Islamic and Christian violence

The behaviour of some adherents to Islam has caused horror around the world. It is probable that many westerners only became aware of the violent nature of a minority of Muslims when the twin towers of the World Trade Centre in New York were felled in September 2001 with huge loss of life, but incidents of a less catastrophic nature had been occurring long before then and have continued to do so, many of them perpetrated by the organisation known as Al-Qaeda.

In more recent times the age-old rivalry between the Sunni and Shia branches of Islam have erupted into terrible violence in Iraq with the emergence of a new Islamic militant body called ISIS or The Islamic State, which seeks to re-establish the ancient Caliphate by force of arms.

The general impression in the West, therefore, is that Islam is an inherently violent and destructive religion that seeks to impose its will on the rest of the world and is not particularly worried about the means it uses to achieve this aim. Many Christians have taken the view that this shows how superior their religion is to that of Islam – they are the nice guys who are opposed to the nasty ones.

However, it might be worth taking a step back and give this stance a bit more thought. Islam is approximately 1400 years old, if dated from the year 610 when Prophet Mohammed had his first revelations from the Angel Gabriel, according to tradition.

So what was Christianity like when it was of a similar age?

I maintain that the behaviour of Christians during the 14^th and 15^th centuries was no better than that of the militant minority of Muslims who carry out acts of violence today. Anti-Jewish violence was rife across Europe, coming to a climax with the work of the Holy Inquisition in Spain in the late 15^th century but with a long history before that date.

Violence between Catholics and Protestants, with support from Popes and Monarchs, was conducted with great vigour during the years of the Reformation, although this occurred long after the 1400 year comparison year suggested above.

The Christians who conquered Central and South America during the 15^th and 16^th centuries used all sorts of oppressive measures to force their religion on the peoples they encountered.

The point I am making, therefore, is that religions seem to go through phases of violent imposition of their beliefs, and it might take as much as 2000 years for its adherents to settle down to a more tolerant attitude towards those who oppose their views, whether these people be inside or outside the organisation. If Christianity is any model, the period of time from around 1300 to 1600 years after foundation might seem to be particularly dangerous ones. If that is so, Islam is well within that timeframe at present.

© John Welford

Fasting and abstinence in the Church

Fasting

Fasting, by which is meant refraining from eating for a whole day, or even longer, has long been recognised as a required practice for religious believers.

Jesus and his disciples were reprimanded by the Jewish authorities (as reported in Matthew 11:19) for not observing a fast and behaving like gluttons and drunkards, but there is no evidence that the first Christians were opposed to the notion of fasting as such.

Indeed, the early Christians made a point of fasting on different days from the Jews – Wednesdays and Fridays as opposed to Mondays and Thursdays.

The Church developed a whole code of behaviour for its members that required them to fast on specific occasions, such as preparing for baptism or ordination. The period of Lent – the days leading up to Easter – was long recognised as an occasion for daytime fasting. This was originally designated as applying to just two days, but by the 4^th century this had been extended to 40 days as a way of marking Christ’s period of temptation in the wilderness.

In the Eastern Church, Advent was also regarded as a period of fasting.

The rules on fasting have been greatly relaxed in more recent times, with the Roman Catholic Church (since the Second Vatican Council of 1962-5) only requiring its adherents to fast on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday, thus returning the practice of Lenten fasting to its original two days.

Abstinence

In general, fasting has been replaced by abstinence, i.e. the avoidance of certain kinds of food at particular times.

The best known form of abstinence in the Roman Catholic Church is the avoidance of meat on Fridays, with fish being substituted. Many medieval monastic communities went to great trouble to ensure a ready supply of fish for Friday meals, and the remains of fish ponds are a feature of many abbey ruins that can be seen to this day - as at Whitby Abbey in the above photo.

At one time it was also declared that foetal rabbits (known as laurices) looked enough like fish in shape to count as such in terms of being allowed instead of meat. Many abbeys and monasteries therefore developed extensive rabbit warrens to supply what was in any case regarded as a delicacy.

The Eastern Orthodox Churches have developed a hierarchy of abstinence, beginning with meat but also including fish, dairy produce, oil and wine. The most severe form of abstinence only allows consumption of bread, water, fruit juice, honey and nuts.

© John Welford

Christianity is a Socialist religion

Socialism is at the heart of true Christianity, and has been ever since the time of its founder. Indeed, if we are to believe the Gospel of Luke, the trend started with his mother, who, even before Jesus was born, pronounced the revolutionary words of the Magnificat:

“He hath put down the mighty from their seat and hath exalted the humble and meek. He hath filled the hungry with good things and the rich he hath sent empty away.” (as translated in the Book of Common Prayer)

There are plenty of examples from the life of Christ that put him firmly on the side of the poor against the rich. There is the story, for example, of the rich young man who wanted to be a disciple but who could not bear to be parted from his wealth, which led in turn to the famous line from Matthew that “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God”. Whatever may have happened to that line in translation, the general meaning is clear enough.

Then there is the episode of Jesus getting very annoyed at the capitalists who were hard at work making their fortunes as money-changers in the temple courtyard at Passover. 

According to Matthew he threw over their tables and called them “thieves”, which leaves little doubt as to his general point of view.

These examples might be taken as showing opposition to capitalism, but do they show him as a socialist? This writer interprets the story of the feeding of the 5,000 as being exactly that. Here you have a host of people turning up for an afternoon out to hear the new preacher. It would be very unlikely that only one boy thought to take any food with him, but he was the only one who was prepared to share what he had with anyone else. However, when Jesus pointed him out and thereby shamed everyone else into sharing what they had brought with them, they produced enough from their backpacks to feed everybody there.

No miraculous explanation is needed here, and indeed the story works better if the magical element is removed, because this is pure Socialism at work. Everyone benefits if the wealth is shared. Those who have too much make a contribution to help those who have too little, and so everyone has enough.

In the Acts of the Apostles it is stated that the early Church was run on Socialist lines, with all its members expected to pool their resources which were then redistributed. All sorts of arguments have been advanced to the effect that this does not prove that Christianity started along Socialist lines, but these have generally been excuses to allow rich Christians to stay rich. 

Throughout the centuries, the Church has shown many examples of communities in which the members have engaged in practical Socialism. The story of monasticism has shown very clearly the practical working out of Marx’s dictum: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”. Those who could contribute the most, from their wealth or work, did so, and those whose needs were greatest were given the most.

There are, admittedly, many problems with Socialism, one being that, in order for wealth to be shared, it has to be created in the first place. However, Socialism does not preclude personal ownership of the means of gaining wealth, which is why it is Socialism and not Communism. A Socialist can be relatively rich, as long as he or she is prepared to make a greater contribution to the common good than someone with less wealth.

Another problem, and the most important one, is human nature, such that people who have acquired wealth are generally reluctant to see it taken away from them, whether through taxes, theft or any other means. However, in order to be a Christian, and follow the instructions of Christianity’s founder, it is difficult to see how one can escape from the conclusion that one’s religion demands that a substantial portion of one’s wealth be redistributed.

Many Socialists have indeed been driven by Christian principles, believing that their faith demanded that they seek social justice for all. From the 19^th century onwards in the UK, the Nonconformist churches have gathered their strength largely from working-class communities where Socialism is also strong, and the two trends have melded together very easily.

For someone like Donald Soper (1903-98), a leading Methodist and pacifist, it would have been impossible to consider Christianity as being anything other than a Socialist movement, because their aims pointed in exactly the same direction, namely social justice for all. He notably criticised Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher for policies that were incompatible with Christianity. It was Margaret Thatcher who pointedly stated that there was no such thing as Society, but her vision of a perfect world, where everybody made as much money for themselves as they could, and the weakest went to the wall, would seem to be as far removed from that of Jesus Christ as from Socialism.

© John Welford

What do clergymen really believe?

In an episode of “Yes Prime Minister” in 1986, senior civil servant Sir Humphrey Appleby states that the bishops of the Church of England are split fairly evenly between those who believe in God and those who do not. According to Sir Humphrey, the Church is a social organisation rather than a religious one, and personal belief is a side-issue when it comes to gaining high office in it.

“Yes Prime Minister” was a BBC sitcom, and so must not therefore be regarded as providing a completely accurate account of public affairs and institutions, but it always retained at least a grain of truth. It would appear that Sir Humphrey’s opinion is now getting some backing from the real clergy of the Church of England.

A poll has found that 2% of Anglican clergy in Great Britain (1500 were questioned) accept the view that God may be no more than a human construct, and the number expressing that view included at least one bishop.

Although 83% of respondents do believe in a personal God, 3% would only go as far as belief in “some sort of spirit or life force”.

Nearly 10% say that it is impossible to define the nature of God, which implies that they would not feel able to give a definite answer to a parishioner who asked for guidance on this question.

What can we make of this?

No doubt many people will be shocked to learn that there are professing members of the Anglican clergy who do not accept the words of the creed that they recite on a regular basis in their church, given this says nothing about belief in “some sort of spirit or life force”.

Others might be encouraged by the idea that today’s clergy include a substantial number who are prepared to think for themselves about what is and is not a reasonable belief, even if their conclusion is contrary to the official line.

If the poll is accurate, and given that there are 18,000 active paid clergy in the Church of England, it means that 360 of them have very serious doubts about the existence of God outside the heads of believers, and would therefore agree with the proposition that Man has created God in his own image, rather than the other way round.

Are these 360 people not therefore being hypocritical when they stand in front of church congregations and say the precise opposite of what they actually believe?

© John Welford

iv>

Should the Bible be continued?

What is the Bible? A collection of books, divided into two “Testaments” that describe the workings of God in the World, before and after the coming of Christ. But these books are not the only ones ever written about which this could be said. Even at the time of the “modern” Bible’s creation, in the 4^th century AD, there were many books that fought for a place in the canon. Some were accepted, others rejected outright, and yet more were given a shadowy acceptance as the “Apocrypha”, given respect by some branches of Christianity but not others.

When we look at the books that did gain admission, we find some strange bedfellows. In the Old Testament, for example, we have Esther and the Song of Solomon, the first of which is a thoroughly good story involving an assassination plot and the unmasking of a villain, but in which the name of Jehovah is not mentioned once.  As for the latter, it is not far short of pornography!

However, if these books were intended to show God at work, in many and various ways, why did we stop the process of Bible-building 1700 years ago? Have there been no texts written in more recent centuries that perform exactly the same function? Would it not benefit today’s Church-goers to hear words of witnesss read to them that relate more to today’s world?

I would like to suggest the Bible be expanded in this way, and the example of Wikipedia, by which individuals can make their own contributions to a body of knowledge, is an interesting one to follow. Indeed, a closer examination of some of the books of the Bible shows that they were given the "Wikipedia" treatment thousands of years ago. Isaiah and Jeremiah, for instance, are both mashups of texts, with later editors adding bits in as and when they saw fit.

So Yes, why not? A Bible that took account of the lives lived and knowledge gained over the centuries since the canon was established would be a better "testament" to the work of God in the world today than the set of ancient texts on their own. These days we understand that mental illness is not the work of “devils” and that homosexuality is a perfectly natural occurrence, and a recognition of these facts in our Bible might lead to greater tolerance on the part of religious people. 

I can foresee problems, however.  The very intolerance caused, in part, by rigid interpretations of scripture, has led to splits in the Church that make it hard to imagine that agreement on which testaments to add to the canon will be at all easy to reach. However, the very procedure of debating the canon afresh might have the effect of making people examine their beliefs in greater depth and reaching new agreements with their fellow Christians, which surely would not be a bad thing.

© John Welford

The Star of Bethlehem

Many Christmas crib scenes show the Holy Family surrounded by oxen, asses, shepherds and kings, with the Star of Bethlehem shining down from above. The star is referenced in the account of the Nativity given in Matthew’s gospel, according to which “wise men from the east” had seen the star that announced the birth of the new “King of the Jews” and made their way to Jerusalem to ask for further directions.

The New Testament gives two accounts of the Nativity, in the gospels of Matthew and Luke, and they are very different. In fact, there are hardly any points of agreement between them! Many efforts have been made to reconcile the two accounts, but the attempts often seem extremely forced and lacking in credibility.

So either Matthew or Luke must be wrong, or perhaps both are – after all, the authors of the works (whoever they were, and they were not called either Matthew or Luke!) were not eye witnesses and their prime concern seems to have been to tell stories that fitted supposed ancient prophecies.

However, there are features of the stories that might just have had a basis in reality, although this is more probable in the case of “Matthew” than of “Luke”. One of these features is the Star of Bethlehem.

It has been thought that references to a star being followed suggest a comet, and various suggestions have been made as to which comet this might have been. However, although a comet has a tail that might suggest an arrow pointing in a certain direction, it would not have “stood over the place where the young child was”, which is claimed in Matthew 2:9. 

This is also the case with any other sort of astronomical event, such as a planetary conjunction or a supernova, so that part of the account can be easily dismissed as fiction.

A supernova is probably the best candidate for being the star, and there is evidence that there was such an event at about the right time. Chinese astronomers during the Han Dynasty had recorded the sudden appearance of a bright star that lasted for several weeks until it faded from view.

A supernova is the explosion of a star that is considerably larger than our own Sun. If one were to explode relatively close to our solar system, then it would outshine everything else in the night sky and even be visible during daylight hours, even to the naked eye.

If a supernova had been observed in China, then it would certainly have been seen in Palestine. Just such an event was awaited by scholars who knew, from the Book of Numbers (24:17), that “there shall come a star out of Jacob, and a sceptre shall rise out of Israel, and shall smite the corners of Moab, and destroy all the children of Sheth”. 

Not many miles to the east of Jerusalem is the Dead Sea, on the shores of which lived a Jewish sect known as the Essenes. These were zealots who were desperately awaiting the arrival of the Messiah who would free the Jewish lands from the yoke of oppression under the Roman Empire. A supernova explosion was all they needed to get extremely excited about the prospect of their hopes being fulfilled.

So were the wise men Essene zealots from not very far away? One thing to remember is that for “wise men” to be interested in the birth of a Messiah, they must have been Jewish – the idea that oriental “magi” would have made a long journey to the west to bring “gold, frankincense and myrrh” does sound extremely fanciful. 

There are certainly elements of Matthew’s Nativity account that do not hang together, but the Star of Bethlehem may be something that the author of the gospel got right.

© John Welford

The shaky foundations of Christianity

The more I look at the religion known as Christianity, the more I realise that it is far from secure, in theological/philosophical terms, having been built on very shaky foundations.

The Messiah – Really?

At the heart of Christianity is the preacher from Galilee known as Jesus, to whom posterity has added the name “Christos”, meaning “the anointed one”. That is the Greek word for the concept, the Hebrew word being “Messiah”.

At the time that Jesus was alive the land of Palestine was under Roman rule. Most Jews were content to knuckle under and get on with their lives as best they could, but there were some who fervently wanted to change things and had high hopes that a new king would arrive who would lead his people to overthrow the Romans. Anointing with oil only applied to kings, which is why the Messiah had to be a king.

The early Christians were convinced that Jesus was the anointed one, but they saw the anointing as being a heavenly rather than earthly event. He had been anointed before he was born and therefore fitted the bill. That concept might raise a few eyebrows as it stands, as it presupposes a certain suspension of disbelief at the outset.

Fulfilling the Prophesies

The first four books of the New Testament, the Gospels, include many references to Old Testament passages that, according to the writers, proved that Jesus was the Messiah. This is where things get very suspicious indeed.

It is true that there are several references in the Old Testament to a Messiah who will come to rescue the Jews from their oppression and overthrow their enemies, but this figure was clearly a long way from the character of Jesus of Nazareth. However, that did not stop the Gospel writers from digging up dozens of references that clearly, according to them, pointed at Jesus.

However, when these references are looked at more closely, the case for Jesus as predicted Messiah is far from convincing.

Some of the quoted passages make absolutely no reference to a Messiah. One of these is the very well-known Isaiah Chapter 53 (“Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows … He was wounded for our transgressions , he was bruised for our iniquities” and so on). There is no indication as to who “he” is, other than “my servant”, and, although some of this chapter seems to fit the story of Jesus reasonably well, there are verses in this chapter that do not fit at all and are hence quietly forgotten about in the context of Christian prophesy.

Other “prophesies” can only be regarded as such with the application of a good dose of imagination. Passages were yanked out of context and held to have meanings that it is highly unlikely were intended by their writers.

An example of the latter is Matthew 2:14/15, which reads: “… he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt: and was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying Out of Egypt I have called my son”. However, the verse from Hosea (11:1) is clearly not a prophesy at all: “When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt”. What could this possibly be other than a reference to the Exodus led by Moses? Trying to pretend that Hosea was predicting an incident in the life of Jesus is plainly absurd.

Both Matthew and Luke (the gospels were written anonymously and the names by which they are generally known were added later) were keen to fulfill Biblical prophesy on many fronts, one of them being the birthplace of Jesus at Bethlehem. The prophesy in this case was by Micah (5:2): “But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel”.

The gospel writers felt compelled to use this prophesy to convince their audience (Jewish or Gentile) that the fact of Jesus’s birth in Bethlehem was proof that what had been predicted had come to pass. But this leads to further difficulties. For one thing, Micah was talking about a military leader (no mention of a Messiah) who would sort out the Assyrians who had already devastated the northern kingdom and might well do the same to the southern one, which was where Micah lived.

The main problem, however, was that Jesus clearly came from Galilee and not Bethlehem (not far from Jerusalem). How could this circle be squared? Writing independently of each other, Matthew and Luke came up with completely different solutions. Matthew had the parents of Jesus living in Bethlehem and then moving to Nazareth, after a sojourn in Egypt, and Luke invented the absurd scenario of a census that forced a heavily pregnant woman to make a long and dangerous journey to Bethlehem from her home in Nazareth.

Efforts have been made to reconcile these two accounts and pretend that both could have happened, but these attempts are far from convincing.

St Paul

There can be very little doubt that Christianity would not have got going had it not been for St Paul. For one thing, it was his idea to spread the story of Jesus beyond the realm of Judaism, which is where some factions of the early Church thought it should stay. Without Paul, Christianity would have been nothing other than one more sect of Judaism.

It was Paul who developed the theology of Christianity, with the emphasis on belief as opposed to following rules or doing good works. According to Paul, belief in the fact that Jesus was the son of God, that his death relieved the faithful from the burden of sin, and that his resurrection from the dead opened the way for his followers to go to Heaven, was all that was necessary.

Given that Paul spread his message to places outside the immediate vicinity of Jerusalem, and to people who would otherwise never have heard of Jesus, he had free rein to tell potential converts whatever he wanted about Jesus as Messiah, and with little risk of being challenged about the details.

It is well known that many Jesus stories did the rounds in the early Church, and people have always loved to hear stories, whether true or not. The four Gospels, which were written after most of Paul’s letters had been sent to the young churches, were needed to scotch some of the more lurid tales and also put words into Jesus’s mouth. If people wanted something new other than Greek mysticism and Roman emperor-worship, Paul was pushing at an open door.

But was it all a massive confidence trick based on very little in the way of firm foundations?

The Christian Legacy

I am far from convinced that Christianity is anything other than a massive cloud floating on air. The very existence of Jesus is difficult to confirm, given that the evidence outside the texts of the New Testament is extremely sketchy and dubious.

However, the teachings of Christianity do merit serious attention. There can surely be nothing wrong in loving one’s neighbour, acting justly and forgiving one’s enemies. Beyond that, I find the package as offered very hard to accept.

© John Welford