Book Review: Paul and the Jews by Andrew Das

Paul and the Jews by A. Andrew Das
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

I have a tremendous amount of respect for Andrew Das. His work is very scholarly, which tends to drag a little, which is why I only gave it four stars. But on a better note, Das maintains a healthy balance of majorly neglected reformed doctrines in our day, such as the relevance of Mosaic Law for New Covenant Christian ethics. I don't agree with a few of his views (particularly his pro-Israel eschatology), but his insights into Pauline theology are exceptionally helpful. He makes Lutheran theology look great. I highly recommend Das, especially if you are interested in studying the book of Romans.

View all my reviews

Book Review of Tim Gallant's "These Are Two Covenants"

These Are Two Covenants by Tim Gallant
My rating: 2 of 5 stars

Tim Gallant's first book, "Feed My Lambs," was a fantastic book, filled with great historical and exegetical insights. This second book of his, "These Are Two Covenants," however, was not as good as I was hoping. Here are some major pros and cons for why I gave his second book only two stars.

PROS:

1) Gallant addresses (in brief) the traditional Protestant Reformed & Evangelical perspectives and the NPP/N.T. Wright perspectives of law within the book of Galatians and Romans, and he seriously considers the best of both worlds. And so, because he does not limit his exegesis to any particular tradition, he offers some fresh insights on disputed passages within those two books. These fresh insights of his are definitely worthy of consideration as long as students of Scripture keep dabbling in "Pauline studies," looking for some balance between classical protestant interpretations and various nuances from (and similar to) the "New Perspective on Paul."

2) Gallant keeps all of his theological jargon to a minimum, which makes the dense theological content very accessible to the student of Scripture as long as they have an English Bible and Greek translation in hand.

3) Gallant very clearly affirms the doctrine of Justification by God's grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone, as well as the Christian's necessity to faithfully obey God's law through the lens of Jesus Christ (i.e. his life & teaching). And so, he remains a very clear protestant in the classical sense of the term, and he also clearly opposes antinomianism.

4) Gallant also clearly disagrees with and criticizes some of the views of Sanders and Dunn (explicit views among the NPP, e.g. pp. 53,58), as well as some overlooked views of NPP critics (particularly John Piper, e.g. p. 57).

5) Gallant highlights (what I believe to be) a very important aspect of Galatians, namely that "the law" can be, and very likely was, understood and viewed in terms of a "covenant" with the people of Israel and not just a set of rules for believers in Yahweh. And also, along with this conceptual continuity of viewing the Mosaic Law as a covenant, Gallant also highlights the importance of viewing life under the Mosaic Covenant as life under an eschatological age which was (back then) fading away and becoming obsolete because it explicitly pointed to the coming Messiah and a new age under which all of the Christian life would be placed.

6) Gallant also presents a brief, but solid argument, that the notion of "meriting salvation" within Galatians is not at all Paul's concern (and I agree).

CONS:

1) Even though this book is filled with fresh insights, select "chunks" of it appear to be a condensed version of N.T. Wright's commentary on Romans (which I found tremendously confusing), and either James Dunn's or Ben Witherington's commentary on Galatians. I don't have any life-altering or dramatic disagreements with any of those commentators, but I just don't find them to harmonize very well with each other, which left me feeling that Galllant was attempting to offer his own harmonization of those three men's views about the "Law" -- a feeling which smacked of trying to be novel in one's approach to Romans and Galatians.

2) Gallant seems to view both Romans and Galatians with a very strict typology of Jesus as the New Covenant and Israel as the Old Covenant -- which, in and of itself, is fine -- but this affects every one of his interpretations of nomos (i.e. "law") within Romans and Galatians, leaving in some instances a very arbitrary interpretation of what Paul meant by "law" when (allegedly) he's not referring to "keeping" or "fulfilling" the law in a strict typological sense.

3) Gallant seems to stress something which is not very obvious from the text of Galatians itself. His argument appears as though Paul is more concerned about Gentile Christians who revert back to life under the old aeon (i.e. the "age" of life under Old Covenant Mosaic Law) instead of life under the new aeon (the age of life under Christ). In other words, Paul's concern is more with one's public identification with the new aeon. This, according to Gallant, means that Paul's concern is more "cosmic" than the traditional Protestant understanding of Galatians. Instead of discussing what is most obvious about the concerns explicitly addressed by Paul, namely that some "Judaizers" were seditiously and insidiously dividing the gentiles among the Christian church by means of Judaizing dogma which rejected faith in Jesus alone as the ground of their justification in God's sight (as seen through the enforcement of circumcision as one's entrance into covenant with God), Gallant shifts the emphasis to be one's public placement within this New Covenant aeon which brings life through the Spirit, as opposed to the Old Covenant aeon which piles up transgressions and brings death. 
   It's as though, according to Gallant, Paul's typology was the driving force behind the entire letter to Galatians, and therefore he was more concerned with keeping Gentiles focused upon the New Covenant aeon (not the Old aeon), than the way in which Gentiles and Jews alike share in the New Covenant through faith in Jesus Christ, and how that was being jeopardized by the Christian Judaizers (i.e. false brethren) among them.

4) Gallant attempts to show that Jesus "becomes the Abrahamic covenant" and "the covenant to the nations," and he even says that this is the point of the "two covenant schema" in Galatians 4:24 (Gallant, p. 68), but I just don't think he invests enough time to clarify what he means by this. Although I agree with his general typological understanding of Jesus fulfilling Torah, I don't think Paul's allegory in Gal. 4:24 was supposed to illustrate Jesus "becoming" the Abrahamic covenant (or any covenant for that matter). Gallant's approach to these two covenants seem very strained (and unnecessarily so).

5) Gallant spends an awful lot of time towards the end of his book trying to explain the sense in which Christians under the new aeon "fulfill" God's Law (Rom. 13:8; Gal. 5:14), but virtually all of the law's objectivity as a standard for Christian ethics gets obscured by his own muddied language and over-emphasized typology. On the one hand he says that the word "fulfill... takes on an eschatological dimension...no longer simply straightforward Torah-keeping," yet elsewhere he quotes Paul in first Corinthians 7:19 and defends his statement that "keeping the commandments is what matters." Gallant says that under the New Covenant there has come to be "a radical reordering of what we can now call the commandments of God." (p. 73).
   From this bold conclusion, and perhaps most embarrassingly of all, Gallant proposes that "Torah remains normative Scripture, but not a normative covenant, and the way in which it functions ethically is determined by God's act of redemption and new creation in Christ, with all that attends it." (p. 74) Now, when I first read this, I was hoping that Gallant would provide some objective standard (or even some "proof-texts") by which Christian ethics should function under this "radically reordered" New Covenant aeon, but he doesn't. As we just saw, he simply states dogmatically that the Torah "functions ethically," and then moves on. Elsewhere within the same page of his book, he follows up that claim by arguing that the Torah has been "transformed." However, even that argument of his falls short. In a weak attempt to clarify what objective standard determines the ethical function of Torah under this new aeon, he lists three very general picturesque aspects of God's act of redemption: A) the climactic satisfaction of God's justice upon the cross, B) the gift of the Spirit, and C) the ingathering of the Gentiles.

   These three "determinative" aspects hardly scratch the surface of providing a clearly objective standard for normative Christian ethics, nor does it show the way in which this "transformed Torah" remains valid in its present law-format for Christian ethics (other than the general notion that it remains "Scripture" but not a "covenant"). I think I understand the goal of what his hermeneutic is trying to achieve (i.e. that narrative of Scripture becomes this newly "transformed" standard for normative ethics); but still, in my eyes, nothing could be more vague and open to scholarly scrutiny than this explanation of "transformed Torah" and how it functions ethically.

6) Furthermore, Gallant provides an open challenge against Greg Bahsnen in particular, and "Theonomy" in general. From reading his very clear opinions against Greg Bahnsen (which he, virtually, criticizes exclusively, even though many other "Theonomists" could have been legitimately criticized), one would get the impression that Gallant has studied enough of Greg Bahnsen's literature and audio teaching on the subject of Theonomy to definitively present Bahnsen's views (and the views of "Theonomy" in general) as worthy of such stern criticisms. But, for those who have studied Greg Bahnsen's views of Biblical Law, Theonomy, and the "Theonomic movement" of the 80's (of which I am one), it does not take long to recognize Gallant's fallacious straw-man arguments. If, in fact, Gallant has studied Greg Bahnsen's books and audio lectures concerning Biblical Law, he most definitely misunderstood the most basic emphasis of Greg Bahnsen himself. For example, Gallant provides the childishly stereotypical caricature of Greg Bahnsen's view of Theonomy by claiming that "even the most insignificant details of the law remain binding (unless overturned specifically by new covenant revelation)." (Gallant, p. 77). However, this is Gallant's own spin on what he thinks Bahnsen meant, and not actually what Bahnsen ever taught comprehensively.

   Bahnsen's careful and detailed position is that all of God's revelation, including Mosaic Law, is morally binding, and that God's revelation in Jesus Christ and the teaching of his apostles abrogates all "restorative laws" (Bahnsen's words, not mine), and that all of the "civil" and "judicial" laws have expired, leaving the general equity thereof to be morally binding. And what Bahnsen meant by "general equity" is that all of God's laws, including God's "civil" or "judicial" laws, illustrate something about God's unchangeable moral character, and hence, God's moral law. And so, for Gallant to claim that Bahnsen thought and taught that "even the most insignificant details of the law" remain morally binding unless the writings of the New Testament authors "specifically overturn" them, is simply an distortion of the facts. One could reference Greg Bahnsen's numerous audio lectures on "Theonomy in Christian Ethics 1 & 2," "Theonomy and its critics," and "Theonomy vs. Autonomy" as but four very accessible audio resources to help clarify Gallant's misunderstanding of Bahnsen (which can be found here: http://www.cmfnow.com/mp3-bahnsen.aspx )

   Gallant also outlines four specific points of critique against Greg Bahnsen's views proposed in his book, "Theonomy in Christian Ethics" (Gallant, p. 77), but he fails to acknowledge that Greg Bahnsen actually refuted all four of his claims in his follow-up book, "No Other Standard: Theonomy and Its Critics." Moreoever, Gallant adds a footnote to one of his own articles about the subject of "fulfillment" in Scripture ("Fulfillment in the Gospel of Mathew", footnote 119, Gallant p. 78), which has its main objective of critiquing Greg Bahsnen's opening chapter of "Theonomy in Christian Ethics" concerning Matthew 5:17 and the theonomic interpretation of the word "fulfill" in that passage. Again, every single one of Gallant's misunderstandings of Greg Bahsnen's position have been addressed in his book, "No Other Standard: Theonomy and Its Critics", and it can also be found in his audio lectures concerning theonomic ethics (as I referenced above). Gallant also appeals to Vern Poythress' critique of Bahnsen's position concerning the word "fulfill" in Matthew 5:17, but Gallant fails to address the fact that Bahsnen addressed Poythress' concerns in both writing and in his Biblical Hermeneutics & Exegesis lectures. Bahnsen even clarifies the benefits of Poythress' research, while still showing his (Poythress') misrepresentation of his (Bahnsen's) own theonomic thesis.

   Furthermore, later on in Gallant's book, he claims that this Theonomic view (and by implication, Bahnsen's theonomic thesis especially, because Bahnsen had been his main focus of critique over the previous six pages) provides "a neat severing of 'moral' law from 'ceremonial' and 'civil' law, as if he former simply carries forward and the other two are abolished." (Gallant, p. 81). This kind of clumsy exaggeration is flat-out embarrassing for those who have studied Greg Bahnsen's scholarly contributions toward on Theonomic ethics. NOWHERE in Greg Bahnsen's literature does he "sever" moral from ceremonial or civil law. Bahnsen distinguishes them, but he does not "sever" or separate them. Bahnsen views the Mosaic Law (and covenant) as a whole unit. And interestingly, even though Gallant attempts to critique this theonomic "severing" of moral law from other aspects of the Mosaic Covenant-Law (which Bahnsen does not do), Gallant himself (accidentally?) distinguishes between Mosaic Law and God's moral law (as Bahnsen does) when he mentions Paul's written list of "the fruit of the Spirit" as being morally binding, treating them in passing as moral codes of conduct which Paul even says: "against which there is no law." (Gallant, p. 73). In other words, Gallant, very naturally, distinguishes between Mosaic Law and moral laws of God in some sense, which is fundamental to Bahnsen's theonomic thesis. 

7) And last of all, during Gallant's critique of Greg Bahnsen's theonomic views of Christian ethics, Gallant proposes solutions in opposition to Greg Bahnsen's views which actually are (embarrassingly, for Gallant) endorsed by Bahnsen explicitly. For example, Gallant says that, contrary to Greg Bahnsen's views which allegedly "repeat" Torah, "The whole Torah (and not simply the 'moral law') is validated and established in Christ, and the whole Torah (and not simply the 'ceremonial law') is transformed into something new in Christ" (Gallant, p. 78). Greg Bahnsen agrees with this general statement in his audio commentary on Galatians: (which can be found here: http://www.cmfnow.com/mp3-bahnsen.aspx ).

In the end, Gallant proposes that his view of the "Law" or "Torah" in Romans and Galatians (which allegedly is Paul's too) regarding its application for Christian ethics today is "a more robust holiness" (p. 81), but he fails to explain even one jot or tittle from an objective standard among God's own revelation to qualify what that "robust holiness" looks like for every Christian. Is it the life-style of Jesus? Is it the narrative of Scripture as a whole? Is it the narrative of this "transformed Torah" alone? He doesn't say. In other words, his explanation of the way in which this "transformed Law" functions is extremely vague, even though he says that Paul appeals to it, and Christians should too. These and other arguments of Gallant ultimately end up appearing more nebulous than cosmic, which is extremely disappointing for such a talented mind and faithful Christian man. My own opinion is that even if someone disagrees with "Theonomic ethics" in general, Greg Bahnsen's audio commentary on Galatians (a verse-by-verse exposition with 28 lectures total) is better than Gallant's attempt at clarifying Paul's letter to the Galatians. Bahsnen's audio commentary can be found here: 
http://www.cmfnow.com/galatians.aspx

View all my reviews

He came. He saw. He conquered.

Veni. Vedi. Vici.  

These were the comments of Julius Caesar about a short battle he had just won -- part of what historians describe as his great military advance on earth. He came. He saw. He conquered. And in doing so, he brought military power and prestige to Rome along with it. This became his claim to fame, and little did the rest of the world at that time know that such a military victory would spark an even greater controversy in the near future -- a controversy about his divinity. Even though many of his close associates didn't consider him divine, his reputation and fame as such spread like a wildfire nonetheless, and it eventually got him assassinated, thereby throwing Rome into a civil war. Out from among this civil war there emerged a victor not only of military power, but a victor of god-like authority on earth. This victor, or winner, was none other than Julius' adopted son, Octavian. Octavian took the title "Augustus," meaning "honorable One," and declared emphatically that his father had indeed become divine, and in becoming divine, Augustus Octavian Caesar was to be officially deemed the "Son of God" throughout his empire. After taking this title upon himself, it didn't take long for people to realize that the politically correct answer to any question about who the "Son of God" was, would have been Caesar Augustus. 

Caesar Augustus ruled his massive empire from 31 B.C. to 14 A.D., and as the Scriptures record for us, that included the time of Jesus' birth (Luke 2:1) all the way through his life as a teenager. After he died, Tiberius reigned in his place (Luke 3:1) and took upon himself the honorable title of divinity as well. Since then, archeologists have discovered various artifacts corroborating these proclamations of divinity, one of which is a denarius (a coin) with an abbreviated inscription that says, "Augustus Tiberius Caesar, Son of the Divine Augustus." On the other side of that same coin is an image of Tiberius enthroned as a mediator, and above that image is the inscription, "Pontif Maxim," a reference to himself being the High Priest among the college of Pontiffs in Rome. It was, in fact, a coin like this one that was shown to Jesus shortly after his triumphal entry into Jerusalem, where he cleansed Herod's temple of it's idolatrous worship (Matt. 21:1-17; 22:15-22). 

Matthew 22:15-22 is where we find an account of this coin being handed to Jesus. In that narrative we learn that the Pharisees allied themselves with their enemies, the Herodians, in order to plot against Jesus and entrap him, thereby building a case against him for unlawful (and punishable) deeds. It is peculiarly interesting that the Herodians are found to be conspiring with the Pharisees. The Herodians were a political party that supported the tetrarch, Herod Antipas, and the Roman empire's rule over the Jews, even though, according to extra-biblical records, we know the Pharisees considered the Herodians to compromise Jewish political independence. But why wait until Jesus enters Jerusalem to conspire against him? Why not attempt to entrap him before his triumphal entry? We aren't told by Matthew. But because Matthew's narrative is structured this way, the confrontation by the Pharisees and Herodians upon Jesus in Matthew 22 is really best viewed as a commentary upon Jesus' entrance into Jerusalem and his claim to be The Divine King of kings  (which began in the previous chapter).

In Matthew's narrative, we learn that both religious parties conspire against Jesus and attempt to flatter him with pious expressions of student-like curiosity, saying:

Teacher! We know that you are true and teach the way of God truthfully. And we know you don't care about anyone's opinion, for you are not swayed by appearances. Therefore, please tell us what you think. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not? (Matt. 22:16-17)

Because the subject of "lawful" taxation is like a hot potato in Christian circles -- everyone wants to pass it on to the next person and no one wants to be caught with it in their lap -- the main point of Matthew's narrative often gets completely overlooked. It seems to me that the point of Matthew's narrative is not to teach the Law, or even the way in which taxes could be lawfully paid, and so any attempt to use this passage as a prooftext for how to pay taxes lawfully is really missing the point. As I mentioned a few moments ago, it seems that this portion of Matthew's narrative functions as more of a commentary upon Jesus' triumphal entry. Let me explain further what I mean by this. 

In Matthew 22, Jesus is asked by both the Pharisees and the Herodian party whether it is was lawful to pay taxes to Caesar or not. And obviously, no matter which answer Jesus gave, whether yes or no, his words could have been twisted to imply a claim to greater authority than either God or Tiberius Caesar, thereby causing Jesus to fall into their political and religious trap.  So Jesus responded wisely by asking them for a coin with which taxes to Caesar were paid. They brought a denarius to him, which, as was shown a few moments ago, contained an image of Tiberius Caesar on it. Jesus then took the coin and asked whose image was on it, to which they promptly replied, "Caesar's." He then suggested to pay both God and Caesar, but to Caesar, only those things which bear his image, yet to God those things which bear His image. As you can imagine, this created a dilemma for the Pharisees and Herodians, because it exposed the false dichotomy with which they were attempting to entrap him. But Jesus remained faithful to the truth and to the way of God, neither caring about their opinion, nor being swayed by their pious appearance. Jesus was Lord whether they wanted him to be their Lord or not. But Jesus also knew that the leadership of Israel didn't really want him to be their Lord, which is what makes the history surrounding his triumphal entry so profound. His triumphal entry into Jerusalem was a direct challenge to the tremendously corrupt and evil powers that existed in the first century.

This example of faithfulness on Jesus' part is a lesson which Christians need to learn and apply in every age, but it's especially important to keep in mind during this season of Lent as we await Palm Sunday (the day in which Christians commemorate Jesus' triumphal entry as the King of kings),  Good Friday (the day of Jesus' passion), and Pascha (the resurrection of Jesus).  As we just saw in Matthew 22, Jesus was not a careless man, easy to be entangled by the entrapments of powerful enemies of God; and neither should Christians be. When the world confronts the Christian with claims about Jesus's Lordship, and how he really is not presently reigning as The King of kings, we should not care about their opinions or be swayed by their pious appearance. We should recognize that every worldly authority -- whether it claims divinity for itself or not -- is still subservient to the real King of Kings, the Son of God, Jesus Christ the one and only Pontif Maxim. 

Jesus is King whether men accept him as the ruler of their lives or not. The world may want to claim a king of their own, and they might even get the military power and prestige that comes along with it, but Christians aren't flattered by worldly crowns and great military escapades which expand earthly empires. Christians cherish the humble glory of a life subservient to a King who rides into Jerusalem on a donkey and cleanses earthly temples of their man-made glory. Christians cherish the faithfulness of King Jesus because he is the way of God; he is the Truth even though many people prefer to believe in lies. Jesus is the Son of God whether Caesar claimed that title for himself or not. Men can claim anything they want for themselves, and they can even pay tribute to whatever man-made image they want. But if Jesus is true and he really did teach the way of God truthfully, then people had better pay tribute to the God who made man as His image. In other words, they ought to pay tribute to King Jesus. Sure, they ought to pay Caesar his tribute too, especially in those places where it is legitimately his due, but even Caesar would some day have to face the real Son of God. And if Caesar had to give an account before the real King of kings, how much more accountable are the worshipers of Caesar and other idolaters going to be on the day of judgment?

For our own well being, let us keep in mind as often as possible, but particularly in this season of Lent, that the one thing all men have in common is death. All men are appointed to die, and after that to face judgment for their own sins. And that judgment is going to come from God, the one and only, living and true judge of their sins (Heb. 9:27). But the great news of God's revelation is that He Himself has provided salvation from sin. It was that same Lord who rode into Jerusalem on a donkey long ago that also was crucified, died, and was buried as the only righteous man in history, and on the third day he rose again according to the promise of the Scriptures. Therefore men can face Him with their sins atoned in full if they die to self and live for Him. God's promise to us is that, 

If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. For the Scripture says, "Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame." For there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. For "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:9-13)

Those who live and die with their own precious idols will not be saved from sin. Those who idolized Herod's Temple, like the Pharisees and Herodians, are dead, and they died in their sins. All those who worshiped Caesar and confessed his divine lordship over all are dead, and both Caesar and his worshipers died in their sins. But Christians who believe that Jesus Christ is Lord of all know that he is not dead. They know Jesus conquered through death, and the proof of his victory over death and it's enemies is his resurrection. The proof of his Lordship over your life is the pentecostal outpouring of His Spirit upon all nations (through which you believe today). Therefore, let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful. Let us render unto God everything that is His, keeping in mind that everything is His.

Galatians 5:18

"If you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law." Someone today catching just that snatch of conversation is very likely to hear it in terms of the strong implicit debate between those who think you should order your life by "rules" and those who think that what matters is "doing what comes naturally," living "spontaneously" or "authentically." And it isn't just our cultural climate that makes us assume that's the sort of conversation we're overhearing. For four hundred years the religious and theological climate has conditioned us to hear a religious version of the same point. Ever since the Reformation at least, a large number of Christians have assumed that the foundation of Paul's thinking goes like this: He spent the first part of his life trying to keep the rules of his religion, and then discovered not only that he couldn't but that rules weren't the point. God didn't want rule-keeping; he wanted "spontaneity." God had forgiven him all his rule-breaking, in and through Jesus Christ, and was now giving him his Spirit, who would produce the "fruit" without all that horrible moral striving.  

But is that what the conversation at the next table was really all about? 

In this way of interpreting... Paul's message, within this way of thinking, is, "You're free from all that! The Spirit will guide you from within, and you don't need to bother about all those rules that come at you from somewhere else, from tradition or philosophy or the Old Testament! Stop worrying about all that moralism; lighten up and be spontaneous. You don't have to try!1

Shortly thereafter, N.T. Wright describes what Paul really meant:

"If you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Mosaic Law." This has nothing whatever to do with preferring spontaneity to rules. It has everything to do with the new covenant in which God is pouring out his Spirit upon those who are "in Christ" so that in them the life which the Law wanted to produce, but could not, will at last be fulfilled (see Romans 8:1-11). ...In other words, you do not have to become a Jew... to be a flourishing and fruitful member of God's people.2

1.  N.T Wright, After You Believe: Why Christian Character Matters [Harper One: New York, NY; 2010] pp. 190-191

2.  Ibid.,  p. 193

Surreptitious Takeover

Another passage which sits tightly alongside Romans 12 is found near the start of the letter to the Philippians: 

This is my prayer: that your love may abound more and more, with knowledge and all discernment, so that you can figure out properly things that differ from one another, so that you may be blameless and innocent for the day of the Messiah, filled with the fruits of righteousness which come through Jesus the Messiah to the glory and praise of God. (1:9-11) 

The part I have put in italics show how the same theme works out. Thinking of and praying for his beloved people in Philippi, Paul wants them, of course, to grow in love; but this love is not a matter of "undisciplined squads of emotion," but a thought-out habit of the heart -- the heart knowing why it approves what it approves and why it disapproves what it disapproves.  

...Part of the problem in contemporary Christianity, I believe, is that talk about the freedom of the Spirit, about the grace which sweeps us off our feet and heals and transforms our lives, has been taken over surreptitiously by a kind of low-grade romanticism, colluding with an anti-intellectual streak in our culture, generating the assumption that the more spiritual you are, the less you need to think. 

I cannot stress too strongly that this is a mistake. The more genuinely spiritual you are, according to Romans 12 and Philippians 1, the more clearly and accurately and carefully you will think, particularly about what the completed goal of your Christian journey will be and hence what steps you should be taking, what habits you should be acquiring, as part of the journey toward that goal, right now.1

1.  N.T. Wright, After You Believe: Why Christian Character Matters [Harper One: New York, NY; 2010] pp. 157-158

Mental Homework

Commenting on the book of Romans, N.T. Wright says:

For Paul, the mind is central to Christian character: virtue is the result of thought and choice. ...[T]his helps us... to understand the exhortation in chapter 6 to "reckon yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord" (6:11). This is calling for an act, not of guesswork, nor of fantasy or speculative imagination, but of mental deduction: you are in the Messiah; the Messiah has died and been raised; therefore, you have died and been raised; therefore, sin has no right to hold any sway over you. That mental homework, and that alone, is the basis for the appeal which follows instantly: "So don't let sin reign in your mortal body, to make you obey its desires" (6:12). All of this -- and much more, actually, but at least all of this -- stands now behind Paul's deceptively brief instruction at the start of chapter 12: don't let yourselves be squeezed into the shape dictated by the present age, but be transformed by the renewing of your minds.1

1.  N.T. Wright, After You Believe: Why Christian Character Matters [Harper One: New York, NY; 2010] pp. 154-155 

Renewal of the whole

According to N.T. Wright’s interpretation of Paul’s epistle to the Romans, “Paul summons to let the mind be renewed, and so to be transformed all through.”  He then quotes that passage in its entirety, only with his own translation from the original Greek text. His translation appears below with some helpful insights of his own following thereafter:

So, my dear family, this is my appeal to you by the mercies of God: offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God. This is your true and appropriate worship. What’s more, don’t let yourselves be squeezed into the shape dictated by the present age. Instead, be transformed by the renewing of your minds, so that you can work out and approve what God’s will is, what is good, acceptable, and complete. (12:1-2)

…Paul sees that in Jesus Christ the long-awaited age to come has already begun. And that is where Christians must consciously choose to live.  …God’s new age has come thundering in through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, but the present age acts as a powerful undertow, preventing the incoming waves from having their full force. The undertow of the continuing present age does its best to persuade those who through faith and baptism are already part of the age to come that in fact nothing much has changed, and that they should simply continue as they were, living the same life that everyone else is living.  “The way the world is” is a powerful, insidious force, and it takes all the energy of new creation, not the least of faith and hope, to remind oneself that the age to come really is already here, with all its new possibilities and prospects. 

The antidote to the power of the present age, then, is to have the mind renewed so that one can think clearly about the way of life which is pleasing to God, which is in accordance with God’s will, good and acceptable and (here it is again) “perfect,” teleios, complete.  This renewal of the mind is at the center of the renewal of the whole human being, since the darkening of the mind was identified as central to the problem of idolatry, dehumanization, and sin in an earlier chapter of Romans.1

1.  N.T. Wright, After You Believe: Why Christian Character Matters [Harper One: New York, NY; 2010] pp. 148-149, 152