A Christian friend of mine has sent me the following ironic rewording of the Beatitudes:
Happy are those who are doing fine and don’t need anything
Happy are those who are perfectly content with their own life
Happy are those who are proud and sure of themselves
Happy are those who are satisfied with their own goodness
Happy are those who are not troubled by the needs of others
Happy are those who can pretend to be what they are not
Happy are those who thrive on conflict and discord
Happy are those who are popular who always say yes who never cause offence who keep everyone sweet who can change their faith to fit the system
They will have had their reward
I get where he is coming from and find it clever and pithy. I realise that the intention of inverting the familiar phrases is to shock and to make us return to and consider the original text. I like the clever twist in the final line, reminiscent of the classic line attributed to the mean Scot, ‘Come away in, you’ll have had your tea.’
I have always loved the beatitudes, appreciating the poetry – that wonderful blend of rhythm and cadence, pacing and climax. I am also profoundly challenged by their message. So I wondered why I found this ironic take on them so disturbing.
At first glance, I find myself agreeing with the sentiments expressed. Yes, those who are not troubled by the needs of others will have the reward of keeping all their wealth to themselves, but will lose out on the joy of sharing and connection with others, finding in the end find their material resources are worthless, like the lonely dragon who finds no comfort sleeping on the sharp edges of its hoard of chilly diamonds.
My friend says he derived the lines by writing down the exact opposite of what each of the beatitudes says, but there is a strange inconsistency. Let’s look at them side by side:
Blessed are the poor in spirit… Happy are those who are doing fine and don’t need anything
Blessed are those who mourn… Happy are those who are perfectly content with their own life
Blessed are the meek… Happy are those who are proud and sure of themselves
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness… Happy are those who are satisfied with their own goodness
Blessed are the merciful… Happy are those who are not troubled by the needs of others
Blessed are the pure in heart… Happy are those who can pretend to be what they are not
Blessed are the peacemakers… Happy are those who thrive on conflict and discord
Ok, I’m with all of this until we get to the point:
Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness sake… Happy are those who are popular who always say yes who never cause offence who keep everyone sweet who can change their faith to fit the system
Now, while I have no difficulty with the original text here, I do have some problems with the paraphrase. ‘Persecution’ is one of those words whose abuse troubles me. I’m thankful that the only thing remotely like persecution I have personally experienced was having some kids throw stones at my brother and I because their parents didn’t like what our Dad had preached from the pulpit that Sunday. Like us, they were just wee kids at the time. Moreover they were rotten shots, so it was no big deal.
Real persecution is different, a concerted campaign to drive out, humiliate, exclude or subdue a person because of their religion, ethic group, gender, disability or sexuality. Real persecution is something I abhor and I hope I would always have the courage to stand up for anyone who experiences it. Here I am challenging not the fact of persecution but the abuse of the term to justify unacceptable behaviours.
One of abuses of the word persecution is our tendency to use it as a means of proving we are in the right. ‘If they are shooting you,’ says one of the characters in the TV drama West Wing, ‘ You must be doing something right.’ Well, no, not necessarily! We may be incurring anger and aggression because we are unnecessarily provoking or upsetting to others. I have encountered many people who interpret every set back in public life, every failure to get promotion, every row from the boss, as ‘the offence of the cross.’ Their position is that Christian witness offends others because it points to God’s judgment on their neighbours’ sins. Well, maybe. Or maybe it is simply obnoxious or provocative behaviour that offends. There is a sense that some even welcome what they regard as ‘persecution’ and seek it out, wearing crosses outside their work uniform in defiance of health and safety rules[1].
This becomes much more sinister when false statistics are used to claim persecution where none exists. A recent example is the often repeated claim that 100, 000 Christians are killed each year because of their faith. In spite of this figure being proven to be thoroughly inaccurate, it continues to be quoted, becoming what the BBC programme More or Less calls a ‘zombie statistic’ – one that no matter how many times you kill it will keep on rising from the dead.
Nothing brings people closer together than a common enemy. This may explain our perverse love of being ‘persecuted’. We may see it as strengthening our faith, renewing our commitment to fellow believers and excusing our fighting (literally or metaphorically) those we regard as threatening our right to believe and to practice our faith. This is why I believe our best defence against so called ‘Islamist’ terrorism is to promote greater understanding, tolerance and informed dialogue with Islam; with a first step being a refusal to use the term ‘Islamist’ as it leads to an erroneous conflation of Islam with terrorism.
I said I had no difficulty with the original text – Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness sake. But what is ‘righteousness’? There will be many different interpretations but I hope my reader will bear with me while I propose just one. I read the recorded words of Jesus in the beatitudes as a whole – a description of righteousness culminating in a declaration that if we are persecuted for having these attributes, then we are blessed indeed. Each beatitude builds on the one before; a series of aspirations, for what human could be said to have achieved them? The fourth beatitude hints at this – those who hunger and thirst after righteousness – this is a state not easily acquired! It requires, as the other beatitudes declare: humility, patience under provocation, being merciful to others who may be different from ourselves, honesty about our own motivations and a willingness not just to be peaceable, but to make peace. So, I think we need to ask ourselves – am I being persecuted for having these attributes? Or could it be that others are challenging me appropriately for my rigid practices, my hardhearted opinions of others, and my habit of sticking my neck out just to be noticed?
My friend closes his paraphrase of the beatitudes with a phrase that seems to be an addition rather than a paraphrase: Happy are those ….who can change their faith to fit the system. Why has he added this statement here as there is no shadow of it in the original?
I could be wrong, but it reminds me of a method of attack favoured by those who would identify with reformed theology. Now, I know this particular Christian friend would not want to have a label applied to him and he may reject this one, but in discussions with him I find he does appear to agree with the main tenents of reformed theology, i.e. a biblically centered theological perspective focusing on the sovereignty of the Bible as the final word of God, the universal depravity of human beings, whose salvation can only be found through faith in the God revealed in a literal interpretation of the entire Bible.
Reformed theology tends to resist anything that is regarded as following the fashion of the current age, although this brand of theology is in itself rooted in the mores of a particular age, just as each of the 66 books of the Bible reflect the age in which they were written. For example, those who follow reformed theology may view concerns for sexual equality as a modern day distraction from the teachings of the Bible or argue that the Bible actually teaches sexual equality by defining equal, but different roles for men and women.
The problem for me is that my friends’ final sentence seems to run counter to the teaching of the beatitudes (and, yes, I appreciate it is only my interpretation of that teaching!) The writer portrays those who are willing to be thoughtful about their faith, to be refreshed in their understandings, to be open to new perspectives are mere chameleons. We are seen as changing our colours, blending into the background and exchanging discrimination for bland agreement with every passing fashion. We are understood to be dodging persecution by agreeing with everyone.
My perspective is just the opposite. My position in understanding the big questions (life, the universe and everything) is that I don’t know, I’m not certain, I could be wrong. Yes, from time to time injustice makes me so cross I get on my high horse and I need to be reminded of the need to be meek, to be honest with myself about why I hold certain views, to be more accommodating of the needs and views of others. It’s tough, this call to righteousness. The more we think we are reaching the mark, the more we are slipping further away. But, as the beatitudes say, the struggle comes with built in rewards. The hungering and thirsting fills you right up till you can almost take no more, but then of course you can.
And in that sense, and in that sense only, I think I may already be sitting down to my tea.
[1] If wearing a cross made us Christians, or was an essential element of our religious practice, then perhaps this would be persecution, but such jewelry is merely an outward sign of an inner allegiance. Wearing a cross to aggravate others is at odds with the call to Christians to live, as far as possible, at peace with others.
Happy are those who are doing fine and don’t need anything
Happy are those who are perfectly content with their own life
Happy are those who are proud and sure of themselves
Happy are those who are satisfied with their own goodness
Happy are those who are not troubled by the needs of others
Happy are those who can pretend to be what they are not
Happy are those who thrive on conflict and discord
Happy are those who are popular who always say yes who never cause offence who keep everyone sweet who can change their faith to fit the system
They will have had their reward
I get where he is coming from and find it clever and pithy. I realise that the intention of inverting the familiar phrases is to shock and to make us return to and consider the original text. I like the clever twist in the final line, reminiscent of the classic line attributed to the mean Scot, ‘Come away in, you’ll have had your tea.’
I have always loved the beatitudes, appreciating the poetry – that wonderful blend of rhythm and cadence, pacing and climax. I am also profoundly challenged by their message. So I wondered why I found this ironic take on them so disturbing.
At first glance, I find myself agreeing with the sentiments expressed. Yes, those who are not troubled by the needs of others will have the reward of keeping all their wealth to themselves, but will lose out on the joy of sharing and connection with others, finding in the end find their material resources are worthless, like the lonely dragon who finds no comfort sleeping on the sharp edges of its hoard of chilly diamonds.
My friend says he derived the lines by writing down the exact opposite of what each of the beatitudes says, but there is a strange inconsistency. Let’s look at them side by side:
Blessed are the poor in spirit… Happy are those who are doing fine and don’t need anything
Blessed are those who mourn… Happy are those who are perfectly content with their own life
Blessed are the meek… Happy are those who are proud and sure of themselves
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness… Happy are those who are satisfied with their own goodness
Blessed are the merciful… Happy are those who are not troubled by the needs of others
Blessed are the pure in heart… Happy are those who can pretend to be what they are not
Blessed are the peacemakers… Happy are those who thrive on conflict and discord
Ok, I’m with all of this until we get to the point:
Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness sake… Happy are those who are popular who always say yes who never cause offence who keep everyone sweet who can change their faith to fit the system
Now, while I have no difficulty with the original text here, I do have some problems with the paraphrase. ‘Persecution’ is one of those words whose abuse troubles me. I’m thankful that the only thing remotely like persecution I have personally experienced was having some kids throw stones at my brother and I because their parents didn’t like what our Dad had preached from the pulpit that Sunday. Like us, they were just wee kids at the time. Moreover they were rotten shots, so it was no big deal.
Real persecution is different, a concerted campaign to drive out, humiliate, exclude or subdue a person because of their religion, ethic group, gender, disability or sexuality. Real persecution is something I abhor and I hope I would always have the courage to stand up for anyone who experiences it. Here I am challenging not the fact of persecution but the abuse of the term to justify unacceptable behaviours.
One of abuses of the word persecution is our tendency to use it as a means of proving we are in the right. ‘If they are shooting you,’ says one of the characters in the TV drama West Wing, ‘ You must be doing something right.’ Well, no, not necessarily! We may be incurring anger and aggression because we are unnecessarily provoking or upsetting to others. I have encountered many people who interpret every set back in public life, every failure to get promotion, every row from the boss, as ‘the offence of the cross.’ Their position is that Christian witness offends others because it points to God’s judgment on their neighbours’ sins. Well, maybe. Or maybe it is simply obnoxious or provocative behaviour that offends. There is a sense that some even welcome what they regard as ‘persecution’ and seek it out, wearing crosses outside their work uniform in defiance of health and safety rules[1].
This becomes much more sinister when false statistics are used to claim persecution where none exists. A recent example is the often repeated claim that 100, 000 Christians are killed each year because of their faith. In spite of this figure being proven to be thoroughly inaccurate, it continues to be quoted, becoming what the BBC programme More or Less calls a ‘zombie statistic’ – one that no matter how many times you kill it will keep on rising from the dead.
Nothing brings people closer together than a common enemy. This may explain our perverse love of being ‘persecuted’. We may see it as strengthening our faith, renewing our commitment to fellow believers and excusing our fighting (literally or metaphorically) those we regard as threatening our right to believe and to practice our faith. This is why I believe our best defence against so called ‘Islamist’ terrorism is to promote greater understanding, tolerance and informed dialogue with Islam; with a first step being a refusal to use the term ‘Islamist’ as it leads to an erroneous conflation of Islam with terrorism.
I said I had no difficulty with the original text – Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness sake. But what is ‘righteousness’? There will be many different interpretations but I hope my reader will bear with me while I propose just one. I read the recorded words of Jesus in the beatitudes as a whole – a description of righteousness culminating in a declaration that if we are persecuted for having these attributes, then we are blessed indeed. Each beatitude builds on the one before; a series of aspirations, for what human could be said to have achieved them? The fourth beatitude hints at this – those who hunger and thirst after righteousness – this is a state not easily acquired! It requires, as the other beatitudes declare: humility, patience under provocation, being merciful to others who may be different from ourselves, honesty about our own motivations and a willingness not just to be peaceable, but to make peace. So, I think we need to ask ourselves – am I being persecuted for having these attributes? Or could it be that others are challenging me appropriately for my rigid practices, my hardhearted opinions of others, and my habit of sticking my neck out just to be noticed?
My friend closes his paraphrase of the beatitudes with a phrase that seems to be an addition rather than a paraphrase: Happy are those ….who can change their faith to fit the system. Why has he added this statement here as there is no shadow of it in the original?
I could be wrong, but it reminds me of a method of attack favoured by those who would identify with reformed theology. Now, I know this particular Christian friend would not want to have a label applied to him and he may reject this one, but in discussions with him I find he does appear to agree with the main tenents of reformed theology, i.e. a biblically centered theological perspective focusing on the sovereignty of the Bible as the final word of God, the universal depravity of human beings, whose salvation can only be found through faith in the God revealed in a literal interpretation of the entire Bible.
Reformed theology tends to resist anything that is regarded as following the fashion of the current age, although this brand of theology is in itself rooted in the mores of a particular age, just as each of the 66 books of the Bible reflect the age in which they were written. For example, those who follow reformed theology may view concerns for sexual equality as a modern day distraction from the teachings of the Bible or argue that the Bible actually teaches sexual equality by defining equal, but different roles for men and women.
The problem for me is that my friends’ final sentence seems to run counter to the teaching of the beatitudes (and, yes, I appreciate it is only my interpretation of that teaching!) The writer portrays those who are willing to be thoughtful about their faith, to be refreshed in their understandings, to be open to new perspectives are mere chameleons. We are seen as changing our colours, blending into the background and exchanging discrimination for bland agreement with every passing fashion. We are understood to be dodging persecution by agreeing with everyone.
My perspective is just the opposite. My position in understanding the big questions (life, the universe and everything) is that I don’t know, I’m not certain, I could be wrong. Yes, from time to time injustice makes me so cross I get on my high horse and I need to be reminded of the need to be meek, to be honest with myself about why I hold certain views, to be more accommodating of the needs and views of others. It’s tough, this call to righteousness. The more we think we are reaching the mark, the more we are slipping further away. But, as the beatitudes say, the struggle comes with built in rewards. The hungering and thirsting fills you right up till you can almost take no more, but then of course you can.
And in that sense, and in that sense only, I think I may already be sitting down to my tea.
[1] If wearing a cross made us Christians, or was an essential element of our religious practice, then perhaps this would be persecution, but such jewelry is merely an outward sign of an inner allegiance. Wearing a cross to aggravate others is at odds with the call to Christians to live, as far as possible, at peace with others.