The Parable of the Apologising Jackass

There is a saying which goes, “Do not judge by appearances”.  This can be readily extended to “the cowl does not make the monk” nor does, the mitre, the bishop.  

For reasons, perhaps, best known to himself – or maybe not, Archbishop Rivass, on Palm Sunday, took off in full flight with genuine hogwash explaining that Christ entered Jerusalem astride a donkey as a sign of humility.  With an air of rhetoric, he then proceeded to ask whether we could see various world leaders including Mr. Allen Chastenet riding donkeys to bring peace to their capital cities.  

Well it seems that the dear old archbishop was out of his theological depth since the principal reason for riding the foal of the donkey was not to offer a peace treaty but only to fulfil the Scriptures and, particularly the prophecy of Zechariah 9:9.  The most dear Archbishop also missed the two other lessons that can be deduced from Christ’s humble entry.  First, His disciples would recall that He made reference to His other sheep, the Gentiles and, second, the Romans would be jolted into the reality that He was no threat to them as His Kingdom was not of this kind.  

I would venture to add also, that it is not secular rulers who should be riding donkeys but rather, the humble Rivass himself who claims to be a spiritual leader – like Christ.  However, to be fair, is there a donkey robust enough to carry him?

Not content with an unanswered opening swipe, the dear archbishop followed on with a so-called parable on Easter Sunday.  This, may I add was even more clumsy than his gait.  For here, the saying holds true that the only thing more foolish than a clergyman playing politics is a foolish clergyman playing partisan politics.  To begin with, a parable is defined as a narrative of some event in nature or human life, either true or possible, under the form of which some moral or religious truth is taught.  Since Christ is the only person to have raised himself from the tomb or to have raised others, it begs the question, what exactly is the moral or religious truth that wise, old Rivass is trying to teach by portraying Mr. Philip J. Pierre as the Risen Christ?  And, pray tell, what has Mr. Pierre decided to do for the nation so much that an angel had to leave his busy schedule of fighting the devil to encourage Mr Pierre in doing what he has already decided to do?

The archbishop’s apology, demanded of him by his superiors, was of course, a travesty!  The essence of an apology is, to my mind, a humble acknowledgement of and sorrow for undue harm levelled at another. However, to request forgiveness from a victim because one’s hurtful words create ambiguity in the victim’s mind is the abyss of absurdity.  I am very sure, dear teacher of religious truths, that St. Paul, could juxtapose your ‘apology’ with his admonition to Timothy to avoid those who have a form of godliness but deny the power thereof.  As such, an apology from you to the Prime Minister remains pending!

In conclusion, I find, dear Archbishop Rivass, that all your sermons are simply resounding gongs and clanging cymbals – lacking in substance and so, like the love of God, they are beyond all understanding.