Almost two decades ago I wrote an essay titled " When Is Spirituality Spiritual? Reflections on Some Problems of Definition ." I would like to follow up on one aspect of that topic here. The broader framework of the discussion needs to be remembered. "Spiritual" and "spirituality" have become notoriously fuzzy words. In common usage they almost always have positive overtones, but rarely does their meaning range within the sphere of biblical usage.
He was the youngest son of elderly parents. His childhood was secluded and unhappy, which might in some measure account for his lifelong melancholy. He studied theology but never proceeded towards ordination. He became engaged but never married. His works were sharp and penetrating, which he described as a "bit of cinnamon." He has been designated as the "father of existentialism," both Christian and secular, and his influence is still widely felt today. His name, of course, is Søren Kierkegaard.
Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758) is remembered today as a saint, scholar, preacher, pastor, metaphysician, revival leader, theologian, Calvinist—the list goes on. However, 'If there is one area of Edwards's life that has been consistently overlooked and understated by contemporaries and scholars alike, it is his role as Indian missionary and advocate for Indian affairs.' It is indeed hard to imagine: a white British colonial Puritan, with powdered wig and Geneva bands, as a missionary to native American Indians. Of course, historically, the issue is not debated.
In the November 2009 edition of Themelios, Dane C. Ortlund raises some very helpful questions about whether a christocentric theology signifies an unbalanced vision of the Godhead. He offers equally helpful answers that Christocentrism is appropriate because (1) this is the way God is made known economically and (2) the purposes of the Father and Spirit in the economy are to make the Son known. This article focuses the discussion on the second of these points and historically and systematically explores further what Ortlund calls "salvation-historical Christocentrism."
Evaluating a new English translation of the Bible can be extremely difficult. That is due to at least three factors. First, we have such a wealth of options already accessible in our language that any new offering seems superfluous; we are jaded by the abundance. Second, there is a cynical view that attributes all such productions to greedy commercial publishers. Third, translations are often controversial due to theological or social issues.