Bake Two Cakes For The Gay Wedding?

As some of you may have seen, there is a meme floating around the internet at the moment that, in the wake of recent debates about Indiana's RFRA bill, is encouraging Christians to think about baking wedding cakes for gay marriages, a bit differently. This blog post, written by a certain Mrs. Kantrowitz, who has some seminary and ministry background, appeals to Matthew 5:41 to make its point. Yet, there are a few questions I have concerning this post and its conclusions. Here, then, I'd like to speak about those.)

To begin, I think it is important to consider the broader literary context so that we can more accurately acknowledge that and how Mt 5:41 is actually situated within the immediate context of Mt 5:38-42 (NB: Kantrowitz does refer to some of these verses). In fact, 5:38-42 is but part of the 5:38-48, which is part of 5:1-7:29. In the interest of the discussion, I've provided here the Greek (the original language of the New Testament) of the immediate context (i.e. 5:38-42) and a good English translation:

5:38 - Ἠκούσατε ὅτι ἐρρέθη, Ὀφθαλμὸν ἀντὶ ὀφθαλμοῦ καὶ ὀδόντα ἀντὶ ὀδόντος. 5:39 - ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν μὴ ἀντιστῆναι τῷ πονηρῷ: ἀλλ' ὅστις σε ῥαπίζει εἰς τὴν δεξιὰν σιαγόνα [σου], στρέψον αὐτῷ καὶ τὴν ἄλλην: 5:40 - καὶ τῷ θέλοντί σοι κριθῆναι καὶ τὸν χιτῶνά σου λαβεῖν, ἄφες αὐτῷ καὶ τὸ ἱμάτιον: 5:41 - καὶ ὅστις σε ἀγγαρεύσει μίλιον ἕν, ὕπαγε μετ' αὐτοῦ δύο. 5:41 - τῷ αἰτοῦντί σε δός, καὶ τὸν θέλοντα ἀπὸ σοῦ δανίσασθαι μὴ ἀποστραφῇς.

5:38 - "You have heard it said, 'Eye in exchange for an eye' and 'tooth in exchange for a tooth.' 5:39 - But I myself say to you, 'Never exchange stances with the evil person; but, if anyone slaps you on your right cheek, turn to him also the other one. 5:40 - And to the one wanting to make judgments against you and to take your inner garment, relinquish to him also your outer garment. 5:41 - And whoever may force you to go one mile, go with him two. 5:41 - To the one asking you, give, and the one wanting to borrow money from you, do not turn away.'"

The next thing to be noted is that within the even broader scope of Matthew's account, these comments come within the famed "Sermon on the Mount." The sermon or speech that Jesus is giving is a major section within the Matthean narrative. Throughout this speech Jesus alludes to, riffs on, and offers explanations of certain Old Testament (OT) passages. In the space of Mt 5:38-41, Jesus riffs on at least two OT passages: Lam 3:30 and Lev 19:18. While we could likely cite more references here (indeed, the Lex talionis is in view!), these two are at the forefront of the discussion. Lam 3:30 says, "Let he himself give a cheek to the one striking, let him be filled with reproach..." and Lev 19:18 says, "And do let your hand persecute, and do not inflict wrath upon the sons of the people, and love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord." These citations are not accidental and because they are the basis of Jesus' comments, they should be the guideposts in our attempts to understand what's said and meant.

I bring this up, however, not only to help us understand Jesus' remarks but also to push back against the context suggested by Kantrowitz. She begins her post by positing a Roman context. To be fair, I'd like to cite the first half of her post here:

In Jesus’ time, the nation of Israel was under Roman rule. The Israelites were allowed to live there and practice their faith for the most part, but they had to pay taxes to Caesar and obey the Roman laws. To the Israelites, the Romans were evil and ungodly. They had no place ruling over God’s chosen people in God’s chosen nation. That land had been promised to Moses and his descendants when God brought them out of Egypt. Their very presence in the land was blasphemous. One of the Roman laws stated that any man could be required to drop what he was doing and carry a Roman soldier’s equipment for him for up to a mile. In the sermon on the mount, with his followers gathered around him, Jesus referenced that law and told his followers what they should do in that case: “If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles.” ~Matthew 5:41

Kantrowitz is correct, in Jesus' time, Rome was in power and taxes were owed. However, the comment about obedience to Roman is not completely accurate for some religio-legal exceptions were granted to Jewish folks (e.g. See the Edict of Claudius mentioned in Petronius, Letter to Dora 19.304). Further, it is also not entirely accurate to suggest that all Jews/Israelites viewed the Romans as "evil and ungodly." A number of examples could be provided to show positive relationships and attempts at strategic relationships between Jews and Romans. (For more on this see HERE, for example.) Yes, of course, tensions did exist; animus was at work in various ways at various times. But what I'm really driving at here is that the main backdrop of Mt 5:38-41, or the whole Sermon on the Mount for that matter, is not propaganda against the Roman military, although the Roman soldier "may" be in view in 5:41, or powers-that-be. As I alluded to above, Jesus' main point of reference is the OT.

When Jesus references Lamentations it is on purpose; the overall context of Lam 3 is appropos. In Lam 3 we find the poet, at least for the first half of the lament (1-25), reflecting on the pain that has befallen him (as a microcosm of the nation) due to rejection of God. Yet, at 26, things turn. The poet realizes the error of his ways and from there on realizes the need to turn back to God; he values the deep and abiding patience of God. He recalls a previous time when he turned and then returned, whereafter he experienced God's graciousness. Even more, God worked in his favor and this is what he wants again; he prays that God would show up and overturn his enemies. Using court language and imagery, he prays that God would rule against the injustices inflicted by his enemies and in his favor.

I think this is important to consider because in the context of Mt 5:38-42, the context is also one of injustice. We see an unjust slap, an unjust robbing of clothing (which, by the way, would have left the person naked and thus, shamed), and an unjust force of walking a mile likely carrying heavy equipment. There may also be the unjust borrowing, that is taking-without-repaying, of money. The recurring theme, as we can see, is injustice. Jesus calls his disciples to endure the injustice inflicted upon them. Yet, this is not merely any injustice; rather, it is injustice endured for the sake of the Gospel.

And when I bear this in mind, this is precisely where I have another issue with Kantrowitz's commentary. She says:

Go with them two miles. That was not the advice that most of the people in the crowd that day had been hoping for. That was not the conclusion that they would have come to on their own, following this man that they hoped would lead them to victory over the Romans. That was certainly not respecting their religious beliefs — go with them two! What if their neighbors saw! What if seeing them carrying the Roman’s equipment caused other Jews to think the Roman oppression was okay? What if there was other work that needed to be done — good work, charity work even, but they spent all that time carrying equipment for the evil oppressor? But Jesus is not worried about any of that.

Do you see what just happened here? Do you see the homiletic switch embedded in these comments that twists the meaning of the passage? Let me point it out; it is right when she says: "...go with them two! What if their neighbors saw!" You see, if and when some Jewish person were forced to carry a Roman soldier's luggage, the thought on their minds wasn't, "I hope a neighbor doesn't see me...I'll be so embarrassed." That wasn't the hangup! What we have, rather, are accounts of some Jews being told by soldiers to carry their luggage on the Sabbath, which, of course, was a violation of their religious beliefs and practices (see the later Tos. Hag. 2). Of course, Jesus came from a Jewish line as did most, if not all, of The Twelve. Yet, the reason Jesus can say "go ahead and walk two miles on the Sabbath" to his disciples is because they are no longer bound to the Jewish Sabbath days. Thus, this is not a violation of Sabbath, even though it may be a personal injustice against them. In the midst of this personal injustice, they are not to retaliate with force. What they can do, as they walk, however, is continue sharing their faith. In fact, two miles may be advantageous because it gives them more time and opportunity to share. The one walking and sharing should have confidence that, like the lamenter, God can work in his (and their) favor.

This also means that Kantrowitz's comment "What if seeing them carrying the Roman’s equipment caused other Jews to think the Roman oppression was okay?" is rather moot. If a Jew were observing another Jew, they surely wanted have viewed the injustice against their fellow Jew okay. Further, they wouldn't have thought the Jewish person wanted to break the Sabbath to make a point that Romans are good. This is simply a homiletic sleight of hand that completely ignores the context.

The same is true of her next comment: "What if there was other work that needed to be done — good work, charity work even, but they spent all that time carrying equipment for the evil oppressor? But Jesus is not worried about any of that." As for other work needing to be done, Jews would not have done it on the Sabbath. And it is certainly a big rhetorical leap to try to pit charity work against carrying Roman luggage! If one were "forced" to do it, they had no "choice" in the matter, essentially. Charity work is a choice. The rhetoric here is setting up a false dichotomy. The point Kantrowitz is attempting to make is: Christians need to get busy doing charity work instead of talking about homosexuality because "But Jesus is not worried about any of that." Yet, this, too, is a sleight of hand and rhetorical exaggeration. Jesus is obviously concerned about something, otherwise he wouldn't be talking! And to suggest that because Jesus may be recorded as talking about one thing more than the other does not mean he had (and still has) no concern about the lesser thing spoken of; indeed, all it means is that we have contexts where one issue was talked about less than an other. Further, it is not logical at all to suggest that because there are big issues in the world that need dealt with, all the seemingly smaller ones should be shrugged off! I mean, try paying only your big bills while neglecting your smaller ones and see how that goes for you! The creditors won't like it! No, we must maintain that dealing with both seemingly large issues and small issues is needed. Additionally, what may appear to be a "small" or "minor" issue to one person, may, in fact, be a larger issue to others. You can't simply presume that because something seems more minor to you that it is to others, or that one should "not be worried about any of that." By the way, Jesus did talk about homosexuality. Among other places, see HERE.

But back to the text now. Above I noted that Lev 19:18 was also in the background of Jesus' comments. Actually, much of Leviticus is in mind in Mt 5-7. Yet, the point of this particular referent is, as noted above, not to resort to revenge. Jesus' disciples, when met with injustice, are not to retaliate with force. In fact, the choice not to react with revenge is itself a means of peaceful non-violent retaliation. Showing the grace of the Gospel while under injustice is a means of non-violent retaliation. Sharing the Gospel to one's persecutors is a means of non-violent retaliation. So, Jesus isn't telling his followers that retaliation is forbidden; in fact, retaliation against injustice is very Christian if one does it non-violently and out of a place of perfect heart disposition (this perfect heart disposition towards God and others is what is alluded to, by the way, in Mt 5:48). Jesus himself retaliated against injustice with this type of action, as did Paul. Their retaliation wasn't to simply submit and shut up, no, it was to react by sharing the Good News in the face of persecution!

And, personally, that's where I think the argument by Kantrowitz suffers the most...it totally misses this point! In homiletical fashion, she says:

Christians, our Jesus said, “Go with them two.”

If you believe gay marriage is immoral (I don’t, myself) and a gay couple comes into your shop and asks you to bake a cake for their wedding, what should you do? If God causes the sun to rise and the rain to fall on the wedding days of straight and gay couples, then what is our responsibility? If it is against the law to discriminate against people based on their sexual orientation, but you believe strongly that their lifestyle is immoral, what should you do?

Well, the cards are on the table now as the homosexualist hermeneutic is exposed: "If you believe gay marriage is immoral (I don’t, myself)..." After this litany of rhetorical questions expecting the answer "I should submit to the gay couple's demands," she forces the hand of the reader by saying that you are a) breaking the law, and b) discriminating, if you don't violate your conscience and do what they want you to. I don't expect most to see the rhetorical moves being made here as they're rather faint and it takes some careful looking...something many are won't to do. Just realize that now you're being discriminated against if you don't agree with the point being made, that is, you're being labeled a law breaker and a bigot (discriminator). Nevermind the fact that you're being discriminated against in this post, and nevermind the fact that the homosexualists are discriminating against you, nevermind any of that because, after all, as one of Jesus' own, he probably wouldn't worry about such things, right?

You see, there's a difference in holding firm while being discriminated against for the sake of the Gospel and, in the midst of that discrimination, throwing off one's beliefs and caving in to the pressure. There's a huge difference, in fact!.If a Christian business owner is discriminated against for refusing to bake a cake for gay weddings, it is one thing if that Christian holds firm to their convictions and shares the Gospel truth in the process. Yet, it is another thing if, in the midst of that discrimination they violate their conscience and cave in. Thus, it is also very problematic when she says this:

Christians, our Jesus said, “Go with them two.”

If you are wondering if it is worth being sued and losing your business to stand up for what you believe is right, if you miss the look of hurt in the couple’s eyes when you refuse them and only see an angry, media-driven, ACLU-led mob attacking the small business owner who is only standing up for what you believe in, what should you do?

So, as a Christian, is Jesus calling you to willingly lose your whole livelihood to help out the homosexualists agenda? That's what's implied here! Do you want to live in fear of being sued? No? Then support the agenda! Do you want to hurt that gay couple's feelings, even if only for a moment, knowing that if you do they'll turn around and tear you down for a lifetime? No? Of course, Jesus wasn't worried about such things? Right?!? Well, she's not done:

Christians, our Jesus said, “Go with them two.”

Jesus said, not only should you follow the law of the land — the law which in America for the most part prohibits discrimination against people because of their sexual orientation — not only should you do the minimum you have to do, you should go the extra mile. (Yes, that’s where that expression comes from!) Do *twice* what the law requires.

Oh my! The argument has gone off the rails here, I think! Do you see the issue? The "Law" Jesus supposedly talked about is now being equated with "the law of the land," that is, the law in America, a law which now prohibits discrimination against gay people! Do I even really need to make the point that this is incredibly anachronistic? Really, do I? Do I need to make the point that to equate ancient Jewish Law with modern American Law is terribly problematic? And do I really need to make the point that again, I thought she said Jesus wasn't concerned about such things?!? No friends, rest assured, Jewish Law is not equivalent to American Law and in Christian theology and practice, the mentality has always been that if the state issues forth a law that violates your conscience or belief, you don't adhere to it! And do I need to point out, once more, that while not discriminating against gay people is the talk of the day, the folks who often speak most about this completely miss the fact that or are okay with Christians (and folks of other religious persuasions) are being discriminated against?

So, in a complete turn of events, in a complete twisting and reorienting of this passage, she concludes:

If someone forces you to bake a cake for a gay wedding, bake for them two. Christians, our Jesus said to not only follow the law, but to rise to a higher standard of love. Christians should be the FIRST people baking cakes — for everyone who asks us. We should be known for our cake baking. People should be saying, “There go those crazy Christians again, baking cakes for everyone. They just won’t quit!” Then, when we share the reason for our wild, all-inclusive love, people will want to hear it. “Let your light shine before others,” said Jesus, “that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven.

SMH. Now, now we have moved to the full-on celebration of the homosexualist agenda. We, of all people, should be celebrating this thing that many of us see as deeply incompatible with historic, orthodox Christianity, the most. We are celebrating "our wild, all-inclusive love..." that folks will want to hear about. The problem with this is that Christianity is not simply inclusive and never has been. Christianity has always been at one and the same time inclusive and exclusive. And the mindset has always been: "You can come as you are, but you can't stay that way." No, we don't stamp sin good and celebrate it; instead, we look at it in the face and retaliate non-violently against the injustice it brings; we do that by preaching the Gospel. Celebrating sin is not a good deed that glorifies our Father in heaven; rather, it makes a mockery of the very thing he sent his Son to do. But she continues:

Christians, when we dig our heels in and insist on our right to discriminate, we are hurting people — we are hurting so many people, so deeply. Behind the ACLU and the liberal media are real people, who have been hurt again and again in the name of Christ. Christians, you and I have hurt them. I know most of us have really good intentions, but we are making Jesus the last thing they want to hear about. If we “snatch one person from the fire” by refusing to condone behavior we believe is immoral, but send hundreds and thousands of others fleeing churches and Christianity entirely, what have we really accomplished? Someone else will make that cake and fewer and fewer people will look to Christianity for love and hope. We will have won a battle that we were never called to fight in the first place, but lost the war.

Once again, nevermind the fact that Christians are being hurt and discriminated against. Nevermind the fact that others are digging their heels in to make this discrimination against Christians possible. Nevermind that these are real people, real Christians who have lost their livelihoods. Nevermind any of that!!! Forget it all...Jesus isn't worried about that. Nope, he's not worried about his own! Oh how sad this trope is! And how sad it is that the NT has been so twisted that condoning sin is now being promoted...in the name of being relevant. You see, the drive for cultural relevance is often what fuels the full-on march towards heresy. It's always been that way! But, just to assure you that she views herself as standing in the ranks of orthodox Christianity, Kantrowitz leaves these as her parting words: "Happy Easter, friends! The tomb is empty! Christ is risen!" Yes, she is certainly right about this claim; yet, one is left wondering if that's really all that relevant culturally, because, after all, if Christ is indeed risen and we go on sinning, and promoting/condoning sin, then that resurrection really isn't that relevant...even in clever and catchy memes and blog post titles.

The Bible & Ministry: An Interview with Dr. Ellen Marmon

Here is a recent interview I did with Dr. Ellen Marmon on "The Bible & Ministry". It is such a blessing to know Ellen and fun to interview her. The interview, which was a real treat has us discussing things like missions, calling, ministry, gay marriage / homosexuality, etc. You will be blessed watching/listening to this. Oh, by the way...it is audio only set to a still frame photo. That shouldn't deter you though...seriously, you'll be blessed by Ellen's pastoral nature, witticisms, and insights. Enjoy!

An Interview With Dr. Ben Witherington, Pt. 5: The Bible & Ethics

Here is the fifth installment of my conversation with Ben Witherington in which we discuss Pacifism, Homosexuality, and more.

An Interview With Dr. Ben Witherington, Pt. 4: The Bible & Theology

Here is the fourth installment of my conversation with Ben Witherington in which we discuss Calvinism, Dispensationalism, the future of United Methodism, and more.

An Interview With Dr. Ben Witherington, Pt. 3: The Bible & Science

Here is the third installment of my conversation with BW3.

New Book: Matthew & Mark Polyglot

I am pleased today to announce the release of my latest book, a co-authored project with Dr. Fred Long, which is a 6-language polyglot on the Gospels of Matthew & Mark. This work clocks in at nearly 500 pages (474 to be exact) and has every verse of each Gospel in Hebrew, Latin, Greek, English, German, and French. You can pick up your copy HERE or HERE. For more great language resources check out GlossaHouse.com. This is the third volume in the Hexapla series but is actually in print before Vol. 2, which focuses on Pauline literature and is currently being worked on. You can check out Vol. 1 on Luke-Acts here.

Is the Rapture Biblical? Afraid of Being Left Behind?

Here's a video I filmed a while back for Seedbed but which is just now, in light of the new "Left Behind" movie coming out, has been released. I hope you find it to be informative.

An Interview with Dr. Ben Witherington, Pt. 2: The Bible & History

For those interested, here's the second part of the interview with Dr. Ben Witherington, III. In the course of this discussion we talk about the 3 Quests for the Historical Jesus, the Synoptic Problem, Israel (then and now), archaeology, prophecy, influential scholars, historical criteria, and much, much more. Check it out.

An Interview With Dr. Ben Witherington III, Pt. 1: The Bible & Its Difficulties

Hello Friends, I just wanted to quickly bring to your attention the first video interview in a series of interviews that I'm doing with Dr. Ben Witherington. The first one deals with the topic of The Bible & Its Difficulties. We get into things like inerrancy, authority, inspiration, difficult passages, etc. Check it out below. Enjoy!

New Book "Mark: Illustrated Greek-English New Testament"

Today I am pleased to announce the release of my latest publication, a co-authored project with Dr. Fred Long, which is titled Mark: GlossaHouse Illustrated Greek-English New Testament. This is the first volume to be printed in GlossaHouse's "Illustrated" series of New Testament Greek works; so, be on the lookout for more! You can see a sample of the cover and a few pages of the interior below. You can pick up the book on Amazon HERE. For more great resources like this one visit www.GlossaHouse.com.

Is "Intimacy With God" A Biblical Idea?

Recently, I had the opportunity to review William Goodman's book Yearning for You: Psalms and the Song of Songs in Conversation with Rock and Worship Songs for the Review of Biblical Literature. I quite enjoyed reading the book and it both touched the nerve of and articulated clearly some of the potential theological problems inherent to modern Christianity's obsession over "intimacy with God," especially within the context of worship. I commend this book to all, especially those interested in worship, worship studies, and/or worship leading. You can get your copy HERE. As a preview, here's a paragraph from the full review, which you can download and/or read HERE.

One of the major insights garnered from this chapter, which is now exegetically sustained, is the reiteration that “The Song presents the delights (and occasionally the challenges) of a human sexual relationship, with no overt reference to God at all” (183), while the “Psalms present a desire for God which is not overly expressed in the language of eros or romance” (184). While placing the texts in conversation with one another shows that throughout the biblical canon “sexuality and spirituality are not divorced or opposed” (183), it also reveals that sexual-intimate language was used by the writers of Scripture to describe human-to-human interactions, not divine-to-human interactions. This insight, in my view, should cause those who compose modern worship songs and lead worship in modern settings, to tread much more carefully in how they describe the type of relationship Christians should seek and have with God today.

"Start Here!" - A New Grammar Resource For Students

I am pleased to announce today, the release of a new language resource for students.  The title of the project is:


Start Here! Grammatical Foundations for Students of New Testament Greek (A Student-Friendly Video Series). As the title suggests, this resource is video-oriented.  It is divided up into 6 main lessons and contains around 5+ hours of grammatical instruction (see image to the left - click an image to enlarge it).  Each lesson consists of a number of short, user-friendly / student-friendly videos and takes note of nearly 200 grammatical concepts that English learners / speakers who want to venture into learning Koine Greek should find helpful.  The videos are available for purchase ($80) HERE.  Once the purchase has been confirmed, buyers will be sent a download link.  I hope that these videos will assuage some of the fears that students, especially beginners, have when journeying into learning Koine Greek.

Free: 2 Videos & 1 Article

Hi friends,

I want to draw your attention to two FREE good videos, one of N.T. Wright and one of Greg Boyd, which you can see below.  In addition, I want to draw your attention to a free article by Steve Runge which you can download HERE.  Hope you find these resources helpful.

Are They Still Using The Criteria Of Authenticity?

Yesterday I started reading a book that I'm reviewing for a journal, a book that I'm already finding quite interesting.  This new (2013) work by Michael J. Thate is published by Mohr Siebeck in their WUNT series and is titled Remembrance of Things Past?: Albert Schweitzer, the Anxiety of Influence, and the Untidy Jesus of Markan Memory.  What I've read thus far is very well-written and thought-provoking.  I am keen to continue reading the rest of the volume.

Before I get to Thate's thoughts on Chris Keith's work (as well as those who contributed to the anti- or post-criteria work he edited), two things should be mentioned.  First, the end-goal of Thate's work should be noted.  He says that this volume of his attempts "to (re)situate the historische Jesu Frage within the wider discussion of secularization both in terms of its history of interpretation as well as its contemporary constructions" (14).  Further, it is an "experimental critique in the formation and reception of discourses and a theorizing of reception criticism" (14).  The book is divided into two parts and the first of these focuses heavily on Albert Schweitzer's work.  This leads me to the second point, that is, that Thate frames the whole discussion of historical Jesus studies in relation to Schweitzer, whom he (correctly) describes as one if its most influential and strongest voices, perhaps even "the strongest" (20).

In Thate's view, scholars have basically been attempting to break out of Schweiter's mould for centuries.  In separating from him, they might believe that they can make a long-standing name for themselves.  Scholars have longed to "escape his influence" and "'clear imaginative space' for new and exploratory approaches" to ancient Jesus materials.  The attempt to escape, an attempt often made by striving to get out of Schweitzer's straightjacket and free from historical criteria, is something Thate says is actually a "tip-of-the-cap" to "Schweitzer's enduring genius" (20).  That, I think, is a word on target.  

Now, what's really important to note is that this attempt to escape criteria, what Chris Keith and others are attempting to do, is what Thate, drawing on Ward Blanton and Jacques Derrida, describes as "outbidding" (16).  The attempt to escape from criteria is also an attempt to escape from the Quest for the Historical Jesus, which is characterized as unfounded and misguided by some scholars, including Morna Hooker, Scot McKnight, and others says Thate.  But what is outbidding exactly?

Outbidding occurs when an interpreter of a tradition presents themselves, as Blanton (Displacing Christian Origins, 8) notes, "as outdoing the religious communities or traditions in view" so that they might then present "their own thought as a kind of 'purified' or 'originary' version of the religious tradition they criticized."  In short, Thate is arguing that Chris Keith et. al., are outbidding when they attempt to overthrow Schweitzer and offer their own "pure" or "originary" alternatives; they see themselves as "doing Christianity one better" as it were, than their predecessor(s).

Thus, those like Keith, with their outbidding statements "entrench themselves against the history of interpretation as being misguided and operating within the wrong set of rationality" (16).  But, says Thate, what really happens when those who issue calls "to terminate the use of the 'traditional methods employed by Jesus historians' is that without analyzing the doxa of these 'traditional methods'", they simply "change into something more comfortable" (16).  Therefore, Thate contends that when Keith argues "if the historical-Jesus enterprise wishes to step out of its 'methodological quagmire' its only hope is through 'media criticism and memory theory,'" all he is really doing is taking the same old argument, that is, the "criterion" argument, and putting it in new dress.  Or to cite Thate, "Though certainly promising on many counts, the purported 'post-criteria' approach adopted here (i.e. by Keith et. al.) cannot escape the erotics of 'authenticity' or the gaze of the originary.  This is a Quest for the pure genre; the authentic genre; the real genre.  As such, this amounts to little more than the criterion of authenticity in drag" (17).

In the end, according to Thate, "A 'post-criteria' approach" is really a type of re-aestheticizing and re-racializing "of the very criteria which they think they have left behind" (17).  Readers of these anti- or post-criteria works, then, should not turn a blind eye to the processes of outbidding that are taking place and the redressing of old ideas; readers should beware.

Since I just started working through the volume, I still have some ground to cover.  But I look forward to engaging what already seems to be a very learned, informative, and well-written, study.  When I was writing my book Entering the Fray and writing my chapter on the the so-called Quests for the historical Jesus, or the history of historical Jesus research, one of the most enjoyable parts was reading and researching Schweitzer.  So, I'm glad to read up on this influential man once again and Thate's work is already proving an enjoyable entree.  I'm grateful for the opportunity to review this book.

PS:  You can also get the .pdf version of Thate's dissertation HERE.

On Being Bold And Humble As A Bible Scholar

In the first post of this series, which you can read HERE, I talked about the notion of being wrong as a Bible scholar.  In my discussion I considered the dangers of feeling like one always has to be right as well as the fears of being wrong.  I noted that these fears can sometimes causes learners to freeze up, to stop in their tracks, and to not just "go for it" and put themselves and their work out there.  This leads into today's post, which is concerned with being bold as a Bible scholar.

From the start, I should say that when I think about boldness I do so in relation to humility.  One can be both bold and humble at the same time; these two things are not necessarily in opposition to one another.  Being bold is not the same thing as being cold or being a jerk.  Being bold has to do with finding the courage to maintain and share one's values without compromising in the face of pressure.  It is not bandying to the whims or views of others so one is not left out of the "in crowd."

Within the academy there are at least two factors that scholars, especially young, budding, up-and-coming scholars, can easily fall prey to:  1) Buying into the so-called "majority views" at the fear/risk of being pegged as one of the non-majority; and 2) Compromising one's beliefs and views because some of those who are perceived to be thought leaders or the intellectually elite do not espouse such views.  Both of these things are very much alive and well in the academy!  I've experienced the pressure myself and I've seen my peers face the same.

But there comes a time in a scholar's life when they must decide that they will think through things critically, especially those things that seem to be popular at the moment.  Fads, as in any sphere, come and go.  People who buy into fads tend to be very easily influenced.  Yet, a backbone is needed, a theological backbone especially.  One must be bold enough not to be influenced in undue ways while at the same time being bold enough to change when the evidence (and Spirit!) calls for it.

Boldness is also needed to break new ground in this field.  It is easy to go along with so-called "majority views" but that seldom leads to any new ground being tilled.  When one has a new view, it is quite easy to suppress it out of fear.  Some fear that they will be ousted, mocked, ridiculed, trampled over, etc.  There is, in fact, good reason for such fears because these things do happen.  The internet and social media has simply made it much easier to do.  Now, anyone can start a blog, facebook, or twitter account and drag another person through the mud.  So, a certain level of boldness is needed to not only deal with such things but to put oneself out there.

Now, when I speak of putting oneself out there, I do not simply mean starting a blog or twitter account and spouting off about whatever you want.  Instead, what I'm talking about is putting one's research out there, one's work out there, and one's well-formulated ideas.  Again, anybody can blog and much of the stuff on blogs, or the internet in general, does not meet the criteria of being well-formed or rooted in solid research.  It is the deep research that exudes scholarly boldness, not mouthing off about something when the requisite study has not been undertaken.  You see, when someone takes to writing on social media or blogs without the proper level of studiousness, what they'll tend to do is overcompensate; what they lack in scholarliness, they will often (more than) try to make up for in put-downs, name-calling, sarcasm, etc.

It takes no boldness to approach things this way.  In fact, as we all know, these things are usually masks for deep insecurities.  I know this personally.  What does take boldness, however, is to have done deep research and to submit that research to the scholarly community for peer-review.  Of course, people can bypass the peer-review process in this day and age and can basically even pay to do so.  It takes some guts to go through this process!

So, to make it in this field part of what is needed is an appropriate amount of boldness coupled with humility.  In my own life I know that when this equation becomes lopsided, I will most certainly say or write something I might just regret down the road.  But all of this is part of the learning curve; it's all part of the process.  As I move forward in my own scholarly journey, I will continue to examine where I'm at in this regard and strive to strike a fine balance.  That takes some guts too, I think.  

On Being Wrong As A Bible Scholar

Today I'm starting a series built around the theme "On Being A Bible Scholar." In each post of this series I am basically going to use some noun or adjective to help describe certain types of Bible scholars or certain characteristics of Bible scholars. I write these posts, of course, from the perspective of being "in the know" or within the circle; I also write as one who has often observed some of the traits in myself, so, when there are critiques, I'm definitely not exempt. So, to start the series off I want to talk about being "wrong" as a Bible scholar.

Being wrong is not something any of us, scholar or not, tends to aim for or to enjoy. Indeed, it would be rare to embark upon a goal with the hopes or intentions of being wrong. That, of course, is different than embarking on a goal with the realized possibility of being wrong. But there is a sense within the field of biblical studies that being wrong is to lose face, to lose social prestige or standing. Thus, it is in one's best interest to be right, even though that's not really possible all of the time (and we all know that).

Again, nobody sets out to be wrong but there are some dangers that come along with feeling like one has to be right all of the time. I have felt this pressure. One of those dangers is that it is easy to become closed-off or closed-minded when it comes to additional data, especially data that may call one's own view or hypothesis into question. Closely related to this is the danger of stunted intellectual and spiritual growth. The converse of this, however, is not necessarily true, that is, that to accept every idea that comes down the pipeline means you are intellectually superior or spiritually advanced. In fact, those types of actions can, in my view, be signs of weakness because they show an inability to reason through arguments and think for oneself.  In addition, the fear of being wrong can truly inhibit the creative process and can even cause one to stall (whether temporarily or permanently) and never produce or put their work out.  Recently, one of my students was expressing this sentiment to me, so, it is definitely real!  But there is a sense in which we just have to go for it and put ourselves and our work out there.  

Moving on, I might also say that when a Bible scholar always has to be right, another danger they can run the risk of is always being defensive. Now, being defensive is different than defending one's views. Being defensive is to hold a posture that listens to nobody, that responds to non-personal criticisms personally, that puts false words in the mouths of critics to slight or misrepresent them, and that isn't willing to entertain with any real seriousness counter-arguments. Offering a defense, however, is to hear a person out fully, with the intention of seeing if what they have to say can sharpen or better your own view (e.g. you may be bettered by allowing a certain view to be done away with).

In my own journey, I have had to relinquish views I once held dearly and I have adopted views I once called into question. This experience, however, was (and continues to be) formative. There are also times when I have found myself coming off to others as a know-it-all, an arrogant scholar.  This has happened typically without me being aware of it.  Thankfully, I've been blessed by a few honest people in my life who were willing to be truthful with me, and to point that out to me. So, I have been striving toward such self-awareness for a while now. I do not desire to to be the kind of scholar who must always be right and who resorts to belittling others if they call me or my views into question.  

Please don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that being wrong is, in and of itself, virtuous. But I am saying that a posture of humility, which is a posture that leaves space to be wrong, is needed; such a posture, I do think is virtuous. Years ago, when I was very much into apologetics, I walked around with the former mentality while these days, more and more I aim for the latter. I always find it something of an admirable thing when reading a journal article or commentary and the author says, "In a former writing I held this view ___, but since then my understanding has changed." Such comments are encouraging and, as a newly minted PhD entering this field, I find that they help relieve some of the stress of always having to be right.

Should we strive to be right? Yes, I think so. But we should also strive to be humble. I love what Abraham Heschel once said, "When I was young, I admired clever people. Now that I'm old, I admire kind people." That remark has really been convicting in my life in the last few years.  I have come to truly admire clever people who can advance scholarship while being kind and humble. The ability to mix cleverness with kindness is something rare, I think. Cleverness often breeds arrogance, which is at odds with kindness. Cleverness also often blinds one to the fact that they can be wrong.

While I think things like spirited debate and civil arguments are good and can even be edifying, I've also found that the danger of surety can often lead a Christian to step out of who they are in Christ, all in the name of scholarship, to prove they are either a) more clever, or b) more right than others. I'm the first to raise my hand in guilt.  It is so easy, especially as a young scholar trying to rise in this field, to feel the need to have to prove oneself, establish oneself, and make a name for oneself, and in the process, to fall prey to always having to be right. Perhaps it's something we all need to be more aware of and reminded of with greater frequency. 

Theological Educators Forum On Orality: Why Pronunciation Matters!

Here's a portion of the flyer for the upcoming "Theological Educators Forum on Orality" that I'll be participating in.  In this presentation, which comes on the heels of one I gave at a conference last week titled "Never Trust a Greek...Professor: Revisiting the Question of How Koine Was Pronounced," I will really focus in on the so-called "Erasmian pronunciation" and the damage it has caused both inside and outside of the academy.  The paper at the Forum on Orality is titled "Erasmian's Role in Linguistic Genocide: Issues Concerning Morality, Orality, and the Pronunciation of Koine Greek."  There will be an audio version of this presentation available in an upcoming episode of the "Get Greek! Podcast" hosted by the Conversational Koine Institute. (The previously mentioned presentation will also be available in a forthcoming episode of the podcast.)  In addition, Asbury Theological Seminary will be making a 7-minute follow-up video.  I look forward to getting more of my research on the pronunciation of Koine out there and I hope it can be a catalyst in shifting the tides of pronunciation in Western colleges, universities, and seminaries.

Colossians Remixed: A Review, Pt. 2

This week I made it into chapter 1 of Colossians Remixed and I must say, it was a bit more amenable to me than the preface.  Here, the authors do some of what they forecasted in the preface with regards to allowing the types of persons/students they engage to raise questions, particularly about Christianity and more specifically about the Bible.  The chapter is bracketed between the beginning and ending of a narrative about a fellow named William, a thorough-going postmodernist.  Although this book is a over a decade old and some have declared that we are currently in a Post-postmodern era (or metamodern, pseudo-modern, etc.), Walsh and Keesmaat offer an inviting overview and foray into the concept of postmodernism.  In fact, I was quite a bit surprised by the fact that they critiqued it as they did.

For example, they describe postmodernism’s “grand tale of progress” as a “myth that requires faith,” whose “story’s foundational assumptions themselves require faith” (30). They ask, “And on what basis, other than a perversely blind, self-interested faith, can we justify the assumption of global capitalism that is permissible to ruin one place or culture for the sake of another?” (30)  These comments stem from their views that “the progress of autonomous humanity” (30), is driven by capitalism more than anything else.  Yet, for Walsh and Keesmaat, capitalism, a social structure intimately linked to militarism, is both the base and catalyst for imperialism.  Put differently, perhaps more into layman’s terms:  A lust for money and (military) power makes up the DNA of empires.

In their view, America is an empire.  But the irony, at least for postmodernists, is that “While postmodernity wants to celebrate diversity and otherness, empires are all about hegemony and sameness” (31).  Yet, the American empire, they say, has no reason to fear because when one’s goal is autonomous humanity, that is, self-ruled existence, then one’s goal is to ask, knock and seek for things that please the self.  So, persons go searching for what they think will make them happy; they are searching for things, or “commodities” to use a bit of a fancier term.  Eventually, everything becomes a commodity, a thing to be had.  This includes religion.

The problem with postmodernism is that there are no guidelines for figuring out which commodities or things are best, true, moral and ethical.  There is no framework, there is no undergirding story, there is no metanarrative that guides one in decision-making.  Thus, in the face of resisting absolutes, persons become confused, or to use another fancy term, they become “fragmented.”  As they say, “The fragmented self does not need to buy into any metanarrative of progress or make her choices according to any coherent or rational system of values” (32).

Interestingly, Walsh and Keesmaat contend that the promotion of Christian absolutes is unbiblical and something that they find problematic and unhelpful, something that they themselves will argue against later in the book (34).  So, at one and the same time, the authors critique postmodernism but also side with it in their rejection of absolutes.  How can they do this?  They do this by claiming that places like America should be viewed as empires (that is, places where a lust for money and power are the driving forces).  Postmodernism itself actually props up such empires because it simply plays into the empire.  How?  Well, if money and power is what the empire seeks, postmodernists give that very thing to the empire when they treat everything like a commodity.  In short, they spend their time shopping and their money shopping and thus, they buy into and help stabilize the empire.

Thus, the question that Walsh and Keesmaat seem to be raising for postmodernists is this:  Which empire do you want to be part of?  By buying into the Western (American) socio-political empire, you ultimately become a pawn; you are not actually autonomous, that is simply a lie you are telling yourself, a lie the media is reiterating and a lie the government/empire aims to perpetuate.  But…

…Christianity is actually an anti-empire movement, it is a movement that challenges the very authorities and structures that you are suspicious about (but unwittingly participate in and sustain).  The unfortunate reality is that Christianity has been painted as the empire.  So, which empire do you want to be part of?  The one that you’ve been told by everyone else is an empire, or the one that actually is the empire and has, almost unbeknownst to you, lured you into it?  But Walsh and Keesmaat say that this isn’t really a matter of simply trading one absolute for another (34).  Their goal in moving forward, then, is to show that Colossians “is seriously misread if approached as an Absolute Text…” (34).

Admittedly, the authors do not talk much about Colossians in this chapter.  So, it remains to be seen where their engagement with Colossians will go.  Little was said in this chapter that I take much issue with.  I think their analysis of postmodernism was fair.  I find their equation with America quite interesting, especially as they are both Canadians.  Although I do not consider myself a patriot or patriotic, neither am I sure that I would classify America as an empire; America has not established world dominion or a global rule and America, for all of its foibles, still touts and (to some degree) practices democracy.  Further, America’s citizens are for all intensive purposes “free” and not under a strained and severe dictatorship.  I could go on about this but I do think it is something of a misnomer.  Yes, America’s drive is often for money and power and the stories it creates to accrue, maintain and advance these things are seductive and prominent.  Yet, to boil it down to these things is, I think, a bit simplistic.  Again, I say that as one who is often very critical of this country and who resists its metanarrative(s) and myths.

So, we’ll see where this book takes us in the next chapter; hopefully, it will take us to Colossians.

When Bible-Thumpin' Is Hilarious!!!

Growing up in the Bible Belt, the terms "Bible Thumper" or "Bible Thumpin'" are heard often.  They're typically used in a negative way to describe a so-called Christian who is a legalistic moralist or someone who just goes over-the-top in their approach to preaching or evangelism.  But in the video below, which is a voice mail where one co-worker who is leaving a message for another, gets interrupted by a car wreck.  In a sudden twist of events, he sees an old lady exit her car and literally begin "Bible Thumpin"", that is, hitting a an over the head with her Bible.  The guy on the phone says, "She picked this Bible up and she lifted it way over her head...It was a hard-backed NVI version..."  You get the idea.  But listen to this hilarious call for yourself...you have to.

Contextualization in World Missions: A Brief Review

Recently I had the opportunity to read A. Scott Moreau's new work titled Contextualization in World Missions: Mapping and Assessing Evangelical Models.  I want to say "Thank you!" to Kregel for the gratis review copy.  I also want to say "Kudos!" to Dr. Moreau, who is Professor of Intercultural Studies at Wheaton College (Ill.), for producing a very fine and helpful work.  Indeed, I have even been able to engage this text for some of my dissertation work.

In this book, which spans 429 pages and is divided into 14 chapters across two major parts or sections, Moreau's goal is to interact with the major theories or models of contextualization that have been put forth within missiological studies over the last several decades.  Throughout he uses the analogy of a map (hence the subtitle) and also discusses the various "maps" of contextualization that others have developed.  As a Bible scholar I found Moreau's work helpful but, of course, I wish there had been much more engagement with exegetical and theological texts.  At the outset, however, Moreau remarks, "a discerning reader will see that only occasionally do I draw on theologians and biblical scholars.  They have much to say about our landscape, but I have chosen to develop this map from the ever-growing range of perspectives offered by missiologists.  While this constraint limits the sophistication in some areas, it also frames the discussion in light of the perspectives of those who most deeply engage in and explore the landmass of evangelical contextualization" (21).

While I have done quite a bit of study and research on contextualization, I'm not sure that by Moreau's standards I could be considered an insider to these conversations.  Even as I read, I found myself having to read pages over again several times to comprehend concepts, diagrams (or maps), charts, etc., which would seem to be in agreement with this fact.  For the most part the book is very readable and user-friendly.  That said, there are some difficult concepts to grasp.  Moreau strives to make things as easy to understand as possible.  His stories, definitions, questions at the end of each chapter, illustrations, etc., all help in this regard.  Even so and rightly so, there are some thick and intricate concepts that readers, especially readers new to this topic, will have to work to get through.

There were a number of typos throughout and one of the most unfortunate occurrences of this left off the beginning of a paragraph (84).  Of course, this may have been the typesetter's fault and not Moreau's as this sort of thing happens more often than one would think.  Besides Moreau's great descriptions of the various models he interacts with, the appendices in this book make it well worth the buy.  In fact, I found myself engaging the appendices very frequently throughout my reading of this volume.  To be honest, I don't think reading this book just once, especially for someone who is new to this field, is enough.  It wasn't for me.  I'm going to have to read this at least a couple more times.  I would highly recommend this work to everyone in my field and I can say with some confidence that in time, among missiologists and intercultural studies majors, this work will become a standard textbook and reference work.

Personally, I'm grateful for this work on many fronts.  I'm grateful for it as a student for whom it was a good resource during the writing of my dissertation.  I'm also grateful for it as one who is interested in overseas mission work.  Just as well, I am grateful for this book as an evangelical who has wrestled with many of the theological and ethical implications and ramifications of various passages in the New Testament that seem to be dealing with contextualization.  Finally, I'm also grateful for this work as a churchman, that is, as one who is often asked tough questions by laity about how to live faithfully in pluralistic contexts.  So, not only do I say thanks to Kregel for this copy, I also say thanks to Dr. A Scott Moreau for giving us all an insightful, helpful, and informative resource for how to responsibly, credibly, and faithfully advance the Kingdom of God in whatever context(s) we may find ourselves in.  So wherever you find yourself doing ministry today, I'd encourage you to enhance it by getting this book.  Do that by clicking HERE and heading on over to Kregel's site and getting your copy.