179 pages.

 ★★★★★ 

Every now and then, a book comes along that will dramatically enrich your life. This was one of those books for me.

When Piper says that God is the gospel, what he means is that “the highest, best, final, decisive good of the gospel, without which no other gift would be good, is the glory of God in the face of Christ revealed for our everlasting enjoyment” (p. 13). In other words, the point of the gospel is not just that we’re justified, but that justification allows us to be restored to fellowship with God! That the gift of justification (or redemption or imputation or expiation etc.) is ultimately the gift of being enabled to fellowship with God himself who is the giver of all gifts and without whom no gift would be good.

Piper exposes the man-centredness of a gospel which exists to elevate man; which brings joy in the gifts of the gospel while paying little attention to the gift of the gospel—God. “We are willing to be God-centred, it seems, as long as God is man-centred” (pp. 12, 13).

The ups

First, this book glows with God-centred, gospel-saturated, joy-filled theology. It’s not shallow or sappy. It is rich and deep; theological and accessible; practical and devotional.

Second, if you’re not familiar with Piper’s theology and writing, this is probably an ideal introduction to his ideas. Though Desiring God is probably his defining work, it is fairly long and heavy. This book is quite accessible to the average layperson and will, I feel, give the reader a fairly good idea of what Piper believes. Chapter eleven could be viewed as a brief primer on Christian hedonism.

Third, this book helped me see clearly that the gospel is not the end, but rather the means to the end of glorifying God. It therefore helped me to understand more clearly how God and his gospel relate to each other and how to avoid preaching Christ’s gospel without preaching the Christ of the gospel.

Fourth, Piper exposes the hypocrisy of those who preach that the cross proves the value of man. He quotes Jonathan Edwards: “They are pleased in the highest degree, in hearing how much God and Christ make of them. So that their joy is really a joy in themselves, and not in God” (p. 137). Piper rebuts this Hillsong-style gospel decisively.

I could give a dozen more…

The downs

Honestly, I have few concerns with this book at all, hence the five star rating. However, I’ll point out a few minor things that raised questions for me.

First, there seems to be some confusion on p. 155 surrounding man’s creation in the image of God and the effect of the curse on that image. Piper seems to suggest that our growth into the image of Christ in sanctification is directly related to our creation in the image of God in Genesis 1. This seems to me to confuse two separate issues.

Second, Piper suggests in reference to 2 Corinthians 4:4-6 that “The glory of God shone in the historical, bodily face of Jesus” (p. 70). I tend to think the term “face” here is synecdoche.

I’d be hard pressed to find even a minor third down. Those who know me well recognise this as little short of miraculous as I tend to be a very critical reader. But Piper is precise and he has laid out his words carefully.

Conclusion

After reading the introduction to this book, I scribbled the following: “Breath-taking! Sweet water to a thirsty soul. Amen! Amen! Amen… Amen… Amen.”

I read this book with tears of delight. I hope you will do the same.

Grace to you.

And people are sinners.

So those who are ministering to others will at times find themselves knee deep in messy situations. Unfortunately, these situations often involve criminal behaviour which has never been reported to the civil authorities. Probably the most common instances are child abuse (physical, emotional, sexual, or neglect) and domestic/family violence.

As the Roman Catholic Church amply illustrates, religion finds it tempting to handle these situations in-house. Next to the Roman Catholic Church and unaffiliated cults, probably no Christian religious group is more notorious for these practices than Fundamentalism. If you doubt that statement, spend some time at the Freedom From Abuse Network¹ or just spend a few minutes exploring google on the topic.

To be honest, we should all blush with shame that these things even need to be said. But they definitely, very much need to be said.

Yes, in Australian Fundamentalism.

Reasons

So here are 16 reasons why crime should not be handled in-house.

1) It is a criminal offence in some jurisdictions to fail to report even suspicion of abuse of minors.²

2) It leaves the victims of crime exposed to danger instead of protecting them.

3) It thwarts the civil government’s ability to do their God-given job.

4) It creates a moral bubble in which the civil law does not apply.

5) It puts church leaders in a position of power in areas where God has not given them authority.

6) It protects criminals.

7) It creates an environment of fear of civil authorities.

8) It leads to resentment on the part of the victims.

9) It develops people who believe they are above the law.

10) It harms the testimony of Christ when it finally comes out in later years as a scandal.

11) It creates an environment of secrets.

12) It fails to effectively bring crimes to a stop.

13) It usurps God-ordained civil authority.

14) It treats crime as an offence against the victim instead of what it is, a crime against the state and society.

15) It damages people.

16) It fails to recognise that authority is delegated by God and is limited in scope.

Brothers, we need to do right in this matter. Every single time.

If you’re not sure what to do in a particular situation, I encourage you to pick up your phone and contact a legal professional, your state’s child protection agency, or your local police. Typically, they will be happy to answer your questions and clarify your obligations. I also encourage you to keep detailed notes about each action you take in a way that will be preserved until you die.

Open your mouth, judge righteously,
Defend the rights of the poor and needy.
………………………….—Proverbs 31:9

Grace to you.

¹I do not endorse the FFAN carte blanche. I do support the cause of justice and mercy and am thankful for anyone who labours for these.
²See the National Child Protection Clearinghouse for a helpful outline of reporting obligations in Australia.

Loud protests notwithstanding, people need enemies. It is fundamental to modern politics. The left has the right. The right has the left. The people have the politicians. And the politicians have the people. We all have enemies. And we have them because we need them.

Every sports team has its opponents. Every nation has foes. Every city has its critics. Every ideology has its counter. Every thesis has its antithesis.

When we go for a relaxing fish, we make ourselves the enemy our prey. When we play a game, we make ourselves the enemy of the opponent. It is as natural as can be. And it is so because God made it so.

The greatest leader has his critics. The most irenic monk hates and is hated. The peacenik hippie is often found protesting. And if all else fails, you’ll find in fundamentalism an enemy for the most inclusive of pluralists.

The great leaders of history knew this. They united their peoples by giving them a common enemy. They kept the attention and focus of the people on these common enemies so that the people would not turn on each other and on them.

And it is no different in the local church. People will have enemies.

These may be internal enemies—the elders, the deacons, other church members—or the attention may be directed externally. Common external enemies might be other churches within the same denomination or movement. Or perhaps, in more moderate circles the enemies might be churches, denominations, and movements outside of their circles. Many a church is consumed by this sort of enmity with others Evangelical churches. Or our focus may be shifted to other religions. This apologetic emphasis can easily turn non-Christians into the common enemy.

May I suggest that the true enemy of the local church is threefold and familiar. The true enemies of the local church and of every single believer are the world, the flesh, and the Devil. And even among these, many err in over-emphasising the two which are easiest to emphasise: the world and the Devil.

The horrible truth is that of these three true enemies of the church and the believer, the one that is most insidious and hardest to fight is us.

If your church is made up of people, they will have enemies. Your challenge as a leader is to direct the combative energies of your people, not internally within the church, and not merely externally toward the plethora of potential enemies, but inward, to the resident evil in our own hearts.

¹⁸For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. ¹⁹For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. ²⁰Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.

                                                                                 —Romans 7

May we keep our focus on the real enemies, and may we fight them courageously with a sincere heart.

Grace to you.

Here is the list of every series I’ve written on InFocus since 2005.

Grace to you.

Insecurity | Intro | Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Podcast series

Epistemology | Intro | Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4

Self image | Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3

KJV 400th anniversary | Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4

Conspiracy theories | Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3

F. W. Boreham | Intro | Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6

Great theological themes of the gospel | Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6

Church programmes | Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3

Deliberate living | Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3

Revival in Australia | Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4

Printed music vs. projection | Part 1 | Part 2

A call to serious reading | Part 1 | Part 2

The segment starts Monday week.

Top ten posts

Here are the posts that got the most direct hits in 2011.

1. Religion in Australia: Statistics
2. The Mesmerising Lionel Messi
3. The Norway Massacre and Christian Fundamentalism
4. The Ministry of the Penguin
5. Abortion in Australia
6. A Brief Review of BeDuhn’s “Truth in Translation”
7. Hands up if you don’t read your Bible…
8. Two Ways to Live
9. The perfect church
10. KJV: No honour in error

Interestingly, only three of these posts were actually published in 2011. Four were published in 2010 and the remaining three were published in 2009.

Grace to you.

This book supplied for review through BookSneeze®.

263 pages plus appendices.

 ★★★★½ 

A renowned critic suggested that only Shakespeare’s prose “is capable of surviving comparison with Tyndale’s.” Yet Tyndale lived his life—and performed his art—in exile.

This is no mere biography. It is, rather, a scholarly exposition, an historical work. Drawing on the writings of Tyndale and those around him, Teems presents Tyndale in a way that leaves you less confident of the things you thought you knew about him, but more familiar with the substance of William Tyndale as a person.

Chapters are devoted to the various stages of Tyndale’s life as well as to his translation work and his other writings. Significant space is given to providing the historical context of Tyndale’s work and to introducing the men—both friend and foe—who impacted Tyndale most.

The ups

First, this book is a rich source of historical information on the Reformation era. Significant portions are devoted to men such as Martin Luther, Sir Thomas More, Oliver Cromwell, Anne Boleyn, Desiderius Erasmus, Henry VIII, Thomas Wolsey, and many other figures whose lives intersected with the translator’s. The reader will gain rich insights from these encounters.

Second, the reader will come away from this book having read first hand excerpts from many of the letters and documents that shaped the world in which we live.

Third, Teems devotes much space to Tyndale’s translation of the New Testament and the impact it had. There is a helpful discussion on Tyndale’s philosophy of translation and a wealth of information about the history of our English Bible stemming from Wycliffe’s work and progressing through Tyndale’s work to that of his companion, Myles Coverdale, and others.

Fourth, Teems digs into Tyndale’s writings to catch a glimpse of Tyndale that is deeper than the normal focus on his translation work. He seeks to understand his thinking, his philosophy, his theology, and his passion. One highlight for me was learning that even though Tyndale’s translation was considered no little crime, it was for his crime of defending the “heresy” of sola fide (justification by faith alone) that he was condemned to die.

The downs

First, though Teems’ subtle humour provided me with many a good chuckle, his thoroughness borders at times on tedium. Still, it is some of the more pleasurable tedium you’re likely to encounter.

Second, this work is more academic than devotional. At times it is obtuse.

Third, The relationship between the author as a Christian and the author as a scholar is awkward at times. The author is ambiguous about where he stands regarding the Roman Catholic Church and the Reformers. On a few occasions, theologically liberal views are hinted at such as denial of the supernatural.

Fourth, though there are some helpful appendices, there is no subject index. This is disappointingly inconvenient for a work of this nature.

Conclusion

An excellent work. Well worth the read. Enjoyable. Enriching. Edifying.

Grace to you.

First, you can also go see the JetPack stats (I’m not sure how accurate they are, but there are some interesting tidbits there).

Second, the Wordle for this year. Once again, click to embiggen all graphics.

Third, some stats for those who are interested. The first compares 2011 visits (blue) with 2010 visits (orange). It’s encouraging to see substantial growth in these numbers.

The second gives various other stats for 2011.

I want to express my sincere thanks to so many who have been part of InFocus in the last year. The owner, writers, commenters, and readers come together to make this site what it is. Thank you!

Pray with me that InFocus would be useful in the lives of God’s people in 2012.

Grace to you.

Silent night, holy night…

The song brings to mind images of moonlit fields and starry skies; shepherds laughing around a cosy fire; an awestruck husband and a contemplative new mum. We’re warmed as we recount the comforting joys of that night so long ago. Our hearts become settled, peaceful, serene…

But underneath the serenity were some ugly realities. For starters, the common notion among family friends and relatives was that Joseph was the dad. Jesus was—in their eyes—an illegitimate child. If there is any stigma to that in our day, it must be magnified a thousand times for us to understand the scandal behind the serenity of this quiet night.

But this scandal pales into insignificance compared to the horror of the second scandal, for on this idyllic night, Jesus was born, a spring of life among a sea of infant corpses. The children born in the months before and after this night would soon be slaughtered at the hand of an angry king simply for their proximity to the events of this serene night.

And if the second was more horrible than the first, the third scandal drowns them both in triviality, for the greatest scandal of this silent night is that God himself, in human flesh, lay wrapped in burial clothes at his birth, thus foreshadowing the day when man would execute the God-man as a criminal.

The ugliness underneath this serene night—far from destroying the beauty of its serenity—makes this night what it was. On this night, God became flesh, and lived among us! God stepped into our world to bear the weight of the curse just as we do, to struggle under the stigma of shame, to feel the sting of loss, to walk alongside us as we live out our exile here.

And we saw his glory. It was the glory of God’s only son. And he was full of grace and truth. That this silent night was right in the middle of scandal and struggle is what makes it so wonderful, for it was into that darkness that God shined the light of his son bringing hope to all peoples in all times.

May your Christmas be blessed. May your worship be joyful.

Grace to you.

If you entered it before, you are free to enter again to double your chances of winning. Entries close tomorrow (20 December) at noon.

Grace to you.

I have on my desk three copies of McGrath’s In The Beginning to give away in celebration of the 400th anniversary of the King James Version.

I read this book several years ago and found it well-written, informative, and enjoyable to read. The following is taken from the back cover of the book:

In the sixteenth century, to attempt to translate the Bible into a common tongue wasn’t just difficult, it was dangerous. A Bible in English threatened the power of the monarch and the Church. Early translators such as Tyndale, whose work greatly influenced the King James, were hunted down and executed, but the demand for English Bibles continued to grow. Indeed it was the popularity of the Geneva Bible, with its anti-royalist content, that eventually forced James I to sanction his own, pro-monarchy, translation. Errors in early editions—one declared that “thou shalt commit adultery”—and Puritan preferences for the Geneva Bible initially hampered acceptance of the King James, but it went on to become the definitive English-language Bible. This absorbing history of a literary and religious masterpiece explores the forces that led to the decision to create an authorized translation, the method of translation and printing, and the central role this version of the Bible played in the development of modern English.

Here are the giveaway rules: You must be able to provide an Australian shipping address if you win. Three winners will be chosen randomly. Winners will be notified by email.

[NOTE: If you are reading by email or RSS, you may need to click through to the site to see the entry form for the draw.]

The purpose of this paper is to briefly critique the theory that the New International Version (NIV) of the Bible destroys the biblical basis for the doctrine of the full deity of Jesus Christ. It is not my intention to promote the NIV or to defend it on every point, nor is it my desire to denigrate the King James Version (KJV) in any way. It is my desire to clearly lay out the evidence so that those who love truth more than a position may consider the facts. I am not arguing for or against a particular Greek text. I am simply trying to demonstrate that the NIV is not theologically biased against the deity of Jesus Christ.¹

The Danger of the “Stronger” Paradigm

It is true that one translation may be stronger than another translation on a particular doctrine. The deity of Christ is a great example. It is one thing to say one translation is stronger than another on the deity of Christ. It is an entirely different thing to say that the weaker translation “denies Jesus Christ’s DEITY.”² In order to prove that a translation “denies” the deity of Christ, it is necessary to prove that there is a uniform sabotage or bias throughout.

For instance, the Jehovah’s Witness’ New World Translation (NWT) obscures the deity of Christ in all of the key passages.³ Therefore, it is logical and appropriate to conclude that the translators of the NWT allowed their theological bias against the deity of Christ to influence their translation work. In contrast, the presentation of two or three instances where the NIV is “weaker” on the deity of Christ is not sufficient evidence to prove that the translators exercised a theological bias in their translation work. Indeed, it is an assumption to believe that they even had a theological bias against the deity of Christ.

Dr. Kenneth Barker, Executive Director of the NIV Translation Center, in response to liberal criticism that the NIV was too conservative and too strong on the deity of Christ said “If they want to accuse me of being biased toward the deity of Christ, I’m honored!”⁴ It would seem logical that translational bias against the deity of Christ would be based on theological belief against the deity of Christ, but the evidence to prove that there is unbelief has not been cogently presented. The burden of proof is on those who level the charge to conclusively prove that the NIV translators denied the deity of Christ.⁵

The danger of the “stronger” paradigm is to think that just because one version is stronger than another, that the weaker version is somehow an attack on the doctrine on which it is weaker.⁶ The strategy that highlights one or two “weaker” readings in the NIV in order to claim that the NIV attacks the deity of Christ is based on a fallacy and must be rejected by those who love truth. D. A. Carson sums it up well when he says “It is methodologically indefensible to hunt for the half-dozen worst mistakes or lapses in judgment in a particular translation, and on that basis write off the whole translation. If that method were applied to the KJV, it too would be written off.”⁷

They Have Taken Away My Lord

One popular stream of thinking advances the concept that “omissions” of titles of deity in the NIV are evidence of a bias against the deity of Christ.⁸ This view, though not held by all, needs to be dealt with because of the way that its promotion has gone unchallenged for all practical purposes. One author says “In John 20:13, Mary was weeping and the angel said, ‘woman why weapest [sic] thou?’ She replied, ‘because they have TAKEN AWAY MY LORD.’ How much more would she weep today, if she was to look at the modern translations, which delete the Lord 39 times. We should weep also.”⁹ The author goes on to present 39 “omissions” of the word “Lord,” 87 of “Jesus,” and 52 of “Christ” in the NIV. It borders on absurdity to even point out that the word “Jesus” occurs 292 more times in the NIV than in the KJV. It would be unreasonable to construct a theory of doctrinal infidelity on the part of the KJV based on some sort of “weak emphasis” on Jesus, and it is just as unreasonable when the situation is reversed. Further, even when the word “Jesus” is “omitted,” there is generally a pronoun in its place which unmistakably refers to Jesus. Always the context clearly explains who is speaking and the terms “Jesus,” “Christ,” and “Lord” are used so many times in the NIV¹⁰ as to make a claim that the NIV is trying to weaken or remove a doctrine by these omissions untenable. Consider the following “omissions.”

Here the title “Lord” is replaced with a title every bit as clear. Below are cases where Christ is referred to with a pronoun.¹¹

Some have claimed that the NIV attacks the deity of Christ based on the fact that it doesn’t capitalise pronouns referring to deity;¹² however such a policy would involved a great degree of interpretation. In other words, there are many places where a pronoun’s reference is ambiguous. For those who charge that the NIV is already too interpretive (dynamic equivalence) in its translation, such a claim is thoroughly inconsistent.

Sometimes an “omission” is really just a matter of chronology.

Since the NIV is criticised for the “omission” of the word “Lord” in verse one,¹³ should the KJV be criticised for the “omission” of the word “Lord” in verse three? Obviously not.

Another argument used by some is that because the NIV removes “Christ” from the formula “Lord Jesus Christ” several times, it must be denigrating the deity of Christ.¹⁴ If we are to follow this logic, we must also condemn the KJV for its “omission” of that very same formula.

We’ll move on with a final quote from D. A. Carson. “The omission of an individual title or phrase or verse does not constitute evidence for theological heresy. Perhaps the omission was part of the original, and the manuscripts that include the title or phrase or verse are guilty of additions.” He goes on to explain that “one would have to ask why the omissions had taken place… it would be necessary to show that the manuscript or text-type in question consistently tries to suppress or deny that doctrine.”¹⁵

A Comparison of the Evidence

It is not possible in a study this size to conduct a full explanation of the technical and textual issues involved in each reading,¹⁶ therefore I will be content to present evidence based solely on a translational basis.¹⁷ A sincere desire for the truth must result in an honest and unbiased look at the evidence. In the following chart, I have omitted twenty-two references where both the NIV and the KJV are emphatically clear in their support of the deity of Christ.¹⁸ The passages below present those places where the NIV and the KJV differ in a passage that deals with the deity of Christ.

One will quickly notice that for every weakness of the NIV, there are more than two in the KJV. Though it is simplistic to base a judgment on mere tallies, the simple fact cannot be ignored—the NIV is as strong as or stronger than the KJV on the doctrine of the deity of Jesus Christ. Compare the following passages:

John 1:18 is one of the clearest references to the deity of Christ in the Bible²¹ and yet the KJV has “omitted” it. Shall we accuse the KJV translators of attacking the deity of Christ? Certainly not, but that same logic has been practiced in reverse many times to attack the NIV.

Revelation 1:5 makes it unmistakably clear that it is Jesus Christ Who is speaking in verse eight. While “I am Alpha and Omega” is clearly a divine title being assigned to Jesus, the NIV emphatically states that this Jesus who is speaking is God! For the sake of space, I will not present all the passages but a few minutes looking up each reference in the NIV and the KJV would be time well invested. A final example will suffice.

Here the KJV translation treats “God” and “our Saviour” as two different persons. While the KJV reading doesn’t pose a theological problem, it simply fails to bring out the clear teaching of the deity of Christ that is clear in the original language.²²

In this second chart, several translations are compared in those passages where various translations directly call Jesus “God.”²³

This chart clearly demonstrates that while the NWT has a great bias against the deity of Christ, the NIV actually rates better than the KJV when compared on these terms.

Conclusion

It is easy to hear a statement so many times that you begin to believe it regardless of the validity of the evidence offered. Many have heard the accusation that the NIV attacks the deity of Christ so many times that they simply believe it. Those who honestly desire truth are urged to read the following passages found in the NIV:

• “And we are in him who is true—even in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.” (1 John 5:20)
• “Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped.” (Philippians 2:5-6)
• “For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” (Isaiah 9:6)
• “The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word.” (Hebrews 1:3)

How then can we view the NIV as an attack on the deity of Jesus Christ? If there was some sort of conspiracy to weaken the biblical support for the deity of Christ, it failed! The evidence stands firm to assert that the NIV is as strong as or stronger than the KJV in support of the doctrine of the full deity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.