Transcript CIRCLES OF DIGNITY AND JUSTICE

Justice discerning our connectedness
(and the shape of scripture)
Mark 7: 1-13 (and Genesis 1)
Structural sin





The Contextual Bible Study that I did on Mark 11:2713:2 as part of the Trinity Institute in 2011 is one of
our oldest Bible studies, forged in the late 1980s.
The importance of this CBS is that it recognises the
structural or systemic dimensions of domination and
resistance.
And this recognition was fundamental to the struggle
against apartheid.
Yet, the churches in South Africa found it difficult to
recognise the role that ‘structural sin’ played in
apartheid South Africa.
Even the Kairos Document (1985), with its clear
analysis of the theological challenge facing the
churches concerning sinful systems, was unable to
bring about substantial theological change.






27 years after the Kairos Document, little has
changed.
Even the political leaders of our new democracy, all
of whom come from the liberation movements, insist
that religion should focus on the personal and moral
(ie. the spiritual) dimensions of life.
“Leave the structural terrain to us”, says Mandela,
Mbeki, and now Zuma.
The prophetic movement in the churches (and within
other faith traditions) in South Africa has been
strangely silent, though there are signs of us
regaining our voices.
Similar signs of a resurgence in prophetic witness
can be seen around the world, though quite what the
contribution of the Christian Church has been is not
that clear.
Yet our increasingly globalised world cries out for a
fresh recognition of our structural/systemic
connectedness.
Economic connectedness: Mark 7:1-13
1. Listen to Mark 7:1-13. What is this text
about?
 2. Who are the characters in this text and
what do we know about them from this
text?
 3. The text seems to revolve around two
different perspectives on religious practice.
What are these two perspectives? Try to
characterise each of these perspectives,
identifying the various elements of each
perspective. List the characteristics in two
columns.


Input: Part of the background to this text is
the attempt by the temple leadership from
Jerusalem (v1) to draw the villagers of
Galilee (which is where Jesus is based in
Mark) into the economic system of the
Jerusalem temple. The Jerusalem temple,
like all temples in the ancient world, were
economic centres. And while they were
also religious centres, temple-based
religion was often used to legitimate, in the
name of God, the extraction of economic
resources from ordinary villagers.

The purity laws were used as one of the
means of economic extraction, for only the
religious system of the temple decreed what
was clean and what was unclean. The normal
tithes and offerings brought to the temple by
villagers were usually declared unclean by the
temple hierarchy and so had to be exchanged
for clean forms of tithes and offerings. Each
and every exchange was controlled by and
directly benefitted the temple.

4. What elements of these ‘economic
practices’ can you detect in Mark 11:15-19?

Input: In Mark 7 Jesus plays the temple
leadership at its own game, challenging “the
tradition of the elders” (v5) with a higher
tradition, the tradition of Moses (v10). Jesus
goes on immediately to expose one of the
economic systems that is hidden behind the
purity laws, the system of Corban (v11). The
word ‘korban’ meant ‘a dedication to God’. The
temple encouraged pious Jews ‘to dedicate’
their land and/or its produce to God (via the
temple). The point Jesus is making here is that
this religious practice often had the effect of
diverting economic resources from ageing
parents, so negating the commandments of
Moses to honour one’s mother and father.

In the time of Jesus, the Jerusalem templestate and its representatives no longer had
direct jurisdiction over Galilee. They therefore
could not make overt demands for tithes and
offerings, for Galilean taxes now went to
Herod Antipas, the ruler of Galilee. Instead,
they tried to get Galilean village farmers ‘to
dedicate’ a portion of their land’s produce to
the temple. This was an alternative way of
deriving revenue from this area.

5. Re-read Mark 7:1-13, and then write a textmessage (SMS) or tweet to your church that
summarises your understanding of this text.
6. Is ‘structural sin’ part of the theological
understanding of our churches? Give an
example.
 7. Is economic structural sin part of the
theological understanding of our churches?
Give an example.
 8. What are the sinful economic systems
that our churches should be speaking out
(and acting out) against, as Jesus did?
 9. How can we help our churches to
recognise that the structural dimensions of
life are as theologically important as the
personal dimensions?

Environmental connectedness: Genesis 1




We have become increasingly aware of how
we are connected to the earth and so to each
other.
This CBS was one our South African
contributions to the “Bible in the Life of the
Church” project.
1. Listen to Genesis 1:24-31 being read aloud.
What picture comes to your mind as you listen
to this text? Share this with your neighbour.
2. What words are used in verses 26 and 28 to
describe the relationship between humans and
the environment, and what kind of relationship
do they seem to imply? Compare how
different translations translate these verses.

Input: In the Hebrew language the word usually translated
as ‘to rule’ (‘radah’ in Hebrew) and the word usually
translated as ‘to subdue’ or ‘to have dominion over’
(‘kabash’ in Hebrew) can have a very harsh meaning.
Biblical scholars have reflected on these words (‘radah’
and ‘kabash’), wondering whether they can be understood
in a different way. Some biblical scholars have argued that
the words need not be understood here in their normal
harsh sense. They suggest that because these words are
associated with creatures (humans) who are made in the
image of God, who is revealed here as creating and
caring, these words might be understood to convey the
notion of ‘to shepherd’ (‘radah’) and ‘to take possession
of/to stand within’ (‘kabash’). The basic idea of this
interpretation is that human beings are God’s
representatives on earth, being located within the
environment (‘standing within it’) and caring for it
(‘shepherding it’).
Other biblical scholars point to a similar word in verse 16,
‘mashal’ (‘to rule’). Here it is clear that the idea of ‘ruling’
or ‘governing’, repeated three times, is not meant in a
harsh way. The sun and the moon are created “to give
light on the earth”. They are made to do good to the earth
and not damage (see verses 14-18). The basic idea of
this interpretation is that humans beings are ‘to rule’ in the
same way as the sun and the moon ‘rule’, as part of the
internal system.
 Other scholars make a similar kind of argument, by
placing this narrative in its ancient historical setting. They
argue that the ancient Hebrews who wrote Genesis 1
were responding to ancient Babylonian creation stories. In
the Babylonian stories of creation ‘the sun’ (‘shamash’)
and ‘the moon’ (‘yareah’) were gods. So these biblical
scholars suggest that Genesis 1 might be responding to
and critiquing the Babylonian understanding. In Genesis 1
“the greater light” (‘the sun’) and “the lesser light” (‘the
moon’) (verse 15) are clearly “made” (verse 16) by God,
and not themselves ‘gods’. The point here is that human
beings are part of the system, with no other
intermediaries, and so their only guide as to how ‘to rule’
is God.

Still other scholars argue that the usual association of the
phrase “image of God”, so prevalent in this text, is with
the rule of kings. Genesis 1:26-27 gives the role of ruling
to all human beings, and so is an anti-monarchic polemic,
challenging the kinds of ‘dominion’ so common in the
ancient world. As one scholar has said, we have a
“democratising tendency” here.
 Another dimension of the ancient context of this text is the
harshness of the life for the majority, most of whom were
subsistence farmers struggling to survive in the dry and
rocky hill country of Israel-Palestine. Most had little
access to even the limited technology of the plough, so
life had to be wrestled from the harsh landscape. From
this perspective the text is a call to persist in this struggle
and to make a place for humankind.


3. This text and the background information we have
reflected on does not take away the ambiguity of this text.
How does this information help you to understand the
relationship between humans and the environment in
Genesis 1:24-31?
4. What are the most common understandings of the
relationship between humans and the environment in your
local parish and community? In what ways are these
common understandings helpful or harmful?
 5. How do we balance theologically the needs of our
people in our South African ‘developmental state’ with our
responsibilities to and our stewardship of our endangered
ecosystems?
 6. Write a prayer (on your own or with a partner) that
expresses what this Bible study has ‘said’ to you about
how God has called us to engage with the environment.
Share these prayers in our time of prayer together later.
 7. What other practical things could we do to respond to
this Bible study so that we are ‘sent’ to engage
responsibly with our environment? What other biblical
texts are important for our understanding of how God has
located us within creation?

Justice for all
The economic and the ecological are
two powerful reminders of our
connectedness
 What they make clear is that our
connectedness is
structural/systemic/relational
 Justice for ‘us’ requires justice for ‘all’

The shape of scripture




So much of what we have shared together in
these sessions is linked to how we see the
‘shape’ of scripture
The South African theologian Albert Nolan
often reminded us in the 1980s to pay
attention to the shape of scripture, rather than
its content
Eg. The ministry of Jesus is “to bring good
news to the poor” (Luke 4:18)
In other words, ‘the gospel’ has a particular
shape, it must be “good news for the poor”.
The content of this good news may vary from
time to time or context to context, but its shape
must be retained, it must be good news “for
the poor”
How do we as Anglicans understand the
shape of scripture? What are the
distinctive features of scripture?
 The different answers we give to this
question is part of the problem we face
as a Communion; the other part of the
problem is not being able to recognise
the question.
 Scripture does not have a self-evident
shape; it is theologically constructed.


“The complex interplay possible between
scripture, tradition, reason, and
experience/context require Anglicans who
desire unity across the Communion to
vigilantly foreground their own interpretive
positions. As our Church resorts more and
more to a fifth form of authority, namely
legislative authority, and grows more and more
impatient for some decisive rallying-point for
Anglican identity, our current moment calls for
a theologically informed and spiritually
sustained patience and a willingness to
explicate how we have interpreted scripture
when we are called upon by our sisters and
brothers within the Anglican Communion to
give an account for the hope that is in us, yet
with gentleness and reverence (1 Peter 3:1516).”
Resources from the Ujamaa Centre

http://ujamaa.ukzn.ac.za
Or
Google: Ujamaa Centre


Go to “Practical Resources” page