Yes….Rap Can Help With Theology!
I’ve recently had some conversations with some students who are wrestling with all of the Christian terminology surrounding the atonement. I believe this is a great teaching tool for Theology Professors, and would be worthy of having students memorize in order to get a better grasp on common terms and their definitions. Although N.T. Wright would not agree with some of the definitions……I don’t think he visits our blog much and many still see them as correct. If you don’t like rap, just mute and watch!
Posted on August 3, 2010, in Apologetics, Biblical Theology, Christology, Film & Music, Hermeneutics, Historical Theology, New Testament, Preaching, Salvation, Teaching Tips, Theology and tagged atonement, new perspectives. Bookmark the permalink. 4 Comments.
scientia et sapientia 
I love the creativity! And you’re right, I don’t think we have to worry about N.T. Wright showing up to critique these definitions.
I’d be interested to know if any of our readers would disagree with these definitions. That might provide some interested thoughts for future conversations.
One thing that I’d definitely want to push back on is how much gets left out of this summary. I realize that they’re trying to pack a tremendous amount of information into just a few minutes, but it’s interesting that nothing is said about creation, incarnation, resurrection, Kingdom of God, or the eschaton, and very little is said about the Holy Spirit. To me this reflects an unfortunate tendency to leave out an awful lot in discussions of the atonement, which can leave us with a pretty shallow view of the atonement.
I was wondering who would be first to push back on just those things and how long it would take. I agree, it is lacking several important components of the gospel (I saw it as more of a small theological dictionary). However, in Paul’s presentation in 1 Cor. 15:3-11 he doesn’t mention creation, incarnation, Kingdom of God, eschaton, or the Holy Spirit either. Acts 17 includes many more of these elements but still does not mention the Holy Spirit. I guess the argument could be made that both of these are only summaries of what was a larger explanation Paul gave while actually present, but I would argue that this song is precisely a summary as well.
Initially, I see no problem with the definitions. I stand on the other side of Wright and his definitions of justification and imputation.
Agreed, a summary can’t do everything. My problem is that these are elements that we typically leave out of our summaries, whereas they are elements that NT authors typically include (esp. Acts 2 where most of these elements are present and many of the more “typical” elements are absent). If I was more confident that these other elements were being included elsewhere, I wouldn’t be as concerned. But generally, they’re not. (P.S. I also didn’t like the way that union with Christ was just tacked on at the end. It’s much more central than that.)
To be clear though, I actually liked it. It’s a good discussion starter and could be used helpfully in a class.