Daniel Kirk’s New Book: Unlocking Romans

This is a re-post, of sorts…

Daniel Kirk’s new book, Unlocking Romans: Resurrection and the Justification of God, is now available.

Many of the contributors of this blog, and certainly some of its readers, know Daniel Kirk. Daniel is a MDiv graduate of Westminster Theological Seminary (2000). He subsequently completed a PhD in New Testament from Duke University’s Department of Religion, studying under Richard Hays, E.P. Sanders, and Joel Marcus, among others. He wrote a fascinating dissertation on Resurrection in Romans, how Paul re-understood and re-told the significance of Israel in the light of Christ. His advisor was none other than Richard Hays, whose writings certainly molded my thought on Paul and the communal significance of Paul for the church more than anyone else’s writings. Daniel started his job as a professor of New Testament at Fuller Theological Seminary this Fall.

During and since his time at Duke Daniel has written a fair amount concerning Paul and the significance of recent scholarship on Paul for the contemporary church. He penned a helpful response to Doug Kelly (Professor of Systematic Theology at RTS-Charlotte) on the New Perspective and Reformed Theology for the PCA’s online news site. He also published a two-part article in the Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology (24 [2006]: 36-64, 133-54) arguing for a passive-obedience-only position both as Scriptural and within the bounds of the Westminster Standards. A shorter version of these articles is available online, as are google-documents versions of the original articles (1 & 2), which require some cleaning-up. Many of you have read, and probably frequent, Daniel’s blog. There, when he has time, he has continued to post refreshing communally and missionally-oriented reflections on Christ, the Bible, hermeneutics, and contemporary scholarship. His reputation as a cutting-edge but church-oriented scholar apparently grew enough that he was asked to present a paper on the New Perspective on Paul at last year’s meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society. Daniel has written and published other reviews, essays, and articles in more academically oriented contexts as well.

 

Peter Enns on His Mentor Harvie Conn

(Dr. Peter Enns has posted a personal reflection about his growing realization of the significance of his teacher Harvie Conn, the namesake of this blog. He plans to follow up on the home page (the “blog” portion of the site) with a series of quotations from Conn’s most important book, Eternal Word & Changing Worlds.

About that book, Enns says

There are numerous literary high-water marks in the WTS tradition, and EWCW is one of them. In my opinion it is the single most penetrating and insightful theological work the WTS tradition has ever produced. One of the things that distinguishes this book from any other written by a WTS professor is the book’s missional (or as Harvie called it in the lingo of the day, “missiological”) focus, and how missional concerns should and in fact invariably do affect our theological constructs and how, as a result, we need to rethink the task of theological education.

 

A Parable from Art Boulet about Our Current ‘Debates’ about the Bible

I want to call everyone’s attention to a fascinating and helpful Parable, of sorts, Art Boulet posted on his blog the other day: dark caves and differing perspectives.

 

Old Testament Opening at Westminster Theological Seminary

On Wednesday Peter Enns and Westminster Seminary posted a joint statement on Enns’ website and the Westminster homepage indicating Enns’ departure from the seminary as of August 1^st. In the near future I plan to post a reflection or two about this here on the Connversation blog.

 

For now, I want to note a humorous online reaction to which I was alerted the other day. This is from the blog of a Professor of Hebrew Bible and Near Eastern Studies at the University of the Pacific. The title of the post is Old Testament Opening at WTS-Philadelphia. This captures some of my thoughts on the situation fairly well…

 

Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia is seeking an Old Testament scholar to replace the one we just canned (see here) for being a heretic . . . of sorts. The ability to read the Westminster Confession of Faith in its original language is absolutely essential to this position. Knowledge of Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic is also important. Detailed knowledge of Dutch, French, and English Calvinist Theological Thought since the Reformation and training in Systematic Theology from an approved school is paramount. Candidates who have a strong knowledge, indeed, any interest at all in the history, cultures, and non-biblical languages of the ancient Near East, utilize social and literary theoretical approaches to Scripture, show concern about the so-called “messy textual history” of the Old Testament, seek non-traditional answers to “problems,” which are not problems at all, value independent thinking, and/or have a PhD from a suspect graduate program in America (e.g., Harvard, Yale, Brandeis, Hebrew Union College, Columbia, University of Pennsylvania, University of Michigan, University of Wisconsin-Madison, UC-Berkeley, UCLA, UCSB, UCSD . . . any UC, Catholic University of America, University of Chicago, Emory, Princeton, Duke, etc., full list here) need not apply. Only properly ordained ministers or deacons of the OPC or PCA will be considered. So no women, either. If you’re as narrow minded as us, we look forward to reviewing your dossier.

 

Philadelphia Inquirer on Peter Enns and Westminster Seminary

The Philadelphia Inquirer ran a front-page article today on Peter Enns getting suspended from Westminster. You can read it online here.

 

McCormack Responds to His Critics: Whatever Happened After McCormack’s Open Letter to Lane Tipton?

Bruce McCormack has posted a two-part response (1 & 2) to his critics on Art Boulet’s blog. He plans to engage questions and concerns put to him, responding to comments on that blog. This is part of the outcome of the challenge McCormack issued in his open letter to Lane Tipton, which McCormack posted on Art’s blog on June 4th. Though I give some of the background below, at the start of Part 1 McCormack provides some details of his interactions with Tipton and others after posting the open letter.

 

Back in May McCormack posted a short essay in which he argued the Christology of the HTFC paper was not actually Reformed. Following some internet (blogging and email) activity and criticism, McCormack posted a short reply to R. Scott Clark’s criticisms. Eventually a member of the HTFC was officially heard from when Lane Tipton dismissed McCormack, labeling him a “revisionist,” in footnote 4 of an essay in the OPC’s (usually) monthly journal for church officers, the Ordained Servant (an online version can be found here).

 

Tipton did not engage any of McCormack’s substantive points either in the footnote or in the rest of the article, one devoted to a proper Reformed understanding of the incarnational analogy. It is quite possible Tipton completed the bulk of the essay prior to McCormack’s original reflections having been made available. At the same time, as McCormack points out in part 1 of his response, “…those responding to my brief analysis of the Christology presupposed in the HTFC report have shown an uncanny ability thus far to shift the ground of the debate from the topics I placed on the table for discussion, changing subjects abruptly, passing by in silence the questions which I posed to them, etc. Dr. Tipton’s ‘response’ to my response to the HTFC report was no different in this regard…”

 

Along these lines, when McCormack posted his original reflections and also his response to R. Scott Clark, no one among his critics really engaged McCormack’s actual historical and theological points. R. Scott Clark’s post was, in some ways, one of the rare exceptions. Instead, for most, calling McCormack a Barthian and dismissing him as someone who has denied X and Y of the Reformed tradition carried the day. Interestingly, when I did a post on this, McCormack’s critics and the HTFC’s defenders still failed to engage McCormack’s points and/or to recognize the need to do so when responding to him.

 

Perhaps this time around members of the HTFC, those who agree with the HTFC, and McCormack’s critics, will engage McCormack in honest charitable dialogue, discussing the questions and issues he puts on the table without (1) aggressively misreading him, (2) shifting topics erratically, (3) saying they already know him better than he knows himself, etc.

 

Even if one disagrees with McCormack, it seems to me we should all thank him for his willingness to devote his well-respected scholarly time and energy to addressing the discussions of the Westminster Theological Seminary community. As best I can tell, McCormack has long sought to cultivate better working relationships between Princeton Seminary and Westminster. Hopefully this attempt of his will spawn an edifying Christian-scholarly interaction with fruitful results for all involved.

 

Amazon Kindle and the Theological Market

It’s time for a brief break in the polemics!  Since its introduction in late 2007, I have eagerly followed the progress of the Amazon Kindle, an e-book reading device and so much more.  Although e-readers have been around for a while, the great leap forward in the Kindle (and a few competitive devices of which the Sony E-reader is the most notable) is the employment of electronic ink, which creates a screen reading experience that mimics print on paper.  This is not like reading a computer monitor or cell phone; it’s like reading a book. 

Before choosing Kindle over Sony, I did my homework.  No question about it, the Sony is nicer looking, and it was at the time $100 less expensive.  (Amazon dropped the price on Kindles from $399 to $359 a few wees ago, reducing the gap.)  But the benefits ended there, and were outweighed by 1) Kindle’s ability to download books over free built-in cell phone technology wherever a Sprint cell signal can be had.  That’s right; no need to connect to the computer, and the ultimate in bibliophilic instant gratification.  Sitting at the airport, and stuck?  No problem.  2)  The price of most books through Amazon is $9.99, even brand new releases.  The Sony’s offerings through mobipocket and elsewhere are priced in relationship to the physical book, and considerably more expensive.  3)  The Kindle allows the user to take electronic margin notes; the Sony does not.  4)  Amazon permits the downloading of any Kindle book’s first chapter for free.  5)  There is rudimentary web capability (emphasis on rudimentary) on the Kindle, including instant access to Wikipedia, and the ability to access web-based email – at least gmail.   6)  There are thousands of free books available on other web sites, including many classics.  7)  Amazon will Kindle-ize and send to one’s device a PDF file of any size for a dime.  (Did you really want to print out the HTFC report?) 

I took the plunge last month, and asked my husband for one for my birthday.  I’m delighted with it.  Yes, I agree with a few of the commonly-cited criticisms like the size of the page advance button and the overall uninspiring look of the device.  The grey and black screen is limiting; charts and illustrations don’t reproduce well at this point in the device’s development.   But, what I’ve gained is the ability to carry around a small library in my purse.  Which brings me to the point for this post.

Amazon’s Kindle offerings at this point are substantial, but they are geared to best-seller style reading.  The real utility of this device for us would be the market for theological writing.  I still recall standing in the WTS bookstore (back when that was not only expected but encouraged!) with a $40, c. 200 page paperback in my hand, and saying “absolutely no way.”  The problem is that the Kindle’s current offerings in theology are quite shallow.  Keller’s new book is available, but that’s because it’s a best-seller.  But, imagine the possibilities if commentaries were Kindle-ized or if small-run but important works were Kindle-ized?  The academic market, and more specifically, the theological market represents incredible potential for the Kindle.  We all know what some of these books cost, how heavy they are to carry, how much space they take to shelve, and how much money they cost to move.  The Kindle takes care of all that! 

As the number of users grows, the book offerings will diversify!  So, take a look, and let me know what you think.  Is this device going to be part of our future?

 

 

 

On Aggressively Misreading and Misrepresentation: A Critique of One Part of Peter Lillback’s Essay Against Peter Enns

I have modified this post slightly from its original version. Though I did not write this post in anger or as a rant, I realize how some of my repeated charges throughout it could come across that way. My goal was to be honest about my thoughts on Dr. Lillback’s work not only as scholarship, but as a Christian leader of a Christian institution. As I hold a strongly negative view of Dr. Lillback’s essay, the work of a respected leader, I struggled to express this in a respectful but at the same time honest manner. I would like to thank everyone for their advice thus far, both on and off the blog.

 

About a month back Art Boulet posted a critique of WTS President Peter Lillback’s essay (at the end of the documents released by WTS in April). Lillback’s essay was published in the recent festschrift for Richard Gaffin. For those who do not know, Art is the WTS student who was told on Monday to withdraw from the seminary or face disciplinary action that could lead to a twelve-month suspension. He was not given an opportunity to repent, to apologize, etc. See the post and discussion on his blog.

 

Getting back to Art’s critique of Lillback, a 73 comment (as of now) discussion ensued in which no one took up any of Art’s points. Furthermore, various people and bloggers, some of whom are aware of Art’s critique, continue to recommend Lillback’s essay as helpful in establishing Peter Enns as outside the Reformed Tradition. Some such comments can be seen here.

 

I thought I would write at least one post focusing on a specific place in Lillback’s essay, illustrating what I consider to be the deficient nature of his scholarship. At the same time, since Dr. Lillback is the head of an explicitly Christian institution and would see his writing as more than simply scholarship, I will try to engage it also on the level of Christian responsibility.

 

John Frame’s Review of Peter Enns’ “Inspiration and Incarnation”

John Frame has posted a gentle-negative review of Pete Enns’ Inspiration and Incarnation on his website. Perhaps sometime soon I or someone else on the Conn-Blog can do a more detailed post on it.

 

I commend this review to everyone.

 

Daniel Kirk’s Upcoming Book on Romans: The Fruit of Westminster Theological Seminary and Richard Gaffin

I thought I would make a short post on this. Many of the contributors of this blog, and certainly some of its readers, know Daniel Kirk. Daniel is a MDiv graduate of Westminster Theological Seminary (2000). He subsequently completed a PhD in New Testament from Duke University’s Department of Religion, studying under Richard Hays, E.P. Sanders, and Joel Marcus, among others. He wrote a fascinating dissertation on Resurrection in Romans, how Paul re-understood and re-told the significance of Israel in the light of Christ. His advisor was none other than Richard Hays, whose writings certainly molded my thought on Paul and the communal significance of Paul for the church more than anyone else’s writings. Daniel commences his job as a professor of New Testament at Fuller Theological Seminary this coming Fall.

 

During and since his time at Duke Daniel has written a fair amount concerning Paul and the significance of recent scholarship on Paul for the contemporary church.