I won't be able to post a summary of night 3 until after I get back from Pastors Retreat this Friday, so I'll put this up for now, that way people can comment and raise questions specifically about Night 3 - 2 Corinthians. When I get back, I'll edit this.
For now, based on hearing Mark at other times and reading 'Reframing Paul', I'm guessing he will (among other things) highlight the growing tension between the rugged apostle and the cosmopolitan Corinthians, showing from the text of Paul's 2nd letter just how vulnerable Paul was with them. It seems that they (at least some of them) wanted Paul to be a Christian version of their prized sophist/lawyers. Paul doggedly refuses to boast, and insists on his alternate way of life, shaped by the dying and rising of Jesus. This turns into a battle. An important one, with the subversive power of the Gospel at stake. As Mark suggests in 'Reframing Paul,' - the Corinthians won this battle.
Then again, he totally may not take this track at all!
:)
Should be exciting! Can't wait!
Comment away!
8 comments:
OK then, I'll start off the comments again.
I was expecting a talk on 2 Cor last night (similar to the 1Cor one last week), but I was not disappointed...
After a short recap of Graeco-Roman thought, Mark took us back through the stuff he flew through last week. I thought this was an excellent choice of how to handle the material, and I really appreciated Mark going a bit slower through it all.
Although he went slower, he went way deeper, and communicated massive amounts during the time last night.
On the first night I wrote 5 pages of notes (I have a small notebook)
On the second I wrote 8 pages.
Last night I wrote 13 pages, of which 10 are on 1Cor!
Basically his structure was another recap of the Corinthian situation as way of introduction, followed by a number of 'problem passages'. Then finally he finished with his take on Paul's view of leadership through 2Cor.
I'd have to say last night was my favourite, I think the ideas are sinking in...
I'll comment some more on my take on Mark's take on Paul's take on Corinth later...
You're a great encouragement duane. Thanks. Here was I worrying if I'd just repeated myself in the first half last night. One thing I'd really appreciate from any wineskin bloggers is thoughts about next week, our last session in this series. I don't really want a list of topics. It's the mood, the orientation, the trajectory of conversation I'm trying to feel. It shouldn't be another 2 lectures. We need some chance to chew and stew together I think. I'd love to think we finished with a night where the experience matched what we've seen in Paul at Corinth.
I'll deal with talk 3 before thinking about the final one (I'm still in overload mode right now)
Like drinking from a fire hydrant...
-Marriage and betrothal (1Cor7)
The idea behind this was that there was a crisis (ie the famine)
I wasn't quite able to follow his arguments on this one, somehow I was a bit slow with my writing and thinking. But I think the gist of it was that although it was the man's prerogative to do whatever he wanted (cf Bam Magera?), he was now obligated (by the new way of living that Paul was trying to drum into them) to look to what was best for his woman.
But there was no overall better choice between marriage and non-marriage, both were good.
-Food and Idols (1Cor8-10)
Mark stated that ch8,9&10 are all one argument, Paul doesn't wander off on a tangent in ch9, it's all relevant to his point.
He also made the point that exousia means "right" not freedom (as is found in some translations).
The context is that some citizens had the right to attend civic functions. So there were some in the ekklesia who could eat the temple meat, and some who couldn't (by their rank)
But the ability to buy kosher meat may have been stopped by a new governor. So some could buy meat, and some couldn't (by their ethnicity)
So the thing is that there's possible divisions in play between the haves and the have-nots. And this is what Paul means by the "weaker brother": a social category rather than a theological one.
I found this to be quite a memorable piece. I'd never thought of it that way, it's always been explained to me that it meant people who understood grace less. But I find the socially weaker explanation to be much stronger.
-Veils and "angels" (1Cor11:2-16)
Mark noted that he'd gone back through the DVD from last week to see if he'd overstated his case on the angeloi=messengers=professional spies concept (that I'd objected to).
He then went in greater depth into the same stuff he'd been doing last week, regarding the old head-covering conundrum (my words, not his!).
He noted the rise of the New Roman Women, led by the daughter of Augustus. He noted that this would have been prevalent in Corinth, because Rome was emulated in all things.
So the context for men being told to bare their heads and women being told to cover them was that not doing this was a powerplay move. Men would be seen as claiming precedence by covering up (in pagan priestly garb), and women would be rejecting male authority (esp that of their husbands) by uncovering.
So Paul tells them to quit it, because they'll arouse suspicion, and be seen as something political (rather than as a Jewish sect), and so lose their rights to meet regularly. So Paul is just being shrewd.
I think this is a great explanation of an issue that has been misunderstood for years. It is a great answer to those who insist on doilies in church.
I'm just still not convinced on the angels=messengers=spies. Maybe I am more so than last week, but still not 100% (sorry Dale and mark!)
I've checked a few commentaries and articles in this area. Fee, Hays and Wright all just run with the similarity of this phrase to the concept of angels being present in worship (from Dead Sea Scrolls). Garland goes further, in actively dismissing Murphy-O'Connor and then Winter for their views on this.
I have yet to read Winter myself. But I will (just a matter of getting a copy and then getting the time).
I'm not saying it was a bad argument, I'm just not fully convinced on one teeny little part of it all. (I'm fine with the main point of the veil/unveiled thing)
-Lord's Dinner (11:17-34)
Explained dinner as a simplified passover type meal. (wouldn't it be great if we actually did it like this every week!)
Then again some stuff I couldn't quite keep up with. (So I may be a bit off on this one)
But two possible contexts, one that not everyone arrived at the same time. The other that not everyone was being treated the same.
Because not all would fit in a lounge on the couches. So the haves would recline, and the have-nots would sit/stand/be left outside in the rain!
This led to inequalities amongst the ekklesia.
Also the possibility that some brought food, others didn't. Another possible source of trouble.
Good ideas, give background to what could be happening.
-Women and Silence 14:26-35.
Made the important point that gyne is the Greek word for both wife and woman in English. And without context you can't tell which is which. So be careful.
But the main idea is that wives should not be publicly judging their husbands' prophecies.
Simple as that!
We see in other places that Paul allowed women to speak, therefore it's not a blanket prohibition on women making noises, so it must be something else.
And it's quite plausible that wives were judging their husbands' prophecies.
This is a bad thing in that it (again) raises the problem of being out of place culturally, and putting them under the spotlight, and losing their privileges.
Mark then noted he opposed the ordination of women. But because of the ordination part, not the women!
-Living with (no) resurrection 15:12-34
He went over again his explanation for baptising the dead.
This is that if we have no hope of resurrection, then we're to be pitied, for we will die, and then what's the point of our baptism (for we are the dead)
Seems to make more sense than baptising for corpses. Or ancestors. Or anything else really.
by this stage I was a bit tired - and anyone reading this ridiculously long comment probably will be too!
2 Corinthians!
Reframing leadership
So then we finally opened up 2 Corinthians. As I said above, I feel that concentrating on the really meaty parts of 1Cor rather than 2Cor was a master-stroke. Although we didn't get the depth here, time was limited (only 4weeks) so something had to go. And I'm glad it was breadth rather than depth.
Anyways...
Mark noted the many ways that Paul's vision of leadership was totally anti that of what was normal at the time. He noted that Paul was historically anti-leadership, and concepts like servant-leadership were just silly (at the time)
Something else I picked up was 2Cor2:14, the triumphal procession, not really such a good place to be in...
But Paul totally reframed leadership.
I would write more, but my notes are a bit scattered from here on.
Overall, lots of stuff.
I'll see if anyone else wants to have a go...
Also, if anyone's interested...
I just checked the Te Puna library search
Bruce Winter's book After paul left Corinth is in:
-BCNZ library
-Carey library
-St Johns library
-Otago uni
Winter's Philo and Paul among the Sophists is in:
-Auckland uni
-Otago uni
-Victoria uni
-Massey uni
-St Johns library
Winter's Roman wives, Roman widows is in:
-BCNZ
-Christchurch City Libraries
-Eugene O'Sullivan Theological Library -Good Shepherd College, Colin Library
-St John's
-Auckland uni
-Otago uni
-Wellington City Libraries
and Jerome Murphy-O'Connor's St Paul’s Corinth is in:
_BCNZ
-Carey
-Eugene O'Sullivan Theological Library
-Good Shepherd College, Colin Library
-St John's Theological College, Kinder Library
-Hewitson (Knox college)
(I think those were the three main references given by Mark as being his main ones, I may be wrong as I didn't write them down)
Just one clarification -- which may get me in more trouble than less! "Mark opposes the ordination of women." At face value that will draw sacks of unwarranted hate mail, or unwarranted congratulatory mail.
My position is simple:
(a) Leadership today almost always carries the sense of authorisation-permission -- someone can do something that other's can't,
(b) I can't see 'leadership' (and keep in mind that's an anachronism we place in Paul's mouth) in Paul's ekklesia as ever being like that -- for every reference to someone teaching, or paying attention to this gift, there are other references implying 'anyone' can teach, even that they should teach,
(c) once we are clear about 1 Cor 11 and 14 (same kind of argument with 1 Tim 2), and look at the ministries of women among Paul's associates, it's clear that women did everything in the ekklesia that men did
(d) our notions of ordination introduce the elements of authorisation-permission that I believe are foreign to Paul and the NT generally. [Remember that the gospel and Spirit democratises the roles of prophet, priest and king. Each role is now located in Christ, and by extension in all who are his body; ALL are priests, All prophets (in the broadest sense), ALL kings. This is the implication of Joel 2/Acts 2.]
(e) so I question the model of ordination that has dominated church practice for 15, 16, perhaps 19 centuries.
So I'm not against women being ministers. Not at all. I am however deeply troubled that any man or woman would think that some ceremony entitles them to do what any ordinary brother or sister is not allowed to do. Neither is this about having a go at the pastors and clergy. Far from it. Not at all. The grace of Christ and his Spirit flows so deeply in the veins of most ministers that in practice they break the rules to ensure the formal regulations of their roles don't get in the way of ministering grace. More power to them! Here's a delicious thought: Wouldn't it be great if women leaders, pastors, and ministers lead the way in breaking the hold of a model blokes have created and sustained over nearly two millenia?
Duane, great job at summarising the 3rd night!
Mark, thanks again for taking the time to clarify things for us.
I think an interesting tack for next Monday would be to look at principles regarding church and relationships. Yeah, a list of topics would just get longer and longer as we all probably have various axes to grind, being frustrated or challenged by this or that, depending on our experience and/or how our community functions. This is why principles would be good, I think. Like (showing my bias here), what things are a process and what things are an event? Are some of the typical questions about how to 'do' church a bit confused and muddled by our mainstream ideas about 'church?' What is the church (in today's language) supposed to 'do'? What would Paul say to today's church (at least the Western, 'contemporary', evangelical, comfortable church, that is)? Mark, I know you're a fan of Brian Walsh and Sylvia Keesmaat's 'Colossians Remixed: Subverting The Empire', which deals with a lot of these issues. Perhaps some of their suggestions would be helpful? Like the 'ethics' suggested toward the end of the book... An ethic of succession, of community, of suffering, of worship, etc.
I dunno... just some thoughts.
-d-
First up I'd like to say just how much I have enjoyed both the first, and now the second, Wineskin series. I do hope that these opportunities for the 'general public' to attend great lectures series like this, continues.
I also hope that we can take these faith insights, conversations and even questions and fold them back into our homes, cafes and workplaces.
I am especially looking forward to Part 4 next week, where we will perhaps get to look at what it might look like to follow Christ today, in the light of some first century, counter cultural, grace and freedom, as has been revealed in the context of Paul's letters.
I suspect I’m going to find it challenging...I might just see how far I myself have compromised or abdicated my 'community' responsibilities, by relying on 'temples' and 'rank' and 'systems'.
However
I am now really excited about the possibilities ahead…with new wineskins.
And thank you Mark, for casting Paul and his letters in such a revolutionary light. I was unable to read his letters for many years without feeling the weight of authority, guilt and fear being stamped on them. Perhaps a byproduct of a lack of understanding or manipulation from the pulpit,and a lack of examination on my part.
Just a note to express my thanks Mark, for your willingness to take the time to share all this with us, the general public. It's been revelatory for me, and humbling, as a well-versed child of two Bible College graduates, to once again be reminded of how much we truly don't know, compared to how much we do.
One request - is it possible to get the handouts / slides in digital format somehow?
Thanks
Jon
Post a Comment