Via Wally Campbell I have encountered yet another version of the whole “Jesus Was An Anchor Baby (In Yo’ FACE, Righty!)” meme. Sigh. These are always well-meaning, in that they want us to realise that we should treat people better and guide our lives with Christian principles if we claim to adhere to that faith. But they’re always so NASTY underneath. There’s this whole attitude of “I know Jesus better than you” and “Gotcha! You so bad!” This particular one I had to just sort of drill down a little bit because in trying to make his point, this dear brother of mine stretches some historical facts and massages a few others.
(By the way, if you already saw what I wrote on Wally’s Facebook status, you can just skip this next part, because it’s a repeat.)
1) In the days of the Roman Empire all of the areas encompassed by “Judaea” were ruled by the same ruler–Herod, with the imprimateur of Caeser Augustus. So going from Nazareth to Bethlehem was more akin to me going from Tennessee to Indiana to register for the census, since I was born there but live here. No one would call me an “illegal immigrant” to Indiana.
2) Were I to have a baby in Indiana, that baby wouldn’t be my “anchor baby”, because I’d be as free to choose to live in Indiana as I am to live in Tennessee, with or without issue.
3) Jesus wouldn’t have taken a carpentry job away from a legal Nazarene. Carpentry was a trade to which one would be apprenticed. It wasn’t working in a call centre. Granted, Joseph could have tendered another apprentice, perhaps, had he not had a stepson ready to enter service. But such event would be unlikely in a community as fertile as Judea. Especially since, as we will recall, all the boys of Jesus’ age were dead. There would actually be a SHORTAGE of young men to apprentice. So instead of “taking a job from a legal Nazarene” Jesus would be a boon to a seriously depressed economy suffering a huge labour shortage.
4) This whole “Y’Shua was An Anchor Baby, Oh Noes!” meme has been going around the Left/pro-immigration sites for a good long while now. I get really tired of the politicisation of the various lives and views of Jesus by both sides of any issue. It always sort of misses the points of both Christianity and exegesis. Christianity is about making over our lives in service to God and Grace. Exegesis is about critical interpretation of scripture to aid us in that transformation. At no point in either discipline is “Nyah-nyah-nyah” a relevant outcome.
—-
Now, I’ve already written a long prooftext/essay on my reasons for become an Open Border type person. So please don’t start haranguing me with assaults on a belief-system you assume I hold. I want people to come here. I want to share hope and opportunity with anyone who wants to work for it. But I don’t think we need to abuse history and scripture to make that happen.
I enjoyed reading your comments on my post. I do not believe that I was saying, “nyah, nyah, nyah” nor attempting to be “in yo’ face, righty.” My apologies if that is what you brought to my post, as that was not my intention and I do not believe it is there.
You make an excellent point of politicizing religion. Yet I believe that Jesus’ birth and life are very political. If Jesus is who he says he is, then he identifies with the immigrant, he identifies with the anchor baby, he identifies with all who are oppressed in his lifetime on earth and speaks to the oppressed of every generation that has lived ever since. To recognize Christ in the least of these is indeed a transformative act which can mold our hearts to be more of that service and grace that you speak of.
Each of the gospels were written at different points in time to address specific Christian communities. The gospels address specific political realities that were being faced by those Christians. Matthew gives hope to the persecuted. Luke speaks to the heady and overly rational Greeks/gentiles. John combats the gnostic writings that were gaining popularity and threatened a specific form of Christianity. These are all political writings.
Further, there is very little evidence of historical fact in regards to the infancy narrative of Jesus. There is no record of any census taken during the rule of Herod the Great. The Magi did not exist. ( I am currently reading a 2nd century text that has influenced much of what we add to the Magi story and the star was a vision of Jesus as star not a real star. There are many medieval paintings that depict the Magi being led by a star-child of Jesus based on this text.) And the massacre of the innocents in Bethlehem (it was not countrywide as you allege) also did not occur. Luke and Josephus do not mention it. One would think that Luke would at least have mentioned such a horrendous event. Yes, Herod the Great did live and he did die around 4 B.C. around the time that many believe that Jesus was born. My point, in mentioning this is to strengthen my assertion that the gospels were written for political aims to support a growing Christian community.
These additional pieces of historical truth allow me to speculate on the identification of Jesus with anchor babies and undocumented immigrants. I believe I am well within my grounds to do so and the transformation of recognizing Jesus as anchor baby, as undocumented immigrant is to change not just our immigration laws but also our foreign policies that created the need for these people to flee their home land for ours. If we are in service to God then we will seek to reform our laws to reflect a more compassionate, a more justice focus, a more humane way of being. We as a nation have sinned and sinned grievously against our neighbors to the south.
Blessings,
So you don’t see how, even in your comment, you come off as sanctimonious and judgemental?
Look, I don’t disagree that we need to fix several things about ourselves as individuals and our public policies toward those in need both here and outside our borders.
But this sort of bringing Jesus into it–especially a Jesus about whom we have a vastly different operational definition–smacks of smugness and a calculated sort of spiritual bullying.
Hmmm… I do not see my post as sanctimonious nor as judgmental and certainly not as a calculated sort of spiritual bullying. So I am going to have to ponder your statements because that is not how I see myself nor how others have seen me, even others who disagree with me.
What I thought I was doing was having a dialog which you invited by writing about my blog. Yes, I concede there is a different operational definition–not convinced it is vastly different but different– but how do people come to understandings if they do not express their beliefs? How do we close the divide if we do not engage in conversation with people who are different from us?
I am hearing you say that you are offended when people, like me, experience Jesus as a prophetic voice to address society’s ills, regardless of which side of the political aisle they sit. Am I mis-reading you here? But this is how I have experienced Jesus. And I do not see how that demeans your experience of Jesus in the least. If anything our experiences of Jesus has the potential to enlarge, enhance, broaden, and expand our collective experience and understanding of Christ’s message. But if we refuse to discuss Jesus in our realm of experiences then, I believe, we diminish him.
As I stated above, I enjoyed reading your comments. That was a sincere statement not one written with sarcasm or with any other meaning than the words on the page.
Now if all of this comes across as more of the sanctimonious, judgmental, spiritual bullying that you are accusing me of, then I do not know what more to say. I tried to have a conversation. I tried to communicate my beliefs as honestly as I know how and I tried to be respectful in my response to you. I will continue to reflect on your accusations as they still baffle.
Blessings abound,
Rev. Fred L Hammond