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.
