Category Archives: Gospels

Why the ad hominem attack on Paul?

2 Replies

We’ve been discussing the concept of “Jesus vs Paul” or “the gospels vs the epistles.” There’s one other observation that I want to make, even though I doubt it will be a popular one. Who is trying to demote Paul’s theology to second class? That is, who wants the words of the epistles to carry less weight than they traditionally have?

In my experience, this view is promoted by basically two groups, who share a common argument (though they rarely admit it). In churches of Christ, it’s primarily those who hold to an egalitarian view. In Christianity at large, it’s also those who no longer see homosexual behavior as a sin.

I rarely hear people saying, “Jesus emphasized baptism more than Paul did; I take Jesus much more seriously.” Seldom is the argument: “Jesus taught a works-based justification while Paul emphasizes grace; I take Jesus much more seriously.” (And yes, those claims are debatable… like the idea that Jesus promoted egalitarianism more than Paul did.)

I’m very open to correction on this point. Feel free to point me to people who are de-emphasizing Paul for reasons other than the ones I’ve mentioned. My experience is naturally limited.

For now, I’m very uncomfortable with any attempt to not take a biblical writer seriously, especially one who wrote as much as Paul did. Yes, many have over-emphasized Paul in the past, many have stripped his words of all context, many have built ridiculous arguments based on proof texts. But none of that calls for us to demote apostolic teaching to a second tier.

The gospels weren’t written with red ink

1 Reply

When I questioned my friend about his statement that he takes Jesus “much more seriously” than he takes Paul, another friend jumped in and said, “You mean the red letters, right?” Wow! Talk about rattling my cage.

Again, I see this as a pendulum swing away from teachings that travel from the manger to the cross to Pentecost without taking a breath along the way. We need the words of Jesus, his teachings. We need the red letters.

But let us never forget that the Word became flesh. The Word didn’t become more words. God could have sent us The Collected Sayings of Messiah Jesus instead of allowing his Son to take human form. But that’s not what happened.

Jesus came and lived among us. When those that walked with him described his life, they talked about how he went around doing good (Acts 10:38). Talk is cheap; Jesus lived out what he taught. His followers spoke of the miracles he did by God’s power (Acts 2:22). To them, what Jesus did was as important as what he said.

I don’t want to lose Jesus’ weeping at Lazarus’ death. I don’t want to forget how he reached out and touched an untouchable leper. I want to remember that he changed water into wine and cleared the temple. I want the image of him sitting and eating breakfast with his disciples on the shore of Galilee.

I value the teaching, as well. I want to be reminded that in the beginning was the Word, that he was with God and was God, that he made everything. I want to be reminded that God so loved the world that he gave his only Son. Red-letter Christianity loses insights like that which were provided by those who knew Jesus best.

I don’t believe in a “canon within a canon” that makes certain books authoritative and reduces others to mere suggestions. I don’t accept the idea of a “canon within the gospels” that says red letters carry more weight than black ones.

Red-letter Christianity is trying to follow a bodiless Messiah. It ignores the importance of the Incarnation. There are lots of books with wise sayings and helpful teachings; if we only read the red letters, the gospels become more examples of the same.

A friend of mine was recording a video about his ministry and said, “I’m a red-letter Christian because I try to do the things that Jesus did.” Through his mistake, he gave an excellent argument against red-letter Christianity. We’re called to be like Jesus, to imitate him. If we only use half the gospels, we won’t be able to do that nearly as well.

The Word became flesh… not more words.

The immaculate gospels vs the inadequate epistles (?)

Leave a reply

It’s amazing how the four gospels came into being, isn’t it? How they dropped down from the sky with no human intervention. Unlike other books of the Bible, these four contain no human elements; all other books of Scripture must be judged by their contents.

I’m sorry… is my sarcasm showing? Let me say that I believe in the inspiration of the Bible, the whole Bible. What I’m trying to say is that we mustn’t make the gospels into what they’re not. When my friend posted, “I take Jesus much more seriously than I take Paul,” I responded, “Don’t you mean that you take Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John way more seriously than you do Paul?”

Let’s remember that the gospels are church documents. They were produced by the church, for the church. They are teaching documents, every bit as much as the letters are. They are occasional documents (written for a specific need), just as much as the epistles are. They were written by inspired human authors, just as the writings of Paul were.

We can’t reject parts of the Old Testament because “they don’t fit what we know about Jesus.” (Yeah, I’ve heard that argued) We can’t reject Paul’s teachings because we think they conflict with what Jesus said. Frankly, the conflict is in our interpretation of what each said, not what they actually said. The first four books of the New Testament are not to be excepted from any scrutiny that we do of the other books. If you’re willing to reject Paul, or not take him seriously, be prepared to do the same with Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

In my last post, I emphasized the importance of the gospels. But that importance in no way takes away importance from the rest of the New Testament or the rest of the Bible. If you take the Jesus we see in the Bible seriously, you have to take Paul just as seriously. We don’t get to pick and choose.

Bringing back the gospels

2 Replies

We’re talking about the idea of favoring the gospels over the epistles, considering the statement: “I take Jesus way more seriously than I do Paul.” Let me speak first in favor of the proposition.

I believe that we need to preach Jesus more than we do his church. I think we need to preach Jesus more than we do doctrine. People need a Savior.Believers and non-believers need to be pointed to Jesus, urged to imitate him, follow his teachings, do the things he did.

Historically, many Christians have neglected the gospels; this has harmed the church. In a group on Facebook, some people were discussing the Nicene Creed. The creed basically says that Jesus came to earth, suffered, and died. Nothing is said about what he did nor what he taught.

As I mentioned yesterday, many in churches of Christ have wanted to begin with Acts 2. The only important things about Jesus were seen to be his death, burial, and resurrection. Life? Teachings? Minor points. Part of the “Old Testament that was nailed to the cross.” We’re New Testament Christians; that stuff doesn’t affect us. That was the teaching.

That’s wrong. Very wrong. The New Testament church focused on becoming like Jesus. It’s hard to become like him if we don’t know what he did. (which is why the “red letter” movement is equally off base; it takes away importance from the life of Jesus and the things he did)

We need to restore the gospels to their rightful place in the church. So if we’re willing to modify the above statement and say, “I take the gospels as seriously as I take Paul’s writings,” then I’m in full agreement. But if we choose to take away importance from the epistles in order to give more worth to the gospels… I’ve got a problem with that. I’ll take about that in the next few posts.

Choosing Jesus, rejecting Paul

1 Reply

The other day a friend included this in a Facebook post:

“I take Jesus much more seriously than I do Paul.”

That statement didn’t sit well with me.

On the one hand, well… yeah. Jesus is Lord of Lords. He should be taken much more seriously than any other human.

But it seems to me that this friend was echoing a sentiment that I hear in the church today, a need to downplay the writings of Paul and emphasize the gospels. He wasn’t really talking about Jesus and Paul as individuals, but about their teachings.

Historically, churches of Christ have often been guilty of doing just the opposite, preaching Paul and ignoring the gospels. I’ve written before about the strange doctrine that would seek to relegate the gospels to a time long past, discounting their relevance and applicability to people today. That’s an extreme form of the traditional view that argues “The New Testament begins with Acts 2.” (I’ve heard that exact statement)

Today’s view would seem to be the expected pendulum swing that happens so often as churches, as people react to one view by going to the opposite extreme.

I want to spend a little time examining the “gospels only” approach to the New Testament. I’ll include the “red letters only” view as well, which tries to take quotes from Jesus and elevate them above the rest.

Feel free to voice some opinions now or wait until we start trying to cook some of these half-baked thoughts.