By Roy Ciampa, PhD
Associate Professor of New Testament
I have been thinking a lot about Abraham lately. In fact, I just finished up an essay on “Abraham and Empire in Galatians” for a forthcoming book (which won’t be out for more than a year). I found myself noticing how often Abraham is mentioned in relationship with powerful kings and cities (Babel, Haran, Ur, Pharaoh, Abimelech, Melchizedek, Chedorlaomer and his allies, etc.) and how he is described in ways that make him look like both an “imperial” figure and an “anti-imperial” figure. By “imperial” I mean those texts that speak of God’s promises to give him a great name and international influence. By “anti-imperial” I mean those texts that suggest a lack of interest in gaining and/or using power to his personal advantage and at the expense of others. Generally speaking he is as far from an oppressive figure as can be found.
Those constructing the tower of Babel were hoping to build one culturally homogenous city-state by which they could “make a name for ourselves” (Gen. 11:4). Abraham shows no sign of any such ambition but God promises him “I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you, and make your name great” (Gen. 12:2). When there is conflict with Lot and his men, Abraham takes an open-handed approach and allows Lot to choose the land he prefers (Gen.13:8-12). Abraham rescues Lot and defeats Chedorlaomer and his allied kings in battle but shows no interest in keeping the spoils of war or establishing rule or dominion over the lands of the defeated kings (Gen. 14).
He is also tied to the promises of land and posterity which come to be associated with the hope of redemption and liberation from oppressive powers. A look at the references to Abraham in the psalms and prophets will show how often he is mentioned in conjunction with expressions of hope for redemption (often hope for redemption from oppressive foreign nations): Psa. 47:9; 105:6-9, 42; Isa. 29:22; 41:8; 51:2; 63:16; Jer. 33:26; Ezek. 33:24; Micah 7:20.
It is remarkable to note how often Abraham is associated with rescue and liberation from oppressive powers in the New Testament as well. In the opening of the Gospel of Matthew Abraham is mentioned as one of the four key turning points in the history of Israel, along with David, the Babylonian exile and the Messiah (suggesting the fulfillment of the promises to Abraham and David and the coming of the Messiah will bring Israel’s experience of exile to an end). In the opening chapter of the Gospel of Luke references to Abraham are very explicitly tied to hope for rescue from enemies and from oppressive circumstances (read Luke 1:55 and 1:73 in their near contexts). In Luke 13:11-17 Jesus brings deliverance to “a woman with a spirit that had crippled her for eighteen years” (v. 11). He describes the woman as “a daughter of Abraham whom Satan bound for eighteen long years” and what he had done as setting her “free from this bondage” (v. 16).
I encourage you to take some time to read passages that mention Abraham and consider whether or not it might be related to the theme of liberation/freedom from oppression of one kind or another and, if so, how that should inform the behavior and thinking of anyone who recognizes it.
Unfortunately, as David Kinnaman and Gabe Lyons demonstrate in their book, Unchristian: What a New Generation Really Thinks About Christianity-- and Why It Matters (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 2007), Christians are perceived by others as (among other things) people who are all too eager to impose their views and convictions on the rest of the world. In my view that reputation has been earned. We have spent much of the last thirty years watching our influence on the surrounding culture wane as we have sought to win our battles in the legal and political realms. As we have applied our pressure on the power structures of our society we have lost the hearts and minds of those who actually decide what takes place within those structures – our neighbors, co-workers and other (voting) fellow citizens. This is not to argue that we should remove ourselves from political and legal arenas, but to suggest we need to focus much more attention on winning hearts and minds at the grass-roots level and that might start by adopting a more Abrahamic approach, one in which our commitment to bring the freedom and liberation from oppression with which the promises to Abraham are associated in Scripture comes to be recognized as a key to what it means to seek to bring blessing to “all the families of the earth” (Gen. 12:3). Jesus Christ (“the son of Abraham”; Matt. 1:1) demonstrated just that kind of commitment to the power of self-sacrificing love spent for good of others. It was a self-sacrificing love that was a threat to the powers of the day, but was usually perceived as a generous, non-threatening love by the grass roots, and through it the early church (and the church through most of its history) proved to be more effective at winning those hearts and minds which American Christians have been losing as of late.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Meditations from Florence
By Maria Boccia, PhD
Professor of Pastoral Counseling and Psychology and
Director of Graduate Programs in Counseling at the Charlotte campus
I am writing this in Florence Italy, where I am attending the annual meetings of the International Society for the Study of Women's Sexual Health (ISSWSH).This represents several challenges: I am writing on a Mac, which is totally alien to me, with software called NèoOffice, which I've never heard of, and it is an Italian keyboard, so it has an unusual configuration in order to accommodate things like à, ù and ò (I keep typing à when I mean '). The greatest challenge, however, may be the internal struggle between attending ISSWSH and being in Florence. To be in such a magnificant city with its wealth of Italian Renaissance art and attend meetings from 8 AM until 6 or 7 PM is a considerable challenge to my self'-discipline. But I would like to share some impressions.
I heard a paper addressing the question of how likely doctors are to take a sexual history from their (female) patients as a function of how much training they had in sexual medicine. The unhappy result was that regardless of their training, only 4-8% would do so. When the presenting problem was sexual in nature, this increased to only 10%. There was a minor increase in the likelihood of asking if it was a gynecologist than general practice doctor. The explanation offered was that doctors don't ask about thngs they cannot treat. I was pretty outraged by both of these findings, as well as by the interpretation. It seems to me that particularly when a sexual problem is presented, the doctor ought to take a sexual history. Even more disturbing was the explanation: there are perfectly fine interventions for dealing with many sexual dysfunctions. These are generally psychotherapeutic interventions, however, and not 'cures' medical doctors administer. The arrogance of being unwilling to enquire about issues that would require a referral strikes me as wrong.
At the start of each paper session, the Italians present a little ditty on art object(s) related to sexuality. I found myself reflecting on the changes in art with the Renaissance. Prior to the Renaissance, art was used to teach about the Faith in the Church. There was not much attention to perspective or anatomical correctness. Renaissance art, however, shifted the focus to the beauty of the human body. Perspective became important, and artists studied anatomy in order to accurately reflect the human body when executing their works of art. The first of these was Donatello's David. There is also Michelangelo's David, the Pieta, etc. Each of these used a biblical character but the goal was to glorify the human body, and by interference, Man.
So where am I going with this? Not too far . . . I'm in Florence! Both of these 'errors' seem obvious to me because they violate some principle to which I hold. Primarily, those principles are about truth: we should always seek it, and we should not violate it ourselves. But what happens when it's not so obvious? What happens when it's my own pet blindspot? I would like to believe that I would pursue truth, speak truth, value truth. But I know I also am a fallen human being and that I don't always live up to my high ideals.
God deserves our worshp, our allegience, ourselves. How often have we done exactly what the Italian Renaissance artists did? Too often we have our own agenda and dress it up on God-talk or Church-talk. Too often as a result, God or the church is maligned as a result, and individuals are hurt or alienated and turn away from the only One who can save them. I pray, with Paul, that I can stay out of the way sufficiently so that the only stumbling block another person will encounter is the cross of Christ. And that means, among other things, being a person who values and pursues truth.
Professor of Pastoral Counseling and Psychology and
Director of Graduate Programs in Counseling at the Charlotte campus
I am writing this in Florence Italy, where I am attending the annual meetings of the International Society for the Study of Women's Sexual Health (ISSWSH).This represents several challenges: I am writing on a Mac, which is totally alien to me, with software called NèoOffice, which I've never heard of, and it is an Italian keyboard, so it has an unusual configuration in order to accommodate things like à, ù and ò (I keep typing à when I mean '). The greatest challenge, however, may be the internal struggle between attending ISSWSH and being in Florence. To be in such a magnificant city with its wealth of Italian Renaissance art and attend meetings from 8 AM until 6 or 7 PM is a considerable challenge to my self'-discipline. But I would like to share some impressions.
I heard a paper addressing the question of how likely doctors are to take a sexual history from their (female) patients as a function of how much training they had in sexual medicine. The unhappy result was that regardless of their training, only 4-8% would do so. When the presenting problem was sexual in nature, this increased to only 10%. There was a minor increase in the likelihood of asking if it was a gynecologist than general practice doctor. The explanation offered was that doctors don't ask about thngs they cannot treat. I was pretty outraged by both of these findings, as well as by the interpretation. It seems to me that particularly when a sexual problem is presented, the doctor ought to take a sexual history. Even more disturbing was the explanation: there are perfectly fine interventions for dealing with many sexual dysfunctions. These are generally psychotherapeutic interventions, however, and not 'cures' medical doctors administer. The arrogance of being unwilling to enquire about issues that would require a referral strikes me as wrong.
At the start of each paper session, the Italians present a little ditty on art object(s) related to sexuality. I found myself reflecting on the changes in art with the Renaissance. Prior to the Renaissance, art was used to teach about the Faith in the Church. There was not much attention to perspective or anatomical correctness. Renaissance art, however, shifted the focus to the beauty of the human body. Perspective became important, and artists studied anatomy in order to accurately reflect the human body when executing their works of art. The first of these was Donatello's David. There is also Michelangelo's David, the Pieta, etc. Each of these used a biblical character but the goal was to glorify the human body, and by interference, Man.
So where am I going with this? Not too far . . . I'm in Florence! Both of these 'errors' seem obvious to me because they violate some principle to which I hold. Primarily, those principles are about truth: we should always seek it, and we should not violate it ourselves. But what happens when it's not so obvious? What happens when it's my own pet blindspot? I would like to believe that I would pursue truth, speak truth, value truth. But I know I also am a fallen human being and that I don't always live up to my high ideals.
God deserves our worshp, our allegience, ourselves. How often have we done exactly what the Italian Renaissance artists did? Too often we have our own agenda and dress it up on God-talk or Church-talk. Too often as a result, God or the church is maligned as a result, and individuals are hurt or alienated and turn away from the only One who can save them. I pray, with Paul, that I can stay out of the way sufficiently so that the only stumbling block another person will encounter is the cross of Christ. And that means, among other things, being a person who values and pursues truth.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
“Missionary Elenctics”
By Dr. Jeff Arthurs, PhD
I read a great paper recently at an academic conference written by David Ridder. The title is “The Application of Missionary Elenctics to Preaching to Postmoderns.” “Elenctics” was new to me. It comes from the Greek, elencho, “to expose, bring to light, convict.” When missionaries study a culture, they note how the people’s own conscience convicts them. Missiologists often point to Romans 2:14-15 to describe elenctics:
“. . . even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them. . . . ”
Finding postmodernism’s definition of sin is tough, but maybe not as tough as we might suppose. Ridder demonstrates that American postmoderns do have a sense of right and wrong, and that sense is congruent with parts of biblical revelation. Based on “field research” (conversations with co-workers at a coffee shop) and analysis of pop culture media, Ridder identifies four elenctic themes. I’ll give you two, and you can guess the other two:
Power is attractive, but it has a dark side which ensnares us. Think of the current fad of superhero movies: Spiderman 3, Dark Knight, Ironman, and Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. These movies still have silly comic book qualities, but the genre sure has grown up. The good guys, fascinated with power, realize that a thin line separates them from the bad guys. Watch Oprah and notice how often the theme of power emerges. We want it, but we must use it responsibly, and often we don’t.
Something is wrong with this world, and maybe its me! In the book Wicked, Gregory Maquire, a prominent voice of postmodernism, has one of his characters give voice to the first part of this theme: “We don’t embrace violence but we don’t deny its existence—how can we deny it when its effects are all around us? That kind of denial is sin, if anything is.” A movie like Blood Diamond explores both parts of the theme. The evils associated with the diamond mining industry hit home with pomos because they feel genuine angst for partnering with such industries. In other words, when some pomos buy diamonds, they feel like are making the world a worse place, not better. The OT prophets would agree with that sense of guilt.
Let’s think like missionaries as we minister in our own country. Remember your elenctics.
I read a great paper recently at an academic conference written by David Ridder. The title is “The Application of Missionary Elenctics to Preaching to Postmoderns.” “Elenctics” was new to me. It comes from the Greek, elencho, “to expose, bring to light, convict.” When missionaries study a culture, they note how the people’s own conscience convicts them. Missiologists often point to Romans 2:14-15 to describe elenctics:
“. . . even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them. . . . ”
Finding postmodernism’s definition of sin is tough, but maybe not as tough as we might suppose. Ridder demonstrates that American postmoderns do have a sense of right and wrong, and that sense is congruent with parts of biblical revelation. Based on “field research” (conversations with co-workers at a coffee shop) and analysis of pop culture media, Ridder identifies four elenctic themes. I’ll give you two, and you can guess the other two:
Power is attractive, but it has a dark side which ensnares us. Think of the current fad of superhero movies: Spiderman 3, Dark Knight, Ironman, and Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. These movies still have silly comic book qualities, but the genre sure has grown up. The good guys, fascinated with power, realize that a thin line separates them from the bad guys. Watch Oprah and notice how often the theme of power emerges. We want it, but we must use it responsibly, and often we don’t.
Something is wrong with this world, and maybe its me! In the book Wicked, Gregory Maquire, a prominent voice of postmodernism, has one of his characters give voice to the first part of this theme: “We don’t embrace violence but we don’t deny its existence—how can we deny it when its effects are all around us? That kind of denial is sin, if anything is.” A movie like Blood Diamond explores both parts of the theme. The evils associated with the diamond mining industry hit home with pomos because they feel genuine angst for partnering with such industries. In other words, when some pomos buy diamonds, they feel like are making the world a worse place, not better. The OT prophets would agree with that sense of guilt.
Let’s think like missionaries as we minister in our own country. Remember your elenctics.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
A New Course on the Holy Spirit
By Dr. John Jefferson Davis
“God’s love has been poured into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, who has been given to us”: Rom.5:5
I am excited about a new course that I will be offering for the first time this semester, “TH715: Seminar in Pneumatology: the Person and Work of the Holy Spirit.” Strange as it may seem, it appears that it has been decades since a course devoted exclusively to the person and work of the third person of the Holy Trinity has been offered at Gordon-Conwell. In recent years there has been a renaissance of theological interest in the Holy Spirit, due in significant part to the modern Pentecostal and charismatic revivals here and around the globe, and also to the re-emergence of the Orthodox churches on the world scene after the fall of communism in Eastern Europe, bringing a fresh appreciation in the West of Orthodoxy’s theological understandings of the role of the Spirit in the church and in Christian spirituality. Contemporary theologians such as Moltmann and Pannenberg are now asking how the reality of the Holy Spirit can be more fully integrated across the full range of topics in systematic theology.
I have organized this new course historically, beginning with the Old and New Testament teachings on the Holy Spirit; moving then to the experience of the Holy Spirit in the early church; the Montanist movement; the development of Trinitarian theology and pneumatology in the fourth century by the Cappadocian fathers; developments in the Middle Ages, including the filioque controversy; the Reformation and modern periods; and in the latter part of the course, giving extensive attention to the modern Pentecostal revival, and issues of spiritual gifts, tongues, prophecy, “cessationist vs. non-cessationist” points of view, and criteria for the “discernment of spirits.” My hope is to provide to the students who are taking the course fresh insights from biblical, historical, and theological sources, with a view to practical applications for church ministry and personal spiritual growth.
If you would like to take a look at the syllabus and its extensive list of required and recommended readings, you can click on the provided link and download the full document. May we all find fresh energy, power, and joy through a deeper experience of the person and presence of the Holy Spirit!
“God’s love has been poured into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, who has been given to us”: Rom.5:5
I am excited about a new course that I will be offering for the first time this semester, “TH715: Seminar in Pneumatology: the Person and Work of the Holy Spirit.” Strange as it may seem, it appears that it has been decades since a course devoted exclusively to the person and work of the third person of the Holy Trinity has been offered at Gordon-Conwell. In recent years there has been a renaissance of theological interest in the Holy Spirit, due in significant part to the modern Pentecostal and charismatic revivals here and around the globe, and also to the re-emergence of the Orthodox churches on the world scene after the fall of communism in Eastern Europe, bringing a fresh appreciation in the West of Orthodoxy’s theological understandings of the role of the Spirit in the church and in Christian spirituality. Contemporary theologians such as Moltmann and Pannenberg are now asking how the reality of the Holy Spirit can be more fully integrated across the full range of topics in systematic theology.
I have organized this new course historically, beginning with the Old and New Testament teachings on the Holy Spirit; moving then to the experience of the Holy Spirit in the early church; the Montanist movement; the development of Trinitarian theology and pneumatology in the fourth century by the Cappadocian fathers; developments in the Middle Ages, including the filioque controversy; the Reformation and modern periods; and in the latter part of the course, giving extensive attention to the modern Pentecostal revival, and issues of spiritual gifts, tongues, prophecy, “cessationist vs. non-cessationist” points of view, and criteria for the “discernment of spirits.” My hope is to provide to the students who are taking the course fresh insights from biblical, historical, and theological sources, with a view to practical applications for church ministry and personal spiritual growth.
If you would like to take a look at the syllabus and its extensive list of required and recommended readings, you can click on the provided link and download the full document. May we all find fresh energy, power, and joy through a deeper experience of the person and presence of the Holy Spirit!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)