In this essay I intend to undertake an examination of 1 Corinthians, taking a look at the central themes that run throughout the book and drawing out how they may be relevant to contemporary Christians today.
In his first letter to the Corinthians Paul addresses a number of issues, one of ‘which is the fractious nature of the church there. The church was beset by arguing and in-fighting, as different groups each followed different leaders and people vied for attention. This is arguably the theme that underlines much of the letter, with much else linking back to this central point. Paul begins almost immediately with an appeal for unity amongst the believers there (1 Cor 1:10), and in doing so lays a foundation for the rest of the letter. He has heard reports of quarrelling and partisanship and seeks to present himself as a focus of unity, urging the Corinthians to imitate him and see him as their spiritual “father” (1 Cor 4:16) rather than splitting off into different (and often opposing) groups.
In his book “An Introduction to the New Testament and the Origins of Christianity” Delbert Burkett entitles his chapter on 1 Corinthians as “Problems of Church Life”[1]. He goes on to set out the many issues that were faced by the church there (issues that are not altogether different from those facing the church in the twenty first century). As well as breaking up into many different factions there were also issues of personal morality (1 Cor 5) and how Christians ought to relate to one another correctly (1 Cor 6:1-11). Later in 1 Corinthians there is concern about the correct us of spiritual gifts within the church and their potential for misuse (1Cor 12-14). The entirety of the letter seems to focus upon inter-personal relationships that were honouring of each other and also of God. There are certainly parallels here with the present day church that I shall explore later.
It is apparent that the seeds of division that we see Paul speaking of here are only the beginning of what turned out to be many thousands of different churches and denominations which would spring up over the next two thousand years. In “The Writings of the New Testament” Luke Timothy Johnson asserts that “The Corinthians tended to define themselves by their differences rather than by their common life”[2]. It was this emphasis on difference from one another that tended to lead to a sense of elitism as each rival faction desperately tried to outdo the others. Paul appears to be quite exasperated as he pleads for the in-fighting to cease. “For it has been reported to me by Chloe’s people that there are quarrels among you, my brothers and sisters. What I mean is that each of you says, “I belong to Paul”, or “I belong to Apollos”, or “I belong to Cephas”, or “I belong to Christ”. Has Christ been divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptised in the name of Paul?” (1 Cor 1:11-13). His questioning about Christ being divided strikes right at the heart of the problem. It is clear that so far as Paul is concerned these divisions do nothing to build up the church. He is on a mission to ensure that the church remains united as one.
In his book “Introducing the New Testament”[3] John Drane neatly sums up the four different parties as follows:
· The “Paul Party” who were libertine in their outlook and relished their newfound freedom from the law.
· The “Cephas Party” who remained true to the legalism of traditional Jewishness while still acknowledging Christ as the Messiah.
· The “Apollos Party” who interpreted the teaching of the scriptures with the ideas and thoughts of Greek philosophy in mind.
· The “Christ Party” who sought to have a direct mystical experience with Christ, and considered themselves to be the more superior of the parties.
It is possible to see modern parallels to Drane’s categories within the church today in the multiplicity of denominations and factions that each proclaim their own particular brand of Christian “truth”. Even within the different denominations themselves there are often different groupings each attempting to be the more dominant voice. A prime example is the current situation within the Church of England regarding the debate over women bishops. It could be said that the supporters of women bishops most closely resemble the “Paul Party” with what could be viewed as a break from tradition and their openness to new and possibly different forms of ministry. The opponents of women bishops however would perhaps more fit the mould of the “Cephas Party” with their emphasis on continuing with what they believe is the tradition of male episcopacy that has been handed down through apostolic succession over the centuries.
The secession of the Church of England from the Roman Catholic Church, while superficially caused by Henry VIII’s desire for an annulment to his marriage has had consequences that continue to this day. Notwithstanding that the new Supreme Governor of the Church of England remained doctrinally catholic, in the coming centuries this new independent church would grow to become almost as monolithic at times as the Roman Catholic Church had become. In recent decades, even centuries, many different factions that cover a very broad range of interests and opinions have flourished within the church, not always in harmony with one another. The nineteenth century disagreements between the Anglo-Catholic and Evangelical wings of the church are one example that is brought to mind, and to some extent the rivalry between the two continues today. It is clear therefore that the splits that Paul refers to in 1 Corinthians were not a phenomenon unique to that particular context, but rather were a seemingly universal occurrence that has lasted throughout the entire history of the church.
Paul’s apparent irritation with the church continues in chapter three where he indicates that so long as they continue to squabble with one another he regards them as still relatively immature in the faith. “”I could not speak to you as spiritual people, but rather as people of the flesh, as infants in Christ. I fed you with milk, not solid food, for you were not ready for sold food. Even now you are still not ready, for you are still of the flesh. For as long as there is jealousy and quarrelling among you, are you not of the flesh, and behaving according to human inclinations?” ( 1 Cor 3:1-3). It is evident that he regards their attempts at one-upmanship on one another as indicative of spiritual weakness rather than strength. To return to 1 Cor 1:10, it is clear that Paul sees their strength is in unity rather than the division that they have become so entrenched in.
Paul also takes up the theme of personal morality within the letter. This can be most clearly seen in chapters 5-7. He expounds upon sexual immorality (ch 5, 6:12-20), lawsuits among believers (ch 6: 1-11), instructions to married couples (ch 7:1-17), and instructions concerning the unmarried and widowed (ch 7:25-40). These instructions from Paul on what he considers to be the correct way for Christians to conduct their personal lives link into his desire for unity that I wrote about earlier. It is only by conducting their personal affairs in a way that is honouring to Christ and at the same time builds up their fellow believers that a Christian can truly know what it is to be a part of the one united Body of Christ. Pauls philosophy regarding sexual morality is perhaps best summed up in I Cor 6:19-20 where he says “Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God, and that you are not your own? For you were bought with a price; therefore glorify God in your body”. It is clear that he sees each believer as being the personal dwelling place of the Holy Spirit, and as such all that the individual does must be for the greater glory of God rather than for their own selfish gain.
In his book “An Introduction to the New Testament”, Raymond Brown suggests that “Ones body is a means of self-communication, and so intercourse produces a union between the partners. Union of one who is a member of Christ with an unworthy partner, such as a prostitute, disgraces Christ, just as marital union glorifies God (6:20).”[4] In a modern day context there are many different models of living that to some in the church may seem to contradict what they see as Pauls teaching on the matter. Most obviously perhaps is the subject of homosexuality, which has been a particular hot-topic within the church for a number of years.
Although the traditional teaching of the church has been that the practice of homosexuality is sinful and that sexual relations are reserved exclusively for heterosexual married couples, there are many within the church who view this issue quite differently. I Corinthians 6:9-10 is one of seven so-called “clobber passages[5] that is often used to condemn same sex attraction. There are many throughout the church who consider themselves to have been alienated and spiritually damaged by the use (or mis-use) of these texts in this way. Equally there are those within the church who continue to look towards texts such as this to support their views that the practice of homosexuality is wrong. What does seem to be apparent however is that whatever understanding of human sexuality Paul may have had, it would have been quite different to the experience of those within the church today who daily have to deal with the subject. What does seem certain though is that however one views matters of sexuality or personal morality; the overriding teaching of Paul is that one ought to conduct one’s life in a manner that is honouring to God.
1 Corinthians 15 provides the most detailed treatment of Paul’s teaching regarding the resurrection of the dead. Tom Wright discusses this at length in his book “Surprised by Hope”[6]. He argues that the traditional view of people going straight to “heaven” (or “hell”) is a serious distortion of Paul’s teaching on the subject.[7] Wright suggests that people’s views on what happens after death is often over-spiritualised. Rather than simply becoming a disembodied spirit at death and going straight to heaven (or indeed, hell), he argues strongly that the ultimate destination for those who are saved is to inhabit a physically transformed new body upon a physically transformed new earth. He emphasises that rather than possessing an immortal soul, Paul actually teaches that through the future bodily resurrection the believer shall actually possess an immortal and incorruptible body (though to my own understanding, this would also necessarily involve having an immortal soul as well).[8]
The discussion by Paul about the resurrection of the dead is prompted by the outright denial of some of the Corinthian believers concerning it (1 Cor 15:12). He goes on to say that without the resurrection of Christ and the future resurrection of those who are in Christ then faith is in vain (1 Cor 15:13-18).
In modern life death is often hidden away, and people are often uncomfortable discussing death or what happens afterwards. There is a sort of modern-day folk culture that can be said to have built up around death/funeral rituals (particularly when it is the untimely death of a relatively young person). Without a great deal of Christian/church input people often still seem to yearn for some kind of hope that there is something beyond this life. For many, that hope seems to manifest itself in the belief that the deceased may be “somewhere above” and protectively looking down upon them in the disembodied state that Wright specifically argues against. Others may believe that their loved ones have somehow “merged” with some greater abstract force. The Christian hope however, as put forward in Corinthians, is that one day we shall be raised from the dead and inhabit a new earth. “When this perishable body puts on immortality, and this mortal body puts on immortality, then the saying that is written will be fulfilled; “Death has been swallowed up in victory. Where, O death is your victory? Where, O death is your sting?”” (1 Cor 15:54-55). The challenge facing the church today is learning how to sensitively inform people, who may have been unchurched for a number of generations of what the Christian hope of what lies beyond death is.
In conclusion, the First Letter to the Corinthians was written by Paul to a community of believers who seemed to be experiencing issues not unlike many of those facing the church today. Personality clashes, inflated egos, an obsession with sexual morality and a desire to know what lies beyond this life. It goes to show that the underlying concerns of humankind cross the time and culture barrier, and that the words of Paul can speak to us just as much today as they did to his original audience, just perhaps in a different way.
I believe God has a special love for poor Christians, oppressed Christians, hungry Christians (so far, so uncontroversial) and also for divorced and remarried Christians, female Christians aware of a call to leadership and, yes, GLBT Christians. Anyone who is trying to serve God faithfully in the face of neglect or prejudice on the part of established churches, in fact.
ReplyDelete