Posts Tagged ‘protest’

Not our our watch?

February 16, 2019

Holy Innocents – 2019

Matthew 2:13-18

Marian Free

In the name of God who uses love, not force to ensure obedience and trust. Amen.

Some of you will have seen the recent movie, “Mary, Queen of Scots”. Mary was the legitimate daughter of James the V of Scotland, but more importantly, she was the great, granddaughter of England’s Henry VII, and, after the childless Elizabeth, she was the legitimate claimant to the English throne. Mary who at only 6 days old was declared Queen of Scotland as a consequence of the death of her father, was sent to France for her education. At eighteen Mary, a Roman Catholic, returned to a Scotland that in her absence had embraced Protestantism and did not welcome a papist Queen..

Her troubles in Scotland were one thing, but it was the fact that Mary was a threat to Elizabeth’s reign and and the fact that her presence might be the catalyst for civil war or war between the two nations, that led her to her imprisonment and finally to her execution. As long as Mary was alive, she could be a focal point for dissent in the realm and beyond, and Elizabeth’s grip on power was weakened as a result.

The history of the British monarchy is littered with stories of intrigue – of people seeking favour with the king (or queen) to increase their wealth or to bolster or secure their power; or of competing heirs to the throne who must be destroyed lest they pursue their claim by force or become figureheads for those who want to depose the crown. As a consequence, the queen (or king) learns that no one can be trusted, that power must be maintained by force and that any and all opposition must be eliminated so that they no longer pose a threat.

Given our own history, it should come as no surprise to us that Herod, whose position is entirely dependent on his relationship with Rome and his ability to maintain control over a people who despise and reject him, should be agitated when he learns from the magi that a king has been born and not only a king, but the legitimate king of the Jews. The child presents a double threat – he could become a focal point for the unrest that was always just below the surface or he could raise an army and make a claim for Herod’s throne. From Herod’s point of view there is only one way to avoid conflict and loss of face (not to mention loss of power). The child has to die. The problem, in this instance, is that Herod has no way of knowing when the child was born, so just to be safe, he kills all the boys who were born in Bethlehem in the two years before the magi’s visit.

There is no external historical proof that Herod did in fact slaughter the children of Bethlehem, but history has demonstrated time and time again that despots deal with threats to their power in only one way – by ruling tyrannically and by ruthlessly crushing any hint of opposition. Those who challenge, resist or protest oppressive and unjust regimes are usually arrested, tortured and killed – not only in the distant past but also in our present time.

News reports tell us in Venezuela today – a country in which inflation is out of control, medicines are impossible to source and food is scarce – the military is sent to into the slums to quell unrest, with violence if necessary. Protesters who are arrested simply disappear. In Turkey in 2016, an attempted coup against the government led to the imprisonment – not of students, and rabble rousers, but of lawyers and judges and military personnel. Anyone who was critical of the government or who was perceived to be a threat, was arrested and imprisoned. According to a CNN report, more than 110,000 people have been incarcerated since – a number that includes 200 top Turkish court officials. Many have been taken into custody despite the fact that there is no evidence that they had any involvement in the coup. The President was not and is not taking any risks.

In any time and place leaders who do not have the support of their people use repressive and violent means to suppress and eradicate opposition. Stalin’s Russia, Hitlers Germany, Apartheid South Africa, Pol Pot’s Cambodia, the list goes on and on. Brutal repression of revolt, the silencing of dissidents, and the scapegoating of those who are different is justified by the need to keep law and order and it gains support by the vilification and denigration of those who dare to expose injustice and oppression.

So, is Matthew’s account of the slaughter of the innocents simply a commentary on the abuse of power or – does it have something to say to those of us in twenty first century Australia who have the right to choose who governs us and the freedom to criticise our leaders and to protest decisions that we feel to be unreasonable or unfair?

I suspect that we have to recognise that there is a little bit of Herod in all of us, concern for our own welfare, fear of the unknown and a desire to maintain the status quo and in every age there will be those who abuse their power.

It is important that we do not become complacent. We have to be careful that our silence does not give legitimacy to acts of cruelty and torture, that our need for stability and security does not lead us to shore up unjust systems and oppression governments, that our own need for security and peace does not make us indifferent, or worse, deaf and blind to the legitimate complaints of others and that our desire to protect and preserve what we have does not make us fearful of the claims others might make on us.

In other words, let us be on our guard and let us do all that we can to ensure that the innocent are not slaughtered on our watch.

Jesus – troublemaker, rabble-rouser, agitator

March 28, 2015

Palm Sunday – 2015

Mark 14:1-15-27

Marian Free

In the name of God risk taker, trouble-maker, agitator. Amen.

The last decade has seen the rise of all kinds of popularist movements. We have witnessed reactions against dictatorial governments in the Arab world and against unpopular governments such as in Myanmar. In Hong Kong people took to the streets to challenge the direct influence of China in local affairs. Elsewhere we have seen protests break out in India as a consequence of the gang rape of a young woman and in Afghanistan women have risked their lives protesting the lynching of a young woman in the presence of police officers. In the United States there have been riots in response to the apparently needless slaying of young black men (and also when two police officers were murdered). I’m sure that you can all think of many other examples.

The response of governments and law and order agencies to such events depends on a number of things – how much they feel that they or the stability of their country is threatened, how much international pressure is brought to bear on the situation, whether or not they think they can wait out the protests, and whether they think that the reactions of the crowds might be justified.

Too often, movements that are violently suppressed prove in hindsight to have spoken the truth. Too often, those who challenge the establishment give their lives for a cause that later is proven to be both right and just. The problem for all of us (not just our governments) is that agitators make us feel uncomfortable, they challenge the status quo, they make us question ourselves and our motives, they unsettle our notions of right and wrong and they threaten our lifestyle.

The government and law enforcement agencies might be the forces that contain protest and rebellion, but every citizen, by their silence or failure to act, is complicit in the repression (sometimes violent) of those who challenge the established way of seeing the world. Often it is only in retrospect that many of us are able to see that those who fought for change were in fact fighting for the greater good and that the world is better for their courage and their ability to both see and tell the truth. The list of such people is endless. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Martin Luther King, Oscar Romero, Steve Biko and countless others saw clearly the evils of their time and were not afraid to name them. Each of them was seen as a threat to the establishment and the established way of life and each paid for their vision and their courage with their lives.

When Jesus entered Jerusalem his actions, and those of the crowds, caused consternation among the religious leader of the time. After all they were responsible for keeping the peace. The privileges that the Jews enjoyed and their freedom to practice their religion were dependent on submission to the rule of Rome. Jesus’ actions seemed designed to provoke a reaction from the crowds, and the crowds, filled with expectation at his coming, were throwing caution to the wind. It really is little surprise that his actions brought him into a direct collision with the authorities and that those same authorities conspired together to find some way to rid themselves of him.

Jesus challenged the willingness of the religious leaders to submit to Rome, he condemned the corruption of the Temple cult and he took the side of those who were marginalised and excluded. He saw that things could be different; that the ancient Hebrew faith could be practiced with integrity and that the community in which he lived could be more inclusive, more tolerant and more loving. Such changes were too threatening to those who were used to their positions of privilege and power.

Jesus saw clearly how things could be and was not afraid to name it, no matter the cost. His clear-sightedness and courage were confronting and unsettling and in the end both the ruling authorities and the crowds rejected his message and saw him put to death. Jesus was not a good man, a comfortable man, a man who was easy to be around. He was an agitator and a rabble-rouser who, because he was a risk to the stability of the state, was put to death.

The lessons of two thousand years ago continue to challenge us.

Can we tell the difference between troublemakers and truth-tellers? Do we respond to the voice of the prophets or do we suppress and reject those voices that cause us disquiet? Are we able to tell the difference between trouble-makers and truth-tellers or are complicit in the rejection and repression of truth? Are we willing to stand with Jesus – to the death if required – or will we, like the fickle crowds, turn against him when the cost of following becomes too high?