. . .and no religion, too.
Lennon's position on the existence of God would have been either agnostic or atheist, depending on which day he was asked. (I think his view would be "agnostic, leaning toward atheist," but any summary of an individual as complex as Lennon risks oversimplification.) In this passage, I think he was presenting a view of a world in which religion is not used as an excuse or a tool for one person or group killing another person or group. In Lennon's time, that would have included Protestants vs. Catholics in Northern Ireland, Muslims vs. Jews in the Middle East, among others. In almost every instance, religion has been used as an excuse - a chosen mask for the real reason for the killing, which is more material - a fight for land, or for oil, or money. Consider the persecutions of the Latter-day Saints in Missouri and Illinois - was it because of the religious differences, or because, in each instance, the Mormons had become large landholders and vulnerable targets? The Jewish view of Christians is varied. Some Jews are rather proud that Jesus was one of them. Others hold to the view that Jesus' followers have spilled more innocent Jewish blood than any other group or individual.
Are they wrong in saying that? Sadly. . .
There's another interpretation of this. The word "religion" means rules. Imagine there are no religious rules.
That's a bit hard to deal with. I had a friend who made a statement: "Love Jesus. Hate religion" - i.e., hate rules. I think this person was referring to all the nonsense rules that some folks would impose. I'm not fond of those, either. But you can't separate Jesus from rules. Jesus was a Jew, and from a family that was quite observant. And Judaism, in the Torah, has rules. Lots of rules. Jesus reinterpreted many, butt he ditched none. There are rules about what you may and may not eat. There are rules about how priests are to dress when presiding over ceremonies. There are rules about sex and divorce. There are rules about how to handle it when you have to urinate or defecate in the middle of the night.
You shall have a designated area outside the camp to which you shall go. With your utensils you shall have a trowel; when you relieve yourself outside, you shall dig a hole with it and then cover up your excrement. (Dt. 23:12-13)
Because the Lord your God travels with you, and you wouldn't want him stepping in it. Funny - I've never heard a sermon preached on that passage. If someone mentions that we are to observe every word of the Hebrew Scriptures as written, you may want to mention this. "Hey, man, you have a trowel, and when you have to go in the middle of the night you drive out of town, dig a hole. . .?"
And why the observance of the rules? It wasn't for health reasons. They knew nothing of the dangers of undercooked pork. If they did, they wouldn't have been big on beef or chicken, either. No - the reasons that the rules are observed is because that's what God said. That's it, and that's all. God said, and that's what you need to know.
In the Catholic church we have our rules and regs too. And sometimes, rules and regs lead us into legalisms. Example: When we attend Mass and take the Body and Blood of Christ (and if you don't think that the wafer of unleavened bread and that cup of wine are the actual Body and Blood of Christ, why would you be Catholic?), it should be the first thing in your stomach that day. If you attend a Sunday morning Mass, no problem. In fact, society largely owes the delight of the Sunday brunch to our observing this. But, at some point we started having a vigil Mass on Saturday afternoon, late in the afternoon. Would this mean that you couldn't eat anything all day Saturday until the Mass at 5:00? The rule was adapted to the circumstance. Now, it's "Don't eat within an hour of the Mass." But there are legalisms with that, too. If Mass is at 5:00, the Eucharist isn't usually distributed right at 5:00; it would be about 5:35 or 5:40 before you receive the Host. So, can you eat right up until the time you leave home? This is the sort of thing that happens when you take a good rule and get legalistic in a detailed way. Most of us just don't eat within an hour of the scheduled Mass start time, but that's not written anywhere.
Many of our Protestant friends adhere to a saying Sola Scriptura: Scripture is the only normative source of truth. The problems with this position: 1) It discounts the role of the Holy Spirit and turns Scripture into a "paper Pope"; 2) the Scriptures themselves never say Sola Scriptura; this expression imposes an extra-Scriptural standard on the Scriptures.
I wear, usually, a polo shirt to church, with either jeans or a pair of semi-dressy slacks. The kids in my classes have noted that I'm kind of casual about this. I wore a suit and tie to their Confirmation Mass last spring, but they know that that's not me. One of them asked, "So next week you'll be back in jeans and Converse?" Yep. But there are churches I could go to that have no written dress code, but if I showed up there in my jeans and Converse and polo shirt, soon enough someone would feel obligated to advise me that the normal attire is shirt and tie, in honor to the Lord.
Many churches and denominations forbid the use of alcohol. When asked about Jesus' use of wine, their reply is, "It was grape juice." Grape juice? Where do you get that?
Rabbi Hillel, who lived during a time of conflict between Hellenistic Jews and Hebraic Jews, had a conversation with one of the Hellenists. The student posed what he thought was an insurmountable challenge to the Rabbi: "If you can recite the entire Torah while standing on one foot, I will study Torah." I can only imagine the student's shock when Rabbi Hillel stood on one foot. Hillel said, "What is hateful to you, do not do to others. That is the whole Torah. The rest is commentary.
"Now go study."
There's the rule and reg.
No comments:
Post a Comment