Slouching Towards Bethlehem III: The Inadvertent Pontiff
by Peter Fruchter, September 20, 2006
Unbelievable. Who would have thought Pope Benedict could get his foot
that far down his own throat. Shocking.
Might turn out yet more shocking, to the faithful of Islam, than the
Muhammad cartoons. Already, in one week, riot squads have been
deployed, the Pope has been burnt in effigy and three churches have
been firebombed.
Nothing to worry about, of course. As Heri Budianto, organizer of a
protest in Jakarta is quoted to have clarified, "Only Muslims can
understand what Jihad is. It is impossible that Jihad can be linked
with violence, we Muslims have no violent character."
And now, quite properly, Pope Benedict has made complete, full and
tremulous apology. He didn't mean anything by it, since, as he put
it, "This was a quote from a medieval text which does not express in
any way my personal thoughts." Moreover, no way did he intend to shock
Islamic sensibilities. He was actually trying to pay his respects -
attempting to ".. frankly and sincerely express my great reciprocal
and mutual respect with the Muslim faith." He really and truly is
"deeply sorry".
Let's hope Pope Benedict's apologizing proves adequate. He can't
do much better - short of begging forgiveness on his knees or
converting to Islam. Let's hope. The Muslim Brotherhood said it is
good enough. Though a former deputy of the Al-Azhar Mosque said that
it isn't enough. And, presumably, whoever gunned down the Catholic
nun in Mogadishu didn't think it good enough either. Finally, close
readings of recent statements from an al Qaeda group could also be
interpreted to indicate the apologizing was not enough. The Mujahideen
Shura Council's statements read, in part, that, "... God will
(help) Muslims to conquer Rome... God enable us to slit their throats,
and make their money and descendants the bounty of the mujahideen."
Pope John Paul would never have done anything so inadvertent.
Certainly, he was capable of shocking. Shockwaves originating from his
support of Polish Solidarity were such that some blame the world-wide
collapse of state communism on him. Some blame the end of the Cold War
on him more so even than on Lech Walesa or Ronald Reagan or the Afghani
Northern-Alliance. It's not that Pope John Paul didn't cause
shockwaves. It's that Pope John Paul never caused inadvertent
shockwaves, for.. well, for God's sakes. Pope John Paul was
definitively purposeful. And isn't that what being Pope must be
about? Isn't that what pontificating means? What conceivable sense
does inadvertent pontificating make?
Whereas Pope Benedict was reported very upset that his speech on Islam
offended Muslims. Like, what's the big deal? It's not as if Pope
Benedict himself declared the Prophet to nefariously have commanded
spreading Islam by the sword. It's not even as if the Pope mentioned
that someone sitting next to him had so declared. Nope. Not even.
All the Pope mentioned was that someone back in the 14th century -
some Byzantine emperor - had declared it. And that emperor is long
dead. All Byzantium no longer exists - long gone to dust. It's
only academic, now. So the Pope doesn't get what's so shocking,
what the big deal is.
But it is a big deal. And it absolutely is shocking for the Pope to
mention anything whatsoever about Islam being sword-happy. Because
there's no forgetting the sword-happiness of Christian
fundamentalism. There's no forgetting Christian crusading, for
instance. Christian crusading repeatedly started by Papal decree.
It's a huge deal. Given the abandon with which Crusaders plied
swords at heathens by Papal decree, how dare Pope Benedict even allude
to the faithful of Islam wielding swords at infidels? Sure, on March
12th, 2000, Pope John Paul apologized for past sins of the Church. But
so what? That apology clearly didn't go far enough. It didn't go
anywhere at all. Pope John Paul failed even mentioning the Crusades.
He failed mentioning anything in particular. He might have been
apologizing for the Crusades; or for the Inquisition; or for other
persecutions of Muslims or Jews or Protestants; or for endlessly
forcing conversion against heathen cultures; or for countless other
divisive, unjust, totalitarian and murderous acts so effective in
bloating temporal church power - provided the infinite pretext of
Divine mandate. Merciful, soul saving Divine mandate. To save their
souls, for the heathen's own good. The bible and the sword - one
in each hand. No way are church hands appropriate for pointing
fingers. Such stains. Totally shocking just waving them hands around.
But pointing fingers with hands like that - regardless advertent or
inadvertent? Unbelievable.
No doubt Islamic reaction has been due to perception that Pope Benedict
was pointing fingers at Islam. No doubt Pope Benedict put his foot in
his mouth - all the way down his throat. Thing is, though, that
prior to choking on his foot, Pope Benedict was raising critical
questions concerning the role and significance of religion. Pope
Benedict might not be well advised to raise such questions. He might
not prove adequate answering the questions he was raising. But that
doesn't mean we can afford continuing ignoring the questions he
raised.
We must answer the questions Pope Benedict raised. Otherwise, we
remain in ignorant denial while confronted by conflict and culture
clashing of potentially biblical proportions. Better not. The
questions raised by Pope Benedict, while hazardous to raise, are not
too difficult to answer.
In broad strokes, the questions raised by Pope Benedict aren't so
difficult - so long as we eliminate one delusion prior answering.
One delusion likely clung to with a death-grip by Pope Benedict and his
Catholic church. Just one delusion: that there are three rival
world-major religions. Not so. There have been three world-major
religions. There now remains only one.
No rivalry between world-major religions exists. Any rivalry now
existing is not between world-major religions.
In fast broad strokes, then. The prototype world-major religion was
Judaism. And Moses totally brought something new to religion - and
to culture and to politics and even to the battlefield. Something new
of unparalleled significance: the principle of God's singularity and
corresponding capital injunction against idolatry - against
worshipping ought but the singular God.
It can't be over-estimated - the significance of the singular God
principle. It constituted a novel federalism, an unprecedented upgrade
in nation building. It forced and re-enforced cultural unity -
rooting culture not merely in shared experience but in shared
principle. It transformed a rabble temporarily distinguished by shared
experience into a people, a society entirely distinguished by
interpreting and understanding experience - whether or not
particularly shared - in light of shared fundamental principle. It
was first and chief of the Ten Commandments: "Thou shalt have no
other gods before me." This singular God principle brought about a
collective identity so cohesive that it persists to this day -
despite all intervening, interfering vagaries of history.
To start grasping the significance of the singular God principle,
contrast the siege of Jericho with the siege of Troy. The walls of
Jericho came tumbling down within days. Whereas the walls of Troy, if
they were tumbled at all, took years. And though Homer's Iliad makes
incomparably better reading than the Old Testament, and though neither
might turn out literally true, it's the contrast between the stories
themselves that illuminates and signifies. For the Greeks were
fractious, factious and divided. Inevitably divided - Greek
divisiveness inflected and reflected the petulant squabbling atop
Olympus. The siege of Troy wasn't war. It was soap-opera. Athena
having her own agenda meant, definitively, that Achilles stood apart
from Agammemnon - sometimes even against. So much for unity and
dependable chain of command. On the other hand, the Jews besieging
Jericho suffered no such collective Achilles' heel. Their unity,
formed and informed as chosen of the singular God, proved rock-solid.
More solid than the walls of Jericho. They hardly had to lift a
finger. Their unity vested them with seemingly miraculous powers. So
the walls of Jericho came tumbling right down.
There followed, eventually, the second world-major religion. And
Christianity was no prototype. Like Moses, Jesus too brought something
new to religion - and to culture and to politics and even to the
battlefield. Something completely overpowering. To the singularity of
God, Jesus added universality of access. Provided adequate submission
- unconditional surrendering to Christ - anyone could become a
member of the Christianity club. More even: everyone had better become
members of the club. Lest their immortal souls be damned to perdition.
Lest unbelief damn their souls to everlasting fire (Matthew 25:41) and
everlasting punishment (Matthew 25:46). Best rush to saving souls -
regardless what pain to impure, impious, sinning heathen flesh. For
all pain of flesh passes - but the soul's damnation continues
everlasting.
It was an utterly, totally overwhelming innovation. Never mind whether
the innovation was Jesus' or Saint Paul's - it's not about
taking names and fixing dates. What matters, what signifies, is
Christianity's provision for converting - for browbeating or
intimidating or threatening or cajoling or guilting or burning or
nagging or torturing or proselytizing or missionaring or deceiving or
however otherwise transforming the heathen, both individual and
cultural, into foot-soldiers. Into junior recruits. Into more
Christians. Ever more Christians. It was unprecedented sales-forcing
- sword in one hand, bible in the other.
It started small, Christianity. But it conquered the Roman Empire in a
hurry - and, albeit more slowly, sought continuing from there.
Initially and for a while, nothing could stand before it. Judaism, the
initial world-major religion, never came anywhere near qualifying as a
rival. It made no provision for converting ever more Jews. To the
contrary. Jews never got over gleefully thumbing their noses at
everyone else for not having been God-chosen onto their team. Judaism
never had a chance. Yet, Christianity did encounter a rival. Before
Christianity could manage saving the world for Jesus, the third
world-major religion emerged. Islam.
Who knows whether Muhammad brought anything new to religion. It's
debatable. What is self-evident, though, is that Islam managed
everything religious that Christianity did - and managed it just as
well. The singularity of God remained. And so did the provision for
converting. The zeal for converting. All that changed was converting
style. But otherwise, apart from style, what effectively was the
difference between Christians converting heathen souls regardless
damage done heathen flesh - and Muslims forcing infidels to choose
between converting to Islam, dhimmitude or beheading? No effective
difference. Perhaps the Quranic Verse of the Sword (Sura 9:5, which
abrogates numerous earlier verses - such as Sura 2:256, "Let there be
no compulsion in religion; truth stands out clearly from error.") or
Suras 17:16-17 ("When We resolve to raze a city, We first give warning
to those of its people who live in comfort. If they persist in sin,
judgement is irrevocably passed, and We destroy it utterly.") dictate
Islamic converting zeal more overtly - but that's just a matter of
style. Not of substance. There's no effective difference.
And so, with the emergence of Islam, there began a vying between two
rival world-major religions. The prototype first world-major religion
failed to qualify. It remained prototypic. The rivalry between the
second and third, between Christianity and Islam, however, was acute
- and unabated. It was stalemate between them. Christianity
conquered the north. Islam conquered the south. They never managed
conquering each other, though. It was stalemate between them.
But Christianity stumbled. A host of new prophets - from Copernicus
to Galileo to Newton and Darwin - emerged preaching materialism.
They tripped Christianity up so bad it fell on its head. The Christian
church collapsed, crushing Christian fundamentalism in wreckage.
It's considered a good thing, the collapse of the church. We refer
to the collapsing as enlightenment. And it was earth-shaking. For
while it caused no truth of nature to alter,
it entailed categorical transformation in the nature of truth.
Thus collapsed the church. The very foundation pulled out from under
it. By transformation in the logical character, in the very nature of
truth. Where churches had once stood there remained but wreckage; and
in that wreckage, crushed, lay fundamentalism. All fundamentalism.
Any fundamentalism. Irrelevant whether Judaic, Christian, Muslim or
whatever else. Governance by fundamentalism was past reviving where
churches had once stood.
What was the transformation in the nature of truth? Simply this.
Imagine whatever biblical doctrine. For instance, imagine a bible
passage declaring, "All crows are black." Prior enlightenment, had
anyone claimed to have seen white crows, the response would have been,
"Which part of all crows being black didn't you get? If it
wasn't black then it wasn't a crow." And, had the person
continued claiming to have seen white crows, it would have gone badly
for them. Since crows being black would have been received as
definitive prior enlightenment. There was, therefore, no coherent
claiming otherwise. Talking white crows might easily have resulted in
shunning or leeching or exorcising or staked burning. Not so
subsequent the enlightenment. Post enlightenment, claiming to have
seen white crows would have elicited a completely different response:
"Really? Maybe it isn't the case that all crows are black. Maybe
there are white crows. Show me." It would no longer have gone so
badly talking white crows. Since crows being black would have been
taken as a - descriptive - matter of fact post enlightenment. And
thus, there emerged the possibility that describing all crows as black
was, as a matter of fact, incorrect. False.
Not only was biblical doctrine opened to questioning in terms of
personal security. Falling into materialism meant that biblical
doctrine came to be taken as potentially false in fact - rather than
received as definitively true in meaning by divine fiat. Everything
was opened to questioning. Any even biblical doctrine came to be
regarded as possibly false. Truth ceased being a function of
privileged biblical revelation. It became a function of material
evidence. God could not be harmed by this - but where churches had
once stood, fundamentalism lay crushed.
People ceased being certain of truth. And since beliefs contrary to
their own might turn out true - well, people began tolerating
disagreeing. People became tolerant. They abandoned convictions that
those disagreeing established doctrine were damned or possessed or
insane - and, if persistent, better off dead than continuing such
devil working. That's what the fundamentalism crushing collapse of
the Christian church meant. That the disagreeable were no longer
better off dead.
In truth, it was a new dawning. Ideas were conceived, exchanged and
investigated. Innovation in science, culture and politics flourished.
From the rubble of Christian church and the corpse of fundamentalism,
technology began blooming exotic, perhaps unnatural profusion. Much
was gained. Something fundamental was lost. But never again would
fundamentalism grasp truth in definitive grip. Not on grounds where
churches stood. And there were no other grounds for governance to
issue from the church. As far as governing went, the Christian church
no longer stood.
Fundamentalism was mourned by some. Some pined to grasp truth
definitively again. But all attempts marrying materialism with
definitive certitude - state Marxism, Germanic supremacism - proved
abortive. Materialism abides no definitive certitude. And now, where
once churches stood, we have fallen into post-modernity. We have
fallen too deep in materialism. Our tolerance has become too absolute
for us to conceive our own former principles. We can't conceive any
definitive character of truth - and have thereby lost our faith in
truth. And though we retain some our former principles, it is just by
habit. We don't understand what our principles meant, what we once
stood for. For sure something has been lost - even though so much
was gained.
Meanwhile, however, what happened to Islam? What happened to Islam
since Christianity stumbled? What's happened to the mosque since the
church collapsed? Since Islam became the sole world-major religion -
since mosques alone retained that old-time fundamentalist grip on
governance? Nothing happened. Absolutely nothing. The Mosque remains
firm as ever. Definitively firm. It is not challenged by temples. It
has never been challenged by synagogues. No collapsed church has stood
once more to challenge it. Just the mosque remains - un-assailed in
that fundamentalism whereby it governs regardless shifting sands of
time and circumstance. Un-assailed - yet for a long good while
helpless.
Helpless. For what was Islam to do while modernity waxed in such
material ways where churches had once stood? Not much it could do.
Not much but hold definitively tight to old grudges.
But the day of Islamic helplessness is over now. Now mosques govern
the world's most affluent regions. Now Islamic affluence can
purchase whatever arsenals it needs at open markets. Now Islam may not
even require arsenals as it penetrates obliviously tolerant splayed
open societies - where once churches stood - with relative
impunity. And now Islam likely builds nuclear weapons just for good
measure.
Post-modernity can't begin understanding Islamic fundamentalism. Nor
can Islamic fundamentalism conceive or appreciate Post-modernity. But
Islamic fundamentalism totally can take advantage of Post-modernity's
confused weakness.
When a mujahideen explodes himself and as many infidels as possible, it
is not because he hates us so much he's prepared to die in order to
strike back at us. It's not like that at all. He is expressing
truths. Definitive truths. Truths about his eternal rewards - God
willing. Truths about the greatness and glory of God - and what
befalls those who refuse to acknowledge and submit to His greatness and
glory. It's not that the mujahideen is prepared to die for these
truths. He's eager to die for these truths. Eager to die killing
all disagreeing the truths of Islam. It's not like he might be
wrong. Definitively not. For the meaning of Islamic doctrine received
in light of true belief is faith - God-given definitive truth upon
which doubt may cast no shadow. And mujahideen of exemplary faith
express God's truth most absolutely in martyrdom. They aren't
merely willing. They are eager. It is such joy unto the Lord as
Christians are no longer able to appreciate - not since Christianity
has been reduced to a hobby.
There have been three world-major religions. Major by virtue their
overwhelming all opposition. Their overwhelming was invariably founded
in unifying authority of divinely revealed definitive truth and unified
enforcing of truth revealed. Holy book in one hand. Sword in the
other.
Judaism, the prototypic first world-major religion dropped from the
competition - thereby ceasing to qualify as major. There remained
two world-major religions. Neither managing to submit the other. Then
Christianity stumbled. So now there remains but one world-major
religion. Islam.
There is no difference between the swords of Islam and Christian
swords. A sword is a sword. It's just that there are no Christian
hands remaining to take it up. And isn't it natural concluding
that's what's really agitating Pope Benedict?
.
|
