Saturday, August 23, 2008

Unity in the Body

The topic of unity has come up quite a few times in the past couple of days and as such, I've been mulling it over in my head and heart. At small groups on Wednesday night we prayed for the unity of the church, both local and universal. People lamented the lack of unity among the body of Christ and prayed that the Lord would cause people to see the need for unity and work toward it. After Wednesday I read an article which contained unity as a major sub-theme and had a spontaneous conversation with a great brother about the need for unity in the body. So, it would appear that the Lord is putting the topic in my path in order that I might think on it. And here I am, thinking on it.

A primary verse came immediately to mind when considering this topic, Eph 4:3, "being diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace." Its quite obvious from this verse and others like it that unity is a serious matter that we shouldn't take lightly. The real issue is, I think, how do we bring about unity in the body, locally and universally? This is a difficult question, especially in times of vast diversity. How do we go about pursuing unity with those whose traditions and beliefs are different than ours? Where do we draw the line in order to prevent sacrificing truth for false unity? And, finally, how do we maintain unity in the bond of peace, not just begrudgingly? Unfortunately I don't have the answers to all these questions I've just posed. But I do think they're answerable and I intend to be thinking through them in the future more than I have in the past.

I'll begin here by rehashing that conversation I mentioned earlier. This will be especially relevant for seminarians and other folks who are involved in the thought-wars of academia. A lot of time and energy seems to be devoted to defending and refuting beliefs, in classrooms, in churches, in peer-groups. So how can we defend that which needs to be defended, refute that which needs to be refuted, and all the while preserve unity in the bond of peace? By doing so in a spirit of charity. Two men come to my mind when I think of excellent examples of this, D. A. Carson and John Piper. If you really want to hear and see two men who can walk through the fire of conflict and come out not smelling like smoke, listen to and read the work of Carson and Piper. I include Carson because of his ability to always have something good to say of any position or any person which is about to critique. I've heard him on many occasions speak against false-teachings or false-teachers and begin by say "Now, so-and-so has really offered some great insight into these particular areas and I am indebted to him for his work on this particular subject. However here on the matter of ______ I think he's grossly mistaken." I've heard Carson have good things to say about everyone from E. P. Sanders to John Dominic Crossin. But he doesn't back down from point out where they're wrong and even where they're dangerous. We need this attitude to penetrate our own practices of "defending the faith." As my good brother pointed out, if all we do is rail someone from start to finish, those hear us will simply write that individual and all his disciples off (I use the term disciple very loosely); and, in doing so, become further isolated from a part of the body. If instead we took Carson's approach, we might get our hearers to think critically about what they listen to and read, eating the meat and spitting out the bones.

I choose John Piper as my second example of a model to follow when confronting controversy because of his amazing ability to be charitable to individuals but at the same time violently opposed to false teaching. Two instances come to mind here. First, Piper's dealing with N. T. Wright and the new perspectives on Paul in his newer book The Future of Justification. Piper explains in the introduction that he chose to speak out against Wright and not someone else, like James Dunn, because of Wright's widespread influence and popularity. The entire book is very charitably written and Piper is always as gracious as possible toward Wright, but that's not the main point. The main point is that Piper went to great lengths to make sure he was accurately representing Wright's position. He even sent Wright a first draft of his manuscript so that he would have a chance to respond and so that Piper could incorporate his response into the final product. That's pretty bold. In a later interview, Wright said that he and Piper were both old enough to know that the debate wasn't personal, as with their added years they'd both lost the testosterone aspect of theological discourse. I found that to be very interesting, as I know how charged I can get over a doctrine, especially one I consider to be a false doctrine. Second, Piper doesn't play around when something dangerously aberrant is being promulgated. Consider this video on youtube, in which Piper condemns the prosperity Gospel. Even using the word "hatred" concerning his stance against it. So, Piper knows how to debate like a gentleman and how to dig in his heels. I think we can learn much from his example.

I know this hasn't been a very thorough treatment of the matter of unity. I've only briefly touched on a couple of examples I've seen as ideals for confronting conflict, but I hope that these examples will be helpful and will cause you to think about your own interaction with those you disagree with.

Saturday, August 16, 2008

Mutual Encouragement and "One-anothering"

In Romans 1:11-2, Paul says, "For I long to see you so that I may impart some spiritual gift to you, that you may be established; that is, that I may be encouraged together with you while among you, each of us by the other's faith, both yours and mine."

These two verses really struck me in my studies today and yesterday. Just think, the Apostle Paul is about to pen the greatest letter ever written, the greatest expression of Christian Theology in the New Testament, and here in the introduction he says that he looks forward to coming to the Romans so that he can be encouraged by their faith! That is truly amazing to me. Paul shows us here an incredible amount of humility. He could've been prideful and thought, "What can I possibly learn from these Romans?" or something of the sort. But that's not the way Paul learned Christianity from his Master. Instead, Paul longed for an opportunity to come to them in order that both he and they could be encouraged by the other's faith. Is this something you practice in your local church, in your small group, in your group of friends? Is this something I practice? Dr. Black, one of my professors at SEBTS really made me aware of the New Testament concept of every member ministry and the "one-anothering" that is seen throughout the pages of the NT. Its almost like reformed soteriology, once you see it, you see it everywhere. I can't read my Bible anymore without seeing the one-anothers and the ways in which the body of Christ functioned as a family in the NT. We've drifted so far from this pattern in our modern congregations, but there are a lot of folks out there who are desperately seeking to reverse the wrongs and restore to American Christianity a more biblical model. I can only hope that the Lord will see fit to use me in this reformation of sorts.

Tuesday, August 12, 2008

"Whole" Salvation or "Soul" Salvation?

As I mentioned previously, I've been working my way through N. T. Wright's newest book: Surprised By Hope. In the final third of this book he is discussing the implications of life after life after death for the local church and the lives of believers; how do we live out the consequences of the resurrection here and now? The first way in which Wright suggests that we ought to change our thinking and practices is in the area of salvation. He states that believers need to seriously rethink what salvation means in light of the fact that heaven is not our "final resting place" or our ultimate goal, as many Christians mistakenly believe. He makes some good points and raises some good questions. One that has particularly got me thinking is his question of whole salvation versus soul salvation. Whole salvation, he contends, is the salvation of the entire person, soul, mind, body, life, etc. Soul salvation is simply being saved from sin and to heaven, or something along those lines.

I applaud Wright for calling people to realize that you can't just get someone "saved" and then leave them in the exact condition in which you found them. The church I am a member of here in Raleigh, Treasuring Christ Church, emphasizes this point frequently. People need to hear the gospel, but they may also need help financially to get them out of a life of bondage to poverty, or counsel to help them get on track to get free from debt, or an education to free them from the slavery of illiteracy and ignorance, and the list could go on and on. So, I definitely understand what Wright means when he says we need to recapture a theology of whole salvation. However, I had a problem with his exegesis to get to this point. His main text was Mark 5 and the parallel passage in Matthew 9, which tell the story of the healing the woman with the issue of blood. My great trouble with Wright's exegesis was his translation, and subsequent interpretation, of Mark 5:34 and Matt 9:22. In Greek, both of these passages use the word sozo, which is commonly translated "to save." However, no major English version translates Mark 5:34 or Matt 9:22 as "saved." They all opt for another meaning of sozo; "healed," or "made well." Herein lies my main disagreement with Wright. It seems as if from his translation and exegesis of these passages that he believes this woman experienced whole salvation that day, obviously Jesus had no problem saying that she was "saved," and this ought to be our model for understanding salvation. I just don't see that in these passages. I do not believe that Jesus was making a pronouncement on this woman's spiritual condition, but rather her fleshly one: she was saved from her illness. After all, the text of Mark does go on to say "Go in peace and be healed (hugies) of your affliction." This leads me to my next problem with Wright's exegesis. By using these passages, which are devoid of any mention of the spiritual or forgiveness of sin or anything of that nature, Wright seems to forget these elements in his whole salvation paradigm. In short, he emphasizes the physical to the detriment of the spiritual.

I believe that he is on to something in his whole salvation theology. However, it seems to me that he has largely forgotten the spiritual aspect of salvation. If that is left out, there is little value in the rest of the equation. We must never put the salvation of souls in the back seat to social justice or meeting physical needs. This was the mistake of 20th century liberalism and it may very well make a reappearance in our time as well. We cannot rely on any organization, be it the government, civic clubs, or even the church, if all they are seeking to do is treat felt needs in order to somehow "save" individuals. Rather than embracing this distorted view of whole salvation, we need to embrace a real whole salvation; one that addresses the spiritual and the physical. We also must realize that just because we make efforts towards social justice and meeting the physical needs of new believers does not mean that God's purpose for all people is a comfortable, pain free existence. God may keep an individual right where he is, in poverty, or in physical illness in order to bring Himself most glory. And hold on, 'cause here comes a doozy, God may even call the wealthy and affluent to sell all they have, give it to the poor, and follow Him to the darkest corner of the globe! Thus, the question isn't "whole" salvation or "soul" salvation, that is too obvious. The real question is what does whole salvation really entail and how can we be a part of God's purposes to save sinners.

Please let me know what you think about this, I'm definitely looking for feedback as I continue to wrestle through these issues, especially how we can see the needs of people met in the context of the local church.

Friday, August 8, 2008

Fast Food and the Gospel

Last night I tagged along with my friend Corey to the men's TCC men's Bible study downtown. The usual guy was out of town so I volunteered to go. It was a great time of fellowship and study, even though there was just one guy and we were in the McDonald's on Wilmington Street! Anthony, our sole attendee, Corey, and myself studied the first chapter of Ephesians. We sought to understand the main theme of the chapter and to identify the three things Paul lists in verses 18 and 19: what is the hope to which he has called you, what are the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints, and what is the immeasurable greatness of his power toward us who believe. We had a great time and I can honestly say that I got just as much out of it as Anthony did. I must thank Corey for his thoughtful direction that he gave to our study. He asked some great questions like, "Since we see here that Jesus is the one in whom all things are united, how can we love those people who don't believe in Jesus, or who believe in other religions?" At the end of our time I found myself praising God for His grace in calling me to Himself, I'm no better than anyone else and certainly no more deserving of His salvation. But thanks be to God that He saw fit to choose me for Himself! What a great love our Father has for us, His adopted children.

Tuesday, August 5, 2008

Romans

I've started studying the book of Romans this past week. I imagine it will take me a few years to plug my way through it. I used to be much better about personal study time in the Word. When I was in college I spent about 2 years working through the book of Hebrews word by word. That was extremely profitable and I hope to reclaim that kind of devotion through my current study of the book of Romans. I feel a lot like the people the writer of Hebrews addressed in chapter 6, those who ought to be teachers but were still in need of going over the basics again. I feel like I'm always going over the basics again and again. Not that its bad to constantly refresh the basics in your mind, but sometimes I feel like that's all I have the mind to do. I often wonder at the ability of other people to retain information and at my ability to forget it! But I know that the mind is something that can be trained with use. I also recognize the fact that I have been quite lazy with my mind for a good while and that I will not see a recapturing of it without considerable devotion to studies. Entertainment is just so much easier than the hard work of study. It's quite a shame to because entertainment is really so pointless. Its pleasure is fleeting and its rewards cheap. Hard work and study are different, very different. The pleasure of study is lasting and its rewards can be eternal.

That's why I've endeavored to go at it full speed ahead this coming semester. I'll be taking 12 hours, 4 classes: Greek 3, Theology 3, Methods and Issues in Biblical Interpretation, and Philosophy. I hope that they will be challenging, but manageable as well. I don't want my wife to forget what I look like and I don't want to get burned out. However, North Greenville really taught me to work hard and take the hard classes, so that's what I'm going to do. I hope that if I am able to go on to do PhD work that it will be both thoroughly challenging and rewarding. I'm tired of people laughing about how dumb they are and how poorly they did on their exams/paper/whathaveyou. I want to be in classes where people are motivated to do their best and where the institution doesn't pat them on the back with extra-credit when they fail to give something their all. Hopefully, if I keep my nose to the grindstone, the Lord will bless me with a sharp mind that is like a sponge instead of a sieve.

Half Finished Books

I've been doing a lot of reading lately. I'm about half way into 3 to 5 different books, I think. I have a reading bug. I'll get so far into one book, and then another one will cross my path and I'll think, "Man, that looks really interesting, I should see what they're talking about." Then I end up spending more time reading the other and the cycle just continues.

Right now I'm reading an array of material. I'm stuck half way through The Rare Jewel of Christian Contentment by Jeremiah Burruoughs, The Reason for God by Tim Keller, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses by Richard Bauckham, and Surprised by Hope by N. T. Wright.

The Reason for God is a good book, Keller brings up some difficult issues and questions often raised by unbelievers and then systematically shows how they do not either defeat Christianity or give the unbeliever a leg to stand on. It's an interesting read, and I look forward to getting back to it and finishing it out, perhaps in the coming days.

Jesus and the Eyewitnesses is a bit more academic. In it, Bauckham is arguing that the Gospel writers were either eyewitnesses or associates of eyewitnesses. He is deconstructing much of the premises of the Historical Jesus movement as well as much of liberal theology in general. By examining the internal evidence of the Gospels, Bauckham is able to demonstrate that the Gospels were not based on oral traditions, passed down over hundreds of years, but actually written shortly after the events they described based on eyewitness testimony, thus adding a great deal of credibility to what they contain. It's an interesting read, but can be a bit deep at times. That one might have to wait until Christmas time before I can revisit it.

Surprised by Hope is N. T. Wright's most recent book and deals primarily with the topic of life after death, mainly life after life after death: the resurrection. This book is extremely interesting, even though at times I'm not entirely on board with Wright on certain points of his exegesis. He will definitely make you think through the book about much of modern Christianity's doctrine concerning life after death and heaven. Apparently I was fortunate enough to have been a part of a congregation in South Carolina that already greatly emphasized the New Heavens and New Earth, so that a lot of the stuff that Wright is talking about is already old hat for me. But, I can see how much of this book would be revolutionary for some believers who look forward to resting on a cloud for eternity. The book is divided into three main sections: 1. Establishing the foundation for the conversation; 2. Looking forward to understand God's future plan; and, 3. Examining how we are to live today in light of these things. I'm just at the threshold of the third section and am very interested to find out what Wright believes are the implications of the resurrection on our present life. It seems as if his primary focus is going to be in the areas of politics, social justice, and the environment. I'll post more when I find out how he concludes, assuming I don't get sidetracked again for another few months!!!