Two tests, even three of a good Biblical Theology

This is going to be a quick note about the task of Biblical Theology.  We have come a long way since the days of G. Vos.  Today, there are so many options out there that even scholars in the field have a hard time keeping up with all the options and the nuances.  I have appreciated Peter Gentry and Steve Wellum's tome which provides a great overview of the field. However, I worry sometimes the big picture is lost among all the voices that are trying to define themselves in contradistinction to one another.  In addition to a foundation in the inerrancy of Scripture, a solid BT will have as purpose the task of missions.  So an important test of a good BT is, is this writer articulating the task of world missions in a compelling way so I am challenged accordingly? (See Greg Beale's Temple study).  But this by itself is not going to be enough.  A balanced BT will also need to be Cross-centered through and through.  So any BT that undermines the ideas of the wrath of God satisfied at the Cross, the holiness of God, and the offense of our sins will end up overemphasizing notions of victory (as NT Wright has done, in the footsteps of Gustav Aulen), human obedience (with the denying of imputed righteousness), and will tend to define the love of God apart from its backdrop of judgement.  If a BT upholds these fundamental conceptions of missions and the cross (see Rev 5) along with the inerrancy of Scripture, then the other things naturally fall into place, even if there are disagreements on second order matters such as baptism or church governance.

Substitution, then imitation

Christ-centered preaching has provided a useful framework to recover the message of the OT today (see Luke 24:27).  While we don't want to look for Jesus in every detail of the storyline (a problem with this approach- I prefer the language of God-centered preaching, ie Father, Son and Holy Spirit), inasmuch as ancestry, kingship, obedience to the law, holiness, judgement and sacrifice  are discussed, these overall motifs do provide way points (or antecedents) for us to connect individual stories to their fulfillment represented in Jesus.  Think about it.  Jesus as the second Adam is the fulfillment of the human race, as king He is the fulfillment of the davidic dynasty, as the Righteous one, He is the fulfillment of the law (secured by his perfect obedience), as the Holy One, He is the fulfillment of holiness and as the Lamb of God, He is our atoning sacrifice.  So yes, a Christ-centered reading of the OT, when the text warrants it, really makes the OT relevant to the life of a follower of Jesus today.  

This Christ-centered reading of the OT also means that we embrace the substitutionary nature of his ministry.  He died as a perfect sacrifice for us. He lived in perfect obedience to the law for us.  He is the perfect king of Israel "who did what was right in the eyes of the Lord; he didn't turn to the right or the left" (to paraphrase the Deuteronomic evaluations in 1, 2 Kings).  To be sure, there are other kings in the davidic line who received a good deuteronomic evaluation (Josiah and Hezekiah for ex), but with Jesus, there are no exceptions (eg. "except in the matter of Uriah"  as with David, 1 Kings 15:5).  In short,  Jesus fulfilled the OT requirements and covenants (covenant with Adam, Abraham , at Sinai and with David) on our behalf.

However, we can't leave the discussion there.  It's one thing to advocate a Christ-centered reading of the OT and to affirm the substitutionary nature of Christ' work on our behalf.  The texts also consistently advocate imitation: "he has shown you, O man, ...Mic 6:8."  So, we receive as a free gift by faith what the Righteous One has earned on our behalf.  But we are also called to follow in the footsteps of the same Righteous One, striving to live a righteous live, always aware that our obedience will never earn us righteousness in His eyes.  Paul says it well: "offer yourselves as living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to him which is your spiritual worship" (Rom 12:1-2).  This is not "moralism," it's simply showing loyalty (Hebrew hesed) and love to the One who has given you everything.  Big difference in my mind!

 Of course, and as final point, people throughout history have run into serious problems when one component is left out:  Substitution without imitation leads to a life that doesn't exhibit the fruit of the Spirit (to put it mildly).  But imitation without substitution is also a big problem because it leaves the task of obedience pretty much up to us.  There are shades of variation for the latter, but in the end, you're always the one having to work toward building favor with God.

My first blog: We dodged a big bullet today

Welcome to my first blog.  I intend to post short opinions on matters pertaining to theology, Old Testament studies and whatever else is on my mind.

I have posted only twice before (for Gordon-Conwell Seminary and for discusstheology).  The reason I am starting to blog is that I find myself wanting to go beyond tweeting short statements (which actually fits my style very well) but without posting lengthy articles. We'll see if it works or not!

The first opinion is related to the reversal by World Vision concerning their policy on marriage.  While we all join  in extending our heartfelt support for this wonderful change, questions still linger in my mind.  How could there be such a systemic breakdown in their decision-making process?  Would not the Board and the President realize the incredible backlash they were going to receive from the evangelical world at large?  The consequences for the overseas operations would have been equally catastrophic.  I can't imagine the African branches of Word Vision being too happy with such a stance in hiring policies.  The larger problem in my mind was the devastating precedent this decision would have set for other Christian institutions in the US.  Evangelical colleges and seminaries would have been under increasing pressure to cave-in as did World Vision.  We just can't predict where this would have taken us as a movement.  My  prognostic last night was extremely grim:  the end of the post-WWII coalition that Billy Graham, Bob Pierce, Harold Ockenga and several others created.  Now I have hope again.  But still, the theological rashness with which World Vision's position was defended continues to confirm that we as professional theologians have pretty much failed to educate evangelical leaders to think theologically and biblically.  In this case, American pragmatism based on the bottom-line was the guiding light until, thanks to many of us praying for World Vision US leadership, cooler heads prevailed!  We dodged a big bullet today as a movement. Let's make sure we create mechanisms so that this doesn't happen again.