Love That Lasts

When Alicia and I got married, I committed myself to reading at least one marriage book or marriage-related book a year, in order to intentionally stir my mind and cultivate intimacy with Alicia. The book for the first year I chose was 'Love That Lasts: When Marriage Meets Grace' by Gary and Betsy Ricucci. Betsy is CJ Mahaney's sister and Gary is on staff at Covenant Life Church (where Josh Harris is now pastor). This is a very refreshing read. It kindled my love for Alicia and for the ordinance of marriage. They have a very high view of marriage, namely because they have a high view of God, where marriage begins. As with all of the people at Sovereign Grace, these writers are Spirit-filled, Word-centered, and gospel-saturated. They also are complementarians, doing a great job covering roles and responsibilities. Another added benefit, is their understanding of the necessity of the local church in all of life, especially marriage. The chapter on the husband's role is insightful and challenging. The chapter for wives is great too. I am so thankful that as I read the calling of a Godly wife I was not thinking, "Man, Alicia needs to read this," but rather, "Man, she is doing such a great job!" The chapter on conflict is great. These writers have spent some timing learning from the guys at CCEF (Tripp, Powlison). Conflict is inevitable (if there is true intimacy), but the way in which you resolve conflict is vitally important. I was particularly challenged to be very specific and use biblical terms when confessing sin (and no 'but's'). The chapters on romance and sex were great too. Busyness is a type of selfishness, a failure of priority. I would highly recommend this little book to all, single, engaged, and married. Throughout the book, they acknowledge their indebtedness to the Mahaney's and point the reader to this book and this one for further study.

"Nothing is more important to your marriage than your theology" 21

"Nothing is more essential to a marriage, and nothing brings more hope, than applying the gospel of Jesus Christ." 23

"So many couples spend their lives avoiding conflict. They choose a superficial 'peace at any price'--a price much higher than they realize." 113

The Drama of Scripture

"The Drama of Scripture" (213 p.) by Bartholomew and Goheen is an excellent read! I don't know much about Bartholomew but Michael Goheen did his dissertation on the missional ecclesiology of Lesslie Newbigin who is really the father of missional theology and has been very influential to many of the emerging church leaders. This book was designed for an intro course in Biblical Theology. The authors want the reader to become familiar with the storyline of Scripture, and help articulate a biblical worldview to live out as God's sent people. They write, "The Drama of Scripture tells the biblical story of redemption as a unified, coherent narrative of God's ongoing work within his kingdom (11)." They argue for a narrative reading from Genesis to Revelation. It is similar to a popular form of Dempster's "Dominion and Dynasty." Scripture should form our metatnarrative. They use the theme of kingdom to structure the book in 6 acts: Creation, Fall, Redemption Initiated, (Intertestamental Period), Redemption Accomplished, The Mission of the Church, and Redemption Completed.

They basically walk through the storyline of Scripture, with an eye to missional living throughout. I highly recommend this book! The chapter on the intertestamental period was very insightful for setting the background of the Jews and the coming of Christ. I also appreciated the emphasis on inaugurated eschatology, and the emphasis on the cosmic scope of redemption. 5 out of 5.

Quotes:

"Furthermore, the kingdom of God has arrived in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Two great figures stand at the entrances to two worlds: Adam stands at the gate of the old world, Jesus at the gate of the new. Adam's first sin inaugurated the old age and brought sin, death, and condemnation. Now in Jesus a new day of righteousness, life, and justification has come (Romans 5:12-21). If we are 'in Adam', we are part of the old age and under its sway. But if we are 'in Christ', we are part of the age to come and can already experience God's life-giving power" (189)

"If our lives are to be shaped and formed by Scripture, we need to know the biblical story well, to feel it in our bones. To do this, we must also know our own place within it--where we are int the story" (197)

"Salvation is not an escape from creational life into 'spiritual' existence: it is the restoration of God's rule over all of creation and all of human life. Neither is salvation merely the restoration of a personal relationship with God, important as that is. Salvation goes further: it is the restoration of the whole life of humankind and ultimately of the nonhuman creation as well" (199)

For similar theology and outlook, see N.T. Wright's article (they have been greatly influenced by his work), Dempster's book, Robert's book God's Big Picture, their website, and Hoekema's book The Bible and the Future.

History of the Baptists: Democratic Religion

This is the first book I had to read for History of the Baptists with Dr. Shawn Wright--one down, four to go.

This book is written by Dr. Gregory Wills who teaches here at Southern. I "took him" for my Cooperative Program "class" last Fall. I am not sure that I will take him for anything because most of my history classes are done with. Anyway.

What is This Book For?

By the subtitle you can see that the discussion revolves around Baptists in the late 18th to early 2oth centuries. The main focus (from what I could tell) is early Baptist life in regards to church authority manifested primarily through church discipline. The thrust of the book surveys the rise and decline of church discipline in Baptist churches. Now, this is my first time to really get to know my Baptist heritage. For the most part, I'm shady on the whos, whats, hows, and whys of Baptist history. So, I really can't post a great review on this book in terms of its profundity or how it fits into my church history repertoire overall. I probably won't have a working, conversational knowledge about this subject until after my class in a few weeks. But, let me just tell you some pieces of the puzzle I've put together so far:

- Baptists used to be strict! No chess, backgammon, dancing, cards, circuses, or, even for some, baseball! Strict not just for sin, but for doctrine also. Some Baptists would not accept a baptism if it was performed by a "free-will" pastor (106). People were considered heretics if they did not adhere to Baptist doctrine. Yet, they were not strict because they had a "witch hunt" mentality. This is rooted in their view of church authority. Basically, early Baptists thought that the local church's responsibility was to regulate everything in the lives of their members: doctrine, sin, amusements, etc. Thus, they had a higher sensitivity to sin because they felt they had to. This is where things like, "no dancing" comes from in Baptist practice. Dancing involved worldly amusement, and worldly amusement led to worldly thinking, and worldly thinking led to sin, and sin cannot be tolerated in Christ's church. Follow? It was all about what they believed about authority--they were just trying to protect.

- For early Baptists, church discipline was inseparable from Calvinism. Although one may be terribly offended and never returned to the church because of exclusion, Baptists were not shaken from their duty to discipline because they knew it would always prune and grow the elect. An interesting thought for our day.

- Racism was an issue for many early Baptists.

- In time, for some reason having to do with the war, Baptists stopped being as strict. I will learn more about this in class I'm sure. But, they felt the burden of disciplining people for everything. The surrounding culture was somewhat turned off by Baptist's strictness. Many would go to church but avoid membership because they knew how strict Baptists were.

Some of these main points Dr. Wills might shake his head at in disappointment knowing that I probably missed the point of his book. But, at this point those are the things that I remember off the top of my dome.

Quotes:

This quote I found very interesting because it reveals that there is truly nothing new under the sun. The discussion of culture engagement is not a new discussion. Churches faced cultural change in the early 20th century with the emergence of urbanization.

"After the [Civil] war, southern churches would find more to bless in society, and the society would find religion more congenial. The society became more religious as the churches became less hostile to the society." (123)

There are other quotes but they are either too long or have too big of a context to unpack. If you get a chance, read the account of Caroline and Julia on page 16.

My Recommendation:

On a scale of 1 to 5 (1 being "don't bother," and 5 being, "a must read"), I would give this book a 2, depending on your itch for Baptist history. If you are in to this subject then it's a 5. The endorsements on the back say this is one of the books to read regarding Baptist history. But, for the lay person who may have other things to figure out first, 2.


Till the next episode...

Peace.

Letters to Malcolm: Chiefly on Prayer

C. S. Lewis' Letters to Malcolm is a collection of letters written to an imaginary (I think) friend, Malcolm. The book was published in 1964 and was the last Lewis wrote before his death in 1963. It contains 22 letters dealing with a variety of topics including prayer, liturgy, God's omniscience, "religion," liberal Christianity, metaphysics, and heaven.

Having only limited exposure to Lewis' work, namely parts of Mere Christianity, The Screwtape Letters, and The Chronicles of Narnia, it is hard to compare Letters to Malcolm with his other writings. So, I think I'll steer clear of that. The book itself is an interesting read. The subtitle is a bit misleading, as each letter deals with one or more theological topics---at times it is hard to figure out how some of the topics relate to prayer at all. Lewis' intellect (he was brilliant) shines throughout the letters and provides readers with a provocative glimpse into his theology. The letters/chapters dealing specifically with prayer and heaven were by far my favorites.

My experience in reading the book was somewhat like walking and falling into a pit and then getting back out again. I found myself fascinated by, and reading carefully through the first five letters, hurriedly fighting my way through the middle section of the book, and then fascinated by the last four letters. I think part of it was due to my tendency to be far too practically minded, and the rest due to the fact that I know very little of philosophy and metaphysics, not to mention Latin.

As far as a recommendation goes, I like the book, but I don't think Letters to Malcolm is a very good starting place for someone interested in Lewis. It is also not a book for someone looking for practical advice on prayer.

Here are three of my favorite quotes:

...I am often, I believe, praying for others when I should be doing things for them (66).

I have met no people who fully disbelieved in Hell and also had a life-giving belief in Heaven (76).

The truth is, I haven't any language weak enough to depict the weakness of my spiritual life (113).

New Glasses With Which to See...

[Before I post on this book let me say this: I just got my syllabus for History of the Baptists, and let's just say, if I don't start reading for June 11 right now, I'm going to get way behind. So, I'll either post on my reading for that class, or maybe some of you who signed up as contributors would, well, contribute something soon. Ok.]

The name of this post says it all.

I mean, I'll just jump right into my "My Recommendation" portion. AOtD is a must read--a 5! I might just be full of zeal right now, but everyone, especially anyone who regularly watches TV, needs to read this immediately and very slowly. AOtD is readable, yet tremendously thought provoking. Turn off the TV and go get you one.

What is This Book For?

Neil Postman's agenda in AOtD is to argue that television, for the most part, has softly lullabied people's intellects to sleep. In order for TV programs to succeed they must entertain, period. Thus, everything from commercials to news is steeped in entertainment strategies (music, good-looking people, etc.) to evoke emotion and interest. Thus, people don't care why a product is good, but rather if it (or the person accompanying it) looks good. TV content is intentionally fragmented and superficial--if it were otherwise, people would have to "endure" the exposition of some argument. (Did you know that product advertisements used to come in the form of a carefully argued paragraph so people could decide what product to buy?) Television gives the illusion of though provocation and learning, but in reality the information given through media is so fragmented and devoid of sound argument that people tend to know a lot of facts, but very little about facts. This is why people are good at crossword puzzles and 'Trivial Pursuit,' but remain superficial, easily swayed, and contradictory in their thinking; 'superficial' in that although one may know a historical happening, they do not know how it developed or its relevance; 'easily swayed' because people are more image driven than thought driven (This is one major reason why people are suckered by TV evangelists); and 'contradictory' because people are now more accustomed basing their thoughts on sight and feeling rather than reason and logic. Television in it's most common form actually teaches people very little, if anything. This creates a culture that has a small attention span and thinks books are an outdated form of learning.

True thought strengthening takes time primarily through the hard work of reading.

Key Chapters

Chapter 3: "Typographic America." ("Typographic" simply refers to the written word) Basically, early Americans, from peasant girl to doctor, were literate and hungry for the written word. At one point, America boasted of the highest concentration of literate persons in the world.

Chapter 4: "The Typographic Mind." Due to America being so inundated with literate people, most people were thinkers and had a capacity for lengthy written and spoken exposition.

Chapter 8: "Shuffle Off to Bethlehem." This chapter discusses televangelists and how television drastically affects the deliverance and substance of preaching. I don't agree with Postman's theology, but this is a very insightful chapter.

Chapter 10: "Teaching as an Amusing Activity." Possibly one of the most important chapters for teachers and parents as they consider the best way to teach their children. Postman examines and gives a good critique of 'Sesame Street.' Let's just say Elmo is at his best when he is being tickled, not teaching. Very good.

Quotes

I want to leave only one. It's long, but, it was one of my favorites:

It would be a serious mistake to think of Billy Graham or any other television revivalist as a latter-day Jonathan Edwards or Charles Finney. Edwards was one of the most brilliant and creative minds ever produced by America. His contribution to aesthetic theory was almost as important as his contribution to theology. His interests were mostly academic; he spent long hours each day in his study. Hid did not speak to his audiences extemporaneously. He read his sermons, which were tightly knit and closely reasoned expositions of theological doctrine. Audiences may have been moved emotionally by Edwards' language, but they were, first and foremost, required to understand it. . . . Unlike the principle figures in today's "great awakening"--Oral Roberts, Jerry Falwell, Jimmy Swaggart, et al.--yesterday's leaders of revivalist movements in America were men of learning, faith in reason, and generous expository gifts. . . . No clearer example of the difference between earlier and modern forms of public discourse can be found than in the contrast between the theological arguments of Jonathan Edwards and those of, say, Jerry Falwell, or Billy Graham, or Oral Roberts. The formidable content of Edwards' theology must inevitably engage the intellect; if there is such a content to the theology of the television evangelists, they have not yet made it known. (p. 54, 56)

You could say that this book is summarized in one sentence: The best use of a TV is to use it's light to read a book.


Thoughts? Comments? Questions?

Peace. Go read.
Contributors it's your time to shine.

Well, Here Goes...

Ok, this book was one of "those books" on my shelf. You know, one of "those books" that when asked you say, "Well, I only read a few chapters of it." Well, I finished it today. It had been a few months since I had stopped reading it, but I still have some remembrance of what it is about. Ok.

What is This Book For?

Whatever Happened to Truth? is a short book consisting of four chapters, each of which are transcribed plenary addresses given at the 56th annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society on Nov. 17-19, 2004 in San Antonio, TX. The four plenary speakers were Andreas Kostenberger, [THE] R. Albert Mohler, Jr., J.P. Moreland (philosopher and co-author of one of my philosophy books this past semester), and Kevin Vanhoozer.

(Let me say this before I give a report on this book: Because this book is comprised of transcribed speeches, it is kind of a choppy read. There tends to be a lot of information packed into a small space. This causes a lot of quick transitions of thought and wording that doesn't make for the best read (the chapters are filled with subtitles every 3-4 paragraphs!). It is harder for me to summarize a transcribed chapter than a chapter that is thought out and written.)

Basically, WHT? is a primer on postmodernism, the truth crisis that our generation faces, and the Christian church's needed response to this crisis. Kostenberger's chapter is entitled, "'What is Truth?' Pilate's Question in it's Johannine and Larger Biblical Context." To make a long exegetical story short, 1) Pilate is not asking Jesus this question to get an answer, but to cut off conversation so that he can get on with dealing with Jesus for the Jew's sake. And 2) Kostenberger answers Pilate's question by affirming that truth is ultimately a Person, not a thing.

Mohler's chapter is called, "Truth and Contemporary Culture." I mean, who better to speak on this than Mohler, right? Although it won't do justice to his profound chapter, Mohler simply discusses how our postmodern culture is in crisis due to it's approach to truth, or rather, it's denial of absolute truth.

Now, J.P. Moreland is a philosopher. Like I said, I read his book this semester, Philosophy Made Slightly Less Difficult--let's just say in response to the title, it wasn't. Nevertheless, reading Moreland's chapter "Truth, Contemporary Philosophy, and the Postmodern Turn," made me wonder if anyone in the audience was with him after 5 minutes. This chapter was painful. The only reason I understood parts of what he was saying was because I just finished taking Intro to Christian Philosophy this semester. This was one of the chapters that had a new subtitle every page or so because it changes thoughts so rapidly. I really can't do anything report-wise except just tell you to read it for yourself and get what you can from it. All I remember was that 1) reality is what makes a statement true or false, and 2) postmodernism is immoral, somehow.

Vanhoozer's chapter was called, "Lost in Interpretation? Truth, Scripture, and Hermeneutics." This is another subtitle-happy chapter. Basically, by the time I got a third of the way in I realized that I really don't like reading transcribed speeches. However, he did make some good points. His biggest point was that hermeneutics is more than just determining the meaning of a text; the truth of any Biblical text is a means to participate in the "theodramatic history of redemtion" (that's another way of saying, "Scripture helps us become active in God's present, ongoing work [or 'drama'] of salvation in the world.")

My Recommendation

On a scale of 1 to 5 (1 being "not recommended," and 5 being "a must read"), I give it a 3. The need to understand postmodernism is great, but I think that need can be met in other places in ways more clear and better written. You'll seriously get lost at times reading this.

Quotes

"Christians cannot dismiss postmodernism as unimportant or irrelevant, for it is shaping the mind of the age, especially at the elite level." Mohler, 57.

"Christianity is meaningless apart from the gospel, which is a meta-narrative (or, worldview), indeed the meta-narrative of meta-narratives." Mohler, 59.

"When truth is denied, therapy remains. The critical epistemological question is shifted from, 'What is true?' to 'What makes me feel good?' What makes me feel authentic, healthy, happy?" Mohler, 61.

"Moreover, we must call attention to the fact that there is an awkwardness and a silliness to must postmodern discourse. Much of it is already dated, and quite frankly, no one is a postmodernist in the emergency room. When it comes to understanding objective truth, no one wants a postmodern heart surgeon. No one wants their CAT scans interpreted according to the particular anti-totalizing impulses of the surgeon." Mohler, 64.

"Our concern here is not so much with those who have embraced postmodernism openly and eagerly in its most extreme forms, but rather with those who have tried to find some means of incorporating its themes, mentality, and worldview into their theological systems." Mohler, 64.

That's a wrap.

Peace

Frame's Apologetics to the Glory of God

Well, tomorrow is my last final, and I must say, I am glad finals are almost over. I love seminary, but not so much studying for exams. But I did open my Christmas presents early a couple of weeks ago and started some pleasure reading. I haven't finalized my list yet, but have a few in mind. I may not post for a while because one is rather large. To the book!

The first one is 'Apologetics to the Glory of God' (247 pp) by John Frame. Frame is professor of systematic theology and philosophy at RTS. He is quickly becoming one of my favorite contemporary theologians. He begins the book by making it clear that he is a follower of Cornelius Van Til (presuppositional), but has some questions concerning the consistency of Vant Til's thought in places. He defines apologetics as "the discipline that teaches Christians how to give a reason for their hope" (1). Frame is famous for his 'multiperspectivalism' and is no different in this little book. He distinguishes apologetics as proof, defense, and offense. He also argues biblically that there is no neutrality with the non-Christian (contra classical apologetics). Believers must always presuppose God and his truth in every aspect of our lives. Revelation must govern apologetics. This fact seems obvious enough but you'd be surprised at the way some view apologetics. Frame also establishes the fact that unbelievers know God, but suppress the truth (Rom 1:21). He lists a few different values of apologetics. This is already getting long, so I must skip the details.

In chapter 2, Frame lays out the message of the apologist. He breaks it up into two sections: Christianity as a philosophy, and good news. The section on philosophy was great and stirred me to reread a couple of sections from books I read this year for seminary (Carson's walk through the storyline of Scripture in 'The Gagging of God' (193-278), and Frame's Philosophy of Lordship in 'The Doctrine of God"(185-240)) which are very, very good for gaining a big picture of the Christian worldview. Carson is more redemptive historical while Frame's treatment is more systematic and atemporal. This chapter contained a lot of excellent details about the significance of the Christian worldview, but I cannot take the time to reproduce them here. He basically argues that the Christian worldview is the alternative to the conventional wisdom of the day.

Chapter 3 consists of methodological considerations for the task of apologetics. Here he introduces the reader to the famous transcendental argument (basically arguing that without God, nothing is possible or rational). This method is very helpful, for by using it, the apologist can basically start from anywhere since all facts only make sense with the existence of an absolute personality. Frame parts ways with Van Til here though as he believes it needs supplementation while Van Til thought the TA was sufficient in itself. The point of contact with the non-believer is their knowledge of God. Presuppositional apologetics would not exist without Romans 1.

Chapter 4 is an assessment and reworking of the traditional arguments for God's existence (teleological, moral, cosmological, ontological), with an emphasis on objective moral values. (apologetics as proof).

Chapter 5 continues with proof focusing on proving the gospel. Here Frame lays out Scripture's doctrine of Scripture, with an excursus on modern biblical criticism.

Chapter 6 & 7 are apologetics as defense. These two chapters cover the problem of evil, and are quite helpful. Chapter 6 lays down some groundwork and evaluates several options for answering the problem, and their shortcomings. In Chapter 7, he seeks to answer it by appealing to the greater good argument redefined theocentrically. Frame does allow for a sense of mystery though.

Chapter 8 is apologetics as offense, attacking unbelief, aiming at atheism and idolatry. Both are essentially an attempt to escape responsibility. Frame closes out the book with a chapter called 'Talking to a Stranger' where John and Al have a conversation in a plane in which John uses the presuppositional method to share the gospel with Al. This is obviously the lightest chapter in the book and is helpful in seeing the method fleshed out. There are also two appendices. One reviewing a book by Sproul/Gerstner/Lindsley called 'Classical Apologetics' in which they go after Van Til's method. Turns out, their book is filled with misunderstanding and misrepresentation. The last appendix in a response to Frame from Jay Adams concerning the problem of evil. Adams just appeals to Rom 9.17 and says it is settled. Frame does not think its that easy.

Well, this is no doubt an insufficient review, as I got really tired of typing after the first 5 minutes. I also had much more to write but don't want to have that long of a post or spend that amount of time on these reviews. There is much, much more to this book then you will find here. Overall, I highly recommend it. Frame is clear in all of his writing, and always faithful to Scripture. I plan on doing some more reading on Van Tillian presupp. apologetics this summer, going to a closer disciple and the source himself.

A Discussion of Origins

Well, I thought I would discuss briefly the motivation and goal behind this blog. It seems that everyone is pumped and ready to start reading--I am for sure. I wanted to just give the original thoughts driving this blog into existence.

It all began with a desire to read--obviously. Over the past year I, as well as some close friends, have been exposed to some really smart and godly men and their influential convictions about reading. I picked Mohler's quote as the banner that basically epitomizes the world of voracious readers. Due to the fact that most college graduates don't even read a one book a year (mostly due to not knowing how to read), and that there is this cancer called laziness that promotes the deterioration of the mind, I need to motivate myself to read books. Others share this same conviction. So, in discussion with a friend, we brainstormed on ways to keep us reading outside of mandatory reading for seminary. (Yes, originally this only involved two seminary folks.) Do we want to make for ourselves a kind of syllabus that keeps us on pace and accountable? Do we want to read the same book and meet weekly to talk about it? Do we want to make a blog? Basically, we want to avoid becoming statistics. So, here's how I will use this blog: read a book a week and post on it. However you use it is fine, but that is why I made the blog. I wanted other people to contribute, even if they just tackle one book the whole summer. But, for me and at least one other person, it will be a check for laziness. If only two people turn out to be faithful to this blog it has served its purpose.

I don't want to read books just for the sake of doing so (I think Ecclesiastes 12:12 addresses this.). Although Mohler's library is respectable beyond words, I don't want to read books just so I can have a big library (Proverbs 25:27). I want to read and master the right books, whether that ends up being only 5 or 50,000 books. Library size tends to feed pride for most.

So, just so you know. Picture me as a young kid crouched down with fists tight at the starting line of a school race. Yeah, I want seminary to end, kind of.

Peace