I did…this morning. At the edge of a pond, a long-beaked bird (don’t know what kind) had something – a piece of moss, a clod of turf, or maybe a small fish – and was throwing it up in the air and catching it with its beak – over and over and over!
Today – juggling…tomorrow – ???
Today I saw a guy walking – shirtless (that’s important) – north along 56th Street.
Because he was shirtless, his hairy shoulders were on display for drivers and pedestrians alike. Why did he do that to the rest of us? It was like an auto accident: you don’t want to look but you can’t turn away…
If I were going to walk along 56th Street – shirtless – I think I’d shave…
| It’s time again for the annual ‘Stella Awards’! For those unfamiliar with these awards, they are named after 81-year-old Stella Liebeck who spilled hot coffee on herself and successfully sued the McDonald’s in New Mexico , where she purchased coffee. You remember, she took the lid off the coffee and put it between her knees while she was driving. Who would ever think one could get burned doing that, right? That’s right; these are awards for the most outlandish lawsuits and verdicts in the U.S. You know, the kinds of cases that make you scratch your head. So keep your head scratcher handy.
Here are the Stellas for this past year – 2009: *SEVENTH PLACE* Kathleen Robertson of Austin, Texas was awarded $80,000 by a jury of her peers after breaking her ankle tripping over a toddler who was running inside a furniture store. The store owners were understandably surprised by the verdict, considering the running toddler was her own son. Start scratching! =========================== Carl Truman, 19, of Los Angeles , California won $74,000 plus medical expenses when his neighbor ran over his hand with a Honda Accord. Truman apparently didn’t notice there was someone at the wheel of the car when he was trying to steal his neighbor’s hubcaps. Scratch some more… =========================== Terrence Dickson, of Bristol , Pennsylvania , who was leaving a house he had just burglarized by way of the garage. Unfortunately for Dickson, the automatic garage door opener malfunctioned and he could not get the garage door to open. Worse, he couldn’t re-enter the house because the door connecting the garage to the house locked when Dickson pulled it shut. Forced to sit for eight, count ‘em, EIGHT days and survive on a case of Pepsi and a large bag of dry dog food, he sued the homeowner’s insurance company claiming undue mental Anguish. Amazingly, the jury said the insurance company must pay Dickson $500,000 for his anguish. We should all have this kind of anguish. Keep scratching. There are more… Double hand scratching after this one.. ============================ Jerry Williams, of Little Rock, Arkansas, garnered 4th Place in the Stella’s when he was awarded $14,500 plus medical expenses after being bitten on the butt by his next door neighbor’s beagle – even though the beagle was on a chain in its owner’s fenced yard. Williams did not get as much as he asked for because the jury believed the beagle might have been provoked at the time of the butt bite because Williams had climbed over the fence into the yard and repeatedly shot the dog with a pellet gun. Pick a new spot to scratch, you’re getting a bald spot.. Amber Carson of Lancaster, Pennsylvania because a jury ordered a Philadelphia restaurant to pay her $113,500 after she slipped on a spilled soft drink and broke her tailbone. The reason the soft drink was on the floor: Ms. Carson had thrown it at her boyfriend 30 seconds earlier during an argument. What ever happened to people being responsible for their own actions? Only two more so ease up on the scratching…. Kara Walton, of Claymont , Delaware sued the owner of a night club in a nearby city because she fell from the bathroom window to the floor, knocking out her two front teeth. Even though Ms. Walton was trying to sneak through the ladies room window to avoid paying the $3.50 cover charge, the jury said the night club had to pay her $12,000….oh, yeah, plus dental expenses. Go figure. This year’s runaway First Place Stella Award winner was: Mrs. Merv Grazinski, of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, who purchased new 32-foot Winnebago motor home. On her first trip home, from an OU football game, having driven on to the freeway, she set the cruise control at 70 mph and calmly left the driver’s seat to go to the back of the Winnebago to make herself a sandwich. Not surprisingly, the motor home left the freeway, crashed and overturned. Also not surprisingly, Mrs. Grazinski sued Winnebago for not putting in the owner’s manual that she couldn’t actually leave the driver’s seat while the cruise control was set. The Oklahoma jury awarded her, are you sitting down? Are we, as a society, getting more stupid…. |
An illegal alien in Polk County, Florida, who got pulled over in a routine traffic stop ended up ‘executing’ the deputy who stopped him. The deputy was shot eight times, including once behind his right ear at close range. Another deputy was wounded and a police dog killed. A state-wide manhunt ensued.
The murderer was found hiding in a wooded area and as soon as he took a shot at the SWAT team, officers opened fire on him. They hit the guy 68 times.
Naturally, the liberal media went nuts and asked why they had to shoot the poor undocumented immigrant 68 times.
Sheriff Grady Judd told the Orlando Sentinel: ’Because that’s all the ammunition we had…’
If you haven’t heard of the roiling controversy over “the new perspective on Paul,” don’t be alarmed. (It’s not about the aging Beatle’s recent support of President Obama’s handling of the oil spill, which I also wasn’t alarmed about. Liberal political views and the onset of senility apparently have similar symptoms.)
This is about the other famous Paul – the apostle, as in Saint Paul. It’s about theology, and so it’s one of those things that interest only famous theologians in its initial stages. Regular folks like you and me know it mainly as one of those distant clash-of-the-titans controversies that causes them to cross doctrinal swords in scholarly books and articles – mostly just to each other, because to the rest of us the positions they take and the points they make seem at once so arcane and ethereal.
However – and I guess this is the point – what conquers the seminaries in one generation usually marches through the pulpits of the next generation and nearly always occupies the pews of the next. So while it’s not yet time to be alarmed, we should at least be interested. When I kept bumping into “the new perspective on Paul,” I thought I’d take a look-see about what might be heading our way.
So for my birthday, I asked for two books, one on each side of the controversy. Justification: God’s Plan & Paul’s Vision is by N. T. Wright (Bishop of Durham and formerly canon theologian of Westminster Abbey), the leading advocate of the new perspective on Paul (hereafter NPP). The Future of Justification: A Response to N. T. Wright is by John Piper (Pastor of Preaching and Vision at Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis), who argues that NPP changes the essential nature of the gospel.
(On a personal note, this project actually gave me a chance to read something by Piper, whose books are given rave reviews by people I know and respect. I have probably been the only Christian man in America who had neither attended a Promise Keepers rally nor read a book by John Piper. Well, now I can check one of them off my bucket list. Anybody know whether they’re still holding PK rallies?)
One thing is clear from the titles of the books: the debate swirls around the Christian doctrine of justification. Talk about arcane and ethereal! That seems like the stuff of papal bulls and protestant creeds. Honestly, have you ever used the word, “justification,” when talking to an unsaved person about Jesus? For that matter, when was the last time you heard the word used by anybody, in any context, inside your church? Uber-honestly, if you were called on to give a definition of this term or to describe the doctrine it entails, how do you think you would do? Here’s a thought experiment: stop reading right here (if you even got this far, send me an email, please!) and formulate, either aloud or in writing, your definition/description of “justification.” …See what I mean? We regular folks kinda leave this to the professionals, right?
Here I’ll quickly review the structure and style of the two books and then move on to an ever-so-brief summary of the contrasts of the two positions they stake out.
Apologies to all of you Piper fans, but Wright wins all of the style points. His language is livelier, his illustrations more memorable. A couple of examples…
Piper’s pastoral concerns connect early with the reader, but are soon swallowed up by the polemical purpose and tone his book required. In other words, both men write clearly and honestly, humbly and passionately, but Wright’s book just ends up being a more pleasant read.
Then, too, Wright’s book is organized better. The first half sets forth the main pieces of his argument (more about that below) – his working conclusions, and then the second half of the book applies these principles to the main Pauline passages that address justification to demonstrate how they make a very plausible reading of those texts (a better reading, Wright would say, than the traditional Protestant ones). To the trained theologian, this structure might sound like eisegesis instead of exegesis, but we have to give Wright the benefit of the doubt when he says that he didn’t originally force these conclusions into the passages but rather saw them emerge from the passages. (To be fair, both men claim the latter, and accuse the other of the former.)
However, “pleasant” doesn’t necessarily equate with “true or helpful.” (I can’t resist the obvious pun: Just because it’s Wright doesn’t make it right. Sorry…but not so sorry I’ll try the other one: Is Wright wrong?) So on to the differences between NPP (Wright) and OPP (Piper).
Wright claims that the doctrine of justification in Paul isn’t about how we get saved, but rather how we can tell who is saved. Thus it’s not so much about soteriology (the doctrine of salvation) as about ecclesiology (the doctrine of the church). It’s not so much about our faith in Christ (appealing to Him to remove our sin from us and us from our sin), but rather about the faithfulness of Christ (in completing God’s saving mission to the human race and to the cosmos through His covenant with Abraham and subsequently through Israel). It’s not so much about how through some mystical process in which Jesus earned righteous merit (by His sinless life and sacrificial death) and then bequeathed it to us in a legal transaction before God, but rather how He claimed us as His own and then sent the Holy Spirit to change us into people worthy to be accepted by God at the final judgment. It’s not so much about whether we choose God, but more about how He chose us. As Wright points out: we’re not the center of the universe; God is. Our welfare isn’t the central focus of the gospel; His glory is. (Although our welfare is certainly a happy corollary!)
Wright claims to have recovered some key elements of Paul’s theology that were more or less neglected by the Reformers in their life-and-death struggle with the Roman church and the papacy: “…Abraham and the promises God made to him, incorporation into Christ, resurrection and new creation, the coming together of Jews and Gentiles, eschatology in the sense of God’s purpose-driven plan through history, and, not least, the Holy Spirit and the formation of Christian character. …We have not been reading Paul, but only a fictitious character of our own invention, cobbled together from such Pauline jigsaw-pieces as we already know and like, forced together with the power of self-assured dogma, and stuck in place with the glue of piety and pastoral concern. …For too long we have read Scripture with nineteenth-century eyes and sixteenth-century questions. It’s time to get back to reading with first-century eyes and twenty-first century questions.”
I will say that Wright’s descriptions and explanations of NPP in this book resonated well with me at certain points, to wit:
To go into any more detail or depth on NPP would go far beyond the scope of this review, which is far too long already. To be fair and balanced, let me go to Piper’s criticisms of some of Wright’s positions.
The two men trade accusations of logical fallacies (e.g., straw men, category mistakes, etc.), and despite their deep disagreement over what they consider to be the very core of the gospel, they conduct themselves as Christian gentlemen (both included a chapter on rules of engagement!). Even the sarcastic pokes they take at each other are meant more to enhance their own rhetorical effect than to inflict any real psychological or reputational damage on the other. Neither claims infallibility (Wright says he knows that 20% of his theology is wrong – he just doesn’t know which 20% it is!) They don’t question each other’s salvation or honesty or integrity or motives or faithfulness (I don’t remember the word, “antichrist,” appearing in either book), and yet they cross swords with gusto. May their tribe increase. The church – and the world – would be better for it. So I conclude with their expressions of mutual respect and common hope for the unity of the church and the glory of Christ.
Piper: “My conviction concerning N. T. Wright is not that he is under the curse of Galatians 1:8-9, but that his portrayal of the gospel – and of the doctrine of justification in particular – is so disfigured that it becomes difficult to recognize as biblically faithful. It may be that in his own mind and heart Wright has a clear and firm grasp on the gospel of Christ and the biblical meaning of justification. But in my judgment, what he has written will lead to a kind of preaching that will not announce clearly what makes the lordship of Christ good news for guilty sinners or show those who are overwhelmed with sin how they may stand righteous in the presence of God. …He is a remarkable blend of weighty academic scholarship, ecclesiastical leadership, ecumenical involvement, prophetic social engagement, popular Christian advocacy, musical talent, and family commitment. As critical as this book is of Wright’s understanding of the gospel and justification, the seriousness and scope of the book is a testimony to the stature of his scholarship and the extent of his influence. I am thankful for his strong commitment to Scripture as the final authority, his defense and celebration of the resurrection of the Son of God, his vindication of the deity of Christ, his belief in the virgin birth of Jesus, his biblical disapproval of homosexual conduct, and the consistent way he presses us to see the big picture of God’s universal purpose for all peoples through the covenant with Abraham… In this book, my hope…is that Wright might be influenced to change some of what he thinks concerning justification and the gospel…that he might clarify, in future writings, some things I have stumbled over…[and] that those who consider this book and read N. T. Wright will read him with greater care, deeper understanding, and less inclination to find Wright’s retelling of the story of justification compelling.”
Wright: “It is, after all, an interesting question as to why certain doctrinal and exegetical questions suddenly explode at particular points. …[There are] cultural and social tectonic plates shifting this way and that. …Everything is interconnected, and when people feel the floor shaking, and the furniture wobbling, they get scared. …But sometimes worldview have to be shaken. They may become idolatrous and self-serving. And I fear that that has happened, and continues to happen, even in well-regulated, shiny Christian contexts – including, of course, my own. John Piper writes, he tells us, as a pastor. So do I. In fact, he writes as one who, when it all comes down to it, shares my own concerns. When his book came out, he sent me a copy, and in it he wrote kindly, in his own hand: ‘For Tom, with love and admiration and concern and the desire and prayer that Jesus Christ, the Lord of the universe, who holds our life in his hands, will bring us to one mind for the sake of the fullness of his glory and for the good of this groaning world.’ That is my desire and prayer as well. …It is because I sense…in John Piper’s work and because, unlike some of my critics…he has been scrupulously fair, courteous and generous in all our exchanges that I write not with a heavy heart (‘Oh, what’s the use? He’ll never get it. Let him think the sun goes round the earth if it makes him happy!’) but with the hope that maybe, just maybe, if we take some time, get out some more books and perhaps telescopes, the penny will drop, the ‘aha’ moment will happen, the new worldview will click into place, and all will become clear. …I hope not just to make things clearer than I have done before, but to see things clearer than I have done before as a result of having had to articulate it all once more. Perhaps if I succeed in seeing things more clearly I may succeed in saying them more clearly as well.”
May that be true of all of us. Regardless of how we set it forth in precise doctrinal formulations, may we spend more time in the Word, more time in prayer, more time in worship, more time in fellowship, and more time in service – said another way, may we be more like Christ – as a result. I for one am going to spend some time in Romans and Galatians this summer.
When millions of people sneak into the country - mostly poor and unskilled, who have no intention of learning the language, assimilating to the culture, or becoming citizens, who demand rights and privileges merely because they’re here now - it’s not immigration – it’s colonization!
Remember that big ol’ smacker that Al Gore laid on Tipper on the stage of the 2000 Democratic National Convention, right there in front of God and a national TV audience?
Who’d have thunk that, 10 years later, Al and Tipper would be splitting up…and Bill and Hillary would still be goin’?
The Army Corps of Engineers denied Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal’s emergency request to dredge up some barrier islands to prevent the BP oil spill from contaminating his beaches and marshes, because…(scroll down)…
Wait for it…
They want to do an “environmental impact” study on what possible damage these barrier islands might do to Louisiana’s beaches and marshes! Huh? Wha? R U kiddin me? “Environmental impact”? Sheesh!!! Our tax dollars at work – in the hands of greenie weenie bureaucrats…
Yesterday, while waiting in the car for Cindy at the grocery store, I saw a mother and daughter exit. It was raining – not a drenching downpour, just a gentle shower – a sprinkle, really – just enough to know you’re getting wet.
The girl was looking up and smiling with the innocent smile that only children are capable of. She was delighted with the rain.
The mother was looking down and frowning. She was clearly irritated with the rain.
I thought: when do we change from the former to the latter, and why?
…because I want us to drill for American oil in safer places – like in shallow waters right off shore – and here’s a novel idea – how about right on land, as in ANWR!
It’s time to push back on the greenie weenies with their NIMBY approach to oil drilling close to shore and their feigned sensitivity to Alaskan caribou and drill, baby, drill!