Held in Common

Omit, delete, ignore - and read the little words!

Here's something from our Heart and Mind session the other day. I'm putting it up here because I think there are some important guidelines we mentioned which deserve a wider audience.

We were looking at the Book of Romans, and focused in on chapter 1, verses 14 to the end of the chapter.

Those verses have often been read - and often still are - as a bit of a diatribe against the human tendency to sin, especially towards sexual sin. (It's apparent that this text is still being read in this way if you look as some of the more immoderate expressions in the current debate on sexuality across the Anglican Communion!)

James Alison, in his excellent, thought-provoking book "Undergoing God", points out (and I paraphrase!) that this is not the only, or even the most natural, reading of the text.

Putting it simply, he suggests that Paul is drawing his readers or listeners - and particularly his Jewish Christian listeners or readers - into a position where they find themselves fulminating against the vices of others, and especially others they do not like or agree with.

James Alison points out various principles of reading which lead his to this conclusion.

First - ignore what Paul (or whoever) did not write! Since we know Paul wrote all of Romans, this can only mean... the verse numbers, chapter numbers and paragraphs!

This is how our earliest copies of the New Testament look:

No verses, no paragraphs, no chapters. All written in uncial (basically capital) letters. No punctuation!

So what does this mean, here? It means: don't stop reading at the end of chapter 1! Just because there is a chapter break there, it doesn't necessarily mean that Paul has finished his argument.

Second - look out for tiny keywords! And - what do you know? - there's one of them at the very beginning of Romans chapter 2. "Therefore...", Paul writes. Where there's a "therefore", you can be sure that Paul was linking up what he's now saying with what came before. And that means that Paul's discussion hasn't stopped at the end of chapter 1, but carries on into chapter 2. And it means that Paul's BIG POINT, the climax of his argument, is coming now, in the first verses of chapter 2.

Here's what he writes:

"Therefore you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgement on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things..."

This means (according to James Alison - and I'm pretty convinced, myself) that this whole passage is not a diatribe against sin, but a warning against Paul's readers/hearers not to judge others, or to assume that they are themselves without fault. As Paul says in Romans 3:23: "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God..."

So: a radically different reading - and all because we remembered to ignore the markings in the text (which are a later, only sometimes helpful, imposition) and take more note of link words.

Worth remembering as we read?

Christianity and other beliefs

Becky, someone I know from outside the parish, has sent me an encouraging email, with some questions in it. Here's an excerpt (with her permission)...

I've been reading this blog, and I've found it very interesting. I don't currently consider myself to be a Christian, I have my own set of beliefs, but I've often thought that Christian spirituality isn't very far from my own. One of the main things that put me off Christianity was the idea that it was very 'set in stone' when it came to religious texts, and that it was very dogmatic. I admit I'm rather ignorant of the contents of the bible. I know the New Testament better than the Old, and what I do know is from my childhood. Anyway, its enlightening to find that my perceptions were short-sighted.  I always wondered what theologians studied.....

I can't say that I am a Christian, but definitely inspired to find out more. And so I have some questions:...

Inside-out church

Now, here's a quotation to get you thinking and talking (I hope)! It comes from Barbara Brown Taylor's Leaving Church:-

“What if people were invited to come [to church] and tell what they already know of God instead of to learn what they are supposed to believe? What if they were blessed for what they are doing in the world instead of chastened for not doing more at church? What if church felt more like a way station than a destination? What if the church’s job were to move people out of the door, instead of trying to keep them in, by convincing them that God needed them more in the world than in the church?... If churches saw their mission in [this] way, there is no telling what might happen.”

OK, her use of "instead" leads to a bit of an over-statement. I do actually think there's room in church to learn about God - and that's not a question of teaching people "what they are supposed to believe", but rather of helping people understand more and grow in faith. And there are always church tasks to be done, and rightly so. And a full church is an encouragement to everyone...

So, she overstates it. But her emphasis is quite right in principle, I believe. Giving space for people to tell what they know of God and to be blessed for what they are already doing 'out there' is an excellent way of making connections. Connections between people's whole lives and the (important) bits they set aside for communal worship. And she's right in saying that this is truly about mission - it's about being in the world as Christians.

We've already started doing this, by asking people to come and share, in services, something about how they pray, or how they focus in practical ways on the environments, or how they serve God in their jobs. We could do some more of this, I think.

All this serves as an antidote to suburban "church as leisure" tendencies. Those tendencies are natural: church is not, generally speaking, part of our professional lives, but part of the time we have set aside, generally at weekends, for 'me' or 'us' or 'family' things. No one's saying that's wrong. But it can be a barrier against asking how the gospel can connect up with who we are, wherever we are.

What do you think about this?

Creationism Disneyworld

Dean has written a great blog on Creationism and its questionable methods of interpretation here. Well worth a read!

"My Sweet Lord" (2)

There are interesting blogs on this story here (Anger Rising, 2 April) and here (The Hypocrites and the Pharisees, 4 April) and here.

Update: Mark at Hyperliterature has some comments on this story, makes some very pertinent links between it and - I'm not kidding - Eddie Izzard. He has some good video clips of interviews, etc. And says things in his blog that I would never have dared to! (He also gives a very kind and generous link to my blog!)

"My Sweet Lord"

A 6 foot high sculpture of Jesus, with arms outstretched, was to have gone on display this week at the Lab Gallery at the Roger Smith Hotel, Manhattan, New York.

The figure, called "My Sweet Lord",  is anatomically correct, totally naked - and made out of 90 kg of milk chocolate...