Is 1 Corinthians 10:31 Possible Today?

I am working through Michael Pollan's The Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals. I have the book through interlibrary loan and it is due tomorrow. I'm not even halfway through it. I like the idea of not supporting capitalism and cluttering my apartment with more books, but I might purchase the book (used, from a local bookseller who purchases book from anywhere to sell me). The book is great.

I already think eating is an ethical issue. The Apostle Paul recommended we give glory to God, whether we eat or drink (1 Cor. 10:31). His concern was food offered to gods/idols and then sold in the markets. Paul's context is not our context, unless we (very seriously) think of how the foods we purchase in the market come from the feet of such gods as Mammon, Capitalism, Convenience, and Oil, among others.

For now, I want to take Paul out of that context, which should not be the sin some might think it is. Paul's words, like most people's, say more than he realized.

"Whether you eat or drink, do all to the glory of God." With the help of Michael Pollan (and my ecosteward internship this summer), I am recurrently considering whether my eating and drinking can glorify God. Paul might allow you to eat meat sacrificed to idols, but what does God say about eating meat produced in a way that degrades the earth, whose fullness belongs to God, whose fullness humans are commanded to care for (1 Cor. 10:26; Ps. 24:1; Gen. 2:15)?

I wish meat was the end of the story and the end of Pollan's book. I can give up meat. Being a vegetarian doesn't serve Convenience, but it is doable. Unfortunately, being a vegetarian doesn't proscribe serving Mammon, Capitalism, and Oil. The human omnivore lives a dilemma at the smorgasbord before which the affluent of us choose and plan our meals.

If meat were the problem, I would go vegetarian. If chemicals were the problem, I would go organic. If globalization were the problem, I would go local. If slave labor and unfair prices were the problem, I would go fair trade. Well, scratch that last one. OK, scratch the last three. Vegetarianism is easy. Going completely local, completely organic, and completely fair trade are a lot harder and, in some cases, unhealthy (trying to lose weight, gain muscle, and eat ethically are proving increasingly hard in combination)--and perhaps even impossible.

Not everyone has access to local foods. Others have limited access. How often is local food organic? How often is organic food local? Besides, Pollan has removed my blinders: organic doesn't mean better. Or, maybe it means better, but not good, not quite ethical.

Reflecting on his visit to the place young cows go to become steak and hamburger, Pollan says:

Hungry was the last thing I felt. Yet I'm sure that after enough time goes by, and the stink of this place is gone from my nostrils, I will eat feedlot beef again. Eating industrial meat takes an almost heroic act of not knowing or, now, forgetting (84).

Forgetting and forgiving aren't always connected, but when reading Pollan's words I thought about forgiveness. Can I forgive or forget about those who make it nearly impossible for me eat godly? Should I forgive those lost in the intricate webs of capitalism, petrochemicals, herbicides, pesticides, pollution, convenience, and consumerism or should I try to forgive those who left these problems as our inheritance? Can I be mad at the God who allows these problems to ferment into unavoidable realities, the God who does not keep me from temptation, despite my prayers? If I can, can I forgive that God?

I'm not always sure if my eating and drinking practices glorify God, but they sure put me in conversation with God a lot. Maybe the conversation, or, perhaps, the struggle is better, anyways.

Forgiveness & Tattoos: Reflecting on the Past

I went to get a tattoo the other day and a friend of mine also expressed interest in getting one. She asked if she could come with me, but first asked me to make sure no one talked her into getting a tattoo while at the parlor. She knew what she wanted and where, but she wanted more time to think before jumping into such a permanent decision.

Although I agreed and helped fight off the peer pressure for her, I wondered what the big deal was. I understand tattoos are irreversible, more or less. There are removal processes, but I hear those are quite expensive and sometimes scar (though I have never actually researched tattoo removal). A tattoo might express who I am today, but not who I am 20 years from now. As I change, my tattoo will not change with me, unless it is on a part of my body that gets pretty flabby through the years.

Tattoos are permanent. They are decisions that will follow you for the rest of your life. What decisions are not permanent? This morning I put on a plaid button-up shirt, but quickly decided I wanted to wear my dark-blue t-shirt with the small bleach stain instead. I was able to easily change my decision of what to wear outside my apartment, but I cannot go back in time and prevent myself from buttoning up that plaid shirt. I will live the rest of my life as the man who put on that plaid shirt and then changed his mind.

Obviously my shirt and my tattoo are decisions of different weight, but they are still decisions I made and can never change, never annul. I can change my shirt, but I cannot exactly change my tattoo. Sure, I might be able to cover up or adapt the tattoo, but it will be there until the skin is gone or I opt for that expensive surgery. Even after removal, the past is not changed, although the lens with which I view it would be. Or, at least, the lens with which others view my past might be changed, since they would never see the tattoos.

I am not trying to lighten the heaviness of making a decision about a tattoo. After all, I did fend off peer pressure, helping my friend take the time she needs before getting a tattoo. Contrarily, I want to burden the lightness of so many other decisions. Nine times out of ten, I suspect the color of my t-shirt will not make a huge impact on my life. However, the decision to buy a t-shirt might. Will I buy it from the thrift store, Wal-mart, the Gap outlet, a company online that makes “organic” t-shirts out of bamboo, or a company I know nothing about, a company that might be using sweatshops? Or, perhaps I will decide I do not need any more t-shirts and instead of buying new shirts, I will give some away. I might sew any holes in my older shirts and give away my “nicer” shirts, choosing to look grungy to buck against the consumerist, capitalist system of always buying new to look fashionable.

So many “everyday” decisions are so simple and so easy to make, but they should not be. A lot of these decisions will not follow me around, but others will. Buying a new shirt can be tantamount to forcing a tattoo on another human being. Actually, buying a new shirt can be worse than picking the location and design of a tattoo on another human being. Pumping money into an unethical business can mean the suffering and death of another human being, often times a child. Driving alone instead of carpooling, walking, or not going anywhere could be the straw that breaks the camel’s back for a certain plant, animal, sickly human being, or the US American or Middle Eastern person caught in the midst of a senseless war for oil.

I would rather get a tattoo on a whim, because I can always get the expensive surgery or put the tattoo on an inconspicuous part of my body. Those other decisions I make daily, those decisions that cause suffering and death, they can be forgiven by God and even sometimes by humans, but not even God can erase the past. Sometimes forgiveness does not seem like enough. It does not stop suffering. I can be redeemed, but my sins cannot.

Is Hierarchy in the Church Ethical?

DILEMMA

The above cartoons are by David Hayward, known on the internet as nakedpastor. I think they’re funny at first rub, but they also carry a biting sarcasm with them.

What do these cartoons say about church leadership?

What do they say about the church?

Why do you think the artist drew these cartoons?

Certainly these cartoons do not satirize all churches and pastors, but rather a certain kind of church and a certain kind of pastor. However, I think the satirized and non-satirized churches and pastors have something in common, viz., hierarchy.

I think hierarchy is unethical in the church and I want to discuss this issue with you all. I know everyone thus far has done all of the talking in their presentation, but I such a format would undermine my vision. You see, if I do all the talking, you might interact with my thoughts, but you won’t interact with me; there will be no dialogue, only monologue. When I do all the talking, I rob you of your voice. I silence you. I see the role of pastor—not pastors, per se—as silencing the laity and rising to a position not just of authority, but privilege. The hierarchy in the church creates an inequality between the members of the body of Christ.

At least, I see the hierarchy that way. I don’t expect everyone to agree with me. I would like you all to think about the chain of command in the way we do church.

Can we have hierarchy with equality?

ISSUES INVOLVED

Brian McLaren, a Christian author advocating change asks, “What do we do about the church? What future should our local congregations, our denominations, and the Christian community at large pursue? What are our primary, essential functions? How will we cope with the many changes we face?” McLaren raises the issue of transition. How do actually go about changing if we think the hierarchy is wrong? We can’t step into a position of power and exert authority, because we would undermine our agenda. Instead, somehow, we need to have our convictions and carefully subvert the authority by empowering the laity, by listening to the voices the hierarchy silences.

Think about your church for a moment.

If you are not a pastor, do you feel like you have a voice in your church?

Who amidst your congregation do you believe is silenced by the hierarchy? Is it based on gender? Age, whether young or old? Sexuality? Economic status? Education? Will your congregation listen to anyone who has committed certain actions perceived of as sins?

Can you believe everyone has a role in the body of Christ, but not be willing to share yourself with them and allow them to share themselves with you? Can we believe in equality, but refuse to give or receive criticism from certain people?

The silenced are not the only people to be considered, of course. If hierarchy is removed from the church, current church leaders are going to be in a pickle. I firmly believe it is not my place to say who is or is not called and to what they are called. However, I question how much culture influences our interpretation of God’s call. Someone might feel called to be a pastor, but only because they only know how to equate pastoral care with the role of a senior pastor. Another might feel called to educate people on the Bible and theology, but have never seen preaching or teaching on the Bible and theology done outside of church leadership.

SOURCES OF REFLECTION

I cannot answer every question I raise or do not raise when it comes to changing the way we do church. Perhaps if I knew more answers, I would be more comfortable with hierarchy, but since I don’t know everything, I assume nobody else does either. I am more comfortable with group leadership—I hear a rope of three strands is not easily broken.

So, let’s reflect together. We’ve been given a model for reflection, so let’s work with the Methodist quadrilateral.

Tradition

What does tradition have to say about hierarchy?

(Points to hit: orthodoxy; equality throughout time)

Bible

What does the Bible have to say about hierarchy?

(Points to hit: the Bible as tradition; culture differences between NT church and church of today; how much does the NT say about church and is it proper to think the whole NT works towards one model of the church?; Paul; Jerusalem Council; Jesus; supposedly God-appointed hierarchy and leaders in Torah and histories; prophetic questioning of authority and cultic festivals)

Experience

What is your experience with hierarchy inside and outside the church?

(Points to hit: Sunday school and small groups; businesses, jobs, teams, children, governments; deconstruction of counselor/client and teacher/student)

Reason

I already asked about hierarchy and equality. But, I wonder if anyone has anything else to share? What do you think about hierarchy? What does your reason say about hierarchy in general and hierarchy in the church?

ACTION

Although some of you might disagree, I think we need to forgo church as we know it and replace it with small or “cell” groups. Instead of meeting Sunday mornings for a “service,” groups could meet based on location or time. Perhaps Sunday morning doesn’t suit a number of people, so they start a small group on Sunday night or Wednesday afternoon. Another group might meet because they all live on the same block.

They could meet in their homes. Perhaps they’ll sing songs. Maybe they’ll have communion. Maybe they’ll talk about the Bible or some other book. Maybe they’ll talk about culture and theology or plan ways to help the homeless living almost in their backyards. The people in the small group will determine what they do.

Perhaps they will support a larger group, much in the same way one church supports a denomination. This larger group could have a team of former pastors, each with different roles. Perhaps one could be a resource of biblical and theological wisdom and knowledge for groups to seek out. Certainly not every small group will have a biblical scholar in their midst and they should have free access to at least one. Another one of these resources could be a musician or two who could bring music to those groups without them. Another could be a counselor, providing group and one-on-one therapy when needed. In some areas, perhaps one person could wear a few of these hats in the way many pastors do today.

These people would not be leaders, they would be servants. They would not tell people what they should believe and do, but offer counsel when asked. They would not be the face of the church, especially since visitors to any small group might not see this person for weeks.

I think the small groups would foster a sense of equality. I think they would require less money, so Christians could spend more money on loving people instead of on themselves with pews, lights, air conditioning, lighting, and fancy clothes. The people in these environments would be more involved in each others lives and their theology—they would be a community and the body. In smaller groups, it would be so much easier to mobilize and accept others.

I’m sure I’ve left things out. What questions do you all have for me about this vision?

Bibliography

Bauer, Walter. Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity. 2nd (German) ed. by Georg Strecker. Trans. Philadelphia Seminar on Christian Origins. Ed. Robert A. Kraft and Gerhard Krodel. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971.

Burke, Spencer and Colleen Pepper. Making Sense of the Church: Eavesdropping on Emerging Conversations about God, Community, and Culture. El Cajun, CA: emergentYS, 2003.

Easum, Bill and Dave Travis. Beyond the Box: Innovative Churches that Work. Loveland, CO: Group, 2003.

Green, Michael. Church Without Walls: A Global Examination of Cell Church. Waynesboro, GA: Paternoster, 2004.

Harvey, Van A. "New Testament Scholarship and Christian Belief." Jesus in History and Myth. Ed. R. Joseph Hoffmann and Gerald A. Larue. Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 1986. 193-200.

Hayward, David. Nakedpastor. http://nakedpastor.com.

McLaren, Brian D. "A New Kind of Christianity: 10 Questions That ARe Transforming the Faith." The Huffington Post. 24 February 2010. http://huffingtonpost.com.

Shults, F. Leron. "Reforming Ecclesiology in Emerging Churches." Theology Today 65 (2009): 425-38.

The Ethics of Edward Scissorhands: An Untimely Review

Galatians 6:7

"Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap."

John 4:36

"And herein is that saying true, One soweth, and another reapeth."

In Edward Scissorhands, Dianne Wiest's character Peg says, "When I brought Edward down here to live with us, I really didn't think things through. And I didn't think about what could happen to him, or to us, or to the neighborhood."

That is the ethics of Edward Scissorhands: doing what is right, no matter the consequences. Sometimes you do the right thing, but you do not reap what is right. You might do something right, and reap trouble.

"But be of good cheer; I have overcome the world"

-Jesus, John 16:33

Do a simple search on any Bible search for the world "tribulation" (or "trouble" if you go through the trouble of changing the Bible version from KJV to, well, anything else). Jesus, Peter, Paul and the rest know from personal experience: doing the right doesn't yield right consequences, at least, not immediately.

Do what is right. Prepare for the consequences if you can. If not, do what is right anyways. The consequences of right can't be worse than your other options.

War is Never Just War: a Peace Prize, Afghanistan, and Trevar's Musings

Obama Defends War as He Picks up Nobel Peace Prize: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8405033.stm

When receiving his Nobel Peace Prize, President Obama was on the defense, since he only days ago decided to send 30,000 soldiers to Afghanistan. He said, "the use of force [was] not only necessary but morally justified."

Later he cited precedence: "A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al-Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms."

Just war. That's what people like Obama call this morally justified war. War is never just war--it is always more and it is never morally justified. Perhaps it is necessary at times, although I'm not fully convinced, but it is never morally justified. Sometimes "right" and "wrong" are not options and I imagine engaging in WWII could have been one of those times, only because "right" and "morally justified" options were continually passed over. The USA could have taken the Jewish people from harm. Diplomacy and non-violence does wonders when you don't wait until it is too late. And I imagine diplomacy and innovative non-violence could do amazing things if we tried.

Now those efforts would be Nobel worthy--innovative, non-violent interaction with al-Qaeda (not to mention they would actually reflect the reasons Obama received the award). Maybe it would produce martyrs on our side. I would rather see martyrs than "civilian casualties minimised." Perhaps al-Qaeda would understand us more if we sacrificed ourselves instead of the lives of US teenagers and innocent, Afghani civilians. Perhaps we would understand ourselves more.

War is never just war or a just war.