Today’s interview with N.T. Wright (Bishop of Durham) concerns his new book: Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision.

Justification represents Wright’s response to John Piper’s  The Future of Justification (see my commentary here) and is scheduled for release in the UK in February by SPCK and in the U.S. in May by IVP.

My previous two interviews with Bishop Wright can be accessed here and here.

Trevin Wax: How does this robust discussion on justification between you and John Piper help the church to better fulfill its purpose in the world?

N.T. Wright: How does the robust discussion between me and Piper help the church to better fulfill its purpose in the world? Well, I hope it will, and that’s part of the main point of what I’m saying.

My anxiety about what has now been seen as the traditional Reformed view (though there are many traditional Reformed views!) is that it focuses all attention on ‘me and my salvation’ rather than on ‘God and God’s purposes’, which – as we see in the Gospels, and in e.g. Romans 8 – are much wider than just my salvation. This book, for me, thus follows from Surprised by Hope and the other things I’ve been writing in the same vein.

More generally, I hope that the book will alert people to the fact that the underlying discussion is really about taking Scripture seriously – (a) the whole Scripture, not just selected parts, and (b) Scripture as the final arbiter, over against all human traditions including our own! That cannot but help the church in its purpose in the world . . .

Trevin Wax: What would you say are the key differences between you and Piper on justification?

N.T. Wright: Well, I set justification within the larger Pauline context, where it always comes, of God’s purposes to fulfill his covenant promise to Abraham and so to rescue the whole creation, humankind of course centrally included, from sin and death. Piper holds that Abrahamic context at arm’s length.

Second, I understand justification as basically a law-court term, where it means the judge’s creative declaration that a person is ‘in the right’ in terms of the lawcourt, whereas Piper holds that justification involves the accrediting to a person of the moral, not the forensic, ‘righteousness’ of Christ – something Paul never says (as J. I. Packer admits).

Third, I understand Paul’s doctrine of justification as eschatological, that is, the justification of the faithful in the present time is both the fulfilment of the long story of Israel and the anticipation of the eventual verdict to be delivered on the last day, as in Romans 2.1-16 and 8.1-30.

Fourth, in line with many Reformed readers of scripture, including Calvin, I understand Paul’s doctrine of justification to be of those who are ‘in Christ’, whereas Piper and others don’t make that a central element in justification itself. Conversely, for Piper the center of justification is the ‘imputation’ of ‘the righteousness of Christ’, seen in terms of ‘righteousness’ as a kind of moral achievement earned by Jesus and then reckoned to those who believe. I believe that this is an attempt to say something close to what Paul actually says in Romans 6, namely that the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is ‘reckoned’ to those who are ‘in him’. Putting it the way Piper (and one part of the Reformation tradition) puts it is a pointer to something which is truly there in Paul, but one which gives off misleading signals as well.

Finally, for Piper justification through Christ alone is the same in the future (on the last day) as in the present, whereas for Paul, whom I am following very closely at this point, the future justification is given on the basis of the Spirit-generated life that the justified-by-faith-in-the-present person then lives. In fact, the omission of the Spirit from many contemporary Reformed statements of justification is one of their major weaknesses.

Trevin Wax: What do you hope this new book will accomplish?

N.T. Wright: I hope it will clear up many misunderstandings, and show that the version of the ‘new perspective’ which I embrace and expound (there are as many quite different versions of the so-called NP as there are expositors of it) is not at all inimical to the real concerns, including personal salvation, substitutionary atonement, and so forth, of the ‘traditionalists’.

I hope, too, it will send the next generation of thoughtful Christians back to Scripture itself, not to this or that tradition.

Trevin Wax: How does this short book relate to the longer book on Paul that you are currently writing?

N.T. Wright: The longer book is intended to be a full-scale treatment of Paul’s theology, integrating traditional ‘theological’ topics with the political and philosophical ones which are implicit in his work. I sketched what I intend to do in Paul: In Fresh Perspective, particularly chapters 5, 6 and 7. Imagine each of those chapters on a grand scale (e.g. about 200 pages each!) and you’ll see what I have in mind.

The debate with Piper functions as a sub-debate within the middle one of those chapters. I didn’t want to have to go into that much detail on that particular debate in the big book, since there are so many other debates out there that need to be engaged . . .

Trevin Wax: Do you see a ‘middle ground’ being reached in recent discussions? A post-new-perspective equilibrium or sorts?

N.T. Wright: No, not an equilibrium. A lot of confusion, rather.

I think there’s a danger in ‘old perspective’ supporters still trying to run an implicit ‘conservative versus liberal’ debate on this one, trying to accuse NP folk of some of the failings of an older liberalism. Better to see the historical and theological quest to understand Paul going wide open to encourage everyone to get back to reading the texts in their proper contexts. If that means going beyond this ‘perspectives’ language, so be it. But it is sometimes helpful to put down some markers as a shorthand way of signposting key moves.

One of the truly worrying things about Piper is his insistence that we should be wary of reading Paul in his Jewish context . . . which basically means that we end up reading him as though he was really a 17th-century theologian born out of due time . . .

Trevin Wax: What is at stake in this debate over justification? If one were to adopt Piper’s view instead of yours, what would they be missing?

N.T. Wright: What’s missing is the big, Pauline picture of God’s gospel going out to redeem the whole world, all of creation, with ourselves as part of that.

What’s missing is the big, Pauline view of the church, Jew and Gentile on equal footing, as the sign to the powers of the world that Jesus is Lord and they aren’t.

What’s missing is the key work of the Holy Spirit in enabling the already-justified believers to live with moral energy and will so that they really do ‘please God’ as Paul says again and again (but as Reformed theology is shy of lest it smack of smuggling in works-righteousness again).

What’s missing is an insistence on Scripture itself rather than tradition . . .

For further reading, check out my summary statements of Wright and Piper’s positions in the June 2009 issue of Christianity Today.

Trevin Wax interview with N.T. Wright. copyright © 2009 Kingdom People Blog.

For ease in sifting through my lengthy commentary on John Piper’s book The Future of Justification: A Response to N. T. Wright, I am providing links to all 18 parts here in one post:

1. Some Preliminary Thoughts
2. Piper’s Introduction
3. On Controversy
4. Historical Research
5. Covenant and Law-court
6. Penal Substitution
7. Defining “Righteousness”
8. Imputation
9. What is “The Gospel” Anyway?
10. The Gospel is “Jesus is Lord”
11. Our Standing Before God
12. Justification and “The Gospel”
13. Justification By Works
14. Common Ground?
15. Judaism in the First Century
16. Self-Righteousness
17. The Righteousness of Christ
18. Piper’s Conclusion

written by Trevin Wax  © 2007 Kingdom People blog

We’ve come to the end of a very long series on John Piper’s book The Future of Justification. I have decided to refrain from commenting on the Appendices in Piper’s book. The Appendices are very helpful for those who want to better understand Piper’s framework for understanding justification. Perhaps I will interact with these chapters at a later time. For now, I am ready to close my commentary on this book by offering some comments on Piper’s conclusion.

Earlier in this series, I mentioned why I believe Piper cannot allow Wright’s definition of the gospel (a definition that does not include “justification”) to stand. The concluding chapter of Piper’s book backs up my earlier contention. At some level at least, Piper is driven by a desire to clearly delineate the differences between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism (181-183). The Reformation is most assuredly not over, according to Piper.

Piper finishes his critique of Wright by once again pointing to Wright’s view of justification and works. He believes that Wright’s view will be co-opted into the Roman Catholic view (183). Piper then issues his own “Here I Stand” section, where he clearly and unabashedly affirms the traditional Protestant understanding of justification by grace alone through faith alone on account of Christ’s righteousness alone (184).

I admire Piper’s allegiance to the biblical truths recovered at the time of the Reformation. I too believe that these doctrines are important. They are vital for the health of the church. I agree with Piper that we need more theological clarity and that N.T. Wright has often been unclear as to what he believes, largely because he is not operating within the traditional categories of Protestant exegesis.

I admire N.T. Wright’s determination to hear Paul in his own context, no matter what the cost. I appreciate Wright’s desire to challenge our theological categories and to avoid reducing biblical truths to neat formulas.

Interestingly, N.T. Wright’s book on justification and Paul has a picture of the Apostle Paul on the cover, whereas Piper’s book on justification and Paul has a picture of Martin Luther. I’m not saying that Piper is more devoted to Luther than Paul or that Wright is more devoted to Paul than Piper is… only that the picture does express, at least at some level, one of the reasons this book exists.

N.T. Wright is ready to dismiss certain Reformational teachings if they do not agree with his understanding of Paul in the first century. Piper is ready to affirm Reformational teachings, as he believes that they correctly understood the Apostle.

Both of these men should be commended for their dedication to Scripture and for their hard work in discovering what the text says.

I hope that I have been as fair in this series as Piper has been to Wright in this book. Surely The Future of Justification represents the way that theological debate should take place! As I said at the outset of this debate, both Piper and Wright have good points to make. Though I am closer to Piper on the definition of justification and imputation, I am indebted to Wright for the depth of his historical research and for the terrific and winsome ways he presents old truths.

I thank John Piper for teaching me that our existence is to be totally God-centered. We exist to enjoy him, all to his glory. I thank N.T. Wright for opening up the Gospels to me in a way that helped me understand my Savior and Lord in historical context. We do not worship a timeless talking head, but a flesh-and-blood Jew who walked the shores of Galilee during the first century.

My encouragement to my readers? Read both these men. You will benefit immensely from their scholarship and their pastoral hearts. You won’t agree with either one in everything, but you will be a stronger, more faithful servant of God’s Church for having heard what God has to say through them both.

written by Trevin Wax  © 2007 Kingdom People blog

Before I ever cracked open The Future of Justification, I knew that John Piper’s main area of disagreement with N.T. Wright would be on the doctrine of imputation. Chapter 11 lays out Piper’s reasons for retaining belief in the traditional Reformed view of imputation.

Piper begins by returning to the definition of righteousness he provided earlier (one that does not stay on the surface of what righteousness does) (164-165). He then takes on Wright again for his reductionistic definition of righteousness and for the “confusing” way that Wright speaks of justification (165-167).

The rest of the chapter contains brief expositions of the relevant Bible passages that seem to affirm the doctrine of imputation as traditionally defined by Reformed exegesis (167-175). Piper seeks to prove Wright wrong by pasting together the texts that support imputation and providing brief exegetical reasons for seeing imputation as a central motif of the texts.

Despite some minor quibbles here and there (I disagree with Piper’s take on 1 Cor. 1:30), I am largely in agreement with Piper’s understanding of imputation. I take great comfort in the “Wondrous Exchange” that Luther affirmed – wherein sinners take Christ’s righteousness and Christ takes our sin.

And yet, I believe the “Wondrous Exchange” is even more wondrous than Piper affirms in this chapter. We receive so much more than righteousness. Christ has identified with us, represented us, substituted himself for us. He becomes all that we are and we receive all that he has to offer.

written by Trevin Wax  © 2007 Kingdom People blog

In Chapter 10, John Piper critiques N.T. Wright’s vision of first-century Judaism by seeking to show how the ethnocentrism of the Jews of Paul’s day was actually a sign of self-righteousness.

First, Piper takes on Wright’s view that the “works of the Law” did not refer to the “boasting of the successful moralist.” Piper examines the relevant texts and seeks to dismantle Wright’s exegesis (146-147).

Next, Piper seeks to show how Wright’s insistence that first-century Jews were only ethnocentric and not legalistic represents a false dichotomy. Ethnocentrism is rooted in lovelessness and represents a type of legalism that cannot be dismissed (148-150).

“Wright and other representatives of the new perspective on Paul offer an inadequate analysis of the roots of ethnocentrism. Can one, for example, draw a line between the evil of legalism and the evil of lovelessness?” (150)

Piper makes a great point here, and he backs it up by pointing to Paul’s opinion of his own pre-Christian days, as well as Jesus’ condemnations of the Pharisees (152-155). He shows that ethnocentrism is evil.

“Exclusivism rooted in religious pride remains the same. Jesus identifies the ethnic exclusiveness of the Pharisees as deeply rooted in morally reprehensible pride – that is, self-righteousness… For Jesus, the line between ethnic pride and moral pride vanishes. Ethnocentrism and self-righteousness are morally inseparable.” (156)

Piper makes an excellent case against the New Perspective vision of first-century Judaism. He goes to great lengths to show how the mere mentions of grace and gratitude do not exclude the presence of legalism or exclusivism. (After all, the Pharisee in Jesus’ parable prayed: “I thank you that I am not like this tax collector,” etc.)

Regarding first-century Judaism, I believe Piper makes the stronger case. The New Perspective is right to remind us that ancient Judaism was not a precursor to 16th century Roman Catholicism. I believe that Wright is correct in seeing “works of the Law” more as badges of membership than as ways to earn one’s way to heaven.

At the same time, I believe the substance of the Reformed understanding of legalism to be consistent with the Judaism of Paul’s day. Piper is right. “Badges” of covenant membership that are then turned into their opposite (a way to promote moral superiority and ethnic exclusivism) are rooted in gracelessness. However much ancient Jews wrote of grace, I concur with Piper that the ethnic exclusivity invalidates the boast of “grace.”

And lest I be considered anti-Semitic or anti-Catholic here, let me turn the tables and ask myself a question. Allow me to issue a warning that has stuck with me ever since I read this chapter:

Is it possible to turn our doctrine of justification by faith alone through grace alone into a badge of exclusion – to turn the very doctrine of grace into a badge of self-righteousness that replaces faith in Jesus? Is it possible that some of us who emphasize grace, grace, grace might actually be demonstrating a self-righteous, exclusivist attitude rooted in self-righteousness, and not in God’s grace at all?

If Piper is right (and I believe he is) then we should all be forewarned! Talking about grace, saying we believe in grace, preaching grace does not mean we have tasted of God’s grace. Our actions speak louder than our doctrines here.

written by Trevin Wax  © 2007 Kingdom People blog

In Chapter 9, John Piper seeks to lay out the structure of Wright’s vision of first-century Judaism. Anyone familiar with the “new perspective on Paul” will quickly understand that the movement represents a new perspective on Judaism, which then colors the way one reads Paul’s epistles. This chapter is more a summary of Wright’s reading of Second-temple Judaism than a substantial critique. Allow me to summarize Piper’s points quickly.

1. Wright sees a structural continuity between Judaism and Christianity. The dichotomy that sees first-century Judaism as legalistic and Christianity as grace-centered is a false dichotomy. (134)
2. Works of the Law refer, not to meritorious earnings of salvation, but to boundary-markers, “badges” of ethnic identity. Paul was arguing that the ethnocentric badges of covenant membership that separated Jews and Gentiles have been replaced by one badge alone – faith in Jesus (138-141).
3. Paul argued against the agitators of Galatia because they were trying to limit the people of God to Jews only (142).

Piper makes other points in this chapter, but I believe he has fairly summarized Wright’s perspective on first-century Judaism. In the next chapter, Piper will critique this vision.

written by Trevin Wax  © 2007 Kingdom People blog

In chapter 8, John Piper tries to give N.T. Wright the benefit of the doubt and seeks to understand whether Wright is affirming with different words that which the Reformed tradition has expressed through the doctrine of “imputed righteousness.” He notes how Wright seems to see justification “according to works” and justification “on the basis of” works as interchangeable (117).

I appreciate very much the fair treatment that Piper gives Wright in this chapter. He avoids incendiary accusations against Wright for not using the language of Reformation confessions. He also demonstrates a willingness to hear Wright out and not jump to conclusions.

The good news comes first. Piper quotes Wright making traditional Protestant affirmations. Good works show our justification, are signs of our justification, and give evidence and proof of salvation (119-120). Piper includes a lengthy quote from Wright regarding the imputation of Christ’s righteousness (121-123), and then summarizes Wright’s view of imputation this way:

“Here Wright says at least two key things. One is that when believers are identified with Christ, ‘what is true of him is true of them and vice versa.’ The other is that the ‘accomplishment of Christ is reckoned to all those who are ‘in him.’” (123)

Piper points out how close this seems to the Reformed understanding. But he points out that Wright does not see imputation here as being a reckoning to sinners of Christ’s fulfillment of the moral law, but a reckoning of the status of vindication (124). Again, Wright’s different definition of “righteousness” is causing him and Piper to use similar words to say different things.

I understand that for my readers this post might seem highly technical. I am trying to encapsulate briefly a highly technical theological debate between two leading Christian scholars. What it ultimately comes down to is this: Piper believes that Wright’s system leaves no room for the traditionally understood imputation of Christ’s obedience to the sinner’s account. In fact, Piper believes that Wright has muddied the waters on this issue, so much so that it is unclear as to whether righteousness is imparted (the Roman Catholic view) or imputed (the Protestant view) (124-126).

Piper quotes Wright saying that his understanding of imputed righteousness follows Galatians 2:20, and then Piper says:

“It is not clear what ‘this’ refers to when he says, ‘If this is what you are trying to get at by the phrase imputed righteousness…’ but it appears to refer to the main thing that is happening in Galatians 2:20, namely that Paul’s new life in Christ is being lived by faith in the Son of God. (127)”

I almost hesitate to delve so deeply into the subtleties of this debate, but as long as we’ve come this far… In Piper’s summary of Wright’s quote (regarding Galatians 2:20), he has missed a significant difference. Wright does not quote Galatians 2:20 as saying “the life I live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God.” He quotes the KJV – “the life I live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God” (or faithfulness of the Son of God).

Wright continually argues that “faith in Christ” in Paul should often be rendered “faithfulness of Christ.” I believe it is in this distinction that leads to Wright to affirm “with different words” that which he believes the Reformed tradition teaches.

Chapter 8 is difficult swimming for any reader – theologically trained or not. The subtle differences between Piper and Wright may make average readers scratch their heads and say, “What is the big difference?”

I do not concur with Piper that Wright has completely abandoned the historic doctrine of imputation. There is enough of the substance of the doctrine left in Wright’s theology to see it if one searches hard enough. But why should one have to search hard? Why can’t Wright speak more plainly on the subject?

I do concur with Piper that Wright’s own position on this doctrine is quite confusing and sometimes contradictory. It seems Wright does not want to clarify his position on how works serve as a basis for justification. Perhaps he is weary of being drawn into the intricacies of Reformed exegesis which he believes imposes a foreign paradigm on the text.

written by Trevin Wax  © 2007 Kingdom People blog

In Chapter 7, John Piper points out N.T. Wright’s words on future justification. Piper’s main contention with Wright in this chapter is that Wright’s theology is unclear as to whether our good works are meritorious and serve as the basis for our justification on the Last Day.

Piper notes how Wright points to Romans 2 as evidence of his belief in a future justification that is according to works (105). He offers a different interpretation of Romans 2 that avoids Wright’s perplexing language (106-108).

Piper also believes Wright is off-base in claiming that Protestants haven’t adequately dealt with Paul’s language relating justification and works and he trots out sections from all the great Protestant Confessions as proof (111-115). I would assume that Wright knows of the thoughtful reflection between faith and works in the Protestant confessions. The “conspiracy of silence” that Wright mentions probably refers to the lack of thoughtful application and preaching of what is in fact contained within those confessions.

I agree with Piper that Protestants have done more reflection on this subject than is often argued. I agree with Wright that many Protestant teachers and preachers have not followed the example of the great Protestant thinkers because they are scared to death of affirming anything that even remotely resembles justification “by works.”

Piper’s conclusion?

“There is a good deal of overlap between Wright and Gaffin (and me) in that we all want to put full and proper stress on the importance of real, ethical obedience in accordance with the mind of the apostle Paul (as well as the rest of the New Testament writers).”

But Piper and Wright part ways when it comes to Wright’s terminology of “basis.” For Piper, only Christ’s righteousness can be the basis for justification. That is why in the next chapter, he turns to the question: Does Wright say with different words what the Reformed tradition means by “imputed righteousness”?

written by Trevin Wax © 2007 Kingdom People blog

Chapter 6 ends with a return to John Piper’s contention that the doctrine of justification must be included if the gospel is to be good news. (See two of my previous posts here and here.) Piper believes that those influenced by N.T. Wright’s view of “the gospel” will have a global scope, but will not deal adequately with personal human sin and the need for people to know how a person can “find rest in the gospel of grace (101).” (I hope to be a preacher that proves Piper wrong in this regard, always holding in tension the cosmic scope of the gospel while faithfully proclaiming salvation by grace for individual sinners.)

Though I agree with Piper (over against Wright) that the doctrine of justification actually establishes and does not merely declare our salvation, I agree with Wright (over against Piper) that when Paul speaks of “the gospel” in a specific sense, he is referring to a message about Jesus’ death, resurrection and lordship that has salvific implications for us.

Why does Piper insist that the doctrine of justification be included in the strict definition of “the gospel?” I do not want to assign incorrect motivations to Piper. I believe him to be a man who loves the Word and is ready to follow the biblical text wherever it leads. That is why I suspect something below the surface of this debate is driving Piper’s definition of the gospel, something more than the biblical witness. (In my previous posts, I pointed out Piper’s perplexing inconsistencies on this subject).

The real reason why, in Piper’s view, the doctrine of justification must be the very essence of the “gospel message” is because Wright’s definition (and I believe the apostles’ definition too) that “Jesus of Nazareth, crucified and risen for us, is the Lord of the world” is agreed on by Christians of all stripes. If we define the gospel message this way, then Roman Catholics are right on the gospel.

For those in the Reformed camp, it is unthinkable that we would share common ground with the Roman Catholics (or the Eastern Orthodox for that matter) on the very essence of the gospel of Jesus’ lordship. Out of necessity, Piper must bring justification into the center of the picture – otherwise, the ecumenical implications are too startling and controversial.

Let me conclude by stating my agreement with Piper on the doctrine of justification. I am as Reformed as can be regarding the doctrine of salvation by grace alone, justification by faith alone, all on account of Christ alone. I believe official Roman Catholic teaching to be in serious error on this matter. (So I am not advocating a return to the papacy!)

But while Roman Catholics are wrong on how the gospel works and how salvation is accomplished, I can stand shoulder to shoulder with them in affirming the very essence of the gospel proclamation: Jesus – the crucified and risen Savior is Messiah of Israel and the true Lord of the world.

written by Trevin Wax  © 2007 Kingdom People blog

In chapter 6, John Piper presses further into N.T. Wright’s understanding of “the gospel,” hoping to expose some underlying motivations for why Wright insists that “justification” and “the gospel” are not equivalent. One of the reasons for Wright’s downplaying of justification (in Piper’s view) is that Wright sees justification as a declaration of conversion, not the action that determines right standing before God (93).

Piper quotes Wright at length on “justification,” showing how in Wright’s theology, justification does not determine salvation, but (as an ecclesiological doctrine) provides assurance to those who have already been saved by the effectual call of grace. Here is Piper’s summary of Wright’s view:

“When the gospel is preached, it is not the doctrine of justification that is preached but the death and resurrection and lordship of Christ over the world. The Holy Spirit uses this news to awaken faith in the heart. This is God’s divine call through the gospel. By this call and faith, we are made partakers of Christ’s victory and become part of God’s family. Then the doctrine of justification comes in and declares to us what has happened to us. It thus gives assurance – but does not save, or convert, or make us part of God’s family (96).”

Piper argues that justification does more than just “declare” our salvation. It actually works to establish that salvation. He quotes several verses, most notably Romans 5:1, to back up his view that justification is more than mere declaration (97-98).

Though Wright has spoken of justification as a “second-order” doctrine, Piper fairly points out that Wright does not mean merely secondary. Wright believes the doctrine to be useful polemically for assuring believers of their status in the covenant family (98-99).

(Though Piper fails to point this out, Wright is actually arguing against semi-Pelagianism by casting justification in this light. In effect, Wright is saying, with the Reformers, that justification is God’s declaration of us as having the status of “righteous,” not God’s making us morally righteous.)

Piper argues against Wright’s view of justification as merely declarative by pointing out the inconsistency between Wright’s view of present and future justification. Hear Piper out on this:

“This limitation of justification to the declaration of who is in the covenant is made harder to grasp when we recall that, for Wright, God’s present act of justification is an ‘anticipation’ of his future and final act of justification that is more than declarative. (100)”

Wright takes great pains to show that the Greek word for justification is a word that denotes “declaration” and that the word does not constitute salvation. Wright thus contradicts himself by abandoning that “declarative” definition in the case of final justification (100-1).

Piper makes a great point in this section, and I agree with him whole-heartedly. Scripture does not allow Wright to hold “justification” in a merely declarative sense. Justification not only declares we are saved; it enacts, enables, and establishes our salvation.

Though Piper seeks to press further into Wright’s arguments to discover why Wright wants to keep the doctrine of justification separate from the definition of “the gospel,” I suspect that Piper has some reasons of his own for why he wants to keep them so close together. That is the topic for tomorrow’s discussion…

written by Trevin Wax  © 2007 Kingdom People blog