what is an "evangelical"?

In what may be called "etymological-biblical-theological" terms, I would suggest that an "evangelical" is one who is committed to believing, proclaiming, and living out the apostolic "evangel" - the gospel of Jesus Christ as preached by his apostles - centred on Messiah Jesus, his death for sins, and his resurrection on the third day (1 Cor 15:1-11). For me, this is the most basic meaning of the term; indeed, one could argue that in this sense the term "evangelical" is virtually equivalent to the term "Christian" as historically understood, though it focuses what it means to be a Christian in a way that the word "Christian" (i.e. "Christ-adherent") in itself does not.

In more "social-historical-theological" terms, I would suggest (in line with the work of scholars such as Bebbington and Noll) that an "evangelical" is a Protestant Christian whose worldview is shaped by a heritage that includes (in various ways and to varying degrees) the Puritanism of the 16th and 17th centuries, the Pietism of the 17th and 18th centuries, the Great Awakenings and various "missionary movements" of the 18th and 19th centuries, the early 20th century "fundamentalists," and the "new evangelicalism" that arose in the mid-20th century, resulting in a distinctive blend of ideological and practical emphases: biblicism (special regard for and "high view" of the Bible), crucicentrism (strong focus on the atoning work of Christ on the cross), conversionism (the belief that individual persons need to be converted to Christ), and activism (the idea that the Christian life is to be expressed in particular outward acts of piety).

Personally, I'm quite happy to call myself an "evangelical" in both these senses - the senses which, as I see things, have the best claim to biblical and historical legitimacy. However, "evangelical is as evangelical does," which means that in some quarters the term "evangelical" has taken on other nuances that can even disguise or distort the meanings I've offered above. This attribution of additional nuances is done both by those who don't call themselves "evangelicals" and also by those who do. But for my part I want to reject any particular social, political, theological, or other nuance of the term "evangelical" apart from the descriptions I've given above. As much as I possibly can, I will fight to retain the "purity" of the term "evangelical" by staunchly refusing to align the term "evangelical" with any particular political or social ideology (e.g. "evangelical" = "American Republican"), or even many particular conservative Christian doctrines or practices (cf. e.g. my evangelical mythology anthology).

Is the term "evangelical" worth saving? I think it's worth the attempt, primarily because of its etymological significance (the first definition above). However, if the term continues to accumulate these additional connotations that disguise or even distort the word beyond recognition, I would peel it off and throw it away, continuing to hold to those general ideas and practices outlined in the two meanings above, in nameless continuity with biblical and historic "evangelicalism."

See also my related post: what is a "fundamentalist"?

popular myths of evangelicals: inerrancy guarantees orthodoxy

For other posts in this series, see here.

There is a whole cluster of popular evangelical ideas related to Scripture that I see as problematic, and several of these will probably make it into my "evangelical mythology anthology" down the road. But the one I want to tackle in this post is one of those I frequently encounter. It's the idea that (put positively) belief in the inerrancy of Scripture guarantees the doctrinal orthodoxy of the person who so believes, or that (put negatively) denying the inerrancy of Scripture leads inevitably to doctrinal heterodoxy.

First, it must be stated that there is no necessary theological connection between belief in "inerrancy" - at least not an absolute or full inerrancy - and doctrinal orthodoxy. Of course, if one defines doctrinal orthodoxy such that it includes belief in inerrancy, then there is a direct connection - but that would be a very strange, historically uninformed definition of doctrinal orthodoxy. No statement on the nature of Scripture appears in any of the universal creeds of the patristic period (the normal parameters for "orthodoxy") or, for that matter, in any of the core kerygmatic or confessional material in the Scriptures (e.g. 1 Cor 15:3-5). Obviously, Scripture was an important source and catalyst for the theological formulations of both the Apostles and the Church Fathers (see again 1 Cor 15:3-5 with its "according to the Scriptures"), but they saw no need to formulate a particular doctrine of the nature of Scripture to which all Christians must adhere.

Second, the idea that "inerrancy guarantees orthodoxy," in either its positive or negative forms, is simply demonstrably false. There have been a variety of heterodox groups and cults throughout history and today which could readily affirm the absolute inerrancy of Scripture - yet deny Trinitarianism, or the full deity of Christ, or the full forgiveness of sins, or other crucial doctrines of orthodoxy. Although I don't know the full details on this, it's my understanding that this reality was reflected in the early experience of the Evangelical Theological Society: originally the ETS only required adherence to inerrancy from its members, until it was discovered that some members denied the Trinity, and adherence to Trinitarianism was also required. I'm happy to be corrected on this if I'm wrong. But if this story is correct, the ETS had to learn (and should learn again?) that an inerrant Scripture still must be interpreted, that biblical inerrancy is not equivalent to biblical interpretation.

From the other angle, there have also been many doctrinally orthodox groups and individuals throughout history and today who have not affirmed a position on "inerrancy." Clearly, there must be some sort of understanding of Scripture's truthfulness and trustworthiness in order to affirm the historical orthodoxy that developed from reflection on Scriptural ideas. But this does not mean that this "truthfulness and trustworthiness" of Scripture must be defined in terms of "inerrancy." For many, a position such as biblical "salvific truthfulness" or "general reliability" - somewhat more along the lines of the more historic term "infallibility" - is sufficient to sustain a robust doctrinal orthodoxy.

There may well be reasons to affirm a position on the "inerrancy" of Scripture - it is, after all, a revelatory-communicative act of the loving and faithful God (see my thoughts here) - but affirming such a position will never guarantee doctrinal orthodoxy, and denying such a position will not inevitably lead to doctrinal heterodoxy.

sound dissertation defense advice

Thanks for the advice, Mike. I guess I should stop rehearsing that interpretive dance I've been working on... :-)

defense date set: d-day is coming...

Well, a date has been set for my viva: October 15. I've been preparing for this for five years, but suddenly it doesn't seem like I've got enough time to get ready! I'd welcome any advice on going through the defense, particularly from those who have experienced the British version of this process. If you've got some of this constructive counsel for me, you can comment below or email me at my Gmail address.

Now what was my dissertation on again...?

latest review of biblical literature

The latest New Testament-related items in the RBL include the following of interest to me:

Peter Jeffery. The Secret Gospel of Mark Unveiled: Imagined Rituals of Sex, Death, and Madness in a Biblical Forgery.
Reviewed by Scott G. Brown

Martin Goodman. Judaism in the Roman World: Collected Essays.
Reviewed by Judith M. Lieu

Isaac Kalimi and Peter J. Haas, eds. Biblical Interpretation in Judaism and Christianity.
Reviewed by Craig A. Evans

Michelle V. Lee. Paul, the Stoics, and the Body of Christ.
Reviewed by Richard A. Wright

popular myths of evangelicals: "creation" = "creationism"

For other posts in this series, see here.

In my experiences within fundagelicalism, here's the way I've often heard this expressed: "A biblical doctrine of creation is essential to a Christian worldview," someone will say, or "A biblical doctrine of creation is crucial to a proper understanding of the gospel." So far so good. But then this is immediately followed up with something like, "So when people deny a literal, six 24-hour day creation, they are undermining a Christian worldview (or undermining the gospel)."

But just hold on a minute.

There's a missing step in the logic, an assumption which is not self-evidently true: that a "biblical doctrine of creation" is necessarily equivalent to a "literal, six 24-hour day creation." However, a "literal, six 24-hour day creation" is one particular reading of one particular text of Scripture, and a "biblical doctrine" of anything 1) is not based upon any one text but upon the whole witness of Scripture in its unity and diversity, and 2) grapples seriously with alternative readings of any particular text (especially, for evangelicals, with alternative evangelical readings of any particular text).

As for the second of these, any evangelical interpreter of Genesis 1 must take seriously the fact that other evangelicals - evangelical in both faith and life - read the text differently. All evangelical scholars see inspiration as God's work through the human authors of Scripture, through the literary styles and genres of the biblical writings, and many evangelical scholars then see Genesis 1 as highly poetic in style and, one might say, "anti-mythic" in function (providing an alternative "origins narrative" to pagan "origins narratives"). In other words, these evangelical scholars believe that Genesis 1 is to be taken seriously in shaping the worldview of the people of God - it speaks normatively to the "who" and the "why" of creation - but it is not to be taken "literally" in terms of describing the "when" and the "how" of creation.

When one works through the rest of the biblical witness - the first of my comments above on developing a "biblical doctrine" - one sees these same ideas emphasized: biblical teaching on creation is not focused on the "when" and the "how" but on the "who" and the "why." As for the "who," the key emphasis consistently repeated throughout Scripture is that "God did it," that the one true and living, holy and transcendent God, who reveals himself to his people as Yahweh and makes himself immanent ultimately in Jesus Christ - this God made everything that exists apart from himself. The other key "who" emphasis, also consistently repeated throughout Scripture, is the concept of the imago Dei, that humanity has been made by God in his image, as his royal representatives on the earth, reflecting his likeness as a child reflects the likeness of his or her parents. Related to this, the biblical "why" emphasis is expressed primarily in terms of God's glory: humanity has been made uniquely to bring glory to God in bearing his image, but all creation exists to bring glory to God in its very existence and its breathtaking diversity.

These, then, are the key building blocks of a "biblical doctrine of creation," and these, then, are important foundations of a Christian worldview and the gospel - quite apart from what one may believe about the "when" (young/old) and the "how" (fiat/evolution) of it all.

popular myths of evangelicals

I've spent my whole life in that strange and wonderful world which is "fundagelicalism" (that nebulous territory inhabited by Christian fundamentalists and evangelicals), and I'm quite content to call myself an "evangelical" - as long that is not defined in narrow sociopolitical terms but in broad historical theological terms. However, there are many aspects of this fundagelicalism - especially toward the "fundamentalist" side - that I find disconcerting, annoying, or even just plain crazy. While there's much in the theology and praxis of fundamentalism and evangelicalism that I could decry, I'm typically most vexed by some of the problematic theological ideas I see among those who call themselves "evangelicals." In this ad hoc series of posts I will describe some of these "popular myths of evangelicals" as I have encountered them. Of course, this should not be taken to mean that I've got it all together myself - I'm vaguely aware of some theological logs still in my own eye, and certainly unaware of others. In fact, one could even say that this series really reflects milestones in my own log-picking as I've looked into the mirror of Scripture and historical orthodoxy.

Now on to my "anthology of evangelical mythology" (updated as posts are added):

• "Creation" = "Creationism"
• Inerrancy Guarantees Orthodoxy
• The Eschaton = The "Pre-Trib Rapture"
• The Bible is "The Word of God"
  

goodbye, san diego - hello, england and israel

Well, it looks as though I won't be going to San Diego after all. This will be the first time in several years that I haven't been able to attend the November ETS and SBL meetings, and I'm quite disappointed. I was very much looking forward to several sessions that would be immediately beneficial for research and teaching, such as the Friday afternoon session on "The Faith of Jesus Christ" or the Saturday afternoon panel review of Richard Bauckham's Jesus and the Eyewitnesses. Of course, I will very much miss the camaraderie of the week as well, catching up with the likes of Mark Goodacre, Mike Bird, Jim West, and others. And, there are some potential publishing opportunities that may be hindered by my absence in San Diego. However, both institutional and personal funds are low, and since I am not presenting this year I cannot justify the expense. Anyone have $1000 burning a hole in their pocket? :-)

On the upside, it looks as though England and Israel are on my itinerary over the next few months. I will be heading to England shortly (date still to be confirmed) for my viva, and Larissa and Adalynn will come along as well. Once the inquisition is over, we hope to have a few stress-free days to catch up with friends and see some of our favourite sites. Then, next May I will be going to Israel for a two-week tour. It will be my first time there and I'm quite excited about the trip - and the few thousand digital pictures that will inevitably return with me...

thessalonian watch: upcoming ets and sbl papers

A quick search of both the ETS and SBL programs brings up four papers at the November 2007 meetings related to the Thessalonian epistles:

Jeremy T. Vanatta, Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary
The Role of Discipline in "Teaching Them to Obey": An Analysis of 2 Thessalonians 3:13-15
New Testament: Pauline Epistles
Thursday, November 15, 3:00-3:40 p.m.
Royal Palm Salon Five, The Town and Country Resort & Convention Center

No abstract available.

Rachel Gostenhofer, University of Toronto
Fences and Neighbors: The Limits of Paul's Communities
Social Scientific Criticism of the New Testament
Sunday, November 18, 3:00-3:30 p.m.
29 C, San Diego Convention Center

Paul's exhortation to "quietism" in 1 Thess 4:9-12 has generated a small library of studies. Many take a "history of ideas" approach, with some attributing Paul's paraenesis to an "imminent eschatology," and others explaining it in light of broader philosophical discourses. While these ideational approaches shed important light on this passage, they do not sufficiently address the socio-political context that might have precipitated these comments in the first place. I argue that Paul’s paraenetic remarks are a strategic attempt to render his social formation immune from the charge of political subversiveness, an accusation to which this assembly—like all "new" religions—was especially vulnerable. This "quietism," however, was not merely strategic. Drawing on Foucault's notion of "heterotopia," I offer a re-description of Paul's religious vision as an attempt to construct a heterotopic space which required the construction of clearly demarcated boundaries, both ideal and real. This "heterotopia" might further be described as "utopian" (in a spatial sense à la Smith) insofar as it consistently reflects a strident anti-cosmicism which holds out the promise of escape. In other words, the very attempt to create this heterotopic space requires that the group not attract the attention of "outsiders." In light of this analysis, the paper concludes by addressing a much-discussed question of late: what is the most useful social paradigm for understanding Pauline community formation (i.e. voluntary association, synagogue, mystery religion, etc.)?

Peter Arzt-Grabner, Universitaet Salzburg
"I Was Intending to Visit You, but...:" Clauses Explaining Delayed Visits and Their Importance in Papyrus Letters and in Paul
Papyrology and Early Christian Backgrounds
Sunday, November 18, 5:00-5:45 p.m.
Maggie, Manchester Grand Hyatt

As many senders of private papyrus letters, also Paul several times emphasizes that he intended to visit his addressees earlier but for some reason could not or did not do so (cf. especially Rom., 1 Cor., 2 Cor., and 1 Thess.). The large number of papyrus letters from Graeco-Roman antiquity, covering clauses that explain such delayed visits, provides us with the opportunity to study such clauses extensively and in detail, also because these letters are much shorter than most of Paul’s letters, and less sophisticated in style and contents, but nevertheless written according to the same principles of communication and letter writing. The first important result of the study is that such clauses are not mere phrases explaining simply that the letter writer could not visit his addressee and nothing else (or, in other words: these clauses are not just philophronetic), but that, in a direct combination with such clauses, the letter writer informs the addressee, more or less clearly, about the original and primary intention of the letter. Sometimes, this intention is to express via a letter exactly what the writer had wished to express on the occasion of a visit. But, there are also examples, where a writer obviously explains something different, and deals with informations, queries or expectations in a way that is different from what she or he would have done when visiting the addressee in person. And sometimes, of course, a letter merely functions to ease the writer’s personal desire for the addressee, or to confirm the ongoing good relationship between both of them. A comparison with the relevant clauses in Paul proves that these results are very well applicable, and that these clauses in Paul provide us with important clues to the primary intentions of some of his letters (i.e. most of all 1 Thess., 1 and 2 Cor., and Rom.).

Christina M. Kreinecker, Universitaet Salzburg
Papyrological Commentary on 2 Thessalonians: Outline and First Results
Papyrology and Early Christian Backgrounds
Sunday, November 18, 5:30-6:30 p.m.
Maggie, Manchester Grand Hyatt

One of the next volumes of the Papyrologische Kommentare zum Neuen Testament will be on 2 Thessalonians. In addition to the analysis of the Greek vocabulary according to its papyrological daily background, use and meaning, it will contain oberservations on pseudepigraphy and comments on the themes of parousia and imminentism . In documentary and also magical papyri we find ideas of a kind of doomsday, or of some pessimism when being confronted with riots, war or insecurity. Thus, the papyrus texts provide us with a clear impression how easily common people could be infected by such pessimism, and that the writer of 2 Thess had a good reason to address it. The presentation gives a short overview of the Commentary and the results of the research thus far.

phd programs: american or british?

Over on the SBL Forum, three PhD students have bared their souls regarding their reasons for choosing the educational route they did: one doing a British PhD, one an American PhD, and one who started in the U.S. and is finishing in Britain. Here's the link: American versus British Ph.D. Programs: Three Doctoral Students Reflect on Their Decisions. Lots of interest in there for me in light of my own decision to pursue a PhD in Britain. Chris Keith has done his PhD entirely in Britain (at Edinburgh), and his experience really resonated with me in almost every way. He says this:

I must stress, however, that my satisfaction with Edinburgh is a direct reflection of the fact that I (and my wife) approached this process as a holistic decision. That is, while the academic environment is stimulating and fruitful and my supervisors are excellent, equally important is the opportunity to go, for example, to Rome for a short vacation, to London for a couple nights, or to the Scottish Highlands for the weekend. Doing the Ph.D. is clearly the most important aspect of anyone's doctoral experience, but it is not the only aspect of it, and I would encourage those in the decision-making process to think not just about the academic issues but also about what type of life you want for you and/or your family while in the program.

The lack of formal coursework has been a tremendous advantage for me in particular, as has the freedom to work at my own pace with occasional meetings with my supervisor(s). This fosters a professional environment, where the faculty treats the student more like an independent researcher than a student per se (which often results in students having the confidence and ability to publish journal articles while still technically students). Worth noting, however, is that this less-supervised study environment seems to be a disadvantage for other students. Some students work best when left alone; other students work best with external pressure that a classroom setting can provide. When asked, I have often compared the British Ph.D. to being thrown in the deep end of the pool — you sink or you swim, but it is up to you.

My one lament about the British program is the lack of formal training in modern research languages (e.g., German or French). Students are expected to prove competence in these languages in their thesis, but no official structure exists for language acquisition. Also, in practice, it seems, different schools adopt different strategies on how they enforce demonstration of that competence. What the British system lacks in formal structure, however, it makes up for in research training, and this has been the most advantageous option for me.

"what if we found the original new testament but did not know it?"

That's the question Dan Wallace asks in an interesting and somewhat fun little piece which almost functions as an introduction to textual criticism for the uninitiated: What if we found the original new testament but did not know it?

Update (09/18/07): Dan Wallace has now added a second part here.

sabbath controversies

In the midst of an attempt to resist Hellenizing pressures to compromise on Sabbath observance (among other things), Mattathias and his sons nevertheless chose to set aside strict Sabbath observance in order to defend themselves and their families. In the face of harsh criticism from the Pharisees and legal experts who allowed for emergency acts of mercy on the Sabbath, Jesus of Nazareth chose to do even non-emergency acts of mercy on the Sabbath. These examples reflect what has been an ongoing issue for devout Jews throughout their history: how do we respond to the demands of our daily life and surrounding culture while maintaining faithfulness to our divinely ordained religious heritage?

Now, a similar controversy with a distinctly Canadian flavour:

Quebec Jewish hockey player agrees to play on Sabbath
Benjamin Rubin and Gatineau Olympiques reach a compromise
CBC News

A talented Quebec junior hockey player from Montreal has agreed not to observe some of the strict rules of his Jewish religion after officials threatened to cut him from the team if he didn't travel or play on Saturdays.

The Gatineau Olympiques managed to reach a compromise with 18-year-old Benjamin Rubin on Tuesday, allowing him to play forward this season, said team governor Charles Henry.

"We finally were able to get all the pieces put together," Henry told CBC-TV. "There were a lot of things such as religious holidays that were in the way, and we were able — with different rabbis of the religion to help us out — to make do, and make some concessions."

Rubin, a prospective NHL draft pick who plays left wing, is an Orthodox Jew.

If he observed his religion's prohibition to travel by vehicle or work during the Jewish Sabbath, from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday, he would have missed eight games in the 70-game season.

The Olympiques hockey team did not consider that to be a reasonable accommodation, and told him he needed to commit 100 per cent or be cut from the team.

In the end, Rubin agreed to play the entire regular season except for three games during Yom Kippur.

[...]

Rubin is surely glad that violent Torah-zealots like Phinehas, Mattathias, or even the pre-Christian Saul are not all that prominent in Canada! Personally, I have no doubt that playing hockey in Canada is like unto defending one's family in a time of war, and that it may even be classified as an emergency act of mercy. On the other hand, maybe Canadianization is as evil a force as Hellenization was... :-)

latest journal for the study of the historical jesus

The latest issue of JSHJ is online for subscribers with abstracts for all: July 2007, Volume 5, No. 2. Items include "Jesus the Israelite Was Neither a 'Jew' Nor a 'Christian': On Correcting Misleading Nomenclature" by John H. Elliott, and "The Coming Son of Man Revisited" by Thomas Kazen. The first of these has already generated much discussion since it came out in print and recently online.

latest review of biblical literature

The most recent reviews in RBL include the following New Testament-related items of interest:

Peter H. Davids. The Letters of 2 Peter and Jude.
Reviewed by James P. Sweeney and Daniel B. Wallace

Craig A. Evans. Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels.
Reviewed by Stephen J. Patterson

Lars Kierspel. The Jews and the World in the Fourth Gospel: Parallelism, Function, and Context.
Reviewed by Adele Reinhartz

Anthony C. Thiselton. 1 Corinthians: A Shorter Exegetical and Pastoral Commentary.
Reviewed by H. H. Drake Williams III

past ets papers online

Reclaiming the Mind Ministries, in association with the Evangelical Theological Society, has made hundreds of papers from recent ETS meetings available online: Biblical and Theological Paper Library. The quality of papers undoubtedly varies (as it does in any academic society's conferences), but there are surely some gems in the mix. (HT: Parchment and Pen)

latest new testament studies

The latest issue of the journal New Testament Studies is online for subscribers, with abstracts available for everyone: Volume 53 - Issue 04 - October 2007. Articles include "The Meaning of κατακαλυπτω and κατα κεφαλης εχων in 1 Corinthians 11.2-16" by Preston T. Massey, "Zur Argumentation von Galater 3.10-12" by Michael Bachmann, and "Apostate Turned Prophet: Paul's Prophetic Self-Understanding and Prophetic Hermeneutic with Special Reference to Galatians 3.10-12" by Sigurd Grindheim. Be sure to check the link for a whole lot more.

choose your theological problem: or, parallel reflections on divine revelation: or, a call to concurrence

For Christians of a more conservative theological orientation who assume the general validity of mainstream historical and scientific research, the following conundrums often arise (or if they don't, perhaps they should).

A1: Historical research indicates that Jesus was a man who was born, lived, and died in a particular culture at a particular time in history.
A2: For those Christians described above, this historical conclusion creates a dilemma between two theological problems:
A2a: either Jesus was only apparently human, in which case the adequacy of his representation of and substitution for humanity in salvation is called into question;
A2b: or Jesus was truly human with all that this entails, in which case conservative notions of the metaphysics of divinity and humanity, and the supernatural and the natural, are called into question.

B1: Historical research indicates that the biblical writings were written by particular human persons at particular times in history.
B2: For those Christians described above, this historical conclusion creates a dilemma between two theological problems:
A2a: either the biblical writings are only apparently human historical writings, in which case the integrity of God in the process of inspiration is called into question;
A2b: or the biblical writings are truly human historical writings with all that this entails, in which case conservative ideas of the divine origins of Scripture are called into question.

C1: Scientific research indicates that the universe and the earth are billions of years old.
C2: For those Christians described above, this scientific conclusion creates a dilemma between two theological problems:
C2a: either the universe is only apparently billions of years old, in which case the integrity of God in creation is called into question;
C2b: or the universe is truly billions of years old with all that this entails, in which case conservative interpretations of the biblical creation narratives are called into question.

Many conservative Christians I know will choose 2a every time - in practice if not in confession - without realizing the full implications of that essentially docetic choice. They live daily within the paradigms of mainstream history and science, relying on the results of these fields of study every day, never even thinking to question these things in any other subject of inquiry - yet they struggle to allow these to hold full sway in the sorts of matters I've just outlined, or else they live in ignorance of the cognitive dissonance of holding on to their inherited scientific worldview while maintaining their received conservative doctrines.

It strikes me that a unifying thread in these three common conservative conundrums is "revelation." Creation, Scripture, and Christ are held up in the biblical writings and Christian tradition as three of the most significant loci of God's revelation of himself. Indeed, Christ is upheld by several of the New Testament authors as the ultimate revelation of God: "And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father's only son, full of grace and truth.... No one has ever seen God. It is God the only Son, who is close to the Father's heart, who has made him known (John 1:14, 18); "He is the image of the invisible God" (Col 1:15); "Long ago God spoke to our ancestors in many and various ways by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom he also created the worlds. He is the reflection of God's glory and the exact imprint of God's very being" (Heb 1:1-3).

Perhaps, then, the solution to all three dilemmas is found in Christ (that would certainly make for appropriately "Christian" theology). If Christ is the ultimate revelation of God, then perhaps the nature of his being tells us something about the nature of God's revelation generally, or at least maybe God's preferred mode of revelation. Christ as fully God and fully human does indeed challenge conservative - even non-conservative - notions of the metaphysics of divinity and humanity, the supernatural and the natural. While divinity and humanity can never be equated (that is illogical, let alone ill-ontological), because of the revelation of God in Christ divinity cannot be thought of as in some sense necessarily excluding humanity, nor humanity divinity - they must be able to co-exist in God's revelation of himself, to exhibit a mysterious concurrence.

If this is the case, then God does not always or even primarily act in ways which are distinctively "God-like." He is not the god of deism or docetism, nor the "god of the gaps," any more than he is the god of pantheism or panentheism. He is the "God who hides himself" (Isa 45:15), the transcendent God who immanently reveals himself in a mystery, who unveils himself through a veil.

It seems to me that this concept of concurrence, of the full co-existence of humanity and divinity or the natural and the supernatural within divine revelation, can be a fruitful way of navigating through the other two dilemmas, both also dilemmas related to divine revelation. The biblical writings are fully human in origin. But just as the full humanity of Christ does not negate the full divinity of Christ, so the fully human origin of Scripture does not negate the fully divine origin of Scripture. Furthermore, just as the revelation of the divine is in many respects seen most profoundly only through understanding the full humanity of Christ - most obviously through his crucifixion - so the divine meaning of Scripture is in foundational ways seen most profoundly only through understanding the fully human dimension of Scripture.

The other conservative conundrum regarding creation is also aided by this concept of concurrence demonstrated in the divine-human Christ. The universe is fully natural in every way, including its origins. But just as the full humanity of Christ does not negate the full divinity of Christ, so the fully natural origin of the universe does not negate the fully supernatural origin of the universe. Furthermore, just as the revelation of the divine is in many respects seen most profoundly only through understanding the full humanity of Christ, so the divine significance of creation is in important ways seen most profoundly only through understanding the fully natural dimension of the universe.

At the very least, these are parallels worth pondering...

latest review of biblical literature

There's a lot in the latest batch of reviews at RBL, including several New Testament-related items of interest:

M. Eugene Boring. Mark: A Commentary.
Reviewed by Darrell L. Bock

Robert L. Brawley, ed. Character Ethics and the New Testament: Moral Dimensions of Scripture.
Reviewed by Patrick J. Hartin

David B. Gowler. What Are They Saying about the Historical Jesus.
Reviewed by Mary J. Marshall

Larry W. Hurtado. The Earliest Christian Artifacts: Manuscripts and Christian Origins.
Reviewed by James F. McGrath and Joseph Verheyden

Hillel Newman, edited by Ruth Ludlam. Proximity to Power and Jewish Sectarian Groups of the Ancient Period: A Review of Lifestyle, Values, and Halakhah in the Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, and Qumran.
Reviewed by Gerbern Oegema

Jerome H. Neyrey. The Gospel of John.
Reviewed by Mary L. Coloe

Brant Pitre. Jesus, the Tribulation, and the End of the Exile: Restoration Eschatology and the Origin of the Atonement.
Reviewed by Matthew S. Harmon

happy england day!

A very happy England Day to any blog readers who happen by! This is a family holiday in memory of our brilliant year in England. We left for England on September 5 two years ago to complete the residence requirements for my PhD. If you're interested in checking out our family experiences over there, you can read about them at our England blog: The Anglo-file, too!

so it begins

I must confess that, in spite of my optimism a week ago, I was not really ready for classes to start - I was ready in terms of the nitty-gritty of general course prep, but not really mentally ready to go. However, it took me about 30 seconds in the classroom this morning to get excited about teaching again, and I'm now really looking forward to my courses.

This semester I've got Introduction to the New Testament (always challenging, but usually the most rewarding in getting students to really engage the New Testament writings), Jesus and the Gospels (great topic, and a great bunch of students this particular go-round), and Pauline Epistles II (first thing in the morning, but it looks like I'll have a small group of good students which may let me do more of a seminar discussion approach). Much like Mark Goodacre, I find that my teaching experiences and engagement with students provide some of the best sparks for my own personal research and reflection.

latest expository times

The latest issue of the Expository Times is now online for subscribers with abstracts for all: October 2007, Volume 119, No. 1. As usual, there's a lot there worth perusing, although the main articles are more focused on historical theological- and Hebrew Bible-related matters than New Testament-related.

so what is "the heart of the gospel"?

I've indicated my disagreement with the statement that "justification is the heart of the gospel," and there have been some good comments in response to that post. That post and those comments lead naturally to this question: so what do I think is "the heart of the gospel"? Here are some thoughts on this, reflecting one of my own comments on that previous post.

The heart of the gospel is 1) Jesus himself, 2) his death for our sins, and 3) his resurrection on the third day - all in accordance with the Scriptures (1 Cor 15:3-5). There are several apostolic interpretations of these three core elements which are direct implications of these elements, such that if any of them is outright denied by someone then the legitimacy of that person's understanding and expression of the gospel is called into question: 1) Jesus as Messiah, Lord, and Son of God; 2) Jesus' death for sins as sacrificial atonement, new-covenant ratification, liberating redemption, spiritual victory, and suffering exemplar; and 3) Jesus' resurrection on the third day as divine vindication and new-creation transformation - all in line with metaphors and motifs and expectations deriving from the Jewish Scriptures. Perhaps other implications could be in this summary as well.

To connect this with my previous post, Paul's doctrine of "justification" is one of several crucial apostolic interpretations of "what is going on" in the reality that "Jesus died for our sins and was raised on the third day," particularly in explicating the "sacrificial atonement," "liberating redemption," "divine vindication," and "new-creation transformation" aspects of these events. But it is not identical to John's doctrine of "life," nor is it any more or less central than the Johannine soteriology - or the Lukan, or any other apostolic soteriologies that can be discerned in any detail. We don't read Scripture well, it seems to me, when we collapse all of these into our preferred apostolic mode of discourse.

My doctrinal/confessional summary of "the heart of the gospel" given above follows the "apostolic gospel creed" of 1 Corinthians 15. It is not, however, the only way of expressing the gospel, nor is it necessarily always the best way. In fact, more kerygmatic/narratival expressions of the gospel have an equal claim on legitimacy in the apostolic writings - particularly the narrative presentations of Jesus, his death, and resurrection in the Gospels, and the kerygmatic presentations of these in the speeches of Acts.

For some more detail on my understanding of the background, origin, nature, and significance of the Christian gospel, check out my series on "what is the gospel?"

latest biblical studies carnival

Duane Smith at Abnormal Interests has done an outstanding job in posting the latest rendition: Biblical Studies Carnival XXI. Make sure you wander over there and check out the latest and greatest in biblical studies blogging. There's enough there to keep you reading until the next one!