This is a cover version I recorded of Talis Kimberley's emotional song about growing up. It struck a powerful emotional chord with me, so I went and made my own version:
The original lyrics said "I went to camp / with the girl guide pack". If I sang those lyrics, it would have an altogether different connotation, so I edited it slightly to reflect more closely the experiences from my own youth.
It really is kind of a shame I never knew how good-looking I was.
***
ETA: I actually made two versions of the song - this one is a bit more poignant and was performed with my ukulele (3 ukulele parts, to be precise). The video is more-or-less the same, except this time you get to see me playing the uke in the middle:
Tuesday, 30 March 2010
Monday, 22 March 2010
Body Image questions
Happy Bodies have a post calling for submissions, which also has soe questions to help people get started. I think as far as submissions go, I'll probably just offer a link to my "body image" tag and they can sort out what seems useful from that. But the questions looke dinteresting to have a crack at a sentence or two about each, so here's my short answers to each:
What is your favorite Body part?
My hands, easily! They make music, they make fun sex things happen, they are also proportionately quite slender and delicate, while also being big and able to stretch to do lots of things like holding big objects or playing double bass.
What part do/would you flaunt?
My hair - it's something that makes me very proud.
What part do you specifically check in the mirror?
I don't really - although I guess my face when I'm shaving.
Do you label anything on your body a “problem area”?
I'm way hairier on my body than I'm happy with. Make it go away!
Can you think of a time when the way you viewed your body changed?
Not in a sudden change sense, but there have been periods where my body view has changed gradually. It took a couple of years in my mid-twenties but that was when I changed from seeing my body as inherently unattractive to seeing it as attractive and likeable. I think it is no coincidence that this was when I really started to wake up to the possibility of r/l BDSM relationships.
When are you most aware of your body?
Listening to music, when doing any sort of activity, especially when I am in control of something - BDSM encounters especially!
Do you notice what body language you use in different situations? Flirting? Professionally? Hanging out with your friends?
Not as much as I think I should be. I worry that sometimes my body language isn't congruent with how I'm feeling or thinking or relating to someone - or rather, that my body language dialect is a lot different from that of those around me.
Do you workout? Why?
No - because I can't maintain focus on exercise for the sake of exercise. I'm much happier playing sports or hiking.
How have sexual encounters changed the way you view your body?
See above: finding my sexuality accepted was the first step in coming to see myself as being attractive (both physically and spiritually). Being appreciated in a sexual context was a very important element of that as well.
Have any comments about your body ever changed how you think about it?
See comments above. The comments mentioned below on my nude posts didn't have any effect because I was much more confident in myself by the tie I did those; if comments would have changed my self-image, I wouldn't have made those posts in the first place.
How has the idea of virginity impacted how you view your body?
Not a great deal. The idea of being a virgin wasn't much of anything to me - the fact I hadn't had sex yet was what bothered me, because it was something I wanted to do and enjoy. But the status of virginity wasn't an issue, and certainly didn't affect the way I viewed my body. Feeling undesirable just made it seem natural that nobody would have sex with me, but it didn't add to that sense, but merely was a small piece of corroborating evidence for what I already believed.
What do you think of depictions of “attractive” bodies in the media?
In a way I never felt pressured to live up to attractive bodies, because when I was young I thought that it was beyond my reach anyway. When I came to appreciate my body as attractive, then there was no need to compare myself to the media images.
I would like to have a slimmer body, but not by much. My biggest aspiration is to have bigger breasts - I'd like proper womanly boobs, not my measly man-tits. I suspect that would freak out a lot of people in modern society, though.
How did you learn about your body growing up? How did your family impact your body image?
This is actually a pretty tricky question for me. The biggest memory I have is of being about 6 or 7 and reading a big hardback book called "The Human Body" that was probably aimed at children a few years older than me. It talked about the biological functions and had diagrams of the sex organs and stuff.
Family wise, it was like a generational gap, as far as I can remember: my parents encouraged me to see myself positively; my siblings (and peers) encouraged the opposite. The siblings and peers won out.
How do you think others view your body?
That depends on which others and what situation. I am, objectively, a tubby bitch. Some people (like the anonymous poster on my nudity posts) react badly to it. Others see me as the sexy beast I am!
How do the other aspects of your identity play out on how you view your body and how it is viewed?
I've already talked a bit about how my BDSM kinks have impacted on my body image. My gender fluidity is what makes me want proper big boobs (I think my ideal would be a C cup) but it also means that I am much more familiar with my body and its reactions that I suspect I might otherwise have been. I think the fact that I am willing to be a bit camp impacts the way certain types of people see me and I feel as though they think it gives them more permission to be negative and express disgust about it.
How does the way you view your body change the way you view yourself as a person?
I'm inclined to say that it doesn't, and the reason is that although there is a correlation between feeling like a bad person and also feeling like I'm ugly or unattractive, I think these have a single common cause behind them (namely, depression). I think when I was younger it was more the case that feeling unattractive also made me feel like I was an unlikeable person - but again, there were other issues going on with that, so it's hard to say whether the way I view my body has any effect.
What is your favorite Body part?
My hands, easily! They make music, they make fun sex things happen, they are also proportionately quite slender and delicate, while also being big and able to stretch to do lots of things like holding big objects or playing double bass.
What part do/would you flaunt?
My hair - it's something that makes me very proud.
What part do you specifically check in the mirror?
I don't really - although I guess my face when I'm shaving.
Do you label anything on your body a “problem area”?
I'm way hairier on my body than I'm happy with. Make it go away!
Can you think of a time when the way you viewed your body changed?
Not in a sudden change sense, but there have been periods where my body view has changed gradually. It took a couple of years in my mid-twenties but that was when I changed from seeing my body as inherently unattractive to seeing it as attractive and likeable. I think it is no coincidence that this was when I really started to wake up to the possibility of r/l BDSM relationships.
When are you most aware of your body?
Listening to music, when doing any sort of activity, especially when I am in control of something - BDSM encounters especially!
Do you notice what body language you use in different situations? Flirting? Professionally? Hanging out with your friends?
Not as much as I think I should be. I worry that sometimes my body language isn't congruent with how I'm feeling or thinking or relating to someone - or rather, that my body language dialect is a lot different from that of those around me.
Do you workout? Why?
No - because I can't maintain focus on exercise for the sake of exercise. I'm much happier playing sports or hiking.
How have sexual encounters changed the way you view your body?
See above: finding my sexuality accepted was the first step in coming to see myself as being attractive (both physically and spiritually). Being appreciated in a sexual context was a very important element of that as well.
Have any comments about your body ever changed how you think about it?
See comments above. The comments mentioned below on my nude posts didn't have any effect because I was much more confident in myself by the tie I did those; if comments would have changed my self-image, I wouldn't have made those posts in the first place.
How has the idea of virginity impacted how you view your body?
Not a great deal. The idea of being a virgin wasn't much of anything to me - the fact I hadn't had sex yet was what bothered me, because it was something I wanted to do and enjoy. But the status of virginity wasn't an issue, and certainly didn't affect the way I viewed my body. Feeling undesirable just made it seem natural that nobody would have sex with me, but it didn't add to that sense, but merely was a small piece of corroborating evidence for what I already believed.
What do you think of depictions of “attractive” bodies in the media?
- Does it impact how you view your body?
- Is there a body type you aspire to?
In a way I never felt pressured to live up to attractive bodies, because when I was young I thought that it was beyond my reach anyway. When I came to appreciate my body as attractive, then there was no need to compare myself to the media images.
I would like to have a slimmer body, but not by much. My biggest aspiration is to have bigger breasts - I'd like proper womanly boobs, not my measly man-tits. I suspect that would freak out a lot of people in modern society, though.
How did you learn about your body growing up? How did your family impact your body image?
This is actually a pretty tricky question for me. The biggest memory I have is of being about 6 or 7 and reading a big hardback book called "The Human Body" that was probably aimed at children a few years older than me. It talked about the biological functions and had diagrams of the sex organs and stuff.
Family wise, it was like a generational gap, as far as I can remember: my parents encouraged me to see myself positively; my siblings (and peers) encouraged the opposite. The siblings and peers won out.
How do you think others view your body?
That depends on which others and what situation. I am, objectively, a tubby bitch. Some people (like the anonymous poster on my nudity posts) react badly to it. Others see me as the sexy beast I am!
How do the other aspects of your identity play out on how you view your body and how it is viewed?
I've already talked a bit about how my BDSM kinks have impacted on my body image. My gender fluidity is what makes me want proper big boobs (I think my ideal would be a C cup) but it also means that I am much more familiar with my body and its reactions that I suspect I might otherwise have been. I think the fact that I am willing to be a bit camp impacts the way certain types of people see me and I feel as though they think it gives them more permission to be negative and express disgust about it.
How does the way you view your body change the way you view yourself as a person?
I'm inclined to say that it doesn't, and the reason is that although there is a correlation between feeling like a bad person and also feeling like I'm ugly or unattractive, I think these have a single common cause behind them (namely, depression). I think when I was younger it was more the case that feeling unattractive also made me feel like I was an unlikeable person - but again, there were other issues going on with that, so it's hard to say whether the way I view my body has any effect.
Friday, 19 March 2010
Listening Skills and D/s
This week, I attended a couple of half-day sessions as a taster course in Counselling Skills. One thing that struck me was how some of the skills of “active listening” were familiar to me from my D/s relationships.
The attendees on the taster course had a number of exercises in listening, summarising, repeating and paraphrasing what our partners said. On some of these the other people struggled; I feel rather smug and proud that I didn't have much difficulty with any of it (although the exercises were a challenge – anything that requires focus must challenge you to command that focus, I feel).
But this focus I think is what gave me the edge, because of my experience as a BDSM Dominant. A Dom, particularly someone like me, who has a strong disciplinarian/strictness flavour, has to be able to pay attention to what a submissive partner is saying or doing to be able to keep hir on track. Many is the time a sub has tried to derail an interrogation or lesson by distracting me onto some other course. Being able to reflect back to her what she's saying and remain focussed on the task at hand has proved invaluable in that kind of situation.
In fact, another skill not directly touched upon in the course but that I found useful anyway in the exercises, was the ability to “bookmark” points in the conversation where departure happened and things went down some side alley or whatever. As mentioned above, subs try to derail a discussion and thus evade some dreaded “punishment”; it can be very fun to allow them to think they've succeeded and then bring things back to where we were anyway – no escape! Well, obviously there was no such dreaded consequence or such involved with the counselling skills, but the exercises had a tendency to evolve away from where they started and then we had to get back on track. By being alert and following carefully what was being said, I was often able to bring things back with a well-placed comment.
The attentiveness of active listening I think is a real parallel with D/s. It really is essential within a D/s relationship to be paying attention closely to one's partner. To maintain the command and presence as a Dominant, one must always be alert to how one's submissive is responding. And of course, as a submissive one must be able to follow carefully what is being asked of one by one's Dominant partner. And this is before we even get to the importance of attentiveness when there is any kind of bondage or SM play involved!
Now, it's fair to say that as a Dominant my reasons for using these skills are very different from the reasons that they are important in counselling. In counselling, the purpose is to enable the client to express themselves and know that they are being understood. The client leads the conversation and the counsellor spends more time listening and doesn't try to steer it. A Dominant (or at least, this Dominant!) is always in control, and is going to take any "discussion" where zie wishes it to go, and indeed is going to use the skills of active listening, of paraphrasing, and of "bookmarking", to make sure that happens.
However, at the same time, these points stand as a direct contradiction of the assumptions that some people make about D/s, particularly that a Dominant must simply not care what hir partner thinks or feels and can ignore what is said. There is no way that a Dominant can maintain the control that is the basis of consensual power-exchange and the pleasure that both derive from the relationship, unless that Dominant is completely aware of and in tune with hir submissive partner's feelings and responses!
I think that, for those who kink that way, this is one of the reasons why submission in D/s relationships feels so positive. Although counselling and D/s are very different things, and certainly should not be mistaken one for the other, some of the same benefits can be derived from both because of this attentive, active listening. In the taster course we were reminded that in the modern world, having someone genuinely pay attention to you and just listen is actually pretty rare - and it feels GOOD when someone does. Again, it only works in D/s for those who already desire some element of submission or Dominance in their relationship with another. But to have that attention, that focus, and it be all about you (a sub is all about hir Dom; but equally, a Dom is all about hir sub - no matter what the script of the play says!) is very comforting and reinforcing. It makes us feel good about ourselves, and it makes us feel that we have value as human beings.
No doubt there will be those who look at a passage like that and claim that it's an unhealthy relationship, that the Dominant is preying upon a sub's insecurity or whatever - but that's only as true as it is to say that a counsellor or therapist is preying upon the insecurities of their clients. And in both D/s and counselling, part of the aim is that the people go away and feel they have their own strength to deal with the world as a result - not a strength derived from the counsellor or D/s partner.
It is this, I think, that may lie behind a lot of the times when submissives (in particular female, feminist, submissives) talk about how D/s is empowering to them.
* Yes, of course there are some D/s relationships that are unhealthy and where the attention is made conditional upon a subservient structure; but then, there are arseholes like that in every walk of life, not just D/s - I'd argue that probably they appear more often by proportion in 'nilla than in D/s. But most often, the relationship is negotiated, understood, and the attention is not conditional but simply a part of the engagement of two people with one another (which form of language is used because the principles apply whether it's a one-off play scene or a full D/s relationship).
The attendees on the taster course had a number of exercises in listening, summarising, repeating and paraphrasing what our partners said. On some of these the other people struggled; I feel rather smug and proud that I didn't have much difficulty with any of it (although the exercises were a challenge – anything that requires focus must challenge you to command that focus, I feel).
But this focus I think is what gave me the edge, because of my experience as a BDSM Dominant. A Dom, particularly someone like me, who has a strong disciplinarian/strictness flavour, has to be able to pay attention to what a submissive partner is saying or doing to be able to keep hir on track. Many is the time a sub has tried to derail an interrogation or lesson by distracting me onto some other course. Being able to reflect back to her what she's saying and remain focussed on the task at hand has proved invaluable in that kind of situation.
In fact, another skill not directly touched upon in the course but that I found useful anyway in the exercises, was the ability to “bookmark” points in the conversation where departure happened and things went down some side alley or whatever. As mentioned above, subs try to derail a discussion and thus evade some dreaded “punishment”; it can be very fun to allow them to think they've succeeded and then bring things back to where we were anyway – no escape! Well, obviously there was no such dreaded consequence or such involved with the counselling skills, but the exercises had a tendency to evolve away from where they started and then we had to get back on track. By being alert and following carefully what was being said, I was often able to bring things back with a well-placed comment.
The attentiveness of active listening I think is a real parallel with D/s. It really is essential within a D/s relationship to be paying attention closely to one's partner. To maintain the command and presence as a Dominant, one must always be alert to how one's submissive is responding. And of course, as a submissive one must be able to follow carefully what is being asked of one by one's Dominant partner. And this is before we even get to the importance of attentiveness when there is any kind of bondage or SM play involved!
Now, it's fair to say that as a Dominant my reasons for using these skills are very different from the reasons that they are important in counselling. In counselling, the purpose is to enable the client to express themselves and know that they are being understood. The client leads the conversation and the counsellor spends more time listening and doesn't try to steer it. A Dominant (or at least, this Dominant!) is always in control, and is going to take any "discussion" where zie wishes it to go, and indeed is going to use the skills of active listening, of paraphrasing, and of "bookmarking", to make sure that happens.
However, at the same time, these points stand as a direct contradiction of the assumptions that some people make about D/s, particularly that a Dominant must simply not care what hir partner thinks or feels and can ignore what is said. There is no way that a Dominant can maintain the control that is the basis of consensual power-exchange and the pleasure that both derive from the relationship, unless that Dominant is completely aware of and in tune with hir submissive partner's feelings and responses!
I think that, for those who kink that way, this is one of the reasons why submission in D/s relationships feels so positive. Although counselling and D/s are very different things, and certainly should not be mistaken one for the other, some of the same benefits can be derived from both because of this attentive, active listening. In the taster course we were reminded that in the modern world, having someone genuinely pay attention to you and just listen is actually pretty rare - and it feels GOOD when someone does. Again, it only works in D/s for those who already desire some element of submission or Dominance in their relationship with another. But to have that attention, that focus, and it be all about you (a sub is all about hir Dom; but equally, a Dom is all about hir sub - no matter what the script of the play says!) is very comforting and reinforcing. It makes us feel good about ourselves, and it makes us feel that we have value as human beings.
No doubt there will be those who look at a passage like that and claim that it's an unhealthy relationship, that the Dominant is preying upon a sub's insecurity or whatever - but that's only as true as it is to say that a counsellor or therapist is preying upon the insecurities of their clients. And in both D/s and counselling, part of the aim is that the people go away and feel they have their own strength to deal with the world as a result - not a strength derived from the counsellor or D/s partner.
It is this, I think, that may lie behind a lot of the times when submissives (in particular female, feminist, submissives) talk about how D/s is empowering to them.
* Yes, of course there are some D/s relationships that are unhealthy and where the attention is made conditional upon a subservient structure; but then, there are arseholes like that in every walk of life, not just D/s - I'd argue that probably they appear more often by proportion in 'nilla than in D/s. But most often, the relationship is negotiated, understood, and the attention is not conditional but simply a part of the engagement of two people with one another (which form of language is used because the principles apply whether it's a one-off play scene or a full D/s relationship).
Thursday, 18 March 2010
Go Natalie Randolph!
(Via Yahoo News)
Describing herself as "more Tony Dungyesque", a former wide receiver in women's American football has become the first female head coach of a high school team in that sport, in a D.C. Senior High School.
The report isn't too detailed about the reaction from elsewhere, but there's clearly a lot of people whose sexism means they can't conceive of a woman being able to follow the tactics and strategy of the sport. Fortunately, it looks like her players are not among them, if the example of DT Daniel West is to go by:
I'm not going to suggest that I believe that miraculously all her kids will suddenly be inoculated against sexism, privilege-entitled behaviour or any of the other bad stuff around (which is obviously how the Hollywood version of this story would end) but hopefully there will be girls and boys alike who see this and realise that gender barriers aren't all they're cracked up to be.
What would be REALLY great would be if this story wasn't such a big issue, so that the announcement wasn't so big a photo op that they had to wait 2hrs for the Mayor to turn up and it wasn't worth their while for national news to cover it. So while this is obviously a positive step, it's also evidence once again of just how far we have to go before equality and freedom of genders is truly achieved.
Describing herself as "more Tony Dungyesque", a former wide receiver in women's American football has become the first female head coach of a high school team in that sport, in a D.C. Senior High School.
The report isn't too detailed about the reaction from elsewhere, but there's clearly a lot of people whose sexism means they can't conceive of a woman being able to follow the tactics and strategy of the sport. Fortunately, it looks like her players are not among them, if the example of DT Daniel West is to go by:
"There’s nothing like proving somebody wrong. And I think that’s what we’re going to have to do this season—because a lot of people have something to say about her being our coach, and I feel like it’s my duty and it’s the team’s duty to prove everybody wrong, to show that it doesn’t matter. As soon as we start winning, everybody will want to be on the bandwagon."
I'm not going to suggest that I believe that miraculously all her kids will suddenly be inoculated against sexism, privilege-entitled behaviour or any of the other bad stuff around (which is obviously how the Hollywood version of this story would end) but hopefully there will be girls and boys alike who see this and realise that gender barriers aren't all they're cracked up to be.
What would be REALLY great would be if this story wasn't such a big issue, so that the announcement wasn't so big a photo op that they had to wait 2hrs for the Mayor to turn up and it wasn't worth their while for national news to cover it. So while this is obviously a positive step, it's also evidence once again of just how far we have to go before equality and freedom of genders is truly achieved.
Monday, 15 March 2010
How Nice Are My Moobs?
I promise you, I answered honestly and truthfully to every single question that the patriarchy entitlement-infused jerk asked in the test. And yet, somehow, I suspect he would be disappointed if I were to follow his invitation to "take a picture of them and email them" to him... even if I shaved my chest first!
As long-time readers will be aware, I am rather pleased with my man-tits, and they have a few admirers (including one who pretended to think they were disgusting, but you know he fancied me really!)
Strangely, though, this test does not entice me to share them with the person who created it, but of course appreciative lovers are welcome!
I'm not in the frame of mind to dissect properly the entitlement and privilege that the notion of the test suggests, but hopefully most readers will be able to use Google to find other feminist writers who know that stuff better than me anyway, or else actually ARE those writers (and the ones who can't be arsed to google wouldn't get it even if it were explained to them with a baseball bat, I'm guessing).
Your result for The How Nice Are Your Tits Test...
Baby got a rack!
Of all the titts in the world, yours are better than 82% of them. Wear them proud!
You've maxed out the chart with your sweet sweet ta-ta's. They are shaped, sized, and nippled to perfection. Please, take a picture of them and e-mail them to me -- better yet come on by some evening so I can play with them, I promise you I will be eternally greatful.
As long-time readers will be aware, I am rather pleased with my man-tits, and they have a few admirers (including one who pretended to think they were disgusting, but you know he fancied me really!)
Strangely, though, this test does not entice me to share them with the person who created it, but of course appreciative lovers are welcome!
I'm not in the frame of mind to dissect properly the entitlement and privilege that the notion of the test suggests, but hopefully most readers will be able to use Google to find other feminist writers who know that stuff better than me anyway, or else actually ARE those writers (and the ones who can't be arsed to google wouldn't get it even if it were explained to them with a baseball bat, I'm guessing).
Thursday, 4 March 2010
Taking the Epistle: James
The final seven letters of the New Testament are called the "General Letters", because they appear to have been sent not to specific churches but intended for a much wider readership. It seems that, rather than being letters, they were circulars or broad memoranda!
The first of these begins with a greeting from the author who calls himself James, as if this is sufficient identification. From this the NIV compilers deduce that it was most likely to have been James Carpenter (or alternatively, James of Nazareth), Jesus' brother in the family of Joseph, on the grounds that the apostle James was already martyred and the other two characters named James in the NT are not well-known enough to have been able to assume that the readers would know which James they were. (I suppose it's possible that this was an entirely different James who just didn't make the final edit, but whom everyone knew about back then - but it seems unlikely!)
I find two themes as being strongly emphasised in this letter, and those are submission to God and the importance of action in conjunction with faith. I find this interesting because, recalling that "Islam" translates into English as "submission", I compare the themes here with some of the themes in the Qur'an and find it oddly similar. This is not to say that James presages Islam, but rather to observe that there are similarities of thought here, and the common roots in the Abrahamic tradition show through.
In James' focus on the importance of actions, it is tempting to suggest that he is standing opposed to Paul's theology that it is by faith alone that we are saved. If the identification that this is James, brother of Jesus, is correct the this would appear to be a flawed argument. According to Acts, at the Council of Jerusalem James was one of those who spoke up to endorse enthusiastically Paul's position, tying it in to Old Testament prophecies.
It seems that the actual understanding is somewhat different: faith, by its nature, gives rise to action and to good deeds. Remembering the "fruits of the Spirit" that Paul highlights, it seems to follow that someone imbued with faith, who possesses these fruits, would naturally act - and thus by their deeds, their faith would be known. James writes "But someone will say, 'You have faith, I have deeds.' Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do." (2:18) Which pretty much translates into the modern vernacular as, "Actions speak louder than words". James sums it up that, "As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead." (2:26)
One of the key passages about "actions" concerns speech, and James directs us that, just as a large ship is steered by a small rudder, so we can be steered wrongly by letting our mouths run away with us! If we speak falsely, says James, we are led astray - "It corrupts the whole person, sets the whole course of his life on fire, and is itself set on fire by hell." (3:6)
James goes on to say, "With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in God's likeness. Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers, this should not be." (3:9-10) Just as Paul warns against spreading slander and advocates kind words, here James reinforces that message by reminding readers that we should see in those around us a representation of the divine: as Jesus says in the parable of the sheep and the goats, "whatever you did for the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me". Here, James implies that this is true also for the ways in which we speak about other people - if we lie about them, or curse at them, or spread rumours or half-truths to cast them in a bad light, then we are treating Christ in the same way.
Keeping our tongues in check is a repeated theme in the letter. Earlier, in chapter 1, James writes that "Everyone should be quick to listen and slow to speak" (1:19) and adds, "If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless." (1:26)
James is not very specific about what actions are important, limiting his comments to
His other remarks are to castigate those who make themselves rich by exploiting others and not paying a fair wage (yes, I'm looking at Walmart and a lot of multinational companies when I mention this!) - the passage is James 5:1-6.
He also makes it clear that favouritism is outlawed in the church, and distinguishing between believers on the basis of wealth is contrary to the Golden Rule, "love your neighbour as yourself".
James concludes that, "... judgement without mercy will be shown to anyone who is not merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgement!" (2:13)
On submission to God, James also covers a number of themes. The word that is repeatedly used in the NIV translation is "perseverance". In the opening passage, James uses it to refer to the troubles that the early Christians would have to face from persecution. So the first theme is submission to the troubles that come from believing and professing that belief, and as has been discussed in the other Letters, this is seen as submitting to God's will. James views it as a test of faith.
He also calls for patience in persevering - in knowledge that good things will eventually come: "See how the farmer waits for the land to yield its valuable crop and how patient he is for the autumn and spring rains. You too, be patient and stand firm, because the Lord's coming is near." (4:7-8)
Two other themes of submission to God arise in James. At the very end of the letter, James advocates turning everything over to God through prayer - troubles, joys, illness, and health.
The other almost echoes the Buddhist thesis "the source of suffering is desire". Here is the full passage:
This has three sections, each of which speaks of a different form of submission to God. The first is touched on already in my remarks - submitting one's desires to God. Here, James points out that seeking to satisfy transient pleasures is ultimately unsatisfying (and for that reason, God won't answer that kind of prayer). Such desires also lead inevitably to conflict between people (James goes for hyperbole when he talks of killing, although greed can certainly induce murder in extreme cases).
The next theme of submission is one of being humble before God and accepting his power over us; James says that if we do this, then God's power being upon us will cause the devil to flee when we resist the devil.
An interesting point about the emphasis here in submitting to God's power, and one where James most clearly seems to be at odds with Paul's instruction, is the passage about grieving, mourning, wailing and "changing joy to gloom". The footnotes explain that these refer first to repentance from sin, and secondly to humbling ourselves before God - the Greek is an immediate instruction to do it without delay. But I cannot help but compare it to Paul's castigation of those who make a false piety from asceticism (for example, in Colossians) and his constant celebration of the joy that the Spirit is supposed to bring. James seems to take a different view, and encourages the self-denial that Paul thinks is a sign of a lack of faith.
The final theme of submission is submission to the judgement of God according to the law. This does not appear to be the same as the Mosaic law of the Old Testament, but rather to the overarching divine law brought by the Spirit and by Jesus - the law that is summed up by the Golden Rule. A Christian who sets himself or herself up as an authority to declare others "good" or "bad" is acting against this law, and is (according to James) directly taking to himself or herself powers that rightly belong only to God. This echoes Jesus' words as recorded in Matthew: "Do not judge, or you too will be judged".
In a very broad sense, and not talking about the specifics, I feel as though these themes echo those that I found when I was reading through the Qur'an - again, the emphasis on right action, and on submission to God's will (the word Islam meaning "Submission", I seem to recall). Obviously, this is based on a very imperfect recollection of a translation into English of the Qur'an, so this is only a tentative suggestion.
I have one further observation on James. Namely, that the author clearly loved wordplay and literary flourishes - occasionally, I feel, to the detriment of clarity. The best example is from his discussion of not judging by wealth: "The brother in humble circumstances ought to take pride in his high position. But the one who is rich should take pride in his low position, because he will pass away like a wild flower." James seems to enjoy these kinds of inversions and contradictions (I recall from a biography of Karl Marx that he also liked playing with that sort of form). So the NIV compilers offer a long footnote trying to unravel what James means by the second phrase where perhaps James was just a little over-enthusiastic with his literary flourishes!
The first of these begins with a greeting from the author who calls himself James, as if this is sufficient identification. From this the NIV compilers deduce that it was most likely to have been James Carpenter (or alternatively, James of Nazareth), Jesus' brother in the family of Joseph, on the grounds that the apostle James was already martyred and the other two characters named James in the NT are not well-known enough to have been able to assume that the readers would know which James they were. (I suppose it's possible that this was an entirely different James who just didn't make the final edit, but whom everyone knew about back then - but it seems unlikely!)
I find two themes as being strongly emphasised in this letter, and those are submission to God and the importance of action in conjunction with faith. I find this interesting because, recalling that "Islam" translates into English as "submission", I compare the themes here with some of the themes in the Qur'an and find it oddly similar. This is not to say that James presages Islam, but rather to observe that there are similarities of thought here, and the common roots in the Abrahamic tradition show through.
In James' focus on the importance of actions, it is tempting to suggest that he is standing opposed to Paul's theology that it is by faith alone that we are saved. If the identification that this is James, brother of Jesus, is correct the this would appear to be a flawed argument. According to Acts, at the Council of Jerusalem James was one of those who spoke up to endorse enthusiastically Paul's position, tying it in to Old Testament prophecies.
It seems that the actual understanding is somewhat different: faith, by its nature, gives rise to action and to good deeds. Remembering the "fruits of the Spirit" that Paul highlights, it seems to follow that someone imbued with faith, who possesses these fruits, would naturally act - and thus by their deeds, their faith would be known. James writes "But someone will say, 'You have faith, I have deeds.' Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do." (2:18) Which pretty much translates into the modern vernacular as, "Actions speak louder than words". James sums it up that, "As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead." (2:26)
One of the key passages about "actions" concerns speech, and James directs us that, just as a large ship is steered by a small rudder, so we can be steered wrongly by letting our mouths run away with us! If we speak falsely, says James, we are led astray - "It corrupts the whole person, sets the whole course of his life on fire, and is itself set on fire by hell." (3:6)
James goes on to say, "With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in God's likeness. Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers, this should not be." (3:9-10) Just as Paul warns against spreading slander and advocates kind words, here James reinforces that message by reminding readers that we should see in those around us a representation of the divine: as Jesus says in the parable of the sheep and the goats, "whatever you did for the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me". Here, James implies that this is true also for the ways in which we speak about other people - if we lie about them, or curse at them, or spread rumours or half-truths to cast them in a bad light, then we are treating Christ in the same way.
Keeping our tongues in check is a repeated theme in the letter. Earlier, in chapter 1, James writes that "Everyone should be quick to listen and slow to speak" (1:19) and adds, "If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless." (1:26)
James is not very specific about what actions are important, limiting his comments to
James 1:22-25
Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says. Anyone who listens to the word but does not do what it says is like a man who looks at his face in a mirror and, after looking at himself, goes away and immediately forgets what he looks like. But the man who looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues to do this, not forgetting what he has heard, but doing it - he will be blessed in what he does.
His other remarks are to castigate those who make themselves rich by exploiting others and not paying a fair wage (yes, I'm looking at Walmart and a lot of multinational companies when I mention this!) - the passage is James 5:1-6.
He also makes it clear that favouritism is outlawed in the church, and distinguishing between believers on the basis of wealth is contrary to the Golden Rule, "love your neighbour as yourself".
James concludes that, "... judgement without mercy will be shown to anyone who is not merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgement!" (2:13)
On submission to God, James also covers a number of themes. The word that is repeatedly used in the NIV translation is "perseverance". In the opening passage, James uses it to refer to the troubles that the early Christians would have to face from persecution. So the first theme is submission to the troubles that come from believing and professing that belief, and as has been discussed in the other Letters, this is seen as submitting to God's will. James views it as a test of faith.
He also calls for patience in persevering - in knowledge that good things will eventually come: "See how the farmer waits for the land to yield its valuable crop and how patient he is for the autumn and spring rains. You too, be patient and stand firm, because the Lord's coming is near." (4:7-8)
Two other themes of submission to God arise in James. At the very end of the letter, James advocates turning everything over to God through prayer - troubles, joys, illness, and health.
The other almost echoes the Buddhist thesis "the source of suffering is desire". Here is the full passage:
James 4:1-12
What causes fights and quarrels among you? Don't they come from your desires that battle within you? You want something but don't get it. You kill and covet, but you cannot have what you want. You quarrel and fight. You do not have, because you do not ask God. When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may spend what you get on your pleasures.
You adulterous people, don't you know that friendship with the world is hatred towards God? Anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God. Or do you think Scripture says without reason that the spirit he caused to live in us envies intensely? But he gives us more grace. That is why Scripture says:
God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.
Submit yourselves, then, to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. Come near to God and he will come near to you. Wash your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded. Grieve, mourn and wail. Change your laughter to mourning and your joy to gloom. Humble yourselves before the Lord, and he will lift you up.
Brothers, do not slander one another. Anyone who speaks against his brother or judges him speaks against the law and judges it. When you judge the law, you are not keeping it, but sitting in judgment on it. There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and destroy. But you— who are you to judge your neighbour?
This has three sections, each of which speaks of a different form of submission to God. The first is touched on already in my remarks - submitting one's desires to God. Here, James points out that seeking to satisfy transient pleasures is ultimately unsatisfying (and for that reason, God won't answer that kind of prayer). Such desires also lead inevitably to conflict between people (James goes for hyperbole when he talks of killing, although greed can certainly induce murder in extreme cases).
The next theme of submission is one of being humble before God and accepting his power over us; James says that if we do this, then God's power being upon us will cause the devil to flee when we resist the devil.
An interesting point about the emphasis here in submitting to God's power, and one where James most clearly seems to be at odds with Paul's instruction, is the passage about grieving, mourning, wailing and "changing joy to gloom". The footnotes explain that these refer first to repentance from sin, and secondly to humbling ourselves before God - the Greek is an immediate instruction to do it without delay. But I cannot help but compare it to Paul's castigation of those who make a false piety from asceticism (for example, in Colossians) and his constant celebration of the joy that the Spirit is supposed to bring. James seems to take a different view, and encourages the self-denial that Paul thinks is a sign of a lack of faith.
The final theme of submission is submission to the judgement of God according to the law. This does not appear to be the same as the Mosaic law of the Old Testament, but rather to the overarching divine law brought by the Spirit and by Jesus - the law that is summed up by the Golden Rule. A Christian who sets himself or herself up as an authority to declare others "good" or "bad" is acting against this law, and is (according to James) directly taking to himself or herself powers that rightly belong only to God. This echoes Jesus' words as recorded in Matthew: "Do not judge, or you too will be judged".
In a very broad sense, and not talking about the specifics, I feel as though these themes echo those that I found when I was reading through the Qur'an - again, the emphasis on right action, and on submission to God's will (the word Islam meaning "Submission", I seem to recall). Obviously, this is based on a very imperfect recollection of a translation into English of the Qur'an, so this is only a tentative suggestion.
I have one further observation on James. Namely, that the author clearly loved wordplay and literary flourishes - occasionally, I feel, to the detriment of clarity. The best example is from his discussion of not judging by wealth: "The brother in humble circumstances ought to take pride in his high position. But the one who is rich should take pride in his low position, because he will pass away like a wild flower." James seems to enjoy these kinds of inversions and contradictions (I recall from a biography of Karl Marx that he also liked playing with that sort of form). So the NIV compilers offer a long footnote trying to unravel what James means by the second phrase where perhaps James was just a little over-enthusiastic with his literary flourishes!
Tuesday, 2 March 2010
Taking the Epistle: Hebrews
[ETA: If at times I sound like I'm crowing about the answers to atheists' points - well, maybe I am a little (and it makes me a bad Christian for doing so!), but really my point is to express my surprise that these questions were considered even in the 1st Century CE - a surprise that, given the nature of the letter to the Hebrews, is really quite unwarranted.]
Hebrews is the first of the New Testament letters not attributed to St Paul. According to the study notes, it was commonly attributed to him by people from around 400 to 1600 CE, but before that and after that it was never really said to be by him. Because the author does not identify himself, there are a number of theories about who might have written it, Paul's associates Apollos and Barnabas are the leading suspects for the role.
Compared to the letters of St Paul, this is if anything more tied in to the structures and systems of Jewish theology - the author bases his arguments very heavily on an understanding of the Jewish scriptures and quotes from them liberally to make his points. This makes sense in a letter addressed to the Hebrew churches, of course!
The structured argument is mainly aimed at establishing beyond doubt the position of Christ as the head of the Church, as the Son of God and as the means of salvation. In so doing, it also presents a theological answer to the questions posed by Conversational Atheist that I addressed in an earlier post. (Just to be clear - in this post I present the argument that the author of Hebrews makes, I don't say that I completely follow the author's arguments here - for my arguments, see my earlier post.)
First, Christ's superiority to earlier leaders is explained through a series of Old Testament quotations that are used to imply that the Christ is exalted above Moses, David, and the angels. Then Jesus is described as a great high priest from an order that pre-dates the Levite tradition, using a name of a pre-exile king and priest who is unusual in Genesis accounts because his ancestry isn't mentioned (which according to the author of Hebrews resembles Jesus because although Jesus was born of Mary, he was actually conceived by the Spirit). The argument then goes that such high spiritual calling can only be the Son of God.
To talk of Jesus as salvation, another common atheist argument actually gets addressed: namely, why did Jesus have to die, why couldn't God just forgive sins anyway? According to Hebrews, this is because Christ had to become our brother to experience fully what humanity is, and through that, had to take on our suffering, and thus release us from the torment that we are due. Though God knows our hearts and our suffering, through Christ he experienced it directly.
In addressing the questions of Conversational Atheist, Hebrews says on the point of why the new covenant of Christ was needed:
The argument is that the "former law" is useless because it can only guide, it cannot correct; it does not prevent people from straying, nor does it heal the gulf of sin. As the following passage explains, the old sacrifices had to be repeated, over and over again, because they were necessarily impure and incomplete. But God's sacrifice through Jesus is perfect, and eternal - it washes truly clean in a way that the old rituals could not.
The author of Hebrews demonstrates the importance of this, that Jesus admits all people into Heaven, by reference to the torn curtain in some of the gospel descriptions of Jesus' death: the curtain separated the outer sanctum from the inner sanctum, which was the part into which only the high priest could go. Symbolically, according to Hebrews, Christ's death tore aside the curtain that separates humanity from God, just as the curtain in the temple was torn that separated the secret from the rest of the worshippers.
Like the other letters, Hebrews makes some warnings and exhortations: We must pay attention in order to receive the salvation; we must not "fall away" but remain steadfast in our faith in order to enjoy the promised rewards; we must persevere in the face of opposition. Unlike the other letters, Hebrews is very unforgiving of those who lapse in their faith:
and
While the other letters tend to emphasise that love (the defining characteristic of the Spirit) as eternally forgiving, Hebrews emphasises the effect of wilfully ignoring the directions of the Spirit - the effect being described in the above passage as "trampling the Son of God under foot" etc.
Chapter 11 is interesting in that it offers a list of several of the characters from the Old Testament whom the authors believe exemplify faith, and the success that faith ultimately brings. The list includes most of the post-deluge patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob etc), Moses (of course), and also Rahab, the woman who sheltered the Israelite spies when they were planning the attack on Jericho. (Incidentally, Rahab is commonly described as a prostitute but according to the text notes on the book of Joshua, her business could also be translated as "innkeeper" - sadly, this feels like an attempt by translators at a later date, to diminish the importance and status of a woman in the story.)
Hebrews concludes with several familiar types of instruction, though perhaps presented slightly differently than Paul did.
12:14 "Make every effort to live in peace with all men and to be holy; without holiness no one will see the Lord."
12:16 "See that no one is sexually immoral, or is godless like Esau, who for a single meal sold his birthright as the eldest son."
Chapter 13 reminds us to "keep loving one another as brothers", and to shelter strangers because "by so doing some people have entertained angels without knowing". Love of money is to be avoided. There is a reminder not to be "carried away" by "strange teachings" (although the thought in my mind at this instruction is that the teachings of the early Christians were probably among the strangest ever heard at that time and in that part of the world!) The final instruction is to obey leaders, "so that their work will be a joy, not a burden".
Overall, I think Hebrews is useful in terms of understanding how the early Church coped with understanding how the Jewish scriptures related to the new message of Christ's salvation. The actual theology is similar to the ideas expressed by Paul, but in this letter there is a more comprehensive attempt to base it in teachings that would have been familiar to the more educated recipients and give a background to the new church in terms of the older tradition, while simultaneously explaining that the old law had been superseded (though not erased).
Hebrews is the first of the New Testament letters not attributed to St Paul. According to the study notes, it was commonly attributed to him by people from around 400 to 1600 CE, but before that and after that it was never really said to be by him. Because the author does not identify himself, there are a number of theories about who might have written it, Paul's associates Apollos and Barnabas are the leading suspects for the role.
Compared to the letters of St Paul, this is if anything more tied in to the structures and systems of Jewish theology - the author bases his arguments very heavily on an understanding of the Jewish scriptures and quotes from them liberally to make his points. This makes sense in a letter addressed to the Hebrew churches, of course!
The structured argument is mainly aimed at establishing beyond doubt the position of Christ as the head of the Church, as the Son of God and as the means of salvation. In so doing, it also presents a theological answer to the questions posed by Conversational Atheist that I addressed in an earlier post. (Just to be clear - in this post I present the argument that the author of Hebrews makes, I don't say that I completely follow the author's arguments here - for my arguments, see my earlier post.)
First, Christ's superiority to earlier leaders is explained through a series of Old Testament quotations that are used to imply that the Christ is exalted above Moses, David, and the angels. Then Jesus is described as a great high priest from an order that pre-dates the Levite tradition, using a name of a pre-exile king and priest who is unusual in Genesis accounts because his ancestry isn't mentioned (which according to the author of Hebrews resembles Jesus because although Jesus was born of Mary, he was actually conceived by the Spirit). The argument then goes that such high spiritual calling can only be the Son of God.
To talk of Jesus as salvation, another common atheist argument actually gets addressed: namely, why did Jesus have to die, why couldn't God just forgive sins anyway? According to Hebrews, this is because Christ had to become our brother to experience fully what humanity is, and through that, had to take on our suffering, and thus release us from the torment that we are due. Though God knows our hearts and our suffering, through Christ he experienced it directly.
In bringing many sons to glory, it was fitting that God, for whom and through whom everything exists, should make the author of their salvation perfect through suffering. Both the one who makes men holy and those who are made holy are of the same family. So Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers.
...
Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death— that is, the devil— and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death. For surely it is not angels he helps, but Abraham's descendants. For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people. Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.
In addressing the questions of Conversational Atheist, Hebrews says on the point of why the new covenant of Christ was needed:
The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.
And it was not without an oath! Others became priests without any oath, but he became a priest with an oath when God said to him:The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind: 'You are a priest for ever.'
Because of this oath, Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant.
Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; but because Jesus lives for ever, he has a permanent priesthood. Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them. Such a high priest meets our need— one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens. Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself. For the law appoints as high priests men who are weak; but the oath, which came after the law, appointed the Son, who has been made perfect for ever.
The argument is that the "former law" is useless because it can only guide, it cannot correct; it does not prevent people from straying, nor does it heal the gulf of sin. As the following passage explains, the old sacrifices had to be repeated, over and over again, because they were necessarily impure and incomplete. But God's sacrifice through Jesus is perfect, and eternal - it washes truly clean in a way that the old rituals could not.
The author of Hebrews demonstrates the importance of this, that Jesus admits all people into Heaven, by reference to the torn curtain in some of the gospel descriptions of Jesus' death: the curtain separated the outer sanctum from the inner sanctum, which was the part into which only the high priest could go. Symbolically, according to Hebrews, Christ's death tore aside the curtain that separates humanity from God, just as the curtain in the temple was torn that separated the secret from the rest of the worshippers.
Like the other letters, Hebrews makes some warnings and exhortations: We must pay attention in order to receive the salvation; we must not "fall away" but remain steadfast in our faith in order to enjoy the promised rewards; we must persevere in the face of opposition. Unlike the other letters, Hebrews is very unforgiving of those who lapse in their faith:
Hebrews 6:4-6 It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.
and
Hebrews 10:26-29 If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?
While the other letters tend to emphasise that love (the defining characteristic of the Spirit) as eternally forgiving, Hebrews emphasises the effect of wilfully ignoring the directions of the Spirit - the effect being described in the above passage as "trampling the Son of God under foot" etc.
Chapter 11 is interesting in that it offers a list of several of the characters from the Old Testament whom the authors believe exemplify faith, and the success that faith ultimately brings. The list includes most of the post-deluge patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob etc), Moses (of course), and also Rahab, the woman who sheltered the Israelite spies when they were planning the attack on Jericho. (Incidentally, Rahab is commonly described as a prostitute but according to the text notes on the book of Joshua, her business could also be translated as "innkeeper" - sadly, this feels like an attempt by translators at a later date, to diminish the importance and status of a woman in the story.)
Hebrews concludes with several familiar types of instruction, though perhaps presented slightly differently than Paul did.
12:14 "Make every effort to live in peace with all men and to be holy; without holiness no one will see the Lord."
12:16 "See that no one is sexually immoral, or is godless like Esau, who for a single meal sold his birthright as the eldest son."
Chapter 13 reminds us to "keep loving one another as brothers", and to shelter strangers because "by so doing some people have entertained angels without knowing". Love of money is to be avoided. There is a reminder not to be "carried away" by "strange teachings" (although the thought in my mind at this instruction is that the teachings of the early Christians were probably among the strangest ever heard at that time and in that part of the world!) The final instruction is to obey leaders, "so that their work will be a joy, not a burden".
Overall, I think Hebrews is useful in terms of understanding how the early Church coped with understanding how the Jewish scriptures related to the new message of Christ's salvation. The actual theology is similar to the ideas expressed by Paul, but in this letter there is a more comprehensive attempt to base it in teachings that would have been familiar to the more educated recipients and give a background to the new church in terms of the older tradition, while simultaneously explaining that the old law had been superseded (though not erased).
Taking the Epistle: Wrapping up Paul
Wrapping up the series of posts I did about the letters attributed to St Paul in the New Testament, I'm going to try to sum up the general themes that I found as I went along. here's a list of links to the relevant posts:
Romans
1 Corinthians
2 Corinthians and Galatians
Ephesians
Philippians
Colossians
1 & 2 Thessalonians
1 & 2 Timothy and Titus (The Pastoral Letters)
Philemon
Firstly, Paul was a natural authoritarian. For all he had a really quite hippie-ish message to spread, he seems very much to have been someone who respected authority, who saw law and order as the natural way to go. Given that he was simultaneously teaching that the Law of Moses was no longer applicable, he must have had a real conflict of character even as he so fiercely and firmly defended his view.
In place of the Law, Paul raises instead the "fruits of the Spirit", the characteristics that he felt marked a 'good' Christian out from the non-believers. Perhaps it is unsurprising that Paul highlights characteristics that make for orderly behaviour! They do happen to be the characteristics that are highlighted in Jesus' teachings, though:
Paul also (in the same authoritarian fashion) frowns on things that seem disorderly. In addition to things that are directly against the above, he adds such things as gossip, drunkenness, crude humour or language, orgies etc. Indeed, self-control seems to be his biggest ideal! In 1 Corinthians, his ideal of worship is a very calm, sedate ministry, everyone waiting calmly to take their turn to speak and praise the Lord.
Paul draws a very clear distinction between the physical and the spiritual, and appears to cast them as necessarily antagonistic towards one another: in order for the spiritual to flourish, we must exert self-control over our bodies. His teachings on sexuality in particular seem to be based in this idea. Thus, the seeking of sexual pleasure for its own sake is something upon which Paul frowns, and instead he wishes that those who feel such desires should find some other slutty person to marry ASAP so they can at least get on with it in wedlock instead of corrupting everybody else! (1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy) I suspect that at least one reason why Paul is anti-gay is that he buys into the belief, still common today, that homosexuality is purely about sexual gratification and that there is no spiritual element to a same-sex relationship. In the sense that "one cannot ascribe nonsense to God", the fact that it seems there really are spiritually committed gay relationships in the world says that Paul is wrong on this one - it is possible to be gay and not "sexually immoral".
A recent programme on Channel 4 ("The Bible: A History") had an episode looking at the teachings of St Paul and raised the question that some of the hierarchical teachings that denigrated the position of women may have been inserted at a later date. I'm not convinced about this, at least in all the cases. For instance, I think the passage from Ephesians is very characteristic of Paul's mentality and approach as he appears in the other letters (including the 7 undisputed ones). While Acts and several of the Letters reveal that there were several prominent women in positions of power in the early Church, Paul does seem to have clung to some of his hierarchical beliefs in terms of gender relations.
But (as I pointed out when discussing Ephesians) I think part of this is a logic fail by Paul: he uses first the analogy of Christ wedded to the Church, to illustrate something about the nature of the relationship - but then he seems to suggest that because there is this parallel, that we should then make the marriage resemble as closely as possible the relationship of Christ to the Church - as Christ is to the Church, so the man is to the woman. However it may have been (and bearing in mind the economic realities for women in former times) the reversal "so we should aim to make it more like that!" is obviously nonsense, but it is easy to see how Paul's authoritarian love of orderliness might have wanted it to be so.
In general, though, Paul preaches the equality of all humans - there is implicit denunciation of racism and of sexism (regardless of his own sexist beliefs!) Paul could be argued as one of the earliest teachers that all human beings are born free and equal. Paul expresses it as "equal before God", of course. Indeed, Paul has to take that line or be a hypocrite. Arguing against the Gnostic sects who said that there was a special secret knowledge or initiation needed before one could enter Heaven, for Paul then to have said that equal and true access to Christ was limited to a particular class of people would have been utterly absurd - and so he doesn't make any such case. According to Paul, all humans are capable of salvation, and all people before God are equal - all believers can count themselves as being spiritually "Abraham's seed" and therefore without distinction between them.
This leaves the big question: as mentioned above, Paul taught that adherence to the Mosaic Law was no longer necessary - that the fruits of the Spirit gave rise naturally to the aims and objects of that law, and that the Law was always intended to guide the people in living up to those objectives. Rhetorically, he asked the Galatians, "Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard?" According to Paul, the Mosaic Law may give direction but it cannot lead us all the way to understanding and salvation - and once we have that understanding, we no longer are in need of guidance: we are no longer children in the spirit but full adults in the Spirit. This is the essence of what Paul teaches, and why the old law no longer applies.
***
Next up, there's the unattributed letter to the Hebrews.
Romans
1 Corinthians
2 Corinthians and Galatians
Ephesians
Philippians
Colossians
1 & 2 Thessalonians
1 & 2 Timothy and Titus (The Pastoral Letters)
Philemon
Firstly, Paul was a natural authoritarian. For all he had a really quite hippie-ish message to spread, he seems very much to have been someone who respected authority, who saw law and order as the natural way to go. Given that he was simultaneously teaching that the Law of Moses was no longer applicable, he must have had a real conflict of character even as he so fiercely and firmly defended his view.
In place of the Law, Paul raises instead the "fruits of the Spirit", the characteristics that he felt marked a 'good' Christian out from the non-believers. Perhaps it is unsurprising that Paul highlights characteristics that make for orderly behaviour! They do happen to be the characteristics that are highlighted in Jesus' teachings, though:
- love
- joy
- peace
- patience
- kindness
- goodness
- faithfulness
- gentleness
- self-control
- forgiveness
- truthfulness/honesty
- humility
Paul also (in the same authoritarian fashion) frowns on things that seem disorderly. In addition to things that are directly against the above, he adds such things as gossip, drunkenness, crude humour or language, orgies etc. Indeed, self-control seems to be his biggest ideal! In 1 Corinthians, his ideal of worship is a very calm, sedate ministry, everyone waiting calmly to take their turn to speak and praise the Lord.
Paul draws a very clear distinction between the physical and the spiritual, and appears to cast them as necessarily antagonistic towards one another: in order for the spiritual to flourish, we must exert self-control over our bodies. His teachings on sexuality in particular seem to be based in this idea. Thus, the seeking of sexual pleasure for its own sake is something upon which Paul frowns, and instead he wishes that those who feel such desires should find some other slutty person to marry ASAP so they can at least get on with it in wedlock instead of corrupting everybody else! (1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy) I suspect that at least one reason why Paul is anti-gay is that he buys into the belief, still common today, that homosexuality is purely about sexual gratification and that there is no spiritual element to a same-sex relationship. In the sense that "one cannot ascribe nonsense to God", the fact that it seems there really are spiritually committed gay relationships in the world says that Paul is wrong on this one - it is possible to be gay and not "sexually immoral".
A recent programme on Channel 4 ("The Bible: A History") had an episode looking at the teachings of St Paul and raised the question that some of the hierarchical teachings that denigrated the position of women may have been inserted at a later date. I'm not convinced about this, at least in all the cases. For instance, I think the passage from Ephesians is very characteristic of Paul's mentality and approach as he appears in the other letters (including the 7 undisputed ones). While Acts and several of the Letters reveal that there were several prominent women in positions of power in the early Church, Paul does seem to have clung to some of his hierarchical beliefs in terms of gender relations.
But (as I pointed out when discussing Ephesians) I think part of this is a logic fail by Paul: he uses first the analogy of Christ wedded to the Church, to illustrate something about the nature of the relationship - but then he seems to suggest that because there is this parallel, that we should then make the marriage resemble as closely as possible the relationship of Christ to the Church - as Christ is to the Church, so the man is to the woman. However it may have been (and bearing in mind the economic realities for women in former times) the reversal "so we should aim to make it more like that!" is obviously nonsense, but it is easy to see how Paul's authoritarian love of orderliness might have wanted it to be so.
In general, though, Paul preaches the equality of all humans - there is implicit denunciation of racism and of sexism (regardless of his own sexist beliefs!) Paul could be argued as one of the earliest teachers that all human beings are born free and equal. Paul expresses it as "equal before God", of course. Indeed, Paul has to take that line or be a hypocrite. Arguing against the Gnostic sects who said that there was a special secret knowledge or initiation needed before one could enter Heaven, for Paul then to have said that equal and true access to Christ was limited to a particular class of people would have been utterly absurd - and so he doesn't make any such case. According to Paul, all humans are capable of salvation, and all people before God are equal - all believers can count themselves as being spiritually "Abraham's seed" and therefore without distinction between them.
This leaves the big question: as mentioned above, Paul taught that adherence to the Mosaic Law was no longer necessary - that the fruits of the Spirit gave rise naturally to the aims and objects of that law, and that the Law was always intended to guide the people in living up to those objectives. Rhetorically, he asked the Galatians, "Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard?" According to Paul, the Mosaic Law may give direction but it cannot lead us all the way to understanding and salvation - and once we have that understanding, we no longer are in need of guidance: we are no longer children in the spirit but full adults in the Spirit. This is the essence of what Paul teaches, and why the old law no longer applies.
***
Next up, there's the unattributed letter to the Hebrews.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)