UBB.classicTM 6.5.0
quote:You believe there is no relationship at all between a wall separating people from their families, land, water wells etc. and Incarnation and the goodwill of God towards humankind?
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!"
quote:The burden of the lyrics of 'O Little Town of Bethlehem' are about God in the midst of real life, if one bothers to pay them some attention.
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.
quote:If you're lucky, you will. But not necessarily.
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.
quote:Well, God's causes if the bible is to be believed and which Gildas has spelt out in admirable detail.
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!"
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:Nope, no similarity here at all.
Zach82: The Roman Empire's occupation of Palestine cannot be conflated with Israel's oppression of Palestinians
quote:The fact that it happened under Roman Empire is entirely circumstancial.
Zach82: and the Gospel writers didn't insert the Bethlehem detail as a commentary on an evil empire.
quote:Which happened to a simple woman in a small country ruled by a wicked king and occupied by an evil empire. As Gildas said here, you'll hear this in countless sermons every Christmas. As a matter of fact, I've never been to a Christmas service where this wasn't told, and I've been to the whole range of churches. I probably could point to tons of Christmas sermons online that say this, but I can't be bothered.
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.
quote:Well, I won't be bothered to substantiate your opinions for you either.
I can't be bothered.
quote:Sometimes I'm amazed by how differently you read the Bible from me. We've already discussed this before in our fights over the Parable of the Good Samaritan.
Zach82: Then yes, from the reasoning you have given here the placement in the Roman Empire is entirely circumstantial.
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.
Zach82: Are you going to crack your Bible and argue from the text or not?
quote:Lucy Winkett is a funny name for a man: said Rector is a She!
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.
quote:But you can't simply discuss what the Bible says?
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: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.
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:This is sheer silliness. Some interpretations are more sustained by the text than others.
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.
quote:Yes, there are differences between the Gospels. Duh. In my church we usually read Luke. And what about King Herod killing the children?
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: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.
Zach82: This is sheer silliness. Some interpretations are more sustained by the text than others.
quote:Actually, they are both alike in not drawing out this evil empire line of yours.
Yes, there are differences between the Gospels. Duh.
quote:Who doesn't, I repeat, breathe a word of the injustice done to Mary in the census.
In my church we usually read Luke.
quote:What about it? We're talking about the placement of the story in Bethlehem, which is the whole pretense of this protest. Even then, the presence of a wicked king does not make the entire Christmas story about protesting unjust governments.
And what about King Herod killing the children?
quote:I haven't offered an outlandish interpretation, so do come off it. 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.
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.
quote:Mary travelled all the way to Bethlehem, pregnant, to have her baby in a stable, away from her family, just for fun.
Zach82: Who doesn't, I repeat, breathe a word of the injustice done to Mary in the census.
quote:Herod killed the children of Bethlehem. An evil power acted against the vulnerable in Bethlehem.
Zach82: What about it? We're talking about the placement of the story in Bethlehem, which is the whole pretense of this protest.
quote:No. You prove to me that your interpretation of the story is right for a time.
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:You did. Here.
Zach82: An additional reminder—you initiated this argument, LeRoc.
quote: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.
Mary travelled all the way to Bethlehem, pregnant, to have her baby in a stable, away from her family, just for fun.
quote: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.
Herod killed the children of Bethlehem. An evil power acted against the vulnerable in Bethlehem.
quote:What do I have to prove, exactly? Are you under the mistaken assumption that if I can't offer a more compelling interpretation, then your interpretation must be right?
No. You prove to me that your interpretation of the story is right for a time.
quote:You didn't have to engage me. I actually ignored you the first time your tried engaging me because I already had a good idea of how another argument between us would go.
You did. Here.
quote:Or one assumes that the readers will know that having a baby in circumstances like these that are imposed on you against your will, is difficult.
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:Who was a vulnerable child.
Zach82: Seems to me that Herod was specifically trying to attack Jesus.
quote:As is the wall in Bethlehem.
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:Thank you. I'm not making the whole story about it. Neither, I think, is Rev. Lucy Winkett.
Zach82: The presence of oppression is conceded. It's just rather much to make the whole story about that.
quote:That the Christmas story is only about the fulfilling of the prophecies and connecting Jesus to David, and has nothing to do with vulnerability in the face of an evil power. I'm waiting.
Zach82: What do I have to prove, exactly?
quote:Just as if he decides not to mention that a stable is an unsuitable place to have a child, he isn't trying to emphasize that. Likewise, if he doesn't spell out that a stable is an odd place for a king to be born one assumes he isn't trying to emphasise that.
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote: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.
Mary travelled all the way to Bethlehem, pregnant, to have her baby in a stable, away from her family, just for fun.
quote:If Matthew and Luke don't say that the attack on the vulnerable is part of the wider story of the battle between God and evil one assumes that it's because they decided not to emphasise that.
quote: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.
Herod killed the children of Bethlehem. An evil power acted against the vulnerable in Bethlehem.
quote:You seem to be pretty adamant about it here.
Zach82: I never once said what the text was "only" about, LeRoc.
quote:Yeah. It's not like at any point in Luke's nativity story he mentions anything about the hungry being filled with good things or the rich being sent empty away.
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:That's not basic literary criticism, though. That's adopting a strong intentionalist stance. Basic literary criticism would at least acknowledge that at least weak anti-intentionalism can be held with respect to all texts: the position that a text can reasonably be interpreted to have, in addition to meanings that the author intended, meanings beyond what the author intended. Traditional biblical hermeneutics has tended to be weakly anti-intentionalist in just that way - the text, when read under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, may not contradict the intentions of the human author but nevertheless it says far more than the human author intended or could have intended.
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:Are you arguing that churches should be rigourous in not combining themes from Luke and Matthew in their Christmas celebrations? That's a position I associate more with ultra-rationalists such as Spong. If it's legitimate to have both shepherds and magi in the same Nativity scene, it's equally legitimate to think about what happens when you juxtapose the Magnificat and the Massacre of the Innocents.
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by Zach82:
The Roman Empire's occupation of Palestine cannot be conflated with Israel's oppression of Palestinians,
quote:Look, if you're going to add words to what I've posted and throw temper tantrums when I don't substantiate what you only imagined I said, I am just going to go back to ignoring you. I don't need the frustration, and I doubt you do either.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:You seem to be pretty adamant about it here.
Zach82: I never once said what the text was "only" about, LeRoc.
quote: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?
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote: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.
Originally posted by Zach82:
The Roman Empire's occupation of Palestine cannot be conflated with Israel's oppression of Palestinians,
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.
quote:I'm guessing that there are a couple dozen or more places you could, in fact, gather to do precisely that. Not just on that one day but on many of the Sundays leading up to Christmas. And it doesn't seem like the church in the OP pulled any sort of bait-and-switch, I'm guessing the attendees at "Bethlehem unwrapped" had a fairly good idea of what they were getting in for. So no one was forced to endure " moralizing and politicking" against their will.
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote: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?
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote: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.
Originally posted by Zach82:
The Roman Empire's occupation of Palestine cannot be conflated with Israel's oppression of Palestinians,
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 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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote: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?
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote: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.
Originally posted by Zach82:
The Roman Empire's occupation of Palestine cannot be conflated with Israel's oppression of Palestinians,
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 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.
quote: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.
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.
quote:Why is it relevant? As soon as you start explaining that, you've gone beyond narrative. That doesn't mean I'm down on narrative. It means I'm up on meaning.
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote: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.
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.
quote:Does this mean I now have to stop bitching and moaning about Imperial Babylon-on-the-Potomac?
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.
quote:Not only that, if you look at how the NT writers use the OT, you'll see very much the same thing. The prophet(s) Isaiah certainly did not envision the use Matthew makes of his words.
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.
quote:Why is it whenever someone speaks out about one particular issue that another person almost always says "What about X?"
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:Actually the complete reverse is true in North American quarters. Thanks to the influential pro-Israeli lobby in the States, Israel can pretty much do whatever it wants with the rubber stamp of the United States, resulting in misery and oppression for the Palestinians.
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.
quote:I've never understood this. When someone talks about Palestinians suffering, there seems to be a compelling rule that one has to pad this statement right away by at least twenty statements that Christians or Jews or ... are suffering also. And one cannot leave this to another moment, one has to do it now.
L'organist: It would have been better if Lucy Winkett had concerned herself with the plight of Christians all over the middle-east.
quote:Mahmoud Abbas is the indigenous vassal of Israel?
Ricardus: 1. Herod is the bad guy but he is also the indigenous vassal, not the Empire. So if we are drawing parallels Herod is the Palestinian Authority and the Romans are Israel.
quote:I believe the church decided to host this event because of the experience of a parish pilgrimage to the holy land.
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:It's my understanding that the Palestinian Authority only has as much autonomy as Israel allows it, which would make it a de facto vassal in feudal terms. Certainly I have heard complaints about derelict infrastructure on the West Bank that the Palestinian Authority doesn't have the power to restore and that Israel isn't interested in restoring.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:Mahmoud Abbas is the indigenous vassal of Israel?
Ricardus: 1. Herod is the bad guy but he is also the indigenous vassal, not the Empire. So if we are drawing parallels Herod is the Palestinian Authority and the Romans are Israel.
quote:I think we're having a semantic difference over the word 'vassal'.
Ricardus: It's my understanding that the Palestinian Authority only has as much autonomy as Israel allows it, which would make it a de facto vassal in feudal terms.
quote:Being one of those squarish, land-locked states in the southwest of the American union, New Mexico doesn't have any sort coast off which there could be controversial oil drilling.
Anglican_Brat say something earnest about:
the coast of New Mexico