Re: “Crossing Over” – Sheol

I would like to share some thoughts that I had during some correspondence with an old friend over the issues of ‘breaking free’ or ‘crossing over’, an issue which I have repeatedly touched on in this blog.

The key point of our conversation was that, although there are certainly forces outside of us that influence our decisions, we always have a choice. As it says in Deuteronomy, “I set before you a blessing and a curse, live and death; choose life, so that you may live”. The Israelites definitely had a lot going against them, but they chose to not only break free from Egypt, but also break out of the wilderness. Out of Egypt, they had to cross over the Red Sea, but out of the wilderness, they had to cross over the Jordan, which is of course a symbol of Christ, who came to give us life, and life abundantly. They couldn't do very much about getting out of Egypt before they did – it was a completely divine act, a sort of healing experience. But they definitely spent more time wandering around in the wilderness than they needed; they chose death, the curse, rather than live, the blessing. Yes, in Numbers they came across giants and what have you that made it difficult to rely on God’s promise. Nevertheless, the 40-year wandering was a pointless, completely self-imposed ordeal.

One concept that I think is useful here is that of ‘Sheol’, something which the Lord gave me some insight on a few years ago, and on which I have a number of posts. In Jewish spirituality, Sheol (which crops up in the Bible a lot) is a dark underworld - not Hades (i.e. Hell), the fiery pit, but rather a gloomy place that you can actually 'get stuck in' during your life on earth - a sort of worldly hell. It is almost like an endless labyrinth from which it impossible to escape – that is, without Christ. In Corinthians, when Paul says "O death, where is your victory, O Death, where is your sting?”, he is quoting a passage in Hosea, wherein one of the ‘deaths’ that he quotes is actually “Sheol”. So, Christ delivers us not only from death (Hades), which is our default destination thanks to original sin, but also from this perhaps even more insidious death-in-life (Sheol), which we impose on ourselves. It’s important to note that this applies to all Christians who live contently with idols, who never desire to go deeper with God, and so on – all of those people are imposing an inferior version of life on themselves.

A key characteristic of Sheol is dependency. Although we may loathe the thing, and want more than anything else to exit it, we cling to it because it gives us a security, and we know that we will be vulnerable once we let go – there will be a missing void in who we are. In other words, we are addicted to it. Of course, the “shelter of the Most High” is infinitely more secure, and only there will we find the life that will fill that void. But it is a different kind of security: although it gives us the ultimate certainty of all of His promises, it actually entails a lot more uncertainty in our day-to-day lives. In other words, it requires us to let go of trying to control everything (or letting some other person do so) and let Him take control. This is reflected in the story of the Israelites in the wilderness. At several points they yearned to be back in Egypt – at least there they had some security of food and water (indeed, by creating and worshipping the Golden Calf, they were basically trying to re-create the conditions of Egypt). In the wilderness, they were supplied with “daily bread” from Heaven. They were not allowed to store it up – to try to control everything – but rather had to trust that God would supply them the next day. So, they were fully dependent on God, rather than dependent on their abusive Egyptian masters. But paradoxically this was more of a challenge because it actually required them to choose to yield to God, in contrast to Egypt, where they were forced to do so. This is the mysterious relationship that we have with God – we have to surrender our will, but we also have to exercise our will to do that – a feat that is only possible thanks to Christ’s intervention, his initial act of love through which we also love (1 John 4:19).

Another image relevant here is that although the Jordan was a much smaller body of water than the Red Sea, it was much harder for the Hebrews to cross. Why? I think, because of the “direction” in which fear was pulling them in each case. With the Red Sea, the fear was what they were running away from (namely the chariots of Pharaoh). With the Jordan, on the other hand, what they feared was on the other side. In other words, they had to willingly face their fears, rather than simply be saved by a divine act. Again, this revealed that mysterious relationship – it is both his action AND our reaction that matter. His perfect love casts out our fear, but a loving relationship ‘takes two to tango’. Ultimately, though we love because He first loved us (1 John 4:19 again). So, when we are crossing the much smaller Jordan out of the wilderness, we can always remember how He delivered us from the much greater Red Sea and the slavery of Egypt, and trust that His promises (His covenant, if you will – another symbol of the bilateral relationship) are fulfilled in Christ (2 Corinthians 1:20).

An important distinction should be made here. On the one hand, we need to be fully dependent on Christ. In many cases, however, this will mean being very independent from everything – and even everyone – else. Obviously, we should be in a community of friends, family, believers, etc., mutually reinforcing each other and carrying each other's burdens. But the Bible is quite clear that even married couples, members of a family, etc. should not be dependent on each other more than they are each dependent on Christ (e.g. Matthew 10:37). So, as our relationship of dependency on God develops over time, there is actually a lot of personal development that occurs at the same time. This is not surprising given that Christ is in us through His Spirit, so our relationship with Christ is (in this sense anyway) an internal one. Christ is actually the best example of this – He completely yielded His will to that of the Father, and yet yet (or rather, and so) from the point of view of other people, He completely went against the mould of the world.

Some Thoughts on Gender(ed) Roles in Christianity

Of all the subjects of debate in Christianity, the gender issue has, for me, been one of the most difficult with which to come to terms. To put it bluntly, I often find the things that Paul says about women to be chauvinistic. This is not simply a matter of me imputing my ‘modern’ values – which are socially determined, and therefore not necessarily correct – onto my reading of scripture. What Paul says disturbs not only my social values, but also what I perceive to be God’s values, namely his design for creation, and the equality of all people in Christ (of course, that perception is undoubtedly influenced by my social values, but then the opposite is also undoubtedly true). Furthermore, when I see so many examples of women leaders (such as St. Hilda, abbess of Whitby Abbey), I can’t help but question the purpose of traditional gender roles.

I have recently found some measure of peace with this tension, however, by coming to understand the difference between delegated authority and real authority. This is actually a central topic of my PhD research, in which I argue that cooperative firms, in which all members are equal, are able to implement hierarchical management systems, in which authority is delegated to managers. When it comes to voting, managers have one vote each, just like any other worker-member. In the workplace, however, managers are delegated with the authority to coordinate the production process. This is purely a matter of function – managers are in no way ‘superior’ to workers – but at the same time, workers cannot defy the instructions of their supervisors just because they are equal members. In a similar fashion, we are all equal ‘members’ of Christ. At the same time, however, some figures – be it men, pastors, or what have you – are delegated some degree of authority in order to retain order (be it in the church, in the case of a pastor, or in creation/marriage, in the case of a husband). Another apt analogy is the body, which of course the Bible regularly invokes: we are all equally necessary, but nevertheless functionally distinct; and, to take the analogy further, some functions may appear ‘loftier’ than others, such as the heart pumping blood vis-à-vis the veins that carry the blood, even though both are equally important.

Of course, a crucial distinction with the cooperative analogy is that, when it comes to the Church or marriage, the delegation of authority comes from Christ – the head and bridegroom of the Church – rather than from the Church or marriage itself (although as the Church we are consummated with Christ – we become “one” with Him). And this leads me to a very important point, which is that all of us – men and women, pastors and laymen, etc. – have a very feminine role to play vis-à-vis God. Our role is one of submissiveness, yielding, obeying – letting Him have our way with us. So the chauvinism and bigotry that often characterises the Church is all rather ironic – there is an ‘elephant in the room’.

As usual, Christ provides the best example, I think, for how delegated authority should be exercised. Now, Christ’s authority is rather tremendous – after all, all things were created by and for Him, and through Him all things hold together; He is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end; He is the righteous King that will one day judge the earth, and so on. However, his relationship with the Father is one of submission. This example stands in stark contrast to modern society, which encourages either a domineering male, who asserts his will (the ‘alpha’ male), or a spineless male, who yields his will to others (the ‘beta’ male). Jesus was neither of these. He was a ‘meta male’. He had a will (along with a mind, emotions, and so on) like any other person; yet he voluntarily yielded that will to His Father’s will (“yet not my will, but yours be done”; “my will is to do the will of the Father”; and so on)! He was the ultimate male, living in the Spirit (which is gender-neutral) and not the soul or body (which are gendered). Interestingly, perhaps the time when Jesus was at his most aggressive (while on earth, I mean), was in circumstances concerning the Church – namely the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, the commodification of the Temple, and so on. He aggressively protected His bride.

In lieu of a conclusion, I will pose an additional question: if the authority of the husband over his wife is merely delegated from God as a means of ‘getting things done’, is it only necessary due to sin and the fallenness of the world, or was it meant to be thus from the beginning? On the one hand, Eve was clearly created to be a partner to Adam, and was even created from one of his ribs. Thus, we can see that the male/female distinction is part of the original, “good” design for creation. On the other hand, part of the curse that resulted from the Fall is that husband shall rule over wife (Genesis 3:16). This would seem to imply that hierarchy is a ‘necessary evil’ - one that may disappear with the coming of the New Heavens and the New Earth. I don't know the answer to this conundrum, but clearly it involves some sort of gender roles that do not necessarily involve domination or subservience.