Just uploaded a bunch of new photographs over on my Flickr account. Some were taken at the Walt Disney Concert Hall, which was designed by Frank Gheary. It’s a gorgeous building.

On January 11, New Testament scholar J. D. G. Dunn gave a lecture at Fuller on Romans and the New Perspective on Paul, of which he is a major proponent. Donald Hagner, a New Testament professor at Fuller and an opponent to the New Perspective invited him to lecture to his class. It was a very interesting and enlightening evening. I am no expert on the New Perspective and its claims, but I find the conversation necessary. There are some aspects of the New Perspective that I appreciate greatly, though I am hesitant to endorse it altogether since I have not truly delved into its claims (as laid out by Dunn, E. P. Sanders, and N. T. Wright, though Wright distances himself from Sanders and Dunn), or its opposition (such as can be found in Hagner and Seyoon Kim). From my cursory investigation into the New Perspective, there are two important aspects that I believe it brings into the discussion of Paul and Judaism that were absent in a traditional Reformation understanding. The first aspect is showing the continuity of Paul with OT and Second Temple Judaism thought, rather than seeing Paul’s theology as something entirely separate from his religious context (though I still hold that Paul brings something novel to the conversation). The second advantage is related to the first. Namely, the New Perspective emphasizes a relational and Hebraic understanding of theological ideas in Paul—though we must be careful of distinguishing Greek and Hebrew thought too much since at the time of Paul’s writing, Hellenism was a given and not a novel influence in the land of Israel.

What emerged from Dunn’s lecture was a re-evaluation of the meaning of God’s righteousness found in http://bible.oremus.org/?ql=4180154”>Romans 1.17. Dunn argued that the traditional Reformation view of God’s righteousness holds that God exists at a standard of perfection and God’s righteousness is meted out on those who do not attain that same level of perfection. God’s righteousness is therefore seen in God’s punishment of sin. Dunn argued that this abstract ideal of righteousness has more to do with Platonic forms of perfection than it has to do with the righteousness of the God of the Hebrew Bible. In the Hebrew Scriptures, God’s righteousness is relational. The righteousness of God is the responsibility God has taken on himself in relation to creation and community. That is, God is righteous because God keeps the covenant—keeps relationship—with Abraham and his offspring despite the fact that the other party of the covenant rejected God. God saves and maintains Israel. And just as importantly, God is righteous because Yahweh extends that covenant beyond the initial recipients in order to save and maintain whole world. God’s righteousness is not seen in punishment, but in salvation.

It’s time for another round of Shut Up Awards. This week’s winners are New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin and US Senator Hillary Clinton.

Nagin wins two awards for the same speech. The first is for his theological analysis of the US’ recent bouts with natural disasters:

“Surely God is mad at America. He sent us hurricane after hurricane after hurricane, and it’s destroyed and put stress on this country….

“Surely he doesn’t approve of us being in Iraq under false pretenses. But surely he is upset at black America also. We’re not taking care of ourselves.”

The second is for his all-inclusive vision of rebuilding New Orleans:

“It’s time for us to come together. It’s time for us to rebuild New Orleans — the one that should be a chocolate New Orleans… This city will be a majority African American city. It’s the way God wants it to be. You can’t have New Orleans no other way. It wouldn’t be New Orleans.”

To his credit, Nagin has apologized (see here and here). Still, I expect more from elected leaders.

Clinton wins an award for her quote concerning the US House of Representatives that brings civility and a level of decorum back to political dialogue:

“[W]hen you look at the way the House of Representatives has been run, it has been run like a plantation, and you know what I’m talking about.”

I would say more, but John Stewart of The Daily Show has about the best commentary I could imagine on these quotes. (Check out the video soon before Comedy Central takes it down.) If you get nothing else from this post, watch this video—it is brilliant, though some language isn’t suitable for children.