Archive - May, 2010

If You’re Emergent…

May 10, 2010 in Bible Thoughts with 1 Comment

For those of my readers who self-identify (or don’t self-identify but know deep down in your soul that you have affinity) as Emergent, Emerging, post-conservative, post-evangelical, post-liberal, post-post, etc.: go as fast as your fingers can carry you to Jeremy Begbie’s lecture at the Wheaton Theology Conference.

As a voice friendly to Emergent, Begbie explores why Wright’s theology is so compelling to Emergents, as well as a few areas in which Emergents probably need to listen a little more carefully to what we’re too quick to filter-out. In particular, does the Bishop have something to say to those of us who would too quickly cast off institutional church structures as those structures play a role in the realization of the oneness of the church on earth?

Go. Be encouraged and challenged. And feel free to raise questions or critiques here. I might review the lecture on the blog later, but no promises!

If You’re Reformed

May 10, 2010 in Bible Thoughts with 17 Comments

For my readers who self-identify as “Reformed,” I can’t recommend highly enough Kevin Vanhoozer’s lecture at the Wheaton Theology Conference last month.

The entire conference was on the theology of N. T. Wright. As usual, Vanhoozer gives an irenic, entertaining, and thoughtful engagement. I might engage his lecture later, but for now, if you self-identify as Reformed or Lutheran or otherwise consider that heritage crucial in your theological identity, watch this. It will give you some good tools for incorporating the best of Wright with the best of your tradition.

Best Pre-PhD Degree for Seminarians?

May 10, 2010 in Academia with 63 Comments

I thought a little light fare for a Monday morning might be in order. The question is this: for students in a theological seminary who want to go on to a Ph.D. program in a biblical or theological field, what is the best degree for them to pursue?

The two main options I’m thinking about are the MA or the M.Div.

At several schools I’ve been associated with, the MA has been promoted as the best pre-Ph.D. degree. But I tend to advocate the M.Div. Here are a couple reasons why:

  1. Most seminaries have developed their faculty and curriculum around the M.Div., from which the M.A. is trimmed. In general, this means that M.Div. students are maximizing their seminary’s educational offerings in a way that M.A. students aren’t.
  2. As long as there are a few electives and a robust curriculum in place, M.Div. students tend to get better exposure to multiple disciplines within the theological fields, better preparing them for all of the factors that go into understanding the history of and influences on biblical and theological studies.
  3. Most students who come out of a seminary context are going to be looking for ecclesiastically oriented jobs when they’re done with their Ph.D.s; that is, they will be teaching in seminary or christian college contexts if they land a job. Some seminaries prefer and/or require an M.Div. for all their teaching faculty; and, going back to the M.Div. as the core of most seminary curricula, a faculty member with an M.Div. comes in with a better grasp of what a seminary is all about beyond his or her specific field of study.
  4. Related to point 3, many seminaries will want professors who have some handle on how their academic field of study is ministerially and/or spiritually formative. The M.Div. gives students some tools for thinking through  various areas of “on the ground” practice (individual, church, missional) that an M.A. might leave aside.
  5. Also related to point 3, many folks who end up in theologically oriented or religiously committed educational institutions will want or need to be ordained. Some denominations will require an M.Div. for this.
  6. Many people who get Ph.D.s end up not securing academic employment. The M.Div. leaves more options open for securing a “teaching pastor” type job, especially if a student is part of a denomination with seminary requirements for ordination.

What are your thoughts? What’s the best way for a seminary student to prepare for a Ph.D. and why?

(Note that this is assuming a seminary context with some general seminary “tracks” toward theological education. I think that “religious studies” with a track toward a university post is a different animal altogether.)

Deliverance of God Wrap Up: The Good–Pt 2, The Delivering God

May 7, 2010 in Book Reviews with 0 Comments

As I indicated yesterday, I am doing a final wrap-up of my impressions of Douglas A. Campbell, The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul.

Once again, I’ll summarize with what is sure to be a huge disappointment to my readers: I agree with everyone else. The book is fantastic in its positive program of the apocalyptic reading, especially from Romans 3:20 onward, and unpersuasive in what precedes.

Today I want to cover two topics: the connotation of δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ (righteousness of God) and Campbell’s discussion of Abraham in Romans 4. Unfortunately, however, this “want” is not fulfilled. Only the first is covered!

1. δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ

Campbell begins by suggesting that the notion of God’s righteousness is simultaneously a statement about God’s being and God’s action–and that the action tied to God’s righteousness in this case has to do with Christ (680). Taking this angle, Campbell is able to argue that there is little significance in the shift from “righteousness of God” and “righteousness from God” inasmuch as both pertain to Christ. God’s righteousness is a single, saving, liberating, life-giving and therefore eschatological or resurrecting act.

(Once again, the affinity between Campbell’s work an my own is evident, as the sub-title of my book, Resurrection and the Justification of God, indicates such a connection between the eschatological, life-giving act of God in Christ and the righteousness of God. Though Campbell will take this in a somewhat different direction. The affinity is particularly seen when Campbell talks about the importance of ζάω and its cognates as indications of “resurrection life,” especially throughout Rom 5-8 [686], and when he ties the notion to Rom 1:4 and a Christological reading of Hab 2:4 in Rom 1:17 [686]. Indeed, when Campbell goes on to say, “If interpreters approach Paul and Romans with ears freshly attuned to the importance and integration of Jesus’ messiahship, resurrection, and exaltation to lordship, then the textual surface of the letter begins to shift in some interesting new directions,” once an imagine that I nod in hearty agreement.)

As he works this out, Campbell appeals to Rom 1:1b-4 as the signal Paul gives as to his intention to connect such themes as God’s action and kingship throughout the letter: this is the story of Paul’s gospel (695-6). At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I say, Yes, this is what I’m on about–and why I argue that we need to take more seriously the function of letter openings in laying out the thesis/themes of Romans. These themes are then linked with God’s reconciliation of the world (Rom 5:1-11; cf. Unlocking Romans, 84-97); our own adoption as God’s children (Rom 8:15-17; cf. Unlocking Romans, 133-38); and Isaiah’s proclamation of Jesse’s seed in Rom 15:12 (cf. Unlocking Romans, 49-55) (696-7).

After combing through the letter as a whole, Campbell comes back to the messianic reading of Hab 2:4 in Rom 1:17b. Picking up on “the gospel” as defined in 1:1-4, and this Christological reading, “The letter’s auditors are thereby prompted to find some connection between the gospel (i.e., the announcement of the divine King’s good news through his appointed representative), Jesus’ resurrection, and God’s δικαιοσύνη (698).  Or, for those of you who prefer Kirk, “This conjunction of Paul’s gospel message, the resurrection of Jesus, and the justification of God is not a complex that we are left to assemble on the basis of Rom 1:2-4… We have as corroborating evidence what has often been read as the letter’s thesis statement [Rom 1:16-17]… There, Paul works out some further descriptions and implications of his gospel message–a message whose content he has already parsed in terms of Jesus’ resurrection-kingship… We therefore meet in 1:16-17 a parallel claim to that of 1:1-4: the gospel reveals God’s righteousness… God’s righteousness is unveiled, not in a general resurrection of the just… but in the resurrection of the one who showed his justice by becoming faithfully obedient unto death (Unlocking Romans, 46, 47).

Because in Rom 1:17 God is not judging or condemning Christ but raising him from the dead, Campbell suggests that “deliverance of God” is a nice approximation of Paul’s “righteousness of God” language.

Campbell does much in these passages to connect God’s own kingship with the kingship of God’s human representative. I think that this is well done and important, but perhaps overdone for the context in Romans. Yes, God is king, but is God’s deliverance tied to working out the function of saving, kingly power? Further, I think that Campbell too quickly skips past something like “covenant faithfulness” by not wrestling with the connection between raising Jesus from the dead and the scriptures of Israel. Ok, so maybe “covenant” is too specific, but “Israel-faithfulness” or “scriptural-faithfulness” seems to be a necessary component. Of whom is God king? What does it look like for this particular king to act justly? There are some under-developed angles of the context that I think shade the data in a slightly different direction.

As is clear from this discussion, Campbell’s reading and my own are on much the same track. One of the reasons I appreciated his reading of Romans so much is that he takes seriously the Christological narrative that determines the content of Paul’s descriptions of faith, righteousness, God, etc. His perception of the resurrection as a key component means that many of his arguments correlate well with ones I made or attempted to make in my own work. Thus, when I think of the reviewer who rather dismissively asked of my argument, “Does Hab 2:4 really refer to Jesus’ resurrection?” I can now say, “Yes, and now you have two of us to deal with.” I, of course, like that!

Next up: father Abraham.

Disclaimer: I received a free copy of Deliverance of God from the publisher, but with no stipulation either that I would review it or review it positively. I also received a free copy of Unlocking Romans, but you probably already knew that.

Deliverance of God Wrap Up: The Good–Pt 1, Resurrection of the Faithful One

May 6, 2010 in Book Reviews with 0 Comments

I want to do a final wrap-up of my impressions of Douglas A. Campbell, The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul.

Obviously, in a book of 936 pages (plus a couple hundred pages of end-notes), one will find far too many areas of agreement and disagreement to outline thoroughly. In case you’re dying with the suspense, I’ll summarize with what is sure to be a huge disappointment to my readers: I agree with everyone else. The book is fantastic in its positive program of the apocalyptic reading, especially from Romans 3:20 onward, and unpersuasive in what precedes.

Having said that, I should also say that, should Campbell prove to be entirely right, it will lend further credibility to my thesis that resurrection is a primary key for making sense of Paul’s argument in Romans. (This will become more clear as I go on in this post and the next.) So, I would love for Campbell to be completely right. I’ll spend a couple days working through what I find  compelling before spending a day on critique.

For me, the good stuff starts on p. 601. This is where Campbell works out his program of “apocalyptic rereading” with a discussion of Rom 1:16-17 and 3:21-31. DAC rightly insists on reading these two passages together–a move that should only be augmented by making the same insistence about chs. 4 and 10, where the terminology is once again densely rehearsed.

Campbell provocatively, and largely correctly, insists that pistis in these passages be seen as something along the lines of fidelity, something even roughly equivalent to obedience. I wouldn’t go as far as DAC as to say that these are “interchangeable” (612), but I would agree that pistis is manifest in obedience, as Rom 1:5 makes clear.

Campbell argues that Rom 1:17 cites Hab 2:4 Christologically as an indication of Jesus’ death and resurrection (613). I had argued previously, “God’s righteousness is unveiled, not in a general resurrection of the just… but in the resurrection of the one who showed his justice by becoming faithfully obedient unto death… Rom 1:1-4 prepares the readers of the letter to interpret Hab 2:4 as a first demonstration of resurrection hermeneutics in the letter: the One who was righteous by faith now lives” (Unlocking Romans, 47). Campbell makes a similar connection between Rom 1:1-4 and 1:17 (615).

As he goes on, DAC also makes some compelling arguments about the nature of faith as fidelity toward God. Moreover, the Christological reading of pistis terminology provides the strongest basis for Paul’s language that God’s righteousness is revealed: it is truly revealed when Jesus comes and acts. When he turns to reread Rom 3:21-26, he insists on keeping hold of this “Christological key,” to good effect. Only a Christological reading of ek pisteos can make sense of Paul’s claim that Jesus is put forward as a hilasterion, by faith, in his blood.” How do ” by faith” and “in his blood” function as correlative modifiers of “sacrifice of atonement [or mercy seat]“? When they both connote the same reality of Jesus’ death on the cross.

As Campbell makes the argument for his reading of Rom 3:20-26, he musters some of the best evidence for pistis Christou to be read as a subjective genitive that I have yet seen. This section is worth its weight in gold.

As I argued in Unlocking Romans, so in Deliverance of God Campbell makes the point that Rom 1:2-4 creates the expectation among readers that Christ’s resurrection and enthronement are the keys to the narrative of Jesus we encounter in the book, an expectation affirmed when we see it worked out in Rom 1:17 and Hab 2:4 and picked up in Rom 4:25. Campbell builds on this facet of the letter to argue that “justification” has a liberative, resurrection sense even in 3:20-26. This is a compelling reading, one of those places where I sense that his project is making significant progress in our reading of Romans (656-65; 672ff.).

One facet of Campbell’s argument in this regard is his reading of Rom 6:7, where Paul says, “The one who died has been justified from sin.” He follows Robin Scroggs (as I did previously in Unlocking Romans, 113-14) in arguing that Christ is the subject here. He works out the liberative connotations of resurrection to further support his reading of justification along those lines. Both in adding his voice to the chorus of a Christological reading of 6:7 and in stretching our understanding of justification, Campbell provides rich fare for future exegesis of Romans.

Next time, we’ll continue analyzing the book’s strengths with a dip into Campbell’s arguments about “the righteousness of God” and about father Abraham.

Disclaimer: I received a free copy of Deliverance of God from the publisher, but with no stipulation either that I would review it or review it positively. I also received a free copy of Unlocking Romans, but you probably already knew that.

Page 3 of 3«123