The Story Behind My Books: Book #1 (Worship That Makes Sense to Paul)
Why I Wrote Them, What I'm Proud of, What I Would Change
**New Substack Series**
I am kicking off a new series (inspired by Mike Bird’s Substack series on his previous work): “The Story Behind My Books” (2010-2025). Fifteen years is a good time for a rear-view mirror perspective. The general discussion of a book will be free for everyone, but when I get into what I think I might have done wrong or what I might change now, I provide for paid subscribers only. I don’t tend to dwell on regrets, but I will have something to say for most books.
Book #1: Worship That Makes Sense to Paul
I finished my PhD at Durham University in 2009. I knew I wanted to publish the monograph right away, I didn’t want to make many changes, and I wanted to move on to other subjects. I was proud of the work I did, but I knew it wasn’t going to revolutionize scholarship. I needed to demonstrate fresh thinking and punch my ticket as a scholar.
When it came to choosing a publisher, I had in mind places where many of my friends and other like-minded scholars put out their work. A few years ahead of me were Joel Willitts, Kavin Rowe, and Joey Dodson—all of whom published with German press Walter de Gruyer, and their BZNW series was highly acclaimed in Europe. I decided to go with BZNW partly because Jimmy Dunn was on the editorial board and told me to go with them and partly because they required no major changes from PhD thesis to monograph. I could just submit it and be done with it.
From time to time, folks will ask me if my monograph is worth reading. It is technical and focused on metaphor theory and Paul’s use of cultic imagery. It’s a narrow subject and not too many scholars would be naturally interested in this, certainly not enough to justify a $167 price tag! But I am proud of finishing the PhD and getting the monograph published with a respected series in my field. It’s not a great monograph, it’s not a terrible monograph, it is so-so and “good enough” for me!
One thing that has stuck with me from my dissertation work: the importance of metaphors for how Paul both thought and communicated. Paul didn’t conceptualize the gospel in terms of our theological categories (like “ecclesiology,” “pneumatology,” “eschatology”); he thought in terms of dominant metaphors like family, growth, being a temple or sacrifice devoted to God, etc. You can see from my ongoing work how much I take time to reflect on and unpack these key theological metaphors.
Do I have any regrets or would I make changes?
Fifteen years later, I know that I am a much better researcher and writer now, so I can see how much I had to learn…