Intersections

Old garments and old wineskins represent the established religious practices, traditions, and structures of Judaism at the time, particularly those associated with the Pharisees and their legalistic interpretations of the Law. New cloth and new wine symbolize Jesus’ ministry, His teachings, and the Kingdom of God. This new way of life emphasized grace, faith, and a renewed covenant relationship with God rather than strict adherence to rituals and traditions.

Just as an unshrunk cloth will tear an old garment and new wine will burst old wineskins, the message and life Jesus brings require a transformation. Trying to merge the old and the new will lead to conflict and possibly destruction given the inherent nature of the old and new.

Jesus is inviting people into a renewed relationship with God that goes beyond the limitations of the old covenant. The “new wineskins” symbolize the need for hearts and lives to be transformed and made ready to receive the dynamic, expanding reality of God’s Kingdom.

What will the next three years bring with our president, Senate and Congress, mid-year elections, tariffs, armed conflict, wars, rumors of war… and the list goes on. Is this new wine trying to be poured into old wineskins? Old wine into new wineskins? Will things come apart at the seams? Who knows? Time will tell if the next four years are transformative.

On this day I wonder about the old and the new as I recall Dr. Martin Luther King’s Letter from the Birmingham Jail where he writes: “…. In the midst of a mighty struggle to rid our nation of racial and economic injustice, I have heard many ministers say: “Those are social issues, with which the gospel has no real concern.” And I have watched many churches commit themselves to a completely other worldly religion which makes a strange, un-Biblical distinction between body and soul, between the sacred and the secular.” These words were written 62 years ago. Are they “old” or “new” wine? Do they have transformative power?

Dr. King went on to wonder with deep disappointment at the laxity of the churches to respond to the injustices in the world. He wrote:

“There was a time when the church was very powerful – in the time when the early Christians rejoiced at being deemed worthy to suffer for what they believed. In those days the church was not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and principles of popular opinion; it was a thermostat that transformed the mores of society. Whenever the early Christians entered a town, the people in power became disturbed and immediately sought to convict the Christians for being “disturbers of the peace” and “outside agitators.”’ But the Christians pressed on, in the conviction that they were “a colony of heaven,” called to obey God rather than man. Small in number, they were big in commitment. They were too God-intoxicated to be “astronomically intimidated.” By their effort and example, they brought an end to such ancient evils as infanticide and gladiatorial contests. Things are different now. So often the contemporary church is a weak, ineffectual voice with an uncertain sound. So often it is an arch defender of the status quo. Far from being disturbed by the presence of the church, the power structure of the average community is consoled by the church’s silent–and often even vocal–sanction of things as they are.”

These are some who proclaim that as a nation we are at an intersection of rights, freedom, rule of law, and even the foundation of the Constitution.  But you know….as Church and as believers we are always at that intersection, year in and year out. We are not called to be thermometers that simply reflect the temperature of civil society. We are always called to be the thermostat that transforms the mores of society to model the teaching of Jesus and the Kingdom of God. Democrats and Republicans come and go. Opinions rise and fall. Dr. King knew that even 2000 years later, the words of Jesus are ever “new wine” – everlasting words.

In the days, weeks, months and years to come lots of words will come from our civic leaders. Surely, they will be different words, but test these words against the Word of God lest we and the Church become thermometers that only reflect the ebb and flow of secular power.


Image credit: Pexels | Photo by Tom Fisk | CC-0 | https://www.pexels.com/photo/bird-s-eye-view-of-roadway-during-evening-1692694/

Hawaii: a view from Japan

The history of how Hawaii came to be part of the United States is not, in my opinion, a shining moment in our nation’s history. The Hawaiian archipelago consists of five major islands and a number of smaller islands – including Midway at the extreme northwest. The five major islands and several smaller ones in proximity were united under the great King Kamehameha in 1795. It was not a bloodless unification, but the Kamehameha dynasty was the reigning monarchy of the Hawaiian Kingdom. The Kingdom was formally recognized by the United States in 1846 and as a result of the recognition of Hawaiian independence, the Hawaiian Kingdom entered into treaties with the major nations of the world and established over ninety legations and consulates in multiple seaports and cities.

Europeans had first come across the islands in the late 1700s and by the 1790s was an active destination for American merchants. The arrival of outsiders brought new technologies, goods, diseases, and political dynamics, ultimately leading to Kamehameha’s unification of the islands. One of the key elements of Hawaiian that outsiders quickly encountered was that the land is a gift and not to be owned by individuals. It is a concept that the Hawaiians managed well enough in the normal matters of houses, villages, farms and the such. It was a concept unthinkable to merchants, missionaries, and members of the western business community.

Over the next 100 years more and more outsiders came to the islands. American merchant ships began stopping in Hawaii for supplies, and some sailors jumped ship to live among Hawaiians. The first wave of Americans were the New England missionaries who arrived in 1820. They were soon followed by business men, investors, and all manner of commerce. Plantation agriculture first appeared in Hawaii with the establishment of the first permanent sugar plantation in 1835, marking the start of large-scale commercial sugarcane production that would define the islands’ economy for over a century. It also led to immigration from China and Japan.

Immigration to Hawaii

Between 1852 and 1899, around 46,000 Chinese immigrated to Hawaii. Although many came as laborers for sugar plantations in Hawaii, they concentrated on getting education for their children. When their contracts expired, many decided to remain in Hawaii and opened businesses in areas such as downtown Honolulu’s Chinatown.

In 1868 the first documented group of Japanese immigrants arrived seeking work in Hawaii’s sugarcane and rice fields, though this initial wave was small. The major waves began in 1885 when the first large-scale, government-sponsored group of almost 1,000 Japanese laborers arrived, following King Kalākaua’s diplomatic efforts to secure workers from Japan for the plantations. Following this, many Japanese women arrived as “picture brides,” marrying men they’d only seen in photographs to join the growing immigrant community. In time, the Japanese community was well established in the islands.

All during this period land ownership was a constant source of friction between the native Hawaiians and the outsiders. In 1875, the U.S. considered Hawaii as critical to their national interest in the Pacific region and began discussions with the Hawaiian government about the use of Pearl River Lagoon as a naval base. We know the area as Pearl Harbor.

Imperialism from within

During the summer of 1887, while the Legislature was out of session, a group of Hawaiians (most also U.S. citizens) with land and business interests, essentially hijacked the nation. Under the threat of armed revolt and assasination, King Kalakaua signed what is known as the Bayonet Constitution. This resulted in disenfranchising two-thirds of the native Hawaiians as well as other ethnic groups who had previously held the right to vote but were no longer able to meet the new voting requirements. The new constitution was to the benefit of the white, foreign plantation owners. Of interest to this series is that Asian immigrants were completely shut out and were no longer able to acquire citizenship or vote at all.

The ruling elite almost immediately began to petition the U.S. to annex Hawaii. They sent a delegation to Washington in 1894 seeking annexation, but the new President, Grover Cleveland, opposed annexation and tried to restore the Queen. Spurred by the nationalism aroused by the Spanish-American War, the United States annexed Hawaii in 1898 at the urging of President William McKinley. Hawaii was made a territory in 1900.

Why annex Hawaii?

What were the considerations when the U.S. annexed Hawaii? Perhaps it can best be explained in three arenas: strategic considerations, economic motivations, and political rationale.

The strategic motivations can arguably be seen as an extension of “manifest destiny” extended into the Pacific for access to Asian markets. At the same time, acquiring territories like Florida and Louisiana was crucial to secure borders, control Gulf Coast ports, and prevent European powers from establishing footholds near U.S. territories. In the same light, security and economics merged by establishing Hawaii (Pearl Harbor) and the Philippines as vital naval bases and coaling stations, projecting American power into the Pacific and challenging European empires. This was also part of the political calculus

Economic motivations were basic: American industry needed raw materials and new consumers, making territories rich in resources or with potential trade routes in the Pacific highly valuable. This also gave added impetus to the development of west coast ports such as San Francisco, Los Angeles and Portland. 

From a distance

By the 1880s Hawaii had become strategically and demographically important to Japan as Japanese laborers were the single largest ethnic group on the islands with many under state-supervised emigration contracts. Hawaii was also strategically important sitting astride Pacific sea lanes. Japanese naval planners viewed it as vital to Pacific security. Hawaii also had a symbolic importance to the Japanese. It was an independent non-Western monarchy, like Japan. Thus, its fate was watched closely as a test of whether non-Western states could survive. Thus Hawaii was both a practical concern (citizens, trade, security) and a symbolic mirror of Japan’s own vulnerability.

After the Hawaiian coup, Japan formally protested, viewing the coup as an illegal seizure of power and a threat to Japanese residents’ rights. The protests focused on unequal treatment of Japanese subjects as agreed to under international law. Japan dispatched the warship Naniwa to Honolulu (1887) to signal their protest in sign of deliberate restraint as there was no attempt to restore royal authority.

Despite outrage in some Japanese newspapers and among naval officers Japan feared diplomatic isolation and being labeled an “uncivilized” power – and mostly conflict with the United States and Britain. Many Japanese commentators concluded: “Even civilized, independent states can be destroyed if they lack power.”  This sentiment was to come to a fuller fruition in the years to come. 

When the U.S. annexed Hawaii, there were diplomatic objections similar to the ones a decade earlier, but there was also a pragmatic realism: Hawaii was firmly within the U.S. sphere. At the same time Japan was between wars in their own home region. The First Sino-Japanese War had just concluded and other war clouds were gathering for possible conflict with Russia. Japan protested symbolically but accepted the new reality.

Lesson learned

The events in Hawaii had a tremendous influence on the Japanese strategic mindset. The elites and military of Japan drew these lessons:

  • International law follows power
  • Legal sovereignty offers no protection without force.
  • Western powers will not tolerate non-Western autonomy in strategic zones
  • Emigration creates strategic vulnerability
  • Japan must secure its own buffers and so Korea and Manchuria became increasingly urgent.

Japan responded to the Hawaiian crisis with protest and symbolic force but no intervention, and it accepted U.S. annexation as unavoidable—drawing from Hawaiʻi the sobering lesson that even “civilized” non-Western states could not survive without overwhelming power, a conclusion that hardened Japan’s later imperial strategy.


Image credit: various photographs from Naval Aviation Museum, National World War II Museum, and US Navy Archives.

Beginning of Public Ministry

This coming Sunday is the 3rd Sunday in Ordinary Time, Lectionary Cycle A when our primary gospel source is from St. Matthew. Our gospel passage is placed after the heavenly voice has identified Jesus as the Son of God in whom He is well pleased in the baptism account (3:13–17). It also follows the text where Jesus proves what kind of Son of God he is during the temptations in the desert (4:1–11). In our passage Jesus journeys from Judea to Galilee in order to begin his public ministry (4:12–17). In the course of this journey Jesus will call his core disciples (vv.18-22) and witness to his proclamation with powerful deeds (vv.23-25).  His journey will cover the wilderness of Judea and the towns of Galilee. This begins with the barest of comments: “When he heard that John had been arrested, he withdrew to Galilee.” (v.12)  

From the beginning of Matthew’s narrative up through the “temptation” in the desert (4:1-11) we have been introduced to Jesus of Nazareth, Israel’s Messiah and Son of God. A rich profusion of scriptural quotations and allusions has traced a variety of prophetic themes and connection, which as a whole, point to the coming of Jesus as the time of fulfillment of God’s desire and hopes for his people. Jesus has been marked as the one who will carry the work announced by John the Baptist into the era of judgment and salvation promised from of old by God.  It is here in our gospel reading that the stage is now set for the public ministry of Jesus to begin in earnest. 

Following the arrest of John the Baptist, Jesus began his own ministry in the territory of Zebulun and Naphtali, in the region of Capernaum (v.12). While the verse offers the “when” the simple verse does not explain the “why there?” Unlike Mark (Mark 1:14–15), Matthew feels obligated to explain in some detail why the Messiah should begin his public ministry in Galilee rather than in Jerusalem and Judea. 

We know that, as Josephus tells us (Antiquities. 18:118), Herod Antipas saw the baptizing movement as a potential source of sedition. If Jesus had inherited that movement, then it is reasonable that Jesus would have been on Herod’s radar. But there is nothing to indicate that such succession was either real or planned. Would there be some risk in being associated with John the Baptist? Perhaps. What is clear is that Jesus “withdrew” from the south. “Withdrew” translates a word (anachōreō) used several times in Matthew and is associated with danger (see Mt 10:23; 12:15; 14:13; 15:21). There is something in Matthew’s use of “withdrew” that points to a “strategic” move. For example, seeing John’s ministry continuing in the South, Jesus focuses the kingdom message of repentance on the north of Israel closer to his home in Galilee.

Matthew uses geographical location to indicate not only change of scene, but also as an indicator of God’s will. As was the case when Matthew tells of the magi, Herod and the flight to Egypt, geography is explained in light of the Scriptures: Jesus’ Galilean ministry is in accord with the words of Isa 9:1–2, and thus in accord with God’s will. 

12 When he heard that John had been arrested, he withdrew to Galilee. 13 He left Nazareth and went to live in Capernaum by the sea, in the region of Zebulun and Naphtali, 14 that what had been said through Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled: 15 “Land of Zebulun and land of Naphtali,  the way to the sea, beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles, 16 the people who sit in darkness  have seen a great light, on those dwelling in a land overshadowed by death  light has arisen.” (Mt 4:12-16) We will explore the idea of geography/fulfillment in a later post.


Detail  of Domenico Ghirlandaio: Calling of the First Apostles | 1481–82 | Sistine Chapel, Vatican | PD-US