A conversation over at Marcus’ blog reminded me of a post I’ve been meaning to write for some time. I’ve wanted to do a list of must-read scholars for a while, but have never been sure how to approach it. Do I do a list of the best? Most influential? Most interesting? Do I restrict it to OT scholars? NT scholars? Theologians? Do I go completely subjective and list my favorites, or do I include those with whom I’m less enamored? Will anyone even care about my stupid list? These are the questions in my mind…
I’ve opted to consider my main audience for this blog: the average churchgoer. I know people from my church read this blog who are not academically trained but are still interested in learning from Bible scholars. They may not know Greek and Hebrew, but they desire to glean from the insights of those who do. So I’ve decided to tailor this list to this (somewhat imaginary) group. Because of this, I will leave off scholars who have made a major impact on scholarship but are less helpful to the layperson (the Rudolf Bultmann types). I’m also sticking to my area of “expertise” (if I may be permitted a moment of hubris), which mostly NT & OT scholarship (so no systematic theologians). The list is presented in no particular order.
Allow me to make a couple other notes:
- I’m weighing more heavily toward the NT side of things. This is for 2 main reasons: 1) I know NT scholarship better than I do OT scholarship, and 2) most of my favorite OT scholars have written little for the layperson in mind (I’m thinking of Gordon Wenham and guys like that).
- I’ll give a couple reading recommendations for each scholar, in case my reader(s) want(s) to dig deeper.
- The scholars on this list are invited to mention their inclusion on their resume or CV. You’re welcome.
- If you think this is just an excuse to talk about scholars and books, you know me very well. =)
(1) Gordon Fee. Come on, if you’ve been reading this blog for more than 5 seconds you knew Fee was making the cut. In fact, I’d have to turn in my charismatic membership card if I didn’t include him. I appreciate any man who writes the book on exegesis, but insists that exegesis is merely the first step in applying the Bible to the life of the church. I also appreciate any scholar whose lectures are more like sermons. I heard a line from his daughter, theologian Cherith Fee Nordling, about Fee that sums up what I appreciate about him (paraphrase): my father loves the Lord and loves the Bible, but never in reverse order.
Layperson reading suggestions:
- How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth and How to Read the Bible Book by Book (co-authored with Douglas Stuart)
- Paul, the Spirit and the People of God (short book note here)
- His commentary on the Pastoral Epistles or perhaps his shorter commentary on Philippians, for those interested in his commentary style
Academic reading suggestions:
- God’s Empowering Presence
- Pauline Christology
- 1 Corinthians (my favorite 1 Corinthians commentary) or Philippians (longer one)
(2) Christopher J H Wright. It’s funny, 6 months ago I may not have included Wright. But the more I read his stuff, the more I want to give him a high-five (see my previous post for an indication). In some ways, he’s an interesting bird- how many OT scholars are also missiologists? A Cambridge PhD who trained church planters in India and now heads up John Stott’s ministry organization? This is my kind of guy.
Layperson reading suggestions:
- Salvation Belongs to Our God
- The Mission of God’s People (okay, it hasn’t been released yet, but I’m betting it’s good)
- The God I Don’t Understand
- The Message of Ezekiel (see Mark Heath’s review ) or Deuteronomy
Academic reading suggestions
- The Mission of God (great place to go to see the OT scholar/missiologist combo in action)
- Old Testament Ethics for the People of God (haven’t read it, heard good things)
(3) Richard Bauckham. Bauckham has actually written less for the layperson than the rest of the scholars on this list, but I wanted to include him anyway because he’s one of the few scholars refered to as “groundbreaking” that may actually deserve the title. Mind you, no one is really groundbreaking. When I mentioned in a class at my church that Bauckham had written a book defending the eyewitness connection to the Gospels, I was met with “no duh” stares. It’s not his conclusion that is groundbreaking, it’s the manner in which he makes his case that sets him apart from so many others. Bauckham is the toughest read on this list, but may well be worth the trouble.
Reading suggestions
- The Theology of the Book of Revelation (previously mentioned here)
- Jesus and the Eyewitness (the aforementioned quasi-groundbreaking work, more of a history work than a piece of theology)
- Jesus and the God of Israel (on NT Christology, again, affirming traditional Christology in his own way)
(4) D A Carson. This is not Carson’s first appearance on this blog. There are few scholars who have made so much of their work accessible to the church, as you can see here on his resource page at The Gospel Coaltion website. This son of a church planter in French Canada has planted churches, travels around the world every year speaking in churches and conferences, teaches and advises students, yet still finds time to write somewhere around a million books a year. He cranks out a book faster than I write a blog post. If I had to pick one scholar on this list for the average layperson to read I think Carson would be it, not because he’s the best scholar but because he does the best job of communicating to the audience I’m aiming for. Note: this list of books is highly selective, there are many more I could include.
Layperson reading suggestions
- A Call to Spiritual Reformation (probably my favorite Carson book)
- For the Love of God Volume I and Volume II (through the Bible devotionals)
- The Cross and Christian Ministry (anyone in any kind of leadership position should read this)
Academic reading suggestions
- The Gospel of John (my favorite John commentary)
- The Gagging of God (not for the faint of heart, which may explain why I’ve never finished it)
(5) N T Wright. I’ll confess, I’ve been debating whether or not I should include Wright on this list. If we’re talking about most interesting, he’d easily make the list. Everything he writes is worth reading, even if he’s dead wrong (note, over 1100 people went to a conference at Wheaton centering on Wright’s scholarship). Wright is brilliant- sometimes brilliantly right, and sometimes brilliantly wrong. I’ve put it this way: Wright is a classic pendulum swinger. He’ll notice an over-emphasis on something, then in attempt to correct this problem he’ll go too far in his emphasis. If you know that going in, you’ll do well in reading him. Anyway, I love reading his stuff, but you must always read with discernment.
Layperson reading suggestions
- Surprised by Hope (read it for the resurrection & eschatology stuff)
- Colossians and Philemon
- Who Was Jesus?
- The Challenge of Jesus (I try to read this book every couple years)
- The New Testament for Everyone (series of commentaries on the NT for laypeople)
Academic reading suggestions
- The New Testament and the People of God (lays out his big picture of the 1st century and his historical method)
- Jesus and the Victory of God (other than a couple hiccups, this book is fantastic)
- The Resurrection of the Son of God (simply one of the best books I’ve ever read)
- The Climax of the Covenant
So there’s my list; maybe on another post I can give my “near miss” category (I’m at 1300+ words already though). I’d love to hear thoughts from others out there, either about the people on this list or others you think should be included.
bmarchio
danny
Great list. Mine would definitely have Fee and Bauckham on it and maybe even Carson. I’d sub out the Wrights for Larry Hurtado and Darrell Bock I think.
Hurtado : Nick :: Fee : Danny Am I right?
Bock is a good choice. Hard to leave him off. If I take off Christopher Wright, then I have no OT scholar. And missions is a huge emphasis for me, so naturally I’m drawn to his work. And I still feel like N T Wright needs to be on the list, even with my hesitations.
No matter how you swing it, you can’t go wrong.
I think you did an excellent job with your list, I definitely would have had 4 of the 5 the same. The other OT guy who I also might have considered is John Walton, but I certainly cannot argue with Christopher Wright’s inclusion.
I think you did the right thing by including NT Wright. If nothing else his influence is so incredibly huge that he has to be included and I think that some overstate his ‘danger’ (I actually find him to be pretty much un-dangerous but I can see why conservative reformed evangelicals may be a little wary).
I encourage you to do the ‘honorable mentions’ post, a second team if you will.
Marcus,
I don’t think of Wright as dangerous at all. I just think he rides a horse until it drops dead, then keeps kicking hoping to get some more mileage.
John Walton is probably a good choice, I just haven’t spent much time reading him. The lack of OT scholars on this list says more about me than it does them.
By the way, not to de-rail my own post, I don’t know if you’re watching these NBA Finals. It’s a good one.
Ah the finals. I wish I had been able to watch. I actually don’t have a tv and the games aren’t online and I haven’t had an invitation to someone’s house to watch which all have probably been good things otherwise I wouldn’t have gotten all of my work done for my class. I am rooting with you on this one. I do not like Kobe and the Lakers one bit.
This is probably the only suggested reading list that features both Carson and Wright … and back-to-back!
I liked Wright’s “Simply Christian” for a 40,000-foot-view perspective on Christian theology, written for the layperson.
This could probably be a post in itself, but I’ll ask it anyway: What constitutes “dead wrong” in biblical scholarship? I mean, there are readings of scripture that were popular 200 years ago that would be almost unanimously “wrong” today, so one has to assume that will continue to be the case moving into the future. In my estimation, Scriptural interpretation is heavily contextualized (and rightly so) for a given culture and time period. In many ways, that’s what makes it “living and active,” right?
So I’d be interested in reading a response, a separate post, or a series of posts on “dead wrong” biblical scholarship.
Good post!
I’ll offer my 2 cents here. Danny, I’ll be curious for you to weigh in on this as well. Steve, what you expressed is the strongest argument for the need of being grounded in historical theology. Every period falls off the horse in some direction because their culture predisposes them to that particular error. An obvious example would be the individualism of large swaths of the church the past couple of centuries (Danny, might this be a point at which you think Wright swings the pendulum too far the other direction?).
I also think that we need some clarification on terms. The original meaning of a given text is singular, the number of applications is indeterminate. The application can and indeed must change based on cultural situation. Also the way in which you express the original meaning also will change based on the culture, but there still is just one meaning. With that said, a given text of Scripture may have multiple audiences in view with different meanings for each audience, so perhaps the best way to express it would be one meaning per original audience.
So to give an example, I think we need to distinguish between the question, ‘did Paul think of salvation in individual terms’ and ‘should we call individuals to salvation as individuals.’ The first one has only one answer, the second one is a question of contemporary application of the teaching of Paul and others.
Marcus,
My wife and I keep our TV in the closet and pull it out for special occasions- like the NBA Finals. The only reason we’ve even kept a TV is for sports.
Steve,
My quick answer is that someone is dead wrong when they don’t agree with me. =)
When I say that Wright is “dead wrong” about some things, I’m not really speaking about his scholarship. I’m more speaking about his proposed practical suggestions. He’s like anyone else, he has his hobby horses and rides them all day long. I don’t always agree with them. What he does do, and I appreciate this very much, is provoke good thought and conversation. Unfortunately, many people don’t want that, they want someone to tell them what to do explicitly.
Anyway, I’m sure a post or series of posts that you propose would be a great idea. However, since I’ll be gone for 5.5 out of the next 8 weeks, I wouldn’t hold my breath. =)
“The original meaning of a given text is singular, the number of applications is indeterminate.”
I don’t buy it.
Or, I should say, I don’t like what such a statement makes us become or how it forces us to look at scripture. It preoccupies us, I think, with the relentless search for the “correct original interpretation” rather than the pursuit of kind of life the whole of scripture leads us toward. I’m all for biblical scholarship (I loved my time in seminary and continue to read and learn), but not in order to find “the answer” … the journey is where it’s at. So I hold any “definitive” biblical scholarship loosely — even my own reflections. This is why even Wright, though I love reading his stuff, annoys me at times: He can be as dogmatic about his “dead horses” as anyone.
I realize I probably sound like a relativist here, but I don’t like the other option any better. (legalism) Maybe there’s a middle road…
I didn’t realize the choice was between relativism or legalism.
I also wonder why, if “the journey is where it’s at,” why the Bible is so eschatological, even teleological. Seems to me like a pendulum swinging…
I hear what you’re saying, Steve. But I can’t help but read things like “what such a statement makes us become” and think of the old boogey man arguments (you know, living in fear of what might come to scare you, only it never or rarely does). That is, I hear so often how orthodoxy has made a dead, lifeless people out of Christians. Yet, most of the most loving, sacrificial, Christ-like people I know are soundly orthodox people, who believe there is such a thing as right and wrong, truth and error. In fact, more often than not, such a belief propels them into being such Christ-honoring people.
For the record, in case anyone thinks I’m just wanting to fight with Steve here, I want to say that I really appreciate Steve Holt. His writings and thoughts often challenge me to think more deeply. So if I pushback, it’s because I appreciate you, Steve. If I didn’t like you or your insight, I’d ignore you. Like I do Yankees fans…
I don’t know if we’re all that far apart on this on some levels. I’m not advocating dogmatism in our understanding of the original meaning (I can see how what I wrote could be construed that way). Knowing it is difficult, perhaps even impossible, but that doesn’t deny that it exists (I know you’re not denying its existence either but I think it’s a necessary starting point in this discussion).
I also think that there are some counter examples to your claim of it causing preoccupation, ‘with the relentless search for the “correct original interpretation” rather than the pursuit of kind of life the whole of scripture leads us toward.’ Kevin Vanhoozer firmly believes in an original meaning but works very hard at helping people perform the text in their cultural context (if you haven’t yet, I strongly encourage you to read his Drama of Doctrine). Yes some may get caught up too much focusing solely on the original meaning of the text, but it need not overly occupy us.
I guess I don’t think that we have an either/or here. We need to work hard at both aspects of interpretation, which to his credit, Wright does.
You wanna fight, Danny?? Bring it!! =)
The implication of “either-or” was probably just for emphasis. I realize there are good — amazing, even — folks who hold a very high view of Christian doctrine, of truth and error, of orthodoxy. Where I come down (and again, I hold this very loosely) is that error is any reading that impedes our ability to love God and neighbor. (or that leads us into not loving God and neighbor) I would go further to say that from my reading of scripture, a central way that we love God is by loving our neighbor — see Micah 6 for details. That God (and God through Christ) appears less interested in a book-chapter-verse correctness than our willingness to love people by laying ourselves down for them.
This is why I wince a bit when I see the resurging emphasis of doctrine and the H-word in the collective evangelical vocabulary, because a) it tends to (not always, mind you) pit Christian against Christian in circular theological debate while our neighbors’ lives spiral downward and children in Africa die of preventable causes; and b) it forces us to build doctrinal fences over which many people will never be able to climb in order to reach our idea of union with God in Christ.
You can see that I take a rather anthropomorphic view of Scripture. “Get the people right and you’ll get the Scripture right,” someone once told me. I like that.
That’s enough for now. That should provide enough fodder for conversation.
Steve, I agree with you wholeheartedly that unity in the church is essential if we’re to carry out God’s mission in the world, of which a central component is meeting both the physical and spiritual needs of the world. However, I want to push back just a little bit here and grossly oversimplify one important aspect of Drama of Doctrine. Basically Vanhoozer’s claim is that the whole point of doctrine is to help us see how to improvise on the text. We need direction. If we misunderstand God surely we will not live the right way, for we become what we worship (Christopher Wright makes this point so well in Old Testament Ethics for the People of God). Galatians I think demonstrates my point well. For Paul, the ethical problem was rooted in a theological problem.
I also would want to affirm that some fences are necessary. Yes we are not justified by orthodox belief but beliefs are a necessary point of boundary for entry into the community (otherwise what makes us distinct as Christians?). At the same time, I don’t think that fences should prevent us from working towards e.g., alleviating poverty with those who do not agree with us.
I hear ya, Marcus. I do have to wonder, though, how the doctrinal fence of, say, the exclusion of women from public ministry contribute to righteous living and our carrying out God’s mission in the world?
I don’t disagree that guides are necessary within communities to keep us on mission, but I do worry about the application of “guides” (doctrine) that become too black-and-white, too far-reaching, and thus unloving toward entire segments of society.
You make a good point Steve and I have the same worries. Perhaps I should clarify that I don’t think that every doctrine should serve as a fence (and I disagree with the exclusion of women from public ministry but that’s another topic). Like I said earlier, I don’t think we’re that far apart, just perhaps emphasizing different things. :)
BLOG FIGHT!!!!!!!
A couple thoughts to throw out there (as if I don’t have enough to do today). One, I agree that one cannot love God without loving their neighbor. To sit back while preventable injustice happens in front of your face is not loving God because God Himself is just. If Jesus really meant it when He said that if you love Him, you will obey His commands, then we cannot escape its radical implications.
Two, I think the failure that some make, however, (not necessarily Steve) is to equate loving your neighbor with loving God. To put it one way: loving your neighbor does not exhaust what it means to love God.
Three, “love” is a slippery word. Is it love to give a hungry person a sandwich? Sure. Does that exhaust the meaning of “love”?
God does all sorts of things in the Bible that many would consider unloving. And I’m not even talking about the book of Joshua here. Jesus talks about people burning in Hell, Revelation pictures the downfall of an entire city/empire, Hebrews warns people of the eternal destiny that awaits those who fall away, Paul and John tell us not to associate with those who claim the faith but refuse to live by it, etc.
My issue is this: when “love” becomes the unqualified and unquestioned determiner of all things, it becomes dangerous. God does not simply demand that we be loving. He demands worship. He demands sole allegiance. If Jesus really is Lord, then He alone is worthy of our lives (which is, really, the point of the Great Commission). That might mean we tell some people some very “unloving” things. Then again, if Jesus is Lord, political correctness is not, either.
Back from lunch. Plenty to do myself, but I’ll chime in briefly.
This conversation brings us into some deep theological waters. It has implications in who we believe God to be, how we interpret the Gospel, how we view human agency, etc. So I certainly don’t expect us to come out on the same page at the end of this, nor do I want that. Just the exercise of hearing from each other is a good thing, helping us form and in some cases strengthen our positions.
With that big disclaimer, I have HUGE problems with the way God is described in the last two paragraphs of your last post, Danny. I realize that this is a popular (some may even say orthodox) reading of the nature of God in Scripture, but it’s a hard pill to swallow. That we have stories of God doing some pretty unbelievably cruel things is undeniable … that God still interfaces with humanity in this way, even after Jesus arrives on the scene doesn’t fit my reading. In this light, I also have a hard time imagining God “demanding” anything of us. I’m a good Armenian, so I believe in the will and agency of humans to freely choose the way Christ set for us. I know this differs wildly with the Reformed (and neo-Reformed and “Young, Restless, and Reformed”) view of things.
I always go back to the “why?” question. Why would God demand sole allegiance? Why would God through Christ set forth a way that is so radically different that that of both the Powers and the popular culture? Is God on some cosmic ego trip? (these are questions I get frequently from people who have issues with the Christian faith)
This is where I love NT Wright. He points us to a world that is broken but that is, slowly but surely, being put back together. Of lives being rebuilt. Of people coming alive as they discover the joy that God wants us to experience. Please don’t hear this the wrong way, but the promise of an other-worldly paradise for my detached soul is simply not enough of an incentive for me to follow Jesus. For me (and for Wright, I’d argue), the way of Jesus is the practice of becoming (slowly but surely) truly human, as God intended for us to be. It’s the hope for a truly meaningful and helpful life while we’re here on earth, and the privilege of participating in something bigger than ourselves.
That’s what wakes me up in the morning.
Hi Steve,
It’s been a pleasure discussing this with you. I guess I have one major question for you, and I know its a major question that one could write big books on so I don’t expect a full answer knowing how busy we all are.
Anyways, to the question: how do you understand sin and judgment? Is sin functionally irrelevant? Did the cross effect forgiveness for everyone irrespective of their faith in Jesus? It seems to me that a central tenant of the Christian faith is that our willed sins create enmity with God, one another, and the cosmos (this is true for Calvinists and Arminians). This somehow needs to be overcome, a reckoning needs to take place. Unless one is a universalist then one requires a final judgment. I think that universalism is very hard to square with the biblical text and a final judgment is frequently referred to. I think it’s also worth considering how sin comes into play here as well. I think that everyone has some natural revulsion at the idea of hell (except for the judgmental types), but I think that that is in part caused by our sinful downplaying of the seriousness of our outright rebellion against God.
I understand why some have a hard time with Mother Teresa going to heaven and Ghandi to hell. But what about someone like Hitler and Stalin? Is there no hell for them? It seems that there are 3 options. All go to heaven – which I think doesn’t jive with the Bible, Ghandi and Mother Teresa go because they’re good persons – but this also runs into problems because then how does the death of Jesus really matter if we can just earn our way to heaven by being good and I think misunderstands the depth of sin, or only Mother Teresa goes to heaven because she was saved by grace through faith.
Marcus, I’m gonna have to call a time-out, at least until I can get away from work and have a bit of time to think about this. I definitely have thoughts on your questions, so no worries there … I’ll just need some time to put my thoughts into paragraph form.
I agree — this has been a good conversation, bro.
With any luck, I’ll get to this late tonight or perhaps tomorrow sometime.
Thanks for being gracious!
Danny: You got it; Hurtado is to Nick what Fee is to Danny. If I had to put an OT scholar on my list I’d be in trouble. I’ve read some OT scholars but not too much and the ones I’ve read the most of aren’t geared for lay-audiences. I suspect I’d choose John Walton or Peter Enns just because I really enjoyed the books from them that I’ve read. They’re geared for lay-audiences and are really well written.
[…] 15, 2010 by Justin K So, over at Boston Bible Geeks, Danny posted an interesting list of the 5 scholars that the average church goer would benefit from reading. That sounded like a […]
good post. I’ve not read any Bauckham yet. I’ll have to get hold of one of his books, maybe the Revelation one.
Nick- I wouldn’t have picked Enns as someone who has written books for a lay audience. What has he written?
Mark- It seems to me that you’ve read quite a bit with this audience in mind. Any scholars I’ve missed that you’d recommend?
I totally forgot about Brueggemann … he’d be on my list for sure. Great OT scholar, too. (and accessible)
Still intend to respond to you, Marcus. Just need to find a few free moments.
interesting question Danny – there are very few who can write well on both academic and popular levels (a skill which I think NT Wright is superb at).
Possibly Craig Keener would fit into that category, but he’s another who I’ve not got round to reading much of.
There are several who write at a popular level who have the competence to write at a more academic level but choose not to (e.g. the “pastor-scholars” like John Piper, Dale Ralph-Davis or John Stott). And there are also a number who write for an academic audience, but could be successful writing for a wider readership (perhaps people like Craig Blomberg or Douglas Moo). I guess publishers are more reluctant to give academics contracts on popular books as fewer people would recognise the author’s name than they would if it was written by a well-known pastor like a Tim Keller or Rick Warren.
Hey Danny,
Enns classic work (the one that got him into trouble) is Inspiration and Incarnation. It’s a fantastic book that explores the incarnation as a model for understanding how the Old Testament is the Word of God.
Marcus,
But would it fit a lay audience? I haven’t read it myself.
Danny: Yeah, I&I is written at the popular level. It’s a really good read as well. His Exodus commentary is in the NIVAC series which I think is a more lay-friendly commentary series than some others that are out there.
Absolutely.
[…] Marchionni presents 5 Must Read Bible Scholars (for the non-academic) posted at Boston Bible Geeks, saying, “If people in your church are wanting to learn from […]
Wow, this comment thread really filled out. That’s what I get for not commenting earlier so I could get the emails on subsequent comments.
The one thing I’m worried about with N.T. Wright is his negative statements. He says lots of things that are positively true, and little of it contradicts what I think is important, but then he makes claims against traditional views that I either think are likely or have enough sympathy for that I think his harsh language against them is at least as unfair as what he complains about from someone like Carson or Piper against him.
For example, on justification he says that he doesn’t deny penal substitution. It’s just not his emphasis. He favors other elements of the atonement. But then when you get down to the details, what he means by penal substitution is more limited than what Piper or Carson would mean. Then he says lots of negative things about their claims that he doesn’t hold to the traditional view, and in effect he’s taking on Reformation views (that, I should note, are not any more removed from Wesley than from Calvin or Luther).
Then on inerrancy he says a whole bunch of things affirming a relatively high view of scripture, and he rarely says anything that would conflict with inerrancy. He’s had lots of conversations with Carson about the issue, and Carson thinks his positive views are pretty close to Carson’s own. But then he complains about how inerrancy is simplistic and problematic in ways that show he isn’t really being fair to actual inerrantists but is actually disagreeing with more fundamentalist views in many of his criticisms. Carson sounded deeply hurt by this when he recounted it in a talk I listened to.
He does similar things with politics. He says some good biblical stuff on the general level, but then when he applies it he makes negative statements against particular policies that aren’t actually in conflict with the general principles he’s rightly argued for, and he misrepresents particular politicians pretty badly in order to get to his pronouncements. It’s for this reason more than any other that I’m glad he’s no longer a bishop. He should devote more attention to his scholarship, because that does a lot more good than his negative moral pronouncements as clergy.
I have to throw in one thing here on complementarianism. Any careful complementarian should say that the exclusion of women from public ministry would accomplish nothing toward righteous living and carrying out God’s mission in the world. The NT is pretty clear that all believers should exercise their gifts in the building of the body, and pretty much every influential complementarian recognizes that. So the idea that there are these influential complementarians going around denying that approaches N.T. Wright levels of misrepresentation of fellow believers. It’s true that complementarians think the specific role of elder or of public teaching of mixed-sex adults should be limited to men, but that’s hardly the same thing as excluding women from public ministry altogether.
I would say that Enns’s book on inspiration would not be a good recommendation for a lay audience, largely because a lay audience would not be sensitive to the proper distinctions necessary to see through the problems in it. There’s a lot that he says that’s fine, from what I can tell. But it’s particularly deceptive, because he consistently makes stronger claims than he’s supported, and if you don’t have the philosophical background to recognize his non-sequiturs then it would be hard to see why he’s both trying to accept inerrancy and accept views that an inerrantist shouldn’t accept (even if technically one could). The conversations I’ve had with several people who can handle more academic stuff who still can’t see through those issues makes me think Enns would be a bad choice for those who don’t have any academic background. Some of them think he goes too far on issues where he doesn’t really, and others think there’s no problem at all for inerrancy in his book, and I think that’s false too. Even Paul
Helm, I think, who is a decent philosopher, doesn’t quite put his finger on the real problems with this book.
Hi Jeremy,
I like NT Wright a lot and I too am not a fan of a lot of his denials. This was something brought up by Vanhoozer and others at the Wheaton Theology Conference. He affirms a lot of good stuff which makes him so helpful, but he does deny a lot of true stuff at the same time, unnecessarily.
On Enns book, what do you think is in there that an inerrantist can accept but shouldn’t? Nothing struck me as problematic in that regard (granted I don’t think inerrancy is a crucial doctrine so I may not have been looking for it), and I think I understand the reasoning behind why he’s arguing for what he’s arguing for. One also has to keep in mind the target audience of the book: people who have had their faith rocked by critical scholarship and find the traditional Evangelical answers unhelpful. He’s offering a different set of answers that tries to take the results of critical biblical scholarship as being at least mostly correct and still hold onto a high view of Scripture. I don’t find it dishonest, if anything I think it’s an honest approach.
Marcus, see here for an example from Enns (though not from that book, but I think it’s typical from what I’ve seen from his book.
Better later than never, I guess!
Marcus (& Danny) –
I really have been thinking about your questions this week, but haven’t had a chance to sit down and put them down in blog response form. Multi-volume works have been written about the questions you pose, so to think that I can neatly summarize my beliefs on sin and judgment is probably optimistic at best. =)
So your grace is once again appreciated.
Sin: Sin is both personal and corporate. “We” sin as much as “you” or “I.” The idea that sin is relegated to the dark recesses of an individual’s heart is a leftover of Platonic philosophy, which is pervasive in popular Evangelical theology today. Sin is very real, but to limit it to a single metaphor is as dangerous as limiting the cross to a single metaphor. Sin is individual disobedience, yes, but on a much larger scale it is described as blindness (to God’s work in the world), oppression, slavery, and a reliance on one’s own strength rather than God’s. This is why, I think, Jesus’ mission statement in Luke 4 mentions “sight for the blind” and “freedom for the captive.”
As I said at the top, sin is corporate as well. See Walter Wink’s unbelievably powerful work on the “powers”, in which he points out that institutions — political, religious, corporate — are guilty of working against the way of Jesus in the world. As a result, they trample the poor and needy in favor of more power and money.
Sin/Judgment: I have an issue with Christian theologies that place God’s dealing with our individual sin at the center of Christian doctrine. This emphasis leads us to lives of judgment (of self and others), legalism, and (in my experience) a lack of joy and freedom.
At the center of Christianity, I believe, is the Kingdom of God, which Jesus announces repeatedly. Kingdom here is not some “pie in the sky,” but a new reality in which Jesus reigns and the former assumptions about right and wrong, religious and nonreligious, justice and injustice are flipped on their heads. In other words, God through Christ is teaching humanity how to live, and restoration of communities and abundant “life before death” seems to be a much bigger priority in Scripture than “life after death.”
Because I see kingdom — and not individual sin — as central in the narrative of Scripture, I’m thankful that I’m not too preoccupied with whether my friends are “going to Hell,” but rather that they know that the world isn’t as it should be and is being put back together. (and begin to live into that reality in concrete ways) Is there a Hell? Oh, I dunno. There are as many interpretations against a literal Hell as there are for. I will say that I have a hard time believing that a God who would tell his people to turn the other cheek and forgive their brother 7 times 70 times would torment human beings for eternity. Or a God who would send a Sudanese refugee to Hell after experiencing a painfully short life of Hell on Earth.
A trusted older mentor gave me a challenge a few years ago. He challenged me to start treating everyone I encounter as if they were going to Heaven. Rather than a project or someone who is flawed or broken, what if we treated our neighbors as beautiful, God-inspired, Heavenly creatures? How would that change the way that we spend our days? Isn’t that what Jesus does? Jesus is most tender toward those who deserve it least, and reserves his harshest criticism for the religious and rich. Danny, this is why I think the only responsible OT reading is to pass it through the lens of Jesus, who says that when we’ve seen him, we’ve seen the Father.
[in my best Gump voice] And that’s about all I have to say ’bout that.
I have an issue with Christian theologies that place God’s dealing with our individual sin at the center of Christian doctrine. This emphasis leads us to lives of judgment (of self and others), legalism, and (in my experience) a lack of joy and freedom.
That sounds like the kind of life that Luther’s opponents would have been living and what Luther was living before he understood the grace that comes in Christ. His focus on God’s solution to individual sin was actually the remedy.
Hi Steve,
Thanks for taking the time for a substantive reply. I appreciate your candor and willingness to engage on these issues.
I don’t have any major problems with how you understand what sin is. I would want to nuance some of your thoughts in your sin/judgment paragraph. I understand what you’re getting at but I think we have a case where we need a both/and approach. God’s mission is to bring peace between us (individually and corporately) and God, us and each other, and us and the cosmos. If you lose any of those from your understanding of what God’s project is and the ways in which sin has created the problem then you will lose your way. Within that framework you still have to deal with passages talking about God reckoning to each one according to his or her deeds. Individual sins do still matter even if sin is a much broader concept.
On the issue of hell you still have passages like Matthew 25 which seem to suggest that there is a final judgment with punishment of some sort for those who do not follow in the way of Jesus. Now there are many ways of working through that. Perhaps a more palatable one for you may be NT Wrights suggestion that sin so disfigures those who are resistant to Jesus’ Lordship that by the time they reach hell they are no longer human. I just am not comfortable with any solution that essentially throws out huge sections of the Bible (God’s punitive judgment -while often not hell specifically- is a pervasive theme that is intertwined with every major theme in the Bible). I think it robs Scripture of its authority and places our own experience as the ultimate authority.
Yes, we need to focus on what the big picture is of God’s redemptive project. But we also can’t eliminate talk about the individual.
I don’t think we should treat people like projects either. My goal is to form friendships with whomever God brings my way. I also hope to live in a distinctively Christian manner (and I don’t mean not drinking or going to R-rated movies) which displays the love of Christ. This often leads to questions which gives me the opportunity to share about what Jesus is doing in the kosmos and in me personally hoping to be able to draw them into the Christian community through which they might become part of the people of God. I say all of this to show that a belief in judgment, hell, and the culpability of the individual for their sins doesn’t necessarily lead to legalism or judgmentalism.
I began to read the comments and realized I could be here all do, so straight to the post:
Good list! Someone mentioned that you would probably never see Carson and Wright on a list together. Not true, I just did a huge giveaway on my sit which featured a book by both Carson and Wright!
Anyways, If you’ve read anything I’ve written you know I am a huge Wright fan – yah, I was one of the 1100 people who attended the Wheaton conference (and I’m from Canada!)
Anyways, like I said, good list. I’d suggest you toss Walter Breuggemann on there for your O.T. guy, but I don’t know anything he has written that is parred down for lay reading. But he’d certainly make my list. For me he does with the Old Testament what Wright has done with the New.
[…] 5 Must Read Bible Scholars (for the non-academic) […]
Hey danny. I really appreciate your post. I’ve read very little of these guys and was looking for a list of good influential Bible scholars. your list was very helpful. i will be using it as i pursue a deeper knowledge of the Scriptures…
Thomas Rasiah
Shared publicly –
#God
What God reveals you through his Word of God through the Bible
(Behold I Bring Life Eternity) daily is Greatest New Thing in all over
the Universe for ever. But, the world does not know God properly.