DUCKPOND

SO THIS IS EASTER? March 30, 2010

Why is it that I associate Easter with bunnies? Rabbits are one of many introduced species, often pests, who have had effects on the natural ecology that are not fully appreciated.

There is no doubt that the transplanted Europeans that came to these parts brought with them a nostalgia for those northern climes, along with the cultural box and baggage that they could not so easily step out of as they stepped ashore. They carried ashore science and barbarity, if not in equal measure. Then they failed to notice that despite the calendar the seasons were reversed in the place where Christmas occurs in summer and Easter in Autumn.

Christianity was an imposed religion it seems with the persistence of the pre-existing traditions the two narratives were merged. Here is one explanation:

Like the origin of Easter, the origin of the Easter Bunny has roots that go back to pre-Christian, Anglo-Saxon history. The holiday was originally a pagan celebration that worshipped the goddess Eastre. She was the goddess of fertility and springtime and her earthly symbol was the rabbit.

Thus the pre-Christian Anglo-Saxons worshipped the rabbit believing it to be Eastre’s earthly incarnation.

When the Anglo-Saxons were converted to Christianity, the pagan holiday, which occurred around the same time as the Christian memorial of Jesus’ resurrection from the dead, was combined with the Christian celebration and given the name Easter.

Originally, there were some very pagan practices that went along with the Easter celebration. Today, Easter is often commercialized, with all the focus on eggs, the Easter bunny, etc.

Because of this, many churches are starting to refer to it as Resurrection Day.

I am guessing that the first recourse, as usual was violence, but presumably that did not work. The fine points of ideology and theology usually escape most of us, so presumably imperfect compliance is better than no compliance. The workable solution is the peaceful solution.

Who know what Christians believe, since they cannot agree among themselves. Yet, via Herman Hesse, I have heard of the Sermon on the Mount, a prescription honored in the breech more often than not.

Proscriptions, such as though against usury and more latterly the acceptance of women as priests have caused more problems than they have been worth, and an unfortunate historical repercussions that have present day effects.

As James Carroll observes in The Boston Globe:

Now begins the most sacred week of the Christian year — and the most dangerous. In Holy Week down through the centuries, mobs have poured out of churches in search of Jews to harass and kill. (In 1096, beginning on Good Friday, Christians killed something like 10,000 Rhineland Jews in a few short weeks — Europe’s first pogrom). And why? The Passion narratives that Christians hear proclaimed from pulpits between now and Friday explicitly blame the murder of Jesus on “the Jews.’’ Mobs were avenging the death of the Lord.

And how did the description, “the Jews” get into the Biblical texts anyway? (I could never be so construct, since I do not know what the texts say.) James Carroll goes on to explain:

. . . Who wrote the Gospels? When? And in what context? A brief review of the chronology might help. Jesus was murdered in about the year 30. In subsequent years, those who loved him kept his memory alive (especially over meals of bread and wine) by relating stories about him, retelling his parables, recounting his sayings, understanding him in terms of their scriptures (which, of course, were Jewish scriptures, since they were all Jews). An oral tradition about Jesus developed. The Christian movement was still essentially a Jewish sect.

But then, in the year 70, a catastrophic trauma occurred. The Romans savagely destroyed the Temple of Jerusalem, generating a religious crisis of identity for all Jews — including the Christian Jews: What is it to be a Jew without the Temple? One group of Jews answered that now observance of the Law and study of Torah is key — the start of Rabbinic Judaism. The other group answered that now, Jesus is the New Temple — the start of the church. The two groups, in effect, were arguing over what it is to be a Jew. And that argument is reflected in the texts that only then began to be written down — the Gospels.

The earliest Gospel is Mark, and it dates to about 70. The latest is John, dating to about 100. In those three decades, the argument between Jesus-believing Jews (and their Gentile associates) and Jews who rejected claims for Jesus is reflected in the way the Gospels demonize “the Jews.’’

So much for the literal and lethal interpretation of the written word, or as it said somewhere else:

“The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life”.

The same might well apply to the Quoran, or for matter the Bhagavad Gita.

And the there is the ongoing, it seems, crisis within the Roman Catholic Church that now seems to have involved the Pope with calls for his resignation of the pedophilia scandal. E J Dionne in The Washington Post (via Truthdig) applies political analysis:

The church needs to show it understands the flaws of its own internal culture by examining its own conscience, its own practices, its own reflexes when faced with challenge. As the church rightly teaches, acknowledging the true nature of our sin is the one and only path to redemption and forgiveness.

Of course this will not be easy. Enemies of the church will use this scandal to discredit the institution no matter what the Vatican does. Many in the hierarchy thought they were doing the right thing, however wrong their decisions were. And the church is not alone in facing problems of this sort.

But defensiveness and institutional self-protection are not Gospel values. “For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will find it.”

The church needs to cast aside the lawyers, the PR specialists and its own worst instincts, which are human instincts. Benedict could go down as one of the greatest popes in history if he were willing to risk all in the name of institutional self-examination, painful but liberating public honesty, and true contrition.

And then comes something even harder: Especially during Lent, the church teaches that forgiveness requires us to have “a firm purpose of amendment.” The church will have to show not only that it has learned from this scandal, but also that it’s truly willing to transform itself.

It might have been nicer all around had the celebration of Eastre continued, or even better there had been an adoption by the interlopers of the home-grown traditions,which would have made greater sense. Nevertheless, for what it worth: Happy Easter.