True Righteousness

Q: What's the difference between the righteousness by faith and the righteousness by works?

A: One works and the other doesn't (pun intended).

Romans 9:30 What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. 32 Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone,

Romans 10:2 For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. 3 For, being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness. 4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

Can't Touch This

We will forgive the fact that this video involves people from that other fandom that we don't like to mention:

The Religious Right is the Taliban?

Listen to what Chris Matthews says at about 1:03 in this video:
So much for civil discourse. If this is bearing false witness, I don't know what is.



If there is one thing that I find frustrating it is when critics fail to understand their opponents. Sadly in our day smear rhetoric wins more points than actual thoughtful engagement--and that is shameful no matter what side of the aisle you are on. (N.B.: Christians on the right are guilty of such slander too.) The temptation to demonize the other side while holding yourself up as the paragon of morality and nobility leads to nothing more false representation and dishonest rhetoric. In the end, you demonstrate of yourself precisely that which you execrate in your opponents.

You don't have to be a fan of the Religious Right to realize they are nothing like the Taliban. D.G. Hart, a credentialed historian who is no fan of the religious right and is in fact quite a vocal critic of it, actually has a much more accurate portrayal of it here, after he quotes Susan Jacoby comparing the religious right to domestic terrorists:

There you have it, a neat bow on a frightening package – Old Testament law, presidential politics, opposition to abortion, and terrorism, all signifying the conservative movement. And liberals think Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck simplify the Obama administration. Granted, these radio personalities have a larger audience than Harper’s, the Nation, and the History News Network. But Limbaugh and Beck don’t claim to be scholars, and their listeners don’t claim to be experts about politics, religion, or history. If Susan Jacoby really wants to claim that conservatism has dumbed-down American culture, she may want to hold up a mirror to her reasonable and smart friends who can’t tell the difference between picketing an abortion clinic and flying a 737 into a skyscraper.

But the point of this kvetch is not to weigh the brain mass of conservatives and liberals but to bring up a subject that religious historians should be teaching to the rest of the American population from their lecterns, articles, books, and blogs – it is that the Religious Right is nothing new in U.S. history and that scaring citizens with the apparently bizarre proposals of Christian conservatives is bad scholarship. Prior to the Religious Right, Protestants, whether liberal or fundamentalist, concocted various schemes to preserve the United States as a Christian (read: Protestant) nation, from the Civil War, to Prohibition, to the civil religion of the Cold War. During that time, Protestants had access to all sorts of presidents, even the ones who had their finger poised on the button to drop “the bomb.” John Foster Dulles may have mingled with a tonier set than Carl McIntire (though Dulles certainly did not wear a better suit), but his anti-communism and God-and-country outlook were not substantially different from fundamentalist anti-Communists like McIntire.

What this historical perspective means is that the Religious Right is simply in continuity with a swath of American Protestantism that many religious historians regard not as extremist but as mainstream, tolerant, and respectable. Granted, the Religious Right had the bad timing to show up after many Protestants had capitulated to some sort of secular America, and they did not always show an awareness of how America had changed not just religiously but demographically after the 1960s. (This was actually the point of the Religious Right’s complaints – they didn’t like what the nation was becoming. Since when is complaining so scary or unAmerican?) But to portray people who differ little from previous generations of Americans as those who nurture terrorist ideas and actions is to show a real ignorance of the field in which you are supposed to be an expert.

This may be an odd point coming from a writer who regularly chastises the Religious Right. I have not changed my assessment of evangelical politics. I think it is flawed theologically and politically. But I sleep relatively well each night, despite my criticisms, because I know born-again Protestants, however mad they may be at me, believe in an important piece of Moses’ law – namely, the sixth (as Protestants count them) commandment. (Emphasis mine)

Illustrations of Conduct and Preaching

Sometimes the Reformed world of preaching in our zeal to root out moralism we can make too much about not using the Bible stories of characters as illustrations and exhortations for conduct. We almost state or imply that it is unequivocally wrong in all occasions to preach Scriptural events as examples. What is the model in Scripture should be the question we are asking. As a whole the Reformed use of the Old Testament, and its application for preaching, as illustrated by Graeme Goldsworthy, Sidney Greidanus and other such names, is right but sometimes our zeal takes the rhetoric dangerously to contradicting Scripture itself.

Sermons and Bible teaching that center on and end with "dare to be a Daniel" and "fighting your giants just like David fought his" miss the redemptive historical nature of the text. If you could preach the same sermon in a synagogue, an AA meeting, and a Christian church without anyone batting an eye--then, Houston, you have a problem.

However, let's be careful that our rhetoric doesn't go farther than Scripture. Speaking of the OT, Paul writes:

"1 Corinthians 10:6 6 Now these things happened as examples for us, so that we would not crave evil things as they also craved.
1 Corinthians 10:11 11 Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come."

Consider Hebrews 11--before trotting out the faith of OT heroes, we read: Hebrews 11:2 2 For by it [faith] the men of old gained approval.

He rightly shows us then by example the Godly and Christ-directed faith of the heroes of old. It is evident to Hebrews that their faith looked beyond themselves and had a proper object and also a greater reward that unfolded in the eschatology of redemption:

Hebrews 11:39-40 39 And all these, having gained approval through their faith, did not receive what was promised, 40 because God had provided something better for us, so that apart from us they would not be made perfect.

But we are also given this charge based upon the example and illustration we have from the saints:

Hebrews 12:1 NAU Hebrews 12:1 Therefore, since we have so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding us, let us also lay aside every encumbrance and the sin which so easily entangles us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us,

Character studies on Scripture are important and vital. They instruct, illustrate and rebuke. Do not shun Scripture examples. Heed the emphasis in Reformed preaching but don't through out the baby with the bathwater.

Examples from Scripture must be properly condition and brought to light.

"1 Corinthians 10:11 11 Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come."

What most lose site of today in using the Scriptural characters as examples, is the location of them versus the location of us in redemptive history. I have found that the more I meditate on this clause ("upon whom the end of the ages have come") when pondering a Biblical character example (or counter-example) the more I am guarded from a 1:1 moralism in my application of the Biblical text. Reformed teachers are right both doctrinally and practically to warn against using the Bible as mere moral example without gospel power.

While the courage of Daniel is a tremendous example and encouragement, I should not end or center my message on "dare to be a Daniel" even while a make exhortations about Daniel's example. Why? Because the end of the ages has come upon us. We live in the already/not yet tension. I cannot rob the gospel power that brings moral transformation at the same moment I am exhorting people to live transformed lives. It is wrong both doctrinally and practically.

Thus, we have seen the climax of God's plan. We have seen Christ our representative. Redemptive history has reached a climax. If you miss this, then you can tend to have a moralistic approach to your exhortations from Scripture. So examples: yes; Gospel-centered end of the ages: yes. The balance is proper and Biblical.

A little later after Paul uses the example of the OT, Paul even says: "1 Corinthians 11:1 NAU 1 Corinthians 11:1 Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ. " Character witnesses do give us something to imitate--but the goal is ultimately Christ and Christ formed in us. Mere human effort to imitate doesn't bring Christ into us--but by the same token, as Christ is formed in us by the work of the Holy Spirit, we will do nothing less but imitate Christ--and those in Scripture who were walking on the same path to imitate Christ.

On the one hand: don't neglect the richness of examples the Scriptures give us. On the other hand, don't neglect the redemptive historical shape of the text. This shape must guide the thrust of the message. This shape should cause us to think about the relationships between indicative and imperatives in such a way that all our preaching is shaped by the gospel and not other a priori we impose on the text.

Nicea & the New Testament: A Common Myth

One of those common myths that floats around out there is the rhetoric that as the church moved into Greek culture, it adopted Greek patterns of thought. Without denying shifting worldviews that differ from the original context to a limited extend, I've critiqued this notion of 'Greek vs. Jewish' thought particularly as it get propped up on the word-level--as if certain words denote "Greek thinking".

One common myth is that in Church history the Nicene Creed represented the introduction of alien Greek concepts into Christian theology. The case is made that words like homoousia have no place in Biblical doctrine. This is a bit like saying that because the Bible doesn't use the word Trinity the Bible in no way teaches that God is Triune. This argument just not fly. Theology is built by exegeting Biblical passages and looking at the concepts developed by the use of words.

The rise of Arianism and the Council of Nicea was precisely a debate over the meaning of the Bible itself. Yes, Greek words were used and some of those words were used to encapsulate theological concepts in precise ways. There is nothing wrong with precision, in fact in the face of confrontations to doctrine we often have wrestle with issues to a new depth. Nicea was about better articulating and clarifying what the Scriptures themselves teach.

One thing that I personally find intriguing is that when you read men like Athanasius, defending Nicea, you find him wrestling with and working through Biblical texts. In some cases, his exegesis is a bit archaic by modern standards but in other cases he makes analogous argument to that which we make today to defend Christ's deity. Athanasius and men like him, even his opponents, were by and large very concerned with the meaning of Scripture rather than imposing doctrine upon it.

R.P.C Hanson in his massive study on the rise of Nicene doctrine writes:

The subject under discourse between 318 and 381 were not, as has sometimes been alleged, those raised by Greek theology or philosophy and such as could only have been raised by people thinking in Greek terms. It was not simply a quarrel about Greek ideas. In the fourth century there came to a head a crises... which was not created by either Arius or Athanasius. It was the problem of how to reconcile two factors which were part of the very fabric of Christianity: monotheism, and the worship of Jesus as divine. Neither of these factors specifically connected with Greek philosophy or thought; both arise directly from the earliest tradition. Indeed, as will, it is hoped, be shown in this book, it was only by overcoming some tendencies in Greek philosophy which offered too easy an answer to the problem that a solution was reached. (The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy 318-381 p.xx-xxi)

Larry Hurtado and Richard Bauckham have defended in numerous from the NT studies side the reality of monotheism and worship of Jesus was found in the earliest Christian churches--right from their formation. Hanson notes that Greek philosophy would have been an easy answer, which runs contrary to most of these simplistic critiques built on myth. In fact:

Greek philosophy could readily accept monotheism which included an hierarchically graded God and could easily afford a qualified divinity to the Son. Neither was in the end accepted by the Church. But it would be absurd to deny that discussion and dispute between 318 and 381 were conducted largely in terms of Greek philosophy. The reason for this was, paradoxically, because the dispute was about the interpretation of the Bible. The theologians of the Christian church were slowly driven to a realization that the deepest questions which face Christianity cannot be answered in purely Biblical language, because the questions are about the meaning of biblical language itself. (ibid, xxi).

Serious historical reasoning and reflection cannot substantiate the notion that Christian doctrine developed at Nicea because of a coruption of Greek thought or philosophy. Hopefully, this short treatment shows this myth to be:

Book Reviews Gone Wild

This is a review by John Frame on Michael Horton's Christless Christianity that's making its way through the blogdom of men. I've reviewed Horton's book here. While I appreciated Frame's review in that it made be think critically and reevaluate what I liked about Horton's book, as a hole I find Frame's response to be unhelpful. At times it brings some helpful reminders but by and large I believe it is overblown.

There's an old saying: if a critique doesn't apply to you, don't worry about it. Maybe I should follow my own advice. So maybe this is foolish to traipse into the midst of this here. The reality is with respect to Michael Horton's book Christless Christianity is that if you go to a healthy church (big or small, mega- or country) then don't worry about in the sense that you feel it is pointed at you. Learn from it and guard your heart. But John Frame's review of the book seems to worry that too many well meaning Christians are unduly thrown under the bus but then in turn he is unfair.

While this is a discussion that I first commented on in a friend's facebook link, I weigh in here because (1) I have found Christless Christianity helpful and (2) as a pastor I have encountered Christians that by into the pop-evangelicalism that Horton rightly warns us. It's been said: 'what is assumed in this generation will be lost in the next.' I believe, from some of my experiences, that this precisely where we are, particularly in my generation. There are far to many that either are assuming elements of how the gospel shapes our ministry or worse have grown up in a culture that assumed elements of how the gospel shapes our ministry and now (again: for some) as they are being handed the reigns they are on the cusp forgetting it entirely. So for John Frame's critique: if he can find a whole lot of well meaning churches that don't quite fit into the doom and gloom of 'Christless Christianity', we shouldn't pretend it isn't out there or that the reliance on worldly methods aren't finding captive audience in a whole host of "Christian" venues.

Here were some of my initial thoughts:

I read Horton's book and found it to be very helpful. Frame's review, not so much. I will need to read Frame's review with a fine tooth comb but Frame seems entirely overblow. So for example, Frame complains Horton doesn't balance his view but when Horton does clarify with balance Frame lays these quotes out as unclear or contradictory. For someone who doesn't like Machen's warrior children, Frame seems to have an axe to grind.

From pastoral experience, I can agree with Frame that sometimes in our people the subjective isn't bad and people are well meaning--and I think Horton's new book brings some balance here. But also from pastoral experience I think their is a focus on subjective can be unhealthy. So for example, when someone tells you your preaching is not applicational unless you give them something to go and do. I think Frame is unrealistic of the dangers that Horton rightly points to.

Let me just say, that their can be a spiritual deadness in circles that focus on doctrine. This is analogous to the Ephesian church in Revelation 2:1-7. They are commended for their purity, particularly in hating the Nicolaitians. The put to the test (doctrine test?) those who call themselves apostles. The sniffed out the false ones--and yet they had lost a 'first love' sense of Christ. I have encounter individuals who have felt the weight of doctrinaire approaches and which sucked the air out of their love for Christ. We all want true doctrine to ignite passion and zeal for the Lord--zeal with knowledge. This is the heart of Augustine, the Reformers and Christians like Jonathan Edwards. We should rightly have an impassioned love for Christ. And yet, the pendulum can swing to far the other way, into Romanticism--as noted by Horton. But here's the problem, when someone critiques one end of the spectrum (as Horton does), I think can be a false charge to accuse them 'but you didn't point out the other end of the spectrum (as I think Frame does). Would be say to Paul in writing to the Galatians: "but Paul you didn't rail on the licentious libertarian" or Paul writing to the Corinthians: "you didn't warn against legalism". Paul's arguments serve as part of a polemic that is good and true--and I would argue Horton 's arguments do the same.

Back to my initial thoughts:

Another example, Frame is critical of Horton's critique of Olson as if Olson isn't an issue but I have encountered Christians who think he is helpful, encouraging and a nice preacher to listen too.

One more thing, I think Frame is too tough on Horton's law/gospel. Unless he's aware of something I am not, Horton would hold to a 3rd use of the law. BUT Horton's point is too many preachers too many people use law without a proper gospel orientation. So good right and true imperatives follow indicatives. But our tendency is to just give imperatives. Horton even says once we have the gospel "Now the law can guide and direct us, no longer out of fear of judgment, but out of genuine thanksgiving for God's grace." (156)

Frame is entirely unfair on Horton's view of "practical preaching". Horton is clear that it isn't bad to ask how to deal with your marriage, and scripture does bring this wisdom (146). Horton's focus though is right. While preaching through Hosea I've had people say "I'm too focused on condemnation" even though I talked about what idolatry looks like in our day (application) and I had others saying "I've never heard the gospel so powerfully from the OT" --I still seen the attitude that Horton confronts: it's not application without tips for happy living. Frame seems at points to think it doesn't exist in sincere Christians.

Let me give another example. I was once at popular youth rally for my small evangelical denomination. At the event, there was something that passed itself as preaching/teaching. I succinctly remember a message where young people were called to believe in Jesus. But the message was entirely devoid of the cross, the work of Christ, as our reason and motivation for repentance. The young people were basically challenged to commit to God. Many of the young people felt a connection with the speaker because he spoke to their hurts and needs--as you can imagine can be quite serious in a diverse group. He was right to address their hurts. But on the real solution he was rather vacuous. Never in my life had I witness so prime an opportunity to share the sufficiency of Christ and power of the gospel left by the wayside. Not only was it not emphasized--the whole cross was missed. I left asking "what Jesus did they come to". They were told God could be their buddy--but not told why and how. There was no mention, even in a non-technical way, of reconciliation.

But even more, I went back and talked with the teens from church and we talked because most of them were very familiar with Scriptures they intuitively understood they must repent because of Christ. So they naturally filtered the message through a grid of knowing the shed blood of Christ as the necessity for our repentance and the means by which we are healed. In other words, they assumed the gospel because it was in their hearts even when they heard one message utterly lacking the true gospel.

As I reflect back, I am saddened when I think about the young people who receive a steady diet of that sort of preaching. If they have so little focus on Christ in everything they hear--and not just one bad sermon--then what kind of 'Christian' culture are we developing? This kind of moralism, by no means ubiquitous in evangelicalism, does rear its ugly head. Far too often it goes unnoticed by the leaders appointed by God to guard against such things. Most often it is not by sinister motives that due diligence is not given--and that's what makes it so dangerous. Like a frog in a kettle we are oblivious to the changing temperature in our midst. I can remember youth leaders enthralled by how the speaker "reached" the young people and so I say that like Hercules it is the sweet sound of the Sirens that appeals to us. But the more we are willing to take in the sound, the less likely we will be to lash ourselves to the deck.

And again to my first thoughts:

I find it ironic that Frame complains that Horton imposes historical issues (Gnostic & Pelagianism) on modern day views and beliefs (I would say Horton makes analogies that yes as a historian can't be overread into situations today) but then Frame imposes 'Lutheran' rather than 'Reformed' categories on Horton.

It is always a good reminder that while history can offer analogies and if we don't know history we are doomed to repeat it. As someone who enjoys history and church history, would should remember that historical analogies (Gnostics, Pelagians, Arians, etc.) to today's beliefs do not entail one-to-one correspondence. We should say this without ignoring the reality that heresies long since defeated by sound orthodoxy and Biblical theology do resurface in a sort of mutant form by now today can make credible in roads in new camps. So for example: Socinians and Liberals in their own times denies the aspects of penal substitution in the cross but today its is the heir of evangelicals where this denial is catching root as noble. Analogies are not to be equivocation but once you have that delicate balance and set some guard rails against ahistoricism, analogies can be, nonetheless, illuminating.

I am not going to go point by point through Frame's review. That would be unfair and unhelpful. The White Horse Inn has posted a response here that deals with Frame's critiques. I am also going to recommend that one read both the book and the review of it by Frame but read it with a grain of salt and a critical eye. At the end of the day, I think Frame's critiques go beyond fairness and substance into too much nitpicking. One cannot help but wonder, particularly in light of his conclusion that Horton is representing a "narrow" and "factional" subgroup, if Frame's own experiences and biases have colored his thinking too much.

I appreciate Frame's stern warning that when we call someone or something 'Christless' was are pronouncing an anathema. We should realize the severity of such charge, but then the issues are serious too. This is not an accusation to wield lightly. There are churches that are to much on the fence in these area: the love Christ but they are infatuated with the wisdom of the world. But isn't that precisely the problem of the early church whether in Corinth or in Revelation 2-3? In many ways being on the fence is worse then being on the wrong side of the fence. I am reminded here of J. Gresham Machen who thought that the greatest threat was not the liberals of his day--at least he knew where they stood. Rather the greater threat was those who were willing to stand on the fence, a foot in both garden. We have to choose which master we will serve. We have to choose our greater love. Being on the fence on day can will lead to persuading others the next day that view on the other side isn't so bad.

Ok I'm done. Sorry, hope this doesn't come across as a rant. I think Frame's review forces one to think critically and keeps one from pharisaiclly applying Horton's critique to ever well meaning Christian in our day.

If one uses Horton in this way it is hardly Horton's fault. Truly grasping the concepts of the book should sufficiently guard against such nonsense. It is true that being more gospel-centered shouldn't become a badge of pride, even when it is a sober warning we must heed. Over at the new Evangel blog, James Wilson points out the danger of a 'Gospel Centralityolatry'--the idol that I make the gospel more centered than you (see also here). We should be cautious: "We’ve created a sub-culture of language and jargon that makes us unique, and if people describe things in a different vernacular we hold them in suspicion." Don't let 'Gospel-Centeredness' become a new legalism.

Christless Christianity is a call that needs to be heard is the prophetic call that those of us who live, move and have our being in the sub-culture which is evangelicalism need to both hear and head. What is assumed in this generation is and will be lost in the next. It's time to return to a more faithful pattern and for this Christless Christianity is a worthwhile tool.

Beatitudes: Intro

Here's a quote from John Stott:

"If today's young people are looking for the right things (meaning, love, reality), they are looking for them in the wrong places. The first place they should be able to turn to is the one they normally ignore, the church. For too often what they see in the church is not a new society which embodies their ideals but another version of the old society which they have renounced.
No comment could be more hurtful to the Christian than the words "But you are no different from anybody else." For the essential theme of the whole Bible from beginning to end is that God's historical purpose is to call out a people for himself. This people is a "holy" people, set apart from the world to belong to him and to obey him; its vocation is to be true to its identity, that is, to be "holy" or "different" in all its outlook and behavior.
All this is essential background to the Sermon on the Mount. It describes what human life and human community look like when they come under the gracious rule of God. And what do they look like? Different. (John Stott's The Beatitudes: Developing Spiritual Character p.5-6).

That which Stott calls 'the gracious reign of God' is precisely what Matthew refers to when he uses the phrase: "kingdom of heaven/God". The beatitudes pronounce the blessings of the kingdom. This dawning kingdom ushers in a new reality, the firstfruits of the new creation which brings with it the gospel power to create a new community.