Theologians and pastors alike have come to expect that, as each calendar year turns, Dr. Tom (N.T. Wright) will publish some new work. Such has happened just this week with the release of his most recent book now available, The Paul Debate: Critical Questions for Understanding the Apostle.

It’s not as if Wright hasn’t already written plenty on the topic – he has, perhaps, published more on Pauline studies than any other over the past three decades. Some of his greatest works include What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity?, Paul: In Fresh Perspectives, and Justification: God’s Plan & Paul’s Vision. Even more, his massive 1700-page tome, Paul and the Faithfulness of God came out only two years ago. It was volume 4 of his Christian Origins and the Question of God. He has literally racked up thousand and thousands of published pages on the theme of Paul’s theology as found in the New Testament.

Most will know by now, but Wright steps to the plate as a champion for what has been titled the “new perspective on Paul” (NPP), which is in contradistinction to a normal evangelical reading of Paul’s letters, especially his letters to the churches in Galatia and Rome. Following in the vein of folk like E.P. Sanders and James Dunn, Wright argues that the NPP paradigm offers a better grounding in the first-century setting of Paul. The normal Protestant and evangelical readings of Scripture, NPP advocates charge, is to readily run through the lens of a perspective that came along later during the 16th century Reformation.

As expected, with the release of Paul and the Faithfulness of God, much scrutinization of the magnum opus followed, both criticism and praise. In an effort to briefly respond to the reviews (the book’s content weighs in at a mere 107 pages), and probably more the critical responses, Wright has offered this new Baylor Press publication, The Paul Debate. In all, the book serves as a succinct summary of his own insights into the new perspective on Paul.

In particular, the book is broken into five chapters of similar length that address particular criticisms. As he outlines in the Preface:

To read even this summary of the book’s themes easily reminds us that the present work is more suitable to seminarians than a popular audience. To break it down, consider these points being addressed in each chapter.

Chapter 1 – Was Paul simply a Jew who knew Jesus as Messiah or did he carry a more Hellenistic, Greek perspective with only very little Jewish thought remaining? Or, was Paul deeply rooted in his Jewish thinking, but was one who had had his paradigm renewed in the new framework of Jesus as God’s Messiah? Wright is convinced Paul was as Jewish as they come, yet, thinking like the Messiah meant “bringing a whole world of Jewish thinking into a new focus, a new frame, because the Messiah himself, so Paul believed, had brought the whole life of God’s ancient people into a new focus, a new frame.” (p11)

Chapter 2 – This chapter flows on from the first in that Wright gets into the nitty gritty of the Jewish framework on which Paul built his renewed theology. Whereas concepts such as the hypostatic union and Trinity were defined a few centuries later in church history, all in an effort to support the view of Jesus’ divinity, Paul had his own Jewish way of identifying Jesus, the Messiah, with the God of Israel. The divine identity lined up quite well with the way the Hebrew Scriptures particularly spoke about Yahweh and his activity.

With a group of Christians hovering around the 600 million mark worldwide¹, one would expect such a collective to have a substantial impact across a host of areas. That is the resounding reality within the Pentecostal and Charismatic branch of the church. Yet, while many might begin with the unique pneumatological perspective or the practical angle in regards to mass evangelism, and such factors should be noted as major contributions, there are other areas that might not be on one’s radar.

In particular, I would like to point out three positive, yet not as frequently discussed, offerings that Pentecostalism and the Charismatic movement have brought to the table.

1) Merging Theology & Practical Life

Today, there are still many leaders that see the Pentecostal and Charismatic Churches as more problematic than positive in their contributions, especially in regards to the practical theology. Such was highlighted in the latter part of 2013 as John MacArthur hosted his Strange Fire Conference², while subsequently releasing his book by the same name.³

Yet, even though there are noted theological problems within Pentecostalism and the Charismatic movement, as with every tradition, one must take interest in the growing theological, pastoral and historian giants within this movement. Such include: Amos Yong, Gordon Fee, Jack Deere, Craig Keener, James K.A. Smith, Sam Storms, Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, Vinson Synan, William Kay, Max Turner, Roger Stronstad, and that is simply a short list of names!

Still, what one will find amongst these theologians is that they do not simply desire to fill up books with theories on pneumatology and charismata. Rather one sees an aspiration to merge both theology and life together. This is particularly noted by Assembly of God theologian, Gordon Fee, in his magnus opum, God’s Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul:

“For Paul the Spirit, as an experience and living reality, was the absolutely crucial matter for Christian life, from beginning to end…For the contemporary church it seems less so, both in the academy, in its understanding of Pauline theology, and in the actual life of the church. I do not mean that the Holy Spirit is not present; he is indeed, or we are not in Christ at all. Nonetheless, despite the affirmations in our creeds and hymns and the lip service paid to the Spirit in our occasional conversations, the Spirit is largely marginalized in our actual life together as a community of faith.”⁴

Fee continues: “…the health of the contemporary church necessitates that its theology of the Spirit and its experience of the Spirit correspond more closely” (emphasis his).⁵

A guest article by Scott Lencke.

Anyone who knows me will know that I love Christmas. I think it’s fantastic – the carols, the trees, the lights, the goodies, the family time, the movies, some restfulness and more.

Yes, I love the truth of the advent, or coming, of Christ into our world. But I also like the not-so-religious stuff as well (though, actually, much of the seemingly non-religious stuff was set up to point to things eternal).

But there can be a problem with the overly pristine setting of Christmas. The true Christ-mas story is not so tidy. Not simply because we read of Jesus being placed in a feeding-trough (Greek phatné) – though that could be considered scandalous enough. But because of how the whole story plays out.

You see, the story doesn’t begin in Matt 1:18 like it usually does in our Christmas plays. It begins in Matt 1:1. But all those names aren’t fun to fumble through. However, those names indicate we’re engaging with a centuries-long story leading up to the birth of the Messiah. We call it the Old Testament, or the Hebrew Bible.

And Jesus doesn’t make full sense without the story leading up to his birth. It’s like cracking open The Hobbit at page 200. Who would do such a thing?! Maybe you can catch a few things here and there, and the end might still carry much of its glory. But you’ve really missed out on the fuller plot development.

So starting with that long list of names (or genealogy) in Matt 1:1-17, and noting the great story of old, the one every Jew would know well, including Jesus, we should already be shocked by the 4 women mentioned in the account: Tamar (vs3), Rahab (vs5), Ruth (vs5) and Uriah’s wife – Bathsheba (vs6).

All of these women had a problem, a MAJOR problem, in regards to good ol’ tidy religion.

Tamar became pregnant through her own father-in-law, Judah. It wasn’t her fault. But the whole story is, well, not your average churchy story. See Gen 38. How awkward as the birth of your twins approach and you have to explain that the father is actually your father-in-law? I’m thinking this testimony won’t be shared on Sunday with a microphone.

Rahab was a prostitute (see Josh 2; Heb 11:31). She helped the Hebrew people – with a little bit of lying as well. A prostitute and liar making it into the “Hall of Faith” in Heb 11. Yikes! How many prostitutes have we had in our church buildings or homes recently? And I ask the same to myself. Interesting how this guy, Jesus, eats meals with prostitutes.

Ruth was a Moabite – a major Gentile! That’s like a rabid Manchester City fan hanging out with a Manchester United fan. That’s like a Memphis Tiger fan trying to get along with a Tennessee Vol fan. It’s like a representative of the Tea Party hanging out with Barack Obama. It’s like whites and blacks trying to get along in he 1950′s. Or it might have been worse than all of these combined.

Bathsheba would later become the mother of Solomon. But before that, she was married to Uriah. But good ol’ king David, the one “after God’s own heart,” who should have been out at war with his people, took Bathsheba for a “night out” and followed up by putting her true husband in a place of definite death. She’s having a child out of wedlock and that child would die a week after being born. Again, not your average Sunday morning testimony.

And that’s only the back story. What about the immediate period leading up to Christ’s birth?

We accept it as such a sweet part of the account, but what about Mary’s pregnancy? A young woman, who might have been in her mid-teen’s, has become mysteriously pregnant! Again, we know the bigger story. But imagine at that exact time. Think about Joseph, his family, his extended family, Mary’s family, Mary’s extended family, the synagogue community and more. This is no easy pill to swallow. It’s not so easy for Mary at first either – and probably walking through the next 9 months or more. This is a scandalous situation.

This is all before we get out of Matthew ch.1. For Pete’s sake!

Moving into ch.2, we come across some eastern astrologers (magi) who’ve come to worship the newborn king. The priests and teachers knew the prophecy of old from Micah telling of where this ruler and shepherd would be born. You’d think they would be ready. But they’re not so interested in the playing out of Messiah’s birth. Rather, it’s the eastern astrologers who are seeking to understand what’s going on. And notice how God gets their attention – through the stars, or one particular star. No Bible verse for them. But some kind of star-reading. Ooops!

By Scott Lencke.

Continuationists believe God still speaks today. This happens not only through the word of God in Scripture, but even through specific words or what we might term as “revelations.” These revelations can come in various manners – prophecies, words of knowledge, words of wisdom, visions, dreams, etc. – but God still communicates and speaks today. He actually never desired anything less.

However, what can get easily leveled against continuationists, from a more cessationist camp, is the idea that such revelation would no longer be needed knowing we now have the completed revelation of God in Jesus Christ, which is, of course, summarized in the full canon of Scripture. This revelation is the final word and no other such revelation is needed. And I understand the concern, especially noting such doctrines as the sufficiency of Scripture. However, I believe there is a very balanced approach that allows for the God-breathed Scriptures to maintain their authoritative place as God’s written revelation while also maintaining that God still speaks, reveals and communicates today.

Here is what I believe we need to recognize.

We must confess there is no more needed revelation from God with respect to his redemptive purposes in Jesus Christ. No more! The work of Christ and the revelation concerning this work – summed up in his life, ministry, death and resurrection – are the final word on God’s redemptive revelation and purposes. And I believe the New Testament makes this quite clear.

Yet, I do not think it is out of bounds to believe God continues to communicate in what I might term as a non-redemptive measure. This is where continuationists part from cessationists.

Again, I reiterate that it would be quite detrimental to say there is still more for God to reveal concerning the redemption of humanity through Christ and the gospel of the kingdom. Christ remains the final word on such. But, to believe God still reveals today, in a non-redemptive sense, should not be seen as harmful to a faith that looks to be grounded in Christ, the gospel and the testimony of the canon of Scripture. Matter of fact, I would argue that, to not allow for God to still directly speak and reveal today, in all his various manners, would cut us off from something very dear to the heart of God.

In all, I want to give two pointers as to why I believe in continuing, non-redemptive revelation:

1) Even while the canon of Scripture was being formed, God was always speaking para-Scripture, meaning he was speaking alongside what would be included in the canon of Scripture.

A couple examples would be found in places such as 1 Samuel 10:10-13 and 1 Timothy 1:18-19.