Well, I have had a few days to mull over the 8 sessions of the NPTS Symposium on the Theological Interpretation of Scripture. I have a few general observations.
Consensus seemed to be among all participants (presenters, respondents, and attendees, who spoke) that conversion is better understood as a process in which one continues to deepen what may have been in fact the first event of conversion. There was also consensus that conversion was difficult to define in satisfactory ways that covers all instances of what we may wish to call conversion. Also there seemed to be agreement though this was not thoroughly discussed, that there are a variety of types of conversion (Lewis Rambo, in his book on conversion identifies, I believe at least four general types of conversion.) Also, most seemed to feel the need to approach conversion with care: either because the desire to see people convert has caused pain, or because questioning conversion for participants was itself (at some point in beginning the investigation) an unsettling thing, and because of the knowledge of the power dynamics involved in conversion.
The symposium also wrestled with some issues that no one came to firm conclusions. There was at times expressed both by respondents and attendees who raised questions in response to each presentation, a concern for how one would relate the sociological and psychological definitions and presentation of conversion with the Christian theological claims about conversion to or into Christian faith. The issue and problem of the relationship of Conversion to baptism and salvation were also raised. Here then were concerns about what role did humanity play and what role does God play in conversion. Even Rambo admitted that the sociological and psychological the weight is upon conversion as a human act and attempts to understand it as such. Rambo though would not then assume that the theological questions are thus answered or dealt with, and he encouraged an interdisciplinary approach for both theologians and any other discipline looking at conversion, that does not deny the distinctive perspective of each discipline. I observed a sense that for some participants the practical theological and pastoral were not dealt with directly by presenters and respondents.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Session Seven (cont.)
Three correlations- and this risks simplifying the complex.
Augustin's context of a Bishop pastoring those whose spirituality that is less than athletic, influence Augustine interpretation as he attempts to interpret the texts as for those under his pastoral care?
And with Wesley, is it his context of fighting nominal faith lead to Wesley's interpretation?
and IN our time in which Christin morality is not dominant and thus don't have the category of sin and they will only have that category and struggle after conversion and not before?
Looking at history of interpretation, which have proved enduring and credible across contexts. But for Romans 7 drawing that map of plausibility is difficult. And so it is hard to see what direction to take in interpretation.
However, there are things we can see there is a sense of Romans 7 of a movement towards God through the struggle with sin. Though thee may be other things going on at the same time.
The ways Protestant have give attention to this aspect of Romans 7 they have emphasized to heavily introspection. In their introspective use is where Protestant interpreters find a pastoral application of Romans 7. This use of the text we find unfaithful to Paul, even though Paul was using the idea of struggle with sin as a journey to God.
But do we know how to use this text and how Romans 7 addresses us, both about sin and conversion?
Howe do we think this text should be used in the mission of the Church?
Augustin's context of a Bishop pastoring those whose spirituality that is less than athletic, influence Augustine interpretation as he attempts to interpret the texts as for those under his pastoral care?
And with Wesley, is it his context of fighting nominal faith lead to Wesley's interpretation?
and IN our time in which Christin morality is not dominant and thus don't have the category of sin and they will only have that category and struggle after conversion and not before?
Looking at history of interpretation, which have proved enduring and credible across contexts. But for Romans 7 drawing that map of plausibility is difficult. And so it is hard to see what direction to take in interpretation.
However, there are things we can see there is a sense of Romans 7 of a movement towards God through the struggle with sin. Though thee may be other things going on at the same time.
The ways Protestant have give attention to this aspect of Romans 7 they have emphasized to heavily introspection. In their introspective use is where Protestant interpreters find a pastoral application of Romans 7. This use of the text we find unfaithful to Paul, even though Paul was using the idea of struggle with sin as a journey to God.
But do we know how to use this text and how Romans 7 addresses us, both about sin and conversion?
Howe do we think this text should be used in the mission of the Church?
Session Seven, NPTS Sympsium
Stephen Chester, Romans 7 Conversion in the Protestant Tradition
History of interpretation organized between how interpreters answer these questions of conversion and how their beliefs about what conversion influences the exegesis of Romans 7.
Story of Romans 7 interpretation-
Sketch mainlines of development-
In connection with conversion as long as people have interpreted the text so far as we have evidence of reading Romans 7. Patristic authors do see this as a model of the progress of the individual towards God through a struggle with sin.
Begin alienated from God and move or moved closer to God.
This is the background of these interpretations for the Reformation interpretations of Romans 7.
Protestantism developed at least two approaches to Romans 7. 1) Reformed side puritan tradition as concerned with struggle with sin in the Christian life. Driving concern the need to distinguish of experience of conviction of sin in conversion and struggle of sin in Christian life. In order to distinguish between that which is counterfeit and genuine.
2)the whole of Romans seven has to do with the conviction of sin in conversion.
19th century nuance sees this as autobiographical but is still about conviction of sin in conversion.
These all have an introspective quality and focus on conviction of sin.
20th century down to the present:
Variety of interpretations but which share the common rejection of what tied together early interpretations. A turn away from introspection and from an emphasis and conviction of sin as essential for conversion.
Romans 7 still speak of human sinfulness but is not a description of of an experience of conversion.
Anti-Theological interpreters of Romans 7-
The whole theological interpretation is erroneous, and thus this is just not about human sinfulness, or even about conversion.
At least three new ways of reading Romans 7 in the 20th century-
History of interpretation organized between how interpreters answer these questions of conversion and how their beliefs about what conversion influences the exegesis of Romans 7.
Story of Romans 7 interpretation-
Sketch mainlines of development-
In connection with conversion as long as people have interpreted the text so far as we have evidence of reading Romans 7. Patristic authors do see this as a model of the progress of the individual towards God through a struggle with sin.
Begin alienated from God and move or moved closer to God.
This is the background of these interpretations for the Reformation interpretations of Romans 7.
Protestantism developed at least two approaches to Romans 7. 1) Reformed side puritan tradition as concerned with struggle with sin in the Christian life. Driving concern the need to distinguish of experience of conviction of sin in conversion and struggle of sin in Christian life. In order to distinguish between that which is counterfeit and genuine.
2)the whole of Romans seven has to do with the conviction of sin in conversion.
19th century nuance sees this as autobiographical but is still about conviction of sin in conversion.
These all have an introspective quality and focus on conviction of sin.
20th century down to the present:
Variety of interpretations but which share the common rejection of what tied together early interpretations. A turn away from introspection and from an emphasis and conviction of sin as essential for conversion.
Romans 7 still speak of human sinfulness but is not a description of of an experience of conversion.
Anti-Theological interpreters of Romans 7-
The whole theological interpretation is erroneous, and thus this is just not about human sinfulness, or even about conversion.
At least three new ways of reading Romans 7 in the 20th century-
Session Six, Responce and discussion
Boaz Johnson, response-
Agrees with conversion as fundamental change and transformation. Appreciates the eschatology dimension given to this theme.
Individual conversion accounts are few and infrequent, in comparison to the transformation of peoples and cosmos.
He sees the picture differently, and based in his experience of the OT in his own conversion from Hinduism and has seen conversion from Hinduism and Islam. OT become models for conversions as we find in NT.
Best conversion studies have yet come out of Hindu, Muslim, and Buddhist settings.
But also in anti conversion laws. Also raises questions what is a Christian. The question needs to be in these contexts of India, Middle east, Africa etc. Ask question of Western Church to take a second look at the OT Stories. Membership in extended family and clan, and this is model of conversion and in many place around the world. Abraham conversion as a model it becomes a story of break with context, and this can be a very painful reality.
This sort of break, is shown in that Israel is the people who come together and recite the shama. then conversion get wrapped up in the liturgical moment. This then is the conversion story of Ruth.
Role of place in OT for conversion. Exodus ch 15, this takes place so that people will go to the place. It is the place where Solomon builds the temple. It is as if it is a centripetal force drawing both the Gentile and the Jew toward the machom (place) people need to go in a spiral towards the place.
There is the opposite of "place", where Abraham goes down. Going down is the opposite of conversion. Negative thing. Jonah goes down, and Jonah is called to arise. and Jonah does not do that. When one goes down, one is going away from the place and going to the grave. Antidote is arise. Is what Abraham does, and it is what does throughout the narrative, in the Exodus. And in the prophetic texts and this is what will happen in the eschatology. If you want the eschatological reality now you arise now.
Conversion-word "return"- de-creation can be recreation.
Jonah Gentile community understands return while Jonah doesn't. Israel doesn't convert, Jonah doesn't convert. in Ruth covenant community doesn't convert but Ruth converts and becomes a model for Boaz's conversion.
Dearman's response
Portrayal of Character's in Jonah. How does one measure a conversion? Two canonical books one has conversion of Nineveh the other celebrates the fall of Nineveh.
Now comes after proverbs, and there are some connections with Ruth.
Agrees with conversion as fundamental change and transformation. Appreciates the eschatology dimension given to this theme.
Individual conversion accounts are few and infrequent, in comparison to the transformation of peoples and cosmos.
He sees the picture differently, and based in his experience of the OT in his own conversion from Hinduism and has seen conversion from Hinduism and Islam. OT become models for conversions as we find in NT.
Best conversion studies have yet come out of Hindu, Muslim, and Buddhist settings.
But also in anti conversion laws. Also raises questions what is a Christian. The question needs to be in these contexts of India, Middle east, Africa etc. Ask question of Western Church to take a second look at the OT Stories. Membership in extended family and clan, and this is model of conversion and in many place around the world. Abraham conversion as a model it becomes a story of break with context, and this can be a very painful reality.
This sort of break, is shown in that Israel is the people who come together and recite the shama. then conversion get wrapped up in the liturgical moment. This then is the conversion story of Ruth.
Role of place in OT for conversion. Exodus ch 15, this takes place so that people will go to the place. It is the place where Solomon builds the temple. It is as if it is a centripetal force drawing both the Gentile and the Jew toward the machom (place) people need to go in a spiral towards the place.
There is the opposite of "place", where Abraham goes down. Going down is the opposite of conversion. Negative thing. Jonah goes down, and Jonah is called to arise. and Jonah does not do that. When one goes down, one is going away from the place and going to the grave. Antidote is arise. Is what Abraham does, and it is what does throughout the narrative, in the Exodus. And in the prophetic texts and this is what will happen in the eschatology. If you want the eschatological reality now you arise now.
Conversion-word "return"- de-creation can be recreation.
Jonah Gentile community understands return while Jonah doesn't. Israel doesn't convert, Jonah doesn't convert. in Ruth covenant community doesn't convert but Ruth converts and becomes a model for Boaz's conversion.
Dearman's response
Portrayal of Character's in Jonah. How does one measure a conversion? Two canonical books one has conversion of Nineveh the other celebrates the fall of Nineveh.
Now comes after proverbs, and there are some connections with Ruth.
Sixth Session (cont.)
Israel's story-
Conversion should be seen from perspective of people and nations.
Transformation is needed and necessary for nations and peoples.
Genesis 12:1-3, call of Abram and Sara:
Counter movement of Genesis thus far. Hinge passage, looks back and projects forward. promises given in this passage, and blessing decedents and to the Nations. Cast a larger shadow in the unfolding narrative beyond the Pentateuch. Theme of God's intent to bless continues throughout the Pentateuch.
These blessings are promised to descendants or descendant (NT applied to messiah).
Prophets provide eschatology fulfillment. The promise is unrealized but projected on an international and cosmic scale.
Prophets and future transformation-
Evil and recalcitrant, are destroyed or changed, Isreal is changed and expanded. Nations brought into the reign of God.
Isaiah 2:2-5
streaming of nations to the temple in Jerusalem.
Themes- What is depicted and prommised to Israel is eventualy also promised to and extended to the Nations.
Worship life reflected in Psalms is related to these themes.
Zion and Jerusalem as place of divine revelation.
Psalm 32, Davidic line as shepherds of hte people, and Jerusalem as place of temple.
Psalm 72 celebration of what God will do with Davids family. People will be blessed through the work, reflecting back to Genesis 12.
Zion/Jerusalem theology- Primary building blocks of this eschatology.
Most OT book in the NT, book of revelation, In Johns visionary account these themes are picked up and reworked.
Ruth-
History of interpretation. Impact history of the book. it has a fascinating history of interpretation.
Ruth is one who is incorporated into the people of faith. Before printing press, Ruth moved around in the order of the books and was associated with other books.
Is there a great deal of emphasis on her religious status, though it is clear she is incorporated into the family of faith. Though there is a conversion of sorts. Naomi's god will be Ruths god. Has come to dwell under the wings of hte God of Israel. Is this narative art of an the author who knows that htis language will be used in the psalter. the family of boaz is aprt of the line of parez, which is the line of judah. The story was preserved because it ilustrates the family of David and its history. Moabite connection between David's family? In cannonical tradition is a story of a Moabite who becomes incorporated into the family of faith, Israel. Jewish interpetation this story is clearly seen as an example of conversion to Judaism. Midrash has Naomi telling her about the responcibilities followign the over 600 commandments in the Torah. Eventually the book Ruth is associated with the festival of Weeks, Pentacost. This festival overlaps with the barley harvest. this festival also became associated with the giving the law on Mt. Sinai. Ruth is read during this festival, eschatology also plays a role here. Just as God spoke to Israel, God will speak in the future to the nations. Think then about the day of Pentacost, and the people hear the gospel in their own language. (Sin Jin Park's work deals with this.)
Ruth becomes a paradigm of convert and is a sign of what is to come in the future of the Nations hearing God and coming to Jerusalem.
Ruth in the geneology of Jesus in Matthew. she and the other three women in this geneology could be all gentiles, and converts.
Conversion should be seen from perspective of people and nations.
Transformation is needed and necessary for nations and peoples.
Genesis 12:1-3, call of Abram and Sara:
Counter movement of Genesis thus far. Hinge passage, looks back and projects forward. promises given in this passage, and blessing decedents and to the Nations. Cast a larger shadow in the unfolding narrative beyond the Pentateuch. Theme of God's intent to bless continues throughout the Pentateuch.
These blessings are promised to descendants or descendant (NT applied to messiah).
Prophets provide eschatology fulfillment. The promise is unrealized but projected on an international and cosmic scale.
Prophets and future transformation-
Evil and recalcitrant, are destroyed or changed, Isreal is changed and expanded. Nations brought into the reign of God.
Isaiah 2:2-5
streaming of nations to the temple in Jerusalem.
Themes- What is depicted and prommised to Israel is eventualy also promised to and extended to the Nations.
Worship life reflected in Psalms is related to these themes.
Zion and Jerusalem as place of divine revelation.
Psalm 32, Davidic line as shepherds of hte people, and Jerusalem as place of temple.
Psalm 72 celebration of what God will do with Davids family. People will be blessed through the work, reflecting back to Genesis 12.
Zion/Jerusalem theology- Primary building blocks of this eschatology.
Most OT book in the NT, book of revelation, In Johns visionary account these themes are picked up and reworked.
Ruth-
History of interpretation. Impact history of the book. it has a fascinating history of interpretation.
Ruth is one who is incorporated into the people of faith. Before printing press, Ruth moved around in the order of the books and was associated with other books.
Is there a great deal of emphasis on her religious status, though it is clear she is incorporated into the family of faith. Though there is a conversion of sorts. Naomi's god will be Ruths god. Has come to dwell under the wings of hte God of Israel. Is this narative art of an the author who knows that htis language will be used in the psalter. the family of boaz is aprt of the line of parez, which is the line of judah. The story was preserved because it ilustrates the family of David and its history. Moabite connection between David's family? In cannonical tradition is a story of a Moabite who becomes incorporated into the family of faith, Israel. Jewish interpetation this story is clearly seen as an example of conversion to Judaism. Midrash has Naomi telling her about the responcibilities followign the over 600 commandments in the Torah. Eventually the book Ruth is associated with the festival of Weeks, Pentacost. This festival overlaps with the barley harvest. this festival also became associated with the giving the law on Mt. Sinai. Ruth is read during this festival, eschatology also plays a role here. Just as God spoke to Israel, God will speak in the future to the nations. Think then about the day of Pentacost, and the people hear the gospel in their own language. (Sin Jin Park's work deals with this.)
Ruth becomes a paradigm of convert and is a sign of what is to come in the future of the Nations hearing God and coming to Jerusalem.
Ruth in the geneology of Jesus in Matthew. she and the other three women in this geneology could be all gentiles, and converts.
Sixth session of NPTS Symposium on Conversion
Andrew Dearman, Conversion in the OT
Illustration: Carla Fe Tucker in Texas prison system on Death Row. No doubt about her guilt. As a young woman she had killed someone and convicted of that crime. Converted in prison and then lived an exemplary life in prison. Discussion in media, was what was a conversion worth. In the end the Governor of Texas refused to commute her sentence, or pardon. And question was asked is this the same person who killed the person 20 years earlier.
Language of conversion in OT, for example Jeremiah's language, where it is said that God will remember their sins no more.
Three observations:
1) say quite a bit about definitions
2) Scholars will not agree about those definitions.
3) the speaker will not spend alot of time on definitions.
Broadly define from dictionary-
Laboratory, scientific conversion tables-
Fundamental transformation-
Broad definition is conversion transformation, and the OT has much to say about this and not so much about individuals. But groups, and even the cosmos, the conversion of the cosmos. The view of OT is Cosmos, Nations and then individuals.
Can speak of conversion of Israel, and renewal of cosmos.
question of Individuals, this is secondary- Rahab is often thought of as a convert. King Menassah. The book of Jonah, not mentioned, but everything and everyone is capable transformation and conversion except for Jonah. Ninevites, shortest sermon in the Bible, that has tremendous effect. Nineveh can repent, even God is capable of changing direction and purpose.
Illustration: Carla Fe Tucker in Texas prison system on Death Row. No doubt about her guilt. As a young woman she had killed someone and convicted of that crime. Converted in prison and then lived an exemplary life in prison. Discussion in media, was what was a conversion worth. In the end the Governor of Texas refused to commute her sentence, or pardon. And question was asked is this the same person who killed the person 20 years earlier.
Language of conversion in OT, for example Jeremiah's language, where it is said that God will remember their sins no more.
Three observations:
1) say quite a bit about definitions
2) Scholars will not agree about those definitions.
3) the speaker will not spend alot of time on definitions.
Broadly define from dictionary-
Laboratory, scientific conversion tables-
Fundamental transformation-
Broad definition is conversion transformation, and the OT has much to say about this and not so much about individuals. But groups, and even the cosmos, the conversion of the cosmos. The view of OT is Cosmos, Nations and then individuals.
Can speak of conversion of Israel, and renewal of cosmos.
question of Individuals, this is secondary- Rahab is often thought of as a convert. King Menassah. The book of Jonah, not mentioned, but everything and everyone is capable transformation and conversion except for Jonah. Ninevites, shortest sermon in the Bible, that has tremendous effect. Nineveh can repent, even God is capable of changing direction and purpose.
More on Conversion
Yesterday I posted during the Third session discussing when Peter was converted. Which pointed to one conclusion that many seem to be coming to that conversion isn't necessarily a one time deal.
Frank Macchia, Professor of Theology at Vanguard University, focused on how conversion of one outside the group into the group was from at least a Lukan perspective a call for conversion and renewal of the group. A striking feature of Macchia's presentation was his use of the word righteous in the gospels in an unqualified way. Generally it seems we tend to interpret (or immediately translate) righteous when used of the pharisees or those who opposed Jesus' table fellowship with sinner's and publicans, as meaning self-righteous. We immediately exempt ourselves from the criticism, if we apply the criticism to any one in the church it is always those other people. Macchia in almost astounding but persuasive naiveté, simply insisted that we hear the word righteous in the Lukan text to simply mean that those who opposed Jesus were in fact righteous and those with whom he had table fellowship were in fact sinners. Now he did admit this had a sociological and power function as well, but he did not allow class to obscure the reality of the righteousness. Suddenly, and I think this was a general experience in the room, I as one who had grown up in the church could not wiggle out of being the righteous in the gospel texts.
The hopefulness of this is that Macchia through the parable of "the Lost Sons" (AKA Prodigal Son, Forgiving Father etc.) showed how it was about a call for both the righteous and sinner to conversion, and to be converted to each other. Which leads in a sense to seeing the Christian life as one of continual conversion.
I found it interesting that Macchia as a Pentecostal theologian (Assemblies of God) which draws him to Luke/Acts when he examined conversion lead him to conclusions remarkably similar to those found in the Desert Amma's and Abba's and Benedictine Spirituality in particular. Namely that conversion is something one is never done with, and that judgment of the other is a hindrance to conversion and the spiritual life. Of course for the monastic and desert tradition Luke/Acts is also central and a source of devotion.
The Third session was one long awaited by many, in part because Scot McKnight and used Lewis Rambo's work on conversion to help us sort out whether or not Paul was a convert. Lewis Rambo's presentation in distilling his paper was more an overview of the sort of approaches he uses and is recommending for continued study of conversion. And then concluded on defining conversion. Good but also in comparison dull stuff except that I now have an idea where scholarly and sociological work on is headed at the moment. However, what seemed to touch off a good bit of question and discussion was around pastoral care and therapeutic considerations around conversion. Rambo told a story of a Jewish woman who was a convert to Catholicism and how initially the priest sensing that other things might be bound up in her seeking to convert referred her to a therapist, and it turned out that there had been some familial and abuse issues that were there. He pointed this story out as a pastor rightly recognizing that there are multiple factors that can lead to conversion and can complicate conversion if not addressed. Phillis Sheppard in her response told a story of a Jewish boy from a small town where there were few other Jewish families and his parents sent him to an Anglican boarding school where he eventually was baptized and then regularly received communion. He then after much soul searching after leaving the school (having never told his family about his baptism) continued to identity as Jewish but struggled with whether or not his baptism invalidated his Jewish identity. This exposed the way in which conversion can get messy and perhaps isn't always as cut and dry as a group or even as we may want out of our own sense of self.
Frank Macchia, Professor of Theology at Vanguard University, focused on how conversion of one outside the group into the group was from at least a Lukan perspective a call for conversion and renewal of the group. A striking feature of Macchia's presentation was his use of the word righteous in the gospels in an unqualified way. Generally it seems we tend to interpret (or immediately translate) righteous when used of the pharisees or those who opposed Jesus' table fellowship with sinner's and publicans, as meaning self-righteous. We immediately exempt ourselves from the criticism, if we apply the criticism to any one in the church it is always those other people. Macchia in almost astounding but persuasive naiveté, simply insisted that we hear the word righteous in the Lukan text to simply mean that those who opposed Jesus were in fact righteous and those with whom he had table fellowship were in fact sinners. Now he did admit this had a sociological and power function as well, but he did not allow class to obscure the reality of the righteousness. Suddenly, and I think this was a general experience in the room, I as one who had grown up in the church could not wiggle out of being the righteous in the gospel texts.
The hopefulness of this is that Macchia through the parable of "the Lost Sons" (AKA Prodigal Son, Forgiving Father etc.) showed how it was about a call for both the righteous and sinner to conversion, and to be converted to each other. Which leads in a sense to seeing the Christian life as one of continual conversion.
I found it interesting that Macchia as a Pentecostal theologian (Assemblies of God) which draws him to Luke/Acts when he examined conversion lead him to conclusions remarkably similar to those found in the Desert Amma's and Abba's and Benedictine Spirituality in particular. Namely that conversion is something one is never done with, and that judgment of the other is a hindrance to conversion and the spiritual life. Of course for the monastic and desert tradition Luke/Acts is also central and a source of devotion.
The Third session was one long awaited by many, in part because Scot McKnight and used Lewis Rambo's work on conversion to help us sort out whether or not Paul was a convert. Lewis Rambo's presentation in distilling his paper was more an overview of the sort of approaches he uses and is recommending for continued study of conversion. And then concluded on defining conversion. Good but also in comparison dull stuff except that I now have an idea where scholarly and sociological work on is headed at the moment. However, what seemed to touch off a good bit of question and discussion was around pastoral care and therapeutic considerations around conversion. Rambo told a story of a Jewish woman who was a convert to Catholicism and how initially the priest sensing that other things might be bound up in her seeking to convert referred her to a therapist, and it turned out that there had been some familial and abuse issues that were there. He pointed this story out as a pastor rightly recognizing that there are multiple factors that can lead to conversion and can complicate conversion if not addressed. Phillis Sheppard in her response told a story of a Jewish boy from a small town where there were few other Jewish families and his parents sent him to an Anglican boarding school where he eventually was baptized and then regularly received communion. He then after much soul searching after leaving the school (having never told his family about his baptism) continued to identity as Jewish but struggled with whether or not his baptism invalidated his Jewish identity. This exposed the way in which conversion can get messy and perhaps isn't always as cut and dry as a group or even as we may want out of our own sense of self.
Friday, September 25, 2009
Responce to "Conversions of St Peter"
Michael Gorman-
1) definition and methodology
2) identifying Peter's conversion
3)differences in meaning of conversion
4) ongoing meaning for us.
1) Method forces Markus to deny Joppa as a moment of conversion, and make distinction between call and conversion. This undermines his final conclusion that Peter's conversion was multiple. Conversion should not be defined in terms of vocabulary used but other factors.
2)Identifying Peter's conversion, and to Christian memory, Paul's memory of Peter.
Paul depicts of Peter is lead astray and acting antithetical of Gospel. in light of this what happened to Peter at Joppa was in fact a conversion. Thus indeed Peter was a person of multiple conversions.
3)Similarities between Peter and Paul's conversions around turning to to cross
4) Ongoing meaning:
Peter and Paul symbols of unity of differing types of conversion. Perhaps we can learn from Petrine and Pauline similarity and difference. Even Paul saw as need for ongoing conversion.
1) definition and methodology
2) identifying Peter's conversion
3)differences in meaning of conversion
4) ongoing meaning for us.
1) Method forces Markus to deny Joppa as a moment of conversion, and make distinction between call and conversion. This undermines his final conclusion that Peter's conversion was multiple. Conversion should not be defined in terms of vocabulary used but other factors.
2)Identifying Peter's conversion, and to Christian memory, Paul's memory of Peter.
Paul depicts of Peter is lead astray and acting antithetical of Gospel. in light of this what happened to Peter at Joppa was in fact a conversion. Thus indeed Peter was a person of multiple conversions.
3)Similarities between Peter and Paul's conversions around turning to to cross
4) Ongoing meaning:
Peter and Paul symbols of unity of differing types of conversion. Perhaps we can learn from Petrine and Pauline similarity and difference. Even Paul saw as need for ongoing conversion.
Was Peter Converted? (cont.) Third session of NPTS Symposium
Continued from Acts of Peter
1 Peter 1.3- a new birth into a living hope, linked to the resurrection, and is used to coming to faith.
Moral and spiritual conversion.
Petrine author includes himself in those who are converted.
Baptism is saving significance
John 21- Peter restored; appointed as pastor. Apolinarious of Laodiciea: Luke 22.31 and three affirmations of love.
At the opening of John 21 indicates Peter is not yet renewed.
Peter is newly appointed in discussion with Jesus, and get a three fold commissioning of peter. Peter is initiated into the shepherding ministry of Jesus.
This then is the conversion of Peter.
The theme of conversion or repentance is underplayed in scholarship.
Emphasis on calling opposed to conversion clouds the issue.
Peter did turn back and received a charge to a pastoral apostolic minsitry. But Luke doesn't record when that was.
Conversion of Peter is in his own turning back in response and in face of the resurrection of Jesus after which he is commissioned.
Luke doesn't narrate Peter as witness to the resurrection. Cock symbolizes the entire story from denial that also heralds the coming resurection and dawn of new life.
Peter then embodies what it means to turen and is one who is continual converting and turning.
1 Peter 1.3- a new birth into a living hope, linked to the resurrection, and is used to coming to faith.
Moral and spiritual conversion.
Petrine author includes himself in those who are converted.
Baptism is saving significance
John 21- Peter restored; appointed as pastor. Apolinarious of Laodiciea: Luke 22.31 and three affirmations of love.
At the opening of John 21 indicates Peter is not yet renewed.
Peter is newly appointed in discussion with Jesus, and get a three fold commissioning of peter. Peter is initiated into the shepherding ministry of Jesus.
This then is the conversion of Peter.
The theme of conversion or repentance is underplayed in scholarship.
Emphasis on calling opposed to conversion clouds the issue.
Peter did turn back and received a charge to a pastoral apostolic minsitry. But Luke doesn't record when that was.
Conversion of Peter is in his own turning back in response and in face of the resurrection of Jesus after which he is commissioned.
Luke doesn't narrate Peter as witness to the resurrection. Cock symbolizes the entire story from denial that also heralds the coming resurection and dawn of new life.
Peter then embodies what it means to turen and is one who is continual converting and turning.
Was Peter Converted? Acts of Peter
Peter a Convert?
This is a strange document, and complex and confusing document. What is important for the topic is the importance of conversion for the document.
symbolism of peter being crucified upside down.
Peter is presented as the converted apostle who fails first time and then gets it right the second time around. Represents conversion from the powers of the world to the power of the cross.
Session Three, Was Peter a convert continued here
This is a strange document, and complex and confusing document. What is important for the topic is the importance of conversion for the document.
symbolism of peter being crucified upside down.
Peter is presented as the converted apostle who fails first time and then gets it right the second time around. Represents conversion from the powers of the world to the power of the cross.
Session Three, Was Peter a convert continued here
Was Peter Converted? Third session of NPTS Symposium
Markus Bockmuehl presents that in Luke 22.31-32, we are presented with a problem of when was Peter's turning. Luke in Luke and Acts does not answer this question.
So it seems that Peter at least in the Biblical Text that we have no account of Peters turning or conversion.
Bockmuehl looks to the understanding of this problem in Petrine memory in the first three centuries of the Church
In Catacombs visual representation of Christ and Peter with a cock between them, and on a pillar. Cock is then clearly significant raised on a pedestal.
Also on sarcophagi, on the ground but more than life size.
What happens to the cock, what happens to the cock and why is it there?
Prediction of Peters denial, is a surface interpretation of this image. If this is so no conversion or call here. but this doesn't explain the frequency nor visual significance given to the cock.
Early Christians interprets the cock in terms of the redemption new life, cock as announcing the dawn of new life and renewal and repentance.
The image telescopes the fall and peters return and renewal.
Peter's conversion continued here
So it seems that Peter at least in the Biblical Text that we have no account of Peters turning or conversion.
Bockmuehl looks to the understanding of this problem in Petrine memory in the first three centuries of the Church
In Catacombs visual representation of Christ and Peter with a cock between them, and on a pillar. Cock is then clearly significant raised on a pedestal.
Also on sarcophagi, on the ground but more than life size.
What happens to the cock, what happens to the cock and why is it there?
Prediction of Peters denial, is a surface interpretation of this image. If this is so no conversion or call here. but this doesn't explain the frequency nor visual significance given to the cock.
Early Christians interprets the cock in terms of the redemption new life, cock as announcing the dawn of new life and renewal and repentance.
The image telescopes the fall and peters return and renewal.
Peter's conversion continued here
Symposium on the Theological Intepretation of Scripture
I am at North Park Theological Seminary's Symposium on the Theological Interpretation of Scripture. The topic this year is conversion.
Last night was the opening session and Scot McKnight presented a paper on "Was Paul and Convert."
My take on the presentation is that the question is a matter in part of how one sees the category of "conversion" Scholars have been calling into question using the category of convert and conversion for Paul because as we have become more aware of first century Judaism it has become increasingly clear that not only was Jesus a Jew but so were his immediate followers the apostles, and so too is Paul even after his conversion. Paul did not become a Christian on the Demascus Road, if by Christian one means not simply someone who believes in Jesus as the Messiah but someone who belongs to a religion completely distinct from Judaism.
Yet while McKnight agrees that Paul did not convert to Christianity as a completely distinct religion, McKnight is troubled by a Paul who does not have a conversion. Something is missing. So he looks to sociological explorations of conversion specifically Lewis Rambo (who is at the symposium). What sociology teaches us is that there are various types of conversion, and that a sign of conversion is a revised autobiography based in and on the master story of the group into which one converts.
McKnight uses these categories to allow us to see that in Paul's own writing's there is evidence of a revised autobiography based on a movement from one group to another. This movement or conversion was within Judaism but still was a conversion.
In the discussion this does bring up some interesting issues, it broadens conversion, but also leaves open questions of authenticity, and does not answer convert to what, and from a Christian perspective don't we want to say more than the sociologist about conversion, like change of heart, actual encounter with Jesus Christ.
For the session on Peter's conversion go here
Last night was the opening session and Scot McKnight presented a paper on "Was Paul and Convert."
My take on the presentation is that the question is a matter in part of how one sees the category of "conversion" Scholars have been calling into question using the category of convert and conversion for Paul because as we have become more aware of first century Judaism it has become increasingly clear that not only was Jesus a Jew but so were his immediate followers the apostles, and so too is Paul even after his conversion. Paul did not become a Christian on the Demascus Road, if by Christian one means not simply someone who believes in Jesus as the Messiah but someone who belongs to a religion completely distinct from Judaism.
Yet while McKnight agrees that Paul did not convert to Christianity as a completely distinct religion, McKnight is troubled by a Paul who does not have a conversion. Something is missing. So he looks to sociological explorations of conversion specifically Lewis Rambo (who is at the symposium). What sociology teaches us is that there are various types of conversion, and that a sign of conversion is a revised autobiography based in and on the master story of the group into which one converts.
McKnight uses these categories to allow us to see that in Paul's own writing's there is evidence of a revised autobiography based on a movement from one group to another. This movement or conversion was within Judaism but still was a conversion.
In the discussion this does bring up some interesting issues, it broadens conversion, but also leaves open questions of authenticity, and does not answer convert to what, and from a Christian perspective don't we want to say more than the sociologist about conversion, like change of heart, actual encounter with Jesus Christ.
For the session on Peter's conversion go here
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)