Book Review: Sex, Sushi & Salvation

Have you ever found yourself enjoying the edgy writing style of Rob Bell or Shaine Claiborne while simultaneously shaking your head at some of their theology? If you have, I suggest you pick up Sex, Sushi & Salvation. Christian George’s new book engages readers with fresh stories and comparisons, and yet he maintains a solid, biblical understanding of Christian theology.

In Sex, Sushi and Salvation, Christian shows us how God alone can quench the hunger of our souls – a hunger that demonstrates itself in our desire for intimacy (sex), community (sushi bars), and eternity (salvation). Christian’s passion is to see the Church in the West revive rather than “rot,” and he is doing everything he can to wake us up from our slumber of complacency.

Rather than turning to the next fad, Christian takes us back into time, showing us the passion of men like Francis of Assissi and Jonathan Edwards. As one who considers himself “a pilgrim,” Christian recounts his adventures in Celtic lands, Transylvania (now Romania), Greece and Italy.

Christian’s self-deprecating humor shines in every chapter. His innovative metaphors (“God walmarted himself” to describe the accessibility of Jesus” or “Christians are God’s boomerangs… He bends us back to himself”) make his book immensely entertaining and highly informative. There are a few moments or lines of this book which will make you laugh out loud.

But never does Christian’s humor stop readers from understanding his deep appreciation for the Church and the importance of having a relationship Jesus Christ. More than anything, this emphasis on relationship stands out. Not wanting merely to know about God and God’s people, Christian wants to experience these realities fully.

I highly recommend Sex, Sushi and Salvation. I plan on passing it on to some of the 20-somethings in my Sunday School class. Finally! A book that creatively engages the post-boomer generation without abandoning the truths of the gospel.

written by Trevin Wax  © 2008 Kingdom People blog

Finger Pointing and the SBC Decline

The Thirty Years’ War over religion devastated much of Europe in the mid 1600’s. By 1648, the war had degenerated into skirmishes and local battles. War had become so entrenched in the national psyche that the fights continued, often without anyone remembering why.

We should not miss the parallels between the the Southern Baptist Convention and the Thirty Years’ War. As we approach the 30th anniversary of the events which set in motion the Conservative Resurgence (a battle for the Bible that the conservatives fought and won), we continue to fight one another, often over non-essential matters that threaten our cooperation.

No one was surprised at the recent news from LifeWay’s research showing the Southern Baptist Convention in decline. In recent years, many have warned about the falling number of baptisms. But now our membership numbers are reflecting the decline (and it’s not because we have reformed in the area of regenerate church membership).

How will we react to the news of our decline? I fear that the already-battling factions of the SBC will now point the finger at one another. The younger generation will blame the older leaders for being stuck in a time warp… the older generation will blame the younger leaders for deserting the Convention and expecting unearned places at the table. Some will point the finger at the Calvinists who are “killing evangelism,” while the Calvinists will blame the non-Calvinists for unfettered revivalism. The traditionalists will speak out against the seeker-friendly churches for watering down the gospel, while the contemporary church leaders will blame the traditionalists for clinging to old methods. Throw in the resentment of small churches toward the mega-church pastors, and we have a veritable stew of angry bitterness that will probably result in even more bickering, back-biting and personal attacks.

But what if our Convention is declining at least partly because of our tendency to point the finger? If it is true that the world will know we are disciples by our love, we should look intently into the mirror and ask ourselves if we truly love one another. Our lack of love at the local level has become fodder for church jokes about the “successful” church-plants that come from our many splits. Magnify the tension in local churches and we find warring factions at the associational level, in our state conventions, and on the national scene.

It almost sounds like a cliché to call one another to love. Perhaps that’s part of the problem. We find it easy to love the people who agree with us, who pat us on the back, and who have caught our vision for the SBC. But do Calvinists and non-Calvinists truly love one another? Old and young truly care for each other’s good? Contemporary advocates and traditionalists truly feel brotherly affection for one another?

What good is it if we only love those who are easy to love? We are called to do more than tolerate each other under the big tent that is the SBC. What about loving our Southern Baptist brothers and sisters with whom we disagree?

Our blame-game must stop if the Southern Baptist Convention is to continue to have a role to play in God’s Kingdom. We must all repent. We have turned against one another. We are warring against each other over non-essentials and are losing our unity in the gospel we are called to proclaim.

What happened to Europe after the Thirty Years’ War? The way was prepared for liberalism and secularism. The populations grew so weary of the religious fighting that many in Europe abandoned religion altogether. I pray that our Southern Baptist battles will not aid the rise of secularism and liberalism.

Let’s end the fighting, reunite around the gospel, love those with whom we disagree, and continue to cooperate. May the world look to the Southern Baptist Convention, be drawn to Christ, and say as the pagans did of the early Christians, Look how they love one another.

written by Trevin Wax  © 2008 Kingdom People blog

Gospel Definitions: Gilbert Beebe

Like so many Bible terms, the word GOSPEL has been given various definitions contrary to its original and proper meaning.

The word has its origin “in Christ before the foundation of the world.” This was contained in the “promise” God made before the foundation of the world. (Tit. 1:2) The “gospel,” the “good news” or “good tidings” is the declared fulfilment of that promise.

In Isaiah 61:1-3 is found the outstanding proclamation made by the Sum and Substance of the good tidings, — Jesus Christ Himself:

“The Spirit of the Lord God is upon Me, because the Lord has anointed Me to preach good tidings to the meek, He has sent Me to bind up the broken hearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound. To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of vengeance of our God, to comfort all that mourn. To appoint to them that mourn in Zion, to give to them beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness; that they might be called trees of righteousness, the planting of the Lord, that He might be glorified.”

The Redeemer repeated this same proclamation of Himself in the synagogue.

While this prophetical statement is often quoted, its full significance is rarely understood. In this one sweeping declaration, there is encouched – not the beginning of the gospel, not a part of its fulfilment, – the grand total of what the Son of Man declared on the cross: “IT IS FINISHED”!

The Greek word “evanggelion” is translated “gospel” in the King James Version. This word, together with its rendering of “good tidings,” glad tidings” and “preach the gospel” occurs some one hundred and eight times in the New Testament, none of which intimate anything less than “finished redemption” in Christ.

- Gilbert Beebe, 1846

A Prayer before Blogging

O Creator of the universe,
who has set the stars in the heavens
and causes the sun to rise and set,
shed the light of your wisdom into the darkness of my mind.
Fill my thoughts with the loving knowledge of you,
that I may bring your light to others.
Just as you can make even babies speak your truth,
instruct my tongue and guide my pen
to convey the wonderful glory of the gospel.
Make my intellect sharp,
my memory clear,
and my words eloquent,
so that I may faithfully interpret the mysteries which you have revealed.

- Thomas Aquinas, (1225-1274)

Family Pride

“What is called family pride is often founded upon an illusion of self-love. A man wishes to perpetuate and immortalize himself, as it were, in his great-grandchildren. Where family pride ceases to act, individual selfishness comes into play. When the idea of family becomes vague, indeterminate, and uncertain, a man thinks of his present convenience; he provides for the establishment of his next succeeding generation, and no more.”

- Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, pg. 51

In the Blogosphere

A Christian TV host announces his homosexuality and is surprised at the amount of support he has received from the Church. (HT – Tullian)

Richard Mouw of Fuller Seminary looks at the singing of “Shout to the Lord” on American Idol and celebrates the inspiration that comes from Christian music.

It’s official. The Southern Baptist Convention is now declining.

I enjoyed meeting Jared Wilson this week at N.T. Wright’s lecture in Nashville. Jared recaps the event here.

Is there more common ground between the Emerging Church and the Reformed Resurgence than we realize?

Owen Strachan asks terribly uncomfortable, but necessary questions about the amount of television we watch.

Is C.S. Lewis Prince Caspian?

Top Post this Week at Kingdom People: Interview with N.T. Wright on Surprised by Hope

Trevin Wax Interview with N.T. Wright on Surprised by Hope

On April 22, 2008, Bishop N.T. Wright and I sat down for a cup of coffee at Loew’s Vanderbilt Plaza in downtown Nashville. We discussed his new book, Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Churchincluding some of the criticisms leveled against the book from Mark Dever, Doug Wilson and others. Below is the full transcript of our talk. To jump ahead to the sections that interest you, see the following breakdown.

1. On Being Compared to C.S. Lewis
2. On Eschatology Leading to Action
3. On Mark Dever’s critique of Wright’s notion of a “public gospel”
4. On Avoiding the Errors of the Social Gospel
5. On the Importance of the Ascension
6. On Hell
7. On Purgatory
8. On Doug Wilson and Third World Debt
9. On John Piper’s Future of Justification

Trevin Wax:You have described Surprised by Hope as the sequel to Simply Christian. Both of these books have titles that remind us of famous works by C.S. Lewis. Likewise, you have been described as the “C.S. Lewis of this generation.” What aspects of Lewis’ work do you fully ascribe to? And what aspects of his work would give you pause?

N.T. Wright: First off, let me make it quite clear: I don’t think anyone is “the C.S. Lewis of this generation.” Lewis was inimitable. I take my hat off to him. He did an extraordinary job. Consider his range and the fact that he had a photographic memory for everything he read. He could recite poetry from way back. So I don’t aspire to that. But if I can be an apologist, somebody who explains the faith in ways that folk on the street can understand, so be it! That’s great.

Apologetics was Lewis’ great gift. He wasn’t a theologian. He was, obviously, wonderfully well-read. He knew literature rather than theology.

But Lewis made some rather simple, basic mistakes about the historical Jesus. For instance, in The Screwtape Letters, he says that you shouldn’t go looking for the historical Jesus because we all basically know who Jesus was, and any attempt to make that portrait better is just going to result in making him either a crank or somebody who’s just very strange. I know what he meant. He probably read Schweitzer and Bultmann and thought, If that’s where we’re going, let’s not bother.

His summary that Jesus must have been either mad or bad or God fails to take into account the subtleties and the nuances of first-century Judaism. Lewis’ views on the historical Jesus are odd because Lewis in his own professional work spent a great deal of time telling people (famously) in his studies on words that when you’re reading an old book, and you come to a word you don’t understand, you look it up in the dictionary. But the real danger is when you come a word you do understand in modern use, but it means something slightly different or completely different, and you don’t look it up, which will cause you to misread the passage. I wish he had taken that same lesson back into the first century and said, Hmm. Let’s actually find out what’s going on there. There’s nothing to be afraid of in doing that.

So, there are places where, as a New Testament scholar, I want to say, Lewis just didn’t get it. Deficiencies show up even in some of his basic arguments about Jesus. As I pointed out in an article last year, astonishingly in Mere Christianity, he doesn’t mention the resurrection (which considering he believed in it robustly is remarkable). I think he was doing those broadcast talks, and he did the next one and the next one, and I don’t think he stood back and said, “Wait a minute. Is this a full presentation or not?” So there are certain oddities about his work.

But on so many things, he is an amazingly shrewd analyst of ethics – partly because he was a trained philosopher, but also because as a reader of literature, he was used to analyzing plots and plays and novels and so on, figuring out what the characters were up to. It’s also because in his own personal piety, he had a spiritual director. He was used to examining his own motivation rather severely, and discovering what exactly was going on in his own insides. So when he’s describing how you feel and what you want to do and how you know what you shouldn’t do, etc., he is right on the button.

The last thing I would want to say is that Lewis was cheerfully naïve about politics. He’d grown up in a home in which politics were what grown-ups discussed all the time, and he thought it was deathly boring. I don’t think he ever abandoned that view all his life. I think he knew that Britain was basically right and Germany was basically wrong and he fought in the first war, but I don’t think there was much subtlety there. That again would follow from his not understanding the whole notion of the kingdom of God.

But who am I to say? He’s one of the all-time greats! I should be so flattered to be mentioned even in the same breath!

Trevin Wax: If you could change the entire eschatological outlook of your church setting in the twinkling of an eye, what changes in action would this bring about in local congregations?

My local congregations in Durham are a mixed bag. I have 250 parishes which cover the whole spectrum in the Anglican church, from high to low, from conservative to liberal, etc. For many of them, it would be nice to help them recognize that resurrection means what it says, not just the common assumption that the church teaches we go to heaven when we die and that’s it. There are some who have been grappling with the nature of the resurrection and who are getting on board with it.

Particularly, I want to develop what I do in the third part of Surprised by Hope, the sense from 1 Cor. 15:58 that because of the resurrection, what we do in the present matters – what we do with our own bodies and with God’s world. Actually, many of my congregations have more or less got that in their bloodstream.

There’s a certain type of Anglicanism that believes in God’s Kingdom as something that happens in bits and pieces and in fits and starts here and now and are working for that, but many Anglicans don’t have a fully articulated eschatological framework which makes sense of that. They know that they should work with homeless people and drug addicts and all sorts of things. So I find that it’s a great encouragement to say to them, “I’ll help you understand why you’re doing what you’re doing. I’ll help you to stay motivated and help you to involve more people in that work.”

Trevin Wax: Last week at the Together for the Gospel conference in Louisville, KY, Pastor and author Mark Dever critiqued the idea you put forth in Surprised by Hope that “the gospel is public.” More specifically, he worried that your readers may confuse the societal implications of the gospel with the gospel itself. What do you mean by saying the ‘gospel is public,’ and do you see such concerns such as the one voiced by Dr. Dever as valid?

N.T. Wright: “The gospel is public truth” is an idea I’ve found in many writings, particularly Lesslie Newbigin. Newbigin’s work is well-known. He was a missionary in India and then came back and claimed to be a missionary in darkest Birmingham in the middle of England. Throughout his career, he articulated the truth that the gospel is not merely a private truth about how I feel or about my own personal knowledge of God. The gospel is something which is true about the way that the world is because of the resurrection of Jesus. The world is a different place as a result of the resurrection.

Newbigin’s work pushed me to explore what the kingdom of God is all about in the New Testament. The New Testament paints a picture of God’s kingdom coming on earth as in heaven, which is about something that is publicly true in the real world and not merely inside the church doors or inside Christians’ hearts.

Now, of course, it is possible for people to grasp that and then to work out the political “so what?” in ways that maybe naïve or misguided or ill-informed or whatever. In other words, you can’t jump directly from “the gospel is public truth” to “therefore, the following 19 implications must result from this.” But that there must be results from this in the real world seems to me absolutely inescapable!

Interestingly, the pope in New York this past weekend at the U.N. was stressing this as well. He said that it isn’t enough to say that freedom of religion equals freedom to worship in your own way. You must also have freedom to express and work out your religion in the public square in an appropriate way. How that plays out, I don’t know. But that is what a creational theology with the resurrection of Jesus in the middle of it is all about.

I go back to Paul’s speech on the Areopagus again and again. He’s taking on the public world of his day with the good news of Jesus and his resurrection. And you get laughed at for it and people get very cross. But the public nature of the gospel is inescapable.

Trevin Wax: In Surprised by Hope, you make a clear distinction between the terminology of “building the kingdom of God” and “building for the kingdom of God.” Why is it so important that we maintain this distinction?

N.T. Wright: The old social gospel from 100 years ago (though its best exponents were better than this) communicated to people a wrong message that went something like this: Okay, we’ve got to build God’s kingdom. The social gospel is a type of sociological Pelagianism, an attempt to pull society up by its own bootstraps. Of course, those efforts often colluded with a Western post-Enlightenment idea that said: Now that we have got modern science and technology and medicine, we are going to make the world a better place! We’ve had to learn painfully that “that ain’t necessarily so.”

Granted that, speaking of “building for the kingdom” is a way of saying what Jesus talks about when you give someone a cup of cold water. Good works will not go unnoticed, unrewarded. The deeds that one does in Christ and by the Spirit are not wasted.

The example I use in the book is about the stonemason who builds for the cathedral. The architect and the builder have the great design for the cathredal. The stonemason is just told, “You’ve got to carve this bit of stone in this way.” And the stonemason does that and then later looks up and sees his stone halfway up in the cathedral and thinks, “Wow! That’s my little bit up there! And look, I now see how it fits into the greater pattern.” We are building, like the stonemason, for the kingdom rather than us actually doing the building itself.

We don’t know how the kingdom works. Take Jesus’ parables about seeds growing secretly and small seeds becoming mustard bushes and so on. The kingdom is always a surprise to us, which keeps us humble. The danger with “building the kingdom” language can make us very proud. “Building for the kingdom” keeps you humble. It says, “These are your tasks; you’ve got to get on with them. How God puts them into the eventual construct is completely his business.”

Trevin Wax: For all of the right focus on the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, many evangelical Christians see the resurrection as some sort of ‘after-thought’ to what happened at Calvary. You have done much to correct this with works such as The Resurrection of the Son of God. But the ascension of Christ is perhaps even more neglected than his resurrection. The Western Church is preparing to celebrate the Ascension, an oft-neglected Christian holy day. Why is the Ascension so important and what would you recommend pastors do to increase the celebration of this monumental event?

N.T. Wright: If I could mention another new book, Acts for Everyone, which just came out, has (of course) material on the Ascension. When I was writing that book this time last year, I was very excited about the Ascension. I had done some things in connection with the Ascension for Surprised by Hope, but I hadn’t worked through it exegetically in the way I did with Acts for Everyone.

I think the problem that we have had comes from the wrong conception of heaven. Once you start to think of heaven, not as a place miles up in the sky, but as God’s dimension of reality which intersects with ours (but in a strange way that is to us unpredictable and uncontrollable), certainly then you realize that for Jesus to go into the heavenly dimension, is not for him to go up as a spaceman miles up into space somewhere, and not for him to be distant or absent now. It is for him to be present, but in the mode in which heaven is present to us. That is, it’s just through an invisible screen, but present and real.

The key thing to realize, as in the Old Testament, in Daniel, for example, is that heaven is the control room for what happens on earth. I think I do say this in Surprised by Hope actually. Heaven is basically where earth is run from. And it’s because we haven’t taken seriously the language of Matthew 28, where Jesus says, “All authority is given to me in heaven and on earth,” that we haven’t thought of it like that. We’ve thought of it like, He’s gone away, leaving us to run things. No. He is in heaven. He is in charge. He is the Lord. That’s true right now. Now, how his lordship works out is then through the work of the church. But he is the Lord and is present with and through his church, as we are doing what we are called to do.

To celebrate that at the Ascension is huge. It’s radical. It’s very, very important. I’m looking forward to Ascension Day. I love it. It’s a wonderful feast!

Trevin Wax: So, the Ascension is also pointing us to waiting for the day when the invisible screen is gone?

N.T. Wright: Of course. The Ascension properly allows us to understand the Second Coming. Again, it isn’t a matter of Jesus as a spaceman flying downwards. It’s the screen being removed and his reappearing. When I was working on the lectures that turned into Surprised by Hope, I realized that so many of the key passages speak of “his appearing,” not merely “his coming.” And “coming” is a good way to express the truth, because it appears he is now absent and so then if he appears to us, then it is as though he has come and has arrived. But the Second Coming is more like an unveiling or appearing.

Trevin Wax: How does hell fit into your understanding that God is going to renew the whole creation. Do you believe that hell is the eternal experience of God’s wrath? What does the language of the Bible regarding hell imply?

N.T. Wright: I didn’t originally write a passage in Surprised by Hope on hell, but wherever I went and lectured on it, everyone wanted to ask about it. So eventually I thought, Oh dear, I better try and say something about the reality of hell.

I’ve tried to take seriously the biblical language of God’s renewing of all things (Ephesians 1 – God’s design is to sum up all things in Christ, things in heaven and things on earth). It’s the truth of “heaven plus earth” that really matters. You don’t get in the Bible the picture of heaven and hell that is prevalent in Western culture, as if earth is passing away and what we’ll be left with is a heaven with lots of people in it and a hell with even more people in it.

So, I’ve struggled to take seriously the whole “heaven coming to earth” theme as the great wonderful renewal. But at the same time, I’ve struggled to take seriously what the Bible says about the possibility and the actuality of final loss for those who persist in rebellion against the gospel. Romans 2 says it all. For those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury, tribulation, distress… Paul is talking about those who are persisting in saying “no” to God, at whatever level that is, (and there are different ways of saying no to God).

It dawned on me several years ago that when somebody says “no” to God and refuses to worship the God in whose image they are made, saying “I’m not going to worship that God,” then what happens to their humanness is that it progressively ceases to bear the image of God. You become like what you worship. You reflect the one you worship. It’s one of the great truths of spirituality.

So my way of describing it is that once this life is over, people who have decided not to worship God cease to bear God’s image. The thought of an ex-human being is something that some people find shocking and horrifying. In a sense, it is shocking and horrifying. Think about people we know! I’m sure most people, unless we live in very enclosed worlds, must know some people (if we truly hold to a theology of hell) who are going there! That should give us pause. That should cause us to pray for them and to weep over them. So I don’t say this with any relish at all.

My description is neither an annihilationist view nor an eternal conscious torment view, because it seems to me that to cease to be image-bearing is actually to reduce the scale of what’s going on. This is a creature which will be a memory, a sad memory, an abiding ex-humanness. That is something that the biblical language of hell may be pointing to. But I don’t want to be dogmatic on this. This is merely a way to go to try to hold on to the two things that the Bible is saying. 1. The reality of loss for some and 2. the absoluteness of God’s victory over the whole creation.

What you don’t want to end up with is the picture that some theologies have of a wonderful, glorious countryside with a concentration camp in the middle with people being tortured. I think the 19th century rightly reacted against that image, and I don’t think there’s any way back to that except perhaps by closing our hearts to the sort of pity and love which we are told is at the heart of God himself.

Trevin Wax: In Surprised by Hope, you speak about hell as a process of becoming less and less human. You affirm very clearly your belief that the just will be raised at the last day to inhabit God’s new world. What about the resurrection of the unjust? Will those who inhabit hell be embodied, even as they are bearing less and less the image of God that makes them human?

N.T. Wright: As you may have noticed, that’s a question I don’t try to resolve in The Resurrection of the Son of God. You’ve got passages like Romans 8 (the glorious promise for those who are in Christ by the indwelling of the Spirit) and you’ve also got passages like John 5 where it is clear that Jesus is talking about a resurrection of the just and the unjust, as in some of the key biblical and post-biblical antecedents.

Some of the early fathers insisted on the resurrection of the unrighteous because they said, “These people have sinned in the body. They need to be back in the body in order to be punished properly.” But then they would add that the punishment consists of some sort of dehumanization or whatever.

I don’t want to be dogmatic about this subject. The resurrection of the body is such an astonishing truth in Paul. We are to be raised immortal, given bodies that will never suffer pain or die, and that meaning of resurrection is clearly not going to be the same meaning of resurrection that relates to those who are unsaved. If we take the biblical language seriously, then the lost will be in some sort of pain. According to the picture of resurrection in Paul, that’s going to be impossible.

I try to insist in the book and in my lecture on this that all our language about the future is like a signpost pointing into a fog. We don’t have an actual photographic description of what we’re going to find when we get to where the signpost is pointing. But we do have assurance that if we follow down this track, we’re going in the right direction.

Trevin Wax: So you’re saying that we’ve entered the realm of speculation.

N.T. Wright: Yes. But it’s speculation within limits. It’s not unfettered speculation.

Trevin Wax: You teach that Christians will be judged by our actions, in accordance with Romans 2. You also say that justification is our assurance in the present of the declaration of righteousness from the future. Do our sinful actions in the present still matter? If so, wouldn’t the Catholic concept of purgatory be necessary?

N.T. Wright: I reject the Catholic concept of Purgatory, however it seems the Catholics are actually realigning Purgatory as we speak, which is rather exciting. Actually, what the Pope is now saying about Purgatory corresponds to 1 Corinthians 3.

Romans 8:1 really matters. There is no condemnation for those who are in Christ! 1 Corinthians 3 also matters, so that if we build on the foundation (which is Christ) wood, hay and stubble, then the fire will burn that up. I assume that Paul believes that will be not a condemnatory process, but a painful necessary purgative process. It wouldn’t be the Catholic concept of Purgatory we’d be left with.

Our sins do matter. When I am conscious of sin in my own life, I realize that I may one day look back and see that there was something really good or important that I was supposed to be doing, and instead I went my own way and did something else. Sin is not just the committing of a wrong act. Temptation also distracts us from doing things that we should have been doing, the prayers we should have been praying. We’ll never know what would have happened had we done the right thing at that point. I think God must be grieving over our lost possibilities, while by his Spirit, he is giving us the energy we need to make the right decisions.

Our wrong acts do matter, but not in the sense that because of them, we will experience final condemnation. The judgment in accordance with works is so important in 2 Corinthians 5, Romans 14 as well as Romans 2. I would say to all Christians who struggle with the doctrine of justification at this point: don’t let go of that judgment according to works! It does not destroy justification by faith alone. It does not mean that we’re creeping in a little Pelagianism by the back door after all. It is about the wholeness of the human life lived before God. And that is extremely serious. It’s one of the controversial things, of course, but it has to be worked out.

Trevin Wax: Douglas Wilson has recently praised your new book, but he has also strongly criticized your proposals concerning the forgiving of third-world debts. He says: “The problem with N.T. Wright’s call for action is not that he is urging us to do something. The problem is that he is (in effect) urging us to take sides as Christians in a tangle and conflict created by and for unbelievers.” Have you read Wilson’s critique of your thoughts on this issue? Do you have any immediate reaction?

N.T. Wright: I’ve seen this but have not yet had time to read the critique. I believe I met Doug Wilson at the Auburn Avenue conference that I spoke at three or four years ago.

Wilson’s criticism goes along with the criticism in First Things that appeared in the April issue. (I’ve just today sent a rebuttal against those charges.) Richard John Neuhaus wrote negatively about Surprised by Hope and took some potshots at the Archbishop of Canterbury as well. I think much of it was him basically getting his facts wrong. He didn’t like the politics, so he tried to rubbish the theology as well. But he made several factual errors. (I had lunch with him yesterday in New York and I said to him what I sent off to be printed.)

Part of the difficulty is that those who have embraced something approximating a normal, right-wing political stance on various issues find it very difficult to hear what I and many other people around the globe are saying as anything other than anti-Americanism. I want to assure people that it has nothing to do with anti-Americanism. I am deeply critical of my own government on some things, but that doesn’t make me anti-British. I am deeply critical of the Israeli government on some things (not all), but that doesn’t make me anti-Jewish. We have to call issues as we see them.

I’ve studied the problem of global debt quite intensively. In fact, I’ve read probably more books about contemporary economics recently than I have contemporary biblical studies. Curiously, I find myself drawn into that world, and it’s quite likely that I’m getting a lot of things wrong.

But when I find people at the right of the spectrum saying, “Oh you just can’t apply the gospel like this!” I want to reply, Wait a minute. It would be really nice if even for one teeny little moment, people who take that sort of position could see themselves as others see them, and could actually see what the recent actions of the present American government in the wider world actually look like, and the way in which the economic policies of the Western world as a whole (including my own country) have actually kept millions of people enslaved.

Of course, it’s not all directly connected to the World Bank and the IMF, etc. However, there are many countries suffering, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, under a debt burden which was run up by crazy tyrants (and I know that there are all sorts of wickedness and iniquities, etc.). A country can’t go bankrupt. If you or I are in a huge debt, we go bankrupt. There are ways of doing that. You can start over. People can build up a business again. A country can’t do that. The compound debt goes on mounting up. The people who are bearing the burden are the people who are forced to grow their own crops and the people who are forced to do things to service the debt, rather than having the national product going to housing, medicine, education, etc.

This injustice is actually the sort of thing about which the Old Testament prophets had a great deal to say. Some have said to me, “Go read the works of F.A. Hayek because he will show you that actually giving handouts to the poor just encourages a dependency culture and that’s not the way to go.”

Very well. Imagine the parable of the Good Samaritan. Here comes an economist and he looks at the poor man, but he realizes that if he helps him, he is actually going to increase a dependency culture, so he passes by on the other side. Sorry. That’s just not good enough.

I’m making a plea for mercy. It’s not rocket science. It’s not macro economics and Ph.D-level complicated. It’s just asking, “What’s wrong with this picture of the way the world is working at the moment?” And I hear Doug Wilson and others as saying, “We don’t want to listen to that question.” You might not like my answer to the question, but please listen to the question.

Trevin Wax: Last time we spoke, you had just received your copy of John Piper’s The Future of Justification and had not had a chance to read it. What are your thoughts of the final version? Are you planning on responding to this book in any way?

N.T. Wright: I have discussed with my publishers the possibility of what I should do. Of course, Piper is not the only person who has critiqued either me or the New Perspective.

Piper’s criticism is very interesting. I warmed to him. He sent me a copy of it with a charming hand-written dedication, so on. He has clearly bent over backwards to try to understand where I and others are coming from. Sometimes he does and sometimes he doesn’t. He nearly gets to the point where he sees what I’m trying to say, and then the old worldview reasserts itself and he just can’t see through those lenses. I don’t want to say this patronizingly, but it is very frustrating.

I don’t have much spare time at the moment, but I would like to do something reasonably brief about Old Perspective/New Perspective issues, because I don’t want this debate to dominate the big book on Paul that I want to write at the end of next year (God willing, if I am spared, and if I get my sabbatical in order). For many readers of Paul, all the shouting match over Old and New Perspectives is not where the key issues are, so it’s not what I want to major on in the book. So I think I probably need to do something, not to set the record straight, but to keep the conversation going.

What I regret is when people say (and I’ve seen it here and there), “Oh, of course, Wright is wrong about justification (brackets, see Piper’s book).” I want to reply, Piper’s book isn’t always a critique of what I’m actually saying.

I’m intrigued that Piper has some positions about the righteousness of God, for instance, which are idiosyncratic. He thinks the word righteousness means “the righteousness of God is a concern for God’s glory.” Righteousness is God’s own concern for God’s glory, and then when God imputes righteousness to believers, he regards them as if they have a concern for God’s glory. He does some Old Testament work to back that up which I think just fails as exegesis of the passages.

Of course, the righteousness of God and the glory of God are intimately connected, but righteousness does have a very specific meaning related to the law-court and the covenant and this meaning can be monitored through Scripture again and again and again and not least in the post-biblical literature. Very interesting that he has a bit saying, “Let’s try leaving the post biblical literature out of it.” In other words, let’s read the New Testament in a vacuum historically. I just don’t think you can do that with any scholarly integrity.

The trouble is, this is not a fight that I wanted to get into because Piper is a good, beloved brother in Christ, doing a good job, building people up in the faith, teaching them how to live. I would prefer that he exegete Paul differently, of course, but the people I really want to fight are (like for Paul) the pagans out on the street who are reordering society in ways that are deeply dehumanizing. The gospel is for the pagans. It’s the reflex of the gospel to have the in-house fight with the Judaizers as it were.

When I was working on the commentary on Acts and worked through all Paul’s squabbles with the Jews in Jerusalem, etc. and the accusations they were throwing at him, I kept thinking, I know what this feels like. He’s come back home, having done all this stuff out there and here are these guys saying, “You are opposed to the temple. You’re letting the Law of Moses down. You’re doing this and doing that.” He’s saying, “No, I’m not doing any of that stuff.”

I certainly wouldn’t be so bold to make myself into a new incarnation of Paul! But I cannot help but think that maybe this is what happens when you’re trying to take the gospel out onto the street and into the wider world. You’re going to get shot at from your own home base.

As Piper says in his Intro, he and I are both old enough not to take this personally. We’re past the age of testosterone-fueled theological debate. It’s more or less, “Let’s just try to sort this thing out.” That’s fine.

I hope I will be able to respond. If he looks in on your blog, I give him my warmest greetings. I’ve still never met him. We’ve tried to meet a couple of times, but I’ve not yet made it yet.

Interview with N.T. Wright © 2008 Kingdom People blog

Related Past Articles:
My Review of Surprised by Hope
My Review of John Piper’s The Future of Justification
My November 2007 Interview with N.T. Wright

Book Review: The Faith

Colson the Catechist

A culture warrior sets out to explain Christianity’s essential doctrines.

(My review of Colson’s book originally appeared in Christianity Today here.)

Most Christians in the West lack the doctrinal and theological tools with which to stand fast in the onslaught of two hostile forces: Western secularism and Islamofascism. So say Charles Colson and his frequent coauthor Harold Fickett in The Faith, a book that celebrates the Christian faith’s essential doctrines, beliefs held by Christians “everywhere, always, by all.” Colson and Fickett believe that Christians are living in a unique time of special opposition: “Western culture is doing everything in its power to shut the door” by which humans pass from darkness to light. Only a robust reaffirmation of the essentials of Christian doctrine, they say, will provide a firm foundation for political and social engagement.

The first half of The Faith emphasizes what Christians believe about God, namely the reasons for his existence, his self-revelation to human beings, his triune nature, and the actions he has taken to defeat evil. The second half focuses on how our beliefs about God influence our beliefs about everything else, with Colson and Fickett articulating the Christian understanding of saving faith, reconciliation and forgiveness, the mission and nature of the church, sanctity of life, and so on. The result is a winning combination of Christian apologetics and Christian doctrine — a manifesto for looking at the world in a distinctly Christian way.

The authors not only see assaults on Christianity as external; they also warn against movements from within the church that they believe could undermine Christianity. Although they admit that much of the Emergent movement’s protest of contemporary evangelicalism is on target, the authors critique what they see as the movement’s prescription: a rejection of absolute truth. This, they say, will inevitably lead to idolatry. In attempting to maintain the propositional nature of Christianity’s truth claims, however, Colson and Fickett define the Bible as “revealed propositional truth,” which seems to relegate all truth to propositions and leaves little room for the narrative nature of Scripture.

It’s ironic that Colson and Fickett argue for truth as propositional above all else, because what sets this book apart from other doctrinal primers, like C. S. Lewis’s Mere Christianity or N. T. Wright’s Simply Christian, is its emphasis on stories. The Faith is moved along by stories more than by systematic theology (though there’s plenty of the latter in the book as well). Colson and Fickett bring together stories of courage and martyrdom from the annals of Christian history as well as riveting accounts of personal transformation from Colson’s Prison Fellowship ministry. The contemporary stories help readers see what the Christian life looks like today. The ancient stories remind us that we are not the first generation of Christians to live this way.

The stories aren’t just inspirational. They’re informative. The chapter on the Trinity, for example, begins by presenting Muslim evangelists who focus their efforts on convincing college-aged Christians to doubt the doctrine.

Like Mere Christianity and Simply Christian, The Faith is ecumenical, celebrating the tenets of Christian orthodoxy affirmed in the ecumenical creeds of the early church and accepted by all Christians today.

Such an outlook is evidenced by the book’s inclusion of several quotes from the official statements of Evangelicals and Catholics Together, an ecumenical initiative to which Colson has contributed. The upside of Colson’s involvement with ECT is that he is deeply committed to pursuing unity with other Christians. The downside is that he tends to overstate ECT’s ecumenical implications, suggesting there is broad agreement between Catholics and Protestants, when in fact, the joint statements do not reflect the official positions of the Roman Catholic Church or the major Protestant denominations.

Some readers may notice the lack of Eastern Orthodox representation in The Faith. Despite their noble goal of including all three major branches of Christianity, Colson and Fickett leave little room for Eastern Orthodoxy to influence the “orthodoxy” presented in The Faith.

The Faith’s critiques of Islamofascism and aggressive secularism are surely familiar to those who’ve read any of Colson’s previously coauthored works. Indeed, much of the book echoes Colson’s many other writings advocating a “Christian worldview.” However, earlier books bearing his byline (How Now Shall We Live? for example), have concentrated on the philosophical underpinnings for the reasonableness of Christian faith. They have delved little into Christian doctrine, instead choosing to explain how Judeo-Christian values affect the way we live. I suspect that Colson has discovered this “worldview” teaching to be missing a crucial component — distinctly Christian theology that goes beyond values language to the core affirmations of our faith.

While it’s never stated explicitly in the book, it seems that Colson and Fickett have moved from political and social commentary to catechesis because they realize that only a robust belief in Christian doctrine will provide the foundation for political and social engagement. “Would you give your life for a cause you didn’t fully understand?” they ask in the preface. “Would you try to convince someone else to join you? No, neither would I. Which is why I decided to write this book.”

And the book indeed works as both catechesis and as apologetic, a strong defense for traditional faith without sounding overly defensive. The Faith is more a celebration of orthodoxy than a circling of the theological wagons. Its primary message is that Christianity is true, Christianity is good, and Christianity is beneficial for the world. Its primary method is to do so by explaining what Christianity is.

Copyright © 2008 Christianity Today.

Gospel Definitions: Robert F. Capon

“Christianity is NOT a religion; it is the proclamation of the end of religion. Religion is a human activity dedicated to the job of reconciling God to humanity and humanity to itself. The Gospel, however – the Good News of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, is the astonishing announcement that God has done the whole work of reconciliation without a scrap of human assistance. It is the bizarre proclamation that religion is over – period.”

- Robert F. Capon

Book Review: Do I Know God?

How can I be sure that I know God?

Can I be a Christian and not feel God’s presence?

Should I trust my feelings?

Is it right to even want assurance of my relationship with God?

Pastors and laypeople alike wrestle with these and other difficult questions about the reality and vibrancy of our relationship with God. Tullian Tchividjian’s Do I Know God? Finding Certainty in Life’s Most Important Relationship (Multnomah, 2007) offers answers to these questions in a way that is both pastorally sensitive and unflinchingly biblical. Do I Know God? is written not only for people who want to know God, but also for those of us who want to know that we know God.

In his exploration of the answers to this important question, Tullian takes us in three directions. First, he helps readers understand what an authentic relationship with God looks like. In the early chapters, he exposes the false assumptions of many who assume they know God, showing how knowing about God is different than knowing God personally.

Next, he helps us examine ourselves to see whether we are in the faith by asking tough, biblical questions about the fruitfulness of our lives. Towards the end, Tullian shows us some practical ways to help us sense the assurance of our salvation.

Pastors who wish to preach on assurance of salvation would do well to consult Tullian’s book. Laypeople who struggle with the assurance of their salvation will discover the book to be very accessible. Peppered with illustrations from Tullian’s ministry and personal experience, Do I Know God? combines faithful biblical teaching with warmth that comes from the heart of a pastor. Some of the most helpful chapters deal with six ways in which people sometimes deceive themselves into thinking they know God when in reality they are far from him.

In addressing the question of certainty, Tullian emphasizes the nature of God and his promises to us. Again and again, he makes the case that salvation is all of grace. There are a couple of places where he seems to contradict himself (at one point in the book, he states that we cannot achieve salvation, but only receive it, although elsewhere he uses the terminology of achieving salvation), but the overwhelming message of the book is that salvation is all of God, which strengthens our certainty in his promises.

Do I Know God? is a well-written book that challenges, convicts and encourages us. I suspect we will be hearing more from Tullian in the days to come.

written by Trevin Wax  © 2008 Kingdom People blog

Culture Shock Upon Returning Home

Leaving Romania the first time after having moved there in the Fall of 2000 was difficult. I was eager to go back home and spend quality time with my friends and family. Yet, my heart was torn, because I had truly begun to feel “at home” in Romania. My understanding of God’s call to Romania during this season of my life was stronger than ever before.

Arriving back in the United States, I was surprised to encounter an unexpected case of culture shock. We were walking out of the Nashville airport and towards the parking garage and I noticed the sparkling clean, new cars in the parking garage.

So I remarked to Dad, “When did they start selling new cars near the airport?”

Dad said, “Trevin, that’s the parking lot!”

The cars were so new and clean, and they looked so expensive that I had automatically assumed it was a lot for buying new cars. It hadn’t even crossed my mind that I could be walking through a simple parking lot. Suddenly, I was awestruck by the wealth of my country.

If the unfamiliarity of poverty can shock a person, so can the unfamiliarity of wealth. After three months in Romania, I had become adjusted to the lack of wealth that I saw on a daily basis. Returning to America proved to be a culture shock in the opposite direction. Instead of being wowed by the poverty all around, I was incredulous to see the wealth of my own people.

During my first night back in the States, after I unpacked and settled into my room, I decided to go downstairs to get a glass of water. When I got to the staircase and saw our hall and foyer, it hit me again just how rich we Americans are. I looked at the beautiful staircase, the foyer, the banister, the front door, the hall, and then I remembered all the evenings spent at my Romanian village house. A family with three boys and a girl, just like mine. And somehow they manage to live, cooped up in a tiny three-room house with a kitchen. No bathroom, no shower, no running water inside at all.

Here I was walking down the stairs to a spacious kitchen to drink clean, cool water from the refrigerator, without effort. There on the staircase, my eyes filled with tears. I was so thankful for all that I had and for the life I’d been given. But my thanksgiving now included my times in Romania, experiences that had opened my eyes to see just how much I had been blessed.

Spending Christmas in the U.S. that first year was special. But I was excited about going back to Romania for the next semester. My church would be sending a medical and evangelistic mission team, and I was to help with the logistics of the trip. Also, I couldn’t wait to go back and continue the working in the village church and seeing the teenagers discipled. What I didn’t know was that I was coming up on a big disappointment. My honeymoon period in Romania was over.

written by Trevin Wax  © 2008 Kingdom People blog

YOU Give Them Something!

“You give them something to eat!”
- Jesus to the disciples (Mark 6:37)

As the sun began to go down after a long day, the disciples realized that the thousands who had come to hear Christ teach were without food. To rid themselves of the problem they were facing, they recommended that Jesus send the crowd away to find food elsewhere. For the disciples, the people were a burden that they had to release themselves from. Jesus’ curt answer follows: “You give them something to eat!”

Many Christians view hurting and hungry people as a burden instead of a gracious responsibility. Christ has called us to love others in spite of the circumstances and to be willing to shoulder the load of reaching out to those hungry for God. Our duty as the body of Christ is to glorify Him by bringing His hope and gospel to a dying world, which means that we often must deal with the hard cases.

Putting this task on to someone else would be easier and thus make for a much more pleasant Christian experience – free of the pain of others’ heartache. That is precisely why Jesus tells us to provide the food. We are His hands in a hurting world.

Jesus was asking the disciples to do something that was practically impossible – to feed up to 20000 people (including women and children). Sometimes we feel that God is asking the impossible of us too – and He is. He wants us to try to move the mountain, so that we’ll realize that we must trust Him for the results.

Without faith it is impossible to please God. Christ asks us to help in His healing process for the spiritually malnourished, and this task requires His power. He calls us to do what we can with the little faith and resources he gives us, all the while understanding that He will be there to provide the miracle.

written by Trevin Wax  © 2008 Kingdom People blog

Gospel Definitions: “Evangelical Celebration”

This Gospel of Jesus Christ which God sets forth in the infallible Scriptures combines Jesus’ own declaration of the present reality of the kingdom of God with the apostles’ account of the person, place, and work of Christ, and how sinful humans benefit from it. The Patristic Rule of Faith, the historic creeds, the Reformation confessions, and the doctrinal bases of later evangelical bodies all witness to the substance of this biblical message.

The heart of the Gospel is that our holy, loving Creator, confronted with human hostility and rebellion, has chosen in his own freedom and faithfulness to become our holy, loving Redeemer and Restorer. The Father has sent the Son to be the Savior of the world(1 John 4:14): it is through his one and only Son that God’s one and only plan of salvation is implemented. So Peter announced: “Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). And Christ himself taught: “I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6).

Through the Gospel we learn that we human beings, who were made for fellowship with God, are by nature—that is, “in Adam” (1 Cor. 15:22)—dead in sin, unresponsive to and separated from our Maker. We are constantly twisting his truth, breaking his law, belittling his goals and standards, and offending his holiness by our unholiness, so that we truly are “without hope and without God in the world” (Rom. 1:18-32, 3:9-20; Eph. 2:1-3, 12). Yet God in grace took the initiative to reconcile us to himself through the sinless life and vicarious death of his beloved Son (Eph. 2:4-10; Rom. 3:21-24).

The Father sent the Son to free us from the dominion of sin and Satan, and to make us God’s children and friends. Jesus paid our penalty in our place on his cross, satisfying the retributive demands of divine justice by shedding his blood in sacrifice and so making possible justification for all who trust in him (Rom. 3:25-26). The Bible describes this mighty substitutionary transaction as the achieving of ransom, reconciliation, redemption, propitiation, and conquest of evil powers (Matt. 20:28; 2 Cor. 5:18-21; Rom. 3:23-25; John 12:31; Col. 2:15). It secures for us a restored relationship with God that brings pardon and peace, acceptance and access, and adoption into God’s family (Col. 1:20, 2:13-14; Rom. 5:1-2; Gal. 4:4-7; 1 Pet. 3:18). The faith in God and in Christ to which the Gospel calls us is a trustful outgoing of our hearts to lay hold of these promised and proffered benefits.

This Gospel further proclaims the bodily resurrection, ascension, and enthronement of Jesus as evidence of the efficacy of his once-for-all sacrifice for us, of the reality of his present personal ministry to us, and of the certainty of his future return to glorify us (1 Cor. 15; Heb. 1:1-4, 2:1-18, 4:14-16, 7:1-10:25). In the life of faith as the Gospel presents it, believers are united with their risen Lord, communing with him, and looking to him in repentance and hope for empowering through the Holy Spirit, so that henceforth they may not sin but serve him truly.

God’s justification of those who trust him, according to the Gospel, is a decisive transition, here and now, from a state of condemnation and wrath because of their sins to one of acceptance and favor by virtue of Jesus’ flawless obedience culminating in his voluntary sin-bearing death. God “justifies the wicked” (ungodly: Rom. 4:5) by imputing (reckoning, crediting, counting, accounting) righteousness to them and ceasing to count their sins against them (Rom. 4:1-8). Sinners receive through faith in Christ alone “the gift of righteousness” (Rom. 1:17, 5:17; Phil. 3:9) and thus be come “the righteousness of God” in him who was “made sin” for them (2 Cor. 5:21).

As our sins were reckoned to Christ, so Christ’s righteousness is reckoned to us. This is justification by the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. All we bring to the transaction is our need of it. Our faith in the God who bestows it, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, is itself the fruit of God’s grace. Faith links us savingly to Jesus, but inasmuch as it involves an acknowledgment that we have no merit of our own, it is confessedly not a meritorious work.

The Gospel assures us that all who have en trusted their lives to Jesus Christ are born-again children of God (John 1:12), indwelt, empowered, and assured of their status and hope by the Holy Spirit (Rom. 7:6, 8:9-17). The moment we truly believe in Christ, the Father declares us righteous in him and begins conforming us to his likeness. Genuine faith acknowledges and depends upon Jesus as Lord and shows itself in growing obedience to the divine commands, though this contributes nothing to the ground of our justification (James 2:14-26; Heb. 6:1-12).

By his sanctifying grace, Christ works within us through faith, renewing our fallen nature and leading us to real maturity, that measure of development which is meant by “the fullness of Christ” (Eph. 4:13). The Gospel calls us to live as obedient servants of Christ and as his emissaries in the world, doing justice, loving mercy, and helping all in need, thus seeking to bear witness to the kingdom of Christ. At death, Christ takes the believer to himself (Phil. 1:21) for unimaginable joy in the ceaseless worship of God (Rev. 22:1-5).

Salvation in its full sense is from the guilt of sin in the past, the power of sin in the present, and the presence of sin in the future. Thus, while in foretaste believers enjoy salvation now, they still await its fullness (Mark 14:61-62; Heb. 9:28). Salvation is a Trinitarian reality, initiated by the Father, implemented by the Son, and applied by the Holy Spirit. It has a global dimension, for God’s plan is to save believers out of every tribe and tongue (Rev. 5:9) to be his church, a new humanity, the people of God, the body and bride of Christ, and the community of the Holy Spirit. All the heirs of final salvation are called here and now to serve their Lord and each other in love, to share in the fellowship of Jesus’ sufferings, and to work together to make Christ known to the whole world.

We learn from the Gospel that, as all have sinned, so all who do not receive Christ will be judged according to their just deserts as measured by God’s holy law, and face eternal retributive punishment.

- The Gospel of Jesus Christ: An Evangelical Celebration

Come, My Light

Come, my Light, and illumine my darkness.

Come, my Life, and revive me from death.

Come, my Physician, and heal my wounds.

Come, Flame of divine love, and burn up the thorns of my sins,
kindling my heart with the flame of your love.

Come, my King, sit upon the throne of my heart and reign there.

For You alone are my King and my Lord.

- Dmitri of Rostov

Bonhoeffer on the Necessity of Obedience

“The road to faith passes through obedience to the call of Jesus… Only he who believes is obedient, and only he who is obedient believes.”

- Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship

Young, Restless, Reformed Series

I appreciate Collin Hansen for his book Young, Restless, Reformed, which helped me solidify my thoughts regarding the resurgence of Reformed theology among the younger generation. My celebration and concerns regarding this movement are included in this four-part series – an analysis of the promise and peril of the new Calvinism. Next week, I hope to have some time to post my reflections on the 2008 Together for the Gospel conference.

Reformed Resurgence 1: Calvinist Conversion?

Reformed Resurgence 2: John Piper

Reformed Resurgence 3: Southern Seminary

Reformed Resurgence 4: New Calvinists

In the Blogosphere

Just a few more days before my interview with N.T. Wright regarding Surprised by Hope. If you haven’t yet submitted a question and would like to, email me ASAP.

Darryl Dash’s thoughts on Together for the Gospel. He has a list of things he liked and several things he wished had been part of the coference.

Josh Harris has the inside scoop on American Idol’s performance of “Shout to the Lord”

Ted Olsen at Christianity Today sums up the recent Compassion Forum, in which Clinton and Obama answered questions about faith.

Carl Bernstein writes about what a Hillary Clinton presidency would look like, and it doesn’t look good.

My, how things have changed in 50 years

Randy Alcorn on a new book for teenagers that challenges them to “Do Hard Things”

Is Jesus present in your preaching?

God doesn’t need your guitar on Sunday morning in order to be “relevant”

Reformed Resurgence 4: New Calvinists

Collin Hansen has done an admirable job documenting the rise of Reformed theology among the younger generations. Those who see themselves as part of this movement will read Young, Restless, Reformed with delight. Those who are close to the movement (like myself) will discover reasons to celebrate and reasons to be concerned. Those who stand against the new Calvinism will find plenty of ammunition against the young and restless evangelicals.

I thoroughly enjoyed the chapters that recounted the Calvinism of C.J. Mahaney and Josh Harris. I am not a charismatic in any sense, but I have benefited from the worship music coming from the Sovereign Grace crowd. I read two of C.J.’s books (The Cross-Centered Life and Humility) and thought both of them were good. Then, I met C.J. personally and thought his books were great! Here is a man who lives what he preaches.

I appreciate as well the cautiousness of Mahaney’s charismatic worship. Whereas Piper has learned from Jonathan Edwards about the glory of God, Mahaney has leaned on Edwards for advice in navigating between the unbiblical excesses of many charismatic practices and the charismatic expressions of those gripped by the gospel of grace.

As I closed Young, Restless, Reformed, I found myself celebrating certain aspects of the Reformed Resurgence. I also found myself with a new concerns about the perils that this movement will face. Below are some of my main concerns.

1. Is Together for the Gospel a conference expressing our unity in the gospel of Christ? Or should it rather be called “Together for Calvinism?” After all, every speaker is a five-point Calvinist. Are we “together” and united for Calvinist soteriology or for the gospel of Jesus Christ? Many Calvinists seem to confuse the two. Calvinism is the gospel (or at least the highest expression of the gospel) for many of my Reformed friends. I beg to differ.

2. The Reformed Resurgence, by its very nature, waters down (no pun intended) the importance of baptism, and along with that, other important ecclesiological matters. Michael Horton (professor at Westminster Seminary in California) is quoted at length about the rise of Reformed theology. He is delighted at the rise of Calvinism, but he sees a problem with the lack of ecclesiological unity. Many Baptists would agree with him. Piper’s desire to open church membership to the unbaptized is a case in point. The very fact that some would express an intention to create a “Together for the Gospel” denomination or association underscores the lack of ecclesial accountability to this movement. For the most part, our denominations are with us on the gospel, even if our church people are not 5-point Calvinists.

3. I can see the blogosphere continuing to become a significant shaper of both the good and bad aspects of this movement. Like any medium, blogs can be used in good or bad ways. The danger of blogging is that blogs are, by nature, self-promoting to some extent (and I speak as one who maintains a blog… I am not pointing fingers). Bloggers can also spread divisive rhetoric, underhanded attacks on other believers and foster an atmosphere of rivalry and dissension – often without being held accountable.

4. Several times in Collin’s book, the people being interviewed talk about the fruit that is coming out of the new Calvinism. We’re seeing young people get saved. We’re watching the new Calvinists help serve the poor, work out in the inner cities. Collin seems to argue for the validity of Calvinism on the basis of how it is affecting outreach. Ironically, the Emerging Church does the same thing. Our theology must be right if it’s pushing us into greater discipleship and service! Not necessarily. I believe our actions do back up our theology, but we cannot assume that our fruit necessarily proves the validity of our theological positions. Taken to an extreme, this tendency of Calvinists to point to their fruit as the greatest evidence of the truthfulness of their theology is simply the flip-side of some Church Growth leaders who advocated change based on what seems to be working.

I mentioned yesterday the condescending, dismissive attitude that many of the new Calvinists seem to harbor against their local churches. We should learn from some of the humble Calvinists. C.J. and Joshua model the humility that should be true of all who truly believe in the doctrines of grace. Listen to Josh:

If you really understand Reformed theology, we should all just sit around shaking our heads going, ‘It’s unbelievable. Why would God choose any of us?’ Harris said. ‘You are so amazed by grace, you’re not picking a fight with anyone – you’re just crying tears of amazement that should lead to a heart for lost people, that God does indeed save, when he doesn’t have to save anybody.’ 

May this attitude of humility and grace characterize Christians everywhere, whether or not they consider themselves young, restless, or Reformed.

written by Trevin Wax  © 2008 Kingdom People blog

Gospel Definitions: Jeff Purswell

“The gospel is the good news of God’s saving activity in the person and work of Christ. This includes his incarnation in which he took to himself full (yet sinless) human nature; his sinless life which fulfilled the perfect law of God; his substitutionary death which paid the penalty for man’s sin and satisfied the righteous wrath of God; his resurrection demonstrating God’s satisfaction with his sacrifice; and his glorification and ascension to the right hand of the Father where he now reigns and intercedes for the church.

“Such news is specific: there is a defined ‘thatness’ to the gospel which sets forth the content of both our saving faith and our proclamation. It is objective, and not to be confused with our response. It is sufficient: we can add nothing to what Christ has accomplished for us–it falls to us simply to believe this news, turning from our sins and receiving by faith all that God has done for us in Christ.”

- Jeff Purswell

Reformed Resurgence 3: Southern Seminary

Continuing our series through Collin Hansen’s Young, Restless, Reformed, we turn to the chapter on Southern Seminary. Provocatively titled “Ground Zero,” Collin’s chapter on SBTS has already ruffled some feathers. The chapter deals with the Reformed Resurgence at Southern through the eyes of three Southern students, seminary president Albert Mohler, and then the backlash against Calvinism evident in the wider Southern Baptist Convention.

Collin describes the Conservative Resurgence at Southern before he shows how the Conservative comeback has morphed into a resurgence of Calvinism across the denomination. He then shows how many Calvinists are in between a rock and a hard place within the SBC. He tells the story of Steve Lawson, whose Dauphin Way Baptist Church in Mobile, Alabama split over Calvinist teaching. He quotes Founders Ministry leader Tom Ascol on the Calvinists being forced into a “no-win” position. Collin does a good job of going back and forth between the opposing Southern Baptist views on Calvinism, moderating fairly between them as he makes his case for the Seminary being “Ground Zero.”

Celebration

Collin rightly notes how the Conservative Resurgence’s emphasis on doctrinal confessions necessarily led back to a resurgence of Calvinism at Southern Seminary. We can celebrate the fact that Southern Baptists are increasingly returning to their confessional heritage. The fact that many young Baptist pastors are reading and learning from our Baptist forefathers should cause us to rejoice. In order to know where we’re going as a Convention, we need to know where we’ve been.

The emphasis on evangelism is encouraging. Collin shows how influential some Reformed authors’ books on missions and evangelism have been. He shows how one Southern student won an evangelism award at Liberty University. He points to the number of Calvinist missionaries who are serving with the International Mission Board and the Calvinistic leanings of many contemporary church planters.

Compare the Southern Seminary of today with the Seminary thirty years ago and the reasons for rejoicing become clear. Southern now hosts a world-renowned faculty of conservative Bible scholars who believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith, and who sincerely affirm the Abstract of Principles as a confessional guide. Southern has come a long way, and we can rejoice in the fearless leadership of Albert Mohler in guiding the Seminary back to orthodoxy.

Concerns

By only focusing on the Reformed resurgence at Southern, Collin does not do justice to the diversity among Southern’s faculty. I’ve written about the common misconceptions about Southern Seminary elsewhere, but some of the more important facts deserve to be mentioned again. Not one of the deans currently serving at the seminary is a five-point Calvinist. Calvinism is not the main topic of discussion at the seminary among students. Mohler’s focus is the gospel, not Calvinism per se.

Furthermore, the three students Collin highlights were all of Calvinist persuasion before coming to Southern. In other words, they came to Southern because they were Calvinists. They did not become Calvinists because they went to Southern.

Collin devotes several pages to telling Timmy Brister’s story. I sometimes wonder if Timmy Brister and I attend the same seminary. Collin writes about Timmy “giving seminary leaders an earful when they welcome chapel speakers who have elsewhere derided Calvinism.”

It saddens me that for some Southern students, inviting to chapel a Baptist brother with whom we share strong ecclesiological ties, but who doesn’t subscribe to Calvinist soteriology would be more controversial than listening to someone like R.C. Sproul or Ligon Duncan. Where is the ecclesiology in this movement? If we can learn from those who disagree with the Abstract on a doctrine as important as baptism, surely we can learn from someone who disagrees with unconditional election. There’s a double standard at work here. The Calvinists welcome paedobaptists to chapel, overlooking that ecclesiological difference. Yet they protest fellow Baptists who do not toe the line on Calvinism. Personally, I am thankful that Southern Seminary administrators have chosen to welcome a variety of godly Christian men to the pulpit with whom we might strongly disagree on certain issues, but with whom we share a strong commitment to the gospel.

Another concern that rises to the forefront in this chapter is in Steve Lawson’s story about Dauphin Way Baptist Church. Lawson, after two years of preaching at Dauphin Way still describes his former church as having a “biblical literacy” that was “amazingly low. Many people weren’t even bringing Bibles to church.” Two things bother me here: first, that two years into his ministry, Lawson still saw his church as biblically illiterate. Secondly, the ease with which Lawson speaks condescendingly of his former church. 

A common thread that seems to unite both the Emerging Church movement and the “young, restless, Reformed” crowd is that both seem to be most attractive to young, disaffected evangelicals. In other words, the same angst (some may call it “young” or “restless”) that drives one from his theologically-light home church into an “emerging” church is often the same attitude that drives one from his theologically-light home church into the Reformed camp. I cannot help but wonder if pride and elitism forms the foundation for many of the people in both movements.

Some of those quoted in Hansen’s book seem to have adopted a kind of dismissive, condescending attitude toward their home church—churches in which they were loved, heard the gospel preached, were saved, and discipled. Ironically, many of today’s restless Reformed students came to faith in the “biblically illiterate” churches they so quickly criticize. Instead of showing a humble appreciation for the local churches that nurtured them into the faith, some Calvinists return to their churches, armed and ready to “reform” their theology.

I pray that Southern Seminary will continue to be a light in an increasingly dark world. But this will only come about if those of us who believe in God’s unconditional, unmerited grace serve the church in humility. Satan would love nothing more than to have the arrogant snobbery of Old Southern’s liberalism turn into the arrogant snobbery of New Southern’s Calvinism.

Tomorrow, I’ll be back with some final thoughts on the rest of Collin’s book.

written by Trevin Wax  © 2008 Kingdom People blog

Book Review: Relativism – Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air

Many think that philosophical arguments and affirmations should be left to philosophers and academics. Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air by Francis Beckwith and Gregory Koukl dispels that notion. Beckwith and Koukl show how philosophy (relativism in particular) influences how we think about politics, religion, law and morality.

Now in its tenth printing, Relativism is a terrific introduction to the notion of moral relativism and its impact on our lives. The authors lay out three kinds of relativism: Society Does Relativism (a description of different moralities in different societies), Society Says Relativism (a prescription of morality based on society’s moral code), and I Say Relativism (each individual creates his/her own morality). The authors seek to discredit these types of relativism by showing the inherent flaws in each system.

How do you respond to objections like: You shouldn’t force your morality on me! Who are you to judge? Beckwith and Koukl offer suggestions for refuting relavitism by showing how the system breaks down by relying on self-refuting statements.

Relativism will not satisfy philosophers who like to delve deeper into these discussions. But the book is brilliant as a winsome, easy-to-understand introduction to these matters for laypeople who have had philosophical discussions without knowing it.

written by Trevin Wax. copyright © 2008 Kingdom People Blog.

Reformed Resurgence 2: John Piper

In Chapter 2 of Young, Restless, Reformed, journalist Collin Hansen travels to Minneapolis to attend Bethlehem Baptist Church and interview Pastor John Piper. He starts out by attending the Saturday night service, speaking with a young church member about Calvinism, and then spending some time with Piper in his home. On Sunday morning, he visits Bethlehem again, this time looking over the Reformed theology available in the bookstore, and then sitting in as TULIP is taught in a college group.

Next, Hansen relates a conversation with Roger Olson, an Arminian evangelical scholar who believes Calvinists and Arminians should not spend so much energy quarreling with each other and should instead fight the real danger in American theology: Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism. Hansen helpfully lays out the main differences of interpretation between Arminians and Calvinists.

Shifting back to his chronicle of Calvinism among the young, Hansen then recounts conversations with other young men and women who embraced Calvinism after seeing the difference it was making in the lives and ministries of others. He devotes a small amount of space to the complementarian view of gender roles that often accompanies the current Calvinist theology. He then ends with the warning issued by Piper’s son, Barnabas – that people not undo his father’s emphasis on God’s glory by worshipping a Minneapolis pastor instead.

Celebration

This chapter, in many ways, increases my admiration for John Piper. I celebrate the emphasis he puts on biblical theology. Piper is a pastor who understands the ramifications of getting theology right. He is one of the greatest preachers of our day, a faithful expositor of Scripture whose passionate delivery helps drive home his God-centered messages.

Collin has done a terrific job showing what it is about Piper that makes him so “irresistible” to young adults. Piper manages to combine biblical exegesis with an infectious passion in his preaching. He understands that biblical knowledge should never be an end in itself, but should instead be intended to transform our lives. I also appreciate the pastoral sensitivity and passion for his theology that leads Piper to so freely share his resources online. In a world of online sermon-purchasing, Piper’s willingness to sacrifice personal gain for his message is a breath of fresh air.

I also celebrate the emphasis that Collin puts on evangelism. Throughout the chapter, the tired refrain that “Calvinists don’t evangelize” is unmasked as a stereotype that is simply untrue. Collin wisely included the testimony of one young girl speaking of how Calvinist theology actually emboldens evangelism. Absolutely. Those who believe in unconditional election have the confidence that their gospel-sharing will result in people coming to faith.

Concerns

My major concern comes, not from Collin’s research, but from Piper himself. At one point, Piper says:

One of the most common things I deal with when talking to younger pastors is conflict with their senior pastors… They’re youth pastors and they’ve gone to Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and read something R.C. Sproul or I wrote and they say, ‘We’re really out of step. What should we do? I try to say you have to be totally candid with your pastor and tell him where you’re coming from and pray that God will help him share your vision. And then ask permission. And if they give you permission, teach away. Build your movement.”

I appreciate Piper’s emphasis on honesty and candor, as well as his instruction for young pastors to submit to pastoral authority. But there are some major problems here. First off, what happens when the pastor says “No”? Piper seems to give the impression here that a young staff member should only teach Calvinism if the pastor agrees. Does this mean that if the pastor disagrees the younger pastor should just keep quiet? I doubt it. Piper wants the “movement” to grow, so I assume he would tell young pastors to find another church.

But there are bigger problems than this. Just what are we asking permission for? To share the gospel with lost people? To preach expository sermons? To teach our churches the Bible? No… we’re asking permission to spread a system of theology, which leads me to more questions. Is this what we’re called to do? I appreciate Piper’s instruction, but what’s the point? To see Calvinism spread throughout evangelicalism? The Great Commission will take a backseat to Calvinism if we focus on ”building a movement.”

What happens when the “movement” of Reformed theology takes center stage? By placing Calvinism at the forefront of what we are to “build,” we are necessarily putting the local church and the gospel itself at the backburner. (I understand that there is a Calvinist church-planting movement. However, once the emphasis shifts from “build for the kingdom” and “preach the gospel” to “build your movement,” our trajectory changes and we begin going in a direction that will ultimately lead us astray.)

Piper’s emphasis on Calvinism also clouds the issue for his followers. The passionate delivery and way he articulates the five points would have you think that a denial of Calvinism is, in effect, a denial of the true and undiluted gospel. Roger Olson is right to point out that many Calvinists treat Arminians as if they did not believe the gospel. The problem here is that the system of soteriology has replaced the gospel announcement.

Ironically, for all its emphasis on being God-centered, the Calvinist resurgence often replaces the gospel message about Christ with TULIP. Calvinism is the gospel for many of the young, restless, and Reformed. Any deviation from Calvinism is seen as a lesser, incomplete expression of the gospel. Confusing “the gospel” with the doctrines of grace is an error which will lead to less and less cooperation with Christians who differ on the issue of Calvinism.

The final concern I have in this chapter is the troublesome image of Piper’s fandom. Collin manages to be even-handed as he describes the “Piperites.” For me, the most disturbing statement comes from a young lady at the end of the chapter who talks about how Piper is like a dad to her, even though they’ve never met. Why is this troublesome?

First off, the double standard should be obvious. Later in the book, ”professional” pastors that are not easily accessible receive harsh criticism. Yet I wonder how many secretaries I would have to go through before I could reach John Piper? I am not criticizing Piper here. As pastor of a mega-church, there are only so many people he can talk to. I am merely pointing out the double standard in critiquing pastors outside Reformed circles for being inaccessible, when the great Reformed pastors face the same issues.

Secondly, and more importantly, the very idea that a man can be “like a dad” to a young lady even though they’ve never met tells us something about God himself. Fathers image God. The fact that a young lady would express the concept of spiritual fatherhood in relation to Piper shows what her view of God the Father is. Far off. Transcendant. Powerful. Distant. If fatherhood can take place without ever meeting, then we must have missed something about the immanence of God that expresses itself in God’s condescension to us in Christ.

This story is surely a warning light that we have gone too far in our view of God’s transcendence. In our reaction towards the “buddy Jesus” of youth group, have we swung the pendulum too far the other way?

Tomorrow, we look at Collin’s chapter on Southern Seminary.

written by Trevin Wax  © 2008 Kingdom People blog

Gospel Definitions: Jeremiah Burroughs

The gospel of Christ in general is this:

It is the good tidings that God has revealed concerning Christ.

More largely it is this:

As all mankind was lost in Adam and became the children of wrath, put under the sentence of death, God, though He left His fallen angels and has reserved them in the chains of eternal darkness, yet He has thought upon the children of men and has provided a way of atonement to reconcile them to Himself again…Namely, the second person of the Trinity takes man’s nature upon Himself, and becomes the Head of a second covenant, standing charged with sin. He answers for it by suffering what the law and divine justice required, and by making satisfaction by keeping the law perfectly, which satisfaction and righteousness He tenders up to the Father as a sweet savor of rest for the souls that are given to Him…And now this mediation of Christ is, by the appointment of the Father, preached to the children of men, of whatever nation or rank, freely offering this atonement unto sinners for atonement, requiring them to believe in Him and, upon believing, promising not only a discharge of all their former sins, but that they shall not enter into condemnation, that none of their sins or unworthiness shall ever hinder the peace of God with them, but that they shall through Him be received into the number of those who shall have the image of God again to be renewed unto them, and they they shall be kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation.

- Jeremiah Burroughs

Reformed Resurgence 1: Calvinist Conversion?

Today we begin looking at Collin Hansen’s new book Young, Restless, Reformed: A Journalist’s Journey with the New Calvinists. Hansen (an editor-at-large for Christianity Today) has documented the recent resurgence of Calvinist theology among young people, a theological development that crosses denominational lines. In the next few days, I plan on commenting on several of the chapters by summarizing Hansen’s research, celebrating certain aspects of the Reformed Resurgence, and expressing my concerns regarding other aspects.

The reason I am devoting several posts to this slim volume is because I speak as one who in some ways is on the inside of this movement and in other ways is on the outside. I spent 18 months in Louisville at Southern Seminary (2005-2007) as a full-time student and am still a student at the Nashville extension center. I am familiar with the Reformed theology of many Southern students, having been immersed in the Seminary’s culture during my time on campus.

At the same time, based on the professed theological convictions of the vast majority of those highlighted in the book, I am also on the outside of this movement since I am not a five-point Calvinist. My theology leans Reformed, meaning that I am probably more Calvinistic than the majority of Southern Baptists. (I would be in the category often jokingly referred to as “Christmas Calvinists.” In other words, No L.) I do not see most aspects of Calvinism as being worthy of dividing over. Neither do I believe I have been commissioned to convince others of Calvinism.

In other words, I am not so much concerned that the people in the church in which I am a pastor are able to detail the historical development of the doctrine of unconditional election, as I am concerned that my people know and believe that the Bible teaches that there is nothing in them that makes them worthy of God’s grace in salvation in Christ. I have critiqued some of the aspects of the Reformed Resurgence in other posts, even as I celebrate some of its developments.

Chapter Summary

Collin Hansen’s book begins with a chapter titled “Born Again Again.” Here, Collin emphasizes how the resurgence is taking place among the “young” by describing those attending the Passion Conferences. Collin tells us about a Seventh-Day Adventist who considers himself a “Piper fiend” and has listened to 200 sermons from Piper on Romans alone. He points out how Reformed theology pulsates through Piper’s signature book, Desiring God. Piper fits well at the Passion conferences because of his emphasis on the grandeur of God. Worship songs from Charlie Hall and Chris Tomlin emphasize God’s glory and sovereignty.

Collin argues that the Passion Conferences have seen remarkable success among the college-aged because the students are starved for a gospel of grace and not the moralistic, man-centered teachings they have been fed in church. For many young people, discovering Calvinism is like getting saved all over again. Most find Calvinism hard to swallow at first, but after embracing the doctrines of grace, they find it to be liberating. Collin writes about “stories of conversion – born again by the power of God, then transformed by the mystery of grace.”

Celebration

There is much to celebrate here. Collin’s story about the Adventist begins with the young man’s conversion and is a bright testimony to the power of the gospel. Nothing to quibble about here. Whenever people are being transformed by the gospel, we should rejoice – secondary doctrines aside.

Also worthy of celebrating is the fantastic worship music that has come from this movement. From the Passion conferences, we’ve benefited from the music of Chris Tomlin, Charlie Hall and others. Sovereign Grace Ministries puts out contemporary praise songs with a strong dose of theology, as do Keith and Krystin Getty (of “In Christ Alone” fame). Red Mountain Church and Indelible Grace have revived interest in old hymns, by giving them new tunes. The Reformed Resurgence is responsible for a number of worship songs that rise to the top, outshining the shallow theology of other contemporary offerings.

Collin rightly notes that young people today are craving the Transcendent God, perhaps as a reaction to a steady diet of “buddy Jesus in youth group.” We should rejoice that the majesty and holiness of God is again at the forefront of the Calvinist resurgence.

Concerns

Several of Collin’s unspoken assumptions bother me. For example, I too rejoice that the transcendence of God is once again being emphasized among those in my generation. But is Calvinism the only Christian tradition that provides this? Is the transcendence of God to be found in Calvinism alone? One could argue that the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions have also traditionally emphasized this aspect of God’s nature, yet we would probably not be happy to see young people abandoning Protestantism. Collin’s unspoken assumption is this: Only Calvinism properly emphasizes the transcendence of God. I beg to differ. During my years of mission work in Romania, I learned about the awe and transcendence of God in a church culture that was far from Calvinist.

Another concern? The Reformed resurgence as portrayed in the book seems like a massive movement that is exploding in popularity. Actually, the number of young Calvinists remains rather low. Collin himself notes this by quoting from Christian Smith’s Soul Searching, which demonstrates how most young people are being fed a diet of “Moralistic Therapeutic Deism.” Yes, the case can be made that many of the new Calvinists are reacting against moralism. But unfortunately, most of our young people are also simply disappearing. The ones still in church may be moving towards Calvinism, but the Reformed Resurgence is not as widespread as it appears in the book. (I do believe, however, that Collin is right to see the Reformed movement as being numerically bigger than the Emerging Church movement. Though the Emerging Church gets more press, the Reformed resurgence is probably more widespread.)

Minor quibbles aside, I am most concerned about the testimonies that give the chapter this title: “Born Again Again.” Those who discover Calvinism speak of their experience as a second conversion, like getting saved all over again. Collin himself gives a brief testimony, where he mentions his conversion, his spiritual life after conversion, and then the difference that Calvinism made in his life. The underlying impression in his story and others is this: “God saved me, praise the Lord! But I was still missing something. I needed something more.”

Ironically, the Calvinist resurgence here resembles its arch-nemesis: Wesleyanism. The Methodists have their “Second Blessing” whereupon “perfection” is granted. This event takes place after conversion. Likewise, the Pentecostals (also Arminian!) believe that the filling of the Holy Spirit takes place after conversion, once one speaks in tongues. Salvation is terrific, but the blessing that comes after salvation is even better. Is the embrace of Calvinism much different?

These questions about “converting to Calvinism” bother me more as the book goes on. (Piper later talks about being “baptized into Calvinist theology” – an unfortunate metaphor that says more than he probably intended, but is revealing nonetheless). Students speak of Calvinism as a secret they discover that they then want to take back to their churches. The person’s journey towards Calvinist convictions sounds more Gnostic to me than Christian. We finally have the secret knowledge that no one else knows about. We are the only ones who know this.

Tomorrow, we look at Chapter 2 and Hansen’s interview with John Piper.

written by Trevin Wax  © 2008 Kingdom People blog

Bring Some of Your Fish

“Bring some of the fish that you have just caught.”
- Jesus to his disciples (John 21:10)

After a long night of fruitless work, the disciples were tired and depressed, until the risen Jesus met them on the shore and gave them instruction in their fishing procedure. Once the disciples obeyed, there were too many fish for the net to hold.

When they arrived on shore, Jesus then instructed them to “bring some of the fish that they just caught” and to join Him for breakfast. The Savior had no need of the disciples’ fish, since He already had a charcoal fire and fish cooking for Himself. He also knew (as well as the disciples) that the only reason they had been able to catch something was because He Himself had given them the power.

All night long, by themselves, they had labored without results. Yet, in His kindness and majestic love, Jesus invited the disciples to bring some of “their” fish to mix with His fish, and then to have breakfast together with Him. All were really His fish, including the fish that the disciples caught, but He mercifully gave those fish to them to catch.

Everything we have (our talents, our minds, our ability to move, even our spirituality) is given to us by God. Even if we were to give every single minute of our lives for His service alone, we really would not be giving Him anything that wasn’t already His very own.

Jesus didn’t need the disciples’ fish in order to have breakfast. Yet, in His grace, He invited them to bring “their” fish to His table and to eat with Him. God doesn’t need our talents in order to do His work. Yet, in His grace, He invites us to bring “our” gifts to His altar and to work alongside of Him. Τhis is the profound mystery and wonder of a loving God who invites us to take part in His work. He gives us the power; He gives us the “fish”; we give Him the glory.

written by Trevin Wax  © 2008 Kingdom People blog

Headed to T4G

Tomorrow night, I will be driving to Louisville, Kentucky for the Together for the Gospel conference and the Band of Bloggers luncheon. I missed both in 2006, even though I was living in Louisville at the time.

 I look forward to meeting some of my readers this week. If you are in the area and would like to get together, email me and we can try to set something up.

Piper’s Resurrection Prayer

Father of glory,
we praise you that you mightily raised your Son, Jesus, from the dead.
We praise you that the stone which the builders rejected
has become the cornerstone.
This is your doing
and it is marvelous in our eyes.
Death could not hold him!
Our last enemy has fallen before your power
in the triumph of Jesus over death,
and we have been freed from fear of this ancient enemy.

And now, O God,
grant us to live in the riches of all that Jesus’ resurrection means.
All authority belongs to him in heaven and on earth.
No power and no enemy can prevail against him.
Only good can come to us in the end as we trust in him.
The best is always yet to come.

So, Father,
banish fear and fretting and discouragement and moddiness from our lives.
Rivet our attention on the ultimate reality
of Christ’s final triumph over death.
Never let us forget or fail to feel universal glory
that you have given Jesus a name that is above every name.
Make this practical in our daily lives
as we see every person, great and small,
facing someday the risen and triumphant Judge of all the nations.
Give us a brokenhearted boldness
in the mercy and might of Jesus.

O Father,
we want our lives to count for the display of his greatness.
Work in us to this end with all your might, we pray.
In Jesus’ name, Amen.

- John Piper, from Seeing and Savoring Jesus Christ, (pp.108-9)

Breaking Through

As we began our ministry to the village teenagers in Romania, my school friend and I would meet several times a week to spend time in prayer fo the teens. We had been having a difficult time for several months. It was hard for us to get the teens to open up to us. They were often so quiet during our Bible studies that we weren’t sure how to handle them.

After one of our Saturday youth services, most of the teens went with us to one of the homes, where we ate some home-made pizza. While there, we played a variety of games together, and the teens really came out of their shells. As everyone was talking and smiling and having a good time, I sat back and just was amazed at the scene taking place in front of me.

I remember one of the teenagers looking at me and saying, “Trevin, these are those special times that you just can’t plan or create – when everyone is happy and when God is moving in a special way.” A few minutes later, we saw a shooting star outside.

During my stay in Romania, there were mountaintops and valleys. Recalling the blessings of the mountaintop helped sustain me in the valleys that were coming.

written by Trevin Wax  © 2008 Kingdom People blog 

Why Has the Church Lost Influence?

“I believe that one reason why the church of God at this present moment has so little influence over the world is because the world has so much influence over the church.” —C. H. Spurgeon (1834-1892)

HT – John Pipes

In the Blogosphere

My next interview with N.T. Wright is less than two weeks away. If you have a question related to Surprised by Hope or his views on heaven and resurrection, email me and I’ll consider including it in the interview.

It looks like Prince Caspian may deviate significantly from Lewis’ book. But Lewis’ stepson thinks that’s a good thing.

Check out my review in Christianity Today of Charles Colson’s new book, The Faith.

Bill Blair with some helpful advice for all of us. Be content and fruitful wherever God has placed you.

Marty Davis interacts with my posts on After the Baby Boomers.

The Seven Deadly Words in Book Reviews. Yikes! I’m guilty! This poignant post (with an intriguing title) is crafted by a compelling author who eschews the lyrical bad-writing of reviewers who muse about books.

The unchurched prefer classic church architecture rather than contemporary designs.

ESV Bible translation continues its rise. TNIV drops out of the Top Ten best-selling translations.

It’s healthy to take our evangelical lingo and phrases into consideration, asking ourselves what they might communicate. Jared Wilson has a helpful post on “giving your life to Christ” – specifically, how Christianity is more about Jesus giving his life to us.

Timmy Brister interviews Collin Hansen about his new book, Young, Restless, Reformed. Look for my 4-part review of Collin’s book next week at Kingdom People.

Tony Kummer disagrees with Collin Hansen. Southern Seminary is “Ground Zero” for the gospel, not for Calvinism.

Top Post this Week at Kingdom People: American Idol – Shout to the Lord