The following was initially a blog post. I have refrained from editing out matters of informality etc.
Disclaimer: While I am a reasonable typist, I nonetheless cannot type at speech-speed at the best times, much less on a laptop keyboard. Consequently, these notes vary from word to word to close summary, and much of the ground in between. To be sure of precise wording, you will of course need to consult the tapes or CDs.
N. T. Wright: Paul's Theology in Practice
Wright began his final lecture with an aside - no doubt prompted by Gaffin's comments regarding the final judgment. Wright noted that if Paul were as paranoid about works as we are, he could not have written half the things he did. Wright added that he resented the paranoia of many of the NIV's translations.
The judgment in the future is according to the totality of the life led. Paul doesn't say we earn eternal life. But we pursue it by persevering in good works.
Wright added that there is a story going around that he had told someone that he would not know what to say to someone on his deathbed. The claim, responds Wright "is quite bizarre." "I cannot imagine going to someone's deathbed and saying, 'I don't know what to say.'" Of course, what is said depends on many factors: is the person a believer or an unbeliever? God would give whatever aspect of the gospel is necessary for the given situation.
Some practicalities of Paul's work
Wright comments on the various components of Romans 1.1, trying to see the sense they make within the overall Pauline theological structure.
You rearrange theology in order to use it in real life. The question at Westminster, for instance, was not: "How can we articulate this absolutely precisely?" but: "How can we be useful in our confession?"
"Paul a servant." Obviously, Jesus was the Servant (Isaiah). But Paul followed Jesus in the servant ministry outlined in Isaiah in many respects too - he was a light to the nations, an Israel-for-the-world. His own sufferings were because he and his colleagues were acting out the calling of the true Israel. His service took place on a map constructed from the Israel metanarratives.
"Apostle." Paul's apostolic authority was rooted in the One who called and sent him. He was a pioneer; his goal was to name Christ where He was not yet named. Paul had glimpsed the "dark humour" of God - a fanatical nationalistic Jew is the one who takes the good news to the pagans: the good news of one family in Christ. And here too he makes his fellow Jews jealous (Rom 11).
"Set apart for the gospel of God." Set apart may be a play in some sense on Pharisee, although that is debated. [Some scholars think the Hebrew underlying Pharisee meant "set apart one" - TG.] The great apocalypse has occurred - Jesus is Lord of the world (not Caesar), as the fulfillment of the covenant with Israel. Paul is not simply a delivery-man but an embodiment of the message he bears.
Bear in mind, says Wright, that Paul lived in a way that most people had never seen. And thus he called his people to be imitators of him as he imitated Christ. Their memory of him was a guide to them in his absence.
Note Paul's variations on Jewish prayers. These indicate his own prayer patterns. Theology flows into and out of prayer, invoking the one true God, with daring and delight, by including Jesus and the Spirit within the definition of this God.
Paul does not often speak of the content of his evangelistic preaching, but 1 Thessalonians 1 matches the idol-polemic of Acts 17. Powerful deeds - probably healings - occurred, demonstrating that the one true God was at work, and that the pagans' gods were idols.
Paul's work was ecclesiological - he was concerned with building up the Church as the reworked people of God. This was not a matter of theory, but of hands-on practice. Those called by God were to become one community in worship and prayer, as well as practical help for one another. This is the normal meaning of agape - not fuzzy feelings, but practical ways of supporting one another (as in a family business). This is what faith working through love looks like. People from all backgrounds, sharing no natural affinities, become such a family. This is how Paul treated the Church: as God's new humanity, modelling what it means to be human. Being truly human entails giving God the glory, even as idolatry is a robbing of God of His glory (Rom 1).
This meant above all unity. The disunities were a problem from the beginning (Wright notes the matter of the Hebrews and the Hellenists in Acts 6). Much of our division is still due to cultural differences, despite theological projections. The baptismal call is one to die to old identities and come alive to new ones, to sit at the same table. Baptism is a definite break, a new identity (which is reflected even today in many Muslim communities, where baptism can mean a short lifespan).
First Corinthians reflects the issues that arise with a high sacramental theology. Paul often looks like he is appealing for faith on the basis of baptism. "You've been baptized; now you need to live as those in Christ."
The practice of unity means two quite different things in Paul. In some of its manifestations, the New Perspective on Paul has helped us here.
(1) Differing views on various subjects: such people are not to pass judgment on one another. The NPP helps us see that this is in areas, not of law in general, but ethnic-specific laws of Torah which would have served to divide Jew from Gentile in the Christian Church. Here, Paul says we must be respectful with one another, even in disagreement.
This depends, of course, on knowing what belongs to those categories and those which belong to things such as 1 Corinthians 5-6 (incest, etc). If people attempt to bring these latter sorts of things into the Church, they must repent or be put out. Tolerance is too wide (many things should not be tolerated), and too shallow. As is well known, many people are advocating exactly such tolerance regarding gay marriage and related matters - Paul would say: "Absolutely not." This refers to the "too wide" aspect of tolerance. On the "too shallow:" Paul does not want mere tolerance across the great divide; he wants us to welcome one another in love, rejoice in one another's presence, glorifying God with one heart and voice.
(2) The collection. This is referred to particularly in the Corinthian letters and Romans. Paul never uses the word money; instead, he refers to grace. In Romans 15, this has a theological meaning. The Jews have shared their spiritual privileges with the Gentiles; how much more should the Gentiles share their material wealth with the Jews?
Wright notes the extent of the task of the collection. There was no paper money, meaning carrying large amounts was a practical difficulty. In addition, there were matters of accountability, etcetera. And all with the risk that the Jews for whom it was intended would not accept it. And yet Paul staked all this labour upon it. He recognized that the Jew-Gentile vision was fragile.
This coming-together of Jew and Gentile is seen as absolutely primary. Note its dominance in Acts, including the matter of the collection. Paul is determined to see a united community of Jew and Gentile marked by the faithfulness of Christ. Such a community will, of course, be seen as very Jewish by Gentiles (Wright notes that in Achaia, Gallio thought of the Church as a Jewish sect), and as very pagan by Jews. Hence, Christianity came to be known as a third entity. This "new human race" nature of the Church made it appear to be subversive.
Our little labels which divide thought between religion, sociology, and other such categories are too limited. The Church of Paul's day was in the world, living its theology, and we must run our theological constructs through this too.
Wright comments on the urgency of Paul's preaching. In Thessalonica, some were so serious about Paul's language that they were giving up their daily work in order to wait for the Son of Man. Paul believed Jerusalem was under the threat of imminent judgment; it this which explains the note of eschatological urgency, not the thought that the world was going to come to an end within a few years. The thought that biblical language must refer to "world's end" is a misreading of Jewish apocalyptic. First century people knew that language of the sun being darkened, for example, was not about a literal "weather forecasting;" it was about convulsions in the political order. Paul did have an eschatological urgency, but he knew that Jesus had prophesied the fall of Jerusalem, and he urgently needed to plant the Church on Gentile soil before that occurred.
Paul knew that the new rule of God in Christ challenged all human empires. He saw the Roman Empire as the current great world empire, and his particular work was to set up cells in places where it was apparent that Caesar was lord. He was making the rival claim: Jesus is LORD.
Tasks for us
In view of all the above, Wright suggests several tasks for us, particularly within a postmodern context.
(1) Accept the postmodern critique of modernity - but insist that this is not the last word. The world of the Enlightenment did have a lot to do with money, sex, and power. Postmodernity "preaches the fall" to modernity. But then we need to rediscover how to preach the gospel; postmodernity does not give us a place to stay. We must go through it, not back to modernity, but through postmodernity to the world ahead.
(2) On the other side, we must engage in a reconstruction of the self. Postmodernity has deconstructed the self. But there is a new way of being human through baptism; there is a new creation in Christ. The truth is not: "I think, therefore I am" - thinking through does not grant us our status. Rather: "I am loved, therefore I am." This is Galatians 2.20.
(3) The reconstruction of knowing. Postmodernity shows up modernity as a power play. For the Christian, the basic mode of knowing is love; it is love which believes the resurrection. Loving that which is other than ourselves - including a period of history that is "other." Such knowing involves becoming deeply involved with that "other." Not only justification by faith, but that knowing of God and one another is what will see us forward. Not knowledge, but if anyone loves God, he is known by Him.
(4) The reconstruction of the great story. The grand narrative of modernity (the myth of progress) has run out of steam. In postmodernity, all grand narratives tend to be seen as exploitative. But the story we are called to live is one, not of power, but of love - power, yes, but in weakness. The story can only be told truthfully while being told in love. Faith, hope, and love are God's gifts from the future; that is why they remain - and the greatest of these is love.
Brief Thoughts
It was good to hear Wright speak plainly on the matter of "tolerance," noting that there are indeed limits of what is acceptable. But that is not the only problem with the concept of tolerance; as Wright says, Paul is after self-giving love, not a putting up with one another across the great divide.
I appreciate that Wright sought to conclude his series by "putting feet" to his work. And it was apt that at some level, he sought to find the intersection between Paul's gospel and our postmodern context, particularly since he made sure to say that we must not be postmodernity's captives, but must accept its corrections to modernity, and then go "through it," out the other side.
It is perhaps appropriate that Wright's lectures on Paul end on the note of faith, hope, and love. Paul's gospel is nothing if not a gospel of faith - a faith that hopes for the fullness of God's new creation, and a faith that works through love.