate change was having on millions of people worldwide. He also provided some prayer sites that looked at the impact of climate change on human societies in many places around the globe, such as Tuvalu. You can find them here:
http://twitter.com/climateprayer
http://www.facebook.com/climateprayer#!/climateprayer
This seemed harmless enough to us, and quite topical in the light of the fact that half of Australia appears to be on fire, and those places not on fire are suffering from 40 plus centigrade temperatures. Scientists were already equating our extreme weather with climate change – see http://takvera.blogspot.com.au/2012/09/climate-change-causing-increase-in.html
The reply we got was therefore somewhat surprising. I doubt we will be praying for that, said our friend. Some people attending will be climate change – or maybe that is global warming - skeptics. Anyway, they are not true believers. And we will be looking to pray, not fight. I myself, as a tin pot scientist, have real questions about the supposed settled science. So my agenda, and not yours or anyone else’s will prevail. Unless of course, they agree with me.
Right then. No prayers for Tuvalu or Kiribati. Instead we will pray for “a change in the Human heart towards the Lordship of Jesus Christ and God's sovereign action response.” Then it will rain, sinners will be punished and all will be right with the world. The bible says so. Insists, in fact. I am reminded of Deuteronomy 28 and its curses. In case you are not familiar with Deuteronomy, the following is an extract from 28:16-68:
Cursed shall you be in the city, and cursed shall you be in the country. Cursed shall be your basket and your kneading bowl. Cursed shall be the fruit of your body and the produce of your land, the increase of your cattle and the offspring of your flocks. Cursed shall you be when you come in, and cursed shall you be when you go out. The LORD will send on you cursing, confusion, and rebuke in all that you set your hand to do, until you are destroyed and until you perish quickly, because of the wickedness of your doings in which you have forsaken Me. The LORD will strike you with consumption, with fever, with inflammation, with severe burning fever, with the sword, with scorching, and with mildew; they shall pursue you until you perish. And your heavens which are over your head shall be bronze, and the earth which is under you shall be iron. The LORD will change the rain of your land to powder and dust; from the heaven it shall come down on you until you are destroyed. Moreover all these curses shall come upon you and pursue and overtake you, until you are destroyed, because you did not obey the voice of the LORD your God, to keep His commandments and His statutes which He commanded you.
You can see the point Deuteronomy is making. So the future is bleak, should you not obey the Lord in very precise ways. And it appears the part of that bleakness is no rain.
If indeed our friend is thinking of Deuteronomy he is patently ignoring the fact that the curses are a result of not keeping the Law, and nothing to do with his concept of individual sin, or indeed with belief in Jesus. Nowhere in the gospels does Jesus ever call down such curses on non-believers or sinners, though he does have a penchant for consigning them to hell in the afterlife, particularly in the gospel of Matthew. The sin however, differs markedly from the sin our evangelical friend is thinking of. Sin in the gospels is not helping the poor and oppressed. It is not sharing the good news with all. It is not recognizing the face of Jesus in your fellow human beings.
The other problem we Protestants have, and particularly evangelical denominations, is the lack of tradition to draw on. Protestant denominations do have a habit of splitting, and forming new denominations. Impoverished by the lack of rich tradition that the Orthodox and Catholics have, evangelical Protestants struggle to justify their ideas and actions.
The reason our friend gave for ignoring global warming (apart from his own and other skepticism) is that prayers for rain have a much, much, much longer history than supposed global warming.
This is all well and good, but what does it mean? Does it go all the way back to rituals of sacrificing virgins? To Apaches doing rain dances in feathered head dresses? To burying bodies in peat bogs? These also have a long and fine tradition of producing rain. Should we try all of these ancient practices in case one of them works better? Adopting the tactic of prayer ‘because it is older’, is bad theology. Saying climate science is wrong ‘because I think so’, is bad research. And voting for the National Party is unthinking politics. (I know that is irrelevant but it seems to be part of the rural evangelical package).
Relying solely on one’s own interpretation of scripture leaves evangelical Protestants at the mercy of their own experience, their own (usually white) culture and conservative politics, and their own prejudices. No tradition means that they can read whatever texts tend to support their own reason, and ignore others that don’t. Throughout history, this means that such Christians have supported institutions such as slavery, have discriminated against women, and are actively anti-homosexual. In modern times, they have also become climate skeptics, and pro-economy-at-the-expense-of-everything-else. Social justice is an irrelevancy, and care for the foreigner and alien is non-existent.
Praying for rain? Or praying that the environmentally expensive and insular way of Western living doesn't change? Are we praying that our eyes be opened, or that they remain shut tight?
It seems to me such praying is designed to make people think they have done something—indeed, done everything that is possible. There is no sense of responsibility here, no sense that by changing our individual and collective behaviour we might just be in time to stop the worst effects of climate change happening. God helps those who help themselves, and our looming environmental disaster is not going to be prevented by divine intervention alone.
I admit I find the local evangelical Protestants hard to understand. Some of the ideas and beliefs that particularly male evangelical Christians subscribe to are difficult to fathom, and they seem to live in a very small world dominated by a stern and humorless deity. They tend to be conservative politically, and feel women’s place is in the home. They could enter the TV set of Madmen and just be themselves, and no one would think they were out of place.
This week an email arrived in my inbox that announced that one of our evangelical colleagues had decided to call a Public Prayer meeting to pray for rain in our local area.
While public prayer meetings aren’t quite our style of ministry, we were happy to support it, and thought it might be an opportunity to also acknowledge that we should be concerned about where our planet is heading. Such a meeting could encourage people to also think about the causes of these current extreme weather events, and to consider the impact of changes in the climate on the earth, and think about taking some action themselves.
The other ministerial inhabitant of the house replied to the email, and suggested that we could perhaps also offer prayers that took into account the multiple effects that climate change was having on millions of people worldwide. He also provided some prayer sites that looked at the impact of climate change on human societies in many places around the globe, such as Tuvalu. You can find them here:
http://twitter.com/climateprayer
http://www.facebook.com/climateprayer#!/climateprayer
This seemed harmless enough to us, and quite topical in the light of the fact that half of Australia appears to be on fire, and those places not on fire are suffering from 40 plus centigrade temperatures. Scientists were already equating our extreme weather with climate change – see http://takvera.blogspot.com.au/2012/09/climate-change-causing-increase-in.html
The reply we got was therefore somewhat surprising. I doubt we will be praying for that, said our friend. Some people attending will be climate change – or maybe that is global warming - skeptics. Anyway, they are not true believers. And we will be looking to pray, not fight. I myself, as a tin pot scientist, have real questions about the supposed settled science. So my agenda, and not yours or anyone else’s will prevail. Unless of course, they agree with me.
Right then. No prayers for Tuvalu or Kiribati. Instead we will pray for “a change in the Human heart towards the Lordship of Jesus Christ and God's sovereign action response.” Then it will rain, sinners will be punished and all will be right with the world. The bible says so. Insists, in fact. I am reminded of Deuteronomy 28 and its curses. In case you are not familiar with Deuteronomy, the following is an extract from 28:16-68:
Cursed shall you be in the city, and cursed shall you be in the country. Cursed shall be your basket and your kneading bowl. Cursed shall be the fruit of your body and the produce of your land, the increase of your cattle and the offspring of your flocks. Cursed shall you be when you come in, and cursed shall you be when you go out. The LORD will send on you cursing, confusion, and rebuke in all that you set your hand to do, until you are destroyed and until you perish quickly, because of the wickedness of your doings in which you have forsaken Me. The LORD will strike you with consumption, with fever, with inflammation, with severe burning fever, with the sword, with scorching, and with mildew; they shall pursue you until you perish. And your heavens which are over your head shall be bronze, and the earth which is under you shall be iron. The LORD will change the rain of your land to powder and dust; from the heaven it shall come down on you until you are destroyed. Moreover all these curses shall come upon you and pursue and overtake you, until you are destroyed, because you did not obey the voice of the LORD your God, to keep His commandments and His statutes which He commanded you.
You can see the point Deuteronomy is making. So the future is bleak, should you not obey the Lord in very precise ways. And it appears the part of that bleakness is no rain.
If indeed our friend is thinking of Deuteronomy he is patently ignoring the fact that the curses are a result of not keeping the Law, and nothing to do with his concept of individual sin, or indeed with belief in Jesus. Nowhere in the gospels does Jesus ever call down such curses on non-believers or sinners, though he does have a penchant for consigning them to hell in the afterlife, particularly in the gospel of Matthew. The sin however, differs markedly from the sin our evangelical friend is thinking of. Sin in the gospels is not helping the poor and oppressed. It is not sharing the good news with all. It is not recognizing the face of Jesus in your fellow human beings.
The other problem we Protestants have, and particularly evangelical denominations, is the lack of tradition to draw on. Protestant denominations do have a habit of splitting, and forming new denominations. Impoverished by the lack of rich tradition that the Orthodox and Catholics have, evangelical Protestants struggle to justify their ideas and actions.
The reason our friend gave for ignoring global warming (apart from his own and other skepticism) is that prayers for rain have a much, much, much longer history than supposed global warming.
This is all well and good, but what does it mean? Does it go all the way back to rituals of sacrificing virgins? To Apaches doing rain dances in feathered head dresses? To burying bodies in peat bogs? These also have a long and fine tradition of producing rain. Should we try all of these ancient practices in case one of them works better? Adopting the tactic of prayer ‘because it is older’, is bad theology. Saying climate science is wrong ‘because I think so’, is bad research. And voting for the National Party is unthinking politics. (I know that is irrelevant but it seems to be part of the rural evangelical package).
Relying solely on one’s own interpretation of scripture leaves evangelical Protestants at the mercy of their own experience, their own (usually white) culture and conservative politics, and their own prejudices. No tradition means that they can read whatever texts tend to support their own reason, and ignore others that don’t. Throughout history, this means that such Christians have supported institutions such as slavery, have discriminated against women, and are actively anti-homosexual. In modern times, they have also become climate skeptics, and pro-economy-at-the-expense-of-everything-else. Social justice is an irrelevancy, and care for the foreigner and alien is non-existent.
Praying for rain? Or praying that the environmentally expensive and insular way of Western living doesn't change? Are we praying that our eyes be opened, or that they remain shut tight?
It seems to me such praying is designed to make people think they have done something—indeed, done everything that is possible. There is no sense of responsibility here, no sense that by changing our individual and collective behaviour we might just be in time to stop the worst effects of climate change happening. God helps those who help themselves, and our looming environmental disaster is not going to be prevented by divine intervention alone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)