Debating Paul

Abstract. This classroom note describes the lessons I learned from the use of formal debates during the two semesters I taught “Paul and Early Christianity” to undergraduates at a liberal arts college in Ohio. The purpose of the course was primarily to give students the exegetical skills to understand Paul in his own context. The secondary purpose was to help students understand the role that exegetical differences play in different moral and theological uses of Paul. I found that the debates helped students understand the controversial nature of biblical exegesis, to read the course material carefully, to develop clear arguments, and to empathize with different points of view. The debates also entailed certain problems, some of which were hindrances that needed to be corrected. However, some apparent problems actually turned out to be teaching opportunities and even served as their own solutions. Appendices, including the course syllabus and debate questions and readings, can be found at: http://www.wabashcenter.wabash.edu/journal/article2.aspx?id=11362     

Paul Everett Meehl

A brilliant thinker and a gifted teacher, Paul Meehl’s love for and dedication to the philosophy of science did not lead him, as it seems to have led others, to assume that all minds have the same structure and differ only parametrically. One of Meehl’s main interests in the latter part of his career was in taxometric methods for identifying psychological types or taxa. Another taxonomic method seeks traits that are very similar, for genetic reasons, in monozygotic twins, but not in other sib pairs. These emergenic traits may be more common than previously realized. Two examples are briefly discussed.     

Paul Tillich and Psychoanalysis

Paul Tillich (1886–1965) was one of the leading theologians of the twentieth century. Tillich was born in Germany and received his education and first academic appointments there. Tillich left Germany in 1933 to teach at Union Theological Seminary after having been dismissed from his university position by the National Socialist government for his radical views and political associations. In the United States, he became a highly successful lecturer, preacher, and public intellectual who reached numbers of persons who had departed or who had doubts regarding traditional religious belief and practice. Tillich underwent a series of traumatic losses in the early decades of his life that powerfully shaped his subsequent contributions to religious and cultural discourse. This essay outlines this pattern of loss and speculates about its impact upon his theological work. It lifts up Tillich’s perspective of living and working “on the boundary” of disciplines, eras, and cultures, most particularly where psychoanalytic ideas contributed to his “theology of culture.” It also stresses Tillich’s role in initiating the ongoing dialogue between religion and psychiatry and psychoanalysis. The essay concludes with a summary critique of Tillich’s work along with an affirmation of his considerable legacy. This essay was originally a presentation for the Richardson Research Seminar in the History of Psychiatry at Weill Cornell Medical College.     

Flashpoints in Interpreting Paul

In this article, Luther Seminary New Testament scholar Arland Hultgren outlines the unresolved issues of the “New Perspective on Paul”: (1) the question of legalism in pre‐Pauline Judaism; (2) justification by faith; and (3) the use of the objective or subjective genitive in the “pistis Christou Debate.” On the question as to whether Luther got Paul right, Hultgren points out a difficulty, namely, those addressing this question frequently fail to designate precisely what they mean by “Lutheran.”     

The conversion of Paul

This essay extrapolates from recent psychological data on the phenomena of guilt and splitting to possible implications for the understanding of the experience of the Apostle Paul.