This sounds like a good idea. http://sibboleth.blogspot.com/2009/04/jesus-great-but-paul.html has an interesting idea for a book on Paul.
It seems a tenant of the emergent/ing church is to get away from the perceived "bluntness" of Paul in favor of a more tolerant "in touch with his feelings" Jesus. Can the two be reconciled?
Here is my take. You can't believe in Jesus and reject Paul. I know that might strike some of you as strange, maybe even heretical. but stay with me....
Jesus was great. No argument there. Big influence on me. However, it can be argued that it is only because of Paul, that we in the West understand Jesus as we do. Remember, Paul went west:
"Paul's Vision of the Man of Macedonia
6.Paul and his companions traveled throughout the region of Phrygia and Galatia, having been kept by the Holy Spirit from preaching the word in the province of Asia.
7.When they came to the border of Mysia, they tried to enter Bithynia, but the Spirit of Jesus would not allow them to.
8.So they passed by Mysia and went down to Troas.
9.During the night Paul had a vision of a man of Macedonia standing and begging him, "Come over to Macedonia and help us."
10.After Paul had seen the vision, we got ready at once to leave for Macedonia, concluding that God had called us to preach the gospel to them."
With this action Paul transforms the Way from an eastern religion to a western one. As the Way is accepted by gentiles (Greeks and Romans) it begins to radically transform. Thus we get Paul's letters reforming the Way to be more appealing to no-Jews. Various ideas like appropriate sexual practices, food laws, worship, giving, faith, justification, etc. are disscussed at length. All really weighty stuff that today (and back then) rubs people the wrong way today.
A good example brought up in the comments from the linked blog is that Paul was willing to radically change his life practices so as to not hinder the gospel ( IE eating laws, vows etc.). For those of us comfortable with the the way our lives go, that can be a difficult pill to swallow.
The rejection of Paul, is to reject the very man Christ chose to share the Gospel and bring it westward. Since I believe Christ chose Paul for an obvious reason, we should not ignore him or write off what he has to say. Does everything he say apply to us? No. But a lot of it does.
What do you guys think of Paul? Why does there seem to be a breaking away from Pauline inspiration among the emergent/emerging? Thanks and hope you enjoy the blog!
P.S. a free meal to anyone that can name where the title of this blog comes from.
(meal includes soup and a sandwich.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"Christ seemed to ignore the more theological impacts of his ministry, which is fine, but as a result not very effective in his lifetime"
ReplyDeleteI think we tread on much more dangerous ground when we start to question God (Jesus) and critique perfection. What Jesus did was perfection he was God, it had the exact impact and effect that God intended, so effective as matter of fact as to hold the power to save the world. This idea that Jesus ignores theological impact is because Jesus is the only theology anyone needs to know.
You can be a fan of Paul but Paul was a man just like the other flawed men God used for His purpose, but without Paul we are still one in Christ, without Paul we are still saved through faith in Christ, if we take Paul of the equation we lose some ground in taking the message of Jesus to the rest of the world, but without Jesus we are lost. There is no way a group of people, no matter how much you disagree with them can put too much emphasis on Jesus.
I like what Mike Cope said about following Jesus in 2004:
ReplyDelete"Most of us don’t like paradox and tension. We like our theology nice and clean. We like to know who’s in and who’s out.
Growing up, it was easy. You had to have the RIGHT position on baptism: the right amount of water, the right age (accountability), the right reason (”for remission of sins” — usually nothing mentioned about “to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit”), and the right prerequisites (hear, believe, repent, and confess). You also had to have the right understanding of the church (date of origin, organization, etc.), the right kind of worship (five “acts” involving weekly communion, and acappella singing), and so on.
Readers of this blog who aren’t from the Churches of Christ won’t understand all that. But trust me, you have your own version!
The borders were clear. We were right; others were wrong.
Now, I don’t believe that. I don’t believe people are lost just because they don’t share my understanding of various passages. We are saved by the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus — not by our ability to exegete texts. Thank God for that! No wonder so many people went to their deathbeds worried about going to hell.
So some have assumed I don’t believe in baptism any longer. Far from it. I love the things written in a recent booklet from ACU Press by Jeff Childers and in a recent book by John Mark Hicks and Greg Taylor.
But here’s the catch: I don’t think you have to agree with me on everything in order to follow Jesus. He is clearly working in the lives of people who drastically disagree with what I believe on some issues.
I’m not an agnostic about their faith, either. I’m not saying, “Well, maybe God will be merciful on others.” Nope. I’m saying, “These are my brothers and sisters in Jesus.” People in whom the fruit of the Holy Spirit is clearly being produced. We have some differences of opinion–even on things that are very important to me–but we are part of the one body of Christ.
It is the height of arrogance (often fueled by fear) to believe that WE got it right and in order to follow him you must follow US."
I agree that you can't put too much emphasis on Christ, and I am not advocating Pauline Church.
ReplyDeleteI understand that differences occur. My point is that outside of the realm of the Hebrew religion, Paul was an essential. Paul does not save us and I think Paul gives us the best example of Kingdom Living (other than Jesus of course, Paul is the best example of a Kingdom liver by any one who wasn't God in the Flesh.
ReplyDeleteI am not advocating strict adherence to Pauline doctrine and I understand that he can be interpreted differently. My point is without Paul, there is a very good liklyhood that our preceptions of Jesus would be very, very different.
again just to be sure, I love Jesus
O.K., you threw me off with the title of the post, I thought that was a pretty easy question if I have to make a choice I'll stand with Jesus every time and twice on Sundays (if church leaders insist we meet on Sunday evenings) LOL
ReplyDeleteLOL it's o.k. I really appreciate the comments you made and know where your coming from.
ReplyDeletethe link talks about why people are turned off by Paul and my point is they shouldn't be. Without Paul, we really wouldn't understand the Gospels nor Jesus and what he meant. They are put off by his bluntness becasue he steps on toes. so did Jesus.
Yes they both stepped on toes, but in different ways. My guess on the title of the blog is that it came from a Queen song, I think in was "God in the Radio" or something like that.
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with both of you!! Brad's comments are right on, and Jacob is right that you have to take Paul right along with Jesus. I just don't see the use of trying to find a "rift" between Jesus and Paul. Paul may have been blunt at some time...so was Jesus. Jesus was tolerant with people...so was Paul in many instances.
ReplyDeleteOne of the problems seems to stem from the fact that Jesus never wrote a Gospel nor a letter. Paul wrote plenty. Look at Acts; much about the life of Paul. Compare that to a Gospel. Luke doesn't present Paul in such a "blunt" light.
By the way, the "radio to God" title comes from your favorite movie....Raiders of the Lost Arc!