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.

Not political

Chatted with a guy yesterday who explained that he was going to work for some weeks at a house with Jews and Palestinians in east Jerusalem but it wasn't political.

Not political?!

It amazes me that people can feel that not engaging in political debate means that you are not being political. Really it means that you are being deliberately ignorant - not engaging is itself a political position. It strikes me that there is no (defensible) apolitical stance.

This position seems to be rooted in the myth of 'balance' in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The idea being that the best approach is to be even-handed (the easiest way to do this being saying nothing for either side). However, this approach neglects the present injustice and the drastic extent to which the situation is currently out of kilter.

A true balance would come through achieving an equality of rights. Whilst this 'see-saw' is currently so out of balance it is necessary to unashamedly speak up for those who don't have a voice of their own, whilst remembering that the aim is not to take a side but to achieve a just peace for all.

Ask me anything

A friend at church was wearing a t-shirt from a CU Freshers Fair campaign which had the slogan 'I'm a Christian, ask me anything' in bold capital white letters across the middle of the shirt. My question was "why are you so arrogant?"

These campaigns (like the 'I agree with Greg' OICCU one) seem to do more harm than good, making people of faith out to look thoughtless and arrogant.

Capitalism

I've been haunted by an image I saw on the BBC news yesterday. The report was on the drought and food shortages in northern Uganda. The cameras showed a mother feeding her children pieces of dried raw goat skin which they were chewing on because they were so hungry.

This is a f*$"ing disgrace.

How can we live in a such a divided, unequal world. My immediate reaction was that this kind of atrocity is the result of western capitalism. Certainly pure 'free market' capitalism is not serving the desperate needs of the bottom billion of this world. But are these anti-capitalist feelings justified?

Capitalism will be said to be the most effective way to lift people out of poverty through development from outside investment (although the bottom billion still struggle). I'm not sure about the socialist track record on international development?

What is a different vision? I don't know how to solve this (rarely mentioned) global crisis. However, I'm left feeling less inclined to sound neutral about Capitalism as the best of a bad bunch for the world (I still maintain that Christians motivated by love should be socialist). Capitalism may be the best of a bad bunch but that doesn't mean it's not negative. It's appalling that there is such inequality in the world. Unregulated Capitalism promotes this inequality (i.e. by the unlevel playing field of free market economics) and so it should be REGULATED for the negative system that it is.

God's Kingdom utopia

Just had an interesting chat with a friend from college about whether socialism is the right attitude towards wealth/equality and possessions for the Christian community. I would argue that where socialism has failed elsewhere it is because it lacks a proper motivation and so we see, for example, communism where socialism must be enforced by social coercion of a powerful state. The Christian community, however should be motivated by love and by the example of Jesus and the early church to embody a community that shares with all as they have need and doesn't consider possessions as private property.

Our discussion developed as we considered the Utopian ideal which is a characteristic of Marxism. A current hot topic in theology seems to be an emphasis on the resurrection of all things (thanks to N.T. Wright et al). This idea results in a call to value the present material reality that is to be resurrected and not destroyed and also calls us to seek to build God's Kingdom on earth today, since this foreshadow will be taken up into the new earth.

It strikes me that in a theology of building God's Kingdom on earth today we have a call towards a utopian ideal that is to be brought into being through a struggle against the forces (could we say principalities and powers) and social structures of today. In the prayer that Jesus taught his disciples to say we are to pray that God's will would be done and that His kingdom would come on earth as it is in heaven - is this too a call for a utopian ideal in the remaking of society?

Authentic Christianity looks more and more socialist to me!

Historical Old Testament

We have just had an interesting debate in our lecture about the historicity of the Exodus story. The argument was made that it matters that the story was historical because these stories reveal something of the nature of God. An analogy was made to someone claiming to be able to play a piano - if they have never actually ever played a piano before then the claim doesn't reveal their true nature. This sounded very persuasive and was met with much approval in the room. However, I disagree with this line of arguing for two reasons. Firstly God does not need to corroborate the claims he makes about his nature with actual experience and a divine myth can reveal as much truth as a historical record. Secondly (and more significantly) as Christians we believe that God's nature is revealed in Christ. The nature of Christ is not always consistent with the nature revealed through the 'historical' actions of God in the Old Testament. Of course we can pick and choose stories that reinforce the nature of God as revealed in Christ but we must be honest that that is what happens.

Some would say we must maintain that accounts are historical because they are our source of understanding the nature of God. However, the point I want to make is that the consequence of this is that we end up with an un-Christlike God as a result of this approach. The actions of God in the Old Testament seem to be an incomplete/poor/wrong revelation of the nature of God when held against the bench mark of the ultimate revelation of God in Jesus (e.g. the sanctioning or commanding of genocide/ethnic cleansing).

I would want to argue that we find, in the Old Testament, an evolving understanding of the nature of God. I therefore don't need to cling on to historical recordings of the actions of God as indicative of the nature of God. There should be other reasons why it is argued to matter that accounts are historical.

nations

Whilst looking at the developments between the promises to Abraham in Genesis 12, 15 and 17, one of my fellow students noted how the promise to become a great 'nation' became great 'nations' in Genesis 17. It seems to me that this is anticipation of the end of Chapter 17 where there is also the promise to make a great nation from the line of Ishmael in Genesis 17:20.

Are the Muslims (who identify themselves as the line of Ishmael) this 'great nation'?

Absolutely

Sandeep writes that the loss o absolute truth is the root of all evil on his Facebook. I'm wondering whether it's true to say that there is such a thing as absolute truth, it's just that nobody knows it. Therefore any truth that is known is a relative truth and not all 'relative truths' are true.
Need to do some reading on this interesting stuff.

Faith

Graham Tomlin in our lecture spoke of the cliche that Christians sometimes hear "I wish I had your faith" as if faith is a particular psychic ability that only some people have. In fact faith is about where we put our trust. The answer therefore is to say "you do have my faith, you just place it elsewhere"!

thought for the day

I've just listened to an excellent thought for the day from Giles Fraser (given on Tues 4th Jan). In it he highlights how religion can be guilty of scape-goating in order to find an outlet for public frustration and violence for the sake of societal cohesion. He gave the example of an African 'pastor' complicit in the torture and burning of a 'witch' in Ghana.

He justified his attack on 'religion' as a Christian Priest by saying that Jesus resisted the controlling and nefarious tendencies of the religious leaders of his day and that he sided with the different, and the marginalised (the usual targets of the persecution of the masses) ultimately absorbing the violence of the masses himself in his crucifixion.

Another interesting thought on the anti-religion of Jesus.

some hope

I've just read this tweet from John Piper:

"Palestinian hope. I will cut off the pride of Philistia. It shall be a remnant for our God--like a clan in Judah. (Zec 9:6)"

Since New Year his tweets have reappeared on my Twitter stream, despite my having stopped them previously because I was bored of his Calvinistic theology. Anyway, I don't know whether I've given him a bit more air-time again because I'm looking to be offended but I certainly found this latest tweet offensive.

It is offensive to suggest that the greatest hope for justice for the Palestinian people is for them to become a clan in Judah. I believe that this is bad theology, taking a verse out of context. The root of this bad theology seems to be a deterministic Calvinism - an attitude that looks to understand God's will and purposes from the observed facts on the ground, on the basis that everything that happens is God's will. Presumably Piper would see, in the current oppression of Palestinian rights and violent take over of their land, the outworking of God's will in returning 'his chosen people' to the land.

I can't see anything of God's will in injustice and violence. I want to say that God's will is not fully being done in Palestine. God's will is not fully done on Earth - that's why Jesus commands us to pray 'your will be done': not as a rubber stamp on the inevitable but because there is a real and ever present chance that our human choices will inhibit God's being done.

Am I entitled to say that God's will is never injustice and violence? I would say yes, where Jesus is my ultimate guide to God's will (as opposed to some prophecies taken out of their 6th century BC context.)

The real hope for Palestine will be when the world stands with them for their rights and justice - a movement that come significantly sooner if the Christian right in America start to pray for and live for God's will of love and justice to be done.

YHWH, YHWH

I've Just been singing a new worship song with the line "Yahweh, Yahweh; we love to shout your name". It got me wondering about the distance the church has come from it's Jewish roots. Would the Apostles have sung such a song? Expressing the unspeakable name in this way would be deeply offensive to Jews!

I'm not sure what the correct answers is. Inviting God to dwell within our hearts would also be offensive, compared to the High Priest approaching the Holy of Holies in the Temple once a year on behalf of all the people.

My opinion is that we do have liberty to sing such a line but maybe we also have a bit too much levity if we do so. Whilst we're free to sing 'Yahweh, we love to shout your name' we might do better not to. By choosing to use our freedom not to say the name of God like this we could make a point of reminding ourselves of the majesty, mystery and transcendence of God - a point that is easily forgotten in 'low' forms of worship.

1/1/11

It's the first of January. It's also about time I was in bed but I can't start off my new year's resolution to be more disciplined in writing a blog by not writing on the first of January!

The thought that I want to record now is the discussion that June and I were having about being a member of a church. We were considering the appeal of being in a more traditional congregation where there is lower expectation on involvement in serving during the gatherings. The appeal is because sometimes the responsibilities one has in a service can be sources of stress or burdens. It seems to be especially true of the Evangelical church that there an expectation that all members of the church should be serving in some capacity, whether as a children's worker, worship leader, intercessor, welcomer, etc. etc. This is positively motivated by a desire to develop everyone's gifts to serve and pursue 'Every member ministry'.

However, there is an issue where attending church can become a chore or an additional stress on already stressed lives. This is true of the church leadership where promoting involvement becomes an administrative challenge, putting together rotas and making sure all the responsibilities are covered. It is also true of those who are serving, whether the stress is preparing activities for children's church or just missing out on the experience of worship through being concerned about the aspect in which they are serving.

Clearly there is a good case to be made in terms of the importance of serving and not just developing Christian consumers. Of the way that we can grow in our discipleship through the humble service of others. Of the way that we can develop personally and spiritually through utilising our God given gifts for others.

However, I've just started wondering whether it might be better if our aim was 'every member mission' rather than 'every member ministry'. This would remind us that our priority is not just to run effective gatherings but is to follow Jesus through loving God and neighbour.

I'm not saying that there will be no place for serving in the gatherings. But just that maybe it would be good to start imagining how large gatherings could be more stripped down, freer, more organic (probably messier) and less burdensome in terms of their planning and delivery.