BOOK REVIEW: Christology, Ancient and Modern, by Oliver D. Crisp

Christology, Ancient and Modern: Explorations in Constructive Dogmatics by Oliver D Crisp

My rating: 4 of 5 stars

This book is fascinating; definitely worth reading. The only disappointment I experienced was entirely my own fault: apparently I'm not up to speed with contemporary discussions about Christology, especially as it regards trinitarian "tensions," and so a number of fundamental distinctions within the articles from Scott Swain, Michael Allen, and Jason McMartin were a bit over my head. It didn't ruin the experience. It just complicated it.

My favorite articles were:

1) Jeremy R. Treat, "Exaltation In And Through Humiliation: Rethinking the States of Christ"

2) Peter J. Leithart, "We Saw His Glory: Implications of the Sanctuary Christology in John's Gospel"

3) Telford C. Work, "Jesus' New Relationship With The Holy Spirit, And Ours: How Biblical Spirit-Christology Helps Resolve A Chalcedonian Dilemma"

View all my reviews

Book Review: Through New Eyes, By James B. Jordan

Through New Eyes: Developing a Biblical View of the World by James B. Jordan

My rating: 4 of 5 stars

A friend of mine once described James Jordan's Through New Eyes as a book which teaches how to eat, drink, and dream in a language called "Bible." After reading this book a couple of times, I find myself agreeing with that opinion. Scarcely a month goes by when I don't peek into this book to see what Jordan said about a given passage or symbol in Scripture. Even in significant areas where I once disagreed with Jordan’s interpretation, I find myself agreeing more and more as long as I continue to immerse myself in the text of the Bible itself. For that very reason, I commend Jordan for his ambitious attempt to teach the language of the Bible from the Bible itself.

Jordan divides this book into four parts: 1) The nature of the world, 2) The features of the world, 3) The transformation of the world, and 4) The movement of history. The first part is an attempt to clarify not only how Christians ought to view the Scriptures, but how Christians ought to view the world in which they live. For Jordan, one major key to viewing the world properly has been missing among Christian scholarship in the 20th century, and that is the need for viewing the world (inside and outside of the Bible) as a fundamentally symbolic creation. Because creation as a whole is fundamentally symbolic, the theological point of the Scriptures is not to reduce the data about the world contained therein to a mere set of ideas, but rather to reveal who God is; and God has revealed Himself in a world of symbolism.

In this first part, Jordan demonstrates that through the lens of Scripture the purpose of the world is two-fold: first, it reveals God (p. 20). Secondarily, and just as important, its purpose is also to reveal man (p. 25). “All of this can be boiled down to a simple fact:” Jordan writes, “The universe and everything in it symbolizes God. That is, the universe and everything in it points to God” (p. 23). Following this “simple fact,” Jordan concludes: “it inescapably follows that just as the world symbolizes God, so also the world must symbolize man, the image of God.” (p. 26).

The second part is an attempt to answer why God created mountains, rivers, seas, wildernesses, men, angels, animals, plants, trees, fish, birds, rocks, and even the sun, moon, and stars. In brief, it’s an attempt to answer why God has given man—his image bearer and symbol maker—a cosmic blueprint from which to work. For those students of Scripture in need of a lexicon for the symbolic language of this cosmic blueprint, I can’t think of a better place to start than with this second part of the book. The Scriptures most definitely portray a symbolic world, and to remain unfamiliar with its own symbolic message of mountains, trees, stars, birds, angels, and man—all working together for the glory of God—is a real tragedy.

The third part is an attempt to view man’s place within God’s world in it’s proper Biblical perspective. In this part, Jordan summarizes how man functions in a three-fold manner as both prophet, priest, and king in this world, and how this world is also a “three-decker universe,” (p. 144) understood through the lens of the triple-layered Paradise in Genesis, the Holy Mountain of Sinai, and the holy altars of ascension to Yahweh. As Jordan notes: “The Bible uses these images to express its worldview, according to each stage of history” (p. 163), and “each of these pictures a social or human environment” (p. 161) that is “absolutely fundamental to Biblical imagery” (p. 163).

For me, the fourth part of the book is perhaps its most ambitious aspect. It is an examination of each stage of history in light of the Bible’s own imagery. In no other single book (that I’m aware of) can someone find a connected narrative of symbolism from Eden to Ark to Altar to Sinai to Tabernacle to Zion to Mount Moriah to the World of Exile to the World of Restoration to the New Heavens and New Earth. Nowhere else can you find, in one place, a historical development from the kingly role of Adam in the Garden/Land to Judges and Kings, and then to Nations and Empires, or even the priestly role of Adam developing toward Priests & Seers to Synagogues, Churches, and Elders.

This book does have its weaknesses though. Some sections seem out of place and don’t seem to fit the logical flow at hand, which indicates to me that they may have been better off receiving more attention in an appendix to the book if a more suitable placement for them can’t be found. To list a few examples, the “Three Special Symbols” (p. 33) and “Secondary Symbols” (p. 34—35) don’t seem to be essential to the message of the first part of the book, and even the entirety of chapter ten, titled “Breaking Bread: The Rite of Transformation,” seems to be more applicable as the starting point of part four, instead of where we currently find it (starting the third part of the book).

Of course, with differing minds there will always be differing interpretations of historical events and their symbolism, and I myself have found a handful of the arguments to remain tenuous without further explanation. For example, Jordan asserts that “Jethro was a Noahic priest-king,” citing Exodus 2:16; 18:12 in defense of this claim. But do those Scripture references really justify his claim? Even more surprising, from that premise Jordan concluded that “for forty years Moses had observed Jethro managing a nation (Acts 7:30)” (p. 202). Even if we were to grant that Jethro functioned as a priest-king from the Noahic dispensation, can we really deduce—without any doubt—that Jethro managed a whole nation? This isn’t the only place in which Jordan makes dogmatic assertions without providing sufficient clarification. Based on the limited Scriptural support that he presents, I’m also not convinced that the freestanding pillars named Jachin and Boaz represented the Courtyard, Holy Place, and Most Holy Place and the trunk, neck, and head of a symbolic man (pp. 231—233). It seems to me that Jachin and Boaz represent the angels guarding the garden-gate (and maybe a symbolic man also), but not the boundaries of the tabernacle.

In the end, must we treat our understanding of Jachin and Boaz, or even Jethro’s national reign as a Noahic priest-king, as vital for developing a Biblical view of the world? I don’t think we must, especially if Jordan’s work is preliminary for preparing future generations of scholarly research on the subject. And so, even when Jordan sometimes fails to fully justify certain claims, that should not hinder the student of Scripture from immersing himself (or herself) in this book in order to learn how to eat, drink, and dream in a language called "Bible."

View all my reviews

Book Review: The Bible and the Liturgy, by Jean Danielou

The Bible and the Liturgy by Jean Daniélou

My rating: 4 of 5 stars

Danielou is a very good writer and careful christian scholar, and there definitely is a logic to all of his insights in this book. This book helped me see the very clear orthodoxy of the early christian church, while illustrating at the same time some of the silly interpretations of what would later come to be essential to the liturgy of the Roman Catholic church. Danielou, of course, defends the essential rites of the RC liturgy, but thankfully, in this book, he does so in a very tasteful manner.

However, since I'm not Roman Catholic, I wasn't convinced of every argument as being essential to maintaining a biblical liturgy. For example, I thought the rite of confirmation was very poorly defended, even by the early church fathers. Also, the rite of sphragis (the sign of the cross) was fascinating, but not fascinating enough to be entirely convincing. It did give me a greater respect for the rite though. All in all, this book is worth the read, especially if you enjoy the thoughts of the early church fathers in connection with essential RC liturgical rites.

View all my reviews

Book Review: Theology After Wittgenstein, by Fergus Kerr

Theology After Wittgenstein by Fergus Kerr

My rating: 3 of 5 stars

If I could describe Theology after Wittgenstein in two words, it would be intriguingly disappointing. It's intriguing mainly because of what the title infers. Ordinarily, one does not associate theology proper with the philosophical investigations of Wittgenstein. Nor does one ordinarily think that Wittgenstein could help reshape Christian epistemology. Yet this is the road that Fergus Kerr attempted to pave.

Kerr divided the book into three parts: 1) Stories of the soul, 2) Changing the subject, and 3) Theology without the mental ego. In part one, Kerr sorts through some the ways in which Rene Descarte’s philosophical writings and Saint Augustine’s Confessions have influenced the Western traditions of theology. His concerns are mainly aimed at those traditions of Cartesian-like ego that reduce objectivity in meaning to the mind of the solitary individual, thereby indirectly influencing a fixation of dispassionate objectivity in real knowledge, and the correlative retreat into subjectivism in morallity and aesthetics which dominates many people’s lives in Western culture. Kerr observes that, “The inclination to think of meaning, or any other mental or spiritual activity, as something that is radically private, ‘in our head,’ is explicitly related to the ancient religious myth of the soul” (p. 43). This radically private source of meaning, as Kerr derives from Wittgenstein’s work on the subject, is egocentric and “needs no demonstration” (p. 41). Working with a quotation from Augustine’s Confessions concerning an infant self already aware of its own identity and what is going on around it, prior to and independently of mastering a particular language, Kerr points out a serious dilemma regarding this epistemological identity of ‘self’ in the world. Utilizing Wittgenstein’s observations in this regard, Kerr writes:

Language is assumed to be necessary neither for framing one’s thoughts nor for identifying one’s desire. Prior to, and independently of, all ability to talk, one is supposed to be already aware of one’s mental states and acts. The self is pictured as ‘inside’, fluttering with its limbs, spluttering out words, striving with gruntings, and so on, to get its mind understood by the surrounding company. One has to be taught to read and write, but we apparently learn to speak by a sort of pulling ourselves up by our bootstraps” (p. 41).

Kerr begins by paving a new way of appreciating Christian theology, and that new way is paved by beginning with Wittgenstein and reconsidering his approach to this epistemological dilemma, which was to learn the value of exposing our Cartesian and Augustinian metaphysical illusions about the place of the self in nature and history.

In part two, Kerr dives into the nitty-gritty of how Wittgenstein exposed certain Cartesian and Augustinian metaphysical illusions about the ‘self’ which the Western world has inherited. “Wittgenstein strives to voice our deepest metaphysical inclinations in order to permit ‘an acknowledgement of human limitations which does not leave us chafed by our own skin’.” (p. 76). “Again and again, Wittgenstein reminds the reader that all meaning, even the very gesture of pointing something out, must have conceptual links with the whole system of the human way of doing things together. There is nothing inside one’s head that does not owe its existence to one’s collaboration in a historical community” (p. 76). “Wittgenstein’s constant theme is that, for our inner life, we are radically dependent on customs, uses, and institutions.” (p. 77). Kerr’s unique contribution in this part of the book is to argue that Wittgenstein has been falsely labeled as a struggling realist or idealist of sorts, when in fact he offered a distinctive challenge to both—that our human experience and relation to the world is neither essentially cognitive nor a mere description of brute facts that are mind-independent realities. According to Wittgenstein, “what is primary and foundational” of our relation to the world is “neither ideas nor beliefs nor any other class of mental events, but human beings in a multiplicity of transactions with one another.” (p. 119). For Wittgenstein, even our experiential use of language is better understood as an expressive activity, with the ‘self’ as a responsive agent in vital connection with others (p. 134). “We are so much accustomed to communication through speaking, in conversation,” Wittgenstein observed, “that it looks to us as if the whole point of communication lay in this: someone else grasps the sense of my words—which is something mental: he as it were takes it into his own mind. If he then does something further with it as well, that is no part of the immediate purpose of language.” (p. 141).

In part three, Kerr offers a fresh perspective of Wittgenstein in light of some overlooked theological aspects present in his later writings. He then explores a handful of ways in which Wittgenstein’s insights affect the metaphysical implications of Christian theology.

Some of the most insightful questions in the book that Kerr asks the reader to consider are found on page 147:

Why is it that we doubt it can be in mere words or signs or bodily activities that we discover anything interesting about our inner selves or about the divine? Why is it that we are so strongly tempted to turn away from what we say and do, as if these were not ‘significant’ enough?”

Kerr responds to these questions by, of course, appealing to Wittgenstein’s insights:

“Wittgenstein reminds us that we have no alternative to attending to the signs, the repertoire of gestures and so on that interweave our existence. We have no access to our own minds, non-linguistically. We have no access to the divine, independently of our life and language. It goes against the grain, so captivated are we by the metaphysical tradition, but Wittgenstein keeps reminding us of the obvious fact: we have nothing else to turn to but the whole complex system of signs which is our human world. The great question remains: why do we retreat from our world; why do we withdraw from the body in hope that more direct illumination about our minds and about the gods is to be found by gaining access to something other than what we say and do? This is the hidden theological agenda of Wittgenstein’s later writings.

All of this leads me to finally mention why I originally described this book as intriguingly disappointing. As I trenched through the muddy terrain of Cartesian philosophical bias’ and epistemological dilemmas, I longed for the goal of practical application. Instead, when I reached the end where I thought I would learn the profound impact of Wittgenstein upon practical theological affairs, I found more of the same regurgitated ideas about radically questioning the whole way of thinking about one’s ‘self’ in relation to God and others in this world. That, to me, was a big let down. Even though the journey through Kerr’s research of Wittgenstein initially peaked my interest and held it for a while, in the end I found it to be disappointing, at least, as far as his own stated application of those insights are concerned. I might have missed it, but Kerr seems to have overlooked all of the orthodox Trinitarian insights that arise from his research. I suspect that he avoided a full-fledged discussion of those insights because Wittgenstein would not have contributed favorably, having repudiated any need to advance traditional metaphysical jargon altogether in the way we speak about God and the nature of reality.

View all my reviews

Book Review: Theology After Wittgenstein

Theology After Wittgenstein by Fergus Kerr

My rating: 3 of 5 stars

If I could describe this book in two words, it would be "intriguingly boring." It's intriguing mainly because of what the title infers. Ordinarily, one does not associate theology with the postmodern philosophy of Wittgenstein. Nor does one ordinarily think that Wittgenstein could help theological epistemology. Yet this road is what the author of this book attempts to pave. The reader moves from one chapter to another anticipating how all of this wittgensteinian philosophy affects theology proper. In the end it disappoints greatly, at least, as far as the stated theological insights are concerned. I actually thought of other insights which would have been more helpful than the ones the author listed in the final chapters.

This leads me to mention the boring aspect of the book: the conclusion. The conclusion is not just slightly boring. It's almost completely boring. But, if you have an imagination of your own, and you enjoy snip-its of wittgensteinian-presuppositionalism at its finest, you don't even need to read the boring chapters at the end of the book. Read the first two-thirds of the book and use your imagination for the rest.

View all my reviews

A Book Review: Speech and Reality, by Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy

Speech And Reality by Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy
My rating: 2 of 5 stars

No matter how profound Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy's linguistic insights are (as I've been told by many), his stream-of-consciousness writing style drives me crazy. I simply don't enjoy reading what he writes. It's all over the map and very difficult to utilize because of that.

View all my reviews

Book Review: Can America Survive? by John Hagee

Can America Survive?: 10 Prophetic Signs That We Are The Terminal Generation by John Hagee

My rating: 5 of 5 stars

This book is hilarious. This is a gut-wrenching, pee-in-your-pants-from-laughing-too-hard-at-the-bogus-scholarship kind of book. It's funny because he's actually serious! He truly believes the prophecies concerning ancient Assyria are explicitly connected with a modern fulfillment about Iraqi oil and the end of America. And while he's imagining new and creative ways to arbitrarily connect Old Covenant prophecy with modern historical events, he's confident that Jesus is coming to the rescue once America collapses. Make sure to buy the paperback version so that it holds that authentic comic book feeling in your hand while you read it.

View all my reviews

Bart Ehrman: The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture

The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament by Bart D. Ehrman
My rating: 1 of 5 stars

Read the book Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament by Wallace. It clearly refutes a lot of claims and exaggerations found within this book by Ehrman.

View all my reviews

Bart Ehrman: Lost Scriptures

Lost Scriptures: Books That Did Not Make It Into the New Testament by Bart D. Ehrman

My rating: 4 of 5 stars

Like I said in another review, Ehrman doesn't pretend to be Christian. He's not a Christian. But that shouldn't stop Christians from seeing how ludicrous (and even humorous) some of the alleged "lost scriptures" were. I really enjoyed this book even though I don't trust Ehrman's "professional" opinions at all. 

Ehrman implicitly shows how desperate unbelievers (like him) are to present convincing evidence against the Canon of Scripture. There are obvious, self-evident reasons for judging these "lost scriptures" as uninspired, non-canonical, and non-authoritative. The most memorable references come from the alleged "lost" Apocalypse of Paul, which claims that, in Hell, people who "break their fast before the appointed hour" are tortured and hung for all eternity "over a channel of water, and their tongues were very dry, and many fruits were placed in their sight, and they were not permitted to take of them." (p. 295). Also, allegedly, some pastors who do not perform their ministry well are tortured in hell "by Tartaruchian angels, having in their hands an iron instrument with three hooks" with which they pierce the pastor's bowels (p. 294). Other pastors get off easier, and are simply pushed into a pit of fire up to their knees and stoned in the face by angels. 

Similar examples are found in the alleged Apocalypse of Peter, which claims that in hell there is a very deep pit reserved for those who cause premature births, and that pit is filled with "all manner of torment, foulness, and excrement." Opposite to that pit is a place where children sit and shoot lightning bolts from their eyes at fornicators within the pit (see p. 284). Hell also, allegedly, contains places where liars have their lips cut off, people who lust with their eyes get their eyes burned out with red-hot irons, idolaters are chased by demons up and down "high places" for all eternity, and people hang from their eyebrows (!) for all eternity in order to "unceasingly pay the proper penalties" (p. 296).

Almost every one of these "lost scriptures" is just as ludicrous as the examples above. I am grateful that a popular unbelieving critic of Christianity took the time to publish this pathetic attempt to combat the inspired Scriptures of God.

View all my reviews

Bart Ehrman: Lost Christianities

Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew by Bart D. Ehrman

My rating: 4 of 5 stars

Yes, you read that correctly. I gave Bart Ehrman 4 stars out of 5. I also know that Ehrman is a heretic, and he wears that badge proudly on his sleeve. In this book he is also open about his own rejection of orthodox Christianity. I think this book is worth reading because it exposes how insignificant and fanatically sectarian the alleged "lost christianities" really were in the first few centuries. Just don't buy into some of Ehrman's "professional" opinions about orthodox conspiracies to hide the "truth," and this book ends up being a very enjoyable read.

View all my reviews

New Covenant Theology: Questions Answered

New Covenant Theology: Questions Answered by Steve Lehrer

My rating: 1 of 5 stars

I had the opportunity to meet and talk with Steve Lehrer, the author of this book, while he taught an evening bible study for six weeks on "the Holy Spirit" at a non-denominational church in Sussex, Wisconsin. He gave me a free copy of his book and I was eager to study it and talk about it with him in detail. But it didn't take long before I realized how incredibly long that conversation would have been if I had talked about all my concerns within the book. Not only was it poorly written and edited, but the theology was just plain awful. In short, the book is a cross between conservative dispensational theology and contemporary American covenant theology. But there are good reasons why the typical covenant theologian does not agree with the dispensationalist, and why most evangelical theologians don't want to settle on the "middle ground" between the two--and one reason is that they don't want to argue absurdly like Steve Lehrer. 

To give you a taste of what his hermeneutic leaves open for discussion, in one of the chapters he promotes sexual relations within the family: his example is a blood-brother marrying his blood-sister as long as they're both Christians (!!). This is explicitly deemed as "lawful" and "holy" according to Lehrer's version of "New Covenant Theology," even though God's Law explicitly forbids such sexual relationships (incest). If you don't believe me, download a free PDF copy of the book here and see for yourself (see page 154-155). Lehrer even infers that he would not have a problem with his own church performing the wedding! But that is only one controversial issue which he leaves open for discussion. There are plenty more in the book.

View all my reviews

Everyday Justice: The Global Impact of Our Daily Choices

Everyday Justice: The Global Impact of Our Daily Choices by Julie Clawson

My rating: 1 of 5 stars

This book only gets one star because only one chapter was clear and helpful (chapter 4, on food). Every other chapter was filled with fallacious arguments and emotionally laden distortions of reality. One chapter even had a blatant contradiction within two paragraphs of each other.

The first chapter covers the "necessity" of fair trade laws within the coffee industry. It even has a chapter on "fair wages in the Bible", but it doesn't go through any of Jesus' parables about fair wages, nor does it mention any biblical laws or proverbial wisdom principles to help guide the reader. It only mentions the oppression of the poor by robbing them of their wages. And that doesn't provide any biblical solutions at all. It only leaves the door hanging wide open for secular humanistic solutions to walk right in.

The second chapter is about chocolate and the horrors of "human trafficking" in SOME foreign industries of chocolate production. She lists only one very small region within the entire world to argue her case against such slavery. William Wilberforce is used as a historical example of christian heroism (of course) in opposition to slavery. And based upon that evidence alone, she even goes so far as to claim that: "...most of us are guilty of aiding criminal behavior, even slavery, every time we indulge in a choclaty treat" (p. 57). That is pure nonsense. It is in this chapter that she contradicts herself within a couple paragraphs. On page 60 she writes: "...in the Christian tradition, there is a long history of taking a stand against slavery." But two paragraphs later, and on the same page, she argues that beginning in the first century, and "until the nineteenth century, it was common for the majority of christians to read the Bible as not only approving of but mandating slavery as a God-ordained institution." So which is it? Does the Christian tradition have a long standing history of opposing slavery or approving and mandating it?

The third chapter is about the "wasteful" effects of greenhouse gas and global pollution to the earth's atmosphere. After citing Al Gore's bogus documentary about global warning -- An Inconvenient Truth -- she tries to scare the reader into believing that the global warning crisis is so OBVIOUS, and greedy Americans so guilty of hurting others through pollution, by saying that: "some reports even predict that entire islands in the Pacific could be devastated as sea levels rise due to climate change. In 2002 the small island of Tuvalu started recruiting other Pacific nations to join a planned lawsuit against the United States... for the destruction of their homes" (through the increase of greenhouse gases, p. 79). Could the author have used a more nebulous example? "Some reports"? Really? They "predict" that this "could" happen?? Really? And one "small island" even planned on suing the United States because "climate change" destroyed their homes??? Give me a break.

The fifth chapter is all about the odiousness of "sweatshops" that make clothing for US consumers. I agree with her assessment that "basic workplace standards," like having a well-lit work area, short breaks during the day, having proper safety equipment, etc., are all good and practical ideas. But then the author goes on a diatribe in favor of enforcing minimum wage laws and promoting the "basic human right" for every person in the world to work and get health care, benefits, and a safe place of shelter to sleep at night. That sounds fine and dandy until the reader realizes that she provides no evidence of that being a basic human right. She assumes it's a basic human "right", and then goes on to talk about ways to provide "justice" in foreign sweatshops. I sympathize with her feelings about the odiousness of tyrannical and unclean work environments, but I don't agree with her understanding of basic human rights. It's certainly not what the Bible illustrates as a basic human right.

The sixth chapter is about garbage; specifically the horrors of disposable diapers, tampons, and electronics in garbage dumps. She says it's hurting the environment and poisoning tons of people, and Americans are responsible for aiding in the destruction of the world by not switching to cloth diapers, cloth feminine pads, and increasing government restrictions (i.e. increasing taxation) upon electronic companies for the harm caused upon the environment and people's health when such items are improperly disposed. My wife and I use cloth diapers for our child, and she draws out some interesting health facts which helped us decide (long before I read this book) to go that route, but there isn't much more in this chapter that's helpful or insightful.

The seventh chapter is about the national debt crisis and the irresponsibility of US citizens. It's an interesting chapter, especially those parts which talk about the IMF and World Bank (interestingly, there is no mention of the Federal Reserve to be found), but some of her arguments are really strange. For example, she argues against bigger government intrusion into people's lives, but then she blatantly endorses government schools and "free" government education!! I wasn't aware that there was such a thing as "free" government education. I thought tax payers and other expenses from the private sector were used to support government education. But hey, if it's absolutely FREE, and incredibly valuable, who wouldn't want it? But she fails to tell us where this "free" government education can be found. Her emotionally laden arguments are overly simplistic too. For example, while writing in favor of "free" government education, she says: "Universal public education is a luxury often taken for granted by wealthy nations. When the government cannot provide free education, schools must charge fees. ...One effect of this is the widening of the gender gap around the world. In cultures that value boys more than girls, a family will not "waste" precious resources to pay for a girl to attend school. The result is generations of illiterate, uneducated women" (p. 171). In this example, we are supposed to deduce that illiterate, uneducated women are the direct result of cultures which do not have a government that can provide free education. If that's not an oversimplified argument, I don't know what else is.

Only chapter four (on food) was really good and helpful.

View all my reviews

John Calvin and Roman Catholicism: Critique and Engagement, Then and Now

John Calvin and Roman Catholicism: Critique and Engagement, Then and Now by Randall C. Zachman

My rating: 3 of 5 stars

This book was good, but much of it felt like scrounging around for scraps of "Calvinism" in a junkyard of liberal and quasi-Reformed assumptions. One contribution, oddly titled "John Calvin: Accidental Anthropologist," was almost entirely useless in its attempt to construct a "Catholic Calvin." Others were better, particularly the opening contribution which chronicled some important religious adversaries of Calvin. A couple others were good, but at best the book was just okay. It could have been better, maybe.

View all my reviews

The Trinity in John's Gospel

Father, Son and Spirit: The Trinity and John's Gospel by Andreas J. Kostenberger
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

This was a superb book. It is very well organized and easy to read. The apostle John loaded his gospel with helpful literary insights and allusions to the unity and plurality of God, which would have been familiar to first century Jews and proselytes to Judaism. This book helps draw out all of those literary insights and allusions. There are also a good number of important translational insights. And to top it all off, there is an entire section devoted to the theology of evangelism & mission derived from John's gospel.

View all my reviews

Jakob Van Bruggen on Paul

Paul: Pioneer for Israel's Messiah by Jakob Van Bruggen
My rating: 3 of 5 stars

After reading his other two theological books by P&R publishing I thought this one would be as helpful. It actually showed me how nit-picky and arbitrary his opinions can actually be at times, overriding some valuable insights endorsed among other scholars. The greatest disappointment was his chronology of Paul's life and letters, which affects the majority of his insights. Even though there were a handful of interesting insights, it was only a handful -- which was very disappointing for a 400 page book.

View all my reviews

Book Review: Martin Luther on Christian Freedom

Christian Freedom: Faith Working through Love by Martin Luther
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

Every admirer of Martin Luther should own this book because it's constant, hammering message of freedom through faith in Christ alone was clearly his most cherished doctrine. I actually gave this book four stars because I don't agree with some of Luther's exegetical remarks, and I think his understanding of God's Law for Christian ethics was a work in progress. However, Luther's treatise on Christian freedom is a masterpiece of literature. Plus, this reader's guide includes excerpts from a handful of sermons which Luther preached on the subject of Christian freedom, and a brief excursus of God's Law in relation to Christian freedom (by Philip Melanchthon). I considered Melanchthon's excursus a breath of fresh air compared to some of the thick, foggy attempts of Luther to harmonize faith and law.

View all my reviews

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

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

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

PROS:

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONS:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

View all my reviews