|
Post by Jeff Gerke on Feb 19, 2009 11:05:27 GMT -5
What would you do in this scenario? - You are the leader of a small but proud city-state.
- Your city-state is the home of an ancient shrine of tremendous value to your people. Their entire identity is wrapped up in this shrine.
- Your city-state has been conquered by a vastly superior empire.
- By some shrewd negotiations, you have managed to get the conquering army to spare your city-state and its shrine. Indeed, you have won some measure of independence. The empire allows your people to carry on pretty much as before, but under the empire's close scrutiny.
- One of your citizens rises up as a charismatic leader calling for the people to throw off the rule of the conquering empire.
- This leader is branded a terrorist by the empire.
- This leader raises a small army of followers and they begin making covert strikes at the empire's forces.
- This angers the empire and they send their army to destroy the terrorists and, while they're at it, go ahead and wipe your city-state from the map, shrine and all.
- While you commiserate with the rebel leader's sentiments, you know that for now the empire is the power in the region and fighting it will only get the city-state and its temple obliterated.
- So through more shrewd maneuvering you are able to convince the empire that this rebel army is not representative of the populace at large and that the city-state's leadership is more than willing to keep living under empire rule.
- The empire decides to kill the rebel leader and his army but to leave the city-state standing.
- But this is the last time. One more uprising, and the whole thing is coming down.
- You rightly see your city-state as a tender morsel lying in the open mouth of a lion. Your beloved shrine continues to exist only because the lion has not yet snapped shut its jaws. You and your people live on pins and needles, trying to just mind your business and not anger the king of beasts.
- While you did share the rebel leader's sentiments, you've all but decided that if someone like that ever begins to rise again, you might just take him out yourself. Can't risk angering the empire.
- Then you get news that there's a new charismatic leader out there. He's talking about the primacy of the shrine and the sanctity of the old ways, and he's gathering followers. Some of his followers are members of the previous rebel army, or their ilk.
- The empire is beginning to take note of this guy, and this new leader shows no signs of shutting up.
What would you do?Jeff
|
|
|
Post by J Jack on Feb 19, 2009 11:14:55 GMT -5
I would meet with this new leader, talk to him and show him the futility, and empire of such great proportions cannot be defeated by rabble. If he wishes to continue his activities he must do so somewhere else, where it does not threaten the people he is so outspoken in defence of. If he truly wants the old ways, he will understand saving the state and shrine, and move out, if not I would turn him in to my authorities and have them arrest him to show the state's support to the empire.
|
|
|
Post by duchessashley on Feb 19, 2009 11:24:21 GMT -5
I think you'd have to weigh the love for the people and the shrine and compare it to what this new leader in talking about. Is he just a threat? Or does his vision have some validity? If the empire is so over-powering, would they simply squash the city-state, or would the small army have some even minute chance of survival and/or victory? There is much to consider in this decision... I tend to lean toward the thought of an uprising, fighting for true freedom from the ruling empire. David took down Goliath, so it's been done before...
|
|
|
Post by torainfor on Feb 19, 2009 12:18:29 GMT -5
There's more to the story. For one thing, you recognize that the Diety affiliated with the shrine has allowed this empire to be in power. You know that you will not escape their power or control until the Diety deigns it is time and provides a leader to enact it. (So, who is this leader? Who knows? Could this guy be it? That's what we thought last time and look what happened.)
Also, it can be argued that most politicians (including city-state leaders) are confident to the point of arrogant, believe they know best for their jurisdiction, and rarely, if ever, sit down with someone with a differing opinion to listen to what they have to say.
Although, strangely enough, some did. And they realized the new rabble-rouser was not, in fact, calling for a rebellion against the empire. And some of these politicians who listened actually agreed with this new leader, and chose to follow him.
But only in secret. Because what do you do with his pesky followers who didn't listen so carefully, and really think he is talking about a civil rebellion? Even if you trust the man, can you trust his followers?
|
|
|
Post by seraphim on Feb 19, 2009 12:41:26 GMT -5
And Rome salted Cathage and all but erased Jerusalem...that's been done before too.
The key to the question I think lies in the nature of your rule, is it as an anointed or hereditary king? Is it as some type of elected ruler? How is traditional leadership viewed by your people. Is he a priest-king, servant of the mandate of heaven, a decendent of ancient gods whole rules by blood right, the patriarch of the clan/tribe to whom the city belongs, and hence a father to his people? All such considerations informs the kind of response he would be likely/willing to make. The leader who is at the villiage elder end of the spectrum might be very familial in his approach, the defied despot might take an altogether different approach.
If you are a king and he will not relent then he is being sedicious and falls under your authority to deal with as is provided for in your customs of jurisprudence. He is not just a rebel against the big empire. He is a rebel against you and the people it is your responsibility to lead and govern. As a wise leader you should probably try to deal with it irenically. But if he will not relent, then you must do your duty.
Here's a real world version of your scenario. Back in the day The Novgorod Republic and all Russia with her faced enemies on two fronts, the Teutonic Knights to the west and the Mongels and Tartars to the east. They had the strength to defend against one but not both. The chose to fight the Teutonic Knights because they would meddle with their faith, whereas the Mongels would just rob and oppress them. St. Sergius of Radonetz blessed St. Alexander Nevsky, Grand Prince of Novgorad to defend against the Tutonic Knights and the Swedes. One of his great triumphs was the battle on the ice against the Livonian Brotherhood branch of the TK. But though he fought the west to a standstill he had to bargin with and pay tribute to the Mongels to preserve his people.
|
|
|
Post by Jeff Gerke on Feb 20, 2009 8:55:52 GMT -5
I think some of you figured out what I'm doing with this hypothetical scenario. It's about the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem during the time of Jesus. I'm doing my very slow (and sometimes controversial [grin]) read-through of John's Gospel. I've just read the part when Jesus has raised Lazarus from the dead. The Sadducees have gotten with Caiaphas. They're worried. "If we let Him [Jesus] go on like this," one of them says, "everyone will believe in Him. And the Roman army will come and take away both our Temple and our nation." Caiaphas says it would be better for one man to die than the whole nation to perish. Notice the logical leap here, the missing assumption underlying his statement: - IF: Jesus keeps doing these miracles, everyone will believe in Him.
- THEN--missing assumption of what that will mean--
- AND: the Roman army will come wipe us out.
That missing assumption is what this mystery scenario is about. I started thinking and doing a little research. I saw that two rebel leaders had arisen in recent history: Judas the Galillean and Theudas. Both had gathered an army of followers and tried to throw off Roman rule. Both had been killed by the Romans. It might not be correct, but I postulated that perhaps the Romans had gotten pretty well fed up with these troublesome Jews and were about ready to wipe them out (which they eventually did, in AD 66 and 70). So I started thinking that maybe the Sadduccees and Caiaphas weren't simply the greedy, power-grubbing villains they're always made out to be. Maybe there was a legitimate concern that one more uprising--even if the leader didn't mean it to be military in nature--would trigger the barely restrained anger of the Roman army and they would come wipe Israel out. It's easy to paint the priests and other Jewish leaders as purely evil and villainous. I think it's much more interesting to see the shades of gray and understand that, while greed and other factors had an influence in their actions, some of what they thought and did could be understood even by the good guys. Jeff
|
|
|
Post by torainfor on Feb 20, 2009 9:25:10 GMT -5
That's the way we live, yeah? "I know You said You'd come through but I can't see how this is going to work so I'm going to do this." Like Lucy in Prince Caspian. She was pretty sure Aslan was calling her to follow, but surely He wouldn't expect her to follow alone.
Thanks for putting this up. It made me think about it in a completely different way.
|
|
|
Post by seraphim on Feb 20, 2009 9:50:58 GMT -5
I thought that might be your core inspiration but I wasn't sure because of how you characterized the second "rebel" as being of the same stripe as the first one who caused so much trouble. But if the second one is a Christ figure then the message would be different which the leader/s should know. The pragmatic concern however seems to me would be with the mob (they apparently on several occasions feared inciting such a reaction). If they thought the new guy regardless of his virtues might loose control of the mob of his followerss then maybe they needed to intervene before things got out of hand (and maybe steer the mob themselves if presented an opportunity).
|
|
|
Post by duchessashley on Feb 20, 2009 10:57:13 GMT -5
So I started thinking that maybe the Sadduccees and Caiaphas weren't simply the greedy, power-grubbing villains they're always made out to be. Maybe there was a legitimate concern that one more uprising--even if the leader didn't mean it to be military in nature--would trigger the barely restrained anger of the Roman army and they would come wipe Israel out. It's easy to paint the priests and other Jewish leaders as purely evil and villainous. I think it's much more interesting to see the shades of gray and understand that, while greed and other factors had an influence in their actions, some of what they thought and did could be understood even by the good guys. And wouldn't this be how Christ would perceive them...with compassion and understanding? And wouldn't He ask us to do the same? This does raise the question of absolutes, along with the thread about the lost sheep. That was one issue I had with Episode 3 of Star Wars, when Anakin is questioning Chancellor Palpatine about the Sith and Palpatine responds, "Good is a point of view, Anakin. The Sith and the Jedi are similar in almost every way, including their quest for greater power." So is Christianity all about absolutes? Does God only work in black and white? It's a good question...and I cannot claim to know the answer.
|
|
|
Post by Christian Soldier on Feb 20, 2009 18:32:25 GMT -5
God works in absolutes, where they exist. He knows that there is Truth and there is truth. He also knows that the Jewish elders were wrong. Period, but He understood very well why they were wrong and showed compassion towards them because of it. Much as we are wrong, sinful, unclean, but He shows compassion on us.
Still, it gives a lot to think about. I wonder how difficult it would be to write a story on this topic.
|
|
|
Post by dizzyjam on Feb 21, 2009 12:33:43 GMT -5
Somehow I missed this thread the last couple of days or I would have responded sooner. I saw right away the comparison Jeff was making to what happened with Jesus, although I was unaware of the historical uprisings that had occurred before. I thought it rather clever how he told this story. Now to comment on the last two responses:
"Only the Sith deal with absolutes" I believe it was Obi-Wan that said that to Anakin before their fight. That was an issue I had with that film aside from what Palpatine had said. Since we as believers in Christ deal with the absolute Word of God, this just struck me as part of the mass brainwashing the Devil's using to shape the minds of people against us. If absolutes are associated with evil, then the natural conclusion one would have when dealing with someone that operated on the absolute authority of the Bible is that the Bible must be evil. The potential of that line of reasoning was more scary to me than the Emperor's takeover of the galaxy or Anakin's turn to the Dark Side.
As far as the Sith and Jedi being similar, all I can say is that the only thing that separates us from the rest of humanity is the blood of Christ. I don't know about you, but I still sin every day whether I want to or not and I still need His forgiveness and mercy and grace on a daily basis. Yes, even hourly and minute by minute. We are all sinners saved by grace.
And God doesn't "know that there is truth", He IS truth. Remember what Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me." There's greater implications here than most realize. Coming back to what began this thread, what Jesus said was an affront to them because of what the Temple represented to them. Remember also that Jesus compared His body to the Temple when he said, "Tear this temple down and in three days I'll raise it up again." With the Temple, you had the outer court which was also known as "The Way", the inner court which was also known as "The Truth", and then the Holy of Holies which was known as "The Life". It was through the Temple that the Jewish people and the greater part of Israel that still believed accessed God. Once a year only the High Priest could enter the Holy of Holies and represent the entire nation to God. So when Jesus said HE was "The Way, the Truth, and the Life" and compared His body to the Temple, this just added to the supposed blasphemy the Pharisees and Sadducees thought He was committing. It was unfortunate for them that they were mistaken, yet fortunate in the long run for humanity when one accepts the sacrifice of Christ.
Be encouraged,
David
P.S. Do you know why no one liked the Pharisees and the Sadducees were always so unhappy?
Well, the Sadduccees were sad you see, and the Pharisees weren't too fair you see.
;-) :-D :-P
|
|
|
Post by Jeff Gerke on Feb 24, 2009 8:51:35 GMT -5
Seraphim, I was very careful about how I characterized the new rebel leader. If you'll look at it again, you may see that I never specified that he was speaking about rebellion: Then you get news that there's a new charismatic leader out there. He's talking about the primacy of the shrine and the sanctity of the old ways, and he's gathering followers. Some of his followers are members of the previous rebel army, or their ilk. It's true that many people flocked to Jesus who were the revolutionary type--Simon the Zealot comes to mind; and it's possible that Judas was trying to force Jesus' hand into taking on the Romans when he went to the priests. People were always thinking the wrong thing about Jesus. He eventually straightened them out, but in the meantime there would've been some thought that He was raising an army. Certainly a worried outside observer might see it that way. That's what I was trying to accomplish with how I phrased it. I've had a new thought as I've continued to study this. I was struck by John 11:53--"So from that day on they planned together to kill Him." Just imagine the impact of the one decision described in this sentence. All these conservative Jews, men who had dedicated their lives to serving God, now began spending their thought on how to kill a man. Instead of looking to tithe of mint and rue, they were looking to hire a hitman. Instead of going to the Temple to worship, they met in back rooms to conspire. Think of what this must've done to them. Think about them going home and telling their wives how the day was: "Well, we think we've found a good place to isolate and murder him..." What a drastic, terrible change this one sentence implies. I can see a senior member of the Sanhedren (Nicodemus, perhaps) thinking, "This isn't what I got into this line of work to do! What are we doing? What has happened to us? Can no one else see that WE have become a den of theives and murderers?" The basic false premise--it's better for one man to die than for the whole nation to perish (and it's up to us to kill that man)--led directly to their mental shift from godly service to murderous deceit. Surely someone would've noticed that this was a path to darkness and that there's no way God could've been pleased with it. I even imagine a scenario in which, on the night of the Passover, the leaders met to talk about disbanding. Perhaps Nic or someone else has all but convinced them to give it up because obviously God is not condoning their plots. If He were, wouldn't there be miracles happening to help us? At that moment, when Nic is about to win the argument and dissolve the plot, Judas arrives. Jeff
|
|
|
Post by duchessashley on Feb 24, 2009 9:53:34 GMT -5
Just imagine the impact of the one decision described in this sentence. All these conservative Jews, men who had dedicated their lives to serving God, now began spending their thought on how to kill a man. Instead of looking to tithe of mint and rue, they were looking to hire a hitman. Instead of going to the Temple to worship, they met in back rooms to conspire. Think of what this must've done to them. Think about them going home and telling their wives how the day was: "Well, we think we've found a good place to isolate and murder him..." What a drastic, terrible change this one sentence implies. This may be an obvious thought, but... The other thing to remember, though, is that Jesus's execution was brutal. Were these men really seeking to quiet a rabble-rouser...or were they looking to make a public example of Jesus? It seems to me that they had as much a hand, or even more, in stirring up the drama as Herod and Pilot and the crowd that led to the beating and the crucifixion. If they wanted Jesus to simply disappear, it could have been done in a quieter way. While they were men of God, I think that pride and jealousy got the best of them. Big picture, I believe God used all of these factors to set His Son apart and to have a true revolution of spirit. After all, no one else's death has changed time.
|
|
|
Post by torainfor on Feb 24, 2009 13:11:18 GMT -5
I don't know. I have been amongst groups of men who leaned back, folded their arms, stuck out their lower lips, and solved the problems of the world. From all the reasons they came up with (from the religious: He claimed to be God; to the civil: he'll cause war) I'm guessing they argued and justified their way out of any drastic emotional emotion other than resolve and relief.
|
|
|
Post by seraphim on Feb 24, 2009 16:36:13 GMT -5
Note to the unwary...this ended up long and ranty, read at one's own risk. On second thought I've removed the rant. It doesn't belong in this particular thread....so um with regard to the rant...nevermind.
It can get more complicated than that. A couple of days ago I read a take on Judas betrayal I had never encountered before. It was namely that Judas betrayed Christ precisely because he believed in Him. Judas believed that Christ would raise from the dead, and would bring about the resurrection...which was part of why he hung himself, because he wanted to be in the vangard of that number who would be raised with Christ. That is also the reason why he did not perish quickly because God was giving him time and opportunity to repent of his wickedness. In his pride Judas thought he could manipulate the end of days....he "got it" even if some of the other disciples didn't and was going to take advantage of it...be the hero, the one who saw the unfolding of the plan clearly...the whole wink wink nod nod of Christ dipping in the sop with him and telling him "what thou doest, do quickly." Judas thought he had good reasons, acceptable reasons for doing what he did to betray Christ, but later when he began to have doubts about what he had done, his pride blinded him to repentance, cauterized him, and having committed himself to a particular path followed it out in the desparate heat of his passions.
|
|