1. The Microwave Writer: writing well under pressure.

Some writers do well under the pressure of a deadline. They’re like a microwave. Put the ingredients together and – zap! – you’ve got a meal.

How do you know if you’re a microwave writer? Think back to when you were in college. Did you wait until the week the essay was due before beginning work? Perhaps you gathered some materials together beforehand, but you saved the writing part of your work until the night before the due date.

Microwave writers may try to get a head start, but they find they can’t summon the necessary passion. Their best work is done under the gun. Once you know you have mere days (or hours) before you need to deliver a finished product, your adrenalin kicks in. Streams of creativity pour forth from your moistened brow.

I know writers who belong to this category, but I’m not one of them. I tend to question the quality of my work if I haven’t left some built-in reflection time about what I’ve written. Pressure helps me only if the deadline is self-imposed and not “real.” (More on that momentarily…)

2. The Crockpot Writer: writing slowly over a long period of time.

Other writers are like a crockpot. They put all their ideas into the pot and let them stew over time.

Each day, they write a few paragraphs. Their work schedule is consistent. Once they have a deadline, they divide the workload into manageable chunks so they can maintain a reasonable pace.

I have a friend who fits this category. He has been working on his manuscript for more than a year now. His book won’t be very long, but I trust it will be very good.

The crockpot slow-but-consistent method works well for some writers, but not for me. It draws out the writing part of the process, and frankly, I don’t particularly enjoy the writing part of writing. I like writing because I like ideas. Writing is the method by which I communicate those ideas. Putting pen to paper doesn’t thrill me; putting ideas down for others to discuss does.

3. The Stir Fry Writer: writing quickly at the outset, leaving time for appropriate seasoning

This is me. I’m a stir-fry guy. Pour all the ingredients into the pan. Heat them up quickly, but then give the meat and vegetables time to soften.

I blog this way. I may write three or four posts in one day. But putting the ingredients into the pan doesn’t mean the meal is ready to be set on the table. I need time for the ideas to cook, for the writing to be seasoned. And time also gives me veto power so I can toss out overcooked posts and start over if I realize my idea isn’t worth sharing.

I also write books this way. In May, when I found out that I had a September 1 deadline approaching for my next book, I self-imposed a deadline of July 4 for a full manuscript to be ready. The self-imposed deadline worked well for me. I finished an initial draft in several weeks, but I had a full month to mold that initial burst of writing into something publishable. I then spent one more month tweaking and seasoning the publishable product into something I could be happy with.

What about you?

Some writers need a deadline to push them to action. Others need to space out their work over a long period of time. For me, it’s best to make serious progress up front and give myself plenty of time to work out the kinks later.

What about you? Do you fit one of these descriptions? Or would you describe yourself differently? How do you work best?

King, herself, says in a response: “It is absolutely ludicrous that abortion supporters would accuse a blood relative of Dr. King of hijacking the King legacy. My dad and my uncle gave their lives to ensure that the day would come when blacks would be judged not by the color of their skin, but the content of their character. If they were here, I know they would stand with me in this fight for the lives of those most vulnerable among us,” she added.

Interesting discussion. Dane Ortlund compiles a variety of responses to the question “What’s the key to healthy Christian growth in godliness?” Michael Bird comments on the responses, wondering if perhaps we are marginalizing biblical imperatives:

My concern is that some are beginning to replace the imperative element in Christian sanctification (i.e., the need to diligently prosecute, pursue, and cultivate holiness and godliness) with the need for more knowledge of the indicative (i.e., believing more in the grace of God)

Joe Carter lists the 50 most influential religious figures in American history.

Neighbors to the nations – an interview with Jeremy Haskins

A few months ago, I wrote about some recent approaches to “storied evangelism” and discussed the strengths and weaknesses of each. One of the approaches I recommend, The Story, is being promoted by a variety of pastors and church leaders (David Platt, J.D. Greear, Ed Stetzer, Alvin Reid, etc.) . Check out their promo video below.

“The Story” Promotional Video from The Story (ViewTheStory.com) on Vimeo.

History tells sad stories of good churches that calcified as monuments to former pastors. Few churches we closely associate with prominent ministers maintained their influence when the pastor left.

Albert Mohler is podcasting – Although Dr. Mohler has ended his radio show, he has chosen to record two new podcasts. The Briefing “presents a daily report of the important theological, cultural and ethical issues facing Christians in the 21st century.” Thinking in Public will be “an interview forum for intelligent conversation about frontline theological and cultural issues.” Here are the iTunes links for Thinking in Public and The Briefing.

There’s something worse than death…

However unpopular it may be and however much we may wish to soften its hard edges, the doctrine of hell is essential for faithful Christian witness. The belief that there is something worse than death is, to recall John Piper’s imagery, ballast for our ministry boats.

Look at these bizzare pics:

Things that are made from organic material age and decay, especially when they stop being alive. A piece of home-baked bread, say, left on your kitchen counter, will get moldy relatively fast. Lord knows what some ground beef would smell like after a week. But the artist Sally Davies has been photographing one McDonald’s hamburger and fries every day for 137 days. They look basically exactly the same.

I’m afraid, however, I detect two much less attractive reasons for the ease of my own intercessory prayers. One is that I am often, I believe, praying for others when I should be doing things for them. It’s so much easier to pray for a bore than to go and see him. And the other is like unto it. Suppose I pray that you may be given grace to withstand your besetting sin (short list of candidates for this post will be forwarded on demand). Well, all the work has to be done by God and you. If I pray against my own besetting sin there will be work for me. One sometimes fights shy of admitting an act to be a sin for this very reason.

—C. S. Lewis, Letters to Malcolm: Chiefly on Prayer (New York: Harcourt, 1992), 66.

The prayer preceding all prayers is “May it be the real I who speaks. May it be the real Thou that I speak to.”

—Ibid., 82.

From another source there has been great progress in comprehending certain parts of Scripture. From physical science we have learned. We know how the world was once aghast about certain statements of astronomy. We are not troubled now. No one imagines that the ordinary astronomy teaches what is contrary to the Bible. The same thing is largely true of geology. It is amusing to look back and see geologists arrayed to-day against much that geologists maintained in times past, and then to remember how certain superservicable apologists have busily reconciled these now exploded theories. The cloud is like a camel. Nay, it is like a whale. Yes, very like a whale. Now, similarly as to another matter. I believe in—something above evolution. I do not know how much to believe about it. I do not know what it is. I am working for evolution to (evolve) itself. Let us not be ever hasty to reconcile the Bible with the present theories of evolution.

—John A. Broadus, “The Paramount and Permanent Authority of the Bible,” Baptist Courier, 23 June 1887, 1. (HT: Gregory A. Wills, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1859-2009 [New York: Oxford University Press, 2009], 139.)

Most of all, perhaps, we need intimate knowledge of the past. Not that the past has any magic about it, but because we cannot study the future, and yet need something to set against the present, to remind us that the basic assumptions have been quite different in different periods and that much which seems certain to the uneducated is merely temporary fashion. A man who has lived in many places is not likely to be deceived by the local errors of his native village; the scholar has lived in many times and is therefore in some degree immune from the great cataract of nonsense that pours from the press and the microphone of his own age.

—C. S. Lewis, “Learning in War-Time,” in The Weight of Glory (New York: HarperCollins, 2001), 58-59.

Here, as Trevin would say, are seven links for your weekend reading:

—Mark Driscoll is interviewed in Neue magazine, addressing issues from sound doctrine to mammon-olatry to guy-ism. Driscoll says that he hopes, in being sanctified, “to be less shock-jock and more Jesus-centered.”

—Andy Naselli points to Edmund Clowney and Tim Keller’s lectures and course notes from when they co-taught, “Preaching Christ in a Postmodern World.”

—Justin Taylor posts an article adapted from the ESV Study Bible outlining the differences between Christianity and Mormonism.

—This made its way around the blogosphere, but in case you haven’t seen it: here’s Joshua Harris, Mark Driscoll, and Francis Chan on the topic, “What’s Next for Francis Chan?”

—The latest 9Marks eJournal is out. This month’s topic is the doctrine of hell.

—Here’s part 1, part 2, and part 2.5 of musician-theologian Andrew Peterson’s series on money. (Speaking of Andrew’s writing, I thought this piece on his recent visit with author Wendell Berry was quite moving.)

—Christopher Hitchens pens an essay on his take on people’s prayers following his cancer diagnosis. (HT: Doug Wilson, who concludes: “we need to double down.”)

Many books are recommended to “put in a church member’s hands,” but then perhaps few are. But David Platt’s, Radical is truly, really and truly, a book to put in a church member’s hands. Or anyone’s hands.

I thought about that book a few weeks ago, while at the gym with a friend. At 24, my friend was lifting weights for the first time, and he was eager to copy every move I made. It struck me how imperative it was that I teach him how to lift with good form. And I realized just how sloppy my own form, over time, had become.

There’s a sense in which, Platt argues, each of us, in Christ, is a teacher (Matt 28:18-20). Each of us is called to disciple. And that can be frightening, for teaching confronts us all with our own ineptitude and shortcoming. Teaching can make us realize just how sloppy our form, over time, has become.

And that’s one of the reasons we must teach, we must disciple:

This raises the bar in our own Christianity. In order to teach someone else how to pray, we need to know how to pray. In order to help someone else learn how to study the Bible, we need to be active in studying the Bible. But this is the beauty of making disciples. When we take responsibility for helping others grow in Christ, it automatically takes our own relationship with Christ to a new level. (Radical, pgs. 100-01)

Discipling other believers—to see them spend time with another person, not with another program—knocks us out of our comfort zone, and it helps us to crucify our own failures, to strengthen our weaknesses.

“The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat,” Jesus says, “so practice and observe whatever they tell you—but not what they do” (Matt 23:2-3). True discipleship, at its best, will move us beyond the inconsistencies and hypocrisies of the Pharisees.

Weeks later, my friend and I are still lifting together. His weight training form is getting better—and so, it turns out, is mine. Platt is right, of course: teaching others really does help us to raise the bar for ourselves. And if such is the case in the things of the gym, how much more in the things of Christ?

—Worship songs too vacuous for you? Jeremy Pierce posts, “Rant about Worship Songs.”

—Working too hard? Matt Perman tells us what, exactly, causes burnout.

—Enjoy politics? Tony Blair’s memoirs release today. (HT: Albert Mohler)

Change is afoot in the Southern Baptist Convention.

This past summer saw the adoption of the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force recommendations and the hiring of a new Executive Committee president. Yesterday the Convention’s North American Mission Board announced its presidential candidate. The International Mission Board is still searching for the man to replace its outgoing president, who is retiring.

But for all the change taking place in the present that will affect its future, the Southern Baptist Convention has quite a past.

Today I’ve asked three of the Convention’s brightest young historians—Nathan Finn, Joshua Powell, and Jason Duesing—to address issues such as the importance of studying the Convention’s history, the relationship between Southern Baptists and evangelicals, and the need to learn from the past for greater fidelity to Christ in the future.

About the contributors:

Nathan Finn serves as assistant professor of church history and Baptist studies at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. Nathan and his wife, Leah, have two children, and are currently expecting their third.

Joshua Powell is currently preparing to lead a new Baptist seminary and pastor training facility in southern India, and is in the writing phase of his doctoral dissertation at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Joshua and his wife, Allison, have three children.

Jason Duesing serves as Chief of Staff and Assistant Professor of Historical Theology at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. Jason and his wife, Kalee, have three children.

…

Robert Sagers: Who is one person from evangelicalism’s past who you think could provide wisdom for the way forward for Southern Baptists? Who is one person from the Convention’s past who you think could provide wisdom for the way forward for evangelicals?

Nathan Finn: One evangelical whom I think can help point the way forward for Southern Baptists is William Wilberforce, the famous British political leader. There is a discussion/debate right now among evangelicals, including many Southern Baptists, about the relationship between gospel proclamation and redemptive cultural engagement. While I mean no disrespect, it seems to me that many folks are talking past each other because of perceived fears about either “fundamentalism” on the one side or the “social gospel” on the other (however each is defined!). While there is no doubt there are extremes, and these must certainly be avoided, it seems to me that the answer to the question “Should we focus on evangelism and discipleship or engage in redemptive cultural engagement?” is “YES!” Wilberforce illustrates this balance with his wedding of a commitment to evangelism, missions, and general church health with gospel-inspired advocacy of the “reformation of manners” in British culture and vocal opposition to slavery.

A group of Baptists with whom I particularly resonate is a group of early 19^th century “First Church” pastors, many of whom died right before the formation of the SBC. These men were entrepreneurial leaders who were committed to orthodox doctrine, cooperation for the sake of missions and evangelism, and the need for sound theological education; these three priorities are the burdens of my heart. These brothers pastored evangelistic churches, founded state conventions and Baptist colleges, founded and/or edited Baptist papers, and longed for revival and spiritual awakening. Since I’m a native Georgian, Jesse Mercer is my personal favorite, though Richard Furman of South Carolina and Thomas Meredith of North Carolina also fit the profile.

Joshua Powell: I am reminded of an interview that I read in college from 1980. It was the last public interview of the late Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones. The person giving the interview was evangelical giant Carl F. H. Henry for Christianity Today. In the interview Dr. Henry asked Dr. Lloyd-Jones a question that pertained to summarizing his ministry of over 50 years, maybe a chance to leave his legacy in a statement. Lloyd-Jones answered pointedly, he would summarize all of his preaching ministry with the words, “Flee the wrath to come.” Again, Henry asked the question thinking that Lloyd-Jones did not understand it completely, only to have Lloyd-Jones reiterate, “Flee the wrath to come.” These words ring in my ear. We as Southern Baptists must always remember that this is the heart of our message. God’s wrath rests upon all who do not humbly submit to King Jesus, and our message must be proclaiming our King crucified as the only refuge for sinners. And we need to preach this urgently, for already the axe is laid at the root. We would be wise to follow the example of Dr. Lloyd-Jones in so many places, but here is one that I think is most important.

A person we could all learn from is an Indian Baptist pastor named Prassad. I have had the privilege of working with Prassad on many occasions. One of the several churches that Prassad pastors is located within a leper colony. The first Sunday I ever preached in India was at the church within this leper colony. Prassad was the pastor and my interpreter. As the service was starting I could not find him anywhere. I began to get worried. I finally looked out the door and saw him coming down the street. He was carrying upon his back a leprous man, a man who had lost his feet and hands. Prassad brought the man in and sat him down gently. He then walked to the front and stood beside me and said, “Now we are ready to preach.” This is a man who will never preach any Convention sermon, and has never even owned a suit (believe it or not). But he is a man of whom the world is not worthy, and we would all do well to know him, and those like him. The world needs humble servants who would look at any task, even washing lepers and caring for them, and say, “Jesus is Worthy.”

Jason Duesing: While I am not certain I can say exactly who Southern Baptists need to hear, I can mention a few of those who I, as a Southern Baptist and an evangelical, need frequently to hear.

First, I think William Tyndale provides immense wisdom and encouragement. Tyndale’s commitment to getting the Word of God into the language of the people, at whatever cost, challenges me to examine the level of faith in and priority I give to the Word of God. Does my life reflect what I say I believe about God’s Word? Do I regularly point people to God’s Word first or do I rely more on my collective wisdom and experience? Further, Tyndale was a man born ahead of his time. Had he arrived a few decades later after the arrival of the printing press and the mass distribution of printed materials, perhaps his life and the progress toward true Reformation in England would have been radically different. But Tyndale wasn’t born at the wrong time and neither are we. In eras of widespread darkness sometimes the brightest conduits of light are born.

Second, one little known person in modern Southern Baptist history whose story is not often told is Bill Wallace. A medical missionary with the then Foreign Mission Board, Wallace was used greatly in China in the decades prior to the “cultural revolution.” As the communist party advanced, Wallace was captured and murdered after years of faithful witness. The biography of his life recently republished, Bill Wallace of China, is one worth reading and has served to inspire many, Southern Baptist and non-Southern Baptist alike, to consider the call to take the gospel to those who have never heard.

RES: What is one historical moment or event from the Convention’s past that you think evangelicals would be wise to remember—both now and in the future? What is one historical moment or event from evangelicalism’s past that you think Southern Baptists would be wise to remember—both now and in the future?

NAF: Evangelicals need to pay close attention to the Conservative Resurgence. Many Southern Baptist denominational servants were tracking in several unhealthy directions: progressive theology, atheological pragmatic cooperation, affinity with mainline ecumenism, and a programmatic hubris. I sense some of these same tendencies among many evangelicals, though they sometimes manifest themselves differently than they did among Southern Baptists. A growing number of evangelicals are flirting with the same aberrant theological views that many pre-Resurgence Southern Baptists leaders embraced (problematic views of biblical inspiration and authority, soteriological inclusivism, egalitarianism, “mainline envy,” etc.). And these are in the conservative wing of the evangelical movement—many left-of-center evangelicals embraced these things during the same years Southern Baptists were in the throws of our Controversy (c. 1960-1990). Evangelicals need their own “Orthodoxy Resurgence,” though I couldn’t begin to suggest how that could happen in a loose-knit coalition of individuals, churches, and parachurch ministries.

Southern Baptists need to pay close attention to the post-World War II evangelicals who divided into Separatist Fundamentalists and New Evangelicals. From the 1940s until the 1960s, most folks in these two camps were in 90% agreement in doctrine, including total agreement on what I would consider foundational issues. But the fundamentalists incessantly anathematized the evangelicals over tertiary issues, and the evangelicals treated the fundamentalists like a bunch of embarrassing backwoods rubes. Both attitudes were unfortunate, and they helped push many post-1960 fundamentalists further right (KJV-Only, second-degree separation, etc.) and nudge many post-1960 evangelicals to the left (rejecting inerrancy, egalitarianism, etc.). I greatly fear the seeds of our own version of this type of division are already present in the post-Resurgence generation of Southern Baptists.

JP: An event from Southern Baptist past that evangelicals can learn from is the Whitsitt Controversy of the late 19th century. The heart of the controversy was over the control of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Whitsitt believed that the control should ultimately lay in the hands of the academics and not the people. After all, the academics were the ones qualified to run a school. But that was not the way the school was structured. The school belonged to the people of the Convention and was meant to serve them. Thankfully, Whitsitt lost this battle and the school remained in the hands of the people of the SBC. If Whitsitt would have won then the people would no longer have say over the control of the seminary, and quite possibly other entities would have followed suit. If that would have happened then there could not have been a Conservative Resurgence within our seminaries in the late 20th century. It was the people of the Convention that brought about the change within the Convention. Many other denominations in the 20th century simply split; there was no method of correcting the situation when doctrinal fidelity was lost. We should trust the power of God’s truth in the hands of God’s Spirit-filled people.

JGD: I will choose an overlooked Southern Baptist event—the 1987 SBC Conference on Biblical Inerrancy. Not to be confused with the earlier International Conference on Biblical Inerrancy that produced the “Chicago Statement,” rather, the 1987 Conference was a Southern Baptist event hosted by the denomination’s six seminaries in response to the findings of the two-year investigation of the elected Peace Committee. Taking place at the height of the conflict over inerrancy in the Convention, the conference was held in Ridgecrest, North Carolina and was attended by several leading theologians and representatives from both sides of the debate, including a few non-Southern Baptists such as J. I. Packer. The proceedings from the conference were published by Broadman Press and are very instructive both for the technical arguments made and as a historical reminder of just what was at stake as the Convention pursued its two-decade long course correction and “Reformation.” The exchange between Clark Pinnock and Paige Patterson alone is worth tracking down the volume for Patterson, once a student of Pinnock’s in the late 1960s, was placed in the position of debating the one who taught him all he knew about the craft of debate. One poignant quote that shows both the weight of the topic for the Convention in 1987, but also the height of the exchange between Patterson and Pinnock follows:

PATTERSON: Pinnock grieves over the state of disarray. But I probably grieve more than he. Not only must I grieve over the confusion, but also I must lament the plight of biblical inerrantists who endure discrimination, misrepresentation, and isolation. I must sorrow over the long history of denominational apostasy which rendered other Baptist federations impotent and now impinges upon our Southern Baptist Zion. I must bemoan the fate of millions of lost persons around the globe who remain oblivious to the message of Christ due to the inroads of universalism, liberation theology, and anemic evangelism which rests on a shifting foundation of historical-critical hypothesizing. Last of all I must grieve over my professor who has forsaken the prophetic pulpit of Luther for the indecisive desk of Erasmus and the certainty of Paul for the vacillation of the Athenians who must always “hear some new thing.” But Pinnock’s price for peace is too high. He would have us to support those who teach the exact opposite of what we hold to be sacred. He would have us stand at the judgment seat of Christ and try to explain to the enthroned Christ that in the interest of peace in the convention we supported either by silence or by resources those who say that His word errs. This we cannot and will not do! (93).

For a historical moment from evangelicalism, I would return to the basement of North Gate Hall in Oxford, England where a young J. I. Packer discovered a collection of old dusty books—some of which contained the writings of the Puritan theologian, John Owen. Packer’s literal “discovery” of the Puritans would start a movement that not only would bring great and good revived interest in these evangelical forebears, but also would help provide an anchor to the Word of God during the tumultuous 60s and 70s in the UK and abroad. One could argue, hypothetically of course, that had not Packer discovered that box of books, the tremendously influential and life altering works, Fundamentalism and the Word of God (1958) and Knowing God (1973), may never have appeared. While this would have been a tragedy for the UK alone, many Southern Baptists’ lives would be immensely different and perhaps the courage they found to stand for truth might have waned without Packer’s influence and significant works of theology for “travelers.”

RES: Why should younger Southern Baptists care about the history of the Southern Baptist Convention? Should non-Southern Baptists be interested in that history, as well?

NAF: Younger Southern Baptists should care about SBC history because it is their history—the good, the bad, and the ugly. This is true of church history in general. While being historically aware is certainly not a guarantee against heterodoxy or failure, the more we know about the past the better equipped we are to be faithful in our own context. Let me give two examples, one positive and one negative. On the positive end, Southern Baptists have always been firmly dedicated to cooperation for the sake of mission work at home and abroad. It would be a shame if the rising generation of Southern Baptists forfeited this enviable past. On the negative end, Southern Baptists have for most of our history had difficulty recognizing the difference between Christianity and Southern culture (and in the last 30 years, socially conservative American culture). It would be great if the rising generation of Southern Baptists were better at understanding what it means to be (to paraphrase Tullian Tchividjian) against the culture, for the sake of the culture.

Non-Southern Baptists should be at least somewhat interested in our history because it is part of church history. And there are likely some aspects of our history with which they should be more familiar than others (e.g., the Conservative Resurgence). But I don’t think they should have to be experts on our history, just as I don’t think Southern Baptists have to be experts on the history of other traditions. I think it’s enough for the average non-Southern Baptist to be familiar with the main contours, key figures, and most important events.

JP: The response of many when confronted with their own identity is to critique and abandon, or at least strongly consider it. The grass always seems greener. But, that response is almost always a short sighted knee jerk. While of course there are many things that we would love to change about our identity, both perceived and real, the truth is we have the root of the matter at heart. We have the gospel. Maybe some prevailing methodologies leave a lot to be desired, but no one can say that we do not have the gospel at heart. So don’t leave, with the gospel comes hope. The movements over the last year have been a testimony to that truth. I am a third generation Southern Baptist minister and I will no longer be a part of the SBC the day they turn from the gospel, but at that point I would not have left them, they would have left me.

JGD: Younger Southern Baptists should care about the history of the SBC because whether they grew up in Southern Baptist churches  or were adopted into them later in life, it is their history. As I sometimes mention in the Baptist History course I teach, there are many denominational ships that are seaworthy and are headed in the same direction, thankfully, in the Christian world. The SBC ship is the one, by God’s providence, upon which I have been placed. Sure, decks 3, 8, and 12 are taking on water and there are regular sections in need of constant repair, but God’s faithfulness has worked miracles on this ship and while it is no better than the others, it is where I have been placed. So, if placed there, then one should be a good steward and work to appreciate and value all he has been given in order to help the ship sail straight and with greater faithfulness and fruitfulness. We sail not alone and we would not sail if it had not been for the many who had sailed the ship before—some at great cost.

Non-Southern Baptists might have interest in this, to follow my analogy above, if they are also seeking to sail toward the same end of glorifying the one true God by spreading the news of His great name and great work through His Son to the ends of the earth through the witness of local churches until He returns.

RES: How can the study of the past fuel doctrinal and practical fidelity in the present, and in the future?

NAF: Understanding church history in general, and Baptist history in particular for our context, is critical for contemporary gospel faithfulness. For example, there is no excuse for contemporary Southern Baptists or other evangelicals to “waffle” on doctrinal faithfulness in some attempt to try and reinvent the theological wheel. In my mind, the 4^th and 5^th century ecumenical councils did a pretty good job articulating the biblical doctrines of the Trinity and Christology; the 16^th century Protestant reformers did a pretty good job of articulating the biblical doctrines of sin and atonement; the 17^th century Baptists did a pretty good job of articulating biblical ecclesiology; and the 19^th century evangelicals did a pretty good job of articulating a biblical view of scriptural inspiration and authority (among loads of other examples). In these cases, our own articulations should strive for complementary contextualization of what others have done, not competitive reinventions for the sake of theological cleverness, intellectual creativity, or the accolades of mainstream scholars. The same principle applies as much to methodology as theology. The old G. I. Joe cartoons of the 1980s were right: “knowing is half the battle.” History is not infallible, but it is our friend.

JP: As my favorite professor, Dr. Gregory Wills, has often pointed out: Our history is both full of beauty and scars. May the scars be a reminder of the errors that we have made. We learn from them, and we grow. The beauty is when those scars are healed through fidelity to the truth of God’s Word. Where we have been faithful let us continue, where we have been unfaithful let the Word wound and heal.

JGD: I believe there are many ways the study of the past can fuel fidelity, but to choose one—and perhaps the most significant in my view—I believe the past, if studied correctly, should have an immense effect on the life of the one studying. Studying the history of God’s work through sinful people to exalt His name through the transformation of the lives of individuals is one of the best ways I know for cultivating deep, lasting, and sometimes even painful humility in one’s life. When the study of the past has this kind of effect one is made more like Christ, longs for the things of God, and is pointed toward His Word—such things like doctrinal and practical fidelity will then naturally take care of themselves!