isms schmisms
Just a necessary follow up to the previous post on Paul would be Appalled. Before I am heard as writing off the role and teachings of Paul, let it be known that I fully accept the Pauline writings as canonical and authoritative and that Paul is the most important interpreter of Jesus in history. His writings rightly deserve the high status they have in Christian history and we ought to be completely thankful for them. But whatever honorable place we might reserve for Paul we can say with some assurance that he was never meant to be the defining center of our faith. Paul himself is quite clear about who was lord and who he refers to in his writings (1Cor.1:12-13). If Paul became aware of a religion that was based almost exclusively on him and his teachings, it is certain that he would be utterly appalled. And yet this is what has often happened (and still does) and so we need to address it.
Steven Motyer notes that “…[t]he Reformation was essentially a revival of Paulinism.”(1) Luther was the man called by God to restore to the church its primary story and its defining principle—the gospel. In so doing he unleashed the forces latent in the gospel on the world and radically changed the course of human history. But while the Reformation restored the gospel to the people of God it nonetheless initiated a focus on Paul that in the end very easily, and perhaps inadvertently, undermines the definitive place of the historical Jesus as depicted in the Gospels. We must remember (and we have Paul himself to thanks for this) that the gospel is all about Jesus! The gospel points to him. It is Jesus, not Paul, who restores the connections with God through his atoning death and victorious resurrection.
One of the most insidious aspects of Paulinism is to make the gospel into mere ideology…an –ism. Just one religious ideology among many. But the gospel is not ideology! Ideologies end up oppressing people, the gospel is meant to liberate us from all enslaving idolatries, including that of ideas. And it certainly was not set of theological ideas that changed human history; it was the reality of God redeeming a lost creation in and through the life and ministry of his Son, Jesus Christ. And far from being a mere philosophy, it must result in a way of life that marked in adherence to Jesus. But it is always much easier to manipulate a philosophy than to live under the King.
Christianity in the Western tradition never did get rid of latent gnostic tendencies that always so easily tend to ideological religiosity. It is very easy for orthodox, confessing, Christians to believe in belief about Jesus, rather than believe in Jesus himself. It’s a subtle, imperceptible, shift, but the consequences of this shift are immense. When it comes to this, we Protestants must be very sensitive to any shifts in the basis of our faith, and we should be quick to correct them, lest we actually become the dangerous ideologues that we so often have been accused of being. We are the people who stand for Jesus in God’s world. Like Paul, we a representatives, ambassadors of a disputed King (Eph.6:19-20, 2Cor.5:14-21) and it is crucial that we represent Jesus aright. If our focus is not on him then what are we doing? If not this, what is our mandate? How many of the problems of the church can be traced to an incipient Paulinism? Perhaps our relation to women, the marginalized, and the poor, and general issues of love and justice might have been different if we focussed more directly on Jesus—as we are meant to in the first place. Instead people tend to see historic Christianity as an oppressive ideology. And if this is the case, how can we claim to truly represent Jesus who lifts up the poor and humbles the powerful.
In Re:Jesus, our upcoming book, Mike Frost and I suggest that a recovery of the gospels as our primary texts will help set things straight again. For many the way to Jesus leads through Paul and he provides the primary lens by which we engage with Jesus. And while this seems to be so right because of the sheer importance of Paul as our guide, we must be very wary of substituting Paul for Jesus. Paul is the authoritative guide to a clear and unambiguous experience of Jesus, but that is the point…he guides us towards Jesus. Our primary texts are, and must necessarily be, the Gospels because they contain the clearest expressions of the teaching and actions of our Lord. Particularly needed, as at this critical juncture of history, is our ability to re-found the church,,,,to reJesus. And this means that we need to marinate ourselves in the Gospels. Allow them to seep into our very core, to inflame our imaginations again with the One who claims us and inspires us to greatness in the Kingdom.
Footnote
(1) S.Motyer, “Paulinism, Theology of Paul” Elwell Evangelical Dictionary (Grand Rapids, Baker)
Comments
28 Responses to “isms schmisms”
Leave a Reply
The Books
Affiliates
Recent Blog Entries
Recent Comments
-
we are explorers
- Alan Hirsch said: Shades of U2's song "I... shapevine v.2
- Penney Winiarski said: Great resource Alan....
- Andrew said: Have been into the...
- Frank Viola said: Looks great, Alan. Lance... fundamentalism: a true expression of Christianity or not?
- Janet said: Well, at the risk of...
- Matt Stone said: I think its more than...
- Andrew said: Thanks Matt for that...
- Andrew said: A reason I find US...
- Matt Stone said: Andrew, see http://en...
- Matt Stone said: See http://en.wikipedia...
Alan - have you read any of Simon Chan’s work? Specifically, Spiritual Theology? You may find it helpful in providing more context to the problem you have identified, but based on your post, I am confident you will find even more to consider as you wrestle with this.
Wow! Could all of this (the last 3 threads) be a result of a mighty fine waffle and coffee! Thanks again the i.v. of life (and waffle/coffee), Alan, for those crying out for Jesus in what can easily become (and in many cases is a) deadly religious nest!
Looking forward to RE:Jesus!
Keep it coming all…
KK
One thing that sets Jesus apart from other religious leaders is the reality that they are just teachers. Jesus on the other hand promises not only a gospel of words but a gospel of personal transformation through his work in your life. I think that is key. Read that in “Jesus among other Gods” by Ravi Zacharius, I had never thought about it in that way before but it is so true.
I’m looking forward to reading the book as well, when approx. will it come out?
In my experience, obsession with the Pauline writings is usually associated with the great Reformist catchcry of , ‘justification by faith’. I don’t disagree with that doctrine, but I do acknowledge the tendency to use the cover of inner ‘faith’ to ‘justify’ all kinds of external inaction. Jesus is all action, and requires his followers to be active. The first response of the 12 when Jesus called them was not a ‘belief’ response, but an ‘action’ response - ie. “They left their nets and followed him”. Deitrich Bonhoeffer discusses this with incisive wit in the early chapters of, “The Cost of Discipleship”.
Alan,
Well, if you and Frosty are planning to have this out next August, I just might be ready to read another book! I am very much turning my focus again to the Gospels, and look forward to what the two of you have to say about this.
Paul would indeed be appalled to have an “ism” behind his name!
Blessings.
Do you think it’s necessary to assume tension between Paul’s letters and the gospels? There is obviously the possibility of interpreting Paul in a way that undermines or downplays the gospels, but might this reflect only misinterpretation, not overemphasis, per say?
I wonder whether this is also the real price we have paid for the liberalist form criticism model. If you don’t have a historical Jesus you can believe and trust in; Pauline theology is most of what you have left.
Phil, I totally think there is a way of keeping the two. Paul is not Lord. He is apostle of the Lord. I don’t see why there should be tension.
Riccard, I think you are right here.
I wonder how much of this comes back to our need for security? Whether Paul, Luther, or our own leaders, boxing Jesus in with our own idea or image does make Jesus manageable. I think you hit this one right on the head, Alan. If we can keep Jesus manageable, we can form Him into any image we want.
To see Jesus through the eyes of the Gospels is to lose our security. He is unpredictable, dangerous, vulnerable, and bascially judges each case based upon it’s own merits. Our simple minds could not contain the possiblities of following a God like this and I don’t think we were meant to! Otherwise, what do we need Jesus for?
I like the imagery my pastor used of drawing near to the burning bush. The closer you get to the fire the more it soothes and refines. The further away from it the more it burns. The sad thing is most, would probablly interpret that as being those who do not follow our own ideas of Jesus. They look at the church from the neck down vs. the head up.
Ooh, Ooh, I just had an epiphany! If we are to truley pick up our cross, lay our hearts bare, and follow Jesus, shouldn’t we all just get naked?!
Hmm, maybe I should bring that one up in our planning counsel?!
Too true Penney. We have remade Jesus ito our own image.
Yes, Penney…but our nakedness is not to be physical, sister!
It is to be the vulnerability of stripping away all the things that hinder us from freely following the radical Jesus–not just our own idea of the radical Jesus. Wow…that is a powerful thing to consider anew. And that means not looking for tension that isn’t there, just because there are those whose “glasses” are such that they see something!
Penny,
I think your observation of our comfort with theological ideas as opposed to the Person of Jesus is right on. It’s why we want “systems” of church growth and discipleship and prayer and relationship and…heck, everything! We(I) long for predictability and things we can predictably repeat. Having to engage with the Father to understand life is much messier than theory. It’s the kind of thing that forces us into relationship and the moment, meaning that one minute we might call people to total maturity in Christ and, the next, save them from a mob ready to stone them. I go to church and I want things to resolve in a 30 minute monologue like they do on tv. Lately, I am learning to leave the boat and reach out for my groom, but it’s hard. I’d much rather stay in the boat and read a book or hear a sermon about how God’s too smart and loving to ask me to get out of the boat in the first place and that what he really wanted was for Peter to “be willing” to step out theoretically. Anyway, this is becoming my own little blog. What I really wanted to say, as a new reader, is thank you, Penny, and others, for being willing to lead this kind of faith by example.
David,
Welcome to the messy sandbox! Penney is a jewel, isn’t she! We all have made this our own little blog from time to time…
Be blessed.
Good stuff Bro, keep it up.
David, Peggy is sweet in her comments but it seems she’s trying to dress me up. I would say I’m more of a diamond in the rough. Just kidding Peggy! I will however, keep my clothes on!
I am in the same position though David. Maybe you can give me some tips on how to get out of the boat. I’m trying to do that without tipping the whole thing over!
Penney,
We are all diamonds in the rough, eh? And I suggest you just dive in, if you’re rescuing the perishing. Unless, of course, you’re planning to walk on the water with Jesus!
Hmmm…seems like swimming apparel might be in line here, but no Speedos, please!
I wonder if Paul is as much an excuse as a resource for much of the problems you mention. Meaning, in the same way that bad eschatology plucks out passages from Revelation or Daniel, so too bad theology in other areas such as church, or Christology, or whatever else, plucks out passages from Paul.
Paul was, after all, the most highly trained Jewish scholar in the New Testament. Only he was torn out of that by Augustine and Luther and others who didn’t have much fondness for Jewish thought but had a lot of fondness for viewing theology from their own particular psychological issues such as guilt or their philosophical background.
The problem with this too becomes our chapter/verse divisions cut up Paul’s holistic arguments and make theology into sound bites.
Reading Paul, however, means reading some really long, complex discussions in which he’s weaving all sorts of things together over many chapters.
This is so evident in the issue of Communion, which was founded at Passover. Paul’s argument is one of community, and celebration, and remembrance, sharing the meal for hope in the past and future. It’s become this moment of received grace, akin to a Temple sacrifice.
Meaning Paul is basically used to argue against not only Jesus but also Paul.
It’s a little cynical of me but I think a big reason for this is that Paul is significantly more egalitarian in just about every way, but that sort of thinking really undermines folks seeking power over other folks.
To add a bit…
One of the primary works of the Spirit is to lead us to Jesus. If someone is reading Paul in a way that does lead them to a holistic understanding of Jesus, or otherwise weakens the primacy of the Gospels, then that person is not being led by the Holy Spirit.
Which is why a lot of theology about the Holy Spirit or about the Church or whatever else isn’t really from the Holy Spirit. It’s a distraction and a diversion from a rather less than holy spirit.
great observations Alan on the dangers of Paulinism and the eclipse of the the gospels and the historical Jesus. I think you’re onto something here. Any readings you can recommend on this issue that has helped you in your thinking?
Keep up the good work brother!
Rob, to be honest. I have not been able to get any perspectives on this except from the Jewish or liberal theological perspective which dismiss Paul and minimize Jesus. Perhaps some of Wright is good here. Let me think more about it.
“It was only relatively late on that I perceived that this earthly Jesus–the Jesus of discipleship and God’s kingdom–is the Jewish Jesus. Christian-Jewish dialogue opened my eyes to this. But at the same time it showed me my own Christian identity, which has its foundation in Jesus’ new experience of GOd: ‘Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing’(Luke 4
.21). This divine Today means that Jesus’ earthly life is messianic through and through, lit up by Israel’s hope and radiating hope for the peace of the world: Israel’s messiah, the savior of the nations. I have always missed this presence of the earthly Jesus in the Christian creeds.”
~Jurgen Moltmann, Jesus Christ in Today’s World. I totally recommend this book as an approachable discussion on all of this. Moltmann in general, I think, touches on the themes of this post in a lot of his writings, and he’s neither Jewish nor particularly liberal.
Try looking up the “new perspectives on Paul”. There is actually quite a lot of material out there. Not just liberals, evangelicals too. Wright has some good stuff, as does a few others. We had a conversation on this on Journeys In Between about a month ago. Hmmm. Let me just dig it out. Here we go.
http://mattstone.blogs.com/journeysinbetween/2007/11/the-most-hated.html
I may be over simplifying a bit but is this at some level idolatry? If we put the whole written word of God before the living word of God aren’t we in danger of missing the messenger due to the message?
Kerry, I read an interview with Wayne Grudem the other day and he said this: “…we can…become too rationalistic; give too high a priority on knowledge instead of relationship and this can produce in us a bibliolatry (believing in the Father, Son and the Holy Bible). The net effect of this is the depersonalization of God and that part of the motivation for depersonalizing God is the increasing craving for control.”
Patrick, thank you for elaborating on this, sometimes I’ve heard sermons defending scripture and totally missing the author. I think this may be an aspect of Alan’s point if not the point itself; if we spend too much time trying to understand, relate, and personalize the Apostle Paul we miss the message. The message is a living gospel that is bigger than any 66 books, even if they where ordained and inspired by God.
thanks for the responses guys. I’ll be sure to check out your suggestions.
I’m looking forward to reading ReJesus and no doubt hearing Mike talk from it in October at Blackstump. After Mike spoke from Exiles in October this year I grabbed a copy of Exiles (I’ve not read a Frost book in a few years). It took me till yesterday to finish reading it. I wish I’d had that book 7 years ago. I left ‘the church’ in 2001 for lots of reasons including many that are reflected in Exiles. Today I read ‘Confessions of a Reformission Rev’ by Driscoll. It had much I disagreed with but also much that left me rethinking. Tonight I started reading ‘the shaping of things to come’. After that I’ll read ‘An Emergent Manifesto of Hope’ by Pagitt and Jones.
Before 2001 I now see I had a very poor narrow understanding of mission (despite being a ‘deacon for mission’ at my local church) for the last 7 years I’ve been just spending time with ‘real people’ the kind I never knew in my church days. It seems God was prepping me a little for where I’m heading next. Today I’m trying to ‘do church’ again but really looking to do it differently (which explains my current reading list.) I’ve written more than I meant to so ill stop now, but yeah looking forward to ReJesus.