Tag Archives: theology

Book Reviews, Theology

Book Review: Old Earth or Evolutionary Creation?: Discussing Origins with Reasons to Believe and BioLogos, edited by Kenneth Keathley, J. B. Stump, and Joe Aguirre

Leave a comment

Old Earth or Evolutionary Creation?Edited by Kenneth Keathley, J. B. Stump, and Joe Aguirre, Old Earth or Evolutionary Creation?: Discussing Origins with Reasons to Believe and BioLogos is a moderated (Southern Baptist Convention), two-view presentation and discussion between two “Christian” organizations (BioLogos and Reasons to Believe) in agreement with evolutionary theory in general and an understanding of the earth as being billions of years old, but they are in disagreement over what all that necessarily means and how we (humans) became we are in particular, especially regarding what it means to be “made in the image of God.” BioLogos members believe all life, including humans, have a common ancestor; Reasons to Believe (RTB) members believe humans were created as special beings separate and apart from an evolutionary process.

WHO ARE THEY?
BioLogos is quite a diverse group with no central board of scholars dictating their beliefs and findings to others. Their “core commitments” are relatively broad:

  • We embrace the historical Christian faith, upholding the authority and inspiration of the Bible.
  • We affirm evolutionary creation, recognizing God as Creator of all life over biollions of years.
  • We seek truth, ever learning as we study the natural world and the Bible.
  • We strive for humility and gracious dialogue with those who hold other views.
  • We aim for excellence in all areas, from science to education to business practices.

When an author writes from the perspective of BioLogos, he or she often includes a caveat that not all within the organization may agree on the specifics (or even in general, as the case may be). The organization’s focus is primarily on educating Christians in the “both-and” of science and Scripture in hopes of ending or smoothing controversies surrounding both and the fear and/or disdain many have for evolutionary theory.

Reasons to Believe is rather exclusive with only a small team of four scientists (Fazale Rana, Anjeanette Roberts, Hugh Ross, Jeff Zweerink) and one theologian (Kenneth Samples) leading the pack. Requirements for participation include signing a four-page doctrinal statement (“explicitly Protestant and evangelical, patterned after Reformation creeds, but allows for diversity of views on eschatology, spiritual gifts, and the paradox of human free will and divine predestination”) with a view of biblical inerrancy as articulated by the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, a Christian behavior contract, and RTB’s mission statement. When an author writes from the perspective of RTB, it is assumed all are in agreement. The organization’s focus is evangelizing non-Christians into a saving relationship with Jesus.

CONTRIBUTING AUTHORS
Southern Baptist Convention: Ted Cabal, James Dew, Ken Keathley, John Laing, Steve Lemke, Robert Stewart
BioLogos: Darrel Falk, Deborah Haarsma, Loren Haarsma, Jeff Schloss, Ralph Stearley, J. B. Stump, John Walton
Reasons to Believe: Fazale “Fuz” Rana, Hugh Ross, Kenneth Samples, Jeff Zweerink

ABOUT THE BOOK
Though not likely to convince and swing young-earth and “literal six-day” creationists to an old-earth perspective, it proves helpful in better understanding the two provided views in general and in pointing to much needed further detailed and precise information (see footnotes and bibliography for sources). The format of each chapter includes an SBC moderator introduction with questions, a response from a BioLogos author followed by the RTB response, a redirect with clarifications and questions from SBC, a response from BioLogos and RTB in the same order, and a conclusion from SBC. While authors BioLogos appear to be much more specific, detailed, and thorough than those from RTB, there simply isn’t enough time or space for fully articulated arguments and responses, and I wonder if the discussion would have been any different if the order had alternated between BioLogos and RTB responses. It would also have been helpful had the authors been able to edit their responses to better suit the moderator’s questions as intended rather than some moderator conclusions ending with something akin to “I must have been misunderstood” or “my questions weren’t really answered.” It definitely reads as an ongoing conversation, which it is, than a thoroughly prepared articulation of two views, which it isn’t.

STARTING WITH THE END
Some people read the end/conclusion of a book before reading the first page, which I find intriguing, especially in regards to fiction in general and mystery in particular. While I am not one who practices this, I perceive a few things mentioned in this book’s final chapter to be helpful on both bookends. So, for the reader’s benefit, here are three quotes from the end that should prove beneficial before starting on page one:

“After participating in all of our conversations with Reasons to Believe and BioLogos and now after working through this book, which is the product of those conversations, I am struck by a number of things. To state the obvious, this issue is huge. The creation/evolution conversation is big in the sense of how broad and interdisciplinary the topics are.” – SBC moderator Kenneth Keathley

“We probably all felt frustrated at times, wondering, Why can’t you see the strength of my argument? or Why can’t you see the danger in your position? If the group had not established strong personal relationships and been committed to humility and Christian unity, we would not have been able to sustain true engagement and would have descended to talking past each other or rancorous debate. … In today’s public square and—sadly—in our churches, people are assign guilt by association, so that even talking with someone of a different view can be seen as an endorsement or agreement with that view. I admire the courage of everyone involved to continue our conversations despite the risks.” – BioLogos author Deborah Haarsma

“The issues addressed in this book are very big and controversial and, even for people with doctoral degrees in science or theology, can be confusing. Our goal in this book was twofold: to help remove some of the confusion and to demonstrate that important controversial disagreement can be addressed in a spirit of gentleness, respect, and love. … This book…is a two-views book but not a debate book. We purposely avoided long rebuttals and responses, recognizing that there is not enough room within a single volume to engage in sufficient depth to map out pathways for resolution of our differences. Our goal is to do that in future books.” – Reasons to Believe author Hugh Ross

RECOMMENDED?
While I remain unconvinced on many of the particulars, I did find the book helpful in better understanding some of my brothers and sisters in Christ and applaud the way in which all participants demonstrated the love of Christ. I look forward to delving into some of the more specialized and detailed sources cited.

 

*I received a temporary, unpublished digital copy (hence no page numbers for included quotations) for review from IVP Academic via NetGalley.

Book Reviews, Politics & Economics, Theology

Book Review: Just Capitalism: A Christian Ethic of Economic Globalization, by Brent Waters

Leave a comment

Just CapitalismIn Just Capitalism: A Christian Ethic of Economic Globalization, Brent Waters argues in favor of a transition from nation-states to market-states as our current best economic option from his perspective as a Christian moral theologian. Several problems quickly arise in this text. I provide the following examples:

 

Problems with Waters’ Method:

1) Beginning with the introduction and extending throughout the book, statistical data is manipulated to support the author’s argument.

2) The author’s arguments are overly simplistic, as he acknowledges throughout, but urges the reader to be patient because he will eventually bring it all together in a fuller and more convincing manner. He eventually does not.

3) Examples of others’ arguments are most often on extreme ends of spectra, would likely not be used by critical thinkers today, and do not adequately address concerns of nuance lacking in the author’s own arguments. All too often it is stated that there is not enough time or space to work out much-needed nuance and the reader is simply referred to a number of other texts via footnotes.

 

Problems with Waters’ “Christian Moral Theologian” Perspective:

1) “Human flourishing” is defined by a particular “Christian” economic and political view that is more “of this world” in favor of the “haves” obtaining more to potentially aid the “have nots” than it is about following Jesus in the kingdom of God as it is now. It is argued that all should be able to meet their desired needs and wants, that this is impossible within any nation or community anywhere in the world, and thus global trade is necessary for “human flourishing” as defined by the author. This is simply ignorant of how many places in the world function and assumes everyone’s “wants” are going to be “good.” This also makes unnecessary the provision of God over and above our own efforts, something for which God has often chastised his people.

2) It is rightly argued that affluence is not usury (obviously, by definition) and can, given the right circumstances, be a good. However, any Christian theologian should know and take into consideration that not all are set on the same path, that we are not all called to have “more than enough” in this life, and that living according to the Way is primarily seen by taking up one’s cross, living humbly, and following Jesus’ example of sacrifice, all while relying on God and not oneself for provision. This should not be taken to mean that we do nothing, but the arguments in this book have little to do with the potential workings of God and, subsequently, a “Christian” moral theology.

3) The reader is expected to take the author’s argument that the Spirit can work through capitalism and globalization as evidence for their being the best way forward. This argument, however, has been and is used for many programs and methods Christians desire to perpetuate and need to stamp with approval—a tactic of “the end justifies the means” that ignores the fact that God can and does work in the darkest places that we cannot even imagine without justifying that darkness as “the best way forward.”

 

Problems with Waters’ Idealism Conveyed as Pragmatism:

1) For the author’s argument to work, all of the world’s kingdoms and nations would need to move to market-states simultaneously and be concerned with one’s neighbor in the same manner (as argued, that would necessarily entail one taking care of oneself and making sure oneself has more than enough before aiding one’s neighbor). It is accepted that not everyone will act as a Christian and that people will be hurt and oppressed in this system, even by Christians, but that it will be a smaller percentage than any other conceived way forward.

2) Any system argued against can be (and often has been) in similar fashion to the author’s idealism and come out as “the best way forward.” If everyone cared for one’s neighbor as Christian’s ought, then Socialism and Communism could both potentially work quite well (remember, we cannot deny the Holy Spirit can work through [insert preferred system], right?)—arguably even better than capitalism given its bent toward greed rather than love of one’s neighbor. That is not to mean that all capitalists are selfish, greedy individuals, but it certainly opens the door to that possibility at least as much (probably more) than to loving one’s neighbor.

3) Given the author’s concerns for the neighbor, there are several non-capitalist and non-free-market exceptions that are found to be necessary goods for the overall system to work (e.g., a socialist education system and unspecified government intervention with trade, the environment, and community are included), which should prove obvious to any reader that the ideal system does not work if it cannot work.

4) The author admits in his final chapter that if he is wrong about the environment and the overabundance of natural resources believed to exist to provide for our ever-increasing selfish desires for more and more energy/power, his entire argument falls apart. I don’t think we need to wait to see the failure.

 

My wife is an economist; I’m a theologian. Though I have certainly gained insight into economic theory, systems, and jargon through my wife’s teaching and working through some of that with her in light of scripture, the lens through which I read this book is primarily that of a Christian theologian and what I believe to be honest, rational thinking. I concur with Waters that globalization can be a good and that giving people the freedom of choice and open borders (borders that are often militarily—or at least by the threat of violence—established) is a good thing. However, I believe this because God has given us all the freedom of choice and that violence is contrary to the way of Jesus (Waters comes from a more Reformed theological perspective, so we likely disagree on exactly what “choice” implies, and his pro-military stance is something I obviously believe to be contrary to proper Christian moral theology). I also don’t think this is something we can force upon others via one system or another. Entering the kingdom of God is voluntary (again, Reformed folks will disagree here); likewise, the way Christians live should demonstrate the same method of volunteerism.

 

Regardless of the system(s) in which we live, we (Christians) are first citizens of the kingdom of God who should love our neighbor no matter the degree to which we “flourish.” The ideal human flourishing described by Waters and many others awaits us in the gift of eternal life when there will be no more fighting, separation, heartache, or tears of any kind. Given the words of Jesus, I do not believe this can or ever will happen prior to his return.

 

*I received a temporary digital copy for review from Westminster John Knox Press via NetGalley.

Book Reviews, Theology

Book Review: Salvation by Allegiance Alone: Rethinking Faith, Works, and the Gospel of Jesus the King, by Matthew W. Bates

Leave a comment

Salvation by Allegiance AloneIt’s no secret in scholarship that the English language does not have words that carry the same meaning and connotation of the Greek word pistis and its various forms and conjugations; however, that doesn’t stop most from using “faith” in its place wherever found. The driving force of Matthew W Bates’ Salvation by Allegiance Alone: Rethinking Faith, Works, and the Gospel of Jesus the King is the reevaluation of pistis as “allegiance” rather than “faith” in its greater context. I do not doubt that many will find Bates convincing in this regard, especially those already aware of the political context of Scripture; however, there are several major points I find in need of revision in this thought-provoking work.

First, Bates argues that the oft used arguments for “salvation by faith alone” have not only been theologically wanting but also damaging to the way in which hearers may then perceive and read Scripture and live (or not) as citizens of the kingdom of God. Studying in both Presbyterian and Catholic contexts, Bates feels he is uniquely positioned to speak in a bridging manner for Protestants and Catholics, particularly regarding the place of “works” or “living out one’s faith,” as some describe it, in conjunction with faith—or, as he argues, one’s allegiance to Jesus as Lord. His arguments are sound and point out philosophical, theological, and practical flaws on both sides of the traditional arguments that overemphasize faith or works in such a way that diminishes the other. However, after so doing, he comes back to “allegiance alone” (hence the title), perceivably unable to escape his traditional Evangelical roots, even after arguing for a much deeper understanding of an holistic life actively aligned with the king in mind, heart, and action. Perhaps this new phrase is intended to imply this holistic life, but his arguments against “faith alone” can be used against the reevaluated pistis phrase since “allegiance” may be easily misinterpreted and misused in time, as he has demonstrated the case to be with “faith.” I would encourage an holistic understanding and teaching of pistis, as does Bates, but without the wholesale removal of “faith” terminology, arduous as the task may be.

Second, Bates attempts to define the “gospel message” in its entirety according to eight foundational statements found in the Apostles’ Creed:

“Jesus the King
1. preexisted with the Father,
2. took on human flesh, fulfilling God’s promises to David,
3. died for sins in accordance with the Scriptures,
4. was buried,
5. was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,
6. appeared to many,
7. is seated at the right hand of God as Lord, and
8. will come again as judge.” (p# unavailable, emphasis original)

There’s no doubt that these statements are either explicitly or implicitly made by Jesus and/or the apostles; however, I find his argument utterly unconvincing, stemming more from creedal theology rather than an holistic approach to the New Testament’s use of euangelion and its varied forms—basileia (kingdom) isn’t even included in Bates’ gospel message, that which is most associated with “gospel” in the New Testament.

Third, Bates argues that we are “idols of God” solely based on characteristic similarities between “image” and “idol” and the nature of idols in ancient Egypt as articulated by John Walton. No linguistic evidence is provided—contrary to the positive evidence for the pistis/allegiance argument—for a shift from “image” to “idol” in his desire to “restore the idol of God” (humans who properly reflect God, Jesus noted as being the prime and only perfect example this side of the new heavens and earth), but that does not stop him from making the switch and henceforth referring to those aligned with Jesus as idols. Not only is it unconvincing, I find no positive or helpful reason for its inclusion in the book. It simply appears to be an attempt to cram into the book a second linguistic wrench of controversy for the academy and ends up detracting from the greater message.

Finally, pairing “allegiance” and his “gospel” creed, Bates encourages Christians to use and recite the current form of the Apostle’s Creed as the true and proper “Pledge of Allegiance” with ever-increasing frequency in order to proclaim, teach, and remind people of the gospel (as defined by Bates) and with whom they are aligned. Certainly reciting and affirming creeds is not my dispute. They may proclaim truth and serve a purpose, and it’s the purpose and degree of complete truth claimed by the authors and perpetuators that I question. Bates is not the first to put forth an alternative pledge that counters those nationalistic in nature (Shane Claiborne being one of the most recent), and it sounds like a good idea. Jesus is lord; Caesar is not. We (well, some of us) get that. My reservations for using at least this pledge in particular (or really anything as the pledge) should be apparent in my questioning of Bates’ presentation of the holistic gospel message above.

Given the aforementioned observations and reservations, I find the overarching thesis to be an important one in need of further discussion within the academy and local churches alike. A proper understanding of the political context within and with which Scripture is written can only help us more fully understand whose we are, for whom we live, and what a life lived with that perspective may and ought to look like.

*I received a temporary, pre-published digital copy for review from Baker Academic via NetGalley.

Book Reviews, Theology

Book Review: Money and Possessions, by Walter Brueggemann

Leave a comment

Money and PossessionsWalter Brueggemann’s Money and Possessions is the most recent addition to WJK’s Interpretation series, and a most welcomed addition it is! An exhaustive analysis and articulation of what the Bible has to say about money and possessions is much too daunting a task, thus Brueggemann has by necessity been rather selective in the passages he addresses, though he does span the entirety of the canon. His “Introduction” serves well as a summary and conclusion (he does not include the latter), and would be an excellent primer for study and discussion. The rest of the chapters follow the Bible through its canonical order.

Brueggemann follows the theme of God’s economy over and against the world’s economy. There are certainly passages dealing specifically with “money and possessions,” but there is a great deal of Scripture that addresses life in regards to how we live in relation to these things even if not explicitly mentioned. The latter is where the real meat of this study lies, and it may prove difficult to digest by those who appeal to individualism and pulling oneself up by the bootstraps. Brueggemann’s insight into the pervasiveness of covetousness throughout Scripture will likely be the beneficial driving force of perspectival shift for many who study and apply this text.

Along with finding it in the libraries of Bible students and teachers alike, I foresee Money and Possessions being added to syllabi for business, finance, economics, and socio-political courses in Christian universities. Highly recommended.

 

*I received a temporary digital copy for review from Westminster John Knox Press via NetGalley.

Book Reviews, Theology

Book Review: Four Views on Hell, Second Edition, by Preston Sprinkle, general editor

Leave a comment

Four Views on HellZondervan updated its Counterpoints series with a second edition of Four Views on Hell with new contributors. All contributors approach their doctrine of hell from a Protestant (non-Catholic and (non-Eastern Orthodox) and evangelical (definitions may vary), believing that hell is an actual place but differing on what they believe happens therein. The book follows the common form of the Counterpoints series: an introduction by the general editors, a major essay on one view followed by relatively shorter essay responses by all other contributors, subsequent essays and responses in the same manner, and a conclusion, again by the editor. Contributions and respective authors include the following:

  • Introduction: Preston Sprinkle
  • Eternal Conscious Torment (often referred to as the “traditionalist view”): Denny Burk
  • Terminal Punishment (the contributor’s preferred terminology for the more commonly known “annihilationism” or “conditional immortality”): John G. Stackhouse, Jr.
  • A Universalist View (a universalist view in that the contributor believes all are saved through Jesus, as opposed to the more widely used and understood definition of “all roads lead to heaven/God”): Robin A. Parry
  • Hell and Purgatory (not in the Roman Catholic sense, and is questionably included given its focus on an in between state of earth and heaven with no focus on hell, which assumes and is in agreement with the perspective of eternal conscious torment above): Jerry L. Walls
  • Conclusion: Preston Sprinkle

Atypical to what I have generally found from editors in the Counterpoints series, Sprinkle offers a fair and generous introduction and critique of each of the contributor’s essays and the book as a whole rather than simply saying something akin to, “Here they are, and they contributed,” nor does he offer his personal thoughts in hopes to sway the reader one way or the other, encouraging the reader to study, reason, and wrestle on his or her own. Though I do not agree that “each provided solid scriptural and theological arguments for his view” (204; Sprinkle is more generous than I), each of the contributions are indicative of a typical representation of each view given the space and time allowed, and in as much contribute to this book’s helpfulness as a helpful survey resource. With that recommendation and Sprinkle’s already helpful responses included in the text, I find it unnecessary for me to respond to each contribution and instead encourage one to read the book if at all interested in a survey of prevailing views on the subject hell.

 

For those interested, my own studies have convinced me of annihilationism and conditional immortality, for which a thorough and convincing argument has already been articulated in The Fire That Consumes: A Biblical and Historical Study of the Doctrine of Final Punishment, Third Edition by Edward William Fudge.

 

*I received a temporary digital copy for review from Zondervan via NetGalley.

Book Reviews, Theology

Book Review: A Little Book for New Philosophers: Why and How to Study Philosophy, by Paul Copan

Leave a comment

A Little Book for New PhilosophersNot far into Paul Copan’s A Little Book for New Philosophers: Why and How to Study Philosophy I thought to myself, “This may become required reading for all introductory courses in Bible and theology programs.” The first two chapters are absolutely fantastic and rightly demonstrate a place for philosophy within Christianity. However, Copan thereafter takes a sharp dive into axioms and poorly articulated arguments that leave the reader wondering how this was ever intended to be a primer on philosophy for Christians. It feels as if Copan assumes a priori knowledge of the very reasoning espoused so that it need not be articulated, which is contrary to the book’s purpose. Unfortunately, rather than introducing the reader to philosophy’s place in Christianity, this fits better as an exercise in dogma. (Concerning much of what is actually articulated, Copan relies heavily on Alvin Plantinga, which speaks to his tradition and philosophical presuppositions.)

Concerning the positive note, the following are included in the first two chapters:

“Philosophy is mind-sharpening.” (20)

“Philosophy helps us to see that ideas have consequences.” (21)

“Philosophy expands our horizons.” (21)

“Philosophy can help isolate bad or sloppy thinking.” (22)

“Philosophy can strengthen our theology.” (24)

“Everyone takes a philosophical view of things—a worldview, some call it—even if their philosophical assumptions are subconscious and unexplored. Like it or not, whatever your outlook or training, you are a philosopher!” (31)

“Another way of looking at philosophy is as a kind of tool. In this sense it is a way of thinking, not the result of your thinking.” (33, emphasis original.)

 

I expected more from IVP Academic with this one, but it does fit a theological trend in what I’m seeing from them recently. However, despite my overall opinions of the text, I would still recommend students read through chapter 2 of this book.

 

*I received a temporary digital copy for review from IVP Academic via NetGalley.

Book Reviews, Theology

Book Review: Four Views on Christianity and Philosophy, by Paul M. Gould and Richard Davis, editors

1 Comment

Four Views on the Christianity and PhilosophyPart of Zondervan’s Counterpoints series, Four Views on Christianity and Philosophy offers wonderful insight for those interested in the interaction between Christianity and philosophy. The four contributors include one atheist (Graham Oppy) and three Christians of varying tradition (K. Scott Oliphint, Timothy McGrew, and Paul Moser). As is typical of the series, each contributor presents an essay, which is followed by a response from each of his peers. This text, however, is different from others I’ve read in the series in that it contains a rejoinder from the contributor after the responses—a welcomed addition to the template!

Conflict Model: Graham Oppy’s naturalist perspective is not surprising, and many of his finer points of argument are left to citations of outside sources due to limited space in this work. It is doubtful that readers of the intended audience will be persuaded by his arguments, but inclusion proves quite helpful for stimulating intellectual engagement. Though adamant and firm in his conviction that there is no God, his writing maintains a sense of humility (as much as can be expected from any professional philosopher) and welcomes his counterparts as part of a larger philosophical community, something I’ve found to be uncommon in these sorts of atheist vs. Christian philosophical exchanges.

Covenant Model: K. Scott Oliphint promotes God-given theology as the only true philosophy (and that it’s not philosophy because it’s God-given). Oliphint is a staunch Calvinist and, to his detriment, simply cannot move beyond Calvin. His arguments may make sense to those already indoctrinated with Calvinism, but he puts forth no real argument for his perspective, runs in circles, and fails to rightly engage with his counterparts. This is, however, a good example of this perspective on Christianity (what Oliphint believes to be true orthodoxy) and philosophy, and is thus worth wading through in order to better understand its presuppositions and blind spots.

Convergence Model: Timothy McGrew embraces philosophy as a God-given tool to help us better understand our reality and sees it as a means by which one may be brought closer to God, though not all the way. He maintains that revelation and something beyond pure reason is necessary for us to be brought into a right relationship with God (e.g., it may be reasoned demonstrated that Jesus was a real person, but to believe that he is the Son of God—and God—requires revelation beyond pure reason). Though he has not been brought over himself, even Oppy acknowledges that this bridge may bring atheists to Christianity.

Conformation Model: Paul Moser believes that using any reason or natural evidence for God is actually sinful because one can only come to God through some sort of direct revelation embodied in some sort of “experience” that he claims is the hallmark of a Christian. (McGrew notes in his response that he hopes Moser isn’t saying what he thinks he’s saying—that McGrew isn’t a Christian—because he does not share the same sort of conversion experience [218], but Moser implies at the end of his rejoinder that McGrew is not “led by God’s Spirit” [224], which amounts to placing him outside of Christ when read in conjunction with his other points.) Though distinct, the views of Oliphint and Moser may appear to be virtually identical in practice, which is why they praise each other’s perspectives with few exceptions.

In total, no contributor really recognizes his blind spots, although it is difficult when they aren’t being well noted (or noted by those who seem to be intentionally misreading them). Oppy and McGrew appear to be the most reasonable and engaging of the four, perhaps because Oliphint and Moser are paradoxically professional philosophers who believe philosophy is outside of God. I would, however, still recommend reading for anyone interested in the ongoing debate regarding Christianity and philosophy.

 

*I received a temporary digital copy for review from Zondervan via NetGalley.

Book Reviews, Theology

Book Review: Five Views on the Church and Politics, by Amy E. Black, editor

Leave a comment

Five Views on the Church and PoliticsPart of Zondervan’s Counterpoints series, Five Views on the Church and Politics includes perspectives on the church and politics from five traditions, as well as an introduction and conclusion by editor Amy E. Black. Views and authors include the following (as labeled in the text): Anabaptist (Separationist) – Thomas W. Heilke; Lutheran (Paradoxical) – Robert Benne; Black Church (Prophetic) – Bruce L. Fields; Reformed (Transformationist) – James K. A. Smith; and Catholic (Synthetic) – J. Brian Benestad. The authors were asked to provide the following for their respective tradition’s view of the relationship between the church and governmental politics: a brief historical development, it’s view of the role of government; how Christians should engage and participate in government, and a short case study illustrating the latter. A response from the other authors follows each of the main essays.

This book really is about tradition. There is little to no biblical reasoning for these positions (the Anabaptist tradition does point back to Jesus, his example, and his words in the Sermon on the Mount). The essays may be summed up as follows: Anabaptist: because Jesus via Yoder; Lutheran: because Luther; Black Church: because oppression(?); Reformed: because Calvin via Kuyper; Catholic: because popes and unquestioned documents. Responses are hardly engaging with respective essays, usually boiling down to something akin to, “I read it, and now here’s what my tradition says.” Heilke and Smith do appear to be more honest and sincere in their essays and responses and engage better than their peers.

Black misses the mark altogether, introducing the text with extreme bias and poor exegesis. On the first page, she quotes a 1994 commentary on Jesus’s response to paying taxes (Matthew 22:21), stating, “With this reply, Jesus refused to take a side in the fierce political debate of his day over the poll tax and ‘implied that loyalty to a pagan government was not incompatible with loyalty to God’”(7). What?! Jesus implies nothing of the sort—he does, however, say something to the contrary concerning two masters (Matthew 6:24). In fact, we couldn’t even substitute “fealty” for “loyalty” in the quote and come out any better. Black’s skewed perspective comes out in the conclusion when she misattributes commonalities among all represented traditions, seemingly ignoring or misrepresenting that for which she is not in favor, and promotes the perpetuation of a two party system (Democratic & Republican) in American government as if those parties are all that matter.

This is a very disappointing addition to the Counterpoints series. I cannot recommend the whole of this book for any worthwhile purpose.

 

*I received a temporary digital copy for review from Zondervan via NetGalley.

Book Reviews, Theology

Book Review: The Pastor Theologian: Resurrecting an Ancient Vision, by Gerald Hiestand and Todd Wilson

Leave a comment

The Pastor TheologianIn The Pastor Theologian: Resurrecting an Ancient Vision, Hiestand and Wilson add to the ongoing argument in favor of the need for pastor-theologians, noting the unhealthy dichotomy perceived by modern Christians wherein pastors are seen as preacher-counselor-managers and theologians are seen solely as university academics. Bringing more specificity to the conversation, the authors promote what they call ecclesial theologians over local and popular theologians. They do, however, go on for six chapters before finally nailing down in the seventh exactly what they believe an ecclesial theologian is and/or ought to be, also noting that they are pilgrims on this journey and are contributing to a conversation that they hope will continue into the next generation in a hopeful resurgence of pastor-theologians.

So, what is an ecclesial theologian according to Hiestand and Wilson? Before stating what it is, they note what it is not—or, perhaps more appropriately, what it is more than. They write, “The local theologian is a pastor who provides theology to a local congregation; the popular theologian offers more widely accessible theological reflection for a broader swath of the church; and the ecclesial theologian gives theological leadership to other theologians and scholars, all the while keeping a close eye on genuine ecclesial (as opposed to academic) concerns” (17). So, the authors do not mean to say that an ecclesial theologian does not care for the local congregation, nor does he refrain from writing for a larger Christian audience or the academy; they claim that ecclesial theologians are first pastors to their local congregation and then contributors to ecclesial scholarship with a primary focus on the church and leaders therein rather than the academy. Pulling from church history, the authors bring forth Athanasius, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Calvin as examples of their ideal ecclesial pastor-theologians, citing N. T. Wright as perhaps the best example of in our time—at least for a number of years before Western Christian culture seemingly eventually forced a decision to be either an academic or a pastor, Wright prayerfully landing back in the former.

If one is so inclined, one may skip straight to the seventh chapter for the authors’ detailed explanation of what an ecclesial theologian does via the following subheadings: The Ecclesial Theologian Inhabits the Ecclesial Social Location (88), Foregrounds Ecclesial Questions (90), Aims for Clarity over Subtlety (92), Theologizes with a Preaching Voice (93), Is a Student of the Church (94), Works Across the Guilds (96), Works in Partnership with the Academic Theologian (97), and Traffics in Introspection (99). This is all encouraging and helpful. So, how does one become an ecclesial theologian? The authors’ strategies are listed in chapter 8: Strategy One: Get a PhD (104); Two: Staff to the Vision (107); Three: Get Networked (108); Four: Guard Your Study Time with a Blowtorch (110); Five: Read Ecclesial Theology (and Other Stuff) (113); Six: Refer to the Place Where You Work as “Your Study” (116); Seven: Build Studying-and-Writing Time into Your Schedule (117); Eight: Recruit a Pastor-Theologian Intern (118); Nine: Earn Buy-In from Your Church Leadership (120); and Ten: Let the Necessity of Love Trump Your Love of Truth (121). Though surely helpful for some, this, in culmination with terminology and implication found in the rest of the book, is where I want to push back on the authors and hopefully encourage the pastor-theologian conversation to move in a more holistic and biblical direction.

 

This book is written on behalf of “evangelicalism” for a “resurrected vision” from the past. I note three significant problems stemming from the authors’ perspective:

One: What is evangelicalism? There are a plethora of definitions, no few of which claim to be “the one” from popular pastors and scholars, but the one common denominator I have found is that all who claim this guild are “Protestant” (most nondenominational churches who claim the same title still function and promote theology from their founders’ Protestant heritages and traditions).

Two: If Protestant, then is a pre-Reformation vision desirable? This is not intended to speak from my own convictions, but rather question the foundation of the vision put forth. I’m looking for consistency here. If the authors are speaking for protestant evangelicalism (they do not include their Catholic and Orthodox contemporaries in the discussion), then they must recognize the hurdle before them in convincing Protestants that Catholic and Orthodox history and theology matter and can be helpful, as I believe they are. However, if we’re going to drop denominational labels and ties and look at our history by recognizing that from which we came, for which I am in favor, then why refer to “evangelicals” and “evangelicalism” and perpetuate an “us vs. them” mentality?

Three: The authors make two assumptions. First, they assume there was an “ancient vision” and that it wasn’t simply an organic development with cultural and societal variables, two of the most notable affecting the rise of notable “pastor theologians” being widespread illiteracy and the Constantinian shift. Second, again missing problems and difficulties with Christian culture, the authors assume churches are business establishments of hundreds to thousands of members with boards, staff, and a convoluted understanding of the term “pastor” itself. This perpetuates the problem of North American churches and their international plants that places more emphasis on a branded institution than the body of Christ.

 

I applaud the Heistand and Wilson for contributing to this ongoing conversation and pushing it forward in specific ways. I now pray the Spirit guides us further with a more holistic and less taxonomical view of the body of Christ.

 

*I received a temporary digital copy for review from Zondervan via NetGalley.

Book Reviews, Theology

Book Review: When God Isn’t There: Why God is Farther Than You Think, but Closer Than You Dare Imagine, by David Bowden

Leave a comment

When God Isn't ThereHad I paid more attention to the author bio, I would not have chosen to review this book. David Bowden is a student at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary writing his first book. In When God Isn’t There: Why God is Farther Than You Think, but Closer Than You Dare Imagine, Bowden relies heavily on contemporary neo-Calvinist megastars for its inconsistent theological perspective and explanation. After fifty pages in I wanted to put it down, but I finished it and found all the same pat answers given by neo-Calvinists for the problems at hand. Bowden simply tries to makes his life experience apply to these teachings or vice versa. If you’re not already a thoroughly indoctrinated Calvinist, then you will find little helpful in this text; on the contrary, you might discover more problems and be sent into a worse place if asking questions related to the title. Basically, Bowden says God is always present, and if you’re in pain it’s because he caused it—either to cause repentance or to teach you something. If God feels absent, it’s because he wants you to miss him or because you’re in sin, which he caused because he causes everything to happen (so the theology goes). It’s horrendously harmful and unhelpful theology, and I cannot recommend it.

 

*Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the publisher through the BookLook Bloggers book review bloggers program. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255: “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”