Wright Responds

Curious about what Wright thinks about Carson, Piper, and Moo? All that and more here.

(HT: Jim Hamilton)

A Tattoo Apologetic...and No that Doesn't Mean I'm Sorry

In the comment section for the post on Piper and tattoos, Logan raised a good question regarding what the context was that Lev 19 was referring to. I started to respond in the comment section but decided it might be helpful to post it here instead. I think what Piper had in mind was the fact that many of the commands regarding outward observances (you mentioned the beard thing, of course tattoos, polyester, hey, even boiling a goat in it's mother's milk) were pertaining to what we today commonly refer to as "boundary markers", that is: things that distinguished Israel from pagan nations around her. While I know some fundy lurker will be quick to point out that WE shouldn't be like the world EITHER, I'd be quick to add that circumcision was the CHIEF boundary marker, yet I don't remember that being one of the closing steps for EE.

If circumcision is out the window, I take it to imply that the beard thing, the polyester thing, the tattoo thing etc. is out too. While I would still recommend avoiding polyester, I hear the goat in it's mother's milk thing can be quite a delicacy. If our heart is circumcised in Christ, it's fair to say we've been "tattooed" with the seal of the Spirit :-)

Much of modern day tattoos are either entertainment or decorative in nature (though some may still be "tribal" so to speak, and I'd avoid those). The primary issue is exactly what Piper pointed out: you don't have to get one, but if you get a tattoo, get it and use it for the glory of God! Hence, post tenebras lux (and hopefully soon - "recovering pharisee"). Granted it was a bit easier to justify when I was a thorough going dispensationalist; I got a bit concerned as my trajectory became more and more reformed, but not too fear - my conscience is indeed robust in this area :-) Of course, there is always the "Driscoll Justification" - The exalted Jesus is no longer a humble Mediterranean peasant....he's a tattooed (His leg) ultimate fighter coming back to rescue His people and destroy His enemies. Okay - maybe, maybe not, but it sure does sound cool!

Piper on Tattoos

If you haven't heard this Q&A yet, it's worth the 5 minutes or so it will take of your time. You might be suprised; I was. Plus it's funny to listen to the interviewer keep trying to nail him down on the OT text. Now I can sleep at night.

Piper Online

Justin Taylor has helpfully pointed out here that all of the workshops Piper offers at Bethlehem now have all the audio and class notes online. I'm sure it's old news in the blogosphere by now, but I still thought it was worth linking to here.

Piper at Nine Marks

The latest audio interview is up on the 9 Marks website here discussing the NPP and the infamous fifth point with Piper. Though I've yet to listen to it, I will be shortly. Piper's always good and his understanding of the particular redemption (at least as unfolded in his TULIP series) was one of the most helpful I've heard. However, on previous occaisions he has seemed a bit overly critical of the NPP; especially Tom Wright. Either way, with the volume he's doing on Justification, I'm sure his criticisms will be finely honed and informed...it ought to be good stuff.

Charismatic and Reformed

No, this isn't a three word summary of my theology (yet); rather I was thinking about the relatively recent connection between these two in the contemporary church. Typically these two have been at odds; charismatics were largely wesleyan/arminian and calvinists were historically cessasionists (with rare exceptions). Nevertheless, recent decades have demonstrated through the minstry of John Piper, the emergence and growth of Sovereign Grace ministries and the publication of Wayne Grudem's systematic, that these two may quite happily coexist.

Yesterday I was thinking out loud and talking to my wife about Longenecker's Apostolic Exegesis and stumbled upon a possible connection. I was informing her that most of my friends who had read the book agreed it was an awesome book with a sucky conclusion - that is, Longenecker makes a great case for christological/pneumatically dependent exegesis in the 1st Century but says we shouldn't do it today. While I haven't finished the book, I was reflecting on the fact that many I've spoken with adopt such a conclusion on the grounds that the NT authors were writing under inspiration and the Spirit was moving in a way different from the way that He does today (classic cessationism). To argue otherwise would hint of charismaticism; and then I thought, "wait a minute..." The reformed tradition has always argued for just such a christological hermeneutic. Yet, the charismatic emphasis on the continuity of the Spirit's working between the 1st and the 21st Century seems to be the best way to legitimize such a pneumatologically dependent exegetical approach. My conclusion: whether or not there is a genetic relationship between my observations and the modern connection between Reformed Theology and Charismaticism, the two may fit together more harmoniously than I had previously considered.