Church Planting

Picture from: http://www.liverpool.nsw.gov.au/

I went to a ministry seminar this afternoon on Church planting. We had a few guys from Church Army come in and share some things with us on how they have approached church planting in dark areas of the world. It was great to hear the wisdom from these guys. These guys were strongly encouraging going into the community to get to know people, not to evangelize straight up. They were pushing us to think about adopting a block, doing a community bbq, getting involved in local sporting teams, etc.

This is something I am trying to do at Hornsby. But it also raised some questions. Are we (ie. Sydney Anglicans, not specifying clergy) to focused on Church evangelism that we dont go out into the community to get to know people? Are we to focused on telling people the gospel (which is an awesome idea and great to do) and not loving people and getting to know people first?

This is all in the thought of getting to know people, caring for them, which leads to the gospel being shared and God willing accepted.

So what are we going to do? Are we going to invite our friends to another church event? Or are you going to take the Church to the community?

Wright vs Piper Final Round

Well it was a fun filled bout. Many ups and downs for both. For me the highlight was reading to objective views and seeing good in both. I think many object to a lot of Wright's views (Piper included) because he doesn't say things the way we would like. But his breakdown of the gospel, covenant, and the place of works in justification has yet to be fully challenged by Piper.

THE GOSPEL
I think there is a lot of emphasis on covenant in Wright. This leads to a skewed view of justification and the implications of his view. But i think his view of the gospel as the pronouncement of the Lordship of Jesus is great besides the lack of acceptance of salvation within the gospel. Piper doesn't like it because of that reason. I think the lordship of Jesus leads us to salvation, Wright says this but also denies its importance.

THE COVENANT
I do see the covenant as an important part of the doctrine of justification. God did give Abraham the covenant that would deal with sin and evil. This is met with the death and resurrection of Jesus. But it should not define God's righteousness. God's righteousness i believe is seen through the law. I think it logically stupid for God to give a law that he doesn't fulfill. He proves that he can meet the requirements of the law through Jesus (Romans 2). I think this leads to Jesus becoming our righteousness as his fulfillment of the law is imputed (put on us) because we are judged as unrighteous before God unless we have this righteousness. It doesn't make sense that God would judge us righteous/just because he has called us into a covenant (Wright's view). But we need to be forgiven of our sins, have the slate wiped clean, and be given a status righteous by Christ's righteousness. We are in Christ and therefore we share in his righteousness. Through Jesus' death and resurrection we are included as heirs to the covenant promises in union with Jesus. Therefore we are covenant members by Christ.

WORKS
As a result of being in Christ. We are marked with the Holy Spirit which helps us to do the requirements of the law, not that we need to, but with a changed heart we look to submit to our king (Christ Jesus) and our works by the Spirit are a sign of the justification and covenant relationship we have. This is not to say that our works make us right with God, or add merit to us. This would deny the work of God.

So in if you have been following the battle so far I would not say that the round by round description would count towards a winner. But i would recommend reading the three books i have read and come to your own conclusion. For me the winner is God and his word. In terms of argument style in the books i give it to Wright. But as Michael commented earlier in the first blog of this series, "it doesn't mean he is right."

The future of Justification is still decided by God and we are still working out what it means. The battle continues on many fronts. If you are joining in feel free to read, think and critique.

Wright vs Piper - Round 2

I remember watching the Anthony Mundine and Danny Green fight a few years ago. It was a big build up to a great boxing match. As i watched it I was frustrated and disappointed. I was going for Green, i thought he was the better boxer. But he just didnt have anything on Mundine. Mundine was all over Green, it was easily to tell that Mundine won the fight.

I feel like i am watching this match all over again as i read through "The future of Justification" (Piper), "What St Paul Really Said" (Wright), and "Justification: God's Plan and Paul's Vision" (Wright). I want Piper to win, surely he has the better position on justification. But as i read these books i am drawn to Wright as having a better defence and attack.

When Danny Green was fighting Mundine you could tell that if Mundine went toe to toe in close combat with Green then the fight would be over, Green would win most likely by knockout. But Mundine stayed back and made Green come to him. I think Piper is writing like Green fought. Piper is going so much into Wright's territory that he doesnt step back and make Wright come to him. I read through Piper and feel confused as to what he is arguing for. Is it different, where? When i read Wright i know where the differences are and i know where he stands.

So if i judge the books on argumentation i would give it to Wright. But i am feeling like there is something missing even from Wright's 'perspective'. And it is something that i havent seen Piper argue for strongly. Where is the arguement of being 'in Christ'? What has this got to do with Justification? So far in my reading this has not been mentioned much if at all. Wright has mentioned that through Christ our sins are atoned for, Piper agrees. But with such a big issue of Law court metaphor in justification isnt our being 'in Christ' the point of major and clear difference? I hope this will come up soon. As i feel like this is not a point that will be raised.

Even though Piper is losing the argumentative fight, I am still cheering for him. Hoping for a knockdown blow.

Thinking about Men's ministry

I stumbled across this page from a blog. It is thought provoking. Mens ministry is vital for Church in my mind, hopefully this can help me and anyone else who reads this.

Wright vs Piper - Round 1

It was a weird start to the confrontation. Piper came out throwing sloppy jabs, and getting into the clinch when possible. Wright came out swinging for everyone. May have taken out the ref in the process.

Piper argues that the gospel message is at stake. Claiming that Wright is not understanding the gospel as a means of salvation. Wright claims Salvation is achieved through the gospel. Wright wants the message of the gospel to be the announcement of the Kingship (he likes King better than Lord) of Jesus. Piper's qualm is that Wright's understanding of the gospel doesnt bring good news. How does the announcement of Jesus as King bring good news to us? It doesnt address our need to be saved!!
Wright argues that we need to come under the Kingship of Jesus. Through the kingship of Jesus sin is dealt with. This is the good news for people, the message of salvation from sin.

Wright is compelling in his argument (in What St Paul Really Said, Chapter 3) stating that this message is the gospel that fulfills Old Testament prophecies. Jesus the Messiah has come, he is the son of David and therefore heir to the throne of Israel, and he is the son of God and therefore the heir to the throne of Heaven. Jesus' kingship reaches victory through the death and resurrection. Conquering the enemies of his kingdom.

Round 1 to Wright

Wright vs Piper

Pre Bout Weigh In

I am currently looking into the new perspective debate. I have read, but can only somewhat remember, Piper's book "The Future of Justification: A Response to N.T. Wright". And i am currently reading the response to Piper. N.T. Wright's book "Justification: God's plan and Paul's vision".

The view of Wright has caused a big spark in many Christian circles. And so i am happy to look into this debate with intrigue and report back what is going down (or who is going down as the case may be ☺).

Crowd involvement

If you have looked into the debate and would like to contribute your two cents worth, go for it.
If you havent even thought about it but would like to chip in, feel free to do so.

God is near!!!!

How can we be near God?

I have been writing an exegetical paper on Deuteronomy 30:11-20.
This passage is really interesting. Firstly in verses 11-14 we are looking at God being near to his people through his word (commandment). Secondly (verse 15-20) because the commandment is so close Israel has the choice to listen and obey or disobey.

God drawing Israel close.
In 30:11-14 Moses calls Israel to know that the commandment doesn't have to be sought. They are near them. Moses stresses this by the contrast of looking for the commandment in Heaven or earth to finding it in themselves. Moses has already taught them the commandment. He received it from God and taught them everything he was told. They have the commandment.
We think of God as unknowable. This is also what is fed to us in our society. God is not proven by science, therefore he is not there. But Israel in the Old Testament had proof for God. Deuteronomy shows their encounters with God (cf. 4:3-4, 4:11-14, 4:32-40). Israel know God and now they have the knowledge of God revealed to them (29:29). The secret things which we cannot know, God has made known to Israel. Ian Cairns comments that "nearness of the torah [commandment] is in fact a mode of the nearness of Yahweh's [God's] nearness". Israel is near to God because God has revealed himself to them. God has drawn Israel close to himself through the word he has spoken to them.

Moses continues and teaches that the nearness (special relationship to God) has a responsibility. Obedience (30:15-20). If Israel wants to relate to God in a right way they need to listen and obey the commandment. This is how Israel is to be close to God. By having the commandment in their heart and mouth. Acting and speaking the commandment (cf. Deuteronomy 4:32-40, 6:5-7, 10:12-13, 11:13, 26:16-19). Israel's obedience will mean they will be near God in a right relationship. They will also have life.

God drawing us close.
Israel is not the only people who can read this and get something out of it. We are involved in this to. Paul quotes Deuteronomy 30:11-14 in Romans 10:5-17. In these verses Paul is saying that Israel in Deuteronomy received the commandments of God through Moses. For us Jesus appeared revealing the gospel. Jesus revealed the gospel of God to us. By believing the gospel we have nearness to God. Faith in Jesus makes us right with God. We are brought near to God through the gospel.
We also have a responsibility to share this message with others. How are others to hear the great news of Jesus without someone to tell them?

Do you want to be close to God?

- Hear the gospel or Read the gospel and Believe with your heart that Jesus is Lord.


Do you know people who want to be close to God?

- Tell them about Jesus.


Praise be to God for his provision of salvation through his son. May he be praised for his provision of the gospel that reveals secret things to us. May we be thankful that God has not left us in the dark but has given us light to see him clearly.