Carl Trueman on THE Problem with "Contemporary Worship"

(image@thegospelcoalition.org)

Over at First Things, Westminster Seminary Church Historian Carl Trueman has written a spot-on piece about what is wrong with the "praise band"-oriented "worship" that so characterizes most of contemporay "evangelicalism." Simply put, it is the well-nigh eradication of the tragic dimension of human existence lived in the constant shadow of death. The very element that makes the works of Shakespeare and Thomas Hardy so trenchant, that gives the blues and Gustav Mahler's symphonies their compelling power—indeed, the very element that grounds the biblical lament pslams in the world as it is—has all been ignored in the quest to put an artificial "smiley face" on the vicissitudes of life. Read, reflect, and work to eradicate the bastard triumphalism that has so marred the church's public face.

Theologian and Preacher Doppelgangers

Last week, while consuming large quantities of Pennsylvania's finest wings with my friends Jason Armold, Paul Miller, and Cameron Witmer at Quips Pub in Lancaster, the conversation turned to theologian-celebrity look alikes. The formidable heat of Quips' famous wings proved a potent stimulant to both fun and sharp thinking. Out of the dozens we suggested, I have chosen the following fourteen. Thanks, gentleman, for the fellowship and your input. Enjoy!


1. Michael Bird (Lecturer in Theology and New Testament, Crossway College, Brisbane)/Dave King (Vocalist, Guitarist in Flogging Molly)

(image@nearemmaus.com)

(image@floggingmolly.com)

2. C. K. Barrett (Lightfoot Professor of Divinity, University of Durham [d. 2011]/ Jimmy Carter (39th President of the United States)

(image@telegraph.co.uk)

(image@guardian.co.uk)

(image@veryconservativenews.com)

3. Richard Hays (Dean, George Washington Ivey Professor of New Testament, Duke Divinity School)/ Eric Clapton (Blues Guitarist Extraordinaire)

(image@nearemmaus.com)

(image@biography.com)

4. Karl Barth (Swiss Systematic Theologian, Professor, University of Basel [d. 1968])/George Burns (Comedian)

(image@guesswhosjewish.com)

(image@kairos2.com)

5. John Piper (former Pastor, Bethlehem Baptist Church, Minneapolis)/Larry David (Comedian, driving force behind Seinfeld and Curb Your Enthusiasm)

(image@startribune.com)

(image@henrymakow.com)

6. Alister McGrath (Professor of Theology, Kings College, London)/Stephen Fry (British Polymath)

(image@en.wikipedia.org)

(image@apologetics315.com)

7. J. Gresham Machen (Professor of New Testament, Princeton and Westminster Seminaries [d. 1937])/Henry Daniell (English Actor [d. 1963; played Moriarty in the Basil Rathbone Sherlock Holmes movies)

(image@aveleyman.com)

(image@jgreshammachen.blogspot.com)

8. Ernst Kӓsemann (Professor of New Testament, Tübingen [d. 1998])/Frank Rizzo (former Mayor of Philadelphia [d. 1991])

(image@philebrity.com)

(image@resurrectionhope.
blogspot.com)

9. C. F. D. Moule (Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity, Cambridge [d. 2007])/Charlie Watts (Drummer, The Rolling Stones)

(image@clarealumni.com)

(image@guardian.co.uk)

10. John Frame (Professor of Theology and Philosophy, Reformed Seminary, Orlando)/ Louie Anderson (Comedian)

(image@cbsnews.com)

(image@en.wikipedia.org)

11. Tim Keller (Pastor, Redeemer Presbyterian Church, New York)/Patrick Stewart (Actor)

(image@imdb.com)

(image@veritas.org)

12. Joel Osteen (Lay Preacher, Televangelist)/ Tim Allen (Actor-Comedian)

(image@pimppreacher.com)

(image@therichest.org)

Finally, my two most formative theological forebears:

13. John F. McGahey (Professor of Bible, Philadelphia College of Bible [d. 1986])/Sean Penn (Actor)

(image@howmuchdotheyweigh.com)

(photo owned by author)

14. John Calvin (Reformer, Pastor, Geneva [d.1564])/Billy Gibbons (Blues-Rock Guitarist, ZZTop)

(image@biography.com)

(image@rottentomatoes.com)

The Rolling Stones at 50

The Bad Boys of Rock 'n Roll in 1963
(image@www.telegraph.co.uk)

Last Friday the venerable Rolling Stones kicked off the American leg of their "50 and Counting" Tour at the Staples Center in Los Angeles to rave reviews (the tour will pass through my hometown of Philly on the 18th and 21st of June). Founding members Keith Richards (guitar) and Sir Mick Jagger (vocals, harp) are now 69 years of age. Matchless drummer Charlie Watts is now 71. Current guitarist Ronnie Wood, with the band since 1975 after a time with the Faces, is the "baby" of the group at 65 (founding member Brian Jones [guitar] died [was killed?] in 1968; founding bassist Bill Wyman, now 76, left the group in 1992; "6th Stone" and formidable pianist Ian Stewart, whose corpulence and somewhat "cleaner" lifestyle disqualified him from "official" membership in the group at the insistence of manager Andrew Loog Oldham in 1963, died of a heart attack at the age of 47 in 1985). From clips I have seen of their recent performances,   however, it is more than clear that time and age have done little to diminish the power of the band's performances. And that is more than can be said of any of the Stones' peers.

Today marks the 50th anniversary of the recording of their debut UK single, a cover of the somewhat obscure and uncharacteristic Chuck Berry song, "Come On." Today the Stones are most well known for their classic, timeless original compositions like "Satisfaction," "Paint it, Black," "Jumpin' Jack Flash," "Gimme Shelter," "You Can't Always Get What You Want," and "Miss You." In 1963, however, the Stones were a blues/R&B/ rock 'n roll cover band with an enviable Sunday afternoon residency at the Crawdaddy Club in Richmond, Surrey, specializing in the work of Muddy Waters, Bo Diddley, and Chuck Berry. At a time when "Beatlemania" was sweeping the UK, the Stones represented a different trend. They, along with such other bands as Eric Burdon's Animals in Newcastle, Eric Clapton's Yardbirds in Kingston-upon-Thames, and Van Morrison's Them in Belfast, worked to revive and popularize the grittier sound of Chicago blues that had been all but ignored by the general population in the land of its origin. And the Stones quickly proved to be the best of the bunch.

(image@expo67-cavestones.blogspot.com)

Listening to their version of "Come On," the band's immaturity is clearly evident. This immaturity is most evident, surprisingly, in Jagger's vocals, which are devoid of the swagger and snarl he would develop in short order. As they would do the following year to good effect with Waters' "I Just Want to Make Love to You," they sped up Berry's tempo somewhat. They likewise added to the excitement by emphasizing the staggered rhythmic guitar pattern and modulating up a step for the final verse. But the song was, after all, not one of Berry's best, and the band was reluctant to play it live even after it was released. But it was a start.

In 1968, after a failed experiment with psychedelia, the Stones began referring to themselves as "the World's Greatest Rock 'n Roll Band." And, with the series of classic albums from that year's Beggar's Banquet to 1972's Exile on Main Street, they proved it. Nowhere is this more clear than in 1978's intense, straight-ahead rock 'n roller, "Respectable," from what is arguably their last "classic" album, Some Girls. No one then, and no one since, could play this song like they did and still do. They simply understand the inner workings of this music like no other artist does. Beatles fans may want to disagree, but I would argue that they deserved that moniker from the very beginning, playing with a grit and instrumental prowess their more popular peers could only hope to achieve. This prowess may only be recognized in inchoate form on their initial recording. But this would change in short order. Listen to their live BBC recordings (officially unreleased even now) of Berry classics "Roll Over Beethoven" and "Memphis, Tennessee," or to their cover of the immortal "Carol" from their first LP, and compare it to the Beatles' recordings of those songs, and you will have all the proof you need. Jagger and Richards may never have been able to write a good "pop" song. So what? They are the definitive rock 'n roll band. May they reign for years to come.

The Times They Are A-Changin', Part 4: The Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus

Bonifacio di Pitati, Dives and Lazarus (1540a, Accademia de Venice)
(image@commons.wikipedia.org)

[For previous posts in this series, see here, here, and here.]

Over the past month I have been blogging intermittently on one of Luke's dominant topoi, that of the so-called "eschatological reversal," according to which the arrival of the kingdom of God will inexorably bring with it a fundamental social transposition. Those who hitherto had experienced the depredations of poverty and, hence, were totally dependent on God for their security (the "poor") would find themselves vindicated and blessed. The rich, meanwhile, who in this life experienced power, popularity, and pleasure at the expense of the invisible masses below them on the social ladder, would be brought low. Jesus, who programmatically directed his "gospel" message to the "poor" in keeping with the prophecy of Isaiah 61:1-2 (Luke 4:16-21), most clearly enunciates this social transposition in the blessings and woes found in his Sermon on the Plain (Luke 6:20-26). But it is in one of his most famous parables that he describes this reversal most memorably. I am speaking, of course, of his story about the rich man and a poor beggar named Lazarus, found in Luke 16:19-31:

“There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores. The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’ But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been set in place, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’ He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family, for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’ Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’ ‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’ He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’” 

I remember vividly how this parable was understood and used in the Christianity of my youth. Because nothing was said about the faith (or lack thereof) of Lazarus—with some of my teachers this consideration would have been rendered moot by the different "dispensation" under which Jesus' auditors' lived—the emphasis was placed entirely on the second part of the story, viz., the depiction of the characters' lives in the afterlife in "Hades." Most often—as would be expected for those who believed this story recounts an actual event instead of a fictional story—this description was presented as a literal picture of what awaited people after death . Sometimes this "two compartment theory" of Hades was correlated with the notion of Jesus' "harrowing of hell" in the triduum between Jesus' death and resurrection.

Such an understanding, however, is clearly mistaken. The fact that the story is a parable is clear from the outset: the very words Luke has Jesus saying to introduce the story (anthrōpos tis ["a certain man"]) are precisely the words he used to introduce parables in Luke 10:30; 14:16; 15:11; 16:1; and 19:12. As such they would signal readers to the story's genre in the same way the phrase "once upon a time" does to modern-day English readers. Even more significantly, the portrayal of the afterlife here differs significantly from what may be gleaned elsewhere in the New Testament about the state of the dead in the time prior to the final resurrection (which is decidedly less clear than many imagine). Indeed, the story is filled with motifs found both in Greco-Roman (the Egyptian tale of Setme, Lucian's Cataplus) and Jewish (the story of the legal scholar and the tax collector Bar Ma'yan found ca. 400 CE in the Palestinian Talmud [y.Sanhedrin 6.6 (23c)/y.Ḥagigah 2.2 (77d)]) sources in the ancient world (besides H. Gressmann's almost century-old article, "Vom reichen Mann und armen Lazarus" in Abhandlungen der königlichen preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, cf. R. F. Hock, "Lazarus and Micyllus: Greco-Roman Backgrounds to Luke 16:19-31," Journal of Biblical Literature 106 [1987] 447-63; R. Bauckham, "The Rich Man and Lazarus: The Parable and the Parallels," in The Fate of the Dead: Studies on the Jewish and Christian Apocalypses [NovTSup 93; Leiden: Brill, 1998] 97-118). The Lukan story differs in certain respects from all such parallel tales, so talk of "adaptation" of one or more by Jesus (or Luke) is less apposite than a realization that the story makes use of common folkloric motifs to make its point. If so, however, we must conclude that Luke's purpose in including this story in his account had nothing to do with providing a geographical picture of the contours of Hades, the realm of the dead. As always—can it ever be otherwise?—we must look to the story's immediate co-text to discern its purpose and intended meaning.

Years ago T. W. Manson referred to the special Lukan ("L") material in Luke 15-19 as "the Gospel of the Outcast" because of its high concentration of parabolic teaching "whose purpose is primarily to demonstrate God's care for those whom men despise and condemn" (The Sayings of Jesus [London: SCM, 1949] 282). Within this section chapter 16 presents what Joel Green has helpfully dubbed "Kingdom Economics" (The Gospel of Luke [NICNT], 586). Indeed, this chapter is framed by the twin parables of the Unjust Steward (16:1-9) and the Rich Man and Lazarus (16:19-31), which are held together by Jesus' more straightforward teaching on the use of money (16:10-13) and the permanent validity of the Torah (16:16-18), and so are designed to mutually interpret each other. Not only this, but the intended target of Jesus' teaching is likewise made clear, viz., the Pharisees:

The Pharisees, who loved money, heard all this and were sneering at Jesus. He said to them,“You are the ones who justify yourselves in the eyes of others, but God knows your hearts. What people value highly is detestable in God’s sight." (Luke 16:14-15)

Jesus' parable of the Unjust Steward is a model of ironic brilliance, as he uses the example of the selfishly motivated perpetrator of fraud to make his point about how his own followers should use "the mammon of unrighteousness" (16:9), that is, the money of this present world which, as it is the currency of "the present evil age," inexorably tends to corrupt and enslave (16:13) those who live for it. The unrighteous manager was, as the defrauded owner resignedly admitted, "shrewd" (16:8) in the way he used money to play the system and garner future goodwill upon his release into the labor market. If "the people of this world" are so attuned to the ways of the world, why then, are "the people of the light" so tone deaf, as it were, to the ways of the kingdom of God (16:8)? And nowhere does faithfulness to the ways of the kingdom count more than in the use of money. Kingdom economics involves reorienting one's view of money around the priorities of the kingdom. And that means, as Jesus says, "gaining friends for yourselves" with money "so that when it is gone, you will be welcomed into eternal dwellings" (16:9). Such "faithfulness" (16:10-12) with what God has entrusted oneself with will come in handy when the real crisis, be it death or the earthly consummation of the kingdom, comes. Only those who have thus been faithful will "be welcomed into eternal dwellings" (16:9).

What such faithfulness entails is not described in the story or in Jesus' application thereof. But the attentive reader of Luke's Gospel already should know what is involved. For our Lord has already instructed his followers of what Kingdom Economics" entails:

“Do not be afraid, little flock, for your Father has been pleased to give you the kingdom. Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will never fail, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also." (Luke 12:32-34)

The difference between the self-serving action of the unjust steward and that of Jesus' followers, however, is startling. For the disciple of Jesus, if she is to orient her existence around the priorities of the kingdom of God, must do so without any expectation of reciprocity. Love entails generosity and a complete disregard for the social structures of this world. And it is in this light that the following parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus must be understood. The rich man provides, as it were, a negative example of one who lived according to the mores of this world and who, as a consequence, was not "received into eternal dwellings" when his allotted time on earth had come to its close.

In the past it always struck me as odd that Jesus provides no information about the faith and little of the behavior of the story's two main characters. But those who have been reading Luke's Gospel already know Jesus' perspective on the two characters. The rich, by virtue of Jesus' conception and birth, have already been deposed from their seats of power (1:52-53). Having already received their "consolation" in this life, Jesus proleptically pronounces "woe" against them in anticipation of the coming eschatological reversal (6:24). Indeed, the rich man in this story acts according to type. He remains oblivious to the poor, crippled beggar who had been dumped (ebeblēto) at the gate of his estate (16:20), apparently viewing himself as generous for dumping the crusty pieces of bread used as napkins onto the floor at his feet (16:21). That he knew about the beggar is evident from his post-death dialogue with Abraham, where he suggests that the patriarch send Lazarus (he knew his name, after all!) both to provide aquatic relief for his suffering in Hades (16:24) and to warn his siblings of the unwitting fate awaiting them (16:27). Indeed, the rich man addresses the patriarch as "Father Abraham" (16:24, 27, 30), demonstrating covenantal misunderstanding even in death. The reader of Luke, of course, already knows that John the Baptizer had warned the crowds who had gathered around him in hopes that he would herald the coming of the Kingdom of God:

"Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. And do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham. The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.” (Luke 3:8-9)

Lazarus, on the other hand, despite being poor, undernourished, crippled, and besieged by scavenging canines, is transported to "Abraham's bosom," likely a development of the Old Testament concept of dying and "being gathered to their fathers." Nothing is said about his love of God or Torah-centered behavior. The key, however, to understanding his character is found in the distinctive feature of the story which has misled many popular preachers into thinking the story was a "real" one. I am speaking, of course, of the fact that this poor cripple is given a name. And it is not just any name. "Lazarus" (Lazaros) is a Hellenized, shortened form of the Hebrew name ’El’āzār, which means "God helps." In other words, Lazarus represents the very "poor" whom Jesus declared blessed, to whom he had come to proclaim the "gospel," and whose fortunes had been reversed in principle by his coming into the world.

The parable, then, is a graphic portrayal of eschatological reversal already realized. What it provides is a narrative call for his hearers to make use of their money faithfully and wisely in the service of the kingdom of God and the poor who are its primary beneficiaries. After all, as Abraham tells the unnamed rich man, Moses and the Prophets (which in the immediate co-text Jesus already has proclaimed still to be relevant [16:17]) have plenty to say about how God's covenant people are to treat the poor in their midst (Luke 16:29; cf., inter alia, Deut 15:7-8; Isa 58:6-7; Amos 2:5). A fortiori, the same priorities should be found among the putative citizens of that kingdom. Money, after all, is "the mammon of unrighteousness" and completely irrelevant to the new world set in motion by the Christ event. And so, as Klyne Snodgrass nicely puts it, "the injustice of the juxtaposition of wealth and poverty cannot be tolerated" by those who claim to be followers of Jesus (Stories with Intent: A Comprehensive Guide to the Parables of Jesus [Grand Rapids and Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2008] 433.

This is not a matter to be taken lightly, no matter how countercultural it may be for those Christians raised with an ingrained American worldview. But, according to Jesus, the matter is one in which "being received into eternal dwellings" is at stake (Luke 16:8). Claiming to be a Christian while showing no concern for the poor is an oxymoron, whether we want to acknowledge it or not. In the end the matter will not hinge on one's profession, for God is not mocked and knows the human heart. Callous indulgence in this life will be met with an absence of blessing from God in the next.

Jesus, of course, does not say how this is to be done, in his own context let alone in our very different social world of today. Luke, however, does provide an approving glimpse later in his two-volume work about how the Christian church implemented, from the very beginning, the priorities of the kingdom in their own community life. Discussing those texts will be the subject of my next, and last, installment in this series.

A Proleptic Requiem for the 2013 Phillies

It is May 2, a picture-perfect, sun-splashed 70 degree day here in southeastern Pennsylvania. The tulips, dogwoods and cherry trees are blooming, and the flowers are just starting to bloom on the azalea bushes in my front yard. I should be happy, but I must nevertheless bring bad tidings to the millions of fans of Philadelphia's ever-popular Major League Baseball franchise: the 2013 Phillies are dead.

On the first of April I published my second annual Phillies season projection, forecasting a mediocre, third-place season with 85 or so wins. After enduring 31 days and 28 games (17% of the season) of the Phailin' and Phlailin' Phils, I must say that, for the second straight year, I allowed my emotional attachment to the team to override both my better judgment and my native melancholy pessimism. Simply put, a third place finish in the NL East is still a distinct possibility. That is due, however, not to any genuine mediocrity attaching to the Phils, but to the utter awfulness of the New York Mets and the Miami Marlins, the latter of which has done a more than adequate impression of a AA team thus far. The Phils are, to be blunt, a mess, deservedly destined for the skybala heap of the National League.

After 28 games, they are 12-16, 5.5 games behind the Atlanta Braves and 2 games behind the thus far-underachieving Washington Nationals. The optimist will say that they are still within striking distance and that, with two Wild Card spots to be filled, they still have hope with so much of the season yet to play. No one who actually follows this team, however, could ever be such an optimist unless, of course, such a person has spent most of his or her time this past month emulating ostriches. Indeed, the Phils are a combined 7-2 against the aforementioned hapless Mets and Marlins, outscoring them 41-22 in the process. Against all other teams, they are an embarrassing 5-14, having been outscored 106-59. The last two days they were outscored 20-2 in a pair of losses to the Cleveland Indians—the Indians, for crying out loud!—who entered the series with an underwhelming 10-13 record. And they did this while sending two former Cy Young Award winners (Roy Halladay and Cliff Lee) to the mound, both of whom were shelled mercilessly. Thus far, out of 32 major league teams, they rank 24th in runs scored, 25th in on base percentage (OBP), 28th in walks per game, and 24th in slugging percentage. These stats are bad enough, but they are exacerbated by the continuance of what has been, for several years, an apparently pathological inability of the team's highly paid "stars" to perform in the clutch. Against the Pirates on 25 April, they went 2-16 with runners in scoring position (RISP) in a 6-4 loss. Last night they took the collar, going 0-10 with RISP in a 6-0 loss to 22-year old Trevor Bauer, yet another no-name pitcher who has morphed into Sandy Koufax when he faces the Phillies juggernaut. Despite their expensive starting rotation, staffed with former and supposedly present "aces," they rank 26th in ERA. Their early and middle relief pitchers (Jeremy Horst, Chad Durbin, Raul Valdes) are an embarrassment.

Of all the players on the team, only the seemingly rejuvenated Chase Utley appears able to perform at a championship level. After two injury-shortened seasons which seemed to portend inexorable decline, Utley has thus far played better than at any time since at least the 2010 season. Ryan Howard, on the other hand, remains a shell of his former self. Granted that he has always been a slow starter, the index of his decline is the lack of respect opposing pitchers have thus far shown him. In 2006, when he won the NL MVP by hitting 58 HRs, driving in 149 runs, and batting .313, Howard walked 108 times, 37 of them intentional. This season, in 105 plate appearances, Howard has been walked a mere 3 times, only once intentional. Shallow critics have blamed Howard's supposed "lack of patience" at the plate. Such critics need to look a little more closely. In well more than half of his plate appearances thus far (66/105), Howard has been thrown a strike for the first pitch, the vast majority of which have been fastballs that he has simply looked at as they found their way into the catcher's mitt. This, of course, plays into the opposing pitcher's hand, for Howard's great weakness is an inability to "see" off-speed and/or breaking pitches, which invariably get thrown to him when he is behind in the count. Along with this, his unwillingness to hit to left field has allowed opposing teams to overshift to the right side of the diamond when he bats. Still he refuses to even attempt going the other way. Ted Williams he is not. Hence he should not continue pretending that he is. Howard's numbers thus far (.273, 8 2B, 3 HR, 16 RBI, .444 slugging) have not been a disaster in absolute terms (indeed, most of the team's players have been far worse), but they have been a millstone around the neck of the team who needs far more from a player making $20 million this season.

GM Ruben Amaro, Jr.'s big acquisitions in the offseason were the signing of third baseman Michael Young to replace the decrepit Placido Polanco and that of Ben Revere to fit the team's gaping hole in center field.. Young, a lifetime .302 hitter, is not surprisingly hitting .326 in the early going. But he has done so while generating little power (only 2 doubles, 1 triple, and 1 homer; hence, his .326 average has translated into a mediocre .400 slugging percentage). Moreover, he has struck out an unacceptable 19 times in 95 at bats, and has hit into a league-leading 7 double plays, thwarting more than one potential rally in the process. Revere, however, despite a couple of highlight reel catches, has been a disaster. In 93 at bats, Revere is hitting a mere .204 with only one (!) extra base hit and 5 walks to his credit [an aside: to say he is hitting above the "Mendoza line" is an insult to poor Mario, who had a career .215 average and actually managed to hit 4 home runs; Revere still has none]. This translates into what would be a historically low .245 on base percentage and an even worse .226 slugging average. Revere, who would have a hard time hitting a baseball over the 206-foot fence at the Karakung Little League field in my hometown of Havertown, PA, nonetheless has struck out 14 times and, despite his being a supposed "speedster," hit into 5 double plays. When one adds the continued underachieving of left fielder Domonic Brown and the right field trio of John Mayberry, Laynce Nix, and Delmon Young to the mix, the result is, as David Murphy reported today at Philly.com, baseball's worst outfield.

However, by far the biggest disappointment thus far, and the major hindrance to the team's success, has been the performance of the starting pitchers. Roy Halladay, coming off an injury-plagued 2012, was the biggest question mark. after 6 starts, Halladay has a 2-3 record with an astronomical 6.75 ERA. In 32 innings, he has allowed just 29 hits and has 31 strikeouts. But the still-undisclosed injury to his side/shoulder has decreased his velocity, taken the bite out of his devastating cutter, and wreaked havoc with his formerly pinpoint control. He has allowed 8 homers already, and has walked 13 batters as well. When one compares these shocking stats with those from his excellent 2011 campaign (233.2 innings, 19-6 record, 2.35 ERA, 10 home runs allowed, 35 walks), it is apparent that the old Roy Halladay is gone, and one would be a fool to expect his return. Cliff Lee, likewise, has been adequate (2-2, 3.46) despite the curious lack of run support that he has continued to receive. Lee, however, is making $25 million this season. For that amount of money, more is required that has thus far been forthcoming (yet, perhaps not surprisingly, he has not been vilified to the extent Howard, who makes less money, has).

The biggest disappointment, however, has been Cole Hamels, who last season was made the recipient of a $153 million contract extension, $19.5 million of which he is being paid in 2013. Hamels has always been a good pitcher, especially last year, when he went 17-6 with a 3.05 ERA and 216 strikeouts in 215 innings. With his new contract, however, Hamels was quickly pronounced the number one starter on a team with two former Cy Young award recipients. And, following an excellent Grapefruit League performance this spring, Hamels looked primed and ready to play the part. But he has yet to repay the confidence placed in him. Thus far he has struggled with an unsightly 1-3 record, a 1.33 WHIP, and 4.78 ERA. Like Halladay, his problem has been location: his 4.1 BB/9 innings ratio is almost double his career 2.3 mark. Of all the underachieving Phils, however, Hamels is the one about whom I am least worried.

Of course, it is still early, but what I have seen does not bode well for the season as a whole. I have no doubt that the statistics of at least some of the players will improve and become more "respectable." Like last season, however, when a late rally resulted in a somewhat "respectable" 81-81 record, it will be too late. This team, if my well-trained eyes don't deceive me at all, is going nowhere fast. Long gone are the days when Jimmy Rollins, Ryan Howard et al. can pick it up during the season's second half and propel the team to divisional glory. For one, the division is now not populated by patsies and the forever-choking Mets. More importantly, the Phillies themselves are much older and deficient in what matters most, viz., talent.

What has frustrated me the most over the past few seasons is the lack of urgency I see during the team's interminable dry spells. That is partly due, of course, to the style of laid back manager Charlie Manuel. Manuel, as all Phils' fans know, was brought in to replace the always-impatient and hot-headed Larry Bowa, who alienated more than one player during his managerial tenure with his grimaces, smirks, and occasional unkind words. But what the team needs right now is a little shot of Bowa to wipe away the financial comfort-induced complacency that holds this team in its grip. The reason the 1980 champions will always have a place closer to my heart than the 2008 squad is exactly the fire in the belly manifested by such players as Bowa and Pete Rose, who complemented the "cool" of superstars Mike Schmidt and Steve Carlton perfectly. Maybe I'm being unfair, but I just don't see that fire in the belly of many of today's players. And that is partly the blame of GM Amaro, who constructed this team. Well, as every Phils' fan I know seems cognizant, Amaro has been an abysmal failure, gutting the farm system while wasting untold millions on unwise contract extensions to such players as Howard and Rollins. The future doesn't look bright. Here's to hoping the team's owners realize this and make a bold gesture to start anew: get rid of Charlie and RAJ now, and dump or eat some of the team's unwise contracts. The results wouldn't be pretty. But at least they would show the city's longsuffering fans that they mean business and appreciate their unrivaled support over the past 7 years.

George Beverly Shea, "I'd Rather Have Jesus"

(image@epm.org)

I’d rather have Jesus than silver or gold;

I’d rather be His than have riches untold;

I’d rather have Jesus than houses or lands, 

I’d rather be led by His nail pierced hand.

Than to be a king of a vast domain

Or be held in sin’s dread sway,

I’d rather have Jesus than anything

This world affords today.

I’d rather have Jesus than men’s applause;

I’d rather be faithful to His dear cause;

I’d rather have Jesus than world-wide fame,

I’d rather be true to His holy name.

He’s fairer than lilies of rarest bloom;

He’s sweeter than honey from out of the comb;

He’s all that my hungering spirit needs,

I’d rather have Jesus and let Him lead.

When the venerable, Canadian-born gospel singer George Beverly Shea died a couple of weeks back at the age of 104, my first response was one of surprise, not that he had died—after all, very few of us will ever make it to the century mark—but that he had still been alive. His circles and mine rarely intersected over the past three or so decades, and I simply assumed that he had passed like all the others I had known from his generation. Indeed, my preferred tastes in Christian music range from Bach and the the Anglican choral tradition to the great hymns of Charles Wesley and Isaac Watts. Yet I was nurtured in a fundamentalist Christian tradition in which American gospel music held sway, at least in the more "informal" settings of Sunday evening worship and the Christian summer camp circuit. In those days, the undisputed king of gospel singers was George Beverly Shea, whose powerful, velvety baritone was renowned coast-to-coast due to his work at Chicago's WMBI from 1939-44 and with the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association beginning in 1947.

Shea's most famous song is undoubtedly the Boberg-Hine classic, "How Great Thou Art," which he popularized through his work with Graham. Running a close second, however, is one whose music he composed himself, "I'd Rather Have Jesus," the lyrics to which had been written back in 1922 by Rhea Miller. Over the decades I had almost forgotten this song, until I was reminded once again last week while reading a thoughtful blog post by retiring Fuller Seminary President Rich Mouw entitled "My Economics Teacher, Bev Shea." When Mouw speaks, I listen. And what he said in that brief post resonated deeply in my soul and gave me a fresh appreciation for the vocalist who now, as St. Paul tells us, is present with the Lord.

You see, Shea lived the words he sang. Despite multiple offers to sing professionally in "secular" venues, he always declined, citing unease at singing non-Christian material. Whether or not one agrees with Shea's principled reluctance, it is nonetheless a fact that the gifted vocalist gave up the fame and riches that could have come his way in the age of Bing Crosby et al. And he did it because his commitment to the Lord Jesus Christ overrode any worldly ambition he may have had. In doing so, he proved himself a genuine disciple of his Lord. Consider these words:

Then he called the crowd to him along with his disciples and said: “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me and for the gospel will save it. What good is it for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul? (Mark 8:34-37, NIV)

Or these:

As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. “Good teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?” “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone. You know the commandments: ‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, you shall not defraud, honor your father and mother.’” “Teacher,” he declared, “all these I have kept since I was a boy.” Jesus looked at him and loved him. “One thing you lack,” he said. “Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” At this the man’s face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth. Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!” The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, “Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.” The disciples were even more amazed, and said to each other, “Who then can be saved?” Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God.” (Mark 10:17-27, NIV)

I remember hearing this song and singing along with it as a youngster. But I never really considered the words seriously. Sure, I'd rather have Jesus. At least I could then have fire insurance and have a place reserved for me in heaven. Or so I reasoned. And I wonder how many of the Christians who listened to Shea thought about the lyrics as much as they did his estimable pipes. Thinking back, I now believe most American Christians, if they are honest with themselves, would say, "Sure, if push came to shove, I'd rather have Jesus. But what I really would prefer is both Jesus and silver and gold." And in so thinking, they both trivialize Shea's song and ignore the teaching of they Lord they putatively follow.

At bottom the issue concerns what it means to be a Christian. For too many confessional Protestants (both Lutheran and Reformed) and evangelical/fundamentalist Christians, being a Christian is simply a function of being in the group of "saved" who, by faith alone, have their ticket to heaven already punched in advance. While not denying the fundamental Pauline/Protestant doctrine of justification by faith, exclusive emphasis on that teaching tends to marginalize Jesus' likewise-fundamental teaching on discipleship, the cost of which was so profoundly explored by (the Lutheran) Dietrich Bonhoeffer. As a result, far too many Christians in my acquaintance—and, truth be told, I in my younger years—then show themselves dualists of a fashion by compartmentalizing the "spiritual" and "secular" aspects of their life, using their Christianity as an overlay to sanctify their worldly, secular pursuits of affluence and power. And that, to be perfectly blunt (in classic Philadelphia style), could not be farther from the truth of what genuine Christianity entails. To order one's life so as to prioritize worldly fame and wealth, simply to "desire to be rich," as St. Paul wrote to Timothy (1 Tim 6:9-10), is not merely potentially sinful. Yes, such desires often prove to be the occasion of temptation and a fall into "ruin and destruction " as the apostle puts it. More fundamentally, however, such desires are actually sinful in that they manifest a lack of contentment with the essential items, food and clothing, with which God has already provided us (1 Tim 6:6-8). And Christians who mimic the world's pecuniary priorities can do little in the way of providing a prophetic critique on the culture in which we Westerners live.

God is not looking simply for people to populate heaven in the future. After all, as John the Baptizer shockingly told his Jewish audience, God had the ability to raise up people for Abraham from the rocks that lay aside the Jordan River (Matt 3:9//Luke 3:8). No. He is establishing his Kingdom on earth through his people. And so he is calling, not simply people with fire insurance, but a people who take up their cross to follow Jesus and work for that Kingdom until Jesus returns ultimately to consummate it.

George Beverly Shea knew this from an early age. He lived the priorities of the Gospel for more than a century. And in doing so he has he has provided an example the rest of us can only hope to follow. Soli Deo Gloria! I leave you with two performances of Shea singing his famous song, the first from an old 78 record dating to 1947, and the second a live version from 1965.

Is it "OK" To See Salvation Differently? Some Thoughts on John 3:16

Last week I referred to a series of posts by PCUSA pastor (and Moody Bible Institute graduate) Peter Traben Haas in which he discusses "Seven Steps to Leaving 'Evangelicalism' without Losing Your Faith." In Haas's view, "evangelicalism" is a mere "sixth grade form of Christianity" that must be transcended to remain plausible and to foster personal growth. He himself escaped the stultification of his Christian walk he had experienced at Moody through exploring the contemplative dimension of the faith his mentors had ignored. And so he proposes that retention of the faith is possible through "learning to see" various issues "differently" from how they are routinely "seen" in the fundamentalism in which he was trained.

In my previous post I noted that Haas has fallen prey to the easiest trick in the book, viz., to target the weakest elements of a given movement and to critique the movement as a whole as if its weakest elements were characteristic, if not defining, of it. In his case, he has painted the evangelical movement with the broad brush provided by the fundamentalism he encountered at Moody. Such fundamentalism, however, while consistent with the people who refer to themselves as "conservative evangelicals," is not necessarily characteristic of evangelical as a larger ecclesial phenomenon, as my reference to such figures as Fred Bruce, John Stott, Tim Keller, Jim Packer, and Tom Wright clearly demonstrate. That is not to say that I don't have concerns about certain contemporary trends in the (especially) American evangelical landscape. I certainly do. But it is to say that evangelicalism as a whole cannot be damned with criticism that pretends the movement moves in lockstep to the beat of certain neo-fundamentalist drummers.

Today I would like to discuss one of Haas's posts in particular, simply entitled "It's OK To See Salvation Differently, Part 1 of 2." In this post Haas discusses what he terms "The Problem of Salvation" and, with reference to the famous John 3:16, "The Grammar of Salvation." Saving the former matter for a later time, I would like at this time to discuss his somewhat odd reinterpretation of the Johannine text. This is his argument in its entirety:

This name and these numbers are perhaps the most well-recognized Bible reference in the world. Here is how the NIV translates this famous verse:

“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”

As I have studied this passage in the original language, I was drawn particularly to the word translated as “perish.” In the Greek it’s a 2nd Aorist, in the subjunctive mood. The upshot of that is that this word also conveys the meaning of losing something or of being lost, such as when we get lost in the woods. Furthermore, not evident in the English word “perish,” is the subjunctive mood the Greek is conveying. The sense of the subjunctive mood regards the possibility of a future action. So in my view, a better translation of the Greek word would not be “shall not perish,” but rather: “may not lose oneself.”

The subjunctive mood is normally translated with “if” or “may” clauses. The theological uptake is that the sense of this passage is not a certainty but a possibility. The verb could have easily been in the future tense, which does convey certainty, and is the way it is so often portrayed in the preaching I have heard. To be fair, it has also been conveyed very conditionally: If you do this (believe)…Then this will happen. However, since it is in the subjunctive mood, the stress should be less of a guaranteed future, and more of a possibility to take seriously.

The main verb of action is the Greek word pisteuo, translated in the NIV as “believes.” Yet, what does “believe” mean? The Greek word pisteuo conveys the nuance of trusting. So, I take believing to mean the willingness and consent to give oneself away. To what you ask? In this case, the designation in the NIV is “in him” whoever “believes in him.” Yet this prepositional pronoun may also be translated as “to him.” So, in that case we get this very startling distinction of meaning:

“God so loved the world…so that everyone giving themselves to the Son may not be lost in their pursuit of happiness in this lifetime alone, but rather possess within the gift of Life lived in the now, timelessly.”

Focusing deeper, I choose to understand the meaning of John 3.16 like this:

“God so loved the world…so that everyone giving themselves to the Son may not be lost in their own pursuits of happiness in this lifetime alone, but my also be given the inner gift of being present in the Now, timelessly.”

Keep in mind that the word translated as “eternal life” can often mean “full” or “complete” and “unending.” In fact, one of the most important things to realize is that there is an adjective of quantity, and also an adjective of quality! It seems to me that the preaching of salvation and eternal life have focused solely on the “quantity of time” in the future, in a paradise called “heaven.” In light of these grammatical insights, I choose to understand this passage speaking about the quality of life – the abundant life that is possible now in relationship with the Triune God through the life, death, resurrection, ascension and sending of the Spirit of Jesus the Christ.

Notice how this deeper translation shifts us away from the language of “getting, receiving, accepting, taking Jesus?” as the language of salvation. Also, notice how this opens a deeper dimension of understanding: we consent, we surrender, we give our self away to the Source of light, life and love and in this giving (perhaps this is a little death process of the false self), we discover the truth of what Jesus taught: you must first become like a little Child to enter the kingdom of God. You must first die to your self in order to live.

How does one respond to such a shocking reinterpretation of perhaps the best-known verse in the Bible? A generation ago I might have channeled my inner George H. W. Bush and described it as a bit of "voodoo exegesis." More prosaically, and with more experience under my belt, I would now argue that such a reading adequately demonstrates the old adage that a preacher with a little knowledge of Greek is far more dangerous to his flock than one who doesn't know it at all. It is also highly ironic that, via his "contemplative" reading of the text, he has succeeded in mirroring the most problematic notion propagated in much of pietistic fundamentalism, to wit, that meditating on a text "devotionally" without regard for its historical or authorially-controlled meaning uncovers the "deeper" structures of personalized "meaning" unavailable to scholars in their ivory towers who attempt to do the hard work of making ancient texts accessible to 21st century Westerners.

In particular, a number of problems in Haas's interpretation immediately present themselves. The first is his use of the English subjunctive mood to explain the significance of the aorist verbs apolētai ("perish") and echē ("have"). According to Haas, the fact that the author used the aorist subjunctive rather than the future indicative indicates that he did not intend to convey the certainty of the result: "the stress should be less of a guaranteed future, and more of a possibility to take seriously." But this is a woeful misunderstanding of the Greek language. Yes, the conjunction hina, when introducing a purpose clause, can be followed by a future indicative verb. However, in the vast majority of cases in biblical Greek hina is followed by a subjunctive verb. The reason for this is not because of doubt concerning the certainty of the effect's eventual fulfillment, but rather because the verb in the purpose clause answers the implicit deliberative question "Why?" rather than "What?" The certainty or otherwise of the purpose's achievement is not grammaticalized, and hence must be determined on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the context (or co-text) of the utterance. In this particular instance, if we ask whether John viewed "eternal life" as a possible or certain consequence of those who "believe in" Jesus, the answer is not difficult to discover. In John 1:12, those who believe in Jesus have been given the authority (edōken [aorist indicative] autois exousian) to be called the children of God. In the immediate context this is even more clear. In John 3:18 the one who believes "is not condemned" (ou krinetai [present indicative]). John 3:36, the climax of John chapter 3, is even more explicit: whoever believes in the Son has eternal life (echei [present indicative] zōēn aiōnian). The reason for this certainty is articulated most profoundly in John 10:28-29:

I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand.

The key clause here is "they shall never perish" (ou mē apolōntai). The use of the double negative ou mē with the aorist subjunctive is referred to by Greek grammarians as the "subjunctive of emphatic negation," in which not merely the fact, but the very possibility as well, is denied. In John 10, the fact that Jesus' sheep, who respond to his call and hence are given eternal life, will by no means ever perish is guaranteed by the protecting and preserving double grip of the Father and the Son. The upshot: "eternal life" is no mere possibility for those who believe, but a guaranteed certainty.

Second, Haas misconstrues the nature of the "perishing" from which believers in Jesus are delivered. According to Haas, because the verb apollymi, when used in the middle voice, can mean either "perish" or "be lost," he is justified in translating apolētai in John 3:16 in terms of being "lost in their pursuit of happiness." Such is indeed an odd way to pursue lexicography. Even in English we intuitively know that one doesn't determine the meaning of a word in context by looking it up in the dictionary and plugging in the one we find most congenial. In the present case, John's intended meaning is not hard to discover. "Perishing" in John 3:16 is correlative with being "condemned" (kekritai) (3:18) and "remaining" under God's wrath (hē orgē tou theou menei ep’ auton) (3:36). It is the state of (eternal) death itself (8:51), which will be consummated following the future "resurrection of condemnation" (anastasin kriseōn) (5:29). The issue is, literally, eternal life versus eternal death. How one responds in the here and now to the claims of Jesus is determinative of what sort of resurrection one will experience when the coming "hour" arrives.

Third, Haas entirely misunderstands what John means by "eternal life." Perhaps the folks with which he trained were overly influenced by the KJV's translation, "everlasting life," and understood it to emphasize primarily its "unending" character to be experienced "in heaven." To be sure, that is how I understood the text as a child, but was quickly disabused of such a half-truth once I started my theological education. Haas, however, makes the opposite error of interpreting it in accordance with Greek ideas as indicative of "timelessness" and "quality of life": "the inner gift of being present in the Now, timelessly."

Now, every serious student of John is aware of the Evangelist's distinctive "realized eschatology," according to which "eternal life" is a gift that believers in Jesus can experience in the here and now in advance of what Jesus refers to as the "resurrection of life" (John 5:28). Moreover, this "life" is not merely never-ending, but is qualitatively different from standard human life in the grip of the present age. It is, one might say, "real life" in which its beneficiaries can really live life "to the full" (perisson [John 10:10). But "timelessness" and "qualitative distinctiveness" per se are hardly the points in John's characteristic usage of the term "eternal life" (zōē aiōnios). Rather, the key to understanding the term is to recognize that it was used by the LXX and Theodotion in Daniel 12:2 to translate the Hebrew expression ḥayyê ‘ôlām, "the life of the age (sc. to come)," viz., the age following the resurrection of the dead. It thus fits nicely into the two-age structure of Jewish apocalyptic eschatology, which divided history into "the present age" and "the age to come." It certainly is no coincidence that John, who repeatedly speaks of "eternal life" (17x) and "life" (36x), uses this term first here in John 3:15-16, in a context in which Jesus discusses "entering the kingdom of God" with the Jewish teacher Nicodemus (John 3:3, 5). Indeed, one is certainly justified to understand "eternal life" as John's characteristic way of referring to what the Synoptic Evangelists normally call the kingdom. Like the kingdom in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, "eternal life" properly belongs to the future resurrection age in which God's promises are realized in their entirety. But, also like the "kingdom" in the Synoptics, "eternal life" is experienced proleptically in the present age by Jesus' followers as a result of his accomplishments in his life, death, and resurrection and the gift of the Holy Spirit who mediates this life via his indwelling presence.

Finally, Haas is sloppy in his understanding of what it means to "believe" in Jesus. Once again, he seems to be arguing against an understanding based on the common English translation of the verb as "believe," which emphasizes the cognitive content of what must be "believed" and stresses "the language of 'getting, receiving, accepting, taking Jesus ...' as the language of salvation." He bases his understanding on the fact that John characteristically (36x in fact) uses the expression "to believe in" (pisteuein eis), in which the preposition following the verb normally speaks of movement "to" or "into." Hence, in Haas's words, "believing" in Jesus has less to do with the intellectual component of faith than it has to do with "the willingness and consent to give oneself away" or "surrender" to him.

Of course, Haas is correct to note that intellectual assent to certain truths about Jesus and the theological significance of his death and resurrection is not the entirety of what John means by the "faith" that gives life and "saves." The verb indeed carries the connotation of "trusting in" or, better, of entrusting oneself to Jesus. Better yet, "believing in Jesus" refers to staking one's very existence on the truth of his status as Messiah, Savior, and Lord and willingly committing oneself to him in those capacities (cf. Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel according to John I-XII [AB], 513). As Kingsley Barrett put it succinctly, "Allegiance as well as assent is intended" (The Gospel according to St. John [2nd ed.], 164).

Yet ... for all his stress on "belief" as commitment and allegiance, John nevertheless defines this faith as having a clearly defined Christological content (pisteuein hoti, "to believe that ..."). Saving faith is faith that acknowledges Jesus as the "Holy One of God" (6:69), the Messiah and Son of God (11:27; 20:31), commissioned and sent by the Father (11:42; 16:27, 30; 17:8, 21), and "one" with the Father in terms of ontology as well as function (14:10-11). Likewise, John's repeated insistence that this "belief" or commitment must be an ongoing one if it is to be considered genuine. For instance, he almost exclusively uses the present tense of the verb (36x) when speaking of the faith that issues in eternal life. In other words, the key issue is not whether or not one had a "conversion experience" in the past, but whether or not a person believes now.  Elsewhere John has Jesus say that one must "remain" (menō) if one is truly his disciple (8:31). Perseverance, in other words, is one of the indispensable marks of true faith as John has presented the matter. 

Nevertheless, in the opening Prologue to the Gospel John explicitly speaks of those who by virtue of "receiving" or "accepting" Jesus (hosoi ... elabon) are granted the authority to be called God's children. Like it or not, this, as the existentialist scholar Rudolf Bultmann would have said, is the language of decision. Fundamentalist evangelicalism, even if it has tended to downplay discipleship and ignore coming to Jesus as a little child, cannot be faulted for calling people to faith and "reception" of Jesus and seeing in those terms the "language of salvation," as Haas puts it.

John 3:16 is a text which proves to be as crucial as advertised. Not only does it contain a cluster of distinctive Johannine vocabulary, it likely begins what should be understood as John's commentary on the conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus that occurred in verses 1-15 of John 3. What must a person do to enter the kingdom of God? Here John gives both the answer as well as the basis for the answer. God, motivated solely by his surpassing love for the world of humanity, "gave" (edōken) his unique Son, which in context refers both to Jesus' "incarnation" (John 3:17 with 1:14) and death (cryptically referred to in John 3:15). His purpose in doing so was that all who committed themselves to the Son in faith should not perish in eternal death but rather experience, both in the now and in the hereafter of the resurrection, eternal life. This is good news for all of us who realize our sinfulness and alienation from our creator. Hence John 3:16 rightly is, as my old Lutheran 4th grade teacher John Kieschnick said, "the gospel in a nutshell." Soli Deo Gloria!