Who would want the apostle Paul as a pastor?

“How would the apostle Paul fare if he were to seek pastoral employment among evangelicals today?” (David Wells). That is an interesting question. I've summarized Wells' answer as follows.

Many would be offended by his personality. He wasn’t known for his charisma. He wasn’t very engaging. He wasn’t primarily concerned about making friends or building relationships. He wasn’t accepting of everyone. By today’s standards, his personality would be seen as an obstacle to creating a comfortable, friendly, welcoming environment.

Many would be scandalized by his insistence on church discipline. He was in the habit of confronting and rebuking people. He viewed it as necessary. He handed people over to Satan, if they refused to repent. By today’s standards, his insistence on doctrinal fidelity and moral purity would be seen as unloving. He would be dismissed as harsh and judgmental.

Many would be insulted by his refusal to grant the legitimacy of each person’s private views. He insisted that truth is given objectively in Christ, not subjectively through private intuition. He was committed to Scripture, not a voice in the back of his head. In a sea of relativism, he proclaimed God’s Word. By today’s standards, his commitment to absolute truth would be seen as intolerant and arrogant. He would seem pathetically out of touch.

Many would be confused by his preaching. He never told stories. His preaching was never inspirational. He never gave practical “how-to” seminars. He preached sermons that lasted more than 20 minutes. He continually related NT faith to OT promises. As a matter of fact, the OT provided the framework for his preaching. He wasn’t guided by the latest headlines, latest philosophies, latest trends, or latest world events. By today’s standards, his preaching skills would be seen as severely lacking – his preaching would be viewed as boring. He would probably fail most seminary courses in homiletics.

Many would be agitated by his theological focus. He defined all things according to God’s glory, not man’s happiness. He insisted on explaining complex theological concepts. He used terms unknown to his audience – justification, sanctification, regeneration were as unknown then as they are now. He viewed the knowledge of God as an end in itself – after all, what could be more beneficial than knowing God? By today’s standards, he would be seen as too bookish, too irrelevant, and too impractical.

Quotable: “Paul would probably be condemned to flit from place to place, not out of choice but necessity… his resume fatally scarred by his many pastoral failures until, abandoned and worn out, he would be left to pass his closing days in a home for the aged” (David Wells).