This man

Towards the end of Mark's Gospel, the author records the Centurion who has just witnessed Jesus' death on the cross as saying "truly this man was God's Son!" I wonder where the emphasis should go in reading this line?

If we want to emphasise Jesus' special status and origins (perhaps even divinity) we might hear the Centurion saying "truly this man was GOD'S Son!" Or if we are concerned to identify Jesus' place within the Holy Trinity then we might read "truly this man was God's SON!"

However, I'm not sure that this was the point that Mark is making here. It's not insignificant that the character is a Roman Centurion. It is likely he would have coins in his pocket which were stamped with the insignia of his Emperor Tiberius - 'son of divine Augustus' (i.e. son of a god). It seems to me that the best way to read this line is with the Centurion saying "truly THIS man was God's Son!" - THIS man and not that other man who claims this title.

This reading makes much greater sense than assuming the Centurion has a high Christology or worked out Trinitarian orthodoxy! What it means for understanding Christology and Trinity is for further discussion. What we do have in the verse is another way that Mark is challenging and subverting the power and authority of the Roman Empire.

1 Corinthians 11

I've just been reading through 1 Corinthians again and have seen chapter 11 in a new light.

This is the odd chapter where Paul talks about women being from men and therefore needing to cover their heads. The context of the passage is a longer word from Paul about the freedom for believers from the law (especially the food law). The context includes the verses ""Everything is permissible" - but not everything is beneficial" and ""Everything is permissible" - but not everything is constructive". Here, I believe that Paul is genuinely saying that there is freedom in Christ from the law (to do things which aren't immoral). The caveats are explained by the previous verses: they're about not offending those 'weaker' ones who haven't fully grasped the freedom in Christ. For instance, the weaker one may believe that one is engaging in idol worship by eating idol food - in which case don't do it.

So we come on to 'propriety in worship'. In verses 3-10 of Ch. 11 we're told about conventions in worship in which women should cover their heads and men needn't "since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman but woman for man."

What I've just noticed for the first time is that Paul then contradicts both of these arguments for head covering. I believe that in verses 3-10 Paul may be reflecting the common view (the context of law) whereas in verses 11-16 he explains why this justification doesn't work and that there is freedom.

In this reading, the world's v8: "for man did not come from woman..." becomes Paul's v12: "for as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman."

The worlds' v7: "since he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of man" becomes Paul's v12: "But everything [man and woman] comes from God."

To cap it off, whereas v.3-10 argue for women to cover their heads, Paul argues that women don't need a covering: "for long hair is given to her as a covering. If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice - nor do the churches of God."

Conventionally, most get around the women and head covering issue by contextualising these verses and saying that it was simply the practice of the early church, no longer relevant today. However, by reading v3-10 as Paul quoting the common view which he then attacks, it makes sense of the way he then contradicts these verses. It also makes sense of the wider argument that Paul is making about freedom from the law.

Maybe when Paul says "judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?" we should assume his answer to the question is 'yes' and the early church was more radical than some think!

The century of self. pt 1

Last night I watched the first two episodes of Adam Curtis' 'The Century of Self'. It is a fascinating documentary that looks at the influence of Freud's psychoanalysis on the ways of government and society.

Since Freud, humans have been viewed as passive agents who are driven by primitive emotions and feelings. These drivers can be manipulated, for instance, by public relations and marketing strategies or governments. The latter control is deemed necessary by those in power who see the emotions and reactions of the masses as potentially dangerous and also is abused to pursue ideology (e.g. in Nazism and anti-Communism etc.) Edward Bernays (Freud's nephew) had a significant role in the use of PR to promote consumerism and government control.

It struck me watching this documentary that if we consider humans to be passive and primitive and then appeal to this nature, the effect can be to produce a passive and primitive society. It was striking to see how marketing was deliberately designed to appeal to hopes and fears through the influence of Freudian psychoanalysis. I can't help wondering if the consumerist and self-centred society that we live in today, which is so passive to the needs of this world, is the fruit of this marketing.

The question becomes: what is the opiate of the masses today? Surely not religion (which has so little influence). I would venture that the opiate of the masses today (in our individualistic world) is consumerism and celebrity.

PS there was a great quote from MLK on the programme that I could watch a thousand times:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXEIYpnlxbw

1 Samuel 7

I've just read 1 Samuel 7. It's devastating - the radical social dream dies and the people want a king: to be like the other nations.

Paul Scanlon

Indictment of feeling safe in church. A congregation willing to leave their valuables on their seats - shows that they feel too safe. The church is the last place that is meant to feel safe.

The church as virtual reality - inside the church is not real! We kid ourselves that we're making a difference if we sing enough, pray enough or worship enough.

Integrity

Baroness Berridge, quoting John Stott said, on integrity, words to the effect of:

Integrity is not about honesty - it's about being integrated: not separating our personal, physical, spiritual, political lives.

Prayer discussion

We had an interesting debate at college about the way prayer works - is prayer a persuasive act in which which engage with God to influence and be influenced by him.

The ability or not to influence God began an interesting discussion about free will and predestination. A friend wanted to argue that God is outside of time and all that happens does so according to God's plan which incorporates our free choices. I wanted to debate with him that such a complete system is incompatible with personal freedom. Either God has predestined my choices (and I am only relatively free - it feels like I'm making free choices but I'm not actually because they are already decided) or I am genuinely free and God does not know in advance what I'm going to choose.

It is of course, possible to argue that God has fore-knowledge of the choices that I'm going to make due to his different relationship with time. However, foreknowledge is not the same as a preordained plan and anyway, I'm not sure that God is 'outside of time'.

In fact, inasmuch as I want to argue for the freedom of man (a freedom that enables genuine choices necessary for genuine love) I also want to argue for the freedom of God. This means that God would not actually be outside of time in order that he genuinely can respond to what's happening and be free to change his mind.

Where do the ideas of the immutability (un-changeability) of God and omniscience of God come from? Perhaps I'm ignorant of the bible verses. It strikes me that these ideas have more roots in Greek philosophy than in the scriptures.