near emmaus

We've Moved! On to Wordpress

noreply@blogger.com (Brian LePort) — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 19:43:00 +0000

Near Emmaus is moving to Wordpress. To update your URL all you will have to do is change nearemmaus.blogspot.com to nearemmaus.wordpress.com!

Tim Keller on 'Counterfeit Gods'

noreply@blogger.com (Brian LePort) — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 17:46:00 +0000

You can read the introduction to Tim Keller's new book, Counterfeit Gods: The Empty Promises of Money, Sex, Power, and the Only Hope That Matters here.

You can pre-order it through Westminster Bookstore here.

HT: Justin Taylor

N.T. Wright "for Dummies"!

noreply@blogger.com (Brian LePort) — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 16:03:00 +0000

Doug Chaplin has created a list of ten words that should "help you bluff your way through any Tom Wright orientated conversation." So for those of you who are unfamiliar with the writings of N.T. Wright, yet you want to converse with those who seem to think that there are no other New Testament scholars on this planet, here is your list:

1. Jewish. Christianity is a reboot of Jewish monotheism. The New Testament is a Jewish book. Christianity is Jewish. Jesus is Jewish and Paul is Jewish. It isn’t a new story but is the continuation of the old story that goes back to creation and fall.

2. Election. Israel is called to be God’s answer to the problem of Adam, a new beginning in the world. Israel has a vocation from God at which she repeatedly fails, until, in the person of her true King, Messiah Jesus, she is finally able to recapitulate the life of humanity in obedience instead of failure.

3. Exile. Israel in Jesus’ day is still in exile, despite being back in the land. The land is not fairly and justly ruled in freedom by God’s kingly ruler. There is oppression and injustice. There is exile on every page of the New Testament however hard you have to look for it, and the announcement by John and Jesus of God’s forgiveness is the proclamation of Second Isaiah that the exile has ended.

4. Curse. The most important verses in the Old Testament for understanding the Gospel are the closing chapters of Deuteronomy, and especially the fact the covenant comes with blessings and curses. Israel needs to accept that she is in exile, that only God can set her free, and that the law’s curses must be accepted in penitence. Messiah Jesus, precisely because he is God’s anointed, can do this on her behalf, and because Israel is meant to represent humanity, he can also do so on behalf of all people. He fulfils this vocation by a death which also proclaims him cursed.

5. Nationalism. One of the ways in which Israel has failed to live up to the calling to be a renewed humanity is her national pride, wanting to see herself as top dog among the nations rather than God’s means of blessing all of them. So her leaders cannot recognise Jesus as God’s Messiah because he won’t overthrow the Romans, and instead they embark on the disastrous course of choosing human means to try to do the same. The same level of national pride means that Jews use the Law as badge to keep themselves apart and different, and seek to claim its blessing for themselves rather than to share them. The Law as a national boundary marker prevents them from fulfilling their vocation.

6. Vindication. God reveals himself as the one who is just and merciful by rescuing the oppressed, vindicating the victim of injustice, and bringing life where there was death and nothingness, so he raises Jesus from the dead. In that moment God’s proclamation declares the law is fulfilled, its curses emptied, and its blessings now focussed on Jesus, the one who has put Adam and Israel back on the track of obedience.

7. Justification. All the language of the Bible about justification has to be understood in the light of this one single act of vindication. Talk of imputation and impartation are equally nonsense. God is putting right what is wrong in people and in the world. We need to accept his judgement on ourselves and others, Jews and Gentiles alike, and learn to live with each other as one new family made by God.

8. Gospel. God’s new world has started because the crucified Christ has been proclaimed king, and those who look to the vindicated Jesus as the focus of God’s saving justice can begin to receive the same vindication and blessing, and live the same life of obedience. The experience of God’s Spirit confirms to them that they belong to God’s new world, and they must live as agents of change in this one.

9. Metaphor. None of the language of the end of the world in the Bible is meant to describe a real end of the world, only the cosmic scope of what God is doing in restoring Israel, and bringing her back from the exile of injustice to the inheritance of a freed and redeemed creation.

10. Resurrection. Because all the end of the world language is a metaphor for cosmic renewal of the one and the same creation as the one we’re living in, resurrection doesn’t mean an escape from this world. That’s why the tomb is empty, because it’s a transformation of this world. Any existence as a disembodied spirit is a temporary state, and bodies is what it’s all about. That’s why social action is as much a mark of the redeemed as evangelism. It’s not about disembodied life after death; it’s about embodied life after “life after death”.

To read the full post go here.

Tim Keller on Exclusivism

noreply@blogger.com (Brian LePort) — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 00:04:00 +0000

Today I have already mentioned Terry Tiesen's definition of "Gospel Exclusivism" (here) and D.W. Congdon's "Christocentric-Missional Universalism" (here) so I thought I may as well complete the trifecta by mention Tim Keller's sermon in exclusivism:

To listen click here.

D.W. Congdon on "Christocentric-Missional Universalism"

noreply@blogger.com (Brian LePort) — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 23:09:00 +0000

D.W. Congdon is a PhD student at Princeton Theological Seminary. He has written an article for Testamentum Imperium: An International Theological Journal titled "The Problem With Double Predestination and the Case for Christocentric-Missional Universalism". In this article he argues that the debate amongst Protestants between Calvinism and Arminianism is wrongheaded. Against Armnianism he affirms Calvinism's critique of so-called "human freedom" (p. 4). Against Calvinism he critiques "instrumental soteriology" where "Jesus Christ is not himself constitutive of what salvation is or who is saved; he merely fulfills a divine decision regarding salvation that is made apart from him in eternity (p. 7)."

Instead, Congdon suggests the Barthian "revision of the supralapsarian position". Namely, that God elected Jesus Christ (and humanity in Jesus) before the creation of the world and the fall of humanity (p. 9). He goes on to argue that Christ is the revelation of God. Therefore, to be truly Christocentric we cannot search for Godness outside of God's revelation through Christ, even the Trinity is known through Christ (pp. 9-11). Since God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself (and the created order) we must understand the Pauline Christ-Adam juxtaposition in such a way that Christ is not simply a response to sin and death; he is the victor! What occurs in the history of Christ is infinitely more significant than the sin that affects human existence. The consequence of this view is clear: to say that some will finally remain outside the scope of Christ’s reconciling death and resurrection is to make the sin of Adam more significant and more universal than the obedience of Jesus. The result is, again, a failure to take Jesus Christ with full seriousness (p. 11)."

If God elected all of humanity in Jesus before the creation/fall what is the purpose of the mission of the church? Congdon proposes that in Rom. 5:8-11 Paul separated "reconciliation" from "salvation". He states, "Reconciliation—and justification, I would argue, in light of Rom. 5:9—occurred in the death of Jesus Christ, while salvation will occur in the eschaton. Reconciliation is past-tense in nature, while salvation is in the future tense. Both, however, are grounded in the one mediator between God and humanity, Jesus Christ: his death reconciles us to God, while his new life in the resurrection ensures our salvation (p. 12)." What is the difference? [F]or Paul, our salvation is an existential and eschatological actuality. It is existential in that it concerns our lived existence before God; but it is eschatological in that God alone confirms our salvation when we encounter God “face to face.” Salvation, as Paul defines it, is both present-tense and future-tense. We both “work out [our] salvation with fear and trembling” (Phil. 2:12) and await our salvation in the final parousia of God." While reconciliation is something God did through Christ for humanity whether or not we have faith in Christ or not (p. 13).

To summarize, we "experience" salvation here and now and at the eschaton. But just because someone does not experience salvation does not mean that they will not experience reconciliation. Those who experience salvation get the best of both worlds knowing God now and at the eschaton. Those who only experience reconciliation are still reunited with God. Congdon states, "This reading of Paul’s letters allows one to simultaneously affirm that salvation is by faith alone and that all people are reconciled to God apart from their faith (p. 14)."

My summary does not do the article justice. Even though I do not agree with his conclusions, nor his exegesis, I think it is a worthwhile read. To read his full article access it here. Once you have done so I'd enjoy hearing your thoughts here via comment.

Book Review: Tyndale Life Application Bible Studies: John

noreply@blogger.com (Brian LePort) — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 16:23:00 +0000

Previously I reviewed the Life Application Bible Studies study of the Book of Hebrews (see here). Now I am recommending the study on the Gospel of John for the same series. This booklet includes the New Living Translation (NLT) text of the Gospel of John along with many valuable footnotes. It is a great resource for small group leaders or someone teaching a mid-week Bible study at a local church.

In addition there are thirteen lessons already prepared. Each lesson includes a list of various questions that can be used as a note taking guide for others. This helps those working through the Gospel of John think critically about what is being taught. These lessons are as follows:

1. Enough Evidence to Believe (John Introduction)

2. What is God Like? (John 1:1-34)

3. Responses Make a Difference (John 1:35-2:25)

4. Pointing the Way (John 3:1-4:42)

5. Making a Claim (John 4:43-5:47)

6. Going for the Wrong Reasons (John 6:1-71)

7. Religious but Far from God (John 7:1-8:59)

8. Eye That Will Not See (John 9:1-10:42)

9. A Resurrection of Hope (John 11:1-12:50)

10. Being a Servant of All (John 13:1-14:14)

11. A Close Relationship with Christ (John 14:15-17:26)

12. Rejecting the Son of God (John 18:1-19:42)

13. Doubt Resolved...I Believe! (John 20:1-21:25)

Again, if you are a small group leader or Bible study teacher looking for something to hand out or guide your lessons this is a wonderful resource.

To purchase from Amazon.com go here.

A Definition of "Gospel Exclusivist" from Terry Tiesen

noreply@blogger.com (Brian LePort) — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 14:36:00 +0000

For those who consider themselves to be part of the "exclusivist" understanding of salvation there is a definition posted by Terry Tiesen over at Scot McKnight's blog that he is presenting for editorial feedback (see full post here). This is Tiesen's definition:

At various points in human history, God revealed himself and his purposes in the world more fully, culminating in the incarnation of God the Son. Everyone has some knowledge of God through divine self-revelation and, in God's justice, people are judged only according to the revelation they have received. Therefore, no one is condemned for not believing in revelation which they have not received. But, in God's grace, he only saves people who believe in him according to the most complete revelation that he has given to human beings. At each point in human history, therefore, knowledge of the latest and fullest divine revelation is necessary for saving faith.

As someone who would consider myself more or less an exclusivist I am wrestling with this definition. I affirm that first line that at various points in human history God has revealed Himself and that the incarnation is the climax of revelation (ie. Acts 17:23-34; Heb. 1:1). Furthermore, I affirm that the Apostle Paul argued that all people have some understanding of God (at some point in their life), including Richard Dawkins (Rom 1-2)! This would result in people being judged according to the revelation that was received upon rejection of that revelation. So-called "general" revelation is always rejected in favor of gods that are no-gods at all (again, Rom. 1-2).

In the next phase I would affirm that God does appear to judge according to the most recent revelation of sort. Hence, Paul could lament the Jewish rejection of Messiah even though the Jews were zealous for Moses' Law (Rom. 9-11). But it must be more than this: there is not a group of people who simply seem to acknowledge the most updated revelation, but a group of people that God somehow "chooses" to receive this revelation in a salvific way (again Acts 17:23-34; add Rom. 8:26-29). Therefore, God chooses those who will be able to receive the salvific revelation at certain points in human history.

Any thoughts?

Jesus, Between Jews and Christians: Amy-Jill Levine to Lecture in Eugene, OR

noreply@blogger.com (Brian LePort) — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 00:58:00 +0000

For all of those who may read this blog who live in area near Eugene, OR, you may be interested to know that Amy-Jill Levine will be lecturing in Eugene on October 23-25. This will be a Chi-Rho Lecture series on Jesus as he relates to Judaism and Christianity. For more information go here.

HT: Jim West

N.T. Wright and J.D.G. Dunn on the "New Perspective on Paul"

noreply@blogger.com (Brian LePort) — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 20:48:00 +0000

HT: Euangelion

Did the Apostle Paul Misrepresent Second Temple Judaism?

noreply@blogger.com (Brian LePort) — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 20:30:00 +0000

Both E.P. Sanders and H. Raisaner criticized the Apostle Paul saying that he misrepresented Second Temple (esp. Palestinian)Judaism (STJ) when he depicted it as a merit-based, legalistic religion. It is argued that STJ was a religion of "covenantal nomism". This is to say that the Jews did not see works as means of earning God's favor since God had already elected Israel. Rather, it was by works that one showed that one was in the covenant or one maintained right-standing in the covenant. The Jews obeyed the law because of election.

J.D.G. Dunn, N.T. Wright, M. Hooker and others have previously argued that Sanders did not give Paul a fair hearing. These scholars have suggested that the traditional Reformed (esp. Lutheran) reading of Paul was incorrect and that we must reinterpret terminology such as "the works of the law", "the righteousness of God", "faith in/faithfulness of Jesus Christ" and so forth. This is to say that Sanders is correct in his assessment of STJ, but not Paul.

Douglas Moo offers yet another possibility. He argues along with M. Seifrid, T. Schreiner, P. O'Brien, S. Gathercole, and others that STJ is much more diverse that Sanders allowed. Therefore, it is possible that Paul was in fact challenging some sort of "legalistic" or "merit-based" Judaism. Paul was not challenging STJ as a whole (because it was not uniform) but rather a particular element of STJ that was represented by his opponents. Even if we cannot find STJ literature that sounds exactly like the opponents of Paul it is suggested by Moo that,

Even if the position of Paul's opponents could not be traced to any Jewish view discernible in the literature, it would still be preferable to admit our ignorance of much of first century theology and let them remain unidentified than accuse Paul of misrepresentations or force the texts to say something that they do not appear to be saying (Moo, Douglas. “Paul and the Law in the Last Ten Years.” Scot. Journ. of Theol. 40: 287-307.).

Of course, there are some scholars who believe that there is as much in STJ literature to suggest merit-based religion as there is "covenantal nomism". But even if there wasn't one should assume that Paul knew what he was talking about and that he knew what he was criticizing. Especially since for all the STJ literature we have we do not have enough to know all the aspects involved.

Literary Criticism of C.S. Lewis

noreply@blogger.com (JohnDave Medina) — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 09:09:00 +0000

Gary Tandy, Ph.D., who is my new supervisor for the Writing Center at George Fox University, is a C.S. Lewis scholar. His recent contribution to the field is The Rhetoric of Certitude: C.S. Lewis's Nonfiction Prose. A partial description of the work says,

While numerous studies on C. S. Lewis’s literary achievements have been published in the past several years, The Rhetoric of Certitude brings much-needed attention to Lewis’s nonfiction prose, identifying his unique style and explaining why his writing has remained popular while that of so many of his contemporaries has not.

Since I have had an interest in textual analysis, I will be picking up a copy. A review will follow in the coming months.

Read the full description here.

N.T. Wright at Wheaton College in 2010

noreply@blogger.com (Brian LePort) — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 14:31:00 +0000

I wish I could attend this. See details here.

Jeff Louie on the Uniqueness of Christ, the Role of the Holy Spirit, and Preaching

noreply@blogger.com (Brian LePort) — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 23:18:00 +0000

These short videos feature my former professor and friend, Jeff Louie, the associate professor of theology at Western Seminary-San Jose. In the first he discusses the role of the Holy Spirit, in the second he discusses the unique claims of Christ, and in the third he discusses preaching through adversity within one's congregation.

'A god of many understandings?' Roster Update

noreply@blogger.com (Brian LePort) — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 15:43:00 +0000

Let me update you on the roster for the upcoming 2010 A god of many understandings? blog conference. At this point it includes:

Brian LePort: I will likely be writing something regarding the Apostle Paul's understanding of religious others and other religions.

JohnDave Medina: John is a new addition to 'Near Emmaus'. I am hoping to get him to write something as well!

Nick Norelli: Nick has agreed to participate (lest something befalls him). We are expecting something regarding how the doctrine of the Trinity relates to a Christian theology of religions.

T.C. Robinson: T.C. has agreed to participate and he has hinted that his paper will have something to do with N.T. Wright!

At this juncture there appears to be a leaning toward exclusivist and/or inclusivist positions. Do we have any Christian pluralist or universalist out there? We need you to contribute!

UPDATE: James McGrath gave our conference a shout-out here.

JohnDave Medina Now Blogging at 'Near Emmaus'

noreply@blogger.com (Brian LePort) — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 15:00:00 +0000

In case you did not notice that the 'Welcome to Near Emmaus' section of the side bar on the right hand side now has more content I wanted to announce that JohnDave Medina, a friend of mine and a MA student at George Fox University, is joining me here. I think his writing will make this blog much, much better. Welcome John!

The Assemblies of God: Where Did Tongues Go?

noreply@blogger.com (Brian LePort) — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 14:54:00 +0000

Christianity Today has an article about the decline of 'speaking in tongues' amongst the Assemblies of God. It is an interesting article that emphasizes, amongst other factors, that pastors preaching/teaching less about the phenomenon as well as the Sunday morning gatherings going from "for the church" to seeker-sensitive have caused more and more AOG pastors and congregates to undervalue or abandon the practice. To read the article go here.

As one with Pentecostal roots I think this statistic can mean one of two things: (1) The AOG is becoming mainstream evangelical while discarding distinctives or (2) the AOG is learning how to use spiritual gifts in a more appropriate way when it comes to doing so amongst one another juxtaposed with doing so in the midst of unbelievers. I personally lean toward the latter view. The AOG can continue to emphasize the spiritual gifts--even some mainstream evangelical churches are not shying away from this, including recent sermons given at Mars Hill in Seattle and my own home congregation here in Portland, Imago Dei--while teaching how these gifts can be used appropriately . For some reason Pentecostal-Charismatic assemblies have ignored the Apostle Paul's teaching regarding speaking in tongues and I applaud those within the AOG and other Pentecostal-Charismatic churches that have decided that the spiritual gifts will still be emphasized but within the structure assumed by the Apostle as he wrote here:

Follow the way of love and eagerly desire spiritual gifts, especially the gift of prophecy. For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God. Indeed, no one understands him; he utters mysteries with his spirit. But everyone who prophesies speaks to men for their strengthening, encouragement and comfort. He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church. I would like every one of you to speak in tongues, but I would rather have you prophesy. He who prophesies is greater than one who speaks in tongues,unless he interprets, so that the church may be edified.

Now, brothers, if I come to you and speak in tongues, what good will I be to you, unless I bring you some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or word of instruction? Even in the case of lifeless things that make sounds, such as the flute or harp, how will anyone know what tune is being played unless there is a distinction in the notes? Again, if the trumpet does not sound a clear call, who will get ready for battle? So it is with you. Unless you speak intelligible words with your tongue, how will anyone know what you are saying? You will just be speaking into the air. Undoubtedly there are all sorts of languages in the world, yet none of them is without meaning. If then I do not grasp the meaning of what someone is saying, I am a foreigner to the speaker, and he is a foreigner to me. So it is with you. Since you are eager to have spiritual gifts, try to excel in gifts that build up the church.

For this reason anyone who speaks in a tongue should pray that he may interpret what he says. For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. So what shall I do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my mind; I will sing with my spirit, but I will also sing with my mind. If you are praising God with your spirit, how can one who finds himself among those who do not understand say "Amen" to your thanksgiving, since he does not know what you are saying? You may be giving thanks well enough, but the other man is not edified. I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you.

But in the church I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue. (1 Cor. 14:1-19, NIV)

As far as I understand this passage the Apostle encourages speaking in tongues, but in a private matter. It is better to use prophecy in the presence of both other Christians and unbelievers because no one but God can understand what is meant when someone speaks in tongues. As I have promised before I will address the Apostle's charismatic thought. Until then all I have to say is I think I affirm the direction the AOG is going. Glossolalia as a "distinctive" from other Christians sounds no better than the Corinthian church whose pride was wrapped up in this gift. The Apostle Paul reminded them that he uses the gift more than they did not to make them try to use it more but to shame them by showing them they are not as great as they might think themselves to be.

To read my view on speaking in tongues in the Luke-Acts narrative go here.

Interreligious Fellowship: Albert Mohler versus Brian McLaren

noreply@blogger.com (Brian LePort) — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 14:58:00 +0000

Should Christians join Muslims as Ramadan fasting partners? This is the question asked in an AP article by Eric Gorski. Brian McLaren and Albert Mohler were discussed in this article. As regards McLaren the author writes,

In announcing his Ramadan fast plans on his blog last month, McLaren wrote, "We are not doing so in order to become Muslims: we are deeply committed Christians. But as Christians, we want to come close to our Muslim neighbors and to share this important part of life with them." The goal is to join Muslims in the observance as "a God-honoring expression of peace, fellowship and neighborliness," he wrote.

As regards Mohler's reaction he writes,

Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, said the idea of Christians fasting at Ramadan appears at first to be neighborly solidarity, but it's more than that.

"The logic of Islam is obedience and submission," Mohler said. "It's by following these practices that a Muslim demonstrates his obedience to the rule of the law through the Quran. For a Christian to do the same automatically implies a submission to the same rule. And beyond that, it's an explicit affirmation that this is a good and holy thing. From a New Testament perspective, it is not a good and holy thing."

Others to weigh in include Mark Driscoll, Ben Reis, Eboo Patel, and Monem Salam. To read the article click here. Also, do feel free to leave a comment with your perspective on this post.

The Gospel Coalition Blog

noreply@blogger.com (Brian LePort) — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 14:47:00 +0000

The Gospel Coalition now has a blog in case you didn't know/are interested. Visit it here.

CALL FOR PAPERS: 'A god of many understandings?'

noreply@blogger.com (Brian LePort) — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 18:17:00 +0000

At 'Near Emmaus' I will be hosting the first annual 'A god of many understandings? a blog conference discussing a christian theology of religions' [1]. There are several successful blog conferences that occur around the blogosphere including the 'Trinity Blogging Summit', the 'Barth Blog Conference', and the 'Bonhoeffer Blog Conference'. It is my desire to have a blog conference dedicated to the question of the role of non-Christian religions in Christian theology.

This is not necessarily a comparative religions blog conference, but rather how Christian theology should understand the role of religions from a Christian perspective. Since this will be the inaugural conference I will not supply a central theme, but I will ask that this year those who choose to contribute discuss the common, generalized soteriological viewpoints on this subject: universalism, pluralism, inclusivism, and exclusivism. In doing so you can dedicate your paper to a particular theologian (e.g. Barth's "universal" election of humanity, Yong's view of the Holy Spirit working through other religions, Erickson's "agnostic" exclusivism). You can dedicate it to a particular position, a hybrid of these positions, or totally discard these common positions and put forth a view of your own. While you do not have to be a confessing Christian to contribute do understand that we are asking for a Christian understanding of religions.

We will schedule this blog conference for January, 2010. If possible please send me an e-mail with the concept of your paper included by the end of September, 2009. After that we will aim for papers to be turned in by mid-December. If you have any questions feel free to e-mail me at brianleport@gmail.com. Or you can leave a comment on this post.

_______________

[1] The name of this conference is taken from the forthcoming book by one of my professors at Western Seminary, Dr. Todd Miles. To pre-order his work visit Borders.com here.

The U2 Worldview: Breathe

noreply@blogger.com (Brian LePort) — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 14:51:00 +0000

Read this article at the Examiner.com here.

In the Gospel According to John (14:6) we read this statement by Jesus:

"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

For scholars there has been various interpretations of this passage. For those of the more liberal stripe, like 'The Jesus Seminar' or Bart Ehrman, it is argued that these words were likely never actually said by Jesus. For those with a more conservative reading it has been argued that Jesus claimed to be the only way to God. In conjunction with the rest of the Christian canon this would mean that the only way to God is by trusting in the work of Jesus accomplished by his death and resurrection.

This answer often leads to the tricky question about those who have never heard about Jesus and therefore have never had the opportunity to reject or accept Jesus. What about those people? When Christianity was mostly limited to Europe this question was not so prominent. Paradoxically as Christianity became globalized, globalization began to challenge the exclusive claims of Christianity. As Todd Miles of Western Seminary has noted there was once a time when the heathen were "over there" somewhere. Christians assumed all pagans to be uncivilized, needy, and likely even immoral. Now Christians rub shoulders with Buddhist, Muslims, Hindus, and thousands of varieties of "religious others" every day. We find these people are often very moral (sometimes more so that ourselves) and usually civilized. These people are pious. These people are "good". These people have thought through their religious views and at times these people have decided the prophet Mohammad makes more sense than the Christian New Testament.

Therefore Christian scholars such as Amos Yong, Clark Pinnock, and Veli M. Karkkainen--amongst others--have reexamined the Christian Scriptures to see if there is any hint of hope for those who do not hear about the gospel or who already have a religious persuasion that appears sufficient. The conclusions reached by these scholars should not be deemed "universalism" because it is not argued that all will be saved by God in the end (Hitler, apparently, finds little sympathy with most people). It is not even necessarily "pluralism", per se, because it there are few conservative--especially evangelical--scholars that would argue that Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam are essentially different paths up the same mountain to the same deity that all understand in part but not fully. Rather, it is affirmed that Jesus is the only way to God, yet death and resurrection of Jesus may result in the salvation of those who do not even know about Jesus as well as those who do not fully understand what Christians are trying to say and therefore opt to remain in their own religion.

Some scholars, such as the aforementioned Karkkainen, Pinnock, and Yong, have argued that since the Christian God is described as a Trinity that God may save through other religions by the work of the same Holy Spirit that saves Christians while applying the effect of the work of Jesus to those people. Some argue that if a person lives by faith to their fullest knowledge God will count those people are righteous much like those Jews who believed in YHWH God before Jesus arrived, or those random non-Jews like Jethro, Job, and Melchizedek who somehow knew the true God outside of the religious world of Abraham and his descendents.

If the Holy Spirit is fully God, as Jesus is God, as the Father is God, then the Holy Spirit fully saves people as much as Jesus and the Father. God is one, therefore the Trinune God must save as one. Yet the work of Jesus and the work of the Holy Spirit do not always look the same. Rather, the Father uses the Son and the Spirit to rescue humanity from different angles.

At this point you may be asking "What does this have to do with U2"? I know, I know it has been an essay on a Christian 'theology of religions', but I think that some of these positions being reached by Christian theologians jive well with the American culture of which we are part. Many Americans will claim to be some sort of Christian. Most of those believe Christianity is the best of all religions. It is the best way because it is built on the person of Jesus. But most American Christians will not go as far as to say that Christianity is the only true religion. If there is a seemingly Christian, especially biblical, more specifically evangelical understanding of the religions of the world that holds out hope that they may too someday be saved then our culture will eat this up quickly!

U2 has promoted this movement called 'Coexist' for sometime now. It is an effort to unify Buddhist, Christians, Jews, Muslims, and people of various faiths around the idea of mutual respect and civil engagement. In a post-9/11 world where many Christian Americans saw Muslim terrorist fly planes into the World Trade Center buildings, and then subsequently watched on television as our "Christian" president told a "Christian" nation that we were invading Afghanistan and then Iraq, we are prime for any movement that signals a truce. Let us be and we will let you be as well.

At the beginning of the 360 Tour concert in Chicago, IL, on Saturday evening September 12th, U2 opened with the song 'Breathe' from their newest album. The song usually has a line that ends one of the verses that says, "I can breathe, breathe now". Bono ended the song saying, "Spirit breathe, Spirit breathe". Bono is well known for praying, or singing Psalms, or even hymns like 'Amazing Grace' at U2 concerts. For many Christians, including myself, this is very enjoyable. Yet we know when thousands of thousand of people are packed into Soldier Field there is a good chance that thousands and thousands of those screaming fans are not Christians. Yet there is no offense taken by Bono's prayers. Is this because everyone is fine with Bono being a Christian of sorts? Or is this because Bono may be praying to the Christian God but you are welcome to direct your own prayer toward your own god because when it all boils down to it the Holy Spirit is working through all religions to bring us to a place of unity "Where the streets have no name"?

It is most evident that the entertainers of this world are very influential as regards public opinion. Brad Pitt may not be the most brilliant man in the world, but his good looks get people to sign on to the 'One' campaign. George Clooney makes us all want to go to Africa to help HIV/AIDS victims. Madonna and Angelina Jolie make us want to adopt orphans from Asia. Christians see these good deeds and we ask, "What is the difference between these people and myself? These people are even better people than me!" And if it comes down to loyalty to Jesus we Christians will always (?) side with Jesus. But now we have a reason to believe that Jesus has sided with us, and them, and through the Holy Spirit pretty much everyone in the world. This is the world-view most of us now share and we now ask ourselves this question, "Why do we even proclaim Christianity anymore? Let's live and let live."

Also: Read my December 21st, 2005, post: 'Is Bono anti-Christ?' here.

In the Mail: Tyndale Life Application Bible Studies: John

noreply@blogger.com (Brian LePort) — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 14:48:00 +0000

Finally, after being re-routed from San Francisco to Portland, I have received my review copy of the Life Application Bible Studies lessons on the Gospel of John. I will post a review here ASAP.

Junia, the First Woman Apostle?

noreply@blogger.com (Brian LePort) — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 23:26:00 +0000

Mark Goodacre asks whether or not Junia of Romans 16:7 is a female apostle. Listen here.

The Biblioblog Top 50 is Meaningless

noreply@blogger.com (Brian LePort) — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 21:02:00 +0000

Doug Chaplin notes that the Biblioblog Top 50 is meaningless "vanity of vanities" here. Jim West replies by essentially saying "duh" here.

The Book of James and the New Perspective on Paul

noreply@blogger.com (Brian LePort) — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 16:16:00 +0000

Some critics of N.T. Wright, such as Mark Seifrid, have suggested that Wright's understanding of the doctrine of justification is too much like Roman Catholicism (see this video). Yet I find that there is a lot of similarities between Wright's understanding of Pauline thought and the Reformed understanding of the canonical role of the Book of James. Where Paul states that we are justified by faith, apart from works of the law, the Book of James (2:14-24)says this:

What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and be filled," and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that? Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself.

But someone may well say, "You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works." You believe that God is one You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder. But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar? You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected; and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "AND ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS," and he was called the friend of God. You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

To synchronize Paul and James I have heard over and over again that Paul speaks of initial justification and James the outworking of justification (via the life of Abraham). Or Paul is referring to the works of the Law of Moses while James is referring to good deeds that are the natural result of faith. In other words James view of works is similar to the "fruit of the Spirit" in Galatians!

Is this not exactly what Wright has been saying? Wright sees justification as one part of salvation, the declarative part on behalf of the cosmic judge, in favor of the believer. Furthermore, in order to inherit the new heaven, new earth God must recreate us via the Spirit (part of the message of all of Romans 8). Other traditions such as Pentecostalism and the Methodist have called this "sanctification" or "regeneration". The Orthodox have a cousin view call theosis where we become like God. The idea is that it takes more than merely being declared right but God actually makes us right by the work of the Spirit.

Interestingly enough while some Reformed are afraid to acknowledge that Paul sees the Holy Spirit as actually working through Christians to fulfill the Law there is still room for them to say that James said this very thing, but in reference to faith! I find it odd that the work of the Holy Spirit is intimidating, but works via faith in James is not. Am I missing something here?

Creation: The True Story of Charles Darwin

noreply@blogger.com (Brian LePort) — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 17:43:00 +0000

This movie about Charles Darwin looks very interesting. Visit the film's website here: creationthemovie.com.