Church History, with Wit

Introductions to the Reformation are seldom styled as page-turners. Michael Reeves' The Unquenchable Flame is precisely that. Written with an unambiguous appreciation for Reformation principles and the people who propelled them, Reeves also exposes their flaws alongside explanation, not excuse. But what sets this book apart to me is Reeves' masterful narrative style and a characteristically British dry wit.

How do you inject wit in Reformation history (apart from telling juicy Luther anecdotes)? A couple examples:

If ever you should be so unfortunate as to find yourself in a roomful of Reformation historians, the thing to do to generate some excitement is to ask loudly: 'Was Christianity on the eve of the Reformation vigorous or corrupt?' It is the question guaranteed to start a bun-fight.

And my favorite, concerning King Charles I of England's re-establishment of high churchmanship and his Catholic sympathies:

[Charles] even managed to appoint his dream Archbishop of Canterbury, the diminutive William Laud [reading this, MLJr?], and Oxford academic who would never be trusted by the Cambridge Puritans. Laud was never a man much able to win people over; he seemed to reserve all displays of warmth for his pet cats and giant tortoise.

No doubt the most practical portion of the book is its concluding chapter, "Is the Reformation Over?" Here, Reeves defends the centrality of justification to the question, and thoroughly repudiates Mark Noll with a combination of logic and centuries-old parallels. The implication that Noll is a contemporary Erasmus is thinly-veiled.

Less practical, but more foundational, is Reeves' conclusion: The Reformation was not a negative movement—away from Rome, but a positive one—towards the gospel. May such movements, keep moving.

Ok, so the bad news . . . the American B&H edition isn't available yet through the above link, but you can obviously pre-order. PLUS, if you can't wait (and I'm glad I didn't) you can buy the original British IVP edition (the one I read) right now, here.

Piper on The Meaning of the Pentateuch

Should've linked this in the last post. Piper:

It will rock your world.

and

I feel like a greedy miser over a chest of gold.

The Meaning of the Pentateuch Is Christ. Period.

That's the theme of John Sailhamer's new book, The Meaning of the Pentateuch. It's a theme that, in my view, many Covenant Theologians need to grapple with more responsibly, and many Dispensationalists need to, well, grapple with.

Here's a bit more of his argument in a recent Christianity Today interview:

The old theologians used to speak of "the love for Scripture" as a sign of true faith in Christ. They would say, "We should read the Old Testament as if it were written with the blood of Christ." For them, the Old Testament and the Pentateuch in particular was a Christian book, a book about Christ. For most evangelical Christians today it is a book about archaeology and ancient history.

Here we have to be careful because, to be sure, the Old Testament is about ancient history. But that is not its meaning. Its meaning is Christ. Saying that also calls for a great deal of caution. In my book, I take the view that the whole of the Pentateuch is about Christ, but that doesn't mean that Christ is in the whole Pentateuch. Finding Christ in the Pentateuch means learning to see him when he is there rather than trying to see when he is not there. I like to tell my students that we don't need to spiritualize the Old Testament to find Christ, but we do need to read it with spiritual eyes.

What all this means is that the Pentateuch isn't primarily a record of Israel's religion. It's not primarily about how we should live. It's not a history of important things that happened before Jesus (though the things it says happened, did). It's about Jesus. And I especially appreciate his caution against finding Jesus in every nook and cranny of the OT. Just as George Washington won't appear as a character on every page of a book about him, so Christ doesn't appear on every page, even though every page contributes in some way to the message about Christ that the whole book communicates.

Now having said all that, I'm not recommending that you go out and buy Sailhamer's new book unless you're pretty serious about digging into the issues. It's really long and fairly technical, though quite readable in the early-going. Instead, I'd encourage you to start with his NIV Compact Bible Commentary. It's an excellent, efficient tool to help you pick up on the major themes of Scripture, particularly the narrative passages and the prophets. And the "NIV" in the title is simply a publisher's marketing strategy; it's irrelevant to the content.

More Speculative Dispensationalist Dogmatism or Mark Dever, the Bully?

I'm close to wrapping up my trip through the audio of the 2009 Mid-American Conference on Preaching, hosted by Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary. The discussion sessions, in particular, are worth a listen. (The gist of the general sessions are more accessible on Dave Doran's blog.) The conference raised numerous issues that are worth further conversation; one of them is a bit of a rabbit trail, so I'll get it out of the way first.

Mark Snoeberger, DBTS professor and library director, argues in his workshop session, "Who Needs Fundamentalism When We Have T4G and TGC? A Continuing Fundamentalist Raison d’être," that Mark Dever is a bully. Seriously. Concerning Dever's statement last July that a pastor is in sin if he leads his congregation to have a statement of faith that requires a particular millennial view, Snoeberger asserts:

[Dever's] statement is emblematic of the impulse to bully fundamentalism and conservative evangelicalism into reunification, and, I think, one that ignores the roots of the original breach.

I don't know if Snoeberger would likewise consider John MacArthur's talk at the 2007 Shepherds' Conference, "Why Every Self-Respecting Calvinist Ought to Be a Premillennialist," to be bullying. I do feel pretty confident about two things:

1. No one who was present when Dever spoke those words thought he was speaking hyperbolically, as Snoeberger implies he might have been.

2. Snoeberger offers no evidence whatsoever for his dogmatic assessment of Dever's motive.

"Precious Little Evangel": The Real Scandal of the Evangelical Mind

Carl Trueman has a way of skewering the self-important in a way that magnifies their asininity. Perhaps it's that British thing.

In any case, his article on the idolatry of man-fearing in the latest 9Marks E-journal is worth a read, not only for its characteristic Trueman wit, but also for the force of its arguments. I like where he's going when he writes:

[I]f a movement does not understand what it is, then it cannot make any really satisfactory determination on who belongs and who does not. The boundaries of a movement are ultimately revealed by the person who comes closest to belonging but who nonetheless does not. Arius is a good early church example. As high and exalted as was his view of Christ, he could still only regard Christ as a creature and not fully God. The boundary was drawn and he was outside of it. Combine the problems of defining evangelical identity with the current cultural penchant for not excluding anybody and you have a heady recipe for total disaster.

On Cessationists and Their Ironic Mysticism (Bonus #2)

Several months ago I posted a brief series on ways many professing cessationists frequently speak and act in ways that contradict their convictions . I also tried to argue that these ways of speaking and acting can be quite destructive. Here are the links: part 1, part 2, part 3, bonus 1 (posted before the whole Carrie Prejean thing really blew up).

This morning while reading in Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology, a passage in a footnote in his chapter on "The Sufficiency of Scripture" caught my eye.

Because people from all kinds of Christian traditions have made serious mistakes when they felt confident that God was 'leading them' to make a particular decision, it is important to remember that, except where an explicit text of Scripture applies directly to a situation, we can never have 100 percent certainty in this life that we know what God's will is in a situation. (footnote 1, p. 128)

Grudem actually articulates precisely what I hoped to argue. And, of course, the irony here is that Grudem is one of the leading defenders of continuationism, a decidedly non-cessationist position.

Apologetics: Impotent?

Provocative arguments from Dave Doran expose the futility of evidentialist strategies.

Editing and Inspiration

In a recent Washington Post interview, J.I. Packer describes his conviction that divine inspiration of Scripture is not compromised if we conclude that an inspired editor shaped the final published form of the biblical text. Here's the exchange:

Q: On a radio program, you explained why different Bible translations have different endings to the Gospel of Mark. How does this jibe with the inerrancy of God's word?

A: The inerrancy of Scripture applies to the material as prepared for publication. I'm saying that quite deliberately because I want to allow the editor in. In some Old Testament books, it's very evident that an editor has been at work. That's quite all right. It's part of the process.

Q: But some people believe that every word written and every "i'' dotted came strictly from the hand of God to the author. At the other extreme, atheists and liberal Christians say, "No one knows what's true in the Bible because it's been changed so much." How do you see this?

A: I'm saying that an editorial process that is preparing the material for publication counts as part of the inspiring process whereby God, in his sovereignty, gave every word. Some people ask for trouble by not allowing for the reality of editorial processes. The editorial process is very important for preparing the work for public consumption. It's part of the inspired process.

I know what I believe on this point, but I'm really curious to hear what the sort of folks who read this blog believe and have been taught. So I'll shut up and look forward to hearing from you.

Can We Be Together for the Gospel with Fundamentalists? (Part 1): Why Are the Young Guys Leaving?

I’ve heard more than a few explanations for why so many younger men (and let's not forget the women) are distancing themselves from fundamentalism and embracing conservative evangelicals. Here are a few:

• Lust for status or academic respect
• Rebellion
• Itch to participate in worldly activities (rock music, movies, alcohol)
• Rejection of dispensationalism
• Frustration with what fundamentalism has tolerated (appalling preaching, bad conduct, hypocritical leaders, anti-intellectualism)
• Disgust with legalism
• Impatience waiting for leadership
• Desire for mentoring
• Impulse to be part of something bigger
  

People who move away from fundamentalism aren’t monolithic. They have different theologies. Different priorities. Different opinions. Different idols. (Yes, we all have them.) So I’m guessing that all of these reasons that have been proposed are true, though certainly not all for every single person. I’m guessing there are many more I haven’t listed. I’m guessing that most people in this group have been influenced by more than one of the items on this list. I’m convinced that many of these reasons overlap. And I certainly don't claim to speak for everyone.

But there’s another factor that I’m not sure I’ve ever heard anyone mention publicly. I’m persuaded that it’s a significant factor, at least for some. And if it’s a legitimate basis for walking away from fundamentalism, even for one person, then it ought to provoke some serious soul-searching, particularly among people who are committed to the fundamentalist idea and who believe that the residue of the fundamentalist movement best preserves that idea.

That factor—that factor to which some people are so committed that they’ve grown disillusioned with the fundamentalist movement . . . the factor that has led them to build bridges to other partnerships, coalitions and affiliations . . . that factor is the gospel.

In other words, some young people are leaving fundamentalism for the sake of the gospel. Some young people think they’ve found a more biblically faithful articulation and practice outside the residue of the fundamentalist movement. Some young people think that people who really care about the gospel will talk more about the gospel than fundamentalism or separation (or anything else).

You might not like it. You might disagree with the facts. You might question their judgment or their priorities. But you’d be wrong to deny the reality of their convictions.

In Part 2: "The Logic of Fundamentalism: Presuppositions," I hope to explain how separatist theology creates a formidable standard for its own advocates.

Bait and Switch Evangelism

Act 2 of the November 6th installment of "This American Life" is worth a listen. Don't be put off by the title; it's af exposé on disingenuous evangelistic strategies. What's most intriguing is the opportunity to hear a self-conscious non-Christian perspective on sham evangelism.