A Comparative Analysis of Four 1st Year Greek Textbooks

(please note: in the comments section I also address the views of all four textbooks on deponent verbs, thanks to a question by one of the readers)

I've completed four years of doctoral work at Southeastern (one more year, here's hoping!), and for three of those past four years I have had the privilege of grading for Dr. Maurice Robinson. Two years ago when he became ill (now fully recovered and teaching again, thankfully), I was asked to take over his beginning Greek class mid-semester (pray don't tell his physicians, but Dr. Robinson typed up and e-mailed in his last quiz for that class while lying on the hospital bed!)  I took over at the midterm exam (which, fortunately, had already been made up), and from that point I was on my own with only Dr. Robinson's notes to guide me, initially.

Yes, his notes. You see, Dr. Robinson prefers not to use a textbook for his beginning Greek class, providing his students with handouts that he personally creates. Naturally when you're a published scholar who specializes in Greek textual criticism, you can do whatever you want! I, however, soon realized I was in way over my head and began consulting textbooks (in addition to his Dr. Robinson's notes) like a madman. Overall, the class was a great learning experience, and the students were compassionate and sympathetic (it's not easy getting a new teacher halfway through class!)

At that point I already owned William Mounce's book as well as that of my own doctoral advisor, Dr. David Black. Once I started teaching, I quickly bought S. Baugh's textbook since some other profs at Southeastern preferred his work. Later, when I was able to attend the national ETS in Atlanta, I picked up the new textbook by Porter, Reed, and O'Donnell. Consequently, I'd like to give the reader some brief thoughts on each one. Some of what I say you can see for yourself by simply browsing the table of contents for each book online at Amazon. I do hope, however, that this comparison of the four will at least give you some food for thought, especially if you, the reader, will be teaching Greek in the future.

To begin with, however, I'd like to make clear that this is not a full-blown book review for each one. I'd simply like to compare the four and offer my thoughts. Secondly, I'll make my own biases clear at the start: naturally I'm going to gravitate toward my own adviser's work, but I have a soft spot in my heart for Mounce's book, since I cut my teeth on it in 1999. Conversely, I'm not very positively disposed towards Porter and co. since I have yet to be convinced of his views on verbal aspect theory (though I'm open to the possibility). Nevertheless I still think there is much in their book to commend it, and I'll try to leave aside my views on the Greek verb when discussing their work. In the end, I think Baugh's textbook is the only one that I am neutrally predisposed towards.

Finally, the reader should note that there are 3 areas I intend to focus on: order of material, views on the Greek verb, and any "extras" the book contains. After discussing these four textbooks, I'll briefly open that great can of worms known as "the Greek verb system.” What that in mind, let's begin with Mounce.

Please note: any words in the Greek font have been switched to English italics.

1.

William D. Mounce, Basics of Biblical Greek (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids, Mich.; 2003). As of this post, costs $29.94 (US dollars) at Amazon (hardcover). Separate workbook available. Hereafter referred to as BBG.

Mounce states on p. x that his grammar tries to use the “best of both approaches” [inductive and deductive]: “It is deductive in how it initially teaches the material, but inductive in how if fine-tunes the learning process.” Mounce focuses on “learning Greek as a tool for ministry" and tries to reduce rote memorization (though, frankly, when we used Mounce in my first year of Greek there was still a lot of memorization; I'm not sure if BBG reduces it to the extent that Mounce had hoped).

           

It's worth noting that BBG is the only one of the four that comes with a CD-ROM. In my experience, this was helpful for those that enjoy using computers and would like to have a portable flash card program for their laptops, etc. It's worth noting, however, that there is plenty of free software that you can download these days, so don't let the CD-ROM be the deciding factor.

Each chapter in BBG ends with a summary of that chapter and a vocabulary list. Some chapters end with "advanced information" (e.g., the difference between relative time and absolute time).

           

BBG starts with a basic intro on the Greek language and tips for learning Greek, then the alphabet and punctuation. Before it gets into Greek grammar, BBG discusses English grammar: “. . . the first major obstacle many of you must overcome is your lack of knowledge of English Grammar. . . . We cannot teach about the Greek nominative case until you know what a case is” (p. 22). It then discusses the various parts of speech. BBG then goes into noun cases and the article (chapters 6-7), then onto prepositions and the eimi verbs (only the present active indicative, at the start), and then adjectives (chapter 9). From there, BBG offers the reader  or teacher two different "tracks": 1. You can follow the order of the chapters, which finishes nouns and pronouns before getting into verbs, or 2. you can jump into some of the verbs first (leaving chapters 10-14 for later). If you follow the natural order of the book, BBG hits 3rd declension nouns and pronouns before finally introducing verbs in chapter 15. From there, BBG tackles the present active verb, then contract verbs, then present middle/passive, then all the other indicative verbs. The last few chapters of the book (from 26-34) cover all the other moods and the mi-verbs. Mounce then provides a “Postscript: Where Do We Go From Here?” which discusses some areas for future study (though not very extensive and kind of limited to his own work and works by the same publisher).

Some thoughts on BBG (keep in mind, a lot of these are my subjective opinion; the same goes for my comments on all the other books): Overall, Mounce is very readable and often focuses on the differences between Greek and English, which is helpful in my opinion (although note p. 320—"There is nothing remotely like mi verbs in English . . .") I think Mounce offers a "down to earth" book that parallels my own experience in learning Greek; for example, on page 39 he speaks of "the fog," a very real phenomenon that almost every young Greek student experiences. Mounce's book has a lot of paradigm charts, which can be helpful, and also contains an "exegetical insight" for most chapters that discusses how the material in that chapter actually matters in ministry or preaching.  Also, I greatly prefer Mounce’s order of subject matter, though this may be a reflection of my own bias stemming from having used his textbook as a student.

           

On the downside, I'm not too content with how he deals with contract verbs; I think some of the other books do a better job on this. Also, despite his attempt to diminish rote memorization, I really think this book is focused on memorization. There are no special techniques that (in my opinion) assist the student in learning; you just have to put a lot of work into memorizing (at least, that was my experience).

           

Regarding the verb system, I think Mounce, like others, confuses aspect with aktionsart (see page 123). If there's one thing Porter has convinced me of, it's the need to see those two as different concepts. I am, however, more close to BGB's position on the verb system in general. Mounce is more traditional; he states, for example, that “The present tense indicates either a continuous or undefined action” (p. 123, though he unfortunately calls this “aspect”) and that the time is generally in the present. On page 194 states, “The aorist indicates an undefined action usually occurring in the past," which I would also agree with (though adherents to Verbal Aspect Theory [hereafter referred to as VAT] might question the whole “occurring in the past” part of it, at least as a general rule).

  

2.

David Alan Black, Learn to Read New Testament Greek (3rd ed.; Nashville, Tenn.: B&H Academic, 2009). As of this post, costs 17.64 on Amazon (hardcover). Separate workbook available. Hereafter referred to as LTR.

LTR has 26 chapters, generally with vocab lists and review exercises at the end of each chapter. Chapter 1 provides basic info about the Greek language and alphabet and briefly discusses phonology and morphology (e.g., the difference between kappa and chi). Chapter 2 actually introduces the verb, and chapter 3 begins discussing the present and future active indicative. Chapters 4-5 jump to nouns, and from there on out we have the following order: adjectives, imperfect and aorist (act. ind.), prepositions, personal pronouns, perfect/pluperfect verbs (just the active ind.), more pronouns (demonstrative), the middle and passive indicative forms of various verbs (chapters 12-15), "review of the indicative mood" (ch. 16), more on nouns (3rd declension), more on adjectives, pronouns, and numbers, "contract and liquid verbs" (ch. 19), then the various other verb moods (chapters 20-21 and 23-24, though 22 actually discusses pronouns).  Chapter 25 focuses on mi-verbs, and chapter 26 closes it out with a discussion on "Reading Your Greek  New Testament" (a chapter on how reading the Greek NT can be of practical value with such things as sermon prep). Also, LTR has an epilogue that introduces the readers to what will be helpful for advanced studies (e.g., lexicons, textual criticism, etc.)

Some thoughts on LTR: LTR is, in my opinion, one of the most easily readable textbooks (Dr. Black is one of the more readable scholars, period). Furthermore, Black's book has better "extras" than any of the other textbooks, including but not limited to the following: a massive foldout chart of every single paradigm (check inside the back cover), a series of helpful appendixes (including "the Greek alphabet song" complete with music!), and chapter 26 and the appendix, both of which provide helpful, supplemental information for the Greek student. Also, it's worth stressing that LTR has review exercises at the end of most chapters, something Mounce does not have (though both BBG and LTR have separate workbooks that can be purchased).

On the other hand, I'm not totally crazy about the order of material; he zigzags back and forth between verbs, nouns, pronouns, etc. (I’m somewhat  curious, for example, why chapter 22, “Additional Pronouns,” sits right in the middle of a series of chapters on the non-indicative mood).  I'll confess this may be because I had Mounce for my first year of Greek, but I'm more partial to BBG's method of tackling the noun first, then the verb. Also, as with my comment on Mounce, I'm not totally comfortable on his use of the term "aspect" (see LTR, pp. 13-14, section 15 of that chapter). It's worth noting, however, that Black does stress "aspect" as having to do with the writer's perspective (see page 15, specifically the first two paragraphs of section 16), which brings him a bit closes to Porter here; I guess what I'm uncomfortable with in both Mounce and Black is that I would prefer to see the term "aktionsart" used rather than "aspect" whenever we're actually discussing the "type" of action that is taking place. However, let me stress that I do agree with Black's basic approach to the verb in contrast to that of Porter, especially his treatment of the "aoristic aspect" on p. 14.

Regarding the verb, Black states, “The essential signification of the Greek tense system is the kind of action—whether it is represented as on going, finished, or simply as an occurrence”; furthermore, “time of action” is a secondary function (page 15). On pages 13-14, Black sees 3 tenses (past, present, future) and 3 aspects (imperfective, perfective, and aoristic) in the Greek verb system.

3.

S. M. Baugh, A New Testament Greek Primer (2nd ed.; Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P&R, 2009). As of this post, costs $24.51 on Amazon (paperback). No separate workbook available, to my knowledge (but exercises throughout). Hereafter referred to as NTGP.

NTGP consists of 30 chapters with vocabulary lists at the beginning and review exercises at the end (somewhat more varied than those in Black’s LTR; Baugh, for example, mixes in “matching” exercises with regular parsing and translation exercises). The unique purpose of the book, according to the preface, is “. . . to analyze the process of reading Greek for exegesis, breaking it down into constituent ‘sub-skills,’ and then to teach these skills” ( v). NTGP has a brief “introduction to language study” section (vi-vii), but almost nothing on Greek as a historical language like BBG and LTR have.

NTGP starts out with the alphabet and pronunciation (interestingly, Baugh compares ancient pronunciation with modern Greek pronunciation, which I felt was a neat touch), then deals with breathing marks, punctuation, etc. Chapters 2-3 deal with 1^st and 2^nd declension nouns with just a little bit on the article. Chapter 4 introduces the Greek verb (present active and deponent ind.). From there, Baugh deals with the imperfect tense, then contract verbs, then future, aorist, and 2^nd aorist indicative. Chapter 10 introduces adjectives (1^st and 2^nd declension), then he proceeds to discuss 3^rd declension nouns (NTGP has an entire chapter, ch. 12, on “Third Declension Noun Variations”). Chapter 13 deals with prepositions, then in chapter 14 Baugh switches back to verbs (perfect tense). From there, NTGP deals with “Middle and Passive Verbs” (ch. 15), switches to pronouns (chs. 16-17), and then back to verbs (ch. 18, “Liquid Verbs”). Chapter 19 begins his discussion of the other moods (participles in chapters 19-21), but after discussing the subjunctive mood in ch. 22, Baugh switches back to relative pronouns. Chapter 24 is something unique to NTGP, namely “Noun Variations” (discusses personal names, nouns with feminine forms that still keep a masculine gender, etc.) Next, NTGP deals with imperatives, infinitives, mi verbs (ch. 27-28), “Adjective Variations” (ch. 29; includes comparative and superlative), and closes out with

“Numbers and Optative Verbs” (ch. 30).

Some thoughts on NTGP: There are a few things NTGP does better than the others, I think. Of the four, it’s the only textbook with a glossary of English terms at the back. I’m not talking about a subject index (all four have that), I’m talking about an actual glossary with definitions of various terms. In my opinion, this is an immensely helpful tool that I wish the others had (too be fair, Porter/Reed/O’Donnell do have a section at the beginning of each chapter defining terms, but nothing like a full glossary). In addition, I like how Baugh deals with morphology. The review exercises are also, in my opinion, a strength of the book. Of the other 3, only Dr. Black’s LTR offers review exercises within the book itself (the other 3 textbooks, including Dr. Black’s, do offer supplementary workbooks that you can buy separately, however); nevertheless I kind of like Baugh’s diverse series of exercises slightly better. Also, I like Baugh’s discussion on the differences between middle, passive, and deponent.

On the other hand, I don’t feel Baugh’s book is as easy to follow as those of Mounce or Black, and I still remain a fan of the order of material in Mounce’s BBG over that of Baugh. Also, Baugh does not have a clear introduction to verbs (in general) that both Black and Mounce have. As such, I think it is more likely for a student to get confused regarding verbs following Baugh than he or she would in the others.

Regarding verb tenses, it’s a bit harder to understand Baugh’s views than it is the other three (see my comment above). In section 4.6, he states “A Greek verb in the present tense may communicate an action or state simply, as in progress, continued, repeated, or attempted depending on a number of factors including the verb’s inherent meaning and its context” (p. 18). I triple-checked my citation of Baugh here, and I’m forced to confess that this is one of the most difficult statements to understand on the Greek verb in any the four textbooks, especially if I were in the shoes of a beginner. Elsewhere things are a bit clearer (e.g., p. 22, section 5.4 on the imperfect verb— “The augment is normally a time indicator which expresses a past time event [i.e., I was loosing]”) but overall I much prefer the discussions by Black and Mounce. Nevertheless, I’m led by these statements to assume Baugh follows a more traditional view on tense and aktionsart similar to the views of Black and Mounce.

4. Stanley E. Porter, Jeffrey T. Reed, and Matthew Brook O’Donnell, Fundamentals of New Testament Greek (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2010). As of this point, costs 23.66 on Amazon (hardcover). Separate workbook available. Hereafter referred to as PRO.

And now for the controversial one! PRO (after the last initial of each authors) is the longest book of the bunch with 30 chapters and 466 pages. PRO is unique among the four textbooks in that if follows verbal aspect theory and, to its credit, logically implements that theory into practice (e.g., teaching the aorist tense before the present). The chapters in PRO start with a section defining new concepts and then give the chapter’s vocabulary words. At the beginning, PRO has a fairly extensive “Guide to Parsing” (pp. xvi-xx) to assist the student throughout. Unlike Black/LTR and Baugh/BBG, PRO does not discuss Greek as a historical language. The first chapter deals with basics, including the alphabet, accent marks, punctuation, etc. Like Baugh’s NTGP, PRO gives you  different ways to pronounce Greek, the Erasmian and the Modern (on pages xiii-xiv the authors encourage the teacher to pick one method and stick with  it).

Chapter 2 in PRO discusses second declension nouns as well as both 2^nd and 3^rd declension adjectives. Chapter 3 deals with articles and verbless clauses. Significantly, chapter 4 introduces both the verb in general and the first aorist specifically. Yes, PRO deals with the aorist before the present. From there, chapter 5 jumps back to nouns and relative pronouns, chapter 6 deals with second aorist active as well as imperfect active, and then it’s back to nouns and adjectives again. Chapter 8 finally introduces the present and future active while also dealing with some contract verbs. From there PRO deals with pronouns, then participles, then the middle voice, then the demonstrative pronoun and some prepositions. Chapter 13 is the passive voice (present  and imperfect) while chapter 14 covers the subjunctive mood. From there we go back to prepositions and pronouns, more contract verbs (plus adverbs and conjunctions), back to participles, then mi-verbs, then back to more adjectives and adverbs (e.g., comparatives and superlatives), then aorist and future passive. Chapter 21 goes back to mi-verbs (titheimi and ieimi), then we have the following in chapter  22: “Aorist Passive Subjunctive and  Participle; Future Passive Participle; Proper Nouns” (more  on this particular chapter  below). Next we have “Liquid Verbs” as well as more pronouns (ch. 23), imperative verbs, the perfect and pluperfect tense (ch. 25-27), “Periphrastic and Catenative Constructions” (ch. 28), “Conditional Statements; Numerals” (ch. 29), and, finally, the optative verb and a brief discussion of clauses.

Some thoughts on PRO: on the plus side, I like what Porter/Reed/O’Donnell do with the mi-verbs, being careful to distinguish two types of endings. Like the other books, PRO has useful appendixes with the paradigms clearly laid out. Unlike some of the others, PRO has a very helpful bibliography on pages 383-384 for intermediate and advanced work, and a very unbiased bibliography  at that (they includes, for example Wallace’s syntax despite the fact that Wallace strongly disagrees with Porter on VAT). In that bibliography, the authors also includes a list of the most helpful lexicons.  Furthermore, while I may disagree with their views on the Greek verb, I felt the authors did a good job of explaining their position (the “library” analogy on page 39 is very helpful; see below). Also, I like the fact that PRO tends to treat the infinitives at the same time as the present active indicative; it makes sense that the present infinitive form would be one of the first things to learn about a verb.

On the downside, the order of content in PRO absolutely drives me crazy! I realize this is probably very subjective, but bear with me please. First of all, there’s the issue of teaching the aorist tense before the present tense. Now, I can totally understand, in theory, why they would want to do that. What I don’t understand is how you can practically teach the aorist first when the present is morphologically simpler, unless your entire class consists of Mensa members! Speaking for myself, I’m not exactly the brightest bulb in the chandelier, and I honestly believe I would have been a lot more confused in 1^st year Greek if I had learned the aorist before the present.  Now if there are any “average Joes” (or “average Josephines”) out there who learned 1^st year Greek under this textbook and came out unscathed, then I might retract my statement.

Other chapters don’t make sense for other reasons. Chapter 22 (“Aorist passive Subjunctive and  Participle; Future Passive Participle; Proper Nouns”), for example, seems to lump a bunch of unrelated material together. Why treat aorist passive subjunctive in the same chapter as future passive participle (let alone proper nouns)? Isn’t this just inviting confusion? Similarly, since PRO already commits to introducing the aorist tense before the present, why does it then discuss the present passive before the aorist and future passive (chapters 13 and 20; please note that almost 100 pages separate these two chapters!) Wouldn’t it have been more consistent to treat the aorist passive first? In general, the order of material in PRO and much of the chapter content seems confusing to me (but, once again, this may be just my subjective opinion).

Regarding verbs, PRO emphasizes aspect as “the speaker’s or writer’s perspective on the action of the verb” (33). Also, on page 39, the authors state, “One way to think of how the aspects function in relation to each other is to think of a bookcase full of books, . . . The aorist tense-form is the background tense, or the entire bookcase, in which no particular book stands out. The present tense-form is the foreground tense, or the one shelf that becomes prominent. The perfect tense-form is the frontground tense, or the single book that commands significant attention” (40-41). PRO differs radically from the others, but they do offer a consistent system (whether or not it’s the correct system is up for debate).

My own personal, subjective ranking

If I were to start teaching a 1^st year Greek class tomorrow, I think I would gravitate towards Black’s Learn to Read New Testament Greek first, with Mounce’s Basics of Biblical Greek a close second. I feel Black is the most readable and has the most to offer as far as “extras” (that massive, fold-out, paradigm chart at the end is pretty sweet!) The fact that Black’s book contains its own exercises for each chapter also helps. Mounce comes in a close second because I like the order he tackles the various parts of the language. Baugh’s A New Testament Greek Primer is a decent alternative and has some strengths that the others do not have. Porter/Reed/O’Donnell’s Fundamentals of New Testament Greek also has some strengths that the other’s don’t have, and would probably remain the default choice for those attracted to VAT (though even if I’m convinced of that position, I’d still want to teach the present tense first!). Also, while price should never be the deciding factor, it’s worth noting that Black’s LTR currently costs the least on Amazon.

Of course, there’s a ton of other questions that could be asked, such as which one could be easily translated into a foreign language? (Speaking as a Japanese missionary kid, Black would be my first choice even to a greater degree than it would be my choice for teaching in English; once again, readability and ease-of-use is the key). Furthermore, I fully acknowledge that a successful Greek class (defined as “one where the student can finish without having his or her brain turned into mush”) probably depends on the teacher more than the textbook. With that in mind, I hope this little analysis has been helpful to some (and feel free to let me know of any alternative textbooks that should be considered).

And now a word on verbal aspect theory (VAT)

Before starting a class, every teacher should decide where they stand on the issue of the Greek verb. This, in my opinion, is the major controversy of the past 15 years on New Testament Greek. You, dear reader, if you are serious about teaching/studying Greek, owe it to yourself to read Stanley Porter’s Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, with Reference to Tense and Mood, if you can afford it, or at least read the relevant chapters in his book Studies in the Greek New Testament. Porter has made a genuine contribution to our understanding of New Testament Greek. He is not without his critics (Daniel Wallace and Chrys Caragounis being the two that immediately spring to mind), but he has also garnered a large following among scholars (Rodney Decker being one of his most prolific supporters, in general).

 For general overviews on VAT, the following two articles are also highly recommended: Robert E. Picirilli, “The Meaning of Tenses in New Testament Greek: Where are We?” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 48.3 (Spring 2005): 533-555; and Andrew David Naselli, “A Brief Introduction to Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek,” Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 12 (2007): 17-28.

For myself, I remain unconvinced of much of VAT, and one of the most influential articles in that regard is by Jody A. Barnard, “Is Verbal Aspect a Prominence Indicator? An Evaluation of Stanley Porter’s Proposal with Special Reference to the Gospel of Luke,” Filologia Neotestamentaria 19.37 (November 2006): 3-29. Barnard’s article, in my opinion, is one of the most scientific critiques of VAT (the article can be viewed for free online at http://www.bsw.org/Filologia-Neotestamentaria/Vol-19-2006/). My own research on the imperative mood in the Pastoral Epistles (accepted by and forthcoming in the same journal, though probably not for a couple more years!) has also led me to be critical of VAT (though, to be fair, once could follow VAT in the indicative mood while not necessarily following it in the imperative mood).

Having said that, I’m open to correction on the issue and I don’t think the debate over the Greek verb is that theologically significant (with the possible exception of the use of the verb “sinning” in 1 John). In fact, I think that, in general, pastors should shy away from making a key exegetical point based on the tense of a verb. At least, that is, until the dust has settled.

 

         

Humor and Biblical studies (or why every student should take a break and read the intro to the latest Word and World)

In the midst of our study, research, and writing, it's good to let loose with an old-fashioned belly laugh now and then. This is why at least part of the latest issue of Word and World (vol. 32, Spring 2012) should be read by all seminary students. The entire issue is a mostly "serious" look at humor, with academic articles that actually discuss the role of humor in ministry, etc. The faux intro, however, by Frederick J. Gaiser, is a hilarious parody of academic research.

Gaiser begins by declaring that since "pretty much nobody cares" about important issues in theology anymore, they are changing the journal's name to Whirred and Whirled: Fluff for Whatever (the vote on the editorial board was 15-2, with ". . . . the two traditionalist diehards being one who still reads the Confessions only in German and Latin and one who thought the Da Vinci Code was the combination of the lock that protects the Mona Lisa").

Gaiser then lays out a whole year's worth of future articles that would be more relevant to "modern" Christianity. The Summer issue, for example, will focus on "Bats in the Bible" with such articles as "From Sparrows at the Altar to Bats in the Belfry: A Fascinating Look at the 'Wirkungsgeschichte' of Psalm 84:3" and "Archaeologists Uncover the Club of God's Fury (Isa 10:5): They Remain Puzzled over the Inscription ('Louis[b?]ille S[n?]ugger')"

The Fall issue of W&W will then focus on "The Numbers Racket," with such ministry-related articles as "Happy-Talk Mission Statements Make Bigger Congregations" and "On Preaching to the Crowds (Matt 5-7): How Faithfully Proclaiming the Sermon on the Mount Will Solve Your Seating Issues and Parking Problems." Seriously, folks, it will brighten your day if you take a look at this piece.

Academic studies and humor should not be mutually exclusive. Listening to N. T. Wright and Michael Bird at the 2010 ETS in Georgia has convinced me of that. Many scholars have a certain wittiness about them that makes them a joy to listen to. Others are true wordsmiths that can elicit a chuckle through wordplay, hyperbole, etc. Even Christ, I believe, used occasional humor in his teachings via hyperbole and irony (e.g., the image of trying to clear a speck of dust from one's brother's eye while having a giant beam protruding from his or her own).

Yet care must be taken. Occasionally it may be small step from humor to sacrilege, whether in speaking or writing. Indeed, I have in mind one specific magazine, devoted to a parody of Christian culture, which is occasionally hilarious but also occasionally sacrilegious.

I would suggest, then, that knowing how not the cross the line in religious humor depends on knowing what to reverence and fear. True Christians should know how to laugh, but the following are worthy only of reverence or sadness and thus should be off-limits in our humor: 1. the holy character of God, 2. the person and work of Jesus Christ, including his personal character, 3. The nature of the blood atonement, and 4. the eternal condemnation of the lost, which we should all agree is no laughing matter. I'm sure there are others, but these first come to mind.

Christian humor, however, works best when it makes fun of us humans and all our foibles (one of the funniest books I've ever read is Jan Doward's Even the Angels Must Laugh Sometimes, a collection of real-life church bloopers). Gaiser's faux intro, for example, is funny because it pokes fun both at our academic stuffiness and culture's obsession with the irrelevant (reality TV, for example, specifically comes under Gaiser's gentle critique). Also, great Biblical puns can induce a chuckle or a groan without depleting any of our reverence (e.g., "baseball in the bible" where "in the big inning . . . David struck out Goliath, the prodigal son hit a home run," etc.)

In conclusion, then, we were made to laugh, sometimes we need to laugh, and it is possible to joke around without treating lightly what should not be treated lightly. As Solomon said, there is a time for everything under heaven, including laughter. Thus kudos to Gaiser for a worthy piece of Biblical and academic humor.

I leave you, dear readers, with this thought:
Three pastors, a Baptist, Presbyterian, and Methodist, went fishing on the lake together. A few minutes into their excursion, the Methodist said, "I'll be right back, I forgot my bait." He then promptly got out of the boat, walked across the water, got his bait, and returned. A few minutes later the Presbyterian said, "I forgot my lures; I'll be right back too," and did the same as the Methodist. Finally, the Baptist thought to himself, "I can't let these guys show me up. I forgot my lunch." He stepped out of the boat and promptly sank like a rock. The Methodist turned to the Presbyterian and said, "Do you think we should have told him where the rocks were?"

With thanks to Mom and Dad, who always kept some great joke books around the house. :)

Review of "The Post-Racial Church: A Biblical Framework for Multiethnic Reconciliation"

 In the spring of 2009, I had the privilege of attending my first regional ETS meeting at Tennessee Temple University. One of the sessions I attended was a co-presentation by Kenneth Mathews and Sydney Park on “Biblical Perspectives on Racial Reconciliation.” Imagine my surprise, then, when the other day my adviser, Dr. Black, handed me a book by two authors entitled, The Post Racial Church: A Biblical Framework for Multiethnic Reconciliation (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel, 2011). Sure enough, it was the same two scholars (both professors at Beeson Divinity School, in Old Testament and New Testament, respectively).

At the heart of The Post-Racial Church lies a desire to see what Scripture says about race and racial reconciliation, and to exhort the church of the 21^st century to embrace a Biblical perspective. The book, then, could just as well be titled “A Theology of Race Relations.” The authors desire, with this book, “. . . to better equip the church in answering why Christians claim that the gospel and the Christian church are the first and last best hope for peace in a racially diverse world” (22). In the process, the authors build a theology of race from Scripture and then proceed to apply it to the modern church.

At its core, this is an extremely valuable book that most definitely helps answer a deficiency within evangelical scholarship. The Post Racial Church does an excellent job of examining what, indeed, Scripture says about race and how that applies to us today, especially in its examination of how worship, by its very nature, was meant to be multiethnic. Furthermore, this book provides one of the best combinations I have ever seen of scholarship and accessibility, mixing solid exegesis with a very readable style interspersed with personal anecdotes.

I will have some negative critique (one major issue and a bunch of minor quibbles), but the reader should note that this is an important and challenging book that has earned its place on the Christian’s bookshelf, both that of the pastor and the layperson.

The book is split between the two authors. Mathews writes the introduction and first four chapters, while Park writes chapters 5-8 and then the conclusion. At the end of each chapter, the authors have a series of questions, dubbed “thought provokers,” for personal meditation or group discussion. The first part of my review will summarize the book while the second park critiques it.

Summary

In the introduction, Matthews articulates his desire to go beyond issues of cooperation and into integration. He notes that the first church service, at Pentecost, featured the integration of various races; he then asks, “Will authentic integration, not just toleration, be the next step for the church?” Mathews then provides a brief overview of the civil rights movement in the US, arguing that it was driven by Christian ministers. Nevertheless Evangelicalism still faces racial problems, and Mathews hopes that he and Parks will assist in helping the Christian understood the role of the Gospel in establishing racial reconciliation. Throughout the introduction, Mathews also defines terms such as “ethnicity,” “racism,” etc.

In chapter 1, “God’s Design for Creation,” Mathews draws from the book of Genesis in order to examine God’s design of the human race and his desire for worship. He notes that humans were designed for a relationship with God, in order to worship God, etc., and that humans were meant for “freedom,” defined as “liberty to love and live with God, to be what God intended for us” (49). Within this overview of creation and Genesis, Mathews also discusses how such narratives as the “mark of Cain” and “the curse of Ham” became misinterpreted as justification for slavery and racism. He also stresses that in Genesis, “There is no ‘Master Race’ concept in the Bible that excuses racial superiority, because the theology of creation undercuts the ideology that one race is inherently superior to others” (44). Matthew concludes by positing a few key observations regarding God’s plan in Genesis, e.g., that “creation in the image of God was for all humanity, both male and female” (64).

In the second chapter, Mathews discusses “God’s Blessing for All Nations.” At this point Mathews spends a lot of time discussing the so-called “Table of Nations” in Genesis 10. His main point is that “. . . the Table of Nations does not in any way indicate that God has unalterably determined the moral nature of the nations. It does not suggest that God has ordained certain groups to achieve greatness and others to follow behind or serve the interests of the superior peoples. The Table of Nations tells us, on the contrary, that God’s creation blessing is for all nations” (70; indeed, later on pages 76-77 Mathews suggests that it is significant that there are 70 nations in the table, possibly indicating that “the nations were created in the image of Israel”). Mathews grants the historical significance of the Table of Nations, but argues that the theological aspect is the focus: “The theological message of the table is God’s purpose to bless every nation through a newly created nation descended from Shem . . .” (77). Both Abraham and the Jewish nation, then, are not theologically isolated from all others, but responsible to minister to the rest of the world. Furthermore, strictly speaking, the Jewish race was never an “ethnically pure” race, so to speak (the Scriptural evidence indicating that the Jews and Arameans are basically two branches of the same family).

In chapter 3, “‘God’s people’ and the 'Also Peoples,’” Mathews discusses what constitutes nationhood for the Jews and what causes a group to be called God’s people. Mathews once again emphasizes that the Jews were not, technically, an ethnically “pure” race (as evidenced by Exodus 12:38, etc.) What held them together was not DNA, but rather their allegiance to the Lord. Indeed, “Ethnicity, therefore, was never the determinative feature, not the make or break factor, in forming a person’s identity as a person of faith” (103). Mathews then proceeds to discuss immigration (noting that “Protection for immigrants was built into the governing constitution of Israel—the covenant law of Moses,” 114) and interracial marriage (observing that the point of forbidding the Jews to marry certain people was always their theological, rather than racial, protection).

Finally, in chapter 4 (“God’s Welcome to All”), Mathews deals with the issue of biblical hospitality (including a helpful discussion of hospitality in the ANE) and God’s inclusive invitation for all to worship him. He argues, “Hospitality is to know and worship the triune God—accepting and participating in his transcendent welcome” (135). Ultimately, hospitality is an essential part of worship. From here, Mathews explores how the worship of God will include various nations alongside of Israel (e.g., Isaiah 19).

In chapter 5, “Jesus’ Story of Reconciliation,” Park picks up the mantle by looking into the New Testament. She examines the various interracial interactions in the Gospels (e.g., Jews and Samaritans), paying special attention to Jesus and the Gentile centurion and Jesus’ treatment of the Samaritan women. She then provides a long discussion of the Parable of the Good Samaritan and how it ties into discipleship (as seen in the surrounding context of Luke 10, etc.). Park aptly notes, “In opening up our compassion for the ‘foreigner’ we show that God the Father has truly been revealed to us. For it is not possible ‘to know’ God’s compassionate love for the sinner as exemplified on the cross and not practice the same compassion for the unfortunate, the wounded, and the ‘foreigner’ as demonstrated by the Samaritan” (171).

In chapter 6, “Stories of Peace and Worship,” Park utilizes the theme of worship in Revelation as a springboard for a discussion of racism in general. She then focuses on Ephesians 2:11-22 as “one of the most explicit theological treatises on reconciliation of Jews and Gentiles,” noting both the individual and corporate dimensions in the text” (176). Park focuses on how, according to this passage, “. . . genuine racial reconciliation is found in the church” and that this is directly tied to the work of Christ (186). As a result, “The church as the living body of Christ is multiethnic . . . the result of the work on the cross is specifically the formation of all humanity, side by side, being fitted together as one holy temple before God.” Consequently, “. . . racial enmity, like all sin, is conquered only through the blood of Jesus Christ, and the ensuing peace is profound and sincere” (186). Park then comes full-circle back to Revelation, noting how the picture of worship in this book is somewhat contradictory to the fact that “Sunday morning is the most segregated hour in America” (197). She then closes with a touching personal testimony of her own sense of belonging in her local church, despite being the only Asian in a church of whites and some African Americans.

In chapter 7, “The Proclamation of the Church,” Park attempts to answer the critique that preaching racial reconciliation would essentially boil down to preaching social justice. Rather, Park argues, since racial reconciliation is brought about by the cross, it is a spiritual issue and must be proclaimed. Park then discusses the Christian’s role in opposing injustice in society. [more on this chapter later, since almost all of my negative critique will focus on this section, despite my acceptance of Park’s statement that racial reconciliation must be preached].

In chapter 8, “One Salvation, One Fellowship,” Park deals with the practical issue of how a multiethnic body of Christ can successfully worship together. She makes an important point when, in her discussion of Acts 15:20, she notes that “The question of whether or not they [Jews and Gentiles—i.e., disparate racial entities] should have table fellowship is not raised; it is assumed that there should be table fellowship between Jews and Gentiles based on the fact that all are now saved in the same manner—by grace” (243). From there she discusses the Apostle Paul’s statements on Christian liberty, then closes with a discussion of Christian humility in servant-hood, making the provocative (and challenging!) statement that we are all to serve each other as slaves/servants. Mutual submission, then, is one of the keys to multiethnic worship.

In the conclusion, “From Here to Eternity,” Park delineates four “windows of opportunity” (practical areas of concern) that Christians need to give heed to in light of this book’s theology: 1. Immigration and our relation to immigrants in light of our own status as ‘strangers and foreigners,” 2. interracial marriage and the need “to re-evaluate the factors that define ‘kinship’—is it culture, ethnicity, or Christ” (263), 
3. multicultural worship (Park appropriately argues on page 264, “We do not feel the need to press every church to be integrated, but we do strongly encourage each church to be ready to receive those of diverse ethnicity, and, where possible, to seek out peoples of different ethnic backgrounds”), and 4. evangelism, missions, and the need to seek out who needs the Gospel in all areas. Park then concludes the book with a powerful personal testimony on her own struggles with racism, having been on both the receiving end and the giving end, and her ultimate discovery that self-worth comes through Christ.

Analysis

In the end, this book succeeds admirably in what it sets out to accomplish, namely establishing a theology of race that can inform our church in the 21^st century. The theology is solid, and this is probably one of the most acute, Biblical treatments of the topic.

There are a couple areas where Park and Mathews truly excel in their study of the Biblical data. First of all, I greatly appreciated their emphasis on how the Jews were never truly a “pure” ethnic group, and that ethnic identity had less to do with DNA and skin color and more to do with the organization of a disparate group of people into a nation that would focus on the worship of the Lord. This does not, in my opinion, minimize the nationhood of Israel, but it does point out that nationhood was not, technically, dependent upon skin color.

In addition, the treatment of Ephesians 2 and Acts 15:20 is well done and clearly makes the points that (a. racial reconciliation is a natural outcome of the Gospel and a natural part of church life, and (b. the early church was multiethnic. It was assumed that Jews and Gentiles would worship together. This latter point, in my opinion, cannot be stressed enough, in light of the failure of much of conservative evangelicalism and fundamentalism to allow for integrated churches in the 20^th century. The 1^st century church, from the moment of Pentecost, was multiethnic and multicultural, and this was assumed to be the norm. In light of this fact, any ecclesiology that prohibits or even discourages such a church is unbiblical. This does not mean that a primarily white church (or black, or Asian) is necessarily wrong; after all, in a nation with an embarrassing wealth of churches, most people generally go where they feel welcome. What it does mean, however, is that a multiracial church is an ideal that should be embraced, when possible (and Park’s treatment of this issue in chapters 6 and 8 is excellent and balanced).

Overall, I was very impressed and satisfied with the authors’ treatment of the Biblical evidence. Apart from its other values, it’s status as a “theology of race in the Bible” alone makes this book worth the price.

The book also attempts to deal with practical issues in the 21^st century church, and this also is to be commended. Some of the book’s insights were cogent, though I felt they sometimes waffled a little bit (e.g., I was never totally clear on what exactly they felt Christians should be doing re.: immigration, other than some general observations on showing compassion, etc.) Ideally, every scholarly work by a conservative evangelical should have practical application, and this book models that ideal.

As for style, this book is one of the best hybrids of “academic” and “readable.” On the one hand, the authors are solid NT scholars at an academically solid school, and they have clearly done their research. Obscure JBL articles are cited in close proximity to monographs and top-notch commentaries, and their exegetical work indicates clear thought and scholarship. On the other hand, the authors write in a very accessible, understandable, and enjoyable style. They define difficult words such as “anachronism” while mixing in personal anecdotes and references to current events. The book, then, is an enjoyable read and a model of good writing.

Overall, this is a solid book well deserving of praise. Nevertheless, I have some quibbles (since only the Word of God is inerrant, any book review I write will always include some negative critique). First, a few minor issues. Though their focus on the practical application of theology is commendable, sometimes the transition from theology to practice is a bit abrupt and confusing, in my opinion (e.g., Mathews, last full paragraph of 105), and this is also sometimes the case with their transition from ANE background to contemporary issues (e.g., Mathews, pp. 96-97). Also, sometimes they don’t go far enough or leave questions unanswered. On page 231, for example, Park states, “The key to genuine worship is not a particular style; rather it is a life of faith . . .that yields true worship.” Granted, but this glosses over the difficulty, in some cases, of incorporating the worship styles of multiethnic groups, or compromising when everybody has their own ideas or standards of worship (I’ll be blunt! I have no desire to listen to “Biblical rap”! J) A discussion of worship in missions church plants would have been helpful, too (how does a missionary establish a “worship style” overseas, especially when the new believers might have come from a culture steeped in Buddhism, etc. Is it truly advisable to always go with that culture’s music style? This is not a strictly academic question, since I distinctly remember my church in Japan’s hymnbook containing a tune that came from a Buddhist hymn). Also, I would have preferred a much deeper discussion, particularly from Park, on how one can go about building a multiethnic church if the majority of the congregation is already one particular race or ethnicity.

Yet those are all minor quibbles. Here, however, is my only major critique. In chapter 7, Park appropriately argues . . . “that all Christians should be committed to proclaiming racial reconciliation” (215), and I believe she makes a convincing point via her exegesis of Ephesians 2-3. Her treatment of Revelation 6 and 16-17, however, is puzzling. Somehow, Park concludes that the believers in Revelation 6:9 were martyred because “either passively or actively, [they] stood against the political, social, and economic oppression described in the preceding verses (6:2-8)” (219). This follows from, among other things, her conclusion that the third horseman in 6:6 refers to “economic oppression” (218). Contra Park, I see the horseman as punishment from God rather than descriptions of military and economic oppression, per se, and I would suggest that the believers of the fifth seal were killed, in general, for their allegiance to the Gospel rather than for their social commentary, per se (the former does not, of course, necessarily exclude the latter, but the focus of the former is Christ the Messiah and forgiveness of sins; one can preach the Gospel without ever mentioning economic oppression, as seen all throughout Acts).

In her discussion of the woman on the beast in Revelation 17, Park concludes that the woman’s sins were “spread beyond the theological into social and economic dimensions” (220), which I mostly grant (though she seems to take a more preterist view on Revelation at this point, which I do not agree with, but that’s neither here nor there). What I do not agree with, however, is that Revelation 17-18 indicates, according to Park, “That Christians are to stand in complete opposition to political, social, and economic oppression . . .” (220) Yes, Christians are called to separate themselves from such behavior as evidenced by the Great Harlot, but in my opinion Park in this section confuses personal purity and personal ethics with political activism. Park argues that Christians “are slaughtered because they stand against the various forms of tyranny represented by the Great Prostitute. The final stand of Christianity, as described in Revelation, resists economic, political, and social oppression at the risk of death” (224). I would counter by arguing that the Christians are slaughtered for refusing to deny Christ. Contra Park, nothing in Revelation 6:9-11 and 18:24 suggest that it was opposition to unfair economic practices that caused martyrdom (see her argument on p. 224).

I agree with Park that Christians should speak out against injustice. However, if we look at the Christian church in Acts and the Epistles, we do not see “opposition to economic oppression” per se. Rather, we see the proclamation of the Gospel, a Gospel which causes change and demands that Christians treat each other as brothers and sisters, no matter the ethnic or economic status, in stark contrast to how unbelievers treated each other. When Paul preached in the Roman Empire, it was not with the intent to cause sweeping economic or social change (he did not, for example, seek to end slavery as an institution at that point; what he demanded was that Christians treat each other as brother and sister regardless of their social status--conversion to Christ, then, would have naturally caused a shaking up of the social order). Rather, Paul proclaimed the Gospel, a Gospel that by its very nature would ultimately cause change and present a Church where equality and servanthood would rule the day. Granted, the Gospel will have repercussions in the area of how we treat each other, but the Gospel itself is less about economic reform and more about the forgiveness of sins through Christ, the Messiah.

Thus my main point of contention (if I understood Park's argument in this chapter correctly) is this: in my opinion, Christians are not called to change the world; rather, we are called to be a light in the world, an example of the power of the Gospel. The Church is not here to cause political, social, or economic change. The Church is here to offer the world a picture of a new community that stands in stark contrast to the status quo. When Christians are martyred in India, for example, it is not because they are speaking out against unfair demands by rich landlords. Rather, it is because they proclaim Christ above all else.

Once again, though, let me emphasize that overall both Mathews and Park do a fantastic job with the text. The amount of time I spend critiquing them is grossly disproportionate to my opinion on the value of the book. Overall, this is a fabulous book that has the potential to greatly inform and challenge us regarding race in Scripture.

Conclusion

Conservative Christianity has, in my opinion, come along way in the past few decades. When the most iconic fundamentalist school can publicly apologize for its past unbiblical views on interracial marriage, when a (very) fundamentalist evangelist can brag about how he walked out of a church and refused to preach there when he learned they kept non-whites from attending, when many evangelical churches present an eclectic mix of races in their morning service—these are all positive indications of the current state of Christianity.

Mathews and Park, however, offer to take us further with a thorough, biblical, and practical discussion of race and racial reconciliation. This book offers an invaluable treatment of race in the 21^st century church, and those truly concerned about a biblical ecclesiology would do well to pay attention.

Congratulations to Alex Stewart (Revelation) and Michael Stover (1 Clement) on their successful defense!

I am pleased to report that two good friends of mine have just successfully defended their dissertation and thesis at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, one for a Ph.D. in Biblical Theology and the other for a Master of Theology.

1. First of all, congratulations to (soon-to-be) Dr. Alex Stewart for successfully defending his dissertation entitled “Soteriology as Motivation in the Apocalypse of John.” His advisor was Dr. David Alan Black, his secondary reader was Dr. Andreas J. Köstenberger, and his outside reader was Dr. Grant Osborne (author of the Baker Exegetical commentary on Revelation) from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.

What follows is a snippet of his abstract, posted with his permission:

“Recent research into the Apocalypse of John has made it clear that John did not primarily write the Apocalypse in order to provide a detailed time-table of events that would unfold thousands of years in the future. Instead, John wrote to affect and move his hearers at the end of the first century—to motivate them to reject idolatrous compromise with the surrounding cultural and political institutions and overcome through repentance, worship, witness, perseverance, and obedience.

How does the Apocalypse accomplish this motivation and persuade its hearers to adopt a course of action (overcoming) that would put their present lives, income, and security in jeopardy? . . . To be sure, classical rhetorical theory may be heuristically helpful, but if that is its main contribution, why exclude the heuristic contributions of modern theories of argumentation analysis? This dissertation seeks to remedy this gap in the study of John’s motivational argumentation by methodologically employing Stephen Toulmin’s model of argumentation analysis to study John’s explicit and implicit argumentation (chapter four). Toulmin’s model has revolutionized the modern study of argumentation analysis and has found wide utilization in a variety of disciplines.

In addition to the general conclusion that John primarily employs soteriology as motivation, this dissertation makes several other contributions to the study of the Apocalypse. First, it further strengthens the thesis that the Apocalypse of John is a thoroughly rhetorical text; i.e., it was not written primarily to convey theology or information about the future, but to motivate its hearers to concrete actions in the present. Second, it highlights the centrality of logos, or logical argumentation, in John’s argumentation. Despite the arguments of many previous scholars, logical argumentation is a central, not peripheral, element of John’s rhetorical strategy; albeit a logos dependent upon a shared meta-narrative and worldview. Third, it demonstrates the general applicability of Toulmin’s model of argumentation analysis to biblical texts, even such complicated texts as John’s Apocalypse. Although Toulmin’s model is relatively simple, it can be usefully applied to ancient texts to clarify, simplify, and synthesize the argumentation. Fourth, it confirms that the Apocalypse displays a genuinely inaugurated eschatology and soteriology with both presently possessed and future, non-possessed elements.”

Alex has been a good friend of mine in the doctoral program, and he has the privilege of teaching overseas in Europe beginning this summer and continuing for the foreseeable future. Best wishes, Alex!

2. Secondly, congratulations to Michael Stover for successfully defending his Th.M. thesis entitled “The Dating of First Clement.” Michael Stover has put a lot of research into this issue (his thesis was 200+ pages, slightly long for a master’s thesis!) and examines in-depth the evidence for the earlier, middle, and later dates for 1 Clement, ultimately arguing for the middle date. Michael’s thesis has significance for both patristic and New Testament studies, since Clement cites much of the New Testament and thus may be used as a terminus ad quem for the dating of certain NT books.

Michael’s academic advisor was also Dr. David Alan Black. His secondary readers were L. Scott Kellum and Ed Gravely.

Michael has been a good friend of mine here in North Carolina and I wish him the best for his future. Good job, Michael!

Although I am totally biased in this regard, I view Southeastern as one of the best places for New Testament studies, not least because of the work of Drs. Black and Köstenberger. They promote a high standard of scholarly excellence, and many of their students go on to make contributions to scholarship (Alex, for example, has already been published in both Tyndale Bulletin and Trinity Journal). For students considering doctoral work in New Testament, we have, among others, Dr. Black who has made major contributions in Greek studies (as well as having written one of the best beginner Greek textbooks, in my humble but biased opinion), Dr. Köstenberger, who has written one of the top commentaries on John (the Baker Exegetical; also in my humble but biased opinion), Dr. Maurice Robinson, textual critic and editor of the Byzantine/Majority text (2005) of the NT, Dr. Benjamin Merkle, who has made contributions in the studies of the Pastoral Epistles and New Testament theology, and Dr. L. Scott Kellum, who has written a monograph on the Gospel of John. This is, of course, a small fraction of our scholars at Southeastern!

I am planning to finish my own dissertation within a year and hope that I can live up to their standards, and the standard set by Alex and Michael’s work. Congratulations, gentlemen!

The Christian and the origins of the universe

"Let's start at the very beginning," sang Julie Andrews in the iconic 1965 musical The Sound of Music, and I think Christians would be served well by doing the same thing. While debates about evolution, intelligent design, the flood, etc. are all good and well (and I am not embarrassed by my own Creationist beliefs), I believe that one of the more profitable levels of dialogue in scientific apologetics centers around the question of the origins of the very universe itself: "In the beginning, God created . . .”

I’ll confess that I’m something of a sci-fi fan (and a complete nerd), but in the process of reading good science fiction, I’ve also become interested in reading theoretical physics aimed at the layperson, including such well-written works as Brian Greene’s The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory, Kenneth Ford’s The Quantum World: Quantum Physics for Everyone, and Paul Davies’ The Goldilocks Enigma: Why is the Universe Just Right for Life? In the process of reading science, I’ve come to believe that the nature of the universe’s existence presents an insurmountable problem for those holding that science, by itself, contains all the answers. I’ve recently had the privilege of contributing a peer-reviewed article that deals with this issue (see below).

Back in the day of the steady-state theory of the universe, this was less of a problem for the agnostic. If the universe was eternal, then what need for an eternal creator? Ironically, the advent of the so-called Big Bang theory  caused many scientists to heap scorn on its proponents. In fact, physicist William Bonner even suggested, regarding the big bang theory, “The underlying motive is, of course, to bring in God as creator. It seems like the opportunity Christian theology has been waiting for ever since science began to depose religion from the minds of rational men in the seventeenth century” (quoted in Singh, 2004, p. 361; see bibliography). In the Soviet Union, proponents of the Big Bang were viewed as promoting a “something from nothing” creation and were actually persecuted. Stalinist Andrei Zhdanov, for example, sent physicist Nikolai Kozyrev to a labor camp in 1937 (Sing, 2004, p. 363) Clearly, for many the concept of an origin of the universe implied something outside of science that had to cause that origin.

[Writer’s note: I am not suggesting here that the secular Big Bang theory with all of its trappings is the same thing as Genesis 1:1, nor am I suggesting that the Big Bang, as modern science conceives of, is compatibile with a literal view of Genesis 1. What I am pointing out is simply that many scientists viewed the Big Bang theory with disdain simply because it seemed to point to an Originator of the universe. My overall point in this post concerns how scientists grapple with the very existence of the universe, and how their explanations are, in my opinion, inadequate. Also, I do think it's significant that physicist George P. Thomson once said, "Probably every physicist would believe in a creation if the Bible had not unfortunately said something about it many yhears ago and made it seem old-fashioned" (quoted in Singh, 2004, 361-362)]

Since the middle of the 20^th century, the Big Bang model has gradually become accepted by the majority of the main-stream scientific community. Since then, however, various theories have popped up which indirectly attempt to solve the “problems” that a non-eternal and life-bearing universe raises. These theories were not developed in order to put God out of the equation per se, but they are nevertheless often used as a means to discredit a deity. M-theory, for example, searches for that ultimate, all-encompassing set of facts/equations that will once and for all explain why the universe is as it is. Multiverse theory (not necessarily the same as M-theory, though many hold to both) attempts to explain the fact that we have a universe uniquely (and against all odds) geared to towards life by positing that our universe is simply one of many (possibly infinite) universes, and so naturally one of them is bound to have supported life. In response, one can always (like the obnoxious kid who always asks “why” in response to every statement) ask why M-theory has to exist at all, or why any universes, let alone ours, exists in the first place. The bottom line is that both a master-theory and the existence of multiverses become something that must be taken for granted, in the same way that Christians take for granted the existence of a personal deity.

In contrast, physicist Paul Davies recognizes many of the pitfalls inherent in modern cosmologies and instead tentatively posits a self-causing universe, a universe that contains its explanation and cause within itself. This is powered via observers (in Davies’ model, only a universe with life could exist in the first place) and quantum mechanics (see Davies, 2006, pp. 222-269, esp. 254-259 and 266-267; my description is of necessity a considerable simplification; the interested reader should read Davies for himself or herself, especially The Goldilocks Enigma).

First of all, let me say that Davies is a pleasure to read (at least his popular level works, though his more technical material can also be fascinating). Furthermore, Davies has taken a lot of scorn for daring to suggest that scientists have traditionally taken many things (e.g., the existence of the universe’s laws) on “faith,” and in the midst of criticism Davies has been reasonably calm and respectful (see, for example, his dialogue with other scientists in the online magazine Edge, December 2007, etc.; www.edge.org/discourse/science_faith.html) Indeed, Davies does not hold to his views in that dogmatically obnoxious way that characterizes some (whether they be scientists or theologians!) In fact, at one point he states, “At the end of the day, all the approaches I have discussed [including the one that Davies prefers] are likely to prove unsatisfactory. In fact, in reviewing them they all seem to me to be either ridiculous or hopelessly inadequate . . .” (Davies, 2006, 258-259) Overall, I greatly enjoy reading Davies and respect his work.

Nevertheless, I attempt to dialogue with and counter his ideas in my latest article, “The Emergent, Self-explaining Universe of Paul Davies – a Summary and Christian Response,” Science and Christian Belief vol. 24:1 (April 2012): 33-53. My overall point is that a self-causing, self-explaining universe still falls short because the method via observation by which it causes itself remains a mechanism that must be taken for granted. In other words, we can always ask “Why is there such a thing as self-causation in the first place, and what is the mechanism that allows this self-causation?” Similarly, quantum mechanics itself seems to be taken for granted, since even though the quantum laws are caused by backwards causation via observation, yet the quantum laws seemingly have to exist in the first place to allow such backwards causation. Whatever causes whatever, we are still left with the need to take such a backwards-causing mechanism for granted. [to the reader: if your head hurts at this point, never fear; so does mine!]

Here’s the bottom line: regardless of quantum mechanics, backwards causation, M-theory, or anything else, the very existence of the universe cries out with a very loud “why” that nothing inside of science itself can explain. Positing backwards causation or M-theory or multiverses remains just as much a presupposition (and, dare I say it, “faith”) as the belief in a personal God. Whatever you hold to, you have to have a starting point, or (in the case of Davies), a “starting point” that is actually the existence of a mechanism for self-causation that can explain a self-creating loop of a universe. This brief thought does not do justice to the debate, but I nevertheless believe it to be correct. Everybody has to start with some form of presupposition, some form of staring point.

In contrast, for the Christian this starting point is (in the words of J. Houghton) “the God out there [who] has entered our world in the person of Jesus” (Houghton, 2000, 158).  In other words, the ultimate Starting Point of all has become one of us, offering hope and redemption from our sins. We are not the cause of our own existence via observation, but rather the cause of our own suffering through our corrupted nature. Nevertheless God, in the form of Jesus Christ, who is “himself before all things” and through whom “all things are held together” (Col. 1:17, NET) offers hope for us and the universe through his death on the cross and resurrection.

          BIBLIOGRAPHY AND SUGGESTED READING

Davies, Paul. The Goldilocks Enigma: Why Is the Universe Just Right for Life? Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2006. Originally published in the US under the title Cosmic Jackpot. For more relevant works by Davies, see the various works I cite in my S&CB article “The Emergent, Self-explaining Universe of Paul Davies.” As noted above, Davies is very readable and enjoyable and does a fairly good job in his popular books of making complex issues in theoretical physics  understandable.

Himes, Paul. “The Emergent, Self-explaining Universe of Paul Davies – a Summary and Christian Response.” Science and Christian Belief 24:1 (April 2012): 33-53. This article was originally a paper presented to Dr. Kenneth Keathley’s class “Christian Faith and Science,” a doctoral seminar at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary.

Houghton, John. “Where is God? Thinking in More Than Three Dimensions.” Pages 157-160 in God for the 21^st Century. Ed. Russell Stannard. Philadelphia: Templeton Foundation, 2000.

Singh, Simon. Big Bang: The Origin of the Universe. New York: Harper Perennial, 2004. A history of the Big Bang theory. Those who love mathematics are also encouraged to check out Singh’s fascinating book Fermat’s Enigma.

Note also that in the same S&CB issue as my own article there are two other interesting articles on cosmology: 1. William E. Carroll, “Aquinas and Contemporary Cosmology: Creation and Beginnings,” and 2. John Turl, “Do Many Worlds Make Light Work?”

Report on the southeastern regional meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, 2012

Modified 7/6/2019

I just had the privilege of attending the 2012 southeast regional meeting of the ETS right here in Wake Forest, NC (March 24-25). The main theme was one of my favorites, "Biblical Theology." The plenary speakers were Drs. Paul House, Scott Hafemann, and our very own Andreas Köstenberger.

Sadly I could not attend all of it (due to working 3rd shift as a security guard), but I did get to present a paper, listen to most of the plenary sessions, attend a few papers, and meeting up with a few of my friends and professors.

Dr. Köstenberger kicked things off Friday afternoon with a brief devotional on "Excellence," based on 2 Peter 3:1-11 (the full text of his devotional may be found on his blog, "Biblical Foundations"). This devotional is based in part on his new book, Excellence: The Character of God and the Pursuit of Scholarly Virtue (just recently started reading it myself; kudos to Dr. Köstenberger for beginning the book with a very interesting personal testimony; kudos also to my friend Alex Stewart for helping him with the book in the role of a research assistant).

The first plenary address (which I sadly missed), was by Dr. Paul R. House (Beeson Divinity School) on "New Creation, New Creations and the Unity of the Bible (Part 1)"; the second plenary address, designed to complement Dr. House's work, was by Dr. Scott Hafemann (University of St. Andrews, formerly of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary), "New Creation, New Creations, and the Unity of the Bible (Part 2)," where Dr. Hafemann examined the Apostle Paul's conept of the "New creation" in 2 Corinthians 5:17 and Galatians 6:15. One of the most significant statements I took away from Dr. Hafemann's presentation is that for the Apostle Paul, the concept of a "new creation" is not an abstract thing but rather an ontological reality, a life working itself out in love.

Dr. Köstenberger gave us the 3rd plenary address on "Recent Biblical Theologies and the Future of the Discipline" where he surveys various approaches to Biblical Theology in the days since J. P. Gabler's seminal work and discusses the various issues surrounding Biblical Theology. The full text of Dr. Köstenberger's presentation will soon be published on the online journal Themelios.

Every year the regional ETS meetings award 1st-3rd places for student papers, and my brilliant friend Mike Rudolph won first place with his discussion of "Gar when De is Expected"; in this paper, Rudolph actually does his own translation of a significant portion of Appolonius Dyscolus' work where Appolonius discusses the use of the Greek particles gar and de. Now this is primary research par excellence!! Congrats to Mike for his fine work (this is not an isolated incident; Mike, who is also under Dr. David Black, is producing some fabulous linguistic work as he finishes up his doctorate).

Second place went to Ryan Martin, from Central Baptist Theological Seminary, who presented on "New, Fashionable, Lax Schemes of Divinity: Jonathan Edwards and the 'Old" 'New Perspective on Paul'"; third place went to Jeremy Kimble, "Exclusion from the People of God: An Examination of Paul's Use of the Old Testament in 1 Corinthians."

I wish I could have attended more seminars, but I did stop to hear my friend Joe Greene present an excellent examination of "The Spirit in the Temple: Bridging the Gap between Old Testament Absence and New Testament Assumption." I also sat in on Grant Taylor's "Typology and Application: Biblical Theology in John 15:25." My own paper that I presented was basically chapter 2 of my dissertation, "Strangers and Foreigners: An Examination of Social Identity in 1 Peter," and I've gotten some good feedback on it (but hey, does anybody actually ever get negative feedback when presenting a paper among friends??) Other papers I would have loved to hear include my former professor Ben Merkle on "Biblical Theology and Prophecy: Establishing an Interpretive Framework for Understanding Biblical Prophecy," textual critic (and the prof I sometimes grade for) Maurice Robinson on "The Byzantine 'Priest' Variant in Acts 5:24," as well as papers by my friends David Stark ("'Till Death Did us Part': Romans 7:1-6 as a Recasting of Numbers 5:11-31"), Josh Chatraw ("Evangelicals, N. T. Wright, and the Historical versus the Canonical Jesus"; by the way, check out Josh' recent article in JETS critiquing the Biblical Theology of Bart Ehrman), and Mark Catlin, "Who is the Servant of the Servant Songs? Understanding the Servant Typologically."

A few other papers I would have been interested in attending include C. Gordon Olson on "The Importance of Diachronic Lexicography in Biblical Theology: A Study of Eklegomai," R. K. McGregor Wright, "Is There a Positive Case for Libertarian Freewill in the Bible?" and Jud Davis, "Biblical Theology and Psalm 22: 'My God, My God, Why . . .? in its Historical and Canonical Context." Sadly, the need to work and sleep a little bit (the downside of working as a 3rd shift security guard during seminary!) and conflict with other interesting papers kept me from them.

The greatest highlight for me was when 3 other students and one professor and I went out to lunch and just got to talk theology and have a great time. The ETS meetings are a great time to "hang out" with people whose passion for Biblical Studies is equal to or (far!) greater than my own. While presenting and listening to papers can be a lot of fun, iron only sharpens iron when it is actually coming into contact with other iron. In the same way, Christian edification occurs mostly through personal interaction.

So, for the benefit of any current or future seminary or doctoral students reading this, what are the benefits of an ETS meeting? 1. First of all, this sort of thing challenges you to think. Just as an athlete cannot expect to remain competitive in his field without constantly challenging his muscles, so also anybody called to teach God's Word will experience atrophy of the brain without constantly stimulating it through theological dialogue. Listening to others present their ideas, whether good or bad, forces my brain to grapple with their claims and, in the process, points me to resources that can help me in my further research. Also, listening to those who hold one's own views on most things theologically is not nearly as mentally rigorous as listening to those from a different perspective. The former is comparable to a newly-promoted major league hitter who only faced fastballs in the minor leagues; he'll be ill-prepared to deal with the curveballs and sliders of experienced pitchers!  2. Secondly, presenting a paper at ETS is great practice for public speaking (whether teaching or preaching). It forces me to organize my ideas coherently and exposes me to questions from the audience that (generally) are positive but can also pick apart any weaknesses in my argument (wisely, all ETS paper presentations are required to leave 10 minutes at the end for Q&A; in practice, this usually gets cut to about 5 minutes which is what happened with my paper).

Seminary students and Bible teachers, then, should seriously consider attending ETS or similar meetings. Theology, after all, does not happen in a vacuum.