Destruction of the cosmic Temple? Tish B'Av and Christians

Reading about Tisha B'Av in the Jewish calendar, I understood that it is much about the destructions (yes that's plural: one by the Babylonian empire and the next by the Roman, there has been no third temple) of the Temple in Jerusalem and also folded into those sorrowful recollections have been the calamities that have afflicted Jewish people (pogroms, expulsions, shoah, etc). The destruction of Temple in this way becomes a metaphor for other destructions -including Hiroshima. I wondered whether also taking the idea of creation -or at least the Earth as God's temple- it could be a time of lament for climate-chaos and breakdown? Perhaps a mini-liturgical season could be honoured informally?

If so, how might it look? The Tisha B'Av 'season' is three weeks and the timing is set by the Jewish lunar calendar relating to the anniversaries of the destruction of the Temple (on the ninth of the month of Av). It often takes in Hiroshima day (6 August) and that seems to be one of the things that a number of Jewish people fold into their observance of the season. So maybe the thing to do would be to take in the dropping of the nuclear bombs the 2nd being at Nagasaki on 9 August, and perhaps taking a week or two before that with, therefore, the Feast of the Transfiguration also on 6th. So end of July to start. Perhaps Mary Magdalene's feast day on 22 might be a good starting point -the story of her taking spices to anoint Jesus' body and also witnessing the resurrection are good starting points for considering 'calamitous' events? She's often associated with the woman who anointed Jesus' feet "for his burial" too ...

So I'm not proposing to change Sunday readings or anything at this point but to keep the days in between as times of reflection, prayer and repentance regarding human-made calamities affecting the cosmic Temple that is the Earth.

Sacramental Politics: Religious Worship as Political Action

This is a book that reads like a PhD thesis which has been slightly redacted for more public consumption. As such, it is not a book that many will find easy going: it has a lot of detail; it is extensively end-noted; there is a good amount of presentation of texts and commentary on them. The texts, in this case, are mostly transcripts or the written basis of spoken prayers or of speeches.

I was disappointed that the pdf copy I have had not been properly prepped for reading in this way: the footnotes were not hyperlinked between the main text and the footnote. I hope that this might be fixed in any other e-versions that might be released.

I have to say that one of the effects on me of reading this book was that I became more deeply concerned and at times scared by what I was reading. That may sound a bit dramatic and it would do so particularly to many readers who might be from the USA. And there is a degree of irony in that since we are considering a nation in which the separation of Church and state is highly valued constitutionally enshrined. And yet, this book seems to show that this separation seems to be less in some respects than in Britain where we have, in theory, an established church. My fear at reading the research in this book is for the way that USAmerican influence might be prodded and pushed along by a form of religion which is not good for the global community (let alone for its host nation).

The form of religion which I saw as I read the research presented in this book is one in which the global dominance of the USA is pretty much equated with the will of God. It reminded me so much of how Victorian England seems to have viewed itself (and now we are beginning to understand the history better we can see more readily how much Godly values were betrayed by that empire). I don't think I'd truly grasped the depth of popular USAmerican exceptionalism until I read the way that public prayers in The USA assume and promote that the Kingdom of God is pretty much co-terminous with USAmerican interests. Of course, there is, for many on the political right there, a contradiction -given the vehemence with which liberal values are attacked as ungodly- when a Democratic regime is in power. This contradiction, is in practice resorved by the fact that in foreign policy terms, a Democratic regime is scarcely any different. Just as in the British Empire, it seemed to make little difference whether Whigs or Tories were running the government: military power continued to be used worldwide to asset-strip and terrorise colonies and trading 'partners'.

This poisonous mix of religion (and not just formally Christian, either) and chauvinism is seen expressed and assumed in prayers and rhetoric. And for the rest of us it is deeply scary and gives no real sense of benevolence to the rest of the world; so we have to live with edgy appeasement or fearful opposition. here is Empire and the Constantinian settlement is alive and well. The problem is, we are the barbarians in this way of looking at the world.

There is some let up from the mostly disturbing and grim picture revealed. Some of the confluence of prayer and politics shows those with concern for the marginalised, poor and for respite from violence and militarism enacting their prayers also into public space. But, of course, that happens to fit my own understanding of Godly values. I keep hearing in my mind's ear one of Cromwell's better insights expressed thus: "I beseech you in the bowels of Christ, to think that you could be wrong". This exposes the biggest problem of all in so much of what the research shows up: the lack of humility to consider that we may have insights and something of the mind of Christ to learn from those we consider or have presented to us as 'enemies'.

I kept longing for the prayers to show some recognition that the prayists might have misunderstood God's will or that some insight into God's purposes might be gleaned from people who take a different view and therefore to pursue some kind of consensus building approaches. Instead so many of the prayers were, in effect, a presentation before God of the dialogue of the close-minded.

Of course, God is not the only audience and on page 46 (electronically. p.35 otherwise) a helpful reminder is given:

"all public prayer contains an important difference from that of private prayer: the addition of a public audience. Even in the case of someone praying/speaking in tongues (that is, speaking in sounds not understandable by the speaker or even other people present), such rhetoric cannot be considered as only for the divine"

I think that this is an important thing to remember and is a matter I am currently reflecting on as I write Hacking the Prayer Meeting (if that's what it ends up being called): noting that we have to pay attention to the social effects and reception of acts of praying within and beyond a prayer meeting. Sacramental Politics is doing us a service by reminding us that such a reception has, necessarily, political effects and even Political heft.

Quibbles

On p.21, we're informed: 'For faithful Catholics, transubstantiation does not occur gradually or as a process; rather, it occurs instantaneously when the priest utters the “Words of Initiation.”' Of course, there's a typo there or a lapse of the keyboard: these are the words of "Institution".

Then, next sentence, we're also told 'The priest speaks into existencethe transformation by saying “this is my body” (for the bread) and “this is ...my blood” for the wine. Without these words spoken, transubstantiation does not occur.' There are two problems with this, and I have chatted with Roman Catholic priests who confirm the points I'm about to make. First, we should be aware that transubstantiation isn't a dogma in the RC doctrinal framework, merely one way to express and defend the assertion of the Real Presence. The other point is that in official RC theology, the words of institution do not constitute transubstantiation or make the Presence of Christ real. The reason for this is that there is an eastern rite church in communion with the Bishop of Rome which has a Eucharistic prayer in which there is no narrative or words of institution. This church's prayer is considered to be Catholic by the Roman Church. But this really is only a quibble in this context, since the main point is unaffected by it.


Link-Love: 
Brian Kaylor's website
Brian on Twitter
Brian on Facebook
Brian- Linkedin
Sacramental Politics - Amazon

#SpeakeasySacramentalPolitics
I should point out that I received an electronic copy of this book via Speakeasy in return for agreeing to post a review within 30 days. The review need not be favourable.

Sacramental Politics: Religious Worship as Political Action (Frontiers in Political Communication): Amazon.co.uk: Brian Kaylor: 9781433126154: Books

Tony Blair plans launch of interfaith group

Tony Blair has been proposing some kind of interfaith initiative. It's interesting that this article in the Torygraph picks up this comment. "'The tragedy is that Christians, Jews and Muslims are all Abrahamic religions. 'We regard ourselves as children of Abraham but we have fought for so long.'"
I find it interesting, at least because of this 'Abrahamic faiths' thing. I find it hard to get excited about it. In fact, I think that it is potentially a pernicious distraction. There are a number of reasons for this. Firstly, the commonality, while seeming attractive, I suspect is illusory and not powerful enough to make any real impact. The ways we handle the texts and stories of Abraham are just so different and the place that Abraham has in our respective traditions are such that it doesn't carry much authority for many Christians or Muslims. Secondly, the endeavour is bound to exclude other, important, parties who should be in on the peace-speaking processes: Buddhists, Hindus, and Sikhs among them. Thirdly, I suspect the Abrahamic religions move as being a way to maintain the priviledged positions of some faiths and to sideline groups that others would rather not have to deal with because they present challenges to their raison d'etre. For example, Muslim difficulties with post-Muhammedan 'prophets' such as Guru Nanak and successors, or Baha'ullah. In fact the whole Abrahamic faiths thing seems to offer far more by way of fractures and fissures than it seems to heal. It's an enterprise which is far more congenial to Muslims than the rest of us, I suspect, and I rather suspect it's a Muslim enterprise at root. It plays well with their views on prophethood but less well with Jewish and Christian notions of religious and spiritual history.
I may be wrong, but I hope that by opening out my skepticism, I can find out where and how.
Tony Blair plans launch of interfaith group - Telegraph:

The Ramadan -Jewish connection...

"Who would have guessed that the man responsible for the latest craze among Muslim youngsters would be an Orthodox Jewish grandfather from Manchester?"
Who indeed? And yet there it is: what's more is the inspiration is from the Christian Advent calendar. Practical interfaith dialogue if you ask me. I suspect that this kind of interfaith borrowing may become more prevalent. As will the backlashing remarks from purists condemning the 'non-kosher'/ haram/ unChristian origins of such things.

But a good idea is a good idea whatever the origin. And yet we will see the genetic fallacy rolled out a good many times, mark my words.
The Ramadan countdown starts here …:

Jewish zen?

I enjoyed these, maybe you will too?

"If there is no self, whose arthritis is this?
_____

Be here now.
Be someplace else later.
Is that so complicated?
_____

Wherever you go, there you are.
Your luggage is another story.
_____

Accept misfortune as a blessing.
Do not wish for perfect health
Or a life without problems.
What would you talk about?"

I feel that it should be noted how they are all interogatively structured. Reminds me of the story of a rabbi who was asked why it was that Jewish people seemed to answer questions with other questions: "Why not?" was his reply.

Mindful Hack: Back at last!: Jewish zen?: