It's been a while since I posted anything on my favorite band...

Video created by Iain Tait

Ouch!

Vanity is so anchored in the human heart that a soldier, a cadet, a cook, a kitchen porter boasts, and wants to have admirers, and even philosophers want them, and those who write against them want the prestige of having written well, and those who read them want the prestige of having read them, and I, writing this, perhaps have this desire, and those who will read this...

Blaise Pascal, Pensées (520)

John Piper's best book?

Yesterday I finished reading The Future of Justification: A Response to N.T. Wright. It's an excellent book. I've always been more a fan of John Piper the preacher than writer, and have been shaped in profound ways by listening to what I'd guess to be hundreds of hours of his sermons. I've benefited from his books too (especially Don't Waste Your Life -- which rocked my world a few years back), but I've always found Piper's message more compelling from the pulpit...perhaps because most of his books are so much a reflection of his preaching, which I think is his singular gift. But this book displays a different facet -- Piper the theologian and intellectual (in the best sense) more so than Piper the pastor. Although, in writing this book he has a pastoral purpose in view, namely, to prevent future (thus the title) confusion in preaching and teaching these essential doctrines if N.T. Wright's views on justification gain wider currency within the church. This has become my favorite book by Piper and may turn out to be his most important.

The "future" of the title also alludes to one prominent strand of Wright's thought. His view that although justification happens in the present by faith alone, apart from works, there will be a future/final justification at the last judgment based on the record of an entire life lived. As with a lot of Wright, how this works out in practice is difficult to come to grips with. Piper bends over backward to give Wright the benefit of the doubt and is quick to highlight areas of agreement. He praises Wright for his valuable work in NT studies, his stress on the cosmic/corporate nature of the gospel -- so often neglected in our individualistic "Jesus and me" age -- and his defense of the substitutionary, penal atonement. (This isn't mentioned, but I enjoy how Wright mixes it up with those who conflate Christianity with unfettered free-markets or right-wing political preoccupations -- see his recent exchange touching on that and other issues with Richard Neuhaus in First Things.) Piper mentions a lengthy correspondence with Wright during the writing of the book which caused it to grow dramatically in size as Piper engaged various texts suggested by Wright. I look forward to a response from the Bishop of Durham. I'm an admirer of Wright and nothing in this book will keep me from reading and listening to him in the future, though in this area I think he's dead wrong or (at best) does more harm than good with some of his emphases.

On balance, I think Piper fairly and plainly (one of his writing strengths) expresses Wright's ideas on justification and the New Perspective on Paul (NPP) and effectively refutes them in the light of Biblical exegesis and the history of Protestant thought. One section of TFOJ deals with Wright's reading of Paul that sees his use of the phrase "the righteousness of God" as meaning God's covenant faithfulness. This affects Wright's edifice of thought in many ways, not least in leading to his writing that the traditional Protestant view of the imputed righteousness of Christ becoming our's at the moment of justification "makes no sense" and is a "category mistake." Piper demonstrates how it's Wright's definition that doesn't make sense, not least in a chapter toward the end where he soundly refutes (in my opinion) Wright's iconoclastic reading of 2 Corinthians 5:14-21. Yes, covenant faithfulness is an implication of God's righteousness (just as honoring contracts is an implication of integrity) but it's misleading and confusing to end there.

This book is an example of a scholarly of work written with the average layman in mind. Better yet, it springs out of a pastoral, passionate heart for the gospel. I agree with the Baptist preacher from Minneapolis that, despite his formidable gifts and accomplishments, Wright isn't a modern-day Martin Luther standing up against centuries of misguided tradition. Here's an excerpt to give you the flavor of the book. In it Piper discusses another distinctive Wright and NPP reading of Paul which he'll go into in more depth later.

Wright is recognized for his unusual definition of justification as the declaration that a person is in the covenant family. For example, he says, "Those who hear the gospel and respond to it in faith are then declared by God to be his people.... They are given the status dikaios, 'righteous', 'within the covenant.'" Or again, and more sweepingly, "'Justification' in the first century was not about how someone might establish a relationship with God. It was about God's eschatological definition, both future and present, of who was, in fact, a member of his people."

Is Wright true to the apostle Paul's thought when he makes covenant membership the denotation (as opposed to implication) of the divine act of justification? It seems to stretch Paul's language to the breaking point. We will deal with Wright's use of the concept of justification more fully in later chapters, but it may be helpful to register an initial objection here. Will Paul's use of δικαιóψ (I justify) bear the weight of Wright's meaning? I doubt it for at least two reasons.

One reason is that there are uses of δικαιóψ in Paul where the meaning "declaring one as a covenant member" does not work. For example, it does not work in Romans 3:4 where God is the one who is justified: "Let God be true though every one were a liar, as it is written, 'That you may be justified in your words, and prevail when you are judged.'" The usual meaning of "reckon one to be just or innocent" fits in Romans 3:4, but "declare to be a member of the covenant" does not. Similarly, in 1 Timothy 3:16, Christ himself is said to be justified: "He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated [εδικαιψθη = justified] by [or in] the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory." That is, Christ was shown to be, or declared to be, in the right, just, vindicated.

Another reason that δικαιóψ will not bear the weight of Wright's meaning is that Paul's use of the word regularly signifies a definite action that accomplishes something now. It is not simply a declaration of a person's covenant membership that came about decisively through another prior action (e.g., God's effectual call).

John Piper, The Future of Justification (pp. 39-41)

Share it or lose it

I read this yesterday in the Global Prayer Digest and its stuck with me. The writer is commenting on Philemon 6 and makes what I think is a great point.

It has been observed that only when we share the gospel across cultural barriers can we fully comprehend the gospel message ourselves. When we see the truths of the gospel through the eyes of another culture, those truths come alive for us in a new way. Sharing our faith with another people group forces us to examine what in our worship must be universal and what is only cultural. Perhaps the confusion which pervades so many of our churches about the content of the gospel message is due to our failure to seriously share this message with other groups.

Those of us in Reformed churches believe we have a good grasp on what the gospel is/what it does/how it works, but if this knowledge makes us insular and closed off to God's great global purposes there's a danger we'll lose what we have. I agree with this writer that having a "frontier missions priority" in our churches will bring a greater understanding and firmer grasp of the riches of the gospel.

Hungry like the wolf (for a Cubs win)

Looking for God on IMDb

Many Christian observers of the culture have noted the increasing role of movies in filling our universal longing for the transcendent. The cineplex is indeed the new church of the masses where "worshipers" sit in the dark to encounter something bigger than themselves. Craig Detweiler is one such observer. He's an author and director of the Reel Spirituality Institute at Fuller Theological Seminary. His latest book is Into the Dark: Seeing the Sacred in the Top Films of the 21st Century (another one to be added to my always-growing mental list of books to read). Detweiler shares some of his findings in an article in the most recent issue of Modern Reformation.

It begins by discussing the debate between 20th-century theologians Karl Barth and Emil Brunner on the validity of sources of divine revelation outside Scripture. Can there be a "point of contact" between God and man in cultural artifacts like movies? Brunner said yes, Barth answered emphatically "Nein!" In Barth's defense, he was defending the unique revelation of Scripture against its theologically liberal detractors like Brunner, but he may have too quickly dismissed the idea that God can use art (in this case movies) to -- in Detweiler's words -- "open us up to neglected truths of Scripture" and "sharpen our appreciation of Scripture." That's been my experience as a Christian and astute (I hope) student of cinema. Art can't in any way replace Scripture -- or the preaching of the gospel -- but it can help the believer see the world with more compassionate, discerning eyes and point the unbeliever toward God: the source of truth and beauty.

For Into the Dark the author went to the popular IMDb (Internet Movie Database) to study the top movies of the young century as rated by this online community of passionate and opinionated filmgoers. He surveyed forty-five films which could be broken down into three thematic groups: cautionary tales about evil ("the next generation of filmgoers isn't afraid of sin-they welcome frank portraits of our fallenness"), explorations of the meaning of community (e.g. The Lives of Others), and portrayals of hope...especially in the fantasy genre. One of the movies from the first group that he highlights in the MR article is Memento. I remember well the disorientation I felt the first time I watched this film. It was one of those "what just happened?" moments. Detweiler sees it as a case study in self-deception. I see the protagonist's memory loss as an illustration of Paul's indictment of unrighteous man: "they exchanged the truth about God for a lie."

Memento (2000) reinvents the tropes of film noir. It turns the jaded private eye into an unreliable narrator. Leonard's short-term memory loss keeps us off balance, trying to piece together clues. By the conclusion of the film, we discover our endless capacity for self-deception. So what are the scriptural connections? These dark, violent films take us back to the garden, to God's first question to humanity, "Why are you hiding?" I was reminded of the excuses we make. How we blame everyone but ourselves for our failing. Memento is a brilliant meditation on original sin.*

What's interesting is that Memento was the film that launched the careers of two brothers from England -- Christopher and Jonathan Nolan. You may have heard about their latest project, a little movie called The Dark Knight. There's a lot I could say about the latest installment of the Batman franchise, but one thing is clear to me -- the character of The Joker as played by Heath Ledger is the most frightening, compelling Satan-figure to ever fill (I can't say grace) the big screen. He's the embodiment of pure chaos -- living only to steal, kill and destroy, and in so doing prove to someone (Batman, God?) that humans are depraved savages not worth the effort to save. He's the father of half-truths. The character of Bruce Wayne/Batman is more complicated. If one chooses to see this movie as some kind of parable -- then depending on how you interpret it -- the Dark Knight could be seen as representing George W. Bush, Christ, or the principal of "good" inherent in a dualistic universe. Then again, maybe it's just a Superhero Movie. But I digress...

Despite all the darkness at the 21st-century moviehouse, Detweiler found that hope is still a powerful theme running through many of the most representative films of our age. Not cheap hope, but hope born out of a filmic world that takes evil seriously -- as in cinematic fairytales like Pan's Labyrinth and the epic Lord of the Rings films. This reflects what we find in the Bible, where neither pessimism or optimism are strong enough words to describe what's revealed to us about the evil that lurks in men's hearts and the hope of a world where good triumphs and there is "no more death or mourning or crying or pain." A new heaven and new earth ushered in at the return of the King. Detweiler uses imagery from LOTR to illustrate the attraction of his third category of films.

Given all the ugliness we've witnessed, we are despereate to get back to the garden to reverse the curse of sin. The hobbits in The Lord of the Rings long to get back to the verdant Shire, to enjoy a pint of ale, to savor the strawberries. But that peaceable kingdom will not arrive without a struggle. We need a fellowship to navigate the journey to Mount Doom...the finest fantasy films remind us of how imaginative and hopeful Revelation 21 and 22 remain. As we wander into the dark of cinema, the longing for the light of God's promises emerges. That's a point of contact I am eager to embrace.*

*Craig Detweiler, Points of Contact: Into the Dark (Modern Reformation, July/August 2008)

Great music radio still exists!

You can find it at the new and improved Radio Paradise.

Listen for free here or click on the RP logo below right. Bill & Rebecca thank you.

Post-rapture evangelism for $40

At You've Been Left Behind

A splendid guide

Next year marks the 500th anniversary of John Calvin's birth. To celebrate the occasion and his most famous work, P&R Publishing has just come out with A Theological Guide to Calvin's Institutes edited by David W. Hall and Peter A. Lillback. My copy arrived from Amazon last week. It appears to be the kind of book that will lend itself to careful, intermittent reading and I look forward to digesting it over the next few months. Appearance-wise it's handsomely bound, well organized and very readable. It features an eloquent (of course!) foreword by J.I. Packer and essays by 21 Calvin scholars. According to the editors, contributors were chosen with three criteria in mind: "(1) their sympathetic readings of Calvin's work, although not uncritically so; (2) their teaching of this material for a considerable span of time, normally in seminaries or universities; and (3) their willingness to meet a rigid publication schedule."

Calvin is often singled out at the expense of the other Reformers, both by his detractors and disciples, but it's difficult to overestimate the impact of his ideas on theology, culture and politics. And it's his Institutes of the Christian Religion (expanded to four densely packed volumes by the final 1559 edition) that cement his place as both "the Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas of the Reformed Church" (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church). Each essay of this collection focuses on a different section of the Institutes and covers topics as wide-ranging as the work itself...everything from Calvin's doctrine of the trinity to his views on church and human government. But before that, historian William S. Barker contributes an interesting piece on the historical and theological context of Calvin's magnum opus.

The first edition (1536) of the Institutes contained a preface addressed to King Francis I of France from his exiled 26-year old subject John Calvin. Francis was a Catholic monarch, but he wasn't above making common cause with Protestants when it suited his geopolitical interests. Most likely, he never read Calvin's appeal before his death in 1547. Barker explains the dual purpose of Calvin's address. On the one hand, he sought to disprove the "charge of newness" leveled at the Reformers by the Catholic Church, and on the other hand, distance the nascent Protestant movement from the radical sedition of the Anabaptists. He achieved the first by showing that the Reformers were closer to the early church fathers than the medieval Roman Church (Barker points out that 60 percent of Calvin's citations come from church fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries), and the second by disclaiming "any effort to overthrow kingdoms...even though we are now fugitives from home." Barker writes:

Having refuted the Roman Catholic charge of newness by showing the consistency of the Protestant Reformers with the orthodox ancient church, Calvin next answers the charge of seditious tumults resulting from the Reformation...Calvin ascribes such tumults to the work of Satan, who always through history seeks to oppose the true faith with false religion. As was the case in the day of the apostles, so now in the Reformation there are movements that Satan has inspired in order to discredit the genuine Reformers.

After placing the Institutes in its historical context, Barker then draws from a variety of sources to place it rightfully at the pinnacle of Christian thought. Barker cites historian Philip Schaff who describes some of the telling reaction from its opponents. "Roman Catholics called it 'the Koran and Talmud of heresy' and had it burned by order of the Sorbonne at Paris and other places." But a contemporary Roman Catholic scholar compares Calvin to "a composer who borrows several themes and then orchestrates them according to his personal inspiration" (Alexandre Ganoczy, The Young Calvin). Nearly 500 years after Calvin's birth, his Institutes continue to (paraphrasing Packer) search, humble and challenge its readers. Barker traces Calvin's influence on the English-speaking world and church up to today.

By the time of the publication of the 1559 edition of the Institutes Calvin was recognized as the chief theologian of the Protestant Reformation. That reputation would continue in Reformed circles because of the distinctive relation between theology and the exegesis of Scripture as propounded and lived out in the context of the church. Particularly in the English-speaking world this would be apparent in such subsequent theologians as John Owen in the seventeenth century, Jonathan Edwards in the eighteenth century, Charles Hodge and Benjamin B. Warfield in the nineteenth century, and J. Gresham Machen, J. Oliver Buswell Jr., and John Murray in the twentieth century. Like Calvin, these theologians were expositors of Scripture and also preachers of the Word in the context of the church.

This Theological Guide is a gift to the church and a treat for anyone with an interest in John Calvin, his life, and his thought.

Read an interview with one of the editors here.

Hope for Haiti

A friend of ours is co-producing a documentary on Haiti called Repiblik: each voice has a story to tell. This has been a four year labor of love, and if all goes well the finished film will be released in 2009. In the words of the filmmakers:

For those who are unfamiliar with the story of Repiblik, it is a unique social media project (created in 2004) not only highlighting the rich aspects of Haiti’s forgotten past, but also documenting the present efforts of Haitians at home and abroad who choose to fight for the future of their country—who continue to have espwa (hope) and believe that change is possible. Our vision is that Repiblik will educate our audiences on the value of Haiti’s history, culture and people, and attract further resources (primarily human) to accelerate the changes already taking place in Haiti.

You can watch the trailer and learn more about the project at their website.

www.repiblik.com