Considering Total Church

I’ve come across Total Church: A Radical Reshaping around Gospel and Community via the internet.  A growing number of church planters are utilizing the concept.  Steve Timmis, one of the authors of the book, is the new director of Acts 29 Europe.  The San Diego Church Planters’ Boot Camp, hosted by Kaleo, was on Total Church.  I’ve begun to listen, and just borrowed the book from a friend.

The concept is intriguing to me.  The church is a gospel-formed community of people being gospel-shaped.  They have a community-centered understanding of the gospel, which runs counter to the individualistic mindset of most Christians and churches today.  I’d like to consider the relationship between the gospel, community and mission more thoroughly.  It seems less like the “latest, greatest program” or method, but an attempt to return to the power of the gospel, and the emphases of the gospel.

Here is an interview with Tim Chester on Desiring God Ministries blog:

DG: Tim, what do you and Steve Timmis mean by the title Total Church?

Tim Chester: The phrase is actually adapted from the world of football (or soccer in the States!). “Total football” was a style of play associated with the Dutch international side in the 1970s.

“Total church” is our way of capturing the idea that church is not one activity in our lives. Church isn’t a meeting you attend or a building your enter. It’s our identity, our community, our family.  It’s the context for the totality of the Christian life.

DG: How would you summarize the message of the book?

TC: Total Church argues for two core principles: We need to be gospel-centered and community-centered.

Being gospel-centered means we’re word-centered (because the gospel is a message; it is good news), and it means being mission-centered (because the gospel is a message to be proclaimed; it is good news).

I think most conservative evangelicals are strong on this. But we also need to be community-centered. The Christian community is the biblical context for evangelism, discipleship, pastoral care, social involvement, and so on. That doesn’t mean meetings. It means the shared life of the community.

One of our catchphrases is “ordinary people living ordinary life with gospel intentionality.” It means doing the chores, having meals, watching sports, and so on with an intention to talk about Jesus, to pastor one another with the gospel, and to share that gospel with unbelievers.

DG: At several points in the book, you mention the value of hospitality. Do you see this virtue as lacking in the church today, and is there is an especially significant need for it in the 21st-century church?

TC: Here’s what I think is the key issue. In the book, we tell the story of a young man who invited us to do some street preaching with him. When we said it wasn’t really the way we did things, he clearly doubted our courage and commitment.

We began to talk instead about a whole life lived in mission and community, in which we were always looking to build relationships and always looking to talk about Jesus. By the end of the conversation, he admitted he wasn’t sure if he was up for that.

He wanted evangelism you could do for two hours on a Saturday afternoon and then switch off. Tick. Job done for the week. He didn’t want a missional lifestyle.

I think that’s the issue with hospitality. People want to put church and evangelism into a slot in the schedule. But we need to be sharing our lives with others—with shared meals and open homes. That can be demanding, but it’s also wonderfully enriching.

Read Full Post »

Considering Straw Men

Polemical Theology, whether in written or verbal form, can quickly descend into some ungodly places.  Name calling, anger and refusing to listen to what another actually says are evidence of a lack of love.

Another form of “unfair” dispute is the use of the straw man argument.  Here is a good, quick definition:

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position. To “attack a straw man” is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the “straw man”), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

You can tell that Dr. Roger Nicole & J.I. Packer are such good friends.  At times their counsel is so similar.  How to engage in theological debate is one such area.  Dr. Nicole told us to read our opponents, not only second hand sources, so we might truly understand their arguments.

Dr. Packer inserts this wonderful little sentence in the midst of Keep In Step With the Spirit:

“But all positions should be judged by their best exponents.”

He applies this to the various proponents of the views of sanctification.  It is unfair to argue against something by using either a straw man (which doesn’t exist) or its worst example.  You may win the argument, but you defeated a foe that either didn’t exist or rarely exists.  It would be like beating the Bad News Bears, yet claiming to be MLB World Series champions.

I see these arguments regularly in books by authors who should know better.  Sometimes these arguments are used by men who place themselves in the bounds of either Reformed Theology or Calvinistic soteriology (they embrace the 5 points but not a covenantal view of Scripture or other distinctives of Reformed theology).

For instance, one book I read argued against contemporary worship songs.  It did this on the basis of the worst examples of contemporary worship songs.  It brought up the most pathetic, insipid, meaningless songs as if they were representative of contemporary worship songs.  This author may have convinced many people he was right, but he never dealt with the real deal.  Missing were interaction with the contemporary hymns of Townend and Getty, the songs of Matt Redman or Chris Tomlin or any other songs that seek to communicate biblical theology (Sovereign Grace or Indelible Grace would be other examples).

Another highly respected author attacked the charismatic movement on the basis of its worst excesses.  There was no interaction with sane, thoughtful charismatics who share his Calvinistic views like John Piper, Wayne Grudem or C.J. Mahaney.  All were lumped in the same heretical basket, ready to be tossed out &  burned up.

We who understand the doctrines of grace should be more humble & loving in our disputation.  We should argument against real people holding real positions.  And the best representatives of that position- not the Single A or college team.

Read Full Post »

Considering Books on Justifcation

Since I’m preaching through Galatians, one of the topics or themes is justification: how we are in a right relationship with God.  It is the main idea of the letter since they had fallen prey to false teachers with hetero-gospels.

I thought it would be a good time to list my recommendations for books on the doctrine of justification.

Great Books I’ve Read:

The Doctrine of Justification by Jame Buchanan.  This is THE book any serious student of the doctrine must read.  I loved this book, and was challenged by this book.  He traces the history of the doctrine, then explains the doctrine.  There is plenty of historical data (keeping in mind it was originally published in 1867) that helps us gain some perspective on the current deviations from the biblical doctrine.  It is rather lengthy, and this may turn off some people.

Faith Alone: The Evangelical Doctrine of Justification by R.C. Sproul.  R.C. wrote this, in part, in response to Evangelicals and Catholics Together.  He saw that movement as undermining the heart of the gospel.  This is typical RC- good stuff written for average people.  He has a gift for making theology accessible to laypeople.

Justification By Faith Alone by Charles Hodge.  The old Princeton theologian tackles the subject thoroughly in this book.

The Future of Justification & Counted Righteous in Christ by John Piper interact with the current attacks on the historical Protestant understanding of justification by faith alone (but that is not alone).   Piper does a good job, and a fair job, but they are polemical theology.  He is disputing a matter.

Books I Hope to Read Someday:

The Doctrine of Justification by Faith by John Owen.  I’ve got this in my Works of John Owen volumes.  I’ll get there.  He can be a difficult read, but I find it immensely rewarding.  As the subtitle reads, he explains it, confirms it and vindicates it as only he can.

Justification: Understanding the Classic Reformed Doctrine by John Fesko.   A bit pricey, it also looks at the classic formulation of the doctrine in light of current challenges to the doctrine.

Justified in Christ: God’s Plan for Us in Justification edited by K. Scot Oliphint.  It contains chapters by Westminster professors past and present.

Justification by Francis Turretin.  This is edited from his Institutes of Elentcic Theology, which is very good.  It presents theology in a question and answer format.  He was one of the early Reformed “scholastics”.  Sproul highly recommended Turretin when his Eclentic Theology was finally reprinted by P&R.

Jesus’ Blood and Righteousness: Paul’s Theology of Imputation by Brian Vickers.  It covers both the imputation of our sin to Jesus, and His righteousness to us.

Christ, Our Righteousness: Paul’s Theology of Justification by Mark Seifrid.  This is part of the New Studies in Biblical Theology Series edited by D.A. Carson.  A bit academic, but focused on biblical theology.

Read Full Post »

Piper’s Finally Alive Available

Yes, John Piper has another new book out (I’m already behind).  It is called Finally Alive, and it explores the biblical doctrine of regeneration, being born again.  This is a much needed book since there is so much misunderstanding about what it means, and how it radically affects our lives.

You can look at sample pages.

Not sure about that cover.  Yeah, I know it is about the leaves blowing as a sign of the wind, and regeneration a sign of the Spirit’s work in our lives.  Still … unless you’re already biblically literate it’s lost on you.

Here is some more info from WTS Books:

“I cannot too strongly celebrate the publication of this book.” – D. A. Carson

Publisher’s Description: When Jesus said to Nicodemus, ‘You must be born again’, the devout and learned religious leader was unsure what Jesus meant. It would seem nothing has changed. Today ‘born again Christians’ fill churches that are seen as ineffectual at best, and even characterised by the ‘mosaic’ generation as ‘unchristian’.

The term ‘born again’ has been devalued both in society and in the church. Those claiming to be ‘born again’ live lives that are indistinguishable from those who don’t; they sin the same, embrace injustice the same, covert the same, do almost everything the same.

Being ‘born again’ is now defined by what people say they believe. The New Testament however defines Christians very differently.

“When Jesus said to Nicodemus, “You must be born again” (John 3:7), he was not sharing interesting and unimportant information. He was leading him to eternal life… If he does that for you (or if he already has), then you are (or you will be) truly, invincibly, finally alive.” (John Piper)

Read Full Post »

Considering Calvin and the Free Offer of the Gospel

One of the controversies that has sadly plagued those who embrace Calvin as one of the more astute and faithful theologians concerns the “free offer of the gospel.”  Some followers of Calvin, a minority of them, reject the free offer of the gospel.  They believe, erroneously, that the gospel is only to be offered to the elect.  While listening to a former PCA worship leader lament Calvinism at the recent John 3:16 Conference, he described this strain of Calvinism called hyper-Calvinism.

While preparing for last week’s sermon on Psalm 16, I didn’t find Calvin to be particularly helpful.  This is a rarity.  But he did say something that should set the record straight on what John himself believed Scripture to teach.

“It would be of no advantage to us for God to offer himself freely and graciously to us, if we did not receive him by faith, seeing he invites to himself both the reprobate and the elect in common; but the former, by their ingratitude, defraud themselves of this inestimatable blessing.  Let us, therefore, know that both these things proceed from the free liberality of God; first, his being our inheritance, and next, our coming to the possession of him by faith.  The counsel of which David makes mention is the inward illumination of the Holy Spirit, by which we are prevented from rejecting the salvation to which he calls us, which we would otherwise certainly do, considering the blindness of our flesh.  Whence we gather, that those who attribute to the free will of man the choice of accepting or rejecting the grace of God basely mangle that grace, and show as much ignorance as impiety.”

Calvin himself holds to the “free offer of the gospel” to all.  God truly offers Himself to the elect.  Notice how he phrases that- God offers Himself, not just salvation.  As John Piper noted in his book, God is the gospel.

Read Full Post »

Considering Books on Prayer

Steve McCoy did a Big 5 on Prayer. 

Here are some of my favorite books on prayer:

• Pray with Your Eyes Open by Richard Pratt.  A great book by one of my professors that helps you to utilize Scripture in expanding your prayer life.  With a study guide included it works with small groups and Sunday School.  Or one-on-one discipleship for that matter.
• A Call to Spiritual Reformation: Priorities from Paul and His Prayer by D.A. Carson.  Another great book by Carson.  He works through Paul’s prayers in Scripture to reshape our prayer priorities.
• When I Don’t Desire God: How to Fight for Joy by John Piper.  Some more good stuff by Piper on prayer.
• Desiring God by John Piper.  It contains a great chapter on delighting in God in prayer.
• Let the Nations Be Glad: The Supremacy of God in Missions by John Piper.  This contains some good stuff on prayer in connection with missions and delight in God.
• If God Already Knows, Why Pray? by Douglas Kelly.  Glad to see that this book by another of my professors is back in print.
• Answering God by Eugene Peterson.  He opens up the Psalms to us as tools for prayer.
• Sacred Disserations on the Lord’s Prayer by Herman Witsius.
• The Way of the Heart by Henri Nouwen.  A bit more experiential, utilizing some lessons from the desert fathers.  A touch mystical to balance our tendency toward rationalism.
• The Valley of Vision by Arthur Bennett.  A great, convicting collection of Puritan prayers to guide your own prayers.

Here are some of the books on prayer that I am interested in reading:

• The Prayer of Our Lord by Philip Ryken
• Praying the Lord’s Prayer by J.I. Packer.  Packer.  Got it?
• Praying: Finding our Way Through Duty to Delight by J.I. Packer and Carolyn Nystrom.  See above. 
• Heart of Prayer: What Jesus Teaches Us by Jerram Barrs.  If it is half as good as his book, The Heart of Evangelism, it is a must read.
• Prayer and the Knowledge of God: What the Whole Bible Teaches by Graeme Goldsworthy.  I’ve developed a fondness for Goldsworthy’s books.  He utilizes biblical theology well.
• Praying Together for True Revival by Jonathan Edwards.  This book, edited by TM Moore, looks interesting.

Read Full Post »

Considering Nominal Christians

WTS Doesn't Have This???

Henry Scougal gets to the heart of nominal Christianity in his book The Life of God in the Soul of Man.  This book is foundational for the ministries of such godly men as George Whitefield and John Piper.

“Men are unwilling to quarrel with the religion of their country, and since all their neighbors are Christians, they are content to be so too; but they are seldom at the pains to consider the evidences of those truths, or to ponder the importance and tendency of them; and thence it is that they have so little influence on their affections and practices.  Those ‘spiritless and paralytic thoughts,’ as one doth rightly term them, are not able to move the will, and direct the hand.  We must therefore endeavor to work up our minds to a serious belief and full persuasion of divine truths, unto a sense and feeling of spiritual things: out thoughts must dwell upon them, till we be both convinced of them and deeply affected with them.”

The nominal Christian “accepts” the doctrines of Christianity, but they make no difference in how they live because they do not love Jesus Christ and the doctrines of Christianity.  Their hearts are not moved to worship and obedience.

Read Full Post »

Considering Deaconesses

A few years ago, the ARP was in the process of evaluating (and eventually affirming) our statement on Women in the Church when explained why we do not ordain women as elders, and why the issue of women deacons is left up to the Session of each congregation.  There are some in the ARP that strongly oppose women deacons.  One of the hang ups I identified was the word “ordained”.  In talking with some men in my Presbytery I stated we probably ought to take the stumbling block out of the way and commission deacons rather than ordain them.

With this issue briefly addressed in the PCA this summer (sadly they decided to send it back to the Presbyteries rather than study it) Tim Keller has written an article entitled The Case of Commissioning (Not Ordaining) Deaconesses.   His article explains this much better than I ever could.

This is a view that upholds male headship (complementarianism) while seeking to honestly understand Scripture on this issue.  He presents historical as well as  biblical and theological evidence that we have to deal with before making a wise decision in this matter.

I particularly like this section:

Many opponents of deaconesses today are operating out of a “decline narrative.” They claim that having deaconesses is the first step on the way to liberalism. But Jim Boice and John Piper, the RPCNA and the ARP, B.B. Warfield and John Calvin, believed in deaconing women or deaconesses. Are (or were) all these men or churches on the way to liberalism? I don’t think so. Nevertheless, one person put it to me like this recently: “Sure, the RPCNA has had women deacons for over a century. Sure, a biblical case can be made. But in our cultural climate, allowing deaconesses would be disastrous. It’s a slippery slope.”

In other words, the Bible probably allows it, but let’s not do it because of the culture. Isn’t that also responding to the culture rather than to the text? If the PCA is driven either by reaction to or adaptation to the culture, it is being controlled by the culture instead of the Word. Let’s allow presbyteries and sessions to use women in diaconal work with the freedom they have historically had in our communion.

I agree completely with Ligon Duncan when he says that the current debate in the PCA is “to determine what its complementarianism is going to look like in the future.” That’s right. His article and mine represent an intramural debate within a strong commitment to biblical complementarianism. While we argue and discuss this let’s keep that in mind.

As those who claim to be “reformed and reforming” we should not dismiss this under the accusation of feminism or liberalism.  Let’s try to work together to better understand what the Bible really does teach on this matter and how best to implement it in our communities of faith.

Read Full Post »

Considering the Summer Sale

WTS Books is having a summer sale until 7/30, so you had better hurry up!  They offer flat rate shipping and books are 50% off, so now is the time to buy!  I just wish I had a book allowance to enjoy this great opportunity 😦  However, if enough of you, my fair readers, visit via my blog I’ll get a good gift certificate!

Here are some Cavman recommendations-

• Justified in Christ: God’s Plan for us in Justification edited by Scott Oliphint.  I haven’t read it, but would love to.  The title would suggest that our union with Christ, as well as imputation, is in view.
• Christ and Culture Revisited by D.A. Carson.  Haven’t read it either, but it is on my wish list at WTS Books.  I wonder if he ends up where I did on this.
• The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible’s Grand Narrative by Christopher Wright.  Haven’t read it, but looks like I should.  I’ll be adding it to my wish list.
• Gospel-Centered Hermeneutics: Foundations and Principles of Evangelical Biblical Interpretation by Graeme Goldsworthy.  I really enjoyed According to Plan, and want to read this.  Do you note a theme here?
• Genesis by Bruce Waltke.  Okay, I don’t have it.  He is an excellent scholar so if you are ever thinking of preaching or teaching on Genesis- buy this!
• Breaking the Idols of Your Heart: How to Navigate the Temptations of Life by Dan Allender and Tremper Longman.  I read this in its previous incarnation- Bold Purpose.  It is a great, challenging book.
• What Jesus Demands from the World by John Piper.  Not an easy read, nor a short one.  But a worthwhile one.
• Twelve Challenges Churches Face by Mark Dever.  Not too familiar with this one, but it looks like one worth reading.

Read Full Post »

Band of Brothers: My Answers

To be fair, I thought I’d put down how God brought me to embrace Reformed Theology as the most consistent understanding of biblical theology.

1. What was the first book you read that introduced you to Reformed Theology?   That would be Packer’s Knowing God, though I didn’t know it at the time.  I had been a Christian for less than a year when I bought it.  It remains one of my favorites.  After I “got” Reformed Theology, I re-read Knowing God, and saw all the seeds had been sown there.  Sproul’s Chosen By God was the one that gave me words to express what I had come to believe.
2. Besides the Bible, list the five most influential books in your Reformed theological journey.  In addition to the 2 already mentioned, Martin Luther- Bondage of the Will; John Piper- Desiring God; J.I. Packer- Keep in Step with the Spirit; Jerry Bridges- Trusting God; R.C. Sproul- The Holiness of God.
3. List three preachers and/or teachers who were most influential in your journey? Prior to seminary, R.C. Sproul.  I devoured his books and audio tapes prior to going to seminary.  J.I. Packer, who joined Sproul in introducing me to the Puritans, the Reformers and Jonathan Edwards.  In seminary, I spent lots of time reading Edwards and the Puritans (particularly Burroughs, Owen & Boston).  Post-seminary it would be John Frame, Sinclair Ferguson, Tim Keller and Jack Miller.  Yes, I cheated.  But I affirm grace, baby.
4. If you could give one book to someone interested in Reformed theology, what book would you give them?  Probably Sproul’s Grace Unknown (I think it is now called What is Reformed Theology?) or Ferguson’s In Christ Alone.
5. What doctrine would you say distinguishes Reformed Theology?  Particular Atonement.  Packer’s intro to Owen’s The Death of Death in the Death of Christ is must reading to understand how essential this doctrine is to grasping biblical Christianity, and how other theologies offer a different gospel.  This is a much understood doctrine thanks to the many straw men those opposed to it put up.  This is usually the hardest distinctive doctrine for people to accept.

Read Full Post »

Considering Piper and Chandler

I listened to a great Q&A from the Resurgence Conference: Text and Context with John Piper and Matt Chandler.  It was an interesting dynamic.  Mark Driscoll was the one asking the questions, with some commentary.  John Piper is in his 60’s and Matt Chandler is in his 30’s.  They are in very different places in pastoring “successful” faithful churches.

They talked about the dangers pastors face, false gospels, TV (Piper hasn’t owned one since he was 18), accountability and relevance.  Some fun comments, and some great wisdom. 

Some quick quotes:

“Relevance is ultimate reality lived out with passion in front of people in authentic ways.”  John Piper

“Doug Wilson is one of the most careful and bright Reformed and postmillenial, objectivist theologians around and he’s got people around him that are dumb.  … Wrong on numerous cases, but wrong in a way you’d expect a Presbyterian to be wrong.  … I don’t know if his trajectory will be as faithful as is the present case.”  John Piper

“We want other ethnic groups to join us as long as they like to worship to Coldplay.  … I want to preach the death of an ethno-centric idea.  I don’t know how we get past this thing (wanting ethnic diversity on OUR terms).”  Matt Chandler

“Without a diverse leadership it is unlikely you will have a diverse membership.  … I grew up in South Carolina and was racist to my toe nails for the first 20 years of my life.”  John Piper

Mark: You insulted my band.  John: You care about insulting people?  Mark: There is a comeback, but this is where I practice on-going sanctification.

Read Full Post »

Preparing for Surgery

Assuming all goes well, and CavSon does not get sick, he will have surgery tomorrow.  His palate will be repaired, his lip scar touched up and tubes put in his ears.  It is outpatient surgery, so barring complications he and I will be there less than 24 hours.  I’ll be spending the night with him and need to bring things to keep me busy.

1. I’m loading up my MP3 player with some lectures by Graeham Goldsworthy and Piper & Chandler from the Text & Context Conference at Mars Hill.

2. I’m bringing the PCA Book of Church order to brush up “just in case”.

3. I’m bringing The Path to True Happiness by Martyn Lloyd-Jones and hope to finish it.

4. I’m bringing Jungle Pilot which is about Nate Saint.

5. I’ll also bring a novel.

Maybe I should bring my glasses since I’ll be doing so much reading.  I think the laptop will be staying home so CavWife can use it.  I’m not sure if they have wireless service there at the hospital.  Hmmm, I wonder if anyone I know has a portable DVD player.  I’ll have to check on that prospect.

Read Full Post »

Considering Revivalism

Iain Murray traces the development of Revivalism in Revival & Revivalism: The Making and Marring of American Evangelicalism.  Three factors are most important in the development of revivalism as distinct from revival: the Kentucky revivals, Dr. Nathaniel Taylor and Charles Finney.

The story begins in Kentucky during the revivals during the Second Great Awakening (early 1800s).  There were physical phenomena in previous revivals, but in Kentucky they seemed to take on a life of their own.  Previously, wise pastors put the emphasis on the proclamation of truth.  Most of the revivals took place among Calvinists, so there was an emphasis on doctrine influencing practice.  In Kentucky, the Presbyterians, Baptists and Methodists would join together for camp meetings.  They would celebrate communion, and people would hear a number of sermons.  The camps grew so large, you could have multiple sermons being preached at the same time.  When physical manifestations popped up, some of the pastors began to encourage them rather than restrain them.

By and large the Methodists encouraged the physical manifestations.  The Presbyterians were split over them.  What ended up happening is that those who supported and encouraged these physical manifestations soon began to preach against Calvinism as anti-revival and unbiblical.  They were anti-doctrine in general, and loathed Reformed Theology in particular.  Francis Asbury was one of the leaders in this new attack on Calvinism here in America.  He was one of the people who began to institutionalize the camp meetings.  He thought certain practices produced certain results.  The physical manifestations became necessary elements of revival, which was a new development.  This is a sad development, in part, because American Presbyterians had often assisted the fledgling Methodists.  This was clearly a knife in the back.

At the new Yale Divinity School, Dr. Taylor began his assault on Calvinism.  He rejected the doctrine of depravity.  He began to popularize Grotius’ governmental theory of the atonement.

Read Full Post »

Considering Driscoll on Revival

I forgot Iain Murray’s book at home so my post on Revivalism will have to wait.  But while checking a few blogs I ran across this recent interview with Mark Driscoll.  In this section he addresses the question of revival and the remarkable growth experienced by Mars Hill and some other Acts 29 churches.

JV: Do you have a theology of revival? I guess many would see the rapid growth at Mars Hill (and some of the Acts 29 work) as taking on revival proportions. Is this how you would see it, or are you looking for something further (or do you even see revival as a helpful category)?

MD: I do. I have read both Jonathan Edwards and Iain Murray on this, for example. I have also studied many church movements such as the Methodists and Jesus Movement. I do believe that revival is akin to Nehemiah stacking the old stones that had lain unused for many generations. My city (Seattle) is still pre-Christian so technically I would say that we are more of a missions movement than a revival movement. But, as we spread through our campuses and church plants around the nation and world, I guess that is possible.

By God’s grace, we are multi-denominational and having what seems to be a positive and helpful influence on many churches, denominations and networks for which we praise God. In the end, we’ll see what God does. We’re off to an encouraging start but the game is far from over and maybe one day when I’m dead someone can write the report of what happened and see if it qualifies as something akin to a revival. For now, I’m just trying to follow Jesus, love my wife, enjoy my kids, pastor my church, preach my Bible, confess my sins, write my books and have my fun.

JV: Given your vantage point, what would you predict for the development of evangelicalism in the West over the coming 20 years?

MD: I would hope to see a robust gospel, love of church planting, and call for dudes to act dudely.

I appreciate his humility.  Unlike a revivalist, he’s not claiming he’s got a revival going on.  He is waiting for the test of time to reveal if what is happening is genuine.  It may be this humility that has opened the door for even more growth.  Earlier this year Mark publicly repented of the pride he saw charactizing his ministry, and by extension that of the church.  After the Resurgence conference he shared how Piper & C.J. Mahaney had a heart to heart with him.  And the gospel seems to make progress in this “missions” setting.

Adrian Warnock has Mark summing up Holy Week like this:

 “Something broke this weekend, spiritually. I’m not sure how to explain it, but God’s favor was evident everywhere. We had 8,070 people attend on Sunday, plus however many could not make it into the Eastside Campus or stand up outside the building to listen on speakers because there was no room in the parking lot or on the sidewalk. We had 3,648 for Good Friday services plus however many hundreds got turned away from the 7 p.m. service at Ballard. We had at least 11,718 people altogether this weekend, somewhere near 200 baptisms yesterday alone, and are still trying to figure out how many people got saved. . . .Yesterday, while singing with the congregation at each of the five services I preach live, I could not stop weeping. People were singing loudly with their hands in the air. They cheered all day as people came forward to give their lives to Jesus and be baptized. The pastors were up front laying hands on people, praying over them, and leading them to Christ by the dozens at every service. I stood off to the side during the singing to watch what God was doing, and multiple people walked up to me weeping and asked me to pray with them to become a Christian.”

Being a student of Edwards and Murray, I have a hard time thinking they are using the typical manipulative techniques advanced (but not invented) by Finney which fit in with his rejection of depravity, substitutionary atonement and other biblical teachings.  It will be interesting to follow this over time.  Hopefully Mark will remain humble, indeed increase in humility, as he watches God changes lives thru the gospel of His Son.

Read Full Post »

Considering the Fog of Leadership

A few months ago I had to put together a CD of sermons for the search committee of a church.  I took a chance, a calculated risk.  Among the sermons on the disc was one I preached over a year ago about the future of our now-defunct congregation.  I likened my present state of mind to a time I drove home in a blinding snow storm.  I was hoping they would see beyond my uncertainty at the time to listen to the amazing hope I possessed because “God works in us to will and work according to His purpose.”  I was pointing my people to God as the One who will work in us to accomplish His purposes over time.  I didn’t have to have all the answers, but we had to trust & pray (and read Scripture) and we would work out our earthly deliverance, just as He provided a way for me thru the storm.

I’m not sure if that sermon had any bearing on their decision that I was not the guy for them.  But you can easily feel that you’re a complete loser as a leader if you don’t have crystal clear vision at every given moment as a leader.  Vision is the Big Thing these days, and it often has little to nothing to do with leadership as John Piper summarizes it in Brothers, We Are Not Professionals: “knowing where God wants people to be and taking the initiative to get them there by God’s means in reliance upon God’s power.”

My sermon Sunday is on the clash of the kingdom’s: the kingdom of God vs. the kingdom of me.  Godly leadership is about forsaking MY vision for a group of people, and being about God’s vision (which seems less glamorous and quantifiable) since it is about His kingdom, not mine.

In pondering this idea, I stumbled upon this blurb about Hudson Taylor in The Magnificent Obsession: Seeking First the Kingdom of God by David Swartz.  “In his younger days, things used to come so clearly, so quickly to him.  ‘But,’ he said, ‘now as I have gone on, and God has used me more and more, I seem often to be like a man going along in a fog.  I do not know what to do.'” 

THIS is the place of grace, where God works in and thru us because we have ceased building OUR kingdoms.  I’m guessing that Hudson Taylor would have a gentle corrective for our obsession with vision and 5-year plans. 

Read Full Post »

Considering Ethnic Badges and the Gospel

I think this will be my final post on The Future of Justification: a Response to N.T. Wright by John Piper.  I think it is more of an assessment than a response.  Piper does a good job of laying out N.T. Wright’s distinctive views on these issues, and then weighing them.  Piper does more than assess them by his own views, he tries to examine if they fit the evidence of Wright’s secondary sources, and (more importantly) the biblical texts.  He also weighs Wright’s criticisms of evangelical theology on this matter (which have some merit) as well as these proposed solution (not so much merit there).

Piper avoids the common traps of polemical theology.  He affirms where N.T. Wright is correct.  He does not demonize him or attack him personally.  In all this I think Piper writes a book that is clear, fair and convincing.  If disciples of N.T. Wright want to hear a fair case of the other side- this is it.  They might not be convinced that Wright is going in unhelpful ways in this matter, but allegiances can work that way.  And then my question becomes, are there areas in which you disagree with him?  If not, then you probably aren’t thinking.  I disagree with John Piper on a few issues, but not here.

Anyway… in chapter 10 Piper assesses the implications of ethnic badges and self-help moralism.  Wright sees “the works of the law” “as an ethnic badge worn to show that a person is in the covenant rather than deeds done to show they deserve God’s favor.”  Wright points to Romans 3:26-30.

Read Full Post »

Considering Paul and 2nd-Temple Judaism

N.T. Wright builds much of his case on “Second-Temple Judaism”, arguing that it has been mischaracterized by many and that Paul is in agreement with “Second-Temple Judaism”.  John Piper summarizes those claims in the 9th chapter of The Future of Justification.

“According to Wright, the term “works of the law” referred not to law-keeping in general, but to the acts of circumcision, Sabbath-keeping, and dietary regulations.  These, he explains, were pursued, not for the purpose of earning a right standing with God, or getting saved, or entering the covenant people of God, but rather as a “badge” to show that those who did these “works of the law” would be found on the last day to belong, by grace, to God’s people.”  As a result of this, the problem of Paul’s opponents was that they used these “badges” to exclude Gentiles.  For Wright, the issue is ethocentrism, not “legalism”.

“Badges, what are stinkin’ badges?” you might ask.  They would be signs pointing to a deeper reality.  But was this what got Paul so worked up in his letter to the Galatians?  No!  He thought it was a gospel issue at work, and those who continued to teach as the Judaizers did were condemned- not wrong and misled and therefore overly strict and judgmental- anathematized!  I have a hard time reconciling this with the idea of “badges”.

As a covenantal theologian, I see the various covenants as part of the over-arching covenant of grace.  There is progress and development taking place, and the covenants are administered differently.  As a result, we see that the Mosaic covenant was a covenant of grace- God had redeemed them.  The covenant stipulations (we call them the 10 Commandments) were how redeemed people were to live under God’s rule- NOT what someone does to earn heaven.  But, as Paul notes in Romans 9-11 they (most Jews) had begun to live by works, not faith.  So, I can give N.T. Wright credit for recognizing the gracious character of the Mosaic covenant (if he does that), but we can’t confuse that with 2nd-Temple Judaism.

Read Full Post »

Considering N.T. Wright & Imputed Righteousness

In the 8th chapter of The Future of Justification, Piper asks the question of whether or not N.T. Wright is merely using different terminology to say the same thing as the Reformed heritage from whence he comes. The question ends up revolving around what he means by “basis” when saying that the basis of our final justification is our works. Piper laments that Wright has been vague on this issue, and has left some significant questions unasked and unanswered.

“Huge and important questions go unaddressed here. The allusion to 1 Corinthians 3:10-17 (“he himself will be saved, but only as through fire,” v. 15) as confirming the seriousness of the final judgment does not work. At the place where it cries out for reflection, Wright does not come to terms with the fact that Paul threatens baptized professing Christians not just with barely being saved, but with not being saved at all at the last judgment (Gal. 5:21; 6:7-9; 1 Cor. 6:9). The whole question of how Paul can speak this way and how our works actually function at the last day are passed over. This is a silence where we very much need to hear Wright speak with detail and precision, since the issues are so controversial and so important for the central doctrine of justification.”

Wright seems inconsistent. At times he can be understood as affirming the historic Protestant position: “They are the things which show, rather, that one is in Christ; the things which are produced in one’s life as a result of the Spirit’s indwelling and operation.” (from “New Perspectives on Paul”). Or, “they are the effective signs that the Spirit of the living Christ as been at work in him.” (NPoP) Where Wright appears to depart from the historic understanding of things is also expressed in NPoP: “Why is there ‘no condemnation’? Because, on the one hand, [1] God has condemned sin in the flesh of Christ … and, on the other hand, [2] because the Spirit is at work to do, within believers, what the Law could not do- ultimately, to give life, but a life that begins in the present with the putting to death of the deeds of the body and the obedient submission to the leading of the Spirit.” So, for Wright, our final justification is based on Jesus’ substitutionary death and our sanctification. This sounds to me like Catholicism without the sacerdotalism. He is talking about impartation, not imputation. Wright calls imputation “saying a substantially right thing in a substantially wrong way.”  (Paul in Different Perspectives) He continues to say “What I do object to is calling this truth by a name which, within the world of thought where it is common coin, is bound to be heard to say that Jesus has himself earned something called ‘righteousness’, and that he then reckons this to be true of his people, whereas on my reading of Paul the ‘righteousness’ of Jesus is that which results from God’s vindication of him as Messiah in the resurrection…”

N.T. Wright upholds the idea of union with Christ that dominates Reformed thought, but he excludes the imputation of righteousness from his understanding of the benefits we receive from that union. In N.T. Wright’s formulation, through our union with Christ we receive the imputation of His death & resurrection life, which leads to assurance of final vindication. He dismisses the representative obedience Jesus performed as our covenant head in that imputation. So, instead of bringing us to Romans 5, Wright brings us to Romans 6 and Paul’s theology of baptism to understand union and imputation. “In choosing Romans 6 as the ‘central passage’ for illuminating ‘the truth which has been expressed in terms of ‘imputed righteousness,’ Wright seems to suggest that in his mind the really new moral nature that ‘walk[s] in newness of life’ (Rom. 6:4) is part of what the Reformed folk should mean by ‘imputed righteousness’ in union with Christ.” So, what Wright is doing is similar to the problem with the Evangelicals & Catholics Together documents: they use the same words, but mean different things by them. As a result, they give the appearance of commonality without the substance of the same. Piper summarizes the problems of Wright’s view: “1. It leaves the gift of the status of vindication without foundation in real perfect imputed obedience. … 2. This absence of a foundation for our vindication, in real perfect obedience, results in a vacuum that our own Spirit-enabled, but imperfect, obedience seems to fill as part of the foundation or ground or basis alongside the atoning death of Jesus. … 3. The ambiguity about how works function in ‘future justification’ leaves us unsure how they function in present justification.” This last problem is revealed in how Wright talks about faith. He often conflates ‘faith’ and ‘faithfulness (faithful obedience)’.  You can’t truly have one without the other, but we must distinguish them, particular in this important matter of justification: does Christ save me, or does he help me save myself (Jesus-assisted salvation)?  Historic Reformed theology declares that Messiah saves people, Wright would appear to teach that Jesus helps us to be saved.  This is a dramatic difference than can easily get lost in the verbiage.

Read Full Post »

Considering Works and Righteousness

In the 7th chapter of The Future of Justification, John Piper looks at the basis of justification in N.T. Wright’s writings.  Wright talks about our present justification on the basis of faith, and our future justification on the basis of works.  It is important that we understand what he means by this, if possible.

Romans 2:13 shapes most of Wright’s thinking on the subject.  It reads this way: It is not the hearers of the law who will be righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.  Wright seems to lift this verse out of its polemical context to establish the need for our obedience, not Jesus’, as the grounds for our justification.  Wright does this by connecting it to Romans 8:3-4.  In Romans 8 we see that the penalty for our sin is paid by Christ.  Then, those who walk according to the Spirit will fulfill the righteous requirements of the law.  “The Spirit is the path by which Paul traces the route from justification by faith in the present to justification, by the complete life lived, in the future.”  But Wright has jumped over nearly 6 chapters of Romans to make this connection- and in the process Paul has changed subjects (from justification to sanctification). 

In Romans 2 Paul is still building his argument that both Jews and Gentiles are under God’s just condemnation.  The fact that Jews had the law was not sufficient to set them apart from Gentiles morally- they had to actually obey it.  Paul lays out this profound thought about “the doers of the law” but doesn’t quite explain what he means.  Here are the options:

1. the deeds are done in a meritorious way.

2. they are the Spirit-wrought fruit of faith.

3. they are evidence & confirmation of faith in Christ who has cancelled our sin.

4. they are also the evidence & confirmation of faith in Christ in whom we are counted righteous.

5. as Stott asserts this could be a hypothetical statement which no person has satisfied (but Messiah himself).

Paul is answering the objection that God is unfair to judge the Gentiles since they don’t have the law.  But Paul responds with the fact that Gentiles do have the moral law written on their hearts.  Like the Jews, they fail to keep it and are condemned.  Paul had expressed this in Romans 1:18, 21 & 32.  Paul’s over-arching argument here is that everyone needs Jesus for all are under God’s just wrath.  We find Paul summing this up in Romans 3:20.  Knowledge of our sin and guilt, not justification, comes from the law.

Why is Wright taking a different track on this?  The “massive conspiracy of silence about something that was quite clear for Paul (as indeed for Jesus).  Paul, in company with mainstream second-temple Judaism affirms that God’s final judgment will be in accordance with the entirety of a life led- in accordance, in other words, with works.”  Wright is complaining that the evangelical church has neglected the need for good works.  This is his way of bringing them back into the picture for us.  Is he correct about this “massive conspiracy of silence”?  Does he need to reformulate the doctrine of justification of fix a problem?

As part of the Reformed heritage, N.T. Wright should be familiar with the Reformed Creeds (including the 39 Articles), which all stress good works as the fruit of faith.  For instance, from the Westminster Confession of Faith chapter 16:

II. These good works, done in obedience to God’s commandments, are the fruits and evidences of a true and lively faith; and by them believers manifest their thankfulness, strengthen their assurance, edify their brethren, adorn the profession of the gospel, stop the mouths of the adversaries, and glorify God, whose workmanship they are, created in Christ Jesus thereunto; that, having their fruit unto holiness, they may have in the end eternal life.

So, if there is silence, it is on the part of ignorant or disobedient clergy/theologians, and not on the part of our theological heritage.  Wright misleads people when he ignores such things.  Like Piper, I affirm Wright’s concern, but find his solution just as problematic if not more than the problem he seeks to address.  The number of problems with N.T. Wright’s thinking on this topic is increasing quickly.

Read Full Post »

Considering Righteousness and Justification

In the 4th chapter of The Future of Justification, John Piper continues to assess N.T. Wright’s use and application of the law-court dynamics.  The first problem he encounters here is that Wright fails to come to terms with the omniscience (all-knowledge) of the Judge.  In God’s law-court we have to deal with an omniscient and just Judge.  As a result, perfect justice will always be the result, unlike in earthly courtrooms even with the best of intentions.  Wright rightly connects the atonement with forgiveness, but something more must happen if God is to declare us righteous.  Not guilty is not enough.  Innocent is not enough.  We must be righteous if we are to dwell with God (Psalm 15 for instance).

The context of Romans 3, where our problem is sin, does not lend itself to Wright’s understanding of justification.  Our problem is not status, but sin.  Justification must deal with our sin problem in a more significant way than forgiveness (though that is incredibly significant).  Piper draws on Psalm 32, which Paul used in Romans 4.  This Psalm ends with calling the forgiven person “righteous.”  “I am not saying that the psalmist has a full-blown doctrine of justification as imputed righteousness.  I am simply observing that Paul may have meditated long and hard on the Psalms, including the often perplexing language of righteousness, sin, blamelessness, and forgiveness, and drew the inference that divine forgiveness never stands alone without God’s counting the forgiven person as positively righteous.  This would account for the logic of Romans 4:6-8 better than assuming that forgiveness and being counted righteous are “equivalents.”” 

Piper is not dealing with simple logic, but the logic of Paul in Romans 4.  It is Paul who raises this issue of an imputed righteousness.  This poses a serious problem for Wright’s understanding of both the text and the doctrine of justification.

Read Full Post »