January 18 NOTES FOR REFLECTION
Texts: 1 Samuel 3:1-10; 1 Corinthians 6:12-20; John 1:43-51
Theme: An obvious choice would be "Called by Name", or some variation of that: a cheekier version might be "Who's Calling, Please?" Given the events in Paris, and the saturation coverage in the media, I'm tempted to go for something like "Christ the Fundamentalist", or even "Nous Sommes Christ".
Introduction. Once again St Paul wins the prize for topicality this week: he says it all in verse 12, doesn't he? Sadly, this lesson seems to have very little in common with the theme of the other two readings. We open with the dramatic, if rather worrying, story of the calling of the boy Samuel in the middle of the night; and we close with the daytime calling of Philip and Nathaniel.
Background. No doubt it is still far too soon for rational debate to follow the emotional outrage at the at the slaughter of members of the staff of the French magazine Charlie Hebdo this week, but when the time is right for calm reflection there are surely many points to ponder.
One concerns language. This debate may be about the importance of freedom of expression, but it doesn't seem to have lead to any greater degree of clarity of expression. The rather predictable ODT editorial of 9th January on the subject is a classic case in point. Having condemned religious fundamentalism, it then engaged in classic secular fundamentalism, insisting: "Freedom of speech is not just a Western concept. It is the right of every human being – a basic human right". In the same edition, there was an article by Joanna Norris, Editor of The Press, in which she said the "cherished principles of freedom of expression, which in mature societies, including our own, include the right to offend."
However we express this right to self-expression, where does it come from? Is it any more than an assertion of opinion, as in "In my opinion every human being should be able to express his or her opinion without fear of consequence"? Some would say it is a right conferred by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but that document did not create rights, it declared them to exist – it recognised them. The claim is, therefore, that every human being has certain innate rights by virtue of his or her humanity. We might (and often do) call them fundamental rights; and we might (and often do) assert that such rights are of fundamental importance in a democracy such as ours. So those of us who subscribe to such an argument are secular fundamentalists: but, of course, we would never use that term, and would be insulted if anyone tried to stick such a label on us.
The next thing is this. To imply that this right to free speech (self-expression) is and must be "unlimited" in this country has never been true, nor would most of us want it to be the case. We have laws against hate speech, against speech intended to induce a riot, or to cause rebellion against the State. On a more personal level, we are constantly trying to find ways to oppose cyber-bullying or verbal abuse in the home or workplace. And don't get me started on the laws against defamation! (Simply ask yourself, why can I take action against someone who injures my commercial reputation, but not against someone who ridicules my religious beliefs?)
Now try this test. Part 1. Nod your head if you agree with the following statement: in a democracy such as ours it is of fundament importance that everyone should have the right to criticise the Government of the day without fear of consequences. Part 2. Nod your head if you agree with the following statement: in a democracy such as ours it is of fundamental importance that everyone should have the right to ridicule anyone else without fear of consequences. Give yourself 3 points if you nodded on part 1 and a further 3 points if you nodded on part 2. According to the Barker Nodding Scale of Fundamentalism, if you scored 3 points you are a fundamentalist; if you scored 6 points you are an extreme fundamentalist (usually shortened in the press to "extremist").
Understandably, this whole tragedy has lead to many cartoon responses. Of those I have seen, my clear favourite shows a cartoonist lying dead on the ground with a heavily armed terrorist standing over him, and shouting over his shoulder "He drew first!" Not only does it strike me as clever and funny, but I also think it has a great depth (whether or not the cartoonist intended it to.) As I stayed with it an expression beloved of the US military floated into my mind – "asymmetrical warfare" – and I thought of other occasions on which that expression might be used (but usually isn't), such as drone attacks in the Middle East or nuclear attacks on Japanese cities. And I remembered the French attack on Greenpeace here in our own country. (How many marched in protest then?) And I remembered the extraordinary rush to abolish the so-called "defence of provocation" in the wake of the terrible Weatherston murder trial. Nothing, but nothing, must be allowed to provoke us into killing another human being – except, of course, "terrorism".
And there the reflections on this cartoon took a worrying turn. Suppose the cartoons ridiculed Jesus. Would we be outraged? Would we be hurt? Would we be distressed? Or wouldn't we be too fussed about it? Suppose the ODT published cartoons ridiculing Jesus? Would we do ANYTHING about it? Would I? Well, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't march to the Allied Press building and commit mass murder: more concerning, I'm not at all sure that I would bother to write a letter of protest to the editor, much less stop reading the paper or cancel our subscription. Why not?
If, as Christians, we refrain from any such retaliatory action because we believe Christ's teaching demands that we turn the other cheek, so be it (and welcome to the pacifist cause!) But is part of our difficulty in comprehending Moslem outrage at the offending cartoons simply because we are not used to people taking their religion that seriously? The ODT refers to the Islamists' view that their religious belief "matters enough to kill those who offend it". [It also records that the magazine has been convicted under anti-racism laws in the past: why does that not constitute an attack on freedom of expression?]
And that's the point I want to finish on. Je suis Christian! For me my faith is not primarily about what I believe, it is about who or what I am. Compared to that my ethnic identity and nationality are of minor importance, about as important to me as the fact that I am left-handed. Yet the law (and the Church!) is far more likely to rush to my aid if someone were to call me "a typical Cornish moron" than if they called me "a typical Christian moron". For if we really believe the Incarnation – and the teaching of St Paul (Galatians 2:20, etc.) – we will understand that it is Christ who is being insulted in that instance. Isn't it?
1 Samuel 3:1-10. This is one of those passages where a little background reading pays dividends. Read the first two chapters of this book, and you will see what I mean. There's real human drama here, echoing many of the themes from the great patriarchal narratives. As soon as we know that Elkanah has two wives, we know what to expect: one has children, the other is thought to be barren. The one with children constantly winds the other one up, and to add to the mix the "barren" woman is the husband's favourite. On the other side of the drama are Eli, a somewhat elderly priest, and his two sons, Hophni and Phinehas, also priests. The latter are "scoundrels" (2:12), routinely helping themselves to meat offered in sacrifice, and generally showing contempt for the Lord. It doesn't appear that Eli is in on the racket, but his feeble efforts to bring his sons to heel have not pleased God. This is the environment into which poor little Samuel has been placed by his mother! And now God calls the little boy to give him a blunt message for Eli! We are told at the beginning of the passage that "The word of the Lord was rare in those days; visions were not widespread." It's hardly surprising that little Samuel does not yet know the Lord. The drama plays out like a Shakespearean farce. A translator or go-between is required: who else but old, discredited Eli?
Taking It Personally.
· There is so much in this story it's difficult to know where to start! Read it through slowly, treating it simply as a story. Then start again, looking for the underlying messages.
· Think about Jesus' remark, "Unless you become like little children..." Does this story help to "unpack" this remark for you?
· For all his faults, it is Eli who perceives that God is calling Samuel. Is there someone who has helped or is helping you to hear the word of the Lord to you? Do you now recognise the Lord's voice when he speaks to you?
· Spend some time in silence. "Lie down in the Temple." When you are ready say to the Lord, "Speak, Lord, for your servant is listening." And listen.
1 Corinthians 6:12-20. Once again we are "hearing" one side only of a debate, but it is fairly clear from what St Paul is saying that some in Corinth are arguing that what we do physically no longer matters. We are no longer under the law, so anything goes: physical matter will go the way of all flesh (ha, ha!), and all that matters is our spiritual life in Christ. So everything from fornication through to eating food sacrificed to idols (doing a Hophni, as it were) and much else besides is allowable for Christians. Notice how St Paul responds: he doesn't create a new law code and insist it is binding on all "real Christians": he accepts the principle of their argument "all things are lawful for me", but adds a very important rider "not all things are beneficial". That is surely the point that ought to be at the very heart of our reflections on the Paris tragedy. Whether or not we have a lawful right to ridicule anyone, is it ever right (beneficial) to do so? To answer "no" might be entirely out of keeping with the spirit of the age, but it is surely entirely in keeping with the Spirit of God. (And if that comment makes me an extreme fundamentalist, so be it.)
Taking It Personally.
· Read slowly through this reading, understanding that St Paul is laying out a reasoned argument. Are you convinced?
· Focus on verse 17. Does it catch you by surprise? (In the context we might expect him to talk about the union between husband and wife.) Are you united to the Lord – one spirit with him?
· Reflect at some depth on verses 19 and 20. Give thanks to God for your body.
John 1:43-51. Another wonderful story (or collection of stories)! Andrew and Peter have just been called; but who would have expected Philip and Nathaniel to be next in line? Notice that these two stories are very similar; one person is called by Jesus directly, and that one then goes and brings someone else to Jesus. (Yes, there is a moral here!) Nathaniel might be "truly an Israelite in whom there is no deceit", but he has his prejudices (for Nazareth read Auckland). The encounter takes on the tone of a street magic show (Dynamo the magician or perhaps Lisa Williams the medium). Nathaniel is convinced: "you are the Son of God. You are the King of Israel". At any other time than this week we might think that in his response Jesus is mocking him a little – let's call it affectionate teasing. Verse 51 takes us back to the proper level. Heaven opened and angels ascending and descending are descriptions loaded with significance.
Taking It Personally.
· Notice that word "found" in verses 43 and 45. Jesus found Philip and Philip found Nathaniel. What are we to make of that?
· Notice how Philip responds to Nathaniel's disparaging remark about Nazareth: "come and see for yourself". What are we to make of that?
· Are you "following" Christ?
· Whom have you invited to "come and see" recently?
No comments:
Post a Comment