Sometimes I hate that all my friends & family can follow every cyber move I make. That's a lot of pressure right there.

I don't believe that what I believe is what makes me who I am. Not alone. I mean - I run into people every single day that proclaim to love Christ and people but they are incredibly rude or uncaring. Am I supposed to completely warp my initial judgement of their behavior simply because I learn that they're a "Christian"? Please. That's fickle. I get that all it takes for God to grant us forgiveness is a belief in Him or faith, if you will. So obviously, to God, in this way, what I believe makes me who I am. But does that mean that what I do or say doesn't mold me into who I am? Absolutely not! What I do and what I say matters. So I can't just go around proclaiming, "It's okay, everything's alright, cause I believe in Jesus, guys." I can't just let what I proclaim to believe define how the world percieves me. I think it's silly for someone, or a song, to proclaim that what a person simply believes is all that makes that person who they are. Take Third Day's "Creed" for instance...

Righteousness, Emergent-style

So, I'm reading my Twitter updates this morning with my normal cup o' Joe, and I stumble across this book critique of John Piper's old book "The Future of Justification". The article was tweeted by @emergentvillage, a church on the forefront of the sort of new Emergent Church fad. Since they are probably the biggest Christian proponents of unity through the Gospel, I thought it was ironic that @emergentvillage was tweeting a criticism of reformed theology, of which Piper is a supporter. I considered myself a hedonist for a little while when I was in college. Now, Emergents are known for their radical inclusivity, which on one hand is great; God loves us all, He adores His Creation, and desires that we all would repent and draw nearer to Him through faith in Him. But this article in and of itself is a little too critical to be "wholly" Emergent. The premise of criticising another Christian's theology, or in their faulty conclusions, isn't very inclusive. Nor is it very radical (since everyone and their moms are doing it nowadays).

But I thought the article was interesting, and had some good points on the righteousness of God.

Piper argues in this chapter against Wright’s definition of the righteousness of God as ‘God’s covenant faithfulness or impartiality in court’ that this does not get at the heart of what God’s righteousness is: it merely highlights a couple of things that God’s righteousness does (Piper, The Future of Justification, 164). God’s righteousness is really much deeper than either of these things. It is fundamentally his commitment to do what is right; it ‘consists most deeply in God’s unwavering allegiance to himself’; it is ‘his unswerving commitment to uphold the worth of his glory’ – and he demands the same ‘righteousness’ from us, that we ‘unwaveringly love and uphold the glory of God’.

I guess the rift between the Emergent and Reformed fellow won't be resolved for a while.