Here is my attempt to highlight some of the issues, though I don’t offer any clear answers.  In fact, my first word of advice is to avoid people that think this is cut and dry!  It is not.  We need to be thoughtful on this subject.  Below are two different perspectives through which we can interpret these and future economic events. 

The Mark of the Beast!

Revelation 13:16 introduces us to the mark of the beast.  The author, John, was writing an intentionally cryptic historical and prophetic document.  Also, he had a strange fascination with numbers (Jn 21:11).  Couple that with our overly literal culture and you have the fertile soil of crazy interpretations (the “mark” could even be the internet!)

The mark may refer to Rome, but mostly it is a figurative mark to be contrasted with Christ’s mark (Rev 14:1).  But here is the part we care about: Revelation 13:17.  Without the mark, one cannot buy or sell.  This highlights a theme already expressed in Revelation where Christians, because of their convictions, are left out of the economic fun of Roman life.  Good Christians are said to be poor in Rev 2:9 while Christians in Rev 2:14 and 2:20 are rebuked for aligning with false gods, which convey the sense of material wealth and luxury.

There is an economic impact for being a Christian and it goes way beyond Dave Ramsey.  We overlook it because we may be more Rev 2:20 than 2:9.  For instance, what would be the economic impact if Christians quit coveting?  As Americans, coveting is one of our favorite pastimes... What if we stopped? 

But the impact goes well beyond the hypothetical.  The riot in Ephesus happened because Christians quit buying household gods (Acts 19:25-26).  It was the gods-makers (the silversmiths) that led the revolt against Paul, not the government.  Near the Black Sea, though, the government did get involved.  One of the chief reasons for persecution in the early church in that region was due to economics.  Trajan’s remarkable letter to the Roman Emperor (dated around 111AD) says that due to Christianity, it was hard to find anyone to buy the sacrificial animals!  Trajan’s complaint fits well with the persecution we find in 1Peter, which addressed that region.

So, is Hobby Lobby suffering because they bear the name of Christ instead of the Beast?  OR...

Taxes to Caesar

There is something else to consider.  The incarnation of Jesus is not only central to our salvation, it is helpful to see how God was willing to enter a broken system in order to redeem those who belonged to it.  It is a theme that runs through the rest of Scripture and it needs to be considered as we navigate the Hobby Lobby problem.

In Matthew 22:15-22 Jesus advocates paying taxes to Caesar and in Matthew 17:24-27 he pays the temple tax.  The governments in Rome and Judea were corrupt.  They did things with Jesus’ money that God hated.  Murder, sex, opulence, oppression, incest, unjust war, abortion, homosexuality, all this was the practice of these governments.  And, if I can be so bold, Jesus enabled all of this with his tax money.  He could have stood against these injustices and he didn’t.

The concept continues in the early church.  In 1Corinthians 8, Paul allows the mature believers in the church to eat food that was sacrificed to idols.  But in other Scriptures that was considered part of the false religious practice.  Surely there were Christians that wanted to boycott such meat.  Surely they believed the whole system to be so corrupt that no Christian should be in any way complicit in it.  But Paul says no to that.  He famously states earlier in that letter that it is supposed to be the cross that is a stumbling block (1Cor 1:23), not our position against the world (1Cor 5:10). 

A related but less important example is that in seminary certain professors required us to use the secular designations BCE and ACE instead of the Christian BC and AD for dates.  They knew many students would be going on to get secular PhD’s and they wanted us to realize it was the cross that should offend, not Christians unnecessarily bucking the system.

Back to Hobby Lobby.  Is this an issue of compliance to a corrupt system where resisting only shifts the focus away from the primary goal?

The Takeaway

The owners of Hobby Lobby are not being asked to actually perform abortions.  If they were, this would be easy.  They have been ordered to comply with a corrupt system.  I applaud their willingness to prioritize the commands of Christ over financial gain.  And I have to admit that I don’t know what I would do if I were in their shoes.  But the truth is, this may begin happening more and more on smaller scales for all of us.  In fact, it may should have happened a long time ago but we were too blind to see it.  Either way, we must think before we act.

Christians are a people that like to act.  Whether it is Disney or Home Depot, Christians like a good boycott.  And now, with Chick-fil-A, we have discovered the fun of an un-boycott!  We like to have a cause we can fix.  As Americans and First World Christians, we have been lulled into thinking that injustices are not to be tolerated and we should always vote with our feet and our wallets.  But the days may be coming where things might not be so clear.  Or worse, where we don’t have full wallets to take elsewhere. 

I believe the Hobby Lobby problem should be seen as a harbinger of the hard questions that lay ahead.  As our government and culture move further away from the echo of Christianity, our involvement in corrupt systems will become more pronounced.  Some will over-withdraw.  Some will over-engage.  Many will argue.  But God help us as we navigate these new (but very old) waters.

One thing is for sure, and it is the theme of Revelation, God is on his throne and we are to trust him as the battle rages and the bowls of wrath are poured out all around us.

Far from wanting to complain about that, I would like to see this as an opportunity.  I may be in the minority, but I find the wishes of “Happy Holidays” to be refreshing.  Please don’t get me wrong; I love Christmas – it’s my favorite time of the year.  But the separation of Christmas from the Holidays is some medicine I think the Church needs to swallow.

Christianity has been the dominant religious system in America since her founding.  Some of that is good and some of that is bad.  The good is fairly obvious – we have enjoyed a cultural situation that has made it very easy for people to believe in Christ and follow him.  Of course, this in itself can be bad since the Bible exalts those who are rejected, poor, hungry, and persecuted – stuff the American church rarely is.  But the other bad part about the American/Christian union is that it has allowed us to confuse what parts of our lives are secular and what parts of our lives are religious.  Christianity and secular American society are deeply divided.  The Bible is clear that the world will always hate God but for some reason we often expect the world to embrace us – especially at Christmas time.

We Christians can be arrogant.  We want the world to acknowledge the reason for the season even though it didn’t in Jesus’ day.  There will come a day when every knee will bow and every mouth confess the reign of Christ our King, but don’t get that confused with whether or not Hallmark makes explicitly Christian greeting cards or Old Navy uses the word Christmas to sell jeans.

This Christmas we have a great opportunity; our secular society has given us a wonderful gift.  They have given Christmas back to the Christians!  We don’t have to fight them for it anymore!  Maybe now we can enjoy the secular side of our festivities (Santa and the Holidays) while also having a deeply religious experience as we set aside this time for our Lord (Christmas).  There is something very attractive to me in the thought of God’s people celebrating Christmas as the world around us celebrates the Holidays. 

Here are some practical things we can do to make this a truly spiritual season…

• Instead of groaning that you can’t find a book about Jesus for your preschooler, get a Bible and a nativity set and let your child act out the words of Luke 2 with the figurines.
• Instead of searching high and low for a “Christmas” card, write a Christmas letter explaining what Christ has been doing in your life and family this year.
• Don’t get mad if you see the word “Xmas” – the letter X is the oldest abbreviation for the word Christ (whether the person using it knows it or not).
• Finally, raise a glass of eggnog and make a toast to the Christ who is foolishness to the rest of the world but God’s power to those who believe!

Do you own a nativity set?  Do you display it at Christmas?  My family does.  And every time we unpack it the same sorts of questions go through my head.

Why do we give baby Jesus a pass and not dying Jesus?  Why is it that most Protestants are willing to display figurines of Jesus in a manger when these same people would never consider a crucifix?  The short answer, I think, is that we are hypocrites.  And I am not sure what the long answer is.

Issue #1

When I was growing up, the catchy little saying as to why we hate crucifixes was simply this: Jesus isn't on the cross anymore!  That, I am sure, smacks at the Roman Catholics and their interest in seeing Jesus sacrifice himself over and over again in the Mass.  I agree with the once-for-all sacrifice, but just because Jesus isn't on the cross any more does that necessarily mean that capturing his sacrifice is wrong?  The truth is, he isn't in the manger any more either. 

Issue #2

I think some find the crucifix offensive because it is not only grotesque, it is probably perceived as the "low point" in the humiliation of Christ.  I agree it is likely the "low point," but it is only a little lower than a whole bunch of other lows.  The author of the universe laying in a food trough?  He who created the stars being forced to be born under them because a few Bed & Breakfasts were either too full or too expensive for the poor newlyweds?  If we like baby Jesus because it is quaint we should admit it, but we should also admit that what we find so sweet was a complete insult to our Lord.

Issue #3

And lastly, many conservative Christians believe using a physical aid in worship breaks the Second Commandment.  I appreciate, and have at times used, the argument that depicting Jesus is okay since he took on human flesh.  But the truth is, if Jesus really wanted to be seen he would still be visible to us.  And you can actually find the opposite teaching in the Bible (Rom 8:24).  So, I don't use a crucifix because it would likely become an aid in my mediation on the unseen atonement.  And I admit that my meditation on the birth of my Lord is strongly influenced by the hand carved nativity set that sat in the entry way of my home growing up. 

So, does all this mean that I have seen the light and completely reject the nativity scenes at our house?  Um, no.  I am bothered when I put it out, but I don't seem to take it much further than that.  Jesus belongs where God has put him - at his exalted right hand.  In no way does he belong in a manger - born under the law.  And yet, I do have him there, on the buffet in our dining room. 

I am not the model of consistency, I know, but I can at least say this: the more humiliating and grotesque I find the scene in that stable, the more thankful I am for his  love.  Merry Christmas. :)

With only 2,000 inhabitants, Wittenberg was painfully insignificant.  But it did have its church.  The church at Wittenberg had one of the largest collections of holy relics in all of Germany. It claimed to have a thorn from Jesus’ crown of thorns, a piece of straw from the manger, a strand of Jesus’ beard, a piece of bread from the Last Supper, and a twig from Moses’ burning bush.

Relics stayed under lock and key except for one day.  November 1st was All Saints Day and on that day all the churches of the Roman Catholic Church displayed their relics.  It was Wittenberg’s day to shine.  The display was surely impressive – her relics numbered in the thousands – but each year this day came and went with no real historical significance.

Then came Martin Luther.

Throughout the first years of the 1500’s, Martin Luther – a monk in Wittenberg – was growing more and more frustrated with the Roman Catholic Church.  He had been to Rome and seen how lax, corrupt, and immoral the fountainhead of the church had become.  He confessed his sins constantly, but never felt forgiven.  But the thing that frustrated Martin Luther most was that the Roman Catholic Church was offering Indulgences.

To help the church fund its building projects, the Pope extended forgiveness to anyone who wanted to make a financial contribution.  These Indulgences meant that if your Aunt Betty had died and was suffering in purgatory, you could give some money and get her to heaven more quickly.  Luther wanted to debate this practice.

In Wittenberg, if you wanted to debate the church, you would post your argument on its doors.  Luther, wanting to make his point clear, posted his critique the night before the biggest day for the church.  Everyone came to the church on November 1st to see the relics.  So on October 31 – also called All Hallows Eve – Martin Luther posted his 95 Theses on the Wittenberg door.  The year was 1517.

The Protestant Reformation did not happen that very moment.  Like so many significant acts in history, it went unnoticed at first.  Luther’s 95 Theses are simple points of debate; mostly having to do with Indulgences and the Pope’s power over purgatory.  They are not dramatic to read, nor has history recorded some magical moment when his hammer pounded on the door.  But soon, someone got hold of the Theses and translated them from Latin to German.  When the common people read his critique, the largest Christian revolution began.

If you go to a Protestant Church, then this is should be a special day for you.  Luther was the first to start this reform, but he certainly wasn’t the last.  Within a few years reform would spread to Switzerland – that would create the Presbyterian Church, which would spawn the Baptist Church, the Congregational Church, the Church of Christ and more.  Then it hit England – the Anglicans would later give birth to Episcopal Church, the Methodist Church, and many in the Pentecostal movement.

October 31st is a big day for Protestants.  It may not be as fun as candy-corn and Snickers bars, but it is hard not see the effects of this historic day.  So as you dress your children for fun and games tonight, let your mind wander over to a small village in Germany where a 34-year old monk changed the world forever.  Happy Reformation Day!

In fact, out of these primary concepts, did you know that how you answer two questions defines a majority of how you view life? These two questions may seem innocuous at first since they are questions that everyone probably thinks about at one time or another, but their importance is far reaching. You've probably already guessed the first question: “Does God exist?” This question is an obvious one to start with, but it doesn't mean as much without the second question, the follow-up to the first. “If God does exist, is God directly and personally involved in the world?”

Why are these two questions so pivotal? Because the answers to these two questions lie at the nucleus of every person's worldview. Whether a person consciously considers and decides their answers after much thought and contemplation, or they subconsciously assume the answers and lives their life ignoring the questions, everyone's view of the world begins to be defined by these two questions. No one is exempt. Our answers to these two questions, which become our presuppositions as Cornelius Van Til would call them, mold everything else that follows.

So, how do people answer these questions? Well, the atheist answers the first question “no,” rendering the second question moot. The agnostic answers the first question “I don't know” and the second with a “no.” And the deist answers the first with a “yes” and the second with a “no.” Now, even though there are differences in how these three groups of people answer the first question, their unanimous answer to the second question means that they essentially have the same worldview: an impersonal worldview. This is the view that God, if he even exists, doesn't personally involve himself in the events of the world, but that the world runs on mechanical laws and natural instincts that are independent of God. Man is autonomous and life just reduces down to matter, energy, and motion.

However, the person that answers “yes” to both questions has a personal worldview. The personal worldview doesn't deny the laws of nature, natural instincts, or the reality of the effects of matter, energy, and motion, but it sees them all as secondary causes which are subordinate to the primary cause of all things, the foreknowledge and decree of God. The Christian worldview, as established by the Bible, is a personal worldview. (Just to be clear, there are a few other religions that answer both questions as yes, but the number that answer that way is far fewer than you would think, and other primary worldview questions quickly make a distinction between those religions and Christianity.)

Now, the impersonal and the personal worldviews may share many understandings, views, and interpretations at the surface, but they are in direct opposition to each other at the core. Let me give you an example. Modern science, influenced by materialism, promotes an impersonal worldview. It tells us that nature is made up of laws that govern elements and the interactions thereof. What we observe is all that there is, and even we, ourselves, are just built up from complex electrical and chemical signals that were arranged and constructed through a random, natural process over billions of years. But, modern science doesn't stop there. It not only says that this physical world is all there is, but it also presses the negative side – that any claims to things outside of what we can observe are patently false. Scientists “are tempted to think that materialism is at the bottom of the world, and much of the rest arises from human creation of meaning” (Vern S. Poythress, Inerrancy and Worldview, p. 29).

In contrast to this modern scientific impersonal worldview is the Christian personal worldview. At the surface, we would agree that nature is made up of matter, energy, and motion and is governed by laws that we can observe and approximate. But, deep at the core we don't see this as the base of all things. We see these things as secondary causes, completely dependent on and subordinate to the true foundation and primary cause, God. “In contrast to impersonalism, the Bible indicates that God is involved in the world. God is personal, and he governs the world by speaking – by issuing commands” (Poythress, p. 31). Therefore, the Biblical worldview understands that science is an exploration of the creative and sustaining speech and mind of God who works through secondary causes that he instituted, but if God, in his providence, chooses to act outside of secondary causes then he is free to do so at His own good pleasure.

The impersonal worldview doesn't just have influence in modern science, though. It has a far reaching influence into almost every professional discipline such as historical criticism, linguistics, philosophy, sociology, and psychology. In fact, you are likely to run into an impersonal worldview every day. So, when you come into contact with an opposing worldview that challenges your thinking, try to get to the root presuppositions of this view. Think about the differences between an impersonal and a personal worldview. It will likely end up that this is where the real conflict is born. Remember that our God, the God of the Bible, is personally involved in the world and is the governing foundation for everything that was, is, and is to come.

Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter V - Of Providence

I. God the great Creator of all things does uphold, direct, dispose, and govern all creatures, actions, and things, from the greatest even to the least, by His most wise and holy providence, according to His infallible foreknowledge, and the free and immutable counsel of His own will, to the praise of the glory of His wisdom, power, justice, goodness, and mercy.

II. Although, in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first Cause, all things come to pass immutably, and infallibly; yet, by the same providence, He orders them to fall out, according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently.

III. God, in His ordinary providence, makes use of means, yet is free to work without, above, and against them, at His pleasure.

Recommended Reading:

• Vern S. Poythress
  • Inerrancy and Worldview: Answering Modern Challenges to the Bible
  • Redeeming Science: A God-Centered Approach
  • Reedeming Sociology: A God-Centered Approach
  • In the Beginning Was the Word: Language - A God-Centered Approach
• C. John Collins, Science & Faith: Friends or Foes?
• K. Scott Oliphint, Reasons for Faith: Philosophy in the Service of Theology
• Greg L. Bahnsen, Van Til's Apologetic: Readings & Analysis

Certainly, and obviously, the most familiar of all the characters in the hundred-acre wood is that for whom the story is named, Winnie the Pooh.  He is quite possibly the most loved character of all children’s literature.  Who doesn’t grin, and honestly, can’t relate to, Pooh’s oft said quote, “Ohh, there’s a rumbly in my tumbly”?  Who doesn’t often share Pooh’s response of “Oh, bother!?”  Sure, Pooh’s not the brightest character in the hundred-acre wood (after all, his head is full of fluff), but certainly we all are moved by his love for his friends and his heart for the others who live in the wood.  And Pooh also has that everyday common sense that seems to be missing from so many others. 

Pooh is a friend others want to be around.  They want to be around him because he is often thinking of them.  Simply put, he is a friendly bear.  He is often concerned for the welfare of those around him as much as he is for himself.  But Pooh also has his weaknesses; while he is concerned for those around him, sometimes his love for hunny, his appetite for hunny, leads him to abandon that wonderful common sense and make decisions with “his belly” rather than with his mind….or fluff. 

Pooh is an important member of the hundred-acre wood.  He has things to offer as well as things he needs.  Though there is only one Pooh in the hundred-acre wood, there are many “Poohs” in the life of the church.  How can we minister to the “Poohs” in our midst and how can “Poohs” minister in our midst?

Everybody loves the “Poohs” in our midst; and consequently, sometimes, no one loves the “Poohs” in our midst.  That is to say that there often assumptions made about certain people with whom we live and associate.  It is assumed that since “everybody loves them” that they are, in fact, being loved.  I do not think this is a safe assumption.  Too often, it is those who we think are the most fulfilled that are actually the loneliest.  Their lives are full of acquaintances and yet empty of real intimacy.  Even as these “Poohs” make good friends, they too, need a good friend.  They are often the ones called to referee, moderate, and negotiate relationships – this can be tiring.  They need others to pour into them, to encourage them, and to befriend them.  “Poohs” have a desire to please others, a desire to be a friend, and in that desire there is a temptation for that tendency to “people please” to cloud that otherwise, “common” sense.  “Poohs” need to be encouraged that there are times when principle must come before people.  This is hard for those “Poohs” in our midst; it was hard for Pooh in the Hundred-Acre Wood as we often find him muttering to himself over a problem, “think, think, think!”  A thoughtfulness for people shouldn’t keep one from thinking. 

But of course, this thoughtfulness is of greatest need in the church.  What ministry opportunity there is for those who are thoughtful – for those who give thought to the practical and subtle needs of others for which others often overlook.  The wandering visitor who may not be sure where his or her children are to go for nursery – a loving welcome from a “Pooh” is sure to encourage.    The discouraged mother of toddlers who feels like all she does is follow and pick up after a human tornado – a friendly ear and a sympathetic “oh bother” may be just the thing.  The willingness to be a friend to someone else can have lasting impact in the life and heart of a person.

This may not seem very “theological;” and it’s not.  It’s not meant to be.  It’s meant to be practical and a help to you and I as we think about and strive to love members in the church of our Lord Jesus.  While it may not seem “theological” its practice certainly is derived from a robust theology.  As Christians, are we not to love that which God loves?  And has He not loved His Church so much that He gave His only begotten Son?  May we all love that which Christ loves! 

As I’ve mentioned, the political debate does not interest me very much - I am not very politically motivated - but the above comment by well meaning Christians is not a debate about politics it is a debate laid at the door of the church...  And at that I do get motivated.

Simply put, I do not believe it is the work of the church to provide healthcare.  I believe there is no support for that work in Scripture and it ultimately undermines the true work of the church.  Here are my ideas fleshed out:

The Scriptural Support
Those who want the church to be more active in healthcare often use Jesus as their basis.  Jesus, after all, was the Great Healer and much of his ministry could be characterized as a healing ministry.  But was that really his goal?  Is that, then, supposed to be the church’s goal?

Jesus did heal people, but why?  Jesus’ acts of healing were largely symbolic.  I know they weren’t symbolic to those he healed, but he certainly did a poor job healing if that was what he really came to do.  Think about it, unless the Mormons are right Jesus only went to a small corner of the world (one of the least significant) and within that only healed a few people.  Most of the evidence states that he only healed those who believed in him - what about, for instance, all the other invalids at the pool in Bethesda (John 5:3)?  So, assuming that he was not a walking ER, what were those healings for?  And what does it mean for our work?

I believe Jesus himself provides two reasons for his healings and the New Testament provides the third.

1. Jesus healed people to get people to listen to him.  Mark 2:1-12 is the classic text on this.  The crowd is so thick around Jesus that a paralytic is lowered through the roof.  Jesus doesn’t heal him at first (he only forgives him!) but then makes this great statement: so “you will know the Son of Man has authority to forgive sins...” and wham, Jesus heals him.  This is one of the most important functions of a sign in the New Testament church - it gets you an audience and it validates your authority.
2. Jesus healed people because his he was pealing back the effects of the Fall.  Jesus’ victory over Satan may be his most important and most profound work.  He battled Satan in the wilderness (Mark 1:13), in the souls of countless people (Mark 1:39), amongst his own disciples (Matt 16:23), and out in the community (Luke 10:18).  He binds the strong man (Matt 12:29), and part of that is his power over illness.  As he pushes back the effects of our sin and Satan’s reign, it is almost as though he heals people without meaning to (Luke 8:45-46).  His very nature is life and healing!
3. Jesus healed people to represent the future.  Jesus isn’t quite as clear as the rest of the New Testament on this final point, but Jesus brings us into a new kingdom and at the end of that is a time free from illness (Rev 21:4).  Jesus’ healings can be seen as foreshadowing. 

So, what about the church?  Do we provide general healthcare even though Jesus didn’t?  Or do we, in our work, represent the things that Jesus did?  Our work in the area of healthcare and justice should reflect Jesus’ interests and fit his pattern instead of fitting the thing we have come to expect from the United States Government.  The rest of the New Testament helps us sort this out.

It is pretty clear from Scripture that the church usually focussed on helping its own.  The widows under care of the church were, literally, widows that were under the care of the church (1Tim 5:9-16), not to mention Paul’s desire that the church not be unnecessarily burdened (1Tim 5:16).  Of course, there will be opportunities to bless those outside the church and we are called to do so (Gen 12:3), but we should keep the New Testament symbolism in mind.  We need to see our work in areas of justice as either a sign of God’s power and love or as a symbol of his rolling back the effects of the Fall.

The Calling of the Church
And this brings us to one of the most important (and often neglected) points of all.  There is a significant difference between the church and the individual Christian.  The church is not necessarily obligated to do all the work a Christian does.  In fact, I would say the church is supposed to model, equip, and enable individual Christians to go out and do the very things the church cannot!  Healthcare may be one of these things.  Christians may need to provide healthcare for the country, but the church as institution should not live under that expectation.

At the end of Jesus’ ministry the disciples craved vindication and begged Jesus to go ahead and make “physical” all of the “spiritual” things he had inaugurated.  He flat turns them down (Acts 1:6-7).  The truth is, the church does not have the tools to provide all the things that Jesus will provide at the second coming; but we do have the tools to be faithful to our current calling.  And that calling may be difficult, but it is not complicated - we proclaim Jesus Christ in word and deed (1Cor 1:22-23). 

We need to do what we are called to do and do it well.  Let’s not get distracted in what we expect the church to do and let’s not involve the church unnecessarily as we argue about the size of our government.

What was it that caused me to "almost" speak?  Well, there were two major issues that came as part of the Bills and Overtures portion of our assembly.  The first, and the one for which I thought I would have to speak was a recommendation that an overture from a presbytery requesting that other overtures concerning an "in thesi" statement with respect to evolution and the Scripture's teaching be answered by reference to actions taken by previous General Assemblies.  I know, that was a mouthful!  To summarize, previous General Assemblies had spoken concerning the issue of evolution and the historicity of Adam and Eve.  Our standards are clear what the Bible teaches concerning the creation of Adam:  "that after God had made all other creatures, he created man male and female; formed the body of the man of the dust of the ground, and the woman of the rib of the man, endued them with living, reasonable, and immortal souls; made them after his own image, in knowledge, righteousness,and holiness; having the law of God written in their hearts, and power to fulfil it, and dominion over the creatures; yet subject to fall" (Westminster Larger Catechism #17).  The committee suggested through its recommendation that this, along with Westminster 4.2 and Shorter Catechism #16, is sufficient in answer the issuing of Adam and Eve. 

And yet, a minority report was put forward as a recommendation that "the 40th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America affirm its historic and confessional stance on the subject of the creation of man" using language that had been adopted by previous General Assemblies of the PCUS prior to the formation of the PCA.  For my congregation, and others if you want to know, I voted against the minority report.  I voted against it not because I don't affirm the historicity of Adam.  I absolutely do!  And I am thankful that the PCA does as well.  We have already said so.  I voted against the minority report and voted with the committee because I believed that to "reaffirm" our belief would have been to lessen the authority of our standards - our documents that already define and summarize what we believe.  One commissioner said, "I am somewhat taken aback that we have to make a statement that we believe our standards!"  I agree.  In fact, I think to do so would have been extremely dangerous for our future because I think it is representative of a deep fear to stand by what we have already determined and a hesitancy to deal with those things through our judicial system.  We would be in danger of weakening our standards and governing from a top down model rather than from the bottom up.  In other words, we'd be asking the General Assembly to do that which we are unwiling to do as presbyteries.  Everyone agreed that our "standards are clear" concerning this issue.  If that is true, and there are those teaching in contradiction to our standards, why are they not being brought up on charges in thier presbyteries?  That is the proper way to handle this issue.  It was said that all the minority report was attempting to do was to ask people to stay within the "rails."  It is acknowledged that the "rails" have already been determined; therefore, the proper way to deal with this is through loving and firm discipline.  If we are unwiling to discipline on the grounds of our existing standards - what makes us think we will disicpline according to a new statement? 

The minority report failed to pass and the recommendation from our committee passed.  That means we will have no additional statement on this issue.  The Westminster Confession in Chapter 4, Section 2, Question 17 of the Larger Catechism, and Question 16 of the Shorter Catechism are sufficient already.  I pray that we will be willing to stand by them and hold one another to account in love and truth. 

The other issue that caused major discussion and debate was the overture to amend our Book of Church Order by adding a statement concerning the inappropriateness of intinction.  For those of you who do not know, intinction is the communion practice of dipping the bread into the wine prior to partaking.  The addition to the Book of Church Order (BCO) would read as such, "Intinction, because it conflates Jesus' two sacramental actions, is not an appropriate method for observing the Lord's Supper."  Our committee recommended that we answer this overture in the negative.  However, again, there was a minority report with a recommendation of its own.  That recommendation was to amend the change that would affect the BCO.  It would then read, "As Christ instituted the Lord's Supper in two sacramental actions, the communicants are to eat the bread and drink the cup in separate actions."  This recommendation passed, became the main motion, and was passed as well.  It will now go back to the presbyteries to be voted on there and then return again to next year's General Assembly in Greenville, South Carolina. 

All in all, I was again encouraged by the work of the PCA church at our 40th GA.  While we are far from perfect, while there are still times when one might cringe at what's said at a microphone, and while we have much to learn in loving the brethren, I do believe that we are striving to be faithful to the Word of God and faithfully apply that Word to faith and life.  We take seriously the Word of God and desire to love Christ and His people.  We seek to exegete the Scriptures, our people, our culture, and our times.  Sometimes we do that more faithfully than others.  But I do believe that we all seek to do so. 

Pray for God's continued blessing upon the Presbyterian Church in America.

As we are all aware, no church is perfect - we await that wonderful day of glorification.  But the church is Christ's - and it has been instittuted by God as that which is given the glorious mission of proclaiming the excellencies of him who called us out of darkness into his marvelous light (1 Peter 2:9).  And I'm so thankful, even with all our weakness, even with all our failures, for our church, the Presbyterian Church in America.

Coming to General Assembly is much like a family reunion - seeing ones you love that you haven't seen in a year or maybe longer - and the love that is there runs deep.  And yet, just like in the local church, there are differences and disagreements in the larger church.  And these sometimes threaten to divide.  I can't help but to think that one of the factors in this is that we forget our first love and turn too often to our own self-love.  

I officiated a wedding about a week ago and I was reminded of the preciousness of young, fresh, new love.  These two precious people looked into each others' eyes and promised to love one another thorugh thick and thin - in sickness and in health.  Their promises were profound and profoundly serious in their making.  Those vows will be tested and only by looking to Chrst and dying to self will they seek to fulfill them.  I remember my first General Assembly - indeed, my first presbytery where I took my own vows as a minister to faithfully shepherd the flock of God, to strive to faithfully shepherd the flock of God, to strive for the purity and peace of the church, and to submit to its government.  It was a profound experience; one that was fresh, exciting, and recieved with great joy and expectation.  Those vows, just like the marriage vows, are often challenged.  Only by looking to Christ and dying to self is one able to seek to fulfill those vows. 

As a minister, I often need to remember why I love the PCA.  I need to be reminded of our polity and the importance of it.  I need to be reminded of the sweet fellowship I have with those in our church.  And, as I am reminded of those things at GA, I am also reminded, even more importantly, of the gospel of Jesus Christ.  I am surprised how much my soul soaks up the Word that is given.  I forget how much I need to be ministered to!  I am thankful for the ministry of the Word. 

Having had the privilege of planting a church and ministering for the last several years, I have seen the excitement of people hearing the gospel for the first time.  With that excitement came a deep passion and desire to share that news that they had heard and of which they had learned - there was a passion to share with others the new community and fellowship of which they had become part.  They were so excited and so so desirous to share with others that they didn't have the time or desire to do anything else.  Too often we become familiar, complacent, and dare I say, bored with the gopsel such that our efforts are spent elsewhere - complaining, nitpicking, and/or grumbling. 

My prayer, for our marriages, for our local congregations, and for our denomination as a whole, is that God would bring our hearts and our passions back to that freshness - that God would bring a passionate love between husbands and wives - that He would bring sincere fellowship and a deep love among the members of local congregations - and that He would bring a unity among the brethren of our denomination - in other words, that God would give us all those things that were present when we first "fell in love."   

I thank God for His Church and that His Son, Jesus Christ, is King and Head of it!  May He bless us and keep us, may He strengthen us and use us in the advance of His kingdom!!

I will update one more time either Thursday night late or after I return home.....

I am actually a super-husband.  After reading said novel, I embarked on hours of British television bliss by watching the entire A&E adaptation of Pride and Prejudice.  This version is commonly referred to as the “Colin Firth Version.”  I didn’t like it at all.

I am a Common American Male.  I have seen the literal adaptation and I choose the non-literal one.  I have seen Colin Firth’s amazing performance and I choose Keira Knightly. 

As I was being lulled to sleep by Colin and his pals, I kept thinking of how this all relates to the church.  And this is why it is on my blog - that and the fact that I like making you read about Pride and Prejudice.  Stick with me on this...

According to the book, the Bennet daughters were astoundingly pretty - word had even reached London that they were beauties to behold.  As I read the novel I happily pictured Keira Knightly as Elizabeth (with my wife’s permission of course), and the other actress as Jane. 

Then I watched the Colin Firth Version - the “literal” one.  Wow.  There isn’t an easy way to say it; those ladies were not pretty.  Jane, the prettiest of the Bennet daughters, was downright ugly!  As my wife and I watched in astonishment (she was as shocked as I was), it hit us: Jane looked like a Victorian sculpture.  She was a little plump, she had a weird neck, and there was just something a little too "manly" about her features.  She had the look of someone who had never been in the sun, was out of shape, and was the picture of prudishness.

The Colin Firth Version was doing everything it could to make it consistent with Victorian England but they went too far; I couldn’t buy what they were selling.  In a desire to stay true to the original they alienated themselves from everyone but the most committed Jane Austen devotee - which I am not.  They failed because they didn’t make it real to me.  The show could have created something that would move me but ended up creating a study of literature that I found only slightly engaging.  Instead of a something that makes me feel romantic, it is a lesson on what people a long time ago thought was beautiful.  Was it instructive?  Yes.  Was it relevant?  No.

The challenge of relating Jane Austen is the challenge of the pulpit.  We have an ancient piece of literature most Christians are pretty committed to, but the world sees as only mildly interesting.  How do we engage those people?  How do we get an audience with them?

We need to put Keira Knightly on the cover!  The genius of the Keira Knightly version is that they made it believable.  It was a two hour movie and could never be literal, but even if it were six hours long it was genius to make me understand Mr. Darcy’s attraction.  It drew me in by meeting me where I am - in the 21st century.  When it comes to beauty, we typically value a small frame, a little weathering, and jawline-jawline-jawline!  And the movie met us there. 

So, the question for the church: what is our Keira Knightly?  Where can we “reach out without dumbing down” as Marva Dawn says?  Or as NT Wright says it, “It’s time to get back to reading [Scripture] with first-century eyes and twenty-first century questions.” 

I don’t always know the best way to engage our culture.  Sadly, I sometimes find that my love of teaching Scripture can actually insulate me from the world outside.  I know that isn’t right, but it happens.  I am convinced our message is as attractive as Keira Knightly and the Mr. Darcy’s out there just need to meet her.  But sometimes our love of theology and the Bible makes us prefer the esoteric Colin Firth while the watching world goes on, unaffected by our message.  The world is aching for something we have but they don't know it!  It would help for us to know their needs, their values, and “who they think is hot.”

Well, that should do it.  You may now be worried because you think I said we should compromise the truth of the gospel.  Or you may be mad at me because I had the audacity to dump on the Colin Firth Version of Pride and Prejudice.  And some of you may be mad that I made you read about Victorian literature.  To the first group I will say that we should never compromise the truth, to the second I say that your favorite show stinks, and to the third group I say, "mission accomplished."  And if you are part of that snooty and pretentious minority that says Keira Knightly is not pretty, well, none of us believe you and we always snicker when you leave the conversation.

In the next post, I covered the theology of the resurrection, answering the question, “What did Christ accomplish in the resurrection?” Of first importance is that the resurrection is the foundation of Christianity. If the resurrection didn't happen, then Christianity falls. I also listed several things, both in general and specific to our union with Christ, that Jesus accomplished in the resurrection.

After that, I spent several posts discussing the historical evidence for the resurrection (i.e., evidential apologetics). We looked at the witnesses to the resurrection, the four main responses to the resurrection that have now become dead ends, and the most popular anti-resurrection view today – the legend theory. Hopefully the evidence presented in these posts helped clear out some obstacles of misunderstanding, bad history, bad logic, and possibly even some willful deception. What one does with the evidence, though, is up to them and their presuppositions.

And so now, to close this series on the resurrection, I'm going to share four resurrection implications for the Christian life. To be sure, there are many more than four, but these four are primary implications which have been discussed by Sam Allberry in his recently published book, Lifted: Experiencing the Resurrection Life.

Assurance

First, the resurrection gives us assurance of who Jesus is and what he has done. Jesus was “declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead” (Romans 1:4). The resurrection shows that Jesus is exactly who he claimed to be. The Son of God. The Messiah.

By Jesus' resurrection, we also have assurance that he was victorious over sin and death. Christ took our sin upon himself in death was raised for our justification (Romans 4:24-25). Those that are in Christ have been forgiven of their sins and are now clothed in his righteousness, so that they will be delivered from the wrath to come (1 Thessalonians 1:10). Christ accomplished exactly what God sent him to accomplish.

Transformation

Second, the resurrection transforms. It regenerates. It gives new life, and that new life bears spiritual fruit. It means that we who believe will begin to look at life with a new perspective. Our own selfishness will start to lose its stranglehold on our lives, and instead we will begin to live for God and for others because of the power of the Holy Spirit that now lives in us (Romans 8:9-11). This new perspective is a heavenly one focused on eternal things instead of worldly things.

“If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.” (2 Corinthians 5:17-18)

“If then you have been raised with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God.” (Colossians 3:1)

Hope

Third, the resurrection gives hope. Now, this is not a hope for something that might happen, but it is a hope that looks forward to something that will to happen. Our hope does not rest in ourselves but in an event that has already occurred and an event that will occur. Our hope is founded in the resurrection of Jesus and it looks forward to our own resurrection on the last day. 1 Corinthians 15:20-23 says that Christ's resurrection is the firstfruits of the future resurrection to come. Those that are in union with Christ will share in his resurrection.

Additionally, the resurrection gives hope that all of creation will be restored. We are to live lives of holiness and godliness, because “according to his promise we are waiting for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells” (2 Peter 3:13). A new heavens and earth has been promised for which we can hope because God's plan of redemption was made complete in Christ's resurrection.

Mission

Finally, the resurrection is both the reason for and the power behind our mission. Christ has been exalted by God in the resurrection and is now seated at God's right hand (Ephesians 1:19-23). Because of this, Jesus is Lord and is to be worshipped. And when Jesus is worshipped, honored, and exalted by us, God is also worshipped, honored, and exalted.

Before Jesus ascended into heaven, he gave us our mission in the world. This mission is to be witnesses to the world, creating disciples, baptizing them and teaching them what Jesus commanded. Essentially, our mission is to share Christ in all facets so that more and more will worship and glorify him.

And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” (Matthew 28:18-20 ESV)

I pray that this series has been as helpful to you reading it as it has been to me writing it. May the resurrection be ever greater in your soul as you believe in it, rest in it, and are lifted by it.

I hope this series has been helpful.  I know everyone has not agreed with me and others may think I have made too much of a debate they don’t even think exists, but I have needed this.  Much of this series has been about putting into words things that have been in my head for years.  But, since putting thoughts into words is more powerful than just thinking about them, I can say with certainty that I have learned more than I thought I would. 

This blog series has also been a kind of mixing bowl for thoughts as I have I preached through Romans in my church.  This has forced me to chase theories to their conclusion instead of letting them linger in my head till I get distracted with something else.

In all, there have been two primary impressions that I will take away from this series.  I would mark both with the word “freedom.” 

First, I have the freedom to obey...
I feel like this study has forced me to confront my over arching desire to "feel forgiven."  I think we need to get over ourselves and just obey God.  I think some of us need to quit trying to figure out our motives for obeying and just be free to obey.  Lutheranism is alway asking you to check the motives of your obedience; this is something Paul rarely does.  More than ever I feel free to obey, even if I'm not really "feeling it." 

I struggle for assurance in the Christian life, and the Lutheran drive to feel things does a number on my flesh and my doubts.  The truth of the gospel is that God has taken certain actions in history and it really doesn’t matter how we feel about it.  But then the Lutheran teaching comes in and says my obedience must spring from thankfulness not duty, or that I should always evaluate myself through the wretchedness of my sin.  These are feelings that rarely overtake me.  So, to me, Lutheranism somehow takes the focus off the facts and puts the focus back on me.   

This study has shown me that my tendency to navel-gaze and the Lutheran drive to feel is an unhealthy mix - I tend to misuse Lutheranism.  But now, I realize I am free to obey.  I am free to obey even without knowing all my motives.  I am free to obey knowing that if I sin I am not condemned.  I have the freedom to get over myself and just go do what God wants. 

Secondly, I have discovered the freedom to understand Paul...
I was in seminary, and about 30, when I finally learned how to read fiction.  I learned the skill like a lot of middle schoolers - I discovered Harry Potter.  That's a little embarrassing, yes, but my discovery of fiction has been much like my discovery of the Apostle Paul over the last few years.  Throughout much of my life, I didn't really read fiction, I only looked for quotes.  I wanted to find some great line by Dostoevsky so I could impress my friends, my professors, or myself.  But if you read a novel like that, well, it sucks!  Whatever story I was reading was lost on me - I was there looking for one thing and one thing only.  This is very similar to my relationship with Paul and justification.

My own personal Lutheran captivity meant that much of Paul was lost on me.  I would read him looking around each corner to find justification - even if he was telling people to simply imitate him!  So I often skimmed much of his writing, waiting for "the good stuff" or sometimes I just didn't understand him.  I can’t tell you how much clearer he sounds now.  If I can be really technical: Paul’s whole theology comes alive when you realize that his "indicative" is as much about God’s regenerative work in us as it is about God’s meritorious work for us.

Anyway, that is what I’ve learned.  I hope you have learned some things too.  I hope that my series will not produce dissension, but understanding.  Luther should have made more room for the book of James, just as Lutheran churches should be more understanding of “good Christians.”  Similarly, I hope I have proven in at least the last post, that to overreact to all this with the law would be death.  I hope the labels have made it easier for you to understand that there are different positions on these matters and you may just be hearing one of them.  I hope all this will lead you to read the Apostle Paul over and over again and see what you can discover about our great salvation.

Here are a couple of links you may find helpful...
A wonderful presentation on this topic by Rick Phillips
An online critique of the Lutheran-styled book “Jesus + Nothing = Everything”

* DISCLAIMER - I am not critiquing the Lutheran Church or even formal/historical Lutheran theology.  These posts address a form of Lutheran theology that is active in the Presbyterian Church in America.  Whether the critiques hold true outside the PCA, I would not be the judge.

What in the world (or “Wood”) does this have to do with a theology blog?  With the weighty issues and subjects such as covenant theology, the resurrection of Christ, justification and union with Christ, Old Testament types and shadows, all represented here on this blog site – why this?  How does this fit?  In one of my previous series I wrote about Israel and the Church – an issue in Ecclesiology (the doctrine of the church).  This is an issue of Ecclesiology as well – dealing with relationships (and the importance of them) within the life of the church.  In the Hundred Acre Wood there was often struggle.  There were times of conflict and times of misunderstanding.  There were times of simple pleasure and enjoyment. There were times of great rejoicing and celebration.  And all the while, the characters of the Hundred Acre Wood formed a family; a Community.  With all their differences, there was a deep and abiding sense of love between the characters.

And for those on the outside, for the reader, or for the viewer, while there may have been favorites, the characters were loved by those who read about them or watched them.  And they were not only loved in spite of their differences, but loved all the more because of their differences.   Do you see now where I’m heading? 

I have the precious privilege of ministering to a particular church in Northwest Arkansas called Trinity Grace Church.  I have grown to deeply love the people in this church.  And in this church, we are, indeed, different – men, women, and children with different gifts, different personalities, different passions, different interests, and different backgrounds.  Within every particular church and within the body of Christ as a whole, there are different gifts given and there are different personalities represented.   Paul says in I Corinthians 12:14-27:

“For the body does not consist of one member but of many.  If the foot should say, ‘Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body.’ that would not make it any less a part of the body.  And if the ear should say, ‘Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,’ that would not make it any less part of the body.  If the whole body were an eye, where would be the sense of hearing?  If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell?  But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose.  If all were a single member, where would the body be?  As it is, there are many parts, yet one body.  The eye cannot say to the hand, ‘I have no need of you,’ nor again the head to the feet, ‘I have no need of you.’  On the contrary, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and on those parts of the body that we think less honorable we bestow the greater honor, and our unpresentable parts are treated with greater modesty, which our more presentable parts do not require.  But God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that lacked it, that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another.  If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together.”  

So, how can we truly love one another within the life of the church?  How can we honor one another without excusing sin or justifying sin by calling it a “personality trait”?  How can we minister to one another understanding and appreciating our differences?  How can we do all these things so that one “looking in” would stand in wonder that so many people that are so different could live in harmony as one body?  How can we do these things that we, as the church, might do that which we are called to do and bring honor and glory to the Name of the Living Christ? 

To answer all those questions sounds like a pretty tall order doesn’t it?  I don’t pretend that I’ll answer all these questions in a blog series.  I don’t imagine that using an illustration from the Hundred Acre Wood could capture all the wonder and glory of the communion of saints.  But I do hope, if you’ll hang with me (and I must admit I’m a little nervous about committing to such a project) throughout this blog that God might use it to help develop and nurture in you, and me, a deep love for, and appreciation of, the people of God.  My hope is that as we take a look at each of these wonderful, lovely characters in the Hundred Acre Wood that we would begin to pray that God would help us appreciate, minister to, and truly love, the Poohs, the Piglets, the Tiggers, the Eeyores, the Owls, the Rabbits, the Kangas, the Roos, and the Christopher Robins in our midst.  For after all, it takes a……Wood? 
 

Photo Credit:  http://tlc.howstuffworks.com/family/how-winnie-the-pooh-works1.htm; Copyright Disney All Rights Reserved

NT Wright makes a startling statement in his book "Justification."  He says:

I have often reflected that if it had been the Reformed view of Paul and the law, rather than the Lutheran one, that had dominated biblical scholarship through the two hundred years since the Enlightenment, ...the new perspective [would] not have been necessary. (Justification, pg. 72)

When I first read that, I was encouraged by the fact that Reformed scholarship, at least in Wright's eyes, offered a more balanced approach to understanding salvation.  But the more I have thought about it, the more I see his statement as an admission of a troubling reality: the New Perspective is simply a reaction to what I have called the Lutheran* Captivity of the Church.

Here is what I mean: I believe that legalism, in whatever form, is a natural response to Lutheranism once Lutheranism has lost its luster.

Much of the Lutheranism in the PCA today is a reaction to the legalism of the 1970’s.  It is natural to think that grace is the right response to law, but that is more dangerous than it sounds.  The problem with this approach is clear when we reverse the process.  What will we do when our churches are full of lawlessness?  Do we respond with legalism?  Of course not.  I hope not.

Most of the people I know that have sought out the Roman Catholic Church came from a Lutheran understanding of salvation.  And that includes myself.  The New Perspective, for all its insight, can lend itself to a legalistic understanding of salvation.  The same is true for the increasingly popular Greek Orthodox Church, not to mention the social gospel of the Emergent Church.  Legalism is all around us.  I even once heard of a PCA church where the departing pastor was of the Lutheran bent.  The church made it known that they were interested in getting “more law” from the pulpit.  I understood what they meant, but I was troubled by it none-the-less. 

What are we creating when we preach a Christ that saves but not one that transforms?  Grace is fun to talk about and a great joy of the gospel, but if it isn’t connected to the right rudder it can run us aground as quickly as a false teaching.

Humanity is hardwired to obey the law and God is the one that hardwired us that way.  The desire to keep the law isn't bad; what we do with it sometimes is.  We need to know where we stand.  We need to perform.  We feel the need to please God.  If the PCA overlooks this "need" and doesn't get people to understand how to appropriate it, then we will inevitably see people leave our churches to find answers in the wrong places.  The Catholics, Orthodox, Social Gospel and New Perspective churches are not going to preach the right gospel - they are as legalistic as the Lutherans are gracious. 

Law and Grace simply aren't the answer.  Jesus Christ is.  Luther was wrong when made justification the center of the Bible, based on Jesus' own assessment (Luke 24:27, John 5:39).  We are wrong when we equate the gospel with nothing more than forgiveness of sins. 

Jesus Christ (and our union with him) should be our overarching narrative, not grace.  Sermons should be rooted in the identity and activity of Christ and not just his cross.  Grace can end up a meaningless philosophy and the law an illegitimate badge of honor if neither is connected to the person Jesus Christ.  He provides the substance that makes grace effective and the law a blessing. 

In today’s culture, to preach Christ is code for preaching a Lutheran form of grace.  I would like to see that changed.  Christ is all things to us - not just grace - and it is through him that we can please God with our actions, it is through him that we are transformed into new life.

I have mentioned in this series how much I struggled with a Lutheran perspective.  When I sought out answers beyond just “resting in my justification,” I looked in many of the wrong places.  I started with the Catholic Church and ended up in a form of mysticism that nearly shipwrecked my faith.  At the time I didn’t think a Reformed understanding of salvation was sufficient - what I didn’t realize is that I wasn’t hearing the Reformed position.  Once I came out of all that, I rediscovered how true to all of Scripture our theology is and that it does offer a full-orbed view of life and faith.  That is what I want for all of us in the PCA and that is the primary reason I want to see the influence of Lutheranism diminish.

It is my hope that we could get to a place where preaching Christ is code for preaching all of Christ; where a sermon rooted in Christ is not just rooted in his death.  It is my hope that our churches would be as well rounded as Scripture and we stop leaking people to more legalistic theologies.  It is not consistent with our theology to zero in on one concept within Scripture at the expense of everything else, and I am hopeful that will change.  It is my fear that we will someday switch grace for law - that has certainly been the story of church history.

The next post in this series will be the last.  It will be an overview of some things I am taking away from this study.

* DISCLAIMER - I am not critiquing the Lutheran Church or even formal/historical Luthern theology.  These posts address a form of Lutheran theology that is active in the Presbyterian Church in America.  Whether the critiques hold true outside the PCA, I would not be the judge.

That statement sounds heretical I know, but I think it’s real and important for us understand. 

We are taught that for something to be mythological it inevitably means it isn’t true.  When we hear the word “myth,” most of us think of Zeus, dragons, or even Superman.  But I want to think about another aspect of myth that we often overlook.  There is one thing that Zeus, dragons, and Superman have in common.  They represent something significant to the people who believed in them.  You can hardly think of Ancient Greece without Zeus, China without dragons, or America without Superman.  They have been inseparably woven into these different cultures and, more importantly, they have contributed to each culture.

Wyatt Earp and the Gunfight at the OK Corral
Wyatt Earp was a true, historical person.  The OK Corral was a historical place.  On Wednesday, October 26, in 1881 at 3:00 pm, a gunfight erupted in the streets of Tombstone.  That gunfight is as real as anything you or I have done today.  But here’s the deal, that gunfight is MORE than real. 

I am completely convinced that Wyatt Earp also went tinkle on October 26, 1881.  But that event, like the countless tinkles before and after, went unnoticed.  No other event that day contributed to the larger narrative of what it means to be American.  But the gunfight did.  It was more than real in that it didn’t just happen, it actually became part of the American mythology.

What images were being recalled as President Bush stood on the rubble of the Twin Towers and called for justice?  It was the image of the American West - that is one reason it resonated so deeply.  It was justice at the end of a Colt Revolver!

Why could the Marlboro Man sell cigarettes?  Why was Brett Favre called a gunslinger?  Why do we love rugged individualists?  The answer is because of the American West.  It represents something to us as Americans.  It contributes to who we think we are - it contributes to our world view.  It is both mythic and true.  And the gunfight at the OK Corral is part of that mythology.

Back to the Old Testament
It seems as though we are headed for another round of struggle in understanding just how historical the book of Genesis is.  Once the “guns start blazing,” it will be tempting to think that proving Genesis to be reliable is good enough.  It will be tempting to think that the most important thing Genesis can be is true.

I believe Genesis is historically accurate.  But I also think that isn’t enough.  I believe it needs to be more than real.  It needs to contribute to our fabric of ideas and the way we see ourselves and the world.  A whole lot more ink is spilled on whether Genesis is true than in trying to get us to see the Genesis patterns in our own life and faith as believers. 

As more and more books will question things like the historicity of Adam, it will be tempting for us to circle the wagons around the truth of Adam and forget the meaning of Adam.  It may get uncomfortable for conservatives to discuss the mythological significance of Adam for fear of sounding like a liberal.  In the past, many wonderful teachings of the Bible were rejected because they sounded too much like the liberals.  But God went to great lengths to ensure that Adam had mythic influence over history - let’s not undo that in an attempt to guard the truth.

Using the categories of mythology may not be the best, I understand that.  But I have yet to find a better one.  So as the battle begins anew over issues of historicity, lets not forget that Wyatt’s tinkling was not nearly as historically important as his gunfight.  Let’s fight for historicity and mythology all at the same time.  Even with a Colt Revolver if need be...

Just kidding, don’t kill anyone over this.

The Legend (Myth) Theory

The Legend (or Myth) Theory states that the biblical account of Jesus' resurrection is a legend that grew over time. It admits that Jesus was a historical figure and some things in the Bible really happened, but the more unbelievable events are embellishments or legendary accounts that were later additions replacing the actual truth. This theory encapsulates a wide swath of variation in belief, and some who believe the legend theory also hold to parts of the hallucination or conspiracy theories.

Surprisingly, this theory was first proposed by a theologian and not a historian. D. F. Strauss, a German theologian from the 19th century, is credited with originating the claim. Strauss, influenced by the post-Enlightenment rationalism that permeated his era, couldn't reconcile the prevailing ideas of his time with the miracles described in the Bible. This led to his denial of the Biblical version of Jesus' life and directed him in his search for the true “historical Jesus.” Out of this came his belief that the various miracles in the Bible were just myths created to convince people that Jesus was the Messiah.

Strauss' legend theory then grew in popularity parallel to the rise of naturalism and materialism, supported by the common link of the denial of anything supernatural. Since these theories are complimentary, the atheist has no problem adopting both, but also the deist, because of his belief that God doesn't intervene in the world's affairs, tends to accept them as well. Therefore, the proponents of the legend theory range from both ends of the religious spectrum – from the strict atheist to those that claim to be Christian (e.g., Strauss, Rudolf Bultmann, the Jesus Seminar).

As we walk through the arguments against the legend theory, one important thing to remember is this: legendary accounts are not deliberate lies. Legendary accounts occur because of many reasons (e.g., embellishment, hyperbole, limitations of oral history), but they are not outright lies. As soon as we get into a claim that a NT author is deliberately falsifying their testimony, then it is no longer the legend theory, it is the conspiracy theory and should be treated as such.

On to the arguments.

1) There was not enough time for a legend to develop. Ever since D. F. Strauss first proposed the legend theory, it has been met with intense criticism. One of the most significant critiques of the legend theory is that the time between the actual events and the subsequent documentation of those events is too short to allow any kind of substantial legend to be established. Julius Müller, a contemporary of Strauss, stated:

Most decidedly must a considerable interval of time be required for such a complete transformation of a whole history by popular tradition, when the series of legends are formed in the same territory where the heroes actually lived and wrought. Here one cannot imagine how such a series of legends could arise in an historical age, obtain universal respect, and supplant the historical recollection of the true character and connexion of their heroes' lives in the minds of the community, if eyewitnesses were still at hand, who could be questioned respecting the truth of the recorded marvels. Hence, legendary fiction, as it likes not the clear present time, but prefers the mysterious gloom of grey antiquity, is wont to seek a remoteness of age, along with that of space, and to remove its boldest and more rare and wonderful creations into a very remote and unknown land.

This critique has never been answered.

So, how long does it take for a significant legendary account to be established? Other ancient Greek and Roman writings, such as those of the Greek historian Herodotus, enable us to test the rate at which legend accumulates. In these cases, “even the span of two generations is too short to allow legendary tendencies to wipe out the hard core of historical fact” (The Son Rises: The Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus, William Lane Craig). This minimum timespan for the accrual of legendary accounts plants us, at the earliest, firmly in the mid-2nd century, well after the NT documents were written, yet, interestingly enough, exactly within the correct timeframe for the apocryphal gospels. In other words, if you want a legendary account then look no further than the apocryphal gospels.

2) The living eyewitnesses would have been a controlling factor preventing significant legendary development. In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul mentions that over 500 people witnessed the resurrected Christ. In addition to that, there were eyewitnesses to his death, burial, and to the empty tomb. So, when the gospel accounts were formed, most of these eyewitnesses were still alive and could attest to their truthfulness. These people would have been a controlling factor in verifying what did and didn't happen, keeping in check any myths that might arise.

3) The disciples would have been an authoritative factor preventing significant legendary development. The book of Acts makes it clear that the disciples primary role was to be witnesses to the truth of the resurrection. Therefore, it was their mission to prevent any legendary addition to the account of what really happened. Given their authoritative office and role in the early Christian fellowship, their influence and purpose provides them the means and motive to guard the historical account. (Remember, any claim that the disciples intentionally misconstrued their account does not fall under the legend theory, but under the conspiracy theory.)

4) The stories themselves do not show signs of significant legendary development. In general, the NT accounts of the death, burial, and post-burial appearances show reserve and lack embellishment that comes with the mythologizing of a text. Instead, we see simple, straightforward factual statements.

The clearest example of this is the early Christian creed Paul includes in his first book to the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 15:3-7), but we also see it in certain gospel accounts of the events, such as Mark's description of Jesus' burial (Mark 15:42-47). Yet when we look at the accounts in the apocryphal gospels, we see what a legendary account would look like. The so-called Gospel of Peter describes a resurrection where Jesus is being helped out of the tomb by two men whose heads are “reaching to heaven” and where “a cross [is] following them.” Another apocryphal writing, The Ascension of Isaiah, has Jesus coming out of the tomb sitting on the shoulders of the angels Michael and Gabriel. In these apocryphal stories, there are symbolic and theological slants that have tainted the accounts. Again we should take note that these apocryphal gospels were not (and could not have been) written until after all the apostles had died, and even then they were all rejected by the early church.

In addition, legendary development begins in the details and slowly morphs into bigger things over time. However, the resurrection of Jesus is not a mere detail, but is the core fact of the NT documents. Therefore, it is the least likely historical claim that would be susceptible to legendary development, especially within the necessary timeframe and locale.

5) The lack of a “non-legendary” account. We have at least seven accounts of the resurrection whose sources are eyewitnesses and all of them agree to the historicity of the event (the four gospels, Acts, Peter's letters, and Paul's letters). On the other hand, not one single account exists from anyone of that time that refutes the narrative of the NT documents.

Besides the lack of an extra-biblical refutation, some claim that the events described within the NT agree because the New Testament documents were harmonized by the early church. However, “variations in the resurrection narratives tend to support, rather than undermine, their authenticity” (In the Fullness of Time, Paul L. Maier). It demonstrates that each narrative wasn't copied from the others. Further, it shows that the early church resisted the temptation to edit out or harmonize the variations and that there wasn't a conspiratorially agreed upon “official” version.

6) It would have been impossible for the disciples to proclaim the resurrection in Jerusalem if the tomb had not been empty and Jesus' post-burial appearances had not happened. If the resurrection were a myth, there is no possible chance that any of the sermons or events that happened in Jerusalem (as described in Acts and other NT letters) could have happened. Not only would the Jewish authorities have marched down to the tomb, opened it up, and crushed Christianity from the very beginning, but no one would have believed them anyway. They would have been lunatics. Yet Christianity's seed was planted and began growing right in Jerusalem. This means that the people of Jerusalem received the disciples' preaching and witness to the resurrection as truth.

7) The origin of Christianity hinges on the belief of the early disciples that Jesus was resurrected from the dead. If the resurrection of Jesus is a legendary fabrication, then how could Christianity have been established at all? The very fact that Christianity exists attests to the earliest followers of Christ believing in the resurrection and not that it was a later addition to the Christian faith. Why else would they live and die the way they did? Why else would anyone believe them? How else would it have spread so early and so quickly if their primary belief, the resurrection of Jesus, wasn't true?

Conclusion

With such strong arguments against the legend theory, why does anyone hold to it? I believe it is simply because there is no better alternative for the non-believer. Yet, as hard as it may be to believe, the simplest, most comprehensive, and most coherent theory that can account for all of the evidence is that Jesus was really resurrected from the dead. There is no other alternative.

So, for the non-believer, the naturalist, the materialist: is there even a chance of belief? Yes, most certainly! But it won't be from a simple acceptance of the supernatural. Accepting miracles doesn't necessitate the acceptance of the reason behind those miracles. It will be because of God-given faith that they will come to believe. A faith that reveals the reality of the supernatural. A faith that resides in the one who is the power behind the supernatural. A faith that is founded upon the historical events of the resurrection.

Some will say, perhaps, that [Ayosha's features] are quite compatible with both fanaticism and mysticism, but it seems to me that Alyosha was even more of a realist than the rest of us. Oh, of course, in the monastery he believed absolutely in miracles, but in my opinion miracles will never confound a realist. It is not miracles that bring a realist to faith. A true realist, if he is not a believer, will always find in himself the strength and ability not to believe in miracles as well, and if a miracle stands before him as an irrefutable fact, he will sooner doubt his own senses than admit the fact. And even if he does admit it, he will admit it as a fact of nature that was previously unknown to him. In the realist, faith is not born from miracles, but miracles from faith. Once the realist comes to believe, then, precisely because of his realism, he must also allow for miracles. The Apostle Thomas declared that he would not believe until he saw, and when he saw, he said: “My Lord and my God!” Was it the miracle that made him believe? Most likely not, but he believed first and foremost because he wished to believe, and maybe already fully believed in his secret heart even as he was saying: “I will not believe until I see.” - The Brothers Karamazov, Fyodor Dostoevsky

* There are many solid critiques of Strauss, Bultmann, the Jesus Seminar, and the legend theory. Here is a list of just a few contemporary works:

• The Son Rises: The Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus, William Lane Craig
• Jesus Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents the Historical Jesus, Michael J. Wilkins and J.P. Moreland
• Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up? A Debate between William Lane Craig and John Dominic Crossan, Paul Copan (Editor)
• The Modern Search for the Real Jesus: An Introductory Survey of the Historical Roots of Gospels Criticism, Robert B. Strimple
• The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, Gary R. Habermas
• Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels, Craig A. Evans
• Jesus' Resurrection: Fact or Figment? A Debate Between William Lane Craig & Gerd Lüdemann, Paul Copan & Ronald K. Tacelli (Editors)
• The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach, Michael R. Lincona
• The Resurrection of the Son of God, N. T. Wright

This post is about God’s Law, not Johnny’s, but if you have never seen the movie Bottle Rocket then please stop reading this blog immediately and go watch it.  Or at least the trailer... 

This post references one of the striking differences between Calvin and Luther* - their view of God’s law.

Even the biblical writers seemed to have a volatile and confusing relationship with the Law of God.  No wonder we as Christians do too.  One example is how the law guards us.  In some passages the law guards us like a kind old watchdog (Psa 94:12) while other passages make it sound like a prison guard (Gal 3:22)! 

So which is it?  Good or bad?  Binding or not?  Or, maybe, what is it?  Is the law a dungeon master making us crave the light of God?  Or is it a well-worn path that acts as our trusty guide?

Lutheran theology doesn’t have much use for the law beyond its ability to show us our sin.  This is definitely a use of the law - it is attested throughout Scripture - but as we have seen Lutheran theology is not always informed by ALL of Scripture.  Rather ALL of Scripture was informed by its view of justification.  In justification, the law is clear.  Before Christ came the law was brutal - it condemned us, killed us, imprisoned us.  But for the Christian, the law is not there to condemn us (Rom 8:1).

For the Lutheran, this is a cycle that is played over and over.  The law shows us our sin.  The Spirit shows us Christ’s mercy.  And we, in turn, live a more righteous life that springs from our thankful hearts.  And then the cycle begins again.

The problem with all this is all the places in Scripture where the law still is in effect, and used for something more than condemnation.  Whether it is Christ intensifying it in Matthew 5-7, Paul calling us slaves of righteousness in Romans 6, or James saying all his Jamesy stuff, any simple reading of Scripture will find that the law (or some form of it) is still an active part of the Christian life.  That it is good, helpful, and keepable.  This is Paul’s presupposition in many passages.

In all my struggles with this, I have found one analogy more helpful than any other.  The Bible writers used analogies all the time to describe the law so I think we are on firm ground to look for such a thing.  And my analogy is that of a map.

A map is powerless.  Anyone that has ever owned a map has probably used it the right way.  We cannot say that about the law.  Paul says the law is powerless to save us, powerless to impart life, powerless to grow us.  It is the Spirit that moves us from one place to another, not the law.  No one has ever wanted to drive to Chicago and tried to do it by climbing onto a map!  The map will tell you how to get to Chicago, but a map by itself cannot get you there.  You need a car for that.  The Holy Spirit is our spiritual car, and the law is our spiritual map.  Without the Spirit the law is worthless for getting us anywhere.

A map can condemn.  So, you want to go to Chicago.  You go to google maps and print out everything you need, maybe even plan your meal stops based on the map.  You walk outside and... O yeah!  You don’t have a car!  What now?  Now you look at the map and you don’t see a road trip, possibilities, and nice scenery, you feel trapped.  The map now condemns you because it shows you just how much you need a car.  Because the map is right it shows you the distance, because the map is powerless it reminds you of your inability.  The same is true for the law.  The law condemns us because it makes God far off and doesn’t provide any transportation.

A map can guide.  But your buddy pulls up in his nice new car.  Now things are different!  Now the map does help you.  Now the trustworthiness of the map becomes crucial.  If you have the wheels, the map is great.  Now, people in Paul’s day tended to make the map more important than the car.  Paul rips them up and, in so doing, makes the map/law seem really bad.  It isn’t.  His comments need the context.  If at a rest stop you told your driving buddy you could finish the trip on your own because you have a map he would laugh at you.  But, get in the car with him, and he sings a different tune, now he needs your map.  The map is not bad and neither is the law. 

Luther placed the law and grace at odds with one another.  He took the tough language about the law to heart and basically overlooked the rest.  For him, or at least for his followers, keeping the law meant legalism.  But to take this position means that you are only reading about half of what Paul wrote and almost nothing of Jesus or the other New Testament writers - something Lutherans can end up doing.  There is much more that could be said about this, but hopefully that helps a little.

My last two posts in this series are coming up, so you are now on the home stretch.  This was my final post on the technical aspects of the theology.

* DISCLAIMER - I am not critiquing the Lutheran Church or even formal/historical Luthern theology.  These posts address a form of Lutheran theology that is active in the Presbyterian Church in America.  Whether the critiques hold true outside the PCA, I would not be the judge.

In this post, we will look at the four most prominent alternate theories for the resurrection that are now labeled “dead ends.” The reason these are dead end theories is because, since the eighteenth century, they have been so soundly refuted that none of them have gained the consensus of scholarship and intellectually honest scholars no longer hold to them.

So, why would we spend time on theories that are no longer tenable? First, because many people (non-scholars) still hold to them. They haven't heard the overwhelming evidence against these theories, and so it is good for us to know the arguments. Second, it will help us clear the way for the next post where we will be investigating the most popular alternate theory alive today.

The Conspiracy (Stolen Body) Theory

Our first alternate explanation is not only the most commonly held dead end theory, but it is also the oldest. Proponents of the Conspiracy (or Stolen Body) Theory hold that someone, usually the disciples, but sometimes Joseph of Arimathea or Pontius Pilate, stole the body and that all of Christianity is rooted in a conspiracy. The theory first originated the day after Jesus' crucifixion and burial by the Jewish chief priests and Pharisees (Matthew 27:62-66) and was reinforced after the tomb was found empty on the third day (Matthew 28:11-15).

The holes in this theory are numerous. Primarily, there are the issues of motive, execution, and consistency. The disciples certainly didn't have the motive to steal the body. They were in despair, hiding and even denying that they knew Jesus. They were fearful of what might happen to them and so the last thing they would want to do is draw more attention upon themselves. Joseph of Arimathea was in a similar position. He brought enough attention to himself when asking for the body of Jesus and was therefore likely suspected by his Sanhedral colleagues and wouldn't take any more risks. And then there is Pilate. Realistically, Pilate would have been the last person to disturb the body. He wanted to be rid of the problem altogether and had no reason at all to steal the body.

The next issue that the conspiracy theorist must face is the execution of stealing the body. First, we know that the tomb was still sealed on the second day when the guards got there because of the fact that they stayed there to guard it. If the tomb had already been broken into, the guards would have simply turned around and gone back to report it. Second, how could anyone have stolen the body when the area was crawling with guards? We don't know how many guards there were, but we do know that Peter was guarded by four squads of four men each when he was imprisoned by Herod Agrippa (Acts 12), so it is reasonable to conclude that there were at least a couple of squads with four soldiers each. It would take a complex plan with skilled professional thieves to incapacitate the guards, roll away the stone, steal the body, and disappear without being caught - far from anything of which the disciples were capable.

The third primary issue is one of behavioral consistency. Was the disciples' behavior consistent with a conspiracy? Absolutely not. Something happened to change the disciples' behavior so that they became bold in their faith and belief even to the point of horrible deaths. Sincerity and moral character was of utmost importance to them, and they wrote about these events and their belief so early that all the other witnesses to these events could have easily refuted them and effectively shut down Christianity from the start. If they had stolen the body, why would they have lived they way they did and then died for their belief?

In summary, for one to hold to this theory they would have to believe “(1) that twelve poor fishermen were able to change the world through a plot laid so deep that no one has ever been able to discern where the cheat lay, (2) that these men gave up the pursuit of happiness and ventured into poverty, torments, and persecutions for nothing, (3) that depressed and fearful men would have suddenly grown so brave as to break into the tomb and steal the body, and (4) that these imposters would furnish the world with the greatest system of morality that ever was” (The Son Rises: The Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus, William Lane Craig, p. 27-28).

The Apparent Death (Swoon) Theory

In the second alternate theory, the Apparent Death (or Swoon) Theory, it is believed that Jesus didn't die on the cross, but just seemed to die. Then, after Jesus was buried in the tomb, he recovered from his wounds, regained his strength, managed to escape from the tomb, found some clothes, and was nursed back to health by the disciples. The first mention of this theory is from Celsus in the 2nd century AD.

This theory suffers from a lack of understanding of Roman crucifixions. The Romans were vigilant about their crucifixions. Victims did not escape with their lives. Roman soldiers made sure that criminals died because if they survived then the soldiers themselves would likely be killed. They were brutal and torturous and no one survived. (The only exception I am aware of is from Josephus where he discovered that three of his friends were being crucified. Josephus intervened and had them pardoned so that they were quickly taken down from their crosses. Even then, two of the three still died. Clearly, though, their crucifixions were not completely carried out since their death sentence was overturned.)

The NT description of Jesus' crucifixion fits well with other Roman crucifixions, so many have used it to gain additional information about the physiology of the victim. In 1986, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) published an article entitled On the Physical Death of Jesus Christ. In this article, the authors meticulously studied the historical and medical evidence given in the NT to see, from a modern medical perspective, if Jesus was really dead when he was taken down from the cross. Their conclusion, and I want to remind you that it comes from a decidedly non-Christian publication, is that Jesus died from either cardiac rupture or cardiorespiratory failure before the spear was thrust into his side. In their professional medical opinion, there is no possibility that Jesus survived the cross.

However, even if we grant that the Roman soldiers failed in their crucifixion of Jesus and that he only appeared to be dead, how would a crawling, wounded, almost dead man unwrap himself from his death shroud, have the strength to move the stone covering the tomb, make it to his disciples, and then inspire them to found their faith on his triumphal and victorious resurrection? Would that be the foundation to any faith?

The Wrong Tomb Theory

The third alternate explanation is the Wrong Tomb Theory. This theory posits that early Sunday morning the women went to the wrong tomb and that it was the gardner or grave worker that startled the women. However, Matthew 27:61 clearly shows that the women directly observed where Jesus was buried. Even if they had the wrong tomb, this is an issue that would have been quickly resolved. The disciples, Joseph of Arimathea, or even Pilate would have corrected the error. In fact, at any time the Roman or Jewish authorities could have led a crowd down to the correct tomb, opened it up, and displayed the body of Jesus for all to see. They had the means, motive, and opportunity to do it, but they never did because the tomb – the correct tomb – was empty.

The Hallucination Theory

The final dead end theory is the Hallucination Theory. Believers in this theory hold that the multiple visions or appearances of Jesus after his death were merely the psychic effects of the deep distress that the women felt when they went to the tomb. Then, this effect became contagious and so many after that saw Jesus too.

This theory would have more substance if only one person, or just a few at the most, had the hallucination. This type of experience is usually an individual experience where the person is anticipating and hoping that the person would come back to life. However, a collective, group hallucination at various times, in various places, and with various people has no historical precedent and is virtually impossible, especially considering they were sorrowful and in despair, exactly the opposite condition needed to bring about a hallucination. This doesn't even address the issue surrounding the abrupt stop to the visions. Why did all of these hallucinations suddenly stop 40 days after they began. Why wouldn't they have continued?

Conclusion

These four alternate theories to the resurrection are the historically classic responses that attempt to explain away the Christian belief that Jesus was truly and bodily resurrected from the dead. We have seen, though, that these theories fail when put under even mild scrutiny which has led modern scholars to reject these theories for the last 200 years. However, there is still another theory that most non-Christian scholars hold to today. This will be the topic of the next post.

An example of my previous thought processes: Women can’t preach or be elders (that is easy from Scripture).  But can women speak?  Scripture says no (at least in some respect), but then there are clear exceptions – women sing, women can share prayer requests or make an announcement; women obviously do all the corporate prayers and confessions.  And what if Elizabeth Eliot showed up at church?  Would I let her share during a Missions Moment?  If so, then is it only the non-famous women that must remain silent?  Trouble.

You see?  I had nothing but circumstances and no guiding principles.  On top of that, I was afraid to start studying the women’s issue because I didn’t want my wife wearing head-coverings, nor did I want to feel convicted if she didn’t.  Godly stuff, I know.  But then came a study I had to do with our elders and, finally, I feel at peace about this.  The most helpful article was one by D.A. Carson on the issue (entitled "Silent in the Churches" on the monergism website).

One of the most important things to realize (and a surprise to me) was that many of the early Christian heresies included feminist teachings.  The whole head-covering thing was a sign of marriage and submission.  So it sounds like those ladies in Corinth were basically burning bras and hiding their wedding rings.  Into that fray, Paul asserts that women should remain, well, women.  They should remain married and they should keep submitting to their husbands.

But he also says that women are allowed to prophesy and pray in church (1Cor 11:5) but they don’t have the right to judge, expound, or interpret prophecies that have been uttered (1Cor 14:34).  This 14:34 comment about silence is made during the discussion about the chaos of the worship service and especially interpreting prophetic speech.  I know there are different ways to read these passages but if, read this way, we get a very helpful principle to guide the church as it uses the gifts of our women.

My interpretation of this… Women can be active in the worship service.  Women can speak, pray, and even read Scripture in worship.  What women can’t do is be the guardians of the gospel message as it is contained in the Scriptures.  The women in Corinth could pray and prophesy (reading Scripture?), but they could not comment upon it.  God did not give women the responsibility of maintaining and ruling the church and her doctrinal purity.  That is why women should not be elders or preach.  But that is why women should be allowed to do everything short of that.  We should be bold as we involve women.  Scripture, not chauvinism, guides us.  We have a message of liberation – even though that liberation does not break the created order. 

There are many other things to consider in this, not to mention the various other views to take on these and other passages.   One thing our elders have decided, is that in certain situations women reading Scripture is great while other times it isn’t.  We don’t have women read the call to worship or assurance of pardon – places where the reading is highly declarative.  But we do like them to read at times of meditation.  Arbitrary?  Maybe.  But we have to discern the best we can. I might not have it totally figured out, but for the first time I feel more confident in the reason why the Bible says what it says and I feel less haphazard as I try to install those principles in the church.

John 7:37-38 - On the last day of the feast, the great day, Jesus stood up and cried out, “If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink. Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, ‘Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water’” (ESV).

There are several layers of Old Testament background at work in John 7.37-38 that shed light on Jesus’ claim; each layer gives more weight to Jesus’ claim. The current article will briefly consider: the protological, prophetic, and eschatological imagery of living water flowing from a single source; the use of thirst/water imagery as a metaphor for salvation; and the particular significance of water and thirst in the context of the Feast of Booths.

First, living water flowing from a single source to all the world is not only gospel imagery but also protological, prophetic, and eschatological imagery. The tree of life and water are important in the first Eden. Genesis 2.9b-10 gives the following description of the Garden of Eden, “The tree of life was in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. A river flowed out of Eden to water the garden, and there it divided and became four rivers” (ESV). To say the least, a river becoming four separate rivers is a geological oddity; the picture here is that water is flowing out of Eden to the rest of the land. Is it too much to say that life is being given to all the land from a common source? Certainly, it is not. The twin elements of the tree of life and a river flowing out of the dwelling place of God are also employed as prophetic and eschatological imagery. The consistent biblical use of the tree and river imagery as life giving, requires that the same understanding be applied to the tree and river in the garden of Eden.

Ezekiel 47 records Ezekiel’s vision of a growing river flowing from the temple of God. He writes,

As I went back, I saw on the bank of the river very many trees on the one side and on the other. And he said to me, “This water flows toward the eastern region and goes down into the Arabah, and enters the sea; when the water flows into the sea, the water will become fresh. And wherever the river goes, every living creature that swarms will live, and there will be very many fish. For this water goes there, that the waters of the sea may become fresh; so everything will live where the river goes. Fishermen will stand beside the sea. From Engedi to Eneglaim it will be a place for the spreading of nets. Its fish will be of very many kinds, like the fish of the Great Sea. But its swamps and marshes will not become fresh; they are to be left for salt. And on the banks, on both sides of the river, there will grow all kinds of trees for food. Their leaves will not wither, nor their fruit fail, but they will bear fresh fruit every month, because the water for them flows from the sanctuary. Their fruit will be for food, and their leaves for healing (Ezekiel 47.7-12, ESV).

Indeed, this is the same scenario one finds in the return to Eden, the New Jerusalem recorded in Revelation 22.1-2,

Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb through the middle of the street of the city; also, on either side of the river, the tree of life with its twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit each month. The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations” (ESV).

Christ subtly uses the protological, prophetic, and eschatological imagery of life-giving water increasing, without tributary, as it goes out in his statement at the Feast of Booths. Jesus is the single source from which many drink resulting in rivers of living water flowing from their hearts. In this statement, subtle as it may be, Jesus establishes himself as the source of life and the temple from which the living water issues forth.

Second, water, thirst, and the associated imagery are metaphors for the man’s need and God’s salvation throughout Scripture. Two clear examples of thirst and water being used as a metaphor for salvation are Isaiah 55.1,

Come, everyone who thirsts,
come to the waters;
and he who has no money,
come, buy and eat!
Come, buy wine and milk
without money and without price (ESV),

and John 4.7-15,

A woman from Samaria came to draw water. Jesus said to her, “Give me a drink.” (For his disciples had gone away into the city to buy food.) The Samaritan woman said to him, “How is it that you, a Jew, ask for a drink from me, a woman of Samaria?” (For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans.) Jesus answered her, “If you knew the gift of God, and who it is that is saying to you, ‘Give me a drink,’ you would have asked him, and he would have given you living water.” The woman said to him, “Sir, you have nothing to draw water with, and the well is deep. Where do you get that living water? Are you greater than our father Jacob? He gave us the well and drank from it himself, as did his sons and his livestock.” Jesus said to her, “Everyone who drinks of this water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him will never be thirsty again. The water that I will give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.” The woman said to him, “Sir, give me this water, so that I will not be thirsty or have to come here to draw water” (ESV).

When we have these passages, and others like them, in mind, we see clearly that Jesus is not simply concerned for the physical need of his audience. Jesus is drawing on Old Testament imagery in order to offer salvation.

Finally, the setting in which Jesus speaks is important. Jesus’ proclamation recorded in John 7.37-38 is made, “On the last day of the feast, the great day.” The Mishnah outlines a water ceremony involved with the Feast of Booths wherein water was carried from the Pool of Siloam to the altar where the water was poured out. If this ceremony, which Mishnah Sukkah 4.9 associates with Isaiah 12.3 (and may also be a development of imagery from Zechariah 14), had been developed by the time of Christ, then a call to the thirsty would have been somewhat ironic. Water would have been everywhere; quenching one’s thirst would not have been a great challenge. While the the Feast of Booths traditions outlined in the Mishnah might or might not have been in practice in Jesus’ day, thirst is still an interesting place for Jesus to begin his statements. The very fact that they were in Jerusalem, a city in which water was plentiful, means finding something to drink would not have been so difficult that one needed a special person to provide water. The physical setting, not to mention the thirst/water theme that is developed throughout the gospel of John, gives a clear clue that Jesus’ goal was not simply quenching physical thirst. What then was Jesus’ point?

The Feast of Booths was a time of remembrance. The Jews were looking back to their wilderness wanderings. A central part of the wilderness wandering was the constant fight for water. Two very similar confrontations between the people and Moses are recorded in Exodus 17 and Numbers 20. The Exodus account is as follows,

All the congregation of the people of Israel moved on from the wilderness of Sin by stages, according to the commandment of the LORD, and camped at Rephidim, but there was no water for the people to drink. Therefore the people quarreled with Moses and said, “Give us water to drink.” And Moses said to them, “Why do you quarrel with me? Why do you test the LORD?” But the people thirsted there for water, and the people grumbled against Moses and said, “Why did you bring us up out of Egypt, to kill us and our children and our livestock with thirst?” So Moses cried to the LORD, “What shall I do with this people? They are almost ready to stone me.” And the LORD said to Moses, “Pass on before the people, taking with you some of the elders of Israel, and take in your hand the staff with which you struck the Nile, and go. Behold, I will stand before you there on the rock at Horeb, and you shall strike the rock, and water shall come out of it, and the people will drink.” And Moses did so, in the sight of the elders of Israel. And he called the name of the place Massah and Meribah, because of the quarreling of the people of Israel, and because they tested the LORD by saying, “Is the LORD among us or not” (Exodus 17:1-7, ESV)?

If Israel’s wilderness wanderings were in fact marked by longing, in particular a longing for water, and the Feast of Booths was a commemoration of Israel’s wilderness wanderings, then Jesus proclamation, “If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink,” would have been a bold invitation indeed. In the Exodus confrontation narrative, God stands on the rock that Moses strikes in order to receive water. Understanding Jesus’ statement against the backdrop of Israel’s thirst and God’s miraculous provision of water, through his being struck with the rock, lends much weight to Jesus’ statement. Jesus is claiming that he was the one struck in order that Israel could have water. Indeed this is Paul’s interpretation of the confrontation narrative, he writes, 

For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ (1 Corinthians 10:1-4, ESV).

Jesus was not simply making a clever statement, but he was speaking into the particular setting of the Feast of Booths. Jesus’ invitation to come to him and drink is only fully understood after peeling back the many layers of Old Testament background. It is reasonable to assume that Jesus’ audience would have been well versed in the Old Testament and the wilderness wanderings of Israel. It is reasonable to assume that the wilderness wanderings of Israel would have been on the forefront of the minds of Jesus’ audience as they celebrated the Feast of Booths. If we are to begin to grasp the full weight of Jesus’ claims at the Feast of Booths, then we must let the Old Testament background have its full influence. Interpreting the Feasts of Booths narrative shows us, from what may have seemed like a simple metaphorical statement to some, that Jesus claimed to be the source of the eschatological living water, the source of salvation, and the Rock that was struck with God’s wrath in order to provide this living water for his people.

I usually classify the witnesses into two categories: eyewitnesses and secondary witnesses. Eyewitnesses are self-describing. They are the ones who were with Jesus and witnessed his ministry and, with respect to this series, his death, burial, and  subsequent appearances after his resurrection. Secondary witnesses are those witnesses who either gained information from the eyewitnesses or give supporting testimony to the eyewitnesses.

The Eyewitness of the Holy Spirit

Typically I don't think of the Spirit as a “legal” or “forensic” witness, but this is exactly the way the Bible describes the Spirit in certain places. John 15:26 says, “but when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me.” God bore witness to those that believed in him “by giving them the Holy Spirit” (Acts 15:8). It was the Holy Spirit who gave that witness and declared Jesus to be the Christ.

From the previous post, do you remember which events the disciple to replace Judas was required to have witnessed? It was the baptism of Jesus all the way to his ascension. It is fascinating to me that, as a witness, the Holy Spirit also fulfilled this requirement. At the baptism of Jesus, we see that the Holy Spirit specifically descended upon Jesus like a dove and never left him.

It is because of the witness of the Holy Spirit that we can believe. The Holy Spirit testifies to us that the biblical account is true and gives us confidence and assurance of the events of Jesus' life. This is why we can believe that the Bible is trustworthy and this is why we, and our children, can believe without having all the facts of the case. It is because of the strength and power of the testimony of the Holy Spirit.

The Eyewitnesses of the Apostles and Followers of Jesus

The apostles and other followers of Jesus were also eyewitnesses. After Jesus told them that the Spirit would bear witness to them, he then said, “and you also will bear witness, because you have been with me from the beginning” (John 15:27). These eyewitnesses were the ones who would testify to the world, all through their lives and some through their writing.

Those that wrote down their eyewitness, or told it to others to write it down, consistently form their story as a historical claim. As an example, let's take a detailed look at 1 Corinthians 15:1-8:

“Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.” (1 Corinthians 15:1-8 ESV)

Notice how there little in the way of embellishment in these verses. It primarily consists of factual historical statements. In addition, Paul gives a challenge to those reading it to get proof from the other witnesses. He tells them of the five hundred plus men (not counting women and children) who saw Jesus after his resurrection. In essence, Paul is saying, “you don't have to believe me; feel free to ask the others!” There is no way that Paul could write such a statement at that time and in that place if it wasn't true because it would have been too easy to disprove, discrediting his entire ministry.

A section of the 1 Corinthians 15 passage, at least verses 3-5, is considered to likely be one of the earliest Christian creeds. Paul wrote 1 Corinthians somewhere around 53-55 AD, but notice that this creed is one he had already preached to the people at Corinth and it is one which he received even before that. This means that the creed would have been formulated based off of the events themselves, then Paul would have been taught this creed, then he would have traveled making use of the creed including preaching it to the Corinthians, then he would have traveled some more, and finally he would have written it in this letter to the Corinthians. This timeline reveals that quite a bit of time had elapsed between the formulation of the creed and Paul's inclusion of it into his letter to the Corinthians, especially considering the cultural factors of that time (e.g., a relatively large amount of time for travel and long-distance communication).

In fact, it may be possible to trace this creed to within the first few years just after Jesus' resurrection and ascension. I believe there are at least two reasons for this. First, when we compare this creed to some of the earliest preaching (what we see in Acts), those sermons have the same structure of the creed. As an example, Paul's sermon at Antioch includes this, “and though they found in him no guilt worthy of death, they asked Pilate to have him executed. And when they had carried out all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree and laid him in a tomb. But God raised him from the dead, and for many days he appeared to those who had come up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are now his witnesses to the people.” (Acts 13:28-31). Christ died, he was buried, he was raised, and he appeared to others. 1 Corinthians 15 contains a perfect outline for this sermon.

Second, in Galatians 1:18-19, Paul says that he spent 15 days with Peter and James in Jerusalem three years after his conversion (around 36-37 AD). It is very possible that this is where Paul learned the creed that he eventually preached to the people in Corinth and then later reinforced to them in his letter that we now have. Both Paul's timeline and the early date of the creed fit this well. On top of this, the two people that Paul mentions with regard to this creed in 1 Corinthians 15 are Cephas (Peter's Aramaic name) and James; the very two disciples he met with in Jerusalem who would have shared this creed with Paul. So, if this is the case, and I believe it is, then this creed would have been formed even before Peter and James taught it to Paul, which would have been within the first five years after the resurrection. Very early, indeed.

The Witness of Written History

When it comes to written history, we have both eyewitness and secondary witness testimony coming from the New Testament and external sources. A mountain of books have been written discussing the reliability of the NT documents, so I'll leave that for some other time, but the presupposition for this article is that the NT documents are valid and truthful historical documents. In the NT, we have already looked at some of Paul's testimony. He is a unique form of eyewitness who saw the resurrected Jesus in his conversion but also witnessed Jesus' ministry and early Christianity from the perspective of a hostile witness. After his conversion, Paul had deep relationships with the apostles and other eyewitnesses. But, of course, Paul is not the only eyewitness to write down what happened. Other NT eyewitnesses, such as Matthew, John, Peter, and James, all gave testimony through their writing as well.

As NT secondary witnesses, we have Mark and Luke, who both spent a significant amount of time with the eyewitnesses. Papias tels us that Mark was the writer for Peter and accurately wrote down everything he possibly could. This fits with other references to Mark as Peter's companion. Luke was a companion of Paul, spent time with the other disciples, and was even involved in some of the events of the early church that he recorded in Acts. Eusebius reports that Paul would quote from the book of Luke saying, “according to my gospel,” showing that Paul was the force behind Luke's writing.

In addition to the NT secondary witnesses, we have witnesses to early Christianity that are from external sources which were often hostile to Christianity. The Roman writers and historians Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny, as well as the Greek historian, Thallus, and the Jewish historian, Josephus, all make reference to Christianity at a very early date. Then there are the secondary sources that come from the early church fathers such as Papias and Polycarp, and early extra-biblical writings like the Didache and Shepherd of Hermas. In fact, in the first 200 years we have over 150 different books, documents, or fragments that have a reference to Jesus or early Christianity. And these are just the documents we know about. There are likely tenfold that amount that has been lost over time. While some of these extra-biblical secondary sources don't always directly reference the event of the resurrection of Christ, they do give credible witness to the early beginnings of the Christian faith which resulted from the resurrection, as evidenced from the actual eyewitness accounts.

The Witness of Archeology

Finally, we have the witness of archeology. Archeology has powerfully and consistently supported and proved the biblical account of history time and time again. There are thousands of little pieces of archeological evidence that support the biblical narrative. For example, for centuries scholars said that Luke was wrong in saying that Lysanias was the tetrarch of Abilene in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar (Luke 3:1), because the only Lysanias that was known was from one that ruled Abilene in the 1st century BC and was put to death by Mark Antony in 39 BC. However, in the 1940's, William Ramsey found an inscription about Lysanias that pointed to him being the tetrarch of Abilene during the time Luke referenced, revealing that there were likely two different rulers of Abilene named Lysanias (which shouldn't be surprising since we have multiple examples of presidents with the same last name). It took over 1900 years to show that there were actually two rulers named Lysanias and that Luke was, in fact, correct!

Here are four more examples of archeology that support the biblical record.

• The existence of first century synagogues was debated for a time since none had ever been found. However, three have now been found with the possibility of a fourth and fifth. The picture to the right is the fifth possibility in Capernaum. The ruins on top are not from the first century, however the dark stones seen at the bottom are the foundation of the first century synagogue.
• Also found in the fishing village of Capernaum is a unique room joining two courtyards that was given special attention when created. Its walls were covered with Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek, Syriac, and Latin inscriptions, its floors were covered in plaster, and no pieces of domestic pottery were found even though many lamps were discovered. This is thought to be an early meeting place for Christians and possibly even the home of Peter.
• Before 1961, many scholars refused to believe that Pontius Pilate was a historical figure. However, in 1961 a stone containing an inscription with Pilate's name was found in Caesarea where he likely had his base of operations proving that he really existed.
• Finally, my favorite archeological find is the ossuary of Joseph Caiaphas, the Jewish High Priest identified by Matthew, Luke, John, and Josephus. In November 1990, a crew of construction workers working on a water park uncovered a burial cave with twelve ossuaries inside. One of these ossuaries was magnificently carved and decorated, far more than most ossuaries at that time. This ossuary was twice inscribed with the Aramaic name “Yehosef bar Qayafa,” or “Joseph, son of Caiaphas.” Inside this ossuary were the bones of a 60 year old man. Taking into account the time frame, the age of the bones, the lavish decoration, and the double inscription, this is most certainly the ossuary and bones of Joseph Caiaphas, the Jewish High Priest that was involved in the trial of Jesus. If this is the case, then this is the first remains of a biblical personality ever discovered!

Taking all of these witnesses into account, we have an established historical record in which each different witness corroborates the testimony of another. This isn't to say that there aren't some inconsistencies that still need to be worked out, however the large amount of agreement overwhelms the small amount of disagreement.

Israel broke the covenant and brought damage to that special relationship.  God brought judgment even to His own people.  One only has to look throughout the prophets to recount the judgments that God brought on other nations as well as on His own.  In fact, in the book of the prophet Hosea where Hosea’s relationship with his wife and children picture the relationship of God with His people, he tells us that the special relationship had come to the point where God says, “Call him Lo-Ammi, for you are not my people, and I am not your God” (Hosea 1:9).  In what desperate condition the children of Abraham lay!  Yet, we know from the prophet Isaiah and others that God will always have a remnant of people, a people that belongs to Him.  God, in His grace, did not leave His people, “lo-Ammi,”  but promised a great restoration.  Israel again, would be declared holy.  The greatness of the New Covenant is that not only is Israel restored but other nations as well join in the covenant blessings of God.  The prophet Isaiah proclaims in Isaiah 19:25 that in that day, “The Lord Almighty will bless them saying, ‘Blessed be Egypt my people, Assyria my handiwork, and Israel my inheritance.’”

The apostle Peter is proclaiming the truth that Edmund Clowney says so well in his commentary, "The Message of I Peter," that under the New Covenant, the covenant ushered in by Jesus Christ, “the grace that can restore Israelites to their forfeited inheritance can equally bring polluted Gentiles into the intimacy of fellowship with God.”   Not only are all those who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ set apart as a chosen people, a royal priesthood, and a holy nation, but they are also now not limited to nor confined to ceremonies.  As discussed earlier from Ephesians 2, through Christ, those who were once excluded from the citizenship of Israel have now become members of God’s household and “fellow citizens with God’s people.”  Under the Old Covenant, Gentiles were forbidden to enter the temple, the sanctuary of God.  But under the New Covenant, the people of God (all those who trust Christ) are “being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ” (I Peter 2:5).   The people of God may confidently approach our Great and Awesome God through Christ our Lord.  Oh, the wonder and grace of our God who has chosen a people to Himself through His Son Jesus Christ to manifest the “manifold wisdom of God.”

There is one plan, one tree, one faith, one land, and one people; for there is only One God and we can confidently state with our forefathers, “Hear O Israel, the Lord our God is One.  Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.  These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts.  Impress them on your children.  Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up.  Tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads.  Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates” (Deut: 6:4-9).  And we may also answer our children when they ask us “why are we to obey the commandments of God?”  We may answer them as well with our forefathers, “We were slaves of Pharaoh in Egypt, but the Lord brought us out of Egypt with a mighty hand.”  But even more than that, we stand on this side of the provision of the Lamb of God.  We stand on this side of the corss of Christ.  So we may also say in response to these questions from our children and others, having been given God’s complete revelation, as Paul tells Titus in Titus 2:11-14,  “For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men, instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age, looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus; who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds.”

Here is a conversation I once had with a Lutheran-styled pastor.*  It is not the only one of its kind.

Me: I am just struggling to trust God that he will provide.

Pastor: That makes sense.  You actually mean, you don’t really want to trust God.

Me: No, I really do.  I desperately want to.

Pastor: No, you are depraved and want your own way.  Not Christ's.  You need to realize that you don’t seek God.  You are not faithful and your desires are turned against him.

This brings us to a less clear, but very important critique of some who are of the Lutheran camp.  I say “some,” because I believe this is a common mistake as much as anything else.  But it has happened often enough - especially within the Lutheran camp - that I feel it should be addressed.

Luther spoke often of the “alien righteousness” that is necessary for our salvation.  Every good Christian should agree with this doctrine.  It means that there was a righteousness, different from our own, that championed our standing with God.  This is clearly taught throughout Scripture.  But follow Luther for very long and he sometimes seems to imply that all righteousness remains alien.  Whether or not this is explicit Lutheran teaching, echoes of it seem to pop up every now and then among those who hold to a more Lutheran form of salvation. 

For years I could not put my finger on this.  Then, studying for a sermon on Romans 1:16-17, I read the following in Douglas Moo’s commentary.

Luther viewed this righteousness [of God] as purely forensic - a matter of judicial standing, or status, and not of internal renewal or moral transformation. (Romans, pg 71)

Did you catch that?  According to Luther, the righteousness of God doesn't change us.  This belief is based in the previously posted definition that justification does not transform your personal merit (it does not make you a good person), it just declares you righteous because of Jesus’ own merit.  On this, Reformed and Lutherans agree.  But if you have a justification-centered view of the Christian life, then this is where you stay... You stay untransformed!  All good merit still belongs to Jesus.  You are evil, the good in you is still alien.

When a pastor is making this mistake, he is basically preaching to his people as if they are all driven by their flesh in everything they do.  You will hear them have to qualify certain hymns that speak of our faithfulness or our desires for good, they may even qualify Scriptures that suppose the Christian is capable, willing, and desirous of doing good.  I have heard people misuse Keller’s book The Prodigal God this way.  They will assume that we as Christians are always acting as the Older Brother or the Younger Brother.  Such thinking leaves out the possibility that Christians have indeed been transformed and, though sometimes faltering in the flesh, are maturing and being more and more conformed to the likeness of Christ.

So, what is the problem with this?  First of all, it ignores one of the clearest verses on how we are to consider each other as Christians.  2Corinthians 5:16-17 says that since we are a new creation, we no longer consider each other according to the flesh.  When I preach, I am expecting that the Christians in my church want to hear it.  I am expecting that the Spirit is indeed transforming them.  The alien in a Christian’s life is not righteousness; according to Romans 7:17 the alien is now sin!

We have been transformed.  The categories of Total Depravity (as outlined in places like Romans 3) are not true us anymore.  We do seek God, we do understand!  In fact, we believe that the image of God has been restored in those who believe so that we can now please him with our works. 

We do still sin, and there are definitely plenty of times we don’t want to please God.  While on earth, we must daily fight our flesh and make the choice to live according to the restored image of God in us (Col 3:10) rather than walk according to the flesh.  Once glorified, there will be no choice; we will act according to the Spirit in all that we do.  But, even as we wait to be perfected, the Christian is not totally corrupt.  Righteousness is no longer alien.  The Christian is a new creation.  The Christian has been transformed.  We need to learn to think that way about our people and ourselves. 

We must always remember the depth of God's great love to send his Son to pay for our sins. But we must also never forget that the same Spirit that raised Jesus from the dead is now breathing life into our mortal bodies. You are now different. You are new

* DISCLAIMER - I am not critiquing the Lutheran Church or even formal/historical Luthern theology.  These posts address a form of Lutheran theology that is active in the Presbyterian Church in America.  Whether the critiques hold true outside the PCA, I would not be the judge.

Before this is brought to a close, one more minor detail should be expressed and explained.  Often it is noted that the church in the New Testament is called the body of Christ while it is never called that in the Old Testament.  Paul, in fact, does use this term but it must not be overlooked that several other terms in the New Testament are used for the expression of the church.  In fact, in Ephesians when Paul talks of the unity of the body of Christ, he says, “there is one body and one Spirit – just as you were called to one hope when you were called – one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all”  (Eph. 4:4-6).  This packs a powerful punch when you take this passage in the context of Ephesians as a whole and Paul’s argument in chapter 2. 

Moreover, the church in the New Testament is also called the “temple of God”,  “the holy temple”, and “Jerusalem” (I Cor. 3:16,17; Eph. 2:21; 2 Cor. 6:16).  All these designations certainly carry a Jewish significance.  Further, it must not be overlooked that the name “Church”  is used for Israel in the Old Testament.  The New Testament renders “ekklesia” as church while the Old Testament renders “qahal” as assembly, gathering, or congregation.  The fact that these two words, in their respective languages, both mean assembly, gathering, or congregation, while the New Testament translates it as church may be the ground for some of the confusion.  However, both of these words in their original meanings denote a congregation, an assembly, or a gathering of the people of God.  Therefore, as Louis Berkhof states, “both serve to designate the essence of the church.”    Robert Reymond in his New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith says as much when he says, “The church of Jesus Christ is the present-day expression of the one people of God whose roots go back to Abraham.”   Therefore, we can rightly say that the history of the church does not begin at Pentecost, but its roots can be traced back to the one people of God finding its first expression with the promise to Abraham and even further back to the promise of the seed of the woman in Genesis 3.