Post #1. Sunday, 30 November 2008.
(This is the First Sunday of Advent and therefore the REAL New Year’s Day: so, “Happy New Year!”)
A) Religion - The Humour of the Christ.
The idea first occurred after a reading from the Acts of the Apostles (the Acts), chapters 1 and 2. In this sequence, the apostles are preaching to a group of “foreigners”. Each claims he can understand Peter & Co. in his native language. “I’m from Cappadocia and I can understand” says one. “I’m from Pamphylia and I can understand” says another. “I’m from Gateshead and so can I” says a third. Clearly, every foreigner can understand Peter, each in his own particular twang! Then some misery-guts at the back shouts out “they’re not speaking with tongues - they’re all drunk! Please read Peter’s response for yourself - I kid you not. “Drunk?” he retorts, “It’s only 9 o’clock in the morning!” I think you will have to agree that the inference is quite clear: ” 9 o’clock at night, fair enough, but not 9 o’clock in the morning”. After all, the apostles were not pillars of the community nor paragons of virtue.
You will also recall that the Christ associated with “publicans and sinners”. A publican might well have kept a disreputable house but imagine applying for a passport and having to write, in the box for trade or profession, “sinner”. Matthew, we are told elsewhere, was a “tax-gatherer” and that’s an occupation which, to this day, has sinister connotations. So, the apostles were a rum lot - at the time they were “chosen”.
Later, I found that there were more direct references to the humour of the Christ himself but I nevertheless decided to widen my scope to include the whole of the New Testament and even perhaps some Jewish humour from the Old. One should not forget the humour which may have been added (or subtracted) by those who actually wrote the scripture. The whole message may be spiced with hidden humour, subtle, wry and thought-provoking This is the best form of humour, in my opinion, rather than the brash and the bawdy. Why should there not be humour? It is basically a joyful message.
It has not been my intention to denigrate the Christ in any way - heaven forbid! Rather, I thought that if He were truly Man as well as truly God, then he must have exhibited the characteristics of a man - anger, chagrin etc. and also humour - so I began to look for those human characteristics, especially humour, in the weekly Gospel readings: I was not disappointed.
The manner in which the apostles were selected leads me nicely to my second topic, below.
B) Politics - The (S)election of the Twelve.
There was no General Election held - the Twelve were hand picked. In this respect, Jesus was a benign dictator. I suggest that this is the best form of government. The great cultural leaps forward seem to have been mostly associated with this form of government. So-called Democracies have, by and large, been disasters because they have been man-centred, to the exclusion of God: they have lacked humility and merely extended slightly the circle of influence in affairs of state. Unfortunately, even the most benign of men (and possibly women such as Boudica) are only human. Jesus, on the other hand, was also divine - that helps a lot. When Jesus ascended to His Father and the apostles were left to organise themselves, the Acts describe how they went about it. The election of a replacement for Judas Escariot was their first test. Matthias was elected not via canvassing by political factions but BY LOT. [Is St. Matthias the patron saint of politicians? Perhaps he should be.] We might be wise to consider how to adapt this procedure of random selection to our modern world. This is what I propose to investigate. How does the Vatican - not normally considered to be a “western” democracy - arrange things, I wonder? In the UK today we still have the remnants of democracy - the Jury system - but this is currently under severe attack to limit its application and to distort its function. Our system of political representation is becoming less, rather than more, democratic - party factions and their financial backers, dominate the parliament and the electorate becomes less engaged in the process of government.
It should, by now, be fairly obvious to any reader that I do not have all the answers - not even all the facts. I am on a journey and I would welcome companions to share in carrying the baton.
C) Letters. In this section, I intend to copy letters I write to my MP, the BBC, etc. but I haven’t written any yet! It seems a futile process. Just listen to those encounters on Radio 4, BBC2, etc where the interviewer is intent on showing how clever s/he is (do you think s/he would be a useful new word in our current “politically-correct” society: the abuse of the word “their” could then cease!); the politician being interviewed is usually intent on talking without drawing breath while, at the same time, saying nothing at all - that, it seems, is the essential qualification for high political office. I will try to address this problem. Perhaps I could just write a blog and send a copy in the appropriate direction?
I see there are mumblings that the UK is nearer to joining the Euro zone. I cannot believe we are still outside although I am grateful as I have personally benefited from our failure to join. We are told that “the people are against it”! When were they asked? Since when has the view of the people affected what happens? Were you among the protesters against the Iraq War/ Were their a million of us in London that day? Is it common knowledge that we could have our own Euro coin - with QE II on it, if desired? How could France, Germany, etc give up their own currencies to set up the Euro? In fact, there is still the mechanism to withdraw later but, as is usually written in your purchase contract - “Terms and Conditions apply”.
D) Diary. Did anything significant happen today? The Gospel reading this morning admonishes us to “Stay awake. No-one knows the day or the hour”. I’m now very much aware of that because, since last Saturday, I am officially “old” - I have completed my “years three score and ten”.
It was the church Christmas Bazaar in the afternoon. I came home with all sorts of things which now need a home until next year’s bazaar. Later, I listened to Chelsea lose to Arsenal, on Radio 5. I thought that the result was (as in 1066 and all that) “a good thing”. John Terry would have made a good old-fashioned stopper centre-half - in the 50’sI think Terry must have a few even larger friends who might “duff you up”, off the field as well. Perhaps Steve McClaren might be able to tell you more about that. Anyway, that’s enough of that. John Terry, Winston Churchill, Attila the Hun - I never met any of them, personally. It is written (somewhere) “- and the greatest of these is Charity” so lets have more of it. There are written rules for Association Football but perhaps they need clarification as well as application on the field. The use of hands, to whatever ends (including poking opponents in the eye, etc.), is forbidden. I would prefer to see the game as one of skill only - the “man’s game” element should be eliminated - rugby is different.
E) Trailers. Coming soon, at a terminal near you. Let’s see what is in the news tomorrow. The Police State, for instance.
Regards.
Jim. [blogged on Monday 01/12/08 - Is it really December already?]