Justification by busyness?

Re-reading Tim Chester's book "The Busy Christians Guide to Busyness", a few sentences really hit home:

"Pastors [or UCCF Staff Workers it turns out] preach justification by faith and then tell you at the door how busy they are, in an act of hypocritical self-justification. ... the temptation to talk up our busyness is strong. We want to show we're earning our money. We want people to respect our hard work."

Temptation to talk up our busyness - yep, that's me. I'm often trying to prove my worth by explaining that I've got a lot on, that I'm worth all the money people are giving me to do my job, that I should be respected because of all the things I fit in. I want to feel I've proved and justified my life through being 'oh, very busy' (or when I'm not really that busy, listing lots of things I'm doing to make me sound like I am). But when its stated plainly for what it is, I can see how foolish and sinful this is - trying to earn worth, acceptance, respect, when Christ has died and all is completed. My identity is now in Jesus and not in looking, or being, busy (or anything else). Oh Lord, help us to stop justifying our existance by what we do!

Is Wright right?

I've started reading Tom Wright's latest book on Justification alongside John Piper's critique of Wright 'The Future of Justification'. (Wright's book is his response to Piper's response to his teaching on the 'new perspective on Paul'!)

A few initial thoughts on Wright's position:
- Wright is at great pains to emphasise the overarching story of the people of Israel as terribly important. Agreed. But just because Wright emphasises this doesn't mean that everyone who holds to what is now the 'old perspective' is only interested in 'me and my salvation'. That may be true of some, but certainly not all - I'd heard of biblical theology from Reformed sources long before I'd heard of the new perspective!

- Wright alleges that, since the above is true (that we traditional Reformed types are only interested in individual salvation), for all our loud claims to the contrary we're actually being man-centred. Wright's position, however, is God-centred - focusing on God's grand plan rather than little old me. This raises two questions: (i) why should the grand story of the Bible be incompatible with the traditional teaching on justification? No one is suggesting that justification is the be-all-and-end-all of the Christian life or the biblical worldview! (ii) for all his claims, is Wright going to smuggle man-centredness in through the back door later through changing the categories in which we think of justification? Will the new perspective turn out to be leaning down the slippery slope that logically leads to salvation by works?

- One thing certainly seems lacking thus far in his discussion. (Let's be fair - he may come to it later.) But I distinctly remember him bemoaning in the early pages of the book the lack of consideration of the 'in Christ' language of the NT by the traditional camp. That may be a fair complaint. But, as Mike Reeves brilliantly shows in talks you can buy here, that very 'in Christ' language offers the solution to Wright's big problem with the idea of the imputation of Christ's righteousness...

Getting sin right

'Sin is the despairing refusal to find your deepest identity in your relationship and service to God. Sin is seeking to become oneself, to get an identity, apart from him... Most people think of sin primarily as 'breaking divine rules', but... the very first of the Ten Commandments is to 'have no other gods before me'. So, according to the Bible, the primary way to define sin is not just the doing of bad things, but the making of good things into ultimate things. It is seeking to establish a sense of self by making something else more central to your significance, purpose and happiness than your relationship to God.'

Tim Keller, 'The Reason for God'

What a powerful - and painful - definition of sin! It sweeps away all objections of the 'I'm not that bad' type, and makes Paul's conclusion in Romans 3:10-20 simply inescapable. But of course, the good news is that it makes the remedy of the gospel all the more glorious at the same time!

Old Testament authority

How is the OT relevant to us today? In what way can we say that it is authoritative for us as Christians? There is so much that is different - so many commands that we do not keep. Does it have anything to say to us?

Chris Wright helpfully points out the nature of OT authority in his Old Testament Ethics for the People of God. For starters, we have to realise that 'authority' is a bigger term than 'command'. Clearly, we do not keep many of the commands of the OT, but that need not mean that it isn't authoritative for us. Once we've got that clear, there are at least four avenues by which the authority of the OT upon us becomes clear.

The reality of the God of the OT - 'the reality of the identity of YHWH implies the authority of an ethics of worship and response. Inasmuch as we encounter the reality of this God in the pages of the OT we encounter that authority also... [T]he reality of YHWH's character implies the authority for an ethic if imitation and reflection of that character in human behaviour. We ought to behave in certain ways because that is what YHWH is like, and that reality is sufficient authority.'

The reality of the story of the OT - 'the reality of this story, rendered to uson the pages of the OT, carries authority for an ethic of gratitude in view of God's actions for Israel in the past, and an ethic of missional intentionality in view of God's purposes for humanity in the future.'

The reality of the word of the OT - 'the reality of this word, delivered to us in the scriptures of Israel, carries authority for an ethic of covenantal obedience for us as for Israel, for we know the One who said these things (Heb. 10:30).'

The reality of the people of the OT - 'the reality of this people, rendered to us in the OT Scriptures, generates an ethic of paradigm and analogy, in which we assume the moral consistency of God and ask, "If this is what God required of them, what, in our different context, does God require of us?"'

Shakespeare or slogans?!

To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out , brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing. (Macbeth, Shakespeare)

Last week some of the UCCF staff were encouraged to think through the importance of form as well as content in the Bible and in our communication of it. Sometimes good communication isn't about making things as absolutely simple as they possibly can be, finding that timeless truth and saying it in the least possible syllables. Rather, the way something comes across can be as important as the content itself. Take the above quote for example, it's harder to understand than the bumper sticker which says "life sucks; then you die", but, even though the two things are saying more or less the exact same thing, doesn't Shakespeare communicate so much more? The slogan leaves me cold and cynical, but is soon forgotten. Macbeth leaves me desperately sad at the hoplessness of people, at the meaninglessness of this world and at life which is but "a walking shadow" (made worse by the fact someone can express this so beautifully).

Although I didn't need much convincing that form matters as well as content, I'm feeling more determined to think hard about how I communicate something, especially when teaching the Bible. I don't want to strip passages down to merely a slogan and miss the message of the form.

(oh, just to make sure everything is properly referenced - this all came from Jason Clarke, who I think was quoting Carl Trueman, who was quoting Shakespeare and presumably a car he saw at some point...)

What grounds of assurance?

After a busy couple of weeks, I've returned to The Bruised Reed to finish it off. Having discussed the justice that shall be sent forth to victory (see Matt. 12:20) under the title 'Grace shall reign', Sibbes concludes in true Puritan fashion with evidences I can look for in my own life that this is true of me.

My question is this: are these the best evidences to looks for? They're generally very inward-looking and subjective rather than outward-looking and Christ-focused. Now, I don't doubt that Sibbes believes that the work of Christ is the ground of our assurance and that in a different context that would have come out - I don't expect him to say everything every time! And it must also be said that he does qualify his evidences by laying out three stages of experiencing them, starting when we resist but fail - but what about those times when the emphasis seems to be on the failing rather than the resisting?

Must I be able to 'justify all Christ's ways' all the time? What about if I doubt? What about the many times when 'reasons of religion' are not the strongest reasons at work in me? What about when Christ's will comes into conflict with others within me and loses very, very quickly? And so on.

I don't think Sibbes is wrong per se, particularly in view of his qualification, but is this balanced advice? Don't we need at least a pointer to the fixed, never-failing realities of the gospel to keep the anchor held firm? I'm not entirely sure what I make of what he says here - I've got more questions than answers.

But I'll end with my favourite 'evidence' - which seems spot on to me. If you can't even find a glimmer of this, then you're in for real difficulties:

'If we had liberty to choose under whose government we would live, out of a delight in the inner man to Christ's government, making choice of him only to rule us before any other. This argues that we are like-minded to Christ, a free and a willing people, and not compelled to Christ's service otherwise than by the sweet constraint of love. When we are so far satisfied with the government of Christ's Spirit that we are willing to resign up ourselves to him in all things, then his kingdom is come in us, and our wills are brought to his will. It is the bent of our wills that makes us good or ill.'

Why all peoples?

"...the fame and greatness and worth of an object of beauty increases in proportion to the diversity of those who recognise its beauty. If a work of art is regarded as great among a small and likeminded group of people but not by anyone else, the art is probably not truly great. Its qualities are such that it does not appeal to the deep universals in out hearts but only to provincial biases. But if a work of art continues to win more and more admirers not only across cultures but also across decaeds and centuries, then its greatness is irresistibly manifested." ("Let the Nations be Glad!" John Piper)

Why are there so many different cultures and people groups in the world? And why is God's plan to save people from every single one? Reading "Let the Nations be Glad!" I was really struck by God's plan of redemption, which is not limited simply to large numbers of individuals, but specifically people from every single tribe and tongue and nation. God's plan is that around his throne will be people from every culture, people representing every age in history, people from every walk of life. Why? This is going to glorify him more than if only some, or even only most, people groups were there.

But why is this more glorifying? One of the reasons Piper highlights, explained in the quote above, is that the more consensus on something being beautiful, the more beautiful that something really is. This world is full of of people from hugely different and wonderfully diverse backgrounds, different ethnicities and cultures, all having varying tastes, preferences and concepts of beauty. But where people from everywhere can agree that something is great then we know something is truly great. And this will be the case for Jesus, he'll be shown to be of infinite worth when those from every single cultural group in this world, not just find him attractive, but rate him absolute first in their hearts! His beauty and worth and "greatness is irresistibly manifested" as he "wins more and more admirers not only across cultures but also across decades and centuries"!