I was doing some reading tonight when I came across this quote from Tom Wright:
I am forced to conclude that there is a substantial swathe of contemporary evangelicalism which actually doesn't know what the gospels themselves are there for, and would rather elevate "Paul" (inverted commas, because it is their reading of Paul, rather than the real thing, that they elevate) and treat Matthew. Mark, Luke and John as mere repositories of Jesus' stories from which certain doctrinal and theological nuggets may be collected.
I think he is dead on with this. It took me back to a conversation we had while we were in the Bahamas for Soularize. His statement at that time was that for a substantial section of evangelicalism "Paul" is where we go for the "Gospel," while the Gospels themselves are simply the stories about Jesus. It was as if the writings of Paul were the real theological substance, while the Gospels were somehow lesser in theological stature. What Wright was inviting us into to was nothing less than a re-discovery of what the Gospels are - beautifully crafted representations of the message of the Kingdom, proclamations of what the "Gospel" of God is and looks like.
Could not agree more.
What would our Christian faith look like if it were shaped as much by the Gospels as it is by the writings of Paul?