When I went to school… 

our study of Australian history began with the story of the discovery of this land by Captain Cook;

that was followed by the story of the first settlers… 

who arrived at Botany Bay with Governor Philip;

then the stories of the daring and courageous explorers who set out––

throughout the length and breadth of this land––

opening up new places to settle…

discovering wonderful new plants and animals…

and untold riches to be exploited.

Of course, that’s not the real story, nor is it the whole story.

Captain Cook wasn’t the first European to “discover” this land.

And yet, the very notion of “discovery” presupposes a Eurocentric perspective…

and ignores the fact that the Aboriginal peoples were already here.

But then, the version of Australian history that I was taught totally ignored the Aboriginal people––

their history…

and what happened to them after colonisation.

We certainly weren’t told stories of massacres and dispossession…

of cultural suppression…

or of the forced removal of children from their families—

what we now know as “the stolen generations”.

All of that has now changed.

In fact, there are some historians––

labelling this the “black-arm band view of history”––

who claim that the pendulum has swung too far the other way;

who excuse and downplay the level of violence and injustice;

who claim that it’s a distortion.

Their perspective has, in turn, been criticised and critiqued––

labelled the “white blindfold view of history”.

These so-called “History Wars” in Australia have been fought for some time now…

through duelling publications and newspaper opinion pieces…

with support from various politicians and radio personalities…

and it shows no real sign of abating.

It may not be a life and death struggle…

but it is a critical one.

After all, history is never the simple recording of facts.

It’s always written from a certain perspective and from a certain bias…

both in terms of what’s included and what isn’t…

and in the way that the narrative is constructed.

And the story that it tells conveys and embodies a sense of power.

That’s what stories do.

They shape our consciousness, our values, and our aspirations.

They inspire us.

They motivate us.

We all know the power of stories––

but we don’t always think of stories as power.

Stories in general––

and the writing of history in particular––

are attempts to persuade us…

so that we might adopt the author’s way of seeing things.

 

The writings of the New Testament are no different.

The stories that they tell are written from a certain perspective and bias…

and written with a certain agenda.

Sometimes subtly––

sometimes not so subtly––

they are attempts to persuade us to adopt the author’s viewpoint and worldview.

And that’s particularly the case with the letters––

and especially with the so-called “First letter of Paul to Timothy”.

This letter was neither written by Paul nor written to Timothy.

In fact, it probably originates anywhere up to fifty years after Paul’s death…

at a time when Paul had ceased to be the contentious figure that he was during his lifetime…

and had become a revered figure of the past.

Now, today, we would see that as dishonest…

but they didn’t in the ancient world.

For them, it was a mark of respect.

But it was also an attempt to stake a claim.

The author assumes the literary persona of Paul because he believes that he stands in Paul’s succession…

and he’s wanting to claim Paul’s authority for himself––

especially because he’s involved in conflict with other Christian leaders…

with whose views he disagrees.

Or, to put it the other way, he’s in conflict with others whose views disagree with his.

The letter, then, is an exercise in power––

it’s an attempt to stake a claim that he is the true interpreter of Paul, not them;

that he knows the truth, not them;

that he ought to be trusted, not them.

 

In a way, that’s not so different from what many Christians––

and especially Christian leaders––

do today.

They may not adopt a literary persona as this author did…

but there are many who claim––

indeed, who simply assume–– 

that their interpretation of the Bible and their belief-set…

is THE truth…

the whole truth…

and the only truth.

And since their version of Christianity is the only true one…

if you don’t subscribe to their worldview…

to their interpretation of the Bible… 

and to their beliefs…

then you don’t “believe in the Bible” and you aren’t a “true Christian”.

Indeed, such people are wont to condemn to eternal damnation…

anyone who doesn’t see things like they do.

 

Unfortunately, the author of First Timothy is no different.

He presumes that he has a monopoly on the truth to the extent that–– 

elsewhere in the letter––

he describes his opponents as “ignorant”.

And here, in our reading this morning, he reconstructs Paul’s biography––

claiming that his former persecution of the early Jesus movement was based on “ignorance and unbelief”.

Now, that’s something that Paul never says of himself––

let alone that he had been a “blasphemer”;

or “a man of violence”.

But now, this persona claims that Christ had saved him from that ignorance and unbelief…

so that he might have “eternal life”.

In other words, the author is asserting that his opponents are not just ignorant…

but that they are destined for eternal damnation…

unless they, like the pre-Christian Paul, undergo a radical conversion…

and adopt the author’s way of thinking.

This is a blatant exercise in power and, dare I say, in spiritual abuse.

 

Worse than that, however, it also involves a grave distortion.

The author creatively reconstructed Paul’s biography to suit his purposes.

And yet, the author doesn’t just present a skewed history…

ultimately, he also presents a skewed theology.

After presenting Paul as someone who had been a “blasphemer, a persecutor, and a man of violence”…

he claims “I received mercy because I had acted ignorantly in unbelief”.

Unlike the author’s opponents––

whom he infers are deliberately ignorant and wantonly disbelieving––

Paul’s ignorance and unbelief was, somehow, innocent.

It stemmed more from misguidedness than wantonness.

But, more than that, he asserts that Paul only received mercy because he was misguided…

rather than deliberate or wanton. 

There’s a sense that Paul was not culpable in the way that these opponents are.

Effectively, what the author of First Timothy has done… 

is to make God’s love, acceptance, and mercy conditional.

Effectively, what the author of First Timothy has done… 

is to water down the radicalness of God’s grace.

No longer is it unreservedly and undeservedly given.

Grace, for this author, is dependent.

In seeking to speak in Paul’s name…

he has, in effect, distorted and subverted Paul’s message.

 

Does that not remain a danger for us, today?

Let’s be honest… 

don’t we all struggle with the radicalness of grace?

Don’t we all try to add conditions?

Don’t we all, in some way, think that those who don’t share our interpretations… 

traditions…

beliefs…

and practices…

aren’t really “true Christians”––

whether we’re fundamentalist or liberal…

conservative or progressive?

 

But the truth of the gospel––

even if we, and the author of First Timothy, struggle to get it––

is that all are “valued, loved, accepted, prized”.

Period!