Faith and Thought

Crocodile Hunter Tears

2006-09-20T10:17:00.000-07:00

Last night I watched the memorial service for Steve Irwin. It was very moving, equal parts humorous and sorrowful. The service featured clips of some of the hilarious moments of his TV shows, as well as heartfelt tributes by family and friends. I was especially touched by the tribute Steve’s daughter, Bindi, read. Her father would have been so proud of such a courageous little girl.

I have to admit that I have been a little bummed out since that Labor Day evening when I first saw the report of his death. I think it hit me hard because I was a few days away from my birthday, and realized I was just 5 years younger than Steve. And from all I have read, Steve was a very devoted family man, and my heart ached for his wife and children.

What I most admired about Steve Irwin was his ability as a teacher. It was easy to dismiss him as a daredevil, but in my opinion he was a first-rate teacher. He cared deeply about his subject, he had encyclopedic knowledge, and he communicated with enthusiasm, good humor, and passion. These are the hallmarks of truly great teachers.

The irony of Steve’s death is obvious. A man who gave everything to save and protect animals was killed by one. And yet that is the risk all good teachers must take. To care is to risk.

More Thoughts on Muslim Rage

2006-09-19T14:45:00.000-07:00

Since I last commented on the outburst of Muslim anger over the Pope’s remarks, several church buildings in Muslim areas have been desecrated, several death threats against the Pope have been made, and at least one person has been murdered. This is hardly the way for Muslims to refute the Pope’s citation of a medieval characterization of Islam as a violent religion.

I think a few more observations are in order. First, the fact that many Muslims have reacted hysterically to the Pope’s comments does not change the fundamental injustice of the treatment of the Palestinians by the Israelis, or the tragic error of Israel’s ill-fated bombing of Lebanon. I do not believe that if the Palestinian issue is resolved that all Muslim radicalism will vanish overnight, but neither do I believe that Muslim excesses justify the treatment of the Palestinians (not to mention the utter ruin of Lebanon).

Second, I think it is important for Americans to realize how Muslims perceive the Pope. Many Muslims equate Christianity with Catholicism. For instance, it is common for Muslims to define the biblical doctrine of the trinity as the belief in God the Father, Jesus and Mary. Or to believe that if a Muslim converts to Christianity that they are transferring their loyalty to the Pope. Consequently, when the Pope speaks, he represents all of Christianity in the minds of millions of Muslims.

One of the great problems in Muslim-Christian dialogue is misunderstanding, which often grows out of clumsy generalizations. Muslims are certainly not alone in shallow stereoptyping. Many Christians have no clue what Muslims believe about God, Jesus or the Bible, and have almost no concept of the differences between Sunnis and Shi’ites. And if we do not even understand what the other believes, how can genuine interaction and debate ever take place?

Here is my challenge for you – talk to a Muslim. I bet there is a Muslim in your neighborhood, or a local shop, or school. If nothing else introduce yourself. Greet them with a standard Arabic greeting: “Assalamu alaikum.” Start the dialogue that is crucial if the gospel is to spread.

“For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some.” (1 Corinthians 9:19-22)

The Hypocrisy of Muslim Anger

2006-09-16T10:13:00.000-07:00

This week Muslims around the world were inflamed by the Pope’s citation of an obscure 14th century debate between a Byzantine emperor and an educated Persian. The remark that especially angered Muslims was this comment by the king: "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." Even though the Pope said this statement was brusque, Muslims around the world are outraged. One Muslim cleric said of the Pope: "He is going down in history in the same category as leaders such as Hitler and Mussolini."

I am sure you could make an argument that the last person who should criticize spreading the faith by the sword is the head of the Catholic Church. The history of the Church is filled with blood, especially in the era of the Crusades and the Inquisition. However, the Pope would be the first person to say that these were glaring mistakes.

Even more hypocritical is the hysterical outrage on the part of Muslims around the world over this remark. The simple fact of the matter is that the Qu’ran itself argues the very point that the Pope was making, namely that “There shall be no compulsion in religion” (Surah 2:256).

In the past I have written many posts in support of the Palestinians and in criticism of our policy in the Middle East. I am very sympathetic to the grievance of many Muslims. But these overwrought protests over the Pope’s remarks make Muslims look foolish. Where is the outrage when Osama bin Laden releases videos that I know most Muslims must cringe at, videos that make the Pope’s comments ring true?

If there is ever going to be rapprochement between Muslims and the West, both sides must be willing to take criticism without throwing a hissy fit.

Formal Vs Orderly Worship

2006-08-30T10:34:00.000-07:00

We have all been in worship services in which the prayers sound scripted and memorized, the hymns are sung with little passion, and the Lord’s Supper is treated as an afterthought. Not only is this discouraging, it is hardly pleasing to our God who expects us to love Him and worship Him with the best our heart can give.

Because of these deficiencies, it is easy to imagine that the solution to the problem of cold, formalistic worship is to change the format of worship. If the problem is that our services are too orderly, it is logical to imagine that a less rigid format would create a more spiritual atmosphere. Perhaps more spontaneity, or a different seating arrangement, or some other structural change will solve the problem.

I believe this approach to improving worship is well intentioned, and may indeed temporarily inspire more heartfelt praise, but will not make a lasting difference. I truly believe that if worship is not genuinely spiritual, the reason is not because the services are too orderly. After all, if you read First Corinthians 14, the apostle Paul laid down one rule after another to regulate what the Corinthians were doing in their worship assemblies – even in the time when there were miraculous spiritual gifts. Apparently Paul did not think that orderly worship was the same as cold, formal worship.

I would have no problem with changing the plan of worship every service if my congregation thought that would be more edifying. But if we want to get to the root of the problem of indifferent worship, we must go to the heart of the worshipper rather than making artificial and synthetic changes to format. In Revelation 4-5, the celestial creatures around the throne of God burst with praise. In Revelation 4:11 they praise God for His power as the creator; in Revelation 5:8-9 they praise Jesus for His sacrifice as the redeemer.

That to me is the key to truly spiritual worship. We must recover a sense of awe and wonder at our Creator and our Redeemer. If we do that personally, then our worship will be everything it should be corporately.

Georgia on My Mind

2006-08-25T14:19:00.001-07:00

On Friday mornings I teach a Bible study at Morningside of Belmont, a retirement community (NOT a “nursing home,” an unfortunate term I once used and for which I was promptly upbraided by the residents!) in Nashville. The study was organized by one of our members, Mrs. Waldeen Philips, before I even moved here a year ago. For the first few months I was here I taught it every other week, trading off with another preacher. But he has since movcd, and I have the class to myself now.

The first person I met and got to know at the study besides Waldeen was a dear lady named Georgia. I could remember her name because I have an aunt named Georgia. Georgia was always at our studies, and could not have been more kind and encouraging.

Today when I got there, Mrs. Waldeen met me in the lobby to tell me that Georgia had passed away. It was shocking news, and it really hit me hard. And yet, from a logical standpoint, it should not at all be surprising that over the course of a year someone would have passed at retirement community.

I realize that life is uncertain, and that time and chance happen to all (Ecclesiastes 9:10-11). We should never take anyone for granted, young or old. But the reality is that death tends to come to those who are older. Since older people have a lot of limitations and cannot be out and about as much, it is easy to take them for granted, to let the “out of sight, out of mind” perspective lead us to take such folks for granted.

Time is short for all of us, but for some the “vapor of life” is quickly dissolving into the mist of eternity. Make every moment count with those who are older. “You shall stand up before the gray head and honor the face of an old man, and you shall fear your God: I am the LORD” (Leviticus 19:32).

And may God grant my friend Georgia a peaceful transition into His presence.

Some Thoughts on the Middle East (Part 2)

2006-08-21T15:10:00.000-07:00

There is an old cliché that says the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. If there is any truth to that saying, then by definition our policy in the Middle East is insane. I would like to present an alternative view of our role in the Middle East.

Currently, our interests in the Middle East revolve around two issues: oil and Israel. In the Cold War, an argument could be made for American presence in the Middle East to maintain an advantage against the commies. That is why we not only supported Israel but also had friendly relations with some unsavory characters, most notably Saddam Hussein. Our view was that if you were against the commies we were your friend. And course, our major ally in the region was Israel.

Since the Cold War ended, we have not seriously readjusted our policies in the Middle East, even though a much different dynamic is in place. There is no major super power threatening us. There is of course the threat of radical Islam, but as the current sectarian violence in Iraq demonstrates, the fundamentalist Muslim world is hopelessly divided against itself. Further, unlike the Cold War years in which our presence in the Middle East deterred the commies, our presence in the Middle East actually incites and encourages radical Islam.

Therefore, I believe the US should strategically disengage from the Middle East. I have no problem with selling Israel the materials it needs to ensure its ability to defend itself. But there is simply no need for us to have troops on the ground anywhere in the region, and there are many reasons for us not to. Nor is there any reason for us to do business with Arab states that seethe with hatred for the US. This of course would necessitate independence from the Middle East for our energy resources, a long overdue development in my view. We are not wanted in the Middle East, and we do not need to be in the Middle East.

The chief sticking point in the region is the Palestinian issue. And until it is resolved according to the mandates of international law, the region will never have a chance for peace. Sadly, the US has disqualified itself from the unique position it had to be an honest broker for peace. Our one-sided support for Israel has ruined that. However, it is my hope that the European Union and Russia might be able to fill in the vacuum and forge a lasting peace. At least, I think that is the best bet, since London, Paris, Rome and Moscow are not Israeli-occupied territory like Washington D.C. is.

Some would argue that disengagement would only encourage and strengthen radical Islam, and make the world less safe. But this logic flies in the face of reality. The reality is that our current policies in the region are spawning more terrorists, more hatred, more instability. Disengagement from the region and allowing truly neutral parties to negotiate the Palestinian issue would remove two of the major instigators of hostility in the region.

I am not at all optimistic that any of this will happen. And of course, as I have said over and over again, only the Prince of Peace can truly teach the nations to beat their swords into plowshares. I believe Christians should pray for justice to be done and for the gospel to spread.

So What's the Answer? (Part 1)

2006-08-19T11:33:00.000-07:00

I have written several posts about the Middle East on my blog, each one very critical of current US policy. One of my friends asked, “So what is the solution?” And of course, I deeply believe that in the final analysis the only real solution is Jesus. But there are also some changes in our foreign policy that could make a positive difference, which I will suggest here (fully aware of the fact that President Bush does not check in periodically to learn how to do his job!).

First, a quick review of the recent Lebanon situation. Who were the winners? Certainly, Hezbollah and its allies in Syria and Iran. By once again fending off the mighty Israeli army, Hezbollah became heroes to all Arab nationalists. And by implication, Syria and Iran grew in stature as well. The big losers were Israel (whose government is soon to be in disarray over the fiasco in Lebanon), the United States (who refused to condemn Israel and shipped smart bombs to use against the people of Lebanon), and most of all, the Lebanese. Hundreds dead, thousands wounded, and close to a million left homeless.

Is there any solution to the Middle East situation? Before we can reach a solution, we must understand the problem. The reason our policies in the Middle East so often blow up in our face is because our nation has yet to understand why we are hated by so many people in the Muslim world. In fact, there are two myths about the Muslim world that must be demolished. Myth number one is that Islam is a religion of peace and that terrorists like Osama bin Laden are perverting Islam, and myth number two is that radical Islam hates America because we are so good, so free, so tolerant. The first myth grows out of political correctness, and the second myth grows out of naïve nationalism.

The easiest way to expose these myths for what they are is to actually read what Osama bin Laden has said. In the two Fatwahs he issued (one in 1996 and one in 1998), bin Laden explicitly spelled out why he wanted to make war against America. You can read those statements here:

http://www.mideastweb.org/osamabinladen1.htm

As you read through those statements, two basic points emerge. Number one, Osama’s beliefs reflect a very legitimate interpretation of Islam. His Fatwah is saturated with quotations from the Qu’ran and precedents from Muslim history. I don’t mean that his view is the only legitimate interpretation of Islam. There are statements in the Qu’ran that speak of tolerance and peace, and most Muslims focus on that stream of tradition. But it is simply untrue to say that bin Laden represents some sort of radical, heretical view of Islam.

Number two, it is clear that bin Laden’s critique of America has little to do with who we are and everything to do with what we do – particularly, our policies in the Middle East. His grievances center on the presence of US troops in the Arabian peninsula, American support of corrupt dictatorships in the Arab world, and our polices regarding the Israelis and Palestinians. Osama did not wake up one morning shocked to learn we have a Bill of Rights and decide to wage war on us.

Until we face the truth of why radical Islam hates us, we will never find a solution. (more to come)

"Lebanon Is Confounded and Withers"

2006-07-31T21:49:00.000-07:00

“The land mourns and languishes; Lebanon is confounded and withers away” (Isaiah 33:9).

Israel and Lebanon have had a complex relationship since ancient times. According to Joshua, the region of Lebanon was to be part of the promised land God gave Israel (Joshua 1:4; 13:5-6). Though the Israelites never conquered Lebanon (Judges 3:3), the nation did benefit from the rich natural resources of the region. Solomon built his palace with the magnificent cedars of Lebanon, and named the royal residence “The House of the Forest of Lebanon” (1 Kings 5:6; 7:2). Both the psalmist (Psalm 72:16; 92:12) and the prophets (Isaiah 60:13; Hosea 4:5-7) spoke of the majestic beauty of Lebanon. The modern flag of Lebanon is decorated by a large green cedar.

Lately, Lebanon has been anything but a natural paradise. Caught in the grip of internal conflict between Sunni and Shiite Muslims and professed Christians, as well as the external interference of Syria, Iran, and Israel, Lebanon has been a battlefield for most of its recent history. In the early 1980s, the PLO used Lebanon as an outpost from which to attack Israeli civilians, leading Israel to launch a full invasion of the country. The resulting war led to the creation of a new party, Hezbollah, dedicated to driving the invading Israelis out of Lebanon. And in 2000 Israel pulled out, facing the same inability to drive out its enemies that its ancient ancestors did in biblical times.

In the last few years, Lebanon has transformed itself economically and politically. The Lebanese conducted several successful elections, and the country began to rebuild itself after years of civil war. In 2005 Lebanon’s prime minister was assassinated, with Syria as the primary suspect. This led to an outpouring of opposition to Syrian interference (what some observers called “The Cedar Revolution”), and eventually Syria pulled out all of its troops. Lebanon has been a great example of the kind of modernization and democratization sorely lacking in most of the Middle East.

But all of this progress has been destroyed by the recent Israeli bombardment. On July 12th, Hezbollah carried out raids in Israel, killing eight soldiers and kidnapping two others. This is not the first time Hezbollah has carried out this sort of attack; they have done so many other times in order to gain collateral to bargain for the lives of their own prisoners. In retaliation Israel decided to launch a major campaign of air bombardment on Lebanon, hoping to pressure the Lebanese government into stopping Hezbollah.

The results of this campaign have been devastating. Over 500 Lebanese civilians have been killed in these brutal attacks, compared to the 18 Israeli citizens and 33 Israeli soldiers killed by Hezbollah. Over the weekend, in the city of Qana, more than 50 Lebanese civilians were killed, mostly women and children. Sadly, it is not the first time that city suffered such loss. In 1996, during another Israeli offensive, over 100 Lebanese civilians were killed in Qana.

Israel has the right to defend itself. It has the right of “hot pursuit” of terrorists into Lebanon. But that is not what Israel is doing. The Israeli government made the strategic decision to bombard Lebanon, intentionally targeting the major airport in Beirut, electrical grids and power plants, and other infrastructure targets. Their objective is to force the government of Lebanon to stop Hezbollah, something Israel itself could not do after 18 years of occupation. These attacks have killed hundreds, wounded thousands, and displaced nearly a million innocent civilians, leaving them without shelter, power, or water. All of this in response to the death and kidnapping of 10 soldiers. By what standard of morality can this response be considered just?

There is only one country that can stop Israel’s aggression, and that is the Unites States. Instead, the President gave his tacit approval to the offensive, and the Congress voted 410-8 in favor of a resolution approving Israel’s actions. So both the President and the Congress have approved a military incursion into a sovereign, democratic nation, which has deliberately targeted civilian targets.

Ironically, Israel’s ill-conceived decision to flatten much of Lebanon has only heightened Hezbollah’s standing and popularity. Even Sunni countries which consider the militant Shiite group a threat have denounced Israel’s grossly disproportionate response to Hezbollah. And since we have supported Israel’s decision, we have given the Arab world yet one more reason to hate us.

How can we truly claim to support international law and the spread of democracy in the Middle East while approving of Israel’s actions? How can we ever expect the rest of the Middle East to take us seriously as an honest broker and peace and justice for the Palestinians? How can we not expect the rest of the Arab world not to be inflamed, placing our troops in even greater peril?

As a Christian, I am deeply concerned that my country has given its approval to such a horrendous assault on innocent life. Most of all, I am deeply concerned for the welfare of Christians who live in Lebanon, and for the negative impact this conflict will have on the opportunity for the gospel to spread.

Please pray. Pray for our leaders to seek policies which truly work toward justice and peace. Pray for any Christians who have been left homeless by the attacks. And pray for the gospel to somehow finds its way into the hearts of the people in a part of the world so roiled by hatred.

The Last Chance

2006-07-25T20:54:00.000-07:00

She walked into the business of one of our members from church, basically to ask for a handout. He offered to pay her if she was willing to work, and she accepted. Her past was rocky. She was a drug addict, and she had spent a lot of time on the street. But she came to work, did her job, and earned a little cash.

It wasn’t long before he invited her to come to worship, and when he did he discovered that she was a Christian, though obviously she had been away from the Lord a very long time. She came with him and his wife, carrying a Bible that was well-worn, if not obeyed. The folks at the congregation went out of their way to welcome her, and she made it known that she wanted to get her life right with the Lord.

Old habits haunted her, though, and before long he had to let her go at work. He still offered to give her rides to church, along with another family, but her attendance became sporadic. One minute she seemed eager to please the Lord and be part of the congregation; and just as quickly she could declare she never wanted to come back. Eventually, she never did.

She called me every now and then, often to ask for money. It became increasingly difficult to want to help her, knowing that she was blowing disability payments she received on drugs. She confided in another member at church that she was paying for her habit by prostituting herself. And yet it was clear that part of her wanted to escape the life she was trapped in. She could be so sweet at times (she called just to wish me a happy Memorial Day). But she could not shake loose her addictions.

A few days ago she called, asking for food, and asking for help in moving out of her apartment – a “customer” had called to accuse her of stealing his wallet, and when her landlord discovered what she was doing in the complex, he evicted her. I went to her apartment to give her some food, and arranged a time to come pick her up to take her to the house of some man she met.

She loaded everything she could into my CRV, and we headed to downtown Nashville to find the house she was to stay at. Once we arrived, she took one look and decided she couldn’t stay there – too much garbage and to many roaches. Some neighbors told her about a shelter that took in men and women, but when we found it they said they only took men. They told her of another shelter for women, but two years earlier she had been barred from it. She had nowhere to go. “Maybe I’ll just check into a hospital, or just live on the street.”

I suggested that we try the women’s shelter, and she asked me if I would speak for her. I told her I would do my best. When we arrived, the supervisor pulled her file, and I did the best I could to argue her case. They asked her if she could behave, and she said yes. So they took her in. Due to space constraints, she could only have two big garbage bags of clothes, meaning that we had to do something with the rest of her stuff in my car. I asked around and found out that there was a pawnshop around the corner. While she sorted out her clothes, I took everything she owned to a pawnshop, none of which they were willing to buy. I just dumped everything at Goodwill, went to an ATM and got some cash, and gave it to her. I just could not bring myself to tell a woman who had left everything she owned behind that it was worth nothing.

When I got back to the shelter, she was still sorting her clothes. I gave her the cash and apologized that I could not get her more money for her stuff. I told her that I had done all I could for her, that these people could help her (they will let her stay as long as she needs to, and they offer substance abuse counseling), and that this was her last option, that she could not blow this.

And we said goodbye.

Confessions of an Ex-Patriotic Expatriate

2006-07-03T08:24:00.000-07:00

I love the summer! I love the parties that go on from Memorial Day to Labor Day, the grilled hamburgers and ice-cold watermelons. And most of all I love fireworks. Tonight some friends and I are going to go to a baseball game and see some fireworks afterwards. I can’t wait!

At the same time, the patriotic significance of July 4th is no longer as exciting to me as it once was. I used to consider myself an ultra-patriot. Ever since I could first read I have always loved reading history, especially American history, and the noble sacrifices of so many people to give us freedom and democracy always stirred me. I enjoyed (as much as a third grader could) all the hoopla of our bicentennial year. I gloried in the “Morning in America” era of President Reagan, and felt enormous pride in our country after the first Gulf war.

That has all changed. And without question, the key turning point for me was the Clinton impeachment. When poll after poll showed that the American people had a more favorable view of Bill Clinton than Ken Starr, I was stunned. I had never felt a real sense of alienation from my nation than at the time. And the whole experience forced me to view America through a different lense – not the naïve perspective of an ultra-patriot, but as a Christian who is an exile in a strange land (1 Peter 2:11-12).

Since that time, many cherished beliefs about America have crumbled. I still love the Constitution, and I only wish those in government paid attention to it. I believe it gave us the opportunity to have the best kind of government for our nation that we could have. Sadly, both political parties have tossed it aside, and to paraphrase the Book of Judges, “there was no Constitution in the land. Everyone does what is right in his own eyes.”

So the last few years it has been hard to get swept up in the excitement of July 4th, other than for the fireworks. And honestly, I wonder how patriotic I should have ever been since my citizenship is in heaven (Phil. 3:20-21). The New Testament is emphatic that we are strangers and exiles (expatriates) here, longing for our King’s return. His kingdom is “not of this world” (John 18:36), and neither are His people (John 17:14).

An Introduction to the "New Perspective" on Paul

2006-06-06T07:11:00.000-07:00

Over the last 25 years a growing number of scholars have adopted a new view of Paul’s teaching regarding the law, a perspective which has been simply and broadly labeled as “the new perspective” (hereafter NP). While there are many variations of the NP, in this article I want to set forth the major issues raised by the NP, and explain why I believe it is a dramatic step in the right direction of understanding Paul.

The “Old Perspective”To really grasp the basic issues raised by the NP, it is important to understand the traditional way Paul has been interpreted. The single greatest influence on interpreting Paul in the last 500 years was unquestionably Martin Luther. Luther struggled with his own sense of unworthiness in the face of a holy God.

I had conceived a burning desire to understand what Paul meant in his Letter to the Romans, but thus far there had stood in my way, not the cold blood around my heart, but that one word which is in chapter one: "The justice of God is revealed in it." I hated that word, "justice of God," which, by the use and custom of all my teachers, I had been taught to understand philosophically as referring to formal or active justice, as they call it, i.e., that justice by which God is just and by which he punishes sinners and the unjust.

Once he read Romans 1:17, “the just shall live by faith,” in dramatic contrast to the sacramental system of Roman Catholicism, Luther’s misery turned to joy.

I meditated night and day on those words until at last, by the mercy of God, I paid attention to their context: "The justice of God is revealed in it, as it is written: 'The just person lives by faith.'" I began to understand that in this verse the justice of God is that by which the just person lives by a gift of God, that is by faith. I began to understand that this verse means that the justice of God is revealed through the Gospel, but it is a passive justice, i.e. that by which the merciful God justifies us by faith, as it is written: "The just person lives by faith." All at once I felt that I had been born again and entered into paradise itself through open gates. (ibid)

Since that discovery by Luther, Protestantism in general has essentially followed Luther’s reading of Romans. On this view, “law” refers to any system of commands to obey, and in such a system, salvation can only be achieved by perfect works. Since we all sin, this means of justification is impossible. As Luther wrote in his introduction to his commentary on Romans:

The works of the law are every thing that a person does or can do of his own free will and by his own powers to obey the law. But because in doing such works the heart abhors the law and yet is forced to obey it, the works are a total loss and are completely useless. That is what St. Paul means in chapter 3 when he says, "No human being is justified before God through the works of the law."

Instead, we are justified on the basis of grace alone by faith alone. Of course, the exact formulation of when and how this takes place differs in Protestant theology. Luther believed we are justified at the time of baptism. Calvin adopted a strict determinism, in which faith itself is implanted into the elect for their justification. Those Protestants who believe in free will hold to a generic sense of salvation by faith alone (as in Methodist or Baptist theology).

While brethren would disagree with any concept of salvation by grace alone through faith alone, most brethren accept the basic paradigm set forth by Luther. “Law” in Romans (and Galatians) is a generic term for any commands by God, and justification is by a system of grace rather than law. A good example of this view is Clinton Hamilton’s magisterial commentary on Romans. In his introduction he says:

However, throughout the letter the principle of justification by faith independent of meritorious works of whatever nature, whether of Jewish or Gentile origin, is emphasized. The critical issue in the understanding of the purpose of the letter is the nature of the faith that justifies or renders one righteous or acceptable to God. (The Book of Romans, Truth Commentaries [Bowling Green, KY: Guardian of Truth Foundation], p. lxxi)

While there are obviously many variations on the traditional reading of Paul, its basic conclusions can be summarized as follows:
1. “Justification” is a legal term declaring the sinner “not guilty.”
2. The basic issue in Romans is how an individual can be declared “not guilty” before a righteous God.
3. “Law” (Greek nomos) is a generic term for any system of commands by God, of which the Law of Moses is only one example.
4. “The righteousness of God” is the gift of righteousness, or right standing, given by God to the sinner.

The New Perspective
The traditional reading of Romans and Galatians assumed that the real problem with the Jews in the first century was legalism, the belief that salvation was earned by perfect law-keeping. This understanding of Judaism was shattered by E.P. Sanders’ groundbreaking 1977 book, Paul and Palestinian Judaism. In this work, Sanders surveyed rabbinic literature, the Dead Sea scrolls, and the Jewish Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, and concluded that the traditional reading of Judaism was a gross misrepresentation.

The Rabbis certainly believed that God would punish transgression and reward obedience, but it is not a Rabbinic doctrine that one’s place in the world to come is determined by counting or weighing his deeds… Although obedience is required, no number of good deeds can earn salvation if a man acts in such a way as to remove himself from the covenant. Obedience and the intention to obey are required if one is to remain in the covenant and share in its promises, but they do not earn God’s mercy. (E.P. Sander, Paul and Palestinian Judaism [Minneapolis: Fortress Press], p. 146-147)

Sanders argued that God’s relationship with Israel as a nation was determined solely by God’s grace. God chose the nation of Israel and entered into covenant with it by grace, not because Israel had earned his favor. Whether an individual Israelite remained in that covenant depended on his obedience to God’s law. “Obedience maintains one’s position in the covenant, but it does not earn God’s grace as such.” (Sanders, p. 421, his emphasis)

Furthermore, this obedience to the Law did not have to be perfect. According to Sanders, the view that was “universally held” by the Jews was this:

God has appointed means of atonement for every transgression, except the intention to reject God and His covenant. That is, those who are in the covenant will remain in and will receive the covenant promises (including a share in the world to come), unless they remove themselves by “casting off the yoke”. (Sanders, p. 157)

Sanders coined a term to describe this view: covenantal nomism. “Briefly put, covenantal nomism is the view that one’s place in God’s plan is established on the basis of the covenant and that the covenant requires as the proper response of man his obedience to its commandments, while providing means of atonement for transgression.” (Sanders, p. 75)

This in turn led Sanders to conclude that in some ways Paul misrepresented Judaism as a system of works-righteousness.

Paul himself often formulated his critique of Judaism (or Judaizing) as having to do with the means of attaining righteousness, “by faith and not by works of law”…Paul agreed on the goal, righteousness, but saw that it should be received by grace through faith, not achieved by works. But this formulation, though it is Paul’s own, actually misstates the fundamental point of disagreement. (Sanders, p. 551, his emphasis)

Sanders concluded, “In short, this is what Paul finds wrong in Judaism: it is not Christianity.” (Sanders, p. 552, his emphasis)

Other scholars of Paul have taken Sander’s argument a step further. What if it is not only Judaism that has been misread, but also Paul’s own writings? This is the essence of the NP. Paul was not inaccurately critiquing Judaism as a “pull-yourself-up-by-your-own-bootstraps” religion. But if that is not the case, what is Paul’s point in books like Romans and Galatians?

The NP argues that Paul was not dealing with the questions that faced Luther in the 16th century, but with the questions facing the church in the first century – particularly the issue of Gentile inclusion into the church. Peter was not criticized for preaching a message of grace and forgiveness; his critics spelled out why they were alarmed: “You went to uncircumcised men and ate with them” (Acts 11:3, ESV). And when he defended himself, his critics did not say, “Now we understand that we are justified by a system of grace rather than law.” They said: “Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance that leads to life” (Acts 11:18).

This echoed Peter’s own discovery just prior to his preaching to Cornelius. After the three-fold vision of the unclean food on a sheet (was that “pigs in a blanket”?), the voice told him, “What God has made clean, do not call common” (Acts 10:15). Once he made his way to Cornelius’ house, Peter said: “Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him” (Acts 10:34-35).

It should be clear from this one episode that the issue was not perfectionism or “works-righteousness.” Indeed, Peter flatly says that “doing what is right” is necessary to be acceptable to God. Rather, the issue was, can Gentiles become Christians without becoming Jews first? While it is understandable why many Jews would have believed the answer to that question was an emphatic no, given the fact that all of the first Christians were Jews, the controversy recorded in Acts demonstrates that the issue for the Jews was not legalism as much as it was exclusivism.

No one had to face this issue more that the apostle to the Gentiles, Paul. As Luke recounts Paul’s conversion and Paul’s retelling of his conversion, one detail that is carried consistently throughout all three passages is the focus on the Gentiles. “He is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles” (Acts 9:15). “Go, for I will send you far away to the Gentiles” (Acts 22:21). “I have appeared to you for this purpose, to appoint you as a servant and witness to the things in which you have seen me and to those in which I will appear to you, delivering you from your people and from the Gentiles – to whom I am sending you to open their eyes, so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me” (Acts 26:16-18).

In this connection, it is revealing that when Paul described his conversion before the mob at the Temple in Acts 22, they listened to everything he had to say until he spoke of his commission to preach to the Gentiles. “Up to this word they listened to him. Then they raised their voices and said, ‘Away with such a fellow from the earth! For he should not be allowed to live’” (Acts 22:22). Again, the problem was not legalism, but exclusivism.

The NP and Romans and Galatians
Two of the classic proof-texts of the traditional reading of Paul are Romans 3:28 (“For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law”) and Galatians 3:11 (“Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for ‘The righteous shall live by faith’”). However, the very contexts in which these statements are embedded have to do with the Jew-Gentile issue. Romans 3:29-31 goes on to say, “Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since God is one. He will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.” And Galatians 3:12-14 says, “But the law is not of faith, rather ‘The one who does them shall live by them.’ Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us--for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree’-- so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith.” Frankly, these two statements are non sequiturs by the traditional reading, but they make a great deal of sense in light of the NP.

God blessed the Jews with great privileges, “the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises” (Rom. 9:4). However, the Jews proved to be as sinful as the Gentiles (Rom. 2:9-12). Paul is careful to exonerate the law itself, which he says is “holy and righteous and good” (Rom. 7:12). The only “weakness” of the Law was the flesh of those to whom it was given (Rom. 8:3). Even then, God’s purpose would not be thwarted. By causing sin to abound (Rom. 5:20), to become “sinful beyond measure” (Rom. 7:13), the Law “imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe” (Gal. 3:22).

It is almost as if God concentrated sin from all humanity to Israel to Christ himself. This allowed God to do “what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us” (Rom. 8:3-4). Or, to use language rooted in the curses of the covenant (Deut. 27-28), “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us” (Gal. 3:13).

Consequently, the only way in which the Law could save Israel was as a “guardian” to lead Israel to Christ (Gal. 3:24). Christ is the “end [“goal,” NASB footnote] of the law” (Rom. 10:4). By rejecting Christ, the Jews ironically rejected the only way the Law could have saved them. The choice was Christ or the curse, and they chose the curse, stumbling over the stumbling stone of Christ (Rom. 9:32).

But why did Israel reject the gospel? This is the key issue. According to the traditional reading, the Jews thought they could achieve salvation by perfect law-keeping and did not need God’s grace. If this is not a correct analysis, what was the reason the Jews rejected Christ? According to Paul’s withering criticism in Rom. 2:17-25, the Jews allowed their special status as God’s chosen people to lead to boasting and arrogance toward the Gentiles, despite their own abysmal track record of disobedience. (While my focus here is on Paul’s teaching, I think this point can be made even more strongly from the gospels. Consider the following passages: Matt. 8:5-12; Mark 7:24-30; Luke 3:7-9; Luke 4:16-30; John 8:31-58). To the Jews, the Law was the “barrier of the dividing wall” which maintained their distinct identity from the Gentiles, an identity they wished to preserve even though it meant shutting themselves up under the Law’s curse. It may even be that the phrase, “the works of the law,” refers specifically to the commands which marked out Jews as distinct from Gentiles: circumcision, food laws, and Sabbath. Not only was this self-destructive, it was in direct contradiction to God’s stated promise to Abraham that all families of the earth would be blessed (Romans 4:9-17; Gal. 3:15-29; 4:21-31). God always intended for his people to consist of Jews and Gentiles.

The prominence of the promise to Abraham in Romans and Galatians is a clue as to the true focus of Paul’s teaching. Instead of seeing the “righteousness of God” (or justification) as a judicial verdict pronounced upon the sinner, “righteousness of God” refers first and foremost to God’s own righteousness in the sense of his faithfulness to his promises and covenant. As Nehemiah prayed, “You are the LORD, the God who chose Abram and brought him out of Ur of the Chaldeans and gave him the name Abraham. You found his heart faithful before you, and made with him the covenant to give to his offspring the land of the Canaanite, the Hittite, the Amorite, the Perizzite, the Jebusite, and the Girgashite. And you have kept your promise, for you are righteous” (Neh. 9:7-8, emphasis added). Consequently, when Paul says the “righteousness of God” is revealed in the gospel, he primarily means that the gospel reveals how God will be faithful to his covenant with Abraham. This helps to explain Paul’s emphasis on the promise to Abraham from Genesis 15, which is the text in which God makes the formal covenant with Abraham. And it also helps to explain Paul’s heavy use of the “covenant” texts of Deuteronomy 27-30 in Romans 10 and Galatians 3.

While the “righteousness of God” refers first to his own faithfulness to his covenant, that is not its only dimension. God’s faithfulness to his covenant also involves the vindication of his own people and the judgment of his enemies. This vindication necessarily requires a verdict by God, and so there is a legal dimension to God’s justifying work. And there is both a present and future dimension to justification. It is present in the sense that God pronounces the status of right-standing on those who trust in Christ. And it is future in that there will be a great and final day, the eschaton, when God puts an end to evil once and for all and ushers in the new creation. To appreciate the full scope of Paul’s teaching about justification, we must keep all three of these nuances in mind: God’s faithfulness to the covenant, God’s verdict in the lawcourt, and God’s judgment at the eschaton.

From this point of view, the book of Romans becomes much more unified. Instead of Romans 9-11 being an interesting sidelight, and the end of the argumentative section of the epistle (as in Hamilton, p. 534), it becomes the very climax of the letter’s argument. The key issue of those three chapters has to do with God’s covenant faithfulness: “But it is not as though the word of God has failed” (Rom. 9:6). And those three chapters are designed to explain why the current state of the church, predominantly Gentile, does not mean God has reneged on his covenant. As N.T. Wright summarizes:

The passage from Romans 9:30-10:21 sets out the results of what God has done in Israel’s history. God has called Israel to be the means of salvation for the world. His intention always was to narrow this vocation down to the messiah, so that in his death all, Jew and Gentile alike, would find salvation. If, however, Israel insists in keeping her status for herself, she will find she is clinging to her own death-warrant. (Wright, What St. Paul Really Said [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997] p. 130)

This view also adds meaning to Romans 14-15. Since the entire epistle explains that God’s purpose all along was to unite Jews and Gentiles together in the Messiah, it only makes sense that Paul would also explain in practical terms how Jews and Gentiles should get along.

The NP also falls right in line with the situation Paul addressed in Galatians. The argument in Galatians was not about Luther’s “works-righteousness.” As Paul narrates the problem in Galatians 2, it was specifically about the Jew-Gentile issue. Must Gentiles be circumcised? Can Jews eat with (uncircumcised) Gentiles? We cannot correctly understand Paul’s answers if we do not understand the questions.

Let’s return for a moment to the traditional reading (TR) to put the NP in sharp relief:

TR: “Justification” is a legal term declaring the sinner “not guilty.”
NP: “Justification” is a covenant term, a legal term, and an eschatological term.
TR: The basic issue in Romans is how an individual can be declared “not guilty” before a righteous God.
NP: The basic issue in Romans is how Jews and Gentiles relate to God’s covenant purpose.
TR: “Law” (Greek nomos) is a generic term for any system of commands by God, of which the Law of Moses is only one example.
NP: “Law” refers to the Law of Moses.
TR: “The righteousness of God” is the gift of righteousness, or right standing, given by God to the sinner.
NP: “The righteousness of God” is God’s own faithfulness to his covenant, which of course includes the blessing of forgiveness.

Responses to the NP
Most of the scholarly community has accepted the findings of Sanders, at least insofar as the issue of Jewish legalism is concerned. And among evangelicals there has been a strong shift toward reading Romans and Galatians in light of the NP. Even many scholars who would see themselves in the Reformed tradition have acknowledged the contribution of the NP to the study of Paul. For example, see Craig Blomberg’s review of Wright’s What St. Paul Really Said.

However, there has been strong negative reaction to the NP from many Reformed scholars. Why? Because the NP calls into question many assumptions of the Reformation. For example, most NP adherents would say that God’s righteousness is his own covenant faithfulness, which in turn casts serious doubt on the “imputed righteousness” formula of the Reformation. And without the imputed righteousness of Christ, there can be no assurance for the Christian. As one opponent says, “The huge defect with the ‘New Perspective’ is that it denies or obscures the believer’s assurance of salvation.”

From my standpoint, the NP makes great sense of the overall message of the New Testament. Just as God’s covenant with Israel was by his gracious election, so also is the new covenant, with election centered in Christ (Eph. 1:1-10; Gal. 3:26-29). And just as maintaining membership in the covenant with Israel required obedience (including repentance in the event of sin), the same holds true with the new covenant (which explains Paul’s heavy emphasis on obedience in passages such as 2 Cor. 5:10).

This does not mean that we must earn our way to heaven on the basis of perfect law-keeping! Membership in God’s covenant has never required that. Our status of being “in Christ” is a matter of God’s grace, and the obedience we surrender to God is out of gratitude for his love and by the strength which he supplies (Gal. 5:6; Eph. 2:8-10; Rom. 8:1-13; Phil. 2:12-13).

Conclusion
My own study of Paul in light of the NP is in its very early stages. I have not worked out to my satisfaction all the questions that the NP raises for Romans and Galatians, but it has certainly provided a much clearer context for those books than the traditional reading. It would be just as easy to oversimplify what Paul says in light of the NP as it has been to oversimplify his message in light of the Reformation. I encourage you to take a look at the NP and share your thoughts about its validity and value.

Further Reading

E.P. Sander, Paul and Palestinian Judaism (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1977). This is the book that started the move toward the New Perspective.

N.T. Wright, What St. Paul Really Said (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997). This is where to begin if you want to read a concise introduction to the NP.

N.T. Wright, The Climax of the Covenant (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991). This is a collection of Wright’s lectures in which he exegetes key passages in Paul’s writings in light of the NP.

Three recent major commentaries on Romans from the NP are James D. G: Dunn, Romans (WBC), 2 vols. (Dallas: Word, 1988); N.T. Wright, “Romans,” in The New Interpreter's Bible: Acts - First Corinthians Volume 10 (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2002); and Ben Witherington with Darlene Hyatt, Paul's Letter to the Romans: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004).

In addition, there is a website dedicated to the study of the NP that I have found very useful: The Paul Page.

First Wash - Then Worship

2006-06-01T23:00:00.000-07:00

When I was a little boy my grandparents would take me to church on Sunday morning. The routine never varied. After we all bathed and dressed, we would go by the retirement home and pick up Sister Begley. I enjoyed sitting in the backseat with her because she always gave me two quarters; one for the collection basket and one for me. Then we would go by the local carwash in town, and Pop would drive the car through an automated carwash. Finally we would be on our way to church. I always wondered why Pop washed his car every Sunday morning. Maybe it was all part of putting on our “Sunday best.” Or maybe it was just an easy way he remembered to wash his car. Anyway, the order was: wash first, then worship.

In the Old Testament, the priests who served in the tabernacle and later the temple had to prepare themselves by washing in the laver, or “basin of bronze” as it is called in Exodus 30:18. As the Lord told Moses: “When they go into the tent of meeting, or when they come near the altar to minister, to burn a food offering to the LORD, they shall wash with water, so that they may not die. They shall wash their hands and their feet, so that they may not die. It shall be a statute forever to them, even to him and to his offspring throughout their generations" (Exodus 30:20-21).

This physical washing obviously signified that God expects those who worship Him to be pure, and later in Psalms the imagery of washing is used to describe the spiritual purification that must take place if we are to worship God acceptably.
“Who shall ascend the hill of the LORD?
And who shall stand in his holy place?
He who has clean hands and a pure heart,
who does not lift up his soul to what is false
and does not swear deceitfully.” (Psalm 24:3-4)

“I wash my hands in innocence
and go around your altar, O LORD,
proclaiming thanksgiving aloud,
and telling all your wondrous deeds.” (Psalm 26:6-7)

The New Testament picks up on this theme of inner spiritual purity as a necessity for worship as well. “Draw near to God, and he will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded” (James 4:8). “And since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water” (Hebrews 10:21-22).

On a practical level, what this means is that in order to prepare ourselves for worship we should examine ourselves and confess our sins to God. Over and over the prophets of the Old Testament rebuked Israel for thinking that merely showing up for worship was acceptable, regardless of how they lived.
“Your new moons and your appointed feasts
my soul hates;
they have become a burden to me;
I am weary of bearing them.
When you spread out your hands,
I will hide my eyes from you;
even though you make many prayers,
I will not listen;
your hands are full of blood.
Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean;
remove the evil of your deeds from before my eyes;
cease to do evil” (Isaiah 1:14-16).
It also means, as Jesus taught in the sermon on the mount, that if we remember that our brother has something against us that we should leave our gift before the altar and “first be reconciled” to our brother (Matthew 5:23-24).

Sunday mornings in your home are probably a lot like mine – frantic and hurried as everyone rushes to get ready. But let’s all remember that the most important thing any of us can do before worship is to truly cleanse ourselves spiritually as we prepare to come to praise the Lord. First wash, then worship.

I Really Got Her Goat

2006-05-26T18:15:00.000-07:00

I have been doing a survey of the Old Testament on Sunday nights, and this past Sunday night I spoke about the Song of Solomon. Audiences always find the expressions of admiration in the book pretty funny, such as “Your hair is like a flock of goats” (4:4). So after the sermon I thought I would be real funny and tell all of the women as they came out of the assembly that their hair looked like a flock of goats.

Well, the first woman out was one of my favorite people in the congregation, an older sister named Elizabeth Williams. Elizabeth just turned 90, and she is full of life and energy. So as she came out I said, “Ms. Elizabeth, could I just say that your hair looks like a flock of goats.” To which she replied, “Like what?” And then I realized that since she is hard of hearing, and since I did not use any visuals that night, that she probably didn’t hear much of the sermon. In her mind, I have just come up to her and told her she looks like a goat!

Well, for three days I worried over this, and as soon as I saw her Wednesday night at Bible study I hurried over to where she and her husband C.D. were sitting with my Bible to show her what I said and why. As soon as I started she said, “C.D. explained it to me.” Whew!

Anyway, I was really proud of myself for preaching through such sensitive material without stepping on any major land mines, only to blow it after the lesson! Pride goes before the fall!

The "Dead in Christ"

2006-05-24T19:30:00.000-07:00

When I was a young preacher one of my first sermons using visual aids was a sermon I "adapted" (ahem) from another preacher called "Where Are the Dead?" That sermon presented the view that Christians who die do not go to be with the Lord, but instead are in a place called paradise (Abraham's bosom in Luke 16), awaiting the resurrection, at which time they will be with the Lord. I no longer believe that view is the best explanation of the condition of those who are dead in Christ.

In 1 Thess. 4:14 Paul assures the Thessalonians: "For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep." Notice, Paul says that Jesus will bring "those who have fallen asleep" with him. If Christ is bringing the dead in Christ with Him, that necessarily implies the dead in Christ are with Him!

Paul makes the same point another way in Philippians 1:23 and 2 Corinthians 5:8-9. In those passages he speaks of two options: to remain in the body and work for his brothers and sisters, or to go and be at home with the Lord. There is no indication in these texts of any kind of waiting area. Paul knew that if he left the body he would be with his Lord.

The concept of a waiting chamber for the righteous is deeply rooted in the Catholic teaching of limbo, which not only says that limbo is for unbaptized infants, but also that the righteous of the Old Testament were in a form of limbo (called the limbus patrum). Many interpreters of a wide variety of backgrounds have concluded that the Old Testament saints were not allowed into the presence of God until the death of Jesus, and I do believe a biblical case can be made for that position (in texts such as Eph. 4:8-10).

However, I know of no biblical evidence that suggests anything other than the face value meaning of the texts in 1 Thess. 4:14; Phil. 1:23 and 2 Cor. 5:8-9. Of course the dead in Christ are "naked" as Paul puts it in 2 Corinthians 5:1-6, awaiting the resurrection of the body (1 Thess. 4:15-18) and the new heavens and earth (2 Peter 3:10-14). But in the meantime they are with the Lord.

The first time I preached this understanding of the state of the dead in Christ, a sister came up to me afterward who had recently lost her husband. She told me that thinking of her husband as being with the Lord as opposed to a nebulous place of paradise was far more reassuring. I think that is an important practical difference a more biblical understanding of this question can make.

After this I looked, and behold, a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with palm branches in their hands, and crying out with a loud voice, "Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!" And all the angels were standing around the throne and around the elders and the four living creatures, and they fell on their faces before the throne and worshiped God, saying, "Amen! Blessing and glory and wisdom and thanksgiving and honor and power and might be to our God forever and ever! Amen." Then one of the elders addressed me, saying, "Who are these, clothed in white robes, and from where have they come?" I said to him, "Sir, you know." And he said to me, "These are the ones coming out of the great tribulation. They have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.
(Revelation 7:11-14)

Initial Thoughts About The Da Vinci Code Movie

2006-05-21T21:24:00.000-07:00

I just got back from seeing The Da Vinci Code. Whether you are an ardent believer in the book's basic premise or staunch opponent, I think everyone will agree that the movie is vastly inferior to the novel. The pace of the movie was as plodding as the novel's pace was brisk. With a few exceptions (Paul Bettany as the monk Silas and Ian McKellen as Leigh Tebing) the performances of the actors were uninspired. I was particularly puzzled by Tom Hanks' turn as Robert Langdon, half the time almost disinterested and half the time melodramatic.

I had heard that the movie softened some of the more pointed blows the novel aims at Christianity, and that is how I felt as well. Hanks' Langdon is far more aggressive in his challenges of Teabing's polemics against Christianity than what is found in the novel. Make no mistake, however; the movie still supports all of the outrageous claims of the novel.

In June I will be presenting five lessons on the issues raised in TDC in the adult classes of our Vacation Bible School. But in the meantime, I will quickly list the three most egregious fallacies of the TDC:
1) There is no evidence in any ancient document, canonical or otherwise, that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene.
2) Jesus was considered divine by the vast majority of believers long before Constantine convened the Council of Nicea.
3) The gnostic gospels on which TDC is based MINIMIZE the humanity of Jesus.

I hope to post more material in June.

Going to See The Da Vinci Code This Weekend?

2006-05-19T12:00:00.000-07:00

I am curious how many of you are going to see TDC this weekend. My plan is to hit a late-night showing tonight. I don't know if I will have time to post any reflections-tomorrow I will be busy with my barbershop chorus's spring show. By the way, we are doing a parody of Robin Hood, and I have been tapped to play the lovely Maid Marion. I will wear a dress and wig while singing "I Feel Pretty" from West Side Story. It doesn't get any better than that! :-)

Early Reviews of The Da Vinci Code

2006-05-17T10:36:00.000-07:00

Well, the early reviews of The Da Vinci Code are coming in, and they are all dismal. On the Rotten Tomatoes website, which collects movie reviews from around the country, TDC is rated 0% fresh - in other words, 100% rotten! Likewise, Drudge is reporting that the tough critics of the Cannes Film Festival nearly laughed the movie off the screen.

It is hard to imagine how a studio could make a boring picture out of a page-turner like TDC, but apparently Opie has done exactly that. This of course does not mitigate the impact of the novel, which outsold the Bible in the US in 2004. But it is pleasing to know that this movie apparently will not be an artistic triumph.

Seventeen Years of Preaching "Full Time"

2006-05-14T21:20:00.000-07:00

Not only is today Mother's Day, it is also the 17th anniversary of the beginning of my ministry. I preached my first sermon as the full time preacher of the Oak Hill church on May 14th, 1989. My Mom was there, so I have doubly special memories today. I preached on "What Is A Preacher," and I am pretty sure I still have the sermon (a classic I'm sure!) in my files.

When I was younger I would occasionally read articles by old preachers reflecting on their years of preaching. I am not quite to that stage in life yet. But I have been thinking about how much the world has changed, how much I have changed, and how much preaching has changed in the last 17 years. Some random observations on what has changed since then:
-When I preached on that May 14th, the Soviet Union still existed. By mid-November, it disintegrated.
-I bought my first computer that summer. It had a whopping 20 mb hard drive, less than 1/10th of what I have in my Lexar memory stick.
-In 1989 no one had cells phones except the super rich (the next year I did meet a preacher in Texas who had one in his Cadillac-I always heard they paid well there!)
-In 1989 there was no such thing as the internet (except for the Defense Department).
-In 1989 I was fat, single, and lived in a dumpy apartment. Now...oh wait, that hasn't changed!

As amazing as those changes are to me, I must say that if someone told me 17 years ago that this half-a-hillbilly would get to teach at a college, preach in Australia, tour Israel, and make hundreds of dear friends, I would have never believed them. I thank the Lord constantly for the privilege of preaching. Through this work the Lord has truly given me more than I have given others, and especially Him.

I will wrap up this nostalgic post with a quote from one of the texts I used tonight, a wonderful statement of my purpose-and yours-whatever the next 17 years may hold.

"Oh give thanks to the LORD; call upon his name;
make known his deeds among the peoples!
Sing to him; sing praises to him;
tell of all his wondrous works!
Glory in his holy name;
let the hearts of those who seek the LORD rejoice! " 1 Chronicles 16:8-10

Iraqi Christians

2006-05-09T21:51:00.000-07:00

I don't want to belabor the Iraqi situation, so this will be my last post on the topic for a while. But I wanted to quickly address the issue of professed Christians in Iraq.
Since the start of the war in Iraq, I have often heard people pray for our troops along these lines: "Be with our troops who are fighting for the freedom of the Iraqi people, so that some day they may be able to worship you and come to Christ." The problem is, since Saddam was toppled, the plight of those who call themselves Christians has only gotten much worse. This has been documented over and over and over again.
I suppose this confusion is due to a simple assumption: Saddam was bad; persecuting Christians is bad; therefore Saddam must have persecuted Christians. But the reality is that he was relatively secular in his orientation, and while he did not treat those who claimed Christ as well as he did Arabs, he did allow Christians to worship.
And as bad as Saddam was, Iraq has only become a far more dangerous place for Christians with him out of power. Ironically, many of those thousands who have fled have sought refuge in Syria, another country on the wish-list of those egging on war with the Muslim world.

A War That May Come Back to Haunt Christians

2006-05-03T22:05:00.000-07:00

While the President’s approval numbers continue to plummet, there is one core constituency that remains loyal. Over half of white evangelicals (55%) still approve of the President’s job performance, according to the Pew Research Center. This is especially true with the issue of the Iraq War. Last fall, Foreign Affairs reported that the more frequently one attended religious services, the more likely they were to support the Administration’s policies in Iraq.

There are many reasons for this faith-based disparity. The devout tend to be socially conservative and deeply patriotic, values which naturally predispose them to look favorably on the President’s policies – especially in wartime. Further, many fundamentalists believe that Israel is still “God’s chosen people,” and that America’s fortunes rise and fall with its support of Israel (and opposition to Israel’s enemies, such as Saddam Hussein). And removing a brutal dictator from power appeals to those who think in clearly defined categories of good and evil.

While I could understand the arguments made in favor of intervention in Iraq, and as much as I respect the honorable way our troops are trying to help the Iraqis build a better life, I did not believe that Saddam Hussein was or intended to be a threat to America’s national security, and that going to war in Iraq was a grave mistake. The events of the last three years have only solidified my initial assessment. And yet most of my Christian friends continue to believe the war was a good idea. After all, how can you be against spreading democracy to those who have been oppressed? I appreciate that noble sentiment, but I believe the issue is more complex than that. If the terms are defined as liberty versus despotism, then support for the war seems reasonable. But what if this war is defined differently – as a war between secularism and religion?

The neoconservatives who prompted the President to go to war have little in common with the religious right. In a widely publicized interview in the New York Times summer before last, Bill Kristol demurred: “I will take Bush over Kerry, but Kerry over Buchanan or any of the lesser Buchananites on the right.” The fact that Kristol would prefer the secular playboy to one of the culture war’s most outspoken conservatives speaks volumes about the principles and priorities of the neocons.

Perhaps the most bellicose of the neocons, Ralph Peters, wrote in USA Today that the “global war on terror” was “a fight over the social, economic and cultural roles of women.” According to Peters, it is the freedoms enjoyed by Western women that antagonize Islamic terrorists, and our troops are fighting overseas for women’s rights, “the titanic struggle of our time.” Not only does this analysis ignore the real root of Islamic terrorism (the Israeli-Palestinian conflict), its logical consequence is that we must make war on all other countries that do not afford women the same freedoms as here in America. Woodrow Wilson, meet Gloria Steinem.

Not satisfied to defend a worldwide war for women’s rights, Peters then maligned “our extremists,” pro-lifers. Those who oppose abortion rights in our country are “reactionary forces,” “champions of the small morality of rules,” and participants in a “patriarchal tyranny that would please Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, al-Qaeda's leader in Iraq.” Their “counterparts” are those women in Africa who “demand that young girls undergo genital mutilation just as they did.” Kerry over Buchanan indeed.

At first glance you would suspect that Peters’ antithesis on the political spectrum, Marxist columnist Christopher Hitchens, would be opposed to the neocons’ war. Not so. Hitchens shocked many of his peers on the radical left by supporting the war, yet from the standpoint of his belligerent atheism, his support for the war makes perfect sense. As Hitchens explained to Tim Russert, “Another thing that's very important to me about this war is that it is in effect a war for secularism…I'm for secularism and separation of church and state. Everywhere. I want more of it here, not less, and much more of it there. And it's a perfectly consistent thing.”

Ironically, regular church-goers support a war promoted in part by radicals on the left and right who have only one thing in common - deep-seated resentment of the values and influence of the devout on American public life. Most troubling, how will these radicals wield government power against those they consider the fundamentalist extremists of their own culture? Will they demand that conservative Catholics and evangelicals accept homosexual membership and ordination? Will they insist that these believers reject female submission to male leadership in the home and in the church? Do we have any reason to believe they will show restraint in the lengths to which they will go to coerce others to accept their enlightened tastes?

“Let the reader understand” (Matthew 24:15).

Why I am not a Calvinist

2006-05-01T22:43:00.000-07:00

The world of evangelicial blogging has been buzzing lately with the announcement of a debate in the fall on the campus of Liberty University regarding the issue of Calvinism. This has been a hot-buttom issue among Southern Baptists, with some leading theologians in the movement pushing for a more Reformed perspective, and others strongly objecting.
In one sense I do not have a "dog in the fight." I am not a Baptist, and I am not a Calvinist, but I am certainly not a fan of the easy-believism promoted by so many non-Reformed Baptists. However, this controversy has given me reason to re-think my own views on this issue, and I wanted to share with you the fundamental reason I am not a Calvinist.
One of the most frustrating elements of polemic rhetoric is the tendency to caricature the other side. I noticed a lot of this happening on the blogs regarding the controversy among Baptists, and I have certainly noticed it in the circle of my own fellowship. I am a strong believer in "intellectual empathy," in stating your opponents beliefs and reasons for his beliefs in a way that he would accept.
To a large extent this debate hinges on whether we interpret the passages that seem to speak of man's free will in light of those that testify to God's sovreignty, or the other way around. Calvinists are intensely committed to upholding the sovereignty of God, not wanting in any way to diminish the glory due to His name. I appreciate that concern, because it is rooted in Scripture. Therefore Calvinism begins with a view of soverignty that insists that God comprehensively decreed everything that would happen, and then subsume human free will under that definition. As an example, here is a citation from the Westminster Confession of Faith:

" I. God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established."

And I suppose that a Reformed theologian would say that I put the cart before the horse by forcing those passages which speak of God's sovereignty into the mold of those verses which seem to depict human freedom. However, it seems to me that God's sovereignty and human freedom do not have to be at such odds, and the extreme solution of Calvinism need not be accepted, if we grant the following:
1) God's decision to create was sovereign; i.e. not compelled or forced upon Him by any external influence.
2) God may or may not have created human beings with free will. It was His exclusive decision (and obviously I believe the Bible teaches that He did).
3) God may at any time choose to override this free will (Balaam's prophecies, for instance).
4) God can at any time put an end to all rebellion, and will in fact do so at the Lord's return.
5) God did not have to make any effort to save humanity from His wrath. The decision to offer a way of salvation was totally sovereign, wholly based on His good counsel.
6) God may or may not have made the acceptance of this salvation conditional, but He did. No one forced this decision on Him; it was His sovereign decision.

My goal in making these observations is not to present an exegetical case as much as it is to explain the fundamental reason I am not a Calvinist: I believe God's sovereignty does not necessitate complete determinism. I hope I have not been guilty of the very polemic trap I mentioned earlier. If you are a Calvinist and believe I have not accurately stated what Calvinism is, please let me know.

Finally, I must say, to even ponder God's purposes and plans is a humbling experience. I never feel more small and creaturely than when I think of such questions. "Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!
'For who has known the mind of the Lord,
or who has been his counselor?'
'Or who has given a gift to him
that he might be repaid?'
For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen." (Rom. 11:33-36)

Lumpers and Stretchers

2006-04-25T21:03:00.000-07:00

My good friend and outstanding gospel preacher Ralph Walker once asked me if I was a lumper or a stretcher. I did not know what he meant until he explained that all preachers are either lumpers or stretchers. A lumper would preach the “seven sayings of the cross” as one lesson, and a stretcher would preach the same as a seven part series. Based on this definition, I qualify as a stretcher (actually, a lumpy stretcher!).

Medieval monk Bernard of Clairvaux has to win the award for all time greatest stretcher. He wrote 86 sermons on the Song of Solomon! How he managed to wrangle 86 sermons out of a book of eight small chapters is beyond me. Either he possessed deep insight, or a fertile imagination, or a little of both.

There are strengths and weaknesses to each approach. A lumper may cover much more material, but in a shallow manner. A stetcher may be more exhaustive, but he may bore his audience by tedious attention to detail. And stretchers always have to guard against stretching the text to the breaking point by finding far more in the text than really exists.

As a younger preacher I was definitely a lumper. When I look back at old outlines, I see about 25-30 points, each accompanied by a proof-text. Now I tend to camp out in one paragraph of Scripture and draw just three or four main points. One old lumper lesson on denominationalism I recently stretched into a four part series. Did I improve the lesson? I hope-but I may have just made “homiletical meatloaf” - a little meat with a lot of filler!

I am not going to ague the case for the superiority of one method over another. As long as the man of God is true to the word, that is all that matters. And in reality, it takes all kinds of preachers to reach all kinds of people. We need lumpers and stretchers, those who holler and those who never raise their voice, those who laugh and cry and those who are reserved.

I imagine that based on the disparaging way the Pharisees described John the Baptist and Jesus that they must have been very different stylistically. They accused John of being an ascetic (“John came neither eating or drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon’”) and Jesus of being profligate (“The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Behold, a gluttonous man and a drunkard’”). But however they differed, their message was the same: “Repent.” And that is what ultimately mattered most.

Timothy and Titus apparently were of very different temperaments. Paul warned the Corinthians not to give Timothy a reason to be fearful (1 Corinthians 16:10), perhaps indicative of a milder spirit (this may also explain references like 2 Timothy 1:7 and 1 Timothy 5:23). Titus, on the other hand, was the messenger Paul uses to deliver his stinging rebukes to the Corinthians (2 Corinthians 7:6-8), and worked in the wild country of Crete.

The points is that God can use all kinds of men and styles, and as long as we are true to the word, God will accomplish much through us. That being the case, I would suggest that those of us who preach spend more time appreciating the different talents and abilities of our colleagues and less time criticizing them. There is room in the kingdom for all of us, and plenty of work to do, whether as a lumper or stretcher.

What Does God Know, and When Does He Know It?

2006-04-18T09:53:00.000-07:00

Here are some notes I put together on the issue of God's foreknowledge. I am sorry that the outline format does not work well in the blog style, but hopefully you can make sense of the points.

I. The Basic Issues
A. This study raises many difficult questions:
1. What is God’s relationship to time?
2. Does the future truly exist?
3. Can free will and exhaustive divine foreknowledge (EDF) be reconciled?
B. Three positions
1. God has exhaustive foreknowledge of the future because he has predetermined everything that will happen.
a. This is the Calvinistic position.
b. “God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.” The Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter 3.
c. “If God merely foresaw human events, and did not also arrange and dispose of them at his pleasure, there might be room for agitating the question, how far his foreknowledge amounts to necessity; but since he foresees the things which are to happen, simply because he has decreed that they are so to happen, it is vain to debate about prescience, while it is clear that all events take place by his sovereign appointment.” John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion Book 3 Chapter 26 Section 6.
d. The Calvinistic position says that free will and EDF cannot be reconciled, and that man is not truly free.
2. God only knows that which he plans to do.
a. This is sometimes called the “Open View” (OV), meaning that the future is partly open to God.
b. According to the OV, if God knew our choices before we made them, then we could not choose otherwise, and therefore do not have free will.

c. Some advocates of the OV state that God chooses not to know certain things; others say that he knows all that can be known but that the future does not exist.
d. Defenders of the OV would argue that God knows all possible choices man may make, and like a master chess player knows how to respond to each move so that his purposes will be achieved.
e. The OV says that free will and EDF cannot be reconciled, and that God does not possess EDF.
3. God has exhaustive foreknowledge of the future, including our free will choices.
a. This is sometimes called the “Simple Foreknowledge View” (SF).
b. According to this view, the fact that God foreknows our choices does not mean they are predetermined.
c. The SF view says that free will and EDF can be reconciled.
d. This is the view that I believe best reflects the teaching of Scripture.
C. The history of the issue.
1. Brethren have rightly rejected Calvinism, but have differed as to whether the OV or the SF view is correct.
a. The most famous advocate of the OV is T.W. Brents in The Gospel Plan of Salvation, pp. 74-87.
b. Other brethren have forcefully argued for the SF view (Roy H. Lanier, Sr. in The Timeless Trinity for the Ceaseless Centuries, pp. 1451-148).
c. Debate between Allen Turner (SF) and Ken Green (OV) in Gospel Anchor.
2. Among evangelicals this issue is extremely contentious.
a. There is a growing interest in the OV among philosophers and theologians (best example: Greg Boyd, God of the Possible).
b. There have been efforts to purge adherents of the OV from seminaries, societies, and churches.
c. Much of this is triggered by the reaction of Calvinists.

D. Some disclaimers before we get started.
1. “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts” (Isaiah 55:9).
2. While I believe the SF view best explains the biblical data, there are problems with the view, and many valid points to be considered in the OV.
3. While this subject ultimately overwhelms finite creature, there is value in trying to know God more deeply.
II. The Case for Simple Foreknowledge
A. The Bible teaches that God is all-knowing (omniscient).
1. This means that he knows all that can be known.
2. The biblical teaching:
a. He is a God of knowledge (1 Sam. 2:3).
b. His understanding is infinite (Ps. 147:5).
c. He knows all things (1 John 3:20).
B. The Bible teaches that God knows what is going to happen before it happens.
1. The verb proginosko is used five times in the New Testament (Romans 8:29, 11:2; Acts 26:5; 1 Peter 1:20; 2 Peter 3:17), while the noun prognosis is attested twice (Acts 2:23; 1 Peter 1:2).
2. The concept of foreknowledge is the featured characteristic of the prophet Isaiah’s description of God (41:21-26; 42:8-9; 44:6-8).
C. The OV critique and response.
1. Critique 1: God only foreknows what he has determined to do.
a. God does indeed know what he intends to do (Isa. 46:8-11; 48:3-7).
b. However, God also knows the free will choices of others before they happen:
(1) Judas’ betrayal (Matt. 26:21-25).
(2) Peter’s denial (Matt. 26:30-34).
(3) There were many in Corinth who would accept the gospel (Acts 18:9-10).

c. The only response of the OV is that God can “predict” our behavior since he knows us so well.
2. Critique 2: EDF denies free will.
a. This argument is made by a wide variety of thinkers.
(1) Proponents of the OV (Brents, p. 74, 77).
(2) Atheists: “If God really knows beforehand everything that one will do (and think, believe, etc.), then one really hasn’t any volition whatever, for one could not possibly do (or think, believe, etc.) anything contrary to what God foreknows. Hence, if God indeed possesses foreknowledge, then none of us possesses free will, and therefore none of us can be considered culpable for any of our beliefs or actions.” (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/steven_conifer/ACritiqueofFundamentalism.shtml)
b. Response:
(1) In a sense the future is certain in that what will happen will happen.
(2) But the issue is why is what is going to happen going to happen, foreordination or free will.
(3) What God knows is our free choice. We could have made other choices (which he also knows – 1 Sam. 23:10-13).
III. A Critique of the Open View
A. Some basic observations.
1. Since God has given us free will, then when he interacts with us he will do so in a way that respects our free will.
2. The Bible sometimes uses anthropomorphic language (describing God in human terms).
3. God knows more than he sometimes reveals to us (Gen. 3:8-9).
B. A look at the passages used by Brents.
1. Genesis 6:5-7.
a. Brents: Why would God grieve over results he foreknew (p. 76)?
b. Response: This does not prove that God did not foreknow; God experiences emotion even of what he foreknows.
2. Genesis 22:11-12.
a. Brents: if EDF were true, how could God only then “know” Abraham feared him?
b. Response:
(1) Similar language in Gen. 18:20-21. Did God not know what was going on (in the present) in Sodom before “going down”? (Brents says YES! – p. 78).
(2) According to the OV, could God truly “know” even then that Abraham feared him since he had not actually carried out the free will choice to kill Isaac?
(3) Sometimes in the OT “to know” means “to know by experience.” I believe that is the sense of this passage.
3. Jeremiah 7:31.
a. Brents: Did God know from eternity that which never entered his heart (p. 81)?
b. Response: the point is not that God never thought the Israelites would commit such idolatry (he would be a poor chess player given Israel’s history). Rather, it never entered his mind to command Israel to practice such idolatry (Jer. 19:5; 32:35).
4. Exodus 32:10-14.
a. Brents: He repented of the evil he thought to do to his people, and did not do that which he thought he would do (p. 83).
b. Response:
(1) This raises a tough question: can God change his mind? Some passages seem to suggest he does; others that he does not (Num. 23:19; 1 Sam. 15:29).
(2) Different translations of Ex. 32:14: God “repented” (KJV); “changed his mind” (NASB); “relented” (ESV, NKJV, NIV).
(3) This text does teach that God did not follow through with his offer to destroy Israel and make a great nation of Moses. This does not mean that God did not know that Moses would choose to intercede, or that he did not know his ultimate decision would be to spare the nation.
(4) God sometimes knows more than he reveals to us.

C. Problems with the OV.
1. One OV theorist allows that God may be “mistaken” (John Sanders, The God Who Risks, pp. 132-133).
2. The “advantages” of the OV are not really advantages.
a. Regarding the problem of evil.
(1) See Boyd’s comments about Hitler and the Holocaust (God of the Possible, pp. 98-99).
(2) What happened to the master chess player?
b. Regarding prayer.
(1) See Boyd’s comments (pp. 95).
(2) God’s foreknowledge gives me great confidence that he has already been at work through providence (which literally means “foresight”) to answer my prayers (Isa. 65:24; Matt. 6:8).
IV. Some Final Thoughts
A. Tolerance is needed.
1. While I disagree with the OV, I believe its adherents respect the Scriptures and God’s knowledge.
2. It is unfair to charge those who hold the OV with being “neo-theists.” “God does not under-know the future; he over-knows the future” (Boyd).
B. Humility is demanded.
1. It has been mind boggling to try to think God’s thoughts, but it has only deepened my sense of awe for him.
2. “Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! ‘For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor? Or who has given a gift to him that he might be repaid?’ For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen” (Rom. 11:33-36).

The Gospel of Judas

2006-04-13T10:46:00.000-07:00

Last week the National Geographic Society released the text of a document called The Gospel of Judas. According to the National Geographic website: “The Gospel of Judas gives a different view of the relationship between Jesus and Judas, offering new insights into the disciple who betrayed Jesus. Unlike the accounts in the canonical Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, in which Judas is portrayed as a reviled traitor, this newly discovered Gospel portrays Judas as acting at Jesus' request when he hands Jesus over to the authorities.” Does this newly published gospel call into question to traditional gospel story? The answer to this question can only be determined by answering several other questions.

1) What is the Gospel of Judas? The Gospel of Judas is an ancient text written approximately AD 180. The National Geographic has recently published a translation of a copy of the Gospel of Judas discovered in Egypt that is believed to come from the third or fourth century.

2) Did Judas Iscariot write the Gospel of Judas? No. The Gospel of Judas was written long after Judas Iscariot killed himself. As MSNBC reported, “James M. Robinson, America's leading expert on such ancient religious texts from Egypt, predicts in a new book that the text won't offer any insights into the disciple who betrayed Jesus. His reason: While it's old, it's not old enough. ‘Does it go back to Judas? No,’ Robinson told The Associated Press…There are a lot of second-, third- and fourth-century gospels attributed to various apostles,’ Robinson said. ‘We don't really assume they give us any first—century information.’”

3) If Judas did not write the Gospel of Judas, then who did? It is not possible to identify the specific author, but it is clear from the text of the Gospel of Judas that it was written by someone who embraced an ancient belief known as Gnosticism.

4) What is Gnosticism? There are many varieties of Gnosticism, but here are the basic principles:
• A divine essence exists, but did not create the material universe.
• A series of lesser beings emanated from the divine essence, known as “aeons.”
• From one of those aeons, called Sophia (“wisdom”), another being emanated, flawed and corrupt. This being created the material universe, and is called the Demiurge (“half-creator”).
• The Demiurge is served by underlings called the Archon (“rulers”).
• Mankind possesses a “divine spark,” but it is shrouded in our corrupt material bodies.
• To be saved from this corruption we must acquire a special knowledge (Greek gnosis) of our true divine origin and transcend the material world. The specific content of this gnosis varied from one Gnostic group to another.

5) Is Gnosticism compatible with Christianity? No. Gnosticism flatly rejected the Christian belief that the created world was good (Genesis 1:31; 1 Timothy 4:4). In fact, the Gnostics often identified the Demiurge as the God of the Old Testament, who they sometimes called Yaldabaoth (Aramaic for “child, come here”) or Saklas (Aramaic for “foolish one”). And of course, the Gnostics denied Jesus’ humanity, including the incarnation, His death and His resurrection. Instead, they believed Christ emanated from an aeon but was clothed in the body of Jesus.

6) What claims does the Gospel of Judas make that are different from the traditional gospels? Fundamentally, the Gospel of Judas claims that Judas was the only one of the twelve apostles to understand the true nature of Jesus. “Judas [said] to him, ‘I know who you are and where you have come from. You are from the immortal realm of Barbelo. And I am not worthy to utter the name of the one who has sent you.’” Barbelo is a name found in Gnostic writings that refers to the first emanation from the divine essence and mother of all Aeons. Specifically, the Gospel of Judas claims that Judas would be exalted above the other apostles, presumably because he helped to free Jesus from His body. "But you will exceed all of them. For you will sacrifice the man that clothes me."

7) Were historians aware of the Gospel of Judas before the discovery and publication of this manuscript? Yes. In fact, one of the early church fathers, Irenaeus (AD125-202), wrote about the Gospel of Judas in his work Against Heresies: “Others again declare that Cain derived his being from the Power above, and acknowledge that Esau, Korah, the Sodomites, and all such persons, are related to themselves. On this account, they add, they have been assailed by the Creator, yet no one of them has suffered injury. For Sophia was in the habit of carrying off that which belonged to her from them to herself. They declare that Judas the traitor was thoroughly acquainted with these things, and that he alone, knowing the truth as no others did, accomplished the mystery of the betrayal; by him all things, both earthly and heavenly, were thus thrown into confusion. They produce a fictitious history of this kind, which they style the Gospel of Judas” (Book 1 Chapter 31.1).

8) Does the Gospel of Judas contribute anything to our understanding of Jesus and Judas? Not at all. Contrary to the National Geographic’s assertion that the document offers “new insights into the disciple who betrayed Jesus,” the Gospel of Judas provides no insight into the traditional account of the four gospels. It does shed light on the specific beliefs of one strain of Gnosticism, which in turn only serves to set in even greater contrast the beliefs of the Gnostics with those of the early Christians.

9) If this document was discovered in 1970, why was it published last week? Part of the reason has to do with the painstaking care that historians must use to authenticate such an old document. However, I believe the specific timing of the publication of the Gospel of Judas reflects an agenda on the part of some scholars to cast doubt on the truthfulness of the gospels at the very time of the year when many people are interested in religion (Easter). Further, it is hard not to imagine that this is an effort to capitalize on the phenomenal interest in The DaVinci Code, since the premise of that novel is based in part on the existence of similar Gnostic writings.

I believe that books like The DaVinci Code and sensationalistic reports such as the news about the Gospel of Judas reflect a desire for “spirituality” without the inconvenience of the demands of the Bible. Gnosticism is about self-discovery; Jesus demands self-denial. Jesus taught that there would be few who found the way of life (Matthew 7:13-14), not because the knowledge of this way is accessible to only the elite, but rather because its demanding path is so clearly known by all who consider it. “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me” (Luke 9:23).

Further Resources

You can access the Gospel of Judas at the National Geographic’s website

I drew on a lot of the insights found at the blog of Mark D. Roberts.

James Robinson’s comments about the Gospel of Judas can be found at the MSNBC site.

My summary of Gnosticism was drawn from a Gnostic website (yes they still exist!).

You can read the work of Irenaeus here.

There is also a lot of great material about the Gospel of Judas on the blog of New Testament scholar Ben Witherington III.

Francis A. Scott January 11, 1942-April 11, 2000

2006-04-11T09:35:00.000-07:00

Six years ago today my Mom died of a massive stroke. In her honor I would like to share the eulogy I wrote for her funeral. I miss her more every year.

My Mom was not a famous woman. She actually had very few friends outside of her family, and her congregation. Because she kept to herself, I wanted you to know some of the very personal struggles and joys she experienced. As I have reflected on her life this week, above all else there are three qualities that stand out.

First, Mom was intensely loyal to her family. To her brother, to her sisters, and especially to her parents, Mom was fiercely faithful. I don’t think anything made Mom more happy than those holiday occasions when the entire family could be together. That loyalty extended far beyond her own siblings. Mom also deeply cared about her in-laws, about her many nieces and nephews, and distant cousins whom she rarely saw. All that mattered was that they were family, and that was all it took to earn her allegiance.

There were times when this commitment was challenging. As I expressed my frustration about the mistakes of some in the family, Mom never hesitated to rush to their defense, and to remind me the love that families share must be gracious and patient.

Because of her loyalty, Mom was very sentimental about those in the family who passed. I have seen her stricken with grief as those for whom she cared so much slipped away. I remember times when Mom would burst into tears as she thought about Uncle Kerm, Uncle Butler, about kissing Pop’s bald head, and about others who may have lived far away but who were never far from her heart. Mom especially thought about the child my Granny lost, Bessie Yvonne, and told me that if I had been a girl I would have been named for her. Mom wanted me to name my daughter after her, and I hope someday to make that wish come true.

I hope everyone in the family here today realizes just what a loyal friend you have lost.

A second quality that stands out to me is how deeply Mom loved helping other people. Mom was not an extrovert by nature, and through the years I think it is fair to say that Mom found it hard to trust people. I understand why. But at the same time, Mom would almost be giddy when we would talk and she told me of someone she had been able to help. It may have been a plate of food she cooked, or a card she wrote, or a gift she gave, but it flooded Mom’s heart with warmth to feel like she was helping others.

When Mom completed high school, she moved up to Northwest Indiana to work at an orphanage. She served as the cook in a children’s home in Valparaiso, Indiana, skills which I am glad she acquired to put to good use for me! I don’t know of too many kids today who right out of high school want to do that kind of work, but Mom always had fond memories of it. Eight years ago I moved to Northwest Indiana to preach, just a few miles from the home where she worked. My time up there served as a constant reminder of how Mom started her life on her own, serving others.

Mom loved to work, and she poured her heart into her work, sometimes at her own peril. Ever since I was born she worked at our local hospital, rising through the ranks until she became the Executive Secretary. My favorite picture of Mom is her sitting at her old desk at the hospital, because that is when she was the happiest.

But Mom worked even harder as a member of the family. Through the years, Mom and I lived with Granny and Pop, and early on it was probably more for our benefit than theirs. But that changed with time, and Mom had to work as hard at home as she did at her office. But she loved doing what she did, because it was serving her family. As Pop slowly slipped from this life, Mom bore a tremendous burden in helping to take care of him. If not for the help of the rest of the family, I don’t know how she would have made it. And after her first stroke in the fall of 1998, she faced the burden of not finding work outside the home, and not feeling like doing much in the home. And yet she did her best to keep the house clean, work with the flowers, feed and bathe Obbie, look after Granny, and spearhead every holiday decoration effort. Mom especially loved Christmas, and many of the pictures in her collection are of the house as it sparkled with her handiwork.

But most of all, Mom was my mother. Being a single mom is hard. There is the uncertainty of being alone, the shame of society, the stress of trying to be a mother and father at the same time. I don’t think that Mom always did the right thing as she raised me, but Mom always, always, poured her heart and soul into doing what she thought was best for me. As a son, you cannot possibly ask any more than that.

Mom worked hard to provide for me, often working two jobs at a time. She had the support of Granny and Pop, who did everything they could to help, and it would have been easy for Mom to take advantage of that. But she had too much of a sense of responsibility to me to do that.

Mom always wanted the very best for me. Sometimes what she thought was best and what I though was best came into conflict, and since I inherited a fair share of her temper, the sparks sure flew sometimes! I remember once when I was a little boy, Mom told me to put away my toy soldiers. I started crying, and she said I was acting like a baby. Enraged, I jumped to my feet and charged at her. The next thing I knew I was staring at the ceiling! She laid me out, as well she should have.

We disagreed about what I wanted to do for a living. There were two things Mom absolutely did not want me to do for a living: preach, and teach! The reason was that she wanted a good life for me, and she felt like I could do other things to have a better living, which I understood considering the poverty Mom was raised in. Once she saw that I was committed to this work, however, her opposition gave way to loyalty, and love, and pride.

I think the very happiest memories I have with my Mom are the times she drove me around to little churches here in central Kentucky when I first started preaching. I fooled around and waited until much later to get my driver’s license, but I am so glad now that I did. As we drove to Paris, to Stamping Ground, to Frankfort, to Mount Sterling, and other towns, we had the chance to talk, to sing, to laugh. I will never forget those moments, and how much she enjoyed hearing me preach. If I was in a meeting anywhere within driving distance, Mom would be there. I am so happy that Mom was able to visit every congregation where I preached for any extended period of time.

When I graduated from FC and moved to Oak Hill in Mt. Sterling, the preacher here in Winchester, John Smith, and I would often trade sermons. His folks worshipped at Oak Hill, and it never failed that when I preached one his lessons, his family would tell me it was one of the best sermons they had ever heard, and when he preached one of mine, Mom would do the same thing. Parents just have a way of knowing, I guess.

Mom often told me how proud she was of my work, especially when I began teaching at Florida College. I know it hurt her for us to be so far away, but she was so proud to have a son who was a college professor. I can’t tell you how much this means to me.

And I just hope Mom knew how proud of her I was. My Mom had a hard life, and there were times when she faced desperate moments of depression. And yet she battled. She fought hard to raise a son. She fought hard to return to the Lord after years of unfaithfulness. She fought hard to deal with the discouragement of illness and unemployment the last 18 months. Her determination was awesome. Last summer I preached in a lectureship in Lexington, and in my final address, as I made a few personal remarks, the last thing I said was that I was very proud of my Mom. She was there, and I am so glad I made sure she knew, in the presence of all who were there, just how I felt.

Like all sons, I have many regrets. I wish I had called more. I wish I had found a way to visit more often. I wish I could have presented Mom with a wife and grandchildren, which she eagerly wanted to see (and constantly reminded me of!). More than all that, I will just miss her. I will miss her big hugs, her frequent phone calls just to say hello, her laugh and her touch. We had often talked about her moving to Florida some day, where I looked forward to our relationship growing as she eased into her sunset years. But instead of me waiting for her to move, it is my hope that now she is at home, waiting for me.

Mom once told me that when I was a little child, she would ask me how much I loved her, and my answer was always the same: “I love you bigger than the sky.” Ever since then, when I sent her a card or flowers, I always included that line. And today, more than ever, that sentiment fills my heart. I loved my Mom bigger than the sky, but I find great solace in knowing that her love for me far exceeded my love for her. I told her once, as I now tell you, that my hero will always be Francis Ann Scott.

Mammon and Illegal Immigration

2006-03-31T20:46:00.000-08:00

This week my friend and brother in Christ, Nick Alejo, has been visiting me. The Alejos were some of my best friends in Elgin, IL. His mother, Toribia, earned her US citizenship while I was there, and the ladies at church threw her a party to commemorate the moment. I offered to jump out of a cake dressed up like Uncle Sam with sparklers in each hand, singing "America the Beautiful," but they didn't take me up on it.

Nick asked me what I thought about the recent controversy regarding illegal immigration. To be honest, no issue puts my political beliefs and my Christian walk more at odds with each other than this issue. Politically, I think it is outrageous that neither major party has the courage to confront this problem in a way that truly puts US security first. Our southern border is a sieve, and who is to say among the thousands who pour across it each month how many terrorists are included? And what message does it send to my friends the Alejos when the major parties are trying to pass laws which give leniency to those who did not patiently play by the rules? Why even bother following the law?

If I were president (and to the nation's great comfort I am not), I would take US troops and place them on the Mexican side of the border to assist our neighbor to the south in keeping order. I would severely penalize any business which hired illegals. And I would make sure that our taxpayers are not left footing the bill for any services used by illegals by insisting that the Mexican government chip in (or else lose all trade rights).

By the way, those who favor globalization promised us that trade agreements such as NAFTA would solve the problem of illegal immigration by creating a prosperous working class in Mexico. That is but one example of how the theories of globalization never seem to work in practice - for anyone but big business.

And it is big business which is at the root of the illegal immigration problem. By exploiting illegals who will work off the books for much less, businesses can increase their profits. Even Forbes magazine has highlighted the shameless way in which businesses use illegals for their own gain. Illegals not only provide a workforce; they also provide 12-22 million new consumers that business are more than happy to cater to according to Business Week. And until our culture ceases to worship at the altar of Mammon, I see no end to this problem. That is, until a terror cell which entered our country illegally pulls off a major attack. Then, I am afraid there could be a backlash against all immigrants.

So that is my political position. But my commitment to Christ trumps all of these concerns. For those who accept the call to "go and make disciples of all the nations" (Matthew 28:19) the job is even easier now that the world is coming to us. There is a huge need for those who can speak Spanish all over the country to reach those souls who have come into our nation. As a citizen of a heavenly kingdom (Philippians 3:20), I am the alien and sojourner after all (1 Peter 2:11), and my goal is to help as many other as possible, of every nation, tribe and tongue, make it to the home country (Revelation 7:9-10).

What a Tourney!

2006-03-27T10:18:00.000-08:00

This has been a fantastic NCAA tourney. All of the talk about parity in college basketball has proven to be more than idle chatter. And even though it destroyed my bracket, how about those Patriots of George Mason! Actually, I think I have won both bracket contests I entered, since I managed to get two picks into the Final Four (UCLA and Florida) - my least confident picks! Should be a great weekend coming up. Looks like a UCLA - Florida title game to me, with the Gators (a GREAT second half team) edging the Bruins. What do you think?

One more thing - SEC! SEC! SEC!

"Some Trust in Chariots"

2006-03-21T10:41:00.000-08:00

Since we have come upon the third anniversary of the Iraq War, I want to make a basic observation about the limits of power. Three years ago Vice President Cheney appeared on Meet The Press hours before the war began. Consider the following answers he gave Tim Russert compared to the reality we face now:

------------------------------------------------
MR. RUSSERT: If your analysis is not correct, and we’re not treated as liberators, but as conquerors, and the Iraqis begin to resist, particularly in Baghdad, do you think the American people are prepared for a long, costly, and bloody battle with significant American casualties?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, I don’t think it’s likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators.

MR. RUSSERT: And you are convinced the Kurds, the Sunnis, the Shiites will come together in a democracy?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: They have so far. One of the things that many people forget is that the Kurds in the north have been operating now for over 10 years under a sort of U.S.-provided umbrella with respect to the no-fly zone, and they have established a very strong, viable society with elements of democracy an important part of it. They’ve had significant successes in that regard and they’re eager to work with the rest of Iraq, that portion of it that still governs Saddam Hussein. And if you look at the opposition, they’ve come together, I think, very effectively, with representatives from Shia, Sunni and Kurdish elements in the population. They understand the importance of preserving and building on an Iraqi national identity. They don’t like to have the U.S., for example, come in and insist on dealing with people sort of on a hyphenated basis—the Iraqi-Shia, Iraqi-Sunni—but rather to focus on Iraq as a nation and all that it can accomplish as a nation, and we try to be sensible to those concerns. I think the prospects of being able to achieve this kind of success, if you will, from a political standpoint, are probably better than they would be for virtually any other country and under similar circumstances in that part of the world.

MR. RUSSERT: And we are back with the vice president. Front page in The New York Times: “Anger On Iraq Seen As New Al-Qaeda Recruiting Tool.” The Arab street will rise up, recruit more people. The president has embraced a new road map of the Middle East. Some say that was a political calculation to help with the war in Iraq. What will happen in the Arab street? And will more young Arabs, Muslims sign up to attack the United States?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: I can’t predict that, Tim. It’s possible. There’s another point of view, though, that I think is very valid here, important not to lose sight of, and to some extent the United States has established over the last several years, going back at least to the ’80’s, an unfortunate practice that we’ve often failed to respond effectively to attacks on the United States... And I firmly believe, along with, you know, men like Bernard Lewis, who’s one of the great, I think, students of that part of the world, that strong, firm U.S. response to terror and to threats to the United States would go a long way, frankly, towards calming things in that part of the world.
----------------------------------------
Whatever your political beliefs, it is clear that what the Vice President thought would probably occur did not happen. There has been an extended insurgency, there is the real prospect of civil war between various factions, and our military action has incited, not pacified, more aggression in that part of the world. This in spite of the fact that we have brought to bear the most advanced military technology and tactics the world's greatest economic power can muster. (And by the way, tactics carried out by outstanding young men and women anxious to do their duty). Things have not turned out as our leaders expected.

This should serve as a cautious reminder to believers. There are limits to what even the world's greatest military and economic power in history can achieve. Perhaps a nation as young as ours lacks the historical perspective that might temper misplaced confidence in American might. A century ago, Great Britain ruled an empire on which the sun did not set. Two thousand years ago the Caesars imposed the Pax Romana on the known world. Great Britain is a shell of its former self. The Pax Romana unraveled into chaos. There is no reason to think that America will be spared the inevitable decline all "superpowers" have in common.

We must make sure that we do not confuse Christianity with Americanism. As Christians we are truly part of "a kingdom that cannot be shaken" (Hebrews 12:28), a "kingdom not from the world" (John 18:36), whose weapons are not fleshly but mighty (2 Corinthians 10:3-5). It is a kingdom on which the sun will never set, "for the glory of God gives its light" (Revelation 21:23). American power may fail, American might may subside, but the kingdom of God will endure forever.

Some trust in chariots and some in horses,
but we trust in the name of the LORD our God.
They collapse and fall,
but we rise and stand upright. (Psalm 20:7-8)

Final Thoughts On Kentucky's Season (and more March Madness stuff)

2006-03-19T21:06:00.000-08:00

I am extremely proud of the Wildcats after their performance yesterday. They saved their best game for the last, and fought back from a 13 point deficit to have chances to win the game down the stretch. The old nemesis - rebounding - came back to haunt us when we allowed UConn to obtain offensive rebounds on three straight missed foul shots at the crucial point in the game.

I am very excited for what the team can achieve next year, if the incoming class can contribute. We need a solid three point shooter to replace Patrick Sparks (who played his guts out on the final game of his career), and we desperately need a power forward to help on the boards and to take pressure off Morris. If we can fill those spots alongside Rondo, Morris (who needs to learn to move his feet this summer) and Perry, we could have a championship team.

My bracket is in decent shape considering all the upsets this weekend. Ten of my sixteen made it through, including all of my final four. Hats off to the Missouri Valley, which proved me wrong by sending two teams to the Sweet Sixteen. And what an upset by George Mason, reducing Roy Williams to tears (yet again). What a great tournament so far - my only complaint is the incessant barrage of commercials by Coach K. Get that phoney outta my living room!

March Madness Predictions

2006-03-15T22:09:00.000-08:00

Alright sports fans, it is my favorite time of year. The NCAA tourney kicks off tomorrow, and I thought I would share my (generally futile) predictions with you.

First Round Upset Specials
-UNC Wilmington over George Washington (the game is in Greensboro NC)
-Texas A&M over Syracuse (The 'Cuse either flops or goes to the final four)
-NC State over Cal (I like Herb Sendek, a former UK assistant)
-UAB over Kentucky (wishful thinking on my part for the season to be over)
-Utah St over Washington (Utah St has lots of NCAA experience)
-Seton Hall over the Shockers of Wichita St (I am not a big believer in the MVC)
-Wisconsin over Arizona (The Badgers always play great defense)
-Wisc.-Milwaukee over Oklahoma (Oklahoma never scores high, which makes them vulnerable to upset by an experienced NCAA team)

Sweet Sixteen
Duke, LSU, Iowa, Texas, Memphis, Kansas, Gonzaga, UCLA, UConn, Illinois, North Carolina, Tennessee (who should pay the NCAA for the draw they got), Villanova, Florida, and Ohio St.

Elite Eight
Duke, Texas, Kansas, UCLA, UConn, North Carolina, Villanova, Florida

Final Four
Duke, UCLA, UConn, Florida

Championship
UConn defeats the hated Duke Blue Devils, 79-75.

Feel free to share yours!

We Have An Advocate

2006-03-15T21:44:00.000-08:00

Not long before Christmas I was checking my mail, hoping to find some Christmas cards (or better yet, some gifts!). Instead, I saw an envelope with a return address to a law firm in Chicago. When I opened it, I was informed that a claim was being filed against me due to an auto accident I caused a year and a half earlier. I had pulled through a parking space in a parking lot and collided with a woman in a Cadillac (I only hit the best). I was not going fast at all, but it was unquestionably my fault, and the angle of where my CRV made contact with her door caused a huge dent. Apparently, she has made all kinds of medical complaints and is suing for all kinds of money.

Anyway, I called my insurance agent, afraid that I was being personally sued. The All State agent told me that she is actually suing my insurance company, and that all I had to do was call her lawyer's office and give them All State's 800 number, and that they would take care of everything. Just today I received a call from All State informing me that she had refused to settle, and that things would probably go to trial, but that I did not need to worry because they were taking care of everything. At most I might have to give a deposition, but All State's lawyers would handle everything.

How disastrous it would be if I did not have an insurance policy, or if I did not have agents who cared. But since I do, my problem has become their problem, and they are hard at work. The New Testament describes Jesus as our attourney, our "advocate." "My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world" (1 John 2:1-2). The writer of Hebrews assures us that Jesus "always lives to make intercession" for those who draw near to God (7:25). If we draw near to God, we have at our disposal an advocate, and not a disinterested hired gun, but the Son of the very Judge of all the earth. And the fact that Jesus was willing to die for my sins if evidence of the intense commitment He has made to plead my case. "Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died--more than that, who was raised--who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us" (Rom. 8:34).

If you are a Christian, your heart should be broken every time you sin, grieved at the failure to reflect the transforming work of Christ. But if you have brought that sin to the Lord, your heart should flow with gratitude and awe that Christ is now making your case before the Father (1 John 1:7-9). You are truly in good hands.

The Other Side of Glory Road

2006-03-07T23:18:00.000-08:00

(And now for a break from Bible stuff)

As my profile explains, I am a native Kentuckian and a Wildcat basketball fan. This has been a tough year for those of us pulling for Big Blue. Our highly touted team has turned out to be a major disappointment, struggling to a 19-11 season (and it could have been much worse). I actually hope we get beat Thursday and either do not receive or do not accept an NCAA invitation. I am tired of watching the Folding Five.

On top of the dismal performance of this year's squad, UK fans faced another major negative this year - the movie Glory Road. That movie is about the 1966 national championship game between UK and Texas-Western (now UTEP), which was significant not only because Texas-Western pulled off one of the biggest upsets in tourney history in beating UK, but also because Texas-Western started five black kids, a first in NCAA championship history.

I was afraid the movie would portray Kentuckians generally, and Coach Adolph Rupp particularly, as one step shy of Adolph Hitler. From what I have heard, the movie did not do that. It did portray UK as the Goliath of college basketball (which it is!), and Rupp as a sore loser (which he was!). But Don Haskins (the coach of Texas-Western) was not trying to make a big statement about race relations in starting those five young African-Americans - he was trying to win a championship and played his best players.

Ironically, a great movie could have been made about that 1966 UK team. The previous year, UK was a modest 15-10, and no one had any expectations that the '66 squad would be anything special. They were not ranked in the Top 20 in the preseason, and with good reason; the team did not have a starter taller than 6'5".

However, that team amazingly ran off to a 24-1 record in the regular season. Though lacking in size, "Rupp's Runts" (as the team came to be affectionately called) were superior ball-handlers, reknown for their passing. Those who saw the Runts play say they often rebounded an opponent's missed shot and scored on a fast break without the ball ever touching the floor! They could also shoot the lights out, and they played a great 1-3-1 zone trap (which Rupp, who normally eschewed zones, called "a hyperbolic transitional stratified parabola").

And that is why a great movie could have been made about the Runts. That team embodied the classic story of overcoming physical limitations through teamwork and heart. Texas-Western simply overmatched them physically, and the Runts were beaten. Without question, that squad was Rupp's all time favorite team, and the loss was the most bitter of Rupp's career. And that's why I will not see the movie. Why suffer through two major disapppointments as a Wildcat fan this year. :-)

Baptist Theologian on Baptism and Conversion

2006-03-02T21:28:00.000-08:00

Recently while doing some research for a sermon on baptism I came across an interesting article: "Baptism and Becoming a Christian in the New Testament," by Robert Stein. Stein is a professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville. Essentially, Stein argues for a "five-step" conversion process, and includes baptism as part of that process. While I would disagree with some of his article (he sees "regeneration" as one of the five steps leading to conversion and equates it with the coming of the Holy Spirit), I found the article to be very biblical. I will share his conclusion with you:

“The cardinal problem with most views on baptism today is that the five components integrally associated with conversion in the New Testament are now separated in time. Roman Catholic theology, for instance…divorces baptism and regeneration from the human components of the conversion experience-repentance, faith, and confession. Thus it seriously deviates from the New Testament pattern…Baptist theology also deviates from the New Testament pattern…baptism is an act which witnesses to a prior experience of repentance, faith, confession, and regeneration. As a result such passages as Romans 6:4, 1 Peter 3:21, Titus 3:5, John 3:3ff, and others, which associate baptism with the experience of conversion, are embarrassing to many Baptists and often receive a strained exegesis at their hands.” I appreciate Stein's willingness to criticize his own tradition, and I hope I have enough integrity to do the same.

Stein's article is one example of what I sense to be a growing openness among evangelicals to consider a more straightforward interpretation of these baptism texts. Ironically, this is happening at the same time as many prominent leaders among "mainstream Churches of Christ" are moving away from the biblical teaching about baptism. Of course the whole point of all this is not to be "Baptist Christians" or "ChurchofChrist Christians," but to be Christians in the same way the New Testament describes.

The English Standard Version

2006-02-28T12:22:00.000-08:00

For many years I used the New American Standard Bible as my primary text for reading, studying and preaching. In 2001, Crossway published a new translation, the English Standard Version, an essentially literal translation in the tradition of the King James Version and Revised Standard Version. A year ago I decided to make the switch to the ESV, and I have been very pleased. In this post I want to explain why I made the switch, and why I think you should as well.

Since I do not possess the linguistic or critical skills needed to evaluate translations, I primarily relied on the reviews of others. In particular, I used Jack Lewis’s The English Bible: From the KJV to the NIV (Baker, 1982), for a great deal of my research. Along with the help of several young people where I used to preach (Omair Akhtar, Grady Behrens, Tim Compton, Sammie Recinto), I used Lewis’s chapter on the 1977 NASB as a framework for comparing the ESV and updated NASB.

The primary result of my study was this: approximately two-thirds of Lewis’s criticisms of the NASB have been corrected by the ESV, while virtually none have been corrected by the updated NASB.

Less Literal
There are several instances in which the NASB is less literal than the ESV. Some examples:
-Ezekiel 3:7 – “the whole house of Israel is stubborn and obstinate” (NASB) vs. “all the house of Israel have a hard forehead and a stubborn heart” (ESV)
-Psalm 88:18 – “My acquaintances are in darkness” (NASB) vs. “my companions have become darkness” (ESV)
-Psalm 78:33 – “So He brought their days to an end in futility” (NASB) vs. “So he made their days vanish like a breath” (ESV)
-1 Peter 3:7 – “live with your wives in an understanding way, as with someone weaker” (NASB) vs. “live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel” (ESV)

Additions
There are dozens of times where the NASB adds a word to the text that the ESV does not. Some examples:
-Luke 1:17 - "It is he who will go as a forerunner before Him” (NASB) vs. “and he will go before him” (ESV)
-1 Thessalonians 5:21 – “But examine everything carefully” (NASB) vs. “but test everything” (ESV)
-Luke 5:39 – “The old is good enough” (NASB) vs. “The old is good” (ESV)
-1 Timothy 5:22 – “Do not lay hands upon anyone too hastily” (NASB) vs. “Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands” (ESV)
-Mark 6:9 – “but to wear sandals; and He added, ‘Do not put on two tunics’” (NASB) vs. “but to wear sandals and not put on two tunics” (ESV)
-Acts 7:59 – “as he called on the Lord and said, ‘Lord Jesus’” (NASB) vs. “he called out, ‘Lord Jesus’” (ESV)

Inaccuracies
There are several instances where the NASB translation is very poor, but the ESV is accurate. Notice a few examples:
-Ecclesiastes 12:5 – “and the caperberry is ineffective” (NASB) vs. “and desire fails” (ESV)
-Hebrews 9:16 – “For where a covenant is” (NASB) vs. “For where a will is involved” (ESV)
-Acts 2:46 – “breaking bread from house to house” (NASB) vs. “breaking bread in their homes” (ESV)
-Exodus 32:4 - "This is your god, O Israel” (NASB) vs. “These are your gods, O Israel” (ESV)
-2 Samuel 24:1 – “And it incited David” (NASB) vs. “And he incited David” (ESV)
-1 Corinthians 1:12 – “Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, ‘I am of Paul,’ and ‘I of Apollos,’ and ‘I of Cephas,’ and ‘I of Christ’” (NASB) vs. “What I mean is that each one of you says, ‘I follow Paul,’ or ‘I follow Apollos,’ or ‘I follow Cephas,’ or ‘I follow Christ’” (ESV).

Consistency
The ESV is not entirely consistent, but does seem to exceed the NASB in this regard. Here are just a few examples:
-The NASB translates porneia as either “fornication” or “immorality.” The ESV consistently uses “sexual immorality.”
-The NASB uses renders mlk differently in Leviticus 1:15 (“wring off its head”) and 5:8 (“nip its head at the front of its neck”); the ESV is consistent (“wring off its head” and “wring its head from its neck”).
-Genesis 1:24 and 2:7 use the same Hebrew term for man and animals. The NASB translates them “living creatures” and “living being”, while the ESV is consistent (“living creature”).
-While the NASB translates teleios as “mature” (Eph. 4:13), “perfect” (Phil. 3:15), and “complete” (Col. 1:28), the ESV consistently uses “mature.”
-The NASB dropped the archaic term “seed”, but often uses “descendant” or “descendants,” neither of which are collective nouns like “seed.” The ESV almost always uses “offspring,” which is a collective noun.
-The NASB translates psyche as “life” in Mark 8:35, but as “soul” in the next two verses, while the ESV translates it consistently as “life.”
-1 Corinthians 16:22 reads “he is to be accursed. Maranatha” in the NASB. Why translate “anathema” (he is to be accursed) but not “Maranatha”? The ESV has “let him be accursed. Our Lord, come”
-The NASB translates the same word as “wings” and “covering” in Ruth 2:12 and 3:9. The ESV uses “wings” in both cases.

Smoother English
The ESV’s primary goal was to use smoother English than the NASB while retaining the literal meaning of the text. Here are some examples:
-John 1:43 – “The next day He purposed to go into Galilee” (NASB) vs. “The next day Jesus decided to go to Galilee” (ESV).
-Luke 20:2 - "Tell us by what authority You are doing these things, or who is the one who gave You this authority?" (NASB) vs. "Tell us by what authority you do these things, or who it is that gave you this authority" (ESV)
-Amos 1:1 – “which he envisioned in visions concerning Israel” (NASB) vs. “which he saw concerning Israel” (ESV)
-Genesis 4:1 - "I have gotten a manchild” (NASB) vs. "I have gotten a man” (ESV)
-Luke 23:45 – “because the sun was obscured” (NASB) vs. “while the sun's light failed” (ESV)
-Nehemiah 5:7 - "You are exacting usury” (NASB) vs. "You are exacting interest” (ESV)
-2 Corinthians 11:3 – “your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ” (NASB) vs. “your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ” (ESV)
-Leviticus 19:27 – “You shall not round off the side-growth of your heads” (NASB) vs. “You shall not round off the hair on your temples” (ESV)

Criticisms of the ESV
The weakness of relying on Lewis’s critique of the NASB is that while we could easily check places where the NASB was poor and the ESV was better, I really have no way of knowing all the instances where the ESV is inferior to the NASB, or where both translations are weak. Based on very random research, here are some criticisms of the ESV:
-The NASB italicizes added words; the ESV does not.
-The ESV uses the literal Hebrew “Azazel” for “scapegoat” in Leviticus 16:10, with no note as to the meaning.
-The ESV translates Matthew 16:18 as “the gates of hell,” although it does have “gates of Hades” in a footnote.
-The ESV renders 2 Timothy 1:12, “I am convinced that he is able to guard until that Day what has been entrusted to me.” It does have the NASB rendering in a footnote.
-The ESV renders Revelation 20:4 the same as the NASB: “They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.” This translation is in keeping with premillennial interpretation, as opposed to “lived and reigned” in the KJV and ASV.
-My sense is that the ESV has fewer notes about textual variation than the NASB or NIV.

Some Concluding Thoughts
It would be very helpful if someone with the linguistic and critical skills could measure the ESV against the Hebrew and Greek text rather than just comparing it to the NASB. However, based on these initial findings, it seems to me that the ESV has a clear edge over the NASB in accuracy and readability. After a year of using it for reading and preaching, I am more satisfied than ever. Now, if only Crossway would let other publishers use it to make better editions...

Welcome

2006-02-28T12:16:00.000-08:00

Hi everyone-
Several years ago I began a modest website called faithandthought.com. I was never really sure how many people dropped in, or how valuable it was. But since the time I let it lapse, hundreds of you - well, dozens of you - well, a couple of people asked me if I would ever renew the site. So, for the handful of you who asked, and for anyone else who may be interested, I have decided to start this blog.
I actually hope to republish my website (in fact I have already secured the name faithandthought.org). But I also wanted to have a medium which would allow for more interaction, and thus this blog. I hope that what we discuss here can help us all set our minds on things above.
Shane