“Follow 

He could have been talking to the brightest, most well-educated man He found. He could’ve been speaking with a businessman who had seen enormous success, so much so that the money from a potential partnership would more than pay for His expenses. He could’ve been talking to those who would’ve led a militia and fought for Him as king.

Once may be a surprise. Twice is a strange coincidence. Three times is definitely a pattern. Whom is He calling now? The fishermen who left their nets and their families behind – they were strange enough. The tax collector who left behind his life of bribery and extortion – that was daring enough. But perhaps this next summons is most shocking of all.

Two thousand years later. In a different time, in a different place. But it’s the same Galilean voice.

You have people to see, meetings to attend, children to tend to, parents to mind, activities you are trying to press into an already squeezed schedule. And yet quietly walking past you in the midst of your struggle, in spite of your sin, He issues His royal summons.

That’s the difference between Christianity as it should be and Christianity as it has become. We live in a world where many Christians still live for themselves. When “Follow Me” means “Let Me make you happy.” When “I have come to give life” means “I’ll give you money.” When “I have called you My friends” means “We can steer this life together.” When the royal summons to follow the King turns into a private devotion to buddy Jesus.

And in this crumbling world around us, beautiful even now despite the horrors that take place within it, Jesus is still calling. He invites us to take the journey behind Him, to allow His cloak of righteousness to cover our sin as we walk closely behind. Step by step.

Jesus invites us to the religious experience of a lifetime, precisely because this journey is not about having a religious experience. Adventure is promised, but not just the thrill-seeking adventure we desire, a way of satisfying our innate need for something bigger than ourselves. Adventure comes because that innate need is only met when we realize that Christianity is not about us; it’s not about my personal religious faith that I practice in the prayer closet;  and it’s not about my secure, prepared heavenly afterlife. Granted, all those get thrown into the mix. But the center of Christianity is the Christ  the “ianity” follows.

The summons is a royal one. The Messiah has beckoned. The King has spoken.

Each morning, as we wake up and our feet hit the floor, we ought to remember – “I’ve been summoned. Today belongs to my King.”

And as though abuse were not vile enough, they covered Him with spittle.

And as though spittle were not contemptuous enough, they plucked out His beard.

And as though plucking out his beard was not brutal enough, they drove in great nails.

And as though the nails did not pierce deeply enough, He was crowned with thorns.

And as though the thorns were not agonizing enough, He was pierced through with a Roman spear.

It was earth’s saddest hour, and it was humanity’s deepest, darkest day.

At three o’clock in the afternoon it was all over.  The Lord of life bowed His head and the light of the world flickered out.

Tread softly around the cross, for Jesus is dead.  Repeat the refrain in hushed and softened tones: the Lord of life is dead.

The lips that spoke forth Lazarus from the grave are now stilled in the silence of death, and the head that was anointed by Mary of Bethany is bowed with its crown of thorns.

The eyes that wept over Jerusalem are glazed in death, and the hands that blessed little children are nailed to a tree.

And the feet that walked on the waters of blue Galilee are fastened to a cross, and the heart that went out in compassionate love and sympathy for the poor and the lost of the world is now broken; He is dead.

The infuriated mob that cried for His crucifixion gradually disperses; He is dead.

And the passersby who stop just to see Him go on their way; He is dead.

The Pharisees, rubbing their hands in self-congratulation, go back to the city; He is dead. 

And the Sadducees, breathing sighs of relief, return to their coffers in the temple; He is dead.

The centurion assigned the task of executing Him, makes his official report to the Roman procurator, “He is dead.” 

And the four, the quaternion of soldiers sent to dispatch the victims, seeing the Man on the center cross was certainly dead, brake not His bones, but pierced Him through with a spear; He is dead.

And Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus of the Sanhedrin go personally to Pontius Pilate and beg of the Roman governor His body, because He is dead. 

Mary His mother and the women with her are bowed in sobs and in tears; He is dead.  

And the eleven apostles, like frightened sheep, crawl into eleven shadows to hide from the pointing finger of Jerusalem and they cry, “He is dead!” 

Wherever His disciples met, in an upper room, or on a lonely road, or behind closed doors, or in hiding places, the same refrain is sadly heard, “He is dead. He is in a tomb, they have sealed the grave and set a guard; He is dead.”

It would be almost impossible for us to enter into the depths of despair that gripped their hearts.

Simon Peter, the rock, is a rock no longer.

And James and John, the sons of Boanerges, are sons of thunder no longer.

And Simon the Zealot is a zealot no longer.

He is dead, and the hope of the world has perished with Him.

Then, then, then…

- W. A. Criswell

Jesus Christ dies instead of us. He not only identifies with our suffering caused by our sin; He also enters into our sorrow and makes it His own. He takes our sin and its consequences upon Himself so that we can be free. He experiences the full force of God’s wrath toward sin in order that we might be saved. Only the cross satisfies God’s demand for justice and our desire for mercy.

Picture the first humans in the garden of Eden in uninterrupted fellowship with God and each other. They are called to do the will of God, but they disobey. Not your will, Lord, but mine! decides Adam, lurching forward to take the fruit. Thousands of years later, another garden is before us—Gethsemane. The Second Adam agonizes over the will of God, shrinking back from the cup of God’s wrath, the cup He must drink for His sinful people to be spared. Not my will, Lord, but yours! He decides.

The essence of Adam’s sin was that he put himself in God’s place. The essence of Christ’s obedience is that He put Himself in our place. Because of His life in our place, and His death in our stead, we are freed from our sins.

When the Romans crucified criminals in the first century, it was customary for them to nail an accusation list to the cross. The list informed people why this person was being crucified. When Jesus died, God took the accusations that Satan brings against us—all our failures and mistakes, our willful rebellion, and our constant inability to keep God’s law—and God nailed those accusations to the cross of His Son. So Jesus Christ died there on Calvary, bearing your sin and mine; the accusations that should be hurled against us were hurled against Him instead.

On the cross, God demonstrated His perfect justice and His great mercy. He executed justice by pouring out His wrath against sin upon His only Son. He showed mercy by absorbing that wrath Himself, thus allowing us to escape His judgment.

Because Jesus was filled with horror and cried out, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” we are filled with wonder and cry, “My God, my God, why have you accepted me?”

Because Jesus cried, “Father, forgive!” the taunts we hurled at Him on the cross are transformed into praise for His generous mercy.

Because Jesus said, “I thirst,” we can drink from the fountain of living water and never thirst again.

Because Jesus said, “Woman, behold your son,” and felt the pain of separation from His earthly family, we can experience the blessing of being united with a heavenly family.

Because Jesus cried, “It is finished!” our new life can begin.

Because Jesus committed His spirit into the Father’s hands, God commits His Spirit into our hearts.

Jesus is the Passover Lamb—the substitute that protects us from the wrath of God. He experienced the curse of God, the punishment for sin, the hellish torments of eternal damnation—all for the glory of God and the salvation of His people.

- from Counterfeit Gospels, 97-98.

“Or 

The woman in Jesus’ story used a lamp to aid in the search for the missing coin. The windows were small, narrow slats in the wall near the roof that let in little light. Sweeping would have to play a part in the search as well, since the floor would often contain ridges in which a coin could easily get lodged. Jesus describes how this housewife diligently persists in doing all that is necessary to find her lost coin.

But by welcoming to His table of fellowship those labeled “unclean” according to the Jewish law, Jesus appeared to be celebrating the coming of the kingdom with all the wrong people. He didn’t bow to the religious elite; instead, He was proclaiming the good news of the kingdom among the poor, the vulnerable, the outcasts, those who had compromised with Rome or who had been living in sin. The change brought about in these lives through “repentance” (the turning away from sin to the way of life Jesus demanded) was the reason for celebration. God was indeed setting the captives free, even if all this was happening in ways the religious people of Jesus’ day had not expected.

I love listening to pastors who exalt Christ everywhere they can as they proclaim the Scriptures. Christ-centeredness is one of the core values we are seeking to implement in The Gospel Project. (For more information, check out the website we launched late last week.)

Nicholas Perrin and Richard Hays have incorporated the papers and Wright’s responses into a new book, Jesus, Paul and the People of God: A Theological Dialogue with N. T. Wright (IVP, 2011). The book attempts to analyze and critique Wright’s historical work, particularly as it relates to Christian theology. Though all the contributors are sympathetic to Wright’s vision, they refrain from merely praising his accomplishments and choose instead to honor him by offering a robust critique of some of his most prominent ideas.

Today and tomorrow, I will provide a review of this new book. First, we’ll look at the four essays that deal with Wright’s view of Jesus. Tomorrow, we’ll look at the essays that critique Wright’s work on Paul. My goal is to briefly summarize each essay and then offer a few reflections of my own.

N.T. Wright and the Historical Jesus

The first essay comes from Marianne Meye Thompson: “Jesus and the Victory of God Meets the Gospel of John.” Thompson focuses on a troubling inconsistency in Wright’s work. Wright believes in the historicity of John and has called for scholars to “discard the century-old shibboleths” that label John as non-historical. Still, Wright bases his reconstruction of the historical Jesus on the Synoptic witness alone, which leads Thompson to explore the ways in which John’s “Jesus” lines up with the “Jesus” presented in Wright’s work. She asks great questions:

• “Do we omit the Fourth Gospel in such discussions because it would somehow be taken to compromise any historical reconstruction?”
• “If John and JVG often make strikingly similar judgments about Jesus’ mission and accomplishments, what shall we conclude about either one?”
• “And does John’s approach to understanding Jesus suggest that we ought to rethink how Jesus is known ‘historically’?”

I believe Thompson’s critique of a John-less Jesus and the Victory of God to be valid. I understand that Wright wishes to play on the field of skeptical scholarship. He responds:

“Had I brought John into the equation without comprehensive justification, my principal conversation partners would have ignored the book.” (63)

Fair enough. But maybe the time is ripe for such “comprehensive justification” in the wider academy. Who better to make the case than N.T. Wright? As it stands, Jesus and the Victory of God, while commendable in so many ways, is of limited value for evangelical Christians because of John’s absence. Thompson is correct, however, to note the similarities between the Jesus we find in John and the Jesus we see in Wright’s work.

—–

Richard B. Hays offers an essay titled “Knowing Jesus: Story, History and the Question of Truth.” Hays offers the most strident critique of Wright’s work. He zeroes in on the question of truth and its relation to story and history. He seeks to establish clear roles for the Scriptural canon and church tradition in the hermeneutical task. The problem with Wright’s work, according to Hays, is that despite clear affirmations regarding the complementary nature of theology and history, Wright frequently suggests that the church’s faith obscures real history. Hays writes:

“Christian theological tradition is by and large bracketed out – at least at the explicit level – in Tom’s treatment of the evidence.” (51)

“Experience and critical history rescue us from the misreading of Jesus bequeathed to us by the church.” (51)

Hays believes that Wright shares many of the assumptions of the “historical Jesus” questers he is seeking to critique. It is Hays’ attempt to move beyond these assumptions that leads to this essay criticizing Wright’s methodological approach. Hays is concerned that Wright’s reconstructed Jesus results in a loss of each Gospel writer’s individual voice. He also notices Wright’s tendency to over-systematize everything through the framework of the “exile and return.” But it appears Hays’ biggest issue is that Wright sees the confessional tradition as a hindrance rather than an aid in discovering the biblical Jesus.

The two ways of studying Jesus come to the forefront in this summary from Hays:

“On the one hand, Tom insists that without historical investigation of the factuality of the Gospels, the story is vacuous, not least at the level of concrete action in the world. I insist, on the other hand, that without the canonical form of the story, we could never get the historical investigation right in the first place.” (61)

Of these four essays on Wright’s “Jesus,” Hays’ is the most important because it goes to the very heart of the presuppositions and assumptions that undergird the foundation of Wright’s work. From my perspective, I suspect that Wright and Hays are back to back fighting off opposing enemies. Wright is not setting a dichotomy between history and canon, but between a “kingdom-less” reading of the Gospels that fails to take into the historical truth already there in the canon. Hays is not saying that history matters less than the witness of the church, only that a resurrection-shaped lens of history necessarily shapes our presuppositions and approach to historical study.

—–

I won’t spend much time on Sylvia Keesmaat and Brian Walsh’s dialogical essay, “Outside the Circle of Friends: Jesus and the Justice of God.” Though creatively delivered, it is the weakest in the book. Keesmaat and Walsh take Wright to task for not situating the ethics of Jesus and the Victory of God more forcefully in the economic setting of the first century. Though Keesmaat and Walsh believe Wright has missed the focus on social justice in the Gospels, they are guilty of the opposite error: they find this emphasis everywhere.

The best example is their imaginative (I would even say “fanciful”) interpretation of the Parable of the Talents. According to Keesmaat and Walsh, the villain is the master, and the hero is the man who buried the money. Of the traditional interpretation, they write: “Our economic assumptions have dictated the hero of this story for us.” (81) Really? It’s more likely that Keesmaat and Walsh’s assumptions have dictated who they see as the hero. Otherwise, why are the earliest interpretations of the parable along the lines of Wright and the traditional view?

—–

Nick Perrin’s essay, “Jesus’ Eschatology and Kingdom Ethics: Ever the Twain Shall Meet” seeks to point out a blind spot in Wright’s proposal. Perrin believes that Wright emphasizes corporate application of Jesus’ commands to the exclusion (or diminishment) of individual ethics. Although Wright maintains that Jesus’ command to repentance has both a corporate and personal application, Wright most often states the corporate application. Perrin writes:

“Unlike the scriptural prophets, who as far as I can tell used the term repentance to indicate Israel’s duty to forsake a broad range of sins… Tom’s Jesus employs repentance in a specialized sense, by which he focuses his call very specifically on the issue of Israel’s violent militancy.” (107)

I believe Perrin’s critique to be spot-on. We can certainly be grateful for Wright’s reminder that repentance in the first century cannot be reduced to the lone individual feeling sorry for his sin. But to downplay or neglect the truth that Jesus’ call to repentance did indeed focus on the individual and every area of one’s life (not just nationalistic zeal) is misleading. So should we choose between a collective ethic and an individualist one? Perrin answers:

“It is only in correlating the individual and the corporate, the true Israelite and the true Israel, with reference to the resurrected future, that both of these attain their proper creationally ordered place and the extremes are finally transcended.” (112)

—–

The final essay in the section on Jesus comes from Wright himself: “Whence and Whither Historical Jesus Studies in the Life of the Church?” Instead of posting a lengthy review of this essay, I’d like to quote one of the sections in which you can see the basic outline of why Wright thinks the way he does. This paragraph illuminates the motivation for Wright’s historical work, and it explain why so many evangelicals (like myself) have found his work on Jesus and the resurrection to be helpful in many ways:

“Remember the slogan of Melanchthon in the sixteenth century: it isn’t enough to know that Jesus is a Savior; I must know that he is the Savior for me. I agree with Melanchthon, but I think we have to say it the other way round as well. We must today stress that it isn’t enough to believe that Jesus is “my Savior” or even “my Lord”; you must know who Jesus himself was and is. Without that, merely saying that we have Jesus “within our heart” or that we “have a sense that Jesus loves me” or whatever can easily turn into mere fantasy, wish fulfillment. That has happened before, and it will happen again, unless it is earthed in actual historical reality.

In order to know that you’re not just making it up, not fooling yourself… you must be able to say that this Jesus, who we know in prayer, this Jesus we meet when we are ministering to the poorest of the poor, this Jesus we recognize in the breaking of the bread, this Jesus is the same Jesus who lived and taught and loved and died and rose again in the first century. We must believe and confess that he did indeed inaugurate God’s kingdom, die to bring it about and rise again to launch the consequent new creation. We must know who Jesus himself actually was and is.

“Generations of skeptics have swept Jesus aside in their efforts to prove that Christianity is a dangerous delusion. Richard Dawkins is only one of many examples. We have to be able to provide proper, well-grounded answers.” (119)

This paragraph shines light on the area I believe Wright’s work to be most useful: apologetics. Wright wants to provide proper, well-grounded answers to the skeptics who dismiss Jesus and the Christians who don’t know much about him. Furthermore, he wants to make sure that the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith are one and the same. Noble goals, even if Wright doesn’t always attain them.

Tomorrow, we’ll look at how these scholars assess N.T. Wright’s “Paul.”

The whole of Jesus’ teaching and activity is abundantly instructive to rulers. Welcomed into the city of man, the Eucharistic city models and teaches rulers to rule like Jesus.

• “Turn the other cheek” gives instruction not about self-defense but about honor and shame. To slap someone on the right cheek, you have to slap back-handed, and a back-handed slap expresses contempt, not threat. Is this relevant to political ethics? Of course. The Roman Empire was built on a system of honor, insult and retaliation. Before Rome, Thucydides knew that wars arose from “fear, honor, and interest.” Remove retaliation and defense of honor from international politics, and a fair number of the world’s wars would have been prevented. There would have been a lot of slapping but not nearly so much shooting.
• The Eucharistic city would teach rulers to agree with their adversaries quickly, to defuse domestic and international disputes before they explode.
• What if rulers were instructed not to look at a woman lustfully? That would also prevent some wars, keep presidents busy with papers and things at their desks, protect state secrets, save money and divisive scandals. The church would insist that rulers be faithful to their wives and not put them away for expediency or a page girl (or boy).
• The church would insist on honesty and truth telling, urging rulers to speak the truth even when it is painful.
• The church would insist that a ruler not do alms or pray or fast or do any good things to be seen by others, especially by others with cameras – a rule that would revolutionize modern politics.
• Rulers would be instructed to love enemies and do good to all. Obama would be seeking the best for the Republican Party, Ms. Anonymous Republican would be doing her best to serve the president. A ruler would have to stand firm against the antics of tyrants, not out of hatred but out of love, to prevent the tyrant from doing great evil to himself and others. If the tyrant attacked, the ruler would have to defend his people out of love for them and out of love for his enemy. Punishments would be acts of love for the victims, the public and the punished, just as a father disciplines his son in love. The church would insist that the ruler not use his legitimate powers of force for unjust ends, on pain of excommunication.
• The church would urge rulers not to lose sleep over budget shortfalls or stock market declines, and exhort them instead to store up treasure in heaven by acts of mercy and justice.
• The church would urge rulers to beware their own blind spots and remove logs from their eyes so they can see rightly in order to judge.
• The church would remind a ruler that she will face a Judge who will inquire what she had done for the homeless, the weak, the sick, the imprisoned, the hungry.
• At the extreme, a ruler might place himself on a cross, sacrifice his political future and his reputation, for the sake of righteousness. In certain kinds of politics, he would be the first soldier, the first to fly against the enemy, because being the leader means you get to die first. In great extremity, he might follow Jeremiah’s example and submit to conquest, defeat, deportation – endure a national crucifixion to preserve a people for future rebirth.

Peter Leithart, from Defending Constantine (338-339)

Consider Jesus of Nazareth alongside Caesar Augustus.

At the time of Christ’s birth, Caesar had issued a call to the Roman world that everyone be counted and properly taxed. As he enjoyed luxurious accommodations in his Roman palace, he hoped to demonstrate his own greatness before a watching world by publicizing the great number of people under his domain. And yet in an unnoticed corner of Caesar’s kingdom, in a simple stable, sleeping in a feeding trough, the Son of God had come to show the glory of his Father.

The nature of infancy teaches us something about weakness, and it teaches us something about our God. Every Christmas we celebrate not Caesar’s triumphant census, but our Emmanuel: God with us.

The Apostle Paul tells us that Jesus made himself a servant. The infinite God enclosed himself in a woman’s womb for nine months. God the Son was wrapped in swaddling clothes and placed in a manger for a bed. God made himself vulnerable.

Picture Jesus, the firstborn above all creation, the one through whom God spoke the creation of the universe, sitting on his mother Mary’s lap, learning to read and write! Such mysteries can never be fully explained. But it is the story of God coming to earth – God’s being with us – that lies at the heart of the Christian worldview.

Imagine Caesar in his palace and Jesus in the manger. Which one looks more like a king?

What would you do if you were in Bethlehem at the time and you had to choose to pledge your allegiance to either a baby boy who excited a few rugged shepherds, or the ruler of the known world with an army of thousands at his command?

Who was more powerful? Caesar or Jesus? Things are not always as they appear.

Christians must have a radically different conception of power. After all, when Jesus was crucified, it appeared that he was dying as a weak man at the hands of the strong. Pilate appeared to have the authority and power. “We have no king but Caesar!” the people shouted.

Caesar ruled by conquering lands and subjugating people. Jesus conquered sin, death, and the grave by suffering and dying – by bearing the full weight of God’s wrath towards the evil of the world and then rising again to new life.

- from Holy Subversion: Allegiance to Christ in an Age of Rivals, originally posted in December 2009, cross-posted at the Crossway Blog

Dr. Joseph Tson – a well-known pastor and author, perhaps the preeminent Romanian Baptist theologian of the past few decades – has recently declared his theological agreement with a charismatic group (“Strajerii” – “Watchmen”) that promotes a type of Word-Faith, prosperity-gospel teaching.

Tson’s recent revelation has affected Romanians all over the world. The Baptist Union recently excluded Tson from the Baptist Union and revoked his ordination for his deviation from the Baptist Confession of Faith.

In the uproar online over Tson’s recent changes, I found Dr. Radu Gheorghita’s “Letter from a Younger Theologian” to be a helpful source of biblical insight and brotherly persuasion. Dr. Gheorghita is the Associate Professor of Biblical Studies at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. He was a mentor to me when I was a student at Emanuel University of Oradea. With Radu’s permission, I have translated the letter into English and am happy to provide it here.

A YOUNGER THEOLOGIAN’S LETTER TO JOSEPH TON

Dear Brother Joseph,

We thank you for the message you sent with your supplemental clarifications. Before I can respond, I want to appreciate the decent tone of dialogue in your most recent messages, and I assure you that I don’t take that for granted. As for me, I desire to maintain the same parameters. I hope that at least one good thing might come from the tumult of recent weeks – that Romanian theologians will know how to dialogue decently, not merely to argue and thrash one another in public. Ideally, we would have a meeting face to face to debate these things. Since this luxury is not afforded us, we must be content with the internet, not the ideal place for substantial dialogue. I will come back to this later…

Radu Gheorghita

I would like to respond to you, interacting briefly with a few of the ideas you included in your message… I won’t spend much time on every point because that would take too much time and space. I want to concentrate on just a few things I see as most vulnerable in the position you presented to us.

1. … I have come to understand that from Martin Luther on, Protestant theology has been constructed on the Epistle to the Romans (to be exact, it is considered that “the gospel” is reduced to what Paul wrote in Romans 3:1-5:2). I have become convinced that “the gospel” is in the four Gospels and I have made the decision to construct my theology on the teachings of the Lord Jesus in these four Gospels. As far as I know, no one in the modern era has tried this kind of course. What I have gained is a new Christian theology, or, if you like, a new kind of Christianity!

There would be so many things to discuss here that I find it difficult to decide which aspects to limit myself to. I will deliberately avoid interacting with the two or three phrases that I hope you meant to be taken hyperbolically. I have noticed many times, in your sermons as well as your books, that you appeal to these kinds of affirmations. But one would think that the fact that Christianity and its ideas are already 2000 years old and are spread across the whole globe would cause a certain restraint toward affirmations of this kind (even if they are qualified with “in the modern era”).

How do you want us to understand these affirmations? Are you claiming that no one from the time of the apostles until you yourself has thought in this way? Or, that ever since the Gospels were written true Christianity has entered a shadow until the 21st century? Do you realize the implications of these affirmations, and the reason why they cannot be taken seriously?

I go now to the heart of the problem. Notice how you force a breach by tearing the Word of God (New Tesament) in two: Paul versus the Gospels. What is understood from the above paragraph is that trying to construct your theology (evangelism, sanctification, service, etc.) on the theology of Romans is inferior to that constructed on the Gospels. In essence, you are considering the Gospels more “authentic” than the teaching of Paul.

You are making here two capital mistakes, which biblicists are very acquainted with. First, you are introducing a hierarchy in the canonical writings – which is exactly what Luther also did, the only difference being that he moved closer to Paul. It’s like you are saying, borrowing colorful vocabulary: “The epistles of Paul are epistles of straw; I go back to the Gospels”…

I affirm with the most seriousness that no Christian has the right to do such a thing. The voice of God in the Scriptures of the New Testament is just as clear, valid and necessary in the epistle to Jude as in the Gospel of John. No one has the right to classify and structure the writings of the New Testament according to what they think (whether their size, their “authenticity”, their date of composition, etc). All are equal! And the true Christian will position himself at an equal distance from them. This is the foundation that sola scriptura is based upon. Surely I don’t have to remind you that the preference of the liberal theologians from the 19th century on was exactly this division of the teachings of Jesus in the Gospels from those of the epistles of Paul, which they say are responsible for the derailing of original Christianity.

The second mistake you are making is the exact opposite of the first: you aren’t trying to observe, appreciate and explore the true value of the theological diversity of the New Testament writings. On the one hand, you are in effect placing Paul beneath the Gospels. On the other hand, however, you are putting John in the same category as the Synoptics.

Here you are guilty of a methodological inconsistency that cannot be ignored. The same reasons that cause you to read Paul with other eyes than the Gospels ought to be the same reasons for which John should be read differently than the Synoptics. You cannot divide the New Testament authors from one another in some cases and then mix them in others, according to your fancy. If Paul says something other than the Synoptics and can’t be harmonized with them (and I believe you claim this to be true) then John also says something different than the Synoptics and even he can’t be harmonized with them.

To make myself more easily understood: The New Testament has many forms of evangelism (I am speaking of evangelism because this is what you have brought up). I agree with you up to a point. Where I do not agree is the fact that the affirmations that evangelism in the style of the Gospels (where you place John, Mark, Matthew and Luke together without differentiating the theological nuances specific to each) is superior, more correct, more authentic than the evangelism in Paul’s style. I am inclined to believe that Paul would not agree with you.

In the last instance, the first century of evangelism and subsequently, the explosive spread of Christianity among non-Jews was mainly the result of the type of evangelism of Paul and not the Gospels. So, I don’t believe you were wrong in the way you did evangelism in the past. Your request for forgiveness that you made before the church of Mănăștur were unnecessary.

The spirituality that you promote has support in the Gospel of John – but not any farther than this Gospel. The Holy Trinity’s indwelling the believer is John’s theological nuance, but you won’t find it in the Synoptics. This nuance is found under other emphases in Ephesians (filled with God, filled with Jesus Christ, filled with the Holy Spirit) but since you prefer to renounce Paul as you color your own spirituality, you can no longer claim him as support. Likewise, I must affirm with the same strength that the Gospel of John must be balanced with the other Gospels and epistles. That’s why we have them all. No wonder the Gnostics favored the Gospel of John and searched it for support for their mystical, elitist teachings!

2. First, the fact that He speaks to me is part of the non-cessationist faith that God still speaks today and generally is part of the phenomenon of prophecy. Secondly, the expression of God’s love through the words of Song of Songs is for some a cause for scandal! Third, have you not also seen here a deviation from the “Baptist tradition” that says that we can today have fellowship only with the written Word, not with a living Person?

I have never understood the reason why you limit the Baptist creed to “fellowship with a book” and not with a living Person. I believe the Baptist creed is well-formulated in this case, because the Living Person that you refer to is the person who chose to usually address his church in this way: through the Scriptures written and preached. It is this voice that the church needs, not the “audible, mysterious” voice of God.

Please observe that I am not saying that God could never or will never speak to a Christian audibly. All I am saying is that God has chosen to speak to us through Scripture. It is the instrument chosen and used by the Holy Spirit to address us. And if God has chosen this method, should it not honored? What right does someone have to call it insufficient, old-fashioned, “a relationship with a book, not a living Person”?

Herein lies the greatness of the Scriptures: they are a book, but they are much more than a book! I do not see any reason to accept the degradation of the Scriptures that you suggest when you affirm that the voice of God in Scripture is inferior to the (audible?) voice of God.

20 years ago, you told me something like this: “Radu, you need to learn to listen to the voice of God.”

I responded, “Bro. Joseph, I agree with you. That is why I devote myself to the study of the Scriptures.”

You continued, “No, Radu, God speaks today too. You need to get used to hearing his voice”.

Then, I answered, “Yes, I know that he speaks, but he speaks through his voice in the Scriptures. That is the voice I seek, the voice I want to discern, the voice I want to hear, the voice that I will take as guidance.” You did not like my response, and since then, we have both remained in our respective positions.

I say, then, that Scripture written and preached is sufficient as the voice of God. Without this foundation, the Christian faith ceases to remain the Christian faith. Does God speak today through other methods? Of course. He is God and he is free and sovereign to choose a method of communication. And yet, he has given us the Scriptures to verify the other methods of communication, so we might see if they are from him or not.

In fact, the issue of an audible voice that you hold to has always bothered me from a theological and practical point of view. Theologically, because of the very fact that Scripture does not emphasize or promote or encourage this kind of communication. Where in the epistles of the New Testament or even in the other writings do you find encouragement to “listen for” the audible voice of God? If it is so important, why have the apostles not left us with good guidance in this regard? Of course you know that this was one of the preferred doctrines of the Gnostics. True knowledge of God, they claimed, is only for those who have been initiated, for the Christian elite, for those who take part in direct communion with God. It wasn’t for nothing that orthodox Christianity distanced itself from them at the beginning of the second century.

The practical difficulties are even greater. Please forgive me for resorting to anecdotal material, but on more than one occasion you have made categorical affirmations about something, after the fact that God “revealed/communicated” his will; yet only a few days later you sought to convince us of the very opposite.

I did not appreciate at all the tone of brother Daniel Chiu’s open letter – it was unnecessarily harsh. But several things he says there confirm this exact problem. Oscillations of this kind (which you cannot deny) are the best argument against the sufficiency of guidance through hearing the “audible” voice of God.

Furthermore, if the “audible” voice is accessible to more than one person, what happens in cases where the two voices heard are contradictory? For example, there are many voices (on the internet) that are trying to demonstrate that you are listening today to other voices, not the voice of God. Notice that ultimately it is the Scriptures that offer us light in these situations. Why not begin and end then with only the Scriptures?!

3. Instead of saying that I have changed my theology and through this “betrayed” you, and instead of saying that I am an inconsistent and unstable man, why not put forth the effort to see that in all these years I have accomplished a pioneering work and that I have opened up new roads in theology?

I won’t spend too much time on this statement because I have spoken of it already in my first point. I limit myself merely to providing a provisional list of theologians whose studies are relevant to this discussion. In fact, any theologian that is concerned with studying the historical Jesus of Nazareth, has formed – in some way or another, a theology of Jesus Christ, for example, a summary of Jesus’ teachings. I begin with one of the most recent and complete: Scot McKnight, The Jesus Creed. Scot deals with the questions you raise: What if we were to extract the teaching of Jesus in the Gospels? What would it look like? I recommend Scot’s study because he has studied these things intensely in the past twenty years.

Alongside Scot’s study, you will find a synthesis of Christianity seen through Jesus’ lens in the three reference studies of the past fifty years: N.T. Wright, James Dunn, John P. Meier. Each one of these studies treats exhaustively the teachings of Jesus from different angles. They are first class theological syntheses of Jesus’ teachings, in hundreds of pages written with much attention given to the text, history and the theology behind it. Also deserving mention are the studies of Ben Witherington, Craig Blomberg, I.H. Marshall, Tom Schreiner, Frank Thielman, Graham Stanton, Craig Evans, Robert Stein, T.W. Manson, G.B. Caird, Craig Keener, Darrell Bock, Don Carson – all of which in one way or another have brought together the teachings of Jesus and have tried to systematize them. As you have seen, I have limited myself to evangelical theologians. If I were to include those with liberal orientations, the list would triple easily. If I were to add the studies of biblical theology limited to a book or a Gospel (Andreas Kostenberger put out last year a theology of John that is 600 pages), or serious commentaries on the Gospels (each one including a theological synthesis of Jesus’ teachings), the volume would multiply by 10. These are only studies of biblicists in English. In what way are your studies “pioneering works?” Since Albert Schweitzer (at least) until now, the study of Jesus’ teachings is a well-worn path!

4. In September of this year, Dora received from the Lord the thought to call Bro. Nelu Demeter la Baile Felix, where he lives (she was in Portland, OR). They arranged a counseling session for healing through deliverance, and after three hours of counseling, Dora was healed by the Lord of her allergy. She began to eat bread and is now healthy. Her husband, Oliver Ghitea, who is a doctor, was profoundly changed through the experience of his wife, and through subsequent personal conversations with Nelu Demeter.

Of course, we rejoice very much in the healing of Dora. I would be the last person to want to attribute the healing power of the Lord to other spirits. The warning that the Lord gives in the Gospel is very clear to me. At the same time, however, we also read in the Gospels that wonders are done by those who are not known by the Lord (Matthew 7). I am not personally interested in discovering the Spirit/spirit responsible for healing. But Scripture does tell us to evaluate and test the spirits.

Here is my problem. You present Nelu Demeter the way you do when you want to appreciate someone. But on the internet, we meet another Demeter – I think you have watched the video clip known for “the throne of Satan in Berlin and those twenty virgins”; I won’t say more about “the Chinese wall and eating of rice”. Please explain to me how it is possible that from the same mouth (James 3) can come words of healing (in Dora’s case) and monstrosities of this kind? Are you not bothered by the discrepancy?! Or are you convinced that God truly spoke to him, giving him the prophecy regarding Berlin? Perhaps you will say that one of the issues is serious (Dora’s case) but the other (Berlin) is less so. You realize that this kind of explanation does not resolve anything for me. Of course, I realize that I am discussing a particular case and not treating thematically the principle of healings. But I am doing nothing but thinking out loud about the example that you gave us.

There are so many things left to say, but I have said too much already. I  am striving to finish on a positive note, returning to the idea of a common friend, who has suggested that we try to find a way to meet together, you with many “young theologians”, and have a face-to-face discussion about these things, with the Scriptures in hand. If you are open to something of this sort, please let me know and we will work out the details. Do not think I envision a counsel that would burn you. On the contrary, more than you realize, we still respect and appreciate you. Yet at the same time, our hearts burn for biblical clarification of these controversies.

One of these,

Radu

“Stay dressed for action and keep your lamps burning!”

At nightfall, over Goshen fell a stillness that only increased the Israelites’ anticipation of God’s promised deliverance. With the smell of fresh lamb’s blood still in the streets, all Israel’s families shut themselves in their homes and remembered Moses’ instruction to be prepared at any moment. The people were to be dressed and ready for the Exodus. And Moses added: “Keep your lamps burning.”

Thousands of years later, Jesus told his disciples to stay dressed for action and to keep their lamps burning. The Great Exodus was about to take place.

But this time, God was not going to take down an Egyptian Pharaoh and set his people free from physical slavery. He was going to deliver them from slavery to sin and conquer a greater enemy: Satan – the accuser himself. The disciples were instructed to stay alert and ready for the moment when God’s great Exodus would take place.

Two thousand years more and we find ourselves in the final chapters of the history book written by God himself. Once again, Jesus’ words apply to us. We must be ready for the final Exodus – when Jesus will return to earth, raise the dead, judge the wicked and vindicate his people.

This time, Christ will not be coming to inaugurate his kingdom, but to consummate it. Paul tells us all creation is groaning in anticipation of that Day – the day when God will right all that’s wrong and renew and restore his creation – the day when the new heaven and the new earth will become a reality.

But until that day comes, we must be faithful followers, dressed for action, with our lamps burning, awaiting Christ’s return. C.S. Lewis would have us ask ourselves every evening… “What if the present were the world’s last night?”

When Jesus returns, will he find us at our posts, fulfilling his commands? The Final Exodus has been promised. When the curtain comes down, how will we be found?