Kakistocrat

It is no great secret that many Jewish people throughout history have been victims of forced baptisms, crusades, inquisitions, pogroms, and other horrors which one would certainly hope have peaked in the Holocaust. This culmination has caused larger Christian communities to finally come to publicly regret their past misdeeds, and while this change of heart is no doubt welcomed, some (like the Jewish New Testament scholar Samuel Sandmel) maintain that it is precisely "the presence of anti-Semitism in the New Testament [that gives reflective Christians] the occasion for rising above it."

In looking to the Gospels it is necessary to distinguish between the forms of anti-Judaism that are rather difficult to ignore. A three-fold categorization has been offered by a number of individuals.

Prophetic Polemic, the first, suggests that given the diversity of thought and interpretation within a particular religious tradition, disagreements are bound to arise. In the case of first century Judaism, when the large number of competing sects is considered, the likelihood of such disagreements is further enhanced. The debate that occurs will be emotional, and at times violent, yet regardless of how fierce competing evaluations of one another’s views are, no leveled criticism will necessarily amount to a condemnation of the religion that all fly under the banner of. The Biblical prophets are to be seen as examples of prophetic polemic, because they do not attack Judaism itself, or the Law, but rather the failure of Israel to follow the true terms of the Law devoutly. Jesus in his criticism of the hypocrisy of the religious leaders is also identifying himself with the prophetic polemics.

Subordinating Polemic not only criticizes the interpretation and faithfulness that a people attaches to central symbols, but in fact it also subordinates such symbols to another value. Despite the diversity of Jewish groups in the first century, it is accurate to recognize that the centrality of the Torah and temple, as well as the importance of both circumcision and the dietary law, would have transcended particular differences. But when such central symbols are subordinated to another (as appears to happen in Jesus’ treatment of the Law, and his formula you have heard it said, but I say to you [Matthew 5]) , this form of polemic is occurring.

The final categorization, Abrogating Anti-Judaism, accepts all of the assumptions of subordinating prophetic polemic and adds to this a belief that Israel has been rejected by God for not accepting the subordination of their symbols to Jesus. In such a view, no longer does Israel hold status with God as a special people, for a ‘New’ Israel has been ordained and has replaced them. Where subordinating polemic sought to convert Israel precisely because it was God’s people, those forms of abrogating anti-Judaism brush Israel aside, claiming that value is found now in the redefined community of God, which is the Christian community. This attitude has been interpretted to exist in certain New Testament passages.

While a faithful Jew, sensitive to the countless past abuses that have occurred in the name of Christianity, may have difficulty reading certain New Testament passages without superimposing their own collective past experience onto them, it remains important to recognize that the New Testament does possess a variety of forms of anti-Judaism. Though such criticism exists, and though the merits of such criticism make for interesting debate, none leveled against the Jews in the New Testament is grounds for justifying the abuses that have occurred in the name of those who profess to follow Jesus.

K.

Mentioned more frequently in the Koran than in the New Testament, Maryam, the mother of Jesus, is the only female mentioned by name in the Koran, and she has an entire chapter (Surah) devoted to her.

The conception of Maryam is similar to a long line of conceptions deemed miraculous by Muslims, for the parents of Maryam are barren. Though Maryam’s father is named Imran, her mother remains anonymous, though it is she who requests that her daughter Maryam be protected from the evil one. Just after giving birth to Maryam, her mother prays, "I commend her and her offspring to Your protection from the Evil one." Soon after, Maryam is dedicated to the service of God and placed under the supervision of Zechariah, a priest familiar to the New Testament audience as well.

Growing in both ‘purity and beauty,’ Mary lives a life of solitude, apart from men, in a Temple shrine. On the occasion that the New Testament audience identifies as the Annunciation, an angel appears to Mary saying "O Mary! Allah has chosen you and purified you—chosen you above the women of all nations." Mary has been told that she will bear ‘Christ Jesus,’ who will not only be ‘held in honour in this world and the Hereafter,’ but also is one of those counted as most close to Allah. The angel tells Maryam that her son will preach the words:

I have come to you, with a sign from your Lord, in that I make for you out of clay, as it were, the figure of a bird, and breathe into it, and it becomes a bird by Allah’s leave: and I heal those born blind, and the lepers, and I quicken the dead, by Allah’s leave…

When the time comes to give birth, Maryam retires to a remote place, and tortured by the pains of childbirth, she sits under a palm tree and "cries in her anguish [saying] ‘Would that I had died before this! Would that I had been a thing forgotten and out of sight.’ " Like Hagar of Genesis, who was driven to a similar place in despair, comfort and sustenance is then provided by God.

Maryam returns to her village with her newborn son, and being neither married nor betrothed to be married, the villagers exclaim: "O Sister of Aaron! Your father was not a man of evil, nor your mother an unchaste woman." She responds in silence by pointing to her newborn, who to the villagers great surprise (for they claim ‘How can we talk to one who is a child in the cradle?’) begins to defend the dignity of his mother.

Islamic tradition reveres Mary because she completely submitted tot he will of Allah, even though it meant that her own family and community would accuse her of living unchastely. The New Testament audience is familiar with the punishment given in 1st century Palestine for such living, and this, I presume, would certainly not detract from Islamic admiration for the Mother of Jesus.

K.

I should add that the relevant passages about Mary may be found in both the third and nineteenth Surah.

"John said to him, ‘Master, we say a man who is not one of us casting out devils in your name; and because he was not one of us we tried to stop him.’ But Jesus said to him, ‘You must not stop him: No one who works a miracle in my name is likely to speak evil of me. Anyone who is not against us is for us (Mark:9:38-40).’ "

Though this man is not part of the recognizable band of disciples, he is also not working for the enemy of God and he is certainly not against Jesus. Being hardly neutral, he cannot be spoken of as one of those who are lukewarm, as one who is unable to distinguish or choose between God and his enemy. Though he he may have the same goals as them, he is not one of the disciples, and is not a part of the recognizable Church that is in its fetal stages. But he is for Christ. He works for him, though he does not take part in the activity of this ‘Church,’ and while he has nothing against Christ, he likely does have something against Christ’s apostles and this is why he won’t join them.

John wonders what is to be done about him and Jesus’ answer comes like cold water on John’s red-hot zeal: "Do not forbid him!" SO John is to stop the very thing that he thought he was doing for Christ. He is not to be bigoted and fanatical and arrogant. He is not to make out that good is bad, and forbid it and try to prevent it, merely because it is being done outside the band of disciples.

Doesn’t John realize that he is being a Pharisee? That he is making himself out to be better than that other man? Whereas he has no reason at all to imagine himself as anything on account of being chosen by Christ; whereas he and all the other disciples are poor, sinful human being; whereas he and the other disciples are possibly the very reason why the stranger doesn’t want at any price to join the band of disciples: they, with their arrogance and their false sense of mission and their fanatical zeal. So the stranger says to himself: "No I shouldn’t feel at home in a group like that, I can’t join with them. I’ll work for Christ, but not with the disciples. I’ll work for Christ outside the group of disciples."

Jesus says ‘You must not stop him.’ He does not criticize, condemn or attack the man but rather acknowledges the good that is being done, and calls for it not to be obstructed. Jesus does not suggest that John separate himself from his brother disciples and go on his own way too, but he still recognizes that good is being done outside the community he has constructed. He says, ’Anyone who is not against us is for us,’ and in saying this he extends the boundaries of his own community so as to include this independent stranger. It is a hidden and mysterious relationship, but it is still a relationship. It may not be ideal, but it still exists in this less than ideal world. Even though the disciples, in their false zeal and narrowness, won’t see it, even though the stranger himself in his obstinacy won’t realize it, it’s still true: he already belongs to the community of disciples, he is already (though it does not show externally) a member, he already belongs to the Lord’s Church, is already within the Lord’s grace.

The Catholic Church sees in itself the most ancient Christian community, possessing a special, official apostolic succession. Protestants are unable to join in agreement and cannot acknowledge these claimed features as true to the Catholic Church. But Protestants are not on the side of evil because of this. They are not against Jesus and they are not neutral. They are not those spoken of as lukewarm, unable to distinguish and choose between God and his enemy. In a collective sense, they are the lone man of today.

There seems little point today in employing the attitude of John and demonstrating a mixture of conceit, arrogance, lovelessness, and pride. Good can be accomplished even outside the chosen vessel of God’s grace. And if grace is not flowing from that vessel, it is perfectly understandable why some may look elsewhere today, as the man independently working for Jesus did.

What is meant by "outside the Church there is no salvation?" Not some hard, pharisaical truth, but a truth that is deeply merciful, reaching out to all men of good will.

K.

(Though reflecting my own thoughts, the italicized material is not my own but rather is the work of Hans Kung as found in That the World May Believe [New York, NY: Sheed and Ward, 1963]. Though having gained a reputation for his dissent, this book was given the Imprimatur, which is granted to a document by the Church, and is meant to inform readers that the content contained within is not contrary to the Roman Catholic faith or its morals. The Imprimatur is not given lightly, and occurs only after a thorough review process).

Those unfamiliar with Giovanni Guareschi’s tales about the parish priest Don Camillo and the Communist Mayor Peppone should really being to familiarize themselves with them. Here, in an unnamed town of the Po Valley, just after World War II, these two foes, despite their many verbal and physical altercations, force the reader (according to Karen Welbourn) to love both, to see them as loving one another, and to also see that something really is at stake when they battle one another.

All this to preface ‘The Meeting,’ and give it a shred of context (though Don Camillo does not feature prominently here). Mayor Peppone, noticing an advertisement stating that a representative of the Liberal Pary will be giving a speech in the town’s Square, summons his General Staff to issue a response. The suggestion of having the Communists burn down the Liberal Headquarters is reluctantly rejected as is the forbidding of the Speech.

Peppone exclaims: "Thats democracy for you! When an unknown scoundrel can speak in the public square."

By three o’clock the Square remains empty, and the Representative has not arrived, so Peppone and some of his men go down to the train station to wait for him. Only a "thin, little man," steps off. Believing the speech must have been cancelled, Peppone is suprised when the man approaches him and asks for directions to the Liberal Pary headquarters. As the train station is a mile away from the village, and since only Peppone has a truck, he ends up providing the ride for the Liberal.

Halfway to the village, Peppone stopped the engine and examined his passenger, who was a middle-aged gentleman, very thin and with clear-cut features. "So are you a Liberal?"
"I am," replied the gentleman.
"And you are not alarmed at finding yourself alone among fifty Communists?"
"No," replied the man quietly. A threatening murmur came from the men in the lorry.
"What have you got in that suitcase?"
The man began to laugh and opened the case. "Pajamas, a pair of slippers, and a toothbrush," he exclaimed."
Peppone pushed his hat onto the back of his head and slapped his thigh. "You must be nuts!" he bellowed. "Why aren’t you afraid?"
"Simply because I am alone and there are fifty of you," the little man explained quietly.
"What the hell has that got to do with it?" howled Peppone. "Doesn’t it strike you that I could pick you up with one hand and throw you into that ditch?"
"No, it doesn’t strike me," replied the little man as quietly as before.
"Then you must either be weak in the ear, or irresponsible, or out to bait us."
The little man laughed again. "It’s must simpler than that," he said. "I’m just an ordinary, decent man."
"Ah, no, my good sir!" exclaimed Peppone. "If you were an ordinary, decent man, you wouldn’t be an enemy of the people! A slave of reaction! An instrument of capitalism!"
"I am nobody’s enemy and nobody’s slave. I am merely a man who thinks differently from you." 

Having filled the square with 2000 men, all of whom were wearing red handkerchiefs (signifying Communism), Peppone explains that as there are only 23 Liberals in this area they don’t really stand out in a crowd. He sarcastically introduces the Liberal, but before the thin man can get out three sentences of his speech, a heckler has struck him in the face with a tomato.

The crowd began jeering, and Peppone turned whte. "Anyone who laughs is a swine!" he shouted into the microphone, and there was complete silence.

Peppone hands him his red kerchief from his neck saying "I wore this in the mountains. Wipe your face." (Peppone fought as part of the Italian Resistance against the fascists during World War II).

Meanwhile, the little man had shaken his head, bowed and approached the microphone. "There is too much history attached to that handkerchief for me to spoil it with the traces of this vulgar episode that belongs to the less heroic chronicles of our times," he said. "A handkerchief such as we use for a common cold suffices for such a purpose."
Peppone flushed scarlet and also bowed, and then a wave of emotion swept the crowd and there was a vigorous applause while the hooligan who had thrown the tomato was kicked off the square.

Though we may strongly disagree with people, Guareschi shows the beauty and universality of kindness both in Peppone, who defends his rival’s dignity, and extends the handkerchief that he wore in the mountains to him, and also in the rival’s basic humility and recognition of the heroism displayed by Peppone during the Resistance. I believe the line "I am merely a man who think differently from you," to be especially powerful.

K.