Thursday, November 09, 2006
Peter & Paul--Who Was Really Missional?
In my early walk with God, I got out of the Jesus stories and into Paul. That was where the really heavy stuff was. The Jesus stories were for the little kids! As I began to discover the kingdom, I went back to the Jesus stories and His teaching. I just found a 1942 leather-bound copy of the words of Jesus. Next year I’m going to read it a lot, I think. Jesus was a radical--living His life and doing what He said is nothing short of way out there.
Paul, as a theologian, is brilliant. Interpreting Paul, apart from Jesus stories and teaching, is dangerous. We build religious systems and intellectual discourse but not a viral and powerful faith. Peter is accredited with having established the church in Jerusalem. Paul is accredited with expanding the church throughout the known world of his day. Peter was impulsive and given to anger. Paul was controlling and given to anger.
Some would call me Peter. I don’t like it. Not because I’m not impulsive, but because I didn’t stay in Jerusalem. I left East Texas and Dallas for the world. That’s what Paul did. Some would call me Paul. I start all these churches. But, I’m not the organizer Paul was--I’m more of a figure-it-out-as-you-go kind of guy.
Why did Paul accomplish so much more in spreading the Gospel than Peter? Why did Paul leave his home and engage the world so much? What made Paul’s faith spread and Peter’s stabilize? Though both men lived their lives on the line and would ultimately die as martyrs, Paul lived with that on a daily basis more than Peter. He wasn’t as political, perhaps as tactful, not as worried about the Jews, even though he was one, and even, at times, getting cross--be it with Barnabas or John Mark. Why? Because life would probably be short, the mission was massive, and there was no time or place for cry babies. It was a serious endeavor. It demanded his all and the all of those that were around him. Without that mindset, I doubt the Gospel of the Kingdom would have ever gotten off the ground.
The more Paul traveled, the more cultures he encountered, the more hardships he faced, the more he was forced to think, reflect, evaluate and see his faith developed. There’s something about getting your face shoved up against the wall that makes you serious. This is true in other parts of the world.
Could it be our only hope in the West is to, by choice, put our lives on the line to be a servant to others? What would that do to us here if we did that?
Paul, as a theologian, is brilliant. Interpreting Paul, apart from Jesus stories and teaching, is dangerous. We build religious systems and intellectual discourse but not a viral and powerful faith. Peter is accredited with having established the church in Jerusalem. Paul is accredited with expanding the church throughout the known world of his day. Peter was impulsive and given to anger. Paul was controlling and given to anger.
Some would call me Peter. I don’t like it. Not because I’m not impulsive, but because I didn’t stay in Jerusalem. I left East Texas and Dallas for the world. That’s what Paul did. Some would call me Paul. I start all these churches. But, I’m not the organizer Paul was--I’m more of a figure-it-out-as-you-go kind of guy.
Why did Paul accomplish so much more in spreading the Gospel than Peter? Why did Paul leave his home and engage the world so much? What made Paul’s faith spread and Peter’s stabilize? Though both men lived their lives on the line and would ultimately die as martyrs, Paul lived with that on a daily basis more than Peter. He wasn’t as political, perhaps as tactful, not as worried about the Jews, even though he was one, and even, at times, getting cross--be it with Barnabas or John Mark. Why? Because life would probably be short, the mission was massive, and there was no time or place for cry babies. It was a serious endeavor. It demanded his all and the all of those that were around him. Without that mindset, I doubt the Gospel of the Kingdom would have ever gotten off the ground.
The more Paul traveled, the more cultures he encountered, the more hardships he faced, the more he was forced to think, reflect, evaluate and see his faith developed. There’s something about getting your face shoved up against the wall that makes you serious. This is true in other parts of the world.
Could it be our only hope in the West is to, by choice, put our lives on the line to be a servant to others? What would that do to us here if we did that?
Comments:
<< Home
Bob, In answer to your final question I believe what that would do here is chase away a lot of people who are struggeling in their faith, or not yet sure of where they are heading. I also believe those that are strong in their faith will be challenged, but rise to the occasion.
I also believe this asks one more important question to each of us. Where are we in our faith if pushed?
I also believe this asks one more important question to each of us. Where are we in our faith if pushed?
Equally dangerous from separating Paul from Jesus is the current practice of the church to do sermons inferenced from the OT/NT as 5 steps to whatever/self-improvement/morality/ethical. This failure to read the OT without Jesus spectacles on is a failure to catch it full meaning (no disrespect to my Jewish friends but you are only seeing half the story). The Law's first purpose is to crush us under its weight. Even the Sermon on the Mount first crushes us and shows us our need of the cross (he who has lusted = adultery...bonecrushing reality). We can only experience transformation once we have realized our complete failure, been driven to the cross by the law, and received its benefits and empowerment. THEN and only then, can sanctification/transformation begin. My fear is that we are trying to do it backwards (especially in my emergent movement friends' camp at times). Every message and context must come back to the cross and resurrection of Jesus (the penultimate "Jesus story" if you would) or otherwise we are simply self-help gurus. To preach a single message on transformation without its foundational basis of the historical redemption event is dubious at best. Paul cannot be done without Jesus, nor should the OT be bifurcated from the Jesus stories with such ridiculous language as I often hear ("well, the God of the OT"...same person as NT God, my friends). Likewise, the Gospels cannot be done without the OT (or there is a complete loss of sacrificial context) or Paul (the applicational outworkin of the Gospel stories post-context.) I grow weary of those who say "Well, I only read the red letters." The entire canon is equally inspired.
Fortunately, by the grace of God, Paul was made to "go apostolic" through the communication of God through his community. Maybe that was the difference. Paul's community functioned as community and said, "Get up and go." Peter's was too busy waiting for individuals to "get a rhema word from God." Let's start communally calling people out like Antioch.
Post a Comment
Fortunately, by the grace of God, Paul was made to "go apostolic" through the communication of God through his community. Maybe that was the difference. Paul's community functioned as community and said, "Get up and go." Peter's was too busy waiting for individuals to "get a rhema word from God." Let's start communally calling people out like Antioch.
# posted by 
: 6:53 PM
: 6:53 PM << Home
Rss Feed