Christmas, Gaza and the politicising of Christianity

This Christmas a lot of our thoughts are about the situation in Israel and the war between Hamas and Israel. Palestinian civilians are caught in the middle of this and it is horrendous to see the death and destruction of people whom God loves and who are created in His image. Most of us wish to see an end to this carnage and peace in the Middle East centred around Jerusalem which means city of peace.

'Christ in the Rubble'
an icon by Kelly Latimore

There are a number of images circulating this Christmas of Jesus, Mary and Joseph. Two are notable: The first is a crib in the Lutheran church in Bethlehem where the baby Jesus is shown in a Palestinian kafeeyah amongst rubble, and the second an icon showing Jesus, Mary and Joseph in a bombed-out area that looks like Gaza.

Whereas, as followers of Jesus, we wish to care for the oppressed, these images illustrate a lot of falsehoods and wild inaccuracies that are making the situation more complex than it already is. One example of this was the sermon at St Helena’s Church in Larnaka on Christmas Day where it was claimed ‘Jesus was born a Palestinian Jew into an occupied oppressed land.’

Whereas he was indeed born into a land that became occupied and oppressed by the Romans during his lifetime, he was not a Palestinian but Jewish, which was both a religious and ethnic description. It is very important theologically to see Jesus as a Jew not a Palestinian. The Palestinians as a people group primarily come from the other side of the family divide, not from Isaac but from Ishmael, ‘a wild man’ living ‘in open hostility against all his relatives’ which fairly accurately describes the actions of the Hamas terrorists! This is not to say all Palestinians are wild terrorists, far from it, but they are not descendants of Isaac and thus not covenant inheritors of the land.

But let’s put this all in context: At the time of Jesus birth Judea was a Jewish kingdom under King Herod, a Jewish kingdom. The Kingdom of Judea had been a Roman ally since the second century BC; albeit since 63 BC and the war of succession in the Hasmonean court effectively a client of Rome. It only formally became a Roman Province in 6 AD, some years after Jesus was born, and hence was a Roman province by the time Jesus was put to death.

More than 30 years after Jesus' death, in AD 66, someone emptied a pot of urine outside a synagogue, thus defiling a holy place. This led to riots and the Roman governor demanded the Jewish authorities hand over the culprits, which they refused to do. Florus, the Roman governor, then ordered his troops to massacre everyone in the market. This turned the violence into full-scale revolt, described by Jewish historian Josephus as ‘From one end of Galilee to the other there was an orgy of fire and bloodshed.’ In 69 AD the temple was destroyed and many Jews escaped from the Province of Judea which later became known as the Province of Syria and Palaestina. Between 6 AD and 1948 AD there was no nation-state of Palestine though the name was used by the occupying powers over more than 1900 years.

That bit of history is important for several reasons. We see that bloodshed and an orgy of killing is something that has happened against the Jewish people right down through the centuries, the holocaust was not, by a long way, the first genocide against the people God had identified as having a special relationship with Him.

The second is that it demonstrates that to describe Jesus as a Palestinian Jew is both inaccurate and misleading. It carries political and theological implications that should definitely not be promulgated. Hence too, the crib in Bethlehem with Jesus in a Palestinian kafeeyah also creates an inaccurate picture. The fact that crib is in a Lutheran church, a church which during the Second World War embraced antisemitism, further complicates the issue.

The Christmas Day Sermon again: ‘Sometimes preachers are criticized for being political, but how can the act of God in coming into the world in this way not be political? He comes to bring peace and love, justice and mercy—these are all political words… Being a Christian means… accepting the political significance of that (Jesus) birth…’

Jesus himself, when accused of being political, responded to the Roman governor by saying ‘My Kingdom is not an earthly kingdom. If it were, my followers would fight to keep me from being handed over to the Jewish leaders. But my Kingdom is not of this world.’ Thus he separated political and spiritual kingdoms. In Arabic and Aramaic it’s easier to see this as there are two words memlekah (physical/political kingdom) and malakoot (spiritual kingdom) so in the Lord’s prayer it uses malakoot for ‘May your (spiritual) Kingdom come soon’.

Alongside this, justice should be a function of the judiciary rather than politics. One of the disputes between the European Union and Hungary is that there is a cross-over between the political government and the judiciary. Although it was as far back as Aristotle that the problem of mixing political governance and the judiciary was recognised, it was Calvin in the 1500s (and later John Locke and Montesquieu) who suggested that the separation of political and judiciary was important for the functioning of a democracy. Hence, bringing 'justice' into the realm of politics is both counter-the-way of Christ and counter-democracy. That concept may sound counter-intuitive but we will see why later.

Now it’s clear within Israeli Jewish thinking – which doesn’t accept Christ’s separation of the political and spiritual – that the formation of the nation-state of Israel is both political and spiritual. This merging is also common in Islamic thinking. 

However, this is further complicated by the fact that Hamas bases their thinking on a debunked conspiracy theory called The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which is a notorious 1903 document that falsely purports to reveal a global conspiracy by Jewish leaders, known as the ‘Elders of Zion,’ to seize control of the world. (https://bxi.international/2023/10/30/hamas-and-israel/)

Because of this, Hamas sees a battle between ‘good’ (Islam) and ‘evil’ (Jewish take-over of the world) which requires the elimination of all Jews everywhere:

‘The Day of Judgment will not come about until Muslims fight Jews and kill them. Then, the Jews will hide behind rocks and trees, and the rocks and trees will cry out: 'O Muslim, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him.'’ They see it as the duty of all Muslims to take part in the elimination of Jews worldwide. ‘The day the enemies usurp part of Muslim land, Jihad becomes the individual duty of every Muslim. In the face of the Jews' usurpation, it is compulsory that the banner of Jihad be raised.’ (Quotes from The Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement, 18 August 1988 which is the Hamas governing document.)

Hamas is therefore implicitly antisemitic and the claim ‘Palestine shall be free from river to the sea’ is about the elimination of Jews as much as freedom for a nation-state that never existed.

Within all of this, of course, are the horrors we see of what Israel is doing to the civilian population in Gaza. On the website of the Anglican Diocese of Cyprus and the Gulf they quote the pastor of the Lutheran church which created the Palestinian crib as saying ‘In Gaza today, God is under the rubble. If Christ were to be born today, he would be born under the rubble. We see his image in every child killed and pulled from under the rubble.’ 

This of course wouldn’t be true because Jesus was born a Jew, not a Palestinian and the rubble is in Gaza, not Israel. God didn’t choose to make a political statement of his son being born in an occupied oppressed land but being born within a specific family within a specific tribe within the Jewish people group. To get that confused is not only theologically incorrect but changes the Christian faith into a political movement rather than a relationship with the incarnate God.

However, separating political and spiritual can sometimes be seen to favour the oppressor and to accept the horrors to the civilian population in Gaza. In fact, this is far from the truth and separating justice from the realm of the political and returning it to the realm of the spiritual elevates the problem. The death and injuries to the people in Gaza are not merely a political issue to be debated at the UN Security Council but an existential issue against people created in the image of God. It is therefore against God as much as against man.

Of course, this is complicated by Hamas and the conspiracy theory of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. But that brings in another part of the nature of Christ, that of truth: ‘I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me.’ As followers of Christ, we are truth-bearers exposing the lies of Hamas and the injustices of the Israeli government against the civilian population of Gaza who have been led astray by the lies of Hamas. Palestinians are not covenant inheritors of the land, and thus, as part of that same covenant with the people of Israel, require protection not death and destruction from the Jewish nation!

This politicising of Christianity by some factions of the church ends up leading us down a path that is away from the covenant pledges and demands that would end up protecting the very people they claim to support. The problem is intensely spiritual rather than just political. But the error is to see the spiritual world as merely passive and not active. Following Christ is not being part of a political movement but listening to the Holy Spirit on a day-by-day basis and being involved with what God is doing in the world.

Jesus explained, 'I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself. He does only what he sees the Father doing. Whatever the Father does, the Son also does.' (John 5:19)

Baptism -- what's it all about?

How important is water baptism?

Since the 5th Century when Augustine described sacraments as ‘an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace’ baptism has been seen in the church as a sacrament. For some churches it is a critical part of becoming a Christian or 'saved', with Baptists arguing for Believers Baptism and other churches practising infant baptism where the child obviously cannot 'make the profession of faith'. Other churches and Christians put the emphasis on faith. Is baptism a symbol or something deeper than that?

There are a number of times that baptism is mentioned in the Scriptures, many with a similar emphasis starting at what is called the Great Commission:

‬And he said to them, 'Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.' (Mark‬ ‭16:15‭-‬16‬ ‭ESV)

And Jesus came and said to them, 'All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.' (Matthew 28:18-20 ESV) 

Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. (1 Peter 3:21 ESV)

And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name. (Acts 22:16 ESV)

Having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. (Colossians 2:12 ESV)

Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. (Romans 6:3-4 ESV)

Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. (1 Peter 3:21 ESV)

Reading those passages it could be interpreted that baptism is far more important than just a symbol that we do following Jesus commandment. 

Three things to note:

1. The third version of the Great Commission in Luke doesn't include baptism at all but a proclamation of the gospel: [Jesus] said to them, 'Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead,  and that repentance for the forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. 48 You are witnesses of these things. And behold, I am sending the promise of my Father upon you. But stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.' (Luke 24:46-49 ESV)
2. There is no record in the Scriptures of Jesus baptising anyone, yet he commanded others to do so, implying (if he didn’t baptise anyone) that we are following his example in doing so in obedience rather than actually following a method taught by him. In Scripture, we see only the method demonstrated by John in which Jesus was a participant.  Contrast this with the model prayer which we call the Lord's prayer and the meal we call the Last Supper.
3. There is no record in the Scriptures of the 12 disciples being baptised. Because it would be incoherent for them to baptise unless they themselves were baptised one needs to realise that some things are probably implicit rather than explicit. However, if they were baptised, who baptised them?

In Acts 2:38 Peter's words merge Luke's version of Jesus' words and Mark's version of Jesus' words including baptism:

And Peter said to them, 'Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.'

Following on from in verse 41 we see that those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.

It was an immediate response to Peter where three thousand were baptised, with no discipleship course and no other preparation. Was this because there was some urgency to do it immediately? 

In a discussion with a friend from Nicosia he summarised it as:

There are certain things in the scriptures above that we cannot deny. 

• Jesus commanded that everyone be baptized
• Jesus said that the one who believes and is baptized will be saved.
• Peter said that we must repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus for the forgiveness of our sins.
• People were baptized immediately upon believing. There was no delay, even to the point where they had to baptize 3000 people in one day.
• There is language in the Bible that shows that baptism is somehow linked to our death and resurrection in Christ.
• There are scriptures that show that baptism is somehow linked to forgiveness.

This doesn't address the issues of how the baptism takes place -- should it be still or moving water, sea or fresh water and full immersion or sprinkling. Nor does it address the question of whether it includes the infant family members of believing parents or not. 

Because there is no record of Jesus baptising people we don't have a direct model to follow, though of course Jesus himself was baptised in the river Jordan, hence why some people argue that baptism must take place in fresh water that is moving (like a river). 

And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family. (Acts 16:33 ESV)

There are at least three references in Scripture to whole families being baptised. Though it is argued by those who follow only adult Believers Baptism and that didn't include the children and infants of the family, this is argued from cultural assumptions rather than Scriptural text.

What does God really care about?

I should get back to more writing and there are two blog posts I started but didn't finish. However, this subject touched me and made me think, study and pray. It started when a friend of mine posted this grid:

I immediately felt two things, firstly that didn't reflect my identity nor did it reflect my perception of God. 

It seems to me that in some ways our perception of our identity and our perception of God are symbiotic. How we see God will reflect how we see ourselves and how we see ourselves will reflect how we see God. 

Looking at it the whole original grid is coloured by the perception of a Legalist identity -- look at the second column of Judge, Boss, Therapist and then Father. All very subservient positions except maybe father depending on how one sees one's father! Jesus said 'I no longer call you servants but friends'. Though not direct peers we are definitely not slaves!

It didn't match with a God of love if God is a judgemental boss who wants to fix his wayward children. It is, however, how many people see God. Indeed it was how I grew up seeing God. I used to call it the 'theology of splat'. You must do what God wants or He'll splat you!

And happiness is a very North American concept from 'Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness'. We see this more as 'Life, liberty and the pursuit of harmony'. Our Father is bringing the universe back (at the end of time) into harmony rather than the Islamic idea (at the end of time) of happiness in excess.

As I've grown older I have realised that was a totally erroneous perception of God. The grid below now demonstrates my perception of self and perception of God. Immediately I can feel people saying 'so you ignore sin!' Not at all, but I now see it in context. When presented with a woman caught in a sin that according to the law a judge would sentence to stoning to death, Jesus, first of all, pointed out that we are all sinners and then did not sentence to death but commended her to 'Go and sin no more.' 

So to my grid:

When I completed my grid and I realised just how different my identity is and thus how I see God very differently. The next book I'm working on (with a whole group of people) is called 'Settlers and Nomads'. Legalists tend to be more settlers not liking things that upset their settled life. Nomads see themselves more as sojourners traveling through this life.

In the first row if our identity is more of a Settler then God is our heavenly anchor and he is concerned about the storms of life that would dash us on the rock. And both are simultaneously true but as individuals, we will see God differently. 

As a legalist seeing God as judge? Though Scripture does talk about God as judge there are frequently two concepts alongside this: Firstly that God will save his people and that we are not to judge others. Though in Paul's letter to the Corinthians he says we should judge cases. But our emphasis should be on being guided away from sin ('Go and sin no more') rather than judgment about sin.

Of course that raises a pertinent topic of what is sin? It's rare to find anyone today who would see slavery as anything other than sin. But let's go back to 1102 and the Council of London held by Archbishop of Canterbury Anselm. A number of religious laws (canons) were drawn up, one of which was to forbid 'to sell men like cattle'. This is probably the first time slavery as such was outlawed. 

In light of the debate about homosexuality, and whether it is sin or not, it's interesting to note that at the Council of London there was a move 'that homosexual behaviour was a sin, and they recommended that offending laymen be imprisoned and clergymen be anathematized'. However, Anselm prohibited the declaration of that decree 'advising the Council that homosexuality was widespread and few men were embarrassed by it or had even been aware it was a serious matter'. It was only later that it was it became the battleground it is today with people taking opposing views based on differing interpretations of Scripture! 

Looking at my grid I also thought it fitted more with a trinitarian perception of a Creative God. As well as seeing God as related to us as Father I see the Holy Spirit as our guide and Jesus as our brother and friend. We are on this Messianic Pilgrimage through life and though obedience is part, we see from the dialogue between God and Abraham that it's not just 'do this or I'll splat you' but open to negotiation in some way like a friend. And Abraham was called God's friend.  Thus the second row takes us to an intimate relationship with God as Father rather than the more distant in the fourth row of the original.

The third rows are almost diametric opposites: Consumer or creator? Happiness or fulfillment? Whereas it's true many see their identity as consumers and indeed some have taken God's blessing to 'subdue the earth' as the old English puts it. 'Fill the earth and govern it' is seen by some as 'use all the earth's resources to your own ends'. This dangerously misses the stewardship we are commended to.  Jesus expressed it clearly in the parable of the three servants. Two of whom expressed diligence and creativity and one who did nothing.

Finally, I see seriously missing in the original grid anything relating to being a follower of the Messiah. The final row 'Christian' has so many different meanings it has lost almost all of them, though I admit that in some ways the final row in the original grid is similar to the second row in my grid. Christ is not explicitly identified in the original and that for me is important.