Standing Under the Scriptures
February 15, 2009

Dear Fellow Voyagers,

Our readings for this Sunday are:

I Corinthians 1.24-27: Paul compares Christian discipline to athletic discipline

Mark 1.40-45: Jesus responds to a leper’s faith by healing him; the leper publicizes his healing, contrary to Jesus’ injunction.

Last Sunday were privileged to enjoy the deep knowledge of the Pauline writings and wonderful ability to make them concrete possessed by Peter Walker of Wycliffe Hall in Oxford. I had thought that his leading our class would excuse me from coming up with a notice this week. But our class discussion is not an end in itself; instead its object is to generate further reflections. And so failing to produce a follow-up would not be doing justice either to Peter or to the seriousness of the enterprise on which we are embarked

Our reading last Sunday (our only one) was 1 Corinthians 9.16-23. In it Paul begins by speaking of his constraint to proclaim the gospel, literally to evangelize: “Woe is me if I do not preach the gospel!” Actually it is not just an obligation for him, as the NRSV has it, but a necessity, even a compulsion. Peter brought this out by noting that Paul did not desire any reward from his Corinthian converts or any of the privileges that other apostles enjoyed, such as “leading about a Christian wife.” Instead he sought only the consciousness of having carried out his commission.

We might reflect further on the necessity that Paul was under. It would have been no less than that of the Old Testament prophets when they pronounced their “Thus says the Lord.” He would have been conscious of having been given the knowledge of Christ, of the supreme importance of this knowledge not just for himself but for the world, and of the urgency of imparting it in the limited time available. And for Paul every other consideration was subordinate to this one. The single-mindedness of his commitment contrasts with the spirit of our age and its emphasis on self-expression and self-fulfilment--- in the world and even within the church. But is such a commitment not after all incumbent on us also as Christians? Are we not constrained to devote ourselves to Christ’s service, in our fashion to bear witness to his gospel which has given life to us too?

Paul goes on to describe how in carrying our his commission he “becomes all things to all men,” to Jews, to those under the law, to those outside the law, to the weak, becoming for the sake of the gospel like one of them. Peter pointed out that this does not mean that anything goes. And he was right to do so. For there are too many these days who consider that “inclusion” is all that matters, that we are all right as we already are, that there is no need to be transformed. This was clearly not Paul’s view. For he specifies that even in his accommodation he remains what he is: not under the (Jewish) law but free, not outside the law but under God’s law. Further, he hopes only to save (and transform) “some.” It is rather as in Matthew’s account of the king’s wedding feast for his son, which we considered some weeks ago. Those gathered in from the thoroughfares were required to have a wedding garment, as one of them found out to his detriment (22.1-14).

In connection with his being “all things to all men” Peter made a further point, namely that in the pagan world Paul was confronted with questions for which Scripture made no specific provision. An example was whether his converts could eat meat from sacrifices to idols. But he was able to draw on scriptural principles to answer them. This point appeared to arouse interest, and I will comment on it. It comes close to the basic purpose of our class. But what is on offer here is a little broader and also a little narrower than that. For us it is not just a matter of making the transition from a Jewish to a pagan environment (although there are certainly pagan elements around us). Both individually and corporately we are constantly coming up against unexpected situations and their challenges, in our own lives, in the world, and in the church. And we aim to be sufficiently imbued with, or soaked in, the Scriptures that they will enable us to meet these challenges. But rather than a set of principles that we have abstracted from them, for us it is a matter of images arising spontaneously in our minds in the moment of our confrontation. The pattern for this is to be found in the New Testament itself, where the Old Testament allusions, explicit and implicit, with which it is shot through are to be regarded as spontaneously arising and enabling the disciples to deal with the totally unexpected and otherwise overwhelming events of Jesus’ incarnation, death, and resurrection. As for abstracting principles from Scripture, this is not wrong. It is after all what theology is about. But there is a danger here, against which we need to be on guard. Once abstracted, principles acquire a certain autonomy, in which they can be manipulated by us. And unless we rigorously test their accord with Scripture as well as with each other, they can lead us to feel that we are in control rather than under authority. (The whole of Karl Barth’s Church Dogmatics is such a test.)

We did not consider the Gospel reading, Mark 1.29-39, in the class. But in view of its bearing on the question of the relation of preaching to healing, which did arise, a few comments may be in order. Its emphasis is on Jesus’ healing: of Peter’s mother-in-law, of many who came to the door of the house. Only at the end does preaching come up. That healing comes so early in Marks’ Gospel indicates that he saw it as an essential component of Jesus’ ministry. Perhaps instead of subordinating one to the other we should consider that preaching and healing are two sides of the same thing. As for how this can be so, illness whether of body or of mind involves a distortion of God’s intention for our humanity---a distortion traceable in some fashion to the Fall. The distortion involves in some degree both mind and body. Jesus as the embodiment of our true humanity brings us to the rectification of our distortion. Where it is greatest, specifically in demon possession, the force opposed to the rectification is greatest. Hence the demons both know Jesus and are violently opposed to him, until they are cast out. Jesus is the unique healer, the unique rectifier of our distortions. Nevertheless his power can work through his followers, as in their preaching. But their preaching needs to reach not just our minds but our whole persons; it is then that it effects healing. Our term psychosomatic conveys this.

Along with our gratitude for Peter’s presence, let us hope that he comes back to us soon.

Faithfully, Fr. Ted