Paul vs. Missiology #2
A few weeks ago I drew from Eckhard Schnabel’s Early Christian Mission to write Paul vs. Missiology #1. My intention was not to say that Missiology as a discipline is somehow un-Pauline or unbiblical, but merely to point out that Paul’s approach to missions does not always fit with our expectations of what might be most culturally relevant. Here is another excerpt from Schnabel that deals with Paul’s renunciation of rhetorical skills that were highly esteemed in Greek society. In Paul’s letter to the Corinthians, it is obvious from the language that Paul uses that he was familiar with the standard rhetorical practices of the day. One might expect that he would embrace them in order to better communicate the gospel. Instead, Paul found the medium incompatible with the message, so he rejected it in order to preserve the message.
My question is whether or not the contemporary church may be embracing media that are somehow incompatible with or undermine the message. Read Schnabel’s comments, think about this question, and let me know what you think.
“Paul writes, ‘When I came to you, brothers and sisters, I did not come proclaiming the mystery of God to you in lofty words or wisdom’ (1 Cor. 2:1), emphasizing that he dispenses intentionally with the superiority of the art of rhetoric when he preaches the gospel. He had no interest in being the center of attention or in being praised by others. . . . [H]is task was the proclamation of the message of Jesus as the Messiah, ‘and him crucified’ (1 Cor. 2:2). This message required no dialexis, no discussion (on the level of style or lexis) concerning his own person, nor did it need a eulogy (enkomion) on the greatness of the city of Corinth. …
According to 2 Cor. 10:1, 10-11, Corinthian Christians reproached Paul for writing strong and audacious letters while being personally subservient and weak, hiw oral talks being contemptible, having no merit. Another accusation, put forward by some Christians in Corinth was that he was ‘untrained in speech’ (idiōtēs tō logō [1 Cor. 11:6])—that is, an amateur, managing only a botched job when he speaks. Paul emphasizes against such criticism that these accusations are aimed, in the final analysis, against Jesus Christ himself: the ‘meekness and gentleness of Christ’ (2 Cor. 2:11) consist, according to Phil. 2:1-11, in self-abasement. Paul’s behavior as a missionary, as a teacher who speaks in public, is characterized by humility because Jesus Christ’s conduct and demeanor likewise were characterized by humility.” (pp. 1327-1328)
If we want our media to be consistent with our message, maybe the first thing to ask is “What is our message?” If our message is “We are right and they are wrong,” then certain forms of communication are called for. But if our message is “Jesus Christ and him crucified,” then totally different media must be used.
Do our media reflect the slickness of modern marketing more than the rough splinters of the cross? Of all the media available and being used by Christians today, which would Paul find best suited for communicating the scandal of the cross? Which would he renounce?
posted by Anthony Parker @ 9:20 PM
2 comments
Provided by 
2 Comments:
Good questions and good thoughts.
My own take is that Paul's rejection of rhetoric was a refusal to use a certain type of persuasion, that of rhetorical technique. The medium of speaking was not the issue, but how one might try to "win" people.
The apt comparisons for today involve our attempts to market both through popular preaching methods that are about speech-making (designed to please, entrall, persuade, captivate, amuse, & entertain) and other mediums that are used to advertise and promote our institutional churches.
I believe that rhetoric, like modern marketing, begins with how to appeal to the audience. Selling the people, persuading them through technique and presentation, differs greatly from proclaiming Christ and him crucified, a stumbling block and foolishness.
There is a real distinction (in my mind) between explaining the gospel in culturally meaningful ways (like Jesus telling parables) and making the message appealing through presentation (marketing it).
I believe that many today would readily use ancient rhetorical techniques if they were in Paul's shoes because it would simply be an "expedient" way to get the job done.
I don't know if I am making any sense to others, but to me there is a big difference here. The typical claim to be "Christian" and yet lack of reformation of life so often seen today is, I think, a result of the persistent use of marketing to make the message appealing. There is no way to market dying to self, taking up the cross, and following an uneducated Jewish tradesman who was executed for both religious blasphemy and insurrectionist ideology.
I'm okay with any media, but not marketing strategies to entice people.
Anthony,
Dee referred me to your post and your blog because she saw similarities in our choice of subject matter.
Your question about determining the message is a good and important one.
I take your idea of media to mean how the message is presented. The media is only a tool in this case. I've seen people deliver PowerPoint presentations thinking that the slides will somehow win their audience to their point-of-view. If there's no depth in the person presenting, however, no PowerPoint slide will save the presenter from embarassment.
I've also seen shoddy preparation of media turn an audience against a presenter, as well. A well presented case is undermined by a poor understanding of the technology. In a case like this, it is better not to use the technology at all and to simply speak.
But of course, I speak in the above examples of business situations. Is this any different in the church? I think it is.
I agree with Greg's assessment in his above comment, that "the medium of speaking was not the issue, but how one might try to "win" people." If the media gets in the way of the social element of the presentation of the gospel message, it should be abandoned. If the "love of God and the love of others" is absent, then a slick presentation is only what people are seeing.
I'd hate to say, though, in every case and in every circumstance, a tool cannot be used. I think we need to look at our motives before every presentation.
These are just a few thoughts. Thanks for giving me something to think about.
Post a Comment
<< Home