Comments for Reading Romans for the 21st Century http://romansfortoday.wordpress.com Sun, 10 Dec 2006 02:47:36 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 Comment on Summary and Suggestions for Further Study by Dan Ebert http://romansfortoday.wordpress.com/2006/12/05/summary-and-suggestions-for-further-study/#comment-16 Dan Ebert Sun, 10 Dec 2006 02:47:36 +0000 http://romansfortoday.wordpress.com/2006/12/05/summary-and-suggestions-for-further-study/#comment-16 Joel, one other thought. Instead of working with a four part drama (creation, fall, redemption, restoration), it might be better to follow the suggestion of Samuel Wells (Improvisation, p. 53-57). He makes a good case for a five part drama: Creation (with Fall as a part), Israel, Jesus, Church, and Eschaton (consummation/restoration/recreation). This has several advantages, Fall is really part of the creation narrative in Genesis, and part of the beginning of the human condition; and more importantly Jesus (Christ-event) is central, as it should be. It also has the two balancing features of the people of God (Israel/Church), with the Church in the already/not yet position. You might want to think about this, and perhaps read his treatment. I think this would also apply nicely to Romans as a test case. Joel, one other thought. Instead of working with a four part drama (creation, fall, redemption, restoration), it might be better to follow the suggestion of Samuel Wells (Improvisation, p. 53-57). He makes a good case for a five part drama: Creation (with Fall as a part), Israel, Jesus, Church, and Eschaton (consummation/restoration/recreation). This has several advantages, Fall is really part of the creation narrative in Genesis, and part of the beginning of the human condition; and more importantly Jesus (Christ-event) is central, as it should be. It also has the two balancing features of the people of God (Israel/Church), with the Church in the already/not yet position. You might want to think about this, and perhaps read his treatment. I think this would also apply nicely to Romans as a test case.

]]> Comment on Summary and Suggestions for Further Study by Dan Ebert http://romansfortoday.wordpress.com/2006/12/05/summary-and-suggestions-for-further-study/#comment-15 Dan Ebert Sat, 09 Dec 2006 15:36:41 +0000 http://romansfortoday.wordpress.com/2006/12/05/summary-and-suggestions-for-further-study/#comment-15 This work continues to hold promise. The next step after focusing on narrative is to make the move that Kevin Vanhoozer makes in The Drama of Doctrine, this draws the reader/believer more explicitly into the narrative, AS an actor in the drama. I think that way of thinking is helpful. Keven's work also helps tie canonical and linguistic issues together. How this works out in terms of Christian practice is nicely illustrated by Samuel Wells' recent work on ethics, Improvisation: The Drama of Christian Ethics. I also think you are wise to work further on your familiarity with biblical theology, both OT and NT. The work on by Chris Wright sounds like a great place to start. You might also check the collection of essays on biblical theology, Out of Egypt: Biblical Theology and Biblical Interpretation. Keep going. This work continues to hold promise. The next step after focusing on narrative is to make the move that Kevin Vanhoozer makes in The Drama of Doctrine, this draws the reader/believer more explicitly into the narrative, AS an actor in the drama. I think that way of thinking is helpful. Keven’s work also helps tie canonical and linguistic issues together. How this works out in terms of Christian practice is nicely illustrated by Samuel Wells’ recent work on ethics, Improvisation: The Drama of Christian Ethics.

I also think you are wise to work further on your familiarity with biblical theology, both OT and NT. The work on by Chris Wright sounds like a great place to start. You might also check the collection of essays on biblical theology, Out of Egypt: Biblical Theology and Biblical Interpretation.

Keep going.

]]> Comment on Reading Romans for its Underlying Narrative by Cameron Shaffer http://romansfortoday.wordpress.com/2006/10/31/reading-romans-for-its-underlying-narrative/#comment-14 Cameron Shaffer Wed, 01 Nov 2006 17:01:59 +0000 http://romansfortoday.wordpress.com/2006/10/31/reading-romans-for-its-underlying-narrative/#comment-14 Hey Joel, Nice post! I just wanted to let you know I'm still readingand enjoying your various blogs. Keep it up, and seriously, get some rest. -Cameron Hey Joel,

Nice post! I just wanted to let you know I’m still readingand enjoying your various blogs. Keep it up, and seriously, get some rest.

-Cameron

]]> Comment on Reading Romans for its Underlying Narrative by Dan Ebert http://romansfortoday.wordpress.com/2006/10/31/reading-romans-for-its-underlying-narrative/#comment-13 Dan Ebert Wed, 01 Nov 2006 12:28:07 +0000 http://romansfortoday.wordpress.com/2006/10/31/reading-romans-for-its-underlying-narrative/#comment-13 Joel, I enjoyed this post. It moves in the right direction. You show balance and perspective. I will look forward to the integration of a trinitarian reading with this basic narrative outline: I think you will find it there, assumed and operating under the surface, and sometimes right on the surface. Keep going. This approach allows for greater integration and wholeness..... Joel, I enjoyed this post. It moves in the right direction. You show balance and perspective. I will look forward to the integration of a trinitarian reading with this basic narrative outline: I think you will find it there, assumed and operating under the surface, and sometimes right on the surface. Keep going. This approach allows for greater integration and wholeness…..

]]> Comment on Reading Romans in One Sitting by Braden http://romansfortoday.wordpress.com/2006/10/23/reading-romans-in-one-sitting/#comment-12 Braden Fri, 27 Oct 2006 13:42:19 +0000 http://romansfortoday.wordpress.com/2006/10/23/reading-romans-in-one-sitting/#comment-12 Well, I really don't have much to say...... so I'm glad to see that you're reading your Bible. :) Well, I really don’t have much to say…… so I’m glad to see that you’re reading your Bible. :)

]]> Comment on Reading Romans in One Sitting by joels http://romansfortoday.wordpress.com/2006/10/23/reading-romans-in-one-sitting/#comment-11 joels Mon, 23 Oct 2006 19:56:21 +0000 http://romansfortoday.wordpress.com/2006/10/23/reading-romans-in-one-sitting/#comment-11 Great thought, Rick. While I couldn't begin to give a full answer to that, a few thoughts come to mind as I have been studying some of these things. Paul, the apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, is the same man that wrote each letter. As one of my posts talked about, what is Paul's starting point? His fundamental starting point for each letter is the same: the Judeo-Christian worldview/narrative and his experience of the risen Christ. Not only that, but he is writing each letter to an individual congregation. So there will be great similarity between all of his letters, although obviously his focus is different in each of them. And if we are talking about coming to Scripture with community in mind (because Paul had it in mind), then both Philippians and Romans should evidence some of the same communal features. Great thought, Rick. While I couldn’t begin to give a full answer to that, a few thoughts come to mind as I have been studying some of these things.

Paul, the apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, is the same man that wrote each letter. As one of my posts talked about, what is Paul’s starting point? His fundamental starting point for each letter is the same: the Judeo-Christian worldview/narrative and his experience of the risen Christ. Not only that, but he is writing each letter to an individual congregation. So there will be great similarity between all of his letters, although obviously his focus is different in each of them. And if we are talking about coming to Scripture with community in mind (because Paul had it in mind), then both Philippians and Romans should evidence some of the same communal features.

]]> Comment on Reading Romans in One Sitting by Rick http://romansfortoday.wordpress.com/2006/10/23/reading-romans-in-one-sitting/#comment-10 Rick Mon, 23 Oct 2006 16:32:47 +0000 http://romansfortoday.wordpress.com/2006/10/23/reading-romans-in-one-sitting/#comment-10 In comparison to Paul's other letters would you say that there is more of a community emphasis here in Romans or elsewhere. I ask that because as I've been reading through Philippians, solidifying my choice of passage for our exegetical paper, I've been surprised to see home much of it shows the same emphasis. In comparison to Paul’s other letters would you say that there is more of a community emphasis here in Romans or elsewhere. I ask that because as I’ve been reading through Philippians, solidifying my choice of passage for our exegetical paper, I’ve been surprised to see home much of it shows the same emphasis.

]]> Comment on Exegetical Method by joels http://romansfortoday.wordpress.com/2006/10/01/exegetical-method-1/#comment-9 joels Tue, 17 Oct 2006 03:02:26 +0000 http://romansfortoday.wordpress.com/2006/10/01/exegetical-method-1/#comment-9 The Orthodox church is something that I have no experience with, but I find the four "controls" very compelling. Particularly, if the Orthodox tradition was less influenced by the Enlightenment and rationalism, then how does that factor into reading Romans in a way that is relevant for our postmodern society? Would it perhaps indicate that the "postmodern enrichments" that we are talking about are really not so much a result of postmodern influences on culture and the church, but are instead sound "methods" for understanding and applying the Scriptures, postmodernism aside? The Orthodox church is something that I have no experience with, but I find the four “controls” very compelling. Particularly, if the Orthodox tradition was less influenced by the Enlightenment and rationalism, then how does that factor into reading Romans in a way that is relevant for our postmodern society? Would it perhaps indicate that the “postmodern enrichments” that we are talking about are really not so much a result of postmodern influences on culture and the church, but are instead sound “methods” for understanding and applying the Scriptures, postmodernism aside?

]]> Comment on Links by Dan Ebert http://romansfortoday.wordpress.com/links/#comment-8 Dan Ebert Mon, 16 Oct 2006 10:38:54 +0000 http://romansfortoday.wordpress.com/links/#comment-8 Good work, Joel. This will be a valuable page. Good work, Joel. This will be a valuable page.

]]> Comment on Exegetical Method by Dan Ebert http://romansfortoday.wordpress.com/2006/10/01/exegetical-method-1/#comment-7 Dan Ebert Mon, 16 Oct 2006 10:37:30 +0000 http://romansfortoday.wordpress.com/2006/10/01/exegetical-method-1/#comment-7 Perhaps we can learn something from the exegetical experience of the Orthododox church. It is to us a strange and misunderstood traditon; but it is ancient and walked a path not so deeply influenced by the Enlightenment and rationalism. For example, Stylianopoulous suggests these four "controls" for proper interpretation of Scripture: 1. prayer for openness to the guidance of the Spirit; 2. grammatical-historical exegesis of Scripture (a give-away to S.'s studies at Harvard); 3. the "scopos" or full-orbed purpose of a given text viewed biblically, i.e., doing what the Church Fathers did by reading the parts of Scripture in terms of the whole (a canonical reading); and 4. dialogue within and obedience to one's community of faith (this, of course, can be understood in ways different from a strict Orthodox or RC perspective). I found this material on p. 127, n. 69 of "Practices, Politics, and Performance: Toward a Communal Hermeneutic for Christian Ethics" by M. G. Carthwright. Perhaps we can learn something from the exegetical experience of the Orthododox church. It is to us a strange and misunderstood traditon; but it is ancient and walked a path not so deeply influenced by the Enlightenment and rationalism. For example, Stylianopoulous suggests these four “controls” for proper interpretation of Scripture: 1. prayer for openness to the guidance of the Spirit; 2. grammatical-historical exegesis of Scripture (a give-away to S.’s studies at Harvard); 3. the “scopos” or full-orbed purpose of a given text viewed biblically, i.e., doing what the Church Fathers did by reading the parts of Scripture in terms of the whole (a canonical reading); and 4. dialogue within and obedience to one’s community of faith (this, of course, can be understood in ways different from a strict Orthodox or RC perspective). I found this material on p. 127, n. 69 of “Practices, Politics, and Performance: Toward a Communal Hermeneutic for Christian Ethics” by M. G. Carthwright.

]]>