In the Corner with Matt

Novel Review: Christ the Lord: Out of Egypt

2009-06-06T02:52:00.000-07:00

Around four years ago my wife (Alida) and I were having a Barnes & Noble date. I suppose this needs a bit of explanation. When you are a young married couple and don't have a large surplus of unassigned funds, you try to find creative ways to get out of the house together without spending much. So my wife and I discovered a fun way to do just that - we would go to a bookstore, buy a coffee or two, and peruse books and magazines for a while. Often this kind of date would result in the purchase of a book, like the time we bought Shel Silverstein's silly book of spoonerisms called Runny Babbit.

On another such date I picked up Anne Rice's Christ the Lord out of sheer curiosity. My first thought was, "Could this possibly be the same Anne Rice who is responsible for books like Interview with the Vampire and Queen of the Damned?" Sure enough it was. If we had just arrived at Barnes & Noble I probably would have read the first twenty pages or so. However, whenever I discovered this book on the shelf the store was nearing closing time. So I decided to simply read the author's note at the end of the book. I was surprised to discover that Rice had come to write this book out of genuine interest in Jesus: first as a historical figure, then as the figure of faith. Through studying Jesus, even through reading academic works!, Rice's faith was revitalized and she became serious about her Catholic faith once more, which she had more or less abandoned since her college days.

I was hooked! I simply had to read this book! However, our budget at the time said otherwise, as did my reading load at Truett Seminary, where I received my M.Div. Rice and her return to faith left a major impression on me though. Three years or so later, while in another large bookstore, I saw a mass market paperback edition of Christ the Lord on sale for under five dollars! I consulted with my wife and bought the book. In short order I put one hundred pages behind me and within two weeks I was nearing the end of the book. A multitude of projects put my completing the book on hold, but eventually I did.

The combination of the book being written from the (first-person) perspective of Jesus and the interesting subject matter in general made wanting to read this book come natural to me. The basic premise is that Jesus and his family (including some extended family) are in Egypt. After Joseph hears that things have more or less smoothed over after the Herod-killing-all-the-babies thing, the Holy Family returns to Israel and re-settle in Nazareth. They make a couple of trips to Jerusalem to visit the Temple on high holidays, as well as a business venture in Sepphoris. The book ends with Jesus and his parents returning to Nazareth from Jerusalem after Jesus' impromtu stay at the Temple, as is recorded in Luke 2.41-52.

Several things to note about this book:

The reader should understand from the beginning that Rice is going to accept most of the Catholic dogma about Jesus and his family. This turns up almost immediately as it is made clear that Mary has had no other children, which is in support of her perpetual virginity. Even though I disagree with this point based on the evidence in the New Testament itself, it did not distract me much from the story. At several other points a careful reader could spot other examples of Rice advocating Catholic theology.
Rice accepts some of the apocryphal stories of Jesus childhood as recorded in various non-canonical Gospels. This will, of course, rub many readers the wrong way, whether Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant. However, Rice was simply attempting to work with the traditions which are available. Plus, the stories she includes are so intrinsically fascinating that the writer in her probably would not let her pass them over!
As already mentioned, this story is told in first-person and Jesus is the narrator. I naturally have to wonder what sort of historical situation would have allowed Jesus the time to write and/or tell this story? I know that this may be an odd quibble to have with the book, but several times this question nagged at me. I'm not sure of the answer and Rice gives no real clues except that narrator Jesus is clearly telling this story from some undetermined future date.
The basic arc of the book is Jesus coming to full-realization about who he really is. This was the most interesting part of the book for me. As a young child, Jesus gradually begins to understand that he has certain powers and that when he prays things happen. The problem, however, is that Jesus does not know why he has this power or how much power he has! Part of the problem is that he has not been told the whole story surrounding his birth, which he finds out in more and more detail as the plot moves along. By the end of the book Jesus has fully come into his own - realizing his identity, vowing to use his power only in accordance to the Father's will, and even understanding his ultimate fate. While this clearly would be considered a stretch by many of my academic friends, it makes for a great read!

Overall I would recommend Christ the Lord to almost anyone. It is a book written explicitly from a faith perspective different than my own but this does not tarnish its sheen at all! Instead it only makes it more interesting for me to read! I'm sure that I could nitpick many of the historical details in the book (such as the identity and location of the Essenes), but that would serve no one except maybe me (and that's a big maybe!).

Novel Review: Shantaram

2009-06-05T02:01:00.000-07:00

At the request of my good friend Mike Wolfe, I agreed to read Shantaram by Gregory David Roberts. When I said "yes," I was under the silly preconception that this would be a normal-sized novel of around three hundred pages or so. A week or so after my acceptance of Mike's charge, I went to see him and retrieve the novel. Needless to say I was in for a bit of shock! The book he handed me was well over three times the length I expected - 936 pages to be exact! Never to be one to turn down a challenge, I swallowed hard and accepted the book with a smile. Several months later, after reading this book in between studying for my dissertation proposal, grading papers, preparing Sunday School lessons for Crossroads, among other things, I can honestly say that I am glad Mike asked me to read Shantaram and I'm glad I completed it!

At the onset I have to admit one of the most interesting and most confounding things about this novel is that it is a strange but fascinating mix between fiction and memoir. The author, Roberts, has actually lived many of the things which he describes in the book, whether as a "doctor" in a slum in Bombay, a fighter in a war in Afghanistan, or a mobster in Bombay. So the reader is often left trying to decide what is fact and what is fiction. Maybe that is part of the draw of this novel, namely, how real it presents these seemingly fantastic scenarios.

The basic summary of the novel is that an escaped Australian convict finds himself in Bombay. He has no friends, no connections, and very little hope. What he does have, however, is a certain level of ingenuity. He makes some money and some friends and eventually decides to live in Bombay instead of just passing through. He winds up in a slum where he heals wounds, makes friends, and learns quite a bit about himself. From this point on in the story many things happen, so many that it seems almost impossible that they all could have possibly happened to one man. He visits an Indian village, he is incarcerated in an Indian prison, he because a gangster, he gets involved in the conflict between Russian and Afghanistan, and, oh yeah, he falls in love somewhere in there too. For the author's own overview of the novel, check out this video, which will only confirm the strange problem of memoir versus fiction in this book!

Now on to the bulk of the review, starting with the strengths of Roberts' book. In general this book is compelling. In parts you simply cannot put it down. Roberts descriptive talent is one of the primary reasons for this. He paints such intriguing mental pictures that, to be cliche, you actually feel like you are there with Lin, the main character, where ever he might be. Perhaps the most important character, maybe even more important than Lin, is Bombay itself - its people, its crime, its smell, its food, its movies, its music. Besides a few small and silly introductions to Bombay previous to this book, I knew very little about India or its shining jewel, Bombay. I must say that I am so thankful to Roberts for this introduction.

However, the book is not perfect. At times Roberts is so extremely verbose that it is prohibitive. Roberts describes in painful detail each and every character, no matter how important or how small. The nature of the book also necessitates that many of the characters are absent from the story for long periods of time, which is perfectly fine. However, when these characters come back into the story, Roberts goes into the same level of detail reintroducing them. This sadly weighs the plot down at points. Honestly, at times I would simply skip over paragraphs which I knew only contained irrelevant details about how a minor character looked or sounded. Another major issue is that there are times when the novel simply drags. Perhaps Roberts could have better served his audience by splitting this book into two or three parts because the reader invariably will fall in love with the characters from the beginning of the book only to find that most of them play a very small role in the remaining two-thirds of the story. I believe that this problem is what caused the momentum of the book to fade as it moved closer to the end. Lastly, Roberts is quite preachy. At times the reader may simply disagree with some commentary that Roberts provides, which seems to neither move the story forward or aid in character development. At times I feel like the audience is addressed directly by Roberts but in a thinly veiled indirect way (if you know what I mean!).

Overall, Shantaram is a good book. Sure, it's long and in parts it's tedious. But it is also beautiful and richly textured throughout. As a quick aside, I watched Slumdog Millionaire after reading this novel and found that the novel was brought to life in a new way by watching Slumdog. Some of the settings became clearer, as well as the accents of the characters. I would highly recommend fans of the book to watch Slumdog or fans of the movie to read Shantaram. Speaking of movies, Shantaram has been bought by a production company and it appears that Johnny Depp may play the role of Lin (source). How they translate this behemoth into a movie will be interesting!

For more information about Roberts or his book, please check out the official Shantaram website!

NBA Finals

2009-06-04T14:31:00.000-07:00

I'm not the biggest NBA fan on the planet but I do enjoy the sport. Living in LA, however, has given me an interesting view of the Lakers and their fans. I have two main observations: 1) When the Lakers lose a game (any game) all the fans immediately ask for Phil Jackson to be fired, Lamar Odom to be traded, doubt Kobe's heart, etc, etc; and 2) At the start of every series Lakers fans overestimate their team, despite past performance. I'm not sure if this is a phenomenon that is common, but as a Cubs and Cowboys fan I guess I'm used to underestimating and giving the benefit of the doubt to everyone. I mean I don't want to be depressed all the time, since I love two losers!

Anyway, I think this series will be much tighter than most Lakers fans are expecting. The Lakers have the best player in the series in Kobe, their bench is deeper, and their coaching is better but the Magic have some important advantages as well. Namely, the Magic are tough, which has caused the Lakers trouble throughout the playoffs and regular season, and they have several guys who shoot the three well, including two who are 6'9" or above. If the Magic get their inside-out or outside-in game working, the Lakers will be in some trouble, especially since the Lakers three-point shooting has been less than stellar this post-season. One more thing, the Lakers are the favorites, while the Magic are hungry. These facts could be positives or negatives for each side.

My prediction: Magic in 7. If the Magic pull a win out of the first two games at Staples and then get two out of three at home, the Lakers would have to win both of the final two games at home. I'm betting that the Magic could steal one of those games! This is going to be an exciting series! We won't even remember LeBron/Kobe when this is over!

In the Mail: Man in White

2009-05-26T18:52:00.000-07:00

I just received a new book in the mail: Man in White by Johnny Cash -- yes, the one and only Johnny Cash! This is a novel based on the life of the Apostle Paul -- yup, you read that sentence correctly too. The book was first published in 1986, on the heels of a very dark time in Cash's personal and professional life in which Cash was battling addiction to painkillers (Michael Streissguth, Johnny Cash: The Biography, 215).

Here's the publisher's blurb for Man in White:

Johnny Cash. The Apostle Paul.

Passionate. Controversial. Fiery. Destructive. Redeemed.

Two legendary men. Two thousand years apart-yet remarkably similar.

Both struggled with a "thorn in the flesh." And both had powerful visions from God.

Paul's encounter with the Man in White knocked him to the ground and struck him blind. It also turned him into one of the most influential men in history.

Johnny Cash's vision was of another man entirely-his recently deceased father-a vision that helped spark his imagination to write this historical novel about the amazing life of the intriguing figure with whom Cash identified so deeply-the Apostle Paul.

See Paul as you've never seen him before--through the creative imagination of one of the greatest singer-songwriters America has ever known. Subsequently see Johnny Cash, the man in Black, as you've never seen him before--as a passionist novelist consumed with the Man In White.

I look forward to reading this book and reviewing it here!

Novel Review: My Hands Came Away Red

2009-05-21T15:11:00.000-07:00

My Hands Came Away Red by Lisa McKay.

I need to reveal two things here at the beginning. First, I generally loathe Christian fiction. Check that - I generally despise fiction that is published by Christian publishing houses. I'm not exactly sure why. Maybe I find the stories too tame, unrealistic, or cliche. Maybe I prefer novels with more subtle Christian undercurrents like The Hobbit, Out of the Silent Planet, Peace Like a River, etc. Maybe (and more probably) this is just part of my general reaction against the profit-making machine that is the Christian subculture. So a natural question would be, "Why in the world did you read this book published by Moody?" That leads me to my next point.

Second, when Alida (my wife) and I moved out to Southern California we had a hard time finding a church. When we finally did we put down roots in an adult education class at Lake Avenue Church called Crossroads. During one of our first visits we met this very interesting and intelligent young woman named Lisa. She helped us feel welcome in the class and held our interest with her funny banter and Australian accent. We became friends very quickly. Well, after some time had passed we discovered that among other things Lisa was an author and that her first book was going to be published by Moody. Therefore, we simply had to read it! So my opinion of Lisa's book is clearly biased but I want to share it with you anyway!

So this book centers around a quirky girl named Cori who decides to go on a mission trip. Her adventure leads her to Indonesia, where she and her new mission-trip friends assist a church there in various ways, including through the construction of a new building. Unfortunately for the characters (but fortunately for the readers) all hell breaks loose as these teenagers find themselves in the crossfire of the religio-political battle between Islamic and Christian factions in Indonesia. Just as the building they work so hard to erect is burned to the ground, their psyches are smashed to pieces due to the horrors they see and experience. The characters are forced to rely on one another and God as they attempt to find their way back to their homes.

My honest opinion of the book is that it was a fascinating and fast read. Sometimes when you hear that a book is a page-turner you might think that it must be light, beach reading or something like that. My Hands is certainly not a light read! In fact, the book and its themes have weighed on me for quite some time (it probably didn't help that I read this book shortly after returning from a mission trip to Cambodia!). However, the way that Lisa builds the tension in the story makes the reader want to discover the fate of these kids. Therefore, I found myself up at ungodly hours reading this book when we all know that I should be getting my beauty sleep!

Another major strength of the book is the honesty that Lisa exhibits as she navigates the sensitive political and religious terrain of Indonesia. From my limited exposure to Christian fiction this is the exception, not the rule. In our post-9/11 world, painting Muslims, even fundamentalist Muslims, in a negative light is not only easy but seems to be popular. The reader of My Hands can plainly see that Lisa attempts to enlighten the reader to the long-lived religious drama that has rocked Indonesia's world for decades.

All in all, you should read this book if you have time...and I'm not just saying that because I think that Lisa is awesome (which she is by the way)! No, I say that because she has penned a first-rate novel!

Considering a PhD in Theology?

2009-05-19T18:05:00.000-07:00

Since in the past month I've had half a dozen people ask to speak with me about the possibility of pursuing a PhD in theology, I figured it would be wise to get a few of my ideas down here for posterity's sake. Before I do that, a little back story is in order. I'm a PhD candidate at Fuller Seminary in Pasadena, CA where I am studying New Testament under Donald Hagner. I have been at this for more than two years now and I am currently working on my dissertation proposal. Now that I am past the halfway point I think I have a new perspective on the process of graduate-level education and I want to share some of my thoughts on the subject.

Getting a PhD in theology should not be something someone does because s/he doesn't know what else to do. The personal, financial, and relational cost is too high for an endeavor of this sort to be entered into flippantly. Besides, if someone who doesn't really feel passionate about graduate school is admitted, then it is highly possible that someone who actually wants to be there was not accepted...and that would be a tragedy.
What are you passionate about? Teaching, research, history, academic interaction? Whatever it is ask yourself this question before applying for a PhD: how can me earning this degree help me attain my passions in life? If the answer is not somewhat clear, perhaps graduate work is not for you.
Consider the costs. First, there are often steep financial costs, unless you are lucky enough to be admitted to a program that is fully-funded. Even then, considering the demands on your time, working may not be an option, thus tightening the financial belt a bit more. Second, there will be steep personal costs. You will sleep less, read more, and interact with other humans less than you ever have before. Are you willing to do that? Third, the relational costs can be steep too. If you are married and/or have children you will not be able to spend as much time with them as you might like. Your time with friends and family will decrease too, as will your opportunities to serve in your local church. You may be thinking, "Geez Matt! Debbie Downer much?!," but I just want to be honest with you. Getting a PhD is more about how determined you are to complete the degree than about how smart you are.
The next major question to ask yourself deals with where you want to go. In my opinion, there are three basic factors that should be centrally important: the reputation of the institution, the quality of the faculty with whom you will work, and the financial situation. Ideally you want to go to a school that excels in all three areas but this is not always possible. It is quite common to get into a top-tier school but work with a lesser-known scholar or receive a full ride financially but not get to study at the school you wanted or with the faculty you wanted. Everyone is different but in my case it was the quality of the faculty that tilted me toward Fuller. However, I have good friends who have chosen their situation because of the school's reputation and/or the financial situation.
Related to the fourth point is this question: are the institutions to which you are applying beneficial for you achieving your passions? If you are passionate about the Church but apply to a school that is almost solely interested in academics, is that a good fit? (It very well may be, it's just something to think about!) If you are passionate about research, then would it be a good idea to attend an institution that has a reputation of being "easy"? Just something to think about.
Do your research. Before you apply to an institution check out the school. What is the school's vision and does it match your passions? Who are the faculty? With whom might you work closely? Do their research interests mesh with yours? If not, are you willing to change yours? My advice is to get a large binder and create a section for each school that interests you. In each section print out the PhD requirements, the general program information, and some sample research from the faculty with whom you might work (articles, chapters, papers, etc). This will be helpful going forward so that you don't have to constantly refer back to the school's webpage to access information.
Prepare a research sample. The best way to do this is to ask a professor of a class in which you are enrolled if it would be okay if you turned in an assignment that you hope to submit as a research sample. Most professors are okay with this, sometimes even allowing you to do this in lieu of other assignments. You could also revamp and beef-up an older assignment. Whatever the case, do your absolute best and edit it as many times as possible. It would also be wise to have others read it: some for content and some for form.
Think carefully about which professors you want to write letters of reference on your behalf. These letters are very important and often tilt the scales in the direction of one applicant over another. The best way to do this is to think of classes that you have had which relate to your desired PhD focus and ask those professors to write for you. For example, if you are applying for a PhD in systematic theology, a letter from a prestigious theologian will have more impact than one from your favorite preaching professor. However, if you did well in several classes with an well-known scholar outside your field, it is okay to have him/her write for you since they are renowned. Whatever the case, you'll need three or four letters depending on the wishes of the particular schools. Choose wisely!
Study hard for the GRE. Many schools have a very high standard with regard to the GRE so that way they can legally narrow their number of candidates down quickly. Duke often sets the standard when it comes to religious higher education, so check out their stats to get a feel for what kind of score you might need (click here for Duke's GRE stats). If you are unhappy with your GRE score, then take it again. If you still didn't score as highly as you might have liked, then you may consider not applying to schools that you know won't accept a GRE score of that level.
Narrow your school list down to a number of your choosing. I applied to a dozen schools, which is a higher number than what is usual. Most people apply to six to eight schools. My advice is to apply to a few "dream schools" that you would attend no matter what, a few that you feel fairly confident about getting into, and a few that you are almost certain will accept you. Following this procedure will help you cover all your bases. However, most schools have application fees ranging from $50-150, though a few are free (such as Vanderbilt when I applied).
Be prepared for the application process to be long and tedious. I liken my experience to having a full-time job for a couple of months. It took lots and lots of work getting everything together. Be sure to meticulously follow directions because you don't want to get rejected for not submitting a form or something silly like that.
Be prepared for rejection. The top-tier schools usually respond first, which means that people almost always receive several "no's" right away. Don't let this discourage you. Even if they all say "no" it is not the end of the world. You could wait a year and apply again. If that is the case, then use that year to bolster your application. Take German, enroll in a ThM program, study for and retake the GRE, whatever it takes. For some the rejection letters will serve as a sign that graduate-level studies may not be for them. That's fine too. You can most likely still pursue your passions, though the road leading there may be different than what you expected.
If you are lucky enough to be accepted by more than one school, make the decision to attend very carefully. Compare and contrast their programs, reputations, financial costs, TA/RA opportunities, faculty, cost of living, etc. If you are married or engaged, be sure to include your spouse in this decision since s/he will likely be doing a lot of the heavy financial lifting for the next half-a-decade. Also, I would highly advise you you pray about this, seeking God's guidance in the matter.

I hope this has been helpful to some of you! Feel free to leave a comment or question, I would be happy to help you out in any way that I can!

Fowl on History and Historical Criticism

2009-05-18T18:24:00.000-07:00

My friend Chris Spinks made me aware of an exciting new series of posts on the blog entitled "Christian Theology and the Bible." For the next several weeks excerpts from Stephen Fowl's upcoming book called Theological Interpretation (published under the Cascade imprint of Wipf & Stock) will appear. If you are interested in the Bible, interpreting the Bible, historical criticism, or history in general, then I'm sure you'll enjoy the posts. Here's a direct link to the first post in the series {LINK}. I hope you all enjoy the series!

Histoical Criticism Is Dead?

2009-05-12T14:36:00.000-07:00

My previous post led to some interesting discussion is the comments section. I would like to bring some of that discussion out of the darkness of the comments and into the light of a blog post. I'll begin by posting my the comment from my friend and fellow Truett-ite and Fuller-ite Chris Spinks followed by my response to him. Note well that Chris never said that historical criticism was dead, though there are some today who say it is.

--------------------------
Chris (what he responds to is unbolded and his thoughts are in bold):

"Chris, your points bring into the open the stereotyped nature of this discussion in general, for which I take responsibility. But some of the questions about the validity of ideological readings (including so-called "Christian" or "theological" readings) still remain. Chief among these, for me at least, is the notion of meaning. I agree that my beliefs about God, Jesus, history, myself, etc. influence how I go about understanding a text and ascertaining what it might mean. But I can mitigate these shortcoming to some degree with solid methodology and hopefully some of the rest can be dealt with as well through the community of scholarship."
  
What do you mean by “validity”?

How are theological readings invalid?

There is a tension in your response. On the one hand, the notion of meaning is chief among the questions about validity; on the other hand, beliefs influence how you go about understanding what a text might mean.

It is disturbing that you think your “beliefs about God, Jesus, history, myself, etc.” are “shortcomings” in need of mitigating. Paul, Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, and many others were obviously full of shortcomings.

And, how is it that methodology will guard you against yourself?

I’m also disturbed that you rely more on the “community of scholarship” than on the community of Christ to help you deal with these shortcomings.

"But, like Pat pointed out, we can all still view the scarce historical information that we have in different ways. However, those who engage a text historically can have discussions with one another about evidence is handled and interpreted, etc since they all speak the same language and have similar epistimologies."

No one is trying to keep you from having historical discussions. Indeed, such discussions are invaluable for a community’s engagement with its sacred text. But, to believe that such discussions alone will somehow yield THE meaning of the text for the believing community is as much an ideology as any other.

I’d also be willing to bet that there are a good many different epistemologies at work among historical critics. I do not think it is safe to assume similarity there. But, for sure, there is some common language, as there should be for any academic discipline. I’m not denying that. I’m simply questioning two things: 1. that the historical discussion is the only valid discussion one can have about the biblical texts; and 2. that the historical discussion is THE discussion that will yield THE meaning for the Body of Christ.

" When engaging in dialogue with someone who explicitly desires to read the text from a particular social location, I have found that this sort of discussion is simply not possible."

Sure it is. You and your friend had just such a dialogue that prompted you to make the blog post. You both shared an assumption that historical criticism is the only valid way to read the biblical texts. That assumption and its history and foundation can be socially located.

"The reason is that whenever a reading of this sort is called into question the validity of reading a text through the lens of that reader's social location is ultimately what is being criticized. (Not to mention that dialogue is next to impossible because of the lack of common methodology, terminology, etc.)"

No arguments about the impasse on methodology and terminology. I agree. I just don’t think that’s such a bad thing. It would be a boring field if biblical studies had only one discussion governed by one methodology. And, I think you might be clumping all ideological readings together and building a straw man to say that all that can be done is to criticize their social locations. Many ideological criticisms have more texture and complexity than you are giving them credit for. But I will not argue that social location is not more important to these ideological perspectives. I would want to call attention to the ideology that lies behind your seemingly methodologically pure historical criticism. Terry Eagleton writes in his masterful, Literary Theory 2nd rev. ed. (1996), "It is therefore difficult to engage such critics in debate about ideological preconceptions, since th power of ideology over them is nowhere more marked that in their honest belief that their readings are 'innocent'" (173).

"  However, whenever Baur criticized Strauss' method, Strauss may have taken it personally but it was his handling of historical data with which Baur took issue. So while it may feel personal when one's handling of historical evidence is challenged, ultimately it is simply a process of mitigating presuppositions and attempting to arrive at a place somewhere closer to the truth."

Again, I am not questioning the validity of historical discussions as historical discussions.

What do you mean by “closer to the truth”? Is truth somehow the sole property of the historical critic whose presuppositions have been adequately mitigated? When do we know if and when one’s presuppositions have been put at bay enough? What are the criteria?

"  I guess what I am saying is that everything that is said about the Bible cannot valid, including some of the things that I say about it...just as it is not possible that all the things which are said about "Romeo and Juliet," the Civil War, the Watts Riots, the OJ Simpson trial, or Buffy the Vampire Slayer are valid."

Still not sure what you mean by “valid”? I’m not sure what are the criteria for validity. How do you know when you’ve said something about the Bible that is invalid? (These questions should not be interpreted to mean that I believe all statements are valid. I raise them out of a genuine desire to know. I think this notion of validity may be the fly in the ointment for us.)

I’m not comfortable putting Scripture in the same category with Romeo and Juliet, the Civil War . . . Buffy the Vampire Slayer. None of these things constitute a community that holds them to be sacred texts containing the story of God with God’s people. I do not believe Christians ought to read their Scripture as they read anything else, at least not as they read it for their ongoing life in community and with their God.

"  Some understandings of historical events or texts (fictional or not) are simply better than others."

No argument here. But I still wonder what are the criteria for making these judgments. And I wonder if those sorts of judgments are the ones that are best for the life of the Body. If they are, how so?

"While a person from a particular social location may have an interesting take on JFK's shooting after watching the video, at the end of the day his/her social location doesn't change the evidence. The same is true of the Bible. Where we are located socially may affect how we understand, apply, live out, etc. what we read in the Bible but not the actual historical evidence found therein."

Social location certainly makes a difference about what we take to be historical evidence and what we don’t. And so, historical critics can continue to have discussions. I don’t want them to stop. I do want them to understand what it is they are NOT doing. They are NOT discovering THE meaning. They can and do contribute to the meaning, but they should call what they are doing what it is—understanding the authors intentions, or situating the text in its social environment, or whatever. The question then becomes is what it is they are doing the (only) thing to do for the ongoing life of the Church.

"  Otherwise all of us are simply going around and around a circle of ad hominem arguments that gets us no where."

I think this is partially because we too often believe discussions can only happen when there is a point of disagreement to needle at, a question to answer, a problem to solve, a mystery to uncover.

Where is it you actually want to get? What's wrong with interpretations that shape, mold, discipline, challenge, etc.? Do we always have to have a "where" to get to?

--------------------------
Here's my response:

Chris, here are a few responses:

By "valid" I mean that which can honestly be said about a text keeping in mind its place in space and time. I am convinced that some readings which explicitly utilize a- or non-historical lenses tell us more about the lens than they do the text.

What I am really saying is that I do not understand how reading the Bible as a Christian or in community (which I do by the way) sans historical research is any different than simply and naively affirming our beliefs or creeds. Is there room in these readings for the beliefs/creeds to be challenged? Or is the lens too important? And if a challenge comes is it from the text of the Bible or the culture in which the reader finds him/herself. The same criticism can be made about other ideological readings as well.

It seems to me, and many others like me, that many scholars today want to skip the historical step in understanding a text and jump straight to the hermeneutic question. Me saying that the historical step is important (not all important mind you but important nonetheless) is not saying that the question of what a text means in relationship to a community does not matter. What a text means to a particular community does indeed matter, but that particular community does not have a stranglehold on what a text means.

I also want to be clear that engaging in historical criticism does not guarantee that one will arrive at a text's meaning, since different historical critics using sound methodology come to different conclusions. However, simply throwing out historical criticism altogether (which I know you are not arguing for but there are many who do) or devaluing it because of this is not helpful. Without a historical understanding of a text there is no anchor, there are no parameters, there are no limits.

With regard to reading the Bible like other books, I really like what Hagner says on the topic: "We should read the Bible like any other book while keeping in mind that it is not any other book" (I've heard him say this dozens of times in different classes). I think that his quote encapsulates the position of many historical critics who also profess Christ and belong to Christian communities. The Bible contains words written be people who lived in the past to other people who lived in the past. Understanding as much as possible about the words, the people, the transmission of the text, etc is vitally important, just as it is for Dante, Mark Twain, or Joss Whedon. But a faith commitment that the Bible is the Word of God means that we believe that the Bible has a different sort of impact on us than other texts and that the continued illumination by the Spirit of God (both individually and corporately) helps us when discerning how the text can challenge, encourage, inspire, mold, discipline, etc us.

All that I am saying is that to skip or devalue the historical step seems irresponsible to me. I agree, however, that historical critics who ignore hermeneutics are equally irresponsible.

--------------------------
I just realized that I did not answer Chris's last question. The where I want to get to involves understanding what the Bible actually says and applying it to my life and the life of my faith community. I can't see this happening sans historical investigation of the text because I know of no other way to understand what it actually says since a- or non-historical readings of the text teach me more about the respective readers than the text itself. The where I want to get to necessitates that I understand the Bible in its historical context before applying what it says to my life or that of the community of faith of which I am a part. So there's nothing wrong with readings that shape, mold, discipline, etc, so long as they are rooted in what the text might have meant to its original hearers/readers. Otherwise we are simply reading ourselves, our wishes, our cultural values onto the text.

Judging Interpretations

2009-05-08T10:48:00.000-07:00

A friend of mine and I went to lunch recently and had a long discussion about the state of biblical studies. We are both proponents of historical criticism when it comes to interpreting the Bible. What I mean by that is that both of us understand that meaning is found in the text itself and thus one must understand the historical context into which that text was written in order to properly ascertain said meaning.

We both also admit that our presuppositions and social locations influence how we understand a text and its meaning but neither of us believe that meaning itself is found in the reader of a text. For me, one of the main reasons why I think this way is that if meaning is not found in the text itself then how can we judge a given interpretation? How would it be possible to say that one interpretation is more valid than another if the meaning resided within the reader?

To put this all more plainly: in this day and age of biblical studies in which ideological criticisms (such as feminist, African-American, gay, theological, etc) rule the day, how can one judge any of them? If meaning lies within the reader then isn't each and every reading valid?

Phase Two

2009-04-14T05:45:00.000-07:00

It has been a really, really, really long time since I last posted. Ugh. I have to admit that it was not out of laziness or lack of interest. No, I didn't post for such an elongated period of time because I was finishing my last class before my comprehensive exams and then the comps themselves. The class was called "Jesus and Paul" and I wrote about the continuity between these two giants of the Christian religion.

As for the comps, I had five: Greek Reading, NT Methods, NT Theology, History of NT Research, and NT Intro. I spent the most time preparing for the Greek exam, which was still a bit hard. The Methods exam was the most difficult of the other four but I probably spent more time preparing for the NT Theology exam since I've never had a class devoted solely to the subject in general (I have had a few more specialized NT Theology classes, such as "Paul and the Law"). Anyway, I completed all five tests in twenty days or so and then about ten days after that found out that I passed!

So now I'm on to Phase Two of the PhD program here at Fuller. This quarter I'm TAing for two courses (NT survey courses) and beginning the work toward my Dissertation Proposal. I'll officially submit my Proposal at the end of the next quarter but I hope to get most of the bibliographic work finished in the next few weeks.

Also, I would like to post here a bit more regularly. I think I may start with a review or two that may be of interest to a few people out there in the world of the interwebs. Until then, God bless!

Historical Evidence

2008-10-27T01:07:00.000-07:00

I recently received a giftcard to Barnes and Noble, for which I was extremely grateful. However, I sometimes have a hard time spending bookstore giftcards in the actual brick-and-mortar bookstore itself, unless of course that bookstore is Archives here in Pasadena. However, this time around I found two great books: Five Books of Moses by Robert Alter and Cities of God by Rodney Stark. I have already read Strak's Rise of Christianity and found it both fascinating and fun to read, so I have really been looking forward to his newer book on early Christian history. After finishing about 3/5 of the book, I've not been disappointed yet!

In an effort by the publisher of Cities to sell books, there is a quote from Booklist on the front cover that says the following: "This book will spark controversy." Of course, that piqued my interest, so I picked up the book and read the first few pages of the first chapter in the store. Here are the first two paragraphs:

New ccounts of early Christianity are everywhere. A book claiming that Jesus got married, fathered children, and died of old age has sold millions of copies. Bookstores are busting with 'new,' more 'enlightened' scriptures said to have been wrongly suppressed by the early church fathers. Often referred to as Gnostic gospels, these texts purport to have been written by a variety of biblical characters -- Mary Magdalene, St. James, St. John, Shem, and even Didymus Jude Thomas, self-proclaimed twin brother of Christ. Meanwhile, a group calling itself the Jesus Seminar receives national media attention each year as it meets to further reduce the 'authentic' words spoken by Jesus to an increasingly slim compendium of wise sayings.

But is any of this true? How can we know? Presumably, by assembling and evaluating the appopriate evidence. Unfortunately, far too many historians these days don't believe in evidence. They argue that since absolute truth must always elude the historian's grasp, 'evidence' is inevitably nothing but a biased selection of suspect 'facts.' Worse yet, rather than dismissing the entire historical undertaking as impossible, these same people use their disdain for evidence as a license to propose all manner of politicized historical fantasies or appealing to fictions on the grounds that these are just as 'true' as any other account. This is absurd nonsense. Reality exists and history actually occurs. The historian's task is to try to discover as accurately as possible what took place. Of course, we can never possess absolute truth, but that still must be the ideal goal that directs historical scholarship. The search for truth and the advance of human knowledge are inseparable: comprehension and civilization are one.

I guess Booklist was right, this book is controversial...and from the very first paragraphs!

This Quarter

2008-07-15T23:54:00.000-07:00

It is amazing how easily little details slip by only to bite you in the butt later. A few small details were missed by people that I thought had my best interests at heart (including me) and now I am paying for it. Oh well. That's how life goes, right? All we can do is our best. We have to roll with the punches, etc., etc.

As for this quarter academically: I am taking a Latin for Reading Knowledge course and finishing a course entitled Jesus and Paul. Latin is going quite well but I would definitely be much more lost than I am had it not been for previous encounters with Spanish, French, German, and (especially) Greek.

My second course is an independent study with Dr. Seyoon Kim. Last quarter I read a bunch on the subject of the (dis)continuity between the historical persons Jesus and Paul. Honestly, I don't know how much can be said on this issue these days with the ever-shrinking amount of historical certainty we are allowed to have about anything. Furthermore, places where there seems to be some promise (Paul quoting Jesus or alluding to Jesus' teachings) are so widely controverted that progress is almost impossible. After many months of searching, however, I have finally decided to write about Jesus fulfilling the Law vs. being the end of the Law. I hope this proves fruitful, at least for me.

So what do you think? How are Jesus and Paul related? How much do they have in common? What are their differences?

Leaving Pasadena...

2008-07-03T18:48:00.000-07:00

...to go to Vegas for the holiday weekend!

A couple friend, my wife, and I are going to Vegas this weekend for three reasons: 1) to celebrate the 4th; 2) to watch the American Idol Live tour; and 3) to watch Spamalot again. We are excited, thrilled to death even!

Upon our return I will finish up grading from last quarter, begin focusing on my paper due at the end of the summer, and clean the house for the in-laws' visit next weekend. Oh, and I'll be preparing to speak about Mormonism on Sunday.

I would like a bit of help though. In our Sunday School class we have been talking about groups that call themselves "Christian" but whose theologies place them outside of the Christian tradition. So far we have discussed Christian Science, Oneness Pentecostals, some of the Word of Faith preachers, Unitarian Universalists, Christadelphians, and Jehovah's Witnesses. Besides Mormons, what other groups deserve our attention?

Modern-Day "Heresies"

2008-07-01T00:21:00.000-07:00

This past Sunday I taught the adult class I teach every week. Our subject people or groups of people who call themselves "Christian" but are, in fact, outside the Christian tradition. We focused mainly on Jehovah's Witnesses (Mormons were tabled until the next class in two weeks) but also discussed Oneness Pentecostals, Christadelphians, Unitarian Universalists, Benny Hinn, and a few others. Interestingly, like the Teacher in Ecclesiastes says, there's nothing new under the sun. Each of these groups or people are espousing theologies which were deemed as heterdox very early on in the church, whether Arianism, adoptionism, modalism, or the like. The only possible exception might be Benny Hinn and his belief (at least in one interview in 1990) that each person of the Trinity was comprised of three people, which I just idiosyncratic. Anyway, I find it noteworthy that people who consider themselves Christian today still hold some of the same views that have been frowned upon for over fifteen hundred years.

I wonder what this indicates about our Christian faith? Was it more heterdox than we had previously imagined? I don't think so, at least not to the degree that DeConick and Ehrman claim. Is some of what is within our Christian tradition simply hard to get our minds around, thus naturally leading to other theories that supposedly make more sense? This is most probable to me. When we way that Jesus was truly God and truly human, someone is going to call b.s. Same with the Trinity -- three persons one substance...right. But this should not cause us to shy away from the doctrines that have shaped Christianity from virtually the beginning. Instead it should lead us to find ways to communicate them that are as sensical as possible (note well the "as possible"). After all, if the God we worship can be explained by human logic and reason, would he be worthy of our worship?

Off for a Much-Needed Break

2008-06-19T03:00:00.000-07:00

This weekend my wife and I and some of our friends are taking a break from our normal lives to go on a spiritual retreat together. Well, at least some of it will be spiritual. Other parts will be playing games, swimming, getting sunburned, and eating. Anyway, I will be teaching three times during the weekend. I had originally planned on working through one of the Minor Prophets, but I feared that I might get too bogged down in history and whatnot for the sessions to be that interesting for others.

So instead I have decided to teach a series that I am tentatively calling "Our Identity in Christ." Original, I know. The first session, "What's the Problem?," will be about how we as Christians so often find our identity (and therefore our purpose, worth, value, etc) in the wrong things. The second sessions, "Here's the Solution!," will cover how being "in Christ" changes not only what we do, but who we are (I think I'll focus on 2 Cor 5.17, Gal 2.20, and Rom 6.3-12 here, as well as a few other passages; also, methinks that Morna Hooker's notion of "interchange in Christ" will be most helpful). The last session, "Now What?," will briefly examine the implications of being in Christ, so I hope to focus on personal things (Phil 3.10-11) as well as communal things (2 Cor 5. 18, 20; 1 Cor 12.12ff.).

Wow, I didn't realize until I typed the previous paragraph that these teaching sessions would be so Pauline. Oh well, what else would would you expect from me?

John Chrysostom on Philippians 3

2008-06-14T03:24:00.000-07:00

I'm currently finishing a project where I have been exploring the early exegetical history of Philippians 3.2-11, especially by interpreters of the late fourth and early fifth centuries. I have chosen five exegetes to examine: John Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Augustine, Pelagius, and Theodoret of Cyrus. The project has been exciting and enlightening, but oh so tiring.

However, when reading through Philip Schaff's English translation of John Chrysostom, I was quite intrigued by a couple of lines in John's tenth homily on Philippians.

Why are we so wedded to unstable objects? Why are we linked to things that are shifting? How long before we lay hold of the things that last?

Wow. What an up-to-the-minute thought for someone writing around sixteen hundred years ago! I read in one of the many sources on John Chrysostom that I have been using that he tends to moralize at the end of his sermons and sometimes this moral injunction have a tenuous at best connection with what came before them. This passage is certainly an example of that. The above quote is the climax of the application section; here is how it began:

Such a course of life, so strictly regulated, and entered upon from earliest childhood, such unblemished extraction, such dangers, plots, labors, forwardness, did Paul renounce, "counting them but loss," which before they were "gain," that he might "win Christ." But we do not even contemn money, that we may "win Christ," but prefer to fail of the life to come rather than of the good things of the present life. And yet this is nothing more than loss...

While the turn in that passage is acute to say the least, John Chrysostom handles it with a grace and style all his own.

You know, I figure that I know at least one person who will really dig this post...

The Relativizing Power of Christ

2008-06-05T02:04:00.000-07:00

Philippians 3.8 is one of my favorite verses in all of the Bible - "What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ..." In this context Paul is arguing that he, like the "dogs" mentioned in v. 2, has an impeccable Jewish background, both in things that he was born into and things that he himself achieved. However, all that was to his profit, i.e., his Jewish background, he now considers loss (v. 7). Then he widens the scope in v. 8 to include "everything" under this category of "loss." Why? Because in comparison with knowing Christ Jesus as his Lord everything in Paul's world was rubbish, skubala, which is perhaps better translated as "crap" or even a more crass word (v. 8).

This verse (actually this entire passage - Phil 3.2-11) is central to understanding many things about Paul, at least as far as we are able. These verses shed light on Paul's back story, his post-Christ understanding of his pre-Christ self, his thoughts on how knowing Christ changed him, and what he believes the goals of his life in Christ are. These are all highly important things to keep in mind when attempting to articulate anything about Paul's theology. Perhaps the most influential one is that knowing Christ changed everything for Paul.

It should be noted and noted well that Paul does not claim in this passage that he was unhappy with his pre-Christ life when he was living it. Paul was not some sort of troubled soul prior to experiencing Christ, who found an answer in Christ to life's problems and was given psychological solice from his guilt-ridden existence (this point was famously made by Krister Stendahl in "The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West"). Instead Paul was happy expressing his love for God the way that he was taught, in the traditions of his fathers (Gal 1.14).

Then Christ was revealed to him (Gal 1.16), which relativized Paul's entire existence. Nothing that had seemed important before had the same weight anymore. What had been the center of Paul's life, the Law, now had its role usurped, replaced by Jesus Christ his Lord. It is my further contention that Paul's subsequent view of the Law and its place completely changed because of his encounter with Christ. Though Paul thought that the Law was still good, useful, and spiritual (Rom 7.12, 14), it now served a new purpose - to point people to the new reality that has been opened by Christ Jesus (Gal 3.24). Furthermore, the Law has not been superseded or nullified; not at all! It is fulfilled in those who believe (Rom 3.31), presumably through the power of the Spirit (Rom 8.4).

For Paul the Law's role and purpose was relavitized by Christ. Therefore, all of Paul's statements about the Law should always be read keeping this relatvitizing power of Christ in mind. Paul does not seem to have a problem with the Law per se, he seems to have a problem with people, even Christ-followers, who want to place it along side Christ at the center. If rightness with God could be attained in anyway outside of Christ, then Jesus' death was in vain (Gal 2.21). Thus, even though the religion that Paul practiced pre-Christ had a healthy dose of grace (cf. Sanders' covental nomism), compared to knowing Jesus it all took on new meaning (Phil 3.8).

I won't pretend that these thoughts are entirely original or that they will settle the debate on this issue. However, I do believe that Phil 3 should elicit much more attention than it actually receives. Perhaps the key that unlocks the Paul-and-the-Law safe is found there, namely the relavitizing power of Christ.

Have a Wedding Anywhere...

2008-06-03T15:31:00.000-07:00

I wish that I was making this up. There is a company that makes an inflatable church and their website advertises it as a place to get married. Really. Here are some pics:

Wow. That's the only other thing that I can think to say.

Oh, and there is a cheesy song that autoplays on the website linked above -- sorry.

Cool Bible Map Site

2008-06-03T10:33:00.000-07:00

I installed StumbleUpon, a FireFox add-on, today. The way that it works is you click on the Stumble! button and it takes you to a website that you might enjoy, based on your chosen preferences as well as your ratings of different pages. My first Stumble! took me to Planet eBook, a site that lists free classical literature to read and share. This was a good find but the next Stumble! was even better: BibleMap.org. The way that this page works is that you enter a biblical text into the interface and it shows you the location of the geographical locations mentioned. I'm sure that it is not perfect, not to mention that the actual locations of a number of place names in the Bible are disputed, but it does give its users a pretty good idea of geography associated with a text. Also, the place names are hyperlinked to information about that location, usually from the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, which is quite handy for quick reference.

Here's a screenshot:

So check it out, I bet you'll like it too!

Vlog #4: Autism and the Church

2008-06-03T08:13:00.000-07:00

I read an news story recently that really stimulated some thought. I've tried to articulate a little bit of that in this video. Please watch it and think about the questions at end (and below).

1. What should churches do to accommodate the needs of people with autism and their families? Or should they make accommodations at all?
2. How can churches better serve the needs, including spiritual needs, of people with autism?
3. If you are a member or leader of a church, will you talk with someone in your church about these issues because your church will likely be dealing with these issues soon (if not already)?

Check out my other vlogs too!

Like, You Know...

2008-06-02T03:00:00.000-07:00

Here is a searing indictment of the way in which the English language is being destroyed these days. Like, I hope you like it, you know what I mean...[?]

Sound familiar?

A Book Review: Navigating Paul by Jouette M. Bassler

2008-06-01T20:00:00.000-07:00

Title: Navigating Paul: An Introduction to Key Theological Concepts
Author: Jouette M. Bassler, Professor of New Testament at Perkins School of Theology, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas.
ISBN: 978-0-664-22741-8
Retail: 19.95 USD
Publisher: WJK, Louisville, Kentucky
Year: 2007

The purpose of this book is to describe in some detail key theological words or phrases in Paul's authentic letters. In the preface Bassler writes that "[t]his collection of essays is intended to orient the interested reader of Paul to the significance of these concepts and the contours of the debates" (ix). She admits that this collection cannot be comprehensive, while also endeavoring not to oversimplify any issues, instead revealing their complexities. Apparently the publishers of this book originally intended for Bassler to write a glossary of Paul's theological vocabulary but the essays are longer than a normal glossary and the breadth of topic covered is narrow. The contents of the book are as follows:

Chapter 1 - Grace: Probing the Limits
Chapter 2 - Paul and the Jewish Law
Chapter 3 - Faith
Chapter 4 - In Christ: Mystical Reality or Mere Metaphor?
Chapter 5 - The Righteousness of God
Chapter 6 - The Future of "Israel": Who Is Israel?
Chapter 7 - "The Comes the End...": The Parousia and the Resurrection of the Dead

Bassler makes use of endnotes in Navigating and her book also includes good indices of ancient sources, modern authors, and subjects. In most of the chapters Bassler outlines the nature of problem being addressed, the sources to be perused, and the general outline of the debates said passages have engendered. At times the theological implications of one side or the other of a particular debate are explored, though not often both sides (see especially the chapter "Paul and the Jewish Law" where the traditional perspective's theological implications are largely ignored in favor of those of the New Perspective).

This is probably my biggest overall critique of the book. Bassler envisions Navigating as an introduction of key issues in Paul to educated readers of Paul and yet sometimes presents one side of an argument with much more verve than the other. At times she will offer large and devastating critiques against particular interpretations (e.g., the traditional understanding of "grace" and "Law" [5-7]), while leaving other proposals largely unchallenged or defending them vociferously against supposed objections (e.g., the newer interpretation of "grace" and "Law" [7-9]). I am not claiming that all of Navigating is one sided - not at all! I am simply saying that at a few points, even a few significant ones, Bassler's positions can be seen clearly, thus moving Navigating beyond and introduction at these points. However, how can I (or anyone else) expect an author to leave his/her convictions at the door when writing a book of any kind?

As any regular reader of this blog might have guessed, I am most interested in Bassler's chapter which deals with Paul and the Law, since that is my primary area of research interest. So it should come as no surprise that the margins of this chapter are crammed with notes! Also, since Bassler is a proponent of the New Perspective and I am not (at least not en toto), there are many places where we disagree. A few examples will suffice:

The evidence presented by E.P. Sanders in Paul and Palestinian Judaism is not adequately critiqued (Bassler admits that some question Sanders' findings [14-15] but moves over this point rather quickly). As many people have pointed out since the publication of Sanders' important book, he forces many of the texts to fit into his matrix of covental nomism. Thus, simply referring to Sanders as proof that Second-Temple Judaism was not legalistic is not adequate anymore.
The most basic problem with the interpretation of "works of the Law" by those who agree with the New Perspective is that the phrase contains the word "works" in it. While I believe that the portrait previously presented of Second-Temple Judaism by NT scholars was highly skewed, there is evidence of legalistic tendencies in some corners of Judaism during the period of the NT. Thus, it is plausible that Paul himself was one of these Jews (cf. Phil 3 where Paul includes in his Jewish heritage both things into which he was born and things that he himself accomplished and his phrase "my righteousness") and/or that his opponents (especially those in Galatians and Philippians) also leaned toward legalism. This is not an indictment of all of Second-Temple Judaism, instead it is merely an admission that it was not as monolithic as is often present by both sides of the debate.
Also, the focus on the social function of Paul's understanding of "works of the Law," namely as boundary markers separating Jews and Gentiles, championed by James Dunn, is not robustly critiqued. While some of the texts may make "works of the Law" appear to function socially, not all of them do. Also, the so-called social function of the "works of the Law" may in fact simply be a result of Paul's new view of the Law since his encounter with the risen Jesus. It seems most plausible to me that the Law was relativized in comparison to knowing Christ (Phil 3.7), and this relativization is what allowed Paul to make statements like he does in Gal 3.28. Function and definition should not be confused necessarily.
There are many other places where I think that Bassler is too sympathetic with the New Perspective and too critical of traditional interpretations, but the three examples above should serve to illustrate my point.

One could also argue that Bassler left out some "key theological concepts" in Navigating. Due to the length of the study and the nature of the book itself, this is inevitable. However, dealing in detail with some other issues would have strengthened the book some, specifically the death of Jesus, the resurrection, the church, the function of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer, and sin. Their omission, however, is certainly understandable.

Up to this point, the reader of this review may be under the impression that I did not like this book. Nothing could be further from the truth! Navigating has many strengths that make it worth reading for those interested in Pauline theology (especially those looking for textbooks for a Pauline theology class at university, seminary, or even adult education classes in churches). One major strength of the book is that Bassler has written it with style and grace throughout. It is not a dense and slow read, instead, thanks to Bassler's writing prowess, the reader is allowed to move quickly through this very difficult terrain. Perhaps the best example of this was her coverage of pistis christou "faith in/of Christ" (27-32), in which she explored this complicated and entrenched debate with great dexterity. Also, one of Bassler's emphases throughout is that the reader of Paul should not read his/her situation onto that of Paul. This is a common critique of traditional interpreters of Paul, but this critique should always be held in the mind of every interpreter of the Bible. Also, Bassler's sensitivity in dealing with difficult issues is very pleasing to the reader. She addresses issues such as Paul and gender and Jewish-Christian relations with flexibility and care.

Overall I would recommend this book to any serious student of Paul, especially those who have already done some reading of secondary sources or those who will be guided through this territory in a classroom setting. The reason why I say this is that otherwise the uninitiated reader may be too easily convinced of some of the arguments here without giving a fair shake to the opposing opinions. However, Bassler still presents her readers with a very helpful look at a few key Pauline concepts. Four out of five stars!

Check out my other reviews here!

Vlog #3: The Ten Commandments and an Interfaith Game Show

2008-05-28T16:47:00.000-07:00

My third vlog can be located below. In it I talk about a woman who has an interesting way of applying the Decalogue and a religious TV station's idea for a game show. Thanks in advance for watching!

Links:
Crazy-woman story.
Islam TV website.
Islam TV game show story.
Lake Avenue sermon series.

The hat that I am wearing in the video is from my alma mater, Hardin-Simmons University. Check out their website.

Check out my other vlogs too!

Philippians 4.13 and Contentment

2008-05-27T22:38:00.000-07:00

I must say that it is so nice going to a church where the pastor has a PhD in New Testament. The church my wife and I attend (Lake Avenue Church) has just such a pastor. His name is Greg Waybright and he has a PhD from Marquette (his dissertation is entitled "Discipleship and Possessions in the Gospel of Mark: A Narrative Study") and he also did some work at Tyndale House at Cambridge.

This past week Dr. Waybright finished up his series on the ten commandments with a sermon on the last of the ten: You should not covet. Throughout the series he has been giving a positive command that coincides with the negative command: in this case the positive is that we should be content with what we have. (Here is a link to a little piece that he puts in the bulletin each week that is related to his sermon and here is a link to the audio of the sermon.)

Dr. Waybright has also tried to find biblical illustrations of the ten commandments as he has preached this series. He has found many, of course, in the Sermon on the Mount, as well as in Deuteronomy and Leviticus. This week his illustration came primarily from Philippians 4.10-13, a passage in which Paul is trying to thank the church at Philippi for sending him a gift. In the process Paul reveals that he's both been in need and had plenty and that he has learned the secret of contentment, namely that he "can do everything" through Jesus who has given him strength.

This last bit (Phil 4.13) is probably one of the most commonly misinterpreted Pauline texts. It has inspired songs, Christian-themed shirts, and properity "gospel" preachers for as long as anyone can remember. The normal way that this verse is interpreted is that we can do anything, get anything, and/or be anything that we want through Jesus, who gives us strength.

However, as Dr. Waybright pointed out on Sunday, this passage is about being content. The interpretive crux is what should be done with panta ("everything" or "all things"). Since Paul has mentioned knowing what it means to be in need and to have plenty in the immediate context, surely these are the things he has in mind when using panta. In other words, Paul argues that he can do everything, i.e., live with or without, through Jesus. In still other words, Paul is saying that contentment is possible because Jesus relativizes the importance of having or not having things, time, money, etc, etc.

So Phil 4.13 should not be used as a proof text for the belief that God wants all of us to have it all materially. No. This verse is a call for all of us to be content the way Paul was -- "whether well fed or hungry, whether living in plenty or in want" (Phil 4.12). And I believe that Dr. Waybright was right, being content will prevent us from coveting what our neighbors have.

Vlog #2: John McCain: Out of Pastors

2008-05-23T22:10:00.000-07:00

So John McCain received and then rejected the endorsements from two TV preachers recently: John Hagee and Rod Parsley. I have used these facts as jumping off points to discuss the role of religion in the electoral process in the United States. Here's the vlog:

What do you think? Should candidates seek the endorsements of religious figures? Should religious figures give their endorsements?

The AP news story can be found here.

Check out my other vlogs too!