It seems fair to say that Paul's letter to the Romans has so far failed to capture the imagination of the emerging church. There are a number of likely reasons for this: the emerging church prefers Jesus and the Gospels; the emerging church does not feel comfortable with Paul's strong stance against homosexuality; the emerging church does not at all like the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement; the emerging church does not want to get into futile and politically fraught debates about the place of modern Israel in the purposes of God; and the emerging church probably finds squeezing the tough and indigestible fruit of Romans far too much like hard work for the little practical spiritual benefit that can be obtained from it.
Scot McKnight, in his characteristically astute way, lists as one of the 'potential problems' with the emerging church the failure as yet to grapple seriously with Paul's development of Jesus' message about the kingdom:
…the [emerging movement] will also have to grapple with the rest of the New Testament, not just the Gospels. The movement has yet to interact at a serious level with Paul’s extraordinarily powerful adaptation of Jesus’s kingdom message in Romans, where it is re-fashioned as a gospel of redemption with sin and justification at its heart. A Jesus-first theology is fine as long as it is not a Jesus-only theology.
I think the way forward here is to learn to read Romans within the realistic historical narrative that is both presupposed and foreseen in the Gospels - less as an abstract theological treatise, more as Paul's attempt to make sense of the proclamation of the kingdom of God from the standpoint of the post-resurrection community embedded in the Gentile world. The other crucial element of continuity with the Jesus of the Gospels is in the use of scripture. No less than Jesus, Paul engages in a profoundly creative re-envisioning of the story about the descendants of Abraham at the literary-historical interface between the Old Testament and the actual religious-political position of Israel in the Greek-Roman world.
To help in a small way to repair the theological deficit I have started a rudimentary commentary on Romans that will attempt to keep these lines of continuity in view. A historical narrative that limits itself to the Gospels will certainly provide an inadequate basis for a sustainable and credible emerging movement. I have argued repeatedly that the New Testament at its core tells a powerful eschatological story about the emergence of a renewed creational microcosm from a protracted crisis of historical judgment. I think it can be shown that Romans, in its somewhat more discursive fashion, tells the same story. We shall see.
The commentary can be accessed in a number of ways: i) a book-like structure; ii) a listing of headings; and iii) an expanded listing of all the posts. It can also be reached via general content > biblical commentary in the main menu. The commentary will present my own limited and no doubt tendentious reading of Romans, but I'm more than happy for people to add their own perspectives, offer corrections, additions, insights, etc. I expect to revise posts as we go along in the light of further thought, reading, and the contributions of others.
I am also trying to translate the letter as I work through it, in a manner that keeps as close as possible to the structure of the Greek text, which inevitably means that it is rather wooden. Suggested improvements to the translation will also be welcome.
I have had this project in the back of my mind for some time, but it was given a kick start by two recent discussions about Paul's gospel in Romans: The meaning of 'gospel' in Romans and The gospel in Romans.
Re: Reading Romans in the emerging church
A worthy and very needed exercise! I look forward to reading your commentary and getting a better handle on Paul's proclamation of the gospel.
Speaking of "penal substitution" it seems to me to be based on a fundamental misunderstanding of Paul's central thesis. Paul is transformative in his argument. The fact that he has developed his thoughts in an apparently linear way has led to a misunderstanding of his genius.
The EC would do well to try to understand the real Paul and not to just simply assume that Paul's thought fits neatly into the box of propositional logic into which it has been forced for far too long.
Even Scot's thinking on Paul is a little bit too 'boxy' to do Paul justice!
Live to serve : Serve to live
Re: Reading Romans in the emerging church
Romans has proven to be a difficult section of scripture throughout the ages and particularly for the emerging church. Andrew notes that the emerging church relies heavily on the Gospels account of Jesus. This could be attributed to the emerging church’s desire to present narrative to the community. At first glance, Paul does not offer much in the way of “story” in Romans. It is largely an instructional and correctional piece of literature.
Andrew also duly noted that the strong prohibition of homosexuality and the language of slavery to sin could also discourage the EC from embracing Paul’s theological masterpiece. The church at large has shied away from communicating the need of redemption because of the problem of sin. It is not “seeker-friendly” and often offensive. For an “institution” such as the church to comment a person’s state of salvation can come off as arrogant. The postmodern idea is suspicious of all institutions and communities that may be structured to empower the powerful. Chapter 13’s address concerning submission to the authorities is especially non-postmodern.
The sad thing is that the emerging church could benefit greatly from Paul’s letter to the Romans. The epistle offers extraordinary topics of discussion: the role of Israel, redemption, and love (12:9-21). The book requires a great amount of dialogue, which is a cornerstone of the emerging church.
The holistic spirituality the emerging church promotes will be incomplete until they embrace a holistic embrace of Scripture. Genesis, Proverbs, and Romans, are just as valid sources of God’s inspiration as the “red letters.”
Re: Reading Romans in the emerging church
These are some interesting thoughts, which ought to be developed further. To what extent, for example, can we get beyond that 'first glance' and discover a narrative dimension to Romans? I would argue, in fact, that without a sense of the letter's engagement with the historical narrative about Israel we are bound to misunderstand Paul.
The emerging church may be slow to condemn homosexuality, but we are quick to condemn other culture-level sins such as greed, injustice, people-trafficking, sweatshops, neo-imperialism. Something is awry here. I'm not sure where this leads us, but I do think that in Romans 1-2 we are dealing with culture-level sin and that quite different issues might come to the surface today.
Yes, I agree that the emerging church could benefit greatly from Paul's letter to the Romans. The question is how do we approach it? I am still going to hold out for the view that we must grasp in our imaginations how this letter interacts with, and is contained within, the dominant eschatological narrative of the New Testament.
Re: Reading Romans in the emerging church
Andrew,
You wrote:The question is how do we approach it? I am still going to hold out for the view that we must grasp in our imaginations how this letter interacts with, and is contained within, the dominant eschatological narrative of the New Testament.
This is a great question btw. I suggest an answer from Paula Fredriksen. Her analysis of Paul's eschatology I find very persuasive. In the intertestamental period a dominant theme, especially in Pharisaic thought (of which Paul of course was originally a member) is the notion that in the last days the Gentiles come streaming to Jerusalem and voluntarily throw off their false idols…..as Gentiles not as Jews.
Paul's mission then fits perfectly this trend, once he experiences and is convinced that Jesus is the Messiah. In the Messianic Age Gentiles come to worship the God of Abraham freely, without becoming Jews (hence his position against circumscion). His collection to be sent to Jerusalem is the symbol of the Gentiles "streaming" to Zion.
And this Gentile conversion Paul sees as the way for the Jews who have not accepted Jesus to conversion. By this reading Romans 9 is the pinnacle of the text not an abstrat theory of salvation from Ch.1-3.
The eschatological liberation of the entire cosmos then is predicated on the immediacy of the 2nd coming of Christ.
In that way I see the text fitting very clearly into what you call the dominant eschatological narrative of the NT.
In terms of Ch.13 and obedience to the rulers, I suggest Liberating Paul by Neil Elliott. Paul is just following in the mainline of the prophets, that God uses the foreign nations to achieve God's will but eventually even they will overstep the bounds and God will cause them to be broken. In that sense, the Roman domination is equally proof for Jews and Gentiles of the curse, as was mentioned in the earlier post.
Re: Reading Romans in the emerging church
Yes, I have come to think that Paul saw himself, in effect, facilitating the response of the Gentiles to God's salvation of Israel in accordance with Isaianic prophecy. But what do you have in mind when you say, 'The eschatological liberation of the entire cosmos then is predicated on the immediacy of the 2nd coming of Christ'? That's a big statement. What do you understand by i) 'liberation of the entire cosmos', ii) 'predicated on', iii) 'immediacy', and iv) '2nd coming of Christ'?
Re: Reading Romans in the emerging church
What I wrote was in response to your query about the dominant eschatological narrative of the NT and how Romans did or did not fit in with that. And the larger emerging issue of narrative and why Paul isn't as higlighted in these circles.
So proclaiming/teaching Romans qua narrative could be around the proclamation of the Gospels to the Gentiles (in Romans) as part and parcel of Paul seeing himself alive in the last days.
The liberation of the cosmos was a reference to "all creation groaning." The Gentiles throwing off their idols is a sign for Paul that the eschaton has already commenced and is rushing quickly (in his mind) to its fulfillment, which would include all of creation.
But I have no idea what to answer as to what liberation means. In the sense of what the meaning of the eschaton is. Paul had no idea either. It's a hope.
Re: Reading Romans in the emerging church
here is what makes the most sense to me:
it seems the "story" found in romans is how one of the leaders of the followers of christ tried to make what he had experienced relevant to his intimate community, his jewish culture and his roman world. rather than "doctrine" the book of romans is a window into a time other than our own when people - not so unlike us - were trying to make sense of the divine. paul was speaking to people who sacrificed to idols (gentiles) and to those who sought atonement (jews) so of course he would "tell his story" in that framework. if christ was the ultimate answer to his jewish paradigm of sin and payment then this is what he would offer to those around him - a christ who was the ultimate atonement. finally, in the story of romans, paul reveals his passion for offering his jewish god to the gentiles of his day.
ultimately it is a story of paul and how he was moved by divine intervention. it is a story about a man who was compelled to tell his story, and who believed mightily that many would benefit from his teaching on the relevance of christ.
Re: Reading Romans in the emerging church
It seems to me a good starting place would be to look to those authors which have attempted to push us away from reading romans (and the rest of paul) through Augustine and Luther’s eyes.
A great place to start is Krister Stendahl’s excellent essay “The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West”
Stendahl makes the case that Western Christianity stopped reading Romans at the end of chapter 8 and, in doing so, miss the entire point of the epistle. He argues that Paul’s primary struggle is the early Christian debate over the place of Jews and Gentiles in the emerging Christian church.
I would argue this kind of interpretation - one where Paul is struggling with religious, ethical and cultural pluralism, speaks more to the (post?) modern context than the traditional Augustinian model of looking at the epistle through the lens of ones individual moral failings.
Re: Reading Romans in the emerging church
Thanks for the recommendation. I agree that the personal narrative about sin and salvation in Romans must be located within Paul’s discussion about the place of Jews and Gentiles in the emerging Christian Church. But I would argue that this cannot be adequately read at the level of ‘religious, ethical and cultural pluralism’. It needs to be located again within an eschatological narrative about judgment, suffering and vindication. Romans addresses the Jew-Gentile issue in the light of the coming devastation of Israel and the political-religious upheaval of God’s ‘wrath’ against the pagan world.
Re: Reading Romans in the emerging church
I can’t say I completely agree with that.
I agree with you that Paul must be read within an eschatological context but I am not sure that the eschaton he is referring to is the “coming devastation of Israel and the political-religious upheaval of God’s wrath against the pagan world.’ Certainly, Paul makes the case against the former lives of the Gentiles but his position on Israel, it seems to me, is much less clear.
The new age Paul is preaching is the full inclusion of the gentiles in the narrative of the Israelites and Israels eventual restoration of all of Israel as further evidence of the amazing grace of God (ch. 11).
In doing so Paul is proposing a church and a theology that is both faithful and relevant to his fragmented, disrupted age. An age not dissimilar to our own.
Re: Reading Romans in the emerging church
Well, yes, lots of people disagree with me on that one. My view, however, is that we cannot talk about the inclusion of the Gentiles and the restoration of Israel without taking into account the ‘wrath’ that according to Paul hangs over both Israel and the pagan world (Romans 1:18-2:11). These things are all part of the same eschatological narrative.
If we take seriously the Old Testament background (and indeed the rest of the New Testament), we cannot simply reduce this to a ‘case against the former lives of the Gentiles’ and a murkier prospect for Israel. It is inconceivable that Paul would have thought of the ‘wrath of God’ in an abstract personalized or existential sense - this is a post-Reformation, post-Enlightenment perspective. In the Old Testament the day of God’s wrath is always an event in history at a corporate level, having to do with the fate of nations and empires, generally involving military or political overthrow.
Paul is writing ten years before the outbreak of war against Rome. He is confident that a remnant will be preserved and that Gentiles will participate in that salvation (9:27-31). But he cannot be certain about the fate of his homeland. His heart’s desire is that Israel will repent, will stop pursuing the ‘righteousness which is based on the law’, and be saved. But he has to allow for the possibility that these ‘vessels of wrath made for destruction’ (9:22) will continue in their stubborn ways and suffer the devastation of war.
Re: Reading Romans in the emerging church
In the short term, yes he fears for his homeland and his people. However, Paul appears convinced that this separation is only temporary (11:25-27).
It seems to me that Paul really has divided the world into four groups:
1)Those who have faith in Christ - Jews who follow Christ and Gentiles and have been grafted into the Israelite narrative.
2)Those Gentiles who have followed after their own desires and will “perish apart from the law”(2:12a)
3)Those Jews who, despite being given the oracles of God(3:2) but have gone the way of the Gentiles, following after their own desires. They will be “judged by the law”(2:12b)
4)Those faithful Jews who have received a “partial hardening” to allow the full number of Gentiles to come in.
He fears for his people because the times are bleak and, I suspect, because he (mistakenly) believes the eschaton,with the horrible trial that it will involve, is coming within his generation. However, he has no fear about God keeping Covenants and God has one with Israel and will until the end of time.
Stendahl is indeed helpful
Stendahl is indeed helpful as is N.T. Wright. What I think we can see is that there is a richness to Romans that allows various readings to make a lot of sense. One also gets the sense, as Andrew points out, that we have a better chance of getting 'the whole picture' if we start with what would be the historical and cultural environment of the epistle.
I would also suggest, again, much like a broken record, that the epistles will not make much sense until we immerse ourselves in the Jesus of the gospels. For that is the common ground on which Paul builds when he communicates to 'the church' through his letters.
As far as the EC is concerned, very generally it seems to me that a recognition that the epistles stand on the foundation of the gospels will also allow a better appreciation of the epistles as scripture.
Live to serve : Serve to live
The coherence or incoherence of 'various readings'
I agree that Romans may support various readings or be read at various levels. But there is still the question of whether or to what extent or in what way those various readings may be integrated. Should we not start with the assumption that for all its complexity Romans arises from a coherent worldview and a coherent argumentative purpose? If so, then we would have to ask how, for example, the personal, ethnic-cultural, historical, and eschatological readings interact within that coherent worldview and argumentative purpose.
That is not an arbitrary sequence: roughly speaking, the personal is explained by the ethnic-cultural, which is explained by the historical, which is explained by the eschatological. If any reading were disconnected from that sequence or the order changed, we would end up with something quite different.
Then, as you say, any coherent reading of Romans must also be integrated into a reading of the Gospels.
Re: Stendahl is indeed helpful
I’m not sure you can make that case entirely. Aside from the obvious chronological issues (Romans dates at least 10 years before the generally understood final compilation of mark), you have issues of audience.
The closest overlap of Christian communities at the time is probably the audience Luke was writing to and, I would argue, its probably more appropriate to understand Luke through the lens of the Pauline Epistles, not the other way around.
While certainly they both have their roots in the Jesus of history, I really am not interested in taking part in following down that rabbit hole for the 4th time in the past two centuries!
Personally, I think in the final analysis it is best to understand the whole of the new testament through the lens of this rag tag group of folks who were transformed by the Life Death and Resurrection of this guy Jesus (and not necessarily all of those pieces and not necessarily in that order).
In many cases, these folks had an extremely difficult time understanding how it was at all possible these other folks sitting at the common table with them could be transformed too. Pauls true genius, a genius he actually passed on to many of the authors of the gospels, was to recognize that the gospel ushered in a new age where the walls they had lived with their entire life, walls that made them feel better than everyone else, were completely broken down.
Re: Stendahl is indeed helpful
Glennyb, from our present day's perspective it does look as though I am being diachronic but there seems to me to be plenty of evidence from within the NT itself that this is not so.
We don't know much about how teachers trained their disciples but there is enough evidence that memorisation played an important role, a much more important role than writing things down. When speaking of the gospels we tend to think in terms of our 4 written accounts wheras what we are actually dealing with is a whole lot of oral tradition that was passed from master to student to student and in a fairly organised and rigid manor.
What we have in our 4 gospels is indeed late to be written down but is also based on those very traditions that had been very widely circulated and which did form the bedrock of both catechesis and the kerygma of the NT period.
The way in which the oral tradition was transmited has been studied from this standpoint by Gerhardsson, Bailey and most recently Bauckham.
Live to serve : Serve to live
Re: Stendahl is indeed helpful
I don’t doubt that much of this was passed along in oral tradition from disciple to disciple. What I question, however, is whether those oral traditions had permeated the church(es) as a whole or were confined to specific churches/groups/movements within early Christianity.
There is a wealth of wonderful information about Jesus in the Gospel narratives. More to the point, there are many things that touch on the issues Paul seemed to be dealing with (Jews and Gentiles living together). The parable of the Prodigal Son and the Healing of the Syrophonecian women come to mind. Given this, does it not seem odd to you that Paul made use of none of this information in his letters? Especially if it had permeated into the consciousness of the very people he was attempting to persuade? The only conclusion that can be derived from this was the possibility that they had either not heard about them or the role they played in Early Christian communities had not been solidified yet.
We need to understand that the “Church” did not exist at this time - if indeed it ever has. What we had were churches. While these churches had some common unifying elements, they also had some areas of serious division and, in many cases were informed by very different narratives about who Jesus was and is. What is especially interesting about Paul is that he is called by God, not to call an end to the division as such but to call an end to the hatred due to the division.
Re: Stendahl is indeed helpful
Yes, it is possible that the traditions about Jesus had not 'permeated' amongst the believers and this is the considered conclusion of many if not most scholars.
However, I think that this raises more questions than it answers. The debates amongst scholars as to what would minimally constitute the kerygma are very famous and speak for themselves. The very content of the word 'gospel' goes missing!
A very bad fallout of such scholarship is that we can hand out a tiny booklet such as 'The 4 Spiritual Laws" and walk off thinking that we have 'shared the gospel' with someone.
As I read through the epistles it seems to me that in many cases the writer is sending a missive to a group that may have been founded-discipled by the writer. If my assumption is right, the apparent lack of again quoting Jesus is because the writer's passing allusions to the specific gospel tradition will be enough. Our problem is that we don't know (have not been permeated with) Jesus teaching and tradition sufficiently well to pick it up.
Taking Romans as a case in point, especially in ch 12-14, the sermon on the mount/plain is effectively summarised by Paul and then applied to the situation in Rome. I think that the only reason he does this here is because he is not at all sure how well 'the gospel' has been taught to the Romans.
This is a purely argumantative point but it does seem to me that if i was attracted to a teacher, the first thing I would do would be to grab hold of everything s/he had taught…
i don't think that I am arguing for a(nother) new quest. I am rather looking at what would have been the catechistic and evangelistic practice at that time.
Live to serve : Serve to live