Subscribe to Posts
jesus, paul, john wimber, and “the apostles’ teaching”
My father-in-law, Stanley Rozell, used to talk about hitting the ball “down the center of the middle.” What was the center of the middle of the church’s message? They devoted themselves to “the apostles’ teaching” said Luke, the author of Acts. What did that refer to in historical context? It referred to the remembered words and deeds of Jesus now compiled in the gospels and to whatever the risen Jesus taught between the first Easter Sunday and Ascension Thursday. The only references we have to this post-resurrection instruction indicate that it was focused on the messianic meaning of Moses and the Prophets and Jesus’ take on “the kingdom of God.” That’s what they devoted themselves to. How about us?
I’m not so sure about us, if by us we mean American Christianity, dominated as it is by evangelicalism. We seem to be more focused on the epistles, especially the letters of Paul. Don’t get me wrong: the letters of Paul are part of the received New Testament. Without them, I’m not sure many of us would have found our way into the kingdom of God, especially those of us without Jewish ancestry. Much of the mystical understanding of our faith–”being in Christ” who is “in the heavenly realms”–would would be lost. But for many evangelicals if the New Testament is a target, Paul’s letters, not the “apostles’ teaching” as Luke used the term in historical context, would be the bulls eye.
Those gospels are and always have been the primary teaching documents of the Jesus movement. They were compiled to transmit the faith to and through the gathered community of Jesus followers. The gospels aren’t just the historical documents that bear witness to Jesus as the Son of God, the messiah, the Christ. They are our catechism. And they feature the kingdom of God as the primary theme of the teaching of Jesus. When we focus on the letters of Paul, we don’t tend to hear use that phrase much, as it didn’t find it’s way very often into his letters.
When I first heard John Wimber teach straight out of the gospels, as if the gospels were providing us with instructions on how to follow Jesus today, I felt as though I were coming home. My first teacher as a 19 year old Jesus follower was Haskell Stone, a Jewish believer in Jesus who studied under George Eldon Ladd, the evangelical pioneer of a renewed emphasis on the kingdom of God as the unifying theme of the Bible.
it’s why I loved Wimber
John Wimber took a lot of heat from his fellow evangelicals. He was called a heretic by some. He was charged with ignoring “the atonement” by others. He didn’t place enough restrictions on women in ministry. Pick a little, talk a little, pick a little, talk a little. Mostly, he just made evangelicals nervous because his theological em-PHA-sis was on a different syl-LA-ble. He was devoted to “the apostles’ teaching.”
Anyone who liked John Wimber should feel a little nervous if they aren’t making their fellow evangelicals nervous too. Maybe not for all the same reasons, because it’s 2009, not 1985, but for reasons that are nevertheless connected to devotion to what Luke called “the apostles’ teaching.”
If you’re feeling nervous about me now, thank you; I’m honored. But I want to remind you that Luke was familiar with Paul and his important role in the Jesus movement. Luke told Paul’s conversion story three times in the book of Acts. Luke made a point to set up Paul’s radical inclusion of the Gentiles with Peter’s vision on the Joppa rooftop during his noon-time prayers. Obviously, there was a conservative faction in the early Jesus community that would have contained the gospel to a Jewish audience, or insisted on a kind of double conversion to Jesus and to the Law of Moses–a not unreasonable thing to insist on, except that the Spirit had other ideas.
Luke was hardly a Paul-basher
So Luke was not a Paul-basher. Luke was not someone who judged Paul by modern standards, or held Paul’s obvious humanity and his annoying personality against him. Luke understood that to insist on the inclusion of Gentiles as Gentiles in the kingdom of God you might need a hard headed battering ram of a man like Paul.
Maybe Luke was able to let Paul be Paul rather than trying to turn him into Jesus II, because he understood that the church is to be “devoted…to the apostles’ teaching.”
So we’ve got our work cut out for us, don’t we? To refocus on “the apostles’ teaching” as Luke understood that term when he used it. To wrap our minds and our hearts and our lives and our message around “the kingdom of God” that so animated the teaching of the risen Lord. We probably need some new language for this. “Kingdom,” for example, doesn’t translate well in our day. We need to wrestle with this teaching. Is the kingdom of God a realm? and if so, what kind of realm? How important is the spatial metaphor? Or is the kingdom just an influence? What does it mean to seek the kingdom, to pray for its coming on earth as it is in heaven? There’s an ocean of truth here and we’re to swim in it so we can get salty again.
let Paul be Paul by letting Jesus be Jesus
I’m told, though I don’t keep up with these things myself, that there is a lot of rethinking going on about Paul. How does he fit into the canon? Does he belong there, even? How do we understand and receive his writings? Believe me, I understand the re-thinking. I live in Ann Arbor. My daughter majored in Womens’ Studies at the University of Michigan. I’ve heard Paul quoted extensively by people I love and respect to insist that my daughters aren’t qualified by virtue of their gender to be pastors, for example.
But I think we’d do well to apply one of Paul’s own thoughts to this rethinking: “From no on we consider no own from a merely human point of view. Though we once looked at Christ this way, we do so no longer.”
We’ll see Paul, and ourselves, and each other, and our enemies, and the world around us more clearly when we find ourselves devoted to the apostles’ teaching again–the remembered words and deeds of Jesus, his take on Moses and the Prophets, and his fascination with the kingdom of God. Paul will find his place in our theology once Jesus occupies his.
Tags: Acts, atonement, evangelicalism, george eldon ladd, haskell stone, Jesus, john wimber, kingdom of God, luke, Paul, paul-bashing, stanley rozell
May 12th, 2009 at 10:44 pm
have no fear, you dont make me nervous enough……..:) never really understood the ‘paul bashing’, that seems peculiar to you lot in the usa, who can ever say that they fully know an individual from the sum total of his writings, anymore than one can say they fully know a modern day author from studying his writings……, writers observe, then offer a perspective, an opinion and in the case of paul, one hopes some real divine inspiration was at work as he poured out his heart, soul and mind onto the paper, or had is scribed for him as he spoke with some alarming clarity of insight and understanding of our predicament, paul is alright by me, if folks have a problem with paul, they need to take it to jesus and let him reform their perspective, maybe by getting them to walk a mile or two in pauls shoes, like evangelize most of the then known world, when paul bashers have done that, they may have some ‘real estate’ with which to offer an opinion, until then……..thank God for jesus, thanks jesus for paul and then go get a life…….
May 12th, 2009 at 10:49 pm
N.T. Wright points out that we often try to interpret the Gospels through the lens of Paul. As you rightly point out, although the Gospels were committed to writing after Paul, their message preceded Paul and had permeated the church before Paul wrote. If we interpret Paul through the lens of the Gospels, things look surprisingly different.
May 13th, 2009 at 8:59 am
Mike, I think I see things thru the same lens as you. I do see Paul as perhaps forceful, but gosh, that seems refreshing in this age of political correctness and everyone being so tender and easily offended.
Ken, I admire you in your ability to not offend people. I think if I were in your position I would have been kicked out of the pulpit long ago.
I particularly enjoy Paul’s sarcasm (his reference to emasculation) in Galatians concerning the folks who insisted gentiles had to be circumcised prior to becoming Christians.
May 13th, 2009 at 10:20 am
Ken, I’ll really miss your teaching when I move on to Utah.
I grew up attending a private school with a catechism based on the teachings of Paul. Not that this is a terrible place to start by any means, but how much better to begin with the teachings of Jesus..
May 13th, 2009 at 10:24 am
very compelling…i think many have wandered away from the being devoted to the “apostles’ teaching”.
to continue the references to galatians that joao started, paul might say to us: “You foolish Americans/Evangelicals, who has bewitched you!?!”
ken, you might make others as bothered as a long-tailed cat in a room full of rocking-chairs, but for me, i’m glad we’re in the same tribe. i learn from you…
May 13th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
Spot on Mike. Great post Ken.
Even the demons respected Paul, “I know Jesus, and I know Paul, but who are you?” So I think Paul lived under the authority of his King and he probably pressed further into the kingdom from this realm than any other human. I think Paul’s letters, which are drenched in love, tell us how he lived out his commission as the “least of all apostles.” I think Paul helps us understand what living in the kingdom looks like, at least the part that is here–but not yet. Jesus said even looking at a woman lustfully is committing adultery—Paul taught us to change our focus. Jesus said it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter the kingdom—Paul taught us how not to be snared by the deceitfulness of wealth.
Maybe the issues of men, women, slaves, husbands, wives, coverings, meat, idols, etc. had very little to do with the kingdom and everything to do with living in a fallen world. Paul was trying to help them live in a very difficult world with faith, hope, and love.
May 13th, 2009 at 5:33 pm
Interesting viewpoint . . . wasn’t the “Apostle’s Teaching,” simply lessons from the “Writings (K’tuvim), “Prophets” (Nevi’im), and the Books of Moses (Torah)? I mean they were good Jewish men and women, and nothing of what we call the New Testament had been written yet.
Certainly they told the stories of Jesus’ life and adventures, but He was simply fulfilling the teachings and prophecies of what we know as the “Old Testament.”
The only reason I bring this up is because many Christians say we need to ignore the “Old Testament” books, entirely, yet if we don’t understand the past history of our faith, we won’t fully appreciate or understand our faith.
May 13th, 2009 at 6:54 pm
“Devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching” certainly refers to the teaching of the eleven (and Matthias?) because of its placement in the story. But it occurs to me that Luke is not only writing this while he’s hanging out with Paul, he’s writing it knowing that Paul is functioning as an apostle who claims that he became one by appointment of Jesus himself (I Timothy 2:7). I once heard a preacher who thought that the eleven chose Matthias to replace Judas but that God obviously chose Paul.
Anyway, my point is that I don’t think one is necessarily wandering outside of the historical context when one considers Paul’s teaching to be apostolic, do you? I mean, when 2nd century Christians devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching, didn’t they study the epistles as well as the gospels?
May 13th, 2009 at 7:08 pm
I just reread your last paragraph or two. Although it rattled me to think about most of the NT threatened with eviction, your final sentence is certainly true and perfectly consoling.
It seems to me I read about some modern heretic who kicked everything out of the New Testament EXCEPT Paul. Does anybody know who that was?
May 13th, 2009 at 8:03 pm
Martha,There’s no doubt that Luke in Acts in asserting a prominent role for Paul (Acts is largely about Paul, after all!) But it’s also the case that Luke is reporting that the Pentecost Church is devoted to the apostles’ teaching, which at the time meant the remembered words and deeds of Jesus plus his take on the kingdom from Moses and the Prophets (to support Nick’s point above–that was their Scripture, the Law and the Prophets.) Paul is commentary, application of the apostles teaching (in the sense of eyewitness to the life and deeds of Jesus) to the Gentile context. The simple fact that there are four gospels and they are placed at the beginning of the New Testament is meant to suggest prominence, I think.
May 13th, 2009 at 9:05 pm
prominence, possibly a good argument, but a little thin me thinks:), genesis is the first book of the bible, but the story of exodus: the human condition and the context we find ourselves in is a much better story for the human race to read into, feel aligned with and take lessons from, rob bells book ;god wants to save christians’ makes this point with alarming clarity, i may have well been born in a garden, but am gonna end up in a city, and in the meantime live a life of a slave freed from bondage – that’s a story of exodus, – not genesis – and it happens to be the second book in the bible, and even though it is second it is a much more pertinent and prominent theme for all of us than say, the first book in the bible:) you can read 1 john, 2 john & 3 john in any order, the word of god will interact and inform our understanding, if we let it, the numbers of these letters (prominence) are irrelevant in my humble opinion, they do not designate any order of prominence, anymore than say 1 peter outranks 2 peter, the 4 gospels may well be ‘first’ literally in the canon of new testament scripture, but attaching the word prominence to them is a semantic too far, but hey, we all push for what we want to promote, so the gospels are fine by me, but as for prominence; forget about it:)…………i’m living a life in a present tense state of exodus, aware of my sin and aware that i dont live in egypt anymore…….amen
May 13th, 2009 at 9:22 pm
Good point.
It makes sense to put them first because they provide context for understanding the epistles. They’re meaningless without the preeminent story in mind. Which I guess is what you’re saying…
May 13th, 2009 at 11:38 pm
What a great post, followed by great comments. Ken (or others)- any idea on what scripture Jesus points to most during his teaching/ministry as recorded in the Gospels? Or what prophets?
I think this post brings light to Matthew 5:17 – “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” …and I must admit, this gets me pretty amp-ed because I am a closet Jesus Freak slash Kingdom of Heaven guy who holds to the words of Isaiah (65:17-25). This paragraph of old testament text has become pretty foundational in my Faith DNA that seems to bring life, hope and excitement.
Reading on after Matthew 5:17 Jesus gets radical and I think things got a little uncomfortable in the room. My hope is that things can continue to get a little more uncomfortable as we wrestle with text, experiences and relationships.
“Truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.” -Jesus
May 14th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
Since we receive the entire Bible as the Word of God…why pit gospels vs epistles, Luke vs Paul? Rethinking on Paul? Should he be in the canon? Wow. You’d have to feel pretty good about yourself to decide you may know better what belongs in Scripture than what is there.
May 14th, 2009 at 8:32 pm
Brian, good questions. I don’t think anyone is talking about revising the Bible. What I read being discussed is what weight, in the practice of one’s faith, to give to the many words in the Bible. I’m a Christian. I am a slave of Christ. I’m not Paul’s slave. Not Peter’s. Not Moses’. Not anyone else’s slave. SI’m the slave of Christ alone. So that means I pay particular attention to his words, above all others. Do I ignore others’ words? No.
May 15th, 2009 at 8:02 am
Brian,
It didn’t see one thing in Ken’s post that suggests he thinks we should alter the Cannon. I wonder if you were able to read the whole post? I imagine you’d have to feel pretty good about yourself to comment on a blog post without reading it.
May 15th, 2009 at 10:29 am
Elizabeth,
I did read the whole post. Ken wrote that he’s told there is a lot of rethinking about Paul, including, “Does he belong there (canon), even?” ‘
I was not criticizing Ken, but whoever the “they” are Ken refers to. It is just under the heading “Let Paul be Paul by letting Jesus be Jesus” in Ken’s post so that you can look at it again and confirm I did read that in the post.
May 15th, 2009 at 10:42 am
Notbell,
I appreciate what you’re saying and I understand that practically we do make decisions about the weight we give particular sections of Scripture. Having said that, since I thought we Christians were people who accepted the entire Bible as the Word of God…I thought what Paul wrote was the Word of God, as well as every other biblical author. Isn’t that your understanding? It seems to me there is a suggestion being made that there is some dissonance between the words of Jesus and the words of Paul, etc. Rightly understood, that just isn’t so.
May 15th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
wouldn’t “the apostles’ teaching” in our context include the teaching of… the apostles? namely peter, paul, john? including their letters?
May 15th, 2009 at 5:40 pm
“If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off”
“for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church”
“A woman should learn in quietness and full submission”
Do we accept the scriptures above as literal for our day? If not, what other scriptures need to be interpreted based on the time, context, and the people receiving the letters of Paul, or the teachings of Christ? Do I need a theologian to tell me what to believe on these issues? Remember, we can always find a teacher that satisfies our minds.
I know what my heart says, but my mind if fearful of the letter. What is right, my mind or my heart? My heart says these and many other passages are not literal for our day. When I look at it any other way, my mind is cluttered by the convoluted logic that I am following a religion of rules that nobody, including myself, actually follows.
May 15th, 2009 at 8:17 pm
Brian, Well if I gave equal weight to everything in the Bible, I think my brains would fall out of my head. I have enough trouble understanding Jesus well enough to follow what he says. To live a life that is faithful to what he asks. How do I treat the Old Testament? As instructions? No. I treat it as history. And rightly so. A covenant that was current once but is no longer. Paul? Well, he is Paul. Not God. Jesus is God. I pay more attention to God than any other human being, including my brother Paul. The Bible is inspired by God. Is God talking equally through Paul and Jesus? No. He is speaking most directly through Jesus. Paul is commentary on what God has to say through Jesus. How about the Holy Spirit? What attention do I pay to the leading of the Holy Spirit? Every attention. This is Jesus now. This is Jesus for us. This is the action of God in the world today. Among us.
May 15th, 2009 at 9:26 pm
Humphreys, Generally speaking a text means what it would have meant to the origional audience-hearers; hence soon after the first Pentecost “the apostles teaching” would have referred to the teachings of the origional twelve, their remembrances of the life and words and deeds of Jesus, later compiled in the four gospels….it’s not to deny that Paul was an apostle, but as Acts makes clear his conversion came later
May 15th, 2009 at 9:31 pm
gem, I don’t think there’s reason to fear; Jesus promised us that the Spirit would be given who would lead us into all the truth. God exists; Jesus is alive and so he is perfectly capable of insuring that we get what we need in the truth department. For a good resource on interpreting the Bible, you might try
How to Read the Bible for All It’s Worth by Stuart and Fee (Gordon Fee) If God would have wanted us to depend on a crystal clear Bible whose meaning was obvious in all the particulars to all people in all times, he would have inspired a different kind of book than the bible. The Bible points us to a living God who loves, saves, leads and guides us.
May 17th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
ken, i agree, but you weren’t just saying what it meant for the original hearers. you were applying it to a modern question of scriptural authority. when applying a text to a completely different setting it seems like you need to go beyond just what the original hearers understood. they didn’t have the writings of Paul, Peter and John. but we do. it seems silly to not include the canonical writings of these apostles as being “the teaching of the apostles” in our present setting.
May 17th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
Humphreys, “But I’m just a soul whose intentions are good…Oh Lord, please don’t let me be misunderstood!” I think I’ll spin off a follow up post to respond to this…
May 21st, 2009 at 7:59 pm
Elizabeth,
Were you able to confirm Ken’s post did have the content I referenced?