Open letter to university heads

Dame Nemat Shafik

The director

London School of Economics

Houghton street




14th August 2020


Dear Director,


I am writing with some urgency in the wake of the disastrous A level results and the horrendous bias against students who come from non-selective schools that may have had a blip in recent academic performance and have, therefore, had their grades knocked back.

I hope, this year, that you will follow the example of Worcester College and take on those students who were predicted grades that would meet your requirements and whose teachers were confident they could be expected, in ordinary circumstances, to achieve them.

I look forward to hearing from you personally, in due course, and to celebrating the fact that the LSE, another great academic body with a bold history is ready to challenge a mighty injustice.

Now is not the time to wait and see what the Government will do. You will be judged by your actions and the lead you give in the next few days.

I would like to think that you are on the right side of history.

I am available to help in any way I can.

With best wishes and great respect,




Professor TIM WILSON


Some RS notes

State Three religious traditions, other than Christianity, in Great Britain.


Explain Two reasons why the Trinity is important to Christians.


Explain two ways Christians respond to the problem of evil and suffering.

In your answer you must refer to a source of wisdom and authority. (5)


Atheists believe in NO GOD

AGNOSTICS believe it is impossible to Know



On evil

he promises to comfort his servants (Psalm 119: 66-76)


Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat food from it all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field’ (Genesis 3: 17-18)


‘inasmuch as ye do it unto one of one of the least of these… ye have done it unto me’ (Matthew 25:31-46)


on creation and arguments for God:

I am alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. Revelations 1:8; 22.13


Genesis 1-2 God creates in 6 days (some people take this literally – see my drawings for this)

Koran 79:27- Allah constructed it

All humans descend from Adam

Isaiah 42: 12: It is I who made the earth

Maimonides (Jewish scholar): “If it is created in time, it undoubtedly has a creator”



Proverbs 22:6: Start children off on the way they should go,
and even when they are old they will not turn from it.

abraham and the angels

The Trinity:

Matthew 3:16-17

As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. 17 And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”


325 AD The Nicene Creed (written) at the council of Nicea and recited in Church services especially on Sundays (Orthodox, Catholic and Anglican)

and the Council of Constantinople in 381 defined the concept of the TRINITY


John 14:16-17: And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you.


Genesis chapter 2 (slightly different story:)

creation part 2


Design argument: the classical design argument for the existence of God and its use by Christians as a philosophical argument for the existence of God; divergent understandings about what the design argument may show about the nature of God for Christians, including Romans 1:18–24; Christian responses to non-religious (including atheist and Humanist) arguments against the design argument as evidence for the existence of God.


Many Christians believe in the design argument- this proves the role of God in the universe.

The universe does not exist just by chance- there (a) is a purpose to everything or (b) a rule that governs everything


Surah 2:164 “the creation of the heavens and the earth, night and day, winds and clouds are a sign for people who use reason”

Romans 1:20: “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.”


Two main ideas of design argument: 1) by Aquinas- the rule argument. (inanimate things still are governed by “rules”; today this still works if we think of the universal rule of “gravity”)

2) purpose or complexity: idea of William Paley (the watch metaphor on the heath. Every part of the watch was designed) even the smallest items in the universe seem to have a purpose. Think of the way climate change has spiraled out of control because we used fossil fuels.


William paley thinks of the complexity of a watch and compares this to the complexity of the human eye (many parts combine to support a single function)

Could not happen just by chance!


Many parts

Sophisticated machinery


(think of the fibonacci sequence in spiral shells and the arrangement of petals on a flower. They follow a RULE)


(Fine tuning theory of science: the existence of water, the goldilocks region where the earth is situated in the solar system.. the conditions of earth are uniquely suitable for sustain human life)


BUT: This is not the God of religion:

But even if God were a divine watchmaker or rule-giver, he does not need to exit now, and does not need to be a single God. Could be a factory of watchmakers…



Some people are not convinced. CHARLES DARWIN puts forward the theory of evolution (the survival of the fittest)

In 2009 a survey found that 37% of people in Britain accepted the principle of evolution. (is beyond reasonable doubt”)

Some people think that evolution can be reconciled to the design principle: God started off the process (maybe he no longer exists)


Everything has a beginning. Nothing comes from nothing (Parmenides)


2.7 Cosmological argument: the cosmological argument for the existence of God and its use by Christians as a philosophical argument for the existence of God; divergent understandings about what the cosmological argument shows about the nature of God for Christians, including Thomas Aquinas’ First Three Ways of showing God’s existence; (Cosmological argument) Christian responses to non-religious (including atheist and Humanist) arguments against the cosmological argument as evidence for the existence of God.


The Cosmological argument has its origins in ISLAM:


Kalam, argument by al Ghazali

actual infinite cannot exist

Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.

The universe began to exist.

The universe has a cause of its existence. (so, the universe ‘s existence proves the existence of God)

Ghazali wrote: Kitab al-lqtisad fil’ltiqad =moderation in belief


He believes in the dignity (sharf) of knowledge

If All knowledge comes from God (God created us as thinking beings) then we can use our knowledge to get to the point where we can understand revelation. Religion and reason should be in harmony.


(1) Thus, all knowledge or science must lead towards reaching the ultimate reality of God, to the extent possible given human capabilities.

(2) The potentialities of human knowledge are affirmed by Islam in its recognition of various registers and abilities, including external and internal senses, reason, intuition, and revelation.

(3) Moreover, all knowledge must be established with certainty,

knowledge. the rational and logical method, independent of intuition and revelation, could also lead to a level or a form of certainty

Surah 79 27-33



The Mediaeval scholars in Europe like Thomas Aquinas were influenced by Muslim thought (because of the Muslim population in southern Spain)

Aquinas (13th Century 1225-74) defined 5 ways to philosophically prove the existence of God. The first three form the COSMOLOGICAL argument


-argument from Motion (everything is in motion(Heraclitus). Something started all that motion)

Argument from Cause (everything is caused in a long chain of cause and effect. There was an original first cause)

Argument from Contingency

(Everything we know is dependent on something else. At some point there was therefore nothing. As nothing can come from nothing, and as there is clearly something now, them must be a being on which everything else depends. So that non-contingent/ necessary being is God)


There is also a 6th way invented by Anselm of Canterbury (11th century) called the Ontological argument which tries to prove the existence ofn God by simply defining what God is (that than which nothing greater can be considered, or in 17th Century, God is perfection, a re-boot of the argument by Rene Descartes)




1) BUT: If everything has a cause, why is there an exception for God. (God is the uncaused first cause. Why could we not say the universe is the uncaused first cause?)

2) no evidence that the first cause is actually “God”

3) some people think the big bang is the first cause. Some other people ask what caused the big bang – In fact, this is a silly question. The big bang creates TIME and SPACE so we cannot ask what is before time and space…


Big bang first defined by Georges LeMaitre (Belgium catholic priest)- so religion and science do not have to be in opposition)


2.8 Religious upbringing: Christian teachings about raising children to believe in God, including reference to Proverbs 22:6; features of a Christian upbringing and why they may lead to belief in God; Christian responses to non-religious (including atheist and Humanist) arguments about why a religious upbringing may result in a rejection of God’s existence


Atheism assumes an initial belief in God

Atheism is about a rejection of THEISM


Principles of the family:

Ideas of modesty and the role of women may be rejected by some people today

Ideas of gender equality may be more emphasised today than in Bible

Traditional role of the marriage may be questioned by development of legally recognised gay marriage

Laws that redefine marriage:

Same sex marriage legislation: Marriage (same sex) couples act 2014

Adoption and Children Act 2002 –allows single parents and gay couples to adopt


In UK, in 2011 only 1 in 3 marriages involves a religious ceremony and 33% end in divorce (society has become more secular)


St Paul to Ephesians: 5.21-22: Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Saviour. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.


Galatians 3: 28: There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female for you are all one in Christ Jesus.


Pope John Paul II: Men should truly esteem and love women with total respect for their personal dignity, and society should create and develop conditions favouring work in the home.


Genesis 2:8: The Lord God said ‘It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him’


1 Timothy 5:8: If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.


Ephesisans 6:1-4:

Children, obey your parents…Parents, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the instruction of the Lord.


Passing on traditions:

Deuteronomy: 6:5-6: These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts. Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up.


Here are some notes which were prepared for a school…do feel free to borrow as you wish.

the illustrations are fun


In Japan, in Buddhist temples you will sometimes see a basin called a “tsukubai” which is used for washing before ceremonies. It is also used in the tea ceremony People wash their hands or mouth at the “tsukubai”. It is on the ground so you must crouch. The word “tsukubai” means “to bow down” or “to crouch”

The tsukubai are made of stone and have a small spoon to scoop out water and pour it on your hands etc. both the person giving and the person receiving HOSPITALITY plays an important role in the ceremony.

Screen Shot 2018-04-16 at 11.39.25


The Japanese tea ceremony is part of this image of pure water Note the kanji (special ceremonial/religious writing) from the first picture and the translation below. Everything has a meaning

Screen Shot 2018-04-16 at 11.39.32.pngThe tea ceremony (Cha-e 茶会) involves waiting. Guests come into the tea garden from an outer garden called the Yoritsuki. They wait in the KOSHIKAKE MACHIAI before they are invited into the teahouse.

They walk down the garden path (ROJI) and they are made to feel they are entering a different world. Time is slower.

The Teishu opens a sliding door to the teahouse (Chasitsu: 茶室) to greet the guests


Guests begin the ceremony by washing their hands at the Tsukubai

The floor of the teahouse is covered with Enza (special mats)

People kneel on the floor

They are given tea by the TEISHU (tea maker/ host)

They eat WAGASHI (sweets) and drink tea.

Screen Shot 2018-04-16 at 11.41.28


The tea ceremony is about doing something very simple in a perfect way. It is about hospitality and it is about making simple things beautiful.


It is about THINKING about what you are doing.

Most of the time, we do not think about what we are doing. We listen to music. We talk. We think about OTHER things.

The tea ceremony shows us about conscious learning.

This is something that we practice in mediation.

Forms of meditation exist in all the main religious traditions.






Brahmins follow the strictest idea of ceremonial washing.

Screen Shot 2018-04-16 at 11.42.35

Many Brahmin wash in the holy river Ganges.

(the man in the picture is wearing the “sacred thread” or UPAVITA which shows he is following a guru or teacher. The sacred thread is won in the same way -over the left shoulder- that a woman will wear a sari)

Every year, up to 40 million people travel to the river Ganges to wash. (Pilgrimage)

A Pilgrimage is a journey where people feel they are doing something to get closer to God. Pilgrimage happens in all the main religions.

Hindus try to make one pilgrimage in their lifetime. The river Ganges is a favourite place of pilgrimage. It is sacred to the Goddess GANGA. Bathing in the river washes people of their sins and helps people to MOKSHA (Release from death as well or “awakening” and it also leads to a greater knowledge of themselves)But many people also travel to sacred mountains and temples linked to particular gods and goddesses


Some people believe in achamana which is drinking and touching pure water from the palm of the hand (this is an important p[art of Brahmin rituals but actually any Hindu can perform this ritual) when reciting special prayers called Mantras

Screen Shot 2018-04-16 at 11.43.25

It also involves putting a tilaka on your forehead

Special washing ceremonies called Punyahavachanam are used before marriage, Homa. Water is generally sprinked on people (ASPERGES)

Traditionally, the bride’s parents wash the feet of the groom before the wedding.

Abhisheka: a deity’s murti or image is washed in water, milk, yoghurt ghee, rosewater

It is an important part of the ritual of a coronation (does not happen very often now!)

When a death happens, Hindus may take a bath to clean themselves

Women often take a bath after they have a period.

Many of these traditions are shared across the various faiths.


Before praying, Muslims wash: they wash hands, mouth, nostrils, arms, feet and head It is called “al WUDU” الوضو In Turkish and Albanian, this is known as “abdest”, and in Persian as “dast-Namaz” (literally means: “Before praying” The word Namaz in Punjabi/Sanskrit/Persian means “Prayer”)

Screen Shot 2018-04-16 at 11.44.23

1) After receiving the bread and wine, a priest washes his/her hands in the Anglican/Catholic/Orthodox Church

2) On Ash Wednesday a mark is made with ashes on people’s foreheads. What do you think this symbolizes?

3) Catholics believe that Baptism washes away people’s “original sin”

4) Baptism is a form of “initiation” (Beginning)

Initiation: an important word. Do you remember we talked about the way we “initiate” a class- how does a class begin? When does a class begin?

5) In Judaism people often visit the MIKVEH if they are “unclean”, that is if they have been in contact with dead people, blood –

6) Many people in Christianity make pilgrimages to Rome, Jerusalem (2 million tourists a year), and in the middle ages, people famously travelled from across the kingdom to Canterbury where ArchBishop Thomas a Becket had died. A famous book called “the Canterbury Tales” was written about the journey and the stories people told to each other. Some of the stories are serious and some are very funny. The book is one of the first great bits of English writing by Geoffrey Chaucer.

Sikhs may visit the golden temple of Amritsar. Hindus may visit the Vaishno Devi Temple in the mountains of Kashmir. Buddhists may visit the Bodhi tree or life tree where Gautama meditated for 49 days before his enlightenment. 13 million Muslims visit Mecca every year. In Mexico, 10 million Catholics visit the Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe.

7) Meditation. There are many forms of meditation in Christianity. In Catholicism, some people say the ROSARY (a series of prayers based on a string of 50 beads), some Orthodox Christians recite the “Jesus Prayer”, some Christians believe in silent prayer. There is a tradition in Sufu Islam of dancing (the Whirling dervish). In Hinduism and Buddhism people often use a simple word or mantra repeated over and over again. They feel this is relaxing and brings them closer to God.

Some people practice meditation without religious belief. It can be a very therapeutic exercise (therapeutic/ therapy- from the greek θεραπεύω I serve, cure, heal)

8) Sharing a meal, hospitality. Remember the story of Abraham and the 3 angels. In Christianity, Hospitality might involve “Holy Communion” where Christians celebrate their community together by sharing a simple meal. “Eucharist” simply means “thankyou”.

9) Images and words help us to “enter another world” and to concentrate.

10) Icons, statues and religious pictures are sometimes blessed and washed in Christian ceremonies. On the first sunday of Lent in Orthodox Churches, it is traditional to bring icons to church to bless them and carry them in procession.


Power and the Pope

I did a small film over the weekend about Plato and power. It was a bit of a rethink of the “How to Be Boss” film but the principles are the same. At what point is power invested in someone and at what point is someone grabbing at power.

The theatre, politics and education are worlds that attract a lot of aggression. People love to create their own empires without necessarily doing anything of value. Sadly, there are always casualties.

film title pope and tim



Teaching: St Theodora

After writing about St Theodore, I was sent a copy of an icon of St Theodora, whose feast is on 11th September, a very different saint, though, to the Empress found in mosaics around the Church of Agia Sophia in Istanbul. There are very few images of this Theodora. This is my version here-

St Theodora of alexandria


A few years ago I was in Northern Albania searching for the women who dressed as men in local villages. Maybe they no longer exist, but that tradition goes back some way and seems, from this story, to have Christian precedence. (in contradiction of Deut 22.5 and maybe of 1 Tim 2.9) I think St Theodora is a model for the Twenty-first Century!

St Theodora was an early ascetic from the Fifth Century, during the reign of the Emperor Zeno. She was among 10 women who lived and dressed as men in Oktodeka, one of the many monasteries surrounding Alexandria. The abbot simply assumed she was a eunuch.

At some point, she was accused and presented with a child that she was supposed to have fathered with some serving wench. Together they were expelled from the Monastery. Now, the hagiography makes a great point of telling us that the child was not hers and that the tales were fabricated; it is also not at all clear at thispoint that any of the other monks actually realised she was a woman. However, there is also a story of an adulterous affair that she had while she was still married to her god-fearing husband, Paphnutios. She seemed to have been told by a fortune-teller that if a sin was committed during the dark and that if no one else could see, then God would not see it either. She was distraught and sought the advice of an abbess who heard her confession, and reminded her that Mary had washed Christ’s feet with her tears. It was repentance for this affair that drove her into the monastery in the first place.

A period of repentence passed while she and the child wandered around the desert and they were then readmitted to the monastery. She had brought the child up as her own and while he seems unnamed, he is recorded to have been a godly and good boy in all respects. When she died, the abbot was astonished to find that Theodora was a woman and not a man after all.

What happened to Paphnutios? After his wife’s death, he seems to have been inspired to become a monk as well. Oh! And her “son” ultimately became abbot.

While the story is riddled with holes, it nevertheless makes very good reading and St Theodora emerges rather well as an early Christian version of Victor/Victoria or Mulan. Whether she had illicit sex once or twice does not seem to matter much- she took responsibility for the child who had been given to her (think of the teacher in “the Corn is Green” by Emlyn Williams- do you remember Toyah Wilcox as the naughty girl who leads Morgan Evans astray?) and seems to have kept herself to herself so much that even her supposed gender remained unknown.

st sergius and bacchus rome.jpg

It is tempting to see in St Theodora some sort Patron of the modern age, perhaps more clearly than the highly colourful and embellished story of the soldiers St Sergius and St Bacchus (or of Juventinus and Maximus martyred about 50 years’ later). Their story is  improbable and the actual text (the passion) is full of anachronisms. Their humiliation when they refused to sacrifice to Jupiter was to be paraded in women’s clothing and beaten to death – that happened to others too. A “John Boswell” from Yale fairly recently suggested that Sergius and Bacchus were in fact lovers, described in a martyrology as erastai. He argues that before their execution, they were married in a rite called adelphopoieis and had received some form of Church blessing. All this is a bit spurious. John Boswell’s claims, nevertheless, make fantastic reading, but that, I am afraid is where it ends. He describes a civil ceremony for the emperor Basil I and a mass gay wedding taking place in the Lateran. Even if his claims were about a Wagnerian-style “BlutBrüderschaft“, I find it odd that it should ever have taken place in the Lateran. But as the present incumbent of the Lateran might now say, “Who are we to judge?” Indeed!






Basil the Great

St Basil, whose feast is on 1st January, is important because of his principle of tolerance, often called “economy”. It should be taken to heart today- we are much in need of it. The continued squabble over the Council of Crete could do with some “economy” as indeed could the gathering Brexit debate.

Basil was fairly aggressive with a group of Asian Bishops in his disapproval of schismatics and heretics, insisting that they should be rebaptised. He was simply following St Cyprian of Carthage who said much the same a century earlier and this was a precise interpretation of the law (akrebeia). The text is to be found in the 1st Canon. However, he says that for the sake of “economia”(οικονόμια), he will accept the decision of the Asian Bishops. Economy is the discretionary power given to the apostles and specifically to Peter to “bind and loose”(Mtt 16:19, 18:18) and is echoed in the Acts with the line: Acts 15:28, “it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us”. Laws need to be adjusted and updated. That is why we have parliament and frankly why the Churches have councils.

Economy is about maintaining concord while we build the house of God, or simply accepting that God’s mercy goes beyond the written law. The principle, I think, is a good one- that, no matter how severe or restrictive the rules, when faced with real people and real situations, we should be prepared to bend the rules, adapt them or sweep them aside in the interest of kindness. Kindness may well be abused, but that should not stop us trying.

In Russia, I saw a sign condemning the Ecumenical movement. How absurd is that! Mindless, insular, and out of step with the way things work.


St metropolitan Philaret of New York echoes St Basil: “God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham” (Luke, 3:8), would He not show economia and accept into His Kingdom (His Church) those on whose behalf we beseech His mercy? To say that this is not possible is to deny God’s boundless mercy, to attempt to bind God by the Laws given to us to observe. “( I ) will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy.” (Exodus 33:19)

With the principle of “economy” we have an excuse to hold two completely conflicting views at the same time. That is the only way forward. It is neither irrational nor irresponsible. It is simply practical.

Here is a picture of the Icon of St Basil the Great according to the Greek tradition. I am following the descriptions of Photios Kontoglou.


Monsignor Krzysztof


This is a rather sad story. Monsignor Krzysztof Olaf Charamsa came out yesterday on the news as a gay priest and within hours the catholic church was confirming that he had been sacked both in the Vatican (working at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) and in his universities (the Gregorian and the Pontifical Athenaeum  Regina Apostolorum) for precisely this. His role as a priest is also now under review. This is very speedy from a Church that historically takes its time, and it seems to fly in the face of Francis’s own most famous comment in 2013 “Who are we to judge” when he was in fact talking precisely about the prevalence of gay priests in the Vatican. Well, judgement has been pretty swift and brutal. How about that for Papal irony.

This is what the Monsignor said yesterday:

“My decision of ‘coming out’ is a very personal decision in the homophobic world of the Catholic Church. It has been very difficult and very hard. I ask that you keep in mind this reality that is difficult to understand for anyone who has not lived through an identical passage in their own life,” Charamsa told reporters.

“The timing is not intended to pressurize anyone, but maybe a good pressure, in fact a Christian participation, a Christian voice that wants to bring to the synod the response of the homosexual believers to the questioning of Pope Francis.”


Just for the record, I rather like Pope Francis. Among other things, he is great friends with one of the more progressive Rabbis, Rabbi Skorka, and he projects a very positive image.


When the Pope made his comments on the Plane, he was actually responding to a question about Monsignor Ricca who Francis had appointed to be Institute for the Works of Religion and who had a fairly squalid relationship with a man called Patrick Haari in Uraguay before being summoned back to Rome.


Here is what the New York Times wrote back then:

ROME — For generations, homosexuality has largely been a taboo topic for the Vatican, ignored altogether or treated as “an intrinsic moral evil,” in the words of the previous pope.

In that context, brief remarks by Pope Francis suggesting that he would not judge priests for their sexual orientation, made aboard the papal airplane on the way back from his first foreign trip, to Brazil, resonated through the church. Never veering from church doctrine opposing homosexuality, Francis did strike a more compassionate tone than that of his predecessors, some of whom had largely avoided even saying the more colloquial “gay.”

“If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?” Francis told reporters, speaking in Italian but using the English word “gay.”


Francis did not dodge a single question, even thanking the person who prompted his comments on homosexuality, asking about Italian news reports of a “gay lobby” inside the Vatican, with clerics blackmailing one another with information about sexual missteps.

“So much is written about the gay lobby. I have yet to find on a Vatican identity card the word ‘gay,’ ” Francis said, chuckling. “They say there are some gay people here. I think that when we encounter a gay person, we must make the distinction between the fact of a person being gay and the fact of a lobby, because lobbies are not good.”An article in the Italian weekly L’Espresso this month alleged that one of the advisers that Francis had appointed to look into the Vatican Bank, Msgr. Battista Ricca, had been accused of having gay trysts when he was a Vatican diplomat in Uruguay. The pope told reporters that nothing in the documentation he had seen substantiated the reports.

He added that such a lobby would be an issue, but that he did not have anything against gay people and that their sins should be forgiven like those of all Catholics. Francis said that homosexuals should be treated with dignity, and that no one should be subjected to blackmail or pressure because of sexual orientation.

“The problem isn’t having this orientation. The problem is making a lobby,” he said.

and the BBC on the same issue:

Pope Benedict XVI signed a document in 2005 that said men with deep-rooted homosexual tendencies should not be priests.

But Pope Francis said gay clergymen should be forgiven and their sins forgotten.

“The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains this very well,” Pope Francis said in a wide-ranging 80-minute long interview with Vatican journalists.

“It says they should not be marginalised because of this but that they must be integrated into society.”

But he condemned what he described as lobbying by gay people.

“The problem is not having this orientation,” he said. “We must be brothers. The problem is lobbying by this orientation, or lobbies of greedy people, political lobbies, Masonic lobbies, so many lobbies. This is the worse problem.”


In the light of the refusal by the Vatican to recognise the appointment by France of Laurent Stefanini, it suggests that there is a wide chasm between what the Pope says and what he does, or what is done in his name. Vatican Spokesman Federico Lomardi said,

“The decision to make such a pointed statement on the eve of the opening of the Synod appears very serious and irresponsible, since it aims to subject the Synod assembly to undue media pressure. Monsignor Charamsa will certainly be unable to continue to carry out his previous work in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the faith and the Pontifical universities, while the other aspects of his situation shall remain the [responsibility] of his diocesean Ordinary.”

Jihad and the threat of terror

There is a lot of nonsense talked about Islamic Terrorism, the most irritating is the confusion over the use of the word “fundamentalist”. All Islam is “fundamentalist” because Islam insists on the literal meaning of the words of scripture, the Koran. That said, in fact, there remains room for balancing one statement against another, but the 19th Century criticism that dominates Biblical scholarship is completely foreign to Islam- source criticism and form criticism, the idea that a story may be mythological, or not literally true. This is not a part of Islam. It is so much a part of Christianity that sometimes we impose our methods of interpretation and our expectations wrongly on one another.

christ 2003


As 300 years separate the active ministry of Jesus from the establishment of the canon of Christian Scriptures, there is alot of room for embellishment and textural variants. In the case of Islam, there is very little time between the institution of the Religion and the writing and dissemination of the Koran. The text of the Koran remains broadly what it was, and there is a tradition in Islam of resisting translation, and translation for all its advantages and disadvantages is something that Christianity embraced right at the beginning. So Jesus spoke in Aramaic and his words are printed in Greek, and in the UK at least, best remembered in an english translation fro the 16th Century littered with acknowledged errors.


The Jihad is a fight, not a war- the word (al-Harb) literally means “struggle”. Because of its use in modern terrorism, the word and the concept is often misunderstood. It can mean the “Great struggle”, the personal effort to conquer sin, or the “lesser struggle”, the Holy War or military Jihad. But even in this secondary meaning, the rules are very clear: Holy war must be declared by a proper authority, must not harm children, women or the sick and all peace offers from the enemy must be accepted. The Jihad should not be against Jews or Christians who are “people of the book” and must be protected and respected. At the end of a campaign, the Prophet told his followers, “This day we have returned from the minor jihad to the major jihad.” In other words, now the military campaign is over, we must get back to the proper business of fighting sin, battling our own personal daemons. That is the more important struggle and the real jihad.

Now, while the text of the Koran is a solid and authentic text, the hadiths are not and some hadiths are judged to be more important than others. In the same way, some opinions of Islamic jurists are considered more important than others. Imran Shafi’i believed that Sura 9.5 and 9.29 permit a war against non-muslims until they repent and accept Islam. The corresponding Hadith sums this up-  Here we are: “I have been ordered to fight the people until they declare that there is no God but Allah and that Muhammad is His Messenger, establish prayers, and pay zakat. If they perform all that, their blood and property are guaranteed protection on my behalf except when justified by Islamic laws. Then their accounts will be done by Allah.” Fairly scary. But these verses must be seen in the context of 9.6 which proposes an alternative that non-muslims, living in an Islamic community, and therefore receiving the protection of that community, might not convert to Islam but might pay a tax instead, as compensation: “and if anyone of the polytheists seeks your protection then grant him protection…” (9:6) The next verses stress the importance of keeping the promises made to non-muslims and respecting the treaties established. Moreover, when we look at this verse from the hadith in more detail, the first sentence should be clarified because it says “I have been ordered to fight the people until they declare that there is no God but Allah”. The word fight (saws) used here is significant. It does not use the word “kill”- it is about defence against someone who is attacking the religion; it does not sanction execution, and is at a far remove from the savagery of ISIL.

In other words, while scary verses might be worrying, reading the whole Sura puts them in context. The Prophet never forced conversion and nor did his immediate successors.


Since the Iranian Revolution, there has been a rise in Islamic-sponsored terrorism. This may in part be coincidental. There are a number of purely secular organisations that have adopted suicide as a weapon of choice- the Tamil Tigers (LTTE), who used suicide bombs in their war against Sri Lanka and who famously were behind the assassination of the Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi; the PKK (Partiya Karkerên Kuridstan), the Kurdish party in Turkey though it only seems to have used the suicide option 15 times; and the pro-Syrian rebels in lebanon in the 1980s. These groups had embraced a variety of political ideologies and the works of Mao, Lenin and Guevara are significant.

But it is in Iran where the real problem lies because the Ayatollah Khomenei returned from exile in Paris, fuelled by a passion to interpret the Koran according to the political ideologies he had discovered in Paris. This led to the death of 13 year old Hossein Fahmideh in 1981, the first Suicide bomber in modern times to be hailed as a Shahid, martyr. Posters appeared throughout Iran of the boy shown together with Khomenei and the Ayatollah said that Hossein had “the keys to the kingdom”. There is nothing at all in the Koran to suggest that a suicide bomber gains automatic entry to Paradise, and indeed there is alot of very specific information to say that a suicide victim is automatically excluded from Paradise.

Today, there are ideologies that mix politics and religion- so the Muslim Brotherhood looks to the works of Sayyid Qutb, or Hasan al-Banna and Palestine to Abdullah Yusuf ‘Azzam, a man who significantly influenced bin Laden. It is not possible to divorce modern Islamic terrorism from religion, but it is certainly not true to say that Islam supports or even condones this activity. My understanding is that islam is in a process of change, embracing the challenges of the modern world. One of these is that texts can be open to a variety of interpretations, something that Islam had tried for a long time to prevent. One of these interpretations, for instance would be Wahabiyism, and another are the terrorist dictats imposed on Islam by Ayatollah Khomeini. I am sure, in time, other interpretations of Islam will emerge, many more favourable to Western values, and I am also sure that, in time, the terrorists will fail both in their overall mission and in their interpretation or hijacking of one of the world’s great faiths.


Suicide in Islam:

The body is sacred to Allah and it is God’s will alone that dictates when we live and when we die. There is, in contrast to the scriptures of both Christianity and Judaism, a clear statement against suicide in the Koran:

“And do not kill yourselves, surely God is most Merciful to you.”

— Qur’an, Sura 4, (An Nisa)
This cannot be clearer, and more to the point, is unparalleled in the Bible no matter what the later Church may have to say against suicide. Islam takes a stand on suicide that goes back to the original and fundamental text of the religion. It is there in the Koran itself: Do not kill yourself.

Suicide, moreover, is regarded as murder in Islam. There is even debate about whether the funeral prayers (janazah) can be said over the body. The image presented of the afterlife is not so different to that envisaged by Dante (canto XIII). There, the suicides occupy a circle of violence and they are denied even the dignity of human form, growing into trees and tormented by the Harpies who fly through the forest and “rend the branches off the trees”. At judgement day, the suicides alone will never be reunited with the body they once abandoned. “Wrong it is,” says Dante, “for a man to have again what he once cast off.” Instead, their bodies will be draped over the trees, to be forever a sign of what they failed to treat properly.

suicide wood

In Islam, here is the comparable punishment: “He who commits suicide by throttling shall keep on throttling himself in the Hell Fire (forever) and he who commits suicide by stabbing himself shall keep on stabbing himself in the Hell-Fire.” (Bukhari, Janaiz 84)
“Whoever throws himself down from a mountain and kills himself will be in the Fire of Hell, throwing himself down therein for ever and ever. Whoever takes poison and kills himself, his poison will be in his hand and he will be sipping it in the Fire of Hell for ever and ever. Whoever kills himself with a piece of iron, that piece of iron will be in his hand and he will be stabbing himself in the stomach with it in the Fire of Hell, for ever and ever.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 5442; Muslim, 109.
and again,
“Whoever kills himself with something in this world will be punished with it on the Day of Resurrection.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 5700; Muslim, 110.
The Sixth Imam, Jafar al-Sadiq says, “Whoever kills himself, intentionally, he will be in the fire of hell for eternity.” 
Much more telling, however, is the story of a man who killed himself: “Among those who came before you there was a man who was wounded and he panicked, so he took a knife and cut his hand with it, and the blood did not stop flowing until he died. Allaah said: ‘My slave hastened to bring about his demise; I have forbidden Paradise to him.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 3276; Muslim, 113. This is a serious issue: the man had been wounded in battle, death was inevitable but by killing himself, he commits a sin that puts him beyond sympathy. Surely, this is similar to the suicide-bomber who knowingly kills himself! 
In this case, the Prophet refused to attend the man’s funeral, though as a Muslim he was buried according to the proper custom. There is not in Islam the idea that existed in Christianity that a suicide should be put in unconsecrated land.
This seems to me a very touching story. The suicide victim deserves a proper burial and our prayers, but is denied the formal trappings of the funeral service. Often, today, an Imam will not attend.
islamic page 1
The english word “martyr” comes from the greek for “witness”. It is already therefore an ambiguous word. The problem comes when suicide is specifically redefined as it was by Ayatollah Khomeini as  “martyrdom” in part of his wider vision of Islamic Government “Hukumat-i Islami”, a Shia inspired vision of a state spreading from Iran, through Iraq and to Lebanon.
We must get back, first, to the idea of martyrdom itself-
Here is a hadith in praise of martyrdom,
The Prophet said, “Nobody who dies and finds good from God (in the Hereafter) would wish to come back to this world even if he were given the whole world and whatever is in it, except the martyr who, on seeing the superiority of martyrdom, would like to come back to the world and get killed again (in God’s Cause).” (Sahih Bukhari, 4:52:53)
and from the Koran itself,
“Do not consider those killed [while engaging] in God’s cause dead. Rather, they live with their Lord, who sustains them!” (3.169)
There are various other claims made about the martyr- that he or she does not feel the pain of death, (Fada’il al-Jihad, 26:1663), that his sins are forgiven and he enters Paradise. There, he can intercede for his friends and family. Powerful stuff.
But then, Christianity says much the same! Tertullian is credited with the phrases, “the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church.” He did not quite say this but you have to check the text fro the correct wording ( Tertulliani Apologeticus Adversus Gentes pro Christianis*) Revelations 2:10 promises a “Crown of life” to the martyr. “Be faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life.” Revelations 20:4 guarantees them a 1000 year reign with Christ. The account of the martyrdom of St Polycarp is an early story which suggests Polycarp was given Divine assistance to face his death. A voice is heard telling him to “man up” – “Be strong, Polycarp, and act like a man” and when he was burnt, a holy smell of incense was given off. His reward was a direct passage to Heaven (The Myth of Persecution Candida Moss 2013).
There is even a hint that martyrdom might be a career choice in Matthew 10:39: “Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it” and this was certainly exploited in the early Church though I fancy that the real aim of the admonitions in Matthew is to be prepared to suffer, “Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me”(Matthew 5:11).
The writings of Origen are a testimony to the vitality of the Church in persecution. This is what he writes,
What greater joy there can be than the act of martyrdom? A great multitude is assembled to watch the last hours of the martyr. And let each of us remember how many times we have been in danger of an ordinary death, and then let us ask ourselves whether we have not been preserved for something better, for the baptism in blood which washes away our sins and allows us to take our place at the heavenly altar together with all the companions of our warfare.”
With St Ignatios of Antioch, Origin is particularly remembered for his desire to be martyred. Instead, he castrated himself. Not quite the same thing. St Clement advises caution and recognises that, though the true Christian does not fear death, nevertheless, he must not be in a rush asking for his death. That would bot be a martyrdom but committing a kind of suicide, against God. he complains about people with a martyr-cult being like the Indian ascetics who throw themselves in fire. For St. Clement, martyrdom is a daily experience, a good witness to Christ by words and work and by all man’s life. Does this not seem very similar to Mohammed’s statement about the “Greater Jihad”? 
Once Christianity stopped being illegal under Constantine, it was harder to be a martyr, of course.
Now, what does all this tell us? That Christianity and Islam share a common interest in the idea of Martyrdom, that fanaticism lies just round the corner and that the real challenge is to wage a daily struggle against sin. And I should add that Christianity might have drawn inspiration from the martyrs in 1 and 2 Maccabees or even the death of Cato the Younger who wanted to make a point in the most dramatic fashion possible, would not even accept a pardon.
The shift from suicide to martyr:
There are stories about the early martyrs of Islam, for instance Hamza, Muhammad’s father-in-law and Husayn, Muhammad’s grandson and in later years, the concept of martrydom was extended beyond battle and execution to embrace also those who died fasting, and to those who died more ordinary or painful deaths. “The martyrs are five: the one who dies of the plague; the one who dies of stomach trouble; the one who drowns; the one who is crushed by a falling wall; and the martyr who dies for the sake of Allaah.” Again, actual death is not necessary for martyrdom: “He who asks Allah for martyrdom, Allah will raise him to the high status of the martyrs, even if he dies on his bed.” 
A similar process, incidentally, also takes place in Christianity though there the concept of monasticism and penance tends to replace that of martyrdom per se. Pope Gregory 1 speaks of “three modes of martyrdom, designated by the colors, red, blue (or green), and white”, that is torture and death, monastic or eremitic asceticism and “Blue (or green) martyrdom which involves the denial of desires, as through fasting and penitent labours without necessarily implying monasticism.”
St Clement of Alexandria thinks that provoking the enemy risks a form of suicide and in his Commentary on John, advises Christians to run away and to avoid confrontation with the authorities if at all possible, certainly if this can be done without recanting or denying the faith. He regards this as a form of Charity because this stops the enemy from committing the far graver crime of murder!
The broadening of the definition of martyr had started very early in both Islam and Christianity with a move towards asceticism. I would identify the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini as the true author of modern suicide bombing. In that sense, he is responsible for interpreting the texts of Islam so they favour suicide. That makes him an “interpreter of Islamic texts”, a long way from a “fundamentalist!” However, there is some evidence that the suicide bomber has an earlier history in  conflict in the Philippines (1500 onwards, but particularly in 19th Century) with the MORO MUSLIMS who attacked with mag-sabil and Parang- sabil. The Spanish called these suicide attacks “juramentado”. So, Khomeini could be said to be simply reviving something. Yet it is a revival he made his own and popularised.
In 1995, Sheikh Ahmad Yasin, the Spiritual leader of Hamas, and later Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi in Qatar, said that any suicide bomber who had received the blessing of a cleric, should be considered a “shahid”.
The suicide vest is not new either. This seems to have been developed by the Chinese in their fight against the japanese (1931-45) especially effective in the Battle fo Shanghai. Of course the Japanese used suicide pilots (kamikaze) in World war 2 and also kaiten submarines during the Pacific War. There is some evidence that the Germans used suicide weapons in the later stages of the War in the  West (Bachem Ba 349, Fliegende Panzerfaust, Zepplin Rapper etc…)
In 1983 a suicide bomb by Hezbollah against the West was detonated in Beirut.- apart from the bomber, 63 people were killed. The Suicide was not in the original reports but it seems to me, despite claims about a so-called P2OG secret plan, that there is no doubt that this was an early suicide bomb.
By describing a suicide bomber as a martyr, the terrorist suddently achieves the status of a saint: and here is one of the most worrying things about the cult of the “shahid” is the embellishment that has taken place –  specifically that the martyr will have access to God, can intercede for his family and the community, so he or she is a “get out of gaol free” card for all local miscreants. there is a specific hadith that refers to this: “The martyr can intercede for seventy members of his family.” (Sunan Abî Dâwûd in the Book of Jihâd) and commentators project this both forwards and backwards in time: “The members of his family include his forefathers, his progeny, his wives, and others.” Moreover, Al-Manâwî says, “It is possible that the intent of mentioning the number seventy is simply to indicate a large number.
Suddenly, it becomes clear why anyone might encourage a small child to die – if that means that poor child can sort out the salvation of his older sister who has gone astray and of his father who has fallen foul of alcohol and so on. This is a detergent with a particular and pernicious strength.
Apart from the ideology of Khomeinei, there are two other factors that are important in the modern rise of the Terrorist Jihad. There is a particular Ideology that underpins the modern Jihad. The term jahiliya describes the age of ignorance that came before Islam. This is part of what Khomenei would have seen as a world oppressive to Islam, a world dominated by non-Muslim Superpowers. Today, there are people who have claimed that this Jahillya represents the modern West. In this respect, the idea that Christians and Jews are protected (albeit at the cost of paying taxes) is no longer guaranteed because they are felt to have gone astray and left the “original religions”.The second factor is the success of the first Aghanistan war against Russia. In Join the Caravan, Abdullah Azzam offers the following slogan, “Jihad and the rifle alone. No negotiations, no conferences, no dialogue.” The success of the Mujahadeen against the USSR is made all the worse because it leaves behind an illiterate population that is picked up in Waziristan by extremist wahabist-clerics, imported at the request of General Zia, preaching a radical form of Islam. Such a population is easily brainwashed, treating women as third-class citizens, rejecting television and so on. This is the origin of the Taliban. Human trafficking, public executions, the desecration of Buddhist monuments, and the exploitation (and tax) of opium all followed. 
Again, some of the work on distinguishing real and false martyrdom has already been done by the Catholic Church which invests a good deal of time into the Canonization process and aims to be legally accurate in the way it describes its various saints. The early years of Christianity saw a number of “false” martyrs and of people who had been condemned but for one reason or another, survived and attained the status of “living saints” conferring indulgences on the gullible crowds that turned to them for help. Even today, there has been discussion about whether those who have been killed might be martyrs. We might think these discussions are obscure and academic, but it is these discussions, frankly, that need to take place in Islam, and without such discussions there will continue to be a popular confusion about the concept of “shahid”/martyr.
Three principles emerge very clearly: 1) a martyr does not kill himself or herself. So the Buddhist monks in Vietnam who douse themselves in petrol are not martyrs, nor are people on hunger strike (Bobby Sands, for example and Terence McSweeney whose bishop refused him communion and last rites because he was on hunger strike); in addition, he or she does not seek death, though accepts it when it comes. (St Thomas More, Maximillian Kolbe and so on). 2) a martyr suffers violence and does not inflict it, and 3) Finally, a distinction must be made between martyrs who die for a cause and heroes or victims who are killed in the line of duty, die to save others or are victims of murder. Martyrdom involves a specific defence of the faith. This may not be a perfect way to approach the subject but it is a point of reference and I think it can be adapted to other faiths beyond Christianity.
Certainly, these “rules” would make it clear that the suicide-bomber is not and can never be a “martyr”.
To confront Islamic terror, we must recognise that Islam is developing and will certainly develop its own language, in time, to deal with this aberration. Perhaps, we must be careful not to impose Western standards or ideologies or indeed assumptions that we might or can challenge the veracity of the sacred texts, which will serve only to inflame the crisis. We need to create the environment where a proper understanding of a tolerant and mature Islam can emerge as the primary form of the Religion. This might be critical of Western values as indeed are many Christian and Jewish writers. But criticism is not a death-threat, and criticism can be healthy.
More than that, there is lots we can and already have learnt from Islam. Our Western Renaissance is dependent on the collection of Indian and Greek texts translated by Islamic scholars, and we have a debt to Islam also for the great progress made in medicine and astronomy before the 19th century. I have no doubt that today we can learn more, but we have to pull back from this mad confrontation.

This, by the way is what Tertullian actually wrote- “But do your worst, and rack your inventions for tortures for Christians. It is all to no purpose; you dobut attract the world, and make it fall the more in love with our religion; the more you mow us down,the thicker we rise; the Christian blood you spill is like the seed you sow, it springs from the earthagain, and fructifies the more.”

Photios of Constantinople and our new film

photios icon


Here is an icon of Photios, sometimes called Photius in the West and Saint Photios the Great in Orthodoxy.


We have just finished a new educational film about the 6 texts used in the Bible to condemn homosexuality.Because it is only 40 minutes long (it is divided into 3 parts on youtube) Below are parts 1 and 2:

I am afraid there are a number of glosses that i have made and which I will try to correct here over a number of blogs. I am aware that I have not really done justice (slight pun) to the text by Photios that is the lynch-pin of the main argument in the film. The issue I am discussing here occurs in the third part on youtube and the link to that part is here.

What Photios says

I have provided the Greek text of what Photios writes on the film, though it is on-screen fleetingly so here it is again:

photios on romans flat

Photios was very interested in the way Greek changes over the years from the various forms of Ancient /Attic Greek used by Homer to the Greek of the Septuagint and then the koine used in the New Testament. Photios was familiar on a day-by-day basis with the Byzantine Greek of the Imperial court and the Church but there was probably yet another more colloquial version of that in the streets of “the city”, H Polis.

Colwell’s rule

So his greatest work is probably his lexicon, which has helped scholars today to work out how words have changed their meanings and how Greek grammar has evolved. This is particularly important if you want to avoid the nonsense of the Jehovah’s Witnesses who wrongly ascribe at best an Attic grammar to the New Testament and at worst some inexperienced mumbo-jumbo. I met a man today who was sitting by the canal reading a bible. I asked which version and he said “the New World Translation”. I could not get away fast enough! There are endless errors in this Jehovah’s witness text, some simply bizarre- like the use of “torture stake” for “cross” because the Jehovah’s witnesses do not accept that Jesus died on a cross and the refusal to translate any words for hell because they do not believe in hell either. Anyway, the crucial passage is John 1:1 (in every manuscript except Codex L which has ὁ Θεός ἦν ὁ Λόγος)- here is the correct version: Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεός ἦν ὁ Λόγος the last phrase of which is in Greek a form of Yoda-speak: “And God the word he was” or some such “Star wars” jabber. But it should be translated: “the word was God” but is translated by the Jehovah’s witnesses as “the word was a god”. Origin thinks that John omits the article because he refers to Jesus as God and not to the Father and Origin argues, “the true God is Ho Theos” (Commentary on John Book 2, chapter 2) which comes close to the Jehovah’s witness position of denying the Trinity, but not quite. Later scholars absolutely reject this: Bultmann, for example, is incandescent at the thought that the omitted definite article means only or merely “divine”: Denn man kann doch nicht verstehen: er war ein Gott, ein Gottwesen, als ob θεός ein Gattungsbegriff wäre- (he thinks, instead, that the word THEOS has some special grammatical rules of its own) but there is another solution. Here it is: In koine greek, though not in Attic greek, there was an increasing temptation to omit the article when a definite noun (a name) precedes the verb or when a noun should be identified as the predicate. This is often called “Colwell’s rule” and other instances can be found in Mark 15:39 and Matthew 27:42- βασιλεὺς Ἰσραήλ ἐστιν. The rule can be adjusted slightly because the “anthrous” noun, that is a noun without a definite article, can sometimes (as maybe here) simply be a way of establishing importance or prominence. The purpose of this paragraph is not so much to rebutt the Jehovah’s witness but to demonstrate that Greek was at the time when the New Testament was written in a state of flux and that Photios understood this.

In his commentary, therefore, on Romans 2, Photios considers Paul’s use of words very carefully and concludes that Paul was being specific about a particular part of the law/ the Torah.

Tracking down the fragment

Only a fragment of this commentary exists today and is found in a collection of fragments so it is itself a bit obscure. I managed to track down the text but struggled with the translation and called on an old friend in Athens who sent me off to see a man he called Bill who turned out to be the same man who had first “discovered” the text and published a small article on it in the early part of this century. When looking at obscure texts, the chances are that you are dealing with just a handful of people who know about them, translate them and use them. So, I had a fruitful and entertaining correspondence with Professor Bill Berg, the very man responsible for digging up this brilliant little gem. For my part, I was struggling with elements of the paragraph which seemed to me to be deeply anti-semitic and he agreed. So that was that. They are not important to the argument but they suggest that the man who was writing was doing so quickly and with alot of passion. It is not really surprising that this was the man who single-handedly fractured the Church. Many Catholics today dismiss the “filioque” dispute as a linguistic quibble and I remember having a long debate about this over a few weeks in the letters page of the Athens News, but the Greeks and Russians still regard the issues in the filioque as central to their decision to perpetuate the schism. For Photios and the modern Orthodox one of the central issues of the filioque is its origin in the writings of Augustine and this itself taints the theology of Augustine for the Orthodox.certainly. I think this is why there is a slightly different understanding of “original sin” in the East.

Romans 2: 26-27:

Back to Romans. The verse Photios is considering is Chapter 2. 26-27. This is what it looks like in Greek:  ἐὰν οὖν ἡ ἀκροβυστία τὰ δικαιώματα τοῦ νόμου φυλάσσῃ, [a]οὐχ ἡ ἀκροβυστία αὐτοῦ εἰς περιτομὴν λογισθήσεται; καὶ κρινεῖ ἡ ἐκ φύσεως ἀκροβυστία τὸν νόμον τελοῦσα σὲ τὸν διὰ γράμματος καὶ περιτομῆς παραβάτην νόμου.

Ands this is the standard English translation: So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? Then those who are physically uncircumcised but keep the law will condemn you who have the written code and circumcision but break the law.

Photios says about this: (Photios’ words in brackets here) “for the Jews, (them) Paul (he) talks about the Torah (the law); for the uncircumcised, he talks about the ‘justices of the law’ not the whole law but only a specific part.” Photios has not quite gone all the way but it can be demonstrated by statements in, for instance, the beginning of Luke when Luke describes Zacharia and his wife keeping “all the jobs and justices of the law” that there are two different parts to the Torah and that these two parts were acknowledged as such at the time of Christ. Things change when the Temple falls in AD 70- and Judaism redefines itself as rabbinic or Pharisaic Judaism so this may explain why such a distinction gets lost.

The Golden Rule is the King’s Law

“The Golden Rule” (to love one another), broadly speaking, is that part of the Torah which is endorsed by Paul as central to the Christian life and is also flagged up by Jesus. Let me explain!! The measure of our relationship with God is to be found in our relationship with one another. This is defined by Christ in the Golden Rule, (Mtt 7:12: Πάντα οὖν ὅσα [a]ἐὰν θέλητε ἵνα ποιῶσιν ὑμῖν οἱ ἄνθρωποι, οὕτως καὶ ὑμεῖς ποιεῖτε αὐτοῖς· οὗτος γάρ ἐστιν ὁ νόμος καὶ οἱ προφῆται.) but it is also found in Hillel (Shabbat 31a: What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow: this is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn) and is embedded in Lev xix 18. In the epistle of James, this is called “the Kingly law”: james 2:8: Εἰ μέντοι νόμον τελεῖτε βασιλικὸν κατὰ τὴν γραφήν Ἀγαπήσεις τὸν πλησίον σου ὡς σεαυτόν, καλῶς ποιεῖτε· Now, a “kingly law” was regarded in the ancient world as something that took precedence over any other existing laws. An example of this can be found in Pergamum (Deissmann) but the idea is fairly straightforward. If Christ had issued the Golden rule as a “kingly law” then that takes precedence over anything else in the Torah. The Golden rule is to deal well with others. It is not about cultic practice. In other words, the Gentile might well be able to keep the “kingly law” (which sums up the whole Torah anyway) in the knowledge that he can not keep the  Torah itself.

This happens at a time when elements of Pharasaic Judaism were perhaps getting out of control. People were indulging in the cultic observances as a way to make up for their failing with one another. David Wood suggests that this is the kernel of Paul’s message- that no amount of cultic obedience can erase offences to the Golden rule. That is paramount and trumps the cultic laws, because the “kingly law” is absolute.

In terms of the two types of law, and here I think the film does an adequate enough job in part 3:

Homosexuality falls into those laws defined as “cultic”: rather than into those laws that support the “Golden Rule”, what Wood calls “the Justices”. Paul might not like Homosexuality (personally) but he does not think it is something that will damn someone to eternal death, particularly if they are mindful of the Golden Rule. What is damning instead is nastiness, and spite and I suppose writing hateful things in a blog. We must be nice to Jehovah’s witnesses when they knock on the door. Be nice but do not necessarily agree with what they say.

I will stop here and write something lighter next time!