Book Critique: Knowing Jesus Through the Old Testament

This critique will consider the style and substance of Knowing Jesus Through the Old Testament, written by Christopher J. H. Wright. Wright is a former Anglican pastor and accomplished academic, serving as John Stott’s successor through Langham Partnership International. This volume is still in its first edition, published in 1992 by InterVarsity Press in Downers Grove, Illinois. In his preface, Wright decries how Jesus Christ has been “cut off from the historical Jewish context of his own day, and from his deep roots in the Hebrew scriptures (ix).” The purpose of this critique is to evaluate the degree to which Wright successfully places Jesus Christ in religious context.

Summary

The main purpose of Wright’s volume is to consider Jesus in Old Testament context. His view is that Jesus will be fundamentally misunderstood if he is not studied in the context he actually existed in. Perhaps his main themes are best summarized by his own chapter divisions: Old Testament story, Old Testament promise, Old Testament identity, Old Testament mission, and Old Testament values. These topics all stem from the prime thrust of Wright’s work: understand Jesus in Old Testament context.

This book sets out to offer a more contextual understanding of Jesus, placing him in the culture he existed in which was so shaped by the Old Testament. Wright contextualizes Jesus primarily by putting him in linear historical perspective in Chapter One. This linearity offers a solid structure for secondary emphases to relate back to. Wright explains how Christ fulfilled the Old Testament prophecy, how his very understanding of himself was so shaped by the Old Testament Scripture, and finally how his purpose and priorities flowed from the Old Testament.

If the crying need that gave birth to this book is a Jesus out of context, the wrestling of the text is to argue for a full-orbed historical and religious placement of Jesus. Beyond Wright’s thematic emphases lies the practical thrust seen throughout this book, an emphatic conviction that Jesus Christ both as God and as man was in some sense concretely rooted in the Old Testament. His primary emphasis and secondary explanations are saturated throughout by the peripheral details that thoroughly place Jesus Christ in relation to Scripture as he knew it.

Critique

Wright’s perspective is formed by a high view of the inspiration of Scripture. Throughout this volume his prejudice is apparent because the Bible is practically the only source he consults. It is also apparent that Wright is writing this volume as an academic yet with the goal of reaching a more popular audience. Wright says in the preface that “it saddens me that so many Christians…know so little about who [Jesus] thought he was and what he had come to do (ix).” Later on he refers to “our average carol-singing Christian (8).”

Wright’s not-so-modest goal in this volume is to bridge the enormous information gap that exists for many Christians in regard to Jesus Christ in Old Testament context. He effectively accomplishes a great deal toward this goal for anyone who holds the Scripture in high regard. His information might not be as readily accepted by some scholars because it lacks significant sourcing beyond an evangelical perspective of the Bible.

Wright is able to effectively create a bridge between the contemporary Christian and the Old Testament; he does this by approaching Jesus in Old Testament context from so many angles. By exposing the Old Testament from various angles, Wright lays clear the impact and meaning this understanding adds to clarify Jesus Christ as God and man.

Wright’s arguments hold significant substance based on their utter reliance on Scripture itself. One inherent weakness which Wright himself acknowledges (x) is the entire absence of footnotes and secondary references, which is somewhat mitigated by a four-page bibliography.

Numerous reviews of Wright’s volume are available in print and online, but few delineate truly helpful or critical perspective of his work. Key reviews include those by Paul Alexander[1] and Jason Morrison.[2] Alexander notes that Wright’s style is “very readable” with “short and powerful sentences.” Morrison’s review is blithely uncritical, and offers a summary of this volume.

There are other significant works in the study of Jesus Christ in relation to the Old Testament. Walter Kaiser’s The Messiah in the Old Testament and N. T. Wright’s Jesus and the Victory of God treat this subject from different perspectives. Another helpful resource for individual study would be G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson’s Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament.

The words of Wright himself, the overwhelming tenor of reviews of this volume, and the personal evaluation of the writer of this critique unanimously point to the accessibility of Wright’s work. The question remains: in what specific ways might an average reader apply the knowledge gained in the reading of this volume?

There are at least three specific ways this volume is of use for the average reader. First, rather than coercing Old Testament passages into a Jesus-shaped decoupage, Wright lays bare the reality that the Old Testament is about Jesus. This realization gained from reading Wright’s book might very well transform the reader’s perspective of Jesus.

Second, for the reader who follows Wright’s primary emphasis and secondary considerations, this volume provides an approach from many angles to the question at hand. The reader is more suitably prepared to understand and share his new perspective of Jesus along any one of these lines.

Finally, Wright offers a common-sense explanation of Jesus that also provides the contemporary Christian with a holistic and meaningful understanding of the Old Testament. Not only has he exposed Jesus in the Old Testament context, but he has also exposed the Old Testament in the Jesus context. This provocatively dualistic realization should utterly transform the average reader’s understanding and therefore application of the Old Testament.

Conclusion

Wright’s volume is a compelling and readable bridge from today through the Old Testament to Jesus Christ. Since Wright’s goal was to offer a readable, non-academic treatment of the subject, he has satisfactorily accomplished his end. This book is not useful for those purposes which demand a thorough academic approach.

Knowing Jesus Through the Old Testament was an eye-opening experience for the critique writer. This is at least in part more a tribute to the writer’s ignorance than to Wright’s competence. The Old Testament in its intrinsically valuable state is revealed by this volume, and in turn Jesus Christ in his historical and religious context gains dimension and value that rightly belongs to him.

Wright’s volume answers a profound yet subliminal question of the usefulness and relevance of the Old Testament. His book may leave the average reader wondering in what ways he should be more critical or aware of Wright’s particular emphasis or perspective. The book is highly recommended to anyone who values Scripture as God’s Word, and wishes to form a more biblical understanding of Jesus as God and man.

Wilbur

---

[1] http://9marks.org/CC/article/0,,PTID314526|CHID598014|CIID2438290,00.html

[2] http://lamentations322.blogspot.com/2008/05/book-review-knowing-jesus-through-old.html

Rethinking Discipleship

This post is a rabbit trail from the overview of church paradigms.  It is not intended to be a full treatment, but a side-perspective on the issue.

A prevailing perspective among evangelicals has been to view discipleship primarily in terms of belief.  My purpose is not to take away from the importance of one’s doctrinal statement, but to point out that biblical perspective is richer and more specific.  I think it is more accurate to talk about discipleship in terms of identities and activities than beliefs.

If we are going to set up “I believe” in opposition to “I am” and “I do,” it seems there should be significant precedent in the teaching of Jesus and the rest of the New Testament.  Belief or professed doctrine will always be important, but we need to emphasize it in the same way Christ did.  As a test passage I spent some time looking at Acts 2, a text often used to delineate what a “biblical church” looks like.

I see two identities and four activities in Acts 2.  The first identity is union with Christ (repentance/baptism, 38).  The second identity is community in his Body (added, 41 – devoted, 42).  The four activities of the Body are listed in Acts 2:42: teaching, fellowship, eating, and praying.  I am not trying to oversimplify discipleship or the church.  I am hoping to point out that the biblical perspective of Jesus, Paul, and the rest of the New Testament is far richer than simply what one claims to believe.

Clergy?

One of the biggest challenges facing the church today is that of clergy.  Who is the clergy?  What is the role of the clergy?  This post won’t answer those questions.  I do want to address two key questions that are pivotal to the discussion of clergy.

Is there a clergy/laity distinction?
There seems to be a natural understanding on the part of professing Christians that there is some distinction between clergy and laity.  Some churches (i.e., Brethren, Quaker, Mormon) have minimized any distinction yet still seem to recognize ecclesiastical leadership or office in some form.  Other churches (i.e., Roman Catholic, Fundamental Baptist, Pentecostal) have elevated the distinction, which in isolated specific cases has led to obvious problems (i.e., sexual abuse, dictatorial leadership).

Several observations are in order.  Every ecclesiastical manifestation (even house gatherings that shun formal church) has some form of leadership.  This leads to a distinction between leader and average Joe, no matter how either term is labeled or defined.

The fundamental question every church answers is what the distinction might be between the leader type and the average type of person within a specific gathering of Christians.  In my opinion the clergy/laity distinction has set up a false parameter.  This distinction is typically made on the basis of a person’s employment status (i.e., paid by a church), training (i.e., seminary), and denominational requirements (i.e., organizational standards).

In terms of Scripture there is not a clergy/laity distinction in the sense the question might commonly be asked.  There are two distinctions made in Scripture beyond the category of average Joe: shepherd (elder, bishop, pastor) and servant (deacon, deaconess).  You end up then with three possible distinctions among the people in a given Christian congregation, and none of these is predicated necessarily on either status as a church employee or on formal seminary training.

How then is the distinction made between leader and commoner in the context of church?  The biblical texts are the only authoritative method we have.  The primary passages that explain the qualifications of the shepherd are clear enough to guide the process (1 Tim. 3, Titus 1).  1 Tim. 3 offers guidance for the selection of servants in the church.  If we are going to make a clergy-laity distinction it should be along these biblical lines.

Is there a distinction among offices?
Once a person has granted that there are indeed only two “offices” in the church, the clergy-laity question must still be addressed.  In other words, I have granted that there is some distinction between the average person in a congregation and the shepherds and servants.  These three types are separated in some sense by biblical qualification and role.  Some churches have recognized the reality that church office is only distinguished legitimately by Scriptural qualification, yet have come to the unfounded conclusion that there should not be paid offices in the church.

I believe a church can pay any of the three types for functioning within their type in a way that requires extra time and diligence.  The primary biblical precedent for this in the case of the shepherds is in 1 Tim. 5:17-18.  I will not go into more detail because a simple consideration of Scripture will easily render the point valid.

Wilbur

Paradigms of Church

Sometimes it is a self-aware attempt to be “relevant” or “edgy.” Perhaps it is a subconscious fogginess of mind disguised as clarity. I have heard more times in the past year that Christians need to stop “doing” church and start “being” church. What does that mean? There’s this easy surface-level self-mutilation that evangelicals do on themselves, pointing out their own religiosity and hypocrisy. No doubt there is merit there. What does it mean to “be” the church? Certainly it is hard to “be” anything without doing something, and so our trendy little statement brings us back to where we started.

The “missional” and “attractional” discussion seems to be in full-swing right now. Perhaps it is still on the rise amongst the ministry leaders who struggle to keep up with what is going on, and no doubt the truly trendy among us have already moved on to whatever the next zeitgeistian dilemma. The church that builds around acting as a missionary to its world (missional) is pitted against the church that operates like a storefront seeking to market people in the door (attractional). Surely there are many churches that would point at others and say they are attractional, but what church looks at itself and does not think it is missional? It’s akin to asking someone if they have a sense of humor. Most people think they are funny, but you might get a different take from their friends or associates.

To get to the crux of the matter here, I think this debate is really about two things. It is about our paradigm of church, and what is truly in question is which of any number of paradigms truly represents an image the church can relate to and from. It is also about quality. Many are concerned to present a leaner, meaner church. Another way to say this is “relevant” or “trendy” or “missional” or whatever word out of a slew of terms you might choose. I see this as the church with an edge, a finely honed tool that can do whatever that tool is meant to do. Nobody wants a flabby, unfocused, irrelevant church. Or if they do, I haven’t gotten the conference flyer yet.

Before you can look at the idea of church paradigms with a clear head, we have to address the question of flabby church. There are obviously some wings of confessing Christianity who would prefer to distance themselves with distaste from the status quo of church. I have to say with brutal honesty that they are right in some ways, and I herald their efforts to address and move on from hypocrisy and empty tradition. At some point however, we need to address our concern with today’s church in terms of Scripture. What do you do with a Savior who never traveled the world, wrote a book, or held any kind of official office? Most piercing to me, what do you do with a Jesus who poured his life into just twelve disciples and even lost one of them (Judas)? What do you do with all this Bible talk about wheat and tares, sheep and wolves, good and bad fruit? And all this leads me to ponder where we get the idea of lean, relevant church. What are we talking about? It better jive with what we know about Jesus.

It still baffles me why we need to create new paradigms of church these days. I would understand if the Bible were a foundational document void of stories and pictures. If Jesus were simply a scholastic explainer of dry theological verities, it might make sense. Yet we have a Bible and particularly a New Testament full of pictures of what the church is to be. Why go inventing something new? It seems clear to me there is always a need for fresh application of biblical paradigms, specifically shaped to engage our world (whatever that might be). But why not start with the biblical paradigms? Does anyone even know the biblical paradigms? Clearly we can’t talk about the church as a building with Christ as cornerstone, that paradigm simply doesn’t jive with postmodernism. What about shepherd and sheep? Sheep sound pretty simple-minded to me, and it doesn’t seem a very good way to reach the academic cutting-edge. What about a vine and branches? I am convinced the biblical paradigms of church are relevant in any culture. We need to quit reinventing ourselves based on limited, banal human imagination. It is time for us to submit our sensitivities to the God of eternity, and the process of being reformed by him and his Word.

Wilbur

Worship Books

Usually it is the younger brother who pesters and the older brother who forgets things; however, we have had a unique reversal of roles in the past week or two.  Wilbur has been pestering me to recommend the three books on worship which I would consider the most necessary to a pastor who desires to get a glimpse into worship philosophy and theology, and I have been forgetting and procrastinating.

Not to make this more complicating than it should be, but I will first let you know about the three books which have to the greatest degree stretched my understanding and have assisted in growing my knowledge of liturgy and worship.  I do not necessarily recommend these books, but they have through their content and my exposure to them at sovereignly ordained stages in my development been enlightening.

Christian Worship: Studies in Its History and Meaning by Members of Mansfield College, ed. Micklem, Nathaniel. London, Oxford University Press, 1936.

Very interesting book of compiled essays on worship.  It is a somewhat technical and academic treatment of worship, and it is extremely thought provoking.

Old, Hughes Oliphant, Guides to the Reformed Tradition: Worship. Atlanta, GA, John Knox Press, 1973.

This book served as my introduction to the Reformed tradition of worship.  It had a profound effect on my thinking, and through this book I found a tradition with which I could relate and embrace.

The Oxford History of Christian Worship, ed. Wainwright, G. & Tucker, K., New York, Oxford University Press, 2006.

This is a magisterial volume of worship history.  It is a compilation of many experts in their respective fields.  I would strongly recommend, and I would have trouble taking anyone seriously who claims to be a worship scholar without having read this book.

In the area of historical worship practices I would recommend these three books.

White, James F., Documents of Christian Worship: Descriptive and Interpretive Sources. Louisville, KY, Westminster John Knox Press, 1992.

This is a source book which provides glimpses into historically significant traditions and perspectives.  It is a book which will challenge those whose worship philosophy extends only to the Reformation.

Martin, Ralph P., Worship in the Early Church. London, Marshall Morgan & Scott, 1964.

Ralph Martin was a distinguished scholar, and I would also recommend his works on the Christ hymns of the New Testament.

The Oxford History of Christian Worship (see above)

In the area of biblical worship practices I would recommend these three books.

Ross, Allen. Recalling the Hope of Glory: Biblical Worship from the Garden to the New Creation. Grand Rapids, MI, Kregel. 2006.

This is an expansive, relatively new volume which provides a holistic look at biblical worship.

Borchert, Gerald, Worship in the New Testament: Divine Mystery and Human Response. Danvers, MA. Chalice Press, 2008.

This book approaches each book of the Bible individually providing commentary and analysis of the different perspectives on worship held by each biblical author.  It is very fascinating, and I would recommend it as a study tool for anyone who desires to preach a New Testament text on worship.

Hill, Andrew, Enter His Courts with Praise: Old Testament Worship for the New Testament Church. Grand Rapids, MI, Baker Book House, 1996.

In the area of Reformed worship I would recommend these three books.

Hart, D.G. & Muether, John, With Reverence and Awe. Phillipsburg, NJ, P & R Publishing, 2002.

This is a good summary of the tradition.

Frame, John, Worship in Spirit and Truth, Phillipsburg, NJ, P& R Publishing, 1996.

This book is based upon the Regulative Principle, and in response to the mistreatment of the Regulative Principle Frame provides an alternate interpretation which is profoundly relevant.

Old, Hughes Oliphant, Worship Reformed According to Scripture. Louisville, KY, Westminster John Knox Press, 2002.

In the area of liturgical perspective on worship I would suggest these four books.

Galli, Mark, Beyond Smells & Bells: The Wonder and Power of Christian Liturgy. Brewster, MA, Paraclete Press, 2008.

This is a delightful book which is not incredibly deep, but it inspires much thought.

Webber, Robert, Ancient-Future Worship: Proclaiming and Enacting God’s Narrative. Grand Rapids, MI, Baker Books, 2008.

This was the last work written by Webber on his death-bed.  It provides a holistic understanding of Christian worship which is missing within conservative evangelicalism.  The richness of his treatment and perspective of worship is inspiring.

Webber, Robert, Evangelicals on the Canterbury Trail: Why Evangelicals are Attracted to the Liturgical Church. Harrisburg, NY, Morehouse Publishing, 1985.

This book chronicles Webber’s journey from evangelicalism into the Anglican tradition.  It is more of a testimonial than anything else, but it is a book with which I can deeply relate.

White, James F., Introduction to Christian Worship. Nashville, TN, Abingdon Press, 1990.

White provided perspective in this book to which most evangelicals will not have been exposed.  I would recommend it if for nothing else than to stretch and enrich your perspective on worship.

A couple of books I would recommend for those attempting to grasp the current status of worship thought today.

Kimball, Dan, Emerging Worship: Creating Worship Gatherings for New Generations. Grand Rapids, MI, Zondervan Publishing, 2004.

Dawn, Marva, Reaching Out Without Dumbing Down: A Theology of Worship for the Turn-of-the-Century Culture. Grand Rapids, MI, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1995.

Dawn provides a refreshing and unique perspective on worship.

Finally, three basic books I would recommend which will give basic perspective to a beginning reader in worship would be…

Carson, D.A., Worship by the Book. Grand Rapids, MI, Zondervan Publishing, 2002.

This is a good book for a brief overview.  It provides a portion on biblical worship, and then it provides perspective from three separate traditions which equally emphasize the importance and authority of the Bible.  It provides a good place to begin to expose oneself to other traditions within the orthodox Christian faith.

Best, Harold, Unceasing Worship: Biblical Perspectives on Worship. Downer’s Grove, IL, Intervarsity Press, 2003.

Harold Best is a bright spot within the worship scene.  He is a true intellectual, and though his books are somewhat hard to follow at times they are well worth the effort.

Worship in Spirit and Truth (see above)

Excellent book!  John Frame is a great theologian, and this is one of my favorites.

Orville

1 Corinthians 14:26; A Biblical Worship Formula

“What then shall we say, brothers? When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church.”

Within the Word there are very few prescriptions regarding congregational worship, and there exist even fewer descriptions of the form which New Testament worship took. In light of the relative quietness of the Word on the shape of congregational worship 1 Corinthians 14:26 is perhaps one of the most important statements in all of Scripture regarding communal worship formula, i.e. the interaction of worship forms such as singing, prayer, preaching, eucharist, etc. and how they can be harmoniously administered.

In much of vocal conservative evangelical thought there is a clear tendency to elevate the act of preaching in value and priority over all other forms of communal worship such as singing, prayer, ordinances, etc.; however, in an attempt to differentiate preaching from other forms of congregational action those who articulate this position generally only use references regarding preaching and the teaching of the Word. In another discipline this would look like a scientist attempting to discern how varied species of wildlife interact on the Arctic slope by only studying one species, the caribou. Such a manner of studying would be inherently short-sighted, and, sadly, most of the proponents of a formula which elevates preaching are missing the larger scope of communal worship by focusing on the caribou. If we are attempting to discern how communal worship forms interact we must analyze every worship form equally from a biblical perspective, and then when we attempt to discern priority and value we must only use references which clearly intended to address worship formula. That being said, 1 Corinthians 14:26 fits that description.

How do the various communal worship forms interact, and how do we prioritize and administer them? As stated above, the Word is very silent on the interaction of worship forms; however, 1 Corinthians 14:26 is a primary New Testament reference when it comes to analyzing the New Testament’s perspective on how communal worship forms interact. This verse contains the very rare combination of varied worship forms residing at the same scriptural address which should make it a central component of any argument or position which attempts to discern the relationships between the communal actions of the Church. Sadly, this verse almost never takes any priority within the writings of those who would elevate the form of preaching (or any other form) in value and priority over the other biblically prescribed forms. There are quite a few books written by preachers for preachers which push this concept of the priority of preaching, yet, sad to say, their books are primarily about caribou more than anything else.

Also, it speaks to an equal priority and purpose shared by all communal action, the edification of the Body. Within this verse the burden of building up the brethren spiritually, emotionally, and biblically is shared equally by all that the Church engages in whether it be preaching, prayer, singing, practicing of ordinances, etc. Nowhere in this vital reference do we get the idea that one form of communal action takes priority or is better able to achieve this goal.

What would a 1 Corinthians 14:26 service look like? Obviously, there are going to be different perspectives on style and flow, but such a service will be deeply Word-centered. It would include the Word prayed, preached, sung, read, and acted out effectively in the ordinances. It will also be intrinsically Christ-centered. All of our actions should shift focus from ourselves to Christ, leaving us with an exalted view of Him.

Losing Our Edge?

It occurs to me more and more that Bible-believing Christians in our culture seem to come with an edge. There is a bite, a dark side, a negative bent. The characterization of this idea might be the Fundamentalist with a capital “F” from the early 20th century pounding his pulpit against the evils of alcohol and evolution. That is somewhat of a caricature, yet subtler forms of the same approach have tended to characterize evangelical Christians throughout the past hundred years.

Sometimes it is directed at other types of professing Christians. Perhaps this took the form of denominational turf wars back in the old days. My Baptist daddy can beat your Methodist daddy up (and probably did, in fact). These days it seems to crop up along different lines that maybe aren’t all that different: church organizational structures, approaches to worship, or theological emphases.

The “edge” of evangelical Christianity has also directed its attention to “the world.” Many Bible-cherishing Christians of the past century have defined their engagement with the world primarily in terms of either cultural issues (alcohol, tobacco, tattoos, piercings) or political issues (abortion, marriage, economy). What does it mean to be a Christian? Oh, Christians don’t _________ (fill in the blank). Even if there are evil things that Christians do not do it seems odd to promote a belief system on the basis of what it is not.

I think about Jesus. Was he ever negative? Oh, yes. He was the Master in this also, an artist at driving his point home. Jesus certainly had an edge to his teaching and ministry. Where was it directed? To what did he apply this edge? The book of Matthew offers a convenient glimpse, this gospel dedicated to portraying the Jesus Christ who fulfilled the promises of a Messiah for the Jews.

In Matthew 4 Jesus rebukes Satan directly. Two interesting points surface: first that Jesus told Satan off because he was misusing Scripture, and second that Jesus told him off with Scripture. These two passages do not directly provide examples of Jesus with an “edge,” but they are instructive in the context of the last century of American evangelicalism. Check out Matt. 5:43ff where Jesus explains how to relate to one’s enemies, and Matt. 7:1ff where he talks about judging other people. Let’s not mention the little fruit talk in Matt. 7:15ff (oops, the cat is out).

Jesus displays an “edge” in Matt. 11:20ff, where he denounces the world as it were. He had worked miracle after miracle, and spent many days teaching but there was no response. He specifically denounced those he had preached to, walked among, and done great works in the presence of.

In Matt. 12:39, Jesus bites the religious hypocrites of his day. He points out the false pretense of their request for a sign. Again Jesus bites the religious people of his day in Matt. 15:7. Jesus once again addresses the request by the religious hypocrites for a sign in Matt. 16:4. Where is he directing his negativity? At those who are asking for a sign, knowing enough already about God yet not exercising faith or obedience.

Not only did Jesus have an “edge” with religious hypocrites, but with his own disciples when they were not getting the most basic lessons of his teaching. We see this clearly in Matt. 16:6. Again this display of Christ’s bite appears in Matt. 16:23. Peter had called into question Christ’s role as the fulfillment of prophecy. Jesus again addresses his disciples in this manner in Matt. 18:2, talking about their desires to be great.

Jesus talks with an “edge” about divorce in Matt. 19:8, condemning the hard hearts of the religious people looking for a free ride on divorce. He also condemns the Sadducees in Matt. 22:29, directly telling them they were wrong about marriage and resurrection. Matthew 23 shows the “edge” of Jesus on full display, while he pronounces seven woes on the scribes and Pharisees. Finally in Matt. 26:34, Jesus bites Peter with a rebuttal of his bravado regarding Christ’s final hours.

This is just one of the gospels, folks! Correct me, supplement me. Surely this idea is refuted clearly in the other three gospels. Surely I have missed important passages in Matthew that undermine what I am saying. Until then, I will posit that Christians will always have an edge and we better take care to direct our bite in the same way Jesus did.

Should we be busy condemning the culture around us? Should we be energetically tearing down the efforts of other confessing Christians? No! No! No! Our message should be primarily positive, patient, and teaching. We should break the mold as part of discipleship with those God has entrusted to our care. We should look for and address the religious hypocrisy of our day, sadly found in our very own churches. Maybe even on occasion we can join Jesus in condemning the world, the world we have walked among and passionately proclaimed God’s truth and grace.

How dare Christians promulgate a primarily negative message? How dare Christians condemn a world they have not sought to live among and patiently share eternity with? How dare Christians turn on each other, while ignoring the hypocrisy of their own church and their own heart?

Wilbur