A more miserable society

"Research suggests that despite having much more materially than previous generations, the country is no happier than it was half a century ago."

So writes Murray Wardrop of the Telegraph. This is, of course, not entirely shocking, despite the phrasing of this paragraph. To quote the very old cliché, "money can't buy you happiness".

Every day newspapers, news bulletins and blogs are filled with sad or depressing news: more cuts are being made, another young person has lost their life due to mindless violence, or another disaster or dictator somewhere abroad has wrecked thousands of lives.

What is the cure to this? If everyone were to suddenly become a bit richer, would this make society much happier? Somehow I strongly doubt this. We in the West are, despite rising unemployment and so on, incredibly fortunate. To have permanent homes, regular food and clean running water puts us in a very fortunate minority. To have cars, televisions, computers, mobile phones and iPods makes us really incredibly wealthy. As a country we've been fortunate enough to enjoy such benefits for many years; yet this hasn't really made us much happier.

So, is it time for a big rant about how we're terrible people for having homes and food and gadgets? And money in general? Well, I'm not going to. Material things aren't, in my belief, intrinsically evil. On the contrary; food and water are necessities and the fact that we are privileged enough to enjoy them almost obliges us to use them - though sensibly and with unceasing gratitude.

They become problematic, however, when people seek from them happiness and fulfilment (as seems to be implied by the shock that material increase hasn't made us happier). Such ideas can also be found in the New Testament. Paul did not condemn money itself, but writes:

'the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil...' (1 Timothy 6:10)

Money itself is not necessarily the source of wickedness, therefore, but the love thereof. Preceding this well-known verse is a warning about the desire for wealth:

'But those who want to be rich fall into temptation and are trapped by many senseless and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction.' (1 Tim 6:9)

Jesus also warns that one cannot serve to masters - both God and wealth. Again, this is not necessarily a condemnation of wealth, but of the idolisation of wealth, or the prioritisation of money above all else.

So I've rambled on about not falling in love with money and not looking to it for happiness and fulfilment...but what is the solution? If I could give a definitive answer, I feel I would be famous by now. But a few suggestions of things to contemplate can be found from the source of wisdom that is the Bible. What did ancient Israelites claim would bring them happiness?

"Happy are those who find wisdom, and those who get understanding" (Prov 3:13)

"O Lord of hosts, happy is everyone who trusts in you" (Psalm 84:12)

"Happy is one who finds a friend, and one who speaks to attentive listeners" (Ecclesiasticus 25:9)

"Happy is the husband of a good wife; the number of his days will be doubled" (Ecclesiasticus 26:1)

Clearly these ancient writers in much more primitive and less materialistic societies could actually grasp something of what led to happiness. I would not attempt to suggest that here lies the solution to all happiness; but pursuing such things as listed here - God, wisdom and knowledge, love and friendship - is far more likely to bring about a sense of fulfilment and lasting satisfaction than anything material.

Jesus the Radical

From time to time it really hits me just how radical Jesus was: in his words, in his attitudes, in his behaviour.

The passage from John's Gospel set as today's lectionary reading really brings this home. It's the passage in John 4:5-42 in which Jesus visits a well and asks for a drink from a Samaritan woman, leading to a discussion about the water of eternal life.

In focussing on the message of water in eternal life, it strikes me that there are three major aspects of this reading which could easily be overlooked, yet speak volumes:

1. Jesus was human.
   It's quite something when John makes a point of describing Jesus in a human way, for he usually takes great pains to emphasise the divinity and high status of Christ - far more so than the authors of the synoptic gospels. But in this passage, John specifically states:
   'Jesus, tired out by his journey, was sitting by the well' (Jn 4:6).
   It's especially important to remember when reading John that Jesus is not some alien figure; like every other human being he experienced pain, fatigue, anger and a whole other array of human emotions.
   
   
2. Jesus overlooked race boundaries.
   For centuries Jews and Samaritans were divided; Samaria was in the northern kingdom, Judah in the southern, and since the united monarchy they had been separate. The divide was deep: children of Samaria grew up with the understanding that they didn't associate with people from Judah, and likewise those from Judah learnt very quickly to avoid Samaritans.
   
   But for Jesus, this wasn't going to happen. He was in need of a drink, and a Samaritan woman was present. Connecting with another human being on the human level was far more a concern than long-standing cultural animosity. The woman, however, is clearly taken aback when he asks her for a drink, for she asks: ‘How is it that you, a Jew, ask a drink of me, a woman of Samaria?’ (Jn 4:9).
   
   Clearly Jesus envisaged a kingdom of God which did not exclude anyone - certainly not on the basis of race.
   
   
3. Not just race boundaries, either...
   The fact that this lady is Samaritan is not the only shocking thing here...she is, of course, a woman! To the twenty-first century reader, of course, this wouldn't raise an eyelid; but one must put oneself in the cultural context. It's 1st century Palestine...and women are effectively considered second-class citizens. Women would have had certain domestic roles, including of course as mothers - but this would have been their main domain. It would have been quite shocking for not just any man, but a man like Jesus who was revered in some circles, to have been in conversation with a woman. Yet Jesus time and time again is found talking to women and even defending them (cf. Matthew 26:6-13).
   
   In this passage, John explicitly states that: '[The disciples] were astonished that he was speaking with a woman' (Jn 4:27). He also tells us of her fundamental role in spreading the good news of Jesus: 'Many Samaritans from that city believed in him because of the woman’s testimony' (4:39).

What is abundantly clear from this passage, therefore, is that Jesus envisages an inclusive kingdom where people of all races and genders are not only welcome, but also valued, having an important role. Perhaps churches and church leaders who attempt to exclude people from leadership or even membership would be well-advised to consider this.

More thoughtless thought

Another gem of a 4thought can be viewed here: http://www.channel4.com/programmes/4thoughttv/4od#3118646

The Rev James Gracie, a minister in Edinburgh, began by telling us that women should not be allowed to have primary roles in the church, including being preachers. His most sound and well thoughtout reasoning is as follows:

"Because the Bible tells us very clearly the roles that men and women are to have"

I always cringe when I hear statements like this. Two of my least favourite statements are: "Because the Bible tells us" and "The Bible tells us very clearly". As I consider myself a Christian, this fact may be surprising to some.

But the reason I object to such statements as the former is because the assumption is usually that something being in the Bible automatically renders it true - due to Biblical inerrancy and the like. And the reason I object to the latter is because the Bible does not tell us things very clearly - we glean things through our reading and interpretation of the Bible.

Least of all does the Bible tell us very clearly the role of men and women. I was hoping for a half-decent argument with this, but all this supposed minister managed to come up with was the oft-quoted 1 Corinthians 14:34-5

"Women should be silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as the law also says."

Once again this verse is quoted entirely out of context - both textual and historical. The textual context is actually in maintaining order in the church. Note in particular Paul uses the article here - the churches, not just churches in general. There was a specific problem with disorder and chaos in the Corinthian churches. I'd consider it 99.9% likely that Paul did not intend that women should remain silent in all churches throughout time, but that specific women in the Corinthian church ought not to just shout out randomly.

Progressing further with the historical context - let us also note that Paul was writing in the 1st century CE. Society was still incredibly patriarchal - women were meant to be subordinate and submissive and this was just the way things were. But something being a social norm in the time of the Biblical authors does not make it right! And it most certainly does not make it the will of God!

Yet again someone who has supposedly studied theology has taken the Bible, assumed his literal, and actually rather ignorant (literally, of social and textual context) interpretation is the correct one.

Unfortunately, this is the kind of attitude that has hurt and damaged women and the church for generations. I have had the privilege of knowing both female and male clergy and leaders in the church. And not only do I think that women have just as much to contribute as men - I actually think they have certain qualities which many men lack.

But perhaps the most important reason for accepting women in the church is that, quite simply, all are loved and accepted by God. God calls women and men to various roles - he calls some women and some men to teach, preach, practise law, practise medicine, serve in shops, clean, build...

It's 2010 - isn't it about time we ended this stupid view that men should dominate, and that some things are just for men?

Let us finish with the words of the Apostle himself, words which are often ignored when other words of his are used instead to hurt and destroy women in the church, but which have a great deal of value and upon which he placed no less significance:

"There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus."

Galatians 3:28

A 'thought'

Meet Wale Babatunde...senior pastor of the World Harvest Christian Centre.

This man delivered this evening's 4thought on Channel 4, which can be viewed here:

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/4thoughttv/4od#3107827

I was left disappointed by this thought. The man seemed to imply that homosexuals were equivalent to thieves. (Perfectly logical I suppose, the one takes people's possessions, destroys their trust in humankind and leaves them in despair; the other is attracted to and falls in love with people of their own gender).

But the main reason I was left so disappointed with this 4thought was that, ironically and unfortunately, there simply wasn't any thought involved in it. Pastor Babatunde made the hideously fallacious statement that:

"The issue...should not be a matter of personal interpretation; the most important think is to look at what the Bible says"

How compelling Pastor Babatunde...how easily one would be inclined to agree with you. After all, who are Christians to consider themselves above the Bible?

Except...looking at what the Bible says is a matter of personal interpretation. Of course it is. Everything one reads, to some extent, one interprets. And there are a plethora of interpretations of scriptural passages: literal, allegorical, historical, purely contextual, universal.

No prizes for guessing how Pastor Babatunde thinks scripture should always be interpreted.

He then goes on to quote 1 Corinthians 6:9, which in his translation says:

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites...

So, the uninformed listener may assume from this that the Apostle Paul said homosexuals cannot inherit the kingdom of God, and therefore homosexuality is wrong.

What a depressingly narrow interpretation.

The Apostle Paul, factually speaking, did not say that homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God. Why not? Because the word homosexual, a Greek and Latin hybrid, was first used in 1869. And, unless I am very much mistaken, St Paul was writing in the first, rather than the nineteenth, century of the Common Era.

So, what words did he use? The words, in Greek, were: malakoi and arsenokoitai.

The first, malakoi, is the plural of the adjective 'soft'. (In Greek, as in many other classical languages, adjectives could be used as nouns). So, the literal translation is 'soft ones'. It may seem that Paul is obviously talking about homosexuals, but this is by no means clear. In fact, the term had in the past been used to refer to some heterosexuals. Early church fathers had used the term against masturbation.

The rendering of the term as 'effeminate', as some translations suggest, is closer, but is still very much based on assumptions. There were in fact other terms that were used instead for effeminacy, such as androgune (from man and woman) and thelubrios.

The meaning of the second term is equally by no means clear. It is highly problematic, for the term was first found to be used by Paul, and was not frequently used after him. Some translations render the term to refer to child molesters. If this is the case, it shows that there are grave problems with generalising the term to refer to all who practise sodomy.

So, it seems, that 1 Corinthians 6:9 does not obviously condemn homosexuals at all.

I do not doubt that Mr Babatunde believes he is preaching a message which God wishes him to preach. But I do not for a second believe that he has that message correct. And it's this sort of careless talk that leads to all sorts of assumptions being made and thousands of people being outcast by the church and made to feel dirty, evil and in many cases suicidal.

And those were exactly the sorts of people whom Jesus reached, and reaches, out to in love.

The Gift of Love

Anyone who has ever experienced love: be it in the form of philia (love of friends/things); eros (love of a sexual nature); agape (unconditional, sacrifical, selfless love) or storge (familial love): would surely agree that it was one of the greatest gifts ever given to humankind.

In fact, the Bible professes it to be greater than hope, and even greater than faith:

"So faith, hope, love remain, these three; but the greatest of these is love." (1 Corinthians 13:13)

And yet it seems to me that, as human beings, we try to put sanctions and restrictions on it.

Take, for example, the Muslim doctor Humayra Abedin, held captive for over four months by her own family, and then forced to marry a total stranger whilst heavily sedated, all because her family disapproved (perhaps an understatement) of her relationship with a Hindu man whilst she was living in London.

What struck me, apart from the fact that anyone could treat another human being in this way, let alone a member of their own family, and the horrors of being forced to give one's life to someone they have never even met, who could be a rapist, paedophile or murderer for all they know; is that it seems to me that this family reacted in such a way in order to exert control over whom this poor woman could love.

Dr Abedin is an NHS doctor in the UK. She does a job which involves a tremendous amount of willpower, strength and determination. It is a job which literally involves saving lives, and helping one's fellow human beings day after day. Can anyone begrudge this poor woman some happiness with the man she loves?

This may be an extreme case, but as a society we are all guilty of trying to dictate who can and cannot be in love. We have strong issues if there is a significant age gap between two people: yet if they are genuinely in love, why should we want so much to end their happiness? And we simply cannot abide two people of the same sex having feelings for each other: we feel it is our duty to make it clear that such behaviour is unnatural and immoral.

And who are we? Who are we to dictate what is natural or unnatural? Who are we to say what is right or wrong? And who are we to say that any two people do not have the right to love one another?

As long as a relationship is between two consenting people who are perfectly aware of their feelings (that is to say, I am not trying to justify paedophilia or bestiality, for instance), and are not doing anyone any harm, then perhaps we ought to leave them be: as we ourselves would not like anyone to begrudge us the joys of true love.

After all, every human being is created by God, and are all equally entitled to know the joys of true love, irrespective of gender, religion or sexual orientation. After all, the gifts of God ought to be available for anyone to experience.

A man divided

I read the front page of The Times on Thursday August 7th with great interest. It was entitled: "Archbishop believes gay sex is good as marriage". When I reached the end of the article, my first conclusion was that immediately even the Times was guilty of creating a false impression with its title. Dr Williams' views are not by any means simply that any gay sex is as good as marriage. And it is such inaccuracy that is largely responsible for the bitter exchange of views and a church which stands divided, potentially on the verge of schism.

The essence of the article itself was that, in letters written to a psychiatrist and evangelical Christian who had challenged him at the turn of the decade regarding his views on the issue of homosexuality, Williams suggested that he had 'definitely come to the conclusion' that the Bible did not denounce faithful relationships between two people who happened to be gay, but rather the engaging in homosexual activity of people who were actually heterosexual.

He gave other justifications, but this was the crux of his viewpoint. No doubt this view will anger and irritate thousands of Christians, but that is not what I wish to focus on here. I could write at length about my views on this topic, and would probably still not reach a definite conclusion.

But the point for me, here, lies in the article which is written in the same issue of the Times. This article talks about Williams as a man who is "publicly conservative, privately liberal". This very situation is one which disappoints and saddens me. Williams is a man who does not reach conclusions lightly, or ponder things superficially (in fact, he claims that the aforementioned view on homosexuality is one he reached after "20 years of study and prayer").

Williams, in fact, has degrees from both Oxford and Cambridge, and has lectured at both of these universities, as well as other colleges. So there is no doubt about the fact that, when dealing with our Archbishop of Canterbury, we are dealing with a man of great intelligence, which, it has to be said, is far superior to most of ours.

And yet as a Church we seem to think that our incessant recitation of the same verse from Leviticus (a book which, incidentally, also contains warnings against sea creatures and the skin of pigs), or the verses from the Bible which did not even contain the word "homosexual" until 1946, is of far superior status to Williams' 20 years of study and prayer.

I am inclined to view this man with great respect and admiration...both as a Christian and an academic. And at present I also view him with sympathy. Here stands a man who has put great dedication into seeking the truth of Almighty God and is now unable to express or act in accordance with that truth, because he is at the head of an organisation which, frankly, deems its own prejudices superior to enlightened research, prayer, tolerance, and the love of the Son of the God which should be at the heart of all it says and does.

Suffice to say, I do not envy Williams at present.