THE "WHOLE ENCHILADA" of PAUL
With New Thought ApplicationsStan Ousley, Jr.
© Symphony of Love Ministries
Santa Fe, NMIn restudying the New Testament this past year in relation to "primitive" Christianity, I open-mindedly considered the "pros" and "cons" of the Apostle Paul and the understanding of "Christ" as presented in the Pauline epistles. It is interesting that scholars sometimes question the authorship of some of the epistles, but few doubt that such early letters to the first churches were actually circulated. The epistles probably accurately reflected Paul's interpretations because they were specific written documents that were held in high esteem by the early churches, and major revision would not have been tolerated. What we see is what they got! In this essay, I make references and applications to modern New Thought. The overwhelming scholarly consensus is that the synoptic Gospels, based on early "sayings of Jesus" collections and oral tradition, and composed many decades after Jesus' ministry, were also written years later than Paul's own letters. The synoptic Gospels may have been a First Century partial attempt to achieve a "balance" between the historical Jesus that the Gospel writers portray, and "The Christ of faith" which was previously presented by Paul.
Thus, the editors of The Five Gospels - The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus, representing "The Jesus Seminar," mention the differing emphases on the historical Jesus and "The Christ of faith." Referring to the Apostles' Creed summary, they point out that it contributes to misunderstanding. The Creed interpretation is that "Jesus Christ" is "God's only Son, our Lord." He was conceived by the Holy Spirit; born of the Virgin Mary; suffered under Pilate; was crucified, died, and was buried, descended to the dead; rose again; ascended to heaven; and will come again to judge the living and the dead. The Seminar editors' point is that an understanding of Jesus based primarily on the Creed interpretation is unbalanced and that Paul is partly responsible for it. In some ways, theology obscures Jesus' ministry and message.
The Seminar editors state that: "The figure in this creed is a mythical and heavenly figure, whose connection with the sage of Nazareth is limited to his suffering and death under Pontias Pilate. Nothing between his birth and death appears to be essential to his mission or to the faith of the church. Accordingly, the gospels may be understood as corrections of this creedal imbalance, which was undoubtedly derived from the view espoused by the apostle Paul, who did not know the historical Jesus. For Paul, the Christ was to be understood as a dying/rising lord, symbolized in baptism (buried with him, raised with him), of the type he knew from the Hellenistic [Greek] mystery religions. In Paul's theological scheme, Jesus the man played no essential role." I do not think the Seminar editors are totally correct in asserting that "Jesus the man played no essential role" in Paul's interpretations. Paul finds Jesus' teachings on the primacy of agape Love and Jesus' assertion that it was not the Jewish religious laws or religious rituals and legalities that mattered, to be of major importance. Paul's comments on Love in the thirteenth chapter of First Corinthians, considered to be one of the sterling essays in world spiritual literature, clearly establish Love as the "Crown Jewel" of Christian practices. In addition, the "Virgin Birth" mentioned in the creeds certainly did not come from Paul or Jesus. But the idea that Jesus as Christ was "crucified" as a "blood sacrifice" for human "original sin" is definitely Pauline in origin, although in Divine Metaphysics, the ego's dying "into" oneness with Christ to be "resurrected" by Christ (consciousness) offers an alternative viewpoint.
So what are the plusses and minuses to the Apostle Paul? One salient "plus" with a minus side is that Paul articulated a "theology" of the CHRIST that he believed Jesus expressed and embodied. The positive: by emphasizing the importance of the Christ, Paul provided a universal application of early Christian understandings, and redirected followers from simply worshiping the person of Jesus (in the tradition of "pagan" idol worship) to developing the consciousness of the Christ within. "Christ in you [me], is your [my] hope of glory" and "I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me" became early mantras for an evolving faith tradition. The negative: the religious masses, unfortunately, misapplied this understanding as they turned it into a "worship" or veneration of Jesus as Christ the exclusive and only "Son of God" instead of seeing Jesus as an example in outward expression of the Christ potential within everyone. Yet to worship Jesus the person is contrary to Jesus' own teachings in which he discouraged any veneration of his persona and encouraged people to follow his teachings, instead. So did Paul (and Timothy) promote Jesus worship in Philippians 2: 6-11 - an early credo? Doesn't it deify Jesus to say that (NLT version v. 6, 7) "Though he was God he appeared in human form" -- implying that the rest of humanity has a different origin, and that all must bow to Jesus, calling him Lord? And Paul elevated Jesus' crucifixion as the atoning sacrifice for human "sin" nature!
The institutional church (the "religion" of Christianity) subsequently promoted the creeds about Christ and promoted the worship of Jesus. But "Christ" as interpreted in New Thought is a universal and not religion-specific consciousness; it is a spiritual state that was exemplified by Jesus but not exclusive to him. The "Christ" understood as a non-religion specific term was clearly defined by the early Divine Scientist Fannie James in her book TRUTH AND HEALTH: "Christ is the Universal Man." Christ is also the "Divine Idea" of Humankind in New Thought, and Jesus is considered as "the Way-shower." She added that "Jesus never drew the least distinction between his power and possibility and that of others; the Christ was his power." In this interpretation, Christ refers to a power and a state of consciousness, not a person or a spiritual office held solely by Jesus. At the same time, a direct connection between Christ and Jesus is recognized, certainly by Paul and also in New Thought heterodox Christianity. Mrs. James wrote that: "Jesus was the first conscious Son of God, the elder brother; one son among many. Jesus was the first to accept the Christ and to live as the Christ."
A second "plus" is that Paul, along with his fellow worker Luke, re-framed early Christianity in order to make it into a universal religion for the Graeco-Roman world that was appealing to the masses. As the missionary to the Gentiles, Paul knew he could not "sell" Christianity in "the religious marketplace" of his day unless he redirected its focus. Just as Jesus had to contend with the Jewish Pharisees and the Sanhedrin, Paul had to contend with the Christians' Jerusalem Council. Paul boldly provided a model and an example of inclusion -- in his case, of Judaism with the evolving Christianity. Paul understood and appreciated that the Jewish roots of Christianity supported his own interpretation of Jesus as the (theologically legitimate) Messiah of God. He was well qualified to do this theological interpreting, having been a de facto pre-rabbinical (pre-70 CE) Rabbi. He also knew that the evolving Christian theology had to move beyond Judaism; it had to be more inclusive. The effect of Paul's synthesis was similar in some ways to contemporary inclusive New Thought that combines practical Christianity with universal spirituality and presents itself as a "scientific" metaphysical religion. New Thought at its "eclectic best" honors its Christian roots without being totally bound to them. Paul helped the early faith community move beyond being bound to religious Judaism, without advocating a rejection of it. His strategy of incorporation provides a model for modern inclusive New Thought.
A third "plus" that "religious professionals" might reject if they see their livelihood or ego esteem depending upon salaried ministry, was Paul's example as a "tentmaker" minister. He earned his living making tents, a "secular" occupation. His "historical example" has provided a model of ministry as service that enhances the possibility of ministerial integrity. Paul said (NLT) "I am not bound to obey people just because they pay me." At the same time, in sections of his letters dealing with "church issues," Paul makes it clear that qualifications for leadership are not based on credentials but on character and understanding of the Faith as it was perceived by his communities of believers. Paul himself, trained under the Jewish theological scholar Gamaliel, was an "entitled" religious professional, similar perhaps to today's "Master of Divinity" seminary-degreed ministers, but he reprioritized his value system and one effect was that the early Christian community had more egalitarian and populist leadership.
Another "plus" would be Paul's example of flexibility in ministry. One of the best features of early Christianity was that it went out to the people instead of expecting the people to come to it. Everyone was a "missionary" of sorts. And both Paul and the early disciples, while proclaiming a core message and maintaining integrity in their beliefs, were flexible when this did not morally compromise their ministry. Hence, Paul stated in one of his letters that he "had become all things to all people" in order to bring them to Christ.
In contemporary Divine Science, many ministers "live out" this model in non-traditional "tentmaker" ministry. We become what the great twentieth century Catholic theologian Karl Rahner described as "anonymous Christians" who try to live the teachings rather than preach or talk about them. Such ministers may serve officially or unofficially as chaplains, "practice the Presence of God" in the workplace, turn their "secular" occupation such as nursing or teaching or counseling into a form of ministry, and apply compassion and charity in activities of daily living.
Ministry outreaches "beyond the church walls" include prison and hospice ministry, media (t-v) and cyber-ministry, spiritual counseling and prayer ministry, and ceremonial ministry for important times in people's lives. The writer of this essay has been honored to officiate at many weddings for my non-religious and openly non-Christian hospital co-workers who have little to do with "organized religion" but who are good people and often very spiritual (as contrasted to "religious") in their outlooks. The Latin word for "minister" was related to "servant" and ministry is "service" to others. Paul's model did not in any way de-emphasize the importance of the early assemblies or ecclesias, but ministry was not site-specific. The Pauline example is in keeping with Jesus sending out "The Seventy" to teach and heal. Those earliest known disciples, ministering in a pre-New Testament time, were to eat what was offered to them (presumably by implication they were not bound to rigidly observe Jewish dietary laws), not force themselves upon others, and not require payment for services. I call it the "Universal Ministry of Primitive Christianity" or the Gospel Ministry, before it became a religion.
Paul also taught the importance of financially supporting the early ministers and teachers, of course. But his "servant ministry" model provided an "alternative" form that was very non-traditional in a time when the "pagan" religions had a priesthood that most certainly did not practice "tentmaker" ministry. Many denominations are "restoring" this model now out of economic necessity. I would strongly stress that a dedicated "tentmaker" minister is not a "second class" minister, nor merely a "lay minister."
Another "plus" was that Paul's "Christ-centric" theology that stressed salvation only through Christ, subsequently enabled the early Church to establish a theological foundation that strengthened its institutional and dogmatic "witness" and its power over the masses. People might not have understood Jesus' teachings (as is true among "Christians" today), but they needed the promise and security of attaining a personal "salvation" through the Christ as it was presented to them by the Church in ritual forms. The Church was "necessary" for their salvation. Why is that a plus? It is a "plus" because there needed to be a strong and formidable institutional Church, what would become the Roman Catholic church in the West and the Orthodox churches in the East, to impress its legitimacy upon the people and their governments. A strong centralized institutional ecclesiastical system was able to effectively preserve the teachings (although obscuring them) over the centuries. Steeped in "barbarism" and illiteracy, the Medieval Europe of "The Dark Ages" was in no position to preserve Christianity or any form of religious or theological learning. Without the historic institutional Church, nothing of either Jesus' teaching and healing ministry as presented in the synoptic Gospels, or Paul's teachings on the Christ, would have survived over the centuries, so that we can practice New Thought Christianity in modern times. It was "Divine Right Order" seemingly imperfect at times in its outer manifestation as evaluated by our temporal judgements, but perfect in its subsequent outcome over time in History. Of course, Nona Brooks wrote in 1898 that Divine Science did not promote reliance upon teachers or books. It was "a step beyond in consciousness." But each "step" has been necessary!
And now we look at the "minus" side of Paul. One "minus" is what is often seen as Pauline duality thinking and puritanism - the condemnation of the "flesh" and an undue concern about "lust" and bodily desires. Paul may have been influenced by Gnostic condemnation of all "flesh" as an enemy of Spirit. Perhaps he intended to "redeem" the Gnostic teaching by Christianizing it - putting it in the service of the Christ teachings. This flesh versus Spirit duality thinking has embedded Christian Science as it theologically posits the existence of a mortal mind that is at odds with the Divine Mind. In some early Unity writings, there are also many references to the "carnal" mind.
Joel Osteen, a Houston mega-church minister and one of my ministerial heroes although I am not an evangelical Christian, states that we get a new understanding of Paul if we substitute the words "ego" and "ego desires" for "flesh" and "lust." True it is that Paul also railed against unbridled sexual desires, lusts, and sexual "sins." Partly, Paul felt a need to "distinguish" Christian lifestyles from "pagan" ones. But Jesus also talked about guarding our thoughts, and said that even thinking "adultery" thoughts (in our heart or feeling nature) was the same in effect as practicing the acts. Jesus used the term adultery, but in the Hebrew, this word can mean "watering down" or an adulteration. In Divine Metaphysics, we can interpret this to mean that if our thinking is not true to the Divine Norm, the out-picturing will also be congruent with our "sinful" (separation from wholeness) thoughts. Paul was perhaps promoting an inner or internalized locus of (spiritual) control in place of an external one, but he knew achieving an effective internal locus of control may initially require external direction. Spiritual growth occurs as we "spiritualize" our thoughts and feelings, and this is best done within ourselves and not as a response to external dogma or out of a fear of "hell" or such. Yet initially, some external prompts may lead us to work towards a subsequent internalization. Thus, Paul advocated church discipline and taught of the need for reproof and correction as well. In New Thought, internalization is called unfoldment; in the discipline of Love, we strive for the Highest Good.
I can see the implications in my own life, if the reader will permit some brief personal sharing in the service of better understanding. I have a physician friend who is generally considered to be physically appealing, and outwardly attractive. This person is also highly psychic and sensitive, and thus "knows" or intuits people's thoughts and feelings, and he sometimes purposefully "obscures" his physical presence, refocusing others on the spiritual if people are out of balance (driven by their physical or ego desires). For me, knowing about my friend's psychic ability provided an external motivation to stay true ("pure") to the spiritual dimension in our relationship. Initially, defocusing from the physical was challenging, but over time, an internalized locus of (spiritual) control took over as I increasingly cherished and appreciated the non-physical spiritual dimension of our relationship. It became for me a "sacred duty" to stay in the spiritual and not get enmeshed in any so-called carnal dimension, which is basically an "absence" of spiritual focus, just as "illness" is an "absence" of health or darkness an "absence" of light. It became easy for me to appreciate the inner beauty and highly developed spiritual nature of my friend - the soul aspect. "As a man thinks in his heart, so is he" is the Biblical teaching, and Paul needed to establish some rules and regulations at the external level and "in the name of" religion until people's internal motivations exceeded external controls. This "minus" of Paul had a plus side in his day as a "distinguishing morality" was being established.
Statements in Paul's letters have been used to exclude women and homosexuals from ministry. Yet Paul went out of his way in his letters to mention that women were active in the early churches. Paul may have been concerned that women might become like the pagan priestesses, and a fragile leadership structure in the early church might be weakened. Some scholars think Paul was referring to a few contentious women who had usurped stability in specific congregations. Paul's condemnation of homosexuality might have been a reference to the male pagan temple prostitutes who had sex with men "offered up" to deities. Furthermore, Paul could have been dealing with heterosexual married men in the early churches who were "experimenting" --engaging in homosexual practices on the sly. Various contemporary liberal Protestant denominations and New Thought groups have not found Paul an "obstacle" as they ordained women and Gays and Lesbians to ministry. In Divine Science, at least eight percent of our active ministers are Gay or Lesbian - one of the largest percentages in any group.
I can respond positively to Paul's insights by using his understanding of "The Christ" as a Divine Idea of Mankind (compatible in some ways with Hellenistic metaphysical traditions and Platonic Idealism) as I "redeem" Jesus the historical persona from religious Christianity's "orthodox" theology of "Christ." I can also honor and accept Jesus' own embodiment of a universal Divine Idea and Christ Consciousness - an expression that is not dependent on any religion or on "Christ" terminology. Paul well articulated the understanding of the inner Christ - Christ within us, our hope of glory. It is congruent with Jesus' statements that he, of himself, did nothing, but "the Father within" did the works, and that we, in the same consciousness, can "do even greater" things. So we don't need to "throw Paul out" in order to "redeem" Jesus. I think "New Thought Christianity" can function without compromise in a label free, religion inclusive context. "Anonymous Christianity" can be potent and labels can divide rather than unite. Nona Brooks wrote of early Divine Science: "We are not working to build organization or sect. We must work for the larger thing. It is, of course, necessary to have a name. I wish it were not so. We should all be workers in the body of Christ." Perhaps we can be "anonymous Christian" workers, practicing the presence of Christ and following Jesus' universal teachings "covertly" without getting enmeshed in religiosity or its conflicts. S.O.
NEW THOUGHT COMMENTARY ON ROMANS 1-8 * * * * *
Symphony of Love
Home