Ship of Fools: Visiting the Holy Land(TM)

Thread: Visiting the Holy Land(TM) Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020341

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

A wide range of churches and organisations do trips to the Holy Land™.

People from traditional churches seem, by and large, to do such visits unaffected and unaffactedly. People from my neck of the woods, who ordinarily would turn up their noses at the idea of any "pilgrimage", seem to have a tendency to get themselves rebaptised in the Jordan and come back thinking that adding lots of Hebrew language and Jewish dances to Sunday morning worship somehow makes them more holy.

I've visited Ephesus and the alleged site of John the Evangelist's grave not far from there, driven a 4x4 to "Fair Havens" in Crete (quickly getting a grasp of why nobody except Paul wanted to winter there), and been to St Paul's Bay in Malta - because I was on holiday not far away. But the idea of an organised trip to the Holy Land™ leaves me cold.

What are shipmates' experiences of such trips, and/or views on them? Or any alternative ways of visiting? What was your motivation in going? How did it affect your spiritual journey? Is it a Hajj for Christians, or just a holiday option? How are these trips perceived locally?

[ 27. October 2017, 08:03: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

Don't do it. There is nothing holy about the Holy Land - it pretty much tipped me over the edge (emotionally and religiously).

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Could you elaborate at all? I'm not looking for tourist advice, I'm looking to discuss the issues.

[ 27. October 2017, 08:04: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

Well I suppose it is an individual thing Eutychus, but Christianity has never for me been about places or bits of stone - and so to go somewhere with such obvious pain, where injustice resides, where people are pawns in religious power games of other people was incredibly damaging to my faith.

I couldn't stomach seeing the sites in Jerusalem, just being in the Old City was bad enough. But I found the nativity church monstrous and the empty town square and workshops of Bethlehem full of dusty olive-wood nativity decorations depressing.

Hebron is a whole other horror of its own.

I don't think it was just about the whole invasion of the senses thing that you get in the Middle East - I've enjoyed visits to busy places in Egypt and Jordan. But somehow the collision of the noise, the religiosity, the fake tinselness felt oppressive in the "Holy Land".

There were some moments that are worth a visit. I saw a really interesting display of Christian caligraphy in the Lutheran church in Bethlehem. And if you can get beyond the surface tack, there is a lot to learn from listening to the people, in particular the Christians.

But if you want religious stones and sites, go somewhere else.

[ 27. October 2017, 08:16: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

Which I suppose is to say that I'd go again but never to any of the religious sites on pilgrimage.

I've not been to Galilee to be fair, I have heard that it feels different there.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Why the ™? The phrase isn't a trade mark or capable of being one. Or do the letters have another meaning I haven't picked up.

My experience is not as Mr Cheesy's. I found my pilgrimage both moving and interesting, though it was quite a long time ago (1980s). It also began to take me outside the assumption that Christianity is a faith for a certain sort of middle class English person and that one can evaluate fellow Christians from other traditions by how successfully they aspire to acquire the same assumptions.

In spite of all the tat, going inside the tomb in the Holy Sepulchre was one of the most significant events in my life of faith, and for the obvious reason - it is empty. It took me by surprise. That truth continues irrespective of all the noise and bustle.

I also really liked the place on the Sea of Galilee which is the traditional spot for the resurrection appearance (Simon Peter do you love me?).

At that date, we were also able to visit Jacob's Well, the site of the woman at the well.

The only site that for me really didn't work, was Nazareth, which its huge basilica like somewhere in western France, and the claim that the holy family lived in a hole in the ground.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Interesting. We've never been, but some good friends of ours have. Said Galilee was very worthwhile, Jerusalem not so much. Not completely sure of my ground, but I think many of the Jerusalem sites visited by tourists have a pretty tenuous connection with real events.

And, as mr cheesy points out, there is always the deeply divided current political background to consider.

So far as pilgrimages are concerned, I'd rather go to Holy Island (Lindisfarne) than the Holy Land. Lindisfarne is special, particularly when the causeway is closed.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

So far as pilgrimages are concerned, I'd rather go to Holy Island (Lindisfarne) than the Holy Land. Lindisfarne is special, particularly when the causeway is closed.

Of course each to their own, but it disturbs me how often Jerusalem and Galilee become by default holy places of pilgrimage for Christians - when it seems to me that one of the distinctive things about Christianity is that it isn't a Theology of the Land and instead makes anywhere and everywhere it goes holy.

Of course I suppose there is a parallel tendency to make little Jerusalems out of Lindisfarne or Iona or Canterbury or wherever. But it seems to me that the whole movement from the 12 century was as much about the journey as the destination.

So it didn't really matter whether one was going to St Sebastian or wherever else there was pilgrimage routes.

To me, it just seems to miss the point to decide to go somewhere that "Jesus walked". Jesus walked everywhere. Get over it.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

[x-post]

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Why the ™? The phrase isn't a trade mark or capable of being one.

The Holy Land is marketed as a "holy destination", hence my rather cynical (TM).

quote:
It also began to take me outside the assumption that Christianity is a faith for a certain sort of middle class English person and that one can evaluate fellow Christians from other traditions by how successfully they aspire to acquire the same assumptions.

That's great, but I would contend there are plenty of other places where that can happen. Is there anything intrinsically special about Israel in that respect?

quote:
going inside the tomb in the Holy Sepulchre was one of the most significant events in my life of faith, and for the obvious reason - it is empty. It took me by surprise.

Again, point taken, but as B62 hints, that would make sense to me if there was any certainty as to that being the empty tomb - which I don't think there is.

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
So far as pilgrimages are concerned, I'd rather go to Holy Island (Lindisfarne) than the Holy Land. Lindisfarne is special, particularly when the causeway is closed.

Yet again, some sympathy with this - I've stayed a couple of nights on Lindisfarne, and it was certainly memorable. But... is the pilgrimage about the journey or the destination? And why is Lindisfarne "special"? I once spent a (very cold) night on an islet cut off at high tide, off St Mary's in the Isles of Scilly. That was "special" too.
[Confused]

[ 27. October 2017, 09:21: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
it seems to me that one of the distinctive things about Christianity is that it isn't a Theology of the Land and instead makes anywhere and everywhere it goes holy.

Yes. Absolutely; that's my concern precisely.

But it doesn't seem to "get" everybody the same way.

(And is it just possibly a shared cultural assumption of ours to think that way, just as Enoch had to get over his cultural assumptions...?)

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

But it doesn't seem to "get" everybody the same way.

Nope, fair enough. I think I'm in quite a small minority thinking that places aren't sacred and that they are what one makes of them.

quote:
(And is it just possibly a shared cultural assumption of ours to think that way, just as Enoch had to get over his cultural assumptions...?)

Well that's hard to answer isn't it. I'm obviously influenced by my experiences and particular upbringing. But I don't think I've inherited a shared cultural assumption because I don't think this view is shared by the majority of my religious compatriots. To me a better explanation is that I've rejected other understandings and have accepted this one. But maybe that makes me blind to the reality of the assumptions I've unconsciously taken on.

Dunno.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
People from my neck of the woods, who ordinarily would turn up their noses at the idea of any "pilgrimage", seem to have a tendency to get themselves rebaptised in the Jordan and come back thinking that adding lots of Hebrew language and Jewish dances to Sunday morning worship somehow makes them more holy.

I wonder if the people you mention are great travellers in general? If not, such a trip is going to have a greater emotional significance for them. And if you're talking about your Pentecostal acquaintances, they're already used to being publicly emotional about their religion, aren't they?

Also, it's possibly the case that people who can't express their religious credentials with regards to their theological learning or their loyalty to a prestigious religious institution have to use other means to assert their devotion.

IOW, it's psychological. Someone somewhere has probably researched the impact of such visits on different kinds of Christians.

Myself, I've never had much interest in going to the Holy Land (although I once toyed with the idea of staying at a kibbutz). I don't know what I'd get out of it spiritually. The concept of going on a pilgrimage has never inspired me very much.

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

The best pilgrimage I ever undertook began at the Tabard Inn one April. The company was great and the stories they told........

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

My wife and I backpacked around Israel about forty years ago.

It was certainly interesting historically and religiously, but for anyone with a grain of scepticism it is difficult to get moved by unhesitatingly believing "this is the spot where Jesus was born/crucified/ resurrected", or even "this is the street on which Jesus walked" (maybe, but several metres below the present surface).

A woman we know told us that Jesus had appeared to her seven (count'em) times during her trip to Israel, which raises the question of whether he would provide an experience of himself to middle-class Western Christians who can afford a holiday in Israel, which is not available to poor Christians from the developing world who cannot.

The appalling RC, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox kitsch disfiguring "holy places" (the NT does not contain a single reference to sacred sites, relics or pilgrimages) made me more grateful than ever to be a low-church Protestant.

My most moving place in Israel (apart from Yad Vashem) was the graves of twenty year-old Australian soldiers under the eucalypts at Beersheba Commonwealth War Cemetery.

And for light relief, there was the tin shed on the waterfront at Jaffa on which someone (probably pissed off with importunate Christian tourists) had painted in huge letters THIS IS THE HOUSE OF SIMON THE TANNER.

Finally, there was the realisation of the vulnerability of this tiny, civilised country surrounded by nations containing influential lunatics and savages who are not Holocaust deniers, but Holocaust celebrators and would-be Holocaust re-creators.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

We holiday on Lindisfarne every September, I love it. Once the causeway is closed it is really quiet and there is a special quality to the light there.

Holy? Yes, in the true sense of the word ‘set apart’.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

A "civilised country" which settles people on other peoples' land, thereby giving any lunatics and savages all the ammunition they need.

Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
So far as pilgrimages are concerned, I'd rather go to Holy Island (Lindisfarne) than the Holy Land. Lindisfarne is special, particularly when the causeway is closed.

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
We holiday on Lindisfarne every September, I love it. Once the causeway is closed it is really quiet and there is a special quality to the light there.

Holy? Yes, in the true sense of the word ‘set apart’.

Tangent
I'm on sabbatical next year and these posts are really making me think hard about spending some of it on Lindisfarne...
/tangent

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy
I think I'm in quite a small minority thinking that places aren't sacred and that they are what one makes of them.

If I could see the Holy Land as Jesus saw it, it would be a tremendous experience. However, nature has changed the topology somewhat, and idiots have built shrines on all the pieces of ground that were important in Jesus' life. I remember seeing a picture of the church built on the shore of the Sea of Galilee, supposedly at the place where Jesus met his disciples after the resurrection. If I could see the shore as it was then, I would look and meditate for a long time. A building put up much later is not the same thing.

I have seen pictures of archaeological excavations which showed the way of life back then, and I would like to see these sites in real life. However, I have the impression that most planned tours don't show you this kind of thing.

Moo

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
If I could see the Holy Land as Jesus saw it, it would be a tremendous experience. However, nature has changed the topology somewhat, and idiots have built shrines on all the pieces of ground that were important in Jesus' life. I remember seeing a picture of the church built on the shore of the Sea of Galilee, supposedly at the place where Jesus met his disciples after the resurrection. If I could see the shore as it was then, I would look and meditate for a long time. A building put up much later is not the same thing.

I have seen pictures of archaeological excavations which showed the way of life back then, and I would like to see these sites in real life. However, I have the impression that most planned tours don't show you this kind of thing.

Moo

Why? I just don't understand what you'd gain even if that was possible.

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

Intellectually, I'm wholeheartedly in agreement with mr cheesy, emotionally, I'm not so sure. It's rather like the protestant tradition that all days should be regarded as equally important, so that the special celebration of certain events, including Christmas, Easter and Pentecost, let alone saints' days, should be eschewed. Human beings, ISTM, need to regenerate their spirits through special events, colour, light, music, dancing, imagined sorrow and mourning, and so on. For many people, though not for me, pilgrimages to the Holy Land have had such an impact, and I would not wish to deny the validity of their experience.

I'm intrigued by the references in several posts to pilgrimages within England, reflecting as it does a sentiment extending back to the Glastonbury legend, Blake's Jerusalem, and the patriotic piety of nonconformity, expressed in the somewhat sentimental hymn of Methodist minister J.T. East (1860-1937):

1. Wise men, seeking Jesus,
Travelled from afar,
Guided on their journey
By a beauteous star.

rest of hymn can be found here

[ 27. October 2017, 13:59: Message edited by: Eliab ]

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Intellectually, I'm wholeheartedly in agreement with mr cheesy, emotionally, I'm not so sure. It's rather like the protestant tradition that all days should be regarded as equally important, so that the special celebration of certain events, including Christmas, Easter and Pentecost, let alone saints' days, should be eschewed. Human beings, ISTM, need to regenerate their spirits through special events, colour, light, music, dancing, imagined sorrow and mourning, and so on. For many people, though not for me, pilgrimages to the Holy Land have had such an impact, and I would not wish to deny the validity of their experience.

To clarify: I'm not saying that it is invalid exactly. Of course if I believe all places can be holy then it stands to reason that the Holy Land can be holy.

I'm perfectly willing to accept that people have had spiritual experiences. I'm sure people have had similar experiences in Canterbury Cathedral - or even in the recycling centre in Canterbury or Canterbury Tescos. I'm even willing to say that it is more likely in the former than the latter.

No, what bothers me more is this whole notion that a visit to the Holy Land gives a person special spiritual insights and experiences that are so important that it is essential or desirable that all Christians do the same. So it becomes almost a Haj-lite obligation

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

I didn't go to the Holy Land, I went to Israel and other parts of the Levant.

Granted this was some years ago in my youth, but I encountered groups of "pilgrims" and found some of them extremely trying.

As for people being "rebaptised" - it isn't possible. Once you've been baptised, thats it, you're "done". Anyone who goes for the idea of "re-baptism" clearly hasn't understood the whole notion of baptism.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

My parents went, back (I think) in the early 90s when no one was actively shooting at each other. They were also able to go to the Lebanon and Jordan.

Despite my dad's Jewish heritage (he did get to pray at the Western Wall), they found their sympathies very much with the Arab population, especially in Israel. When it all kicked off near the Temple Mount, they were forcibly dragged by an Arab shopkeeper into his booth before he lowered the shutters, and given tea and food until the tear gas outside dispersed. Their Arab drivers were, to a man, lovely people, and the daily aggressions they witnessed being handed out by the police and IDF to them turned my parents quite militant on the Arab-Israeli's behalf.

Honestly, while they found the tours of the religious sites interesting, that's not what they talked most about when they came back.

Posted by Felafool (# 270) on :

I went to Israel as a theology student on a study tour in the late 1970s. This was very early on in the creation of settlements, and the obscene wall was not even in anyone's mind. There were checkpoints at urban boundaries and there was considerable freedom of movement and co-existence.

We did all the 'sites', each of which seemed to have at least one other possible location. Some of our party were 'rebaptised' in the Jordan.

I have never had any sense that the land is any more or less Holy than anywhere else. What struck me was the ordinariness of the place - hot, dusty, shabby, busy, rural, urban, desert, mountain, fertile plain, beach etc. One could easily imagine Bible stories taking place in front of one's eyes. Another powerful visit was to Yad Vashem, a must see for any visitor to Israel, yet probably missed by many Christian tours.

But the major impact was to encounter Palestinian and Israeli Arabs and begin to understand and have some empathy for their situation. From there I began to sense an interest in, even a love for the Arab world, and a sense of a calling to serve in some capacity. I returned twice more to work as a volunteer in the West Bank, and eventually ended up working in Saudi Arabia.

So although it wasn't a pilgrimage, I regard the first visit as a life changing 2 weeks. People sometimes ask if I would ever go back. I don't think I would. I couldn't bear to see the dividing walls and the increased commercialism of the religious sites.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
If I could see the Holy Land as Jesus saw it, it would be a tremendous experience.
Why? I just don't understand what you'd gain even if that was possible.

I discovered many years ago that I should not exclude any part of myself from my worship of God. I have a very strong imagination, and if I did not include it, it would interrupt my worship. Including it deepens my worship.

If it were possible to see the site where Jesus met his disciples, I would meditate on the scene--the total situation, and what it must have been like for each character involved. These thoughts would remain with me and be incorporated into my understanding.

I realize we're all different, and this is what works for me.

Moo

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
... expressed in the somewhat sentimental hymn of Methodist minister J.T. East (1860-1937):

1. Wise men, seeking Jesus,
Travelled from afar,
Guided on their journey
By a beauteous star.

rest of hymn can be found here

That would appear to be out of copyright in E&W, but there are other jurisdictions, and it's asking too much to expect the hosts to experts on all of them.

The usual policy here is not to quote the whole of a work, but only a short section and provide a link to the full text.

Eliab
Purgatory host

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

I found Lindisfarne to be a 'thin place', mr cheesy. Hard to understand why. Why are we more aware of the omnipresence of God at some times and in some places? Maybe expectation has something to do with it?

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

My son spent a year in Palestine just a few years ago for a Young Adults in Global Mission (YAGM) program. He also saw all the sites--heck, he lived at the sites. For instance, while tourist buses will visit Nazareth during the day, no one is allowed to stay overnight. But he was able to stay overnight a few times.

He has since been back two other times.

What was important to him was getting to know the people on a personal level.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

I have never been to the Middle East, and at this point in my life will probably never get there. There are other places I need to go, first. (Over on the Bucket List thread is a list.)

The most moving Christian site I have visited is the Catacombs of Domitilla in Rome. It is of course a burial site, miles of tunnels lined with tombs, but there's also a church in there, an ordinary but subterranean Catholic chapel dedicated to a couple of the saints allegedly buried there. They have regular services in several languages, and when you sit in one of the chairs and pray there's a powerful sense of history, of all the saints (150,000 burials) joining with you in the faith.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

Some of my relatives did a quick holy land trip, as part of their cruise package, and found it surprisingly moving. They had been brought up from infancy on stories about the Sea of Galilee, Jerusalem, Mount of Olives etc, so they thought it was amazing to be seeing, with their own eyes, some of the sights Jesus would've looked upon, and wandering through some of the scenery he might've been familiar with.

I suppose when most of your formative Christian experience is based on growing up in 1940s Northern Ireland/UK, it might indeed be quite inspirational to really see the places where Jesus was. You know, it's not restricted to the Falls v. the Shankill! Current generations are sophisticated, used to travel, seeing exotic sights; not just in books or on TV. Maybe for older generations there was still something left of the privilege of seeing other countries, or inhabiting the spaces and places of significance to one's beliefs.

I don't feel any particular draw myself to visit Israel; though I am a bit curious from the point of view of it being where Jesus lived and travelled. But as for parish pilgrimages to there or anywhere, I'd say it's probably as much the journey that's important, in true Chaucerian style, as the arrival at the destination.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
some of the sights Jesus would've looked upon,

He would have seen one group of people oppressing another, so I suppose one can get the authentic experience.

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

I'm perfectly willing to accept that people have had spiritual experiences. I'm sure people have had similar experiences in Canterbury Cathedral - or even in the recycling centre in Canterbury or Canterbury Tescos. I'm even willing to say that it is more likely in the former than the latter.

I get that feeling in significant places such as historic places, beautiful places and great works of engineering. Including cathedrals, kivas, shrines, etc. So I get it. However, much of the Christian holy land is more akin to a general historical marker.

It is thought that that a possibly historic event occurred here, near here or at a place that resembles here. (Resembles in at least in Some of the references, many written after the event supposedly took place.)

quote:

No, what bothers me more is this whole notion that a visit to the Holy Land gives a person special spiritual insights and experiences that are so important that it is essential or desirable that all Christians do the same. So it becomes almost a Haj-lite obligation

So, from the people I know who've gone there....Not so much.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

I've never been on such a trip, so have to defer to those shippies who have.

That, being said, one thought from the observations I've heard from friends who have: many/most "holy land" tours are designed to give you a lot of touristy churchy highlights (which of course can be quite meaningful) but also to give you a very positive view of Israel as well (one friend was hired by Israeli tourism to help with their promotional materials). But there are peacemaking groups that exist that design tours that give a more balanced perspective-- arranging trips within Palestinian occupied zones, seeing life on both sides of the wall, hearing from people with different experiences. Friends who have gone on these tours have found them to be quite challenging and helpful in shifting perspectives.

Just a thought-- again, I haven't experienced either so just passing along thoughts from friends.

Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on :

I would love to see the biblical sites and intend to go there, though probably not on a church organised tour. Like Moo I would find it inspiring to see the places where Jesus was.

Not because I think it's a holy land. Some holy things happened there but that doesn't for me make it a holy land. I am not sure a place as large as a country can be holy. I want to go because for me the experience of being in a place where important things happened is a powerful one.

I have felt it at many historical sites, and the events of Jesus's life are more important to me than any of them.

There is a stanza of Byron, which I hope is short enough for me to quote

The mountains look on Marathon, and Marathon looks on the sea.
And musing there a while alone I dreamt that
Greece might yet be free.
For standing on the Persians' grave, I could not deem myself a slave

I don't have much in common with Byron, but I do share that experience of place prompting thought.

Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on :

My observation of those who've been is that such trips are, for the most part, holidays for fundamentalists. For about 6 months afterwards, you get the Ken Ham-like question "Well, have you been there?" in response to any discussion concerning the Middle East, followed by a short pontification that begins: "Well..."

I recall well a time when I had recently moved home and started at a new church that the pastor went for ~4month sabbatical to the Holy Land. When he came back, we had a month's worth of sermons based on his holiday snaps, with the occasional reference to geographical features that appeared in various parables. He put me off christianity to such an extent that I didn't darken the door of a church for 2 years after that.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:

I don't have much in common with Byron, but I do share that experience of place prompting thought.

As I said, I get this. However, I also get that people have the same experience holding a piece of the "True Cross", so...

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

I did my third ministry internship at St George's Cathedral in Jerusalem having being able to piggy-back on my seminary's twice annual trip to the Holy Land.

I would advise finding a tour company in Palestine that is owned or managed by Palestinian Christians. Several tour groups that are owned or managed by evangelicals tend to favor the Israeli-party line and would avoid encounter directly with the Palestinians who live in East Jerusalem or the West Bank.

Myself, I was more moved by the natural geography of the Land: especially the Sea of Galilee, the Judean Wilderness, and the Mountains rather than the particular churches and holy sites. It's best to not be overly literal of whether Jesus actually was crucified in the site of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher or whether he was raised at the Garden Tomb. We can never know for sure, but simply see these as places that pilgrims for generations have held sacred because our Lord might have walked there.

About the politics, know that no parcel of land in this green earth is ever immune from politics or human sin, not the Land of Palestine, nor Canada nor the United States, rather, I would try to find the Holy in the midst of chaos, in the midst of the disruption and in the midst of the tragedy.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
I would try to find the Holy in the midst of chaos, in the midst of the disruption and in the midst of the tragedy.

My point, perhaps too obliquely made, is that Holy Land tourism functions to facilitate the current tragedies.

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

A friend of mine went on an interfaith trip to Israel. The things that impressed him most were simply being able to see firsthand the topography of the land he'd been preaching about for years...speaking with Palestinian Christians and seeing ehat they experience every day...and their group' s Israeli Army minder, who sounded like someine out of an action movie. The Jesusy tourist traps, not so much.

Intetesting fact: There's an entire government office in Israel dedicated to helping pilgrims who becime emotionally overwhelmed by being there and have psychotic breakdowns.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Why are we more aware of the omnipresence of God at some times and in some places? Maybe expectation has something to do with it?

I hope expectation has more than a little to do with it; if some places are genuinely "thinner" than others, it would be profoundly unfair.

My perspective on this sort of thing was forever changed by a church-planting missionary who said he loved being in a grim megalopolis because he was surrounded by so many examples of the pinnacle of God's creation: humankind.

I also agree with the sentiment expressed by several here that wherever you are, it's good to have a really good idea of who your host/guide is. This is not always easy to achieve.

(A few days ago I benefited from the services of an informal taxi driver in Kiev. The journey was... interesting, and it's a good thing I'd allowed plenty of time before my plane left, but he turned out to be an excellent gateway into a true slice of Ukranian life).

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

Of the three faiths, it is the Christians who I found were the most boisterous and chaotic. The first time I was in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre was Eastern Orthodox Holy Thursday. The Church was crowded with pilgrims, pushing and shouting as they were trying to touch the Holy Cross and grave. "Move it, I wanna touch Jesus!!!!"

Compare that to the reverent quiet at the Western Wall (well, except if you are there for Friday evening when it is a big party as the observent Jews welcome the new Sabbath) or the Muslims at the Al Aqsa Mosque which is blissfully quiet.

In fact, among the holy sites for Christians in Jerusalem, the one place of peace and quiet is the Garden Tomb, precisely because only Evangelicals visit there.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:

In fact, among the holy sites for Christians in Jerusalem, the one place of peace and quiet is the Garden Tomb, precisely because only Evangelicals visit there.

Holier than thou, sectarian nonsense must be a side affect of the Holy Land?

Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :

I was going to go a few years ago for a week after visiting Lebanon, but travelled around Lebanon for the whole time instead.

I am glad I didn't go. My faith was weak, but not as weak as now, and I thought I would get a spiritual boost, as if being there would reconvert me. Stupid, I know, but I was lost at that time and clutching on to anything.

I'd still like to go. To see the landscapes, and the sites that remain. To walk where He walked. Most probably as part of a small Christian group. An Orthodox priest leads various pilgrimages which seem to be high on spirituality and low on ticking off things, so that may be an option. Not expecting to be moved, but if I am, as I am presently by forests or waterfalls, I will take it.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I think I'm in quite a small minority thinking that places aren't sacred and that they are what one makes of them.

That minority certainly includes me! All lands (and, incidentally, artefacts)that are called holy or sacred were there for billions of years (in one form or place or another) and it took humans, (after their evolution) another million or more years, to describe them so.

In the 1990s (when I still had some focal vision) a friend and I decided to do something completely different at Christmas and went to Eilat. While we were there, we booked quite a few trips of course, including an overnight trip to Jerusalem. The place itself was very interesting, but from an entirely historical point of view as far as I’m concerned. All feelings or experiences that people with religious beliefs have ar, I would assert, in the minds of those individuals.

A long day trip into the Negev (sp??) desert was most interesting – including the ride back from somewhere to somewhere on a camel!

To Eutychus: I would perhaps recommend visiting without a confirmation bias? You probably will not, but I hope you don't mind my mentioning it. a

Edited for missing 'e'.

[ 28. October 2017, 05:59: Message edited by: SusanDoris ]

Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :

Agree entirely with you Susan Doris that we are the ones who ascribe holiness or reverence to a place. Who or what else will? And it need not be typically religious.

I don't, as I detest sport, but friends treat certain stadiums as if they were holy places, speaking of them in hushed tones and with reverence. It is almost religious. In fact it may be. One friend even spoke of a "pilgrimage" to Lord's (does it have an apostrophe?). To him it was "holy" ground.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Buddha wrote:

quote:
Holier than thou, sectarian nonsense must be a side affect of the Holy Land?

'Twas ever thus.

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

Well, I’m in the minority of people that went to Jerusalem and loved it.

I hate ‘tours’, so wouldn’t have enjoyed that, but spent two days wandering round the old city. The highlights were probably the mount of Olives with the garden at Gethsemane; and Hezekiah’s tunnel. I also visited Jordan, and appreciated the visit to Bethany, the view of Israel that Moses had from the mountain (I’ve forgotten which mountain) - and, of course, Petra.

Like others, I don’t like the fact that there are churches built everywhere - I’d have enjoyed it more if it was more ‘as it was’. I too do not appreciate the stance of the Israeli government towards Palestinians.

I’m well-travelled, but the trip felt different and special. There’s nothing like seeing a place with your own eyes to give you a context. I grew up on the bible stories and it brought them to life afresh. This isn’t so much about ‘holy’ places, but a physical experience of the senses. Seeing the contrast of vegetation and life by the Jordan as it snakes through the dusty desert gave me a new understanding of Jesus saying ‘I am the water of life’.

Could probably say more, but, yeah, it was an unforgettable trip. But, I guess, I could say the same about most of the more interesting places I’ve travelled to.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
some of the sights Jesus would've looked upon,
He would have seen one group of people oppressing another, so I suppose one can get the authentic experience.

I doubt they saw anything explicitly in that line, to be honest. It was too short a trip. However, my family being of relatively normal intelligence were probably just about able to figure out some of the ironies and similitudes of Israel then and Israel now; even while retaining a positive appreciation of their experience.

Of course, making it plain, I meant that they looked at the geographical sights Jesus perhaps had looked upon and felt that for them it was a special experience, having been brought up on stories about those places, and having understood those stories to be special to their faith narrative.

It's possible if they had seen 'one group oppressing another' it would've taken away any appreciation they had of the geographical nearness of walking where Jesus walked, or seeing the Sea of Galilee etc. But I doubt it.

It might've added to their appreciation, an ever deeper awareness of how fucked up the world still is, even despite Christ's mission on earth. But I think they probably knew that already.

Posted by LucyP (# 10476) on :

I enjoyed my trip, which was over 10 years ago.

For me, any travel to a place which is “written about in the history books” is special, since I grew up in a country with only a couple of centuries of written history, but spent my whole school life learning (longingly) about places with vastly older recorded stories, that I thought I might never get to see. I travel to learn, and to broaden my horizons, so I also enjoyed visiting (eg) Egypt, Jordan, Turkey and Morocco, but Israel did have an extra faith-related dimension for me.

I travelled with a British Brethren group. We stayed in an Arab-owned hotel in the Arab quarter of Jerusalem, and I found it very helpful (for my reading of the Bible since then) to get an idea of the geography of Jerusalem by walking around it. It was Passover and Easter, and the throngs of people from so many tribes and nations (like the -Indonesians?- marching up the Mount of Olives singing Hosanna), mostly on foot around the old city, felt timeless. The garden tomb could well have looked similar 2000 years ago.

Some sites, like Masada, and Yad Vashem, had historical rather than religious significance for me, and were also well worth the visit.

When we crossed through the newly built wall to Bethlehem we met Palestinian Christians and heard their horrible stories of oppression. We also met some Arab Christian bookshop owners (who knew their position was dangerous, since a Christian bookshop in Gaza had recently been attacked), and some other Christan Arabs who ran a charitable facility for disabled children (mostly Muslims from the camps – no other services were available for them, since parents could barely manage to educate their able-bodied children). The wall had cut off most opportunites for paid employment for those in Bethlehem, and the tourists were mostly staying away at the time, and the small business owners were desperate for our custom.

Because of frequent church-related exposure to photos of the Holy Land, some places we visited felt as if they were already familiar, but I was able to develop my 2D mental picture into a 3 dimensional experience of my own. The sight and sound of our group leader reading out the Sermon on the Mount as we sat on the grass overlooking the Sea of Galilee comes back to me every time I read the passage for myself. Same with the stories of Jesus “crossing over to the other side of the lake”. And by getting up well before breakfast one morning, I was able to enjoy some precious stillness by the edge of the water.

The small size and ordinariness of the land impressed me as a believer: God didn't choose to live in the midst of a stunning landscape when he came to earth (not that it was all dry and dusty – Banias was a good visual display of “streams of living water”), and the gospel stories that we have inherited all took place in a small radius of space and time, but the results of those events have rippled out across lands and centuries ever since.

It wasn't a perfect trip, or a perfect country. Yes there was tackiness and there were tourist traps. But overall, I'm so glad I went.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:

In the 1990s (when I still had some focal vision) a friend and I decided to do something completely different at Christmas and went to Eilat. While we were there, we booked quite a few trips of course, including an overnight trip to Jerusalem. The place itself was very interesting, but from an entirely historical point of view as far as I’m concerned.

True, but the historical interest in this case seems to derive from its religious interest. After all, does Jerusalem have more non-religious history than anywhere else in the Middle East, or even just in Israel? Would you have gone there if you hadn't had a lifelong cultural awareness of the Judeo-Christian tradition that made the city famous?

As a non-monotheist one might just as well go to Egypt or Jordan for history - and not have to endure such a surplus of over-excited Christians as one's fellow tourists!

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
]True, but the historical interest in this case seems to derive from its religious interest. After all, does Jerusalem have more non-religious history than anywhere else in the Middle East, or even just in Israel? Would you have gone there if you hadn't had a lifelong cultural awareness of the Judeo-Christian tradition that made the city famous?

Probably, because I love to travel anyway, but of course, its cultural associations are linked inseparably. The timing was to avoid all the Christmas fuss and bother.
I have always been very interested in Ancient Egypt too and a yer or two later had a week in Luxor. No mystical experiences () but a very, very interesting look at those ancient places. Just to stand where people have stood for thousands of years is just wonderful I think.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:

It's possible if they had seen 'one group oppressing another' it would've taken away any appreciation they had of the geographical nearness of walking where Jesus walked, or seeing the Sea of Galilee etc. But I doubt it.

This is a massive problem. One is contributing to the flouting of Jesus' message for the privilege of a spiritual selfie.

I think this is seriously fucked up.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

I would concur. Those people - Christians, often evangelicals - whose support for Zionism is unequivocal and faith-mandated are amongst the people who need to be confronted with the consequences that has for the Arab population of Israel and the Occupied Territories.

Looking away in case 'it spoils their spiritual experience'? [Disappointed]

[ 28. October 2017, 15:54: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I would concur. Those people - Christians, often evangelicals - whose support for Zionism is unequivocal and faith-mandated are amongst the people who need to be confronted with the consequences that has for the Arab population of Israel and the Occupied Territories.

Looking away in case 'it spoils their spiritual experience'?

The trip into Bethlehem is one grievous example, evangelical tour buses who head through the checkpoints and the wall tend to receive the best courtesy from the IDF soldiers, so much that it leaves the impression for many evangelicals that the wall/check points are no big deal and that the Palestinians are complaining for no reason.

However, I had the opportunity to go through a checkpoint with a Palestinian deacon at the time, and it was one of the most humiliating and racist incidents i ever encountered.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

I suppose I also want to say that I think there is something oppressive about being a tourist in many places. For me it was the connection with my own faith which made the whole experience sickening.

But there is also incredible poverty and injustice in Egypt, India, Jordan and elsewhere. There is arguably incredible injustice in London.

For me there is something about describing a visit as a pilgrimage which makes takes the whole thing onto a different level.

I don't really know what or why that is. And I recognise the hypocrisy of saying that having a "fine old spiritual time" in Israel is inconsistent when there is injustice on the doorstep but then being prepared to put up with the injustice to have essentially the same experience in Egypt or India.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
The trip into Bethlehem is one grievous example, evangelical tour buses who head through the checkpoints and the wall tend to receive the best courtesy from the IDF soldiers, so much that it leaves the impression for many evangelicals that the wall/check points are no big deal and that the Palestinians are complaining for no reason.

I used to know a owner of a largish hotel in Bethlehem.

It is hard to run a tour guide company from inside the West Bank, so the vast majority of pilgrims travel on Israeli plated buses and stay in Israeli hotels. Few tourists overnight in Bethlehem, in consequence outside of Christmas and Easter seasons (which is extended due to celebrating both Eastern and Western Calendars), it is possible to stay in entirely empty hotels and see no tourists.

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

Assuming the standard New Testament interpretation that Jesus critiqued the Temple institution, its entanglement with Rome, the priesthood's distance from the ordinary people of Judea, I suspect that our Lord also had this ambivalent attitude towards this Holy City.

It has been remarked that Luke exalts the Temple as the setting for the Presentation of our Lord, and Jesus' 12 year old self conversing with the scribes, so the Temple has a positive depiction, but Luke, like all the evangelists, also has Jesus throwing the tables, and the money changers out of the Temple.

So our ambivalence towards the Holy Land is not new. It dates back to Jesus himself.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

But there is also incredible poverty and injustice in Egypt, India, Jordan and elsewhere. There is arguably incredible injustice in London.

I do think that there are places that being a tourist is harmful. There are also places that spending that tourist £/$ helps the poor in ways their government cannot or will not. It really depends on the place and how one interacts. Package tours are generally the worst, as well as being the least interesting, educational and interactive. More like going to a zoo than experiencing a country.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I would concur. Those people - Christians, often evangelicals - whose support for Zionism is unequivocal and faith-mandated are amongst the people who need to be confronted with the consequences that has for the Arab population of Israel and the Occupied Territories.

Looking away in case 'it spoils their spiritual experience'?

I agree-- but in defense of my fellow evangelicals I would add that it appears that the Israeli govt is (not surprisingly) very complicit in this. In my experience, one has to be very intentional about seeking out a specific kind of tour from one of the peacemaking groups that are intentionally designing tours with that in mind to get any exposure to Palestinian experience whatsoever. Meanwhile, the Nice Sunday School- Bibleland Tours Led by Real Live Jews are marketed to pastors up the whazzo with lots of free benefits for pastors who take their flock on them.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Meanwhile, the Nice Sunday School- Bibleland Tours Led by Real Live Jews are marketed to pastors up the whazzo with lots of free benefits for pastors who take their flock on them.

But how in the Hell can any reasonably concious person not know this is bullshit?
Not care? That I can see, but not know?

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Meanwhile, the Nice Sunday School- Bibleland Tours Led by Real Live Jews are marketed to pastors up the whazzo with lots of free benefits for pastors who take their flock on them.
But how in the Hell can any reasonably concious person not know this is bullshit?
Not care? That I can see, but not know?

I think there are a whole lot of us Americans who just don't know what's going on outside of the US. Particularly in the Bible belt there is such a strong pro-Israel narrative as well that its hard for anything else to get thru the clutter.

And, as noted above, it's not just in Israel. The first time we taught in Zambia, we lived as close as we could to/with our students. But we had our young kids with us and wanted to take them on a safari, so went down to Livingston for one of the marketed tours connected with a large British-style hotel. Upon arriving and being greeted to our great amusement by what I guess were supposed to be native Zulu warriors or something we began referring to the place as "Afro-Disney". Playful monkeys in the trees and tame zebras roaming the place. At the Western style buffet with their carving stations and salad bar, a waiter stopped my youngest son when he headed straight for the small table off to the side of Zambian food to fill up on nshima (the nat'l dish), thinking he's mistaken it for mashed potatoes. He was delighted to learn that son actually loved nshima.

otoh, Africa is also full of the opposite-- "compassion tours" filled with visits to "orphanages" and ministries to "street children" that in reality aren't really orphans or street children (in some cases there's not even a school there-- just some kids rounded up and given a few coins or treats for the day to sit thru the predictable VBS).

Hard to say which is worse.

Short term travel/mission trips can indeed be problematic and faught but there is also still value in them IMHO. For us, going back to the same place year after year and building relationships with locals has been helpful.

Posted by wild haggis (# 15555) on :

Israel does pollarise people - that includes its own inhabitants.

How can you say it is like Jesus' time with a whopping great wall across the county dividing it? What's holy about that? Tourists can whiz through check points when residents can't - and that includes Israeli Christians, waiting many hours just to go to work on the other side of the wall. I once listened to a Christian shopkeeper from Bethlehem, who could trace her family back in that city for a great many centuries - long before Israel was even a twinkle in Balfour's eye, long before even the Ottoman Empire. She had to pack up and leave because the wall was built yards from the door of her shop. He custom dried up. She lost her living.

When I was doing my Masters in RE, years ago, a group went from our uni to visit Israeli/Palestinian Christians. Much of their trip was fraught with difficulty as the Israeli authorities only wanted them to go where they wanted, on the well trodden tourist trails, controlled by what they wanted the tourists to see.

Many years later, our son visited Israel as part of the techie team for a dance company's tour there. He hated the sight of soldiers with guns everywhere, including on the beach where he wanted to relax on his time off. I said his descriptions reminded me of N Ireland in '70s, when I was there. Horrible.

Quite a few years ago a friend who worked for an authorised organisation in Israel, saw the house she was boarding in, with its indigenous Christian family, being bull-dosed at 24 hours notice. Why? No one knew. They hadn't done anything to upset the Government. For as log as people could remember Jews, Moslems and Christians had lived side by side peacefully in the village. That is until the Israeli Government decided it wanted to build a Jewish Settlement close by and houses began to be bulldozed for no reason.

Why should we call the land "Holy" anyway - Jesus isn't there any more. He wouldn't recognise it if he were. He would cry yet again, over what has happened to Jerlusalem.

Holy is more to do with us and how we feel and what brings us closer to God or not. A divided community, soldiers with guns and a wall don't do it for me. Nor does providing the Israeli Government who are engaged in racially cleansing Israel, with revenue from my £. (And I'm not anti-semetic as most of my husband's family died in the Shoah. I'm a human being who cares for people no matter what their race or religion.)

Yes, Lindisfarne is a "thin" place, as many other places where you feel close to God, can be. For me walking up the market street in Salamis as Paul and Barnebus did was one such place - but it might not do it for you; visiting the old train station converted into a tiny Russian Orthodox chapel at Walsingham; or visiting the Greek Orthodox Cathedral in the Faner in Istanbul where there are tombs of some of the Early Church Fathers, ..... so many other places.

Here in Wales there are many "thin" places. Come, listen to the stories of those early saints who brought Christianity to these shores of Britain. It's moving and just as holy. OK not so hot and sunny - but cheaper!

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

The thing with any of this is that we can none of us not bring presuppositions, confirmation bias or 'baggage' into the equation.

That neither validates nor invalidates these things.

I once visited Little Gidding, subject and setting for the fourth of T S Eliot's Four Quartets.

I was alone and felt mounting excitement and anticipation as I drew closer. I knew the poem well and never cease to be moved by it. There was no-one there and the nearby retreat house was closed due to illness. In the stillness and solitude I recited the whole of the poem using a copy conveniently provided on the choir stalls.

It felt like a deeply spiritual band almost liturgical thing to do. I was in tears by the end of it and couldn't have cared less if someone had come in and seen or heard me.

Now,would my visit have been different had I not been familiar with the poem? Of course.

What was happening was that I was bringing a whole interwoven pattern of associations to a physical location that had inspired or helped shape those associations.

We are physical beings. The Word became Flesh.

I can read Little Gidding at home, I can listen to Paul Schofield reading it on CD in my car. But how special and how powerful to go to the actual physical location and do something physical with it ie read it out loud?

Pilgrimage and trips to the Holy Land or to Lindisfarne or wherever else serve a similar function.

I've 'felt' close to Wordsworth and Coleridge in places associated with them, not in a heeby-geebie way.

I've felt saddened on visits to battle-fields.

Would I have felt that way had I not known the associations?

No, of course I wouldn't.

I do have a well-developed 'sense of place', I can certainly say I regard particular locations as 'holy places'.

Does that mean I regard those who don't have any inclinations that way as miserable, Puritanical unfeeling gits?

No, I can understand reactions to the tacky and the territorial. I share those.

Nevertheless ...

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

I do have a well-developed 'sense of place',

I've strode historic battlements, walked bloody battlefields, stood where significant speeches were made and strode the paths of heroes and felt.
The events which happened to make those places notable have an effect on my life even should I have never visited or even known where they were. Being there, though, felt greater than merely knowing.
It isn't that I do not understand why people want this for the holy land. It is that they pretty much must ignore the shit that happens there which is direct contradiction to the values of the person who makes this place special to them. And ignore that they are fairly complicit in said shit by visiting.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

As one or two people have already remarked the 'Holy' Land in the days of Jesus would have not been as calm,as 'holy' nor as conducive to quiet contemplation as some posters would like it to be.
In the days of Jesus there would have been the same pushing and shoving and groups of people of all types who wanted to visit the Holy City of Jerusalem.

I haven't been to the 'Holy' Land but I have been regularly to the Catholic shrine of Lourdes in France. Obviously not as extensive as the 'Holy' Land,but it attracts for all sorts of reasons the same broad mass of people, those looking for a spiritual experience, those looking for a cure as well as many who are simply curious.

Of course it is a miniature world seen through the prism of the Catholic faith. For some the many churches and the many different ceremonies, particularly Reconciliation,Eucharist and Anointing of the Sick fulfil a deep spiritual need. For others it is an opportunity to be of assistance to those who are in need. Yet again for others it is simply a place to observe the faith (or gullibility ?) of others.
Some are repelled by what are seen as tacky souvenirs, though many of these are taken back as precious momentoes of an unforgettable experience.
Others don't like the shopkeepers who sell the souvenirs, although they don't mind people selling tacky souvenirs in other places.
Jesus came with a message for all people, not just those who are able to meditate quietly . You will see people pushing and shoving to get at the taps and fill up their bottles of Lourdes water.You will overhear a good number of unspiritual conversations amongst the 'brancardiers' (those who help the sick)
The last time I was there, there was a big Mass in one of the churches in Catalan. Sprawled on the steps outside the basilica, not paying any attention to the service proceeding inside, were about 50 young people. I had to remember, however,that they had given up a week of their time (unpaid !) to accompany the sick and wheelchair bound to the pilgrimage and that they spent all
day from dawn to dusk helping to care for them ,pushing them and pulling them in their chairs.F or me that is a great spiritual experience and reminds me of the actions of Jesus at the Last Supper when he washed the feet of His disciples.

Pilgrimages to the Holy Land, to Lourdes etc are indeed what we make of them.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
As one or two people have already remarked the 'Holy' Land in the days of Jesus would have not been as calm,as 'holy' nor as conducive to quiet contemplation as some posters would like it to be.
In the days of Jesus there would have been the same pushing and shoving and groups of people of all types who wanted to visit the Holy City of Jerusalem.

all the more reason to include Palestinian experience in the trip, then, to get that sense of oppression, tribalism, us vs. them, nationalism, injustice, etc. etc that was as present in the 1st c as it is today.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:

Some are repelled by what are seen as tacky souvenirs, though many of these are taken back as precious momentoes of an unforgettable experience.

This is true. I'm the sort of person who sneers at tacky souvenirs, but if they are sold, that means there's a market for them, and therefore they must be meaningful to a significant number of people. In which case, the problem is my snobbery rather than the souvenirs themselves.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

Someone said something about about there being some places that it is impossible to go without participating in a very overt injustice.

Sorry if I've paraphrased, I think it was a while back so I'm not going to go hunting for the exact phrase.

Anyway - I'm wondering if there are other places that it is basically immoral to visit as a tourist. Turkey is a popular tourist destination, but isn't exactly a liberal democracy any more. Some of the Eastern European countries haven't exactly been friendly to weary refugees on their borders. Morocco is fighting a largely ignored ongoing war in Western Sahara. Egypt is.. well, a mess.

Are these all to be put into the immoral category? Is immoral the right word in this context? How does one decide when somewhere is too bad to visit?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

I think one should assess the impact of one’s travel. It is possible to go nearly anywhere and be a positive, or at least neutral, influence. Some considerably more difficult than others, of course.
I am a firm believer in travel and the positives that it can have for the traveler and the visited. But it should always be done in a conscious, engaged way.
As twee as it sounds, be a traveler and not a tourist.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

I think one should assess the impact of one’s travel. It is possible to go nearly anywhere and be a positive, or at least neutral, influence. Some considerably more difficult than others, of course.

I don't know what this means. How can a traveller objectively assess their impact?

ISTM that no traveller anywhere is ever going to have a neutral impact on the place they visit. If the traveller is considerably wealthier than the majority of the people living in the country, the impact is almost always negative.

quote:
I am a firm believer in travel and the positives that it can have for the traveler and the visited. But it should always be done in a conscious, engaged way.
As twee as it sounds, be a traveler and not a tourist.

I don't think I am that believer. I have seen too many negatives everywhere I've been.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
If the traveller is considerably wealthier than the majority of the people living in the country, the impact is almost always negative.

Not to take away from the very obvious and egregious damages you are no doubt alluding to, it should be noted that tourism dollars can be a vital source of income for many. Fraught with problems, yes, but a default "wealthy people traveling is always a problem" seems like very much of an over-reach. And the inevitable consequence of such a simplistic dictate would be that rich people only ever visit other rich people-- only exasperating the already existing segregation of the wealthy from the real lives of the poor, which IMHO is a huge part of the problem we're experiencing here in the US right now.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Not to take away from the very obvious and egregious damages you are no doubt alluding to, it should be noted that tourism dollars can be a vital source of income for many. Fraught with problems, yes, but a default "wealthy people traveling is always a problem" seems like very much of an over-reach.

I don't think it is. The "good" that comes from the tourist dollars is by far outweighed by (for example) the environmental cost of getting them there, the inerrant corruption in the tourism industry which means that the rich siphon off the majority of the wealth so that the weakest gain almost nothing. And so on.

quote:
And the inevitable consequence of such a simplistic dictate would be that rich people only ever visit other rich people-- only exasperating the already existing segregation of the wealthy from the real lives of the poor, which IMHO is a huge part of the problem we're experiencing here in the US right now.

I don't know, if you want to have this conversation then maybe let's talk about it in another thread.

I'm not persuaded that many poor people would be worse off if they suddenly lived in a country with no tourists.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
How can a traveller objectively assess their impact?

Does adding potential to impact help? Learning about the cultures and conditions of where one chooses to travel.

quote:

ISTM that no traveller anywhere is ever going to have a neutral impact on the place they visit. If the traveller is considerably wealthier than the majority of the people living in the country, the impact is almost always negative.

Do you have a negative impact if you visit a shop in Rochdale in Manchester? Why is it inherently true of another country?

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Do you have a negative impact if you visit a shop in Rochdale in Manchester? Why is it inherently true of another country?

I don't think the impact is the same when one is visiting another part of the country where one is a tax-paying, responsible citizen as when visiting another, much poorer country.

Incidentally, the only time I visited Rochdale was to help a women's co-operative. So in that particular example, I can be fairly sure that I didn't make anything worse.

[ 30. October 2017, 15:07: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

When I go to France, a country clearly better run and governed than mine currently is, I am certain my tourism has no effect upon the populace. (Americans get sympathy, especially when we cry out "I didn't vote for him!") But I'm certain that if I went to a country well on down in the scale my presence would have a different effect.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
the shit that happens there which is direct contradiction to the values of the person who makes this place special to them.

Like Islamofascists firing rockets at schools in an effort to murder Jewish children.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
the shit that happens there which is direct contradiction to the values of the person who makes this place special to them.
Like Islamofascists firing rockets at schools in an effort to murder Jewish children.

Equating the actions of militants with the same behaviour from a government is completely asinine.
Par for the course, though, and consistent with the type of hypocritical, dumbfuck Christianity* that thinks it is OK to abuse everyone for the actions of a few as long as those abused are not Christian or Israeli Jews.

*Not tarring all Christians.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

Irony is that a fair proportion of Palestinians are Christians.

That said, many have already left.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Irony is that a fair proportion of Palestinians are Christians.

That said, many have already left.

Poor mr cheesy, did you not know? All of Palestine is filled with blood-thirsty Islamacists lining up to drink the blood of Israeli babies. It is anti-Zionist propaganda that anyone else is there.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

I do have a well-developed 'sense of place',
I've strode historic battlements, walked bloody battlefields, stood where significant speeches were made and strode the paths of heroes and felt.
The events which happened to make those places notable have an effect on my life even should I have never visited or even known where they were. Being there, though, felt greater than merely knowing.
It isn't that I do not understand why people want this for the holy land. It is that they pretty much must ignore the shit that happens there which is direct contradiction to the values of the person who makes this place special to them. And ignore that they are fairly complicit in said shit by visiting.

Well yes, which is why I'd be more inclined to visit 'holy places' here or elsewhere in Western Europe rather than traipsing over to the Holy Land.

Meanwhile, I've not been around for a bit but notice that Kaplan hasn't changed his spots ...

Yes, there are Islamofascists trying to murder Jewish children.

We all know that.

Tell us something new.

Two wrongs don't make a right and that doesn't excuse the Israeli state from acting bastardly as it certainly has done from time to time - and still does.

Nor does the presence of tack and shite invalidate the idea of pilgrimages or visits to places people associate with things that are important to them, be it a shrine, be it a football stadium or an art gallery, a concert hall or an historic site of some kind.

I come from a similar low-church evangelical background to Kaplan and find a lot of these things difficult. Of course I do.

But it always makes me smile how some of the most vociferously anti-pilgrimage or anti-special places of evangelicals think nothing of travelling across half the world to visit somewhere they think is special ... The Toronto Airport Vineyard anyone?

I once met some lovely Brethren guys from New Zealand at the museum in David Livingstone's former home in Lanarkshire.

They'd have probably despised a visit to Chartres Cathedral or Lourdes, Walsingham or wherever else. But because it was a Protestant site, and an interesting one at that, their visit was all ok.

I've come across similar sentiments at sites associated with the Wesleys.

Sure, tack is tack and is pretty awful but somehow these things are always ok when they represent our own tradition but somehow beyond the pale when they come from someone else's.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

I've visited a few sites associated with the Wesleys, but it's never occurred to me that I was making a 'pilgrimage' as such. The MethodistsI've known don't seem to use that terminology. As a consequence, perhaps their expectations are somewhat different from those of 'true' pilgrims. I don't know.

But this thread has reminded me that many 'pilgrims' aren't particularly looking for a 'religious' experience so much as a connection to a certain cultural heritage. And regardless of your religious beliefs, you might find value in any kind of journey whose purpose is to stimulate reflection, and has done so for many, many other people.

[ 30. October 2017, 21:51: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:

It's possible if they had seen 'one group oppressing another' it would've taken away any appreciation they had of the geographical nearness of walking where Jesus walked, or seeing the Sea of Galilee etc. But I doubt it.

This is a massive problem. One is contributing to the flouting of Jesus' message for the privilege of a spiritual selfie.

I think this is seriously fucked up.

So tourists visiting Israel for spiritual reasons is 'fucked up'?

What about tourists visiting Israel for non-spiritual reasons? Presume that's not fucked up - because Jesus' 'message' isn't being 'flouted'? Or those who visit for non-spiritual reasons but accidentally get blessed by God (surely not?!)? Are they free from the sneering condemnation? They're not flouting Jesus' message either. You know, that message Jesus used to teach about never being a tourist in a country where the government practice inequalities and injustices against certain sections of the population?

For pity's sake. Get perspective. You and Doc Tor both. Yes, some people - and no doubt some travel companies actually exploit the tourist potential of a significant place regarded as holy by huge numbers of religious, and non-religious, people. And I certainly share the distaste of how some of this feeds into the rampant pro-Israelism of some forms of fundamentalist Christianity.

But unless you actually believe that all tourism to all countries who perpetrate policies of unfairness injurious to parts of their population should be banned on moral grounds, this is shite.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
So tourists visiting Israel for spiritual reasons is 'fucked up'?

What about tourists visiting Israel for non-spiritual reasons? Presume that's not fucked up - because Jesus' 'message' isn't being 'flouted'?

Anyone who supports Israel's poor treatment of the Palestinians, is fucked up. People who do so and are Christians add hypocrisy on top of that.

quote:

For pity's sake. Get perspective.

On the contrary, I think it is perspective that informs my view.

quote:

But unless you actually believe that all tourism to all countries who perpetrate policies of unfairness injurious to parts of their population should be banned on moral grounds, this is shite.

If you'd read farther than my reply to you, it should be obvious that my position is more nuanced.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

SvitlanaV2, I'm using the term pilgrimage in a looser sense.

My point is that some Protestants would think nothing of visiting sites associated with the Wesleys or hymn-writers, Reformation heroes etc yet he all hot under the collar when more Catholic types do similar things only connected with their tradition.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
If you'd read farther than my reply to you, it should be obvious that my position is more nuanced.

I'd still like you to explain the criteria you are using to determine that visiting Israel is worse than visiting Turkey, Egypt, India or Kenya please.

Posted by crunt (# 1321) on :

I would like to go to the so-called Holy Land, but apart from other, perhaps more obvious, dangers and problems related to such a trip, I am also a little bit nervous about this.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
SvitlanaV2, I'm using the term pilgrimage in a looser sense.

My point is that some Protestants would think nothing of visiting sites associated with the Wesleys or hymn-writers, Reformation heroes etc yet he all hot under the collar when more Catholic types do similar things only connected with their tradition.

Putting to one side the obvious point that some Protestants simply aren't keen on whatever the RCC does, what interests me in particular is this 'looser sense' of pilgrimage. It obviously creates confusion. Who really knows if a 'similar thing' is going on when two very different groups of people go off on their journeys?

Indeed, when you consider that the RC pilgrimage in the link I mentioned, the Camino di Santiago, attracts people with so many different agendas, I should think it's hard to say what's really going on. I can see why even a devout RC might disapprove.

I suppose charismatic evangelicals can at least be thankful that groups of atheists and bullish backsliders are never going to go on a pilgrimage to the Toronto Airport Vineyard Church! (Or are they...?)

[Biased]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
If you'd read farther than my reply to you, it should be obvious that my position is more nuanced.
I'd still like you to explain the criteria you are using to determine that visiting Israel is worse than visiting Turkey, Egypt, India or Kenya please.

Well, worse is going to be partly subjective.
I am saying Israel is worse for the sort of Christian who goes the "holy" land to recharge their spiritual batteries. For other people, it depends on how one travels.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I am saying Israel is worse for the sort of Christian who goes the "holy" land to recharge their spiritual batteries. For other people, it depends on how one travels.

Maybe. I know quite a few Christians for whom hearing the voices of and being in solidarity with Palestians and actively exploring and pursuing avenues of peace and justice has been integral to recharging their spiritual batteries on “pilgrimage”* to “the Holy Land.”

* It may not be a traditional pilgrimage, but those I know readily use that term to describe the experience.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Well, worse is going to be partly subjective.
I am saying Israel is worse for the sort of Christian who goes the "holy" land to recharge their spiritual batteries. For other people, it depends on how one travels.

This doesn't seem to me to mean anything.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0