“Raised for our justification”

I’ve come across this verse a couple of times and haven’t been able to “fit” into a lot of my preconceived ideas about what Jesus actually accomplished through his death on the cross:

Romans 4:25 – “who was delivered up [given over/given up/handed over] for our trespasses and raised for our justification.”

Typically, “justification” has been explained as THE central accomplishment of Christ ON THE CROSS. But, here, Paul says that Christ was RAISED for our justification. The few commentators that I’ve read simply say “well, the two go together, so they are interchangeable.” That just does not seem to be satisfactory to me. It seems like Paul has something else in mind here, though I’m not quite sure what it was yet.

Interestingly, the very next sentence (which were not originally separated by “chapters” and “verses”) says this:

Romans 5:1 – Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.

Now, I think if we follow Paul’s logic here, “justification by faith” must be seen as somehow directly related to Jesus being “raised.” Of course, I don’t want to pit the death and resurrection of Christ against each other, but it almost seems like, typically, the resurrection has only been communicated in a way as to say “God is so powerful that he could raise Jesus from the dead” – rather than something much bigger. Not, “Oh, Crap, what do we now?” But, rather, that the resurrection must be woven into the same, single plan of God all along.

This is where the theology of “new creation” excites me. Jesus wasn’t simply so powerful that the grave couldn’t hold him (though, of course, God is God and can do as he pleases). But, rather, the resurrection was God’s “yes!” to His very good creation that had been wrecked by sin and its effects. The resurrection of Jesus was the “firstfruits” of what we all anticipate when we are “in Christ.” Jesus’ whole life and ministry was pointing (as concrete glimpses), not only to his death, but, also, to his eventual defeat of death (not just for himself, nor just for his followers, but for the whole creation) through his resurrection.

I still don’t know what all this means. I have yet to find a satisfactory explanation of why Paul would use the language of “justification” to refer to Christ’s resurrection if justification simply means “being forgiven of our sin against God.”

Justification by Tom Wright, Part 1

Anyone who has known me for more than a short conversation knows that I love most everything that I have read from NT (Tom) Wright. There are many reasons for this (and if you sign up for the next gospel class you will see how his writing has profoundly influenced my thinking). But, one thing that has racked my mind for a couple of years now has been this whole debate around “the new perspective on Paul.” Awhile back, I listened to DA Carson give a few lectures on this topic, but I don’t remember actually feeling any more confident than I do now that I fully understood 1) what people were so angry about or 2) what NT Wright had to do with the whole thing. For many people, this whole topic just seems like a waste of time, but the ideas that Wright and others are dealing with are very important – they involve God and His purposes in history, through Jesus the Messiah. If that’s irrelevant, then I’ll go watch football!

I’ve also been a long-time fan of John Piper for different reasons than I am of Wright. So, when I heard that Piper was coming out with a book responding to Wright’s understanding of “justification,” I was pretty excited. I think I read the book in one day. But, there were certain parts of that book that I had underlined because I couldn’t see how what Piper was saying was coherent, and it really felt like the two were talking past one another (which seems to be pretty typical in theological debates). The biggest section that stopped me in my tracks I will point out in this post in later.

All that to say, these two great men of God have influenced me possibly more than any other theologians (except maybe Lesslie Newbigin). I am interested in anything they have to say, not because they’re “heroes” or any kind of replacement for Scripture itself, but because I get a sense from both of them of their deep love for God, the gospel of Jesus, and the Spirit’s active presence among and within us today, through the church.

So, of course, when I heard about Wright’s new book responding to Piper’s, I had to get my hands on it. It’s not being released in the US until later this year, so I had to get it from Amazon UK, but it only took a couple of weeks and came in the mail today. Needless to say, I was a little excited.

There’s no way I can respond to every point that I come across in this book, but there are a few that stand out to me, so far, that I think will help frame the debate (at least my own understanding of it).

As a sort of preface, I would like to respond to the endorsements of the book. The most interesting, to me, is that of Scot McKnight’s. I’m also a big fan of what I’ve read from McKnight (despite his connection to Emergent Village), but I haven’t had the time to dig deeper into what he defines as the “neo-Reformed” (if you’re interested in this whole conversation, check out this post from Justin Taylor: http://theologica.blogspot.com/2009/02/scot-mcknights-caricature-of.html). Interestingly, I just read an interview with Eugene Peterson (himself a Presbyterian) who said that using the label “reformed” was ludicrous – we’re always reforming! I personally have my own affinity with Reformed/Calvinist theology, but I’d like to think I’m not committed to it above Scripture itself. So, I’ll have to read some more of his thoughts on this to see if I fall into his category…

The book also received stellar reviews from Rob Bell and Brian McLaren. I personally haven’t paid much attention to Rob Bell, though what I’ve heard is that he comes at everything from a Jewish perspective – something I think the American church should be doing more of (umm, someone pretty important in the Bible was Jewish…). But, with McLaren, I’ve never really understood what he’s talking about. Maybe I’m missing what so many others aren’t, but it just seems like he’s defining what he’s not and misquoting authors like Wright to support his new social gospel. Maybe I’m wrong, but that’s the impression I’ve got from reading Generous Orthodoxy and a couple other books that I eventually sold due to their collecting dust.

One of the first points Wright makes I’ve encountered from him before, that Paul wasn’t primarily thinking in terms of his personal guilt because of his personal sin(s) against God. This may have been what plagued Martin Luther, leading to the (great and necessary) Reformation, but it wasn’t what Paul was primarily struggling with. This, it seems, is part of Wright’s critique of an over-emphasis (in his estimation) on justification as “the imputation of righteousness.” He says he understands the personal assurance that this doctrine can give, and that “this sense of assurance is indeed offered by the doctrine of justification as Paul’s expounds it” (p. ix), but that this was not Paul’s primary goal in expounding the idea (this also brings up the constant critique I’ve heard of Wright that he doesn’t think in terms of imputation at all, which I’ve never been able to validate from his own writings).

I actually just posted on a similar idea from a passage in Philippians for our community group. In it, I said that I don’t believe Paul was primarily trying to defend “perseverance of the saints” or “eternal security” in that passage, but rather was providing a very real, concrete defense of God’s work among the Philippian church because of their ongoing participation in the gospel:
http://gospelcommunitymission.wordpress.com/2009/03/06/he-who-began-a-good-work-in-you/

I’ve also thought a lot recently about Paul’s statement that “the gospel was preached in advance to Abraham” (Galatians 3:8). If we’re trying to understand “the gospel” that Paul preached, it seems that this is a necessary part of it. Wright says this about the absence of this vital element: “the long story of Israel seems to function merely as a backdrop, a source of proof-texts and types, rather than as itself the story of God’s saving purposes” (p. ix). Of course, the gospel climaxes in, centers on, the work of Jesus’ inevitable death on the cross and subsequent resurrection from the dead. But, somehow the Abraham/Israel element must be factored in to the equation, not simply as an afterthought but as a huge part of understanding the whole. This, to me, is where writers like Wright bring a healthy balance to a potentially simplistic understanding of the good news.

Wright goes on to dismantle the dangerous individualism that has plagued the Western church since at least the Middle Ages. “We are not the centre of the universe. God is not circling around us. We are circling around him” (p. 7). This gets Wright to the topic of election, which seems to be a central theme for his understanding of the whole of Scripture. When I first started attempting to understand what the Scriptures meant by “election,” I fell into the natural trap of seeing election primarily in terms of personal benefits: “I have been elected/chosen by God for my own good.” Well, that is true. But, there is a lot more to the picture. After years of investigating, not just proof-texts to support a certain doctrinal point but, the whole of Scripture, I have become wholly convinced that election is primarily about responsibility rather than privilege. I first came to this understanding through Newbigin, but then was later enhanced on this perspective by authors like Richard Bauckham, Chris Wright, and NT Wright, and preachers like Tim Keller. Here, Wright says: “God made humans for a purpose: not simply for themselves, not simply so that they could be in relationship with him, but so that through them, as his image-bearers, he could bring his wise, glad, fruitful order to the world” (p.7). God uses humanity to accomplish His purposes, and His mission is to restore what humanity did to His good creation at the Fall. God saves us so that we can be a blessing, a light, to others. Or, as Matt Chandler so often puts it, “love does not terminate on itself.”

He ends chapter 1 encouraging us to look where he believes Paul himself looked to understand what justification was all about: “History was where Paul looked to see the roots of the story whose climax he believed was Jesus Christ… For too long we have read Scripture with nineteenth-century eyes and sixteenth-century questions. It’s time to get back to reading with first-century eyes and twenty-first century questions” (p.21). I don’t believe we need to make the gospel relevant, but I think we can present “a gospel” that isn’t relevant at all – because it’s not the biblical gospel.

I recently picked up a book by Michael Green called “Thirty Years That Changed the World.” It’s his attempt at understanding the book of Acts in its own context and then applying it to today. One interesting thing he points out is that the gospel message the early church preached was never exactly the same. There were, of course, essential elements that had to be understood (sometimes at a later point in a relationship). But, each “sermon,” so to speak, was sensitive to the questions that the hearers would’ve been asking. I brought this up last week in our Community Group discussion time, that I think a lot of times we’re more interested in memorizing a simplistic formulaic gospel than actually dealing with people on their terms and answering the questions that they actually have. If we simply start with each individual at “you’re a sinner,” I think we’re automatically going to be written off. I think, for the most part, people know that something is wrong with the world, and that “nobody’s perfect.” So, this is probably not the most effective way to explain the gospel to a person in our day. I’ve come to appreciate a lot of Tim Keller’s work because of this; he is insistent that we must start with a very good creation and the Imago Dei, not with a sinner who has offended God.

Of course, this is not proposing that we go the other direction, and simply let the audience determine the message. No, the core message is the same, but the way it is presented must take into account who we are actually talking to. Are we paying any attention? If not, is that really love? Or, are we simply dehumanizing people for our own ends?

Chapter 2 gets into the main point of Piper’s book that I couldn’t bring myself to agree with. A lot of the critique that I’ve heard of Wright is that he is imposing a “sub-biblical” system upon the text of Scripture (most recently from James White). This chapter begins with Wright defending exegesis, defined as “close attention to the actual flow of the text, to the questions it raises in itself and the answers it gives in and of itself,” and goes on to say that this “should remain the beginning and the end of the process” (p.23). Now, maybe two theologians like Wright and White are meaning completely different things by exegesis. But, to start a critique of someone here (as White has done) simply means that what Wright actually says is being completely ignored. He wants to deal with the text itself, not with imposing something else onto it.

I’ve personally come to encounter the situation he describes here multiple times lately: “entire passages skimmed over in the hunt for the key word or phrase which fits the preconceived idea” (p.25). This, to me, is the very real danger of systematic theology (a point expressed well by DA Carson). Once we have formulated a “doctrine,” we can very easily search the Scriptures to support that idea, but completely miss what a verse or phrase was actually referring to (and, more often than not, we simply must ignore another large chunk of verses that at face value actually contradict the doctrine we’re espousing). This is part of the reason why I’ve been constructing the gospel class from the perspective of biblical theology rather than systematic. I’m not opposed to systematic theology, but I believe understanding the whole story – the actual flow of Scripture itself – should be the starting point, rather than imposing a systematic structure onto it.

This is where I honestly think Piper went off the deep end, in my opinion. I’m constantly torn between telling people that they need to understand the cultural context of what they are reading to understand the text, and the promise that the Spirit will lead us into all truth. Maybe that’s a good tension to have. Maybe “need” is the wrong word, but I can’t see how ignorance of how a word, phrase, or idea was used in its own culture can help us understand how it’s used in Scripture. To me, it seems the more cultural background, the better chance we actually have at getting to the meaning. Now, of course, there are extremes. “Jesus was a common name in the first century, so we should write off the New Testament.” That’s ridiculous. But, we do have a lot of first century texts that can actually help us. No, they’re not Scripture, but yes they can provide a framework, a backdrop.

Even more important, though, is Wright’s claim that Piper is suggesting that “you don’t need to understand the first-century Jewish context” (p.31). I need to find the exact quote, but I remember reading Piper’s explanation of this in his book and literally yelling, “What?” out loud. Maybe Piper’s point was to avoid extremes with this, but I can’t see DA Carson, Greg Beale, Doug Moo, or several others (loosely classified “Reformed” conservatives) concurring with this perspective at all. Jesus and the first Christians were Jews! How could we ignore that?

The danger here, of course, is that if we ignore the first-century context of the Scriptures themselves, we are naturally going to impose our own assumptions and presuppositions onto the text from our own culture. Looking at the state of the American church today, I pray that we don’t do this!

The last point I want to address is related to Piper’s automatic defense (which is so tempting in the circles we run in) for his own doctrinal positions: “It is worrying to find Piper encouraging readers to go back, not to the first century, but to the Christian renewal movements of sixteenth-century Europe. To describe that period as offering the historic roots of evangelicalism is profoundly disturbing. Proper evangelicals are rooted in Scripture, and above all in Jesus Christ to whom Scripture witnesses, and nowhere else” (p.34). There is, of course, a big difference between having an affinity for certain authors and putting those authors’ understanding of Scripture above Scripture itself. This, to me it seems, is what “semper reformanda” was always about. I doubt Luther or Calvin would’ve expected that they had “figured it all out” and that the Spirit was done revealing truth to His people through them.

This is all I can say right now, but so far I am very intrigued by this book. I am always interested in who is reading what, and it seems more and more guys that I respect and pay attention to are endorsing (or quoting) Wright more than critiquing him. Maybe I’ll come out of this reading reinforcing what I already think, but I’m praying that God will continue to use this servant of Jesus to help “reform” me, my family, those around me, and His church, according to Scripture.

The God I Don’t Understand, Part 1

This has been one of the best books I’ve read in a long time. It seems that Chris Wright continues to weave together thoughts that various thinkers have written down in various ways, but in a concise, easy to digest way. I just want to give a teaser of some of the ideas that this book approaches:

1. “Knowing and trusting does not necessarily add up to understanding… In everyday life we often have to trust people without ever quite understanding how they operate.” He uses the example of the Revenue Service – none of us needs to have exhaustive knowledge of how that operates in order to send them our tax return. This also obviously applies to the most personal, intimate relationships we have. I may know my wife better than anyone else, but that does not mean that I understand her. He carries this idea further (similar to how I’ve tried to describe faith as “transrational”): “Faith seeks understanding and faith builds on understanding where it is granted, but faith does not finally depend on understanding. This is not to say, of course, that faith is intrinsically irrational, but that faith takes us into realms where explanation fails us – for the present.” What excites me about this perspective is that Chris Wright is a highly respected theologian – an “expert” of the Bible. If he still has questions and misunderstandings, maybe we all have some hope…
2. “Whereas we often ask ‘Why?’ people in the Bible more often asked ‘How long?’ Their tendency was not to demand that God give an explanation for the origin of evil but rather to plead with God to do something to bring about an end to evil.” This is a very different perspective from the culture that we live in. In the past, people were more concerned about how to respond to evil rather than philosophizing about its existence. Today, we are offended by people who even think that evil exists – or, maybe it does, in institutions, or even other people, but not in me! We want explanations for evil; we want it to make sense. Wright says, “The final truth is that evil does not make sense. Sense is part of our rationality that in itself is part of God’s good creation and God’s image in us. So evil can have no sense, since sense itself is a good thing.”
3. “The whole Bible, indeed, can be read as the epic account of God’s plan and purpose to defeat evil and rid his whole creation of it forever.” This has been part of my own journey for a few years now, to get a better grasp on “the big picture” of God’s actions in history, rather than simply picking the Bible’s storyline apart into pieces based on whatever our culture decides is popular.
4. Commenting on Deuteronomy 7:7-8, Wright says, “God loved you because God loved you. Period.” This has been a huge part of my own acceptance of Reformed theology, that God loves people simply because God is love, not because we deserve to be loved. This, of course, does not negate the truth that every human being still bears God’s image (however distorted). But, what all of humanity deserves, for running in the opposite direction of God’s love, is the absence of God’s love – His wrath, separation from His love.
5. “To say that Jesus bore my sin on the cross must mean not only that he bore the worst that my sin could inflict on him, but also that he bore the consequences of what my sin would otherwise incur for me.” This is the simplest way that I have tried to explain the gospel to my boys. Of course, I hope to spend the rest of my life helping them to understand more than that, but this seems to be the essence – Jesus died for our sin so we don’t have to. He expands on these two typically juxtaposed ideas a lot more, but I will leave that for another post.
6. “The last days were launched by Jesus himself, and we have been living in them ever since.” It’s still such a confusing thing for me to hear people talking about “the end times” who have fallen into the deception of the Left Behind nonsense. Another unbiblical idea he attacks is the “rapture” (a word that is not in the Bible). The idea of Christ’s return or appearing is one we cannot avoid, but the idea of a secret rapture of souls floating up to heaven is completely absent from the Bible.
7. The last thing I will mention here is how the Bible itself speaks of heaven as a “holding place” for God’s people until the consummation, the return of Jesus. Heaven is not our “final destination.” Wright explains that “heaven is mentioned only as the place from which the Lord comes. It is not referred to at all as the place to which we go.” The language of the Bible about our eternal destination is, possibly surprisingly to many, the “new heaven and new earth” – this present earth redeemed. If we subscribe to an idea that God is going to sometime in the future destroy everything that he has made, then I truly believe we are saying that Satan and evil have the last word – they have won. “When God raised Jesus from the dead, he was also saying Yes to creation.” Creation is very good, and what we await is a new, redeemed creation.

Self-Denial and Leadership

Christian leadership is profoundly self-denying for the sake of others, like Christ’s ultimate example of self-denial for the sake of others. So the church must not elevate people to places of leadership who have many of the gifts necessary to high office, but who lack this one… You must be profoundly committed to principled self-denial for the sake of brothers and sisters in Christ, or you are disqualified. – DA Carson

Is “attractional” a bait and switch?

I started really struggling with the traditional interpretation of 1 Cor. 9 several months ago. I’m still not convinced that it is speaking about changing our evangelistic methods to win as many people as possible.

One of my fears with the traditional understanding is unintentionally creating a bait-and-switch situation. There’s a very real possibility that we could try so hard to “hide” the fact that we’re Christians or a church in order to get people into the door that we end up tricking our “victims.”

I’ll put it like this: I really like horror movies. Most people don’t. But, if I really wanted to get someone to watch a horror movie (who I knew had no desire to watch one), how could I do it? Well, I could use a different name to disguise the truth that it’s a horror movie. I could create a fake poster about the movie, or even use just part of the movie that is somewhat appealing to create a poster. I could tell them about the introduction (which is usually before the bad stuff happens). I’m sure this would work a good majority of the time – but the payoff would be devastating.

Maybe this is a ridiculous example. But, then again, maybe we shouldn’t be putting so much effort into trying to get people, who really have no desire to “check out a church,” to walk into a building on a Sunday. Maybe, instead, we’re called to actually be the church together, out in the open, in front of a watching world. Maybe instead of inviting our friends to a service of worship, we should be inviting them into our lives (or being “attractive” enough to be invited into theirs).

Maybe we should have zero expectation that a truly post-Christian person will walk into the doors of our church buildings. But, maybe we should have equal expectation that those we interact with on a daily basis would ask us about the hope we have in Jesus (1 Peter 3:14-17), the reason we’re so different (holy). Not weird different, but loving and humble and honest different.

But, maybe it’s just easier to not be concerned so much with our own representation of Jesus to the world and stick with the easy part of following cultural trends and trying to “fit” our methods into them.

How To Read Genesis by Tremper Longman

At first glance, a title like “How To Read Genesis” seems pretentious. But, I guess it’s not as initially bold as something like “A Book You’ll Actually Read…” To be honest, if I wasn’t already a fan of Tremper Longman’s work, I would never have picked this book up. But, I’ve now read several of his books, and I’ve gleaned insight from him with each of them. This book is no less informative or challenging.

I’ll just point out a few things from the book that I think are especially important:

He briefly touches on history as interpreted, which flies in the face of a lot of assumptions about history (and specifically the Bible). He says that “it is impossible for a human being to present the past as a mere collection of uninterpreted facts.” All history is interpreted history. Each author is selective about what he sees as the most relevant information to be communicated. This doesn’t in any way take away from the divine nature of the Scriptures, but, in my opinion, enhances it. God didn’t drop completely objective (a-cultural) information out of the sky. In the simplest sense, the text was written in human languages. We need to know as much about the human element of the text as we do the divine intent (This, of course, is a highly debated point, but if pushed too far in the other direction we end making ourselves the ultimate autonomous “knower”).

Another important point is that “the concern of the text is not to prove the history but rather to impress the reader with the theological significance of these acts.” This doesn’t detract from the historical nature of the text, but rather clearly defines the intent. The core reason that some don’t believe that the Bible is “true” is not because they haven’t clearly examined the “evidence” using the scientific method, but rather because they’ve refused to acknowledge God as the true Lord of the world, and have replaced Him with other “gods.”

Regarding Genesis 1-2, Longman says that “the biblical account of creation was not written to counter Charles Darwin or Stephen Hawking, but it was written in the light of rival descriptions of creation.” Too often, we ignore the literary nature and context of Scripture and impose our own worldview onto it. He goes on: “since God’s people were constantly tempted to worship the deities of other nations, we shouldn’t be surprised that the biblical accounts of creation were shaped in such a way as to provide a clear distinction from those of other nations.” Several years ago a statement like this would have scared me. I assumed that for something to be “divinely inspired” that it had to be completely “original.” But, I now see that the reading of Scripture is actually enhanced when compared with other ancient documents. Longman does a great job introducing us to this topic. Of course, one tendency is to read these other documents as some kind of “proof” that the biblical accounts are borrowed. I think we err if we either ignore the extrabiblical material or if we put too much emphasis on it. Any good author uses the language and culture of his time to clearly communicate with his audience. This seems pretty simple, but for some reason has completely polarized many in the American church.

The second half of the book is Longman’s attempt at a brief summary of the major points in the Genesis narrative. He brings quite a few interesting observations that I will definitely be interposing into some of my teaching in the near future.

The very last section, “Reading Genesis as Christians,” was almost brief enough to not have said anything at all. He mainly only introduces the idea of reading the book in light of the fuller revelation of Jesus as opposed to reading it solely on its own (or only as a Jewish document). Much more could have been said about this, but this is only an introductory (invitational) book to dig deeper. He provides some recommendations for commentaries in an appendix.

I would definitely recommend chapters 1-6 to anyone who is interested in the study of Genesis (or the Old Testament in general). Those of us who grew up in a tradition that labeled heretical anyone who didn’t believe in a literal 6-day creation or a global flood would find some great introductory remarks here. Of course, to go any further one would need to get a (good) commentary.

Judges and Justice

Chris Wright, in his commentary on Deuteronomy, explains that the duty of Israel’s judges was to “administer the law of God” (16:18-17:13). He references Job (ch.29) as an “elder-judge” in his defense, to which some interesting things must be pointed out:

• Job was respected by the old and young (v.7-11);
• He “saved” the poor and the fatherless (v.12);
• He blessed the perishing, and delighted the widow (v.13);
• He “wore” righteousness and justice (v.14);
• He was eyes to the blind, feet to the lame, father to the needy (v.15-16); and
• He stopped injustice (v.17).

The judges were, in a sense, the “secular” authority established in Israel to ensure justice was done. But, what I think is interesting are the self-descriptions of Job, implying the kind of character that even a secular judge was expected to live out.

However, like all fair descriptions of the story of Israel, Wright concludes his commentary on this section: “Sadly, the history of the nation tells us that many prophetic words of condemnation were brought against the judges themselves, for their contempt of the Torah of God and their corruption of justice.”

Carson on Leadership, pt. 1

D.A. Carson, commenting on 1 Corinthians 4:

Those of us who want to be leaders in the church today must begin by recognizing that there is no special, elitist qualification… The most remarkable feature of the list [in 1 Timothy 3:1-7] is that it is unremarkable. It contains nothing about intelligence, decisiveness, drive, wealth, power… The demands of Christian leadership do not set a Christian apart into exclusive and elitist categories where certain new rules and privileges obtain. Rather, Christian leadership demands a focus of the kinds of characteristics and virtues that ought to be present in Christians everywhere… In the West, we must repent of our endless fascination for “leadership” that smacks much more either of hierarchical models (I am the boss, and, for all below me on the ladder, what I say goes) or of democratic models (give the people what they want; take another survey, conducter another poll, and scratch where they itch)…

Paul says he and his fellow apostles [are]… everyone’s castoffs, everyone’s offscourings, everyone’s garbage – all that is despised in a society of beautiful and successful people…

Leaders in the church suffer the most. They are not like generals in the military who stay behind the lines. They are the assault troops, the front line people, who lead by example as much as by word. To praise a form of leadership that despises suffering is therefore to deny the faith…

Total Church, part 2

On the first page of the introduction, the authors tell the story of a man who felt that “ministry has become a production line.” This resonates with some stuff I recently read in Don Carson’s great book, The Cross and Christian Ministry:

We have become so performance-oriented that it is hard to see how compromised we are… Has the smoothness of the performance become more important to us than the fear of the Lord?

I really think this is a lot of what the prophets were railing against, with the way that Israel’s corporate worship had become a show, while God’s people were neglecting the “weightier” matters – faith and justice.

For me this creates some heavy questions:

• Are we more concerned with how people will perceive us than if we are being faithful?
• Do we get more excited about a worship service than things like community prayer, the public reading of the Scriptures, or deep gospel-centered conversation?
• Are we more conscious of the way communion is re-enacted (method) than the reality of what communion is pointing to?

If we can honestly answer these questions in favor of the show rather than the gospel itself, we must call it what it is – idolatry.

I do believe there is a degree of excellence involved in not only our corporate gathering or community group, but in everything we do. We are not demanded half-assery toward anything we do. But, somehow a sense of imperfection must also be communicated. Our definition of excellence is not to be defined by our culture but rather by what it means to represent Jesus to the world. And, all of our efforts are flawed, no matter how neat they may look on the surface.

Another very important point they make is regarding the way we understand the gospel. I think most of us assume that the gospel is “the story of God saving individuals.” But, the reality we see in Scripture, from the beginning, is much bigger than that. It’s “the story of God creating a new humanity.” To this I would add, “for the sake of the world.” God elects His people not simply for themselves, but so that we would go and bear fruit – so we would go and be a blessing to the nations.

The next point, from the introduction, is related to the overall approach to the way we do church. The authors say, “We need Spirit-inspired imagination to reconfigure church and mission around the gospel word and the gospel community.” The rest of the book is their attempt at what that might look like. But, I think most of us fear language like this because our own understandings of gospel and community have been more shaped by the culture (or the American Christian subculture) than by the Scriptures themselves. Interestingly, the majority of the ways we “do church” today were not present in the early church. There were no buildings, no pews (or cool black chairs), no lecture-format preaching, etc. I’m not (and neither are the authors) saying these things are bad, but rather we must accept that they are not strictly biblical but rather pragmatic and shaped by the culture we live in. But, if we move from acceptance and stewarding of these things to proscribing them as necessary for the church to exist, then we have constructed yet another idol.

I feel like I’m underlining half of this book, so this bloggery is going to take a long time. But, I’m really praying that our church would begin to wrestle through some of these things as God continues to move in our midst.

Total Church, part one

I finally received my copy of the US release of Total Church, and my mind is already spinning. The things this book is pointing out are not in any sense innovative. They are surprisingly simple. But, also run so counter to a lot of the ways we all assume church is supposed to be done. I hope to reflect on this book a lot, but here are some initial thoughts…

In the introduction, they tell the story of a couple who was invited out for a meal at “a date three weeks away.” Is this the kind of community we are supposed to be building, where our lives are so wrapped in ourselves and our kids and whatever else we can come up with that it takes several days to get together with someone for coffee or a meal? This seems a far stretch from Acts 2.

The next point is something I am constantly working to reorient myself and my family toward: “Church is not a meeting you attend or a place you enter. It is an identity that is ours in Christ. It is an identity that shapes the whole of life.” I think this starts simply with the way we speak of the church – “going to church” or “at the church.” But, Scripture tells us over and over, WE ARE THE CHURCH! I wonder how much of this confusing language has led to a complete misunderstanding about what the church is.

I’ll end this initial post with one of the promising reasons I’m glad we’re part of Acts 29. We must always stick to the MESSAGE but be flexible with the METHODS. There is no cookie-cutter definition of what an Acts 29 church is supposed to “look like.” The authors of this book lead, what we in the US would call, a house church movement. But, this book has been re-released in the US by Crossway and Re:Lit, endorsed primarily by Mark Driscoll.

So far, after reading just three chapters, I want to recommend this short book to everyone I know. Buy it, right now.