ARTICLE 3: HANDLING HISTORY
The preacher spoke about the Jews and others around the time of Jesus. He was talking about how some prominent first-century Jews set out to have Jesus killed. Our best historical records say this is how it all went down, yo. My friend, however, protested that he was speaking of the Jews in such an unfavourable light. Although I had never heard this accusation before, others may encounter something similar. As usual, in my discussion I will become sidetracked on other loosely related matters.

THE EVENT IN QUESTION

Knowing the crucifixion story, it was the Jewish people of the time who were most threatened by Jesus. He was born into Jewish society and began challenging their beliefs. If he was not the Messiah, then he was the most daring blasphemer of recorded history. It is only natural that many Jews would be reluctant to believe in his Deity and thus would oppose him. The preacher was using history to show how we (our society in general; us Christians included) are hostile toward Jesus even today.

There are clear parallels between the Biblical report and our own times. But this caught a raw nerve with my friend. He evidently did not catch the preacher's point, and rather assumed that it was a case of a High-and-mighty Christian slagging off about these people with different beliefs. Far be it from his intentions, though. I've been wondering, how could the preacher have delivered his sermon without causing offence?

SPINNING A YARN

Okay, that's a lame heading, but that phrase was more common in the time of our grandparents. Now if your grandies were to talk about World War II, they would do so in a similar manner to the preacher. WWII was essentially us versus the Germans, and it would be spoken of in those terms. Even historians simplify it like this: "The Germans invaded us... Their objectives were..." Now that certainly wouldn't portray the Germans in a good light, but we all understand that the German people did not all support the Nazi regime and these days we don't despise the German people for their former leaders' actions. In an educated society it is okay to generalise like that; or at least it is easiest.

Where this generalisation becomes problematic is where it is used amongst people with strong biases. For instance, people involved in a civil war will be prone to stereotyping their enemy, believing one is as bad as the next. Or your common racist who hears of Muslim terrorist activity will attribute the label to all Arabs.

I guess the problem among the rest of us arises from the rise in political correctness. In an attempt to promote universal tolerance and anti-discrimination, we're discouraged from calling a spade a spade so far that it's almost improper to make any distinction between different groups of people at all. That makes it hard for us to discuss events like the Crucifixion or any war or even Sydney's race riots.

I'm told that during WWII the public believed Germans were all savages and racial tension was high. Even in my parents such stereotypes and biases exist against people of the rest of our world. But to this generation, despite our objections with yesterday's method of choice, speaking about the wars even as "Germany versus us" has not failed to advance our society. We make an effort to remember the wars and honour the lives of the soldiers on both sides of the battle and we try to learn from it, knowing there is a better way to settle disputes.

Today, we understand that although Bin Laden and his fellow extremists are driven by their strong religious convictions which assumedly are shared to a degree by their fellow countrymen, most of us young Aussies don't bear a grudge against Muslims or Arabs in general. Religious and racial prejudices will always exist, but it seems we have made positive progress. The preacher is pursuing a similar goal; advancing the cause of Jesus, while dismissing adverse prejudices. Through education we are approaching international harmony. And through education people can understand Biblical themes.

IDENTIFY THE BIAS

Consider how a public Christian rebuke of Islam would sound. If a church near you advertised a seminar on the topic, what assumptions would people make? Probably that the church believes all Muslims advocate Islamic fundamentalism and the seminar aims to shoot their entire belief system down in flames. Given the current political climate, which is seen as Christian vs Muslim (or America vs the Middle East – it is considered synonymous, no?), and our own unpatriotic political ideals, much of our society is sympathetically in support of the 'Enemy'. Similarly my friend took offence on behalf of the Jews. But there is no Christianity without Judaism. We know this. Their continued existence as a nation of people, despite a tough history, is itself consistent with Biblical prophesy. Our beliefs are founded on their religion. The Christian ought to have great respect for the Jew, despite the differences we have. And most do. If we really listen to the preacher, you should find that he's not dissing the Jews at all. Our own Bible makes it clear that the Jews are always God's special race, and we are thankful for them.

With the crucifixion story, it is the Jewish/Roman authorities who sentenced Jesus to death. And they did so because he was a threat to their religion which, to their credit, they took very seriously. When Jesus came on the scene he was very outspoken in showing he was the Messiah of the Jewish scripture. For various reasons many people objected to Jesus' teaching and refused to hear him out. It is still a spot-on illustration of us today. The things we think we know about Jesus don't sit well with us, yet the preacher wants to challenge us to consider his claims. Fair call.

Maybe the preacher lacked tact. I've heard the Crucifixion story before, so I foreknew the point he was trying to make. To my unchurched friend, the preacher's method was certainly uneffective. Unless this message from history is in the hands of a capable preacher, this situation may only be avoidable with a dumbing down of the Gospel message; a censored version of the events. But we can't cut and choose what we want from the Scripture, lest the importance of the message becomes lost. If anybody takes offence, assess whether that offence is warranted. If so, bring it to the attention of the preacher.

Lindsey Joel
10 May 2006

If you read this, please leave me your thoughts: