These are some of my dominant thoughts as I reflect on the pilgrimage-research
trip to Israel-Palestine on the cusp of my 50th birthday (June 7-18, 2015)
Part I: I look at Jerusalem and wonder, Is God Mocking our ‘Religions’?
Jerusalem is one city
but it is claimed as a (or better, "the") "holy city" by
the three great monotheistic religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Why?
Because all of them believe that “a” (in the case of Islam) / “the” (in the
case of Judaism and Christianity) crucial and foundational events on which
faith is based happened precisely in Jerusalem. Jerusalem is, hence, made into
a territorial and geographical LINK with the DIVINE itself.
When humans attain such
a faith-conviction (this is actually an oxymoron since "faith" by
definition can never, for me, be a conviction because I think proper faith is
more of a humble trust and hope that one can never conclusively prove) ---
nevertheless, when such a "faith-conviction" is reached, humans then
tend to want to "freeze" this faith conviction in some form in order
for it to last forever and never ever be changed. This is done through, say, a
colossal, seemingly indestructible monument (for example, a temple, a basilica,
a dome) or through other means such as canonized (read: untouchable,
unchangeable because of its sacred status) scripture or absolute, infallible
dogma, or even through the positing of an absolute figure who is answerable to
God alone (e.g., the Pope).
Throughout history,
Jerusalem has seen all these attempts to "freeze" and
"solidify" and "eternalize" some faith-conviction: Jews
built a temple that was the wonder of the ancient world; Christians built
mighty basilicas; Muslims built breathtaking mosques ...
But, at the end of the
day, Jerusalem ... actually, God (in my opinion)... laughs at all our misguided,
puny, pathetic human efforts and actually mocks us for them! It is as if God
were telling us, "Look, you can never catch me!"
It is opportune to
reproduce here some reflections I have written elsewhere because they clarify
what I'm trying to express here.
*****
From <http://www.catholica.com.au/gc4/jkk/002_jkk_280213.php>
Zion Theology in the Old Testament...
When I reconsider all of
the above, it is as if I am swallowed up in a time warp and brought back to the
age of Solomon's Temple in the ancient Southern Kingdom of
Judah more than 500 years before the birth of Christ. Sometime during
the history of ancient Israel before the First Temple's destruction by the
Babylonians in 586 BCE, a clear and strong strand of thought traditionally
known as Zion theology took shape. One can discern its dominant
presence in various sections of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament,
particularly in the historical and prophetic books and the Book of Psalms.
Zion theology can
be described as the whole compendium of beliefs that centered
on God's choice of King David's monarchical line and the
importance of the city located on Mt. Zion—Jerusalem in God's scheme
of things. These beliefs took the form of a firm conviction and at times even a
smug confidence that God would make David's dynasty last
forever [see it reflected for example in 2 Samuel 7:16] and that the
city which David made the kingdom's capital and where his son Solomon built
the temple [1 Kings 6-8] would always be under special divine
protection [see e.g. Isaiah 31:5]. Of course, the major significance of
the temple lay in the fact that it housed the "holy of holies,"
the very presence of God among his people [see 1 Kings 8].
Since Jerusalem was
considered the special dwelling place of God, many were confident that it
was impregnable and would not fall to any conqueror. In fact, the
assurance of God's protection over the holy city is expressed in
parts of the prophetic writings (such as in Isaiah 31:5). When the
prophet Micah who lived in the latter half of the 8th century BCE,
prophesied that Jerusalem would become "a heap of
ruins" [Micah 3:12] on account of the glaring injustices committed by
its leaders, this went completely against the prevailing firm conviction about
the impregnable character of Jerusalem that it was apparently quite
shocking to its addressees. One can perceive the immense shock value of Micah's prophecy
because it was still remembered verbatim a century later during the time of the
prophet Jeremiah (if we take Jer. 31:18 at face value).
Of course, it is also
well-known that the prophet Jeremiah countered the dominant Zion
theology of his time in a deep sense when he called the people to actually
bow down before the Babylonian conquerors and accept that they were
going to prevail over Zion because God had given
sovereignty to Babylon in order to teach Israel a
lesson [Jer. 27-28]. It is probably for challenging the deeply-held
convictions of the guardians of Zion theology's orthodoxy of his day
that Jeremiah was made to suffer much to the extent that he is known
as the "weeping" or "heartbroken" prophet.
In the end, history went
on to prove that this conviction about the Davidic dynasty and Jerusalem's
special divine protection was an illusion because, with the Babylonian
destruction of Jerusalem and the Babylonian captivity of many prominent
Judeans, David's line historically came to an end and the supposedly
impregnable temple that Solomon had built lay in ruins. In effect,
the whole theological thought system based on an everlasting Davidic dynasty
representing God that ruled from an impregnable city in which God dwelt in
a special way was, as it were, a "temple" of cards.
Theological Overconfidence – a Form of Idolatry...
How does one evaluate
those who fervently believed in what came to be called Zion
theology and tried to uphold it to the extent of persecuting prophetic
voices that warned of Jerusalem's demise? Were they people of profound
faith or were they hopelessly lost in delusion? The latter judgment can
only be made in retrospect, with the clearer hindsight of history. There
seems to be a very thin line indeed separating faith and delusion.
Zion theology is a
biblical example of what I'd like to call theological over-confidence. I
define this as an attitude of having a firm conviction that develops
unhealthily into a smug confidence in a person or a group of people
that "God" – or, by extension, "grace," "Jesus,"
or even "truth" – surely resides in a given form, a place or a
particular entity. This over-confidence becomes even worse when it is held by
persons of authority to which there are no effective checks and balances.
I strongly believe
that theological over-confidence should actually be linked to the
most important commandment God gives the chosen people in
the Hebrew Scriptures: the injunction against idolatry. The text
of Deuteronomy 5:8-9 [NRSV] reads thus:
You shall not make for
yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or
that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You
shall not bow down to them or worship them.
In the Old
Testament, God is very stern about the making of images or, in
popular parlance, idols. Israel, the chosen people, is not to make any
concrete representation of God. Why, one may ask? There are many
scholarly studies about the subject that one can readily consult but let me
share here my personal theological reflections on the matter.
One of the most profound
descriptions of God I've encountered in my life is still Karl
Rahner's. Rahner spoke of God as a "gracious
mystery." The human spirit, in its relentless pursuit of a greater
something that could fulfill its most profound desires, can be compared to an
ever-receding horizon that cannot be fully reached because its object is
actually the gracious mystery that is
God: mysterious because God is ultimately unfathomable,
yet gracious because it is full of love.
Now idolatry is the
complete opposite of this. Idolatry attempts to take away God's mysterious
character and turn it into a form that humans can manipulate. At its
core, the severe condemnation of idolatry in the Bible means
that God cannot and will not be "boxed in" or limited. That
is to say, one cannot make a mould and fit God into it as if one
were pouring plaster into a pre-existing mould so that the plaster is formed
into the shape desired. No, God does not usually fit into human
"moulds." Idolatry is the most elementary expression of the
human attempt to craft God into an image of one's liking.
By idolatry, humans, as
it were, cut God down to size; through idolatry, humans turn an
otherwise mysterious and ultimately unfathomable divine being into an
easy-to-understand, easy-to-grasp, easy-to-control form. In the end though, the
sobering fact is that God is not so facilely treated thus.
If the injunction
against idolatry is primarily directed at physical images in the Bible, it is
because physical idols serve as a concrete warning against the more insidious
thing that humans can actually do to God: Humans can actually delude
themselves into believing that they, as it were, “have God down pat,”
that they hold God captive, perhaps in a temple, a basilica, a mosque
or, by extension, in a set of theological ideas, in a church, in a liturgical
style and so on and so forth. But if the Bible teaches us anything, it is that in moments when people think they
have "cornered" God, the gracious mystery breaks free of the
fetters humans have put God into and shatters whatever mould has been
created to confine and control this profoundest of mysteries.
A Recurring Pattern in Christian History...
Zion theology is
not the only instance where God can be seen to foil theological
over-confidence. The Bible is actually replete with this pattern in its major
and minor stories: God confuses the language of people who think they
can build a tower that reaches to the heavens [Genesis 11]. Despite having
been a powerful instrument of God to free Israel from
slavery, God does not allow Moses to enter the promised
land [Deuteronomy 34]; God chooses not David (despite
his ardent desire) but his son Solomon to build the temple [2 Samuel
7]; after the return from the Babylonian exile, the hoped-for glorious
restoration of Jerusalem is not realized [reflected for example in
Malachi], among others.
Even in the New
Testament, the theme is there. If the historical Jesus was something
of an apocalyptic prophet-like figure (as a substantial number of biblical
scholars think), one can make a case that Jesus initially believed
that the Reign of God he proclaimed would break into history
imminently and in a more dramatic way through his ministry. Only when it
became clear that his main ministry consisting not only of healing, but
also of meal-fellowship and preaching, would not be the catalyst for the
inbreaking of God's reign into his immediate world did he become
convinced that the way of the cross was what God expected of
him.
After Jesus'
resurrection, many of the earliest members of the Jesus movement (such as the
early Paul for sure) were convinced that the Parousia, the second coming
of Christ, was going to take place very soon, even in their lifetimes. This is
evidenced in countless passages with an apocalyptic message which pepper the
whole New Testament. Again this proved to be a gross misapprehension. Its
delay vexed many in the earliest communities prompting some scholars to speak
of a crisis about the delay of the Parousia. Christianity had to dig in for the
long haul.
Finally, the whole
history of Christianity can be viewed as a regular cycle of great expectations
that were not realized or convictions about God, about Christ, about
the Church, about truth that were ultimately proven to be incorrect. Humans are
constantly trying to grasp the great and ultimate Mystery but end up
reducing God simplistically into something like a—yes this is
practically what it is—idol, a smaller, easier-to-handle "god."
Fortunately, as
in ancient Israel, God is the iconoclast par
excellence. God continually shatters our idols in order to make us
grow, to make us enlarge our views concerning the vastness and
uncontrollability of the divine mystery we continually try to control
with our puny minds.
End of part from <http://www.catholica.com.au/gc4/jkk/002_jkk_280213.php>
*****
Back to Jerusalem
We come back to the city
in which the most ardent hopes of the three great monotheistic religions have
been concentrated and expressed very materially in a geographical area.
Jerusalem today seems to
be at times by and large a cacophony of many discordant religious voices.
Sometimes it is so confusing that it grates annoyingly on one’s nerves! I often
experience this in the church of the Holy Sepulcher where different Christian
denominations are perpetually jostling and even quarrelling with one another
for a share of what is deemed Christianity’s holiest spot. After 20 centuries
of Christian history, its internal frictions and disunity are all too painfully
reflected in its holiest shrine in which a “status quo” (sometimes imposed by
outside powers – Muslims are still the “guardians” of the Holy Sepulchre to
this day) has to be maintained. Yes, Jerusalem laughs at us … (through such an
unfortunate situation) God and Jesus also seem to be laughing at our petty
quarrels. This pathetic state of affairs is actually God’s way—I think—of
mocking us into doing something to remedy the situation! But we never learn …
We just want “our share of the pie,” so to say …
The holy “old” city of
Jerusalem itself is divided into different quarters – Christian, Armenian,
Jewish and Muslim, again, perpetually jostling and quarrelling with each other
for each one’s status. Order in the form, again, of a status quo has to be
imposed by a now militarily strong State of Israel so that the different
competing groups in Jerusalem don’t end up again (as has happened in history)
at each other’s throats. Yes, Jerusalem laughs at us … God and Jesus seem to be
making fun of our pettiness and meanness with each other. The unfortunate
situation is another instance—I believe—of God mocking us into doing something
to break down the walls we have built in order to protect our turfs and keep
the ‘Other’ out! Yes again, we never learn … We unfortunately repeat the hardness
of heart evidenced by God’s people again and again in the Hebrew Bible.
On the temple mount
stand two magnificent mosques, expression of a Muslim conquest in history which
showcases to us, however, the different powers that have controlled that sacred
space. That is, the mount has gone from Jewish temple to garbage dump (during
the Byzantine area) to Islamic holy site to headquarters of the strongest
Crusader military order (the Templars) and then back to Muslim holy site.
However, now the original ‘Temple Mount’ area is just part of a Jerusalem that
is squarely under the control of the State of Israel which, as mentioned, has
to police the place and maintain an uneasy status quo that could erupt into
violence and chaos at any time. So, although Muslims go to the Haram El Sharif (“Noble Sanctuary”) to
worship, in a sense, it is no longer truly theirs. In a sense, worship is being
allowed … maybe just tolerated by the Jewish State that controls the area.
Meanwhile in the Kotel below (the
Western Wall), devout and not-so-devout Jews go to worship in what is the only
remnant of the Second Temple, hence, it has become the holiest site in Judaism.
In short, the situation is, in a sense, a comedy, something that is actually
laughable – Jews control Jerusalem but, in a sense, they don’t have the Temple
Mount because of the presence of Islamic holy buildings. Muslims have the
mosques on the Haram El Sharif but, in a sense, they really don’t completely
control it because Jerusalem is in Jewish hands now. What a complex,
complicated, oxymoronic, paradoxical … frustrating but, in another sense,
already funny state of affairs.
And again, Jerusalem laughs
at us … God and Jesus also laugh … more like shake their heads and let out a
sad laugh that is more of a sigh … at the pettiness and meanness with each
other of those who are supposed to be their worshippers. The paradoxical and
oxymoronic situation at the Temple Mount or Haram El Sharif is another
instance—I am convinced—of God mocking us into—what God hopes—a kind of
Enlightenment. What Enlightenment? In the end, I have to say that our ideas
about God, the divine, holiness, religion—although they may contain many valid
and even brilliant insights—are still very much characterized by meanness and
denigration of those who are considered to be not in our “tribe,” petty
narrow-mindedness, failure to see the “big picture,” and, most importantly,
still characterized by idolatry as defined above --- the simplistic reduction
of God into something like an idol, a smaller, easier-to-handle
"god."
I see in Jerusalem’s
very complex and problematic history and present reality a “revelation” from
the true, Bigger God, that the forms of our so-called “religion” are ultimately
false (because they are idolatrous) and more divisive. The concrete forms which
our religions have taken in history and present reality actually have failed big time to reflect what is
supposed to be the reality of unity-in-diversity that monotheistic religious
faith is supposed to foster (in fact this was one of the deepest reasons
why I felt years ago that I could not anymore represent institutional religion
as a presbyter) …. If this is not ridiculous, in fact, quite preposterously
and therefore already funnily ridic, then I don’t know what ridiculous is!
What would be a better
form of religion then, one may ask. This is not the place to discuss that
topic. I’ll try to deal with that in another future reflection but I’ll say now
that a better form of religion might be one that is more “integral” and intentionally
“non-tribal.”
The above thoughts seem to be quite negative as I review them. I’d
like to add now that ‘Negative’ is not the only thing I experienced. But these
thoughts are the dominant ones that come to mind first as I reflect on my
experience after the trip. I’ll share other thoughts in the coming reflections that
I will continue to make on this blog.
/jkk
However, Boyarin concludes that what is uniquely Christian is the idea that that divinized "Son of Man" is not only going to appear on the clouds of heaven in the eschaton (as in Daniel and other 2nd Temple Jewish writings) but is actually here, walking on the earth in the person of Jesus of Nazareth (pp. 100-101). In short, the "incarnation" in a concrete person of the originally Jewish idea of a divinized "Son of Man" is the Christian innovation. 
