An increasing amount of my friends and acquaintances are skeptical of the Apostle Paul. Their skepticism is not without merit. Paul seems anti-women, anti-gay, and pro-slavery. Even if he was not, and I am not saying he wasn't, orthodox, evangelical religion has used those passages of Paul to reek spiritual havoc with women, African Americans, and the LBGTQ+ community. Further, with African Americans and women, Paul has been used to justify violence toward them. So yes, I am the first to admit that the Apostle Paul is problematic.
Yet on the other hand, in my view, Paul was an important mystic in our understanding of the gospel message. Without Paul, our understanding of the grace of God would be woefully anemic. If we only had the synoptic gospels we would only hear the word grace one time in Luke and then in that verse, we would only know that the favor of God, grace, was upon him, Jesus. It is largely through Paul that we understand that the absolute favor of God is upon all of us through the incarnation of Jesus of Nazareth.
In fact, Paul said that the purpose of God creating the universe and those of us in it, was to predestine us to be God's children. This is what would bring praise to God's glorious grace. Grace encompasses many things that are important to the Christ follower. If grace is the favor of God upon his creation, especially humanity, and it seems to be the definition that most closely aligns with the context of the word in the New Testament, then it plays integral part in promoting genuine love for God. Grace encompasses the idea that God was in Christ, reconciling the world not counting all the ways humanity misses the mark. Yes, that is what sin meant in the New Testament period. It meant missing the mark. Further, the word in Hebrew means missing the way. So grace is important in our being at peace with Papa God. We need not fear that our failures diminish us in the eyes of God, nor that they make God love us less. This comes about mostly through the concept of grace, and Paul is the one person in the first century that almost single handedly introduces the concept.
The Spirit of Christ also revealed ideas to the mystic Paul that are important in our spiritual understanding of being Jesus followers and broaden the definition of grace. Two examples are the definitions of agape/love, and an in-depth explanation of the fruit of the Spirit. These represent two concepts that we would be completely devoid of were it not for the Apostle Paul. That being said, how do we deal with the problematic aspects of his epistles? Some say that not all letters attributed to Paul were actually written or dictated by Paul, and that they are more egalitarian. The problem with that is that one of the most mysogonystic passages is in the first letter to the Corinthians. The same letter that gives us the beautiful definition of agape/love. Conversely, there are important concepts in the pastoral letters with respect to universal reconciliation. One such passage that comes to mind is in the first letter to Timothy, chapter four, verse ten,
Even if you do not accept the fall, depravity, and worm theology, and frankly, I do not, grace is still a necessary concept to bring peace with God. It brings assurance that we are eternal, children, loved by the creative source of the universe. I like the way the writer of Hebrews puts it. Heb 2:15 "and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage." The uncertainty of what lies beyond death is sufficient reason to proclaim the gospel of God's grace.
Now, do not get all twisted up because you are reading and identifying what I have written with Lutheranism, Calvinism, or any other evangelical "ism." The message of Jesus is of first importance. It explains what love looks like practically for us as Christ followers. But, grace gives assurance even when we miss the mark in that arena. Should I be aware of the Sermon on the Mount? Yes! Should I strive at all times to incorporate it into my day to day living? Of course! Let's not forget that some of the statements attributed to Jesus are problematic as well. Examples are, "sorry I never knew you, depart from me and, should I give the children's meat to the dogs?" Others include the 11 times Jesus spoke of hell. Now, I think I understand the meaning and context of all those statements, but it is far more difficult to properly understand them without Paul.
So what is the answer to this dilemma? I think it is easily resolvable when one has a more Jesus centric look at scripture. Asking the question, how did Jesus and all of his first century followers view the scripture is an important question to ask and answer. First, Jesus taught that all scripture pointed to him. That would mean that all scripture should point to him and his mission. What was his mission? Luke 4:18-19 “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, (19) to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor.” Notice that he did not include the latter part of Isaiah's words. Those were to come to fruition after the rejection, crucifixion, and resurrection. Jesus mission was to proclaim the favor of God! GRACE!!!!
Therefore, the first way to discern the authority of scripture is to determine if it points to Jesus' redemptive mission of reconciliation and favor. Hand in hand with this, are all of the teachings of Jesus that point to what actions express and exemplify love. If we are students of Jesus, that is what a disciple is, then we are learning what it means to be loving to each other and all of humanity. This is not cherry picking. This is allowing the Spirit to give us discernment about what is redemptive and what is simply cultural for a specific occasion and a specific time and people.
Secondly, is it good news? Jesus and his first century followers who wrote the New Testament redefined the phrase "word of God" from the Torah view held by the Pharisees to gospel. If it ain't good news then it ain't relevant! This is based on the multiple times that the phrase is used in the New Testament writings with the meaning always being gospel or Jesus the gospel incarnate. Invariably there will be one person that trots out John 10:34-35 and will say see you are wrong. If you are the person that is hung up on John 10:34-35, then get over it because there is no hope unless you do. If you hang your hat on one reference out of forty-four that all define it as gospel, then I cannot help you!
Thirdly, and this is where Paul becomes ultra important in your discernment tool box. Does it fall into the definition of agape love found in Paul's first letter to the Corinthians, chapter, thirteen, or does it encourage, exemplify, or demonstrate the fruit of the Spirit found in Galatians chapter five? If you use the above criteria to examine scripture, whether New Testament or Old Testament, then you are NOT CHERRY PICKING, you are following the instruction and the method of Jesus. Paul was a human. Paul was not God incarnate. Paul was also and most importantly a mystic!
No comments:
Post a Comment