We need to talk about Paul, part 2

When I began studying Paul years ago, it was with the intention to learn more about the actual person and his actual writings. My initial New Testament class introduced so much uncertainty in the conversation about the Bible, which was always too certain about Paul (and everything).

So I was unprepared for the question posed, and answered, by Cavan Concannon. His book, “Profaning Paul,” an irreverent look at the man who is the founder of Christianity, almost immediately asked this question:

“Can Paul be redeemed? Can an archive of texts that supported slavery, demonized Jews, propped up dictators, naturalized the submission of women, and endorsed a whole host of other atrocities be welcomed into the struggle against racism, capitalism, fascism, and other ills? I argue no” (6).

That changed the nature of my study and led to other questions: Should Paul be redeemed? Is it worth the effort when so many other sacred texts exist? How can I approach all ancient scripture, which can generously be termed problematic, and find what’s good and valuable and beautiful while coping with what else is there: genocide, murder, human sacrifice, destruction, the utter unfairness and coldness of the God inscribed therein? How to make sense of the contradictions contained within the pages of scripture? How do I even find myself on those pages, amid words written by and for men, using male pronouns, proclaiming a male god, when I have to search for stories about women? When I have to search for women who had who were real humans, not unnamed or silenced or one-dimensional characters needed to tell a man’s story?

Read We need to talk about Paul, Part 1.

Paul: Take him or leave him?

More than any of the facts and theories I’ve learned about Paul the Apostle and Paul the human man who walked, ate, slept, got sick and got cranky, these two things about the biblical Paul stood out. First, a lot of what is attributed to Paul is just not from him. They’re pseudonymous letters to which the author attached Paul’s name to give the writings legitimacy. There’s evidence that even in his legitimate letters, some of the worst pieces were inserted later by editors and revisors aiming for a prevailing narrative that men led and women followed, quiet and submissive. There’s ample proof, in the words of the New Testament and the historical context of the time, that Paul worked with women to start and support house churches and worked with missionaries who were women. A lot of signs point to the fact that Paul is not the problem.

The second, vital point—the actual problem—is this: In the 2,000 years since Paul, men of the church have used his words, or the words assigned to him, to oppress women, to treat us as lesser, to keep us away from pulpits and priesthood and power, to justify gender roles that give men visibility and authority and respect and keep women silent and submissive and invisible.

Is that Paul’s responsibility? Maybe, maybe not. In my mind, it doesn’t matter. The words with Paul’s name on them are dangerous, whether or not they are Paul’s words. In his book, “Liberating Paul,” Neil Elliott—who I think decidedly did want to liberate Paul from the weight of 2,000 years of oppressing the marginalized—wrote:

“The usefulness of the Pauline letters to systems of domination and oppression is nevertheless clear and palpable. This observation must be our starting point. It is not enough to protest that one or another remark in Paul’s letters has been torn out of context to justify acts or horror. Such distortions are too widespread and consistent in the history of Christendom to allow such easy dismissal. These distortions also rest too easily on generally accepted perceptions of who Paul was and what he was about” (9).

The damage has been done, over and over and over again. What’s worse is it continues to be done—these words continue to be weaponized against marginalized groups. I would argue that an apostle who testified of the grace of Jesus Christ and the need for unconditional love would advocate that such damaging messages be thrown out—that the focus of the church should be helping people feel the love of Christ, not clinging to outdated rules.

Approaching Paul today

There is also the argument that Paul’s writings simply aren’t relevant. Throw out the letters that he didn’t write, and we’re still left with rules, admonitions, observations and chastisements for specific people at a specific time in specific circumstances. He never meant for them to be applied broadly to all sorts of problems. It’s irresponsible bordering on dangerous to slap his words onto today’s church.

And you know what? Church leaders know this. Look around at any church that believes in the New Testament. Imagine 1 Cor. 7: 8 being read over the pulpit: “To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain unmarried as I am.”

Let me tell you—as an unmarried woman, that was never the message I got in the pews of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The singles wards, the dances, the mixers, the—was it semiannual? quarterly? monthly?—talks and lessons reminding me to get married all made it clear that these particular words from Paul didn’t hold any weight. Those verses require context, or maybe they were a poor translation, or perhaps Paul just didn’t mean what it sounds like he said—all arguments made by Bruce R. McConkie. So church leaders routinely adapt the words of Paul, or the words attributed to Paul, for their needs.

Can Paul be redeemed?

In defiance of that subhead, let’s forget about Paul for a minute. Let’s return to Dr. Concannon. More important than repairing Paul is repairing the lives of readers and hearers who have been hurt by Paul’s teachings.

“I don’t think there is an easy path to making Paul safe. In fact, it is probably an impossible task. What we can do, I think, is sit in the place of hesitancy and resist, for now, the inexorable scripturalizing drive to redeem Paul, to create yet another (useful) Pauline fiction to obscure who gets to control the Bible. To return to the metaphor that drives this book: Paul is shit. Don’t make him into fertilizer just yet” (12).

Can that be done if we keep Paul? Maybe. I can’t answer that. We can take what we like and leave the rest. It is not hypocritical to feel the love of God when reading Paul’s testimonies of Christ and also to reject what he says about slavery or women or how Christ wants us to follow bad governments. It is not all or nothing. Paul’s words can be right in some instances and wrong in others. They can apply in certain instances and not in others. None of us are bound to accept every word in the Bible as gospel truth. Arguably, we are bound to not accept every word as gospel but to study and consider and think critically and determine for ourselves, seeking personal revelation if that is our thing.

Where does that leave churches? It’s a hypothetical; I don’t know of a single Christian church that has opted to reject the writings of Paul in their entirety because he has and continues to do too much harm. Although there are some churches who are actively rejecting some of his teachings, including by having women be pastors and actively working for social justice, liberation theology and equality, they remain dwarfed among larger (white, American) Christianity. (I do not know enough about Christianity in other churches or about black churches in the United States to speak to them.)

I can’t make this decision—I haven’t even made it for myself yet. I still see good in Paul. But that doesn’t mean I should keep him. I will return once again to Dr. Concannon, who leaves a door to begin healing the wounds left by the apostle: “Paul can’t be redeemed; however, paying attention both to why he can’t and to what happens when interpreters try opens up space to hear new perspectives and forge new alliances that are necessary in the face of human futures that look increasingly polluted, authoritarian, and unequal” (6).

Top photo: Female statues of Sophia (Wisdom), Arete (Virtue), Ennoia (Insight) and Episteme (Knowledge) in the Library of Celsus at Ephesus.

Bibliography

Concannon, Cavan W. “Profaning Paul.” The University of Chicago Press: Chicago, 2021.Elliot, Neil. “Liberating Paul: The Justice of God and the Politics of the Apostle.” Orbis Books, Maryknoll, NY 1994.

A note about sourcing that highlights the problem: In my yearlong study on Paul, I read 12 books about Paul. Two were written or edited by women. I had a hard time finding sources from women, which leads me to wonder if women biblical scholars don’t even bother with Paul—if they’ve already decided he’s not worth redeeming.