The #Bible’s New Testament – 2 Corinthians Paul’s Hand Out For The Corinthian’s Money

Posted on November 16, 2013 by virgowriter

The 80s seemed like the heyday of televangelists.  I read about and occasionally caught a brief glimpse of people like Jim Baker and his wife Tammy Fay, who appeared on TV amongst a rapturous stage production and delivered quite a show to their religious flock.  As newspapers would later report, the majority of these devoted followers sat rapt by the TV with their checkbooks in hand, waiting for the chance to fork over cash.  God wants you to give, Baker and “preachers” like him suggested, and phone lines waited for your call.  Any amount will do, but more is better.

I never understood the allure of these TV personalities.  Even though I understood little about Christian faith at the time, it seemed incredibly strange that these people had their hands in so many people’s pockets and claimed to be acting in the name of God. Did they really believe that God wanted them to have lavish homes, cars, suits, etc.?  I’d heard plenty of stories of people offering their entire life savings to these people who claimed to be acting on God’s behalf. I even shook my head as one by one scandal exposed them.  And yet people didn’t learn their lesson, merely finding a new person willing to collect their checks on the pretext that they were buying into god’s plan.

Although Paul’s is not a as slimy or slick as some of these people, in 2 Corinthians–his follow up letter to the Corinthians, where he reiterates some points from 1 Corinthians and apologizes for not scheduling a return visit to their city—he comes across as someone who will not be happy until these people fork over all they can in order to make God happy.

God likes a cheerful giver, Paul suggests (9:7), so they better be super excited about this “big gift” they promised, and lest they get second thoughts about handing it over, he’s sending people to help them get it together (9:5).

Sounds like someone is trying to really hard to convince people to follow through with something with which they are not all that comfortable.

Maybe this is why he tries to assure them that he has their best interests at heart.  Why else would he lie to them by saying that all he wants is them, not their possessions?  If this were true, why ask for their money? This doesn’t count as a possession? And if he truly believed that Christianity only needed humble jars of clay for their teaching (4:7)—nothing to dress it up—what did they need people’s money for?

Ask not what god can do for you, ask what you can do for god ends up sounding more like a political speech than a truism. Jesus didn’t ask for cash, so why do the people who claim to be acting in his name? Why not ask people to give their time to help others? Why did it have to be money? Why can’t they show their love that way?

Posted in 2 Corinthians, The New Testament | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

The #Bible’s New Testament: 1 Corinthians III- Paul’s Fun Ideas on Marriage and Women

Posted on November 14, 2013 by virgowriter

Even before her whole VMA performance mess, I didn’t care for Miley Cyrus.  Part of it is an age thing- should adult men be cranking Hannah Montana music or her stabs at demonstrating that she was all grown up (like “Can’t Be Tamed”)? But I didn’t hate her, as if she had somehow insulted me with her music.  I didn’t think it bad, basically, it just wasn’t for me.

But then she thought simulating sex with a foam finger and bending over for Robyn Thick would be a good idea. Now I had a reason to at least dislike the message she was sending. Was this her definition of what it meant to be a mature woman? Is this what people in her audience would think? I don’t know to what extent she should worry about this impact, but she can’t pretend it doesn’t matter. It was her performance, so she was trying to make some point.  In any case, I now had a reason to avoid her music.  Even songs to which I was previously indifferent were marred with this distasteful impression of her and her sad grab at relevance.

Then her recent single “Wrecking Ball” hit.  I watched the video, like millions of other people, and saw the same needless over-sexed content.  What is this woman thinking? But then I listened to the song, and even I had to admit that there is a good song there.  And so I did my best to disassociate my impression of the person from the song and have allowed myself to admit to liking at least this part of her music.

I had a similarly difficult time letting my personal impression of Paul impact how I read his ideas in 1 Corinthians.

Although I didn’t care for a lot of what Paul advocated in this book, I did find some of his ideas interesting.  One of these involves his stance on marriage.  He believed that people need to marry for morality’s sake. Apparently this would bring people together to curb immoral behavior and perhaps raise a family.  He even adds that in marriage, the wife belongs to her husband.  But before a person uses this to say, wait a minute, more women being treated badly? he adds that men are also the property of their wives (7:1-5). So here’s a breath of fresh air, as it suggests that men and women are—and should—be seen as equal in marriage (and perhaps elsewhere).

But then I thought about the first point further: if joining people in matrimony curbs immorality, why wouldn’t this be an argument for gay marriage? If part of the issue people have with gays is the supposed immoral sex acts, wouldn’t the example of a committed relationship quell this impression? If marriage is about monogamy, wouldn’t you want people to coupled off so they weren’t out having all these gay orgies that apparently were common in certain religious practices (and perhaps elsewhere)?

But before I could take pleasure in finding this interesting point, he takes it even further. In extending his marriage ideas, he mentions something rather odd.  Although he sees the potential for marriage as positive, he would rather people were more like him (7:7). Although it’s unstated, I believe this is to mean celibate. He clarifies why: As a single person, nothing diverts your interest and attention from God—you would have to care for your spouse, after all. He thinks, in general, people should be spared the hassles of marriage (7:28, 32-33).

But isn’t part of God’s plan to couple men and women for the purpose of producing offspring? So if he truly believes that people are better God servants outside of marriage, doesn’t this go against how sacred this institution is? I thought being married was completing God’s plan, so why would he even mention otherwise?

And just when I was starting to think that Paul had respect for women, he really puts his foot in his mouth.  According to him, women need to recognize authority (11:10).  However, given his audience, he might be saying this specifically to recognize Corinthian customs. He then adds that they should cover their heads, not be bald.  He even states that men should have short hair, which is odd.  Didn’t Jesus have long hair? I can’t think of a representation of him that shows him with short hair.

But, at least if women had issues with any of this, they could bring up their concerns in church, right? Wrong.  Paul states that women are also NOT to ask questions in church. They MUST be submissive while there! (14:34-5).

Some people make it easy to embrace the message and ignore the messenger. Others make it difficult because of how much crap you have to ignore in order to get to something worthwhile.  Paul may have admitted over and over that he was not much of a showman, but that doesn’t mean he didn’t know what he was doing and saying. The few interesting ideas didn’t cause me to overlook all the stuff that rubbed me the wrong way.

 

Posted in 1 Corinthians, The New Testament | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

The #Bible’s New Testament: 1 Corinthians II- Changing Jesus’ Message

Posted on November 12, 2013 by virgowriter

Teaching undergraduates can be both rewarding and frustrating.  Freshman can be particularly nerve-wracking in part because they tend to test their instructors more than other students.  I don’t know for sure why this is, but I bet it has something to do with adjusting to college and learning what the parameters are. So when setting up the dos and donts in my class—like the attendance policy—I make it clear: these aren’t just my rules; they are the department’s as well. And here’s why: we only allow you four absences because we feel—based on experience—that students who attend learn more. And since you have paid us (with your tuition) to do a job, this is one of the things we require of you to perform this job.

If it were just my policy, students would probably grumble—this is unfair; he’s mean, etc. But having the department’s backing adds some weight—oh, this applies to everyone. It also helps that I have properly represented the department policy.

Paul also relies on his backing when passing on his Christian ideas to the Corinthians: I’m just the messenger. These aren’t my rules; no, I’m just passing on what I’ve been instructed to by Jesus.  Paul stresses this when he states: Follow my message, for I follow Jesus (11:1). This supposedly means that what he’s saying is in the spirit of Jesus, not something he himself devised.

Now, this sounds great—Jesus had a lot to admire and respect.  Paul, however, seems to have learned a few things about Jesus that are not in line with the description of Jesus and his work contained in the Gospels. And since he is reaching out to people who might be unfamiliar with Jesus’ specific work, this is troubling: they’re not in a position to question this man’s authority.

For starters, Paul is trying to curb some of the bad behavior he knows about among the Corinthians.  One rule he wants them to follow: Don’t associate with really bad people. Don’t even EAT with them (5:11).  He’s worried bad behavior will spread.

Although I can understand why hanging out with an unsavory element is bad for business (and good to avoid in your personal life in general), Jesus believed (and practiced) the opposite. He even sought out bad people to eat with and was shunned. A number of people had problems with Jesus dining with those evil tax collectors, prostitutes, etc. as the Gospels show repeatedly, he believed that he would stand by these people whom society rejected.

So avoiding these people—and other “bad” people—is NOT something Jesus advocated.

Paul also has some issues with some contradictory points.  Respectably, Paul suggests that only God judges, so he and other humans should not.  But Paul does judge (5:3). He even says: I’m not judging these people… just expel them (5:12-13). Kicking people out of your organization sounds like a judgment—even if it is a rational decision.  However, you can’t levy this opinion without judging people as good or bad based on who they are or what they do. If he truly believed that only God judged, he would not pass judgment and wait and let God figure it out, right?

It’s great that he is passing on Jesus’ ideas; it would help if he represented all of them properly.

Posted in 1 Corinthians, The New Testament | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment