Two groups that did belong to more active networks, churches and synagogues, were concerned mostly to protect their privileges or to encourage circumstances that allowed them to run their internal affairs without interference. Their aim was not to overthrow the existing political system, but to find their niche within it — even if on their own terms. So while some aspects of early Christian communal life, for example, could be seen as politically or socially destabilizing, in fact most early Christian writers call on their members to support the state (Rom. 13; 1 Pet. 2). It is true that some Jews and Christians envisaged the overthrow of the state in the end times, and that the Judaean and North African Jews anticipated this outcome in a series of revolts against Rome in the first and second centuries CE. These uprisings were, however, driven more by a revolutionary than a reformist impulse, were limited geographically and temporally, and were atypical of the experience of the majority of Jews under Roman rule. (3)

This is not all that different than what many other scholars have said, but I like how it’s been phrased here. As an Anabaptist, I have been connected with a lot of Christians who would like to find a biblical basis for political reform. Texts like Romans 13:1-7 are, of course, the big challenge for them. I’m not sure Revelation 13 is much help because, as Wilson notes about Judean revolts, that apocalyptic critique of the state is “driven more by a revolutionary than a reformist impulse.” This revolution, however, is imagined as the act of God in the end of the age because any present revolutions are quite obviously fruitless (understatement!).

I think reformist Christians in the United States, such as the Mennonites in my own “voluntary association,” do better to recognize the historical circumstance of the early Christian movement. We can be honest that the early Christian movement was not trying to make political changes to the imperial government, but just because they were not reformist does not mean that Christians today cannot be. The same as the Anabaptists themselves could not be reformists in 16th century Europe but often are in the United States today. Christians should understand why the Jesus movement was not that way and then understand how the early values might apply in our very different social and political situation.

While I can’t yet see the time or day the session will take place, I am able to see those with whom I will be sharing the stage/podium. There is a bit of international flavoring to the session. First, we have Simon Mimouni presiding over the session, who teaches at Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes, a school within the Sorbonne (the University of Paris).

After my slot is Gabriella Gelardini who received her Dr. theol. in New Testament studies from the University of Basel (Switzerland), where she currently teaches. Her paper, “Nomen est Omen: The Practice of Naming in the Gospel of Mark as an Instrument (of Power) in Service of Identity Construction(s),” addresses why some folks get named and others do not in the Gospel of Mark.

We then have five minutes for discussion (total for both initial papers!) and time for a five minute break.

Starting up the second half of the session is Lori Baron, who I believe is a Ph.D. candidate at Duke University. Her paper, “Interpreting the Shema: Liturgy and Identity in the Fourth Gospel,” was also recently presented at the 2009 SECSOR presentation (the Southeastern regional SBL/AAR). You can see one blogger’s description of the “excellent paper.” She presented on a similar theme at the 2008 SBL session in Boston. Here are her opening abstract lines:

This paper explores how the use of the Shema in John’s Gospel is instrumental in developing the identities of two groups of actors: Jews who believe in Jesus and Jews who do not. Equally important, John’s use of the Shema distinguishes those John considers true believers from false believers.

Finally, we have Matthew E. Gordley of Regent University rounding out the session. Gordley serves as the Department Chair of Religious Studies at Regent. He received his Ph.D. in 2006 from Notre Dame in New Testament and Early Christianity. I know what you might be thinking, “Pat Robertson’s Regent University?” Yes. But, I have to say that my opinion has been radically altered, having met a graduate of their seminary–who also happens to be one of the sharpest guys I know and still has his intellectual integrity intact. My friend tells me that Pat Robertson may get the university money, but the professors in religious studies are far from Robertson’s own strange civil religion theology.

Gordley, who wrote his dissertation on the Colosians hymn (available on Google Books), has titled his presentation for this session, “Dynamics of Communal Formation in Horace’s Odes and Early Christian Hymns.” Gordley’s paper addresses the two major hymns of the NT (Phil 2:5-11 and Col 1:15-20) in light of a recent study on “Horace’s encomia of Caesar (especially Odes IV. 14 and 15) [that] suggests that praise of an exalted individual can be part of a complex process of involving author and audience in navigating issues of identity.”

Well, I am quite impressed. I was a bit worried I would end up with boring topics, but I am intrigued by all the papers in the session. I hope we will be able to draw in a little bit of a crowd–here’s hoping we’re not up against any heavy hitters, or some session on “empire” or “sex” or the two combined.

Here is the outline of the session:

Construction of Christian Identities
Date TBD
Time TBD to Time TBD
Room: Room TBD – Hotel TBD

Theme: Rituals, Texts, Individuals and Associations: Competing Ways to Construct Identities? (3)

Simon Mimouni, Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes, Presiding (5 min)

Patrick George McCullough, University of California-Los Angeles
The Agents of Jesus Meet “All the Nations”: Adapting Jesus’ Cultic Reform for the Eschaton (25 min)

Gabriella Gelardini, University of Basel
Nomen est Omen: The Practice of Naming in the Gospel of Mark as an Instrument (of Power) in Service of Identity Construction(s) (25 min)

Discussion (5 min)
Break (5 min)

Lori Baron, Duke University
Interpreting the Shema: Liturgy and Identity in the Fourth Gospel (25 min)

Matthew E. Gordley, Regent University
Dynamics of Communal Formation in Horace’s Odes and Early Christian Hymns (25 min)

Discussion (5 min)
Business Meeting (30 min)

The basic thesis for the paper is that Jewish eschatological texts anticipate a time when the Gentiles/nations will one day worship the one true God, and with Jesus’ inauguration of the eschaton, his followers carry out the Gentile mission in partial fulfillment of that vision. Here is the abstract:

The Gospels portray Jesus of Nazareth as both cultic reformer within the house of Israel (akin to Amos) and an apocalyptic herald announcing the end of the age. As a reformer, Jesus seeks to extend God’s compassion to groups marginalized by contemporary practices within the Judean cult (e.g., women, the sick, the poor). While Jesus’ inclusivity here is radical, his program is limited to the house of Israel (e.g., Matt 15:24). This paper argues that Jesus’ role as an apocalyptic herald inaugurates not only the eschaton, but also the inclusion of the Gentiles (the “nations”). The role of the Gentiles in the coming judgment is a muddled area within Second Temple Jewish texts. Some texts anticipate a war with Gentile oppressors of the Judeans, other texts see God using the Gentiles as bringing God’s justice upon unfaithful Israelites/Judeans, while many texts also suggest that the Gentiles will some day worship the true God and will join the people of God. The latter category provides the foundation for this paper. From the perspective of Jesus’ followers, Judean cultic leaders have rejected Jesus’ message of radical inclusivity. As Jesus’ death and resurrection marks the beginning of the new age, the followers of Jesus act as his agents to reinterpret his cultic reforms for a mission to the Gentiles—thus initiating the Gentile inclusion anticipated in eschatological texts. One can see the shift in the disciples’ role as Jesus’ agents to the house of Israel first (Matt 10) and later to “all the nations” (Matt 25:31-46; 28:16-20). The pragmatic and theological implications of such a shift dominate the conversation of the early Jesus movement. This paper contrasts this phenomenon with the sectarian particularism of the Qumran community, which constitutes a contemporary group also identified by both cultic reform and apocalyptic eschatology.

And here is information for the program unit (see all program units):

Construction of Christian Identities

Edmondo F. Lupieri Mauro Pesce

Description: Interdisciplinary study of the making of Christianity as a complex phenomenon (“Early Christianities”), and of conflicting intercultural relations among Mediterranean/Near-Eastern religious groups as contributing to diversified evolution inside early Christianities. Identifying different early Christian groups as matrix of different early Christian writings.

Call for papers: For the Annual Meeting of New Orleans 2009, this Unit plans to invite the speakers for one of its sessions (panel discussion) and to accept papers for the other. The title of the panel discussion is: “From Christianity to Christianities: Ways Back to the Origins.” We would like to explore the possibility to move back from the consolidated situation of Christianity we know better (that of a “Great Church” and of “heresies”) to the complexity of the origins. The title of the open session is: “Rituals, Texts, Individuals and Associations: Competing ways to Construct Identities?” We invite contributions which analyze first century events and/or phenomena pertaining to cultural mechanisms which could have contributed to the construction of a group identity, both among the followers of Jesus and in comparable groups. Please, feel free to send any proposal for papers, the content of which corresponds to the specific subject of the open session and to the lines established in the General Description of the Section.

Speaking of which, one who is not on the “inside” of biblical studies may wonder what the big deal is about this passage. The big deal is that there is a massive amount of scholarly literature about this small section in Paul’s epistle to the Philippians. It is believed to be one of the earliest hymns of the Christian church and, furthermore, one of the earliest compact statements of a clear christological outlook. The hymn contains the incarnation, the crucifixion, and the subsequent exaltation of Jesus by God. It is packed with theology. From my cursory understanding (as I said, I’ve only begun the research process), a large deal of the scholarly literature is focused on individual elements of this hymn; the “emptying” of Christ, for example. I am possibly narrowing my focus on one element as well, and that is the role that the death of Jesus plays in the hymn and the importance of obedience, even obedience that should be modeled by the followers of Jesus. I’m not sure how much scholarly literature focuses on this aspect of the hymn.

Another huge topic in the study of this passage is its literary form. A great deal of ink has been spilled analyzing how the form fits together and from where it comes. I have a different interest. I am particularly interested in how it might have functioned and what it might have meant to early communities of Christians, as far as we can know or guess these things. There has been a great deal written on the function of hymns generally in early Christianity, and that will be one place I will have to spend time. I am also interested in sociological studies related to communal or social memory. I believe these studies may provide a window into how the theme of Jesus’ obedient death as a model for imitation might have functioned among early believers. You may have noticed my earlier post when I declared I would be working on the memory of Jesus in the early church for this paper. This is the “angle” I’m now considering for that paper.

April DeConick has recently blogged a series of posts regarding the tendencies of communal memory. These are the tendencies she has posted about thus far:

1. Communal memory depends upon shared frames of references within a culture as it thrives on remaking the past into a history with contemporaneous meaning. [more here]
2. These remembrances do not represent the sum total of what actually happened, but are fragments of the past that have been rearranged and reconnected into a new interpretative framework. [more here]
3. [T]he process of recreating the past is ongoing for the group since it is constantly under pressure to adjust and respond to societal, political, cultural, and religious pressures that the group experiences. [more here]

She has also pointed to a collection of articles to which she has contributed. Interestingly, I actually found the book the day before noticing that she had mentioned it on her blog. It is entitled Memory, Tradition, and Text: Uses of the Past in Early Christianity and is edited by Alan Kirk and Tom Thatcher. You can also find it on Amazon, where it is a “Search Inside” book, and is 30% off (at least, it is at the moment).

Again, I am not as interested in “getting at” the history behind the text regarding the historical Jesus, the historical Paul, or even this historical hymn, though there are certainly implications regarding these in my project. Nevertheless, I do think the concepts of communal memory may be helpful in exploring how the early church remembered Jesus.

All of this to say, I may just be insane. As I look back at what I have just now wrote, I am thoroughly daunted and may indeed take on a different topic. I will explore the possibility, though, and see what happens.

That paper in college was an exception. It was a twenty-pager on Thomas Merton for a Christian Spirituality course. I had just spent the past year reading Merton and journaling my reflections about his work. I had even spent a weekend at his monastery in Kentucky, taking solace from the monastic life where “silence is spoken here,” as well as interviewing people who knew Merton. The paper had become a part of me. Long before I registered for the class, I knew that I would choose Merton for that assignment.

Nowadays, while I love to do research, papers are tedious to craft and give birth to, so to speak. And yet, when I’m done, especially for a lengthy paper, I feel like that paper is my baby . . . unless I wasn’t able to articulate exactly what I wanted.

Reflecting on my Merton paper experience, I wonder if someday I will get to a point where some area of NT studies will just flow out of me, like it is a part of me. I kind of imagine that is what it’s like for the big names in scholarship who’ve been in it for so long. They have lived it. I’m just a beginner, learning how things work, trying to figure out the theories. I feel like it will take awhile to get to a point where I don’t have to think about the theories and how to articulate them. It’s encouraging to think that maybe someday it’ll get easier. Maybe keeping at this blog will help the material become more a part of me. I guess we’ll see.

Walter Bo Russell, III, makes some interesting points in his article, “Does the Christian Have ‘Flesh’ in Galatians 5:13-26?” for JETS 36 (1993): 179-187. The first paragraph is from pages 180-1, the rest is from page 187:

Particularly, Paul uses sarx and pneuma in antithesis in his extended discussion of the relationship between Jews and Gentiles in the Church in Galatians 3-6 and Romans 7-8. In these contexts sarx is in tandem with nomos (”law”) and is associated with the era of Israel under the Mosaic law. This is why Paul connects “flesh” and “law” in passages like Gal 5:17-18; Rom 6:12-14; 8:1-4 in a manner that is disconcerting to many commentators. He is arguing against the Jewish Christians’ advocacy of the proselyte model of Gentile incorporation and against their advocacy of the use of the Mosaic law as the primary means for constraining the Christians’ behavior. Jewish Christians were advocating an anachronistic redemptive historical model, and Paul’s response is appropriately redemptive-historical in its logic. . . .

The choice that the Galatians faced was to continue to follow the true gospel that Paul had preached to them and not to desert to a nongospel (1:6-7). Therefore they must reject becoming proselytes to Judaism and being circumcised (5:1-12). Ethically this meant they must “walk according to the rule of the Spirit” and not fulfill the desires connected with those who still live according to the rule of the flesh (5:16). To be “led according to the rule of the Spirit” is not to be “under the law” (5:18). The choice to live in the Judaizers’ “law/flesh community” will manifest itself in the behavior of that community: the deeds of the flesh (5:19-21). Conversely the choice to continue to live in the “Spirit community” will manifest itself in the fruit of the Spirit (5:22-23). This is true because Christians have crucified the sarx—that is, the mode of existence of their body being under sin’s mastery and not indwelt by God’s Spirit ended (5:24). Since they live according to the rule of the Spirit they should also corporately walk according to the rule of the Spirit (5:25).

James Dunn on defining “under the law” in his commentary on Galatians (pp. 301-2):

[On 5:18] For it denoted for [Paul] the space of the nation Israel, the Jewish people under the law as their guardian angel (see on iii.23); reference to legalistic self-righteousness (as Oepke 176), or the condemnation of the law (as Borse 196), is uncalled for and excluded by iv.4 (Barclay, Obeying 116 n. 24). To put oneself thus ‘under the law’ was to look once again for an answer to ‘the desire of the flesh’ in a written code, an outward constraint; whereas in the age of fulfilment introduced by Christ, it was the circumcision of the heart, an effective inner force which was now available. To put onself [sic] ‘under the law’, in other words, was to look in the wrong direction for salvation. Worse still, to assume that only ‘under the law’ could salvation be found was to deny the reality of Gentile as Gentile having received the Spirit. No! The reality of being led by the Spirit, that is, the Spirit of Jesus (iv.6), was independent of being ‘under the law’ and should not therefore be identified with the ethnic Jewish identity which that phrase encapsulated. In short, their experience of the Spirit thus far should be enough to convince them that to take the step of becoming a proselyte (through circumcision) was unnecessary. Implicit here also is a clear distinction between being ‘under the law’ and ‘fulfilling the law’ (v.14); the law is ‘fulfilled’ by those who are led by the Spirit (Thielman 53); not by putting oneself ‘under the law’.

[On 5:19] Paul does not hesitate to press the logic of his argument strongly. By implication, to put oneself ‘under the law’, to become a proselyte, to accept circumcision, is to think and act on the level of the flesh (see on vi.13), on that level of visibility and outwardness which is the very opposite of the inward reality of the Spirit’s work (the contrast to explicit in Rom ii.28-9). And to put oneself on the level of the flesh is to put oneself on the same level as so many of the very things which Jews (and all those of goodwill) hated and despised – the works of the flesh, the outworking of the flesh, those things which express the character of the flesh and its desires; the echo of the earlier repeated phrase, ‘the works of the law’ (ii.16, iii.3, 5, 10) is no doubt intentional. The challenge to the other missionaries is as sharp as it could be, and may well have seemed to them outrageous. Judaism, after all, was more opposed to these things than others were (particularly idolatry and sorcery), and the very thought that desire for circumcision was even on the same plane as them must have seemed ridiculous. But this is precisely Paul’s challenge: to put such weight on the fleshly rite of circumcision and on ethnic identity was actually to pitch the theological principle into the same realm as these things so widely despised; to make circumcision the test-case of eligibility for a share in Abraham’s inheritance was to make the effective working of the Spirit dependent on a work of (done in) the flesh. By linking ‘under the law’ (v.18) with ‘works of the flesh’ (both in antithesis to what the Spirit produces) Paul thus presumably hoped to jolt his readers into a recognition of the level they were thinking on and of what they might lose (see also on v.22).

As far as I can tell, Galatians 5:16-26 does not afford an opportunity to deal with the foundation of the NPP’s views on Paul. Instead it builds on conclusions that have been made based on other passages in Galatians. One of the big questions then is how well these foundational arguments, made elsewhere, fit into this passage. I’m still working on that one.

Update (same day): I added another paragraph to Dunn’s quote. Here I think that Dunn articulates one of my primary concerns about this passage, the thing that makes me dizzy to think about: “Judaism, after all, was more opposed to these things than others were (particularly idolatry and sorcery), and the very thought that desire for circumcision was even on the same plane as them must have seemed ridiculous.” How can Paul accuse them that being “under the law” is somehow associated with these “works of the flesh” when those who follow the law would be disgusted by many of these works? It is a bold and offensive statement (to his adversaries). That is what makes me wrestle with this question.

I hope to do my term paper for Hagner’s “Paul and the Law” course on an Anabaptist assessment of the NPP. Frankly, I’m surprised at the paucity of available sources on this. It seems like a topic that would be of interest to a great many Anabaptists. Perhaps all the Anabaptists are just saying, “Well, yeah, of course… you think this is ‘new’? What’s the big deal? Where were you when we were challenging Luther himself rather than his memory? You may get bad reviews, but we got burned at the stake!” It appears that most of the small references I’ve found assume that the NPP is a good thing without critically reflecting on the matter. I guess I’ll just have to take it on by myself for now . . . unless any of my friendly readers would like to offer some reflections!

One of the most powerful, axiom-like single verses in the New Testament, Gal 3:28 certainly commands our attention for the biblical conversation:

There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.

In Galatians, Paul is of course most interested in the “Jew or Greek” pair from the statement, though the “slave or free” theme receives some attention as well. Paul asserts that “neither circumcision nor uncircumcision count for anything” in Christ Jesus, but rather what matters is “faith working through love” (5:6) and “a new creation” (6:15). “You are no longer slaves,” he writes, “but a child” and an “heir, through God” (4:7). Again, “we are children, not of the slave but of the free woman” (4:31). This letter is about being truly free and not weighed down by “the curse of the law” (3:13).

But what of “male and female” (ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ)? Neither word occurs at any other point in the epistle. We can certainly see how there could be an issue of “freedom” in the case of men and women, but without any other mention of male-female relations, it seems oddly out of place. Paul is clearly not making a detailed argument here specifically for the equality of men and women, but a powerful statement nonetheless. There are only two other uses of this phrase in the NT (Matt 19:4; Mk 10:6), both direct references to the creation account. In the Greek version of the book of Genesis (from the Septuagint, also known as LXX), most significantly in the creation account, the same pair occurs 10 times (its only use in the LXX). God creates humanity in the image of God, “male and female” (ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ) God creates them (1:27; cf. 5:2). That Paul explicitly uses “and” (καὶ) for this pair in Gal 3:28, diverging from his use of “or” (οὐδὲ) in the other two, suggests that he is calling the reader’s memory to the creation account of Genesis.

But why? Clearly Paul does not desire to cancel out the “image of God” from humanity. What else could explain his use here? Some complementarians argue that since Paul is here referring to a creation ordinance, it does not have the same implications as the first two pairs. The first two relate to racial, ethnic, and social divisions that were not a part of God’s good creation and therefore can be challenged in the present social reality. “Male and female,” on the other hand, according to the traditionalists, only refers to a removal of distinction between the two in the realm of salvation. Of course, there is no distinction between men and women in salvation, they say, but this does not have social implications (cf. Scholer, 125). This argument stems from the traditionalist reading of Genesis 1-2 in which social distinctions between men and women are inherent in God’s creation itself (i.e., they are God’s intention).

Another traditionalist emphasis on this verse is highlighting its lack of functional meaning. There is no reference to any specific office of ministry in the context of Galatians. Furthermore, the traditionalists tend to count texts irrelevant to this discussion when they do not explicitly affirm a woman’s role in the office of either ἐπίσκοπος (overseer/bishop) or πρεσβύτερος (presbyter/elder). In this way, when the egalitarians point to principles found within texts such as Gal 3:28, the complementarians dismiss them from the “women in ministry” discussion since they do not have specific mention of predetermined ministerial positions (cf. Scholer, 124-5).

The problem with this last argument, however, is that the leadership offices of the church were far different in New Testament times than they are today. When we narrow our definitions by titles, we risk anachronistically reading our present day understandings of those titles into the biblical text. Instead, we should look to the themes and principles found in these biblical passages, while not neglecting their context, and apply them to our own contemporary situation.

The first argument (the appeal to creation-mandated social distinctions) must be addressed with an assessment of the opening chapters of Genesis themselves. That I will leave to my next post in this series.

I already don’t like taking exams, but when there is added pressure, I tend to freak out so much about detail that I overwhelm myself. I bring myself to the point where, come exam day, I question every answer I make as I imagine a bloodthirsty grader wielding his big fat red pen and joyously finding every little bit I’ve left out. It makes me a slow test taker. And it makes me wonder if these tests are really generating solid learning. I think I’ve decided not to give my students exams, at least the same kind, if I ever make it to the other side of this education alive. Don’t get me wrong. I love the professors I’ve had here and the classes are good. I think my major problem is that we’re on the quarter system. Everything just gets so jampacked and stressful. Fuller does also have a problem with huge survey courses with 70-80 people in them, that’s a little unpleasant.

Yet I still learned a lot this quarter! And over my break I hope to cipher some of that learning in written form onto my blog. Many of my assignments towards the end of the quarter would be perfect for blog adaptation, but I was just too busy. Over my break, then, I’ll be posting sections from my women in ministry paper, reflecting on Bockmuehl’s book, and throwing in some research exercises from NT research methods (like the season-appropriate translation of κατάλυμα in Luke 2:7 . . . Mary and Joseph weren’t turned away from an inn, folks!).

I have naturally set myself with too high expectations for my break. My priorities include studying Greek nearly full-time, reading the first volume of Meier’s A Marginal Jew series, preparing Bible studies for my church-based internship (see this and that book I’m using), and maybe reading one of the books required for next quarter. All of that within three weeks. Oh, and I’m preaching a sermon at church on December 31st. It’s my first time preaching since being a chaplain in college five years ago. For the curious, next quarter I’ll be taking:

• NS532: Paul and the Law with Donald Hagner (Elective)
• OT506: OT Exegesis: Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings with Jim Butler (OTBE)
• CH500: Early Church History with James Bradley (CHA)

Finally, I hope to get a new look for my blog. I don’t like how narrow the space is for my text and I’m going to see if I can make it look a little spiffier. So I’ll be experimenting on a test blog for that.