While I still believe, with all my heart, you are the only Savior, I now see how more of my heart needs more of you and more of the gospel.

There is nobody on the face of the earth that needs the gospel today, and its transforming resources, more than me, and I am SO glad to be able to acknowledge this reality. I need you today, Jesus, as much as I did in March of 1968 when you washed away all my sins and covered me with the robe of your righteousness.

You have saved me in the past, when I was justified by grace alone through faith alone; you are saving me in the present, as the Holy Spirit applies more and more of your finished work to my whole being; and you will save me in the future, when you return to finish making all things new, including ME!

Lord Jesus, though I’m never tempted to look to any other name for my justification, I am very tempted to look to other names and means for my transformation—worse of all, is when I look to me to be my own savior. But only you, Jesus, are able to save completely those who come to God through you, for you are always living to pray for us and to advocate for us (Heb 7:25). You are my righteousness, holiness and redemption, and that’s why I only boast in you today! (1 Cor. 1:30-31)

So I come to you today, Jesus, right now! Save me more fully from my fear of man, my need to be in control, my ticky-tacky pettiness. Save me from trying to be anybody’s savior. I want to get irritated far less often and to be spontaneous much more often. I want to “light up” more quickly when I hear your name, Jesus, and not be downcast, when I don’t hear my name.

That’s more than enough confession for one day… Indeed, Jesus, I must be saved, I am being saved, through your name alone. Hallelujah!

- Scotty Smith (HT: Tullian)

Collin is a good journalist, and I am thankful that he took the time to read and recommend Holy Subversion:

“Trevin Wax delivers a sober challenge for the church to live up to her lofty calling. By God’s grace, may Christians heed his warning and follow the narrow path prepared by Jesus. Perhaps we will then see the fruit of the Spirit’s transforming power in our midst.”

– Collin Hansen, Christianity Today editor at large,
author of Young, Restless, Reformed

1. The tide of public opinion about abortion is shifting. When the women on The View find it sick that people would want to make money off abortion… And when they all are unanimous in their thoughts of abortion being tragic… The immorality of abortion is beginning to sink in. Now, if someone would just ask the question, “What is the unborn?”

2. Yawning at the Word. It’s really hard to listen to the Word when there are really interesting things to think about.

3. I have roots in the independent Baptist movement. Naturally, I was very interested in this interview with the authors of a book that shows statistically what is happening in the independent movement today.

4. My friend Owen writes a post on how technology changes us. “Are iPhones Making Us Unkind?”

5. Steven Curtis Chapman’s new album is the first since the death of his little girl. This interview is great.

6. Was Nietzche pious?

7. Thom Rainer looks at how attendance behavior in churches affects your attendance numbers

In a nutshell, here is Walton’s proposal: Genesis 1 was not intended to give us a scientific understanding of the material origins of the universe. Instead, the seven days of creation are a cosmic temple inauguration ceremony that describe the functional beginning of our world.

If your eyes have already glazed over after reading that summary, then consider his illustration about a college. At what point is a college created? Is it when the buildings go up? Or when the students and faculty arrive on campus and classes begin? Or when the commencement ceremony begins?

Walton’s proposal is that Genesis 1 does not give us a narrative of when matter began to exist. The narrative concerns functional origins: when the world began to function the way God intended for human creation to flourish.

Walton writes:

“I believe that people in the ancient world believed that something existed not by virtue of its material properties, but by virtue of its having a function in an ordered system.” (26)

In case some might wonder if Walton is denying the doctrine of creation ex nihilo (out of nothing), he clarifies:

“I firmly believe that God is fully responsible for material origins, and that, in fact, material origins do involve at some point a creation out of nothing. But that theological question is not the one we are asking. We are asking a textual question. What sort of origins account do we find in Genesis 1?” (44)

Walton’s view could be classified as a highly sophisticated version of the older Gap theory (that there is a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2). It differs from the Gap theory in that Walton argues for a functional understanding of “create” all throughout the passage.

But it resembles the Gap theory by leaving room for a large span of time and material development that does not hinder the seven day creation process that occurs as the cosmic temple inauguration.

I appreciate Walton’s careful treatment of the text. He refuses to get bogged down in trying to reconcile the ancient text with modern scientific understanding:

Taking the text seriously is not expressed by correlating it with modern science; it is expressed by understanding it in its ancient context.” (111)

Walton’s proposal has much to commend it. I have never been fully persuaded by the Day-Age theory (that the days in Genesis 1 refer to long periods of time) or by the Young Earth view (that the seven days took place in sequence ten thousand years ago). Walton’s proposal offers the best of both worlds (inerrancy and science). The Day-Age and Young-Earth theories have never been completely convincing to me because it always seems like people are trying to read more out of the text than is there. (It reminds me of how so many interpreters tackle Revelation.) I am impressed by the way in which Walton seeks to deal seriously with the biblical text, regardless of the implications.

Yet, I have unresolved questions regarding this view. In the end, I have two main concerns.

1. This is a novel interpretation. That is, it has not been a primary interpretation throughout church history. I would be interested to know how ancient Jewish scholars commented on this text.

From my admittedly limited research, I see that many in the ancient world did indeed consider this text to be about material origins. Ancient commentaries do not, of course, change the biblical text. But it does soften the brunt of Walton’s proposal, which argues that virtually all the ancients thought of creation stories in the way he proposes.

2. The implications of Walton’s proposal may create separate spheres of knowledge. The desire to leave science and theology in separate spheres seems like a good way to keep controversy at bay.

Of course, science and theology impinge upon one another, as Walton would surely agree. Still, I am not sure that saying the Bible does not speak at all to the “how” of material origins is a resolution of the issue, but merely a way of relegating the origins discussion to the peripheral.

Asking “Where did we come from” is never a peripheral issue, as Walton would also admit. But I wonder if his proposal might lead some to the quick conclusion, “See? Who cares whether or not we evolved?” (And I do not find evolution to be persuasive as a model, even when it is of the theistic variety.)

John Walton is a recognized evangelical OT scholar. He is the co-author of one of the most respected evangelical OT Introductions in print.  I am thankful for his commitment to the truthfulness of the biblical text.  His interpretation is novel, but his research is impressive. The Lost World of Genesis One deserves further reflection and discussion. I look forward to seeing where the conversation leads.

As I read Greg’s review, I think somehow he has read a different book than I have. I think he has missed the point of Jim’s book almost entirely — because it seems to me that, in spite of (and in many ways because of) the sort of detached treatment Jim gives both sides of the “Emerg*” / “Tradional” divide, his conclusions are clearly weighed toward the truly traditional Protestant church which should be asking the questions the Emerg* folks are asking but should also be coming up with answers grounded in Scripture and reflected upon in light of our traditions, including the ecumenical creeds.

Russell Moore wants you to send him your ethics questions.

Scot McKnight on the priesthood of all consumers.

Thom Rainer looks at how attendance behavior in churches affects your attendance numbers.

Last week, Greg Gilbert, associate pastor at Capitol Hill Baptist Church, posted a review of Deep Church that criticized the book for attempting to work with people who do not affirm the gospel. I wrote Jim and asked if he would like to answer a few questions in response to this criticism of his book.

Jim Belcher: Let me just say I am grateful to Greg for reviewing my book and making his differences clear. That is how we learn from each other.

I am also grateful to you, Trevin, for letting me respond to Greg’s review on your blog. I hope I can respond clearly but kindly.

Trevin Wax: Greg Gilbert believes that a “third way” that brings together Emerging and Traditionalists will not work. In my reading of your book, I didn’t get the impression that you were trying to bring together the hard left wing of Emergent with the strong traditionalist. You are not envisioning Brian McLaren and John MacArthur coming together. Instead, you are hoping that traditionalists will listen and learn from the Emerging critique and that the evangelical wing of the Emerging side will stay grounded in orthodoxy. Am I missing your point here?

Jim Belcher: No, I don’t thinking you are missing my point. One of the things I was trying to do was call a time-out to the rhetorical shouting match (as Rich Mouw says in the foreword) so that both sides can hear each other.

I think Christian love and civility calls us to be good listeners first, even when we disagree. It also calls us to represent the others argument in a way that they would recognize.

One of the things that surprised me about Greg’s review is that he keeps talking about “Emergent” or the “emergent church”. I spent a whole chapter defining the emerging church and make the point that the Emergent Village is only one of three groups in the camp. I am not sure how he missed this point.

I further make the point that one can’t describe the whole emerging movement by the thoughts of the Emergent Village. Sometimes they are in agreement with the broader movement but sometimes they are not.

When I interact with Brian McLaren’s views on the gospel or any of the thinkers I look at, I make it clear that each one of them does not necessarily speak for the whole movement. There are plenty of emerging thinkers who would not hold the same views as Brian. And vice versa. So to paint the whole movement with one thinker’s views is simply not fair. I tried to make this clear.

Trevin Wax: Greg writes: “When Belcher says he’s writing for ‘the majority’ who ‘want to learn from both sides,’ where exactly does that leave those of us in both the emergent and traditional camps who think there are really some serious issues at stake?” I’m perplexed by this statement. I want to learn from both sides, and yet I agree with Greg that there are serious issues at stake. Is it necessarily at odds to have firm convictions on the gospel and yet still think we can take something away from the Emerging critique?

Jim Belcher: This is a false choice. I agree there are serious issues at stake. That is the reason I wrote the book and spent so much time and effort delving into these issues. They are important issues for the church. I hope this comes across in my book.

But why should the weightyness of the issues mean that we can’t learn from others we disagree with? Or that we can be civil?

Why does the importance of an issue mean that we don’t have to listen well or that we can be dismissive in how we interact with those we disagree with? I really believe we can interact with convicted civility, meaning that we can be both civil and convicted at the same time. That is the approach I tried to take in the book.

Trevin Wax: Gilbert says: “It’s also worth pointing out that Belcher’s idea of a “new ecumenism” on the basis of the ancient creeds is not going to work, either. The creeds are not Scripture, and they are not heaven-sent, inspired, once-for-all standards of what it means to be a Christian.”

Jim Belcher: This is a fairly standard response from those in the free-church tradition towards the Great Tradition. The Anabaptists first made this argument at the time of the Reformation. Greg is not saying anything that those in the Lutheran and Reformed camps didn’t hear in the 16th Century.

I would never say the Great Tradition precludes the primacy of Scriptural authority. As D.H. Williams says, for the church fathers “Scripture was the authoritative anchor of tradition’s content, and tradition stood as the primary interpreter of Scripture.” I think that is right.

I think the reformers would have agreed. The Magisterial Reformers (like Calvin and Luther) did not think of sola scriptura as something that could be properly understood apart from the church or the foundational tradition of the church.

Listen to Calvin appeal to the Great Tradition as he counters the Roman Catholic Cardinal Sadoleto:

“You teach that all which has been approved for fifteen hundred years or more, by the uniform consent of the faithful, is, by our headstrong rashness, torn up and destroyed….You know…that our agreement with antiquity [the Great Tradition] is far closer than yours, but that all we have attempted has been to renew that ancient form of the church.”

And Luther contended that Rome had abandoned the ancient faith in its preference for canonical law:

“The present position of the church in the papacy is woefully at variance (as is evident) with the ways of the councils and the Father.”

Or Melanchthon, Luther’s disciple, wrote in the conclusion to part I of the Augsburg Confession (1530):

“This is the sum of doctrine…nothing which is discrepant with Scripture or with the church catholic or even with the Roman church as far as that church is known from the writings of the Fathers.”

What he was saying is that the problem is not the church Fathers but the “traditions” that have crept into church that are not in accord with the Great Tradition or the Scriptures.

So when Greg says that he is “amazed that Belcher—as a PCA minister who is presumably well-versed in what was at stake in the Reformation—would think that affirming the ancient creeds would be a sufficient ground for ecclesiastical unity” I contend that I am standing right in line with what the reformers believed about the Great Tradition.

He, as a Baptist, really can’t say this. His position, historically, is much closer to the traditional church argument that I describe in the book. His next statement, “I’m sure the pope will be delighted to hear that!” just does not understand the argument the Reformers were making in regard to the church Fathers. The point they were making was that Rome had no longer held to this Tradition but had added much teaching that went against the church Fathers or what was called the “rule of faith.”

The whole point of the Reformation was not to break away from the Roman church but to reform it so that it stayed faithful to the Scriptures as described in the Great Tradition. It was an attempt to purify the Roman church, not reject the church Fathers. In other words, the Reformers rejected Roman “traditions”, with a small “t”, and wanted to return to the Great Tradition, big “T’.

Trevin Wax: It seems that Greg is putting forth the idea that to be within the Great Tradition is necessarily opposed to being Reformational. Is that the case?

Jim Belcher: The argument that somehow if I contend, like the Reformers did, for the recovery of the Great Tradition that somehow this means I am devaluing the atonement or the gospel is just not accurate. Or that I somehow don’t think it is as important as some of the issues tackled in the creeds of the fourth and fifth century is not true.

There is no doubt that the Reformation made some great gains in our understanding of the gospel and atonement. But we need to remember that they did not come up with these out of whole cloth or by just reading the Bible in isolation. They always read the Bible in community, the community of the Great Tradition. And this is what they were calling Rome back to, especially with the doctrine of justification.

This is a fairly common historical misunderstanding that somehow the church until the Reformation was in the dark about justification by faith and the doctrines of grace and that only at the time of the Reformation was this doctrine discovered. This is not true. Both Luther and Calvin relied heavily on Augustine, one of the church Fathers, for their views on justification. And many other church Fathers discussed justification. As Tom Oden contends justification by faith was not a new teaching invented by the Reformers.

Along with the Scriptures, justification finds its roots in the early church and patristic Fathers, says Oden. So to say that the Great Tradition somehow devalues or does not have the resources to articulate the gospel is just not true.

Does this mean that the understanding that the Reformation brought to this doctrine is not important? I would say no; it is important. But this does not mean that the Great Tradition does not have the resources for Christian unity. I think it does. That is why the Reformers appealed to it along with the Scriptures.

Trevin Wax: Greg asks: “Just how important to you is this gospel that Jim Belcher himself says the emergent church does not affirm? And then later he states, “The emergent church does not affirm the gospel. They don’t hold to penal substitutionary atonement.”

Jim Belcher: Nowhere in my book do I say that the entire emerging church rejects the gospel or penal atonement. Or that every one in the Emergent Village (I never use the phrase “Emergent church”) rejects the atonement. I don’t even say Brian McLaren says this. When I asked him in person if he believed in penal atonement he said that he did. So I take him at his word.

Does this mean that there are some in the emerging church who do reject penal atonement? There may be, but this in no way represents the entire movement. There is a huge segment of the emerging church that is solidly and historically evangelical on this point.

Are there some that are guilty of gospel reductionism? Certainly, and I want to call them back to a non-reduced gospel.

But I also make the case in the book that there are people in the traditional camp, and even the reformed camp, who are also guilty of gospel reductionism as well. That is why I lay out a third way as gently but as confidently as I can.

I hope that for those who have not read Deep Church that they will take the time to read it.

I’ve never been so thankful for the Psalms. I’m not sure I really even got the Psalms until I walked through this. Obviously the Psalms were a great comfort before walking through the valley, but all of a sudden, I’m just so thankful for God’s honesty to us, to allow us to look into the heart of a schizophrenic worshiper like David, because that’s what I’ve found myself to be. To go in the same breath, How long, O Lord. Where are you, God? Are you doing anything about this? Do you even hear me? to But I’ll trust you. Your love is better than life. I worship you. I praise you. How can you do that? But I have, and my family has.

Z answers the question, “How do you manage your life?” Yes, life with toddlers can only be described as “manageable” chaos.”

I think your feelings of “insanity” are somewhat relative (which isn’t to dismiss them). What feels insane right now might not in a few years as you grow into a different life stage and as you get more comfortable with the chaos, or learning what you can cut out to limit the chaos.

Dinesh D’Souza’s new book examining the evidence that there is life after death looks like a must-read. Life After Death: The Evidence.

This is one of the better attempts I’ve seen to promote fair trade. It focuses on the church as the solution.

The new building plan for First Baptist Church – Dallas is spectacular. I have conflicted feelings over this type of thing. Part of me loves big church buildings/cathedrals/sacred space, etc. Part of me recoils at seeing this much money go to a structure. Not making any judgments, just recording my initial (confused and conflicted) feelings about it.

There are three ways that we can react to criticism, two bad and one good:

1. Dig in.

Some pastors are convinced that they know the will of God so clearly that anyone who dares to disagree with them must be out of step with the Holy Spirit.

“I’m the spiritual leader” can easily foster an attitude that says, “They don’t know what they’re talking about.” The pastor digs in his heels and says, “Here I stand,” except he’s not Martin Luther, and the stakes are usually not very high.

There are definitely times when a leader should stand his ground and dig in his heels. But if your natural tendency is to dig in, you might actually be digging a hole for yourself.

2. Crumble.

Other leaders go to the opposite extreme. When faced with criticism, they try to please everyone.

People-pleasers get sucked into a cycle of always trying to put out fires. They are racing around trying to keep everyone happy. Their ability to set a vision is severely hindered by their primary commitment to keeping criticism at a bare minimum.

Unfortunately, those who crumble under criticism wind up attracting more of it. The critics don’t stop just because you do everything they want. You can never make everyone happy. Everyone wants you to be the strong, in-charge leader… until you make a decision they don’t like.

3. Discern.

The third way to handle criticism is to take it into consideration. You don’t immediately dig in. Nor do you quickly crumble. Why not? Because you’re not perfect. Humility requires you to recognize that you could be wrong, unwise or both.

Instead, look to see where the criticism is originating:

• Is this a reputable person in your church?
• Is this someone who has your best interests at heart?
• Does this person always criticize?

Discern what kind of spirit the criticism is being offered in. If the person is hyper-critical, then you take the criticism with a grain of salt. If the person is generally positive and encouraging, then you may want to give their critique more thought. Discerning the source of criticism will go a long way in determining whether you should dig in or give in.

Sometimes, the person is reputable, positive, and wants the best for the church, and yet you still don’t see eye to eye. It happens. Even good church members sometimes have a vision that conflicts with that of the pastor.

The way you treat that brother or sister in Christ will go a long way in leading to a peaceful resolution. Even if they are not on board with your decision, you may ask them, “Can you give us the freedom to try this, even if we fail? Will you support this if we do it?”

There are two things that should roll off the back of the church leader: constant criticism and effusive praise. Don’t let either one stick to you too long.

First, I love to read and this project gives me an opportunity to read a lot. That, as I see it, is a good thing. Second, it is a challenge and I like to face a good challenge. I expect this project to involve at least ten million words of reading–break that down and you’ll see that it comes to at least three books per week over the course of an entire year. Third, I am interested in the cultural and worldview implications of all of these books.

The newest version of Logos Bible Software has been released.

New Testament scholar, Michael Bird, responds to the recent Christianity Today article on evangelicals and Catholics.

…Suddenly the multiple-choice theology of Geneva or Rome seems highly simplistic doesn’t it? Wright’s critique of Reformed interpretation, overstated and full of generalization I often find it!, can only cause folk to go to Rome if they are caught in this Geneva or Rome dichotomy. In other words, if you ingrain into people that Geneva (or one suburb of Geneva) and Rome (= Trent) are the only two options, once they question some of their Reformed heritage, you haven’t left them with any other option.

John Piper asks the question: Do people willingly choose to go to hell?

Because of your input, I’ve made a few decisions regarding the content here at Kingdom People.

1. Trevin’s Seven.

Many readers indicated their desire for more frequent links to other blogs. In the past, I have saved my links for Friday’s post called “In the Blogosphere.” As of this week, that feature will cease.

Instead, on Fridays, I will provide a list of seven links that deserve the most attention. We’ll be calling the feature “Trevin’s Seven.”

Throughout the week, I will be posting links to other articles that merit attention. I will usually label the ongoing posts “Worth a Look.”

2. Book Reviews

My book reviews continue to be one of the main reasons that readers frequent this blog. In the past, I have tried to write reviews of every book I read. The more I read, the harder it gets for me to give every book that much attention.

So… in the future, I will concentrate on one book review (maybe two) per week. For some of the other books I read, I will offer some notable quotes or paragraphs.

3. More Articles

If I can back off (a little) regarding book reviews, I can devote a little more time to writing articles and doing some cultural commentary. The reason I have focused on book reviews and interviews in the past is because I felt the blog was stronger if I continually pointed to other authors and other’s ideas. The results of the survey indicated that many readers want to hear from me more often. I’m honored by that request, and so I will try. If the blog’s content suffers as a result, we’ll go back to more book reviews!

Thanks again to those of you who read this blog daily. I am honored that you would consider this blog worthy of your time and attention, and I hope to be a good steward of your time in future service to our King.