Real Grace and Real People

The following was forwarded to me in an email, it is a “weekly devotional” thought sent out by Saint Andrew Christian Church in Kansas City. I was so impressed and resonated so deeply with the individual telling the story, that I felt it worthy to share. You will note, I have given proper attribution. You can find the church’s website and information below. I for one, really like Eric, although I don’t know him personally. (Also, note this is a Disciples of Christ church and I presently attend a Disciples divinity school

“Grace Found Here” by Eric Atcheson

I am pretty sure that people often hold me to slightly different expectations after they learn that I am a seminarian and a student associate minister at a local congregation. People are occasionally surprised to learn that I swear, consume alcohol, watch Family Guy, and that my politics veer somewhat left of center. One of the expectations I have come across that it is now somehow obligatory that I appreciate every sermon I listen to or preach, as if there was a special God chip that the seminary plants in my brain which makes such reliable joy possible. But honestly? I often gauge how engaged I am with a preacher based on how complete my grocery shopping list is by the time the sermon is over. If I haven’t even begun to think about food, chances are I was able to stay interested the whole time, but if I am reconsidering for the fourth time my decision to buy parmesan instead of provolone, well, better luck next week.
A few weeks ago, the lectionary text for that Sunday was Mark 10:2-16, where Jesus teaches about marriage and divorce. Russ, my field education pastor and mentor, told me multiple times in the days leading up to that Sunday just how difficult it would be for him to preach the sermon he was writing-he himself had been divorced five years ago, and his memories of it were as vivid as ever.

He did not want at all to preach on Mark 10, but still did. And yet, against either of our expectations, something happened. After a heartfelt sermon that spanned over half an hour and included powerful testimony and soul-sharing from Russ, our worship pianist got up, slowly made his way to Russ, and wrapped him up in a hug. And even though the church is fairly proper in how they follow their liturgy, almost the entire congregation followed suit, wrapping one another up, person by person, for several moments. I am not sure if I saw God on that morning, but I have to think that at a bare minimum, I had witnessed the wonder of a people seeing God. In that sermon, Russ spoke of a church in the South, near where he used to live, that placed a sign outside its doors that simply said, “Grace spoken here.” We might think of grace as some abstract, lofty theological term to lift up in sermon and prayer, hymn and song. And we may well be right in doing so. But sometimes, all a young minister can do is give thanks that he did not get too distracted by the mundane chores of living, for it was not merely that grace was spoken in that moment…for me, grace was found.
“From His fullness we have all received grace upon grace.” -John 1:16
(Eric has been a member of Saint Andrew since 1992, when he joined at the ripe old age of six with his mother and sister. He is currently a full-time graduate student at the Pacific School of Religion and a part- time student at the University of California-Berkeley. He intends to enter ordained ministry and is very active in the Disciples community in the San Francisco Bay Area.)

Saint Andrew Christian Church

---

email: office@sacchome.org

phone: 913.764.5888

web: http://www.sacchome.org

 

Evil Bible…an interesting website

In my journeys across the vast network we call the “web,” I found a rather amusing site, albeit bearing some worthy criticism. I really like the webdomain title EvilBible.com. While I am not necessarily endorsing it, though it is late, and frankly my mind has become numb from writing… I did find it amusing and you might as well. Let me know what you think.

P.S. I find it ironic that in decrying the Bible and Christians in general, the author found no problems offering a “retard of the month” award….yeah, very politically correct. Although, in my quick glance, perhaps the author’s judgment of the individual may well be correct, you however will have to make that determination.

Presently Writing….

Just by way of checking in… I am currently working on a paper entitled: “Reading Between the Lines: An Imperial-Critical and Postcolonial Rereading of Ezra as Neo-Colonial Jewish Propaganda.”

Here is a brief outline (apologies for the formatting, I couldn’t get it to show up correctly):

1. Introduction
2. Methodology:
   1. Imperial-critical (Historical-Ideological)
      1. Foreground socio-political-religious construct of empire.

a)    Power and Domination

b)   Influence and Persuasion

c)    Dominance and Subjugation

d)   Inclination towards self-interested socio-political policies

1. 1. Postcolonial (Literary-Ideological)
      1. Ambivalence
      2. Hybridity
      3. Mimicry
2. A Critical Reconstruction of Persian Yehud ca. 538-322 B.C.E.
3. Rereading Ezra as Neo-Colonial Jewish Propaganda
   1. Exegesis: Ezra 1.1–2; 2.1, 70; 3.7; 4.1–24; 7.1–8, 11–27; 8.21; 9.3–15; 10.1–15
   2. Imperial-Critical Analysis
   3. Postcolonial Analysis
4. Conclusion

John W. Wyckoff Festschrift “Trajectories in the Book of Acts”

I would like to point your attention to a forthcoming Festschrift honoring my former professor, John W. Wyckoff. I had the honor of both contributing a chapter, “Spirit-Empowerment as Resistance Discourse: An Imperial-Critical Reading of Acts 2″ and serving as a co-editor of the volume along with both my former professor Paul Alexander and friend Jordan D. May. I believe this volume to be a helpful resource on the book of Acts in general and certainly offer a collective of Pentecostal perspectives on various issues arising from the book of Acts. The volume Trajectories in the Book of Acts: Essays in Honor of John Wesley Wyckoff will be published in late 2009 or early 2010 by Wipf and Stock.

Contributors to the Festschrift include Paul Alexander, Craig S. Keener, Robert P. Menzies, Jordan Daniel May, Byron D. Klaus, Bruce E. Rosdahl, James Shelton, Rob Starner, LeRoy R. Bartel, Roger Cotton, Mario Escobedo, Janet Myer Everts, James D. Hernando, Roger Stronstad, and myself.

Southwestern Assemblies of God University did a short piece about the Festschrift here.

Obama’s Empire: Regulation of Blogging

The empire is moving towards control of the internet, one blog at a time. For now, these “sensible” regulations to curb misinformation seem innocuous enough, but where will it end? See the AP article here describing the Federal Trade Commission’s new regulation on blogging, enforceable by an $11,000 fine!

Biblioblogger Challenge and Towards Defining “Imperial-Critical” Methodology

J.T. Caldwell has requested that I define or seek to define what an “imperial critical perspective” is, for the rest of us. I am curious who “the rest of us” are exactly, but the question is well worth a description. Since there are a variety of authors whom I would align under the distinctive of imperial-critical, they often each have unique aspects to their individual hermeneutical presuppositions and methodologies. Thus, in a proper sense, there is no monolithic “imperial-critical perspective,” which explains my use of the indefinite article “an” at the head of my blog’s subtitle, implying that mine is one of a diversity of imperial-critical voices. As a point of reference, I would suggest that the following authors are “imperial-critical” in their orientation to biblical studies: Warren Carter (my adviser), J. D. Crossan, Richard A. Horsley, and a host of others. There is some relation also between what has emerged as “imperial-critical” and postcolonial biblical criticism/cultural criticism although they are not one and the same.

In brief, “imperial-critical” as a method seeks to foreground the Roman Imperial world ideologically, politically, in terms of power/domination, and most interestingly and relevantly–religiously, when considering the biblical texts. This stands over against the dominant or perhaps formerly dominant approach of foregrounding the Jesus movement among Judaism and more or less relegating the issues of social oppression, Roman Imperial Theology, and other aspects to background issues. Such a tacit assumption is embodied even in the titles of certain courses: e.g. “New Testament Backgrounds” or “Critical Issues and NT Backgrounds.” (A quick Google search for “courses NT backgrounds” will yield a variety of seminaries and bible colleges offering courses with such titles from a diversity of theological orientations [e.g. Mennonite to Capital Bible College, etc.]). The historical reality was that the early Jesus movement operated sociologically on the margins. They were not dominant socially, politically, or economically! However, methodologically, much previous NT scholarship has treated the NT as though it were “center stage” and issues of honor/shame, patron/client, imperial cult, imperial theology, and others were not issues that the NT had to negotiate around by the very act of speaking at all. This is precisely the point, the Roman empire and its theological justifications for dominion were, in fact, the very ideological concepts and claims to power that the NT message came into competition with. Jesus, a marginal Jew, went around teaching about the βασιλεία τοῦ οὐρανῶν/θεοῦ; “empire of heaven/god” being established through his mission, teaching, and deeds! His followers project upon him, and presumably he assumed, a title, arguably from the Similitudes of Enoch that predate the Jesus tradition in Galilee (on this see my Th.M. thesis: “Apocalyptic Imagery as Resistance Discourse” Dallas Theological Seminary, 2009). “That Son of Man” in the Similitudes, who appears with the holy angels and is enthroned brings the demise of oppressive regimes. Evoking such imagery certainly would have been cause for alarm to the ruling powers.  Other clear imperial titles and roles are projected upon Jesus (e.g. Luke 2:1-12 σωτῆρα and κυριός; on this see my “‘Savior’ and ‘Lord’ in the Lukan Birth Narrative: A Challenge to Caesar? Pax Pneuma 5 (Spring 2009): 46-61). Thus, my point is that the Jesus movement pictured in the canonical gospels and then Christian theology articulated in the rest of the NT by its very existence ipso facto engages the Roman Imperial world. I would argue that many of the claims of early Christian communities cannot be fully appreciated without taking into consideration the socio-political and religious aspects of negotiating the Roman dominated world.

Hermeneutical/Philosophical Presuppositions:

1. Historiographical Philosophy: Ancient historiography is an exercise in reconstructionive historiography, that is, in some sense imaginative in reconstructing plausibilities in antiquity based on disparate and partial historical evidence.
2. Hermeneutics: To quote an author most recently read, Ehrensperger said: “To live is to interpret. There is no such thing as a pure event that speaks for itself” (That We May Be Mutually Encouraged, p. 5). Further, there is no such thing as a text that interprets itself! Therefore, the act of reading a text, as well as reconstructing historical periods and events, are acts of interpretation. Indeed, the ancient records we have are themselves specimens of interpretation. There is no “view from nowhere.” That is to say, every reader is situated and brings a priori understandings, preconceptions, and their own socio-politico-religious situatedness to the text in the act of reading. I defy the notion that these can be laid at the altar of historical-criticism. I find suspect those critical scholars who proclaim, usually from a modified agnostic/atheistic position, that they are able not to (because of their non-belief) fall prey to the same historical and interpretive critical conclusions that say believing critics do. In fact, it appears in that regard that the knife cuts both ways! Thus, neither belief nor non-belief are neutral, because neutrality does not exist. The best a critical scholar can hope to do is engage the data critically, attempt to be as open as possible to the range of possibilities, and identify and challenge their own presuppositions as best she or he can. I think that there are many readings, many of which are valuable in surfacing key issues in various texts.

Imperial-Critical: Towards a Definition

As the title suggests, this method, employs the construct of “empire” (note: a theoretic construct rooted in tangible historical phenomena) as a complex matrix of interrelated socio-historical factors, namely, sociological stratification (e.g. a concern with the socio-economic, political, and religious power differentiations among social groups within a culture or society), material and production (here drawing on aspects of the historical-materialist model), imperial ideology/theology (i.e. those social practices, constructed linguistic features, and common “scripts” that perpetuate, reinforce, and propel the construct of “empire” towards domination), historiography (i.e. here I assume that my method operates in relation to or perhaps as a modified or eclectic approach that appropriates the historical-critical method to some degree).

Perhaps a short list of grounding factors:

1. Sociological-Class Factors: Those issues pertaining to the relationality of individuals and groups. This would, of course, include issues of patriarchalism/gender/sexuality, etc.
2. Power Factors: Analysis of the way power dynamics possibly operated in the ancient world.
3. Ideological-Religious Propaganda: The analysis of how texts, scripts, inscriptions, and the promulgation of ideas occurred, were perpetuated, and reinforced power/sociological factors.
4. Psychological Factors: The analysis of domination/subjugation as a social phenomena that affected individuals and groups and their ideas.
5. Intertextual Factors: Within various bodies of thought the development of, reaction to, and synthesis of texts in relation to other texts within their constellation of ideas. Here I would include issues specific to NT study, namely, the pseudepigrapha, apocalypticism, and messianisms that emerge prior to or at the turn of the millennium.
6. Historical Factors: What can be reconstructed as historical events and the analysis of those events relative to the above factors.

After having read the above list, I think it would be difficult not to see the interrelation of each of these factors. In fact, in some instances I found it hard to describe one without in some sense relying on the other.

I don’t suppose that the imperial-critical approach necessarily divests “all” the meaning or significance a text may harbor. In fact, in some sense, my methodological approach is an amalgamation or eclectic array of analytic tools from various approaches (intertextuality, feminist(s) approaches, narrative and literary criticism, historical-critical, postcolonial theory to name but a few). However, I label my own approach imperial-critical because it best describes the anchor, as it were, to my approach. I find the Roman Imperial world to be the foreground historically. Thus, in reconstructing the thought-world or linguistic environment (e.g. “cognitive environment”), I find it most helpful to start with empire and then situate the Israelite or Christian traditions properly on the periphery, under the thumb of whatever empire (note, I am nuancing myself here to include Persian Yehud and other periods of domination by empire, albeit not of the Roman variety). Therefore, empire itself as a construct is the heart and starting point for my historical and then textual work. Of course, I am currently a PhD student and I am certainly open to revision, correction, and further construction of my critical method in biblical studies.

Concluding Thoughts and A Challenge:

I hope in some sense this helps to articulate “for the rest of us” what I mean by imperial-critical as an approach. As a challenge, I found this descriptive exercise extremely fruitful. I would like to further probe and attempt to articulate my own presuppositions more fully. I now thereby challenge my fellow bibliobloggers to engage in this same exercise from their social, religious, political, and critical perspectives. Please feel free to comment or critique my method as I hope to reflect on it further and refine it.

Kathy Ehrensperger: That We May Be Mutually Encouraged: Feminism and the New Perspective in Pauline Studies

The following is a brief reflection after reading Kathy Ehrensperger, That We May Be Mutually Encouraged: Feminism and the New Perspective in Pauline Studies (New York; London: T & T Clark/Continuum, 2004).

This week’s primary text authored by Kathy Ehrensperger sought to place a feminist reading in dialogue with the New Perspective within Pauline studies. Her text was structured in two parts consisting of six primary chapters and a conclusion. In the first part, she sought to locate her hermeneutical approach by describing the changing shape of Pauline studies, with the historical events of Shoah (Holocaust) serving as a fundamental paradigmatic shift in the discussion. Subsequently, she articulated the developments within feminist hermeneutics and the issues thereby raised within that dialogue. Then she proceeded to focus on key hermeneutical issues within the discussion of Pauline studies itself with respect to epistemology, contradictions in Pauline writings, Jewish hermeneutics of the Second Temple period, and feminist methodological issues. It is worthy to note that her text represents the publication of her PhD dissertation submitted to the University of Wales in 2002 (ix).

Her thesis essentially flows from the conviction that a consideration of the developments in Pauline studies and post-Shoah theology placed in dialogue with feminist hermeneutics offers new insights into the discussion of Paul (1). Also, there is no little significance to the fact that methodology and hermeneutical facets dominate her argument for more than half of her text (i.e. 122 of 202 pages).  Ehrensperger evidences her exceptional facility with the various ideological/methodological concerns which she attempts to place in dialogue. First, she traces the dominance of rationality flowing forth from the Enlightenment period and illustrates how such an approach, initially liberative, soon became a dominant, unilateral hegemonic approach that sought to essentially control understanding of Pauline literature through Western, patriarchal epistemic presuppositions. Moreover, her discussion helps to frame the historical development, from a hermeneutical perspective, from interpreting the text into the actual events of the holocaust. For Ehrensperger, the consequences of Shoah demarcate the realization of concrete realities resultant from the theological constructs predicated upon a supercessionist reading of Paul and Christianity. What is more, Ehrensperger illustrates well how early feminist hermeneutics simply took on, part and parcel, the program of dominant Western hegemonic notions relative to perceiving Pauline literature as anti-Jewish. Within this evolving constellation of thought regarding Paul, Ehrensperger then articulated the overtures toward the New Perspective in Pauline studies finding its genesis in Schweitzer and continuing forth through the work of Stendahl and Sanders.

Her discussion continued to probe methodological issues in the Pauline discussion especially with respect to epistemology and the construction of reality by individuals in different parts of the world, from various gender perspectives, and so on. Her work, effectively, in my estimation, describes the multifarious issues relative to Pauline studies. A most noteworthy aspect of her discussion, to me, was found in her close attention paid to the history of ideas with respect to epistemology and the influences of Hellenism and Aristotelian modes of thought. She also showed a self-conscious critique of feminist approaches in their historical developments. A further aspect of significance was seen in her handling, not only of the Hellenistic influence upon the discussion and later dominance of rationalism, but also in her sympathetic attention paid toward locating Pauline criticism within Second Temple Judaism, the historical events relevant to such, and the hermeneutical issues of the late Second Temple period (e.g. apocalypticism, rabbinic hermeneutics, etc.). Placing these issues in dialogue with feminist concerns was most enlightening. Here I am specifically commenting on her discussion and analysis of dominant paradigms within feminist theory—issues of the nature of identity, concerns of diversity, along with relationality and mutuality. These all served to frame her subsequent discussion of Paul in a very helpful way.

When the reader finally reaches the section on Paul, the discussion continues to, in a very real sense, simply rehash prior discussion, at times betraying a sort of irritating repetition without a great deal of new substance. Here again Ehrensperger describes the emergence of the New Perspective on Paul. However, she does posit the possibility of how a specific theory of duality may be fruitful in understanding Paul, rather than approaching the issue from a false binary. Here she follows the German scholar, Paul Mendes-Flohr in his German Jews: A Dual Identity, which articulates a modern sociological phenemena in which German Jews are influenced by a dual cultural location (129). This presents interesting possibilities to reframe Paul as neither anti-Jewish nor anti-Hellenistic, but rather existed in a socio-theoretical space that enabled him to move, with some dialectic tension, in a sort of in-between thought-world. If nothing else, this proposition is certainly interesting to consider.

Next, Ehrensperger critiques three dominant feminist readings of Paul in relation to Romans. Here she engages the following author’s readings’ of Romans: Elizabeth A. Castelli (Platonic Dualism), Elsa Tamez (Justification faith/law), and Rosemary Radford Reuther (Gnostic Dualism). In the final analysis, Ehrensperger finds that each author, albeit in different ways, capitulates, albeit unwittingly, to dominant malestream modes of analysis and fails to offer a “radical” enough break for constructing a feminist approach (168-9, 173, 175). Thus, she finally arrives at her constructive project in chapter six. Here Ehrensperger essentially analyzes specific passages in Roman’s in light of “Beyond the New Perspective” presuppositions (179). Here twodistinctive aspects arise, namely, universalism and particularism alongside mutuality and diversity. The most significant insight offered, to this reader, was found in her discussion of the “strong” and the “weak” whereas Ehrensperger identified that rather than understanding this debate along the lines of Paul instantiating that the “weaker” should become “stronger” thereby creating one universal essence to which all diversity must conform, she finds Paul expressing acceptance and diversity as normative within the Christian community, thereby encouraging both groups to mutually respect and appreciate the other in their difference. This, in my estimation, is a very provocative and most compelling reading. She draws out four central points that could employ Paul as a model for constructive feminist readings: (1) Paul’s theological “thinking” is particularly contextualized and dialogical in nature, (2) Paul’s faith is relational and thereby mutually respecting and accepting of diversity, (3) Paul maintains mutuality in relational understandings because of his perception of power among social groups, and (4) Paul stresses the need for diversity over sameness (189). As stated above, her argument is most compelling in that she seeks to locate her own thought as a self-conscious, self-critical feminist approach drawing on the New Perspective in Paul. Her style is clear, albeit somewhat repetitive, and evidences more of a reflective than polemic tone. My primary critique has little to do with the substance of her findings, but rather that the substance of the findings appear rather limited in scope. The text expended a great deal of energy in giving broad overviews of various issues, finally arrived at critiquing specific feminist readings, and offered very little in terms of application of her theory. Moreover, the textual discussion was somewhat limited in terms of actual exegesis, which was moderately discouraging to the reader eager to engage her feminist exegetical strategy.

Imperial Worship: Propaganda of the Neo-Imperial Cult

If this isn’t propaganda and systematic programming of the minds, well, I’m not sure what is…

What would the media say if this occurred under the Bush administration?

Euaggelion (Good News): A Savior was Born Today!

Dear Friends,

Today is September 23rd. A birthday of no little significance for it can be equated with the “beginning of all things.” Note the following, well known, inscription:

Paulus Fabius Maximus came up with the notion of changing the local lunar calendar with the solar reckoning of the Julian calendar, as it was used in Rome. This idea was proposed to the Provincial Assembly, responsible for emperor worship at the provincial level. He writes:

(It is hard to tell) whether the birthday of our most divine Caesar Augustus (ἡ τοῦ θειοτάτου Καίσαρος γενέυλιος ἡμέρα) spells more of joy or benefit, this being a date that we could probably without fear of contradiction equate with the beginning of all things (τῇ τῶν πάντων ἀρχῆι) …he restored stability, when everything was collapsing and falling into disarray, and gave a new look to the entire world that would have been most happy to accept its own ruin had not the good and common fortune of all been born, Caesar Augustus. (Lines 4–9)[1]

This letter prefaced the actual reply of the Assembly which is commonly referred to as the Priene calendar inscription (ca. 9 BCE):

[30] Decree of the Greek Assembly in the province of Asia, on motion of the High Priest Apolionios, son of Menophilos, of Aizanoi- WHEREAS Providence that orders all our lives has in her display of concern and generosity in our behalf adorned our lives with the highest good: Augustus, whom she has filled with arete [virtue] for the benefit of humanity, [35] and has in her beneficence granted us and those who will come after us [a Savior (σωτῆρα)] who has made war to cease and who shall put everything [in peaceful] order; and whereas Caesar, [when he was manifest], transcended the expectations of [all who had anticipated the good news], not only by surpassing the benefits conferred by his predecessors but by leaving no expectation of surpassing him to those who would come after him, [40] with the result that the birthday of our God (τοῦ θεοῦ) signaled (ἦρξεν δὲ τῶι κὀσμωι τῶι δι᾽ αὐτὸν εὐαγγελίων ἡ γενέυλιος ἡμέρα τοῦ θεοῦ) the beginning of Good News for the world because of him; . . . [47] . . . (proconsul Paul Fabius Maximus) has discovered a way to honor Augustus that was hitherto unknown among the Greeks, namely to reckon time from the date of his nativity; therefore, with the blessings of Good Fortune and for their own welfare, [50] the Greeks in Asia Decreed that the New Year begin for all the cities on September 23, which is the birthday of Augustus; and, to ensure that the dates coincide in every city, all documents are to carry both the Roman and the Greek date, and the first month shall, in accordance with the decree, be observed as the Month of Caesar, [55] beginning with 23 September, the birthday of Caesar.[1]

Furthermore, with regard to such a significant birthday, I would also like to remind you of Augustus’ divine birth, it is said, the god Apollo in the form of a snake, came upon Atia, his mother, and divinely bore him. Therefore, Augustus was thought to be both man and god while living, this notes a significant development in Roman imperial theology (cf. Suetonius, Lives of the Twelve Caesars, Life of Augustus 94.1-11; Cassius Dio also records this).

---

[1] Here the Enlish of the inscription has been taken from Danker whereas the Greek was supplemented from Dittenberger (OGIS): IPriene 105.30-56=OGIS 458.30-56; Frederick W. Danker, Benefactor: Epigraphic Study of a Graeco-Roman and New Testament Semantic Field (St. Louis, MO.: Clayton Pub. House, 1982), 217; W. Dittenberger (ed.), Orientis Graecae Inscriptiones Selectae (2 vols., Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1903-5; repr. Hildesheim: Olms, 1960) 2.48-60. In his commentary on this inscription Danker notes the many semantic parallels between these notions with regard to Caesar and the same terms with reference to Jesus in the New Testament (i.e. “savior, gospel,” and the notion of beneficence to the whole world) (220).

---

[1] Graham Stanton, Jesus and Gospel (Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 31

Apocalypticism: Foundational to Future NT Scholarship

I was quite pleased to read a salient point offered by Pat McCullough, namely, that apocalyptic scholarship is experiencing a resurgence, perhaps more than is presently felt within biblical studies. I concur wholeheartedly with such a judgment, not least of which is influenced my own passions and present study.

I would argue that without a firm grounding in Second Temple Jewish apocalypticism, a grip on the socio-political, that is, imperial (Assyrian, Babylonian, Median, Graeco-Roman) antecedents (in my view) to the rise of such apocalypticism, and an appreciation for the reality that NT writers negotiated an imperial world, often with goggles colored both by Rome and by Jewish heritage, not least of which is influenced by apocalyptic thought and sought to set Jesus within that swirling constellation, then one simply cannot probe, analyze, and make coherent the message (both linguistico-cognitively and performatively) of the NT.

P.S. Does anyone think my syntax in the above sentence reflects the cumbersome style of a German theological sentence?