More From the Rough
I went back and read the post below and really don't like it. If I am going to bring in Paul's comments in Corinthians I feel I should have a library of secondary sources behind me...I don't. But I want to say one more thing (and I really do wish I had more time for this):
As I note below, some of the more moving (for me) ethical passages in the Torah come when Israel is reminded that they themselves were delivered from slavery and oppression. To me, a very similar thing is critical to understanding Paul.
Paul really does seem to say (and I find Horsley's notes in my Oxford study bible very thought-provoking) that singleness trumps marriage unless the sexual passions are just too powerful. Now, this may be in response to some ascetic sexual practices among the Corinthians as Horsley maintains. But it's hard not to see Paul elevating the unmarried state, and suggesting that those engaged (or maybe, I think I read elsewhere, with virgin daughters) remain celibate and single if they could because of the imminence of Jesus' return. This is all to be found in 1 Cor. 7. When Paul says the present time is short, it seems clearly eschatological (and, I'd note, dependent on or at least fueled by Jesus' own apocalyptic proclamations). What I find here is a very early Christian, an apostle, one who has seen the risen Jesus, trying to figure things out and provide humane guidelines to a rather disordered community in light of what he felt to be the historical picture. Is the suggestion that it is better to not marry (though Paul is very clear both marriage or non marriage are perfectly fine) a contention the church continues to hold up outside of Roman Catholicism and monasticism...not that I know of. But this is the point I was trying to make below: Paul does his best, but he is limited by personal and cultural and even local conditions.
Now, look at chapter 8. Here the issue of eating meat sacrificed to pagan idols is brought to his attention. Again, my sources are limited, and I have heard a range of readings on this, from one source saying that almost all meat offered for sale in the market in Corinth would have been previously offered to a pagan deity to Horsley's reading that this meat would have been offered in the "temple environs." It doesn't matter. Paul does not seem to care. He notes that there is only one God anyway, the idols are not real deities, but his central argument is that one must never do something to injure the conscience of another. Now, I am not sure this principle can be universally applied. If it "stumbles" (as we used to say) another Christian because I wear earrings, I am likely to keep wearing them figuring, in the long run, this will be better for us both. Me, because I am not doing anything to harm anyone, and the other person because I am causing him to grow in his spiritual reflection. But Paul does not say that here: he says the most amazing thing: if "food is a cause of their falling, I will never eat meat."
That is simply extraordinary. He doesn't just say meat sacrificed to idols, though he might mean that. He just says meat. And my sense is Paul is giving us a foundational principle of behavior based on the sacrifice of the Son of God; he is willing to go to whatever length to not injure his brother or sister (and, pragmatically, he is perhaps chiding the Corinthians and getting them to let go of the topic).
I share this because I do not want anyone to think that just because I find problems in Paul that I do not also find glorious, essential, sublime material as well. Paul is strongest when he is moved by his own sense of Jesus' sacrifice for him. That awareness of God's love enriches his ethics the way the redemption from Egypt enriches the Torah. But I still think Paul's letters are Paul's letters and I do not need to dig out every ethical precept (let's find a new Law we can use to control people whether it is good for them or not) and then enforce those today.
***
Sighs. I spent much of today thinking how weak my prior post was, and I will likely spend the rest of the day thinking about all the problems with this post. NT studies reminds me of wine. Yes, I said wine. Sixty years ago, a century ago, there were only so many great houses in Europe one had to know to be wine literate. Now, sheez, there are hundreds of good wines coming from all over the world. It is very, very hard to "know" wine unless one works in the business full time, and even then! The same thing has happened with NT studies! I (again) envy BW3 and those that can dedicate so much time to immersing themselves in the sources so necessary to make sense of such ancient documents. Me, heck, I'm just trying to read through the bible and figure out what do to with it as I go. As I said below, it's part of why I don't post so much.
The things I know well, my recovery from depression and ocd, these I have yet to write about in any detail. I can't think where to begin or what to call the series. When I get around to it, it will do more good than my NT posts I am sure. For I developed a powerful personal tool set that brought me from violent major depressions and crippling ocd to a normal life. Yes it took more than a decade of therapy, but I take no meds and am very proud of who I am now compared to how I suffered. Someday, I'll get to writing out my personal toolkit here in the hope that it might help someone.
Really have to go. Love to all.
As I note below, some of the more moving (for me) ethical passages in the Torah come when Israel is reminded that they themselves were delivered from slavery and oppression. To me, a very similar thing is critical to understanding Paul.
Paul really does seem to say (and I find Horsley's notes in my Oxford study bible very thought-provoking) that singleness trumps marriage unless the sexual passions are just too powerful. Now, this may be in response to some ascetic sexual practices among the Corinthians as Horsley maintains. But it's hard not to see Paul elevating the unmarried state, and suggesting that those engaged (or maybe, I think I read elsewhere, with virgin daughters) remain celibate and single if they could because of the imminence of Jesus' return. This is all to be found in 1 Cor. 7. When Paul says the present time is short, it seems clearly eschatological (and, I'd note, dependent on or at least fueled by Jesus' own apocalyptic proclamations). What I find here is a very early Christian, an apostle, one who has seen the risen Jesus, trying to figure things out and provide humane guidelines to a rather disordered community in light of what he felt to be the historical picture. Is the suggestion that it is better to not marry (though Paul is very clear both marriage or non marriage are perfectly fine) a contention the church continues to hold up outside of Roman Catholicism and monasticism...not that I know of. But this is the point I was trying to make below: Paul does his best, but he is limited by personal and cultural and even local conditions.
Now, look at chapter 8. Here the issue of eating meat sacrificed to pagan idols is brought to his attention. Again, my sources are limited, and I have heard a range of readings on this, from one source saying that almost all meat offered for sale in the market in Corinth would have been previously offered to a pagan deity to Horsley's reading that this meat would have been offered in the "temple environs." It doesn't matter. Paul does not seem to care. He notes that there is only one God anyway, the idols are not real deities, but his central argument is that one must never do something to injure the conscience of another. Now, I am not sure this principle can be universally applied. If it "stumbles" (as we used to say) another Christian because I wear earrings, I am likely to keep wearing them figuring, in the long run, this will be better for us both. Me, because I am not doing anything to harm anyone, and the other person because I am causing him to grow in his spiritual reflection. But Paul does not say that here: he says the most amazing thing: if "food is a cause of their falling, I will never eat meat."
That is simply extraordinary. He doesn't just say meat sacrificed to idols, though he might mean that. He just says meat. And my sense is Paul is giving us a foundational principle of behavior based on the sacrifice of the Son of God; he is willing to go to whatever length to not injure his brother or sister (and, pragmatically, he is perhaps chiding the Corinthians and getting them to let go of the topic).
I share this because I do not want anyone to think that just because I find problems in Paul that I do not also find glorious, essential, sublime material as well. Paul is strongest when he is moved by his own sense of Jesus' sacrifice for him. That awareness of God's love enriches his ethics the way the redemption from Egypt enriches the Torah. But I still think Paul's letters are Paul's letters and I do not need to dig out every ethical precept (let's find a new Law we can use to control people whether it is good for them or not) and then enforce those today.
***
Sighs. I spent much of today thinking how weak my prior post was, and I will likely spend the rest of the day thinking about all the problems with this post. NT studies reminds me of wine. Yes, I said wine. Sixty years ago, a century ago, there were only so many great houses in Europe one had to know to be wine literate. Now, sheez, there are hundreds of good wines coming from all over the world. It is very, very hard to "know" wine unless one works in the business full time, and even then! The same thing has happened with NT studies! I (again) envy BW3 and those that can dedicate so much time to immersing themselves in the sources so necessary to make sense of such ancient documents. Me, heck, I'm just trying to read through the bible and figure out what do to with it as I go. As I said below, it's part of why I don't post so much.
The things I know well, my recovery from depression and ocd, these I have yet to write about in any detail. I can't think where to begin or what to call the series. When I get around to it, it will do more good than my NT posts I am sure. For I developed a powerful personal tool set that brought me from violent major depressions and crippling ocd to a normal life. Yes it took more than a decade of therapy, but I take no meds and am very proud of who I am now compared to how I suffered. Someday, I'll get to writing out my personal toolkit here in the hope that it might help someone.
Really have to go. Love to all.
Comments
I read the post below and found nothing you should feel bad about. Much of the content, as you know I would agree with. As one who does not base his objections to homosexual marriage on scripture, but on social-historical norms, I look forward to your further expounding on the topic.
Peace.
FK
And bro, we respect each other and I know it. But I must question any socio-historic practice which marginalizes or injures any group. You know, one could make the argument that based on socio-historic norms, some groups, such as women and ethnic minorities, deserve less access to political and economic power...I understand what you are saying: marriage, even if polygamous, has always been based on heterosexual attraction. But if homosexuality is in fact a deep seated orientation (and it seems to be) those persons should be given equal access to all the civil (and spiritual/eccliastical) rights of hets, and that includes semantic rights such as the term "marriage." That is of course just my opinion. But ethics must transcend history, I think.
Until someone proves to me that homosexuality is somehow damaging to gay persons, then I cite MLK: a just law is one which uplifts the human personality. That, to me, should be the core of all ethics, personal and legislative.
Anyway, bro, thanks for reading and thanks for the comment. I continue to wrestle with how I understand the bible, especially the OT. Your reading and support here is appreciated.
And one of these days, let's get on the phone.... :)