- Aug 3, 2004
- 14,082
- 1,003
- 84
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Widowed
Here is an extract from "Reframing Paul' by Mark Strom. It is relevant for those who participate in a home church or home group of some kind.
"In many ways evangelical thought resembles the categories and methods of classical and Graeco-Roman philosophy and theology. Our interpretive and theological procedures too often abstract the text from its historical and modern settings in order to establish what we regard as undiluted, absolute and objective truth. Ignoring the differences between Paul's words to Corinth, Rome and Ephesus, we reduce the data to supposed common denominators in order to formulate the abstract theological concepts of "Paul's doctrine of church," "Paul's doctrine of leadership" or "the centre of Paul's theology." The truth is seen to lie above any historical and cultural setting. This, as we shall see, is Plato, not Paul. Paul's letters are reduced from rich and provocative narratives and improvisations to a data base for systems of theology.
At the heart of Paul's reframing of this dispute was his preoccupation with Christ, who brought coherence to Paul's conversations. Every one of Paul's letters shows him working from the story of Christ to re frame disputes, ideals and expectations in the fledgling ekklesiai. This same preoccupation with Christ is a great strength of evangelical teaching. Theologians and preachers rightly insist on seeing the person and work of Christ as the focal point of the Scriptures. Yet even "the gospel" can become another abstraction. In Paul's thought, neither Christ, nor his dying and rising, nor even his gospel was an idea or category of ideas or ideals removed from relationship. Paul knew and wanted to know the person of Christ, not theological ideas or processes abstracted from him.
Paul would not allow any human system or convention to hedge the communities against the risks of working out what it meant to live by the dying and rising of Christ. Such security would only throw the community back on their own resources, and reinforce individual and communal boasting. The openness of Paul's life and thought to the world around him contrasts with the insularity of parts of evangelicalism. Paul urged believers to remain in the world for the sake of both the gospel and the world; we have frequently retreated into institutional and privatized ghettos. There is a certain irony in this. While evangelicals generally do not warm to the concept of a state church, we have erected what is in effect a Christendom [bless and do not curse] complete with large organizational structures vying for public influence, educational institutions spanning kindergarten to university, and a vast network of bureaucrats, businesses, tradespeople and professionals. In a further irony, this imitation of "secular" structures has not brought the everyday world within the scope of theology and the gathering. Indeed, it may have deepened the ways we split life into the sacred and the secular.
Paul's gatherings focused on integrating allegiance to Jesus Christ with everyday concerns. The people met to equip one another for the decisions and options they would face outside the gathering. The gathering did not convene for religious worship. They did not gather for a rite. Nor do the sources suggest a meeting structured around the reading and exposition of Scripture following the model of the synagogue. They met to fellowship around their common relationship to one another on account of Christ. Most evangelicals agree that a rite is not central to church; most argue that preaching is central. But rite and preaching share common ground. Both are clergy-centred. Perhaps the reason so many theologians and clergy resist any shift away from the centrality of the sermon lies not only in the fear of subjectivism or heresy, but also in the fear of losing control and prestige.
Professionalism, even elitism, marks the sermon and the service and distinguishes clergy from congregation. Paul faced something similar at Corinth. The strong had transferred to themselves certain social and religious marks of rank and status-education, eloquence, a leader's style, even clothing. They had also come to regard the fruits of Christ's work-the Spirit and the evidences of his presence-as further marks of status, even "spiritual" status. Paul would not tolerate this creation of new rank within the assembly. He urged the Corinthians to see what they had as gifts of grace. They must honour the least honourable. This was not conventional; it was not moral. This was not theology; it was not about words. This was the meaning of grace.
Little in modern Christian experience matches this. Academic, congregational and denominational life functions along clear lines of rank, status and honour. We preach that the gospel has ended elitism, but we rarely allow the implications to go beyond ideas. Paul, however, actually stepped down in the world. His inversions of status were social realities, not intellectualized reforms."
John
NZ
"In many ways evangelical thought resembles the categories and methods of classical and Graeco-Roman philosophy and theology. Our interpretive and theological procedures too often abstract the text from its historical and modern settings in order to establish what we regard as undiluted, absolute and objective truth. Ignoring the differences between Paul's words to Corinth, Rome and Ephesus, we reduce the data to supposed common denominators in order to formulate the abstract theological concepts of "Paul's doctrine of church," "Paul's doctrine of leadership" or "the centre of Paul's theology." The truth is seen to lie above any historical and cultural setting. This, as we shall see, is Plato, not Paul. Paul's letters are reduced from rich and provocative narratives and improvisations to a data base for systems of theology.
At the heart of Paul's reframing of this dispute was his preoccupation with Christ, who brought coherence to Paul's conversations. Every one of Paul's letters shows him working from the story of Christ to re frame disputes, ideals and expectations in the fledgling ekklesiai. This same preoccupation with Christ is a great strength of evangelical teaching. Theologians and preachers rightly insist on seeing the person and work of Christ as the focal point of the Scriptures. Yet even "the gospel" can become another abstraction. In Paul's thought, neither Christ, nor his dying and rising, nor even his gospel was an idea or category of ideas or ideals removed from relationship. Paul knew and wanted to know the person of Christ, not theological ideas or processes abstracted from him.
Paul would not allow any human system or convention to hedge the communities against the risks of working out what it meant to live by the dying and rising of Christ. Such security would only throw the community back on their own resources, and reinforce individual and communal boasting. The openness of Paul's life and thought to the world around him contrasts with the insularity of parts of evangelicalism. Paul urged believers to remain in the world for the sake of both the gospel and the world; we have frequently retreated into institutional and privatized ghettos. There is a certain irony in this. While evangelicals generally do not warm to the concept of a state church, we have erected what is in effect a Christendom [bless and do not curse] complete with large organizational structures vying for public influence, educational institutions spanning kindergarten to university, and a vast network of bureaucrats, businesses, tradespeople and professionals. In a further irony, this imitation of "secular" structures has not brought the everyday world within the scope of theology and the gathering. Indeed, it may have deepened the ways we split life into the sacred and the secular.
Paul's gatherings focused on integrating allegiance to Jesus Christ with everyday concerns. The people met to equip one another for the decisions and options they would face outside the gathering. The gathering did not convene for religious worship. They did not gather for a rite. Nor do the sources suggest a meeting structured around the reading and exposition of Scripture following the model of the synagogue. They met to fellowship around their common relationship to one another on account of Christ. Most evangelicals agree that a rite is not central to church; most argue that preaching is central. But rite and preaching share common ground. Both are clergy-centred. Perhaps the reason so many theologians and clergy resist any shift away from the centrality of the sermon lies not only in the fear of subjectivism or heresy, but also in the fear of losing control and prestige.
Professionalism, even elitism, marks the sermon and the service and distinguishes clergy from congregation. Paul faced something similar at Corinth. The strong had transferred to themselves certain social and religious marks of rank and status-education, eloquence, a leader's style, even clothing. They had also come to regard the fruits of Christ's work-the Spirit and the evidences of his presence-as further marks of status, even "spiritual" status. Paul would not tolerate this creation of new rank within the assembly. He urged the Corinthians to see what they had as gifts of grace. They must honour the least honourable. This was not conventional; it was not moral. This was not theology; it was not about words. This was the meaning of grace.
Little in modern Christian experience matches this. Academic, congregational and denominational life functions along clear lines of rank, status and honour. We preach that the gospel has ended elitism, but we rarely allow the implications to go beyond ideas. Paul, however, actually stepped down in the world. His inversions of status were social realities, not intellectualized reforms."
John
NZ
