True College Football

If you are all caught up in the drama of the Bowl Championship Series, then you are missing out on real college football action. The real football takes place in the I-AA Division, now known as the Championship Sub-division in a sad attempt to make the BCS look better. The I-AA playoffs start this week. Yes, I said playoffs. And this year has more stories than one could ask for. Just let me list a few.

The three undefeated teams are playing and this makes for a wonderful series of potential match-ups. Montana, McNeese St., and Northern Iowa are all looking to run the table and be declared National Champs.

Other first round games have high drama as well. Deleware plays Deleware St. for the first time ever. The traditionally white school plays the traditionally black school for the first time in football. The tension between these two schools is high, and this game is actually going to be on ESPN. Deleware by the way is a traditional powerhouse including one championship in 2003.

Appalachian State plays James Madison in the first round. Appalachian St. is looking for their third straight title, but they are playing James Madison the last team to win other than App St. So, a good battle of previous champions that ought to be on TV.

And of course looking down the road, one could see Southern Illinois get a rematch with undefeated Northern Iowa in the next round. Southern Illinois is 10-1 with their only loss coming to Northern Iowa. This game, if it happens, will be a slugfest.

And of course, my alma mater, Wofford College, is in the playoffs after a good season that saw them defeat Appalachian St., and by virtue of that tie breaker be the Southern Conference Champion. The Southern Conference is the traditional bully in I-AA going all the way back to Marshall’s days as title winners.

I will go ahead and make my prediction. It is not exactly a long shot, but I think Northern Iowa is going to run the table have the undefeated season. North Dakota St. (10-1, but is ineligible because they have not been in the league long enough)has a legitimate complaint about a really bad rule, but in the end it is all Northern Iowa.

The PCA, The SJC, and the FV

I have to comment on the discussion surrounding the Standing Judicial Commission’s (SJC) recent pronouncement against the Louisiana Presbytery and how the affects Federal Vision leader Rev. Steve Wilkins.

Just for some quick background, complaints had been made about the orthodoxy of Rev. Wilkins because of his Federal Vision. The PCA Study Committee passed a report against the Federal Vision. Rev. Wilkins was cleared twice by his own presbytery, but complaints continued from both in and out of the presbytery. The SJC has decided that Rev. Wilkins was wrongly cleared, and we await a plea of guilty or not guilty by the Louisiana Presbytery.

Now I have to say that I think Doug Wilson has a very valid point about this being a very slick system (just for clarity comparing Wilkins to Machen is wrong). Wilson has a very comical summary that really has no answer from the anti-Federal Vision side. The idea a man could be excommunicated without ever being declared guilty or being personally allowed to appear is ludicrous. Hopefully, it will not happen in such a manner. Many other ministers have begun to refer to the PCA as the un-presbyterian church in America or just putting a ? instead of the word Presbyterian. There is a shade of truth to those accusations.

However, here is where the Federal Visionists go completely wrong. They focus in two distinct areas. The first is that the SJC has never been a place where the verdict could be appealed. This is not some new invention put in place to put down Rev. Wilkins this is the system set up in the church constitution. All of this judicial process has taken place according to the way the PCA does business. Nothing has occurred that violates church law. It just turned out that Wilkins can now be defrocked without being on trial. It is hard to blame people for following the rules. These PCA ministers who now refer to their own denomination as un-presbyterian should have been complaining about the rules for years and decades. If they truly think this unpresbyterian, then why did they not complain before? The fact that only now do they complain about it shows the true nature of the complaint. It is not against the system, but rather against the outcome. They would love the inability to appeal if the verdict had gone the other way.

The second point is against Wilson himself. Are we really supposed to think he cares? His denomination accepted a man who was defrocked in the plain light of day for not only for heresy (infant communion) charges, but also for spiritual tyranny and tax fraud. This man’s ordination (despite being removed by the defrocking) was accepted. After such actions, which apparently were not the first, should we think that what the judicial processes of other denominations mean anything to Wilson or to the CREC? When viewed in this light it appears that Rev. Wilson is merely setting the stage for what he wants to happen. Regardless of outcome, The CREC will extend a spot to Rev. Wilkins and any who follow him and to their churches. All of the complaining is public relations.

So in short, I do find the judicial process in the PCA to be less than Presbyterian. No one should be excommunicated or defrocked without a hearing or trial where he is found guilty. If the PCA thinks the Louisiana Presbytery should be found guilty for not finding Wilkins guilty that really out to come after someone declares Wilkins guilty. However, the rage and arguments coming from the Federal Vision movement is contrived and fake. It would not matter what occurred they would still be complaining. They would not respect the decision of the PCA, and the CREC is the ultimate destination for all FV men.

Various Notes and Lessons

I have a Youth event this weekend, so this and the next quick blog are all you should expect from me this week. Preparing for this event is taking up more time than I thought. So here are a few quick things that would have gotten fuller treatment if I had the time.

If you want to keep a good opinion about our country and its vigilance to stay safe from enemies do not ever study Joseph McCarthy or the Red Scare of the 40’s and 50’s. I will probably post a fuller review of the new book Blacklisted by History about Senator Joseph McCarthy, but needless to say, it is a devastating look into how our country allowed communists to set our agenda for years. Disturbing to say the least.

College Football has been crazy this year. Lots of people are wondering why and what the meaning of it is. Sadly no one gets it quite right. The true point of this year’s fiasco that is college football is that the BCS system is fundamentally flawed and broken. The question and debate is not about whether or not Kansas belongs in the title game, but really the question is why is Hawaii just brushed aside. What this year has shown us is that BCS conferences are really not any better than any other conference that are not part of the BCS. Go back to the beginning of this year when Boise St. beat Oklahoma. The Big Ten this year has two losses against Division I –AA. Let us remember that Division I-AA teams play the BCS teams on the road. Yet, when the top I-AA teams get a shot at the big boys, they can win. North Dakota St beat Minnesota for the second year in a row. Appalachian St. beat Michigan. Northern Iowa beat Iowa State from the Big 12. Other power house I-AA teams like Montana did not get a shot at any BCS or Division I-A schools. In fact, when the USA Today did its conference power rankings, which are naturally weighted for the Division I schools the Southern Conference (I-AA), the Gateway (I-AA) and the Colonial (I-AA) all finished ahead of multiple Division I-A conferences.

The lesson from this football year is that the BCS is a power grab by conferences in order to not reveal how weak they can be. The lesson is that until a playoff system is instituted without polls and all conferences are created equal, no champion is a real champion in college football.

Rev. Armstrong clears Rev. Shepherd

Rev. John Armstrong has proclaimed Rev. Norman Shepherd to be a minister of the gospel and not a heretic. I suppose that is his right, after all Rev. Armstrong’s ACT 3 is a very ecumenical organization that if it ever proclaimed anyone to be a heretic that would be a headline. However, what is the basis of this clearing of Rev. Shepherd’s name? Well, Rev. Armstrong fails to provide us with anything. Instead he freely admits that Rev. Shepherd teaches:

that the faith by which we are brought into union with Christ in salvation, i.e., the faith that brings justification in the present and at the final judgment, is vital, living, penitent, obeying faith.

That is the crux of the debate. Is it faith alone or faith and the obedience and repentance? Shepherd tries to merge the three and Protestantism has always kept them separate. So, no real vindication is provided instead just a re-statement of the problem at hand followed by a magical declaration that frees Rev. Shepherd from heresy. Why does this bother me? Well because Rev. Armstrong takes a shot at me through my denomination. He states,

Several very small and conservative Reformed denominations have drafted statements calling Rev. Shepherd's teaching heresy. As I listened to Norm teach this weekend, and then heard him answer question after question faithfully, I was struck once again at how clearly biblical his theology of salvation is. It is so easy to put a label on someone's ideas and then refuse to actually hear them and really deal with what they teach. By this kind of attack on Shepherd many wonderful people in the churches are confused and do not understand what is actually being taught in many cases.

It is true the RCUS is a small denomination, but it is untrue that we did not listen to what Rev. Shepherd said and wrote. In fact, the RCUS had Shepherd out to try and clear up the issues at hand all the way back in the 70’s when he first started getting in trouble at Westminster. So, in one sense not only did we listen we took 30 years to condemn his teachings. Plus, if you read the RCUS report, we actually have quotes of troublesome theology. You would think that if one were to brush aside the small reformed denomination one would want to at least deal with their concerns. But, alas, Rev. Armstrong feels no need to do that because of his powerful experience this past weekend. I suppose others can follow suit and put their confidence in the wonderful striking experiences, but do not pretend that his words have been cleared. They have not. The controversy remains are we saved by faith alone, or by faith, repentance, and some obedient non-meritorious works.

Bishop Wright and John 1:1-18

Bishop Wright makes several argument about his position from Scripture. Remember is argument is best framed by this quote:

no first-century Jew could think of a human being, far less than himself, as the incarnation of God. Jewish monotheism prohibits it; and even if it didn’t (If we take Alan Segal’s point about pluriformity within early Jewish God-talk), there is no actual model for it within Judaism. (Jesus’s Self Understanding)

Bishop Wright begins by stating that all title such as Christ, Son of Man, and Son of God only point to the Messiahship of Jesus, his vocation, rather than being the Second Person of the Trinity. This fact is generally granted for the title of Jesus except Son of God and perhaps Lord. More in-depth argumentation against the idea that the Son of God title means Second Person of the Trinity can be found in a 9 part series of posts by Rev. Jeff Meyers. I believe Rev. Meyers is arguing along a similar path as Bishop Wright with regards to the title ‘Son of God’. Now, I do think that the title Son of God refers to the divinity of Jesus, but I am simply going to grant his point here. I do not think that the self-knowledge of Jesus as the Second Person of the Trinity hinges on the title Son of God. So I will just pass this point, but noting my disagreement for now. Perhaps in a future post series we can take that subject up.

The first point that any discussion of Jesus as a self-aware Second person of the Trinity should start is with John 1:1-18. This familiar passage gives us a clear picture of the Incarnation and is the traditional defense of Jesus as God. Bishop Wright of course deals with this passage.

The Word became flesh, and tabernacled in our midst’: eskenosen is of course a Temple-image, and if we understand John 1:1-18 in terms of its Jewish roots, and its parallels in, for example, Sirach 24, this should not surprise us. Word, Wisdom, Spirit and ultimately Temple and Torah—these are the themes which, in Judaism, speak of the one, true and living God active within the world in general and Israel in particular, promising future decisive personal action to save Israel and the world. These are the themes of the Prologue, and of the whole Gospel; and I suggest that they are also major themes in the Synoptics.

Bishop Wright seeks to make John 1 about a picture of the Temple. The Word tabernacles with us. I have no objection to the Word tabernacling with us, I have disagreement with the spin placed on it and the use of the other words. Bishop Wright takes ‘Word’ as a reference to 2TJ’s manner of speaking about the work of God. Wright’s reference to Sirach 24 is puzzeling as it speaks of Wisdom tabernacling and relates Wisdom to the Torah, but nothing about the Word. But here is where Wright’s methodology dominates his Christology. There are ways to use the Logos (the Greek of Word) that do not involve Wright’s 2TJ. For example the term ‘Word’ had a long Greek history. The Stoics, a major philosophical force in the first century used the term freely to mean the principle through which all things came to be and to which all returned. Hellenistic Jews used the term often to refer to Divine Reason. So the term obviously found its way into widespread Jewish usage too. John could be communicating here with the Greek philosophy of the age by calling out their Logos that created all things is actually God and with God and now has taken on flesh. It would fit more with the audience of John since it appear he is not directing his gospel to the First Century Jew.

Of course the other problem that Wright does not address in his on-line articles is that John (no matter whose reading one takes) is beginning with the Word who is God and with God. This Word is what takes on flesh. John begins with the eternal divine nature of Jesus and then tells us Jesus took flesh, the human nature. When we begin with the Second Person of the Trinity and move to that Person of the Trinity taking to himself a human nature, then it becomes hard to imagine a Jesus who is not self-conscious of his divine nature. In fact, the method of Wright to ask what a first century Jew could possible have thought is the exact opposite of the method of John in his gospel.

As for John 1:14 where the Word tabernacles among us somehow being a reference to the Temple which overthrows the centrality of persons and natures in Christology, I think there is a better explanation. John 1:14 seems to me to be alluding to the much repeated formula of God being our God, we being his people, and he dwelling among us. Leviticus 26:11-12 comes to mind. There we find out that the tabernacle should be among the people because He is our God and we His people, and He will walk among us. Jesus is fulfilling the picture the tabernacle gave us. I do think John 1:14 is referring to the picture of the tabernacle and the temple, but instead of reading John 1:14 as a First Century Jew and think of Jesus serving like the Temple as a way God works among his people, we ought to view the temple as a picture of Jesus. In short, it seems to me Wright wants to take his First Century Judaism and let that dominate his view of Jesus, and I think we should take out view of Jesus and let that dominate the view of Judaism.

In summary then I do not buy Bishop Wright’s explanation of John 1:1-18 because he seems to brush aside too much by claiming the Temple view, and because John is clearly beginning with the self away Second Person of the Trinity and taking to himself a human nature. This more than implies a divine-human who is more than self-aware. The only way to get to Wright’s self aware human who is unaware of his divine nature is to fall into Nestorianism by making two persons. The text does not allow it.

Getting back to Bishop Wright and Christology

Easing our way back into the N.T. Wright discussion I want to stress a few things before getting into the Scriptures. As we examine the Scriptures we will be looking to refute the main proposition of N.T. Wright’s new christology.

Let me be clear, also, what I am not saying. I do not think Jesus “knew he was God” in the same sense that one knows one is tired or happy, male or female. He did not sit back and say to himself “Well I never! I’m the second person of the Trinity!”

I am saying that Jesus did know he was the second person of the Trinity and that he was self-conscious about it. I think the Scriptures teach that as well.

One might think that this a pointless debate, but I believe that it is a real one. Bishop Wright gets taken to task a lot for his views about Paul and Justification, and rightly so. However, N.T. Wright is also re-writing Christology and it is going under the radar, or at least it is not getting the same fire as his views about Paul. It is something that I think this generation of the church will have to struggle with again. Listen to the Right Reverend Wright on the subject.

Let me put it like this. After fifteen years of serious historical Jesus study, I still say the creed ex animo; but I now mean something very different by it, not least by the word “god” itself. The portrait has been redrawn.

Bishop Wright has no problem confessing creeds like Chalcedon, Nicea, and the Apostles, but he means new things by the words he finds there. The idea that one can keep a creed with the same wording and throw out the meaning is disturbing enough, but the self-conscious re-writing of Christology ought to strike at the very heart of the church. Of course a re-working of Christology can and will often lead to a re-working of the Trinity as well. Now, I cannot speak for Bishop Wright and his view of the Trinity, and we cannot take his confession of ancient creeds because of his willingness to put his own meaning into other people’s words. But, the ball is rolling, Wright is influential, and you will see the Trinity under attack before you know it.

*All quotes from Wright in this post are found in his article "Jesus and the Identity of God