Which shows that this theologian knows less than my 7th grader.
First of all, Paul preached primarily to Gentiles and opposed the "Judaizers" who wanted all the new converts to be considered Jews: this is only the MAJOR church controversy dealt with in the Acts of the Apostles.
Second, "And it came about that for an entire year they met with the church, and taught considerable numbers; and the disciples were first called Christians at Antioch." (Acts 11:23-26). After having gone to Tarsus to get the new convert Saul, Barnabas returns with Saul and they work with the church at Antioch for a year. Later, Barnabas and Saul (soon to be known as Paul) will travel through Asia Minor together establishing many churches in many different cities. Antioch would become their "headquarters" from where they would launch their missions and return after completing them.
It was during this year in which Barnabas and Saul are at Antioch that the disciples were first called "Christians".
Increasaingly, when I hear someone described as a "theologian" (especially a "creative theologian") it causes warning bells and flashing red lights in my head, like the terms "bio-ethicist" and "medical ethicist." It puts my caution on high alert.
I regularly ref Saul/Paul when speaking with protestants. Jesus asked Saul why was he persecuting HIM...most folks think Saul was just attacking the Church. I make the point that when THEY attack the Church, THEY are attacking Jesus (same goes for the sspx too). I also bring to their attention that Saul/Paul was sent to the nascent Catholic Church for catechesis and curing of his blindness.
If all one needs is Jesus and the Bible,then this true acccount doesn't belong in Scripture. Still, they argue a church is not necessary..
C'est la vie
I debated myself about posting that.
Am I too fair-minded?