Our Lady of Willesden, the Black Virgin

This morning I took the train to North-West London on a personal pilgrimage to the Shrine of Our Lady of Willesden. A few weeks ago I received my copy of the new Britain’s holiest places by Nick Mayhew Smith. It’s a wonderful travel guide with personal observations to the places of Christian heritage around Britain. I must confess that I had never heard of Our Lady of Willesden. Reading Mayhew Smith’s one page write-up, I jumped on the train this morning to make pilgrimage.

The Shrine is both oddly English and oddly London. It is in the Parish Church of St Mary Willesden, a rather pretty English parish church surrounded by a verdant graveyard, typical of so many village churches up and down the country. Yet just beyond its stone boundary wall is a busy roundabout with red London double-deckers ferrying passengers to and from Neasden Tube Station.

St Mary's Church, Willesden

The church of St Mary dates back to a foundation of King Athelstan, 10th-century King of England and grandson of King Alfred the Great, and was built above the holy well that gives Willesden (well’s ‘down’) its name. The church possesses many hallmarks of its age: an 11th-century oak door, a square stone font of equal age, and the water from the holy well is now piped up into a little fountain in the chancel.

Holy well of Willesden

The great treasure of Willesden, however, was its statue of the Blessed Virgin Mary with the Child Jesus, blackened with age — the Black Virgin of Willesden. It was a great mediaeval pilgrimage site, and the statue and well were the source of many a healing miracle. As with so much of our spiritual heritage, the Black Virgin was destroyed during the Reformation, being burned at Chelsea in 1538. Yet devotion could not be so easily destroyed, and, with growing religious tolerance in the 20th century, a new statue was made in 1972 by Catharini Stern. As can be seen from the picture, the statue represents the Christ Child in swaddling clothes with arms outstretched in an ambiguous gesture that is both embrace of the onlooker and foreshadowing of the Cross. A smaller golden statue of the Madonna and Child stands halfway up the chancel. It was introduced in 1902, but is not particularly special, probably being a safe choice between nothing and a full shrine statue.

Praying before Our Lady of Willesden

Unusually, St Josemaría Escrivá, the founder of Opus Dei (and whose feast day was yesterday, 26 June), came to St Mary’s Willesden every time he was in London to pray at the site of the shrine. On the Feast of the Assumption, 15 August 1958, Escrivá held his annual rededication Mass for Opus Dei in this Anglican parish church of Willesden. Because of this, Opus Dei members and many other Catholics make the pilgrimage to Willesden.On a hot day in late June, sitting alone in the cool of this handsome stone building, the holy love of the Mother for her Lord and Saviour was tangibly present, as was the faith of the pilgrims ancient and modern. Willesden is a special place for a pilgrimage, to pray for those who are need, bless one’s self with its holy water and kneel before the Black Virgin and her loving Son.

I am surprised that there is the whole spectrum of strong views about the Alternative Vote among my friends and colleagues. UK voters are being promised a referendum on whether or not to adopt AV for electing the House of Commons, and the party lines seem to be shaping up as Labour and Lib Dems for, and Tories against (with sizeable groups within parties campaigning against the leadership). I am for it, but am shocked that those I consider the most progressive and/or radical are set against it. I am a member of the Labour Representation Committee, but was knocked back when I found out that the National Committee had decided to support the No campaign.

To be honest — and, if you are of the No persuasion, I shall grant you this as a starter — AV is not a very attractive option. If we were being truly progressive, we would want a referendum on adopting a system of proportional representation. Neither AV nor our current system are designed to return seats in Parliament in proportion to votes cast. However, just because AV is not the best ever option, it is does not automatically follow that we should keep our current arrangement. When given a straight choice between AV and the current FPTP system, AV is far better as it allows voters to express their true preference and return their preferred candidate, without wasted votes or vote splitting, and reducing the need for tactical voting.

This referendum is a distraction from the real politics of the dismantling of the post-war consensus on the welfare state and public services, which are far more important. However, if we have to do this, let us do it right.

There are three lies that are being spread by the No Campaign about AV

1. That we no longer have ‘one person, one vote’
2. That it will mean that a ‘loser’ will win and a ‘winner’ will lose
3. That it will cost a huge amount of money

Under AV everyone still has one and only one vote. The difference is that an FPTP vote can be wasted by voting for a candidate who does not stand a chance. With AV, instead of the vote being wasted, it is transferred to the next preference as ranked on the ballot paper. This does not mean you get two or more votes. It is still one vote, but it can now be recycled if the first preference polls badly. With FPTP the problem of wasted votes encourages voters to vote tactically rather than expressing their true preference. For example, many more people would probably vote for the Green Party, but they do not vote for them because they reckon that to do so would be a wasted vote. Thus, the Green Party’s electoral support is probably far lower than the true preference of voters.

A good example of FPTP producing an undemocratic result can be seen in the South Korean presidential election of 1987. It had been 16 years since the last democratic election and South Korea had been ruled by a right-wing military dictatorship. The dictatorship was unpopular but still had support of about a third of the population. In the 1987 election, the former general and right-winger Roh Tae-woo was the dictatorship’s continuity candidate. The liberal and democratic opposition to the dictatorship found itself with two popular leaders: Kim Young-sam had spent decades as opposition leader and Kim Dae-jung had been arrested and even sentenced to death by the military regime. When it came to the election, General Roh won the expected 36% of the vote and these two liberal opponents garnered 54% of the vote (10% went to two minor candidates). Just over half the populace voted for a liberal president, but, as there were two separate liberal candidates, the vote was split between them — Kim Young-sam polled at 27.5% and Kim Dae-jung at 26.5%. This meant that FPTP returned General Roh as president with only the support of a little more than a third of the South Korean people. If AV had been used, the majority of voters, supporting liberal candidates, would likely have placed the other liberal as their second preference, meaning that the most popular liberal candidate would have won, Kim Young-sam.

The election of the Korean president of 1987 might seem a little off-point, but exactly this very thing happens in constituencies up and down the UK come general election — an MP is elected where most people voted for someone else. AV ensures that the winning candidate has to secure the support of at least half the votes, a true majority. This does not mean that the winner under FPTP will not win under AV. If the FPTP winner has more than 50% of the vote, they will still win under AV. If the FPTP winner does not have 50% of the votes, but then gets that 50% through second and subsequent preferences, they will still win under AV. The FPTP winner will only lose under AV if they cannot get 50% of the voters to support them. In Parliament, legislation needs to get 50% of the MPs‘ votes to pass, so our MPs should have to obtain 50% of their constituents’ votes to be elected.

AV is not complicated — we already rank candidates in European elections, and the system is used within all three major parties to elect their leader. The system of progressively eliminating the lowest polling candidate and reallocating their votes to the next preference until one candidate gets 50% of the votes is quite easy to grasp. Yes, it is more complicated than FPTP. However, computers are more complicated than typewriters, and e-mail is more complicated than faxes, but they are computers and e-mail are preferred because they generally give improved results that outweigh the increase in complexity. So too, AV is a little more complicated, but a lot more democratic.

If you don’t believe me, ask Reform Cat!

Related Articles

• Lessons from the past: why Tories oppose AV (independent.co.uk)
• Cameron’s limp opposition to AV is no surprise (newstatesman.com)
• Leading article: A dishonest campaign that deserves to lose (independent.co.uk)
• Public hostility to politics will deliver a yes to AV | Martin Kettle (guardian.co.uk)
• A liberal case against the Alternative Vote (newstatesman.com)
• PR Against AV (averypublicsociologist.blogspot.com)
• The politics of the AV referendum: Pandora’s ballot box (economist.com)
• AV is a paltry alternative for reformers | Vernon Bogdanor (guardian.co.uk)
• 12-point lead opens up for AV (newstatesman.com)

Christina Beardsley

This week has been declared Transgender Faith Action Week by the Interfaith Coalition for Transgender Equality, a fact to which I was drawn by Becky Garrison‘s article for Cif Belief. This comes after the wonderful 4thought.tv (which airs short personal statements on controversial subjects after the evening news on Channel 4) spent a week discussing “Is it wrong to change gender?“

The week began with a video by Christina Beardsley, a Church of England priest, hospital chaplain and vice-chair of Changing Attitude. Beardsley transitioned a decade ago, after 23 years of ordained ministry, and gave a succinct and compelling 105 seconds on the church and transgender. After introducing herself, she loses no time in making the point: “There is no theological objection to someone changing gender”. No ifs, no buts, no cautious relative clauses, and it is a quote she takes from George Carey, former Archbishop of Canterbury, and one who in no way could be labelled as a liberal. If that were not shocking enough for many people ­Christian and non-Christian alike — she continues by lauding the Bible for being transgender friendly. I really enjoyed seeing her hard-hitting approach, made all the more necessary due to the inherent prejudice against transgender, despite strong theological arguments to the contrary.

Christina Beardsley mentions the eunuchs of Isaiah 56.3-5 in support of her view:

Do not let the foreigner joined to the Lord say,
“The Lord will surely separate me from his people”;
and do not let the eunuch say,
“I am just a dry tree.”
For thus says the Lord:
To the eunuchs who keep my sabbaths,
who choose the things that please me
and hold fast my covenant,
I will give, in my house and within my walls,
a monument and a name
better than sons and daughters;
I will give them an everlasting name
that shall not be cut off.

This passage is God’s vision given to Isaiah of the restoration of his people. The surrounding chapters resound with social justice and the welcoming of those who were formerly despised into the presence of God. Although the term ‘eunuch’ is not a perfect fit for transgender people, it does, in context, refer to those who were outside of society’s strictly male-female order. It is interesting to note that this passage from Isaiah couples eunuchs with foreigners as those previously despised, comparing transphobia with xenophobia and racism, a failure to accept those who are different. The ‘sons and daughters’ who had previously prided themselves in their inherent possession of God’s kingdom are to be superseded by foreigners and eunuchs. Likewise, Jesus mentions eunuchs as a positive example of entering the Kingdom of Heaven in Matthew 19.12, and Philip befriended, taught and baptized an Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8.27-39.

Trans people have the same rights to get married in the Church of England as cisgender people since 2004, when it became possible to change one’s gender in law. The same applies for all of the ministry of the church, through to ordination. An individual member of the clergy may refuse to conduct the marriage or perform another ministry to a trans person on grounds of conscience, but is required to make sure that the marriage or ministry is conducted by someone else. If a trans person is legally allowed to get married in a specific church building, the clergy may not prevent it. Likewise, clergy may not ask a trans person ‘up front’ if they have changed their gender.

The other short videos of that week on 4thought.tv are also worth watching. I particularly found Keith Tiller’s video interesting: a man who has struggled with his own gender identity through his life, and found acceptance of himself as himself in Christian faith. His experience reminds us that gender identity and sexuality are still personal issues however much the personal is political. Tiller makes reference to Deuteronomy 22.5 (and could have mentioned Deuteronomy 23.1 too) as a biblical injunction against transgender. However, in context, both verses refer to ritual purity and avoidance of the practices of other ancient religions, and should be read in conjunction with the more positive verses mentioned above. It is also good to note that the Church of England’s policy, albeit a quiet one, is clearly in favour of the acceptance of trans people.

Pav Akhtar’s video is also worth noting. He mentions how third gender people were an accepted part of society in pre-colonial India and Pakistan, and how the imposition of Western prejudices has led to their increased marginalisation.

A few years ago, as a parish priest, I had a number of pastoral conversations with two trans people in the parish. I wish that conversations and resources about transgender and the church were available to me then, as I was unprepared and probably offered them little in the way of useful ministry. I pray that the church become more welcoming to trans people, and hope that the bishops be more outspoken in support of trans people.

Related Articles

• Transgendered in Faith: A Review of Progress (queeringthechurch.com)
• Trans clergy are finally gaining greater acceptance | Becky Garrison (guardian.co.uk)
• Transgendered in Faith Week: Books (queeringthechurch.com)

I joined the March for the Alternative on Saturday 26 March with around half-a-million others. It was an exciting day, and good to see people of all ages, including little children, and all backgrounds dancing and chanting along the Embankment and en route to Hyde Park. I got back to see BBC News coverage of the event, and was angry, albeit not that surprised, to see a very skewed view of what went on.  I have had around two-dozen friends say that they wished they had gone on the march, but were concerned about this or that. I have to say that this march was ultra-safe, and the babies and toddlers only cried when they saw Cameron or Clegg’s face on placards! If you stayed home and only know about the march from media reports, let me tell you something you have not yet heard: it was a great day out for all the family.

The main contingent of the march were the unions. There were lots of Unison, Unite and GMB banners there. There were firefighters marching in pristine uniforms. Teachers were marching, as were students. A huge Postman Pat was leading groups of posties. Plenty of Labour Party branches were there with banners, as were a few Green Party branches and the assorted other parties of the Left. Campaign groups were out, like Stop the War and UK Uncut. Many spent hours on coaches from Scotland and Northern England to get there. A group of carers for the elderly marched with placards, each bearing a photo of an older person and their message of support for the march — an old woman grasping her zimmer frame: “I would march if I could”. It took two hours for those at the back of the march to reach the starting point on the Embankment from which the front moved off. If each of us who marched has a handful of friends who stayed at home yet support us, the march represents many millions of Britons who refuse to accept the government’s rhetoric on necessary cuts. This is no minority, this is mainstream.

I didn’t go to Hyde Park for the speeches in the end, as I was more in need of something to eat than rallying. Ed Miliband‘s speech certainly reads better than it sounds on the video recording. However, there was absolutely no chance that he might say anything substantial. More interesting I thought was Ed Balls, Shadow Chancellor, marching (seeing as Miliband decided that marching was not quite appropriate for the Leader of the Opposition (!)) . Perhaps naively, I hope his participation represents genuine political openness to an alternative to these destructive cuts.

Members of UK Uncut (if you can call them members when you just turn up and join in) marched with us, and had publicised that they would be doing there now usual protest against tax-avoiding businesses along Oxford Street. Their protests are always good natured — dressing up and playing games — and totally non-violent. They protest to shame businesses who exploit tax rules to avoid paying their way when public services are being cut to ribbons. UK Uncut also planned a ‘top secret’ protest against a tax-avoiding business after the protests along Oxford Street. This turned out to be Fortnum & Mason, an ultra-high end grocer part owned by a tax-avoiding holding company that is owned by a ‘charity’ (in the legal rather moral sense) that has given substantial funds to the Conservative Party (illegally)  and a right-wing thinktank. The occupation and protest and Fortnum & Mason was good natured and legal. An insiders account can be read here, and a video can be seen here.

The group that everyone is having problems with is the Black Block, which is a tactic rather than an organisation of those who dress in black, cover their faces and often carry the black and red flag of Left anarchism (specifically that of anarchosyndicalism). They ‘joined’ some of the UK Uncut protests, broke windows and threw paint bombs. When police kettled Fortnum & Mason they arrested UK Uncut organisers, those who had organised peaceful protest, while the vandalising march of Black Block segments were marching around neighbouring roads. The police arrested the wrong people, likely because of the high profile of the shop targeted and their frustration at not being able to do anything to stop peaceful protest. There is plenty of evidence to show that there are no criminal charges to brought against those arrested and cases will be dropped quietly, but the work of intimidation and media placement of the arrest figures is what the police wanted.

UK Uncut, the TUC and the Labour Party have all criticised the actions of the Black Block, although without such specificity. However, I would like to point out that Black Block ‘violence’ consisted of smashing a few shop windows, daubing some graffiti on walls, throwing some paint bombs and not letting the police push them around. Today the graffiti is gone, the windows have been repaired, and all at a fairly minimal cost to the tax-avoiding businesses that were targeted.

Then as the night drew on came Trafalgar Square. A number of groups had suggested that we end up there at the end of the day and turn Trafalgar Square into our Tahrir Square. It was a little naive perhaps, but such naivety is an essential part of the revolutionary spirit. After Fortnum & Mason, the police clearly had had enough and kettled the protest in the square. At this point the square was totally peaceful. The police made a number of ‘snatch squads’ to go among the protesters to make arrests of individuals. One seems to be someone who the police mistakenly thought had been involved in vandalism. Another seems to be of someone climbing on the Olympic Clock, which police reports have fetishised to the extent of describing riot police moving in to defend the sacred object from vandalism. Protesters defended friends from the snatch squads, and the confrontation escalated from there. Arresting the peaceful protesters at Fortnum & Mason was the first police mistake, trying to make arrests on the peaceful protesters in Trafalgar Square was the second. Peaceful protesters have been made scapegoats for violence once more. Laurie Penny’s eyewitness account is certainly worth a read.

One other, secretive group was out in force on the march on Saturday. They did not carry banners, dress in black or cover their faces. They attempted to blend in, but they did not want anyone to know who they really were. I call them the Yellow Block — hundreds, if not thousands, of rank-and-file Liberal Democrats who feel their party leadership are taking the party in a direction totally repugnant to them. I wonder if the Yellow Block might have one of the greatest impacts on our politics in the near future.

Related Articles

• Cuts protest: I’m a political prisoner now | Imogen Perry (guardian.co.uk)
• Defend UK Uncut, even if you don’t agree with their tactics (newstatesman.com)
• Some food for thought from inside Fortnum & Mason (independent.co.uk)
• Our protest against the cuts was peaceful | Alex Pinkerman (guardian.co.uk)
• Cuts protesters claim police tricked them into mass arrest (guardian.co.uk)
• ‘It was my first protest. Now I might lose my job’ (independent.co.uk)

Domesday Book

Census day is almost upon us. Filling in the census form is not that difficult, and, seeing as it is used to direct government policy and funds, it is fairly important. Genealogists love those old censuses, like trainspotters anoraking for the Flying Scotsman, but as a statistical exercise the census is deeply flawed. Governments need information on their citizenry to function well, and we have been subjected to them since Mary and Joseph travelled to Bethlehem, and Will Conker got his hands on our Domesday Book. Fears about invasion of privacy, Big Brother and the database state are almost certainly overstated; of all the information held about citizens the census is probably the most secure and the most difficult to misuse. However, I am concerned that huge US arms manufacturer Lockheed Martin have been given the contract to process the census forms. We have been given assurances that the data will be safe, and I believe them (after all, I do not think the CIA would find our census returns that interesting, as they can already locate and profile each of us in a dozen different way).

So, what is to be done? I do not recommend doing anything illegal with census forms. Not returning the form, failing to answer a question (except an optional question like the religion one) or supplying incorrect information can land us with a £1000 fine. However, I do object to Lockheed Martin getting public funds for census work. Their plan is to process your census form in a few seconds flat, using computers that scan the pages, rip the information and add it to the database all at once. My suggestion is that we make them work for their money. After all, if I make a few innocent mistakes on my form and turn their few seconds into ten minutes of entering data by hand, that’s less profit going to the arms dealer, and more to the minimum-waged workers at the processing centre. If enough of us are awkward enough, the casual workers at the centres will get more work and pay, and Lockheed Martin will make less profit. After a bit of searching I found some nice tips on how to be census awkward — short version / long version. Here is a very short guide of how best to fill in the census form:

1. The bar codes help Lockheed Martin process the form really quickly, to slow them down a bit
   1. It is always fun to fill in some of the white spaces in the bar codes on most of the pages.
   2. It is very easy to loose the envelope and then have to fold the form twice to fit another envelope and write the Freepost address on it. This might prevent the initial registering of the form as sent (so someone might call round and ask if you have sent it) and make it difficult to feed the crumpled pages into the machine.
2. The machine uses optical character recognition to rip the information of the form. It is far too easy to write in joined-up or go outside of the boxes, which means the machine cannot read the form.
3. A few mistakes and crossings out, especially with those tick boxes, is inevitable, and just makes it more difficult to figure out.

Remember to be nice to the poor people at the processing centres (write ‘sorry’ when you make mistakes), and remember not to miss a question out (unless you supply the missed information by letter later, which will really slow them down) or supply incorrect information. Stay legal, and reallocate our tax money away from a cluster-bomb multinational to the people so desperate they signed up for casual work in their processing centres.

Related Articles

• The census is vital for communities | Tony McNulty (guardian.co.uk)
• 2011 Census forms go in the post (bbc.co.uk)
• This Lockheed Martin contract tarnishes the census | Chris Browne (guardian.co.uk)

Owen Jones has written this well thought-out piece about Western military intervention in Libya. Whereas I criticized those who suggested that nothing should be done, the gung-ho readiness for jetting off to Libya while totally ignoring violent repression of peaceful protesters in Arabia and the Gulf is problematic.

The Arab Spring has given way to a cold snap: Tiananmen Square-style massacres of protesters in Yemen, the Saudi invasion of Bahrain and full-blown Western intervention in Libya. It was never going to be easy. The Middle East is the most strategically important region on Earth, and also boasts the biggest concentration of brutal dictatorships: no coincidence, of course. With United Nations approval, Western bombs are now raining down on Libya. Th … Read More

via jonesblog

Related Articles

• Arguments against bombing Libya (liberalconspiracy.org)
• “Arabs wonder: “Why Libya and why not Bahrain, Yemen, Tunisia or Egypt? “” and related posts (friday-lunch-club.blogspot.com)
• Interventionists Struggle to Reconcile Libyan Action with Repression Across Arab World (news.firedoglake.com)
• Why is US backing force in Libya but not Bahrain, Yemen? (worldtruthtoday.com)
• Why MPs must say yes on Libya | Douglas Alexander (guardian.co.uk)

Those who know me know that I take fasting pretty seriously. That does not mean that I am a master of the fast; I get grumpy, get tempted when I fast; I am weak, ill-disciplined and self-centred. However, I am serious about fasting because I am slowly coming to understand that fasting helps me to understand those most deplorable qualities in me. It certainly is not pretty, but does give invaluable insight. It is a pain, but full of gain.

You see, the date of Easter is in the diary, it will come and there will be hallelujahs (that word was typed before Shrove midnight!) aplenty, but it can mean very little if we simply let it fall upon us. A few years ago I walked to the summit of Mount Snowdon. It was a great climb, but I was put out to see people arriving at the summit by train from Llanberis. They had not put in the time and effort, but just bought the ticket. However, I overheard their loud complaining about the weather or the less than perfect view, and I understood that my investment gave the greater enjoyment of the beauty and magnificence of that little bit of creation. We often arrive at Easter like those who roll off the train, and we might get something from the experience, but it is definitely worth arriving the hard way, for the hard way is the way of beauty.

The classic move of giving up chocolate is simply useless. I mean, what is the point or significance of that? Fasting need not be extreme (and should not be if you have health problems), but it should make some significant impact on our lives. This webpage offers some suggestions and advice on fasting. Remember that we can have Sundays off from fasting, and that is why there are 46 days from Ash Wednesday to Easter. As the average British person consumes so much more than the global average, and not just in terms of food, fasting can have a social-justice focus too.

When I was a teenager, my mum got suddenly ill with multiple sclerosis, and, eventually, she died. I was a confirmed Christian, but my faith was not strong. Life-changing tragedies like that can make or break faith, and it made mine. I can remember on the day of my mum’s funeral, taking a walk by the River Exe, and recognising that I had let my short life to the moment blur past like I were sleepwalking through it. I suddenly became aware of the fragility of human existence and life. Of course, I wish my mum were still around, and I wish she had not suffered, but I perceive how good still has flourished.

The Russian Orthodox writer Fr Alexander Schmemann found an apt, poetic translation for a term used by St John Climacus for the nature of our Lenten pilgrimage, it is ‘bright sadness’. It is the atmosphere that suffuses out Lenten array. Fasting is not the goal of Lent, but simply a means to breath in this atmosphere of bright sadness, and the extra prayers, Bible readings and Lent courses too can help us perceive it. As I think about the idea of bright sadness, I am almost brought to tears, but they are tears of joy. So much of our most profound Christian thought can only be understood in terms of such oxymorons, from the manger to the Beatitudes. Schmemann wrote in his Great Lent: Journey to Pascha

Little by little, we begin to understand, or rather to feel, that this sadness is indeed “bright,” that a mysterious transformation is about to take place in us. It is as if we were reaching a place to which the noises and the fuss of life, of the street, of all that which usually fills our days and even nights, have no access – a place where they have no power. All that which seemed so tremendously important to us as to fill our mind, that state of anxiety which has virtually become our second nature, disappear somewhere and we begin to feel free, light and happy. It is not the noisy and the superficial happiness which comes and goes twenty times a day and is so fragile and fugitive; it is a deep happiness which comes not from a single and particular reason but from our soul having, in the words of Dostoevsky, touched “another world.” And that which it has touched is made up of light and peace and joy, of an inexpressible trust.

On Ash Wednesday we receive the both the mark of sadness — the cross in ash on our foreheads — and the mark of brightness — the cosmic thanksgiving of the eucharist. At the end of journey with bright sadness will come the Cross and the Empty Tomb. As I heard someone say: the Cross is the Answer, go and think about what the Question is! To dwell on that Question is to dwell on the sadness of a marred divine image in creation and human nature, but is also to know the brightness that this Question is not unanswerable, not unanswered.

I wish you a blessed and a holy Lent.

Related Articles

• What is Lent Anyway, Besides Strange? (logicandimagination.wordpress.com)
• Ashes to Easter: The Lenten Journey (brianarant.wordpress.com)
• Pancakes and Ashes (stevebetz.wordpress.com)

Image via Wikipedia

Related Articles

• The Bechdel Test (guardian.co.uk)
• The Bechdel Test: Women in Film (h2g2)
• The bechdel movie test (cubicgarden.com)
• The Bechdel Test For Movies (And Media?) (mediaite.com)
• The Bechdel Test for women in movies (boingboing.net)
• A male-focused film industry is making women act up (guardian.co.uk)

In the last article, I discussed the strange swearword ‘raca’ that turned up, or got edited out of, last Sunday’s Gospel from Matthew. In this morning’s Mass, the Daily Eucharistic Lectionary gave us Mark 8.22-26 for our Gospel. There’s not really much of a link between the two, apart from the spit.

Today’s Gospel is the pericope of Jesus‘ healing of a blind man by putting his spit in his eyes. The healing takes two goes — first, the man sees people but they look like trees walking around. Characteristically for Mark’s Gospel, Jesus tells him not to tell. The spit, the walking trees and the messianic secret all add up to make a rather odd incident.

The oddness of this incident is one of the pieces of evidence that Mark’s is the earliest gospel. The three synoptic gospels — Matthew, Mark and Luke — share a lot of passages in common, some even verbatim, and often order this material in a similar way. Mark, being the shortest gospel, has parallel texts of almost every passage in either or both Matthew and Luke, so it seems that Matthew and Luke are based on Mark. Markan priority — the hypothesis that Mark’s Gospel was written first — is strengthened by the few scraps of Mark that do not appear in the other two. One of them is the spit-and-trees pericope above.

Another bit of unique Mark is the healing of a man who is deaf and mute in 7.31-37. In this healing, spit is involved once more and the people are ineffectively bound to silence again. In this healing, Jesus uses the word ‘Ephphatha‘ (εφφαθα) which is the Aramaic ethptaḥ (אתפתח or ܐܬܦܬܚ), which does mean exactly what the Greek gloss given by Mark’s Gospel says it means: ‘be opened’.

The third little bit of unique Mark is the reference, in 14.51-52, to the young man (νεανίσκος neanískos) who runs away naked, loosing the linen cloth wrapped round him, when he flees the garden where Jesus is arrested.

There are other things in Mark that are different — like an expanded account of the Gadarene swine (5.1-20) — but these three passages do not appear at all in the other gospels. The argument for Markan priority, is that it is far more plausible that writers who were using Mark’s Gospel as a source might decide that all this spit and streaking was unnecessary to the central message of the gospel and leave it out, rather than, if Mark is based on Matthew, and possibly Luke, it would omit all the great stuff in the sources and add these odd little stories.

I love this special treasury of stories from Mark’s Gospel. Their oddity is charming. Their rawness perhaps gets us closer to a ‘historical Jesus’.