Is freedom for real, if I cannot pray, where and when I want to? Prayer after all, is deeply personal, it is a private, often silent, conversation between myself and my God. I do not ask others to join, and I do not compel them to. So if I am unable to pray a blessing over my food, simply because I am in a restaurant in public, am I really still free? There is no law preventing my expression of prayer in this public place as yet, at least here in the U.S.. Am I still free to pray in my office at work, behind a closed door, and perhaps only with others of like mind – has praying in the workplace taken a step too far? Why then, if in my home life, at meals, and even at work, if I am free to pray; that I am restricted from praying in buildings and at events where my tax dollar is hard at work? Why am I not free to pray in schools, or universities, particularly if I do not compel others to do so?
It is as if common sense has been a casualty of modern life. I pray in my car all the time. I find it actually an awesome place for prayer as I am usually alone, alert, and able to hold down a conversation (or request session as they too often are) with my God. “How” I pray is altered, to accommodate the situation driving presents. My eyes are wide open. I pay attention to what I am doing. Just as if I had a passenger sitting beside me. I easily hold conversations with a human passenger. I see no distinction with holding a conversation with God. But, if using common sense, I become too distracted from talking in my car, then as the lives of others are equally at risk, I need to stop talking. It doesn’t matter whether the person I am talking with is sitting beside me, at the other end of a cell phone, or in heaven above me. We don’t need a law that forbids me to pray in my car. Common sense should govern that decision. And as it happens, very little distracts me while driving (and I drive like a typical old man, at or below the speed limit, and in no particular hurry to get anywhere).
So if we could simply rely upon common sense, I am certain there is a way to accommodate the beliefs of everyone in our schools, not forcing any participation, or denying it either. Our freedoms should not tolerate the denial of our religious beliefs; BUT and this is a bit BUT; they should not compel them either. My Atheist friends have just as much right to avoid participation in my prayers, as I do to offer them on their behalf. My Muslim, Buddhist, or Jewish friends have just as much right to pray in the matter that suits them, with or without my choice to participate, as I do, to pray to Jesus Christ (again on their behalf, J and my own). Common sense could find a way to make this work, and keep everybody happy. But where common sense fails, is when any one group asserts dominance over another. When followers of Jesus begin to think their prayers, and beliefs, are more important than those of other citizens, we get into all sorts of problems (and vice versa).
So instead of using common sense, and courtesy, to govern how we interact in public, we run amok in extremes. Atheists declare no one can pray anywhere near them, in places where government tax dollars are hard at work. This is an assertion of dominance. But is it also an assertion of fear? What has happened when instead of common sense, the church, that is to say the “right” church has unified with political or legal purpose? And further what happens when that union represents the majority opinion? You do not need to look back at the conditions that sparked religious pilgrims to run to our nation to see what religious oppression does. Nor do you need to look at what history calls the “dark ages” when Catholicism elected to burn what it could not control. There was a far worse time, a far worse event. It was something Peter witnessed personally, and transcribed to John Mark in his gospel in chapter fifteen.
Picking up in verse 1 saying … “And straightway in the morning the chief priests held a consultation with the elders and scribes and the whole council, and bound Jesus, and carried him away, and delivered him to Pilate.” The traditions of the feast frown on stoning this week. And should the Sanhedrin have stoned Jesus, they would have had to take the sole responsibility for both trying Jesus in their kangaroo court, and killing Him personally with His blood on their stones. Stoning Jesus, which was in their rights to do as permitted by the Roman Empire, might also spark an upheaval by the people at large. Should the common people find them doing this horrific deed, the Sanhedrin itself might have gotten the stones. So guilt, must find a way to kill Truth, and not be seen doing it.
The Jews did then, what was unthinkable to do. They delivered a Rabbi, The Rabbi, over to the Romans for Him to be killed. Imagine how far their hypocrisy had taken them. They hated Jesus because He did not conform to their authority. Their version of scripture, demanded that the Messiah, conquer the Roman world, and setup a permanent Jewish Kingdom that would never fall again. Jesus clearly had no intentions of doing this. Jesus would not feed the hatred of Jews against the Romans. Jesus never did a single act that would support rebellion, even against a pagan government, that was horrifically oppressive to His own people. But then Jesus saw Romans with the same love He was Jews. And this was unthinkable to the children of Abraham. They had long lost any love for those who oppressed them, or those who did not believe like them, or those who simply had the misfortune of being born of different nations. In short, they had universal hate, and very narrow love – but they were in the right religion, using the right Bible, and worshipping the right God (just not His Son).
Being in the right religion is no defense against a hateful heart. Only transformation of hearts is a defense against hate, and only Jesus offers to do this work for us, for all of us, or each of us. It is the transformed heart that loves its enemy, not seeks power over its enemy. The Jews had decided that they must unite with Rome, even if only briefly, in order to kill Christ. The Jews sought (and would find), the power of the Roman state, to end the life of the Messiah everyone had so long waited for. But then, being the right religion is no defense against union with the power of the state. Having the right Bible is no defense. The only defense against union with the state, is a heart that loves. This they lacked. So history records, what it always records when Christians seek the power of politics – namely their downfall and failure. And it begins with Jesus, and what a united Religion and State did to Him.
John Mark continues in verse 2 saying … “And Pilate asked him, Art thou the King of the Jews? And he answering said unto him, Thou sayest it.” Pilate begins his examination of Jesus from an entirely different angle than the religious zealots who delivered Him there. Pilate is concerned with only one thing; will Jesus oppose the authority of the Roman Empire. He asks Jesus about His Kingship, but how Jesus acts, how He speaks, and what He says, gives no indication that He is any kind of threat to Rome. In point of fact, His entire ministry has never been a threat to Rome, not once, not ever. Conversely, when Roman officers sought the miracles of Jesus for their own families, they found them. Jesus did not restrict His love for the Roman people, He flooded them with it, even soldiers of Rome, with Jewish blood upon their hands. And financially, Jesus did not disrupt Roman taxes, He turned crooked tax collectors into honest ones. Jesus publicly declared that Roman silver belonged to Caesar, that the hearts of men was what He was looking for, not their wallets, or wealth, which mattered not at all.
Pilate immediately senses what this is all about. Julius Caesar, whose namesake had been preserved in Roman culture, was also betrayed by those who were jealous of his power and popularity with the common people. John Mark continues in verse 3 saying … “And the chief priests accused him of many things: but he answered nothing. [verse 4] And Pilate asked him again, saying, Answerest thou nothing? behold how many things they witness against thee. [verse 5] But Jesus yet answered nothing; so that Pilate marvelled.” The Sanhedrin, the chief among them, then hurl every accusation against Jesus they think will anger Pilate, complete lies designed to make Pilate want the blood of Jesus. For the church is never honest with the state, it lies to accomplish its goals. It exaggerates, it omits, it manipulates truth, in order to kill The Truth, and nothing has changed in 2000 years. Those in whose hearts are found hate, still hate today, for love does not seek power.
The Truth needs no defense. It needs no defender. God is self-evident. Pilate looks at what is going on, he sees through the baseless and contradictory accusations designed to make him want the blood of Christ, but no such desire is found in him. What develops instead is a state of marveling, as Jesus remains silent at the lies told about Him. He does not counter the arguments of those bent on His destruction. He does not yell back at them. He does not try to hit back at them. He does not use His vastly superior intellect to reveal to all “who” they truly are, as opposed to who He is. Humans invariably do this. Humans do this particularly when their life is on the line, and Jesus’ life was in the hands of Pilate. Jesus should have been yelling. He was not. He said nothing.
How often modern Christians feel the need to defend God, and their own doctrines, at the point of the sword. They have missed the lesson of redemption, of love that would remain gentle unto death. Instead they use every story of violence in scripture (taking them out of context), and add a phrase, an eye for an eye, and feel justified in hating or killing what must naturally hate and kill them. Satan was never going to change; it is why he is Satan. The world was never going to love Christians; the world by definition does not know Christ. The defense against the world, and against Satan, is not the sword, but a heart that loves unto death. The martyrs of the past did more to spread the gospel than the wars to defend it. Wars and killing in the name of God, only destroy the name and image of God, giving no one a reason to serve Him. But a God who is willing to die so that I may live, a God (and His people) who love that much, give even that hardest enemy a reason to think twice, look again, and find what those people have. Pilate is completely convinced.
John Mark continues in verse 6 saying … “Now at that feast he released unto them one prisoner, whomsoever they desired. [verse 7] And there was one named Barabbas, which lay bound with them that had made insurrection with him, who had committed murder in the insurrection. [verse 8] And the multitude crying aloud began to desire him to do as he had ever done unto them.” Pilate has now decided to change tactics. He is going to play some legal trickery of his own. Pilate selects the most heinous criminal that the Jews are likely to hate. Barabbas not only attempted insurrection against Rome, he murdered Jews in the process. The idea of “no witnesses” is not a new one. And what is more, the people of Jerusalem were aware of his crimes. Pilate reasons that if Barabbas is made free his killing spree will resume. Any witnesses against Barabbas (of which certain of the Sanhedrin were bound to be guilty) would have their own lives at risk. Comparing Jesus, who does not kill or hate, against Barabbas who is sure to kill and hate, even Jews, perhaps particularly certain Jews who aided in his capture or trial – would be an easy choice.
Mark continues in verse 9 saying … “But Pilate answered them, saying, Will ye that I release unto you the King of the Jews? [verse 10] For he knew that the chief priests had delivered him for envy. [verse 11] But the chief priests moved the people, that he should rather release Barabbas unto them.” Even at the risk of their own lives, or at the risk of the lives of their people, the Sanhedrin wanted Jesus dead over Barabbas. They inspire the people to ask for Barabbas. But they are not alone in their work. Satan is in attendance, as he often is when hatred is triumphing over love. Demons come as well. They move through the crowd delighted at the spectacle of hate on display. They revel in the irony of having Jesus, the Son of God, standing in a mob of His own creations, bent on killing Him. They add their screams to the mix, making the noise deafening, but decided.
John Mark continues in verse 12 saying … “And Pilate answered and said again unto them, What will ye then that I shall do unto him whom ye call the King of the Jews? [verse 13] And they cried out again, Crucify him. [verse 14] Then Pilate said unto them, Why, what evil hath he done? And they cried out the more exceedingly, Crucify him.” Pilate offers the nation of Israel 3 chances to avoid what is done to Christ. He offers Jesus as an alternative to Barabbas. He asks what should be done to Jesus after that, which is an opportunity to release Him outright yet again. He then challenges the mob asking why, what evil has He done. Three times the right religion could have changed its mind, regarding the killing of The Truth, but it did not. It cried for blood all the louder. The cries for blood that come from hate only get louder, in His day, or in ours. Yet even still Jesus makes no defense, or does not try to out yell the mob.
This section concludes in verse 15 saying … “And so Pilate, willing to content the people, released Barabbas unto them, and delivered Jesus, when he had scourged him, to be crucified.” Pilate makes one last effort, as distasteful as it is to him. He has Jesus scourged unto death, one lash short of death. In this act, he hopes to inspire sympathy in the eyes of the mob, in the eyes of the Sanhedrin. But they will not be denied. They see the pain, the suffering, but they are un-moved. Instead of a release from the final punishment, this calculated risk fails, and only adds to the punishment. When later unions of church and state arise, the pain is seen by all, and ignored by all. People of conscience who believe differently than the majority are tortured and killed in front of many witnesses, and no compassion prevents it. Compassion becomes yet another casualty of this union, for it thrives on hate alone, hate at the darkest purposes of its heart, hate where only Satan sees.
It seems a long way from my ability to pray at a school or university event, and a driving hate that would kill my Lord. Christians do not see the path, or connect the dots. Instead the mantra of our day, is that Christianity is under attack. As if Captain Obvious had nothing better to say. Of course Christianity is under attack; it will always be under attack, but it is under attack from within more than it will ever be from outside. The temptation to crave power, and seek it as a defense, is not a relief from attack, it is a magnification of attack. The only true defense is love, a love without limits, or preconditions. A love that is not an excuse for sin, but an escape from sin. The transforming power of the Love of Jesus on the heart, is the only antidote for a world filled with hate, that would do its best to inspire the same within us.
If perhaps we can resurrect common sense, and learn the lost art of courtesy, then let our love drive us to pray when and where and how it is needed. Perhaps our love will allow us to be more tolerant. Perhaps our love will inspire us to look first to the redemptive needs of our neighbors, and we will find a way to be seen for what we are … the followers of Jesus, who are known for extreme love, and a constant quiet connection with Him.
No comments:
Post a Comment