Yesterday I came across a Chinese demonstration outside the State Library in Swanston Street, Melbourne, calling on Australians to support the Olympics in Beijing. The message was that the Western media has distorted the events surrounding Tibet. After all, the banners told us, Tibet was, is and always will be part of China.
It appears as though a large proportion of the Chinese people (Han) believe that Tibet always has been part of China. Clearly the history books don’t offer much insight into the complexity that is Tibet, let alone China as a whole. Tibet was ruled by local kings from the seventh to eleventh century AD. Tibet was invaded, like much of China, by Mongol rulers in 1240 AD. In the early 18th century AD Tibet came under the sovereignty of the Qing dynasty, with the Dalai Lamas taking a leadership role recognised by the Chinese.
In 1903 the British Empire, competing for supremacy with the growing Russian empire, invaded Tibet. Thousands of Tibetans were massacred by the British troops. The British and Russians signed treaties with China, recognising that Tibet was under Chinese sovereignty.
After the fall of the Qing dynasty in 1912 Tibet asserted a new independence from Chinese rule. It wasn’t until 1950 when troops of the People’s Republic of China invaded Tibet that the region once again came under the Chinese banner. The Seventeen Point Agreement for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet, signed in Beijing in 1951 by representatives of Tibet and China, established a framework in which would allow the Tibetan people the right of exercising national regional autonomy under the unified leadership of the Central People’s Government. The Dalai Lama was allowed his place in the leadership of Tibet, until a rebellion in 1959.
Simple campaigns with simple slogans do distort and diminish the portrayal of truth. Closer examination of the stories behind the stories reveals that more people are implicated in the flattening of history than we realise.
Brian McLaren’s new book, Everything Must Change: Jesus, Global Change and Revolution of Hope, is coming out in October. He’s provided a few samples from the book on YouTube.
The first video comes from the introduction. Be aware that the last 50 seconds of the video allow you time to reflect on what you’ve just heard…
A reading from chapter 24, reflecting on materialistic culture and the pressure to keep up with the latest.
An explanation of the title of the new book…
Brian talks about some of the examples of deep shift he’s been looking for…
From Brian McLaren’s Deep Shift site, he explains the background to the book and the speaking tour he’s doing around its publication…
We Are In Deep Shift.
A time of transition, rethinking, re-imagining, and re-envisioning. A time for asking new questions
and seeking answers that are both new and old, fresh and seasoned, surprising and familiar.
What does it mean, in today’s world, to be a follower of God in the way of Jesus?
What does it mean to be a faith community engaged in the holistic, integral mission of God in our world today?
How do we, as individuals and faith communities, respond faithfully to the crises facing our world?
What is our duty to God, ourselves, our families, our neighbors, our enemies, and our planet in light of Jesus’ radical message of the kingdom of God?
How can we engage in personal formation and theological reformulation for global transformation?
A number of churches around Sydney this last week have put up signs saying “Jesus Loves Osama”, with the words from Matthew 5:44, “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you”. Churches involved include Central Baptist and St Clement’s Anglican Church, Marrickville. I first heard about the story when ABC Radio Gold Coast rang up asking for some comments for their morning show tomorrow morning. The campaign has been organised by Outreach Media.
Andrew Bolt at the Herald Sun has provoked quite a conversation by linking the poster with Michael Leunig’s question, “Might we, can we, find a place in our heart for the humanity of Osama bin Laden and those others? On Christmas Day can we consider their suffering, their children and the possibility that they too have their goodness? It is a family day, and Osama is our relative.”
So does Jesus love Osama? I asked that question on the night of the September 11 bombings. At a memorial service on the Gold Coast we put up images from the web showing the destruction and horror of the day, along with pictures of human compassion and courage amid the suffering. We also had a photograph of Osama Bin Laden. I had the challenge of weaving into the prayers thoughts for this man and his colleagues.
1. Which Osama?
We assume they’re talking about Osama Bin Laden, the ringleader of the Al Quaeda. Of course there are thousands of people in the world called Osama. It’s a bit like saying “Jesus loves George”. So there’s nothing special about being called Osama then…
2. What is it about Osama Bin Laden that makes this statement neccessary?
We’re aware of Osama Bin Laden’s track record in sponsoring an underground revolution in Afghanistan, forcing Russian troops out of his country. And we’re aware of Osama Bin Laden’s track record in resourcing and training militants in campaigns of resistance and terrorism around the world, including the September 11 2001 bombing of the Trade Center Twin Towers in New York City. There are people who share the passions of Osama Bin Laden. There are people who are loved by Osama. But for many people this character does not qualify for the ‘lovable’ category.
3. What is it about Jesus that makes this statement possible?
Looking at Jesus’ track record we discover a tendency to search out people who have been rejected by their peers. In some cases he’s befriended people who have been spurned because of their despicable actions. In other cases it’s people who have been unfairly treated. What appears to be consistent is Jesus’ capacity for undeserved mercy (grace) for ’sinners’.
4. What kind of love are we talking about?
A common interpretation of the word ‘love’ is centred on the concept of affection and fondness. “I love that guy”. With that meaning inserted into the “Jesus loves Osama” statement we have a distorted perception of Osama, Jesus and love. The kind of love consistently shown by Jesus is more about the capacity of our creator to engage with creation with compassion, concern and call for renewal. This is the kind of love that sees beyond our perceived aggrievances and sees God’s gift of humanity even in the lives of abusive men and women. Jesus forgave even those who treated him unfairly and brought about his death. “Father forgive them for they know not what they do”. Abd yet God’s love is not about blind tolerance of destructive attitudes or behaviour. Jesus was not shy about calling people to model their lives on his compassionate love.
5. Can love go with the use of violence to prevent further destructive behaviour?
I think so. I would prefer that to embarking on a campaign of hate.
So what would you say in response to the statement, “Jesus loves Osama?”
