I’ve just seen a notice that from Autumn this year, Kevin Vanhoozer will become Blanchard Professor of Theology at Wheaton College and Graduate School.
Having posted on him a few times on this blog, I thought I’d link to a brief interview with him by Justin Taylor here, where he reflects on Wheaton’s PhD program, what encourages and worries him most about evangelicals and the academy, advice on how to navigate between cultural withdrawal and cultural accommodation, his next writing projects, how to develop a sanctified imagination, and the place of reading in the Christian life.
Monday, 11 May 2009
Sunday, 10 May 2009
London School of Theology on Creation and Evolution
The Spring 2009 edition of London School of Theology’s InSight Magazine carries several short pieces devoted to the creation-evolution discussion.
It kicks off with a guest feature by Denis Alexander outlining reasons for the current antipathy towards evolution (it comes loaded with ideological connotations, the growth in biblical literalism, the power of modernism, and anti-science trends amongst Christians), concluding that ‘we do not need to choose between creation or evolution, because the two words are referring to two levels of complementary discourse’ (3).
Simon Steer makes a plea for our theology to be ‘ecologically literate’, showing how this is rooted in a biblical theology of creation, of the nature of humanity as created in God’s image, the emphasis on creation care throughout Scripture, as well as in the Trinity, sin, christology, and eschatology.
Graham McFarlane notes the importance of worldview, and suggests that ‘popular perceptions of evolution on their own are incapable of producing a viable worldview in which all human beings have worth whatever their status or capacity’ (7).
Jules Gomes questions whether the claims made for the scientific evidence of evolution are overdrawn.
Julie Robb acknowledges that micro-evolution occurs even while questioning whether macro-evolution (between species) does, and suggests we start by acknowledging the difference between theology and science, and ‘recognise the limits of each’ (11).
John Azumah reflects on African creation myths, noting the twofold function of such stories – to provide explanations for the ‘why’ of society, and to impart a particular value – and showing how this applies to the biblical story of creation and salvation.
Steve Motyer muses on how God works in his world, frequently in hidden, unexpected and less-than-obvious ways, and sometimes leaving us with questions, but always, with Paul in Romans 11:33-36, leading us to amazement and praise.
It kicks off with a guest feature by Denis Alexander outlining reasons for the current antipathy towards evolution (it comes loaded with ideological connotations, the growth in biblical literalism, the power of modernism, and anti-science trends amongst Christians), concluding that ‘we do not need to choose between creation or evolution, because the two words are referring to two levels of complementary discourse’ (3).
Simon Steer makes a plea for our theology to be ‘ecologically literate’, showing how this is rooted in a biblical theology of creation, of the nature of humanity as created in God’s image, the emphasis on creation care throughout Scripture, as well as in the Trinity, sin, christology, and eschatology.
Graham McFarlane notes the importance of worldview, and suggests that ‘popular perceptions of evolution on their own are incapable of producing a viable worldview in which all human beings have worth whatever their status or capacity’ (7).
Jules Gomes questions whether the claims made for the scientific evidence of evolution are overdrawn.
Julie Robb acknowledges that micro-evolution occurs even while questioning whether macro-evolution (between species) does, and suggests we start by acknowledging the difference between theology and science, and ‘recognise the limits of each’ (11).
John Azumah reflects on African creation myths, noting the twofold function of such stories – to provide explanations for the ‘why’ of society, and to impart a particular value – and showing how this applies to the biblical story of creation and salvation.
Steve Motyer muses on how God works in his world, frequently in hidden, unexpected and less-than-obvious ways, and sometimes leaving us with questions, but always, with Paul in Romans 11:33-36, leading us to amazement and praise.
Saturday, 9 May 2009
Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart on 1 and 2 Samuel
Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart, How to Read the Bible Book by Book: A Guided Tour (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002), 90.
‘The book of Samuel takes God’s story into the monarchy, especially by means of the story of King David, a man of faith even while a man of weakness. God’s covenant with David is the basis for Jewish messianism, fulfilled finally in the ultimate Son of David, Jesus of Nazareth.’
‘The book of Samuel takes God’s story into the monarchy, especially by means of the story of King David, a man of faith even while a man of weakness. God’s covenant with David is the basis for Jewish messianism, fulfilled finally in the ultimate Son of David, Jesus of Nazareth.’
Friday, 8 May 2009
Michael S. Moore on Ruth
Michael S. Moore, ‘To King or Not to King: A Canonical-Historical Approach to Ruth’, Bulletin for Biblical Research 11. 1 (2001), 27-41.
Here’s the abstract of an interesting essay on Ruth:
Contemporary approaches to Ruth tend to focus on the book’s internal structure and contents. Only rarely is sufficient attention given to the book’s external context, particularly its canonical-historical context. In Judges 17-21 all of the major characters balk in the face of challenge. Priests, landowners, husbands, wives, and warriors all abandon their responsibilities. In Ruth, however, the main characters valiantly shoulder their responsibilities, however burdensome. In Judges, men treat women insensitively, shamefully, even violently. In Ruth, women are treated like partners on a common mission. Why? Having been led by the book of Judges (particularly the self-contained anthology incorporating chaps. 17-21) to wonder whether the one-and-only source of Israel’s agony is kinglessness, Ruth is a canonical-historical surprise. Both Ruth 1-4 and Judges 17-21 come from the premonarchical period of the ‘judges’, yet each offers a radically different response to this fluid situation. To read Ruth against its canonical-historical context not only reconnects us with some of the book’s earliest interpreters, it also generates newer literary and sociological insights into the theological message of this beloved short story.
Here’s the abstract of an interesting essay on Ruth:
Contemporary approaches to Ruth tend to focus on the book’s internal structure and contents. Only rarely is sufficient attention given to the book’s external context, particularly its canonical-historical context. In Judges 17-21 all of the major characters balk in the face of challenge. Priests, landowners, husbands, wives, and warriors all abandon their responsibilities. In Ruth, however, the main characters valiantly shoulder their responsibilities, however burdensome. In Judges, men treat women insensitively, shamefully, even violently. In Ruth, women are treated like partners on a common mission. Why? Having been led by the book of Judges (particularly the self-contained anthology incorporating chaps. 17-21) to wonder whether the one-and-only source of Israel’s agony is kinglessness, Ruth is a canonical-historical surprise. Both Ruth 1-4 and Judges 17-21 come from the premonarchical period of the ‘judges’, yet each offers a radically different response to this fluid situation. To read Ruth against its canonical-historical context not only reconnects us with some of the book’s earliest interpreters, it also generates newer literary and sociological insights into the theological message of this beloved short story.
Theos on Faith and Darwin
Theos, a public theology think tank, kindly makes available a number of helpful reports related to Charles Darwin as part of ‘a wide-ranging project exploring the extent and nature of evolutionary and non-evolutionary beliefs in the UK today and their perceived relationship with theism and atheism’. The project is managed and run by Theos in partnership with the Faraday Institute for Science and Religion.
Caroline Lawes
Faith and Darwin: Harmony, Conflict, or Confusion?
Commissioned by Theos and conducted and analysed by ComRes, this study asked over 2,000 UK adults a range of questions on topics as wide-ranging as evolution, creationism, Intelligent Design, religion, purpose, humanity, design, and the nature and purpose of science.
Denis Alexander and Nick Spencer
Rescuing Darwin: God and Evolution in Britain Today
This report, written jointly by Nick Spencer of Theos and Denis Alexander of the Faraday Institute, seeks to argue that Darwinian evolution does not necessitate atheism, and that Christianity and evolution are compatible.
Denis Alexander and Nick Spencer have each published books recently addressing the same broad area:
Denis Alexander, Creation or Evolution: Do We Have to Choose? (Oxford: Monarch Books, 2008).
Nick Spencer, Darwin and God (London: SPCK, 2009).
Caroline Lawes
Faith and Darwin: Harmony, Conflict, or Confusion?
Commissioned by Theos and conducted and analysed by ComRes, this study asked over 2,000 UK adults a range of questions on topics as wide-ranging as evolution, creationism, Intelligent Design, religion, purpose, humanity, design, and the nature and purpose of science.
Denis Alexander and Nick Spencer
Rescuing Darwin: God and Evolution in Britain Today
This report, written jointly by Nick Spencer of Theos and Denis Alexander of the Faraday Institute, seeks to argue that Darwinian evolution does not necessitate atheism, and that Christianity and evolution are compatible.
Denis Alexander and Nick Spencer have each published books recently addressing the same broad area:
Denis Alexander, Creation or Evolution: Do We Have to Choose? (Oxford: Monarch Books, 2008).
Nick Spencer, Darwin and God (London: SPCK, 2009).
Thursday, 7 May 2009
Kevin J. Vanhoozer on the Semantics of Biblical Literature
Kevin J. Vanhoozer, ‘The Semantics of Biblical Literature: Truth and Scripture’s Diverse Literary Forms’, in D.A. Carson and John D. Woodbridge (eds.), Hermeneutics, Authority and Canon (Leicester: IVP, 1986), 53-104.
This essay may well be the first major thing Vanhoozer published, and has been extremely influential on my own thinking since I first read it over twenty years ago. (Yikes!)
It’s a long and fairly sprawling essay containing a number of strands (which still remains a mark of his work, in my opinion)… but essentially Vanhoozer contends that ‘Evangelicals have not come to grips with certain problems pertaining to the diverse literary forms of Scripture’ (375, n. 15).
He picks up on James Barr’s accusation that evangelicals do violence to biblical interpretation in how they view the genre or function of propositions. So, he asks: ‘how does the diversity of Scripture’s literary forms affect the way we take biblical propositions and understand scriptural truth?’ (56).
He notes how Barr and David Kelsey (among others) have criticised evangelicals for making a literary category mistake in insisting that the main function of biblical sentences is to convey propositions (Barr), and for being chiefly concerned with ‘doctrines’ (philosophical propositions) abstracted from the text (Kelsey) (64-65).
Indeed, Vanhoozer agrees that while evangelicals have acknowledged the importance of Scripture’s diverse literary forms, in general it appears to be mere lip service, and the informative-propositional function of language carries the day (67-75).
He is thus concerned ‘to provide a model of biblical revelation that will preserve the substance of “propositional” revelation (i.e., the emphasis on verbal, cognitive communication) while at the same time allowing for greater appreciation of the “ordinary” language of Scripture and its diverse literary forms’ (67).
Against accusations from Barr and Kelsey, he maintains that ‘diverse literary forms and truth are by no means incompatible’ (68).
And in response to the accusation that evangelicals seldom study the humanities, and do not know how to read the Bible, Vanhoozer offers the example and work of C.S. Lewis (75-78). To summarise, for Lewis, ‘good reading calls for the response of the rationalist (who approaches the Bible as truth to be believed), as well as the “romantic” (who approaches the Bible as a reality to be received). Lewis the Christian reader has an appreciation for both the propositional, or rational, truth-bearing function and the nonpropositional, or imaginative, reality-bearing function of good literature’ (78).
Since Scripture contains a diversity of literary forms, when it comes to the debated notion of scriptural ‘inerrancy’, for example, the literary form of the text should be allowed to determine how far the text can be said to be ‘inerrant’ or not. ‘Inerrancy must be construed broadly enough to encompass the truth expressed in Scripture’s poetry, romances, proverbs, parables – as well as histories’ (79). Here he appeals to E.D. Hirsch on genre, and Paul Ricoeur on revelation (78-82). Furthermore, individual literary forms may be seen as language games (à la the later Wittgenstein) (82-85).
This leads him into a discussion of speech act theory, borrowing especially from the work of J.L. Austin and John Searle (85-92). He applies this not merely to sentences, but to literature, seeking ‘to propose (moving beyond Searle) that there is a correlation between a text’s genre, or literary form, and a text’s illocutionary point and force’ (91).
Just one of the upshots of this is that different types of texts determine the nature of truth being proposed. ‘The nature of the correspondence to reality (and thus the nature of truth) of an utterance is determined by its illocutionary aspect and literary form’ (101).
He concludes with various implications for exegesis and theology: (1) God reveals himself in the Bible through inscribed discourse acts; (2) exegetes should not make a priori decisions about biblical genres; (3) Scripture does many things with words and hence its authority is multi-faceted; (4) infallibility means that Scripture’s diverse illocutionary forces will invariably achieve their respective purposes; (5) theology is ‘ordinary literature’ analysis of an extraordinary book (93-104).
This essay may well be the first major thing Vanhoozer published, and has been extremely influential on my own thinking since I first read it over twenty years ago. (Yikes!)
It’s a long and fairly sprawling essay containing a number of strands (which still remains a mark of his work, in my opinion)… but essentially Vanhoozer contends that ‘Evangelicals have not come to grips with certain problems pertaining to the diverse literary forms of Scripture’ (375, n. 15).
He picks up on James Barr’s accusation that evangelicals do violence to biblical interpretation in how they view the genre or function of propositions. So, he asks: ‘how does the diversity of Scripture’s literary forms affect the way we take biblical propositions and understand scriptural truth?’ (56).
He notes how Barr and David Kelsey (among others) have criticised evangelicals for making a literary category mistake in insisting that the main function of biblical sentences is to convey propositions (Barr), and for being chiefly concerned with ‘doctrines’ (philosophical propositions) abstracted from the text (Kelsey) (64-65).
Indeed, Vanhoozer agrees that while evangelicals have acknowledged the importance of Scripture’s diverse literary forms, in general it appears to be mere lip service, and the informative-propositional function of language carries the day (67-75).
He is thus concerned ‘to provide a model of biblical revelation that will preserve the substance of “propositional” revelation (i.e., the emphasis on verbal, cognitive communication) while at the same time allowing for greater appreciation of the “ordinary” language of Scripture and its diverse literary forms’ (67).
Against accusations from Barr and Kelsey, he maintains that ‘diverse literary forms and truth are by no means incompatible’ (68).
And in response to the accusation that evangelicals seldom study the humanities, and do not know how to read the Bible, Vanhoozer offers the example and work of C.S. Lewis (75-78). To summarise, for Lewis, ‘good reading calls for the response of the rationalist (who approaches the Bible as truth to be believed), as well as the “romantic” (who approaches the Bible as a reality to be received). Lewis the Christian reader has an appreciation for both the propositional, or rational, truth-bearing function and the nonpropositional, or imaginative, reality-bearing function of good literature’ (78).
Since Scripture contains a diversity of literary forms, when it comes to the debated notion of scriptural ‘inerrancy’, for example, the literary form of the text should be allowed to determine how far the text can be said to be ‘inerrant’ or not. ‘Inerrancy must be construed broadly enough to encompass the truth expressed in Scripture’s poetry, romances, proverbs, parables – as well as histories’ (79). Here he appeals to E.D. Hirsch on genre, and Paul Ricoeur on revelation (78-82). Furthermore, individual literary forms may be seen as language games (à la the later Wittgenstein) (82-85).
This leads him into a discussion of speech act theory, borrowing especially from the work of J.L. Austin and John Searle (85-92). He applies this not merely to sentences, but to literature, seeking ‘to propose (moving beyond Searle) that there is a correlation between a text’s genre, or literary form, and a text’s illocutionary point and force’ (91).
Just one of the upshots of this is that different types of texts determine the nature of truth being proposed. ‘The nature of the correspondence to reality (and thus the nature of truth) of an utterance is determined by its illocutionary aspect and literary form’ (101).
He concludes with various implications for exegesis and theology: (1) God reveals himself in the Bible through inscribed discourse acts; (2) exegetes should not make a priori decisions about biblical genres; (3) Scripture does many things with words and hence its authority is multi-faceted; (4) infallibility means that Scripture’s diverse illocutionary forces will invariably achieve their respective purposes; (5) theology is ‘ordinary literature’ analysis of an extraordinary book (93-104).
Wednesday, 6 May 2009
Richard Bauckham on Ruth
Richard Bauckham has published essentially the same discussion of Ruth in different contexts:
Is the Bible Male? The Book of Ruth and Biblical Narrative, Grove Biblical Series 2 (Cambridge: Grove Books, 1996).
‘The Book of Ruth and the Possibility of a Feminist Canonical Hermeneutic, Biblical Interpretation 5, 1 (1997), 29-45.
Gospel Women: Studies of the Named Women in the Gospels (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 1-16 (‘The Book of Ruth as a Key to Gynocentric Reading of Scripture’).
In short, Bauckham suggests that an otherwise androcentric text (Ruth, in this case) essentially authorises a gynocentric reading of that text.
The book of Ruth, he avers, can play a crucial role in forming a feminist hermeneutic that accepts the normative function of the canon even while resisting much of its androcentricity. Seen from a gynocentric perspective, the social structures evident in Ruth are made to work to the advantage of women and are not as patriarchal as they may first appear.
He agrees with recent studies on Ruth which hold that the story speaks with a female voice, providing a woman’s perspective on ancient Israelite society, making visible what would otherwise remain invisible. This is true throughout Ruth, he holds – except for the genealogy at the end, which speaks with a male voice. But the male voice does not undermine the female perspective of the rest of the book; rather, it is ‘exposed by the female voice of the narrative as pitifully inadequate in its androcentric selectivity’ (Gospel Women, 11).
According to Bauckham, set against the rest of the book, the genealogy in 4:18-22 effectively says:
‘This is how the usual men’s perspective views the history of this period of David’s ancestors. This is the way you readers are accustomed to thinking of this period. Everything the narrative you have just read has taught you to see as important is here left out’ (Is the Bible Male?, 17).
He concludes:
‘In effect this gives Ruth an important canonical function, that is a function in relation to the rest of the contents of the canon of Scripture… By revealing the Israelite women’s world which is elsewhere invisible in biblical narrative it makes readers aware of the lack of this women’s perspective elsewhere, expanding the hints and filling in the gaps which they can now see to be left by the narratives written purely or largely from a male perspective’ (Is the Bible Male?, 17).
According to Bauckham, such a gynocentric perspective may be found in other biblical texts, including the gospels, in which the dominant perspective is more or less androcentric.
This does not result in establishing a canon with the canon, he holds. Rather, it means that gynocentric texts have the role of relativising the androcentrism of texts, not in overturning androcentric texts in every respect… so that the canon itself can be seen as ‘correcting’ or subverting androcentrism in Jewish and Christian thought and practice, instead of promoting such androcentrism.
Is the Bible Male? The Book of Ruth and Biblical Narrative, Grove Biblical Series 2 (Cambridge: Grove Books, 1996).
‘The Book of Ruth and the Possibility of a Feminist Canonical Hermeneutic, Biblical Interpretation 5, 1 (1997), 29-45.
Gospel Women: Studies of the Named Women in the Gospels (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 1-16 (‘The Book of Ruth as a Key to Gynocentric Reading of Scripture’).
In short, Bauckham suggests that an otherwise androcentric text (Ruth, in this case) essentially authorises a gynocentric reading of that text.
The book of Ruth, he avers, can play a crucial role in forming a feminist hermeneutic that accepts the normative function of the canon even while resisting much of its androcentricity. Seen from a gynocentric perspective, the social structures evident in Ruth are made to work to the advantage of women and are not as patriarchal as they may first appear.
He agrees with recent studies on Ruth which hold that the story speaks with a female voice, providing a woman’s perspective on ancient Israelite society, making visible what would otherwise remain invisible. This is true throughout Ruth, he holds – except for the genealogy at the end, which speaks with a male voice. But the male voice does not undermine the female perspective of the rest of the book; rather, it is ‘exposed by the female voice of the narrative as pitifully inadequate in its androcentric selectivity’ (Gospel Women, 11).
According to Bauckham, set against the rest of the book, the genealogy in 4:18-22 effectively says:
‘This is how the usual men’s perspective views the history of this period of David’s ancestors. This is the way you readers are accustomed to thinking of this period. Everything the narrative you have just read has taught you to see as important is here left out’ (Is the Bible Male?, 17).
He concludes:
‘In effect this gives Ruth an important canonical function, that is a function in relation to the rest of the contents of the canon of Scripture… By revealing the Israelite women’s world which is elsewhere invisible in biblical narrative it makes readers aware of the lack of this women’s perspective elsewhere, expanding the hints and filling in the gaps which they can now see to be left by the narratives written purely or largely from a male perspective’ (Is the Bible Male?, 17).
According to Bauckham, such a gynocentric perspective may be found in other biblical texts, including the gospels, in which the dominant perspective is more or less androcentric.
This does not result in establishing a canon with the canon, he holds. Rather, it means that gynocentric texts have the role of relativising the androcentrism of texts, not in overturning androcentric texts in every respect… so that the canon itself can be seen as ‘correcting’ or subverting androcentrism in Jewish and Christian thought and practice, instead of promoting such androcentrism.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)