EngineeredTheology

With the normal circles I find myself running in are not often Christian friendly, so I was interested in this book expecting it to draw some links between christianity and the “Agnostic Students” and how those conversations take place.

The book was not exactly what I was expecting.

Ironically, the book groups the diverse group of people who are often hostile to Christianity (the so called “Diversity Culture”), into one stereotypical lady. A person who is interested in eastern philosophy, college educated (probably double majored in British literature and African basket weaving), middle aged and well to do. This person used to go to church, but found the faith presented (and the lifestyle of the congregation) there as lacking.

After some undercutting of postmodernism, and identifying some more trendy philosophies as lacking in depth I was concerned. Laughing about the catch definitions popular in the late 90′s I flipped to the back to find chapters called “The Power of Testimony” and “Confront a Friend” I knew where this was going. I’ve read books like this before.

But again, the book was not what I was expecting.

The first half of the book introduces us to this steriotypical person. From the starting point that evangelicals are nervous about these type of people, it tries to help us understand where she is coming from. Using the story of the Samaritan woman at the well, it describes how Jesus reacts to people who would be hostile to their message. Helping smooth the waters that this person is not so much anti-Christian, but anti-Christian rhetoric (and for very good reasons).

For me, the last half of the book critiques the methods evangelicals use. In a way that is indirect and non-judgemental (which I can’t reproduce), there are suggestions about truly connecting with people. It contrasts ideological discussions (which are about scoring points, thinking quickly, and counter arguments), and relational discussions (which are about give and take to find truth). Any discussion that starts with convince me that God exists isn’t going to be the conversation you were hoping for.

The book directly confronts the Christian subculture and how it isolates people from the rest of the world. It breeds conformity and prohibits independent thought. This reduces Christianity down to glib phrases, and makes Christians into the people the Diversity Culture enjoy to marginalise.

Using the topic of gender identity, the book discusses presumed inferences Christians find in direct questions. Most Christians naturally react strongly to any hints of homosexuality and tend to treat topics with very broad strokes. People are more than a single decision made in their lives, and need to be treated as such. Confrontation comes absolutely last in the book, and is only done between close friends without condemnation. It is not shied away from, but raining surfer down on everyone around you will start nothing but a flame war.

I was pleasantly surprised with this book (but it took getting half way through the book to find that out). Looking back, the first half is very necessary to people who are routinely isolated in the Christian subculture to get them to hear the rest of the book. The last half is insightful, direct, and written in a very open way. I don’t think I was the intended audience for the book, and unfortunately I don’t think the intended audience would ever pick this book up.

I was interested in reading this book (aside from it being recommended by a friend) because I was interested to hear some contemporary criticism of N.T. Wright’s New Perspective on Paul. In general, the book is focused mainly on how New Testament theology should be seen in light of a new Exodus (not unlike Wright) and specifically in a Paschal light. The book seemed a little long winded – which are tough books for me to read and pay attention.

Doulos
An entire chapter is spent investigating the term doulos. The traditional rendering of a chosen post as a servant (Deut 15:16-17) is rejected as blurring the semetic and helenistic views. Prior to this statement, and just after, the importance of Paul’s semetic background and his reliance on the OT is stressed. It would not be unusual to be using semetic ideas to describe NT theology. Instead of taking the direct route to a self chosen slave (with its associated rights and privileges) a much less direct route is taken. In the end, the conclusion is still the same.

Community
For me, the most interesting modes of thought were treating references to sin and sexual immorality in the epistles less as individual personal references, but to the church in general. I have heard often that these were communal letters, but never had a line of sight to what some communal interpretations would be like. While the church is composed of individual members and their actions (such as 1 Cor 6:15 was brought about by a certain person in 1 Cor 5), there are larger implications for the whole.

This brings about implications that we do not usually think of. First, it gives a sense of freedom that there is a larger community working together to be a whole (I don’t need to be good at everything). At the same time, there is more responsibility because my actions can poison the entire group. This then brings up the very real question of what to do with unrepentant members of the church…

Justification
Holland disagrees with N.T. Wright on the meaning of justification, and states that it is referring to the inclusion into a covenant.

The Jews had been justified when God delivered them from the control of their oppressors in exile. They had claimed to be the people of God, a claim that seemed ridiculous in light of their condition. But it was a true claim, and God justified this claim when he delivered them from exile (169)

It is here where his usage of justification is exactly that of N.T. Wright – the bold statements we make finally coming true (used by both Jesus and Paul). Because the Israelites were insistent on deliverance from Egypt, their justification would be just that. This is separate from defining justification as deliverance.

I am unconvinced with his definition of justification – and I do agree that it always needs to be taken in context. His stress is that justification in the NT is tied up in the understanding of the Passover and the Exodus. What does not follow is there were no new covenants created during Passover or the Exodus. The next covenant does not occur until Sinai. Justification as the creation of a new covenant relationship (233) does not fit with the idea of the exodus and specifically the Passover.

Other Topics
I did not agree with the statements that Paul could not have been a zealot. I will agree that announcing a crucified Jesus was scandalous to anyone hoping to see a liberated Israel (causing the death of Stephen). These groups of people were called the zealots. While it is in the OT that the gentiles will eventually join the kingdom, it would be a tough pill to swallow to apply this to the group oppressing you. The claim that it would be impossible for Paul to move from a zealot position to welcome in gentiles without trauma is odd since Emmaus certainly was a traumatic event, with visions that needed to be repeated because he refused to believe them.

Finally, I had some trouble associating the terms of firstborn and redeemer when they are never used together or interchangeably. I still find no reason why any association would logically be made.

Paul, Jesus and the Old Testament Promises
To unite the teaching of Paul with that of Jesus, the idea that the church abandoned its Jewish roots to reach those who would not understand their culture and references is challenged. Instead, the idea that the hellinization of the gospel through the split between the church and synagogue and the emergence of greek leaders who brought hellenistic readings (in the 2nd century) is suggested. The church grew quickly because the gospel was already familiar from the Old Testament promises, specifically of a new exodus.

Paul and the Prophets
Paul’s letters rely heavily on the Old Testament, especially that of Isaiah. He wrote of problems he knew of, but also those he could expect to happen (such as issues with circumcision or meat and idols). He wrote from his Jewish background, delivering (not creating) the message of Jesus to the gentiles. These letters were written for the congregation, and should not be read as if they were to a single person.

Methodological Presuppositions
Some liberalism (specifically assuming that early christianity borrowed heavily from Gnosticism) is falling out of style. To replace it is an elevation of the pseudepigrapha. These are a varying group of letters written from various religious groups (whose beliefs and aims are all but unknown to us). Unlike the various letters on different topics (as we have to identify the theology of Paul), we have single letters with unknown motivations from unknown groups. We cannot expect to critique a more solid foundation of christendom with these sources just because all letters use the same words and terminology.

Isaiah the Servant
This chapter examines how the key role of the servant in Isaiah relates to the often used doulos role often used in Paul. The christian role is not a simple slave, but holds duty and honours. Confusing it as a slave is like confusing the roles of a housewife with a maid. The tasks may be the same, but the relational covenant is different.

The Paschal Community and the Body of Sin
The meaning of the body of sin referred to by Paul is investigated. The traditional view of a person application is rejected, preferring a corporate view. In the Exodus the Israelites were separated from the rest of humanity, but this salvation was only political. After Jesus, a new group was separated that does not depend of political barriers. The world was now separated into the body of Christ and the body of Sin.

The Paschal Community and the Eschatological Marriage
Specifically working from 1 Cor 6, the idea that the sexual immorality discussed is corporate is asserted. The idea follows the OT references to Israel playing the harlot to God. The ecclesiastical body of Christ should not be joined with the harlot (rights and practices of satanic forces). The body of Christ cannot be united with the body of sin.

The Paschal Community and Redemption
The idea that the OT Passover has redemptive properties (the translation of hilasterion as propitiation) is supported. Ezekiel 45:25 draws the link between Passover and the Day of Atonement, but it is the original Passover where Israel was redeemed. It is the sacrifice of Passover, not Atonement, where Jesus’ death fits more naturally.

Justification and the New Perspective – The Paschal Community and Justification
Paul’s persecution of the early church was not due to their inclusion of Gentiles because this would be an expected event when the messiah comes. Stephen’s death occurs because his insistence that a crucified Jesus was this messiah, and therefore Israel has no more hope of political freedom. He disagrees with N.T. Wright’s definition of justification as the proof of a covenantial relationship with God, but stresses justification is the acceptance into this relationship (creation of this new covenant).

The Firstborn and the Jewish Cult
A link is drawn between the firstborn of the family and the redeemer role. These are not put together in the OT, but it is stated the relationship is obvious enough to go without stating. The firstborn is the representative of the family, and is whom the wrath of God falls on in Egypt (to show that the gods of Egypt were powerless). The link between the firstborn sacrifice of Isaac and the sacrifice of Jesus is made. The messianic title of Son of God carries this representative role of all people, and also the redeemer role for all people.

The Firstborn and the Colossian Hymn
The final chapter confronts claims that the letter to the Colossians is not from Paul because of theological differences in the letters. The Colossian hymn is reviewed and brought back into the Passover/New Exodus theme.