I like the first letter to the Corinthians. I think one of the reasons that I like it is that it's very clear, in this letter, that Paul knows these people, that Paul knows this congregation, and that he is responding to very specific issues that have arisen in the community. Even though it's helpful to read background notes about the people in Corinth, you can figure out some of what is going on without doing any background reading, because you can just tell from the kinds of things Paul is talking about. It's like reading other people's mail, something of course no one should do, but something perhaps we are tempted to do on occasion, just out of curiosity.
So, what's going on in Corinth?
People are fighting, for one thing. People are playing favorites, jockeying for position, saying "I'm a better Christian than you are because such-and-such baptized me." There are factions based on leadership, and who is the best public speaker (possibly Apollos) or who is the best looking or who is the most "spiritual."
Does this sound familiar to anyone?
As the letter to the Corinthians goes on, we'll find out that the arguing and the factions and the one-upmanship is just the tip of the iceberg. There many other things going on in Corinth. It makes you wonder how Paul can keep his temper, because, one of the things people are questioning is whether Paul is such a great apostle after all. They've had some flashier preachers come in since Paul left, and they've been wowing the crowds and telling them some different things....
All right, I'm getting ahead of myself.
Just for now, we're dealing with the church conflicts, and the arguing.
And Paul uses the occasion to do some great preaching about foolishness and wisdom, about how sometimes the things that look the most foolish are really wise (like the death of Jesus on the cross) and how sometimes the things that look wise to us are not worth the paper they are printed on.
Now while I am attracted to Paul's paradox about wisdom and foolishness, I need to say that I don't think Paul is advocating a sort of "know-nothing-ism." I don't think that foolishness is the same as ignorance, or that he is advocating being stupid. I think the wisdom that he is speaking of is a sort of "wisdom of the world", the sort of "if you are rich it must be because you are the smartest person in the world", or "the people who speak fluently are the ones we ought to trust" -- that sort of wisdom that looks at the surface of things and makes judgments. If it is that sort of wisdom we are looking for, it certain is foolishness to follow Jesus, the one who was crucified, and everyone knows it. We also believe that he was raised, but NOT everyone knows that.
In particular, Paul is interested in reminding them that when he came among them, all he preached and all he wanted them to know was "Christ crucified." That was it. No fancy words. No secrets of the ages. Just "Christ crucified", (not even Christ resurrected!) equally confounding to Jews and Gentiles, but powerful and wise to those who heard.
It makes me wonder, in church conflicts today, what would be the results if we began and ended with "Christ crucified." If we decided to know nothing with each other but this: "Christ and him crucified", what would that mean? If we looked at each other and saw people for whom Christ died, people in whom (by grace) Christ lives, what would that mean?
Would it make any difference?
No comments:
Post a Comment