Was Paul an abrasive preacher or filled with compassion?
 

I recently heard someone characterize Paul as saying this, "Paul just got on with the business and told those women to shut-up! He didn't mince words."

I suppose they are referring to "Women keeping silent in the church", but it made me think, as I've heard many say, that Jesus and Paul were more caustic and "in your face" than I have ever perceived them to be.

When I am in prayer and the Lord speaks to me He never has come across as anything but gentle and loving, even when he is correcting me.

I remember one instance when I was working in sales. The girl at the front desk would play up to whoever she was currently speaking to. She was trying to draw me into her drama. I felt sorry for her. When I went to lunch, and that was usually my prayer time, the Lord brought this scripture to me: II Timothy 2:4 "No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life; that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier."

A very gentle reminder and a wonderful time in prayer.

I read Paul's works and see the loving passion that Paul sets out before he begins to admonish the saints. In the middle of some of the chapters (ex. Ephesians 3:8) he puts himself in their shoes careful not to show the preeminence.

He first builds up their faith by acknowledging they are accepted in Christ. He points out that it is not with excellency of speech that he presents what he has to say and then goes on to show them a better way.

I never have perceived Paul as being an angry person.

What say you?

Not abrasive ... he seems to me to be the quintessential Christian ... very meek and temperate ...

Was he assertive? ... you bet ...

Yeah, he was both.

I agree. Very assertive and his boldness came with his compassion and understanding. I see him passionately directing and not pointing fingers in an angry way. Building up and not tearing down.

Making them feel confident that they were well able to progress in Jesus Christ.

without a doubt paul was powerful and passionate not of himself but the spirit that dwelt in him, not abrasive but loving and kind like his lord, at the same time mentoring the new ones and leading the lost to the cross, i dont think he was mean, at all , and was a very wise man so would not have been offensive to others, but kind and gentle in proper perspective to lead them to Jesus, just my own thoughts, dt:hypercoffee

I totally agree, DT! Excellent post!

Our son preaches in another state and on a visit mentioned how "in your face" Paul was. I understood his mindset because I knew the leadership he had come from.

I said, "No, read it again. Go off all alone and read it again."

Paul thought of himself as a father-type figure and a servant to the children of God. He instructed us to pray for those with faults and weaknesses with meekness and set forth Christ as our example. But he wasn't a pushover to our enemy.

Paul? meek? temperate?


uhm. i dont know if I agree.

Boy, I must be in left field.

I see paul as pretty self assured and abrasive. He got run out of town a number of times. He got in a knock down drag out with Peter and the jewish christians that had to be settled by arbitration.

he ended up in such a rift with Barnabus that they went differnet directions.

he called John Mark a mamas boy.

He is also responsible for changing the course of Western Civilization.

Paul was neither Meek nor Gentle. Paul was in my estimation a guy so confident that he was right, that he would stand at nothing to achieve his goal. He was put off by those that were not as committed as himself, he hated hypocracy (especially in the ministry) but he also subjected himself to his leadership and he was full of compassion for a lost and dying world.

i agree that all of us have our own perceptions of Paul but the fact is we dont have enough of the specific details to know how all of this transpired and was handled, what ever his temperament, he was a powerful man of the spirit, who had great passion for the work of god, dt:hypercoffee

I agree. There are too many instances when he presented his life as being, "chief among sinners."

He couldn't have, IMHO, come across as abrasive and still be effective.

I don't read him that way at all. I don't believe that would have washed for many people. It doesn't do it today and I don't think human mindset has changed that much.

If you are forgiven you can't come across pounding other people. It just doesn't work.

Good post. I agree. Confident in who he was and what he believed. Passionate with a mission.

The writings we have are abbreviations of the full depth of Paul's personality. In the content of a letter, one makes an effort to be concise. In the content of oration, one makes an effort to be fully understood by trying different allegories, using facial expressions, and answering questions. There is better translation of full meaning when the communicator is in the presence of his intended audience.

Short version: We can't say for sure, 'cause we ain't heard 'im preach!

Could it be that they way Paul is seen is the way we wish he was and it really represents what we are?

If you want to justify being abrasive then Paul was a tough ole mean, hard nosed preacher....

If you want to justify being super gracious then Paul was a sweet mild mannered, easy speaking preacher.....

It could just be that he was abrasive and gruff when it was called for and sweet and lovingly father like when that was called for.........

Different circumstances and audiences call for different methods of communication. Jesus did not condemn sinners, yet he smacked the "Churched" that where out of line when it was needed even to the point of calling them snakes and taking a whip to some.

I think you make some good points. I don't think we want him to be viewed any "one" way and give room for both.

I personally view him as I do my relationship with Jesus Christ. As the Lord has never come against me in a harsh manner I can't suspect Paul to be that way.

But, I know that there are some people that benefit from a strong hand and seem to need it at times.

One person told me that God has spoken to him harshly in prayer. He is a pretty harsh person and so I didn't know what to make of it.

I think we have some pretty good information on the exchange between Paul and Barnabus over John Mark....


we also know that Paul called for John Mark at the end of his life, so clearly Paul changed.


We also agree that Paul, what ever he was, changed the course of history. More so than any other person that ever lived if you ask me.

Bishop SC Johnson built the largest Oneness Apostolic Holiness church in existance while he was alive and he was quite abrasive.

Excelent point! and really the heart of the matter. I am sure Paul was all of these things.

So Paul was more "Gen Patton" then "Mr. Smith" (Jimmy Stewart).

I think there is a difference in being anointed and bold and just being rude and impatient. We wouldn't be telling the truth if we didn't say we have experienced both.

I love anointed preaching and ministry when you can feel His Spirit confirming his Word and the words spoken, but when you get the rude cuts just to make a point and it falls flat - it's just not good.

I guess what I am trying to say is we can't paint Paul in a total frame as "abrasive". If we do that it gives and has given men an women the idea that they don't have to handle the sheep in any other way than as a "cowboy" and not a "shepherd".

I'm sure he didn't curse like Gen. Patton. :killinme

I agree that we cant paint with too broad a brush, but that cuts both ways. being too soft leads to nothing. Pauls fights were not with sinners he was trying to win. Pauls conflicts were with others in the ministry who were acting in a way he felt was dammaging to the flock. He also didnt pull any punches when confronting sin in the church.

I agree with you. We can't paint a broad brush either way.

I don't think he pulled any punches with the church. I believe as in I Timothy 1:15 and Ephesians 3:8 he always reminded the church that he remembered where he came from.

Philippians 1:8 "bowels" meaning "pity, sympathy, inward affection".

They could take what he had to say because he had prevailing love toward them and mentioned it often.

Maybe sometimes he was abrasive when necessary and sometimes he was compassionate when necessary. Why does everything have to be one thing or another?

Prax there were times when he was more abrasive than necessary.

Paul, like the rest of us, was flawed.

It doesn't and shouldn't be one way or the other. I've been given the impression that it is one way - abrasive and I just don't agree.

I'm venting and don't plan on going into any detail. Just heard it through the years and a comment made the other day just made me want to put it to question.

I think it's in the eyes of the reader. When I heard that comment made many years ago along the lines of justifying an abrasive way of preaching because of how Jesus handled the moneychangers, and incidentally I now term that "The Moneychangers Syndrome" (:D), I sat down and slowly read through what Paul wrote.

It was a very spiritual experience. I felt his deep, loving passion for God's people, strength in his God, power in his confidence and can never see him in any other light.

After he was found "haling/dragging" men and women into prison, I imagine he softened after he heard, "I am Jesus whom thou persecutest."

He could never be the same. I can't see him, after that incident, being an abrasive man at heart.

There are too many scriptures where he humbles himself to the church and confesses his love and welfare for them.

I can only sharte one verse from Bro Paul.

1Co 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
:hypercoffee

The story of Jesus and the money changers is very interesting. The bible says he sat down and made a whip. in other words he considerd deeply what he would say and do. it was not an off the cuff event.

Paul however, clearly went too far with Barnabus over John Mark. we see at the end of Pauls life a clear change. He said "send John Mark to me for he is profitable to me" clearly Paul softened with time.

Understanding Paul requires understanding that the epistles and the book of Acts span his lifetime. it takes a few hours to read it. but he lived it for a very long time. we can forget that.

What Paul was in the beginning was wreckless. what he was at the end of his life, was quite different.

This is the reason, I still belive that Pauls thorn was his own personality.

An AMEN to that.

Might ask Elimas or the woman with the spirit of divination?

"As also saith the law". I never noticed that before. The law is done away!!!

I preach now?

:killinme:killinme

I had something in mind a week or two ago about Paul's thorn and now I've forgotten it.

I believe all new pastors are wreckless and then they get some sense, er, I mean experience. :killinme

I think most pastors get wisdom beat into them.

You funny lady! You talk funny too!:hypercoffee

I think every man's thorn now is his wife!:hypercoffee

If I was a betting woman! I knew you would arrive!!! :killinme

Elymas - taking hold of a devil - with authority.

Woman with spirit of divination - talking hold of a devil - with authority.

Good example, but his authority here is different than what I was talking about. It's a conversation condoning........ I think this might turn into an argument.

I'm just going to drop it. It doesn't really matter anyway.

Funny, funny. I can guarantee that I am not a thorn to my husband. He needs me. :D Well, at least to pick out his ties. He's colorblind. Tomorrow - 20 years!

Paul was like the rest of us...just human! I think he was straight forward but had a gentle heart. He was caught between two worlds..the Jews and the Gentiles...the ending of the law the beginning of grace...
I can't even imagine how hard it must have been for him...

Amen and we think it's hard to start and build a church! I couldn't imagine the confusion it all entailed!