The Disarming Truth

April 27, 2008 (John 14:15-21; Acts 17:16-31)

In the Easter season we spend considerable time reflecting on the event of Jesus’

death and resurrection as recorded in the Gospels but spend little if any time trying to

understand how Paul handled this event. The Gospel accounts after all are various

attempts to communicate the significance of Jesus life, death and resurrection. Paul too,

in his letters to the church, is trying to communicate the significance of Jesus, particularly

of his death and resurrection. So how is the event of Jesus’ resurrection actually lived out

and communicated in the synagogues, marketplaces and among philosophers as we read

about here in the book of Acts?

We tend to only take notice of Paul when we are looking to the Bible for answers

on moral issues. In this way Paul always seems like a bit of a downer. We often feel like

he is looking over shoulder like a strict parent whenever we try to change the way we are

doing church or practicing our lifestyle. We’re not sure if Paul wants us to drink. We’re

not always sure what Paul thinks of the role of women. We’ve recently wrestled with

how Paul understands the issue of homosexuality. When we approach Paul in this way

he always comes off as some rigid authority that we always have ask permission from

before we do anything.

It is so ironic that the Paul who is known so boldly on the one hand as

overthrowing the law and ushering in grace can, on the other hand, be seen as such a

strict and demanding judge and implementer of law. I am beginning to recognize that to

understand Jesus we may need to pay just as much attention to Paul as we do the Gospels.

Or to put it differently it is just as necessary for us to understand the gospel according to

1
Paul as it necessary for us to understand the gospel according to Matthew, Mark, Luke or

John.

Paul himself is clear that Jesus has entrusted him with the gospel and it so it is up

to us if we want to take him seriously on that. And what is the gospel according to Paul?

Simply put the gospel is, Christ crucified and is resurrected. In his first letter to the

Corinthians Paul says bluntly, “For I resolved to nothing while I was with you except

Jesus Christ and him crucified.” And at the end of the book Paul is equally as clear, “If

Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.” In as much as

Paul is fixed so intensely on the death and resurrection of Jesus he seems to care little for

the historical circumstances around it. In fact you get the impression that he is not

interested in talking about any of the details of Jesus’ life even though he would have

certainly been aware of them having spent time with Jesus’ disciples. Paul does not

expand on the parables Jesus told, he does not recount the miracles Jesus performed.

With Paul there something in the reality of Jesus’ resurrection that points him beyond

Jesus’ historical existence and makes the gospel a present living reality as opposed to just

a historical account. For Paul it is the resurrection that seems to be a present and all

encompassing reality. So why is it that Paul seems to exclude the details of Jesus life and

what does that tell us about his gospel message?

In order how Paul came to expressing the gospel in this way it is important to get

some background into his experience. Paul never met Jesus before the crucifixion. Paul

only met the resurrected Jesus and it seemed like from that first encounter Paul did not

believe that repentance required that someone following their religious law and so he did

not require Gentiles to be circumcised. Paul encountered Jesus right were he was

2
regardless of Paul’s religious rituals or status. This view of the gospel led to conflict

among some of the Jewish Christians who wanted the new Gentile Christians continue to

follow their Jewish customs. In response to this conflict the church leaders gathered and

held a council in order to decide what is an appropriate expression of faith for the

Gentiles. In the midst of this council Peter stands up and says to everyone that there is no

need for the Gentiles to be circumcised because they are made pure through faith

receiving the Holy Spirit already as they are. By the end of this meeting they agreed that

the Gentiles should only follow the commands of abstaining from food sacrificed to idols,

from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. We are not given the

rationale for why these practices were chosen but I think it is fair to say that it was a

brokered compromise trying to satisfy opposing views of what is required of a Christian.

The decision did not accept the whole of Jewish law as the early Jewish Christian

community received it but neither did it reject it outright.

It is one of those strange decisions that I think we often make in the church. We

seem to be more comfortable ignoring some biblical statements on morality while

holding tenaciously to others, even if there doesn’t appear to be a clear reason or

constancy for our choices. And like many negotiated compromises between passionate

parties this one appeared to be fragile. The evidence for this doesn’t come from the book

of Acts, we find out about it rather in Paul’s letter to the Galatians. After having agreed

to the council’s decision in Jerusalem Paul encounters Peter in Antioch. It was Peter,

remember, who made the impassioned speech to allow the Gentiles more freedom. Peter

arrives at Antioch ahead of another group coming from Jerusalem. When Peter arrives he

mingles freely with the Gentiles. However, when the group of Jewish-Christians arrives

3
then Peter stops eating with the Gentiles our fear that he would be rejected or disciplined

by those still strictly following Jewish law.

Paul is infuriated. In the book of Galatians Paul says he opposed Peter right to his

face for being a hypocrite for so quickly going back on the decision reached in Jerusalem.

After advocating greater freedom for Gentiles he enjoys this freedom with them but then

withdraws when he his peer group arrives, which must have had a devastating effect on

Gentile Christians in Antioch who likely felt that their faith was devalued and inadequate

in the presence of the Jewish Christians. They suddenly were not good enough for Peter.

The French theorist Alain Badiou sees this experience as pivotal in how Paul forms his

understanding the gospel. He says that “the incident reveals to [Paul] that the Law, in its

previous imperative, in not, is no longer, tenable, even for those who claim to follow it.”

Badiou goes on to say that the experience goes as far as forming what becomes so central

to Paul namely that “the Law has become a figure of death.”

If this is the case how then can Paul minister to the churches if not on the basis of

some stable structure of divinely approved religious laws and customs? Perhaps it is our

God-given ability to reason and think through situations that should guide church life.

The passage we read this morning provides some insight into that possibility. In Acts 17,

shortly after the events in Jerusalem and Antioch, Paul finds himself in Athens waiting

for Timothy and Silas, having escaped persecution in Berea and Thessalonica. And what

does Paul do while he waits? He takes a stroll through the city and before he knows it he

is telling people about Jesus. He begins in the synagogue and then moves out into the

market. After a couple of days it seems that Paul begins to attract attention. Athens

being a sophisticated urban centre Paul encounters philosophers who seem to be

4
somewhat interested by the apparently amusing and baffling things Paul was saying and

so they invite him to speak further in the Areopagus which was a forum for addressing

public, legal and religious life.

As Paul speaks to this group they seem to be listening patiently until he reaches

his climax and says that God “has given proof of this to all people by raising [Jesus] from

the dead.” At this point some may have been holding back their desire to laugh but could

no longer do it after this statement and there seems to be outburst snickering and

mocking. The text does say that a few people became followers but no church was

founded there. These philosophers knew immediately that a rational model of

understanding cannot be founded on an unverifiable event. How can a single, particular

event from an unknown person and a far away place form the basis for understanding the

greatest questions in life? The philosopher needs to account for the patterns of the world,

the rules of logic and the nature of humanity. They were amused by Paul for time but his

basis for thinking was too absurd to be taken seriously.

This encounter with those reputed to be wise and knowledgeable also seems to

have had a great impact on Paul. By the time he gets to writing his first letter to the

Corinthians we hear him fully rejecting models of reason and knowledge as the basis for

his message. He asks rhetorically, “Has God not made foolish the wisdom of the world?”

And he reminds them, “I did not come with eloquence or superior wisdom as I

proclaimed the mystery of God. For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you

except Jesus Christ and him crucified.” Paul could not trust reason as being able to

remain faithful to gospel. Paul did not want to base the gospel to the terms and

parameters of human reason.

5
 Paul has left himself in a difficult situation, at least to our sensibilities. He has

left out the details of Jesus’ life, he has rejected the divine institution of religious law and

custom as well as rejecting the natural capacity of human reason as the basis for the

gospel. He has not rejected them outright as reason and moral guidelines continue to play

a role, but they are secondary and flow from something else. What then is left?

How is he founding and caring for all these new churches? In a simple statement the

answer is of course is that the foundation of these communities is Jesus Christ crucified

and raised from the dead. But is there anything more we can understand of this truth?

It is interesting to witness the type of attention that Paul is now getting among

philosophers, theologians and political theorists. They are wondering if perhaps Paul was

on to something that can help us navigate our current situation. We are increasingly

accustomed to hear that we live in age where truth with capital “T” no longer exists,

where everything is matter of opinion, taste and local expression. Truth depends on your

context, your culture and your experience. We have larger accepted that nothing is fixed

or absolute. Alain Badiou says that for Paul the resurrection itself is absolute. It is

singular and universal. The reason why Paul held so tenaciously the single truth of death

and resurrection was because the significance of it did not depend on culture, organized

religion or politics. It did not even depend on debates about the details of Jesus’ life. His

encounter with religious law and human reason always reflected competition and control.

These approaches to life impose control and claim to offer stability while themselves

being unstable and open to dispute. And so people are always competing for religious

and intellectual control. We argue over truth. We fight over lifestyle choices. The result

of course is conflict and division. Having received the Gospel Paul wants no part of

6
these models of power. For Paul there can be only one truth and it is not the property of a

particular time, place or group. There is one truth and it is a person and an event.

Rather than being restricted by this one truth Paul instead is radically liberated.

And so Paul, in Acts 17, can say to pagan philosophers that all people come from Adam

and have been given their life by God so that wherever they are they can reach out to

God, their maker. There is no heritage and no school of thought that has special

privileged access to this truth. And far from being the strict moralist that we often take

him to be Paul pronounces freely and radically on touchy religious customs. In the book

of Romans he encourages people to be convinced in their own minds of why they live a

certain way. Some people hold one day to be more sacred than others, that’s fine. Some

people make a moral case out what we should or should not eat, that’s fine. And that if

your actions are harmful to another person then, even though it was okay to do what you

were doing you also have the freedom to abstain for the sake of your brother and sister.

In fact it is an issue of freedom for you to abstain because freedom is only

freedom if it is shared by all and so if your freedom puts another person in bondage then

even your freedom has disappeared. Paul says clearly that our concern for others is not in

trying to restrict them through judgment put by releasing them for growth. Concluding

that section in Romans Paul offers only this description of what sin is. He says sin is

whatever does not come from faith. For Paul, the truth of the resurrection allows us to

break from the requirements of moral and religious law as well as the dictates of human

reason.

In his letter to the Corinthians Paul says outrageously that for him “everything is

permissible.” This is much like his statement in Galatians where he says that there is

7
now law against the acts of the Spirit. Paul says three things to clarify what he means in

saying that everything is permissible. First he says that while everything is permissible

not everything is beneficial. If there is to be true freedom then it must be for all people.

If your actions harm yourself or others then you have forfeited someone else’s freedom

and you have replaced freedom with injustice. Second Paul says that while everything is

permissible he will not be mastered by anything. We can talk about being free to drink

alcohol or watch certain movies or buy certain things but if we are no longer free to not

do these things, but have become mastered by them, then again we have forfeited our

freedom. Third Paul offers a strange statement saying “Food for the stomach and the

stomach for food – but God will destroy them both.” As we find out later in chapter Paul

wants to talk about sexuality and it appears that the Corinthians have told them that in the

same way that the stomach was made for food so too the body was made for sex. Paul

offers an alternative saying that the body is for the Lord and the Lord is for the body.

Paul is not opposed to sex and people getting married but then again he is not exactly for

it either. His instinct is that single people are able to focus more clearly on serving God

but on the other hand he acknowledges that single people are often pre-occupied with

finding someone and so have a hard time focusing on God. So he says fine, if you can

stay single do it! If you want to get married do it! He uses circumcision as an example

saying that “circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision.” What matters is whether you

are open and vulnerable to God’s Spirit or whether you are attempting to live by a moral

law.

Paul refuses to allow freedom in Christ to be dependent on your place in life.

There is no more freedom for the married person as there is for the single person. There

8
is no more freedom for Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female, rich or poor. It also

does not depend on moral achievement or intellectual capacity. It is free, absolute and

universal.

We often think that in the West we have freedom because of all the diversity of

expressions available to us. But here to we need to question what the basis of this

diversity is. To what extent is our diversity a product of our economic system? To what

extent is our expression of capitalism another type of universalism? Think about the idea

of style. Style is often viewed as way of expressing our uniqueness and freedom. But

style in our age is an economic tool. The more styles that are produced the more profit

that can be made off of us. Clothing is the obvious example of this. Each season a new

expression of style comes out with the illusion of even greater choice. We feel free to

express ourselves in a new way but in reality we compulsively bond to buy new clothing

for fear of looking out of place. And what happens to those who actually try to rebel

against the trends in the mall, the punks, goths, emo and hardcore kids. Our economy

says no problem, we come up with a line of clothing and accessories for them to. Even

the social activists can get mass produced T-shirts with the communist rebel Che Guevara

on them. This universalism is not limited to clothing though either.

Think about the production of lifestyles. The same television company can

produce shows about conservative straight people from the south and liberal gay people

from the east. We relate our own lives and form our conceptions of others from

television characters. Or what about the production of causes? Think about

environmentalism? Sure, we can sell you a bunch of stuff related to that as well. I

remember an ad for a hybrid car where the car was driving along the highway and a

9
statement appeared at the bottom the screen that read, “I am cleaning the environment.”

Not only is that statement false it also creates the implied statement that someone who

keeps their used vehicle and reduces the environmental impact of producing a new car

must be the one dirtying the environment.

Is it possible to even talk about the production of democracy? Democracy is the

U.S.’s intended goal in Iraq. A recent article in the Detroit Free Press reminds there

fellow citizens that when the U.S. was attacked at 9/11 the government told them that the

best way to support the war effort was to go shopping and keep the economy strong.

Capitalism doesn’t care what we do or believe so long as we continue to consume at an

appropriate rate. It is no wonder that the principle of communism could not survive on a

global scale because it was the only real threat to the universal nature of capitalism.

But capitalism cannot offer a true universal expression because capitalism offers

freedom only as long as you can afford it. We are finding that the promised freedoms of

our economic system are only decreasing. It has been assessed in the U.S. that the

number of people earning twenty dollars and hour or more has been set back to the

1970’s. It is also in the press that in 2007 income inequality is “at the highest level since

1928, the year before the Great Depression.” Locally, many of us have experienced the

increasing lack of job security for ourselves or someone close to us. I am not saying this

to be depressing. I am saying this only to remind us that we do not live a neutral society

in which people are equally free to make life choices. We may have come to question

whether there are universal truths but that did not stop present expressions of capitalism

from trying to establish a universal presence.

10
 Perhaps it is time again to listen to someone like Paul who says unequivocally that

there is only one truth and that this truth is not violent or oppressive dictatorship. This

truth rather is relentless is dismantling the privileges of religious and intellectual

authority. It is relentless in dismantling tradition that seeks to conform instead of

transform. If we allow it even the slightest opening the resurrected Christ is relentless in

searching our hearts and minds to expose and overthrow all the status and security we

find in wealth, strength, beauty and possessions. Christ asks that we enter our world . . .

our country . . . our town . . . our family and our mind with the same view as Paul when

he arrived in Athens. His eyes were wide seeing how quickly our lives look like a city of

idols and in every idol he saw bondage and oppression. This absolute and universal

Gospel of the resurrected Christ wants nothing more than all of our life and all lives. It is

here that this single truth offers freedom from that which binds us.

Are you more free today then when you first believed? Do you hope to be

delivered from what binds you? Listen then, perhaps for the first time, to Paul who

traveled the length and breadth of his world knowing that all diversities, all customs

could find freedom in the single, universal presence of the resurrected Christ. Hear then,

the Gospel of Paul who speaks of a man raised from dead, who has overcome death.

Hear of the man who is calling all to new life.

11