This Week's Stone-Campbell Journal Conference

Friday and Saturday of this past week, around 200 scholars from the various branches of the Stone Campbell movement met at Cincinnati Christian University for the annual Stone-Campbell Journal Conference.

I was sick as a dog; Friday, I had a sore throat and stuffy sinuses, but I thought I was just suffering from horrible allergies. Since then, I've since started coughing, etc., and am fairly certain that I have a nasty cold, if not the flu. I feel sorry for every person whose hand I shook at the conference, I'm sure I started a couple of epidemics.

I read a paper on Friday afternoon. The purpose of the paper was to describe my understanding of succession, how it works, etc. Let me talk for a minute about the purpose of reading a paper at a conference. We scholars who do stuff like this do it for several reasons.

1. It impresses people and makes us feel good when people tell us they're impressed. (I'm being totally honest here; I know you think we scholarly types are above this, but we're not.)
2. It looks good on our CV's / resumes, when it's time for us to look for a job.
3. It's a way to work out things that you're exploring. For example, I'm writing a commentary on the Pastoral Epistles. For a while, I WAS going to read a paper at SCJ that was taken directly from the commentary that I am writing. I ended up going in a different direction, however.

The BIGGEST benefit from reading a paper, however, is the comments and discussion that you can generate. When you share cutting edge work, research in an area that no one else has explored, one of the most valuable things is having another educated pair of eyes look at your work and ask, "Have you thought about this?"

That's what happened for me at SCJ. There were a couple of comments that I found both perceptive and possibly valuable for my own work. I particularly appreciated Lee Magness's comment, which I will unpack in a future post.

Anyway. Off to bed. I'll share more about the conference on Monday.

Book of the Year

I think the contest is already over. The best and most significant "theology for the undergraduate or the educated general reader" book of 2008 is N.T. Wright's Surprised by Hope.

It will be required in my Theology classes from now on.

My Daughter

My daughter, who celebrated her 18th birthday locked up in a hotel in Louisville (okay, snowed in, not locked up), has just informed me that she won 3rd place in the state of Kentucky HOSA (Health Occupations Students of America) Medical Terminology competition this last weekend.

She is also a state registered nursing assistant. She passed her test!

But now she won't leave my office and let me get work done!

Snowed Out!, plus Church Theology Seminar

My lecture in Columbus has turned into a casualty of the 20+ inches of snow that fell there Friday / Saturday. They've canceled tonight, and moved me back a week.

I'm supposed to lecture there for six weeks, four of which I have completed. I was originally scheduled to be finished on Palm Sunday. But #1 now I will need to do one more lecture, probably on the Sunday after Easter (they won't want me to lecture on Easter Sunday evening, will they?). And #2, I'm having a hard time cutting 25 lectures down to 12. I'm behind schedule, is what I'm saying.

This has been my outline, two 45-minute lectures per week:

1. How to read the Bible
2. Why theology matters
3. Creation
4. Fall
5. Abraham, covenant
   
6. The covenant unfolds (the rest of the OT)
7. Jesus & the gospels, pt 1
8. Jesus & the gospels, pt 2
9. Paul, pt 1
10. Paul, pt 2
11. Rest of the NT, pt 1
    
12. Rest of the NT, pt 2

But lecture # 6 ALWAYS goes long, so only finished #7 last week. And then tonight, I was going to do lecture #8, and it would have taken the full two hours.

Which means that the FEWEST number of lectures would be 14, or 13 (if for the last lecture(s) I ignore everything but eschatology and can cover that completely in 45 minutes. HA!)

How can I shorten the thing? Probably the longest weekend seminar (Friday - Sunday) that I could do would be 12 45-minute lectures. Anything more would by physically and practically difficult.

I can probably combine the first two lectures, and shorten #6.

What am I going to do? I have too much material. It's crazy to think that I, in 90 minutes, can adequately describe Jesus' theology, or Paul's theology, even on an "educated layperson" level.

Snowed Out?

I'm scheduled to go to Columbus tomorrow night, for week 5 of my six week series of seminars on Biblical Theology at East Pointe Christian Church. But we've caught the east edge of the Blizzard of 08--three good inches of snow in Grayson, with ice underneath. And Columbus got hit MUCH harder than we did.

So I'm worried that I may not be making the trip tomorrow.

I really enjoy that church, and those people, and giving those lectures, and making that trip. And I LOVE teaching theology.

Ok, Yeah, . . .

I've been working most of the day today on my lecture / session for tomorrow night; in case you haven't heard, I've been teaching my Theology 420 class on Sunday nights at East Pointe CC in Columbus.

The class consists of 12 sessions, 50 minutes in length. Now: my theology class has 25 lectures, 70 minutes each. So in order to get the lectures together, I have to shrink my class materials greatly.

I have really enjoyed the people at East Pointe; it's a fun group, they're interested in learning and expanding / sharpening their tools for reading the Bible.

But it was a lot of work today. I have over 200 PowerPoint slides devoted to the theology of Jesus and the Gospels ALONE. I've cut that down to 60 slides, and I probably won't get more than 45 done in two hours tomorrow.

I've also re-ordered some things; I think that the new order will work well in the classroom, as well.

Weirdness upon weirdness

As some of you know (particularly my current and former students), I have a real bug about plagiarism. There's no insult I take more personally than when a student of mine cheats on an assignment.

When I grade papers, I'm constantly looking for things that don't sound "student-ish," etc., some of the tipoffs that plagiarism has taken place.

I've been grading papers this week, summary & response to part of a chapter from a rather excellent book, LeAnn Snow Flesher's Left Behind? The Facts Behind the Fiction. And a couple of students have misused the word "fluidity." They've both misused the word in ways similar to one another. And yet they clearly aren't plagiarizing each other, and there's no hint of them simultaneously plagiarizing a third source.

What am I to conclude? SOMEHOW these two students have both, by some cosmic hiccough, misused the same word in the same way on the same assignment for the same professor, and it's entirely concidental? There is no better explanation--at least, not that I know of.

Lectures, 26 February

Two 75-minute lectures today; Tuesday & Thursday are my heavy days. (I have an online class that I tend on MWF, no lecture classes.)


In my Gospel of Matthew class, we covered Mt 12.22-50 (which sets the stage for the parables in chapter 13) and then chapter 13.

It's always interesting to watch students, most of who are VERY familiar with these parables, try to read them historically. I take them through the parables once in a very surface reading, something like what they'd get in Sunday School. "The farmer represents _____? The seed represents _______? Why does some seed grow and some seed NOT?"

But then I back them off and show them how critical difference changes the meaning of a text. In Matt 12.22-50, Matthew shows us how and why (from his perspective) Israel as a group was rejecting Jesus as their Messiah. Their reasons: Jesus wasn't doing what they thought a Messiah should do! They thought the Messiah would come with force, and immediately reward the good people and punish the bad. That's what they expected when the Kingdom came.

Instead, Jesus says:

• When the kingdom comes, it comes through teaching.
  
• It comes by invitation, not by force.
  
• It comes in secret, and works secretly until BOOM suddenly it's taken over the whole place.
• It coexists with evil; you won't be able to tell who the good people are and who the bad people are, because appearances will be deceiving.

It's one of my favorite lectures every year; in fact, I give it both in Gospel of Matthew AND in Biblical Theology class.

As for my theology class; I tried to cover the high points of OT theology from Moses through Jeremiah in a single 75 minute lecture. Simply not possible.

The high points as I see them:

• The law, how do New Covenant people relate to the Old Covenant?
• Theological patterns from the Exodus; the tenderness and harshness of God;
• The conquest;
• David: 2 Sam 7.11 "Son of David," David and Bathsheba, how his sin effects his reign as king;
• Isaiah 1-39 and the military messiah; Isaiah 40 - 66 and the Suffering Servant;
  
• Jeremiah 31.31-34 and the new covenant.

I covered all of this EXCEPT Isaiah. I was running out of voice, and I knew that I would not have time to cover all of Isaiah and Jeremiah. So I jumped ahead to Jeremiah. Next lecture, I'll go back and cover Isaiah and how confused the Messianic expectations were when Jesus came. Then I'll get into the gospels.

Thursday, I only have one lecture to give (GMatt.) My Theology class will be meeting in the library, where I will show them tools for their vocational theology papers. I told them; "If you need help with your vocational theology paper, I will be available Thursday to do crisis counseling, show you what books you should begin with and how to use them, etc."

Monday: A Summary

Here's what I did today:

• Graded a TON of papers: seriously, I graded papers for at least six hours today, and I'm not done;
• Made phone calls;
• Set up an interview; we're hiring at least two new profs, and I set up the travel arrangements, etc., for one of the candidates;
• Ate a crappy lunch in the KCU cafeteria;
• Went to the bank and signed a paper;
• Gassed up the KCU car that I drove to Columbus last night;
• Make more phone calls;
• Got sleepy.

OK, so here's what I did. I was sleepy, all afternoon logy, so I made coffee in my french press. I was SO FREAKING DESPERATE for the caffeine that, instead of creaming and sugaring it in a cup like I normally do, I just drank it black, straight out of the spout of the french press.

I'm allowed to do that, right? Drink coffee directly out of my french press, with no implements or dishes between? Does anyone else do that? If so, do they sugar (and cream?) it in the press?

Anyway. My headache's gone, and I think I can manage to stay awake for at least one more hour.

More papers to grade. Eesh.

Sunday, 24 February 2008

For the last few weeks, I've been driving up from Grayson (Kentucky) to Columbus (Ohio) every Sunday afternoon. The purpose of the trips is to teach my theology class at East Pointe Christian Church.

It's been a blast. I really enjoy the people there, and theology is my favorite thing to teach. The trip is a little over 2.5 hours, which is enough to unwind but not too much, and the scenery is nice.

How do I approach theology? A lot of storytelling; a lot of reading texts and asking, "Why does he do this?" and "What does THAT mean?" and "Does this teach us something about relating to God?", etc. Here's an example:

Genesis 15: Abraham has been walking with God for 25 years. God comes to Abe and says, "It's me, Abraham, the one who protects and takes care of you." And Abraham says, "Gee, God, that's nice. But I don't have a kid yet, and I'm starting to get old. Don't you think it's time?"

And God takes Abe out and shows him the stars: "That's how many children you're going to have." And "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness."

Then I ask:

• What does it mean "Abe believed God"? Does that = Abe decided that God was telling him the truth? Or is there something deeper there, some kind of surrender or commitment beyond agreeing on a cognitive / intellectual level?
• What does it mean that God credited something to Abraham as righteousness? What is God determining or promising to do?

Then I continue:

So Abraham entrusts himself to God, but he wants something more. So he asks: How do I know this promise is true? And God has him bring out animals and cut them in half, and lay the halves so that there's a path between them. This is an ancient covenant ceremony; you and the person you're entering the covenant with walk together between the halves of the animals. The point: if YOU break the covenant, they can cut you in half. And if THEY break the covenant, you can cut them in half.

Only Abraham doesn't walk between the halves. God walks through alone.

Then I ask: What's the point? Why does God walk through and Abe doesn't?

Etc., etc. Stories lead to theology. It's not about propositions, it's about the Redemptive Acts of God.

And Who Is Perry L. Stepp, Ph.D.?

• Husband of 22 years to Elizabeth, father of Kayla Josh Anna.
• Christian, Conservative, Deadhead, (Dallas) Cowboy fan
• Dean of the Sack School of Bible and Ministry, Kentucky Christian University
• Associate Professor, New Testament and Theology
• Contributor to the scholarly NT studies blog, Pastoralepistles.com
  
• Author of two scholarly monographs and the forthcoming Reading Paul's Letters to Individuals in the Reading the New Testament series from Smyth & Helwys
• Coffee drinker
• Deadhead (5-8-77 Cornell, YO!)
  
• Eternal juvenile

Repost: Who / What is Theophilus Punk?

The name, "Theophilus Punk": it's a conflation of several plays on words.

When I was in Bible College (Dallas Christian College) back in the early 1980's, I wanted to get together a group of freaks like myself to play improvised heavy-metal-acid-jazz music--imagine REM meets Black Sabbath meets Grateful Dead meets In a Silent Way-era Miles Davis, and I wanted to call the band Theophilus Punk. Of course, WANTING to form a band is a lot different than FORMING a band, so it never happened.

Anyway: the plays on words: The first, of course, is a play on the name of legendary jazz pianist and composer Thelonious Monk. Monk was the lyrical anarchist of bebop piano, who wrote such classics as " 'Round Midnight," "Straight, No Chaser," and "Blue Monk."

The second is a play on the name "Theophilus." Theophilus, which is an ancient Greek name meaning "lover of God," was the patron who supported the early Christian biographer Luke while he wrote the gospel and the book of Acts which we now have in the New Testament.

As for the "punk" part--well, you can probably figure it out on your own. I had a wide and deep rebellious streak when younger, and--though I've repented of all that and become wise and respectable--I still have a little edginess in my character.