I think I may be a little late to the party, but TEDS is now posting a series of video lectures by various faculty members, including D. A. Carson on Hebrews and Kevin Vanhoozer on the theologian’s task. The other two lectures on the docket for now are Dana Harris on Luke-Acts and Dennis Magary on Advanced Hebrew Exegesis. The Harris and Magary lectures have yet to be posted, but you can currently access both Carson’s and Vanhoozer’s videos.
Scholarship
Logos Bundle
Wipf and Stock has included Christ and the New Creation in its “Topics in Biblical Studies” bundle for Logos. The package is currently 25% for those who pre-order. Other titles in the set include:
- Beyond Christian Folk Religion: Re-Grafting Into Our Roots (Romans 11:17-23) by Edward A. Beckstrom
- Impeccable Solomon? A Study of Solomon’s Faults in Chronicles by Yong Ho Jeon
- Rereading the Biblical Text: Searching for Meaning and Understanding by Claude F. Mariottini
- Seven Congregations in a Roman Crucible: A Commentary on Revelation 1-3 by Richard E. Oster, Jr.
- A Transformative Reading of the Bible: Explorations of Holistic Human Transformation by Yung Suk Kim
Thanks to Cliff Kvidahl for the head’s up.
Proper Argumentation
I’m currently reviewing a book on New Testament theology, and at this point I’m beyond frustrated with the author (I’ll keep that info to myself to uphold the integrity of the review process). The book argues for a particular way forward in the discipline, noting the impasse in which many of its practitioners find themselves when dealing with a first century collection of writings that is supposed to be relevant for modern men and women. In making his case, the author necessarily has to deal with the opposing viewpoints, and this is where I am becoming increasingly exasperated with his argumentation. Instead of handling his opponents’ positions fairly and citing their best scholarship, the author instead misrepresents them consistently and hardly ever notes top works in the area. For instance, the author’s proposed method for NT theology relies on a philosophy of language rooted heavily in Heidegger, Fish, and Derrida, but in critiquing the opposing view he dismisses it as unsophisticated, never cites NT scholars who have engaged linguistic philosophy (like Anthony Thiselton), and relegates Kevin Vanhoozer’s monumental works in this area to a dismissive footnote. Another example comes from his discussion of diversity in the NT. The author questions whether it is right to assume that every book of the NT sees Jesus as YHWH, and, while doing so, doesn’t even hint at acknowledging Richard Bauckham’s or N. T. Wright’s work in this area.
I don’t think it’s wrong in certain instances to simply assume a set of methodological, philosophical, and theological foundations in a book and then make a case for a certain application or new understanding of those presuppositions. But this is not what this particular author is doing. He is pitting two options against each other in order to argue for only one of them, and in doing so has misrepresented the opposing viewpoint and passed over the best representation of it. That’s not proper argumentation.
Storied Typology
Over at Euangelion, Joel Willitts has written a couple of posts on doing Biblical Theology. I think Joel’s intuitions are correct that a typological approach tends to exalt “fulfilment” to the neglect of the “type.” Willitts wants to show the meaning and the significance of the “new” is profoundly shaped by understanding the “old.” He writes:
The new event is in the shape of the archetype and thereby embodying its importance. The idea is that the new event’s significance is dependent on the significance of the old event. The new event is “another manifestation of the basic archetype”. The new derives significance in relation to the old.
Be sure to read his whole post here.
Choosing a Divinity School in the UK
Matt has prompted me to try and answer a question a student of his had on how to choose a divinity school in the UK. There are many factors that one should consider; here are some that come to mind.
Masters or PhD?
I knew when I came to the UK that I wanted to do another masters degree. The education I received during my masters from Southeastern was outstanding, but it didn’t necessarily prepare me for the research that I would need to do at the PhD level. Not always, but usually, if you have not undergone any type of “real” research the universities you are applying to may want you to undergo a one-year masters degree before commencing towards doctoral work. I also considered that having two degrees from UK universities may open me up to opportunities that I may not necessarily have by only studying in the US.
I am quite pleased that I did the masters degree. It has been a time of tremendous spiritual and academic growth. It has definitely prepared me for the research that will take place at the doctoral level and in some ways I feel a bit ahead of some of my friends who came straight from a seminary into the PhD.
Subject area and Supervision
Your subject area and supervision are pretty key to choosing a program. All faculties try and have a balance in what they can offer in their research but its interesting how each faculty also has a sense of identity and what they are known for and what kind of researchers they produce.
Because the UK PhD is all about the individual research you need to look for a program and or supervisor that suits what you want your research project to look like. This is why it is important to look at faculty bios and research. You should look for faculty members at the university that can provide supervision for the project you are wanting to do. More frankly, will the scholar want to supervise the project you are researching? Being able to find a supervisor you can work with will make your experience much more enjoyable. This looks different for each person. Some people may choose a supervisor because he or she is the best in the discipline. Others may choose supervisors who are not as prominent in the field right now but are brilliant at guiding the student through the thesis project. So also consider what type of supervisor you may need.
Residential or Distance?
There are options to do a PhD either residentially or at a distance. There are definite advantages and disadvantages to either. Most if not all of the major universities require all full-time PhD students to be residential. So, if you want a degree from any of the bigger named universities residential is probably what you’ll want to do.
Community
This is not so much solely about the UK, but should be considered when pursuing doctoral studies. What kind of community is there at the university? Both academically and personally. New College has a wonderful sense of community among both faculty and researchers. Because I work in the Old Testament, several of us began putting together “gatherings” for Old Testament faculty/researchers and our families. We get together and just hang out. I can’t tell you how much we’ve enjoyed getting to know one another’s families. There is a real sense of community when you realise how many other families are doing exactly what you are doing and learn from others about living in the UK, traveling around Europe, and coping with being attached to such nerdy people.
Anybody else have any thoughts?
Scholarship and Christian Charity
Yesterday I was reminded again by a good brother of how important it is to speak with love and humility towards those with whom we disagree. This has me thinking today about Christians and scholarly engagement with one another’s differing theological stances. Of course, I’m also reminded of this because of the continuing debate about Calvinism within my own denomination. The following is not really an argument for anything or a set position on what it means to have charity in Christian scholarship, just a few thoughts about the subject.
First, as I think about this issue, I’m reminded of Jesus’ prayer in John 17 and Paul’s teaching in Ephesians 4 that the church, the body of Christ, is unified in Christ. When we engage other brothers and sisters on matters in which we disagree, our first thought ought not to be how I can win the argument but how I can love and be unified with my co-heir in Christ. I’ve encountered the statement elsewhere that “unity is accomplished through the truth,” and while I understand this on one level – the church MUST guard against false teaching – I do not in many cases think this is the best approach. On second and third level issues, where the “faith once and for all delivered to the saints” is not at stake, such as Calvinism, I doubt that the way to unity is continued argument until one side capitulates. When we engage fellow believers on these types of issues we certainly ought to do so with conviction, but shouldn’t that also be coupled with a strong dose of humility? I know that I am not right about everything, nor will I ever be, and so the idea that I can only be united in fellowship or missional cooperation with my brother if he “comes to the truth” (i.e. agrees with me) about a certain matter seems to me to be the exact opposite of humble. The idea that everything is a first order issue – that if you don’t agree with me then we are of a different faith altogether – seems to me to fall under this category.
Second, I have heard writers, speakers, theologians, and preachers mention Luther (or some other such person) and his tone towards those with which he disagreed as evidence that a certain invective tone is permissible in theological argumentation. Again, this seems wrong headed to me for a few reasons. No one theologian is ever correct about everything, and this includes the tone they use. I’m not so sure that Luther, giant as he is, ought to be commended for the vindictive way in which he speaks of his opponents at times. Further, our culture is 500 years separated from his, and while I abhor some of the ways in which “political correctness” has permeated our speech, we do not swim in the exact same linguistic, cultural, or emotional waters as the Reformers. Then there’s the fact that none of us is Luther, or any of the Reformers for that matter.
Finally, I also have noticed an increasing amount of people, whether Baptist or Anglican or Methodist, Calvinist or Arminian, egalitarian or complementarian, liberal or conservative, who seem to be waiting for someone, usually a “celebrity” pastor or theologian, to say something upon which they can pounce. Why do we do this? Part of the answer, I think, is that controversy is what draws people to books, blogs, websites, tv shows, and even churches and pastors. And so, in our American sub-conscious desire to rise up, pull ourselves up by our bootstraps, and get rich and famous, we stir the pot. We nitpick at each other.
This all bothers me. And it bothers me that I am so easily ensnared in it. I do all of this and more, and so I am not in any way trying to pull out anyone else’s speck while ignoring my plank. But I hope that we, as the body of Christ, bought by his blood and raised to new life by his Spirit, can treat each other with more Christian charity and humility than I have seen of late.
Book Available on Amazon
For the 3 of you that are interested, my book is now available on Amazon.
Here’s the book description:
In Christ and the New Creation, Matthew Emerson takes a fresh approach to understanding New Testament theology by using a canonical methodology. Although typically confined to Old Testament theology, Emerson sees fruitfulness in applying this method to New Testament theology as well. Instead of a thematic or book-by-book analysis, Emerson attempts to trace the primary theological message of the New Testament through paying attention to its narrative and canonical shape. He concludes that the order of the books of the New Testament emphasize the story of Christ’s inauguration, commissioning, and consummation of the new creation.
Pastoral Psychology Article Accepted
I received exciting news this afternoon that an article I co-authored with my colleague Dr. Joshua Knabb has been accepted in Pastoral Psychology. Josh occupies the office next to me, and, when not banging on my wall to turn the music down, is Assistant Professor of Psychology and the Director of the Master of Science in Counseling Psychology for OPS. The article, “‘I Will Be Your God and You Will Be My People’: Attachment Theory and the Grand Biblical Narrative” explores the relationship between attachment theory and the metanarrative of Scripture. This one was definitely interesting to write, since I hadn’t attempted a cross-disciplinary essay before.
Here’s the abstract:
In this article, we apply the grand biblical narrative to attachment theory. Utilizing four key features of attachment theory—secure base, exploration, attachment behaviors, and safe haven—we attempt to integrate the empirical base of attachment theory with the biblical storyline of creation, fall, redemption, and new creation. By focusing on the relationship between God and humankind found within the Old and New Testaments, we seek to expand the theological underpinnings of the attachment to God literature, and conclude by offering suggestions for therapists and pastoral counselors working with Christians exhibiting disordered attachment patterns.