With so much to cover and so many topics I'd like to talk about, I put Theology Thursday to a vote. The outcome of the vote determined what would be covered in the coming months. The first subject to be tackled is How to Study the Bible.
Last week, we learned how the Bible came together. This week, we're going to dig in to the question of the Bible's reliability. Is the Bible, as we know it, a historically accurate and reliable document?
The argument here is whether or not the actual words contained in the Bibles we have are 1) what the original authors wrote and 2) were written in an accurate way so as to transmit the historical truths they claim to tell. Basically, is the Bible true or a simple mythology?
The stance that opponents to the validity of the Bible take is one of questioning how the text was recorded over time. Many would hold that the accounts of the life of Jesus were not written down prior to the second century, well over 100 years after He had lived. They go on to claim that, in accordance with the oral tradition of the time, the accounts of Jesus grew in mythology over that time span and were eventually written down in such a way as to make Jesus more a legend than an actual historical figure. Think Babe Ruth and the famed 'called shot'. Did it happen? Or was that just a tall tale weaved in the media?
In order to counter their arguments, we must take a look at how historical documents are proved and accepted as accurate in general and then apply the same tests to the New Testament (I focus on the New Testament because, just like last week, the Old Testament is generally left alone in these debates. However, the same process could easily be applied to the Old Testament, and I am sure it would check out.). Based on everything I have read on this topic, there are three tests to guide us in our understanding of the validity, reliability, and historicity of the Bible: the bibliographic test, the internal evidence test, and the external evidence test.
Bibliographic Test
As defined by Josh McDowell, this test "is an examination of the textual transmission by which documents reach us. In other words, not having the original documents, how reliable are the copies we have in regard to the number of manuscripts (MSS) and the time interval between the original and extant copy?"
For those who don't know this, we do not have in existence today an original copy (called an autograph) of any book or letter included in the New Testament. Therefore, we have to know that what was copied down was done so faithfully and within an acceptable period of time to be considered reliable.
To do this, let's do a comparison between the New Testament and a few other documents. These other documents are plainly accepted as accurate and acceptable historical documents, worthy to be taught in high schools and colleges alike as true to what the original author wrote and intended. We will consider when the original is said to have been written, when the first copy we now have in possession was written, how many such MSS exist today, and what level of accuracy the copies share (these statistics are pulled from several sources, listed at the end of this post).
Author Date Written Earliest Copy Time Span # of MSS Accuracy
Homer ca. 900 BC ca. 400 BC ~500 years 643 95%
Caesar ca. 50-58 BC ca. AD 900 ~950 years 10 Too few MSS
Tacitus ca. AD 100 ca. AD 1100 ~1,000 years 20 Too few MSS
Plato ca. 427-347 BC ca. AD 900 ~1,200+ years 7 Too few MSS
Aristotle ca. 384-322 BC ca. AD 1100 ~1,400 years 5 Too few MSS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Testament ca. AD 60-90 ca. AD 130 ~100 years 20,000+ 99.5%
What this means is that, based on the number of copies we have of the pieces of the New Testament, the time between when it was first written and from when we have a copy, and the accuracy of the copies to each other, we can certainly say that the text we have is the text that was originally written (and for those disconcerted with the 99.5% accuracy, the discrepancies are over grammar, spellings, style, and/or accidental omissions/duplicates - nothing in question has any weight to bear on doctrine or teaching).
Internal Evidence Test
The bibliographic test tells us that the text we have today is faithful to what was originally written. We must now turn to the words themselves and test whether or not those words are credible. This is the internal test.
There are several considerations to make when testing the internal credibility of a document. At the outset, it must be understood that a document is 'innocent until proven guilty' - in other words, a document claiming to present facts must be assumed to do exactly that unless it blatantly records falsehoods or is inconsistent in its own claims. In this, we have seen over and over again how archaeology and historical criticism support what was written in the New Testament.
Next, we must look at who wrote the New Testament. The authors consistently claim to either be direct eyewitnesses or to have recorded what an eyewitness has testified to be true. This is seen in Luke 1:1-3, 2 Peter 1:16, 1 John 1:3, and John 19:35. Therefore, the people who wrote the books and letters in the New Testament were not simply recording hearsay; they were recording the facts as they, or someone close the them, saw them.
Still, it would only be fair to allow for criticism from contemporaries. After all, if one eyewitness reports one account and another reports something to the contrary, we are faced with a he-said-she-said scenario, and the truth becomes very difficult to prove. The fact is that there were people alive who also witnessed the events of Jesus's life, death, and resurrection, and some of those people were not sympathetic to the apostles' cause - they were, in fact, opposed to it. Thus, if what was being written and propagated was in any way inaccurate, those opposed could simply have risen up and written a refutation to the apostles' claims. The apostles even opened themselves to this kind of criticism, as seen in Acts 2:22 and Acts 26: 24-48. None such came.
Last, the relationship of Old Testament prophecy to the life of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels indicates a God-ordained consistency simply unparalleled in any other major religious text. Without going into all the details, there were literally hundreds of prophecies fulfilled by Jesus Christ, including those found in Isaiah 7:14 (cf. Matthew 1:18-23), Micah 5:2 (cf. Luke 2:1-7), Hosea 11:1 (cf. Matthew 2:13-15), Malachi 3:1 (cf. Luke 2:25-27), Psalm 22:16 and 22:18 (cf. Luke 23:33 and John 19:23-24, respectively), and Isaiah 53:10-12 (cf. Acts 2:25-32).
External Evidence Test
Again, Josh McDowell defines this test by stating that "[the] issue here is whether other historical material confirms or denies the internal testimony of the documents themselves."
Within the Christian world, Papias (Bishop of Hierapolis, friend of the Apostle John, as preserved by Eusebius) and Iranaeus (Bishop of Lyons, disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of the Apostle John) together testify to the authorship of the Gospels. They state that John wrote his gospel, as did Matthew, and that Mark wrote his based off of the testimony of Peter and Luke his based off of the teachings of Paul (and other eyewitnesses - cp. Luke 1:1-3).
Outside of the Christian world, we have already mentioned how archaeology and historical criticism have verified the facts of the Bible as they are laid out. People, places, leaders, and events, as they are described in the New Testament, have been verified over time by the historical record and the physical evidence (as it is uncovered).
Further, ancient, secular historians wrote of Jesus and verified not only His life but also some of His deeds. Here are a few quotes (pulled straight out of the Mark Driscoll resource listed below):
Flavius Josephus, from Jewish Antiquities:
Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure...And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day
Pliny the Younger, from The Letters of Pliny the Younger (this one addressed to the emperor Trajan):
They (Christians) also declared that the sum total of their guilt or error amounted to no more than this: they had met regularly before dawn on a fixed day to chant verses alternately amongst themselves in honour of Christ as if to a god...
These as well as many other Jewish and Roman historians document and give credence to the truths as presented by the authors of the New Testament.
Here's the big idea:
The Bible we have, and specifically the New Testament, is a historically valid and reliable document, and the text therein constitutes a true testimony to the events surrounding the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, called the Christ.
Sources:
Easy read: Mark Driscoll, On the New Testament; Josh McDowell, More Than a Carpenter
Medium read: Josh McDowell, The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict; Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ; Dan Story, Defending Your Faith
Next week: Why Study the Bible?
Showing posts with label Resources. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Resources. Show all posts
Thursday, May 24, 2012
Thursday, May 17, 2012
How to Study the Bible: What is the Bible?
With so much to cover and so many topics I'd like to talk about, I put Theology Thursday to a vote. The outcome of the vote determined what would be covered in the coming months. The first subject to be tackled is How to Study the Bible.
In order to ensure people get the most out of these posts, I'm going to try to keep these first few posts in the series relatively short. Truly, a LOT of ink has been justifiably spent defending the canonization of the Bible, specifically the New Testament (the focus of this week's post), as well as the validity of the historical text itself (next week's post). However, since these are more along the lines of foundational, I will simply boil down the positions as simply and clearly as possible so that we can move to the more practical and applicable posts, those focusing on why we should (and should want to) study the Bible and a few tips on how to actually go about studying it. Therefore, while there are a number of facts, statistics, citations, and book after book to be read and considered for this week's post, I'm going to focus on just a few sources (listed at the end of the post) and give the general thrust of the argument.
This week's question is What is the Bible? Specifically, how did we get the book we currently have? How did 'they' pick the books and letters that were included? First, I'll briefly give consideration to the Old Testament. Second, and the larger section, I will focus on the New Testament as it is what is most commonly disputed.
In traditional Protestantism, the Old Testament stops with Malachi, the last of the prophets. After this point, God did not send a prophet for 400 years until the coming of John the Baptist, who proclaimed the coming of Jesus. During these years of silence, called the Intertestamental Period, other books were written. These became known as the apocrypha. Initially, these books were effectively considered helpful additional books, but they were never accepted as holy Scripture until the Catholic Council of Trent in 1546. From that point, the Catholic (and some Orthodox) Bible added books to the Old Testament that were never so adopted by either Jews or Christians up to that point. Thus, we see the difference in the Catholic Bible (which includes the Apocrypha) and the Protestant Bible (which does not).
The other books of the Old Testament are referred in the New Testament as 'The Law, Prophets, and Psalms' or 'The Law and the Prophets' or simply 'The Law'. To quote Mark Driscoll, "Jesus also spoke of the Old Testament as existing from Abel (from Genesis, the first book of the Old Testament) to Zechariah (a contemporary of Malachi, the final book of the Old Testament)." The evidence for this is found in Luke 24:44, Matthew 23:35, and Luke 11:51. Even today, the Hebrew Bible and the Christian Old Testament are virtually the same, excepting the order of the books.
Frankly, there is little dispute over the Old Testament. The New Testament? Well, that's a different story. Let's deal with that now.
First, I want to define a word that I learned while researching for this post. The word is canon. No, not the weapon used to fire off the port bow (spelled cannon, for those keeping track at home). I always thought the word was synonymous with 'Bible', that it was just another way of saying 'the whole collection of books in the Bible'. While it has come to mean that in our time, the original meaning of canon refers to the 'rule' or 'measuring rod' by which the books of the Bible were selected. It is the norm against which books of the Bible were set to determine inclusion or exclusion.
Many people argue that the Bible was put together by a bunch of people hunkered down in a room hundreds of years after Jesus lived and after the texts had been written. They suggest that the writings were allowed to grow to legendary and mythic levels prior to being included in the Bible (we'll deal with this argument next week), and then only the books that verified what they wanted people to know about Jesus were included. After all, they had their institutions, reputations, and power to protect - so the argument goes.
However, contrary to this notion is what actually happened (insert sarcastic tone). As Driscoll writes, there were three primary characteristics in the inclusion of books into the New Testament:
1) They were written based on eye-witness account of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.
2) They were in accord with what is revealed as true about God in the rest of Scripture.
3) They were received by God's people and demonstrated God's power in changing lives.
Additionally, the apostles themselves validated the writings of the New Testament and placed them alongside the Old Testament in a peer-to-peer relationship. This is seen in the following passages:
2 Peter 3:15-16 - Paul's letters placed alongside Scripture, presumably the Old Testament
And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as the do the other Scriptures.
1 Timothy 5:18 - Paul quoting Deuteronomy and Luke back-to-back as Scripture
For the Scripture says, "You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain (from Deut. 25:4)," and, "The laborer deserves his wages (from Luke 10:7)."
From the foundation of the New Testament church, this placing of New Testament books alongside the Old Testament Scriptures continued in what B.B Warfield refers to as a "line of such quotations...never broken in Christian literature."
Here is another, extended quote from Warfield:
What needs emphasis at present about these facts is that they obviously are not evidences of a gradually-heightening estimate of the New Testament books, originally received on a lower level and just beginning to be tentatively accounted Scripture; they are conclusive evidences rather of the estimation of the New Testament books from the very beginning as Scripture, and of their attachment as Scripture to the other Scriptures already in hand. The early Christians did not, then, first form a rival “canon” of “new books” which came only gradually to be accounted as of equal divinity and authority with the “old books”; they received new book after new book from the apostolical circle, as equally “Scripture” with the old books, and added them one by one to the collection of old books as additional Scriptures, until at length the new books thus added were numerous enough to be looked upon as another section of the Scriptures.
The big idea is this:
The New Testament was not 'put together' by people hundreds of years after it had been written. It had been put together and was generally accepted in the Church throughout the Christian world, and this collection was subsequently verified at the various councils years later.
Catch that - that's a big difference. The councils did not make up the list of what was in and what was out. They verified that which had already been put together, and evaluated the other books that had subsequently been (falsely) put forth as legitimate books, like the Gospel of Thomas and First Clement, based on the canon (remember: the norm or rule) which already existed in the collection already accepted by the people of God. The apostles placed their authority behind the teachings of the books and letters themselves while they lived, the early church fathers accepted them, and the Church at large embraced them as Truth.
Sources:
Easy read: Mark Driscoll, On the Old Testament and On the New Testament
Medium read: R.C. Sproul, Scripture Alone
Difficult read: B.B Warfield, Revelation and Inspiration
Next week: Is the Bible Historically Reliable?
In order to ensure people get the most out of these posts, I'm going to try to keep these first few posts in the series relatively short. Truly, a LOT of ink has been justifiably spent defending the canonization of the Bible, specifically the New Testament (the focus of this week's post), as well as the validity of the historical text itself (next week's post). However, since these are more along the lines of foundational, I will simply boil down the positions as simply and clearly as possible so that we can move to the more practical and applicable posts, those focusing on why we should (and should want to) study the Bible and a few tips on how to actually go about studying it. Therefore, while there are a number of facts, statistics, citations, and book after book to be read and considered for this week's post, I'm going to focus on just a few sources (listed at the end of the post) and give the general thrust of the argument.
This week's question is What is the Bible? Specifically, how did we get the book we currently have? How did 'they' pick the books and letters that were included? First, I'll briefly give consideration to the Old Testament. Second, and the larger section, I will focus on the New Testament as it is what is most commonly disputed.
In traditional Protestantism, the Old Testament stops with Malachi, the last of the prophets. After this point, God did not send a prophet for 400 years until the coming of John the Baptist, who proclaimed the coming of Jesus. During these years of silence, called the Intertestamental Period, other books were written. These became known as the apocrypha. Initially, these books were effectively considered helpful additional books, but they were never accepted as holy Scripture until the Catholic Council of Trent in 1546. From that point, the Catholic (and some Orthodox) Bible added books to the Old Testament that were never so adopted by either Jews or Christians up to that point. Thus, we see the difference in the Catholic Bible (which includes the Apocrypha) and the Protestant Bible (which does not).
The other books of the Old Testament are referred in the New Testament as 'The Law, Prophets, and Psalms' or 'The Law and the Prophets' or simply 'The Law'. To quote Mark Driscoll, "Jesus also spoke of the Old Testament as existing from Abel (from Genesis, the first book of the Old Testament) to Zechariah (a contemporary of Malachi, the final book of the Old Testament)." The evidence for this is found in Luke 24:44, Matthew 23:35, and Luke 11:51. Even today, the Hebrew Bible and the Christian Old Testament are virtually the same, excepting the order of the books.
Frankly, there is little dispute over the Old Testament. The New Testament? Well, that's a different story. Let's deal with that now.
First, I want to define a word that I learned while researching for this post. The word is canon. No, not the weapon used to fire off the port bow (spelled cannon, for those keeping track at home). I always thought the word was synonymous with 'Bible', that it was just another way of saying 'the whole collection of books in the Bible'. While it has come to mean that in our time, the original meaning of canon refers to the 'rule' or 'measuring rod' by which the books of the Bible were selected. It is the norm against which books of the Bible were set to determine inclusion or exclusion.
Many people argue that the Bible was put together by a bunch of people hunkered down in a room hundreds of years after Jesus lived and after the texts had been written. They suggest that the writings were allowed to grow to legendary and mythic levels prior to being included in the Bible (we'll deal with this argument next week), and then only the books that verified what they wanted people to know about Jesus were included. After all, they had their institutions, reputations, and power to protect - so the argument goes.
However, contrary to this notion is what actually happened (insert sarcastic tone). As Driscoll writes, there were three primary characteristics in the inclusion of books into the New Testament:
1) They were written based on eye-witness account of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.
2) They were in accord with what is revealed as true about God in the rest of Scripture.
3) They were received by God's people and demonstrated God's power in changing lives.
Additionally, the apostles themselves validated the writings of the New Testament and placed them alongside the Old Testament in a peer-to-peer relationship. This is seen in the following passages:
2 Peter 3:15-16 - Paul's letters placed alongside Scripture, presumably the Old Testament
And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as the do the other Scriptures.
1 Timothy 5:18 - Paul quoting Deuteronomy and Luke back-to-back as Scripture
For the Scripture says, "You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain (from Deut. 25:4)," and, "The laborer deserves his wages (from Luke 10:7)."
From the foundation of the New Testament church, this placing of New Testament books alongside the Old Testament Scriptures continued in what B.B Warfield refers to as a "line of such quotations...never broken in Christian literature."
Here is another, extended quote from Warfield:
What needs emphasis at present about these facts is that they obviously are not evidences of a gradually-heightening estimate of the New Testament books, originally received on a lower level and just beginning to be tentatively accounted Scripture; they are conclusive evidences rather of the estimation of the New Testament books from the very beginning as Scripture, and of their attachment as Scripture to the other Scriptures already in hand. The early Christians did not, then, first form a rival “canon” of “new books” which came only gradually to be accounted as of equal divinity and authority with the “old books”; they received new book after new book from the apostolical circle, as equally “Scripture” with the old books, and added them one by one to the collection of old books as additional Scriptures, until at length the new books thus added were numerous enough to be looked upon as another section of the Scriptures.
The big idea is this:
The New Testament was not 'put together' by people hundreds of years after it had been written. It had been put together and was generally accepted in the Church throughout the Christian world, and this collection was subsequently verified at the various councils years later.
Catch that - that's a big difference. The councils did not make up the list of what was in and what was out. They verified that which had already been put together, and evaluated the other books that had subsequently been (falsely) put forth as legitimate books, like the Gospel of Thomas and First Clement, based on the canon (remember: the norm or rule) which already existed in the collection already accepted by the people of God. The apostles placed their authority behind the teachings of the books and letters themselves while they lived, the early church fathers accepted them, and the Church at large embraced them as Truth.
Sources:
Easy read: Mark Driscoll, On the Old Testament and On the New Testament
Medium read: R.C. Sproul, Scripture Alone
Difficult read: B.B Warfield, Revelation and Inspiration
Next week: Is the Bible Historically Reliable?
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Book Review: Young, Restless, Reformed by Collin Hansen
I have not written a book review since high school (we called them 'book reports' then...remember those?). However, as I have been writing the blog, I have been asked several times about resources I would recommend. I recently posted what my First Five books were when I began to take reading and study more seriously. I will continue to create such lists as seem beneficial. In addition to this, I want to periodically write up longer treatments on particular books. Lists and rankings can be helpful, but a good review will go further. As with everything on this blog, I hope these reviews will serve those who are considering what to read or if a specific book is good to pick up.
Young, Restless, Reformed: A journalist's journey with the New Calvinists by Collin Hansen
I will confess at the beginning of this review that I have selected a book that is relatively easy to review. The content is not overwhelming in nature. It is written by a journalist who is, according to his sketch in the book, an editor-at-large with Christianity Today. Therefore, it is written as a journalist would write - not overly technical and very personal. It is easy to connect with for this reason. Since this is the inaugural review, I decided to go a little easy on myself while I figure out how to format this type of write-up. So, bear with me while I work out the kinks.
The purpose of this book is to put a name and face(s) to the resurgence of Reformed theology among Christians of my generation and younger. In the midst of much controversy surrounding the so-called 'emerging church' movement, the author notes that experience would indicate a larger swing toward Reformed theology and conservative views of Scripture rather than the general loosening of biblical orthodoxy. Hansen writes, "I started thinking about leading seminaries in the United States and noticed a number of Calvinists in leadership positions. I considered millions of books sold by (John) Piper and his yearly appearances at the popular Passion conference. Yale University Press had just released a major biography of Jonathan Edwards. Reformed theology had recently become a major point of contention in the nation's largest Protestant body, the Southern Baptist Convention (p.12)."
Hansen takes his readers on a trip around the United States to encounter how this 'New Calvinist' movement was manifesting itself in a variety of contexts. He starts at the Passion conference, then spends time with John Piper, moves over to the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary to discuss the impact of her current prominent leader, R. Albert Mohler, Jr. From there, readers are taken into more culturally accessible locations such as the New Attitude Conference and Mars Hill Church in Seattle. At each stop, readers are given a glimpse into how younger Christians are adopting 'older' view of Scripture, preferring to read the Bible and think about it deeply to discovering the next great church growth methodology.
While the book is by no means a technical work on what 'Calvinism' is, he does give a brief overview of TULIP in the opening chapter and draws the distinction between this and another, more prominent, view of God popular in evangelicalism - Moralistic Therapeutic Deism. This system, whose name was first coined by Christian Smith and Melinda Lundquist Denton, believes that "God is something like a combination Divine Butler and Cosmic Therapist: he is always on call, takes care of any problems that arise, professionally helps his people to feel better about themselves, and does not become too personally involved in the process." In response to this view, some young Christians have recognized the emptiness of this god and have turned to seek the God of the Bible. In so doing, and in looking deeply at the Word and reading from others who likewise have thought and written deeply and extensively about Scripture, these young people have found themselves theologically in the Calvinist camp.
Let me be perfectly clear: Other thinkers of other theologies have written excellent books and commentaries and are wonderful preachers. However, the obvious shift in evangelicalism has been away from the modern, 'seeker-sensitive' movement and toward one of two directions - either a postmodern/post-Christian mindset which inherently doubts truth claims or toward the particular conservative, biblical orthodoxy found in the Reformed camp. The question isn't "Is that really happening?" but rather "Why is that happening?"
Hansen's basic reason for this, when boiled down to its core, is that Reformed theology unflinchingly reveals the raw truth of what the Bible says with little need for exegetical gymnastics. And in this movement, call it what you will - New Calvinism; Young, Restless, Reformed; Emerging Reformers - the big ideas, according to Hansen, are, "Hunger for God's Word. Passion for evangelism. Zeal for holiness." In short, it's biblical Christianity that happens to ascribe to a specific theology and is working powerfully in the lives of younger believers.
Before I make a few additional comments, I will wrap up the review portion. This is a good, relatively quick read that is helpful in understanding how and why this 'old' theology has made a comeback. It is personally written, albeit by someone who would identify himself with this camp (thus it is a biased read), and it covers the big names in the movement and how they are impacting many lives the world over. If you are looking to understand what Calvinism, Reformed theology, or TULIP is, this is not your book. It is not technical. It is a look at how this particular theology is impacting a particular generation and a consideration as to why.
On a personal note, I would add that much of the power being experienced by this new wave of Calvinist thinkers is due to the openness of its leaders to speak to living a Spirit-filled life. John Piper, Mark Driscoll, CJ Mahaney, Joshua Harris, Sam Storms, DA Carson, and I would even put in Francis Chan, all hold to the belief that the power of God seen in the book of Acts and written more extensively about in 1 Corinthians 12-14 can be experienced today by the power of the Holy Spirit according to the will of God. In the past, Calvinism was seen as cold, calculated, academic, and based largely on Scripture plus tradition. While the traditions of the Church are not dismissed by the New Reformers, there is an increased emphasis on biblically-focused gospel contextualization as well as Spirit-empowered ministry, specifically in preaching and teaching. In this, I believe these teachers have struck what we in my generation, and the generations following, desire most: uncompromising Truth and powerful, transformational encounters with the living God.
Young, Restless, Reformed: A journalist's journey with the New Calvinists by Collin Hansen
I will confess at the beginning of this review that I have selected a book that is relatively easy to review. The content is not overwhelming in nature. It is written by a journalist who is, according to his sketch in the book, an editor-at-large with Christianity Today. Therefore, it is written as a journalist would write - not overly technical and very personal. It is easy to connect with for this reason. Since this is the inaugural review, I decided to go a little easy on myself while I figure out how to format this type of write-up. So, bear with me while I work out the kinks.
The purpose of this book is to put a name and face(s) to the resurgence of Reformed theology among Christians of my generation and younger. In the midst of much controversy surrounding the so-called 'emerging church' movement, the author notes that experience would indicate a larger swing toward Reformed theology and conservative views of Scripture rather than the general loosening of biblical orthodoxy. Hansen writes, "I started thinking about leading seminaries in the United States and noticed a number of Calvinists in leadership positions. I considered millions of books sold by (John) Piper and his yearly appearances at the popular Passion conference. Yale University Press had just released a major biography of Jonathan Edwards. Reformed theology had recently become a major point of contention in the nation's largest Protestant body, the Southern Baptist Convention (p.12)."
Hansen takes his readers on a trip around the United States to encounter how this 'New Calvinist' movement was manifesting itself in a variety of contexts. He starts at the Passion conference, then spends time with John Piper, moves over to the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary to discuss the impact of her current prominent leader, R. Albert Mohler, Jr. From there, readers are taken into more culturally accessible locations such as the New Attitude Conference and Mars Hill Church in Seattle. At each stop, readers are given a glimpse into how younger Christians are adopting 'older' view of Scripture, preferring to read the Bible and think about it deeply to discovering the next great church growth methodology.
While the book is by no means a technical work on what 'Calvinism' is, he does give a brief overview of TULIP in the opening chapter and draws the distinction between this and another, more prominent, view of God popular in evangelicalism - Moralistic Therapeutic Deism. This system, whose name was first coined by Christian Smith and Melinda Lundquist Denton, believes that "God is something like a combination Divine Butler and Cosmic Therapist: he is always on call, takes care of any problems that arise, professionally helps his people to feel better about themselves, and does not become too personally involved in the process." In response to this view, some young Christians have recognized the emptiness of this god and have turned to seek the God of the Bible. In so doing, and in looking deeply at the Word and reading from others who likewise have thought and written deeply and extensively about Scripture, these young people have found themselves theologically in the Calvinist camp.
Let me be perfectly clear: Other thinkers of other theologies have written excellent books and commentaries and are wonderful preachers. However, the obvious shift in evangelicalism has been away from the modern, 'seeker-sensitive' movement and toward one of two directions - either a postmodern/post-Christian mindset which inherently doubts truth claims or toward the particular conservative, biblical orthodoxy found in the Reformed camp. The question isn't "Is that really happening?" but rather "Why is that happening?"
Hansen's basic reason for this, when boiled down to its core, is that Reformed theology unflinchingly reveals the raw truth of what the Bible says with little need for exegetical gymnastics. And in this movement, call it what you will - New Calvinism; Young, Restless, Reformed; Emerging Reformers - the big ideas, according to Hansen, are, "Hunger for God's Word. Passion for evangelism. Zeal for holiness." In short, it's biblical Christianity that happens to ascribe to a specific theology and is working powerfully in the lives of younger believers.
Before I make a few additional comments, I will wrap up the review portion. This is a good, relatively quick read that is helpful in understanding how and why this 'old' theology has made a comeback. It is personally written, albeit by someone who would identify himself with this camp (thus it is a biased read), and it covers the big names in the movement and how they are impacting many lives the world over. If you are looking to understand what Calvinism, Reformed theology, or TULIP is, this is not your book. It is not technical. It is a look at how this particular theology is impacting a particular generation and a consideration as to why.
On a personal note, I would add that much of the power being experienced by this new wave of Calvinist thinkers is due to the openness of its leaders to speak to living a Spirit-filled life. John Piper, Mark Driscoll, CJ Mahaney, Joshua Harris, Sam Storms, DA Carson, and I would even put in Francis Chan, all hold to the belief that the power of God seen in the book of Acts and written more extensively about in 1 Corinthians 12-14 can be experienced today by the power of the Holy Spirit according to the will of God. In the past, Calvinism was seen as cold, calculated, academic, and based largely on Scripture plus tradition. While the traditions of the Church are not dismissed by the New Reformers, there is an increased emphasis on biblically-focused gospel contextualization as well as Spirit-empowered ministry, specifically in preaching and teaching. In this, I believe these teachers have struck what we in my generation, and the generations following, desire most: uncompromising Truth and powerful, transformational encounters with the living God.
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
My First Five
I don't think it's a secret: I love books. I mean, I really love them. Actual books, not ebooks. I like the covers, the thickness or thinness of the pages, the font types, the jackets, all of it. A book is an experience.
I take notes in my books. I write them in the margins with a finely leaded pencil, and I do a lot of writing. I write when I agree with something an author has stated. I really write when I disagree. Some find this troubling. Some would say, "What happens when you re-read the book? Doesn't your note predispose you to rethink the same thoughts?" I suppose those are valid questions. But those notes also help me remember what is important in each book I read, allowing me to flip through quickly and recapture the key points.
I want to pass on this love. Over the course of the coming weeks and months, I will begin to post resources I have found particularly valuable. They will be lists based on topic (e.g. theology, culture, apologetics, prayer), and I will relieve myself of the pressure of putting them into an 'order', like a top 10 list or something. Rather, I will simply list them with a brief thought on each.
With that, my first list is what I call my 'First Five'. Note: this is not my 'top five'. These are the first books I read that really kicked off my deeper reading into extra-biblical texts (books of a Christian nature that aren't the Bible itself):
The Screwtape Letters - by C.S. Lewis
- More of a story, it tells in fictional narrative how Satan and his demons set about strategically subverting the gospel
Desiring God - by John Piper
- This is my +1 book, as in 'If I could have the Bible +1 other book'. I believe the chapters on prayer, worship, and suffering should be mandatory reading for any believer.
Mere Christianity - C.S. Lewis
- This is a 'how do I make sense of my faith' book, also called apologetics. Lewis uses reason and logic to draw out truths regarding Christianity. Arguments like 'Lunatic, Liar, or Lord' are introduced here. Timeless.
The Pursuit of God - A.W. Tozer
- A spiritual awakening book. It will do to your heart what Lewis's Mere Christianity will do to your mind. It is a small book, but Tozer's sentences weigh 800 pounds.
Orthodoxy - G.K. Chesterton
- As you can see, I like the Brits. While I don't necessarily agree with all of Chesterton's conclusions (nor Lewis's for that matter), the way that he takes 2-3 pages to set up 1 bombshell of a paragraph actually made me publicly laugh out loud (like, on the train...several times) because of their sheer brilliance.
There you have it. My First Five. Enjoy!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)