Comments on: Inhabiting the Curicform God (Part 1: Justification)

By: J. R. Daniel Kirk

J. R. Daniel Kirk — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 00:22:23 +0000

Christopher, with the significant caveat that these books represent different points of view and that I have varying degrees of affinity for them, here is my reading list: REQUIRED READING: Various passages in the New Testament John T. Carroll and Joel B. Green, eds., The Death of Jesus in Early Christianity (Hendrickson, 1995). D. A. Carson, “Atonement in Romans 3:21-26.” Pages 119-139 in The Glory of the Atonement: Biblical, Historical & Practical Perspectives (ed. Charles E. Hill et al; InterVarsity, 2004). Richard B. Gaffin, “Atonement in the Pauline Corpus.” Pages 140-162 in The Glory of the Atonement: Biblical, Historical & Practical Perspectives (ed. Charles E. Hill et al; InterVarsity, 2004). Michael J. Gorman, Cruciformity: Paul’s Narrative Spirituality of the Cross (Eerdmans, 2001). 400 pages. Scot McKnight, A Community Called Atonement (Abingdon, 2007). 177 pages. Barbara E. Reid, Taking Up the Cross: New Testament Interpretation Through Latina and Feminist Eyes (rev. ed.; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007). 184 pages. RECOMMENDED READING: Mark D. Baker, ed., Proclaiming the Scandal of the Cross: Contemporary Images of the Atonement (Baker, 2006). Joel B. Green and Mark Baker, Recovering the Scandal of the Cross: Atonement in New Testament and Contemporary Contexts (InterVarsity, 2000). Charles E. Hill et. al., eds., The Glory of the Atonement: Biblical, Historical & Practical Perspectives (InterVarsity, 2004). Richard B. Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament: Community, Cross, New Creation (HarperOne, 1996). Don't worry about "Redemptive Historical" reading of scripture. If you learn to read the NT from the likes of Richard Hays you'll be getting the best of it and more.

By: Christopher

Christopher — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 00:09:06 +0000

Daniel,

You mention your Cross in the N.T. course you teach. I am interested in getting a reading list. Also I am not familiar with the “Redemptive Historical” approach. I am a pastor trying to keep current with what is going on in N.T. and Paul studies. Thanks.

By: Storied Theology » Inhabiting the Cruciform God (Part 2: Nonviolence)

Storied Theology » Inhabiting the Cruciform God (Part 2: Nonviolence) — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 22:03:08 +0000

[...] began my engagement with Inhabiting the Cruciform God by highlighting some of what Michael Gorman does with justification. This time, I want to focus on non-violence, the subject of chapter [...]

By: J. R. Daniel Kirk

J. R. Daniel Kirk — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 00:57:16 +0000

Josh, I didn’t take any courses with Hauerwas. I have his reader, but haven’t gotten very far into it. Most of my trajectory has been set by the “Redemptive Historical” approach of the now-dead Westminster, that found its capstone when I read Hays’ Moral Vision the summer before I started at Duke. Then it was mostly me and Paul working it out. With a bit of Jesus thrown in…

By: Michael Whitenton

Michael Whitenton — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 21:53:46 +0000

DANiel, (ha!)

Thanks for this! I look forward to reading your next installment. As you know, I’m readying Inhabiting as well and find it enlightening. Lot’s of “aha!” moments so far.

peace,

Mike

By: josh

josh — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 02:29:39 +0000

you talk quite a bit about ethics as living within a story, and you usually cite Hays, Gorman, and Wright as some of your main inspirations. i’m wondering if you took any courses with Hauerwas during your time at Duke or if his narrative ethics has also been influential in your construction of a narrative ethic?

By: J. R. Daniel Kirk

J. R. Daniel Kirk — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 20:01:52 +0000

In light of the previous two comments, I must warn my readers that stark, draconian penalties are being devised for those who refer to me as “Dan” Rather than “Daniel” on my blog. These might include forcing you to memorize long passages of Unlocking Romans, tying you to a chair and sitting you in front of hours of Oprah reruns, or speaking ill of your cruciformity.

You’ve been warned.

By: J. R. Daniel Kirk

J. R. Daniel Kirk — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 19:59:56 +0000

Hi, Brian, I’m not saying that atonement is unimportant, but that if that’s our primary focus or question then we might need some realignment.

There are important things to say about atonement, but I do think we’d do better to pour our energies into discerning how the death of Jesus is called to shape the lives of our Christian communities. When we use differences in atonement theories to create differing camps, factions, churches, and denominations, we are often, ironically, denying the work of the cross as we passionately plea for our interpretation of it.

By: BrianN

BrianN — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 19:54:52 +0000

Dan:

I think I understand what you are saying, but can we escape “theories about the atonement”? Does Jesus’ death propitiate (pacify) God’s wrath or not? Yes, it does more than this (Christus victor, etc.), and it does it within the context of union w/Christ, but is it wrong to ask such a question? What is the point of Rom. 5:1-11 if not assurance that God is no longer angry with us because of the atoning death of Christ?

(I like what you say here about the simultaneity of just/sanct., and do not understand how the WesCal guys can be viewed as “Reformed” rather than neo-Lutheran.)

Kind regards,
Brian

By: J. R. Daniel Kirk

J. R. Daniel Kirk — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 19:30:05 +0000

Thanks, Geoff, and thanks for the RT as well.

Hard as it may be to believe, there’s actually a lot of exciting theology going on in NT scholarship these days, including Mike Gorman’s and Richard Hays’s work.