I do homework for seminary and sometimes post it here.
Considering protests in Hong Kong with Markan depictions of Jesus’ protest against the socio-politico-religious order uplifts the question: what if Jesus is intentionally constructed by Mark as Messiah? Parallels between situations in Hong Kong and Mark’s narrative are many: Hong Kong’s chief executive tries to ease public anger with a deputy liaison and Rome uses religious collaborators, Leung defends police force and Rome has Temple guards, Tiffany Ko complains about lack of real dialogue and religious collaborators use leading questions to trick Jesus, protesters plan for a showdown with Hong Kong government and Jesus is depicted riding on a donkey against Roman rule… I am compelled by Irene Ng’s remark that because of the protesters’ lack of leadership, it’s difficult to make decisions and maintain unity. In contrast, despite Jesus’ attempts to uplift expendable and marginalized members of society, Jesus is portrayed in Mark as a clear leader. The disciples look to him for direction, guidance, and teaching. Jesus sets the ideology that defines the early Jesus movement as one that stands outside of existing religious structures, that flouts societal categories of exclusion, and challenges empire to create a radically inclusive community where everyone is fed, including those whom society deems undeserving. The downfall of protest is forgetting and distraction– perhaps Mark has constructed Jesus as a strong leader, inhumanly prescient and clever, resolute in his principles, so that the post 70 CE, post Temple destruction community might be one that acts and unifies in remembering: take, bless, break, give.
Related: remember – www.fergusonoctober.com
Note: I am in no way saying that Hong Kong/Rome/Ferguson are the same. For more thought on Hong Kong/Ferguson comparisons: consider this
Because painting places/people with a broad brush ain’t cool: