Showing posts with label Bible. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bible. Show all posts

Tuesday, May 6, 2014

Three Voices: Anna, Mary, Mary

Anna


I waited.  How I waited. But he seemed to grow more distant, and there were so many things in the way … in my way.
Every day I pushed my way through the market place, through all that noise … of animals and birds, the cries of exchange rates and deals to be done, through the haggling and the arguments.  Under the eyes of the soldiers; watching … always watching from their tower.  Past the colonnades, the courtyards, the treasury boxes, the lampstands, into what should have been my place. 
And oh yes, even there I heard the whispers  – the gossiping voices, pitying, scorning voices – “Not as good”, “Not from one of the tribes God chose to return” – as though I was still an exile even in God’s house.
There were times they listened, though: “The word of the Lord came to Anna the prophetess…” But there were other times when no word came, and they wandered away, not interested, bored by the repetition – the wicked, the adulterous, always looking for a sign.

The Lord, my God, though, he was always there. Somewhere … somewhere beyond the crowds of men, the huddles of priests, somewhere behind that curtain. Sometimes seeming too remote, too silent, even for me to feel his presence.
I came each day.  No son to care for me since my husband died – no Sarah’s blessing, no Hannah’s blessing for me.  No daughter-in-law to scold; no grandchildren to chide. 
Just my time here.  Just my time, each day pushing my way as close to God as I was allowed.  My eyes straining through the lamplight and the night vigils.  Peering over heads – glimpsing doors and arches, altars, flickering candles, shadows, and the endless stream of worshippers.  My sight dimming with the years of waiting – a generation, a whole lifetime of waiting.
And then … I did see … something. 
A child. A baby. 
One child and his parents.  One child among many children – his parents one couple among so many who came through the years to the Temple bringing their beautiful babies, their offerings, their prayers. 


And at that moment it was as though all those years – all those obstacles, all the heartache – had fallen away.  It was as though, after years of asking and seeking … and not seeing … I was finally gazing on all the beauty of the Lord in the temple where I’d spent a lifetime waiting for him.

Mary

When I stop, my hands throb and become all of me.  I stop. 

I look at my hands in my lap – palm up.  They are rough from the grindstone, tiny hairs scorched and withered by the fire.  The joints ache – it’s worse at dawn and dusk in the cold.  They are red and swollen from washing.  I rub oil into them sometimes – oil for the lamps that I fill, the wicks I trim, the bread that I bake.  But they still throb – this is the echo of work. 

I am not good at being still.  I only set one thing down to pick up something else; even as the light slowly fades my eyes strain to stich, to mend.  My hands throb – I look at my hands in my lap – they twitch for the work they long to do.   

Sometimes the men in the village tell stories – stories of men hiding in the hills or the wilderness; stories of fighting one foreign army after another.  But my hands carry the memories of my own battles – moth, rust, decay – a house that wants to fall down, clothes that will not last another summer’s harvest, a sick brother whose body was hurtling towards death.

There were different hands.  Hands that took the jug from mine.  Hands stilling my hands.  Hands leading me to the shade of our doorway.  Hands that had been subdued by work: axe, hammer, nails.  I looked at his still hands.  I looked at his hands and sat at his feet.  I sat at his feet and listened.  And for a time there was no time.  My world shrank to his words as my hands lay still in my lap.  There I was: dwelling in his presence.

--------------------

Until my sister’s voice called my hands back – called me back to bread-making, and fire tending; to lamp-filling.  To sweeping, and stitching, and soothing the sick.  But he spoke over that battle – that, just once, it was necessary for my hands to be still.

And these things are changed now.  There is life in the bread that I bake; light for the world in the lamps that I fill; resurrection hope for the hands in my lap subdued by my work, and now by my age.  Here I am: dwelling in his presence.

Mary

I think it was his feet that I was aware of first; his feet that brought him to my sea-side town.  I must have been in the dust – I was always wrestling in those days – the claws that crept under my hair – the seven voices – speaking as one, speaking as seven.  I was always tormented in those days.

I remember his forearms, the muscles hard, sinews tense as he wrestled with me, fought for me.  The voices screaming blasphemies, calling up curses, and the sound of his name caught up and fighting with their words.  Jesus.

And then it was over.  And then I felt such peace.  Peace like a house swept clean and tidy.  Peace like a house awaiting a guest.  And he was my guest.  And now there was just one voice inside me – his voice.
What else could I do?  I followed.  We followed – 12 disciples, a handful of women.  All empty or emptied – all strangely filled.  We were all following his feet – up and down the rounds, round the lake-shore, villages and towns without number.  We were with him as he emptied and filled, emptied and filled.

And then I was aware of his feet again.  I could barely see them for my tears and his blood.  They were all I could see.  I couldn’t bring myself to look at his face – barely recognisable as it was.  And for the first time those feet were still.  No more walking, no more following.  His feet still as stone.

I was afraid.  Out there, in the darkness, I could almost hear those voices again.  My ears strained, I trembled and flinched at the slightest sound.  And we waited.  Wept and waited.

And so I went.  I went creeping my way through the darkness and the faintest glimmer of dawn.  And found his body gone.  I could have howled.  Just when he’d stopped moving – he was gone.

And then he was back.  I heard my name again – Mary – and I clung onto him, desperate to stop him moving, desperate that he should stay.  But ever so gently he left.   And now I was the one moving, my heart full of his aliveness.  I’ve never stopped.

He is with me, constantly, filling my empty house.  Gone but not gone.  Moving me – moving you?

Tuesday, February 14, 2012

The Gospel of John in Pictures: John 2: Jesus and the money-changers

Thanks to the BBC/Public Catalogue Foundation Your Paintings project for Stanley Spencer's painting Christ overturning the Money Changers' tables (1921)This episode is recorded at the start of John's gospel: Jesus goes to Jerusalem in time for the Jewish festival of Passover.  Angered by the sale of animals for sacrifice, and the bureaux de change of those trading Roman (and therefore 'idolotrous') coinage for temple-money, Jesus drives out the animals with a whip, and overturns the tables of the money changers (John 2:13-25).  A similar/the same episode* is recorded much later in Jesus' life in other Gospels.


Now I don't know whether Spencer's painting was specifically intended to depict this episode as recorded in John's gospel but given that it was originally intended as a panel for a triptych, perhaps this picture does demand interpreting symbolically.  John's commentary on this episode is that Jesus justifies his behaviour in terms of his own death and resurrection.  And perhaps there are echoes of this in Spencer's painting: the picture flattens out the figure of Jesus and the overturning table and in doing so strips this of the physical action from the story; it become formal and stylised, and so becomes more of an icon, an image of religious devotion.  The table is blood-red, after all.  Does the size of the table, and the darkening archway beyond create a shadow of a garden tomb blocked by a heavy stone across the doorway, and does Jesus' plain white robe demand something of a shroud in our eyes?


So I'm left with an image that owes most to John's telling of the story - with its symbolic interpretation as a sign of Jesus' death and resurrection, and an delicious ambiguity as an object of devotion: here is an image challenging the systems and traditions which can cluster around religious belief and practice whilst at the same time (as an altarpiece) being one too.

* a debate for discussion elsewhere!

Wednesday, February 1, 2012

The Gospel of John in Pictures: John 5 - John the Baptist

Puvis De Chavannes' painting, The Beheading of John the Baptist ostensibly portrays the end of John's life as recorded in both Matthew 14 and Mark 6 where Herod, having held John in prison for some time, gives in to a request from Herodias' daughter Salome at a banquet and has John the Baptist beheaded.


But perhaps the painting takes its symbology from elsewhere.  The details of the narrative are there, but the scene imagined.  Salome waits with the plate, the executioner is captured in all his physicality as he swings the sword to strike.  And John, John is there transcending the moment.  His stare is elsewhere - directed towards us. His head, surrounded by a halo, gives us the clue as to the other narrative reference - intended or otherwise.  In John's gospel Jesus says: "John was a lamp that burned and gave light, and you chose for a time to enjoy his light."  And so as the sword arches towards the illuminated head of John the Baptist we have, captured in a visual moment, the extinguishing of John's light as commented upon by Jesus. 


The bitterest irony of both the comment, and its visual representation, is that Herod is specifically named as one who 'chose for a time to enjoy his light': 'Herod feared John and protected him, knowing him to be a righteous and holy man.  When Herod heard John, he was greatly puzzled; yet he liked to listen to him.' (Mark 6:20)  And so the painting telescopes too Herod's fascination, and termination, of the 'light' of John the Baptist.


Finally, the painting depicts the end of John's life but by depicting John in the clothes he wore at the beginning of his preaching:  'John’s clothes were made of camel’s hair, and he had a leather belt around his waist.' (Matthew 3:4) this picture takes us back to the start of his life.  And John's clothes reach back farther into the past than that: they are the clothes which the Old Testament prophet Elijah wore (see 2 Kings 1:8), a prophet whom Jesus explicitly identifies with John (see Matthew 11:13 and Malachi 4:5). 


So this image encompasses the whole of John's life, and his past as viewed prophetically by Jesus, and in his posture - his hands open in acceptance, his pose echoing so many of those images of Jesus himself at the point of trial and execution - this points forward to another execution too.  As Herod himself is reported to have said of Jesus, after the execution of John the Baptist: “This is John the Baptist; he has risen from the dead! That is why miraculous powers are at work in him.” (Matthew 14:2)

Friday, December 23, 2011

The Gospel of John in Pictures: John 1: Nathanael

I started writing about images depicting episodes from John's Gospel much earlier in the year.  Here is another.  Mark Cazalet's Nathaniel (asleep under the fig tree)* does and doesn't portray a visionary moment from John.  Philip, already a disciple of Jesus, persuades Nathanael to come with him to meet Jesus:
When Jesus saw Nathanael approaching, he said of him, Here is a true Israelite, in whom there is nothing false.
How do you know me? Nathanael asked. Jesus answered, I saw you while you were still under the fig-tree before Philip called you.
Then Nathanael declared, Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the King of Israel.
Jesus said, You believe because I told you I saw you under the fig-tree. You shall see greater things than that.
He then added, I tell you the truth, you shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man.  John 1:47-51
Unlike Cazalet's painting the narrative doesn't suggest that Nathanael was asleep but perhaps what Cazalet's image is doing is intensifying and compressing into a single 'moment' some of the allusions already playing out in the narrative.  Jesus' statement about 'the angels of God ascending and descending' sends his readers back to Genesis 28:10-22 and Jacob's dream at Bethel of a stairway to heaven, with angels ascending and descending on it; in John's gospel Jesus himself is the stairway to heaven.  And perhaps by depicting Nathanael as asleep under the fig-tree, Cazalet gives us a visual reminder of sleeping Jacob, where the text of the gospel gives us a written one.

* The conditions of use of the The Methodist Church Collection of Modern Christian Art mean that I can't use the image directly within this blog but I hope that you'll follow the link and appreciate both this painting, and the many other beautiful things in the collection.

Friday, September 9, 2011

'Seeing' religious art

Some interesting discussion on The Guardian's Cif Belief pages at the moment responding to the question 'Do we need faith to see religious art?'  Here's a brief quote from Catherine Pepinster's response:
Is [religious art] really appreciated by those who don't believe? Can they fully understand it, indeed conceive of these other minds in another time and place where faith held sway?

That must depend on the extent to which the viewer can accept the possibility of the divine, or the existence of the religious impulse. I suspect that there is a growing tendency, for all Richard Dawkins's efforts, for people to accept that there is such an impulse.

Friday, August 19, 2011

Doom

Holidaying friends brought me back a postcard of The Wenhaston Doom, a C16 painting of resurrection and judgement:


Other people have written more knowledgeably about how this time-capsule from our mediaeval ancestors survived the protestant iconoclasm of the C17 under a coat of whitewash, emerging after a rainy night on a later restoration project to speak to us so eloquently of ways of thinking and worship now irrevocably lost.  My interest is in how this piece of art brings both a future, and the spiritual, into our present. 

It's a curious piece of social commentary that the rich - king & queen, cardinal and pope - are shown at the centre of the picture being welcomed into heaven.  The message from the painting to its mediaeval audience seems clear: those of high social status are righteous, and will inherit an eternal reward.  This view is supported by the Bible text beneath the picture from Romans 13:1-4
Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.  Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.  For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended.  For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.
But perhaps the painting's message is more complex.  The four rich people are all naked, apart from their identifying headwear; under the trappings of prosperity, all humans are equal.  In its own time, and perhaps in ours too, a salutory reminder to those of us insulated from human suffering by prosperity and social status often derived from education or profession of how fragile these things are, and ultimately how meaningless.  For our society, increasingly divided by disparities between rich and poor, this painting reminds us of some essential equalities. 

Also interesting is how this painting externalises the consequences of how lives are lived.  Human beings are notoriously bad at evaluating the future consequences of present actions; in one of my past roles this was called 'optimism bias'.  There is no optimism bias in this picture, no hope of 'getting away with' a life lived with no understanding of the consequences of injustice commited in the present, no comfort that things will work out with our best interests preserved.

However warm the promised punishment for the wicked, this painting could just be viewed as cold comfort for those who suffer(ed) an impoverished present.  A future heavenly reward for the 'good' and a future hellish punishment for the 'bad' might offer the comfort of a changed perspective on current circumstances but little else of present benefit.  You can't eat this painting or its vision.  Material comfort came, and comes, not just from the painting itself but from the response it tries to provoke in those who I think are the real targets of its message.

This portrayl of judgement as a single point in the future should remind us, as perhaps it reminded those who saw this before it was hidden away, of the very real needs of our world and the ability of our actions now to influence this.  By bringing a future into our present, along with a spiritual dimension to our present lives, this painting reminds us of how far a response to its message of essential human equality could carry, with all its consequences of good towards those without a crown or a cardinal's beretta.

Thursday, July 28, 2011

Encounters: story-telling.

Recently I've been thinking about story-telling in the last two chapters of John's Gospel, which strips out the 'cast' that populates the stories of Jesus' resurrection in the synoptic gospels to tell the story from the perspective of individual encounters between Mary Magdalene, John, Thomas and Peter, and the absent/present figure of Jesus.  Some paintings of some of these episodes help. 

Lavinia Fontana, Christ appears to Mary Magdalene c.1581
Fontana's painting gives us Mary's encounter from her perspective.  Mary arrives at the tomb to find the body of Jesus missing: 'she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not realize that it was Jesus.  He asked her, “Woman, why are you crying? Who is it you are looking for?”  Thinking he was the gardener, she said, “Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have put him, and I will get him.”' (John 20:14-15)  In the narrative, Jesus is not dressed as a gardener, only mistaken for one; the painting takes us into Mary's world-view and her split-second moment of mis-identification.

In John's resurrection narrative Thomas is absent when Jesus' other disciples
Caravaggio, The Incredulity of Saint Thomas c. 1601-1602
see him, refusing to believe their story: "“Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.”  A week later, Jesus appears again, inviting Thomas: “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.” (John 20:25,27).  Caravaggio's picture shows this curiosity pushed to its limits.  As with Fontana's picture, so with Caravaggio, the artist imagines his way beyond the details of the story.  There is no indication that Thomas took Jesus up on his offer but it's clear that it's Thomas' searching doubt which becomes the focus of the picture, clear from the intensity of the gaze of the three disciples and the glow of the painting's light upon their curious faces.  Only Jesus remains fully in shadow: is he the least known? The least knowable?  Whilst his hands accept Thomas' investigation perhaps the shadow across his face implies that in the narrative of the painting, Jesus cannot be known by this investigation.  A visual depiction perhaps of Jesus' subsequent words to Thomas: “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

Following Jesus' encounters with Mary, and Thomas, the story continues with Jesus appearing to Peter and six other disciples, who are out on a fishing trip on Galilee.  Duccio's painting is itself a commentary on different ways of story-telling through painting.  The 'realistic' expressions on the faces of the disciples in a  
Duccio, Christ’s appearance on Lake Tiberias 1308-11 (Maesta Altarpiece)
painting whose composition is so stylised betray a shift away from an earlier style of painting which followed conventions about the portrayal of sacred things to allow pictures to act as 'signs' (icons) - directing their viewers towards sacred things.  For me this is a shift towards painting the sacred in terms of the everyday of the painter.  Just as Fontana gives us Mary's reality from John's story of Jesus' resurrection, so Duccio also uses his 'reality' to bring the sacred into the world we know; heaven in ordinarie.

With grateful thanks to my 'picture researcher', Sonia Mundey.

Thursday, March 10, 2011

What is your Religion?

Discussion over the question in the 2011 Census: 'What is your Religion?', with arguments that this is a leading question which actively encourages people to tick a religious answer, have reminded me of this piece of dialogue regarding market research methods from the TV comedy Yes (Prime) Minister:

Sir Humphrey: "You know what happens: nice young lady comes up to you. Obviously you want to create a good impression, you don't want to look a fool, do you? So she starts asking you some questions: Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the number of young people without jobs?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Are you worried about the rise in crime among teenagers?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think there is a lack of discipline in our Comprehensive schools?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think young people welcome some authority and leadership in their lives?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think they respond to a challenge?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Would you be in favour of reintroducing National Service?"
Bernard Woolley: "Oh...well, I suppose I might be."
Sir Humphrey: "Yes or no?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Of course you would, Bernard. After all you told you can't say no to that. So they don't mention the first five questions and they publish the last one."
Bernard Woolley: "Is that really what they do?"
Sir Humphrey: "Well, not the reputable ones no, but there aren't many of those. So alternatively the young lady can get the opposite result."
Bernard Woolley: "How?"
Sir Humphrey: "Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the danger of war?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Are you worried about the growth of armaments?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think there is a danger in giving young people guns and teaching them how to kill?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think it is wrong to force people to take up arms against their will?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Would you oppose the reintroduction of National Service?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "There you are, you see Bernard. The perfect balanced sample."
There are more serious questions at stake - does a leading question lead to artifically inflated numbers of religious people in the UK, in turn create an unfair bias towards religous groups in the allocation of public services?  I suspect humanists and fundamentalists* alike might welcome a rooting out of 'true' as opposed to 'nominal' religous believers.

Whilst 'What would Jesus do?' is one of my own least favourite questions, closely followed by 'What would Jesus think?' I'm left wondering how this concern over religious identity squares with someone whose recorded teaching seems to resist the identification of following his teaching with membership of a religious organisation.  Jesus' teaching in the Gospels only explicitly mentions 'church' twice (Matthew 16:18; 18:15) and on both occasions what seems to be in mind is a much looser 'meeting' or 'congregation' of similarly commited people than a monolithic institution. 

*I'm using this word very precisely.

Tuesday, February 15, 2011

Lily Allen and the Bishop

The suggestion by the Bishop of Sheffield that Lily Allen's song 'The Fear' makes useful accompanying listening for a Bible-study course speaks into a 2,000 year old debate about Christians' attempts to ventriloquise secular or non-Christian cultural sources into speaking on matters of their faith. 

Paul famously tried this in a soap-box moment at the Aeropagus in Athens, quoting both Cretan philosopher Epimenides and the Cilician Stoic philosopher Aratus as speaking of the God known by Paul as a disciple of Jesus (Acts 17:28).  The narrative in Acts then takes Paul from Athens to Corinth, and there's the implication in one of the letters that Paul wrote to the church there that he'd reflected on the preaching technique used in Athens and (perhaps) rejected it as ineffectual:
When I came to you, I did not come with eloquence or human wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God.  For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.  I came to you in weakness with great fear and trembling.  My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, so that your faith might not rest on human wisdom, but on God’s power.  (1 Corinthians 1:1-5)
Strictly speaking, the use of the song in the course is not because it consciously articulates Christian doctrine but rather (says the Bishop) because it captures "something of the spirit of the age", and Lily Allen has endorsed its use in this way. 

I'd have no blog if I didn't think that cultural artifacts spoke both into, and from, religious experience but it leaves me wondering about an uncritical approach to this, or at least to an attitude that would view such approaches with great skepticism.

Wednesday, January 26, 2011

Seen / Unseen

In spite of some of my earlier posts I'm not always a fan of 'religious' or 'Christian' art, which can often be twee, or mawkish, or both.  Illustrating some of the narrative sections of the Bible can avoid some of these pitfalls, as in my posts on Elijah or the crucifixion of Jesus, but trying to depict some of the Bible's concepts can be more challenging.  Which is why I'm very fond of this photograph:

(Mary Gaston, Mystery & Ignorance, used with permission)

At first glance this both disturbs and baffles, creating a puzzle as we look at it.  Of course, this can and can't be read as a picture with a spiritual dimension and perhaps it's that level of uncertainty which creates the appeal for me.  If there's a link between this photograph and the Bible, I find it in words Jesus speaks:
"The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit." (John 3:8)
As in the picture, so in this statement, there are ways in which the unseen can become tangible, the spiritual part of our everyday lived experience.

Monday, January 17, 2011

Zero Yorkshiremen

Others will comment more eloquently on the literary merits of The King James Bible - published 400 years ago - than I can.  It's true that the influence of its language has been widespread: how could the following piece of parody from the film Monty Python and the Holy Grail be possible if the words and rhythms of the Authorised Version were not so well known:
LAUNCELOT: We have the Holy Hand Grenade [...]
ARTHUR: Consult the Book of Armaments! [...]
BROTHER MAYNARD: Armaments, chapter two, verses nine to twenty-one. [...]
SECOND BROTHER: And Saint Attila raised the hand grenade up on high, saying, 'O Lord, bless this Thy hand grenade that, with it, Thou mayest blow Thine enemies to tiny bits in Thy mercy.' And the Lord did grin, and the people did feast upon the lambs and sloths and carp and anchovies and orangutans and breakfast cereals and fruit bats and large chu--
MAYNARD: Skip a bit, Brother.
SECOND BROTHER: And the Lord spake, saying, 'First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin. Then, shalt thou count to three. No more. No less. Three shalt be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, nor either count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then, lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being naughty in My sight, shall snuff it.'
The Monty Python team were also famously responsible for the Four Yorkshiremen sketch, but it's a source of mischevious delight to me as a 'Southerner' living in exile in the North that neither Yorkshiremen nor indeed Northerners of any description had any significant influence on the language of the King James Bible:
[W]ith virtually no exceptions, the scholars assembled [by King James I] for the purpose of translating the Bible were based in the South of England [...] Northern forms of English made little, if any, impact on the translation.  Alister McGrath In The Beginning - The Story of the King James Bible
Mischief aside there's an interesting feature of the language of the King James Bible which the Monty Python parody (unintentionally?) emulates, and which brings it very much into the world of this blog.  The Authorised Version uses the Thou/Thee/Thy forms of address for both God speaking to people, and people speaking to God, as in the 'Lord's Prayer': Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. (Matthew 6:9)

The (singular) Thou/Thee/Thy form of address had been used in Mediaeval England amongst family members; the (plural form) Ye/You/Your as a mark of respect when addressing a social superior.  Whilst this distinction was slightly old-fashioned by the time the translators of the King James Version set to work it fascinates me that the translation made this familiar way of speaking to God, as though to a family member, a commonplace in our language.  A relationship with transcendence might beg a respectful form of address; in the language of the King James Bible, people speak to God as though to a family member.  Heaven in ordinary.

Friday, January 14, 2011

The insignificance of Jesus' crucifixion

Visual arts relish the crucifixion of Jesus: the courtroom drama of the trials, enormous crowds, the potential for enormous crosses silhouetted against a darkening sky - there can be moments of bathos too: who can forget the portly and aging John Wayne as the centurion at the foot of the cross in The Greatest Story Ever Told drawling "Surely this was the Son of Gaaaaaad"?

A lot of this visual drama may be mis-placed.  Crucifixions were commonplace enough in the early first century.  Following the death of Herod in 4 BC there were outbreaks of revolt throughout Judea. Varus, the Roman legate of Syria took two legions and brutally pacified the country, particularly in Galilee:
Upon this, Varus sent a part of his army into the country, to seek out those that had been the authors of the revolt; and when they were discovered, he punished some of them that were most guilty, and some he dismissed: now the number of those that were crucified on this account were two thousand.  (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 17.10.10)
Commonplace, and perhaps in easy public view: "those who passed by hurled insults at him" (Matthew 27:39). 

Odilon Redon's painting The Crucifixion strips out much of the over-dramatisation, depicting a moment of strange everyday intimacy which would only be possible without theatrics.  Mary, Jesus' mother, and his disciple John are shown by the cross in a painting of this moment:
When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to her, "Woman, here is your son", and to the disciple, "Here is your mother". From that time on, this disciple took her into his home.  (John 19:26-27)
The picture is not prescriptive; the lack of detail both leaves space for the imagination to play but also suggests, very subtly, something other-worldly.  For me this picture achieves with greater credibility something that more over-dramatic portrayals strive for but fail to deliver: the way that an ordinary public execution in a culture in which these were commonplace brought something heavenly into the lived experience of Christians. 

Thursday, January 6, 2011

The Ox, and Ass, and Lobster

All sorts of animals crowd into the Nativity story, as in this piece of dialogue from the film Love Actually:
Karen: So what's this big news, then?
Daisy: [excited] We've been given our parts in the nativity play. And I'm the lobster.
Karen: The lobster?
Daisy: Yeah!
Karen: In the nativity play?
Daisy: [beaming] Yeah, *first* lobster.
Karen: There was more than one lobster present at the birth of Jesus?
Daisy: Duh.
Or in the carol In the bleak midwinter:
Enough for Him, Whom cherubim, worship night and day,
Breastful of milk, and a mangerful of hay;
Enough for Him, Whom angels fall before,
The ox and ass and camel which adore.
Or in the mediaeval Latin text O magnum mysterium, often set to music, and for me most memorably by Morten Lauridsen:
o great mystery
and wondrous sacrament,
that animals should see the newborn Lord,
lying in a manger!
Blessed is the virgin whose womb was worthy
to bear our Lord Christ.  Alleluia!
Lord, I heard your call and was afraid;
I considered your works,
and I trembled between two animals

Lobster, ox and ass are all missing from the narratives of the birth of Jesus in the 'canonical' gospels written by Matthew and Luke, as are any mentions of animals at all, apart from the 'flocks' watched over by the shepherds outside Bethlehem (Luke 2:8).

What interests me is the way in which the birth stories in Matthew and Luke are sparse enough to both beg, and to hold, an imaginative filling-in of details.  One of these imaginative 'fillings-in', and perhaps the source for some of the more traditional animal inhabitants of the Nativity story such as the Ox and the Ass, is the 8th century Pseudo-Matthew gospel:
And on the third day after the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ, Mary went out of the cave, and, entering a stable, placed the child in a manger, and an ox and an ass adored him. Then was fulfilled that which was said by the prophet Isaiah, "The ox knows his owner, and the ass his master's crib." Therefore, the animals, the ox and the ass, with him in their midst incessantly adored him. Then was fulfilled that which was said by Habakkuk the prophet, saying, "Between two animals you are made manifest." (Chapter 14)*
What all these texts betray are two deep human desires.  Firstly, a curiosity about the details of life of Jesus, and in particular his childhood, which the New Testament both stubbornly refuses to meet but also (strangely) prompts by allowing so many empty spaces within which the imagination can work.  Secondly, a longing for the divine to be made real and understandable within the span of domestic experience; the Ox and the Ass provide the realism, the prophetic 'authority' of Isaiah and Habakkuk appear to provide a divine sanction for their inclusion - heaven in ordinary.

*The Isaiah quote is 1:3, that from Habakkuk is 3:2 but where the King James Version has 'O LORD, I have heard thy speech, and was afraid: O LORD, revive thy work in the midst of the years, in the midst of the years make known; in wrath remember mercy.' the Pseudo Matthew gospel relies on the Septuagint (LXX) which translates the words in bold as 'two living creatures'.

Tuesday, November 30, 2010

Life, Interrupted

Historical studies of the life of Jesus leave us with the enigma of the end of his life - that his followers believed that he had risen from the dead:

Much about the historical Jesus will remain a mystery.  Nothing is more mysterious than the stories of his resurrection, which attempt to portray an experience that the authors could not themselves comprehend.  But in the midst of mystery and uncertainty, we should remember that we know a lot about Jesus.  We know that he started under John the Baptist, that he had disciples, that he expected the 'kingdom', that he went from Galilee to Jerusalem, that he did something hostile against the Temple, that he was tried and crucified.  Finally we know that after his death his followers experienced what they described as the 'resurrection': the appearance of a living but transformed person who had actually died.  They believe this, they lived it, and they died for it.  In the process they created a movement, a movement that in many ways went far beyond Jesus' message.  Their movement grew and spread geographically.
E.P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus
The early Christian communities soon began to ask their leaders how they would share in the resurrection experience of Jesus; Paul writes:  'But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?”' (1 Corinthians 15:35).

The artist Stanley Spencer, in paintings such as The Resurrection with the Raising of Jairus’s Daughter or The Resurrection, Cookham, pictured this resurrection experience in terms of the every day.  The dead clamber out of their tombs in much the same condition as they entered them, dressed in contemporary clothes.  Life, interrupted, appears to continue on much the same terms.  For Spencer, resurrection seems to be less transcendental and more part of our present, lived experience.

Thursday, November 18, 2010

Revelation

Thinking about Revelation today. 

The images from John's vision echo in all sorts of contexts: from the enigmatic preacher/gun-slinger in Clint Eastwood's Pale Rider  - 'And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death' (Revelation 6:8) to the rather less mysterious appearance of Death and the other Horsemen of the Apocalypse: War, Famine, Pollution (Pestilence having retired in 1936 following the discovery of penicillin) in Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman's novel Good Omens.

David Miles' Apocalyptic Images* draw on the present and everyday - including images of people he knows, such as in the picture 'The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse' - to create representations of John's vision.  Heaven is found, or represented, in ordinary things.  As David Miles' writes:

Whether the reader of the Book of Revelation has, or has not, a specific understanding of this enigmatic book is, to some extent, of little importance. What is compelling is that all believers who, through subsequent generations, have encountered the book, have discovered that that which John ‘saw’ has a resonance with the times in which they themselves live.
* Further brought to life with music and words in the presentation Approaching Apocalypse.

Wednesday, November 17, 2010

Heaven in ordinarie

One of the pictures above my desk is Clive Hicks-Jenkins' The Prophet Fed by a Raven



The prophet's clothes might be yours or mine, drinking from the brook helped by a chunky mug; Elijah has become present in our time.  His eyes might be closed in prayer - or is that a sideways glance down (modesty?) or inwards (reflection?) and away both from the food and the supportive raven.  No black-feathered raven this: red and fiery with tail feathers which might be tongues of flame - a premonition of the chariot of fire and horses of fire which separated Elisha from Elijah, separating present from past?

So, for me, the painting brings the spiritual into our present: heaven in ordinary.  Which is what I hope this blog will be about.
Now Elijah the Tishbite, from Tishbe in Gilead, said to Ahab, "As the LORD, the God of Israel, lives, whom I serve, there will be neither dew nor rain in the next few years except at my word."

Then the word of the LORD came to Elijah: "Leave here, turn eastward and hide in the Kerith Ravine, east of the Jordan.  You will drink from the brook, and I have directed the ravens to supply you with food there."

So he did what the LORD had told him. He went to the Kerith Ravine, east of the Jordan, and stayed there.  The ravens brought him bread and meat in the morning and bread and meat in the evening, and he drank from the brook. (1 Kings 17:1-6)