Bar Kokhba, The Reformation, and 9/11

What do the Bar Kokhba rebellion, the protestant reformation, and 9/11 have in common?  They are all sometimes interpreted as though they arose entirely from social/economic factors, with only the veneer of genuinely religious motivation.

Which is where Professor Roland Deines’ views on the Bar Kokhba rebellion become very interesting: He makes the connection that the Bar Kokhba revolt arose in the seventh decade after the destruction of the Jerusalem temple.  Why would there be an attempt to overthrow the enemies in the seventh decade after the destruction of the temple?  Perhaps because of the tradition from Jeremiah that after 70 years restoration would come.  So the rebellion represented a firm belief that God’s timing had come, and could be anticipated by human zeal.

It’s definitely worth a read, and I’ll add in the details of the paper, which I read a while ago, when I can find it again.

Our god the free market

Alex Andrews has an article in the Guardian arguing that neo-liberal economics is basically an idolatrous religion demanding faith in the benevolence of unrestricted free markets…  Check it out here.

Conflict in Nottingham; Conflict in Gaza: An Interview

What does theology have to do with the events in Gaza?

The New York Times gives a useful insight into what has been happening in Gaza - if you are not really sure what the fuss is about, this article will give you some idea.

Over the weekend, a group of Nottingham students who were occupying a lecture theatre to express solidarity with the Palestinian people of Gaza was forcibly removed by the university.  According to the University of Nottingham, this was done to avoid disruption to the education of the student body, and the removal took place “sensibly, professionally, and expeditiously”.  I was not involved, but I spoke to one person who took part in the occupation, and he agreed to a brief anonymous interview.  This is worth reading, particularly for the reflection on the relationship between theology and the recent events in the Gaza strip.  I asked him three questions.

 

1) Tell us about the University’s response to the “Occupation Nottingham” protest.

 

The main problem was that they refused to negotiate with us.  They refused to speak to us in the room that we occupied.  Plenty of discussion was happening in the room, but the University wouldn’t take part.  They didn’t want to talk about what we were saying at all.  At least at the occupation in Cambridge, the group was given the dignity of having their demands specifically addressed, even though those demands weren’t granted.  Furthermore, the University of Oxford, the University of Bradford, the London School of Economics and Political Science, The University of Sussex, The University of Leeds, University of Warwick, Kings College London, School of African and Oriental Studies, London etc, all not only talked to the protesters and negotiated, but allowed many of their demands to be met, and dignified them with a response.  The University of Nottingham simply told us to leave the room.  They gave us the offer of a token future dialogue, without actually engaging directly with us or our specific concerns.  The threats and physical violence involved in our removal from the room just seem out of step with a supposedly educational environment.

 

2) How do the events of the last weekend relate to the conflict in Gaza?

 

Our suffering is not at all comparable to the suffering of those in Gaza – there is no direct parallel.  But it does show how the dynamic of power operates generally.  The protest is not about us facing off the University management – although we are opposed to the University continuing to accept funding from companies that have contributed to the manufacture of the F16 fighters used in the recent conflict…  We just want to make people aware of what’s going on.  For me, the main point of the occupation was this: The ongoing humanitarian crisis in Gaza needs to be recognised – as does Britain’s arms trade to the state of Israel, which apparently increased during the ceasefire.  That’s our tax money.  We have some responsibility toward other people.

 

3) My own academic interest is theology – specifically, Biblical studies.  Why should these issues concern me?

 

It’s quite stark that, although this is not a purely religious conflict, it already involves theological assumptions and arguments.  So a critical theological voice – in terms of theological exegesis, reflection on what “peace” is, reflection on what “conflict” is – these things can make a contribution.  In Christianity there are also traditions of peace-making and discussion of forgiveness.  Right now I find it difficult to talk about forgiveness – but maybe, along with the pursuit of justice – this is where things need to end up.

Theology wants to talk about everything as though it has cosmic significance – as part of a cosmic narrative.  And so the things that are done on earth are given wider significance.  My question is: How can academic theology evaluate, critique, and inform the way in which this happens?

Just War & Pacifism

The Nigel Biggar/Richard Hays debate about non-violence in the New Testament was okay.  Richard Hays was more rhetorically polished; Nigel Biggar was slightly more perceptive about the nature of their disagreement; but to some degree the debate itself seemed to dance around the periphery of this fundamental disagreement, I think. 

Hays (probably rightly) felt that Biggar was simply responding to individual exegetical particularities rather than appreciating his whole approach to Christian ethics, seeing the cross as shaping the life of an alternative community.  Biggar (probably rightly) felt that Hays wasn’t appreciating the task of the moral theologian, who is free to take issues & distinctions outside of the text, and bring them to the text to see if they might find validity.

One question I would have been interested to hear Hays address is: Given that (unlike Paul) I have been born into a situation in which the government who wields the sword is chosen by and representative of ME, how am I to approach this situation of “secondarily” wielding the sword – whether I like it or not?

faith, hope, and sex: and the greatest of these is…

The New York Times reports on the lead-up to the vote on “Proposition 8″ in California:

“This vote on whether we stop the gay-marriage juggernaut in California is Armageddon,” said Charles W. Colson, the founder of Prison Fellowship Ministries and an eminent evangelical voice, speaking to pastors in a video promoting Proposition 8.

Now I don’t know the full context of that statement, but it seems pretty silly to me.  I know the issue itself is divisive, but for the sake of argument, let’s assume that homosexual marriage is against Christian scripture and tradition: Does that mean that all hell will break loose unless it’s outlawed?  For the first three centuries, no Christian values were consciously enshrined in law; and yet Christianity managed to survive and thrive….  I don’t think laws about homosexual marriage will prove to be “Armageddon”.

But my specific interest in this post is not whether or not Proposition 8 (which aims to ban same-sex marriage in California) should be passed.  My interest is the way that 1 Corinthians 13 has been bent out of shape for the purpose of attempting to make a particular political point:

Regardless of one’s position on Proposition 8, this is such an abuse of 1 Corinthians 13: You may notice that in order to force this chapter of Scripture to make the point the advertisers wish to make, they have had to take out the most crucial verse (v12, Augustine’s and my favourite verse in the Bible – note that it’s the tagline of my blog); and manipulate the image of childhood/adulthood beyond recognition:

In the flow of 1 Corinthians, chapter 13 calls the Corinthians to take their claims for the exercise of their own ”rights” and turn them upside down, knowing that the present will be a time of uncertainty, “partial-ness”, and cruciformity: The present is not a time for demanding or showing off spiritual/ecclesial/bodily/sexual fullness, but for giving oneself in love for others – particularly those upon whom we are inclined to look down.

But in the video above, this message is completely obliterated and transformed to become: “NOW is the time to grow up and give everyone romantic/sexual rights.”

What a travesty.  Regardless of whether Proposition 8 should be accepted or rejected, this is not the way to argue a point.

Paul and Politics: From Right to Left?

The political right is well known as having conservative moral concerns.  The political left is well known as having social/welfare concerns.  My rather unsophisticated philosophy has been that if one should be given preference over the other when voting, it’s the latter: Somehow it seems more pressing to care for the poor than to attempt to ensure the conservation of “family values”.

However, my examination of Pauline ethics has got me wondering what Paul would think…

My work on Paul’s ethics involves the contention that the ethical sections of the Pauline literature (including extended sections as well as short vice/virtue lists) often share a certain rhythm: To put it simply, Pauline ethics seems to move from “right” to “left”…

1) Firstly, Paul calls the church to sanctification in terms of issues of sexual immorality, greed, and impurity of bodies.

2) Secondly, Paul calls the church to sanctification in terms of issues of inter-relational issues, calling them to self-sacrificing love within the body of Christ.

If you want to see examples of this, look at Romans 1:24-32; Romans 12:1-8; 1 Corinthians 5-14; 2 Corinthians 12:20-21 (in which the order is reversed, but still the “impurity, sexual sin and debauchery” are said to have occurred “earlier”); Galatians 5:19-26; Ephesians 2; Ephesians 4-5 (in which there is an alternation between the two themes, without the normal order); Colossians 3:5-17ff; 1 Thessalonians 4:1-12… those will do to give an idea…

It seems that Paul thinks that idolatry/godlessness is fundamentally expressed in the moral abuse of human bodies… and Christians are called rather to offer their bodies to God, in his service.  But although this movement – from impurity to devotion – is the beginning, it is not the end-point.  The end goal is that Christians will cohere lovingly in the one body of Christ – giving themselves up for one another, caring for one another, pursuing peace with one another.

Of course, Paul’s summons is to the church… but it does make me wonder whether I should re-think my unsophisticated philosophy that we can effectively pursue care for the poor (which I believe is the glory of any nation) while acting as though people’s personal bodily practices are irrelevant.

A Question of Politics… and Greek

When Paul was writing his letters, including instructions for those who were under the thumb of the government, he was writing as one who knew government persecution. Considering himself a slave of Christ, he wrote instructions to slaves; considering himself a Roman prisoner, he wrote instructions to those under Roman rule; considering himself condemned to death, he wrote instructions to those who suffered.

If Christians should continue to always be a voice of the political outsider challenging the mainstream (so Yoder, Hauerwas), what should they do if they happen to find themselves in a position of political power? This question was driven home for me by something interesting I saw in Caesarea: The inscriptions above have been excavated in ancient tax collection centres from the Byzantine (ie Constantinian) period: Here, adorning the floor, are quotations from the apostle Paul (Romans 13), warning those who enter that if they want to live without fear, they should “do good” in relation to the authorities! The voice of the Roman prisoner has been co-opted by the Roman government as a means of enforcement… I’ll let you do the translation, dear reader* – it’s quite easy Greek.

*note use of the singular