Posted on

my favorite spot

A week or so ago, my good friend Bobby threw out “One Big Question”…

Where is your favorite spot,

what is your favorite activity to seek God?

Like the faithful blog companion that I am, I’ve been meaning to follow through with a response, but I knew that my answer would have to be a blog post of its own. In fact, it will probably end up being two… or three… or maybe four posts, because as I read it more than one question is being asked. That’s how I took it anyway, and judging from the other folks’ responses people did whatever the heck they wanted with the question(s).

Speaking of what the others had to say, many of the things mentioned certainly would have been on my list as well. Meals with friends. Alone with a cup of coffee. Praying with others. And yes, even empty school parking lots.

Yet my favorite spot is found between the pages of a book. As I’ve explained elsewhere, it isn’t just any old book that will do. No, my preference is for the sort of book that “makes demands of me.” And the kind of demanding books that I appreciate most are the ones that plumb the depths of who God is or what he has done and is doing in the world. Or books about His people are and what they are to do in the world.

True confessions time… I said that I wouldn’t discuss a certain book here, but if you want my most honest response to it, here goes…

I thought it was boring.

I know it was meant to be all controversial and revolutionary and all that. But it just didn’t do much for me. It wasn’t that I was bothered by what he was saying. There were tons of things he said that I thought were fine things to say. And a few that were not. My main problem was that it just wasn’t all that interesting… for me.

Now, the guy who wrote it isn’t uninteresting. I’ve heard his preaching and he is far from boring. In fact, entertaining is his long suit. And yet, sadly our culture has gotten so muddled in its thinking that we have confused being engaging with being right. Something stated with enough rhetorical flair or with “authenticity” is passed off as truth, while writing that explains complicated truths with precision doesn’t tend to be very well-received. It is the old form over content dilemma. Naturally, one would love to have both. But having both is very, very rare.

I understand that what constitutes a “good read” is a fairly subjective thing. I am regularly reminded that the books I find most engaging would cause others to fall asleep two paragraphs in. None of that changes the fact that the “love” book joins the long list of books in the pop theology category.

These are the sorts of books that show a surface level understanding of the Scriptures, almost no appreciation for the history of theology, a lack of awareness of the interpretive tradition in which they are situated, or that they stand within an interpretive tradition at all.

Therefore, I find it refreshing whenever I come across a book that is so clearly not that. And over the past few weeks, just such a book has afforded me this pleasure. But since I’m drawing perilously near my self-imposed post length limit, sharing about this “life-giving” book will have to wait.

Instead, I’ll let my old friend C.S. Lewis wrap-up how I feel about my “favorite spot.”

For my own part, I tend to find the doctrinal books often more helpful in devotion than the devotional books, and I rather suspect that the same experience may await others.  I believe that many who find that ‘nothing happens’ when they sit down, or kneel down, to a book of devotion, would find that the heart sings unbidden while they are working their way through a tough bit of theology with a pipe in their teeth and a pencil in their hand.

C. S. Lewis, quoted in R. L. Green and W. Hooper, C. S. Lewis: A Biography (New York, 1974), page 115. (HT: Ray Ortlund)

Posted on

Some of the truth? Or all of it?

So little time and sooo much that I’d like to talk about. I know that I still owe you, my faithful reader, a post or two on Food and the Bible. I plan to get around to it, because it is pretty much going to be the linchpin post for establishing the spirituality of food. So you have that to look forward to.

Then there is the whole Rob Bell controversy. My plan was to let it pass without comment. But it looks like people on either side are getting all hot and bothered over it/him, and that maybe it isn’t going to pass as quickly as I’d expected hoped. At this point, I’m pretty committed to reading the book. More out of a sense of pastoral responsibility than any real interest in what he has to say. Rob is a great communicator, but he isn’t really a first-rate theologian (p.s. I am neither a great communicator nor a first-rate theologian). Anyway, while I plan to read the book, I’m equally committed to not purchasing it. So as you can see, I have something of a problem.

My commitment to not buying the book doesn’t stem from a belief that it is heresy. I’d have to read the book to even begin to form an opinion. Rather, as I’ve shared in the past, I have an abnormal distaste for all things hyped. And brother Rob’s book certainly falls in that category. Who knows? Maybe I’ll stick with my ignore-it-until-it-goes-away plan.

Instead, I’d like to pursue the question posed in the title. Does one teach truth in small bites? Carefully measured out? Or do you turn on the fire hydrant and flood folks with it?

I was on deck yesterday to teach out of Luke 4:1-13 (The Temptation of Jesus), and I was faced with this very dilemma. Last night wasn’t an isolated event. I regularly wrestle with this question. Do I teach all the truth contained in the passage (or I should say “all the truth that I have access to,” because only a very arrogant person would say that they have a handle on all the truth) or do I just stick to one or two familiar points from which I can get some sturdy “applications” for my listener.

Usually, I err on the side of caution. I work with the “less is more” theory. Namely, that a person is more likely to get something good from what I share if I’ll focus on a main idea or two. That way, they can get get a pretty good handle on a few things rather than the deluge of information that I’d like to rain down on them. Well last night, for better or worse, I went with option B.

Luke 4:1-13 is a fascinating passage that can be read on at least two levels. There is the common reading in which we are to take Jesus’ example of resisting the devil’s schemes and apply that to our lives in like manner. Use God’s word to combat temptation. Don’t compromise your single-hearted worship of God… and so on. I hope I’m not sounding too dismissive. I really do think this is a valid reading. But approaching the passage in this way doesn’t get at all the truth that is there. And more importantly, I don’t think it gets at the main truth that I believe is fairly front and center.

Like a good movie, there is the storyline and there is the underlying message. Focusing on the storyline in this case misses the message. Most of us have repeatedly been taught to engage this passage in the manner I’ve just outlined above. But in doing so we run the risk of missing out on what was most certainly the message Luke/Jesus was trying to get across.

The underlying message surrounds issues of “son-ship.” Both the passage itself and the preceding verses are filled with “son” language. And so there are a series of questions lying just below the surface of the text. Who is Jesus? Who is God’s son? Who is Jesus the son of? What does it mean to be God’s son?

But those aren’t the only questions on the table either. What any Jewish reader would have recognized as blatantly obvious are the connections between Jesus’ story and their nation’s his-story. Obvious to them. Not so much to us. Largely because we are unfamiliar with their story. But a group of high school students were able to see it, so I have faith in you as well.

[Jesus] was led by the Spirit into the wilderness, where for forty days he was tempted.
Luke 4:1-3

Do the words “wilderness” and “forty” stand out in any way? Anyone remember a group of people who wandered around a wilderness for a forty length of time?

How about the temptations themselves? The first one was to change a stone to bread. Anyone remember a bread in the wilderness episode. I believe they called it manna back then.

Or temptation number 2… Worshiping someone other than God himself. That’s idolatry. And that’s also what was taking place when Moses came down from Mount Sinai and found Aaron and the lot acting a fool with a golden calf.

Then there is temptation number 3… not quite as clear cut, but as I read it, the devil is casting doubt on God’s goodness. He is tempting Jesus to believe that God wouldn’t come through for him if he were throw himself off the highpoint of the temple. The whole reason the Israelites found themselves wandering the wilderness for forty years was due to failure to believe the same thing about God at a crucial moment. Kadesh Barnea. Look it up.

And if some thick-headed young Jew was still missing the point, the two-by-four to the head would that all of Jesus scriptural responses to the devil were from Deuteronomy. And not just random proof-texts, but verses from a fairly isolated section (Deuteronomy 6-8). All verses that have the wilderness wandering as their backdrop.

“So what?” you ask. All fine and well, but what’s the point?

The point is that Jesus recapitulates the story of Israel. Or maybe more accurately, he is re-framing the story of Israel around himself. By re-enacting key elements of Israel’s history, claims are being made about who he is and what his mission is. Namely, while Israel failed at being “the son of God” (cf. Exodus 4:22 and Hosea 11:1), Jesus breaks onto the scene and he is and will be the faithful son.

Jesus… the faithful son. The faithful one. Sounds like a contemporary Christian song.

Now, if we could just find something that rhymes with “recapitulate” or “Deuteronomy.”

Posted on

Atonement Theology

Several weeks ago, as I was sharing about some of the better books I read in 2010, I put together an emotionally stirring post in which I discussed three different books on or related to the doctrine of Justification.

However, there was one book on the subject that managed to slip through the cracks. And normally, I wouldn’t feel the need to mention it here, because honestly…  no one really cares. But since this blog is as much for me as it is for you, I’m coming back to it for the sake of completeness.

If I haven’t mentioned Scot McKnight around here, my apologies. He is someone worth being familiar with.  He maintains a popular Christian blog. He is a professor in New Testament at North Park University. He writes prolifically on both an academic and popular level. Add to all that a busy speaking schedule at various conferences and such. Think of him as a North American version of N.T. Wright.  I think he would take that for the compliment it is meant to be.

Anyway, if you are only going to read one book on Justification/Atonement, his is the the one.

I know I said that Michael Bird’s was the understanding of Righteousness/Justification/Atonement that I found most compelling, and it is.  But no one is reading that.  You’ve got the problem with the cover.  But let’s be honest, the only people picking up this book didn’t even notice that there was a cover – myself included.  That is to say, the book is all content and written for the extreme Bible nerd.

The beauty of McKnight’s A Community Called Atonement is that you get many of the same ideas, but in a much more accessible way. That isn’t to say it is dumbed down. Not in the least. It is just that McKnight’s book has a different purpose and a different audience.

I’ll try to sum up what is going on in the book in a few sentences.

There are a number of theories that try to explain what the Bible is affirming about Jesus’ birth, life, death, and resurrection.  A book that I read a year or so ago outlined four views…

  • Christus Victor – Which more or less says that through Jesus’ death and resurrection, God won out over the cosmic powers of evil.  Which of course includes evil in individual’s lives, but that is secondary.
  • Penal Substitution – This would be the view that most evangelical Christians in the South are exposed to on a regular basis.  This view highlights the need for an atoning death to appease the perfect justice and wrath of God.
  • Healing View – Not a widely held view that I am aware of, but the idea here is that humanity has a sickness.  Call it sin, call it brokenness, or whatever.  In Christ’s death and resurrection, humanity’s problem is fixed or healed.  If the focus of Penal Substitution is on what is going on with God in Jesus’ death and resurrection, the healing view stresses what is happening in people.
  • Kaleidescopic view – You probably saw this coming, but this view more or less says they are all good and necessary. Can’t we all just get along.

Ok, so gross over-simplification for sure. It looks to me like McKnight holds something of a modified Kaleidescopic view. But the modification is important. He, like Bird and others, would say that the important thing is being “found in Christ.”  I know that when we read (or memorize) the New Testament, one can easily skim over the phrase “in Christ,” but it is in there a whole, whole lot.  Paul never really struck me as one to waste his words.

McKnight argues that being “in Christ” is foundational.  Everything else flows from that.  Imputed righteousness.  Justification. Healing.  And so on.  In his discussion of the classic Reformed doctrine of “double imputation” he says…

I not only agree with double imputation, I up it. I think being “in Christ” involves multiple imputations: every thing we are is shuffled to Christ and all that Christ can offer us is shuffled to us. It is that big.

And in search of language to hold all the theories of the atonement together, he lands on “identification for incorporation” which is not so unlike Bird’s “incorporated righteousness.” I’ll let McKnight sum up his understanding for himself…

Jesus identifies with us and we gain access to everything he is by being incorporated into him, by entering into this “in Christ” realm. Every theory of atonement emerges from this central, life-giving identification for incorporation.  Atonement is what happens to a human being who is united with Christ. Union with Christ, in other words, is the foundation of atonement, and those who are so in union form the new community where cracked Eikons can be restored to God, self, others, and the world.

Word.

Posted on

Four (N.T. Wrights) for Friday

Sorry to pull the old bait and switch.  No music here today.

I’m in Wheaton, Illinois for the weekend listening to this guy talk about the Bible.  If you watch all four (or really any) of these videos, you’ll be a smarter person than you are right now.  No need to thank me.

On Adam and Eve

On Worldview and Our Reading of Scripture

On Genesis 1-3

On Heaven

Posted on

Pete Enns on Ancient and Modern Mindsets

I realize that this isn’t the most inspiring title of all time, but this is a great investment of two minutes towards understanding the Bible better.

While it may not sound all that controversial, people (like him) lose jobs over this sort of stuff.  Since his departure from Westminster Theological Seminary, Enns has been involved in various pursuits, one of which is his involvement with BioLogos (an organization that explores the integration of Christian faith and science).  You can head over here to see a number of interesting (at least to me) videos and posts from Enns and others.

Posted on

Cover-to-Cover – Week 5

Animal Collective – In the Flowers

Leviticus.  What’s to say?

Weird.

Seriously weird.

So let’s keep this short and sweet.

The detailed instructions concerning the various sacrifices has God looking a bit OCD.

The laws concerning skin diseases, mildew, and “discharges” has Him looking like a germ-o-phob.

And then there is chapter 18 from today’s reading.  Once again… really?  They had to be told this stuff?  Baffling.

So what is going on?  There is tons one could say, but suffice it to say, “Leviticus is all about God’s holiness.”  It is stated outright in 11:44-45, and underscored by nearly every other verse in the book.  Everything about the book is saying that God is set apart.  Different.  Not common.

Even the chapters that seem to be about God’s “health plan” for the Israelites are really about contamination.  On the surface, it is about physical contamination.  But just below the surface is the idea of spiritual contamination as well.

How about all the sexual taboos?  They are preceded by injunctions against doing what people do in Egypt or in Canaan.  This too is all about “set-apart-ness”.

“Be holy, because I am holy.”

God is distinct, different from anything else in their experience.  They too are meant to be distinct and different.

Posted on

about time

I think I’ve mentioned N.T. Wright once or a thousand times.  Let me recommend taking some time this week to listen to a couple lectures he gave a few years back at Calvin College on “Space, Time, Matter and the Sacraments.”

I realize that it may not sound like the most exciting topic, but here are a few reasons to push through and do it anyway.

1) He is one of the most influential New Testament scholars alive today, and it would do any Christian some good to know a bit about him and his work.  I don’t necessarily agree with every single thing he says, but listening to him will help you better understand me.  Which I know is everyone’s ultimate goal in life.

2) He walks through lots of the Bible and without really meaning to shows how much of it holds together.  I think those of you doing the Cover-to-Cover will benefit from having something of an overview of this strand of biblical theology.

3) Most protestants don’t have a robust enough understanding of the Sacraments (particularly Baptism and Eucharist), and these two hours of lectures will move one in the right direction.

4) There is something in here for everyone.  Really.  Not just Bible nerds, but also poets, dancers, new mothers, C.S. Lewis fans, and of course, Christians in general.  However, in order to benefit from the few words he may have for these specific interests, one has to wade through all the “God-talk.”  Which is of course the way it should be.

Enjoy…

Part One: Space, Time, Matter, and New Creation

Part Two: Sacraments and New Creation

Posted on

deja vu

Lissie – Everywhere I Go

I was going to wait until next week, but seeing as we’ve just wrapped up Exodus, maybe now is the time to talk about it.

What’s the point of chapters 36-39?  Why does Exodus’ author feel the need to repeat nearly every word from 25-28?  Wouldn’t it have been enough to simply say “The Israelites had done all the work just as the LORD had commanded Moses” (Exodus 39:42)?

Bear in mind that whatever writing materials they might have used (tablets or papyrus/parchment) would have been costly and so each words counts.  Why not a little more detail back in Genesis on Jacob wrestling God?  Or some more explanation of Abraham’s near sacrifice/murder of Isaac?

Instead, we have a painstaking account of Israel meticulously constructing the Tabernacle in a way that exactly corresponds to the instructions God had given them.  And I suppose that’s the point.  Moses (or whoever wrote it) wanted future generations to understand that God’s instruction is not something to be spurned lightly.

We live in a religious culture that goes to great lengths to emphasize it isn’t what you do in relation to God that matters, but how you feel about God.  As long as our hearts are right, then all the external stuff called religion really isn’t of consequence.  In fact, it may be detrimental.  I’m not sure we can read too much into this, but my guess is that the Israelites felt that God needed to be heeded…  even in the details.

Posted on

When Foster speaks…

…people should listen.

Elvis Perkins – While You Were Sleeping

I not only read the Bible.  I also read books about the Bible.  But in ultimate nerd fashion, I also read books about reading the Bible.

And this morning, I came across this quote from Richard Foster’s Life with God: Reading the Bible for Spiritual Transformation:

“In seeking to discover this with-God life it is helpful to read the Bible in four distinct ways.  First, we read the Bible literally.  Reading from cover to cover, internalizing its life-giving message. By reading the whole of Scripture, we begin to apprehend its force and power.  We enter into the original dynamics and drama of Scripture: struggling with Abraham over the offering up of the son of promise…”

It goes on, but the example of Abraham and Isaac is as far as we’ve read so far.  There are three other “distinct ways” to read the Bible, but you’ll need to read the book to get those.

Never fear.  I’m certain that I’ll be sharing other nuggets of wisdom as I come across them.

Posted on

Tim Keller on Genesis 1 and Evolution

I know that the Genesis 1-3 reading was a couple days ago, but I stumbled across this paper that Tim Keller wrote to address several of the questions that are raised concerning Genesis 1.

He has written a few books that have been very well received, The Reason for God, The Prodigal God, and Counterfeit Gods. And from what can be gleaned by reading Deep Church, his ministry in New York exercises a considerable influence on Belcher and others like him.

In this paper, he addresses the following three questions:

Question #1: If God used evolution to create, then we can’t take Genesis 1 literally, and if we can’t do that, why take any other part of the Bible literally?

Question#2: If biological evolution is true—does that mean that we are just animals driven by our genes, and everything about us can be explained by natural selection?

Question #3: If biological evolution is true and there was no historical Adam and Eve how can we know where sin and suffering came from?

His answers are well worth reading.