It has been a fruitful course, and both the course content on the book of 1 Corinthians (presently, we have not reached 2 Corinthians yet) and the discussions in the class have been an enriching experience. Bro Casey is a knowledgeable teacher and helps us understand the background of the book well, and also facilitates application of what we learn to our contemporary context.
The first and most immediate learning point I learned from the course is the importance of understanding the socio-cultural and historical context of each book when we study it. This, of course, has been learned in a previous course on biblical interpretation, but studying about the background of the Corinthian church and seeing its link to the content of the epistle really gives me a deepened sense of the relevance of the background in understanding the book. The influence of the Hellenistic philosophy explains why the topic of wisdom was raised in 1 Cor 1, and why the topic of not marrying was being discussed in 1 Cor 7. In fact for the latter, it is new to me that not getting married is more the argument of the Corinthians than Paul’s exhortation (though Paul preferred singlehood for practical reasons, he did not prescribe it as something superior). The pagan practice of idolatry clarifies Paul’s reasoning in 1 Cor 8-10, and the unfavourable regard of some Corinthians towards Paul explains Paul’s strong language in his self-defence in 1 Cor 9. At the same time, there are always certain passages that we could not easily explain, like the covering of women (1 Cor 11) and why women were forbidden to minister (1 Cor 14:34-35). This sense of allowing for uncertainty in our understanding of the Bible can be seen in both our class discussions and the commentators’ writings in commentaries (in this case Gordon Fee in his NICNT on 1 Corinthians).
A second idea I have learned is related to the first point above, in how our socio-cultural context affects how we see things. The Corinthians asked the questions in their letter to Paul according to the social practices and lifestyles of their times. We certainly have our own ideological leaning according to the times that we live in. Personally, I have recently realised how my personal focus on experiencing and a subtle aversion against rules has a postmodern ring to it. Furthermore, a reading of the different perspectives on atonement in my current Christology class makes me realise how underemphasised the holiness of God and the gravity of sin is in my personal outlook, which could also in part be due to the culture I live in. Of course, biblical perspectives need to be applied to contemporary times, but it would be good to have a more balanced perspective on biblical fundamentals.
A third learning point I gained from the content of the course is the meaning of true spirituality in 1 Cor 13, which is love, and not the exercise of some spiritual gift and great sacrifice. The term “true spirituality” is not specifically coined by Paul, but this indication is inherent in Paul’s emphasis of love in the midst of his discussion of spiritual gifts in his letter to the Corinthians. It might seemed obvious to a third party reading about Paul’s discourse that love is superior to exercising spiritual gifts, especially as it aligns with our understanding of God as love (1 Jn 4:8). However, this will not be clear to one who is personally involved in searching for spirituality, especially when pride is a motivating factor. I can remember more than once when I “affirmed” myself in my heart whenever I explained the Bible well, or when I sacrificed when ministering to others. When I have personal issues with someone, there is a strong temptation in my heart to compare myself favourably with that person in an area of gift/talent to “proof” to myself that I am more “spiritually mature”. However, all these carnal motivations are undercut by Paul’s discourse on love as the only thing (and he means ONLY, if I understood the passage correctly) that gives value to everything we do, be it exercising spiritual gifts, exercising faith, or sacrificing for God or someone else.
A fourth idea I gained from the class is the participation of the audience in worship, which was discussed in more than one lesson. This reminded me of the beginnings of the Pentecostal movement in Kenneth Archer’s Pentecostal Hermeneutic for the Twenty First Century: Spirit, Scripture and Community. The worship gatherings were often marked by mass participation of the audience who were gathered, and the profound experience of the Holy Spirit in the gatherings drew in more people who sought God. The focus is on how the Holy Spirit moved during each gathering, though there is a minister in each meeting to moderate the session. This is very different from most of our present day gatherings where worship is directed from the stage. I believe the involvement of the audience does create a greater sense of expectation of the Holy Spirit to move in the gathering. However, it is easy to say some practice we read of is good, but it is another matter to apply it in our present day context. To implement a whole new practice in a congregation is not easy, especially if the congregation is of considerable size, and most likely will lead to confusion and adjustment problems for the congregation. A change of practice will not always lead to the outcome we expect, because the heart of the matter is our inner desire to seek God and faith to expect Him to move. But I believe that practices do facilitate inner change, and if it is beneficial, perhaps we can work towards something which could lead our groups toward greater participation in worship gatherings.
A fifth idea I got from the lessons is the benefits of learning in a team. We all know theoretically that there is a wealth of learning opportunities in learning in a team, though I suspect there is more than a few who would prefer to learn on their own. I for one do not enjoy working in a team, mainly because of the hassle of meeting up for discussions, needing to discuss through and agree on common ideas from the different perspectives of the team, and trying to get things done through the different working styles of the team members. Much as I hate to acknowledge, learning in teams does have its benefits. The most immediate reward is not related to the content of the subject, but the building of relationship from the interactions. Also, learning to navigate through the different learning styles in the team is sometimes as challenging as the cognitive training of theology – especially when we have different priorities and schedules on top of our classes. Finally, learning in a team always reminds me how there are other, equally valid perspectives on issues different from my own.
