Tag Archive for gospel at Zeal For Truth

Tag Archive for 'gospel'

The Importance Of The Christian Story

Published by Bryan July 22, 2008 in Essays, Religion, Philosophy and Theology. 9 Comments

Cultures are identified by their stories, and the Church is a culture. It follows that they Church too is defined by her story. But what is that story?

-Peter J. Leithart, Against Christianity

If you were to spend some time in a Christian Church today, would you be able to discover what their story is from the preaching you hear? More often then not, Christian preaching disregards the story. This happens in one of two ways:

First, the story is told, but only as a means to draw out abstract theoretical considerations. What happened is therefore of far less importance then the abstractions that can be drawn out of it an universally applied to the Church.

Second, the story is not told, and instead what is offered as preaching is not anything drawn from the Christian story, but from the stories of the world around us. Pop psychology, self-help, and the latest in cultural trends become the message delivered to the people.

Is it any surprise then that we have a generation of Christians who either are full of only theoretical knowledge, or Christians who are nothing other then moralists? But these two things are only the way the story is disregarded, we should before going any further, answer Dr. Leithart’s question about what our story is.

The answer should be obvious, and every Christian knows it, they just simply don’t understand what it means. The story, the Church’s story, is our history. Beginning in the beginning, through the Old and New Testaments, through the early Church, the medieval period, the Reformation, the revivals, and right to today. Unfortunately, the Church has not only forgotten it’s history, but has actively sought to at best limit the importance given to it, and at worse repudiate it. All that is allowed to be discussed as the history of the church is what can be found in the scriptures from the death of Christ onwards.

The Old Testament is nice for children’s stories that offer good morals (which shows just how little these stories are stripped of what they actually say and are made into abstracts), but is really the history of the Jews. After the New Testament the Church began to go bad very fast so we can learn very little from it. The Reformation was a great period in Church history, but lets keep with the slogans we have inherited from it and understand them outside of any context. Revivals are great, but let us not study the First Great Awakening. I once read some of “Sinners In The Hands Of An Angry God” and it’s obviously not what the Church needs today. No, lets keep with what we have today, let us remember no more past Billy Graham. We have the truth, and it’s unchangeable so why worry about the past anyway?

This view has set the Church adrift. We are swept along with whatever currents come our way because although we may have a a solid ground under the waves in the form of scripture, we have no way to anchor to it anymore.

Stories have the ability to anchor to something. They connect us, and bind us to something, yet more then that they conform us to it. By reading the Church’s stories, we learn what it is to live the life of someone following after God. Although abstract theological knowledge has it’s place, it cannot, in practice, conform us to anything. We may learn what we are to do in general, but stories show us, in specific instances, how God’s people in the past dealt with how to live out their faith.

Christians today can deal in the abstraction, in the theoretical, but put them into flesh and blood situations and they no longer know what to do. No one has trained them how to act as Christians, how to follow after Christ in practice. That is the job of stories, they show us what we can be, what we should be. They show the failures we may have, and the successes that are possible.

More then that, if the Church has lost it’s own stories, it must seek new ones out. Every culture, every institution, needs something to conform to; it needs stories to remember who it is. The Church, in giving up it’s own stories, has embraced the world’s stories. Secular humanism is the story that has crept into the Church. Our stories allowed us to speak to all issues of society; politics, medicine, finance, religion…etc. Today, with the stories we appropriated into the church we can speak only on religion.

This is the tragedy of modernity for the Church. We’ve embraced the story of it, and by doing so have relegated us to observer, occasional commentator, but mostly leftover appendage trying to find something, anything but our own story, to rally around. The Church must re-discover it’s history, it’s story. It needs to look again at the Old Testament, and take seriously the people and stories in it. It needs to look at it’s glorious, and sometimes not-so-glorious, history and rally around it. Hold it up as what it means to follow after Christ, learn from it, and use it as boundaries to keep us walking on the same path we have for all of history.

The Church must become radical again. We must cast off the philosophical positions that was not just pushed on us, but often readily embraced. We need to begin once again work out the implications of the gospel (that is the announcement that Jesus is Lord, that He has begun to set up His Kingdom and will allow no rival one) and begin to apply it to all areas of our lives. Only then will the world take note of the Church, only then will the world will realize the power of Christ, only then will the world see the threat that the Church posses to it.

The Seven Counterfeit Gospels - Part III

Published by Colin April 24, 2008 in Essays and Religion. 8 Comments

Before commenting on the last two counterfeit gospels, let’s look at the entire list to summarize:

Formalism
I participate in the regular meetings and ministries of the church, so I feel like my life is under control. I’m always in church, but it really has little impact on my heart or on how I live. I may become judgmental and impatient with those who do not have the same commitment as I do.
Legalism
I live by the rules—rules I create for myself and rules I create for others. I feel good if I can keep my own rules, and I become arrogant and full of contempt when others don’t meet the standards I set for them. There is no joy in my life because there is no grace to be celebrated.
Mysticism
I am engaged in the incessant pursuit of an emotional experience with God. I live for the moments when I feel close to him, and I often struggle with discouragement when I don’t feel that way. I may change churches often, too, looking for one that will give me what I’m looking for.
Activism
I recognize the missional nature of Christianity and am passionately involved in fixing this broken world. But at the end of the day, my life is more of a defense of what’s right than a joyful pursuit of Christ.
Biblicism
I know my Bible inside and out, but I do not let it master me. I have reduced the gospel to a mastery of biblical content and theology, so I am intolerant and critical of those with lesser knowledge.
Therapism
I talk a lot about the hurting people in our congregation, and how Christ is the only answer for their hurt. Yet even without realizing it, I have made Christ more Therapist than Savior. I view hurt as a greater problem than sin—and I subtly shift my greatest need from my moral failure to my unmet needs.
Social-ism
The deep fellowship and friendships I find at church have become their own idol. The body of Christ has replaced Christ himself, and the gospel is reduced to a network of fulfilling Christian relationships.

We now only have therapism and social-ism to deal with. Like the other two divisions I made in this exposition, these two counterfeits really do go hand in hand. Let’s take a look:

The Counterfeit Gospel of Therapism
Original Description:

I talk a lot about the hurting people in our congregation, and how Christ is the only answer for their hurt. Yet even without realizing it, I have made Christ more Therapist than Savior. I view hurt as a greater problem than sin—and I subtly shift my greatest need from my moral failure to my unmet needs.

In many ways, Way of the Master and other biblical evangelism tools have been formulated as a reaction to this “ism.” In this counterfeit, the emphasis on a person’s spiritual needs are transferred away from repentence, moral deficiency, sin and justice and towards various “life enhancement” needs: peace, happiness, wellness, health, fulfillment and so on. Again, the “Four Spiritual Laws” evangelism method is a perfect example of this - where people are encouraged to have a “relationship with God” because:

“God has a wonderful plan for your life”
We need to “experience abundant life.”
Experience “God’s love and plan for our life.”
He can “Make me the kind of person You want me to be”

This is therapism 101 - “Oh God, I’m just so sad and unfulfilled - I need another goofy, platitude-ridden, experience-based set of feel-good motivational speaking lectures to make me feel happy again.” No, you need a saviour because you will go to Hell, in spite of the fact that God loves you, because you refuse to repent from your sin and trust in Jesus Christ to forgive you.

This is not accomplished by willful deception, but by genuinely caring Christians who have let the cares of the world gradually replace the power of God to save from sin. The have moved from obedience to the bible to vain sacrifice. Christianity becomes less about God’s sovereignty and supremacy, and more about the believer and what he can manipulate from a wealthy parent. God is not someone we submit to, but a genie who grants our wishes, both physical and spiritual.

The Counterfeit Gospel of Social-ism
Original Description:

The deep fellowship and friendships I find at church have become their own idol. The body of Christ has replaced Christ himself, and the gospel is reduced to a network of fulfilling Christian relationships.

Many good things can become idols, getting between God and man - the bible, the name of God and even the body of Christ. The bible commands us to have genuine fellowship with the body - to “love one another.” However, we are also warned not to put family and friends above Christ. In fact, our Christian faith will likely cause our relationships to suffer (Matthew 10:21).

Christians get weary of the world, and in the exact opposite reaction as activism (changing the world by Christian means), social-ists seek to completely remove the world and focus on their “church family.” They build church schools, colleges, singles groups, marriage groups, youth groups, elderly groups, day-care, co-ops, businesses and so on until their entire life is one giant clique. They attempt to create heaven on earth by complicated networks of Christian communities, on which they rely more than the bible, more than the Holy Spirit - more than even God himself.

Because the gospel becomes relationship-based, keeping people happy becomes essential. Sin, hell, repentence and judgment do not make people willing to join these little Christian clubs - so therapism is usually adopted. In a church, this might mean that more concern is placed on “people comforts” such as the air conditioning, decorations, technology and programs rather than the teaching, fellowship and discipline.

Groups like campus life have this down to an artform - making fellowship about holding tanks with pizza, rather than genuine Christian fellowship. Real fellowship always supports the individual believer - it always comes back to the idea of the group empowering the individual, rather than the individual conforming to the group (Romans 12:4-13).

Conclusion
I hope this short series has been informative. But even in considering these seven places where Christians go astray - it is evident that there are many more “isms” that can be a trap. Feel free to continue the discussion in the comments - are there other “isms” that were missed, or were these ones discussed incompletely?

The point of this is to evaluate one’s self to ensure that key elements of Christianity are not being left out, or over-emphasized to the detriment of other equally important aspects. Christianity is an all-encompassing, balanced faith that is relatively simple in its practice. Complicating it through counterfeits like those mentioned is only going to lead the church astray, making it ineffective and impotent to accomplish that for which it was created.

The Seven Counterfeit Gospels - Part II

Published by Colin April 22, 2008 in Essays and Religion. 2 Comments

The counterfeit gospels we looked at last time were fairly obvious. Today’s get to the meat of the matter, and are not easily shrugged off and converted into judgmental thoughts about other people’s faith. In fact, I want to encourage the reader to consider himself while reading this list, and to shy away from using these explanations as a means to evaluate other Christians. These counterfeit gospels are traps waiting to ensnare all of us - we become easy prey if we don’t utilize these thoughts to cultivate personal reform of our own faith.

The seven counterfeit gospels are:

Formalism
I participate in the regular meetings and ministries of the church, so I feel like my life is under control. I’m always in church, but it really has little impact on my heart or on how I live. I may become judgmental and impatient with those who do not have the same commitment as I do.
Legalism
I live by the rules—rules I create for myself and rules I create for others. I feel good if I can keep my own rules, and I become arrogant and full of contempt when others don’t meet the standards I set for them. There is no joy in my life because there is no grace to be celebrated.
Mysticism
Activism
Biblicism
Therapism
Social-ism

Let’s continue with three more subtle gospels - mysticism, activism, biblicism.

The Counterfeit Gospel of Mysticism
Original Description:

I am engaged in the incessant pursuit of an emotional experience with God. I live for the moments when I feel close to him, and I often struggle with discouragement when I don’t feel that way. I may change churches often, too, looking for one that will give me what I’m looking for.

This “ism” probably begins with a misunderstanding of the ministry and effects of the Holy Spirit in a person’s life. Many people take verses about the sovereign power of the Holy Spirit and presume that this power must be cultivated by the effort of the believer himself. Thus, instead of coming to worship seeking a movement of God by his Spirit and subsequently bearing the effects of that movement (which can be manifest in emotion - understanding the truth of God’s love for an example, is quite an overwhelming experience) the mystic will actually utilize emotion to generate a “spiritual experience.”

In ancient religions (and even in modern worship, albeit not formal worship) this was enhanced by the use of drugs, hypnotic chants and other devices to basically create a mystical climate. Mysticism relies heavily on man-made emotionalism.

Since mysticism is rooted in a person’s feelings - they are inconsistent in ministry (whether in the church, their family or their own bible study and prayer life). They are also a constant burden to others, who often have to deal with the fallout caused by their recklessness. This manifests itself in everything from relationship issues, to dropping the ball in ministry and even dealing with sin binges (when it feels good) and overwhelming depression and guilt (when it feels bad).

The problem is that the emotions of man are fickle (Jeremiah 17:9) and can easily turn from elation about God, to fear and worry about all manner of things. It is no coincidence that much of the New Testament epistles speak about the believer’s mind, self-control, order and wisdom.

The Counterfeit Gospel of Activism
Original Description:

I recognize the missional nature of Christianity and am passionately involved in fixing this broken world. But at the end of the day, my life is more of a defense of what’s right than a joyful pursuit of Christ.

Much of what has been called the social gospel would fall into this camp. This is probably obvious to most people. What is less obvious is the essence of this counterfeit gospel, which can be applied in many ways: the knowledge, commission and power of the church is to be manifest through the secular arena. This is a tremendous danger in the modern era, because we live in societies that are highly political and highly secular. Whereas the work of the church through the church is hard to understand, obey and unify around - the work of the church through the world is easy, available and encouraged.

I’ll give two examples from both extremes. It is easier to proclaim that drunkenness is sin and should be outlawed through secular law, then it is to tell a brother that he is sinning, needs to change and then exercise church discipline if he does not. It seems more just to set up welfare programs for the poor via taxation, then it is for Christians to volunteer for Christian charity work or give of their finances/labor to see this work accomplished.

At the heart of activism is a desire to to good, but a lack of biblical discipline, wisdom and application. It can also betray a lack of faith in the power of God to keep his promises and do what he has said he will do. God does not give us a task like the great commission, and then leave us without the means or power to accomplish it. But as God has layed out the mechanism for bringing real change to people’s lives - it is up to us to be obedient. God desires obedience more than sacrifice (1 Samuel 15:22) and while we may think God approves of our passion, hard work and sacrifice for his kingdom, he has made it clear that he is more concerned that we obey.

The Counterfeit Gospel of Biblicism
Original Description:

I know my Bible inside and out, but I do not let it master me. I have reduced the gospel to a mastery of biblical content and theology, so I am intolerant and critical of those with lesser knowledge.

Biblicism is the idolizing of the word of God - to the point of an almost academic relationship with God based on knowledge, rather than the more complete relationship and fellowship we are to have. But it’s not just knowledge or intelligence that marks biblicism - it’s when that knowledge becomes an idol, and inserts itself between the believer and God. This guy is the one who gives a funny look or a sarcastic remark upon being asked an innocent question. Biblicalism breeds impatience and dismissiveness.

Ever wanted to form your own perfect church out without the unwashed, ignorant masses who slow you down, waste your time and need constant help with basic biblical teaching? You’ve met your counterfeit gospel.

Like activism’s misguided desire for justice, biblicism is an overzealousness for knowledge - to the ignorance of the more foundational aspects of Christianity. Activism idolizes the secular world - biblicism idolizes biblical knowledge. Unfortunately, the zeal of biblicism - rather than leading towards enlightenment and truth - actually contributes to ignorance, because the believer becomes less concerned with other mechanism for God’s instruction - mistakes, experiences, trials and so on.

Nest time: The last two counterfeits of therapism and social-ism, and a final benediction.

The Seven Counterfeit Gospels - Part I

Published by Colin April 21, 2008 in Essays and Religion. 1 Comment

My wife and I came across a remarkably concise listing of counterfeit gospels over the weekend. I wanted to take the time to explore these in slightly more depth than where I originally saw them (Between Two Worlds). I should note here that I haven’t read the book where these originated, and my interpretation may be completely different than the author’s intent.

The seven counterfeit gospels are:

Formalism
Legalism
Mysticism
Activism
Biblicism
Therapism
Social-ism

The Counterfeit Gospel of Formalism
Original Description:

I participate in the regular meetings and ministries of the church, so I feel like my life is under control. I’m always in church, but it really has little impact on my heart or on how I live. I may become judgmental and impatient with those who do not have the same commitment as I do.

Formalism boils the gospel down to loyalty to the church as a organization. It is notably different to legalism in that, rather than commitment to rules and precepts, formalists conform and support the organization of the church. They are probably people-oriented and talented (but as an ends to political and organizational fulfillment, not merely relationships).

I would suspect these people also long for the approval of their pastors and ministry leaders, and are at least mildly authoritarian. They need the constant approval of authority and use this to measure the effectiveness of their ministry.

They say “Hi” to as many people as they can, and have trivial knowledge of probably most of the people in the church - without pursuing the depths of genuine fellowship. The exception to this, is authority - with whom successful relationships may bring more opportunities to participate.

This type probably has trouble with competition and cliques. Again, these people are most loyal to the political aspects of a church as opposed to the people - so people represent a necessary evil. For example, they will serve and help people, but to the ends that it demonstrates their commitment to the church, not because they actually care about the people they serve.

The Counterfeit Gospel of Legalism
Original Description:

I live by the rules—rules I create for myself and rules I create for others. I feel good if I can keep my own rules, and I become arrogant and full of contempt when others don’t meet the standards I set for them. There is no joy in my life because there is no grace to be celebrated.

These people, especially in the modern seeker-friendly church, have a tougher time going about it - but they still exist in less traditional areas. They are also markedly different than formalists (who value commitment to the organization) in that they are committed to rules. The legalist is the guy who stares down the people who come in late, put their feet on the pews or wear shorts.

It has been my experience that legalists were often saved out of very licentious lifestyles. They overcompensate for their past behaviours by instituting a regiment of rules. These people do not trust freedom and liberty, and believe that churches (and usually society) need lawmakers and enforcers to keep everyone in line. If they encounter a brother sinning, it is because there was not a rule in place to prevent the sin (self-made or formally). The idea of conversion - that people can actually be changed an be governed by God and his Holy Spirit - is probably one they don’t really understand.

One of the biggest caveats to legalism, and how it is easily camouflaged is in a altered definition: Legalism is a lot of rules when really, legalism is rules apart from the bible. In other words, those who are overzealous for grace to the point of abuse are technically legalists - they have redefined grace to a rule apart from the bible, that means “I can do what I want.” It is very possible to find legalists who have created rules based in anti-legalism as a knee-jerk reaction. Freedom and liberty may be glorified to the point of becoming a rule unto themselves - which is also unscriptural.

Next time: Mysticism, Activism, Biblicism.

Whats The Big Deal About N.T. Wright?

Published by Bryan December 11, 2007 in Religion. 21 Comments

Unless you have had all access to theology blogs cut off for the last few years, you have heard the name N.T. Wright. Even Christians who, as a rule, do not involve themselves in theological debate will likely have heard of him. But who is N.T. Wright, and why has he been causing a stir of late?

Nicholas Thomas Wright is a New Testament Scholar, Anglican Bishop of Durham, and prolific writer. Among other things he was educated at Oxford, taught at McGill University, was Canon Theologian at Westminster Abbey, and is well know for his opposition to the Jesus Seminar’s thought and his opposition to homosexual conduct. He is also not one to skip on scripture. Anyone who has read only a bit of his works know that they are saturated with scripture.

On first blush then one would think that he would be welcomed by conservative protestants in North America, but in fact it is a bit of a rocky relationship, particularly with how Reformed Protestants deal with Wright. Although Reformed Protestants will often accept the work that Wright has done investigating the historic Jesus, and appreciate his position on homosexuality, another one of his positions cause deep concerns.

N.T. Wright is involved with what has come to be known as the New Perspectives on Paul (NPP). Broadly speaking the NPP are a group of ideas that re-think the historical understanding of Paul. The NPP is not a single idea, but includes the perspectives of many different writers on Paul. E.P. Sanders and James Dunn are, along with Wright, leading voices within this movement although there are important differences between these authors. According to The Paul Page The NPP has:

At its core is the recognition that Judaism is not a religion of self-righteousness whereby humankind seeks to merit salvation before God. Paul’s argument with the Judaizers was not about Christian grace versus Jewish legalism. His argument was rather about the status of Gentiles in the church. Paul’s doctrine of justification, therefore, had far more to do with Jewish-Gentile issues than with questions of the individual’s status before God.

How this is worked out in Wright’s understanding, and his ability as a communicator, has troubled many in the Reformed community. Many blogs entries against Wright’s views have been written, papers given, and now the books have begun to flow with the latest being John Piper’s The Future of Justification. Some have thoughtfully engaged with his ideas, but there are some who consider him a wolf in sheep’s clothing leading many astray.

Due to the attention given to Wright and his thought, I began to read some of his work earlier this year. The most important thing that studying philosophy at university has taught me is that if you want to understand someone’s views: read them. Base your understanding on expositions of their thought, or replies from their critics, but read them. Although I’ve only begun to brush the surface of Wright’s massive amount of books having read Simply Christian, The Last Word, What Saint Paul Really Said, Paul For Everyone: Romans Part 1, and am currently working through Paul For Everyone: Romans Part 2, it’s easy already to see what the big deal about N.T. Wright is.

Without a doubt Wright is one of the most gifted communicators I’ve read lately. He is engaging and thoughtful in his writing. Although it does still require some work to understand what he is saying it’s a joy to read him. This is part of the reason that Reformed conservatives have spoke out with force against him; if he is teaching error people will be attracted to him because of his ability to communicate, and therefore their strong response to him.

Most of the responses available on the internet to Wright deal with his book What Saint Paul Really Said. This book was released in 1997, and in that time Wright has written more on the subject of Paul, yet this is the book that seems to still be the “battle ground” and for that reason I decided to read it before his newer stuff. There is a lot in the book that should be uncontroversial, but there are three terms of which Wright challenges the common historic understanding.

This challenge is what makes Wright a big deal (although for the other stuff he says, he deserves to be heard and read; and when I say “big deal” I mean why everyone writes about him). What are these three terms? Without offering my own view on them I’ll try now simply to explain what Wright says and how it’s different from the historic understanding.

Gospel
The first term the Wright wants to change is “gospel.” Like all of these terms, he believes that the church has misunderstood what Paul originally meant. Historically the church has meant by “gospel”: a way of coming to salvation. When one preaches the gospel, one preaches what one has to do in order to come to Christ. Wright thinks that this does not fit with the understanding of Paul, the message of the gospel is not how to do something, but a message about Christ. Wright says regarding this:

It is not, then, a system of how people get saved. The announcement of the gospel results in people being saved - Paul says this a few verses later (speaking of Romans 1). But ‘the gospel’ itself, strictly speaking, is the narrative proclamation of King Jesus. He can speak equally of ‘announcing the gospel’ and of ‘announcing Jesus’, using the term kerussein, ‘to act as a herald’ in each case (e.g. 1 Corinthians 1:23, 15:12; 2 Corinthians 1:19, 4:5; 11:4, Galatians 1:21, 1 Thessalonians 2:9). When the herald makes a royal proclamation he says ‘Nero (or whoever) has become emperor.’ He does not say ‘If you would like to have an experience of living under and emperor, you might care to try Nero.’ The proclamation is an authoritative summons to obedience - in Paul’s case, to what he calls ‘the obedience of faith.’

Righteousness of God
The second term deals with a topic going back to the Reformation. Luther understood the term Righteousness of God as referring to the righteous the God imputes to sinners who have by faith trust in Christ. Looking at what the term righteousness meant in the Jewish law courts in the time of Paul, Wright believes the term does not refer to anything given to a person, but to God’s own faithfulness to the covenant He has made with man. God’s righteousness is them “covenant faithfulness”. This is a major point, and beyond the historical setting of the term he has several pages devoted to looking at how the term appears in the epistles, particularly in Romans. To quote Wright again:

If an when God does act to vindicate his people, his people will then, metaphorically speaking, have the status of ‘righteousness’. I shall have a good deal more to say about this in the next chapter, when we look at the cognate topic of justification. But the righteousness they have will not be God’s own righteousness. That makes no sense at all. God’s own righteousness is covenant faithfulness, because of which he will (Israel hopes) vindicate her, and bestow upon her the status of ‘righteous’, as the vindicated or acquitted defendant. But God’s righteousness remains, to to speak, God’s own property. It is the reason for his acting to vindicate his people. It is not the status he bestows upon them in so doing.

Justification
Lastly Wright believes that how we use the term ‘justification’ has no scriptural support. Historically justification refers to the act of coming to faith in Christ, but for Wright this doesn’t make sense; it doesn’t fit with Paul’s worldview. Yes, people come to Christ through faith, but this isn’t what justification refers to. Justification for Wright is the status a person who has faith in Christ has. Wright explains it was follows:

Justification in this setting, then, is not a matter of how someone enters the community of he true people of God, but of how you can tell who belongs to that community, not least in the period of time before the eschatological event itself, when the matter will become public knowledge.

…it should be clear that certain aspects of the post-Augustine debate of what has come to be called ‘justification’ have nothing much to do with the context in which Paul was writing. ‘Justification’ in the first century was not about how someone might establish a relationship with God. It was about God’s eschatological definition, both future and present, of who was, in fact, a member of his People. In Sanders’ terms, it was not so much about ‘getting in’, or indeed about ’staying in’, as about ‘how you can tell who was in’. In standard Christians theological language, it wasn’t so much about soteriology as about ecclesiology; not so much about salvation as about the church.

These three terms then are what the big deal (for Reformed folks at least) is about Wright (the question of imputation which is often brought up follows from the Righteousness of God, it cannot be dealt with on it’s own). No matter what side you take, if Wright is wrong or right about these terms, it does need to be recognized that it is an important discussion with consequences, particularly regarding the mission of the church.

Zeal For Truth