Christian reflection on this issue, as on all moral issues, must be grounded in Scripture. The Bible is unambiguous in its rejection of homosexual practice. Furthermore, given that Scripture consistently condemns illicit affections as well as actions, Christians must recognize both homosexual practice and passions as sin. That said, sexual temptation (whether homosexual or heterosexual) and sexual sin (in thought or deed) are distinct. While it is true that numerous attempts have been mounted to reinterpret Scripture’s teaching regarding homosexual practice, these attempts are neither exegetically nor hermeneutically convincing. The best treatment of the relevant passages and the best response to common arguments is Robert A. J. Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics (Abingdon, 2001).[1]

Natural revelation certainly testifies against homosexual practice as Paul notes in Romans 1, and it may be possible to mount a natural law case against revisionist definitions of marriage as well. The best effort currently is Sherif Girgis, Robert George, and Ryan T. Anderson, “What is Marriage?” Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 34, no. 1 (Winter 2010): 245-87. The difficulty in appealing to natural revelation on a controversial issue is twofold. Natural revelation is always seen most clearly through the spectacles of Scripture; Scripture has a clarity that natural revelation does not have. Second, fallen people are just as prone to suppress general revelation as they are to reject special revelation. This does not vitiate natural law argumentation, however. Even if the positive argumentation for a conjugal definition of marriage is not as clear as explicit biblical statements, the argumentation may still be helpful. Furthermore, Girgis, George, and Anderson raise telling critiques against a revisionist definition. For instance, if marriage is defined in terms of two people who love each other, what logical reason is there for limiting marriage to two? They note this is not a slippery-slope argument. It is a question about coherence. Or, if civil recognition is about homosexual couples receiving legal benefits since they live in a shared domestic situation, on what ground does the government deny these benefits to two widowed brothers who now share a home and domestic responsibilities? Can a coherent alternative definition of marriage be developed. Girgis, George, and Anderson demonstrate that none has been developed thus far.

Christians should be clear both in word and deed that their concerns about redefining marriage are not limited to concerns about homosexual behavior alone. Nor do their concerns extend only to so-called slippery slope situations: polyandry, polygamy, or incestuous marriages. Christians are concerned about rises in divorces (and about no-fault divorce law), in cohabitation, and in out of wedlock pregnancies. They should also be concerned about distortions in the biblical roles and responsibilities given to husbands and wives. Distortions of the biblical marital ideal are personally and societally disastrous because they run against the creational norms that God has placed in his world.

Christians must reject the claim that revising the definition of marriage is a civil rights issue for those who engage in homosexual behavior. This claim assumes that homosexual inclinations are biologically determined in the same way that skin color is biologically determined. The scientific evidence for this assumption is lacking. For a recent review of the data, see Stanton L. Jones, “Same-Sex Science,” First Things (February 2012): 27-33. Even if genetic predispositions to homosexual desires are discovered, Christians should recognize that this would only confirm the Scriptural teaching that the Fall has radically affected God’s good creation and that humans are sinners from conception and beset with sinful inclinations from the time they have inclinations. See chapter 8 of Ed Welch, Blame It on the Brain (P&R, 1998) and part of David Powlinson’s essay in Psychology & Christianity: Five Views (InterVarsity, 2000) [relevant portion available here].

When the redefinition of marriage is cast as a civil rights issue it inevitably raises religious liberty issues. Will churches be permitted to refuse to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies? May homosexual practice be grounds for denying employment in Christian organizations or for denying membership in Christian churches? If the redefined marriage becomes a civil right, it will be increasingly difficult for Christians to maintain their religious liberties with regard to biblical understandings of marriage. This being the case, why should same-sex couples who already have the freedom to cohabit, who may receive a religious recognition of their relationship from certain religious groups, and who may receive joint benefits if they work for any number of companies demand the civil government redefine marriage in such a way that large numbers of religious citizens are deprived of their freedom?

Given the scope of the discussion, citizens should be discussing the qualifications for a given activity or status to be considered a civil right. They should discuss the nature and extent of religious liberties. They should seek to understand the implications declaring something a good simply on the basis that it extends equality or liberty (for some). They should discuss not only the biblical position on marriage but the reasons why the Christian Scripture has framed marriage the way it has. But for this kind of discussion to take place religious reasoning cannot be excluded from public discussion. For this to take place opponents of the revised view of marriage cannot be denounced (intolerantly) as intolerant. There must be space for public discussion of the merits and demerits of the various proposals. It is certainly inappropriate for those advocating a revised view of marriage to shout down those who wish to have this discussion.

Most importantly, Christians should pray for all that are in authority so that they may live quiet and peaceable lives—lives that model God’s vision for marriage and family so that despite speaking evil of Christians, unbelievers will by observing the good works of Christians be saved and so glorify God when he returns to judge the world and set all things right (1 Tim. 2:2; 1 Pet. 2:12).

[1] Gagnon does not fall into the fundamentalist or conservative evangelical category, as is seen by his reference to some New Testament material as Deutero-Pauline.

Oswalt, John. The Bible among the Myths: Unique Revelation or Just Ancient Literature?. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009.

Oswalt argues that the recent trend toward classifying parts of the Bible as myth is not due to new evidence that has arisen over the past several decades. He further argues that despite surface similarities (e.g., tripartite temples or similar laws) a great difference in worldview separates Israel from the surrounding cultures. Oswalt finds the surface similarities expected. Cultures of particular times and places will share features. He finds the worldview differences striking because Israel’s worldview of transcendence has only appeared in the world in the religions that have some connection to the Bible: Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. All other worldviews are worldviews of immanence. Oswalt concludes the book with defenses of the Bible’s historicity (and the importance of its historicity) against critics such as Bultmann and William Dever.

Carson, D. A. The Intolerance of Tolerance. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012.

What explains a bank’s unwillingness to retain the bank account of a Christian organization that adheres to traditional Christian views on human sexuality? How do universities justify requiring Christian student organizations to admit officers who hold views contrary to Christian doctrine and practice? Why are doctors in some regions required to perform abortions and pharmacists required to carry and distribute abortion inducing drugs—despite their conscientious objections?

In The Intolerance of Tolerance D. A. Carson argues that these incidents follow from a new definition of tolerance, a tolerance that is remarkably intolerant. The old tolerance permitted a wide variety of views—each strongly held. Diversity existed, and so did debate. The old tolerance also functioned within a moral framework. People might disagree about aspects of the framework, but all believed that the "common good" included moral norms.

The new tolerance rejects all dogmatism as intolerant. According to the new tolerance, all views must be accepted as true (or, at least, potentially true). The moral framework that the old tolerance functioned within is rejected by the new tolerance as intolerant. In the end, significant moral discussion becomes impossible. Instead of discussing the rights and wrongs of various theories of poverty and crime, conceptions of marriage, or the origins, nature, and value of human life, "the public discourse focuses on what sanctions should be imposed on those who do not ‘tolerate’ (definitely the new sense!) the abolition of what were once the moral standards" (133-34).

Intolerance becomes the only vice when the new tolerance is dominant. Yet, ironically, those who function under the old view of tolerance must not be tolerated. This, Carson says, is "worse than inconsistency." The new tolerance views secularism as a neutral arbiter when it fact, as Carson takes the time to demonstrate, it has all the marks of a religious view in its own right. So ironically the free exercise of other religions must give way to the establishment of secularism.

The demand that religion retreat into its own private sphere is bad enough for Christianity and other religions for whom privatization contradicts core beliefs. But worse, even a privatized religion will not suit the secularism of the new tolerance. Even the internal affairs of religious groups are censured under the new tolerance. For instance, the Catholic Church is denounced as intolerant for denying the Eucharist to members who publically oppose its abortion policies, and evangelical Anglicans are castigated for not permitted heretical bishops to preach from their pulpits. Doctors in some areas are told they must perform abortions despite personal religious objections. When a government sanctions those who seek to uphold morality (rather than those who seek to undermine it), not even a privatized religion or a personal conscience offers protection. Democracies too, Carson warns, can be tyrannical.

At this point Carson’s book could grow dark and discouraging or angry and shrill. But Carson avoids this. He concludes with ten "ways ahead." Several of these suggestions center on ways of thinking and speaking which undermine the pretentious but hollow claims of the new tolerance. The last three ways forward deserve special mention: "evangelize," "be prepared to suffer," and "delight in God, and trust him." Though making the United States (or wherever) "a better place" is not the motive for evangelism, Carson notes "when the gospel truly does take hold in any culture, changes in that culture are inevitable" (174). But if suffering and persecution rather than cultural change awaits Western believers, it will be nothing more than the New Testament tells Christians they should expect–and nothing more than what many Christians around the world experience (175). Therefore: "Delight in God, and trust him. God remains sovereign, wise, and good. Our ultimate confidence is not in any government or party, still less in our ability to mold the culture in which we live." Our hope is in God.

This review first appeared on the BJU Campus Store Blog.

Plantinga, Jr., Cornelius. Not the Way It’s Supposed to Be: A Breviary of Sin. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995.

Plantinga examines sin from a number of different angles and provides helpful categories for understanding sin. He particularly addresses sins that moderns are inclined to dismiss. Negatively, he’s abandoned the concept of original guilt.

McQuilkin, Robertson. A Promise Kept. Tyndale House, 2006.

This book is the personal story of Robertson McQuilkin’s care for his wife as she struggled with Alzheimers. McQuilkin organized the book around key phases in the standard marriage vows, and he speaks candidly about both the struggles and delights of keeping those vows.

Kraynak, Robert P. Christian Faith and Modern Democracy: God and Politics in the Fallen World. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2001.

In this book Robert Kraynak explores a dilemma brought about by the affirmation of two theses. First, liberal democracy depends upon Christianity to justify its claims. Second, Christianity for most of its history has preferred illiberal forms of government. The dilemma these theses raise is this: are the majority of modern Christians correct in affirming liberal democracy as "the form of government most compatible with the Christian religion" (1).

In establishing the first thesis, Kraynak notes that liberal democracy (in distinction from ancient democracy) is based on a particular notion of human dignity that emphasizes personal autonomy. But none of the liberal philosophical schools, whether those of Hobbes, Kant, Mill, or Rorty, are able to establish a ground for this human dignity. Kraynak demonstrates that various schools of thought have sought to find this basis only to have the next philosophical school reject it as insufficient. In the end, the postmoderns give up and assume human dignity without having a basis for the assumption. Kraynak quotes Richard Rorty:  "it is ‘part of our tradition . . . that [a] stranger from whom all dignity has been stripped [should] be  taken in and re-clothed with dignity. This Jewish and Christian element in our tradition is gratefully  invoked by freeloading atheists like myself’ who think that metaphysical debates are futile" (36, ellipses,  brackets, and emphasis from Kraynak).

Christianity is able to provide a basis for human dignity, but that does not necessarily mean that liberal democracy is the governmental system that best fits Christianity. Kraynak establishes his second thesis by surveying Scripture and church history. He establishes the Old Testament to be patriarchal and monarchical. The New Testament does not endorse any form of government, though it does enjoin submission to the reigning monarch. Furthermore, he argues that the dignity that humans have from the imago Dei is not the dignity of autonomy as in the liberal conception. The case from church history is easy to make: Augustine praised various forms of government including both the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire (when governed by Christian emperors); Aquinas and other medieval theologians preferred a monarchy with various checks; Calvin preferred an aristocracy with some democratic elements; Luther and the Anglicans defend monarchy; Wesley clearly opposed republicanism; the Roman Catholic Church has only recently reconciled itself to democracy.

If neither Scripture nor church history predisposes Christians to embrace liberal democracy as the best form of government why do most Christians now hold that view? Kraynak notes six common suggestions:

1. Modern democracy arose from medieval ideas about natural law and from the Conciliar movement (Lord Acton, Brian Tierney, Richard Tuck).
2. Modern democracy is rooted in the Reformation doctrines of justification by faith alone, the priesthood of the believer, and the supremacy of Scripture.
3. Modern democracy emerged from Neo-Scholastic theories of popular sovereignty.
4. Modern democracy arose from Enlightenment ideas.
5. Christian acceptance of modern democracy grew from struggles against colonialism, slavery, and industrial abuses.
6. Christian acceptance of modern democracy grew form the struggle against totalitarianism in the twentieth century.

Kraynak rejects the first three reasons. In other words, he rejects the idea that liberal democracy emerged from the nexus of Christian ideas. He affirms that liberal democracy grew from Enlightenment soil (and especially from Kant), which means that points five and six explain why Christians have embraced a system foreign to its thought for so many years.

Kant’s view of the autonomous man whose dignity is grounded in his own determination of his good is obviously at odds with Christian thought. Christians who embrace liberal democracy therefore modify Kant. But Kraynak doubts that tweaking Kant is enough. Though he grants that liberal democracy has done good by resisting tyranny and mitigating religious warfare (among other goods), Kraynak also highlights the dark side of democracy.

Many of his criticisms focus around the importance of "rights" to liberal democracy. Kraynak believes that the rights talk is subversive to legitimate human authorities such as parents, government, and even Scripture. It undermines Christian charity and fosters an entitlement mentality because rather than loving people and giving out of compassion, people in need now receive that which is their right.

Kraynak also believes that democracy achieves equality by brining people down to the lowest common denominator. He says, "The whole tradition of liberal arts education . . . seem[s] too aristocratic or too  ‘high brow,’ too judgmental and demanding, for most people in a democratic society. Not only do the  masses of people feel justified in ignoring them, but the educated elites themselves lose confidence in  their enduring values and treat them with irony and contempt, becoming corrupt elites with a  mission to subvert or deconstruct high culture. The strongest pressures in a democratic age are always  downward from high culture toward popular entertainment, which originally meant replacing  aristocratic and religious culture with middle-class and working-class culture but now means sinking to the lowest common denominator of the rebellious avant-garde and raucous youth culture, often of the crudest kind. When, for example, Mozart is replaced by the Beatles as the standard for music, or when  Gregorian chant and Bach are replaced by folk music and guitars in Christian liturgy, a dramatic cultural revolution has occurred"(27).

Finally, while liberal democracy does protect religious freedom, it does so at the expense of embracing pluralism. Kraynak grants that one can always ‘tolerate’ error as a matter of prudence, based on the recognition that error and sin are intractable problems of the fallen world. But from the perspective of ultimate truth, diversity is not a right" (179).

Kraynak’s preferred government is a constitutional monarchy that operates within the constraints of Augustine’s Two Cities paradigm. He grants however that in the present age a democracy based on moral law rather than on Kantian liberalism may be the best kind of government presently achievable.

Kraynak’s work suffers from several weaknesses. His categorical rejection of rights language rests on a less than persuasive view of the imago Dei, which he believes is "man’s original immortality" (57). Wolterstorff’s discussion of the imago Dei in Justice: Rights and Wrongs is exegetically more persuasive than Kraynak’s. Also, Kraynak’s Catholicism intrudes when he bases parts of his argument on the hierarchical structure of the Roman Church. Finally, much of Kraynak’s argument depends on the hierarchy of being. While Scripture does indicate some hierarchy exists if only in humanity’s role as image bearers of God over the rest of creation, the medieval hierarchy of being seems to have a number of serious defects. Not only did it over-analyze the hierarchy on slim biblical evidence (note the ascending chain of angels, archangels, virtues, powers, principalities, dominions, thrones, cherubim, seraphim), but it seems to devalue the material world by placing pure spirits above embodied spirits. It also seems to engender a false idea of how a being draws near to God.

Despite these weaknesses, Kraynak has produced a book well worth reading. Christians who today embrace democracy as the best form of government do well to ask themselves why Christians in earlier generations were suspicious of republican and democratic forms of government. Kraynak is wise to critique democracy for its leveling tendencies. When democracy reduces all cultural evaluations to mere personal preference, it impoverishes society. When democratic tendencies undermine the legitimate authority of parents, pastors, teachers, and rulers, it harms society. When religious freedom undermines the exclusive and universal claims of Christianity, at that point it has ceased to be a good.

Dickens, Charles. Little Dorrit. Incorporated Books, 1868.

Horton, Michael. The Gospel Commission: Recovering God’s Strategy for Making Disciples. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2011.

Michael Horton writes on a variety of levels. This book is pitched as a meaty popular level book. It seems to be the final book in an informal trilogy begun with Christless Christianity and The Gospel-Driven Life. Perhaps most helpful in this volume is the discussion of how the Reformation marks of the church (preaching, sacraments/ordinances, discipline) relate to discipleship. Also helpful were trenchant critiques of the emergent church, of a certain kind of missional conception of the church, and of the discipleship models of Richard Foster and Dallas Willard. Horton also addresses church and culture, Christianity and culture issues. He adopts the exegetically problematic Klinean two-kingdoms view, but his application of this view does not seem as radical as VanDrunen’s.

Articles

Stitzinger, James F. "The Rapture in Twenty Centuries of Biblical Interpretation," Master’s Seminary Journal 13, no. 2 (Fall 2002): 149-171

Stitzinger seeks to demonstrate some historical precedent for a pre-tribulational rapture prior to Darby. He weakens his case by trying too hard to find it implied in the writings of the early fathers. His citations from Ephraem of Nisibis (306–373) and The History of Brother Dolcino (1316) are more convincing. In the post-Reformation period he cites primarily those who teach the imminent return of Christ, but it is not clear that they actually held to a pre-tribulation rapture. In some cases, those he cites held to a pre-Armageddon rapture. His citation of Morgan Edwards (1722-1795) is the most persuasive citation form this period.

Woudstra, Martin H. "Israel and the Church: A Case for Continuity." In Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments. Edited by John S. Feinberg. Westchester, IL: Crossway, 1988.

Gumerlock, Francis. “A Rapture Citation in the Fourteenth Century,” Bibliotheca Sacra 159, no. 635 (July 2002): 349-362.

Gumerlock argues that attempts to discredit the pre-tribulation rapture by linking it to Margaret Macdonald are historically irresponsible. He notes several pre-nineteenth century pretribulationalists, and he focuses on one reference in The History of Brother Dolcino (1316). Brother Dolcino was the leader of a group that broke away from the Roman Church between 1300-1307. A crusade launched against them destroyed the group in 1307. Dolcino and his group believed that they would be preserved from the persecution of the Antichrist by being translated to heaven before the last three and a half years of the Antichrist’s reign. Revelation 11 (especially a figurative understanding of 11:12) as correlated with 1 Thessalonians 4:17 forms the exegetical basis for this belief. Gumerlock notes that more work needs to be done to understand the context in which this thought arose (he does cite Joachim of Fiore as an influence) and to see the extent of its influence. Pre-tribulationalists should be careful in their appeal to this work since Joachim of Fiore held to some heretical ideas (e.g., the end of the church in 1260). A fourteenth-century breakaway group influenced by Joachim is likely to hold doctrines, even eschatological doctrines, with which pre-tribulationalists will not wish to identify. Gumerlock, who is not pre-tribulational, was not seeking to make a historical argument in favor of the pre-tribulational position in this article. His goal was to demonstrate that the doctrine did not originate in the nineteenth century and that more historical work is needed to trace the history of this idea.

Peter Lombard. The Sentences, Book 4: On the Doctrine of Signs. Translated by Giulio Silano. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 2010. Pp. vii-lxxv + 1-38.

Peter Lombard’s Sentences is one of the most influential theology textbooks in church history. It was the text that all medieval theology students studied and wrote commentaries on (see Rosemann’s excellent The Story of a Great Medieval Book: Peter Lombard’s ‘Sentences’). It has finally been translated into English. This month I read Silano’s helpful summary of book 4 and Lombard’s distinctions on baptism. Though Lombard teaches that faith and contrition without baptism brings justification, remission of sins, and removal of eternal punishment, baptism is expected of all who have the opportunity to be baptized (bk. 4, dist. 4, chs. 4-5; cf. ch. 6, n. 1; ch. 7, n. 1-2).What benefit does baptism bring if those with faith and contrition are justified, forgiven, and no longer in danger of eternal punishment? Lombard says that baptism cleanses a person from any sins committed since conversion, absolves from external satisfaction, increases virtue, and reduces temptation (bk. 4, dist. 4, ch. 5; cf. ch. 6, n. 1; ch. 7, n. 1-2). Earlier he stated that baptism removes original sin from infants, and original sin and all subsequent sins (prior to baptism) from adults (bk. 4, dist. 4, ch. 1, n. 2).

Resources I’ve found helpful in researching Philemon and slavery:

Barth, Markus and Helmut Blanke, The Letter to Philemon, Eerdmans Critical Commentary. Edited by David Noel Freedman. Eerdmans, 2000.

Bercott, David. W. A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1998.

Finley, M. I. Ancient Slavery and Modern Ideology. Penguin, 1980.

Fitzmyer, Joseph A. The Letter to Philemon. Anchor Bible. Edited by David Noel Freedman. Doubleday, 2000.

Harris, Murray J. Slave of Christ: A New Testament Metaphor for Total Devotion to Christ. New Studies in Biblical Theology. Edited by D. A. Carson. InterVarsity, 1999.

Lohse, Eduard. Colossians and Philemon. Hermeneia. Ed. Helmut Koester. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971.

Noll, Mark A. The Civil War as a Theological Crisis. The University of North Carolina Press, 2006.

O’Brien, Peter T. Colossians, Philemon. Word Biblical Commentary. Ed. David A. Hubbard and Ralph P. Martin. [Waco, TX]: Word, 1982.

NB: Several of the above works are modernist rather than orthodox in their approach to Scripture.

"I thank the Lord who has given to you to believe in Him, that you too may have eternal life with the saints. But because there are certain persons who, while they affirm that they do not hold with Arius, yet compromise themselves and worship with his party, I have been compelled to write at once . . . For when any see you, the faithful in Christ, associate and communicate with such people, certainly they will think it a matter of indifference and will fall into the mire of irreligion. Lest, then, this should happen, be pleased beloved to shun those who hold the impiety of Arius. We are specially bound to fly from the communion of men whose opinions we hold in execration. If then any come to you, and, as blessed John says, brings with him right doctrine, say to him, All hail, and receive him as a brother. But if any pretend that he confesses the right faith, but appear to communicate with those others, exhort him to abstain from such communion, and if he promise to do so, treat him as a brother, but if he persist in a contentious spirit, him avoid."

Letters of Athanasius, Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, 4:564.

Tolerance in its conception took on the cast of a virtue because of its concern for the common good and its respect for people as persons. We endure particular customs, behaviors or habits—sometimes even (relatively) bad habits—of people in the interest of preserving a greater unity. In the Lockean context, tolerance was advocated for religious non-conformists. Never was it construed, however, to imply—much less sanction—morally questionable behavior. Consider, however, the devolution of a concept. What was a public virtue in its prior state becomes a vice if and when it ceases to care for truth, ignores the common good, and disdains the values that uphold a community. The culture of ‘tolerance’ in which we presently find ourselves is a culture in which people believe nothing, possess no clear concept of right and wrong, and are remarkably indifferent to this precarious state of affairs. As a result this transmutation of ‘tolerance’ becomes indistinguishable from an intractably intolerant relativism.

J. Daryl Charles, ‘Truth, Tolerance, and Christian Conviction: Reflections on a Perennial Question—a Review Essay," Christian Scholar’s Review 36 (2007): 212 in D. A. Carson, The Intolerance of Tolerance (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 75.

"The charge of intolerance has come to wield enormous power in much of Western culture. . . . It functions as a ‘defeater belief.’ A defeater belief is a belief that defeats other beliefs—i.e., if you hold a defeater belief to be true "(whether it is true or not is irrelevant), you cannot possibly hold certain other beliefs to be true: the defeater belief rules certain other beliefs out of court and thus defeats them. . . . Put together several such defeater beliefs and make them widely popular, and you have created an implausibility structure: opposing beliefs are thought so implausible as to be scarcely worth listening to, let alone compelling or convincing." For this reason, "the new tolerance tends to avoid serious engagement over difficult moral issues, analyzing almost every issue on the one axis tolerant/intolerant, excluding all others from the pantheon of the virtuous who do not align with this axis."

D. A. Carson, The Intolerance of Tolerance (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 15.

Stapert, Calvin R. Handel’s Messiah: Comfort for God’s People. ChristianAudio, 2010.

Stapert begins this work by tracing the development of the oratorio and the development of Handel as a musician. He also discusses the changes in the performance of Messiah over the years from the smaller choirs and orchestras to massive settings in the nineteenth century and then back toward more authentic performances. The latter part of the book examines the Messiah itself. Stapert examines the organization of texts in the  libretto, and he discusses how Handel utilized various musical techniques to wed the text to music that enhances its meaning. This is the most fascinating part of the book as it explains how Handel harnessed both Baroque conventions and elements inherent in sound and music to communicate. The audiobook includes selections from the Messiah after some of the discussions. More selections would have been welcome Negatively, the reader of the book has an affected style of speech that made listening less enjoyable than it could have been. Thankfully, this was more pronounced at the beginning and less pronounced as the book went on.

Sandel, Michael J. Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do? New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2009.

Sandel does an excellent job of making complex philosophical issues clear and relevant through the many concrete examples that fill this book. His skill as an educator makes this book an enjoyable read. The content makes the book a worthwhile read.

Sandel argues that conceptions of justice are oriented "around three ideas: maximizing welfare, respecting freedom, and promoting virtue. Each of these ideas points to a different way of thinking about justice" (6). Among philosophers, the former two perspectives have proved the most popular, since justice that promotes virtue must judge what is virtuous and what is not—a difficult task in a pluralistic society with no agreed upon moral foundation. Sandel thus begins by examining utilitarianism and libertarianism.

Utilitarianism falls by the wayside in short order. It’s critics charge that it does not give adequate weight to human dignity and individual rights, and that it wrongly reduces everything of moral importance to a single scale of pleasure and pain" (49). John Stuart Mill sought to answer these critics, but Sandel demonstrates that in doing so he "appeals to moral ideals beyond utility—ideals of character and human flourishing" (52). Thus Mill’s attempted defense the "maximizing welfare" approach to justice ends up rooted in a "promoting virtue" approach.

Sandel spends a greater part of the book on the "respecting freedom" conception of justice. He does this with good reason, for while many debates about justice are debates about the three orientations (welfare, freedom, virtue), "some of the most hard-fought political arguments of our time take place between two rival camps within [the freedom group]—the laissez-faire camp and the fairness camp" (20). Since "the philosophies of Kant and Rawls represent the fullest and clearest expression of" the "ambition" to "spare politics and law from becoming embroiled in moral and religious controversies" (243), Sandel devotes a chapter to each. He concludes, however, that their "ambition cannot succeed.” He reasons, “Many of the most hotly contested issues of justice and rights can’t be debated without taking up controversial moral and religious questions. In deciding how to define the rights and duties of citizens, it’s not always possible to set aside competing conceptions of the good life. And even when it’s possible, it may not be desirable. Asking democratic citizens to leave their moral and religious convictions behind when they enter the public realm may seem a way of ensuring toleration and mutual respect. In practice, however, the opposite can be true. Deciding important public questions while pretending to a neutrality that cannot be achieved is a recipe for backlash and resentment. A politics emptied of substantive moral engagement makes for an impoverished civic life" (243).

Thus Aristotle and virtue-ethics come under consideration. This is the view that Sandel himself embraces: "Justice is inescapably judgmental" (261). This view is not a panacea to the conflict of values. Sandel supports abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and extending the definition of marriage to include pairings of the same sex. But he does not take these positions on the grounds that women have the right to choose (for they do not have the right to choose to kill their toddlers) or that it violates a homosexual’s freedom and rights to be denied marriage. Instead, he argues that participants in these discussions must determine the moral issues of whether an embryo or fetus are persons and what the telos of marriage is. The hard work of debating justice in particular instances remain, but Sandel has cleared away problematic general approaches and laid a foundation for those particular discussions to take place.

Keller, Timothy. Generous Justice: How God’s Grace Makes Us Just. New York: Dutton, 2010.

I started this book with chapter seven since the discussion of justice and Christian involvement in the public square coincided with a research project I was working on. In my estimation, this was the best chapter of the book. Keller mediates the insights of Sandel’s Justice and Steven Smith’s The Disenchantment of Secular Discourse through his own Christian understanding. In doing so he demonstrates that freedom, and equality, concepts closely related to justice, are "empty concepts." Freedom and equality are not simply good or bad. They are good or bad in relation to something else. In general, freedom to harm others is not good. But what is harm? Moral disagreement over what is or is not harm demonstrates the impossibility of value-neutral justice. To achieve true justice, Christian morality must enter the public square. Keller believes this is possible because secular theories of justice are each partially true due to the natural law that all people know. There is therefore the possibility of Christians and non-Christians working together for justice in the public square. Keller does not, like some natural law theorists, believe that the Bible must be left to one side. He believes that Scripture, including the Old Testament is relevant to current public policy debates (though he also steers clear of theonomy). In my estimation, this is the best chapter of the book.

The remainder of the book is mixed. Positively, Keller demonstrates that poverty is a concern to God. He addressed it in the legislation given to Israel. The prophets addressed injustice directed toward the poor in their denunciation of Israel’s sin, and Jesus maintained the same perspective in his preaching. In his discussions of helping the poor Keller conveys many helpful insights. For instance, he notes that a barrier to the poor receiving the gospel is raised if the poor hear their denounced by preachers but not the sins of those who oppress the poor. He also helpfully distinguishes between three levels of help: relief, development, and social reform. He notes that the church can help in the first and in lower levels of the second, but as development becomes more complex the institutional church should allow other institutions with more expertise to fulfill their roles in addressing those needs (and Christians should work in such institutions for Christian motivations). On the one hand, Keller says churches should "always try to err on the side of being generous" (138) as they consider helping their communities. On the other hand, he rejects the idea that doing justice is doing evangelism: "Evangelism is the most basic and radical ministry possible to a human being. This is true not because the spiritual is more important than the physical, but because the eternal is more important than the temporal" (139).

Negatively, though Keller is right that historically the poor are more often treated unjustly, his exclusive focus on rendering justice to the poor in chapters 1-6 skews the discussion. Keller’s exhortations to generosity are scriptural, but prudential guidelines on how that generosity is practiced is also biblical (1 Tim. 5).

Keller also seems to think that not giving to the poor is an injustice. But the fact that Matt. 6:1-2 teaches that giving to the needy is righteous does not necessarily mean that it is a matter of justice rather than charity. To be a matter of justice means that the individual has a right to my giving to him (based on Wolterstorff’s theory of justice, which Keller builds upon). But in what way does a poor person have a right to my giving to him? Which poor people? How much? Keller would be better off following Wolterstorff on the issue of charity. Charity is not a matter of giving the poor his rights; it is a matter of fulfilling obligations to God.

Wolterstorff, Nicholas. Justice: Rights and Wrongs. Princeton University Press, 2008.

Wolterstoff’s premise is that justice is a matter of rendering to people their rights. He defends this thesis against those who argue that the rights focus is the bad fruit of the Enlightenment. To the contrary, says Wolterstorff. In a fascinating historical survey he demonstrates that the theory of rights-grounded justice emerged in the medieval period. He continues to move backward through history to demonstrate that the Bible, though not developing a philosophic theory of justice, implies a rights-based approach.

What do people have rights to? Here Wolterstorff argues against the eudaimonistic approach to ethics (he also rejects the deontological and consequentialist approaches) on the grounds that it is incompatible with a rights-based approach to justice. The Christian, vision, he argues is one not merely a well-lived life but an anticipation of flourishing, or shalom, in all aspects of life. Thus the love command grounds Christian ethics.

What is the grounding for rights? Wolterstorff argues that duties, capacities, and even the image of God in man cannot provide a grounding for natural human rights. He argues that human rights are bestowed by God in that he loves all humans.

In general, I enjoyed following Wolterstoff’s argumentation, and I learned a great deal about philosophy and ethics along the way. I’m open to his thesis about justice being grounded in rights, though I’d like to read some further interaction from scholars who take the other positions. I was not persuaded, however, with his dismissal of the image of God as the basis for natural human rights. His discussion of the image itself was excellent. He seemed to build a fairly good case for the image as the basis of these rights before dismissing the idea with little argumentation. It was a strange turn. Overall, I found the book a very profitable read.

Shaw, Mark. The Kingdom of God in Africa: A Short History of African Christianity. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996.

Shaw provides a good short history of Christianity in Africa from a generally evangelical perspective. He is strongest when simply relating historical events. He is weakest when providing analysis. He is not theologically discriminating enough about the orthodoxy of various forms of Christianity. Nonetheless, this is a recommended read for anyone who wants a basic overview of African Christianity from the first century through the late 1990s.

MacArthur, John. Slave: The Hidden Truth About Your Identity in Christ. Nashville: Nelson, 2010. [skimmed]

The sensationalism on the dust jacket and in opening chapters prevented me form paying this book much attention for some time. As even MacArthur’s own comments demonstrate there has been no "fraud" or "cover-up" or anything "purposely hidden" by Bible translators. MacArthur rightly notes that older English translations used the word "servant" because of its connections to the Latin word for slave "servus" and because "slave" in the early modern era meant something different that slavery at that time. It is for this reason that many modern translations opt for an alternative such as "bond-servant" (17-18). Once the sensationalism was cleared away, my skim showed that MacArthur did produce a helpful treatment of what it means for Christians to be bond servants of Christ. MacArthur drew heavily on Murray Harris’s Slave of Christ in the NSBT series. For those looking for a more in-depth treatment of the topic, Harris’s book is the one to turn to.

Gowan, Donald E. Eschatology in the Old Testament. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986.

Gowan helpfully identifies the big categories of Old Testament eschatology: The transformation of human society, the human person, and nature. He also rightly sees Jerusalem at the center of Old Testament eschatology. His development of these themes was, in my estimation, disappointing. He takes a Childs-type approach to the text. Though this leads him to focus on the final form of the text, he nevertheless does so in terms of what he thinks the religious state of Israel was at the time. So, to give only two examples, he denies that bodily resurrection is significant to OT eschatology and he thinks messianic ideas are of little importance. Nonetheless, his insight that Ezekiel 36 contains all the elements of OT eschatology is worth pondering.

The structure of his work along with the Scripture he references is useful:

Transformation of Human Society

Restoration to the Promised Land: Isa. 27:13; 35:10; 51:11; 60:4; 66:20; Jer 3:14; 32:37; Ezek 20:33-44; 37:26; Joel 3:20; Mic 4:6-7, 10; Zeph. 3:20; Zech. 2:7; 8:7-8.

 

The Righteous King: Isa. 11:9; 44:28; Jer. 33:16; Zech 4:5-10; 6:12-13; 9:9-10.

 

The Nations (victory over): Isa 34:8; Joel 3:1-21; Obadiah 16; Mic. 4:11-13; Zech. 1:14-15; 12:2-9; 14:1-3, 12-19.

 

The Nations (peace with): Isa 2:2-4 = Mic. 4:1-4.

 

The Nations (conversion of): Isa. 66:18-23; Jer. 3:17; Zech. 2:11; 8:20-23.

 

Transformation of the Human Person

Eschatological Forgiveness: Isa. 33:24; 40:2; Ezek. 20:40-44; 43:7-9; Zech. 13:1; cf. repentance in Isa. 59:20; Jer. 39:10-14; Ezek. 16:59-62.

 

The means of Re-Creation: Isa. 30:20-21; 59:21; Jer. 32:39-40 (cf. v. 36—city).

 

The New Person: Isa. 33:24; 35:5-6 (cf. v. 10—Zion); 65:20; Jer. 33:6; 50:5; Ezek. 16:60; Joel 3:17.

 

Transformation of Nature

Abundant Fertility: Isa. 4:2; Joel 2:23; 3:17-18.

 

A New Natural Order: Isa. 11:6-9; 65:25.

 

A New Earth: Isa. 35:1-10; 65:17-18; Ezek. 47:1-12; Zech. 14:4-8, 10.

p. 10

Wright, Nigel G. Free Church, Free State: The Positive Baptist Vision. Paternoster, 2005.

I found Wright most helpful in arguing for believers baptism and a gathered church ecclesiology. I found him less helpful in his section on government. He leans toward an anabaptist view in which the state is defined in terms of having the monopoly on sanctioned violence. Since, in his view, Christians are committed to following Christ in a path of non-violence, Christians who serve in state capacities place themselves in a difficult position. His ecumenical leanings also show through at various places throughout the book, so a section on religious tolerance in society is followed by a section on tolerance within the church.

Johnson, Julian. Who Needs Classical Music? Cultural Choice and Musical Value. Oxford University Press, 2002.

Johnson argues against the currently popular view that cultures and cultural choices are relative. He argues that far from cultural choices being matters of mere preference, some cultural choices are more valuable than others. More specifically, he argues that classical music has more cultural value than pop music. This is in part because it requires a level of thought and a way of thinking not demanded by pop music. To those who charge Johnson with elitism, he replies that the way to counter elitism is not to bring everyone down to the lowest common denominator. The way to counter elitism is to ensure that education (in this case in classical music) is provided to people of every walk of life.

Veenhof, Jan. Nature and Grace in Herman Bavinck. Translated by Albert M. Wolters. Sioux Center, IA: Dordt College Press, 2006.

The essence of Bavinck’s view, as explicated by Veenhof is that "Grace does not abolish nature, but affirms and restores it" (17). In expounding this view, Bavinck sets his view apart from both Roman Catholicism and Protestant pietism. According to Bavinck, Roman Catholicism teaches that nature is good, but that it does not reach to the supernatural. Grace is needed to elevate nature to the supernatural. The Protestant conception of grace, Bavinck says, is ethical. The purpose of grace is to remove sin, not to raise man above his nature.

Bavinck’s disagreement with the Pietists rests not on their understanding of the nature of grace but with their understanding of its extent. The danger Bavinck sees in pietism is that the grace, the gospel, and salvation is placed in a personal spiritual sphere and the rest of culture and life is placed an another sphere. But sin has invaded all of life, and man must function in all of life, not just in the spiritual part. The pietist therefore is in danger of aiding and abetting secularism. His critique is not one-sided, however. Bavinck realizes that the pietists have seen the real dangers of "unbridled and unbroken cultural optimism" (29). They also have centered their attention on "the one thing needful"—personal fellowship with God (30). Bavinck appeals to his readers to maintain this as the center of the Christian life while also recognizing that as a human other aspects of life are good, necessary, and in need of grace.

To state Bavinck’s view positively, nature is the good creation of God, but it has been pervasively affected by sin (thus the negative use of "world" in Scripture). This corruption is not something essential to nature, but (in Aristotelian terms), accidental. Thus God’s grace will restore nature (but merely by a return to Eden but in eventually achieving the goal God had for his creation from the beginning).

Jordan, William Chester. Europe in the High Middle Ages. Penguin, 2004.

Jordan’s history of the high middle ages is less detailed than Chris Wickham’s study of the previous era (both are in the Penguin History of Europe). Jordan is much more readable, however. His chapters can be read in a sitting and provide a good overview of the time and place covered. He does a good job of covering both what some historians seem to consider the "core" of Europe: Holy Roman Empire, France, Britain along with what they seem to consider fringes: Eastern Europe and Scandinavia. Jordan also covers the Crusader kingdoms in Middle East. Jordan did not cover religion as deeply as Wickham, though he does have brief coverage of both the investiture controversy and the realism/nominalism controversy.

Articles

Harmless, William. "Confessions." In Augustine in His Own Words. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2010.

Harmless, William. "Augustine the Philosopher." In Augustine in His Own Words. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2010.

Harmless does a good job of selecting significant selections that exemplify key aspects of Augustine’s thought and of selecting important excerpts from his major works. Brief commentary places each selection in context.

Does a just society seek to promote the virtue of its citizens? Or should law be neutral toward competing conceptions of virtue, so that citizens can be free to choose for themselves the best way to live?

According to the textbook account, this question divides ancient and modern political thought. In one important respect, the textbook is right. Aristotle teaches that justice means giving people what they deserve. And in order to determine who deserves what, we have to determine what virtues are worthy of honor and reward. Aristotle maintains that we can’t figure out what a justice constitution is without first reflecting on the most desirable way of life. For him, law can’t be neutral on questions of the good life.

By contrast, modern philosophers—from Immanuel Kant in the eighteenth century to John Rawls in the twentieth century—argue that the principles of justice that define our rights should not rest on any particular conception of virtue or, or of the best way to live. Instead, a just society respects each person’s freedom to choose his or her own conception of the good life. So you might say that ancient theories of justice start with virtue, while modern theories start with freedom. . . . But it’s worth noticing at the outset that this contrast can mislead.

For if we turn our gaze to the arguments about justice that animate contemporary politics—not among philosophers but among ordinary men and women—we find a more complicated picture. It’s true that most of our arguments are about promoting prosperity and respecting individual freedom, at least on the surface. But underlying these arguments, and sometimes contending with them, we can often glimpse another set of convictions—about what virtues are worthy of honor and reward, and what way of life a good society should promote. Devoted though we are to prosperity and freedom, we can’t quite shake off the judgmental strand of justice. The conviction that justice involves virtue as well as choice runs deep. Thinking about justice seems inescapably to engage us in thinking about the best way to live." 9-10

Michael Sandel, Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do? (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2009), 9-10.

Lunde, Jonathan. Following Jesus, the Servant King: A Biblical Theology of Covenantal Discipleship. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011.

Jonathan Lunde expounds the biblical covenants, the Christian’s relation to the law, the Kingdom of God, and Christology in the service of laying the foundations for faithful Christian living. The themes that Lunde has selected to form the theological basis of this work are ones that theologians and biblical scholars have long recognized as among the most important in Scripture. Sadly very few lay-level books have approached these themes. Lunde’s work nicely fills this gap. What is more, despite the complexity and disagreements that surround these issues, Lunde, for the most part, arrives at what I believe to be the best interpretation. For instance, though he believes all of the biblical covenants are grounded in grace, he also recognizes that the Mosaic covenant differs from the others by providing stipulations with blessings and curses. The others are gift covenants. Lunde also does a good job handling the issue of the law’s relation to the believer and noting both the continuities and the discontinuities involved.

Throughout the whole, Lunde makes applications to the Christian life. He structures the book around three questions: (1) "Why should I be concerned to obey all of Jesus’ commands if I have been saved by grace?" (2) "What is it that Jesus demands of his disciples?" (3) How can the disciple obey Jesus’ high demand while experiencing his ‘yoke’ as ‘light’ and ‘easy’?"

In answer to his first question Lunde expounds the biblical covenants. He notes that they are all grounded in grace, that certain of the covenants are unconditional in nature, and yet that all the covenants maintain expectations for both parties. Thus even though Jesus has fulfilled the new covenant’s requirements, this does not relieve the Christian of his duties toward God. In answer to the second question Lunde primarily expounds the law as it had been transformed by the arrival of Jesus. He notes that while Jesus has fulfilled the law, the expectations on believers are now higher, not lower. In answer to the third question, Lunde focuses on the enabling grace given to believers in the new covenant.

Overall, Lunde does an excellent job of maintaining a grace focus and recognizing the responsibilities that are vital to Christian discipleship. As with any book, a few weaknesses do emerge. I’m not convinced of the idea that Genesis presents two Abrahamic covenants, one conditional and one unconditional. Nor was I convinced by his argument that the servant in Isaiah 53 is first Israel and then ultimately Christ; furthermore, this lengthy digression didn’t advance the point he was making in that section of the book. Finally, some of his mission talk, though brief, seemed loose.

The strengths of this work far outweigh its weaknesses. It deserves a wide reading since it will both inform lay readers of important but neglected aspects of biblical teaching while at the same time relating practically to their daily Christian walk.

Tripp, Paul David. What Did You Expect? Redeeming the Realities of Marriage. Wheaton: Crossway, 2010.

The strength of this book is that it offers no secrets to a happy marriage. Tripp instead presents basic biblical teaching about sanctification and applies it to marriage. Tripp is correct to present sanctification as something at which Christians must work, but he also rightly highlights the grace of God as that which enables Christians to progress in sanctification. If there is a weakness it is Tripp’s tendency to repeat himself. Sometimes this reinforces points; other times it does not seem as effective.

Forsythe, Clarke D. Politics for the Greatest Good: The Case for Prudence in the Public Square. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2009.

The first chapter bears the weight of the subtitle. It is there that a case is argued philosophically/theologically for the role of prudence in politics. This is followed by three chapters of example: American founders, Wilberforce, and Lincoln. Chapter 5 responds to Colin Harte’s Changing Unjust Laws Justly, a book that stands in direct opposition to Forsythe’s proposal. The final two chapters apply his insights to abortion and related issues. I found the first chapter the most interesting (and convincing) and wish he had taken more space to make the argument he made there.

Aniol, Scott. Sound Worship: A Guide to Making Musical Choices in a Noisy World. Religious Affections Ministries, 2010.

Though he is swimming against the flow in many areas, I believe Scott is absolutely correct on his main points. His treatment of the sufficiency of Scripture is especially well done. He corrects some common misapprehensions about the doctrine that have become popular despite lacking biblical support, let alone a informed understanding of the doctrine’s history. His chapter on evaluating musical communication also provides an excellent paradigm that works not only for making music choices but also for guiding choices in every area of the Christian life. I also find myself inclined toward his view that beauty is not simply subjective, but that was one part of the book where I desired more argumentation. I look forward to reading Scott’s larger book as well as Roger Scruton’s book on beauty. In all, this is an edifying book on a controversial topic because it generates more light than heat. Even if there were no controversy (and may that be so in the future), Scott’s book would remain a useful guide for applying the Scripture to music, worship, and life.

Carson, D. A. Christ and Culture Revisited. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008.

Niebuhr’s typology is reductionistic: this is Carson’s primary point in Christ and Culture Revisited. Since most of Niebuhr’s types are grounded in some part of revelation, Carson argues that it is wrong to force people to choose between them. Rather, insofar as they are biblical, each type contributes to an overall biblical view. Carson also critiques several other approaches to the Christianity and culture debate and addresses related issues like democracy or church and state relations at greater depth. Again in these discussions Carson’s goal seems to be to combat reductionisms.

Two critiques: In his final chapter Carson lists "fundamentalism" as one response to culture. However, the fundamentalism he described sounded to my ears more like a certain strand of evangelicalism. Some fundamentalists may have fit in that category, but many others would better fit in some of the other options listed in that chapter. Since both fundamentalism and evangelicalism are "big tent" movements, neither is monolithic on these issues.

More significantly, as much as I benefited from Carson’s incisive critiques, I think the book would have benefited from a positive vision. This appeared at places, but it was never brought together. As a result Carson’s careful critiques could lead merely to the conclusion that this situation is complex and multifaceted.

Neither of these critiques vitiate the real value of the book. The reductionisms that Carson combats need combatting. His careful discussions of the biblical storyline, democracy, church and state, postmodernism, etc. are tremendously helpful.

Hiebert, Paul G. The Gospel in Human Contexts: Anthropological Explorations for Contemporary Missions. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2009.

This book provides an introductory-level view to contextualization and anthropology. It is helpful when read discerningly. Negatively, it seemed to be a collection of articles without a unifying argument.

Wickham, Chris. The Inheritance of Rome: Illuminating the Dark Ages 400-1000. New York: Viking, 2009.

Wickham’s work on the early middle ages does an excellent job of presenting the reader with the political, cultural, and religious history of the period. He covers a wide geographical range that includes the Middle East and North Africa. At the beginning of the book he does an excellent job of showing the continuities and discontinuities that existed after the Roman Empire. In many ways culture did not drastically change since the barbarians were Romanized, but politically the state fragmented and the tax and trade structure fell apart, which did affect aspects of culture such as architecture. Wickham’s coverage of religion, especially the iconoclastic controversy, was also well done. His weakness, as others have pointed out, is a large amount of detail with little summarization that attempts to bring things together. Though this is, in his view, a strength that maintains the purity of the history, it does make it difficult to retain all the information provided.

McPherson, James. Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003.

According to the cover the Washington Post Book World declared The Battle Cry of Freedom, "The finest single volume on the [Civil] war and its background." This strikes me as an accurate assessment. McPherson covered equally well the political, cultural, and military aspects of this decisive period in American history.

Saucy, Robert L. The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993.

The title of this work may obscure the extent of what Saucy covers in this book. The first chapter does deal with the differences between dispensational theologies and between dispensational and non-dispensational theologies. But the rest of the book is not so much a cumulative case as studies of key biblical issues from Saucy’s dispensational perspective. One part of the book looks at several of the biblical covenants as well as the theme of the kingdom in Scripture. Another part of the book examines aspects of ecclesiology. The final section of the book looks at the purpose of Israel in God’s plan, prophecies about Israel in the OT and NT, and the fulfillment of those prophecies. A book that covers this range is difficult to summarize. Suffice it to say that I found the book full of exegetical and theological insights and that I took more notes from this book than any other that I’ve recently read.

Budziszewski, J. Evangelicals in the Public Square: Four Formative Voices on Political Thought and Action. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006.

Budziszewski here provides a review of four evangelical thinkers (Henry, Kuyper, Schaeffer, and Yoder) with the conclusion that natural law theory is the missing element of Evangelical political interaction. I’m not convinced of the thesis, but Budziszewski is always enjoyable to read, and I found myself gleaning a good amount of helpful information along the way.

Chapell, Bryan. Why Do We Baptize Infants? Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2006.

Foundational to Chapell’s argument for infant baptism is an equation between the Abrahamic covenant and the Covenant of Grace (interestingly, Chapell did not use the Covenant of Grace language, but his argument ran along the same lines in that he concluded that believers are under the Abrahamic covenant). While Christians today participate in many aspects of the Abrahamic covenant, and while we can truly be called sons of Abraham, it does not follow that the Abrahamic covenant in its entirety is our covenant or is equated to a Covenant of Grace. The Abrahamic covenant includes national aspects that relate to the nation of Israel and not to the church. It seems patent, then, that the Abrahamic covenant in its entirety is not applicable to the church.

This being so, Chappell cannot assume, as he does, that baptism replaces circumcision as the covenant sign of a Covenant of Grace. This misunderstands the movement from a national covenant that included a mixture of regenerate and unregenerate people within the same covenant to the new covenant which is not a national covenant but is a covenant for the regenerate alone. Thus the NT brings about the end of circumcision while not ever equating it with baptism.

The best treatment of these issues that I’ve read is Stephen J. Wellum, "Relationship between the Covenants,” in Believer’s Baptism: Sign of the New Covenant in Christ , ed. Thomas R. Schreiner and Shawn Wright (Nashville: B&H, 2007), 154-55. [This chapter is available for free here.]

Owen, John. The Works of John Owen: Volume VI [Temptation and Sin]. Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1967.

The first book bound in this volume, "The Mortification of Sin in Believers," is probably the best book written on how to war war against sin. It is worthy of being read often. The other books bound with it, "Of Temptation," "The Nature, Power, Deceit, and Prevalency of the Remainders of Indwelling Sin in Believers," and "A Practical Exposition upon Psalm CXXX," do not rise to the same level, but they too are worth reading. The latter, on one of my favorite Psalms, is a classic Puritan exposition, moving form detailed work on the words of the passage in Hebrew through to doctrine and practical application given at length under multiple subheadings.

Articles

Grudem, Wayne. "Pleasing God by Our Obedience: A Neglected New Testament Teaching." In For the Fame of God’s Name: Essays in Honor of John Piper. Edited by Sam Storms and Justin Taylor. Wheaton: Crossway, 2010.

Grudem says, "This topic seems important to me because I think that evangelicals today are generally afraid of teaching about ‘pleasing God by obedience,’ for fear of sounding as if they disagree with justification by faith alone. But when the need to please God by obedience is neglected, we have millions of Christians in our churches who fail to see the importance of obedience in their daily lives" (273). Grudem surveys the NT to show that pleasing God by obedience is a significant theme in the NT and that it is not contradictory to justification by faith alone. He rightly argues that sanctification, unlike justification, involves not only God’s enabling grace but also our working. Grudem demonstrates from the NT that our obedience pleases God and our disobedience displeases him (though displeasure and discipline do not remove God’s love for his children). Grudem faithfully captures the full balance of the NT’s teaching by noting that obedience to God brings great blessing but also may lead us down paths of suffering.

Kuyper, Abraham. "Calvinism and Politics." In Lectures on Calvinism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1931.

In this lecture Kuyper expounds his view of sphere sovereignty. The government, social institutions, and the church each gain their authority directly from God and therefore government should not seek to usurp the rights of society or church. It does police the boundaries between the various spheres. Kuyper’s view of sphere sovereignty commits him to the ideal of a free church. He also condemns earlier Calvinists for advocating state-enforced adherence to their confession. Kuyper’s theorizing is interesting, but he does not seem to have firm exegetical support for his major concepts.

Michael J. McClymond and Gerald R. McDermott, "Public Theology, Society, and America." In The Theology of Jonathan Edwards. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012.

Helpfully outlines Edwards view of the roles of government (1. "secure property," 2. "protect citizens’ rights," 3. "maintain order," 4. "ensure justice," 5. "national defense," 6. "make good laws against immorality," 7. "help the poor," 8. give "support to true religion."), his views of good and bad patriotism, and his views on slavery, the slave trade, and race

Edwards concluded Religious Affections by answering the objection that this emphasis on practice might seem like a new legalism. To the contrary, he said, it was all carefully premised on standard Calvinist doctrine that a genuine work of grace would lead to keeping God’s commandments. Edwards was dedicated to the old New England way that celebrated grace and lived by law.

George Marsden, Jonathan Edwards: A Life, 289