Book Review: "Reframing Paul" by Mark Strom

Summary

In his book Reframing Paul: Conversations in Grace and Community, Mark Strom challenges the traditional interpretive lens of Pauline theology and seeks to “reframe” it in terms of the Greco-Roman ideological, social, and political context in which Paul lived. According to Strom, the end goal of such an endeavor is to “…understand how contemporary ideas and conventions shaped the ways the message of Jesus Christ influenced Paul and his friends… [to] find a vantage point for fresh conversation about its [the gospel] significance to us.”[1] The desired result of such “reframing” is a new understanding of our Christian community. Strom says, “in reframing our conversation with Paul we may reframe what it means to live with one-another in graceful conversation.”[2] The idea behind this is that as we “reframe” Paul’s life and thought in terms of the Greco-Roman world he lived in, we will be able to submit our own evangelical conventions and systems to examination and in turn reframe our church and theology in conformity to Paul’s standards of grace and community.

In attempting to “reframe” our understanding of Paul, Strom utilizes what has been termed the “conversation” or the engagement of philosophical tradition which determines one’s life, values, and worldview to likewise engage contemporary life issues and experiences. Strom accomplishes this in five separate conversations (the five sections of the book) that together comprise the greater conversational flow.

In part one Strom “contextualizes Paul’s mission effort in the Greco Roman world” as he “deftly sketches the leading social realities of Greco-Roman life.”[3] More specifically, Strom briefly outlines the contemporary philosophical movements that were indoctrinating the general populace. He then demonstrates the difference between “primary reality” and “everyday reality” and explores their interaction and overlap, which culminates in his discussion of rank, status, and convention as a resultant of shame and honor as important social values.

Part two deliberates on Paul’s central focus as the person of Jesus Christ. Understanding Christ as such, he then takes the “Story of Jesus Christ” and uses it to interpret the social, historical, and personal “frames” that Paul uses so often in his writings, developing the influence (“perspectives” as termed by Strom) that Paul’s cultural heritage and sequential personal encounter with the person of Christ had on the practical outworking of Paul’s faith.

The third section of the book finds Strom developing Paul’s thought in terms of philosophy, theology, religion, and morality. In this section Strom identifies and approaches some of the main issues that Paul seeks to conquer and surveys them within their socio-cultural context (i.e. the “status game”). He concludes this section with what is perhaps his harshest critique of evangelical leadership and sets the stage for the more pragmatic final two sections of the book.

Part four begins to clarify Strom’s perspective on Pauline theology and how it can be related to life. Here he underscores two main ideas. The first is the intense relational orientation of Paul’s mission, and second is the idea of honor in shame.[4] These two ideas shape the way Strom “frames” his new “conversations” and the way he thinks “church” should be done.

The final section of the book further observes our evangelical system of thought under the lens of this “reframed” perspective of Strom’s. Then working from this critique, Strom tells a moving portion of his own story, focusing on these themes of grace, community, and redemption and shares how these experiences yielded the conversations that changed his life.

Critique

While certainly being an excellent and insightful piece of scholarship, Reframing Paul And while this may be an accurate observation it is not to say that either position is unwarranted. Instead, I point out two opposing extremes to show that perhaps each is lacking a part of what the other possesses.[5] In this case it seems that Strom, while giving an excellent understanding of Paul’s Greco-Roman context, has glossed over his Jewish cultural and religious context. It should be mentioned that Strom states Paul’s indebtedness to his Jewish religious background, however what Strom fails to do is provide the clear and concise proof of such an influence and the following significant implications. seems to stand in direct contradiction to other recent Pauline scholarship conducted in the New Perspective movement.

Stemming from this, Larry Helyer says, “his [Strom’s] claim that Paul's ekklēsiai were essentially non-religious associations, like Greco-Roman ekklēsiai, strikes me as odd. Surely the influence of the synagogue has not been adequately accounted for.”[6] And this is a significant issue to be raised, because while the majority of Paul’s ministry may have been to a gentile audience, we know that Paul conducted a portion of his ministry in the Jewish synagogues. As a result of this information, we can infer that some of the early believers were probably Jews and that even some of the gentile believers would have had a knowledge of the Jewish religious meetings.[7]

That aside, I thought that Strom’s idea of how a “church” meeting should be done was too vague. Perhaps his intention was to be vague so that his principles could be adapted to a variety of situations; however, while he is very critical of church polity he provides no consideration for how church should be conducted as a “house” church outgrows the house where it is meeting. Eventually it seems as though there may be no house which is large enough to host the entire believing body. And perhaps more importantly becomes the issue of how to maintain some means of order in these meetings as they grow bigger and bigger. Because while it is easy for a small group of five to equally share the leadership responsibilities, that task becomes much harder if the group grows to twenty-five or one hundred, especially then considering the potential for a disparity in the maturity level of the believers. These objections in no way discredit Strom’s argument; instead it leaves us to evaluate what are other parts of the frame that Strom could have missed that might be important to consider.

---

[1] p.g. 9-10

[2] p.g. 19

[3] Helyer, Larry R. "Reframing Paul: Conversations in Grace & Community". Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society. Dec 2002. FindArticles.com. 03 Nov. 2007. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3817/is_200212/ai_n9153779

[4] With the idea of relational orientation standing in contrast to the independent sage of the Greco-Roman traditions and the idea of honor in shame also opposing what was culturally important.

[5] In this case I believe that both perspectives of Paul reflect an attempt at the same thing (understanding Paul contextually) while coming at the problem from differing angles.

[6] Heyler “Reframing Paul”

[7] See Acts 17:17; 18:4; 18:8; 18:19; 19:8.

Stalk

Mayhem chaotic runs

Stab

Silk love – blood black flows

Heart Death

The white night wonder ending

Reframe.

Phi 4:10-19 (ESV) I rejoiced in the Lord greatly that now at length you have revived your concern for me. You were indeed concerned for me, but you had no opportunity. (11) Not that I am speaking of being in need, for I have learned in whatever situation I am to be content. (12) I know how to be brought low, and I know how to abound. In any and every circumstance, I have learned the secret of facing plenty and hunger, abundance and need. (13) I can do all things through him who strengthens me. (14) Yet it was kind of you to share my trouble. (15) And you Philippians yourselves know that in the beginning of the gospel, when I left Macedonia, no church entered into partnership with me in giving and receiving, except you only. (16) Even in Thessalonica you sent me help for my needs once and again. (17) Not that I seek the gift, but I seek the fruit that increases to your credit. (18) I have received full payment, and more. I am well supplied, having received from Epaphroditus the gifts you sent, a fragrant offering, a sacrifice acceptable and pleasing to God. (19) And my God will supply every need of yours according to his riches in glory in Christ Jesus.

At the end of his letter to the Philippians Paul takes the time to thank them for their financial support, and then uses that to encourage the Philippians on a point which he knew that they struggled. Throughout the letter we notice that Paul is stressing unity among the body, and based upon Paul’s statement in 1:27-28 we can infer that suffering and persecution seem to be the cause of the division within the church. In fact, the language that Paul uses in this letter allows us to identify at least one specific cause of this suffering as social alienation resulting in financial stress upon the believers.[1]

In that context Paul demonstrated how he had been through similar situations and how God had provided for him - even using the Philippians own gifts! Then as he closes this idea he makes the statement, “my God will supply every need of yours according to his riches in glory in Christ Jesus”, with which he communicates to the Philippians that “my God”, or the very same God as the God that the Philippians served, will fulfill every need according to the riches that exist in glory and in Christ Jesus. Which, if we follow this idea throughout Paul’s other writings seems to infer not only financial provision but also spiritual abundance as they sought to live their lives “in Christ”.[2] Paul turns the paradigm of providing on its head by declaring that God would provide for the Philippians, even though their neighbors would not have any social or economic interaction with them, if they (the Philippians) would submit themselves to a life lived “in Christ”.

Today we don’t experience anything near the social and economic discrimination of the Philippians, though we do live in a culture and society inundated with the necessity of being or becoming financially successful. However, according to the way Paul is instructing the Philippians to live, centering our lives around our finances is antithetical to focusing our lives around the person and work of Christ.

I think that as Christians we understand intellectually that we are not to concentrate our lives around our material affluence and yet, too often, I observe Christians ordering and re-ordering their lives around their occupation or profession. But if we live “in Christ” as Paul challenges us to, then I submit that Christ will become our occupation and that serving Him will be our profession. And if this is the case, then perhaps we ought to begin to organize our lives around our church bodies instead of our jobs. It would be a radical thing to turn down a superior job offer in a different state for the sake of maintaining the integrity of the local church body: yet maybe this is the kind of radical thinking that framed the way that Paul lived and preached.

---

[1] The social alienation of the Philippian believers likely would have evidenced itself to some extent economically as local merchants refused to do business with the local Christians. With no way to buy or sell goods the economic situation for those in the local church at Philippi would have been very stressful, especially for those who had to provide for a family. This hypothesis is supported by the use of financial and economic language throughout the letter, such as in Phil. 1:5-6; 3:7-8; 4:10-19 and by II Cor. 8:2-3 where Paul mentions the Macedonian church’s (which is commonly thought to be the Philippian church according to geographical standards and Phil. 4:15) giving even “in a severe test of affliction… and their extreme poverty”.

[2] This idea of living “in Christ” occurs often throughout Pauline thought. It carries with it the idea of being crucified, dying, and rising with Christ, essentially conveying the idea that our Christian experience should reflect the experience of Christ himself. Further, as we live “in Christ” we will be able to experience His blessings and riches. See Rom. 6:3-6; 8:1; I Cor. 4:17; II Cor. 1:5; Eph. 1:3; 2:7; Phil. 1:26.

Reconstruction.

Heinous crime – self love.
Inducing
failure fed shame.
Producing
hatred fueled pain.
Reduction.
Deconstruction.
Sacrifice bled,
Identity dead,
A red heart reconstruction.

Constant state, Paranoia, Embezzler of life,
Captures Conscience, burns him upon the Stake of Trepidation.
Mind breached, Mistrust thrusts her blade Suspicion deep into Heart,
Cutting out Trust, rendering Heart loveless.
Empty of right, know only wrong,
Devoid of love, loss of life.
Speaking treason to Heart, Mind betrays, enslaves, to suffer an existence of miserable apprehension obsession.
King Terror and Queen Fear make hate;
Prince Unrest is begotten.

Vain Promise

Yesterday's euphoria
A sharp memory contrast to the heartrending friction;
Discord rules his life
In harmonic disfuntion

Today's empty utterance
An oath forgotten amidst the torrential wrongs;
another vain endeavor
of artificial reconcile

Tomorrow's shattered promise
wrenched out broken heart bleeding unremembered courage;
her only companions laugh.
life's love is lost.

So when are you going to learn,
That his man-made affection is a figment of image-ation
Lacks demonstrative devotion
A fools careless caper; a fire fixed obsession
Emotionless destruction.

Blue Religion

Recently I have had a number of conversations regarding the inconsistency between some of our purported beliefs as Christians in community and the way we carry out those beliefs. It seems that while the gospel of grace is preached as an intellectual ideal to the point of exhaustion, we have not figured out what it is to exercise it as a practical principle in our every day lives. And so it is from this that I have begun to compose a new series of social commentary of which this is the first. The rest is still in various stages of development.

blue religion preaches truth suppression

this murder system solution clouds enlightened faces

sheds human blood -- addiction

teaches counter chance vilification

To be completely candid, I typically don’t like to include interpretations of my work. However, in trying to maintain the stated goals of this blog I will provide a brief explanation which will hopefully give the reader a greater understanding of the concept which I am trying to depict.

The first line opens with “blue religion.” I could have chosen one of a hundred different adjectives; however I chose the color blue because it represents the two of the major institutions to which I have been subject (my schools, need it be explicitly said). This provides the context from which I write. “Religion” more specifically refers to the brand of Christianity to which these “blue” institutions ascribe – that being as was mentioned above, an ungraceful gospel. As you will see in the next line I have termed this “blue religion” a “murder system solution” which sees its mission as truth suppression. You see, “blue religion” isn’t concerned with the truth, but that everything maintain the status quo. There is no room for growth, especially at the cost of “the rules.” And so, those who see this and seek to set right the balance of the system are suppressed – hence the “clouds enlightened faces.” Further, this “murder system” not only suppresses those who would wish to change it, but it also unremorsefully sacrifices those individuals who have violated its principle of conformity (submission or obedience they would call it.) Many of these individuals are then put out in the dark on the street left to fend for themselves. And while that statement is meant to be physically figurative, intellectually and spiritually these individuals are many times lost for good. They are sacrificed for an image, a regulation, and in the name of God (though I doubt He would approve.) The last line is a further description of what the “blue religion” does – that is, it teaches a gospel of “counter chance” and not a gospel of grace.