Theology For Masses | Today In Theology

we are children who have been given much. You have blessed us with an abundance of all things: food to fill our stomachs, every kind of entertainment to distract and occupy our minds, and every opportunity to adorn our bodies with things

you teach us that the day will come when we are stripped bare of everything we hold dear, everything that we tell ourselves defines who we are, all the things we tell ourselves make us beautiful. And on that day, all you will see are those things that truly define who we are, those things that truly matter because they are the things that matter to you. And you will determine if, in fact, we are truly beautiful.

may you find on that day children who care really and truly for our brothers and sisters, your beloved creatures crafted so lovingly in your own image. May you find that we were never guilty of stealing from them those things they need to express that image fully.

Teach us to strip ourselves of the finer things of our culture that we may clothe ourselves with the finer things of your kingdom culture. Give us eyes that see the beauty that your eye beholds, that we may learn how to become beautiful in your eyes.

Terminology Question of the Day

If Jesus is the “Word,”¹ and we don’t want to be sloppy with our language and steer ourselves away from confusing the Word with the Bible, then what ought we call the Bible to emphasize it’s nature as God-breathed scripture?

I don’t like using “the word of God” because it confuses the Bible and Jesus and I want to stay as far away from that as possible. Using the word “scripture” is what I end up doing, but it just does not carry the weight that I want it to carry. The closest thing that I can think of for the Bible internally referring to itself (and I recognize the problems with even typing that sentence) is in 2 Timothy 3:16 where the author refers to writings that are inspired of God.²

So, it Bible and Scripture the best terms to use for the collection of books that we Christians consider to have been inspired by God? What other options are there? What do you use?

‘Εν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεὸν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. –> In [the] beginning was the Word, and the word was beside the God, and God was the Word. – John 1:1

The author of 2 Timothy uses γραφή (gra-phay), lit - “a writing” a term that can mean anything from sacred writing, to a painting, to a legal document. The author equates these “writings” with Θεόπνευστος (theh-o-neus-tahs). This is a curious word, which only shows up in the NT and LXX here in 2 Tim 3:16 and is a combination of θεο + πνευστος, or God + spirit. Thus, Θεόπνευστος becomes “inspired by God” or “[having] ( since in this context there is an “is” before the word because we have two nominatives being equated.) the spirit of God.”

BC Response Watch - Day 4

It has been four days since I asked if Biblical Complimentarians ever use Jesus to suppor their claims. So far no one has chosen to respond. I find this interesting. I don’t want to win an argument because of silence, but I am starting to wonder. I know you guys are out there, I see the links to the Council of Biblical Manhood out there. I don’t see any responses. Maybe you all are busy; maybe you all don’t care. I am curious if there is any support in the teachings or actions of Jesus to deny women the roles that BCs deny them.

דמות and Aramaic Terms in Dating the OT

I thought this post series would be interesting considering Tom’s earlier post on Genesis 1:26-27. While the post did not address the issue of Egalitarianism vs Complementarianism, the issue of the date of the text is very interesting considering previous conversations here at MassTheo. The balshanut blog has been summarizing some interesting articles on linguistic studies and how they impact dating the OT, specifically דמות found in Genesis 1:26-27 speaking of humanity being made in “God’s image/likeness.” The blogger has really put into practice what he has been posting on for sometime recently and I really appreicate that. It helps me see how it works. The post series takes the reader on a journey to see if the Hebrew term דמות is an Aramaic loanword or an Aramaism (the Aramaic word being צלם). The point of this is to see if the presence of this Aramaic rooted word points to a late date or to an early date. The conclusion that is reached is that the evidence leans to a pre-exillic date but not in a conclusive and definitive manner. There just isn’t enough evidence to really come down hard either way and when the periscope was written. I just found these posts interesting and hope you do too. Here they are.

Arc Two – Completing the Reversal

Friday we looked at how Thecla began her journey from the standard Roman passive feminity on through standard Roman active masculinity toward the early Christian ideal of nongendered activity. Today, we will look at the second arc of the Acts of Thecla and see how she completes her journey.

The second arc begins in much the same way the first one does, but with a furthering of the themes presented at the conclusion of the first arc. Instead of merely passively watching Paul, Thecla is now actively following him. Paul, and therefore the branches of Christianity that claim him as an authority, claims to not know Thecla when Alexander asks about her, receding farther into femininity by becoming even more passive. When she is accosted by Alexander, “the first man of Antiochenes,” instead of tacitly rejecting him as she did her fiancé, she explicitly rejects the advances of this male, going so far as to “rip off his chlamys, an imperial or military mantle,” to “denude him of his crown, making him appear as one conquered,”¹ and to humiliate him in public. She effectively steals his honor at this point in the narrative. We need to mention that power in antiquity was always taken from someone else, not earned or obtained by any other means. In addition, she finally gains her voice. Up until this point she has been silent in the narrative. This rejection of male dominance enrages Alexander, the symbol of male and state dominance, at which point he hauls her in front of the governor demanding justice.

In the second episode of the second arc, the 2^nd trial of Thecla, maintains the same structure as the first trial, but continues add agency to Thecla and to further critique the standard notions of family and civic values. Queen Tryphaena becomes her replacement mother, Paul is nowhere to be found, and the female crowd comes to her defense against the absurd accusations of the court.

The climax of the second arc in the third episode is the most dramatic yet. Everything is aligned against Thecla. She is stripped naked, attacked by a lioness, an assortment of wild beasts, and almost pulled apart by the legs by two bulls that have fires lit under the “appropriate spot[s]”. Through each of these attacks on her honor and body, she is delivered by god or its agents. A cloud of fire reminiscent of the cloud that hid the glory of god during the 40 years of Israel wandering in the desert hides Thecla’s nakedness from the crowd. The lioness sent to attack befriends her and saves her from the assortment of wild animals. The cloud of fire burns the ropes connecting her to the bulls. Thus Thecla is saved once again. During the course of all of this and fearing for her life, Thecla performs the ultimate act of Christian agency, she baptizes herself. In doing so, she fulfills Paul’s foreshadowing speech in chapter 25. This climatic episode serves to signal the complete and utter victory of Thecla over her opponents.

The fourth episode brings resolution to the second arc and to the story as a whole. After her deliverance from her execution, she dresses like a male and finds Paul again. Paul still is concerned with her temptation, even though she has remained steadfast through incredible trials. Yet, perhaps because of the numbers of people who were thronging around to hear Thecla speak, Paul relents and commands her to go forth and preach. She, though her transformation, has won over that which she became enamored with at the beginning of the story.

On Wednesday we will sum up the effects of the rhetoric. Stay tuned and tell me where I am wrong!

Book Recomendations

Scott, over at Grace is Unfair, asked his readers for book recommendations. Since Tom has asked for a list of readables from us, I thought I’d double-dip my recommendations here. This is not a list of essential books, nor the most influential books I have read. Instead, they are some good books that will help round any person.

Religious Studies

Gods of the City, edited by Robert Orsi - This is a collection of essays and case studies done on religious people in cities. It touches on all kinds of topics. There is a study of a Hindu temple in DC, a absolutely fascinating look at racial construction through a study of the Italian Harlem, the sacralizatrion of secular space by the Salvation Army, and the Japanese Presbyterian Church among others. (I have this book - can lend)

Early Christianity

The First Urban Christians by Wayne A. Meeks - Meeks looks at the earliest Xian documents (the letters of Paul) to describe tensions and texture of the first Christians, which were found in cities. The introduction is a pretty good description of NT scholarship in its own right.

In Memory of Her by Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza This is a controversial work, but the best of trustful feminist scholarship. Schüssler Fiorenza is a hard-nosed german new testament scholar who teaches at Harvard. This work is an excellent sociological and exegetical study of the earliest Christians. She does not damn nor whitewash Paul - a rare thing in any scholarship on the subject.

The Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles translated by William Wright. This is a interesting and sometimes unintentionally hilarious collection of Syrian acts of the apostles. It isn’t all of them (no Acts of Peter, for instance), but it will give you an idea of what popular Christians were consuming and producing at the time. (as opposed to the official story of the early church fathers) This work is over 130 years old and now in the public domain. I made a copy of it on lulu which I think you might like rather than the huge volume that also contains the Syriac manuscripts tradition.

Religious History

Arc One – Critiquing Roman Gender Roles

Wednesday, we looked at the an overview of the rhetorical effect of the Acts of Thecla to better understand how it functioned in the early Christian mind. Today, we will examine the first arc of gender criticism in detail in the Acts of Thecla.

The narrative structure of the Acts of Thecla consists of two four-part arcs.¹ I have modified Aubin’s two three-part arcs by including the parallel episodes of confrontations between Thecla and Paul. While she acknowledges the existence of these episodes, she excludes them from the arcs. I have included them since they provide the resolution of the arc. The components of the arcs are listed as follows

The first arc consists of the conversion of Thecla and rejection of a suitor. The arc opens with the active Paul entering Iconium preaching a variation of the Beatitudes that promote celibacy and ascetic lifestyle. The passive Thecla is enamored with this message and for three days and three nights listens to Paul preach. Passivity was a gendering mark of the feminine as was activity a mark of the masculine.² The “three days and three nights” reference may draw the reader back to Jesus’ time in the tomb before his resurrection and symbolize what is happening in Thecla as she listens to Paul preach. Thecla is critiqued by her family which criticizes her along gender lines, referring to her as one that is paralyzed, distracted, and full of passion.³With her first step away from the Roman construct of female passivity, she decides to follow Paul and takes her first step into action by deciding not to marry her influential fiancé. This entrance into agency and action places here at odds with her family, her fiancé, and the city. Her fiancé throws Paul in jail. She is still a passive observer at this point in the story. She does not actively disavow her fiancé, only passively withdraws from him. She does not act towards him, but instead does not follow through with her socially prescribed actions. As such her rejection is more tacit than explicit.

In the second part of the first arc Thecla, her first arrest and first trial, she attaches herself to Paul though the shedding of feminizing possessions, her mirror and bracelets. Again, while Thecla shows some agency in seeking out Paul, she still is passive though out her arrest and trial alongside Paul. Additionally, she does not speak during her trial. The agents working against her are the Roman ideological bastions of family and state. Her actions are threatening to the state and to her family because of the worry that her example will spread. Two statements by her opponents underscore this. First, the governor, the representative of the Roman state, questions her about her abandonment of social duty, saying “Why do you not marry Thamyris according to the law of the Iconians?”⁴ After she refuses to answer, her mother, the representative of the Roman family, petitions the governor to execute Thecla, saying, “Burn the lawless one! Burn her who is no bride in the midst of the theater in order that all the women who have been taught by [Paul] may be afraid.”⁵ The story shifts away from Paul at this point as he is sent away with a beating and begins to center more on Thecla, as she is sentenced to be burned at the stake. Thus, in the second episode of the first arc Thecla passively challenges through the sin of omission the status quo of the family and state and as a result is condemned to die as a result.

The third episode resolves the crisis of the second episode and doles out the consequences for the parties involved. Thecla is saved from the pyre by a hailstorm sent by God that kills many of the onlookers in the crowd. Here we see in her time of trail being protected by God and her opponents punished. In the reader’s minds, Thecla and her ideals are vindicated while the values of the state and family are conversely condemned.

As Thecla is beginning to show agency and is moving away from the Roman conception of feminity at the resolution of the first arc in the fourth episode, Paul begins to move away from the ideal of masculinity. She actively seeks out and finds Paul, who becoming more and more passive in the story, hiding in a cave. Paul, the hero earlier in the story, moves farther away from this ideal through her dealings with Thecla in the fourth episode. At the turn of the fourth episode Thecla and Paul exchange places in the narrative. Thecla has now earned the right to be a confessor and even to forgive sins. ⁶ She still, however, seeks instruction from Paul but finds none. In fact, Paul slides towards Thecla’s opponents in his denouncement of Thecla’s desire to be baptized. Yes, he is foreshadowing her self-baptism but his reasons are suspect. He is afraid of her falling into temptation because of her beauty, not lack of virtue. Paul is thus discredited through this process, given Thecla’s courage at the theater.⁷

Thus, Paul is moving into the realm of the imagined feminine my means of his increased passivity and Thecla is moving into the realm of the masculine with her gradual accrual of action. Monday, we will look at the second arc in which Thecla and Paul complete this journey.

Aubin, "Reversing Romance? The Acts of Thecla and the Ancient Novel," 261.

Ibid.

Acts of Thecla 10.

Acts of Thecla 20.

Davis, The Cult of St. Thecla: An Introduction to Women’s Piety in Late Antiquity, 73.

Aubin, "Reversing Romance? The Acts of Thecla and the Ancient Novel," 267.

Loan words and OT Dating

For those of you following along at home, this is important because it suggests the tradition behind the biblical text dates to the periods and cultures from which the text itself claims to be writing, compared to being composed entirely as an after-thought.

Shower Question of the Day: Jesus and Women

Does the BC position ever use anything from Jesus to support their claims? If not, what does that mean for their theology?

I was thinking about that this morning as I was wondering about the merits of ESF’s claim that Christianity developed from the Jesus movement into the Early Missionary movement and then into a group which gradually patriarcalized it.

While doing so, I could not think of where BC’s use Jesus for their claims, just some Old Testament and the later Pauline tradition (but, then again, not the early stuff, which would further ESF’s claim about the early missionary movement).

Anyone with thoughts? Am I wrong here? There are just musings from a person getting ready.

Pre-Fall Patriarchy Revisited: A Structural Analysis of Genesis 1:26-28

If Patriarchy was a Pre-Fall reality, then it would be obvious within the biblical text. I previously demonstrated that the 2^ndcreation account (in Genesis 2) does not support such a reading, but I said nothing at the time regarding the 1^st creation account in Genesis 1.

Genesis 1:26-28 describes the creation of humanity �in the image of God� and after his �likeness.� There are a number of hermeneutical and theological difficulties related to these phrases - particularly what exactly it means to be created in God�s image and how that relates to the phrase about �according to our likeness.� Couple those things also with the use of plural pronouns and you�ve got a longstanding theological and exegetical argument.

What I want to demonstrate in this post is that the structure of the pericope provides us insight into the author�s intention �that is, the way he formulates the narrative gives us insight into what he means by the mysterious phrases. More to the point, though, when we see what he means, we are also given insight into the Pre-Fall relationship between the man and the woman - one which, as I will demonstrate, is one of equality not patriarchy. This argument will, in effect,support my reading of Genesis 2 and 3 which says that Patriarchy is a result of the Fall, not prior to it - contrary to the BC position which says Patriarchy is inherent in the creation.

The Hebrew text in 1:27 reads something like this�(the word order is important � often skewed by our English translations)

�Created God humanity in His image. In the image of God He created him. Male and female He created them.�

Structurally, the text is a Chiasm (an inverted parallelism) followed by a straight forward Parallelism. Notice the Chiasm 1^st…

Surrounding the whole things is the Creative purposes of God. Central to the chiasm, and thus the emphasis of the writer, is the Image of God. Unfortunately, besides the fact that it is the creative act of God, no other exegetical clue is provided for us to help us discern the substance of the Image of God�that is, until the parallelism which begins with the 2^nd half of the chiasm:

What the structuring of this narrative suggests, then, is that whatever it means to be in the image of God, it must be fully understood in the context of BOTH male and femaleness. Man is not the image of God without woman and woman is not the image of God without the man. They are both, together, the image of God. In other words � what the chiastic structure gives emphasis to (the image of God), the parallelism gives substance to (male and female).

Now notice that there is no implied subordination within this structuring. Rather, there is implied equality. Nothing within this text points to patriarchy or male headship. The Biblical Complementarian argument fails toaccount for the fact that this first creation account doesn’t even have a creation order for the genders. This narrative suggests that male and female are equal before God � for they both, together stand before Him and are equally created in His image � so much for the old discussions about whether women were really created in God�s image or not.

I know that BC’s generally don’t argued from Genesis 1 to support their view, but I think this structure provides the basis for understanding Genesis 2 (by means of structural particularization: a general idea occurs first, followed by the specifics of that general idea. The specifics are understood in light of the preceding general comment) and, thus, another point indicating the essential equality of men and women - both ontologically and functionally. Indeed, they are both given dominion and told to subjugate the earth. There are no inherent difference of roles within this text.

NLV the New NIV?

Rick Mansfield seems to think so. He takes a look at the New Living Version and how it might take the mantle of �Universal Bible Translation� from the NIV. He also touches on how the major improvements from the 96 to the 04 and 07 versions have radically improved the quality of the NLV. I recommend give this article a quick read. It will help you appreciate the merits of the translation and give a broader understanding of the state of Bible translation today.

Question: The Pacifist and Romans 13:1-7

To all the Christian Pacifists out there � How do you interpret Romans 13:1-7, especially verse 4?

I read this and I see a justification for violence, an avenger (???????) that uses the sword (????????), by the state as God�s agent of punishment on Earth. I�ve only glanced around at this, but ???????, from ???????, the word for vengeance, is the word for and avenger or punisher. It only shows up elsewhere in Paul�s writings as an avenger of wrongs in 1 Thessalonians 4:6 where Paul is warning against exploiting other Christians because the Lord is an avenger of wrongs. ????????, the word for sword, shows up both literally, such as in Acts 16:27, and figuratively, such as in Ephesians 6:17. Also, worthy of noting, is that Rome was a perpetrator of all kinds of evil, and yet, Paul is still giving this advice. Oppressive governments, through their physical acts of violence, are being called agents of God�s justice in the world. Furthermore, the act of resisting these governments will incur God�s judgement! What are we to do with this? Is this a case of the religion of Jesus being pitted against the religion of Paul? The closest parallel I can think of is Matthew 22:15-22 � the whole �give to Caesar what is Caesar�s� thing � which seems to be in agreement with the above. But then again how do we unify those teachings with the Sermon on the Mount? Do we just not worry about the government and work solely through the Kingdom of God for justice in this world? (which is what I lead towards)

Additionally, as a historian, I see this section of Romans as Paul pleading for the Christians there and throughout time to not make themselves a target for Roman persecution thereby giving this fledging movement a chance at surviving.

What about you? I am curious as to how other�s view this. Is Paul giving in? Is he being sneaky? Should Christian pacifists be cool with governments, even oppressive ones, meting out punishments on God�s behalf in this world? I am really interested in how some of our self-proclaimed Pacifists, such as Dave, Tom, JR, and Scott, deal with this.

Enns on the Question of Myth

A Summary of �Is Yahweh a Moral Monster?�

Last week I linked to an article entitled �Is Yahweh a Moral Monster?� which was 30 pages long � much too long for most people to read. Today the Codex has published a summary of the article which is about 90% shorter and still present�s the arguments contained therein with little commentary. Check it out.

Out of UR � As we all know�

Ever do theology that way? I�ve been guilty of it � and I bet you have as well.

Boyd�s Discussion on Violence and the Old Testament

A few days ago I linked to a an article that addressed the �evil� god found in the Old Testament. Throughout history different Christians have dealt with the sanctioned genocides and murder of infants etcetera in a variety of different ways. Some people say God can kill anyone he wants and have anyone kill anyone he wants because he is lord over all. Others say that god as portrayed in the Old Testament is a different god than the God in the New Testament. Quite a few Christian groups during the first few centuries after the resurrection were attracted to this idea. Other people use this issue to deconstruct, discredit, and ridicule Christianity, constructing Christianity as a fragile house of cards as if criticizing one or several things throughout the 4000+ year history/literary development of our faith negates everything else. With that said though, we Christians need to wade through these issues because we risk becoming that house of cards if we ignore or gloss over this problem.

Over the last few months, Greg Boyd�s has started to look at these issues. Tom alerted me to Boyd�s project yesterday; here is Greg�s description of the problem and his aims:

So far Boyd has written thirteen posts exploring this topic. I look forward to reading through them in the near future.

Top 10 (Non-Classic) Most Influential Books in My First 10 Years as a Christian

These may or may not be distinctively Christian, but they have in some way helped me grow in my faith.

10. Between Two Worlds � John RW Stott

This is Stott�s work on the history of preaching. Well written and inspiring, this is a must read for anyone interested in the foolishness of proclamation.

9. Jesus� Sermon on the Mount and Confrontation with the World � DA Carson

This Calvinistic biblical scholar has for years been a great influence on me. Though I disagree with the general theological leanings, I am always challenged when I read this text � and I believe I�ve read it at least 4 times.

8. Live to Tell � Brad Kallengberg

This is the only Kallenberg text I�ve ever read. He suggests alternative evangelism strategies that are not locked in the shackles of modernity. Accessible to laypeople.

7. The Covenanted Self � Walter Brueggemann

This was my first Brueggemann text and will, therefore, always be one of my favorites. It is a series of essays Brueggemann wrote on Covenant and community. It can be a bit academic at times, but is always challenging�you have to dig to find diamonds, after all!

6. Let the Nations Be Glad � John Piper

Once upon a time I was a Calvinist and John Piper showed me that Missions was still central to Calvinistic theology. Now that I�ve thrown off my afore-loved Calvinism, I still maintain that this book still challenged me to grow in ways I would have neglected otherwise.

5. Savage Systems � David Chidester

Chidester is a Religious Studies scholar who does a lot of work in South Africa. He catalogues the �progress� of Christianity as it became/is a bedfellow with Colonialism there. This book was the first to bring to my attention the atrocities committed in the name of Christ during the Colonial years � atrocities we are yet to apologize for or set right.

4. Peculiar People � Rodney Clapp

This is Clapp�s version of Hauerwas� Resident Aliens. He challenges Christians to break free from the Constantinian mold and be a distinctive, peculiar culture which is irrelevant to the world.

3. The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind � Mark Noll

This text kicked my *bleep* when I was a junior in college. It showed me all the ways I was failing to take my faith seriously by ignoring the intellectual side of Christianity. To this day I cringe when I confront the anti-intellectualism and pseudo-intellectualism of American Evangelicalism. This book is single-handedly responsible for me attending the University of Missouri.

2. Exclusion and Embrace � Miroslav Volf

Volf uses the metaphor of Exclusion and Embrace as he wrestles with ethnic, gender, and religious conflict. How can we forgive and love our enemies? Tis not an easy task � but Volf has the best answer I�ve ever encountered. A must read for everyone!

1. The Prophetic Imagination � Walter Brueggemann

Brueggemann taught me to envision alternative worlds where the church�s identity and imagination were not held captive by the Empire. If I have a prophetic voice at all, it�s because of The Prophetic Imagination.

What are your top books?

Later I will make a list of my top 10 Classic works.

Old Testament Formation

Good morning peoples.� I am relatively unschooled in the issues of Hebrew Bible literary formation.� Danny, over at Personman, references a History Chanel documentary which claims a rather uninspiring view of book and canon formation in hist post entitled :: The Bible Unearthed.

I felt like I had good things to say over there about issues surrounding the edge of history and the edge of faith, but am ignorant as to the claims made in the documentary.

If you are knowledgeable in these areas and wish to comment, please do over there. (And I am pretty much asking/begging you to).

Upcoming Post Series: Women in Paul

In an upcoming post series I am working on, I am going to take a look at all the specific women mentioned in the undisputed letters of Paul. The basis of this series will be the essay entitled �Real Women through the Undisputed Letters of Paul� by Margaret MacDonald found in Women & Christian Origins edited by Ross Kraemer and Mary D�Angelo. We will be looking at all the women mentioned by name in the undisputed one by one. It is hoped that after we look at this body of real women and see how Paul viewed and treated them, we can then move on and address the larger issue of women in New Testament Christianity.

Christian Carnival Highlights

Random Thought

The danger of abstracting everything is that we can easily slip into and endless discussion about our abstractions and loose sight of the things in themselves.

The God of Genocide

Perhaps the best argument leveled against Judaism and Christianity is the angry child of a god that people construct out of choice samples of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament. These criticisms should not be taken lightly nor should the texts they reference be whitewashed.

To this end, I came across an article via the Codex that I plan on reading tomorrow (for it is 2:11AM and early evening naps should be avoided, no matter how crappy one feels) entitled Is Yahweh a Moral Monster?:The New Atheists and Old Testament Ethics which takes a critical look at the claims of the �New Atheists� and attempts to construct and honest and workable Christian reply to such criticisms. Take a look online via the link in the preceding paragraph, or download the 30 pages of textual goodness in this pdf.

While you are reading that article, I recommend you also read the one which referenced it over at the Codex entitled Yahweh - a Moral Monster?, which begins a discussion on the Canaanite genocide.

Prayer Request: Casey

Please pray for Casey.� He has some exciting job opportunities on the horizon.

The Jobian Take on Righteousness

In the book of Job, written sometime between the early sixth and late fifth century BCE, God describes Job as a blameless and upright man who fears God and turns away from evil. What is such a man like? If we were to be blameless and God fearing, what sort of things ought we do?

I don�t know about you, but growing up I often imagined good ole Job as a quiet, monkly figure who amassed wealth and other manifestations of favor from God through smart and godly business practices. I imagined his actions as self-contained. He surely was righteous because he did no wrong, a passive righteousness, a lack of sin. Similarly, I conceived personal righteousness in the same terms � if I don�t actively sin, I am being righteous. Always righteousness was framed in terms of protecting it from sin.

Job considers righteousness as something completely different. Job, in verse 14 of chapter 29, poetically links righteousness and justice, saying:

While it makes perfect sense in retrospect, it something that I never really considered before. Just as robes and turbans clothe a person, justice the the action of the righteous. Lets look around this verse and see how Job was righteous.

How different this is from what I used to imagine? Job is not cloistered, seperated from society, being a �perfect� individual. Here he is actively engaged with those around him, helping those in need and opposing those who oppress. He is righteous because he takes an active stance against sin in the world. Thus, if we are to be righteous, we must conceive righteousness in the same terms � it is not enough to not actively sin, we must act for divine justice on earth. It is not our righteousness that needs protecting from sin � it should be sin (or injustice in the world) than need fear our righteousness!

He smote his face with his hands

I love reading apocryphal literature. Too many awesome and hilarious things happen in them not to read them. Take chapter 17-22 in the Acts of Thomas. In chapter 17, Thomas has been sold as a slave to an Indian merchant by good ole Jesus and finally having an audience with the king. After showcasing his talents, the King says: �Will you build me a palace?� �Oh yeah,� says Thomas, as he is sketching the plans for a grand palace on the ground, �Just give me the money and I�ll build you your palace.� So the king gives Thomas a bunch of money and leaves. He even sends him more silver and gold from time to time. This is where we pick up the text in chapter 19:

In chapter 20 people start getting word to the king that Thomas isn�t building anything and that instead, Thomas was giving to the poor, teaching them about a new God and healing the sick among other things. �And when the king heard these things, he smote his face with his hands, and was shaking his head.� In chapter 21 the king calls Thomas over and is like: �Thomas, my son (I called him son), have you built me my palace?� Thomas says: �I have built you the palace.� Then the king is like: �When can we go see this awesome palace you built for me with my money?� Thomas responds: �You can not see it now, but when you have departed this world.�

That is just great. What an excellent tale about viewing material wealth as a means to minister to those in need and to further the kingdom of God on earth wrapped in hilarity. What an powerful metaphor, considering helping those in need as building palaces of the Kingdom of God on earth; to envision the kingdom of God, not as a political kingdom, nor a physical one, but as the just lives of people living in peace, harmony, and for the Lord. While this tale is certainly noncanonical and is not binding in the least, it does aid in teaching me a godly truth.

Pagan Christianity :: Reviewing Reviews

I love to read reviews. I come by this honestly. Contrary to what some think about grad students, we don�t have all the time in the world to read books. I therefore must reply on the judgement of reviewers to help me select books for consumption and integration into my life and thought processes.

Enter Pagan Christianity. This controversial book by Frank Viola and George Banna suggests that �[m]ost of what present-day Christians do in church each Sunday is rooted not in the New Testament, but in pagan culture and rituals developed long after the death of the apostles.� A very bold claim to make. I have not read the book (see 1st paragraph), but I have a good friend that has and from talking to him about the book, Pagan Christianity tries to be very careful with the research it utilizes to bolster the bold claims that it makes.

Last week I happened upon an ongoing review of Pagan Christianity by Ben Witherington (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4). He is a good biblical scholar who currently teaches at Asbury Theological Seminary, a good school and one at which I am looking for my next stage of studies. Witherington is in a good position to speak on the specific claims made by Pagan Christianity. The manner though which I does this is a different matter entirely.

The strong point of his review is his knowledge of early Christianity and his interpretation of the New Testament on matters of the church as an institution. As I was telling Scott, the weak point is his almost flippant treatment of the book. He will at once give the writers and their ideas credit and at the same time dismiss their research and claims in cursory terms. In addition to this, the very way he refers readers to [his books] is flippant as well. The way he lists himself as an authority through referencing the fact that he wrote a book on it does not do it for me. What I want is actual and dispassionate interaction with the claims. Witherington does this in part, but he often does not and this weakens his review. He comes off as polemical at times � and polemics only serve to whip up the choir. With that said, I am not dismissing this review in the least, only saying that it needs to be read with a critical eye.

Typing of which, Witherington�s reviews should not be the last word on the matter. Jon Zens evaluates and �reviews� Witherington�s review. He has worked up responses to three of Witherington�s posts and is working on a fourth. Anyone who is navigating through this book and it�s reviews should take a moment (ok, 20-30 minutes) and digest what Zens is saying there. There is some healthy criticism of Witherington there.

What this boils down to is not merely looking to see if Pagan Christianity gets a �TRUTH� checkmark or not, but instead an opportunity to navigate the various positions on how to conduct Church and to evaluate the claims of people with obvious stakes in their positions.

With all of the above said, I look forward to reading Pagan Christianity and then revisiting the above reviews later this summer.

Video of the Day: Satan

Question of the Day � Where to Worship?

Meredith and I are trying to decide where to worship this coming Sunday. Should we go down to the courthouse and worship our great country or drive 30 minutes to the state capital to show our allegiance to ~~Rome~~ America?

All snarkyness aside, what should the attitude of citizens of the Kingdom of God be towards their place of temporal residence? I thank God that I live in such a libertine country, but I don�t want that to spill over into worship of the nation and slipping into placing my allegiance to the nation over the Kingdom.

Point; Counterpoint: Biblical Translation

This week’s "Point; Counterpoint" comes from Jim West and Richard A. Rhodes on Bible translation. West makes the contention that translations should be "woody" and goes so far as to say, "[they] are better because they maintain the proper distance between ourselves and the Biblical authors." Rhodes strongly disagrees with this sentiment in his reaction against West’s position. He maintains that:

I encourage you to check out both articles. I can sympathize with West’s sentiment. He is correct that the totality of the "biblical" experience is far removed from us and that it takes a lot of work in order to approach that world. However, I think this can be done and modern translations can be filtered through this necessary legwork to produce a meaningful translation for people who aren�t biblical scholars.

For me it all boils down to a simple question: What question am I asking of the text? If I am trying to figure out historical circumstances or do a detailed grammatical analysis of the relation of two clauses, I�ll go to the Greek and supplement that with a very literal translation like the NASB or the NRSV. If I am seeking to teach laypersons about a saying of Jesus in Sunday school for instance, I�ll go with a translation that tries to place the text into terms and syntax that is the most understandable, thus I�ll probably use the NLV or the ESV. Not everyone asks the same questions of a text and due to this, we should not expect for there to be one �best� translation for all situations everywhere. Each and every translation is an interpretation, whether one likes it or not.

I Do Not Permit a Calvinist to Use �Permit� Language

Often when discussing Calvinism with my Reformed friends, I hear them use language like �God allowed/permitted sin.� This kind of rhetoric seems strange, though, coming from a group of people who believe, as the Westminster Confession of Faith says, that �God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass.�

Logically consistent Calvinists recognize this problem and concede that God must have ordained and caused evil as well as good. As John Piper has said, �Everything that exists�including evil�is ordained by an infinitely holy and all-wise God to make the glory of Christ shine more brightly.� That is, God didn�t merely �permit� sin or �allow� it; He actively caused it as its Primary Cause.

John Calvin (as quoted by Piper) even goes on to chide those �inconsistent� Calvinists who want to use �permit� and �allow� language when it comes to sin, �John Calvin denies that there is any �mere permission� in God: From this it is easy to conclude how foolish and frail is the support of divine justice afforded by the suggestion that evils come to be not by [God�s] will, but merely by his permission. Of course, so far as they are evils, which men perpetrate with their evil mind, as I shall show in greater detail shortly, I admit that they are not pleasing to God. But it is a quite frivolous refuge to say that God otiosely [= idly] permits them, when Scripture shows Him not only willing but the author of them.”

Now, to be fair, Calvinists believe that God ordained, indeed determined and caused, sin to come into the world without in any way morally implicating God. Essentially God is the Primary Cause of sin and human agents are the Secondary Cause. God determined before creation that humanity would Fall, but because God is only the Primary Cause and not the actual agent committing or having the desire to sin, God cannot be held culpable.

God Determines (Primary Cause)
?
Humans Have the Desire (The Immediate Cause) which God has Determined**
?
Humans Sin (Secondary Cause)

The logic of this aside (for we will concede the point just for the moment and assume that a God who punishes people for actions that they could not have in fact chosen otherwise is actually good) I think it is important to note that nowhere in this model is there room for �permission� language. God does not permit anything; He causes everything � in such a way that He is not responsible for any of the negative results (but curiously all of the positive ones).

Now, when Calvinists slip into �permit� language, not only does it violate the Compatibilistic Freedom model they cling so tightly to, but they are actually employing Libertarian Freedom language. Indeed, John Piper has made this very point, �But we should not assume, as Arminians do, that divine permission is anything less than sovereign ordination.� In other words, it is logically inconsistent and theologically misleading for a Calvinist to say that God �allowed� instead of �caused� something just so it will sound more palatable to their audience.

Of course, there are many Calvinists who do not fall into this trap � as I have just demonstrated with Piper and Calvin. But this post if for those who think is permissive to do so � If you do indeed find �determination� and �causation� language morally abhorrent when it comes to evil and sin, then you would do well to become an Arminian or Open Theist � for that is exactly their complaint! If you do not believe in a God who caused the Holocaust or little girls to get raped, then by all means, abandoned your Reformed views.

In either case, let us not continue employing Calvinistic rhetoric and �permit� language together. For if Calvinism is right, God is not being glorified by such a denial of His Sovereignty.

However, if you are Reformed and you wish to retain your right to �permit/allow� language, you should at least understand that you are falling outside traditional, classical Calvinism, and your position is logically incoherent within that system This ought to tell you something as well b/c for your classical Calvinists, like John Piper, have no problem saying, �It is not wrong to say that God causes evil and sin.�

*Calvinists, I�m trying to be fair in this illustration, so if you think something could improve it, then please let me know � I don�t want to be misleading.

**Calvinistic/Compatibilistic Freedom maintains that a person makes a free choice so long as that choice is immediately caused by an inner state (desire). The person acts according to their own desire, and is therefore making a free choice. They could not act otherwise, but they do act according to their desire, and are therefore responsible for their decision and action.

Quote of the Day: John 18:36

Link of the Day: Societal Sins

At the end of his post, he quotes James 4:17, which says: “So whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin.” We know the right thing to do - therefore societal sins that we participate in are our own.

Quote of the Day: Xian Economics

Of course, I don�t mean your giving should make life easy for others and hard for yourselves. I only mean that there should be some equality. Right now you have plenty and can help those who are in need. Later, they will have plenty and can share with you when you need it. In this way, things will be equal. As the Scriptures say:

Too Skeptical for the Holy Spirit

The other day I was speaking with a friend about the pessimism of our generation, how our Hermeneutic of Suspicion has so permeated every part of our lives that we are (at least I am) too skeptical even for the Holy Spirit. In an age when politicians have bombarded us with promises un-kept, when our preachers of holiness have had extra-marital lovers, and when our God seems increasingly distant, we do not feel we can trust anyone, especially the subjective �inner witness of the Spirit� which cannot be measured or counted by any kind of empirical method I know of.

Even we Postmodern�s who think truth transcends empirical verification struggle to discern the work of the Spirit precisely because we have no way of gauging it. We recognize, hopefully, that there are times when it seems the Spirit is leading us to do one thing, but then when all the chips fall we see that we regrettably misunderstood. Any college student who�s ever used the line �God is telling me to break-up with you� after previously saying �I think it is God�s will that we date� can testify to what this failure to discern looks like. But what are we supposed to do about this?

Paul tells us that if anyone has the Spirit of Christ then he belongs to Christ. But how do I know that I have the Spirit of Christ? He answers that we know this because the Spirit bears witness with our Spirit that we belong to God. But how is this witness sensed? Does this witness look the same for every person? What about when I don�t feel the witness of the Spirit or discern it in any way?

You see, I have trouble with this kind of reasoning � if feel that, in some way, Paul is leaving me to my subjective whims. One minute I may see the fingerprints of God on everything in my life, sensing the Holy Spirit in every footstep I take and every choice I make. The next minute (and this is far more prevalent), I feel abandoned, completely forsaken by any divine testimony, cold and wintry, alone. In fact, if I�m completely honest with you, often (especially recently) when I discern the work of the Spirit in my life, it seems like God is more of a Cosmic Sadist than a Lover wooing me to drink deeply of His Being.

In other words, there�s no consistency here. I have no objective means by which I can discern the witness of the Spirit from heart burn, upset stomach, indigestion, or�.well, you get it. In the end, I lack the ability to empirically verify the work of the Spirit, and that�s the only way I know how to sense anything.

But even if I were able to discern the work of the Spirit through verifiable means � I surely couldn�t trust the statistics, could I? Often in our churches we have replaced genuine Holy Spirit movement with static�s about how many have attended or been baptized. Indeed, one clear sign that this isn�t a genuine witness of the Spirit�s presence is that, at least in my Southern Baptist circles, we have tended to lie about our numbers. So, empirical verification is out the window � too easily manipulated by our false-selves.

When we return to the subjective elements of this discussion, though, my skepticism goes deeper still. I wonder if maybe I don�t even want any kind of assurance or subjective witness of the Spirit. That is, when I look around at the comfortable Christianity lacing our pews, eating the greasy sermonic foods of pop-psychology and easy-believism I can�t help but wonder if inner witness and assurance make us fat. Maybe it is better that I never feel I am completely in the arms of God � for then, at least, I know I must continue to press toward the mark of attaining the resurrection of the dead. At least then I know I can�t sit comfortably in my pew assuming God is for me and not against me. Indeed, at least I cannot mistake false-assurance or false-witness for the real thing.

Interestingly, I hear people say things like, �God told me�� and I, sometimes, believe they are telling the truth. They are generally people I trust, who I know have a good relationship with God, so I have no reason to be critical of such a statement coming from them. But I wonder why there are so few times, if any at all, in my life when this has happened to me? Do I not read my Bible enough, fellowship enough, attend enough church activities, pray enough? Maybe I�m just not spiritual enough. Maybe I�m still fettered by Enlightenment rationalism and anti-experience. I just want God to tell me something � anything, that I can take and say, �Yeah, that was the witness of the Spirit, that was God telling me�.� Unfortunately most of the time I feel He�s an Absentee Landlord.

I truly wish things weren�t this way. I wish I could write a much more positive and enlightening treatise on the Holy Spirit. Hopefully one day I will be able to. But for now � I can neither trust empirical evidence of the Holy Spirit�s work, nor my subjective whims which may be the by-product of having eaten at Taco Bell 2 hours ago. I think I�m just too skeptical for the Holy Spirit � and this scares me.

Definging Inerrancy

Dr. Peter Enns (yes the doctor who got into so much hot water this past spring over inerrancy and inspiration etc.) gives this definition to inerrancy,

Before you respond to this definition, read the rest of the post to get more of a context for the statement. But I am interested to hear responses to this topic.

A Prayer He Prayed

The Tragedy of the Soldier�s Mite

The widow in this story is always held up as a model of faithful giving. Though she has almost nothing, she gives everything she has. In doing so, she give far more than all the rich whose monetary contributions were exponentially larger. And so we read Jesus� statement about her as a commendation. But Dr. Rodney Reeves once asked me this profound question: did Jesus see her gift as admirable or tragic? Just the day before this, Jesus cleansed the Temple and proclaimed its destruction. He�s spent today in the Temple arguing with the religious leaders there. And now he�s criticizing the rich who oppress the poor, and even warns that they �devour widows� houses� while appearing religious (this of course despite the fact that God said true religion is caring for widows). Here is a woman who is a victim of a corrupt, oppressive religious system, and she�s so enmeshed in the hegemony of that system that she is giving everything she has to the very system that�s oppressing her. Indeed, this woman is tragic. We can applaud her act of giving, but we cannot applaud the object of that gift. We should weep that she�s sacrificing everything for a broken, corrupted system that Jesus has promised will fall.

So too, today. I hear at least once weekly � usually in prayers � that we should be thankful for our soldiers fighting in Iraq who �are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice� because we remember that �freedom isn�t free.� But isn�t it? Isn�t that the point of grace? That we don�t earn any of it? And isn�t it �for freedom that Christ set us free�? In fact, our nation has cultivated a culture of violence and death. And we support our culture of consumption and irresponsibility in large part through our military action around the globe. Now, I�m not going to deny that the American armed forces do a lot of great things. But this does not detract from the fact that they also enact terrible acts of violence in order to support the American way of life. But we know that this life is unbiblical. We are called to use what we need and give the rest away. We are called to serve others first and think of ourselves last. We are c

Article Series - Thecla and Early Christian Thought

Religious Studies

Early Christianity

Religious History

Article Series - Thecla and Early Christian Thought

Article Series - Toward an Egalitarian Ecclesia