1. On Death

   In a strange way, it is easy to become complacent about death. As we grow older, we usually come to accept the fact that we have a limited span of life. Yes, we certainly hope that the time allotted us is not short. We hope for a good long life–and that usually seems a realistic and positive expectation. Thus, the horizon of what to hope for, of what is “natural” has been set by death, such that a life of 80 good years comes to seem like beating the odds death has to offer. The death that still startles with its cruelty, the death that we don’t acceptis the death that comes prematurely, the death that comes before the “natural” end of life is reached. That strikes us a tragedy. Yet all death is obscene. All death is tragedy. There is nothing “natural” about it. And when we are not lulling ourselves into a false sense that 3 score and 10 years is normal, 4 score years excellent, we know it. Here’s something Peter Leithart says which chisels away at a “he or she had a good life” acceptance of death.

   Death is an enemy of life in the obvious sense that it brings an individual’s life to an end. But it’s an enemy of life in a broader sense to.

   Death interrupts life, everyone’s life, life in the broadest sense. Death turns festivity to mourning. Death prevents us from bringing our projects to an end, an end that gives our projects their meaning.

   If a close friend or spouse dies, suddenly the world is emptied of one of the few persons - perhaps the only one - who knew you. You have to continue life not only alone but unknown. Death disrupts our sense of integrity and coherence.

   Death is also the death of the living.

   The Christian believes that death will be swallowed up in victory–in Christ’s resurrection it already has been swallowed. But while we, with creation, wait for the full consummation of redemption from death, death should remain terrible. We have a hope greater than death. The greatness of that hope stands out because of the wretchedness of death.

2. Is the purpose of the Church to change the world?

   Not exactly, writes Father Stephen. Such an idea can involve a false understanding of real change (substituting the idea of progress for real change). Further, it can involve the church in a false standard of success. Read the whole thing, but here are some quotes:

   But we cannot measure the Church and its life by its effect on the Kingdoms of this world. Sometimes we seem to have a great effect, sometimes we get martyred. In all times we are subject to the mercy of Christ and the workings of His salvation within the life of the world.

   Love of others, as commanded by Christ, would bid us do many things on behalf of others. But the nature of our actions has to finally be judged simply by the measure of goodness. Utilitarianism (”the greatest good for the greatest number”) has been a great temptation for Christians in the modern world. In its name, much evil can be justified. On the other hand, doing something good simply because it is good frees us from the delusions of moral calculus. . . .
   In this life we have no measure of success. Faithfulness to Christ, perservance in the faith - these are perhaps the only things that approach such a measure - but only God can judge the truth of these. Judgment is in His hands. There will come a day when everything will be revealed. On that Day, the world will have changed, and no one can delay or hasten its advent.

3. Analogy of Being vs. Analogy of Faith

   Bill Cork of Oak Leaves has a post on the Analogy of Being, identifying it, with Barth, as a (the?) major chasm between Protestantism and Catholicism.

   What’s this about? Essentially, the analogy of being is about human ability to reason or see its way to God through what is (creation), since what is shares similarity of being with God. In Protestantism, generally this possibility is denied, all knowledge of God coming by descent, through revelation–the analogy of faith. I’ll borrow a quote Cork gives from the New Catholic encyclopedia:

   Catholic and Protestant theologians generally agree that the very possibility of any knowledge of God, both natural and revealed, rests on analogy: in the natural knowledge it is man who takes some concepts from nature and applies them to God; whereas in the supernatural knowledge it is God Himself who chooses some of the concepts used by man in order to tell him something about Himself. The first kind of analogy is called analogia entis, the second, analogia fidei. According to the Catholic doctrine on the relationship between grace and nature, there is no conflict, but harmony, between the two analogies: grace does not destroy analogy, but, by raising it into analogy of faith, fulfills it. On the contrary, according to the Protestant doctrine on the relationships between nature and grace, there can be no harmony between the two analogies but only conflict: analogy of being cannot be redeemed and therefore it cannot be raised into analogy of faith.

I recently wrote a paper (a beginner’s effort) on NT Wright and justification. In the process, I came across Michael Bird’s The Saving Righteousness of God: Studies on Paul, Justification and the New Perspective. I received the book too late to really read it for my paper; now, I want to read the book and interact with it. So, here begins a series of posts on Bird’s important contribution to the current discussion of justification. To say that I am liveblogging is a bit of whimsy: it will be as live as blogging while I read and think about Michael Bird’s book. (FYI, here, again, is Michael Bird’s blog, and here is a link to his publications, bio, etc.

Introduction.
In this first post, I’ll interact with Bird’s introductory chapter 1, which is short.

From the very beginning, Bird makes it clear that this book has the ambitious goal of drawing together two approaches to justification which have been in contention and even hot dispute.

The burden of this project is to demonstrate that reformed and “new” readings of Paul are indispensable to attaining a full understanding of Paul’s soteriology. An analysis of Galatians and Romans demonstrates that the covenantal and forensic dimensions of justification go hand in glove. . . . This is a book I felt I had to write . . . also to offer a conciliatory and mediating position in the current war being waged in evangelicalism about justification, the New Perspective on Paul, and NT Wright.

–Bird, The Saving Righteousness of God, p. 1, [from now on, when I give only a page number, I am referring to this book of Bird’s].

What then, are the strengths and weakness of both views as Bird sees them?

(more…)

1. What makes a doctrine important?Is a lack of experiential impact a sign that a doctrine is not important? What else makes a doctrine important? Below you can see how this question developed for me (a reminder to self that theology is not an abstract system of truth–although certainly truth–foremost, it is about who the living God is).
   • This question was raised by means of a post by Andrew at Theogeek, who was wondering if the doctrine of Penal Substitionary Atonement is significant if it does not make a difference in lived experience and if people hold to some functional equivalent.
   • I wrote a post expressing my un-ease with this, since it tends to negate the historical function of doctrines and since I also wonder whether functional equivalence “works.”
   • I don’t think I was listening very well, perhaps because I was bothered by the idea. Brad H responded in a comment that helped me understand what Andrew’s chief point may be: “what does a doctrine matter if there is no discernible experiential effect?”
   • My response, in a comment:
     1. But if doctrine, however abstract, is about something relational (God in relation to humans/humanity), even if we can’t discern the experiential effect on the human side, does it not convey important information about who God is? Hence, is a doctrine, which says something about who God is, not intrinsically important, regardless of its perceived effect on the human side?
     2. Is a notion of orthodoxy not enough to care for and guard some doctrines in any case? Shouldn’t we just care about the truth of the matter, regardless of personal impact?

   What do you think? What makes a doctrine important?

2. Is a gospel awakening happening? Drew Goodmanson writes in a post that the recent Gospel Coalition conference (I was able to attend most of it) may be a sign of gospel awakening because it represents three shifts in thinking about the gospel by the Evangelical Center (referring to the center is my way of stating what Goodmanson is saying). First, a shift toward acknowledging scripture as normative narrative. Second, the shift to thinking of the gospel as bigger than a ticket to heaven. Third, the shift that the gospel requires a missional posture toward the world. I had appreciated those aspects of the gospel coalition conference without really thinking about them. Goodmanson’s post help me see their significance. I should add a caveat that a church seeking to be scripturally faithful 50 years ago was probably emphasizing these things in its own ways. But the way they are being said now is important and encouraging. Here are links to the Gospel Coalition foundational documents and audio and video.HT for Gospel Coalition documents: Steve McCoy
3. The papacy as a guarantee striving to be stronger than the cross An Orthodox priest, Father Stephen, writes about Pope Benedict XVI’s re-assertion of submission to papal primacy as a mark of the true church:
   

   Universal Primacy has a way of offering a guarantee that transcends the cross. No matter how badly we fail, the de jure Primacy of the Pope in every local Church, guarantees that no one can really mess it up. I think that is neat, and the product of human imagination. I believe that God has established His Church such that, just like Christ, when pierced with nails it will bleed. Only love binds the Church together, nothing more.

   HT: JS Bangs, Boar’s Head Tavern

1. Sinclair Ferguson on the danger of reifying grace
   

   The union with Christ we have is not that we somehow or another share His grace. Because - follow me carefully - there actually is no ‘thing’ as grace. . . There is no grace that can be attached to you transferred from Him. All there is is Christ and your soul.

   The full quote at Shepherd’s Scrapbook

2. On speaking words of death in the church
   

   In short, which is worse–the babbling, emotional, theology-challenged, snake-handling charismaniac OR the self-righteous, xenophobic, status-seeking, materialistic Reformed/Calvinist?

   It’s a pointless question, isn’t it?

   If we Christians want to speak words of death in the Church, then by all means let’s resort to naming the worst possible examples of living the Christian life that we might possibly find in some other denomination or sect. Then let’s write as if those worst possible examples were the norm.

   Read the post at Cerulean Sanctum

3. A specific doctrine vs. functional equivalent?
   
   Andrew at Theo Geek argues that the doctrine Penal Substitutionary Atonement does not matter, as long as people hold to its functional equivalent.I am profoundly uncomfortable with this type of argument. First, it has the effect of doing an end run around church history. For example, Penal Substitionary Stonement (”PSA”) as a Protestant doctrine functions historically in ways that I don’t know could be replaced by a diffused “functional equivalent.” Specifically, it is Biblical answer to the Catholic idea of a penalty satisfaction debt for sin. Saying the doctrine does not matter amounts to saying that the history underlying the doctrine does not matter either.
   
   Second, it is not clear that “functionally equivalent beliefs” really deliver the same thing as a doctrine itself. In the case of PSA, I see a gigantic difference between believing that “a loving God forgives sins” and that “a loving and holy God forgives sins because he sends his son who willingly suffers the punishment for sins”. I would argue that the two Gods are even different Gods. The first God is the same as the second God only if one says, “well, I’m leaving some important stuff out.” Enter, then, the doctrine of PSA. So maybe I’m saying that there is no good way to get a real functional equivalent on this (or other) doctrines.

I’ve touched up my posts on the effect that NT Wrights’ views of law and righteousness have on his understanding of the significance of justification.  The first post is here.

Overview of this series

1. First post, background issues
2. Example passages
3. Reductionism in Wright
4. Conclusion (This post)

Conclusion

I’ve read a quote relevant to the NPP, but I don’t know what the source is at the moment. The substance of the quote is: “the NPP is right in what it affirms and wrong in what it denies.” Perhaps another way of saying this with respect to Wright is “what lies within his approach to law is useful, what he has fenced out of his approach is critical.” (more…)

Overview of this series

1. First post, background issues
2. Example passages
3. Reductionism in Wright (This post)
4. Conclusion

Reductionism in Wright

But, (did you sense the “but” coming?)—Wright has been extraordinarily reductionist even as he has recovered this emphasis. Wright does a fascinating job of helping us understand the significance of, say, circumcision as a work of the law. But his approach to the totality of law is baffling. Yes, one can see how a part of the law consists of covenant markers, but law necessarily must also contain God’s moral standard for Israel. Further, one can see how God’s righteousness might be revealed in his covenant faithfulness, but God’s righteousness is surely “wider” than his faithfulness to the covenant. Consider the following passage from Deuteronomy: (more…)

Overview of this series

1. First post, background issues
2. Example passages (This post)
3. Reductionism in Wright
4. Conclusion

 
Example passages

At this point, it might be helpful to see some of Wright’s interpretation at work.

Passage 1:

Romans 3:20-22a: For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it–the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe.

This becomes, roughly:

By covenant markers such as circumcision, no one will be justified in his sight. Through faith in God’s covenant faithfulness demonstrated in Christ, the faithful can become members of the covenant and reckoned righteous by God as a result of being covenant members, but independent of covenant markers such as circumcision. The true covenant marker is faith in the covenant faithfulness of God

(more…)

I finished my paper on NT Wright and justification. Here is a stripped down and simplified summary of my main take on what leads Wright’s view of justification to be different from a classical Reformational view, in four posts.

Overview

1. First post, background issues (This post)
2. Example passages
3. Reductionism in Wright
4. Conclusion

First post, background issues

In order to “get” Wright on justification, one has to understand his hermeneutical approach to the New Testament, which is foundational to how he reads Paul. Wright is pursuing a rigorously Jewish reading of Paul–specifically, a Second Temple Judaism (”STJ”) reading. Wright thinks that one must grasp the STJ worldview through its own narrative self-understanding. Looking at Paul as the writer of abstract theological truths won’t do. One must understand how Paul, a Jew who came to view Jesus as the Messiah, would have understood Jesus within the narrative expectations of STJ. One of the aspects of STJ’s self-understanding was the narrative of God’s covenant. STJ was looking for God to fulfill his promises in the covenant—what Paul has to say about Jesus must be understood as an answer to the covenantal narrative questions and expectations of STJ, even if it was a startling, unexpected answer. (more…)

I am currently working on a paper for a Systematic Theology class. I’ve been wanting to sort through NT Wright (no relation), so I chose to write on Wright and justification. I have a way of not making things easy for myself.

It’s been one of my most challenging and humbling learning experiences ever, as I’ve struggled to “get” his way of reading things. I hope to write a bit about it when the paper is done. But here are a few preliminary thoughts on this first encounter with Wright.

• The man is a brilliant reader of and thinker about scripture.
• Trying to substantively disagree with a small part of his work without first immersing oneself in his larger approach is hopeless.
• Reading Wright will sharpen your (I include myself) understanding of scripture, whether you agree, disagree, or partly agree. In most any area you read of Wright’s large body of work, you will come away thinking about scripture (and its message) in new and fruitful ways.
• I am annoyed at the sub-Christian and unconstructive way this Christian is treated by some in some sectors (e.g., some in some Reformed sectors: here is an extreme example–search for the word “heresiarch”). I am also more understanding of why he causes alarm in those sectors, although that understandable alarm does not justify uncharitable discourse. (Wright himself can incur blame for reducing the level discourse, too).
• An adequate response to his work cannot rely merely on classical Protestant systematic theologies/confessions, because complex underlying presuppositional differences. Exegesis (that’s more obvious), Hermeneutics, and Biblical Theology all must be involved in evaluating Wright.
• At the same time, I am sympathetic with those who would rather just fence out his approach by appealing to Systematic Theology, because an adequate response is complex, requires much study and is at times highly frustrating to work towards. Further, he is not approaching things from a Systematics stand-point at all. Someone with a well-established Systematics/confession can be understood if they initially want to say: “Why should I have to re-cover so much ground that my Systematics/confession has already covered?”. I now better understand the impulses of some in the Reformed world who would rather appeal to Reformed confessions and move on. (Although, again, this won’t ultimately yield adequate responses).
• He is both a great resource for and a great challenge to Protestant approaches on Scripture, the Gospel, and theology.
• I disagree with him on a lot, but also agree with him on a lot (particularly the way he sheds light on how Jesus is the Messiah in accordance with and fulfillment of the scriptures). I am grateful for his scholarship.
• This blunt iron has been sharpened a bit by NT Wright.