I attended a Dispensational seminary, but am not a Dispensationalist. I have some Covenantal leanings, but I remain firmly credobaptist. I have found that I have more in common with Presbyterians than most Baptists, but I keep seeing comments that "there is no such thing as a Reformed Baptist." Obviously, that is true, but I needed to have some name for what I believed.
I am extremely thankful for the book Kingdom Through Covenant. Gentry and Wellum wanted to use this book to propose a middle way between the two systems. They acknowledge the strength of both systems, but also point out some glaring weaknesses. Much of these problems center around the Abrahamic Covenant. They rightly point out that each system chooses which part they will take literally. The Dispensationalist focuses on the land promise to Abraham and the Covenantalist focuses on the genealogical promise. This book shows how both miss the mark in ignoring the whole promise.
The book is strongest in parts one and three, which were written by Wellum. Part one presents their thesis and hermenutic while part three summarizes how it all fits together based on all the exegesis done in part two. You really could get away with checking this book out from your local seminary library and reading just those parts. That would save you about 460 pages of very technical writing leaving you with about 250 very readable pages.
I would not recommend part two for anyone who does not know Hebrew. Although there is a lot of transliteration there is also a fair amount of straight Hebrew text. Obviously a book focused on exegesis is going to have to deal with the language, so be warned that this section is not for the casual reader. Be prepared for some tough sledding through this section. I saw in another review where someone wrote that the middle sections felt like disconnected papers. I suppose that is true to a degree, but that's also the nature of such academic work. Despite the difficulties, this part is essential for proving the authors' thesis. I believe that they accomplished their goal.
I particularly appreciated their point that the Dispensational distinction between conditional and unconditional covenants is an unnecessary one. It was also valuable to see how the physical promise of the land to Abraham has already been fulfilled, but that the promise is actually much bigger in how God is going to give the whole earth to Abraham's children. In other words, to get all excited about a strip of land in the Middle East is to miss the bigger promise. It is also encouraging to see them make some distinction between Israel and the church. The church is indeed a new thing that, unlike Israel, is composed entirely of believers.
I suppose I'm somewhat biased because I wanted to like this book. I finally have a book that describes what I have come to believe on my own. It is possible to be strongly Calvinistic in soteriology, but strongly Baptist when it comes to the ordinances and the composition of the church. I still find that I have more in common with Covenantal brothers than most Baptists, but I am glad to have this middle way. When you're not in a large camp it is comforting to know that you are not on your own.
Showing posts with label theology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label theology. Show all posts
Monday, January 28, 2013
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Every Good Gift
James 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change.
17 πᾶσα δόσις ἀγαθὴ καὶ πᾶν δώρημα τέλειον ἄνωθέν ἐστιν καταβαῖνον ἀπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς τῶν φώτων, παρ᾽ ᾧ οὐκ ἔνι παραλλαγὴ ἢ τροπῆς ἀποσκίασμα.
James is an easy book to blog because it is really a bunch of long proverbs. James may very well be the most practical book of the New Testament in the sense that it is centered primarily on right living. It contains a bunch of imperatives telling us how we should live. Facing trials? Count it all joy. Reading Scripture? Do what it tells you to. And so on.
Here we get a brief theological interlude. This verse tells us much about the nature of God. First, we see that He is good. How do we know that? We see that if a gift is ἀγαθὴ or if it is τέλειον then it is from above. I don't think that it describes gifts that are "good and perfect" because there are two different words for "gift" used here. I think what James is going after is that if we enjoy something good it must be from God. We also see that He is good in being described as οῦ πατρὸς τῶν φώτων. It's pretty safe to say that "light" is a metaphor for "good" when we read Scripture.
Second, we see that He is immutable, which is the theological term for the idea that He never changes. The phrase παρ᾽ ᾧ οὐκ ἔνι παραλλαγὴ ἢ τροπῆς ἀποσκίασμα. is difficult in English, but I would go with something like, "for him whom there is not changing or shadow of changing." Obviously the ESV is a lot crisper from a literary sense and that is required in translating a text, but my translation gets the wooden sense of it.
But you may wonder, "so what?" What difference does it make that He never changes? One thing is that this informs our Christology. We know from Hebrews that Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Here we see God the Father described that way. This is not a proof, but it sure leads one to see a commonality between God the Father and God the Son. It also tells us that the idea of an "Old Testament God" vs. "New Testament God" is a false dichotomy. There is God. He does not change. The just and wrathful God of Joshua and Judges is also the God of John 3:16. Jesus Christ had to die to satisfy His righteous wrath.
This is a God I want to worship. This is the God that saved me to do just that. My prayer is that I would not stop short with distractions like sports, video games, school, and sex. Those are all fine things enjoyed in their place, but let me worship God alone, amen?
17 πᾶσα δόσις ἀγαθὴ καὶ πᾶν δώρημα τέλειον ἄνωθέν ἐστιν καταβαῖνον ἀπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς τῶν φώτων, παρ᾽ ᾧ οὐκ ἔνι παραλλαγὴ ἢ τροπῆς ἀποσκίασμα.
James is an easy book to blog because it is really a bunch of long proverbs. James may very well be the most practical book of the New Testament in the sense that it is centered primarily on right living. It contains a bunch of imperatives telling us how we should live. Facing trials? Count it all joy. Reading Scripture? Do what it tells you to. And so on.
Here we get a brief theological interlude. This verse tells us much about the nature of God. First, we see that He is good. How do we know that? We see that if a gift is ἀγαθὴ or if it is τέλειον then it is from above. I don't think that it describes gifts that are "good and perfect" because there are two different words for "gift" used here. I think what James is going after is that if we enjoy something good it must be from God. We also see that He is good in being described as οῦ πατρὸς τῶν φώτων. It's pretty safe to say that "light" is a metaphor for "good" when we read Scripture.
Second, we see that He is immutable, which is the theological term for the idea that He never changes. The phrase παρ᾽ ᾧ οὐκ ἔνι παραλλαγὴ ἢ τροπῆς ἀποσκίασμα. is difficult in English, but I would go with something like, "for him whom there is not changing or shadow of changing." Obviously the ESV is a lot crisper from a literary sense and that is required in translating a text, but my translation gets the wooden sense of it.
But you may wonder, "so what?" What difference does it make that He never changes? One thing is that this informs our Christology. We know from Hebrews that Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Here we see God the Father described that way. This is not a proof, but it sure leads one to see a commonality between God the Father and God the Son. It also tells us that the idea of an "Old Testament God" vs. "New Testament God" is a false dichotomy. There is God. He does not change. The just and wrathful God of Joshua and Judges is also the God of John 3:16. Jesus Christ had to die to satisfy His righteous wrath.
This is a God I want to worship. This is the God that saved me to do just that. My prayer is that I would not stop short with distractions like sports, video games, school, and sex. Those are all fine things enjoyed in their place, but let me worship God alone, amen?
Monday, August 30, 2010
Who He Helps
Hebrews 2:16 For surely it is not angels that he helps, but he helps the offspring of Abraham.
16 οὐ γὰρ δήπου ἀγγέλων ἐπιλαμβάνεται ἀλλὰ σπέρματος Ἀβραὰμ ἐπιλαμβάνεται.
Given a discussion I have had recently on Facebook, this verse really leaps out at me. Here we see that Jesus helps the σπέρματος Ἀβραὰμ. The word σπέρματος is a genitive singular and it means "seed." This would be very confusing except that this word can also be used in the singular to refer to a collective plural. It's sort of like how a farmer would buy a bag of seed today. You could say "seeds," but you don't have to in English and you don't in Greek either.
Why is this significant? We know from the Old Testament that the "seed" of Abraham has two meanings. One refers to Christ Himself as Paul explains in Galatians 3:16. However, one does not have to read much in the Old Testament to see how Israel is described as the seed of Abraham as well. As my Old Testament professor pointed out over and over again, the three megathemes of the Old Testament are land, seed, and blessing.
Here we see that Christ helps the seed of Abraham. Just taking this text at face-value, I don't see what else it could mean other than the author of Hebrews is identifying the church with the seed of Abraham. It is possible that since this is written to a Jewish audience he is telling them that Christ helps the seed of Abraham, but that is just a subset of all the people who He helps. I find that logically possible, but highly improbable.
To be fair I consulted my MacArthur Bible Commentary on this verse and, sure enough, that is the argument that he uses. He writes that since the readers were Hebrews they would identify themselves with this description. True, but it seems like that ignores the flow of the chapter. We just had references to the "children God has given me," for example. Read it for yourself and I think you'll see that the scope of the chapter refers to all of God's children in Christ. I don't think it makes contextual sense to take this verse and limit it to those who are actually genetically linked to Abraham.
What do we do with this? As a friend of mine says, Israel is the key to the Bible. How we read the Bible depends on what we do with Israel. If we take Israel to refer to the literal people who are genetically linked to Abraham then we read the Bible and particularly the Old Testament one way. But if we understand the church to be the fulfillment of Israel then we read it another way. A verse like this has me leaning in the latter category. But frankly that gives me a lot of hope because that lets me read the Old Testament in a way that it actually has meaning to me rather than to a group of people that I will never truly be a part of, despite being grafted in.
Of course, I still have not studied any of this in a structured way so I am open to criticism and correction. Please comment if you have thoughts on this matter. Did I completely miss the point of this verse?
Note: This is the 1000th post for this blog. I love round numbers like that. I want to thank those of you who read this regularly. I really write it for my own benefit as it serves as a way for me to get deeper into something I've read each day. But if you've enjoyed it or been edified I'd love to know in the comments.
16 οὐ γὰρ δήπου ἀγγέλων ἐπιλαμβάνεται ἀλλὰ σπέρματος Ἀβραὰμ ἐπιλαμβάνεται.
Given a discussion I have had recently on Facebook, this verse really leaps out at me. Here we see that Jesus helps the σπέρματος Ἀβραὰμ. The word σπέρματος is a genitive singular and it means "seed." This would be very confusing except that this word can also be used in the singular to refer to a collective plural. It's sort of like how a farmer would buy a bag of seed today. You could say "seeds," but you don't have to in English and you don't in Greek either.
Why is this significant? We know from the Old Testament that the "seed" of Abraham has two meanings. One refers to Christ Himself as Paul explains in Galatians 3:16. However, one does not have to read much in the Old Testament to see how Israel is described as the seed of Abraham as well. As my Old Testament professor pointed out over and over again, the three megathemes of the Old Testament are land, seed, and blessing.
Here we see that Christ helps the seed of Abraham. Just taking this text at face-value, I don't see what else it could mean other than the author of Hebrews is identifying the church with the seed of Abraham. It is possible that since this is written to a Jewish audience he is telling them that Christ helps the seed of Abraham, but that is just a subset of all the people who He helps. I find that logically possible, but highly improbable.
To be fair I consulted my MacArthur Bible Commentary on this verse and, sure enough, that is the argument that he uses. He writes that since the readers were Hebrews they would identify themselves with this description. True, but it seems like that ignores the flow of the chapter. We just had references to the "children God has given me," for example. Read it for yourself and I think you'll see that the scope of the chapter refers to all of God's children in Christ. I don't think it makes contextual sense to take this verse and limit it to those who are actually genetically linked to Abraham.
What do we do with this? As a friend of mine says, Israel is the key to the Bible. How we read the Bible depends on what we do with Israel. If we take Israel to refer to the literal people who are genetically linked to Abraham then we read the Bible and particularly the Old Testament one way. But if we understand the church to be the fulfillment of Israel then we read it another way. A verse like this has me leaning in the latter category. But frankly that gives me a lot of hope because that lets me read the Old Testament in a way that it actually has meaning to me rather than to a group of people that I will never truly be a part of, despite being grafted in.
Of course, I still have not studied any of this in a structured way so I am open to criticism and correction. Please comment if you have thoughts on this matter. Did I completely miss the point of this verse?
Note: This is the 1000th post for this blog. I love round numbers like that. I want to thank those of you who read this regularly. I really write it for my own benefit as it serves as a way for me to get deeper into something I've read each day. But if you've enjoyed it or been edified I'd love to know in the comments.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
The Value of Teaching
2 Timothy 4:3 For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, 4 and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.
3 Ἔσται γὰρ καιρὸς ὅτε τῆς ὑγιαινούσης διδασκαλίας οὐκ ἀνέξονται ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὰς ἰδίας ἐπιθυμίας ἑαυτοῖς ἐπισωρεύσουσιν διδασκάλους κνηθόμενοι τὴν ἀκοὴν 4 καὶ ἀπὸ μὲν τῆς ἀληθείας τὴν ἀκοὴν ἀποστρέψουσιν, ἐπὶ δὲ τοὺς μύθους ἐκτραπήσονται.
Paul has just finished explaining the value of Scripture in 3:16-17 and now he is explaining his admonition to Timothy that he preach the word. This is the reason why. There will be a time when people will not endure sound teaching. You don't have to look very far to realize that this clearly speaks to our society today.
Sadly, this even permeates our churches. You can find folks reading Joel Osteen, yet they identify themselves as evangelical. T.D. Jakes is a bestseller, despite the fact that he denies the Trinity and is a Oneness Pentecostal. Joyce Meyer's particular blend of psychology, self-help, and Word-Faith theology packs out coliseums around the country. Why? These so-called teachers tell people what they need to feel better about themselves.
Of course, the Bible is full of promises that help us to feel better. But the difference is that they are promises that make us feel better because of who God is and who we are in Him. The Bible is about Jesus, not about us. If we just read it like a fortune cookie we may think that it is all about us, but it's really His story, not ours.
This is why it is important to study and teach theology. We need to look for answers to the fundamental questions of life. Who is God? Who is man? What does man need to be reconciled to God? If we are reconciled then how should we live as a result of this reconciliation?
Read your Bible that you may know God. Everything begins to fall into place after that.
3 Ἔσται γὰρ καιρὸς ὅτε τῆς ὑγιαινούσης διδασκαλίας οὐκ ἀνέξονται ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὰς ἰδίας ἐπιθυμίας ἑαυτοῖς ἐπισωρεύσουσιν διδασκάλους κνηθόμενοι τὴν ἀκοὴν 4 καὶ ἀπὸ μὲν τῆς ἀληθείας τὴν ἀκοὴν ἀποστρέψουσιν, ἐπὶ δὲ τοὺς μύθους ἐκτραπήσονται.
Paul has just finished explaining the value of Scripture in 3:16-17 and now he is explaining his admonition to Timothy that he preach the word. This is the reason why. There will be a time when people will not endure sound teaching. You don't have to look very far to realize that this clearly speaks to our society today.
Sadly, this even permeates our churches. You can find folks reading Joel Osteen, yet they identify themselves as evangelical. T.D. Jakes is a bestseller, despite the fact that he denies the Trinity and is a Oneness Pentecostal. Joyce Meyer's particular blend of psychology, self-help, and Word-Faith theology packs out coliseums around the country. Why? These so-called teachers tell people what they need to feel better about themselves.
Of course, the Bible is full of promises that help us to feel better. But the difference is that they are promises that make us feel better because of who God is and who we are in Him. The Bible is about Jesus, not about us. If we just read it like a fortune cookie we may think that it is all about us, but it's really His story, not ours.
This is why it is important to study and teach theology. We need to look for answers to the fundamental questions of life. Who is God? Who is man? What does man need to be reconciled to God? If we are reconciled then how should we live as a result of this reconciliation?
Read your Bible that you may know God. Everything begins to fall into place after that.
Sunday, August 22, 2010
Controversies
2 Timothy 2:23 Have nothing to do with foolish, ignorant controversies; you know that they breed quarrels.
23 τὰς δὲ μωρὰς καὶ ἀπαιδεύτους ζητήσεις παραιτοῦ, εἰδὼς ὅτι γεννῶσιν μάχας·
This is one of those chapters where I could write about several different verses. I chose this one because of a great discussion I had with a commenter last week. It is vitally important that we be careful about our controversies.
There are a lot of dangerous areas with me. First, I'm in seminary and thinking about matters of theology. This is the time when one is forced to think about these matters and start to make decisions about them. Papers are polemic by nature, so it is easy to be in an argumentative mood. I need to be careful about that.
Second, I'm a Calvinist. This is not to say that Arminians have no interest in discussing theology. Far from it. However, for some reason we Calvinists tend to be a little more combative when it comes to these things. We tend not to be afraid of being "jerks for Jesus" because we figure that the important thing is just to get the word out and let God sort everything out. While that is true to a degree, it does not excuse any lack of gentleness nor does it excuse looking for a fight.
Third, I tend to thrive on discussion and argument. I like hashing stuff out with others. I'm not very good at sports, but I still like to compete. This is one area where I can be competitive and often win. However, theology is not a competition.
Ultimately the goal is to show people Christ so that they may enjoy Him. I also want to enjoy Him more. I don't think that foolish controversies add to that. However, we also need to remember that some controversies are vital. The trick is to distinguish which are vital and which can be left with a decision to "agree to disagree." I think we learn that by time in the Word to see what is important to God and by listening to the Spirit as we go about our lives.
23 τὰς δὲ μωρὰς καὶ ἀπαιδεύτους ζητήσεις παραιτοῦ, εἰδὼς ὅτι γεννῶσιν μάχας·
This is one of those chapters where I could write about several different verses. I chose this one because of a great discussion I had with a commenter last week. It is vitally important that we be careful about our controversies.
There are a lot of dangerous areas with me. First, I'm in seminary and thinking about matters of theology. This is the time when one is forced to think about these matters and start to make decisions about them. Papers are polemic by nature, so it is easy to be in an argumentative mood. I need to be careful about that.
Second, I'm a Calvinist. This is not to say that Arminians have no interest in discussing theology. Far from it. However, for some reason we Calvinists tend to be a little more combative when it comes to these things. We tend not to be afraid of being "jerks for Jesus" because we figure that the important thing is just to get the word out and let God sort everything out. While that is true to a degree, it does not excuse any lack of gentleness nor does it excuse looking for a fight.
Third, I tend to thrive on discussion and argument. I like hashing stuff out with others. I'm not very good at sports, but I still like to compete. This is one area where I can be competitive and often win. However, theology is not a competition.
Ultimately the goal is to show people Christ so that they may enjoy Him. I also want to enjoy Him more. I don't think that foolish controversies add to that. However, we also need to remember that some controversies are vital. The trick is to distinguish which are vital and which can be left with a decision to "agree to disagree." I think we learn that by time in the Word to see what is important to God and by listening to the Spirit as we go about our lives.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Open Theism
Psalms 47:1-9 ESV
(1) To the choirmaster. A Psalm of the Sons of Korah. Clap your hands, all peoples! Shout to God with loud songs of joy!
(2) For the LORD, the Most High, is to be feared, a great king over all the earth.
(3) He subdued peoples under us, and nations under our feet.
(4) He chose our heritage for us, the pride of Jacob whom he loves. Selah.
(5) God has gone up with a shout, the LORD with the sound of a trumpet.
(6) Sing praises to God, sing praises! Sing praises to our King, sing praises!
(7) For God is the King of all the earth; sing praises with a psalm!
(8) God reigns over the nations; God sits on his holy throne.
(9) The princes of the peoples gather as the people of the God of Abraham. For the shields of the earth belong to God; he is highly exalted!
How can anyone subscribe to open theism unless this Psalm doesn't exist in their Bibles? Maybe I just don't understand open theism well enough, but to me it sounds like we are trying to put man on the throne. I don't want to be on the throne. God will do a better job.
(1) To the choirmaster. A Psalm of the Sons of Korah. Clap your hands, all peoples! Shout to God with loud songs of joy!
(2) For the LORD, the Most High, is to be feared, a great king over all the earth.
(3) He subdued peoples under us, and nations under our feet.
(4) He chose our heritage for us, the pride of Jacob whom he loves. Selah.
(5) God has gone up with a shout, the LORD with the sound of a trumpet.
(6) Sing praises to God, sing praises! Sing praises to our King, sing praises!
(7) For God is the King of all the earth; sing praises with a psalm!
(8) God reigns over the nations; God sits on his holy throne.
(9) The princes of the peoples gather as the people of the God of Abraham. For the shields of the earth belong to God; he is highly exalted!
How can anyone subscribe to open theism unless this Psalm doesn't exist in their Bibles? Maybe I just don't understand open theism well enough, but to me it sounds like we are trying to put man on the throne. I don't want to be on the throne. God will do a better job.
Tuesday, August 05, 2008
The Gospel in Ezra
I came across this today:
Ezra 9:10-15 ESV
(10) "And now, O our God, what shall we say after this? For we have forsaken your commandments,
(11) which you commanded by your servants the prophets, saying, 'The land that you are entering, to take possession of it, is a land impure with the impurity of the peoples of the lands, with their abominations that have filled it from end to end with their uncleanness.
(12) Therefore do not give your daughters to their sons, neither take their daughters for your sons, and never seek their peace or prosperity, that you may be strong and eat the good of the land and leave it for an inheritance to your children forever.'
(13) And after all that has come upon us for our evil deeds and for our great guilt, seeing that you, our God, have punished us less than our iniquities deserved and have given us such a remnant as this,
(14) shall we break your commandments again and intermarry with the peoples who practice these abominations? Would you not be angry with us until you consumed us, so that there should be no remnant, nor any to escape?
(15) O LORD the God of Israel, you are just, for we are left a remnant that has escaped, as it is today. Behold, we are before you in our guilt, for none can stand before you because of this."
Note verse 13. Ezra had a pretty keen awareness of the people's guilt that was balanced with his awareness of the holiness of God. His understanding of God's holiness led him to say this.
Note verse 14. Ezra didn't want the people to presume on God's grace. In verse 15 He recognizes God's grace in allowing a remnant to escape. he also recognizes that God is just in doing what He promised He would do.
There is a lot in this little passage to consider. It inspires me to see God as Ezra did. It also inspires me to think about God's attributes and to marvel at them. God is both holy and merciful. I know that I'm glad He is not merely just!
Ezra 9:10-15 ESV
(10) "And now, O our God, what shall we say after this? For we have forsaken your commandments,
(11) which you commanded by your servants the prophets, saying, 'The land that you are entering, to take possession of it, is a land impure with the impurity of the peoples of the lands, with their abominations that have filled it from end to end with their uncleanness.
(12) Therefore do not give your daughters to their sons, neither take their daughters for your sons, and never seek their peace or prosperity, that you may be strong and eat the good of the land and leave it for an inheritance to your children forever.'
(13) And after all that has come upon us for our evil deeds and for our great guilt, seeing that you, our God, have punished us less than our iniquities deserved and have given us such a remnant as this,
(14) shall we break your commandments again and intermarry with the peoples who practice these abominations? Would you not be angry with us until you consumed us, so that there should be no remnant, nor any to escape?
(15) O LORD the God of Israel, you are just, for we are left a remnant that has escaped, as it is today. Behold, we are before you in our guilt, for none can stand before you because of this."
Note verse 13. Ezra had a pretty keen awareness of the people's guilt that was balanced with his awareness of the holiness of God. His understanding of God's holiness led him to say this.
Note verse 14. Ezra didn't want the people to presume on God's grace. In verse 15 He recognizes God's grace in allowing a remnant to escape. he also recognizes that God is just in doing what He promised He would do.
There is a lot in this little passage to consider. It inspires me to see God as Ezra did. It also inspires me to think about God's attributes and to marvel at them. God is both holy and merciful. I know that I'm glad He is not merely just!
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
When Calvinism Fails
As I wrote last night's post I thought that in the spirit of irenic blogging I should write one about the problems with Calvinism. I am thoroughly convinced of the truth of God's sovereignty in election, but I also see some negative side-effects from it.
One of the mentors in my group pointed out that many Calvinists tend to be mean men. I couldn't argue with that at all. I think that we tend to be more interested in doctrine than in Christian living. I think that we tend to take the security of the believer to a wrong extreme. We need to instead focus on the fact that works follow genuine salvation.
I also realize that there are tensions in Calvinism. However, I think that they are more reconcilable than those in Arminianism. Thoughts?
One of the mentors in my group pointed out that many Calvinists tend to be mean men. I couldn't argue with that at all. I think that we tend to be more interested in doctrine than in Christian living. I think that we tend to take the security of the believer to a wrong extreme. We need to instead focus on the fact that works follow genuine salvation.
I also realize that there are tensions in Calvinism. However, I think that they are more reconcilable than those in Arminianism. Thoughts?
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Blue Like Jazz
I finally got around to reading this book and, frankly, I liked it a lot. I can see how it is part of the drumbeat of the Emergent Movement. I'm sure that many of my Reformed brothers would have little good to say about this book, but I liked it for a number of reasons.
The most important is that it speaks very much to the problem with our American church culture today. We have turned Christianity into a laundry list of dos and don'ts. Now of course there are some things we need to be careful about. Watching our language seems to be a natural result of applying:
Eph 4:29 ESV
(29) Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear.
and
Eph 5:4 ESV
(4) Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving.
This is just an example. The point is that we have set up a structure in our churches that turn us into little judging machines. I think that we like to judge each other because it makes us feel good and important. After all, we have truth on our side, so let's smack people with it, right? Basically, we become spiritual bullies.
I think that the book does a good job decrying that. As I've written before, I don't think that you can box Jesus into a political party. I also think that this book does a good job of defending Reformed Theology for the most part, whether it means to or not. I hope to have a discussion with Amanda about that sometime.
The book certainly is not perfect. I think that Miller has maybe swung a little too far on the orthopraxy side and ignored some of the orthodoxy side. It's laudable that he has had all these great experiences of God from being challenged in so many ways, but it's also kind of disturbing to read his confession that he has never read the Bible cover-to-cover. I still maintain that God reveals Himself to us primarily through Scripture. Romans 1 tells us that we all have a sense of Him, but we need His special revelation to truly know Him.
These problems notwithstanding, I think I would recommend this book to anyone who is not afraid of a little challenge. If nothing else, the stories are pretty entertaining.
The most important is that it speaks very much to the problem with our American church culture today. We have turned Christianity into a laundry list of dos and don'ts. Now of course there are some things we need to be careful about. Watching our language seems to be a natural result of applying:
Eph 4:29 ESV
(29) Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear.
and
Eph 5:4 ESV
(4) Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving.
This is just an example. The point is that we have set up a structure in our churches that turn us into little judging machines. I think that we like to judge each other because it makes us feel good and important. After all, we have truth on our side, so let's smack people with it, right? Basically, we become spiritual bullies.
I think that the book does a good job decrying that. As I've written before, I don't think that you can box Jesus into a political party. I also think that this book does a good job of defending Reformed Theology for the most part, whether it means to or not. I hope to have a discussion with Amanda about that sometime.
The book certainly is not perfect. I think that Miller has maybe swung a little too far on the orthopraxy side and ignored some of the orthodoxy side. It's laudable that he has had all these great experiences of God from being challenged in so many ways, but it's also kind of disturbing to read his confession that he has never read the Bible cover-to-cover. I still maintain that God reveals Himself to us primarily through Scripture. Romans 1 tells us that we all have a sense of Him, but we need His special revelation to truly know Him.
These problems notwithstanding, I think I would recommend this book to anyone who is not afraid of a little challenge. If nothing else, the stories are pretty entertaining.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
