I recently received two advance copies of scholarly papers
written by my friend Dr. Scott Bartchy.
Having already written about one of them earlier - Our Cultural Blind Spots - I wanted to
make sure to share what was in the second paper with you.
This paper deals with Paul’s statement in 1 Cor. 4:21 where
he says:
“What would you prefer? Am I to come to you with a stick, or
with love in a spirit of gentleness?”
The context of the statement is that Paul’s authority among
the Corinthian Christians was being challenged, and Paul certainly felt that
his grip on these people was slipping away as some of them began to follow
other teachers.
Bartchy’s interest here is in the phrase “Am I to come to
you with a stick..?”
Why? Because he’s curious what sort of “stick” Paul may have
had when it came to exercising authority over the ekklesia.
As he points out, in a former life Paul [Saul] certainly
knew what it was to carry the stick. He was once empowered by the Jewish authorities
to knock down doors, arrest men and women, and even threaten them with death
for blasphemy [as we see with the stoning of Stephen where he was an eye-witness
to that event].
So, we know that Paul was well-acquainted with the power of
a stick to motivate people by fear and even by harsh rebuke. However, Paul has
gone to great lengths to distance himself from that former frame of mind, even
to the changing of his own name, as an indication of just how completely he has
become a new person in Christ.
Bartchy quotes from Kathy Ehrensperger’s book, “Paul and the
Dynamics of Power” to support his contention that Paul did not seek to maintain
power over his disciples, pointing out that Paul “only has authority in
relation to them in as much as he is building them up.”
Ehrensperger also argues [per Bartchy] that Paul “did not aim
or claim at establishing a position of domination or control,” and notes that
Paul “repeatedly left behind the house churches he had founded. While later
keeping in touch with many of them through letters and colleagues, he pushed on
to the West.” (See Romans 15:14-29) and separated himself from his converts in the
hope of their continuing empowerment by God’s Spirit in Christ.” [pg. 199]
Bartchy continues: “What hold do we imagine that Paul had on
his converts, such that his disapproval, however expressed, could make a
serious difference in their lives? What price could he make any of his converts
pay for not obeying him? What do we suppose Paul could have done, if indeed he
had come to the Corinthian covnerts ‘with a stick’”
This is the focus of the paper, and a fascinating question
to ask. One that I have hardly heard anyone ever pose before, to be honest.
Later, in the second epistle to the Corinthians, Paul even
warns them that he will “not be lenient” when he comes to them again (2 Cor.
13:1-4) and that he hopes he “will not have to be severe in using the authority”
that the Lord has given him (v. 10).
But, Bartchy wonders, what exactly did Paul have in mind
here? What would they have expected this to mean? Would Paul shout at them, or
single people out to be banished, or would he just come to them with a bad
attitude?
Well, we do see that Paul made a point to say that he did
not want to shame anyone, (see 1 Cor. 4:14), so that removes a few options from
our list, but what did Paul mean to suggest?
Bartchy notes: “Whatever means of punishment Paul thought to
use, would he, by his own example, have been inadvertently hindering the transformation
of his converts by the Spirit? If he came to them with a stick, even in view of
the harshness and thrashings for which [teachers] could be known…would not such
a negative example of interpersonal relationships have placed an unintended but
significant barrier between his converts and his own goal of changing both
their convictions and their behavior?”
What became apparent to me as I considered Bartchy’s questions
was that Paul’s authority over these Christians in Corinth was quite obviously
very loose. In other words, the very fact that the Corinthian Christians
challenged Paul’s authority over them testifies to their freedom. They did not
feel the “wrath of Paul” might come down on them for listening to other
teachers. In fact, Paul’s “stickless” authority over them is, in itself,
partially why they could entertain other ideas without feeling the need to run everything
by Paul first.
Bartchy correctly notes that, when it comes to authority in
the new testament, “it does not exist until it is granted by those who
willingly give that power over them [to others]. While power can coerce,
authority results from gained assent.”
My friend Jon Zens has phrased it as: “Authority is
something you grant, not something you demand.”
So, the authority that Paul has is only that which has been
granted to him by the people in the Body of Christ. In the beginning, they
freely granted Paul authority to teach and to care for their spiritual health.
Now, for some reason or the other, Paul feels that this authority may have been
revoked, or perhaps even stolen, by other teachers.
Bartchy’s main thesis is that Paul would not likely come to
them “with a stick” because to do so might play into their expectations of
authority [as they might have been used to in their own previous experiences
with so-called “leaders”]. Instead, Bartchy argues, Paul would have taken another
approach – a “cruciform” authority.
As he notes: “Paul must have known that the key to his
success in this regard was his own Christ-like, Spirit-filled behavior. As one
who had been raised according to the dominant values and social codes in ancient
Mediterranean culture, Paul must also have known that he had undertaken a
super-human task as he sought to lead the Corinthians into a less arrogant,
less competitive, less envy-filled way of acting.”
Just before the “stick” reference, Bartchy notes that Paul said:
“When reviled, we bless. When persecuted, we endure. When slandered, we speak
kindly.” [1 Cor. 4:12-13]
“Such counterintuitive responses make clear that Paul
himself as a Christ-follower had been undergoing a very serious, Spirit-led re-socialization
process, in sharp contrast to the values by which his parents and other
significant adults had raised him.”
Then? Paul urges his converts to follow his own example and to
imitate his Christ-like character. [See 1 Cor. 11:1]
So, why even mention the possibility of coming to them with
a stick at all?
Bartchy suggests that Paul did this “…to stress in sharp
contrast the alternative values that he had consistently lived by when he was
among them…Was he assuming that some of them would really have preferred him to
act ‘the old-fashioned way’ and thus ironically reminding them that he really
did not have a stick anymore?”
Paul has already stressed his lack of power by saying: “We
are fools for Christ’s sake, but you are wise in Christ. We are weak but you
are strong. You are held in honor but we are in disrepute.” [1 Cor. 4:10]
Bartchy says: “Paul’s stress in this passage is on his
refusal to retaliate and use power for himself is unambiguously the behavioral
context in which Paul urges his converts to imitate him…’not seeking his own
advantage but that of many’.”
Interestingly, Paul does not play the “Spiritual Father”
card. We know that he easily could have, but he does not.
In 1 Cor. 4:15 Paul reminds them that “they did not have
many fathers [pateras]” in Christ and that “indeed, in Christ Jesus I became
your father through the gospel.”
Yet, the word often rendered as “Father” in our English translations
betrays the reality of what Paul is saying here. He does not use the term “father”
(Pater) in this sentence. Rather, what Paul wrote was “in Christ Jesus through the
gospel I begot you” (egennesa).
By using this term, Paul carefully avoids claiming the title
of “Father” (Pater) for himself. He also avoids the use in the letter to
Philemon but again used the term “egennesa” instead to suggest that Paul wanted
only to emphasize the nurturing caretaker side rather than the authoritative position
of dominance typically associated with the term “Pater”.
If Paul had wanted to leverage the “Fatherly” aspect of his
relationship with them, as one with an inherent authority over them, he could
easily have done so by using the word “Pater”, yet he carefully avoids it and
simply says that he has cared for them like a loving father-figure whose only
authority would be granted in love by a child who reciprocated and appreciated
that loving care.
As Bartchy notes: “What Paul did not do is claim ‘because I
am your father you must obey me!’ In that sense, Paul never played his culture’s
well-known ‘father card.’”
If anything, Paul appeals more to a motherly metaphor by
comparing himself to a nursing mother [1 Cor. 3.2] and in other epistles used
similar motherly images to refer to himself [see 1 Thess. 2:7; Gal. 4:19-20]
This comparison with a maternal figure automatically defers
any and all paternal authority that Paul might have claimed for himself, and this
is most obviously by design.
Bartchy closes his paper by saying: “No matter how weak his
opponents perceived him to be, Paul knew that his strength was based on acting
with agape love ‘in a spirit of gentleness.’ Paul at his best, according to his
own transformed values, was indeed ‘stickless’ in Corinth.”
-kg
