Theology

New Testament scholar Dale Martin has called for doing away with speaking of the ‘authority of Scripture’. Constructively, he proposes a number of metaphors for Scripture, which, nevertheless, point very strongly to the Church’s dependence on it. This article brings Martin’s programmatic suggestions into conversation with some recent doctrinal writing on Scripture that has given attention to the ‘what’ and ‘why’ of Scripture. The doctrinal reflections pose the question of what it is about Scripture that makes the Church dependent on it and to what end. The article suggests two metaphors that help illuminate the ‘what’ and ‘why’ of Scripture.

A critical examination of the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8.26–39 in the light of sexual diversity.

This article suggests that Jesus’ action in the Temple may be understood as a socio-psychological critique of the corruption of the sacrificial system.

What are the most troubling New Testament verses for Jewish–Christian relations? Matthew 27.25 or John 8.44 perhaps? I am increasingly disturbed by Luke 4.28–30, particularly after hearing sermons that take the story at face value, seeking to explain why the Nazareth synagogue worshippers turned into a lynch mob, rather than questioning why Luke published such a calumny. This article examines the explanations given in biblical commentaries for the behaviour of the Nazareth congregation. It argues that we ought to be looking instead to Luke’s context, and the complex dynamics involved in Gentiles adopting Israel’s Scriptures, prepared to acknowledge the violence of New Testament rhetoric.

This article explores concepts that may be of value in the dialogue between religion and atheism and possibilities for finding some common ground. In this context it considers the character of our universe, the nature of matter, non-reductionist naturalism, panentheism and an omnipresent rather than interventionist God, while maintaining a place for a ‘personal’ God.

Thomas Jay Oord has recently proposed that God’s relationship to the world and its human inhabitants is well described as one of uncontrolling love, and that God is constitutionally incapable of intervening unilaterally in human lives. Consequently, prayer for God so to act is misjudged and inappropriate. This article argues that this conclusion runs counter to the biblical record, which sees God’s relationship with the world as sustaining and upholding, but also allowing for specific willed actions. However, God has given the world functional autonomy, which would be abrogated by interventions too predictable or too attributable. It is proposed that intervention by God is real and not uncommon, but often of concealed and unprovable provenance. God’s self-limitation with regard to intervention is seen as consistent but chosen, in contrast to Oord’s proposal of an ‘essential’ kenosis.