Tag Archives: body metaphor

11/1/22

Unity, not Uniformity

© lirtion | 123rf.com

In a previous article, “Thoroughly Following the Path of Recovery,” I related the true story of a woman with five years of sobriety who responded to an amends letter written by the man who had killed her son in a hit-and-run accident. She said she could not describe the healing and gratitude his letter brought. She sobbed in her sponsor’s arms. “Thank you. I pray that you will keep on the path of sobriety and receive God’s love and forgiveness.” They were now in unity; they were brother and sister within the fellowship of Alcoholics Anonymous.

There are no qualifications for membership in A.A. other than the desire to stop drinking. You are a member of A.A. if you say you are. This is formalized in what is known as the Third Tradition: “The only requirement for A.A. membership is a desire to stop drinking.” This sense of unity and community is often referred to as the “We” of the Twelve Step program.

To illustrate this characteristic of recovery, addicts and alcoholics will point to the frequency with which the word “We” appears in the Twelve Steps, beginning with the first word of the First Step: “We admitted we were powerless over alcohol–that our lives had become unmanageable.” The Twelve Steps of recovery are self-consciously a first-person plural process: We are one as long as we share the desire to stop drinking.

In Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions, within his essay on the Third Tradition, Bill W. declared that no matter who you are or how low you’ve gone, A.A. won’t deny you its fellowship. But that wasn’t always true. In the early days, because of fear and intolerance, there was an abundance of rules. “Everybody was scared witless that something or somebody would capsize the boat and dump us all back into the drink . . . We built a fine-mesh fence right around A.A.”

Experience taught them that taking away any alcoholic’s chance at membership was to potentially issue a death sentence; or to condemn him or her to endless misery. “Who dared to be judge, jury, and executioner of his own sick brother?” Two examples were given to illustrate how the early groups came to abandon all membership regulations.

One individual suffered with an unnamed dual addiction, who nevertheless easily demonstrated that he was a desperate case who above all wanted to get well. Concerned with the stigma of the man’s second addiction, they were more afraid of what others might say than the trouble this “strange alcoholic” might bring. Then someone said that what kept running through his mind was the thought: “‘What would the Master do?’ Not another word was said. What more could be said?”

Another person was a confirmed atheist who thought that A.A. could get along better without its “God nonsense.” He proceeded to remain sober and be vocal about his views. Eventually he had a slip and began drinking again. No one attempted to reach out to him. Holed up in a cheap hotel room, he thought that this was the end. Even A.A. had deserted him. “As he tossed on his bed, his hand brushed the bureau nearby, touching a book. Opening the book, he read. It was a Gideon Bible.” He didn’t drink again after the experience in the hotel room and became a valued member of A.A. What if they had succeeded in throwing him out for his blasphemy? “What would have happened to him and all the others he later helped? So the hand of Providence early gave us a sign that any alcoholic is a member of our Society when he says so.”

For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned. For as in one body we have many members, and the members do not all have the same function, so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another. (Romans 12:3-5)

Paul’s exhortation here is for us to not become prideful, to not think more highly (hyperphroneō) of ourselves than we should. In contrast, we are called to think with sober judgment (sōphroneō). The play on words in the Greek is intentional as Paul seeks to emphasize that we should not make too much of our seemingly unique and important function within the body of Christ. As members of the same body, we are given different duties or service work for the overall good of the body.

In Greek, the root word né̄phō referred to someone who avoided intoxication or was unaffected by wine. Sōphroneō then meant saneness, rationality, sober judgment. In Stoic thought, it referred to the essential virtue of proper conduct that proceeded from modesty (1 Tim. 2:9). So, Paul’s use of the various forms of né̄phō reflects the ancient philosophical belief that by practicing a particular belief system (i.e., Stoicism or Twelve Step recovery), you could put the world into proper perspective and therefore overcome it (Titus 2:12). 

In other words, walk the talk and you will be able to live sober, holy lives in this present age; according to the measure of faith given to you by God. “That they were to think of themselves with ‘sober judgment’ (v. 3) suggests how out of touch with reality their opinions of themselves were. Robert Mounce said in his commentary on Romans, “Since the metaphor suggests intoxication, one might say they were in danger of becoming ‘egoholics!’”

This measure of faith is not referring to a degree of faith imparted by God, which then determines the extent of sober judgment the individual can exercise. It also does not refer to saving faith, as if there was a greater degree or richer manifestation of it meted out by God to certain believers. Paul explicitly says the opposite here: don’t fall into the trap of thinking you’re “more spiritual” than someone else. Rather, this measure refers to the specific faith given by God for the individual to fulfill his or her calling as a member of the body of Christ, since “the members do not all have the same function.”

Paul begins with an observation that it was the grace given in his function as an apostle within the body of Christ that permitted him to exhort “everyone among you” to think with sober judgment about themselves. John Murray said the role as an apostle did not make Paul more spiritual than others within the body of Christ. In effect, Paul is saying: “I’m no better than you are. And even the fact that I am telling you not to be prideful means only that I am acting on the grace given me as an apostle. I’m just another bozo on the bus.”

Just as each of us has a body made up of many parts with various functions, in Christ we who are many form one body, with each member belonging to all the others. The spiritual worship of presenting our bodies as living sacrifices (Romans 12:1) is grounded in our individual bodies being one of the many parts of the one body in Christ. So, the individual parts of the body of Christ belong to each other as do the individual parts of a physical body. And they serve each other with differing functions, just as the individual parts of a physical body.

This reference to the ‘body metaphor’ (we though many are one body in Christ) is the only instance of its use in the epistle to the Romans, but not the end of the concept in Pauline thought. Paul uses it repeatedly in Ephesians, Colossians and First Corinthians. Christ is the head of the church, which is His body (Colossians 1:18). And since the church is his body, he nourishes and cherishes it (Ephesians 5:29–30). In 1 Corinthians 10:17 we find Paul’s use of the body metaphor in his discussion of communion, “we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.” In Romans 12:5, he expands the notion that we who are many form one body by adding that we are “individually members one of another.” Believers are indeed members of one body (Colossians 3:15), which God causes to grow (Colossians 2:19).

This sense of unity in diversity, of one body with many parts (1 Co. 12:20), has certain implications and obligations. If one member denies it is a member of the body because it is not “a hand,” this denial does not make it any less a part of the body (1 Co. 12:14–15). Individual body members do not have the same function (Ro. 12:4). But they are arranged, as God desired them to be (1 Co. 12:18). We are also obliged to see that our community life in the body reflects God’s will. We are to “put off” things such as falsehood, and speak truth with our neighbors because “we are members one of another” (Ro. 12:5; Eph. 4:25). We are individually members of each other as well as in Christ. Together we have the same unity in diversity inherent within our physical bodies and when one member suffers, we all suffer; when one member is honored, we all rejoice (1 Co. 12:26). We are to put on the new self (Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10), the armor of light (Ro. 13:12), and even the full armor of God (Eph. 6:11). And over all these virtues, we are to put on love, “which binds everything together in perfect harmony” (Col. 3:14).

This fuller exposition of the body metaphor is certainly behind Paul’s reference to the one body with many members in Romans 12:3-5, but is not needed here to make his point. By His grace, God gives each of us a measure of faith to fulfill a specific purpose within the larger body of Christ. There is a reason for our life. We are to live out this calling with the same harmony of purpose found in the organs of our own physical body.

There are several ideas in this passage and others in Romans common to Twelve Step Recovery and the sense of unity within the Fellowship. The above notion of the “We” of the program is one. Recognizing that while there are many members of A.A., they are united together. The First Tradition of A.A. says, “Our common welfare should come first; personal recovery depends upon A.A. unity.” The A.A. “Big Book” says most members sense that real tolerance of other people’s shortcomings and viewpoints and a respect for their opinions are attitudes that makes them more useful to others: “Love and tolerance of others is our code.”

Recognizing the importance of love and tolerance to other members in the Fellowship of A.A.—to other members of your spiritual, sober “body” is another. From this is a realization of the necessity to put the needs of the Fellowship-body before your own. This leads to a growing recognition of the presence of God-consciousness as the individuals and group seek to practice sober judgment in all their affairs.

If you’re interested, more articles from this series can be found under the link for “The Romans Road of Recovery.” “A Common Spiritual Path” (01) and “The Romans Road of Recovery” (02) will introduce this series of articles. If you began by reading one that came from the middle or the end of the series, try reading them before reading others. Follow the numerical listing of the articles (i.e., 01, 02, or 1st, 2nd, etc.), if you want to read them in the order they were originally intended. This article is 16th in the series. Enjoy.

06/5/15

Our Union in Communion

© Albanili | Dreamstime.com

© Albanili | Dreamstime.com

Around noon on October 31, 1517, Martin Luther nailed a Latin poster onto the door of the Castle Church, commonly used in Wittenberg as the public notice-board. Luther’s poster was an invitation to a debate on the ninety-five topics listed there. The debate was never held. But within the matter of a few months, Luther’s Ninety-Five Theses was being read and debated by thousands of people all over Europe. The Protestant Reformation had begun.

South of Wittenberg in the Swiss city of Zürich, Ulrich Zwingli began his public ministry there on January 1, 1519. His preaching had so impressed some pilgrims to the Abbey of Einsiedeln where Zwingli was the chaplain, that he was offered a position as the people’s priest at the Great Minster in Zürich. At the time, Zürich was a republic of about 7,000 people with a reputation of being both a prosperous and licentious city. Church historian, R. Tudor Jones, cited a comment by another Swiss reformer, Heinrich Bullinger, who said Zürich was to Switzerland what Corinth was to Greece.

Zwingli began his ministry with a series of sermons that expounded the New Testament, beginning with the gospel of Matthew. Although this would not seem radial or innovative to a modern congregation, it was at that time. Especially as Zwingli proposed that the meaning of a Biblical text was best explained by the Bible itself. Reading Luther’s books in 1519 was a great help, assuring him that he was not alone in what he preached and taught. Zwingli would develop an evangelical doctrine that agreed in most essentials with that of Martin Luther—with what became one major exception. R. Tudor Jones said:

Both reformers were agreed on the importance of justification by faith alone and the authority of the Bible, but disagreed about how precisely biblical standards were to be applied in detail. And both disagreed on the question of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. In Zwingli we have the roots of the ‘Reformed’ tradition that was to be developed and enriched by Calvin.

In 1529, there was a conference arranged in Marburg between German reformers, led by Luther and Swiss reformers led by Zwingli. There was a surprising measure of agreement between the two parties—except on the Eucharist. Lutherans insisted on the physical presence of Christ in the sacrament, but agreed that whatever its nature, apart from faith it was of no value. Zwingli agreed that there was something more than just a memorial to the celebration of communion, because there was a spiritual communion with Christ.

The Lutherans proposed a formula of concord, which the Swiss rejected because it did not explicitly state that the presence of Christ in communion was only spiritual. Luther was ready to accept a Swiss proposal to accept each other as Christian brothers and practice intercommunion, until Melanchthon reminded him that this proposed union would close the door to any hope of reconciliation with the Catholics. In contrast to a belief that the bread and wine of the sacrament were a sign or a figure, Catholics held to transubstantiation, that the bread and the wine used in the sacrament of the Eucharist was in actual reality the body and blood of Christ. The conference ended without an agreement.

Zwingli was later killed on October 11, 1531 in a battle against Catholic forces. His body was burned as a heretic. According to Roland Bainton, Luther saw Zwingli’s death as a judgment for taking up the sword on behalf of the gospel. The tragedy here is that despite being so close on all other matters of theology, what was supposed to be a celebration of the unity of believers in Christ, became a stumbling block for these two Protestant Reformers.

In First Corinthians, Paul pointed to how those who partook of the cup and the bread in the Eucharist participated in the body of Christ: “Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread” (1 Cor. 10:17). When believers jointly participate in the one bread, they witness to their unity with one another in the benefits of the death and resurrection of Christ. According to Ronald Fung in The Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, “Partaking of the cup and the bread in the eucharist means participation in the blood and the body of Christ (1 Cor 10:16), that is, in the benefits of his death and in fellowship with him.”

In 10:16 Paul asked two rhetorical questions that he expected his readers would answer affirmatively: the cup for which we give thanks and the bread which we break, are they not participation in the body and blood of Christ? So they should not partake of both the table of the Lord and the table of demons (1Cor 10:21). At least in the Temple to Asclepius in Corinth, there were dining rooms used for social and religious communal meals (see Ancient Healing Rituals). So the Corinthians were faced a dilemma. They had to choose—either partake of the cup and table of the Lord, or dine with the idolaters in the temple of an idol. They couldn’t do both. As Simon Kistemaker said in his commentary on First Corinthians:

When the Corinthians drink from the cup and eat of the bread during the Lord’s Supper, they indeed have communion with Christ. Because they have fellowship with Jesus Christ, they ought to have nothing to do with idols. No one can serve two masters (Matt. 6:24; Luke 16:13).

The unity Paul argued for here within his use of the body metaphor (we who are many are one body), is more than simply the unity of Christian believers who are members of the same church. It was for the solidarity of believers “as one body in union with Christ.” When Christians share the Lord’s Supper, they become one with each other and with Christ. Richard Baxter said of the Lord’s Supper:

Nowhere is God so near to man as in Jesus Christ, and nowhere is Christ so familiarly represented to us as in this holy sacrament. Here we are called to sit with him at his table, as his invited welcome guests; to commemorate his sacrifice, to feed upon his very flesh and blood; that is, with our mouths upon his representative flesh and blood, and with our applying faith upon his real flesh and blood, by such a feeding as belongs to faith.

10/17/14

Ancient Star Wars Philosophy

© Waldemarblut | Dreamstime.com - Star Wars Photo

© Waldemarblut | Dreamstime.com – Star Wars Photo

Christians are familiar with how the body metaphor communicates the unity in diversity that believers have in Christ. The apostle Paul used it repeatedly in his writings to communicate the unity in diversity within the body of Christ, as in Romans 12:4–5: “For as in one body we have many members, and the members do not all have the same function,so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another.” It seems that Paul used an idea that already existed within ancient Greek and Roman philosophy to communicate the Christian gospel to them. In his work Coriolanus, the historian Plutarch attributed the origin of the body metaphor to a Roman aristocrat, Menenius Agrippa.

In the 5th century BC, the plebian lower class of Rome was on the verge of a revolt because of the callous treatment they received from upper class Roman money-lenders. In a mass protest, the plebes left Rome and encamped on the Sacred Mount. The Roman Senate sent a diplomatic team, led by Menenius Agrippa. He concluded his gentle requests and persuasions with the following tale.

All the members of man’s body rebelled against the stomach. They complained that it did nothing for the maintenance of the rest of the body. But “all other parts and members did labour painfully, and were very careful, to satisfy the appetites and desires of the body.” The stomach laughed at their folly and said: “It is true, I first receive all meats that nourish man’s body: but afterwards I send it again to the nourishment of other parts of the same.” So it was with the Senate: “The Senators are cause of the common commodity that cometh unto every one of you.”

These words and the promise of political changes pacified the plebes, who returned to the city. And so the revolt was averted. The Plebes returned to fight in the Roman armies; and the rest is, as they say, “history.”

Stoic philosophy, which was popular during the time of Paul’s preaching, also applied the imagery of head and body to God and the universe. John Thom in The Dictionary of New Testament Background described Stoic theology “as a monistic and materialistic pantheism, in which God permeates all of nature, from the cosmos as a whole down to the most lowly physical object.” Nothing existed outside of the world and its material principles.

God is an immanent ordering and creative principle that is present in all things as fine, fiery substance or pneuma, which gives everything its form and internal cohesion. God is also an active principle or reason (logos) that acts upon matter. “Since all of nature is imbued with the universal reason (logos), all events form part of a goal-directed rational process  … nothing is left to chance.” Everything is providentially arranged. There is a season and a time for everything.

Happiness was found in attaining one’s goal as a human being, which Diogenes Laertius said was: “to live in agreement with nature.” This meant people were to live in agreement with their rational nature as well as the nature of the universe. Stoic happiness did not depend upon attaining positive things like health and wealth, but on making the right choices to attain them. “Happiness therefore depends on what is in our power (i.e., making rational choices) and not on things beyond our power (i.e., attaining wealth or being healthy).”

A choice was right only if it was made consciously and for the right reasons. There was only a right or a wrong judgment; there are no intermediate possibilities. So two identical actions could be valued differently, depending upon the person’s motivation in performing the action. “Only the truly wise person is able to make the right judgments and thus perform correct and virtuous actions, but Stoics admitted that there are very few, if any, truly wise people.”

Everything in nature was rationally and providentially arranged. “The wise person therefore accepts his or her fate willingly without trying to resist, because it is at the same time the divine will and providence.” The Stoics denied that this was determinism. Even if the individual could not change what was fated, they still had the freedom to accept their fate voluntarily or be forced to submit to it.

The Force in the Star Wars movies seems to be a modernized version of the Stoic Logos. There was also a Dark Side to the Stoic universe. Universal purpose and design was offset with chaos. Destruction and devastation seems to frequently overrun purpose and design. The universe could often be a dangerous place. Thus the Stoic’s call to align with the natural order, the Logos. We might say that Stoics were exhorted to “use the force” of the Logos to overcome the darkness of uncertainty.

The major distinction between Stoicism and Christianity is the pantheism of Stoic thought, where the universe was God: “For there is one Universe out of all, one God through all, one substance and one law, one common Reason of all intelligent creatures and one Truth.” (Marcus Aurelius, Meditations)

In Christianity, the transcendent God created the universe: “In the beginning was the Word [logos], and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.” (John 1:1-13)