Part 17. The Pursuit of Social Justice (3)

Campaigning for change.

Christians have been accused of interfering in politics. When Faith in the City was published some politicians rushed to advise the Church of England to 'stick to saving souls and leave the politics to us'.  In the UK this attitude is deeply ingrained and with it the assertion that faith is a private matter and should be kept there.

Christians are only too well aware of political failure as they seek to mitigate the effects of policies causing poverty, poor health services  poor education and the rest resulting in misery, oppression and deprivation. Being on the front line is it any wonder Christians challenge politicians to deal with the causes of deprivation and oppression. Campaigning, lobbying, call it what you will requires,  to be successful, specific skill sets with which some churches are uncomfortable.

In the Old Testament there is recognition of social and economic inequality and the need take action to tackle the issues and not merely mitigate the effects.

Leviticus 19: 9-15 contains the following:

"When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest.  Do not go over your vineyard a second time or pick up grapes that have fallen. Leave them for the poor and alien. Do not hold back the wages of a hired man overnight. Do not put a stumbling-block in front of the blind. Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favouritism to the great, but judge your neighbour fairly.

in Leviticus 1918 we read: love your neighbour as yourself.  This we have noted before is the second Great Commandment. The two Great Commandments fulfill all the Law and Prophets.

In Isaiah we read the following:

Seek justice, encourage the oppressed.  Defend the cause of the fatherless,  plead the case of the widow. (1:17)

Woe to those who make unjust laws, to those who issue oppressive decrees  to deprive the poor of their rights and withold justice from the oppressed of my people. (10:1-2)

With righteousness he will judge the needy, with justice he will give decisions for the poor of the earth. (11:4)

I believe it is correct to state that the approach adopted in the Old Testament is not articulated so explicitly in the New Testament, but as noted before it is not entirely absent. One suggested reason for this is that as Rome was an occupying power little could be done to effect social and economic change.

I remind you that I am not a theologian and am putting forward my own personal opinions. I put forward the following idea for your consideration.

Jesus inaugurated the Kingdom of God and in so doing challenged the religious leaders of his day. He had no desire to challenge the Roman authorities on economic and social issues as this might be perceived as the coming of the warrior-king Messiah, which clearly Jesus was not. Nevertheless  the call to action to free the oppressed and downtrodden is there to be acted upon by Christians as we seek to love our neighbour.

.

 

Part 16. The Pursuit of Social Justice (2)

Demanding that the state should shoulder responsibility for direct support.

Pressure groups form to advocate and lobby for change. An organisation providing direct support may at the same time campaign for the burden to be lifted from them and become the responsibility of the State.  In other words there is a demand that there be a redistribution of resources. Given the demands made on public expenditure this will inevitably lead to conflict with government (and itsagencies) and also with other organisations seeking public funding for their cause.

Faith groups often feel uncomfortable in confronting secular organisations and governments,  whether local or national.

Faith organisations may work with government in partnership. Usually government provides the finance and the organisation engages in the work. This poses a number of issues. A faith group may bid for a contract with government to deliver government services. Such an arrangement limits the independence of the faith organisation as not only is it bound by the terms of the contract, it may be pressured to make changes to its operations at the time of contract renewal.

The fear of interference as outlined above also applies when government agrees to fund in full or in part a faith based groups'  activities.  The same concerns apply to secular groups funded in full or in part by government. Faith and secular groups need to be clear that becoming reliant on external funding leaves them wide open to demands for change in the way they operate.  It is a dirty business.

Voluntary faith and secular organisations sometimes claim to be working in partnership with other organisations when in fact they are engaged in collaborative working. The distinction is important. Partnership entails rights and duties which may have legal consequences. Collaborative working is often expressed in terms of intentions which carry no legal force. Phrases such as 'best endeavours' and 'seek to' abound. The litmus test in collaborative working is how far do you trust your collaborator to deliver?

Faith based groups should seek to make collaborative working a positive reality. For too long there has been a silo mentality in which churches give the impression of being apart from the community rather than being outwards looking and part of the community.

All this is a far cry from biblical theology but it is a consequence of following the command to love your neighbour. Is it Practical Theology?

Final points.

In the UK faith groups must not use taxpayers money to fund activities which promote faith except as an incidental consequence arising from the activity being funded. 'Incidental' might include the location where the activity takes place or the personnel involved.

I have been an employee and a volunteer for faith based and secular organisations in the voluntary sector.  The relationship between the sector and public bodies can be rewarding but it would be foolhardy to seek to minimise the very real problems and tension that exist between them.

Part 15. The Pursuit of Social Justice (1)

Many strive for social justice for themselves, for others, for communities. The community may be based on geography or interest. I am aware of four ways this striving may occur.

1. Direct support for those in need.

2. Demanding that the State should shoulder responsibility for direct support.

3. Demanding the State introduce measures which obviate the need for support.

4. Salf-help, either alone or in concert.

Seeking social justice for the poor, the oppressed, the downtrodden, the victims of circumstance, bigotry or indifference is never easy.

How to engage in the pursuit  of social justice? In my limited experience it boils down to resources and organisational ability. Any group lacking a sufficiency of these two elements is doomed to struggle and eventually fail. Sadly too many people enter the labyrinthine world of  voluntary organisations, engage with bureaucracy, get chewed up and spat out. 

Direct support for those in need

Individuals may give directly to a person money, or goods, or time or their skill. Or they may give said  assistance to an organisation providing direct support. 

In the Book of Acts we read of communities of believers being together and holding everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone who had need. Acts 2:44-45 and 4:32-35. In Acts 11:27-30 the disciples in Antioch decided, each according to his ability, to provide help for the brothers living in Judea.

Marx in 1875 voiced the socialist mantra:

from each according to ability; to each according to need.

Similar sentiments had been expressed by French Christian socialists in the early 19th century.

The redistributive aspect of love your neighbour has influenced political and theological thinking way beyond its original context in Acts of mutual support within Christian communities.

In order to provide resources  for, and to engage, collectively  in 'ambulance' work requires a raft of skills. An organisation has to be created,  constitution agreed, financial control and funding mechanisms established,  often charity registration and many statutory requirements to adhere to. In the religious sphere some churches are equipped to undertake the work involved, many are not. Loving your neighbour can be very complicated.

 

Part 14. Latin America weighs in

Latin America is the cradle of Liberation Theology initiated in the 1960s within the Roman Catholic Church. The context is one of dictatorships or unstable democracies supporting economic and social systems which favoured the wealthy at the expense of the poor. There was extreme social and eonomic repression. The poor had no political voice, no economic clout and the Roman Catholic Church perceived at the very least as tolerating if not supporting the status quo.

Liberation Theology seeks to understand and reflect on the concerns of the oppressed by listening and responding with action in the political sphere and by direct action.

A key aspect of Liberation Theology is the recognition that that the oppressed themselves should articulate the message of Jesus in the light of their experience. Their ideas should not be directed or controlled by the Church.

Put another way: oppressed people should not sit back and meekly accept the dictats and interpretations of the Church. They should foster their own understanding and act upon it. They should be empowered. The gatekeepers should no longer dictate the message and the action.

Whilst Liberation Theology has its roots in the context of extreme social  political and economic oppression the principles can and have been applied in other contexts where a group perceives itself as being oppressed.  This includes feminist theology, black theology and issues surrounding sexual orientation.

Liberation Theology was criticised by the Roman Catholic Church as having its roots in Marxism although it proponents argued it was merely using the tools of Marxist analysis. 

In reponse to Liberation Theology the Roman Catholic Church has developed the concept of social justice. The Vatican has stated the following:

Jesus taught us that on the Day of Judgement God will ask what each of us did to help the poor and needy: "Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of the least brothers of mine, you did for me ".  This is reflected in the Church's  canon law, which states, "The Christian faithful are also obliged to promote social justice and, mindful of the precept of the Lord   to assist the poor from their own resources".

Through our words, prayers and deeds we must show solidarity with,   and compassion for, the poor. When instituting public policy we must always keep the "preferential option for the poor" at the forefront of our minds. The moral test of any society is how it treats its most vulnerable members.  The poor have the most urgent moral claim on the conscience of the nation. We are called to look at public policy decisions in terms of how they affect the poor.

Pope Benedict XVI has taught that "love for widows and orphans, prisoners  and the sick and needy of every kind  is as essential as the ministry of the sacraments and preaching of the Gospel ".  This preferential option for the poor and vulnerable includes all who are marginalised in our nation and beyond - unborn children  persons with disabilities,  the elderly and terminally ill, and victims of injustice and oppression.

How well do we as individuals and collectively  respond to what Jesus calls us to do? Do we stay in our bubbles of piety or go out and challenge the secular powers to act?  Do we stand with the victims of injustice and oppression and empower them?  The God of love is calling us....

Part 13. Social Responsibilty. Theological Musings.

A few rambling thoughts.  Probably disjointed, but then I make no claims to be a theologian, nor do I seek to influence anyone.  I declare my opinions openly. No wishy-washy ambiguities, no weasel words, no sitting on the fence. I am going to enjoy the journey into the theology of social responsibility. I hope you do.

My starting point is our old friend the second Great Commandment love your neighbour as yourself. We noted before that defining who my neighbour is may be construed broadly. My overall impression is of New Testament emphasis on individuals being supported (ambulance work) rather than structural change. In support of this I refer to the Parable of the Good Samaritan and also Matthew 25:31-46.  Both emphasise the duty on Christians to give freely assistance to those in need. Love in action.

Does this mean Christians do not have a responsibility to confront social injustice and the misery resulting from it? Far from it.  In an earlier post I noted that Jesus stated that all the Law and Prophets hang on these two commandments.  Passages in Isaiah expressly refer to social injustice and the wording of the Beatitudes (Matthew 5: 1-12) and passages in Luke's Gospel point to a Christian responsibility to press for change to end social injustice. In future parts I shall consider this in more detail and also the impact of Liberation Theology with particular reference to the Roman Catholic Church.

Part 12. JK Galbraith. The Underclass.

JK Galbraith published two works which had a major influence on my thinking. One is entitled The Affluent Society. The other is The Culture Of Contentment.  Each is a critique of the USA economic, social and political system but the message it contains applies equally to developed democratic capitalist nations (and others like China).

Galbraith identifies in capitalist societies the existence of what he names  an underclass. This underclass is poorly educated, lives in bad housing, is in badly paid jobs or unemployed, prone to ill-health and the communities they live in  have poor infrastructure and support services. Set against this there is a contented class in well paid jobs, access to the best medical and educational provision  living in good housing and enjoying a congenial working environment.

The contented class rely on the work undertaken by the underclass to maintain their lifestyle. The contented class is electorally strong and politicians are keen for their votes.  The consequence is that the contented class has its hands on the levers of government. As a result governments will seek to protect the contented class and not raise taxes to fund better living conditions for the underclass nor remedy the eroding of infrastructure and support services for those living in deprived communities.

Part 11. Social Responsibility and The Salvation Army

The Salvation Army originated as an offshoot of Methodism and initially was active in East London. It has grown to be an international organisation. Its main focus is bringing individuals to seek forgiveness of sins and acceptance, through grace, of Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour. Its major activity is to bring sustenance to the most needy in society and show God's love for them. It is engaged in what the authors of Faith in the City describe as ambulance work.

The work of The Salvation Army is well recognised by the UK population to the extent that there are those who believe it is an organisation engaged in good works and not a religious organisation.

One of the reasons I became an Adherent was my admiration of the work in the UK being undertaken by The Salvation Army with individuals in communities often suffering from multiple deprivation. An issue the Army faces is that it is not in a position to provide services in all the places they are needed. Also in some areas corps do not have the capacity to engage and this has led to a new way of working called Fresh Expressions. 

In the current economic climate of rampant inflation and cuts in public services the Army is sorely pressed to deal with the needs of individuals and the pressure placed on it as statutory support services are overwhelmed.

This is a consequence in part of years of failure by central and local government to tackle in depth the causes of deprivation. In my experience The Salvation Army has been slow to criticise, to demand change and propose remedies in concerted programmes of campaigning. However that is not to diminish the work it does undertake.

Next: JK Galbraith and the Underclass

Part 10. Social Responsibility: Theology and Engagement.

in 1996 I was elected to my local borough council. The council appointed me as its representative to the local Churches' Social Responsibility Group, an ecumenical body and a registered charity independent of any organisation.

Thus began my interest and involvement in social responsibility issues in a faith context.  In time I became secretary, then chairman and finally a part-time paid project developer. 

Underpinning my engagement was the belief that Christians are commanded to love our neighbour. How does this relate to social responsibility? What is the theology? What does it mean in terms of action?

My starting point was a Church of England report published in 1985 entitled Faith in the City. Sadly the disturbing evidence it presented of life for many in major cities has not changed significantly in the years that followed. Injustice, poverty, bad housing, poor education, inadequate medical facilities et al still feature in areas of deprivation and are not limited to cities. Pockets of deprivation exist in many urban and rural areas.

Other influences on my opinions have been the works of the economist JK Galbraith, the work of The Salvation Army and the impact of Liberation Theology on the Roman Catholic Church.

When I read Faith in the City one paragraph (3.7) reflected my own experience then and now.

Yet while many members of the Church of England have generally found it more congenial to express their discipleship by helping individual victims of misfortune or oppression, fewer are willing to rectify injustices in the structures of society. There is a number of reasons for this preference for 'ambulance work'. No-one minds being cast in the role of protector and helper of the weak and powerless: there is no threat here to one's superior position of free decision. But to be a protagonist of social change may involve challenging those in power and risking the loss of one's own power. Helping a victim or sufferer seldom involves conflict; working for structural change can hardly avoid it. Direct personal assistance to an individual may seem relatively straightforward, uncontroversial and rewarding, involvement in social issues implies choosing between complicated alternatives and accepting compromises which seem remote from any moral position. We have little tradition of initiating conflict and coping with it creatively. We are not at home in the tough  secular milieu of social and political activism.

Before considering this passage it is my plan to consider other influences on me. In the next part: The Salvation Army.

.

 

Part 9. The Parable of the Good Samaritan

The Parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37) begins by stating the two Great Commandments, both taken from the Old Testament. The remainder of the parable is an illustration of the second Great Commandment in action.

A number of conclusions may be drawn from the passage.  I make no claim to any original thought in this regard.

The first of the Great Commandments comes from Deuteronomy 6:5, the second from Leviticus 19:18. Jesus tells us that obeying the two commandments will confer on us eternal life.  It may be noted that Jesus states  that these are the only provisions of the Law it is necessary for us to follow for eternal life. Therefore we may regard the rest of the Law as irrelevant to salvation?  I believe so.   

As we have noted before the Great Commandments are statements of principles encompassing all the Law and the Prophets.

In the parable we have the stark contrast between the  behaviour of the priest and the  Levite and that of the Samaritan. The Samaritan shows selfless love and sacrifice. The priest and Levite show no love at all  considering themselves bound by the Law and its interpretation.

Elsewhere in the gospels we have Jesus railing against the inadequacies of the teachers of the Law and the Pharisees in applying the Law. Thus in Luke 6:1-11 Jesus says at v.9, addressing the Pharisees and the teachers of the Law:

I ask you which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or destroy it?

Thus the Levite, the priest, the teachers of the Law and the Pharisees are all accused of misapplication of the Law, of using it to stop actions based on concern,  love and practical assistance for fellow humans.

Today we should not interpret the Old Testament  in order to deny full inclusion. It is the old covenant and for Christians has been replaced  by the new. I recognise that for the followers of Judaism what Christians call the Old Testament is still very much alive. As Christians we should recognise that our faith is an independent faith and not a sect of Judaism. This was the battle fought by Paul. We should let go the chains which seek to tie us to the old covenant.

Future posts will consider christianity and social responsibility .

Part 8. The Gospel of Love.

Jesus tells us to love  your neighbour as yourself. Matthew 22:39

What could be easier to understand and apply? Its meaning is plain. it is not limited by exclusions, conditions or restrictions. It tells of God's all-embracing love for all humanity. It speaks to us of oneness in a fractured world. And yet......on the issue of inclusion it generates discord between Christians. It generates pain and hurt. How can it be that we have this sad and damaging state of affairs?

Let's start by considering the concept of neighbour.  Who is my neighbour?  Fertile ground for imposing restrictions.  Clearly people we live close to are our neighbours. We have near neighbours and people who live in ĺour neighbourhood. But what about people who live five, or ten or twenty miles way? Stretching things somewhat?

But help is at hand.  

A case in British law is Donoghue v Stevenson 1932 (British as it was on appeal from a Scottish Court but also set a precedent in English law.). The facts of the case needn't concern us but the grounds of the decision do. Lord Atkin delivered the main judgment. In this he stated the Neighbour Principle. This holds that a defendant must avoid acts or omissions which will foreseably harm persons who are so closely and directly affected by his acts or omissions that he ought to have them in mind as being so affected.

For our purposes we should note that there is no geographical limitation nor do the persons involved have to know each other for them to be our neighbour.

An important aspect of the case is that the court considered a number of earlier cases and from them came up with a new principle which superceded the earlier cases

Put it another way. When I bake a cake I take the ingredients and turn them into something new. The ingredients have been changed and no longer exist in the form they were before mixing and baking.

Jesus tells us that all the Law and Prophets hang on these two commandments. Matthew 22;40  the new covenant principle has superceded the old covenant rules and we are guided by the new principle. The new is limitless, enabling, inclusive and based on love. This is the good news. 

A further consideration. We should not read Paul's letters and to seek to limit or restrict the principles set out by Jesus. Jesus speaks to all humanity  Paul's letters were addressed to specific churches in  specific contexts.

Bible literalists and fundamentalists will decry all this. So be it. 

In Part 9 we look at the Parable of the Good Samaritan.

Part 7. It's all about love.

Those of or a certain age remember The Beatles bursting on the music scene. (I preferred The Rolling Stones.) Memorable lyrics but none more so than love is all you need, all you need is love.

As we saw in Part 1 love is the basis of the two Great Commandents,  summarised by The Salvation Army as love God, love others. 

It all sounds so simple and it is. However the principle that we must love our neighbour has been swamped by arguments for and against inclusion.  The battleground is mostly but not exclusively over  full inclusion of LGBTQ+ people in faith organisations. In some faith groups there is partial inclusion but also restrictions to stop progress to positions of leadership, or even membership: but you are welcome to turn up and contribute to the collection.

Refusal to agree to full inclusion of LGBTQ+ individuals is based on  a mixture of dodgy theology, scientific ignorance and prejudice. Faith groups engaging in exclusion should be ashamed. Hardly seems to be love  in action. 

I support campaigns for full inclusion in faith groups and specifically in The Salvation Army to which I belong as an Adherent. I do not intend to present a balanced opinion on the theological grounds for full inclusion or full or partial exclusion. My thoughts are directed entirely to the promotion of full inclusion and the scriptural basis for so doing.  I trust this expresses my opinion in clear  simple and unequivocal language. Nailing the rainbow to the mast.

(I should make it clear that I agree with the view that Luke's Gospel is, as the Roman Catholic Church puts it: a positive option for the poor. Inclusion is for all and as well as LGBTQ+ individuals includes those on the margins of society as a consequence of poverty, homelessness, relationship breakdown, alcoholism, drug dependency, physical abuse, gambling etc.)

So, to the second Great Commandment. I wish to keep each of my jottings short. Therefore I shall consider the subject in Part 8.

Part 6. Studying the motor car...and the bible.

I say motor car, you think and say? Ford, Renault, racing car , 4x4, your first car etc. Two words evoking quite different responses, all of which may be different to what I think. Communication has inherent ambiguity. Should a person make a statement that something is clear or obvious it may be to that person but should we accept their interpretation or consider alternative meanings?

How do we interpret words such as justice,  inclusion,  love, hope, faith?  The reality surely is that we see words through the perspective of our experiences, prejudices and preferences and not by someone telling us what they mean. Beware the gatekeepers who seek to control our thoughts. Be free to hold your own opinion. Look up Liberation Theology on your search engine

Back to the car. A few observations:

1. Some people study how the car operates: what the component are, how they are put together, how they work and how they are serviced and repaired. Some may concentrate on mechanical components, others on bodywork.

2. For some people what is under the bonnet is a mystery. They are interested only in how the car is driven and understanding the rules relating to driving on the public highway.

3. For some people what is important is to study the impact of the car on our individual lifestyle. What purpose does it serve? What does it enable us to do that otherwise would not be possible or very difficult to achieve? The car may have extended the geographical area in which we can work, made it easier to attend events, visit relatives, go touring etc.etc.

4. For some people the area of study is to determine the impact the car has had and will have in the future. Out-of-town retail parks, multistorey car parks, motorways are physical manifestations but the car has a much wider individual, social,  public and environmental impact on how we live and plan for the future. How has the car changed society and what will be its influence in the future?

Note that the four categories are not mutually exclusive and there other ways of studying the motor car. For example:the history of the development of the car.

Instead of motor car think bible. How do you approach reading the bible? 

Part 5. Reading the bible.

Hello. Still with me! You must be a glutton for punishment. Before I launch into consideration of the synoptic gospels and particularly the Great Commandments a few disjointed thoughts on the minefield of biblical interpretation.

There is no uniform or agreed method on how to read scripture. Acres of verbiage are devoted to the subject in books and on the Internet. 

Some methods: (note that I am not presenting an exhaustive list nor am I presenting details of each approach. This is simply raising issues. I refrain from jargon such as exegesis and hermeneutics.)

1. The bible is God given, is infallible, inerrant and should be read literally.

2. The bible is God inspired and open to interpretation.

3. The bible should be understood in its historical context.

4. The bible should be read to discern unchanging principles.

5. The bible is written by individuals inspired to record their understanding of God.

One problem is how do we know what the author of a text means? For example one school of thought suggests that when we read a text it means what the reader thinks it means. The text takes on meaning Independent of the author.

In the UK when judges are asked to interpret a statute it's not permissible for them to consult Hansard (verbatim reports of proceedings) to determine what the words mean. The meaning ascribed to the words in Parliament is irrelevant. The meaning has be gleaned from the words themselves. Is the bible to be read in like manner?

Another issue is that the gospels were written many years after Jesus was on earth. Paul's letters predate the gospels. It is probable that the words of the synoptic gospels in particular are the result of committing an oral tradition to writing. How can we be certain that the words and their meaning have not changed during the course of transmission?

Another thought. I cannot remember verbatim words uttered by another person. I remember the ideas the words are intended to convey but in so doing there is the risk that I might add my own 'spin'.

Problems arise with a literal approach based on the premis that the bible is God's infallible word. How are contradictions and inconsistences to be explained? Which version of the bible do we use as our source?

So I tiptoe away from the subject. 

Part 4. Reading the Bible.

Reading the Bible.  Easy, start at Genesis and finish with Revelation.  End result? You might in turn  have been excited, bored, curious, exasperated, confused and probably thinking the author of Revelation had been on magic mushrooms. What is the sum total of the experience? Put off religion for life, wishing to understand more, deeply moved and desiring to have faith or something else?

Where to turn to next? A trip to the library, bookshop, the internet or a visit to a church to attend a service? All are problematic. There is a vast range of books about the Bible, some clear and concise,  others long and opaque. It can be  bewildering.  The internet is awash with posts and equally confusing. So,   attend a church service and hopefully find someone to talk to.

Which church to attend? So much choice. Probably best to try a number of churches. Not only do churches differ considerably in the way services are conducted but also in their theology. It may be that geography and transport determine your choice.  Some churches have congregations drawn from wide areas, others from the immediate locality. Once you have lit upon a church you find congenial how much do you learn about faith from sermons or Bible studies?

Does all this look daunting? It can be. My advice is: take your time.

Having considered the pitfalls and traps how does a person move forward positively? May l suggest you acquire two volumes: a study Bible which is a bible with explanatory notes and secondly The Messenger written in colloquial English.

My first port of call would be Mark's Gospel followed by Matthew and then Luke, the synoptic gospels as they tell of the life and message of Jesus. There is much similarity in the three gospels but they are by no means identical. Together they provide an excellent introduction to what is means to be a Christian. Or a follower of Jesus?

A simple faith or a simplistic theology? Part 3

This is the final part of my brief introduction to how  I perceive the Bible. It is my ramblings and I make no claim to authority.  I suggest all readers of scripture should concentrate on the text and context and not unthinkingly parrot uncritically the opinions of theologians and preachers.

So far I have considered the Old Testament to be open to different interpretations and that the Christian interpretation has been read back into it. The Old Testament cannot be read as pointing to Jesus to the exclusion of all other interpretations.

I have noted the centrality of the two Great Commandments to our understanding of Jesus. Now I move on to looking At the work of Paul as outlined in the Book of Acts and Paul's letters.

 Paul emphasises the divine nature of Jesus. Jesus is the Christ.  Paul makes it clear that being a Christian (note the term postdates Paul) is a complete break from Judaism. It is a separate faith and does not require adherence to any of the customs, practices or laws of the Old Testament or Judaism. In keeping with the second Great Commandment it is open to all, Jews and Gentiles, men and women.

Paul's letters were to individual churches and contain a mixture of encouragement, admonishment, advice and education. However I believe it is a mistake to elevate Paul's statements to one of equal status to those of Jesus. In my opinion where there is tension between the views of Paul and Jesus the latter must prevail always.

We must uderstand the context of Paul's letters. His audience was the church to which a letter was addressed and therefore should be read in that context and also with due regard to the societies of his time. Thus slavery and the inferior status of women is not condemned as it is today. We read Paul accordingly and not literally (although some churches do not recognise the equality of women).

In these short pieces I have attempted to state very briefly what I consider to be a biblical interpretation that is easy to understand and to outline a theology that places the emphasis on the centrality of Jesus. We must escape from the albatross of bible literalism which can and does distort the meaning of Jesus by its insistence that all the Old and New Testament is of equal importance and unerringly true. It isn't. There has to be discernment.

A simple faith or a simplistic theology? Part 2

You made it to the end of my initial post? Commiserations.  As promised, I shall consider the relationship between the Old and New Testaments and in particular how Christianity has approached the Old Testament.

 The subject is a minefield. There are competing and compelling claims made by theology scholars.  It is safe to say that no one opinion is 'right".  You dear reader must reach your own conclusion as I have mine. 

One body of thinking asserts the Old Testament is aimed at the New Testament and that Judaism's claims to the Old

 Testament are swept away by Christian claims. The theologian Bultmann claims the Old Testament is a history of failure.  

A contrary opinion (with which I agree) is that of Brueggemann. He states:

Such a way of presenting the Old Testament proceeds as if the community of Judaism was only an interim community which existed until the New Testament and then withered into non-existence and insignificance.

Christians read back into the Old Testament from the standpoint of the New Testament to claim it is a pointer to Jesus. However the Old Testament does not clearly point solely to Jesus. 

Taken on its own the Old Testament may be interpreted in different ways one of which is the Christian interpretation looking back into it for scriptural evidence for Jesus.  Put bluntly Christianity has hijacked the Old Testament for its own ends. Judaism however continues to use the Old Testament.

As I have indicated this is a complicated subject which I do not consider I can do justice to. For my part I think it is unnecessary to delve into the Old Testament to understand and act upon the message of Jesus.  This is not to say I consider the Old Testament to be unimportant.  On the contrary, for Judaism it is of central importance. It is Christianity's misguided arrogance which seeks to  assert its superiority through a misunderstanding of the Old Testament.

Part 1. A simple faith or a simplistic theology?

Looking for something new or a pearl of profound wisdom? You won't find either here. Instead my incoherent rambling is on public display.  You have been warned!

Many years ago I read the bible from beginning to end. I was struck by the tedium of much of the Old Testament and couldn't work out why Paul's letters carried the same weight as the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke). I did not understand why Christianity, which is based on the person (nature), life and sayings of Jesus, should require us to understand the Old Testament or why the writings of Paul are granted equal status or even preference by some interpreters of scripture.

In the intervening years I like to think I have made some sense of the bible but I regret to inform you dear reader, assuming you are still with me, that the conclusions I have reached might be unpalatable and  dismissed as simplistic, misguided or plain stupid. So be it.

My starting point is the two Great Commandments expressed by Jesus and set out in all the synoptic gospels.  He states two principles which are the basis of the Christian faith. Christians are to love God and love others.  Two principles with profound meaning stated with clarity and simplicity.

The two Great Commandments are to be found in Matthew 22:37-40

Love the Lord with all your heart and with all your soul and all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: Love your neighbour as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.

See also: Mark 12:30-31 and Luke 10:27.

At this juncture I invite you to consider two passages.

In Luke 4 we read of Jesus in the synagogue  reading from Isaiah 61.

The  Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favour.

Luke tells us that Jesus then said:

Today, this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.

The second passage is Matthew 5:17

Do not think I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfil them.

I  conclude from these passages that Jesus, in setting out the two Great Commandments, has incorporated within them all of the Old Testament. We should be guided first and foremost by the two principles based on love rather than specific rules. Rules are limiting, principles are broad. Living by the principles Jesus commands us to follow challenges us in all areas of life, rather than regulating some of our life to follow specific rules. In other words the Great Commandments are all-embracing and not a set of rules applicable only part of our lives.

Should you agree with my interpretation it will be clear that love extends to all people. All-embracing love does not exclude. The Law did exclude and this is brought out in Luke where we read the Parable of the Good Samaritan. Jesus frees us to love all equally: rich  poor, male, female, straight, gay, old, young.  You get the picture. We need to be inclusive and positive in loving our neighbour, not exclusive and negative.

I know only too well that this approach does not meet with universal acclaim. Indeed there is virulent opposition mostly from bible literalists who cannot or will not see beyond words to the ideas or concepts they convey.  

There is of course a lot more to be said on this and the above is just a brief outline and stated simply but not I hope simplistically. 

I plan to write on this topic in greater detail and also on the way Christians regard the Old Testament. A minefield.