In addressing the question of our traditional evangelical emphasis on the writings of Paul Barth would probably say that we don't emphasize the true Paul enough. Barth would remind us that Paul's qualitative distinction between God and man, between the righteousness of God and the sinfulness of man, is not sufficiently appreciated. He would remind us of the utter futility of religion in its attempt to reach or please God. But the Pauline interpretation of the evangelical community neglects these principles and turns Paul on his head by making faith a work that "cooperates" with the saving grace of God. The "otherness" of God is lost in today's rush to a practical religion that "meets the needs" of the saints and provides a safe transport to heaven.

My point is that the emphasis in the evangelical community on the writings of Paul is appropriate for the sake of continuity with the earliest church but inappropriate in its misinterpretation of his writings. In Paul we find the death of religion's power (Philippians 3) in the power of the resurrected Jesus. The crucified and resurrected Jesus spells the end of religion's efficacy. The question remains: if religion's power has been dethroned what communal form should it take? This is the question today's church must struggle to address. Religion quickly becomes its own end with doctrine and polity shaped to perpetuate its existence and the apparent flourishing of its existence (superchurches) becomes the validation of its approach.