Thursday, 31 August 2023

The tyranny of wheat

A Sermon for Bloomsbury Central Baptist Church
3rd September 2023
 

Genesis 4.1-16
Deuteronomy 15.1-2, 7-11

 
When I was at Greenbelt last weekend, I attended a seminar
            in which the speaker was making the case
that much of the violence that exists in human societies
            stems from land ownership and property rights.
 
Their reasoning was compelling,
            and I’ve been thinking about it a lot this week.
 
In essence, the theory is humans have evolved our systems of structural violence,
            specifically to safeguard ownership of land and property,
and to secure barns in which to stockpile our harvest
            to build a surplus year-on-year.
 
So land-ownership and wealth creation are two sides of the same coin,
            and protection of these assets leads to violence.
 
Translate this into the contemporary context,
            and one might suggest that the current global economic system,
            built on globalised capital assets, is not so different.
 
The scale may be different, but the idea of ownership
            based on capital acquisitions such as land, stocks, and produce,
is simply the extension of the great shift in human society
            that took place at the agrarian revolution.
 
The scale of violence attached to it in the modern world
            is also, of course, on a far wider scale,
as we are no longer protecting a field or a barn,
            but rather entire nations go to war over land and assets.
 
Historically speaking, therefore, it is not unreasonable to suggest
            that the move from hunter-gatherer to tiller of the field
marked a profound and enduring change in the way humans see themselves
            in relation to both the land, and to one another.
 
It was the domestication of wheat, around 10,000 years ago,
            that marked this dramatic turn
            in the development and evolution of human civilization,
because it was wheat that enabled the transition
            from a hunter-gatherer and nomadic pastoral society
            to a more sedentary agrarian one.
 
Without wheat, there would be no system of farming
            where one plot of land can generate enough food
            to sustain those who live elsewhere.
 
Without wheat, there would be no surplus to store away,
            to see the wealthy through periods of famine.
 
Without wheat, there could be no cities,
            because it is only wheat that enables some to till the ground
            and others to build buildings and roads.
 
Without wheat - there is no viable human societal level
            bigger than the hunter gatherer tribe.
 
The problem we have, however, as modern city-dwelling citizens,
            is that we evolved in the tribe, we are hardwired for the tribe.
 
And so even those of us who live in cities
            end up triablising, fragmenting into our cliques, or networks, or gangs;
and as we defend our ideological territories
            from others who might be considered threatening,
            violence comes lurking at the door of our homes.
 
The main alternative to our global system based agrarian-capitalism
            is that of hunter-gatherer-nomadic,
where there is common ownership of the land,
            and where people relate and live at the local level.
 
And there are still some hunter-gatherer societies in the world,
            where land ownership is understood very differently.
 
Societies such as those of the Australian Aborigines,
            or the Okiek people of Kenya
            or the North American Arctic Inuit groups,
live in relationship to the land in ways that are much less exploitative
            than those societies which have adopted wheat-based food production
            and the land ownership that comes with it.
 
In his book Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind,
            Yuval Noah Harari makes the fascinating argument
                        that rather than humans domesticating wheat,
            it is actually better to think of it the other way around,
                        with wheat having domesticated humans.
 
So much of our effort as a species over the last 10,000 years
            has gone into the preservation and proliferation of wheat,
            for the simple reason that without it, many of us would die, and die fast.
 
In the service of wheat, we have exploited the ground,
            and systematised violence to preserve our ownership of it.
 
And in human evolutionary terms,
            this is all quite recent,
recent enough, in fact, to have still been a live issue
            when the oral traditions behind Hebrew Bible were taking shape,
            some three- to four-thousand years ago.
 
The biblical story of Cain killing Abel
            can be read as an echo of the tensions of the agrarian revolution
which occurred in the Fertile Crescent of the Levant, which includes Israel,
            as a direct result of the domestication of wheat.
 
And the story of Cain and Abel tells of the triumph
            of those who till the ground
            over those who tend the sheep.
 
But things aren’t entirely clear-cut,
            because intriguingly God rejects Cain’s offering of grain,
            but receives Abel’s offering of meat.
 
This is what gets Cain so upset:
            he’s the tiller of the ground, the master of the new technology,
                        he’s feeding his family and far more besides,
            but when he brings his grain offering to the Lord,
                        the Lord looks the other way.
 
When it becomes clear that Cain is angry,
            God issues a challenge to him:
                        ‘If you do well you will be received,
                        but if you do not do well, sin is lurking at the door.’
 
At this stage in human history, it was not a foregone conclusion
            that the land-based agrarian system would lead to good.
 
The divine jury was still out, it seems, on this new food technology,
            with people tilling the ground, and claiming ownership of the land.
 
And there is a strong argument from 4000 years of history
            that it has not, in the end, led to an entirely good outcome.
 
We still have poverty and starvation on a global scale,
            despite having the capacity to produce enough food to feed everyone.
 
The possibility exists for us to have a system of food distribution and land management
            which revolutionises human flourishing,
releasing people from the burden of generating their own food,
            and enabling the glories of cultural growth and city living,
            and to do so without resorting to violence.
 
This is the challenge of the story of Cain and Abel,
            with God’s warning to Cain,
and it is a challenge that Israel has wrestled with throughout its story,
            and it’s a challenge that we continue to wrestle with today.
 
And this is where I want to move us into consideration
            of an intriguing economic model that runs through the Hebrew Bible.
 
It is the three related concepts of Sabbath, Sabbatical, and Jubilee.
 
The Sabbath is the idea that it is not good to work continually,
            that one day in seven should be a day of rest.
We’re going to come back to this next week,
            but it’s worth noting now that this is the base layer
            of the broader economic concepts of Sabbatical and Jubilee.
 
The Sabbatical year, which we heard about in our reading for this morning,
            is the idea that every seventh year, there is a financial re-set,
            with the forgiveness of debts and remission of obligations.
 
And the Jubilee year occurs in every 50th year, after seven cycles of Sabbaticals,
            so with seven times seven being 49, the 50th year is the big re-set,
            with the freeing of slaves, and crucially the returning of land
                        back to its original tribal allocations.
 
Inherent in these systems of Sabbath, Sabbatical, and Jubilee
            is an economic model which acts as counterbalance,
a counterweight to the tendency towards violence and acquisition
            which unrestrained capitalism generates,
            as Cain and Abel found to their cost.
 
This system of resetting, or resting the land,
            of releasing people from their indebtedness,
is surely one of the most significant economic experiments in human history,
            and we find it in our shared scriptures with Judaism
            not as an idea to consider but as a divine command.
 
The challenge is clear:
            if we want the benefits of human society,
                        of money, property, culture and freedom from subsistence labour,
            then the only way this can be achieved without violence
                        is through a carefully regulated system of economic reform.
 
And to those who suggest that political economic theory
            has nothing to do with theology,
God says: ‘Sabbath, Sabbatical and Jubilee’!
 
This tradition of forgiveness of indebtedness
            is rooted deeply within the Christian story also,
 
Matthew’s version of the Lord’s prayer has Jesus telling his disciples to pray:
 
            And forgive us our debts,
            as we also have forgiven our debtors. (Matt 6.12)
 
Simon Perry, formerly of this parish,
            tells us in his latest book that,
 
‘Forgiveness of sin’ is a phrase whose root meaning is economic.
            In the original language, ‘forgiveness’ means liberty
            and ‘sin’ means debt. [1]
 
He continues:
 
In an empire that depended on every citizen and slave honouring their debts
             – forgiveness of sin (i.e., debt cancellation)
            is a dangerous political and economic threat.
 
For those who were submerged
            beneath the Jordan River [in baptism for the forgiveness of sins]
            – their debts were consigned to a watery grave.
 
When they re-surface [from the baptismal waters],
            people are declared debt-free,
                        before their fellow Israelites, before their leaders, and before their God.
 
So not only is our central ritual of Baptism deeply rooted in the forgiveness of debts,
            but so also is our most-recited prayer a plea for emancipation.
 
Debt-forgiveness is at the heart of our Christian faith,
            and it is so because Sabbath, Sabbatical, and Jubilee
            are at the heart of our parent faith in ancient Judaism.
 
Ann Pettifor, the British economist who led the Jubilee 2000 campaign,
            reflects on that movement in the book produced this year
            to mark the 50th anniversary of the Greenbelt Festival.
 
It’s a fairly long quote, but I’m going to read it in full,
            as she says it better than I could ever do:
 
Back in 2000 we called it Jubilee.
            And we practise it at Greenbelt every year.
It is what the economy needed then
            and it is what the economy needs now.
 
Our economy, the global economy,
            the economic system, is wildly out of balance.
 
As a result both the ecosystem
            and the political system are out of balance, too.
 
To restore balance to nature, to society and to the economy
            we need proper, enforced regulation to check imbalances.
 
We could start with the Jubilee principle.
 
A form of regulation the Abrahamic religions have practised
            for more than 2,000 years
- every seven days, a sabbath;
            every seven years, a sabbatical
- needs to be restored and re-applied to the economy.
 
As I write this another US bank, First Republic
            - even bigger than the failed Silicon Valley Bank - has collapsed.
 
Its imbalances - its excess liabilities
            -have been dumped on US taxpayers.
 
It was brought down by the weight of debts
            that spiralled higher as interest rates rose.
It was granted the gift that will correct its imbalances.
 
According to the IMF, total public and private debt decreased in 2021
            to the equivalent of 247 per cent of global gross domestic product,
            falling by 10 percentage points from its peak level in 2020.
 
Expressed in dollar terms, however,
            global debt continued to rise, although at a much slower rate,
            reaching a record $235 trillion last year.
 
The number spirals beyond our imagination.
 
The debt - at more than twice the world's income - will never be repaid in full.
            It must be written off, and debtors given a chance to start again.
 
Just as importantly, credit - the man-made system
            of making and meeting obligations, a system we call money
- must be managed to ensure we do not promise
            to pay more than we are capable of.
 
That we do not make monetary promises…
            whose fulfilment draws down and destroys the capacity of the ecosystem,
            which humanity holds in common for today's and future generations.
 
In other words, we have to lower consumption
            and the extraction and exploitation of both nature's assets,
            but also humanity's asset - labour.
 
We gather every year at Greenbelt
             for the opportunity to enjoy our own personal Jubilee.
To reconnect, listen, laugh, sing, dance and rejoice
            with those who share our values and beliefs.
 
We need to take those values out into the world to wage justice
            - for nature, for the commons: our seas, atmosphere, land and sky
                        - and for humanity.
 
We need to wage justice for the poor, for the homeless,
            for those who flee drought, floods, harvest failures and war.
 
We need to wage justice for peace.
            We need a global Jubilee. [2]
 
Thank you Anne!
 
Friends, I hope you can see the connections I’m making here,
            between land ownership and exploitation,
            between wealth acquisition and violence,
            and for the need for a new and better way of handling our common resources.
 
And I hope you can take hope from our scriptures,
            that there is a better way open for us,
            which is honouring of creation, of humanity, and of God.
 
But there’s one final connection I want to make,
            as we come to gather around the Lord’s table,
to add the eucharistic ritual
            to those of baptism and prayer that I’ve already spoken of.
 
The bread and wine of communion
            are the product of grape and grain:
            they are the fruits of Cain’s labours.
 
And the violence of the cross of which they speak
            is the violence of Cain killing Abel,
but the message of Christ
            is that in the cross violence finds its end,
as the grape and the grain of the agrarian revolution
            become the symbols of forgiveness of debts,
                        or repentance for sins,
            and the possibility of a new way of being human.


[1] Perry, Simon. Jesus Farted: The Vulgar Truth of the Biblical Christ (pp. 39-40). Thrydwulf Cambridge. Kindle Edition.
 
[2] FIFTY, Greenbelt Festivals, 2023.

Tuesday, 15 August 2023

For the love of God

A Sermon for Bloomsbury Central Baptist Church
20th August 2023



Song of Songs 2.10-13; 8.6-7

Back in 1996, just as Liz and I were leaving Sheffield to move to Bristol
            for me to start at Bristol Baptist College,
the Sheffield rock group Babybird released an album (Ugly Beautiful)
            which gave them their biggest hit, the brilliantly commercial ‘You’re Gorgeous’.
 
But it also had another track, which got less attention,
            but is rather more interesting, at least to us this morning
            as we come to the final week in our series
            on the wisdom tradition from the Hebrew Bible.
 
The song is called ‘Jesus is my girlfriend’,
            and whilst the song itself isn’t all that special, at least in my view,
            the title of the song, ‘Jesus is my girlfriend’, gave me something of a revelation.
 
Which is that many of the songs we were singing to Jesus in church,
            could just as easily be romantic or even sexualised songs
                        sung to a beloved partner,
            with just a minor tweak of the lyrics.
 
Are we really just singing to Jesus
            as we might to our girlfriend or boyfriend?
 
Well, the first thing I think we need to note that there is nothing inherently new
            in utilising intense relational imagery
            to describe a person’s spiritual experience of Jesus.
 
Just recently I was listening to a podcast from The Rest is History with Tom Holland,
            and it was telling the story of 14th Century mystic Catherine of Siena’s
                        mystical marriage to Jesus,
            in which she gave herself in marriage to Jesus in a vision,
                        with his circumcised foreskin functioning as her wedding band. [1]
 
But Catherine is just one example of a whole tradition of female mystic eroticism
            in which monastic women described their ecstatic devotion to Christ
            in decidedly erotic terms.
 
From the 13th Century nun Agnes Blannbekin, [2]
            to the 16th Century Saint Teresa of Ávila, [3]
            to the 17th Century Catholic nun Benedetta Carlini, [4]
these traditions bear witness to a reaction against a male-dominated church hierarchy,
            and to women who refused to be entirely subjugated either spiritually or sexually.
 
They also create a precedent for using erotic language
            in the context of one’s relationship with Jesus,
something which, of course, we also find in the Bible itself,
            in those passages that describe the church as the ‘bride’ of Christ
            (John 3.29; Eph 5.22-33; Rev 21.2,9-10).
 
So come with me to 1850, just a couple of years after
            the founding of Bloomsbury Baptist Chapel.
 
That early congregation would certainly have sung one the latest hit hymns of the era,
            published in 1850, I’m thinking of the hymn
                        ‘How sweet the name of Jesus sounds’,
            and it contains this verse:
 
Jesus! my Shepherd, Husband, Friend,
My Prophet, Priest, and King;
My Lord, my Life, my Way, my End,
Accept the praise I bring.

 
Or what of Charles Wesley’s hymn to mystical union with Christ:

Jesus, lover of my soul,
let me to thy bosom fly,
leave, ah! leave me not alone,
still support and comfort me.
freely let me take of thee;
spring thou up within my heart,
rise to all eternity.

 
I’m not trying to spoil anyone’s favourite hymn,
            although there is a bit of ‘once you’ve seen it you can’t un-see it’ here…
but I am trying to create the historical context
            that lies behind the more recent explosion of intimate worship.
 
I’m not going to score easy points now
            by trashing some of the more modern songs that are popular in church life,
but if you are familiar with the contemporary worship scene,
            you’ll recognise the trend for songs where a simple substitution
            of either Jesus or God with the name of your beloved,
            turns them from worship song to sexualised ballad in an instant.
 
All of which brings me to the most sexualised book in the Bible,
            the Song of Songs,
which sits there in the Hebrew Bible as part of the Wisdom Tradition
            that we’ve been looking at over the last few weeks.
 
I’m grateful to Judith for reading this for us,
            and I’m sure she was grateful that the Narrative Lectionary
            spared us all the delights of hearing read aloud in church
some of the more purple passages from these lesser-turned pages of our Scriptures:
            ‘This is the word of the Lord, Thanks be to God’.
 
But seriously – go home and read them!
 
And just as an aside, do you know how difficult it was
            to choose the hymns for today’s service???
With my double-entendre-radar set to high,
            song after song ruled itself out for us to sing today.
 
In the end I settled on songs that spoke of God’s love for us,
            rather than the other way around.
 
But anyway, moving on…
 
If you were with us when I introduced this series a few weeks ago,
            you may remember that I sounded a note of warning
            about the tendency to ‘allegorise’ the wisdom literature.
 
This is where people take a text and make it into an allegory for, for example,
            Christ and the church, or the virgin Mary,
            or some aspect of Christian discipleship.
 
This allegorical way of reading scripture dominated much of Christian history,
            until comparatively recent times.
 
The danger with such allegorisation is that it strips the text from its original context,
            and plunders it for minor details that can be related to the object of the allegory.
 
Well, when we come to the Song of Songs,
            our allegorisation-alert needs to be set nearly as high
            as my double-entendre-radar was when choosing our songs for today.
 
This is because the history of interpretation of the Song
            is one of allegorisation par excellance.
 
There is a Jewish tradition of reading the love between the two lovers,
            as an allegory of God’s love for the Israelites,
and among Christians, the book is often interpreted
            as describing the love of Christ for his church.
 
These allegorical readings conveniently allow interpreters
            to avoid having to grapple with some of the steamier moments in the text,
by placing all the emphasis in interpretation
            into the realm of God’s love for us.
 
But is this book really, in any way, about God’s love for humans,
            or indeed about human love for God?
 
The evidence would suggest not,
            after all, it’s one of only two books in the Bible
            that don’t actually ever mention God…
            (the other one’s Esther, in case you were wondering).
 
In fact, the scholarly consensus around the Song of Songs
            is that it originates as a collection of love poems,
            celebrating the joy and goodness of human love.
 
In other words, it’s great literature, but not great theology.
 
But, given that this text is in our scriptures,
            and that there is a tradition going back millennia
                        of reading it in both Jewish and Christian worship,
            can we really write off God’s presence in this text altogether?
 
Does God have nothing to say to human love of the physical kind?
 
In what I’m going to say next, I’m particularly indebted to two female biblical scholars,
            firstly Professor Kathryn Schifferdecker, and secondly Prof. Rabbi Wendy Zierler.[5]
 
And so here we are, torn between two interpretations:
 
The traditional interpretation is that it is an allegory
            of the love between God and Israel or between Christ and the Church.
Whilst the dominant interpretation in modern times
            is that it is nothing more than ancient erotic love poetry.
 
Can it be both?
 
Perhaps it is both a celebration of the love of two people for one another,
            a love “strong as death” (Song of Solomon 8:6),
            a love reflected in the renewed life of the earth itself (Song of Solomon 2:10-13).
 
But perhaps at the same time, the Song is also a celebration
            of the love between God and God’s people,
a love that is in fact stronger than death,
            sealed by the Resurrection.
 
As Phyllis Trible and Ellen Davis have both argued,
            the Song is a reversal of the curses of Eden.
 
So, the relationship between the loving couple is restored,
            and in place of Eve’s punishment in Genesis 3:16
                        where the judgment on her is that
                        “your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you”,
            instead the woman in the Song declares,
                        “I am my beloved’s, and his desire is for me.”
 
In fact, the woman’s voice is the dominant voice in the Song.
            She is in a full, robust, and mutual relationship with her beloved.
 
But also, the rupture between humanity and the earth is restored.
            Because here, in the garden of the Song,
                        there are no thorns and thistles (see Genesis 3:17-19).
            And indeed, the earth itself is said to rejoice with the lovers.
 
And so the text begins to function theologically,
            even as it speaks of the love between the lovers,
            it points beyond them to God’s greater love for humans and creation,
            inviting the possibility that God’s love fully encompasses human desire.
 
I remember as a teenager being told
            that I mustn’t do anything with my girlfriend
            that I’d be embarrassed about if Jesus came back whilst we were doing it!
 
Well, apart from the terrible eschatology inherent in this advice,
            it also creates a guilt around sex and sexuality
            which the Song of Songs deconstructs.
 
What if there is no need to feel guilt about our existence as human beings,
            what if sex and sexuality are not evidence of the fall,
            but gifts of God given for pleasure and human flourishing?
 
Rabbi Zierler says,
 
I look at our world which is filled with explicit sexual imagery
            on every billboard or every street corner,
            on every TV channel and every radio station,
and I am sick at heart for a reading of the world,
            which can elevate my sexuality above base, prosaic level
            to which it is has fallen in daily discourse.
 
She continues,

This is not to say that the love poetry in [Song of Songs] is casual and base,
            or that one should not, at least at first, appreciate the plain meaning
                        of these love lyrics.
[But] what I mean is that I am also moved by the dogged interpretive effort
            in [the Jewish religious] literature
to draw theological meaning from human, bodily experience
            and thereby, to sanctify the material world.
 
Friends, there is much wisdom here…
            A text doesn’t have to mention God to speak of God.
Maybe God is joyfully, creatively, playfully in all things,
            including our oh-so-human joy in one another.
 
But I wonder if there is yet more wisdom we can glean
            from the poetry of the Song of Songs.
 
In the ancient Hebrew world, God was almost always presented as male,
            a divine patriarch, a kingly monarch, a supremely righteous figure of a man.
 
The corresponding aspect of this was that sins were almost always presented
            as deriving from feminine weakness.
 
Behind every strong man was a weak woman, trying to bring him down.
            Just look at Adam and Eve!
 
So if God is the bridegroom, and Israel is the bride,
            as with the allegorical readings of the Song of Songs,
then it is the male God who is faithful,
            and the female Israel who is unfaithful and faithless.
 
Similarly within the Christian tradition,
            if Christ is the bridegroom,
            and the church is the bride of Christ,
then it is the male Christ who is the sinless perfect one,
            and the female church who is faithless and unfaithful.
 
This is how a culture of female inferiority
            gets engraved into both Jewish and Christian laws and societies,
as biology itself becomes marshalled
            to the patriarchal system of female oppression.
 
This is the context in which mystical holy women of the middle ages
            subverted the systems that sought to control every aspect of their being,
with ecstatic visions providing a way of their reclaiming
            suppressed femininity and sexuality.
 
And so we come to the empowered woman of the Song of Songs,
 
My former tutor Cheryl Exum once commented
            that the ‘female eroticism in the Song is [never] successfully controlled”
                        by the men in the text,
            not by the angry watchmen, nor by her would-be protective brothers.
 
If we can escape from the allegorical bind of patriarchy,
            this is a text that conveys female agency:
            in which a woman speaks, controls her own life, and her own body,
            and is unashamed, as she is declared and seen to be ‘not guilty’.
 
And this declaration of innocence, the innocence of Eden before the fall,
            is a profoundly theological utterance.
 
It is the word of liberation spoken in the Cross of Christ,
            as the world itself is declared ‘not guilty’.
 
As Stuart Townend and Keith Getty put it in their wonderful hymn ‘In Christ Alone’,
No guilt in life, no fear in death,
this is the power of Christ in me.
 
The theology of the Song of Songs
            is not found in its allegory for God or Christ and the people of God,
but simply in its innocence,
            in its declaration of love as good,
            in its delight in what it means to be fully human.
 
This is the good news of Christ, because it is the good news of God,
            and it is good news for us, whoever we are and however we love.
Because as the first letter of John puts it
            God is love, and those who abide in love abide in God,
                        and God abides in them. (1 John 4.16)
 
Amen.


[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_of_Siena
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnes_Blannbekin
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teresa_of_%C3%81vila
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benedetta_Carlini
[5] https://www.workingpreacher.org/commentaries/narrative-lectionary/preaching-series-on-o-t-wisdom-and-poetry-4/commentary-on-song-of-solomon-210-13-86-7-2
https://www.workingpreacher.org/commentaries/revised-common-lectionary/ordinary-22-2/commentary-on-song-of-solomon-28-13-2
https://www.thetorah.com/article/a-feminist-literalist-allegorical-reading-of-shir-hashirim