In case your calendar is wide open...
"If we are to catch the essence of Scholasticism I would like to propose that we first pursue the direct impression one gets of it when speaking about it unconfused by modern preconceptions. If you ask me how and where to get this direct impression, I would suggest the follwing indirect way. Go to Cologne cathedral and study it well. Then from a good compendium of the history of philosophy acquaint yourselves with what Aristotle had in mind. Then by means of Dante's Divine Comedy learn to know poetically the path of the medievals, as taught by Thomas Aquinas, from hell through purgatory to paradise. You may then take up a dogmatic presentation such as that of Seeberg or Loofs, though I would advise you that in doing so you should check the sources of all the quotations- a history of dogma that consists almost entirely of quotations is that of Hagenbach, 1888. Then perhaps you may try to read a work from the great age of Scholasticism like Bonaventura's Breviloquium, supplemeting this on the right hand with an ascetic work like the Analecta on the history of St. Francis of Assisi, and on the left hand with a mystical work like the sermons of Meister Eckhardt."
Karl Barth, "The Theology of John Calvin" (Eerdmans, English Translation, 1995).
July 05, 2008
Barth: Capturing the Essence of Scholasticism
July 04, 2008
Dan Kimball Loves Gay People (And You Should Too)
Even at my own church full of Christians who really try to get things like this right, this situation would be tough. And frankly, there is something understandable about that. The two would seem so out of place that it would be awkward. But could we get past that awkwardness? Do not hear my wrong: I am in no way condoning homosexuality- as I’ve said, the Bible seems clear that homosexuality is utterly sinful. But it is in fact my doctrine of sin that challenges my thinking about this: if I truly believe that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, that all are equally in need of Jesus, that none of us have any merit of ourselves to bring before God, then why would I treat homosexuals any differently than any other non-Christians? This becomes especially important when we recognize, as Kimball stresses, that there are very likely some in our own congregations who struggle with homosexual urges, just like others struggle with urges to drink too much or have sex before marriage. A Christian who wants to please Jesus but struggles with homosexuality cannot be much different than any other Christian struggling with sin. If we respond in stigmatizing ways we only push these people away from the One Person who can deliver them from their own sinful hearts and reinforce the pain-driven church-hating subculture that is certainly out there.
Once again, They Like Jesus But Not the Church is proving itself well worth the time. Despite having still not finished it I am fully ready to give it a hearty recommendation. Read it and let it challenge and convict your approach to interacting with the world.
Kimball’s chapter on homosexuality might be the best one yet, primarily because he writes as someone who has both thought through the issue theologically (and lands conservatively) yet has apparently interacted quite a bit with homosexuals. This includes hours of interviews with both non-Christian homosexuals and Christians who struggle with homosexuality. Much like his approach to the gender issue (see my previous post), Kimball urges increased thoughtfulness, listening, and understanding.
My burden in writing this particular post is to once again pass on Kimball’s challenge to those who are not planning on reading the book.
I need to be upfront that it would be exceptionally difficult for me to buy that the Bible does not condemn homosexual practice in all forms as sinful. I am aware that there is plenty of pro-gay Bible-believing theology coming out at this point and intend somewhere down the line to interact with it. The texts seem plain to me though and that is the truth of where I stand right now.
That said, the church absolutely cannot go on treating homosexuality as a super-sin. The inescapable fact is that generally speaking the church has reacted to homosexuals in stigmatizing, even homophobic ways (and please note the word “generally”). Preaching and teaching on homosexuality tends to be narrow and uncompassionate.
Kimball’s illustration is helpful and deeply convicting:
“Imagine an unmarried couple who are living together and are sexually active. They enter your church and tell you they aren’t Christians yet, but are interested in God and are checking out your church. They begin attending your worship gatherings, and you are happy to see them there, hoping they will come to trust in Jesus. You know they are living together, and you see them respectfully showing their affection by holding hands in church and putting their arms around one another.
But what if a gay couple did the same thing?” (148)
July 03, 2008
Afflictions Refine the Believer
Anyone who's read my posts in the past knows that I read John Owen devotionally. His book THE HOLY SPIRIT, his gifts and his power is so chock full of spiritual insights that rather than taking the 384 page book on all at once, I read it in snippets. Some of you may be able to relate to this type of reading. Nevertheless, Owen had the gift of elucidation (and I feel, illumination). And on the above topic in the title, I felt his explanation (with my comments) was worthy of a post.
In any event, this is a subsection of a chapter on how the blood of Christ purges all filth from the believer. Observe:
Purification from sin is likewise ascribed to affliction. Hence they are called God's furnace, and his fining-pot, whereby he takes away our dross (Isa. 31:9, 63:10). They are also called fire, that tries the ways and works of men, consuming their hay and stubble, and purifying their gold and silver (1st Cor. 3:13). And this they do by an efficacy communicated to them by the Spirit of God; for by the cross of Christ, they were cut off from the curse of the first covenant, to which all their evils belonged, and implanted into the covenant of grace. The tree of the cross being cast into the waters of affliction, has rendered them wholesome and medicinal. Christ being the head of the covenant, all the afflictions of his members are originally his (Isa 63:9), and they all tend to increase our conformity to him in holiness. And they work together for his blessed end in several ways."
Before I go on to list the elements in which he states I want to comment briefly. How often do we Christians assume that when we are being afflicted in this way or that way that it is actually for our good. Granted, our affliction may not compare with those in other countries who are persecuted for their faith, but affliction still befalls each one of us. I can tell you right now that I'm going through a difficult times financially by trying to unload a rental property in NY and its really difficult for me to look at the situation and say that God must have a reason for it. But I know he does, its just difficult acting on this. And I think many Christians feel the same way. We feel God is ignoring us, or that there is a sin in our lives and as a result we are paying for it with this difficult situation. Truth is, God does have a reason for it. Often its just not what we think. That is why I like what Owen's has to say next.
He then states the ways in which the above quote works together. I'll take a few lines from the 4 ways, cut them down, and comment briefly. Affliction, he states, purifies us:
1) By Revealing God's Hatred of Sin: "They bear some tokens of God's displeasure against sin, by which believers are le to a fresh view of its vileness: for through afflictions are an effect of love, yet it is of love mixed with care to obviate and prevent distempers...Now a view of sin, under suffering, makes men to loathe and abhor themselves, and be ashamed of it. This is the first step toward purification, for it puts us upon seeking after a remedy"
2) By Breaking Attachments to Created Things: "Afflictions take off the beauty and allurement of all created good things, by which the affections are solicited to embrace and cleave to them inordinately. God designs by afflictions to wither all the flowers of this world, by discovering their inefficiencies to give relief."
I like what Owen has to say here. Clearly he is speaking in generalities with respect to what object, mainly because it can apply to many different aspects of human relations. For example, though I enjoy my Audi with all of its features and supreme driving ability, during times of distress it offers me very little consolation for anything. Things are to be enjoyed, but not relied on.
3) By Taking the Edge off Lusts: "Afflictions take the edge off lusts...they curb those vigorous affections which are always ready for the service of lust, and which sometimes carry the soul into the pursuit of sin, like the horse into battle, with madness and fury."
Owen hits the nail on the head again with this one. Affliction will very much alter the way we look at our "normal sins" in which we generally take for granted. It allows us a different motivation and modifies our very outlook on what might normally be taken for granted.
4) By Stiring Up the Graces of the Spirit: "A time of affliction is the special season for the peculiar exercise of all grace; for the soul can no otherwise support or relieve itself. It is taken off from other comforts, every sweet thing being make bitter to it; it must therefore live by, and in some sense upon, faith, love, and delight in God.
As Peter notes, In this you rejoice, though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been grieved by various trials, so that the tested genuineness of your faith—more precious than gold that perishes though it is tested by fire—may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ. (1 Peter 1:6-7). It is when we face affliction and/or various trials that our faith is tested and made sure. Through tough times we come to know and rely solely on God and His graces which he has bestowed.
Hopefully you were encouraged as much as I was after reading this. Again, some of this may seem elementary and lack the theological meat some of our readers thirst for. But for me, to read the insight of one of the most influential Puritans enriches my soul every time I do.
July 02, 2008
The Best Christian Band You Don't Listen To
All those who listen to mewithoutYou knew who I was talking about before they read this sentence or looked at the picture. That’s because they already know what I have discovered is true: mewithoutYou is unquestionably the greatest Christian rock band of all time.
OK, so that might be a bit of overstatement, but I do really love them. Hailing from Philadelphia, mewithoutYou is that oh so common blend of hardcore, indie rock, and screamed spoken word, sort of like Sunny Day Real Estate meets The Refused meets Bradley Hathaway. You know the type…
Well maybe you don’t. In fact it is their abrasive style that keeps them inaccessible to many. It would be unfair for me to plug their lyrical content (as I most certainly will below) without forewarning you that, while mewithoutYou are masters of indie rock dynamic, they take a little getting used to. I don’t know many who loved them the first time they heard them (except of course for my Dad, who has a cooler taste in music than most college students).
MewithoutYou’s energy is fierce, but is not for its own sake. Aside from their idiosyncratic melodic style, what separates this band is the way musical adrenaline pushes lyrical content deserving of that force. The drumming and guitar work avoids the temptation to showiness but still drives the catchy yet dissident vocals. That is, the musical energy is of a different quality than, say, Muse on the new metal side or the Foo Fighters on the semi-hard rock side.
What really hooked me is the vocal performance, both lyrically and melodically. Not only do I now love the screamed spoken word, but I am frankly hard-pressed to find a better Christian rock lyricist than Aaron Weiss. Note some of the following samples:
From “A Glass Can Only Spill What it Contains” on Brother, Sister:
What new mystery is this???
What blessed backwardness!
The Immeasurable One is held but does not resist-
Struck down by wicked words and foolish fists of senseless men,
The Almighty One does not defend!
“A Glass Can Only Spill What it Contains” as a whole explores the foolishness of the human tendency to think ourselves autonomous when in fact we exist underneath God’s sovereignty, felt or not. When left to our own devices we send the Lord to the cross- a heinous display of what freedom we do exercise. Of course, at any point God could have resisted the cross but chose to do otherwise, revealing that not only do we not actually have autonomy (the whole of this could have been stopped at any point) but that when we exercise our presumed freedom we betray the embodiment of all beauty, goodness, and love.
From “Torches Together” on Catch For us the Foxes:
Why burn poor and lonely under a bowl or under a lampshade
Or on the shelf beside the bed
Where at night you lay turning like a door on its hinges First on your left side, then on your right side...
then your left side again?
Why burn poor and lonely?
Tell all the stones we're gonna make a building...
We'll be cut into shape and set into place
Or if you'd rather be a window,
I'll gladly be the frame,
Reflecting any kind words, we'll let in all the blame
And ruin our reputations all the same.
So never mind our plan making- we'll start living!
Anyway aren't you unbearably sad?
Then why burn so poor and lonely?
We'll be like torches!
Torches together
We'll be like torches, with whatever respect our tattered dignity demands...
We'll be like torches- Torches together, hand in hand.
This time the theme is, simply put, evangelism. But rather than stopping at the simple need to share the gospel, Weiss wrestles with the apparent contradiction of our own limitedness as both sinful and as individuals and the mandate to be God’s witnesses in a sinful word. The living stones should form a whole building, and the torches should be in community since we do not burn bright enough alone.
I go back and forth on my favorite mewithoutYou song, but my last example below might win. In “Four-Word Letter, Pt. 2” from Catch For us the Foxes, Weiss borrows the lyrics from the old spiritual popularized in the Cohen brothers’ film O Brother, Where Art Thou? Here are Weiss’s two choruses:
Oh, doubters, let's go down...let's go down, won't you come on down?
Oh, doubters, let's go down...down to the river to pray.
"Oh, but I'm so small I can barely be seen...how can this great love be inside of me?"
Look at your eyes...they're small in size, but they see enormous things.
Oh, pretenders, let's go down... let's go down, won't you come on down?
Oh, pretenders, let's go down... down to the river to pray.
"Oh, but I'm so afraid" or "I'm set in my ways"
But He'll make the rabbits and rocks sing His praise.
"Oh, but I'm too tired, I won't last long."
No, He'll use the weak to overcome the strong!
In O Brother, The “let’s go down” call draws two entranced characters to be semi-mindlessly pulled to a river and be baptized. While I enjoy that scene in the movie and the lyrics in the gospel spiritual on their own, Weiss reinvigorates them with his screaming call. The unique vocal style adds urgency to the gospel call that has moved me to tears on numerous listens, as if everything inside Weiss bursts forth as he passionately begs.
Yet Weiss does not allow the characters he calls to in the song to enter that trance. Instead, that audience (at points his own family, which brings a painful personalness as the listener feels their resistance) responds with what actually seem to be appropriate doubts. Weiss hears the doubts and responds with equal passion. Weiss’s screaming uniquely conveys the deep compassion so appropriate to the weight of the sinfulness of humanity and God’s loving response of the gospel.
It is indeed that emotional weight that brings me back over and over to mewithoutYou. When I find myself mired in dryness and dispassion, mewithoutYou awakens my heart. I am convinced this is one of the great reasons Christians need to make great music: reading, talking, and listening to sermons cannot express and draw out emotion like music can. MewithoutYou accomplishes this goal brilliantly, with more musical and lyrical thoughtfulness and creativity than almost all of the music I hear Christians producing. So here’s hoping that you can past the abrasiveness and enjoy them equally.
July 01, 2008
The Divine Authenticity of Scripture
I know its taken me a while to get this last post up, but I wanted to share a few final thoughts since completing A.T.B. McGowan's book, "The Divine Authenticity of Scripture" (IVP, 2008). To begin, let's start with some of the positive stuff; first, for those of you who may not be completely familiar with the distinction between innerancy and infallibility, this would be a helpful to read simply to get acquainted with the terms of the discussion and debate surrounding the issue. The book is clearly written, accessible, and well organized. The most significant strength of this book, in my opinion, is its historical narrative describing the development of the doctrine of innerancy. McGowan interacts with the most influential academic theological contributions to the discussion, which offers an insightful vantage point from which one can see some of the reasons why polarization characterizes contemporary dialogue related to the doctrine of Scripture. All of these features, it seems, are enough for me to recommend this book to others.
At the same time, I would be doing the reader a tremendous disservice if I didn't make mention of several significant weaknesses in this monograph. The basic problem with this book, in my opinion, is that while McGowan does a good job describing the terms of the discussion, the book offers little to advance it. McGowan's logic, description, and academic interaction with sources carries the first several chapters of the book, but he nevers fleshes out what infallibility amounts to by interacting, exegetically, with specific examples in the biblical text. To be honest, it seemed that, in light of the sensitivity of this issue among evangelicals, he was a reticent to completely turn the corner by developing the implications of his view. At one point McGowan mentions how one unnamed friend of his commented that by dealing with this issue, he may be putting the proverbial stick in the hornets nest; it seems like he took this warning to heart.
The feature of this book that was probably the most frustrating to me was the conclusion; literally, in the last two pages, McGowan suggests "authenticity" as an alternate term for describing the nature of the biblical text. I had high hopes when I started reading this book, and as my reading progressed my anticipation for his advance to the discussion grew, but ultimately, it was never delivered. McGowan, with a few brief comments, simply offers the following,
"If, however, I were to have the oppotunity to begin with a blank sheet of paper, avoiding all of the theological arguments that have been fought out over several centuries, I would offer for discussion the word 'authenticity.' I mentioned earlier, in passing, my interest in using this word to describe the nature of Scripture. As I come to the close of this work, I leave this as a possible way forward for evangelicals, although to develop it properly will require more sustained thought over a longer period."
In fairness, he does offer a couple paragraphs expanding on this notion, but, honestly, in my view, this conclusion should have been the basis for much of the substance contained in the book. Ultimately, I would say check this book out if you're looking for a quality descriptive introduction to the issues, but if you're looking for a prescriptive contribution that advances the discussion this is probably not the book for you.
June 30, 2008
LAST DAY to enter the June giveaway
This is just a friendly reminder to our readers and visitors that today is the last day to enter the FREE BOOK GIVEAWAY for A. T. B. McGowan's The Divine Authenticity of Scripture: Retrieving an Evangelical Heritage.
Our very own Norm Jeune worked through the book and offered some thoughts in a few recent posts:
1) Presuppositional Theology and Foundationalism
2) Considering a Fundamentalist Perspective on the Scriptures
June 29, 2008
10 Links...
Little off topic on some of the links, but I think you'll enjoy them!
- Quotes from Luther's Bondage of the Will.
Some helpful tips for increasing fuel efficiency (and thus saving on gas!).- Bibles to be available at China Olympics.
- Use Time Wisely "Because the days are Evil."
- How much sleep do you really need? (HT: JC)
- Jesus Christ: The God Man, part 1
- Tim reviews book on Francis Schaeffer.
- Too funny not to share!
- How about this catch?
- The Suns took Robin Lopez, but Damian is more excited about Goran Dragic.
June 28, 2008
Carson on the Relationship between Seminary and the Church
Adrian Warnock did an interview with Don Carson a little while back. Here are some of Carson's remarks about the relationship between the seminary and the church. I found them a convicting reminder to think and live for the well-being of Christ's body.
But I would say that the front line is the local church. And there is a sense in which seminary is a back-up slot. The front line is the local church, and the first impetus towards ministry and towards stamping people for what ministry ought to be should be within in the context of the local church. And then a good seminary, a good theological college, helps to provide the kind of training and further exposure to more technical knowledge, a grasp of the languages, and this sort of thing. Virtually no local church can provide that, and yet it’s really important for those who teach in such places, nevertheless, to be pastors first, because if they think of themselves of teachers and scholars first, then they tend to produce teachers and scholars. So there’s a stamping, not simply from the course material, but from your own values, what you dream about, what you think about. So, at our seminary, we always want to hire a certain percentage of faculty who wish they were in the pastoral ministry, or else quite frankly, we don’t want them. Now, they have to be academically competent and all the rest, but we don’t want people who just want to be in a seminary. We want people who in many ways would prefer to be in the local church. So, that’s as close as I can come to explaining where I’m at.
June 27, 2008
Coming Out of the Complementarian Closet
I’m still reading Dan Kimball’s They Like Jesus But not the Church. I know, I know, and I hear you: “Andrew, haven’t you been reading that book for well over a month? Isn’t it an easy read and relatively short? I mean, if it takes you this long to read Kimball, how in the world are you almost finishing a Master’s Degree? And hasn’t Norm finished at least two books of considerable more substance while juggling a ministry job and a wife and child since you began that simple work? Surely your vision is fading or you have developed narcolepsy since beginning it, for how else could I possibly explain your literary sluggishness?”
Look, I’m just a slow reader, so get off my back.
In any case, Kimball is still challenging my thinking on nearly every topic that he writes about. If you’re willing to overlook the sloppy style there is much to be gained, and while still unfinished I give it my hearty recommendation.
One of those aforementioned provocative topics is the church’s view of women as perceived by the outside world (ch. 7). Obviously this is particularly relevant to us complementarians. As one who has been interacting consistently with other Christians almost exclusively (until what will hopefully continue to be my liberation from that subculture), the issue of emerging non-believers’ perception of our treatment of women has never been that practically relevant.
But once again, Kimball has forced me to consider something I otherwise would not have. Indeed, how do emerging (i.e. 18-30 year old) non-Christians perceive the church’s treatment of women? This question becomes especially interesting when we note Kimball’s semi-paradoxical claims that emerging generations tend to gladly see significant differences between male and female as beautiful and God-given, yet see the church as oppressing women. Is this inconsistent thinking by those non-Christians, or is it a case of disjunction between Christian practice and theology (i.e. are we really oppressing women)?
For now I will leave aside the important issue that non-Christians frankly are not supposed to love us. Jesus went to the cross for his claims and said that we servants would not escape the master’s fate. This is one of those issues that some just won’t understand: yes, I do see functional differences between males and females including a God-given hierarchy of authority. Sorry if you don’t like that.
But this truth should never excuse us from thoughtfulness. Kimball offers a challenge that I pass on to you, dear reader: if you are a complementarian, how well can you defend that belief? Why do women not wear head-coverings? Why are they not silent in the churches? If we cannot answer these questions with real thoughtfulness, we should not such strong opinions. The normative relationship between males and females is too provocative of a cultural question (both to Christians and non-Christians) for us to not have thought seriously about. Some might not like your answer no matter how thoughtful about it you are. That much is ok. But we must think about it well.
June 26, 2008
The box o' bunk eschatology
Things are looking up in the Jeune household; I think I struck gold! I just opened up a fundamentalist time capsule that, in many cases, unfortunately, is not so old. Think of it as a monument to exegetical prowess; a testimony to theological precision; a decisive contribution advancing the cause of the moral majority. Check out the bittersweet nugget below! The best part is that what you see here is only the first installment in a series of photos chronicling this cultural phenomena! Perhaps this particular tome sheds some light on why so many in America and abroad find the current debacle in the middle east so repulsive.
Yes, this is an real book that has actually been published. And yes, that is a picture of Saddam Hussein on the cover. And yes, he is captured in a stunning portrayal with a tank on one side and Nebuchadnezzar on the other. And finally, yes, the book does actually have the following words on the back:
"SADDAM HUSSEIN and the ancient world conqueror Nebuchadnezzar. Not only do they look alike, but their mission is the same- to control the world....BABYLON: Prelude to armageddon?
I also thought you'd appreciate a closer look at the subtitle:
"Startling photos from Iraq reveal that SADDAM HUSSEIN is rebuilding the lost city of Babylon. The Bible says Babylon will be rebuilt in the last days. Could ours be the last generation?"
I'm gonna go with no on that one...
There's lots more in my sweet box o' eschatology, so look for that in the days to come.
June 25, 2008
Religious Pluralism: from within the church
The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life released their findings on Monday from a recent survey revealing some interesting statistics on religion in America. The interview was conducted on 35,000 Americans age 18 and older from May 8 to Aug. 13, 2007. Now I'm not sure what the past surveys have found, but it seems that Protestant Christianity is suffering pretty intensely by biblical standards. As you can see from this chart, an astonishing 66% of confessional Protestant Christians believe that there is more than one way to God, which means that only 34% believe otherwise. Of course, I'm quite certain the right hand column pretty much highlights why a person takes this view.Another statistic comes from a section in the 18 page report on the Authority of Scripture (found here):
"More than six-in-ten Americans (63%), including majorities of many religious traditions, view their religion’s sacred texts as the word of God. This belief tends to be most common among Christians. More than eight-in-ten Jehovah’s Witnesses (92%), Mormons(91%) and members of evangelical (88%) and historically black (84%) Protestant churches view the Bible as the word of God, as do majorities of Catholics (62%), mainline Protestants (61%) and Orthodox Christians (59%)."
Now, from this number we can gather that at least the majority of Evangelicals have a high view of Scripture; that is, they feel the Bible is the Word of God. The problem is, this statistic doesn't seem to match up with the one listed in the above chart. 88% of the people in this survey believe the Bible to be the Word of God, yet more than half believe one can enter eternal life [with God] outside of their own religion. Strikes me as odd when Jesus himself expresses the very opposite in John 14:6. So much for a high view of Scripture.
Now I suppose we must take into account that while 35,000+ people were surveyed only 19,000 were Protestant Christians, which of course cannot speak for the greater Christian community. Not to mention the focus on the survey was religion and not Christianity. But this must still make us think about who these people are that are identifying themselves as followers of Christ. And I think the findings are definitely something that the evangelical church should take seriously.
Seeing the statistics reminded me of the article by David Wells called The Bleeding of the Evangelical Church, which you can find here. In the article Wells mentions some similar statistics that were just as astounding. Wells noted that he believes the main reason for the decline in western Christianity was due to a lack of theological character. In his words, "It is not that theological beliefs are denied, but that they have little cash value." Unfortunately I think this poll might be an indicator that we're moving beyond the cash value stage into outright denial. For any professing Christian to say he or she believes that there is more than one way to God is simply denying the very foundation which they "supposedly" uphold. I have to wonder, the people being surveyed are wither attending churches where the unadulterated Gospel is being preached and simply ignoring (rejecting) most of it; or the church in which they attend (if they attend) lacks any manifest adherence to the Scriptures. Based on my experience, I assume the latter.
So what we have here is nothing other than religious pluralism from within the church. I'll bet if each of the Christians in the survey were asked the same questions by their Pastor there might be a different outcome; then again, maybe not. I guess this just validates the notion that there will be tares amongst the wheat until the end. But what do we do about it? How can we as Evangelicals curve the statistics? Seems to me that the answer is the same in which Wells noted 15 years ago...
"If we do no recover the sufficiency of the Word of God in our time, if we do not relearn what it means to be sustained by it, nourished by it, disciplined by it, and unless our preachers find the courage again to preach its truth, to allow their sermons to be defined by its truth, we will lose our right to call ourselves Protestants, we will lose our capacity to be the people of God, and we will set ourselves on a path that leads right into the old discredited liberal Protestantism."
We might be on our way.
June 24, 2008
The Saving Righteousness of God (chapter 1)
In chapter 1, Bird introduces the burden of his project, and provides an enlightening autobiographical account of his own journey studying Paul. For the past 25 years or so, scholars have been divided on the issue of justification. Here's an oversimplification that helps clarify the debate; proponents of the old perspective on Paul have (along with Luther and Calvin) emphasized the individual and vertical dimensions of justification, while proponents of the New Perspective (e.g. Wright and Dunn) have emphasized its horizontal and corporate dimensions. Whereas the old perspectivites think justification pertains primarily to one's standing in the divine lawcourt, New Perspectivites think it has more to do with how people are marked out as members of the church. Bird appreciates the contributions of both perspectives, and contends for rapprochement;
The burden of this project is to demonstrate that reformed and "new" readings of Paul are indispensable to attaining a full understanding of Paul's soteriology... The vertical and horizontal aspects [of justification] need to be appropriately described and weighted in order to provide a holistic rendering of justification in Paul's letters. (p. 1)
For the remainder of the chapter, Bird describes his own Pauline pilgrimage, noting how interaction with university teachers and Pauline scholars (e.g. Richard Gaffin, Mark Seidfrid, D.A. Carson, N.T. Wright, and others) has shaped his view of justification. At present, he values the contributions of the New Perspective, but believes its advocates fail to appreciate some of the insights of the Reformers (cf. p. 3). Additionally, he thinks that the tone from the Reformed side has not always been charitable to New Perspective supporters, not least N.T. Wright. He thus offers (in the words of Scot McKnight), a peace plan. Collectively, the articles in this book contend for the legitimacy of old and new readings of Paul, and urge for a change in the rhetoric of the debate.
I'm interested to see whether the plan is a success. Furthermore, since this chapter summarizes what's to come in the book, I don't have a whole lot to comment on. However, I have a few questions for Michael.
(1) The literature on Paul is seemingly endless. Where should one start? What books have you found to be helpful?
(2) Who is the book geared for, and why should they read it?
June 23, 2008
The Eagle Has Landed! Introducing Michael Bird
Over the next 8 Mondays, I will be blogging through Michael Bird's book, The Saving Righteousness of God: Studies on Paul, Justification, and the New Perspective. The monograph contains a number of articles addressing hot topics in Pauline studies. Bird teaches New Testament at Highland Theological College in Dingwall, Scotland. I have benefited greatly from his blog, which provides a wealth of helpful info on issues of New Testament interpretation. Dr. Bird is an impressive young scholar, who writes clearly, charitably, and with sparkling wit. Unfortunately, he enjoys the music of Andrew Lloyd Webber, but I'm willing to overlook the transgression in order to grow in my understanding of St. Paul. He has graciously agreed to interact with my reviews, so be sure to check for his comments each Monday.
The Worst Theological Invention
So what do you think is the worst theological invention? I can think of a number of worthy candidates, but I will limit what I share for now.
My vote goes to purgatory.
What do you think?
June 22, 2008
Link it up!
Only a couple this week!- New Starbucks Opens In Rest Room Of Existing Starbucks. (I love it)
- Is Grudem's online ST a fraud?
- Thomas Sowell soberly suggests that voting for McCain is a no-brainer.
- Hymns and the Formation of Faith.
- Joe Carter on Juneteenth.
- Thursday's with Calvin.
- Understanding Dispensationalists, Poythress: online book.
