Why I wasn't impressed by the Pope's interview last week...

A lot of my friends on Facebook seem thrilled with Pope Francis' recent remarks about abortion and homosexuality:

We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage, and the use of contraceptive methods...The teaching of the Church, for that matter, is clear, and I am a son of the Church, but it is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time.

I'm Orthodox, not Roman Catholic, so the Pope's pronouncements do not affect me all that much. I do generally like what I know about Pope Francis. I just am not super-impressed with these comments that so many of my friends apparently consider brilliant.

I'm especially surprised at some of my liberal friends who seem to think that these comments indicate a move away from traditional Christian stances on these issues. All he is saying is that there are other things to talk about as well as these issues. Regarding abortion, he has since cleared up any misunderstanding about where he stands on the issue.

But what I find particularly unimpressive is his beating up a straw man who only talks about these issues. I don't know anyone, Catholic or otherwise, who fits this description. This is like people who accuse the "religious right" of only caring about these issues and ignoring issues like poverty. I personally disagree with Pat Robertson on many things, but to say he ignores poverty is simply inaccurate. A quick visit to his organization's website shows work the 700 Club has done in global medical outreach, work with orphans and vulnerable children, providing clean water, disaster relief, and fighting human trafficking. Regardless of the nutty views Robertson or anyone else in the "religious right" have, that often-repeated statement that they only care about gay marriage or abortion is demonstrably false. I don't know any Catholics who fit this stereotype either.

Anytime someone is vocal about an issue like abortion, he or she gets hit over the head by statements like Pope Francis' quote above admonishing them to remember that abortion and gay marriage aren't the only issues out there. Why don't people say that to people dedicated to stopping human trafficking or child soldiers? Why didn't anyone admonish the Pope, after his comments this week about people worshiping "this god called money," that global economic issues are not the only ones out there?

I'm well aware that abortion is not the only issue out there. I'm also well aware of an ancient concept known as walking and chewing gum at the same time. The basic idea is that I can be very concerned and work to stop the practice of literally tearing live babies limb from limb from a mother's womb and at the same time emphasize the love and mercy Pope Francis is so concerned about.

Wright vs. Johnson, cont.

As I've continued to consider the thoughts of Luke Timothy Johnson and N. T. Wright on the historical Jesus and the importance of the quest to theology, I've thoroughly enjoyed reading Johnson's critical essay, "A Historiographical Response to Wright's Jesus," in Jesus & the Restoration of Israel, along with Wright's response ("In Grateful Dialogue: A Response").

I have to say, I haven't seen too many NT (or for that matter OT) scholars really deal with matters of historiography and historical epistemology as Wright does in New Testament and the People of God (although I just checked out several books by the late Ben F. Meyer, and apparently he does), so I don't think Johnson's criticisms were completely fair. Nevertheless, he did bring up some interesting points.

I look forward to further thinking through these matters as an Orthodox Christian, as I have seen a number of Orthodox theologians lately, along with recent Orthodox seminary grads, take Johnson's comments in The Real Jesus to an extreme, arguing that it does not matter what really happened 2,000 years ago in the life and death of Jesus. All that matters is that we have faith in the (possibly fictional) cross of Christ. I think this is nonsense, and I'm not even sure Johnson would take his own comments to this extreme. (It's worth noting, for instance, the ways in which he has nuanced his comments in The Real Jesus in the above-mentioned essay, along with his contribution more recently to The Historical Jesus: Five Views.)

The Pauline "I" in Rom. 7

I'm in the process of reviewing Ben Witherington's The Problem with Evangelical Theology for his class on NT theology. In his critique of Reformed theology, he discusses the various possibilities of who could be meant when Paul speaks in the first person in Rom. 7:7-25 (pp. 21-37). The average reader today would probably assume these comments are simply autobiographical statements Paul is making about himself ("I didn't know sin except through the Law...I was living without the Law once...I myself died..."). Reformed theologians, following Augustine, see the "I" as referring to Christian experience generally. Witherington, however, draws on Quintilian to suggest Paul is using the rhetorical technique of "impersonation" to speak in the voice of Adam in vv. 7-13, and those "in Adam" in vv. 14-25. In other words, "it is about Gentiles and Jews outside of Christ" (p. 23). He cites Chrysostom in support of this reading. I am eager to investigate whether there was any diversity of opinion on this chapter's interpretation among the Greek Fathers.

Luke Timothy Johnson vs. N. T. Wright on the Historical Jesus

I'm writing a paper on the importance of the historical Jesus in New Testament theology this fall for Dr. Ben Witherington. I look forward to engaging a number of views on this topic, but in particular the different approaches of Luke Timothy Johnson and N. T. Wright. I used to lean more towards the position of Johnson as explained in The Real Jesus (namely, that the historical Jesus is irrelevant to NT theology and Christian faith), until I read Wright's New Testament and the People of God. I still think Johnson brought up a number of good points, but would definitely lean more towards Wright these days. Anyway, I just found out that a dialogue between the two of them, as well as several members of the Jesus Seminar, is available on Mark Goodacre's site:

Jesus at 2000: The Conversation Continues

I look forward to re-reading this and engaging it in my paper.