Every pastor, student, and Christian should read Grant Macaskill’s Living in Union with Christ. Macaskill lucidly argues for the importance of being in Christ for the Christian life. Any account, he avers, that does not begin with “It is no longer I who live but Christ who lives within me” (Gal 2:20) amounts to a species of legalism because it assumes that “I” (the agent) have accomplished something apart from Christ. [Read more…] about How Important Is Union with Christ for Living the Christian Life? Answer: It Is Everything (review of Macaskill’s “Living in Union with Christ”)
Episode 15: Colin Redemer on the Crisis in Modern Education
Colin Redemer and Wyatt Graham talk about modern education. We also talk about the Davenant Hall, a project that Colin has been working on.
Make sure to subscribe to the podcast on Spotify and/or Apple Podcasts. Also, see the host page at Anchor. And bookmark this page to see every episode. [Read more…] about Episode 15: Colin Redemer on the Crisis in Modern Education
Does Evangelicalism Have a Robust Centre?
Recently, I saw someone claim that evangelicalism has no robust centre. I do not remember who said it, or even the exact wording. I remember the idea. And the words have haunted my thoughts ever since.
While in an evangelical seminary, one of my theology professors taught that God has passions. God was said to be passible. And primary theologians of my movement throughout the last decades have affirmed: God is complex, in time, changes, has passions, has eternally existed in a relationship of authority and submission, and so on. None of these beliefs mark Christian orthodoxy. Just the opposite. They are without a doubt unorthodox.
I discussed many of these matters in an earlier article called, Can We Still Trust Evangelical Theology? In the article, I cite a number of Christian philosophers and theologians who argue for unorthodox positions. And many of them are key theologians of my movement (at least in North America). Here, I had argued that we can still trust evangelical theology.
I think I need to revise my argument. I still think we can trust evangelical theology. But I think we can only do so if we do the hard work of creating a theological culture where orthodoxy wedded to charity can thrive.
As I begin, I want to define what I mean when I say evangelical. I specifically mean the socially defined body of people who claim evangelicalism, whose heritage primarily hales from the mid 20th century. Other definitions exist. I do not use them here. [Read more…] about Does Evangelicalism Have a Robust Centre?
Review of Constructing Paul by Luke Timothy Johnson
Luke Timothy Johnson wrote Constructing Paul with the expertise of one who has spent much of his life studying Paul and his world. In this first of two volumes, Johnson lays out his vision for constructing Paul.
Johnson explains, “In this work I propose a third sort of construction, not of the life and thought of the ‘historical Paul,’ nor Paul’s thought as understood or used by later ecclesiastical commentators and theologians, but of the elements required for a responsible reading of the letters ascribed to Paul in the New Testament canon” (12–13).
He continues: “The essays in this first volume undertake an assessment of all the elements needed for a reader to do serious study of these letters” (13).
In essence, volume one provides the framework to hear Paul’s voice, which Johnson hopes to convey (or hear) in the second volume (15). The first volume of Constructing Paul thus provides the scaffolding to undertake serious study of Paul’s letters, which Johnson will illustrate in volume 2.
[Read more…] about Review of Constructing Paul by Luke Timothy Johnson
The Literal Sense Is the Christological Sense
[Read more…] about The Literal Sense Is the Christological Sense
How Did Paul Write His Letters? (Or Why His Letters Don’t Have Emotional Flourishes that Get Away from Him)
Sometimes we read Paul and think, “Wow, his emotional intensity here really tells me how he feels” or “wow, he got lost in his argument due to his zealousness.” In fact, neither of these observations can be true.
We cannot psychoanalyze Paul nor gain insight into his emotional life in such a direct way. We cannot do so partly because of the nature of letter writing and because of Paul’s own testimony. These preclude us from making such judgments when we read him.
Paul could not have written letters with emotional flourish (at least not in a modern sense) for the following reasons: