Yesterday, on Sunday, I was talking with someone and they asked me a simple and challenging question:
Whose words do you value more, Jesus or Paul? Because it seemed to the questioner that many Christians quote Paul and live by the words of Paul more than they do the words of Jesus.
I would like to hear what you all think about this. Whose words do you value more? Do you value them equally? If you value them equally, what does that imply about the status of Jesus and Paul?
Re: Whose words do you value more, Jesus or Paul?
That depends on what you mean by “words.” The gospels were, correct me if I am wrong, written later than Paul’s epistles, so I’d actually trust Paul over the authors of the gospels. Plus, I think Paul’s message is the same as Jesus and the other Apostles’ message.
Re: Whose words do you value more, Jesus or Paul?
I’ll be pretty up front and say that Paul’s words bother me.
Not because I find what Paul says troubling, per se, but because I see a church which treats Paul’s writing like a salad buffet and finds no inconsistency in throwing away some of his injunctions and rebukes while keeping others. I find the underlying motivations for those choices troubling. It also introduces the crisis of “what do we mean by ‘canon’ if we demand that books A, B & C are in but D, E & F are out, but then within any given book we ignore T, U & V but insist on X, Y and Z?”
I also see a church which has replaced the old law (OT) with the new law (Paul’s NT) rather than with Jesus’ call to a life of redemption and grace.
~jhimm — it’s smarter to be lucky than it’s lucky to be smart.
Re: Whose words do you value more, Jesus or Paul?
The emerging church seems to have a strong preference for the Gospels over Paul. It seems to struggle with many distinctively Pauline themes: charismata, submission of women, penal substitutionary atonement, hostility towards homosexuality, his apparent lack of interest in the kingdom of God, and so on. The challenge will be to find better ways of integrating the two sets of texts. Needless to say, I think a critical-realist narrative theology will be a key element in this reintegration.
Re: Whose words do you value more, Jesus or Paul?
I agree that integration is key. I’m not sure I follow you on saying that critical realism is key to this. Critical realism, perhaps, offers a way to integrate them.
Re: Whose words do you value more, Jesus or Paul?
What I think we get from a critical-realist hermeneutic is, first, a greater degree of intellectual integrity - interpretive judgment is not so tightly bound to the precepts and prejudices of orthodoxy. But more importantly it takes seriously the relationship between text and history. It is my view that we understand the New Testament best when we place in the foreground the concrete experience of a community as it struggles to understand its precarious historical situation in the light of various prophetic narratives. If we lose this imaginative connection with history, which must be a critical enterprise, what we end up with is something much more like myth - a self-contained story about salvation that has broken away from its historical moorings.
The whole New Testament addresses the situation and future of the people of God within a narrative framework determined by the scriptures - a crisis of judgment that threatens the continued historical existence of Israel and the challenge of survival that is faced by that part of Israel that believes that God will remain faithful to his promise through the faithfulness of Jesus. The teaching of both Jesus and Paul (and of Acts, Peter, the writer to the Hebrews, and John of Patmos) is oriented around this central, coherent narrative - and only once we grasp that (I would argue) will we begin to see how these various perspectives may be integrated. We will not resolve the difficulties that we have if we treat Paul’s teaching as a body of discrete issues or doctrines - not until we get the narrative structure in place, firmly grounded in a critical-realist historical imagination.
Re: Whose words do you value more, Jesus or Paul?
What is the relationship between text and historical experience?
On that point we seem to fundamentally disagree. A critical orientation, as far as I understand it, posits a divide between text and history, as if history were constituted as such apart from the texts, as if we could get at the history apart from the texts that tell us about the history, as if we could more or less get back to the original events in a way that is un-mediated by the text and our language, as if we could get to the evidence behind the text.
I agree that we have to avoid solipsism, but that doesn’t necessarily mean we have to go with a dualistic view of the world.
Maybe part of the problem we are dealing with is the entrenchment of a narrative structure—not getting it into place, but keeping one from solidifying into an overarching storyline that fixes everything into its correct position.
Re: Whose words do you value more, Jesus or Paul?
Jacob, I agree that ‘history’ does not exist objectively, apart from the imperfect and prejudiced stories that we tell about it. The issue, however, is whether we read scripture in a way that is fundamentally different from the other stories that are told around it. By ‘history’ I mean normal historical discourse. But more importantly, I think what I’m getting at is not the epistemological question of how our speech refers to the actual event but the literary one of what story or what type of story is being told. I think it is important to realize that the New Testament story is told about the ‘political’ experience of a community not about some abstract transaction between God and humanity.
I’m not entirely clear what your final paragraph is getting at. It seems to me that there are general and coherent narrative structures at work in the New Testament that emerge where the historical experience of the community intersects with the Old Testament. But a critical hermeneutic is always aware of its limitations both in terms of the accuracy of data and the distortions of point of view. Our reconstructions of the New Testament narrative, therefore, must be open to revision.
Re: Whose words do you value more, Jesus or Paul?
Andrew,
The issue, however, is whether we read scripture in a way that is fundamentally different from the other stories that are told around it.
I’m not sure that we are clearly able to seperate out the Bible as a pure object from the various stories and interpretations that surround it. It seems to me that the very meaning of the Bible and its words and verses are so entwined with the various historical traditions and readings that there is no way to really parse out the genuine text from its textual environment. I guess what I’m saying is that we come to the Bible as people situated within a tradition or traditions and we can’t really get outside those traditions to get at the pure and unadulturated text.
Are you saying the issue is one of authority? That is, we should treat the Bible differently because it is a book with some essential (or constructed) authority . Or are you saying the bible is a book of stories and the manner of reading is a methodological issue? We should apply a special methodology when reading scripture, in other words. Or are you saying a little of each?
But more importantly, I think what I’m getting at is not the epistemological question of how our speech refers to the actual event but the literary one of what story or what type of story is being told.
I’m not sure that there is just one story or one type of story being told in the scriptures. Granted, there is generally a well rehearsed story that many evangelicals tell about the Bible; I tell it myself sometimes. Just the other day I heard McLaren tell it in a mere five minutes. It is well known. But that story alone does not encapsulate or define the limits of the Bible. When I read the Bible, I see countless points of disjuncture, where new stories and vectories of possibility spring up. It seems to me that the scriptures are dynamic and not really confinable to just a story or a type of story.
I think it is important to realize that the New Testament story is told about the ‘political’ experience of a community not about some abstract transaction between God and humanity.
The political is surely a strong element within many of the stories in the NT. But again, I hesitate to reduce the NT story to the political experience of a community. And, again, I hesitate to reduce the NT to just one story. Are there no other possibilites?
The role that God plays in the various parts of the NT is not abstract, so much as personal-experiential. God was part of the community and the political struggles the community faced. It was the apostles’ acting and speaking in the name of God and Jesus that brought on the political trouble in many instances throughout Acts, for instance.
It seems to me that there are general and coherent narrative structures at work in the New Testament that emerge where the historical experience of the community intersects with the Old Testament.
Exile is one "narrative structure" that we might agree ties the Hebrew Bible and the NT together. But I hesitate to use "structure" talk myself. It has a reifying feel to it. Lets keep it more dynamic and open sounding. I’ll say that the "structure" isn’t there in the Bible waiting to be found—it never went missing and only recently got found. Rather, I (along with others) have worked to stitch the HB and the NT together by saying there is a common tie that holds them together: exile. I created the tie from the raw material offered by the Bible and the traditions that I’m immersed in. And, I would add, I think that you are creating the "narrative structure" that you see in a similar way. These gems are not there waiting to be found, but actively pulled together by followers keeping their nose close to the word and to the application of that word in our everyday lives.
But a critical hermeneutic is always aware of its limitations both in terms of the accuracy of data and the distortions of point of view. Our reconstructions of the New Testament narrative, therefore, must be open to revision.
Agreed.
Re: Whose words do you value more, Jesus or Paul?
Sorry, I was in too much of a hurry and didn’t make myself clear at a number of points.
1. What I meant by ‘the other stories that are told around it’ was not our interpretive traditions but the diverse historical narratives in which the biblical story is or should be embedded - such as the Intertestamental writings, the myths and ideologies of Roman imperialism, Josephus’ account of the Jewish war, and so on. I agree that we cannot easily separate out the Bible from the history of interpretation, but I do think that we have very effectively isolated the Bible from its historical context (which is always an interpreted context) to the detriment of our theology. This was largely the point of ‘Strange but true: the irrelevance of Scripture for the church today’. This is not an issue of authority so much as of meaning: what story or what sort of story is being told?
2. I wouldn’t particularly dispute the fact that the Bible presents a multitude of narrative possibilities. But my conviction, nevertheless, is that as a people which has inherited the biblical narrative and as a matter of theological and hermeneutical integrity we must give some sort of priority (I am being deliberately vague) to the historical function of the text. Moreover, I think that what fundamentally anchors the New Testament historically is the foreseen war against Rome. New Testament theology is a response to that crisis. That response may consist of more than one story, though I would have thought that the narrative about Christ’s suffering and vindication, death and resurrection, is consistent enough and prominent enough to lay claim to be a defining plot, a meta-narrative. But if the central question of the New Testament is, as Paul argues in Romans, ‘How will God remain faithful to his promise to Abraham when Israel according to the flesh faces destruction?’, we are bound to take very seriously the historical specificity of the narrative. Of course, whether we agree that that is the central question is another matter!
3. We might be in agreement on the ‘political’ point. I think what I basically mean by ‘political’ is that whatever story or stories are told, they arise out of and presuppose the particular experience of a historical community; they are not myths or allegories for abstract universal theological principles, which is what I think modern theology has often reduced them to.
4. Interesting comment about ‘structure’. It sounds as though you are advocating a classic postmodern (post-structuralist?) reading of the texts. My question would be: Does the Bible itself ask to be read in that way? What sort of text is it? What sort of historical text is it? This is where I think that issues of theological integrity stand in some tension with a postmodern hermeneutic. Why shouldn’t the New Testament, which is the product of a particular community under particular circumstances with particular objectives in mind, have a coherent narrative structure? What assumption have you made in denying that it has an intrinsic narrative structure?
Re: Whose words do you value more, Jesus or Paul?
Andrew,
…if the central question of the New Testament is, as Paul argues in Romans, ‘How will God remain faithful to his promise to Abraham when Israel according to the flesh faces destruction?’, we are bound to take very seriously the historical specificity of the narrative.
Is it not this very historic specificity that makes it nearly impossible to read Scripture, and Paul in particular, in the straightforward, literal way that has led to such traditional Christian notions as “the Bible says that it is a sin to be gay”? If Paul’s writing is entrenched in his present history, and we stand outside that history, are we not then intellectually obligated to look behind the surface level meaning of his words for some more broad and generalized truth which he was trying to communicate from within his historic narrative? If we are outside the historic specificity in which Scripture was written, how can it have any meaning for us who are outside that history?
It sounds as though you are advocating a classic postmodern (post-structuralist?) reading of the texts. My question would be: Does the Bible itself ask to be read in that way? What sort of text is it? What sort of historical text is it?
I would suggest that the Bible doesn’t ask to be read in any particular way. I would argue that 2000 years of tradition have taught us to read the Bible in a very specialized way and that is a bad habit we need to break. I suppose I risk heresy if I say “its just a book”, but to some extent, I think the fact that too many Christians take the Bible out of the historic context you crave to have it placed in, is because we don’t just pick it up and read it, we display it with gilt edges just two steps shy of idolatry.
(again, “we” in the church writ large through time and tradition sense, not we in the present, intimate sense)
~jhimm — nothing lasts. nothing is finished. nothing is perfect.
Re: Whose words do you value more, Jesus or Paul?
Andrew,
I just lost everything I wrote. Bummer.
But the long and short of the comments were:
Contexts are many. The ancient historical context that you mention is important, I agree. But so are the contemporary contexts that the Bible is being read in today. And connecting then and now are strings of texts and stories about the Bible and surrounding the Bible.
I guess my concern is that in terms of relevance, I’m not sure that putting the Bible in its ancient context will make it more relevant to audiences today. Putting the Bible in its ancient context may well come across as meaningless in our contemporary context.
I agree with jhimm, I’m not sure the Bible asks to read and for sure, I don’t see the Bible asking to be read in any particular way.
I’m also not sure the Bible emerged out of a well defined community as you assert. The NT is a group of letters written by Paul and some other apostles, then you have the gospels. These represent various contexts and perspectives. The NT was also put together in a context other than its writing. And the NT is read in various other contexts. So, I’m not sure that we should say one context trumps all other contexts. They are all important.
I feel like one of the big differences between our two vectors is that you want to put together a large story that ties the Bible together and roots it in its ancient context. That’s great. I want to keep alive all the little stories and I want them to be used in contemporary contexts to unsettle and disturb entrenched traditions.
Re: Whose words do you value more, Jesus or Paul?
I’ll be additionally up front and admit that I have questions and reservations about the whole process of the construction of the canon. Why is Paul in, but something else is out? The answers to these questions are as deeply rooted in culture, context, politics and “people” as the words of the texts themselves.
Even if I accept that Paul must be accepted and embraced, I must conclude that an “appropriate” interpretation of Paul must be radically different than what we have seen the last 1800 years based simply on the behavior of Christians that we have seen grow out of interpretations as they have manifested up until this point — having more to do with judgment than community, relationship and mission.
~jhimm — nothing lasts. nothing is finished. nothing is perfect.
Re: Whose words do you value more, Jesus or Paul?
A “canon” does hint at elitism.
Re: Whose words do you value more, Jesus or Paul?
Why must they be integrated? The gospels and the Pauline epistles are very different types of books written for very different reasons by very different types of people who just happen to all believe in the same prophets and the same god. Many other similar letters and gospels were written by many other people, of which we may still have copies in spite of the church’s refusal to bless them as “canon”, many are unfortunately lost to time, space and memory.
But why must we accept a decision made for political, theological, social and personal reasons, by essentially one man, as to which of these books are “right” (and by “right” that man really meant divinely inspired and written and thus perfect in every way, a view which it is now reasonable to conclude is heavily flawed) and which of these books were in some way insufficient?
Why must we twist ourselves into intellectual pretzels, inventing bigger and bigger words to explain ever more complex processes of interpretation because we take it for granted that Paul and the gospels must be reconcilable because they’re all part of scripture?
Especially in light of the fact that so many of Paul’s underlying assumptions (the eminent return of Jesus as a headpin) were incorrect?
Why not rather conclude that where we see Paul’s message easily coinciding with with Jesus’ message, it is most likely that Paul “got it right” and that where we see Paul’s message at odds with Jesus’ (and therefore requiring some deeply intellectual process of interpretation in the hopes they will eventually reconcile) that Paul “got it wrong”?
Afterall, Jesus is our savior, not Paul.
~jhimm — nothing lasts. nothing is finished. nothing is perfect.
Re: Whose words do you value more, Jesus or Paul?
I try not to say “must.” It is too deterministic and functional—like a cog in a wheel.
And I agree, nobody prays to Paul for salvation.
To be more precise, I don’t think it is possible to disentangle Paul from Jesus from where we stand today. And perhaps integration is too strong a word. But, at the very least, I think they together offer more possibilities and ways to configure faith and community.
Moreover, I don’t agree with everything that Paul says. But I think that being open to being disturbed and unsettled is valuable in and of itself. The face of otherness may well show itself as one of your fellow believers—like Paul.
Re: Whose words do you value more, Jesus or Paul?
I don’t disagree. And I’m not looking to abandon Paul entirely (or even partially). I just find our relationship to Paul fascinating in a confusing and upsetting kind of way. We have this history of a “canon” that is supposed to be everything “right” and excludes everything either “wrong” or only “partially right”, and Paul’s writings are included as “right” (at least these writings by Paul. i have to assume he wrote other, less inspired/inspiring letters we don’t have or don’t include). In spite of Paul’s inclusion, we have become comfortable with carving out some aspects of his writings as being not so much wrong or only partially true, but at least being “purely cultural” and therefore imparting to us a meaning either highly general, or referential, and then on the other hand aspects of his writing that we seem to have a strong desire to cling to as necessary to take at face value and to be “right” in all contexts. When I say “we” I mean the church writ large, across history and tradition, not we in the present, intimate sense. This immediately crisscrosses with other discussions on other threads which I won’t bother to re-write here, but I guess what I find telling is that we continually come back to this notion of “how do we interpret Paul? how do we interpret Paul?” and yet we don’t seem to have either the same compulsion or the same necessity when it comes to Jesus. I don’t see/read/hear nearly as much debate about what Jesus meant in this, that or the other passage and whether or not it is purely culturally relevant and requires non-literal interpretation or whether we take it at face value. Is this because Jesus is somehow less challenging that Paul? Is this because by definition Jesus cannot be the face of otherness? I am happy to be challenged by Paul, I guess I am simply impatient for the opportunity to witness people interpreting Paul in a way that isn’t as oppressive to potential relationships and conversations.
~jhimm — nothing lasts. nothing is finished. nothing is perfect.
Re: Whose words do you value more, Jesus or Paul?
The question of how Paul became such a dominating figure compared to Jesus is fascinating, I agree.
There are folks trying to draw our attention back to Jesus and the gospels—two off the top of my head that have recently published books are McLaren’s The Secret Message of Jesus and Michael Frost’s Exiles.
It takes work and time to re-fashion narratives of faith.
Re: Whose words do you value more, Jesus or Paul?
I am looking forward to diving into my rapidly expanding reading list as soon as I get through this massive tome on contract bridge my father asked me to read so that we can play together online. (I recently moved several states away, we’ll see each other less often, and bridge will provide an “excuse” to connect more online.) But this book is massive, dry, and completely lacking a hermeneutic, critically real or otherwise ;)
~jhimm — nothing lasts. nothing is finished. nothing is perfect.