dinsdag 25 augustus 2015

Did Jesus tell Jewish people they could eat pork?

I think Jesus did.

18 And he said to them, “Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, 19 since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.) 20 And he said, “What comes out of a person is what defiles him. 21 For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. 23 All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.” Mark 7:18-23

“Whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him”: this is a categorical statement. “Whatever” is PAN in Greek, meaning ‘all things’. All things that enter (or, whatsoever enters) into a man from the outside, cannot make him unclean. The statement is meant to mean the opposite of: “What comes out of a person is what defiles him.”

The issue is direction. What comes from outside into man does not make him unclean, but what starts inside man, and goes out, that is the real issue.

What goes into man is about food and drinks. The discussion started with Jesus being criticized for his disciples not washing their hands. Jewish law assumed that not washing hands could make people unclean as you never knew what you might have touched. Jesus, however, makes the discussion broader. He does not focus on whether people should wash their hands or not - he says that dirty hands, or anything that enters into the stomach, is unimportant in regard to defilement. It cannot impact our relationship with God because it is about the stomach, not about the heart.

The heart is the source of sin, Jesus says. The bad ideas and attitudes of our heart, they defile us. Not what we touch or eat.  No love, that defiles us.

Mark thought that this concept was so important, that he interjected a few words. In verse 19 he says: ‘Thus he declared all foods clean”. In Jewish society, this was a radical conclusion. But even today, some Christians who are much in favor of the Jewish lifestyle, cannot accept this idea. They prefer to see Jesus as one who abided by all Jewish laws.

So they suggest that the stament: ‘Thus he declared all foods clean", should be read differently. Literally the words say, ‘cleaning all foods’. Most bible translators believe this to mean that Mark suggests that Jesus here declared all food clean. Some, however, say that this cannot be, and that the words refer to the immediate words before it: “whatever goes into a man from the outside cannot defile him since it […] enters his stomach, and so passes on.” The Greek term refers to the latrine.

What is this? By the “passing on” the food is cleansed? This seems too strange to be taken seriously, but some people will do anything to avoid the idea that Jesus simply said: eat whatever you like, eat pork if you want, for God it does not matter.

For the early Christians from Jewish and non-Jewish backgrounds, this issue was incredibly important. The early church had as a focal point of its worshipful life, the table-fellowship of all believers. Food could not be allowed to separate people and the Jewish followers of Jesus therefore had to understand that to eat or not to eat was not important at all compared to mutual love and community.

For Jesus and the apostles it was unthinkable that for the sake of Jewish habits, the unity of the one Body of Christ could be broken. Hence Jesus’ focus on matters of the heart instead of whether we wash our hands or not. Superficial cultural matters like what we eat or drink - and we can add many things to this list - must never be allowed to divide Christians into groups that cannot enjoy close relationships.  

That this is the correct reading of these words of Jesus is confirmed by how Peter and Paul often write about similar food-related matters.  Think of Peter who was told in a dream to eat all sorts of 'impure' animals, before God send him into the home of the Roman soldier Cornelius (Acts 10).      




vrijdag 14 augustus 2015

Hema-worst doet me nog altijd watertanden

‘Welcome to Egypt, Mister!’ Vaak zeggen mensen dit op straat in Cairo tegen me, als 27 jaar. Kinderen roepen het me vaak vriendelijke toe. Het is vriendelijk bedoeld, maar ik kan me er zo aan ergeren. Want elke keer onderstreept het dat ik, zelfs na meer dan een kwart eeuw in Egypte te hebben gewoond, nog steeds een outsider ben.

En hoewel ik me in Egypte enorm op mijn gemak voel, moet ik eerlijk zijn: een buitenstaander zal ik altijd blijven. Aan allerlei Egyptische gewoontes ben ik al lang gewend, en ik doe daar zonder nadenken aan mee. Mannen zoenen bijvoorbeeld. In Nederland, nee dank u. In Egypte vind ik het normaal. Andere Nederlandse gewoontes raak ik nooit kwijt. Als ‘man van de klok’ moet mezelf dwingen om me niet op te winden als mensen me gerust een uur laten wachten. Allerlei gewoontes die je van kindsbeen hebt, krijg je er niet meer uit. Hema-worst doet me nog altijd watertanden, en Feijenoorder ben je voor het leven.

Natuurlijk ben ik als westerling in Egypte het soort vreemdeling dat het niet moeilijk heeft. Ik heb mijn salaris en mijn paspoort waardoor ik wanneer ik maar wil naar Nederland kan vliegen om mijn kinderen te bezoeken. En als Egyptenaren me voor de zoveelste keer khawaga, vreemdeling, noemen, is dat doorgaans met respect en jaloezie. Velen zouden graag met me ruilen. Maar het onderstreept wel - je hoort er niet bij. Ik heb geprobeerd het Egyptische paspoort te krijgen maar dat is voor mij onmogelijk. Aan een vreemde christelijke man zal Egypte nimmer het paspoort verstrekken. ‘Je bent niet een van ons en dat zal je ook nooit worden’, is de boodschap.

De 1100 Soedanese vluchtelingen die ik in de kerk onder mijn hoede heb, worden op een heel andere manier als vreemdeling behandeld. Ze krijgen stenen naar hun hoofd, ze worden op straat in elkaar geslagen, ze worden bestolen, en ze worden voortdurend op hun zwarte huidskleur gewezen. Het is heel gebruikelijk dat ze ‘abd, slaaf, worden genoemd.

In de spiegel van dit nooit-aflatende onderscheid dat Egyptenaren telkens maken tussen ‘wij Egyptenaren’ en ‘al die anderen’, heb ik ontdekt dat ook ikzelf vol racisme zit. Nee, ik gooi natuurlijk geen stenen naar Soedanezen, en ik noem ze geen slaaf. Ik verwijt het Egyptenaren niet dat ze zich als Egyptenaren gedragen. Ik ben een beschaafde Nederlander, zoiets doe je niet; ik aanvaard de mensen zoals ze zijn, eh, nou ja, dat probeer ik. Maar in mijn gedachten heb ook ik de neiging om de mensheid in hokjes in te delen en om er van uit te gaan dat de mensen binnen mijn eigen hokje (blanke Nederlanders) de norm zijn van alle dingen. En ook ik neig ernaar om meer nadruk te leggen op wat ons onderscheid van anderen, dan op wat ons bindt.

Ik heb geen zin om elke keer de vraag te moeten beantwoorden welk land ik fijner vind, Egypte of Nederland… maar steeds krijg ik die vraag. Laat me nou gewoon mezelf zijn; onderstreep niet steeds dat ik er niet bij hoor! Maar in Nederland doen we het toch precies zo? We gebruiken om te beginnen die rare woorden autochtoon en allochtoon. Die arme allochtonen willen gewoon Nederlander zijn maar krijgen steeds weer het stempel opgedrukt: je hoort er niet echt bij. Je bent anders.

We geven mensen het stempel: je bent anders, en vervolgens worden we sacherijnig dat ze zich anders gedragen. Een onmogelijk advies natuurlijk. Je bent nu eenmaal anders, dat zit er in en gaat er nooit meer uit. Dat gaat niet uit een Marokkaan, het gaat niet uit een Syrische vluchtelingen, en niet uit een Pool. En de Nigerianen en Ghanesen in Nederland blijven altijd anders.

Maar ze willen zo graag normaal zijn - erbij horen. Ze wonen in ons land omdat ze ons land prettig vinden, en wij hebben ze als samenleving en als staat de toegang verleent. Wat moet het dan prettig voor ze zijn om niet door de blanke Nederlanders steeds op hun afkomst te worden gewezen, ook niet als dat vriendelijk is bedoeld.

Hoewel, die allochtonen in Nederland zijn op hun beurt ook weer heel racistisch vermoed ik. Het zit gewoon in ons allemaal… Ik was een paar weken geleden in Den Haag getuige van een ruzie van een Hindoestaanse moeder die haar dochter van 15 mee had genomen naar een Turks restaurant om de Turk achter de toonbank de huid vol te schelden. ‘Jij moet met je vieze Turkse poten van mijn dochter afblijven. Pak jij maar meisjes van je eigen volk.’ Ja, ze zei ‘eigen volk’, tegen die Nederlandse Turk. 

Waarom is het toch zo moeilijk voor ons om de ander in de eerste plaats en vooral te zien als mens, als uniek beeld van God.

vrijdag 3 juli 2015

Nou ja, en ik maar steeds denken dat het om de kerk ging

Het ANP meldt vandaag dat een overheidscommissie onderzoek gaat doen naar mishandeling van kinderen in pleeggezinnen en tehuizen. De commissie presenteert zich dinsdagmiddag en staat onder leiding van Micha de Winter, hoogleraar orthopedagogiek aan de Universiteit Utrecht.

De commissie gaat aan de slag op initiatief van het kabinet. Doel is om aard en omvang van zowel psychische als fysieke mishandeling van kinderen in kaart te brengen in de periode 1945 tot dit jaar. Het onderzoek is een vervolg op de bevindingen van de Commissie-Samsom die enkele jaren geleden onderzoek deed naar seksueel misbruik in de jeugdzorg.

"Samsom concludeerde in 2012 dat kinderen in een jeugdzorginstelling ongeveer een 2,5 keer zo grote kans hebben om seksueel misbruikt te worden."

Dat had ik zeker in 2012 over het hoofd gezien? Tuurlijk, al die RK priesters en zo, allemaal gespuis. Maar eh... is dit dus een probleem van ALLE jeugdzrginstellingen? K ben benieuwd hoe de media dit nieuwe onderzoek zullen gaan volgen.  



dinsdag 31 maart 2015

God's First Temple: Creation

The bookstands

In the beginning of the Biblical narrative, ‘God created the heavens and the earth.’ And in the end, there will be ‘a new heaven and a new earth’. The Christian Holy Scriptures sandwich the whole story of humankind between these two ‘bookstands’ of creation at the beginning and recreation in the end. The overriding theme of this human story and the heart of the stories of creation and restoration, is the presence of God or its reverse, his absence.

In the vision of St John, we read that in the new heaven and the new earth, the holy city, the New Jerusalem, comes down out of heaven, and St John then hears a voice, saying: ‘The dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God.’ This is unequivocally temple language.

St John writes of the New Jerusalem: ‘I saw no temple in the city, for its temple is the Lord God and the Lamb. And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and its lamp is the Lamb.’ In eternity there is no need for a temple, as God himself is with the people; or to say it in other words, the whole universe has become his temple.

Beside many temple-references, St John’s description of the new creation references, obviously, the Genesis-account of original creation. Later I will go deeper into this, but for now, one example will suffice. John notices the ‘tree of life’ beside the ‘river of the water of life’. These are themes taken from the creation story of Genesis.

If the second bookstand, of the new heaven and the new earth, is presented to us with imagery from the first bookstand, the creation story, and if this new heaven and the new earth are also clearly presented to us as the temple of God, should we then not assume that the first bookstand might also present the original creation as a temple of God? I think this is the proper way to read the Genesis account.

Creation as God’s resting place

The Holy Scriptures regularly compare the universe with God’s temple. For instance, Isaiah writes: ‘This is what the LORD says: "Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool. Where is the house you will build for me? Where will my resting place be?’ The universe is God’s resting place; He is not in need of another temple, the prophet argues.

One of the Psalms gives us another hint: ‘For the Lord has chosen Zion, he has desired it for his dwelling, saying, “This is my resting place for ever and ever; here I will sit enthroned, for I have desired it.”’ The Temple of Solomon is portrayed here not only as God’s dwelling, but also as the place where he rests. The terms dwelling and resting place seem to be used as synonyms.

Should we therefore also read the seventh day of creation, in which God ‘rested from all his works’, as an indication that he had finished the temple of creation and he now made it his dwelling? John T. Walton, professor of Old Testament at Wheaton College, defends this idea:
Any ancient reader, Israelite or otherwise, would have understood that if [Genesis] talks about God resting, it talks about the temple, because that is where God rests and where the gods rest and that is why temples where built.

So, Walton argues, Near Eastern readers of the Genesis-text would have immediately understood the temple imagery: “Without hesitation the ancient reader would conclude that this is a temple text.” Walton gives many examples from extra-biblical texts to show how in the Ancient Near East temple and cosmos were seen as each other’s mirrors.

Any visitor to the temples and graves of Egypt is treated to spectacular, often still rather colorful, images on the ceilings, the walls and the columns. On the ceilings son, moon and stars were depicted. On the walls we see plants, trees, animals of sea, land and sky, and human beings.

These temples served as models of the cosmos in which the floor represented the earth and the ceiling represented the sky. Columns and wall decorations represented plant life. According to German Egyptologist Jan Assmann, this temple ‘was the world that the omnipresent god filled to its limits.’

The Egyptian temple was the universe and the images in the temple were Egypt’s divinities; they were all part of the pantheon of gods and demigods worshiped in the temples of Egypt and the rest of the Near East.

Jeffrey L. Morrow, a Roman Catholic theologian at Seton Hall University, supports Walton’s approach. In his article ‘Creation as Temple-Building and Work as Liturgy in Genesis 1-3’, he writes that temples ‘throughout the ancient Near East often had cosmological connotations. The building of a temple often accompanied creation’ and ‘ancient Near Eastern temples […] also served as places for divine rest.

Morrow shows also how a heptadic [‘sevens’] pattern plays an important role in the creation account, far beyond the listing of the seven days. This links the creation account with temple building and consecration in general: ‘The ancient Near East’s convention of describing temple construction in terms of seven, means we should not be surprised that creation in Genesis is heptadic.’ According to Morrow, creation unfolds as a ‘cosmic liturgical celebration’ culminating on the seventh day.
It is this careful heptadic structure of Genesis 1 that makes Morrow and Walton suggest that Genesis might in fact be a liturgical text for usage in the temple service. Was there an annual feast where Genesis 1 was used to remind Israel of the parallels between creation and the temple?

Morrow points to the tabernacle’s consecration process that lasted seven days. Key verbal correspondences also exist between Moses’ construction of the tabernacle in Exodus 39-40 and the creation of the world in Genesis:

1) Gen. 1:31 [“And God saw all that He had made, (kăl ’ašer ‘aśah), and found it (wěhinēh) very good”]; Exod. 39:43 [“And when Moses saw that they had performed all the tasks (kăl hamělā’kāh)—as the LORD had commanded, so they had done (wěhinēh ‘aśû ’ōtāh)”].

2) Gen. 2:1 [“The heaven and the earth were completed (wayěkulû) and all (wěkăl) their array”]; Exod. 39:32 [“Thus was completed all (watēkěl kăl) the work of the Tabernacle of the Tent of Meeting”].

3) Gen. 2:2 [“God finished the work which He had been doing (wayěkăl ’elōhîm...měla’kěto ’ašer ‘āśāh)”]; Exod. 40:33 [“When Moses had finished the work (wayěkăl mōšeh ’et hamělā’kāh)”].

4) Gen. 2:3 [“And God blessed...(wayěbārek)”]; Exod. 39:43 (“And Moses blessed (wayěbārek) them”].

5) Gen. 2:3 [“And sanctified it (wayěqadaš)”]; Exod. 40:9 [“...and to sanctify (wěqidašětā) it and all its furnishings”].

Similar parallels exist between the seven days of creation and Solomon’s construction of the Jerusalem temple, including evident cosmic symbolism in the temple construction. This construction was depicted as a new creation, and the temple was seen as a microcosm of world, not unlike the other temples in the Near East. The Jewish historian Josephus says of the objects in the tabernacle: ‘every one of these objects is intended to recall and represent the universe.’

The very reason why the tabernacle and temple were seen as allegorical microcosms of creation suggests, reversely, that the creation story contained elements that reminded the Israelites of a temple.

It is noteworthy that the many creation stories in the Near East usually culminated in a temple being constructed for the gods of creation. The very absence of any specific construction for a place of worship in the Biblical description of the creation of the world is remarkable and logical: in a universe that was seen as the temple of God by itself, no other temple was needed.

The conclusion is therefore justified, I believe, that creation in Genesis ‘is described as a temple; it is constructed as an ancient Near Eastern temple would be constructed.’

Creation and the presence of God

The creation story of Israel shows that there is only one God, the creator of all things. The temple of his universe is filled with the same images as the Egyptian temples, but those images, seen to represent the gods of Egypt, were created by God’s powerful word. The so-called gods of the nations all dwarf in the sight of the one true God of Israel. In the temples of Egypt they are worshipped, in the temple of the universe they were made by the one word of the Creator, ‘be’, hence they deserve no worship.

All man-made temples and their gods are insignificant as the universe is the real temple of God. This is even true for the sacred places of Israel. Throughout the history of Israel we see tension between the importance of Israel’s worship in the tabernacle and the temple, and the concept that God really does not need a house of stone. The universe is his resting place. And this universe is not made for the nation’s gods, but for humanity. God gave him ‘glory and honor’ and he gave him ‘dominion over the works of [God’s] hands.

Creation is the temple where God resides, and his presence in this temple is obvious in the Genesis-account. First, God is portrayed as the creator of the temple. The Trinity was present in the construction of his own temple. We read of God, of his Word, and of his Spirit. God also said, ‘Let us make man in our image.’ This plural ‘us’ stands out as a strange plurality in the fiercely monotheist religion of Israel. And the humanity God created in his image, was also a plurality of men and women.

Secondly, God saw everything that he had made, and behold, ‘it was very good’. This indicates God’s personal and intimate involvement in creation. The summit of involvement is the creation of man as God ‘breathed into his nostrils the breath of life’. He is not presented to us as a distant god but as one who is imminent. This involvement culminates in him taking permanent residence in creation on the seventh day, when he rested.

Thirdly, God rested on the seventh day; this does not indicate a lack of action. It indicated that some work has been done - the universe has been made a good place for humankind - and now God can engage in the normal activities that can be carried out. The Creator has now taken command and he is mounting to this throne to assume his rightful place and his proper role.

Finally, God is also presented as ‘walking in the garden’. This anthropomorphism designates the intimate presence of God in his creation, especially in his relationship with humankind. This divine walking in the garden of Eden is expressed with the Hebrew form of hlk, which is also how God’s presence is described in the tabernacle in Leviticus 26:12 (‘and I will walk among you’) and Deuteronomy 23:14 (‘the Lord your God walks in the midst of your camp’). This further indicates the close link between creation and the tabernacle or temple. It is the place where God resides.

Garden of Eden and the Holy of Holies

The British evangelical Old Testament scholar Gordon J. Wenham also sees this temple imagery in the garden of Eden:

The garden of Eden is not viewed by the author of Genesis simply as a piece of Mesopotamian farmland, but as an archetypal sanctuary, that is a place where God dwells and where man should worship him. Many of the features of the garden may also be found in later sanctuaries particularly the tabernacle or Jerusalem temple. These parallels suggest that the garden itself is understood as a sort of sanctuary.

Some scholars push this parallelism a bit further. If the whole universe was God’s temple, then the garden of Eden was the Holy of Holies, Morrow and other Jewish and Christian biblical scholars argue. According to Morrow,

The Temple, and Mount Zion in general, are frequently associated with Eden, and in some instances actually identified with Eden. Ezekiel 28’s discussion of the king of Tyre is the most famous example where Mount Zion, and the temple, are associated with Eden. Sirach also associates Eden with the Temple and tabernacle, where the Temple is the new Eden.

The cherubim on the Ark in the Holy of Holies and on the veil that blocked anyone from entering into the Holy of holies, are a close parallel to the cherubim that blocked access to the Garden of Eden for Adam and Eve.

Work as liturgy

N.T. Wright agrees with this view of creation as God’s temple and now, ‘with the construction [of the temple] complete, he can “rest” in the sense of “taking up residence”’ in his temple.’ God ‘has finished the work of construction, which is to be seen as a prelude to all his intended work of developing it through the agency of his image-bearing human creatures.

So, the universe was God’s temple, and humankind was intimately close to God. Interestingly, nothing is said about a priestly role of Adam and Eve. Or rather, we should conclude, work in God’s universal temple was the actual liturgy (Gr: leitourgia, public works) humankind was made for. There was no special cast of priests, but all of humanity had a priestly task.

In the Genesis account, the priestly task of humankind was twofold: Man was to have dominion over creation by being fruitful and multiplying, by filling the earth and subduing it, by tilling and keeping it on the one hand, and on the other hand, to not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Work was man’s priestly task, in loving obedience to God. Morrow argues that this task of mankind was liturgical and priestly, by doing an interesting word-study:

When we look at the Genesis account of Eden, we find other instances of people portrayed as created for worship. Adam, for example, is told to “till” (from the root ‘bd) and “keep” (from the root šmr). When šmr and ‘bd occur together in the OT (Num. 3:7-8; 8:25-26; 18:5-6; 1 Chr. 23:32; Ezek. 44:14) they refer to keeping/guarding and serving God’s word and also they refer to priestly duties in the tabernacle. And, in fact, šmr and ‘bd only occur together again in the Pentateuch in the descriptions in Numbers for the Levites’ activities in the tabernacle.

This association of Adam’s task with the work of the priests in the tabernacle reinforces the understanding of Adam as a priest who maintained God’s temple of creation and who served it in.

Paradise lost

What was the impact of the fall of Adam and Eve? The author of Genesis presents it in dramatic terms: mankind was banished from God, from paradise, and from eternal life. They were now hiding from God, access to the tree of life was blocked, and life on earth became short and hard. St Paul would later describe life in our world in terms of the ‘suffering of the present time’ and ‘creation was subject to futility’ and ‘the whole creation has been groaning’.

At the same time, even after the fall, mankind was able to find God. Man was driven our of paradise but Abel sacrificed to God ‘and the Lord had regard for Abel and his offering.’ Direct access to God was impossible, but through the mediation of sacrifices he could be found.

The universe was no longer one perfect temple for the Creator, but he could still be found. St Paul, when speaking to the Athenians, seems to almost overlook the fall when he says,

[God] made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, that they should seek God, and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us, for ‘In him we live and move and have our being’.

This last quote in the text of Paul is from the Cretan poet Epimenides. It seems that Paul recognizes that even though things have gone dramatically wrong with the universal temple of God, even after the fall and the dismissal of Adam and Eve from Paradise, something of the temple-like aspect of the universe still exists. God can still be found in his creation; even a pagan poet senses this.

This concept can be found throughout Holy Scriptures; especially the Psalms and the Prophets often attest to it. Earlier I quoted Isaiah 66:1: ‘This is what the LORD says: "Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool. Where is the house you will build for me? Where will my resting place be?’ So, even after the fall, Isaiah still sees creation as God’s temple, even though he is very aware of the imperfections of the people of God and the problem of the seeming absence of God.

Something has gone badly wrong with the universe, but in spite of that, God is still near. Mankind no longer has access to the garden of Eden, the Holy of Holies has been blocked. But even east of Eden, in the groaning world we live in, God is still present. The universe is still God’s temple, but it is a temple with restricted access to God and a temple that needs repairs.

Some Conclusions
Reading the Genesis account of creation in the first place in theological terms, frees us from the need to harmonize this with modern scientific views. Genesis 1 was never intended as an eyewitness account of the beginnings of the world. It was intended to present our world Israel as the temple of the one true God who made it a good place for mankind to live in and to serve God. This is not a denial that God is the creator of the world, but it is an effort to read Genesis 1 in line with the intentions of the author and the understanding of his contemporaries.

In the Genesis account of creation, there is a remarkable concentration of powerful symbols that begs to be interpreted in the light of later tabernacle and temple design. These features combine to suggest that the garden of Eden was an archetypal temple, or even the Holy of Holies, where God was uniquely present in all his life-giving power.

Genesis shows that our daily work has a priestly aspect. There is no inherent contradiction between spiritual and secular. In the Jewish-Christian view of creation as God’s abode, the concept of secular actually has no meaning as all that exists is part of God’s temple.

Much has gone wrong after the fall of mankind. The fall has made free access to God impossible. God has withdrawn behind the veil as sinful humans cannot meet with him. No longer is the universe God’s perfect temple. But the sanctuary-aspect of the universe has not been lost altogether. God, though hidden, can still be found as there is no place in the universe where he is not present.

Living in this God-created world, we are called to give worship to God in all works, thoughts, words, and deeds. Even after the fall, man’s work still has an aspect of liturgy, of work for God, though it has been spoiled just as all of paradise was spoiled. God did send Adam away from paradise with work to do, not unlike his work in paradise. The difference is that this work for God, to work the ground, is hard now. With all of creation, mankind longs for renewal. But God is not far.

maandag 23 maart 2015

Bishop Andudu from the Sudanese State of South Kordofan: “Peace is our only option.”

Cairo (Egypt, 23 March 2015) - The Anglican Bishop Andudu Adam Elnail of Kadugli, the capital of the Sudanese State of South Kordofan, believes that all options for the war-zone he is from, have been exhausted. “Our people cannot stand the civil war any longer. The only option is peace.” 
After Sudan was split into two parts in 2011, no permanent solution was agreed to for South Kordofan, a state with oil, gold and uranium. In June 2011 the Sudanese Armed Forces attacked with full force and since then the Sudanese People Liberation Army - North(SPLA-N) has fought back. This war has ravaged and depopulated large parts of the Nuba Mountains. According to Bishop Andudu, who has been a staunch critic of the attacks by Khartoum, war is no longer an option. 
“Peace talks is what we need. No-one can win this war and our people are the losers. For a while, both SPLA and the army of Khartoum believed they could win the civil war. But now, after almost four years, both parties must wake up and be realistic”, according to the bishop “We are fighting a war that is costly in terms of human lives, it destroys our lands, and no-one is able to win this war anyway.” 
Bishop Andudu has been away from his diocesan headquarter offices in Kadugli for four years now. This week he visited Kilo4.5 and the Tenth District, squatter areas east of Cairo, where thousands of refugees from his Nuba Mountains live. Their numbers continue to increase as the civil war continues. “I came here for church business and to see my mother and other family members who are refugees in Cairo. She wants to go home and live in peace in our motherland, the Nuba Mountains. It makes me sick to be far from her and that she has to live in such squalor.” 
“Our churches are burned, our fields bombarded, our people killed. We have had too much war and suffering. Too many of our people are scattered in exile. We are all very very tired. We want to return to our Nuba Mountains, to Sudan.” 
Among the refugees in Cairo, Bishop Andudu has seen signs of hope. “Muslims and Christians from the Nuba Mountains live and work together peacefully. That is our dream for all of Sudan; we all gain by accepting and respecting one another. Unity in diversity is our dream. And let us now make an end to this civil war. Weapons have not been able to do this for the past four years. Let us now try it with serious dialogue. We need peace talks. This is our prayer; this is our appeal”, says Bishop Andudu.
Email bishop Andudu: bpkadugli@gmail.com

zondag 8 maart 2015

Dan maar een heel hoog hek om Griekenland


Ik ben een groot voorstander van een verenigde Europa met de euro als gezamenlijke munt. Dat is volgens mij de enige manier om de problemen van onze tijd het hoofd te bieden. Daarom mag van mij geheel Europa best wat extra doen om landen in de problemen, zoals Griekenland, bij te steun.
Of de manier waarop dat gebeurt de beste is, laat ik maar in het midden. Maar dat de Griekse reactie volstrekt onacceptabel is, dat lijkt me wel duidelijk. 


De Griekse minister van Defensie, Panos Kammenos van de coalitiepartij Onafhankelijke Grieken, dreigt de vluchtelingensluis naar Europa open te draaien als de Europese Unie zijn land niet onder zijn voorwaarden helpt. Onder de mensenstroom zullen zich ongetwijfeld ook terroristen van Islamitische Staat bevinden, waarschuwde hij zondag. ''Als ze (de EU-lidstaten) uithalen naar Griekenland, dan moeten ze weten dat de migranten papieren krijgen en naar Berlijn zullen gaan'', hield hij partijgenoten zondag voor.

Soortgelijke waarschuwingen zijn eerder uit Athene gekomen. Onderminister van Binnenlandse Zaken Giannis Panousis zei ruim een week geleden hetzelfde. Vrijdag waarschuwde minister van Buitenlandse Zaken, Nikos Kotzias, in Riga ervoor dat zijn land in geval van economische ineenstorting de toegangspoort kan worden voor ''miljoenen immigranten en duizenden jihadisten''.

Dit is niks dan chantage, en de EU mag nu best excuses eisen voor deze spierballentaal. Als alle EU-landen meebetalen aan de corruptie van een van de kleinste lidstaten. mag best enig respect van de Grieken worden verwacht. Deze dreigementen zijn volledig buitensporig en hiermee plaatsen de huidige Griekse leiders zich echt buiten de gemeenschap. 

Maar die Grieken hebben natuurlijk een mooi dreigement - ze zijn in staat de EU te laten vollopen met vluchtelingen.  Als ik de EU was zou ik nu zonder dralen iets doen om de grenzen met Griekenland te kunnen sluiten.  Kijken of die Grieken dan nog zo dreigen. Want buiten Europa gesloten worden is vast niet wat ze willen.  Maar kunnen ze dan wel svp gedwongen worden om met de EU mee te doen?  Er zijn nu eenmaal momenten dat je moet zeggen, take it or leave it, en dit lijkt me wel zo'n moment. 

Cyprianus - Brief 28 - Bisschop Cyprianus aan presbyters Moyses en Maximus en de andere belijders

Deze brief is geschreven door bisschop Cyprianus de presbyters Moyses en Maximus en de andere belijders in Rome.

Cyprianus heeft gehoord van hun geloof en hun moed. De Heer heeft ze door de belijdenis van zijn naam in verdrukkingen, een kroon geschonken. Hij noemt ze de voorhoede, de leiders op het slagveld. Ze hebben de standaard van God’s leger gedragen en de eerste slag aan de vijand toegebracht. (1.1)

In Carthago worden martelaren, door hun martelingen, tot hun vervulling gebracht. Moyses and Maximus en de anderen belijders in Rome waren de voorhoede verdienen te delen met de martelaren in Carthago in de eer.(1.2)

Ze hebben ook de discipline van de kerk hoog gehouden. Dat blijkt uit de krachtige brief die ze kortgeleden aan hun broeders de belijders in Carthago stuurden. Deze brief hebben we niet meer. “Jullie drongen er op aan dat de heilige voorschriften van het Evangelie en de opdrachten die ooit aan ons zijn toevertrouwd, met moedige en onwankelbare gehoorzaamheid moeten worden gevolgd.” Dit is jullie tweede eer: naast standhouden in verdrukking ook standhouden in deze veldslag die het Evangelie wil omverwerpen. Eerst toonden jullie moed, nu ook het juiste gedrag. (2.1)

Cyprianus citeert twee bijbelverzen die onderstrepen dat de apostelen alles wat Jezus had onderwezen, zelf ook moesten onderwijzen, en dat wie zijn woorden niet gehoorzaamd, een leugenaar is. (2.2)

Een belijder moet niet, nadat hij door de Heer een martelaar is geworden, vervolgens de geboden van de Heer teniet doen. Dat is alsof je de genade die Hij je geschonken heeft, daarna tegen Hem gebruikt. Je wordt in wezen een rebel met de wapens die je van Hem ontving. (2.3)

Groeten. (2.4)

Opmerkingen: 
  • Datering: midden tot late zomer van 250AD, omdat deze brief samen met brief #27 kwam.
  • Opvallend dat Cyprianus met geen woord spreekt over de Carthaagse belijders die hem zoveel problemen geven. Hij prijst alleen de martelaren van Carthago.
  • Interessante informatie over de aard van de verdrukkingen. In Carthago zijn al doden gevallen maar in Rome nog niet, hoewel arrestaties in Africa later begonnen. En in Rome zijn tot dusver maar twee presbyters gevangen genomen - en die zijn zelfs niet gemarteld. Dit zou overigens spoedig veranderen.
  • De Moyses die wordt genoemd verdwijnt in de winter van AD20-251 uit de correspondentie; hij is gedood. Later hierover meer. Clarke begint een zinvolle discussie over de rol van Moyses and Maximus in het Novatiaanse schisma die voor ons hier nu te ver voert.
  • Waarom wordt Fabianus niet genoemd in deze brief? Zie brief 9. Is die misschien niet aan martelingen maar aan iets anders bezweken?
  • De martelaars in Carthago waar Cyprianus aan refereert zijn Mappalicus, Paulus en anderen die hij noemt in Brief 10 en 22.

Voor deze bespreking heb ik gebruik gemaakt van The Letters of St Cyprian Volume 2 (Letters 28-54) door G.W. Clarke (Newman Press, New York, 1984).  Dit is deel 44 van de serie Ancient Christian Writers.