The Divine Council at the SBL 2009 Annual Meeting

The Society for Biblical Literature (SBL) is currently holding its annual meeting in New Orleans. The meeting began November 21 and will run to November 24. Abstracts of the many sessions are available online.

Of particular note is F. Rachel Magdalene, University of Leipzig and Humboldt University Berlin, who is  presenting Retributive or Restorative Justice: Reading the Nature of God, Justice, and Humanity in the Book of Job on Monday (November 23):

The traditional understanding of the transaction between Yahweh and the Satan in the prologue to the book of Job is that this constitutes a test of Job’s faith, one which the Satan initiates but Yahweh allows as the Satan’s superior. This understanding supports the omnipotence of Yahweh, but raises several other theological questions, as well as a number of literary and legal ones. For instance, this view may well challenge both Yahweh’s omniscience and his omnibeneficience. Moreover, this reading does not readily account for the presence of the dialogues, the plethora of legal metaphors throughout the book, and the distinct nature of the Elihu speeches. This paper will argue that the Satan brings a formal legal charge against Job in the Divine Council with which Yahweh must deal juridically in order to maintain his position as the creator and maintainer of cosmic justice. God does not impose the suffering on Job nor agree with its usefulness. This is the Satan’s claim, and, once it is proven incorrect, Job’s fortunes are reinstated in a manner that does not support the idea of retributive justice, but rather God’s restorative justice. The paper concludes that a reading of the book of Job that is sensitive to the legal materials of the book reveals that the book may well represent a far different theology and theological anthropology than has previously been thought. It may, in fact, disclose a profound divine trust in humanity that foreshadows the atoning work of Christ.

Madgaline (Ph.D. University of Denver and Iliff School of Theology and J.D. University of Colorado School of Law) provides a provocative perspective to the story of Job as seen through the lens of the “divine council.”

The Pierian Spring: New Blog Project

I’d like to announce a new blog The Pierian Spring.  The blog is devoted to further discussion and discourse on Mormon scripture and thought and written primarily towards a Latter-day Saint readership.

Interfaith dialogue necessarily requires one to summarize, describe and otherwise explain one’s faith tradition in a way that others can appreciate and understand.  It goes without saying that in order to do this effectively, one must make a concerted effort to learn about the religious traditions of others and become aware of the themes, contours, the history and concerns that has shaped the faith of others.  In a sense, one must become religiously “bilingual.”  Thus, those involved in interfaith dialogue are continually learning about the faith of others but importantly, and concurrently, studying and reflecting on their own faith tradition, and as a result gain an important perspective concerning their own faith tradition.

Thus, The Pierian Spring grew out of my experience dialoguing with Evangelicals, Catholics and other Latter-day Saints.   Since the summer of 2007, I’ve had the fortunate opportunity to meaningfully converse with many outside the Latter-day Saint tradition on religious topics.  I have learned and benefited greatly from these discussions.  However, as is the case with most people involved in interfaith dialogue, I’ve also been interested in internal discussions and dialogue within the faith.

Through these experiences I have felt the need for a distinct venue to dialogue with a Latter-day Saint readership and speak to issues of concern with the LDS faith community.  Naturally, those desiring to learn more about Latter-day Saint teachings and history will find The Pierian Spring relevant.  And I find that it is quite difficult to shake the habit of writing material without having in mind the reader who comes from a religious tradition outside the LDS faith.  However, I consider it a good habit I hope not to forget.

I intend to continue to write for both Summa Theologica: Interfaith Dialogue and The Pierian Spring.  I want to thank those who have supported and encouraged me to seriously consider this project.

Patheos Series on Interfaith Dialogue

Patheos is currently running a series on Interfaith Dialogue from a variety of religious perspectives including those from a Catholic, Evangelical, Mainline Protestant, Latter-day Saint and Pagan view points.  Authors discuss what led them to enter into dialogue with those of other faiths.

Most Improbable Dialogue

Christianity Today, a magazine of evangelical conviction, has just published an article written by Richard N. Ostling (co-author of Mormon America) titled “Most Improbable Dialogue.” The article covers the efforts of Evangelicals and Latter-day Saints to engage in a series of dialogues and conferences over the years.

Ostling informs readers of the November 14, 2004 “Evening of Friendship” event at the Mormon Tabernacle where renowned Christian theologian Ravi Zacharias addressed a group of Mormons and Evangelicals.  It was also at this event that Fuller Theological Seminary president Richard Mouw shocked the Evangelical world by publicly apologizing to Mormons for the Evangelical distortion of Mormon beliefs.

National Student Dialogue Conference 2009

This year’s National Student Dialogue Conference (III), hosted by Standing Together, will be held Friday & Saturday on November 13-14th, 2009 at Biola University.  The two-day conference will involve key religious leaders and thinkers who will speak from both Latter-day Saint and Evangelical perspectives.

For more information on the conference visit Standing Together.  Also visit the National Student Conference Facebook page.

How Should Evangelicals Approach Mormon Missionaries?

A triad of posts appeared this week: “How to Witness to Mormon Missionaries. Or, what to do when you have Mormon missionaries at your door” by Bridget Jack Meyers of ClobberBlog, “Witnessing to Mormon Missionaries” by Tim of LDS & Evangelical Conversations, and “Three Evangelical Perspectives on Witnessing to Mormon Missionaries” by Aaron Shafovaloff at Mormon Coffee. While these three authors do not represent a unified school of thought as to how to approach Mormon Missionaries as Evangelicals, each is a self-identified Evangelical Christian and offer his or her perspective in the matter.

Perhaps you are wondering what I think about these distinct posts from my perspective of interfaith dialogue and interreligious communication. If you are, you’ve come to the right place.  What follows are my observations, critiques and commentary.

Mormonism and the Cross: Looking at the History

Last year during a discussion about why Mormons do not wear the cross I made the following statement:

I think it is very important to look for historical explanations, rather than contemporary or popular explanations for why Mormons do not wear crosses or have crosses on their meeting houses. For that matter, it is important to draw a distinction between the cross as a doctrinal symbol, an architectural symbol and for personal adornment.

In regards to meetinghouses, Bushman observes that “During the course of his life, [Joseph] never built a standard meetinghouse, even in Nauvoo, where the Mormon population exceeded 10,000.” Rather, Joseph’s “architectural imagination focused on temples.” Bushman explains, “However culturally anomalous, the City of Zion occupied a central place in Joseph Smith’s design for world renewal. He conceived the world as a vast funnel with the city at the vortex and the temple at the center of the city.” I haven’t found any historical evidence that Joseph taught using crosses in architecture was somehow unfavorable or improper, but rather he was looking towards the tradition of ancient Israel for his inspiration and sought to create “a church of cities rather than a church of congregations.” (RSR, 216-222).

Exploiting Self-Criticism in Interfaith Dialogue

Individuals of faith care passionately about their religious community. Evangelicals, Catholics, and Latter-day Saints care about the nature and role of teaching (what is taught and how it should be taught), the relationship between faith and society (the nature and extent of political involvement), and the way of the Church (policy and administration).

Engaging in self-criticism or self-critique is part of life in any religious community. Do we practice what we preach? Do we live what we believe? Do we engage in hypocrisy? Are we faithfully teaching the next generation? Does our beliefs make a difference in our community?

Every community has developed standards of appropriate and inappropriate critique.  Indeed, there can be a fine line between disrespectful dissent or constructive criticism.  Anyone who has been involved in the ‘Bloggernacle’ for any period of time know that Latter-day Saints have strong opinions about what it means to be a Latter-day Saint, what should be taught and how it should be taught, and how history should be understood.  While individuals participate with various degrees of engagement—some more tactful and diplomatic, some more blunt and to the point—one can see that the impetus for this self-critique comes from a sincere place of caring deeply about the health and future of one’s faith community. The aim is not to tear down the faith, but to build it up.

A Latter-day Saint Example

One example of this from the Latter-day Saint context is Hugh Nibley. While deeply recognized for his contribution to Mormon studies, Nibley was a passionate social critic. His writings reveal a deep concern for improving the religious education in Zion.  His BYU commencement ceremony address  “Leaders to Managers: The Fatal Shift” given August  19, 1983 was a pointed critique on things at the BYU:

Most of you are here today only because you believe that this charade will help you get ahead in the world. But in the last few years things have got out of hand. The economy, once the most important thing in our materialistic lives, has become the only thing. [1]

Google Reader as Urim and Thummim

Yes, of course, who has time? Who has time? But then if we do not ever take time, how can we ever have time? – The Merovingian

One of the best ways I’ve found to improve my connectivity to the amazing content created by the community of bloggers is through using a Reader.

There are other “Readers” out there, but I will be focusing on Google Reader.  If you don’t know what Google Reader is, how to use it, or why you would even want to use it, I suggest watching “RSS in Plain English” by Common Craft (I’ve had a link to this video on my blog since I began back in August 2007).  This short video is only about 3 minutes and well worth the time.  Time.  Isn’t this the problem? We don’t have a lot of time to waste trying to find new content or tracking down that one post that was so good but we have forgotten where we stumbled upon it.  We need a way to save time.

A Theology of God’s Openness: Clark Pinnock

On January 13, 2005, Believing Minds, a radio journal exploring the academic disciplines in pursuit of informed discipleship, interviewed Clark H. Pinnock, Professor of Christian Interpretation at McMaster Divinity College in Ontario, Canada, about Openness Theology.  Dr. Pinnock was interviewed by John S. Tanner, professor of English and Academic Vice President at Brigham Young University and host of Believing Minds.  Professor Tanner specializes in the work of John Milton and is the author of “Anxiety in Eden: A Kierkegaardian Reading of Paradise Lost” published by Oxford University Press (1992). As a result, Professor Tanner is well suited to discussing the intersection between religion and literature.