Influential Female Theologians in my Life & Their Books

So I learned about Frank Viola's 100 best academic book list, and some women mentioned that there were only a few women in the entire list, and none in the theology section. I know Frank's heart so I don't attribute this to ill-will or anything like that. I dig the dude. He's a cool cat.

That said, I wanted to contribute a little to the conversation. I won't be breaking my 3 day rule because, technically, Frank's list came out in 2012 and I read it then. I was made aware of the lack of prominent female theologians today on twitter, so . . . splitting hairs. This isn't a response to Frank or anyone in particular. Just giving a few mentors their (over) due. :)

In no specific order are the following books written by female theologians that have had a profound impact on me. The list could go on, but these are the few that instantly pop to mind.

1. Dr. Jouette Bassler's "Navigating Paul." For clocking in at barely 100 pages, this book is primed with data that makes a seminarian like myself breath heavily. On the more critical side, but still really helpful at laying out the key issues in the life of Paul. My sole criticism was the lack of detail regarding the duetero-Pauline corpus. Since it wasn't written by Paul, it wasn't discussed; this is a negative mark only because of the influence Paul surely had upon the theological additions written in his name. I get it. I just wanted more.





2. Dr. Nancey Murphy's "Bodies and Souls, or Spirited Bodies?" This one was a doozy. I confess I was already very much in line with her theological anthropology before reading this, but it helped
significantly. Her clarity and ability to articular very dense concepts was a great help to me. While I would've loved more material in her theological and biblical section, her work cannot be underestimated within Christian and secular spheres.




3. Marianne Meye Thompson's "The Promise of the Father: Jesus and God in the New Testament" is particularly relevant to New Testament Christology. While slim, this book crams a lot of
information into a short space. Dr. Thompson's grasp of New Testament theology is well-known, and her contribution, particularly in light of the current evangelical 'subordinationist' trend in many circles, is lucid, straightforward and enlightening. Her section on Second Temple Judaism was, in my opinion, the highlight of the book. If books needed trailers, that chapter would constitute most of the explosions and music.




 4. Dr. Linda Belleville's "Women Leaders and the Church: 3 Crucial Questions" ranks high on my list of books affirming an egalitarian interpretation of Scripture. In reading Dr. Belleville, I'm
reminded of a swim coach I had in high school. Dogged, fiercely intelligent and, above all, demanded that I really jump in the deep end. Dr. Belleville's work elucidates that memory. She covers the world outside the New Testament, critiques current scholarship and advocates strongly for the full inclusion of women in the church. A pointed, yet gracious, matter of fact presentation of the egalitarianism found in Scripture. Super good.





5. Dr. Lynn Cohick's "Women in the World of the Earliest Christians" was an eye-opener for me. While Dr. Cohick does address some of the New Testament texts regarding the status of women in the ancient world (1 Tim. 2:15 is one; John 4 is another), her world is far broader than the New Testament. She delves into manuscripts, ancient letters, inscriptions and the literature of the time. At once broad, yet detail-oriented, her work here was a helpful flick in the ear. I had no idea regarding much of this data and Dr. Cohick brought it all to light for me. And, in case you prefer a pinch of snark in your theological books, every once in a while Dr. Cohick drops a sneaky jab at some ancient sexist patriarch. The cheekiness of it reminds one that they aren't reading a dry textbook, but are engaged in a book of profound significance.

Again, this was not meant as a 'response' to Frank. I actually agree with the majority of the books he placed on the list. And I want to thank him, and others, for inspiring this mini-post. I hope you enjoy these books.

Who would end up on your list?

In Christ,

--Nick

Twitter Birds make a Funny

Chuckle.

--Nick

Damned Nonsense and Additional Musings Part I

A friend on twitter, Joshua Walters recently invited me to read a blog series he plans on doing about Universalism and it's (antagonistic?) relationship with other streams of orthodoxy. He's already begun to deal with Tom Talbbot, a Christian philosopher best known for being one of the most vocal proponents of trinitarian universalism. At least, Talbott is unafraid to say that he is. The few universalists that I know don't say much about their position, as let's face it, jobs are scarce these days.

For the sake of formatting, Joshua's material will be in italics, while mine will be normal.

Thomas Talbott is a professor of Philosophy at Willamette University in Salem, Oregon.  He is best known for his work The Inescapable Love of God, which biblically and systematically argues the case for Universalism. In this post I will explain what is known as "Talbott's Triad."

For the most part I agree. I do, however, wish to calrify that Talbott doesn't offer a systematic defense of universalism in the same sense as one dealing with every objection. In fact, the closest study we have in terms of universalism is Robin Parry's "The Evangelical Universalist" and even then, I don't consider it to be a systematic defense for universalism. Though it is quite good.

Many people will argue that the weakness of the Universalist view is that it overlooks the 'clear teaching of Scripture.' But upon further inspection it appears that both Calvinism and Arminianism also overlook the teaching of Scripture, namely the texts that proclaim the scope and finality of Christ's victory. (Note: ideological sawdust in the mind's eye will blur certain texts) What Talbott makes clear is that there is no 'flawless' position on salvation and the Bible can be used to support multiple views.

I think the concept is correct here. I recall calvinist Matt Chandler mentioning that, while he wasn't going to give up his view, he found the verses in Joshua about "choose ye this day" to be a bit of a pebble in his shoe. However, one has to acknowledge that the goal of the universalist should be to provide as best an explanation for their view, and this means offering tenable exegetical and theological considerations against eternal torment and annihilationism.

I know Joshua doesn't mean this, and I agree with him and Talbott. In order to systematize the Bible, one cannot take every single verse at it's most literal face. To do so gives us days without light (Genesis 1) and a multitude of stars falling from the sky (Revelation 12). Everything requires an explanation according not only to the Greek, but to personal intent on the part of the writer.

The question that I share along with Talbott is Why do universalists get spurned when it seems that Calvinism and Arminianism are equally at fault for neglecting Scripture? The conclusion that Talbott draws is that something other than biblical exegesis is behind the visceral reaction against universalism. I will discuss this in post #5.

A good question. More often than not, trinitarian universalists often get lumped into the category of pluralists. Of course, universalists can be pluralists but I don't think it necessarily leads to that. In my own experience, though I cannot be counted (yet?) as a dogmatic or "strong" universalist, I haven't considered pluralism nor have I found inclusivism to be a sustainable option. I have yet to read Pinnock, so I am leaving that option off the table. As far as I am concerned, exclusivism blended with universalism seems to not only maintain the centrality of the christological necessity of salvation, but also works as a means of excluding other such views as pluralism.

However, I'm not quite convinced that Talbott is correct to paint such options as devious intent. It could just be that people have overlooked certain texts because of the simplistic meaning of literal english words like "hell" or "eternal" or "all." But, I'm going to bite my tongue because Talbott is also probably correct about some folks with devious intent.

So, yes and no.

About one year ago Scot McKnight  - who is an awesome NT scholar and prolific author/blogger - offered a fairly deficient critique of Talbott's Triad. His only criticism to Talbott and Universalism is that it depends on the belief that human beings may be saved after death. You can read that post here.

I love Scot McKnight, and I think McKnight is far more fair towards universalism than most evangelicals. I know McKnight is familiar with Eastern Orthodox literature on the 'harrowing of hell' and even those unusual verses about Christ descending into hell, which is reflected in the Apostles Creed. I haven't found Howard Marshall or McKnight's thoughts on 1 Peter 4:6 compelling, and am inclined to see those verses as indicating the possibility of post-mortem confession unto salvation.

I wouldn't make a doctrine out of it, but I d not think one should overlook these verses or their place in history.

You can read Joshua's post here.

--Nick