Paul vs. Christianity

Paul is one of the most important figures in the history of Christianity - so important, in fact, that his works comprise a greater part of the canon of the New Testament. But does the mere fact that his works are central to Christian theology mean that disagreeing with Paul causes one to stop being a Christian?

That's a very interesting question, one which I have thought about but not specifically. Eric does just that at Classical Values, quoting an Anglican bishop:

I see no law in St. Paul. I see laws in the Old Testament but most Christians do not pay much attention to them, believing as we do that Christ transcended the law. (The churches I see living by the law enslave people with their commandments: no pork, no coffee, no tea, no tobacco, no alcohol, no betel nut, no dancing, no work on Saturday, no celebration of the day of Resurrection; but St. Paul has nothing but contempt for such "faith".) I see specific condemnations of specific relationships in St. Paul but the specific relationships are very unlike anything I experience. And very many of St. Paul's other specific condemnations (not always consistent anyway) have long since been re-worked by the church. In the end, St. Paul (especially the mature St. Paul) is more about the radical freedom that Christ gives than imposing "Christian law."

Paul never physically met Jesus. Paul seems to have been unaware of some important things attributed to Jesus. Is there really a good basis for assuming that Paul's understanding of Jesus' message, mission, and ministry should be privileged? Perhaps - but if so, how privileged? Privileged enough to exclude dissenters from Christianity entirely? That seems a bit extreme.

Eric writes:

As to Saint Paul, he was the first great Christian missionary, but he never met Jesus personally. Did this give him more of a right to define Christianity than Jesus? Are Paul's thoughts binding on all followers of Jesus, for all time? ... Is disagreement with Paul (or with certain interpretations of the Council of Jerusalem) "heresy?" Who gets to say? ... Is it "anti-Christian bigotry" to quote Christian bishops with divergent views of Saint Paul?

There are certainly Christians out there who would argue that Paul's thoughts are binding and it is heresy to dissent from those teachings. I'm not sure, however, that the arguments used to defend those arguments are really very convincing. It would seem, then, that one of the most interesting moves that progressive and liberal Christians can take would be to dispute the privileged position so often given to Paul

It is, after all, supposed to be Christianity, a religion based upon the ministry of Jesus; not Paulism, a religion based upon the ministry of Paul. Right?