So Do You Believe or Not?

Religious people sometimes tell us that it’s best not to pick and choose things from their faith in which to believe. It is more of an all or nothing affair, they will say. Either you believe it or you don’t. This is certainly true of the Christian faith – which is my focus in this essay. Fair to say that there’s been quite a bit of picking and choosing, down the centuries. For instance, we no longer seem perturbed by people moving an ancient boundary stone, we no longer seem to care about celebrating years when debts are cancelled, or jubilee years, and, for the most part, we no longer practice stoning as a means of public execution. Indeed, there are several capital offences listed in the Bible that don’t carry the death penalty in most of today’s nations. Well, dear reader, you may point out that all the items I’ve listed are moral precepts that were perhaps suitable for their time. But now we must use our judgement (and/or God’s guidance) to discern what moral rules are appropriate for modern societies. And fair enough – I won’t quibble with that. And you may claim that the New Testament offers us a new covenant, or dispensation, with God, such that much of what is contained in the Old Testament no longer applies. I’d simply point out that Jesus seemed intent on upholding the law – and indeed, fulfilling it – not overthrowing it. Of course you might say that what counts is the theology – the knowledge of God that the Bible gives us. We should not mess with this. Well – and although there’s been a lot of quibbling over exactly what the theology offered to us actually means – I kind of go along with this too. So, I’m not writing this to argue about theology. Nor, indeed, to debate any particular moral stance that Christianity has to offer – although I will tackle one particular moral issue that is especially relevant to the discussion. Instead, what I’d like to do in this essay is to pick out two particular aspects of Jesus’ life and teaching that I think are especially relevant and to examine these. The religious might find what I have to say not sufficiently religious! But I hope there’s something that can be taken from the discussion – no matter our faith, or lack of faith. So here goes. The first thing to point out about Jesus is that he seemed to spend a great deal of time encouraging people to focus on the Kingdom of Heaven. We may puzzle a bit over whether this meant contemplating the universe, or the way things work in the universe – the theology – or the nature of God. I think all of these could be included in that title – the Kingdom of Heaven. Jesus even encouraged people to focus on the Kingdom over and above family, friends, money and the activities of the state. It was, he urged, a total absorption in the things of God. Well, where I live I sometimes hear people in churches use a phrase that goes something like – so Heavenly-minded that you’re no Earthly use! I wonder, when I hear it, whether these people would use this phrase of Jesus. I doubt it. Contemplation of the things of God – the Kingdom of Heaven – seems to be the number one activity for Christians – nothing more, nothing less. The second thing I want to tell you about is a little more ambiguous. It’s the matter of peace. The reason I say ambiguous is that there seemed to be times when Jesus himself seemed a bit uncertain about the message of peace. At one point he told his disciples that he was not bringing peace but a sword. Perhaps he was thinking of the impact his teachings might have on future generations – and thinking it might not go so well! His disciples however seemed to jump to the conclusion that they should now be taking up arms – perhaps against the Romans. One can imagine a certain frustration, on the Lord’s part, at this juncture! Jesus’ own attitude to the Romans is especially problematic when we’re thinking about peace. Let’s face it, after three years as an itinerant teacher, things had been going pretty well. Jesus might have kept up that life for another 20 or 30 years, sticking with smaller towns and keeping clear of Roman authority. And it might be argued that he may have reached a lot more folk had he followed such a course. But no. Instead he heads for Jerusalem, where he must have known there would be trouble. What’s more, he does not shy away from trouble, or attempt to escape or to plead his innocence. Instead he seems almost to welcome his arrest and execution. Christians, of course, would claim that it had to be this way, in order to fulfil Old Testament prophesies. And I don’t wish to quibble with this. But there is something oddly disturbing about it. Blessed are the peace-makers, was the message of Jesus’ life. But it seems that he will one day return and take vengeance on those who have wronged him. It seems that the final message is about revenge rather than forgiveness and compassion. Christians, of course, might say that I am misunderstanding the theology, or misunderstanding God’s sense of justice. Well, if you believe it, you believe it, and there’s not much more I can say. But it still seems problematic. I’d only suggest looking at the execution of Jesus in another way – and perhaps this is still possible, even if you think his death was the fulfilment of prophesy. What if Jesus had in mind an example for us to follow? With the Kingdom of Heaven and peace on Earth as our absolute priorities, we were to accept even wrongful imprisonment, torture and execution, rather than fighting or pleading our case? Was that a message Jesus would want us to take? The ultimate pacifist stance, the ultimate capitulation? Well, whether you agree with that or not, I think we’d all agree that the message of peace is not one that the churches have embraced with enthusiasm. Only the Quakers come to mind, if we were to ask of any denominations who have consistently maintained a pacifist stance. In my own country of the United Kingdom we actually saw the Church of England BLESSING our stockpile of strategic nuclear weapons – weapons that, if launched, could take out a fair proportion of humanity and a lot of the natural environment in the process. This ‘celebration’ was attended by royalty and Members of Parliament. I have not failed to write to my own Member of Parliament, and successive Defence Secretaries, to point out how shameful that event was. Perhaps though, you are a Christian of the fire and brimstone variety and see no reason why, in the name of God, a ‘righteous’ nation should not blow up half the world, if that seemed like a good idea. You’ll say Jesus overturned the tables of the money-changers. I will remind you that you can be angry yet still work for peace. So, yes, perhaps you think that God likes this idea of threatening to destroy the world if someone attacks your country. Perhaps the fact that it is much more likely to happen by accident than by design is strangely comforting to you. It keeps us vigilant, and perhaps you think God approves. Well, I ask you, is that really the kind of peace God has in mind? Is it really the kind of peace you want? Is it not actually the greatest sacrilege perpetrated against the sacredness of the Earth and its people? So, believer or otherwise, I hope you’ll give some thought to the two ideas I’ve presented here. I hope you will seek peace in your own mind and heart, and amongst family and friends and amongst the wider community and the world. I hope that you’ll find time to contemplate the mysteries of the universe, the mysteries of life, the nature of God and the Kingdom of Heaven.