James F. McGrath

New research shows that intense rituals can forge strong tribal identities – but also help people overcome tribal barriers. How does this affect our modern attitude toward religion?

I'm just going to go ahead and assume that this collections is being shared with full knowledge and consent of all copyright holders.  I mean, the page is in Russian.  There's no book piracy in Russia, right?  A lot of the books are Russian, and won't be much use to most users, but there's a ton of English ones in there too (including a very sexy Vol.1 of the Handbook for the Historical Jesus, and Brown's volume on Secret Mark!)

Biblical Studies Ebooks

by Aaron W. Hughes and Randi R. Warne

A worrying trend is gaining momentum in the academic study of religion.  There appears to us to be an increasing tendency toward filling professorial vacancies with individuals with PhDs in area studies (e.g., Jewish Studies, Islamic Studies, East Asian Studies, South Asian Studies).  We say “worrying” due to the changes in academic climate and intellectual agenda this development potentially carries with it.  Specifically, we are concerned that the focus on textual and largely premodern forms of “religious tradition” that characterizes area studies means that individuals within departments, and increasingly departments writ large, will boundary their data in such a way that the “meta-questions” and critical discourses that characterize much of current intellectual discussion, intentionally or not, will be discouraged or overshadowed, much as Christian studies (theology) overshadowed the field in years past.

The result, we fear, will be the gradual diminution and eventual death of the field of Religious Studies. Please be assured that we do not advocate a return to the heyday of phenomenology with its concomitant claims of the “irreducibility of the sacred.”  We are deeply concerned, however, with the history and problematics underlying the creation of “Religious Studies” itself.  Rather than defer to the false inclusivity of area studies, we would like to encourage a collective rethinking of what the discipline of Religious Studies is and, by extension, what its future should be.

To examine some of these issues, let us begin with a couple of anecdotes that we believe are illustrative of the problem.

When Hughes was hired at the University of Calgary in 2001 he was expected, even though he had a PhD in Religious Studies with a specialty in Islam, to be the exact replacement of his predecessor who had a PhD in Islamic Studies (i.e, area studies, not religious studies) from McGill.  Although he knew enough Arabic to read texts (slowly!), he was expected to teach a four-semester sequence in classical Arabic.  He found this very difficult for a number of reasons – he was not an Arabist (nor had he ever, despite the later claims of his colleagues, styled himself as one); and he had many native speakers in his class who knew Arabic much, much better than he did but claimed that they had very little knowledge of classical grammar, though he suspected that they just wanted an easy A.  One thing he was not expected to teach, or supposed to even be interested in, was theory and method in the field.  An Islamicist interested in theory and method – heaven forbid!  He envisaged himself as a religionist, yet his colleagues in the department saw him as an Arabist or as an Islamicist.  These radically divergent expectations – on how he was to succeed personally amongst his coworkers in a department (who would vote on his tenure case) and professionally amongst his colleagues in the larger field (with whom he would establish his bona fides and reputation) – on a young, pre-tenure faculty member were extremely difficult.  Of about 15 or so faculty members in that department (he no longer works there), roughly half received doctorates from fields outside of Religious Studies.  And, despite the fact that the department has seen some turnover in recent years, that percentage of non-religious studies doctorates to religious studies doctorates among the full-time faculty remains.

Warne’s challenges as a graduate student at the University of Toronto’s Centre for the Study of Religion in its inaugural year were somewhat different, though with similar practical results. In keeping with the times, she brought to Toronto a thorough exposure to Neo-orthodox theology, psychology of religion a la Alan Watts and Esalen, and a complete drenching in Eliade.  That her primary interests were counter/sub cultures and 19^th c. questions of faith and atheism was indicative of the composition of Religious Studies departments at the time.  Toronto was not an improvement. Eager to prove its scholarly seriousness to a skeptical Dean, the program emphasized languages and conventional configurations of “traditions.” Much could be said about those years, but two anecdotes will have to suffice: wanting to study Marxism as a religion, she was shuffled off to a few of the theological colleges to do the Social Gospel and Liberation Theology.

Her graduate comprehensive exams reflected the suspicion in which her analytical interests were held: five four hour exams in History of Christianity; Judaism since the Enlightenment; Philosophy of Religion; Social-Scientific Studies of Religion; and Religion in Canada. The Centre’s coordinator helpfully offered the option of doing a comp. in the social sciences (Freud, Jung, Erikson, Weber, Durkheim and Marx) as a substitute for the language exams in Latin, Hebrew and Greek that might be reasonably expected of a student of Christian tradition. The end result of three degrees in Religious Studies (BA Religion and Literature; MA Philosophy of Religion; Ph.D. Religion and Culture) was a candidate allegedly unemployable in Religious Studies due to being a “generalist.”

Tales of woe abound, and we will not belabor them here.  Our concern with the constitution of authorities (i.e. tenured faculty) in Religious Studies is nonetheless genuine. Religionists cannot just write the turn to Area Studies as the idiosyncracies of a particular department or departments. A quick examination of, for example, those departments in Canada with PhD programs in Religious Studies – at the University of British Columbia, the University of Alberta, the University of Manitoba, McGill University, the University of Toronto, and the University of Waterloo/Wilfrid Laurier University – reveals something remarkably similar.  This will have, if it has not had already, major repercussions on how Religious Studies is thought about and taught on Canadian campuses.  It will, moreover, have major effects on the makeup of graduate education in the discipline, and hence the character of its continuation.

We would like to raise some questions for reflection and further conversation. First, why have departments of Religious Studies if they are to function solely as an institutional canopy for disciplines in which the category of “religion” is NOT rigorously interrogated?  Presumably, that highly contested subject matter is still of some interest and worth. (As an aside, it is useful to note a veritable explosion of North American scholarly interest in Religion and Culture, evident in conferences, scholarly literature and popular culture venues.)  Yet, despite this growing interest, Religious Studies will frequently hire someone with a PhD in area studies (because it is wrongly assumed that they must know the “area” in question better than someone trained in Religious Studies). The opposite scenario – an area studies department hiring someone with a doctorate in Religious Studies – is rare indeed.

Why should we hire a historian as opposed to a religionist to fill a vacant position?  Why should we hire someone with a PhD in Islamic Studies in a position for a specialist in Islam in a department of Religious Studies?  We might well ask how such individuals will contribute to the general intellectual vigour and identity of the field at the department level, and to the international conversation about the academic study of religion.  If there is to be a serious engagement with religion as a social and cultural construction, what is the point in hiring those whose training is primarily textual and philological, and who have had very little if no exposure to the critical theories and methods associated with the academic study of religion?  We submit that if we are to engage primarily the problematic of “religion” as our object of study we collectively need to rethink our hiring priorities.

Second, if we insist on training graduate students in our departments of religious studies, but then when it comes to hiring decisions choose to hire someone from area studies, what kind of message does this send?  One practical effect is to train a permanent underclass to teach introductory and other widely subscribed undergraduate classes, while reserving secure positions for persons with training in another discipline altogether. Another is to require graduate students engaged in critical discourses in religion to choose perforce their advisor and examining committee from a pool of area studies specialists. If, and when, this is the case, such specialists may well see theoretical questions as actually getting in the way of textual analysis.

The conservative treatment of “traditions” thus comes in the back door and reasserts its pre-eminence. We need to look closely at the politics and processes by and through which a new generation of scholars is being prepared. We are not doing our graduate students any favors if they wish to be employable as full and respected participants in Religious Studies if the departments in which they are supposedly receiving their training neither values it nor teaches it.

Aaron Hughes is professor of Religion, Jewish Studies, Islam, and Method and Theory in the department of Religion and Classics at the University of Rochester. Professor Hughes’s books include:  The Texture of the Divine (Indiana University Press, 2003), Jewish Philosophy A-Z (Palgrave, 2006), The Art of Dialogue in Jewish Philosophy (Indiana University Press, 2007), Situating Islam (Equinox Publishing, 2007), The Invention of Jewish Identity (Indiana University Press, 2010), Defining Judaism: A Reader (Equinox Publishing, 2010), Abrahamic Religions: On the Uses and Abuses of History (Oxford UP, 2012), and the forthcoming The Study of Judaism: Identity, Authenticity, Scholarship (SUNY Press, 2013), and Rethinking Jewish Philosophy: Beyond Particularity and Universality (Oxford UP, 2014).

Randi R. Warne Randi R. Warne is a professor of Religion and Culture in the Department of Philosphy/Religious Studies At Mount St. Vincent University, Halifax. She is also a founding member of MSVU’s Cultural Studies program, one of the three free-standing Cultural Studies programs in Canada. Her research interests include religion and culture, gender theory, and the politics of knowledge. Recent publications include “‘Gender’; Making the Gender-Critical Turn” and a two volume co-edited work New Approaches to the Study of Religion (with Armin Geertz and Peter Antes), published by Walter deGruyter.

Dear Rev. Dr. Thomaskutty Warm greetings from E. Stanley Jones College, Delhi. Union Biblical Seminary has a highly regarded New Testament department and I was wondering whether there might be a recent M.Th. in New Testament graduate who would be interested in joining the teaching faculty of E. Stanley Jones College. E. Stanley Jones College […]

I will be one of the guests on the Encounter radio program out of Australia on the subject of “Sacred Horror: Zombie Resurrections and Vampire Souls.” The website description:

From the legends of Frankenstein and Dracula to films about zombies, witches and vampires, supernatural horror has always captured the popular imagination. Fictional horror scares us because they confront us with our deepest fears about death and the unknown. They make us tremble, but they also act as catharsis. So it’s no wonder then that the horror genre often intersects with religion.

The lineup of guests includes:

Jana Riess
Author of What Would Buffy Do: The Vampire Slayer as Spiritual Guide

Douglas E. Cowan
Professor of Religious Studies, Renison University College, University of Waterloo, Canada

John Morehead
Co-editor of The Undead and Theology and creator of website TheoFantastique

Mike Duran
Christian novelist, California

Ashley Moyse
Research Affiliate, Vancouver School of Theology, Canada

Philip Johnson
Theologian

My interview will be broadcast this Saturday, 20th July at 5:00 p.m. (AEST) and repeated Wednesday, 24th July at 1:00 p.m. (AEST). The program is approximately 53 mins, and begins just after the news. It will also be available for download shortly after the first broadcast from the Encounter website: http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/encounter/vampires-with-souls2c-zombie-resurrections/4773674

I’ve heard N.T. Wright suggest on more than one occasion that Paul is doing a play on words in Romans 2:29 when he says “…a person is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter of the heart—it is spiritual and not literal. Such a person receives praise not from others but from God.” This is suggested because “praise” (Gk. ὁ ἔπαινος) is meant to drawl the hearer’s attention (at least some of them) to name from which Jews derive their identity, the tribe of Judah (יהודה), which means “praise.” In other words, one who is a “Jew” (those who praise) receives his/her praise from God, not other people.

I found a footnote from Leon Morris that states the position more fully. [1]

Käsemann’s point that the Roman audience wouldn’t have understood Paul’s play on words is a valid criticism, but Paul may not have cared if everyone understood him. He may have wanted a few of his fellow Jews to understand his message.

__________

[1] Leon Morris, The Epistle to the Romans (PNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 142. Fn. 168. Screen shots from Google Books.

Filed under: Epistle of Romans, Leon Morris Tagged: Judah, Leon Morris, Romans 2:29

This is Carlos Vigil, of Valencia County, New Mexico, just south of Albuquerque:

Here’s another picture of him:

By all accounts, Carlos was a terrific young man: compassionate, thoughtful, kind, actively engaged in helping young people deal with the devastating effects of being bullied.

Being bullied was something Carlos knew much too much about. He was gay, and for that had been relentlessly bullied for as long as he could remember. Finally, as he was set to enter his senior year of high school, that bullying proved too much for him. Three days ago, Carlos posted this online:

And then he hurt himself so badly that this morning his family took him off life support. Carlos is now in a place where no one is ever bullied. (Read more of the story here.)

Bullies bully because they feel empowered to do so. And why do bullies in America feel particularly empowered to victimize gay people?

If you’re wondering about the answer to that question, you’re only pretending to. Because you know why. We all do. American bullies feel empowered to freely hound, denigrate, and beat-up LGBT people because they live in a country historically and culturally defined by, and everywhere infused with, Christianity. And the ubiquitous “traditional values” brand of Christianity (as opposed to the Christianity in which I believe) has long and very actively taught that being gay is a reprehensible moral abomination, an offense against God so foul that divine justice demands that in the afterlife gay people be punished by spending eternity having the living flesh burned off their bones.

Every American bully who victimizes gay people does so confident, at one level or another, that he or she is furthering the cause of God—just like the pastor up the street, or the pastor on the radio, or the pastor on TV, or the pastor at the head of any of the infinite number of Christian “ministries” that trades in the hectoring of gay people.

Anti-gay theology and physical brutality are as near as the church pulpit is to the street outside the church. (Tweet this.)

If you’re a Christian who believes that being gay is a sin, then tonight, after you’ve turned off the lights, and laid your head down to sleep, take a moment, please, to listen into the darkness.

Hear that distant, horrific scream? That’s yet another gay teen being piteously tortured by a bully acting out the theology that you subscribe to and support. It’s the sound of another young gay person accepting as true about themselves what Carlos so heartbreakingly expressed finally and ineradicably believing to be true about himself: that he was born a freak unworthy of ever loving or being loved.

That scream is, or should be, your “Christian” conscience.

---

 

See also: Taking God at His Word: The Bible and Homosexuality, which shows that the notion that God condemns homosexuality is anything but biblical, Christians and the Blood of Jamey Rodemeyer, and this cartoon, which I made to be watched til its very end:

---

 

Subscribe to John’s Prayer for the Week and/or John’s Monthly Newsletter here. (Read a bit more about them here).

In an earlier posting (which generated a number of energetic comments), I mentioned the widely shared view that in the earliest Greek translations of the Jewish scriptures (the “Old Greek,” from ca. 3rd century BCE and thereafter) the Greek term “Kyrios” was likely used as the translation-substitute for the divine name (YHWH, the “tetragrammaton”), and then subsequently the practice developed of writing the tetragrammaton in Hebrew characters in copies of the Greek OT writings.  (My earlier posting is here.  See esp. Martin Rösel, “The Reading and Translation of the Divine Name in the Massoretic Tradition and the Greek Pentateuch,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 31 (2007): 411-28).

One of the things that makes this theory plausible is the evidence of a wider “re-Hebraization” in diaspora Jewish communities in the late Hellenistic and early Roman periods.  One of the discussions of this that is based on a massive gathering of data is in the classic study by Victor A. Tcherikover, Alexander Fuks and Menahem Stern, Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum (3 vols.; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1957-1964).  This 3-vol work gathers evidence especially from papyri connected to and or concerning the Jews living in Egypt in this period, and is a mine of information.

In vol. 1, there is an invaluable 110-page synthesis of the evidence that every scholar concerned with the ancient Jewish communities and/or the historical settings of earliest Christianity should study.  They note “a spirit of national regeneration in Palestine” (among Jews) in the Roman period (p. 47).  They point to a  “steady increase in the use of Hebrew names from the Ptolemaic to the Roman period,” as ”the best evidence of the gradual increase of national spirit among the Egyptian Jews.” [See Vol. 3, Appendix 2, "Prosopography of the Jews in Egypt", on Jewish names on ostrace, papyri & inscriptions].

In the Ptolemaic period (ca. 3rd century BCE), Egyptian Jews seem to have been much more ready to use Greek names for their children and conduct their business (e.g., marriage agreements, burial inscriptions) in Greek.  But as we move toward/into the Roman period, biblical names increase in frequency, and marriage agreements have codicils attached written in Hebrew, and Hebrew appears comparatively more often on burial inscriptions.

One of the factors that may have prompted this resurgence of ethnic and religious identity and distinctiveness was the attempt by Antiochus Ephiphanes to assimilate Jews culturally and religiously, leading to the Maccabean revolt in 167 BCE.  That is, for many Jews the policy of Antiochus produced a sense of threat to their ethnic identity and integrity, and so a hardening of these things.  This seems to have continued on under Roman rule too, leading to several disturbances, and finally two major revolts in 66-72 CE and then 115-117 CE.

So, it does appear that there was a resurgence of Hebraic identity among Jews, at least in the Egyptian diaspora communities from ca. the 2nd century BCE onward.  And this makes the theory about the second-stage practice of writing the tetragrammaton in Hebrew characters cogent:  It fits with these other developments.

Think the humanities are irrelevant or dead? The Chinese and Russians don't.

Countries actively crushing free speech are introducing Western-style liberal arts education in their universities. Ironic, yes! More importantly, however, we should ask ourselves why we think the humanities are irrelevant when others are so interested.

The humanities are all around us. And, while they're known in academic circles as the core of the liberal arts, they are anything but liberal -- or conservative, for that matter. They're the indispensable exploration of who we are, why we exist and how we should seek to live.

A couple of weeks ago marked the release of "The Heart of the Matter: The Humanities and Social Sciences for a Vibrant, Competitive, and Secure Nation by the American Academy of Arts & Sciences" by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. The report was requested by a bipartisan congressional group to begin the conversation about the discipline's importance to our nation's future.

Take a look at a short film associated with the report to get a sense of the report's core message:

The Heart of the Matter from americanacad on Vimeo.

Although it might be surprising to some, at the most basic level, a solid economic argument for the humanities can be made. Learning about our history creates a foundation upon which to plan for the future. Rigorous philosophical discussions teach us to develop and defend positions. Reading and writing programs build strong communicators. All these qualities are fundamental requirements for a growing majority of jobs in the modern economy. However, relying solely on economics misses a more important truth.

America's status as a global superpower owes less to the strength of our economy or the dominance of our military than we might expect. Before we had the world's largest economy or most formidable army, it was our soft power that caused others to take notice. The resilience and integrity of American social institutions, our openness to new ideas and ways of life, and the appeal of our culture, from Hollywood to Woodstock, have earned us more goodwill and brought more benefit than the sale of any weapons system.

Twenty-five years ago, many Americans believed Japan was poised to dominate the world. The Japanese were educating engineers more efficiently than we were, and exporting electronic appliances both cheaper and more functional than ours. Today, the high-tech sector is more important than it was then, yet it's largely American companies that dominate.

This is not because our engineers and computer scientists are superior to others, but because our companies realized that design, vision and innovation are as critical as coding. Without the humanities and social sciences, we can never understand how our inventions interact with and enhance our lifestyles, preventing them from reaching their full potential. Indeed, it's this ethos that attracts the most promising engineers from around the world to study at our universities and seek employment with our companies.

Likewise, we cannot hope to perpetuate our soft power without a profound and nuanced understanding of the cultures with which we interact. The recently released report points out that our lack of language training and education in the history of the Middle East has cost us deeply over the past decade, and in many countries in the region, America may never again be viewed as favorably as it once was.

As the report stresses, one is never too young to start a meaningful education in the humanities, nor too old. In Humanities Washington's family reading programs, grade-school children discuss moral and ethical issues presented in children's literature. In this forum they discuss such topics as perseverance, greed, honesty and personal responsibility. On the other end of the spectrum, Humanities Washington's speakers engage adults of all ages and backgrounds in conversations about our culture and our community.

Similarly, our colleges and universities are critical gathering places for minds young and old. The Washington Consortium for the Liberal Arts (WaCLA) is a new organization designed to promote the full breadth of the liberal arts. In the winning entry of WaCLA's first annual liberal arts essay contest, Whitworth University student Rebecca Korf, writes, "Specialized education is certainly effective for developing isolated skills sets, but our economy and society ask for citizens with varied and dynamic abilities." Her liberal arts education will prepare her for a career, and so much more.

Funding for the National Endowment for the Humanities, and for public colleges and universities, has fallen precipitously. Meanwhile, China and Russia are investing in their universities, and their new leaders come largely from backgrounds in the humanities and social sciences. While technical skills are certainly important, the humanities are an indispensable part of our country's success. Will we be able to keep up? Will we even understand the need to try?

_______________

A shorter, modified version of this essay was originally published by the Seattle Times on 11 July 2013. Joining me in authoring this piece were Julie Ziegler, executive director of Humanities Washington, and Alex Zimmerman, study abroad coordinator at the University of New Mexico.

James McGrath has a post up responding to recent posts in response to his review of Thomas L. Brodie‘s recent memoir recounting his years of academia and announcing he is a mythicist. I encourage you to read it.

He writes,

In the same way, Brodie insightfully detects some places where a passage in the New Testament probably was directly inspired by or retelling an earlier story from the Jewish Scriptures. Where it goes wrong is where this is insisted upon as being the case everywhere, even in the very many places where the connections are slim and/or tangential.

via The Work of Thomas Brodie.

I firmly believe in the literary connection established between the New and the Old (even between books in the New, and not just the Gospels). However, such a connection does not preclude the existence of Jesus. Why? Because if you examine the types of rewritten Scripture, and how it was used — how it is used today when we do it — Scripture served as a contextualizing tool. It was their language.

This is where, I think, social memory (hence Le Donne and Keith in the title to this post) studies should come in. It can help to draw out contextualizing forces. I mean, look how Hillel was contextualized as a new Moses after his death. They used Scripture.

I’m busy today, and I’m not going to write too much here; however, my hypothesis is this. What you name a child is important to that child and the more so in times of social crisis. I listened to an African-American preacher talk about the rise of names for children in their community after the death of MLK. Many were named Martin. Why? Because they wanted their child to be the next MLK. Think of the Robert E. Lees and Abrahams after the War Between the States. It wasn’t just a way to honor their heroes, after all.

The book to your left is about about the role Jerusalem has played in Western imagination. Anyway, the author hints at (maybe in the book on in an audio of a speech I heard) the role the name Abraham played in shaping Lincoln.

Controversial moment: There is a connection between how Tamerlan Tsarnaev was named and what he did.

It is not unlikely, nor improbable to have a person named “Yeshua” during this time. Nor is it improbable given what we know about how names affect you that Yeshua may have grown up with a certain zeal to “save his people from their sins” (i.e., the sins that led to the new exile). Further, it is not improbable to have Yeshua place himself as an Elijah/Elisha — the Prophet to bring about the Messianic Age. There is nothing in Brodie’s literary work to reach back to the Historical Jesus (as far as I can tell) because literary works are demonstrably different than reality because literary works contextualize.¹

What we do know — and I would like to see this employed in tracing out trajectories of early Christianities — is that the community who took up Yeshua after his probable death (and improbable resurrection) was steeped in the Jewish holy writings. There is no reason not to use them to promote their sect. That is what we do, even today, is to appeal to Scripture to validate ourselves. In doing so, the more intertwined with Scripture the continued validation of the Historical Jesus became, the less apparent the Historical Jesus became…er… what?

Anyway, I said I was busy so I have to run. There you go. Read the various posts McGrath links too.

---

My books are now available on Amazon. Mimetic Criticism and the Gospel of Mark: Introduction and Commentary and From Fear to Faith: Stories of Hitting Spiritual Walls is in paperback or Kindle

This seems to be a day for it… Anyway, there are three posts I want to call your attention to.

The first is by Rick who has posted it here. The second is here, posted by a student of Brodie and all around great guy, Gislebertus Hieronymus Anonymous to whom I owe at least three, may be six beers. Both of these sum up my position pretty well, at the moment.

Also, check out Tom Verenna’s post.

I’d hate for someone to check out Verenna’s post and come up with “cry me a river” while writing a mile long post that is nothing more than an Amazon full of tears.

Wait… better… Someone may respond to Tom with a river… the De-Nile.

Ha!

 

---

My books are now available on Amazon. Mimetic Criticism and the Gospel of Mark: Introduction and Commentary and From Fear to Faith: Stories of Hitting Spiritual Walls is in paperback or Kindle

I’ve mentioned this quote from evangelical author and pastor Tim Keller twice recently (see here and here), but let me take another run at it here from another angle.

Keller was paraphrasing marriage equality advocate Jonathan Rauch in order to argue that condemnation of homosexuality as a sin is inextricably bound up with the lynchpins of evangelical faith. Here’s what he said:

If you say to everybody, “Anyone who thinks homosexuality is a sin is a bigot,” [Rauch] says, “You are going to have to ask them to completely disassemble the way in which they read the Bible.” Completely disassemble their whole approach to authority. You are basically going to have to ask them to completely kick their entire faith out the door.

To be clear, Keller isn’t saying that evangelicals’ “entire faith” is based on the belief that “homosexuality is a sin.” What he’s saying is that this belief arises from — and has thus become the pre-eminent shorthand exemplar of — a particular way of reading the Bible and of appealing to its “authority.” Since that approach to the Bible is at the center of what Keller says it means to be an evangelical Christian, it cannot bend without the whole thing breaking.

The deeper problem with what Keller is saying here is that he’s equating evangelicals’ “entire faith” with the “approach to authority” and “the way in which they read the Bible” that we have assembled. Assemble an approach to authority, then assemble a way in which to read the Bible and then you can build your faith on top of that. Your “entire faith” is a product of your prior choice to embrace an approach to reading the Bible and to authority.

That’s backwards and upside-down. It makes your entire faith an edifice constructed on top of the foundation of one particular, peculiar, non-negotiable hermeneutic. Keller is rewriting the beloved old evangelical hymn:

How frail a foundation, ye saints of the Lord,
Is laid for your faith in your choice of a particular approach to authority and the way in which you read the Bible.

The original, for those unfamiliar with the song, goes like this:

How firm a foundation, ye saints of the Lord,
Is laid for your faith in His excellent word.

The remainder of the hymn shows that its composer, John Keith, agreed with the author of the Gospel of John — that Jesus is the “Word of God” upon which all our faith depends, not the Bible and certainly not the way in which we have chosen to read the Bible.

If Jesus is the basis for your faith — the object and the subject and the substance of your faith, then your “approach to authority” and “the way in which you read the Bible” can be completely disassembled without you having to “kick your entire faith out the door.”

In fact, if Jesus is the center of your faith, then you’re probably going to have to regularly and repeatedly “completely disassemble” your ideas about authority and the way in which you read the Bible. Your faith will require you to do that. Almost constantly.

And when you completely disassemble your approach to authority and the way in which you read the Bible, you’ll wind up with nothing left except your faith. Your faith is what remains after all those other constructs have been completely disassembled.

And they will be. Probably more than once. Probably often. All those constructs you’ve carefully assembled — your approach to authority, the way in which you read the Bible — will at some point be dismantled before your eyes. If they were the foundation, and your faith was something built later on top of them, then it will fall with them.

But if faith was your starting point and your foundation, then the collapse of all those things assembled on top of it won’t affect it. You can sweep away the rubble of them and begin building anew with the foundation intact.

For most Christians, embracing a previously excluded group of marginalized people won’t require a radical tearing down and rebuilding of the hermeneutics we’ve constructed atop the foundation of our faith. For others — those who have somehow convinced themselves that such exclusion is an essential aspect of their religious identity — that disassembly and reconstruction may be as dramatic and traumatic as Keller suggests. But that doesn’t mean this disassembly isn’t necessary. Or that it isn’t inevitable.

Last week I read a paper at the International SBL in which I argued that it is more likely than not that Philemon and Onesimus are actual brothers.  This isn’t, of course, the consensus view, according to which Onesimus is the slave of Philemon.

Before I read my paper I gave a brief account of my reconsideration of their relationship.

Several years ago I was teaching Bible study methods to undergrads and we were doing an exercise with the text of Paul’s letter to Philemon.  A student raised his hand and noted that according to the text it appeared that Onesimus was the brother of Philemon.

This sounded outrageous and obviously wrong, so I asked how he could possibly have arrived at that notion.  He directed my attention to vv. 15-16.  We were looking at the NASB:

For perhaps he was for this reason separated from you for a while, that you would have him back forever, no longer as a slave, but more than a slave, a beloved brother, especially to me, but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord.

I hadn’t studied this letter all that closely previously, so I assumed that Paul’s indication that they were brothers “both in the flesh and in the Lord” must mean something else.  Other translations make this very assumption:

Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back forever—no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother. He is very dear to me but even dearer to you, both as a fellow man and as a brother in the Lord (NIV).

Maybe this is the reason that Onesimus was separated from you for a while so that you might have him back forever— ¹⁶ no longer as a slave but more than a slave—that is, as a dearly loved brother. He is especially a dearly loved brother to me. How much more can he become a brother to you, personally and spiritually in the Lord (CEB)!

I told him that I’d need to look at that a bit more closely and get back to him at a later point (one of those unfortunate classroom moments when you don’t have a ready answer–ugh!).

As I dipped into commentaries over the subsequent weeks and months, I was increasingly disappointed by how commentators treated Paul’s expression.  The NIV’s and CEB’s renderings represent how nearly every major commentary I’ve looked at handles Paul’s expression.  The NASB, on the other hand, is a pretty good literal translation of the Greek text.

My paper questions this consensus and I’ll discuss some of the aspects of my argument in the next few weeks.

A dear friend of mine is in her final semester of a psychology degree. Somehow Martin Buber came up. The  famous work  of the Jewish thinker  - “I and Thou” -  is such a powerful idea from the early 20th century that is resonates in both psychology and theology.

Keith Ward explains in God: a guide for the perplexed:

“The word ‘thou’ in English has a rather peculiar history. In the sixteenth century, when the English Book of Common Prayer was first pieced together, it was the second-person singular personal pronoun. Just as in German and French, and many other languages today, it was used to signify an especially close and intimate relationship with the person to whom you were speaking. For formal occasions, or to people one did not know well, ‘you’ was appropriate. But for members of family and close friends, the correct word to use was ‘thou’.” *

Then something very odd happened to the English language. Everyone simply became ‘you’. No one used ‘Thou’ anymore and it became a very fancy and antiquated way to reference someone.
The problem is that is was still used to refer to God (in the books used by the church) and so:

“before long people thought that ‘thou’ was a special word only to be used for God – God being presumably very archaic – connoting very special reverence and respect. So, whereas the writers of the first Elizabethan prayer book had wanted people to address God in a very intimate, almost informal way, most people who love the prayer book now seem to think that it is important to address God as ‘thou’, because only that gives God appropriate respect. Ironically, those who insist on addressing God as ‘thou’ are doing the very opposite of what the compilers of the prayer book wanted.”

Do you see what happened?  Any words that get attached to our conception of God end up getting co-opted, absorbed and hijack by our conception of God.

We try to use words, phrases, pictures and metaphors to re-present the transcendent divine … but those words, phrases and metaphors end up getting codified then solidified then idolized.
In this way, our imagination becomes an image … and eventually becomes an idol.

I have argued this same sort of thing in “God never changes … or does She?” when it comes to masculine pronouns for god vs. thinking of god as a man.

Instead of understanding Jesus’ language as relational – that Jesus calling God
‘Abba’ (some say “Father” but I like John Cobb’s use of “Pappa”) as saying “I relate to God as one relates to a loving Father/Parent” , we codified and solidified that language and now God is ONLY allowed to be called ‘He’ in some circles. Our imagination is then limited by the image which has become an idol.

Jesus and Unicorns

I run into this same thing when it comes to christology. People often confuse the two approaches of ‘from above’ and ‘from below’ with two results of ‘high christology’ and ‘low christology’. This is true of general theology and views of scripture as well.

Those who are convinced that God needs to be as big, as powerful and as all-mighty as possible are often caught in the slightly awkward position of having to stick up for, defend and police the opinions of other on behalf of this almighty being.

So often in these conversations I want to say “ Just because your god could beat up my god doesn’t mean that your conception in is correct.” Look, if we are just going make bigger and badder things up and then call that “High” … then I want a Jesus who rides a unicorn – cries magic teardrops that become diamonds and never lets anyone get sick or die. THAT would be a higher christology.

Why Are You Doing That?

Normally I wouldn’t go after this topic in such a way, but I have noticed that in our ‘culture wars’ there is a disturbing trend. Really good people with really sincere faith will give themselves permission to behave in really aggressive and judgmental ways and when confronted will respond with either “God …” or “The Bible …”.
That is just one way in which I know that we have a problem. Insisting on calling God ‘He’ (or ‘King’ or ‘Father”)  is the other.

The way that we imagine – or image – God is so powerful, that the words and phrases that we use to describe our conception get pulled into an orbit which threatens to change their very meaning. The gravitational pull of our language about God is so strong that it will actually warp the words themselves.

May god grant us the kindness and humility to recognize that all of our god-language, signs and symbols are provisional at best and to treat other people kindly and graciously as we walk together in common humanity as I and Thou.

 

Suggested Reading: 

* Keith Ward . God (2013 edition): A Guide for the Perplexed (Kindle edition). $9.99

Elizabeth Johnson. She Who Is.  Used for under $10

 

Guillermo Gonzalez has made a public attestation that he will not teach intelligent design at Ball State University.  As the Muncie Star Press reports:

Gonzalez, who was hired by BSU this summer as an assistant professor in the department of physics and astronomy, is best known for his advocacy of intelligent design.

“As I communicated to members of the department during my interviews, I plan to continue my research on astrobiology and stellar astrophysics,” Gonzalez said in a statement issued this week.

The statement reported that he will not be discussing intelligent design in the classroom, and that he did not discuss intelligent design when he taught at Iowa State University, either

That may not be enough to soothe folks like Coyne and Harris but it is a huge step forward to placate the faculty at Ball State, I am sure. It is important for him to distance himself from the modern ID movement in this sense and for them to understand that. The anti-science comments made by the faculty at Iowa State are not without merit.

It is one thing for ID supporters to believe that the universe is created and guided by an intelligence. It is another for modern ID supporters to, having no theoretical constructs of their own, take pot shots at organized science in support of their ideas.  At least "mainstream" creationism, warts and all, has a testable framework. You can test the hypothesis "the earth was created six-thousand years ago." That's easy. Trying to test the hypothesis "God created the heavens and the earth," That's hard.  Add to that the fact that the public face of ID as purveyed by people like David Klinghoffer, Cornelius Hunter, William Dembski and David Berlinski is rabidly "anti-Darwinian," and you have a science credibility problem.  Gonzalez is wise to stay well away from that. 

Download The Oxford Handbook of Cuneiform Culture (Oxford Handbooks)

Remember how the IDiots are always trying to tell us that their movement is scientific? It's all about scientific evidence for design.

The facts say otherwise. Almost all of their arguments are based on "evidence" against evolution and on trashing scientists, especially Darwin. Much of their opposition has nothing to do with scientific evidence of design; instead, it's directed at materialism and atheism and other views that they see as an integral part of something called "Darwinism."

Let's see how bizarre this can get. Friedrich Nietzsche ("God is dead") is hardly someone who the IDiots respect for his philosophical view. But that doesn't matter as long as he said something bad about Charles Darwin [Nietzsche, possibly the Nazis’ favourite well-known philosopher, criticized Darwinism on aesthetic grounds].

But, wait a minute. If Nietzsche was a favorite of the Nazis then Darwin must have been opposed to Nazism because Nazi Neitsche criticized natural selection. I'm confused. What does this have to do with evidence of design?

---

2013.07.15 | Eric F. Mason and Kevin B. McCruden, eds. Reading the Epistle to the Hebrews: A Resource for Students. SBL Resources for Biblical Study 66. Atlanta: SBL, 2011. xvi + 354 pp. ISBN: 9781589836082.

Review by Nicholas J. Moore, Keble College, University of Oxford.

Many thanks to SBL for kindly providing us with a review copy.

This volume unites 13 chapters from current specialists on the Letter to the Hebrews, or other fields bearing on particular questions in Hebrews, with the intention of making the current state of research and discourse on the letter in scholarly circles accessible for advanced undergraduates (and a wider audience, including ‘any educated reader studying Hebrews for the first time’ [2]). The work therefore avoids jargon, provides glosses for technical terms, transliterates Greek and Hebrew, and keeps footnotes to a minimum.

As part of the Society of Biblical Literature’s ‘Resources for Biblical Study’ series – which includes volumes on biblical language learning, thematic studies, and history of interpretation – this volume continues in the same vein as Reading the Book of Revelation: A Resource for Students (ed. David Barr, 2003), offering a reading guide to a particular biblical text.

The contributions to Reading the Epistle to the Hebrews are grouped into five broad categories (made explicit in Eric Mason’s introduction though not in the contents page), something which helps provide a degree of coherence and structure. The first four essays deal with conceptual background. That Hebrews was written in the Greco-Roman world (Patrick Gray, ch.1) and makes extensive use of the Old Testament (David Moffitt, ch.4) is uncontroversial, but the questions of how and why it draws on these (and in the case of the Old Testament, what base text it works with and to what extent it modifies the passages it cites) are less straightforward and these two chapters are useful introductions to these topics. Whether to read Hebrews against a background of Middle Platonism (James Thompson, ch.2) or Jewish apocalypticism (Eric Mason, ch.3) is a somewhat more controverted and dichotomised question in Hebrews scholarship. Both essays, and the volume as a whole, strike something of a conciliatory note on this front; this is helpful for students to grasp, although the contrast between Thompson and Mason’s contributions should also alert to the different results that will be obtained. The need to be attentive to where Hebrews differs from either or both of these conceptual backgrounds should also be stressed.

Questions of Hebrews’ cultural location also underlie the second grouping of essays, which approach the text’s structure from Greco-Roman rhetorical (Craig Koester) and Jewish homiletical (Gabriella Gelardini) points of view. Both pieces summarize much more extensive work elsewhere, to which the interested reader is referred. Koester’s proposal is well informed by an understanding of contemporary rhetoric; nevertheless, the resulting structure fails to take into account either the widely-recognised inclusio between 4.14-16 and 10.19-25, or the central summary of the author’s argument around 8.1 (‘the main point of what we are saying’), and as a result leaves this reviewer unconvinced. Similarly, Gelardini’s contention that Heb 4.4 cites Exod 31.17b rather than Gen 2.2 is simply confusing without fuller explanation than the brief defence it receives (134). That this is far from obvious highlights a weak point in her argument, which – along with the difficulties in assuming the existence of a three-year lectionary cycle in the first century (let alone the precise readings in that cycle) – makes the detail of her proposal hard to sustain. The overall thesis of a homiletical form within a synagogue setting has however received much wider affirmation. This section on structure would have been strengthened by a contribution exploring George Guthrie’s text-linguistic approach and/or Cynthia Westfall’s discourse analysis; such a piece could also have formed a suitable bridge to the next section, ‘emerging methodological approaches’.

Jerome Neyrey’s application of social-scientific work on ‘brokers’ to Jesus in Hebrews brings a helpful perspective to the question of mediation, clearly a fundamental issue in the letter, although it is not clear what is gained by using the modern terminology of ‘broker’ in addition to that of first-century patron-client reciprocity conventions. Kenneth Schenck offers a narrative approach, in line with his two books on Hebrews, giving a brief introduction to narrative criticism and acknowledging that while Hebrews does not have a narrative form, this approach can nevertheless serve as a helpful heuristic device (174).

The penultimate section deals with the theology of the letter. Frank Matera gives an introduction to ‘the theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews’, which contains a helpful categorization of the letter as exposition serving exhortation. Although he does not claim to be offering a detailed structure of the letter, this distinction (diagrammatized on page 191) is a useful starting point structurally, and learning to distinguish between these two kinds of material in the document serves as a guide for students reading Hebrews. Kevin McCruden’s contribution examines the theme of perfection, which has great importance for Hebrews’ Christology and soteriology; he emphasizes the earthly, suffering process through which Jesus attained perfection, something which correlates with the present and future reality of perfection as a process for the believer.

The final section, on reception history, contains three rather different contributions. Rowan Greer speaks out of his expertise on patristic interpretation, offering a window onto the use of Hebrews in the Chalcedonian controversy. He ends with an interesting suggestion that the hermeneutical circle between theology and exegesis in the early church corresponds to that between historical reconstruction and exegesis in our own day. It is hard to imagine an undergraduate context in which this essay might be set reading, but it is a worthwhile read and the final provocative suggestion could form the basis for some interesting discussions. Alan Mitchell addresses the current ‘hot topic’ of supersessionism, that is, does Hebrews promote a ‘replacement theology’ in which the church supersedes Israel? His answer is an emphatic ‘no’. In the course of his essay he shows that supersessionism can be defined in at least three ways (based on R. Kendall Soulen’s categorization). This is important, as it can feel like supersessionism is a kind of bogey-word that everyone wants to avoid but is rarely defined. This in part stems from the political/religious sensibilities surrounding the issue, which Mitchell addresses directly in his essay. While Mitchell’s reading is broadly convincing, and while it can be legitimate and worthwhile to approach the biblical text with modern questions, the end-point nevertheless comes across as a rather foregone conclusion: Mitchell’s presupposition that supersessionism is a bad thing is clear, and the essay seems to be driven from start to finish by 20th and 21st century concerns. Finally, Mark Torgerson has amassed a fascinating collection of material from patristic texts through Luther to modern hymnals and lectionaries to illustrate the reception and use of Hebrews in the church. He cites an important passage from Chrysostom’s Homilies on Hebrews which offers a sacrificial understanding of the eucharist, but unfortunately does not cite the wider context of this passage, in which Chrysostom wrestles with the potential problem that Hebrews’ treatment of Levitical sacrifices could also be applied to critique the eucharist understood sacrificially (271-72). His oscillation between the eucharist being ‘a remembrance of’ but also ‘the same’ as Christ’s sacrifice anticipates in kernel the Reformation debates over the Mass, and it is a pity that Calvin’s Commentary on Hebrews (explicitly directed against Johann Eck’s De sacrificio misae libri tres) is not mentioned. But Torgerson has done a remarkable job of selecting and making accessible a wide variety of material. He concludes that, given Hebrews’ important and unique contribution to Christian faith, it is encouraging to see it being read and used more widely in the church, something with which one can only agree.

The epilogue by Harold Attridge is no mere formality; it is highly worthwhile reading and almost makes any review obsolete (although in this case one hopes that what is obsolete and growing old is not soon to disappear…). Attridge is deservedly a respected figure in Hebrews scholarship, and his epilogue reveals that he has closely read all of the contributions. He offers a brief but penetrating analysis of each essay in turn, and those planning to use this volume in teaching would do well to have students read Attridge’s comments on any chapters they set. In addition, Eric Mason’s introduction provides summaries of each chapter.

One broader though essentially minor critique: the volume represents almost exclusively North American scholarship, with the single exception of Gabriella Gelardini. This seems a shame when there are a number of Hebrews scholars elsewhere in the world who have made a significant contribution (e.g. Knut Backhaus, Hermut Löhr, William Loader, Peter O’Brien), and also an up-and-coming generation, certainly in Europe and doubtless elsewhere, of younger biblical scholars working on Hebrews.

In sum, Mason and McCruden are to be congratulated for bringing together a fine collection offering excellent breadth in introducing the Letter to the Hebrews to a non-specialist audience. The book is produced to a high standard and is well-presented, a pleasure to handle and read. It is to be hoped that SBL will continue to offer similarly well-informed and up-to-date introductory volumes on other biblical books.

Nicholas J. Moore
Keble College, University of Oxford
nicholas.moore [ at ] magd.oxon.org

Since readers may be getting sick of hearing about conferences, I have been thinking of getting into a new series that looks at the genre of Mark and the other NT Gospels.  When I find time, I will try to go through some of the classic books or articles on the question and give an overview of some of the key points on the blog.  To start things off with a discussion, in which genre of ancient literature would you classify Mark?

Enoch Seminar Online

Founded in 2001, the Enoch Seminar is an academic group of international specialists in Second Temple Judaism and Christian Origins, who share the results of their research in the field and meet to discuss topics of common interest...

The Enoch Seminar Online is a new kind of website. It is both an archive of all papers presented at the meetings of the Enoch Seminar, and an online journal of news, reviews and other original contributions. The basic information is available to all readers, while more specialized material is accessible only to subscribers (Friends, Members, and Veterans of the Enoch Seminar).

The Enoch Seminar focuses on the period of Jewish history, culture and literature from the Babylonian Exile to the Bar-Kochba revolt—the period in which both Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism have their roots. The goal is to tear down the misleading walls of separation that still divide this field of research, recovering the unity and integrity of the period. Enoch is the symbol of this inter-canonical and inter-disciplinary effort, as he is present in each and all of the canons that anachronistically divide sources from the period: Old Testament, Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Dead Sea Scrolls, Jewish-Hellenistic literature, New Testament, Apostolic Fathers, etc.

• Enoch Seminars
  • Camaldoli 2013
  • Milan 2011
  • Naples 2009
  • Camaldoli 2007
  • Camaldoli 2005
  • Venice 2003
  • Florence 200

I'm currently in the midst of finishing revisions on my inaugural lecture, "Social Memory Theory and the Gospels: The First Decade," to be given here at St Mary's in October.  It provides an assessment of social memory theory applications to the Gospels in the past ten years and, yes, of necessity will engage with recent criticisms that I regard as not wholly out of line but seriously misrepresentative of the breadth of the discussion.  I hope this essay will display just how many different applications the theory has already spawned.

Regardless, the writing of this (two-part) essay has provided me the opportunity to reconsider Anthony's  tree-hugger manifesto The Historiographical Jesus: Memory, Typology, and the Son of David (Baylor, 2009).  Anthony is rightly praised for the methodological contribution that this volume makes.  It was at the time the fullest application of memory studies to Jesus studies.  Furthermore, it did not rely solely on memory studies to make its contribution, but rather situated memory studies against a larger hermeneutical backdrop that included discussions of critical realism, Bultmann, Schleiermacher, and the whole kit and kaboodle. 

Unfortunately, though, I don't think Anthony has received proper due for just how groundbreaking the second half of the book is.  To my knowlege, it is the fullest discussion of the Davidssohnfrage.  Anthony argues convincingly that "Son of David," although a Davidic term generally, was more importantly a Solomonic term specifically.  He tracks the reception-history of this typological category and thus provides an excellent discussion of how Mark and Matthew, in their own ways, appropriated the category for Jesus.  It's an excellent demonstration of the methodological principles of the first section of the book in a concrete example--the Gospel authors were influenced simultaneously by their presents and their inherited pasts.

Since I've elsewhere in print criticized aspects of this book, I hope that readers of this blog will take my commendation of these aspects of the study seriously.  Anthony's contribution to scholarly discussion of Jesus as "Son of David" is just as pioneering as his memory research, even if the latter gets all the attention and pitchforks.

Ok, one more (see How other people stereotype your denomination and The peculiar activities of denominations), this time about beliefs:

Adventists: 

Anglicans: 

Baptists:

Calvinists:

Catholics:

Episcopalians:

Lutherans:

Mennonites:

Methodists:

 

Orthodox:

Pentecostals:

Presbyterians:

Non-Denominational: 

Filed under: Adventists, Anglican, Baptist, Christian Denominations/Groups, Eastern Orthodoxy, Episcopalian, Lutheran, Mennonite, Pentecostal/ Charismatic, Presbyterian Tagged: denominations, Google

This quotation from 2 Thessalonians 3:10 is often trotted out to make the case against government benefits for the poor. What I’d like to do in this post is to clarify the context of this quotation to show that it cannot be construed to contradict the overriding biblical theme of concern for the poor.

Scholars believe that Paul came to Thessalonica fleeing persecution and fell in with a group of laborers (most likely leatherworkers, which is presented as Paul’s profession elsewhere in the New Testament). They formed a close bond, and Paul was able to win them over for the gospel. The occasion for the first letter to the Thessalonians arose when one of the leatherworkers apparently died. The remaining members were concerned that this person would miss out on the Second Coming because he had died slightly too soon — but Paul clarifies in the letter that actually the dead will be raised first, and then “we” will be taken up to join them. Obviously the situation envisioned here is that the End will be coming sooner rather than later, certainly within the readers’ lifetime. This letter is one of Paul’s most deeply felt writings — it is palpable that he really loves these guys and doesn’t want them worrying.

Shifting the scene to 2 Thessalonians, the tone has shifted dramatically. Instead of the tender consoler, Paul here is playing the role of the taskmaster. This shift, along with apparent contradictions in content, has led some scholars to conclude that this letter is actually a pseudonymous “correction” of the first letter, attempting to tone down some of the apocalyptic enthusiasm. I agree with this assessment, but for the purposes of this post it doesn’t really matter whether it was the real Paul who wrote 2 Thessalonians or not. Apparently some of the laborers have decided to quit their jobs in anticipation of the End, and the author clarifies that the End is not coming quite that soon — in the meantime, everyone should continue contributing to the community.

Two points stand out to me. First, this letter is almost certainly addressing a community of able-bodied men with a set profession. Second, it is responding to a scenario where people are voluntarily refraining from work out of what the author (whether Paul or someone else) believes to be a misguided apocalyptic enthusiasm. Given these facts, it seems deeply questionable to extract this verse as a general principle for public policy, much less to cite it as somehow overriding the clear priority of helping the poor that is pervasively attested throughout the Hebrew Bible and New Testament.

Filed under: economics, eschatology, politics of the absurd, Saint Paul

This is part of the speech Erica Goldson, the 2010 Valedictorian of Coxsackie-Athens High School, gave at her graduation ceremony.
The speech was uploaded on YouTube, went viral and Erica became known as the ‘Valedictorian who spoke out against schooling’. You can watch the entire speech and read the transcript here.

Erica’s speech really struck a nerve with me because I was totally like her when I was in school. I always did what I was told, didn’t ask too many questions, mindlessly memorised then regurgitated facts and figures. I remember I would write out an entire essay for homework, memorise the whole thing, then write it down verbatim on test day … and then promptly forget it and move on to the next assignment. I graduated near the top of my class, but on hindsight, I’m not sure I learnt much. The pattern continued as I went on to university, even though I never really wanted to be a graphic designer. But the piece of paper I received at the end did help me land a job, so it was all worth it in the end right? Maybe if I had heard this speech back in high school, I would have realised I was stuck in the system and gone down a different path.

One positive thing I do remember about school is that I doodled on EVERYTHING – my textbooks, files, folders, desk, arms, legs,
pencil case and all of my friend’s stuff as well (mainly pictures of Batman, sometimes Wolverine, the occasional Ninja Turtle). If only I spent MORE time doodling and less time being a robot.

Related comics: 11 Ways to be Average. The Road Not Taken.

- Thanks to Jesse for submitting this.
- Check out this in-depth article about myself and the growth of Zen Pencils by viral media expert Jonathan Goodman. It’s especially relevant if you’re interested in starting your own website, blog or webcomic.

... It seems to me that the broader Wesleyan tradition (Nazarenes, Free Methodists, Wesleyans) has often had an uneasy feeling about the term “evangelical.” And frankly, broader evangelicalism has often had an uneasy feeling about including us. Don Dayton’s book, Discovering an Evangelical Heritage, meant to show that we were “in,” but the book might just as well have been an argument that we were always something different. After all, it is a book that highlights how different we were from other "evangelicals" in the 1800s by being abolitionists, pro-women in ministry and such.

The word “evangelical” ultimately comes from the German “evangelisch.” But it simply means Protestant in German—a much broader meaning than the word currently has in English. Mainstream evangelical literature has often looked back to Jonathan Edwards and the Puritans as the fountainheads of American evangelicalism--Calvinists who have nothing to do with the Wesleyan tradition. So why would we want to look to them to describe ourselves? We have more in common with the people they kicked out of their communities, Arminians like Roger Williams.

And the “evangelicals” of the 1800s were Calvinists like Charles Hodge who were on the complete opposite side of the Wesleyan Methodists when it came to slavery. Again I ask, why are we interested in adopting the term evangelical? To associate ourselves with them?

Evangelicalism today is really “neo-evangelicalism,” a movement that started in the late 1940s. These evangelicals were trying to distinguish themselves from "uneducated" folk like us holiness people, dispensationalists, and Pentecostals.  George Marsden and Mark Noll call us types "fundamentalists" and make retreat from the world (rather than engagement) our defining characteristic.  That's funny, because the scholars that produced the namesake of fundamentalism, "the Fundamentals," were the type of Reformed Calvinists who founded Westminster Theological Seminary. Neo-evangelicalism pretty much grew out of that "fundamentals" crowd. And why would we want to call ourselves evangelicals?

Yet, the more educated Wesleyan Methodists of the 1950s were keen to jump on that bandwagon.  Stephen Paine convinced the WMsts in the 50s to add the term "inerrancy" to their Discipline, following this broader movement.  Both Bob Black and the recent study of the Nazarenes confirm its background in 19th century American Calvinism--the Charles Hodge types that opposed the core values of the Wesleyan movement. The Pilgrims did not have the term in their Manual, but clearly didn't think the Bible had errors when the question came up at merger in 1968--who would want to argue for that?

A more appropriate definition of a fundamentalist is an uncharitable and militant idealist whose aim is to make the whole world conform to his or her traditional religious ideology, while opposing modernizing factors.  But this is almost how the public has come to understand the word "evangelical" anyway today.  And why do we want to be called evangelicals in that context?

The most recent mainstream evangelical self-description is a five volume series whose glue is a set of characteristics retrofitted onto the past based on what evangelicalism is today. So Wesley and the Pietists get to be included now (how charitable of mainstream evangelicalism) because they can be roughly made to fit Bebbington's four characteristics extrapolated from the present: 1) conversion, 2) Bible, 3) activism, and 4) centrality of the cross. Can Wesleyans fit in his mold?

Most of us can, but that doesn't mean it is the kind of list we would come up with to describe ourselves or that best describes who we are.  For example, Wesley's quadrilateral argues that prima scriptura is a better description of him than sola scriptura. Wesleyan activism is not just about evangelism (the main sense in Bebbington's description) but social action as well to a degree that has historically made evangelicals uncomfortable.

And at least part of the Wesleyan tradition is sympathetic to the Quaker idea of God judging people according to the light they have (awkward). And we are sometimes a little light on the penal substitution often hiding in Bebbington's fourth characteristic.  Both leanings put us in the dubious category to evangelicals like John Piper, who doesn't think Arminians should be allowed to teach at truly evangelical institutions.

In short, the current popular description of an evangelical does apply to many Wesleyans, but there are also many Wesleyans in good standing for whom some of these descriptions fit awkwardly at best. It is no wonder mainstream evangelicalism hasn't always been sure whether we were in or out. From the sound of this post, they are sometimes suspect to us as well. We have much in common with American evangelicalism, but it should not be the central way we define ourselves, in my opinion...

Whenever I re-watch the PBS series From Jesus the Christ, I can’t help but remember how exciting it was to be noodling around in the historical Jesus discussion 10-15 years ago. The Good Ole Days! Highlight: Holland Hendrix’s summation of the “task of the (historical Jesus) historian” beginning at 3:15. “Peeling back layer after layer” and finding “a plurality of Jesus.” The authenticity paradigm and its (ostensible) results, indeed!

Click on the image below, and enjoy. Still worth watching!

The recent “not guilty” verdict out of Sanford, FL, reflects the principle of the American legal system that if there is reasonable doubt, courts will err on the side of innocence. I dispute neither the principle nor the decision by the jury. But that doesn’t leave me satisfied about the outcome.

Jesus said that true justice exceeds that of “the scribes and Pharisees” – and the same could be said of the prosecution and defense. Legal justice seeks only to assign guilt or innocence. Holistic justice works for the life, liberty, and well-being of all. And it especially works for reconciliation between the two Americas that can be identified by their reaction to the case.

One America now has more reason to believe that their sons can be presumed guilty until proven innocent without a reasonable doubt when they’re walking down the street armed only with Skittles and an iced tea.

The other America now has more reason to believe that they can get away with murder, or something close to it, as long as the victim is young and black and wearing a hoodie.

Related: Finding Justice for Trayvon: Seven Actions Steps for Our Outrage – by Kristen Howerton

One America now has less reason to believe that their sons will have equal protection under the law.

The other America is more secure in its right to “stand its ground” and will be even more determined to carry concealed weapons – and use them.

One America is threatened by the “reasonable doubt” that protects the other.

One America watches as the other America expands their gun rights while reducing protections for its own voting rights.

The other America sincerely believes their own gun rights are more threatened than their counterparts’ voting rights.

One America feels its story is always told beginning with point two – in this case, with an unarmed teenager in an altercation, not with point one, an armed adult pursuing an unarmed teenager.

The other America considers point one irrelevant to the case, and therefore not worth talking about.

One America is scandalized that an armed adult would assess as a threat an innocent, unarmed teenager walking down the street.

The other America is scandalized that anyone would consider the armed adult as anything other than innocent and justified in that assessment.

Members of both Americas are coming together to form an emerging America that wants something better for all Americans. That emerging America wants us to deal deeply and honestly with our largely untreated, unacknowledged American original sin: a cocktail of white privilege, manifest destiny, and racism – in both its personal and institutional forms.

That emerging America believes that the best world is one where people multiply plowshares and pruning hooks, not swords and spears. Or in contemporary terms – one where people multiply community playgrounds and parks, not guns and drones.

That emerging America wants to bring people of all races, religions, regions, parties, and classes together in a common pursuit: a nation and world where there is equal liberty and justice for all.

Also by Brian: Interfaith Misunderstanding in America

Emerging America is disgusted by political parties that win by dividing America through wedge issues, and then can blame the other side when they have rendered the nation so polarized as to be ungovernable.

Emerging America is equally disgusted by cable channels and religious organizations that collude with those political parties at every turn – because fear and wedge-ry not only win elections, they rake in profits.

Emerging America doesn’t love Trayvon and hate George, or love George and hate Trayvon. Emerging America owns both Trayvon and George as their beloved sons, their Cain and Abel, their Jacob and Esau, their older and younger sons in Jesus’ most famous (but often worst-interpreted) parable. That’s why Emerging America is heartbroken about the recent verdict.

But we will not let our hearts break apart in sharp and dangerous shards of resentment and shrapnel of fear. With God’s help, we will let the pain of love break our hearts open in renewed hunger and thirst for true justice and peace … for all people, equal and indivisible.

—
Brian McLaren is an author and speaker who recently published a series of e-books regarding The Word of the Lord to… Democrats, Evangelicals and Republicans. His latest book is, Why Did Jesus, Moses, the Buddha and Mohammed Cross the Road? Christian Identity in a Multi-Faith World.

Amazon.com Widgets

Ads by Google

The post Trayvon and George: A Tale of Two Americas appeared first on Red Letter Christians.

Suddenly,

it has to happen!

The wheels are turning,

motion is burning through your abdomen,

and you must sigh and scream,

and push, push, PUSH!

There are bloody streams running

down your legs,

those screams

are yours,

the ones like a dolphin, beached,

and you writhe like him, too,

the waves pitifully lapping at you,

while merciless sand gropes

for your fins.

“Get out!  Be gone!” you cry,

you struggle down sideways,

trying to bury yourself away from

what must be birthed.

What a horror to have it inside,

burrowing!

It births itself,

bringing your innards with it,

grasping your heart on the way out,

oh,

the agony!

You lie,

still,

a

dead

thing.

But the birthed creature breathes

with your lungs,

and beats your heart in its chest,

stronger,

and new,

and opens its eyes,

so you can see.

Tagged: poem, poetry

Last weekend I had the privilege to be with Trent and Rebekah Dutton. The Duttons are a great couple with an interesting story. Both are computer programmers with experience in military applications. Their interest in biblical geography and archaeology grew as they taught Bible classes at church, and piqued after a tour of Israel with Ferrell Jenkins in 2012. In short, they made a career change and are starting the two-year process to earn an M.A. in Biblical Archaeology at Wheaton College. (They were both accepted to Wheaton and are going through the program concurrently.) The first stage of their program is to excavate at Ashkelon with the Leon Levy Expedition for its full six-week season, followed by a semester of coursework in Jerusalem. They will then move to the Chicago area for the remaining 1-1/2 years of the program (with another Bible Lands dig next summer to boot.)

They and I have mutual friends who helped us to connect in Israel and spend part of a weekend together.

After Ein Gedi we went to the Dead Sea for a long, relaxing float as the sun began to set. I’m afraid I have no photo of that experience since my camera batteries had died, though the Duttons were able to get some nice shots of their first experience in the water. We enjoyed a quiet Friday evening by the Dead Sea as Shabbat (Sabbath) began and rested for our adventures the next day.

Our Sabbath morning began by driving south along the Dead Sea and then moving up into the Negev toward the ancient city of Arad.

After Arad we drove WNW to Beersheba (Beer Sheva). This city was considered the southern boundary of Israelite settlement. (“From Dan to Beersheba…”) Abraham spent a number of years around Beer Sheva and no doubt would have entered the city from time to time for trade, consultations, negotiations for water/grazing rights, etc.

Iron Age Beer Sheva had casemate walls with private dwellings abutting the inner wall. This architectural style did not exist in Philistea, Canaanite cities, or in northern Israel. In Canaan, this design was unique to Judah and can be found at other southern sites such as Khirbet Qeiyafa and Tel en-Nasbeh (Mizpah).

After Beersheba we drove north to the Judean foothills (Shephelah). Most restaurants are closed on Saturdays due to Shabbat, so we enjoyed a nice gas station lunch by the Elah Valley consisting of sandwiches, chips, and chocolate. As it happens, Khirbet Qeiyafa was just a few minutes from our lunch spot…

After giving the Duttons a tour of Khirbet Qeiyafa, we drove to the coast, to the land of the ancient Philistines, where they gave me a tour of Ashkelon.

We ended our day with a hot meal by the beach in modern Ashkelon. The Duttons went to their excavation hotel to rest up for work the next day while I drove back to Jerusalem that evening. From the Dead Sea to the Negev, to the Shephelah, to the coast, to Jerusalem – with numerous site visits – all in one day. And with great company.

As I write this, the Duttons are in their last week with the Ashkelon excavation. You can follow their blog as they wrap up the dig and prepare for a semester in Jerusalem.