Going to England 6

previous post
_______________
23. While Dunn was in Wilmore, Joe Dongell must have sat by him at a meal. Joe has a dry sense of humor, occasionally with a twinkle of mischief in his eye. So Joe apparently asked Jimmy if there was anything he had ever written that he regretted, maybe something relating to Romans 7.

Although Dunn was one of the leaders of the New Perspective on Paul, his interpretation of Romans 7 is distinctly old school. The vast majority of experts on Romans have come to see Romans 7 as Paul presenting the hypothetical struggle of someone who wants to keep the Jewish Law but cannot because they do not have the Holy Spirit to empower them to do so. This understanding was first championed by Kümmel but was emphatically put forward by Krister Stendahl in 1963.

For me, Krister Stendahl's article, "Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West," is an incredibly helpful starting place to understand Paul. I'm not sure when I first fully digested this piece, but for me it is the starting place for getting a "new perspective" on Paul if you have only known the superficial interpretation left over from the Protestant Reformation. What is more, Stendahl's understanding of Paul fits very well with a Wesleyan perspective.

I will soon have occasion to talk about the "new perspective on Paul," but I don't believe I have commented yet on my sense of the Wesleyan tradition as a kind of via media between high Protestantism and Roman Catholicism. Of course the Anglican tradition claimed this first. By high Protestant, I refer to Lutherans and the Reformed tradition. By contrast, the Wesleyan tradition came through the Anglicans.

The result is that works play a more significant role in the Wesleyan tradition than in Lutheranism and the Reformed. For this reason we are sometimes accused of being semi-Pelagians. The new perspective has of course indicated that we are closer to Paul than the high Protestants. We are more balanced in our hermeneutic, if you go with Wesley's quadrilateral. On several issues recent developments in scholarship have turned our direction, including Barclay's recent work on grace.

But Dunn's Romans commentary still has the older sense that Romans 7 as Paul's continued struggle and defeat in the face of the power of Sin. This is of course still the popular interpretation although abandoned by most scholars. Joe's joke was ribbing Jimmy on this fact. Jimmy's response was, "No, I feel very comfortable with my interpretation of Romans 7." :-)

24. The way the University of Durham in England worked was you applied as a Master of Letters (M.Litt.) student. Then if you made sufficient progress in your first year, you were retroactively considered a Ph.D. student finishing your first year. The PhD in England lasted three years.

My sense is that England expected a person to get all the basic and essential competencies in your master's work. That left you ready to write your dissertation in your doctoral program. It seems almost the opposite in the States, where the first two years of your doctorate are typically spent taking courses and working on your competency exams.

I was fine with my languages. I knew Greek and Hebrew. I had taken courses in German and French for reading. I knew Latin.

I've always felt like I cheated when it came to the Old Testament. Over the years I've tried to fill in some of the gaps in my knowledge of Old Testament scholarship, but I was never required to pass comps in Old Testament theology. There are areas of New Testament interpretation and theology that I have filled in as well over the years.

Given the structure of the program, my application required a possible dissertation proposal. Here I would probably have preferred to do something in Paul or the historical Jesus. But the best hand I had to play was Hebrews. So I submitted a proposal on Hebrews in line with the research and writing I had already done.

25. My proposal (and paper) tried to integrate what you might call the vertical and horizontal dimensions of Hebrews' worldview. By horizontal I refer to the eschatological and apocalyptic. By vertical I refer to the cosmological and, perhaps, the Platonic. Dr. Bauer had introduced me to a classic chapter by C. K. Barrett in a Festschrift for C. H. Dodd in 1956, "The Eschatology of the Epistle to the Hebrews." [1] It was an early suggestion about such an integration.

I might add that I was privileged to meet "Kingsley" Barrett in Durham. I told him that his chapter had been very formative in my approach to Hebrews. His response is helpful for budding scholars. "Thank you. I'm not sure if I would still agree with it today." It reminds me of a series that used to be part of SBL some years ago called, "How I Changed My Mind." Famous biblical scholars gave papers on issues for which they were once known but about which they had changed their positions.

This is of course interesting to keep in mind when you read something by a scholar. As a student starting out, it's easy to assume that the views of scholars are static. You might attack them in a paper not realizing that they have moved on a topic. For example, I was a little surprised to see that a recent publication had me dating Hebrews to the 90s. I remembered that I had tentatively suggested that date in 2003. But I have long since re-dated it to the early 70s.

Barrett was a Methodist preacher, as was Dunn. There were small Methodist congregations out in the countryside of Durham county. I preached in one once, as I recall. It was interesting that, at least in some circumstances, there were some questions about Barrett. What someone told me was that he seemed one way from the pulpit and another way in his publications.

I'll confess that I find that rumor both a little puzzling and yet understandable. I have never thought of Barrett as being far out there as a scholar. If anything, he seemed to be a faith-filled interpreter to me. Yet I am well aware of the gap between the understanding of a typical congregation and the discussions of the academy, so I can see how such a disconnect could be perceived.

I also heard that there were tensions between Barrett and Charles Cranfield when they were both in the theology department at Durham. The tension came, if I remember correctly, because Barrett took the Lightfoot professorship. I met Cranfield once or twice while I was there as well. Someone, I can't remember who, went with me to visit him in his home. He seemed to me one of the nicest of men. He was unfortunately very hunched over with a curved spine. It looked quite uncomfortable to me.

Cranfield was also the author of a famed Romans commentary in the ICC series. Unfortunately, he completed it at just about the same time as the new perspective on Paul was rising. In that sense, his commentary was virtually out of date from the day of its publication.

26. Dunn accepted my proposal. I was sure to mention that the ideas of his Baptism in the Holy Spirit had been very significant in my own pilgrimage. He was incredibly helpful. He lined me up to teach Greek. He helped me get approved for an "Overseas Research Award" that would allow me to pay in country tuition rather than the tuition of a foreigner.

I didn't realize until my third year that this award was a Trojan Horse. With the award, I paid in country tuition, which sounds nice. The thing is, if I hadn't received the award, my Greek teaching would have covered my tuition entirely. I only recently finished paying off the student loans I took out for England... and I wouldn't have had any if I had realized this little secret.

Most importantly, Jimmy arranged for me to interview to be a "residential tutor" at St. John's College. As great as studying at Durham was, my time at St. John's College was equally or more meaningful to me. I'll say more about the role soon enough. Some time in the spring of 93 I flew to England for the first time to interview for the position, which would largely cover my room and board.

I remember seeing the townhouses of England as my plane descended into Manchester. It turned out it was an odd place to fly into but on the map it looked closer to Durham to me. But the speed train from London to Durham was much simpler. And the view from the train in Manchester was pretty industrial and unattractive. That was my only time in Manchester.

The interview went well. I think I mainly met with Margaret Masson, who was the Senior Tutor at that time. She is now the Principal of St. Chad's next door on the Bailey. David Day was then Principal. I really liked him, very sharp. No one was around. It must have been between the second and third terms.

I remember David Day being very cautious about asking me on matters of faith. He was almost apologetic for asking. This is a difference with American contexts. There they didn't try to proselytize and they tried to be respectful of other perspectives and religions. Still, it was important for him that I have a genuine and orthodox Christian faith.

I think it was a fairly quick turn around. I must have surely checked in at Abbey House to see Dunn, but I don't remember. Of course the cathedral is right there near John's and Abbey House too. Surely I went in. I was in awe of the majesty of the place. John's had a characteristic smell. It smelled old.

The steps leading into John's at that time had seen so many feet that they had bowed--concrete steps that had worn down under the slow passage of student feet over a couple hundred years. They "fixed" them during my time there. I didn't like it but they thought it was a risk management issue.

27. I believe I stayed that night, a Friday night, at the Foreign Missions Club in northern London in Islington. Interestingly, that's where the London Honors students from Houghton spend their spring semester. They just left this week. It's called something different now. To get there I went through Kings Cross, later immortalized by Harry Potter.

I spent Saturday walking across London. I started at the Tower in the east and walked to St. Paul's to Trafalgar Square and out to Buckingham Palace. My feet were pretty tired by the end of the day. At some point, near the British Museum, I looked up and saw that I was on Aldersgate Street, where an easily missed plaque commemorated Wesley's heart warming experience. I hear there is a more prominent sign today.

I was supposed to fly out of Gatwick the next morning. I was pretty proud of myself that I had figured out how the Tube worked. I got up on Sunday morning I thought in plenty of time to get to the airport. I didn't ask for any help. On some Tube map I had seen an arrow pointing south of Waterloo station toward Gatwick.

So I got up on a quiet Sunday morning and took the Tube down from Waterloo toward Wimbledon. When it stopped at the end of the line, I was puzzled. Where was Gatwick? A polite steward explained that you had to catch the above ground Gatwick Express train out of Victoria Station to get to Gatwick.

Horrible mistake! I had to ride all the way back to Waterloo, transfer, and catch the above ground train. I thought for sure Gatwick was in London! Wasn't it a London airport?!!

When I finally arrived at the gate, it was less than a half hour to take off and they weren't letting anyone on. Thankfully, my Dad had given me a credit card, and I was able to stay in a B and B in town. That night I tried steak and kidney pie for the first and last time.

28. I found myself needing to get out of my apartment in Wilmore without enought stuff to fit into three of my vehicles. My clever idea, perhaps not so clever, was to drive to my parents' cottage at Frankfort to store the stuff there. That was a terrible night. It is God's grace that I didn't fall asleep at the wheel.

I made two trips to Frankfort from Wilmore that night. Then I think I headed to Florida.

[1] Scott Mackie has recently published a number of classic Hebrews articles, including some of mine, in an expensive volume The Letter to the Hebrews: Critical Readings.