PM and President Trump to meet Thursday

The Australian reports today about the meeting this week on the USS Intrepid in New York City. Read the whole article here. In short there is a retelling of the testy telephone conversation in late January and the iconoclastic diplomatic behaviour of the neo-president, and some recommendations by Alan Dupont, staff writer.

He says, "Turnbull should pursue three objectives in his meeting with the US President: he should add his voice to those of other US allies urging Trump to play a constructive leadership role internationally; he should try to imbue the President with a deeper ­appreciation of the value of alliances in general and the Australia-US alliance in particular; and he should support a US accommodation with China that minimises the possibility of a full-blown conflict in Asia but pushes back against Chinese adventurism in the South China Sea."

On the ABC-TV Breakfast show this morning, the 'testy' call was described as "rocky' and "robust.' The presenters interviewed Professor James Curran. His bio reads like an academic champion. "Curran is a Nonresident Fellow at the Lowy Institute and Professor of History at the University of Sydney and a Research Associate at the United States Studies Centre. His most recent book is Unholy Fury: Whitlam and Nixon at War (2015). A former analyst with the Office of National Assessments, Curran was a Fulbright Scholar at Georgetown University and in 2013 held the Chair of Australian History at University College Dublin."

I liked his evaluation of the meeting to come. He mentioned the site on the Intrepid as iconic, a warship in NYC, not a meeting in the White House nor at Mar-a-Lago, which he says is "a step down in protocol terms." His take on the meeting is one which will "showcase a defense relationship" from the past. He doesn't anticipate any grand announcements. Curran mentioned the last time a sitting Prime Minister and US president met on a watercraft was President Lyndon Baines Johnson meeting in May, 1968 with Prime Minister John Gorton. Aboard the Sequoia, the two men couldn't hear each other over the sounds of the engine on the yacht as it chugged up the Potomac River in DC. Curran says it's "altogether fitting and proper" for allies to remember the past, shared struggles and sacrifices. But his assessment is that this alliance is "anchored in memory, moored to memory" with "rhetoric and imagery that is awash in sentimentality" but not doing the "hard thinking about what China's rise" means for us, and appears to be an alliance which is "cruising in its own sea of complacency and nostalgia."

What about the TPP? We shall see. Is it only the past we honour, or will there be a consideration as Curran says, of "the broader US/ Asian regional posture." We in Australia are hopeful.

I liked the whole conversation and thought to share it with our followers. The meeting itself is worth considering, but beyond that one, what is the purpose of your meeting with those with whom you will meet this week, or even today? Is it merely a photo op? Is it for the purpose of history and sentimentality? Is it to produce something worthwhile and ongoing?

So, when you go to work this week, as I've already started on our Sunday yesterday, will your going be productive? Will your meet-ups with folks at the trivia night at the local pub be nostalgic or future-looking? Will there be significance to much of what you do today and this week? That's a consideration that is well worth your evaluation. To that, we call you.

Let's make the best of life today. 14 times in the Gospels, 7 times in the book of Acts and 8 times in the rest of the Newer Testament, the word "today" is used. Overall in the entire Bible, it's 190 times! Let's make the best of today. Let's hear Him today and do His will. Let's not let church be a 'photo op' of us with the Almighty.

"For He is our God, And we are the people of His pasture and the sheep of His hand.
Today, if you would hear His voice, Do not harden your hearts, as at Meribah, As in the day of Massah in the wilderness, When your fathers tested Me,
They tried Me, though they had seen My work. For forty years I loathed that generation, And said they are a people who err in their heart,
And they do not know My ways. Therefore I swore in My anger, Truly they shall not enter into My rest.” (Psa. 95.7-11)

Today. Seems a good day to make right with God. And your fellows. Are we good?

Do they like or dislike us?

We live in this tension of disapprobation. At certain times we are understood to be saying that the religion of the rabbis is wrong, dead wrong, and that only through Yeshua is eternal life given to anyone. At other times, we encounter Jewish people who say, "They may believe something different than I do, but they are Jews, and that's good enough for me." We even hear "Good luck" extended to us, in our book shop, or after a large gathering with prayers and songs, which might look like a church or synagogue service. One problem we face is this: Do we want to be accepted or rejected? Do people really understand who we are and what we are saying? And if they do understand the issue, are we liked or disliked?

A Jewish author and scholar here in Sydney was a featured speaker at a Jewish conference in Brisbane earlier this year. She was at the synagogue on Margaret Street that Saturday morning as I was, to worship and participate in Jewish life, as is our custom. After the services, we all retired to the upper room where a meal was served and some people gave short talks to the small gathering. She was among the speakers. I enjoyed her commentary.

Afterwards, in the clean up and farewell time, I approached her and told her that I appreciated her comments. I introduced myself. She said, "Oh, yes I know who you are." I told her that we sold one of her books at our book shop in Bondi Junction. After a bit of uncomfortable small talk, she said, "I won't wish you good luck. Shabbat shalom." And that was that.

"Disapprobation is not only a synonym of "disapproval" but a relative as well. Both words were coined in the mid-17th century by adding the prefix dis-, meaning "the opposite or absence of," to earlier and more "approving" words: synonyms "approbation" and "approval." The Latin verb approbare, meaning "to approve," is an ancestor of both of those words. Another descendant of "approbare" in English is "approbate," which, as you may have guessed by now, means "to approve."" (Merriam Webster Dictionary online)

I remember a secondary disapprobation back in the mid-1980s. A group of us Jews for Jesus went to the Diamond District in New York City to investigate purchasing diamonds. It was Friday, midday. My friend Loren and I walked from one shop to another. Others went to other shops. We found an arcade with a couple dozen shops inside one building. I saw the sign, "Mendelsohn Jewellers" and approached the counter. The frail older man behind the counter saw us, and stood up. Then he saw our t-shirts with the lettering "Jews for Jesus" and he immediately asked us to leave his shop. "Please go. Just go," he said in a softer voice than I was expecting. I told him that I, too, was a Mendelsohn, and that we were hunting for diamonds. He insisted that we leave his counter. "They are watching," he told me. "If I sell to you, no one else will buy from me today." I'll never forget the pain his face showed, nor the pain of this secondary boycott I felt.

Back in December last year, reports swirled around like a Trump hairline that rabbis were 'accepting Jesus.'

Of course, that wasn't exactly right. Here's the news about the rabbis from Israel Today. Other agencies reported something similar.

To be fair, noted scholars and authors from Montefiore and Schweitzer at the beginning of the 20th Century, through to Amy-Jill Levine and Shmuley Boteach in our day have tried to influence the world, especially the religious world about Jesus and Christianity saying along with the Byrds and the Doobie Brothers, "Jesus is just alright with me." They want the Jewish people to re-welcome Jesus as "one of us" and to knock back the disapprobation caused by centuries of the dialectic and the hostility. In the 20th and now 21st Century, we have a shrunken world where we have to 'get along.' Rabbi Evan Moffic's newest book is titled What Every Christian Needs to Know About the Jewishness of Jesus: A New Way of Seeing the Most Influential Rabbi in History (Abingdon Press).
What drove a Reform rabbi to write a book about Jesus aimed at both Christians and Jews?

A reviewer of the book (Steven H Propp) by Prof. Donald Hagner of Fuller Seminary, wrote this about Hagner's seminal work on this subject of the re-welcome (The Jewish Reclamation of Jesus"): "Donald Hagner is Professor Emeritus of New Testament at Fuller Theological Seminary, where he taught from 1976 until his retirement nearly 30 years later. He has written/edited many other books, such as New Testament, The: A Historical and Theological Introduction, New Testament Exegesis and Research: A Guide for Seminarians, etc.

He wrote in the Preface to this 1984 book, "I write avowedly as a Christian and not as a 'neutral' observer. I write furthermore as an evangelical Christian... who holds to the ... inspiration of the biblical writings and who attempts to employ historical-critical methodologies in a way that is fair to what is being studied. I do NOT claim that I am more 'objective' than the Jewish writers examined here... my claim in the present book is this: the Jewish reclamation of Jesus has been possible only by being unfair to the Gospels. In order to arrive at their modern portraits of Jesus, Jewish scholars are forced to select from the Gospels what seems to agree with their views and to reject everything that does not... Jewish scholars bring expectations (not to say a priori conclusions) to the Gospels that are far from congenial to these writings." (Pg. 13-14)

Of Samuel Sandmel's We Jews and Jesus he says, "He writes from the standpoint of a liberal Jew ... [but] Sandmel assumes and builds on the subculture of modern critical scholarship." (Pg. 32) Of David Flusser's Jesus, he says, "Jesus, however, he argues, is truly understood only against the Jewish backdrop of the later church's faith in him. Flusser's book is notable in that it is the first book on Jesus by a Jew in which little is made of the Jewishness of the author, indicating the extent to which the Jewish perception is becoming widely understood as the truly historical view of Jesus." (Pg. 33-34)

Then mixed in with these thoughts are the words of Yeshua Himself. He said, "Woe to you when all men speak well of you, for in the same way their fathers used to treat the false prophets." (Luke 6.26) I've never really had to worry about everyone speaking well of me, due to my many sins, but still, this warning gave me pause today. Consider this contrasting proverb, "When a man’s ways are pleasing to the LORD, He makes even his enemies to be at peace with him." (16.7) So which is it-- they like me, or they don't like me? They wish me 'good luck' or turn and walk away with anger or hostility?

I suppose my conclusion today is that the message I proclaim is one thing and my manner is quite another. If I give people offence by my manner and behaviour then 'woe to me.' But if I live consistent with my message, and others are offended, then, so be it. I don't wish disapprobation on myself or on anyone. I wish people would read the Bible for themselves. I wish we would all get along. I want world peace. I want the stabbings and beheadings to stop. And I believe Jesus, as Prince of Peace, will usher that in one day. And in the meantime... let us all ponder who God is, what He wants for us all, and accept the real Jesus as Lord and Messiah, with or without approval from others. His approval is all that really matters in the end. Paul wrote the believers in Galatia: "For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a bond-servant of Christ." (1.10)

Hannah, her sisters, Woody Allen and me

The year was around 1985. The scene was the Upper West Side in New York City. Specifically it was inside Leo's Barbershop on 73rd and Amsterdam. About 11 a.m. on a weekday. I was inside the shop and Leo was making me look decent. His shop was unusually empty. I was the only customer in the shop. It was eerie. Like most in his trade, he depended on a steady flow of customers to pay the bills and get ahead. He had been a barber for decades, in NYC mostly, but was originally from Italy. So that I was the only one inside with him on a normal workday seemed odd. I asked him about the reason for such.

He told me that Mr Woody Allen had hired the shop from midday and that I was the last customer of the day. Seemed that Woody had hired out the shop for a previous movie he made, and that he and Leo had 'a relationship' of sorts. I did note a photo of Woody on the wall behind me. And if Woody were going to take the whole place, I wondered what movie it might be. Leo didn't know.

A few moments later, almost on cue, two men entered dismissing the "Closed" sign on the door. It was Woody and an offsider, no doubt. Wow, here was a movie legend, producer, director, writer, and here I was getting my haircut under the cape, and under the efficient tonsorial wizardry of Leo. I really wanted to speak with him. I was, after all, wearing a "Jews for Jesus" tshirt like this one pictured.  And Woody is a famous Jewish man, and dealt with stories of angst and the search for meaning and such. But he was in a class way above mine...

So I let it go. He was busy anyway, discussing so many things with his offsider. Leo finished my haircut and he took the hair-capturing cape off me. I arose from the barber chair. And Woody looked at me, or rather my shirt. He looked away. Then he did a double-take, looking back at the shirt. And that's when I should have said something. But I didn't. I'm sorry to this day that I didn't. Regrets, I have a few.

I left and didn't think about this episode particularly again for months. Then the next Woody Allen movie came out entitled, "Hannah and her sisters."  (1986) It was a typical Allen film with a great cast (Mia Farrow, Dianne Weist, Julia Louis-Dreyfuss, Michael Caine, Barbara Hershey, Richard Jenkins, Carrie Fisher...) and the problems of life and the meaning of life. The Allen character in the movie is (mis)diagnosed with a brain tumor and he begins seriously even investigating religion and spirituality. He is, of course, a Jewish man in the role he plays, and his search for meaning actually takes him to the Catholic church and he seeks to convert. The scenes that follow are comic, real, disclosing and helpful for anyone who wants to know what Jewish people are thinking in this consideration of conversion.

After Woody meets with a priest, we see Woody on the Upper West Side. He goes inside a book shop and buys some items. That book shop was actually Leo's barbershop! The production crew changed things around and only used the front of the shop. Perhaps the inside shots were on the cutting room floor. I never knew. So the Woody character named Mickey, returns to his home and unpacks the conversion ware. What is inside the brown paper bag? What did Mickey buy at the Catholic book shop? A Bible, of course. And a crucifix (The Catholic version with Jesus still affixed to the cross). A loaf of white bread. A jar of mayonnaise.

No wonder Woody did a double-take on that barbershop day. His film character Mickey was going to convert to Jesus and here I was inside the shop where it would happen wearing a shirt .... well, you get it.

It's not too late for the real Woody Allen to write me. I promise not to be shy and avoid his email.
I promise to answer his questions, if they persist or linger at all.

And I promise to answer yours as well. Like why the white bread and mayonnaise? Like why search for meaning and give up before you find it? Ask, you just might get an answer that works.