Paul and the people

A while back, I posted a comment in the feed of an Australian Christian author whose views I respect, and who comes down more on the ‘practical, out-there love’ side of things than the ‘theologically correct’ side. The comment was about how the Apostle Paul challenged the people around him with the news of Jesus Christ, but he did so either in a relational context (working among, living among, breaking bread with), or else in a context that was geared for actual philosophical debate and the exchange of ideas(such as the Areopagus).

He didn’t run into the temples or places of worship and desecrate them.

He didn’t stand at the roadside and bellow ‘you are all sinners!’

Paul argued with people, yes, but he did so with his life as backup – for weeks, perhaps months, perhaps years on end. Mending sails, sitting by the wharves, doubtless chatting with people who had questions, teaching and preaching when he could, seizing moments in the synagogues when he could persuade the leaders to listen to him. You can imagine him with Jesus’ love and mercy and grace weighing on him every moment, but knowing that he couldn’t just lecture someone about ‘sin’ (a concept probably as foreign to the ancients as it tends to be in our modern world) because he knew all the theology and doctrine but it took the divine revelation of the risen Christ to kick him out of doctrine and into the living, loving faith.

In the last month, there was a guy (an American) who stepped onto a train in Sydney and started preaching about the evils of abortion. He didn't have a relationship with anyone on that train. He didn't know anything about any of those people. He just walked in and started preaching and claimed he was doing it out of 'love' for these people. No, he wasn't. He was doing it out of love for himself and the sound of his voice.

In the last two weeks, Israel Folau - a rugby league player who'd already been cautioned about expression hardline views about homosexuality and agreed to keep his mouth shut on his beliefs - spouted off the bible verse about "neither idolators nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor liars...will enter the kingdom of God". Which went down about as well as one would expect given that he'd already been cautioned about it and agreed not to stir the pot again.

I am minded of James: Let your yes mean yes, and your no, no.

A lot of modern Christians are on board with public expressions of Christianity and are outraged when they're not received as well as we'd like.

I'm not convinced we've given the public any reason to like us - or, more correctly, we've given the public no reason to listen to us. Which is to say, we've shown them no real expression of love or concern for their concerns - not the way Paul did, not the way Jesus did. We've given them no reason to listen to us; no reason to care if what we say is the truth. And maybe that's post-modernism having it's wicked way with our minds, but it's also a relational thing. We will listen to things we disagree with from people we like, who we feel have our feelings and best interests in mind, where we wouldn't take it from a stranger.

"What the church wants" is frequently held to be irrelevant these days; the immediate response from Christians tends to be "but we shouldn't just give way to the world and its view!" No, we shouldn't. But if the people who are part of 'the world' don't feel we love them, care about them, have any thought or concern for the thoughts or concerns that plague them, then why would they bother listening to us, even if we think we have the best news in the world?

I suspect the people Paul wrote letters to and preached to knew how much he cared for them. Sure and the people Jesus healed knew he saw them as people, not just as converts to the good news.

Do we see people as people first? Do I?