 |
| Slaughter of the Innocents, by Giacomo Paracca, c1587 |
But it's not the whole story. In fact, there are parts of it that we'd prefer to avoid or ignore:
- Mary is an unwed mother that without divine intervention Joseph would have divorced. (Matthew 1:19)
- The monarch then in power, Herod, responds to the news of the new-born King of Israel with an order to kill every male infant in and around Bethlehem, 2 years old or younger. Jesus, Joseph and Mary will become refugees to Egypt as a result (Matthew 2:16-18).
- The gifts of "gold, frankincense and myrrh" (Matthew 2:11) are veiled references by the author and redactor of the gospel Matthew that this baby is born to die the death of a martyr; the three gifts each are associated with death and burial traditions.
- When Mary sings her magnificent song of praise to the God who acts in the life of a poor, unwed youth to work out the divine plan of salvation, she sings:
"He has brought down the powerful from their thrones, and lifted up the lowly; he has filled the hungry with good things, and sent the rich away empty." (Luke 1:52-53)
Can this be good news for those of us in the most privileged social classes of the most powerful nation on earth as we dash about buying up Christmas presents? We don't hear that preached very much in North America these days!
We are quite selective about the Christmas story. We miss something significant in the homogenized telling.
For example...
I’ve got a good friend who is exploring atheism. The other day we discussed the biological impossibility of the virgin birth, the contradictory traditions of the dating of Jesus’s birth and the atrocities of war and violence one can find in the Bible as proofs that no reasonable person should believe in God as described in the Bible, especially the Christmas story. The point that “we hide” the parts of the story we’d rather ignore was only more evidence of our shallowness to my friend.
Fair enough. Explaining that divine conception was a typical literary device in the Ancient Near East or that historical documentation was often manipulated for political purposes back then made little impact on my friend who was looking for evidence not to believe. If you are seeking fault you will always find it.
If you are looking to expose the hypocrisy of a faith tradition that proclaims “God is love” (I John 4:8) and has a history of bloodlust you don’t have to go very far in the Bible to find it. Both Hebrew and New Testament scriptures report incidences of genocide, murder and mayhem (Just as examples note: Genesis 4:1-16, 19:12-f, 34:1-f, Exodus 12:29-32, 32:25-35, Deuteronomy 2:34, 3:6, Mark 6:14-29, Acts 5:1-11, 7:54-8:1).
This has long been an argument by atheists to reject faith. Asserting divine authority in irrational and violent texts is an excuse to do all manner of evil in “God’s name”. Certain stories of faith in Abrahamic monotheism have been used to justify the very cruelty and injustice it preaches against. If you are on God’s side you can do just about anything to one who isn’t, including colonizing their nations, burning of their cities, raping their women and killing their children.
The dichotomy is often explained away with selective interpretation. We pick out the parts of the Bible we like, which agree with our point of view, that justify our opinions and ignore the rest. We all pick and choose to what we will pay attention in life so it may seem natural to do the same with sacred writings.
The opposite approach is also argued suggesting that since it is written in the Holy Book each and every believer adheres to each and every word. Thus if there is sanctioned violence in the Holy Book then the believers must be violent people.
The most contemporary example of this notion is "Islamophobia"; the irrational fear of Islam and Muslims.
The Koran, the Holy Book of Islam, contains verses that justify violence. Islam was born out of a violent history and warred against the West for centuries. Islamic terrorism and terrible interfaith violence are realities of our times in all too many places. Yet to suggest that all 1.2 billion Muslims are out to kill non-Muslims because of what is written in their Holy Book is based on fear. It ignores the reality of Islamic diversity in thought and practice, as diverse as Roman Catholic and Protestant sects in Christianity. Islamophobia asserts that there is a single-mindedness in Islam that has never existed or appears to be non-existent only due to a very successful global conspiracy of stealth jihad among 1.2 billion people (?!).
Even the most strident Christian literalist will not argue that the Lord is literally a "shepherd" (Psalm 23) as if tending sheep in a heavenly pasture or that God is literally a "rock" just because God is called "a rock" or "my rock" 19 times in the book of Psalms. Christians don't cut off their hands or pluck out their eyes just because Jesus said to (Matthew 5:29-30,18:7-9). Poetic metaphor and symbolism has long been an aspect of Christian interpretation. No one lives by the Bible's literal "each and every word", let alone all 2 billion followers of Christ as if we were single-minded simply because we call ourselves the same name.
Although they all have the same Holy Book the Hebrew community has known significant diversity in interpretation and practice for centuries. Why would anyone suggest that all Muslims think and intend to act the same way because they have the same Holy Book?
It’s hard to argue against the atheist's denunciation of hypocritical, violent religion. There are too many historic and contemporary examples to ignore of the failure of religious communities to live up to their ideals. But the atheist misses an essential point basing such condemnation on the selective interpretation of sacred texts or blind and irrational devotion.
The Abrahamic tradition that posits both a loving and violent God is describing a dichotomy that is in each one of us. Most of us will not admit it but we all have the capacity for great acts of compassion and/or cruelty. Sacred texts combine myth, metaphor, theology and history recording the capacity of human love and violence in the most obvious terms. It may be a dichotomy we would just rather avoid. But the thoughtful reader and/or adherent is left to choose not just which part of the story they will believe but which aspect within themselves they will nurture and act upon. The choice is always ours and we need to face it. The saga of the Abrahamic faith forces us to do so.
If we avoid the dichotomy of our traditions as expressed in our Holy Books we avoid it in ourselves. And by avoiding it in ourselves, we remain isolated in our small worlds of logic, reason and fear. Our atheist friends dream of a world ruled by reason, logic and science as if those values are the best guarantee for a human future. History is full of examples of human carnage and exploitation when those values aren't anchored in moral and ethical grounding often found in the very sacred texts the atheist rejects.
Indeed the specifics of the Christmas story may be hard to believe if one insists on reading it through the lens of 21st century rationalism, without appreciation for the historical context from which it came. Virgin birth, stars in the east, angels singing from heaven are all part of a saga trying to grasp the possibility of incarnation.
We who embrace the story lose a lot if we avoid the implications of those parts of Christmas that don't fit with our cultural sentimentality:
- The birth of the Christ child has political ramifications for those who rule by greed and power. And still does.
- The death of Jesus on the cross will be the ultimate act of unconditional love and the authors of the gospels Matthew and Luke where we find the origin of the Christmas story want their readers to know this was no accident of history.
- If the values of love, peace and justice were to govern human society, the rich and powerful would indeed be sent empty away as the world would be organized to insure that everyone had enough. Millions still make that a dream worth living.
I don't mean to wash-way the challenges of faith or specifically the implications of violence in the Bible but having to wrestle with it there and in ourselves makes it very important that the whole story is told.