1) Galli sets up a straw-man of Christian activism and a counter-straw-man of macroeconomic development. That is, he misappropriates fact and statistics in order to make certain claims about development, many of which you’ve covered. In order to improve your post for submission, it might be worthwhile referencing some of the alternative positions you allude to; I’m thinking particularly of Sen’s Development as Freedom here. I think you can also do some work to refute his suggestion that advocacy for better and more effective aid is futility, which he doesn’t appear to address directly but seemingly just assumes we should accept as faulty post hoc ergo propter hoc.

But, more importantly:

2) Galli sets up an indefensible narrative about why Christians should care about poverty. Again, you address this briefly in your definition of poverty and how it’s broader than mere economics, but I think it’s a mistake to ignore the important biblical narratives around justice, particularly economic justice, as core to our calling as Christians and our motivations for seeing an ‘end to poverty’. I recall here in particular Mott & Sider (2000) “Economic Justice: A Biblical Paradigm” Transformation 17:2, pp 50-63.

What I think makes this most clear is Galli’s trite dismissal of the church with the proof-text “The poor will always be with you” from Mark 12:42/John 12:8 (on page 3 of his article). This is a classic misuse of the verse, which Jesus knowingly quotes directly from Deut 15:11, and in it’s original context I would argue is deeply scathing of an attitude of futility towards the poor.

Deut 15:4-5 says “There should be no poor among you; for in the land the LORD is giving you to possess as your inheritance, he will richly bless you, if only you fully obey the LORD and are careful to follow all these commands I am giving you today.” The chapter continues on to explain how we must treat the poor when we come across them, and concludes with an apparently contradictory statement in 15:11: “There will always be poor in the land”.

Why the alternating stances on poverty? Because the LORD knows that Israel will not keep the laws God gives them. He knows they will sin, and because of their sin, there will be poor people, those who are socially, economically and politically marginalised. And so 15:11 is a condemnation; a recognition that we cannot obey God fully. In this way the Victorian morality with regards to the poor (see De Botton (2004) Status Anxiety ) is seen to be perversely true: the poor are a manifestation of immorality, but not their own, as Victorian society suggested; instead the existence of the poor is a sign of our (the rich’s) own immorality, our own inhumanity.

Galli is thus like all the other “scheming swindlers” (I can’t help a Kirkegaard reference here) in the church trying to find a way to escape his own guilt and responsibility through a bourgeois mis-reading of the biblical narrative, rather than simply doing what scripture commands.

Sorry, that’s pretty long. Let me know what you think of my take; I’m keen with this idea of you submitting this article as a reply to Galli.

Don’t let this get to your head, as i know this hardly ever happens, but i whole heartedly agree with you!!!
Piper is playing with fire. Not only is he entering in upon the theological interpretation debate in the anglican and catholic churches – it should really be taken as settled in good part of the non-established protestant church’s . He is confusing male dominated society with a male dominated church. He is also using a methodology that is and has been known to be dangerous. Piper’s focus on masculine christianity has been bothering me for sometime. Its not a new thing. He has taken a pre-world war 1 movement (He isn’t just raising a victorian bishop) and rebirthed as a solution to the perceived exestiantial crises of the Church communicating with the wider public. The original modern movement was during the vienna conference years when Europe (excluding german states and the 1870 french prussian war) enjoyed nearly 100 years of peace. The aim was to build a generation of young men who would do battle for the Church (spiritual battle – on the missionary and intellectual battlefields). It was abandoned because many in the Church felt that it was abused by the state to bolstering war efforts for national purposes during world war 1 and led to the carnege of a whole generation of young christian men (in their view though a blending/manipulation of spiritual and secular) resulting in the slaughter and starvation of millions. Its good to see others are catching on.

Most your points are well done. I obviously enjoyed your violence blogs too (honestly, this really is a rarity- a few communist economic/political influences but hey life isn’t perfect)…

But the question still remains: Can one entr the Kingdom via Islam/Budhism/Hinduism?

It’s not the question that this passage asks or answers, and I’m happy for you not to stick your neck out on this one (as it may get you fired from a really great job), but it IS the question of our times.

There is always a danger of creating straw-men in a debate like this, and you are right to raise the question. However my experience tells me this is no straw-man – I have literally heard it preached like this almost every time. I never said this was the only verse on which such exclusivism hangs, but noted it is a prominent “clobber passage”.

Ultimately I’m not in this post debating the inclusiveness/exclusiveness of being in Christ; I’m simply answering a question about John 14:6.

I can’t speak for the questioner, though I did not read their issue as being with the exclusiveness of salvation in Christ, but rather with the issue that for billions of people throughout history they have no tangible way to respond to Christ whom they have perhaps not been told the truth about, nor perhaps even heard of.

I think we need to be careful about the statements we make regarding the text – when Jesus says he is way, truth and life he is not saying it to the religious leaders in the narrative (contra your suggestion above). You need to define what you mean by the “only way”. I have obviously defined it in terms of coming into the kingdom, that is, entering the life/reign of God here on earth. In the political situation of Jesus’ day, where some in Palestine expected an uprising, Jesus’ words are a powerfully subversive statement against this political commitment.

So my question for ongoing consideration is what do you mean by “only way to the Father”? What do you mean by only way, and what does it mean to come to the Father?

I’m also interested in what you believe the function of the Temple was, and what this means for Jesus’ claim that he was the true Temple.

Matt

You are right that you can’t make a compelling statement about the overriding inclusiveness of the Gospel leading to exclusivity from this verse. However I think a parody has been made , as no one actually hangs their ‘exclusive’ belief of the cross on this one verse.

Within this framework you have set out of Jesus stating “Hey guys, I am THE Temple!” One has to bring into the question of both the inclusiveness of all as to what this means. Through a wider Biblical understanding we know that in Christ there is no gender, nationality or social class distinctions…all are included.

Yes, this inclusiveness, is also extremely exclusive. Paul labours this point to the Jews and Gentiles in Romans. He doesn’t make a cart blanch statement that its a free for all – rather he makes the point, that though its incredibly inclusive and creates a level playing field – its also exclusive in that the only way to the father is through Christ.

In answering the comment posed to you from a reader, the commenter seems to be offended by the thought that Jesus is the only way – this same thought also offended the religious leaders of the day – when Jesus told them that he was the way, the truth and the life and was the only way to the father. Particularly within the framework and context of Christ being the Temple.

Pete is right in what he reflects about my point. I don’t believe I said that Christ was not the only way to salvation – I think sometimes we can react in a knee-jerk fashion and perhaps respond to what has not been said.

The point is that you can’t necessarily prove this by John 14:6. Though note I have made clear that to know God, his will, his kingdom, you must know Christ. What that means exactly is of course contentious.

@Craig: It’s all very well and good to make such a claim, but I think Matt makes a pretty compelling argument that even if it is true, you can’t biblically justify such a position with this verse. I mean, if it makes you feel more secure, sure, go ahead, but I’m not sure exactly what you’re trying to get at with your charming platitude. If you wanted to argue for a more orthodox position, you could at least back it up with scripture.

In saying that, I know my experience is not unique – Rachel Held-Evans, in a recent blog post, invited men to respond to Piper’s comments… the response was overwhelming: http://rachelheldevans.com/brothers-speak-out-john-piper-masculine