Assessing Gospel Allegiance Through the Lens of John 1

Recently, The Gospel Coalition and Southern Baptist Theological Seminary have published articles and videos critical of Matthew Bates’s work—particularly his latest book, Beyond the Salvation Wars. I haven’t read that volume yet, but I plan to begin by working through his earlier work, Gospel Allegiance. His central thesis is laid out clearly in the introduction.

Here’s a concise summary of that introduction:

Matthew Bates begins Gospel Allegiance by contrasting two stories—one of lifelong loyalty (Hiroo Onoda) and one of momentary conversion (Billy Graham)—to highlight the need to recover allegiance as the biblical response to the gospel.

He argues that popular evangelical presentations often reduce the gospel to a message of personal salvation or justification by faith alone, neglecting its central proclamation: that Jesus is the risen and reigning King. In Scripture, he contends, the Greek word pistis (faith) frequently implies loyal allegiance, not merely belief.

Bates critiques both “free grace” and “lordship salvation” models as inadequate. He calls for a fuller gospel framework—one that centers on allegiance to Jesus as essential to salvation. His proposal is meant to correct distortions, deepen discipleship, and realign the church’s message with the biblical vision.

As I read through this book, I want to examine how Bates’s arguments hold up in light of the Gospel of John.

Why John? Because it is distinct among the four Gospels. And from my initial reading of Bates, there seem to be places where his claims don’t align comfortably with John’s presentation of the gospel. Any work that seeks to offer a comprehensive understanding of the gospel—its content and its required response—needs to engage with all four Gospels. After all, the Gospels are the gospel.

At the outset, I want to say that I’ve appreciated much of what I’ve read by Bates. He helpfully revives the synoptic emphasis on the Kingdom of God, Jesus as the promised King, and the royal themes often missing from modern gospel presentations. The concept of “allegiance” has even proven helpful in my own attempts to explain the right response to the gospel.

However, I’m also unsettled by some of his claims. The notion that personal salvation is not part of the gospel’s content, the elevation of allegiance as the primary response, and the tendency to downplay salvation as central to the gospel (viewing it instead as a secondary effect)—all give me pause.

I’ll be using the Gospel of John as a lens to test Bates’s ideas. My hope is not to dismiss them outright but to engage them honestly and critically, and see whether they stand in line with what Scripture proclaims.

Book Review: The Prodigal God by Tim Keller

This year I have dedicated most of my bible reading to the Gospels. I have just finished reading the Gospel According to Luke which is the one gospel I have probably payed the least attention to since I became a Christian. I found myself moved by Jesus’ love for outcasts and those on the fringes of society. Jesus himself summarizes his mission as “coming to seek and save the lost”. When I came to the story of the lost coin, lost sheep and lost sons I was so moved by the relentless love of God for sinners that I knew I wanted to spend more time thinking on these things. I scanned my bookshelf and my eyes were drawn to Tim Keller’s book, The Prodigal God. I had started to read this several years ago on an airplane on my way to the very first Gospel Coalition conference in Chicago; I only got a quarter of the way through and then put it down until now. 

Tim Keller has a unique ability to communicate truths in a clear and concise manner. He points out that the parable we find in Luke 15 is often called the Parable of the Lost Son; however, the Parable of the Lost Two Sons would be more fitting. Keller says that we tend to focus on the younger son who squanders his inheritance. Luke, on the other hand, places this story in the context of Jesus’ confrontation with the religious leaders  (the elder brother) over his fraternizing with sinners and tax collectors (the younger brother). The younger son is still a part of the story but Keller, rightly in my mind, brings out the prominence of the elder. 

Throughout the book Keller argues that based on this story we need to redefine a few categories. Sin, for instance, is usually defined as the breaking of moral rules. The elder brother, though, is a good rule keeper. It is his pride in his rule-keeping that is keeping him from joining in the feast. Lostness is redefined as well as the idea of thinking you can put God in your debt. In my favourite chapter, Keller redefines hope in terms of exile and returning home. I am a totally nostalgic person and very much related to this story:

“Many of us have fond memories of times, people, and places where we felt we were truly home. However, if we ever have an opportunity to get back to the places we remember so fondly, we are usually disappointed. For thirty-nine years my wife, Kathy, spent summer with her family in a ramshackle cottage on the shores of Lake Erie. The very memory of that place is nourishing to Kathy’s spirit. But returning to the actual, now dilapidated property is a gut wrenching experience…Home, then, is an elusive concept.”

Later he writes, “We may work hard to re-create the home that we have lost, but, says the Bible, it only exists in the presence of the Heavenly Father from which we have fled”.

This is yet another good resource that is good for the the Christian and non-Christian alike. It would be a good book to pass along to someone who is curious about the Christian faith and wants to learn more.

Book Review: Core Christianity

Perhaps one of my favourite genre of books (if you can call it a genre) are those that offer brief and robust introductions to the Christian faith. The best are those that not only give a good overview for unbelievers but also strengthen the faith of believers. Core Christianity by Michael Horton is such a book. The main strength is that Horton doesn't just present Christianity as a set of timeless truths to which we give mental assent; rather, the Christian faith is a part of God's unfolding story to which we are invited to take part. He successfully paints a comprehensive picture using four D's (Drama, Doctrine, Doxology and Discipleship). These themes are laid out in an initial chapter and then they run right through the rest of the book. Simply put, Drama is the unfolding of God's redemptive story throughout history. This gives way to particular truths (or doctrines) which cause God's people to respond in worship (doxology). When God's people engage in worship they are truly led into right living (discipleship). I really appreciate how Horton laid out the story of the bible using a covenantal structure. It is through God's covenants with his people through redemptive history that he accomplishes his purposes culminating in the coming of Jesus Christ and his kingdom. He lays it out in such a way so that we see the need for a Messiah and not just an ahistorical perfect-God-man that comes to snatch people up into heaven. Even way that dispensationalists and progressive covenantalists can benefit from. Throughout the book I found that I was actually stopping and giving praise to God for what he has done in Jesus. I was engaged in the story and the truths that I found there caused me to bow down and worship. If Horton is right, then this should ultimately shape me into a better disciple.

5 Reasons Everyone Who Repents and Believes Should Be Baptized...Right Away

Yesterday Tim Challies posted an article titled, At What Age Should We Baptize, where he outlined four (4) different views. The issue was, "should we baptize children or shouldn't we?" Only one of the four views suggested that we should baptize children who profess faith in Christ; the others suggest that there should be a period of waiting. In practice that means there is a specific age we should wait until (i.e. 12) or until a person is mature (i.e. they have their license, can vote in membership meetings, etc.) until we baptize them. Anyone who says that the bible teaches a period of waiting will have a hard time proving it from God's word. It's not there. Some respond by saying, "well the bible doesn't teach that people should get baptized right away!" I would respond by saying 1) that is an argument from silence and 2) That's not true. It's in the bible.

We need to be careful about our questions. Not all questions are good questions. And I think the question, "Should we baptize children?" is an example of a bad question. It's a bad question because it asks something very specific that the bible doesn't have a specific answer for. And when the bible doesn't give the specific answer that we are seeking we begin to argue from silence. A better question would be, "Should every person who repents and believes be baptized right away?" I think the bible comes a lot closer to answering this question and I think the answer is a resounding YES! I can think of five reasons (there are probably more):

1) It's Commanded and Essential to Evangelism

"'Turn back!' replied Peter. 'Be baptized - every single one of you - in the name of Jesus the Messiah, so that your sins can be forgiven and you will receive the gift of the holy spirit. The promise is for you and for your children, and for everyone who is far away, as many as the Lord our God will call.'" (Acts 2:38-39)

Peter preaches the gospel. He tells the story of Jesus and says there is a proper response to that story. Repent (turn back), believe, and be baptized. This is what one must do in order to participate in the gospel. A person cannot believe and not repent. A person cannot repent and not be baptized. A person cannot be baptized and not believe. These are all essential responses to the gospel and essential ingredients to true biblical evangelism. Scot McKnight says, "There is no such thing as gospeling that does not include the summons to respond in faith, baptism and repentance." It is our duty as Christians to follow King Jesus by dying and rising with him. It's our duty as preachers of the gospel to command that people participate in the death of Jesus. If we do not get baptized as Christians we are being disobedient to our King. If we do not command those who have repented and believed to be baptized we are being disobedient. To not command this is tantamount to telling a person they can believe but repent later. It's also interesting to note that Peter emphasizes that this promise is for everyone, namely, for you and for your children.

2) It's Practiced

"As they were going along the road, they came to some water. 'Look!' said the eunuch. 'Here is some water! What's to stop me being baptized?' So he gave order for the chariot to stop, and both of them went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch together, and he baptized him." (Acts 8:35-38)

Perhaps you might be thinking that the eunuch isn't a child and that he was a mature person (he was after all driving a chariot). But the real issue behind the "should we baptize children" question is issue of having assurance that a little one has actually experienced the new birth. And isn't it interesting that Philip does not seem to be asking those questions at all. There is no waiting time to see whether or not the eunuch displays true fruit. In fact he even asks, "What's to stop me being baptized?" Philip does not say, "Well actually I would prefer to see some fruit first." So what's the difference? If Philip isn't concerned about waiting to test the faith of the eunuch why should we make a broad rule that excludes an entire segment of Christians from baptism? I don't think Philip would and I don't think we should either. Moreover, as were about to see, perhaps people aren't bearing fruit because we're withholding baptism.

3) It Is Necessary for Participating in the New Covenant

"In him, indeed, you were circumcised with a special, new type of circumcision. It isn't something that human hands can do. It is the king's version of circumcision, and it happens when you put off the 'body of flesh': when you're buried with him in baptism, and indeed also raised with him, through faith in the power of the God who raised him from the dead." (Colossians 2:11-12)

This one is more controversial. Paul is speaking to the Christians in Colossae and is warning them not to be taken captive by false teaching. Christ is sufficient. In him they have experienced circumcision but it is not like circumcision under the old covenant. It is an "effective" circumcision.It is here that Paul makes a connection between the old covenant sign of circumcision and the new covenant sign of baptism. To be circumcised was what one had to do in order to become a member of the old covenant but it had no real effect on the person; but now, the Messiah has come and God is building his worldwide family, there is a new sign for a new covenant, namely, baptism (i.e. dying and rising with Christ), that actually transforms a person. The new birth and baptism are intertwined. Many people are concerned about separating them. But Paul speaks as if they are intimately joined together (what God has joined together...). It is when we were baptized that we died with Christ. And in order to be raised we need to die. If we aren't baptized then we don't die. I'm not quite sure how far to take this (the thief on the cross was obviously a true Christian and was not baptized); but Paul seems to assume baptism and speaks as if it were the moment we participated in the new birth. In other words, we don't want to mess around with baptism and start withholding it from people. It should be done in coordination with repentance and faith. It is the entry point of the new covenant.

4) It's Necessary for Unity

"You see, every one of you who has been baptized into the Messiah has put on the Messiah. There is no longer Jew or Greek; there is no longer slave or free; there is no "male and female"; you are all one in the Messiah, Jesus." (Galatians 3:27-28)

"You sit over there and we'll sit over here". This is one of the problems that Paul is trying to break down in his letter to the Galatians. The Jews were treating the Gentiles as second class citizens in the Kingdom of God because they hadn't undergone physical circumcision. But Paul argues that they are living in the wrong time zone. Circumcision was indeed important but it always pointed to a greater reality. The point of God's covenant with Israel was to make a single united worldwide family who had the ability to love God and others from their hearts. Now that the Messiah has come it is now the time for this worldwide family to be built. And the sign that you are apart of this new covenant family isn't physical circumcision but faith and...baptism! Baptism isn't a work that one must do in order to earn favor with God but it is God's way of making people die and rise with the Messiah (it's right there in the text). And that's what counts. It doesn't matter what family you were born into, what sex you are or how old you are. What matters is that you have been buried and brought back to life. This is what unites us as Christians. Faith and baptism. We shouldn't point to anything else. This is another reason why people shouldn't wait to be baptized. Unity in the new covenant requires faith and baptism in the Messiah.

5) It is Necessary for Accountability and Fighting Sin

"What are we to say, then? Shall we continue in the state of sin, so that grace may increase? Certainly not! We died to sin; how can we still live in it? Don't you know that all of us who were baptized into the Messiah, Jesus, were baptized into his death? That means that we were buried with him, through baptism, into death, so that, just as the Messiah was raised from the dead through the father's glory, we too might behave with a new quality of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall also be in the likeness of his resurrection." (Romans 6:1-5).

This passage is about justification, new life and (lo and behold) baptism. Anyone who says that this isn't about 'physical' baptism but 'spiritual' baptism needs to read all the others passages where Paul speaks of this reality. Time after time he links baptism to the moment we died and rose with Christ. Paul wants the Christians in Rome to know that it is inappropriate for them to continue in sin because of who they are in the Messiah. We need a good reminder every now and again because it's easy to forget who we are. And the moment he points them to is the moment of their baptism. You want to know why it isn't appropriate for you to behave in certain ways? It's because you died and rose with Christ; and those who die and rise walk in a new way. We have been given the power to put sin to death. As Paul says, "we have been set free (lit. justified) from sin." If someone you know is falling into sin and turning their back on God one way to point them in the right direction is to remind them of their baptism. If you are struggling with sin one way to do battle against it is to remind yourself of your baptism and remind yourself that you have the power to walk in newness of life.

Perhaps all this talk about baptism and new birth makes you uncomfortable. But you need to ask yourself something. Why is it that the new testament authors link repentance, faith and baptism so closely together? They do no separate them so why should we? And why should it makes us uncomfortable if it didn't make them feel that way? If we are encouraging people to repent and believe (no matter what age) we should also be encouraging them to be baptized. Anything less is disobedience and a hindrance to Christian growth. There are three appropriate responses to the gospel: repentance, faith and baptism. You can't have two without the other. Everyone who repents and believes needs to be baptized...right away.

(*I have argued this as a baptist. I believe it is only appropriate for people to be baptized who have responded appropriately to the gospel in the two other ways.)

Helpful Gospel Definitions

Over the past few years Trevin Wax has been doing a series of blog posts entitled "Gospel Definitions". In them he quotes various authors/scholars stating what the gospel is. Here are some that I find particularly helpful:

C.H. Dodd

“The Gospel” Summarized in 6 Parts

1.
The Age of Fulfillment has dawned, the “latter days” foretold by the prophets. (Acts 3:18-26)
2.
This has taken place through the birth, life, ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. (Acts 2:22-31)
3.
By virtue of the resurrection, Jesus has been exalted at the right hand of God as Messianic head of the new Israel. (Acts 2:32-36)
4.
The Holy Spirit in the church is the sign of Christ’s present power and glory. (Acts 10:44-48)
5.
The Messianic Age will reach its consummation in the return of Christ. (Acts 3:20-21)
6.
An appeal is made for repentance with the offer of forgiveness, the Holy Spirit, and salvation. (Acts 2:37-41)

F.F. Bruce

The basic elements in the message were these:

1. the prophecies have been fulfilled and the new age inaugurated by the coming of Christ;
2. he was born into the family of David;
3. he died according to the Scriptures, to deliver his people from this evil age;
4. he was buried, and raised again the third day, according to the Scriptures;
5. he is exalted at God’s right hand as Son of God, Lord of living and dead;
6. he will come again, to judge the world and consummate his saving work.”

Michael Bird

“Taken together we can infer from I Corinthians 15:3 – 5, Romans 1:1-4 and II Timothy 2:8, that the gospel is both about the person and work of Christ.

“God promised in the scriptures that He would renew creation and restore Israel. The gospel is the good news that God has made these promises good in Jesus, the Messiah and Lord. Jesus died and rose for the purpose of atoning for sins, and through faith in Him and His work believers are reconciled to God.

“The new age has been launched and God has revealed His saving righteousness in the gospel so that He justifies and delivers persons from the penalty and power of sin and death.”

J.I. Packer

“I formulate the Gospel this way: it is information issuing in invitation; it is proclamation issuing in persuasion. It is an admonitory message embracing five themes. First, God: the God whom Paul proclaimed to the Athenians in Acts 17, the God of Christian theism.

Second, humankind: made in God’s image but now totally unable to respond to God or do anything right by reason of sin in their moral and spiritual system. Third, the person and work of Christ: God incarnate, who by dying wrought atonement and who now lives to impart the blessing that flows form his work of atonement.

Fourth, repentance, that is, turning from sin to God, from self-will to Jesus Christ. And fifthly, new community: a new family, a new pattern of human togetherness which results from the unity of the Lord’s people in the Lord, henceforth to function under the one Father as a family and a fellowship.” (44, emphasis added)

Gospel Meals

“And as he sat at dinner in Levi’s house, many tax-collectors and sinners were also sitting with Jesus and his disciples—for there were many who followed him” (Mark 2.15).

My church loves food. This is a good thing because I love food too. Years ago we started a ministry called “fellowship lunch” (which is essentially an enormous pot-luck (providence?)) that takes place about once a month. There is something about food, something about table-fellowship, that we know is right. When we are sitting down, eating and fellowshipping we know in our bones that “this is the way things were meant to be!” Why is that?

The Gospel of Mark points us in the right direction. Mark, like my church and like me, is obsessed with food. In Mark 2 Jesus eats with tax collectors and sinners, in Mark 6 Jesus feeds 5000, in Mark 8 Jesus feeds 4000, in Mark 14 Jesus is eating when he is anointed and later is eating with his disciples when he inaugurates the Lord’s Supper (a meal we celebrate again and again), and there is also a meal in the extended ending of the gospel in Mark 16. As if that weren’t enough, he includes an entire “bread section” spanning from 6:33-8:26 in which the word bread (greek. ortos) occurs no less than seventeen times. That’s a lot of food!

Through these meals Mark clarifies for his readers who Jesus is and what he came to do. God’s plan and promise was to send his Messiah (i.e. the liberating-king) to Israel to establish his new society and rescue his people from the evil that enslaved them. This plan was, all along, not just for “righteous” Israel but was meant for the entire world; Jew and Gentile alike, righteous and unrighteous.

When God came he would set his people right and set his world right so that there would be a renewed people under the rule of God’s king in God’s place. Sinners would be healed and God’s people would have fellowship with him and with one another. When this happened it would be an enormous celebration. And the point is that in Jesus all these things are coming true.

This is what the cross and resurrection is all about. Jesus gave himself so people could be liberated from their sin and brought safely into his kingdom. His body, the bread, and his blood, the wine, are given to make all things new. Now all who give up their lives for Jesus participate in the life of God’s new world. The party has begun. The feast is taking place. Jesus calls out to the world and says, “Pull up a chair. It’s on me.”

Review: The Real Mary by Scot McKnight

How do you talk about Jesus' mama? That's a good question to ask. If we are honest, most of us talk more about what we don't believe about Mary than about what we do. You can count on a guy like Scot McKnight to call us (evangelicals) out on that one (I mean that in a good way). And that's exactly what he does in this book.

I know that I haven't thought too much about Mary in the past. I know that Catholics make a lot of her (I just went to Montreal this summer and saw the light show at Notre Dame which proves that point). And I also know that God chose her to be the bearer of the Messiah. So what?

McKnight helps us to make sense of Mary. In her song (known as the Magnificat) she says that "from now on people will call me blessed." McKnight goes through the various stories of Mary so that Evangelicals can call the mother of our Lord (God?) blessed.

Mary longed for God to come to his people and establish his kingdom, his new society of justice and peace. Like most people Mary probably thought that the Messiah would march into Jerusalem, kill the Romans and establish his throne. God visited Mary and told her that she would give birth to God's anointed one. Mary submitted to the will of God even though she knew people would consider her an adulteress. But Mary rejoiced because God was going to subvert those on the throne and make her own son King. Promises upon promises. But Mary would discover that things weren't going to be quite as straightforward as she thought. God would indeed bring his new society where his will is done. But this would happen through the suffering of her own son. Mary continued to learn what kind of Messiah her son was to be throughout his life. Jesus placed a priority on loving God which challenged the honor-your-parent commandment; it showed Mary that she would have to submit to her own son as Lord and that Jesus was establishing a new family with himself as the focus.

McKnight also helpfully discusses what Catholics believe about Mary. He tries to avoid caricatures but is still critical at times. In the last chapter McKnight helps us figure out what to do with Mary. One of his suggestions is that we hold an "honor Mary" day where we return to the stories of Mary and glean fresh insight. Mary is a great example of what it means to follow Jesus in the real world.

This book is an excellent Christmas read and, best of all, the gospel shines through in nearly every chapter. Highly recommended!

Impressions: Embracing Grace by Scot McKnight

At a small group I was at one Sunday we were having a conversation about how we apply the gospel to our lives as Christians. We made the observation that for some Christians the gospel is something for non-believers, something that you don't really think about once you get saved. What I have found hard is that some people reduce the gospel to a few propositions about having your sins forgiven so that it can be difficult to apply it to every situation in life. Enter Scot McKnight. Embracing Grace is a book about the gospel. It tells us that the gospel is something that we proclaim but that we perform as well.

Here is how McKnight explains the work of the gospel:
"The gospel is the work of God to restore humans in union with God and communion with others, in the context of a community for the good of others and the world"

Reflections:

Eikons: Mcknight says that it is important where we begin when we are thinking about the gospel. McKnight begins with creation and the story of the Eikon (the greek word for "image"). Humans are made in the image of God which means they are God's special creation and are like Him in some way; we are made for relationships with God, others and the world.

Holistic: McKnight's view of sin and atonement are robust. This is because he has a holistic view of the two. Sin is not merely the breaking of a law (although it does include that) but culpable shalom-breaking which affects our relationship with God, others and the world. If we are dealing with a robust problem then we need a robust solution. McKnight emphasizes the importance of the incarnation, the life, death, resurrection and pentecost to the atonement (and therefore the gospel). He favors the recapitulation theory (i.e. Jesus became what we are so we can become what he is) since it can fairly incorporate all the other important theories of atonement (in his book A Community Called Atonment he calls this "identification for incorporation").

Community: God saves individuals but individualism is an enemy of the gospel. God accomplishes his redemptive purposes in the context of communities (i.e. Israel, the Church, and the Kingdom). McKnight's definition of the kingdom can not be divorced from community (and why would it? a kingdom always includes people.). God's kingdom is his society where his will is done. It includes people. God restores us to union with him and communion with others in the context of a community, the kingdom community.

Missional: God creates this community for the good of the world. This is the part that I actually struggled with the most. But when we understand Jesus' words in Matthew 5 everything falls into place. We are to be God's kingdom community that acts as salt and light in this world so that others will glorify God because of the good we do.

McKnight's book has helped me to appreciate the gospel more. With his framework we can actually preach the gospel from the Gospels.

Impressions: Jesus Creed by Scot McKnight

Jesus Creed is a book about love. For a variety of reasons (some sinful and some justified) I have been suspect of books that are all about love. I think for a long time I have associated this word with flakey Christianity, a Christianity without guts. When Mcknight writes about love, however, he writes about love with a backbone; it is a love that isn't easy: God love and neighbour love (what McKnight calls the Jesus Creed).

Some Reflections:

1) McKnight begins the book by explaining what the Jesus Creed is all about. Jesus takes the Shema of Judaism and amends it to include neighbour love. When the Jesus Creed becomes a prayer we get the Lord's prayer. McKnight recommends repeating these often. This is a powerful tool for spiritual growth and I have found that repeating the Jesus Creed and the Lord's prayer reminds me of what it means to act like a Christian. It tells me that I become more like Jesus when I am identifying the needs of others and become a servant. Like the Good Samaritan we are to look to the side, not just 'out there', but in our own homes as well.

2) McKnight says that we should embrace the stories of those who embrace the Jesus Creed. Of all the people he writes about in this section his chapter on Mary fascinated me the most. Evangelicals don't generally say much about Mary but McKnight claims (speculates?) that a lot of what Jesus said and taught was learned from his mama. He looks at the Magnificat and points out that Mary had a kingdom vision; hers was a vision of a society where God's will is done, where things are put right at last.

3) "A spiritually formed person lives out kingdom values," says McKnight. One thing that particularly excited me about this book was the emphases placed on the kingdom of God. The kingdom of God is the society where God's will is done and the Jesus Creed is lived out. One of these values is that this kingdom is a kingdom of mustard seeds. This was helpful because many of us are attracted to those things which are GIGANTIC! But God's kingdom is marked by humble beginnings. This means that we can embody God's kingdom in the little, mundane, things in life. In other words, the kingdom is applicable to every day life.

4) Scot is all for the Bible. Not only does each chapter begin with a passage of scripture to reflect on before diving into the chapter but he tells us that one way we abide in Jesus is to learn at his feet; one way we learn at his feet is by reading and meditating on what Jesus taught us. He gives us helpful advice when he says that we don't always need our commentaries and study tools but just our bibles, our prayers, and the question, "What does this passage tell me about God's character?"

5) Finally, Scot goes through a variety of episodes in the life of Jesus and teaches us that those who love Jesus participate in his life. For Scot Jesus represents his people. This means that we can participate in his life, death, and resurrection. Jesus loved God and his neighbours perfectly; this is good news because God sees us as he sees Jesus (Reformed readers may particularly enjoy this section of the book). As people who fail to do these things we can find strength and power in the reality that Jesus did these things for us so that we would then be enabled to do them ourselves.

Righteousness and Cruciform Living

I have really been enjoying the Common English Bible which is a fresh translation of the scriptures (So far they have released the NT but you can get the Psalms from the website). At the same time, I have been becoming more and more convinced that justification comes through our participation in Christ's death and resurrection and includes transformation along with a declaration (thank you Michael Gorman ;-)). As a result, this translation of Phil. 3.9-11 really caught my attention:

In Christ I have a righteousness that is not my own and that does not come from the Law but rather from the faithfulness of Christ. It is the righteousness of God that is based on faith.10 The righteousness that I have comes from knowing Christ, the power of his resurrection, and the participation in his sufferings. It includes being conformed to his death11 so that I may perhaps reach the goal of the resurrection of the dead.

Righteousness comes from participating in the death and resurrection of Jesus and includes being conformed to his death. We are raised to be cruciform (thanks again Gorman!).

Is Christianity Just a Nice Dream?

Although it's a little early to be talking about Christmas I thought this quote from N.T. Wright was very sobering.

"For many, Christianity is just a beautiful dream. It's a world in which everyday reality goes a bit blurred. It's nostalgic, cosy, and comforting. But real Christianity isn't like that at all. Take Christmas, for instance: a season of nostalgia, of carols and candles and firelight and happy children. But that misses the point completely. Christmas in not a reminder that the world is really quite a nice old place. It reminds us that the world is a shockingly bad old place, where wickedness flourishes unchecked, where children are murdered, where civilized countries make a lot of money by selling weapons to uncivilized ones so they can blow each other apart. Christmas is God lighting a candle; and you don't light a candle in a room that's already full of sunlight. You light a candle in a room that's so murky that the candle, when lit, reveals just how bad things really are. The light shines in the darkness...and the darkness has not overcome it" (Quoted from For All God's Worth: True Worship and the Calling of the Church, Eerdman's 1997).

Review: The Best Kept Secret of Christian Mission

As I write this review I have just set down John Dickson's new book on evangelism "The Best Kept Secret of Christian Mission." There are not very many books that I would consider to be "life-changing" but after finishing this one I can confidently say that this will have lasting effects on my life. The reason I initially picked this book up was because I wanted to see how N.T. Wright and Alistair Begg could end up endorsing the same book on evangelism. Now I understand.

The Best Kept Secret is basically a book on evangelism for the whole church. Dickson makes a helpful distinction between proclaiming the gospel and promoting the gospel. This book is primarily about the latter and shows a variety of ways that all Christians can participate in "gospel ministry."

Evangelism, in the strict sense of the word, is a verbal activity. It is the actual communication of the news of the royal birth, life, teaching and miracles, atoning death, resurrection and ascension of the Messiah and Lord, Jesus Christ. But this verbal activity is not the only aspect of gospel ministry. One example of promoting the gospel is the financial giving towards Christian mission. Paul speaks of those who give financially towards his mission as "partners in the gospel". These "gospel promoting" activities are not of secondary importance. They are actually vital to the mission of the church.

For Dickson not every Christian is an evangelist. There are some Christians that are set apart for the verbal proclamation of the gospel. This does not mean that everyone else just sits around and lets the evangelists take care of all the gospel work. All Christians are to have a "salvific mind-set." They are to be people who are passionate about the salvation of others. This "salvific mind-set" expresses itself in a variety of ways from letting our light shine before others to being ready to give a reason for the hope that is in us.

One of the best chapters was chapter 8, "What is the Gospel?" Dickson does not settle for a systematic presentation of the gospel that presents the doctrine of sin and then the doctrine of the atonement. These are central to the gospel but need to be placed within the narrative accounts of Jesus. The theme of the gospel is the kingdom of God and the content of the gospel includes the royal birth, life, teaching and miracles, saving death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus. In other words, the four books at the beginning of our New Testaments are actually Gospel.

This is an excellent book that would be a good read for those who have no experience when it comes to sharing the gospel and for those who have been doing it their whole Christian life. Dickson roots all his discussion in the Scriptures and refuses to have a narrow view of gospel ministry. I am sure that I will be turning to this book again and again for wisdom on this amazing topic.

Symbolic Praxis and the Christian

Last night I went to the bank to change my bank card PIN because my card had been compromised. I didn't really want to do it but I had to. Unfortunately it turned out to be a big waste of time because it wouldn't work, my number wouldn't reset. I'll have to give it a try another time. I had something I had to do and I did it (at least I attempted to). A lot of the things we do from day to day do not have meaning attached to them. We run errands, meaningless little endeavors to keep life going; but as for meaning, there is nothing significant about the event itself.

In the gospels, on the other hand, the actions of the main characters are full of symbolic meaning. N.T. Wright calls this "symbolic praxis". One such example is the significant figure John the Baptist. From his clothes to his actions all of it revealed something about his message. I have been reading through Mary Healy's commentary on the Gospel of Mark and she says this about his food, "The locusts and wild honey again evoke the exodus, where they represented God's judgment on sin (the plague of locusts...) and his promises to his people (a land flowing with milk and honey...)."

John was saying that the time that God had promised was here. The Messiah-King was coming to deliver God's people from their sin and inaugurate the Kingdom, God's new world order. John saw it necessary to change his diet to display this reality. Jesus lived by the same rule. Not that he ate locusts and honey but his actions were deeply symbolic of his messianic task and the kingdom that was coming to bear on the world through his actions. One only has to think about the fig tree and the cleansing of the temple to see the truth of this claim.

All of this is to be true of Christians as well. From holiness to deeds of mercy all of our actions are deeply symbolic of a great reality. God's kingdom has come through the crucified and risen Messiah. He is reigning at God's right hand and has given the Spirit to his people. The messianic age has dawned. Therefore when we put sin to death in our lives we are saying, "we are under the sway of a different ruler."; when we help the poor and needy we are saying, "This is what it looks like when Jesus becomes king!" What other ways can our actions point people to the risen and reigning Messiah?

Failure and Family Devotions

Over at the Resurgence blog there have been a few very good posts on the topic of family worship. As I read them I was reminded of the importance of this ministry and my repeated failure at leading my wife. I am trying to figure out why it is that I can be so neglectful of family worship when I know that it is exactly what my family needs. Here are some possible reasons:

1. I Don't Believe (enough) that it is Important

Sure I know that family worship is important. But do I really believe it is that important? I don't think I have ever forgotten to eat a meal, forgotten to sleep or put clothes on before I leave the house. These are all basic to my daily life. Why, then, do I easily forget to lead my wife in regular worship? The only reason I can think of is that I don't really think it is that important. In reality, though, this ministry is probably more important than food, sleep and clothing put together.

2. I Find More Satisfaction in Other Things

I like television, reading and browsing through various blogs but too often I find more satisfaction in doing these things than I do spending time worshiping the Lord with my wife. These things can be good and do have their place but only the Lord can satisfy our deepest longings.

3. I Don't Make Time

Sometimes we just don't have time for family worship. Some nights we have places to go and by the time we get home it's already time to get ready for bed. This is okay. More often than not, however, we don't have regular times of family worship simply because I don't make the time. We eat dinner, watch television, read on our own and by the time I think of having family worship we are too tired. If, however, I were to think of this ahead of time and schedule 20 minutes after dinner then we could easily fit this into our night. Perhaps we could even have devos on the run when we are having nights out.

When it comes down to it it seems as though I fail at this so often because of unbelief. I do not believe that family worship is important, satisfying or worth my time. These are all lies. Thankfully I have Christ. In him there is no more condemnation. I have been set right (or right-wised) with my God. He has declared me righteous and given me to ability to love him above all things. I have become his righteousness. Best of all, this isn't due to the quality or frequency of my devotional life. It is all by grace.

Review: God the Peacemaker: How the Atonement Brings Shalom

Sometimes I just need to read a good book on the cross. There are so many things that can distract us from that which is most important but the Bible says that the cross and resurrection of Jesus are matters of "first importance". This is a topic that no Christian (or no human for that matter) can afford to make peripheral.

Graham Cole's book (published by IVP) is a book on the atonement. In the introduction he lays out a variety of questions that he seeks to answer but essentially the book is about the cross, its saving significance and how it fits in the unfolding drama of God's redemption of his fallen creation.

Cole explains that there is a "big picture" of the Bible. He calls this big picture a divine comedy (or a U-shaped story). God has a plan to restore his created order (what Cole calls God's "atoning project" or "peacemaking project") and the atonement should be seen within this project. This, however, does not cause Cole to minimize the cross; rather, he sees the cross as central to this project. This, in my opinion, is the book's greatest strength. Cole manages to see the cross within God's larger drama without doing injustice to its centrality. In many books the larger drama takes center stage and the cross becomes one small part of that drama. Other times the cross is taken out of its context and it just becomes the way in which "I" get to heaven when I die.

Also helpful is the fact that Cole does not minimize sin. He acknowledges that the human predicament extends beyond a barrier to personal fellowship with God; Cole demonstrates how all our relationships are affected by the "rupture" even our relationship with the cosmos. But he never ignores the fact that all the problems in the world are ultimately due to sin. He, therefore, quotes Carson with approval, "In sum, we find ourselves fighting the Bible's entire story line if we do not recognize that our deepest need is to be reconciled to God" (p. 83).

Popular today, especially in scholarly treatments of the cross, is to question the idea that penal substitution plays a central role, or any, in the biblical concept of atonement. Some pick a different models like Christus Victor (Christ's victory over evil) and place them at the center. Cole doesn't seem to choose a "central" model but he does say that a model like Christus Victor, "needs the explanatory power of substitutionary atonement" (p. 184).

At the end of the day, I didn't come away from this book feeling ready to win a debate. Rather, I came to see the glory of God's peacemaking project. God desires "shalom" for this world (peace with God, peace with others, and peace with the cosmos) and at the dead center of this project stands the cross where the second member of the triune God paid for the sins of the world so that he could have a people who would be apart of this project to the praise of his glory.

Schreiner on Righteousness and Justification

I found this great quote from Thomas Schreiner on Justification and Righteousness in Romans (HT: Mike Bird).

"The term 'righteousness of God' in Rom 1:17 ... is clearly fundamental for all of Romans, and it is unlikely that it can be confined solely to forensic or transformative categories. Those whom God has vindicated he also changes. In my opinion, it is doubtful that the term Paul features in presenting his gospel would contain only a forensic dimension. This transformation does not involve eperfection, and it is also crucial to see that God's transforming righteousness is still an alien righteousness - given by God as a gift to sinners. Nor is there any suggest that sinners somehow prepare themselves by good deeds to receive this righteousness. The saving righteousness of God is a gift received by faith alone, and God declares sinners to be in the right before him on the basis of Christ's atoning death. Yet God's declaration of righteousness - which is a gift of the age to come invading the present evil age - is an effective declaration, so that those who are pronounced righteous are also transformed by God's grace. Such a transformation is due solely to God's grace and does not involve a perfect righteousness, nor is there any suggestion that the good works that follow this transformation merit eternal life. Nonetheless, as Rom. 6 shows, believers are changed by the grace of God, and this transformation is an essential ingredient in God's saving work. The use of the verb dikaioun in Rom. 6:7 demonstrates that God's declaration of righteousness really frees people from sin. Similarly, in Rom. 5:19 Paul teaches that those who are incorporated into Christ Jesus are actually made righteous, just as those in Adam are truly made sinners. The forensic is the basis for the transformative, but the one cannot be sundered from the other. Those who are the recipients of the ministry of the Spirit have also been transformed by the ministry of righteousness (2 Cor. 3:8-9). Just as those who are condemned are actually guilty, so too those who are vindicated on the basis of the cross of Christ and his atonement for sinners (Rom. 3:21-26) have also been made righteous by God's gracious work (cf. Rom. 14:17). God's forensic declaration is effective because the Lord who was crucified on behalf of sinners was also raised from the dead (Rom. 4:25), and thus sinners live in a new way (Rom. 6:4)."

Reading Paul with Michael Gorman 11

Michael J. Gorman is the professor of Sacred Scripture and Dean of the Ecumenical Institute of Theology at St. Mary’s Seminary & University in Baltimore, Maryland. He has spent much of his career studying, writing about and teaching Paul. He has a unique 'perspective' on Paul and as you read him you will find that he is neither 'old' or 'new' perspective but takes from the best of both worlds. So far I have found his small introduction to Paul to be a very edifying read and here I will offer brief summaries and reflections of his book 'Reading Paul' published by Cascade. Today we are looking at chapter 11.

Conformed to the Image of God's Son

In this chapter Gorman covers the topic of holiness in terms of cruciformity. By this he is referring to "conformity to the crucified Christ" (p.146).

Gorman offers us a fuller explanation: "Cruciformity is cross-shaped existence in Christ. It is letting the cross be the shape, as well as the source, of life in Christ. It is participating in and embodying the cross. It may also be described, more technically, as non-identical repetition, by the power of the Spirit, of the narrative of Christ's self-giving faith and love that was quintessentially expressed in his incarnation and death on the cross" (pp.146-7). The new life that we are raised to takes the form of the cross.

This life looks back at the work of Christ and ahead when Christ will return to fully establish his kingdom. "This means that the experience of dying and rising carries forward from baptism into daily life; each day, each moment becomes an occasion for expressing the resurrection power of God through cross-shaped decisions and actions" (p. 148). Christians should not be power seekers like the world but should have the mind of Christ, seeing power in weakness. Gorman makes the important point that cruciformity is not primarily about suffering, however, but loyalty; this loyalty often results in suffering. They can face this suffering with joy knowing that "shame gives way to honor in the economy of God" (p. 151).

Gorman goes on to discuss three aspects of of this cruciform existence: Faith, hope and love. He includes the ideas of trust and intellectual assent in his definition of faith but goes beyond them as well. Faith can also be seen as something like a pledge of allegiance and is an ongoing reality in the life of the believer. Jesus himself displayed this sort of faith. "Jesus is thus the ultimate paradigm of Christian faith, exemplifying its covenantal significance as trusting obedience, even to the point of death" (p. 155). He even goes beyond these ideas by showing that to have faith is to share in the faithfulness of Jesus (his death and resurrection).

Like faith, Gorman sees "love" as a verb. "Love acts patiently, love does kindness...Like faith, then, for Paul love is an action-word, a covenantal term that describes the fundamental relationship that should exist among God's people and from God's people toward others" (p. 156). Believers are to love just as Christ loved by not acting for selfish gain but for the good of others.

Hope, for Paul, is a "future oriented word". "We might therefore say that hope is the future tense of faith" (p. 160). The gospel itself has a future dimension and hope is the confidence that God will do what he said based on his actions in the past. We can, therefore, count on God's promises, be patient in the present and boast in our sufferings. Hope is grounded in the resurrection of Christ.

"Paul's triad of faith, hope, and love challenges us to the core, calling us to align our loyalties, our dreams, and our affections with the gospel of God, the lordship of Jesus, and the countercultural activity of the Spirit" (p. 163).

God's Grand Plan and the Atonement

I have been reading Graham Cole's excellent book on the atonement. What I like about this book is that atonement doesn't become simply about "me and my salvation" but takes place within God's grand plan to bring shalom to his ruptured creation. He does this without minimizing the cross at all but places it in its proper context. Here is a quote from his introduction that shows what he is trying to get at:

"This broader perspective reckons with God's grand plan to restore the created order, and places the story of Jesus, his cross, and empty tomb within it. Thus this work takes the broad approach but hopefully not in a way that masks 'the cruciality of the cross'...The grand goal of the divine comedy is nothing less than to secure God's people in God's place under God's reign living God's way enjoying God's shalom in God's loving and holy presence as both family and worshipers, to God's glory" (p. 25)

In other words, the cross only makes sense when it is place in the context of God's saving reign. By the way, this book was edited and endorsed by D.A. Carson.

Reading Paul with Michael Gorman 10

Michael J. Gorman is the professor of Sacred Scripture and Dean of the Ecumenical Institute of Theology at St. Mary’s Seminary & University in Baltimore, Maryland. He has spent much of his career studying, writing about and teaching Paul. He has a unique 'perspective' on Paul and as you read him you will find that he is neither 'old' or 'new' perspective but takes from the best of both worlds. So far I have found his small introduction to Paul to be a very edifying read and here I will offer brief summaries and reflections of his book 'Reading Paul' published by Cascade. Today we are looking at chapter 10.

Called to be Saints

In this chapter Gorman tackles the topic of the church. Paul often refers to the various communities he writes to as 'saints' or 'holy ones'. "What Paul has in mind is a group of diverse people who have been apprehended by the resurrection crucified Messiah - justified, crucified, occupied - and who live together as a distinctive, even counter-cultural, community in him" (p. 132). He then discusses the background to Paul's understanding of the church (ekklesia): "The first is the assembly...of Israel...The second reality...is the assembly...of the Greco-Roman city...On the one hand, it designates the assembly of believers who affirm Jesus as Lord and constitute the renewed 'Israel of God' (Gal 6:16). On the other hand, this assembly exists as an alternative [church] and even an alternative [city]..." (p. 133). The church is God's holy people who reflect his character through the Son.

Gorman then discusses some of the images that are used of the church: body of Christ, temple, and the family of God. These various images give an idea of the purpose of the church in meeting together: "First of all, the assembly meets to worship God...Secondly, the assembly also meets to speak to one another" (p. 138). What is the content of this worship and speech? "Both in speech from and speech to God, and in speech to one another, the assembly especially recites its foundational stories and considers how they can best embody those stories in their life together in the world" (p. 138). These stories focus on the incarnated, crucified and exalted Messiah and were also enacted in events like baptism, the Lord's Supper and cruciform justice within the assembly and the wider world.

The church is marked by holiness which is a fruit of the Spirit. "All Christian existence is charismatic existence" (p. 140). The Spirit bring life and holiness to God's people and makes it possible to live in covenant with God. "The Spirit is thus the personal, animating power and presence of God - the One who guides and molds the church...in the power of the resurrection...[which] manifests itself in the shape of the cross of Jesus the Lord" (p. 141). The Spirit creates unity among God's people by equipping them with diverse gifts. This unification also takes place alongside sanctification. If there are people in the assembly "who persist in practices that violate the gospel" they must be "dismissed from the assembly for the good of the community as well as the individual..." (p. 142). "Nonetheless, the church must learn to deal with controversial issues" (p. 143).

"Walking in the Spirit, then, is another way of saying that we participate already, between the first and second coming, in the new creation God has begun in Christ" (p. 143).

Interview with Michael Gorman

Michael Gorman is professor of Sacred Scripture and Dean of the Ecumenical Institute of Theology at St. Mary's Seminary & University in Baltimore, Maryland; he as authored numerous books including Apostle of the Crucified Lord: A Theological Introduction to Paul and His Letters (Eerdmans, 2004), Reading Paul (Cascade, 2008), and Inhabiting the Cruciform God: Kenosis, Justification, and Theosis in Paul’s Narrative Soteriology (Eerdmans, 2009). Dr. Gorman graciously answered some questions regarding Paul and his views on justification.

1. Can you tell us, briefly, about when and how you became a Christian?

I became a Christian through a United Methodist youth group in my town when I was 15. It was the verbal and life-witness of friends who brought me to faith, though the initial moment of conversion was at what we used to call a “youth rally.” The experience almost made me a lifelong Calvinist, however (I’m a Methodist, but I was a Presbyterian for 10 years), since I feel like I was called and transformed without much if any conscious volitional act on my part. This is jumping ahead, but I think Tom Wright would appreciate that understanding of call/conversion very much. I do, too, obviously, yet I don’t think it conflicts with the interpretation of justification in Paul that I have offered.

2. Paul can sometimes seem very intimidating to Christians. Where is a good place to start reading Paul (i.e. his own letters, other resources, etc.)?

A great place to start reading Paul is with a very brief letter like Philippians and/or a very practical and relevant one like 1 Corinthians. Ephesians is also a good starting place, in spite of some people’s reservations about authorship. As for secondary sources, I tend to recommend my own Reading Paul and Tom Wright’s What St. Paul Really Said. Mike Bird’s little book (Paul: A Bird’s Eye View) is also good.

3. When did you first develop an interest in studying Paul?

My interest in Paul developed in seminary at Princeton in the early 1980s, when there were a number of fine Pauline scholars teaching, including the late J. Christiaan Beker, Paul Meyer, and Martin De Boer. They all influenced me profoundly, but it was a course in NT Ethics with the late Cullen Story that got me interested in Pauline ethics, which led to my PhD. dissertation, also at Princeton, under Meyer and then De Boer. The thesis of that work became the basis of everything I’ve done on Paul ever since.

4. For many Christians when they think of Jesus they think of things like "love, mercy, compassion, etc" and when they think of Paul "doctrine, justification, and sometimes division." Is that a fair representation of Paul (and Jesus for that matter)?

Interesting question! I think that both Jesus and Paul were agents of God’s inauguration of the new age (in very different ways, of course—only Jesus died and was raised to make it happen), which Jesus usually called the Reign of God and Paul understood as the Lordship of Jesus. Both were about the business of creating a new community of people who embodied the covenant loyalty and love expected in the Scriptures but made possible only by the advent of the Spirit. “Love, mercy, compassion” are traits of God that both Jesus and Paul understood, taught, and practiced, but they also each knew that God calls and forms a holy covenant people. Paul’s “doctrines” are all very practical and pastoral, not just ideas to be thought about. Justification is about resurrection from the dead, sort of like the parable of the prodigal son. Division? Jesus said, “I came not to bring peace but a sword.” Sounds pretty divisive! In other words, while I see differences between Jesus and Paul (one is Lord, one is not), they are not the ones people often point to. Bonhoeffer is helpful here: (The Cost of) Discipleship is in many respects a book about the similarities between Jesus and Paul.

5. In your book "Reading Paul" you offer an amazing one sentence summary of Paul. Let's see if you can go even shorter. How would you summarize Paul in a twitter (140 characters)?

Jesus is God’s crucified and resurrected Messiah and Lord whose Spirit creates communities of cruciform faith, hope, and love in anticipation of final salvation.

(That’s 138.)

6. There is a lot of discussion today about what the gospel actually is. Some people focus on the kingdom, some on justification, some on both. Can you tell us what the gospel is according to Paul in a nutshell (something that is easy to memorize)?

That’s a tough one. Why not memorize 1 Cor 15:3ff? But the previous answer would not be a bad paraphrase.

7. Why is it so important that we see the writings of Paul rooted in his Jewish heritage?

Paul simply cannot be understood apart from his self-understanding as the agent of the God revealed in the Jewish Scriptures and the Jewish Messiah.

8. Paul seems to talk a lot about "righteousness". What does it mean that God is righteous and how does it relate to Christians today?

Righteousness, or justice, is a fairly all-encompassing term about the unique character of God as morally different from humanity (“holy”), good, faithful to covenant, and both willing and able to save. Throughout the Scriptures, the righteous God calls a people to share in the divine righteousness. Participation in Christ’s death and resurrection makes that possible. For us today, that means lots of things, but above all that by the power of the Spirit we begin to share in God’s loyal and loving character revealed in Christ. Or, as I have said with respect to holiness in Paul, “You shall be cruciform for I am cruciform” (God speaking).

9. There is a lot of talk today about the doctrine of justification. When most people think about this doctrine they think of a forensic declaration. Can you comment on what justification is and what is good/not so good about the traditional understanding?

Let me quote from Reading Paul: “Justification is the establishment of right covenantal relations—fidelity to God and love for neighbor—by means of God’s grace in Christ’s death and our co-crucifixion with him. Justification therefore means co-resurrection with Christ to new life within the people of God now and the certain hope of acquittal, and thus resurrection to eternal life, on the day of judgment.” Somewhere else in the book I write, “Whatever else justification means, it means participation in the life of this one God of the covenant who reigns supreme and deserves our loyalty.” In Inhabiting the Cruciform God, therefore, I argue that justification is theosis (defined below).

There is more than one “traditional understanding” of justification, but my biggest objection to most of them is that they privilege the law court metaphor and make it into a narrowly defined doctrine of individual declaration and acquittal. How one can read Gal 2:15-20 and limit justification to that idea is rather mind-boggling. There, justification is about membership in the community (new perspective) and also about participation in Christ as a death-to-life reality. And even Abraham, the proof-text paradigm of justification, is presented in Romans 4 as one whose justification meant resurrection from the dead. Fortunately, most theologians and even many traditional interpreters of justification in Paul are seeing a close connection between justification and participation than in the past. (See, for example, my quote from Tom below.)

10. How are justification and resurrection related?

Well, the previous answer gives some of my perspective, but I would also add that justification is connected to life, and life for Paul comes, paradoxically, only through death—Christ’s and ours. Justification is new life—resurrection from death to life by sharing in the death and resurrection of Christ.

11. In a recent interview N.T. Wright stated that your work has been very influential on his as he is writing his new book on Paul. In what ways do you hope to see Wright "change/tweak" his views on justification in light of your work?

First, I am flattered that Tom would say that. We have talked and corresponded and listened to each other’s papers and read each other’s work quite a bit over the last decade. In his book Justification, he rightly says that “the notion of ‘being in Christ’ which Paul develops in these chapters [Romans 6-8] is rooted in, and fully dovetails with, the doctrine of justification. It is not the case, in other words, that one has to choose between ‘justification by faith’ and ‘being in Christ’ as the ‘centre’ of Paul’s thought. This is so close to my interpretation of Paul that I would be very happy if Tom consistently said and unpacked this. But sometimes he reverts to more traditional language, over-emphasizing the law court metaphor (though less individualistically than most) of “declaration” (in the covenant community”) and even using the language of imputation (as in his IVP lecture when the book came out). Somewhere in Justification he speaks of Christ’s death and resurrection being “reckoned” to us, based on Romans 6. I find this deeply problematic. Christ’s death and resurrection is the reality in which we participate; it is not something reckoned to us.

So… I guess I hope Tom will begin using participationist categories and language to describe justification, or do so more consistently.

12. You frequently use the term theosis and I know that sometimes people can have a hard time with it. What do you mean by it?

Here’s my definition, which is what I mean by it with reference to Paul, from Inhabiting the Cruciform God:

Theosis is transformative participation in the kenotic, cruciform character of God through Spirit-enabled conformity to the incarnate, crucified, and resurrected/glorified Christ.

Theosis means becoming like God. I know that some people object to the language of theosis. I am less concerned about that specific word than I am the content of the definition. The patristic theological claim was that “He became what we were so that we might become what he is.” This is much more central to Paul than most interpreters have recognized. It’s a good summary of some key Pauline texts. Bonhoeffer is again helpful here. The conclusion of Discipleship is such an interpretation of Paul, and I refer to it at some length in the end of Inhabiting.

13. Do you have any other "Paul projects" in the works?

I will be giving the Lund Lectures at North Park Seminary in September on the theme of “Re-Imagining Justification,” and that is, God willing, part of a larger project with (probably) the same name. I also have a book on Pauline spirituality for ministry somewhere in production. But first I need to finish my book on Revelation—in less than two months!

Thank you Dr. Gorman for taking the time to answer all these questions!