The previous blog about “representation by proxy” (Yes, no, or ?) might have left readers on a ledge, a topic that might need more to resolve any questions or doubts about such a kind of idea. But, perhaps, taking a different topic, a different direction, might help. So here goes this topic that appears to be different.
The title here is the cot, the donkey, the star. Each of this has been part of the story of Jesus, but none of these have been “worshipped”. That, no one will dispute it. Jesus was born in a manger, the simplest of cot would have been used, somewhat like the “basket” that housed Moses when he was a baby. The cot would be the one necessary but undisputed thing of the story of Jesus, or at least it’s not something that worths debating about.
How about the donkey? Again, this has significance in the story of Jesus. In fulfilling the Old Testament prophecy, somewhat literally, the donkey is a necessary element and also undisputed. No, we don’t worship the donkey. No one disputes that, or at least it’s not worthwhile.
The same goes to the star, one appears at the birth of Jesus – it was necessary as foretold by prophecy, there are debates how this could have happened. Whether the star did occur is not a debate that worths the time; in reality it’s probably “easier” to debate the existence and death of the person Jesus, his rising, and his deity, than to argue whether the star did appear at that point in time.
Another reason for using the three objects is their somewhat “transient” nature. Not that they appeared a while and then disappeared or vanished. By transient, I meant that they had a meaning at that time, but that meaning might not hold for other times. That does not mean they lose meaning today, or have lost meaning the last time they disappeared. They had that “historical meaning” that our faith finds roots in.
- For Christians, we almost cannot dissociate the star from the story of the birth of Jesus. It bears that eternal nature of the created universe, that it came to acknowledge the birth of Jesus. Or, it announced his birth. And it fulfilled the scripture.
- As for the cot, the simplest of arrangement, and the most minimum of provision would have been an object in the shape of a cot, even in the embrace of the mother of Jesus, would be something Christians have about the story of Jesus. No where does any known account of the birth of Jesus that said the “wise men” or the “kings” came worshipping him trying to catch him while he was running around between the washing machine and the farm tractor. Jesus was in the cot, or in his mother’s embrace.
- The donkey is central to the Easter story. It was part of Christian’s belief system that Jesus entered Jerusalem on a donkey. That was fulfilment of a prophecy, and stood in contrast to the military treatment he later received anyway.
So, we don’t worship these items. They are part of the story of Jesus, even Christian belief system, but not deciding factor for our faith or salvation. What do we make of the idea of “consecration” in Leviticus 8:10? Here, an object has been set aside for “holy” purpose, for worshipping God. This is different from the three items above: they were not made “holy”. But hear this out, have we made them “holy”, or made them so important, that we need them in order to fulfil our faith?
I think our response is no, we haven’t. However, there are items that are consecrated, church buildings in particular, and venues within them. “Consecration” is a word many still use today, rarely does anyone question its meaning. If any one doubts it, it’s whether the item (venue, building) is “fit” for consecration. The question here is whether we are treating these consecrated items as so central to our faith, our belief system, such that they are “necessary” for our faith and salvation? Put in this way, I think most or all of us will say no, they are not “central” to our faith. But turning to our own church venues and properties, we might struggle to maintain the same attitude. They bear so much meaning to us we do not want to lose or part from them. But is it so central to our faith?
Some care is necessary on our attitude to our consecrated items. It is not something that we could carelessly discard, at least there is the exercise of stewardship. However, it is where our standpoint is that counts.
Does this mean Leviticus 8:10, or verses 8 to 10, or Leviticus itself is null and void today?
To answer that requires reflection, a personal encounter with God, and the touch of the Holy Spirit and the word and works of Jesus. Much if not all of foundation of who we know about God (Holy Spirit and Jesus) is in the Old Testament. Jesus did not appear in the world completely “out of the blue”; people for and against him, and bystanders of no particular opinion, have acknowledged the connectedness (or fulfilment) of Jesus to the Old Testament / Torah / Scriptures.
A short word about “Representation by proxy”. By illustrating the three items above, central but unnecessary for our faith, this is also saying that these objects, or similar objects that we have put meanings and significance onto, are not necessary for our faith. Those without property, only their memories of scriptures, will not likely to hold on to their consecrated items when they are on the run from wars and persecutions. That would be an example of test of our faith.
To put forth positive points that consecrated items (garments, buildings, text, books, liturgical processes etc.) are central to our faith is an unthinkable prospect. The story of Jesus coming as a baby with nothing but the glory of God, and leaving the world with nothing but the glory of God might be a lesson for all of us.
