[Oe List ...] 1/28/10, Spong: The Origins of the New Testament, Part XIII: The Theology of Paul as Revealed in Romans

[elliestock at aol.com]

Print this Article 

 
Not a member?Subscribe now! 






Thursday January 28, 2010 

The Origins of the New Testament
Part XIII: The Theology of Paul as Revealed in Romans

Paul of Tarsus was a first century man. He thought in categories consistent with the world view of his time. He believed that he lived in a three-tiered universe over which God reigned from a heavenly throne just above the sky. Paul had never heard of a weather front, a germ or a virus. He viewed both the weather patterns and human sickness as being divine punishment sent from this external, supernatural God and based on our deserving. One should not, therefore, read the first century Paul as if he spoke from the vantage point of eternal truth. That is what biblical literalism does. The Bible, which many Christians call "the Word of God," includes letters that Paul wrote. They are personal, passionate, argumentative and sometimes even vindictive. Paul would probably be the most surprised person in the world, and the most disturbed, to learn that the words in his letters had been elevated by the people of the Christian Church to a realm in which they have achieved the position of ultimate authority in which Paul's voice is actually confused with the voice of God. 
This is not to say, however, that Paul was without insight. He was a keen observer of human life and one who was a perceptive, even if an introverted, examiner of his own inner thought and being. Our task as modern interpreters of Paul is to separate Paul's incredible insights into human life from the dated and thus distorting world view of his day. It is not an easy task, but it is a doable one. 
Paul was a human being with intense feelings. Prior to his conversion experience he was an uncompromising persecutor of the Christian movement. Following his conversion he was an uncompromising advocate for the Christian faith. While the object of his passion shifted dramatically his personality remained quite constant. Almost inevitably he interpreted both what he believed was the meaning of the claim of Jesus' divinity and what he believed was the meaning of salvation out of his first century understanding of human life, and in the process he always universalized the lens through which he viewed his world and himself. One must, therefore, never forget the highly subjective nature of Paul's insights. 
Paul was also a Jew. He had studied under the great rabbi Gamaliel. He identified himself as a Hebrew, a member of the tribe of Benjamin and a zealot for the Torah. Judaism was the tradition in which and through which he viewed all of life. Paul did nothing, certainly including his religious life, in a halfway or lukewarm fashion. 
We start to unravel this Pauline viewpoint first by looking at his understanding of the human situation. What does it mean to Paul to be human? From where comes the pain, the fear and the insecurity that marks human life? Paul was quite sure, out of his Jewish background, that human life was created in God's image with God's law written across the human heart. This human creature, who was in Paul's mind almost divine, had fallen from that lofty status into what he called "sin." It was, he believed, a cosmic fall that affected every human being, and it doomed all people to a life in bondage to the incalculable power of sin. So Paul, looking at all human life through his own experience, lamented: "We cannot do the things we want to do, indeed we do the very things that we do not want to do." Sin for Paul was an alien power. "It is not I" who does these things, he offers defensively, but "sin that dwells within me." We are not now and we cannot ever be, he stated, what we were created to be. The human impulse toward sin was, for Paul, so deep that it actually prompted the act of sinning. This impulse is not and cannot be part of nature, lest God be blamed for it, but it nonetheless holds human life in its power. Listen to the pathos in Paul's words: "I delight in the law of God in my inmost nature, but I see in my members another law which is at war with the law of my mind and making me captive to the law that dwells in my members." It almost sounds like schizophrenia, but that is how Paul perceived himself, and when he writes we hear his yearning to be freed from this state and his desire to be capable of directing his own life toward the purpose for which he believed he was created. To find the ability to do just that was for him the meaning of salvation, and it was this gift of salvation that he believed he had experienced in Jesus. Human life, which was, he thought, created for fellowship with God, instead has been estranged from God, divided within itself and separated from all others. His dre am was to be made whole, to be at one with God. He sought a biblical explanation for this human reality in the creation story that, true to the mind set of his day, he assumed to be history and thus a divinely inspired analysis of the human condition. St. Augustine, the fourth century bishop of Hippo and the primary theologian in the first thousand years of Christian history, would take this Pauline insight and make it the basis for what is still called "traditional Christianity." It was because of this Paul/Augustine line of thought that Christianity still today wallows in sin and traffics in guilt. The Protestant mantra, "Jesus died for my sins," expresses it. So does the Catholic interpretation of the Mass as the constant reenactment of the moment in which Jesus overcame the sin of the world with his death on the cross. It was out of this mentality that guilt became the coin of the realm in institutional Christianity and that is how and why behavior control has become the primary activity of the Christian Church. When this "original sin" was tied by Augustine into sex and reproduction, the repression of sex became in Christianity an aspect of salvation. Celibacy and virginity became the higher paths. Repression, however, including sexual repression, never gives life. It rather creates victims. Christianity has become the major religion of victimization in the western world. Bad anthropology inevitably creates bad theology.
Paul, perceiving what he believed was this fatal flaw in human nature, saw Jesus ultimately as the rescuer of the flawed ones. Since all human life shared in that flaw, salvation was a universal gift given to all, "to the Jews first but also to the Gentiles." In this gift Paul believed that Christianity had the power to transcend all human divisions, including religious divisions, even the divisions created by the holiness of the Torah, the Jewish law, which excluded all who were not bound to the Torah. Salvation in his mind was that process in which human wholeness is offered to all. In Christ, he wrote, there is neither Jew nor Gentile, male nor female, bond nor free. Salvation was a call to a new humanity and it was this vision that compelled Paul to become the missionary to the Gentiles, the one charged with turning the message of the Jewish Jesus into the gift of salvation offered to the entire world. When he wrote his letter to the Church of Rome, he spelled out this point of view hoping that the Roman Christians would feel as strongly about this vocation as he did and would thus be willing to provide him with the means that he hoped would carry him and his missionary activities to Spain and thus to "the uttermost parts of the world." 
Paul's message was in this one sense profoundly true. There is about human life a sense of separation, of loneliness and a drive for survival that does indeed make us chronically self-centered, at war with our higher instincts. Paul's way of understanding and dealing with that humanity was and is, however, profoundly mistaken. Indeed it is inoperative and, by literalizing this mistaken understanding, Christianity is today threatened with extinction. 
As post-Darwinians we now know that there never was a perfect creation. All life has evolved from a single cell into our present self-conscious, enormously complex human life, which is for the time being at least at the top of the evolutionary process. Since there was no perfect creation, then there could not have been a "fall" from perfection. One cannot fall from a status one has never possessed. If we have not fallen from perfection, we do not need to be saved, redeemed or rescued. So the way Jesus has traditionally been interpreted falls into irrelevance. One can only artificially resuscitate a dying form as long as the presuppositions under-girding that form are still believable. The human experience, however, still cries out for some other explanation of this experience. What is it? 
We are self-conscious creatures. All living things are survival oriented. Plants stretch to receive the light of the sun in order to live. Animals fight for life or flee danger in order to survive. Neither plant life nor animal life, however, is aware of its survival drive. Human beings are. When self-conscious creatures make their own survival their highest goal, they then organize their world around that need. That is what makes human life inevitably and universally self-centered, separated and cut off from others. We are our own worst enemy and we do violence to others in our drive to survive. This is not, however, because we have fallen into sin, as religious people still operating in a Pauline context continue to assert; it arises directly out of the given nature of our biological life. As still incomplete, evolving creatures we do not need to be "saved," we need rather to be lifted to a new level of humanity, a new level of consciousness where we can live for others, give ourselves away in love for others and be empowered to become all that each of us can be. This is what salvation means. This is what Paul experienced in Jesus, but he was trapped inside the presuppositions of his first century, Jewish view of human life. He found in Jesus the power to accept himself, to love himself and to become himself. "Nothing," he said, "nothing in all creation can separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus." Paul's experience of human life was correct. His explanation was wrong. His experience of Christ as life-giving love was correct. His explanation of how that love was manifested in Jesus' life was wrong.
Next week, we will push this study of Romans to a new place and seek to translate Paul's experience into our presuppositions. I hope you will join us then. 

– John Shelby Spong
 



Question and Answer 
With John Shelby Spong


Sara Taylor from London, England, asks:
You say that all societies have or have had a word or concept meaning God. Is this true of Buddhism? I know that Buddhas have been deeply revered, but not that they were equated with God. So my question is, does Buddhism really necessitate a belief in or a word for God?
Sara Taylor from London, England, asks:
You say that all societies have or have had a word or concept meaning God. Is this true of Buddhism? I know that Buddhas have been deeply revered, but not that they were equated with God. So my question is, does Buddhism really necessitate a belief in or a word for God?



Dear Sara,
Your letter reflects an important understanding and also makes a common fallacy. The important understanding comes in the universal realization that all human beings postulate a realm beyond and greater than the realm of the human. That is what self-consciousness does to each one of us. The common fallacy is that there is only one human definition of that meaning.
Western religion has regularly and consistently defined God in theistic terms. That is, God is perceived as an external being, supernatural in power, who periodically invades the world in miraculous ways to establish the divine will or to answer our prayers. Eastern religion in general, but Buddhism in particular, does not define God in theistic terms. That has caused some westerners to refer to Buddhism as an "atheist" religion. Well, it is, but only in the sense that "atheist" means "not theist." It does not mean that there is no sense of God in Buddhism. Language is our problem. The theistic definition of God is so total in the western world that the word "atheism" has come to mean that there is no God. Theism is a human definition of God and, as such, is destined to die like all human definitions do in time. Theism is not God.
The second point of your question makes it clear that this common fallacy is operating. You are correct in that no claim is present in Buddhism that suggests that the Buddhas be equated with God. If God is not external to life as theism projects, then God cannot invade the world in human form. That is an idea that grew up in Christianity and, in my mind, still distorts the meaning of Jesus. The early Christian writings suggest that God — the Holy external other — designated Jesus to be "son of God." That designation took place at his resurrection for Paul, as he writes in his letter to the Romans about the year 58. It took place at his baptism for Mark, who writes his gospel in the early 70's. The literal identity between Jesus and God that brought about such doctrines as the Incarnation and the Trinity are the products of the next three hundred years, and are based on what I regard as a Greek misreading of the Fourth Gospel. The claim of divinity for Jesus, or the suggestion that he is the second person of the Trinity, is unique to later Christianity. The Jews never claimed a divine nature for Judaism's greatest heroes, Moses and Elijah; the Buddhists never made that claim for Buddha, and Islam never made that claim for Mohammed. That is not to say, however, that these religions do not have a profound sense of the holy for which the word God is the most popular human symbol.
I have moved theologically over the course of my life into a non-theistic understanding of God. That does not mean that God has become less real to me. Indeed the exact opposite is the case. When I speak about God I embrace the fact that I am only using words as symbols that describe not God, but my experience of God. I experience God as the source of life, the source of love and the ground of being. I see the divinity of Jesus in the fullness of his humanity. I believe the way into God is to journey into, through and beyond the human. While the pathway might look different, the goal is quite the same.
Thank you for your question.

– John Shelby Spong






Send your questions to support at johnshelbyspong.com 






 
Print this Article 

 
Not a member? Subscribe now! 












 

Thanks for joining our mailing list, elliestock at aol.com, for A New Christianity For A New World on 11/09/2008 
REMOVE me from this list | Add me to this list | Manage my e-mail settings | Contact Customer Service 
Copyright 2010 Waterfront Media, Inc. All rights reserved.
4 Marshall Street, North Adams, MA 01247
Subject to our terms of service and privacy policy 





 




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/oe_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20100128/7c83d23f/attachment-0001.html>