And The Apostle Paul Knew It
Paul says that he was, up close and personal, pretty unremarkable—the kind of guy you walk by in the grocery store and half-turn, assuming he is an employee because of his servile manner (2 Cor. 10:1). We, of course, have our doubts. Probably he was just being modest? This is Paul we’re talking about. I mean PAUL THE APOSTLE.
Everyone knows that Paul took the gospel to most of the known world, following Christ’s death. If anything, he should have his own action figures, not these self-derisive turns of phrase. Or at least these are the kind of things you assume, until you read 1 Corinthians closely. In chapter 2, Paul speaks with almost painful candor:
And I, when I came to you, brothers, did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God with lofty speech or wisdom. For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. And I was with you in weakness and in fear and much trembling, and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God (emphasis mine—Paul didn’t add those italics). –1 Corinthians 2:1-5
Wait, Paul. You’re saying you didn’t use your oratory skills to make the Corinthians hang on your every word? You didn’t make their hearts drop like roller coasters with your dramatic pauses? You didn’t jingle-jangle their spines like wind-chimes in a stiff sea breeze? I’ll bet your ratings suffered. Still, you must have had your reasons…
And sure enough, when I read this passage more slowly, a surprising dynamic begins to appear. Paul talks as if his shaky speeches were, in fact, a gift to the Corinthians—a safeguard against them taking away the wrong thing from his preaching: a taste of Greco-Roman speechifying glam instead of the soul-stopping truth of the gospel.
Earlier in 1 Corinthians, Paul spells out the paradoxical logic of his approach even more clearly:
For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. - 1 Corinthians 1:17-18
He is saying, in effect, that in Corinth, there was a very real danger of drowning the foolish-but-true “myth” of Christ in distracting eloquence. Paul is saying that the gospel is a bluntly powerful story—one that does not lend itself well to copious amounts of decoration. What matters is the shape of this true story, not the bows and wrapping paper.
What Paul says about his own presentation of the gospel reminds me of what C.S. Lewis says about George MacDonald's writing.
The texture of his writing as a whole is undistinguished, at times fumbling… What he does best is fantasy—fantasy that hovers between the allegorical and the mythopoeic. And this, in my opinion, he does better than any man… If the story is anywhere embodied in words, that is almost an accident. What really delights and nourishes me is a particular pattern of events, which would equally delight and nourish if it had reached me by some medium which involved no words at all… And I find this to be true of all such stories… In myth the imagined events are the body and something inexpressible is the soul. – C.S. Lewis, Introduction to George MacDonald’s Phantastes
I’ve read MacDonald’s books, and they lack the fluency of expression that makes a story spread like wildfire, climbing bestseller lists, appearing in movie theaters. MacDonald’s books have never been “popular”—but the mythical beauty of his characters run deep and I’ve found them very, very hard to forget. The gospel, I think, is just this kind of a story—with the central qualification that it is true.
Paul knew this, and therefore he would not adorn the gospel with cavalier rhetoric. He saw what we often miss—that the gospel of Christ is not dignified or improved by Hollywood production values or consumerist packaging. Words, of course, are necessary. But at heart, the gospel’s power does not lie in the words used to convey it, but in the startling shape of the story itself.
8 comments:
Very good stuff! Is it not after all the mythical aspect of the Gospel that often attracts us to its message?
Paul knew what happens when the hearers put too much focus on the messenger. ("Some say 'I follow Paul', others Peter or Apollos or one of the others.") And so many messengers secretly want to be in the limelight. Ok, and some *blatantly* want to be in the limelight, which is probably a common temptation to anyone in who is out in public much.
If we make it very plain how wise and spiritual we are, we're more likely to attract followers to ourselves than to Christ. And sometimes we have to wonder whether that's intentional. If we make it very plain that it's about Christ, not about our presentation of him, we'd go a long way towards service Christ, maybe even a few steps along the way to re-unifying the church.
Ariel,
You blog often on subjects of great interest to me! Alas, it is difficult to stay up to speed—especially with finals. I’ll try to do better.
As I understand it, your argument is essentially: Paul is an example telling us that the Gospel Myth should not be eloquently decorated with rhetoric. Am I on target? Now I would agree with this statement: It is not necessary for the Gospel Myth to be eloquently wrapped to be effective. However, I am not sure I can agree with the former statement.
The question, I think, lies in whether or not Paul’s example is to be the rule to which everyone else in every situation should follow. I’m not entirely convinced this is the case with this particular issue, though it is somewhat convincing because Paul points to his weakness as a seal of apostolic authenticity. Suppose, however, that it was simply not Paul’s gift to speak extemporaneously (I can identify!). Suppose he was much better with rhetoric in his writing than his oratory skills.
I think a quite compelling case can be made for this. This seemed to be the overall impression that several people had of Paul, and Paul had of himself, based on 2 Corinthians 10. Also, consider what is (to my knowledge) his only real attempt at oral rhetoric when he spoke to the Athenians of the “unknown god” met very little success. Furthermore, I think that a compelling case could be made that the elusive “thorn in the flesh” may be referring to his lack oral eloquence. He does seem to make a connection between the thorn and his weakness, and then his weakness with his unimpressive nature in person. Lastly, Paul’s letters are quite often rhetorically eloquent, even utilizing poetry and metaphor.
Then on the flipside, we seem to have another Christian, Apollos, who is traditionally understood to have impressive and persuasive oratory skills, although we have nothing ostensibly written by him (though its contended by some that the very-eloquent Hebrews is authored by him). Considering these things, a quite compelling case, I think, can be made that God uses and blesses eloquently packaged preaching as well as more simplistic preaching.
Lewis seems to make a similar conclusion regarding eloquence and myth in Experiment in Criticism in his chapter on Myth. He does say that it is not necessary for Myth to be packaged eloquently for it to serve its purpose, but he also points out that it often has been expressed eloquently (pointing to Virgil as an example). Here, he seems to be impartial to whether Myth is decorated or no. However, Lewis does believe in the intrinsic goodness of well-crafted form, and says that it is important to note not just the content (the logos) of a piece of art but also recognize it as poeima (something made). And although he is not speaking directly about homiletics, he does ironically end the chapter VIII by pointing favorably to the examples of eloquent sermons that even botch exegesis of the text. “…what he expounds of his author’s philosophy may be well worth reading, even if it is in reality his own. We may compare him to the long succession of divines who have based edifying and eloquent sermons on some straining of their texts. The sermon, though bad exegesis, was often good homiletics in its own right.” (87) Thus, we can infer that while Lewis would say well-crafted poeima is not necessary to homiletics (any more than it would be necessary in a recipe book), it does not detract from it, but is rather a good thing.
Thus for this and other reasons, I would conclude that if it is a persons gift (e.g. Apollos), that gift should not be buried but exercised, and God will bless it. If eloquence is not your gift, no problem—the Gospel Myth will work even in spite of clumsy words because of the message that is being preached. Eloquence should never be an excuse for bad exegesis, but there is something inherently good in it, something that perhaps reaches into the concept of Sehnsucht which shoots people with a pang of longing for Christ. This combination of Sehnsucht and good theology might greatly contribute to the process of theological application because it not only points people to a particular truth, but it gives them the Sehnsucht, the Desire to carry that truth out in their lives, pointing themselves Heavenward: “Further up, and further in!”
Just saw Buechner's Telling the Truth in your library! That book was what got me thinking about the place of eloquence in homiletics. Barbara Brown Taylor was greatly influenced by that message as she sat in the audience as Buechner gave those Beecher lectures. She said that he "rearranged the air."
Appreciate the thoughts, guys. I definitely concur with this, from weekend fisher:
If we make it very plain that it's about Christ, not about our presentation of him, we'd go a long way towards service Christ, maybe even a few steps along the way to re-unifying the church.
I also think, as Virgil suggests, that there is something innately attractive in "myth"...just what that ingredient is would be another good discussion.
Now, a few thoughts on Adam's excellent contribution.
You blog often on subjects of great interest to me! Alas, it is difficult to stay up to speed—especially with finals.
Enough with the excuses, man. Just get on it.
...a quite compelling case, I think, can be made that God uses and blesses eloquently packaged preaching as well as more simplistic preaching.
Actually, I fully agree with you on this. As I wrote this post, I wondered if it would bring up the question of "excellence" in rhetoric. I should clarify: my point wasn't to argue that "eloquence" is an unhelpful addition to truth; rather, I wanted to try and point up the reality that the power of the gospel story lies in its very essence, or "shape."
While I think you may/may not be correct in speculating about Paul's speaking ability, it's revealing that Paul mentions "able to teach" as a central qualification for an elder/pastor. So we can assume that a bumbling, awkwardly expressed gospel is of no special use to God; quite the contrary. God wants his truth, including the central wonder of Christ, elucidated in a clear and memorable way.
Eloquence should never be an excuse for bad exegesis, but there is something inherently good in it, something that perhaps reaches into the concept of Sehnsucht which shoots people with a pang of longing for Christ.
Well said! Taking C.S. Lewis as an example, we can see that God is happy to use those he's gifted with creative, expressive abilities in order to convey (haltingly, still) the infinite beauty of his character and acts in ways that overly simple speech cannot.
Funny that you should mention Buechner's Telling the Truth. I finished that book just weeks ago (read it in two days); Buechner's "eloquence" made my imagination soar and my heart grow worshipful. I was so impressed that I couldn't find words for a review. In fact, it had a little to do with my writing this post...paradoxical, eh.
Great stuff Ariel! Yes, Buechner's stuff is amazing. I just did a biographical/homiletical paper on him for my Preaching 1 class and read some of his stuff--beginning with Telling the Truth. I was completely blown away by it. He has a new compilation of sermons called Secrets in the Dark that is phenomenal, and his memoir The Sacred Journey is captivating. I think that there is a connection between this "experienced Truth" he is talking about via poetry and Lewis's Sehnsucht. I'm still not exactly sure what it is, but it definitely reaches into you something unreal!
I just did a biographical/homiletical paper on him for my Preaching 1 class
Now there's a winning idea... Everything I've read by Buechner has been excellent, but Telling the Truth is my favorite to date. I have 5-6 more of his books standing in line. He's a major talent.
Looking back at my original post, I think it's worth clarifying one thing further: Paul was genuinely concerned about "emptying the cross of its power" by talking about it in a way that would gloss over the fundamental issue - Jesus. Weekend fisher clarified that issue pretty well in his comment, I thought.
Also worth mentioning is the Corinthians cool-obsessed culture. Put 'em in the 21st century and they would be the people one-upping each other with iPods, power-chasing cliques, new Caddies and the latest catchphrases. Paul wasn't about to cater to those egocentric tendencies with a beautifully-spun new "philosophy." No, the Corinthians needed to be shocked...
The application of Paul's approach in Corinth to American culture today would be a fascinating task.
Yes, it is a convoluted issue with many layers… probably not reducible to a simple axiom. It’s like a tightrope needs to be walked here with “to the Greek I became like the Greek” on one side and challenging their status quo on the other. Interestingly enough, my pastor, John Burke, actually refers to our church as “the First Corinthian Church of America” in his book No Perfect People Allowed. You want to see what effective ministry looks like to a Corinthian church in America today? Check out his book. From 0 to 5000 people in 5 years with over 55% of those attending being previously unchurched. Very cool stuff! “Meeting people where they are”—you betcha: complete with original short films, popular cover songs, a rocking band, etc. But also challenging the status quo. I am so completely impressed with Gateway (our church: www.gatewaychurch.com). They really don’t avoid confronting the taboo issues either: practicing homosexuality, fornication, etc., are all spoken of as sin, missing God’s mark. We especially had a dip in attendance when they spoke out against premarital sex during a sermon series.
Post a Comment