Featured Post

Pledges, Oaths, and Service to the Nations of This World?

In the Hebrew Torah, pledges and oaths, along with the service which flows from them, are regarded as sacred responsibilities to God and/or ...

Thursday, November 7, 2019

Do the writings of Paul present a problem for Christians?

My answer: They're only problematic for Fundamentalist Christians and Atheists. Yes, Paul's writings are often difficult and contradictory, and the apostle's neuroses and prejudices are sometimes very apparent. And, since these elements are anathema to the Fundamentalist's/Atheist's views of what Scripture should be, they are either ignored/dismissed, condemned or explained away by them.

However, for those of us who accept Paul as the most important apostle of the First Century Christian Church (look at how much of the New Testament is attributed to him), these difficulties, contradictions and frailties point to a very human individual to whom we can easily relate. Like the rest of us, Paul was himself a bundle of contradictions. Like many of us, he was a complex man with many gifts and not a few imperfections.

Our perception of Paul and his writings is influenced by a number of different factors. For instance, even among early Christians, his writings were regarded as difficult to understand (II Peter 3:16). The apostle's proclivity for having others write "his" epistles is another factor. The fact that Paul's understanding of Christian theology was sometimes at odds with some of the saints who were a part of the Jerusalem church is yet another. Moreover, Paul was not averse to giving his own opinions regarding certain issues within the church, and those opinions often reflected the cultural biases of a First Century Jew. Also, we must never forget that the apostle was always addressing problems within the various congregations which he had visited. Finally, we can be fairly certain that Paul had no idea that his letters would one day be regarded by Christians with the same reverence that his generation had reserved for the writings that we now call the Old Testament - that his epistles would be regarded as Scripture.

As I mentioned earlier, Paul's humanity is on full display in his writing. In his epistles, we find evidence of his arrogance and insecurities. Likewise, Paul's paternalistic and misogynistic inclinations are apparent in many of his writings. We can also see evidence there of his stubbornness and intolerance for the views of others.

Nevertheless, there is also another side of this great man that shines through in his writings. Something that he regarded as miraculous happened to him on the road to Damascus, and the details of the precise nature of what he saw and/or heard on that occasion seem insignificant to the subsequent impact of that event on him (and the billions of people who have read his writings since his death). Likewise, we must never forget that Paul was the first person to make a significant contribution to fulfilling the Great Commission which Christ had entrusted to his original disciples/apostles. It is largely thanks to Paul that the movement expanded beyond Jerusalem and Judea.

And, since we have acknowledged that Paul's writings are imperfect and very human, an objective evaluation of the evidence forces us to admit the breath of the Divine. Who can read his calls for unity within the church without being haunted by his eloquence? Who can read his accounts of his own personal trials and struggles without feeling compassion, empathy and inspiration? His writings also provide us with the earliest reference to what has become the principal ritual of the Christian Church - communion (and please don't comment here that I should use some other term to describe this - I'm well aware of the other names for the ceremony). Paul's writings have also provided much encouragement and solace for Christians down through the ages. And, how could anyone not be moved by the grand and epic nature of Paul's description of love in what we now refer to as the thirteenth chapter of his first epistle to the saints at Corinth?

Those of us who appreciate the writings of Paul should also remember that a great many of the problems we have with the apostle's writings are self-inflicted. As with the other Scriptures, we bring our own baggage and flawed understandings to these epistles when we read them. I've already mentioned how some folks regard them as infallible. Others are lazy in their study of background, scholarly criticisms and context. Finally, as any great songwriter will tell you, their lyrics are subject to many different interpretations - and most of them don't mind if you get something out of it other than what they had originally intended. This gets to the very nature of how we humans communicate with each other, and it is most certainly not peculiar to the writings of Paul!      

5 comments:

  1. I believe Paul's writings are the most problematic to those who believe that Jewish Christians are the only true Christians. If that were true, probably God would have inspired James to write most of the New Testament.

    So far as atheists are concerned, many are good upright citizens who put careless Christians to shame. However, atheists have a bad habit of using the Bible to invalidate the Bible. So many questions and dilemmas are handled by the footnotes in a good study Bible.

    BB

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And most of the folks (who believe that Jewish Christians are the only true Christians) are among the most ardent Fundamentalists within the Christian community. The book of James is a great piece of literature, but wall to wall James wouldn't have been very edifying would it?
      Dennis Diehl seems to be a caring and thoughtful person, and I respect what he has shared with all of us about his journey and even the conclusions he has reached. I also have tremendous respect for Tabor and his writings. Even so, I still feel compelled to challenge the notion that we must view Scripture as infallible or so much superstitious garbage. I believe other conclusions are possible.

      Delete
  2. How about Trinitarian Christians who believe that if you don't believe in the orthodox trinity then you're not a true Christian?

    The thing about generalizations, they can slap both ways.

    I've said time and again that my grandparents kept Sunday as the Sabbath, kept Easter and Christmas, and that I wouldn't be the least surprised to see them in the first resurrection well before me.

    It's hilarious how many Armstrongists and ex-Armstrongists think they know the hearts of those who call upon Christ, yet can't see their own error. Sad indeed!

    Kevin McMillen

    ReplyDelete
  3. I believe it is very American to "take a chance, hire someone into the kingdom and teach the underdeveloped skills on the job as you go".

    A European God would require the necessary proof of skill, diplomas and degrees and then hire.

    HWA seemed to preach more about a European type of God hiring workers for the kingdom although he left open McMillens thesis of ongoing learning and humans not really knowing what exactly are the required sla's for vacancies.

    nck

    ReplyDelete
  4. Paul must have been one powerful personality. So far as I can tell, he was short, unsightly and an awful speaker. No podium presence. Yet, he was a force to be reckoned with.

    Subject to my final sentence, I do not know that he was as major a force in the spread of Christianity as you say. I think that the large crowd that were baptized after hearing Peter speak (Acts 2) dispersed back home across the empire and so started the spread of the faith. But Paul was a force in nourishing it and keeping it growing.

    ReplyDelete