Friday
Russ and I removed the back four pews on each row. I'm glad we've done it, although the reaction has been mixed - tentatively hopeful.
I hope that we can make the space look beautiful before Sunday. We do need to wash the floor, and perhaps fill the empty space. I might put a small altar back there. I definitely need to put up a "pardon our appearance" sign.
Today's daily office includes a passage from the Maccabees, and much language about the sacred and the profane. The context should be familiar: a strong, economically prosperous colonial power, dictating local rules, profaning the local custom.
What is profane? the foreign - its liberality, its universalism, its attempt to supress local "variety" with imperial uniformity. Imagine the French taking over the UN and making demands upon farmers from North Dakota.
here is what the King demands of the Israelites: "follow customs strange to the land, to forbid burnt offerings and sacrifices and drink offerings in the sanctuary, to profane sabbaths and festivals, to defile the sanctuary and the priests, to build altars and sacred precincts and shrines for idols, to sacrifice swine and other unclean animals, and to leave their sons uncircumcised. They were to make themselves abominable by everything unclean and profane, so that they would forget the law and change all the ordinances. He added “And whoever does not obey the command of the king shall die.”
there is plenty of violence. And the author says, "But many in Israel stood firm and were resolved in their hearts not to eat unclean food. They chose to die rather than to be defiled by food or to profane the holy covenant; and they did die."
What's happening here?
For some, the issue is profanity and the violation of sacred does of conduct. The eating of unclean foods. The breaking of the holy law.
But the plain fact is that this is a piece first about imperial power.
In the imperial model - the king frames power. In the alternate model - its the law. And we rightly prefer, generally, the rule of the covenant over the person. We prefer the process of law over the whims of the King.
To some, it is an example of conservative "law" vs liberal universalism. The expansion of empire and universal sensibilities have long been tied. An Iraqi, however, or many conservative Muslims could easily see themselves in the same situation as the Maccabees, as Islam is, firstly, a system of laws designed to dislocate power from individuals to law.
But for others this is really a commentary about imperial power. The king does awful things to impose his values. He doesn't invite the Jews into a relationship: he tells them what to do. And then kills them when they don't comply. It's a lot like the invasion of Iraq.
I am no fan of the Maccabees. As an American who benefits from imperial rule, I like the consequences of open markets and the prosperity that, for now, our government has seemed to bring. Granted, I'm not sure if Americans are good at recognizing that too much of an income gap means less happiness for most of us, or that there is not really a connection between greed and creating value.
Sometimes I think the conservatives in the Anglican commuion want the Archbishop to impose conservative, universal rules upon local provinces. Further, unlike the story, the particulars of our worship have changed.
Perhaps Christians are the intellectual descendants of the Jews who sided with the Greeks in the first place. We've decided to forgo the provincial desires of the Maccabees, and enjoying the meat before us, and the body of the gentile lover next door.