Knowing the Good Because of the Bad

For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and in part I believe it.  For there must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you. (1 Corinthians 11:18,19 NASB)

In our culture, we are trying to get rid of competition.  It's a philosophy that seems to believe that aggression is inherently evil, that aggression comes from competition, and therefore competition must be eliminated to also eliminate the evil aggression.  Ironically, it's not working, not really.  I believe it's another attempt at the enlightenment philosophy which claimed that humanity is reaching/evolving toward a pinnacle in which we will attain perfection.

There are a host of problems with this philosophy which was supposed to have failed in World War II, but continues feebly to try and impose itself on people today.  The search for and the striving to create Utopia is a lot like the building of the Tower of Babel.  Which is a lot like the eating of the forbidden fruit in the Garden.  Which is a lot like children.

The church, or 'collection of those called out of society by their Creator', is supposed to be where the Spirit of our Savior creates this 'Utopia' within a society.  The problem with church has always been the same, the people.  From Paul's day down to our own, the human creatures making up the church have always marred the clarity of the Utopian concept set down in Scriptures.  And yet, there is a 'purpose' to such marring.

Paul, in his statement in verse 19, is probably being ironic or sarcastic toward the congregation.  He's probably both castigating one group and encouraging another, but he still said it.  So, since the Spirit inspired it, what does He mean by it?  I think it's wrong to create an entire 'theology' around any single statement in Scripture, and I'm not going to do so here.  But his statement does seem to correlate with another philosophical position: There is no understanding of light without darkness as a comparison.

I think a philosopher said something like, 'I did not know light until I had experienced darkness' or some such.  The typical application in philosophy is that difficulty in life enhances the enjoyment of the good times.  I believe it's the height of irony when those following such a philosophy turn around and try to rid society of competition.  Does anyone truly 'win' or even succeed if no one loses or fails?  How would we even know or understand the question without both extremes present?

The writer of Ecclesiastes uses this concept as a theme throughout that book.  But in that book, all the success and 'winning' paled after a time (there was no failure - and so it became 'failure'), and he realized that only God gives meaning to success, failure, gain, or loss.  The real reason humans rebel against God is because we realize how we are truly such 'losers' compared to Him.  Who wants to feel that?  Yet, by not accepting that, we then deny ourselves the realization that we are truly 'winners' because of Him as well. 

Selfishly, we want to be winners without Him, apart from our Creator and Savior.  The true evil of humanity is not in what we perpetrate against each other, it's the reason we do so; to add another brick to the tower to heaven.  But our rebellion doesn't change the truth that apart from our Creator we lose.  Our rebellion doesn't change our need to embrace our Savior to win.  Erasing competition, winning and losing from our culture doesn't change that either.  The failures and pains of life will continue to illuminate, in sharp relief only shadow can create, our need for the success and relief provided by our Creator and Savior.  This is where I find the 'faith of a child'; everything is provided to me by my Father.

When Culture Is The Wrong Context

Therefore when you meet together, it is not to eat the Lord's Supper, for in your eating each one takes his own supper first; and one is hungry and another is drunk.  What! Do you not have houses in which to eat and drink? Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? In this I will not praise you. (1 Corinthians 11:20-22 NASB)

There are strange inconsistencies in Paul that make reading and understanding him difficult at times.  Sometimes he's clear and point directly at my heart.  Other times, I seriously wonder if I get what he's saying at all.  Here I think I get it, but I have a problem with his application.  For instance, this is where some are eating a 'separate' or 'personal' meal of 'good food' or something like that, while others without such resources don't get such a meal.  So the wealthy have a better meal, like first class on an airline.  It's something that's just a pat of the socioeconomic climate; it still persists somewhat today.

The problem that Paul points out is that this completely invalidates the meaning of the Lord's Supper or Communion in which this is happening.  Okay, so the cultural norm or expectation is unacceptable at the Lord's Table.  Got it.  Let's make that a rule...oh wait, the previous section has a cultural norm as the rule for women participating in worship.  So which is it?  Do we use the culture in which we live or not?  How much is allowed into the church, and where?

These are not easy questions.  They are the source of debate for centuries, actually two millennia.  Missionaries face it constantly, often in obvious ways.  We, in this country tend to ignore the problem, but to our own peril.  The 'American' culture is assumed to be favorable to Christianity, Scripture, and church practice.  And it is, compared to the polytheistic culture of the Roman Empire that deified living emperors.  But our modern American culture is not, actually, favorable to Jesus as the Christ, Savior, and Lord of Lord's.  Don't get upset, no human culture is.

So, the problem of navigating practice, meaning, and teaching of the things of the Creator of all things within congregations of Bible-believing followers of Jesus is tough.  It's not optional though.  Pastors, teachers, leaders of all sorts within these congregations have this as their primary responsibility.  Whatever they are called, their role is to lead the people along behind the Spirit of God as He guides us.  This will correspond with Scripture at every point; but how that Scripture is applied will take sensitivity to the Spirit who inspired it, time spent in study, and a dogged determination to be obedient over popular.  I tend to follow people who have this view, and avoid and criticize those who don't.

So, Paul's practice doesn't make understanding him easy, but he lays out the right path, the one we must follow in our congregations.  Some things are acceptable within the congregation and others are definitely not.  Culture cannot be allowed to dictate practice within the body of Christ.  Sensitivity and recognition of the culture must be considered along with practice, as the church must connect to people in order to influence the culture for Christ Jesus.  But the 'filter' must be Scripture, the Spirit of God, and diligent perseverance to be obedient over popular.

So, my application goes like this:  1) as a church leader, I need to have this filter firmly in place as I teach and lead.  2) I need to follow leaders who have this same filter (not those with the same views, but those with views derived from this filter).  3) This needs to be part of my teaching.  And since I'm writing this blog entry...I suppose number 3 is a 'gimme'.

Making The Lord's Supper Communion

Therefore when you meet together, it is not to eat the Lord's Supper, for in your eating each one takes his own supper first; and one is hungry and another is drunk. What! Do you not have houses in which to eat and drink? Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? In this I will not praise you. (1 Corinthians 11:20-22 NASB)

The practice of sharing the Lord's Supper in worship is one of two things Jesus commanded of His disciples, the other being baptism.  Some denominations refer to them as 'ordinances' others as 'sacraments' and others as other references denoting something commanded and required.  So, as believers, we have to do it.

The views about how it's done, who participates, and so on varies even more than denominational terminology.  Some believe only believers can partake, others permit anyone.  Some say only members of a congregation, others anyone of any congregation.  Some take it every week, others every quarter, others semiannually, some even annually.  Some use crackers, others an actual loaf of bread.  Some use little plastic cups, others share one actual cup.  Some use real wine, others grape juice.  It also seems possible to mix and match these views, practices, and elements.

So, without consistency in practice, terminology, or ingredients, what is it from this passage in 1 Corinthians 11 that can be applied to the eclectic experience of believers in our culture, or simply in my own experience?  There are actually several I can find laying about on the surface, and a few lying just below.

First off, the problem that Paul is addressing in practice is where the wealthy are behaving in a way that segregates them from the poorer believers.  So that is one area easy to see, where I can apply it.  In the practice of my own church, I can be one of those influences that does what I can to connect to those around me with whom I take the Lord's Supper.  While it may not be a difference of economic affluence, it could be a difference in anything, dress, speech, appearance, skin color, even weight in our culture; any of these can be separating influences that can be overcome by doing something to connect with the person to whom I 'pass the plate.'  The connection can be as simple as 'here you go', 'the body and blood of our Lord', or even a look that connects rather than divides.  It's not like I can guarantee that what I do or say will connect with the person, or even that it won't be taken wrong; but it's the extension of myself into the life of another during the practice that I see as important.

Second thing I see here is that an actual meal is involved.  In our church we do like to eat.  So, being an influence that does what I can to make sure no one is left out is important.  In this there are lots of opportunities.  The differences in diet within our church are enormous.  Some can't have gluten, my wife doesn't eat sugar, others are vegetarians, and so on.  I can make sure that I help (since I can't control) others getting something they can eat so we can, as a church, share together.  Being mindful that not everyone can have everything, so not depleting those special dishes for those with restrictions is actually courteous and thoughtful.  I can do that.  This doesn't have to do specifically with a Lord's Supper as it did in Corinth, but is a communal event even so.

A third surface observation is that I see this practice is a proclamation of Jesus' death; the very thing we share in common enabling us to have a relationship with our Creator.  So, how can I, in my practice of this ensure that my practice faithfully proclaims the salvation of the world by my Master?  The application here may change or drift from one activity to another and back.  It may depend on the Sunday, the people around whom I sit.  I can lift the elements to my Master as I partake, in thanks and recognition.  As other see this, they see my proclamation in my actions.  Perhaps I can say something to the person to whom I pass the plate to 'proclaim the Lord's death'.  I don't know, and I don't think it necessarily has to be the same action each time, but it needs to be done.

One problem I see just below the surface here is an attitude that my cultural behavior, whatever status I have outside the congregation, or whatever influence I have should be a part of my relationship to others in the church.  That is a gross error.  The error lies in that it assumes that my status in this world reflects my status before my Master and in His Kingdom.  Before my Master I am whatever He declares me, but whatever He declares me isn't any more or less than what He has declared of my brothers and sisters.  My role is different, my name on His lips is different, and my position within His Kingdom could be different.  But I am as equal before my Master as the highest, lowest, newest, oldest and youngest of my fellow believers.  Seeing myself any other way, and treating others in any other way, violates and cheapens my treatment of the Bride of my Master.  We are to be one, even as He is.  His Spirit unifies us, and I have the same Spirit as do my fellow worshipers and fellow followers of Jesus.  That, within the church, trumps any cultural social or economic status I may enjoy outside in the world.

Defending the Underdog?

Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head.  But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved. (1 Corinthians 11:4,5 NASB)

Therefore when you meet together, it is not to eat the Lord's Supper, for in your eating each one takes his own supper first; and one is hungry and another is drunk. (1 Corinthians 11:20,21 NASB)

We Americans love to defend the 'underdog'.  We love it when the 'little guy' wins.  There are probably a host of reasons for this, and they probably apply in a wide variety of degrees only in the most general of ways.  But I know I do.  Captain America is one of my favorite characters because he's the scrawny yet plucky little guy from Brooklyn.  Had he been another 'great' seeking to be greater, his character would not have held my interest.

Anyway, with this passage, it seems we have one social underdog winning, and one not.  Paul seems to defend the poor in his correction of the Lord's Supper practice, but then seems to be correcting women instead of defending them about the 'head covering'.  The poor win, the women lose?  This passage is one of the ones referred to when people say that Paul seemed to have it in for women in churches.  I'm not inclined to agree with that assessment.

Paul, in some passages, does seem to land pretty hard on women, and treat them with a degree of contempt.  But not so far in 1 Corinthians.  He refers, in the first chapter, to Chloe's people, a clear reference to a church leader who also happens to be a woman.  Chapter 7 is amazingly balanced in its treatment of men and women, almost excessively so.  Keep in mind that chapter 7 is about marriage, so this is not necessarily the topic in which to be balanced if he were truly against women.

In this chapter, Paul seems to have some sort of problem with women prophesying and praying in worship without a head covering of some sort.  What sort of head covering is unclear, so that can't really be the take away from this.  But what often gets missed is that Paul never says here that women shouldn't prophesy or pray in worship.  What ever else is considered in terms of what Paul says about women's roles in church, this needs to be included in that assessment.

In fact, one of the most common 'mistranslated' elements is the word 'symbol' added to modern translations.  In the King James version, it says, "...ought the woman to have power on her head..." If 'symbol' or 'sign' is removed (and it should be), then the verse reads more accurately, "...the woman ought to have authority on her head...'  This carries a very different meaning.  Paul isn't saying that the 'man' has authority over the woman, but rather that she has authority over herself, in a sense.  In other words, the point of his correction of women in chapter 11 isn't that the natural order is 'men-over-women', but rather to maintain the natural distinction between the genders.  It's relational, not hierarchical, if that helps.

But even with that, Paul does correct the women, and it does seem to be a 'loss' for this social segment, already seeming to struggle against so many social ills.  Why add another?  I think the answer is really obvious.  Because they were in the wrong in this particular point. 

That may seem overly obvious, but consider that what this means is that Paul doesn't prefer the women over the men because of their social hurdles.  That actually elevates women as well.  He's spent a lot of time slamming the conduct of men or male references to leadership gone awry.  This shows that he's not playing favorites.  He's not calling on the men to 'fix' this issue with the women, he's calling on the women to adjust to correct this practice.  In a sense, this is a sneaky practice that sets women on a higher social level by assuming one precedence in the background of an argument in the foreground; if the argument is accepted, then so is the assumption in the background.  Lawyers try to accomplish this in litigation, and it's not easy.

So, because Paul addresses women and their practice, calling on them to adjust their practice to align to Scripture, then women stand at the same level of men on whom he has been calling all along in this letter.  When the men accept this correction of the women, they accept their elevation to their level within the church.  It may not work that way in their Roman/Greek/Jewish homes, but in church...well, Paul has adjusted something rather subtly.

This doesn't really establish a complete view of Paul on women in ministry, but it needs to be considered as one is pieced together.  One of the problems is that too often, single passages are preferred over others, and no cohesive treatment is applied.  If we want to really get a picture of how Paul views women's roles in church, then we must consider all his references, evaluate them within their literary and cultural contexts, and then try and make sense of the mosaic they provide.  That's not easy, and unfortunately, not many want to spend the time or effort to do it.

And before I leave this topic, there are two problems that stem from this, not one.  The obvious one is some, without getting a good sense of Paul's view, improperly use him as an excuse to suppress the activities of women in church.  But the equally wrong approach is to assume Paul is against women, ignore his teaching, and in the void that creates, make up our own rules for the roles of women in church.  There's no shortcut, the work must be done.  Our Master didn't inspire Scripture with the caveat that we are free to throw out the pieces we don't like any more than we are free to only focus on the parts we do like.

My application here is to avoid being 'politically correct' in showing the 'underdog' preferential treatment.  What I need to understand is that, sometimes, in addressing the 'underdog', I help elevate them to the same level as everyone else.  In other words, if I only address those who I think can take it (perhaps correction), or who I think will have a more detrimental or positive effect then I'm judging more than just behavior, I'm judging value.  That's not right.  But when I equally apply what God reveals to me, then I hold everyone at the same level without judging their 'value' within the church, but rather acknowledging their value before our Master.  Yeah, maybe that's it...although I'm not sure when I'd have the opportunity to apply such an application.  But when I do...!

Non-Communal Communion?

Therefore when you meet together, it is not to eat the Lord's Supper, for in your eating each one takes his own supper first; and one is hungry and another is drunk.  What! Do you not have houses in which to eat and drink? Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? In this I will not praise you. (1 Corinthians 11:20-22 NASB)

The practice of Communion or the Lord's Supper in modern congregations has probably changed from the pattern gone wrong here.  That's just a guess and a gross generalization, but I seriously doubt anyone gets drunk from the miniscule amounts used in those small plastic cups, nor considers the little square crackers satisfying of hunger.  Something seems definitely different here.

It is possible, I suppose, that the practice of the Lord's Supper/Communion in the very early church was  patterned off of the Jewish Passover meal, but abbreviated in some way.  Regardless of whether it did, or to what degree, what seems clear is that a much more substantial meal is involved.  What is also clear is that this meal has become more substantial for some and not for others.

There is a distinction between those that are abusing the meal and those 'who have nothing', and this is most likely a distinction between the wealthy and poor.  Since, in the setting in Corinth, churches were 'house churches', and the wealthy would be the most likely hosts, this would have to be happening either by the hosts, or at least in their households.  The divisions Paul has already pointed out among them back in Chapter 1 seemed to be between groups/households; where this additional division is more socioeconomic within households.

I host and lead a Bible study on Thursdays, and one meeting a month includes a 'pot luck' meal.  We don't consider what we share together to be a "Lord's Supper" or Communion, but I can imagine adding that element.  In our church we celebrate Communion every week, and do so along common conventions used in modern Evangelical Protestant churches.  So, we use 'juice' rather than wine, and miniscule crackers.  Due to the frequency, I don't see a need or much value to adding such an element to the Bible study's monthly meal.  I'm going to need to look elsewhere for application here.

If I look along the lines drawn by Paul in describing the problem, there are those who have nothing being shamed by the behavior of others.  There are those who seem to be proceeding with a meal on their own, and are well into it by the time others arrive, and are drunk by the time the others arrive.  The result of this behavior is that those who are not waiting, both despise the church and shame those with less. 

I have to wonder why those who have informed Paul haven't addressed this with the ones practicing it.  Or have they to no effect, not having the 'authority' or recognized respect to make the correction?  I think it's more likely this is happening in some 'household churches' and not others, and Paul is hearing from those for whom it's not a problem.  There is a difficulty with this view, though.  Paul also refers to 'when you come together as a church' which could refer to a single gathering of the entire collection of households within the ancient city of Corinth in one place.  That would have to be a big place, and serving a meal as part of it would be a big undertaking.  On the other hand, we really don't know just how large this church was if assembled all together.  Perhaps it wasn't all that difficult to put together a meal for everyone.

I think it most likely that this problem existed in some house-churches and not others.  I suspect that the meal was regular, but not every meeting.  And I think what happened is that the hosts had developed a 'preferential' practice among the others in their socioeconomic circles within the group to have their own version of the meal exclusive of the others meeting to worship in the house.  But that's a lot to derive with any certainty from what Paul has written.  It could just as well have been a larger communal meal.  My application I think would be easier if it were many separate practices, so I will pull it from there.

I see the application for myself here to be in not making those without feel any less accepted or blessed by my Master.  I have a nice house, well suited to hosting.  Consequentially, I believe my Master provided it for that purpose.  In essence, my wife and I went looking for such a house.  This is the house that my Master enabled us to acquire.  It fit all and more that we looked and hoped for.  We are amazingly blessed.  I believe that I honor the One providing the house when I make it available to others, and seek to bless those who visit.  So we host a Bible study.  We seek to council and mentor here.  We seek to meet here for meals with groups or other families.  We have had travelers we didn't even know stay the night (THAT was one of the best blessings so far!).

On the other hand, how we practice this abbreviated form of the meal at church is also important.  In our church some share it with their kids, and that takes time.  Some hold up an element before God, and this is visible to others.  Some look to others around them and say something as part of their practice.  In all of this there is potential for abuse by me.  I may not eat more or drink more, nor is there much danger of me bringing my own more tasty crackers (Ritz?) and juice (raspberry grape?).  So the more direct application would be in how I treat or think of my fellow worshipers.  Do I despise those who take so much time to share with their kids?  Do look with jealousy or contempt on those who hold up the elements?  Do I wonder what was said by those whisper something to a companion as part of the practice?  Do I consider myself as above all that, or consider those as 'theologically inferior' or 'flawed'?  There's really a lot of room here for me to be just as faulty as those in Corinth, only no one would know in my circumstances.

I believe that there are lots of ways to practice the Lord's Supper in a communal fashion and treat it and those around me with contempt.  And that is something I must guard against.  And there are also lots of ways that I can cause those who have less than I do to feel less than I am (when they may very well be much more before my Master).  The reality is that this passage has all sort of possible applications for me, because I have all sorts of flaws to which it speaks.  I am blessed, but that does not make me somehow superior.  I share the Communion plate with many, and there are many very valid and meaningful ways we who share the plate practice the 'meal'.  The best question might be, 'Do I honor my Master among all my brothers and sisters?'  That is a question I should answer at home and as we worship together each week.

Church: Where Women are REAL Women

But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.  Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head.  But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved.  For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head. (1 Corinthians 11:3-6 NASB)

One of the big reasons I decided to work with 'biblical languages' in my graduate degree was to deal with passages like this.  I wanted to study the hard stuff and see for myself what was said or written.  I wanted to be able to work with the text myself rather than rely on what someone else said about it.  In the process, I discovered that I still don't know anything.  But I also discovered that I'm in good company.

There are passages in the Bible for which we have completely lost the assumed cultural or liturgical context.  In this specific passage, Paul makes some references that no longer make sense.  There aren't other New Testament references which help us understand the reference.  There aren't even things we can find outside of the New Testament that help.  The reference which made so much sense to the church in Corinth because of their specific circumstances (cultural or worship practice or something) is now baffling.

In essence, Paul is advocating that women wear something on their head while participating in either prayer or prophesying in worship.  His reasoning is a bit odd and hard to follow.  He refers to 'head' which here is not a reference to authority, but to relationship: Christ to man, man to woman, God to Christ.  And then makes this odd statement: "Every man having down head disgraces his head."  The first question is typically, "What does 'having down head' mean?"  After that is, "What head? Christ or his noggin?" or "Having what down his head?"  Anyway, you get the point; it's not really clear.

Gordon Fee in his commentary on 1 Corinthians in the New International Commentary on the New Testament really unpacks this whole argument very thoroughly.  If you really want a good treatment of this, I refer you there.  So, what I'm going to do is work off what he wrote, and unpack some application for me today, in this culture.

The really unambiguous element here is a distinction made between men and women.  While in other places Paul says they have the same standing within God's kingdom treating them remarkably equal (see 1 Corinthians 7:1-17), here Paul acknowledges and calls for a marked distinction.  He derives this from creation as presented in Genesis, and applies it to worship; in other words, when the church comes together.  So, the problem being addressed is that this distinction was being blurred (however it was happening), and he addresses the problem by applying the Scripture on creation to correct it.

So, regardless of how women were blurring the lines in that church, it was happening.  Paul writes to address the women blurring such lines.  He makes two interesting caveats though.  First, this isn't about 'authority'.  Second, this doesn't limit or restrain them from praying or prophesying in worship.  The only mention of 'authority' is in the authority the woman has over her own head in verse 10; 'symbol' is an added word that is probably both unnecessary and wrong.  The practice being corrected is the mode in which a woman prophesies or prays, not the praying or prophesying itself.

So, I'm left with asking myself in what ways can I protect the distinction between men and women in my own life.  Keeping in mind that, in many ways, I live on the verge of drowning in an 'estrogen pool', this can be a real issue for me.  I have one specific place that I cannot fail here, I must succeed; and that is with my daughter.  I must help and encourage her as she enters womanhood.  I have to.  It really scares me in some ways  and for a variety of reasons.

I have lived a lot of my life enslaved to degrading images of women.  And I know intellectually that such women live degrading lives, enslaved to an insidious evil.  Having a daughter brings this 'intellectual knowledge' right into my heart.  I hate and fear what our society does to women, and therefore what it might do to my daughter.  I say to my shame that to protect my daughter, I fear at some level that she be pretty.  I realize this, and accept this as a consequence of my sinful track record.  And I also accept that it's something I must not give into. 

I have a responsibility before my Master to encourage my daughter in His kingdom.  That means that I have to encourage her to be all that He has designed for her.  In my case, my Master has made my daughter very beautiful.  It scares me, and I will mercilessly hunt down and eliminate any would-be predator who sets sights on her.  As a bumper sticker I saw lately, "I have a gun and a shovel. You will not be found."  At least that's my intent, what my surging emotions place on me; I'm shaking as I write this.  This world has no mercy on my daughter, and therefore I will give it none in her defense.  Tough talk, and it comes from my fears.

I suppose my application is to remind my daughter that she IS beautiful, in my eyes, and in the eyes of my Master.  She needs to know that.  I have to overcome my fears, for her sake; I can't let her believe the lie that she's not beautiful just to protect her from what I fear.  It's neither fair to her nor being responsible as her father for me to fail at this point.