tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post8648995373638164083..comments2024-03-30T00:33:32.285+13:00Comments on Anglican Down Under: Upstream: incarnationPeter Carrellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-79389498512097054392017-12-21T22:59:45.926+13:002017-12-21T22:59:45.926+13:00A postscript and an answer.
Postscript. Psalm 119...A postscript and an answer.<br /><br />Postscript. Psalm 119 is not celebrating what most of us here think of as law, and the apostles cite OT law in ways that we would never dream of doing with any expression of obligation that we know. The flip side of Bryden's comments about the modern notion of subjectivity is that the modern notion of obligation grew up along with it as its twin, and suffers the same critiques, however those may be argued. In fact, an indirect way to Bryden's general position is to critique the modern notions of obligation first, and then see what is left of the sort of self that they necessarily presuppose. Hence my recent use of *modern* to qualify such words as legal, legalism, etc. For a first look at the general problem, one can still do no better than to read the article by Elizabeth Anscombe that first framed the philosophical problem of *obligation* 60 years ago--<br /><br />http://www.pitt.edu/~mthompso/readings/mmp.pdf<br /><br />--alongside the one by Krister Stendahl that framed the exegetical problem of the *self* five years later--<br /><br />http://www.dburnett.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/The-Apostle-Paul-and-the-Introspective-Conscience-of-the-West.pdf<br /><br />If one wonders why the House of Torrance has made so much of the difference between *covenantal* and *contractual* understandings of the divine-human relation, or how Douglas Campbell (influenced by Robert and Alan Torrance) can write a thousand pages about what happens if Romans 1:18-32 is *prosopoeia*, these are not bad places to start. <br /><br />Answer. Jesus is seeking persons, in A/NZ and everywhere, whose identity is not wholly in him and whose sense of their several vocations is not wholly from him. I mean *vocation* here in a broad pauline way that includes, not just one's profession, but the totality of what one has received from God's providence, the place in the scheme of things that has been given by the Creator. <br /><br />BWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-56164321727282256862017-12-21T22:06:48.881+13:002017-12-21T22:06:48.881+13:00Yes Bowman; I'm aware of DC's stance; and ...Yes Bowman; I'm aware of DC's stance; and his clips are fun as well as informative. I like the covers of his books too - apparently the work of his wife! At this point I too am far from sure how it shifts the flow of the argument of Romans, esp 1-4, 5-8; or rather, 1-3:26, 3:27-8. For while 5:1-5 surely sets up 8:17-end, acting as a break and preface, I am persuaded that ch.4 via NTW has far to say than is often credited, tying in to 3:27ff. <br />I have yet to digest JB and Gift BTW other than hearing him here in Chch a few years back. And Gift fits rather nicely with GGR and LDL ...!Bryden Blackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15619512328964399016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-88914556740361384122017-12-21T16:48:58.406+13:002017-12-21T16:48:58.406+13:00"You suggest we try to view the opening secti..."You suggest we try to view the opening section of Romans as *prosopoeia*."<br /><br />Bryden, my question is about Douglas Campbell's claim in Deliverance that, after some sly preliminaries, St Paul has opened Romans with an attack on a judaising false Teacher. According to Campbell, he first mimics or quotes his opponent's argument against grace, which does indeed have-- validly or not-- LXX echoes. The apostle then demolishes the Teacher's argument. Only then does St Paul begin to build his own case for the true gospel on the ground thus cleared. If, in construing the rest of Romans, the exegete is not constrained by 1:18-32, then the gospel that he finds may also be less qualified by the Teacher's view of the law. For speculative example, a student of Douglas Campbell, Richard Hays, and Stanley Hauerwas argues in a recent dissertation that this sort of reading points to an account of human agency better fitted to an ancient virtues ethos than to the modern legal one. While not conclusive, this has the ring of truth. <br /><br />Now any new reading of Romans 1 would probably affect scriptural discussion of a certain unmentionable matter, if only by making it a rather smaller detail in St Paul's rather larger scheme. I have no opinion on how such a reading would cash out. A plan to relate Campbell's Deliverance to John Barclay's Paul & The Gift is among my reasons for suspending judgement for the time being. But as it stands, a reasonably strong argument that Romans 1:18-32 may best be read as *prosopoeia* shows that "better thought may yet overtake the positions that we have tried to reconcile" here. QED<br /><br />BW<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-17197844487764769722017-12-21T12:52:22.529+13:002017-12-21T12:52:22.529+13:00Two quick particulars Peter and Bowman (with half ...Two quick particulars Peter and Bowman (with half an eye on Blessed Isles too!):<br /><br />1. Women’s status etc.: Mark 10:11-12. Either Jesus is ignorant of the legal status of women - that they were unable to divorce their husbands - or his point is lain elsewhere: that they too are as equally responsible/accountable for the well-being of marriage as husbands. Jesus raises the status of women! As he does in a number of places ....<br /><br />2. You suggest we try to view the opening section of Romans as <i>prosopoeia</i>. Even if Paul is ‘indulging’ in classic rhetoric, it is a form which still echoes at many points Gen 1 and Wis 13-14. I.e. one which drives at the consequences of false worship - of which any and all are, in some form, guilty. Which leads inexorably to worship’s renewal, Rom 12:1-2, the fulcrum of the whole argument, after the display of “mercy” in chs 1-11 and their due consequences.Bryden Blackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15619512328964399016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-34772022635188540982017-12-21T11:43:37.124+13:002017-12-21T11:43:37.124+13:00Thank you, Peter. This is still not a straight ans...Thank you, Peter. This is still not a straight answer, but by way of the above, a paraphrase of what I think your OP asks--<br /><br />Given that the incarnation in C1 Gerasa or Emmaus was presence by the power of the Holy Spirit, to whom would the Son want to be available in C21 A/NZ and what would this look like?<br /><br />Is this close?<br /><br />BW<br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-5202286509285204882017-12-21T09:29:29.356+13:002017-12-21T09:29:29.356+13:00Great thoughts, Bowman
We cannot invent Jesus (eit...Great thoughts, Bowman<br />We cannot invent Jesus (either a construction of a first century Jesus with no connection to OT or a 21st century one with no connection to the gospels and epistles) - which is my sense of what you are saying above!Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-49188702330221967722017-12-20T23:07:35.968+13:002017-12-20T23:07:35.968+13:00Before straight answers, Peter, a few heuristic th...Before straight answers, Peter, a few heuristic thoughts.<br /><br />Our scriptural resources for thinking about the incarnation include the OT, if we can learn to read it in a more christocentric way. The Psalms, Daniel 7, the several appearances of the Angel of the Lord, etc. Vanhoozer is right that the NT is best read as an improvisation on the cantus firmus of the OT that was occasioned by Jesus.<br /><br />The three orders of ministry are probably inhibiting us less than some outdated thinking about organisations in general that sometimes locks us into unhelpful patterns in churches in particular. <br /><br />Jesus in the C21 would be similar to the Jesus of the C1 in one interesting way-- he would be a local figure in a very global way. Although we cannot quite imagine Jesus apart from his ministry in Galilee, he was even then and especially in that location obliquely responding to Hellenisation and Rome. So Jesus today would be in some places new to the Church, but just so, he would also be in the whole global village.<br /><br />Finally, Jesus then already was and would again be today more like a virtue ethicist than like the modern sort of legalist, and so believers in him today, like those in him in the C1, will have a vivid sense of how soul-change is an end of obedience to God. <br /><br />BW<br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-22196460305516502212017-12-20T12:18:47.814+13:002017-12-20T12:18:47.814+13:00Peter, may I repeat your injunction in the body of...Peter, may I repeat your injunction in the body of this post?:<br /><br />"There is NO invitation here to resume discussion of That Topic. The implication of "incarnation" as a hermeneutical consideration can be discussed on your own blog or Facebook page. Or, EVENTUALLY, when we resume discussion here ...* after the Working Group's final report."<br /><br />In the light of this, I will be taking a holiday from your blog - until the conditions* you state here are fulfilled. <br />Have a Blessed Christmas!Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.com