To Read Cover to Cover or Not? The Ethics of Reviewing Books

I recently received an inquiry about the expectations of book reviewers – are you meant to read the book under examination in full? Perhaps to some the answer is self-evident (“yes!”), and I follow this practice in general, but there are some exceptions.

Here are some factors to consider.

A. Is the book a reference work (like a dictionary)? If I were asked to review a new translation of the Babylonian Talmud, I don’t think I would be expected to read it in full. So, what do you do? For dictionaries, I try to read a good  representative sample (if there are 1000 articles, I try to read, let’s say, 50-75).

B. If the book is a commentary, this fits somewhat into the reference category, but it really depends. Commentaries that are short (let’s say 500 pages or less), I tend to read in full. For really long commentaries (like Reumann’s Philippians), I read the introduction in full and very carefully, and then I chose 10-20 key passages (esp. controversial ones) that I read carefully.

C. Textbooks – again, if it is short, I would suggest reading it in full. If it is a very lengthy one, I might, again, read a very good representative sample.

D. Part of the matter has to do with the reviewing journal – for a very short review (100 words, let’s say), you are not expected to give a heavily critical analysis. So, for a long reference work, you are probably not expected to read the whole work in full. For a major journal, and if you are doing a longer review (let’s say 1500 words), it is expected, I think, that you will look it over with a very close eye. You may have to raise this question to your editor, if it is unclear. I don’t think this kind of question will be taken with offense if the book is obviously very long and is a reference work.

E. Some books naturally require a thorough read, even if it is long (Campbell’s DoG comes to mind!). So, monographs pretty much depend on a word-for-word read.

Let me say this, though I tend to err on the side of reading the whole book, if I already have a good sense for the argument or content of a chapter, I am able to read it quite fast (not “skimming,” just reading that requires little processing). Also, the more you read (well), the faster your reading speed becomes, I have noticed.

 

Thoughts? What are your professional book reviewing practices?

David Garland publishes commentary on Luke (ZECNT)

I just received David Garland’s new Luke commentary in the post (Zondervan Exegetical series). I will give a report and review later on, but I wanted to just note that it is out and can be viewed here. Garland is a really fantastic commentator – his work on Mark (NIVAC) and 1 Corinthians (BECNT) are two very fine commentaries and ones I consult regularly. I have not read a commentary on Luke before and I look forward to dipping into Garland’s contribution. My first impression is that it appears a bit too technical for the commentary series’ audience, but as a researcher and teacher I am sure appreciating it!

One of the best features of this ZECNT series is that it forces the commentator to think very deeply about the main idea of each passage, the rhetorical flow of argumentation or the narrative, and how each and every story or passage could be applied to Christian life today. No wonder the commentary is over 1000 pages and contains 76 chapters!

Moral Formation According to Paul (Review)

I am completing a review of James Thompson’s Moral Formation According to Paul for Interpretation (Baker, 2011) and I found this to be a valuable contribution to the subject of Pauline ethics. It is important to note that the field of “Pauline ethics” did not really exist prior to a few decades ago. Thanks to the efforts of folks like Victor Furnish, Brian Rosner, Michael Gorman, Richard Hays, Morna Hooker, and David Horrell, there is a serious interest in this subject.

Thompson, essentially, tries to accomplish two things. First, he urges that Paul’s primary concern as a missionary/pastor was to shape the identity and ethos of his believing communities. Paul, thus, was not a “theologian” who taught doctrines to foster “belief” alone. Rather, he was interested in shaping these churches and he was very concerned with their behavior and lifestyle as of first importance, not just “FYI” stock exhortation.

You might say, “Duh!,” but it has been one of the effects of the Reformation to separate “faith” from “works” and, unfortunately, “ethics” has long been subsumed under “works” and, thus, scholars of previous generations had a tendency to see it as something Paul was not interested in in the first place.

The second major objective of Thompson’s book is to set Paul’s ethical thinking within the context of Hellenistic Judaism. Now, folks like Wayne Meeks have done a splendid job comparing Paul to the Greco-Roman moralists of his age, but what Thompson offers is an engagement that also sets him in conversation with Philo, Josephus, Tobit, 4 Maccabees, and other early Jewish texts when it comes to moral formation. The clear conclusion is that Diaspora Jews were very concerned with moral formation as well, and presumed the Torah to be the ultimate tool to suppress the fleshly passions. It is interesting, then, to see how Paul engages in this wider discussion of self-control (what Stowers calls “self-mastery”) and how he draws from the Christ event and the apocalyptic reality of new life as well as Scripture and the covenantal wisdom of his Jewish heritage.

Thompson is a very good communicator and has done good research, packing a lot of helpful information into a rather short book. I wish he had interacted with Gorman (which he does not at all) and reflected more on ancient models of participation in God and the matter of moral formation. Richard Hays has a nice essay on this subject  and I would have been interested in seeing this engaged in Thompson’s otherwise fine work.

In any case, if you are interested in Pauline ethics, you will find this book worthwhile and I warmly recommend it.

Interpretation Journal – new year, new issue, new publisher!

Interpretation: A Journal of Bible and Theology is one of my favorite periodicals – some of the finest articles, ones I frequently re-read and cite, come from this journal. It was recently announced that, while the editorial leadership would not change, the 2012 issues would be published by SAGE. This brings some benefits to readers for a few reasons. First, I think (?) institutions will be able to get better online access. Also, the webpage is now clearer and easier to navigate. Thirdly, for authors, Sage does a really fantastic job copyediting.

This announcement coincides with the release of the first 2012 issue on “Liturgy and Pentecost/Trinity Sunday.” As always, a really excellent collection of articles, but easily attractive are ones by Beverly Gaventa and Jeremy Begbie. Also, Susan Eastman (Duke Divinity) and James Dunn offer some major book reviews. See here. Somehow the articles are coming up free for me (without me logging into my university account), so maybe they are doing a free promo, so check it out soon!

UPDATE: Some of my librarian friends tell me that Sage will sell a subscription to Interpretation for $198 versus the old rate of $48. This is really unfortunate and puts libraries in a very difficult situation, having to consider eliminating journal subscriptions  - and it would be sad indeed to cancel Interpretation. I guess this is the serious downside to Sage’s take-over…

Steve Walton to Give Professorship Lecture – What is Progress in NT Studies?

One of my favorite NT theologians, Steve Walton (London School of Theology), will be installed as Professor of New Testament (a senior and distinguished ranking in the UK) on March 6. This is great news! Also, he will be giving what looks to be a very interesting inaugural lecture entitled “What is Progress in New Testament Studies?” Steve – inquiring minds want to know! Do tell! To whet your apetite for this lecture, here is the description:

New Testament Studies is in something of a crisis today. People in the churches find much of what goes on in university departments of Theology to be irrelevant to their concerns and needs. People who study the New Testament in universities and theological colleges find that scholars are asking a baffling array of different questions, and there seems no agreement about what is important, or which approaches to studying the New Testament are right or wrong, good or bad. On the other hand, those who teach and study the New Testament professionally sometimes find statements by church leaders and members about the New Testament’s view of something to be superficial or midsleading, if not wrong. How does the discipline move forward today?

In his inaugural lecture, Professor Steve Walton will seek to address the state of New Testament Studies by focusing on what progress is in this area of study. This will involve asking:

• why studying the New Testament is important, especially in an academic setting;
• what ‘progress’ is in general and to what extent it is desirable;
• the relationship of believers’ and academic reading of the New Testament;
• what is most important in studying the New Testament;
• where New Testament Studies might go in the future.

This will be a significant attempt by a Christian practitioner of New Testament Studies to reflect on and answer a vital question.

Indeed! Oh Steve – I wish I could be there to cheer you on and hear your message. I am sure it will be published in due time (Tyndale Bulletin perhaps?). If you want to learn more about the lecture, see here. Do wish Professor Walton a hearty congrats via FB or by email, if you can!

Spirituality According to Paul – Rodney Reeves (Book Review)

Perhaps my biggest research interest is in the subject of discipleship in the New Testament, and especially in Paul. So, when I saw the title Spirituality According to Paul: Imitating the Apostle of Christ (Rodney Reeves, IVP, 2011), I quickly got hold of a copy. Here is Reeves’ big idea

Participation in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ was the template of Paul’s spirituality. (15)

Working from the confession in 1 Cor 15:3-8, Reeves breaks Pauline spirituality into three parts:

Paul believed the gospel was a Spirit-filled life that empowered Christ believers to sacrifice themselves (death), to rely on each other (burial), and to live as heavenly people (resurrection). (16)

The background of the book is very interesting to me and relevant to many of us who teach Paul. Rodney came to realize that normal students are not nearly as excited about the scholarly debates on Paul that we researchers get all bent out of shape over – imagine that! At the end of the day, Rodney’s students wanted to know what my students also want to know – what would it look like to follow Paul’s advice today? Was Paul right? Is Paul the model of a good Christian?

They want to take Paul’s advice seriously. It’s not enough for them to understand the historical meaning of Paul’s letters. They want to know–they must know!–if Paul’s gospel still matters today, especially since the apostle dealt with some of the same issues we face: gender battles, social contests, racial prejudice, marital struggles, sexual vices…Because Paul’s instructions are so specific, based on his experiences and ideas about what the gospel should look like in his time, we can’t help but wonder: is Paul’s timely advice timeless? (10)

The book is divided, sensibly, into three sections, focused on “crucified with Christ,” “buried with Christ,” and “raised with Christ.” The first set of chapters (under “crucified”) focuses on epistemology and cruciformity – two of my favorite subjects! These chapters are spot on, full of good wisdom. The second set of chapters, under the heading of “buried with Christ,” seem to all be about community and the social “body of Christ.” Death to self means being freed up to live and love together. The last section, “raised with Christ,” looks at themes like confession, hope, and engaging the powers of the world.

Rodney ends with a helpfully summarizing conclusion. What would it mean to be like Christ? How do we imitate Paul, imitating Christ?

He [Paul] would remind us of “his ways” in Christ Jesus, that the gospel is imitating Christ in his death, burial and resurrection, walking in the power of his Holy Spirit…To live the crucified life, to share life together as the body of Christ, to walk in the resurrection power of Christ would be good news for his time and for our time. (235)

I really enjoyed reading this book, mainly because Rodney is a skilled communicator with loads of good illustrations and a winsome style. Two things are important to keep in mind if you are interested in this book. First, I found the title a bit misleading. I don’t hear people use the language of “spirituality” very much. On the one hand, it has a classic ring to it of piety, but Reeves mentions life in the Holy Spirit, so it could be directly related to that as well. I think perhaps “Discipleship” may have worked better for the book, if only for clarity. Or he could have dedicated one whole chapter to life in the Holy Spirit.

The other thing is that this is not an academic-y, theoretical work. It is more of a pastoral work. That is not a criticism – I am excited that scholars like Rodney wish to address a broader audience. I only mention this because researchers will not find much “new” material here. Also, I had trouble working out key ideas or themes as I moved from chapter to chapter. Often, after reading a chapter, I thought to myself, “He has some really good points, but what is the chapter’s main idea or argument?” For many chapters, I could not answer that question. I will carry away from this book “trees” insights mostly, not very many “forest” ones.

If you are interested in Pauline ethics, discipleship, and/or epistemology, this is a fun and worthwhile book to read.

Getting Saved According to Talbert and Whitlark (Book Review)

Normally, I am not excited when I order a book and find out the essays have been previously published, but I am willing to make an exception for an excellent volume I recently read entitled Getting “Saved”: The Whole Story of Salvation in the New Testament (Eerdmans, 2011), edited by Charles Talbert and Jason Whitlark. This book is unique in many regards, but it is basically a nice collection of scholarly essays by Charles Talbert and Jason Whitlark, with complementary contributions by A.E. Arterbury, C.A. Barbarick, S.J. Hafemann, and M.W. Martin. It appears, though, that Talbert is the real fountainhead of this project, Whitlark is his junior co-author, and the rest of the contributors strengthen their case.

So what is the case? Basically, it is a critical interaction with E.P. Sanders and his understanding of Paul’s pattern of religion. For many Paulinists, this is a rather tired and boring subject now – we’ve been over this issue again and again! However, two things are striking in this regard. First, one gets the sense that Charles Talbert has been working along a consistent trajectory of study for over a decade – a masterful achievement. Thus, this collection is valuable because it is coherent and cumulatively convincing. Secondly, the chapters cover most of the books of the NT, not just Paul, so this is an excellent examination of Talbert’s argument spread across the whole NT. This brings New Perspective issues to all parts of NT study.

OK, what is Talbert arguing? In the kick-off essay, “Paul, Judaism, and the Revisionists,” Talbert argues that Sanders generous view of “covenantal nomism” does not account for some strands of Judaism that was, in fact, legalistic. Following Gathercole and Eskola, Talbert sees the problem of “works of the law” as synergism that Paul was combatting. What Sanders was focused on was getting in and staying in. The key to Talbert’s critique is that religion is more than just club membership.

One’s participation in Christ results not only in forgiveness and deliverance, but also in enablement. What is it that enables Christians’ works after their entry into Christ? It is their empowerment by God. (p. 28).

Talbert states it again later in the essay

For Paul, grace and obedience are not successive stages in religious life but are bound together in each moment as root and fruit. For the apostle, obedience is not so much motivated by gratitude for past grace as empowered by an enabling God from moment to moment. (p. 34)

Many of the essays draw from an understanding that the new covenant promise of Jeremiah expected God to empower his people to live in the ways he outlined by virtue of the covenant. Thus, Talbert et al can refer to a kind of “new covenant piety” in the NT texts.

New covenant piety then coveys the notion that post-conversion faithfulness or obedience is grounded in God’s prior and ongoing empowerment of that faithfulness or obedience (4)

The contributions in this volume are all well-researched, fair, and mostly persuasive. This brings a proper depth and complexity to the “new covenant” relationship beyond covenantal nomism. If nothing else, I will keep my eye out for other books and essays by Talbert. He is one of the most cogent critics of the New Perspective and he has made me re-think much about grace, justification, and divine power in the New Testament.

Jesus Conference at Lincoln Christian University in October 2012

Lincoln Christian College (Illinois) is holding a special two-day conference October 4-5 (2012) featuring contributors to a forthcoming book entitled Jesus, Criteria, and the Demise of Authenticity (T & T Clark; eds. Chris Keith and Anthony Le Donne). Conference speakers will include: Dale Allison Jr., Mark Goodacre, Chris Keith, Anthony Le Donne, Scot McKnight, Rafael Rodriguez, Jens Schroeter, Loren Stuckenbruck, and Dagmar Winter – wow! That sounds pretty good!

For more information, see www.lincolnchristian.edu/jesusconference.

Also, some scholarships for students are available.

Creed, Worldview, and Counter-Reality

Last week I began a series of lectures on the Apostes’ Creed in my Foundations course. I tend to make this provocative statement to my students from the outset:

God doesn’t care for you to invest in a belief that doesn’t change you.

Put another way, if a core Christian belief doesn’t effect who you are and how you live, it has not served its purpose. God is not in the business of checking beliefs off of some kind of divine list so that people can go to heaven. In order to make good sense of the centrality of Christian creeds, we must be able to connect it to worldview. Worldview is, obviously, how we look at all of reality. It is the lens through which we view ourselves, the people around us; it shapes our values, our view of time and space, our appreciation of art and beauty, who we become friends with, what job we choose, how we spend money and strength; worldview dictates what we think is right and wrong. If we have failed to teach young Christians about worldview, we have basically failed them altogether! (A bold statement, but one I believe as part of my worldview!)

So, studying creeds (whether Apostles’ or Nicene or whatever) is not just something egghead theologians do to pass the time. It is not nit-picking – it can be nit-picking, but its primary intention is to shape the right worldview based on the right telling of the story of the identity of God, the world, humans, and history (and the future).

That is not the end of the issue. The world already has a view and story. The world already has its own brand of reality. Society has developed a system of beliefs and values that we are spoon-fed from day one. Is it a good worldview and is it the right worldview? The Bible, I suggest, would say no on both accounts. Classically, we could turn to Romans 12:2

Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is–his good, pleasing and perfect will (NIV).

Jesus deals with this on a regular basis, especially in his parables. Luke 18 recounts Jesus’ parable about the tax collector and the Pharisee. The common Jewish worldview held that tax collectors were vile, mischievous scoundrels, hardly worth God’s attention and never worthy of his approval. The opposite was the Pharisee – the holy and separate, Torah obedient servant of God. Jesus inverts this assumed social paradigm when it comes to the humble tax collector and the haughty Pharisee. That day, only the tax collector was exalted by God.

What Jesus (and Paul) press their fingers on is the need for a new worldview- the “world” as it is has been skewed by sin – right is wrong, wrong is right, up is down, good is bad, etc… It is not enough to just “do as God tells us” – the course correction will require nothing less than the destruction of one worldview and the development of another. Richard Bauckham, discussing the way Revelation approaches this, writes thusly

…one of the functions of Revelation was to purge and to refurbish the Christian imagination. It tackles people’s imaginative response to the world, which is at least as deep and influential as their intellectual convinctions. It recognizes the way a dominant culture, with its images and ideals, constructs the world for us, so that we perceive and respond to the world in its terms…In its place, Revelation offers a different way of perceiving the world which leads people to resist and to challenge the effects of the dominant ideology. (p. 159 of The Theology of the Book of Revelation)

Let me give two movies as examples of how to think about worldview. The first example, tired and overused as it may be, is still poignant – The Matrix. The Matrix is its own world, but, more importantly, it proposes its own worldview where people inhabit an environment with rules, reality, values, etc… Alternatively, there is the “real world” outside of the matrix. That alternative place has an alternative set of rules, values, reality, etc… When Neo is awakened to the real world, he must keep everything he learned in mind when he goes back into the other world (the Matrix). Hence, he has to repeat to himself, “there is no spoon,” because the matrix “reality” would naturally force him into the limits of its ostensible rules. Cypher, on the other hand, knows about the “real world” and lives in it, but much prefers the world of the Matrix (“ignorance is bliss”).

What does the creed do for Christians? It is the conscious reminder of an alternative world that we must “confess” exists and challenges the so-called world all around us. I am not talking about “creation” versus “evolution” or “biblical faith” versus “science.” I am talking about worldview. More on that later.

A second movie example is Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade - my favorite of the Indiana Jones trilogy. When Indiana goes on the final j0urney to the Holy Grail he must overcome a series of tests. Seeing the strewn skeletons, he realizes that these tests are going to be tricky. Using only their natural senses and instincts, the other pursuers of the Grail failed the tests. Indy has the advantage of having his father’s diary which gives him the proper clues to pass the tests. While walking through each trial, he mutters the clues from the diary under his breath – presumably he does this to continually remind himself of the right way to survive these tests (“only the penitent man…the penitent man…”). He must buck his natural instincts (which are part of his reality) and dare to embrace an alternate reality (of the diary)  - sometimes doing the exact opposite of what he normally would.

This comes to one climax in the “leap of faith.” He must jump across a chasm that seems endlessly vast. His worldview would say it is impossible and he must go back. But the diary encourages him to take a leap. In faith (!) he steps out and, sure enough, there is a special (tangible) bridge that was designed to blend in with the cavern so as to be invisible. Indy accepted an alternative worldview and was able to do what before seemed impossible. This was not just wishful thinking – there was a real bridge, but it was hidden to those who did not have “eyes to see” and “ears to hear (the diary’s prompt)!

What these examples offer is both a given worldview and a counter-reality. A counter-reality is an alternative worldview that opposes the dominant one. The Christian creeds serve an important role, not only in constructing a counter-reality, but sustaining it as well by public, repeated confession. Just as Indy had to mutter the words of the diary to himself. Just like Neo had to say out loud, “There is no spoon,” so the Apostles’ Creed is “confessed” as a continual work of reinforcing a counter-reality.

This is different than simply repeating a “Pledge of Allegiance.” When one is conscious of the given “worldview” and seeks to develop a “counter-reality,” creeds (of whatever kind) take on a whole new meaning. It is not a pledge or recommitment. It is self-inflicted brain-washing (can this be a good thing?). Let me give another example

My wife and I recently watched The Help, a film about the lives of African-American maids in Mississippi in the 1960s. One maid, Aibileen, cares for Mae Mobley (age 3 or 4?). Mae’s parents are neglectful of her and sometimes physically rough and verbally abusive. Everyday, though, Aibileen made it a habit of sitting Mae Mobley down and having her repeat these words: “You is kind. You is smart. You is important.” Over and over again. Why did Aibileen do this? Whether she knew the psychology behind it or not, she understood that Mae lived in a “world” where she was considered insignificant and dumb. Aibileen dared to establish a counter-reality for Mae. Her 9-word mantra was a creed.

To confess a creed is not to inform others (in the first instance). It is to dare to believe in something that the world does not. Moreover, though, the counter-reality a creed constructs is not about quibbling over the virgin birth or whether Jesus really descended into hell. It is all about how the world of the creed shapes all of life (not just theological debates). What is real? What is good? What does it mean to be human? What is God like? Where is history going? Is community important? Are humans inevitably destined to fail?

There are some serious implications if this is what creed is all about. We need to invest more in teaching about worldview to Christians and teaching about the creeds in ways that help Christians and churches to own a worldview that aligns with Scripture. Worldview, again, is not about believing the world was created in six literal days and not by evolution. The key aspect of worldview when it comes to that issue is more about whether you believe God stands behind the order, beauty, and purposes of the world, or whether the world just sort of popped into being apart from a higher plan and purpose. One could be a “theistic evolutionist” and firmly believe a God of order and beauty has been guiding history all along (N.T. Wright does a good job of explaining this when he points out how Jesus mentions that God feed ravens [Luke 12:24]. Doesn’t Jesus know how ravens get food naturally? Yes, of course! But Jesus was making the point that God is intimately involved in provisions, certainly ones that are miraculous, but also the day-by-day natural processes of life on earth.)

We need to know what we are saying when we confess (whether in hymn, chorus, or chant) and we need to know the worldview implications of what we are saying. We also need to be aware that the creed is going to rub people the wrong way if we are living in light of that worldview. Not because Christians hate science, society, or politics, but because we think outside of the box and side with the weak and the poor in radical ways that push against the dominant value system. Unbelievers have long felt our doctrines to be unbelievable – now I want them to say that about our lifestyle of being other-centered and cruciform! We need to re-claim Christianity, not just as a set of beliefs for a religion, but as a philosophy that makes claims about all of life.

Jesus Have I Loved Blog Tour Stop #2: ch. 1, Jesus Stories in the Gospels and Paul

[Welcome to Stop #2 on the Jesus Have I Loved blog tour - did you miss the first stop? Check out J.R. Daniel Kirk's opening words here!]

“When I first met Paul, I simply did not like him.” These words come from J.R. Daniel Kirk, Assistant Professor of New Testament at Fuller Theological Seminary. Some people are attracted to the Jesus of the New Testament, but find Paul “distasteful, offensive, oppressive, exclusive, confusing, arrogant, or just plain wrong.”

As for me, I never really had this problem. I have always been a “Paul” guy – I never found him troublesome, though I can see now why people have raised eyebrows over some of his statements. In fact, it is only in the last few years that I have fallen in love with the Gospels! Call me backwards!
In any case, part of what Kirk is interested in in his new book Jesus Have I Loved, But Paul? is a narrative approach to this problem of the sweet Jesus and the stern Paul. Ultimately, Kirk desires to unite Paul and Jesus under one broader story of God’s redemption:

The God of Israel acted decisively in the person of Jesus to restore God’s rule and reconcile the whole world to himself. (9)

God is the main character of the biblical narrative, and the Jesus stories of the Gospels claim to be God’s long-anticipated return to bring the narrative to its definitive resolution (11)

By looking at the beginning of Mark (1:1-2) and Romans (1:1-3), Kirk persuasively identifies the striking similarities in terminology and perspective – the “gospel” involves the good news of God’s Son. Kirk goes on to observe that both Paul and the Evangelists underscore how Jesus takes up the mission and identity of Israel to bring restoration and salvation.

If you want to know the theo-narratological foundation of Kirk’s book, here it is:

Jesus as we meet him on the pages of the Gospels is not living out a self-contained story. He is acting out a final, climactic scene in the ongoing drama of Israel that stretches back to creation and comes to its promised resolution with his death and resurrection. And we see the same claim in Paul.

Kirk does not sweep under the carpet the clear differences between Paul’s perspective and that of Jesus. One of his most important points is that they stand on opposite sides of the resurrection (see pg. 20). I think Frank Matera in his New Testament Theology makes a similar point that the Synoptics and the Pauline tradition may seem different largely because of their “starting points.” Matera writes,

The starting point of the Synoptic tradition is Jesus’ proclamation of the kingdom of God…The starting point of the Pauline tradition is the gospel about Jesus Christ: the good news of what God has accomplished in the death and resurrection of his Son. (p. xxix).

Evaluation

I found Kirk’s attempt to draw Jesus and Paul into the same broader story to be successful. When you read his very well-written, clear prose, you can immediately recognize the influence of people like N.T. Wright, Mike Gorman, Richard Hays, and Scot McKnight – and why not! He synthesizes and employs their contributions carefully and adroitly.

At the same time, I felt that Kirk did not deal with one of the most perplexing questions that distinguish the Jesus tradition from the Pauline tradition – that famous conundrum expressed by Alfred Loisy – “Jesus came preaching the Kingdom, and what arrived was the Church.” Why does Paul so consciously avoid mention of the Kingdom of God (save but a few times) and why is he is persistent in his use of the language of the Church? Inquiring minds want to know, Daniel!

A second lingering issue for me is whether or not it is too easy to fall in love with Jesus and sweep under the rug just how offensive Jesus really was. When I was teaching a Gospel of John grad course, we watched a film based on the Fourth Gospel (yes, with Desmond from Lost as Jesus!). It became so crystal clear to me that, at every turn, Jesus pokes and prods and provokes. Any time anyone tries to buddy up to Jesus or win his favor, he slaps them with a strange or offensive saying! I am reminded of Mark Galli’s Jesus Mean and Wild where he mentions the popular tendency to attribute to Jesus a “gumby-like quality.”

Thirdly, I would just say that while Kirk’s narrative approach is good, I was a bit surprised he did not also push for a “missional” approach. Now, he may be drawing the two in together, but I was expecting (and hoping for) explicit interaction with missional theology. It would only serve to strengthen his argument, I would presume.

Finally, I think in dealing with the matter of the Gospels and Paul, it would have been nice to have a bit of discussion about genre. Perhaps there is a clue to why we have such a warm and fuzzy view of Jesus versus the stern Paul in the type of literature, rather than focusing on the story patterns of each group. The letter genre, being occasional, often lent itself to Paul scolding or admonishing his converts. Texts like 1 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 2 Corinthians, 2 Thessalonians, and even Romans at a few points bear the sharp edge of the apostolic concern for holding firm to the truth of the Gospel. On the other hand, a biography (if the Gospels fit this category) are not as acutely direct (this is a debatable point, I recognize). They are, by nature, indirect forms of protrepsis – at least the ancient varieties were, as Richard Burridge has demonstrated.

My last word is this: I think the impressions that Jesus and Paul are not on the same page are just that – impressions. Kirk does a good job drawing them both into the same story of the one God so as to dispel unfortunate presumptions.

The heart of the book is really about living out the drama of God, not just theoretically explaining it. So, while I was interested in the early chapters, the rubber meets the road with how this story approach helps us tackle the big ethical questions of our day. For interactions with those chapters, though, I defer to my blog tour friends who will be commenting on the subsequent chapters of the book in coming days. Enjoy!

[Don't Forget About the Tour Giveaway!]