Paul of Tarsus, the radical libertarian

[kallipolis]

There is a novel thought that laws, and the spirit that they appear to reveal are often in conflict, when reasoning that the interpreter of the law believes that laws should be fashioned to support their perceived right to be served by the law.

Distinguishing the "letter" from the "spirit" of the Law is a false dichotomy. One must be aware of ones motivation for following the "letter" of the law as much as one should not allow a subjective interpretation of the "spirit" of the law to cloud the objectivity inherent in The Mosaic Laws.

It may be worth noting that the "Law-free Christianity" to which Paul adhered, should not be understood as completely antinomianism or libertarianism.

What Paul and the Hellenists before him opposed was adherence to such Laws that served to set up boundaries between Jews and Greeks, men and women, slaves and freemen, barbarians and the civilized (Galatians 3:11; Colossians 3:28).

Paul saw how clearly insistence on observance of the Law as the means of entry into the people of God was contrary to the Christian message and, in practical terms, even made it impossible for Gentile converts to share fully with Jewish converts the life of the Christian community. Paul equates the legalism and rule following that the Judaisers espoused as boundary markers separating Jew from Gentile with "a yoke of slavery" (Galatians 5:1b; cf. Romans 7:25).

Paul returns to this theme in 2 Corinthians (11:20), where he admonishes his audience for tolerating the false apostles who would "enslave" them. This statement echoes not only Galatians 2:4, but also Galatians 4:24-25 where Paul speaks of Jerusalem and its children as presently serving as a slave to the Mosaic covenant.

Paul of Tarsus is never one for the understatement. He makes his understandings crystal clear when telling his audience that right living must adhere to the call of The Spirit, and never in public observance of laws that neglect their invitation to live our life as our public image appears to demonstrate.

For followers of The Christ the death and resurrection of The Christ rendered observance of the Law redundant thus, Jews who converted ceased to be Jews (defined by observance of the Law). For Paul the Law served only to demarcate "them" from "us" and, thus, with the universal application of The Christ event such boundary markers were no longer relevant. He was not critical of Judaism, merely of those Nazarenes who wanted to remain Jewish by adhering to the Laws that marked them out as Jews.

Paul's comments, especially in Galatians and 2 Corinthians, indicate that not only was Law-observance a key component of his opponents' gospel, but that these opponents were also "Judaisers" whose message directly challenged the basic tenets of Paul's own gospel of justification by faith.

The issue for me as it was for Paul at Galatia and Corinth, is not that one is free from all rule-keeping or law-observing. Human society could not function without rules governing dangerously aberrant or violent behaviour. The result would be anarchy. Rules can, however, be the source of conflict, confusion, and injustice. All-too-often it is not the rules per se that are the cause of such problems, but one person's, or one group's attempt to impose their interpretation of the rules on others. This leads to factionalism, and divisiveness which inevitably results in the development of the self righteous I am right, you are wrong politics of the self elect.

Reading Paul's correspondence we hear the echoes of battles that seem to be perpetuated even in our own time. Paul is emphatic that this sort of nit-picking, legalistic Law-observance can only mean a diminution of the "liberty" wrought by The Christ (Gal 5:1, 13; 2 Cor 5:14-15, 21; 11:20).

Paul states that the death, and the resurrection of The Christ has set us free from all ethnic, social and gender boundaries between "Jew and Gentile, Slave and Free, Woman and Man" (Gal 3:11; cf. Col 3:28).

Paul proclaims that the followers of The Christ should be people without boundaries founded upon ethnicity, gender, socio-economic status; even our sense of self importance generated by our easy willingness to believe that the poor, disadvantaged and those discriminated upon are unworthy of our compassion, empathy and loving practical assistance. For he also, is my brother.

end

 

[marqau]

Interesting thoughts Kallipolis.

I think it is hard to get our heads around how much our psychology is influenced by our culture and therefore how different our world views are from those of people in the past.

Since the time of Paul, I think the notion that what we THINK is right and the solidification of that into laws has grown in strength against the moment to moment reality of spontaneous ethical behaviour in our relations with other people driven by our innate empathy with our fellow human beings.

I think that it could be the result of post-modern thought seeping into popular culture but I see a turning of the corner in the last decade or so towards a more open minded, spontaneous empathetic society.

The recent popularity of "fundamentalist" Christianity and pseudo-rational atheism is I think reactionary to that and we are seeing a more psychotherapeutic and less ideological approach to religion.


P.S. Is there any justification for the urban myth that Paul was gay?

 

[kallipolis]

Interesting thoughts Kallipolis.

I think it is hard to get our heads around how much our psychology is influenced by our culture and therefore how different our world views are from those of people in the past.

Since the time of Paul, I think the notion that what we THINK is right and the solidification of that into laws has grown in strength against the moment to moment reality of spontaneous ethical behaviour in our relations with other people driven by our innate empathy with our fellow human beings.

I think that it could be the result of post-modern thought seeping into popular culture but I see a turning of the corner in the last decade or so towards a more open minded, spontaneous empathetic society.

The recent popularity of "fundamentalist" Christianity and pseudo-rational atheism is I think reactionary to that and we are seeing a more psychotherapeutic and less ideological approach to religion.


P.S. Is there any justification for the urban myth that Paul was gay?

I am not at all certain that 'fundamentalist" Christianity is recent, and even popular rather a retreat by not a few into a perceived safety zone where rules, and regulations appear to address the insecurities of the insecure legalistic frame of mind.

Paul of Tarsus rightly addressed the zealousness of those who believed that law observance, pleased God and was the root to redemption by reminding them when one lives by The Law - every law must be observed - for in breaking one law, all were broken.

I am one of those queer people who believe that a man remaining unmarried, and not chasing women is inadequate grounds for believing that such a person is gay. Certainly Paul's many detractors would have used this so called urban myth against him had such allegations been levelled against him by his peers.
There is nothing in writing, or in sacred tradition to support such a thought.

Paul's famous words on the soft person were made when he sat on the hill overlooking the city of Corinth, viewing the various shrines, and temples where prostitutes of both genders offered their professional services for pilgrims who were devotees of the various deities.

I have visited ancient Corinth on several occasions and sat where Paul probably sat, and imagined the bustling city beneath with its many tourists satisfying their sexual desires at the various shrines, perhaps even understanding that the former Pharisee, Paul had not completely eradicated his puritanical past from his new life following the call of The Saviour.

 

[kallipolis]

The author of 4 Maccabees (5:20-21) proclaims that transgressions of the Law in either small or large things is equally indictable, since both demonstrate that the transgressor despises the Law. I also quote Sirach (7:3) who suggests that any sin renders one guilty of violating the Law, not just a law.

It would appear that a person or community is not at liberty to pick and choose their practices, or discriminate about which legal regulations were binding — a sentiment shared by some Christians as well. Thus, we find that the author of the letter of James (2:10) decrees that "whoever keeps the whole Law, yet stumbles at one point is guilty of breaking all of it" (cf. Matt 5:18-19).

So, for Paul and for us too, it is an "all or nothing" proposition. Do we seek to earn our redemption by wearing "badges" of allegiance or trying to fulfil legalistic obligations? Paul warns that once you go down that path, you are forced to surrender your adult responsibility and revert to an infantile mentality (cf. Gal 3:25).

Paul equates this legalistic mentality with a form of slavery (5:1). Moreover relying upon infantile point-scoring and uncritical law-keeping robs the death and resurrection of Christ of its salvific significance.

Who needs Christ, if one can earn God's favour by one's own efforts?

 

[marqau]

I envy you sitting above Corinth and it makes me want to travel again. Years ago I visited Damascus and the "the street called straight" with its ancient Roman ruins, mosques and Christian shrines and chapels commemorating the places where the scales fell from Paul's eyes and where he was lowered from the window in a basket.

I have just started to read "The Greeks & Greek Love" by James Davidson that aims to reappraise homosexuality in the ancient Greek world. Paul would probably have not only encountered male temple prostitutes, but men in publicly recognised committed relationships as well are groups of men noisily vying for the attention of particularly beautiful young men.

Paul would have been caught somewhere between that world and the world of ritual purity and law of the Jews that for him would have been a political as well as a moral problem. Of course the Jewish world was influenced by the prestige that Greek culture had in the Roman sphere. Philo, I think a close contemporary of Paul's comes to mind and later through people like Augustine of Hippo, some have said that Christianity owes as much to Plato as it does to Jesus.

"Who needs Christ, if one can earn God's favour by one's own efforts?"

This was the view of Paul, Augustine and then Martin Luther, but somewhere between Augustine and Luther, Western Christianity walked away from that. I am not convinced that that move was wrong. For me (as a Zen Buddhist), religion (all religion) is primarily a psychotherapeutic practice. At some point we have to let go of "self" and trust that the world (or God) will heal (save) us. For me, that is the true meaning of Faith, but is faith for many just what "I think"? That is, my ideology or intellectual model of the world? If so, I think action, even ritual has a greater psychotherapeutic (or soteriological) value.

 

[marqau]

(I should have qualified Christianity above as "Western" Christianity.)

 

[kallipolis]

This was the view of Paul, Augustine and then Martin Luther, but somewhere between Augustine and Luther, Western Christianity walked away from that. I am not convinced that that move was wrong. For me (as a Zen Buddhist), religion (all religion) is primarily a psychotherapeutic practice. At some point we have to let go of "self" and trust that the world (or God) will heal (save) us. For me, that is the true meaning of Faith, but is faith for many just what "I think"? That is, my ideology or intellectual model of the world? If so, I think action, even ritual has a greater psychotherapeutic (or soteriological) value.

In the light of recent discussions between German Catholics, and German Lutherans I rather believe that the differences between Luther, and the Western Church were misplaced by political factors that were influencing the rise of the European nation state, and rejection of control by Philip of Spain in his role as emperor of the Holy Roman Empire.

There is a golden thread weaving its way through many religions, and philosophical practices that recognises the need to surrender the ego, that the true self may reveal its life in our own.

 

[kallipolis]

Bumped for further discussion.

 

[LutheranGuy]

I rather believe that the differences between Luther, and the Western Church were misplaced by political factors

The controversy of the reformation had absolutely nothing to do with politics, and everything to do with theology.

 

[Kulindahr]

In the light of recent discussions between German Catholics, and German Lutherans I rather believe that the differences between Luther, and the Western Church were misplaced by political factors that were influencing the rise of the European nation state, and rejection of control by Philip of Spain in his role as emperor of the Holy Roman Empire.

There is a golden thread weaving its way through many religions, and philosophical practices that recognises the need to surrender the ego, that the true self may reveal its life in our own.

The real problem between Luther and Rome, in terms of theology, was that Rome insisted on forcing the scriptures into the shackles of Aristotle and Plato, which led them to require that grace be/have a "substance". Luther, following Augustine, recognized that to the NT writers grace was an attitude on God's part, not a substance that can be handed out in pieces. If you looked on grace as a substance, then Luther's statement that we are saved by grace was indeed heresy, because to them he was saying that by God handing us a present, but without unwrapping it, we are saved... while what he was really saying is that we are saved by the change in God's attitude toward us, from hostile when we are without Christ, to favorable when we are in Christ.

It's a classic case of people talking past each other. There are indication in marginal comments by Augustinians of the time, made on pronouncements from Rome and later on documents from the pope's private circus called the Council of Trent, that they understood the problem, but no one was listening to the Augustinians because Luther was one.

And until Rome repents and abandons its shackling of the scriptures with Thomism -- the theological mix which enslaved Christian doctrine to Greek philosophers -- there can be no reconciliation, because in reality it is Rome which is in error.

 

[Kulindahr]

The controversy of the reformation had absolutely nothing to do with politics, and everything to do with theology.

Um... no. It had a LOT to do with politics. If it had been merely theology, Luther would have had a shot at being made a cardinal, which would have really changed the game. But cardinals who would have spoken up for him and fought for that designation for him kept silent because their families were at odds politically with the pope's family, and there would have been major political retribution on their families, resulting in strife in Rome that could have destabilized the entire political structure of Europe.

And in Germany and elsewhere in Europe there were princes and nobles who followed Luther out of political expediency and not theology -- many of whom later regretted their decisions when the pope's storm troopers started using "direct action" to bring political units back to Rome one by one.