Once, for all Friday, Nov 27 2009

The New Testament records that Jesus of Nazareth had no particular wish to be crucified on what we today, might call the altar of public opinion, suitably spun by the powers that be. Saints do go looking for martyrdom, either.

As it became clear to the Captain of the heavenly host, that God intended to do with him what Abraham had not, the Lord Jesus prayed fervently that the cup might be taken away, but not as he willed. Unbowed, before powerful power brokers, Jesus did not try justify himself.

We have seen with our own eyes how he was taken out of the grave and elevated into sacred spaces known only to God. These events are recorded history, but are also defining moments in our lives. They stand outside time and space. It is God who draws us to His Son, just as it is God who is the source of Life of the Son. The Old Testament patriarchs knew this, as much as we do.

We stand at the end of one age and the beginning of another but the crucifixion of the Nazarene Christ will never be adequately understood and in much the same way that the Almighty, the One and Only, cannot be properly explained.

The church does not possess a monopoly on truth. Rather, it is truth that possesses the church, and her place in the present age is to reveal this truth in the person of Jesus Christ.

To think that truth and dogma are the same, is to miss the point.

(Written in reflection of Imam Muhammad El Sadi’s article titled Upholding spiritual and moral values in the Malta Times, and the Italian Defense Minister’s appearance on the Italian national television programme La vita in diretta).

One Response »

 

The great crucifix debate (Part 3: Antisemitism) Saturday, Nov 21 2009

Background

The crucifix debate is likely to be of great interest to the ecumenical movement, particularly as it relates to Jewish Christian relations. When Jews think of a crucifix they invariably see the Jewish people, and not specifically, the Jewish messiah on the cross.

Academic perspectives

Daniel Johan Goldhagen sees antisemitism and nationalism as two sides of the same (malleable) coin, both deeply formative to European identity and which appear and reappear when specific social and political conditions are met. [i]

Uniquely throughout medieval Europe, the Jews were held to be responsible for violating the moral order and the sacred, this idea being propagated by myriad myths and the systematic identification with all that was deemed to be evil. Thus were the European persecutions, pogroms and ultimately, the Nazi Holocaust facilitated. [i]

Alice L. Eckhart writes that “Christianity has failed to grasp the crucial nature of the questions raised by the Holocaust for its own theology and future just as it generally has refused to admit any responsibility for the death camps.” [ii]

For Susannah Herschel, history and function are inextricably linked. When the revisionist bishops of Weimar ushered in their antisemitic messiah (who first excluded and then killed Jews in the Holocaust), they ended once and for all, the hope of the crucifix as a universal messianic symbol:

We have to understand that certain images stand in a long historical tradition of antisemitic stereotypes about Jews, and therefore they have a power derived from that long history. But second, we have to understand the political function in each setting of the particular antisemitism that’s being articulated. So antisemitism has a history and it also has a function, and both need to be understood if we can begin to do something about it. [iii]

It stands to reason that if the crucifix is such an important symbol in the European Union, then the nature of the crucified will also have to be understood.

References

[i]   Daniel Jonah Goldhagen. Hitler’s willing executioners. pp. 37-47. ISBN 0-349-10786-6

[ii]  Alice L. Eckhart The Holocaust: Christian and Jewish responses, p. 453

[iii] Voices on Antisemitism. Susannah Heschel

2 Responses »

 

The great crucifix debate (Part 2: The reaction) Saturday, Nov 21 2009

The Church reacts

Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi, director of the Vatican press office, gave a brief statement on the 4th of November, to Vatican Radio in response to the ruling:

“The crucifix has always been a sign of God’s offer of love, of union and of welcome for the whole of humanity,” the spokesman said. “It is to be regretted that it has come to be considered as a sign of division, of exclusion and of limitation of liberty. It is not this, and it is not so in the common feeling of our people.” [i]

Shortly thereafter, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the Secretary of State of the Vatican said that “Europe of the third millennium only leaves us with Halloween pumpkins and takes away our dearest symbols”. [ii]

The head of the Greek Orthodox Church expressed similar sentiment, and called for Christians worldwide to unite in an appeal against a ban on crucifixes. [iii]

Political reaction in Italy

Most Italians appear genuinely appalled by the ruling. For education minister Mariastella Gelmini, the crucifix is a “symbol of our tradition” and not (just) a mark of Catholicism. [iv] Roberto Calderoli, another minister and member of the right wing Northern League Party sees European conspiracy in a “court (that) has trodden on our rights, our culture, our history, our traditions and our values”. Claudio Scajola of Berlusconi’s centre right Freedom People Party views the crucifix as “a universal symbol of love, meekness and peace. Preventing it from being displayed is an act of violence against the deep-seated feelings of the Italian people and all persons of goodwill”. Pierluigi Bersani, the ex-communist leader of Italy’s biggest opposition party the Democratic Party meanwhile, protested that “an ancient tradition like the crucifix cannot be offensive to anyone.” [v]

Others have been less able to contain their anger. As part of the show La vita in diretta aired on national television and attended by a number of prominent personalities including Rocco Buttiglione the Christian Democrat, Italian Minister of Defence Ignazio La Russa repeatedly that “they (supports of the ruling) can die, but the crucifix will stay in every classroom”. His presence on the show was meant to be a commemoration of Italy’s Victory Day in World War I on November 4th. [vi]

Following the ruling, a general campaign in municipalities all over Italy and abroad was started ordering the display of crucifixes in schools, and leveling fines for non-compliance. [vii]

Political reaction abroad

Further afield Poland’s president, Lech Kaczynski, has hit out at the decision.  During Independence Day celebrations on the 11^th November 2009 held in Warsaw, Poland’s Kaczynski said that “nobody in Poland will accept the message that you can’t hang crosses in schools”. Crucifixes and other religious symbols were banned under communist rule and are now perceived to be prominent symbols of national independence. Lech Walesa, the former president and leader of the Solidarity movement challenged the court ruling in a TV interview on the day after Poland’s national independence day. [iii]

In Greece, a human rights group called Helsinki Monitor is seeking to use the Lautsi case as a precedent and is demanding that Greek courts remove icons of Jesus Christ from above the judge’s bench and that the Bible no longer be used for swearing oaths in the witness box. Helsinki Monitor is also urging trade unions to challenge the presence of religious symbols in Greek schools. The socialist government meanwhile, is reportedly considering imposing new taxes on the Orthodox Church and urging it to do more to help immigrants and the poor. [iv]

References

[i] Vatican 'Astonished' at European Court Ruling Denying Crucifix in Classroom

[ii] Vatican opposes ruling on school crosses

[iii] Greek Church acts on crucifix ban

[iv] Italy school crucifixes 'barred'

[v] Human rights ruling against classroom crucifixes angers Italy

[vi] Atheist Media Blog

[vii] Italian mayors order crucifixes put in classrooms in revolt against European Court ruling

Leave a Response »

 

The great crucifix debate (Part 1: The Judicial ruling) Saturday, Nov 21 2009

Background

On the 3^rd of November 2009, the European Court of Human Rights affirmed the rights on a European citizen to educate her children in a way that did not violate the right to education and the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

The case was originally brought before the Court by Soile Lautsi, a Finnish born Italian national living in Italy on the 27^th July 2006.  The November 2009 ruling follows an earlier ruling in 2003 by an Italian court in L’Aquila, following a complaint by an Italian Muslim leader, Adel Smith. The law requiring crucifixes to be hung in schools dates back to the 1920s, when Catholicism was state the religion in Italy. The 2003 ruling was later overturned. [i]

The 2009 ruling

The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. [ii]

According to a press release relating to Lautsi v. Italy the court registrar confirmed that the law requiring crucifixes in Italian classrooms violated Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (the right to education) and Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) of the European Convention on Human Rights. [ii]

The application was lodged because Lautsi thought that the presence of a crucifix in classrooms attended by her children went against the principle of secularism by which she wished to bring up her children. [ii]

Judgment was given by a chamber of seven judges, composed as follows: Françoise Tulkens (Belgium), President; Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portugal), Judge; Vladimiro Zagrebelsky (Italy), Judge; Danutė Jočienė (Lithuania), Judge; Dragoljub Popović (Serbia), Judge; András Sajó (Hungary), Judge; Işıl Karakaş (Turkey), Judge [ii]

The implications of Lisbon

The author of the legal textbook Religious Discrimination and Hatred Law Neil Addison warns that the close connections between the European Court of Human Rights, the Lisbon Treaty and the European Convention on Human Rights make it likely that the Italian ruling could result in the removal of displays of Christian origin in public buildings in Europe under the new treaty. [iii]

The appeal

The government is appealing to the Strasbourg court’s 17-member Grand Chamber. If the appeal is rejected then Italy would be obliged to comply with the ruling. [vi]

References

[i] Italy school crucifixes 'barred'

[ii] Chamber Judgment Lautsi v. Italy

[iii] All Public Displays of Christianity Could End with Italian Crucifix Ruling: Legal Expert

[vi] Italian mayors order crucifixes put in classrooms in revolt against European Court ruling

Leave a Response »

 

The Tradition of Life Wednesday, Oct 28 2009

An elderly Rabbi was once on an airplane to Israel sitting next to a self-professed atheist. They were amicably chatting the whole trip.

Every now and then, the Rabbi’s grandchild, sitting in another row, would come over to him, bringing him a drink, or asking if he could get anything to make him more comfortable. After this happened several times, the atheist sighed, “I wish my grandchildren would treat me with such respect. They hardly even say hello to me. What’s your secret?”

The Rabbi replied:

“Think about it. To my grandchildren, I am two generations closer to Adam and Eve, the two individuals made by the hand of G‑d. So they look up to me. But according to the philosophy which you teach your grandchildren, you are two generations closer to being an ape. So why should they look up to you?”

Beliefs have consequences. If children today lack respect and are unable to honor their elders, if tradition looked down upon and the values of the past all but forgotten, is it not a natural consequence of modern education? If we teach our children that they are merely advanced animals, then they will act that way. And they will treat their parents and teachers like the obsolete versions of humanity that they are.

We have to be aware of the effects of our beliefs. If we believe that humans came about by accident, then life has no meaning. There can be no meaning to something that happens by chance. A random explosion or mutation cannot give us purpose. My life, your life and all human history has no real significance whatsoever. Whether I live a good life or one full of evil makes no difference. It is all a big accident anyway.

We only have purpose if we were created on purpose. Our lives only have meaning if we were created by a meaningful being. If we teach our children that they were created on purpose with a purpose, then they will know that more is expected from them than from an animal. The Adam and Eve story needs to be taught, not just because it is true, but because it is the basis of morality.

Both creationism and Darwinism require faith. To accept that G‑d created man and woman requires faith. To accept that a single-celled organism spontaneously mutated billions of times to form the human being also requires faith. But only one of these beliefs demands that we live a moral life. That’s the one I want my children to be taught.

From Chabad.org

Leave a Response »

 

Be Ye Rememberers of God Friday, Oct 23 2009

The struggle to attain to the impossibly lofty heights of the One and Only is a struggle shared by peoples of all faiths or none, willingly or not. The Jewish Orthodox Rabbi, Pinchas Lapide, in speaking of the human propensity to divide the indivisible says this:

“…our tiny human brain cannot comprehend this All-Unity and therefore it divides it into two or three. That is not only Christian; it is also true for certain circles within Judaism, which go as far as ten. The Cabalists have a ten-level theology. That strikes normal Jews such as myself as illogical, and precisely therefore, perhaps, it also belongs in the faith world of Israel.”

The Christian concept of “The Word” as equal to and indivisibly God is rooted in the tradition handed down to Abraham by the three angels, near the great trees at Mamre.

While Mamre is a defining place in monotheism it is not a titular Name of God. Indeed it is “mis”-spelt in “Memra” (“M-m-r”) there being no vowels in Aramaic. Nonetheless this serves as a reminder that formidable linguistic barriers stand between man and even the concept of a most high and holy God.

The Christian understanding of “The Shekinah” too, is equally and indivisibly the God of Hebrew Tradition. Thus when John the Apostle speaks of a Light that shone in the darkness and the Word that was with God from the beginning, he was addressing both Hebrew and Aramaic traditions.

The Book of John does not speak of some nebulous light of a eureka moment. It’s author was intimately attuned to the testimony of the living, indivisible and Thrice Holy God who confronts mankind in the silence of the year zero and whose glory fills the whole universe, as much as the Temple in Jerusalem:

“In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord seated on a throne, high and exalted, and the train of His robe filled the Temple. Above him were Seraphim, each with six wings: With two wings they covered their faces, with two they covered their feet, and with two they were flying. And they were calling to one another:

‘Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord Almighty; the whole earth is full of His glory’

And at the sound of their voices the doorposts and thresholds shook and the Temple was filled with smoke”.

Isaiah 6:1-4

You see why confusion reigns. Here is a world that is willing to believe in fairy tales and Santa Claus, but less in justice and righteousness.

Leave a Response »

 

The two olive branches Wednesday, Oct 21 2009

The Roman Catholic Church has come under fire again, in the UK’s The Times.

Dr Williams was notified formally only last weekend by the Vatican and looked uncomfortable at a joint press conference with the Archbishop of Westminster, the Most Rev Vincent Nichols, to announce the plan. Anglicans privately accused Rome of poaching and attacked Dr Williams for capitulating to the Vatican. Some called for his resignation. Although there was little he could have done to forestall the move, many were dismayed at his joint statement with the Archbishop of Westminster in which they spoke of Anglicans “willing to declare that they share a common Catholic faith and accept the Petrine ministry as willed by Christ for his Church”.

Apparently, the Archbishop of Canterbury was unaware of the RCC “scheme” to incorporate what Catholics see as errant Anglicans, into the (Catholic) faith.

While unity is good, it is crucial that we understand that it can only take place through the working of God’s Holy Spirit. The incessant babbling of spirits that roam the earth  here, here, here and even here; are nothing but distractions that serve to confuse.

It is advisable therefore, that Anglicans inform themselves fully on the practical consequences of theological union with Rome and of course, on the spiritual foundations of the “Petrine ministry” so perfectly encapsulated in the eschatological dynamic of Ezekiel 37- the basis of the ministry of Jesus and the Apostles.

“Lo my people, I am going to open your graves and bring you up from them; I will bring you back to the land of Israel. Then you, my people, will know that I am the Lord, when I open your graves and bring you up from them”.

Ezekiel 37:11-14

How clear is that?

‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: I am going to take the stick of Joseph—which is in Ephraim’s hand—and of the Israelite tribes associated with him, and join it to Judah’s stick, making them a single stick of wood, and they will become one in my hand.’

Ezekiel 37:19

Unity is fleshed out in the “how” of the hand of God; and in the “who” that is Joseph and Judah. This is real and lasting communion. To think and act otherwise is to be unwise and to invoke God’s jealous anger.

Patience and wisdom is called for.

Leave a Response »

 

Hunting Children in Sudan Tuesday, Oct 20 2009

Ed Robbins’ TIME reportage on the so-called Lord’s Resistance Army in Western Equatoria  state in Christian South Sudan.

This is a perfect example of how God’s command word in the Decalogue can be misheard and turned on it’s head.

“God did not just overcome evil at the cross. He made evil serve the overcoming of evil. He made evil commit suicide in doing its worst evil”.

John Piper

As we have seen, Africa needs more than a regional treaty to end civicide (and indeed genocide). I only need look at what is happening to citizens (or potential citizens) in the West to know this.

more about “Hunting Children in Sudan“, posted with vodpod

Leave a Response »

 

Amazon recommends Friday, Oct 9 2009

Leave a Response »

 

Politics and hope at the horn of Africa Monday, Oct 5 2009

In December 2007, the government of Eritrea issued an ultimatum to the Orthodox church in Eritrea, demanding that all offerings and tithes be deposited directly into a government account from where salaries of priests would be paid. The government also placed limits on the number of priests that would be allowed to serve in each parish throughout the country.

The Pentecostal church in Eritrea meanwhile, has refused to allow herself to be placed under such control and remains an illegal entity as far as the government is concerned. Pentecostal Christians are forced to either renounce their faith (by signing recantation papers) or risk imprisonment, torture and conscription where they are forced to fight in the border war with Ethiopia.

Compass Direct estimate that more than 2,800 Christians remain imprisoned for their faith in Eritrea.

While there is more religious freedom in Ethiopia, repression has taken on more subtle forms as evidenced by a recent Ethiopian court ruling.

“There is an open conspiracy between judges, police and prison officers,” (one) church leader said. “Police speeded up the investigation and brought it to the district prosecutor’s attention within a day. Witnesses were organized to falsely testify at court. The judges passed the sentence refusing the right to defense.”

The full report from Compass Direct is available here.

Leave a Response »