Here goes another one of those blogs that I probably should not write, but what the heck? I have had dozens of people ask me for my take on William Young’s The Shack, so I guess I will give it to them. I will just keep it short.

The Shack is a fiction book that describes a man’s encounter with God after the kidnapping and death of his daughter. I found the book to be a good read and would have no problem recommending it to people. Theologically, of course, every thing I read could be better, but there were no red flags that concerned me too much. In fact, one of my biggest criticisms was that Young (the author) seemed to go to far out of his way to put orthodox language on the lips of God. In doing so, he avoided some of the major pitfalls when dealing with the Trinity and did his best to keep people like me off his back (which is often futile—especially when a work is too popular!), but he suggested, in my opinion, too much concerning our grasp of God’s nature. I like a bit more mystery left in tact. We may understand accurately, but let us not think we understand fully.

I was quite surprised by his understanding of many often elusive theological details. For example, when conversations with God occurred,  it was explained that while God already knows all (thus he was not an Open Theist), this in no way makes the conversation meaningless as it is God’s purpose and pleasure to genuinely engage with us. I was impressed as well by the description of the Holy Spirit. When Mack (the main character and father of the girl) attempted to look at the Holy Spirit, he could never really focus. That is some really good theology as the Holy Spirit’s role, as is stated in the book, is to point to Christ, not to himself. Christ is the central figure, yet all of the members of the Trinity are presented as one, yet distinct, equal, yet fulfilling a particular role. Good stuff.

Of course there are going to be many who don’t like descriptions made of God in such a way. I can understand this, but if you are one of these, you need to be consistent and have the same problems with fictional stories such as the Chronicles of Narnia. And to be sure people will have problems with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit showing up as women, but I think he did a good job of explaining why this was the case. God is neither male nor female, as Young elaborated, and a fatherly figure is not what Mack needed at the time. While, to be sure, God is presented as masculine in the Scriptures, there are times when he compares himself to a mother in order to describe that which is expedient to the need. I think this is all Young has done. If this were written ten years ago when all the gender inclusive stuff was hotter than it is now, I might have been more offended thinking there was some sort of agenda behind it. But I don’t think this is the case.

Of course I did not agree with all the libertarian freedom (Arminian) presuppositions (God will not interfere with human autonomous freedom). Young did, however, back off on this at the end when he said that God could have intervened and saved his daughter. Besides, I don’t judge the value of such works upon their stance on non-cardinal issues. I can appreciate them even if they do promote such silliness as libertarianism!

I did like how Young left it a mystery as to why God did not save Mack’s daughter. God has his purpose which we sometimes don’t need to know. I often think of that with regard to the death of my sister. The search for meaning can be maddening, but we must ultimately say that God knows what he is doing, is in control, and is good. We sacrifice none of these. Young communicated such in this book. There is so much to commend here.

In the end, I thought that the book was decently written, thoroughly engaging, and theologically sound. I would recommend it, not as a basic theology novel, but as a good attempt to deal with the problem of pain in a creative way that will cause one to step outside their box for a while. Don’t let it create a new box (as is so often the case when people get out of one box, they jump right into another), but consider it’s perspective and you will be fine. In other words, reading or liking The Shack will not send you to hell (at least I hope!).

PLEASE NOTE: I puposefully did not read many reviews of this book so as not to try to jump on any band wagon, one way or another. However, I have caught the wind that most conservatives don’t like it much. Am I missing something?

Send post as PDF to

The Credo House of Theology is well on the way. Get the latest updates here.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

According to N.T. Wright, justification is a subset of election, which, in turn, is an issue of ecclesiology. Justification therefore is intrinsically tied to being a part of the covenant community. Jews were by definition part of this community and, because of this, they were justified de facto. In Wright’s understanding, the Jews of Paul’s day, including Paul himself, were not seeking to justify themselves by their own works, but to remain a part of the covenant community. Therefore, the traditional Augustinian/Reformed view of justification by works vs. justification by faith is not what is a issue with Paul. In other words, the Jews never believed that they were justified by works. Wright believes that justification = “To be declared righteous due to initiation into the covenant community,” not “To be de righteous do to the imputation of Christ’s righteousness.”

Piper argues that such a definition cannot bear the weight of the New Testament text, especially Paul. Using Romans 3 and 4, Piper demonstrates that justification is not a recognition of a status with in a covenant community, but a declaration of a position before God. Piper notes, “. . . [J]ustification does not denote or mean covenant membership, but it does imply covenant membership” (p. 44).

This leads to a further review of Wright’s understanding of Justification in Chapter three. Here Piper gets to the heart of the issue admitting that the nuances of the covenant community definition of justification are not as serious, but provide a framework for Wright’s understanding of ultimate justification being yet future.

This eschatological view of justification departs from the traditional forensic view in that justification is not something that people acquire when they trust in Christ, but that which people may acquire during judgment. The vindication of God does not come at the cross, but during the final judgment. While the judgment came at the cross, those who place their faith in Christ will not be ultimately justified until the end. This justification provides us with a status, but not a reality of being righteous as God is righteous. This is in distinction to the traditional Protestant understanding of imputation, where Christ’s righteousness is declared to be ours immediately upon faith in Christ.

Piper defends the traditional view of imputation by posing that Wright fails to see righteousness not only in terms of what God does, but who God is (p. 63). Piper defines God’s righteousness as “his unwavering commitment to act for the sake of his glory.” This righteousness is given to us through imputation.

I agree with Piper. While I appreciate the questions that Wright brings to the table, it seems that he fails to understand the theological implications that are tied to the doctrine of imputation. Imputation has necessary connections to Christ’s role as the second Adam. Our identification with the first Adam is actual and forensic at the same time. We are born sinful with respect to our nature and have been declared guilty because the human race, in Adam, has been declared guilty, and we are part of that race. In this sense, we are hidden in the first Adam’s unrighteousness. Call this imputation, call it identification, call it headship, call it whatever seems best (terminology is not something I would die for), but we must understand how we are connected to Adam outside of Christ. We are found “in Adam” without justification.

Romans 5 is certainly not about our identification with a covenanted community, but with a representative head. This is where I really don’t understand why Wright parts ways with the doctrine of imputation. Christ, as the second Adam, serves as our new representative head. I guess one could say that Christ is the covenanted community just as was Adam, but this would just be semantics and would fail to sufficiently recognize the differences.

Whatever the Jews believed at the time, Paul sought to correct this by showing that the headship of Adam was the problem not only of the Jews, but the entire human race. Death was a result of the sin of Adam. Righteousness and life is the result of the righteousness of Christ. Just as Adam’s sin was imputed to the human race, so is Christ’s righteousness imputed to all who believe, in the same way. That is the key. If it is not the same way, then Paul’s argument of Romans 5 makes no sense.

Since Christ is the second Adam, we must be found “in Him” by a legal forensic declaration. While we don’t have a righteousness that is our own, we have been declared righteous (justified), through the imputation of an alien righteousness. Without this imputation, we would forever be identified with the first Adam and, hence, his sin, resulting in death.

In this, the imputation is both a biblical and theological necessity.

I don’t think we have misread Paul, even if our understanding of this is not perfect. I think that their is a sense which we can talk about “future justification” as a final vindication of the forensic justification that has already taken place.

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

John Piper has proven once again that underneath his passionate commitment to exposition and inspiration, his thinking, judgment, and exegetical rigor is not clouded by emotional commitments and traditional brick walls. Piper represents that rare combination between the pastor, theologian, and exegete. His most recent work The Future of Justification is a scholarly defense of the Gospel in the wake that has left many scrambling toward the reinterpretation of justification by NT Wright and those who are mesmerized by the “New Perspective on Paul” (henceforth NPP).

Piper describes the purpose of his book: ”I hope that the mere existence of this book will the stakes in the minds of many and promote serious study and faithful preaching of the gospel, which includes the good news of justification by faith apart from works of the law (Rom. 3:28; Gal. 2:16).” Piper believes that the NPP as represented by NT Write is another Gospel. Yet at the same time Piper does not assume that being justified means that one has a right view of Justification: “I do not infer Wright’s defective view of justification to mean that he is not himself justified.” I appreciate his perspective. Yet he is quick to point out the seriousness of departure from a pure representation of the Gospel.

Piper begins by giving eight dangers of Wrights NPP:

1. The Gospel Is Not about How to Get Saved
2. Justification Is Not How You Become a Christian
3. Justification Is Not the Gospel
4. We Are Not Justified by Believing in Justification
5. The Imputation of God’s Own Righteousness Makes No Sense At All
6. Future Justification Is on the Basis of the Complete Life Lived
7. First-century Judaism Had Nothing of the Alleged Self-Righteous and Boastful Legalism
8. God’s Righteousness Is the Same as His Covenant Faithfulness

The successive chapters deal with each of these dangers. Before this, he give a warning about methodology seeking to address the problem of emphasizing on a particular exegetical conclusion without balancing this out systematically with the rest of Scripture. According to Piper, exegesis, Biblical theology, and systematic theology are all ultimately necessary in coming to a valid understanding of truth. Implied is a direct warning to Wright and other NPPers to move beyond their focus on cultural analysis of a particular text so that the Scriptures can speak in wholistically. He also warns against the growing tendency among scholars and lay-people alike to disregard traditional understanding in favor of novelty. While not disregarding anything new, Piper says that older establish interpretations must be allowed to glow “with similar exuberance” (p. 37).

Wright essentially believes that “discussions of justification in much of the history of the church, certainly since Augustine, got off on the wrong foot at least in terms of understanding Paul and they have stayed there ever since” (p. 37). In essence, Wright believes that Protestants, Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox have misunderstood Paul, Judaism, and Justification for the last 1500 years. Wrights courage to challenge traditional understandings with “fresh” “innovative” thought is cautioned against by Piper with an admonishment concerning out love affair with novelty: “My own assessment of the need of the church at this moment in history is different from Wright’s: I think we need a new generation of preachers who are not only open to new light that God may shed upon his word, but are also suspicious of their own love of novelty and are eager to test all their interpretations of the Bible by the wisdom of the centuries.” He goes on, “The point here is simply to caution that his celebration of ‘delighted innovation’ may confirm a neophilia of our culture that that needs balancing with the celebration of the wisdom of the centuries precisely for the sake of faithfulness to the biblical text.”

I find this exhortation alone worth the price of the book.

Considering people’s “love affair” with the novelty (”neophilia”):

• What examples have you come across with regards to this tendency?
• How have you been tempted to be caught of in this love affair?
• Why do you think we have this tendency to be neophilites?
• What are the promises and perils of neophilia?

More to come.

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

There is a new Bible being released by Bible Society out of UK that is focused on “the most important issues of the day.” It is called The Poverty and Justice Bible. Based on the Contemporary English Version (CSV), the Bible “highlights more than 2,000 passages that reveal God’s sorrow over poverty and injustice.”

N.T. Wright, president of the Bible Society, says, Poverty and injustice are two of the biggest issues of our day, challenging the minds of politicians and social activists around the world. . . The imbalance of global wealth, famine, water shortages, exploitation and corruption are all issues that invoke outrage and demand attention. But The Poverty and Justice Bible shows that, in speaking out on these issues, God got there first.

Emerging Christian leader and commentator Tony Campolo added, "Here’s proof that faith without commitment to justice for the poor is a sham, because it ignores the most explicit of all the social concerns of Scripture."

You can find the roots in this Bible primarily in the emerging communities, but you will also find significant influence from Rick Warren (who essentially laid its foundation) and U2’s lead singer and activist Bono (who has had significant influence over Rick Warren in the last few years).

‘We want the world to see that the Bible is relevant to life and not full of rules, finger-wagging and old-fashioned ideas,’ says Bible Society Chief Executive James Catford.

From the Bible’s website: 

“There is a generation of Christian young adults who are passionate about their faith but who struggle to connect it with the Bible. So this Bible starts where they are, with issues close to their heart. This special Poverty and Justice Bible gives them a way to begin to engage with Scripture, and we hope and pray this will be the first of many encounters for them.”

I am glad that Christian’s are focusing much attention on the need to engage social issues and I am sure that this Bible will make a fine edition to the plethora of study Bible’s out there, but I do have some initial hesitations concerning this project:

I can’t help but see this Bible as one possibly motivated by an imbalanced agenda. For example, commenting on Romans 13:8-10 the Bible has these notes:

“Paul was a great traveler. It is estimated that he travelled more than 10,000 miles during his ministry. I wonder, if he were alive today, would he be zooming around Turkey on the Asia Minor equivalent of EasyJet? Would he be insulating his tent and reducing his carbon footprint?

The Bible says that God will end the world, not global warming. But that doesn’t mean we can ignore it. Experts argue about the effects of climate change, but, like so many global disasters, it will probably be the poor who suffer the most. No one who loves others will harm them, writes Paul. If we truly love other people, we care about their lives, their prospects, their living conditions, their future. And that means changing our lives so as not to damage theirs. We make sacrifices for their sake.”

I am not one for promoting planetary stewardship underload, but I am not sure that this is the best example to use for Romans 13:8-10. It seems rather manipulative. After reading this, I thought that it should be called The Democrats Study Bible.

The tag-line from the Bible’s web-site says, “You know God cares for the poor. Now you can know how much.” Is the answer: “So much that he sent his own Son to die for the poor?” It should be. Yes, he does care for the poor. But he first cares for the poor in spirit. Those who recognize their need and utter dependence on him. We respond to his redemption by our good works, by our mercy, by our aid to those in need. Can we truly be expected to respond without this redemption being the focus?

The Bible is first a book of soteriological history revealing our need and God’s mercy. Isn’t it?

My single biggest problem with the idea of this Bible is that it might have the tendency to present God as an incompetent ruler who’s primary desires—justice, mercy, and environmental protection—are hamstrung until socio-political-theo activists can bring in his kingdom on earth through their own efforts. Please understand, I would say the same thing if someone were to put out a Bible entitled The Pro-Life Study Bible.

These type of maneuvers, which can be quite manipulative, cause people to have an imbalanced and distorted view of the Gospel. God becomes a cheerleader in a game in which He may not even be playing. Far from becoming more relevant, God can become sidelined while our game-plan is focused on quasi-foreign agendas. Is that what we really want?

The game that God is in is one where there is the tension between the Christian’s efforts to bring in God’s kingdom through the reality and necessity of suffering in a sin-infected world. Does this mean we sit on our hands? Certainly not (perish the thought!), but we do not see the alleviation of poverty and oppression as the ultimate victory until we see the alleviation of sin dealt with through the cross.

As an aside, I have yet to see anything about justice for the unborn in this Bible.

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

I’m busy these days trying to crank out more than a thousand words a day on a church history text contracted by Zondervan, and I don’t have a lot of spare time. I leave it to my readers as to whether or not I should expend the money and time to buy and read The Shack. The book is getting incredible BUZZ and the vast vast majority of reviews on Amazon are 5 star. Here is what Eugene Peterson says:

When the imagination of a writer and the passion of a theologian cross-fertilize the result is a novel on the order of The Shack. This book has the potential to do for our generation what John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress did for his. It’s that good!

I learned about the book from my friend Greg Albrecht (editor of Plain Truth Magazine); his review is equally glowing:

You will be captivated by the creativity and imagination of The Shack, and before you know it, you’ll be experiencing God as never before. William Young’s insights are not just captivating, they are biblically faithful and true. Don’t miss this transforming story of grace.

But there is also Michael Burton’s review, one of the two 1-star reviews on Amazon: He says the book is for you if, and only if . . . .

You want to recreate God in your own image;

You find Isaiah’s portrayal of a holy God seated upon His throne to be a disturbing image;

You would prefer to metaphorically cast God the Father as a loving and large black woman named “Papa,” Jesus as a laid back and friendly Middle Eastern man, and the Holy Spirit as a calm and cool Asian woman;

You want a God so small that you and she/he/she can just hang out together as best buddies;

You regard the Bible as an extremely biased, narrow-minded, and insufficient revelation of God in leather binding with “guilt edges” (page 65);

You therefore believe that God talks to people today, and that whatever she or he says to people trumphs biblical truth (page 66);

You believe that God is never to be feared (page 90). . . .

Who is this guy, William P. Young? Here is his own self-effacing bio:

The Shack was a story written for my six children, with no thought or intention to publish. It is as much a surprise to me as to anyone else that I am now an “author”. Overall, I am a very simple guy; I have one wife, six kids, two daughter-in-laws and two grandkids on the way. I work as a general manager, janitor and inside sales guy for a friend who owns a small manufacturers rep company in Milwaukie, Oregon, and I live in a small rented house in Gresham, Oregon, that Kim has made into a marvelous home. My time is spent loving the people that are a part of my life. I am not connected, or a part, or a member of, or involved inside any sort of organization or movement anywhere. The truth is that I doubt anyone would want me. From my perspective that is a very positive thing for both of us. I have lots of incredible friends, and now you are one of those.

My questions to you all are: Have you heard about the book? If so, what’s the BUZZ you’re getting? Have you read it? Should I expend my time and money on it?

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

I’ve been reading J.P. Moreland’s superb book Kingdom Triangle, which was recently released by Zondervan. He begins with this true story by the missionary doctor to Zaire, Africa—Helen Roseveare. Though it’s a bit long for a blog, it is very inspiring.

One night, in Central Africa, I had worked hard to help a mother in the labor ward; but in spite of all that we could do, she died leaving us with a tiny, premature baby and a crying, two-year-old daughter.

     

We would have difficulty keeping the baby alive. We had no incubator. We had no electricity to run an incubator, and no special feeding facilities. Although we lived on the equator, nights were often chilly with treacherous drafts.

     Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

 
You may be familiar with a book called 90 Minutes in Heaven: A True Story of Death & Life written by Don Piper (not to be confused with John Piper) and Cecil Murphey. It has been on the New York Times and Amazon best seller list since its release in 2004. In the book, Don Piper describes his experience of being in a car wreck where he was pronounced dead by the paramedics. During his death Piper describes the details of his “90 minutes in heaven.”

It is not my intention here to evaluate the validity of near-death experiences in general, but to ask some questions concerning this on in particular. This is not an easy thing for me to do as I believe Don Piper probably sincerely trusts the Lord and truly believes that his experience that evening was a miracle where the God showed him a glimpse of heaven.   Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

Our culture is changing rapidly, and many Christians aren’t keeping up. The old formulas that have worked for decades won’t work with the emerging generation. If there’s one lesson that the modern, successful evangelical church needs to learn it is this. We need a fresh perspective on what our world is like today from someone who has escaped the Christian subculture and ventured into the heart and hearts of non-Christians.

Enter Dan Kimball. His book, They Like Jesus, but not the Church, gives the perspective that is badly needed. Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

Fred Sanders and Klaus Issler have recently edited an important book on the relationship of Jesus to the Father and the Holy Spirit. Jesus in Trinitarian Perspective: An Introductory Christology will be an outstanding follow-up volume for those of you who study the evidence for the deity of Christ that Rob Bowman and I have amassed in Putting Jesus in His Place: The Case for the Deity of Christ. Once you’ve got a solid grasp on the fact of Jesus’ divine identity, you’ll want to spend some time wrestling with how that fact fits into a larger Trinitarian framework. Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!