Charles

In my debating with myself about reviewing this book by N. T. Wright, one of my staff members asked, why I was going to do it. From time to time it is important to mention a book that is important and influential even though I have to disagree with its content. Also because of the popularity of the author in some of our circles it is easy to read him in a non-critical way and be influenced by what he writes. This is not a book for a new Christian nor for those lacking a strong theological perspective. Because Equip to Disciple is intended primarily for pastors, staff, and other church leaders and because our PCA General Assembly has dealt with the general framework into which this book fits, namely “the New Perspectives on Paul” I decided to comment on it.

This is not an easy task because there are many good things that I have read and appreciated by the author even though Idisagree with him on a number of issues;justification being one. First, a word of background. Two years ago John Piper wrote a book The Future of Justification which was critical of Wright’s view of justification. Much was based on the book What Saint Paul Really Said, with which I was familiar.Though I have some appreciation for what Wright is saying, I had some problems with Piper’s critique of Wright for his covenantal emphasis on the topic. This book is intended to respond to Piper and clarify the issue of which Wright is critical of Piper’s critique.

Second, I think there is merit, from our Presbyterian and Reformed context, for a covenantal hermeneutic regarding interpreting Scripture, as long as it does not cause us to misinterpret Scripture. Lacking the covenantal focus, I believe, is a weakness of Piper’s dealing with justification, as I believe it was with Luther. One of the strength’s of Calvin’s theology in contrast to Luther’s was Calvin’s understanding the heart of the gospel, the good news, was the kingdom of God, of which salvation and its parts, including justification, were included. Luther focused primarily on soteriology but especially justification as though it were the heart of the gospel. Wright’s point which I believe has some validity is that Luther’s and consequently the other reformers reading of justification as an aspect of salvation that changed our relationship to God and failed to see the covenantal aspect of it. I believe we miss so much by simply focusing on the individual and his relation to God exclusively or almost so as though that reflects the good news of the kingdom.

Wright challenges Luther, Calvin, The Westminster Confession of Faith, The 39 Articles of his own church, and others such as D. A. Carson, and the late Edmund P. Clowney on this matter. He believes that the 16^th and 17^th century reformers have caused the western reformed and evangelical world to allow those reformers to interpret Paul for us; therefore, we have not actually understood what Paul said. For example, the WCF Shorter Catechism definition of justification is: (Q and A 33). “What is justification.” A. Justification is an act of God’s free grace, wherein he pardoneth all our sins, and accepteth us as righteous in his sight, only for the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, and received by faith alone.” This view clearly reflects Paul’s teaching in Romans. The idea of imputation is foreign to what Paul says, according to Wright. It is not about our sins being imputed to Christ and his righteousness being imputed to us. That concept according to Wright came from those 16^th and 17^th century reformers.

What Paul has in mind both in Romans and Galatians is not the catechisms definition of justification. Instead, Wright defines justification as “God’s faithfulness to keep the covenant made with Abraham.” That is a good statement but it does not actually apply to the concept of justification. This has implications and application on Wright’s definition of the righteousness of God and the righteousness of man. What he says sounds good at first reading, that the reformers allowed their context to determine their interpretation. They should have gone back to the original context of Paul and using extra canonical sources such as the Second Temple documents to interpret Paul, as though they actually represent Paul’s context. In fact while there are good things we can learn from the STL, including the Mishna, they reflect the antithesis to Paul’s teaching about law, works, justification, and even sanctification. This has implications on our view of Scripture being the only infallible interpreter of Scripture and not some extra canonical documents which can be of some help in our understanding but not the determiner of Scriptures’ meaning.

Wright believes that Paul’s references to the law in Romans and Galatians are not references to the traditional understanding of the Judaizers and their emphasis of a legalistic moral works type scenario. For him the law of God from the Jews perspective was to attempt to nullify God’s covenant with Abraham to save both Jews and Gentiles. The Jewish use of the law erected a barrier between Jews and Gentiles that God’s work had torn down. That is not all wrong but it does not fit with Scripture at this point. To illustrate, Wright points to Anselm the Bishop of Canterbury by criticizing him for allowing the Latin concepts of things like “law” and “right” to determine his interpretation of Scripture rather than using the Hebraic thought forms. Again, some truth, but not here.

He uses another example of the reformers interpretation of 1 Corinthians 1:30 to point out how they constructed an ordo salutis (order of salvation) from this text which caused them to miss what Paul was really saying namely, the way in which the status of the believer in Christ overturns all social pride and convention of the surrounding culture. He says this has caused the church to reach for tradition vs. Scripture to hear Paul.

Basically for Wright, justification has more to do with God keeping his Word than man’s right standing with God and how justification influences that. “Many supposedly ordinary readings within Western Protestant traditions have simply not paid attention to what Paul actually wrote,” (page 50). Justification is really about God’s righteousness not ours and according to Wright that is what Romans and Galatians are referring to. In summary, Wright believes that justification is God’s faithfulness. His understanding includes God’s promise to Abraham to have one people and that is the context of Romans and Galatians. According to Wright being justified by the law, for the Jew, meant building a barrier between the Jew and Gentile. Thus he claims that in Galatians 2:20 Paul is speaking of being crucified with Christ and the life we now live in the flesh, we live by the faithfulness of God, not by our faith in the Son of God. This interpretation tends to diminish the result of justification on man’s part, as Wright translates it.

I believe this book illustrates a different view of Scripture and its interpretation, as though the Second Temple documents are trustworthy extra canonical sources in interpreting the Scriptures. I have a problem, as I read the book, with his view of the righteousness of God and righteousness of man. I am troubled by his definition of justification. Then, there is his definition of the law of God. I have trouble with his criticism of the reformers making justification merely a reference to God’s righteousness In doing this I believe he has constructed a straw man as I think he does in other places.

Piper says that he doesn’t believe Wright is preaching a false doctrine but rather a confusing one. That may be a very generous statement. It certainly is confusing and I believe a confusing gospel can easily lead to another gospel. Paul says unless there is a clear sound from the trumpet of God, who can prepare for battle? We need to speak with clarity and as little confusion as we can. I believe there is the possible danger, even as Wright points out. We can read, as I believe he does, our own definitions into a text or our own context to the extent that we can miss the message, but at the same time I believe to interpret Scripture, we need to consider three horizons to use Anthony Thiselton’s word: the original context, the whole of church councils and church history,and our context today.

Read this book, carefully, discerningly, and with much caution. Remember as you do, our final authority is the inspired Word of God in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments.

I agree with J. I. Packer. When I read Why We Love the Church, I wanted to stand up and cheer. I have been reading so many books and blogs from people who do not speak a love language regarding the church or organized religion. Granted, there are blemishes and spots and things that need correcting regarding the church but as the bride of Christ, whom he loves, we too must love the church, and you cannot separate the organism aspect of the church from the organized as many are trying to do. You may have already read an earlier book by these two authors, one a teaching elder and the other a ruling elder. That book, Why We’re Not Emergent, was a good book but this one tops it. Both are great reads but if you have to chose, this one is the winner.

They unwrap the idea that the North American church is suffering from a crisis in ecclesiology. They conclude the lack of love for the church is one of the reasons why there is a glaring lack of any ecclesiology, even among those who profess to be Christians, who talk much about community, and who throw stones at what they think the church is without understanding what they are doing. Beating up on the church is no way to treat the bride of Christ. As the authors point out, many who do talk about the church do so in a minimalist way that reflects no understanding
of what they are talking about. Again that doesn’t mean that the church is perfect or above evaluation and criticism but we need to know what we are doing, and proceed carefully, when we do speak critically of the church: after all it is the heart of God’s kingdom. The church should always look differently from the world because it is through the church that the world is supposed to see the kingdom of God. And, it isn’t about numbers.

One very revealing comment by the authors underscore the message, “Many of these passionate, well-intentioned youngish church leavers have a vision for the world that is so unlike anything promised this side of heaven that they can’t help but feel disappointed and angry with the church for not getting the world where they think it can go.”

Click here to read entire publication in PDF (Acrobat Reader required)

They caution about the danger of polling and trend watching which tends to cause us to forever be doomed to chase relevance, manage people’s perceptions of the church, and catch up on the cutting edge. By the way, they say this is generally done at the expense of not dealing with sin which causes the problems in the first place. With a good reminder they caution about reading people like George Barna when they either beat up on the church or bemoan its falling apart. which as they refer to Barna, always requires doing church differently or not doing church at all.

I read trends and think we can learn some things from them. I agree with DeYoung and Gluck that doing so too seriously can lead the church away from its mission under the guise of making it more effective. It uses the wrong standards to measure its effectiveness in ministry and mission. The days of the church are not over. We must not read the eulogy over that which will not perish. They say, “It is easy to blast the church for all its failures…but we could do better with using a little less complaining and a little more gratitude.” DeYoung and Gluck are in their “thirtysomethings” and are neither out of touch with their generation nor the others as well. They say that their generation is prone to radicalism without follow-through, not proving themselves to be faithful in much of anything including jobs, parenting, and real change. Do we in fact need more spirituality and less religion? More social justice or political correctness?

The authors remind us there is a place and need for change, at times more than others, however the problem is that we do not always know how to change things for the better and we end up complicating the problem and making things worse and then turning the blame from ourselves. “Is it possible our boredom and restlessness have less to do with the church and its doctrines and more to do with a growing coldness toward the love of God displayed in the sacrifice of his son for our sins?”

So what do we do? We realize as they emphasize that the gospel is not about what we need from God, but about what God has done for us. It is not dressed up moralism, gospel activism, and rest for the weary, nor as I would add to that a legalistic “work your way to heaven” message.

Their plea is not to give up on the church because the Bible knows nothing about a churchless Christianity. “Find a good local church, get involved, become a member, stay there for the long haul…Worship God in spirit and truth, be patent with your leaders, and rejoice when the gospel is faithfully proclaimed, bear with those who hurt you, and give people the benefit of the doubt.” They further remind us that the church is not an incidental part of God’s plan. I was thrilled to read this statement, “I still believe the church is the hope of the world-not because she gets it all right, but because she is a body with Christ for her Head.” I hope my brief comments on this book make you aware that I believe it is one of the most important books for church leaders and members to read today regarding the church. If the church doesn’t function and carry out its mission of making kingdom disciples, she will not serve God’s purpose to this generation and we cannot do that by turning our backs on that most central and essential institution and organization for making kingdom disciples.

As the lead article in this issue indicates there has been great confusion regarding the broad issue of God and politics, especially as it relates to the frequently heard church and state separation issue and the united states Constitutional position. on the one hand you have the secularists who want to exclude God from all public discourse, especially politics, and on the other hand you have some Christians who claim that America was founded on Christian principles; therefore, the church cannot be left out of the state or politics. Hunter Baker suggests both tend to over state their case.

Baker is clear that you cannot leave God out the political realm, which basically agrees with Calvin’s position that while the church and state have their separate realms–“Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s.”– both are subject to God. Baker points out that Abraham Kuyper, the prime minister Calvinistic statesman, theologian, and politician, made an interesting point in debunking the idea of a secular and sacred dichotomy, that roman Catholicism was mainly responsible for promoting the idea of secularism. Baker does a good thing in showing that throughout history the question does the church control the state or king or does the state or king control the church has been debated. He points to Thomas Aquinas as the key figure in setting up the premise of a secular state.

Secularism, as used by the author, is simply an attempt to leave God out-the “ordering of a community without reference to God.” We have mentioned from time to time in Equip to Disciple how many of the founders and originators of the Constitutional standards were impacted by a Calvinistic theology and philosophy. In this case, as Baker points out, “To Calvin, the king held his power through the hand of God and it would be ridiculous for God not to care whether his chosen servant protected right worship and doctrine.” Growing out of that, the concept of church and state separation can actually be traced to John Calvin. A further concept set forth in this book is that it was the Christian influence among the founders that led to the adoption of the principle of religious pluralism in America. The state would not by coercion or any other means promote a single religion but would rather make a place where one could practice his religion with freedom. (Maybe that is why America has more religions and religious organization than any other country).

This is an important book. In fact having read other books by Mark Noll, Nathan Hatch, George Marsden, Harry stout and others on American history, this book may be one of the most strategic. However, as Baker points out, the solution to deal with this chaos and conflict is first to understand the difference between church and state separation (see the lead article in this issue) and God and state separation or the separation of religion and politics. Also because God is who he says he is, the sovereign God and king of his kingdom, we need to understand that you cannot leave God and religion out of politics or any area of life. This was never intended by the u. s. Constitution. Keeping God out of the public square, including politics, was never the intention of the founders, as our history bears out. They knew too much theology than to believe that you could do that.

Click here to read entire publication in PDF (Acrobat Reader required)

The bottom line is that America is not a secular nation in that God can be left out. Impossible! America is a religious nation that allows for religious freedom to its citizens which means the right to talk about religion not only in the privacy of our lives, but in the public realm as well.

Baker has given us a book that should be read by every parent, teacher, church and state leader. His perspective is fair and balanced. As it is read, studied, and understood, it will serve a positive purpose in further informing and clarifying the understanding of Kingdom thinking, not a two kingdom concept as set forth by Luther, but a one kingdom concept with God over all things as Calvin, Kuyper, and others have maintained. Don’t bypass this book! There is so much good content, far beyond what this brief review allows.

The title drew me to this book written by Ben Witherington, Professor of New Testament, Asbury seminary, and faculty in the doctoral program at st. Andrews university in scotland. Being less than 100 pages, I thought this would be an easy read. I found that while it was easy to read, it required some thinking, checking scripture references, and playing around with some of the end questions. Consequently, I underlined a lot.

I was humbled in the very preface of the book. Witherington mentioned “kingdomtide.” I had never heard of that. He explained that it is part of the Christian church calendar many churches, including his Methodist church, use to mark a period from August 31 through the next 12 to 13 weeks culminating with the feast of Christ the King. I was comforted a bit by my lack of knowledge when I read that because we do not always observe those things in our church. As I read, I felt that maybe it would not be a bad idea, though from January 1 to December 31, because it is evident that people do not understand the kingdom of God.

Click here to read entire publication in PDF (Acrobat Reader required)

The little book of six studies has two parts: first dealing with the presence of the kingdom and then the future of the kingdom, an exposition from the Lord’s Prayer, “Your Kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.” He is correct that people do not understand the Kingdom of God, what it is, how it differs from the church, or Israel, and whether it is now or not yet.

Because the word kingdom today suggests a geographical location, and because the now part of the kingdom does not, Witherington suggests for clarity that we should call it the “dominion of God,” depicting activity rather than location, at least now. The kingdom refers to the rule and reign in the hearts and lives of God’s people wherever they are now. In the not yet final appearing of the kingdom it will have a location, namely the new heavens and new earth. It will be a activity and place combined.

Witherington makes an interesting point, “It is never adequate theology to say, “this world is not my home, I’m just passing through” as if heaven were all that really mattered. To the contrary, the New Testament suggests just the opposite. Heaven is simply a place through which believers pass between the time they die and when they are raised from the dead.” At that point they will be in the new heavens and new earth.

Witherington makes clear that while the church is not synonymous with the kingdom, it is through the church that the world presently sees the kingdom. As Christ rules and reigns in peoples’ hearts, the church gives evidence to the kingdom through the worship, in their daily lives as they demonstrate the beatitudes and fruit of the spirit, as they obey God’s word in all things, and demonstrate works of charity, righteousness, and a love in opposition to the powers of darkness. As Christ redeems his people and sets up his rule and reign in their hearts and minds such transformation will lead to redemptive actions and will change others as well as the fabric and structure of society. When that happens then God’s will is being done he says.

He asks “What would the church look like if it really took seriously the Great Commission? ” His answer, “It would look like a lot more like the dominion of God coming to earth.” There would be no place for racism, sexism, rivalry, greed but more of a place of love, justice, and mercy and servant leadership.

Each chapter ends with penetrating questions. While it does not say everything about the kingdom such as a world and life view, though the implications are there, you will benefit from reading, studying, and teaching this little book. Don’t pass it by.

Several books on having a Christian mind have been in print for a good number of years. We will be mentioning at least one of these in each review section of Equip to Disciple for the purpose of making certain that you have read them. If you have not read them, you will want to do so while they are still available. This book, The Christian Mind, by Harry Blamires is one of those books, first published in 1963.

If Blamires was not the first to use the phrase “the Christian mind,” he was certainly among the first. I first read this book in the mid to late 1960’s and have quoted from and referred to it numerous times when speaking and writing on the topic. His major thesis was twofold. First, the modern mind is a secular mind; and secondly, there is no longer a Christian mind. Though we are seeing somewhat of a spiritual revival in our culture, the modern and/or postmodern mind is not oriented towards the supernatural, which is not to be confused with Christianity. He says, “As a thinking being, the modern Christian has succumbed to secularization.” Today’s mind accepts religion but not as a way of life. “There is no Christian mind; there is no shared field of discourse in which we can move at ease as thinking Christians by trodden ways and past established landmarks.”

I would like to say in the forty-six years of this book’s existence that things have improved. However, all that can be said regarding there being no Christian mind is that the situation has gone even more downhill. Certainly more books have been written on the topic, some of which we have reviewed in the past, but no significant change for the better has taken place. Mark Noll wrote The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind in which he concluded, there is no evangelical mind. Earlier, Allan Bloom wrote The Closing of the American Mind with a broader emphasis on how the Western mind is not a thinking mind.

The main thing that underscores our being the image of God is namely our ability and capacity to think. How tragic when we do not. People in general, but Christians in particular, face some extremely serious, complicated, and complex issues. The need to know how to think from a Christian perspective has never been more urgent.

But what is a Christian mind? Part two of the book identifies six characteristics.

1. A supernatural orientation. There is more to reality than the here and now and what we can see.
2. An awareness of evil and what it has done in perverting “the noblest things.”
3. A conception of truth that depends on God’s revelation.
4. An acceptance of authority. We must know what God requires and submit to it. He is the final authority in all of reality, things present and things to come.
5. A concern for the person, realizing that people are not machines. Human life has value.
6. A sacramental cast. In a sacramental view of life, the Christian mind recognizes things, such as relationships and sexual love, as God’s ways of opening reality to us.

In his conclusion, Blamires asks the question: what will Christians do during the next fifty years to strengthen the Christian mind against secularism and the anti-supernatural? His time frame is now up, and our response is not very encouraging. Blamires concludes, “it is better to define, establish, and nourish a Christian mind in freedom now, as a positive last effort to bring light and hope to our culture and our civilization, than to have to try to gather together the miserable fragments of Christian consciousness after triumphant secularism has finally bulldozed its way through the Church, as a body of thinking men and women.”

If you have not read this book and been challenged by it, please do so. It will make a strategic difference in your outlook.

Jerram Barrs has given us a good sequel to his earlier book, The Heart of Evangelism. This book is more focused in dealing with how Jesus approached the subject we would call evangelism. I agree with David Wells. “This is not a book about evangelism technique but about doing evangelism biblically.” In one sense we can say that Jesus did not have a particular methodology in doing evangelism; yet on the other hand, there are certain aspects that are a common thread in his approach. We perhaps should say that Jesus always had an objective in mind, though it was always applied by situation or context.

Barrs points out an approach of Jesus to people that was often followed by the late Francis Schaeffer. Schaeffer knew how to learn about people, to ask questions, and to listen before seeking to present Christ to them. Barrs actually quotes Schaeffer, who used to say that “if he had only one hour with someone, he would spend 55 minutes asking them questions and 5 minutes trying to say something that would speak to their situation once he understood a little more about what was going on in their heart and mind.” This is a good summary of Barrs’ approach in this book, using the parables to demonstrate Jesus’ style or method.

Barr even quotes from the observation of Paul Weston, who has counted the number of questions Jesus asked in the Gospels, an overall total of 284. Jesus also told stories and left the audience to respond and conclude His story, such as the famous parables in Luke’s Gospel regarding the two lost sons. Jesus used story form to communicate His message; and He did so in a way that the audience, if they had ears to hear, would know exactly what He was driving at.

The confrontation with the Bible teacher, as Barrs calls it, or the Good Samaritan parable, demonstrates another approach of Jesus. This time, more than telling a story, He asked questions. Jesus met the young lawyer where he was, which not only caught the man off guard with His questions back to him but also revealed something inside this inquisitor.

Here was a lawyer who knew Scripture and could quote at least the key parts but in reality did not know what those Scriptures meant. Through a questioning process, Jesus made it obvious that such was the case.

In witnessing we have to realize, and we soon will if we do not, that simply quoting Scripture does not reveal belief and understanding. Knowing the truth is different from doing the truth. Jesus masterfully demonstrates how to answer questions with questions to make His point. Barr also reminds us that many to whom we witness may not only lack a saving knowledge of God but an understanding of themselves as well. Following Calvin, he reminds us that we can only know ourselves if we know God.

Barr also talks about witnessing or doing evangelism in a way that does not lead to a quick decision where there is no knowledge of sin and the need of forgiveness, which is prevalent in much “evangelism” today. “Many people need to hear the law before they are ready to hear the gospel,” he says.

In this book we see Jesus using different methods, both direct and indirect, stories and questions, to carry out His evangelism. Barr writes, “The theme of this book is that Jesus, the Son of God, shows us the way to be in the world. It is my deep conviction that our evangelism, both in theory and practice, must be shaped not only by the general teaching of Scripture, but also, indeed most of all, by imitating the pattern of Christ.”

While you may not find anything here that you have not already known, it is good to refresh ourselves by studying more about Jesus and His teachings with the desire to learn how to be more like Him. Learning Evangelism from Jesus contains fifteen chapters dealing with different stories from Jesus’ life, and the study guide at the end will be helpful to those wishing to teach or study more on this topic. Obviously, we recommend this book.