Discussion Jumpstarter
Study leader reference - not a definitive answer
Question 2
In the “apples and oranges” comparison, the speaker contrasts multi-generational Anabaptist stability with Corinth as a brand-new pagan church plant with no New Testament, no literature, no bishops/deacons, and “prophets” leading; how should that historical reality reshape the way we read Paul’s rebukes in 1 Corinthians—and reshape the way we judge messy young churches today?
Another way to ask: How should it change the way we read 1 Corinthians if we remember Corinth was a brand-new church with little teaching and no established leaders? How should that change how we judge messy, young churches today?
Discussion Jumpstarter
Direct Answer
The transcript suggests Paul’s rebukes in 1 Corinthians should be read with realism and mercy: Corinth’s problems happened in a fragile, new pagan church plant, so we should be slower to feel superior and quicker to help messy young churches with patient correction.
- He says comparing Corinth to stable churches is “apples and oranges,” calling us “the orange” and Corinth “the apple.”
- Unlike multi-generational Mennonite/Amish churches, Corinth’s members “grew up pagan,” with pagan parents and grandparents.
- Corinth was a “new church plant”; Paul stayed “18 months,” then left; Apollos may have been there briefly; then “they were on their own.”
- They had “no New Testament,” “no Christian literature,” and “no bishops or deacons”; instead, “you have prophets there.”
- He argues it’s unrealistic to expect a letter saying “everything is going perfect…no issues.” “Of course, they had problems.”