I always kind of thought the Apostle Paul was an *&^$#%^. Falling somewhere on the spectrum between "ruining Christianity" and "totally misunderstanding everything." Those of you who aren't big into Christianity, he's probably the reason why. Then again, those of you who are into Christianity, he may be the reason why. He's the gatekeeper, the filter, for much of what we know as the organized Church and the theology that comes with it. A deeply flawed human being with some weird quirks, axes to grind, and frankly not always the nicest. It was probably far too easy for me to throw him out with the bathwater.
But, just as the movement of Jews following Jesus after his death--and even Jesus himself--needs to be put into a wider context (culturally, historically, etc.), a little perspective on Paul has helped me go a little easier on him in the past few days. After attending the event for my former professor a couple weekends ago, I decided to take another look at one of his works that I had downloaded onto my Nook awhile back (and never got around to reading). I'd read a couple prominent publications from Paul scholars (he's seen a flurry of new research and was a bit "hot" for awhile) and wasn't eager to return to a subject who usually annoys me.
Ron Miller always had a way of tackling difficult topics that made them accessible though. Whether that's conflict in the Middle East, fundamentalism, existentialism, mysticism. So it didn't surprise me that his The Sacred Writings of Paul managed to change my mind. It maybe did, however, surprise me that Paul surprised me.
I maintain that Paul is weird. A devout Jew who harshly persecutes early Christians before he himself...becomes Christian. He then turns around and picks a fight with devout Jewish Christians who are mad that he has decided to preach to gentiles. It's complicated and involves a lot of putting him in historical context.
The easiest way of saying it is that Jesus was a Palestinian Jew and Paul was...not that kind of Jew.
Jesus came from a culture that had far less of a mind-body split. Paul was far more influenced by Greek culture and had a disconnect between head and torso (a little dark martyr humor there) that left him preaching "head good, body bad." Jesus spent his days advocating participation in society...healing sick, feeding the hungry. While Paul gives birth to a much more ascetic tradition of leaving the world behind. Jesus comes from a traditional Jewish theology of being called to account before God for NOT enjoying Creation. Paul...hates Creation a little bit.
What intrigues me more about Paul, however, is his lengthy struggle for acceptance. We think--mostly--of a lot of uglier messages from Paul about sin and salvation, predestination, homophobia, his separating God out of the world and away from humanity with his theology. Not to mention the patriarchal Church traditions which arise and subjugate what is, essentially, victims of Christianity. Yup, that's all Paul. His fault. But Paul was also in this very Jewish struggle over what it means to be Jewish and his take was a very open, expanding view of then-Jewish Christianity.
The folks in Jerusalem were busy thinking of themselves as Jewish followers of a Jewish Jesus. They read the Torah, they kept the commandments, they didn't eat forbidden foods. But Paul goes to bat for non-Jews being allowed to sit at the table as followers of Jesus. He has his own radically inclusive mindset that does seem to have some element of Jesus there. Ron Miller points out that Jesus didn't seem to be overwhelmingly concerned about what religion you were. The gospel was a humanitarian one more than anything. Roman solider, tax collector, woman, he didn't care about the rules for mingling and social etiquette. Jesus seems much more interested in eating together, drinking together, healing the sick. (A very un-Paul mindset, but a very Paul way of breaking down social barriers.)
Paul is not only battling the Jewish-Christian church about his evangelizing gentiles, but he's eventually killed by a Roman Empire where Christianity was a dangerous, fringe sect undermining authority. So my updated view of Paul--the gentler one--is that he spent a lifetime trying to win converts to a faith that was never really Jewish and simultaneously hated by the authorities. There's an undercurrent leftover from Paul's time as a Pharisee early in his life where he's never quite "good enough." Psychologically, it's the same kind of innate self-hatred that both drives his quest for approval and also drives his persecution of all others he deems unfit. It gives early Christianity--almost from the start--a big old dose of neurotic "can't quite make up its mind." It's really the root, theologically, of why it's always the most fundamentalist who end up getting caught in the hypocritical, monumental scandals...it's fun to root out the sin in others when you see yourself as intrinsically fighting inner demons.
Are we sinners? Are we saved? Is there a Heaven and Hell? Paul ends up winning all those arguments. Battles that, strangely, Jesus never bothered to fight himself as a Palestinian Jew. That's the real question I've been wondering about as I read Ron's book is WWJD. What would historical Jesus have thought about Paul? The church in Jerusalem was, in many ways, closer to Jesus during his life. So it's tempting to throw Paul under the bus just like I did. Jesus was a Jew, but we've lost to history his daily observance. He obviously made some trips to the Temple even if he clearly has issues with organized religious authorities who abuse power. But was Jesus' message Jewish? Spiritual but not endorsing a particular faith? My contention would be that Jesus certainly never meant to found the church that springs out of Paul. But would Jesus have endorsed Paul's message to the gentiles?
There are no answers here because we don't know. It's just enough that I'm willing to give Paul a benefit of the doubt though. He's still a jerk and modern Christianity would do well to de-emphasize anything having to do with him. From the big picture perspective, however, I think Paul did have an element of Jesus somewhere in there. It's hard to claim he expanded and included anybody considering the ramifications of his theology leave so many hurt and excluded. BUT...but...that's the most precise way of saying it. He expanded and included people who would not have otherwise given a strange Jewish sect the time of day.
We may be burdened with a Paul-flavored Christianity that tastes sour, but we can hopefully appreciate that it was the right medicine for his time and place. He defended his territory in ways that we may find disgusting today, but he's like that crazy woman at the party who means well so you listen to her chat for 30 minutes even though you plan on ignoring her and can't wait to get away.
A lot of people are eager to get away from Paul. Understandable. Remember my whole opening introduction about ruining and misunderstanding? Where do you go then? Nuanced discussion of where he went wrong? Is Christianity forever down this path of Pauline crazy and too far gone? I'll leave those answers to people smarter than me. I do think there's an ongoing debate within the faith about what the future holds. But the next time you get in a shouting match with someone trying to foist their stubbornly-Paul theology on you, remember that they get it honestly. Paul kind of hated himself. Not his fault. Paul hated a lot of things.
Jesus? He'd have probably wanted to go have a drink and talk it out.
But, just as the movement of Jews following Jesus after his death--and even Jesus himself--needs to be put into a wider context (culturally, historically, etc.), a little perspective on Paul has helped me go a little easier on him in the past few days. After attending the event for my former professor a couple weekends ago, I decided to take another look at one of his works that I had downloaded onto my Nook awhile back (and never got around to reading). I'd read a couple prominent publications from Paul scholars (he's seen a flurry of new research and was a bit "hot" for awhile) and wasn't eager to return to a subject who usually annoys me.
Ron Miller always had a way of tackling difficult topics that made them accessible though. Whether that's conflict in the Middle East, fundamentalism, existentialism, mysticism. So it didn't surprise me that his The Sacred Writings of Paul managed to change my mind. It maybe did, however, surprise me that Paul surprised me.
I maintain that Paul is weird. A devout Jew who harshly persecutes early Christians before he himself...becomes Christian. He then turns around and picks a fight with devout Jewish Christians who are mad that he has decided to preach to gentiles. It's complicated and involves a lot of putting him in historical context.
The easiest way of saying it is that Jesus was a Palestinian Jew and Paul was...not that kind of Jew.
Jesus came from a culture that had far less of a mind-body split. Paul was far more influenced by Greek culture and had a disconnect between head and torso (a little dark martyr humor there) that left him preaching "head good, body bad." Jesus spent his days advocating participation in society...healing sick, feeding the hungry. While Paul gives birth to a much more ascetic tradition of leaving the world behind. Jesus comes from a traditional Jewish theology of being called to account before God for NOT enjoying Creation. Paul...hates Creation a little bit.
What intrigues me more about Paul, however, is his lengthy struggle for acceptance. We think--mostly--of a lot of uglier messages from Paul about sin and salvation, predestination, homophobia, his separating God out of the world and away from humanity with his theology. Not to mention the patriarchal Church traditions which arise and subjugate what is, essentially, victims of Christianity. Yup, that's all Paul. His fault. But Paul was also in this very Jewish struggle over what it means to be Jewish and his take was a very open, expanding view of then-Jewish Christianity.
The folks in Jerusalem were busy thinking of themselves as Jewish followers of a Jewish Jesus. They read the Torah, they kept the commandments, they didn't eat forbidden foods. But Paul goes to bat for non-Jews being allowed to sit at the table as followers of Jesus. He has his own radically inclusive mindset that does seem to have some element of Jesus there. Ron Miller points out that Jesus didn't seem to be overwhelmingly concerned about what religion you were. The gospel was a humanitarian one more than anything. Roman solider, tax collector, woman, he didn't care about the rules for mingling and social etiquette. Jesus seems much more interested in eating together, drinking together, healing the sick. (A very un-Paul mindset, but a very Paul way of breaking down social barriers.)
Paul is not only battling the Jewish-Christian church about his evangelizing gentiles, but he's eventually killed by a Roman Empire where Christianity was a dangerous, fringe sect undermining authority. So my updated view of Paul--the gentler one--is that he spent a lifetime trying to win converts to a faith that was never really Jewish and simultaneously hated by the authorities. There's an undercurrent leftover from Paul's time as a Pharisee early in his life where he's never quite "good enough." Psychologically, it's the same kind of innate self-hatred that both drives his quest for approval and also drives his persecution of all others he deems unfit. It gives early Christianity--almost from the start--a big old dose of neurotic "can't quite make up its mind." It's really the root, theologically, of why it's always the most fundamentalist who end up getting caught in the hypocritical, monumental scandals...it's fun to root out the sin in others when you see yourself as intrinsically fighting inner demons.
Are we sinners? Are we saved? Is there a Heaven and Hell? Paul ends up winning all those arguments. Battles that, strangely, Jesus never bothered to fight himself as a Palestinian Jew. That's the real question I've been wondering about as I read Ron's book is WWJD. What would historical Jesus have thought about Paul? The church in Jerusalem was, in many ways, closer to Jesus during his life. So it's tempting to throw Paul under the bus just like I did. Jesus was a Jew, but we've lost to history his daily observance. He obviously made some trips to the Temple even if he clearly has issues with organized religious authorities who abuse power. But was Jesus' message Jewish? Spiritual but not endorsing a particular faith? My contention would be that Jesus certainly never meant to found the church that springs out of Paul. But would Jesus have endorsed Paul's message to the gentiles?
There are no answers here because we don't know. It's just enough that I'm willing to give Paul a benefit of the doubt though. He's still a jerk and modern Christianity would do well to de-emphasize anything having to do with him. From the big picture perspective, however, I think Paul did have an element of Jesus somewhere in there. It's hard to claim he expanded and included anybody considering the ramifications of his theology leave so many hurt and excluded. BUT...but...that's the most precise way of saying it. He expanded and included people who would not have otherwise given a strange Jewish sect the time of day.
We may be burdened with a Paul-flavored Christianity that tastes sour, but we can hopefully appreciate that it was the right medicine for his time and place. He defended his territory in ways that we may find disgusting today, but he's like that crazy woman at the party who means well so you listen to her chat for 30 minutes even though you plan on ignoring her and can't wait to get away.
A lot of people are eager to get away from Paul. Understandable. Remember my whole opening introduction about ruining and misunderstanding? Where do you go then? Nuanced discussion of where he went wrong? Is Christianity forever down this path of Pauline crazy and too far gone? I'll leave those answers to people smarter than me. I do think there's an ongoing debate within the faith about what the future holds. But the next time you get in a shouting match with someone trying to foist their stubbornly-Paul theology on you, remember that they get it honestly. Paul kind of hated himself. Not his fault. Paul hated a lot of things.
Jesus? He'd have probably wanted to go have a drink and talk it out.