The People's New Testament Commentary -- Review

THE PEOPLE’S NEW TESTAMENT COMMENTARY. By M. Eugene Boring and Fred B. Craddock. Louisville: WJK Press, 2009. x + 827 pp. (Paperback)

Back in the late nineteenth century Disciples preacher B.W. Johnson published an annotated edition of the New Testament (with King James and Revised Versions in parallel columns) that carried the name The People’s New Testament with Notes. Being that Disciples believe(d) that each person has the right and responsibility to interpret the scriptures for themselves, it is not surprising that a Disciple pastor/scholar would create a resource intended for a lay audience. Now, early in the 21st century two spiritual descendants of B.W. Johnson have produced a commentary on the New Testament intended for use by lay people that carries on the spirit of the original. Originally published in hardback, it is now available in a paperback edition.

The authors of this commentary are distinguished scholars with a heart for the church. Fred B. Craddock is best known as a preacher, but he is also a very well regarded biblical scholar, having taught both preaching and New Testament at Candler Seminary as well as having authored numerous commentaries on New Testament books. Gene Boring may not be as well known as Craddock, but he too is a highly regarded New Testament scholar who taught for many years at Brite Divinity School.  His previous works include a commentary on Revelation in the Interpretation series, a commentary on Mark for the New Testament Library,  as well as an important historical study of biblical scholarship within the Stone-Campbell movement, Disciples and the Bible (Chalice Press, 1997). While both men are critical scholars, who bring to the discussion their years of engagement with critical biblical scholarship, they understand that the New Testament is also a sacred text that has great meaning for the church and for individual Christians. Because of their scholarly background and their spiritual sensitivity, both are highly qualified to lead the serious reader of the Scriptures deeper into the text.

Unlike the nineteenth century original, this book doesn’t include the biblical text, though it is based on the New Revised Standard Version. In addition to providing commentary on each of the New Testament books, the authors (without delineating who wrote which part) off a brief introduction to the “New Testament as the Church’s Book,” by which they mean that everyone within the church has access to the text and may read it for themselves. They note as well that by church they don’t mean a specific tradition or denomination, but the church at large, a church that wrote, selected, edited, transmitted, translated, and interpreted the text. In regards to the latter, they write that they “have called [their] volume the ‘People’s Commentary’ because we believe the ‘common’ people of the church – the laity, the people of God – are able and authorized to study the Bible on their own” (p. 5). Beyond this general introduction, they provide introductions to the gospels and to the Pauline Epistles, and a series of excursuses on topics they believe are germane to the reader. These excursuses are scattered throughout the volume and cover such issues and the interpretation of the resurrection, reflections on doctrines such as predestination and the practice of the Lord’s Supper.

Special attention might be given to one specific excursus that originally appeared in Boring’s Disciples and the Bible. It is entitled “The Biblical Story as a Drama in Five Acts.” Although Boring doesn’t mention it here, the idea of a five-act drama borrowed from an evangelistic tool used by one of the Disciples founders, Walter Scott. Scott used what he called the five-fingered exercise to teach his version of the way of salvation. Boring borrowed the exercise and laid out a brief and memorable summary of the biblical story – Creation (Genesis 1-11) Covenant (Genesis 12-Malachi 4), Christ (Matthew-John), Church (Acts-Jude) and Consummation (Revelation). Boring created this little mnemonic device as a way of breaking the spell of biblical illiteracy that infects our churches. Using this little device, people have a basic outline upon which to hang the biblical story. Attending to this excursus, which the author’s placed within their Ephesians commentary will pay great dividends.

This is a text that should be in every church library, on the desk of every pastor, and of course sitting nearby one’s Bible – at home. The Protestant Reformation delivered the Bible to the people in the vernacular. It was believed that the people had the right and responsibility to deal with the text of Scripture. History and experience demonstrate that while the individual has this right, we all need good instructors and guides to the text. I can name no better or more up-to-date text than this. And, because it’s now in paperback, it is quite affordable.

The Supreme Court and the Transformation of Demographic Priorities __ Sightings

With the impending retirement of Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court's most liberal member (and a Gerald Ford appointee -- remember when the Republican Party had a bigger tent), the Supreme Court watchers are beginning to try to see who will get this coveted spot.  Since Republicans have controlled the White House for much of the last thirty years, they have gotten most of the chances to make these appointments, though not all have been as conservative as one might expect.  Now, President Obama gets his second opportunity.  One of the things that has been noticed is that the religious face of the Court has changed recently.  Protestants, who once dominated the Court, as well as most other sectors of government, now face the prospects of losing their lone "voice" (whatever that means).  Following up on Martin Marty's column Monday, Barbara Barnett, notes that today a different set of demographic concerns has become preeminent -- gender and ethnicity, rather than either religion or region.  It is an interesting analysis, worth considering.

*****************************************

Sightings 4/22/10

The Supreme Court and the

Transformation of Demographic Priorities

-- Barbra Barnett

As Martin Marty discussed in last Monday’s Sightings, John Paul Stevens is currently the only Protestant jurist on the United States Supreme Court and he has announced his retirement at the end of the current term. Of the eight remaining justices, six identify as Roman Catholic and two as Jewish. Some court watchers are gearing up for battle over the religious affiliation of the President’s next nominee to the court. Those who openly voice their fear that there may not be a single Protestant justice on the court argue that the particular worldview of a large swath of the nation will no longer have a sympathetic ear on the bench. As Marty notes, this grievance begs the question: Given the diversity within American Protestantism, is there a common Protestant worldview that could be represented by a member of one Protestant denomination, and if so, from which one? But rather than try to divine how President Obama could choose a nominee to appease a fractious nation, we might consider what the current (and future) makeup of the Supreme Court says about American religious history.

The composition of the Supreme Court tells a remarkable story of how members of once-marginalized groups have come to be accepted as members of mainstream American life. The U.S. Constitution clearly states that there will be no religious tests for office. But until fairly recently in American history the Supreme Court has been overwhelmingly Protestant. For the nation’s first two generations all members of the court of last resort in the land were Protestant. In 1836 Justice Roger Taney joined the court as its first Catholic member. But while Taney presided over the court, anti-immigrant, anti-Catholic sentiments flared across the country in nativist movements that erupted into violent attacks on Catholics and Catholic institutions, and spawned local and national political parties with explicitly anti-Catholic platforms. For thirty years after Taney the court was again entirely Protestant until the appointment of Edward Douglas White. But in the nineteenth century, the most important criteria for “diversity” on the bench was not religious but geographic, ensuring that justices represented the interests of northern, southern, northeastern, midwestern, and western states. Taney and White were both Catholic, but they were also both southerners, which was a far more significant factor in their day.

The role of religion in the Supreme Court nomination process rose in significance in the early twentieth century, when the nation began to expect a “Catholic seat” and then also a “Jewish seat” on the court. This practice was perhaps not wholly embraced. The nomination of the first Jewish Justice, Louis Brandeis, was bitterly contested and an anti-Semitic colleague refused to speak to him throughout his tenure on the bench. Anti-Catholic sentiments were also still common in the early part of the twentieth century. However, despite the nation’s uneasy relationship with its Catholic and Jewish citizens, the practice of having one Jewish and one Catholic Supreme Court justice continued more or less from 1916 until Richard Nixon broke with tradition in 1972.

By then the nation’s demographic and representational priorities had changed. In 1967, Justice Thurgood Marshall became the first African-American to join the court and in 1981 Justice Sandra Day O’Connor became the first woman to do the same. Today we tend not to view the religious views of a nominee as being definitional in the same ways that we see race, gender, ethnicity and class, as is clear from Justice Sotomayor’s “wise, Latina woman” comment. She did not describe herself as a “wise, Catholic, Latina woman.” We understand that religion plays an important role in individual formation, but other factors contribute as well. Ethnicity and gender now warrant a mention in describing ourselves and our worldview. From the Court’s earliest days until today we can trace a transformation of our demographic priorities. In the early period, American identity politics were cast primarily in terms of geographic balancing. As religious minorities claimed their right to equal participation in American life, Court membership needed to reflect this religious diversity. But religion again appears to be taking a backseat to other demographic factors.

Today, religious affiliation is not the only or even the main criteria for determining a jurist’s understanding of the Constitution or vision of justice and the law. In 1985, when asked about the future of maintaining a Catholic seat on the Supreme Court, Catholic jurist William Brennan remarked that in fifty years’ time “no one will care about these things.” Perhaps that time has come.

Barbra Barnett has a PhD in Ethics from the University of Chicago Divinity School and teaches at Elmhurst College.

----------

In this month’s Religion and Culture Web Forum, Web Forum editor emeritus Spencer Dew explores the relationship between Jack Kerouac’s religious thought and its expressive practice in the act of writing: “Indeed, his entire oeuvre can be read as an expression of his personal religious stance, a kind of ‘fusion’ of Catholic theology with notions taken from Buddhist philosophy and practice.”

Through a close reading of Kerouac’s novella Tristessa, Dew suggests that such a fusion—despite exemplifying Kerouac at his writerly best—leads to a solipsism that is ethically troubling, and likely reflective of Kerouac’s personal and professional shortcomings—especially later in his life. “Devotion to Solipsism: Religious Thought and Practice in Jack Kerouac’s Tristessa,” with invited responses from Benedict Giamo (University of Notre Dame), Nancy Grace (College of Wooster), Sarah Haynes (University of Western Illinois), Kurt Hemmer (Harper College), Amy Hungerford (Yale University), Omar Swartz (University of Colorado, Denver), Matt Theado (Gardner-Webb University), and Eric Ziolkowski (Lafayette College). http://divinity.uchicago.edu/martycenter/publications/webforum/index.shtml

----------

Sightings comes from the Martin Marty Center at the University of Chicago Divinity School.

Protestants on the Supreme Court -- Sightings

Although Protestantism -- in all it's diversity -- represents a majority of the American public, there is one institution where it barely merits a representative.  That institution is the Supreme Court, where the sole Protestant -- John Paul Stevens -- has announced his impending retirement.  The current line up includes six Roman Catholics and two Jews.  Some in the Protestant community are demanding that the President appoint a Protestant -- because we need representation!   But is that an appropriate response?  Don't we want the President to appoint the best qualified person, regardless of religion?   That is the question that Martin Marty addresses this morning in his Sightings column.

*********************************

Sightings 4/19/10

Protestants on the Supreme Court

-- Martin E. Marty

Score-keepers readying themselves for the forthcoming summer’s Armageddon-level Senate debates over the next Supreme Court appointment find plenty of skirmishing at the line of scrimmage before the first ball is snapped. One of the points of controversy, a side-issue to many and the whole ball game to others, has to do with the religion of a candidate to the bench and religious representation on the Court as a whole.

In the best of all possible worlds, or even in worlds slightly better than the one we have, citizens would pay attention to the U. S. Constitution's rejection of religious tests for office. However, since “everyone else” is violating the Constitution, “everyone” plays the game of keeping score. This time the noise comes from those who notice that there will be no Protestants on the bench unless the President nominates one and the Senate is dozing enough not to notice. But notice it will and notice it must, because of the clamor.

Geoffrey R. Stone of the University of Chicago, in one of the most noticed, cited, and responded-to reflections on the issue, showed how bizarre it would be were the Executive to try to assure true representation on the Supreme Court: “To bring total Christian representation…down to the percentage of Christians in the current population, none of the next 22 justices should be Christian.” Further, none of the next 69 should be Protestant, none of the next 139 should be Jewish, et cetera. Insisting on representation, then, is a game: “Notice us; we are so important that we get a religious seat on the Court!” or “Not notice us and you’ll pay for it.”

The brutal game will be played, and the alert public can listen to hear what cases are being made. To grant a para-constitutional point, most “religious tests” are “cultural tests” or “power tests.” On the positive side of that case, it is true that people steeped in a religious culture might well hear religious nuances in cases, and can adjudicate them more sensitively than the spiritually tone-deaf might. Others do and will clearly use their “nuances” as weapons of judicial power. Overall, it might be best if the public said, “We are reassured you justices are religious; just don’t ‘use’ that religion too much.”

In any case, pity the President who thinks he or she can assure representation of Protestantism simply by appointing a member of a Protestant church. Many Protestant churches are culturally so settled in that they wouldn’t know what or how to protest. Many other Protestant people are so unsettled that they will lobby for their faction. Can the one who makes an appointment satisfy the people called Protestant? Most are, top to bottom, at odds with each other. From a satellite distance, they come in three large tribes: “Mainstream” or “mainline,” “Evangelical,” and “African-American.” Most citizens in any of these three groups will neither say “Hurrah for our side!” nor feel represented by any representative of the other two.

Thus would evangelicals Charles Colson, James Dobson, or Marvin Olasky, who enthused about the ill-fated appointment of “evangelical” Harriet Miers during the Bush administration, have been satisfied with any mainstream sort, and vice versa? Stone has only two criteria, or wishes, for the next appointment: The nominee “must have the intellect, temperament and experience necessary to fulfill the responsibilities,” as many Protestants do and other Protestants don’t; and he or she “should have the vision of the law…that is consonant with the president’s own aspirations.” For Stone, that should be it – but no one expects that will be.

Reference:

Read Stone’s piece here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffrey-r-stone/the-protestant-seat_b_533093.html



Martin E. Marty's biography, current projects, publications, and contact information can be found at www.illuminos.com.


----------

In this month’s Religion and Culture Web Forum, Web Forum editor emeritus Spencer Dew explores the relationship between Jack Kerouac’s religious thought and its expressive practice in the act of writing: “Indeed, his entire oeuvre can be read as an expression of his personal religious stance, a kind of ‘fusion’ of Catholic theology with notions taken from Buddhist philosophy and practice.”

Through a close reading of Kerouac’s novella Tristessa, Dew suggests that such a fusion—despite exemplifying Kerouac at his writerly best—leads to a solipsism that is ethically troubling, and likely reflective of Kerouac’s personal and professional shortcomings—especially later in his life. “Devotion to Solipsism: Religious Thought and Practice in Jack Kerouac’s Tristessa,” with invited responses from Benedict Giamo (University of Notre Dame), Nancy Grace (College of Wooster), Sarah Haynes (University of Western Illinois), Kurt Hemmer (Harper College), Amy Hungerford (Yale University), Omar Swartz (University of Colorado, Denver), Matt Theado (Gardner-Webb University), and Eric Ziolkowski (Lafayette College). http://divinity.uchicago.edu/martycenter/publications/webforum/index.shtml

----------

Sightings comes from the Martin Marty Center at the University of Chicago Divinity School.