Tag Archives: Jews

Conversionary Protestantism and Democracy: Overview

09 Wednesday Sep 2015

Posted by in Church/State, Consequences

≈ 16 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

CPsThis is based on a paper by Robert D. Woodberry of the National University of Singapore. It is available here. What I say here will seem quite abrupt to some. That is a function of reducing about thirty pages to a few blog posts. I have also removed all notes, footnotes, and references, and while I have quoted the author extensively, mostly I have restated his conclusions in my words.

He writes about five contexts: Context 1: Western Europe; Context 2: European Settler-based colonies; Context 3 and 4: Eastern Europe; and Context 5: Everywhere else. I have chosen to write about mainly Contexts 1, 2, and some on 5. All are interesting, but I think these more so.

He also has divided his theory into historical and statistical parts. While I’ve read through the statistical part of the study several times and closely, and it makes sense to me. I am not all that good with statistics, if anyone else is, I’d be interested in your conclusions. I’ve pretty much limited myself to the historical section of his study, which is more in my field of competence. All quotes are from the paper. You will, of course, find the link to the full paper, including references, footnotes, and far from least, the statistical work that supports this historical narrative.

Also, Greg Scandlen at ‘The Federalist’ wrote on this as well, his very superficial (although accurate) overview is here.

Religious actors played a huge role in post-Enlightenment modernization–although secular social scientists almost unanimously deny it. How do we know this? Partly because history tells us so, and partly because the historical study of statistical variables tell us so, and partly because we have eyes to see, and some measure of common sense. The author says this:

I argue that Western modernity, in its current form, is profoundly shaped by religious factors, and although many aspects of this “modernity” have been replicated in countries around the world, religion shaped what spread, where it spread, how it spread, and how it adapted to new contexts

In particular, conversionary Protestants (CPs) were a crucial catalyst initiating the development and spread of religious liberty, mass education, mass printing, newspapers, voluntary organizations, most major colonial reforms, and the codification of legal protections for nonwhites in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. These innovations fostered conditions that made stable representative democracy more likely—regardless of whether many people converted to Protestantism. Moreover, religious beliefs motivated most of these transformations. In this blunt form, without evidence or nuance, these claims may sound overstated and offensive. Yet the historical and statistical evidence of CPs’ influence is strong, and the cost of ignoring CPs in our models is demonstrably high. […]

For example, stable democracy first emerged in Protestant Europe and British-settler colonies, and by World War I every independent, predominantly Protestant country was a stable democracy—with the possible exception of Germany. Less stable versions of democracy developed in Catholic areas with large Protestant and Jansenist minorities, such as France. However, democracy lagged in Catholic and Orthodox parts of Southern and Eastern Europe where Protestants had little influence. A similar pattern existed outside Europe.

In European settler based colonies, Protestant based ones (United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand) are far more democratic than the otherwise similar, but Catholic based ones such as Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, and Costa Rica. You will note that this also weakens the theory that secularization tends to promote democracy, as the author says, the United States is far more religious than Uruguay. It is also worth noting that one set are all former British colonies and the other all-former Spanish colonies. What that seems to tell us is that, whichever colonial regime we choose (and these were the main two on offer) they seemed to export quite well.

I start with Western Europe and North America because that is where representative democracy was first developed. In this, I follow the author, and for the same reason. This is the baseline, if we can’t find links here, they are unlikely. If we can, and then we also find them in the other contexts we make our case stronger, possibly much stronger.

I too think the classical origin of democracy may well be overemphasized. Sure, Athenian, Enlightenment, and Deist roots exist, and were known, and important, but much of this is also paralleled by earlier specifically religious terms, especially arguments for political pluralism, electoral reform, and limitations of state power.

For example, Calvinists tried to reconstruct states along “godly” lines and limit sinful human institutions. Perhaps as a result, most Enlightenment democratic theorists came from Calvinist families or had a Calvinist education, even if they were either not theologically orthodox or personally religious (e.g., John Locke, Rousseau, Hugo Grotius, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Patrick Henry, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton), and they secularized ideas previously articulated by Calvinist theologians and jurists. For example, Hobbes’ and Locke’s social contracts are secular versions of Puritan and Nonconformist covenants, and Locke’s ideas about the equality of all people are explicitly religious.

I would add that the perhaps most famous definition of representational democracy, Abraham Lincoln’s “of the people, by the people, for the people” was not original but an almost direct quote of John Wycliffe. Whose influence echoes down to us through not only his Bible, which strongly influenced Tyndale’s, but he also influenced Martin Luther, Jan Huss, and I think, John Calvin as well. Here is perhaps the first expression of what would be the major strains of the Reformation.

Moreover, the religious context influenced whether Enlightenment-linked revolutions gave birth to stable democracy. The Protestant English and Scottish Enlightenments were not anti-Christian, and where they spread, democracy flourished. The “Catholic” French Enlightenment was virulently anti-Christian (particularly anti-Catholic), and where it spread, stable democracy did not. The French Revolution devolved into violence and inspired both totalitarianism and democracy. Similarly, anticlerical Enlightenment governments formed in virtually every independent Catholic country in Europe and Latin America, but did not lead to stable democracy. […]

For example, even in nineteenth-century Great Britain, expansions of suffrage and reforms of the electoral system were directly tied to pressure by Evangelical Anglicans and Nonconformists—in this case, including nonstate Catholics.

Ideas are powerful things, but if those who hold them are crushed and killed, they don’t become the conventional wisdom. So, if power wasn’t dispersed enough, or secular and religious forces came to blows too much, democracy often did not last. In the next sections, we’ll look at how CPs fostered greater separation of church and state, helped to disperse power and, create the conditions which helped form stable democracies.

Next: PRINTING, NEWSPAPERS, AND THE PUBLIC SPHERE

Source: The Missionary Roots of Liberal Democracy

To Gethsemane

02 Thursday Apr 2015

Posted by in Easter, Faith

≈ 13 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

jesus-in-gethsemaneThere they had been, camping out as they usually did. We don’t get much of a sense of the daily life of Jesus as He and His disciples tramped the roads of Judea, but the Gospel narratives give us some insight. They settled down for the night in Gethsemane. They’d had a good evening, and only one person at that supper knew why Judas had left early. We get a sense of companionship, and we can grasp something of the feeling of love which Jesus inspired in those close to Him. They were calm and rested, so much so that when Jesus asked them to watch with Him, they fell asleep. Like us all, they had no idea that the their world was about to be torn apart – and that the world and history would be changed forever.

How small a series of events came together that evening as they camped in Gethsemane. The Jewish High Priest had had enough. The events of what we call Palm Sunday had warned him that the ever volatile population of Jerusalem might be roused to rebellion – and he knew what the consequences of that would be. Within a generation of the crucifixion Caiaphas’ fears had come to pass, and in AD 70 the Temple would be destroyed and thousands of Jews killed or dispersed; it is easy to dismiss Caiaphas, but he was, by his lights, doing his duty. How often do men of power think it better than one man should die than thousands suffer?

Judas had clearly had enough. Though the Synoptic Gospels tell us he betrayed Jesus for silver, John gives us the clue that it was Mary’s use of expensive oil to anoint Jesus’ feet which pushed him over the edge. It might, of course, be, as John said, that he had been dipping into the till and helping himself to money, but his taking offence was clear enough evidence of what type of man he was.  He was a zealot, a puritan – how dare Jesus allow people to waste oil which could have been spent to help the poor. He, Judas, knew what was right, and he had lost patience with Jesus.

Simon Peter was headstrong, and didn’t always get it right. After supper, when Jesus had said He was going to wash the feet of the disciples, Peter protested and said He wouldn’t allow it. But when Jesus told him that if he didn’t, he couldn’t be with Him, Peter didn’t ask for an explanation, he told Jesus he wanted to be washed all over.

Caiaphas and Judas reasoned their way through to a conclusion based on their own insights, and they saw, as we all do, only so far. Peter also reasoned his way to what seemed to him a sensible conclusion, but the love he felt for Jesus opened his heart and he saw further than he had with his intellect. Jesus warned him that he had been handed over to Satan to be ‘sifted’. Peter declared he never would deny Jesus – but Christ knew what was coming.

As the disciples slept and the Romans and the Jewish guard came closer, the silence of that dark night was broken only by the anguish of Jesus. His time had come.

[First published on nebraskaenergyobserver on 29 March 2013]

God is Reason: Part Two

19 Thursday Feb 2015

Posted by in Catholic Tradition, Church/State, Faith

≈ 5 Comments

Tags

, , ,

156923754If you recall, in part one , here, we outlined how The early church’s inner approachment between biblical faith and greek philosophy, and how that shaped both the Church and Europe as well. in this part Benedict will guide us on a tour of how in the modern era these have become sundered and why that may be one of the causes of our current malaise. To continue, here is Benedict:

In all honesty, one must observe that in the late Middle Ages we find trends in theology which would sunder this synthesis between the Greek spirit and the Christian spirit. In contrast with the so-called intellectualism of Augustine and Thomas, there arose with Duns Scotus a voluntarism which, in its later developments, led to the claim that we can only know God’s voluntas ordinata. Beyond this is the realm of God’s freedom, in virtue of which he could have done the opposite of everything he has actually done. This gives rise to positions which clearly approach those of Ibn Hazm and might even lead to the image of a capricious God, who is not even bound to truth and goodness. […] As opposed to this, the faith of the Church has always insisted that between God and us, between his eternal Creator Spirit and our created reason there exists a real analogy, in which – as the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 stated – unlikeness remains infinitely greater than likeness, yet not to the point of abolishing analogy and its language. God does not become more divine when we push him away from us in a sheer, impenetrable voluntarism; rather, the truly divine God is the God who has revealed himself as logos and, as logos, has acted and continues to act lovingly on our behalf. Certainly, love, as Saint Paul says, “transcends” knowledge and is thereby capable of perceiving more than thought alone (cf.Eph 3:19); nonetheless it continues to be love of the God who is Logos. Consequently, Christian worship is, again to quote Paul – “λογικη λατρεία”, worship in harmony with the eternal Word and with our reason (cf. Rom12:1). […]

Dehellenization first emerges in connection with the postulates of the Reformation in the sixteenth century. Looking at the tradition of scholastic theology, the Reformers thought they were confronted with a faith system totally conditioned by philosophy, that is to say an articulation of the faith based on an alien system of thought. As a result, faith no longer appeared as a living historical Word but as one element of an overarching philosophical system. The principle of sola scriptura, on the other hand, sought faith in its pure, primordial form, as originally found in the biblical Word. Metaphysics appeared as a premise derived from another source, from which faith had to be liberated in order to become once more fully itself. When Kant stated that he needed to set thinking aside in order to make room for faith, he carried this programme forward with a radicalism that the Reformers could never have foreseen. He thus anchored faith exclusively in practical reason, denying it access to reality as a whole.

That’s important, isn’t it. I’m a Lutheran as most of you know, and in truth Luther (and Cranmer) didn’t really stray far from the old beliefs here but, they did provide a wedge which the radical reformatioists used to sunder what they considered the Scriptures said from the Greek (and Roman later) philosophy that has fertilized Christianity since the time of Paul, at least. Part of the reason for this may well have been that the Church in those time was not overly friendly to scientific inquiry, as it historically had been. This is the period when we see the center of gravity of modernity moving to Northern Europe, especially England, as a counterweight to Rome.

The liberal theology of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries ushered in a second stage in the process of dehellenization, with Adolf von Harnack as its outstanding representative. When I was a student, and in the early years of my teaching, this programme was highly influential in Catholic theology too. It took as its point of departure Pascal’s distinction between the God of the philosophers and the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. In my inaugural lecture at Bonn in 1959, I tried to address the issue,[12] and I do not intend to repeat here what I said on that occasion, but I would like to describe at least briefly what was new about this second stage of dehellenization. Harnack’s central idea was to return simply to the man Jesus and to his simple message, underneath the accretions of theology and indeed of hellenization: this simple message was seen as the culmination of the religious development of humanity. Jesus was said to have put an end to worship in favour of morality. In the end he was presented as the father of a humanitarian moral message. Fundamentally, Harnack’s goal was to bring Christianity back into harmony with modern reason, liberating it, that is to say, from seemingly philosophical and theological elements, such as faith in Christ’s divinity and the triune God. In this sense, historical-critical exegesis of the New Testament, as he saw it, restored to theology its place within the university:[…]

Sounds pretty familiar, doesn’t it? I remember Jess saying that the reason she didn’t study theology more at University was that it hurt her faith, instead of strengthening it. I think most of us can relate to that.

This gives rise to two principles which are crucial for the issue we have raised. First, only the kind of certainty resulting from the interplay of mathematical and empirical elements can be considered scientific. Anything that would claim to be science must be measured against this criterion. Hence the human sciences, such as history, psychology, sociology and philosophy, attempt to conform themselves to this canon of scientificity. A second point, which is important for our reflections, is that by its very nature this method excludes the question of God, making it appear an unscientific or pre-scientific question. Consequently, we are faced with a reduction of the radius of science and reason, one which needs to be questioned.

I will return to this problem later. In the meantime, it must be observed that from this standpoint any attempt to maintain theology’s claim to be “scientific” would end up reducing Christianity to a mere fragment of its former self. But we must say more: if science as a whole is this and this alone, then it is man himself who ends up being reduced, for the specifically human questions about our origin and destiny, the questions raised by religion and ethics, then have no place within the purview of collective reason as defined by “science”, so understood, and must thus be relegated to the realm of the subjective. The subject then decides, on the basis of his experiences, what he considers tenable in matters of religion, and the subjective “conscience” becomes the sole arbiter of what is ethical. In this way, though, ethics and religion lose their power to create a community and become a completely personal matter. This is a dangerous state of affairs for humanity, as we see from the disturbing pathologies of religion and reason which necessarily erupt when reason is so reduced that questions of religion and ethics no longer concern it. Attempts to construct an ethic from the rules of evolution or from psychology and sociology, end up being simply inadequate.

I have absolutely nothing to add to this, except that I completely agree.

Again all quotes are from Faith, Reason and the University Memories and Reflections, and note that we will continue soon.

THE TWO GREATEST COMMANDMENTS

18 Saturday Oct 2014

Posted by in Homilies, Lutheranism

≈ 8 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , ,

This is about fifth of the sermon, if there is interest, I’ll post more of it. My comments are in italics

looking-at-the-path-of-a-christian_tSermon for the Eighteenth Sunday after Trinity; Matthew 22:34-46

From a Sermon by Martin Luther; taken from his Church Postil.

1. This Gospel consists of two questions. In the first the lawyer on behalf of the other Pharisees asks Christ: Which is the great commandment in the law? In the second the Lord asks the Pharisees and the lawyer: Whose son is David? These two questions concern every Christian; for he who wishes to be a Christian must thoroughly understand them. First, what the law is, and the purpose it serves; and secondly, who Christ is, and what we may expect from him.

2. Christ explains here to the Pharisees the law, telling them what the sum of the whole law is, so that they are completely silenced both at his speech and his question, and know less than nothing of what the law is and who Christ is. From this it follows, that although unbelief may appear as wisdom and holiness before the world, it is nevertheless folly and unrighteousness before God, especially where the knowledge of the two questions mentioned above is wanting. For he who does not know how he stands before the law, and what he may expect from Christ, surely has not the wisdom of God, no matter how wise and prudent he may pretend to be. Let us therefore consider the first question, namely: What the law is; what it commands and how it is to be spiritually interpreted.

3. When the lawyer asked Christ, which was the great commandment in the law, the Lord said to him: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second like unto it is this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments the whole law hangeth, and the prophets.”

4. As if the Lord would say: He who possesses love to God, and love to his neighbour, has all things, and therefore fulfils the law; for the whole law and all the prophets point to these two themes, namely: how God and our neighbour are to be loved.

5. Now one may wish to ask: How can you harmonize this statement, that all things are to be comprehended in these two commandments, since there was given to the Jews circumcision and many other commandments? To answer this, let us see in the first place how Christ explains the law, namely, that it must be kept with the heart. In other words, the law must be spiritually comprehended; for he who does not lay hold of the law with the heart and with the Spirit, will certainly not fulfil it. Therefore the Lord here gives to the lawyer the ground and real substance of the law, and says that these are the greatest commandments, to love God with the heart and our neighbour as ourselves. From this it follows that he, who is not circumcised, who does not fast nor pray, is not doing it from the heart; even though he may perform external acts, he nevertheless does nothing before God, for God looketh on the heart, and not on our acts, I Sam. 16, 7. It will not profit a man at all, no matter what work he may perform, if his heart is not in it.

6. From this arises another question: Since works are of no profit to a man, why then did God give so many commandments to the Jews? To this I answer, these commandments were given to the end that we might become conscious whether we really love God with all our heart, and with all our soul, and with all our strength, and in addition our neighbour as ourselves; for St. Paul says in Rom. 7, 7 (3, 20), that the law is nothing but a consciousness and a revelation of sin. What would I know of sin, if there were no law to reveal it to me? Here now is the law that saith: Thou shalt love God with thy heart, and thy neighbour as thyself. This we fulfil if we do all that the law requires; but we are not doing it. Hence he shows us where we are lacking, and that, while we ought really to do something, we are doing nothing.

7. That the Jews had to practice circumcision was indeed a foolish ceremony, yea, a command offensive to reason, even though it were given by God still today. What service was it to God, to burden his people with this grievous commandment? What good was it to him, or what service to a neighbour? Yea, and it did not profit the Jew, who was circumcised. Why then did God give the command? In order that this commandment and law might show them whether they really loved God with all their heart, with all their soul, and with all their mind, and whether they did it willingly or not. For if there were a devout heart, it would say: I verily do not know why God gave me circumcision, inasmuch as it does not profit any one, neither God, nor me, nor my neighbour; but since it is well pleasing to God, I will nevertheless do it, even though it be considered a trifling and despised act. Hence, circumcision was an exercise of the commandment, Thou shalt love God with all thy heart.

I want to break down the Great Commandment a bit because something has struck me recently.

“Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.” strikes me as straightforward, love God as the One God, with everything you’ve got. Although, as always, we’d be well advised not to make God in our image, and that is easy enough to do. I suspect most of us are guilty of it from time to time.

The problems for us as Christians comes in this part, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself“.

If you love mostly yourself, it’s pretty obvious you’re going to be a selfish son of a gun, and not fit company for man or woman (or even animal). We see this all the time don’t we? Both of these are often considered as the sin of pride.

But we are also commanded to love ourselves as our neighbor. this is a bit murky but, what I see here is that it is wrong to negate ourselves greatly,as well. I wonder if this is the origin of collectivism, the theory that the individual doesn’t matter, only the group.

Food for thought, at any rate.

Israel, America, and Europe

20 Wednesday Aug 2014

Posted by in Church/State, Commentaries, Politics

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , ,

iStock 20492165 MD - American and Israeli flagsLike many Americans, I am an unabashed and vocal supporter of Israel.

Also like many Americans, I tend to equate support for the Palestinians with not only anti-Zionism but also with Anti Semitism. Is this fair? I doubt it but, it’s the common feeling in America.

The friendship here for Israel, is very much like the friendship for Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. We know we have a lot of allies, who will be with us, when it is in their interest. We feel much the same about them, we will support them in cases where we have given our word.

But those five countries above, they are more than allies, they are our friends, our buddies, that we will willingly run into a burning building for, and we suspect (with cause) that they will for us as well.

Whatever faults Blair had as Prime Minister, we pretty much fell in love with him after 9-11, with his steadfast support. There are those, and I’m occasionally one of them that refer to him as Uncle Tony.

We feel that way about Israel as well. We take pride in their successes and grieve in their losses. Note that this isn’t always, or even usually, a government to government thing, any more than it is with Britain, it’s a deep and abiding liking, and love for the people.

When the terrorists refer to Israel as ‘Little Satan’, we over here in ‘Great Satan’ take pride in it. That’s just how we see it. We know our friends, like us, make mistakes, and hope they don’t make many, but hey, they’re our buds, you know, we take care of each other.

And that’s one of the reasons, you get such a reaction from us when you have anti-Israel or pro Palestinian demonstrations, and especially when they take on an anti-Semitic tone.

But we judge through American eyes, and so maybe we’re unfair, because Europe is quite unlike us. Jonathon Bronitsky recently wrote in The Daily Caller about this. It’s a good article that you should read.

There are certainly people in Europe, particularly within the continent’s Muslim communities, who despise Jews and wish them harm, and they frequently display their noxious beliefs while pounding the pavement. But the intellectual and motivating facet of the pro-Palestinian, anti-Zionist, and BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) movements, at least as I witnessed it firsthand, was predominantly white, left-wing, and educated. The majority of Europeans who disparage Israel do so, not because they dislike Jews, but because Israel embodies and exudes principles they unequivocally reject as “enlightened” social-democratic multiculturalists: spirituality, individualism, and patriotism. If the character of Israel was not insulting enough, Europeans have becoming gradually aware that the European Union, their ambitious attempt to transcend the aforementioned principles, has resulted in their continent’s demise whereas the Jewish state’s embrace of them has yielded prosperity.

Elites, by virtue of their elevated positions, chiefly shape the conversation about Israel, in addition to other lofty matters, in Europe. By “elites,” I am referring to the self-proclaimed highbrows who have slogged away at, or will go on to slog away at, institutions like Chatham House, the United Nations, the BBC, and the European Parliament and have blathered at, or will go on to blather at, universities like Oxford, Cambridge, Erasmus, and École Normale Supérieure. As a postgraduate at the University of Cambridge, I had the opportunity to interact with — or, rather, was unable to escape from — throngs of them. Very few, if any of these elites, that is except for the occasional self-hating Jewish professor or student, were anti-Semitic. That being said, I was in England in 2012 during Operation “Pillar of Defense,” which involved the killing of Ahmed Jabari, chief of Hamas’ military wing, whenever the conversation turned to the Middle East, a torrent of vitriol was unleashed against Israeli society.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/08/19/europes-projection-problem/#ixzz3AwTaZjD6

And here’s the rub with that, those characteristics that the European elites so detest in Israel, are exactly the ones that we most admire, and not only in Israelis, they are also our core values. Which is why you’ve seen America bifurcate in the last half-dozen years. Your elites love Obama because he is one of them. Many of us detest him because of the same thing.

You see we, as Americans, rejected European elites long ago, that’s one of the main reasons that our ancestors came to America. After their horrible experience seventy years ago, so did Israel. We really are sisters, and we are the European elites worst nightmare. A pair of countries that are successful simply because we rejected them.

And yes, there is a warning to Britain in this. If you continue to follow your elites and drift more and more into Europe’s sway, inevitably you will begin to lose the friendship of the American people. We’ve been friends and allies now for an entire century, and we cooperated long before that but, we do not deviate from our core values, they are more important to who we are, than any friend is.

And so, at some point, you will have to choose between life with America and Israel, and death with Europe. It’s your choice.

Not leading but drowning

13 Sunday Apr 2014

Posted by in Church/State, Lent

≈ 7 Comments

Tags

, , , , , ,

pilate 2

Neo has written about leadership; in the story of the Passion of the Lord we have two examples: one is Jesus Himself; the other Pilate. If Jesus offers us a leader who is wiling to pay the ultimate price to do what is right, Pilate offers us something we see only too much of in our own world, a political leader with the instincts of the Duke of Plaza Toro – I am their leader, I must follow them.

Pontius Pilate was the prefect of Judea. This was not a first-class governorship. Judea was on the very edge of the Empire, and not the sort of posting given to those on the way up. Pilate, like most governors in such jobs had two priorities: to keep things quiet and make money for himself.  The Romans were pragmatists. Gods? They had hundreds of them. So it was irritating that those Jews insisted there was only one of them. What was worse is they wouldn’t bend the knee to the gods of Rome. Live and let live was Pilate’s motto. He went to Judea in about AD 26, and had been there a few years when the Jews brought Jesus to him. He couldn’t see much wrong in the fellow, and he tried to find a way of avoiding blatant injustice. He was quite willing to have him flogged, but crucifying him – that was another matter.

Napoleon once said you could do anything with a bayonet – except sit on it. Imperial rule was not easy. Repression cost money, and everyday life went on because the Jewish authorities usually collaborated in making things easy for him; so his feelings about the innocence or guilt of Jesus, took second place to pragmatism. The Jewish authorities wanted Jesus crucified. Pilate didn’t want any trouble, and you can almost hear him: “Come on, give us a bit of wriggle room here, the man’s basically harmless, how about you cut me a bit of slack.” But they wouldn’t.  On the one side the pragmatic politician looking for a way through; on the other men who knew what they wanted and would stick at nothing to get it. If you didn’t know, you’d be able to tell who was going to get their way, and you’d not put money on the first man.

Enter Mrs Pilate, telling him that she’s had a dream and that he should let the man be. That was all he needed, the little lady putting her oar in. Didn’t she realise he had enough trouble with those stiff-necked Jews?  Clearly not. Well, only one thing to do, wash his hands of it and let it be. And it all went off well in the end. There weren’t any riots, and although there were the strangest stories that the man had not died, it caused Pilate no problems for a bit. Politics is the art of the possible. You can see him afterward with Mrs P: “Come on my dear, what else could I have done? What do you want? I did my best. Now what’s for supper, not more larks’ tongues?”

How little either of them could have realised that nearly two thousand years later more than a billion people would repeat the name of Pilate every Sunday. It is said that Alexander the Great wanted his name to live forever. Pilate had no such ambition, and yet, ironically, where it was the great daring and ambition of Alexander which ensured that his wish would be granted, it was Pilate’s lack of these things which has made his name live for ever.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Salvation is from the Jews

25 Tuesday Mar 2014

Posted by in Faith, Pope

≈ 73 Comments

Tags

, , , ,

Francis and Jews

Our friend quiaviderunt has something against Pope Francis because he has said that the Jews can be saved, and because he has been at a Jewish religious service; he tells us, as though it were something to be proud of, that no real Pope would do such things. I know that Chalcedon has written here on the early history of so-called Christian anti-Semitism, showing how complex it was, and how much it was bound up with the rivalry between the Christians and the Jews in places such as Alexandria, and I accept that. But once we reach Western Europe in the Middle Ages, the Jews were no such danger, and yet the Christians, by now in a position of great power, treated them abominably; nor is this stain Catholic alone, Luther had some pretty terrible views, and anyone who thinks that the teachings of the Churches about the Jews had no effect on twentieth century anti-Semitism reveals their ignorance.

The idea that John Paul II somehow betrayed Catholic tradition is an odd one, if that tradition was to hate Jews, then he did, as he did not hate them. It is revealing that just as the extremists in the Catholic Church criticise John Paul, so do extremist Jewish groups which see him as simply providing a more palatable way of repeating the old allegation of deicide. What John Paul did was to continue what Vatican II did, which was to cleanse the Augean stable.

There is a type of Catholic, just as there is a type of Baptist, who will scream loudly that his church has done nothing wrong; with such ignoramuses even education is unlikely to prevail; suffice it to say here that the Catholic Church itself has apologised for the attitudes some of its members have held towards the Jews, and in Nostra Aetate it did a very brave and necessary thing by clarifying once and for all the relationship which should subsist between the two Abrahamic faiths. The language, as ever with Vatican documents, is carefully chosen and it does not say that the Jews are saved. It does say that:

The Church … cannot forget that she received the revelation of the Old Testament through the people with whom God in His inexpressible mercy concluded the Ancient Covenant. Nor can she forget that she draws sustenance from the root of that well-cultivated olive tree onto which have been grafted the wild shoots, the Gentiles.(7) Indeed, the Church believes that by His cross Christ, Our Peace, reconciled Jews and Gentiles. making both one in Himself.(8)

We are told that ‘God holds the Jews most dear for the sake of their Fathers; He does not repent of the gifts He makes or of the calls He issues-such is the witness of the Apostle.’ It is unequivocal on one important issue:

Furthermore, in her rejection of every persecution against any man, the Church, mindful of the patrimony she shares with the Jews and moved not by political reasons but by the Gospel’s spiritual love, decries hatred, persecutions, displays of anti-Semitism, directed against Jews at any time and by anyone.

Ah, but I will be told, the Jews (which Jews we are never told) are against Christ and Christians. So what? Where does Jesus say that those who hate us we must hate back? I sometimes wonder where some of these extremist Catholics get their views on conduct from; not Jesus.

Of course, the extremists will say that Francis is no Pope and Vatican II no Council – well they are very welcome to stay with their vile views on Jews and at least the barmy bishop Williamson is honest when he admits he denies the holocaust; he may be the one honest man among them. Personally, I have no idea who will be saved, but know we are told that salvation comes only by Jesus. So if Francis believes otherwise, I believe he is wrong, but unless he was speaking ex cathedra that view is a personal one, and in that capacity he is not infallible.

But I prefer Francis’ attitude to the mean-minded medievalism of those who criticise him. But then I know a lot of Jews, and I doubt the critics get out much beyond their computer screen.