Something Has Been Nagging Me...
A couple of posts ago, I sang the praises of Rob Bell. And just to clarify, I still really like Rob. I think Mars Hill's ministry is doing some terrific things. Their outreach to the poor, commitment to serving the oppressed here and abroad and passion for achieving Biblical community is beyond admirable. I will never be one of those Christians who cries heresy if a ministry doesn't fit the 'everyone else does it this way' mold. I consider this to be healthy diversity within the body of Christ.
But, as my title suggests, something has been nagging me lately. I've been listening to Rob's sermons faithfully for almost a year now. Recently it struck me--where is Paul?
Rob does an excellent job of bringing the gospels to light. His work on Jesus, both in his sermons and in his book, brings the first century to light in a way I've heard from few other preachers. He eloquently describes the Old Testament law, prophets and poets. But, at the risk of sounding redundant, WHERE IS PAUL?
At first, I thought I was just over-reacting to this issue. But then, as I thought back to my readings of Brian McLaren's books, I began to get more concerned. I've seen a similar silence from the Pauline corpus in McLaren's writings. Why is this? What is the problem with Paul? If we are going to do good Biblical theology, doesn't that require us to do business with Paul? Are the Emergent types just afraid of what Paul has to say?
These are the questions I have been kicking around lately I've seen some conservatives go so far in their critique as to say the Emergents can turn Jesus into nothing more than a teacher of morality and social justice, but Paul is avoided because his writings make it impossible.
I don't know if I want to go a whole lot deeper on this issue yet. Those of you who've read McLaren or Rob Bell--what do you think?
Labels: Theological Musings
posted by timmer k. at
10:23 AM
14 Comments:
Per last night, I agree with your criticism. I have a friend who says the point of the Bible is Jesus and I agree. He says that the Old Testament points towards Christ while the New points back in a sense. I wonder if this is influencing the emerging church? Also our culture is semi-obsessed with the figure of Jesus (not a bad thing at all) and I think Bell and Mclaren types are hitting that chord. All of this raises an interesting issue namely does focusing on Christ in this way present us with a valid picture of Christianity? Something to think about while you "work" :)
By
Jerod Lucius, at 8:44 AM
This may seem childish, but then I remember Jesus did seem ok with the little children so I'm gonna have say exactly what I think here. Note: I can allready hear voices of dismisal saying "He's just speaking out of bitterness or anger"... Please believe me I speak only out of deep conviction and love for what I believe to be th Biblical truth (remember that it was Christ who said he was the truth), please anylze not this not upon your perception of this author, but only upon these ideas corespondance with Christ and his Kingdom
#1 The reason Emergents talk about Jesus instead of Paul is because they are addressing evangelicals who have created layer of theological crap that attempts to cover the light of Christ. Is there value in Paul? Yes! But right now the Emergents are addressing/deconstructing the crap (quasi-pauline theology) that is blocking us from that light of Christ. From our pulpuits (or stages these days) evangelicals preach a message that twists Paul and dims the light of Christ from being the light that exposes our darkness and at the same time guides our hopes. Emergents are trying to enter the metastasized slice of Christendom that ignored Jesus and created systematic theogies turning God's Christ into a token for solving God's problem of how God would become able to forgive us. (yes that was meant to sound heretical,.. because it is!)
#2 The Emergents do address Paul but in meaningful but different way from evangelicals, and therefore for an ear that is tuned only toward hearing Romans as a "How to get saved" book, the Emergents will sound like they ignore Paul. However, Mclauren addresses Paul significantly and gives deep significance to Romans in a different way. To them, Paul talks about God's grace, and that it brought both Jew and Gentile, male and female, slave and free, all as one into the Kingdom/body of God/Christ by grace. It is a way that would be more meaningful to a diverse congregation such as the one in Rome, but there is hope that someday Paul's message in Romans may again apply to us as well. For the Emergents, Pauline writing draws coherence only through the lens of Christ. Independant from Christ, it is a theological cancer. It is a useless mass that reproduces quickly and produces mal-formed flesh which kills the body that Christ came to save.
Mclauren states the Emergent position by saying evangelicals (though I might argue protestantism as a whole,.. but thats a whole different issue) got Paul wrong, ignored Christ and invented a problem just so that Christ could have some role and we could still be call "Christians" rather than "Paulanists". To loud and overconfident sect of market oriented Chistians "becoming a Christian"has meant agreeing with theological propositions drawn from Paul independant of Christ. Emergents seek to undo this cancer through employing the laser-light of Christ.
#3 Lastly, the only reason we have a Bible whatsoever is to witness toward Christ and his Kingdom. We do not have a Bible so as to provide some preacher a way to pontify on Romans each week.
We have a Bible to witness toward the light of Christ which exposes the darkness.
"The scriptures are the manger in which the Christ child is held"-Luther
By
Anonymous, at 8:32 PM
Timmer,
Great post. Being a Paul FREAK and also a Jesus FREAK I have been irked by this so called "redefinition of Paul" for quite some time. I LOVE the gospels, but they are not a "canon within the canon." ALL SCRIPTURE IS GOD-BREATHED... (2 Tim 3:16) not some over others.
I would argue that Paul has been neglected and redefined because it doesn't fit with a preconceived notion of who Jesus is and the nature of justification. I think the emergent folks bring some great things to the table...namely, that the gospel is bigger than the fact that Christ died for our sins. I think this is a great correction. However, it is NEVER less than that - first and foremost Jesus is our Savior, the one who rescued us from sins. THEN, he is all the other things that the emergent and New Perspective folks want to push (lover, healer, new community builder, etc.).
I got a lot more to say, but am going to watch a movie now.
Trike
PS.....
WHERE'S MY PINT???
WHERE'S MY PINT???
WHERE'S MY PINT???
WHERE'S MY PINT???
WHERE'S MY PINT??
?WHERE'S MY PINT???
WHERE'S MY PINT???
WHERE'S MY PINT???
WHERE'S MY PINT???
WHERE'S MY PINT???
WHERE'S MY PINT???
WHERE'S MY PINT???
WHERE'S MY PINT???
WHERE'S MY PINT???
WHERE'S MY PINT???
WHERE'S MY PINT???
WHERE'S MY PINT???
WHERE'S MY PINT???
WHERE'S MY PINT???
WHERE'S MY PINT???
By
stevetreichler, at 11:08 PM
I agree with abelard that emergents are trying to cut through the layers that many have put over Jesus. It's a much needed enterprise. The point about reading Paul through the lens of Christ is very good as well. I think some have used Paul almost as a correction for the gospels. In other words Paul interprets Jesus instead of the other way around.
In truth, though, the process should probably be a bit of both much like the interplay between the Old and New Testaments. Maybe I'm wrong on this but I think if we think Paul's writings are on the same level as the Gospels then we have to consider what he says about Jesus as contributing to the overall picture of who Christ is.
Once again false choices are arising that say we have to emphasize Jesus over Paul or vice versa. Steve's comment about this emergent trend being a corrective is right on. As with most things, we should strive for the balance here.
By
Jerod Lucius, at 11:13 AM
I have so much to say I don't even know where to begin. So I'll just summarize. When we take a step back, both sides are saying effectively the same thing, just the inverse of each other. On the one hand, "Evangelicals" (loosely defined) say, "Sure Jesus has ushered in a radical new way of living, but it’s more than that. Salvation is more than just a way to live.” And then on the other hand, you have the second group saying, “Yes. Salvation is the redemption of a soul, but it’s more than that. It’s renewal right now. It’s a radical new way to live that works to usher in a radical new kingdom right now.”
It seems to me less that the two sides disagree outright, and more that they place the emphasis more so one-way or the other. I think, like most things, if you push the pendulum too far one way, you work yourself into major problems regardless of the direction.
By
A. Engler, at 2:44 PM
My oh my, we've got pints and Paul and Emergents. How can I avoid all this?
P.Abelard nice work. I like how you clarify that its about trying to express what you honestly find in the truth and not about about bitterness or having your undies on too tight. (you're cool!)
Aaron, nice voice of reason. But can the pendulum of Christ be pushed to far? I think can be in the direction of Paul. But Christ?
Anyhow, I like the way you put it.
Trike, (you will be even more cool than Abelard if you tell me what do I need to do to make Timmer buy me a pint?) Now which are the preconcieved notions of Jesus and justification? I think the problem arises from a beliefe in a justice that God must abide to. God can not be subjected to anything. The assumptions that cause probelems are avoided if draw our notions of justice from the cross and Christ.
If I were an Emergent, I would probably not see any of this as a "redefinition of Paul" but rather a more accurate and honest reading of the text in both the gospels and Paul's writings. If I were Emergent, I would aurgue that this honest and accurate reading of the text is only possible after we let go of those preconcieved notions of justice that subvert God. now, reorientate our knowledge around what is expressed at the cross and work outward from there. Assume everything we know could be wrong, and then start at the cross as beging point of truth and justice. When this is done, no one needs avoid Paul or Christ. I agree do with Abelard, for many reasons we must begin with Christ, The Kingdom, and The Cross as the starting points of anything that is claimed as truth. I don't think there is a disonance from the The Kingdom to Paul's application of that kingdom for both jews and gentiles. But even if ther is cognative disonance with Paul, then so be it, we can live with that, but we have to start from Christ and the cross. We can not import human ideas of justice to cross in order to reconcile with Paul. The cross is non-negotialble. It speaks to us, and not the reverse. The cross is the starting point of reorienting humanity's skewed concept of truth and goodness. Therefore, we can not import anything to cross that we think we find in Paul. By doing this, we only insert our wrongs ideas into the one truth that was meant to realign our depraved ideas of truth and value. I do agree with P Ablelard, we must now remove thought systems that obscure what he/she calls the "light of cross". Once this happens, we can again see how amazing the corespondance is from Christ on the Cross to Paul's application of that Kingdom of Christ. Then, St.Paul again can be valued as the great evagelist.
By
Post_Fidelitas, at 3:03 PM
At the risk of bringing my mind that seems to be only paddling around in the shallows compared to such deep swimmers, I dare to put forth the following thought: Paul always points me back to the power of Christ and His salvation, available to all. Until I read something (and I haven't found it yet...)where Paul points to himself as primary over Christ, or inconsistant with His gospel, I think the overly- defined distinctions may be more academic than actual. But the excercise of study and contemplation is excellent insofar as it keeps me asking the questions that bring me to the foot of the cross, and bringing others there through prayer and the power of His Spirit.
By
Anonymous, at 7:18 AM
Wow, we have a real firestorm rocking out on the Tim Johnson fan page. With all of the compliments going to p.abelard and other posters, I would like to throw my shoutout to Tim...I like the topic you brought up for discussion...Great Job. That is the only fruitful thing I have to say...
By
Anonymous, at 4:53 AM
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!
By
Anonymous, at 9:09 PM
The writtings of St. Paul are deeply important! Without St.Paul, Christ and the cross would seem as an illogical mess to us, St.Paul helps us make some sense the life, death, and ressurection of our Lord. Now that being said, there are deeper problems with what I would have said since back in my day. Back then St.Paul's words were universally accepted as autoratative and trustworthy, but many people in your present day seem to think of St.Paul's writings as some absolute theological code or worse yet, they place him on equal level as The Word of God himself. Why struggle now against sin or allow the cross to expose our sin if the cross's only function is to empower a weak god to forgive? This can not be acceptable! St.Paul was a man whom God choose to move in powerful ways, Christ truely was God. To understand him through the lens of our great father St. Paul is extreamly helpful. But to diminish Christ as Lord and soveriegn God through these modern readings of Paul as many of your fastest growing churches have done, that is unacceptable. It was a tragic day many years ago (almost 500 now) when someone began this process toward misunderstanding our various fathers' writings to mean that St.Paul's letters were were themselvesd the gospel. Perhaps today, these men your speak of (emergents) who are outside the realm of both the worly-loud-arogant as well as the dead in tradtion, perhaps these men will help restore Christ as Lord and King over your churches. Perhaps, rather than a love of self and the easy way, the fear of God will return again return to his people and Christ will again be seen as the narrow way, but also as the way of life. May God's righteous judgment be upon all who twist St.Paul's writings into blocking the precious light of Christ from exposing and saving sinners. It is understandable that these people would spend a lifetime avoiding sermons on Christ of the Gospel. It here here that their condemnation is proclaimed most vividly!
By
Anonymous, at 11:27 AM
There's been a bit too much anonymously presented here. I'd like some coleslaw with my red Herring....I think it's all the same person posting them. What do I win?
If you have an opinion, have the go-nads to put your name by it. This a blog, not a book. If you have an opinion, claim it. Be bold, be eloquent. Maybe even use a spellchecker. But don't be anonymous. It's just cowardly, and I'm tired of it.
More on the content of the responses later.
By
timmer k., at 12:06 PM
Some theologians have more go-nads than others,... he he he.
By
Anonymous, at 4:01 PM
Anselm, that was a low blow and I take that a bit personaly.
By
Anonymous, at 1:27 AM
Hey Amselm, while I might like what you're had to say on Timmer's blog, I told you to leave the eunock think alone or I'd find some hench men to even the score on you.
We'l see how you feel when the odrination to minisrty is "Biblically" closed to you too!
By
Anonymous, at 2:01 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home