Posted                      

quote:

---

Zach82: "Enough with all that Incarnation and the goodwill of God towards humankind claptrap—let's make Christmas about something important—like the rector's pet political causes!"

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

It's good that people are confronted with the reality of the 'little town of Bethlehem' so that Christmas does not turn into escapism. The incarnation is about God in the midst of real life, not some fairy tale world.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gildas:
Come to church at Christmas and you will hear the story of an oppressive Empire, bent on screwing every shekel it could out of its subjects and a dying paranoiac intent on slaughtering his every rival, real or imagined and in the midst of this the voice of God, heard as the cry of a new born child in the dark.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
"Enough with all that Incarnation and the goodwill of God towards humankind claptrap—let's make Christmas about something important—like the rector's pet political causes!"

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Zach82: The Roman Empire's occupation of Palestine cannot be conflated with Israel's oppression of Palestinians

---

quote:

---

Zach82: and the Gospel writers didn't insert the Bethlehem detail as a commentary on an evil empire.

---

The fact that it happened under Roman Empire is entirely circumstancial.



--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posted                      

quote:

---

Zach82: If you think the text sustains the political commentary angle, then be my guest and argue it, LeRoc. Seems to me the Gospel writers are pretty explicit about their reasoning—they want to fulfill prophecy and connect Jesus to David.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

I can't be bothered.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Zach82: Then yes, from the reasoning you have given here the placement in the Roman Empire is entirely circumstantial.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Zach82: Are you going to crack your Bible and argue from the text or not?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
There is also, of course, this pompous rector's horror that people would dare have a good time and go to church to hear the nativity story without thinking about his pet political causes.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

I'm sorry, I'm not really in the costume of using Bible texts to 'prove' things, that's not how I read the Bible.

---

quote:

---

But it's all over the Christmas story: Mary couldn't have her baby in Nazareth but had to travel pregnant to Bethlehem because of a decree of the Emperor. They had to flee to Egypt because a king murdered a whole lot of children to get to theirs.

---

quote:

---

Vulnerability in the face of evil power is a major theme in the story, I can't see how you could miss it. Of course, you can come up with an alternative interpretation where these things don't matter, but it would be just that: an alternative interpretation.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Zach82: Matthew simply mentions that Jesus was born in Bethlehem with no mention of the Empire whatsoever. Luke mentions this census, but says nothing of the difficulties this places on Mary.

---

quote:

---

Zach82: This is sheer silliness. Some interpretations are more sustained by the text than others.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Yes, there are differences between the Gospels. Duh.

---

quote:

---

In my church we usually read Luke.

---

quote:

---

And what about King Herod killing the children?

---

quote:

---

You know what? This is the third or fourth time that I had to defend a completely accepted, mainstream interpretation of a Bible story against your outlandish versions, where you put the burden of proof on me. I'm not going to do it anymore.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Zach82: Who doesn't, I repeat, breathe a word of the injustice done to Mary in the census.

---

quote:

---

Zach82: What about it? We're talking about the placement of the story in Bethlehem, which is the whole pretense of this protest.

---

quote:

---

Zach82: If you believe your assertions are above critical examination, you are free to ignore my posts. But really a blog would be a better venue for such discourse. There you can be completely safe from ever being questioned.

---

quote:

---

Zach82: An additional reminder—you initiated this argument, LeRoc.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Mary travelled all the way to Bethlehem, pregnant, to have her baby in a stable, away from her family, just for fun.

---

quote:

---

Herod killed the children of Bethlehem. An evil power acted against the vulnerable in Bethlehem.

---

quote:

---

No. You prove to me that your interpretation of the story is right for a time.

---

quote:

---

You did. Here.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Zach82: This is simple literary criticism. If Luke decides not to mention Mary' difficulties getting to Bethlehem, one assumes he isn't trying to emphasize that.

---

quote:

---

Zach82: Seems to me that Herod was specifically trying to attack Jesus.

---

quote:

---

Zach82: The attack on the vulnerable by an evil power is simply a part of the wider story of the battle between God and evil.

---

quote:

---

Zach82: The presence of oppression is conceded. It's just rather much to make the whole story about that.

---

quote:

---

Zach82: What do I have to prove, exactly?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Mary travelled all the way to Bethlehem, pregnant, to have her baby in a stable, away from her family, just for fun.

---

This is simple literary criticism. If Luke decides not to mention Mary's difficulties getting to Bethlehem, one assumes he isn't trying to emphasize that.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Herod killed the children of Bethlehem. An evil power acted against the vulnerable in Bethlehem.

---

Seems to me that Herod was specifically trying to attack Jesus. The attack on the vulnerable by an evil power is simply a part of the wider story of the battle between God and evil. The presence of oppression is conceded. It's just rather much to make the whole story about that.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Zach82: I never once said what the text was "only" about, LeRoc.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Misapplication of the principle. The question is "Why is Luke employing this detail?" He could have any number of reasons for adding this detail about the census, but if the text is supposed to be about the hardship the poor in an evil empire, one would expect that to be sustained by the text.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Misapplication of the principle. The question is "Why is Luke employing this detail?" He could have any number of reasons for adding this detail about the census, but if the text is supposed to be about the hardship the poor in an evil empire, one would expect that to be sustained by the text.

---

quote:

---

But, so far as I can see, it isn't. LeRoc has not been forthcoming with other uses of this theme in the Gospel of Luke. The detail about the slaughter of the innocents is from Matthew, who doesn't mention the census or why Mary is in Bethlehem.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
The Roman Empire's occupation of Palestine cannot be conflated with Israel's oppression of Palestinians,

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Zach82: I never once said what the text was "only" about, LeRoc.

---

You seem to be pretty adamant about it here.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
The Roman Empire's occupation of Palestine cannot be conflated with Israel's oppression of Palestinians,

---

Why not? Frankly, that's a lot less of a leap, in terms of parallels to draw, than many of the things I've heard in sermons over the years.

I see nothing wrong in pointing out that God did not incarnate himself into a position of earthly power but one of oppression, and that people in the same part of the world aren't having a great time of it now either.

As for the Gospels choosing to mention Bethlehem: yes, the location is mentioned because of prophecies about the location. Has it ever occurred to you, though, that the timing of the Incarnation might, in fact, have been based on what the situation was in Bethlehem (and Israel more generally) at the particular time?

I'm not saying that there's definitive proof as to the reasons for the timing of Jesus' birth, I'm saying that it's not a fanciful proposition to talk about what was going on in that part of the world at that time as a relevant fact.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
The Roman Empire's occupation of Palestine cannot be conflated with Israel's oppression of Palestinians,

---

Why not? Frankly, that's a lot less of a leap, in terms of parallels to draw, than many of the things I've heard in sermons over the years.

I see nothing wrong in pointing out that God did not incarnate himself into a position of earthly power but one of oppression, and that people in the same part of the world aren't having a great time of it now either.

As for the Gospels choosing to mention Bethlehem: yes, the location is mentioned because of prophecies about the location. Has it ever occurred to you, though, that the timing of the Incarnation might, in fact, have been based on what the situation was in Bethlehem (and Israel more generally) at the particular time?

I'm not saying that there's definitive proof as to the reasons for the timing of Jesus' birth, I'm saying that it's not a fanciful proposition to talk about what was going on in that part of the world at that time as a relevant fact.

---

I hate to be cagey and answer with a question, but do you think there is any value in gathering to do nothing more than hear the nativity story and praise God for it? Is it OK for Christendom to celebrate the work of God, and to give presents and eat bloody roast beef and drink gallons of eggnog and champagne because of it without thinking about the injustice in the world?

I do think all of that is not only possible, but good and proper, and I feel great irritation at this imposition on the day. There are 364 days in the year for moralizing and politicking already.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
The Roman Empire's occupation of Palestine cannot be conflated with Israel's oppression of Palestinians,

---

Why not? Frankly, that's a lot less of a leap, in terms of parallels to draw, than many of the things I've heard in sermons over the years.

I see nothing wrong in pointing out that God did not incarnate himself into a position of earthly power but one of oppression, and that people in the same part of the world aren't having a great time of it now either.

As for the Gospels choosing to mention Bethlehem: yes, the location is mentioned because of prophecies about the location. Has it ever occurred to you, though, that the timing of the Incarnation might, in fact, have been based on what the situation was in Bethlehem (and Israel more generally) at the particular time?

I'm not saying that there's definitive proof as to the reasons for the timing of Jesus' birth, I'm saying that it's not a fanciful proposition to talk about what was going on in that part of the world at that time as a relevant fact.

---

I hate to be cagey and answer with a question, but do you think there is any value in gathering to do nothing more than hear the nativity story and praise God for it? Is it OK for Christendom to celebrate the work of God, and to give presents and eat bloody roast beef and drink gallons of eggnog and champagne because of it without thinking about the injustice in the world?

I do think all of that is not only possible, but good and proper, and I feel great irritation at this imposition on the day. There are 364 days in the year for moralizing and politicking already.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I think it's possible, yes, but you're pretty much asking the ordained to abandon everything their training told them to do about trying to take texts that are thousands of years old and make them relevant.

There is an awful lot of the Bible that could, if you wish, be reduced to 'here is a narrative'. You don't really need a sermon to read the narrative, though, because you can read it for yourself. Sermons are all about drawing out implications from the narrative, and once you accept that, I don't really see a justification for saying 'these are the implications you're allowed to draw out, and these are the implications you're not allowed to draw out'. So long as the implication can be fairly made, I think it's fair game.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I think it's possible, yes, but you're pretty much asking the ordained to abandon everything their training told them to do about trying to take texts that are thousands of years old and make them relevant.

There is an awful lot of the Bible that could, if you wish, be reduced to 'here is a narrative'. You don't really need a sermon to read the narrative, though, because you can read it for yourself. Sermons are all about drawing out implications from the narrative, and once you accept that, I don't really see a justification for saying 'these are the implications you're allowed to draw out, and these are the implications you're not allowed to draw out'. So long as the implication can be fairly made, I think it's fair game.

---

I think the intervention of God in human history in the birth of Jesus is relevant even before we shoe-horn 21st century politics into the text. I see no reason to be down on narrative.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
I think the intervention of God in human history in the birth of Jesus is relevant even before we shoe-horn 21st century politics into the text.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
To me, this is what preachers do. They take a Bible texts and give us some clues about how it can mean something to us in our present situation today. This is their job. If we don't do this, then we've reduced the Bible to some quaint ancient story book.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
It would have been better if Lucy Winkett had concerned herself with the plight of Christians all over the middle-east.

---

quote:

---

As a general thing, the Church of England seems to have decided that where the middle-east is concerned it is "Arab-Islamist = good, Israeli/Jewish = bad" regardless of sense or balance.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

L'organist: It would have been better if Lucy Winkett had concerned herself with the plight of Christians all over the middle-east.

---