Life

As of late, things have been really busy here. So I'm sorry that I haven't really posted much theology stuff recently.

This month has been crazy for our youth group with fundraisers, retreats, trips, etc. My head is swarming as I try to remember everything that I need to do. It seems like I'm bound to forget something. And that something will probably be important.

Last night I also received some bad news. Last year there was this one student "Robert" who occasionally came over and was involved in our ministry. This last semester he kinda just dropped out of our group. I knew that he was getting involved in drugs and I called him on it and he stopped coming and started getting in more trouble.

Well, a couple of nights ago some kids broke into Chadron High School and stole some stuff and vandalized things. When I first heard about it, I suspected "Robert." And last night, I found out the police figured out that he and one of his friends did it. I guess that they're charging him with 9 felonies. The worst part is he's only 15. It's sad to see a kid destroy his life. I would appreciate your prayers.

Sarge

My German Shepherd is really growing. In fact, he's already more than doubled his weight from when we first got him. He weighted ten pounds then and now he's more than 20 lbs. It's crazy how fast he's growing.

Observations on Dating

The title of this post may be a little misleading. It's not about social dating between couples. It's actually about the dating of historical documents, especially in reference to the gospels. I've been doing a lot of thinking about this after reading The Da Vinci Code this weekend.

Liberal scholars have for a long time dated the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) some time after 70 AD. This means that they must have been written several decades after Christ by folks that didn't really even know Jesus, and thus they must not be very reliable. The reason for this late date comes from a philosophical presupposition that impacts their scholarship. That presupposition is that the supernatural cannot happen. Absolutely.

This plays into their dating of the synoptics since in each of these gospels Jesus predicts the fall of Jerusalem which took place in 70 AD. So here's how they argue. The supernatural cannot happen. Thus, predictive prophecy can't happen. Thus, the synoptics had to be written after the fall of Jerusalem and not before it.

However, there are good reasons to believe that this reasoning is absolutely false. Let me demonstrate.

It is generally widely accepted that the Apostle Paul died during the reign of the Roman emperor Nero in 64 AD.

It's also generally accepted by all that the book of Acts was written by Luke before the death of Paul. This makes great sense because the book of Acts leaves off with Paul's imprisonment and immending trial. If something as important as Paul's death had taken place, Luke would have definitely recorded it. So that means that Paul hadn't died yet. So that means that Acts must have been written before 64 AD.

That leads us to another reasonable conclusion. The gospel of Luke must have been written before Paul's death since most folks will agree that Luke's gospel was written before Acts (cf. Acts 1:1).

And most scholars agree that Luke was the last of the synoptic gospels to be written. They base this on Luke 1:1-4 and on a detailed comparision of the gospels. That means that all of the synoptic gospels were written before 70 AD.

This seems to make good sense to me and it's a compelling argument for an early dating of the synoptic gospels.

Da Vinci Code

Just recently, I finished reading Dan Brown's popular book The Da Vinci Book since the movie is coming up soon and there's bound to be more discussion on it. It's both sad and funny how historically inaccurate this book is. Here's an article by Tom Wright on the book.

Sad

Recently I ran across the sad story of Bart Ehrman in the Washington Post. Check it out.

Wright on Postmodernism

Here's another excellent Tom Wright quote to think about.

"I believe it is part of the task of the church today to accept the postmodern critique of modernity but to insist that it is not the last word. Modernity stands accused of arrogance, with its technology, its philosophy, its economics and its empires--and, in a measure at least, its theology and exegesis. Postmodernity, with Marx, Freud and Nietzsche in its vanguard, has made its point. The world of the Enlightenment had a lot to do with money, sex and power. But, despite the misplaced enthusiasm of some, postmodernity does not give us a new home, a place to stay. What it provides is a fresh statement of the doctrine of the Fall, which in Christian theology ought always to invite a fresh statement, in symbol and practice as well as word, of redemption."

Exasperation

Over the last several months, I've been trying to memorize the book of Ephesians after being challenged to Scripture memory by John Piper's When I Don't Desire God. (It's an excellent book by the way. I would strongly encourage anyone to read it).

Well, I just recently have been doing a lot of thinking about this verse in chapter 6.

"Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord. "

In the past, I was always puzzled about what exactly this means. How do you exasperate your children? What does that look like?

Now I realize that I don't know the first thing about parenting. I'm thrilled that in a few months Shelley and I are going to get the chance to find out, but when push comes to shove, I have to admit my ignorance on the subject. After all, I have no experience whatsoever.

But as I've worked on this verse, I've started to get an idea about what it means. And of course, my puppy Sarge is giving me a clue about it as well.

Here's what I'm thinking. As I've been potty training Sarge, I have realized that I need to put Sarge in situations where he is more likely to succeed than to fail. For instance, that means that I need to take him outside regularly and give him plenty of opportunities to do his business in the right way in order that he doesn't learn bad habits. That's the right way of potty training the dog.

The wrong way is if I put Sarge in a situation where he is bound to fail and then get on his case about it. Imagine if I were to keep the dog alone in the house all day and then come home eight hours later only to find messes everywhere. Then I severely scold the dog for his "misbehavior." But that's extremely unfair to the dog. I put the dog in a situation where he would inevitably fail and guess what--he failed. I think that what Paul means by the word "exasperate."

As a future parent, I want my kids to succeed. I want them to be godly kids. So in order to do that, I need to put them in situations where they have every opportunity to do so. Of course, that's easier said than done.

Dog training

Check out this site for the show The Dog Whisperer. I have yet to see it since we don't have cable but my pastor has promised to record it for me. I hear that it's great.

By the way, Cesar Millan, the star of the show, has a blog as well.

Problems for the New Perspective

Over the last couple of weeks I've been reading Tom Wright's Paul in Fresh Perspective. Wright is a brilliant man and an excellent writer. He's challenging and thoughtful in his understanding of Paul's letters. And yet, I'm not convinced that he has it right (no pun intended).

Wright sees Judaism as primarily being a religion of grace, as opposed to legalistic. He believes that Luther misread Paul by reading the medieval Catholic church in as Paul's opponents. Thus, Luther wrongly believed that the Judaizers were teaching that you can earn your salvation by the works of the law.

Wright insists that the problem with 2nd temple Judaism was not Pelagian. Instead it was racial exclusivity. Thus, the works of the law need to be read as ethnic boundaries that the Judaizers were compelling the Gentiles to do before being accepted in as God's covenant people.

While Wright surely makes some good points about reading Paul (I'm pretty sure that he's correct in his understanding of "all Israel" in Romans 11), I'm not sure that he's completely right about Paul's critique of Judaism.

I don't think that the dilemma is an either/or situation. It might be a both/and deal. In other words, 2nd temple Judaism might have been both legalistic and racially exclusive. Here's a text that I have yet to see Wright deal with--Romans 4:4-5.

"Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness" (ESV).

This text clearly indicates that the works Paul was arguing against were being done in order to gain God's approval. That means that the Judaizers must have somewhat viewed them as having merit. Notice the contrast between wages and a gift. That also points us in the direction that they were being done in order to earn God's favor.

So my working thesis is that Judaism viewed the works of the law not only as ethnic badges, but as merit badges (to put it in Wright's lingo).

Shelley's brother Ryan took this picture while we were hiking. 

Done with the hike 

On a hike 

At Shelley's family's place 

Sarge and me in Colorado 

The Authority of Scripture

Gordon has a wonderful set of posts on the authority of Scripture on his blog right now. Check it out.

Tom Wright on the Holy Spirit and exegesis

Since I've been interested in the NPP lately, I decided to read another Tom Wright book on Paul. This one is Paul in Fresh Perspective. I have to admit that I really enjoy reading Wright. He's a very clever writer (he kinda reminds me of C.S Lewis) and an extremely talented scholar. Here's another quote that made me think.

"I do believe in the mysterious, unpredictable and usually hidden work of the Holy Spirit. It would be odd to omit this from a discussion of Paul of all people; rather as though one were to discuss Beethoven's sonatas while dismissing from one's mind the possibility that there might actually be such a thing as a piano. Even if one cannot play the piano oneself, one should normally reckon that someone who could do so would have a head start, not a handicap, in discussing the music."

What Defines Us?

Tom Wright made this amazing statement,

"The place of doctrine within Christianity is absolutely vital. Christians are not defined by skin color, by gender, by geographical location, or even, shockingly, by their behavior. Nor are they defined by the particular feelings they may have. They are defined in terms of the God they worship. That's why we say the Creed at the heart of our regular liturgies: we are defined as the people who believe in this God. All other definitions of the church are open to distortion. We need theology, we need doctrine because if we don't have it something else will come in and take its place. And any other defining marks of the church will move us in the direction of idolatry."


As you may well know, Wright is highly-respected in the emerging church movement. The question is, "Does he fit the bill?"

I'm All Ears

Here's a neat site about the state of German Shepherd ears.

The vicious warrior 

Meeting Lucy 

Asleep 

Sarge 

Eisegesis Alert

Charles has found a good example of eisegesis from a couple of heavyweights. I'm sure that this one is debatable. Check out his post.

What's Wrong with the Law?

The Apostle Paul is often a difficult guy to understand. Peter nailed it when he said,

Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction(2 Pet. 3:15-16).

This just goes to show that we must work hard to understand the text. Diligence is a must as we wrestle with the writings of Paul as with all Scripture.

One of the central issues in Paul's theology is the role of the Law of Moses. And of course, this has been at the center of the debate between Lutheran and NPP scholars. As we study letters such as Galatians and Romans, it quickly becomes apparent that Paul has a problem with the Judaizers' use of the Torah. What's wrong with their use of the Torah? Is there something wrong with the Torah in of itself? Those are central questions that we must ask in order to understand Paul.

In the past, I have often heard that the problem with the Law is that the Torah is just a bunch of rules and that rules can never change somebody within. So when Paul talks about the shortcomings of the Law he is referring the fact that rules can't make people right with God. Now surely there is some truth to that, but this can't be the whole problem that Paul is dealing with. Why? Because throughout his writings Paul presents people with all sorts of rules that we are to follow out of obedience to Christ (cf. Ephesians 4:17-6:9).

Now as a corrective, some folks suggest that the Judaizers' problem was in the relation between rules and faith. In other words, the Judaizers taught that you must follow the rules in order to be accepted by God. And the truth is that since you're accepted by God through faith in Christ, you must now follow the rules out of gratitude for God's grace.

The difficulty with this view is with the nature of the rules. In Galatians, the rules of that Judaizers seem to esteem are circumcision and food regulations. And Paul actually says that they shouldn't follow these rules. Paul could have said, "You silly Galatians, don't you know that since you are accepted by faith, follow the rules. You have it the wrong way around. First you believe in Jesus and then you get circumcised. Not the other way around." But that's not Paul's argument. Paul doesn't want them to follow these rules. And the question that we must address is "Why?"

New Perspectives on Paul

I was first exposed to the New Perspective on Paul (NPP) a couple of years ago during a class on Romans from Moody. One of the commentaries that I was using (Doug Moo's NICNT volume) deals intensively with the NPP. Moo does not come from this perspective so his commentary for the most part views the NPP as negative. Since then I've read a couple of books supporting the NPP and so I stand confused seeing good points coming from both sides. (Tom Wright's What St. Paul Really Said? is a good introduction book on the NPP.) All of this goes to show that I need to start back to the text a fresh to examine Paul's letters once again.

The NPP is a view of Paul that basically says that Luther got it wrong. Luther misread Paul's argument on justification by faith because he misunderstood the teachings of the Judaizers, Paul's familiar opponents in early church. Instead Luther read his own experience with Catholic church into the text. In Luther's mind, the views of the Judaizers were identical to that of the Catholic church--salvation on the basis of merit. Thus, Paul is arguing against the idea that you can earn your salvation through the sacraments. So in the typical Lutheran understanding of the text, things like circumcision and works of the law are viewed as sacraments that the Judaizers were teaching one must do in order to be saved.

The NPP says that this understanding of Paul's letters is wrong. Paul is not arguing against this position because the Judaizers never believed in merit salvation to begin with. Instead, the Judaizers held that salvation involved being a part of God's people through the covenant that God graciously made with Abraham. And the badge of covenant membership was circumcision and works of the Torah. These things were markers that identified someone as a part of God's family or His elect. Thus, Paul's argument in Romans and Galatians is primarily against Jewish prejudice against Gentiles.

I see certain things that make sense in both views (you could say that each has its merits) and so I'm still making my way through this issue. Any thoughts?

Here's a couple of NPP websites to learn more.

The Paul Page

NT Wright

John Wesley starts blogging

Here's a really good idea for a blog that I ran across just recently. Check the John Wesley blog. Over the last year, Wesley has become one of my heroes. What a godly man!

Scot on Youth Ministry

Scot McKnight has a really good article on his experience as a youth pastor. Check it out.

Vacation

This weekend Shelley and I got the chance to go to Lake George, Colorado to hang out with her family over Shelley's spring break. It's great to get away and to get some time to relax and hang out with our families. We took Sarge, our new German Shepherd puppy, with us. (Don't worry. Pictures are on the way.) Sarge seems to love the mountains although he's still a little too small to enjoy the hikes. By the way, we're working on potty training so that's really fun.

Tomorrow night we might get to go watch the Newsboys play in Colorado Springs. That might be fun. I liked them a lot during high school. It's been a long time since "Breakfast."

I've almost finished Rob Bell's book this weekend. I hope to have it done soon. I've enjoyed parts of it, but have several questions that I wish that I could ask him.

Maybe next week I'll have some more time to post a little more often.