I Corinthians 1:10-18
Last
week, following both services, a number of you came up and expressed joy over
my suggestion that the disciples were a less than competent bunch. The typical
response was, “Wow, looking at the disciples in that light, I feel much better
about myself. Maybe I came take my limited talents, and with the help of God,
accomplish things I never felt possible.”
Keep
that thought in mind. Do not let anything I say in the next few minutes
distract you from attempting something you once felt impossible. If incompetence
is your inspiration, by golly there is plenty of that to go around.
Today incompetence is
not the issue. Instead, we are going to venture into those dangerous and
controversial waters surrounding the Apostle Paul.
I am well aware just
the mention of Paul’s name causes some of you to wish you had stayed in bed.
Isn’t this the guy who said, “Wives be subject to your husbands?” If Paul wrote
Ephesians, which by the way is questionable, he is guilty of those words. Paul certainly
gets credit for writing the Book of Romans were he placed gays and lesbians in
the same paragraph with folks who were guilty of wickedness, envy, murder,
faithlessness, and ruthlessness. It amazes me that the last half of the first
chapter of Romans gets quoted more often at Presbytery meetings than Paul’s
later proclamation, “There is no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus.” But
then that’s just the way it is with Paul. Controversy follows him like flies attraction
to fly paper.
Who was this guy?
Unlike the disciples, he had quite an impressive resume. He was trained from
birth to be a scholar of the Old Testament text. We are told that he was a
highly respected Pharisee which meant he was well versed in Hebrew Law. Paul
also had one other thing which made his situation a bit unique. He was born in
the city of Tarsus, a coastal town in present day Turkey. Paul was born a
citizen of the Roman Empire, a caveat that proved quite useful later in life.
Paul was present at the stoning of Stephen and quickly rose up the ranks of those
who were appointed by the Sanhedrin to persecute the followers of Jesus. His
conversion came following amazing event along the road to Damascus. While blind
he saw the text he had known from birth in a whole new light. From there he not
only took Christianity beyond Jerusalem, he was the chief architect of the new
movement’s theological understanding of the man Jesus. Central to his belief was
the cross, which Paul claimed to be, “Foolishness for those who are perishing
but to us who are being saved, it is the power of God.”
Those are strong
words. This week I took off the better part of Wednesday to ski with a friend
who had been the clerk of Session at Bow Creek Presbyterian when I was the
minister there in the late 1980’s. Ken was reminding me of the statement of
faith that I had presented to the search committee. Paraphrasing Paul, I had
somewhat dramatically suggested God called us to be fools for the gospel and I
was ready to accept that role. Ken
said he argued against my coming to Bow Creek because, to quote Ken, “He had
seen enough ministers make fools of themselves and didn’t care to meet someone
who actively bragged about it.”
All kidding aside, how
does one approach Paul’s statement concerning the cross? There are those among
you who wish we sang more songs like “The Old Rugged Cross”. Others of you
cringe when the words, “Blood of the Cross” are spoken. Is there common ground
on our understanding of the “Power of the Cross”? Probably not, and yet the Cross remains the
one unique symbol which distinguishes us from other expressions of faith.
Paul was the first
theologian of the church. His writings preceded all of the Gospels. One could
argue the letters of Paul set the groundwork for the writing of the gospels.
The writers of Matthew, Mark and Luke are heavily influenced by the theology of
Paul. John’s gospel often finds itself in interesting conversation with the
conclusions drawn by Paul. In the first
three Gospels all roads lead to the Cross. In John the resurrection becomes the
climax emphasizing the living Word, who was with God in the beginning and
continued to be the source of all life. John’s Gospel celebrated a life and a
God that could not be overcome by darkness and death. Paul, while grasping the
significance of the resurrection, stressed the paradox of cross of Christ.
Paul insists we
remember the death of Jesus as an act of humiliation. It would have never
occurred to any “sane” individual in the first century to transform the cross
into a religious symbol. The cross represented the most shameful form of
execution and was used by the Roman justice system primarily to discourage
slaves and political insurgents from testing the waters of liberation. The purpose of cross was to humiliate the
dying and frighten the living. During the Jewish wars of 66-77 A.D., thousands
of Jews were crucified. From the standpoint of Roman justice, it was proof that
resistance was futile.
But instead of being
horrified by the cross, Paul wants us to embrace it. Paul preached Christ
crucified was not the failure of God’s love but the holiest demonstration of
God’s power. In his letter to the Philippians Paul claimed, “Jesus humbled
himself and became obedient unto death in order that God could exalt him and
give Christ the name that is above every other name.” Instead of being
horrified by the cross, Paul both claimed and embraced it, an action that
shocked and embarrassed folks intelligent enough to see the failure of his
thinking. But Paul did not concern himself with logic, but based his arguments
on his faith in a God who had a history of defying human expectations.
Today, among many of
my friends and colleagues, the idea of the cross as necessary for the salvation
of humankind has fallen on hard times. I was having a conversation with a
person under 30 who said his generation sees the church as a place of social
action and community restoration. He believes in the grace of God but the details
of how that happens aren’t all that important to him. He remarked, “If God can
create the world, then why can’t salvation happen without the violence of the
cross?” Then he smiled and said, “But then non-violence would be so out of
character with the history of the church.”
Ah the subtle sarcasm
of youth. To my young friend the cross is both foolishness and a stumbling
block in his acceptance of the dogma of the church. But it has not hindered his
relationship with God.
I
know I am saved by the grace of God. Must that salvation depend on the blood of
the cross? Paul, who was initially an orthodox Jew, believed forgiveness came
after a sacrifice. It was only logical that Paul would see Jesus as the
sacrificial Lamb of God. But to my young
friend, that image is not only hideous but has become a stumbling block. Is it
the theology of Paul or the theology developed by the church’s understanding of
Paul that has led to his disillusionment?
I am not sure, but I shall be open enough to continue our conversations. Amen