(Note: I typically try to not use the term ‘Calvinist’ on this blog, because of the broad range of response and misunderstandings, which McLaren rightfully points out in the discussion linked below. However, in order to make my point, I bring it up here. Please don’t let that keep you from engaging the actual issue at hand.)

Emergent leader Brian McLaren has recently written a post entitled “Calling all Calvinists,” where he divides those who call themselves Calvinist or Reformed into two camps. The first camp, he says, defines themselves with the acrostic “TULIP” or points to the Westminster Confession of Faith. TULIP is shorthand for the five points of doctrine that Calvin’s students gave in response to the remonstrants during the Synod of Dordt, and stand for Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace and the Perseverance of the saints. The Westminster Confession is a confession of faith written in 1646 and has become the main confession of the Church of Scotland and Presbyterian churches, as well as many other Reformed Churches.

The second camp,

refers to the Lordship of Christ over all of life, the priesthood of all believers, the absolute importance of God’s grace, and the integration of faith with every dimension of human enterprise

McLaren explains that it is the first camp where he finds many of his critics, but it is the second who “are much more irenic and include many of the wisest and most thoughtful Christians I’ve ever met… I hope and pray many in the former camp will migrate to the latter camp in the years ahead.”

The problem here is that McLaren has given us a false dichotomy. For someone who likes to blur the lines between things, to give gray where others see black and white, McLaren has failed to do so here. In fact, he goes against his usual rhetoric and divides people into two extremes. Of course, there are many who fall into these two groups, but McLaren has failed to acknowledge that there are a great number of people who are in both. This is unfortunate coming from someone who often laments that his critics tend to lump all under the emergent moniker together, instead of seeing the legitimate variety of people who gather under that banner.

I do affirm the theological summarization that is provided in the “TULIP,” but at the same time, I acknowledge that the Bible contains much more than this. I also affirm the Westminster Confession, though I cannot consciously affirm it all since I am more baptistic theologically. At the same time, I affirm Lordship of Christ over all things (I agree with Kuyper, who said “there is not one square inchin the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ… does not cry, ‘Mine!’”), the priesthood of all believers (a rally cry of the Reformation), not only the absolute importance, but absolute necessity of God’s grace (which, when rightfully understood, fuels the doctrines summarized as TULIP-It’s about Christ’s performance, not ours), and the integration of faith in every aspect of life (I reject the “sacred/secular” distinction so popular today. There is only sacred, and sacred things get profaned.)

So, what about us McLaren? What camp do we fit in? Your call went out to “all” Calvinists to go from one group to the other-what about those of us who claim both?

Immanuel in our Place: Seeing Christ in Israel’s Worship
Tremper Longman III
Paperback: 228 pages
Publisher: P & R Publishing (August 2001)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 0875526519
ISBN-13: 978-0875526515
Product Dimensions: 8.5 x 5.4 x 0.6 inches
amazon.com

After Jesus had risen from the dead, he met two of his disciples as they were walking on the Emmaus Road. He told them that all of the Scriptures, the Old Testament, pointed to Him as their fulfillment. Since then, Christians have debated exactly to what extent the Old Testament points to Jesus- is it every word? Every part? Certain parts? And in what way? In the book, “Immanuel in our Place: Seeing Christ in Israel’s Worship,” Tremper Longman III seeks to give us an answer to that question– at least in regards to the Israelites’ practices of worship.

The book is part of the “The Gospel According to the Old Testament” series, and is an excellent addition, both to the series and to the Christian’s library. Longman’s writing is theologically penetrating, yet very clear and accessible, and often doxological. He handles the text with great insight, all while keeping a broad audience in view. The book is broken into four units:
Part One: Sacred Space
Part Two: Sacred Acts
Part Three: Sacred People
Part Four: Sacred Time
This review will look at the book according to these units, and not necessarily by chapter.
Read the rest of this entry

Puritan Lad, author of the blog Covenant Theology, has written an excellent post on the proper celebration of Communion. I highly recommend checking this one out.

One of the most defining moments in Israel’s history is the Exodus. In this event, God himself takes his chosen people out of the bondage of slavery under the Egyptians and pushes forward the next phase of his redemptive program by turning them into a nation. Within this defining event is yet another highly cherished event to the Israelites, as Moses goes up onto Mount Sinai and meet with God. It is here that he receives God’s law, the ten commandments, and the blueprints of the tabernacle that they are to build. The tabernacle is central, literally and spiritually, to Jewish life in the Exodus as it stands in the middle of the camp, symbolizing God’s special presence.
Read the rest of this entry

A while back, I wrote a post entitled Redeeming Twitter for the Kingdom. I began with the statement that Christians should engage culture, with the mindset of redeeming aspects of the culture for God’s kingdom. My thoughts about cultural engagement were stirred again today by a remark by Daniel Montgomery, teaching pastor of Sojourn Community Church, in his sermon on Genesis 3 today. In a passing comment, Daniel spoke of the effect of Adam and Eve’s giving in to the serpent’s temptation as being transformational of the culture of Genesis 1 and 2. Namely, the culture of Adam and Eve living in communion with and love for God, along with Adam’s calling to cultivate the garden for the glory of God, all came crashing down with the first sin. In it’s place came a culture of alienation and fear of God, judgment, and shame.

It is in the story of the fall that we see cultural engagement. God is in the business of redeeming culture, as we will see, and that thread is woven throughout Scripture. Now, before anyone says anything, I am not claiming that this is a major tenet of belief on par with the Gospel. The main idea of the narrative is personal fall into sin, judgment, and the promise of redemption. But as Paul says in the Christ hymn of Colossians 1, God is working through Christ to reconcile all things to himself, and certainly culture is part of all things. There is a general movement in Scripture from the garden to a city, from Genesis to Revelation, where the original culture of the garden is again a reality. In fact, it is even better, because there will be no chance of this new culture being subverted.
Read the rest of this entry

We Become What We Worship
G.K. Beale
Paperback: 341 pages
Publisher: IVP Academic (November 2008)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 083082877X
ISBN-13: 978-0830828777
Product Dimensions: 8.9 x 6 x 1.2 inches
Amazon.com
Read the rest of this entry

Mark’s Prologue
In the prologue to Mark’s Gospel (1:1-15), the author sheds a lot of light on who he believes Jesus to be. It is loaded with the evangelist’s Christology (belief about the person and nature of Christ), though it can be easy to miss. In this post, I’m going to look at three verses, and four dimensions of how Mark views the identity of Jesus: as the Messiah, as the Son of God, as the God of Israel, and finally as the One through whom we have access to the Father. Due to space, I will not go in depth with these, but touch on them briefly (readers may argue this point, however!).

Verse 1 The Messiah, Son of God.
The opening verse of Mark’s Gospel serves as a type of title to the Gospel as a whole. In this short statement, “The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus the Messiah, the Son of God,”¹ we have two very strong statements of Mark’s view of Jesus. The first is commonly looked over today- Jesus the Messiah. The word used by Mark here is Christ², which many people today use as if it were part of Jesus’ name. The term is actually a title, which means “annointed one” or “messiah.” This is the term used in the Septuagint³ to translate the Hebrew term ‏מָשִׁיחַ (mashiach, annointed). Mark’s use of the term implies his understanding of Jesus as the one who is the long-awaited Jewish Messiah. This term appears throughout the four Gospels, but particularly in Mark, it serves as the “hinge” between the two halves of the Gospel in the infamous confession of 8:29- “But who do you say that I am?” and Peter answered, “you are the Messiah (Christ).” At this point in the narrative, Jesus begins his journey to Jerusalem, teaching about his impending death on the cross, and its centrality to discipleship. It is worth noting that there is no mention of title at all between 1:1 and 8:29, yet after Peter’s confession it appears 5 times. The entire Gospel asks the question, “who is this man?” As my friend Brad has commented, he gives us the answer right here in verse 1, and we don’t even realize it. It then resurfaces at Peter’s confession as the narrative focuses on the movement to the cross. Why is this? It is because for Mark, the identity of Jesus is unable to be separated from his work.

The second Christological thrust in this verse comes in the next phrase, “the son of God.” This phrase is one of the most significant titles in the New Testament, and is the most prominent title used in the Gospels. The idea of divine sonship will appear later on in this passage at Jesus’ baptism, where God declares Jesus to be his “beloved son.” The phrase “with whom I am very pleased” (1.11) shows that in this title is understood some role of obedience and submission. This obedience and submission is shown most radically through the crucifixion event, where Jesus prays for the Father’s will to be done hours prior (Mark 14). On the day of crucifixion, Mark records the centurion as saying “Truly, this was the Son of God” (Mark 15:39). This marks the first of two bookend phrases in the prologue that open and close Mark’s Gospel. The term “son of God” also serves the purpose of identifying Jesus as the true Israel. It echoes God’s declaration of Israel as his first-born son to Pharoah in the Exodus⁴ and the “prophecy” of God bringing his son out of Egypt,⁵. As such, the term points to the reality that promises given to Israel, as well as Israel’s mission (particularly to the nations) were fulfilled in, or will be fulfilled in Jesus himself. This idea cannot be separated from the previously made point of obedience however. He is the true Israel precisely in His obedience where Israel the nation had failed. This is presented in stark relief as the very next scene after God’s declaration in verse 11 is the wilderness temptation. Whereas the first generation of Israelites were not able to enter the promised land because of their wilderness experience, Jesus is successfully obedient in his. ⁶

Verse 3 The God of Israel.
The third Christological statement comes in the form of a quote. The interesting thing here is what Mark is saying without saying anything. In fact, the statement comes in what Mark leaves out. Verse three is a quote directly from the Septuagint version of Isaiah 40:3. Here are the verses in parallel:

Notice the differences in bold? Mark’s editorial work on the quote has substituted “his” for “our God’s.” This is not an incidental substitution- it is a deliberate way of showing that Jesus (“his”) is the same as the God of Israel (“our God”). This is an unmistakable allusion to the deity of Jesus. In a paradox that rivals John’s prologue, the Messiah is both the Son of God (v. 1), and also God himself (v. 3). If we continue on in Isaiah, we find this statement in verse 5: “And the glory of the LORD shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together.” This is true most primarily in the incarnation, when God himself took on human flesh. Jesus is the fullest revelation of God and his glory⁷, and we await again that revelation at his second advent.

Verse 10 Access to the Father.
The Biblical narrative is one of fractured and broken relationships between God and creation. It moves from the garden where there is unrestricted access between God and people, to the fall and the need to reconciliation, to a city where once again the presence of God is among his people. How does this reconciliation come about? The narrative is clear that sinful people cannot reconcile themselves to God, so how can they? That is what the Gospel answers.

In this verse, Mark describes the scene after Jesus’ baptism. The heavens are “torn open” or “split apart,” the voice of the Father is heard, and the Holy Spirit descends upon Jesus. The word Mark uses for “torn open” is σχίζω- the second of the two “bookends” Mark uses to open and close his Gospel. That Mark uses this term instead of the more regular term used ἀνοίγω (to open), and that it serves as a bookend term, points to a purpose behind his vocabulary. The other appearance of the term comes in Mark 15:38- “and the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom.”

This event of the tearing of the curtain is found in all three of the synoptic Gospels,⁸ which shows that it is an important event. In the Old Testament, the curtain was used to keep the Israelites from having access to the glory and presence of God because of their sinfulness. This is a picture of the broken relationship between God and people. Only the High Priest could enter in behind the curtain, into the place called the Most Holy Place, and they could only do so once a year. On this day, Yom Kippur, they would make atonement for the sins of the people. The reason the evangelists include this story in their gospels is to show that in Christ, that curtain is no longer needed; we all, through faith, have access to the Father. As the author of Hebrews says, “With his own blood—not the blood of goats and calves—he entered the Most Holy Place once for all time and secured our redemption forever”⁹

As I said, the word that Mark uses for the tearing of the veil, which symbolizes access to God, is the same word that Mark uses here to graphically describe the tearing of the heavens at Jesus’ baptism. It seems to me that in framing the Gospel narrative this way, Mark is using the same symbolism at the beginning of the end. Here in verse 10 and in 15:38 Mark is telling his readers, “Here is the One through whom we have access to God. Not through any other, but this One.”

Conclusion
There is certainly much more that can be pulled out from these verses, but it is astounding what we have seen about Jesus in just these three verses. According to Mark’s prologue, Jesus is the Messiah, the promised one who is to come to save his people. He is also the Son of God- and therefore fulfills the role that Israel failed to do in full obedience. He is not only the Son of God, however, he is also paradoxically the God of Israel himself- which finds explanation only in the mystery of the trinity. Finally, it is this Son of God, who is somehow God himself, who came in the form of a person so that we could be reconciled to God. He did so by willingly and obediently going to the cross, taking on the iniquity and sins of mankind, and offering atonement for those who believe. It seems, then, in Mark’s prologue we do not just get an introduction to the person and work of Jesus- we get the gospel itself.

I was hanging out with some good friends of mine tonight, and we got into a discussion of wealth and Christian liberty. Sojourn just finished up a sermon series on Christian liberty from Romans 13 as part of our year long Romans series. Our discussion centered around liberty and wealth. In terms of wealth, American Christianity looks far different than what it seems that Jesus was teaching his disciples. How much of this is cultural and how much of this is outright sin? Is any of it sin? Or is driving a BMW a sign of God’s blessing?
Read the rest of this entry

As I was working on a bit more of my paper on 2 Corinthians 5:1-10, I was contemplating on what Paul is saying in verses 6-8, and verse 8 in particular. Essentially, in these verses, Paul’s degrees of preference surface: Paul would much rather live to see the parousia of Christ as opposed to the disembodied state (vv 2-3), but he would also prefer to be in the presence of Christ in a disembodied state than to be “at home in the body” (vv 6-8). This, of course, makes sense. This is not a hatred of life on Paul’s part, as we can tell from the first part of the letter which gives thanks to God for sparing his life, but a heart-felt yearning of wanting to be with Christ- whatever that may entail. This got me thinking about death and the Christian response.
Read the rest of this entry

Subtitle: From seemingly insignificant beginnings to unimaginable endings.

Jesus’s preaching on the Kingdom of God was absolutely surprising to the original audience. Many of his parables were such that they taught about some aspect of the Kingdom that was against the common conception of what the Kingdom was supposed to look like. In this brief series, I will be looking at some of those misconceptions.
Read the rest of this entry