True to our native land, p.66
True to Our Native Land, page 66
This passage seems to suggest that reconciliation is only for those who were once close but are now alienated. It does not appear that Paul encourages reconciliation between those who are considered enemies. Reconciliation, however, is meant to be experienced by all. Paul expressed this in his letter to the Romans by writing, “Christ died for the ungodly. Indeed, rarely will anyone die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person someone might actually dare to die. But God proves God’s love for us in that while we still were sinners, Christ died for us” (Rom 5:6–8). Even earlier in this letter, Paul declared, “In Christ God was reconciling the world to himself.” I would hope that even our most ardent enemies are considered part of “the world.” It is this divergence in view regarding reconciliation that causes some interpreters to argue that this “interruption” represent a non-Pauline addition. I think the divergence, however, simply represents the human capacity to engage in hypocrisy. Paul was not exempt from engaging in moments of hypocrisy. While Paul attempted to introduce a new way of thinking about Jewish and Gentile relationships and of understanding observances of Jewish laws, customs, and traditions based upon a divine encounter with Jesus that he claims to have experienced, he vehemently cursed and condemned any use of divine encounters to challenge his teachings (see Gal 1:6–9). Paul is also not the only New Testament author to engage in such hypocrisy. The author of the Gospel of Matthew depicts Jesus saying, “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” and “Do not judge, so that you may not be judged” (Matt 5:44; 7:1). However, when the author deals with his enemies—the Pharisees—he depicts Jesus cursing, judging, and condemning them (Matt 23:13–36), and, like Paul, the author does not seem to be bothered by this apparent contradiction.
Because we are imperfect human beings, even the best of us (including biblical writers) fall short and are incapable of getting it right all the time (or maybe even most of the time). We have moments when we recognize and acknowledge that God is the God of all people, but we also have moments when we deny that reality through acts and words of racism, sexism, classism, xenophobia, homophobia, etc. Unfortunately, like our biblical predecessors, we often abandon a ministry of reconciliation for all in favor of a ministry of condemnation, and even though we profess belief that God is the God of all people, we still at times use God to legitimate the rejection and renunciation of reconciliation with all people—especially those with whom we strongly disagree or consider to be enemies.
7:4–16, Corinthian Repentance
After rejecting his opponents, Paul expresses joy over the Corinthians’ repentance of their rejection of him. Paul reveals that repentance is not simply a one-time act that takes place as a prerequisite for becoming a Christian. Even followers of Jesus get it wrong sometime and need to repent. Paul also reveals, however, that it is usually easier for us to see where others may have it wrong and need to repent than it is to see where we may have it wrong and need to repent. Paul rejoiced over the Corinthians’ reconciliation with him while at the same time promoting the Corinthians’ rejection of and alienation from Paul’s opponents. Paul, however, apparently saw no reason to repent of his conduct.17
In this section, Paul resumes the conversation he began in 1:15–2:13. Paul was unable to take advantage of a ministerial opportunity in Troas because of his anxiety regarding the Corinthians’ response to his letter scolding them for the mistreatment he received during his last visit to Corinth. Titus, however, brought Paul the “good news” that the Corinthians were remorseful and had reaffirmed their loyalty to him.
Paul once again associates salvation with reconciliation (see the comments on 6:1–10). He suggests that the Corinthians’ salvation was tied to their reconciliation with and loyalty to him. Paul informed the Corinthians that the real issue in Corinth transcended both the individual who had offended him and Paul’s own personal feelings. According to Paul, the Corinthians’ very salvation was at stake because their salvation was based on their relationship with him. To reject Paul was to reject God. By reaffirming their loyalty to Paul, the Corinthians reaffirmed their loyalty to God and proved themselves guiltless in the matter.
While it may be difficult for many Christians to find fault with or criticize the apostle Paul, it is important to remember that Paul is not God. Obedience to Paul is not the same thing as obedience to God. All Christians—especially African American Christians—should reject the notion that loyalty to a minister is identical to loyalty to God, and all ministers should avoid making such claims, no matter how strongly they may feel about the righteousness of their position. Throughout the history of Christianity, ministers who supported enslavement sought to convince enslaved Christians that obedience to their enslaver was the same thing as obedience to God (cf. Eph 6:5–8; Col 3:22–24; 1 Tim 6:1–2; Titus 2:9–10; 1 Pet 2:18–22). No matter the intent or sincerity of a minister, all claims that loyalty to a minister is synonymous with loyalty to God are ultimately made in order to force submission and subordination. Such claims blatantly contradict the assertion, “where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom” (2 Cor 4:17).
8:1–9:15, The Collection for Jerusalem
In this section, Paul makes an appeal for a collection on behalf of poorer Christians in Jerusalem. According to a separate letter, during an earlier meeting between himself and the leaders of the Jerusalem church, James, Cephas (Peter), and John agreed to Paul’s mission to the Gentiles and asked only that he “remember the poor,” which he claimed he was eager to do (Gal 2:1–10). The Jerusalem collection most likely was intended not only to meet the economic needs of Christians in Jerusalem but also to demonstrate unity between Jewish and Gentile Christians.
8:1–15, The Ministry of Giving
Paul previously instructed the Corinthians to put aside money every first day of the week, probably from offerings collected when they gathered to worship. The money was to assist poorer Christians in Jerusalem. Paul planned to collect the money and take it to Jerusalem (1 Cor 16:1–4). For some reason, however, the Corinthians had not completed the collection. Since Paul explicitly addresses his apostolic opponents immediately after discussing the collection, it may be that the Corinthians failed to complete the collection for the Jerusalem church because Paul’s opponents raised questions about his authority and held suspicions about his motives and integrity (12:14–18). Paul, however, asserts that it was his opponents who had taken advantage of the Corinthians by requiring the Corinthians to support them (11:7–12, 19–21a). As a result of the reconciliation that took place between the Corinthians and Paul, Titus was able to revive the Corinthians’ commitment to the collection.
Interestingly, Paul frequently referred to the Corinthians’ offering with the Greek term charis (grace). The financial support of Christians on behalf of poorer brothers and sisters is an act of grace analogous to the grace that God extends to us all.
Paul depicts giving as a ministry, not simply an act of charity. The idea of giving as a ministry is important because ministry is an ongoing way of living, not a one-time event. The ministry of giving is an act of solidarity, not an act of charity. Through the ministry of giving, we enter into solidarity with those in need. We acknowledge that those in need are our brothers and sisters and that we join with them in the effort to overcome their needs.
At the heart of solidarity is the notion of justice. Therefore, the ministry of giving is about justice, not charity. American Christians tend to understand giving as charity rather than justice. Many (if not most) Americans are better at charity than at justice. The response of Americans to national and international tragedy demonstrates the willingness of Americans to sacrifice for the sake of charity, but the huge and insurmountable chasm between the haves and the have-nots within the country demonstrates the reluctance of Americans to sacrifice for the sake of justice.18
National tragedies often reveal social injustices. For some in America, Hurricane Katrina was a shocking revelation, but for others, it was a tragic reminder of what it means to be poor and Black in America. Hurricane Katrina pulled back the veil of a divided America and exposed the sinful truth regarding how many of the historical and ongoing social policies of this country promote and foster race-based injustices and inequities. In response to the hurricane, there was a large outpouring of charity, but not as large an outpouring of justice. Hurricane Katrina provided America with an opportunity to engage in a “ministry of giving,” but America responded primarily with acts of charity. Although providing billions in so-called relief efforts, the government tried to recoup that generosity by proposing a federal budget that cut nearly a trillion dollars from vital social programs designed to protect and empower the people most ravaged by Hurricane Katrina—further promoting and perpetuating the very injustice revealed by Katrina.19 Similar racialized economic inequities were revealed when examining the impact COVID-19 had on different communities.20 As with Hurricane Katrina, however, there was a larger outpouring of charity than of justice when responding to these inequities.21
Since giving is ministry, it fulfills a divine purpose. That purpose is the establishment of equity between those who have and those in need. Equity and justice are partners—inseparable soul mates—and they represent the will and purpose of God.
Another important point that Paul makes is that the ministry of giving does not seek to impoverish one in order to enrich another. Often those who are unable to give are made to feel guilty or even shamed into giving that which they do not have. With equity, however, those who are financially able to give are compelled to make sacrifices and deny themselves in order to promote and establish equity between those who have and those who are in need.
Economic values are predominant in American society, so that much—if not most—of the discrimination suffered by African Americans has been economic, beginning with chattel enslavement. The Black church has and will continue to play an important role in the economic situation of Black communities. While most Black churches are by no means wealthy institutions, Black churches are significant economic institutions within the community, with combined annual revenue that runs into multiple billions of dollars.22 The bulk of that revenue results from the giving of church members. Through the ministry of giving, the Black church must continue to lead the way in the establishment of economic justice and equity for those who are part of the Black underclass in America.
8:16–24, Commendation of Titus and Others
Paul places some distance between himself and the actual gathering and transporting of the money. To the Corinthians, he commends Titus and two other brothers who will bear most of the responsibility for gathering and taking the money to Jerusalem. One of the brothers, who is famous for his preaching, is actually “appointed by the churches”—probably the churches in Jerusalem—to oversee the gathering and delivering of the money to Jerusalem. Paul and others want to avoid any possibility or appearance of financial impropriety and want to assure the Corinthians and possibly the Christians in Jerusalem that the money will only be used to help promote God’s purpose of equity. The misuse of congregational collections for personal gain by ministerial leaders is one of the greatest hindrances to the ministry of giving.
9:1–5, Advance Preparation for the Collection
Paul perceives that his reputation and honor are tied to the Corinthians’ collection. If the Corinthians do not provide a decent collection for the ministry to fellow believers in Jerusalem, it will reflect negatively on Paul as a minister and leader of the church. A weak offering in Corinth might also negatively affect offerings collected by Paul in Macedonia. To ensure that he and the Corinthians are not embarrassed when he arrives with his entourage from Macedonia, Paul sends Titus and the other brothers to Corinth to make sure the collection is impressive and ready for Paul’s arrival.
Although Paul emphasizes that the collection is voluntary and highlights that giving is a ministry that seeks to establish equity (see the comments on 8:1–16), he also appeals to the Corinthians’ sense of pride in an attempt to shame them into giving generously. Surely the Corinthians do not want to be embarrassed in the presence of the Macedonians, who are poorer than the Corinthians yet who are abundantly generous in their giving and faithful in their loyalty to Paul (cf. 8:1–5).
Strategies or gimmicks that promote “healthy competition” are often employed in congregations as techniques for raising money. Churches will promote “Men’s Day” and “Women’s Day” services as ways of raising money and fostering competition between men and women in the congregation. Churches will have services recognizing church auxiliaries (e.g., “Usher’s Day” and “Missionary Society Day”) as ways of raising money and fostering competition. Many in the church endorse such strategies, and many oppose them. The merit and/or integrity of such strategies will not be debated here. However, when “ministry” is the purpose of giving, then a Christian commitment to raising money for meeting needs rather than simply enriching the church and bolstering egos would seem to be far more in keeping with “what is right . . . before the Lord” (8:21).
9:6–15, The Rewards of Generosity
At the heart of Paul’s appeal for the Corinthians’ generous giving is the widely accepted notion that “you reap what you sow.” African Americans have long associated making sacrifices with sowing seeds, and they have understood that great sacrifices ultimately result in a great harvest. At the end of the march from Selma’s bloody Edmund Pettus Bridge to Montgomery’s state capitol in 1965, the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. encouraged the people by saying,
I know some of you are asking today,
“How long will it take?” I come to say to you this afternoon, however difficult the moment, however frustrating the hour, it will not be long, because truth pressed to earth will rise again.
How long? Not long, because no lie can live forever.
How long? Not long, because you still reap what you sow.
How long? Not long, because the arm of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice.23
God is a just God, and ultimately the seeds of sacrifice sown for the sake of justice will result in a corresponding harvest of justice.
Black Sowing . . . Black Harvest
Commenting about the responsibility of African American Christians, James M. Shopshire writes, “If African Americans fail to garner the resources of their strongest institutions, develop internal structures and relations for humane and just purposes, and work from their strengths to participate in the economic, political and cultural structures of this nation, the continent of Africa and the world, it will not otherwise happen. As a result, black folks will remain on the bottom rather than approaching par with other racial-ethnic groups in the global economy as equals before God and among the groups of humankind.”
—James M. Shopshire, “The Bible as Informant and Reflector in Social-Structural Relationships of African Americans,” in African Americans and the Bible: Sacred Texts and Social Textures, ed. Vincent L. Wimbush (New York: Continuum, 2001), 133.
Contrary to the idea that wealth is inherently evil, Paul presents a positive attitude toward possessions. When God provides one with wealth, God does so in order that the wealth may be shared. God multiplies one’s wealth (i.e., “seed”) not so that it may be held on to but so that it may be sown to benefit others (cf. Luke 12:16–21). “Sowing” and “reaping” are both about ministry to others, not personal gain. Promoters of the “prosperity gospel” and “Word of Faith” movement often talk about “seeding,” “seed faith offerings,” and “hundred-fold returns.”24 A seed faith offering is money given in faith that God will multiply and return to the giver. In this theology, giving is simply so that the giver can receive more in return. The more money you give—and the more faith you have—the more money you get in return. I was a student at Oral Roberts University in the late 1980s. The late Oral Roberts was highly influential in spreading the concept of “seed-faith” offerings, and he taught people to expect a miracle when they sow a “seed” from their “need.” Seed-faith teachers advocate a selfish motive for giving—give so that you can receive. Paul here, however, teaches that we give for the sake of benefiting those in need and glorifying the Lord, not to enrich ourselves (or self-serving preachers). Ministry and service, not self-gain, should always be the focus of giving. As the most significant Black-owned financial institution within the Black community, Black churches have a responsibility to sow wealth (seed) into the Black underclass not only in America but in Africa and throughout the world. This ministry of sowing results not only in a reward for the sower but also in a harvest of blessed, grateful, and empowered individuals thankful to God and working on behalf of others because of the grace and generosity of God manifested through God’s people.
10:1—13:13, Paul’s Condemnation of His Opponents
There are several obvious differences and conflicts between chaps. 1–9 and chaps. 10–13. While Paul alludes to his opponents in chaps. 1–9 (2:17; 3:1; 4:2, 5; 6:14–17), in chaps. 10–13 Paul engages in an outright attack on his opponents. Although chaps. 1–9 reveal that there are difficulties and tension in the relationship between Paul and the Corinthians, these chapters depict a reconciled Paul and Corinthian community (cf. 7:2–16). Chaps. 10–13, however, portray an alienated Paul from the Corinthian community. Unlike the conciliatory tone found in chaps. 1–9, the tone of chaps. 10–13 is harsh and sarcastic. Paul is on the defensive, criticizing the Corinthians and attacking his opponents. Chaps. 1–9 suggest that at the time of composition, Titus had only visited Corinth once (cf. 7:4–16). Chaps. 10–13, however, indicate that Titus had already made a second visit to collect the Jerusalem offering (12:14–18; cf. 8:16–19). These differences suggest that chaps. 1–9 and chaps. 10–13 represent separate letters that were later combined to form one letter. Chaps. 10–13 indicate that Paul planned to arrive in Corinth for a third visit and that he was writing in anticipation of that visit (12:14; 13:1, 10).
