Why I'm not a Cessationist

If you want to know why I'm not a cessationist, then read this article here.

On a totally different subject I have just had a profound revelation (further proof that I'm not a cessationist):

Baseball is a derivative of cricket that was created for people with Attention Deficit Disorder! At last, I think I understand the game.

Would love my co-blogger to respond!

Off to BNTC 2006

I'm off to Sheffield, the patch of James Crossley and other scholarly luminaries, for the 2006 British New Testament Conference. This will be my last conference following the on-slaught of Tyndale House, SNTS, and EABS in recent times. My papers include:

Historical Jesus Seminar
Who comes from the East and West?: The Historical Jesus and Q 13:28-29

Acts and Synoptics Seminar
The Unity of Luke-Acts: A Review of the Debate and Its Significance

I look especially forward to the main papers by Graham Stanton, Peter Williams and Maurice Casey which are all on topics that interest me.

Christians in the Middle-East Crisis

Christianity Today has a thought provoking post with quotes from Christians who are in Lebanon. The article is entitled: We're Not Spectators.

Here's a couple of juicy quotes:




Western Christians "who have but disdain for Arabs" weren't spared Accad's anger: "World events in the last few years—even decades—have had as their main catalyst tens of thousands of evangelical Christians … who believe that apocalyptic destruction of all but their beloved Israel will be a precursor to global salvation."

Less it be conceived as being anti-Israel, the article also makes mention of Hezbollah fighters shooting persons who tried to escape the Christian areas.

The Katyusha rockets that struck Nazareth, Mansour wrote, reminded the church there that their calling was obvious. "We had simply neglected it. Our calling as the remnant of Christians in the birthplace of our faith is to pray for the people of this broken land." Likewise, these voices call us not to throw up our hands, but to fall to our knees. Like the Katyushas, the comments sometimes miss the mark (yes, ours too). But they also remind us that as both Americans and Christians, we're already part of this conflict. We're not distant spectators.

Scot McKnight on Neo-Fundamentalism

Scot McKnight has some interesting things to say about the trend towards neo-Fundamentalism (see Post 2 and Post 1) beginning to flower in some Evangelical circles. I think Scot hits the nail on the head when he diagnoses the root cause of Fundamentalism as a "Remnant Theology", i.e. we alone are the church and we are alone have the truth.

Guy Prentiss Waters replies to Nick Perrin

Guy Waters presents a final reply to Nick Perrin over at Reformation 21. This article builds upon the exchange between the two in Westminster Theological Journal. Incidentally, I have my own take on the Perrin vs. Waters debate discussed in an appendix to The Saving Righteousness of God (forthcoming 2006!).

Baptist Catholicity

I'm a Historic-Christian first, an Evangelical second, I'm Reformed third, and Baptist at a distant fourth. From that order you can tell that I'm not the type of person who wakes up every day saying: "Hooray and Hoorah for Baptists cause we totally rock". I find that the words "exciting" and "Baptist" do not naturally go together. But one book that has got me excited about being Baptist is: Steven R. Harmon, Towards Baptist Catholicity: Essays on Tradition and the Baptist Vision (SBHT 27; Carlisle, UK: Paternoster, 2006).



Harmon's primary concern is to root Baptist theology, faith, and liturgy in the Niceao-Chalcedonian tradition of the Church. In his opening essay: "Catholic Baptists' and the New Horizon of Tradition in Baptist Theology," Harmon offers a seven point plan for Baptist Catholicity:

1. Catholic Baptists recognize tradition as a source of theological authority. Less this be confused let me explain. Scripture is, to use Grenz's term, theology's "norming norm" but all Scriptural reflection occurs in a horizon of tradition whether we choose to believe it or not. The Tradition that provides the framework for biblical faith is the Niceao-Chalcedonian confessions.

2. Catholic Baptists see a place in Baptist ecclesial life for the ancient ecumenical creeds as key expressions of the larger Christian tradition.

3. Catholic Baptists give attention to liturgy as the primary context in which Christians are formed by tradition.

4. Catholic Baptists locate the authority of tradition in the community and its formative practices. That means that biblical interpretation and theological reflection is not not a matter of the individual (i.e. soul competency) but occurs in the context of faith communities.

5. Catholic Baptists advocate a sacramental theology. Sacrament here does not signify a means of imparting salvific grace in the Roman Catholic scheme, it means rather "a theology that understands the sacraments of baptism and the Eucharist as paradigmatic of the relation of God to the material order that is disclosed in the Incarnation."

6. Catholic Baptists engage tradition as a resource for contemporary theological construction.

7. Catholic Baptists promote a thick ecumenism.


I don't know if I'd follow this manifesto to the letter, some points I'd want to qualify urgently, esp. tradition and ecumenism, but it sounds quite interesting to me.

The Baptist Faith and Message

Many years ago I was given a copy of the Baptist Faith and Message (1963) which I read so that I could become more familiar with what it meant to be a Baptist. When I became a Christian in the mid-90's I found myself as a "Baptist" by virtue of the fact that a Baptist church was the only church I had ever attended, but since then I have not found any compelling reason to depart from my Baptist background (though gosh it has been tempting at times). Recently I have been wondering, if I ever moved to the States (no plans to though) which Baptist group would I belong to? In Australia we don't have this problem as there are only really two options. First, the Baptist Union of Australia who range from solid evangelical to charismatic to mild-liberal. And then there's the Independent Baptists, KJV only, no-alcohol, anti-charismatic, and anti-lot's of other stuff too. America certainly has a lot more "Baptist" options. One denomination that intrigued was the Baptist General Convention of Texas. In particular they have on their website a comparison between the 1963 and 2000 Baptist Faith and Message (BFM) which I thought was riveting. I knew "of" the 2000 BFM ratified by the Southern Baptist Convention but didn't know its significance apart from making complentarianism a matter of doctrinal discipline. As far as I can tell the most significant change is that whereas the 1963 BFM stated that Baptist Faith and Practice is grounded in "Jesus Christ whose will is revealed in the Holy Scriptures" the 2000 BFM declares that, "Our living faith is established upon eternal truths". That entails a switch from "Jesus Christ" to "eternal truths" as the foundations of faith and fellowship.

Let me make it clear that I'm not an SBC member and I'm not someone who makes a hobby out of knocking the SBC since I have many SBC friends. Perhaps there is a reason for the 2000 BFM change anchored in the Moderates vs. Conservative battles of the 1980s which I am not privvy too - I welcome correction. But for the life of me I just do not understand how you can make anything other than Jesus Christ the centre of Christian theology and Christian faith. I don't know whether "eternal truths" means Scripture, Doctrine, or Confession, but either way if you make anything other than Jesus Christ the establishing principle for faith I think you've got problems. I have often rolled my eyes at liberal who say that Evangelicals believe in: "God the Father, God the Holy Spirit, and God the Holy Bible". But at moments like these I think they might actually be onto something.

I have been present on ocassions where someone has asserted that Jesus Christ is the centre of faith and practice and the same person has been lampooned as being purely "Barthian" [note: no offence to Alan Bandy and one of his recent posts, I have other people in mind]. To that I say: (1) So what? Barth isn't the boogey-man that many Evangelicals make him out to be (and let me say also, I'm definitely not Barthian). (2) Let's not commit the genetic fallacy of confusing the truthfulness of a certain view with its origin. Truth is truth wherever you find it, whether that's on the lips of Karl Barth or Satan himself and I'm convinced that these two are not strictly identical. (3) Analogy does not mean genealogy. Just because I espouse a christocentric view does not mean I get it from Barth. I think simply reading the NT is enough to indicate that Jesus is the central theme of the NT.

I rather like Michael Pahl's statement that:

"The foundation of our faith and of the Church is Jesus Christ, not Scripture; the ultimate revelation of God is Jesus Christ, not Scripture; the written Word of God (inspired Scripture) is a witness, along with the Spirit and the Church, to the spoken Word of God (the gospel of Jesus Christ) and the living Word of God (Jesus Christ himself), and it is in Him, not Scripture, that all the facets of salvation find their source. All this is Scripture's own self-testimony, the testimony of the Church historic and universal, and the testimony of my own experience in concert with other believers."

Interested parties should read Andreas Kostenberger's response "Jesus and the Bible" to Dan Wallace's piece "My Take on Inerrancy".

Please note, I'm not trying to knock the SBC. But I think it is worth having a solid and frank discussion about the place of Bibliology in Theology and its relation to Christology. Although this might be an intra-Baptist dispute, I imagine that the topic is of interest to others as well. Let me ask everyone: What is more central, Jesus Christ or Scripture, or is this a false dichotomy? And why do you think so? I'd like to hear from those in the SBC, non-SBC Baptist's, and other interested parties.

Euangelion has moved!

By the time you read this post, I hope that the blog web address has moved to:

http://euangelizomai.blogspot.com/

This is Euangelion's new webaddress!

A funeral: the first event of the semester

Today I attended a funeral for the brother of a student of mine. Last year I taught at NPU as an adjunct. One of my students from that class will be in my John course this semester. On Thursday this week I ran into him on campus and was excited to touch base about the upcoming semester. After a short greeting he told me his brother was shot and killed in his home over the weekend.

Today I attended the funeral for Marquis Lovings to support Brandon. Many of Marquis's friends and family members stood and spoke of him. They spoke of his laugh, his love and his life. I did not know him, but by the end of the "celebration" I wished I had.

I was very thankful to have been able to be there for Brandon. This is what I love about teaching and what I signed up for. In the end, teaching is so much more than what we do in the classroom.

Euangelion Will Be Moving Shortly

Soon we will be moving Euangelion to a new web address which is NOT named after Michael Bird. As soon as I know what that new address is, I'll post it here! So watch this space. Otherwise, find the new site by Googling the words "Euangelion's New Webaddress".

Mike Bird

Teaching, Course Prep and Resources

Most of us who embark on teaching careers have been ill-equipped to actually teach. If your experience was anything like mine -- and admittedly this is a bit more of a problem in British programs than American -- you had no pedagogical training or experience in your doctoral program. Fortunately, I had spent many years doing student ministry prior to pursuing an academic career and that has been a big help for me, but still there is so much to learn.

I am of the mind that good teaching is extremely important, and for me it is as important it not more important than good writing. But it appears to me that we spend much more of our time trying to be better researches and writers than we do being better teachers. Perhaps this is because it is in writing that we can make a name for ourselves (but that is another issue).

I have been collecting good resources for course preparation and teaching and I would like to know if you can recommend some.

Recently I came across this resource and it really helped prepared my courses for this senester; I would highly recommend it:

L. Dee Fink. Creating Significant Learning Experiences: An Integrated Approach to Designing College Courses.

You can also find the meat of the book on the web; Fink published an article entitled A Self-Directed Guide to Designing Courses for Significant Learning.

Response to Scot McKnight's Advice

Over at JesusCreed.org, my colleague at North Park Scot McKnight has done what every young scholar/teacher would wish for--he, as a veteran, has given me advice as I begin my teaching career. I would encourage any of you who identify with me as an emerging teacher (and perhaps Christian!) to check out Scot's 19 points of advice. They are golden.

Admittedly, I don't know that I will follow all of his advice -- how can I he wants me not to watch the Yankees! But I can promise that I will take each of these points to heart and seek to live into them.

For me, I think the biggest challenge of the list is number 16 ("avoid publication commitments when you are young. Get a feel for what you can do, when you can get it done, and what you'd like to dedicate you time to. Then work on a writing career"). I have already agreed to do a couple of things that will take a good deal of my time. The problem is that as a young scholar you feel so excited to be invited to write something--anything--so you say yes. You have spent years of your life writing things that no one cares about and then all of a sudden opportunities come your way as people invite you to write things. It is a bit intoxicating because it is self-esteem lifting. So I will take this to heart and be much more cautious. Besides I have a couple of things I am really passionate about that I need to make room to pursue. I need to set my own research agenda and I am finding that it is easy to allow outside things to take you away from what you want to be about.

It is important for me to be a part of the life of my university. I am very student centered and I want to be involved in the life of the college. For example, I talked to the Baseball coach and asked if he would allow a prof./ball player wanna-be to throw batting practice and shag fly balls in the outfield during practice. This would be such a fun activity for me and a way to support our university. He said yes!!

Short quote from Leander E. Keck

“The correlation between Jesus’ obedience and God’s rectitude [i.e. righteousness] implies that what Christ did and what God did are two sides of the same event. Consequently Paul could assert that ‘God proves his love for us in that while we still were sinner Christ died for us' (Rom 5:8).”

Leander E. Keck, “Paul in New Testament Theology: Some Preliminary Remarks,” in The Nature of New Testament Theology, eds. Christopher Rowland and Christopher Tuckett (Oxford: Blackwell, 2006), 114.

Zwingli Book Buying Bonanza

For the Zwingli buffs out there (both of you), you'll be glad to know that James Dickson books has got some very cheap Zwingli works for sale including:

1151, ZWINGLI, Huldrych Zwingli Seine Entwicklung zum reformator 1506-1520 488pp illus. Edt. by O.Farner, £ 8

1152, ZWINGLI, Huldrich Zwingli Reformatorische Erneuerung von Kirtle und Volk in Zurich 1525-1531. Zurich-1960 d.w. 574pp, £ 9

1153, ZWINGLI, Zwingli, der theologe [teil 3]. edt by T. Pfitzer. Zurich-1980 364pp, £ 8

1154, ZWINGLI, Huldrych Zwingli. Seine verkundigung und ihre ersten fruchte 1520-1525. Zurich-1954 615pp, £ 8

See the complete list of books here and check out the James Dickson website on my sidebar.

I scored some cheap copies of E. Lohse on Colossians and J.C. Beker's Theology of Paul.

The Value of New Testament Theology

Do we need another NT Theology? I ask this because one day I'd like to write one, so I have a vested interest in the discipline. I know however that there is a proliferation of NTT's out there, only recently we have I. Howard Marshall and Frank Thielman, and with more to follow in the near future from Thomas Schreiner and Ben Witherington. In such a context, I did found this quote from Luke Timothy Johnson quite interesting:

"Those who are expert in Scripture and also committed to the shared practices of faith can probably best serve theology within the church, not by writing books called the theology of the New Testament, but by enabling and participating in the practices and joining in the conversation, viva voce and vulnerable, together with other, less learned perhaps holier, fellow believers."

Luke Timothy Johnson, “Does a Theology of the Canonical Gospels Make Sense?” in The Nature of New Testament Theology, eds. Christopher Rowland and Christopher Tuckett (Oxford: Blackwell, 2006), 95.

Provocative stuff, of course the same thing could be said of commentary writing, something that Johnson excels in (in fact, his Hebrews commentary is just about to come out). But hey, who needs another commentary on Hebrews - we have Koester, Bruce, Lane, Attridge, and Ellingworth? Now I would acknowledge that Christian scholars should not be ivory tower theologians or remain too distant from the life of the believing community, otherwise they go off on weird tangents. Jim Hamilton of the blog For His Own Renown is a good example of NT Professor who pastors a church on the side, a quasi-liturgical Baptist church too, and keeps his feet planted firmly on the ecclesiastical ground. So, taking Johnson's warning to heart, I still think that there is a place for a good NTTs to be written. Two reasons come to mind:

1. I think of the profound impact that G.E. Ladd's NTT had. It was in many ways responsible for taking a large number of Evangelicals away from a "classic" Dispensationalist theology and into a more biblical view of eschatology, it gave excellent summations of the theology of John and Paul, introduced students to scholarly debates about the text, Ladd demonstrated how eschatology undergirds much of the NT, and he strove to show the unity within the witness of the NT.

2. I've inherited a number of libraries from pastors who have retired. Every single one of them had a copy of Donald Guthrie's New Testament Theology. Thus, a good NTT can still be of value and constitute a great resource for those in ministry and for people of faith.

I think that the entrprise of writing a NTT, is both possible and worth while.

Ten Characteristics of the Gospels

L.T. Johnson lists ten characteristics shared in the canonical Gospels:

1. All four Gospels are realistic narratives

2. All four Gospels have specific historical roots in first-century Palestine.

3. All four Gospels explicitly connect the story of Jesus to that of Israel, using the texts and stories of the Torah and Prophets to express the identity and role of Jesus.

4. All four Gospels emphasize the way that humans respond to Jesus.

5. All the Gospels climax in the passion of Jesus.

6. All the Gospels share an understanding of the resurrection of Jesus that is continuous with his human existence and sustaining of the relationships formed in his human ministry.

7. The Gospels, despite their manifold differences, agree in their portrayal of Jesus as a human sent from God for the sake of other humans, who speaks and acts as God’s representative, even as he is also radically committed to the obedience to God.

8. In all of the Gospels God is at once the father of Jesus and the God of Israel.

9. In the all of the Gospels, God’s triumph is still in the future.

10. In all of the Gospels, despite their divergent portrait of the disciples, they agree that discipleship means walking the path of radical obedience to God and living in service to Jesus Christ.

Notably, these characteristics are not shared by the apocryphal Gospels!

Johnson also believes that the differences among the Gospels make it hard to write a theology of the Gospels. Instead, he thinks it better to ask what kind of theology does the canonical tradition support and what kind theology is incompatible with it. In his mind it supports an orthodox faith as espoused in the "rule of faith" and the classic creeds like the Apostle's creed. The theology of the Gospels is inconsistent with a Gnostic theology.

Luke Timothy Johnson, “Does a Theology of the Canonical Gospels Make Sense?” in The Nature of New Testament Theology, eds. Christopher Rowland and Christopher Tuckett (Oxford: Blackwell, 2006), 93-108.

Christological Interpretation

I have been thinking some recently about the Gospel writers' use of the OT. This has been an interest of mine for quite some time, but it came into greater focus recently when I was interviewed for a documentary on the Messiah. I have always been one who believes that the context is important for interpreting OT texts in the NT and anyone could verify this by checking out the couple of articles I have written on Paul's use of the OT in Galatians.

Furthermore, I am quite convinced by C.H. Dodd's arugment in his wonderful piece According to the Scriptures that the NT writers did not generally take verses atomistically from the OT to make their case, but the texts that they did call upon were connected to the whole of a passage and to larger "plots". The use of one verse was only the tip of a much larger iceberg of text that was shared by early Christians. These "plots" may explain why Gospel writers were able to appeal to texts that in their original OT contexts were not Messianic or predictive prophesy (e.g. Zech 11:13/Matt 27:9and the 30 pieces of silver).

The idea is that the early Jewish believers in Jesus believed that Jesus was the promised Messiah and they undertook the task of reflecting on the significance of the kerygma [the events surrounding Jesus-his death and resurrection] in light of the Scriptures. For Dodd, the early Jewish believers in Jesus' view of history influenced them to see God's work in and through Jesus of Nazareth as the final and climactic fulfillment of his patterned dealings with Israel.

Don Juel's book Messianic Exegesis attempts to move beyond Dodd by suggesting that the use of Scriptures by Jesus' followers was not for the purpose of arguing "in behalf" of the Gospel, but rather "to understand" the Gospel. According to Juel, the Scriptures were used to "clarify" the implications of faith in Jesus.

There is definitely something in what Juel is suggesting and it has got me thinking since it is clear that the Gospel writers (Jewish believers--Luke was likely a God-fearer) began with the events concerning Jesus and sought to comprehend their significance by reading them in light of Scripture. In other words, the presupposition about the identity of Jesus made the "plots" in the OT visible. Perhaps it is like that illusion where a picture hidden in a collage of dots is visible only with the rose-colored glasses.

Dan Wallace on Inerrancy

For a good read about inerrancy and evangelicals see Daniel Wallace's on-line essay. Dan is apparently responding to some vitriolic ("Reformed" always with the Reformed!) critics. He also presents a good case for an inductive approach to bibliology and notes that one does not have to believe in inerrancy to be a Christian!

HT: Michael Pahl

Stuff added to the sidebar

For readers note:

1) The Amazon.com book selection is bit of a Witherington-fest, with several of his books due out in the later half of this year which I thought I'd draw attention to them.

2) Below I've included links to articles written by my co-blogger, Joel Willitts.

Notes on the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs

In reading through T12P a number of things caught my eye:

- The emphasis on avoiding sexual immorality (e.g. T.Reub. 5.1-6; T. Levi 14.6-7; T. Iss. 7.1-3; T. Dan. 5.5).

- The emphasis on keeping the law of God (T. Levi 13.1-9; 19.1-3; T. Iss. 5.1; T. Zeb. 5.1; T. Dan. 5.1; T. Benj. 10.1-11; T. Dan. 6.11 [righteousness of the law]; T.Gad 4.7 ["For among all men the spirit of hatred works by Satan through human frailty for the death of mankind; but the spirit of love works by the Law of God through forebearance for the salvation of mankind])

- The many references to the Book of Enoch (T.Sim. 5.4; T. Levi 10.5; 14.1; T.Jud. 18.1; T. Dan. 5.6; T. Naph. 4.1; T. Benj. 9.1)

- The existence of two messiahs: Aaronic and Davidic (T.Sim. 7.1-3; T.Jud. 21.3-4; T. Naph. 8.1-5; T. Benj. 11.1-5; cf. 1QSa 2.11-21; CD 11.23; 14.19; 19.10; 20.1; Zech. 4.14)

- God's righteousness (T.Levi 3.2; 18.1-14; T.Jud. 22.2)

- The "Two Ways to Live" in T. Asher 1.3-5.4; cf. Deut. 30.15; Josh. 24.15; Jer. 21.8-14; Sir. 15.11-17; 2 Enoch 30.15; Mt. 7.13-14; Ep. Bar. 17; Did. 1; Clem. Hom. 5.7; Clem of Alexandria, Strom. 5.5.

- NT parallels like Eph. 6.13 with T.Levi 8.2 [putting on armour]; Rom. 9.22-23 with T. Naph. 2.2-4 [rights of the potter]; John 19.11 with T.Naph. 8.9 [greater sin].

- Hope for restoration (T. Levi 16.5 [compassion after dispersion]; T. Levi 17.1-10 [restoration after desolation]); T. Asher 7.5-7; T. Benj. 9.2;

- A mixture of grace and ethical rigorism:

"Therefore my sons, do righteousness on earth in order that you might find it in heaven." (T. Levi 13.5)

"And unless you had received mercy through Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, our fathers, not a single one of your descendents would be left on the earth." (T. Levi 15.4).

Also, T. Asher 5.2 and 7.6


Interesting stuff with respect to NT Background!