Jerusalem: The Biography

Biographer explains a city steeped in holiness, violence.

CNN:

Its name translates from Hebrew as “abode of peace,” but for more than 3,000 years, Jerusalem has been anything but peaceful.

Ancient civilizations conquered it. The Romans left it a slaughterhouse. Muslims, the Crusaders, the Ottomans, the Israelis and the Palestinians all have left their mark, often in blood.

And that’s not even to bring up the religious disputes, the clashing neighbors, the fanatical pilgrims and the earthquakes. (Yes, earthquakes.)

Yet Jerusalem maintains its status as perhaps the most important and holy city in the world. It is here that the three great monotheistic religions lay their claims, that countless cultures have built centuries-old shrines, and where arguably the world’s biggest geopolitical conflict, between Israelis and Palestinians, plays out every day.

British historian Simon Sebag Montefiore, author of the new book “Jerusalem: The Biography,” knows the city well. His great-great uncle, financier Moses Montefiore, was a major philanthropist who founded one of the city’s first “new” neighborhoods in the 1860s.

Montefiore spent three years on the biography, which chronicles the city’s evolution over more than four millennia, from a Canaanite development to the modern city splintered between Israelis and Palestinians.

Montefiore spoke to CNN from his home in London. The following is an edited version of the interview.

Why Jerusalem? Why this place, which is not a port and didn’t seem to have much strategic value – how did it become a world capital?

It’s both tradition and evolution and also the decisions of a series of powerful men, who for their own reasons made the decision to intensify Jerusalem’s importance. Some of them did it by destruction, [such as] Nebuchadnezzar and Titus. Other people did it by building – Herod the Great, or Suleiman the Magnificent. And others did it by political decisions, such as Lloyd George and the Balfour Declaration promoting Zionism. So all for different reasons, different times, and often for political reasons.

How did you know what sources to trust, including religious texts such as the Bible?

One has to look at every source. So in that sense it’s not that different reading the Bible [than other documents]. I treat it as a historical source, and you have to make judgments about whether it’s sound or not.

But in Jerusalem everything is more fraught and there’s more sorts of disagreements and more vicious hatred about every one of these arguments than anywhere else.

Did you find yourself challenged on your details of historical events by religious leaders?

I’ve been challenged by everybody. Every sect, every group tried to intimidate me into doing it their way, and it’s something you have to be very cautious about. But I wanted to make sure I included every sort of sect. It was a very hard book to write.

I had it read by both the [Palestinian] Fatah organization and the Israeli government, and both of them gave me a list of corrections that they wanted changed, and gave me guidance about what they thought was right and wrong. And both of them gave me absolutely the opposing corrections. If I’d really wanted to negotiate this book, it would have been as complicated as negotiating the Oslo accords.

Is Jerusalem now a political city, with the religious stuff tourist bait?

I think the Christian stuff is tourist bait, but [with] the Muslim and Jewish stuff, the religion and politics are completely interlocked. It’s impossible to separate them.

There have been other great cities that have vanished or turned into shadows of what they once were. Why did Jerusalem succeed where they failed?

It’s part of the alchemy of power, the combination of so many different things. It’s the geopolitical, geostrategic position of the Middle East, partly. Every conqueror has had to march through it. That’s a circumstance that has nothing to do with religion at all, but imperial and continental geopolitics.

But one thing over many centuries has made return to Jerusalem much more likely, and that’s the ascendancy of the Bible, which is really Jerusalem’s story in many ways. Anyone who believes it’s fundamentally God’s word will naturally return to Jerusalem, and that’s happened many times throughout history, and that more than anything has made Jerusalem the center of the world.

Jesus’ story is as much political as it is religious. What was it that made him special among all the prophets of the time?

What was special in part among the early Christians – and not just Jesus, but St. Paul, as well – was that they were two extraordinary men. Another thing was that the Gospels were written down, so the Jewish-Christian sect … [had] a far longer life than many of these short-lived prophets who rose up and were destroyed.

And the other part of it was timing. The fact that the early Christians survived 40 years after Jesus’ death and were already considering St. Paul’s work appealing not just to Jews but to gentiles, and the fact they were doing that when the Jews were defeated and Jerusalem was destroyed meant that they separated from the Jewish religion abruptly, and meant that the religion had a life outside Judaism.

Those are the decisive reasons a historian would name. Obviously a Christian believer would simply believe that Jesus spoke the truth and he was the real thing.

You talk about Jerusalem Syndrome, the mental delusion triggered by the city. Is it possible prophets were affected, as well?

It all depends on your definition of holiness and madness, doesn’t it? There are a lot of holy people that secular people think are mad, and religious people think are observant. This is one of those judgments I tried to avoid making in the book, for obvious reasons. And people tend to think that their own religion is kind of sensible and rational, and think that everybody else’s is totally nuts.

What are your impressions of Jerusalem after having chronicled its history? Did your opinion of the city as a city change?

It did in a way. The more time you spend there the more you realize what an angry place it is. It’s angry, it’s dirty, it’s chaotic, it’s bigoted, it’s fanatical – as well as being the most holy, most beautiful, most exquisite, most fascinating, most complex city in the world. Again and again you return to the fact of how extraordinary and beautiful it is, as well as how bigoted and tense it is. It becomes more contradictory the more you know it.

It’s becoming even more religious. For a start, the Muslims of Jerusalem are becoming even more observant than they ever used to be. And at the same time, the Jews are becoming much more Orthodox, too. Nationalism is still very powerful, but religion has become even more so.

Are you optimistic about the future of the city?

Not in the short term. I just hope the quality of leadership on both sides improves. I hope that somehow some leaders come to the fore that are more far-seeing. In Israel it’s not helped by the political system which is becoming disastrous, and on the Palestinian side it’s not helped by corruption, division and extremism – which are also very present on the Israeli side.

The peace deal is already kind of known. It’s just a question of accepting it, and both sides have to have the will. There has to be the right moment and there has to be the right leadership. That’s a lot of conditions, isn’t it?

 

‘World’s Oldest Bell’ Uncovered in Ireland

It was excavated way back in the 1930′s:

A team of Derry archaeology enthusiasts have discovered what they believe could be the oldest known church bell in the world.

Templemore Archeaology (TA) discovered the bronze bell stored in a farmyard in Shantallow, where it has remained without being studied by experts since being excavated as part of a building project in the 1930s. The artefact, which measures around one foot in height, is in good condition and shows evidence of Christian design.

Ian Leitch, of Templemore Archaeology, explains that four symbols decorate the bell and one is quite clearly visible as “Our Lord on the cross”. “Another may be St Patrick,” he added.

The team believes the bell dates from 15th century – 1411 to be exact – and may have been made in France. Mr Leitch adds: “According to the Guinness Book of Records 2009, there is a set of bells in Ipswich in England and one of the five bells has a date of 1440. This bell is said to be the oldest church bell in the world.”

“This year marks the 600th anniversary of the bell. It is written that somewhere North of Derry city there once stood an abbey or church within the Greater Shantallow area and it is said to have been inhabited by either nuns or monks.”

It’s believed that the site could be near the historic O’Doherty Castle in the Greater Shantallow area. Members of TA certainly believe they are getting closer following the recent major archaeological find. Mr Leitch says: “TA would now hope, once the bell has been taken to the relevant authorities and restored to its former glory, it can be returned to Derry to be showcased for the public.”

Commending the local team, Shantallow Derry City Councillor Tony Hassan said he would love to see the bell displayed in Derry.

 

Church Meetings Cannot Be Held In Public Schools

In yet another sign of the times. The Wall Street Journal reports:

The United States Supreme Court has declined to hear a case over whether a church can hold religious services in public school facilities, ending a 16-year legal battle about the rights churches have in public schools in the city.

The decision means about 60 churches have less than a month to find new spaces for their congregations, according to a previous agreement between the Department of Education and the churches, lawyers for the church said.

Lawyers for the Bronx Household of Faith, an evangelical congregation that meets at P.S. 15 in the Bronx, had filed a petition in late September hoping to get an earlier court ruling overturned.

Churches who use the school spaces pay nominal fees for security and custodial staff. The policy has saved fledgling churches from having to pay market-rate rents for worship space in meeting centers or hotels. While the court’s decision was pending, churches had continued meeting in public schools.

In June, the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that allowing church services in schools violates the principle of the separation of church and state. A Supreme Court case in 2001, Good News Club vs. Milford Central School, ruled that a school could not deny a Bible study group access to school facilities. But the Bronx case applied specifically to religious worship services, allowing the appeals court to rule in favor of the Department of Education.

Jordan Lorence, a lawyer for the church, said he was surprised that the Supreme Court declined to hear the case.

“The Supreme Court’s decision not to review this case is befuddling because it has already ruled multiple times in other equal-access cases that the First Amendment protects religious worship the same as secular speech,” he said.

New York City school officials have not yet responded to calls for comment…

St Nicholas Flying Swiss

Awesome.

HT

Archbishop John Hepworth and the Traditional Anglican Communion: Reflections

To Archbishop John Hepworth (Primate), the TAC College of Bishops, Bishop Michael Gill (my Ordinary) fellow Clergy, brothers and sisters in Christ Jesus.

I wish to reiterate a previous call (made publically), for Archbishop John Hepworth to step down as Primate of the Traditional Anglican Communion and to do so forthwith. Under the present circumstances, it is the only honourable thing left for him to do.

By now, most people have heard of the Archbishop’s appal shaming of a Roman Catholic Priest, a Vicar General and the former Director-General of the Chaplaincy in the Australian Navy who, up until this point, had been a Priest in good standing.  This was done via the mouthpiece of independent senator, Nick Xenophon, who used his ‘parliamentary privilege’ to ‘name and shame’ the Catholic Priest. The ambiguous claim made by Archbishop Hepworth was that he was raped by the said Priest some 45 years ago. Hepworth was a 24 years old man at the time. It is the Herald Sun, that gives us some insight into the graphic, sad and sordid details (quoting verbatim our Primate):

‘Let’s first remind ourselves that “rape” generally means the victim was forced to have sex against their expressed will, usually because they were too weak to resist. The rapist must also know that the victim was objecting.

It’s a terrible accusation, and X has now had his reputation trashed. Who believes a Catholic priest is innocent when the hostile press brays that he’s a rapist or might be?

Yet even the most basic facts of this case raise grave doubts.

Hepworth says he was at least 24 years old when X allegedly raped him; X was one year older. This is not the stereotype of an older priest intimidating a boy.

Nor is it obvious that X could have overwhelmed Hepworth with his strength. Hepworth is 1.88m tall — or six feet two. X is shorter.

Hepworth doesn’t claim he was drugged or drunk, either.

He told The Australian he’d been invited to the beach one night by two priests, one of whom “stripped off and began wrestling with me”.

“He was stronger than me,” Hepworth said. “Or perhaps I was just weary of it all … I remember cold, wet sand…

But then comes a caveat: “I want to state quite clearly that I never fully consented to sexual activity …”

Never “fully” consented? What does that mean?

In fact, Hepworth describes his reaction hours later as not one of anger, but guilt: “I had an awareness of the illegality of homosexuality, a sense of gross sinfulness, but also a sense of the glamour of the group with which I had been involved.”

Couldn’t this suggest that Hepworth’s “no” was a quiet no from his conscience, not a loud one to his “rapist”? Indeed, Hepworth claims he was sexually assaulted by X up to seven more times, yet not once did this tall man forcefully resist. He says he felt “so weakened physically and emotionally” by his past abuse that he just gave in.

To the ABC, Hepworth told a similarly ambiguous story.

ABC: Why were you unable to stop it?

Hepworth: Even though I was six foot two and I was fairly light in those days, but I always thought myself a very small person, very weak person.

I was trying to befriend a few people, priests. I think it was out of a sense of loneliness, also a sense of an effort to belong. And then the experiences of (his past abuse) particularly, of overtures that I couldn’t resist and didn’t know how to, repeated itself a number of times.

And when I had come close to people whose company I found thrilling, entertaining, invigorating and then these events happened, I think I was confusing the expectation of sex almost with friendship.

ABC: Does that mean that the people with which you were involved in these episodes would have thought that you had consented?

Hepworth: No. I would say things that were negative. No, not this. No, don’t . . . I don’t believe anybody could have thought I was consenting. I was taken advantage of.

He confused sex with friendship? Wanted to belong? Said no to some things?

Even on his evidence, there seems more reason to doubt Hepworth was raped than there is to believe it.

In fact, X strongly denies any rape, and at his press conference one parishioner called him “a good shepherd” and another, a retired judge, “a good bloke”.

Moreover, Hepworth’s credibility has been challenged in the past.

He concedes he faced a Ballarat court about 30 years ago, charged with misappropriating $1200 — a lot of money back then — from his Anglican parish to pay for his son’s baptism party.

“I pleaded not guilty. The magistrate refused to find any verdict,” Hepworth told the Canberra Times.

“I was trying to stop the marriage breaking up. My then wife wanted a big party and I could not afford it.

“The diocese brought (the charge) because I had wrongly used … (a parish account) and regretted it … I had paid an account intending to pay it back.”

Hepworth was also accused of financial irregularities at Glenelg, an Adelaide parish he administered in 1974, but says his bishop refused to confirm any allegations to an investigator.

Again, he denies any wrongdoing and we must give him the benefit of the doubt.’

I must at this point state that none of these things were previously known – and not least of all by those whom Archbishop Hepworth was now supposed to be shepherding. It is here that things really began to unravel, and rapidly so. In light of the ‘breaking news’, a call was immediately made in the form of a resolution passed during a meeting of the Anglican Church in America for the Archbishop to resign. He chose rather frivolously, to ‘rebuff’ the call:

‘Archbishop Hepworth told ABC radio this morning he still had the support of his church and the Vatican to proceed with negotiations.

“Nine years ago, when I became the primate, I wrote to the then Cardinal Ratzinger who headed the CDF, which is where unity takes place, and said that if I ever became an obstacle through my personal circumstances or background, then understand that I will step aside,” Archbishop Hepworth said.

“Now, at the moment, the Vatican isn’t saying that to me, they’re saying to me the opposite, to keep going as you are.”

He said calls for his resignation by the Anglican Church in America House of Clergy were spurred on by church politics and the ongoing public spat with the Adelaide Archdiocese over the rape investigation.’

Far be that from what the true intention was (at least not from what I can see): A call for the Traditional Anglican Communion to be distanced and spared from the embarrassment of becoming embroiled in a repulsive sex scandal, one that should have been a private point of conflict between the Primate and the Catholic Church. However showing very little regard for anyone but himself, the Archbishop rather selfishly blundered on:

‘The head of the Traditional Anglican Communion, John Hepworth, is hoping a reunion between his church and the Pope will be ratified within weeks despite concerns his abuse complaints could hinder the process.

Archbishop Hepworth’s group, which splintered from the Anglican Church and wants to unite with the Catholic Church, has 400,000 members. “I think it will be a very successful resolution in the new year,” he said.’

Something else then briefly surfaced:

‘Controversial Anglican Archbishop John Hepworth has offered to drop demands for action over rape allegations against a senior priest identified in Parliament.

In exchange he would like help to return to the Catholic Church.’

The above report was however quickly rubbished (the very next day) – it had to be for the insinuation would be tantamount to a form of blackmail.

Next came the real bitter pill:

‘Archbishop John Hepworth will be forced to relinquish his role as the primate of the Traditional Anglican Communion if he is to reconcile with the Catholic Church, after being informed he will only be accepted as a layperson.’

Total disbelief. I recall saying at the time: ‘this will surely test (and demonstrate) the sincerity of the man’. And I believe it has done exactly that.

While the decision made by the Roman Catholic Church is but a standard procedure applied to anyone who has forsaken his vows and abandoned the Catholic Priesthood - as John Hepworth did - humility, honesty and following the conviction of his previously vociferously held beliefs (namely, the ‘accept[ance of]  the ministry of the Bishop of Rome, the successor of Peter…  [and] that the Church founded by Jesus Christ subsists most perfectly in the churches in communion with the See of Peter’), the Archbishop should have submitted to the judgement of that higher authority, one he so believed in. But alas, this was not to be. Instead of doing so, and showing the world what true humility faith so frequently seems to demand of us, he weighed his options and decided to:

1. Take his ‘sex case’ to the police.
2. Resign as Primate at Pentecost but stay on as Bishop Ordinary in Australia and Japan, and under legislation of the Canadian General Synod, Primate of the ACCC.

His first choice amounted to a total public spectacle. Posing, striding in full regalia in front of the Adelaide Police Station prompted one commentator to reflect:

‘I fail to see how any of this public posturing aids in the fulfilment of what should be any bishop’s mission in life (or indeed any Christian’s)–the furtherance of the cause of the Gospel. It saddens me deeply.’

Every bit of evidence, investigation, and inquiry, apart from his own testimony, shows that there is absolutely no substance to his claim to have been raped by the Catholic Priest. None. Zip. Nothing. What does he possibly hope to accomplish now and why does he not do so in a personal capacity? Leave the TAC out of it. Please!

As for the second pronouncement, by whose authority does he get to make such a decision, one begs to ask? His own? The Church is not some kind of autocratic state where you get to do as you see fit. Collegiality is how it is supposed to work Archbishop. Why? So that we can avoid falling into error and sin. Now, in this case: One day you’re merrily off to Rome, and the next, oh, but the offer was somehow not quite good enough? So now I’ll stay? Surely not Archbishop, for that would make you, by your very own words, nothing short of a hypocrite.

It is the now expressed will of the majority of his sheep and fellow Bishops, that Archbishop Hepworth resign to sort out the mess that he alone has created for himself; and moreover, to stop dragging and bringing the credibility of the TAC as a whole into disrepute. Truly, there are ‘none so blind as those that will not see’ (Matthew Henry). Why will Archbishop John Hepworth not accept the facts as they stand, and do what can be the only honourable and pastoral thing left to do? Go to the Catholic Church (as promised to do, vocally and numerous times, over the past four years) or resign as Primate while seeking the wise and godly counsel of fellow brother Bishops in the TAC College of Bishops. Not at Pentecost. Now. The fall out and damage is massive as things stand. Instead, he superciliously seems to find their opinion to be ‘whimsical’?

What is so sad here – and this is so glaringly obvious – is that if the Roman Church had offered John Hepworth a collar, he would in all likelihood have gone (a pectoral cross would have been an added bonus of course). And because they will only, as discerned before an Almighty, Living God, receive him back as a layman, he will not go (?!), and that, despite the fact, that he believe Rome to be home.

The Holy Scriptures insist that a Bishop be ‘above reproach’ (1 Tim 3:2). The secular media calls our Primate ‘controversial’. What does that say about the Traditional Anglican Communion as a whole, and that before a lost and fallen world? It makes for a pathetic witness is what it does. It is beyond me, as a Priest (in this said Communion), as to how things could have gone so far, and how it is that we have managed to get ourselves into such a position. And all the while the Gospel is being choked out by Church leaders playing Church politics. The situation is anything but ‘whimsical’ Archbishop. What it is, is a terrible indictment against you. And you should be the one to do something about it, and spare the TAC from any further embarrassment.

‘There is a beautiful transparency to honest disciples who never wear a false face and do not pretend to be anything but who they are.’ – Brennan Manning.

‘… keep far from a false charge’ (Exodus 23:7).

‘… desiring to conduct ourselves honorably in all things’ (Hebrews 13:18).

Honestly, I have no idea how the Church works in America, or Australia for that matter, but here in Africa, our single greatest desire is to lead people to Christ and Christ crucified, and by our witness bring lost sinners to Him for salvation (1 Corinthians 1:23). It means being holy and blameless and above reproach in our public testimony. And if I say, now, to the world, through the medium of this lowly blog, that our mission is being compromised by what is going on in the Office of the Primate, then I say so because it is. And I will not one day be held accountable to an Omnipotent Creator Judge, because I would not speak out against the sin that is presently threatening to engulf us, and choose instead to sit ideally by, hoping that our elected leaders will do the right thing. Very souls are at stake!

In this, I have absolutely no aspirations but to implore each and every one of you who reads that which has been written here, to prayerfully look deep within, search, and ask the question: ‘whom am I serving?’ Be holy. Reflect: Am I seeking the favour of men, or of God? (Gal. 1:10).

_________________________________________

And almost as if to make my point (above), see out today:

• TAC House of Bishops Calls for Archbishop John Hepworth’s Immediate Removal here.
• Virtue article that needs to be cross-checked here.
• Hepworth should quit now, bishops say here.

UPDATE:  A press release by the TAC Bishops here.