Wild at Heart: Some initial thoughts

It's been so long since I've posted in the blogosphere that I almost feel like I need to reintroduce myself. We continue to have internet access issues and we've decided to get a connection. I just haven't had the opportunity to see who has the best deal out there. For those in the VA Beach neighborhood, we're thinking about going with Cox's value plan. Any thoughts?

Anyway, on to more important matters...while I haven't finished the book yet, I'm almost halfway through John Eldridge's book Wild at Heart (WAH from here on). I thought I'd give a preliminary review (as per the first 100 pages).

The premise is actually quite simple to sum up: There is a question that haunts everyman - Do I really have what it takes (or Am I man enough)? The insecurity that many (he may say "all") feel that causes them to pose such a question and be fearful of the negative is a result of a "wound" (psychological - lack of affirmation) inflicted, most likely by the father. Within the heart of everyman are three desires: 1) A battle to fight 2) A beauty to rescue 3) An adventure to live. Up to this point, one might be inclined to agree to these general premises, but wonder what this has to do with theology. At least, that's where I came out. Eldridge maintains that these three desires, as well as the general state of affairs (other than the wound) are the result of the fact that man is created in the image of God. Just as God is a warrior (and thus, wild at heart, so to speak), man reflects that warrior image and craves the three things listed above. Though this is a bit simplistic, this is the gist of what he's covered to this point in the book.

While I admit, it's not terribly wise to judge a book prior to finishing it (nor to judge a book by it's cover, which as Thomas pointed out, may lead many to abandon this one), there is enough that has been said to this point to make some preliminary observations.

The Pros
Overall, I think WAH connects with many of the basic desires within the heart of most men. What man doesn't desire a battle to fight, a beauty to rescue, and an adventure to live (Baylor excluded)? Furthermore, his portrayal of the characteristics of masculinity are refreshing in this day and age. WAH calls for men to be men and to raise their boys to be men. The quotes at the beginning of each section are also worth the price of the book alone. My personal favorite is the quote from Teddy Roosevelt right after the introduction regarding the credit going to "the man in the arena." While the book needs to be read with discernment, I have found many of it's pages to be challenging and liberating.

The Cons
Despite these pros, I would commend this book only to those with a good theological footing. While Eldridge's prose is captivating and ought to be emulated in style, some of his theological conclusions lack sufficient justification and imho amount to non sequitars (how'd I do Logan?). I offer one example from pg 8: "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them" (Gen. 1:27). Now, we know that God doesn't have a body, so the uniqueness can't be physical. Gender simply must be at the level of the soul, in the deep and everlasting places within us." Those of you who read my post a few months back regarding the image of God, understand that I find this conclusion less than satisfactory (for lack of accounting for all the data). While I don't expect everyone to agree with me here, to say "such and such simply must be such and such" without considering ANY other options is a bit too assumptive imho. Likewise, to jump from the image of God to gender being at the level of the soul, is a bit of a jump (not to mention ignoring some significant anatomical data [Uncle Victor excluded-see the road trip comments if you're confused here]).

In addition to this, I would add my concern regarding the theological position advocated in WAH. Eldridge comes across as an arminian, which does not ipso facto render it useless (despite what AT might think). It is instead, the statements regarding foreknowledge that I find disconcerting. Eldridge states "...for those who are aware of the discussion, I am not advocating open theism" (32). However, he is not so clear on what distinguishes his positon from open theism. If you didn't sense it coming from the overview above, the reason he maintains that we love taking risks is because we are made in the image of the Risk Taker. "God's relationship with us and with our world is just that: a relationship. As with every relationship, there's a certain amount of unpredictability, and the ever-present likelihood that you'll get hurt. The ultimate risk anyone ever takes is to love...but God does give it, again and again and again, until he is literally bleeding from it all. God's willingness to risk is just astounding..."(32). This statement is representative of the theology unpacked in chapter 2.

Conc
All of this is why I say it is worth the read for the theologically discerning. Unfortunately, from what I've seen, it's more often targeted at young men (jr. high and high school) without the theological ability to discern between good prose and good theology. It's an easy read and the portrait painted of masculinity is refreshing in so many ways. In fact, had the book been written sans the theology or by secular psychologist, I probably would enjoy it more. Much of what is said about masculinity rings true, I'm just not convinced that the theological connections that are intended to support it are on par. If things change as I finish the book, I'll let you know. Otherwise, I think I've "called out" enough individuals for today (Baylor, Logan, AT, Vic, and sort of Eldridge).

Back to John 15...Finally!

Back in March, I posted a comment regarding "broken fellowship" the essence of which was arguing that it is an unbiblical way to describe our relationship to God when we sin. If your interested in why, or what in the world I'm talking about, I'd encourage you to look in the archives under March (there's not that many posts for that month).

However, in the course of the post I was arguing that the Johannine usage of koinonia is virtually equivalent with eternal life. Likewise, the metaphor of the vine and the branches in John 15, though using different language, communicates the same principle. One either abides in the vine or is cast into the fire (15:6). The same could be pressed with the “in Christ language.” One is either in Christ or he is not. In all of these metaphors, the breaking of fellowship, lack of abiding and not being in Christ all result in one thing: Eternal death. While this is all fine and good, someone raised an interesting question in the comments that I was anticipating others to comment on and planning on addressing myself. There were no takers, however, and one thing led to another and I never got around to addressing it. However, since at least one genteel reader has been eagerly anticipating the response (okay, "genteel" and "eagerly" might both be overstatments), I thought I would take a moment or two and share my thoughts. First, let me reproduce his comment verbatim:

Because 'fellowship with God' is 'virtually equivalent with having eternal life' and John 15 'communicates the same principle' and this is tantamount to 'in Christ'- I can safely say [read: look out for my bus!] that I have never seen such a tight (rather, 'virtually equivalent') argument for believers losing their eternal life.

I missed where John 15 is a discussion of the other vines and their fruitless branches all up and in the True Vine - the branches that were never 'in Christ' for the mere fact that they get burned? But then again, verse 2 sounds like those bound to be burned branches were indeed 'in Christ' v.2, no? Well, as you say, you're either 'in Christ' or you're not - and if you use to be ... your bad,

Ciao babe

It's an excellent observation, and I'm a bit surprised I'd never heard such an objection before. I thought it might be helpful to reproduce the text here as well:

John 15:1-6 "I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser. 2 "Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit, He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit, He prunes it, that it may bear more fruit. 3 "You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you. 4 "Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you, unless you abide in Me. 5 "I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me, and I in him, he bears much fruit; for apart from Me you can do nothing. 6 "If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch, and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.

Since this post is already getting lengthy and I haven't said much yet, I'll cut to the chase. I think this is simply pushing the imagery too far. I admit, that's a rather anticlimactic resolution, and I'm certainly open to other input from any takers, but I think it's missing the point. The point of the imagery that Jesus is using is the nature of the relationship that He has with His genuine followers. As a branch draws sustenance and life from the vine, even so believers draw their life and sustenance from Jesus. Likewise, just as dead branches do not draw sustenance from the vine (even though they may still be attached for a while) they remain lifeless and are fit only for burning. Therefore, while the passage is not primarily intended to describe unbelievers, it still does, albeit secondarily. The fact that such "branches" were described as formerly "in Him" is incidental to the imagery and should not be pressed so as to make it "walk on all fours" as it were. Therefore, I would maintain that this passage reinforces the "two category" mentality (in Christ or not; saved or not; light or darkness etc.) without advocating that believers can lose their salvation. In fact, by maintaining the tension in a classic Schreiner and Caneday fashion, I would argue that this passage gives tremendous incentive for perseverance, thereby ensuring that true believers will not/cannot fall away (i.e. the promises and the warnings are the means God uses to accomplish the end).

Some Sweet Audio Resources

Some of you may be familiar with Ben Myers' blog from Euangelion. It looks like a great resource as he has regular substantive posts, but as I was checking it out, I noticed he has some fantastic Audio links in the right margin. For anyone interested in Contemporary Theology, he has audio links for guys like Pannenberg, Moltmann, Hauerwas, Vanhoozer, Grenz and Jungel. If you don't have a enough time to read some of these influential thinkers, it's often helpful to at least familiarize yourself with them by listening to some of their lectures. Myers' list of popular posts has some fantastic reads as well. Another great resource link that I also saw on his blog was online versions of early jewish writings. This is some sweet stuff!

Some Thoughts on Road Trips...

Following up on the previous post, I thought I'd pass on some of my personal musings regarding "Road Trips." First, let me point out that the quotes are significant. Just because one makes a long distant journey by car, it does not necessarily qualify as a "road trip." The criteria is varied and somewhat subjective I admit, but legitimate nonetheless. This train of thought can be traced back to my first road trip, which many of my friends know all too well. Since the story has been repeated and exagerated ad naseum (how's my latin spelling doing?), I'll just hit the highlights for the sake of the uninitiated. I roped several of my good friends (most of whom have commented on this blog in recent days) into driving from Dunbar, WI to Mecca...ah, I mean Greenville, SC one fine Easter Sunday. The goal was to make it by Monday morning in an attempt to encourage (and perhaps sit in on) one of our most esteemed professors who was defending his dissertation under less than favorable circumstances. The short of it is that we threw the trip together in less than 48 hours, made it in a car that never should have been driven that far (may the summit rest in peace), managed to get legitimate class cuts through less than ethical means, saw a WIERD looking moon that we eventually came to be recognized as a good omen from the Lord and has since come to be known as a "Road Trip Moon," watched Hayton eat an entire ice cream scoop of butter that was on his pancakes (he thought it was ice cream), and enjoyed the distinct pleasure of having yours truly halled before the dean of Grad studies at the aforeto alluded to institution to give an account of what in the world we were doing on their campus.

This trip set the bar high, to say the least. While not all of these circumstances are required to constitute a "road trip," extreme circumstances and crazy occurences DO make up the sine quo non. Perhaps another illustration will prove helpful:

I was given a Chevy Astro minivan and told that the transmission was in rough shape and could die any day. We drove it for over six months and never had a major problem, so why not take it on a "road trip" right? Last Christmas, me, my wife and the Baylors did just that, again heading from VA to NH with a midnight pitstop for sleep in Jersey. 1) We got lost on the eastern shore and ended up in downtown Philly making U turns in the ghetto around 1am which was not too disconcerting because 2) we were traveling with my .40 cal Glock and 12ga. pump in the back. 3) The van began to have issues 30 minutes into the trip. This may not sound to bad, nor necessarily qualify as a "road trip" but remember, that was just on the way up. While home my father in law's mechanic, checked out the tranny for us, but didn't get back with them until after we'd left for VA. 1 hour into our journey home, we got a call on the cell from my father in law who informed us that his mechanic said that the astro would never make it back to VA in one piece. We deciede to give it a shot anyway. 1 Hour later, it began to make groaning noises. The good news was that it wasn't the transmission; the bad news was that it was the heater. The heater core had frozen (though we didn't figure that out until the next day) and we drove for 6 hours with no heat (Think - New England in January). We stopped at Target and bought long johns. Dawn wrapped up in my coat, her coat, a blanket, my winter hat and the long johns, and still couldn't stop shivering. My feet were numb after the first hour. When we got to the Jersey turnpike we found out there was a two hour back up for traffic. The sun was down and the temp was dropping so we finally gave in and got a hotel room. During the night, the heater core thawed and we had heat; however, that was when the transmission started acting up. But just as we accessed Interstate 64 in VA, the moon began to rise and...sure enough it was that same "road trip moon!" I let out a whoop and told Dawn I was sure we were going to make it; the Lord had assured me. And we did, and the van lasted another several months. DEFINATELY a "road trip." Incidently, we traveled back with not only the 12 gauge and Glock, but had added an AK 47 to our arsenal (a xmas gift from my uncle and probably enough to send me to jail for a few decades).

Why do I bring all of this up? Remember my trip to NH (see previous post)? The time constraints alone would have caused me to categorize it as a road trip: 1) Trying to make it to a graduation 13 hours away when the drive should take 12 (ever see the traffic on 95? I hit gridlock in NYC at 3:30am, but more on that to follow). 2) I went up and back in 48 hours, 24 of which was spent on the road. 3) New England was experiencing flooding and it rained for the full 11 hours and 15 minutes I was on the road. However, all of that aside, my drive was a "road trip" because of what happened on the George Washington Memorial Bridge in the Bronx, NY. As I alluded to above, I was on this bridge from 3:15-3:45 am stuck in traffic. Everyone was jockying for position and I was locked to the bumper of the Tractor Trailer in front of me. The van and chevy suburban behind me were jockying for position so much so that I could hear metal scrapping on metal and the chevy busted out the window of the van. Shortly thereafter, the van ended up behind me with the chevy just ahead of and next to me when we came to a dead stop in gridlock traffic (at 3:30 in the morning? only in NYC). It wasn't long before I heard a van door slam and the guy behind me was out and pounding on the window of the chevy just a few yards from where I was sitting. He was screaming over an over "You broke my #@$!# window!" while pounding on the passenger side window of the chevy. When he realized he coundn't break it with his hand, he ran in front of me to the side of the road and grabbed a rock, came back and alternately pounded on the windshield and the passenger side window of the chevy with the rock! When that still failed to break it, he threw the rock down and attempted a flying karate kick to break it (I'm not lying!). He neglected to factor in the fact that it was raining and his shoes and the window were wet. Needless to say, he landed on his butt. Undaunted, he attempted another flying kick, this time aimed at the review mirror, which he suceeded in snapping off. With a few more fist pounds on the window and choice expletives, he returned to his van apparently satisfied with his handiwork. Believe me, I coundn't make this crap up if I tried!

Qualify as a "road trip"? Definately.

Yet another Grad in the family!

Here's one of the primary reasons I haven't been online lately...I was in New Hampshire this weekend for my Mom's graduation. It was sort of a whirlwind tour; I left VA Beach Thursday night at 9pm (after work) and her graduation was at 10am the next morning. I managed to make the trip in just over 11 hours (it's normally 12). I spent the day with them and partied with the fam in the afternoon and my folks and my Mom's fellow grads that evening. I finally went to sleep around 1opm Friday night, got up 9am Saturday and headed back to VA at 10 am. As a result I've been catching up on sleep...and life over the past few days.

The pic above is of me, my Dad and the grad on her special day. Not only did she go back to school after being out for over two decades, she graduated with her Associates degree in Nursing (RN) and with honors to boot! Though I've already expressed it to her personally, I wanted to publically express how proud of her I am! 

Hats off to Dave Jaspers

Yes, I know you probably never thought you'd hear those words coming out of my mouth. Those of you who know me and who also know him, are aware that our soteriology does not exactly mesh, and that's a big deal to me. Likewise, I am gravely dissapointed at some of the ministry partners he has chosen in the past. Nevertheless, I recently discovered that he resigned as president of MBBC, you can read the entire letter over at Sharper Iron (No there's no hyperlink, find it yourself :-) It's not the fact that he resigned, so much as WHY he said he resigned. Part of his reasoning was, and I quote:

"I have also been greatly convicted about the kind of model I have been to a watching generation. For too long, the landscape of Fundamentalism has been dominated by workaholic leaders who have sacrificed their families for the success of their ministries."

My respect for the man went THROUGH THE ROOF when I read those statements. I know exactly what he is talking about and have observed the same landscape. I am thrilled to see that though he admits to making mistakes in the past, he is committed to rectifying those errors at any cost. I'm sure it was a painful, difficult decision, as it brings many consequences with it; nevertheless, it was the right one, and so for what it's worth from a young punk, Dr. Jaspers you've chosen wisely.

Righting Wrong Stories About Wright

The poor guy has been subjected to so many puns regarding his name, but somehow, having the warped sense of humor that I do, I can't help contributing to the abuse. He's probably numb to it by now anyway. I wanted to provide a heads up regarding a correction to an apocryphal Wright story that reflects poorly on him. You can read the correction in Tom's own words here. I came across this link on another blog (props to Bruno), and I normally don't repeat posts I assume you're already reading, but I felt some responsibility here. One of my first posts on this blog was a link to some audio lectures by Carson on the NPP. Though the lectures are good and a valuable introduction to the discussion, the apocryphal story alluded to here was propogated (at least in part), by those lectures. I wanted to set the record...straight (I was so tempted to say wright) both for accuracy sake, but also because of my appreciation of Tom's contributions.

Thoughts On Communion: The Post Behind the Post

Here's the consideration that was driving my thinking resulting in the digression that led to the previous post (that was a mouthful). I'll be simple and to the point, but I'm hoping to stimulate discussion or at least generate feedback.

When considering the Biblical data, must we do communion at "church" or it is appropriate to convene small gatherings of believing friends at someone's home?

Qualifications:

1) Church is in quotes because I'm not fond of using it in this way. However, all of you are aware of the context I am speaking from (in case I'm wrong, 21st century America, evangelical or fundamental common conceptions). Don't get distracted as to whether or not this is how we should conceive of the church; it's not, but that's another post (a whole nuther post, if you will).

2) Please don't introduce an either/or fallacy. If you're in favor of both, that's fine, but what I'm driving at is the legitimacy of the second option.

3) I'll tip my hand by saying that I am currently in favor of both. Nothing in the Biblical data I've considered indicates that we are commanded to only practice it in formal, worship gatherings. In fact, the formal worship gatherings that are currently en vogue among western churches are imho more or less foreign to the NT. Whether that's good or bad is also another post. The biblical refrain, "Do this in remembrance of me" is somewhat ambiguous (probably intentionally) regarding frequency and manner. The multiple "whenevers" in 1 Corinthians 11 also seem to leave this open. In the book of Acts, there is an interesting pattern established:

Acts 2:46 Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts.

Here, they were meeting corporately (mass gathering) in the temple courts and privately to break bread in their homes. Now the case would have to be advanced that "breaking of bread" indicates what we would call communion (as opposed to just sharing meals, as I am inclined to take it), but at a popular level, this is often how I've heard this text preached. Of course, even still this would simply function at the level of description and not necessarily prescription.

The only exception I can think of is in 1 Corinthians 11, Paul sets off the discussion with the expression "when you come together." Especially significant is the fact that he says "when you come together as a church" (NIV) in verse 18. It seems he is using the term here as a local assembly. However, again, I would argue that this passage is also description rather than prescription. This does not preclude private meetings in homes.

4) The question behind the question is actually very practical in nature, rather than theoretical. This is a legitimate concern I have, since my new schedule will prevent me from attending PM services which is when CBC does communion. There are a few of my peers who are in the same situation. So do we A) forget about communion and go on with life (NO!) B) Petition our local assembly to modify their practice for the sake of a few individuals or C) As I am suggesting, get together on a Friday or Saturday and proclaim the Lord's death in somebody’s home?

What say ye?

Sucks to Be Judas: Prelude to a Post

Back when I was in High School and Jr. High school, there was a saying we commonly employed for addressing our peers when a circumstance of undesirable consequence occurred in their life: Sucks to be you! Probably not the most compassionate nor mature observation, but no one ever accused of such conduct (mature and compassionate, that is). In thinking through an upcoming post I was intending to do on some issues pertaining to the Lord's supper, I thought it would be profitable to read through the pertinent passages (hence the subtitle of this post).

Of course I started (albeit anachronistically) in 1 Corinthians 11 since it is so frequently read at communion services in the churches I have attended. I next moved to John 13 where my attention was drawn to Judas. I have often envisioned the Lord's identification of his betrayer at the last supper as a sort of vague ambiguous insinuation or innuendo, since the other eleven don't seem to pick up on what's going on. However, Jesus is ANYTHING but vague:

John 13:24-26 Simon Peter motioned to this disciple and said, "Ask him which one he means." 25 Leaning back against Jesus, he asked him, "Lord, who is it?" 26 Jesus answered, "It is the one to whom I will give this piece of bread when I have dipped it in the dish." Then, dipping the piece of bread, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, son of Simon.

I thought, "Wow, that's pretty clear." Then I read: John 13:27 As soon as Judas took the bread, Satan entered into him. "What you are about to do, do quickly," Jesus told him. At this point, Jesus shows him no compassion, but says, "Get it over with." Next I turned to Matthew only to read:

Matthew 26:23-25 Jesus replied, "The one who has dipped his hand into the bowl with me will betray me. 24 The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born." 25 Then Judas, the one who would betray him, said, "Surely not I, Rabbi?" Jesus answered, "Yes, it is you."

Here, Matthew records the manner in which Jesus says He will identify His betrayer. Though the scenario is not recorded identical to how John has it, I think the passages are complementary rather than contradictory. In fact, I would suggest that Matthew 26:25 probably occurs chronologically in the discussion between John 13:25 and 26. Jesus has indicated it is Judas; Judas, ever the hypocrite, feigns surprise (I would suggest to mask his terror at this point) and says, "who me?" to which Jesus responds, "Yes, you!" Now remember, this interchange was prefaced by the statement from the Lord that it would have been better for the one who betrayed Him if the betrayer had never been born (v.24)! Then He says, in effect, "Yes Judas, I'm talking about you!" I can't help but speculate (and it is nothing more than my speculation) that as He was rendering this indictment, Jesus may have been thinking something to the effect of It would have been better if you hadn't been born, because I am/will be your judge. You will answer to me and I will damn you for all eternity.

Needless to say, I had read enough for the day and I didn't make it to Luke or Mark (and if my memory serves me, neither of them identify this interchange anyway). But the first phrase to enter my mind was: Wow. Sucks to be Judas! Now please, don't be easily offended by my transparent admition of the inner workings of my twisted mind.

1) I apologize if the word "sucks" bothers you; my goal is not to offend. Though I don't consider it to be blogan (refer to the previous post if you don't know what that means), it is possible some do.

2) I am not trying to trivialize the seriousness of what took place that night almost 2000 years ago. To the contrary, I saw things through Judas' eyes for the first time this past Friday. Can you imagine hearing those words from the mouth of the Lord directed at you? Man, I don't even know what to say, except to praise God for His relentless grace in my life.

3) Even if the phrase above is a bit off color, I have no problem employing it on the son of perdition, the betrayer of the Christ. His fate is sealed; God is entirely sovereign and he is entirely responsible and accountable. I would have no problem spitting in his face and cheering in the face of his destruction on the day of Judgment, should the Lord allow. If that sounds harsh, know that it stems not from an arrogant spirit of judgment, but rather a passionate zeal for and delight in His glory.

Thus endeth the sermon. More to follow on communion.

Summer Reading Plan

Here's the reading list I promised about a week back (I know Julie, you could hardly wait). My plan for the next few months is to take it easy. My reasons for this are: 1) I think my brain has earned a deserved reduced reading break. 2) My schedule is in constant flux lately and will continue to be this way until sometime after Noah is born. I don't know what my schedule is going to be from week to week and probably will not know what it will be like from day to day once he's born. 3) I think I'm long overdue for some fun reading. So here's the plan.

First, I'm currently reading Wright's The New Testament and the People of God (I'm somewhere around pg 80). It's slow but delightful reading. In addition, I'm also about 80 pages into Freakonomics by Levitt and Dubner.

Let me digress for a moment about the latter title pictured above. No, it's not a cuss word despite the fact that it has a BLOGAN ring to it. Let me digress even further on the term I just coined. You've probably heard of "Bennifer" (Ben Affleck and JLo), "Tomkat" (Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes) and "Brangelina" (Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie). Let me introduce you to "Blogan." That's a combination of Tim Baylor (of Luther's Stein fame) and Scott Logan. Anything that's cussworthy or that smacks of the profane, shall heretoforth be known as being "blogan" or "bloganesque." I encourage you to adopt this new term into your vocabulary and employ it on your blogs (just remember you heard it here first!).

Returning to the first digression, Freakonomics is an attempt to wrestle with life's more interesting and odd questions from the vantage point of a brilliant young economist who teaches at the University of Chicago. He wrestles with questions like: "If drug dealers make so much money, why do they still live with their moms?" His major premise is something to the effect of: If morality describes how we wish the world was, economics describes how it really is. It was recommended to me by my good friend and fellow grad, Andy Davies. It's also #5 or 6 on the NY Times bestseller list and you can check out the web page here.

Next on the list are two devotional works. I just bought Bruce Waltke's Finding the Will of God: A Pagan Notion? I started it on Sunday afternoon, and it's good so far. Tonight I was at Barnes and Nobles on my lunch/dinner break and read about 20 pages from Wild at Heart. Though I certainly disagreed with some of what I read, I was largely intrigued. I'm planning on picking it up tomorrow and continuing the read. Anybody out there read it? Any thoughts?

I conclude with some reference reading. I just bought the Dictionary for the Theological Interpretation of the Bible and am planning on page turning through it after it arrives and reading the essays that catch my interest. I also just purchased The Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels and am planning on doing the same with this book later this summer/fall. However, this one will probably get a more rigorous or systematic reading since I am aware that I need to sharpen up my synoptics/historical Jesus studies and my interest was peaked by Michael Bird's recent post regarding the relative neglect of Luke/Acts studies especially among PhD students.

This should be sufficient to keep me occupied for the summer. If I finish NTPG and Freakonomics before Noah's born, I'll be happy. We'll see about the rest. Once he's born I'm sure life will be marked by craziness and sleeplessness for the first couple of weeks (months?). I have a more intensive plan for the fall, but that will have to wait for another day since this post is already a bit longer than I anticipated.

On the Phones

Well, I was on the phones for my first time tonight, for about 45 minutes. I thought some of you might appreciate hearing how my first call went. There's good news and bad news. The good news: I collected check by phone on my first contact. That's the most valuabe form of payment from our company's perspective and one of the more difficult ones to accquire. Way to go Nate right? Don't forget, the bad news is still coming. The bad news: Not only did the man scream at me for several minutes (though he did clarify that he was not upset at me), he also was so disturbed by the fees that had accrued to his account that he forcefully requested that I close his account with us right there over the phone. Ooops. Score: 1 CBP for Nate, -1 Customer for my employer. I can only go up from here...I hope.

It is finished...at least for a few years

Well, it's finally official: I'm a grad! Sunday night I received my diploma and finished my M.Div. That's my Dad, wife, son (notice the bulging belly) and me above. For those who haven't heard, our plans are: 1) Dawn will finish working this Friday and stay home with Noah (resting and taking care of the home until he's born). 2) I will continue working at HSBC for the next 2-5 years in the attempt to "Get Rich or Die Tryin'" in order to pay for a PhD in NT (at the University of Aberdeen if the Lord allows). 3) Meanwhile, I'll be working as a grad assistant at CBTS for the next year (part time) and doing some preparatory reading in order to go Deep and Wide in NT studies (I bet you never thought you'd see a 50 Cent movie and Deep and Wide mentioned in the same paragraph).

Technical Difficulties

Though I know I said I'd post last weekend since my work would be done, this is the first chance I've had. Yes, all of my graduation requirements are done (I walk on Sunday); however, I have been experiencing technical difficulties regarding my online connection (read: my neighbors moved). Unless our new neighbors have wireless, we may need to accquire it for ourselves (imagine that). In the meantime, I'm still trying to workout a schedule that gels with my HSBC schedule but still allows me to get someplace with free wireless without neglecting my wife (who is working days for the next week an a half while I'm working nights). I think I may have figured out how to make it work, so the posts should be more regular in the next day or two. In an attempt to hold (or obtain) your interest, Bruno's example inspired me to post my reading list for the next few months and open it up for suggestions and input, so that's probably what's coming in the next day or two.

Stuff on the Web

I promised a review on Wright's book on Scripture The Last Word almost 3 months ago. I still don't have one but D. A. Carson does here (along with two others, one of which is Enns'). Props to Justin Taylor for this link (I still don't know how to do the H(at)T(ip) thing). Speaking of Wright, there is a heavy discussion regarding the resurrection going on over at Mike Bird's blog worth reading. It's a sad day for Wright fans (myself included). This brings me to another point: if you're reading this blog and you're not already reading Mike Bird's or Justin Taylor's blog you need to repent, stop reading this and start reading theirs. They're much better and high on my priority list.

No more from me until Friday night/Saturday when all my labors shall be finished!

Barker's Moving Day; My New Hood Ornament

My posts have been and will continue to be somewhat few and far between for the next week or so. As most of you know, it's finals week. Add to that the fact that I start at HSBC on Monday, and my life's a mess. Therefore, rather than post an intellectually stimulating and spiritually edifying treatise, I've opted for something else. For the uninitiated, these pictures are a brief, but representative look into what happens when seminary students' brains exceed the saturation point.

My good friend Tim Barker of Truth on Fire fame, decided that since there wasn't much going on this weekend, it might be a good time to move (they just bought a townhouse...congrat's Tim and Katie!). Seeing I had nothing better to do, I decided to help him, along with several of our buddies. In the process of moving, we ended up strapping the headboard of his bed to the roof rack of my '89 Volvo Wagon resulting in something resembling a cross between a Star Wars Tie Fighter and something out of Spaceballs. Before we left, I was encouraged to "pimp my ride" with one of Katie's (or was it Tim's?) childhood toys as a mascot/hood ornament. Surprisingly, it survived the 20 minute 60+ mph ride. What was it you ask? Check it out below...

How 'bout a close up?

Yes, it's what you think it is...

Here's the close up :-)

Happy Studying!!!

P.S. There were more pictures taken that day, several of which were a bit more "compromising." Keep your eyes open on the blogs on my blogroll and I'm sure something will surface before too long.

Bikinis at Discount Prices!

Following up on my second to last post, I couldn't resist posting this link. Save yourself some money...and work.

PS - Once again, I apologize for the PG-13 content.

Eschatology Links

though I'd post this for those interested in the links mentioned by Hayton and Pitchford on some of the previous threads. The Piper link had changed, and I know sometimes it's a hassle looking stuff up. So, in order to remove all excuses, here are the links:

Piper on Post-Trib Rapture

Poythress on Amillennialism from 2 Thes 1

Academic qualifications are like bikinis

And now for something completely different...(allusion to Monty Python for the uninitiated).

A few posts back, the topic generated a hefty discussion; this one's a little more on the lite side. The title of this post comes from last weeks US News and World Report's editoral. I've been wanting to post this for a week, but have been academically strapped. Mortimer B. Zuckerman (USNWR's Editor-in-chief) wrote this Op-Ed piece and the rest of the simile goes like this:

"Academic qualifications are like bikinis: What they reveal may be less significant that what they conceal."

Alright, I apologize for the PG-13 content, but I wanted to point out the quote for a few reasons.

1) I thought it was pretty funny :-)
2) I think it's true.
3) Many of the people reading this blog are at a season in life in which they are pursuing academic degrees. Such a quote may help us "keep it real" and not take ourselves too seriously. It had that effect on me.
4) The rest of the piece fascinated me. The gist of the editorial is that Harvard's academics are going down the tube. They're becoming a diploma factory and though grads have high GPAs, they're extremely uneducated and dissatisfied.

Let me expand point 4 a little more. First of all, it's comforting to know that even ivy league schools aren't perfect. Second, it's a helpful reminder that a good education is more important than impressive credentials. Too be sure, I don't want to create a false dilemma. That's precisely why I'm setting my sights on Aberdeen. Finally, and totally detatched from the rest of these observations: I can't help but wonder if SOME of what's going on relates to our generation. I am quite dissatisfied with my undergrad education. I previously thought that that that was the fault of my alma mater (did I get it right this time?) or at least my selection of that school. While I have not abandoned that hypothesis entirely, I am somewhat comforted to discover I'm in good company; Harvard's grad's feel the same way. Sure, they still have a degree that will open more doors than mine, but that's beside the point (well, almost). I'm curious if this disatisfaction with one's education has anything to do with our generation and perhaps the impact (even if it's at the subconscious level) of Postmodernism. I don't mean that as a cheap shot at Postmodernism; I tend to view it more positively than many. I'm just wondering if there might be a connection.

Meanwhile, Lord willing, I'll be starting at HSBC in a little over a week in order to fund my incredibly expensive bikini...

Observations on the Significance of the Resurrection

Pittsley, if you're reading this, this one goes out to you. I just finished (about an hour and a half ago) preaching a message on 4 observations concerning the significance of the resurrection. My topic was selected, in large measure, as a result of your post a little while back bemoaning the minimization of Easter in many evangelical churches. Your observations resonated with me. It is only in recent years that I have come to have a better appreciation for the significance of the resurrection and so I thought others might benefit from some of my reflections. Anyway, I thought you'd like to know that your seed thoughts have taken root and I praise the Lord that they are bearing fruit to your account here in VA Beach. Fruit not only from the challenge they were to me, but also to several who spoke to me after the message regarding how the Lord used the texts to incite their affections.

I manuscripted my first point in order to help clarify my own thinking. My first observation was that the Resurrection Vindicated Jesus; it's basically devotional reflections on Romans 1:4. I'm including that first point below and offer it for your encouragement and meditation. (Those of you who are Wright, Thielman or Schreiner fans will probably see their fingerprints all over this).

The Resurrection Vindicated Jesus

To be sure, the resurrection vindicated Jesus, in the sense that it showed He was Who He said He was. The resurrection was the fulfillment of prophecy, especially Jesus’ own prophecy concerning Himself. John 2:18-22 So the Jews answered and said to Him, "What sign do You show to us, since You do these things?" ¹⁹ Jesus answered and said to them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." ²⁰ Then the Jews said, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?" ²¹ But He was speaking of the temple of His body. ²² Therefore, when He had risen from the dead, His disciples remembered that He had said this to them; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had said.” However, the resurrection did more than just demonstrate that He meant what He said and that His prophecies were fulfilled. Listen to the opening words of the book of Romans - Romans 1:1-4 Paul, a bondservant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated to the gospel of God ² which He promised before through His prophets in the Holy Scriptures, ³ concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, ⁴ and declared to be the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead.” Here the resurrection makes plain that Jesus is the Son of God. Does this imply that He was not the son of God previously? Certainly not. Rather, He has by the resurrection been declared, or that word could also be translated “appointed” the Son of God WITH POWER. During the incarnation, we understand that Jesus humbled Himself taking on the form of a servant. With the resurrection He has been appointed to a new status (for lack of a better term). Having been glorified He is no longer the humble servant but now the exalted King. At the beginning of this verse, Paul describes Him as Jesus Christ our Lord. Let me digress for just a moment. This is a phrase we often take for granted to the point that I think we may fail to see its significance. First of all we need to get a hold of the name Jesus Christ. Christ is not His surname, like Nate MIHELIS. Furthermore, it is not as if Jesus is His human name and Christ, His divine moniker. No, the term Christ is a transliteration of the Greek christos which means “anointed one” or messiah. Likewise, lord is not a title that should be taken lightly, sort of like “sir” or “mr.” No, lord was a term used to speak of the emperor, as in “Caesar is lord.” So what do you get when you put it all together? Paul is explicitly saying, the resurrection demonstrated that Jesus the Messiah is King.” After all, this is what Paul and his companions where accused of in Thessalonica. Right after the rulers of the city accused them of turning the world upside down, they charged them with these words: Acts 17:7 “…these are all acting contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying there is another king -- Jesus." Paul’s message is clear: Jesus the Messiah is King and He brooks no rivals!” That’s quite a statement. It’s the kind of statement that changes the course of history. Are you starting to see why the resurrection is so significant?

Scribal Errors

In light of our recent discussions regarding eschatology I figured you guys would really get a kick out of this one. I hopped online to check on the latest comments on the last discussion and typed my blog's web address in...only I typed a little too fast. I had to read the url a few times before I realized I had inverted the "p" and the "s" in "blogspot." It's amazing (and incredibly ironic) what a big difference a little difference can make. If you don't believe me, check it out here: http://nathanmihelis.blogpsot.com/ Yes, that's my name and Mihelis is even spelled correctly -that's scary!

*Update: I was more than a little suspicious, so tried a few other names and words followed by blogpsot.com. Sure enough all of them take you to the same site. Not quite as crazy as I thought, but still odd.

YES!!!

In case you didn't read my last comment on the last post (which may make more sense out of this one), the question was (roughly) "In view of all of the discussion and agreed disagreement that has taken place (whether here over eschatology or over on Luther's Stein about hermeneutics), can we still cooperate to advance the Gospel together? Obviously this is a "yes" but let me get more specific: CAN WE PLANT A CHURCH TOGETHER? Though I'm not sure all will agree here (I'm anxious to find out) I still say "YES!" Maybe I'm a naive idealist here (rather than a critical realist as elsewhere), but I think we can, if we bear in mind a centered set (versus bounded set) mentality. We are in HUGE, SIGNIFICANT agreement over the Gospel; is that enough to go forward in a church plant? I sure hopes so. Thomas, Bruno, Grif, Hayton and Baylor, I'm especially interested to see if you what you think, though all others are free to chime in.

What are you doing May 19th?

A few of you have either raised or addressed the issue on your blogs of how to resond to the Da Vinci code movie coming out next month. Though I haven't spoken to the issue on this blog, I have posted elsewhere that I will probably go see it. However, a recent post on Justin Taylor's blog has caused me to consider postponing my viewing for a few days. Like it or leave it, he offers an alternative for responding that I commend for your consideration here. (I still haven't perfected the trackback thing, so you'll probably have to scroll down to the post entitled "How to Respond to the Da Vinci Code Movie.").

Da' Belly!

Don't worry; I secured Dawn's permission before posting this. Since not all of you get to see her regularly, and since it's been a while since we've posted a pic of Noah (the ultrasounds) I thought I'd give you an update. I apologize if you're offended, but I'm convinced that conventional modesty standards go out the window when you're pregnant :-)

Transformed by Truth

Introducing yet another blog to the blogosphere - Transformed by Truth. Since I've got nothing better to do with my time, I thought - "Hey, why not start ANOTHER blog." Ok, seriously, it's actually an online discussion forum for my 9-10th grade Sunday School class. They seemed excited about the idea, but it remains to be seen whether or not they'll actually use it. I got the idea from James Lane who's doing the same thing for their Adult Sunday School class. A bunch of our kids already blog or are online at least once a day anyway; I figured we might as well make their time profitable and perhaps get some to speak up in a different forum where they might be inclined to say more. Anyway, it will be appearing in my links shortly, so I thought it might be good to explain what it is. Feel free to visit if you like, I only ask that if you comment, remember these are 9th and 10th graders -- so keep it PG or less Logan and Baylor :-0

Danny Akin on TULIP

Danny Akin has an interesting article on TULIP at Baptist Press. Though I haven't read it in its entirety, I found at least two things fascinating: 1) He is pre-trib, premill 2) His six suggestions for working alongside those with whom we disagree, especially #4 regarding personal integrity.

MA Thesis on Wright and Barth - Full Text

I'm becoming increasingly impressed with Wikipedia as a resource. I was reading some stuff on Critical Realism in the Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible yesterday and was curious if Wikipedia would actually have anything on the topic. Not only did they have a decent entry, it listed their link to NT Wright (another excellent Wikipedia entry) on account of his articulation of critical realism. Wikipedia is impressively current and more regulated than I first thought (at one point, I went off on it as an absurd, extreme product of postmodernism: i.e. truth is not objective but rather a construct formed in community). While browsing the Wright entry I came across this link to an electronic text of an MA thesis comparing Wright's theological method to Barth's. Amazing. The world truly is flat.

Hazardous Waste Removal

A recent moral dilemma has caused me to consider providing a new service to the body of Christ. What do you do when you have theology books that you used to think were sweet, but have since come to realize they're junk? If you sell them to others you become a partaker in their eisegesis and poor theology and all for the sake of gaining unrighteous mammon. Keeping them takes up bookshelf space which is a precious commodity for those of us with expanding families. Giving them away is almost as bad as selling them. So what do you do? I've recently encountered such a dilemma in dealing with my sets of Vincent and Wuest word studies. Stockpiled with exegetical fallacies and textbook examples of the "gold nugget" approach to interpretation, these volumes must be kept out of the hands of those who may mishandle them. I am so committed to a minimalistic approach to linguistics (if my "The Value of Wordstudies: Some Thoughts on When You Might WANT to Throw the Baby Out with the Bathwater" didn't convince you, this might) that I've come to the conclusion that the best thing to do is throw them away. Yes, it's appalling to bibliophiles to think of throwing away a book, but it is far better to commit such sacralige than to allow them to fall into the wrong hands and become a tool for the dark side (pardon the Star Wars analogy). So if you can't bring yourself to follow through with such an action, as a ministry to the Body, I will offer my service to those of you in the blogosphere - send me your junk and I'll "take out the trash." :-)

And His Name Shall Be Called...

My mom told me she'd know the name of my son was official when she saw it posted on my blog. Since Dawn and I have been calling him by name for the last few weeks, I think it's official. His name is Noah John Mihelis. We both like the sound of Noah, not to mention the biblical significance (minus the part of him getting drunk and... well you know). John, as you may have imagined, is primarily honoring John Piper who has impacted me through his writings and shaped my view of God more than any other individual in the world. I say primarily, because it was also intentional sensus plenior - John also honors John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards (who influenced Piper), John Murray, Owen, Bunyan, Flavel, of course the Apostle and every other John who was a great calvinist :-) Our prayer (and we hope that you will join us) is that our Noah too, will find grace in the eyes of the Lord.

Peccable or Impeccable: What do you think?

It's been a few days since I've blogged (posted or read). We're in the midst of Missions Conference and I'm running point for our pastoral staff here. Therefore, it's been absorbing most of my time. However, here's the my latest heresy from Senior Sem:

1. Peccability/Impeccability – It is necessary to clearly articulate that the discussion here revolves around Jesus ability to sin and not whether or not He actually sinned. All orthodox theologians maintain that Jesus never sinned - see 2 Corinthians 5:21 and Hebrews 4:15 cited above. The argument I have most frequently heard advanced is in favor of impeccability and normally proceeds along the following syllogistic lines: 1) Jesus is God 2) God cannot sin 3) Therefore, Jesus could not have sinned. Premise one is indisputable for all orthodox theologians. Premise two is as well, and is typically connected to James 1:13 Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am being tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone.” However, the problem with making such a connection is that this verse does not say that God is impeccable; it says that He can’t be tempted. If anything, this text only complicates matters, for Jesus clearly was tempted (cf. Matthew 4:1 Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil.) Besides this, this still fails to address the issue; for everyone agrees He was tempted, the question at hand is: Could He have yielded to the temptation (sinned)? While I am clearly in agreement with the second premise above (God cannot [is not able] to sin), I maintain that premise three is non-sequitar. There are multiple instances in which Jesus [by means of His human nature] did things that we would say God could not do. For example: Does God hunger? Does God thirst? Does God sleep? Is God able to die? We would answer no to all of these questions. However, they are all true of Christ. Jesus did hunger, thirst, sleep and die. So can God sin? NO! Could Jesus have? I am inclined to say “yes.” For me the issue hinges on Hebrews 4:15 “For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin.” I fail to see how the logic of this verse can be maintained if Jesus was metaphysically unable to sin. To be sure, all things are determined by means of the eternal decree of God. Therefore, there is a sense in which I would agree Jesus couldn’t have sinned; namely, God decreed the plan of redemption. This plan could not have been accomplished if Jesus sinned and thus, at this level (viewed through the lens of foreordination) I concede He couldn’t have sinned. However, the peccability/impeccability debate normally centers on moral ability; that is, did He have the potential to sin. The issue is largely related to how one understands temptation. Though I have heard arguments to the contrary I remain unconvinced that temptation is genuine apart from the ability to yield to that temptation. I admit, this is purely a logical presupposition, but it seems inherent in the concept of temptation itself. When I say that I am tempted to do something, it presupposes that I can do it. Else where does the temptation reside? For example, it would be irrational for me to say that I am tempted to time travel; for time travel only exists in sci-fi fantasy. I cannot time travel; therefore it would be irrational to say that I am tempted to. Again, I appeal to Hebrews 4:15 and query how the logic of the verse can be maintained in the absence of His ability to sin.

Anyone looking for a job?

http://www.sheffield.ac.uk/jobs/academic.html

What I'm Reading: Justification: What's at Stake in the Current Debates

If there's one doctrine I can't get enough of, it's the doctrine of Justification. I love reading about it, I love (in Bridges' words) employing it to "preach the gospel to myself" and I am especially interested in keeping up with the current debates regarding what Justification is and how it takes place. Therefore, for Soteriology last week, I decided to read some of the material in Husbands and Treier's work. In reading through Carson's excellent essay The Vindication of Imputation: On Fields of Discourse and Semantic Fields (A carsonesque title if ever there was one -- absolutely obfuscating to the uninitiated, but tipping his hand to the rest. Oh, and don't miss the play on words with "vindication" - remember the topic here is justification), I came across an excellent statement on the nature of sin I thought I'd pass on:

"First, Paul does not think of sin and evil primarily in legal terms. The origin of evil is bound up with rebellion, with idolatry, with the de-godding of God (cf. Rom 1:18-3:20). What draws down God's wrath, above all things, is the obscenity of competition--for there is no other God."

D.A. Carson in Justification: What's at Stake in the Current Debates
p. 71 (Italics his, bold mine).

Describing sin as the "obscenity of competition" is an excellent summary of Paul's thrust in the latter half of Romans 1 and is powerful language for challenging both the body and our pomo world today.

Imago Dei

Well, it's about a week late, but here it is. One additional sentence of clarification that might prove helpful: One of the benefits (inmho) of this view is that it accounts for all of the others (hey, it works in textual criticism). In other words, I argue that the other views have an element of truth, but they are ultimately insufficient. This view accounts for all the others, but supercedes them in it's comprehensiveness.

1. The Imago Dei. While most theologians are in complete agreement regarding the fact that man is created in God’s image, there is far less agreement regarding exactly what that means. While the scriptures have a good deal to say about the topic, they do not give an explicit or exhaustive definition for what is meant by such a phrase. Some suggestions include:

1) The Image of God as Physical Resemblance – This is held by the Mormons

2) The Image of God as a Relational Being – Karl Barth’s view

3) The Image of God as Dominion – Genesis 1:26 “fill the earth, and subdue it and rule over…”

4) The Image of God as Personhood – God and Man both have a soul, moral judgment, personality, a spirit, etc. Animals don’t have these things.

Most of these views are fine (except #1), and they may be true to some extent. However, I would argue they are all insufficient in some sense. The best view I have come across for accounting for what constitutes the image of God is that man is God’s Physical Representative here on earth. In the Ancient Near East, rulers would often erect a statue in their image or appoint a prince to rule a region. This was so that when they were physically absent, the inhabitants of that region would have a physical reminder of the ruler. This symbol of their authority was referred to as an “Image” (Heb. Tselem). Sinclair Ferguson further clarifies:

The image expressed the presence of an absent Lord in the sphere of his own dominion [or kingdom]. In that contest the ‘image’ was to his context what the ‘god’ was to the entire sphere of his lordship. This suggests that it is man as man (not some element in his constitution) which constitutes the divine image.[1]

Therefore, man as the image of God, serves as God’s divine marker in the universe. Though God is a Spirit, man is his physical representative here in the universe declaring to the whole universe that the Creator exists. This accounts well for the fact that Jesus is said to be the ULTIMATE image of God. Colossians 1:15 ¹⁵ He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. Hebrews 1:1-3 “God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, ² has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; ³ who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.” Though the image of God in us has been marred because of sin, we are being renewed into the image of Christ (see 2 Corinthians 3:18 and Romans 8:28-30), that is, the express image of God. This is why it is such a serious thing to commit murder. Imagine that while an Ancient Near Eastern ruler was away, some of his subjects destroyed the statue of his image. How would he respond? How much more serious is it to destroy the image of the Creator of the Universe?

---

[1] Cited by Mike Windsor, Systematic 402 Class Syllabus, pg. 84, CBTS.

Beating the Machine

No, not the polygraph. Even better. Are you sick calling a comany (visa, office depot, etc) only to get phone recordings with endless combinations of number prompts that keep you on the phone for endless minutes before you finally speak to a human being? Somebody with entirely too much time on their hands composed a list of the combination of numbers you need to punch in for various companies in order to get directly to a human being. Now the likelyhood of getting decent customer service these days without talking to a manager is low, but talking to a human sure beats listening to recorded prompts (most of the time). You may not need this list now, but it's probably worth saving it under your favorites for when you do need it. Check it out here.

Christ, Christians, and Culture

As I've surfed around my buddies blogs this week, I notice that I'm not the only one delinquent in posting recently. It's nice to know I'm not the only one who's been swamped this week.

Here's some more overflow from Senionr Sem. Our topic this week was Anthropology and I thought I'd begin a conversation on Culture (mostly to sharpen my own thinking). So, once again, I have an excurses. I'd love your thoughts and I warn you ahead of time, mine still need some clearing up.

COMING SOON - the hot topic today was not culture, but rather the Imago Dei (did I spell that right?). I'm curious to hear some additional thoughts on what some of you think. I'll probably post my position tomorrow afternoon or Saturday. Though I thought I was advancing the view of Hoekema and Bavinck, it appears several of us may have accidently formulated a modification of it.

PS one more thing - I'd still like to continue the talk on Breaking fellowship. I'm planning on following up on my Italian Friend's comment (i.e. "Ciao Babe"), but I'm surprised no one else has yet. Check out his comments if you haven't read them yet.

XXVI. Excurses on Culture

1. Introduction. Similar to my excurses on breaking fellowship, this material is exploratory in nature. I have long been fascinated by the consideration of how Christ and Christians relate to Culture, but have never put any thoughts on paper. Therefore, this is not my final word on Culture, but rather a first step.

2. Niebuhr’s Definition and Distinctions. Though the existence of culture is an almost universally recognized reality, it is nonetheless difficult to define. The word culture does not appear in the scriptures, but the Bible is far from silent on the matter. Therefore, in order to evaluate any theological paradigm on the basis of Scripture, one must first articulate a paradigm. Richard Niebuhr’s work Christ and Culture[1] has proved to be one of the most influential books on the topic written from a “Christian” perspective and has in many ways shaped the parameters of the discussion in recent decades. He identifies the following elements with the concept of culture:

· It is social – It’s bound up with man’s life in society.

· It is human achievement – It can be distinguished from nature by observing the evidences of human “purposiveness” and effort.

· It is comprised of values – That for which effort is expended and is done with a purpose is likely designed to serve a perceived good.

· It is concerned with the temporal and material realization of these values.

· It is concerned with the conservation or preservation of such values – since the material and temporal perish, much energy is expended to preserve what is made and accomplished.

· It is pluralistic – Not in the relativistic sense, but rather the values that a culture seeks to realize at any given time are many in number.

Some of the wording above is paraphrased; much of it is Niebuhr’s own wording. See pages 29-44. Though this description is not exhaustive, I do not find anything to object to and therefore deem it a good starting point. Perhaps more familiar is his five-fold list of typical responses to culture:

· Opposition between Christ and Culture

· Agreement between Christ and Culture

· Christ above Culture

· Christ and Culture in Paradox

· Christ the Transformer of Culture

The first two are obviously polar opposites, while he argues the latter three are different attempts to reconcile the first two. Though he takes significant space to develop each of these options and identifies individuals in church history who have advanced them, there is a statement in his conclusion that is very telling:

Yet it must be evident that neither extension nor refinement of study could bring us to the conclusive result that would enable us to say, ‘This is the Christian answer.’ Reader as well as writer is doubtless tempted to essay such a conclusion; for it will have become as evident to the one as to the other that the types (his five possible responses) are by no means wholly exclusive of each other, and that there are possibilities of reconciliation at many points among the various positions.[2]

3. Conclusion. At this level, all of the observations seem satisfactory. While Niebuhr would certainly apply things differently, the structure of his paradigm is coherent. Some of his description of culture would overlap with what the New Testament writers refer to as the world (ko,smoj). The world, particularly in John, is frequently described as antagonistic to God and His agenda. Believers are instructed not to love the world - 1 John 2:15-17 ¹⁵ “Do not love the world, nor the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. ¹⁶ For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life, is not from the Father, but is from the world. ¹⁷ And the world is passing away, and also its lusts; but the one who does the will of God abides forever.” It is these wicked aspects of the world that the believer is to shun. However, there is also a sense in which some of Niebuhr’s description does not overlap with the “world”. There are ways in which some of these elements of culture reflect God’s creative intention and design. For example, the fact that man is social is not a product of circumstantial conditioning, but rather a reflection of the created order - Genesis 2:18 ¹⁸ “Then the LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him." Likewise, in the community of the redeemed - 1 Peter 1:22 “Since you have in obedience to the truth purified your souls for a sincere love of the brethren, fervently love one another from the heart.” The purification is eivj filadelfi,an. Again, values are good and important, though we would say they must be shaped by Scripture. We do desire to see the fruit of our values realized in time and we seek to preserve them through institutions (churches, seminaries, conferences, publications, etc.). However, it is imperative to recognize that Jesus RADICALLLY transforms all of these values and societies. Thus, in many ways secular culture is a parody of Christian culture. Therefore, at times we will need to oppose culture - Ephesians 5:11 “And do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but instead even expose them.” At times we are to agree with our culture, in as much as it reflects common grace and the divine image. This includes things like the condemnation of wicked acts such as murder and genocide and the promotion of justice. While believers may not ever be transcendent (above) culture, without question God is (though He is also present in it) - Isaiah 57:15 “For thus says the high and exalted One Who lives forever, whose name is Holy, "I dwell on a high and holy place, And also with the contrite and lowly of spirit In order to revive the spirit of the lowly and to revive the heart of the contrite.” The forensic nature of justification unpacked in Romans 3-4 reflects the paradoxical nature of Christ and the Christian and culture (though this is leaning heavily on Niebuhr’s statements; I need more clarification here). Finally, as has been noted above, Christ (and His ambassadors) transform their culture -2 Corinthians 5:17 “Therefore if any man is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come.” Though the point of this passage is that the individual is renewed, his renewal (which is brought about by Christ) bleeds over (or at least should) into his surroundings. Likewise, the church is a community of those whose culture has been radically transformed by the Gospel. However, since they are still “in the world” but not “of it” they will impact their surrounding culture. By way of conclusion: There is still more to be said and thought through; nevertheless at this point suffice it to say that Niebuhr’s paradigm is workable providing one recognizes that there is no easy answer to every question. Even the principles and conclusions outlined above are extremely general. Thus, the Christian can, should and will interact with and engage his culture one way or another. The need is for Scripture informed, Spirit led discernment.

---

[1] Richard Niebuhr, Christ and Culture, (New York: Harper and Row, 1951).

[2] Ibid, 231.

Some Miscellaneous Thoughts

I thought I'd post a few brief words (and links) on what the Lord's been teaching me lately. Though I already linked some info on Tim Keller, I want to redirect your attention to one of the messages on that page in particular. If you go to the link here and look at the fourth bullet point under "Messages" you'll see the link to a message entitled "All Things are Yours." I have made a habit of listening to it semi-regularly in the mornings lately as a means of grace and method of preaching the Gospel to myself (in Bridges vernacular). If you're wired at all like I am, this brief challenge will be a kick in the....pants :-), as well as be a blessing.

The second link is somewhat different. It's a sort of interview with Bart Ehrman, author of Misquoting Jesus and professor of NT at UNC that appeared in the Washington Post. At best Ehrman is a self titled "agnostic," though realistically he sounds more like a blaspheming Christ-denier. What value is there in reading such an interview? It is both sad and sobering. Ehrman was "saved" in an evangelical (probably "fundy") background. He studied at Moody and Wheaton before doing a PhD (and "losing his faith") at Princeton. It is also a good idea to familiarize yourself with who he is and what he's saying, as he (and his works) appear to be pretty popular on university campuses. One of his courses at UNC bosts an enrollment of 350 plus students. Anyway, I think it's worth a read and would encourage you to check it out here. Props to Scot Mcknight at Jesus Creed where I first came across this link.

"Broken Fellowship"? Not with Jesus! TAKE TWO

Sorry, I tried to recover the original post but was not succesful. However, I am still interested in continuing the conversation. Therefore: 1) Again, I want to give props to Pat Griffiths for bringing this topic to my attention during my undergrad studies at NBBC. 2) I'm reposting my excurses which is what I am hoping to continue the dialouge on. I'm very interested on your thoughts.

XXII. EXCURSES: On Breaking Fellowship with God.

1. The Problem Articulated. Though Grudem comments on this idea, it is far more common in popular literature and preaching. The concept basically goes something like this: When an individual sins, though his legal standing is never brought into question the familial relationship is disrupted and “fellowship” with God is broken. This is a fairly common evangelical viewpoint and receives relatively broad acceptance.

2. Though I understand the sentiment of such an argument, I think it needs some significant clarification. First of all, I’m not convinced that such a strong disjunction can be made between our legal standing and our familial standing. After all, our Father is the Judge and the Judge is our Father. More disconcerting is the use of the term “fellowship”. If such language is to be used, it must be noted that one is not using the phrase “fellowship with God” the way the Scriptures do. Consider 1 John 1:3-7 What we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, that you also may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ. 4 And these things we write, so that our joy may be made complete. 5 And this is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is light, and in Him there is no darkness at all. 6 If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth; 7 but if we walk in the light as He Himself is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin. Fellowship with God here is virtually equivalent with having eternal life. Likewise, the metaphor of the vine and the branches in John 15, though using different language, communicates the same principle. One either abides in the vine or is cast into the fire (15:6). The same could be pressed with the “in Christ language.” One is either in Christ or he is not. In all of these metaphors, the breaking of fellowship, lack of abiding and not being in Christ all result in one thing: Eternal death. Thus, while fellowship can be broken with other believers, to break fellowship with God (in the biblical sense) is to not have the blood of Jesus cleansing us from our sin (1 John 1:7). To press the analogy further, when we turn our back on God, He does NOT turn His back on us. He is still wooing us back to Himself (Romans 2:4 Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance?). If He were to turn His back on us, there would be no place for repentance, nor could we return to Him. So, though I understand what is trying to be communicated and think the idea has some biblical warrant, my point is simply to say the language is sloppy and needs to be sharpened.

Clarification: "On Broken Fellowship"

The faculty is NOT in agreement with what I defended in Senior Sem. Apparently I misunderstood their comments in class. Pastor Daniel (our seminary President) received word from someone who read the previous post and asked me to clarify. I can give more details if someone's curious, but it would be a bit lengthy to rehash all of our conversation here. The sum of the matter is that while those in class (Dr. Mike and DKD) agreed with my exegesis of 1 John 1, they did not agree with the extent of my conclusions and how they impact other passsages. I still stand by my conclusions (though as I mentioned I need to think them through further), but the clarification is that I misunderstood the profs in class. They do NOT agree with my conclusions. I tried to modify the original post and I think I may have accidently deleted the whole thing in the process. It is NOT censorship, just technological incompetence on my part. I'll see if I can salvage it.

It's a BOY!!!

We're having a manchild! I thought about posting a picture to prove it, but thought better of broadcasting my son's "equipment" across the Internet :-) Our tentative due date is Aug 6th. Here's a more modest pic: 

More On Bultmann

As promised I thought I'd pass on a few more thoughts on Bultmann particularly as it pertains to Harmartiology. Please do not understand the following endorsements as promoting neo-orthodoxy (of course you have to have the disclaimer). However, I have to admit I was pleasantly surprised by some of what I read. Harmartiology is one of the few areas in which I feel like I have a decent grasp on much of the data. Therefore, rather than rereading some of the foundational material, I decided to branch out (pioneer into new territory, if you will) and read some neo-orthodox and liberal theologians. However, though I may strongly disagree with Bultmann in many areas, his treatment of sarx and sinfulness is not one of them. Sure, there are fine points over which we can always quibble, but much of what I read, I read with profit. First of all, his treatment of the semantic range of sarx is an excellent example of philology at it's best. And for those of you who know me well enough to know my thoughts on wordstudies (think of the baby and the bathwater) that's quite a concession. Furthermore, his section on sinfulness actually had a number of quotable quotes. For the sake of space and time, I'll provide only one example. The context of what he is discussing is the nature of fleshly living. He has been arguing that such living is often equated with immorality and wickedness; however he also groups moralism in this same category (i.e. fleshly living):

"Whether, then, it is a matter of giving one's self up to worldly enticements and pleasures, either in frivolitty or swept along by the storm of passion, or whether it is the zealous bustle of moral and religious activity that is iinvolved--life in all of these cases is apostasy from God--a turning away from Him to the creation and to one's own strength, and is, therefore, enmity toward God (Rom. 8:6) and disobedience to the will of God (Rom. 8:7; 10:3; II Cor. 10:5). All human wisdom, power, and greatness must come to naught in the presence of God (I Cor. 1:26-31)."

- Rudolf Bultmann, Theology of the NT: Vol 1, p. 241

Way to go Rudy! Not bad for a pagan :-o

Oooops.

Props to Bruno who beat me to the punch on ETC. I guess I should read all of my buddies blogs before posting :-)

Stuff on Textual Criticism

This is going to be brief. I have to finish my senior sem paper on harmartiology for tomorrow, but I haven't posted anything in a few days. Solution: link to a sweet blog that HAS a substantive post. If you're interested in textual criticism and you're not already frequenting the blog listed at the left (Evangelical Textual Criticism) you need to start such frequenting. On the other hand if you're like me and don't know squat about textual criticism, you may still be interested in this post on ineranncy and textual criticism. The original post is interesting, but don't miss the comment section; there is some lengthy dialogue. Tomorrow: More on Bultmann...specifically as it relates to harmartiology (surprise, surprise).