1 Corinthians 13:1-13

This is certainly the most famous passage in all of Paul’s writings.  Instead of his usual dense, convoluted sentences, filled with abstractions,  Paul suddenly becomes lyrical, metaphorical, poetic, eloquent, as well as sublime.  This “hymn to love” has probably been used in more wedding services than any other passage in scripture–even though it is not about marriage.  Surprisingly, Paul never mentions God or Jesus or even the Spirit in this passage, which has made it suitable for use by the not-very-religious. 

The passage is so extraordinary in its poetic power–and lack of explicit theological content–that many have wondered whether Paul actually wrote it.  Perhaps he was quoting from another source.  Or perhaps he wrote it, but he wrote it separately–as a work of art that he had given much attention to–and then inserted it at this point in his letter.  The problem with these theories is that the themes he brings up in this passage connect perfectly with what he has previously said; the development of his thought is seamless.  I do not doubt that Paul gave this particular passage time and care in its composition, but I think we must conclude that this passage represents a truly extraordinary bit of inspiration that is a natural part of the flow of the larger letter.

So to truly appreciate Paul’s point in this passage, we must read it along with chapter 12, because it is the next sublime step in his argument about spiritual gifts.  In chapter 12 he wants to make it clear that all gifts exercised by believers are spiritual gifts, because all believers are inspired by the same Spirit; and all gifts are important to the operation of the church, and all believers exercising those gifts have equal dignity.  The church needs plumbers as well as preachers; the church needs carpenters and care-givers; the church needs administrators, teachers, counselors, janitors, greeters, artists, musicians, and those who open their homes to travelers or the temorarily homeless.  The church needs facilitators and it needs workers; it needs those who have financial resources for helping those in need.  The church is comprised of an extraordinary range of gifts–all needed, all given dignity, and all flowing from the same Spirit.

But as important as all of these gifts are to the operation of the Body of Christ, they are all worthless unless exercised with love.  We may have the gift of ecstatic, other-worldly prayer, but without love it’s just noise.  We may have the gift of spiritual insight and deep knowledge, and have the spiritual gift of faith so that we can do miracles–but without love it’s all pointless.  We may have the spiritual gift of giving to those in need, even to the point of sacrificing our own lives, but if it’s done for the sake of attention instead of for love, nothing spiritual has happened.  We must act out of love or we are not spiritual at all–no matter how impressive our gifts and abilities may seem.

But what is love?  Paul offers a definition:  It’s not a feeling; it’s about concrete ways of viewing and treating other people.  It is a commitment to care that never ends.  This makes it superior to inspired preaching (prophecy) and great knowledge–because our inspired speech and knowledge are always incomplete and imperfect.  Measuring how good our gifts are is childish.  Love leads us to true maturity.  Love leads us to the One whose essence is all about love.  Trust is essential and eternal; hope is essential and eternal; but love is at the heart of it all.

As a spiritual exercise, I find it illuminating to read verses 4-7 out loud, replacing “love” with my own name.  Does it fit?  If not, I have work to do.

I find it instructive that Paul says we prophesy only in part.  To me this means that no speaker, no preacher, no prophet should go unquestioned by the church.  It is the task of the faith community to weigh and discern everything it hears–even when it is coming from a deeply respected spiritual leader.  Our prophesying is never perfect.  We must find God’s word for us together.

As important as the gifts of the Spirit are for the life of the church, the fruit of the Spirit are even more important (see Galatians 5:22-23).  How we treat each other is closer to the purpose of the church, and the heart of God, than the abilities we exercise to make this a better world.  Because it is how we treat each other that, in the end, makes the real difference.

1 Corinthians 12:14-31

In this passage, Paul compares the church to a human body with its many parts–and he draws some startling conclusions from this analogy.  In the previous passage he argued that everyone who is committed to Jesus’ lordship possesses the Holy Spirit–not just those who display unusual spiritual gifts such as speaking in tongues or performing healing miracles.  Paul widens the understanding of spiritual gifts to include all the ways in which believers assist the church and others.  His point is to affirm the spiritual oneness and equality of all believers.

Now, in this passage, he takes that equality a step further.  Not only are all believers spiritually equal (in the sense that we all possess and belong to the same Holy Spirit), but  we all have equal value and dignity in the church.  This is not at all what the Corinthian church members have been assuming and practicing.  The church in Corinth is quite diverse–including Jews and Greeks, men and women, rich and poor, slaves and free; and some members have been looking down on other members, considering them as an embarrassment.  So far in Paul’s letter we have seen that some in the church are putting down others for their naive and unsophisticated theology and beliefs, and some who are rich and who have social advantages are ignoring and marginalizing the poor and the slaves within the church.  But Paul says everyone is needed for the proper functioning of the church.  The head may seem more important than the feet, or eyes may seem more important than elbows, but the head and eyes are quite limited in what they can do without the other parts.

Paul is most startling when he points out that those parts of the body which we consider the most embarrassing (e.g. the genitals) are precisely the parts of the body that we clothe with the most attention, dignity and beauty.  So it is in the church:  those whom we consider the most humble or embarrassing are the ones for whom we should be giving the most attention and dignity.  Paul says that God has arranged the body (and the church) this way so that there is a balancing out of importance, so “the members may have the same care for one another.”  Members of the church should be so interdependent, and have such equal importance and dignity, that when one suffers–no matter who it is–all share in that suffering; and when one is rejoicing, all share in that rejoicing.

But Paul is not saying that everyone’s function is the same.  Indeed, some members of the church have a more public role and exercise more leadership and responsibility.  Paul points out that some are apostles (missionaries starting new churches), and some are prophets (speaking God’s message for us now), and some are teachers, etc.  There are various forms of leadership, and various forms of ministry.  Not everyone does everything.  Spiritual equality, and equality of dignity and respect, does not mean everyone has equal leadership and responsibility.  This is where some churches today, seeking to follow Paul’s radical model of “everyone is a minister,” misunderstand and misapply Paul.  Martin Luther, during the Reformation, espoused the idea of “the priesthood of all believers.”  In other words, all believers are priests with spiritual access to God.  But the priesthood of all believers does not mean “the leadership of all believers.”  Although Quakers have fairly successfully practiced a kind of leadership by all believers, most churches have found that the church functions best when some are called to leadership and are given authority to carry out various leadership functions.  Nonetheless, as democratic ideas have progressed in our society, it is quite appropriate that the most fundamental decisions (such as who will be our leaders) ought to be made with the discernment of all members.

But regardless of how individual congregations practice leadership, Paul’s main point is that everyone in the church has equal dignity and importance, and everyone who says “Jesus is Lord” belongs to the same Holy Spirit.  Together we are the “body of Christ” in this world.

Paul wants the members in Corinth to strive for gifts that will benefit the church the most.  But all gifts, no matter how important they are, must be practiced with a certain attitude or they are pointless.  That will be Paul’s focus in the next passage.

1 Corinthians 12:1-13

This passage begins a discussion that continues through chapter 14; so to get the full effect, one would do well to read chapters 12-14 in one sitting.

Paul begins his discussion of spiritual gifts by making a simple–but profoundly important–point:  No one can say ‘Jesus is Lord’ except by the Holy Spirit.  This is significant because, apparently, members of the Corinthian church have been assessing their own spiritual maturity and importance by how dazzling or unusual their spiritual gifts are.  As a consequence, they have apparently been claiming that some members of the church don’t possess the Spirit because they are not demonstrating spiritual gifts such as prophesying or speaking in ecstatic, “heavenly” languages.  But Paul wants to make one thing quite clear:  everyone who has made a commitment to Jesus’ lordship has the Holy Spirit operating within them.

The presence of the Holy Spirit is not discerned by the presence of miracles or the presence of ecstatic speech.  As Jesus says in the Sermon on the Mount, “Many will say to me, ‘Did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do miracles in your name?’  But I will say to them that I never knew them.”  The presence of the Holy Spirit is not determined by amazing, apparently supernatural, activities.  The presence of the Holy Spirit is determined by whether we are following Jesus, living in love, and excercising our abilities and gifts “for the common good” (verse 7).  The Holy Spirit is essentially about building up and helping one another.

So Paul begins by putting all members of the church on a “level playing field’–as far as possessing the Holy Spirit goes.  All judgments about who is more spiritual or who “really” has the Spirit are misplaced; if anything, such an attitude shows a lack of the Holy Spirit’s presence.

But Paul is certainly not against prophecy or healing or miracles or speaking in ecstatic speech (speaking “in tongues”).  These are all good gifts in the church, but God gives different gifts and abilities to different people.  This is not spiritual inequality, this is spiritual diversity!  Behind every kind of gift is the same Spirit.  behind every kind of service to one another is the same Lord Jesus Christ.  Behind every function of the church is the same God–the source of all we do.  So some have a special gift for wisdom, and some for knowledge, and some for speaking for God (prophecy), and some for discerning, and some for bringing healing to others, and some for praying in ecstasy.  Paul could have added some more mundane special gifts:  some have a special gift for finances, some for administration, some for teaching children, some for fixing broken furnaces, some for typing, some for providing transportation.  As long as what we do is being done for the good of the community, out of love that we have learned from Jesus, we are motivated and empowered by the Spirit.

The community of faith is potentially very diverse–with different ethnicities, different religious or non-religious backgrounds, different abilities, different economic circumstances, different colors and different orientations.  But the community of faith is still one body.  We have one overall lord who guides us:  Jesus.  We are empowered by one Spirit.  We belong to one God.  The church has often forgotten this–fragmenting over divisive issues and constructing rigid boundaries instead of focsuing on the core at the center.  Paul says to us:  our unity is in our core; stay focused on that.

The early church overcame the biggest social barriers in the ancient world:  barriers separating men and women, slaves and free, gentiles and Jews.  What are the social barriers today that the church ought to be overcoming through the one Spirit?

Paul, of course, did not have a doctrine of the Trinity.  The doctrine of the Trinity would be hammered out centuries later using fine-tuned Greek philosophy and vocabulary.  But in this pasage we see that Paul–and the early church in general–thought of God’s activity in a trinitarian way.  There is one God and Father of us all from whom all things come.  There is one “lord”–Jesus Christ–who embodies all of God’s authority and is God’s ultimate representative to humanity.  There is one Spirit–the presence and power of God active in our world through human beings.  The Spirit is the Spirit of God–and the Spirit manifested fully in Jesus.  Jesus Christ is both a human being and–now–at total oneness with God.

This seems to be Paul’s way of thinking.  It is the rudiments of the Trinity, but without trying to figure out all the “substances” and “natures” and other philosophical detail.  It is clearly not “three Gods.”  It is one God, made known to us and manifested in our world in primarily three ways:  through all of creation, through a human being, and through God working within us.

[Due to Christmas and New Year's, this blog will continue on January 9.]

1 Corinthians 11:17-34

[Due to a technical glitch, this blog is a day late.  Sorry!]

This passage gives us a valuable glimpse into one of the most important rituals of the earliest churches–the celebration of the Lord’s supper.  Unfortunately, the Corinthian church is failing to celebrate the supper with integrity.  Verse 33 may be the key to the problem:  people are eating the meal whenever they show up rather than waiting for the whole congregation to be present.  As a result, those who arrive early are stuffing themselves and getting drunk, and those who arrive late are going hungry!

We can perhaps assume that it is the wealthier members who are able to come “on time,” whereas the day laborers and slaves tend to arrive late because of their duties.  So not only is the Lord’s supper being abused by those who get there earlier, but it’s also accentuating class differences and continuing oppression by the wealthy.

Paul is shocked.  This is not at all how table fellowship was practiced in the ministry of Jesus.  Jesus emphasized bringing diverse people and classes to the same table to eat together in gratefulness and mutual acceptance.  His table fellowship displayed the coming kingdom, the breaking down of  barriers and the creation of peace.  The Corinthians’ table fellowship, on the other hand, is making a mockery of the meaning of this sacred meal.

Today, in most churches, the Lord’s supper is a strictly symbolic meal.  Participants receive a bit of bread or a wafer, and a sip of wine or grape juice.  Many churches practice this ritual only a few times a year–or perhaps only once a year.  But in the early church, this meal was practiced at least weekly–every time the congregation gathered.  And it was not just a symbolic meal; it was a real meal.  It may have been simple–perhaps just bread and wine–but it was regarded as a meal nonetheless.

Perhaps this passage may challenge us to reform how we practice this meal in our own churches.  Those churches that practice the Lord’s supper infrequently probably do so for two reasons:  1) they don’t want the meal to become a habit made meaningless through frequency, and 2) they want to make sure everyone is reconciled with each other before they celebrate the meal so they are not eating and drinking judgment against themselves (verse 29).  But when Paul warns against eating the meal in an unworthy way, and to examine ourselves, he is not referring to everyone being reconciled to each other or having a blameless conscience; he is referring to the congregation practicing mutual respect and equality through their meal together.  And the problem of rituals becoming empty habits is solved if the ritual is more than just a ritual–if it becomes an enactment of God’s good news of bringing diverse people together at a table of acceptance.  This should be done every time we meet!  Let the church actually embody its good news when it comes together, and let the Lord’s supper be a part of that embodiment.

Let’s also avoid celebrating the Lord’s supper in an individualistic fashion–coming forward individually to have our own individual experience of communion with God.  That is not the meaning of Jesus’ meal.  It is meant to be an experience of a transformed community, loving each other.  So the Lord’s supper should be practiced corporately, experiencing each other together, and experiencing each other’s acceptance.  Perhaps we should gather around tables when we celebrate this meal, and give a sign of peace and love to each other before we eat.

And could we do away with the tasteless wafers or the ity-bity bits of bread?  Could we instead eat slices of tasty homemade bread with melted butter?  Could we drink a glass of wine?  That would be more like a meal–meaningful yet still simple.

Once again we see in this passage that the “earthly” Jesus was indeed important to Paul.  The traditions of what Jesus said and did during his ministry are core to Paul’s own understanding of what it means to follow Jesus and be a faithful community.  Paul is not just interested in the risen, timeless Christ.

The final meal Jesus had with his disciples was remembered as special–even by the standard of all of Jesus’ special meals!  This is a meal to remember him specifically.  This is a meal to remember his love and commitment that goes all the way to death.  This is a meal to remember that God’s promised kingdom is indeed coming.  So this is a meal for looking back and looking forward, remembering who we are and what our mission is.  It is a meal to encourage and inspire and give us hope.

1 Corinthians 11:2-16

This may be the most obscure and challenging passage in Paul’s entire letter.  Before reflecting on its meaning for us, let me briefly state my own opinion as to what I think Paul is probably saying.

Many translations say that the woman should wear a “veil” on her head.  This is puzzling because wearing a veil was not customary for women in Greco-Roman society.  The Greek word is actually “covering,” and may not refer to a veil.  In fact, verse 15 explicitly calls the woman’s long hair a “covering.”  Some commentators conclude, and I agree, that Paul is not saying that women should wear a veil, but that their long hair should be bound up on their head (for instance, in a bun) as a “covering” for their head.  This is in keeping with general custom in Greco-Roman society.

Why does Paul believe that women, in worship, should have their hair bound up on their head?  Perhaps for two reasons.  First, loose hair may have been associated with prostitution.  Even today in our culture, women’s hair in a bun is associated with modesty, and loose hair with sexuality.  “Let down your hair” still means to loosen up, become more wild.

Secondly, Paul thinks it is important to maintain gender distinctions.  Men are supposed to have short hair that is loose, and women are supposed to have long hair that is bound.  Paul says if a woman lets down her hair in a loose fashion, then she’s wearing her hair like a man, and she might as well cut her hair short–which for Paul would be shameful.  Paul goes into a lengthy argument about how men and women are created differently, and he clearly wants that distinction to be honored.

Unfortunately, part of Paul’s argument seems to be that men and women are in different positions on the created heirarchy.  Man is created first, and woman out of man; man is the direct image of God, but woman is the image of man.  I don’t think Paul is making this argument in order to say that men are superior or more spiritual than women.  Indeed, in verses 11-12 he overthrows such assumptions by showing that men and women have equality in God.  So I think his point is not so much about male superiority or “headship” as much as it’s about distinction.  I think Paul’s point is simply this:  in Christ, men and women are indeed spiritual equals, but they are still distinct genders, and that distinction should be recognized and honored by how they wear their hair.

Why is Paul so concerned to maintain this distinction in how men and women wear their hair in worship services?  He seems to be afraid that the Christian community is going to shame itself in the eyes of the larger society (and in the eyes of the angels that oversee the churches).  To use a modern example:  most churches would not want all of their men coming to worship wearing skirts and lipstick–looking like women.  Whether that would be morally wrong or not is beside the point; it would be such a violation of our society’s customs that it would cause unneeded confusion, shock, and offense.  Or consider the simple fact that in most churches men are not supposed to wear hats (but women–on special occasions–may).  For some reason this is considered disrespectful.  I don’t know why, but it is.  Just as there are certain words that have highly negative and emotional meanings–and so we avoid saying them (especailly in worship!), so there are certain actions and types of clothing that have emotional and negative meaning.  The same was true in Paul’s day.

Looked at in this light, Paul’s instructions don’t look so bad.  He is wanting to guard the dignity of the church and not cause unnecessary offense.  Churches today do well to do the same thing.  Paul’s argument, though, ultimately falls back on what he thinks is “natural” (verse 14), and on custom (verse 16).  But, of course, our customs are not the same as Paul’s customs, or the customs of Greco-Roman society.  And our sense of what is “natural” is not the same as his.  (Do we believe nature teaches us that long hair for men in degrading?  What about all our pictures of Jesus!)

We should also note that Paul makes a theological-biblical mistake in his argument.  He says that men are the image (“glory”) of God, and women of men.  But Genesis 1:27 clearly affirms that men and women together are the image of God.  His mistake has been unfortunate since it has helped perpetuate male hierarchy in the church–even though Paul’s larger argument is that, in Christ, that heirarchy no longer exists (verses 11-12, and Galatians 3:27-28).

So we are going to use different markers than Paul used in his day.  We no longer think a woman needs to have her hair in a bun in order to maintain proper modesty.  We no longer think that men need to have short hair in order to maintain proper modesty.  We no longer think it unseemly for a woman to have short hair.  And we are not as bothered by mixing men’s and women’s fashions as people in Paul’s day were.

But what about Paul’s instinctual sense that it is improper to break down gender distinctions?  On this point, I think Paul’s guidance was helpful for churches in his own time, but this counsel is not as helpful today.  We know a lot more about gender identity today than he or his culture knew.  We know about chromosomes and some of the other bases for gender identity.  We know that some people are a biological mix of genders, and that some people have genitals of one sex but the emotional disposition of the other sex.  Unlike Paul’s culture, we allow people to talk more openly about their sense of gender.  We are more accepting of people who feel trapped in a body that is not their self-perceived gender.  We have the capability to medically reassign a person’s gender.  We may also have the grace to let people express their own self-perceived gender indentity.

Paul could not have imagined any of this.  We live in a different world with different knowledge, abilities, and sensitivities.  Just as Paul had to be sensitive to the culture his churches were in, we have to be sensitive to the culture our churches are in–and it’s a changing culture.  Certainly we must not let cultural fads undermine basic ethics.  For me, ethics mostly boils down to “don’t do harm.”  If we pursue Jesus’ principle of love, and the overarching biblical principle of justice for the weak, I think we will be on the right path.  The transgender community is a tiny one, politically weak and vulnerable, and often subject to ridicule and rejection.  Is this how the church should treat them as well?

1 Corinthians 10:23-11:1

Verse 23 is a beautiful summary of a central ethical principle of the Christian faith:  We do not act merely on the basis of what is permitted, or what is our right, but on the basis of what is beneficial and what builds up others.  This moves the center of ethics from individual and self concerns to the concerns and benefit of all.  A healthy and reconciled community takes precedence over standing for my private rights.

This approach seems to me to be almost opposite of American political philosophy.  The U.S. Constitution contains a list of fundamental individual rights, and we have been guarding and adding to this list for over two hundred years.  These rights include such things as the right to free speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, and the right of all citizens–of any race or either gender, and of legal age–to vote.  These rights have formed our core understanding of what is ethical.  I am glad for this, since in a secular democracy one needs to operate on the basis of individual rights in order to maximize freedom and allow for pluralism.

But the church is not a secular democracy composed of all people within certain geographical-political boundaries.  The church is a voluntary society within the larger society, composed of those who have made a commitment to follow Jesus.  And our mission is not simply to maximize freedom or allow for pluralism; our mission is to maximize reconciliation–with God and our neighbors.  We are a community of reconciliation–demonstrating reconciliation and sharing reconciliation.  And this means that, for the sake of reconciliation and building up community, we may from time to time voluntarily set aside our individual rights and freedoms.

We should note, though, that sometimes the church has harmed individuals, and whole groups within the church, through a misguided focus on reconciliation and community.  For instance, if the majority compels a protesting minority to conform for the sake of reconciliation and peaceful community, this is neither true reconciliation nor love.  Paul’s approach to reconciliation is not compelling conformity, but honoring everyone and allowing room for everyone’s conscience within an overall attitude of mutual love and patience.

In verse 25 Paul shifts the discussion regarding eating meat in pagan temples.  The problem is that even meat sold in the marketplace often came through the pagan temples.  One often did not know whether the meat had been sacrificed to idols.  In such cases, Paul’s advice is to not worry about it.  If you do not know where the meat comes from, but you give thanks to God (the true origin of all good things) for the meat, then you have kept a proper spiritual focus.

Giving thanks to God for the good things we enjoy sanctifies those good things.  Many Christians have fallen out of the habit of giving thanks before each meal, perhaps because they think it an empty ritual (or showing off).  But giving thanks before we eat is a way of reminding us of God’s presence and provision, and it helps avoid selfish gluttony.  Eating is an inherently pleasurable activity.  As such it can easily become a thoughtless, selfish, gluttonous act.  But by first giving thanks, we make eating into an act of gratitude and worship.

It seems to me that this holds true for any pleasurable activities in which we engage.  Anything that is pleasurable has the tendency of becoming self-centered and uncontroled.  But if we give thanks to God for each pleasurable activity, we sanctify it; we make it into an act of gratitude that honors God.  Perhaps we should always say thanks for food, play and sex.

Paul concludes this discussion by saying, “Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.”  For many of us today, this sounds presumptuous and prideful.  But I doubt that was Paul’s intent or motivation.  Paul recongized that most of the members of the Corinthian church were new believers, and many had come straight out of paganism.  They were in desperate need of good models for living a Christ-like life, and so Paul offered himself, for better or worse, as an example to follow.

Who do we imitate?  Who are our models for life?  We need good models or we are adrift.  We need good models of marriage, good models of parenting, good models of teaching, good models for our occupations; and we need good models for faith and living out Christ’s way.  If we are missing good models, it is probably because we are missing good community.  So find a good community of faith and love.

1 Corinthians 10:1-22

The issue of whether a Christian should participate in social meals in the pagan temples (first introduced in chapter eight) now comes back for final consideration.  Some of the Corinthian Christians have apparently been taking the position that pagan idols are nothing; therefore, eating meat sacrificed to an idol, and eating social meals in a pagan temple, have no spiritual implications.  Previously, Paul counseled against attending such meals if it caused others to go against their conscience.  But now he makes another point:  Watch out!  Attending these pagan meals may lead Christians back into idolatry and immoral behavior.

Paul uses the story of the Israelites in the wilderness as an example of how people who have made a covenant with God can still easily be led back into false worship and false loyalties.  Paul sees the story of the Israelites passing through the Red Sea as a kind of baptism for the Israelites.  Similarly, he sees the manna in the wilderness, and the water that flowed out of the rock, as a kind of eucharist–paralleling the bread and wine that Christians eat in rememberance and solidarity with Jesus.  In other words, the ancient Israelites were just as committed to God as the current Christians in Corinth.  The ancient Israelites enjoyed the same spiritual benefits of baptism and communion.  And yet, they still made a golden calf and worshiped it, and their behavior devolved into complaining and immorality.

I have to admit, it’s hard for me to get all worked up about the dangers of idolatry.  Modern religions in our culture don’t usually feature idols.  Not too many people believe in a pantheon of gods who reflect the various forces of nature or human personality.  So, at least on the surface, idolatry does not seem to be much of a temptation or problem for today’s church.

But what is idolatry?  At its root, it is giving one’s loyalty to anything less than the God who is above all.  Idolatry is ”worshiping” (or giving ultimate value) to that which is part of creation.  Idolatry usually ends up being a form of self-worship–being impressed by what we have made or what we can control.  Our own desires (and fears) become the center of our “religion.”

Attending a social event at a pagan temple may seem like an innocuous event.  Yes, some perfunctory pagan rituals are enacted, some meaningless prayers are spoken–but so what?  Paul says:  Those pagan rituals and prayers may well be affecting you in ways beyond what you realize.  You are implicitly announcing your solidarity with pagan “gods.”  And thereby, you are opening yourself up to pagan influences, to spiritual “forces” that are in rebellion against God.

What are the rituals that our society desires us to participate in?  Are they forms of idolatry–giving allegiance to what we have made or what we control?  Perhaps this is not so innocuous.  Perhaps we are opening ourselves up to becoming subtle idolaters, letting our ethics be guided by human desire and human control instead of by the transcendent values of love and justice for all people.

Has the church in America been largely subverted by the idolatry of nationalism, and the idolatry of militarism, and the idolatry of security, and the idolatry of personal wealth, and the idolatry of consumerism, and the idolatry of consensual sex?

Paul sees the bickering, the conceit, and the sexual immorality of many of the members of the Corinthian church, and I think he sees this as evidence that they have indeed succumbed to the temptations of idolatry.  But as strong as the pull of idolatry is, it can be resisted.  God gives us the resources we need if we stay focused on our allegiance to God.

But what I find most fascinating in this passage is the way in which Paul sees Christ as present among the ancient Israelites.  “And the rock was Christ.”  Paul sees in the story of the rock that flows with water for the thirsty Israelites not just a metaphor for Christ, but the actual presence of Christ.  “Christ” does not mean, in this context, the historical Jesus.  Rather, Christ is the timeless self-giving, saving graciousness of God.  Christ “becomes flesh” in Jesus, but Christ has always been available and present.  Clearly, Paul considers the ancient Israelites as having been “saved” by Christ.

This has implications for how we understand access to God’s salvation.  New Testament writers often say that salvation is through Jesus Christ, but that doesn’t mean someone has to be a Christian to be saved by Christ.  Rather, the self-giving sacrifice of God is embedded in the code of the universe; the cross is timeless and everywhere; everything was made for Christ and through Christ.  So whenever people commit themselves to self-giving love, they are accessing the presence of Christ.  The Rock follows us everywhere through the wilderness.

(By the way, Paul’s odd comment about the rock “following” the Israelites is due to a rabbinic tradition that sought to explain how the rock Moses struck could be described as being in different locations in different passages.  The solution:  the rock moved with them!)

1 Corinthians 9:19-27

Paul continues his argument (begun in 8:1) that believers should not unnecessarily offend the consciences of other believers.  But now he goes a step further:  we should also accommodate ourselves to those who are not yet believers.

In verses 19-23 Paul is arguing for what today we might call “contextualizing the gospel.”  In order to communicate God’s good news effectively to others, we must enter into their world, their culture.  Without compromising his own beliefs or behavior, Paul makes himself Jewish (which he is) when he’s with Jews, and he makes himself like a Gentile when he’s with Gentiles.  This doesn’t result in a loss of personal integrity, or in undermining the gospel, because at the heart of his understanding of the gospel is the overcoming of barriers and differences.

I wonder how well we contextualize the gospel today.  In some areas we have accommodated the gospel too much to American culture–for instance, blending the worship of God with American patriotism, and making the gospel into an individualistic relationship with Jesus rather than a communal relationship of making wholeness and reconciliation through the Body of Christ.  In other areas we have not contextualized the gospel enough–neglecting poor neighborhoods and marginalized people.

How many people in our congregations have the gift of being able to move effortlessly in many different circles–with the white collar and the blue collar, with liberals and conservatives, and with different ethnicities and races?  These are the people we must emulate.  These are the people who are truly living out the gospel.

Paul then uses athletic metaphors to make the point that living out the implications of the gospel–overcoming barriers and achieving reconciliation–is hard work that requires discipline and persistence.  I used to think there was a tension between the free gift of salvation through grace, and the need for spiritual discipline.  But there is no actual tension.  God’s love is free and constant, and we become disciples through joy, humbleness, and gratitude.  But carrying out God’s work requires that we constantly stay focused on trusting in God and in God’s love.  That usually requires active attention.  That means being a person of prayer and meditation–aware of God’s presence and constantly giving oneself to God.  That means studying scripture and the products of thoughtful believers; that means worshiping with others; that means practicing regular charity and self-sacrifice.

We do this because we want to; because we are inspired; because we have been so loved and forgiven.  Being “saved” is an ongoing process and continual growth.  We must be careful not to become lazy and distracted by lesser concerns.

We are not as mature as we think we are; we are not in as good of shape as our distorted mirror leads us to believe.  Overall, I think American Christianity is flabby and immature.  We have no lack of information.  We have no lack of resources.  We lack something else.  It’s not something we can buy.  It’s not a book or a high-powered church program.  It’s something we don’t want.

We need to wash feet.

1 Corinthians 9:1-18

At first it may look like Paul is now changing subjects, but actually he is still thinking of the issue of whether Christians should give up their “right” to eat any meat (even meat from a pagan temple) in order to be accommodating to others.  He uses as an illustration how he has given up his “right” to be paid for preaching the gospel in order to make hearing the gospel “free of charge.”

If a person feels called to travel from city to city proclaiming a message from God, how should that person be supported?  Should an established church send and sponsor the person, paying living expenses?  Should the person look for wealthy donors to underwrite the expenses?  Or should the person ask for support from the people he or she is preaching to–requesting lodging and food?  Jesus had an itinerant ministry, and it appears to have been supported in the second and theird ways.  Wealthy women underwrote some of the expenses.  In addition, he and his disciples depended on the hospitality of the townspeople where he preached–hoping someone would provide a meal and a place to sleep.  This was Jesus’ way of demonstrating trust in God and encouraging people to share with each other.

But Paul takes a very different approach.  Unlike Jesus, and unlike Peter and Jesus’ brothers (who are now missionaries) and all the other apostles, he and Barnabas do not ask anyone for support.  Instead, Paul pays his own way through self-employment as a tent-maker.  This represented quite a sacrifice on Paul’s part.  Tent-making was hard, low-status work. It also took away valuable time from his mission of preaching and teaching.  In fact, even some of the Christians in Corinth thought he was humiliating himself by not being supported through donations or charging a fee for teaching.

Paul says he could claim his right as an apostle to be supported by those who receive his message, but he chooses not to.  Paul affirms that it is perfectly right–and biblical–for evangelists to be supported by the congregations they create.  But he will not claim this right.  Why not?  Because he wants his message to be free of charge.  No one can claim he is acting out of greed, and no one can claim he is keeping the good news from those who are too poor to pay.

This is a passage about being willing to give up one’s legitimate rights for the sake of benefiting others.  This is a message our American churches need to hear.  We live in a litigious society, hyper-sensitive to our rights, suing whenever possible for personal gain.  This is contrary to Christian community and Christian character.  Rather, as Christians, we seek to build up community, strengthen relationships, and move toward reconciliation.  Rights are not unimportant, and indeed there are many times when they ought to be championed.  But we do not fight selfishly for ourselves but for the benefit and building up of all.

This passage also raises interesting questions about how pastors today ought to be compensated.  It is assumed by the vast majority of churches that a congregation ought to hire a pastor (full-time if possible) and pay him or her a wage comparable to other professions with similar training and workload.  This is legitimate–as Paul himself affirms.  But this model has had unintended consequences.  When a congregation pays a person to “do ministry,” it implies that the rest of the congregation does not do ministry.  Ministry becomes professionalized–something only highly-trained and paid people are supposed to do.  It also fosters an attitude by the congregation that the pastor is supposed to “feed” the congregation–the congregation’s role is as passive receiver, not as activer doer.  The pastor is doing a good job if the congregation is properly organized, entertained, inspired and comforted by the pastor.

But this warps the proper nature of ministry and the congregation.  Ministry is what every believer does.  Pastors and other congregational leaders are for equipping the congregation to do ministry.  It is the congregation that shares resources, helps the poor, sees to the needs of the sick, comforts the distressed, gives testimonies, prays, and builds a better world in the name of Christ.

I wonder whether we may need to abandon the notion of “full-time professional ministry” for the sake of rescuing the church.  At the very least, we need to de-emphasize it.  Every believer should be recognized as a minster with a particular ministry.  As few people as possible should be paid, and paid positions should be part-time whenever possible.  We may need to recover Paul’s tent-making approach to ministry if we want to revitalize the true ministry of the church.

This may sound impractical, but I notice that the Mormons have avoided paid clergy for their entire history–and look at how well they’re growing!  I’m not against full-time paid pastors–I’m one myself.  They have a place.  But the church has given them too large of a place.

1 Corinthians 8:1-13

This chapter presents yet another issue that is seriously dividing the Christians in Corinth.  One group goes to feasts at the pagan temples and eats the meat there–even though the meat has been prepared in honor of a pagan god (in the form of an idol).  Another group is frightened that attending such meals and eating such meat endangers one’s relationship to God by linking the participant to another god and idol-worship.  The first group wants Paul to tell the second group that they are being ignorant; other gods don’t really exist, so eating meat sacrificed to an idol means nothing and cannot do any harm.

Very possibly these two groups represent two different socio-economic classes in the Corinthian church.  The first group perhaps consists of rich and educated members, well connected with the urban elite, who have a social obligation to go to these temple festivities.  Pagan temples were not simply places of worship, they were also gathering places for social life and large banquets.  They were the reception halls of the Greco-Roman world.  The well-connnected members of the Corinthian church may have felt that participating in these banquets was simply a way of being sociable and maintaining important relational networks.  Whether the food had been butchered as part of some pagan ritual to an idol was beside the point for these Christians, because for a Christian meat is simply meat.  Those Christians who are afraid of eating meat sacrificed to an idol are simply being superstitious. 

The second group perhaps consists of recent pagan converts to the Christian faith who are primarily from the “working class” and slaves.  This group doesn’t normally get invited to the banquets at the temple; they are not connected.  Their view of what goes on at those banquets is mostly the view of an outsider.  Like the first group, they believe that Israel’s God is the only true God, but unlike the first group they believe that idols represent other spiritual powers.  So to attend a banquet at a pagan temple, and eat meat that has been sacrificed to idols, is to become connected to spiritual powers at odds with the true God.

Paul reponds to this controversy in a disarming way.  In effect he says to the first group, “You have knowledge, but the point of the Christian faith is to have love.”  If having a more sophistcated theology causes us to put down those with a less sophisticated theology, then we do not have the kind of “knowledge” that really counts.  What matters is not how much we know about God, but whether God knows us; and God knows us when we love.

Paul reframes this debate by saying that it is beside the point determining who is right and who is wrong.  The Christian community is not served by identifying winners and losers in a debate.  As in marriage, there is no such thing as “winning an argument” when we are bound together in community.  As soon as you have won an argument, you have lost part of the relationship.  If at all possible, conflicts should be resolved in such a way that all are honored and all are built up.  For instance, in pre-marital counseling I always tell couples that they should always seek a win-win solution.

Paul also brings in another factor–the role of conscience.  Do not tempt others to go against their conscience even if you think their conscience is based on faulty assumptions.  When we violate our own belief-system, doing what we believe to be morally or spiritually wrong, we are indeed harming ourselves.  So Paul says to the first group, have enough love and respect for the beliefs and conscience of these other Christians that you do not cause them to sin against their own conscience by joining you in an activity that you believe is harmless but they believe is wrong.  Paul goes so far as to say that he himself would be willing to refrain from eating all meat if that would prevent a fellow-Christian from wounding his or her conscience.

This particular issue is no longer relevant for us today, but we face other issues in the church that may have some valid parallels; and in these cases, Paul’s principles are still quite relevant and helpful.  Various Christian groups take different stands on where to draw the line on participating in popular social events that have pagan associations.  For instance, today is Halloween, and many Christians object to participating in its rituals of dressing up as ghosts and goblins, which are leftovers from its pagan origins.  Other Christians view it as a harmless activity with no spiritual meaning.  Some Christians object to the secularized Santa rituals of the Christmas season, while others regard it as simple fun.

Does reading Harry Potter books make one more vulnerable to accepting withcraft?  Is playing with a Ouiji board a spiritually dangerous activity? 

Also, Christians wrestle with public rituals of national allegiance–saying the pledge or singing the national anthem.  Do these, or do these not, represent a division and blurring of our allegiance to God?

Some of these questions we may regard as silly, and some as quite serious.  I do not know where Paul himself would have stood on all of these questions.  But I think he would tell us to refrain from making fun of each other’s conscience.  He also would tell us to build each other up.

This does not mean that the church must be held hostage to those with the most strict and narrow conscience.  It does not mean we must all, whether we like it or not, refrain from activities other Christians are bothered by.  But–unless it’s an issue of doing necessary justice–we should avoid giving unnecessary public offense.  And we should honor each other’s conscience.