Unsettled Christianity

One blog to rule them all, One blog to find them, One blog to bring them all and in the darkness bind them.
February 21st, 2012

Review: Mark: The Gospel of Passion (Biblical Imagination Series) (5 Stars) @ivpress

card mark passion gospel

Click to Order

Michael Card has written a breathtaking narrative commentary on the Gospel of Mark which at once introduces the reader to scholarship material, both a narrative and a canonical take, as well as a passionate performance of the often times glossed over second Gospel. This commentary is for the heart and soul while refreshing the mind. Just like the Gospel of Mark, with its quick pace and immediate actions, Mark: The Gospel of Passion is written so that it draws in the reader and without a depression or lull in reading pushes that reader further along. Frankly, I was so enthralled with Card’s writing style that I read it in a matter of hours.

Commentaries are dry, often times more original language than English, and used to induce the lay reader into a coma. Mark: The Gospel of Passion is something that cannot be rightly classified as a commentary, but perhaps more as an ongoing sermon. Card bases his work off sound scholarship, in what generally appears to be from his acknowledged mentor, William Lane, and carries the conversation forward about the Gospel of Mark in a canonical-narrative way. It is a narrative and takes the Gospel and presents it in the receptive tradition of the Church and in many ways, how Preachers use it on Sunday morning. This doesn’t mean that critical issues are glossed over, but the goal of the author is not the minutia of scholars; instead, it seems to be to present Mark freshly and energetically. There is scant attention to the original languages, which often times will bog down preachers and other ministry leaders, although the original Greek is used somewhat strategically. Further, there is the constant dialogue with the other Gospels as well as Tradition which connects Mark to both Peter and Paul. Card takes Tradition seriously, employing Papias and the Canon to set Mark’s Gospel as a deeply Christian one which ties together the New Testament as well as Church History. Further, while I may disagree with him, he ignites the fires of imagination of Mark’s setting by placing it within the immediate aftermath of Nero’s burning of Rome, even going so far as to suggest that this is the reason that the Gospel writer leaves off “and fire” in Mark 1.8 (cf Matthew 3.11, Luke 3.16). After all, why would you want to give your persecutors any more evidence that your started the fire?

Michael Card, a proficient author, is known more for his musical talent, and perhaps more so, having written one of the most popular Christian songs of the last century, El Shaddai. While he maintains that he is first and foremost a teacher of Scripture, his musical talent must have played a part in writing this work. I’ve noted the ease of reading this work, but there is a bit more to that. Card is almost speaking this commentary to the reader. I don’t know his voice, but I do know the difference between a lecture from a charismatic speaker and a dusty book. This falls into the former. I initially approached the book with trepidation, after all, I prefer critical commentaries, but from the start, Card’s writing style will draw you in. It is not overly lyrical, as you might find in works written by Rob Bell, but the talent and artistry of the musician is present, as is the humility of a bible teacher, especially when he proclaims that at times, his assertions are fanciful, realistic but unprovable!

The layour of the book follows the chapters found in modern Mark texts. Beginning with an introduction which should be pared with Thomas Oden’s recent work on Mark, Card discusses the major themes. As noted before, he sets Mark, perhaps more for dramatic effect than any other reason, during the persecution began by Nero after Rome fell. He also discusses the emotions assigned to Jesus in this particular gospel. Following the full commentary are five appendices which are of a more critical nature. He discusses the relationship between Peter and Mark as well as the New Testament picture of Mark. There is also one on connecting Mark and his historical context. Of special interest is Card’s inclusion of a miracle story from the Emperor Vespasian. Beyond that though, and one of which is what draws me to the Gospel of Mark, is the appendix which shows that for Mark, Jesus was a deeply emotion, perhaps as Card says, passionate, teacher. He ends his commentary with Mark 16.8, which may be unsettling to some, but he includes a list of the reasons why in the final appendix. These are very reasonable facts and follows what William Lane has done nearly a generation, now, before. But, before all of this is the introduction to the series in which Card begins to defend his view on the biblical imagination. In this, he follows preachers such as Peter Marshall and writers, poets, and apologists such as C.S. Lewis in suggesting that though the Holy Spirit, our imagination, a word shadowed with a suspicious eye due to the King James Version, can be shaped in such a way as to be used for the Kingdom of God. He then proves this theory with his commentary.

As a budding Markan scholar, I often needed reminded of the completeness of Mark and of the way it is received in every generation. Michael Card presents the Gospel According to St. Mark with a fresh, passionate approach which is once immensely loud and deeply intimate. There is little wonder for the lay reader, then, why the Gospel of Mark, often considered a parred down version of Matthew and Luke, and often chided for some of the things it lacks, has begun to recapture the Christian imagination.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Book Review | No Comments »

February 15th, 2012

In the Mail: Mark: The Gospel of Passion (Biblical Imagination) @ivpress

card mark passion gospel

Click to Order

With much appreciation to the kind soul who sent me this for review…

Because someone, I suspect, has a sneaking suspicion that I love the Gospel of Mark…

“Follow Me,” Jesus told them, “and I will make you into fishers of men!” Immediately they left their nets and followed Him. –Mark 1:17-18 The Gospel of Mark is a book of action and passion. Events happen one after another, with a vivid sense of immediacy and urgency. Jesus’ emotions come through strongly–at times he is angry and distressed, other times filled with compassion. In this volume, Michael Card provides a lively tour of the Gospel of Mark. As a friend and interpreter of Simon Peter, Mark gives firsthand glimpses of the life and ministry of Jesus in vibrant and energetic narration. The first Gospel to be written, Mark is a “pamphlet for hard times,” encouraging Christians that all their sufferings were already endured by Jesus. Accompany Mark on his journey with Jesus. The more clearly you see Jesus here, the greater your passion will be for him.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Book Review | No Comments »

February 15th, 2012

“Justification: Five Views” The Progressive Reformed View (Leslie) @ivpacademic

Click to Order

Michael Bird begins his defense of the Progressive Reformed View by getting right down to business and defining his terms. To be Reformed, according to Bird, means that he “believes in the supremacy of Scripture in the life of the church, holds to a Calvinistic scheme of salvation, has a theological framework that is broadly covenantal, and regards the Reformed confessions as good, though clearly fallible, summaries of Scripture.” To be Progressive means to “be willing to modify tradition if it is shown not to line up with Scripture.” More specifically, Bird’s progressiveness includes the assertion that the Reformer’s interpreted Paul through a “theological straight jacket” and deserve to have a few of their theological conclusions put back up on the examination table.

With the foundation laid, Bird begins by unpacking Galatians 2:15-21. A central part of Bird’s argument is that in addition to the forensic metaphor in which a believer’s legal status changes from “guilty” to “not guilty,” Paul uses “participationist” categories such as “in Christ,” “with Christ,” and “Christ lives in me”  to expand his explanation of justification. According to Bird, Paul considers justification not simply a legal transaction, but something that can only be understood in the context of the believer’s spiritual union with Christ.

It is within the rubric of “union with Christ” that Bird examines the concept of imputation, beginning with a detailed analysis of the logic of Romans 4. What is described here, proposes Bird, is not the transference of Christ’s righteousness to the individual, but the justification of the believer because he or she is “in Christ” and therefore participates in God’s vindication of Jesus. While this concept is certainly more complex than a simple transfer of legal status, Bird argues his case well and supplies ample scriptural evidence (not to mention charts!)

As the author moves on to the exploration of the relationship between justification and works, he provides a perfect example of how one’s understanding of an esoteric theological concept like justification can have a direct impact on how they live out their faith. In my humble opinion, it is the traditional evangelical emphasis on the individual’s initial salvation—and the minimizing of Paul’s exhortations to actively live out one’s faith—that has created a Christian culture content to concern itself exclusively with its own comfort. Michael Bird seems to have a similar passion for stirring the pot in this regard. His position (amply supported with scripture ) is that while justification is based on faith, God’s judgement will be based on obedience.  “The pew-sitting couch potatoes of our churches” Bird writes “need to hear Romans 8:1-3 as well as Romans 8:4-5…Otherwise it is irresponsible to give a sense of assurance to people who have no right to have it!”

Michael Horton’s response to Michael Bird’s essay is, oddly, clearer than his original defense of the Traditional Reformed View. Among Horton’s critiques of the Progressive Reformed View is that, contrary to what Bird says, the Traditional Reformed view does not minimize the role of the Holy Spirit or the outworking of salvation through obedience. My own response to Horton’s claim is that while the original Reformers, theologians, and scholars may not minimize the importance of works as evidence of faith, evangelical pew-sitters (and by extension their pastors) certainly have. I agree with Bird when he writes “The protestant paranoia against reminding our communities of judgment according to works, lest we become Catholic, misrepresents the biblical witness.” From where I sit, this refusal to preach all of what Paul says about salvation has resulted in millions of American Christians assuming that they can adopt the self-absorption and materialism of the culture around them and still end up in heaven because they’re “justified” by Christ.

James Dunn tackles this same issue in his response to Bird’s essay, countering that Bird does not do enough to explore the tension between  “judgement according to works” and “justification through faith alone.” “What cannot be neglected here,” writes Dunn “is that Paul does not assume that the recipients of his letters would live blameless lives; hence his repeated warnings against moral failure.”

And in contrast to their responses to Michael Horton’s essay,Veli-Matti Karkkainen and Gerald O’Collins provide insightful critiques of the Progressive Reformed View. For his part, Karkkainen suggests that Bird is missing the “missionary orientation of Paul’s theology,”  while O’Collins presents a fascinating case against penal substitution that, although I don’t find it convincing, still demonstrates a firm and thoughtful commitment to Scripture.

A common thread that runs throughout Bird’s original essay, as well as most of the responses, is a commitment to the idea that justification is not the sole—or even primary—image that Paul uses to describe what it means to live in a restored relationship with God.  With the possible exception of Horton (although even he may actually agree if pressed), each of these scholars makes it a point to say that a full and complete gospel will not privilege justification over the other metaphors that Paul uses to explain salvation. It is a great comfort to be reminded on almost every page that the gospel is bigger than any single metaphor—and so much more than we can ever capture with mere words.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Book Review | 2 Comments »

February 9th, 2012

Justification: Five Views – Progressive Reformed @ivpacademic (Joel)

Click to Order

Bird, so far, is the only one to mention the role which the atonement plays into justification. His writing style is almost verbal, by which I mean that he seems to be preaching it rather than writing it. I do not mean this as a fault, but indeed, just the opposite. He is not polemic, although accused of being, and seemingly only mentions an opposing view once and then gives the view full deference while maintaining his ground.

I am almost persuaded by Bird’s essay, given his use of both substitutionary atonement as hints of Christus Victor as well as his idea that such an important issue is not so one-sided. Indeed, Bird is able to show that “justification is multifacted” (156) with at least five different angles to examine. While he falls clearly without the Calvinistic-Reformed line of thought, he has reformed this somewhat to reflect current scholarship and gotten under the usual patina to examine verses outright and not through the lens of the fathers of the Reformation. My main issues are with the reading of Romans as the zenith of Paul’s theology. We seem to believe that we know the Apostle’s mind on such matters. Wouldn’t it be odd to find out that Paul thought little of the self-serving Roman Epistle (if Stowers and others, including myself, are correct) and instead saw, say, Philemon, as the height of his own theology. Further, I take issue with the usual focus on Romans 1.16-17 as the central thesis to the entire letter as well as the reading which Bird places on Romans 1.18-32. I do, however, appreciate his enthrallment with Galatians and his grace in such a manner. Bird presents his case supported firmly with a near complete biblical picture. Again, he’s almost persuaded me, and not just because he has the word “progressive” in the title of his position.

Horton leads the responses with a rather short one, pointed to, of course, the Reformation and, again, doing his best to focus the attention on N.T. Wright who is not apart of this volume. Dunn is able to assure me of why I am almost persuaded by Bird’s essay, because he himself has so little negative to say about it. While he concludes that Bird’s presentation does not perfectly consider Paul’s whole theology, he notes that Bird’s position is “irenic”, and a fresh voice between the Traditional and the New Perspective. The deification respondent follows another respondent in suggesting that  Bird is being somehow polemical in some of his sections, but I simply didn’t see it. Further, unlike with Horton, the response here is much more give and take. Collins, for his part, seems to follow Dunn as well, while maintaining some differences with Bird. Thus far, Bird has presented to me a case for a new way of thinking. While I will eventually disagree with Bird over all, his position as one of peace is a most helpful one, as evidenced by both Dunn and Collins, the two positions which I assume will represent me the most.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Book Review | No Comments »

February 9th, 2012

“Justification: Five Views:” The Traditional Reformed View @ivpacademic

Click to Order

Michael Horton is nothing if not honest. In the very first paragraph of his defense of the Traditional Reformed View of justification, Horton tells the reader that his goal “is not simply to repeat relevant paragraphs in our confessions and catechisms,” (although he does do that), but to argue that their view (italics mine) of justification is even more firmly established by recent investigations.” In other words, what Horton intends to do is not primarily investigate the exegetical evidence for the traditional Reformed review, but to defend the views of Luther and Calvin.

Horton is at his best at the beginning of the essay when he is simply stating his case. There is no question in the reader’s mind that Horton defines justification as a primarily forensic (legal) transaction in which a verdict “declares sinners to be righteous even while they remain inherently unrighteous.” This righteousness, according to Horton, is imputed to the sinner solely on the basis of Christ’s obedience and is achieved through faith alone. In no way, according to Horton, does the believer actually become righteous. Justification is a change in status, not nature.

The problem is that while Horton provides ample scriptural evidence for his views, his commitment seems to be less to what Paul said than to what the “magisterial Reformers” agreed upon. In other words, Luther said it. I believe it. That settles it. And true to his Reformer’s heritage, Horton’s first priority is to make sure that the reader understands how his view of justification differs from Roman Catholicism.

I admit to being of two minds about Horton’s obsession with Catholicism. Since my familiarity with it is limited, I appreciate Horton’s commitment to making sure that I understand the difference between the two theologies. (Reformers consider justification distinct from sanctification, while Catholicism regards justification and sanctification as stages in the single process of becoming “actually and intrinsically righteous.”)  On the other hand, Horton’s fixation on Roman Catholicism has an almost anachronistic quality, especially when he quotes at length from the 16th century Council of Trent to prove that Catholicism still includes works as an essential element of justification.

For all its weaknesses, however, Horton’s essay succeeds in defining what most evangelicals mean when they talk about justification, in part because it brings out the best in Michael Bird and James D.G. Dunn. Both Bird and Dunn agree with Horton that justification is primarily a forensic term in which the believer’s status changes from guilty to not guilty. Bird also reconfirms Horton’s assertion that justification is “generally distinct” from sanctification, but adds that there are a few scriptural examples “where the divide between justification and sanctification gets a little foggy.”

The four responses to Horton’s essay are somewhat uneven. Bird and Dunn both do an admirable job of critiquing Horton’s theology in a clear, organized manner. (I happen to think that organization is a severely under-rated virtue when it comes to academic writing.) Karkkainen and O’Collins are less helpful, but I’m holding off my assessment until I read their position papers.

One of the highlights of the four responses to Horton’s essay is Dunn’s claim that:

“pushing all of Paul’s thought through the narrow gauge of a strict forensic reading of justification strips off the diversity of images and metaphors on which Paul draws to expand his Gospel…I am really quite alarmed at Horton’s unwillingness to take seriously Paul’s understanding of final judgment, to give his exhortations and warnings the seriousness that Paul evidently intended.

This is, I think, is a great example of how discussions about something as seemingly esoteric as justification can impact the practicalities of day-to-day faith. While Horton tries to make the case that the Traditional Reformed View “gives rise to a spontaneous embrace of the very law that once condemned us,” experience has shown that a minimalist version of this very same view can easily turn into a cocky confidence in salvation that does nothing to kick-start the transformation process. Excluding Paul’s “exhortations and warnings” about falling away from our conversations about  justification leads to—at best—a tragically shallow understanding of how we live out our faith

One final note: The fact that I don’t find Horton’s argument compelling does not negate the value of what he has done in contributing to this book. I love multi-view books precisely because they include dissenting opinions. When I’m thinking through a sticky theological question like justification, I can pull just one book down off the shelf, read through the various positions, and assess for myself which one seems to make the most sense. And I can imagine all the scholars wearing tweed.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Book Review, Theology | 38 Comments »

February 9th, 2012

In the Mail: Commentary on Jeremiah (Ancient Christian Texts) @ivpacademic

Jeremiah ACT Jerome

Click to Order

This is going to be awesome…

Thanks to Adrianna at IVP-Academic for this, and indeed, for all of her work with us bibliobloggers.

Note to my fellow reviews on other blogs – don’t take advantage….

Tags: ,
Posted in Book Review | No Comments »

February 6th, 2012

Justification: Five Views – the Traditional Reformed View @ivpacademic

Click to Order

Remember, this is a read through to which you are all invited, so not really a traditional review.

I find it ironic that this view is called the “Traditional Reformed” View, given the often times anti-Tradition tradition of the Reformed Churches as well as the motto, ‘ever reforming.’ Further, given the attention to detail of historical writings of their tradition, often times ad nauseum, doesn’t transfer to either exegetical revelations or other viewpoints. Horton shows the pitfalls of making dogma, to reverse what Dunn says (119), bow to exegesis in that he makes conflicting statements and shows an almost purposeful ignorance of both Catholic doctrine and New Perspective studies which seem to be his focus of adversus stances. I betray my biasness against the Traditional Reformed view, but upon reading this first view and the responses, I am left wondering where I will eventually end up. Already, I have my suspicion, but we’ll see.

Horton’s writing is almost polemical, beginning with the disagreement that the Progressive Reformed should contain that name, noting that it is not Progressive to fall away from the truth. This is the problem with Horton and others who insist on the Traditional view, that for them, the dogma of justification is the measure by which to test new exegesis, facts and studies. Horton shows that it is not the fair evaluation of the other perspectives and doctrines which he is after, so much as it seems to be the denial of their validity and the attacks to thwart actual consideration of their views. As several of the respondents have shown, Horton misses the many nuances of the other positions in attempt to defend his own. For instance, his usual anti-Catholic biases come forth when he writes of the Council of Trent and dismisses the importance of the document signed between Rome and the World Lutheran Federation. Further, he is unable to truly handle Dunn’s New Perspective, accusing them, not of misunderstanding Paul so much as misunderstanding the Reformation. As Dunn points out, this is simply not true, as for many in the non-monolithic NPP, he wants to bring an added dimension to Paul’s theology which was missing during the Reformation.

My only concern so far is that the responses are a bit disjointing. They aren’t just responding to Horton but responding to Horton while setting up their own stances and responding to others. Overall, however, there is enough fodder in this first view to show not only why Justification is important, but why the various sides struggle to accept one another, albeit, it is generally the Traditional Reformed who simply do not accept the others.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Book Review | 2 Comments »

February 1st, 2012

Book Announcement and Preview: Global Theology in Evangelical Perspective @ivpacademic

global theology

Click to Order

The 2011 Wheaton College Theology conference is being turned into a book. You can preview it here.

Jeffrey P. Greenman and Gene L. Green edit this collection of essays from the proceedings of the 2011 Wheaton Theology Conference. The essays explore the past, present and future shape of biblical interpretation and theological engagement in the Majority World. Leading scholars from around the world interact with the key theological issues being discussed in their regions. In addition, some theological voices from minority communities in North America address issues particular to their context and which often overlap with those central in Majority World theology. Contributors include Vince Bacote, Samuel Escobar, Ken Gnanakan, James Kombo, Mark Labberton, Terry LeBlanc, Juan Martínez, Ruth Padilla DeBorst, Lamin Sanneh, Andrew Walls, K. K. Yeo and Amos Yong.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Book Review | No Comments »

January 30th, 2012

Quick thoughts, Two Chapters: Justification, Five Views @ivpacademic

Click to Order

Justification is a scary word for many Christians. They simply digest the word with no thought, purposely so, as to what it means. Many have, seemingly, gone so far as to soften the language of the Cross, so as to not have to discuss what this word means. Perhaps that is because over the course of the last few years, this theological tenant has become embroiled in more than a few controversies with participants being some rather well known figures in Christian thought. It’s also the fact that many simply do not want to think about Christ dying on the Cross. It’s not modern, not pleasing to the ear.

One of the things which I try to be is objective. Facts matter, after all, especially when severe disagreements exist. That’s what I have found so appealing about the first two chapters of this book. In barely seventy pages worth of writing, Paul Rhodes Eddy, James K. Beilby, and Steven E. Enderlein have presented an objective history of the Justification debate in such a way as to introduce the topic, the divergent view points, and even the weaknesses of those viewpoints without spoiling the rest of the book. The first chapter deals with the historic debate, filled with Protestants, Catholics, and even our sisters and brothers in the Orthodox Church. The second chapter moves into the scholarly realm in which we hear Sanders, Wright, and Dunn, as well as their debate partners as new exegetical concerns are brought to light as well as an examination of ancient prejudices. Over all, these first two chapters have a great amount of depth to them which will allow the reader, who may be unfamiliar that (1) Justification exists as a doctrine, (2) that it is rather important in most Christian theological circles, and (3) that there is more than one way to view it.

If you haven’t gotten the book, get it.

Also, a fellow contributor on the blog may be posting thoughts as well… they may be radically different than mine, which would be fine.

Thanks for reading!

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Book Review, Theology | No Comments »

January 23rd, 2012

Book Announcement: Changing Signs of Truth: A Christian Introduction to the Semiotics of Communication @ivpress

Click to Order

As one who believes that Mimesis underlies everything, the study of semiotics is essential. I’ll try to connect the two at a later date… (after all, look at her other books) this is just the book announcement:

What signals are you sending when you share the gospel? The importance of signs for communicating truth has been recognized throughout the ages. Crystal L. Downing traces this awareness from biblical texts, through figures from church history like John Wycliffe and William Tyndale, to more recent writers Samuel Taylor Coleridge and C. S. Lewis. In the nineteenth century, this legacy of interest in the activity of signs brought about a new field of academic study. In this book, Downing puts the discipline of semiotics within reach for beginners through analysis of the movement’s key theorists, Ferdinand de Saussure, Charles Sanders Peirce, Mikhail Bakhtin and others. She then draws out the implications for effective communication of the gospel of Jesus Christ within our shifting cultural landscape. Her fundamental thesis is that “Failure to understand how signs work–as effects of the cultures we seek to affect–inevitably undermines not just our political and moral agendas but, worse, the gospel of Jesus Christ.” Writing with humor, clarity and flare, Downing lucidly explains the sophisticated thinking of leaders in semiotics for nonexperts. Of value to all those interested in communication in any context, this work will be of special interest to students majoring in communications or English or to students in evangelism and preaching courses at the undergraduate and graduate level.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Book Review, Mimesis, semiotics | 2 Comments »

« Older Entries