Thoughts going in Sunday Nov 17th

Luke 21:5 Some of his disciples were remarking about how the temple was adorned with beautiful stones and with gifts dedicated to God. But Jesus said, 6 "As for what you see here, the time will come when not one stone will be left on another; every one of them will be thrown down." 7 "Teacher," they asked, "when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are about to take place?" 8 He replied: "Watch out that you are not deceived. For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am he,' and, 'The time is near.' Do not follow them. 9 When you hear of wars and uprisings, do not be frightened. These things must happen first, but the end will not come right away." 10 Then he said to them: "Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. 11 There will be great earthquakes, famines and pestilences in various places, and fearful events and great signs from heaven. 12 "But before all this, they will lay hands on you and persecute you. They will deliver you to synagogues and prisons, and you will be brought before kings and governors, and all on account of my name. 13 And so you will bear testimony to me. 14 But make up your mind not to worry beforehand how you will defend yourselves. 15 For I will give you words and wisdom that none of your adversaries will be able to resist or contradict. 16 You will be betrayed even by parents, brothers, sisters, relatives and friends, and they will put some of you to death. 17 Everyone will hate you because of me. 18 But not a hair of your head will perish. 19 Stand firm, and you will win life.

            This Sunday's reading is, to me, one of the more fascinating passages from Luke's gospel. There are layers of nuance involved. For us, when we read it, we are essentially in the same place as Luke's original readers. We are historically downstream from the events being described. It would be like reading a story set in 1999, about an intelligence officer's prediction that the Twin Towers would be destroyed in a terrorist attack. At this point we'd already know that the prediction came true.

            As I've read commentaries and the thoughts of others on this passage, one of the things that seems relevant to mention is the fact that there is often a lot of "us/them" thinking assigned to the event of the Temple's destruction. Us/them thinking goes like this... "Well, since they (the Jews) rejected the Messiah and specifically rejected the fulfillment of their own religion, God in turn has rejected them. The proof for this is that he allowed their great Temple to be destroyed." Incidentally, the Gospel of Luke offers proof enough of this viewpoint in chapter 13--the account of Jesus weeping over Jerusalem prior to his entry. At one point he says: Behold, your house is left unto you desolate (v 35, KJV). It's a fascinating verse. On the lips of Jesus and from his perspective in roughly 33AD, their 'house' (Temple) could only have been 'desolate' in a prophetic sense. A more correct way of uttering that statement would've been behold, your house WILL BE left unto you desolate. But in the Greek, from Luke's pen, the tense isn't future; it's present.

            However, there are two (at least) problems with us/them thinking when it comes to the destruction of the temple. Problem #1 is the fact that it was not that simple that the Temple belonged to "the Jews" and "the Christians" weren't interested in it or effected by its destruction. The book of Acts (also written by Luke) depicts the early Jewish Christians spending a great deal of time in the Temple. If the Temple were meaningless, such Acts passages leave us with many questions. It's not that there wouldn't eventually be a hard break between Judaism and Christianity, it's just that it's very doubtful that such a break would've been a fate accompli by the time of Luke's writing (circa 80 AD). In other words, the last image in the world we should have is that of 1st century Christians being unconcerned that the Temple was destroyed. It would be far likelier that this would be a great sadness for them.

            Problem #2 regarding us/them thinking is that it is ALWAYS dangerous when used with a "theology of glory." Theology of glory is a term that means... God likes my team better than your team, and he shows it by helping my team win all of the time. It would be a theology of glory, therefore, to look at the events of 70 AD and the Temple's destruction and say: "Well, this is clear proof that God has rejected the Jews and now his favor rests on the Christians." And by the way, the reason I'm being so adamant on this point is that anyone who bothers to study history will know that an us/them theology of glory argument was PRECISELY the argument that upstart Muslims made to conquered Christians in the Middle East during the Medieval period. Muslim conquerors did not, for the most part, force Christians to convert, but they frequently tried appealing to this logic: "Obviously God/Allah is with us and not with you because we won."  [See the book "In the Shadow of the Mosque," by Sidney Griffith]

            In other words, one of the things we should take from this passage is the unfortunate fact that SOMETIMES our temples fall, but that doesn't necessarily mean that God is judging us. It is, to be sure, a time to REFLECT. In the case of 1st c. Judaism, the Christian perspective will always be that he came unto his own and his own received him not. We are always called to reflect to ensure that we are in the faith. But beyond that, the call is to stand firm (v19). Temples are, after all, manmade structures.

            We live in an age that some are labeling "post-Christian." The talking heads routinely label Christianity as irrelevant, superstitious, or at the very least passé.  I will debate with anyone the notion that our country was ever, officially, a "Christian country." That is a misreading of historical facts. It is true, however, that for many generations we lived in a country that had a broadly shared ethos that was highly compatible with the Christian religion. One could even say that a 'temple' of sorts was constructed during this time... the temple of our 'mythic christian country.' Well, to whatever extent that may have been true, it seems pretty clear that that temple is now in ruins. So what? Does that mean Christianity is a hoax? Does that mean that Jesus didn't really die for the sins of the world? Does that mean that we should just chuck the whole thing and become agnostic rationalists? Not at all. Our man made temple lies in ruins, but verse 19 is still verse 19: STAND FIRM.

Cheers,

TM