#can you imagine going to israel expecting to be accepted for being jewish and then finding out you can't get married if you're reform | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

i-dreamed-i-had-a-son · 3 years

Text

We learned a lot about each of Jesus's followers from episode 3. A lot of what's been beautifully displayed/shown for us had a chance to be articulated and told to us here (in a natural way--great storytelling!). So let's break it down in a meta longer than what any of you asked for:

John - the themes explored in S2E1, which are very present in his gospel, are here again! He expresses awe at the fact that he--"a nobody"--is not only alive at the time of the Messiah, and not only sees Him, but travels with Him and is close with Him. That wonder at the personal, loving relationship we can have with God--that defines both John and his writings. But, we also see him give in to pride (setting up James to be better than the others, and his comment to "ask Matthew") and anger (accusing Simon, even if ostensibly in Matthew's defense, showed both anger and pride (a "you're no better than the rest of us!" mentality)).

Big James - we learn that he loves to study and has more theological/Torah knowledge than almost all of the group. He's a rule-follower, who loves the law and its structure (a foreshadowing of his eventual reluctance to accept Gentile converts who did not first convert to Judaism). More importantly, we see him acting as a moderating influence on the group. He comforts Mary when she expresses her insecurities about her past, and tries to get Simon to stop attacking Matthew. But, we also see how quickly he can become indignant and proud (telling Simon to sit down, instead of simply sitting down himself--"someone else must give in first, not me").

Simon - finally finally FINALLY we get to understand why exactly he's so mad and spiteful towards Matthew. He comes off as kind of a jerk half the time, but this moment (although heart-wrenching for Matthew's sake) helps to humanize Simon too. We get to see the roots of that protective, communal nature that will eventually make him such a good leader, and we see how deeply and passionately he cares for Israel. But we also see that he still struggles to accept those who are unlike him, and this will be a theme for the rest of his life, as he is called to minister to the Gentiles and told that all foods are clean. "Different" is something it takes Simon a long time to get used to. Additionally, his refusal to forgive Matthew is setting up his conversation with Jesus where he asks, "If my brother sins against me, how many times must I forgive him? Seven times?" (This was two-and-a-half times more than the required amount, so he probably thought he was going above and beyond.) I can just see Jesus knowing who Simon is thinking of and telling him, "No, you must forgive your brother seventy times seven times!"

Little James - we get to know a little about him! I just threw him on here since previously we haven't seen much of him and now we understand him a little more. We get to see him bond with Thomas, who's the first person we see really reach out to him, and we see his insecurity and his worry that Jesus will think less of him or change His mind about him. (What a relatable struggle!)

Thomas - what we learn about Thomas surprises us! We're told earlier that "being methodical is his thing" (S2E1), and he seems fairly shy at points, so we assume he must be like Matthew, or Philip. But he's not! He doesn't like the rules. He's somebody who questions things. (Shocker--he questions Jesus's resurrection too! Great set-up and character-building there.) He even says "I'd like to ask Him about that" (referencing Jesus losing His father, but showing that Thomas is someone who naturally asks and seeks). His innate drive to search out the truth is an asset, similar to Nathanael, but also similar is his hesitancy (and at times, flat refusal) to accept the truth because it seems hard to believe. It can also make him combative with those who have more faith, or more respect for the rules (there is some brief tension between him and Big James when discussing Torah, for example).

Mary - we learn that she is eager to learn the Scriptures, something that she as a woman was never allowed to do--and also that she feels she needs to relearn her Jewish-ness. She is ashamed of who she was before and felt that she turned her back on her true identity...sound similar to anyone?? It's no small wonder that she's sympathetic toward Matthew. Simon's outburst directly paralleled them (and Mary did not seem pleased that he used her past in that way). Mary feels that she has a lot to make up for, and has no expectations that Jesus will give her special honors or power--she is humble, and this is why she is more receptive to and understanding of His teaching, despite her lack of knowledge, than the other disciples are.

Ramah - she, too, is eager to learn; for her, this stems mostly from a feeling of never having been allowed to be anything but a dutiful daughter. Her worth was limited and defined by the men in her life. Now she is beginning to explore the possibilities of being defined by God instead, which is a distinctly counter-cultural move. This is why it's so important that she goes with Jesus despite her father's reluctance--she is showing she's willing to be someone other than who she's told to be. Instead, she'll be who she's called to be. But she is still insecure about her lack of knowledge and her inability to take initiative; she is more passive by nature, and even when recounting her imaginings of the Messiah, she doesn't imagine helping Him, just being rescued by Him. This sets her up as someone more able to be used by Him, as, like Mary, she has no delusions of grandeur, but she is still unsure of her role in the group.

Andrew - (this has been more "professional" so far but oh my gosh BABY boy I love him) we learn that he is considerate of others' needs and doesn't want to be a burden (through the "sorry" stories). He likes the rules and is comfortable in order, and things like apologies are meaningful to him because they show respect and consideration for the other person. This is why Andrew gets hung up on the fact that Matthew never apologized for his past and putting them in such a predicament--but John has a point when he stands up for Matthew. Although Andrew is doing it in a nicer way than Simon, both men are setting themselves up as someone who can forgive sin, ignoring the fact that Jesus has already forgiven Matthew (edit: what I mean by this is Simon is loudly excluding Matthew from the group because he's valuing his refusal to forgive over the grace Jesus extended Matthew. Andrew is nowhere near as extreme in this, and is justified in wanting an apology (naturally) but in jumping onto Simon's comments, he seems to indicate that he agrees with Simon's overall attitude--if you don't apologize, we won't accept you). It shows that despite his sensitive nature, Andrew is still proud, and feels that the respect he shows is also what he deserves. He will have to learn, throughout his time with Jesus, that the beauty of grace is that we don't get what we deserve. We are called to forgive those who persecute us, even if they don't ask for forgiveness.

And I'm sure I missed some (I can't even find the energy to cover Jesus's mother Mary, but I loved how they handled her as well) but even with just these we can see how the showrunners are taking such care to develop these characters in a way that their eventual interactions and growth in the later portions of the gospels make sense! They feel so genuinely real, and you can see in them the seeds of who they will become--seeds that Jesus had seen all along. Excellent, excellent work, and an even better witness to the transformative power of Christ!

#the chosen tv series #the chosen #it's so long that it took me like. a day and a half to finish this post #meta #my meta posts #quality meta seal of approval #not to hype my own post up i just put that on all meta posts so that i can find them #kay can i just catch my breath for a second #christianity #my christianity

73 notes · View notes

schraubd · 4 years

Text

I Have To Talk About Omar and Melton-Meaux, Don't I?

I really don't want to. I really, really don't. But sometimes something falls too close to your wheelhouse to ignore it. And with separate antisemitism controversies hitting both Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) and her main Democratic primary opponent Antone Melton-Meaux within a few days of one another, I -- writer on antisemitism and former resident of Minnesota's 5th congressional district -- probably can't sit this one out. As much as I want to. Which I do. Both candidates are under some fire for things put in campaign communications. Melton-Meaux released an "FAQ" which included the questions "Why do you have so much support from Jewish people/pro-Israel people" and "Will the money you received from the Jewish community influence your policy decisions?" (to the latter of which he replied "no" and noted his opposition to many policies undertaken by Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu). Omar's allies said that by implying that Jews only care about Israel-related issues and supposedly conflating "Jewish people" and "pro-Israel people", he was invoking in veiled fashion a dual-loyalty trope. Omar sent out a campaign mailer accusing Melton-Meaux of being in the pocket of conservative, big money interests, with all of the named donors being Jewish (plus a "Michael from Scarsdale, New York"). This was alleged by Omar's opponents to be an allusion to his opponent being "bought" by Jews (cf. fellow Minnesota Rep. Tom Emmer (R) sending out a mailer naming three Jewish billionaires who had "bought" control of Congress). What do I think? Most importantly, while I don't think there is no fire behind this smoke, obviously a lot of the high dudgeon on display here from both sides is really just shots-of-opportunity. That's not exactly surprising, given the nature of politics and all, but still disappointing. I also reiterate my point that while people outside of the 5th District only care about this race for Israel/antisemitism/Islamophobia reasons, the dynamics within the district are generally concentrating on other things (including whether Rep. Omar is more concerned with her national profile than with the particular needs of her district). On the specifics: Melton-Meaux's FAQ is clearly styled as responding to "questions" that amount to hostile whisper-campaigns (i.e., that he's a stalking horse for far-right Jewish and/or pro-Israel interests). On one level, this is why I don't really see the first question as conflating "Jewish" and "pro-Israel" -- aside from the fact that they are listed separately, in context it denotes two variants of a similar question he receives (and the questioners probably aren't too fastidious about the distinction). But the problem with such whisper-campaigns is that it can be really hard to respond directly to the allegation without in some way legitimizing or retrenching it. Imagine being asked if a candidate supports "the gay agenda" -- you can't really answer "yes" or "no", because the entire way the question is framed makes answering it a trap. This is why you don't accept your opponents' framing of questions, as any halfway competent campaign should know. Doing otherwise means you suddenly are putting out statements answering questions like, well, "Will the money you received from the Jewish community influence your policy decisions?" There's no good answer to that question, which is a good sign that Melton-Meaux shouldn't be asking it to himself. To the extent that some Jews cringe while reading it, he has no one to blame but himself. As for Omar. While all of the named persons in her mailer are Jewish, none of them are specifically identified as Jewish (the theme of the mailer is that many of his opponents' donors are backing him solely because they hate her, which is probably true). But on face, this doesn't distinguish her mailer from Emmer's, or Trump's 2016 "closing argument" ad which featured Hillary Clinton and then three Jews associated with money -- George Soros, Janet Yellen, and Lloyd Blankfein (none of whom were explicitly identified as Jewish either). For those in the right circles, Scarsdale is well-known as a very Jewish and very rich town (hence its appearance in the "JAP battle rap", featuring "two hard-as-nails she-brews from SCARSDALE!"). It is fair to say that few people in Minnesota are likely to know this though (had she called out donors from St. Louis Park, by contrast, everyone in her district would know what she meant even as nobody outside the Twin Cities would have a clue). On the whole, my real takeaway is feeling more convinced than ever about the need to think about antisemitism less as a question of motives and more as a question of impact. It strikes me as implausible that Melton-Meaux was intentionally trying to antagonize the Jewish community by loudly disavowing his support; it was an awkward effort by a novice campaign staff to respond to a smear -- but one that nonetheless retrenched the perception that the Jewish community is a force one needs to declare his independence from. Melton-Meaux may be a political newbie, but he has an obligation to be attentive to that dynamic and not blunder into traps quite that obvious. With respect to Omar, I likewise find it highly unlikely that her campaign staff went on a hunt for rich Jewish donors to her opponent in a sly bid to dog-whistle at her opponent being owned by the Jews. Nonetheless, it is probably the case that the Jewish associations of the people cited -- while not likely to be picked up by many if not most of her readers -- likely do help make the attack land more effectively for those who do spot the pattern. I've written elsewhere about how one thing antisemitism does is it greases the wheels of plausibility; when you're trying to tag your opponent as in the bag for big Wall Street money (or Marxism, or "globalism" for that matter) it just feels more right when there's a Jewish hook to go along with it. It's in accord with deep-seated background intuitions, it makes the entire package feel more harmonious. This is one reason why I think someone in the Omar campaign could have reasonably been expected to check and see whether everyone they're talking about is Jewish -- and if not, find some different names (one has to think that there are some non-Jewish rich people who also are pumping money into her opponent's campaign, yes?). But ultimately, I think this is all relatively small fries. The hypocrisy is perhaps more bothersome than anything else. I get the frustration from Omar's allies that they think she's constantly being pelted with small-ball nonsense on the antisemitism front, and so perhaps they think turnabout is fair play when they can accuse Omar's opponent of being the "dual loyalty" trope guy (you can almost feel the catharsis from here!). But either they think stuff at this level is fair game or they don't; they can't have it both ways unless they really do believe that antisemitism can legitimately be treated as instrumental political football. And on the other side, regarding the conservative media ready to stand up and shout about "yet another instance of Ilhan Omar being antisemitic!" -- unless they're willing to concede that the bulk of the Jewish community was absolutely correct in saying that the contemporary GOP, what with its brazen targeting of Soros, Bloomberg, Steyer, etc., is shot through with antisemitism from root to branch, they need to sit the hell down. As always, however strong or weak you think the case for Ilhan Omar being antisemitic is, it's far less strong than the case for the GOP being antisemitic. If I have to listen to one more attempted gotcha from the Republican Jewish Coalition about Jewish Democrats staying out of the 5th District endorsement game, when they're affirmatively trying to put this guy into a Minnesota U.S. Senate seat, I'm going to have an aneurysm. Okay, I've done my duty. As a palate-cleanser, please read this lovely column by a Minnesota Jewish Republican explaining, in touching and heart-felt terms, why he considers Ilhan Omar a dear friend. It really is a nice piece of writing from a man whom I have to assume has decided he never wants to have any role in Republican Party politics again, because any public dictation about Ilhan Omar that's friendlier than "she's a she-devil" is grounds for immediate ex-communication from the party. And, just so nobody thinks I'm endorsing one way or the other (I'm not, and will not), read as well this column from Avi Olitzky explaining why he is such a fan of Melton-Meaux. via The Debate Link https://ift.tt/2ZUSIUn

#anti-semitism #Antone Melton-Meaux #Ilhan Omar #Minnesota

31 notes · View notes

things2mustdo · 4 years

Link

Last year I gave up my Krav Maga self-defense training when I was in the middle of changing jobs. I never picked it back up.

While I stay quite busy splitting my time between my three main sources of income, last month I began to feel like something was missing. I was getting too comfortable with my daily routine– bored, too.

So I decided to start training in martial arts again, this time signing up for a Muay Thai gym. It’s already reinvigorated my sense of drive across other areas of my life. Here are the top 5 reasons you should start a new hobby today.

1. It breaks up your current routine

As humans we search for a sense of regularity. We often find it in our daily activities.

For example, my days typically consist of working from home in the morning, primarily on my computer, lifting weights, and then training a few clients in the late afternoon and evening. I enjoy this routine, but flying on autopilot has its dangers.

You aren’t as sharp. Everything is too calculated and expected. By training in Muay Thai every other day I have something new to look forward to. It also has changed my lifting routine, to accommodate for the added exercise and fatigue.

2. It pushes you outside of your comfort zone

When I stepped into the Muay Thai gym for the first time I didn’t know what to expect. It was a lot different than the place I used to train Krav Maga at– more serious, less friendly even.

The seasoned fighters looked at me with a sense of superiority. And they were superior. But rather than backing down, being nervous, and quitting after one day– I took this as a challenge.

I was far from comfortable training that day. I wasn’t able to execute crisp Thai kicks or jump rope like a boss. But being too comfortable can be a bad thing. You’ll cease to explore new opportunities and your growth with falter across the board.

By throwing yourself at something new, that you’re inexperienced at, you’ll be pushed outside of your comfort zone. This is a good thing. You must stay accustomed to living at the edge of your comfort zone to ensure steady growth and progress.

3. You’ll learn new skills

This point is obvious. By taking Muay Thai, I’ll learn a host of new fighting skills.

4. It gives you a new area to set goals for

The habit of setting and achieving goals is the most important habit a man can build. By entering into a new hobby, you now have a whole new area of your life that where you can practice setting and accomplishing goals.

For my Muay Thai experience I’ll start small. My first goal is to be able to execute a Thai kick with my left and have it feel as natural as with my right. I’ll work my way up to bigger goals as I improve.

This is the beauty of starting at something from scratch. At first you’ll set one small goal after another. This cycle will build momentum, and before you know it, you’ll no longer be a novice. More importantly, this momentum will carry over to other areas of your life and give you the confidence to crush more and bigger goals.

5. You’ll meet new people

Another obvious point. When you try something new, you’re bound to meet new people. Whether these turn out to be man friends or cute girls depends on the hobby you choose, but either way meeting new people is always a positive thing.

Potential Hobbies

I’ll leave you with a short list of potential hobbies for you to try today:

1. Martial arts/self-defense: Muay Thai, Brazilian Ju-Jitsu, Krav Maga 2. Cooking 3. Salsa Dancing 4. Lifting weights (you should already be doing this) 5. Yoga 6. Writing 7. Mountain Biking

Check out my new #1 Amazon Bestseller, The Book of Alpha. It’s full of direct, actionable advice for the man who wants to better himself.

Read Next: 5 Reasons To Learn Krav Maga

Krav Maga is a self-defense system created based upon the street fighting skills of Hungarian-Israeli martial artist Imi Lichtenfeld. He used it to defend the Jewish quarter where he lived against fascist groups in the 1930s. Later, in the 40s he moved to Israel and began to offer combat training lessons to what later became the IDF (Israeli Defense Forces). The IDF has used, and continued to develop the system to this day.

The basic principle of Krav Maga is inflicting maximum damage to the opponent(s) in order to end the fight as quickly as possible. Brutal counter-attacks using your most effective tool (knees, elbows, weapons, etc.) to target your opponent’s weakest area (neck, throat, eyes, knees, ribs, solar plexus, groin, etc.) are the focus. For this reason, it is not a competitive martial arts, like Brazilian Ju-Jitsu or Muay Thai, because people would die.

When I heard that Jason Bourne uses Krav Maga (which I later found out was, in fact, not true) and that it teach gun defenses (i.e. the most alpha technique ever), I immediately signed up. I just finished 6 months of training. It is indeed awesome. Here are the top 5 reasons you should sign up for classes today:

1. You will become a badass.

Nothing boosts confidence and testosterone levels like knowing you are legitimately prepared for whatever. Very few people have any formal self-defense or fight training. As a result, in tense situations where most people lose it, you will keep your cool. If something ever does go down, you’re ready.

2. It is practical and intuitive.

Most martial arts are strongly based in ritual, and as a result often incorporate different forms or strange techniques. Krav is different. Brutal efficiency is the only concern. For this reason, many of the strikes and defenses utilize the same basic motion (e.g. the straight punch and many of the defenses against punches and knives). Moreover, all of the techniques are built upon the body’s natural instincts (e.g. bringing your hands to your neck during a choke defense).

3. It is great exercise.

Between the drills themselves and the conditioning, you are guaranteed a hell of a workout. Three minutes of throwing punches or knee strikes is exhausting. So is three minutes of burpees. Side note: The level 1 Krav test was the single most intense physical event of my life. Seriously. Three hours straight of punches, kicks, choke defenses, and groundwork is no joke. I consider myself to be is great shape and I almost vomited on multiple occasions.

4. It relieves stress.

Sure, so do most workouts, but pounding a kicking shield, or throwing your partner to the floor is a whole different ball game.

5. It is the perfect hobby.

I came to my first class with no idea how to throw a proper punch. After a couple weeks I thought I was Jason Bourne. After a couple months I realized that I wasn’t. After 6 months I look back and I am amazed at the progress I made. Experiencing this progress is extremely satisfying.

Clearly taking up Krav Maga has many benefits. One word of caution – make sure you train somewhere with certified, experienced instructors. I have seen locations that turn it into a strictly cardio exercise experience, with little focus on technique – not good. So go take advantage of that free first class, now.

Check out my new #1 Amazon Bestseller, The Book of Alpha. It’s full of direct, actionable advice for the man who wants to better himself.

Read More: The Only 2 Things A Man Can Depend On

I was born alone and I will die alone. I’ve got to do what’s right for me and not live my life the way anybody else wants it.

– Curtis Jackson

If life were a board game, you’d be the game piece.

In reality, life isn’t much different from a game. There isn’t a defined end goal, however. You get to choose it. It could be power and respect. It could simply be happiness. Or it could be more specific: money or women, for example. Whatever it is, you choose.

In a board game there are strict limitations. In life, we’re encouraged to follow laws and social norms, but for the most part we’re free to do as we choose. There are infinite paths that will take you to any goal imaginable.

Along the way you’ll deal with many people. Some will help you, others won’t. You can grow to depend on the ones that help you, but that always incurs a risk. A family member can die. A close friend can betray you. Your girl can leave you. How will you react when one of these things happens?

Playing with others is a necessary part of the game. But never depend on them. Doing so will ultimately lead to failure and disappointment.

Accept that the only two things you can ever count on are your body and your mind– your game piece. You must tend to these things like a gardener tends to his plants. Focus on improving them and facilitating their health and growth and you’ll always put yourself in the best position to win.

If some tragedy befalls a dependent man, he may sink into depression. He might feel like he’s lost all hope of accomplishing his mission in life. He might give up.

A truly independant man, however, will not. He’s prepared, on some level, for each of these tragedies. He doesn’t have a specific game plan for when his best friend betrays him, per se. But he’s put himself in a good position, both physically and mentally, that he can weather the storm. Not only can he weather the storm, but he can keep his cool and make the fine adjustments needed to get the ship back on course.

Below I’ll offer the basic tasks one must do to protect his game piece, and see it thrive.

1. Your Body

If you take care of your body, it will be strong and healthy. It will also help foster a potent mind. Yes, there’s always the rare risk of contracting some form of cancer or another deadly disease, but if you follow the steps below, you all but rule these things out.

1. Eat good food

I won’t go into specifics, because everyone’s diet will, and should, be different.

But if you focus your diet around meat, fruits, and vegetables your body will flourish. Meat provides the protein and amino acids your body needs to grow. The fruits and vegetables provide the fiber and vitamins you need to function over the long run. A man with a solid diet will respond better to stress, and therefore be more self reliant.

2. Lift weights

In short, lifting weights develops a strong nervous, muscular, and skeletal system. These are the three main systems that run your body. An efficient body is like a strong ship– it will weather the storm better and be far more dependable in your journey.

The most brutally simple and effective lifting program is StrongLifts 5×5. It focuses on building strength across the five most basic movements humans are meant to do (squat, deadlift, bench press, row, and overhead press).

2. Your Mind

You must also foster a capable mind. One that can stand on it’s own two feet. The strongest body won’t accomplish anything without an equally impressive mind.

1. Read books

Reading a book is like absorbing another man’s lifelong wisdom. The more books you read, the more you’ll know and the wiser you’ll be. Blogs are okay, but the average quality of a blog post is decidedly lower than what you find in a book. People simply put more time, effort, and value into books.

The knowledge you acquire in books also contributes to your self reliance. It offers quality wisdom and advice– that can’t be taken away from you.

2. Meditate

Meditation is the act of being comfortable being alone. When you meditate, you remove all of the outside noise. All of the thoughts, gossip, music, news, women, men, business, sex– everything. You are left with only yourself.

Many men can’t stand meditation because they’ve grown dependant on all of this external stimulation. They aren’t comfortable in their own skin. And thus they’ve lost their edge, their self reliance.

2 notes · View notes

nikkoliferous · 5 years

Text

They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1933-45

I’ve been reading this book by Milton Mayer for a while now, and I've wanted to share some of the passages that seem especially relevant to current events. A lot of what these Nazis he spoke with told him about what Germany was like at that time, should frankly send a chill up your spine.

In the pleasant resort towns of New England Americans have seen signs reading “Selected Clientele” or “Restricted.” They have grown accustomed to seeing such signs, so accustomed that, unless they are non-Caucasian or, perhaps, non-“Aryan” Americans, they take no notice of them and, in taking no notice, accept them. In the much less pleasant cottonseed-oil towns of the Deep South Americans have grown accustomed to seeing signs reading anything from “White” and “Colored” to “Nigger, Don’t Let the Sun Set on You Here,” and, unless they are non-Caucasian or, perhaps, northern Americans, they take no notice of them. There were enough such signs (literally and figuratively) in pre-Nazi Germany, and there was enough non-resistance to them, so that, when the countryside bloomed in 1933 with signs reading “Juden hier uneiwünscht, Jews Not Wanted Here,” the Germans took no notice of them. So, in the body politic as in the body personal, nonresistance to the milder indulgences paves the way for nonresistance to the deadlier.

The German community—the rest of the seventy million Germans, apart from the million or so who operated the whole machinery of Nazism—had nothing to do except not to interfere. Absolutely nothing was expected of them except to go on as they had, paying their taxes, reading their local paper, and listening to the radio. Everybody attended local celebrations of national occasions—hadn’t the schools and the stores always been closed for the Kaiser’s birthday?—so you attended, too. Everybody contributed money and time to worthy purposes, so you did, too. In America your wife collects or distributes clothing, gives an afternoon a week to the Red Cross or the orphanage or the hospital; in Germany she did the same thing in the Nazi Frauenbund, and for the same reasons.

► “I couldn’t help being glad, when something happened to somebody else, that it hadn’t happened to me. It was like later on, when a bomb hit another city, or another house than your own; you were thankful.” “More thankful for yourself than you were sorry for others?” “Yes. The truth is, Yes. It may be different in your case, Herr Professor, but I’m not sure that you will know until you have faced it.” You were sorry for the Jews, who had to identify themselves, every male with “Israel” inserted into his name, every female with “Sarah,” on every official occasion; sorrier, later on, that they lost their jobs and their homes and had to report themselves to the police; sorrier still that they had to leave their homeland, that they had to be taken to concentration camps and enslaved and killed. But—weren��t you glad you weren’t a Jew? You were sorry, and more terrified, when it happened, as it did, to thousands, to hundreds of thousands, of non-Jews. But—weren’t you glad that it hadn’t happened to you, a non-Jew? It might not have been the loftiest type of gladness, but you hugged it to yourself and watched your step, more cautiously than ever.

► The people didn’t pay any attention to the Party program as such. They went to the meetings just to hear something new, anything new. They were desperate about the economic situation, ‘a new Germany’ sounded good to them; but from a deep or broad point of view they saw nothing at all. Hitler talked always against the government, against the lost war, against the peace treaty, against unemployment. All that, people liked. By the time the intellectuals asked, ‘What is this?’ it had a solid basis in the common people.

► All ten of my friends, including the sophisticated Hildebrandt, were affected by this sense of what the Germans call Bewegung, movement, a swelling of the human sea, something supraparty and suprapolitical, a surge of the sort that does not, at the time, evoke analysis or, afterward, yield to it. These men were victims of the “Bolshevik” rabies, to be sure. They were equally victims of economic hardship and, still worse, of economic hopelessness.

► Nazism—Hitler, rather—knew this and knew that nothing else mattered to my friends so much as this, the identification of this Germany, the community again, in which one might know he belonged and, belonging, identify himself.

I make note of this particular passage because there is a trend amongst former white supremacists, wherein they will often tell you that what made them an easy target for indoctrination was a sense of loneliness, of not belonging. It often was not about a genuine belief in the superiority of whites—that was merely a byproduct, if they ever believed it at all; it was that they felt left behind by society at large and they found community in being inducted into this toxic ideology. Thus, this feeling of unbelonging that Mayer eludes to, this lack of identity, is essential in the othering of non-whites.

► My friends wanted Germany purified. They wanted it purified of the politicians, of all the politicians. They wanted a representative leader in place of unrepresentative representatives. And Hitler, the pure man, the antipolitician, was the man, untainted by “politics,” which was only a cloak for corruption.

► What Gustav Schwenke wanted, and the only thing he wanted, was security. The job he wanted, and the only job he ever wanted, was a job with the State, any job with the State, with its tenure, its insurance, and its pension. Gustav was not, I imagine, the only boy born in Germany in 1912 who wanted security and thought, until 1933, that he would never have it.

► “I was nothing. Then, suddenly, I was needed. National Socialism had a place for me. I was nothing—and then I was needed.”

► It was separation, not prejudice as such, that made Nazism possible, the mere separation of Jews and non-Jews. None of my ten friends except Herr Hildebrandt, the teacher, had ever known a Jew at all intimately in a town of twenty thousand.

► When people you don’t know, people in whom you have no interest, people whose affairs you have never discussed, move away from your community, you don’t notice that they are going or that they are gone. When, in addition, public opinion (and the government itself) has depreciated them, it is still likelier that you won’t notice their departure or, if you do, that you will forget about it.

► Remember: the teacher excepted, nine of my ten friends didn’t know any Jews and didn’t care what happened to them—all this before Nazism. And it was their government, now, which was carrying on this program under law. Merely to inquire meant to attack the government’s justice. It meant risk, large or small, political or social, and it meant risk in behalf of people one didn’t like anyway.

► “What caused Nazism was the clubman in Berlin who, when he was asked about the Nazi menace in 1930, looked up from his after-lunch game of Skat and replied, ‘Dafür ist die Regierung da. That’s what the government’s there for.’”

► “What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little, to being governed by surprise; to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if the people could understand it, it could not be released because of national security. This separation of government from people, this widening of the gap, took place so gradually and so insensibly, each step disguised (perhaps not even intentionally) as a temporary emergency measure or associated with true patriotic allegiance or with real social purposes. And all the crises and reforms (real reforms, too) so occupied the people that they did not see the slow motion underneath, of the whole process of government growing remoter and remoter.”

► And on top of that were the demands in the community, the things in which one had to, was ‘expected to’ participate that had not been there or had not been important before. It was all rigmarole, of course, but it consumed all one’s energies, coming on top of the work one really wanted to do. You can see how easy it was, then, not to think about fundamental things. One had no time.”

► “You see,” my colleague went on, “one doesn’t see exactly where or how to move. Believe me, this is true. Each act, each occasion, is worse than the last, but only a little worse. You wait for the next and the next. You wait for one great shocking occasion, thinking that others, when such a shock comes, will join with you in resisting somehow. You don’t want to act, or even talk, alone; you don’t want to ‘go out of your way to make trouble.’ Why not?—Well, you are not in the habit of doing it. And it is not just fear, fear of standing alone, that restrains you; it is also genuine uncertainty. “But the one great shocking occasion, when tens or hundreds or thousands will join with you, never comes. That’s the difficulty. If the last and worst act of the whole regime had come immediately after the first and smallest, thousands, yes, millions would have been sufficiently shocked—if, let us say, the gassing of the Jews in ’43 had come immediately after the ‘German Firm’ stickers on the windows of non-Jewish shops in ’33. But of course this isn’t the way it happens. In between come all the hundreds of little steps, some of them imperceptible, each of them preparing you not to be shocked by the next. Step C is not so much worse than Step B, and, if you did not make a stand at Step B, why should you at Step C? And so on to Step D. Life is a continuing process, a flow, not a succession of acts and events at all. It has flowed to a new level, carrying you with it, without any effort on your part. On this new level you live, you have been living more comfortably every day, with new morals, new principles. You have accepted things you would not have accepted five years ago, a year ago, things that your father, even in Germany, could not have imagined. Suddenly it all comes down, all at once. You see what you are, what you have done, or, more accurately, what you haven’t done (for that was all that was required of most of us: that we do nothing). You remember those early meetings of your department in the university when, if one had stood, others would have stood, perhaps, but no one stood. A small matter, a matter of hiring this man or that, and you hired this one rather than that. You remember everything now, and your heart breaks. Too late. You are compromised beyond repair.”

#the moral of the story?#complacency not racism is what allows things like nazi germany to happen #or things like say the u.s. border crisis in 2019 #politics #us politics #us immigration #abolish ice #cbp #white silence is violence #nazi germany #tw: racism #tw: antisemitism

107 notes · View notes

salixj · 5 years

Link

Every individual feels the tension between what we “want” to do, and what we “should” do. In Jewish thought, this constant state of flux is a cornerstone of practice and belief often referred to as “Obligation”.

When I first came to Israel 9 years ago, it was an idea that I only knew in the abstract way we all experience it; I had never grappled with it in any real, practical sense. Today, it is the cornerstone of my deepening Jewish observant (though not “religious”) identity.

The light of this latent value, buried deep in a Jewish soul I had no awareness of at the time, found its first flicker in the stairwell of a random Tel Aviv hotel as the first Shabbat I ever celebrated came in on a regular April evening in 2011.

I couldn’t tell you what changed as I walked up to the roof, the song of my Birthright group all around me, to experience Shabbat for the first time. But I do know that this past Shabbat, eyes closed yet tearing up as I sang the Shabbat liturgy in a Jerusalem synagogue, I returned to that stairwell in my mind’s eye. I do so nearly every Friday night that I make it to Synagogue to live my Jewish birthright of welcoming Shabbat, as my family has done for millennia.

That I am blessed enough to even have this experience is a kind of miracle in and of itself. The son of a Jewish mother and Catholic father, I grew up in a loving, tolerant home where secular rational humanism in the Judeo-Christian tradition, taught by example, was the only religion I ever knew. And for 25 years of my life, it had never occurred to me that you could you could need anything more in a value system.

My parents taught me it’s wrong to steal; they taught me it’s wrong to lie; they taught me to always strive to treat others as I would want to be treated. They did right by me in the morality department, and I’m forever grateful to them for it.

And yet, experiencing Shabbat for the first time pierced me so deeply that it found Jewish bedrock beneath a lifetime of secular and enlightenment training and conviction. When I felt the joy and the beauty of welcoming Shabbat for the first time, I knew there was something resonating in me.

But at the same time, I couldn’t have told you what it was — even less why it was, or what it meant. Nor was it a transcendental experience where the clouds opened up and everything changed in an instant. I didn’t have a religious awakening, much less a revelation. I still haven’t. Looking back on it today, the best way I can describe it is as an inchoate sense of fulfillment and meaning that I never expected to find.

I went back to America after two weeks in Israel. But I was never the same. The next Friday was the first one I ever celebrated Shabbat in my own home. Less than two years later, I would be doing the same thing from my new home in Jerusalem.

A look behind the curtain at the cult of self

I’ve given a lot of thought to what I felt in that stairwell seven years ago.

I’ve given a lot of thought to what value could be so powerful that it resonated through a lifetime of Jewish ignorance, yet so amorphous that I couldn’t understand what it was even as it was kindling the light of generations inside of me.

My answer is Obligation.

Everywhere you look in modern culture and society, the individual is center and supreme. And in a certain sense, the individual has never been more free. Every day, the abundance of the modern world calls us more and more to the banner of the cult of self.

Popular culture packages this idea in many forms. You should always accomplish evermore for yourself; you must consume more for yourself. This is the immutable law of the modern world — never take on any responsibility except for one laid upon you by your own impulses for self-gratification.

This lie, like a drug, is as intoxicating as it is destructive. Taken to its logical conclusion, it only produces a uniquely toxic blend of mania, nihilism, and misery. I know this because, in my time competing for Israel as a Skeleton athlete, I learned the uniquely empowering liberation of practicing purposeful, targeted, self-abnegation.

If I had to sum up everything I learned in a decade of preparing myself to compete in international athletics, it would be this: In every moment, the soul should absolutely have the freedom to choose, but it does not follow that the soul should choose absolute freedom in every moment.

That the above statement is provocative in 2019 goes without saying. Freedom is the supreme virtue of our time. But where freedom has no self-imposed constraints, where our desires become our only moral compass, freedom actually cannibalizes itself and loses all meaning. The concept requires negative space — times when we voluntarily choose to NOT follow our every impulsive desire — to bring meaning and joy into our lives. Where no constraint exists, freedom cannot contrast against it, and so itself cannot exist.

Paradoxically, the freedom of the cult of self actually turns us into slaves of our impulses.

Letting go of the big lie

Experiencing this truth of the human soul viscerally via my secular athletic life, combined with my deepening relationship and understanding of Shabbat, caused a revolution in my thinking.

Despite my secular upbringing, I couldn’t keep believing the big lie of modern consumer culture. Eventually, I stopped being afraid to admit that the lived truth of my emotional, mental, and physical life would by definition have to be true for my spiritual life.

I stopped believing external Obligation was, by definition, oppressive and evil. I stopped believing that the only virtue there is to aspire to in this life is for everything to be about me, in all places, and at all times.

Against a meaningful and just objective standard, there is value in doing something that is hard; there is value in doing something that challenges the will; there is value in doing something that we do not necessarily “want to do” in the moment. And the reason is because, just like muscle and bone, the mind and the soul must flex against resistance or languish into atrophy.

It is this concept of choosing to act not on impulse but rather against a virtuous objective standard, and its central role in Jewish spirituality and faith, that served as the stepping off point for me to experience Jewishness not just as an identity but as an exercise of my soul.

Shabbat, the weekly Obligation of the Jewish people to remember God’s act of Creation, kindled the lived spiritual practice of this idea inside of me.

Every Friday night, I am mindful that it is Shabbat. I do not work on my day job or various side projects; I stay off of social media and news sites; I say the blessings over candles and wine whenever possible; I go to Synagogue for Kabalat Shabbat whenever I am home in Israel, and sometimes when I am visiting my family in New Jersey.

To this day, Shabbat remains the most visceral expression of Obligation that I experience. It is my weekly rebellion against the selfishness and nihilism of the modern world.

Yearning to lead a life well lived

If you are expecting to now read that I now keep all the Halacha, pray three times a day, and never watch a movie on Shabbat, I am afraid I will have to disappoint you. To be fair, I had already admitted I am not what anyone would mistake for an observant Jew, in the common understanding of that term.

My working definition of free will remains 100% in the secular Enlightenment tradition. One of the parts of Jewish observance, tradition, and faith I struggle with the most is the idea of external punishment for transgressing Obligation that does not cause harm to others. I believe that failing to follow an Obligation is harmful to myself — a punishment by definition — and that there is no place (or need) for human hands to dole it out.

My journey into Jewish Obligation has already been a long and fulfilling one, and it is without a doubt far from complete. In reality, my lived Jewish Obligation is, as of today, cherry-picked and I readily admit it. I am not perfect. Some will call me a hypocrite, and that’s fine. But this is an honest assessment of where I am at this point in my life.

Like all of us and in spite of my best intentions, I do not always live up to the standard I would like to see myself living up to. But I am trying. Most importantly, I have reversed my blind and fundamental attachment to the decadent thinking that infects our modern life and sadly causes so much needless pain. I am now open and aware of the benefits of accepting Obligation into my spiritual life, and see the impossible wisdom of that great Jewish theological belief that a life lived entirely free of the uplifting power of Obligation cannot be a life well lived.

And even in just that change — and the yearning to be better that it brings — the awakening of my Jewish soul has already enriched my life more than I could have ever imagined.

ABOUT THE AUTHORBradley Chalupski is the winner of Israel's first medal in an international IBSF Skeleton competition, represented Israel in two IBSF Skeleton World Championships, and is the first Israeli athlete to compete in an IBSF Skeleton World Cup circuit event. In college, he interned for then Senator Joe Biden and later went on to intern in the policy department of NJ Governor Jon Corzine while earning his J.D. from the Seton Hall School of Law. He made Aliyah in 2012 and has lived in Jerusalem ever since. [Brad is my (Salixj’s) son-in-law]

#Israel #family #Judaism

12 notes · View notes

ruminativerabbi · 5 years

Text

Poway

At the end of the Yizkor Service last Saturday, I invited the congregation to join me in widening the scope of our prayerful focus as the cantor chanted the twenty-third psalm to include not just our co-religionists murdered while at prayer at the Har Nof synagogue in Jerusalem or in Pittsburgh, but also the members of other faiths who have been similarly killed in their own houses of worship. Foremost in my mind, obviously, were the dead in New Zealand and Sri Lanka. But I also had in mind those poor souls executed in Charleston in 2015 by an individual sufficiently depraved to have been capable of murdering people with whom he had just spent an hour—his victims’ last hour on earth—studying Scripture, as well as the twenty-six innocents murdered during Sunday prayers at the church in Sutherland Springs in Texas in 2017 and the six killed at the Sikh Temple in Oak Creek in Wisconsin in 2012. Little did I know that another such outrage would be perpetrated on the Pacific coast in California just a few hours after I was done addressing my own congregation as part of the same Yizkor service at which I was speaking. Or how personal it would feel to me—and neither because Poway is just an hour or so down the road from the town in California in which I used to live nor because Yom Hashoah just happened to be falling this week.

It’s hard to imagine a less likely place for an attack like that than Poway. It’s a quiet place, a suburban/rural community of fewer than 50,000 souls north of San Diego and south of Escondido off of Interstate 15. And although I’m sure many Californians—and certainly most Americans—couldn’t have said exactly where Poway was last Friday, it now joins Sutherland Springs or Oak Creek in our national roster of places people previously hadn’t heard of yet now speak about as though they’ve known where they were all their lives.

Nor was the storyline unfamiliar, at least as the police have pieced it together so far. A disaffected young man, in this case just a teenager, falls under the sway of white supremacist doctrine and concludes that his personal problems—and the problems of his fellow travelers—are being inflicted upon him and them by some identifiable group of others—in this case Jews, but the role also fillable, as we all know all too well, by black people, gay people, Hispanic people, Asian people, or any other recognizable minority. A manifesto—in this case really just a letter—detailing the specifics is composed and posted online or otherwise distributed to the media. And then the young man—almost never a woman although I’m not sure why exactly that is—gets his hands on the kind of gun that can kill a lot of people very quickly. The screed is posted. The die is cast. The killer gets into his car and drives to what he must realize could just as easily turn out to be the site of his own death as well as that of the people he is planning to make into his victims. And then he opens fire and kills none or one or some or many. (For a very interesting analysis posted on the Live Science website regarding the specific theories proposed to explain why so few women become mass killers, click here.)

The next part too feels almost scripted. The police issue a statement and open an investigation. The following day, the front page of America’s newspapers are filled with statements of outrage by public officials of various sorts. A day or a week later, there’s a follow-up piece about the victim’s funeral or the victims’ funerals. The nation shudders for a long moment, then moves on. Except for those who actually knew the victims, the matter dies down and eventually someone shoots up some other place and the cycle of outrage followed by getting over it begins anew. For most, the moving on part feels healthy. And it surely is so that the goal when someone we love or admire dies is precisely to move through the initial shock that almost inevitably comes upon us in the wake of unanticipated loss to a kind of resigned acceptance, and from there to true comfort rooted in a new reality. But can that concept rationally be applied to incidents like the murder of Lori Gilbert-Kaye in Poway last Shabbat?

What surprised me the most about the California shooting is how inevitable it all felt. Indeed, to a certain extent, it felt like we were watching yet another remake of a movie we’d all seen before. There were the expected presidential tweets lauding Rabbi Yisroel Goldstein, whom the President has surely never met, as (of all things) “a great guy.” And there was the expected tongue-clucking by the leaders of Congress and by the chief executive officers of every conceivable Jewish and non-Jewish organization, all of them decrying the fact that this kind of violence directed against houses of worship is slowly—and not that slowly either—taking its place next to school shootings and nightclub shootings and military base shootings and concert-venue shootings and movie theater shootings as part of our American mosaic, and that there doesn’t seem to be anything at all to do about it. The traditional debate about repealing the Second Amendment then ensues. Would such a move prevent this kind of incident? I doubt it—but it’s hardly worth debating, given that the chances of the Second Amendment being repealed in any of our lifetimes are exactly zero.

Last November, after the shooting in Pittsburgh, I wrote about a science experiment I recall from my tenth-grade biology class, one in which our teacher demonstrated that you can actually boil a frog alive without restraining it in any way if you only heat the water slowly enough for the rising temperature to remain unnoticed by the poor frog until it becomes paralyzed and thus unable to hop out of its petri dish to safety. (To revisit those comments, click here.) Is that where we Jewish Americans are, then, in an open-but-slowly-warming petri dish? It hardly feels that way to me…but, of course, it doesn’t feel that way to the frog either. And yet the degree to which we have all become inured to anti-Semitic slurs, including in mainstream media, makes me wonder if we shouldn’t be channeling that poor amphibian’s last thoughts a little more diligently these days.

Just last week, the New York Times published in its international edition a cartoon that could have come straight out of any Nazi newspaper in the 1930s. The cartoon, by a Portuguese cartoonist named António Moreira Antunes, was picked up by a service that the Times uses as a source for political cartoons and apparently approved for publication by a single editor whom the Times has not identified by name. Its publication too triggered a storm of outrage from all the familiar sources, but the response the whole sorry incident provoked in me personally was captured the most eloquently by Bret Stephens, himself an opinion columnist for the Times, who wrote that the cartoon—which features a Jewish dog with Benjamin Netanyahu’s face and wearing a big Star of David necklace leading a blind and obese Donald Trump whose ridiculous black kippah only underscores the extent to which he has become the unwitting slave of his wily Jewish dog-master—came to him (and to most, and surely to me personally) as “a shock but not a surprise.” To read Stephen’s piece, in which he goes on to describe in detail and to deplore his own newspaper’s “routine demonization of Netanyahu,” its “torrential criticism of Israel,” its “mainstreaming of anti-Zionism,” and its “longstanding Jewish problem, dating back to World War II,” click here. You won’t enjoy reading what he has to say. But you should read it anyway.

I’m guilty of unwarranted complacency myself, more than aware that I barely even notice untruths published online or in print about Jews or about Israel. After the Israeli election, for example, I lost track of how many opinion pieces I noticed interpreting the Netanyahu victory as a kind of death knell for the two-state solution. (One example would be the headline of the Daily, the daily New York Times podcast, for April 11: “Netanyahu Won. The Two-State Solution Lost.”) The clear implication is that the Palestinians will only have an independent state in the Middle East when Israel finally decides they can have one. But is that even remotely true? Palestine has been “recognized” by 136 out of the United Nations’ 193 member states. If the Palestinian leadership were to declare their independence today and invite the neighbors in (and not solely the Israelis, but the Jordanians and the Egyptians as well) to settle border issues, and then get down to the business of nation building, who could or would stand in their way? But the Palestinians have specifically not moved in that direction…and surely not because the Israelis haven’t permitted it. That much seems obvious to me, but how many times have I just let it go after seeing that specific notion promulgated as an obvious truth? Too many! Just as I haven’t always responded when I see other ridiculous claims intended solely to degrade Jews or Judaism or to deny historical reality. (When the Times published a piece by one of its own reporters, Eric V. Copage, a few weeks ago in which the author denied that Jesus of Nazareth had been a Jew and suggested instead that he must have been a Palestinian, presumably a Palestinian Arab, I didn’t run to my computer to point out that there were no Palestinian Arabs in the first century C.E. since the Arab invasion of Palestine only took place six centuries after Jesus lived and died, granting myself the luxury of leaving that work to others. Many did speak up and a week later the Times published a “revised” version of the piece that omitted the offensive reference. But my point is that I personally should have spoken out and now feel embarrassed by my own silence.)

It’s true that the Times published a long self-excoriating editorial about the cartoon episode just this week in which it acknowledged its own responsibility for fomenting anti-Semitism among its readers. (Click here to read it.) That was satisfying to read, but it should remind us that the only useful way to respond to Poway is to resolve to speak out more loudly and more clearly when we see calumnies, lies, or libelous untruths in print about Israel or about the Jewish people…and not to just assume that other people will do the heavy lifting while we remain silent.

#Poway #The New York Times #anti-Semitism

1 note · View note

romancatholicreflections · 6 years

Text

15th August >> Daily Reflection/Commentary on Today’s Mass Readings for Roman Catholics on the Feast of The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary (Revelation 11:19a;12:1-6a;10ab; 1 Corinthians 15:20-26; Luke 1:39-56).

1. Today’s feast celebrates the special place that Mary has in the life of the Church. This place is first of all defined by her being chosen to be the mother of Jesus, his only human parent. This alone gives her a uniqueness which is shared by no other person who has ever lived.

As with the case of Jesus’ resurrection, we need to look at the meaning of what the feast is about rather than being too literal in our understanding of how it is described. It is probably not helpful to try to imagine that, as soon as Mary’s dead body was laid in the grave, it immediately as it were escaped from its earthly darkness and floated up “body and soul” into “heaven”.

By using the image “assumed body and soul into heaven” what is really being said is that Mary, because of the dignity of her motherhood and her own personal submission to God’s will at every stage of her life, takes precedence over everyone in the sharing of God’s glory which is the destiny of all of us who die united with Christ her Son.

She remains, of course, fully a human being and infinitely lower in dignity than her Son and much closer to us. With us but leading us, she stands in adoration of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. She cannot even in glory be given in any way the worship that is proper to the Persons of the Trinity. What she can do is to intercede for us in our needs, offering her human prayers on our behalf. This is something our non-Catholic Christian brothers and sisters do not always understand and perhaps we Catholics have by our words and actions given a distorted idea of the place of Mary in our Christian living.

Mary’s role is well described in the Catechism of the Catholic Church: “By her complete adherence to the Father’s will, to his Son’s redemptive work, and to every prompting of the Holy Spirit, the Virgin Mary is the Church’s model of faith and charity. Thus she is a ‘pre-eminent and… wholly unique member of the Church’; indeed, she is the ‘exemplary realisation’ (typus) of the Church” (CCC 967)

2. Today’s Gospel is the story of Mary’s visitation to her cousin, Elizabeth, when both were expecting their first child. The story contains most of the elements which contribute to the status we give to Mary in our Church.

First, we see Mary setting out with haste from Nazareth to a small town in the hills of Judea, not far from Jerusalem (where Zechariah served as a priest in the Temple), to visit her older cousin, Elizabeth, who was pregnant with the child we know as John the Baptist. Mary herself, of course, is carrying her own child, Jesus. It is highly significant that it is Mary and Jesus who go to visit Elizabeth and John. Already in the womb, Jesus is showing that urge to serve rather than be served. Mary, too, shares that urge. And, at the presence of Jesus and his mother, the child in Elizabeth’s womb jumps for joy.

Elizabeth, filled with the Holy Spirit, excitedly bursts out into praise. She recognises the special position of Mary and her Son: “Blessed are you among women and blessed is the fruit of your womb.” Mary is indeed unique and blessed in being chosen to be the mother of our saving King and Lord. Elizabeth is deeply moved that it is Jesus and his Mother that come to her and John: “And why has this happened to me, that the mother of my Lord comes to me?” And yet that is what is happening to each of us all the time, and especially in every celebration of the Eucharist when the Lord comes to us in the sharing of his Word and in the breaking of the bread and our sharing in the cup.

And there is a special word of praise for Mary also: “Blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfilment of what was spoken to her by the Lord.” This brings us to the second characteristic of Mary: her faith and total trust in God. That was expressed in her fiat (‘Let it be done to me…’), when, even though not fully understanding what was being asked of her, she unconditionally accepted to submit to God’s plan.

3. It is now Mary’s turn to sing God’s praises in the lovely song we called the Magnificat, which the Church sings at its evening prayer every day. It is full of reflections on what makes Mary great in the eyes of God.

“He has looked with favour on the lowliness of his servant.” Mary was a simple unmarried girl living in obscurity in a small town in an out of the way Roman province. “Can anything good come from Nazareth?” Nathanael asked rather cynically when told where Jesus came from. But in the New Covenant, reflecting God’s own bias, it is the lowly and obscure who are specially favoured. Mary’s greatness does not come from her social status; it has no relevance whatever in God’s eyes, except in so far as those at the bottom of the social ladder tend to be denied a fair share of this world’s goods.

“From now on all generations will call me blessed.” This is not a statement made in arrogance but in humble thanksgiving and, of course, has been true since the day it was uttered. It was indeed an extraordinary grace to be chosen to be the mother of the world’s Saviour. Why Mary? we might ask; and Mary herself would be the first to agree. But she rejoices and is deeply grateful for being chosen for this privilege.

Her being chosen is simply another sign of God’s desire that the poor, the weak, the marginalized, the exploited and discriminated against in this world should be the special recipients of God’s love and care. Mary expresses this in the last part of her song:

“He has shown strength with his arm;

he has scattered the proud in the thoughts of their hearts.

He has brought down the powerful from their thrones,

and lifted up the lowly;

he has filled the hungry with good things,

and sent the rich away empty.”

The rich and powerful of Mary’s day: where are they now? Who were they? For the most part they have disappeared from sight while the little girl of Nazareth is still celebrated round the world.

4. But Mary’s greatness does not stop at the graces and privileges which were showered on her. These, after all, were purely passive in the sense they were gifts given to her.. In a telling scene in the Gospel, a woman who had been listening to Jesus suddenly cried out in a loud voice: “Blessed is the womb that bore you and the breasts that you sucked!” In our own language today we might say: “May God bless the mother who produced such a wonderful son as you!” And there is a deep truth here, namely, the influence that Mary (and Joseph, too) actually had in the formation of her Son. But Jesus immediately picked up the woman’s words and said: “No, blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it.” In other words, it is not the graces that God gives us which make us great but the manner in which we receive and respond to them.

Mary’s greatness was not just in being chosen to be Jesus’ mother but in her total acceptance of that responsibility in faith and trust, accepting blindly all that it might entail. And, indeed, she had no idea the price she would have to pay to be the mother of Jesus. But, again, like her Son she had emptied herself in total service to him and to day we celebrate her reward, her being raised to the highest place among the human race.

This is indirectly expressed in the Second Reading from the First Letter to the Corinthians where Paul is speaking of the resurrection of Christ as crucial to the validity of our Christian faith. And Christ, the Son of God made flesh, who died on the cross is indeed the very first among the risen, seated at the right hand of his Father. He is, in Paul’s words, “the first fruits of those who have died”.

But, further on he says, “for as all die in Adam, so all will be made alive in Christ. But each in their own order”. Jesus is first of all but next in order surely comes his Mother.

5. The First Reading from the Book of Revelation has clearly been chosen as a symbolic description of Mary in glory.

There is first a brief vision of God’s temple in the New Jerusalem opening and revealing the ark of the covenant within. The original ark, of course, a chest made of acacia wood, contained the tablets of the Law and was kept in the Holy of Holies as the pledge of God’s promise, his covenant, to be with his people. But this is the ark of the New Covenant, the permanent home of God among his people, the Risen Jesus in his Body, the Church. On today’s feast, the image is applied to Mary, who bore the maker of the New Covenant within herself. And so she is called in the Litany of Our Lady, “Ark of the Covenant”.

Next, there is a much longer description of the vision of a woman appearing from heaven. The woman is Israel from whom was born the Messiah and the community which believed in him. The description of the woman is often applied to Mary in statues and images: “Clothed with the sun, the moon under her feet… on her head a crown of twelve stars”.

The woman is described as being pregnant, crying out in birth pangs and in the agony of giving birth. This recalls the words God to our first parents after the fall of the pain that would accompany childbirth. But the child being born is the Messiah, seen both as an individual and leader of the new Israel. The mother who bears him is suffering from persecution and oppression. As tradition holds that Mary was a virgin before, during and after the birth, the image cannot be applied fully to her.

There follows an apocalyptic description of a dragon threatening to devour the child as soon as it is born. The dragon (with the serpent) was seen in Jewish tradition as representing the power of evil, the enemy both of God and his people. Its tail sweeping a third of the stars from the sky is an allusion to the fall of those angels who sided with Lucifer. Nevertheless, the child is born. He is a son, who will rule all the nations with a rod of iron. He is the promised Messiah. However, he is described as immediately being snatched away and taken up to God. This refers to the ascension and triumph of the Messiah which follows the dragon’s fall.

Meanwhile, the woman, the mother, flees into the wilderness, the traditional refuge for the persecuted. God has prepared a place there for her where she can be nourished for 1,260 days, which corresponds to the time of the persecution.

It must be first of all emphasised that the writer is not directly thinking of Mary here and clearly, not all of this passage can be directly applied to her. But Mary is the mother of Jesus, who in his Body, is the continuation of God’s presence among us. Mary now stands glorious and bejewelled in the presence of her Son and his Father with the Spirit.

Today we join in her happiness. We look forward to the day when we too can share it with her. In the meantime, we ask her to remember us as we continue our journey on earth and to intercede for us with her Son that we may remain faithful to our call as faithful disciples. May we know God’s will for us at all times and, like Mary, say our unconditional Yes to what he wants for us.

2 notes · View notes

businessweekme · 6 years

Text

Trump and Bolton Slam the Door on Mideast Peace

In the latest hammer blow to any hopes that negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians can be revived, the Donald Trump administration has announced it will shutter the de facto Palestinian embassy in the U.S.

In a speech criticizing the International Criminal Court, Trump’s national security adviser, John Bolton, said the Washington mission of the Palestine Liberation Organization will be closed because of Palestinian calls for the ICC to investigate Israel’s conduct in the occupied Palestinian territories.

This is the latest in a series of aggressive moves designed to foreclose all Palestinian options other than whatever might be in a forthcoming “peace proposal” to be presented by Donald Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser on Middle East affairs, Jared Kushner.

Kushner and his team have vowed think outside the box, and to come up with a new formula “based on realities.” In other words, they are ditching the existing framework for peace talks, which is based on the permanent status issues — borders, settlements, security, refugees and Jerusalem — that were mutually agreed back in 1993 and supposed to be resolved only through negotiations and not any unilateral action.

Through all the tensions and turmoil of the past 15 years, that framework somehow survived.

But soon after taking office, Trump signaled he was moving on, especially by refusing to reiterate the long-standing U.S. commitment to a two-state outcome. Instead, Trump has said he would accept any formula the two parties agree to, a position previously embraced only by Iran.

When Trump recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel last December and repeatedly insisted the issue is now “off the table,” the existing framework for talks disintegrated. Since then, the administration has waged a relentless war on both Palestinian interests and existing understandings in the negotiating process. Kushner has pressed to redefine almost all the Palestinian refugees out of existence and effectively remove that issue from the table as well.

The White House also cut all U.S. funding for the United Nations agency that delivers humanitarian assistance the 5 million Palestinian refugees, and seems determined to eliminate the organization entirely.

Most recently, the Trump administration has slashed and frozen U.S. funding for humanitarian and educational projects in the occupied West Bank and for Palestinian hospitals in occupied East Jerusalem.

Trump has reportedly said that the purpose of these cuts is to further pressure Palestinians to make a deal with Israel. “I told them, we’re not paying you until we make a deal. If we don’t make a deal, we’re not paying,” he told a group of Jewish leaders, according to Haaretz.

All this supposed pressure, though, is taking place in a diplomatic vacuum. When demanding Palestinians return to talks with Israel, the obvious retort is, “What talks?” It’s not just that the Trump administration has systematically dismantled the existing framework for negotiations; it hasn’t put anything else in its place.

The White House’s real purpose here isn’t to pressure the Palestinians to concede to any existing process or demands. Rather, it is to foreclose all their other plausible options — including international forums such as the ICC or the UN — before the administration rolls out a proposal that falls far short of the minimal Palestinian expectation of an independent state.

Indeed, Kushner has strongly signaled that Palestinians can primarily look forward to economic inducements and benefits rather than political freedom and national independence.

The administration acts as if Palestinians didn’t have domestic politics of their own, and can be coerced into total submission. But this relentless pressure isn’t going to make Palestinians more willing or able to accept outrageous demands from Kushner and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

To the contrary, it’s certain to render it politically impossible for Palestinian leaders to rejoin a U.S.-brokered process or make any concessions, at least during the Trump era. With a U.S. embassy in Jerusalem opened and the PLO mission in Washington closed, and all that this grim symmetry so bluntly signifies, such moves would be widely viewed as craven capitulation. Palestinian moderates will be undermined and even humiliated, and extremists on the left and right will be emboldened and empowered.

With each U.S. move, there is less chance that any Palestinians will be ready, willing or able to take a serious look at anything Kushner proposes and try to find in it something they can work with. And the administration is fast running out of anything left that it can inflict on, or take away from, the Palestinians to pressure them further, short of bombing Ramallah.

Bolton’s announcement isn’t just a nifty Rosh Hashanah gift for Netanyahu. It’s also a huge victory for a rogue’s gallery of bad actors.

One of the biggest winners in all of this is Hamas. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who has based his whole term in office around achieving a negotiated agreement with Israel in a U.S.-led process, now looks like the biggest dupe in the Middle East.

Hamas’s leaders will be as incorrect as ever when they insist that Palestinians can achieve their rights only through armed struggle, but after the past year and a half of Trumpian diplomacy, such sophistry and radicalism is going to be a lot more appealing and much harder to refute.

Iran, too, will be utterly delighted to see the U.S.-led process finally crumbling, especially since it is Washington itself, supposedly to be the guarantor of the process, that is suddenly the gleeful executioner.

Another obvious big winner from Bolton’s announcement is everyone who has been indicted by the ICC, including Sudanese President Omar Bashir, and anyone who ever feared such an indictment.

During the presidential campaign, Trump vowed to be “neutral” between Israel and the Palestinians. And after the Jerusalem recognition and embassy move, he promised that it would be the Palestinians’ turn to “get something very good” from Washington. But all his administration has done is to shower Israel with carrots and flail the Palestinians with sticks.

This may be good politics within the Republican right wing. But it’s disastrous diplomacy.

Many critics of Washington have wanted to break the U.S. stranglehold on the peace process, which will someday have to resume. They can relax. Trump, Bolton and Kushner have done their work for them.

It’s hard to imagine how a future administration could repair all the damage that’s being done by the application of what Jeffrey Goldberg identified as Trump and Bolton’s “We’re America, bitch” attitude. Or by this White House’s disdain for international law and a rules-based order to the delicate and crucial work of peacemaking. It is even harder to imagine that the result of this diplomatic malpractice won’t be another explosion of Middle East violence.

The post Trump and Bolton Slam the Door on Mideast Peace appeared first on Bloomberg Businessweek Middle East.

from WordPress https://ift.tt/2MpdfGU via IFTTT

#Diplomacy #Bolton #Middle East #Peace Talks #Trump

1 note · View note

updcbc · 6 years

Text

June 17, 2018 - “Jesus and the Invalid Man” John 5:1-18

Click KEEP READING to read the full sermon.

Introduction

It is such a great treasure to have a heart-to-heart conversation with my inner circle pastor friends. One time we shared about our fears in life. We admitted our vulnerability to temptations and expressed our fear for us to fall into sin that would bring much damage inside our homes and in our ministries. We acknowledged our own inadequacies and laid down our fear that we could hardly meet the rigorous demands in our pastoral tasks and the expectations of the people we serve. We were honest to accept our fallen nature and we all wrestle with the deceitfulness of our hearts and share an insidious fear to minister in our carnality and pride to please man than God. These fears were common to all of us who have given ourselves in the service of the Lord. Added to these concerns, our elderly pastor expressed his personal fear which I did not expect and left an unusual impact in my life especially as I grow older. He feared that when he grows old he would get sick and all his hardly-earned lifetime savings will simply be drained for his medication. At present, our elderly pastor friend remains healthy, but his beloved wife is suffering of cancer and undergoes a painful and costly treatment of chemotherapy.

We too have our own fears in life. And our bond as a community of believers makes us better connected with one another as we share our concerns, pains and fears. As we nurture our solidarity as a Christian family, let us take this moment to understand the inner world of those amongst us who are sick and for us to empathize with their inner struggles as we uphold one another by extending a helping hand. And we do this as we follow the footsteps of our Lord Jesus Christ. When Jesus walked on earth, he came with a clear agenda to save sinners from their sins and for them to experience the fullness in life. In Jerusalem he came to the pool of Bethesda and healed an invalid man (Jn. 5:1-9). He commanded the man to be serious with sin (5:10-14). The miraculous sign was an open invitation for people to believe in him (5:15-18).

A. The Healing of an Invalid Man (5:1-9a)

In the earthly ministry of Jesus, he did not neglect in attending to the various needs of the crowd who followed him, yet he always gave room to welcome individual man and woman from all walks of life and addressed their specific needs where they are. And we can be sure that Jesus can meet us in our own conditions wherever we are so we can personally know him. Such was the case of the invalid man.

1. The Bethesda Pool

The invalid man never had thought that Jesus would take notice of him.

“Some time later, Jesus went up to Jerusalem for a feast of the Jews. Now there is in Jerusalem near the Sheep Gate a pool, which in Aramaic is called Bethesda and which is surrounded by five covered colonnades. Here a great number of disabled people used to lie—the blind, the lame, the paralyzed—and they waited for the moving of the waters. From time to time an angel of the Lord would come down and stir up the waters. The first one into the pool after each such disturbance would be cured of whatever disease he had.” (5:1-4)

In this particular event, it was not specified which Jewish festival had Jesus come to celebrate with his countrymen in Jerusalem. According to the Mosaic Law, there were three annual festivals that the Jewish men were required to attend and present their offerings to the LORD their God: the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the Feast of Weeks and the Feast of Tabernacles (Dt. 16:16-17). It was one of these festivals when Jesus came to the pool of Bethesda in Jerusalem.

Bethesda, which means a house of grace, was a pool in the north-eastern part of Jerusalem, near the Sheep Gate. Near this gate, there were two pools discovered by archaeologists, 16 ½ and 19 ½ meters (55 and 65 feet) long respectively. The shorter pool had five arches over it with a porch beneath each arch, which corresponds to the pool described in John 5:2. In biblical times, it was believed among the Jews that the water in Bethesda had a healing power which was attributed to an angel of the Lord who stirred up its waters and the first one who was to touch the water of the pool would be healed.

The coming of an angel to touch the waters of Bethesda, as written in verse 4, was not included in more recent translations of the Scriptures since it was noted that its source came from less important available manuscripts that were recently discovered. This does not mean that it was not part of the original manuscripts which unfortunately were not available to us. The inclusion of verse 4 could be clearly seen as a variant text based on the discovered manuscripts available on hand. And we have to clearly notice that in context, verse 4 has a direct relationship with verse 7. The invalid man specifically mentioned the unusual movement of the water in the pool which was believed to be the work of an angel of the Lord for the healing of the sick. Based on this firm belief, a great number of disabled people—“the blind, the lame, the paralyzed”—stayed at the pool and waited for the waters to be stirred by an angel. It was not indicated if the coming of an angel was visibly seen by the disabled or they could notice an unusual movement of the waters which they believed to be the work of an invisible angel. Whether the coming of an angel was visible or not, the people believed that the healing from the waters of Bethesda was the miraculous work of God.

2. The Invalid Man

At Bethesda, Jesus was moved with deep compassion when he saw the unfortunate plight of the invalid man.

“One who was there had been an invalid for thirty-eight years. When Jesus saw him lying there and learned that he had been in this condition for a long time, he asked him, ‘Do you want to get well?’ ‘Sir,’ the invalid replied, ‘I have no one to help me into the pool when the water is stirred. While I am trying to get in, someone else goes down ahead of me.’” (5:5-7)

What did Jesus see and learn about the man? The man had been invalid for long thirty eight years. And he was at the pool lying for such a long time in his desire to be healed. He was helpless for there was no one with him to assist him go down to the water of the pool when an angel of the Lord stirred it. In this desperate state, how easy for one to abandon hope of being healed! Despite his unfortunate condition, the fact that the invalid man was at the pool every day for such a long time conveyed one clear message. The man kept his hope alive that someday he would be healed. Yet, to wait for an indefinite time was an inward battle indeed.

We may ask ourselves, “What really goes on in the mind of a disabled person who is either blind or lame or paralyzed?” We understand that such disabilities are for life. In biblical times there was a prevailing thought that disabilities were direct consequences of one’s sin or the sins of parents or ancestors. With this worldview, the man could have had entertained the thought of unnecessarily blaming himself or his parents. And even if he would not have put any blame upon himself or anybody else, he could have had questioned and doubted the goodness of God. Yet, what could have ever sustained the man to be at Bethesda every day for decades waiting at any moment for the coming of an angel of the Lord to stir the water despite his hopeless condition to reach the pool because no one could attend to him? A steadfast faith in God could have sustained his hope that someday he would be healed. If this was his conviction, as a Jewish man, how great his faith had been in the LORD God of Israel! So when Jesus asked the invalid man, “Do you want to get well,” he was so honest to have presented his desperate condition. He yearned to be healed but who would care to help him go down to the pool when an angel of the Lord stirred its waters?

3. The Healing of the Man

Jesus was there for him beyond his imagination.

“Then Jesus said to him, ‘Get up! Pick up your mat and walk.’ At once the man was cured; he picked up his mat and walked.” (5:8-9a)

Jesus commanded the man to do three specific actions. First, he told the invalid man, “Get up!” Second, he told the crippled man, “Pick up your mat.” And third he told the disabled man, “Walk.” Right there and then, the invalid man stood up, picked up his mat and walked. After 38 years of waiting for an angel to come and hoping to reach the water of the pool ahead of others so he might be healed, here was a stranger who spoke directly to him and he was at once healed. Who was this man who healed him? The man had no opportunity to know who Jesus was for he quickly left the scene and joined the crowd.

Why did Jesus single out the invalid man and not healed all the disabled persons who were all desiring to be healed at Bethesda pool? First of all, we ought to be careful not to portray Jesus as partial and unfair in his treatment to anyone for he is right and just in all his ways. Probably, the reason why he attended to the invalid on that occasion was the desperate condition of the man who had been invalid for long 38 years and his helpless state as being abandoned that no one cared to help him go down the water of the pool and be healed. And we may add that Jesus could have seen his steadfast faith in God as he daily waited for an angel of the Lord to stir the water of the pool despite his helpless condition of being unable to go down to the pool by himself. Perhaps, the invalid man was waiting for the mercy of anyone who could help him reach the water of the pool for him to be healed. Yet it appeared that no one cared to extend a helping hand in his awful situation. Jesus himself took the initiative to care for the desperate invalid man. And the man was healed beyond his reason and expectation.

When the invalid man expressed that no one helped him go down to the water when it was stirred by an angel, he did not say it out of complaint and bitterness against anyone. Rather, he simply stated a hard fact of his abandoned condition that no one took the heart in attending to him. We wonder if this is how the disabled and sick amongst us think and feel when they see our insincerity and indifference toward them. Jesus cared and healed the invalid man. In following his footsteps, we are called to care for those who are hurting and journey with them in their pain.

B. Jesus’ Charge to the Healed Man (5:9b-14)

When Jesus healed the man who was invalid for 38 years, the people should have rejoiced with the man. Sad to say, as the invalid man was left alone at the pool waiting for someone to help him, he felt the same abandonment when he was being healed. The Jews were disgusted because the man was healed on the day of Sabbath. Jesus affirmed his care for the man and gave him a solemn charge.

1. The Protest of the Jews

The Jews cross-examined the man and questioned his healing.

“The day on which this took place was a Sabbath and so the Jews said to the man who had been healed, ‘It is the Sabbath; the law forbids you to carry your mat.’ But he replied, ‘The man who made me well said to me, 'Pick up your mat and walk.’ So they asked him, ‘Who is this fellow who told you to pick it up and walk?’ The man who was healed had no idea who it was, for Jesus had slipped away into the crowd that was there.” (5:9b-13)

When Jesus specifically commanded the healed man to carry his mat and walk, in effect he showed his divine authority over the man-made traditions of the Jews on their legalistic observance of the Sabbath. So when the Jews learned that the man was healed on the day of Sabbath, instead of being joyful for his healing, they were mad and showed their protest of his healing. The simple explanation of the man focused on his obedience to the one who healed him. The Jews had no regard of his healing. Instead, they were angry to the one who commanded him to carry his mat and walk. This was plain hypocrisy for they seemed to be more delighted to see the man remained invalid than see him healed in the day of Sabbath. They gave more weight in the strict observance of their legalistic tradition than giving more value on the life and the well-being of the disabled. When they asked who healed the man, he had no knowledge about him for Jesus healed him not for public display.

2. The Charge of Jesus to the Man

Jesus disclosed himself to the man.

“Later Jesus found him at the temple and said to him, ‘See, you are well again. Stop sinning or something worse may happen to you.’” (5:14)

The city of Jerusalem was filled with people as the Jews celebrated the festival. In the midst of the great crowd gathered at the temple area, Jesus showed himself to the man. And he confirmed the healing of the invalid man. The NIV translation “See, you are well again” is better rendered in GNT, “Listen you are well now.” The Greek word gegonas literarily means “you have become.” The RSV gives a plain translation, “See you are well.” And the healing of the invalid man was the act of God. With God as the healer, what did Jesus require of the man of his divine healing? Jesus gave him a clear command with a stern warning, “Stop sinning or something worse may happen to you.” This was a solemn charge the man should take to heart. Now that he was healed, he can live a normal life and enjoy his physical well-being in gratitude and reverence to God. But if he would become careless and take his healing for granted and for him to live in sinfulness he would perish in his sin unto spiritual eternal damnation which is far worse than lifetime physical disability.

Jesus was careful not to make healing as his primary earthly ministry because people would only follow him for their temporal well-being. Instead, he gave primacy on his teaching ministry so people would anchor their lives in the Word of God—the final authority of Hebrew-Christian faith and living. Miraculous signs serve as avenues for people to believe in Jesus as the Son of God anchored upon the solid foundation of his divine teachings. Jesus knew that healing is not a guarantee for people to believe in him and yield their lives to him. This was the reason why Jesus warned the man not to live in sin. This solemn warning is for all of us. A wholesome healing does not necessarily mean for physical healing but transformation from within that manifests godly living.

C. The Miraculous Sign of Jesus (5:15-18)

When the man knew that it was Jesus who healed him, he shared the good news to his countrymen. The good news fell into deaf ears. The Jews were dismayed of Jesus and they persecuted him. Jesus revealed himself to the people and declared that his divine healing was the work of God. The Jews did not believe in him and charged him of blasphemy.

1. The Report of the Man

The healing of the invalid man became a bad news to the Jews.

“The man went away and told the Jews that it was Jesus who had made him well. So, because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jews persecuted him.” (5:15-16)

In the sight of the Jews, Jesus was a law-breaker because he violated their tradition in observing the Sabbath. Sabbath means the seventh day. The biblical view of Sabbath was rooted in creation. God created the universe in six days and he rested on the seventh day (Exodus 20:11). And God instituted the Sabbath in the Law of Moses as a day for rest and worship to be strictly observed by the Hebrews as the covenant people of God (Ex. 20:8-11). The observance of the Sabbath was a covenant sign that the LORD God reigns over his people Israel. A Jew to break the law of Sabbath was a rebellion against God and merited capital punishment by stoning to death (Ex. 21:14). This would mean that the Jewish community and any society were not to seek for any endeavour outside the reign of God. Based on the law of the Sabbath, all forms of works were forbidden on the day of rest—except the acts of mercy, necessity and worship (Isa. 58:13; Mt. 12:1-13). The Jewish leaders, however, during the period of the Old Testament and New Testament, made unnecessary detailed legislation in observance to the Sabbath. These traditions were meant for the strict observance of the Sabbath that people did not even come close to violating it. As a consequence, their traditions had substituted human law for divine law (Mt. 15:9), made the Sabbath a burden than a rest and delight (Lk. 11:46), and reduced the Sabbath to an external and ritual observance (Mt. 12:8). Jesus condemned the legalistic and hypocritical attitude that missed the spiritual essence in the holy observance of the Sabbath (Mt. 12:14; Mk. 2:23; Lk. 6:1-11; Jn. 5:1-18). As a Jew, Jesus observed the Sabbath and for him to heal during the Sabbath proved that he is the Lord of the Sabbath. The Jews were misguided in their zeal for the Law of Moses and the traditions of the Jewish elders. So they despised and persecuted Jesus as a law-breaker and a rebel against God.

2. The Revelation of Jesus

Jesus made his defense by revealing himself to the people.

“Jesus said to them, ‘My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I, too, am working.’” (5:17)

Jesus made two disclosures about himself. First, his miraculous works were the very acts of God. And secondly, he called God as his Father.

3. The Unbelief of the Jews

The Jews understood what Jesus meant. They took Jesus’ claims of himself as blasphemy and they were incensed.

“For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.” (5:18)

The Jews made a wrong judgment on Jesus as a Sabbath law-breaker. The healing of the invalid man was not in violation of the Sabbath contrary to Jewish traditions. They were right that Jesus was God equal with the Father as shown by his miraculous signs. The healed man stood before them. Despite the solid evidence they hardened their hearts.

Conclusion

At the pool in Bethesda in Jerusalem, Jesus healed a man who had been invalid for long 38 years. He commanded the man to stand up, carry his mat and walk. The Jews were angry that he was healed on the day of the Sabbath. Jesus disclosed himself to the man and warned him not to continue living in sin. The healed man shared the good news about Jesus to the people. The Jews condemned him as a law breaker. Jesus revealed that God was his Father and his miracles were the works of God. The Jews did not believe in him and intensified their plot to kill him. In our encounter with Jesus, we too have to make our personal decisions in life.

Are we willing to leave our lives of sin? Jesus said to the man, “Stop sinning or something worse may happen to you.” It is not right for us to repay the goodness of God with ingratitude and unfaithfulness. We only pierce our lives with sorrow and grief when we cherish sin in our hearts. We search our souls. God cannot be mocked. We reap what we sow.

Do we defy God with our legalistic traditions? The Jews confronted the man with a baseless accusation, “It is the Sabbath; the law forbids you to carry your mat.” The Jews nullified the Word of God by their man-made rules concerning the observance of the Sabbath. As Christians we observe Sunday as our Sabbath. May we have the wisdom and grace to define our Sunday activities so we can truly worship and rest in delight.

Do we find time to care for others? The invalid man said to Jesus, “I have no one to help me into the pool when the water is stirred.” Someone out there—perhaps a brother or sister just beside us—is in desperate condition without us knowing it. A simple greeting from the heart creates an atmosphere of trust. It is only when we trust one another that we can genuinely serve each other from the heart.

What does it make of us to know that Jesus is God? Jesus called “God his own Father, making himself equal with God.” The unbelieving Jews were enraged and despised Jesus. What about us? May we enthrone Jesus into our hearts and yield our all to him. It is my fear that we profess to know Jesus, but our hearts are far from him. Oh, God forbids!

#sermon #sermons #Bible #God #Christian #Jesus #John #updiliman #updcbc #dcbc #service #worship #worshipservice

1 note · View note

aymanofhisword · 7 years

Text

Why the Jerusalem declaration is Trump’s cruelest move yet

medium.com - Ben Wolford

A father and mother are in the middle of a difficult discussion over the custody of their child. They’ve both been crying. It’s the most critical moment of their lives. Suddenly, a preposterous man sits down at the dining room table, issues a legally binding order in favor of the father and then abruptly changes the subject: “Big crowd expected today in Pensacola, Florida, for a Make America Great Again speech!”

If you can imagine the way the mother feels, you can begin to imagine how Palestinians feel today.

The U.S. conversation has moved away from Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. The story was way down on the home pages of The New York Times and The Washington Post. I couldn’t even find stories about it on the leftist front pages of Mother Jones and Jacobin. A Latterly contributing editor in Washington just told me that “it’s barely being discussed.”

The arrogant nonchalance is part of what’s so infuriating to Palestinians. Trump’s declaration was a gut punch to 12 million people that left them feeling sick, morose and angry in a way that’s difficult for non-Palestinians to understand. And we don’t even bother trying. Indifference is America’s ultimate act of cruelty.

But in fact, this is the worst thing the Trump administration has done. Worse than the Muslim ban, worse than repealing DACA and worse than walking away from the Paris Agreement.

Twenty thousand people assembled in downtown Amman today—and thousands more protested around the world—because one more piece of land has just been taken away from them. They did not elect the person who took it from them. The Israelis did not elect that person. And not even a majority of American voters elected that person. Fewer still among those who voted for Donald Trump know anything about the Israel-Palestine dispute or care.

Yet the images streaming out of today’s protests can give you an idea how much Trump’s 12-minute speech on Jerusalem matters.

If you think this demonstration has the look and feel of the protests that led to the Arab Spring, you’re not wrong. There’s a direct link between the way these protesters feel now and the way the protesters felt in 2011.

I’ll explain that, but first the requisite background. Jerusalem is a divided city. Both Israel and Palestine claim the whole municipality, but for now, after decades of gridlock, each side is mostly content to grasp a portion: the Israelis in West Jerusalem and the Palestinians in East Jerusalem. Palestinians wanted East Jerusalem to be part of Palestine in any two-state agreement.

Trump, by himself, for no apparent reason, has imperiled that arrangement by declaring (or rather, slurring) “Jerusalem is Israel’s capital.” He didn’t say West Jerusalem. He said Jerusalem.

Journalists yesterday tried to make David M. Satterfield, the acting assistant U.S. secretary of state for the Middle East, clarify the president’s statement. It ended with Satterfield attempting to say grammatically acceptable sentences while at the same time saying nothing at all:

QUESTION: Could you explain the distinction between recognizing the capital and not deciding anything on borders as it refers to a deal? Because if you’re saying that this is a final status issue to be negotiated at the table, how does either (a), this not prejudice a deal when Jerusalem is a final status issue, or (b), how is it not a meaningless declaration that could be negotiated at the table? It has to be one or the other.

AMBASSADOR SATTERFIELD: Elise, final status negotiations are going to deal with those boundaries of sovereignty, border questions that the president spoke to as not addressed by his recognition. The president thought it was the right thing to do for the United States, after all these years, to acknowledge the fact, the reality, that Jerusalem is the seat of government of the state of Israel, the capital of the state of Israel. That’s it.

QUESTION: But it’s — respectfully, it’s inconsistent with the idea that you would also be negotiating at the table unless you can acknowledge what we’re all trying to get you to say, which you artfully are not —

AMBASSADOR SATTERFIELD: Thank you, Elise. You may well think that. Thank you.

QUESTION: Well — but the idea that it may — that is — that Jerusalem is the capital, but perhaps in final status negotiations that it might be not the united capital.

AMBASSADOR SATTERFIELD: Elise, I will only address one more point on this. What were the words the President used? It was a very simple statement: recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. There are words you might want to put in there; he didn’t. There are words you might want to take out; he didn’t. That statement was very carefully made, as was the comment we are not prejudicing addressing by this decision final status issue.

When asked in what way the statement was carefully made, he said “I’m not going to get into a tick-tock on this.” Asked if he personally agreed with the decision, Satterfield gritted his teeth: “Oh, now. I am an employee of the U.S. government. … This is a decision which we will work our best to execute and advance.”

In the absence of any clarification from the Trump administration, Palestinians have intuited what’s going on here: The United States, which was supposed to be mediating a deal, has suddenly awarded a city it doesn’t own to a people that doesn’t deserve it, as one Amman protester put it.

The chief Palestinian negotiator told The New York Times he’d given up on hope for a two-state solution and was shifting strategy toward simply making life better for Arabs stuck under Israeli occupation. “This is the reality,” he said. “We live here. Our struggle should focus on one thing: equal rights.”

The people he represents—those thousands marching in Palestine, Jordan and elsewhere today—aren’t ready to give up. But they, too, have undergone a shift. To speak with them, it feels like more than a mere shift in strategy, though that’s part of it: They’ve steeled their hearts and clenched their fists to a new reality in which no one—not the U.S., not Israel and not the Arab leaders who govern the Palestinian diaspora—is dealing with them honestly.

Remember, this is a people that understands all of Palestine to be its territory, from the Mediterranean Sea to the Dead Sea. They understand Zionists and the West to have stolen this place where Jews, Muslims, Christians and others once lived together; imposed a religious state; and subjected the local inhabitants to second-class status or worse. They understand that they will one day reclaim this land, no matter how long it takes. The dream is to establish a democracy where Jews, Muslims, Christians and others can again live peacefully—a state where they can pay taxes and elect officials that work for everyone.

Today that dream seems further away. The Palestinian Authority, a governing body set up in 1994 to manage the transition to a Palestinian state, and its Fatah party leadership are seen as failing. The alternative, a Hamas-led vision of armed struggle, begins to appear as though it were necessary all along.

“They … have been told that their only hope is to create such pain for Israelis and unrest throughout the region that their needs will have to be addressed,” writes Mitchell Plitnick, former vice president of the Foundation for Middle East Peace.

This isn’t to say that Palestinians are the violent, extremist hotheads that Israeli and American propaganda would have you believe. (For instance, the U.S. embassy here in Amman ordered the children of government employees to stay home from school on Thursday. As far as I know, this wasn’t based on any intelligence that kids were in danger. Rather, it smells more like racist fear-mongering: “Those reactionary Arabs will kill your children.”)

On the contrary, Palestinians who aspire to nationhood view—with good reason—the Israeli occupation of Palestine as a violent, military project. Therefore, right or wrong, arguments for a violent, military response are at least understandable and should not be conflated with terrorism, as the editor of The Jerusalem Post does.

Such a conflict would be devastating. More than 1,500 civilians died in the 2014 Gaza War, almost all of them Palestinian, including some 500 children. But Palestinians are willing to die for statehood. Already, I’ve just seen a report of two killed by Israeli forces in Gaza during protests.

Such demonstrations could keep growing, especially as they relate to U.S.-allied Arab dictators in Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, which are not only repressive (in a variety of ways) but are seen as increasingly cozy with Israel as a counterweight to Iran and Islamic extremist groups. It’s in this sense that many Palestinians are calling for a second Arab Spring, in the hopes that such an uprising would spawn a dozen Tunisias. But it could also spawn a dozen Syrias.

That predictions falls at the cataclysmic end of the spectrum of possibilities. So far, the “three days of rage” Palestinian leaders called for have been mostly peaceful. There’s still plenty of room for the parties to salvage the nonviolent resolution that Trump’s action threatens to destroy. But it would be a mistake to discount Palestinians’ feelings of powerlessness—and the power such a feeling creates.

Why would Trump even want to mess with that? “It is almost impossible to see the logic,” wrote Shibley Telhami of the Brookings Institution. Sixty-three percent of Americans opposed the move, according to a University of Maryland poll.

Trump’s motives for anything are a mystery, and he likes to keep it that way. He prefers chaos to continuity, and he likes to do things that make him the center of attention. He’s also been the target of an intense pressure campaign by right-wing American Jewish organizations, Evangelical Christians and wealthy donors like casino owner Sheldon Adelson, who made the Jerusalem embassy relocation a focus of their lobbying efforts. It worked.

The biggest reason this was such an irresponsible decision is simple: It didn’t have to be made.

It was a cruel decision because the majority of Americans aren’t effected and don’t care, while for so many people in the street today it felt like everything.

#jerusalem #peace #politics #america #middleeast #palestine #israel #trump #opinion

4 notes · View notes

frmartinshomiliesandreflections · 5 years

Photo

16th March >> Fr. Martin’s Gospel Reflections / Homilies on Luke 4:24-30 for Monday, Third Week of Lent: ‘He slipped through the crowd and walked away’.

Monday, Third Week of Lent

Gospel (Europe, Africa, New Zealand, Australia & Canada)

Luke 4:24-30

No prophet is ever accepted in his own country

Jesus came to Nazara and spoke to the people in the synagogue: ‘I tell you solemnly, no prophet is ever accepted in his own country.

‘There were many widows in Israel, I can assure you, in Elijah’s day, when heaven remained shut for three years and six months and a great famine raged throughout the land, but Elijah was not sent to any one of these: he was sent to a widow at Zarephath, a Sidonian town. And in the prophet Elisha’s time there were many lepers in Israel, but none of these was cured, except the Syrian, Naaman.’

When they heard this everyone in the synagogue was enraged. They sprang to their feet and hustled him out of the town; and they took him up to the brow of the hill their town was built on, intending to throw him down the cliff, but he slipped through the crowd and walked away.

Gospel (USA)

Luke 4:24-30

Like Elijah and Elisha, Jesus was sent not only to the Jews.

Jesus said to the people in the synagogue at Nazareth: “Amen, I say to you, no prophet is accepted in his own native place. Indeed, I tell you, there were many widows in Israel in the days of Elijah when the sky was closed for three and a half years and a severe famine spread over the entire land. It was to none of these that Elijah was sent, but only to a widow in Zarephath in the land of Sidon. Again, there were many lepers in Israel during the time of Elisha the prophet; yet not one of them was cleansed, but only Naaman the Syrian.” When the people in the synagogue heard this, they were all filled with fury. They rose up, drove him out of the town, and led him to the brow of the hill on which their town had been built, to hurl him down headlong. But he passed through the midst of them and went away.

Reflections (11)

(i) Monday, Third Week of Lent

In today’s first reading, we hear of two people who were asked to do something and initially reacted in a very negative way to what was being asked of them. When the king of Aram asked the king of Israel in a letter to cure his commander Naaman of his leprosy, the king of Israel thought the king of Aram was trying to pick a quarrel with him. When Naaman was asked by Elisha the prophet to bath in the river Jordan for the healing of his leprosy, Naaman thought Elisha was trying to insult him. However, both the king of Israel and Naaman misinterpreted what was being asked of them. They interpreted something positive in a very negative way. Our first reaction to what is being asked of us is not always the best reaction. Sometimes we need another person to point out to us that there is something good in what we initially see as negative. In the gospel reading, the people of Nazareth heard what Jesus was saying to them as insulting, whereas it was intended to be reassuring. Jesus identifies with two prophets, Elijah and Elisha, who helped two people beyond Israel, showing that the God of Israel was also the God of the pagans. This was good news, but the people of Nazareth heard it as bad news. If God is the God of the pagans then he cannot be the God of Israel as well, they seemed to think. We need the wisdom to hear and see the good in what we can be tempted to dismiss as problematic. The Lord can be speaking to us in and through situations that we initially find disturbing. If we stand back and allow ourselves to reflect and truly listen to what is unfolding, we can be helped to see the Lord in places, in situations, where we might never expect to have found him.

And/Or

(ii) Monday, Third Week of Lent

In today’s gospel reading we hear that the people of Nazareth were enraged at Jesus because of the message that he preached. They were angry because the words of Jesus challenged their somewhat narrow view of God and what God was about. Jesus identified himself with two prophets who ministered not just within Israel but far beyond Israel - Elijah in Sidon, and Elisha in Syria. Jesus was revealing a God who was just as concerned about the sick and suffering outside of Israel as the sick and suffering within Israel. Jesus was showing the people of Nazareth that God’s horizons were much wider than they had realized. They didn’t like their image of God being challenged and that is why they rejected Jesus, and would have killed him if they could have. Jesus will always challenge our image of God, because he knows God better than we do. The God of Jesus is a big God, with a big heart, a wide horizon, a generous purpose for our lives. Our vision of God can sometimes be too restricted. We need to keep on being exposed to Jesus’ vision of God. That is one of the reasons why we need to keep reading, reflecting upon and praying the gospels that have been entrusted to us by the evangelists. It is above all in the gospels that we meet Jesus’ God, the living and true God, in the words of St Paul.

And/Or

(iii) Monday, Third Week of Lent

In this morning’s gospel reading, Luke tells us that early in his ministry Jesus was rejected by the people of Nazareth. At the end of his ministry he would be rejected by the people of Jerusalem. Whereas the people of Nazareth intended to throw him down a cliff, the people of Jerusalem, or, rather, their leaders would have him crucified. It may seem strange to us that someone whom we honour and take our lead from should have evoked such deadly hostility in others. One of the reasons he generated such hostility is, perhaps, because he was somewhat unconventional. In the gospel reading he speaks to the people of Nazareth about a God who is as likely to heal the sick outside Israel as he was to heal the sick inside Israel. The God Jesus revealed did not have favourites; this news was not well received by those who had come to think of themselves as God’s favourites, God’s chosen. Jesus continues to speak to us of a God who does not have favourites. More accurately, he reveals a God who favours all men and women. In and through Jesus, God’s favour has come to rest on us all. This is a cause for joy, not, as was the case in Nazareth, a cause for anger. Our calling is to reveal something of God’s indiscriminate favour to others. Like Jesus, legionaries often go out to those who have not been favoured by others; for one reason or another, they have not enjoyed the favour of their families or of society. Yet, as legionaries you can reveal God’s favour to them – help them to see that God’s favour rests upon them as much as upon anyone else. This was very much the work of Jesus.

And/Or

(iv) Monday, Third Week of Lent

In this morning’s gospel reading, the people of Nazareth were enraged with Jesus. They were so angry with him that they were prepared to kill him. Jesus is often described as angry in the gospels. When he is angry it is because there is something not right with the people he is talking to or with the situation in which he finds himself. The angry of the people of Nazareth, however, showed that there was something wrong with them. They had a very narrow view of God; they believed that God had a special relationship with them, and had no relationship with those beyond Israel. Jesus reminded them that many of the prophets ministered to people beyond Israel, Elijah to a widow from Sidon and Elisha to a leper from Syria. The implication was that Jesus would do the same. He came not just for the people of Israel, but for all men and women. If God chose Israel, it was for the sake of all those beyond Israel. In reality, God had no favourites. It was this generous image of God that Jesus displayed that the people of Nazareth objected to. Our calling today is to allow Jesus to shape our image of God, to rejoice, rather than to be angry at the generous and expansive God that Jesus reveals.

And/Or

(v) Monday, Third Week of Lent

In this morning’s gospel reading Jesus challenges the rather narrow view that the people of his home town, Nazareth, had of God. Just as they felt that Jesus belonged to them, ‘Do here in your home town the things we heard you did in Capernaum’, so they felt that God belonged to the people of Israel. When Jesus reminded them of a couple of passages in the Scriptures where God seemed to favour the pagans over the Jewish people they did not like it, and in response they forcibly ejected Jesus out of Nazareth. His rejection in Nazareth anticipated his even more brutal rejection in Jerusalem. The people of Nazareth’s God was too small and Jesus was seeking to broaden their understanding of God. He wanted them to realize, in the words of Peter in the Acts of the Apostles, that ‘God has no favourites’. The God of Jesus was more generous, more expansive, more inclusive than people realized. Jesus was always trying to show people that there was much more to God than they imagined. He is more like the father in the parable of the prodigal son than his is like the elder son. Jesus’ vision of God remains challenging for us today, but it is a vision of God that is fundamentally ‘good news’ for all who are willing to receive it.

And/Or

(vi) Monday, Third Week of Lent

In today’s gospel reading we hear that the people of Nazareth were enraged at Jesus because of the message that he preached. They were angry because the words of Jesus challenged their somewhat narrow view of God and what God was about. Jesus identified himself with two prophets who ministered not just within Israel but far beyond Israel - Elijah in Sidon, and Elisha in Syria. Jesus was revealing a God who was just as concerned about the sick and suffering outside of Israel as the sick and suffering within Israel. Jesus was showing the people of Nazareth that God’s horizons were much wider than they had realized. They didn’t like their image of God being challenged and that is why they rejected Jesus, and would have killed him if they could have. Jesus will always challenge our image of God, because he knows God more deeply than we do. The God of Jesus is a big God, with a big heart, a wide horizon, a generous purpose for our lives. Our vision of God can sometimes be too restricted. We need to keep on being exposed to Jesus’ vision of God. That is one of the reasons why we need to keep reading, reflecting upon and praying the gospels that have been entrusted to us by the evangelists. It is above all in the gospels that we meet the living and true God, whom Jesus reveals by his words, his deeds, his death and his resurrection.

And/Or

(vii) Monday, Third Week of Lent

I was struck by the number of angry people in this morning’s two readings. In the first reading, the king of Israel was angry when he received a letter about Naaman, the Syrian army commander, asking that he be cured of his leprosy. Naaman became angry when the prophet Elisha asked him to bathe seven times in the Jordan river. In the gospel reading the people of Nazareth were enraged when Jesus drew attention to how God had cured the pagan Naaman of his leprosy through the prophet Elisha and fed a woman from Sidon, another pagan, through the prophet Elijah. In none of the three instances was the anger really justified. We can all find ourselves getting angry for no good reason. The people of Nazareth were angry because Jesus was implying that the God of Israel cared just as much about the people beyond Israel as he did about the people of Israel itself. They didn’t really want to hear this. They had their own comfortable understanding of God as the God of Israel, his favourite people, his chosen people. The God Jesus soke about made them feel uncomfortable because it challenged their narrowness and parochialism. God is always bigger than our understanding of him, and, rather than being resentful like the people of Nazareth, we can be very grateful for that. God is always more generous, more embracing, more forgiving, than we could ever imagine. God’s ways are not ours and God’s thoughts are not ours, and that is ultimately very reassuring and comforting.

And/Or

(viii) Monday, Third Week of Lent

At the end of this morning’s gospel reading, Jesus meets with a very violent reaction from the inhabitants of Nazareth. They hustled Jesus out of the town, intending to throw him down the hill on which their town was built. Their reaction to Jesus was one of great anger. In the parable of the prodigal son, anger was also the reaction of the elder son to his father giving a feast for his younger son after he returned home having wasted his share of the inheritance he received from his father. The elder son was angry because he considered his younger brother unworthy of the attention his father was giving him. Similarly, the inhabitants of Nazareth were angry with Jesus because he identified himself with two prophets, Elijah and Elisha, who ministered to people beyond Israel, people whom the inhabitants of Nazareth would have considered unworthy of such attention. Like the father in the parable, Jesus gave time and attention to people who would have been written off by others as undeserving and unworthy. The people of Nazareth, like the elder son, had a much narrower view of God than Jesus had. Jesus reveals a God who relates to us not on the basis of whether we are worthy or deserving but simply out of a compassionate love whose length and breadth and height and depth cannot be fathomed. The gospel reading suggests that we don’t have to fit other people’s standards of what is acceptable for God to seek us out and embrace us.

And/Or

(ix) Monday, Third Week of Lent

In this morning’s gospel reading, the people of Jesus’ home town, Nazareth, were enraged at Jesus. In their anger, they tried to hurl Jesus down from the brow of the hill on which their town was built. We are given a very clear image of just how destructive anger can be. We know from our own experience that anger, especially extreme anger or rage, can take us to places we would never normally go. What was it about Jesus that left his townspeople so enraged? He was challenging their rather parochial mindset and their narrow understanding of God. Jesus was proclaiming a God who was concerned for those in need, whether they were to be found within Israel or among the traditional enemies of Israel, such as the Syrians. Jesus was declaring that God did not just belong to the people of Israel, much less to the people of Nazareth. The God who was the Father of Jesus was had a much broader horizon than the God of the people of Nazareth. God is always bigger than our conception of him. Whenever we make God in our own image, whenever we believe in a God who reflects our own prejudices and blindness, it can lead to violent and destructive behaviour, as we know all too well today. On our pilgrimage of faith we need to keep asking Jesus to open our hearts and minds more fully to the living and true God whom he reveals to us by his words and his deeds, by his death and his resurrection.

And/Or

(x) Monday, Third Week of Lent

In his sermon on the mount, Jesus warns against the danger of anger, an emotion that can have deadly consequences if it is nurtured and stoked. Jesus went behind the commandment ‘Do not kill’ to the emotion of anger that can lead to the action that the commandment prohibits. Today’s gospel reading gives an example of the kind of deadly anger that Jesus warned against. It is said that the people of Nazareth who heard Jesus preach in their synagogue were enraged at him. Their anger was such that they took Jesus up to the brow of the hill on which their town was built with the intention of throwing him down the cliff to his death. On this occasion Jesus escaped from the deadly power of their anger. Group anger, as is portrayed in the gospel reading, can be even more deadly than individual anger. Why were people so angry at Jesus, so enraged? Jesus reminded his townspeople of what was in their own Scriptures, the Jewish Scriptures. He was simply showing them that the God of Israel was the God of all humanity and that God often sent his prophets to care for people beyond Israel, indeed, to care for those who would have been considered Israel’s enemies. This was the dimension of the God of Israel that Jesus wanted to highlight in his ministry. Because the one, true God cares for all of humanity, all the members of the human race are our brothers and sisters, including those who are very different from us. History, past and present, suggests that this is a lesson we have to keep on relearning.

And/Or

(xi) Monday, Third Week of Lent

In the gospel reading, Jesus identifies with two prophets, Elijah and Elisha, who once ministered to people beyond Israel, a woman from Sidon and a man from Syria. Jesus was implying that his own ministry, while having a special focus on his own people, was not confined to them. He had come for Samaritans and pagans as well. Jesus was showing that the God of Israel was the God of all nations, and that, in reality, God had no favourites. This was a message that the people of Israel did not wish to hear. They were enraged by it, so enraged that they ran Jesus out of his home town and wanted to kill him. The words of Jesus aroused strong emotion in the people of Nazareth. Sometimes the words of Scripture can have a strong emotional impact on us too. A particular passage can leave us feeling peaceful, or joyful, or sad or angry. When a gospel passage or some other passage of Scripture evokes strong emotions in us, it is worth noting it and staying with the passage. It may be a sign that the Lord has something to say to us through this particular passage. The anger of the people of Nazareth was a sign that God, speaking through Jesus, was challenging them to broaden their image of God so as to have a less nationalistic picture of God. We need to listen to our emotions in prayer, because the Lord can often be saying something important to us through them.

Fr. Martin Hogan, Saint John the Baptist Parish, Clontarf, Dublin, D03 AO62, Ireland.

Email: [email protected] or [email protected]

Parish Website: www.stjohnsclontarf.ie Please join us via our webcam.

Twitter: @SJtBClontarfRC.

Facebook: St John the Baptist RC Parish, Clontarf.

Tumblr: Saint John the Baptist Parish, Clontarf, Dublin.

0 notes

schraubd · 6 years

Text

In Relating to our Black Allies, Jews Need To Stop Being Babies

Every toy for babies is basically the same. There is a button to be pressed, or some other simple action -- a bop or a shake or a slap. The toy emits a sound, squeak, or noise. The baby is happy beyond belief, and presses the button again. The sound repeats, and the baby is (somehow) just as ecstatic as the first time. Rinse, wash, repeat forever. Sometimes I feel like, in our relationship with the Black community, the Jewish community remains in infancy. Because we are constantly behaving like babies, and we need to cut it out. Here's the play: we find a Black person. We ask them to condemn antisemitism (Farrakhan is always a good target). They comply. We are delighted. We press the button again. They make the condemnatory noise again. *clap clap clap*. Oh, what could be more fun? And again and again and again we go, pressing the button on our fabulous condemn-antisemitism toy. Until eventually, our partner doesn't want to play anymore. Maybe they're concerned at the disproportionate attention Black antisemitism seems to receive. Maybe they want to talk about something other than antisemitism. Maybe they just don't like being used as a toy. So we press the button, expecting to hear the delightful sound of a condemnation of antisemitism, and ... it doesn't come. And then, like a baby, the tantrum begins. "How could you not condemn a monster like Farrakhan?" "Don't you care about Jews?" "If anyone asked me to condemn a racist in my community, I wouldn't hesitate!" Bawl bawl bawl. A moment's reflection shows how juvenile these demands are. There are plenty of actions by the Israeli government I oppose as wrongful or even (in some cases) prejudices. And I condemn them, often. But I would not accept anyone's entitlement to have me do so "on demand", like a speak-and-spell, any and every time I wished to present myself in a public space. That sort of behavior -- and it does happen (remember Matisyahu in Spain?) -- is rightfully deemed antisemitic. So we should understand how our parallel demands in the Black community are rightfully understood as racist. In Faces at the Bottom of the Well, Derrick Bell recounts an incident where Rep. Charlie Rangel was asked on television to condemn some antisemitic remark by Farrakhan. He did so, while also expressing frustration at the sense that Black Americans "have to carry around their last statement condemning Farrakhan" like a passbook in order to be accepted into civil society. Yet this is the effect of our infantile mode of relating to our Black peers. Whenever they swing into our orbit, we reach out and press the button, waiting for them to say those magic words for us. I'm not saying that there is no antisemitism in the Black community, and I'm not saying there aren't Black people who really do apologize for Louis Farrakhan's antisemitism. This post isn't about them. This post is about people who know full well that Farrakhan is an antisemite, and have never given any indication they think otherwise, but just resent being asked to say so over and over and over again. So to be clear: What makes a Black person an ally to the Jewish community is not that they stand ready to be pressed as a button whenever a Jewish person needs to hear the comforting sound "Louis Farrakhan is an antisemite." That's an unreasonable, frankly infantile demand. But too often it seems characteristic of how Jews relate to those in the Black community we wish to see "allyship" from. There's one other element of this analogy that I think it's important to bring forward. The reason babies love these toys is not just because they appreciate the sounds that they make. That's part of it, but just as important is the toy's testament to the baby's ability to manipulate the world around them. They can tell that when they push this button, that results -- and for an infant who generally can't really cause things to happen in the world (no matter how much they might want to), that's a really nice feeling. When it comes to antisemitism and eliciting a response to it, Jews are in a similar boat. We very much want people to respond to our calls; to condemn antisemitism when we ask them to. But for the most part, the world doesn't listen to us. When we, say, ask Mike Huckabee to not make gratuitous Holocaust comparisons, he flatly rejects the demand and snarls that "Israel and Jewish people need to make friends, not insult the ones they have." Like infants, Jews are constantly made quite aware that we are for the most part sitting at the mercy of people bigger and stronger than we are. So, when there is a spot in the world where, when we say "condemn antisemitism!", something actually happens, there is something understandably exciting and delightful about it. It is an exercise of power by people who typically feel powerless. A similar dynamic explains why sometimes there might seem to be outsized attention to Jewish racism. For the most part, condemnations by communities of color of racism instigated by White Americans fall on deaf ears, for it is a feature of Whiteness in America that they are if they wish impervious to such demands. And likewise, it is a feature of Jewish vulnerability that we are not so impervious and that therefore at least sometimes, in some spaces, we can be compelled to answer. That, I imagine, is a delightful rarity. So perhaps it's understandable why those attacking racism so often seem to draw from the Jewish well. But if it still feels like an exploitation of Jewish marginal status, that's because it is. And likewise, the reason we're able to get some Black leaders, some of the time, to condemn antisemitism on cue is because of racism. The comparative vulnerability of a Black American versus a, say, Mike Huckabee means that they have to be responsive to these sorts of demands in circumstances where others don't. The constant call to "condemn antisemitism" exploits that vulnerability -- which is to say, it exploits Black marginalization. And that exploitation is reasonably resented. If the only way we relate to our Black allies is by asking them, again and again, to condemn antisemitism, we don't actually have a relationship as allies. We have a relationship that could be fulfilled by a tape recorder. True allyship is bidirectional. It involves giving as well as taking, and it involves learning new things, not just repeating the same homilies over and over again. Most importantly, a genuine allyship involves trust -- trust to know that one's partners oppose antisemitism even when they're not saying out loud. Trust that they've got your back even when they're operating in precarious circumstances, where sensitivities are on edge and tensions run highest. And unfortunately, right now, it seems that trust is lacking. Can that lack be laid entirely at the feet of the Jewish community? No, it can't. But do we have our share of the blame? Yes, most certainly. I get, obviously, why it feels good to hear Black people condemn antisemitism. And I get the social conditions which make it easier to focus on Black people who do or don't criticize Louis Farrakhan compared to tackling the far more entrenched, but far more dangerous, iterations of antisemitism in Congress, in churches, among Soros-conspiracymongers and White supremacist murderers. But such pleasures are cheap, and we are not babies. It's time for the Jewish community to grow up. via The Debate Link http://bit.ly/2VXNNOF

#Black #Jews #racism

106 notes · View notes

mattthevicar · 5 years

Text

Week 2: Luke Ch1 and Ch2 – Jesus’ birth: Welcome to a journey into adventure

This week we begin to look at Luke’s Gospel itself and we begin with the story of Jesus’ birth.

Try not to be put off by the amount of material here.

A lot of it is introducing concepts and ideas that we’ll come back to again and again as they reappear like golden threads through the Gospel and which will show how the Bible works.I’ve split these notes into two parts so as to enable reflection based on how much time you have and how in depth you want to go.

The “Main material” shares the key theme, encourages us to read the text, watches the videos, and asks some questions to encourage spiritual reflection. This should take about half an hour to work through.

Then there is also additional material – I’ve called it “Support material.” It’s more than that really, it’s the main body of material looking at the text itself. It’s a walk ‘scene by scene’ through the actual text pausing at various points to notice key aspects or ask certain questions that hopefully enables a much deeper appreciation of the richness to this story. You could easily work through the “Support material” bit by bit over the course of a week.

There’s no rush. Enjoy.

Matt

Introduction:

Let’s begin by watching a short video from the authors of the Bible Project which gives an Overview of Luke Ch1 and Ch2:

youtube

The Key Point to pick up on:

If we take nothing else from these opening chapters of Luke I would suggest the key point is this: through the birth of Jesus God is committing Himself not just to Mary and Joseph, but to all humanity, which includes us. He is wanting to reshape and reorder the world from the inside according to love; through inspiration, through persuasion, through compassion, and through care for each and every person and situation. It seems almost futile, trying to reshape the world this way in the face of power. But one thing is for sure, after we glimpse the enormity and awesomeness of everyone’s risk and cost of engagement surrounding the birth and life of Jesus, nothing can be the same again for we will hopefully all grow in knowing love like never before.

It’s still the greatest story ever to be told.

Reading the Bible:

Now, would be a good time to pick up your Bible, or look at the text on-line and read the actual stories themselves. So, let us read through Luke Ch 1 and 2. Try not to skip this section if you can, there is nothing better than reading God’s word one on one for ourselves. (For inspiration and a few thoughts to encourage us to spend further time with the actual text – see the section “Support material” below). Further Reflection: We need to move on. Look at what we tend to do as human beings with awe and wonder when it happens to us. Here are two short videos. The first is a news report from an Arabic news channel of preparations for Christmas actually in Bethlehem:

youtube

And the second is taken from a series of video blogs created by a young couple called Sergio and Rhoda.* This is their video about the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem:

youtube

In each case, both in the Church and in wider culture, we tend to want to adorn, sanctify and commercialise what in some ways is beyond all these things. Maybe otherwise it’s too much of a challenge for us? Don’t get me wrong, I really love Christmas. I love everything about it, the stories, the services, the carols, the tinsel and the parties. I especially love the kindness and the grace people are sometimes willing to show “because it’s Christmas.” But sometimes I hanker also to get back to the simplicity of the original story, peeling back all the layers of the furnishings adorning the grotto beneath the Church of the Nativity to get to the honesty of those original caves next door where Jerome translated his Bible and which have been left almost untouched. This is how a singer called Clay Aitken put it in his song “Mary did you know”:

youtube

There was also a cover version done of this song by the popular acapella group, Pentatonix:

youtube

Both are a modern take on one of the great songs of the Church, “the Song of Mary,” (Luke Ch 1 vs 46-55), otherwise known as “the Magnificat.” It was her “yes” to God. *N.B. A bit of background about Sergio and Rhoda. Their story is an interesting one for it breaks the norms. Rhoda comes originally from Nazareth and is as an Arabic Christian - Nazareth is probably the largest Christian community today in Israel. Sergio originally comes from Belarus and from a Jewish background. He became a Christian following in the footsteps of his grandmother. The couple got together across the divide of Arab and Jew and have recently returned to Israel after a period in Florida, in the US and they have dedicated their time over the last couple of years to making short videos about many of the Archaeological and Biblical sites of Israel in order to show to friends back in their Church in the States.

Spiritual Refection Questions: As last week, one of the key disciplines we are trying to encourage with this approach to reading the Jesus story is to take time not only to try and understand what the Bible is saying, but also to let the Bible ask questions of us. It takes a little longer, it may mean reading certain parts of the story again, but it is so worthwhile. So, here are the questions for spiritual reflection this week: · Imagine you are one or more of the characters in the stories surrounding the birth of Jesus, or John. Re-read the words and events around you and imagine yourself into how it felt to be there: o You could be Zechariah, the priest and father of John, going about your everyday tasks at work, at home, at school, doing what’s ‘expected’ of you, just like Zechariah. It maybe you feel you do the same when you come to worship in Church. Suddenly, into that situation God speaks. What does it feel like to be Zechariah, or Elizabeth for that matter? (See Luke Ch 1 vs 5-25 and Ch 1 vs 57-80) o Or you could be Mary, imagine being her as she says “yes” to God. So often when God intervenes, as he did in Zechariah and Elizabeth’s life, it comes with a call. This call can come with a huge cost. What was it like for Mary to take on this adventure into the unknown, letting go of all that she knew and reaching out for a dream? (Luke Ch 1 vs 26-56, Ch 2 vs 1-12, and Ch 2 vs 22-52) o Or you could imagine being one of the Shepherds, out in the fields, on the margins of the community, knowing so much of the history of God but never really expecting God to break into your world in the here and the now. What was it like to kneel at the feet of God’s own Son in that cave and know that we too are accepted and loved? (Luke Ch 2 vs 8-20) (Optional: at the end of the Support Material I have included a short video about somewhere called “Shepherd’s Fields, just outside Bethlehem. It shows just how this was and is a very special site. For those who have come to Israel with us in the past it’s also got Rev Aaron Eime doing the talk – the minister and guide form Christ Church, in Jerusalem who showed us round the Old City.) · After watching the videos and after reading the text itself pause for a moment and ask yourself - what does Christmas and the story of Jesus’ birth means to each to you? o How would you describe it?

o What would you say to a friend if they asked – what is at the heart of Christmas for you? Maybe think about how it has touched you, either now or in the past, what stands out for you, and how it makes you feel?

To read this week’s additional support material, click HERE!

0 notes

focusontheeasternlightning-blog · 5 years

Text

I Understand the Mystery of God’s Gender and I Welcome the Return of the Lord

By Yuguang, Canada

I began to believe in the Lord Jesus in 1992, and I read this in the Bible: “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life” (John 3:16).

In order to redeem mankind from our sins, the Lord Jesus was crucified upon the cross as a sin offering. Whenever I thought of that, my heart would feel much stirred. After I began to believe in the Lord, I enthusiastically attended church gatherings, and would read the Bible and pray whenever I had the time.

One day, my little sister brought two sisters I’d never met before to my home. As we talked, they said that God had returned in the flesh, and had appeared and was working in the form of a woman. When I heard this, I immediately refuted it, saying, “How can that be? It states clearly in the Bible, ‘For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life’ (John 3:16). This only begotten Son mentioned in the Bible was surely male. So surely the Lord must return as a man as well? How can you say that God has returned as a woman?” Although they saw that I had adopted such an oppositional attitude, they were still full of compassion toward me and they said, “Sister, although God incarnating as a woman does not tally with our notions, we must know that God’s work does not change by our own will and we must not judge God’s actions by our own thoughts. When the Lord Jesus came to perform His work, for example, this surpassed man’s notions and imaginings; He was not born in a palace, but was instead born in a manger. Nor did He lead the Jews to overthrow the Roman authorities, but instead taught people to love their enemies and show tolerance and patience. Did not the Pharisees of that time resist and condemn the Lord Jesus because His work did not tally with their notions?” At that point, the door to my heart was closed, and no matter what they said, I would not listen to any of it. Instead, I just got up and went to do something else …

Afterward, my mom accepted Almighty God’s work of the last days, and she then preached to me, saying, “God has incarnated and returned. Almighty God is the returned Lord Jesus and He expresses His words and performs the work of purifying man. We’ve believed in the Lord for so many years, looking forward to the day when we could welcome His return. If you don’t accept that He has returned, then all your faith will be for nothing. When your little sister comes back, you have to really listen to her. Otherwise, you’ll miss your chance to welcome the coming of the Lord and will regret it for as long as you live.” But in my heart, I still believed that, because the Lord Jesus was male, therefore the returned Lord should come in male form as well, and that He couldn’t possibly come in female form. I even tried to advise my mom not to accept it, but my mom would not listen to me; she had made up her mind.

Later, some brothers and sisters came to preach to me the gospel of the Lord’s return, but I didn’t want to hear it and I resisted them. But then I thought of how we were all believers in God and that the Bible said we had to receive guests with love. Regardless of whether or not what they preached tallied with my own notions, I still had to live out normal humanity, and so I received them into my home. While they gave me fellowship, I sat to one side with a blank expression on my face. But I discovered that, whatever attitude I took toward them, they were still full of compassion for me and would still take the trouble to preach to me. Seeing the way in which they lived out their lives, I began to let my guard down.

And so, I said to them, “You preach that the Lord Jesus has returned as a woman, but I can’t quite get my head round this. As we all know, when the Lord Jesus came before, He came as a man, so wouldn’t the Lord return in the last days as a man as well? How could He possibly return as a woman?”

After listening to my questions, a sister said patiently, “In Genesis 1:26–27, it is recorded, ‘And God said, Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth. So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them.’ It clearly states in Genesis that God created both male and female in His own image. If God is male, as we say, then how can these words in the Bible be explained? Actually, God’s essence is Spirit and there is no distinction between male and female. Only because God incarnated to save mankind did there arise a distinction between male and female, but this does not mean that God is either male or female. We must not delimit God because the Lord Jesus incarnated as a man. Whether God incarnates as a man or a woman, as long as it is the work of God then we should investigate it and accept it. We should not rely on our own notions and imaginings in our approach to it….”

Yes, I thought. It clearly states in Genesis that God created male and female in His own image. God created Adam as a man and Eve as a woman, and were they not both made in God’s image? This was a fact! After they’d left, I thought that they’d spoken reasonably, and what they’d said had chimed very well with the Bible. If they came again, I decided I would listen in earnest and try to get to the bottom of it all.

But a few days later, my elder sister brought five brothers and sisters from our big church, and they said gravely, “Has anyone preaching Eastern Lightning been to your home? You must not believe in it! How could the Lord possibly come to perform His work in the form of a woman? You must not believe it….” They took it in turns to say their piece and, though I had been wavering before, because of what they said, the door to my heart that had just begun to open once again slammed shut. After that, I became afraid that the people from my church would find out, and so when brothers and sisters came again to preach God’s work of the last days to me, I refused to let them in.

But my mom continued to believe in Almighty God just as she had before, and she attended gatherings every time one was held, never missing even one no matter how bad the weather. Also, I saw that, ever since my mom had begun believing in Almighty God, she seemed to brim with smiles and her faith in God had waxed positive and strong. She treated our family kindly and amiably, was tolerant and patient with people, and this was such a great change from when she had simply believed in the Lord. As for me, however, I went to church to listen to sermons, but they were just the same old things, and my spirit was not being provided for. At home, I would read the Bible and pray, but I couldn’t feel the work of the Holy Spirit, I paid only cursory attention to reading the Bible and sometimes I would fall asleep whilst reading it. No matter how much I read, I just couldn’t understand the Lord’s will within the Scriptures, and my heart wasn’t in it when I prayed—I was just going through the motions. My faith grew colder, and I felt as though my spirit was parched and withered. My heart began to be swayed: Could it be that Almighty God truly was the Lord Jesus returned? Was I shutting out the work of the true God?

One day, a sister from my original church came to my home, and she said to me in earnest, “Sister, every brother and sister who believes in the Lord is longing for Him to return. Now that He has returned, if we do not seek or investigate it merely because God’s gender does not conform with our notions, then wouldn’t we be shutting God out? Would this tally with the Lord’s will? The Lord Jesus said, ‘Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and you shall find; knock, and it shall be opened to you’ (Matthew 7:7). If you don’t seek or investigate, how then will the Lord open the door to you? And how will you be able to welcome the appearance of God? Thinking back to the time of Jesus, the Pharisees were well-versed in the Bible, but because the coming of the Lord Jesus did not tally with their own notions, they nailed Him still living to the cross and Israel suffered the pain of national subjugation. Are we to tread the same path as the Pharisees? God is inherently Spirit, formless, invisible and intangible, and there is simply no distinction of gender. It was only after God became flesh that there arose the distinction between male and female. No matter whether God incarnates as male or female, the purpose of His work does not change, which is to completely save all who love God from the influence of Satan and lead them into His kingdom.”

The sister’s few words served as a gentle reminder to me, and I thought: Yes! When the Lord Jesus came to perform His work, the Jewish chief priests, scribes and Pharisees were well-versed in the Bible and had served God in the temple for generations. But because the Lord Jesus looked ordinary and normal, because He did not have the countenance of a king and was not called Messiah, they condemned Him and blasphemed against Him, they refused to accept the truth He spoke and finally they had Him crucified upon the cross. Now, I had heard that the Lord had returned, and I had not sought or investigated it, but instead had refused to accept it and had refused entry time and time again to brothers and sisters who had come to preach His coming to me. Was I not treading the same path as the Pharisees? The sister saw that I remained silent, and said, “I have a book of God’s words here. I hope you will read it in earnest.” Her sincere words and expectant look thawed my heart. For so long, brothers and sisters had come time and time again to my home to preach the gospel, and no one could have this much faith and love unless it came directly from God. I therefore accepted the book and told the sister that I had decided to investigate this way.

After she’d left, I could hardly wait to open the book. The more I read, the more I felt that the words in the book carried such authority and power. The book spoke so clearly and transparently about the three stages of God’s work, from His creation of the world to the last days, from the Old Testament to the New Testament, and from the New Testament to the Book of Revelation. It also exposed the situation of our current reality and our views about belief in God and, as I read, I became utterly convinced. I felt that these words were the voice of God for, apart from God, who would have such a thorough understanding of mankind, and no celebrity or great person could ever speak such authoritative words as these. I felt like a seedling that had been struck by drought for so long that had then been watered by the water of life. I hungrily read the book, and my spirit felt better and better …

One day, I read these words from God: “Each stage of work done by God has its own practical significance. Back then, when Jesus came, He was male, but when God comes this time, He is female. From this, you can see that God created both male and female for the sake of His work, and with Him there is no distinction of gender. When His Spirit comes, He can take on any kind of flesh at will and that flesh can represent Him. Whether male or female, it can represent God as long as it is His incarnate flesh. If Jesus had appeared as a female when He came, in other words, if an infant girl, and not a boy, had been conceived by the Holy Spirit, that stage of work would have been completed all the same. If such had been the case, then the present stage of work would have to be completed by a male instead, but the work would be completed all the same. The work done in either stage is equally significant; neither stage of work is repeated nor conflicts with the other. At the time, Jesus in doing His work was called the only Son, and ‘Son’ implies the male gender. Then why is the only Son not mentioned in this stage? This is because the requirements of the work have necessitated a change in gender different from that of Jesus. With God there is no distinction of gender. He does His work as He wishes and in doing His work He is not subject to any restrictions, but is especially free. However, every stage of work has its own practical significance.”

After I’d read this passage, my heart was suddenly filled with light. Yes, I thought. God is inherently Spirit with no distinction of gender. Whether the gender of God’s incarnation is male or female, as long as it is a body that clothes the Spirit of God, then it is Christ and it is God Himself. Although the gender into which God has twice incarnated has been different each time, it is still God in essence and the One who works is still God Himself. For example, when the Lord Jesus appeared and worked as a man before, this body was a representation of God; now in the last days, the Lord has returned in the flesh as a woman to work, and this body is a representation of God in just the same way. It is just because God’s work is different that He incarnates into different genders, and although the flesh looks different from the outside, the essence is the same—that of God Himself. I then thought of myself and about how confused I’d been. Over the last few years, no matter how brothers and sisters gave fellowship to me, I always refused to accept what they said. I’d been so rebellious and had been just like the Pharisees, delimiting God’s work by relying on my notions and imaginings and almost missing God’s salvation of the last days.

I then read these words of God: “If only the work of Jesus had been done without being complemented by work in this stage of the last days, then man would forever hold onto the notion that Jesus alone is the only Son of God, that is, that God has only one son, and that anyone who comes thereafter by another name would not be the only Son of God, much less God Himself. Man has the notion that anyone who serves as a sin offering or who assumes power in God’s behalf and redeems all mankind, is the only Son of God. There are some who believe that as long as the One who comes is a male, He may be deemed the only Son of God and God’s representative, and there are even those who say that Jesus is the Son of Jehovah, His only Son. Is this not a seriously overblown notion of man? If this stage of work were not done in the final age, then the whole of mankind would be veiled under a dark shadow when it comes to God. If this were the case, man would think himself higher than woman, and women would never be able to hold their heads up, and then not even a single woman would be able to be saved. People always believe that God is male, and moreover that He has always despised woman and would not grant her salvation. If this were the case, would it not be true that all women, who were created by Jehovah and who have also been corrupted, would never have the opportunity to be saved? Then would it not have been pointless for Jehovah to have created woman, that is, to have created Eve? And would not woman perish for eternity? For this reason, the stage of work in the last days is to be undertaken in order to save the whole of mankind, not just woman. If anyone should think that, were God to become incarnated as female, it would solely be for the sake of saving woman, then that person would indeed be a fool!”

What God’s words exposed was precisely the notion I had held! I had believed that the only begotten Son was male and that only men could assume power, and therefore the Lord should return as a man. From God’s words, I came to understand that God had incarnated this time as a woman in order to uproot our deeply-held notions, to dispel our fallacious understanding and misconceptions about God and to make us aware that God is Spirit without any distinction of gender. If God had once again incarnated as a man, then we would be even more prone to define God as male and as the God of men and not the God of women. In actual fact, God is the God of all mankind, and He saves both men and women. I also came to have a deeper understanding of the verse in the Bible that says, “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life” (John 3:16). The only begotten Son is mentioned in reference to the body God incarnated into back then, and does not mean that God is male. I used to cling to my notions and imaginings, believing that the only begotten Son was male, and that the Lord Jesus couldn’t come in female form. And so, I ended up shutting out the returned Lord Jesus. I had been so foolish and rebellious! I felt deeply from the bottom of my heart that if God had not incarnated in the last days to speak His words, then no one would have been able to uncover these mysteries.

I continued to read God’s words, and the more I read, the more I felt I had been blind and ignorant for having delimited God’s work to my own notions and imaginings and for believing that if God did not incarnate as a man then it was not the return of the Lord. I had also tried to stop my little sister and mother from accepting God’s new work and had almost lost God’s salvation of the last days because of my own misconceptions. Thanks be to God for sending brothers and sisters to my home time and time again to preach the gospel to me, otherwise I would be just the same as the Pharisees had been when they resisted the Lord Jesus, living in my notions and imaginings, refusing to accept God’s new work and ultimately losing forever God’s salvation.

Thanks be to God! By investigating this way, my husband and I both accepted the kingdom gospel of Almighty God, we have returned to God’s family and we now live the true church life. Brothers and sisters sing and dance in praise of God, and we fellowship God’s words. If we have any corruptions, we are able to be completely open about them and seek the truth to resolve them, and there is much enjoyment at our gatherings. Also, I’m no longer unhappy like I used to be, when I had such a parched and withered spirit. Instead, I read God’s words and learn hymns every day, and my spirit has obtained full and genuine liberation and freedom. I give my sincere thanks to Almighty God for bringing me back into God’s family, and for helping me cast off my old life and leading me onto the path of light. Thank God!

#Christian Testimonies #Return to God #Gender of God

0 notes