Complete Reading List 2016

BOOKS 2016 (Rated out of five thumbs up)

The Theology of Augustine, Matthew Levering 👍👍👍👍
Augustine on the Christian Life, Gerald Bray 👍👍👍👍
Confessions, St. Augustine 👍👍👍👍👍
What is the Mission of the Church, Kevin DeYoung 👍👍👍👍
Being Mortal, Atul Gawande 👍👍👍👍
The Man Of Sin, Kim Riddlebarger 👍👍👍
1&2 Thessalonians, John Stott 👍👍👍
Religions Next Door, Marvin Olasky 👍👍
Christianity and Religious Pluralism, Harold Netland 👍👍👍👍
The Baptized Body, Peter Leithart 👍👍👍
Public Faith, Miroslav Volf 👍👍👍
Silence, Endo 👍👍👍👍👍
Ordinary, Michael Horton 👍👍👍👍
Silence and Beauty, Fujimura 👍👍👍
Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic Age 👍👍👍
Janson Equation, Robert Ludlum 👍👍
Blood in the Water (Destroyermen Series), Taylor Anderson 👍👍👍👍
Only One Way, DCosta, Knitter and Strange 👍👍👍
A Theology of Inclusivism, Neal Punt 👍👍👍
Who Can Be Saved, Terrance Thiessen 👍👍👍👍
Top Secret, WEB Griffin 👍👍👍👍
Hillbilly Elegy, JD Vance 👍👍👍👍
Assassination Option, WEB Griffin 👍👍
The Samauri, Endo 👍👍👍👍👍
To Change the World, James Davidson Hunter 👍👍👍👍
Introduction to the Blues, Elijah Wald 👍👍👍
How not to be Secular, James Smith 👍👍👍

Book Review: God at Work, Gene Edward Veith Jr.

Gene Edward Veith Jr's book, God at Work: Your Christian Vocation in All of Life is one I will be recommending a lot to friends (I finished the book on Monday and have recommended it twice already this week). It's not a long book, and not overly technical. Instead, Veith offers and accessibly and liberating look into the doctrine of Christian vocation.

I've read several of Veith's books, including State of the Arts: From Bezalel to Mapplethorpe and Postmodern Times: A Christian Guide to Contemporary Thought and Culture, but this one is the best I've read.

Most of us probably think of vocation in terms of career. Veith reminds us that vocation is much more than what we do to 'bring home the bacon', though, of course, it is that too. We have vocations (yes plural) in our families - I am called to be a husband, father, son, brother, grandson, etc. We also have our vocations within society - I'm an American, a voter, a taxpayer, a neighbor, etc. Then there is our vocations in the church. And, of course, there is our vocation as workers.

Veith explains why this doctrine was so important to the Reformers, especially Luther. He writes in the introduction, "The doctrine of vocation amounts to a comprehensive doctrine of the Christian life, having to do with faith and sanctification, grace and good works. It is a key to Christian ethics. It shows how Christians can influence their culture. It transfigures ordinary, everyday life with the presence of God" (17).

If you're a college student wondering how to choose a vocation, read this book. If you're forty and in the work force, but disillusioned by the monotony of the daily grind, read this book. If you're a stay at home mom looking to find some significance in the tedium of raising small children, read this book. If you're in the church, or in society, you got it, read this book. (I think that covers everyone). 

Book Review: 'Reformed' is not Enough, by Doug Wilson

Wilson's Reformed Is Not Enough: Recovering the Objectivity of the Covenant is a book I really want to recommend, but a book that is hard to recommend for a couple of reasons.

I picked this book up recently because I've been teaching two Sunday classes, one on Union with Christ and the other on the Doctrine of Eternal Security.  The controversial subset of Reformed theology referred to as Federal Vision came up in the readings I was doing to prepare, so I decided I needed to know more and went to one of the sources - Doug Wilson.

Because this book is written to defend the proponents of Federal Vision theology against charges that they're teaching is out of step with the standards of the Presbyterian church, Wilson spends a good deal of time working through sections of the Westminster Confession of Faith, showing how his teaching is in keeping with this standard (and often where his opponents are out of line with it).  This is fine and good...for a Presbyterian, but it's one of the reasons I'm reluctant to recommend it to many of my church friends. It is, in many ways, an intramural affair. That's one of the weaknesses in my opinion, but, given the intent of the book, it was necessary (basically, I just wish he'd written a different book). So if you aren't completely turned off by the Westminster Confession (I really hope you're not), or by eavesdropping on a denominational squabble, or you can ignore it and get to the meat; then this book is worth the read.

Wilson begins the book with a bang, contending the "Judas was a Christian." Doug's point, which forms the central thesis of the book, is that the new covenant is an objective covenant, just like the old covenant. Those who are baptized are covenant members just as those who received the mark of circumcision were members of the old covenant. And, in that sense, they are Christians - they have come to be identified with the covenant people of God and the name of Christ, bear the mark of the covenant, and are to be regarded as members of the covenant community.

That does not mean that all covenant members are born of the Spirit, are justified, or will ultimately be saved.  Some, though in the covenant, will play the role of unfaithful covenant members and will reap wrath rather than reward. Both blessing and curse are aspects of the [old and new] covenant, as the book of Hebrews plays out.

In articulating this truth, that the covenant is a visible, objective 'thing', Wilson is helpful. Also helpful are the discussions on the visible/invisible church (hint: he doesn't care for that distinction), sacredotalism, baptism, the Supper and the church.

I found the second to last section on apostasy and assurance less helpful. I think Wilson is correct - apostasy is real and Christians can commit it by rejecting what their baptism signifies and spurning the grace given to them in the covenant (to their destruction).  It certainly makes Hebrews easier to handle. I wasn't as thrilled with the chapter on assurance. It left me wanting more, though I'm not sure more of what.

The final section makes good points, but is a little rambling. In fact, that may be a critique of the whole book. Sometime I read a paragraph and wondered how it connected to the preceding paragraph at all. Paragraph one makes point A, paragraph two makes point F.

Many will walk away thinking this a call to return to Catholicism. It isn't, but we're so far from the Reformers and the theology they endorsed that even those early Protestants sound Catholic. A move in that direction may not (no, let me be stronger - IS NOT) a bad thing!

Book Review: Four Views of Eternal Security

I am a fan of the 'Four Views' series - the give a reader a quick glimpse into different approaches to thorny issues - theological, biblical, practical, etc.  These books are not, nor are they intended to be, full treatments of the topics in question. Instead, they introduce the reader to various viewpoints which they can investigate more through further reading.

While I'm a fan, the series does have some drawbacks. For one, after reading a brief overview, some may feel they have a 'handle' on all the issues. That's usually not possible in the few pages given. The bigger drawback is, however, that the chapters are only as good as the authors, and sometimes you get some really weak sections in an otherwise good book.

That was the case with Four Views on Eternal Security . The book offers a Classic Calvinist view (written by Michael Horton), a Moderate Calvinist view (written by Norman Geisler), a Reformed Arminian view (Stephen Ashby), and a Wesleyan Arminian view (J. Stephen Harper).

Few readers will be surprised that I follow Horton and the Classic Calvinist view.  Horton articulates well the difference between the classic calvinist approach and the 'eternal security' approach that is common in evangelicalism.  In addition, he highlights the major disagreements between his view and a Wesleyan/Arminian view (though he doesn't really differentiate the two, and he should).  Horton's contends the way to make sense of the 'eternal security passages' and the warning passages is from within a covenantal framework.  For Horton, covenant theology succeeds because it introduces a third (biblical) category in addition to 'saved' and not saved, namely 'those who are in the covenant but not regenerate'.  These people experience the goodness of God, taste of the new age (the Supper?), are under the ministry of the Spirit who works through word and sacrament, yet are not regenerate and do not have faith.  For Horton, the question isn't 'will those who have entered God's kingdom and perfect rest be kicked out' but instead 'will those wandering in the desert persevere and find God's perfect rest and enter the kingdom in the end.

The Moderate Calvinist view was represented by Norman Geisler. This chapter was beyond disappointing; in fact, it was almost insulting. Dr. Geisler so badly misrepresented the Calvinist view it was almost laughable (kinda like Dave Hunt in What Love is This - the single worst book I've ever read in my whole life).  Geisler's 'moderate calvinism' is actually far more Pelagian than either of the Arminian chapters. I'm not going to waste my time critiquing it...I'll just say skip it. His understanding of Calvin, Arminius is actually no understanding, only misunderstanding (at the best, intentional misrepresentation is also possible).  His views of original sin and man's ability is bordering on heresy, and his teaching on eternal security lacks proper nuance (and his charts are awful).  The good thing about this section is that there were three others in the book that weren't awful.

The Reformed Arminian view was articulated by Stephen Ashby. This was my favorite section of the book, not because I agreed with all of it (but I agreed with Ashby far more than Geisler), but because it was so informative. I hadn't read of this viewpoint before and my understanding of Arminian theology is shaded by Wesleyanism and Finney (yuck).  There are many points of similarity between a Reformed Arminian approach and a Calvinistic one. For example, both affirm that man is incapable of responding positively to God or his offer of salvation apart from a prior work of grace (effectual calling/regeneration for the Calvinist; prevenient grace for the Arminian).  Also, both affirm the imputation of Christ's righteousness to the believer is the basis for justification. I do, of course, differ with some of his presuppositions and then, consequently, conclusions; but, I put down Ashby's section with a much greater appreciation for Arminian theology and their commitment to God's sovereignty and glory.

The final section, written by J. Steven Harper, represented the Wesleyan Arminian perspective. Other than the Reformed perspective, this is the one I was the most familiar with. I do like Harper's emphasis on the need for prevenient grace, but was troubled by Wesley's understanding of the atonement. Harper contends (contra Ashby) that Wesley did affirm imputation of Christ's righteousness; however, Wesley's words seem to betray a view that is more akin to 'infused' or 'implanted' righteousness (he uses horticultural language) that is closer to a Roman Catholic understanding than a traditional Protestant one. So while he uses the word 'imputation', he seems to redefine it in unhelpful ways. Harper did a commendable job in explaining the differences between apostasy (both species of it) and backsliding, as well as the differences between voluntary and involuntary sins. I have greater clarity on the Wesleyan position.  Harper's contribution is helpful, though I wish it was more concise. Reading the first section I kept thinking, 'get to it already'. I understand theology 'can't be chopped into pieces', but brevity in the introductory section would have aided his cause.

If you are interested in this doctrine, this is a good starting point.

Best of 2012

Two Thousand and Twelve...the calender only has a few more days on it - but enough to go out and pick up copies of the best albums, books or movies. Here's some of my favorites:

Books (read in 2012, not necessarily published in 2012)

Union with Christ: Reframing Theology and Ministry for the Church, Todd Billings. This one is an accessible treatment of a doctrine that is getting a lot of attention over the past five years or so. Billings does a great job relating this doctrine to real life concerns of the church.

Grace-Based Parenting, Tim Kimmel. Every parent needs grace. This book was a great reminder of the call in parenting without being legalistic and beating up already beaten down parents.

Calvin's Ladder: A Spiritual Theology of Ascent and Ascension, Julie Canlis. This is the most academic book on my list, but I loved it. Canlis does a fantastic job showing how union with Christ is at the core of Calvin's theology.

Preaching to a Post-Everything World:, Zack Eswine. I read more than 3000 pages on preaching this past year (I can hear the jokes now - "when's it gonn pay off Dan?"), but this was very helpful in that it was very unique. Most dealt with interpreting the text, this highlighted the responsiblity to interpret the world.

Old Testament Ethics for the People of God, Christopher Wright. Ok, this is pretty academic also. It is, however, a fantastic help for the believer looking to the Old Testament and wondering how all the laws and ethical injunctions apply today.

Knowing God, JI Packer. This isn't the first time this book has been on my 'best of' list, and it won't be the last. I reread it again (I think that's number four). It's one of the best devotional books I've ever read, and the best this year.

Him We Proclaim: Preaching Christ from All the Scriptures, Dennis Johnson. This was another very good preaching book. Johnson does a great job navigating the extremes of several approaches. Helpful and worshipful.

Favorite Albums (Released in 2012):

Hard Rock:
King Animal, Soundgarden
Amaryllis, Shinedown
Oceania, Smashing Pumpkins
House of Gold and Bones, Stone Sour
Days Go By, The Offspring

Blues, Southern Rock, Folk, Etc.
La Futura, ZZ Top
Somewhere Beneath These Southern Skies, Dirty Guv'nahs
Wrecking Ball, Bruce Springsteen
Drive Towards the Daylight, Joe Bonamassa
The Longing (EP), All Sons and Daughters
The Peace of Wild Things, Paper Route
Babel, Mumford and Sons
Once Upon a Time in the West, The White Buffalo
Uncaged, Zac Brown Band

Movies (Released in 2012)*:
Dark Knight Rises
The Avengers
The Amazing Spiderman

*This list is sad. I need to see more movies. Cmon Lynn, we're going on a date!

Quick Review: Church Marketing 101

I finished up Church Marketing 101: Preparing Your Church for Greater Growth last week. I don't want to write a full review of it, and you probably don't want to read a long review of it either. But maybe a few quick thoughts.

Let's start with the good.

Ok, now onto the bad. Why, why do Christians need to 'baptize' everything with a Bible verse or story. This book was one of the worst offenders I've seen in a while. The first chapter includes a section labeled "The Biblical Foundation of Marketing" in which the author outlines Jesus' marketing strategy. When discussing the importance of building upkeep and astetics the author uses Solomon and the impression he left on the Queen of Sheba as his case study. Reflecting on 1 Kings 10 he writes, "Wow! So how Solomon's ushers dressed mattered? How the building was built mattered? How the greeters greeted mattered? You better believe it! To the queen, they were all evidence that validated the reality of God at work in Solomon's temple."

I wish authors of marketing, management, leadership, etc. books realized that this approach to Scripture doesn't make their books better, it makes them bad. I picked up the book because I know we as a church need to be more intentional about our marketing efforts. I didn't need to be convinced. In fact, his attempts to use the Bible to build a case made me question his credibility, not trust him more. The book would have been better had he, in a short paragraph, stated simply that marketing is one of the things we're called to do because we're Christ's ambassadors. Ambassadors try to represent their kings well. Or, that we're called to be crafty as serpents in our mission to reach the world. Or, that it simply flows from the great commission - we're attempting to use every means possible to spread the good news, and getting people into our churches is one good means.

Ok, back to the good, and there was more good in this book that I thought there would be. The most helpful idea was simple: people have perceptions of you already - you ought to be proactive in shaping that perception. People in Blooomington have a perception of our church that has been shaped by their ideas regarding church in general and about evangelical broadly (after all, it is in our name). Also, our church's particular history (gulp) and reputation in the community has shaped their perception. Those things, to some extent, are beyond our control. But, there's a lot we can and should do to undermine the incorrect perceptions people have of our church. We ought not just go down without a fight, but work hard to recast this perception. Everything we do matters in this regard - from keeping the grounds to developing a website, from greeters to signage in the church, from the sermons to the ease with which we enable people to connect to ministries.

Beyond that simple idea, this book was brimming with great checklists. It's easy as someone to who's been in church a long time to loose sight of the fact that there are people walking in the doors for the very first time. This book did a tremendous job of putting me in the visitors shoes - what do they experience? What fears to they have coming in? What are immediate turn-offs? Etc. These checklists made the book worth the price I paid for it and the time I invested in it.

Lastly, there was good reminders in this book that to communicate well an organization needs to over communicate. I know we all get tired of saying the same things over and over again, but if they define who we are, if they are essential to understanding how life in our church works, then they need to be repeated often. And un-apologetically! The book wasn't long and you can skip all the 'Biblical basis for' sections. If you're wondering what first time visitors or un-churched people see when they come into a church or how the church can shaped itself (without dumming itself down) to reach them, its a worthwhile read.

Did Adam And Eve Really Exist? (Email Exchange)

Back on July 5th I posted a recommendation for Jack Collins' book Did Adam and Eve Really Exist?: Who They Were and Why You Should Care. I really enjoyed the book and it help me see how positions other than my own (which is pretty conservative) can still be reconciled to the Biblical narrative.

Kevin DeYoung posted a review also which was slightly more critical (and certainly more read). Anyway, that started an email conversation between Kevin and Jack in which Kevin clarifies his criticisms and Jack clearly articulates the purpose of his book and his own position (which only comes out in a footnote which refers you to another one of his books). Good read.

Did Adam And Eve Really Exist?

C. John ('Jack') Collins, Old Testament professor at Covenant Theological, has put out another fantastic book on the early chapters of Genesis. Did Adam and Eve Really Exist?: Who They Were and Why You Should Care (2011) is in many ways a companion to Genesis 1-4: A Linguistic, Literary, and Theological Commentary (2006), though the most recent publication is more focused and less technical.

While the historicity of Adam and Eve has been the historical consensus of the church through the ages, that consensus has come into question in recent decades. The challenges to the traditional beliefs regarding Adam and Eve have come from the scientific community, represented by men like Francis Collins, renowned geneticist and influential member of the BioLogos forums, and also from the community of exegetes including scholars like W. Sibly Towner, and James Barr.

The dual-pronged-challenge leads Jack Collins to a dual-pronged-response. First, from the text of Genesis (and beyond) he argues Adam and Eve are 1) portrayed as real individuals and 2) that it is incredibly important to the storyline of Scripture, and consequently to the Christian worldview. In the opening pages of introduction, Collins writes, "I agree with those who aregue that we don not change the basic content of Christianity if we revise our these views [regarding the age of the earth, the literalness of the days of Genesis]...May we not study the Bible more closely and revise the traditional understanding of Adam and Eve as well, without threat to the faith?" The short answer is, "No." Through a rigorous study first of the 'Story Line of the Bible' and secondly of specific Biblical texts (both Old Testament and New as well as non-canonical), Collins shows that these authors assumed Adam and Eve to be actual people and that there is much to lose ideologically and theologically in denying this.

That argument is the bulk of the first two-thirds of Collins' book. The last third is an exploration of possible scenario's that relate the Biblical assertions to the findings of modern scientists. Throughout the work, Collins is contending for what he calls "mere Adam-and-Eve-ism" - in other words, he is arguing for Adam and Eve as actual persons without much concern for questions like 'what is the image of God?', 'when and where did Adam and Eve live?', etc. For that reasons, many cut from a conservative cloth will find this section to their disliking. Collins is simply arguing for the essential core - that there was an actual Adam and Eve who were the fountainhead of humanity, that they were in a special way endowed by God with his image (and this not of strictly natural processes), and that this first human pair 'fell'. Collins then attempts to fit suggested scenarios around this core, evaluating how well these suggestions account for the truths as presented in Scripture as well as our 'common human experience'.

For example, Jack Collins tests the thesis that there must have been more than a single human pair from which all humanity 'sprung'. Francis Collins, from the genetic data, argues that the population of humans must have been at least 1000 strong to account for all of the genetic diversity we know see. Jack Collins, while he does not accept this scenario (and questions the science behind it), contends that it could be fitted to the Biblical data if Adam is viewed as a 'chieftain' of the early human tribe. This could account for the 'in Adam' language and the Biblical notion of Adam as humanities 'federal head'. In addition, Collins considers the possibility of Adam being created in the image of God by a supernatural act of God 'refurbishing' existing animal (prexisting hominid) into Adam.

Jack Collins' approach in this book is unique and will prove unsatisfying to those who want quick and neat answers. While he does contend strongly for an actual Adam and Eve, as opposed to simply mythical/fictive persons, he doesn't do so from a strictly 'creationist' standpoint, and certainly not a young earth position. So young-earthers won't be thrilled. At the same time, he argues , quite successfully I think, that you cannot set aside the historicity of Adam and Eve without seriously altering the Biblical storyline and undermining the authority of Scripture (whose writers assume Adam and Eve were real persons). Thus, many from the BioLogos perspective will not be excited by Collins' conclusions.

If you have wrestled with these questions, I highly recommend Collins' book. It is compelling and at the same time even handed. It is accessible yet scholarly, especially if you pay attention to the footnotes. He does refer to his other works often, probably too often, and three appendices could have been left out entirely (at least the second and third). On the whole, I agree with Collins and am glad I can recommend his presentation to others.

More on Evangelicalism from McGrath (last installment)

I finished McGrath's book a while ago but have been waiting to post on it till after we finished discussing it as a staff, knowing those discussions would bring additional insights.

Again, let me say that I think McGrath's book is really, really good - insightful, hopefully, optimistic and yet critical as well. I tend to pick books apart, even ones I think are good (and this post won't be any different).

McGrath's sixth chapter sounds ominous - 'The Dark Side of Evangelicalism'. Honestly, the title is more daunting than the chapter. It's pretty lightweight, devoted to three 'negative' aspects of evangelicalism. First, "One of the more worrying aspects of some evangelical preaching and counseling is the creation of a sense of guilt, paralysis and self-doubt that results from a deficient understanding of the Reformation doctrine of 'knowledge of sin'" (pg. 140). Really? That makes the list of top three things that we should be worried about? Me guesses it might have something to do with the fact that McGrath coauthored a book Self-Esteem: The Cross and Christian Confidence with his wife. Shameless.

His second point is more legitimate. Evangelicals can be 'intensely dogmatic'. He sees two negative aspects of this intense dogmatism. First, evangelicals place a high premium on assurance and certainty, "making doubt a serious problem for evangelicals" (pg. 143). Christians are taught to conquer (read: suppress) their doubts from an early age. (I'd like to post on the evolution of the doctrine of assurance in the Great Awakenings at some point - it's fascinating and helps us understand a lot about he contemporary evangelical situation). McGrath rightly points out that this is a departure from earliest Reformed thought. Quoting Calvin, "when we stress that faith ought to be certain and secure, we do not have in mind a certainty without doubt, or a security without any anxiety. Rather, we affirm that believers have a perpetual struggle with their own lack of faith, and are far from possessing a peaceful conscience, never interrupted by any disturbance." McGrath offers his commentary that I believe is spot on: "Evangelicals need to rediscover the pastoral consequences of an excessive emphasis on certainty, make the vital distinction between intellectual and existential certitude clearer and realize that people have different outlooks on life that can affect them in different ways" (pg 144). That, I believe is helpful. Interestingly, McGrath also has a book on doubt, Doubting: Growing Through the Uncertainties of Faith.

Unfortunately, his second point regarding dogmatism isn't as helpful. He argues that in the evangelical camp there is a "tendency to become dogmatic over issues of relative rather than absolute importance" (pg. 145). He does acknowledge that there are doctrines and issues we should be dogmatic about, yet goes on to argue that we can ill afford a 'protracted civil war' over nonessential doctrines. He goes on to offer four such 'relative issues': Whether evangelicals should remain in or separate from liberal mainline denominations, the precise nature of the authority of Scripture, the place of the Holy Spirit in the Christian life, and the role of women in the church. In theory I think I agree - and I think ECC is a wonderful example of this, choosing to unite around the core of the faith and allowing for liberty in nonessentials. However, reading McGrath you get the sense that to take a stand on any of the issues is to become dogmatic. Honestly, I don't think you can avoid taking a stand on most of them - and whatever position you take will be divisive. Take for example the issue of women in ministry. Its fine to say its nonessential. However, you will either have women on the staff/elders or you won't, and whichever it is you'll alienate people who think your position violates conscience or is too narrow. McGrath offers little guidance in how to handle these nonessential issues other than "Individual evangelicals owe the movement as a whole the responsibility of taking each other seriously, wherever Scripture permits more than one reading, just as they are obliged to defend evangelical truth wherever this seems to be under threat. But it needs to be realized that evangelicals are free to differ on matters of secondary importance" (pg. 148).

McGrath's third main concern is a huge concern of mine also - the evangelical personality cult. With the advent of new media it's a huge problem, although not an entirely new one. Others have pointed out the evangelicalism was, from it's inception, much more reliant on personalities (Whitfield, Finney, Sunday, Moody, Graham, etc.) than were the more mainstream and confessional expressions of Protestantism. McGrath speaks very critically of 'power ministries' which are almost inevitably authoritarian (much like the medieval Roman Catholic church), marginalize Scripture, and 'vulnerable to sinful human exploitation'. To counter this, McGrath advocates a return to the Reformed doctrine of the priesthood of all believers and of the material sufficiency of Scripture. That would divest the 'elites' of their power and authority and would give men and women in the church "both the right and the means to ensure that his or her church and pastors remain faithful to their gospel calling" (pg. 157).

The seventh, and final chapter "Evangelicalism and the Future of Christianity" explores the question, "What bearing has the growth of evangelicalism on the future of Christianity itself?"

First, he rightly sees that the future of Christianity depends on evangelism - more so than in centuries past. Even the mainline denominations recognize this, though what gospel they will offer people is questionable. However, McGrath believes it to be essential that the church realize "the proclomation of the good news cannot be restricted to individuals but must include the transformation of the context in which individuals live. A recovery of the biblical notion of the corporate and social aspects of both sin and redemption has led many younger evangelicals to be concerned about the transformation of society as well as of individual lives" (pg 161). I think he's right; however, I don't agree with him that this is necessarily a development that is beneficial. In fact, I'd argue it will prove to be more divisive, distracting, and ultimately detrimental to the witness of the church. McGrath argues, "in faithfulness to Scripture itself, it must be pointed out that the gospel is also 'good news' for society. It is virtually impossible to read the Old Testament without being aware of the social dimensions of the faith" (pg. 165). I honestly expected more nuance from McGrath here. The parallels between the Old Testament and the church in exile is not an apples to apples comparison, and it is intellectually dishonest to imply it is.

I agree that evangelicals should be active in the public sphere, but acting out their committments to the common good, not to Christianize or convert or transform society into the Kingdom of God. We should engage in secular activities recognizing God's common grace in all areas of life, save the profane. That common grace allows us to partner with nonbelievers, working together for the good of the city, not only with Christians seeking to impose Christian values on a pluralistic culture.

Much of McGrath's hope for the future of evangelicalism seems to hang on our ability to find a common vision for public life. He argues that this was set aside in the 1920's and the fundamentalist movement, but has gained new life in recent decades. First, fundamentalists did not set aside a vision for the common good, nor did they cease to be active. This is a myth often told (I've told it myself). Fundamentalists were very active in politics - they were patriotic in the extreme, lobbied for prohibition, lobbied to keep Bible reading and prayer in public schools, were active in inner city rescue missions and in many more endeavors. As DG Hart argues, they were ultra conservative in their activities, but to say they were withdrawn is a total misrepresentation of the facts. Moreover, McGrath overestimates our ability to find common ground in seeking to apply the gospel to today's social ills. We may all agree profound poverty is the result of numerous injustices; yet, we will not likely agree on how best to remedy these injustices. In the end, advocating for a public policy will add yet another layer of things for evangelicals to become dogmatic about and divide over.

McGrath concludes his book with some interesting thoughts on evangelicalism's relationship to the Roman Catholic church, to the mainline churches and to post-Enlightenment culture at large. In each venue, there are many opportunities to take advantage of, as well as dangers to be aware of.

In the end, McGrath's book is a helpful, thought provoking book. In many cases, my hopes run contrary to his, but he is an articulate and thoughtful advocate of a 'transformationalist' approach to Christianity. I feel my understanding of the evangelicalism and it's future is more developed and my own commitments, though different than McGrath's, are keener for having read his work.

Praise God for the Messiness of Evangelicalism

Emerson wrote, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." I confess I have a little mind and I love consistency. I love order, I love tidy systems of thought. Maybe that's why I'm so Reformed - true Reformed theology is consistent, sometimes too tidy. Maybe that's also why I sometimes wonder if wonder if I'm really an evangelical. Evangelicalism isn't tidy, is nebulous, nearly impossible to define, has no center, not organizational flow chart, no controlling creeds or confessions. In a word, it's messy. Maybe I should shift to a less evangelical though conservative denomination like the Orthodox Presbyterian Church or the Reformed Church. Those groups are evangelical in belief (the uphold the authority of the word, the virgin birth, the deity of Christ, miracles, sustitutionary atonement, real resurrection, the church, the return of Christ, etc.) , but not evangelical in self conscious ways. Many would askew the label. They wouldn't disagree or deny Bebbingtons definition of an evangelical (bible is authoritative, evangelism/missions is important, the cross work of Jesus is central, conversion is necessary), but resist the controlling pietistic air and revivalistic emphasis on experience. They're world is tidy. Do I fit there?

Reading Alister McGrath's Evangelicalism & the Future of Christianity reminded me of why I love evangelicalism and should appreciate it's messiness. The beginning of the book is, to be honest, overly optimistic. By the end he does address the 'darker side' of the evangelical movement, but the opening three chapters are incredibly positive. It was refreshing. I read a lot about evangelicalism - more than on any other single topic probably. Most of what I read is critical - usually from friends within the movement, but critical nonetheless.

This isn't an organized review, but just to point to a few things that were really encouraging.

1. The tent is big and, while there are many disagreements, the unity is profound as well. Evangelicalism draws from a wide range of historical sources and traditions - from classic confessions of the Reformed Tradition to Anabaptist dissent to Wesleyan practice and Pentecostal worship and experience. In addition, evangelicalism is growing globally and the being expressed in innumerable cultural contexts. There is no wonder there is such diversity and disagreement. However, it's remarkable what a consensus there is on core issues. McGrath describes six controlling convictions: 1) the supreme authority is Scripture, 2) The majesty of Jesus Christ, both as incarnate God and Lord and as the Savior of sinful humanity, 3) the lordship of the Holy Spirit, 4) the need for personal conversion, 5) the priority of evangelism, and 6) the importance of Christian community. In each of these, the imprecision (aka 'wiggle room'). For example, Scriptures supreme authority doesn't necessarily inerrancy. Also, the need for personal conversion is flexible enough to include various modes of conversion (gradual process or dramatic 'Damascus road' type). Some groups would emphasize the convictions differently, but there remains a 'coherence amidst diversity.' Moreover, there is a 'devotional ethos' within evangelicalism that is unifying. "It is no dead orthodoxy, but a living faith," writes McGrath (pg. 57). He continues, "Evangelicalism is basically Christian orthodoxy, as set out in the ecumenical creeds, with a particular emphasis on the need for the personal assimilation and appropriation of faith and a marked reluctance to allow any matters of lesser importance to get in the way of the proclamation and application of the gospel" (pg. 57).

I love the blending of orthodoxy with the truth that some doctrines that are nonessential should be "matters of indifference" (I don't like that phrase, but it's historic. Doesn't mean we don't care about them, but they aren't worth dividing over or fighting about). Some of those conservative Protestant denominations I love have a poor track record on this, dividing over issues like the propriety of speaking about grace in God's dealings with Adam, etc. Silly things to divide over. So McGrath helped me appreciate again the unity within diversity in evangelicalism and how beautiful it is. The ecumenicalism of evangelicalism is good. McGrath quotes Trembath, "Considered ecclesiologically, evangelicalism is Protestantism's clearest attempt to recapture the pluralist nature of the early church." We should embrace this I think.

2. The evangelical movement is relatively new - 280-450 years old, depending on which side you take in some current debates (some would argue it's only 60-70 years old, but they are nutts). Yet, there are deep roots; roots that extend all the way back to the ancient creeds. As McGrath argues compellingly, evangelicalism is orthodox Christianity (with an 18th century twist, to steal from Doug Sweeney). McGrath may overstate his case when he writes, "Evangelicalism is historic Christianity... evangelicalism has shown itself to have every right to claim to be a modern standard bearer of historic, orthodox Christianity" (pg. 94). That seemingly controversial statement is even acknowledged by many liberal theologians. For example, McGrath cites Kirsopp Lake wrote (in 1926), "It is a mistake often made by educate men who happen to have but little knowledge of historical theology, to suppose that fundamentalism is a new form of though. It is nothing of the sort; it is the partial and uneducated survival of a theology which was once universally held by all Christians...The fundamentalist may be wrong; I think he is. But it is we [liberals] who have departed from the tradition, not he, and I am sorry for the the fate of anyone who tries to argue with the fundamentalist on the basis of authority. The Bible is the corpus theologicum of the church is on the fundamentalist side" (pg. 28).

As the standard bearer of classic orthodoxy, evangelicals have the right, the duty, to claim the ancients as their own and draw upon them. On this McGrath quotes J.I. Packer, ""The Spirit has been active in the Church from the first, doing the work he was sent to do - guiding God's people into an understanding of revealed truth. The history of the Church's labor to understand the bible forms a commentary on the Bible which we cannot despise or ignore without dishonoring the Holy Spirit. To treat the principle of biblical authority as a prohibition against reading and learning from the book of church history is not an evangelical, but an anabaptist mistake" (pg. 83).

So evangelicalism has deep roots. I like that. That's not to say other groups, say Lutherans and Reformed types don't have deep roots. It's only to say those roots aren't theirs exclusively.

3. McGrath sounds a corrective to my arrogance, and arrogance that can sometimes be discouraging. As I look around the evangelical landscape, I'm often frustrated and discouraged by those who's practice and theology are sub par biblically. Pragmatism runs rampant. Doctrine is slighted because it's not useful. Confetti canons are brought into the church because they're fun and people like fun. All kind of wild stuff. But, and here's McGrath's corrective, God can use all these means to be drawing people. That doesn't mean we shouldn't speak against poor practice and theology and seek reform, but it does say to us that God is bigger than us. McGrath recounts how the invitation of Billy Graham to speak at Union Theological Seminary in 1954 (uber liberal at this point) created quite a stir. Reinhold Niebuhr thought it below the institution to invite someone so un-academic and backwards in their theology (his words were 'obscurantist version of the Christian faith'). Niebuhr continued, "we can be assured that his approach is free of the vulgarities which characterized the message of Billy Sunday, who intrigued the nation about a quarter century ago. We are grateful for this much 'progress'" (pg. 77).

A biting critique of Niebuhr's snobbishness came from his own president (of Union), Henry P. van Dusen, "Dr. Neibuhr prefers Billy Graham to Billy Sunday. There ar many, of whom I am one, who are not ashamed to testify that they would probably have never come within the sound of Dr. Niebuhr's voice or the influence of his mind if they had not been first touched by the message of the earlier Billy. Quite probably five or ten years hence there may appear in the classrooms and churches of Billy Graham's severest critics not a few who will be glad to give parallel testimony to his role in starting them in that direction" (pg. 78). Likewise, there are many in our church (es) who have been drawn by God through churches/ministries/pastors with whom we have profound disagreements. There will be many who grow find their way out of WillowBack churches into deeper, more theological churches, but who owe their spiritual life to those shallow churches (humanly speaking).

Reading that was a good corrective and softens one of my constant agitations against evangelicalism. As I progress through the book, I'm sure I'll post more - especially on the critical side. But today I was feeling cheery and chipper. It doesn't happen often.

Counterfeit Gods, part 4

We live in a 'culture of greed', and as such, says Keller, we are often blind to our own greed. I absolutely agree. He comments,

"Once you are able to afford to live in a particular neighborhood, send you children to its schools, and participate in its social life, you will find yourself surrounded by quite a number of people who have more money than you. You don't compare yourself to the rest of the world, you compare yourself to those in your bracket. The human heart always wants to justify itself and this is one of the easiest ways. You say, 'I don't live as well as him or her or them. My means are modest compared to theirs.' You can reason and think like that no matter how lavishly you are living. As a result, most Americans think of themselves as middle class, and only 2 percent call themselves 'upper class'. But the rest of the world is not fooled" (pg 52-53).

One thing I wish Keller had made more clear is that the Bible doesn't condemn wealth as such. (The Brick Testament, left, surprisingly, isn't quite accurate on this). It certainly condemns the love of money, dishonest gain, unjust gain, trusting wealth, etc., but not wealth in general. My group spent a fair bit of time discussing how we should respond given that we live in a prosperous nation. Should we shun all luxuries? Should we choose to live at near poverty levels giving away all our wealth? I don't know if we really came to an agreement on that. No one was advocating turning down high paying jobs. I don't think any of us were arguing that we should (all) live in voluntary poverty. I think we all agreed we should be better stewards of our wealth and use our blessing to bless others more than we do now. I am not willing to say we should shun wealth or forbid ourselves any comforts, luxuries, etc. The problem, as I see it, is that we in the West, particularly in America, almost never turn down comforts or luxuries. If we can afford it, we buy it. We are at risk, and I think we should own this, of loving, trusting and serving our wealth over God. Keller points to Nietzsche's prediction that money would become the West's replacement for God, and there are certainly signs that it has.

Keller's interpretation of the Zacchaeus story was very good and demonstrates how grace invades and transforms the sinners heart. He was shaken free from his love of and servitude to money by the grace of God in Christ Jesus and he responded out of his new nature.

The best part of the is the discussion of deep vs. surface idols. Keller explains, "Sin in our hearts affects our basic motivational drives so they become idolatrous, 'deep idols'...'Surface idols' are things such as money, our spouse, or children, through which our deep idols seek fulfillment. We are often superficial in the analysis of our idol structure" (pg 64-65). He continues, "...idols cannot be dealt with by simply eliminating surface idols like money or sex....the deep idols have to be dealt with at the heart level. There is only one way to change at the heart level and that is through faith in the gospel" (pg.66). And further, "Faith in the gospel restructure our motivations, our self-understanding and identity, our view of the world. Behavioral compliance to rules without a complete change of heart will be superficial and fleeting" (pg. 68).

That's great stuff right there. I think this is something every small group leader, Sunday school teacher and especially preacher needs to wrestle with. There is near constant pressure to be applicational in our teaching, and too often the application that comes quick and easy is superficial. We all want to know, 'what do I do now?' and often we are given quick steps to __________. Dealing at the heart level means the applications will often be 'see the beauty of Christ', 'treasure him', 'love him for all he is and all he is done', etc. Not quick easy, but the key to tearing down deep idols.

Counterfeit gods, part 3

So post #3 is about chapter #2, which, so far is the best chapter we've read and discussed in my small group (we've discussed #3 also, but I'm behind in posting).

The chapter title is 'Love is not all you need.' Someone tell the hippies! Keller argues that many in our culture have replace God with love - with an over-dependency on being 'in love'. As with all the chapters, Keller uses a story from the Bible to illustrated to potential dangers of making something an idol. In this chapter, he points to the tragic story of Jacob-Rachel-Leah. I felt his use of this story was better than his use of the Abraham-Isaac story in chapter one, though I don't follow him in all the details (I think he reads too much into Laban's desire to marry Leah off). I had never really considered Jacob's obsession with Rachel, but Keller makes a compelling case that Jacob was lovesick - smitten to the point he says Jacob was acting like an addict who simply had to have Rachel. He had promised to work for seven years to get her, a price that would have been considered exorbitant by ancient standards. Then, when he was tricked and given Leah instead, he worked another seven years to get the bride he desired.

Beyond this, Keller points to the unhealthy longing Leah has for her husband, going to extremes to please him and win his love. The competition between her and Rachel to give sons to Jacob is painful to read, and the sense that Leah lived never having really received Jacob's love is heartbreaking.

Moving from ancient to contemporary, Keller argues that our culture has made an idol of romance and sex - 'apocalyptic romance' and 'apocalyptic sex' are great terms, even if I don't quite know what he means by them. In my experience, the idolization of romance/love/sex comes in a variety of forms. For some, they go into a relationship, even marriage, with this overly romantic notion of what it will entail. Everything good will get better, everything bad will cease to be. Reality, however, never meets these pollyannaish expectations. Nights aren't all about cuddling on the couch or hot sex in the bed. There are bills to be paid, dishes to be washed, and disagreements to work through. Someone who's idolized love/romance going into marriage can be discouraged and embittered. Some will look to blame themselves. Others may blame their spouse and begin to feel the 'grass is greener' over there, in another relationship. The same can happen with sex. Some couples go in search of perfect, wonderful, hot sex all the time. They neglect to consider the rhythms of life and marriage and get frustrated and even angry (I really recommend reading Lauren Winner's Real Sex: The Naked Truth about Chastity - she does a wonderful job unromanticizing sex).

On the other end of the spectrum, some idolize a specific person rather than a vague notion of love. For some, they worship the ground the other walks on. We've all seen it. Sometimes it's a momentary phase of 'puppy love' that wears off. The wearing off is good, because as Keller points out, no one is meant to carry the weight of God. No one but God truly 'completes us' (thanks Tom for what may be the worst cheesy love line ever). When it doesn't wear off it can cause 'terrible blindness to the pathologies in the relationship' and can lead to all sorts of abusive.

I particularly liked two points Keller makes in this chapter. First, he asks "Where are the all the spiritual heroes in this story [of Jacob-Rachel-Leah]?" His answer - they aren't there! He writes, "The reason for our confusion is that we usually read the Bible as a series of disconnected stories, each with a 'moral' for how we should live our lives. It is not. Rather it comprises a single story, telling us how the human race got into its present condition, and how God through Jesus Christ has come and will come to put things right...the Bible repeatedly shows us weak people who don't deserve God's grace, don't seek it, and don't appreciate it even after they have received it." YES, YES and AMEN! This is what we call Biblical Theology!

Second, I really appreciate his reminder about 'cosmic disappointment'. He says, "We learn that though all of life there runs a ground note of cosmic disappointment. You are never going to lead a wise life until you understand that." While life if filled with good thing - great things even, things that come from the hand of God - they will never satisfy us completely. There will always be a note of disappointment with the job you thought would be perfect, the vacation you saved years for, the relationship you thought would be perfect. This side of heaven, of Eden restored, nothing can satisfy. Thank God! The note of disappointment is God's grace meant to show us that we were created for something else. In Lewis' words, "If I find a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probably explanation is that I was made for another world."

Lastly,I think Keller is spot on in his prescription (I knew some prescription would come). He quotes Thomas Chalmers classic sermon, "The only way to dispossess the heart of an old affection [idolatry] is by the expulsive power of a new one...[to rid yourself of an idol] try every legitimate method of finding access to your hearts for the love of Him who is greater than the world."

A great word just in time for Valentine's Day!

Nanking

I just finished watching the movie Nanking - "the true story of how a few brave souls saved the lives of thousands". The film is a combination of real interviews with survivors of the Japanese invasion and occupation of Nanking and actors reading letters and diaries of the foreigners who stayed on to help the Chinese people. One of the blurbs describes it a "not just moving...essential". I agree. It is as important a movie as Schindlers List, though not nearly as many will see it. The story is as tragic, as horrific as the story of the Jews in Europe, though few know it. It is a story of the sin and the evil that lies within mankind. It is also a story about human dignity and the courage of a few who would not turn their back on the suffering of others. I would highly recommend seeing this film.

Insights from Green's 'Evangelism in the Early Church', pt. 3

I'm going to wrap up this series with this post. There is probably a lot more to glean from this book and I look forward to rereading it sometime down the line. For now though I have many other books I need to get to and think on.

The fifth practical/ministry insight I'm taking from Green's book is the importance of non-legalistic motivations for doing the work of evangelism. Green asserts that the early church had a more multi-faceted approach, finding motivation to take up the work from more that just a few verses at the end of Matthew's gospel. First, he notes that the Christians were primarily motivated out of gratitude to God for all he had done for them. This doesn't mean the Great Commission wasn't important, but it does not appear with frequency in the writings of the early church. Green cites Roland Allen, arguing, "it would be only a minor loss if the textual doubts surrounding those verses [Matthew 28:16-20] prove justified [they don't], and if it could be clearly demonstrated that Jesus never spoke those works. 'The obligation to preach the gospel to all nations would not have been diminished by a single iota. For the obligations depends not upon the letter but upon the Spirit of Christ, not upon what he orders but upon what he is, and the Spirit of Christ is the Spirit of Divine love and compassion and desire for souls astray from God" (pg. 278). Coupled with this sense of gratitude and the 'thrill' it was to represent Christ to the world was a healthy sense of accountability. While the early Christians certainly believed one's future was secure in Christ, they were also aware that everyone would stand before the judgment seat of Christ and give an account of how they had stewarded their lives, including the opportunities to share the gospel (see for example Matthew 25:14-30). Green points out that while in the 2nd century this sometimes degenerates into a crude system of rewards and punishments it was not so in the earliest church writings, including the NT. Added to these two motives to preach the gospel was a genuine concern for the lost. Green comments, "Mankind is divided into those who accept him as the way to God and those who do not...It is one of the most objectionable elements in the gospel to modern man. No doubt it was to people of the first century. The scandal of Christ's particularity has always been the supreme obstacle to Christian commitment. But these early Christians believed implicitly that Jesus was the only hope for the world, the only way to God for the human race. Now if you believe that outside of Christ there is no hope, it is impossible to possess an atom of human love and kindness without being gripped with a great desire to bring people to this one way of salvation. We are not surprised, therefore, to find that concern for the state of the unevangelized was one of the great driving forces behind Christian preaching of the gospel in the early church" (pg. 290). Green also points out that this concern for the unevangelized was fueled by a healthy theology of the end (eschatology). The church really believed, and not just in their formal theological statements, in Jesus' imminent personal return to judge the world and in the reality of hell. Even in the second and third centuries when the hope of an immediate return had faded, "eschatological expectation played a notable part in galvanizing the church into mission" (pg. 369).

Why have so few in the modern church been equally motivated? Honestly, the is certainly a problem drawing parallels between the early church and the modern church on this point. When we look at the early church we are looking at those who were most active and recorded their activities. There may well have been large segments of the early church that didn't do much by way of evangelism and weren't motivated by gratitude or concern. Still, we can learn from those who were were active and properly motivated. One of the reasons people don't respond with overwhelming gratitude for the grace they have been given is they don't understand the ridiculous nature of that grace. We have grown up hearing we are really good. At church we may here a different story, yet I suspect notions of our inherit goodness still lay just beneath the surface in many evangelicals (I'm sure Barna's got a statistic somewhere). I really don't know that we'll feel the proper gratitude for what God has done in Christ till we appreciate the horror of what we have done in our rebellion against God. If we don't feel that we won't be motivated much by it either.

On the whole it seems what is needed in the church is a deeper and truer love for Christ. (I feel like I'm getting repetitive in saying I include myself in this critique, but that if I don't keep including myself I run the risk of coming off as self righteous). The task of spreading the good news of Jesus wouldn't be something we do only when the level of guilt for not doing it rises to a critical level. Instead, it would be praising and commending the God we adore to others, calling them to adore him for who he is and what he has done.

Finally, the sixth insight, which may be the most important for me personally, comes in Green's chapter on evangelistic methods. He begins his section on 'teaching evangelism' with a critique of Dodd's 'arbitrary separation between preaching and teaching, between kerygma and didache" (pg. 313). He goes on to write, "in early Christianity there was no such clear-cut distinction between the work of the evangelist and that of the teacher. This is, in fact, apparent throughout the period from St. Paul to Origen. Both of them evangelized through teaching the Christian faith" (pg. 313).

We have come to think of evangelism and teaching as two entirely separate functions - some texts are evangelist texts, some are meant for the believer. Some truths are useful for evangelism, some are not. I think the whole body of truths the church has been given are useful for instruction and evangelism. This can be pushed to far, for in the first post I outlined the particular evangelistic message used in ministry to the Jews and Gentiles. However, what I want to assert is the evangelistic potential of every passage of Scripture (I remember hearing RC Sproul talk about how he was brought to faith in a service where the preacher was preaching on an obscure passage from the prophets). All passages of Scripture are useful in evangelism because 1) all Scripture leads to or flows from the cross, and 2) God is sovereign and his Spirit and his Word are powerful instruments to do what is humanly impossible.

As I said, this has been a challenging insight, especially as I am thinking through plans for next semester and the college ministry. Last year we walked through the book of Revelation and were heavy on the teaching aspect. This year has been entirely topical and more weighted to the evangelistic component. How do we wed these two aspects of ministry? That is the challenge and one I am really enjoying contemplating. I'd love to hear your thoughts on this (if any of you have been keeping up with these really long posts).

Insights from Green's 'Evangelism in the Early Church', pt. 2

I think I should have explained in Part 1 of this three part series that I have intended these posts on Greens book to be more practical and not a formal review or critique of Green's work. Many have done that and there is probably a fair bit to critique. These posts are more of a personal/ministry reflection on the work and tries to apply some of the trends and principles Green sees at work in the early church to our modern church context (inherent in that comment is a critique of Green - he does little work applying what he sees in the early church to the modern church save his epilogue of 8pgs.).

The third thing I am taking away from Green's book is a desire to reclaim a more robust understanding of conversion. Green points out that the early church proclaimed the person of Jesus, the gift of forgiveness and salvation, and they called for a response. In other words, they expected results, namely repentance, faith and baptism. It is very accurate to say that the early church (first century) didn't consider conversion quite complete until the convert was baptized (this changed by the second century where converts were catechized extensively before being baptized). Green points out, I believe correctly, that Paul intentionally places his discussion of baptism in Romans 6 immediately following his discussion of justification in Romans 5 - one naturally flows from the other. Greene writes, "they all make it abundantly clear that baptism and conversion belong together; is is the sacrament of the once-for-allness of incorporation into Christ" (pg 215).

Without falling into any sense of our work in baptism contributing to our right standing before God, re-emphasizing the role of baptism would go a long way, maybe, in abating the rising tide of 'easy believism' so prevalent in the church today. We offer salvation without repentance, call for faith and neglect obedience. We do it in the hopes that by offering a minimalist gospel we will be removing any/all barriers to people coming to Christ. This problems with this are legion. I'll mention just one here because I'm coming back to it later - holiness is one of the church's most compelling evangelistic tools. This minimalist gospel is detracting from the holiness of the church and will ultimately have (is having) devastating affects on the 'believability' of the gospel we preach. [Note on picture: this is a 4th century baptistry in Milan where St. Augustine was baptized by St. Ambrose.]

(Somewhat tangentially is a lengthy discussion of Newbigin's three understandings of the church in the NT, "each with it's appropriate means of entry". Newbigin points to the NT teaching of the church as the New Israel, and on this understanding it is baptism that marks one's entrance just into the covenant community just as circumcision marked one's entrance into the Old Covenant community of Israel. Added to this is the understanding of the church as the fellowship of believers for which repentance and faith were necessary conditions of acceptance. Finally, the church is also understood as the community of the Holy Spirit, so it is the reception of the Spirit and living the Spirit led life that are marks of entrance to the church. Green points out that that each of these modes of entrance have been picked up by certain wings of the Christian church - the Catholic church picked up on the requirement of baptism, the Protestant on the necessity of faith and repentance and the Pentecostal on the importance of the Spirit. He argues that each is valid and necessary, but that "all become falsified if taken in isolation and to its logical extreme."(pg. 222). There's a lot to ponder in this discussion, but as I said, somewhat tangential to this post.)

Green continues the main line of his argument on the robustness of the early churches theology of conversion pointing to the conversion of Paul as normative for all Christians (though obviously the Damascus road experience isn't, the effects of his conversion are). Green comments, "This encounter with Christ touched Paul at every level of his being. His minds was informed and illuminated...His conscience was reached...His emotions were stirred...His will was bent...His life was transformed" (pg. 225).

This leads me to insight four (hinted at above), which really isn't new but Green does an excellent job of reminding his reader of the necessary connection between belief and behavior. Green cites the uniqueness of the Christian fellowship, the transformation of individual lives, their irrepressible joy, their endurance even to the point of death and their power in the Spirit as behaviors that backed up their beliefs and gave the early church so much success in evangelizing both Jew and Greek. Quoting Green at some length, "The truth of their claims must have been assessed to a very large degree by the consistency of their lives with what they professed. That is why the emphasis on the link between mission and holiness of life is given such prominence both in the New Testament and the second century literature...Life and lip went together in commending the Christian cause...The two cannot be separated without disastrous results, among them the end of effective evangelism. That is why the New Testament writers are so intolerant of both doctrinal and moral defections among their converts" (pg. 250). (Note on the picture: the painting is called the "Choice of Perpetua". Read her amazing story of courage.)

For the promise of immediate results and numbers to make us feel good, I fear much of the evangelical church has cut it's nose of to spite its face. The numbers of converts won by such easy-believism type evangelism are dubious to begin with and the great danger is that the next generation (possibly this generation) has entirely lost its credibility with the world. David Wells argues this point at length in his book The Courage to be Protestant (which I began posting about but ran out of steam). I think those who say we need a massive reformation of the church (revival in the old sense of the word) before we will experience any great successes in the mission of the church are right on the mark. Yet it seems that for a large swatch of evangelicalism holiness is an after thought, seriousness about God is viewed as a hindrance and the game is numbers. Best way to get numbers is to be fun and high energy. But, in the midst of this push we are loosing credibility and I see it in the faces of students who I talk to - both the non-Christians who think we're all a bunch of hypocrites and the Christians who are reluctant to share their faith because they know their lives don't back up what they proclaim.

I'm glad that while this may be the rule there are many exceptions. Some ministries take holiness and seriousness seriously. Even in those that don't there are students who do. Praise God. And I am praying that many more will be added to the joyfully serious who love holiness and show people their convictions not with mere verbiage but by living well (and need I say it, I pray that I'll be included in that group too).

One more post to go...

Insights from Green's "Evangelism in the Early Church", pt. 1

Green’s book makes a unique contribution to our understanding of Evangelism in the Early Church. His work is unique in that it is both a wonderful examination of relevant New Testament material and a thorough study of the church’s evangelistic methods for the first three centuries of its missions endeavors. Here are a few of the key insights, mostly practical, I have gleaned from Green’s work.

First, while Green does a very good job of detailing the providential conjunction of circumstance in the first century that were very advantageous to the birth of the new Christian movement, he does an equally good job of describing the massive obstacles that the early Christians faced. The message of a crucified Messiah who was, in fact, the LORD of the Hebrew Scripture, put the early church immediately at odds with the Jews (though they were themselves, by and large, Jews). Green explains in his chapter titled “Evangelizing the Jews” that the hostility was heightened by the Christians claim to be the true Israel, their ‘theft’ of the Hebrew Scriptures, their disregard for the Law and the “spiritualizing” of Israel’s sacred rites. Being pushed out from their Jewish home the early Christians were not welcomed with open arms in the broader Graeco-Roman culture either. There they were met with suspicion due, in part, to wild rumors of immorality and their refusal to participate in the imperial cult and much of civil life. To these obstacles were added several intellectual obstacles: Christianity was new, it was ridiculous and it was culturally inferior. Moreover, it was narrow. Christians didn’t lobby to add Jesus to the pantheon, but declared he was the only hope of salvation and called upon people leave their idols to worship the one and true God. This was a wonderful reminder of how difficult the mission of the church was (and is) and how heroic the early churches effort was. As Green comments, “If they had stopped to weigh up the probabilities of succeeding in their mission, even granted their conviction that Jesus was alive and that his Spirit went with them to equip them for their task, their hearts must surely have sunk, so heavily were the odds weighted against them (29).” It also points to the importance of the Spirit in their early endeavors. The task was impossible if it were not for the power of the Spirit at work in the early church.

The task before the church today is also daunting. We need to take courage from the work of those early Christians and learn lessons from them about reliance on the Spirit and faith in Christ whose church we labor to build.

The second theme that struck me as practically important was the adaptability of the early Christians. Green comments, “the proclamation of the early Christians [was] united in its witness to Jesus, varied in its presentation of his relevance to the varied needs of the listeners, urgent in the demand for decision (pg. 101).” Green thoroughly describes the various methods, places and persons involved in the mission task. To the Jews the early evangelists quoted Scripture to show Jesus as the Messiah and the fulfillment of the promises of God. While the message continued to be thoroughly biblical, the evangelists did not quote nearly as much Scripture to those who were unfamiliar with it. Instead they quoted poets and philosophers and emphasized Jesus as Lord instead of Jesus as Messiah. With the Jews the early witnesses to Jesus could cut to the gospel chase. Among the pagans however there was a good deal of remedial work that needed to be done, namely an attack on idolatry, a proclamation of the one true God and exploration of the moral implications of this proclamation (pg. 179). This ‘translation’ of the gospel from one milieu to another was not without its dangers, but it was absolutely necessary. Green reminds us that “Evangelism is never proclamation in a vacuum, but always to people, and the message must be given in terms that make sense to them (pg. 165)”

Beyond the translation of the message, the early evangelists were also very adept with regards to the methods they employed. The early Christians evangelized in public places and in homes. They went to the upper echelons’ of society and to the working class and poor. They sometimes won people with a carefully reasoned argument and sometimes through displays of the Spirit’s power over demons and disease. The modern church can and should learn from the early church and be ready and willing to adapt new methods and do the hard work of faithfully translating the gospel message across cultures. It is incredibly easy to become tethered to one specific approach to evangelism (i.e. home visitation, the Four Spiritual Laws, Evangelism Explosion, friendship evangelism, etc.). All of these approaches have value and can be used by God to reach different kinds of people. We ought to allow ourselves to become comfortable in sharing the gospel in a variety of ways and allow freedom to others as well. It makes sense that our approach to a college student who has grown up in the church but has never made a personal faith commitment will be very different than our approach with a professor of religious studies who is hostile to the narrowness of Christianity just as Paul’s approach to the philosophers was different than his approach to God fearing Lydia. Green concludes, “When Christians have the will to speak of their Lord, they find no shortage of ways in which to do it (386).”

This diversity of approach is also the byproduct of the fact that every baptized believer considered it his privilege and duty to spread the good news of Jesus Christ. It was not just the itinerant evangelists and the professional missionaries that were commending Jesus to the people. Everyone from the intellectual theologians to the believing slave, from the bishops to wealthy aristocrats took it upon themselves to sow the seed. Thus the proclamation took on the ‘personality’ of those active in evangelistic work of the church. Again, there is much we need to learn from their example. Evangelism has increasingly been seen as the calling of the professionals or the privilege of those with the gift of evangelism (interestingly, the proportion of people who claim to have the gift of evangelism is shockingly low compared to those who claim to have the other gifts. Maybe, just maybe, it’s because so few people have tried to be an evangelist and so haven’t experienced the working of the Spirit in this way?!). As a pastor I see calling people and motivating people to be Christ’s ambassadors as an important focus, one that I have honestly been negligent in.

More to follow...

The best and the worst of 2008

I might supplement this with more categories later, but here's a start.

Best Movie

I haven't seen many movies in the theaters this year, but I saw two awesome movies and one dreadfully bad movie. The best Batman: The Dark Knight. This was an awesome movie, Heath Ledger was amazing, though Christian Bale's Batman voice got annoying. Also, Prince Caspian (which I'm watching right now on video) was better than the first installment of the Narnia movies. I loved it and so did my boys.

The worst movie was Transporter 3. No surprise though - the third installment of an awful movie is more awful than the original.

Best Book

I'll have to mention at least a few. Christopher Wright's The Mission of God (2006) is fantastic, but very long. Anyone who is interested in how to do a biblical theology should read Wright. Also, Tim Keller's The Reason for God (2008) is a great apologetic. I loved the tone of Keller's writing and how he takes new angels to age old questions. In addition, Why We're Not Emergent: By Two Guys Who Should Be by Kevin DeYoung (2008) is a winsome but detailed evaluation of the emergent church. It is definitely worth the read. Also, very interesting to me was D.A. Carson's Memoirs of an Ordinary Pastor (2008), though I doubt others would be as interested (he was my mentor at TEDS).

The worst book I read this year was a collection of essays by emergent folks, Emergent Manifesto of Hope (2007). The book was overstated, filled with false dilemmas and poor caricatures of traditional evangelical churches. I concluded that most of these writers were writing against the worst type of evangelical market driven churches (or fundamentalist churches) and that they presented little more than liberalism of a century ago repackaged.

Best Fiction Book

Since my friend Mark suggested I read more fiction, I have. The Lord of the Rings Trilogy and the Hobbit were the best of the year. I can't believe I didn't read these earlier. Also at the recommendation of a friend I read and really enjoyed the Ted Dekker's Circle Trilogy: Black, Red, White. These books are one part Tom Clancy, one part Tolkien and one part Lewis. Awesome indeed. For those who like war fiction, I'd recommend the Brotherhood of War series by W.E.B. Griffin. Really keeps your attention and you enjoy his characters very much.

Unfortunately, Dekker's book Adam makes was the worst fiction book I read recently. Predictable and weird at the same time. Not good.

Best CD

I have very eclectic music tastes, but don't buy a ton of music. The best of what I bought this year include Coldplay's Viva la Vida, Metallica's Death Magnetic, Charlie Hall's The Bright Sadness, Counting Crows Saturday Nights and Sunday Mornings, Sojourn These Things I Remember, and Eddie Kirkland Orthodoxy.

Worst CD belongs to Chris Tomlin Hello Love.


Best Sporting News

The best sporting news of the year was the Dolphins bounce back from a 1-15 season. This year they are 9-5 and still have a chance to make the playoffs. I knew the Big Tuna would turn things around, but wow, this is more than I could have hoped for in one year. Also good news is the signing of Kerry Wood by the Cleveland Indians. Our closer issues kept us out of the playoffs last year. We did, however, overpay. On the hockey front – oh, who cares about hockey.

Worst news: Sabbathia to the Brewers to the Yankees. I hate the Yankees.