This book

The work progresses from J.P. Gabler’s address up to the present age. He chooses to describe the progression in terms of segments of history rather than trajectories of ideas. For example, there is a chapter on the 18^th century developments followed by a chapter on the 19^th century developments. Each chapter contains moderately lengthy essays on different scholars and their own contributions. There is some attention to identifying scholarly trajectories, but the emphasis is on the historical development.

The book is a plodding read, and is mainly useful as a reference work, because of the fact that this grew out of a Ph.D. Dissertation – yet it is of excellent quality as an overview. The bibliography is excellent in this book, though there have been many developments since the book’s writing. It seems that Leo Purdue’s The Collapse of History, and later Reconstructing Old Testament Theology after the Collapse of History attempt to fill a need for a more recent work of this sort, though Purdue approaches the matter from a much different perspective. I would say that any student of the graduate level in the field should read this book.

Tweet This Post

Share It!

Hide Sites

If one assumes that the supernatural does not exist, arriving at Hawking’s conclusion seems inevitable. Yet, if one grants the miraculous,  then Hawking’s conclusions don’t seem to make sense. How can the universe’s system of physics govern something that does not exist? If the laws of physics produced the universe, then how did they exist before the existence of the universe? It’s not the best logic. I used to really like Hawking, and admire his genius, but no longer can I admire

Tweet This Post

Share It!

Hide Sites

Still, Hasel’s basic proposals at the end of the book are very much debated. One should probably think of the final chapter as “one man’s way of working through the issues”, and not a conclusive decision for the field. The work is very lacking in how one incorporates literary theory into doing OT theology. The idea reading the Bible as literature, or utilizing theory in reading, goes untouched in this book, though many (often sub-par) theologies have made use of these methods lately (Segovia, Oduyoye, Kwok, etc.).

FULL REVIEW

Tweet This Post

Share It!

Hide Sites

by Pat Marvenko Smith

In an Old Testament Theology Seminar I was asked to come up with a “central theme” for the Old Testament, that could carry over into the New Testament. It’s what Biblical Theologians call a center, or a mitte. In thinking about that I looked at Deuteronomy 26. The first 11 verses function as a sort of summary of the exodus event, a summary which would be read in Passover celebrations later (and today). It seems to me that this statement is like something that NT theologians identify as a kerygma, a central summary gospel, which the rest of the NT expands upon. In our case in Deuteronomy 26, the Old Testament’s gospel (that is what Christian interpreters call the Exodus tongue in cheek) is presented in summary form. What I find greatly interesting is that verses 17-20 end the section with a sort of call to live for God. It says,

17 Today you have obtained the LORD’s agreement: to be your God; and for you to walk in his ways, to keep his statutes, his commandments, and his ordinances, and to obey him. 18 Today the LORD has obtained your agreement: to be his treasured people, as he promised you, and to keep his commandments; 19 for him to set you high above all nations that he has made, in praise and in fame and in honor; and for you to be a people holy to the LORD your God, as he promised.

This seems much like a NT call to follow Christ. It’s followed by a promissory statement that if one does so, they will inherit eternal life. Of course the terms are different, using Old Testament imagery which is later (2nd temple era) re-interpreted as the NT presents. I find it significant that when Christ is asked what the most important commandment is, what he says lines up with Dt 26:17 (not exactly, he’s quoting the shema). Those who follow God become the holy ones, which in the NT gets translated as saints.

When we studied this in our small group, we talked about how this story describes on a corporate level, something similar to what happens in the NT picture of Christ. I think this is because the Hebrew way of viewing history is that it is cyclical (some would call it typological). Israel went through a struggle, cried out to God, who saved them. Later, God saved them (and us gentiles) in Christ. It was something on a grander scale. One reason I think I’m on track here is that in Deuteronomy, God is called “I AM”, the Hebrew YHWH. John’s Gospel presents Christ in this manner, becoming the passover lamb, who takes away the sin of the world, and makes it possible for God to tabernacle with humanity, and restore humanity to the intended state of eternity with God (in our death).

Tweet This Post

Share It!

Hide Sites

Brett McCracken has written a book about Hipster Christianity

He contends this is harmful because it will actually drive people away from church in the long-term. He thinks the flash and sizzle method almost always lacks content, and real life-change. As such, the attenders are just as likely to walk out as walk in. In other words, these “hipster churches” are places lots of people have been, but don’t keep going to regularly. It turns out – he says that twenty-somethings don’t want something hip, they want something real. These “hipster churches” are the new sort of televangelists with the fake-looking hair.

But I have a problem with his analysis. I’ll admit it. I go to a church which is probably the most “hipster” church in my area. To be fair, there aren’t many that try in my area. Yet, at the same time there are many ways that New River Fellowship isn’t quite a “hipster church”. While cool graphics, and technology are a part of our church – it isn’t that important. A recent sermon series ended with an iPad giveaway. Yet, it also concluded with a very REAL call to accept Christ as Lord and get involved in a small group Bible Study in order to grow in your faith. New River is also made up of people who have kids. Many, like me, are in their 30s and don’t drive a VW or have a mac. New River encourages real life growth through small group bible studies. If you want to join the church, you have to join a small group of some sort. You have to attend a class about the church’s beliefs. So, there is an emphasis on acting out spiritual knowledge – something which McCracken’s “hipster churches” don’t tend to emphasize.

McCracken’s website lists several types of “hipster christians”. These are interesting caricatures, which one would do well to avoid. Yet, probably most 20-30 something Christians have something in common with his stereotypes. I am similar to the “bookish intellectual”, yet hopefully not too similar.

As with any fresh critique of a movement, he tends to criticize the stereotypical (and fictional) “hipster church”, of which surely none really exist. While it seems likely that many churches exhibit some of the weaknesses he points out. He likely doesn’t have the life-experience or wisdom to really level much of the critique that he offers. There are more experienced and educated consultants out there (many hired by denominations to guard against this sort of problem).

Tweet This Post

Share It!

Hide Sites

FULL REVIEW HERE

Tweet This Post

Share It!

Hide Sites

Silva’s book, God, Language and Scripture: Reading the Bible in the Light of General Linguistics

Full Review Here

Tweet This Post

Share It!

Hide Sites

1 Corinthians 2:1-5 (New International Version)

¹When I came to you, brothers, I did not come with eloquence or superior wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God.^{[a] 2}For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. ³I came to you in weakness and fear, and with much trembling. ⁴My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, ⁵so that your faith might not rest on men’s wisdom, but on God’s power.

Have you ever heard someone who was a great speaker but not very convincing? Has someone ever won you over to their opinion with a great speech?

Paul chose to use wise speech at other times, such as his speech at the Areopagus. Why do you think Paul chose not do do this??

Have you ever felt dumb explaining something to someone? Did you feel like you were convincing them?

Have you ever been convinced about something because a person persuaded you, and then changed your mind later? Do you think this has anything to do with Paul’s choice?

Have you ever felt the Spirit of God tell you something or confirm an idea? Can you really explain that process? Are you likely to be persuaded otherwise later?

Comments appreciated. The context I had in mind (and used this in) was a small group bible study (4-15 people).

Tweet This Post

Share It!

Hide Sites

I would certainly recommend this to anyone who has the time to read through the 650+ pages of information!

FULL REVIEW HERE

Tweet This Post

Share It!

Hide Sites

Tweet This Post

Share It!

Hide Sites