Vlog #2: John McCain: Out of Pastors

So John McCain received and then rejected the endorsements from two TV preachers recently: John Hagee and Rod Parsley. I have used these facts as jumping off points to discuss the role of religion in the electoral process in the United States. Here's the vlog:



What do you think? Should candidates seek the endorsements of religious figures? Should religious figures give their endorsements?

The AP news story can be found here.

Check out my other vlogs too!

The Evangelical Pope

In the wake of my previous post, the following quote from Pope Benedict XVI adds to the case that the Pope is sure sounding quite a bit like an Evangelical:

Any tendency to treat religion as a private matter must be resisted. Only when their faith permeates every aspect of their lives do Christians become truly open to the transforming power of the Gospel.

Quote found at ZENIT.org a Catholic news agency, and at ChristianityToday.com.

A Book Review: Jesus of Nazareth by Pope Benedict XVI

I recently received a copy of the Pope's book on Jesus -- Jesus of Nazareth: From the Baptism in the Jordan to the Transfiguration by Jospeh Ratzinger Pope Benedict XVI, translated from the German by Adrian J. Walker, New York: Doubleday, 2007. I want to begin with an overall impression before I get into any sort of detail concerning the content of this book -- Benedict has written a heartfelt look at Jesus in which he attempts to wrestle with academia while maintaining traditional Christian thoughts about Jesus. His endeavor is quite noble, as anyone who tries to live in the Church and the world of scholarship can attest. Benedict claims that during the 1950s the gap between the historical Jesus and the Christ of faith seemed to grow very wide (xi) and I would say that the gap between the Church and the academy has followed suit. So before I make any critiques, point out any weaknesses, or nitpick any details, Benedict should be applauded for this grand undertaking.

In order to honor full disclosure, I must admit that I am a Protestant through and through and some of the anti-Catholic prejudices that I grew up with were not only challenged by this book but were destroyed. As almost everyone is aware, after Vatican II the Catholic position on critical scholarship loosened to a great degree. That is not to say that there were no Catholic scholars who were doing critical scholarship before then 1960s (Alfred Loisy comes to mind), but after Vatican II the grip on Catholic scholarship was relaxed to a great degree. The result of this decision has been that it has helped engender some wonderful scholars, especially Raymond E. Brown, Jerome Murphy-O'Connor, and Luke Timothy Johnson. However, many people have continued to sense a general disdain of critical scholarship by old-school Catholic conservatives. It was often assumed that Benedict was such a person, a fact highlighted by his moniker "John Paul's bulldog." The general buzz in the air after Benedict's election was that he was going to either keep a closer eye on Catholic exegetes or actually move the Church backward.

However, many people have been surprised by the Pope's sensitivity with different tough issues during his reign. Thus, many of the statements in the foreword of Jesus should not have surprised me at all, but I was in fact pleasantly surprised at many points. A few examples will illustrate my point:

• **Benedict, after complaining about some of the results of historical-critical scholarship, admits that "the historical-critical method...is and remains an indispensable tool of exegetical work" (xv). While I didn't doubt that Benedict and other conservative Catholics utilized historical research, I was somewhat surprised to hear him admit that the historical-critical method was "indispensable."
• **In the same vein, Benedict says that since history "is an essential dimension of Christian faith, the faith must expose itself to the historical method" (xv). Later in the foreword the Pope will indicate that the historical-critical method has some limitations, but this is a pretty strong statement nonetheless.
• **When describing the purpose of his book with regard to modern exegesis, Benedict says "my intention in writing this book is not to counter modern exegesis; rather, I write with profound gratitude for all that it has given and continues to give us...I have merely tried to go beyond purely historical-critical exegesis" (xxiii). So this book is not meant to be an apology of conservative Catholic interpretation, which is somewhat unexpected coming from "John Paul's bulldog."
• **Lastly, one of the last paragraphs of the foreword shattered some of my preconceived notions of papal self-understanding. Actually, my wife and I were sitting in the airport in Chicago, me reading Jesus and she reading Wicked by Gregory Maguire, and after reading this paragraph I had to stop and let her read it too. We were both impressed: "It goes without saying that this book is in no way an exercise of the magisterium, but is solely an expression of my own personal search 'for the face of the Lord' (cf. Ps 27:8). Everyone is free, then, to contradict me. I would only ask my readers for that initial goodwill without which there can be no understanding" (xxiii-xxiv). There goes that preconceived notion that I had that the man who was Pope had to be pompous and arrogant.

From the beginning, however, there is a problem that makes this book hard to review properly -- Benedict never identifies his target audience with any clarity. He simply refers to them as his readers without giving any further description. Does he intend this book to be read by lay Catholics, seminarians, scholars, Protestants, non-Christians, etc? It is hard to decide whether or not the purpose of a book has been fulfilled if the author does not indicate to whom it is written. Thus, I can only assume that the Pope intended a wide audience. In this light, much of this book can easily be understood by the general reader. However, from time to time there are several pages in a row in which Benedict gives a survey of scholarly literature or discusses the minutiae of exegesis or interpretive methodology. Therefore, I can see many general readers being turned off by this.

On the other hand, Jesus is loaded with modern-day applications of Jesus' teachings, critiques of the social responsiveness of those to whom this duty has been availed, and significant deviances from accepted historical-critical givens (such as allowing unrelated parts of the Bible to interpret one another, taking the sayings of Jesus in the Gospels as giving us more information about Jesus than the Evangelists, and not significantly doubting the historicity of the Fourth Gospel), which would leave many biblical scholars frustrated (a fact that is seen clearly in the reviews of Jesus by Geza Vermes and Richard Hays).

Despite the uncertainty of the audience, the Pope's purpose in writing this book is clear enough: "this book...seeks to transcend this method [i.e. historical-critical exegesis] and to arrive at a genuinely theological interpretation of the scriptural texts" (365). The question of why the historical-critical needs to be transcended remains, and Benedict offers an answer by giving two important critiques of this method. The first is that the historical critical method "does not exhaust the interpretative task for someone who sees the biblical writings as a single corpus of Holy Scriptures inspired by God" (xvi). He goes on to say that the historical exegesis can only see the words of the Bible as human words ("simply...literature" [xx]), which is not enough for those who by faith believe that the Bible is in some way God's Word. The second critique is that the historical-critical method is limited in some ways, namely that it only deals past contexts which shed light on "what the author could have said and intended to say" (xvi), that the unity of the Bible "is not something it can recognize" (xvii), and that its results "can never go beyond the domain of hypothesis" (xvii).

These critiques, as we have already seen, have not chased Benedict away from the historical-critical method, as they have many other interpreters these days. Instead, the Pope makes a call for "complementary methods" to be used when reading the Bible (xviii). One such method is what he calls "the process of constant reading" in which "[o]lder texts are reappropriated, reinterpreted, and read with new eyes in new contexts" (xviii). This is a combining of the study of inter-biblical intertextuality and Wirkungsgeschichte (the effective history of a text). Another complementary method is what Benedict calls canonical exegesis, which entails "reading the individual texts of the Bible in the context of the whole" (xix). Lastly, the third main complementary method that Benedict espouses is what I would call an ecclesial hermeneutic. The Pope explains it as follows: "The People of God -- the Church -- is the the living subject of Scripture; it is in the Church that the words of the Bible are always in the present" (xxi). These three complementary methods have had quite a bit of popularity as of late, as exhibited in the work of Ulrich Luz, Brevard Childs, and Markus Bockmuehl, respectively.

As far as the content of the book is concerned, Benedict has covered a few select items from the baptism of Jesus to the transfiguration. He spends quite a bit of time examining parts of the Sermon on the Mount (especially the Beatitudes and the Lord's Prayer), Jesus' parables, and the imagery used to describe Jesus in John's Gospel. In the process of making interpretive decisions, the Pope utilizes the results of critical scholarship (especially when they help prove his points), the writings of the Early Church, and, primarily, other texts in the Bible (especially so-called messianic texts of the OT and the writings of Paul). Many scholars will want to criticize him for his selective use of the historical critical method, his sometimes uncritical trust in the Church Fathers, and his unabashed method of letting Scripture interpret Scripture, and that is fine. However, no one should have been surprised by these things since they were explicitly stated in the foreword.

The bottom line is that this book is the result of a deeply personal search for Jesus by Benedict. Many Evangelical readers will be surprised by how much he sounds like one of them. In fact, as I was reading along I could imagine many Evangelical biblical scholars agreeing with and highlighting line after line in Jesus (Craig Blomberg's review highlights this fact as well). I also think that many educated Christians might be surprised by the types of books that the Pope reads and the types of scholars that influence him in this book. Particularly interesting to me is the fact that Benedict reads the work of Evangelical (like Peter Stuhlmacher) and Jewish (like Jacob Neusner) scholars .

The thesis of the Pope's position on Jesus is this: all of the stories about Jesus and all of his teachings found in the Gospels are to be seen in light of "Jesus' filial existence" -- his "communion with the Father" (7). Therefore, since Jesus had this special and unique relationship with the Father, all the things he did and said were made possible. Benedict argues that one cannot understand Jesus apart from this intimate relationship to the Father.

I give this book 4 out of 5 stars. I believe that it would be particularly helpful to someone teaching or preaching through the texts that are covered in this book, but only if the preacher or teacher keeps in mind that s/he is reading the Pope's highly personal expression of his search for Jesus.

Check out my other reviews here!

Vlog #1: Will Smith and Christian Community

So I was sitting around last night trying to make an introductory video for my blog and thought to myself: "This is fun; I should do some video blogs every once in a while." So here is the first one:



Apparently Will Smith has helped setup a private school in Calabasas, CA that is based on the tenets of Scientology. However, he claims that he's a Christian and not a Scientologist. While describing his beliefs about religion he spells out what could be called "Lone Ranger" Christianity -- being a rugged individual -- or "Burger King" Christianity -- "Have it your way." Needless to say, this is not the picture that the NT paints; we are called into community with one another and for one another. We can't and shouldn't try to live our lives or our faith alone; we need each other!

In the video I mention Barnabas File, a website where Ircel Harrison, a progressive Baptist minister, has a blog entitled "None of Us Is As Smart As All of Us" in which he makes a strong case for our need to collaborate on things together as Christians. Also, you may want to read the Will Smith stories for yourself; here are two links: ONE and TWO.

Hope you enjoy!


Check out my other vlogs too!

Good Blog Entry...GREAT Title!

None of Us Is As Smart As All of Us.

I wish I had thought of that title. It did get me thinking, along with an article I read about Will Smith. So, sometime tomorrow I am going to post a blog (or maybe a vlog!) where I talk some about the basic need of community in the church. We need each other. None of us is as smart as all of us!

Good night...

The Dallas Cowboys' Draft

Now that quite a bit of time has passed since the draft ended, I feel that I can better evaluate the Cowboys' draft. Here's a quick thesis: I am happy with the top of the draft and a high-profile trade but pretty miffed by a bunch of other stuff.

1. I am happy with the trade that the Cowboys made with the Titans to get Adam Jones. The Cowboys traded their fourth round pick from this year to get Pacman, a corner who was drafted in the first round with the sixth overall pick. He has shown that he can play at a high level in the NFL, both at corner and as a kick returner. However, he has had many off-the-field issues that resulted in a year-long suspension which is due to end any day now. Many people have claimed that the 'Boys took too big of a risk here, but I disagree. How many fourth-rounders pan out? Not many. And for all intents and purposes, that is what the Cowboys have here -- they used their four-round pick to get Adam Jones. The potential gain is worth the risk. Besides, if Pacman isn't reinstated by the NFL this year then the Cowboys would get the Titans' fourth-rounder next year and if he gets in significant trouble they'll get the Titans' fifth-rounder. So while there is some risk, it is mitigated by the deal the Cowboys made with the Titans.
2. I am very pleased with the Cowboys first two picks in the draft -- RB Felix Jones from Arkansas and CB Mike Jenkins from South Florida. Both were great college players and both will fit into the Cowboys' schemes fairly easily. There has been some complaint that the Cowboys should have chosen Mendenhall from Illinois instead of Jones because Mendenhall is a more complete back. However, the Cowboys already have a complete back (Marion Barber III) who is still young and they drafted Tashard Choice from Georgia Tech, a complete back, in the fourth round. Plus, the Cowboys let Julius Jones go this offseason, so they needed to fill his role and I think that Felix Jones is a better player that Julius Jones ever was or will be. Also, Jenkins was a no-brainer because the Cowboys were in desperate need for CB help, whether they signed Pacman or not. Jenkins has good size and speed and already has rapport with Anthony Henry, one of the Cowboys' veteran CBs, because they both went to South Florida.
3. I was not at all happy with a trade that went down prior to the draft. The Cowboys traded Anthony Fasano, a young starting-quality TE, and Akin Ayodele, a solid inside LB, to Miami for a fourth round draft pick. No, that's not a typo. The Cowboys traded two good players for a late round pick. By all accounts, this trade was a bit odd. The Cowboys must have been hearing complaining from both players, since Fasano has no chance of starting with Jason Witten in front of him and since Ayodele's starting role was usurped by newly acquired inside LB Zach Thomas. I've also heard that it might have been that the Cowboys were trying to dump salary so that they could make room for a veteran receiver to come over, which never materialized.
4. The bad trade that I talked about in #3 left the Cowboys a bit thin at TE, with only unproven Tony Curtis serving as a backup. So what did the Cowboys do? They used their second-round pick on a big TE from Texas A&M named Martellus Bennett. So let me get this straight, they trade the backup for half of a fourth-round pick and replaced him with a guy they drafted in the second round. Hmm. That doesn't add up!
5. The Cowboys are in need of some young receivers. If you are a mock draft junkie like I am, then you know that almost every mocker out their had the 'Boys taking a WR with one of their first three picks. The Cowboys' brass apparently saw things differently...they didn't take on WR or trade for one either. Now, you can't blame them too much since the Cowboys had such a great offensive season last year with one old possession receiver (TO), one old speedy WR that was hurt for all but one game (Terry Glenn), and one WR nearing thirty that is steady but not great (Patrick Crayton). So even if Glenn can't come back, the 'Boys should be okay at WR. Also, there were no WRs in this draft that could have done better than Crayton's 50 receptions last year. As a matter of fact, not a single WR was drafted in the first round. So the Cowboys appear to have done the right thing here, even if everyone expected them to do something else.
6. The only other thing that I wished the Cowboys would have done was get some safety help. Roy Williams' highly publicized problems in coverage and his declining tackling skills have made him a liability in the secondary. And while Ken Hamlin is good, he's also a hard-hitting kind of safety. The Cowboys need someone that can roam the middle of the field. Pat Watkins, a young safety who used to play at FSU, may fit that bill but he hasn't yet. Let it be known loud and clear: I predict that the Cowboys' safety play will cost them this year, just like it did last year (and the year before!) in the playoffs.
   

Life Update

The other day at Fuller I ran into someone who was disappointed that I had not updated my blog in a long time. Firstly, I was pleased to see that someone reads my blog and, secondly, I have updated it as of today! And for those of you who may be interested, here's a partial list of things that I have done since my post about the Talmud in March:

• I have been in the middle of researching and writing a paper for Dr. Donald Hagner's History of New Testament Research class. What I am writing about is the early history of interpretation for Philippians 3.2-11.
• I am taking a directed reading (AKA independent study) with Dr. Seyoon Kim on the subject of Jesus and Paul. I hope to write about some aspect of Jesus' and Paul's view of the Law.
  
• I have been busy TAing two classes, one on 1 Corinthians with Dr. David Downs and a distance learning class on the Gospels with Dr. Marianne Meye Thompson.
• My wife and I went on a trip to Las Vegas and had a lot of fun even though the city doesn't fit us and we don't fit it.
  
• I officiated the renewal of my parents' vows at Niagara Falls in Canada, which was a great honor and a boatload of fun!
• While in Canada I smoked a Cuban cigar that was heavenly.
• I have started teaching a new series at church on Christian theology and comparative religion, which has gone pretty well so far. Yesterday we talked about Eastern Orthodoxy, which was eye-opening for all of us (at least I hope it was!).
• And lastly, before going to Vegas we got a new camera that I am loving!

Well, thanks for reading and I hope to post more often in the coming weeks and days! Look forward to more reviews and some more of my normal stuff too!

A Commentary Review: David J. Lull's 1 Corinthians

For the last two quarters I have served as the teaching assistant (TA) for two classes on 1 Corinthians at Fuller Seminary in Pasadena, CA with Dr. David Downs. The first was an exegesis class in which the English text was used and the second was the same class but with Greek. Previous to TAing these two courses, the only work I had done in 1 Corinthians had been in preparation for sermons or Sunday School lessons and in introductory courses on the New Testament. In other words, I had not previously spent much time looking at 1 Corinthians critically or academically. As is normal for me, to prepare for my TA duties I spent quite a bit of time examining commentaries on 1 Corinthians, including the standard ones by Hays, Thiselton, Fee, Garland, and Talbert. However, a smaller commentary that espoused a radically different perspective from me caught my attention -- 1 Corinthians by David J. Lull, which was published by Chalice Press in 2007 as a part of their series called Chalice Commentaries for Today.

According to the series preface, this commentary is aimed "to help pastors, seminary students, and educated laity who are open to contemporary scholarship" (viii) and in Lull's preface he quotes William Beardslee (1916-2001), whose 1994 commentary on 1 Corinthians is revised and expanded here, as stating that his commentary was "written for the general reader" (ix). At the same time this work is also aimed at making sense of 1 Corinthians for today in an understandable way, both in content (non-technical language) and form (few footnotes). Thus, this commentary joins the swelling ranks of commentaries intended for wide readership, as opposed to the technical commentaries to which seminarians and scholars might be more accustomed. I, for one, see this as an admiral undertaking and will always applaud any effort to make the Bible more understandable for "general readers."

As far as the perspective that is different than mine with regard to this book, Lull claims that Beardslee's commentary was "from the perspective of 'process thought'" and that he hopes to "be consistent" with this interpretive matrix (ix). However, he never explicitly describes what he means by "process thought" to his readers, though the series preface does describe the purpose of this series in the language of process theology without actually naming it as such. So what is "process thought"? It has its roots in the philosophy of British thinker Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947) and was brought into prominence in Christian theology by John Cobb, Jr., who serves as on of the editors of this commentary series and has co-written several books with Lull. Following Whitehead, Cobb and other process thinkers generally agree that God is not unaffected by the world, that God works through persuasion not coercion, and that it is better to view God as a co-sufferer with the world rather than as an omnipotent being standing over against the world (see Grenz and Olson, 20th-Century Theology 130-44). These ideas are affirmed by the series preface in Lull's commentary: "Although the various authors manifest a variety of interests and theological perspectives, they share a vision of God as a relational being who is passionately involved in the life of the world, whose primary feature is love, and who both affects and is affected by the world" (viii). Since the series preface does not name this as process theology (and who, besides a reviewer or a nerd, reads the series preface?!) and since Lull does not explain his perspective in any descriptive way, a little more clarity and straightforwardness would have been beneficial to the reader.

As you might imagine, this theological system (process theology) is a challenge to and critique of traditional systems, which is not necessarily a bad thing in and of itself. Also, process thinkers tend to think of traditional categories of Christian thought in different ways. One example from Lull is his view of inspiration. After claiming that the reader of 1 Corinthians should not be quick to judge the Corinthians with whom Paul seems to disagree at points, Lulls writes that "[t]he idea that Paul was always right comes from the theological assumption that inspiration works within the individual biblical author. Most scholars now think of scriptural inspiration as arising in the interaction of people in the community" (emphasis original, 2).

A few things should be said here about Lull's position on inspiration. Most scholars that I know of do not view inspiration in this way. Maybe I do not read the same authors that he does but attributing this position to "most scholars" is misleading since I can think of no other commentator who shares this position as he has stated it (perhaps besides those who have contributed to this series). To be sure, there has been a rising tide of interpreters who insist that readers of the Bible must interpret it together inside their communities of faith (Stephen Fowl and Markus Bockmuehl come to mind immediately) but that is not the same as what Lull has claimed about inspiration. Also, virtually everyone, except perhaps the extremely conservative, would agree that the situation at Corinth influenced and even dictated the choice of content and the direction of 1 Corinthians. Even still, virtually everyone would further affirm that Paul's self understanding was that he was writing to the Corinthians to correct, amend, challenge, and encourage the beliefs and behaviors of the Corinthians. The very fact that Paul does so in this letter is evidence of this truth. We may not be comfortable with this authoritarian position and we may wish to explain it away for modern ears, but I believe that in so doing we have not allowed Paul's letter to be read the way it was intended. Paul speaks to the Corinthians as a spiritual authority and I believe that Lull's view of inspiration hampers the reader's appreciation of this fact.

As far as the commentary proper is concerned, due to the length of Lull's book (146 pages of actual commentary), the theological perspective espoused, and the complexity of the issues that 1 Corinthians raises for today's reader, many interpretive complexities have been oversimplified. A few examples will illustrate this point. Commenting on 7.25-38, Lull simply claims that "virgins" means "females of marriageable age" (71), which would lead the uninitiated reader to believe that there are no other options besides this one, even though there have been all throughout the history of this text's interpretation.

A second example is found in Lull's comments on 11.17-34. In this passage Paul attempts to correct divisive and unfair practices regarding the Lord's Supper. Perhaps the two most interesting issues in this passage are the destructive results of eating the meal improperly (11.30) and how this passage relates to the Synoptic tradition. Lull comments on both but does so briefly and incompletely. With regard to the former he simply states that the ones not taking the meal properly are not explicitly identified with the the ones suffering, thus the destructive power of inappropriately eating the Lord's Supper "acts on the community as a whole" (101). Surely someone preaching or teaching this passage would be pulling their hair out at this point, wishing that Lull had given them more information! With regard to the latter, Lull notes that it is not likely that Paul received the words he shares here about Jesus' last meal with his disciples in the upper room "directly from Jesus" but that he probably received this tradition from others (101). He then continues by pointing out that Paul's version of this event "is the earliest witness to these traditions" (102), earlier even than the Gospels. The reader is again left wanting more -- wanting to know if Paul is more historically reliable than Matthew, Mark, and Luke, not to mention why it is that the various accounts are different. I understand that this could have taken up much space, but at least Lull could have pointed the reader to an outside source that deals with this compelling and complex issue.

It may seem at this point that I have little to say that is positive about Lull's commentary, but that is not the case. He exhibits great care and pastoral concern with regard to sticky issues, particularly homosexuality, marriage, the roles of women, and spiritual gifts. He also does a commendable job in struggling mightily to find application for 1 Corinthians, which can be a daunting task seeing how occasional it is and how influenced by Jewish and Greco-Roman culture and thought patterns it is. Despite these challenges, Lull often gives thoughtful and insightful ways to apply principles found in 1 Corinthians to today's world. Another strong point of this commentary is its author's honesty with regard to his seeming dislike for particular positions Paul takes (or for interpretations of Paul's positions that have persisted), even implying that Paul could have been wrong at points and that his arguments do not hold weight according to our understanding of the world today. Many other commentators feel these same things but do not have the courage to state these thoughts the way that Lull does.

Overall, this commentary is a good overview of 1 Corinthians but not sufficient on its own for someone hoping to teach or preach specific texts from Paul's letter. However, this book would be particularly useful to someone looking for modern-day applications who has already perused the larger more in depth commentaries mentioned earlier. Three stars out of five.

Check out my other reviews here!

Babylonian Talmud Online

Sorry for the really long delay between posts. The stress level of this quarter has ramped up big time lately, so I may not be able to post much over the next few weeks either.

However, I did want to share something interesting that I encountered recently. I am part of a men's small group at my church and we have been talking about the book of Hebrews. Last week we discussed chapter 7, in which the author of Hebrews seems to view the mysterious figure of Melkizedek as a type of Christ. After the study was over, several of us were curious about what other information is out there about Melkizedek in the extra-canonical materials. Since I am the token biblical studies nerd of the group, naturally I volunteered to do this research.

I quickly determined that I was going to need to access the Babylonian Talmud, since in Nedarim 32b Melkizedek is discussed. However, two things hindered me: 1) the closest library to me does not always have all of the b. Talmud on hand (the reserve copy is not yet complete and the complete copy, which is not the standard edition, can be checked out) and 2) I am lazy. So I started poking around online and hit a gold mine! I found pdf files of the Soncino edition of the b. Talmud online!

So in the spirit of my wife who always tells me that "sharing means caring," here is a link to this treasure trove!

Presuppositions and Biblical Interpretation

The comments by Chris Spinks to a recent post of mine and discussions in my PhD seminar on the history of NT research with Donald Hagner have prompted me to think about biblical interpretation and presuppositions. This is only going to be a small post in which I start thinking about this subject. With several new books on my shelf that might help hone my thinking on this subject, expect me to be blogging about this more and more.

So here are just some initial thoughts to get the cogs of my brain moving (and perhaps yours too!):

1. All of us have presuppositions. In line with postmodern thought, the idea of purely objective investigation of any sort is untenable.

2. We all need to admit our presuppositions openly. This means that we can't wait until we are pressed on an issue and then say "Well, that's because I am a Mennonite" or "That's because I'm a proponent of process theology" or "Of course it seems that way; I am a white, middle-class male after all." Wouldn't it be easier if we let people know up front?

3. Despite its elusiveness, we shouldn't give up the task of trying to find out what Paul or John or Matthew or even Jesus intended. Theoretically, Chris is right, if we were to find this intention then the historical-critical method would be kaput. But with new discoveries, new technologies, and new historical methods this isn't likely to happen.

4. Lastly, perhaps we should consciously try to read the text against our presuppositions and traditions. This could help prevent us from making Paul or Jesus sound exactly like us and instead may help each of us see past our own fields of vision.

So where should I start? Perhaps I'll take my own advice and admit some of my presuppositions here. I am a Christian who tends to be moderate, though sometimes a little right of the center. I am married with no kids and I am 28 years old. I'm white, I'm male, and I'm middle class. I was raised as a Southern Baptist, became a moderate Baptist, and now I don't attend a Baptist church at all. I am ordained but I am currently not on staff at a church. I do, however, teach a Sunday School class for adults each week, which influences the way I read the Bible. I tend to prefer grammatical, historical, lexical, semantic, and literary arguments over theological or ideological ones. I prefer historical theology to systematics. I believe that the Bible is authoritative because it contains our only reliable witnesses to the historical revelation of God, which climaxed in the person of Jesus. And, I am a dog lover!

Barthian Hip Hop?

Being the fan of Barth that I am, naturally I greatly enjoyed this video. I hope you do too!



I have to give proper credit for this gem: I discovered this on Disruptive Grace.