My children are politically interested but not woke and one of them, in particular, is quite cynical. This morning, over breakfast, he asked me how I would spin the Easter story if I were a Neocon. I was actually surprised by this question as I'd never thought about this approach before. Never mind, the local "conservative" paper, in the form of an editorial on the meaning of Easter came up with the goods. It included this bit which I thought hit the mark perfectly:
Faith is no short-term proposition, as Scott Morrison acknowledged in his Passover message to Australia’s Jewish community last week. “From ancient times to the present day, Jewish people have been blessed with a rich identity, a deep understanding of the past, and a fierce commitment to liberty,” the Prime Minister said. “That identity enriches the lives of those around them.” He quoted the late British rabbi Jonathan Sacks: “Freedom is the work of a nation, nations need identity, identity needs memory, and memory is encoded in the stories we tell.” On Sunday, Jewish families will mark the final day of Passover, which ends after nightfall. Passover and Easter have been inextricably linked from the night Christ gathered his disciples in Jerusalem to eat the Passover meal — his Last Supper. There, he instituted the Eucharist and the ministerial priesthood and showed a supreme model for fraternal service, washing his disciples’ feet. It was the night before his passion and crucifixion.
Now, I must admit that I thought that emphasising of the Jewish component of Easter sort of missed the mark, not because there isn't a historical link between the Passover and the Crucifixion but because the "tone" of the article tends to paint an equivalence between the two. This, I felt, is disingenuous in that the relationship between Judaism and Easter is not so much "linked" as in opposition. I don't think that I'm being unjust to Judaism in stating that their "take" on Christ is in total opposition to the Christian. Now it's quite true that there is a common historical origin of the two faiths--as there is with Islam as well--but the difference in the understanding of the role of Christ who is the central figure of the Christian faith, and his relationship to God, makes the idea of a Judeo-Christian "tradition" after the crucifixion ridiculous. Yes there is a tradition, but as I said before, it's a tradition of opposition. In fact, it would be closer to the mark that to say that there is a Judeo-Islamic "tradition" of denying the claims that Christ made of himself.
I can see the anti-Semitic radars firing up and I want to stress that this is not what I'm intending in this piece, rather I wish to point out that if you take Judaism and Christianity seriously you will see that the interpretations of the life of Christ are completely different. The concept of Judeo-Christianity dishonors both traditions. When I see the term used approvingly by an author it's usually a sure sign that they're not intellectually serious.
The other day I was reading of how St Thomas remarked that there were other ways--beside the crucifixion-- by which Christ could have saved men but that God chose the most "fitting". And while it's true that the lion's share of the work of salvation was done on Good Friday what better way to prove your divinity to mortal men than by rising yourself from the dead.
It's a hard act to beat.
9 comments:
Besides the political causes, it comes from Christians confusing the israelites of the Bible with modern Jews.
The Bible religion was focused on the Jerusalem Temple and died in 70 d.C. when the Temple was destroyed. Two religions arose as descendant of this Bible religion: Christianity (founded about 30 d. C upon the teachings of Jesus) and Judaism (founded during the second century d.C upon the teaching of the Pharisees).
Not only Jesus opposed the Pharisees and "the traditions of men" upon which Judaism was founded, but Judaism was founded as a completely anti-Christian religion, because it tried to defend itsef from Christian conversion.
While in the Qur'an, Jesus is the greatest prophet (even greater than Muhammad in some things), the Talmud depicts Jesus as the vilest human being has ever existed
Enjoyed the post. But man there is just something wrong with bringing up politics on Easter. Come to think of it, there is something wrong with me surfing blogs on Easter, so who am I to talk...
Eh, I like Athanasius' take better than Thomas' (On the Incarnation, ch 24):
"For perhaps a man might say even as follows: If it was necessary for His death to take place before all, and with witnesses, that the story of His Resurrection also might be believed, it would have been better at any rate for Him to have devised for Himself a glorious death, if only to escape the ignominy of the Cross. 2. But had He done even this, He would give ground for suspicion against Himself, that He was not powerful against every death, but only against the death devised for Him; and so again there would have been a pretext for disbelief about the Resurrection all the same. So death came to His body, not from Himself, but from hostile counsels, in order that whatever death they offered to the Saviour, this He might utterly do away. 3. And just as a noble wrestler, great in skill and courage, does not pick out his antagonists for himself, lest he should raise a suspicion of his being afraid of some of them, but puts it in the choice of the onlookers, and especially so if they happen to be his enemies, so that against whomsoever they match him, him he may throw, and be believed superior to them all; so also the Life of all, our Lord and Saviour, even Christ, did not devise a death for His own body, so as not to appear to be fearing some other death; but He accepted on the Cross, and endured, a death inflicted by others, and above all by His enemies, which they thought dreadful and ignominious and not to be faced; so that this also being destroyed, both He Himself might be believed to be the Life, and the power of death be brought utterly to nought."
@Chent
While in the Qur'an, Jesus is the greatest prophet (even greater than Muhammad in some things), the Talmud depicts Jesus as the vilest human being has ever existed
Islam may accord Christ more respect but both ultimately deny His divinity.
@MK
But man there is just something wrong with bringing up politics on Easter.
It wasn't meant to be political. It was meant to be an exercise in clear thinking.
@Scott
I don't think that Aquinas would have quibbled much with that comment.
Think of Matthew 5:17 "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil."
Since the time of Christ, even for hundreds of years before Christ, all Jewish commentary is men commenting on other men's commentary on what was revealed life times ago.
Judeo-Christian tradition is Jews contributing to Christian civilization in spite of disadvantages and persecution. Jews were spread across Eurasia but only in Europe was Jewish potential enabled to it's fullest but it was a Christian civilization.
Now Christianity certainly appears to be fading and perhaps Ben Gurion's vison of Jerusalem being the center of a World Court will come to pass but Christianity will be despised.
@mc23
but only in Europe was Jewish potential enabled to it's fullest but it was a Christian civilization.
That point is not emphasised enough.
Now Christianity certainly appears to be fading and perhaps Ben Gurion's vison of Jerusalem being the center of a World Court will come to pass but Christianity will be despised.
Christianity will be despised but it will win in the end. Though I think it won't be the type of Christianity espoused by the "churchianity" crowd.
@The Social Pathologist
It will win in the end. But according to the impression in the Book of Daniel the Church is a woman in distress that gets rescued by our Lord.
Not really a conquering army in the traditional sense:
Daniel 7:21-22
"21As I watched, this horn was waging war against the saints and prevailing against them, 22until the Ancient of Days arrived and pronounced judgment in favor of the saints of the Most High, and the time came for them to possess the kingdom"
Part of me is like "Come on" why does the Church has to be a princess in distress requiring rescue. Thoughts?
@mc23
"but only in Europe was Jewish potential enabled to it's fullest but it was a Christian civilization."
Its a clue as to the fact that Judaism isn't truly complete without Christ. Since its ultimately about Christ.
Without it Judaism cannot truly make complete sense.
Before the 1965 immigration act there were 4 main groups of Americans: (1) White Protestants, (2) White Catholics, (3) White Jews, (4) Blacks, who were considered an outsider underclass and subject to a racial caste system in the South (all other groups like Asians and Hispanics were about 5% of the population combined). The three white groups were all considered "accepted" American subgroups, though Jews and Catholics were subject to some minor discrimination. The term "Judeo-Christian" was a way of saying that Jews were an accepted group and a normal religion in US society, and not some weird foreign religion like Buddhism or Islam. Otherwise the term is pretty meaningless. I'm not sure how this developed in Australia relative to the US.
Post a Comment