Redeemed Rambling

Good Like A Medicine

2009-07-16T12:33:00.001-05:00

Old Wrestlers Never Die Redux

2009-07-13T13:03:00.003-05:00

Grats, Hendo!

Happy Birthday, John

2009-07-10T11:29:00.003-05:00

500 hundred years of biblical theology.

Theology 101 - What is Theology

2009-07-09T09:57:00.003-05:00

"Sanctify them in truth, Your Word is truth" - the prayer of Jesus Christ

Christian theology is ultimately about coming to know God's truth. God's truth is revealed in his word. But knowing God's truth is about more than head-knowledge; it is about working that truth out in your life. From this perspective, Christian theology demands two things of us. First, it demands knowledge - we are called upon to know the Word of God. Second, it demands submission - we are called upon to obey the Word of God. This is the two-pronged project of theology. This idea immediate weeds out two kinds of aberrant theology. Theology derived from philosophical discourse violates the first axiom; theology is not about creating truth, but coming to grips with God's already given truth. One thinks of Hegel, Pannenberg, and most all of liberal and neo-orthodox theology. Theology devoid of ethical demand violates the second axiom; theology is not about "head-knowledge", but about working God's truth our in our lives. One thinks of most all theologies written in the last 200 years. Theology is about sanctification and truth.

If we accept this, though, it has some implications for doing theology. A goal of comprehension and application of God's truth demands that we come to grip with the texts of Scripture. Kaiser and Silva call this aspect the "first horizon" of Biblical interpretation. The first task of theology is to ask what a given passage meant to its original readers in their context. People are often surprised to learn that this perhaps the easiest task of theology. In fact, millions of people across the globe have read the Bible from a translation, sometimes through two or more languages (English to Spanish to Aguaruno, etc.), and been convicted of God's truth - in an ethically measurable way, and historically verifiable as orthodox. Still, it is only through this study that we establish various parts of the text, especially idiom and genre, as well as grammatical (and sometimes argumentative) structure. It is only by examining the texts of Scripture that we can measure a theological claim. God's word is the only truth.

The "second horizon" of Biblical interpretation asks what a given passage means to the interpreter. For example, Deuteronomy meant something to its original readers that it does not mean to one under the New Covenant. This is the transitional step from "knowledge" to "application".

The "third horizon" asks what a given passage means to the people being taught. This is the contextualization of God's truth, and is probably the most difficult. It takes work, it requires knowledge of the people and their zeitgeist, and it is indispensable for the crucial outworking of God's truth. For example, a modern theology book, when dealing with the sanctity of life, would surely have to address the hideous sin of abortion, as well as stem cell research and capital punishment. One of the reasons that this is the most difficult aspect of theology is that it is most open to human ideas and error. Another reason it is difficult is that the interpreter may be tempted to ignore truth that has implications for his own sinful lifestyle - or even his vain tradition. Finally, this horizon is embedded in culture and history, and may become irrelevant quickly. One thinks of the Westminster Confession, and Ligon Duncan's recent work of updating it.

In conclusion, theology is a task of knowledge and humility. We must humbly come to God's truth, seek to understand it, then communicate ways of living that out in our lives.

Sonship and Obedience

2009-07-06T11:16:00.002-05:00

While teaching through Deuteronomy, I had to address 13:17-14:2, which is kind of like the whole book in a nutshell. In a sense, God is telling Israel that their actions and obedience are required to reflect their sonship to God, because God chose them out of all the peoples of the earth to be a treasured possession to Himself. This is kind of like a pro-sport draft. All the athletic college kids line up and wear their best monkey suit. "And with the first pick of the 2009 draft, God chooses..." some puny 13 year old illegal immigrant with asthma who stands 5' 2", and weighs 97 lbs. Not exactly orthodox. But that is essentially what God did - he didn't chose Israel because they were in any way superior to the nations around them. In fact, they were inferior. But this is how God gets the glory. And because of it, Israel is to reflect the glory of God, rather than the glory of the pagan nations surrounding them. Imagine if this newly drafted kid came out to the field wearing the other team's uniform. Imagine if he threw passes to the opposing defense and let them score. He wouldn't be reflecting the team that drafted them - he would be playing for the wrong team! And he would shortly be traded. In the same way, Israel was expected to act a certain way in order to "be on God's team". I think there are many parallels with our New Covenant. We are not saved by the works of the law, nor are we expected to keep them. However, we are expected to behave in a manner that reflects God's glory - to love God with all our being and to love our neighbor as ourself. We are on God's team.

Are You Postmodern?

2009-07-04T10:53:00.002-05:00

If you answered no, you are wrong. You see, it is not merely that post-modern ideas are being taught in universities and that we have the capability of ascribing to or rejecting these ideas. Post-modernism is the normative philosophy in American culture. And so, while you may not want to be a post-modern you are. Everything from TV to Walmart is post-modern, and administered from a post-modern position. This calls for wisdom - while we may not ascribe to post-modern philosophies, we are immersed in a culture that does. While we speak one thing, we are very likely living another. What does this say about ministry and Christian living?

The Whole Counsel of God

2009-06-23T10:58:00.002-05:00

It has been a while since I have been this excited about a book, but The Whole Counsel of God looks like it could vie for book-of-the-century award. Preview available in PDF, here.

From the publisher:

Richard Gamble offers a comprehensive theology attuned to the methodological advantages of biblical theology combined with the strengths of historical and systematic theology. Drawing on the best work in these disciplines throughout church history, he leads us in an integrated pursuit of the whole counsel of God.

This volume, the first of three, recounts God's mighty acts in the Old Testament, disclosing the theology of the Old Testament within the progressive and historical development of the Bible. It contains a survey of the entire Old Testament with discussions of many diverse topics.

This volume, the first of three, recounts God's mighty acts in the Old Testament. It discloses the theology of the Old Testament within the organic, progressive, historical development of the Bible. Gamble blends a survey of the entire Old Testament with discussions of topics as diverse as the canon, days of creation, faith and reason, covenants, the Ten Commandments, Old Testament ecclesiology, the nature of God, justification, and Old Testament apologetics.

864 Pages

Endorsements:

"My colleague Richard Gamble has begun a very comprehensive theological project, embracing the disciplines of biblical theology, historical theology, and systematic theology. Nothing comparable in scope has been done in the last hundred years, within the circles of Reformed orthodoxy. Knowing Rick, and having read some of the first volume, I'm convinced that he is the man to do this job. With a doctorate from the University of Basel and an international reputation as a Calvin scholar, Rick has a formidable grasp of theological issues. His theological convictions are thoroughly biblical and Reformed. He's also a humble man of God who can write winsomely to the hearts of many sorts of readers. I hope this series has wide distribution and great influence in this time of theological confusion."
- John Frame, Reformed Theological Seminary

"Very few people living today are as capable as Richard Gamble at grasping and expressing the theology of the entire Bible. His work represents decades of reflection on interpretive issues that have perplexed scholars for over a century. He bridges the gap so many have identified between traditional systematic theology and biblical theology. He devotes himself in helpful ways to the unity and diversity of biblical revelation. Yet, throughout this work, he penetrates beyond scholarly concerns to life issues that every believer faces. I highly recommend this book. You will be glad you read it.
- Richard L. Pratt, Jr. Adjunct Professor, Reformed Theological Seminary, President, Third Millennium Ministries

"A ground-breaking piece of biblical scholarship. Modern theological scholars tend to specialize in a specific field . . . [and] tend to be unfamiliar and uncomfortable delving into other spheres of theology. Therefore, modern theologians generally do not produce comprehensive or integrated works on theology ... [and] and tend to be unfamiliar and uncomfortable delving into other spheres of theology ... Dr. Gamble's work is pioneering in that it is an attempt at integrating the major theological disciplines. . . .

Gamble has no theological axe to grind; rather, his goal is to be faithful to the Word of God. His efforts in this regard are not only commendable, but truly enriching. This volume, and this set, will be a must-have for Reformed pastors and many others."
- Anthony Selvagio, Reformed Presbyterian Witness

The Fear of Man is a Snare

2009-06-22T11:51:00.003-05:00

Some great lessons for pastors and elders on video from the Advance conferrence. Mark Driscoll's exhortation on "What is the Church?" is especially needed. Simple, but needed. Highly recommended.

Death by Entertainment

2009-06-19T12:27:00.003-05:00

My recently Rhodes-nominated little brother, Nate, is by far the best fiction writer I have ever read, and that is saying a lot coming from a guy who owns over 1,000 books. In a recent unpublished short story, he writes about a young man who is doing bad things - and he mentions in passing that the young man uses TV, DVDs, video games, and internet to distract himself from his hellish reality. The comment is made in passing in the story, but subtley side-swipes all of us in America. Here is my exhortation: stop the entertainment. You are distracting yourself from the evil all around you and in your life. Spend some real time actually interacting with people and helping them. Read a good book - James would be a good start. Feed the poor. Preach the gospel. Most of all, stop wasting your life by titilating your mind with visual sensory input.

Bible Arcing and N.T. Wright

2009-06-18T11:55:00.004-05:00

For those of you unaware, Piper uses "Bible Arcing" to trace the argument of Biblical authors (use an online version here). This method is very similar to the structure diagramming I practice in school, and is quite useful, although obviously limited by genre. So, I took Wright's arguments from Justification, and used this model to see if Paul is saying what Wright is saying. I came to several conclusions.
(1) Wright's work would be much, much more helpful if he included diagramming, syntax, and literary context to his writings. He makes many authoritative statements about what the text says, sans proof.

(2) When a person (such as myself) takes the time to use various exegetical tools and examine the Pauline corpus, one finds that Wright's claims are simply untenable.

(3) Even presuming Wright's peripheral arguments does not change the grammatical/syntactical structure of Paul's writings.

(4) However, it became equally obvious that many of the constructs we throw about are not Paul's argument, but contextualized understandings of Paul's arguments.

Now, I imagine what most of you are thinking at this juncture is something like "so, who exactly are you?" I am not the Bishop of Durham. I am not an Oxford guy. But I have taken advanced Koine, and can read and write with anyone, English or Greek. If you wil look at what Paul wrote, and trace his argumentative construct, there is no way that you can ever come to the "New Perspective". Sorry to be so dogmatic on this one, but the text is the text. (Note to serial blog-commenters: I am not a Wright-hater. In fact, I enjoyed Justification thoroughly. But in his understanding of justification, he is dead wrong. So please, no "you misunderstood, blah blah, comments. Also, no "Have you read ... by Wright?" comments, pls.)

Doing Versus Wishful Thinking

2009-06-18T11:41:00.004-05:00

Andrew Peach (associate professor of philosophy at Providence College, R.I.) has an excellent article on the demise of fatherhood. A thoughtful piece, to be sure, but it got me thinking on a slightly more abstracted level. The issue Peach is addressing seems to be, in many ways, the attitude of this generation that wishful thinking trumps doing. Let me put it differently. Some men wishfully think that they can have the benefits of marriage without the responsibilities. They choose to live their life in light of this self-defined utopia and ignore what they are actually doing. So a guy who fulfills his sexual desire apart from God's prescribed methods is said to be "making a booty call" instead of "fornicating". He is meeting his "man needs" instead of taking advantage of a woman, impregnating her, taking away much of her ability to provide for herself, creating a new life and abandoning it, placing an incredible strain upon the fabric of society, ad nauseum. At this point, we could branch off into a philosophical discussion about the difference between individual libertinism and community, but instead of pointless musings on the perspectival nature of reality's perception, I would like to make a simple but profoundly Christian observation. All of the sorrow mentioned above is the result of the warped, deceptive, self-centered nature of sin. Are we living lives that fulfill our own self-aggrandizing delusions, or are we living lives that fulfill the "perfect law of liberty" by living selflessly as Christ's slave? Just a thought.

The Shame of Apathy

2009-06-15T14:47:00.002-05:00

I was flipping the channels this afternoon as I ate lunch, hoping that PBS had something interesting on, when I came across a show that I had never seen before. I am not sure of the name of the show, but it consisted of an old white guy interviewing a young black woman. The woman had a few-months-old baby girl, and no husband to provide for her. In fact, the woman wasn't sure if the baby was the result of the four men she had slept with, or the last time she had been raped. Apparently, the plot of the show was to use a genetics test to determine who the father of the baby was. I was absolutely shocked by this show. I was shocked for several reasons. First, this poor woman was being publicly humiliated on what amounts to a game show revealing the most intimate details of her life. This included revealing that she had been raped to a room full of strangers (studio audience). There was not even a hint of compassion. Later, the woman's recent partner was paraded into the room to confront "his woman", and did a little victory dance when it was discovered that he was not in fact the father. What pathetic shamelessness. Not a single person in the room cared about that woman, her sin, or her child. I couldn't help but think of the woman caught in adultery. But this crowd was even worse! They weren't forgiving, helping, or healing - nor were they throwing stones. They simply feeding their depraved lust for perverted entertainment. And the host, the show, and the TV station were all complicit. Making a public spectacle out of a woman and her sin for the sake of filthy lucre. What pathetic values we have! Oh yes, we have values. Values are just what we value. And in this case, we value smutty titillation rather than mercy, hope, and justice.

But you know what really bothered me? While this woman was indubitably a sinner, she had been serial victimized by worthless fellows who cared for nothing more than using her for sex. None of them made a covenant vow to love her unconditionally. Not a one married her or provided for her. At least one raped her. Another one impregnated her and abandoned her. And the man she was with, who clearly had no love for her at all, left her over the child. If he actually loved her, he would have taken care of the child and his unfaithful wife, ala Hosea. Even if he didn't love her, a decent human would have taken care of an innocent baby. It was absolutely pathetic.

This whole show (of which I admittedly only watched about five minutes) was disgusting. The whole program was dedicated to smashing this poor woman into the ground and parading sin and vice and worthlessness for a lousy buck. And Christians continue, apathetic to the damage and hurt caused by sin. May God preserve us from this kind of attitude. May we all have the mind of Christ, who freed the woman caught in adultery while commanding her to sin no more.

A Few More Thoughts on Wright on Justification

2009-06-13T12:23:00.002-05:00

Just got through reading this piece by Rick Phillips. The article is Phillips' reponse to N.T. Wright's book justification. Altogether, the article is unremarkable. It does, however, highlight one of the more frustrating elements of this discussion. The frustration is that by the term "present justification" Wright means something completely different than the WCF or Phillips, or so many others. One reason that articles like the one above are so boring is that they continuously play the same note: Wright's view is different than the confession(s). The why and how become irrelevant, because the point is so pointless. Wright's entire project is to demonstrate that the confessional understanding of Paul's use of the word justification is inacurate. So while Wright and Phillips share a homophonic marker (the vocalization represented by the symbol "justification"), that is all they share. What is rarely discussed (and what Phillips chooses to ignore altogether) is the text. Either Wright is correctly understanding the Pauline texts, or he is not. If not, then explain why. Otherwise, philosophical and theological speculation becomes irrelevant. Of course Wright doesn't agree with the WCF. But has the WCF got the text right? Aye, there's the rub.

Paul Tripp on Marriage

2009-06-12T13:31:00.002-05:00

Paul Tripp has a new DVD out, "What did You Expect: Redeeming the Realities of Marriage" Highly recommended!

Count it All Joy

2009-06-10T11:38:00.002-05:00

"Count int all joy, my brethren, when you meet trials of various kinds, for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness. And allow steadfastness to have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing." What a way to start a letter! James is obviously going somewhere with this, but notice the opening command: count all of our various trials as joy. Now, James is about to explain why we should, but by itself this command is pretty heavy. I mean, if we all joyed in trials, we wouldn't call them trials, duh! But James provides us with a proper perspective that allows us to joy in our various trials. The testing of our faith produces steadfastness. This word for testing doesn't mean "testing" like "tempting", but rather "testing" like "proving". When metalworkers used to create Samurai armor in the Ido period, they would test the armor by firing an arrow at it. This would prove to the armorer and customer alike that the armor was real. In the same way, the genuineness of our faith is only proved through trials of various kinds. When we respond to trials in the fruit of the Holy Spirit, we exhibit the genuineness of our faith. And this produces steadfastness. When the Samurai armor was tested, the armorer always fired at the front of the armor. This was so that any dent or mark of war would be on the front and not the back - because only cowards turn and run. But after that first arrow was deflected, the warrior who donned the armor could have the confidence to stand and not run. He knew his armor was capable of taking a serious blow. In the same way, the testing of our faith allows us to stand and not run. We can be steadfast, having experienced the reality of our faith in the midst of trials. And steadfastness, James reminds us, should be allowed to have its full effect. The full effect of steadfastness is to complete or perfect our faith. You see, real faith works. If you say you have faith, but do not have steadfastness, you don't have real faith. Later on, James will tell us that Abraham was justified by his works. His point is that Abraham's faith (which was reckoned as righteousness) was only proven when Abraham offered his son Isaac. His works demonstrated the genuineness of his faith. So James' command for joy here really makes a lot of sense. He is telling us to don our armor with joy - trials are where the rubber meets the road. A Samurai warrior loved his armor and cared for it in peacetime, but it was created for war! Only when the warrior was riding into battle did the armor really do its job. So be joyful when you face trials - it is the only way to complete and perfect your faith.

Why I Love Evolution

2009-06-08T02:11:00.003-05:00

I love evolution. Oh, I dearly love it! It makes Christian apologetics so easy. Donald Paige of Princeton's Institute for Advanced Science has calculated that the odds of the universe evolving in such a way to support human life as 1 in 1,000,000,000¹²⁴. That is not a typo. This number is so large that it cannot even be contained by the largest comparitive we have - the universe. Fred Hoyle and N.C. Wickramsinghe have calculated that the odds of any enzyme forming from amino acids anywhere on the earth's surface as 1 in 10²⁰. But since there are about 2,000 enzymes, the odds of all of them being formed anywhere on the planet's surface is about 1 in 10^40,000, a probability so small that it "could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup." If evolution is an acurate account of our origins it screams for God. To reject a directive purpose overcoming these odds is to reject the sciences of probability and chaos theory. Which is one reason why I don't have enough blind faith to be an atheist.

Proverbs 16:8

2009-06-06T09:49:00.001-05:00

HT: Andy Nasselli

New Redeemer Website Launched

2009-06-04T13:35:00.002-05:00

Baptist Church of the Redeemer has a new website up. Kudos to all involved. Join us this Sunday for God-glorifying worship!

Unbelievable Statistics

2009-06-04T12:52:00.002-05:00

What fraction of a woman's childbearing years are spent trying to not get pregnant?
Three-fourths!
What is the most common form of birth control?
Surgical sterilization!

Unbelievable stats for an unbalievably lazy and selfish generation.

James on the Christian Life

2009-06-04T11:26:00.003-05:00

As I gear up to preach James 2:14-26 this August, I want to be careful not to give my sermon away too early. But truthfully, this little book is dynamite, and I am really excited about sharing out of it. There are two themes that run parallel throughout James - the evidence of our faith and the dangers of wealth. In our fat, lazy, unmotivated, selfish, narcissistic, wasteful, blind, dumb society, we not only ignore the dangers of wealth, we pursue it! Notice how affluence has become a curse to the people James is writting to. Wealth has created false pride (1:9-11), and the wealthy have forgotten that all their spleandor will be lost in a moment. Wealth has created a sycophantic desire to cater to the physically wealthy in corporate worship, while humiliating the poor2:1-13)! This has turned these believers into JUDGES WITH EVIL THOUGHTS. That is pretty damning statement. Not only that, but this is borne by a desire to be associated with the wealthy. What a contradiction! It is the wealthy who oppress the believer. The wealthy drag believers into court and blaspheme God. When was the last time that huffer on the corner of 2nd and Bissonet opressed a Christian? Instead, by showing partiality, these Christians are committing the sin of partiality, and have become transgressors. Furthermore, this is the result of jealousy and selfish ambition (3:14-16) which has led to disharmony and every vile practice! Discusting! What does this look like? "You desire and do not have, so you murder. You covet and cannot obtain, so you fight and quarrel." (4:2). James' response? "ADULTEROUS PEOPLE! Do you not know that friendship with the world is ENMITY with God?" James compares this kind of action with a spouse who rejects their marriage covenent to go a-whoring after other peeps. Again, disgusting! In fact, these people are so proud that they make financial plans long into the future, speaking boastfully of their investment goals (4:13-17). I can see them all now, gathered at the local coffee shop talking loudly about their portfolios and their coming business trip to Damascus. How absurd. James calls this evil, arrogant boasting. James follows this up with a curse upon the wealthy (5:1-6)! The wealthy are cursed because they have stored up treasure in this life, and it will all be corrupted. The corrosion of their precious metals will burn their flesh like fire. I get this picture of these folks in hell, surounded by heaps of their burning treasure-junk. James damns them for keeping back wages, for taking advantage of the poor to live in luxury and self indulgence. What does he call this? Fattening your heart for the day of slaughter! Ouch. So the next time you go to Walmart to purchase 400 thread-count sheets for your king-sized bed (made by slaves in China) think about this verse. Wealth kills. It makes arrogant, leads to oppression, evil thoughts, wickedness and blasphemy. What are you pursuing?

Book Review: N.T. Wright on Justification

2009-06-03T11:48:00.002-05:00

Wright, N.T. Justification: God's Plan and Paul's Vision. Downer's Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2009.

Introduction
Justification by N.T. Wright is concise presentation of how Bishop Wright's "New Perspective" interprets the Pauline concept of Justification. Of course, the obvious question at this point is "who cares?" Wright's book is far more than the latest salvo in an ongoing gentleman's game of theological tiddlywinks. It represents a theologically coherent alternative to the traditional reformed perspective on Justification, particularly in the Pauline corpus. For those readers unaware of Bishop Wright or the current conversation, let me introduce him. Nicholas Thomas "N.T." Wright is the Bishop of Durham in the Church of England and is a world-renowned New Testament scholar. He has a Ph.D. from Oxford, and is generally considered an open evangelical. He has written a gazillion books and articles. Seriously. At least 30 volumes are worth reading, including seven volumes entitled "Paul for Everyone". But what about this book and the "discussion" about justification? Essentially, this book is written in response to Piper's book "The Future of Justification: a Response to N.T. Wright". The two have been trading academic blows for a while, albeit with the reserve and dignity usually attributed to the Irish. Marquis of Queensbury rules. In this volume, then, Wright pulls together all the threads of his Pauline studies to present a "topical" argument - what does Paul have to say about justification.

Body
The importance of this book and topic can not be understated. Justification, in the "law-court" sense in which Paul uses it, is how a believer is justified before God. This is central to the gospel. It is no wonder then that two men who are so close theologically would bother to discuss such a topic so briskly. Our very Christian identity is to be found in this topic.

Wright lays out his argument as follows:
(1) The gospel is about the meta-narrative of God's single-plan-for-the-world-through-Israel.

(2) Israel failed in this regard, but even if it had succeeded its success would have alienated the gentiles, thus negating the "for-the-world" part.

(3) Jesus, the Ultimate Jew, fulfilled the covenant, the Torah, and the prophets by his death and resurrection.

(4) Thus, all those who believe, both Jew and Gentile, are included "in Messiah" and will be saved at the second coming.

(5) Justification is when God looks at Jesus and declares him to be in the right, and by extension all who are "in the Messiah" to be in the right.

(6) Wright denies the imputation of Christ's righteousness in the sense of "crediting Christ's obedience to our account".

(7) Our justification carries certain obligations, and the by fulfilling these obligations we demonstrate our faith.

(8)In the final judgement, we will be judges by the sum total of our works. These will demonstrate if we truly belong to the people of the Messiah.

It should not, however, be assumed that Wright's position is so very far from a traditional Reformed position (ala Piper's). First, Wright believes that we are justified by faith - but this justification is being "declared in the right" only, rather than also including the imputation of Christ's righteousness. Second, he sees our salvation as being assured because of the faithfulness of Jesus' obedience, rather than our faith or works. Finally, he admits (somewhat grudgingly) that being "in Christ" accomplishes (or says) the same thing as "imputed righteousness". The hypothetical construct of a spiritual account that has morality ("righteousness") either debited or credited is replaced by "being accepted in the beloved". All of these ideas are presented in relation to a large picture of God redeeming a people - and indeed all of creation - to Himself, as opposed to the individualistic perspective usually assumed by theologians discussing justification.

Evaluation
There are several strong points in Wright's work. Indeed, my own theology and faith were greatly strengthened by reading this book. First, the emphasis on God's single plan for all people - and our inclusion in it - is one of the greatest strengths of Wright's argument. This perspective, which flows naturally from an analogical reading of Scripture, does away with so many of the pesky and counter-Biblical ideas of God's children divided by birth, ethnicity, etc. (I will not make a crack about dispensationalism here. I will not make a crack about dispensationalism here. I will not make a crack about dispensationalism here. I will not...) Also, Wright's emphasis on the importance of good works in this life and their role in our future judgement is important! All of the apostles stress our works as evidence of our salvation, and Wright is correct to note that for many evangelicals this notion has been swept under the rug (a point which Piper concedes in "The Future of Justification". However, no one could ever accuse Piper of de-emphasizing works).

My major problems with Wright's work are as follows:
First, I question a hermeneutical model that interprets Galatians, Ephesians, and Corinthians first, then uses them to understand Romans. I remain unconvinced that Paul's writings are so devoid of context as to be interchangeable throughout his letters (I readily admit that Wright is in a far better position to be able to gauge such a thing, but still). I am more likely to build a circular hermeneutic, using these letters to inform each other and vice versa. But even if a foundationalist approach to these writings is legitimate, it seems it would make more sense to approach Romans first. Romans is, after all, the "Locus Classicus" for justification, and for good reason. Wright wants to appeal to a Second Temple context for interpretation, but that would entail the Talmudic tradition of interpreting the lesser texts in light of the greater. So I cannot really see how Wright's approach is satisfactory.

Second, it seems as if Wright is frequently attacking a straw man in this book. He speaks scornfully at times against a medieval tradition that views a lack of good deeds in our "spiritual bank account" as being filled up with Christ's perfection. I am not sure if Wright realizes that this model is designed as a metaphor. We all fall short of God's glory, and it is only through Christ's perfection that we can approach a perfect God.

Third, to my mind Wright fails completely to deal with 2 Cor. 5:21. Wright presents a long argument about how this is really talking about Paul's apostleship, and concludes that "becoming the righteousness of God" refers to embodying God's covenant faithfulness in the apostolic ministry. I find this conclusion almost non sequiter, and certainly disappointing.

Finally, while Wright builds his case for a justification that does not include imputation, he has failed to discuss whether or not this actually affects the doctrine of imputation. Perhaps for Paul "justification" is a highly nuanced academic term with a vey narrow interpretation. This may bar imputation from being included in the definition of justification, but it does not disallow imputation as a doctrine altogether. In a way, Wright's work sometimes seems like a symantical argument, especially when we see just how close Wright and Piper are on the map of world Christianity.

Conclusion
In the end, this book is sure to be a blessing to all who read it. Wright has reminded me of some of the great themes of salvation and redemption, and his passionate writing has spurred a renewed interest in my own heart in the great plan of God for the ages. Wright has certainly influenced my perspectives on these matters, but in the end I do not see him present a compelling argument for jettisoning imputation. Even if I did, it seems as if he "sneaks it in the back door" through our solidarity with the Messiah.

Exegetical notes
For those who understand original languages, much of this conversation revolves around tsedekah yhwh and dikaiosune theou. I have never understood how Piper can understand the two as referring to God's passion for His own glory. This seems like voodoo exegesis to me. By the same token, Wright's handling of 2 Cor. 5:21 seems like voodoo exegesis as well. Wright admits many times that both Old and New perspectives collide throughout Scripture, and in the end calls for perhaps a new new perspective altogether. I believe this demonstrates how both models can be reductionistic at times.

To My Wife

2009-06-01T15:24:00.002-05:00

I love you!
I have such feelings of longing and desire that I must let them out.
I long to be with you, but mostly I long to serve you.
I desire to be with you, but mostly I desire to enjoy your affection.

What benefit should I gain to merely be in your presence,
if not to show my love through acts of kindness?
What should I gain myself to be by your side and yet
not share the bonds of mutual affection?

Love is that mysterious force of human heart which turns
selfishness on its ear and works itself out through deeds of kindness.

What a joy to serve you!
You are the Mystery of Woman that I have so long desired.
My heart cries out for you; my soul is knit to you.
To be apart from you - that is not the agony.
To be unable to serve you, that is the pain!

What grotesquery would posses a man to shut up the
wife of his youth in a glass box, thereby to preserve her image infinitely?
A purely selfish one, I think.
While it may tickle the ego of man to thus posses beauty -
While it may in some subverted noble way serve as a beauty that he may
observe at his whim,
it is not love.

You are the center of my love, and not I.
I love you.

John Piper on Twitter

2009-05-29T12:11:00.002-05:00

"Don't tweet while having sex."
One of my all-time fav Piper quotes. His point though is in regards to tweeting during church. If you are aghast at the idea of tweeting during your most intimate times with your spouse, why would you tweet during your wost intimate times of worship? For that matter, why would you even bring your cell phone (after having "Sweet Emotion" belt out from the second row not once but twice during the same church service, I have learned to leave mine in the car), your incognito bag of cheerios that you furtively nibble from when no one is looking, or (I am not making this up) fold your arms and go to sleep.
"Don't tweet while having sex."

Forever Eyes

2009-05-28T12:46:00.002-05:00

Perhaps as a child you got a lucky box of Sugar Frosted Chocolate Bombs^© cereal with the Magic Spy Glasses^® toy surprise inside. They were just flimsy cardboard with red-tinted celophane lenses, but when you put them on, all the red hash marks on the secret message disappeared, and you could see the blue writing beneath. Cooler than James Bond in tub full of champagne ice. It's just a toy, but it serves up an important metaphor. When you put the glasses on, it screens out all the irrelevant noise, letting you see the true message. This may be what James had in mind when he penned his letter. Notice Js. 2:1-5:

"My brothers, show no partiality as you hold the faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory. For if a man wearing a gold ring and fine clothing comes into your assembly, and a poor man in shabby clothing also comes in, and if you pay attention to the one who wears the fine clothing and say, "You sit here in a good place," while you say to the poor man, "You stand over there," or, "Sit down at my feet,"have you not then made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts? Listen, my beloved brothers, has not God chosen those who are poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom, which he has promised to those who love him?"

When I read this, I am offended that Christians would ever act this way. I mean, isn't it antithetical to Christianity to treat people this way? Well, James is addressing a specific problem, but it reveals a common error and universal solution. The error is a life that does not match our confession. James goes to great lengths to emphasize that our works need to be in line with our faith. The universal solution is a vision of life that sees things in light of spiritual truth. Just like the Magic Spy Glasses^®, a proper vision of reality screens out the irrelevant noise and lets us see the truth beneath it. The truth is, everyone who is accepted in the beloved - all those who are forgiven in Christ - are spiritually wealthy beyond our wildest dreams. They may inherit suffering in this life, but they will inherit God's own glory in the next. They are rich in faith, and will inherit the kingdom of God! How foolish to focus on the red hash marks of their social status. Put on your glasses and see them for who they really are in Christ. This is why James tells the poor to be lifted up in the expectation of their future exaltation. It is also why he tells the rich to weep and mourn and be humbled, because all the irrelevant noise of this world will be stripped from them at death, revealing whether they are rich or poor in Christ.
The way I see it, there are two main pitfalls for modern Christians as far as this goes. The first is, we may be raising up a generation of thoughtful, nice, socially active believers who comfort the poor and give them stuff. This is not wrong, but it is missing the crucial ingredient - the proper vision! James commends helping the poor, but in the end, it is spiritual impoverishment which is the tragedy. If we do not have forever eyes, all our help and hope will be temporal. What a tragedy. The other pitfall is that we will read these verses and think that we already have the right vision and that these verses really don't apply to us. We never tell people where to sit in church. Fool! In your heart you despise other ethnicities because of their speech, or dress, or the size of the rims on their autos. You think you have the right vision, but you are hopelessly distracted by irreleveant noise. Put your glasses on! The challenge to us all is to have a vision of reality that truly understands God's truth and plan - and to live it out in our lives.

Malcolm Muggeridge on the Self-Suicide of the West

2009-05-28T11:59:00.002-05:00

Stolen blatantly from JT's blog. But this little gem is too good to pass up. FYI if you are into literature, I highly recommend Muggeridge. The dude could write.

Malcom Muggeridge:
. . . [I]t has become abundantly clear in the second half of the twentieth century that Western Man has decided to abolish himself. Having wearied of the struggle to be himself, he has created
his own boredom out of his own affluence,
his own impotence out of his own erotomania,
his own vulnerability out of his own strength;
himself blowing the trumpet that brings the walls of his own city tumbling down, and, in a process of auto-genocide, convincing himself that he is too numerous, and labouring accordingly with pill and scalpel and syringe to make himself fewer in order to be an easier prey for his enemies; until at last, having educated himself into imbecility, and polluted and drugged himself into stupefaction, he keels over a weary, battered old brontosaurus and becomes extinct.

Malcome Muggeride, from his essay "Jesus: The Man Who Lives," in Seeing Through the Eye: Malcolm Muggeridge on Faith, ed. Cecil Kuhne (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2005), 16.