The Post-Screening Discussion of A Polite Bribe at SBL 2014

A week ago, I received an email from Robert Orlando, the director and producer of the movie documentary Apostle Paul - A Polite Bribe, informing me that the post-screening discussion between him, Ben Witherington, and Larry Hurtado is up on vimeo for public viewing. At the Society of Biblical Literature meeting in San Diego, there was a showing of the film to the scholarly community (on the evening of Nov. 22nd, 2014). The dialogue which took place afterwards can be found below:


APB Post Screening SD from A Polite Bribe on Vimeo.

   I have not watched all of it yet, but it looks good at first glance. Both Hurtado and Witherington are very judicious and thoughtful scholars, and we also get a glimpse into the motivations and aspirations which spurred Orlando to pursue this project, for the benefit of many. 
   Here is also a link to my own blog review of the film. 

Book edition of the film (with notes!)
available for purchase at amazon

Lastly, in case anyone wished the film had footnotes for where its ideas were originating from, Orlando has published a book version of his thesis through Wipf & Stock Publishers. Click the link above to purchase it through amazon. Enjoy!

Movie Review: Apostle Paul - A Polite Bribe by Robert Orlando

I'm glad that I can get back to blogging. I was taken aback by how busy the 1st week of the Spring 2015 term was and missed already my aim to post regularly at least once a week here. Hopefully, I can get back on track, though I make no promises (note: posting 1x a week was not a new year's resolution!). I am teaching 4 classes this semester, and if I include a co-taught course on Reconciliation, Race and the Corinthian Correspondence with Paul De Neui (North Park's missiologist) in May (a 2-week mission trip to the Equateur province of Congo), that's a whopping 5 courses that I need to prep and teach. Ouch! But I'm all-in and ready to charge out of the gates with gusto as far as human agency, divine help, and prayer can take me. 

Purchase or rent the movie at amazon instant video

A preview/promo of the film can be watched here: 


   That said, I have been meaning to watch and review the recent documentary on the apostle Paul with the provocative title: Apostle Paul - A Polite Bribe (2014). I finally watched this and like it enough that I am currently requiring that my undergraduate Paul course and my seminary New Testament 2 class view the film. Their research project will involve an engagement with Orlando's central thesis on the purposes and motivations of Paul to collect, transport, and deliver an offering to the church in Jerusalem (mentioned explicitly by Paul in 1 Cor 16:1-4; 2 Cor 8:1-9:15; Rom 15:25-32; and likely Gal 2:1-10 though Bruce Longenecker would argue otherwise; and recorded by Luke in Acts 11:27-30 [famine impetus]; 21:17-26 [delivery of the collection]). 
    Orlando, if I did not miss anyone, interviews some 24 different New Testament scholars on the life and mission of Paul, using the Jerusalem collection as a kind of thematic thread to unite the interviews and illustrated narrations (using some impressive comic-motion style graphics) that reconstruct the historical Paul of Acts and his letters. It's a relative who's who of top names in the academy on Pauline studies, including (roughly in order of their 1st appearance): Paul Achtemeier, Ben Witherington, Candida Moss, Bart Ehrman, N.T. Wright, John Dominic Crossan, Jeffrey Bütz, Philip Eisler, Gerd Thiessen, Paula Fredriksen, Pamela Eisenbawn, Larry Hurtado, Neil Elliott, Elaine Pagels, Richard Horsley, Amy-Jill Levine, Robert Jewett, Troels Engberg-Pedersen, Dale Martin, John Reumann, Douglas Campbell, Victor Furnish, Daniel Boyarin and Edgar Krentz. Whew... did I miss anyone?
    Just to hear in person the above scholars offer their expertise on Paul is worth the price of admission. They together represent a wide range of confessional, ecclesial, and ideological commitments which range from conservative evangelical scholars to radical source critics. You get the whole spectrum. But while a range is represented by the choice of interviewees, and while the critical listener can glean from these interviews diverse and competing theories on Paul's missionary enterprises, the interviews themselves have been expertedly edited to promote one central thesis: that Paul's monetary offering functioned as some sort of "bribe" to assuage suspicions from a hard-line faction in Jerusalem (= the Judaizers of Gal 1-2) who did not consider Paul's Gentile churches full converts to Jewish-Christianity. How the offering functioned as a bribe was not clear in the film. Perhaps, Paul hoped that the acceptance of the offering by the Gentile converts by the famine-stricken Jerusalem church would also mean that the Jerusalem church accepted the donors as full members of God's people without the Jewish requirements of circumcision and food law observance. If so, this meant that Paul paid Jerusalem to by-pass the Jewish legal requirements and hence the subtitle, "a polite bribe." 
   However, if one simply reads the key texts in Paul (cited above) where he explains his own motivations for asking the Gentile churches to contribute to the Jersusalem collection, we read that 1) his Gentile churches could have simply wanted to help the poor in Jerusalem who were recovering from a horrible famine (mentioned in Acts 11:27-30) as a sign of their transformed lives and genuine conversion; or 2) the collection demonstrated that there was one church, Jewish and Gentile, united by their common fidelity to one Lord and one gospel, and so the needs of one were the concern and burden of the other; or 3) perhaps Paul saw in the collection an eschatological fulfillment of Isaiah (60:6-7) and other OT prophetic texts (cf. Micah 4:13) that promised a day when Gentiles would bring gifts to Jerusalem as an act of worship and recognition of Israel's one true God. There have been other suggestions by scholars like Klaus Berger that 4) the collection functioned to substitute for the cost of Jewish initiation rites required from Gentile converts to Judaism (a stretch in my opinion). Johannes Munck theorized that 5) Paul wanted the collection to draw Israel's attention to how the influx of Gentile converts into the church and somehow provoke Israel's jealousy and conversion to the gospel (less of a stretch, but still a stretch). This list of possible explanations is not exhaustive either. There could also be a non-competing coalition of several motivations that drive Paul to pursue the collection and deliver it (see Down's The Offering of the Gentiles). But the movie, unfortunately, really focuses on the idea of a polite bribe.
   So in the end, Orlando's thesis is not satisfying, and it creates more questions than answers. But the latter is not a bad result. In fact, his film is a fantastic segue into larger historical issues surrounding Paul and hence my keen interest to show the film in class and let it generate further discussion. 
   A number of other bibliobloggers share my same sentiments and evalution of the film, in varying degrees. Worth reading are the posts by Larry Hurtado, James McGrath, and Richard Fellows. Also check out the interview of Ben Witherington in the Lexington Herald, as well as his video question and answer session after a film viewing. Mark Goodacre posted a pre-showing interview with Orlando on his NT blog as well. 

Post-script 03/11/15: Here is a link to the post-screening discussion which took place over the film at the SBL showing in San Diego on Nov 22, 2014 between the director Robert Orlando, and scholars Larry Hurtado and Ben Witherington. 

Why Missions and Ministry Look like Movements

This post might seem like a complete non-sequitur, but I just came back from seeing the opening debut of the Cesar Chavez movie with my Ethnic American Biblical Interpretation class. Wow! What a powerful movie! In my EABI class, we just finished reading through Gonzalez's Mexicanos: A History of Mexicans in the United States (2009) which has a short chapter on the Cesar Chavez and the Mexican American struggle to unionize for fair wages in California's grape industry. And while I understand that Hollywood probably exercised some artistic license, nevertheless this film powerfully dramaticizes the kind of perseverance and sacrifice that is required for social change. I want to bring my sons to see this film. 

Image Credit: Lionsgate Films

If I might offer a few brief reflections about the movie, I would highlight 3 comparisons one can make between the farmer workers labor movement lead by Chavez and the call to Christian missions/ministry. 

   First, compassion. The film starts by Chavez quitting his previous position with the CSO (Community Service Organization) to live among Latino/a American farm workers, work with them in their back-breaking conditions, and encourage them to seek more for their families than the camp-like conditions in which they lived.  We can't share the gospel unless we walk with people in their sufferings.

   Second, sacrifice, fasting, proclamation, unity, courage, and creative wisdom are stronger weapons in the war against evil than violence. Here I would say: watch the film! See the kind of sacrifices that Chavez made, even straining his relationships with his wife and children (especially with his eldest son), his 25-day fast (and as a Christian, it's not enough to starve but I would add that prayer must accompany fasting), and his perseverance through some major disappointments over a long, painful 5-year strike. When you do, it is quite a challenge to the church to exercise the same moral courage and even go beyond this. Fear paralyzes, but faith can overcome fear.

   Third, humility. Every leader needs to be able to take corporate responsibility for what his group or church does. There is a climatic moment in the film when Chavez addresses his closest followers and makes this confession: "I failed you as a leader." On the heels when some of his closest followers let the rage get the best of them and they resorted to violence, Chavez felt responsibility for what they did. Pastors need to be able to say: "I failed you" when our congregation sins, but also encourage them: "But let's repent together." 

    Cesar Chavez was not a perfect person in any sense of the word, nor does the film try to portray him as one. His very real broken relationship with his eldest son makes it all so clear how fragile human beings can be. But I don't think any missionary or pastor can ignore the moment (and the knife in one's heart) when Chavez's son shows how angry he is over his father's unavailability and absence. Chavez was just so busy with the mission at hand, he could not help his son when Fernando was viciously bullied at school for his father's work. Ministry, like movements, involves putting our families through tough situations. We see them suffer at times because of our callings. This film brings out vividly some of those moments. It made me theologically reflect on my call to ministry and ask what sacrifices I and my family have had to go through so we can all be faithful to the Lord and his people. 

    Hope you have a chance to see the film! It's well worth the effort to catch it in its limited engagement at the theaters.