Greg, Okay, all our sensible friends have tuned out at this point. Emo kid Mike didn't even want to jump in the pool. So for you, me, and our three remaining readers… (everyone else can just scroll down to see Hugh Latimer's, er, Mike's latest entry):

POINT TAKEN!

Point taken. I’m grateful for (and agree with) everything you affirm. That is, the “gospel” in the New Testament is that Christ has defeated sin and all of its consequences (I’m thinking of 1 Cor. 15 (the whole chapter), 1 Peter 1:3-9, Ephesians 2:11-20, and certainly the gospel of the kingdom passages in the Gospels). It is good news indeed that creation will be restored, that a covenantal unity now abides between formerly divided humans, that we have been given the seal and the first fruits of the Holy Spirit, that we are now free to live for God’s glory in our work, our service, and entire lives, and so on.

Thank you, brother, for helping me to be clear about this. Our explanations of the gospel to the church and non-Christian alike should ultimately point to all these things. I’m thinking about Jesus’ statement to John’s disciples about telling John that they see the blind seeing and so forth. Though we should take care not to over realize our eschatology, Christians have the amazing privilege of saying to non-Christians and their fellow Christians, “New life is happening here—just watch! And there’s more newness to come!”  All this is cause for rejoicing.

YET...

Yet let me try to frame the discussion in a slightly different way, so as to illustrate what I believe is the bull’s-eye accuracy of what Dever’s getting at: our presentations of the gospel and understanding of the church’s mission needs to be extremely clear about the difference between sin and the consequences of sin. We have to start with sin. What is sin? Sin is that fact we disregard God and his glory because we want to be God, and so we break his law. In Genesis 3, Adam overlooks the fact that he was created to image God’s glory (1:26-28) and decides to be God himself (3:5). So he breaks God’s Genesis 2 law (2:16-17).

From this sin comes, perhaps most immediately, guilt (him looking down) and wrath (us looking up), because guilt and wrath are the most immediate measurement of the fact that Adam has broken a law. It’s not enough to say that a “broken relationship” is the most immediate consequence (as many authors want to say), because it’s the way in which the relationship has been broken that counts—Adam hasn’t just strayed off and got lost; he has defied his Lord. He has counted his own glory as worth more than God’s. He has blasphemed before the heavenly host about the lightness of God’s glory (vindicating Satan). He has, in Paul’s language, fallen short of that glory. God’s holy glory requires a punishment (not just a reconciliation). To say otherwise is to say his glory isn’t worth that much. To say otherwise is to overestimate our own glory and worth. (But isn’t the Bible clear that we’re like blades of grass, here today and gone tomorrow?)

(Among other things, this means we shouldn’t pit “law” and “relationship” or “person” against one another as so many are doing. God's law is an expression of his person and the very thing that he means to use to protect and safeguard our relationship with him and one another (consider Gen. 9:6). Loneliness is not the problem, lawlessness is. Not isolation, but insubordination.)

From sin, this fundamental disposition of hatred for God’s glory and defiance of his law, many consequences follow: Shame follows, so they’ll hide themselves behind fig leaves and trees. The curses follow, breaking fellowship between man and God, man and man, and man and earth. Among those curses, death follows, so Adam will return to the dust. And the dust itself will only yield fruit through hard work, because creation is breaking down. Also, sins against fellow humans follow, so the woman will desire to rule over the man, and the man will probably abuse her in return. Also, Cain kills Abel. You get the point.

Now, consider what’s probably going to happen to explanations of the gospel in a culture which is gradually losing its very capacity to understand sin and guilt (as David Wells argues in Losing Our Virtue). I would predict that Christians would be tempted to define the gospel in a way that emphasizes how the gospel overcomes the consequences of sin. So they’ll talk about the gospel as “reconciling relationships” or “inaugurating God’s kingdom” or “restoring creation.” And, yes, amen, all of this is part of the good news Jesus brings. Preach it! But they will also, perhaps, be slower to emphasize sin itself and sin’s most immediate consequences, like guilt and God’s wrath. “People just don’t understand that,” they’ll say. And maybe, just maybe, they will be less able than their historical forbearers to recognize the weightiness of these things either, because they too are creatures of culture (and let me put myself first here, brother: I completely fail to recognize the weight of my sin and God’s glory!!! That’s the story of my life.)

But when we’re not explicit on these first things—sin as broken law; sin as hatred of God’s glory; guilt and God’s wrath as the most immediate consequences—then what it means to “reconcile relationships,” “inaugurate a kingdom,” or “restore creation” becomes vague and, often, man-centered. And have you noticed how so many definitions of the gospel these days fail to use those old words like propitiation, imputation, or justification, words which give meaning to “inaugurating a kingdom” or “restoring creation” because they get at the heart of the root of the problem, not just a consequence of the problem?

All this is where Tim Keller has been so helpful for my thinking. In all his talk about “functional justification” and idolatry, in his connecting of the first commandment and justification by faith (a la Luther), he has helped me to understand my sin more deeply. My breaking the law (esp. the first commandment) is the same thing as idolatry, which is the same thing as my justifying myself, which is the same thing as my despising of God’s glory. Solution: justification by faith (!), which is the same thing as reaching for an alien righteousness, which is the same thing as having no other gods before him. (I’m using the phrase “same thing” loosely here. But you get the point.)

I just received Bruce Waltke's A Theology of the Old Testament and was reading through the portions on Leviticus since I'm teaching that tomorrow in Sunday School. Here's how he concludes his comments on the liturgical aspects of Exodus and Leviticus:

The sacred sites, objects, seasons, personnel, and institutions under the administration of the old covenant are only types of the true reality. Christ fulfills the expectation that there will be one in whom God and man merge in perfect union and provide perfect access into the omnipresent God's unique presence and care. The incarnate Son of God fulfills what the temple always was, a place where infinite merges with the finite to give salvation to the faithful. The Truth said, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days," in references to his own body. Since he ascended to heaven, the covenant people no longer face toward Jerusalem, but pray, "Our Father in heaven," and worship in spirit in truth (i.e. in the Reality). Presently God's temple, is the Spirit-indwelt church, both in its individual members and in collective body. Natural humanity despises and seeks to destroy this temple, but the new humanity sees the church as an awesome sight--it is nothing less than the house of God! The consummation of the temple themes, for which the people of God have always hoped, lies in heaven, "the Father's house," from which Christ came and to which he returned to prepare a place for his covenant people, whom the Spirit is preparing to dwell in it. The Father's house, whose glory exceeds human imagination, has plenty of room to accommodate a multitude too numerous to count."

Amen. What a gift Waltke's book appears to be for students of the OT, that is, the church!

Jonathan,

Jeremy is doing his PhD on the metaphysics of race, so I think his would be the better reflection on the current scholarly literature.  But for the laymen out there, here's the dictionary.com listing of definitions for "Race."  I think this is what most people have in mind.

These are the kinds of things I think most regular Joes are thinking when they say "race."  The listing at dictionary.com is helpful for the note on origin and use it includes.  In the notes you'll see what Jeremy was appealing to in terms of the waning association of "race" with biology or genetic heredity.  Here are the notes:

[Origin: 1490–1500; < F < It razza, of obscure orig.]

—Synonyms 1. tribe, clan, family, stock, line, breed. Race, people, nation are terms for a large body of persons who may be thought of as a unit because of common characteristics. In the traditional biological and anthropological systems of classification race refers to a group of persons who share such genetically transmitted traits as skin color, hair texture, and eye shape or color: the white race; the yellow race. In reference to classifying the human species, race is now under dispute among modern biologists and anthropologists. Some feel that the term has no biological validity; others use it to specify only a partially isolated reproductive population whose members share a considerable degree of genetic similarity. In certain broader or less technical senses race is sometimes used interchangeably with people. People refers to a body of persons united usually by common interests, ideals, or culture but sometimes also by a common history, language, or ethnic character: We are one people; the peoples of the world; the Swedish people. Nation refers to a body of persons living under an organized government or rule, occupying a defined area, and acting as a unit in matters of peace and war: the English nation.

Usage Note: The notion of race is nearly as problematic from a scientific point of view as it is from a social one. European physical anthropologists of the 17th and 18th centuries proposed various systems of racial classifications based on such observable characteristics as skin color, hair type, body proportions, and skull measurements, essentially codifying the perceived differences among broad geographic populations of humans. The traditional terms for these populations—Caucasoid (or Caucasian), Mongoloid, Negroid, and in some systems Australoid—are now controversial in both technical and nontechnical usage, and in some cases they may well be considered offensive. (Caucasian does retain a certain currency in American English, but it is used almost exclusively to mean "white" or "European" rather than "belonging to the Caucasian race," a group that includes a variety of peoples generally categorized as nonwhite.) The biological aspect of race is described today not in observable physical features but rather in such genetic characteristics as blood groups and metabolic processes, and the groupings indicated by these factors seldom coincide very neatly with those put forward by earlier physical anthropologists. Citing this and other points—such as the fact that a person who is considered black in one society might be nonblack in another—many cultural anthropologists now consider race to be more a social or mental construct than an objective biological fact.

Jonathan,

Thanks for the link and the question.  Is "race" a fiction?  Well, I guess my perspective is obvious from the article.  Thanks for the link to Jeremy's response.  He raises some interesting concerns and reflections.  I'll try to respond to a couple of things.

1. Let’s stipulate that the imago Dei has historically been defined differently by different theologians, with people wrestling with the idea in various ways.  But let’s also grant that whatever it means all people are made in that image, male and female (unless we understand these terms not bodily but in some broader “gendered” way).  My point is not to argue that God is corporeal, but to argue that our physical realities do embody the image in some way and that no body denies that image.  What I’m interacting with there is the long history of racial prejudice and philosophy that argued otherwise. The main point is that it's theologically irresponsible to offer a theological anthropology that doesn't address the falsehoods about African humanity historically perpetrated under the banner of "race."

2. Jeremy seems to miss the fact that I’m trying to argue to something more than I’m trying to argue with something or accommodate current thinking about race.  I’m laying out a proposal for how we get to the sections that he likes, more than I’m trying to engage the wider body of literature on “race.”  Which I would easily agree does assume the reality of “race.”  My shelves are lined with such books.  Where he and I disagree is that I think the assumption typical of the wider literature (“race” exists) is precisely the problem!  At one point I would have listed myself with him as a “race scholar.”  My peer-reviewed published work is on the formation of “racial identity attitudes" and their intersection with things like group esteem, self-efficacy, etc.  Now, having done my share of research and writing in that arena, my personal view has become that once you start with the prism of “race,” you can’t escape it.  There’s no way into and out of that maze.  Now, if you want to remain in that maze, then you’re not worried about an exit strategy.  But if you want to exit, choosing the door marked “race” is doomed to failure from the start, imo.

3. Jeremy's argument that things like refrigerators aren’t in the Bible really sadly misses the point.  Of course there are tons of things that are real that are not in the Bible.  And so, too, there are tons of things that are not real that are not in the Bible.  Strangely, unicorns and Leprechauns come to mind.  But if we started defining and explaining reality based on our belief in Leprechauns, I'm afraid a padded room awaits us.  It would be a sign of poor mental health.  "Race" has about as much legitimacy as a construct for explaining reality as Leprechauns in our closets and under our beds.  Jeremy seems to want to say “race” is real in the same way that a physical object like a refrigerator is real.  Again, this is precisely the problem.  Folks start with a non-biblical social or philosophical construct, “race,” treat it as though it were as real as the computer we’re typing on, and then erect and explain an entire reality based upon the construct.  That’s building on sand.  IF (grant me the assumption for a moment) the way we think about “race” is unhealthy and unbiblical to start, then isn’t the appropriate strategy to at least re-think and probably jettison it altogether in favor of a real reality (human solidarity) instead of a socially constructed “reality”?  If not, I think we end arguing "let’s leave off the authority and perhaps sufficiency of Scripture" on this issue.

4. The fact that in some way people continue to root “race” in biology and assumptions about phenotype seems self evident to me.  Though he wants to deny that most people think of "race" as rooted in biology in any way, Jeremy’s own example (the one drop rule) actually proves the point.  One drop of black blood (there’s biology, race and blood) makes a person—no matter the phenotype—black according to the one drop rule.  In his example, the light- or white-skinned person of mixed parentage is defined as black, actually proving the rule.  And not incidentally provides flesh and bone reason for why we should re-think/abandon “race” as a category altogether.  Thinking of race in biological terms (whether in terms of blood or skin color) may, in fact, be on the decline.  But I think we need to hasten its death, sign the DNR, not sustain it by pretending the construct is real.

5. As for ethnicity, Jeremy thinks I’m playing word games a little bit.  He seems to think that my definition of ethnicity is, in fact, what “race” really is.  He understands “black people” to be the overarching identity for people of black skin, grouping them in a race.  (You see, again, how one can’t easily escape biological assumptions in this discussion.  At one point Jeremy writes, “Most race theorists who accept the existence of races do not think that races are a necessary implication of biological facts. They think social and historical factors have produced racial categories that rely on biological features in terms of how we classify people, but the root is in social and historical factors, not in biology.”  He seems to take away biology with one hand while replacing it with the other.).  He writes: “People discriminate against black people, not usually against black Africans or black Americans”.  I think this framework holds primarily in the States.  It’s far, far less applicable once you move outside the States and especially in contexts where Whites are not the majority and the history of “race” is not that of the U.S.  So black-skinned Barbadians and Jamaicans in the Caribbean don’t think primarily or overarchingly in terms of “black people,” unless they’re adopting a particular pan-Africanist political ideology (which has as much to do with the U.S.view of this idea as anything else).  Hausa and Ibo are clear about what it means to be Hausa and Ibo in Nigeria.  They think of themselves in ethnic, culturally distinctive ways… what I’ve labeled ethnicity.  Keep in mind, my article doesn’t argue that there are not any real differences among people, or necessarily that those differences don’t to some extent co-vary with things like skin color.  The argument is that you can’t root that difference in "race" (which invariable assumes some trait-level biological classification).  And second, a more biblical and precise way of explaining the differences we see is ethne/ethnos (nations, ethnicities).  So, to the extent he thinks I’m denying all differences, he’s missed the point.  I’m not.  I’m extending an alternative that is more nuanced, biblical, and, I think, useful for not only explaining the differences but doing the work of the church (missions, for example).  “Race,” which flattens everything into black, white, etc., is a far less useful construct, imo.  If I continued to use terms like Black and White throughout the piece, that’s inadvertent and evidence of my own continuing reform in this area.

6. I don’t understand that denying that “race” is real is tantamount to denying that racism and racial atrocities are real.  I very much believe that real things are done in the name of “race” and that those things need to be resisted, prosecuted, and so forth.  My concern is that those things are done based upon a perceived difference and corresponding valuations of “race.”  As long as we keep “race,” we’re likely to see those things continue.  Entrenching the perception of difference doesn’t help us with this fundamental problem of people acting out in ways that are harmful against others.
7. Finally, Jeremy has difficulty seeing why I associate "race" with idolatry.  "Race" is idolatry insofaras: (a) it does not really exist; and, (b) as people are so wed to it as a defining construct that they behave in ways contrary to the will of God.  The worship of the thing becomes apparent, imo, wherever people choose this way of viewing life over the ways prescribed in scripture.  It's not as though the Scripture is completely silent on "race."  Where God does speak, He says there is but one in Adam and another in Christ.  And the Scripture seems to me to prohibit thinking of ourselves and others in ways that suggest anything but that oneness in Adam and/or oneness in Christ.  That's the "idolatry" I'm thinking of… exalting "race," alienation and culture to the level of rivaling God's description of the world as it really is.

Anyway… this is longer than I’d intended.  I recognize that saying "race doesn't exist" to most people is a bit like saying to a secular scientist "evolution doesn't exist."  It disturbs the central organizing theory of social identity and interaction; without it, we feel ourselves ill-equipped to define and cope with life.  And yet, the Lord has not left us without witness and light in this area.  We need but walk in it. I hope this is helpful.

Mark,

Would you mind if I pressed you a little on this? I'm still trying to work all this out in my own mind, and what better way than to do that publicly, right? :-)

If anyone has taught me about unrepentant sin, it's you...I mean, not like...you know, I mean through your teaching and preaching. Anyway, you've done an excellent job helping me to understand that "unrepentant sin" means

• "sinning with high hand," as I remember you saying the Puritans said;
• "taking sin's side against God, and not God's side against sin," as you've often said.

In both of these characterizations, there seems to be some level of conscious awareness that one is defying God. Do we want to say the same of paedos? You might suggest there are multiple categories of "unrepentant." Okay. I agree there's something not being repented of. But even then, it's hard to avoid these types of associations when you use the word "unrepentant." I suppose to truly answer this we'd have to consider larger questions of spiritual blindness, levels of theological error and heresy, and more. But this is a blog, man, and Mike McKinley would say I'm already being to nuanced.

So let me try it like this: It's hard to know where the line is between mistakes caused by our rebellion and by our finitude, but are we prepared to say that all theological error is necessarily a direct consequence of rebellion and not finitude? Often, error is the result of both--sure. But if, in principle, finitude can play into theological error; and if, in principle, some wrongly held position by a particular individual at a given moment in time can be the result almost entirely or entirely from the various aspects of finitude, should we necessarily call it sin? And unrepentant sin?

BTW: do the paedos ever characterize credos as in unrepentant sin for not baptizing infants? Is there much history to the use of this kind of language btwn the two views?

Welcome back to our program. Glad you could join us. We've all enjoyed the holiday.   

When I was in seminary, I discovered Caedmons Call and was grateful for an example of both good music and doctrinal meat. But signs of late, at least with Derek Webb, have not been as encouraging. In a podcast interview Derek recently did, the interview host asks him to succinctly define the gospel. Here's Derek's answer:

What a great question.  I guess I’d probably…my instinct is to say that it's Jesus coming, living, dying, and being resurrected and his inaugurating the already and the not yet of all things being restored to himself…and that happening by way of himself…the being made right of all things…that process both beginning and being a reality in the lives and hearts of believers and yet a day coming when it will be more fully realized.  But the good news, the gospel, the speaking of the good news, I would say is the news of his kingdom coming the inaugurating of his kingdom coming…that’s my instinct. 

In response, the interview host simply said "good."

Brothers, what are your thoughts? I presume Derek knows that he is stating the gospel differently than Reformed theologians have been stating it for a long time. Is this a "different gospel"? (If somehow Derek manages to find his way to this site, we'd be happy for him to address this question.)

Hopefully you saw the last issue of the 9Marks eJournal which was devoted to the gospel. You can see those articles individually on the 9Marks homepage or as a whole by PDF.

It's also worth taking a look at the latest Southern Baptist Journal of Theology:  "The Atonement in Focus." Here's the table of contents:

The forum includes contributions by D. A. Carson, Bruce Ware, Tom Schreiner, and Jim Hamilton.

Great stuff.

Mark,

Since none of the other guys are responding...hello?...Brad? Greg? Andy? Thabiti?...Mikey McKinley suggested I start outing the other fellows, Mark...what do you think? I mean, you know we have the material on each of them...anyway, in response to your question, your key point, I take it, was

The real front line is not between Calvinist evangelicals and Arminian evangelicals.  It is between those who are lost in their sins and those who have been saved by God's sheer grace in Christ.

Could we flesh out the matter like this? Various theological/soteriological systems, whether Calvinist or Arminian or something else, will have various strengths and weaknesses, as measured by (i) their fidelity to the canon in its entirety and (ii) their ability to call humans to obedience to God's word in conversion and sanctification in any given context. Both C's and A's naturally give themselves higher marks in both categories (that's what it means to hold the position), and both might want to say that the structural weaknesses in the other system may eventually lead to damning (literally) compromises, either in this generation or the next. "Yes, your building is standing right now, but wait for the first earthquake." Yet the very willingness of both parties to continue working together in organizations like the SBC without taking decisive action to remove the other--as was the case with liberals--must mean that both C's and A's acknowledge that, in many instances, the other's explanation of the gospel is "good enough" or "sufficient"--even though both would want to nuance that statement in a thousand ways. The structural weaknesses both perceive in the other means they remain leery of one another. Still, the concession "good enough" by both sides means the "real front line" is not between the two.

To concede the other side's articulation is good enough is to concede we share Christ. And to share Christ is to share not just the most important thing but the only thing that will persist through eternity. For our savior is good!

Mark, your original statement may be more crisp and elegant, but at least mine is more clunky and turgid.