imageReconciling the ideas of the French Revolution  and the teaching of the Catholic Church has always obliged Irish Republicanism to do a bit of a balancing act. Sean Mac Stiofain refused on religious grounds to smuggle condoms into the 26 counties even though they were an essential part of a bomb maker’s kit for a while. Home made bombs were one thing but he’d have no truck with those filthy things. One atypical Provie of my acquaintance used to attend the Clonard novena explaining that he was asking his god to kill Protestants. The other Provies thought he was a bit of an idiot too.

Inviting Gerry Adams to front a documentary about what Jesus means to him as part of a Channel 4 series on The Bible is, in a very narrow way, an inspired bit of casting. It is certain to cheese off a lot of evangelical Christians in Norn Iron, something guaranteed to satisfy Adams’ fans. Gerry Adams is no Bettany Hughes. She presented the previous week’s episode on the women of the Bible trying to reclaim Lilith and Jezebel as potential feminist heroines who’ve been given a rough time by patriarchal commentators and was an obvious choice to do so. A thousand other candidates could have fronted a programme on Jesus. Lacking Hughes’ scholarship Adams, according to the blurb, aimed to “discover the real, historical Jesus, rather than the version of Jesus he was taught about as a child, and to establish who killed him and why.”

Neither Adams nor Martin Mc Guinness have made a secret of the importance of their Catholicism. Both seem to be a bit more pious than many in their own organisation and even than most men of their age and they give every appearance of doing it for real rather than as an essential part of the baggage of a traditional Republican. So we got to see him blessing himself in Mass and lighting a candle at the site of Christ’s tomb.

Repentance and forgiveness were the aspects of Christianity that Adams first dwelt on. Hardly surprising maybe since while denying that he had any blood on his hands he “took full responsibility” for his actions in the struggle against British imperialism. Leading by example he says he’s forgiven the people who tried to kill him but excluded the modern equivalents of those who built the cross. In Provie speak these are the “securocrats”.

There was a little bit of paddywhackery. Was there any need for the range of gaelgeoir t-shirts? Did he have to translate alea iacta est into Irish? Could they not have cut the “joke” about Sinn Fein being an underground movement as he slid into a first century tomb? There was also more Gerryspeak than was necessary.

Jesus the anti-Roman revolutionary was not absent from the narrative. Adams identified the priests of the temple as the collaborators with imperialism and Jesus as the anti-establishment rebel. What was lacking was an insight into how subsequent editings of the text downplayed this message. That could have made for a more interesting programme.

More than once he used the phrase “by my own lights” to explain how he reconciled his Republicanism and his religion using the human fallibility argument. A variant of this was how most Republicans did the same. Taking the example of the Shankhill bombing he described it as a “stupid” operation and seemed genuinely remorseful. He met the wife of one of the nine dead victims and seemed humbled by the generosity of the bereaved man.

It made for deeply unsatisfying viewing. Unless you had never read anything about Jesus the programme taught little. It offered less insight into recent Irish history and sincere as Adams’ faith might by the lasting impression was deeply conventional and saccharine.

20 responses to “Jesus! It's Gerry Adams”

  1. was there ever an in-depth reception of (Latin American) liberation theology among Irish republicans in the 70ies and 80ies?

    Like

  2. Apart from the acceptance that placing Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem was just propaganda, his search for the “real Jesus” didn’t extend beyond a reading of the four official gospels.

    Like

  3. Latin American thought didn’t really have much of an impact on Republicanism other than the odd quote from Guevara and the occasional vague attempt to create the Sierra Maestra in south Armagh. In fact book learning was considered a bit suspect if you weren’t in prison.

    The Catholic Church, with a handful of exceptions like Denis Faul or Des Wilson, was almost uniformly hostile to Republicanism and preferred to take the side of the middle classes rather than a preferential option for the poor.

    And Skidmarx is right. It was a very superficial treatment of the subject sometimes inviting us to not the obvious similarities between Jesus and Gerry Adams.

    Like

  4. ” Jesus the anti-Roman revolutionary “-never. He was a collaborator with Roman Imperialism, only to become its victim, having opposed the various resistance groups.
    “Pay unto Rome what is Romes”. Where would he have been during the Poll Tax revolt in Trafalgar Square?
    Forgive an atheist, anti-zionist Jew for commenting on him but you must not over praise Jesus with positions he never really possessed.

    Like

  5. Unless some go further and see him as an “unconscious Trotskyist”. Pacifist at best who would disarm any revolutionary violence against an imperial army, hence a collaborationist in objective terms.

    Like

  6. at least, Klaus Kinski’s interpretation of Jesus is more entertaining: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8w2cxoR5XeA 😉

    Like

  7. for humour i prefer my version of my mum’s chicken soup. unfortunately the chicken got run over in crossing the road. see socialists can laugh with each other!!

    Like

  8. for humour i prefer my version of my mum’s chicken soup. unfortunately the chicken got run over in crossing the road. see socialists can laugh with each other!

    Like

  9. An!t the ebnglish always used the fire and brimstone.

    Like

  10. to cook with!

    Like

  11. inviting us to not the obvious similarities between Jesus and Gerry Adams.
    I assume note is meant rather than not.
    I think this is a little unfair on St.Gerry. He seemed to be trying to answer that perennial of American Christians, what would Jesus do?
    To which the obvious answer is, he’d kick ass:

    Like

  12. Kinski at his sensible best.

    Alf – the historical Jesus, who does seem to have existed, was one of a number of messianic preachers who came into conflict with both the local elite and the Romans. Collaborators are more likely to end up in power sharing governments backed by the imperialists than hanging from a cross.

    Kautsky’s book, which we reprinted a couple of years ago explains well how the historic personality was modified as the early Church made inroads to more affluent sections of society in the Roman world.

    Adams was doing something similar with his own biography.

    Professor Billy Mc Williams suggests other possibilities for commissioning editors looking for personalities from Norn Iron to front an hour of prime time telly.

    http://1690andallthat.blogspot.com/2010/02/hes-not-messiah-hes-very-naughty-boy.html

    Like

  13. Like Sinn Fein Christianity was once underground.
    But it eventually won the approval of imperial power and acquired a role in the world it has retained ever since.

    Like

  14. “Pacifist at best who would disarm any revolutionary violence against an imperial army, hence a collaborationist in objective terms”
    So Gandhi was a collaborationist in objective terms? That actually isn’t a very good rhetorical question, since Trotskyists probably believe he was. But in any case Jesus wasn’t really faced with an imperial army, since Galilee wasn’t even part of the empire and contained not a single Roman soldier. The Roman garrison in Palestine consisted of a few thousand troops who spent most of the year living it up in Caesaria before decamping up to Jerusalem to keep order over Passover. And the Zealots and Sicarii were hardly models of revolutionary rectitude, most Jews were much happier with the Romans. But in general, the habit of projecting one’s own contemporary political predilections onto Jesus should be abandoned – the one thing we can be sure about is that the guy did believe the world was to end very imminently, and when you believe that you tend not to be very concerned about issues like tax reform.

    Like

  15. ” most Jews were much happier with the Romans” is a questionable analysis. We know that Zionism has used the failed Maccabi revolt to build a modern defence for their nationalism . Every Israeli is expected to climb up the Masada snakepath to reinforce their allegiance to Zionist ideology as a form of collective indoctrination .

    The resistance movement was weak, split and divided, as correctly identified in the Life of Brian. They also failed to recognise the plurality of the opposition, given the sectarian leadership of each group based around narrow interpretations of ideas .

    One can also argue that it was the Romans who invented Christianity after having decimated the followers of Jesus and then absorbed it into their institutions and culture, whilst totally diluting its values..

    Like

  16. Around 24 Jewish religious sects existed around the 1st Century, all seeking a MESSIAH to liberate Jews from Roman imperial rule. Christianity was also a sect which based itself in Jerusalem and essentially saw itself as a Jewish Christian sect rather than a new religion.

    It was Paul who broke away and set up a new, belief system of Pauline Christianity. A further group around Gnosticism, (transcendence –Greek word for knowledge) also existed, which fitted nicely into the search for a messiah, redeemer and liberator. The Zionists in the 19th and 20th Century rewrote history to use this to their convenience to legitimize their particular form of reactionary nationalism.

    The Roman Empire, like all imperial powers, was based on exploitation and oppression in an extremely violent manner, reinforcing the feeling of alienation. Hence a search for spiritual freedom as opposed to material freedom reflected the contradictions and difficulties of the time.

    To that extent, Jesus’s pacificism was a contradiction, in so far as it recognized the difficulties of defeating the Romans but sought an alternative culture and ideology to their domination.

    The comparison with Ghandi is restricted to the issue of passive resistance. Similarly today we may argue for No Platform against fascists, but how to implement it depends on the balance of forces and the way it is argued for-mass working class action. Ghandi and Jesus may have opposed racism and fascism through their humanistic approaches but would they have argued for mass mobilizations against the State? Would they prefer abstract calls for peace and understanding rather than transitional demands to challenge the State?

    Yes there are many religious people who are supporting Socialist and progressive campaigns. That is their contradiction to work out. We must materially change the world through politics.

    Like

  17. “Ghandi and Jesus may have opposed racism and fascism through their humanistic approaches but would they have argued for mass mobilizations against the State”
    Well it isn’t exactly an abstract question in relation to Gandhi is it, what on earth would you call the Salt mobilizations? And the achievement of Martin Luther King in terms of mass mobilisation was far greater than that of Malcolm X.
    I think racism, fascism and humanism would frankly not have made much sense to Jesus and it is anachronistic to portray him as having any firm position in relation to them. He was of course faced with an oppressive state (though not, as I said, nearly as oppressive as it is portrayed in Hollywood films) and in terms of his attitude to that it would be wrong to read too much into a deliberately ambiguous remark made when the Pharisees were trying to con him into openly saying something seditious. Other references to “that fox Herod” and “those Galileans whose blood Pilate mingled with the sacrifice” (a reference to a genuine recent incident of Roman repression during the Passover) indicate a thorough distrust for the temporal authorities, though i would stress once again that if you believe the world is about to end and you might be the Messiah setting up something along the lines of the anti poll tax campaign might not be a priority (I will resist any Tommy Sheridan allusions here)

    Like

  18. Yes mass mobilisations are one thing but dual power is another. Ghandi deliberately restricted the mass movement from going beyond protest.

    Like

  19. the historical Jesus, who does seem to have existed
    If you’re not even sure about his existence, how can you make any statements based on fact about his life?

    Like

  20. Another Major Advance for Peace in Our Time :

    “Paisley to meet Adams in private to discuss faith”

    http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/Paisley-to-meet-Adams-in.6102413.jp

    Like

Leave a reply to entdinglichung Cancel reply

Trending