Category: Theology

Yes a little odd the spelling above but to make a point as I consider a few reflections on the gentleman named Paul (a ‘gentle’ man???).

There is always a section on ecclesiology in the books that seem to try and systematise everything; Thomas Finger said that of all areas of theology it is the least innovative, and suggests that money, reputation and sustaining what gives careers are the driving factors in this. Paul is a pragmatist – more to come on that in a later post – who is willing to compromise today with a view to compromising redemptively, with the plan that tomorrow will be better than today. On that basis I also try to be pragmatic, but it is helpful to push into what might lie at a more foundational level so that we continually push forward. I also suggest that as I hold to the conviction that in the context (particularly) of Europe we are at the end of a long cycle and can imagine a different tomorrow.

Ekklesia – not a word made up by Paul (and on the lips of Jesus twice in Matthew), but a common word understood within the Graeco-Roman world. (Acts 19:39 in response to the riot in Ephesus the town clerk said that if there was any ongoing complaint that it would have to be settled in the ekklesia – not the ‘church’ but the legal body, maybe we would term local council.) Each of the major Roman cities had an ekklesia, made up from the competent males who were responsible for the framework of the city and to plan for its future. Their goal was to make sure the city was shaped according to Roman principles and vision, in short they were to ensure that the city was as close to resembling Rome as possible.

Paul uses that term (ekklesia) to describe those who had found faith in Jesus and were aligned to heaven’s agenda. He could write, for example, to the ekklesia in Corinth, only the ekklesia he was writing to was the ekklesia in Christ. (This post is too short to go into the use of the term ekklesia in the OT Scriptures – but in short it was applied to the people of Israel when they were actively responding to the voice of God: Stephen uses it that way in Acts 7 also concerning the ekklesia in the wilderness.)

We have become accustomed to adding the word ‘local’ to ekklesia and in doing so have weakened what is in the mind of Paul. He was convinced that every locality needed a group of competent people (females definitely included at all levels) who would take responsibility for the locality and seek for that place to be as close to heaven’s reality as possible. A BIG task! And a big task for a small group of people – maybe less than 100 in cities of 200,000+ people. A big task and big faith.

Of course there are other aspects to ekklesia – particularly that of inner care and nurturing one another, but the overall purpose was a group who prayed and acted so there might be some measure of ‘on earth as in heaven’. (Maybe we fall short as we often represent ‘in ekklesia as in the world’???)

Back to Finger who said all that is written is so predictable and lacks innovation. If we moved away from ‘pure church’ and toward ‘here to change the context / locality’ we might be astounded what things might look like. I put the word ‘context’ in there as we are no longer defined simply by localities.

The ekklesia that Paul helped established did have a significant inward activity – with a focus of when they came together they ‘ate’. Inevitable as the Master they followed was an ‘eater’ and part of his offence was to eat with the wrong people. Also eating was a strong prophetic act in both the Jewish and Graeco-Roman cultures. In those cultures – particularly the ones more aligned to the Imperial rule – who came to meals was a major re-enforcement of hierarchy. Where they were seated was all part of that, and the invitations were sent to those who would reciprocate. So subversive the teachings and practices of Jesus… and Paul.

• Do not invite those who can invite you back.
• Do not give the seat of honour to the wealthy.
• Honour the least honourable.

Those commands can be multiplied for the ekklesia of Jesus was ‘upside-down’. That meal – and Jesus had meals at multiple levels – was to a) remember Jesus, b) proclaim his death and c) until he comes.

It has been reduced to something less than a meal and to focus on his death. Remember him – outrageous, disturbing him! Proclaim his death – a new era is here; the powers are defeated and they (earthly and heavenly) do not have the final word; they are but temporary; a new era is here and one day will be consummated. Maybe that is more in line with the ekklesia in Jesus Christ?

Let the meals – at whatever level – be outrageous!

Vincent Brannick (A Roman Catholic! – exclamation mark in the light of what he says from that background) wrote in response to the council of Laodicea (365AD)

The prohibition of Laodicea completes a critical cycle. The Lord’s Supper had changed from evening meal to stylized (sic) ritual. The assembly had moved from dining room to sacred hall. Leadership had shifted from family members to special clergy. Now the orginal form of church was declared illegal.

The original form of ekklesia declared illegal. I might substitute the word ‘purpose’?

The importance of the cross cannot be overemphasised for Paul.

For the message about the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God…  but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to gentiles, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God (1 Cor. 1:18, 23, 24).
I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified (1 Cor. 2:2).
May I never boast of anything except the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me and I to the world (Gal. 6:14).

The life of Jesus was vital for Paul for his life was in contrast to ours (Adam’s); his being one of obedience, of humility and that obedience being even to death, death being death on the cross (Rom. 5:19; Phil 2: 7,8). A call to imitate Paul was a call to imitate Paul as he imitated Christ. ‘Justification by faith’ was not justification by faith alone – we should not simply subsume James under Paul to erase the supposed divide between them. James said we are not justified by faith alone! And I am sure Paul would have agreed. Neither Paul nor James are suggesting ‘salvation by works’ any more than their roots (‘Judaism’) did. Judaism talked of the ‘works of the law’ – behaviour as outlined in the law in response to God’s grace and acceptance; if Israel was ‘saved’ it was by grace; Paul might well have been happy with the term ‘works of faith’ (‘the only thing that counts is faith working through love’ – Gal. 5:6); certainly works (but not to earn salvation) by the Spirit, his helpful term being ‘fruit’. The contrast for Paul between the former way of life and the new way was that of ‘law v. Spirit’. Led by the law as a guardian (his former expression of faith) gave way to being led by the Spirit (Gal. 4:1-6; Rom. 8:14).

The brutal death on the cross. The cross was a political statement to mark those who rebelled against Rome’s rule; the death of Jesus on the Roman cross was fuelled by religious jealousy. He was charged with being a blasphemer and the sentence was carried out by the Imperial powers of the day – that in itself would be tragic and make Jesus a martyr and a hero, but Paul was convinced that something much more was going on. Jesus was a martyr but more; martyrs inspire but Jesus saves. Probably no ‘theory’ of the atonement will suffice though (no surprise) the populist theory of ‘penal substitution’ in order to display God’s righteousness and satisfy his wrath simply does not resonate for there is no divide in the Trinity. The angry God (Father) and loving Jesus is not Pauline, for God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself. It is the ‘powers’ feature highly in Paul. Demonic as in spiritual beings? Earthly powers / systems? Demonic as in ‘beings’ that come into ‘existence’ as a result of corporate power entities? Take your pick! He disarmed all powers:

He disarmed the rulers and authorities and made a public example of them, triumphing over them in it.

Any theory that does not take in this aspect I think falls short of being Pauline. The transfer from one realm to another necessitates the defeat of powers hostile to humanity; the captivity has to be broken.

Paul’s gospel is not just the cross, but the cross and the resurrection. The crucified one is the resurrected one, and he insists if Jesus had not been raised then we are still in our sins. The resurrection is the affirmation that a former age has been ended, or perhaps it might be better put that a new age / era has begun as the two ages now run in parallel.

Freedom, deliverance, and a very real experience is what takes place. Paul’s gospel goes beyond a ‘faith’ response to a reception of the Spirit and that is appealed to in experiential terms.

The only thing I want to learn from you is this: Did you receive the Spirit by doing the works of the law or by believing what you heard? Are you so foolish? Having started with the Spirit, are you now ending with the flesh? Did you experience so much for nothing?—if it really was for nothing. Well then, does God supply you with the Spirit and work miracles among you by your doing the works of the law or by your believing what you heard? (Gal. 3:2-5).

‘Did you experience so much’ could be understood as ‘suffer’ as being something external and unpleasant but given that he goes on with present tense verbs as to the ‘supply of the Spirit’ and working miracles among he makes an experiential appeal. Faith resulted in the receiving of a tangible animating presence, the reception of a life-source that resulted in God-activity.

The cross does much more than show us a way (‘moral influence’ theory of Abelard and in part René Girard’s presentation of the scapegoating narrative that he uses). The cross stands at the end of a doomed pathway; the resurrection stands with the stone rolled away and an invitation to a new path. The possibilities are endless and this is why I like to talk about transformation,

[A]nd through him God was pleased to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, by making peace through the blood of his cross (Col. 1:20).

I am agnostic (and I think that is the best faith position!) on what transformation will look like because once touched by the Spirit it is the imagination that is ignited to ‘see a new creation’. Paul might have thought there would be an imminent return (in his lifetime) of the Lord (‘we who are alive at his coming’) but he continually worked for the future. That has to be our framework. Agnosticism regarding the future is the framework, but focusing in the present so as to invite the future to manifest.

Once we move away from the narrow framework of ‘saved from hell’ (ticket to heaven) to a Pauline vision for the world (his world and now ours) we do not negate personal salvation but understand it to be a salvation from captivity to the realm of sin and death to participating in the liberation movement of reconciliation. To quote another movement that understands that salvation is to be measured by the extent to which we are liberated and become liberators. (‘[Jesus] who gave himself for our sins to set us free from the present evil age’.)

Paul is silent as to what happens between the two events of crucifixion and resurrection. I am also somewhat curious on that time. Do we choose the rather ‘mythical'(??) descent into hades (harrowing of hell: 1 Peter 4) or do we go for the cleansing of the heavenly tabernacle (Hebrews…and what would that indicate)? Or is there truth in both without either needing to be pressed literally?

The cross ends a domination that had erased all true hope (not erased the possibility of ‘individual’ salvation); the resurrection opened entry to the realm of Spirit inspired imagination. Truly, the era of ‘I have a dream’.

Given the title above I have set myself a challenge! What is the centre of Paul’s gospel? Fundamentally it has to be focused on ‘Jesus Christ and him crucified’. He has a conviction that the hoped for Messiah – deliverer of Israel, God’s agent, had come and was to be identified with Jesus of Nazareth, and that he had been crucified; that the death as a criminal (political enemy of Rome?) that he had undergone was the means by which not simply Israel was to be delivered but that the world would be transformed.

His vision was bigger than that of ‘personal sins’ forgiven; it was bigger than a focus on the land known as Palestine; it was bigger than a freedom from an earthly power (Rome); it was bigger than a freedom for an ethnic people who were descended from Abraham. The power of sin (and death) could no longer rule; the power over nations (τὰ στοιχεῖα) could no longer shape (and he seems to suggest that the law functioned in that way for those of Israel – Gal. 4:3, 9); the God of Israel was the God of the cosmos; Israel’s Messiah was the Saviour of the world. Bigger… bigger than a specific people; bigger than a piece of land; bigger than personal. A cosmic vision – a new creation persepctive.

New Creation

Twice Paul uses that phrase – 2 Cor.5:17 and Gal. 6:15.

So if anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation: everything old has passed away; look, new things have come into being! (2 Cor. 5:17).

There is an outside chance at translating it as ‘they are a new creature’ but the abruptness of Paul suggests otherwise… if anyone is in Christ, new creation (καινὴ κτίσις)… old things have passed away, new things are (he uses the neuter adjectives for ‘old’ and ‘new’). The context is of sight / perception (2 Cor. 5:16). The transformation is future but for those in Christ it is present now! Already we have been (Gal. 1:3) delivered from one age to another and the result is that we can no longer use human categories with regard to others. There is a major challenge, but this gospel is not tame and is beyond ‘me and my life’.

In Galatians he uses the term again:

For neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is anything, but a new creation is everything!

Ethnicity (Jew / Gentile = non-Jew) nor adherence to the Torah has value! That is a bold statement from one who was (and continued to be) a Jew… In Christ that fundamental way of dividing the world was gone.It belonged to a former era. He finishes his ‘neither… nor..’ with (again) an abrupt phrase, ‘but new creation’ (ἀλλὰ καινὴ κτίσις)… the ‘but’ being strong.

The cross is central – the central part for Paul – though we must not dislocate it from the resurrection, but the effect of the cross is a major irruption into this world to such a level that there is new creation.

This brings me to a text that goes to the heart of the outworking. Gal. 3:28.

(But now that faith has come…) There is no longer Jew or Greek; there is no longer slave or free; there is no longer male and female, for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.

Ethnicity / ‘chosen nation’ has gone; economic / class divide is no longer legitimate… and as translated above Paul changes the structure in the third part of the verse from no…nor to no… and… (οὐκ ἔνι  Ἰουδαῖος οὐδὲ  Ἕλλην, οὐκ ἔνι δοῦλος οὐδὲ ἐλεύθερος, οὐκ ἔνι ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ). He does this to quote Genesis, God creating them, ‘male and female‘, but there is something very deep going on here. Creation is ‘good’ but creation had within it dualisms (not ethically) but binaries such as ‘heaven’ and ‘earth’ and the very fundamental human one of ‘male’ and ‘female’. Binaries that defined the spectrum but the ‘spectrum’ in the new creation is one. No longer ‘male and female’. The most fundamental divide in our world has gone. The implications are enormous.

Paul’s gospel pushes into how we inter-relate. It is not primarily about a community who are more holy than others (if we define ‘holiness’ by we don’t do x,y and z) but a community who relate differently to others because their conviction (and experience) is that a new creation exists now. I added the word ‘experience’ in the previous sentence because we are not there yet. Maybe we can accept the word ‘conviction’ but I think Paul pushes for ‘experience’ far more than we are comfortable.

The cross ends the domination by powers hostile to humanity; it ends binaries that categorise so that hierarchies continue.