Tonight I am preaching to our youth on 1 Timothy and the call to full-time ministry. As I have been doing some study, I stumbled across some background information on 1 Timothy I didn't know before. It would seem that Paul was encouraging Timothy to guard against those who had an over-realized eschatology (that is just a big phrase meaning that they saw that the end of time was already taking place at that moment).
For instance, Paul says in 2 Timothy 2:18, "They have left the path of truth, claiming that the resurrection of the dead has already occurred; in this way they have turned some people away from the faith." It would seem that this thinking impacted their actions in God's world. Scholar Greg A. Couser states, "A central effect of this shift resulted in illegitimately putting God's saving work over against his present purposes in creation (cf. 1 Tim. 2:13-15; 4:3-5; 5: 3,14)." (From the book Entrusted with the Gospel: Paul's Theology in the Pastoral Epistles, p.108).
Stop and think about that for a moment--these people were focusing on what was going to happen and were neglecting what was happening at that moment. Worse still, it had the appearance of godliness because it was focused on salvation. Yet it ignored completely what God was doing in the community and in the church. God did not say, "Ignore everyone because my coming is soon." Rather, he says "Take care of the orphans and the widows. Make sure you keep procreating. Make sure you keep living holy and Godly lives."
The church forgot God's immediate desire because they were looking too much at God's future desire.
We do that too, don't we?
I am so guilty of looking ahead to my future. Where will I go to school again? Am I going to earn a Ph.D? What is the next book I am going to read? What is the next event I am going to plan? What if we end up with tons of students coming? Where will I end up living? What do the next ten years hold?
These aren't bad things to imagine. In fact, vision requires that we think ahead.
The danger is when we allow the future to impact our present. I have caught myself turning down good things now, because I expected something better in the future. I have noticed guys do this when thinking about girls. They have this future dream girl in their mind (who is always hott and a perfect ten).
So these really awesome girls show up in their lives but they don't meet the "criteria." These girls get shot down because the guy is already in a "relationship" with a woman that doesn't exist. The present gets shut down by the future. God's good plans for us now are put on hold for our own futures.
When that happens, we have become to over-dream.
...and we become guilty of something very similar to the church Timothy served at.
So what to do?
First, we must be humble. We must realize that everything about our future is contingent on God's ultimate plan. James 4:13-17 reminds us of this. Our plans are subservient to God's plan. We are to be humble.
Second, we are to be aware. God is constantly doing things around us. He is on the move. Our calling is partner with God wherever he is working
Third, we are to live expectantly. We must be careful not to fall into the other side of the trap which pushes all future plans and eschatological hopes as irrelevant. We are called to live expectantly, waiting for Christ's return. We are to labor hard. The same goes with our dreams. We are to live expectantly, trusting that our future is held securely by God. This gives us freedom to serve now with total devotion.
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Saturday, February 11, 2012
"The Bible Made Impossible" Book Review
Christian Smith, a sociologist, has been long concerned with matters of faith writing really good books such as Soul Searching. Now Smith has turned his attention to what we mean when we talk about Sola Scriptura and issues of faith. Interestingly, this book coincides with Smith's own shift from Protestantism to Catholicism.
Smith sets out to prove one central point: that biblicism (which he defines as "a theory about the Bible that emphasizes together its exclusive authority, infallibility, perspicuity, self-sufficiency, internal consistency, self-evident meaning, and universal meaning [p. viii].") is untenable. The main argument he uses against biblicism is that pervasive interpretative pluralism (PIP for short) exists and undermines the theory that the Bible is clear, self-sufficient, self-evident and has universal meaning."
Smith points out that "in a crucial sense it simply does not matter whether the Bible is everything that biblicists claim theoretically concerning its authority, infallibility, inner consistency, perspicuity and so on, since in actual functioning the Bible produces a pluralism of interpretations [17]." In Smith's opinion, "...increasingly insistent declarations of biblicist beliefs about the inerrancy, reliability, harmony, and perspicuity of the Bible actually address the fact and problem of pervasive interpretative pluralism concerning scripture, which is a major problem [17]."
Smith sees that biblicists might respond to his charge in six ways. First, some might argue that truly sincere and honest students of God's Word can come to a single truth of Scripture but often don't. Second, they might argue that the theory of biblicism really only applies to the original autographs of scripture. Third, biblicists may state that because of sin, no interpreter can fully realize what the Bible teaches but only get glimpses of each truth. Fourth, some biblicists might say that only the elect or chosen few can truly interpret the Bible correctly and God has predestined others to not interpret it rightly. Fifth, some might say that the Bible is so vast and complex that all views are actually contained in the Bible--even if they seem contradictory. Sixth and finally, some might say that God has purposely made the Bible ambiguous to cause division in order that a greater good might come about [38-39].
Interestingly, I have heard almost all of these arguments used before. Far before this book was ever written, during a discussion with a Calvinist friend of mine (with whom I disagreed), I asked him simply, "Did God predestine me not to believe the way you do?" Ironically (and unwittingly), I was striking at the very heart of what Christian Smith has stated so clearly in this book.
He addresses each of those responses by biblicist clearly and concisely and shows each one as inadequate. In fact, the first four chapters of the book take aim and literally decimate Biblicism (as Smith understands it). Here is my confession: this section of his book was devastating. It was both realistic and potent. Smith did a great job with the first four chapters…too good, almost.
When someone does such a thorough job tearing down an idea that has long been held, there really are two possibilities. One, there is a genuine flaw in the idea or two, the argument the person is fighting against is a straw-man that no one really believes.
Several reviewers believe that what Smith labels as Biblicism, only the most fundamentalist of Christians hold to. “Sure, Smith is right to an extent—but no one really holds to what he tears down.” However, I find myself in the first camp. You see, I know that despite what we evangelicals claim, we really do hold to such views of Scripture. You can see it in the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message where Baptists claim that the Bible is a “handbook” for life. We claim it is clear. We claim that the Bible can be understood by all without too many problems. We teach hermeneutic classes so that people can learn how to study the Bible and come to “correct interpretations.”
This isn’t to say that correct interpretations don’t exist. Smith believes they do (and so do I). He is no postmodernist that denies absolute truth. But he does encourage realism when studying the text. In the second half of his book, Smith turns his attention to how we ought to read Scripture.
It is here that Smith’s training as a sociologist and not as a theologian becomes clear. Part II is yawn inducing. Why? Because if you have been in on the conversation about how to interpret the Bible for any length of time in evangelicalism, you know where Smith is going. We need to interpret the Bible through the lens of Christ. All Scripture points to Christ. If each of our lenses is flawed, Smith argues we might as well adopt the Jesus lens.
None of this is revolutionary. Goldsworthy has been saying this for years. All that Smith is proposing is that this is the best way to interpret the Bible to minimize errors. Further, he says church history and creeds are important dialogue partners (which most Evangelicals would agree with). The only real difference is that I think Smith would say that they are equally important dialogue partners where most Evangelicals say that the Bible is the primary partner in the conversation. Part II isn’t bad though—just not new.
I personally found Smith’s book outstanding. It completely disrupted my paradigm and put into words what I have been trying to articulate but couldn’t. Buy the book. It is not an attack on inerrancy (he argues that it is largely irrelevant) or the Bible’s authority. Rather, it is a challenge to interpretative communities. It is a challenge for us to think afresh what the Bible really is. Smith issues this challenge with style.
Smith sets out to prove one central point: that biblicism (which he defines as "a theory about the Bible that emphasizes together its exclusive authority, infallibility, perspicuity, self-sufficiency, internal consistency, self-evident meaning, and universal meaning [p. viii].") is untenable. The main argument he uses against biblicism is that pervasive interpretative pluralism (PIP for short) exists and undermines the theory that the Bible is clear, self-sufficient, self-evident and has universal meaning."
Smith points out that "in a crucial sense it simply does not matter whether the Bible is everything that biblicists claim theoretically concerning its authority, infallibility, inner consistency, perspicuity and so on, since in actual functioning the Bible produces a pluralism of interpretations [17]." In Smith's opinion, "...increasingly insistent declarations of biblicist beliefs about the inerrancy, reliability, harmony, and perspicuity of the Bible actually address the fact and problem of pervasive interpretative pluralism concerning scripture, which is a major problem [17]."
Smith sees that biblicists might respond to his charge in six ways. First, some might argue that truly sincere and honest students of God's Word can come to a single truth of Scripture but often don't. Second, they might argue that the theory of biblicism really only applies to the original autographs of scripture. Third, biblicists may state that because of sin, no interpreter can fully realize what the Bible teaches but only get glimpses of each truth. Fourth, some biblicists might say that only the elect or chosen few can truly interpret the Bible correctly and God has predestined others to not interpret it rightly. Fifth, some might say that the Bible is so vast and complex that all views are actually contained in the Bible--even if they seem contradictory. Sixth and finally, some might say that God has purposely made the Bible ambiguous to cause division in order that a greater good might come about [38-39].
Interestingly, I have heard almost all of these arguments used before. Far before this book was ever written, during a discussion with a Calvinist friend of mine (with whom I disagreed), I asked him simply, "Did God predestine me not to believe the way you do?" Ironically (and unwittingly), I was striking at the very heart of what Christian Smith has stated so clearly in this book.
He addresses each of those responses by biblicist clearly and concisely and shows each one as inadequate. In fact, the first four chapters of the book take aim and literally decimate Biblicism (as Smith understands it). Here is my confession: this section of his book was devastating. It was both realistic and potent. Smith did a great job with the first four chapters…too good, almost.
When someone does such a thorough job tearing down an idea that has long been held, there really are two possibilities. One, there is a genuine flaw in the idea or two, the argument the person is fighting against is a straw-man that no one really believes.
Several reviewers believe that what Smith labels as Biblicism, only the most fundamentalist of Christians hold to. “Sure, Smith is right to an extent—but no one really holds to what he tears down.” However, I find myself in the first camp. You see, I know that despite what we evangelicals claim, we really do hold to such views of Scripture. You can see it in the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message where Baptists claim that the Bible is a “handbook” for life. We claim it is clear. We claim that the Bible can be understood by all without too many problems. We teach hermeneutic classes so that people can learn how to study the Bible and come to “correct interpretations.”
This isn’t to say that correct interpretations don’t exist. Smith believes they do (and so do I). He is no postmodernist that denies absolute truth. But he does encourage realism when studying the text. In the second half of his book, Smith turns his attention to how we ought to read Scripture.
It is here that Smith’s training as a sociologist and not as a theologian becomes clear. Part II is yawn inducing. Why? Because if you have been in on the conversation about how to interpret the Bible for any length of time in evangelicalism, you know where Smith is going. We need to interpret the Bible through the lens of Christ. All Scripture points to Christ. If each of our lenses is flawed, Smith argues we might as well adopt the Jesus lens.
None of this is revolutionary. Goldsworthy has been saying this for years. All that Smith is proposing is that this is the best way to interpret the Bible to minimize errors. Further, he says church history and creeds are important dialogue partners (which most Evangelicals would agree with). The only real difference is that I think Smith would say that they are equally important dialogue partners where most Evangelicals say that the Bible is the primary partner in the conversation. Part II isn’t bad though—just not new.
I personally found Smith’s book outstanding. It completely disrupted my paradigm and put into words what I have been trying to articulate but couldn’t. Buy the book. It is not an attack on inerrancy (he argues that it is largely irrelevant) or the Bible’s authority. Rather, it is a challenge to interpretative communities. It is a challenge for us to think afresh what the Bible really is. Smith issues this challenge with style.
Saturday, February 4, 2012
"Jesus + Nothing = Everything Book Review"
In the midst of the growing number of books about the Gospel, Tullian Tchividjian, pastor of Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church, has written Jesus + Nothing = Everything--a book that really separates itself from the crowd.
Tullian has written a book about what it really looks like for believers to live a Gospel driven lifestyle where Jesus is everything. Having gone through a particularly excruciating situation when he first took over Coral Ridge, the author is certainly qualified at giving unique insight to what it means to let Jesus reign in our lives. Tullian walks us through the book of Colossians, giving constant reminders that our justification, sanctification and glorification is all because of Christ's finished work. As a result, our acceptance with God is not based on our works but on God's grace.
He walks us through these truths in five distinct sections that works the equation Jesus + nothing = everything backwards and then forwards ("Everything," "Nothing," "Jesus," "Nothing," "Everything"). While at times it feels as if each chapter is just a random collections of ideas related to the Gospel, I never felt as if the book was painful to get through. It feels as if Tullian balances the right mix of autobiography and exegesis throughout. Further, the book is immensely practical, constantly reminding the reader what it means to rely on Jesus fully for every area of our faith.
Although I wouldn't call Jesus + Nothing = Everything a must read, I think it is a good read. I think it is a helpful read. I would even say that considering the state of the church currently, it is a needed read. I think those who have read quite a bit of the recent material on the Gospel can probably bypass this book. However, if you can get a good price on the book, pick it up. It is worth your time.
*Thanks to Crossway Publishing for providing a free review copy of this book in exchange for a fair review*
Tullian has written a book about what it really looks like for believers to live a Gospel driven lifestyle where Jesus is everything. Having gone through a particularly excruciating situation when he first took over Coral Ridge, the author is certainly qualified at giving unique insight to what it means to let Jesus reign in our lives. Tullian walks us through the book of Colossians, giving constant reminders that our justification, sanctification and glorification is all because of Christ's finished work. As a result, our acceptance with God is not based on our works but on God's grace.
He walks us through these truths in five distinct sections that works the equation Jesus + nothing = everything backwards and then forwards ("Everything," "Nothing," "Jesus," "Nothing," "Everything"). While at times it feels as if each chapter is just a random collections of ideas related to the Gospel, I never felt as if the book was painful to get through. It feels as if Tullian balances the right mix of autobiography and exegesis throughout. Further, the book is immensely practical, constantly reminding the reader what it means to rely on Jesus fully for every area of our faith.
Although I wouldn't call Jesus + Nothing = Everything a must read, I think it is a good read. I think it is a helpful read. I would even say that considering the state of the church currently, it is a needed read. I think those who have read quite a bit of the recent material on the Gospel can probably bypass this book. However, if you can get a good price on the book, pick it up. It is worth your time.
*Thanks to Crossway Publishing for providing a free review copy of this book in exchange for a fair review*
Thursday, February 2, 2012
Innovators, Renovators, Maintainers and Destroyers (Part II)
A few months back I blogged about the four types of people you will meet in the church. I started off by discussing innovators. This post will be about renovators and the strengths and weaknesses of this group of people...
Renovators are...
Renovators are those that can step into a ministry, analyze its problems and give it a facelift. These normally are not the guys who are going to storm the gates with brand new, never-been-done, ideas. These are the guys who are going to say, "Why don't we retool this problem and try a different tactic." They will see the glaring holes and be able to work around them or create ministry solutions that fix the problem entirely. Very seldom will you hear these guys say, "Let's scrap the whole thing." Most of the time they will say, "Ok, we can use this and make it better."
Strengths
The strength of the renovator lies in his God-given ability to fix problems as they come up. He also can work within a given structure pretty well. Renovators are pretty flexible and can keep a ministry going, even when it looks like the ministry is doomed. They tend to breathe fresh life into each program and implement changes quite well. Most of the time they are administratively gifted. They can also help out your church budget because they are not the ones saying, "Let's scrap the whole thing!" Rather, they are the ones that say let's work with what we've got.
Your ministry needs a bunch of renovators. They can balance innovators by reminding them that they do not need a new ministry every time you turn around. Sometimes, all you really need is a different perspective. Renovators can also work well in groups or by themselves. If you put a bunch of renovators in a room together, that particular ministry could really end up looking great by the end of the day because each renovator will bring his or her own unique "tweak."
Weaknesses
Renovators can stall your ministries if you are not careful. Sometimes you simply need to innovate. Renovators can say, "Wait a minute...let's see if we can tweak it some more." When that happens, a ministry past its prime may be simply on a respirator. Constantly ask renovators if all of this renovation is simply beating a dead horse.
Renovators can also become too focused on ascetics. If the ministry looks good, then sometimes renovators mistakenly consider that renovation. All that really is, however, is putting lipstick on a pig. At the end of the day, now matter how "gussied up" that hog is, it is still a hog.
Renovators can become too flexible. They can indiscriminately introduce bad curriculum seamlessly into the church. Since they are flexible, almost any idea can be pumped into the existing structure. Make sure your renovators stay within the theological vision of the church.
Renovators are not the most creative guys. They can be technical and analytical but often lack true vision. Often these guys adopt others visions without really wrestling with their own creativity. Constantly push them to think outside the box of existing structures.
Renovators are...
Renovators are those that can step into a ministry, analyze its problems and give it a facelift. These normally are not the guys who are going to storm the gates with brand new, never-been-done, ideas. These are the guys who are going to say, "Why don't we retool this problem and try a different tactic." They will see the glaring holes and be able to work around them or create ministry solutions that fix the problem entirely. Very seldom will you hear these guys say, "Let's scrap the whole thing." Most of the time they will say, "Ok, we can use this and make it better."
Strengths
The strength of the renovator lies in his God-given ability to fix problems as they come up. He also can work within a given structure pretty well. Renovators are pretty flexible and can keep a ministry going, even when it looks like the ministry is doomed. They tend to breathe fresh life into each program and implement changes quite well. Most of the time they are administratively gifted. They can also help out your church budget because they are not the ones saying, "Let's scrap the whole thing!" Rather, they are the ones that say let's work with what we've got.
Your ministry needs a bunch of renovators. They can balance innovators by reminding them that they do not need a new ministry every time you turn around. Sometimes, all you really need is a different perspective. Renovators can also work well in groups or by themselves. If you put a bunch of renovators in a room together, that particular ministry could really end up looking great by the end of the day because each renovator will bring his or her own unique "tweak."
Weaknesses
Renovators can stall your ministries if you are not careful. Sometimes you simply need to innovate. Renovators can say, "Wait a minute...let's see if we can tweak it some more." When that happens, a ministry past its prime may be simply on a respirator. Constantly ask renovators if all of this renovation is simply beating a dead horse.
Renovators can also become too focused on ascetics. If the ministry looks good, then sometimes renovators mistakenly consider that renovation. All that really is, however, is putting lipstick on a pig. At the end of the day, now matter how "gussied up" that hog is, it is still a hog.
Renovators can become too flexible. They can indiscriminately introduce bad curriculum seamlessly into the church. Since they are flexible, almost any idea can be pumped into the existing structure. Make sure your renovators stay within the theological vision of the church.
Renovators are not the most creative guys. They can be technical and analytical but often lack true vision. Often these guys adopt others visions without really wrestling with their own creativity. Constantly push them to think outside the box of existing structures.
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Book Review: "Paul Through Mediterranean Eyes" by Kenneth E. Bailey
Here is the scoop:
Paul Through Mediterranean Eyes: Cultural Studies in 1 Corinthians (PTME) is classic Kenneth E. Bailey. You have lucid exposition, plenty of rhetorical analysis, usage of Syriac and other ancient sources, sound cultural analysis and excellent application. In fact, it probably will stand out as one of the better resources available on 1 Corinthians in years to come. The list of positive reviews on the back of this book reads like a who's who in Biblical studies.
But...
I just am not sold 100%. Don't get me wrong--PTME is great. It is a real achievement. But so many things send up warning flags to me as I read it. Here are a few:
1) Rhetorical analysis of the Bible, by nature, is tricky business. Almost anything can fit some poetic structure. It becomes almost too easy to say, "Paul is speaking in *insert some form of poetic prose here*. Kenneth Bailey does this throughout the ENTIRE book. I am just not sold. There are more than a few times where I just do not see the parallelism. I think he stretches it too far.
2) His uses of Jewish tradition often seem to be anachronisms, read back into the text.
3) Bailey tends to take his experiences in the Middle East and read them back into the text. He does this, for instance, in his analysis of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 when he mentions men praying with their head uncovered. It's a good stab at a tricky passage, I suppose. But I feel extremely uncomfortable reading my experience today back into a nearly 2000 year old document.
So get the book. There is so much gold to find within the pages and so many fresh insights that there is no reason not to pick it up. However, when you do, read cautiously and with discernment.
*Thanks to IVP Academic for providing me with a review copy of this book in exchange for a review.*
Paul Through Mediterranean Eyes: Cultural Studies in 1 Corinthians (PTME) is classic Kenneth E. Bailey. You have lucid exposition, plenty of rhetorical analysis, usage of Syriac and other ancient sources, sound cultural analysis and excellent application. In fact, it probably will stand out as one of the better resources available on 1 Corinthians in years to come. The list of positive reviews on the back of this book reads like a who's who in Biblical studies.
But...
I just am not sold 100%. Don't get me wrong--PTME is great. It is a real achievement. But so many things send up warning flags to me as I read it. Here are a few:
1) Rhetorical analysis of the Bible, by nature, is tricky business. Almost anything can fit some poetic structure. It becomes almost too easy to say, "Paul is speaking in *insert some form of poetic prose here*. Kenneth Bailey does this throughout the ENTIRE book. I am just not sold. There are more than a few times where I just do not see the parallelism. I think he stretches it too far.
2) His uses of Jewish tradition often seem to be anachronisms, read back into the text.
3) Bailey tends to take his experiences in the Middle East and read them back into the text. He does this, for instance, in his analysis of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 when he mentions men praying with their head uncovered. It's a good stab at a tricky passage, I suppose. But I feel extremely uncomfortable reading my experience today back into a nearly 2000 year old document.
So get the book. There is so much gold to find within the pages and so many fresh insights that there is no reason not to pick it up. However, when you do, read cautiously and with discernment.
*Thanks to IVP Academic for providing me with a review copy of this book in exchange for a review.*
Friday, January 20, 2012
Justification: Five Views Review
Ever have one of those conversations that just won't end? Like you can't wait for it to be over and yet it just drags on and on. You look for ways to get out and eventually, you just have to groan and get through it.
I really feel that way about the whole justification debate. It just keeps going and going. People keep fighting over it and writing different perspectives on it.
You have the Reformed position on one side and the New Perspective on another side and the mediating position and the Catholic position. They keep quoting the same passages and making reference to Second Temple Judaism and after a while the weary reader just wants to step back and say, "Uh, can we move on yet?"
The whole thing is a shame because justification is a central doctrine for the Christian faith. If we miss the mark on this thing we can go into some dangerous territory such as salvation by works.
Which is why I sometimes get frustrated with books like Justification: Five Views. It isn't that the contributors aren't fantastic. You have Michael Horton, James Dunn, Michael Bird, Veli-Matti Karkkainen, and Gerald Collins and Oliver Rafferty. It is like a dream team of theologians coming together to debate justification. You know the essays are going to be, for the most part, solid (with the odd exceptions of Karkkkainen's and Collins/Rafferty's).
The problem is that at the end of the day, there is almost no progress made in the debate. There simply is not enough room in each essay to cover the topic well. This is a complex debate and, sadly, there just isn't enough room to cover the topic well. Worse, the reader can get the impression that each view is equally, possibly, correct. There can be no real exegesis done and most of the time we are left with summary statements. But then again, I suppose the five views books are really just supposed to be introduction. As an introduction, the book does ok.
But at times it just seems like it makes an already long conversation go longer. Take that for what you will.
I mentioned above that Karkkainen and Collin/Rafferty's chapters were not quite up to par. Let me be a bit more forceful--they are not good chapters. While the first three contributors do a really good job given the restrains the second half of the book is just weak. Karkkainen does no exegesis and Collin/Rafferty's chapter is a weird mix of a historical overview and an autobiography. I had no feel for what the contributors actually believed. It was just baffling and sadly, they lower the overall quality of the book.
So should you buy the book? Believe it or not, I think the answer is yes. Why? Because, to date, there is no book I am aware of that provides a side by side look at each view. For those who are "up" on the conversation, there is some clarity provided--I found it beneficial. I think those who have not read much in the justification debate are going to walk away a bit confused at points but will find it overall useful.
So let the conversation continue...and continue...and continue...
*I received a review copy from IVP Academic in exchange for a fair review*
I really feel that way about the whole justification debate. It just keeps going and going. People keep fighting over it and writing different perspectives on it.
You have the Reformed position on one side and the New Perspective on another side and the mediating position and the Catholic position. They keep quoting the same passages and making reference to Second Temple Judaism and after a while the weary reader just wants to step back and say, "Uh, can we move on yet?"
The whole thing is a shame because justification is a central doctrine for the Christian faith. If we miss the mark on this thing we can go into some dangerous territory such as salvation by works.
Which is why I sometimes get frustrated with books like Justification: Five Views. It isn't that the contributors aren't fantastic. You have Michael Horton, James Dunn, Michael Bird, Veli-Matti Karkkainen, and Gerald Collins and Oliver Rafferty. It is like a dream team of theologians coming together to debate justification. You know the essays are going to be, for the most part, solid (with the odd exceptions of Karkkkainen's and Collins/Rafferty's).
The problem is that at the end of the day, there is almost no progress made in the debate. There simply is not enough room in each essay to cover the topic well. This is a complex debate and, sadly, there just isn't enough room to cover the topic well. Worse, the reader can get the impression that each view is equally, possibly, correct. There can be no real exegesis done and most of the time we are left with summary statements. But then again, I suppose the five views books are really just supposed to be introduction. As an introduction, the book does ok.
But at times it just seems like it makes an already long conversation go longer. Take that for what you will.
I mentioned above that Karkkainen and Collin/Rafferty's chapters were not quite up to par. Let me be a bit more forceful--they are not good chapters. While the first three contributors do a really good job given the restrains the second half of the book is just weak. Karkkainen does no exegesis and Collin/Rafferty's chapter is a weird mix of a historical overview and an autobiography. I had no feel for what the contributors actually believed. It was just baffling and sadly, they lower the overall quality of the book.
So should you buy the book? Believe it or not, I think the answer is yes. Why? Because, to date, there is no book I am aware of that provides a side by side look at each view. For those who are "up" on the conversation, there is some clarity provided--I found it beneficial. I think those who have not read much in the justification debate are going to walk away a bit confused at points but will find it overall useful.
So let the conversation continue...and continue...and continue...
*I received a review copy from IVP Academic in exchange for a fair review*
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
The Corporate and the Individual in Paul: A Plea for Realism
Ok, so sometimes scholars make no sense.
Right now, I am studying Paul more in-depth. That means I am reading through his epistles every day and devouring as many books on Paul as possible. All of the books I have read have been very informative and helpful thus far.
However, one thing really bugs me about some recent Pauline scholarship--they make really stupid dichotomies. For instance, in the very good book Justification: Five Views, the traditional Reformed position is attacked by pretty much every other view as placing too much emphasis on the individual when Paul was clearly more interested in the corporate. James Dunn particularly champions this as one of the strengths of the New Perspective.
Similarly, I just read a chapter in the very good book Rediscovering Paul: An Introduction His World, Letters and Theology, that talks about how Paul was predominately focused on the corporate church. They likewise have a little blurb in one of the sidebars about how individualistic our reading of Paul has become.
Ok. So I get it. Paul wrote to churches. He saw us all as a unified body. Here is my beef: who makes up the corporate body? Individuals. Yes, when one individual was out of line Paul saw it as affecting the entire church. No doubt. I think sometimes we do get far too individualistic when attending churches, thinking that it is just me and my family. But the it still goes back to this: an individual could bring down the group.
When Paul was talking about moral purity in Colossians 3 was he talking to the corporate body or to the individual? Yes. There is no way any person in that church thought to himself, "Oh Paul is talking about the church here...not me." The corporate doesn't work like that.
Similarly, when people talk about election in purely corporate terms, it makes no sense. Who makes up the corporate group? Individuals. So when Jews boasted in their election, yes they were boasting about their corporate election. But they were also boasting about their individual election as well that contributed to the whole.
I think Paul would have stated something like this: "There is no 'I' in church. But there is no 'church' without 'you'." In other words, individualism would have been chided by Paul if by individualism you meant going off and doing your own thing and living in sin without thinking of the larger ramifications.
But then that leads us back to this: Paul wrote to address how individuals ought to live in light of the corporate church. The two really are inseparable and both were addressed constantly in Paul's letters.
If someone charges that churches today are too Western and individualistic, I would say that that is probably too true. But I think that most preachers do a good job of reminding us that our individual sin impacts the larger body. I don't think individualizing Paul's words is bad because God was talking to individuals.
The whole thing strikes me a weird sort of straw-man argument launched by recent scholarship.
Right now, I am studying Paul more in-depth. That means I am reading through his epistles every day and devouring as many books on Paul as possible. All of the books I have read have been very informative and helpful thus far.
However, one thing really bugs me about some recent Pauline scholarship--they make really stupid dichotomies. For instance, in the very good book Justification: Five Views, the traditional Reformed position is attacked by pretty much every other view as placing too much emphasis on the individual when Paul was clearly more interested in the corporate. James Dunn particularly champions this as one of the strengths of the New Perspective.
Similarly, I just read a chapter in the very good book Rediscovering Paul: An Introduction His World, Letters and Theology, that talks about how Paul was predominately focused on the corporate church. They likewise have a little blurb in one of the sidebars about how individualistic our reading of Paul has become.
Ok. So I get it. Paul wrote to churches. He saw us all as a unified body. Here is my beef: who makes up the corporate body? Individuals. Yes, when one individual was out of line Paul saw it as affecting the entire church. No doubt. I think sometimes we do get far too individualistic when attending churches, thinking that it is just me and my family. But the it still goes back to this: an individual could bring down the group.
When Paul was talking about moral purity in Colossians 3 was he talking to the corporate body or to the individual? Yes. There is no way any person in that church thought to himself, "Oh Paul is talking about the church here...not me." The corporate doesn't work like that.
Similarly, when people talk about election in purely corporate terms, it makes no sense. Who makes up the corporate group? Individuals. So when Jews boasted in their election, yes they were boasting about their corporate election. But they were also boasting about their individual election as well that contributed to the whole.
I think Paul would have stated something like this: "There is no 'I' in church. But there is no 'church' without 'you'." In other words, individualism would have been chided by Paul if by individualism you meant going off and doing your own thing and living in sin without thinking of the larger ramifications.
But then that leads us back to this: Paul wrote to address how individuals ought to live in light of the corporate church. The two really are inseparable and both were addressed constantly in Paul's letters.
If someone charges that churches today are too Western and individualistic, I would say that that is probably too true. But I think that most preachers do a good job of reminding us that our individual sin impacts the larger body. I don't think individualizing Paul's words is bad because God was talking to individuals.
The whole thing strikes me a weird sort of straw-man argument launched by recent scholarship.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)