What Are We Reclaiming Paul From?

Coming from the Lutheran tradition, we in that tradition have deeply psychologized and made salvation very individualistic through the writings of Paul, especially his letter to to the Romans. We talk about Paul as though the only thing he had to say was we are justified by grace through faith, when he talked about a whole host of other things. A few good corrections would be Krister Stendahl’s classic – Paul to the Gentiles and Dorothy Soelle’s Mystery of Death.

You are setting up straw men, James. The main thrust of Protestant, Evangelical scholarship has been to uncover the original historical context of all Scriptural books of the Christian faith. Just look at the TC studies, and the archeological research used today in NT and OT studies within scholastic Protestantism – even Evangelical. Where have you been? You keep on referring to a strong eisegesis intent, when the thrust of the Reformation was to try and rid the Church of eisegetic tendencies. This is the foundation of the mantra of “sola scriptura.”

Your assessment of Protestant, Evangelicalism is false, James. Your whole issue of context is either based on ignorance, or you are creating a straw man to attach.

Rutledge,

Thanks for the feedback. I think everyone can be guilty of a little bit of eisegesis, even with the best efforts of exegesis of a text. I am not sure there is such a thing as absolute pure exegesis.

With that in mind I am not sure that the reformers went as far as they could in their exegesis of the text because they failed to completely exegete themselves. What I mean is they may not have been aware of many of their own prejudices toward the text that their situation and life gave them and that their move to just depend on scripture ALONE fails to exegete the context of scripture itself as emerging from the body of Christ.

It is ironic that you frame the reformation as trying to “rid the Church of eisegetic tendencies”. I think Catholics would say the exact opposite that it is Protestants who practice eisegesis because we deny the authority and traditions of the Church.

I think they may have some validity in their point, but the truth probably really is in some middle ground between the two. I think in the end the reformation, by pointing us back to scripture wisely pointed us back to our oldest testimonies of the body of Christ. But I also think the idea of “scripture alone” over states their case and makes scripture an end unto itself and largely removes the church as the context of scripture and scripture’s origins. Just exegeting what the text says in not enough, we need to exegete ourselves and the church’s relationship to the text both historically and presently.

Peace,

James

“With that in mind I am not sure that the reformers went as far as they could in their exegesis of the text” – No, they didn’t have the institutions that we have today to have been able to do so.

“they may not have been aware of many of their own prejudices toward the text that their situation and life gave them” – Every Protestant biblical interpretation class 101 will affirm this statement to even apply today.

Luther made the point in his debates that the Church (Roman Catholic) had affirmed at one time, then condemned at another the same confessions of what Scripture taught concerning the issue of Original Sin. His point was that it wasn’t ultimately the church councils or the Papacy that determined the teaching of Christ and the apostles, because they could be in error. One had to go back to the original writings to find the determination of what should be confessed. It is in this vein of thought that you get Protestant scholasticism going into other disciplines of textual criticism and archeology to find the original context and the original writing. But yes, it takes a community to take an ancient document and apply what it teaches for the writings not to be “dead.”

“it is Protestants who practice eisegesis because we deny the authority and traditions of the Church.” – “As soon as a coin in the coffer rings / the soul from purgatory springs” When church councils and the Papacy affirmed the selling of indulgencies, Luther reasoned that there had to be something beyond these church offices that condemned tthis institutionalizing practices that were not biblical. What authority above the Church can you call the Church to account?

Point in case: your issues are not new, and the reclaiming (of whatever it is) is directed at Protestant, Evangelicals. You can easily find a PE scholar that has spent their entire life specializing on one book of Paul trying to find the most exact historical context to the Writings. You can find another strand of PEs that spend their entire life trying to validate the original wording down to the letters to avoid any historical misunderstanding as much as possible.

Lastly, the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches are in disagreement with those under the Bishop of Rome as well.

So you mention PEs, but you are reclaiming Paul from who? Your sketch of PEs is not correct, and you are missrepresenting the major thrust of the theologians that speak to that tradition.

Post Script: Scholars are looking now to see if there was an error in declaring II Peter as having come from Peter.

Stop your missrepresentation. Straw men are easy to attach and take down. Fluffy spiritual writing and gross misrepresenting seems to be a common characteristic within much of this “Emergent Conversation.”

You seem to have a ‘straw-emerging conversation’ yourself. :)

Rutledge wrote, “When church councils and the Papacy affirmed the selling of indulgencies, Luther reasoned that there had to be something beyond these church offices that condemned this institutionalizing practices that were not biblical. What authority above the Church can you call the Church to account?”

Rutledge,

I believe it was the church itself that kept itself accountable as God was present in the reformation as he is present in his church throughout history. As you know, the reformation was far bigger than just Luther. It was a movement of people, and a movement of the church. Not, the institutional bureaucracy the reformers had conflict with but a grassroots movement of the living church. The reformation took place in the context of community that agreed together that the organized institution that called herself the church in their world were out of bounds in some critical areas.

What did this grass roots movement of the church base such discernment on? Well they decided to base it on scripture. And what is scripture? Scripture is our oldest testimonies from the early church, and I believe as such it speaks with the authority of the living church today as much as ever.

One of the great benefits of the reformation was that it put the testimony of the early church, our scriptures, in the hands of all believers as part of the royal priesthood and not just the religious elite. This gave both the early founding church we can read of in the NT, along with the body of Christ in the present world, an appropriate voice as part of the living church. This brings us much better accountability than a church dominated by just authority according to “office”.

Even with such a great, course correcting, benefit of the reformation I do think that the corresponding new belief of “scripture alone” overcompensated to some degree in regards to the issues it was trying to overcome. The result is that it put scripture in a vacuum and changed our relationship with it (not all of it for the better) that has affected us even today as Protestant Evangelicals.

Rutledge, I am not sure exactly why you think I am creating a “straw man”, I am not even denying strong PE (Protestant, Evangelical) scholarship and their solid contribution to our understanding of the text today. But I am trying to put our own lens of Christianity in context with who we are and where we have come from so we can continue to grow in our faith and commitment to Christ as part of the historic, global and catholic (universal) church community.

Your reference to Luther’s debates where he reasoned that the church councils and Papacy were fallible and how we could only rely on our oldest writings of scripture is interesting. You are correct that it is in this vein that lead to modern criticism and archeology to get a better grasp of the original context of scripture. But again, textual criticism alone stops too short. We need to better exegete and understand the historical church passed down to us.

For instance, could it be that Luther’s concerns with infallibility and inerrancy of scripture had more to do with a reaction to the intuitional church’s claim in his day to be infallible? I believe Luther rightly questioned the infallibility of the church, but he still assumed the concept of infallibility itself from the church of his day, and then he simply transferred the idea to scripture when no one framed scripture in terms of infallibility for the 16 centuries of Christianity that preceded it. Luther’s concern for “inerrancy” was only generated because of the institutional church’s abuse of power in their claim to be infallible. Ironically then, Luther did not come to his conclusion of inerrancy of scripture by the scripture alone; nor could he.

We are a part of a living church, not infallible at all, but yet God is present in us and our humanity as the body of Christ; his continued incarnational presence in the world throughout history. It is not enough to just understand the text, we need to understand ourselves as the church today and throughout history. When we do explore the text of our holy scriptures, like the works of Paul, we not only need to try and exegete Paul’s original intent, but his audience, culture, and even, as much as we can, Paul himself. We also need to exegete ourselves as we interact with the text today along with all that has influenced our own lens of it. This means as we go beyond the text we also try to exegete our own church history and traditions as well.

What I find amazing about the living church is that we, together with those like Luther and others throughout church history, are all still active participants in the conversation with likes of Paul and other NT writers as they shared the first testimonies of Christ’s presence in the world. Ultimately our sacred texts need to be repeatedly reexamined, and even reclaimed from our various lenses in which we can read them through, especially when they begin to monopolize our perception according to just a small part of the over all conversation and corresponding Christian traditions.

I believe this was part of the spirit of Luther and the reformation of his day, and I see the same spirit in conversations like the “Reclaiming Paul” conference. While emergent leaning and many other evangelicals today are trying to still lean into the great contributions of our Protestant history, many of us are trying to move beyond the “Protest” of it and reclaim our understanding of our faith in the broader historical context it truly is in. I think conversations like the Reclaiming Paul conference can help us do that.

Peace,

James

It seems as though you are saying that you are reclaiming Paul from Protestant, Evangelical prejudices. Without going into minor rabbit trails on some of what you wrote, the main thrust of your writing in regards to the “oldest testimonies from the early church” should be to “go beyond the text we also try to exegete our own church history and traditions as well.”

You continued: “When we do explore the text of our holy scriptures, like the works of Paul, we not only need to try and exegete Paul’s original intent, but his audience, culture, and even, as much as we can, Paul himself. We also need to exegete ourselves as we interact with the text today along with all that has influenced our own lens of it. This means as we go beyond the text we also try to exegete our own church history and traditions as well.”

James, everything you are stating here isn’t new. I don’t agree with the conclusions of Rudolf Bultman’s theology, but his efforts to demythologize Scripture is an effort in what you are describing. I see good branches of Christianity and bad branches that have been doing what you describe here for a long time. So, Paul is being claimed back from who?

If your answer is Protestants, or Evangelical Protestants, then you are setting up a straw man, because they have been doing for quite some time what you describe what needs to be done.

Also, Reclaiming Paul Conference (for just $189 – why 89 and not 90, marketing technique like a megachurch? No, an Emergent wouldn’t do that.) Says, “the Jesus of the gospels,” am I getting a hint that the movement is suggesting a Jesus for the gospels, a Jesus for Paul, a Jesus for the Epistles,… Even South Park has their portrayal of Jesus.

From what you said, Emergents need to start calling themselves Protestants 2.0. Because, the idea of reclaiming seems to carry a tone of “protest.”

Rutledge wrote, “So, Paul is being claimed back from who? If your answer is Protestants, or Evangelical Protestants, then you are setting up a straw man, because they have been doing for quite some time what you describe what needs to be done.”

So as Protestant Evangelicals we are completely unbiased and do not have our own lens in which can contaminate in any way the meaning of a text? Wow, I had no idea we are so absolutely objective.

I am a Protestant Evangelical Rutledge, the Seminary which is holding this conference is Protestant Evangelical. I am not sure why you are so defensive. No one said what we are doing is “new”. Of course the conversation is something that we are simply continuing in and has been going on for a long time even in our own Protestant Evangelical tradition.

So according to you, continuing to explore our own biases and lens as Protestant Evangelicals is setting up a “straw man” because the Protestant lens has been so pure that it has captured Paul perfectly without reading into him any bias from the views of our own tradition. Your claiming I am creating a “straw man” because we as Protestants have in no way read our own views into the text is simply both odd and arrogant. Of course we do, and we will always have this to wrestle with; even those of us who lean into the emergent conversation will always have to wrestle with our own lens. If we are “Protestants 2.0” as you say, then it is because we have humbled ourselves enough to turn our “protest” in on our selves some for a change.

As for the cost of the seminar, you should be reminded that this event is being put on by a Seminary, not a local church or “mega church”. There simply is cost involved for conferences put on by higher learning institutions. You seem to be taking cheep shots now with your marketing accusations without doing your homework on what the event is about to know if your criticism has any validity.

Again Rutledge, I am just not sure why you are so greatly defensive of Protestant Evangelicals and offended by the conference. I am not sure why you feel the need to champion the Protestant Evangelical view when Protestant Evangelicals are putting on the conference. Finally, I don’t know how to take criticism seriously that simply asserts that as Protestant Evangelicals we have our understanding of Paul nailed and understand him so perfectly and objectively there is no need to have any “new” exploration of Paul or our own Protestant Evangelical lens. It is precisely this kind of attitude that we need to reclaim Paul from.

Peace,

James

Rutledge,

If I may interject one comment here into the discussion you are having with James: You wrote (in comment #7), “I don’t agree with the conclusions of Rudolf Bultman’s theology, but his efforts to demythologize Scripture is an effort in what you are describing. I see good branches of Christianity and bad branches that have been doing what you describe here for a long time.”

So “Reclaiming Paul” is nothing “new” for you or anyone else who is familiar with “Rudolf Bultman’s theology,” but I’d venture to say that the number of people who know “Rudolf Bultman’s theology” is really rather small. And, as James said in comment #8, “No one said what we are doing is ‘new’.”

The fact that this discussion isn’t new does not, however, mean that it isn’t “new” for many people who will attend. Perhaps you would personally enjoy and benefit from a theological conversation more “advanced” than this one, but there are still plenty of people who still need to have this conversation first, because they haven’t had this one yet. It may be “old news” to you, but it’s very relevant to a large number of us Protestant Evangelicals.

JAMES:

“ Wow, I had no idea we are so absolutely objective.” Complete objectivity in interpretation and application is a pipe dream, but it is what most honest theologians are shooting for, and is taught at the entry level of biblical interpretation classes, even like at a summer YWAM class. This is a shallow illustration, but it is to the point: you have 60+ year old pastors with subscriptions to Rolling Stone Mag, so they can try and “lens” their homily to their audience.

You talked about the neglect of context. I gave you facts that context has not been neglected. So, you claim it is being neglected, “When Protestant/Evangelical people speak today, the idea of scripture alone seems to inherently deny the relevance of context. The context of the Reformation from which this idea emerged is lost. Even the context of scripture is lost to some degree as scripture is treated as if its context is exclusively self-contained.” James, in general PE leadership, though they may draw wrong conclusions, are up to their ears from their source materials with contextual information when preparing for a sermon or lecture. The Early Church Fathers, or the Latin Fathers positions on passages are easily accessible, and are used by any serious Protestant Evangelical commentary on a Pauline book.

Go as far as you want to into any line of critiquing Pauline theology at the conference, but I see you emphasizing the action of “reclaiming” in relation to the only social group that you mention, Protestant Evangelicals. The logic of your argument seems to be that you are taking back what you already have. I am a car dealer, I’m going to take back (reclaim) a car that I already own and is sitting on my own damn lot. My point is that the idea of reclaiming is misguiding. What you are trying to reclaim, you already have. Context is missing, but it isn’t. You can have an emergent conference about Paul, you just aren’t reclaiming anything according to your issue with context.

“So according to you, continuing to explore our own biases and lens as Protestant Evangelicals is setting up a “straw man” – No, man. Knock yourself out in your expedition, but to claim that context is missing is the straw man that you attack.

“If we are “Protestants 2.0” as you say, then it is because we have humbled ourselves enough to turn our “protest” in on our selves some for a change.” No what it seems that you are doing is cloaking yourself in PE garb, leaching off of PE associations, while forming a church branch that is completely different. And no one in the EM leadership has the gonads to stop calling it a conversation. The movements among the leadership are distinctly anti-PE at 180 degrees in a lot of areas. Proof: look at Knight’s latest blog post.

I’ll address Steve tomorrow.

Rutledge wrote, “You talked about the neglect of context. I gave you facts that context has not been neglected…The logic of your argument seems to be that you are taking back what you already have…to claim that context is missing is the straw man that you attack.”

What “facts” did you give that as PE’s we have no lens from our own context that in any way changes our view of Paul that he can not be reclaimed from to any degree?

According to you, looking for how exploring our own lens as Protestants, and exploring how we came to our conclusions, and how those conclusions may have in some way distorted Paul, is a “straw man” because PE’s have already looked at context to the point that there is no distortion. You say there is nothing to “take back”. You hold this position even thought you also admit that, “Complete objectivity in interpretation and application is a pipe dream.”

O.K. you have made clear your position and I disagree with it, as you disagree with mine. I am not sure what else can be said about this.

Rutledge also wrote, “what it seems that you are doing is cloaking yourself in PE garb, leaching off of PE associations, while forming a church branch that is completely different.

I had no idea that as Pastor of a small church in the Washington /Baltimore area I was also busy forming a coup against my own denomination. I am not sure how anything I said lead you to the conclusion that I am a part my Protestant Evangelical tradition under false pretense while I am starting my own branch of Christianity. That is quite the accusation.

Clearly you believe I am up to no good; as you think I am creating “straw men” and forming a new branch of Christianity. I am not sure that our conversation can be constructive in light of what seems to be your almost paranoid suspicions of me. I wish you peace as we move on, if you will receive it.

James

“What “facts” did you give that as PE’s we have no lens from our own context that in any way changes our view of Paul that he can not be reclaimed from to any degree?”
What I keep pointing out James is that you have context coming out your ears if you are in association with PEs.

STEVE:

“I grew up in American mainline Protestantism. Sure we read Paul, but we weren’t obsessed with him by any means. (I didn’t even hear of the “Romans Road” until I was in my 30s.) So I was honestly surprised when my work in emergent church circles brought me into contact with many people who were reared in evangelical homes and churches. Many of them, it seemed to me, had been taught that they got Paul, and that no one else really did.” – Tony Jones

This kind of talk is not humble. This is you-have-your-head-up-your-backside talk. Clearly there is a pejorative tone towards Protestants. “Many of them,” not, “Many of us.” There is clearly a distinct ideological divide going on that is targeted at by various persons towards various Protestant targets. You use the word “reclaiming” to draw a distinction that you are the ones that are getting “it,” because “they” aren’t doing anything to reclaim.
You are being dishonest with people. If it were a conversation and not a movement to a new branch of Christianity (You’d be labeled a NCM: New Christian Movement) – I don’t have the time to parse every EM leader’s wording – there would not be this “them” “us” dichotomy. Much of the EM branch’s ideas line with old school liberal theology. Why else does your social justice issues seem to be looking more and more like liberation theology, or progressive theology? So much of your branch deals leftist social platforms.
Maybe it is time that Protestant institutions begin to disassociate anything that claims to be Emergent, cuz it looks like you are distinctly headed into a morass of belief systems, and as long as you have “Jesus” somewhere in there, it is A-OK.

Rutledge,

Saying “This kind of talk is not humble” is, well, not humble, so that’s not really starting off the discussion on the right foot.

Second, you are quoting my friend Tony Jones—who explains, “I grew up in American mainline Protestantism.” So when Tony later says “Many of them” he’s referring to evangelicals (“people who were reared in evangelical homes and churches”). That’s the distinction Tony is making here—his perspective as a mainline Christian vs. the way that Paul had been appropriated by evangelicals. It’s a critique that he is making from that vantage point. Call it “pejorative,” I guess, if it offends you. Trust me, tougher things could be said, I’m sure.

Your pushback on the use of the word “reclaiming” is fair. I don’t know who came up with the title for this event, but I personally see some allusion in it to the title “Reclaiming the Center,” which was a conservative evangelical attempt to wrest the meaning of the “gospel” back away from the post-foundationalists (like Stanley Grenz, who wrote “Renewing the Center”). So if the new Calvinists are “reclaiming the center,” then we are going to “reclaim” Paul from them? I don’t know if that’s what the thinking was there, I’m just reading into it through that lens of evangelical publishing history.

“You are being dishonest with people.” I’m not following your reasoning as to how anyone in Emergent or this discussion of Paul is being “dishonest.” Please elaborate.

“Much of the EM branch’s ideas line with old school liberal theology.” I’ve heard this argument before, and I honestly don’t think it sticks. You can call it that if it makes it easier for you to dismiss it and go about your business, but if that’s what you’re trying to do, then why do you feel so passionately about this? Your comments here obviously show that you care about this, which is great. I’m just trying to understand you.

Personally, from my perspective as an Emergent cohort organize, I can tell you that I see a vibrant movement of people from across denominational backgrounds and faith perspectives who are sincerely seeking common ground around Jesus and the gospel of the kingdom of God and seeking a third way politically—not an uncritical appropriation of “old school liberal theology” or “leftist social platforms,” as you suggest. Yes, Jesus is “in there,” he’s right at the center, in fact. Believe it - or not ;)

Rutledge,

Why are you so reactionary? Its almost like you think there is some kind of conspiracy.
Do you really believe there are negative consequences to the emergent conversation? You just need to relax. Let yourself go. You just need to slip into the river of emergent narrative and embrace the reflective experience of the global missional contextulization of cultural relevency. Breath in deeply… and out slowly… Let go of the urge to determine truth values. There now, your feeling better already arn’t you? Now, think of the participation you can have in the narratization of the emerginization of the reclamation of the reformation? Is any of this making sense to you Mr. Kuhn? You need to quit traditionalizing everything. Just let it go man. Post-moderniztion is a fact just like global warming and evolution. Why do you traditionalists reject such sound reasoning? Nobody else does. You need to embrace the societal evolution of the communitization of contextualization and the new emergent spiritual organisms. We need to reclaim the converstion of the narrative if we are ever going to understand the generational gospel of social justice and make peace with the new emerging spirituality.
Are you starting to feel it now Rutty? You have to stop being part of the derelativization and start narratizizing the missionalization of the PMG (post modern generation). We need a new conversation about the reclaimizitation of eisigetimizing the apostle Paul. We need a new organic creativiztion for a new culturally relevent contextualization of the emerenizing of the missional community of globalism and reflectionism thats relevent for a post-modern culture with a new communalization of the former truth paradigm.

Peace Bro

woah.
I think that Paul wrote a couple of fairly straight forward, and beautiful letters to the Romans – and he gave them a lot of advice for living as Christ followers under Roman rule. But we are not under Roman rule, nor do we (as everyday people) “get” roman, or Jewish culture. So not all of what Paul said directly translates to our situation – we (every-day people) need to understand why he wrote what he wrote before we can conclude anything.

“Re-claiming” in the emergent circle (I think) is, in a sense, a way of empowering ordinary people to “rethink objectively”. We know that in the past, biases in interpreting biblical texts have caused a LOT of damage. So, we need to each grapple with the text and come to our own (as un-biased as possible) understanding of it. Having reliable, easily understandable sources of information is paramount.

But the point is to let go and re-learn, then integrate what you’ve learned into what you already know – throw away the bad and keep the good. It is our job to use our whole intellect when we read the bible – not just blindly listen to whatever Mr. Preacher, or someone on the emergent website says. We need to always ask “why?”

Very thought provoking article and excellent comments. It’s going to take me a while to digest everything. I love it.