[1] The Sixth Paradigm [R. Holloway--Different Paradigm Shifts in Christianity] - Part 1

Source (in the public domain): http://radicalfaith.org/holloway/sixth%20paradigm.htm

From a talk Holloway gave in May 2003

Accessed: 2020-09-03

 

The Sixth Paradigm  [Different Paradigm Shifts in Christianity]

Richard Holloway (former Episcopal Bishop of Edinburgh)

 

I want to take a glance at the whole of Christian history because one of the things I'd like to get at is this widespread notion that Christianity is or ever has been a single thing.

To do this I'll use a large text, but I want to lead into it by addressing first a very slim text.

One of the most important and influential philosophical texts of the twentieth century was a short book called The Structure of Scientific Revolutions written by an historian of science called Thomas Kuhn. Now Kuhn was a student at Harvard in the 1960s. He was a young physicist and was invited by the President of Harvard to teach a course on the history of science to humanities students who knew nothing about science. He said to himself, "You don't refuse the President of Harvard!"

In his researches and preparing the course he surprised himself. He came across something that he had not hitherto realised was the case. He had a notion of science as a kind of linear activity - a bit like those machines in a coal mine which eat into the coal face - which bites its way through the facts of the universe. He thought of science as a cumulative process in which these facts were gradually laid out.

He discovered that it was in fact a more violent, interruptive activity. Hence the title of his essay. He discovered that science operates by what he called "paradigm revolutions" or "paradigm shifts". He didn't actually coin the word "paradigm" but he did give it a new kind of meaning. He said that the scientific community worked within what it called a paradigm, a constellation of views based on experiment, a world view or set of assumptions that it operated within. This was the going, working science of the time.

The paradigm was operated until it stopped working - that is, until new questions or new discoveries began to collide with the given view. Let me give you a fairly obvious example.

Aristotelian astronomy, upon which the worldview of the entire Bible is based, proposed a three-decker universe with the earth at the centre and all the spheres going round it. The whole idea was that the earth is the centre of the system both physically as well as theologically.

That was the going paradigm. And it still works. The Ptolemaic version of Aristotelian astronomy can still operate for a yachtsperson. You can cross the Atlantic using Ptolemaic astronomy, guiding your boat by the stars. So to that extent it can still be a working paradigm.

But it was overtaken by the great Copernican discovery which was revolutionary because it said, "Ah! The earth is not the thing which everything else goes round. In fact, we go round the sun."

You'll recall the great struggle which then took place. This was because the new paradigm appeared to contradict both the biblical account as well as the going scientific paradigm. Interestingly, it was only fairly recently that the Pope gave the sun permission to be the centre of the solar system.

What happens then is that you get a working set of systems which operates quite satisfactorily until along comes new knowledge, usually discovered by creatures of genius. They begin to ask questions about the old paradigm. Those who use the old paradigm resist the new - and it is entirely right that they should do so. One doesn't want to keep changing a world view which works. It's a confounded nuisance if you're switching paradigms every few years. You need to get traction, a bit of tradition and leverage on the thing.

So you make it work as long as you possibly can. You use it to try to answer the new information which is coming in. There's also in some people a natural kind of conservatism which doesn't like any kind of change. They prefer the going paradigm to anything which is coming down the road. They do so for purely temperamental reasons - but it's also true that the scientific method itself inherently tests new data until it overturns the old. And then you get a paradigm revolution and you move on.

Kuhn's little book has influenced philosophers, culture critics and theologians since the early 1960s. I want to look now at a great text which has applied Kuhn's conclusions about paradigms to Christianity.

The greatest living theologian is Hans Kung, a Roman Catholic. His is the "large text" to which I referred earlier. He doesn't have the Pope's driving licence because he wrote a book in the seventies attacking the doctrine of infallibility and he had his licence to teach withdrawn.

He still teaches theology at Tübingen University but he teaches it in a secular setting (2020-no longer teaching). Quite movingly, he's an old man now and he would like to get his licence back. He'd like to die, as it were, in peace with the Roman Church. But he has been told that he will only get the licence back if he commits to the doctrine of infallibility.

So he will have to sacrifice his conscience to get back inside the Church (which shows you how corrupt churches are). I doubt if he will do that because his whole being has been one of challenge. He's been a sort of Protestant theologian in the midst of Catholicism.

Kung set himself a few years ago an enormous task. He wanted to describe the religious situation of our day. He conceived three volumes - one on Christianity, one on Judaism and one on Islam (2020-they are all published).

He applies paradigm theory to religion. He says that contrary to what we all think, religion has been a story of shifting paradigms - an essentially dynamic, changing enterprise.

I want to race through his application of paradigm theory to Christianity. He says there have been five Christian paradigms. As we'll see, these paradigms are all still in operation. In science, new paradigms succeed, complete and often oust those that came before. In Christianity, religious paradigms never seem to get discarded or superannuated. They simply get stacked up like trays in the trolleys of self-service restaurants.

[2] A Summary of the History of Christianity: A "Paradigm Shift" Approach (Part 2)

 A Summary of the History of Christianity (by Hans Küng)

(with annotations and revisions done by Julius-Kei Kato)

Go to Part 1

Part 2 - Paradigm #2 : Constantinople - Moscow - the Orthodox Churches 

We will refer to sub-divisions of this article by the section numbers within square brackets (e.g. [1]).

Resources:

Original Link to this Summary (in the public domain / accessed 2020-09-20): https://www.global-ethic-now.de/gen-eng/0b_weltethos-und-religionen/0b-01-02-christentum/0b-01-0201-jesus.php

Paradigm Shifts in Christianity (a one-page visual diagram) https://www.global-ethic-now.de/gen-eng/0b_weltethos-und-religionen/0b-pdf/paradigm-shifts-christianity.pdf

[5] Constantinople – The Second Rome

Emperor Constantine (306–337)

·         Christianity became, first, the favoured religion of the empire (under Constantine). Later, it became the state religion under the emperor Theodosius (380 CE).

·         Constantinople (modern-day Istanbul) became the centre of Christianity (the “Second Rome”).

·         Ecumenical councils were convened to lay down rules for orthodoxy and to formulate dogmas about God and Christ and other matters.
   – Nicaea (325),
   – Constantinople (381),
   – Ephesus (433/449),
   – Chalcedon (451)

·         The Eastern Church centred in Constantinople and the Western Church centred in Rome became increasingly alienated from each other: different languages and cultures, different ways of thinking and doing things

·         Controversies about questions of faith and discipline and about primacy (of the pope) led to the separation (“The Great Schism”) between the Eastern and Western Churches in 1054. This created two separate great bodies of Christians, the “Roman Catholic Church” under the Pope in Rome and the “Eastern Orthodox Churches” under the Patriarch of Constantinople (present-day Istanbul).

 

[6] Moscow – Becomes the “Third” Rome

•         988–1448  Russia formed an ecclesiastical province under the Patriarchate of Constantinople.

•         15th Century  Moscow emerged as the centre of the growing Russian Empire.

•         1453  After the fall of Constantinople, the Russian Church claimed autonomy with its own ecclesiastical head.

•         1472  Grand Duke Ivan III married the niece of the last Byzantine Emperor and laid claim to the legacy of Constantinople.

•         1510  Moscow was called the “Third Rome” for the first time.

•         1589  Moscow was made a patriarchate.

 

[7] The Orthodox Churches

The Orthodox Churches today can be considered as heirs to the Early Eastern Church (Early Church Hellenistic Paradigm-Paradigm 2):

·         “Orthodox” identity means fidelity to tradition, especially the tradition of a rich sacramental and liturgical life fostering personal religious experience.

·         Impressive artistic traditions in church architecture, icon-painting and liturgical music.

·         Devotion to Mary and the saints as symbols of participation in the heavenly Church.

·         Mystical spirituality practiced by monks and nuns but also by many laypersons.

·         An ethic of personal asceticism, prayer and care for the poor.

·         Close association with national identity resulting in a plurality of jurisdictions in communion with each other but without a common voice.

 Go to Part 3

Thinking again about Postcolonialism in the wake of CWM-DARE Global Forum in Taiwan

     I was honoured to participate in this year’s CWM’s (Council for World Mission) DARE Global Forum held in Taiwan last June 19-21. I didn't quite understand the raison d'etre of CWM-DARE before the event but after having participated in the conference, I've begun to grasp its rationale and crucial importance. I'm really thankful for having been given this wonderful opportunity to participate in this forum and especially to learn from the insightful reflections of so many of my colleagues who attended the event.

Here is the report published at the CWM website.This article describes succinctly what happened at the said meeting:

Dare to engage radically and envision creatively a just world

Discernment and radical engagement are at the heart of the mission that makes CWM what it is. Attentive to the signs of the time and in response to imperial powers and powerholders that exploit, divide, despoil and threaten the world, CWM’s DARE program is a voice of counter-imperial consciousness.

This year’s DARE Global Forum was held from 20-21 June in Taiwan, a location we chose in solidarity with the Taiwanese people and especially with our member church Presbyterian Church in Taiwan (PCT) for their continuous struggle for democracy. During the opening service at Lo-Tong Presbyterian Church, CWM General Secretary delivered the keynote address and launched “Scripture and Resistance” – the second book in the “Theology in the Age of Empire” series.

The DARE Forum was a platform where theological and biblical scholars, activists and interested peoples engaged creatively to critique mainline scholarships, confidently rooted their views upon on the ground struggles and concerns and shared their radical engagements with global readership.

At the gathering, each presenter presented an academic paper, attended and engaged with the presentations by other participants of their stream, and submitted the revised paper for publication. There were six streams – earth, class, race, gender, occupation, and artificial intelligence (AI) – this year, and presenters were encouraged to discern and engage radically, creatively and justly.

Here are my most salient takeaways from the event:

Taiwan’s Plight as the Context for our Reflections

     I was really struck at the plight and marginalized international status of Taiwan. Taiwanese pastor-scholar Rev. Omi Wilang’s talk on his indigenous culture was particularly significant. There he emphasized the status of Taiwan as an international orphan which refers to its state of international isolation because of mainland China's continuing efforts to literally coerce the international community to recognize the "one China policy" by which only mainland China is legitimately recognized as the “real” China and Taiwan as an illegitimate entity.

     I ruefully reflected though that, recalling what I learned in younger days, when the Nationalists led by Chiang Kai-Shek fled the mainland and established their base in Taiwan in 1949, it was Taiwan that was trying to convince the world that it was the legitimate China and not the Communist-led government that had taken over the mainland. Fast-forward 70 or so years later when China has become the gigantic and impossible-to-ignore military and economic powerhouse that it is today, the tables have been completely turned and Taiwan is at the mercy of the Chinese empire.

Resisting Empire

     I ended the conference thoroughly struck at and convinced once again that <reflecting critically-doing scholarship-theologizing or even just engaging in the very basic activity of thinking about life> in the context of empire (and postcolonial and decolonial critique) is a serious and most urgent task. Why? For the simple reason that imperial ways (known by many alternative names such as the basic human "lust for power and/or domination") have tried and largely succeeded to rule humanity itself and our world from the very beginning of history in countless forms. Imperialism is practically built into many of the structures in which we find ourselves. This time in Taiwan, however, I was made more acutely aware of empire's destructive effects because they threaten now more than ever the very existence of our earth-home through an impending ecological disaster.

My Own Modest Part in the Forum 

      

     There were several streams to reflect critically on the themes of empire, resistance and critical engagement at the conference: Land, Race, Gender, Occupation, and Artificial Intelligence. For my very modest part, I presented the significance of Paul's religious experience for the concept of artificial intelligence. I basically suggested that to retrieve the origins of how we imagine Artificial Intelligence as a “super intelligence”  (as expressed particularly in some science fiction movies), it may be worth looking more closely at what happened to Paul as a consequence of his religious experience and how he envisioned everyone and everything as “One in Christ” (Gal. 3:27-28). I didn’t have the time and space to reflect more on the implications of this for the theme of empire and power but I intend to touch on that aspect as well in my final paper. My proposal was originally prepared for the 'Race' stream but it seemed to have been well received by my AI group. 

Why Postcolonial Thought? (Revisited)

     At last year's SBL meeting in Denver, CO, I attended a session of the Theological Interpretation of Scripture unit in which the topic was, broadly speaking, postcolonial efforts to interpret the Bible theologically. During the Q&A session, someone asked this fundamental question: "What is it even necessary to do this postcolonial theological interpretation of scripture?"

     That question still keeps ringing in my ears after all these months and it was brought to the fore and answered in many ways in Taiwan. It is just incredible that there is still a substantial number (even of scholars, particularly, Roman Catholic theologian-colleagues of mine) who have not thought about or are not yet convinced why a postcolonial critique of theology and religious studies is even necessary. 

    

     To this question, I can only offer once again what I already stated in my 2012 book How Immigrant Christians … Interpret Their Religion (56).

What is the value of a postcolonial framework? Edward Said has, in my opinion, expressed most eloquently the need for a critical academic sense vis-à-vis the problem of imperialism when he states, “we are at a point in our work when we can no longer ignore empires and the imperial context in our studies.”(Culture and Imperialism, 1993, p. 6). He further remarks that, “whether or not to look at the connections between cultural texts and imperialism is therefore to take a position in fact taken – either to study the connections in order to criticize it and think of alternatives for it, or not to study it in order to let it stand, unexamined and, presumably, unchanged” (ibid., 68).

The implications of Said’s remarks are staggering. If we ignore imperial ideology in our critical studies, we are in reality actively contributing to its continuing unjust oppression of people. In short, we cannot remain neutral on such a key issue. There is a major ethical issue at stake here. Ignoring imperialist elements in our fields of study places a large interrogative against the integrity of all our endeavors. If we further reflect on the fact that many of us who are engaged in the Christian theological field have a confessional interest in Jesus of Nazareth proclaimed as the Christ and that his most pressing concern seems to have been the ushering in of the reign of God’s justice in the world to the detriment of this world’s unjust empires, the issue of integrity becomes all the more urgent.

 ---

I look at Jerusalem and wonder, Is God Mocking our ‘Religions’?

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