Rosson's review of Bird & Crossley

Loren Rosson recently posted a review of How Christianity Began. Here's a quote I found particularly interesting:

Bird's take is transparently confessional, going so far as to defend the virgin birth, that Jesus thought he was divine, and that he wasn't wrong about the kingdom's timetable. Crossley's rejoinder on all these points is right on the money, and as he notes, Bird's evangelical view makes him more or less obligated to argue this stuff. I was getting a very bad feeling for Bird in this chapter, but thankfully he gets better as the book goes on.

Jumping to the end, where Crossley and Bird give alternative accounts of Christianity's ultimate success, I think the former again shows more argumentative strength. Believers like to hold up what's theologically distinctive and appealing, but religions usually triumph for more mundane reasons, even accidentally. The west would have probably become Islamic if Charles Martel had lost the Battle of Tours in 732 (think how different the world would be today if a very minor battle had gone the other way). Sociological accounts of Christian origins may not be the most exciting things to read about, but Crossley is right that "Bird's near-complete reliance on ideas and individual influence is odd and outdated" (p 166)

I think, generally speaking, that Rosson's review is fair and well-done. And I think scholarly skepticism of the virgin birth is something evangelicals HAVE to learn to deal with. It's a leap of faith, and, in my humble opinion, that's exactly how it should be. Faith is faith precisely because it lacks scientific verification. I agree that religions do, to some extent and with many exceptions, rise to a degree of prominence based on historical factors such as economics, class warfare, colonialism. I think we can, and should, look at Marxist accounts when doing religious studies. That being said, I feel Rosson overstates the "gullibility," if you will, of the evangelical position. What is inherently wrong with the faith-based assumption that historical factors are so construed as to give Christianity the seedlings necessary to plant and grow? Obviously this is a Christianization of history. And, perhaps more obviously, such a statement draws ire from the academy at large. But, I personally don't find quite the dichotomy between theology & history as Rosson posits.

For the record...

It's Sally's!

Social Dissonance

Social dissonance is a term commonly used in anthropological studies to classify the phenomenon that occurs when cultural boundaries, either artificially imposed or embedded, are unnaturally transcended. For example, when a gladiator, otherwise considered a lower-class individual, gained fame in the classical world through his exploits in the arena, he could become more honored than a member of the upper-class. An equestrian of upper-class status may lack the fame, or notoriety, that one would naturally assume he would have in greater quantity than the aforementioned gladiator. In biblical studies we see this play out with the apostle Paul. If Paul was indeed a citizen of Rome, he downplays citizenship and embraces the metaphor of slavery in service of Christ. To that extent, his status as a Roman citizen is in dissonance with his lower, adopted status as a slave.

In our class discussion, we jokingly paralleled this ancient phenomenon with our current lives as poor graduate students! Think of it this way. As a graduate student you go to the local Starbucks. The average working class Joe may perceive you to be of higher status simply because you're seeking higher education. In truth, based on economic indicators, the average Joe is (probably) bringing in more money and, at least for the foreseeable future, has greater stability. Of course, fortunes can change, but the current socio-cultural comparison is askew. 

This phenomenon is something to think about when we do/discuss church composition and mission. I think we have to think about the ways we implicitly and, rather naturally, categorize people according to categories which, unfortunately, do not reveal the whole truth. As believers, we are commanded to regard all people as equals (Gal. 3.28). However, when we think about outreach and putting together small groups, it may help to think about how we are more alike in ways which we may not think about, and more different in ways we may assume. And, as Paul modeled, we should be willing to make less of ourselves than our economic successes may imply.

"The Big Sin"

Tim tagged me on this one, so here goes:

I've always harbored a dark, secret (some would say destructive) desire to engage in open-seas piracy. I know piracy has become a bit more en-vogue after Johnny Depp's performances in the Pirates movies, but for some of us, it's an "all-too real" allurement that can wreak havoc on the soul. To think of all the time I've wasted dreaming of salty air, bad rum, and cannons blasting. Sometimes when I'm alone I wear an eye-patch....

Actually, for a more serious answer, I would have to say that my greatest fear is to be overcome with greed. I think it's easy, particularly after years of graduate school, to want to divorce yourself from all the material sacrifices you've made. When others of your peer group are buying homes and decent cars, it's only natural to feel frustrated & embittered by what you lack; i.e. a small apartment and a beat up honda. And, ultimately, the pay-off is, well, not really a financial pay-off. So, it's easy to want more; financial security and independence, better stuff, and vacations! In themselves they aren't bad things, but when you inordinately desire them, the consequences can be severe.

On a side note, some guys started a Pirates club when my sister was at Carolina. I always thought it would be the coolest thing you could ever do. Imagine waking up at 6am, putting on a good pirate's garb, loading 10-deep on a small skiff, and then "attacking" the women's rowing team!

Missional Theology

Art links to David Congdon's series on missional theology. I've only skimmed the surface, but it seems well worth the time investment. 

Faith & Academy

One of the internal debates I've wrestled with over the last year is the interaction of historical-critical scholarship and practical theology. Naturally, there are about a million ways to discuss this topic. But, my question is simply this: If one is not a confessing believer, then what is his/her motivation for pursuing a doctorate & dedicating a lifetime to teaching and studying the biblical texts? I don't ask this question out of any particular frustration. In fact, as a believer, I love critical scholarship. I struggle to integrate it (thank you Kenton Sparks & Peter Enns), but I enjoy the challenges and, in the end, find them both fruitful and inspiring. I hope my motivations in pursuing doctoral work are entirely transparent both in the academy and in the church community at large. I wonder, however,  what drives an atheist or agnostic biblical scholar? It seems that, at best, each day would be an exercise in deconstruction. Honest questions.

VP debate

When you're expecting a Gomer Pyle and you end up meeting an Andy Griffith, has anything changed? 

Here's my problem with tonight's debate: The expectations were so low for Palin, she had absolutely no chance to make a bad impression. 

Golly gee!