You’re reading a blog, which almost proves that you’ve simply got to read this piece on the blog medium’s message by Andrew Sullivan, or at least this summary, which would lead you to this article on PBS, which might lead you to this one in the NY Times.
UPDATE: And here’s the Atlantic article that started Sullivan on this tack. (HT: Andy Naselli).
If you have sharp eyes you may have thought me guilty of a horrible typo in my recent N.T. Wright post. I left “god” uncapitalized in my quote from The New Testament and the People of God. Perhaps I should have added a [sic], because Wright is the culprit, not me! Here is his justification for the apparent sacrilege:
I have frequently used ‘god’ instead of ‘God.’ This is not a printer’s error, nor is it a deliberate irreverence; rather the opposite, in fact. The modern usage, without the article and with a capital, seems to me actually dangerous. This usage, which sometimes amounts to regarding ‘God’ as the proper name of the Deity, rather than as essentially a common noun, implies that all users of the word are monotheists and, within that, that all monotheists believe in the same god. NTPG, xiv
I got some helpful replies to my dissertation post from some of you good readers, including one from a theologically careful friend who said,
Interesting topic.
My first thought: Is this methodologically flawed? It seems kind of like attempting to suck “the theology of x” out of a writer’s occasional letter.
I’m sure you’ve thought through this. I’m curious what your answer is.
I replied:
I see significant continuity between your objection and that of Dr. X (and, after I started this e-mail and had to table it for a while, from Dr. Y). X said,
I also find the application of Paul’s exhortation to imitation as an across-the-board paradigm dubious. Neither of the cited passages relates the call to his emotions, but to his actions or priorities. Did Paul (and the Spirit) mean for us to mimic everything about Paul? His emotional propensities? His personality? His taste in food?
To answer this, I could start by saying that I think Bryan Chapell’s warning against “Be-Like-So-And-So-Bible-Character” messages is excellent. Noah and Moses and David and even Joseph are not necessarily placed in the Scripture as models for our own behavior. They were actors in God’s grand BT drama (thanks to Goldsworthy for that point). But I think Paul is different because of his repeated calls for believers to imitate him (1Co 4:16; 11:1; cf. Eph 5:1; 1Th 1:6). In that last reference in 1Th, Paul specifically mentions emotion as an evidence that the Thessalonians had become imitators of him. And in 1Cor 4, the example he seems to be referring to in context includes “when reviled, we bless.” That is not merely volition and action but certainly includes emotion! And, simply put, emotions are such a fundamental part of anyone’s life I have a hard time thinking that Paul referred only to his actions when he called for believers to imitate him. He even said that without love (which must not be equivalent to volition or action because you can give away all your goods and still not have it) he is nothing. I have to believe that I can derive truth from Paul’s example in Acts and in the Epistles.
As for deriving his theology of emotion from his occasional letters, I would call that a valuable methodological caution and not a fatal flaw. If Carson can model his prayers after Paul’s I think the great deal Paul has to say about right emotion can be at least instructive, even if I can never arrive at a complete Pauline theology of emotion. And Paul’s practice and his theology are obviously inextricably tied. So it seems perfectly fair to ask questions like, “How could Paul be so bold in Acts?” and “What made Paul rejoice in his weakness?” Those questions produce theological answers.
I confess that the particular form of your objection didn’t make me think of any warning I’d received before. It sounds to me like something you might be thinking of a specific source for. If so, I’d be glad to know.
Thanks for the interaction! I do appreciate it very much.
mlwj
I can summarize others’ objections to the theology of N.T. Wright, but I still find the NPP difficult enough overall that I have to admit I’m mostly trusting those smarter than me in objecting to it. It’s ok for young men to admit they don’t understand everything.
But there are some things I do understand and appreciate about N.T. Wright (and so does Thomas Schreiner, I read recently!).
One of them is his attempt in The New Testament and the People of God to construct a Christian epistemology before embarking on a New Testament theology. I’ve mentioned this before. His emphasis on story—though I’ve criticized before one place he takes it—seems to me just right. We all tell ourselves grand stories of origin, purpose, and destiny. We also tell ourselves little stories—which fit in the big stories—about the events of our day or the relationships we have with people. Will we let the Bible’s story subvert (to use Wright’s wording) our own stories?
If we say we will (Wright says fundamentalists don’t [NTPG 103]), then we had better get the big story of the Bible down. Here’s how Wright summarizes that story:
“Reality as we know it is the result of a creator god bringing into being a world that is other than himself, and yet // which is full of his glory. It was always the intention of this god that creation should one day be flooded with his own life, in a way for which it was prepared from the beginning. As part of the means to this end, the creator brought into being a creature which, by bearing the creator’s image, would bring his wise and loving care to bear upon the creation. By a tragic irony, the creature in question has rebelled against this intention. But the creator has solved this problem in principle in an entirely appropriate way, and as a result is now moving the creation once more towards its originally intended goal. The implementation of this solution now involves the indwelling of this god within his human creatures and ultimately within the whole creation, transforming it into that for which it was made in the beginning.” NTPG 97-98
I’d like to see a little more specificity on the atonement, even in this grand story, but let’s call that an error of omission and not commission.
My boss’s son, a graphic design grad from BJU, took our wedding photos, and we are thrilled with them. Here are a few. What a joyful day, what a grace of God!
Since 1) most dissertations are little read, 2) my blog is little read, 3) I like jotting down exegetical thoughts, 4) I have views I want to promote, and 5) I value interaction, I’m going to share a few exegetical tidbits that occur to me while I write my dissertation. I’m currently past the proposal stage and on to the prospectus, the foundation-laying first chapter.
Here’s my working hypothesis / attack-plan:
My thesis question, then, is this: How did Paul view and model the ideal emotional life of the believer?
By reading this post you agree to the terms and conditions: namely, you will not steal my topic!
I’m going into treatment for a small addiction I have. It’s called e-mail. While I’m working on more important things than e-mail, my serotonin levels drop until the urge to check e-mail is uncontrollable.
Just kidding!
About the “uncontrollable” part, that is.
But not about the treatment. Here it is, a new e-mail schedule. I will check e-mail at these times:
That’s it. For a period of one month, I will try this. If it works, I’ll (by God’s grace) stick with it. If not, who knows?
Here’s some humbling advice I read from Iain Murray. I boiled it down to what was most humbling and pointed for my own heart:
I love the New York Times, I really do. It’s just quality. And I think articles supporting my positions are more powerful when written from the opposite side of the political and moral spectrum; e.g., check out this one from a while back. (I’m sorry, but I can’t stand Fox News and I never go there unless forced. All that brazen screaming—and that’s just the graphic design. For a conservative perspective I prefer the Wall Street Journal opinion pages.)
Of course, sometimes articles or, more frequently, blog posts and editorials at the Gray Lady fit the outrageously liberal stereotype the entire paper suffers among some of my conservative cohorts.
Here’s an example. Timothy Egan today suggested: “Let’s go Godless for the rest of the campaign.” It’s the tired old non-overlapping magisteria argument: “Religion, you stay on your side of the back seat—and don’t even think about entering no-man’s land! Better yet, there’s space in the trunk!”
Listen to how condescending Egan can be:
The fact that these people [John Hagee and Pat Robertson] were taken seriously about anything other than, say, what color socks to wear on bingo night, tells us something about how far we’ve strayed rom the pulpit into the town square.
Egan quotes with approval Thomas Jefferson: “Say nothing of my religion. It’s known to my God and myself alone.” And he adds JFK: “I believe in a president whose views on religion are his own private affair.”
I have two humble, sober questions that Egan should consider: Timothy, where did you get your (religious) view that organized religion should have no influence in public life? And why should your private affairs rule my public ones?
Timothy Egan should read this book.
The God of all creation put on a beautiful show for me and my wife last night. Here are just two shots of that show I got from our front porch!
