The American Spectator : Will the Glastonbury Thorn Survive?

Text Size

Another Perspective

Will the Glastonbury Thorn Survive?

By Hal G.P. Colebatch on 12.20.10 @ 6:07AM

Few trees have had such links with high religious mystery.

The other week in Britain the Glastonbury Thorn Tree was destroyed by persons unknown. It was a scrubby, undistinguished-looking tree. Few trees have had such links with high religious mystery.

It is said to be in its origins 2,000 years old and to have direct links with Christ. According to legend it is either sprung from the Crown of Thorns or from seeds planted by Joseph of Arimathea, who, according to the Gospel, gave his tomb to hold Christ’s body.

In fact it is historically possibly, if not particularly likely, that Joseph of Arimathea visited England. Archeological evidence shows that England had considerable trade with Europe before being absorbed into the Roman Empire after 43 A.D. and travel in the Roman World was relatively easy.

Although the story of Joseph of Arimathea is encrusted with legends, he is described by St. Mark as an “honorable counselor” in Judea and may have been a wealthy merchant.

Whether or not there is any truth in any of the many legends that have grown about the tree is in a sense unimportant. It has been at the very least a place of contemplation.

The important fact is that the Glastonbury Thorn, like Glastonbury itself (Glastonbury Abbey is one reputed burial-place of King Arthur), has been a focus for Christian beliefs in England since ancient times. It had, over the centuries, become a site of pilgrimage, and a cutting from the tree was sent to the Queen to decorate her Christmas dinner table every year.

Glastonbury is also a seat of the legend of the Holy Grail. Many have remarked on a feeling of uncanniness about it.

The thorn tree is said to have flowered on Christmas Day every year for the last two millennia.

G. K. Chesterton, in “The Ballad of the White Horse,” telling of Alfred the Great’s defense against the marauding and destroying Viking barbarians, referred to:

The Earls of the Great Army
That no men born could tire, 
Whose flames anear him or aloof 
Took hold of towers and walls of proof, 
Fire over Glastonbury roof 
And out on Ely, fire …

The fires of the Great Army 
That was made of iron men, 
Whose lights of sacrilege and scorn 
Ran around England red as morn,
Fire over Glastonbury Thorn— 
Fire out on Ely Fen.

The destruction of the tree may have been mindless vandalism or a deliberate attack on a symbol of, and aid to, Christian faith — and there are plenty of anti-Christian fanatics in Britain today (when both convicts and police, as well as members of the remaining armed forces, are, in the name of political correctness, given time off to observe pagan rituals). Or possibly the target was British history and identity, which has been under attack from many quarters, including official ones, in recent times.

Whoever did it went to a good deal of trouble because the tree was protected by a wire fence. Further, the fact that the destruction took place on December 8 suggests those responsible were well aware of the significance of the tree. This has traditionally been the date on which a sprig was cut from it to present to the Queen.

Whatever the motive behind the destruction was, if the tree is lost then something at the core of Western civilization has been diminished. In “The Ballad of the White Horse,” Alfred, looking at the senseless destruction and waste caused by the barbarians, tells them:

Therefore your end is on you,
Is on you and your kings,
Not for a fire in Ely fen,
Not that your gods are nine or ten,
But because it is only Christian men
Guard even heathen things.

Page: 1 2 >

About the Author

Hal G.P. Colebatch’s “Immram,” Counterstrike, is being published by Australian publisher Imaginites.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (86) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Appleby| 12.20.10 @ 7:01AM

Blinded idiots have been trying without success to destroy both Judaism and Christianity for centuries, and they have never succeeded . You would think they might have figured out by now that there might be a Reason for this.

Evanston2| 12.20.10 @ 1:49PM

Sure, and as we all know, worship of relics and trees is central to Christianity and Judaism.

Appleby| 12.20.10 @ 2:54PM

Those of us who can read do, anyhow. Ever hear of Oliver Cromwell? I have visited cathedrals in Britain where the scars of his vandals still greet the worshipper and remind us that this whole schtick isn't new.

And by the way, ignoranti, the Burning Bush, which is not burning since it got Moses' attention, still exists.

Patrick| 12.20.10 @ 3:13PM

I certainly doubt the Glastonbury Thorn is a reanimated walking stick belonging to Joseph of Arimathea . Further, I am entitled to this doubt, even as a credulous papist as I am.

I do not kneel before the stained glass windows of my church, but I certainly understand the messages conveyed in them, and the importance that such art has in conveying them.

I also understand the message sent should some malcontent throw a rock through them.

Oliver Cromwell would have done more damage to the Glastonbury Thorn by laughing at the legend, spitting at its direction, and continued on his way. Further effort would have only credit to that which it was claimed to be.

He did not merely scoff, for he wanted to send a message. Violence had to be done unto the tree, for the tree was a symbol, of both the history and the people of Glastonbury.

This time, it was not some hero of Calvinist rigor who hefted the axe. It was not done in the light of day as a symbol of positive military might, and the consequences of disobedience.

Felling this tree was done in the dark of night by cowards and vandals.

No, it certainly wasn't the work of Muhammadans, who prefer to show their contempt for all things not Muhammadan in a more showy way. Further, they trip over one another to claim credit for their malfeasance.

No, it was far more likely a sycophant of Hitchens or some other whinging, atheist, socialist puke.

Please understand, even those of you who make great show of scoffing at such medieval things as the Glastonbury Thorn, the felling was a message to you as well.

Vern Crisler| 12.20.10 @ 10:35PM

Recall that the "papists" of those days were Inquisitors. Cromwell himself was in favor of religious liberty. It wasn't Cromwell who damaged the silly tree, but a soldier. Cromwell wasn't even present:

"The original thorn tree on Wearyall Hill was cut down in 1653 by some fanatical soldier of Cromwell's army, to the great annoyance of Bishop Goodman of Gloucester who wrote to the Lord Protector complaining of the outrage; but before that date slips had been taken from it, and many specimens now exist which blossom about Christmas time. " (Catholic Encyclopedia.)

There is no way of knowing whether the soldier was "fanatical" or was just tired of superstitious hokum.

In any case, damage to such objects now is not a crime against religion but a crime against history and culture. We damage our future when we damage our past.

Vern

Margie| 12.20.10 @ 11:13PM

Thanks for that tidbit of info. about Cromwell.
They still hate him with the same vile hatred today, as then.
They just don't understand that while they nurse their hatred, Cromwell is more than likely enjoying the presence of his Creator.

Edward White| 12.20.10 @ 8:05AM

When I first read the distressing news about the destruction of the Glastonbury Thorn Tree, I wondered who could have done it. Radical Muslims first came to mind, but then I thought that young hooligans could just as easily have done it. Hooliganism is quite the thing now in dear, old England.

Veneration of trees is an ancient tradition in Great Britain. As Mr. Colebatch says, "The destruction of the tree may have been mindless vandalism or a deliberate attack on a symbol of, and aid to, Christian faith . . . or possibly the target was British history."

As a fanatical tree hugger, I am anxiously awaiting the arrest and trial of the vandal who committed this evil, destructive act.

SGB| 12.20.10 @ 9:20AM

Sigh...while acts of vandalism are always a distressing barometer of the state of our society, it is, in the end, just a tree. Like all relics, it is hold over from more pagan urges and as such veneration of said tree is idolatrous. Perhaps someone will carve some nice momentos out of the branches for the gift shop. We could only hope that people wept with the same passion for the lives of unborn children whose lives are snuffed out by the thousands each day. To call the cutting down of this tree an "evil, destructive act" reveals a lack of a true moral compass. At a certain point, if an act of vandalism this trivial is considdered "evil" then evil becomes so commonplace as to make virtually everything evil. If virtually every trivial bit of bad behaviour is "evil" there it trivializes the concept of evil and threatens its deconstruction. This is the moral malidy of our age. It seem that everyone is sitting around ready to be offended and outraged by just about anything, as if the right not to be offended is fundamental. We run around venting moral outrage everywhere we go, yet it seems that increasingly we lose sight of the true moral travesties of our time. The slaughter of the unborn is but one example. Perhaps is people treasured the lives of our children the way they treasure the life of a tree, gave them a "hug" so to speak, our society would not have the blood of hundreds of thousands of its most innocent citizens on its hands.

Tatiana Goldenberg| 12.20.10 @ 9:48AM

" . . . the blood of hundreds of thousands of its most innocent citizens on its hands . . ."

Nonsense!

Balderdash!

And to call these fetuses "citizens" is absurd beyond belief. Did these fetuses have social security numbers? I don't think so.

They neither had memory, personality, or emotions-- characteristics that make up what it is to be human.

But you anti-abortion zealots cannot be reasoned with, since you reject the very idea of analytical thought regarding any moral issue.

You see black and white--never gray. You even reject medical reasons for aborting a fetus. You would deny a young woman who has been raped the option of terminating her pregnancy. Unreasonable and tyranical in your half-formed, flawed beliefs, you want to legislate them.

But there are enough responsible, reasonable citizens in our country to defeat your efforts.

So blather on. I'm sure there'll be a lot of blathering about my post right here on this thread, but don't expect me to read your nonsense. I've better things to do.

Ryan| 12.20.10 @ 10:17AM

Is a child born of rape any less human?

How is a SS# a sign of being human?

Do you know we've seen babies SMILE in utero?

Not all of us reject medical reasons for abortion. Just about all doctors will do something if the life of the mother is truly at stake.

What is "reasonable" if there is no value in an unborn life? What does it matter? By what standards do you judge someone is human? What is your basis for those beliefs? Why is your standard better than ours?

Petronius| 12.20.10 @ 10:18AM

To all who cannot abide being exposed as uncivilized; go kiss a cactus.

Dai Alanye | 12.20.10 @ 11:28AM

There are three moral justifications for taking human life---executions of heinous criminals, acts of war, and defense of self or innocent souls. Pro-aborts such as this Goldenberg, however, seem to have added the justifications of personal convenience, profits for the abortionists, and hatred of men.

We used to hear that the only ones concerned with an abortion were "the woman, her doctor, and her God." God has already spoken on the matter, however, and He is against it. That leaves only the woman, her abortionist, and---all too often---her abusive boyfriend.

What a hedonistic bunch of reptiles these pro-aborts are, ignoramuses or haters of humanity every one.

Margie| 12.20.10 @ 1:13PM

Tatiana,

You sound like a woman that has had a few abortions, perhaps?
Otherwise why would you react to defend the murderers as you do?
Yes, abortion is murder.
For as it is written:

"Thou shalt not murder." Duet. 5:17.

Just because Tatiana says a fetus isn't a human life, does not make it so.

Now, because Christ died concerning the sins of te whole world, that has to include you.

This sin can be forgiven. But it has to be acknowledged as such, first. I hope every woman who ever had an abortion reads this.
You CAN be forgiven.. it is called, amazing Grace.

Occam's Tool| 12.20.10 @ 6:07PM

I used to be pro-choice, until the euthanasia proponents came calling. Then I began to realize that they were both parts of the same argument, The Culture of Death. It was at this point I changed. I did not get my MD to participate in life-taking.

Margie| 12.20.10 @ 8:46PM

I love that! Glad you came around to thinking rightly on the subject.
Interestingly enough, I used to be against the death penalty most of my life. I thought I was solidly right. Then I read a commentary of Chuck Colson's on the subject where he used the Bible to prove that taking the life of another by the act of murder had to be met with the murderer's losing his own life. And it's because of the value that God gives to each human being!

I think you'd find his thoughts interesting as well as truly enlightening:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1274579/posts

Ammo Guy| 12.20.10 @ 1:44PM

Well Ms. Goldenberg, you have obviously considered Pascal's Wager and you have placed your bet accordingly. Normally I would wish you good luck as a fellow human, but in this case I will make an exception - furthermore, I doubt if God will have mercy on your soul, so be it.

SGB| 12.20.10 @ 4:54PM

Your reply underscores the importance that labels and names have in shaping thought. You use the word "fetus" and thus it is simply a mere thing to be done with as we please. If you use the label "baby" or "child" it shifts one moral framework dramatically.

Jim Hlavac | 12.22.10 @ 3:34PM

I did not have a social security number until I was 16. Was I any less a person? Is an SS (love those initials!) number a sign of humanhood? What of all the millions born before that boondoggle of government growth came along? Egad, woman, get a grip. The SS# doesn't define humanhood, and indeed defiles it the more in an impersonalization. And no baby on the first day out of the womb has a "memory" such as we understand it. Nor a "personality" as we understand. But we don't kill 'em. Just as no baby the day before the exit from said womb has much of one either. But some do kill those babies.

Sorry Tatiana, lousy logic, lousy morals, lousy, shall we say, humanhood.

And this coming from the gay around here who ain't making no babies. But please, don't be killing babies just because their memories are not able to be put into words or they don't have an SS#. And the corollary -- don't be making babies unless you plan to keep them, treat them with full dignity, and raise them well, and pay for their upkeep until they go off on their own (even if they turn out gay.)

Merry Christmas Tatiana, hope you find your humanhood in whichever stocking you left it in.

JP| 12.20.10 @ 11:29AM

SGB,
You may find this difficult to believe, but the people who venerated this tree are the very same people who defend the unborn. This mere tree isn't venerated because it is a tree, but because people believe that it sprang from the same tree that provided Christ's Crown.

A woman was healed for just touching Christ's cloak (that is, if you believe the Gospels). It wasn't the cloak that healed the woman.

Evanston2| 12.20.10 @ 1:54PM

You may find this difficult to believe, but most non-believers oppose murder. They have this in common with Christians, but it doesn't make them Christians. Your point about touching Christ's cloak is important...that's why the Apostles Peter, Paul, and John all told us to collect relics and Jesus did the same. Oops, they didn't. No matter, do what you want. That's the essence of self-worship, isn't it, pick and choose what meets your preferences and ignore what is main and plain when it is inconvenient to your self-deification.

John Navratil| 12.20.10 @ 5:16PM

SGB,

Perhaps you should review the definitions of "veneration" and "idolatry". To venerate something is not to worship it.

While I may agree with you that abortion is a greater affront than the affront visited upon this tree, I cannot agree that because it is a lesser affront that it cannot be evil. For you to then trivialize this as an act of vandalism, akin to graffiti, in order to justify a morally relativistic argument and then to denigrate those who do revere this tree as a symbol displays a startling intolerance.

SGB| 12.20.10 @ 5:47PM

Although one might be able to split hairs and come up with some a meaningful distinction between veneration and idolatry, they are simply two points on the same continuum. If veneration is not idolatry, it is on the slippery slope that leads there. It is akin to the difference between the exessive drinker who is not yet an alcoholic and the one who is. And while I understand the argumentation of the seventh ecumencial council in their justifications of icons, I have always asked "why," why would you want to venerate an icon of Christ when you worship the real thing? Why would you want to venerate a tree, when you can worship the living God, the one who resposible for the tree's existence.

I am not sure how my argument displays moral relativism. I made a case, that no matter how heartwarming or uplifiting the mythos surrounding a particular object is, no matter how closely tied to Christian hagiography it may be, to worship it, or venerate it if wish to parse words, is always an act of idolatry. Hardly a relativisitic argument that one.

I never justified the act of vandalism. Acts of vandalism are part and parcel of the senseless nihilism of post-modernity, where anonymous wanton destruction passes as some form of "statement." It is reprehensible and should be scorned by sensible people. But to label all forms of bad behaviour and even all forms of sin "evil" is a blurring of categories that lends itself to moral relativism. If all bad or sinful acts carry the same moral weight, there is no distinction between the slaughter of six million Jews, the millions of unborn babies slaughtered every year, the millions who died and die living under oppresive regimes, the dipicible acts done to children by abusers, and cutting down of a tree, albiet a storried and venerated tree, we risk losing our ability to make real meaningful moral distinctions. Evil must remain evil if the category is carry any moral weight or punch. I don't think calling out someone's bloated and hyperbolic rhetoric as intolerant. A bit condescending perhaps, but not intolerant. You can go ahead and worship whatever trees you want. You can be saddened by their destruction on a number of levels, but I think it is a mistake to call the cutting of the tree down as an "evil" act. Perhaps it might even be a form of liberation, that losing the tree wakes the venerators up from their idolatrous stupor so that they can repent and have their God and Saviour forgive their sin.

John Navratil| 12.20.10 @ 6:46PM

SGB,

Splitting hairs? A slippery slope? Veneration leads to idolatry? Do you revere your parents? Does that mean you worship them? There is no conversation if one cannot agree on the meaning of words.

Do you think the phrase "the lesser of two evils" has any meaning at all? You imply no and simply write-off the, so regarded, lesser evil as "post-modern nihilism". And if one disagrees and suggest there is evil, but not by your reckoning, that leads to moral relativism. No one suggested that all "bad or sinful acts carry the same moral weight" (venial and mortal sins, e.g.), but I suggest that in addition to properly defining "veneration" and "idolatry", you might wish to look up "evil", as well.

Thanks for being so tolerant as to permit me to worship the trees of my choosing (I choose not, thanks so very much). But you set up a straw man when you suggest the cutting of the tree was evil. It was the destruction of the venerated symbol which was an evil. People cut trees down every day.

Finally, I suggest to review the definition of "tolerate". Your final suggestion that tree venerators need to awake from their "idolatrous stupor" so the God can save them fits the definition of "intolerant" to a tee.

Edwin| 12.20.10 @ 9:31AM

I guess the tree was not the only casualty. SGB sounds like someone whose tap-root to wonder has been cut, whose world contains no mystery, poetry or enchantment, a world in which words like "Glastonbury" make no vibrations in the soul. In such a spirit Cromwell's puritans tried, and failed, to destroy the original tree.

Edward White| 12.20.10 @ 9:52AM

Thanks, Edwin.

Excellent comment.

SGB| 12.20.10 @ 9:57AM

The loss "mystery and enchantment" in our post enlightenment world have been bemoaned since the romantic period. The difficulty is that they are often a post-modernist attempt to recapture what was lost in the enlightenment without actually having to embrace a singular faith in the living God testified to in the scriptures and the salvation he offers through his Son Jesus. They replace such true, and rightly placed faith with neo-pagan impulses, generally unburdened with morality or obligation. You get to feel spiritual and deep, but without all of that nasty "religion" stuff. In my wanderings I am often struck by the beauty and mystery of God's creation and find myself lifted in spirit to give praise to him. My critique has nothing to do with the "mysteries" but with a misguided moral compass. If that makes me "Puritan," I guess I could wear that label if you feel the need to place it on me.

JP| 12.20.10 @ 11:37AM

This "pagan" religion you speak of has survived with its "superstitions" intact. The last time I checked, the more sober, realistic, and grounded sects (Anglicanism, Puritanism, Calvinism) are withering on the vine and are already gone.

And you above post is a bit contradictory. You appear to worship God's creation instead of His Son. Paganism is the last refuge of the agnostic.

BTW,
You may want to read up on the Cathechism. If you do, you will find more than enough morality, calls to fullfill one's holy obligations, and other "nasty" religious stuff. Theologians much more learned and wise than you debate the mysteries of the Church from the very beginning.

Ryan| 12.20.10 @ 11:42AM

Calvinism gone? That's interesting. It's causing quite the stir in the Southern Baptist Convention, with one seminary president openly (ahem) Calvinist.

And I attend a growing PCA church, and several principal theologians of the modern Calvinist movement (John Piper, Vodie Baucham, RC Sproul) are widely read by non-Calvinists.

Unless you're talking about England, which I dunno.

David T| 12.20.10 @ 1:21PM

Ryan--If the Baptists are now embracing it, I'd have to say Calvinism is already dead :) I left Presbyterianism on my way to the RCC because after I actually read Calvin, I found him to be smug, arrogant, and judmental, much like Sproul, McCarthur and other modern Calvinists who reject the authority of Rome and replace it with their own authority (no, wait--it's "Sola Scriptura"). It was Luther and Calvin, however unwittingly, who opened the wellspring of anarchy and individualism upon the Church. But the "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic" Church founded by Christ upon the Rock of St. Peter, is the "pillar and bulwark" of our faith (1 Tim 3:15).

Evanston2| 12.20.10 @ 2:17PM

David, the doctrine of election is from the Bible. Augustine formalized it first, then anyone who cares about God's Word (including Luther and Calvin) quite "wittingly" found that Rome's teachings are apostate. It is your claim that Rome is THE one church that is smug, arrogant, and judgmental. First, the Eastern churches are just as old and have just as much tradition as Rome, so if you're relying on pedigree you have a problem. Second, why wasn't Peter in charge of the church from the time of Christ's death (uh, read the Bible, it was James). And why don't Peter, Paul or John mention Peter's awesome authority in their letters? And if we grant that Peter died in Rome, by what magic does a bishop there have more authority than any bishop elsewhere? Oh, that's right, because the bishops of Rome claim that their authority is the basis for their authority (nice circular logic there). Finally, why do you cite 1 Tim 3:15? It's from Paul. It doesn't mention Peter at all. The preceding verses talk about deacons being married (as Paul says he has a right to be "as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas-1 Corinthians 9:5) counter to the traditions of men (that is, Rome). And seriously, read the text: [14] I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these things to you so that, [15] if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of the truth. (1 Timothy 3:14-15 ESV) It is telling YOU to look to Paul's writings, that is, Sola Scriptura, for guidance. But instead you try to take a snippet to make the opposite point. You are an apostate, yes, but also an idiot.

David T| 12.20.10 @ 3:48PM

Wow. Such a warm, kindly response. What church do you attend, Evanston2?

Evanston2| 12.21.10 @ 8:49PM

One with Bibles. That teach in judgement God killed all mankind except 1 family. That teach in judgment God chose the Israelites and almost an entire generation died in the desert because they didn't invade the promised land and kill most of the inhabitants. That teach in judgment God had his own son tortured to death on the cross, and cut off the trinitarian connection (sky dark, "Why has thou foresaken me?") because the price for sin must be paid in order to have mercy on some. But David T., what is taught in your church? Can it be summed up in the words "Be nice?" Recommend your teaching to me, perhaps even from the Bible? I look forward to hearing about your church and its wisdom.

David T| 12.22.10 @ 9:54AM

My church is the Catholic Church and it teaches that God is merciful and calls all sinners to repentance.

The Anointed One| 12.20.10 @ 8:23PM

Please, Christians!

Can't we be a little more kind--a little more Christ like--in our communication.

I'm horrified at the religious rancor I read on these pages.

Margie| 12.20.10 @ 9:16PM

Christ like? OK.
Remember when Jesus made a whip of cords and drove the money changers out of the Temple?
Remember when he told the Jews who refused to believe in Him even though He did many miracles right before their eyes that they were of their father, the Devil?
You ought to get your head into the New Testament instead of pretending to be too holy to hear a refutation of lies spoken by a Bible believing Christian.
Jesus is right. I'm with Him.
Everything Evanston2 said is the truth.

Tia| 12.20.10 @ 11:20PM

Who is this Margie character? She is absolutely frightening in her raving, madwoman fanaticism.

She is most certainly antisemitic. Reread her post, and I think you will agree.

Evanston2| 12.21.10 @ 9:04PM

Anointed, I have a question: why did they torture Christ to death? Because he was a nice guy, I suppose. Sure, that's it! Or perhaps, just perhaps, you should read the Gospel of John for starters and see how our Lord confronted sin directly toward "religious" sinners. Yes, he will not break a bruised reed (Is 42:3, Matt 12:20) but he will also bring justice. He does this because the penitent look to Him, to His payment for their sins. But the prideful look to their own works, built on their own standards of right conduct. You are "horrified?" If there is nothing to repent of, there is nothing to be saved from. With respect, I recommend Matt 3:7-12 for some language that will really horrify.

Ryan| 12.20.10 @ 3:50PM

Calvin had his moments, to be sure; that didn't make his theology wrong.

And if you ever really studied Westminster, EVERY statement/answer made there has scriptural reference.

Rarely do you see a Calvinist try and make a defense without Biblical reference.

David T| 12.20.10 @ 5:03PM

Ryan--I don't dispute what you say. The question is, Are the Calvinists right? Read, for example, David Anders: How John Calvin Made me a Catholic. Pax et bonum

Margie| 12.20.10 @ 1:04PM

Theologians do not have the answers.
God does.
Knowledge and the "having much of it" isn't the basis for salvation, nor does it make one "better" than another, but knowing God, or rather, being known by Him.
For as it is written:

"But if one loves God, one is known by Him." 1 Cor. 8:3.

Ryan| 12.20.10 @ 3:51PM

True enough; but it's helpful to listen to those who have been gifted in studying and proclaiming the word.

And we're all theologians, when it comes down to it.

S. R. T. O. R. GLORIA| 12.20.10 @ 4:47PM

Margie and so many other regular contributors to American Spectator are overtly (openly) anti-intellectual.

Their closed minds undermines (weakens) their arguments.

Margie| 12.20.10 @ 5:26PM

Actually Miss G,

I desire the highest kind of knowledge. That is, the kind that is provided by the Holy Spirit.
It doesn't come from a book, but from God.
It is the highest kind of knowledge one can possibly attain.
My mind is always open to Him.
My spirit longs for Him.
My heart does, too.
In fact I am so open to His Spirit that I happen to reject any type of unsound teachings.
The Bible is the authority on God. Not man.

For it is written:

"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom; a good understanding have all those who practice it. His praise endures for ever!" Ps. 111:10.

Ryan| 12.21.10 @ 1:08PM

Here's a question, then - do you seek to find meanings of scripture within context? Or through the original languages - such as Greek and Hebrew? Do you respect the studies and wisdom of two millenia of Biblical study, or do you just take it upon whatever you have learned?

Can the Holy Spirit guide us through the knowledge and experience of others?

SGB| 12.20.10 @ 5:15PM

I am mystified how you could come to the conclusion from what I wrote that I worship the creation.

When you talk about "the Catechism" which one are you refering to? The Westminster Shorter or Longer? The Roman Catholic Catechism? The one that has informed my faith and remains a powerful tool for accessing the message of scripture is that of the Heidelberg Catechism...few statements of faith are more elegant and personal than its opening words:

Q. What is your only comfort in life and in death?

A. That I am not my own,
but belong -
body and soul
in life and in death -
to my faithful Saviour Jesus Christ.
He has fully paid for all my sins with his precious blood,
and has set me free from the tyranny of the devil.
He also watches over me in such a way
that not a hair can fall from my head
without the will of my Father in heaven:
in fact all things work together for my salvation.
Because I belong to him,
Christ, by his Holy Spirit,
assures me of eternal life
and makes me whole-heartedly willing and ready from now on to live for him.

Q. What must you know to live and die in the joy of this comfort?

Three things,
first, how great my sin and misery are;
second, how I am set free from all my sins and misery;
third, how I am to thank God for such deliverance.

That is pretty much the essence of it...not much in there about Glastonbury Thorns or holding on to "enchantment." Perhaps someone will do some good with the wood of the tree this cold English fall and use it to start a nice roaring fire...

Le Cracquere| 12.20.10 @ 9:33PM

If SGB, Evanston, Margie, et al., will forgive me the malappropriation of Sacred Writ: Almost ye persuade me to become a Catholic.

Margie| 12.20.10 @ 10:27PM

Very well.
As it is written:

"Each one must do as he has made up his mind.." 2 Cor. 9:7.

Evanston2| 12.21.10 @ 9:23PM

Margie, I've got to return the compliment and agree with you. We point "Le Cracquere" and others to Biblical doctrines, yet they find these to be abhorrent. No doubt I lack "tact." And the Bible certainly should not be an excuse to be a jerk. Nonetheless, Paul (and reputedly all the other Apostles, except John) and our Lord Himself were executed for preaching Biblical truth. So I suspect they also lacked "tact." 2 Tim 4 may apply: [3] For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, [4] and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.

GENE HAUBER| 12.21.10 @ 4:26PM

NO, NO, NEVER.
DON'T BECOME A CATHOLIC........
BECOME A BIBLE BELIEVING CHRISTIAN.........
VERY, VERY DIFFERENT FROM CATHOLICS.
AS PER THE BIBLE, JESUS AND ONLY JESUS, WILL GET YOU TO HEAVEN, NOT CATHOLICISM. BE KIND TO YOURSELF.

KyMouse| 12.20.10 @ 9:37AM

Legends are entertaining and can be important from a cultural standpoint, but they are only legends. Just about any object can achieve the status of a relic and become the focus of some degree of religious devotion. Relics in the Middle Ages included a substance that was said to be Mary's milk, and two heads of John the Baptist.

While I see the appeal of believing that certain objects, including plants, might have some divine connection, I'll stick with giving all of my devotion, veneration and worship to the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit -- directly. They, and they alone, are the "focus of Christian beliefs" for me.

Anna K. from Emory U.| 12.20.10 @ 10:50AM

The parallels between Christianity and Paganism are striking, but rarely do Christians admit or even know about the parallels. (I'm a theology student, so this topic interests me greatly.)

Here are just a few for your edification:

Many early Christians celebrated Jesus' birthday on JAN-6. Armenian Christians still do. In Alexandria, in what is now Egypt, the birthday of their god-man, Aion, was also celebrated on JAN-6.
Christians and most Pagans eventually celebrated the birthday of their god-man on DEC-25.
According to an ancient Christian tradition, Christ died on MAR-23 and resurrected on MAR-25. These dates agree precisely with the death and resurrection of Attis.
Baptism was a principal ritual; it washed away a person's sins. In some rituals, Baptism was performed by sprinkling holy water on the believer; in others, the person was totally immersed.
The most important sacrament was a ritual meal of bread and wine which symbolize the god-man's body and blood. His followers were accused of engaging in cannibalism.
Early Christians initiated converts in March and April by baptism. Mithraism initiated their new members at this time as well.
Early Christians were naked when they were baptized. After immersion, they then put on white clothing and a crown. They carried a candle and walked in a procession to a basilica. Followers of Mithra were also baptized naked, put on white clothing and a crown, and walked in a procession to the temple. However, they carried torches.
At Pentecost, the followers of Jesus were recorded as speaking in tongues. At Trophonius and Delos, the Pagan priestesses also spoke in tongues: They appeared to speak in such a way that each person present heard her words in the observer's own language.
An inscription to Mithras reads: "He who will not eat of my body and drink of my blood, so that he will be made on with me and I with him, the same shall not know salvation." 1 In John 6:53-54, Jesus is said to have repeated this theme: "...Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day." (KJV)
The Bible records that Jesus was crucified between two thieves. One went to heaven and the other to hell. In the Mithras mysteries, a common image showed Mithras flanked by two torchbearers, one on either side. One held a torch pointed upwards, the other downwards. This symbolized ascent to heaven or descent to hell.
In Attis, a bull was slaughtered while on a perforated platform. The animal's blood flowed down over an initiate who stood in a pit under the platform. The believer was then considered to have been "born again." Poor people could only afford a sheep, and so were literally washed in the blood of the lamb. This practice was interpreted symbolically by Christians.

There are many more similiarities, but I don't have time to point them out.

JP| 12.20.10 @ 11:43AM

Anna,
And your point is? Instead of dumpster diving for "facts", I suggest you immerse yourself in history. It is one thing to be an athieist or agnostic. But your efforts at Enlightenment are sophmoric.

Margie| 12.20.10 @ 12:57PM

Anna,

As a student of theology, that is what you are learning, Theology.

If you want to know the facts, they are to be found in the Bible. Stick with the ultimate Authority: God.

Why? Because as it is written:

"..because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." 2 Pe. 2:21.

Theologians have their own ideas. God has His.
Theologians study theology.
Christians study Christ.

"For My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways, says the LORD." Is. 55:8.

Evanston2| 12.20.10 @ 2:29PM

The bottom line is just because people claim that they are Christians, or that their traditions are Christian, does not make it so. The Bible defines what is Christian. Otherwise people are just making up their own BS. There is no warrant whatsoever in Scripture for tree worship, quite the opposite, and the attempts by Rome and other "churches" to co-opt pagan traditions only succeeded in co-opting Rome and other false churches. So congratulations, Anna K, for wasting your time studying a bunch of crap that real Christians believe is at best harmless and usually from Satan. Counterfeits always try to copy the real, but they "are not worth the paper they are printed on." So it is with what our Lord called the traditions of men (Mark 7:8, John 5:45 & 8:43-44 see also Paul in Colossians 2:8). You can put a cross (or crucifix if you like) on a box of breath mints but it doesn't make them "Christian."

Ryan| 12.20.10 @ 3:55PM

Nice theology.

I think that you're treating "theology" as a purely intellectual exercise that is somehow divorced from scripture, and somehow Christ isn't in it. I don't know that it's a scripturally sound basis.

That doesn't mean that we're all supposed to be academic about our faith - not at all, but pretty much everything that we believe as modern Protestants was NOT discovered in a vacuum - there is history behind every statement we make.

Even "Christians study Christ."

"Study to show thyself approved" - as well as the examples of the Bereans in Acts.

Margie| 12.20.10 @ 7:12PM

I happen to be in full agreement with Evanston2.

All one has to do is read the Bible and it matches with what he is saying.

I don't fault Anna, though. This is the kind of garbage these mighty theologians teach! He only holds us accountable for what we KNOW, though. Christians know that what the Bible says is the truth.

I would just really encourage Anna to get into the Bible, on her own and pray for God's wisdom. He promises to hear all who call upon Him in truth.

How amazing is that?

"The LORD is near to all who call upon Him, to all who call upon Him in truth." Ps. 145:18.

Ryan| 12.21.10 @ 8:44AM

Where does it state that we are only held accountable for what we know?

Occam's Tool| 12.20.10 @ 6:30PM

Anna, you forgot the Saturnalia and Christmas, and the likelihood that, since the time of his birth was the Census and Romans didn't usually do their Census taking in Winter, December 25th probably wasn't his B-day.

(I'm remembering some of this stuff from my comparative religions class at TCU some 28 years ago. Don't slam me, this is not my point.)

Now, I'm Jewish and I believe differently than Margie, anyway. That's OK, I'm sure she's got a good chance of going to the good place. Judaism is not exclusive. That's also not my point.

The point I have is that in the absence of a belief in G-d, people don't have babies, and society cracks, hurts, and strains, as in the as of Western Europe. G-dlessness is its own punishment, as the Germans, and the English, and the French, and the Greeks, and the Italians, and the Danes, etc. are finding out. It destroys economies and cultures. I understand this, and I'm pretty sure Margie does. We may have theological differences to discuss over a good lasagna some time (with Victor and She Who Must be Obeyed), but these pale next to the fact that G-dlessness is killing our culture and our children.

Over-intellectualization of the sacred is useful in the academic sphere. It doesn't work well in the real world, where feeding kids spiritual pap leads LITERALLY to suicide. (Check the adolescent suicide rates in the secular wonderlands of New Zealand and the UK)

Occam's Tool| 12.20.10 @ 6:31PM

Sorry, "case of Western Europe"---fingers slower than thoughts.

Margie| 12.20.10 @ 8:03PM

Greetings Occcam's Tool:

As it is written:
"..for Salvation is from the Jews." Jn. 4:22.

Thanks for that! :^)

And yes, I do understand and agree with you that apart from belief in God, our world fails and comes to utter chaos. It's called rebellion. Most people don't even realize that that's what it is.. but God calls it rebellion when we refuse to acknowledge His existence.

Sadly, Anna is right in that many Religions, both today and always, do have a lot in common with Paganism.. but that's false Religion, and it's what what Man may teach.
A good rule to go by is that anything taught outside of what the Bible says is nothing but Man's own ideas, and not necessary to abide by.

The Bible simply gives us the definition of what being real religion means, and it has nothing to do with church buildings or statues or rituals whatsoever:

As it is written:

"Religion that is pure and undefiled before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world." Jas. 1:27.

In fact, the word Religion appears only a few times in the New Testament. And even in the Old Testament He warns us about not bringing vain offerings and incense. (Is. 1:13).

He wants our HEARTS.

And most importantly kind sir,

May the "eyes of your heart be enlightened" (Eph. 1:18), in the knowledge of Him who died for you.

Anna K. from Emory U.| 12.20.10 @ 10:50AM

The parallels between Christianity and Paganism are striking, but rarely do Christians admit or even know about the parallels. (I'm a theology student, so this topic interests me greatly.)

Here are just a few for your edification:

There are many more similiarities, but I don't have time to point them out.

Bob K.| 12.20.10 @ 6:06PM

By any chance did your studies in Theology address any similarities between Christianity and Judaism?

Tia| 12.20.10 @ 11:25PM

BobK.

Anna makes a post and moves on. She does not waste her time on readers who are incapable of understanding or appreciating her offerings.

BackToBasics| 12.21.10 @ 1:25AM

from your reply to Bob K. - "Anna makes a post and moves on. She does not waste her time on readers who are incapable of understanding or appreciating her offerings."

And there's the difference between you and the love of Jesus Christ. He does not consider it a waste of time to reach out even to those who in this life are considered to be the lowest of the low.

In your comparisons you missed this central point of the Lord's ministry and that is one of His love for us. I understand that you think Jesus is a myth and a borrowed one at that. But even if you don't believe you can test if He is real or not. You can ask Him to reveal Himself in a way similar to this, "I ask in all sincerity, if you are real then show yourself to me."

It may take time and it may not but you will be surprised at the results.

Bob K.| 12.21.10 @ 5:58AM

Tia,
Anna's not bright, correct?

David T| 12.20.10 @ 8:23PM

It's common knowledge that the early Christians co-opted many pagan festivals and changed them into Christian "holy days." Christmas itself is the perfect example. Christ, the Light of the World, came on the darkest night of the year, a time when pagans celebrated the winter solstice. The Mithras stories were counterfeit Christian knockoffs that appeared in the early centuries after Christ. The Attis myth had its origins in the centuries before Christ but the Christian parallel (Attis was resurrected...as a pine tree) seriously post-dated Christianity. The only thing striking here is that people will believe fables rather than the truth.

KyMouse| 12.20.10 @ 9:48AM

By the way, TAS readers might be interested to know that there are still "clootie wells" in Scotland, Ireland and other places with Celtic roots. Since ancient times, people have tied strips of cloth (clooties) onto the branches of trees near wells that were considered holy and capable of healing. Sometimes people soak the rags and/or touch afflicted parts of their bodies with them, and then hang the rags on the tree. Some people attach religious medals as well, to ask for healing.

I saw a clootie well tree near Inverness in the 1980s -- it was right beside a busy 20th-century motorway, but the hundreds of clooties tied on the branches made the scene look eerily medieval.

Petronius| 12.20.10 @ 10:56AM

I have a vial of water from the Chalice Well, and an Edge Hill medal. In the Queens Chapel in the undercroft of Canterbury Cathedral and Hampton Court I have been felt forces unseen. And I twice predicted appearances to others of An White Hart.
The ambulatory turd who did this attacked any and all who value anything of the past, but especially people like me who desire connections to it in it's own idiom. TG and the other trolls who post here want the dark ages back. You have them, but you've no right to my approval and shall have it Never.

Perusha| 12.20.10 @ 12:20PM

“Glastonbury” plucked a memory---John Michell wrote a book, The View over Atlantis (1969), about Stonehenge and ley lines and a castle of Glastonbury, I believe, which tied together lots of earth’s “monuments, epitomized by the Great Pyramid in Egypt.

Here’s a quote from Mitchell---““The problem in archaeology is when to stop laughing.”

Also, “Clues to the nature of prehistoric science, drawn from archaeology, astronomy, geology, and other studies, confirm that traditional sacred places were centres of natural magic, used by ancient adepts who possessed knowledge, since lost, of the Earth’s vital energies. Current researches point to the rediscovery of a principle in nature which could revolutionise our understanding, and our treatment, of our native planet.”

So, there’s a tree reputedly linked to Christ? LOL

The truly Human-Comedy-like (a la William Saroyan) point that has to be blasphemy to true believers, awash in their programming, is that present day Christianity is essentially itself a pagan religion.

Just because it is so popular doesn’t mean it is NOT, just as the fact that so many millions of people are believers in Islam doesn’t make it the one and only true religion.

Personal responsibility is always the call! PERSONAL!

I looked up the word, “responsible”, the other day, and what do you know? It roots out from “sponsor”, so with the “re-“ prefix, it looks to me like we should be “sponsoring”, again and again, even as our continual action as a born “again” human.

And, what does “sponsor” come from?

SACRIFICE!

Margie| 12.20.10 @ 12:29PM

I love what Cromwell proclaimed: "No King but Jesus".

It is also written on his tombstone.

Margie| 12.20.10 @ 12:49PM

Correction: It read: Christ, not Man, is King."

Eddie| 12.20.10 @ 1:27PM

All mention of religious beliefs, etc. aside, what we have in it's finality is destruction of history. The fables, beliefs and lore associated with our history will forever change or be embellished but the basic historical item or location is meant to be protected and admired. This act of pure vandalism is an assault on all of society's members regardless of whatever arguments you put forth on any other subject associated with the tree. I do so hope they catch the bastards!

Evanston2| 12.20.10 @ 2:31PM

Admired?

Occam's Tool| 12.20.10 @ 6:34PM

Yeah, admired is the word sometimes. There is a reason for tradition and unchanging things in life, Evanston2. Go to Wilmette and check out the Bahai Temple there and contemplate the faith of those who made it.

Evanston2| 12.21.10 @ 9:09PM

I thought the temple was in Evanston! (Gotta put in a plug for the home town)

Margie| 12.20.10 @ 3:10PM

Trees
by Joyce Kilmer

I THINK that I shall never see
A poem lovely as a tree.

A tree whose hungry mouth is prest
Against the sweet earth's flowing breast;

A tree that looks at God all day, 5
And lifts her leafy arms to pray;

A tree that may in summer wear
A nest of robins in her hair;

Upon whose bosom snow has lain;
Who intimately lives with rain. 10

Poems are made by fools like me,
But only God can make a tree.

In forth grade we all had to get up in front of the class and read aloud our favorite poem. I'll never forget reading this one. I just loved it, and read it with joy!

I don't think it's wrong to love a tree. God made them for us to appreciate and use. Long as we don't treat it like it's on the same level as Him, that's all.

God bless!

Vern Crisler| 12.21.10 @ 12:51AM

Bill Buckley once said something along these lines:

I think that I shall never see
A poem lovely as a Skippy's Peanut Butter.

Margie| 12.21.10 @ 12:41PM

Your comment got me to do a little research on this and I found out he was quoted once as saying:

"If peanut butter were as expensive as caviar, it would be served at Buckingham Palace teas."

And apparently he preferred Skippy brand peanut butter.

Writer Michael Winship wrote a post a couple of years ago. Check out the last paragraph:

http://blog.buzzflash.com/contributors/1552

Margie| 12.20.10 @ 3:18PM

Apologies for typos. I should have checked before I posted.. the numbers in the poem were on the website and I neglected to remove them before posting. And I really DO know how to spell fourth. :^) Also forgot to mention.. we did have to memorize the poems we read. Imagine that! Do they do that in grade school anymore?

Bill| 12.20.10 @ 5:10PM

Actually, reverence for relics has been an important part of Christian worship since very close to the very beginning of the Church.

Many Christians (and not just Catholics) hold the Shroud of Turin in high regard to this very day.

Didn't someone just claim to have recovered the Holy Lance recently? That one was responsible for the Crusader victory over the Muslims at the battle of Antioch during the First Crusade.

Long Ben | 12.20.10 @ 9:02PM

Learn something every day don't we . So for a person to be a person one must have a social security card , Shazam ! who knew . Relics are little different than idols and Jesus is alive , as is his Father , as well as the blessed Holy Spirit .

Goofus| 12.20.10 @ 11:29PM

well puhRAISE the LLLLLORD!

i've seen the light at last!

Redstateboy| 12.21.10 @ 10:40AM

I'm tired... Life in the of Hussein is dreary, tiresome and slave-like.. so let's just cut to the chase.. the Butt-heads who did this are that: Buttheads - who if caught - should be beaten severly in the public square and I would bet a sizable sum - they were Liber-uls.

Dacron Mather| 12.21.10 @ 11:32AM

By far Mr. Colebach's most coherent science writing to date. Mexico's Cornish miners are clamoring for a reprint of his monograph on the tearful crown of taco thorns of St. Trevor of Tiajuana

eufems| 12.22.10 @ 10:18PM

With or without tree, I'm still Christian. :D

Latest Headlines

The Inoperative Jay Carney

Jeffrey Lord|131 comments

Lerner’s Plea

Ray V. Hartwell, III|143 comments

Eugenic Abortion 2.0

Daniel Allott|59 comments

Holding AWOL Obama Accountable

Betsy McCaughey|18 comments

What Are the Risks of Syria Involvement?

Christopher Orlet|25 comments

Obama’s Imbroglios

R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.|41 comments

Obama’s Drone War

Jed Babbin|16 comments

Catholic Culture In America

G. Tracy Mehan, III|30 comments

The Spectacle Blog

One of The London Soldier Beheading Suspects British Born

Aaron Goldstein | 6:42PM

Lois Lerner Now on Administrative Leave

Kaylin Bugos | 6:13PM

Crisis Looms, and Kevin Williamson Can Hardly Wait

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 5:48PM

Dismantling Networks, Preventing Footholds

Ross Kaminsky | 5:30PM

Bill Would Ban All Abortions After 20 Weeks

Jordan Gonzalez | 4:15PM

Harry Reid Pushes for the Nuclear Option

Claire Healey | 1:11PM

Weiner: More Photos of My Junk Might Surface

Kyle Peterson | 12:55PM

#FreeKate? Movement to Normalize Pedophilia Finds Its Poster Girl

Robert Stacy McCain | 10:09AM

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Pope Culture

By George Sim Johnston

A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck

By P.J. O'Rourke

Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
Dames at Sea

By John Corry
In the Absence of Guns

By Mark Steyn

In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The Metaphysical Martini

By Werner J. Dannhauser
Counting the Costs of Clintonism

By Robert H. Bork

The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
Chuck McHagel

By George Neumayr

It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted

By Douglas Bartholomew
It’s the Best Time of the Year

By Mark Steyn

The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
The Bush Crack-Up

By Brit Hume

Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?