improperly. However, connecting all differences within the community tightly
to an assumed socioeconomic dichotomy might be misleading. We have seen
that the group had afluid and unclear structure with multiple authorities—not
simply a twofold division. Situated in a cosmopolitan seaport, the urban
community of the Corinthian Church could host people with a variety of
backgrounds, beliefs, and habits (e.g., Thiselton, 2000, pp. 1–6). It is also quite
possible that Paul did not have a clear picture of the range of“factions”and
theological views in the community and mistakenly assumed that he was
addressing a homogenous“opposition party”—or he could do so simply on
practical or rhetorical grounds.
We can make sense of the theological concepts of the Corinthian Church in
the framework of the Lobes Theory. As suggested above, the nature of
resonant religious groups is such that it is relatively easy to join or leave
them and they can tolerate a great deal of diversity andfluctuation in terms of
theological views. Irrespective of their diverse backgrounds and religious
beliefs, these people, or most of them, could belong to a single religious
movement. Yet as every social group, so too the resonant religious group
must have at least some shared beliefs. In particular, the group is expected to
share interpretations about the source and nature of its religious experience—
albeit these views are not perfectly consistent or unified. As far as we can
conclude from Paul’s text, the most important shared theological idea of the
Corinthian Church is the divine being as a dynamically moving and powerful
spirit. This is the understanding of God that corresponds to their shared
religious experience. It is telling that whereas Paul presents most views he
attributes to (some group of) the Corinthians as controversial or wrong, he
uses the concept of the Holy Spirit as aleitmotifthroughout the letter without
any problem. This does not mean that Paul and the Corinthians necessarily
shared the same views about the Holy Spirit. It is quite possible that the
Corinthians even used a different word for their concept. For example, the
Corinthians could use the wordχαρίσμα, which Paul also uses in the intro-
duction and many times later (1:7, 7:7, 12:4, etc.); whereas Paul’s own term
could beπνευματικά(12:1, 14:1).^6 Even if they used the same word, however,
Paul’s complex exposition about the Spirit in chapter 2 and his discourse about
the gifts of the Spirit in chapters 12–14 could be entirely new ideas to his
readers. Most likely he understood that his readers’relation to God depended
entirely on this concept and it is through an elaboration of pneumatology that
he can convey his message to them.
In addition to urging political and theological changes (see section 5.4), and
establishing his own dogmatic views, Paul also tried to shape the religious
experience of the community. His lengthy discussion of glossolalia suggests
(^6) Most commentators regardπνευματικάas a word from the Corinthians’inquiry. For an
alternative interpretation of the word as“spiritual persons,”see Ekem (2004).
Religious Experience 153