I Have Moved!

Faith Monkey has moved to: faithmonkey.wordpress.com

Please come and join me!

The Tweed Run 2014 and other thoughts

I created this blog with the mind-set of ‘if you build it, they will come’. I find the concept of self-promotion naff. To put oneself forward and be all “Look at me! Look at me!” like a nauseating toddler is horribly un-British. In my head, the blog would be an instant hit, and I would be played by Amy Adams in the movie of my life. In reality, however, even my parents weren’t reading it, and they are retired and live on a boat. What a bummer! So, feeling slightly disappointed and, having foolishly committed myself to reading the Bible in a year but rapidly losing interest in the project, I’ve taken a lovely vacation from blogging.

If you book them, they will come.

I’m not going to lie, it’s been ace. I’ve been on holiday. I’ve drunk a gazillion mojitos. I’ve loosely kept up the Bible reading with a much more laissez-faire attitude, and been absolutely delighted to discover that Delilah, of ‘Samson and Delilah’ fame, was not the seductive minx my Catholic primary school portrayed to us, but rather, caused the destruction of the strongest man in the Israelite nation through nagging him into revealing the secret of his strength. I have no problem whatsoever in believing that particular Bible story. And now I fancy writing again with no particular ambitions in mind.

Reinforcing the feeling that I am unsuited to modern life, I have had several weeks of getting frustrated with technology, and have felt like a walking cartoon character with animated steam coming out of my ears. This reached a crescendo when I was in Sainsbury’s the other day and the stupid self-service machine was doing its usual ‘unexpected item in bagging area’ routine . . . . The security guard sprinted over to sort it out, repeating “it’s okay, it’s okay” soothingly, as though trying to calm a startled horse, and I realised that I’d been standing with my hands on either side of my ears wailing “I can’t deal with thiiiiiiiis”!

Yikes.

Otherwise, I’ve been leading a very quiet life designed to reduce spending, and this sudden financial discipline is 80% motivated by the fact that I’ve fallen in love with a bike. That is not a euphemism for someone who has ‘been around a bit’. I mean an actual bike, vintage style, mint-green with a basket on the front.

This new interest in bicycles arose out of my recently taking part in something called the Tweed Run. The Tweed Run is an annual bike ride through central London. Participants dress up in vintage style - lots of tweed and typically English dress. There’s an emphasis on vintage bicycles, so you get quite a few tandems and penny farthings along with normal, modern bikes. People really go all out on the clothing front – 1930’s, military, colonial, driving outfits a la ‘Mr Toad’ – you cannot overdo it. It’s a celebration of English eccentricity, which I love.

Photo by Ben Bromfield

Lots of tourists absolutely adored seeing us ride through the streets living up to English cultural stereotypes. Others were less impressed:

Pedestrian 1: “What’s all this about”?

Pedestrian 2: “Dunno. Some kind of c**nt ride”.

I nearly fell off my bike laughing. Oh pedestrian, I cannot disagree with you. I found the whole experience stressful in the extreme, not that this was the fault of the event itself (which was amazingly well organised, with super helpful and kind marshalls). It was my own fault. So taken was I with the image of myself cycling through the streets of London in a tweed suit that I gave little thought to the fact that I hadn’t ridden a bike in 15 years. What of it? You never forget, right? There’s a whole saying about it! 

Technically the saying is true – the basics of riding a bike came back to me (albeit rather gracelessly). However, riding in tight formation with 500 other cyclists was probably not the best place in which to ‘get back on the bike’ after a long absence.  I had an inner monologue constantly running through my head where I prayed not to: a) hit anyone b) fall off c) crash, or d) generally make a huge tit out of myself. The bike I borrowed was too big for me and I couldn’t reach the floor, so every time we slowed down and everyone else shuffled along (which happened a lot) I would have to leap off, or try to inch along on my very tip-toes without toppling over (which was not only painful but meant I obviously failed at avoiding part ‘d’ of my prayer). After the event, I had to rush to the bathroom and was sick several times, which I concluded was due to post-traumatic stress.

Tea break at the Guildhall

My favourite thing about the day was my outfit – I had bought a cream Victorian blouse with lots of embroidery on it, and a calf length swirling tweed skirt, which made me feel like Anne of Green Gables. However, when I pulled them out of the wash the next day, the skirt had gone faded and bobbly and shrunk so that the tweed now hangs four inches higher than the lining, and something has dyed the blouse a horrible grey colour. Even my outfit is ruined. Basically I spent quite a lot of money on an event that scared me witless, made me sick, ruined my outfit, and gave me a bottom like a piece of tenderised steak.

Being either blessed with an admirable refusal to quit, or cursed with a deplorable inability to learn from my mistakes, this did not manage to put me off cycling itself, which is super fun! However, once I buy the bike I love, I am planning on only riding it at 6am in the morning when there are no cars or other cyclists around. I think this is safer both for me and for everyone else.

  

Numbers Part 1

England in springtime is, to me, one of the most beautiful places in the world. This past Saturday, on the first really good day of the year, I had the great pleasure of attending a friend’s wedding and getting to enjoy the sunshine in the beautiful gardens of a manor house in Cheltenham. 

What could be more Spring-like than daffs and a chick??

Not being one of life’s great organisers, I left booking my hotel, train ticket and wedding present until less than twenty four hours before the day itself, selected my outfit the morning of the wedding (what was clean + what still fitted = wedding outfit), threw everything into a bag, and got ready during the train journey in order to make it on time.

Whilst I am very pro-marriage, I wouldn’t usually describe myself as a wedding enthusiast. I don’t have a lot of spare funds, and slightly resent having to spend what I do have on a big, self-indulgent ‘event’ that isn’t really necessary to a great marriage. Some friends and I once added up how much we’d spent on other people’s weddings, and safe to say we could have gone travelling abroad with the money for several months. I don’t like all the waiting around on the day, or the bizarre formality of a lot of the traditions.

But on this particular day I realised that I had allowed these annoying niggles to make me cynical about what was, in truth, a beautiful thing – two people finding each other and committing to each other for life, and that it was a privilege to be asked to be part of that day. The couple in question seemed so overwhelmed with happiness, and so thankful that people had made the effort to be there, that I felt ashamed of my previous attitude.

My innate cynicism smashed with a metaphorical hammer, I had a wonderful time; conversing with interesting and hilarious people, drinking champagne, chucking confetti with maniacal glee, listening to heartfelt speeches, throwing some wacky shapes on the dance-floor for three hours straight, and generally getting caught up in the joy of the occasion.

When you’ve just been witness to God’s ideal for marriage – two people promising to love each other, forsake all others, and be there for each other through good times and bad until death they do part, it’s a bit like having cold water thrown all over you to read ‘The Test for an Unfaithful Wife’ in Numbers . . . 

 Reading can be found at: Numbers 1-2, Numbers 3-4,  and (containing the text we're discussing)     Numbers 5-6.

The first thing that struck me about the passage was that there was no ‘Test for an Unfaithful Husband’, once again supporting the notion that these rules were written by Ancient Near Eastern dudes who used religion as a means of supporting their prejudice and sexism. And at first glance, the ‘test’ itself seems fairly odd. To sum up:

If a husband suspected his wife of being unfaithful, but had no actual evidence, he would take her to the priest who would administer a simple test to resolve the matter: the priest would take some water, add a little dust from the tabernacle floor, ask the woman to swear she had not been unfaithful, then make her drink it. The supposed result was that if she had been unfaithful, her stomach would swell and she would become barren. If she was innocent, she would be fine.

Loving the energy this lamb is bringing

Whilst at first this seems to smack of the sort of random tests of the Salem witch trials – if they drown, they’re innocent, if they float, they’re a witch – I have found some comments on this passage that offer some plausible explanation.

Rather than being about punishing women, this test served to protect them. Ancient Near Eastern culture was incredibly biased against women. In other tribes at the time, if a man even suspected his wife had cheated on him, he could beat her, mistreat her, divorce her or even kill her without any consequences whatsoever. Accusations of infidelity were often used as a means of disposing of a wife if the husband had grown tired of her and fancied another.

Israelites, however, were not to use any of these methods but were to follow the protocol of this test. And when you read the text closely, you realise that the water  . . . . didn’t actually contain anything! It was just water with a little dust from the tabernacle floor in it – not particularly appetising, but certainly not containing any harmful ingredients. If you believe that there is no God, then no woman would ever be convicted of adultery this way as she was just drinking plain water. Although a guilty woman may be terrified by the prospect of this test uncovering her sin, the only explanation for if something happened to a woman through this test would be if God actually intervened supernaturally. Without any supernatural intervention, the only result would be to assuage the husband’s accusations and allow the woman to return home proved innocent.

So, problemos: It does still bother me that there was no test for an unfaithful husband, but then, women in the Ancient Near East weren’t in the habit of randomly accusing their husbands of infidelity in the same way, so the men didn’t need a means of protection. The other remaining niggle is the thought that a woman may go through this test, and then still be infertile through completely natural means. I would hope that in this scenario, if she hadn’t experienced any stomach swelling or symptoms at the time of the test she would remain vindicated, or that God would grant her children if He’d known that she’d been through such an accusation (as we’ve seen Him do for other suffering women in the OT). Of course, there’s always the possibility that priests or other men in authority would misuse this test and utilise cheating methods of proving ‘guilt’, but to do so would be completely outside of God’s command and protection, and they would have to bear the consequences (either in this life or the next).

I’ve read a fair bit lately on how the rules given to the Israelites in the Old Testament were not necessarily reflective of God’s ideals or views on situations. We know from the New Testament that Jesus said divorce was permitted in the Old Testament “only as a concession to your hard hearts” (Mark 10). The implication here is that divorce, along with the other laws given to the Israelites (including those regarding treatment of women and slaves), were aimed at a harsh culture not ready to live up to the standards God had intended. We also know that the laws of the Old Testament were intended as temporary, and that a new order arrived with the resurrection of Jesus, one that called us to aim for a higher ideal.

I’m already on record as saying I’m not totally comfortable with the idea that just because Israel’s laws were more compassionate than many of the laws of the surrounding tribes and nations, this somehow makes it acceptable. But it does seem as though a lot of the laws given were concessions rather than directions i.e. “I know you’re not able to live up to this ideal, so in this less than perfect scenario, here’s what you do to ensure a fairer result . . . .”

I have to believe that if these laws came from God, they don’t reflect His opinions on women, but that He knew the Israelites, coming from such a patriarchal society, weren’t ready to accept equality for everyone, and gave laws to try and mitigate the worst levels of abuse and protect the weakest in society as much as possible. The ideal – the standard He holds to – is reflected in the values of Jesus, who treated women with respect and compassion.

*Pics by Richard Peters photography and Vedainformatics.

Exodus 25-40, Leviticus 1-27 AKA 'The Other Bits'

How have you been?

I’ve been finding this time of year tough – I’ve had a cold and what I’m sure is a touch of Seasonal Affective Disorder. It’s been raining so much that I considered whether constructing an ark featured in my near future, and the strong gusts of wind we’ve been experiencing have been blowing around so many plastic bags, it keeps reminding me of American Beauty, and making me giggle. On the plus side, on the days when the glorious sun has come out (like today), it has felt like going from Kansas to Oz. I’ve been pondering quite a lot whether the tediousness of January and February are worth it for the sheer joy you feel when spring starts, which is hopefully just around the corner . . .

On a different note: OLD TESTAMENT - PLEASE WOULD YOU STOP GIVING ME SUCH A HARD TIME??

I keep waiting for this Bible project to get easy, but it just isn’t, y’all! I kind of thought now the drama of the plagues and the Israelites escaping Egypt was over, things would calm down, but it’s just non-stop drama, drama, drama (incidentally, ‘drama’ is one of those words that looks increasingly strange and made-up the more you write it. Try it).

We’re now into what I call “the other bit” of Exodus (i.e. the bit no one makes a movie out of) and Leviticus, which is the tedious fascinating list of instructions for constructing the ark and tabernacle and rules for worship. I have heard Leviticus referred to as the ‘Bible-In-a-Year widow-maker’, as it’s been the death of so many good intentions. So, in the spirit of laziness efficiency, I’ve reverted to the structure of bullet points to cover all the random shiz thrown up in this week’s reading of Exodus 25-27, Exodus 28-29, Exodus 30-32, Exodus 33-35, Exodus 36-38, Exodus 39-40, Leviticus 1-4, Leviticus 5-7, Leviticus 8-10, Leviticus 11-13, Leviticus 14-15, Leviticus 16-18, Leviticus 19-21, Leviticus 22-23, Leviticus 24-25 and finally Leviticus 26-27.

• Question (by me): Why does God care about gold and jewels when decorating the ark and tabernacle? Surely God doesn’t care about such petty things as material wealth?

Possible Answer (by The Internet): There are several schools of thought on this. Firstly, the temple was meant to be an (obviously inferior) earthly replica of the temple of Heaven, therefore would by nature be beautiful. Secondly, anticipating the fiasco of the golden calf, God acted on the Israelites needing a physical representation of Him for them to direct their worship at. It’s not that God cares about gold or jewels, more about creating a focal point and sense of awe in the Israelites when they come to worship.

But maybe God likes this kind of Gold??

• Question: Why does God direct the priests to wear such specific, fancy clothes? Isn’t that the opposite of everything Jesus, in his humility, came to stand for?

Possible Answer:  Again, this is partly about creating a sense of reverence in the Israelites, but could also be about the priests, as flawed humans like us all, not being holy enough to approach God on their own, but about holiness being bestowed upon them when they cover themselves in priestly garments. Sounds very similar to the way we can’t earn our way into Heaven by our own actions, but the covering of grace makes us holy enough to go into God’s presence, heh?

• Question: Isn’t punishing people who work on the Sabbath with death a bit over-kill, literally?

Possible Answer: In a way, yes. There is no doubt this is a severe punishment. But the ‘crime’ is less the action of working on the Sabbath, and more what that’s indicative of: not trusting God to provide. Remember, these are people who have eaten the very manna God created from Heaven, and the meat (quails) God provided them in the desert. For them to not trust God enough to take one day off a week from working is pretty insulting to God.

• Question: After the incident with the golden calf, God instructs the Levite priests to "Go back and forth through the camp, each killing his brother and neighbour (who had worshipped the golden calf)". How can I follow a God who would say that?

Possible Answer: I hear you. I hate this instruction, and it gives me serious pause for thought about the character of God, and whether this can be consistent with the God I want to follow (i.e. Jesus). However, this is about the Levites, holy priests, choosing God over their families and friends, and is consistent with Jesus saying in Mathew: “For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person’s enemies will be those of his own household”.

By the rest of His words and actions, we know that Jesus was one of the most compassionate people in history, therefore this comment seems disturbing and out of character. When we dig deeper, we see that it’s not in fact about encouraging people to take up arms against their own family, but it is saying that our relationship with God takes precedence over our relationship with our earthly families. Clearly, our first loyalty is to God, even over loyalty to our kin, and that if we follow God we may be persecuted by our own families and literally be on ‘different sides’ of the battle.

Tragically, if family members choose to follow other gods (the golden calf, paganism, science, success, atheism etc) this means there will be a metaphorical sword separating us from them. The punishment here is actually just a more violent and immediate symbol of the spiritual death that may befall us should we choose to turn away from God. It IS scary because God is making it clear these choices have serious consequences.

Adoration of the Golden Calf, by Nicolas Poussin

Still think it’s too harsh? Someone once quoted to me the following line from Scripture: “To whom much has been given, much will be expected”. These people had witnessed the parting of the Red Sea, they’d seen the mountain on fire when God spoke to Moses, and a cloud leading them onwards through the desert, yet still reverted to their old pagan ways. They had no excuse for not believing in God, and no excuse for turning away. The punishment for them is more demanding, because God had demonstrated His care for them so visibly. Initially I thought it seemed unrealistic that after such events the Israelties would forget so quickly. However, then I considered my own life and how quickly I forget gratitude, and revert back to old bad habits, and could identify with the foolish actions of the Israelites here.

• Question: Why are men valued at 5 shekels of silver and women at 3 shekels - does this mean God values women less?

Possible Answer: I am a feminist so this immediately got my back up. But after taking a few breaths and muttering “down with the patriarchy” several times (kidding) I considered the following viewpoint: This is not about God actually valuing men more than women. God laid down his life for each of us. He values us in more than mere monetary terms. This sum is specifically referring to people vowing their lives in dedication to God, and reimbursement in terms of lost labour in an agricultural society. Men could physically produce more valuable manual labour than women and are reimbursed accordingly, nothing more.

Moving on . . . .

As we progress through Leviticus we encounter various laws that all seem a bit silly, going on about clean and unclean foods with slightly random criteria, purifying rituals, and gems such as the command not to wear clothing woven of two types of material (that's a cotton-polyester blend ruled out then), and directions on how to trim your beard (that one’s for the fellas, I’m assuming). It all sounds a bit pointless and I’m not entirely convinced of the reasoning behind it. To sum up the various arguments I’ve read on the matter, it seems to be related to separating Israel from the practices of the other pagan nations around them, instilling self-control and discipline into their lives, and to emphasise the holiness of God and preparation needed to go into His presence.

Which I can pretty much accept until I come across the message that after childbirth women are unclean, and that they’re unclean for twice as long if they give birth to a girl as they are if they give birth to a boy. URGH, BIBLE, I GIVE UP TRYING TO UNDERSTAND YOU. *Decides that some of these rules were written by some ancient, sexist dudes and are not actually explainable at all . . .

I admit to not enjoying reading the Old Testament as much as the New, precisely because I don’t like all the bloodshed and punishments for breaking rules. But I have to say there’s some remarkably consistent themes that run through the entire Bible, all pointing to Jesus and the salvation He brings.

In these chapters God describes the method the Israelites should use for atoning for their own sin – taking a male animal without defect to sacrifice, with the priest placing his hand on the animal and ‘transferring’ the sin to it (in place of their own blood) by confessing the sin over it. No animal with a defect may be used, which is hugely symbolic of how only Jesus, who lived a perfect, sin free life, is holy enough to be a worthy sacrifice. Through His substitution, we gain forgiveness for our sins and gain His perfectness for ourselves, just as here the Israelites ‘swapped’ their sin for the perfectness of the animal being sacrificed (there’s a reason Jesus was called the lamb of God, people).  The cost is the same for rich and poor, as with Jesus.

There’s a huge emphasis in these chapters on all the rituals required to approach the tabernacle and the holy presence of God. In fact, if I had to make a sweeping statement about the themes of the Bible, it would be that it displays God’s two most central characteristics – holiness and love. Holiness, in that He is perfect and cannot tolerate sin or even be in its presence, is most explicitly displayed in the Old Testament, with its emphasis on humans failing to live up to the law, and the punishment by death for sinful behaviour. Love – displayed most explicitly in the New Testament - in that He loved humans enough to take on the punishment Himself, and through the death of Jesus abolished the need for rituals and atonement to approach Him (hence doing away with all the rules for clean and unclean foods and ritual purifying). These chapters in the Old Testament, therefore, display just how much Jesus accomplished when He did away with the need for a special temple, declaring that now the temple was ‘within us’.

But I could do with less of the sexist hooey.