Mullets and Biases Oh My

I ran into a guy at Starbucks with a mullet. At first I didn't know how to take it. I was both amazed and amused at the same time. So I sat down at the table next to him with my Venti Ice Green tea with 3 splenda. He was enjoying a Grande Colombia Nariño Supremo.

In my mind a picture unfolded of who I perceived this guy to be: He's not married-He rents a room from his mom-He works for a small Auto Parts store-stocking Delco Water Pumps. Call it a hunch but I got this guy figured out-or do I?

As I was studying the mullet without posing as a stalker-I realized I had a bias towards men, who were stuck in the "Joe Dirt" world of the 1980's- you know in a failure to launch kind of way. But for all I knew this guy could be a Superior Court Judge. We all have a certain bias about life-it's how we perceive things to be. We lean a certain way or we have tendencies to respond to people based on our experience and beliefs about them.

Sometimes reality confirms our biases-like if a guy is comes at me with a knife I'm biased to believe this isn't good. I'm not sticking around to see if he's going to butter my toast or slice my throat-other times my bias clouds reality. Like the guy with the mullet, I perceived him one way-but was it accurate? I was seeing him through his mullet and making assumptions.

So with this in mind I turned to the guy and said "I haven't seen a mullet in years-pretty cool". We began a conversation. He told me his name was Rick and he played in a band. I found out that he was married and he had two kids and although he didn't work in an Auto Parts store-he did change his own oil.

Our biases are filters of the psyche-they're neither good nor bad-its how we act upon them. I'm open to check my biases for accuracy. Maybe learn something new. I'm not an ideologue-I'm always finding new and fascinating things about people along the journey of life. It was a good thing to see Rick through who he was and not through what I perceived him to be-mullet and all.

Dad and The Grad

I'm the proud father of a High School grad-Matt my oldest son. As he received his degree he had a spring in his step and a thousand pounds lifted off his shoulders. He turned towards the stands in our direction and gave us the thumbs up. My mind flashed to the day he was born. He was just a few minutes old when the doctor handed him to me. I asked the doctor "what do I do with him?" The doctor said "raise him-you have 18 years."

So here I am 18 years later watching Matt morph into a young man. But I was changing too. I was struck by the idea that Matt has more years ahead of him and is beginning his life and I have more years behind me and am winding down. I too was promoting to the next phase as a father-but without the fanfare and I was cool with that.

The role I held before was that of an active parent with the responsibility to make sure Matt had the stuff to make it to this place today. As he increased his responsibility I decreased mine-as he was taken more control of his life I was relinquishing it. My role was changing from a top down-authoritarian relationship to that of a partnership giving him advice. I was still his dad but in a different way. The change needed to happen-for my growth. Otherwise I'd be wearing a hat on backwards and a t shirt that read I'm with stupid.

The other ah ha moment came when I walked on the field after graduation. I saw Matt with a perpetual smile walking my way and he said "Dad I did it!"-HE did do it. His mom and I could only do so much but in the end Matt took what we gave him and-Did It.

I also realize that that there is power in the words a father imparts to his son. What I say can nudge him forward into manhood where he takes the mantle and moves forward or my words can deter his journey where he spends the rest of his life seeking the affirmation of being a man-a lot of times in the wrong places.

When Matt and my other two boys' were born, I made a concerted effort to speak affirmation into their lives as young men and as followers of Jesus. I am not the perfect father and I have probably made more mistakes. But on that football field watching Matt and his class walk the line-a Dad and his Grad made the next step in our father and son relationship. A journey I am looking forward to.

You Did it Son!

The First Paul part 3

As Ignacio say's to Encarnacion in the movie Nacho Libre- let's get down to the nitty-gritty.

The authors of The First Paul are not espousing Liberation Theology or Marxism. What they do believe is that Paul teaches Distributive Justification in contrast to Retributive Justification. There is a dispute among theologians about the type of Justification Paul has in mind. Andy Johnson writes in his Reclaiming Paul blog the different views http://www.reclaimingpaul.org/?p=103

To be sure, both positions hold that Justification is given to us freely by Gods' Grace through Faith: This is Paul's battle cry of the Gospel-Martin Luther marshaled in the reformation with these words. So what's the difference?

Let's start with Retributive Justification: We are sinners and fall short of the Glory of God-our works of righteousness are not enough to put us in a right relationship with Him. But righteousness is possible for us through Jesus Christ and what He accomplished on the cross. God declares us righteous-it is imputed to us and is activated by our faith-Justification by grace through faith.

The authors present Distributive Justification, which is also freely given to us by God's grace and activated by our faith. But righteousness is not imputed to us-God does not declare us righteous. Instead God's righteousness is transformed in us-distributed through us-as a part of God's character. After being transformed through faith, we distribute God's justice including,radical equality to the world. This is God's way of making the world just.

I do agree with the premise of this book that the Radical Paul preached that a radical Kingdom has been ushered in through a risen Christ-in direct opposition to the Kingdom of the world. Paul spoke a kingdom language that is summed up in famous terms. This Kingdom language put Imperial Rome on notice and drew lines in the sand-a demarcation that would eventually lead the believers to their death. What were these terms that brought the ire of Caesar? Here are some:

Jesus Christ Is Lord: Before Paul introduced the phrase Jesus is Lord this was already a divine designation to Caesar-Caesar is Lord. There could be only one Lord and for Paul it was Jesus. Caesar had been dethroned.

Christ Crucified: Paul says Jesus was crucified not killed or murdered why? The term Crucified places the execution of Jesus in the hands of Imperial Rome. For Paul it was a Roman cross. Rome crucified those who challenged the iron rule of Caesar which the Kingdom of God did.

Life Together In Christ: this was
Paul's vision of believers living together as the Body of Christ-one body-one spirit and contrary to the ways of the world. The radical equality of living in Christ was experienced in the community-from there to the neighborhoods and then to the world.

The book also discusses the $64 thousand dollar question nagging all believers-What was Paul's Thorn in the Flesh? Its conjecture but what they say makes sense:

Thorn in the flesh: I once heard a preacher say that people have a natural tendency to mimic famous characters-so if we knew what Paul's thorn was, we would all have it. The authors speculate that Paul's thorn in the flesh was the symptoms of Malaria he contracted as a boy in Tarsus which had an overabundance of marshes and mosquitoes. The authors reference the work of Mitchell Ramsey and his book: St Paul and the Traveler and Roman Citizen: He combines Gal 4:13 with 2 Cor. 12:7 and concludes this Stake in the Flesh or Thorn was a species of chronic malaria fever: Paul had contracted malaria during his youth at Tarsus from a climate that easily produced the chills and fevers, the uncontrollable shivering and profuse sweating, the severe headaches, nausea and vomiting of chronic malarial fever.

The First Paul is a good read and it clarifies the 3 different Paul's we see develop over time in his writings-as a fan of Paul I was re introduced to this great man and apostle of Jesus.

"The First Paul": part 2

I finished reading this fascinating book called The First Paul. The book paints a clear picture of St. Paul-his life and teachings. But there are also a couple of positions the authors hold that need to be explored further in a third part-that is the belief that Paul taught a Distributive Justification and a Radical Equality to reconcile this world to God. I agree with much of what they write but there is some areas that may lead one towards a Liberation Theology. More on that in part 3.

But overall the book opens a window into Paul's radical life and vision to which I agree with. The book tracks the 13 letters attributed to Paul and chronicles how Paul-the radical-morphs into 3 different voices. (See Part 1): http://thepirateway-bob.blogspot.com/2009/06/first-paul-book-review_04.html.

The First Paul is the real deal. His teaching comes from the authority of a risen Christ and a radical Kingdom. This Kingdom comes into direct opposition to the Kingdom of the World-which in the time of Paul was represented by Imperial Rome. So it sets up a collision course of Two Kingdoms-Two Visions-Two Theologies-Two Destinations. With this entire backdrop, the authors state the problem:

"This is our first insight into how radical equality within Pauline Christian theology opposes and replaces the normal hierarchy within Roman imperial theology. And the tragedy is that the Paul of the post Pauline tradition is not only de-radicalized; he is Romanized."

Simply stated Paul (or others writing in Paul's name) softens his radical views on the issues of equality and conforms more to the views of Rome.

To find an answer to this dilemma, the authors start with an important aspect of biblical study-Historical Context.

I don't mean to jump hermeneutical on you, but a pretty good study habit is to peer into the cultural surroundings of a biblical text. The first thing to note is, Paul's letters were not intended for us to read. They were written to a particular person or group. Secondly the recipients of the letter had a pretty good handle on what was written . Finally Paul wrote his 7 genuine letters (see part 1) from around 50 AD to 67 AD.

Scholars place Paul's' death around 67 AD. The book points out that Paul and Peter and thousands of other believers were tortured and executed during the Great Persecution of Christians at the hands of Nero in the year 67 AD.

A day-in the life-of Paul could be viewed through 3 concentric circles (think of drawing a small circle-then draw a larger circle around that one and one more larger circle around both of them) The smallest circle is the people Paul wrote to-like the church at Rome or an individual like Philemon. The next circle is the religious times in which he lived-this was during the early Jesus Movement within Judaism and Judaism is within the largest circle-the Roman Empire. It would look like this:

Philemon>Early Jesus Movement>Judaism>Imperial Rome.

Claudius and Nero were the Roman Emperor's who ruled during this time. Rome was The Known World-there was no competitor on earth but there was a kingdom of much more power and authority-the Kingdom of God. The Kingdom of God was ushered in by the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. This is the kingdom that radicalized Paul. Imperial Rome represented the Kingdom of the World and was espoused by Caesar-two violently opposing visions.

Here is a theological note: The kingdom of God is here among us through the death and resurrection of Jesus and it is yet to come. This is the filter by which Paul lived and saw life-the term he uses often of this kingdom life is: "In Christ." Paul's' vision of this kingdom life was-and is-the antithesis of the Kingdom of the World that was enforced by Imperial Rome.

Claudius was the emperor while Paul began writing the genuine letters and Christians enjoyed a mutual peace with Rome. But when Nero came along he began persecuting Christians. It is at this point we see the first stages of Paul becoming softer on the radical vision of equality and more in line with Rome's hierarchical norms.

This de-radicalization was happening because the young church wanted to remain viable and not come into disfavor with Rome. The authors provide a contemporary example of Dietrich Bonhoeffer-when he told relatives in Nazi Germany that saluting the Fuhrer was a small sacrifice for the larger battle against the evil of Nazism.

The book goes on to define Paul's language of the Kingdom of God as expressed in many of his famous phrases like:"In Christ" and "Jesus is Lord"-among others which I will discuss in the next post. I will also speak to the controversial issues in the book.

“The First Paul” A Book Review

I have to write this post in 2 parts because it's full of fascinating stuff about Paul-his life-and those who wrote in his name after he was dead.

Joshua and Paul are my favorite bible characters. I was lurking around Borders the other day and saw a book titled The First Paul. So right away I picked it up to read and I couldn't put it down. Nor could I buy it-yet. So I came back every day for a week. Then my 40% off- Borders coupon came in an e-mail and I printed it out-walked in to Borders with pride and bought the book.

The authors are Marcus J Borg and John Dominic Crossan. Borg is a Lutheran and Crossan is a Roman Catholic-a Catholic and a Lutheran. Bar jokes aside, I like this combination because Augustine and Luther were influenced by the life and teachings of Paul.

The authors describe themselves as Mainstream theologians. That's fancy talk which means they study scholarship from mainline denominations. I turned the book over to see the endorsements and became skeptical because author Elaine Pagles who wrote Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas gave an endorsement. Then I read they are both Evangelical-that's good because F.F. Bruce is an Evangelical Theologian and he is The Man when it comes to the study of Paul.

The book is well written and stays away from unintelligible-hermeneutical-professor speak. They get right to the point and describe an evolution of Paul-from a radical who rocks the Roman world with radical ideas to a conformist with a go-along-to-get-along attitude. The radical Paul writes of a life "In Christ" which promotes a radical equality for all-including Slaves and Women.

That's the Paul I know (and Jesus for that matter). But something odd happens to Paul. He sheds the Radical reputation and morphs into a conformist as he instructs slaves to obey their masters and women to remain silent.

What happened to Paul? He becomes de radicalized. The book tracks this de radicalization. But first the authors give some background: There are 27 books in the New Testament 13 of which are attributed to Paul but not all were written by Paul. Second it is important to place his letters in historical context. Third his message, his teaching, his Gospel is grounded in his life changing and sustaining experience of the risen Christ. This is the evangelical part of the book I agree whole heartily-our lives are transformed by the risen Christ.

But a fascinating thing happens-3 Paul's emerge in the 13 books attributed to him: The First Paul is The Radical Paul-the Second Paul is the Conservative Paul and the Third Paul is the Reactionary Paul. Will the real Paul please stand up?

Paul changes his radical tune and he blends in more with Imperial Rome-he still preaches the Risen Christ but with less offense. The First Paul is the genuine apostle. The 2^nd and 3^rd Paul's were most likely followers of his who wrote in his name at a later date- when Nero was persecuting the church.

So let me sum this up so far: Out of the 13 books/letters attributed to Paul-7 was written by him-3 are disputed and 3 are not written by him. The three Pauls' are identified in each category. Looking at the hot political and moral issue of Slavery, we can see this shift of attitudes in each category. I broke it all down below:

7 letters written by Paul: The Genuine Letters

Romans-1&2 Corinthians-1 Thessalonians-Galatians-Philippians-Philemon

This was the Radical Paul who repudiated the hierarchal norms of Imperial Rome

An example is the letter to Philemon: Paul instructs Philemon to free his runaway slave Onesimus and treat him as a brother in the Lord-freely and equally

3 letters are disputed: The Disputed Letters

Ephesians-2 Thessalonians-Colossians

This is the Conservative Paul who conforms to hierarchal norms of Rome- The author writes of mutual requirements between Slave and Master

An example is Eph 5: 6-9 (I abbreviate) "Slaves obey your Earthly Masters (as you obey Christ)-Masters-do not threaten them for you both have the same Master in heaven.

3 letters NOT written by Paul: The Pastoral Letters

1&2 Timothy and Titus

This is the Reactionary Paul who conforms to hierarchal norms of Rome but removes the mutual instructions and writes directly to the Master and not the Slave.

An example is Titus 2:9: "Tell slaves to obey their masters in every respect…"

Next post I'll tell you the reasons of why the change and other cool stuff in the book…