Take Time to be Holy
Take time to be holy, speak oft with thy Lord;
Abide in Him always, and feed on His Word.
Make friends of God’s children, help those who are weak,
Forgetting in nothing His blessing to seek.

Take time to be holy, the world rushes on;
Spend much time in secret, with Jesus alone.
By looking to Jesus, like Him thou shalt be;
Thy friends in thy conduct His likeness shall see.

Take time to be holy, let Him be thy Guide;
And run not before Him, whatever betide.
In joy or in sorrow, still follow the Lord,
And, looking to Jesus, still trust in His Word.

Take time to be holy, be calm in thy soul,
Each thought and each motive beneath His control.
Thus led by His Spirit to fountains of love,
Thou soon shalt be fitted for service above.

I’ve made a return appearance for a few reason: 1) to update my life; and 2) to share some projects that I am working on for the future.

First, since my last posting, I have finally graduated with my Master of Divinity (specialization in Church Planting and Development). After 3 years of Greek and Hebrew languages, Old Testament and New Testament exegesis, Systematic Theology and Practical Theology, I’ve made it to the end. Whew! I have yet to process that event, and think I will soon. I can say one thing, though: the person I was before this experience is very different than the person afterward. Perhaps that is inevitable. It is hard to imagine another scenario, me thinks, considering the amount of personal introspection, theologizing, and textual wrestling that occurs in an M.Div program. Hopefully I will have the chance at the end of the summer to contemplate that New J. Allen Bouma post-M.Div program.

Despite enduring 3 years of intense academic work I am not walking away so easily! While I am certainly not a professional student, I’ve continued my academic endeavors by extending my, professional with the Master of Theology program. The Th.M is designed to extend the M.Div in an academic field of choice. In my case Historical Theology. I have already completed Early Church and Reformation Church coursework. Currently, I completing coursework in the Medieval Church and Modern Church. This Fall I will focus on contemporary theology, as well as a Pauline Exegesis class. I will wrap-up with my thesis this spring on an unknown topic. So far I’ve written historical theological comparative examinations between Pelagius and Doug Pagitt, and Luther, Calvin, and NT Wright regarding justification. This summer I am writing similar comparative examinations between Thomas Aquinas and Open Theists, and Albrecht Ritschl and Brian McLaren.

I am continuing my education for three reasons: First, I am specifically interested in firmly grasping the historical progression of theology in the Church in order to adequately and competently contend for the historic Christian faith. Over the past decade, evangelicalism has suffered patent, audacious assaults upon this historic faith, through such movements as the Emerging Church. Through my initial education in this field, I have become increasingly disturbed by the willful disregard for the faith that both the Communion of Saints and Holy Spirit have given the 21st century Church. I wish to better understand this progression in order to better support and safeguard historic Christian orthodoxy.

Second, I wish to attain further academic study in this specific field in order to equip the Church pastorally. The majority of American Christians are woefully historically ignorant and many American churches neglect to teach the foundational elements of the Christian faith. I desire to stand in this gap by equipping members of a local congregation and broader Church to understand these elements and resist teaching that is inconsistent with the Holy Scriptures, Rule of Faith, and gospel of Jesus Christ. While I have already engaged such pedagogic efforts in my current pastoral teaching context, I recognize I need to be further equipped in order to better serve the Church.

Finally, because I desire to engage theological discourse at a higher level, I recognize the advantage of and need for being credentialed specifically in this field. Whether I adjunct at a local university, write for church leaders and congregants, or speak at church conferences centered on theology, it will be necessary to prove why my voice should be heard. While my work and conduct should certainly speak for themselves, possessing a Master of Theology will also be necessary for establishing that voice.

Aside from my education, I am launching out into what might be the most significant thing I have ever been part of, or will be for that matter: a church plant in urban Grand Rapids, called Church of the Resurrection. I’ll post more on this in the coming weeks, but the short of it is that we are visioning a community that sits at the intersection of where life happens in our southern GR community. We desire to be a church that is missionally engaging, theologically rooted, and biblically uncompromising in order to help people explore new life together in Jesus Christ. In about 3 weeks my wife, Melinda, and I head to Denver to complete the final part of our denominational courting process, the Covenant Assessment. It should be an intense 4 days, but also a good reflective time. While we believe God has given us a kernel of vision for church plant, we are also looking forward to a final exercise in discernment through the assessment. If all goes well there, we will head to Boston three weeks later for another 4 days of training, which should extend the training I have received through my seminary education. Again, I’ll post more on this later, but check out our digital spaces for more info: www.therezchurch.org and facebook.com/therezchurch.

In addition to this plant project I am in the process of putting a second book together that is based on my first, called “God’s Story of Rescue.” I originally anticipated it releasing this Fall, but will most likely see a release next Spring, to potentially coordinate with the launch of the church community. It will be a shirt book of around 150 pages that explores God’s Story of Rescue through creation, rebellion, rescue, and re-creation. It should be a good primer for many Christian, while also acting as a portal for non-Christians into the gospel. I am excited about this project and hope it will be well-received in Grand Rapids, where I will market and distribute. I also have vision for 6-series of shorts books (120 pages) that explore the six major components of that Story and the Christian faith, but that must wait for another year.

Needless to say life has been busy, progressing in an interesting ebb and flow. While there has been a struggle adjusting to post-M.Div life, especially while waiting for more clear direction on the job front, I am incredibly thankful for life, the good, rich life God has graciously wrapped me in.I am also incredibly thankful for a wife who is patient, encouraging, wise, and loving during this process of career exploration and transition. So thanks, darlin. I could not do this ebbing and flowing without you!

Though I have returned to my historical MIA self at novus•lumen, I’d like to come back and stay awhile. I’m glad the initial controversy of the year has died down, because I’d like to write about some other things that are more local and contextual to Grand Rapids, mainly my church plant visions and the way I perceive the missional needs of my city. Since I also consider myself a theologian in addition to a pastor, I’ll probably also make commentary on particular theological ruminations, commenting specifically on contemporary theological trends. Hey, I can’t help myself!

You can learn more by going to www.theJesusManifesto.com.

Endorsements by Rowan Williams, Matt Chandler, Calvin Miller, Ed Young, Jack Hayford, Shane Claiborne, Ed Stetzer, Reggie McNeal, Mark Batterson, Gregory Boyd, David Fitch, Steve Brown, Dan Kimball, Margaret Feinberg, Mark Chironna, Francis Frangipane, Todd Hunter, Alan Hirsch, Chris Seay, Jonathan Wilson-Hartgrove, Anne Jackson, Craig Keener, Ken Ulmer, Tommy Barnett, Sally Morgenthaler, and others.

I was contacted a few months ago to read and review a pre-release copy. Things have been so crazy that I couldn’t make the deadline for an official review, but will do so shortly. By in large I really liked this book. I am no the biggest fan of Viola’s stuff, but this particular book gripped my attention and my heart, especially in light of my previous frustrations with certain contemporary veins of Christianity as evidenced in my last set of posts.

In short, the book is a call for the Church, especially her leaders, to return to the centrality of Christ. It is a passionate, emboldened call for the 21st century American Church to peal away the American crap we’ve attached to the Cross and also return the vital elements of belief in Christ that we’ve taken away. While a fairly short, quick read, it offers a vision any pastor, church leader and Christian needs considering much of the hanky-panky coming out of evangelicalism.

I received this book free from Thomas Nelson Publishers as part of their book review bloggers program. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255 : “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”   

Post Series
0: Intro
1: Narrative Question
2: Authority Question
3: God Question
4: Jesus Question
5: Gospel Question
Theological Foundation Recap
6: Church Question
7: Sex Question
8: Future Question
9: Pluralism Question
10: What-Do-We-Do-Now Question
11: Final Thoughts

The question Brian is trying to answer in this chapter is this: “Can we find a way to address human sexuality?” That’s the question of the chapter he has proposed. The real question floating through all of Brian’s rhetorical BS is this: “Is homosexual behavior normative in the Scriptures and part of the way God intended things to be at creation?”

This is an important chapter for me because I sit on the board of directors of a local LGBT/Christian bridging organization and have gay friends. I share this because what I am about to say in this post is not from an outsider who is disconnected from the issue, but one who has relationships with the community. Through my own relationships and pastoral experience I have come to approach the issue of homosexuality with a two-fold recognition: the Church must recognize both the reality and revelation; she must sit in the tension of the real life stories of those who have (and still are) waded through same-sex attraction for themselves and what God has revealed through the Holy Scriptures regarding His original intent for humanity.

In my experience, when that tension is broken, sides form at both polarities, resulting in disaster. Conservatives try and deny the reality of a whole community of stories and hold tightly to revelation. Liberals hold so tightly to reality that they neglect and outright reject what God has revealed to humanity through the Holy Scriptures regarding sexual practice and behavior in general, and homosexuality in particular. Brian falls into the later trap. While agree with his condemnation of how the more conservative Church has handled and treated the gay community—actually I would say that handling has been downright disastrous— Brian’s own position results in a disastrous handling of such an important contemporary issue.

For all of my effort at trying to take Brian and his work seriously, this chapter did it for me. Brian is one of those individuals who is able to say a whole heckofalot without saying anything at all or even addressing the real issue. He is at his best in this chapter. Instead of actually dealing with the Text, which explicitly condemns homosexual practice in several areas, he attempts to divert attention by constructing false, nonsensical arguments.

From the start he breaks out the Straw Man “fundasexuality.” Here Brian dismisses the genuine position that homosexual practice is not the way God intended things to be by reducing the conservative position to “a reactive, combative brand of religious fundamentalism that preoccupies itself with sexuality.” The term applies “to the organizing, angry, dominating fundamentalism that declares war on those who differ. Fundasexualityu is rooted not in faith, but in an orientation of fear. Its proponents fear new ideas, people who are different, criticism or rejection from their own community, and God’s violent wrath on them if they don’t fully conform to and enforce the teachings and interpretations of their popular teachers and other authority figures. It is a kind of heterophobia, the fear of people who are different.” (175)

So instead of actually dealing with the idea that homosexual practice is not the way God intended things to be, Brian over inflates the position of conservatives and reduces them to a gross caricature. Convenient but inexcusable.

Next, Brian breaks out his “Greco-Roman six-line narrative” false construct to attack the Platonic dualism of…wait for it…male and female! “Whatever we humans are, we aren’t simply metaphysical male or female souls riding around as passengers in male or female vehicles.” (176) What?! Whatever you think of the creation narrative in Genesis 1 and 2, it is clear God created the Human in male and female forms. These are not false human, societal constructs imposed on others. God created the Human in this way to reflect His own Image and Likeness, as male and female. To Brian, however, male and female are not timeless and perfect in essence, but instead can change and evolve over time.

At this point I am positively creeped out…but I move on. He next attacks the conservative reading of the Text by insisting episodes like the Copernicus/Galileo debate make such discussions on homosexuality null and void. If the Church got astronomy so wrong, then they can certainly get sexuality wrong, too. Just as we “were pressured to label the observation of retrograde motion as a deceptive appearance—not a reality,” so too has the Church pressured the world to label the experiences of gay people a deceptive appearance, “because the reality demanded by the dominant paradigm is that they are rebellious and dangerous sinners, a twisted abomination, a deceptive moral aberrance.” (177)

Again, Brian skirts the issue of whether homosexual practice is not the way God intended things to be. He continues this skirting even in addressing the violent God image. Apparently those of us who take God’s entire self-disclosure seriously “claim that God chooses one tribe and rejects or considers inferior other classes or types of people simply for being who they are—whether they’re Gentiles, Jews, women, nonwhites, non-Christians, or gays.” (178) What Brian does here is fascinating: 1) He falsely labels our view of God as overly exclusionary, which is simply ridiculous—God welcomes all people, but on His terms not ours; 2) He changes the category of homosexuality from a moral, ethical act of rebellion against God to an ontological category of being. No where, however, does the Holy Scripture treat those who practice homosexuality as an identity of being as Gentiles or women. The category “gay” to use Brian’s own language is an ethical violation, an act of moral rebellion. It is disobedience to the way God intended things to be.

Jesus Himself makes this clear. While there are no explicit passages condemning this conduct by Jesus, implicit references do exist. In Mark 7:21-23 Jesus explains that whatever defiles a person comes from their heart, and then lists sexual immoralities (in the greek PORNEIA), adulteries, licentiousness, etc…No first century Jew could have spoken of PORNEIA without having in mind the list of forbidden sexual offenses of Lev. 18 and 20, including incest, bestiality, AND homosexual practice. Furthermore, Jesus appealed frequently to Male-Female complementarity for marriage and sexual union. In Mark 10 when talking about divorce he appeals to the Torah, to Gen 1:27 and 2:24. In Mark’s view Jesus accepted the model for marriage and sexual union presented in Gen 1-2, understanding that it was ordained by God from the beginning of Creation. He shows no awareness of any other marital or sexual pattern ordained by God or part of creation.

Brian insists differently, claiming that “Jesus’ treatment of the marginalized and stigmatized requires us to question the conventional approach. We have many examples of Jesus crossing boundaries to include outcasts and sinners and not a single example of Jesus crossing his arms and refusing to do so.” (179) While this is true to some extent, the ministry of Jesus to be that of both love AND righteousness. While Jesus’ love for the marginalized moved him to go seek the lost and poor and blind, he also insisted on internal transformation with the intent of bring them to a higher ethical standard. Especially regarding incidents of sexual conduct recorded in the Gospels, Jesus accepts in love while truthfully confronting the sinner to change by sinning no more.

Brian ends this chapter with two Red Herrings: he attempts to divert attention from our beginning question—”Is homosexual behavior normative in the Scriptures and part of the way God intended things to be at creation?”—through the Ethiopian eunuch’s conversion in Acts 8 and the sexually sinful practices of heterosexuals.

First, Brian attempts to claim the Ethiopian eunuch’s conversion episode changes the paradigm regarding homosexuality, ushering in a new acceptance of the “sexually other.” “The sign of the Kingdom of God that began with Jesus—a place at the table for outcasts and outsiders—continues in the era of the Acts of the Apostles. The poor are accepted, and the sick. Samaritans are accepted, and Gentiles, including Africans, and here, even the ‘sexually other,’ those considered ‘defective’ who will never have a place in traditional religion or in the traditional culture based on ‘traditional family.’” (183)

The problem here is that Brian attempts to simply re-categorize homosexual behavior as a state of being. The revelation we have from God in the Text, however, consistently marks it as ethically morally rebellious behavior that violates God’s original creative intent. Here Brian is simply wrong at the categorical sense, but even worse in the biblical. Here he twists the meaning of Scripture to serve his agenda of normalizing homosexual practice, holding so tightly to the reality of homosexuality and flagrantly disregarding the revelation of God.

Brian ends the chapter by diverting attention to the question he refuses to answer—”Is homosexual behavior normative in the Scriptures and part of the way God intended things to be at creation?”—to heterosexual behavior. “What we have called traditional marriage—one virgin man and one virgin woman coming together and remaining sole sexual partners for life—isn’t working as it’s supposed to for heterosexuals.” (186) Brian points to premarital sex as the norm for Christians and non-Christians, divorce rates inside and outside the Church, contraceptives, internet pornography, cultural images of bodily perfection, catholic priest abuse scandals, and evangelical abstinence pledge violations as evidence “sexually unrestrained hedonism” among heterosexuals. (187-189)

While I completely agree with the sexual problems our culture faces in general, Brian spends nearly 5 pages addressing issues which have nothing to do with the chapters main premise that insists “we must pursue a practical, down-to-earth theology and an honest, fully embodied spirituality that speaks truthfully and openly about our sexuality, in all its straight and gay complexity.” (189) For Brian, being gay is the reality, regardless of the revelation of God which says otherwise. According to the Holy Scripture, gay practice is just that, ethical moral behavior that violates God’s creation. This is the clear case in Romans 1, which actually links homosexual behavior to idolatry and condemns it as a violation of God’s creation. God does not lift up homosexual practice as another alternative to heterosexual union. God insists that it is disobedient, rebellious practice that is far outside the way He intended things to be at creation.

We began with this question at the beginning, one which we’ve carried through this chapter: “Is homosexual behavior normative in the Scriptures and part of the way God intended things to be at creation?” A better question might be this: If the event of rebellion (aka The Fall) had not occurred would homosexuality be part of our reality? From God’s divine self-disclosure there is no way you can answer that in the positive. Now because Brian believes that the Fall is actually an evolution, he would answer yes. But for those who hold to the historic Christian understanding of God’s Story—Creation, Rebellion, Rescue, Re-creation—there is no way one can see male-male and female-female sexual relations in the creation narrative.

In the end, Brian says “a new kind of Christianity must move beyond this impasse and begin to construct not just a more humane sexual ethic in particular, but a more honest and robust Christian anthropology in general.” (190) No, the Church must reorient Herself around Christ who is rescuing us from our moral rebellion and restoring us to the way we were originally intended to be at the beginning of creation, regardless of the issue. Brian is attempting  to construct human sexual ethics and anthropology outside the creative intent of the Creator. May we instead take serious the ministry of reconciliation we’ve been given by God Himself, who is making His appeal to the world to be reconciled to Himself, including every manner in which our sexuality violates God’s original intent.

Post Series
0: Intro
1: Narrative Question
2: Authority Question
3: God Question
4: Jesus Question
5: Gospel Question
Theological Foundation Recap
6: Church Question
7: Sex Question
8: Future Question
9: Pluralism Question
10: What-Do-We-Do-Now Question
11: Final Thoughts

After setting down his alternative theological foundation, Brian launches into an exploration of “be-ology”—what it means to be as a Christian and human. (160) A natural first question after such a jarring experience with the first 5 questions is this: “What do we do about the Church?” Or more specifically: What is the Church?

Interestingly, up until this point Brian has not used the word church. I found this incredibly odd and disconcerting in a book that is supposedly exploring a new kind of Christianity. Odd that he would not use the very word Jesus Himself used to describe the group of people who are his followers, i.e. Christians; disturbing that his new theology and faith is not specifically for the Church. For someone who describes himself as “a lifelong churchgoer and a veteran pastor,” I wondered why in 160 pages (and beyond this chapter) he never utters the word. I think the reason becomes clear when we explore the answers Brian provides to his question.

He begins this section, and rightly so, describing the fear and antipathy modern culture has toward the church. The sentiments he describes reflect one which someone exclaimed in a conversation I describe in my book I had with a fellow Starbucks barista: “The church is fucked up!”¹ As Brian describes the current crisis, “When enough church leaders wake up and smell the Ben-Gay, when they realize that their faith communities are shrinking and wrinkling and stiffening, they start to ask the church questions very urgently: What are we going to do about the church?” (162)

He says that we should stop worrying about what forms the church takes (thanks you!) and start seeing “ourselves as servants of one grander mission, apostles of one greater message, seekers on one ultimate quest…What would that one mission, message, and quest be? Around what one grand endeavor can we rally? What one great danger do people need to be saved from and, more positively, what one great purpose do they need to be saved for?” (164)

In other words: Why does the church exist? According to Brian, “to form Christlike people, people of Christlike love…the formation of Christlike people of love naturally becomes the grand unifying preoccupation and mission of our churches.” (164, 165)

At one level this seems fine, but does the church in any way exist to save people as the earliest church themselves existed? Yes. According to Brian, the church exists to save people “from the great danger of wasting their lives, becoming something less than and other than they were intended to be, gaining the world but losing their soul.” (emphasis mine. 164)

In answering question 6, then, the Church must totally rethink the Her core mission and identify that mission along these terms. (165) That mission, then, is “forming people of Christlike love” (171) and “save them from…wasting their lives” (164)

That’s it folks.

It’s funny, because I thought the Church was a community of redeemed and rescued people sent on mission to reconcile the world to God through Christ.

Does not Paul explicitly explain the mission of the Church in 2 Cor. 5:11-21 when he explains the God gave “us” the community of believers the “mission of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting people’s sins against them”? Are we not Christ’s ambassadors who have been committed the message of reconciliation: “Be reconciled to God”? Is not God making His appeal through the Church to be reconciled to Him through Jesus Christ? And is not the basis of that reconciliation that “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God”?

While I am with Brian at one level, that the mission of individual church communities is to form Christlike people. Christlike formation, however, is part of sanctification! In other words, forming Christlike people who follow the way of love happens only after that have been made new through individual “transformation moments.” What is that transformation moment? When a person choses to be “in Christ” (that incredibly key, distinctive theological rallying point for Paul throughout his letters) and the old person goes a ways and the new person begins.

For Paul humans are born “in Adam” and live out of the flesh, their sinful nature (Rom 5:12-20). They are alienated from God and His enemies and by nature people of His wrath (Col 1:21; Eph. 2:3). But “in Christ” Paul also makes clear that this condition is a past condition. “Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior.” (Col. 1:21) “Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath.”

These and other pieces of the Holy Scripture make plain that there was an old condition and a new condition; a moment when someone is not a believer/follower and when someone is. Even more important there is a time when someone is not reconciled to God and a moment when a person is through Christ. To put it in more exclusionary terms: a person is part of God’s community or they are not, part of the Church or not. Brian cannot voice this, however.

All of this is incredibly important to Brian’s definition and mission of the Church, which misses a vital, necessary piece: faith in Christ. The church is NOT simply a group of people who act like Christ and follow the way of love (though this is an important, vital part of having a real, genuine faith in Christ) and saved from wasting their lives. This is the Kiwanis, a great group of people who’s current motto is “serving the children of the world.” Service and love is not distinctive to the Church nor to Jesus. You could say the same thing for the PeaceCorp, though such Imperial comparisons might draw a lightning bolt or two from Brian.

No, the Church is the community of people who have been rescued from death through the forgiveness of their sins by faithing in the final sacrificial death of Jesus Christ, who by His own blood entered the Most Holy Place once and for all, thus obtaining eternal rescue and life for those who faith in Him. Consequently, those who are saved and believe in Jesus act as the continuing presence of Christ to spread His Kingdom Reign on earth.

That’s the Church, Brian McLaren.

As Paul writes in Ephesians 2: “Because of His great love for us, God, who is rich and mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions— it is by grace you have been saved. And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with Him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, in order that in the coming ages He might show the incomparable riches of His grace, expressed in His kindness to us in Christ Jesus.”

The word “us” is used 4 times along side with/in Christ 4 times. Paul is speaking to the Church, the redeemed and the rescued and the reconciled in Christ. This is the message and banner of the Church: BE RECONCILED TO GOD IN CHRIST!

This is the very message of the earliest of the Church in Acts. They didn’t preach “live like Jesus” but “believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved.” (Acts 16) In the face of Jewish persecution and Roman imprisonment they didn’t proclaim “don’t waste your life” but “Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.” (Acts 2) God raised Jesus from the dead, and the forgiveness of sins and freedom from sins in Christ was the consistent message of the Church, stemming from Her mission to go into all the world and make disciples of Jesus Christ. (Acts 13 and Matthew 28).

In reality, Brian’s church is not church at all, but a social club devoid of any power because it is disconnected from Jesus Christ as exclusive Lord and Messiah.

This Holy Friday I am reminded how important it is for the Church to boldly, confidently shout from roof-top to roof-tops that Christ has died, Christ has risen, Christ will come again! Through the Church God is dispensing His grace and forgiveness and reconciliation and rescue from sin and death, because it is through Jesus Christ and Him alone that all of this is accomplished. The power for forgiveness and reconciliation and life transformation and individual rescue from evil, sin and death is through death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, both of which are mysteriously missing from the mission and message of Brian’s church.

1. the (un)offensive gospel of Jesus, 37.

Post Series
0: Intro
1: Narrative Question
2: Authority Question
3: God Question
4: Jesus Question
5: Gospel Question
Theological Foundation Recap
6: Church Question
7: Sex Question
8: Future Question
9: Pluralism Question
10: What-Do-We-Do-Now Question
11: Final Thoughts

Over the last month I have begun reviewing Brian McLaren’s new book, A New Kind of Christianity. At this point it is no secret that I am at odds fundamentally with the foundation beneath the new Christianity Brian is constructing. As I and others believe, the version of Christianity that he is pushing scantily reflects the Holy Scriptures and actually subverts the historical Rule of Faith that believes Jesus Christ is exclusively Lord and Messiah.

As I wrote in my intro to the series:

Though Brian wonders aloud “How did a mild-manner guy like me get into so much trouble” (2) and insists he “never planned to become a ‘controversial religious leader,’” (3) he is the one to blame. He is the one who has shifted and engaged in this current theological endeavor. This theological enterprise is not accidentally garnering unwarranted criticism because there is nothing accidental about Brian’s theological endeavor: Brian’s book is a bold, intentional rhetorical tour de force that strikes at the very heart of the historic Christian faith, parodying the faith that both the Communion of Saints and the Spirit of God has given the 21st Century Church; his work pushes a version of Christianity that falls far outside the witness of the Holy Scriptures to Jesus Christ as exclusive Lord and Savior.

At every turn in Brian’s theological tour de force, Brian’s faith isn’t really about Jesus Christ, but about a vanilla, generalized pan-deity god that is no longer rooted in the historic Christian faith of Jesus Christ. Rather than faith in Jesus Christ, it is now faith in God, divorced from Jesus and pluralized to include room for other religious faiths, especially for the community of people who seek to be part of the tradition that flows from Abraham.

The theological foundation Brian has laid is made of the following beliefs:

1. He does not believe the biblical narrative is shaped by creation, fall, redemption, because according to him that’s platonic (35).
2. He rejects the historic understanding of original sin, insisting instead the the fall is actually a “classic coming-of-age story,” (51) in which “God pushes them out of the nest.” Rather than a fall, it is “the first stage of ascent as human beings progress from the life of hunter-gatherers to the life of agriculturalists and beyond.” Instead of a fall what happens is an awakening.
3. His version of the biblical narrative is Christless, centering on the story of Abraham, thus reducing God to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, instead of Jesus Christ. (65)
4. In the Bible itself, God does not actually reveal Himself to Humanity. Instead it is a cultural library that “preserves, presents, and inspires an ongoing vigorous conversation with and about God, a living and vital civil argument into which we are all invited and through which God is revealed.” (83)
5. He reduces the Holy Scriptures to human conversations about God, rather than God Himself revealing Himself to humanity. This is clear when he writes, “revelation occurs not in the words and statements of individuals, but in the conversation among individuals and God. It happens in conversations and arguments that take place within and among communities of people who share the same essential questions across generations. Revelation accumulates in the relationships, interactions, and interplay between statements.” (91-92)
6. According to Brian the Bible neither contains the real voice of God, but rather the voices of individuals speaking about God, nor is it a real, single authority for understanding God properly, since it is merely an evolving conversation about Him in which varying people give varying perspectives.
7. Like the Story, Brian believes the Bible is about a general, pan-deity God, rather than the God revealed through Jesus Christ. “It’s the library of a culture and community—the culture and community of people who trace their history back to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The biblical library is a carefully selected group of documents of paramount importance for people who want to understand and belong to the community of people who seek God and, in particular, the God of Abraham, Moses, David, the prophets, and Jesus.” (81)
8. For Brian the Bible is not God’s self-revelation, it “is an ongoing conversation about the character of God,” rather than the revelation of God Himself.”
9. The God presented in the Bible is not a single, complete, unified revelation, but a patchwork of evolved human concepts of God; it is a “record of a series of trade-ups, people courageously letting go of their state-of-the art understanding of God, when an even better understanding begins to emerge.” (111)
10. Consequently, Jesus Christ, unlike the historic Christian faith which says He Himself is God, is merely a “more mature and complete image” of God (114).
11. For Brian Jesus Himself is not God, but only like God, “bringing us to a new evolutionary level in our understanding of God.”
12. Even more damning: Jesus simply reveals the character of God, rather being God Himself (114,118) This is clear from his deliberate refusal to say this is the case, but also in that he willfully leaves out an incredibly key description of Jesus Christ when he quotes Col. 1:15-20: “the first born over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities: all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church, he is the beginning and the first born from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy.”
13. While Brian believes the gospel is entirely about the Kingdom of God, he divorces that kingdom and rule from Jesus Christ and Him alone. He audaciously asserts that Jesus came to announce a kingdom to all people of every religion, a kingdom that has “room for many religious traditions within it.” (139)
14. For Brian, anyone may embrace the Kingdom of God through faith. This faith is positively pluralized and never specifically invested exclusively in Jesus Christ as Lord and Messiah. Paul now points both Jews and Gentiles toward the way out: not a new doctrine, not a new religion, and not trying harder at the old religion either, but faith. Religious laws and practices are inherently exclusive; you’re either circumcised or not, and either you keep kosher or you don’t. But faith—having reverent confidence or dependence on God—is an option available to everyone.” (emphasis mine. 148)
15. Brian claims that “Paul is a ‘Jesus and the Kingdom of God’ guy from first to last.” Here Brian is preaching the Kingdom of God along side Jesus, rather than Jesus Christ alone.
    

Half-way through the book it is clear that for Brian, like many other leaders within the Emerging Church, it really is not about Jesus Christ, as exclusive Lord and Messiah. The theological foundation upon which Brian has built his faith is foreign to and inconsistent with the historic Rule of Faith, Holy Scriptures, and gospel of Jesus Christ entrusted to the apostles.

And here’s the thing: he wants to take the rest of us captive, clueless Christians down the rabbit hole with him. He is the liberator of the evangelical Gestapo and oppressive orthodoxy. He essentially frames his conversation on the foundation with his introduction to Book One. Here is what he writes:

You can’t go on a quest if you’re locked in a closet, cell, or concentration camp. And you wont go on a quest if your captivity is sufficiently comfortable. That’s where we find ourselves: in a real-life version of the classic movie The Truman Show. We live in a comfortable captivity. Everywhere we turn we are surrounded by padded chairs, nice broadcasts of music and teaching, pleasant lighting and polite neighbors, all designed and integrated to keep us content under the dome. Life inside the dome is so perfect that every day we feel little more afraid of the cold, unedited world outside.

The chains, locks, bars, and barbed wire that hold us are usually disguised so well that they have a homey feel to us. We see our guards not as guards at all, but as pleasant custodians in clerical robes or casual suits. They’ve been to graduate school where many of them mastered the techniques of friendly manipulation, always with a penetrating smile and a firm, heavy hand on the shoulder. We like them. They like us.

The high-tech security system that holds us inside the dome can be unlocked, should we ever wish to leave. The key is a question. When you ask it, something clicks. and you are free.

Unfortunately, freedom is not what Brian is bringing with his new kind of Christianity. Freedom comes from the life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ alone. Brian’s Christianity is about god, not Jesus, which in the end really isn’t about Christianity at all.

Post Series
0: Intro
1: Narrative Question
2: Authority Question
3: God Question
4: Jesus Question
5: Gospel Question
Theological Foundation Recap
6: Church Question
7: Sex Question
8: Future Question
9: Pluralism Question
10: What-Do-We-Do-Now Question
11: Final Thoughts

Brian’s shift in perspective on the gospel happened during a lunch conversation with a “well-known evangelical theologian” who challenged Brian’s assumptions regarding the gospel by asking the question “What we the gospel according to Jesus?” The theologian replied, “For Jesus, the gospel was very clear: The Kingdom of God is at hand.” He later urged Brian to read Paul in light of Jesus, instead of the other way around. (138)

Before this moment, Brian approached the gospel in a typical evangelical manner, one with which I am all to familiar. As he puts it, “I had always assumed the ‘kingdom of God’ meant ‘kingdom of heaven,’ which meant ‘going to heaven after you die,’ which required believing the message of Paul’s Letter of the Romans, which I understood to teach a theory of atonement called ‘penal substitution,’ which was the basis for a formula for forgiveness of original sin called ‘justification by grace through faith.’” (138)

Instead, “[an] increasing number of us, when freed from the constraints of the six-line Greco Roman narrative and the associated constitutional reading of the Bible, gain courage to speak what has become joyfully clear to us in this fresh reading of the gospels: Jesus didn’t come to start a new religion to replace first Judaism and then all other religions, whether by pen, the pulpit, the sword, or the apocalypse…Instead, he came to announce a new Kingdom, a new way of life, a new way of peace that carried good news to all people of every religion.” (139)

On the point about Jesus coming to inaugurate God’s Kingdom presence, Brian is correct: Repent for “the Kingdom of Heaven has drawn near,” is the opening salvo that launched the teaching ministry of Jesus of Nazareth. “The term ‘Kingdom of God/Heaven’ signified God’s sovereign, dynamic and eschatological rule,”¹ both now and in a future epoch. Throughout three years of preaching, the message Jesus bore was eschatological in orientation; Jesus both established and anticipated the Kingdom of God. Through debates, discourses, and parables, this Nazarene teacher testified to the dawning eschatological reign of God and anticipated the eschatological “age to come” where that reign would be exhaustive and permanent.

I. Howard Marshall affirms that the Gospel writers regarded the Kingdom of Heaven as being central to the teachings of Jesus.² Through these teachings, Jesus declared that the Kingdom would come in the future, yet was also present in someway. Jesus never relegated God’s Kingdom reign simply to the future but instead explicitly announced its presence, while expecting its future; the Kingdom is present and future.³ This “already and not yet” descriptor is now a common place of scholarship, being described as “realized” and “future” eschatology.⁴

For Jesus—as well as the other disciples. including Paul—the euangelian, “good news,” gospel was intimately linked to the concept of the Kingdom of God/Heaven⁵. In fact, I much more prefer the term Reign of God, because the Greek basillea can be rendered Kingdom or Reign. What Jesus makes clear, and what Paul further develops, is that through Jesus Christ God’s sovereign, dynamic and eschatological rule was breaking into earth’s reality. It was happening “at hand,” in that moment, in our moments. The term Kingdom or Reign of God referred primarily to the sovereign activity of God as ruler and king, and only secondarily to the ream over which God ruled.⁶

David Flusser, in his book The Sage from Galilee, presents a convincing case that Jesus absolutely believed the Kingdom had come and was amongst the world. In fact, this idea would have been a fixture of rabbinical Judaism. “There should be no doubt that both for rabbinical Judaism and for Jesus the Kingdom of Heaven is a present reality.”⁷ Jesus’ main task was to be the center of a movement which realized God’s Kingdom reign among mankind, right now in this present age.⁸ “Consequently, when we talk about the [Kingdom of Heaven] we are talking about something that is actually happening here and now.”⁹ God’s Kingdom, the exercise of His kingship, and the manifestation of His sovereignty has dawn near.¹⁰ While its entire consummation awaits His return, Christ inaugurated the Kingdom of Heaven during his lifetime.¹¹ The parables themselves make this clear, beginning with an emphasis on the presence of the Kingdom and its explosive growth.

So in as much as he seeks to shift the gospel to center around God’s inbreaking rule through the Kingdom of Heaven, Brian is OK. The problem is when he divorces that kingdom and rule from Jesus Christ and Him alone. He audaciously asserts that Jesus came to announce a kingdom to all people of every religion, a kingdom that has “room for many religious traditions within it.” (139) While seemingly out of the ordinary, Brian is being incredibly consistent with his re-imagined Christian faith, on that is no longer about Jesus Christ as exclusive Lord and Messiah, but simply about God, a generic pan-deity that is in no way wholly rooted in Jesus Christ. As Brian recentered the gospel around the Kingdom—a task I actually applaud at that level—he fails to root that Kingdom in Jesus Christ and exalt him as the catalyst for the Kingdom in the first place.

For Brian, the Kingdom is “about God’s will being done on earth as in heave for all people…God’s faithful solidarity with all humanity in our suffering, oppression, and evil…God’s compassion and call to be reconciled with God and with one another—before death…a summons to rethink everything and enter a life of retraining as disciples or learners of a new way of life, citizens of a new kingdom.” (139) Elsewhere he writes that Paul himself “preaches the Kingdom of God,” that Paul still carried “the same gospel message he received from Jesus Christ in a vision, the gospel of the Kingdom of God. Whether in person or by letter, he calls people everywhere to be reconciled in the Kingdom of God—reconciled to God by grace through faith, reconciled within themselves, reconciled with others whatever their class, ethnic, cultural, or religious background…This is the gospel of Jesus Christ and of his servant/apostle Paul: the Kingdom of God is at hand. Repent and believe the good news. Be reconciled.” (157)

While I agree with all of this on the surface, here is my problem: Brian has successfully divorced the Kingdom of God from Jesus Christ! The reconciliation of which Paul proclaims happens ONLY though Jesus Christ. No one else. We are not simply called to “be reconciled.” Every person is called to be reconciled to God through Jesus Christ. Paul explicitly teaches this in 2 Cor. 5. Romans 8 makes clear that there is no more condemnation for those who are “in Christ.” The righteousness that we all require, the righteousness of God displayed in his reign and kingdom, is given through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe in Him. (Rom. 3)

No Brian, the Kingdom does NOT make room for all faiths, because all other faiths outside of faith in Jesus Christ are false. The Holy Scriptures make clear that God’s Kingdom was inaugurated through Jesus Christ and is available to all because of His life, death, resurrection, and ascension. Peter himself makes this plain in Acts 2 when he roots the eschatological expectations of the Hebrew people in Jesus Christ, declaring that all who call on His name will be saved. Peter does not say, “Repent and believe in the Kingdom of God.” Not at all! He implores his fellow Jews to “Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.” (Acts 2) In fact, he proclaims that, “God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah.” (Acts 2) He is the one in whom salvation is found, “for there is no other name given under heaven by which we must be saved.” (Acts 4)

As I have maintained in my assessment all along, for Brian it’s not really all about Jesus Christ, it’s about God, a pluralized God that accommodates to all faiths and religious systems. Not only is this incredibly clear in this section as he never roots the Kingdom in Christ alone, it is also clear in his horrible exegesis of the book of Romans. On the one hand, Brian’s methodology throughout this book is pitiful and nonsensical, because he rarely quotes primary sources to establish his claims, leading to absurd conclusions, like claiming the primary audience were fellow Jews (Most modern scholarship is unified in agreement that most of the audience are Gentiles, in addition to some Jewish converts)¹² On the other hand, his conclusions are reckless, dangerous to the Christian faith, and devastating to the gospel itself.

His conclusions are crystalized in his continued pluralization of God and Christianity itself in his analysis of Romans 3 and 5. First, Brian argues that Paul is announcing a new way forward for all: the way of faith. (148) This is mystifying because Paul actually maintains the exact opposite: faith has ALWAYS been the means through which one is made right with God! This is the entire point of chapter 4 and the example of Abraham. Ethnicity, food laws, and nationalism in no way bring salvation. Faith does and always has from the beginning. Brian seems to think otherwise because he writes, “Paul now points both Jews and Gentiles toward the way out: not a new doctrine, not a new religion, and not trying harder at the old religion either, but faith. Religious laws and practices are inherently exclusive; you’re either circumcised or not, and either you keep kosher or you don’t. But faith—having reverent confidence or dependence on God—is an option available to everyone.” (emphasis mine. 148)

But faith in what? Or better whom? This is where Brian’s color’s shine: God. For Brian Faith is the point. And actually faith in God, as a generic pan-deity. Brian completely ignores the clear teachings of Romans 3 which root that faith in Jesus Christ. Brian completely refuses to exclusivity embrace Jesus as Lord and Messiah. Furthermore, Brian implies that all of our at least the religious systems of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are, in the end, actually unified under Jesus Abraham. After butchering Romans 3, he bludgeons Romans 5. (I realize these words are dramatic, but they are appropriate for the manner in which Brian handles the Text)

Without giving any sources, Brian clams that Paul, in his discussion on Adam, implies “Our diverse religious systems…have many points of departure that separate us, but if we follow any path back to its source to the genesis of our common humanity, we come to the creation story of Adam, where we are united. After unifying us in the story of our common ancestor Adam, Paul presents Jesus as a new Adam, a second Adam, the last Adam…Adam brought death and condemnation to all humanity; Jesus now brings life and justification to all humanity. So we’re all part o the story of the original Adam, and now, of the new Adam, Jesus.”

At this point in the reading I almost put the book down and walked away. Brian’s assertion that all of our religious systems are somehow united in Adam is far from any sound, sane, serious biblical exegesis. I wrote elsewhere on Romans 5:12-21 and will summarize those thoughts here:

Interestingly, the phrase from Romans 5 that is of interest “through one man” is the first time it appears in biblical literature. In classical literature, this idea that someone suffers something because of another (for instance, “I have suffered injustices by a single wicked person…”)((Dinarchus In Demosthenem, 49:4; see also Hippocrates Epistulae)) does appear, but Paul now uses it in accordance with Adam.¹³ Like much of these intertestamental examples, Paul believes that death came as a result of Adam’s sin and now our nature is affected in the way Adam was.

Clearly during the time of Paul, there are signs influential Jewish literature and the 1st century Jewish tradition viewed Adam as a “head” of humanity and that humanity participates in the sin of Adam, enduring the same consequences: death. Paul’s notions in Romans 5:18 that Adam’s trespass results in the condemnation for all people and in v. 19 that all are made sinners through his disobedience are not entirely unique and mirror the same Jewish perspective of his day.

Regardless, though, our Christian understanding of human nature and sin flows from Jesus Christ’s and Paul’s teachings. The historical background must only enhance our understanding of the two without dictating it. Romans 5:18, 19 in particular make clear that “in Adam” we are condemned (vs. “in Christ” we receive justification and life); “in Adam” we are made sinners (vs. “in Christ” we are made righteous).

Adam acts as humanity’s representative not in a religious sense, but a rebellious one. And in the broader context which must include 5:1-11, Paul is explaining how BELIEVERS now have peace and hope with God, because of their faith in Christ blood, death, and life. This is not a passage universalism, which Brian attempts to argue. It is clear that those who “reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ” are “those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness.” (Rom. 5) In other words, those who “declare with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead,” (Rom. 10) those who are “saved” and “in Christ” (Rom 10 and And in regards to the seemingly universalistic “all” in v. 18 Jewett reveals:

In the context of Romans the concern is not so much whether salvation is universal in a theoretical sense…but whether all believers stand within its scope. This verse strong suggests that Adamic damnation has been overturned by Christ’s righteous act and that the scope of righteousness in Christ includes all believers without exception, both now and at the parousia.¹⁴

In the end, Brian continues his journey away from Jesus Christ as exclusive Lord and Messiah toward a pluralized, pan-deity God. Like his friend Samir Selmanovic, Brian clearly describes the kingdom of God in terms that are utterly disconnected from Jesus Christ alone. Further, he has also joined with Samir by selecting the feature of the kingdom of God as a revelatory ground of “divine immanence,” instead of Jesus Christ alone. Selmanovic affirms this devastating indictment by claiming the Kingdom is not exclusively limited to Jesus Christ:

Many Christians believe that the Kingdom of God that Jesus spoke about is inseparable from knowing the person of Jesus. If so, the question begs to be asked: Is the Kingdom of God present in all of life, among all people, throughout history, or is the Kingdom of God limited to the historical person of Jesus and thus absent from most of life, most people, and most history? The answer to this question depends greatly on whether Christians are willing to make their religion take a backseat to something larger than itself. (It’s Really All About God. 76-77)

Like Samir, Brian believes that God is reveal to the world outside of Jesus Christ and that the gospel itself is more than Jesus. In closing this question, Brian claims that “Paul is a ‘Jesus and the Kingdom of God’ guy from first to last.” Here Brian is preaching the Kingdom of God along side Jesus, rather than Jesus Christ alone. Brian, you are wrong to do this; there is a massive difference between the Kingdom of God and Jesus vs. the Kingdom of God through Jesus.

Karl Barth makes it clear such people as Brian are “oblivious of the fact that [divine] immanence both as a whole and in its parts has Christian truth and reality only in so far as it is founded in Jesus Christ and summed up in Him, so that if, as a whole and in its parts, it is affirmed, preached and believed as a centre in itself and alongside Christ, the Church will inevitably be led back into heathendom and its worship of the elements.” (CD II,1:319). More importantly, he goes on to say that God’s Kingdom is not known at all apart from Jesus Christ, and doing otherwise establishes a Christian heresy. As he warns, “Christian heresies spring from the fact that man does not take seriously the known ground of divine immanence in Jesus Christ, so that from its revelation, instead of apprehending Jesus Christ and the totality in Him, he arbitrarily selects this or that feature and sets it up as a subordinate centre: perhaps the idea of creation…or even the kingdom of God.” (CD II,1:319)

Paul was not about Jesus and the Kingdom of God, but Jesus Christ and Him alone who inaugurated God’s reign through His life, death, resurrection, and ascension. This is clear from his words in Philippians 3:10-11:

I want to know Christ—yes to know the power of his resurrection and participation in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, and so, somehow, attaining to the resurrection of the dead.

This was the prayer and cry of Paul the apostle: Jesus Christ and the forgiveness, salvation, and resurrection provided through Him. Why is this also not the prayer and cry of Brian, too? At this point, it is clear they are not. How sad, indeed.

1. Caragounis, “Eschatology,” Dictionary on Jesus and the Gospels, 417.
2. I. Howard Marshall, Jesus the Saviour. Studies in New Testament Theology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1990), 213.
3. McKnight, “Gospel of Matthew,” Dictionary on Jesus and the Gospels, 535.
4. Allison, “Eschatology,” Dictionary on Jesus and the Gospels, 206.
5. Matthew favors Kingdom of Heaven language, while Luke/Mark favor Kingdom of God
6. Marshall, Jesus the Saviour, 231.
7. Flusser, Sage from Galilee, 87.
8. Flusser, Sage from Galilee, 88.
9. Marshall, Jesus the Saviour, 231.
10. James Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 408.
11. Craig Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables, 297.
12. Jewett, Romans, 70.
13. Jewett, Romans, 373
14. Jewett, Romans, 385.

The Review

I have to admit straight away that when my wife told me that she was working on a Bible with Lee Strobel I was skeptical. While I have appreciated Lee’s contribution to the Church and greater community for a while, I wondered why we needed yet another Bible product, especially one centered around a Christian celebrity. I thought, “There are Bible’s for moms, teens, dads, grandmothers, environmentalists, NASCAR fans, patriots, and even for horse lovers, why on earth do we need yet another one?”

As husbands often are (so I’m learning 6 months into marriage!), I was wrong: this is a sweet, needed Bible, which is why I wanted to write this review for The Case for Christ Study Bible!

Lee has written a much needed companion for the spiritual journeyperson. This is a Bible for both Christians seeking to better understand and investigate their faith AND seekers/skeptics who are trying to better understand Christianity and searching for answers to their spiritual questions. In a manner only he can pull off, Lee consistently presents his case along side the biblical text for the reality of God, reliability of Scripture, rescue brought through Christ, and reasons for putting our hope and faith in Him alone. I can see this Bible being given by a Christian to a seeking friend as much as Christian parents to their maturing teenager; those wondering about Christianity will pick up this Bible at their local Barnes and Noble as will the longtime Christian who needs better apologetical equipping.

Here are some of the questions this Bible seeks to help answer: How can there be a God if there is so much suffering in the world? Did Jesus claim to be the Son of God? Can we trust the New Testament? Does science point to a Creator? Why was Zerubbabel a significant ancestor of Jesus? When was Daniel written? Why did Jesus associate with the lowest people of society?Was Jesus sinless? Did Jesus intentionally fulfill the messianic prophecies? What’s the truth behind the debate regarding the number of differing Greek manuscripts? Who is the rider on the white horse in Revelation? Is Jesus the only way?

He also tackles such topics as: The Creator of Earth’s perfect location; Worshiping the Creator; Care for the needy; The accuracy of Ezekiel’s prophecies; Messianic prophecies and the integrity of the gospels; The plausibility of a virgin birth; Problems with the Jesus Seminar; Paul and Old Testament prophecies; The Bible and the truth about God.

These and other questions and topics are addressed and answered with the precision, accuracy, and care only a journalist like Lee Strobel could provide. Using new articles and material culled from his other works, Lee gets to the heart of the inquiries from the faithful and skeptics alike using 5 insightful features: The Case for the Bible; The Case for Christ; The Case for a Creator; The Case for Faith; The Verdict. As the information from the CFC Study Bible describes these features:

1. The Case for the Bible: The Bible is an extraordinary record of human history and these articles demonstrate the accuracy of this record. They explore the character of the Bible and the extrabiblical evidence that corroborates Scripture. They also tackle many tough questions and offer explanations for apparent contradictions within the Scriptural Text.
2. The Case for Christ: These articles provide an in-depth exploration of Jesus’ claims, deity, and resurrection. They also show how Christ can be found throughout the Old Testament. Included in these notes are Old Testament prophecies that point to Jesus as Messiah.
3. The Case for a Creator: If you look closely, it is easy to find evidence that the world was specifically designed. These articles highlight the many wonders of creation and provide specific examples from nature and science to illustrate how the scientific evidence points to one supreme Creator.
4. The Case for Faith: For most people faith is a complicated and personal subject. These articles attempt to address some of the most popular questions asked by skeptics and believers alike, such as “How can there be a God if there is so much suffering in the world?” and other critical questions about faith.
5. The Verdict: Through testimonies from well-known scholars and other Christians who have examined the evidence, discovered the reality of Jesus and put their faith in him, these articles provide the real and personal examples of true faith. They will challenge you to examine the evidence for yourself so that you can make your own verdict.

Here is what I like about The Case for Christ Study Bible:

• Uses the NIV text and includes the study notes from the main NIV Study Bible.
• Each book opens with a short information sheet, including: Major themes, Author, Audience, Date of writing, and setting.
• Lee tackles serious questions about serious issues of faith.
• The responses are well researched and reasoned, skipping the typical cheap platitudes and bobbing and weaving all too often associated with other so-called Christian apologetic resources.
• For a bible studies and theology student like me, Lee tackles subjects like inerrancy, OT prophecies, the Jesus Seminar/Historical Jesus studies, and even Q. Right on!
• With pastoral sensitivity, he even addresses hard-hitting subjects, like the personal pain of loosing his own child.
• The back includes really helpful charts I have not seen in other Study Bibles, such as: The Creeds and Hymns of the early church; Divine actions of Jesus; OT prophecies fulfilled by Jesus; Jesus’ claims about Himself; and Resurrection appearances of Jesus.
• Finally, the interior layout is nice and crisp, unobtrusively inserting the articles in such away that they don’t get in the way of the biblical text, but rather supplement it, which to me is an important “user-interface” feature.

All in all, this is one of the only Study Bibles I would give to a spiritually seeking friend or fellow believer who is interested in strengthening their faith. While I have always appreciated Lee’s writings and perspective, I am pleased with his latest efforts to see people encounter our risen Savior Jesus Christ. This Bible is a great tool for Christians and non-Christians alike who want to better understand and investigate the claims of Scripture for themselves.

You can purchase this bible for $23.09 at amazon, here.

The Giveaway

Contest is closed.

Post Series
0: Intro
1: Narrative Question
2: Authority Question
3: God Question
4: Jesus Question
5: Gospel Question
Theological Foundation Recap
6: Church Question
7: Sex Question
8: Future Question
9: Pluralism Question
10: What-Do-We-Do-Now Question
11: Final Thoughts

It is becoming clear that for Brian, the Christian faith should not really be about Jesus Christ, but God. As one commenter said: “it really does look like [Brian] is trying to move away from a Christocentric understanding of God towards a more open/inclusive concept…When Brian speaks of ‘God,’ he isn’t speaking about the Triune God of the Bible, but some generic pan-deity. Its the least common denominator of God.”

Unfortunately, Nathan is dead on.

For Brian the biblical narrative does not climax in the redemption of humanity through Jesus Christ alone; the Text itself does not pivot around the revelation of God exclusively in Jesus Christ; the Bible does not actually reveal God to the world, but merely human conversations about their understanding of God; and Jesus Himself is not God, but is simply “the highest, deepest, and most mature view of the character of God.”

At this point, just three questions in, Brian’s theology is no where near orthodox, no where near Christian. This becomes increasingly clear when we examine his understanding of Jesus Himself. In the Jesus question, Brian asks: Who is Jesus and why is He important?

Brian begins by characterizing—or rather caricaturing—the Jesus of conservative evangelicals. He quotes one of his most “loyal and dedicated critics,” Mark Driscoll—though I really do not understand why he leaves him unnamed and unsourced. After arguing, and rightly so, that “many different saviors can be smuggled in under the name ‘Jesus’” he quotes Driscoll’s characterization, which apparently is built on the Greco-Roman six-line narrative, a constitutional reading of the Bible, and an interpretation of God based on these two sources (120):

In Revelation, Jesus is a prize-fighter with a tattoo down His leg, a sword in His hand and the commitment to make someone bleed. That is the guy I can worship. I cannot worship the hippie, diaper, halo Christ because I cannot worship a guy I can beat up.

On this point Brian and I agree: this characterization of Jesus is just stupid.

While this question is almost like watching Jim Carey’s and Jeff Daniels’ characters in the movie Dumb and Dumber—like the movie, by the end you have a hard time deciding who is dumber; in the end both portrayals of Jesus are unsatisfying and unpalatable—I do grant Brian’s points that we are guilty of “letting Jesus be re-imaged according to contemporary tastes” (121). Unfortunately, although he cites the white Supremacist Jesus, the prosperity-gospel get-rich-quick Jesus, colonial Jesus, male-chauvinist Jesus, and homophobic Jesus, Brian’s own biases blind him to the ways in which he and his like make Jesus in his image, such as: the Oprah Winfrie Jesus, Depok Choprah Jesus, Al Gore Jesus, and Sojo Jesus.

I would also argue that the view espoused by Driscoll is in no way mainstream and is used, yet again, by Brian as a rhetorical Straw Man. He pulls such an extreme example in order to attempt to gain easy trust from his readers that the “other sides” view of Jesus really is utterly detestable and unbelievable. This simply is not the case, however. While I am certainly no Driscoll apologist, Driscoll is being his typical over-the-top, polemical self. For Brian to trumpet his view as representative of all conservative evangelicalism is pitifully weak.

In order to refute said Straw Man, Brian launches into an explaination of the text from which he claims such a view of Jesus comes: Revelation 19:11-16. It reads as follows:

Then I saw heaven opened, and there was a white horse! Its rider is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war. His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems; and he has a name inscribed that no one knows but himself. He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is called The Word of God. And the armies of heaven, wearing fine linen, white and pure, were following him on white horses. From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron; he will tread the wine press of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. On his robe and on his thigh he has a name inscribed, “King of kings and Lord of lords.”

Over against the Driscoll and other conservative evangelical types, McLaren interprets the passage as follows (bear in mind, however, that Brian continues to remain consistent with his pet rule: “thou shalt not cite any authoritative primary or secondary sources other than my own!”) (124-124):

this image of Jesus as a conqueror reassures believers that the peaceful Jesus who entered Jerusalem on a donkey that day wasn’t actually weak and defeated; he was in fact every bit as powerful as a Caesar on a steed. His message of forgiveness and reconciliation—conveyed as a sword out of his mouth (not in his hand, as my loyal critic asserted–quite an important detail)—will in the end prove far more powerful than Caesar’s handheld sword and spears. And the blood on his robe—that’s not the blood of his enemies. It’s his own blood, because the battle hasn’t even begun yet, and Revelation has already shown us Jesus “as the lamb standing as if it had been slaughtered” (5:6). And it may also recall the blood of the peaceful martyrs (6:9-11), since in attacking them, violent forces were also attacking Jesus, the Prince of Peace, who taught them the way of peace.

In fact, rather than being violent, “Revelation actually tells us, that the humble man of peace is Lord. It confesses, in the midst of persecution and martyrdom, that the poor unarmed Galilean riding on the donkey, hailed by the poor and hopeful, is the one to trust. It invites us to pledge allegiance to the one who rules by his own example of service and suffering rather than by making examples of others.” And in response to the suffering servant’s name, “every knee will gladly bow.” (emphasis mine. 126)

While all of this sounds lovely and convincing, there is one slight problem: he is simply wrong; Brian is no exegete and he twists the text to conform to his agenda.

If Driscoll portrays Jesus as another incarnation of The Rock, McLaren portrays him as Ghandi, perfectly peaceful without a care for judgment. In so denying judgment (a theme which we will address in more detail in chapters 9 and 9), he twists and contorts the Revelation passage to mean everything else but a portrait of Judge Jesus.

In this passage we have “the most expanded description of Christ’s defeat and judgment of the ungodly forces at the end of history.”¹ The defeat of the beast, the false prophets, and their followers (who are all the ungodly) is portrayed in the climax verses in 17-21. Christ’s word of truth imaged in the sword coming out of his mouth is His weapon of judgment² Christ rides in on a while horse in promise of judging “the wicked in order to vindicate his name and his followers, and he will be ‘faithful and true’ in fulfilling his promise.”³ His eyes are “a flame of fire,” evoking His role as divine judge as is clear from 14-21 and 2:18-23.⁴ “In Ch 2. the point was that Jesus as ‘Son of Man’ always knows the spiritual condition of the ungodly who claim to be members of the covenant community, which results in their judgment…The link with the same phrase in chs. 1-2 suggests the apostate are among those judged in the present scene.”⁵ The symbolic meaning of the “unknown name” is that while Christ has not yet thoroughly revealed his promise of salvation and judgment, when he comes to carry out his vindication of his followers all His character of grace and justice will be revealed; “only his people will experience the full revelation of his grace, whereas his opponents will experience the full expression of his justice.”⁶

The final expression of his judgment is the image of Jesus’ “robe dipped in blood.” Contrary to Brian’s assertions that this blood is his or his followers who’ve been martyred, it is the blood of his enemies and those he has judged. Here John is clearly referencing Is. 63:1-3: “…your garments are red, like those of one treading the winepress…I have trodden the winepress alone; from the nations no one was with me. I trampled them in my anger and trod them down in my wrath; their blood spattered my garments, and I stained all my clothes.” John is affirming “Isaiah’s prophecy of God as a warrior and identifies Christ as that divine warrior. In Isaiah the warrior judges to achieve ‘vengeance’ and ‘redemption’ on behalf of his people…the stained garments symbolize God’s attributes of justice, which he will exercise in the coming judgment.”⁷ Here in the Revelation passage in vs. 11-16, the blood symbolizes attributes that Christ Himself will exercise judgement over the wicked; it is through the judgment that they are exercised and demonstrated. In the Apocalypse “blood” can refer to the suffering of the judged or to judgment itself, the most decisive use is in 14:18-20, where “blood” is used with winepress metaphors and clearly refers to the judgment of unbelievers.⁸

I realize this was a data-dump of sorts, but the information was given to expose the lie that Brian insists Jesus will not come as judge. At the end of chapter 14 he says, “In response to the crucified one’s name—not Caesar’s or any other violent human’s—every knee will gladly bow. (emphasis mine. 126). Gladly? If only that were true! Brian falsely inserts this word in order to give the appearance that in the end all will be saved, that Jesus will not judge because everyone will gleefully bow before Jesus Christ as King and Lord. As Peter T. O’Brien states, however⁹:

It ought not to be assumed that the bending of the knee by all will be glad acknowledgement of Jesus’ lordship. Since the following words of 10c, which explain the meaning of ‘every knee’, include both good and evil beings who acknowledge Jesus’ rule rather than voluntarily confess or praise him, one ought to understand the bowing of the knee as an act of submission to one whose power they cannot resist.

Phil 2:10-11 come from Is. 45:23-24, which is also quoted in Rom. 14:11, a passage that endorses the idea that ‘we will all stand before God’s judgment seat.’¹⁰ The context of Is. 45 precisely fits the notion that all beings and powers (righteous and wicked) will bow before Jesus Christ’s authority in submission, rather than all finding salvation in the end in that bowing, which Brian suggests is the case. The verses are christological, not eschatological.¹¹

It is clear that Brian (along with many others within the emerging church conversation) cannot handle the idea of judgment, let alone a Judging Jesus. I agree that Jesus Christ did not come “merely to ‘save souls from hell’…he came to launch a new Genesis, to lead a new Exodus, and to announce, embody, and inaugurate a new kingdom of as the Prince of Peace (Isa. 9:6).” (135) This is not the full story, however. While Brian tries to assert the “day of the Lord” will bring liberation for the oppressed and accountability for the oppressors (135), it’s far more (and really different) than that.

“The Day of the Lord” is “the time of the decisive visitation of Yahweh, when he intervenes to punish the wicked, deliver and exalt the faithful remnant who worship him, and establish his own rule. Both judgment and salvation are especially prominent aspects.”¹² In the NT it is identified with the return of Jesus Christ who, as the Creeds assert, “comes to judge the living and the dead.” Because Jesus Christ is Lord and Messiah, and is Himself YHWH, He is the one who will intervene “to punish the wicked, deliver and exalt the faithful remnant who worship him, and establish his own rule.”

Brian cannot say this, however. He refuses. On the one hand, “Jesus serves as the Word-made-flesh revelation of God’s character,” which means He Himself is not God/YHWH. (128) (Which, again, serves his agenda to pluralize God and minimize Jesus Christ as exclusive Lord and Messiah) On the other hand, “So many are like my loyal ciritic; they have so utterly bought into the six-line, black-and-white, soul-sorting heaven-or-hell Greco-Roman narrative that it has become the precritical lens through which they see everything…” (136) Part of that so-called “six-line narrative” is the reality of judgment, the reality that Jesus Christ will come as judge. While the good news of Jesus does include “a new Genesis, a new Exodus, and a new Kingdom come,” there is also separation and judgment.

But Brian, if Jesus and the gospel bring salvation to everyone who believes (Rm. 1:16), from what are people saved and what about the people who do not believe. Does not Jesus Himself explicitly explain what He Himself will do with those who stand in defiant opposition to Him and His Kingdom?

In my book, (un)offensive gospel of Jesus, I wrote about the tension of telling a better, more compelling Story that explores how Jesus and His gospel are inherently, good, and reassuring, while also being honest about “That Other Place.” Here is a portion of what I wrote:

While I think the prospect of a universal re-creation is possible, I find it hard to reconcile that idea with all the different teachings of Jesus which show a separation of people who choose belief from those who choose unbelief. Jesus Himself seems to insist that there is a separation between those who choose to entrust their stories and lives to Jesus in total commitment and those who hold onto the Way of Self while actively vandalizing shalom and rebelling against God and His Rhythm of Life.

I asked my friend Andy about his own struggle with judgment and hell. Like many of us, myself included, he has struggled with the idea that people will be judged and punished forever because of sin. The idea the some will receive eternal heavenly bliss, while others sit in hell has been a struggle for Andy. Recently, though, he’s begun to understand why judgment seems to make sense. “For the longest time both judgment and hell made me shudder, leading to a rejection of their existence. But in doing that I rejected the reality of our world. The reality is that there are consequences to our rebellion, which I think is hell. Now it makes sense that there is a hell and judgment because of that reality.”

In trying to tell a more compelling Story, Brian completely neglects and ignores the reality of judgment, which in the end decimates the gospel and changes it completely. We will explore how he does this in more detail with the next question: the gospel question.

1. Beale, Revelation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 948.
2. Beale, Revelation, 949.
3. Beale, Revelation, 950.
4. Beale, Revelation, 951.
5. Beale, Revelation, 951.
6. Beale, Revelation, 956.
7. Beale, Revelation, 957.
8. Beale, Revelation, 959.
9. O’Brien, Philippeans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1991), 243.
10. O’Brien, Philippeans, 243.
11. O’Brien, Philippeans, 243.
12. “The Day of the Lord,” Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 2000), 324.