It seems to me that differing definitions of purity continue to separate believers just as they did in the first century Antioch conflict at the Jerusalem council. Writing as a new Roman Catholic who has journeyed most of my life in sincere, but non-liturgical churches, I believe we Christians continue to redefine lines of theological, if not behavioral (this does in fact remain) purity, drawing lines in the sands of life to separate ourselves… but these lines are as trivially solved by a breath of wind. At the Jerusalem council, the debate over which parts of the Mosaic law Gentile converts would be held to was hot. Schnelle presents three different positions which might have been discussed on Gentile relations to Torah: first, freedom from Torah except for ethical requirements (no circumcision); second was limited observance of Torah without circumcision, and thirdly entire Torah observance including circumcision (Schnelle 131). As Schnelle mentions earlier in this chapter, this is a debate of two gospels: that of Circumcision and that of Uncircumcision (126-8). I imagine this would sound shocking to most Christians to imagine that  there could ever have been more than one salvific gospel preached by the Church universal, but noting that denominational rifts today are still marked by considerations of theological purity, should we be surprised to find that multiple gospels are still being preached today?

                Of course, when saying “gospels” I am following in Schnelle’s use of multiple gospels, for as he notes, the “two gospels” are really two different set of practices/beliefs stemming from the confession of the same, one event of Christ’s sinless death for our sins, was buried and rose from the depths of the grave three days later, to ascend into heaven and sit at the right hand of the Father. The idea of having a universal faith with numerous identities creates an interesting sort of problem. The original Jewish religious identity was constructed out of two aspects of Torah we discussed in class, the halachah (law part of the Torah) and haggadah (story narratives of the Torah). Their history was constantly reinterpreting Torah to make sense and keep current this religious identity… what kind of threat was this upstart of a preacher, Paul, preaching that salvation through a Jewish Messiah, Jesus could come without a crucial part of Torah observance? Well, I see a similar distinction drawn between liturgical and non-liturgical churches. Since this is a Lutheran class, I hope there will be no offence taken if I label, for comparison’s sake, liturgical churches as the “Jewish Christians” of today and nonliturgical churches as the “Gentile Christians.” Jesus is in both equally, my heart feels quite confident proclaiming.

                So there have been numerous councils within my church denomination, the Catholic Church, concerning what are termed within our walls as “ecclesial communities”… i.e., those without “the full sacramentals.” In Catholicism, the sacramental life seems to be the way of things… we have those seven sacraments which are viewed as the marks of our communion with God, supposedly instituted by Christ to dispense the grace necessary to try and live holy lives {please do not the heavy skepticism in my tone}. Baptism is like our circumcision, without it, there is no salvation? Confirmation seems necessary for the whole entrance into the Catholic Church, so perhaps both of those are our initiates, but then one reaches our third and central sacrament, the Eucharist… and I am sure many of my beloved Catholic associates would be hesitant to assure the safe place of one’s soul without regular attendance to the sacraments of Eucharist as well as Confession to prepare the soul for communion with our Beloved Jesus in the Eucharistic sacrament. I come most rootedly from a good, conservative Baptist tradition, without the slightest notion of what a sacrament was… living what some might consider an ignorant spiritual life, devoid of that fullness of life Jesus came to bring to the world. Was I? Was the second gospel of the Gentile Christians agreed upon to settle the Antiochan conflict a compromise to the message of Jesus and the rest of the Apostles? Some individuals may have felt that way, and later history shows that tides turned more against Pauline multi-gospel preaching, but I render an emphatic no to that question. There are in fact, if we are defining “gospel” as requirements of practice to maintain salvation (I cannot say obtain, I still believe faith is a gift we must receive and then act upon in faith), then today, multiple gospels exist… dictated by personal conscience and understanding of God’s requirements (Romans 14.-6, I think Schnelle and Paul would agree with me).

                Paul’s act of initiating the acceptance of this “second gospel” of salvation is really quite astounding. Schnelle recounts how profoundly Paul’s Damascus road encounter with the Resurrected Jesus was in Chapter 14, “The Presence of Salvation,” inspiring this entire movement:  “Paul was set before the task of interpreting afresh, from the perspective of the Christ event, the history of the world and God’s saving plan within it—God’s acts in the past, present, and future and his own role in God’s plan.” (Schnelle 389)The Antioch conflict is a prime example of Paul putting this call into action, demonstration (in a way which must have seemed an innovation to conservative bystanders)… preaching a second gospel. Of course salvation is through Christ alone, and only by faith can one approach God through Christ (Hebrews 11.6), so it was this “gospel” of working out faith and identity in Christ that Paul introduced. Taking the Torah-centered Judiasm and reinterpreting it in light of the “new covenant” of Christ, Paul’s soteriology must have broken many Jewish toes.

                Schnelle describes Pauline soteriology as a sort of negotiating between two distinct groups and many differing ideas which could not really be harmonized: “God’s first covenant continues to be valid, but only the new covenant saves.” (Schnelle 390) Perhaps the parable of Christ and the workers in the field could be appropriated to explain the salvation… the first covenant  (I don’t want to cheat the Old Testament of the validity and fullness of what God gave, but looking back with Paul’s retrospective rationalizations, I must consider the old covenant as working, but also requiring the renewal of God’s covenant with His People in Jesus’ new covenant) was necessary in order that the second covenant might come, but one the salvation of Christ rather than Torah was being preached, the first salvation was not necessary to accept, but could be reinterpreted through retrospection. Considering this, I wonder about the liturgical/non-liturgical church examples I brought up earlier. The Catholic Church has traced its origins and history farther than any other church I have yet experienced… bridging the gap between modern day Chrisianity and the time of the Apostles. J Dare I challenge with my own reinterpretive/innovative statement the idea perpetuated in my church that non-liturgical churches are missing fullness of salvation without sacraments, but that perhaps their very existence, born out of what is now a liturgical church, was necessary for a more full understanding of Jesus and our salvation through him? Though not possible without a mother, the children have grown up and assumed valid identity and relationship with the Father.

From class discussion on the 20^th of October, we discussed “Paul’s Paradoxical Life as Apostolic Witness,” based out of chapter 10 in Schnelle. The conversation about the contradictory values/practice of the Corinthian people in comparison to Paul’s uplifting of his own life as a path of imitation of Christ nudged my own imagination towards something I have wrestled with in my own church, the Catholic church, since my confirmation in April… pretence of accepting the paradoxical salvation Jesus has laid out for us, while in reality fostering contradictory doctrine and practice. Hearing that the Corinthian people, who are widely recognized among Biblical scholars as people who loved to party, really held ascetical spiritual ideals of abstinence/celibacy and other separatist practices, I began contemplating the idea of consecration as held in the Catholic hierarchy, not the Catholic populous of lay people today. We have something like a hierarchy set up for life vocations… remaining one of the few churches, if not the only one, to uphold celibacy as a more complete imitation Christi than marriage; in my circles filled with people of the life style classified as “Religious,” I often hear that such a complete consecration is “a higher form of life.”As I explore this teaching of my church in conversation with Paul, Schnelle and our class in II Corinthians,  I will layout what I understand the paradox of Paul’s life witness from Schnelle, Paul and our class discussions, wrestle with the question of consecration as a separating out from the world, and then reflect on whether my church’s stratification of life vocations is really the paradox it is claimed to be or rather, a contradiction from my understanding of imitation Christi in Paul.

                Since most of my reflection on what Paul’s life as paradoxical witness means come from section 10.3 of Schnelle (pg. 245-251), I will follow his categories of organization: (1) Power in Weakness, (2) The Apostle’s Integrity,  and (3) The Earthly and Heavenly House. The most striking aspect of the idea of a paradoxical life, to me at least, is the idea of power in weakness. Summed up in II Corinthians 4.7-12:

⁷ But we hold this treasure in pots of earthenware, so that the immensity of the power is God's and not our own. ⁸ We are subjected to every kind of hardship, but never distressed; we see no way out but we never despair; ⁹ we are pursued but never cut off; knocked down, but still have some life in us; ¹⁰ always we carry with us in our body the death of Jesus so that the life of Jesus, too, may be visible in our body. ¹¹ Indeed, while we are still alive, we are continually being handed over to death, for the sake of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus, too, may be visible in our mortal flesh. ¹² In us, then, death is at work; in you, life.

Schnelle articulates the paradox of Paul’s Apostolic ministry being the constant presence of death which seemed to only increase his energy, fervor and urgency of his message. From Paul’s own testimony, since encountering Jesus of the Damascus road, he has been longing for that death which would allow his glorification with his Lord (Philippians 1.21). Paul understands his purpose on earth to walk in the very footsteps of Jesus, to suffer in proclamation of the gospel, and to die… that he might be resurrected… he longs for a “more real” life, the complete and full life which is not obtained until one is in the presence of Christ. In emptying himself of the prestige he could have held among the Jewish people because of his education, Paul makes himself low like Jesus, serving the world to achieve His goal of salvation, with Jesus. This reminds me of the Henri Nouwen book, The Selfless Way of Christ: Downward Mobility and the Spiritual Life. The very title encapsulates what Schnelle portrays as paradox in Paul’s life witness: rather than oriented to death and decimation, Paul finds liberation from his own self-confined restraints in finally being filled fully with the life of Christ when his own life has run out of him.

                In the profound understanding of Paul’s persistent seeking of life through a way of death and pain as the same paradox which allowed Jesus Christ to be glorified for the salvation of all, the second title-head of “The Apostle’s Integrity” also emphasizes paradox as the way of life for the believer. Schnelle states elegantly, “Externally, the life of the apostle is worn away and exhausted by the many sufferings he must endure in the course of his mission. At the same time, within this (outer nature, 4.16) the grace of God is at work through the Spirit.” (248) Paul’s sufferings have unlocked his heart to experience “the true treasures of life: faith and hope in God” (248) which he offers to the church as well. This, Schnelle explains, demonstrates the consistency of Paul’s belief in “a particular understanding of reality” which is not natural to human beings in unredeemed states (247).  Because Paul preaches “God as the ultimate ground of reality,” the external state of existence is unimportant and can be as wretched as Paul’s own life after meeting Christ, though God continues working through it (247). This separation of corporeal reality from ultimate reality in God allows Schnelle to turn to the final element of paradox in Paul’s life ministry, “The Earthly and Heavenly House.”

                This discussion of earthly and heavenly homes in II Corinthians 5 led me to wonder about Paul being Gnostic in the past… but in more recent explorations of dualism in my own Catholic journey, I think there must be a greater continuity between body and soul, though Paul does seem to emphasize the liberation of life as spiritual. While the first 2 verses of this chapter seem to want to discard the body, the third erases ideas of dualism with the presentation of the idea of heavenly bodies: “… longing to put on our heavenly home over the present one; if indeed we are to be found clothed rather than stripped bare.” While Schnelle explicates this as indeed Paul’s desire for all mortality to be swallowed up, it is not a hope for purely spiritual state of being, but his desire to be “found clothed” is in a new body. Because of this interpretation I’m bringing to II Corinthians 5.3, while I agree with Dr. Balch’s notes that Paul’s assessment the body is usually negative (Schenelle Chapter 10 Summary, pg. 3, par 2), I don’t agree that dualism characterizes this section… only the appearance of dualism, but certainly individualism and abating an anxious expectation of a soon end. I prefer Schnelle’s explanation as dualistic imagery, which Paul uses to indicate that there is no soon departure from these imperfect bodies. The fellowship he experiences in the present with Jesus, both crucified and risen, will lack fulfillment until that heavenly body is obtained.

                It would seem that no matter how much Paul seems to accept the current situation, he still demonstrates a discontent and longing for a future fullness. For all my attempts to not read dualism into II Corinthians, Paul strains towards this idea of separation with current situations…at least a future separation. In the present, the only thing besides godly behavior setting believers apart from their fellow Corinthians in the hope of this future separation… at base, this acceptance of an alternate reality according to which they are patterning their lives now. So, I am going to try and integrate this conversation back to my original issue of consecration in an ascetical sense… and how I wonder whether my church is creating more of a contradiction, perhaps a dualism in the life ideas we heirarchicize on earth. In II Corinthians, Paul doesn’t speak about a separate way of living, rather a hope and belief reality, which would affect behavior, but not as much as celibate ideal voiced in 1 Corinthians 7. So the only form of consecration I really see communicated in II Corinthians 4 and 5 is really the alternate reality to what is apparent to unredeemed peoples, the absolute reality.

                This then leads me to wrestle with my own church’s ideal of consecration as a separation, ascetical existence...the Catholic sense of "highest form of life..."; is that more Jewish than Christian? Didn’t Jesus come to make up pure and different, in world, and where do we fit the other-worldly ideals. Are we in Catholicism preaching too much of a non-paradoxical gospel, and more of a human contradiction, by saying that; so how do we read 1 Cor 7 in light of the passion narrative? Jesus took flesh and touched women. The paradox of Paul was the acceptance of another reality, and willingness to suffer now in order to someday be admitted well into that heavenly reality… which is what the Catholic ascetical ideal seems to try and live out as a sign of a coming heaven on earth. My church interprets the Matthew 19 dialog about no giving in marriage in heaven to signify that heaven is celibate, a speculation which may be true, but definitely causes some confusion when one is choosing what sort of priorities to set on earth here and now for eternity.

We Catholics have in the heart of our theology retained an idea of imitating Jesus through asceticism, rather than integrated living which doesn’t contradict natural ends of life, but embracing suffering as a way of drawing closer to Christ, we seem to prefer elevating the contradiction of human nature. I love the idea of celibacy as a state of life consecrated to life, and it is special, rare, unusual, but how can it be a more complete consecration? Where do we find the beauty of something so abnormal and not make it the most perfect imitation of Christ... are we as people capable of living after Jesus without making comparison and judgment between degrees and values of holy living. How much paradox do we invite into our lives and are we willing to let go of reason and be fools in the living out. I hardly think so often times if our imago dei is reason (human reason?). Maybe paradise is a cloister, a monastery, a hermits hut. But heaven starts on earth, in that sense of hope looking forward, yes? If, according to 2 Cor 5.16-17... "we know according to the flesh Christ"; in suffering that we know Christ or that we no longer know the fleshly Jesus? As Dr. Balch said, the whole range of human feelings, including, but not at its peak in mystical experiences, is the expression of our gospel.