Sunday, April 09, 2006
Holy Week – Monday
On the second day of holy week Jesus entered the temple to stage another protest. On this day his protest was aimed at the temple. I always misinterpreted this event to mean that Jesus was upset because too much business was being conducted within the temple, but I’ve come to see this protest was aimed at shutting down the temple and symbolically stopping the temple from running it’s day to day business. This was like picketing a business to try and slow down its stream of revenue in order to make a political point. Jesus knew very well that the leaders in the temple were being closely controlled by the Roman Governor and just like the Old Testament prophets Jesus protested the fact that the temple had become an institution of social injustice with their over bearing enforcement of the laws in the same way as the Egyptian Pharaoh and now the Roman Emperor had mistreated his people. He was not upset about the fact that things were being sold in the temple. He was upset that the Jewish leaders had sold out to the empire and were allowing his people to be mistreated. Jesus was familiar with the Old Testament prophets and just as on Sunday when he intentionally chose to ride a donkey to make reference to the OT prophecy, he again references the prophets (this time Jeremiah) when he calls the temple a “den of robbers”.
Maybe the best way to remember the Monday of Holy Week would be to protest the “temple mentality” that has become commonplace in our modern churches. Have our churches become corrupt partners with the empire focused on following laws or moral codes rather than loving our neighbors? Has Christianity in America sold its soul to the Republican Party and lost forever its heart of compassion? Have our churches become institutions of domination, control, and political manipulation?
I feel that Monday of Holy Week is about protesting the ways that our places of worship have fallen prey to the empire.
God forgive me for allowing my understanding of Jesus’ message to be controlled by the greed of the empire and the betrayal of the church. Help me to see past their lies and know Christ’s compassion.
7 comments:
Hey Mike,
Great posts for the week. Just a thought. I agree TOTALLY with the church buying into identifying with political parties, but it's not just the Republician side of the equation - it's all sides of the political equation. Jesus had the same "style" of parties facing Him in his day and protested them all - Herodians, Parisees, and Sadducees (liberals, conservatives, and moderates) - He refused to allow any of them to use Him. Nor did He promote their causes.
Your prayer is mine too.
Pete
Ran across this in NY Times and it brought this post to mind... thought you might want to read it.
Christ Among the Partisans
That's it Will. Excellent article.
Pete
As you can imagine, I completely disagree with the article. Limiting Jesus' mission to "personal issues" is limiting his message to trivial matters. I think that this "seperation of religion and politics" mentality is exactly what the empire wants you to think. The logic in that article is a result of 1700 years worth of relgion owned by the empire. Jesus was not picking a political candidate (what we think of as politics today), but we was definately making a protest against worldly unjust politics which is by nature a political move. The empire wants Christians to sit back rather than stand out against injustice but that is not following Jesus' example.
Jesus' statement about "render unto ceasar...." was another nice bit of sarcasm aimed to say that Ceasar can have what is his (meaning that nothing is really Ceasar's) and God can have what is his (meaning that EVERYTHING is really God's). The crowd understood this and that is why they loved what he said.
I didn't read the article to say that Jesus was only concerned with 'personal issues.' Quite the opposite... it says that Christians should assume the government's responsibility for justice (which it defines as a course of action that can be logically defended as good and fair) and to transform it through self-sacrifice. To supercede justice as policy with justice as everyday life.
To become people who, in the same way that we wouldn't watch a fire break out in our kitchen without grabbing the extinguisher and doing something to fight it, would not be able to walk past injustice without addressing it as a matter of reflex.
Like you said, that sort of reaction is hugely political--but it is political without allegiance to any party, ideology, or way of thinking. It is a political reaction that is a response to truth, I guess.
(On a side note: this is refreshing. I haven't thought or had discussions like this in a while... thanks!)
I have to agree with what the article says about neither party being right (I jumped the gun a little). But that opening paragraph was just plain wrong. Being a Christian IS political because it means adopting Jesus' upside-down politics of justice as well as his lifestyle of compassion (i.e. making Jesus our "Lord"). Seperating the 2 things is what helps the empire keep its hold on the world.
Keep in mind that politics today generally means supporting a candidate in an election. For Jesus and his family, politics had nothing to do with an election, instead it was a matter of life and death, feast or famine, freedom or oppression, poverty or extreme poverty. When I say "politics" I mean the battles over economic injustice, violence, war, and oppression.
Completely agree with you.
If politics doesn't equal action for justice, it's dead.
And no party has a lock on justice...
Post a Comment