Word ministry - on clarity and failure

Two recent posts from The Gospel Coalition that are particularly relevant to Word ministry.

Andrew Lisi: I believe the great task of any Christian – from early believer to seasoned theologian or pastor – is to take the unique language of Scripture and theology and make it accessible to those who have not been exposed to any of it without losing the essence of what God is communicating in His Word. I am constantly learning how difficult of a task it really is, especially because I also believe we must retain the clear language of the Bible.

David Murray: And we take all our failures to our unfailing Lord for His full and free forgiveness. We take our failed evangelism, our failed sermons, our failed pastoral visits, and our failed counseling to the Lord, and pour out our hearts to Him: "Lord, I’ve messed up another sermon...I’ve forgotten to visit that needy soul…I was too scared to speak about you to my fellow-passenger...I’ve misjudged the mood of my elders...I’ve unnecessarily offended that family who left...I was insensitive in counseling...I’m paying for breaking a confidence..."

But as we confess our failures, we experience the Lord’s unchanging and unconditional love. And we re-emerge...humbler and weaker, but wiser and happier too.

As always, both posts worth reading in its entirety.

Resurrection: not just an afterthought

I wrote the following for publication elsewhere. For those wanting to explore further, I'm sure Sam Allberry's Lifted would be a reliable guide, although I haven't as yet read it.
-----

“[After] All that stuff about science and physics, and the complications of physics and things, what it really comes down to is the resurrection of Jesus...It’s so petty, it’s so trivial, it’s so local, it’s so earth-bound, it’s so unworthy of the universe.”

So says noted atheist scientist, Richard Dawkins, in a debate. And though we no doubt deeply disagree with him, we sometimes find it harder to explain why, exactly, it's so important. If all our debt has been paid on the cross, why the resurrection? Here, very very briefly, is a non-exhaustive list why resurrection is key.

Firstly, resurrection tells us that the Davidic King is now ruling. King David prophesied that the Messiah would be enthroned when God raised him from the dead (Psalm 110:1, Acts 2:34-35). Here is a King whose reign is all-encompassing and all-conquering. The empty tomb of Jesus testifies to the fact that He is that King! No wonder the disciples were transformed! God raised him, they saw him, they lived for him.

Secondly, resurrection tells us that new life really is found in Christ. Negatively speaking, “if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.” (1 Cor. 15:7). We know that sin leads to death. Jesus, in dying on the cross, has taken our punishment upon himself. But in rising again, he demonstrates that the cross has done its work. Sin is completely dealt with! We know we are truly justified (Rom 4:25), and death is no longer the end. We can rest, wholly assured.

Thirdly, resurrection tells us that we presently have new power. In Colossians 3:1, Paul can say of Christians, “you have been raised with Christ” (past tense). In one sense, we have been resurrected already. The Holy Spirit who raised Jesus from the dead (Rom. 8:9-11) is the same Spirit who dwells in all believers. Resurrection gives us a glimpse of life in the future. But that future resurrection life begins to bear fruit in us today as we walk God's way.

Fourthly, resurrection tells us that a new creation is coming. Peter praises God for his great mercy in granting Christians “a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.” (1 Peter 1:3). Jesus' resurrection will not be the last. His resurrection, instead, guarantees that it will be the first of the many who trust in him (1 Cor. 15:20-21). And through the resurrection of God's children, all of creation groans in hope too, as it awaits complete renewal (Rom. 8:18-23). Far from abandoning the earth, God will one day reshape it.

Resurrection, unworthy of the universe? On the contrary, the universe is unworthy of such a momentous event. Christ is risen, hallelujah!

A Crescendo of Wonder: a Good Friday sermon

The events of Good Friday are utterly breath-taking. We celebrate nothing less than this: "that God was pleased to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, by making peace through the blood of his cross" (Col. 1:20).

We are talking here about something that happens at the very foundations of the universe. Call it cosmic redemption, ontological healing, metaphysical reconciliation, the Bible's version of Star Wars, or whatever helps you think about the largest, most ultimate reality, the "Really Real," capital R, capital R.

And it is all accomplished through what seems like a paradox. "Making peace through the blood of his cross" is like saying that a nuclear missile has become an olive-branch, that Guantanamo has become a garden of healing, that a sword has been turned into a plowshare, that a tank has been turned into a tractor. The very thought of it leaves us weak in the knees with astonishment.

Keep reading...

Why Theology Matters

DugDownDeep_Carnahan.mov from Covenant Life Church on Vimeo.

Fantastic video about why theology matters for all of us. Originally for Joshua Harris' Dug Down Deep.

Christianity Today has done some very good cover stories lately, and their latest one, The Mind Under Grace is very much worth reading. It's about how doctrine and life come together. A sample:

...we have to ask: Is it possible to live out discipleship without a good measure of heady doctrine? I see doctrine not as a boundary but as a compass. Its purpose is not to make Christians relevant or distinctive but rather to make them faithful in their contexts. Doctrine is a way of articulating what God's presence in the church and the world looks like. It can orient us by helping us, like Jon, major in the majors...

...Doctrine, while static at times, is meant to help us think about our lives more deeply by considering alongside other Christians the implications of our thoughts and deeds. Doctrine is wisdom that helps us clarify our mission.

Sarah Pulliam Bailey's side story Practically Theological investigates how teaching doctrine is making a comeback among younger evangelicals. My own experience in the UK, as well as in KL, where I have been doing some teaching, corresponds to this. And that is good news.

As a side point, a few others and I have been reading a little of J. Greshem Machen's 1923 book Christianity and Liberalism, and he makes some great points of doctrine and life. That is, they should be in tandem, not in opposition, to each other.

The Quid Pro Quo God

A couple of recent conversations suggest how hard it is to exorcize the quid pro quo god. Quid pro quo is a Latin phrase meaning "something for something." The quid pro quo god is one who does something for us if we do something for him, and the one who refuses to do something for us, or even punishes us, if we fail to do something for him.

Put this way, it seems impossible that anyone in their right mind would believe in such a god. The rub, of course, is that none of us are in our right mind—that's one of the effects of sin. And one reason we're attracted to the quid pro quo god is that he's a god we can get our minds around. He makes sense. He seems reasonable and fair: We do our part, he does his, and all will be well.

The problem is our part, which we tend not to do well at all. And when repeated efforts at doing our part fail, we discover that the quid pro quo god turns out to be a demon. Naturally, we try to exorcise this demon without success.

Read the whole thing.

Dug Down Deep

A friend of mine, enthusing over a speaker at a meeting recently, said something along these lines to me: "Theology is good and all, but this guy got powerlah!" (In other words, this guy had great rhetoric). I, unfortunately, couldn't think of what to say in response during that time. But it showed something that seems embedded in the thinking of many Christians here, that somehow doctrine and experience are to be separated. We wouldn't go so far as to say doctrine doesn't matter, but it's the other stuff that really gets us pumping as Christians. Which dismays me, because the opposite is true. What we really believe really does matter, because it drives all other areas of our life. There's a reason Scripture exhorts us to watch our doctrine closely. In fact, I would say the aforementioned speaker was the least powerful where his theology was weakest.

Which is why I'm pleased to hear of Josh Harris' latest book, Dug Down Deep, and why I'm choosing to feature the book here. This is a book about doctrine, told through the lens of Josh's personal experience. Josh speaks of his hopes for the book: "I hope the book will be accessible to people who might not normally read theological books. That includes Christians who are turned-off by doctrinally faithful but arrogant believers as well as people who are skeptical of the usefulness of Christian doctrine. I also hope that it will be given to friends outside the faith who have never really understood basic Christian beliefs."

Furthermore, Josh Harris, because he is known as the guy who wrote that dating book, reaches a wider constituency than other Christian writers who fall in his camp. His style is also deliberately very simple, which I think is a plus. We need Josh Harrises alongside the Don Carsons.

I've come to realise that because Malaysians don't read in general, so just recommending or giving a good Christian book isn't a very good strategy to help each other mature in Christ, the goal of every Christian. It either doesn't get read or just read superficially. But the reading of good Christian books can still be useful in the larger context of a relationship, of ongoing teaching and discipling. And I hope that Dug Down Deep might still prove useful in this regard.

Challies and DashHouse have fuller reviews if you want to know more about the book. You can find out more about the book and preview Chapter 1 here.

A pastoral question on a beatitude

I'm leading a Bible study for teenagers tomorrow on the beatitudes - general intro, and then homing in on the first 2 (v.3-4). And I was wondering if someone can help me out pastorally.

In v.4, we have Jesus saying: "Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted." In context, it appears as if this isn't just general grief for a sad or tragic event in one's life, but more specifically, a mourning over sin. (Very briefly, I take this line because the Sermon on the Mount is about kingdom living, and the way of the kingdom is the way of repentance. I haven't consulted any commentaries as I don't have one at hand, but I'm pretty sure the standard ones take this view and back it up). However, mourning over sin specifically doesn't necessarily preclude the former, since we grieve not only over our own sin, but sin in a fallen world, which affects every part of creation: hence the existence of natural evil, tragedies and so on. We mourn at the way sin twists and distorts our lives, both in the personal corruption of each of our own selves, and in the disruption of shalom, how things are not the way they ought to be. We find comfort in the gospel, that we are saved from the penalty of sin, and that one day sin will be completely gone.

I'm mindful that at least one girl in my group lost her dad in a tragic accident a few years back, and so such a verse will no doubt be a balm. I think at least another girl is from a single parent family, and who knows what lurks in the background of others in my group. So I want to be sensitive. But I do want them to see that Jesus is talking about mourning over sin in particular. So, any idea how to approach it? Useful phrases or remarks? Stuff that is simple but not simplistic? Any help much appreciated! I've got another 24 hours to think about it...

Observations on being home

If you haven't figured it out yet, I am still in Malaysia, and have been for the last 6 weeks or so. The process of resolving whether I can get a new visa is still frustratingly slow. It's certainly nice to be back home, but once you've started getting used to having your favourite foods available again, being in limbo does wear on you. People have been very nice and have tried to be encouraging; more than one person has said to me: "You've been working too hard, so you should enjoy the holiday!" There's also no doubt that God has brought me back for good reasons, some of which I can guess at, others I might not know. But I am raring to head back. Anyway, here's a bunch of stuff I've been picking up.

Reverse culture shock #1. After being in an egalitarian society where 70 year olds expect me to call them Mike, not Mr. Jones, and to discuss things on a peer-to-peer level, I'm finding myself a little confused about what is and what isn't appropriate to talk about with those older than me. I think it doesn't help that there're degrees of differentiation too! My family would be a bit more traditional and there's more of a hierarchical mindset, whereas my church is relatively speaking, much more relaxed. I suspect I'm erring excessively on the polite side.

Reverse culture shock #2. So when an uncle (in Malaysia, anyone who is reasonably older than you is often addressed as such, not just family. No responsibility is taken if you misjudge somebody's age!) offered me coffee, I said immediately: "Yes, please!" After watching his body language thereafter, I realised then that I should have played the "No No" game, making some tentative refusals before accepting his offer. Ergh.

Reverse culture shock #3. Most of the literature dealing with this subject note that symptoms often include

Difficulties explaining coherently your time and experiences abroad. Those who listen don't have the frame of reference or travel background to understand.

Reverse 'home' sickness. Feelings of being lost and lonely.

The relationships at home have changed. The returnees as well as those who stayed at home have altered.
I think I've experienced bits of this, and it's reminded me that when I finally come back home long-term, whenever that might be, I would have to deal with this.

Theory and praxis. I think it was the veteran missionary Martin Goldsmith, who used to pastor a church in Malaysia, who said: "Asian (or was it Malaysian?) Christians are short on theology, long on ethics." By that he meant that Asians tend to dislike theoretical musings for its own sake, but want to see its connection to daily life, the "real world" if you like. Otherwise it would just be dismissed as irrelevant. This has positives and negatives. Positively, it immediately lends Christian reflection a pastoral and missional orientation. Theory and practice must not be separated. Negatively, this often leads to pragmatism, whatever works. They just want to know "what to do", and to think too deeply is "unspiritual". I bring this up because I am sensing this a little.

Bible study. I was also thinking about how our Bible studies work. In Asian Bible studies, it is common for people to immediately think about their own experiences and contexts and to share them as they go through a passage. I was previously very critical of this, and I think there is good reason to be. There's always the danger of reading our own experiences into the text and seeing things which aren't actually there. Tangents also often lead the group to chasing red herrings and completely missing the main point.

But I now think I've allowed myself to be over-critical. Rightly done, I see that there is a lot of value in just naturally intertwining our understanding on the passage with reflections on our lives. I've been observing my home fellowship group and though we don't always get it right (and to be fair, who does?), I thought that for the most part, whenever somebody shares or offers a reflection, it's been tied to the text and not just some random whimsy to offer a thought for the day. It's just their way in which they allow the Bible to bear on our lives. In fact, it's challenged me because I probably don't let God's word really peer as deep into my soul as it should. I suppose the cultural anthropologists might argue that this is because "Western" thinking is more linear and "Eastern" thinking is more circular. So while the principles remain the same: we need to know what the Bible says and means before we can apply it to our lives, there is a variety of models, and I know I can't lead a Bible study here exactly the same way as I would in the UK.

Social networking. Media commentators have picked up on this (eg: here, here, and here), but seeing it for myself was quite different. I was quite stunned by the virtual connectedness of the teenagers in my youth group. The amount of photos taken and placed on Facebook was quite something. Again, social commentators have noticed that we are once more heading into a world where the boundaries between the public and private spheres are blurred, as it was in a pre-industrialised age. But it's still jarring to see photos of myself that I didn't even know were being taken suddenly appear on the Net!

Spiritual warfare. I wasn't home for that long before I heard of a case of demon possession. Growing up, of course, it's not that rare to hear such stories, but it reminded me once again that it's certainly one area to think about for anyone wanting to do ministry in Malaysia. What you don't want is to capitulate to the latest faddish teaching on the one hand or to ignore the spiritual realm on the other.

Wrestling in prayer. I think I identify a little more with the psalmist now. "Lord, please help me to trust you. I know you are sovereign over all, I know that you are good, and that your plans are best, so whatever the outcome is, help me to accept it. [clenches teeth] Lord, help me not to be so half-hearted in what I just said. It's going to be hard if you don't allow me to go back, but help me to grow in my trust. But God, I do believe you are a generous Father, and that Christianity ain't fatalism. My prayers do count for something, don't they? So do the prayers of others? So I pray you'd allow me to head back - I don't see how that's a bad thing. [Pause] I mean, Lord, I'm not actually presuming to tell you what's best for me, oh no, not at all. But it's a fair request? [Pause] Ummm, but I know you're more concerned about me being more like Jesus, more concerned about being more like what you've made me to be than where I am. Consider it all joy and all that. So ummm, help me trust you again no matter what. [Deep breath] But...pretty please?" It's ping-pong prayer, back and forth, back and forth.

Sin. You'd like to think that you've grown stronger, and then you come into a stressful situation and learn that your sinful patterns are more entrenched than you realise. Thank God for his grace.



† Expand post

Marriage

I read with interest a provocative article that recently appeared in Christianity Today: The Case for Early Marriage. The author, Mark Regnerus, notes that current sexual/marital trends in the evangelical subculture, namely pledges of chastity and the like, have had minimal impact on our sexual behaviour. In America at least, we aren't that different from the world. He goes on to argue that this is primarily due to a deficient, even unbiblical, view of marriage. For all our defence of traditional marriage, we have simply come to view marriage as "a central source of human contentment" and "romantic love [as] the key gauge of its health". Thus, marriage has been transformed into an ideal. Result? Unsurprisingly, many young adults are now much more wary of entering something so 'big'. The message they hear is: get yourselves and your lives sorted out first. And so marriage, and sex, is put on hold. But, sex is hard to put on hold, hence our disappointingly worldly behaviour. There is also a demographic dimension: simply put, there are more women than men in church. And judging from conversations I've had, this seems to be true just about everywhere - East and West.

This, Regnerus argues, tends to exacerbate rather than solve the problem. He anticipates and answers objections such as economic insecurity, immaturity and so on. Marriage is, first and foremost, a covenant, where we learn what self-sacrifical love and commitment really looks like. "Chemistry wanes. Covenants don't". Marriage is not some ready-made perfect union where you will enjoy bliss upon exchanging rings, but a place where both partners will continue to be formed in character. In conclusion, young Christian couples who are maturing in their faith should be encouraged towards marriage.

Does a right, biblical view of marriage necessarily incline one towards early marriage? Maybe, maybe not. Certainly in my church circles, I would say people get married earlier than average, and that some definitely encourage this.

But whatever you think, Regnerus is absolutely right to point out that all too often, our views of marriage are misshappened. I know I want to claim that Hollywood and novels and pop music have not affected me one iota. Considering I just went "awww" this morning at this Sleepless in Seattle story while chomping on some bacon, I'll say my claim doesn't exactly rest on solid foundations.

Historically, Christians have given three answers to the purpose of marriage, as I only found out recently. There are
1. procreation
2. intimacy
3. societal order
with Roman Catholics typically majoring on the first and Protestants the second, and no one really wanting to champion the third! All three can be biblically supported. So although romance and chemistry has been downplayed somewhat in this post, they're clearly a gift that God blesses his world with, and married couples should not be ashamed to delight in it.

But all of this needs to be understood within a covenantal framework. That is, marriages are not in service to us, but in service to God. Marriages are not just about what goes on in the bedroom, but how they function as a social and family unit. Christopher Ash, who has thought about this subject deeply, shows this from a sensitive and compelling reading of Genesis 1 and 2*. I take it Regnerus agrees with him.

To be honest, I haven't thought about the whole "what is the nature of marriage" question at any length before, and the only reason I've dwelt on it more recently was due to one or two pastoral situations that arose this past year. (Isn't that usually the case?) It's very counter-cultural to my own thinking.

I'm still not completely sure if that mandates early marriage. I remember at a conference early this year, there was a "you should definitely be thinking about marriage" line handed down to all of us (who were mostly in early to mid-20s). But in many cases, most people were already seeking to get married. The question then becomes, are you being too fussy? Well, maybe. But maybe not. I don't think that it was necessarily wrong to encourage marriage. That is, to engender courage in people that getting married isn't a bad thing and you can trust God! But perhaps a parallel emphasis that singleness is also a gift from God was needed.

But I'm starting to get somewhat off-track. Anyway, an important subject to think about.

*Christopher Ash has written both a weighty theological tome on the subject, simply entitled Marriage, and a book for laypeople, Married for God. I've only read the latter. He has also written an excellent summary article for the Christ on Campus Initiative.



† Expand post

Keller on substitutionary love at the LMC

I was at the London Men's Convention yesterday, my second time, but first as a mere conference-goer. I really enjoyed my first time two years ago, where I served as a steward at the Royal Albert Hall. So upon seeing the theme this year was basically "Jesus" (what can be more crucial than that?), and that the main speakers included Tim Keller and Mike Cain (author of this winsome book), I was ready to make another trip! And of course, getting to use it to spend a day with the brother is great too. :)

Thank God for Tim Keller and the gifts he's given him. The danger for many evangelicals, of course, is that we have our own celebrity culture, where we put too many individuals on a pedestal. So, deep breath, remind myself: Tim Keller is a sinner saved by the grace of God. Tim Keller needs a Saviour, and he is dependent on the Holy Spirit. With that in mind...anyone who has followed this blog long enough will know that I'm a bit of a fan, and his talks yesterday, on the cross and resurrection respectively, were just superb. He's a no-frills preacher, laidback, no gimmicks, faithful. But he is so insightful, both in his reading of the biblical text, and of the world we live in. When he preaches, he makes truth fresh, obvious, and it gets at your heart.

I was going to blog my notes from the first talk here, but sadly, I left my notes at a friend's place, so I don't have them at hand. But hurray, a quick search turned up someone else's (well-written) blogged notes! Like me, and I suspect, just about everyone in the hall, it was Keller's point on love as substitution which he found most arresting. So I'm just going to point you to his notes.

A preview:
Keller identifies three substitutionary motifs in John’s account of the death of Jesus:

• Jesus as the Passover Lamb: shown by the specific reference to "hyssop" in v.29 (see Exodus 12:22) and the fact that Jesus’ bones remain unbroken.
  
• Jesus as the Rock: Dr Keller linked John’s description of "blood and water" pouring from Jesus’ pierced side to Paul’s puzzling statement in 1 Corinthians 10:4: "the rock was Christ". Paul is referring to the incident in Exodus 17, where the Israelites "quarrelled and tested the Lord" in the desert. Instead of Moses’ rod (a symbol of judgment and authority) striking the Israelites for their disobedience, it came down on the rock, which thus produced the water the people needed. In the same way, God’s judgment against sin struck Jesus rather than us.
  
• Jesus as the Ransom: his cry of "It is finished!" has connotations of "The debt is paid!"
  

Read the rest here and here.

In response, what can we say but thank you so much, Lord Jesus, please help me to live for you in light of what you've done?

Back...with reviews of 2 books on 2 movements

Thoroughly enjoyed going on a week-long student retreat, and then doing some children's work at my church family weekend away, but it's taken a lot out of me! So am still recovering...

But I thought I'll break my blog silence with a couple of quick, brief book reviews.

Post-charismatic? by Rob McAlpine

This is not a book for non-charismatics. Nor is this a book for ex-charismatics, despite the title. Those who fall into those categories can and will benefit from reading this. But ultimately, this is an insider's book. It is for those who wish to remain charismatic but are weary of being characterised as charismaniacs. It is for those who want to aim a flaming arrow at the next bigwig who pronounces imminent revival for our nation, or who want to force a dollop of petrol down the throat of the next releaser of "the anointing". And it is for those who don't want to be forced to retreat to a position of long-range sniping, nothing more.

I've been pretty interested in the history of charismaticism ever since I read Nigel Scotland's Charismatics and the New Millennium, especially as I find setting the charismatic movement in its historical context lend much needed perspective often lost in the heat of the next prophetic moment. That book, written by an Anglican charismatic, focused on the British side of things in particular. But I discovered that most books tended to focus on the health-and-wealth side of things or deal with second-blessing theology, which frustrated me. There wasn't much stuff that dealt with the apostolic and prophetic movement side of things (although there are a few biblical studies on prophecy, such as those by Wayne Grudem and Jack Deere), which seemed to me to be the kind of stuff that dominates Malaysian charismaticism. From what I know, there were quite a few books in the 80s critiquing this when it was especially promienent in America, and one or two more recent ones dealing specifically with the Toronto Blessing, but most of them are out of print and hard to get.

So I was quite pleased to discover Robbie McAlpine's material on the internet, but I didn't get much of a chance to plough through as he had secured a publishing contract and had to take it down. So I thought, I'll wait for the book! And here it is.

McAlpine works with YWAM, an organisation that I have personally found both a blessing and a source of exasperation. He wants to tackle charismatic disillusionment by tracing the origins of a lot of charismatic theology, and in doing so provide relief for those who have been wounded by charismatic hype and excess. He covers three areas, of which the first was of most interest to me. The other two are health-and-wealth, and the shepherding movement. The first, however, is the Latter Rain movement. Although the term Latter Rain will probably not be familiar to many, but a lot of today's underlying theology and terminology ("Overcomers", "Joshua/David Generation" etc.) originate here. McAlpine looks at the teachings of William Branham and George Warnock in particular.

But he also attempts to offer a constructive way forward, and so the last third of his book is an attempt to provide guidance on biblical spiritual formation, on doing community, on right expressions of authority, while remaining sensitive to the leading of the Holy Spirit. You could say he leans in an "emerging" direction. Although I wouldn't myself put such a label on him.

McAlpine mostly achieves what he sets out to do, and that's a good thing, considering there aren't many books like his out there. There are a few things I could nitpick. He's actually quite hard on cessationists, which is a bit of a pity considering he is actually extremely gracious throughout the book (He's just as good at picking apart the critics of the charismatic movement!). He clearly didn't want to land firmly on the side of either the Calvinists or the Arminians, which meant that he indulged in a few generalisations which would not please either side. He assumes a bit of knowledge on the part of his audience, as I said at the beginning of this review, those who have never been part of the charismatic movement might be confused by some of his descriptions. And I wish he had done more in explicitly showing the reader how looking at the historical roots of the movement bear out today. Once or twice I was asking, "Yes, I see how that worked in the past, but how does heretical doctrine X/detour Y/etc. show up in the contemporary charismatic movement?"

But this is a much needed book, and I hope the Holy Spirit will use it to truly heal many.

Alternative review.

Don't Stop Believing by Michael Wittmer

So the emerging/ent movement has been around for a while now, and so has its critics. There was D.A Carson and his Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church, which probably didn't achieve anything but tons of hate mail for poor Don. There was R. Scott Smith's Truth and the New Kind of Christian, which was decent (Tony Jones was happy to commend it) but too narrowly focused on philosophy and was always going to be unlikely to achieve any kind of mass appeal. There was John MacArthur's The Truth War, which, judging from some reviews I read, was abysmal.

Now you'll expect my next sentence to be either "and yet another critique of Emergent that misses the mark" or "at last! A worthy critique!". Well, to be honest, I feel like I'm being unfair to the book by framing it as a critique of the emerging church. It certainly is that, but I think it better to consider this as a more positive book that seeks to remind us that Christianity is both about right belief and right living. Mind, heart and hands, as it were.

Mike Wittmer has already written a superb book on living Christianly in every sphere of life (Heaven is a Place on Earth), so I was quite excited to see he was coming out with this book. What he does in this book is to tackle a series of questions which bring out the differences between traditional evangelicals and emergentish types. For example, must we believe something to be saved? Can you belong before you believe? Is it possible to know anything? In each case he shows the position of conservative evangelicals and "postmodern innovators" (his term), the pros and cons of both positions, and then a third way forward (or biblical, but then every Christian writer must claim that his position is biblical!).

And I think generally, he succeeds. Some chapters are particularly strong. His final three on whether we can know anything, whether the Bible is really God's word, and his concluding thoughts were spot-on, I thought. Wittmer has probably provided the most accessible explanation of Reformed epistemology! As was the chapter on the cross and how both penal substitution and Christus Victor are complementary. His endnotes - yes, I'm a geek, I read endnotes - show that he has definitely read widely in the emerging literature, another big plus.

There were other chapters where I thought he could have said more, and certainly a few where, while I agree with his conclusions and have no objections to his approach, I would have taken a different route, I think. I think I occasionally wanted more discussion of specific biblical texts, but that's just me. I think the one quibble I had was terminology. Are "conservatives" and "postmodern innovators" really the best phrases to use? I'm just afraid that some people who would otherwise be receptive to this book might be turned off by what they might perceive to be caricatures.

That would be a real pity, because this book has real value. I've only had a brief look at another book, Why We're Not Emergent, by Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck, which seems to cover much of the same ground but is a bit more focused as a critique of Emergent. Don't Stop Believing is more of a book for fence-sitters, I think. It would be especially good for those who are ready to plunge in headlong into emerging stuff undiscerningly. It would also be great for those put off by fundamentalist/conservative style churches but aren't ready to go off in a completely new direction just yet. But as I indicated earlier, it need not only be for those who are acquainted with the emerging movement. I think us younger evangelicals would be helped as this book helps provide a few safeguards from going completely off-track in our zeal.

So, don't stop believing!

Alternative review.

N.B I use emergent/emerging interchangeably in the review, but I am referring more to the strain represented by the likes of Brian McLaren and Tony Jones, rather than to the wider emerging church, which in any case, has now largely abandoned the term and preferred "missional" instead.


P/S So much for being brief!

† Expand post

Boxes

From Epilogue TV

Zac Trust training day

Was at a Zacharias Trust training day on Saturday, which I really enjoyed. Especially when I don't have to pay for it! :) I got sponsored by my church. All four speakers were brilliant communicators, albeit with different styles.

In the morning, we had Alister McGrath and John Lennox on engaging the new atheism. It's the first time I've heard Prof. McGrath in person, and he's an exceptional speaker. His lecture covered what was familiar ground for me, as he exposed the fallacy of assuming that science was incompatible with faith. (I know I often warn against the cult of Christian celebrity, but I was sorely tempted to go and get my McGrath book for him to autograph!) John Lennox then tackled the ethical dimension of the new atheism, concluding that the new atheism had no basis in which to ground its morality.

But it was probably Michael Ramsden's talk that was the most interesting I've heard in ages. He surprised me, and I suspect, virtually all the audience by essentially giving us an economics lecture in the first half of his talk, as he sought to explain, as simply as he could, the nuts and bolts of the credit crunch. His basic point was that the current financial system as it stands is ultimately based on trust, which is a subset of morality. And he then went on to speak, ultimately, the gospel into the situation, and that what we need is more than an economic solution, we need to repent and believe! I'm oversimplifying massively here, and I don't think I've even begun to convey how electrifying the talk was.

We ended the day with a man of much wisdom and experience, the imitable Michael Green, who spoke on the confidence we can have in the gospel of Jesus. After being dazzled somewhat by rhetorical fireworks throughout the day, it was great to be reminded, once again, of what the gospel was. Michael Green expounded the gospel, seeking once again to open our eyes afresh, and proceeded briefly to offer some evidence we can be sure Jesus rose from the dead, and that the Scriptures we possess are reliable. A good way to end, especially since none of us will ever have brains as big as Ramsden and gang. But it is the gospel that forms the bedrock of our confidence, not the intellect of some big names.

Apologetics no longer floats my boat the way it once did, but I was reminded that the body of Christ is made of many parts, all of them indispensable, and so we must pay tribute to Christian apologetics for the service it renders to the glory of God.

Raising the next generation

The latest 9Marks ejournal has some interesting stuff on raising the next generation of pastoral workers as the church's job, including a very stimulating interview with Mark Dever. One excerpt:

9M: When you talk about the importance of a church having a 360 degree view of person's life, you are relying on a certain philosophy of ministry. What assumptions are you making about how ministry and Christian growth work? Why not just train me in Greek and homiletics and put me behind a pulpit, like a seminary can do?

Dever: That's a great question. I'm assuming that ministry is more than simple proclamation. Simple proclamation is essential to ministry—it's a non-negotiable. But then that proclamation takes place in the context of a community of people who know each other. They're geographically in the same place; they assemble regularly together; and, as a consequence, they know each other.
There seems to be the presumption in the New Testament of pastoral authority accompanying pastoral relationships, as in Hebrews 13, where the members are told to consider the lives of the leaders (in verse 7) before they are told to obey those leaders (in verse 17).

The importance of knowing one another also fits with what we hear the Lord say in John 13 about our witness: that the world will know we are his disciples by the love we have for one another.
I in no way want to denigrate the centrality of preaching the word. But if we just preach the Word without having this relational web or context for ministry, which is the local church, then we don't know how to do membership, how to do discipline, how to disciple; we're not going to be a very good witness either (or if we are, it's accidental)...

Read the whole thing.

The other interesting section was the profiles of various church-affiliated training programmes, and particularly the one on Ministry Training Course (MTS) in Australia, as that's the one which provided the template for church apprenticeships here in the UK. A few of their reflections on the benefits of these apprenticeships:

Apprentices learn to integrate Word, life and ministry practice.

Apprentices are tested in character.

Apprentices learn that ministry is about people, not programs...They learn that ministry is about prayerfully proclaiming Christ to people, not administrating endless programs.

...Another problem with the academic training model is that it suits certain personalities. But our best evangelists and church planters might be those who struggle to learn in the passive context of the classroom. These people thrive in a context where they were talking and preaching and building ministries and being tutored along the way. In academia they would be deemed failures.

And on seminaries:

"...An apprentice model has the advantage of on-the-job training, but the disadvantage of training with only one man's perspective and capacity. Seminaries have the great blessing of "the multiplier effect," preparing many students under the best minds in their fields of study. And the best seminaries do this with field-service requirements that will also involve students in the real life of the church.

No system is perfect, but the blessings of a good seminary education are seen both in the ministry retention rates of well trained graduates as well as in the increasing availability of first-rate seminary training in the developing world. Such training will do much to curb the destructive health-and-wealth gospel that passes for Christianity in too many nations.

...I believe the best ministry preparation takes place where there is a partnership between the seminary and the local church. Some things are well learned in a classroom. Some things are best learned in the dynamic of a local church..."

† Expand post

The Sunday School answer is still the best one

So I was making my way out after listening to the lunchtime talk from Joe Boot on whether Christianity is restrictive or promises true freedom with a non-Christian friend. I confess, I think he did ramble on a bit, and I wasn't sure if he really spoke to the heart as well as to the mind, as it were. But it was all in all a good presentation contending for the intellectual credibility of the Christian faith, and he marshalled the philosophical arguments well.

Anyway, I then noticed a girl whom I had chatted to briefly last night at another event, and so decided to go over and say hi. And got ambushed.

---

Me: Oh, hi... (interrupted)

Girl: (obviously still buzzing from the talk, speaking at 100mph) Yeah wasn't that a really good talk but I really disagreed with him as I think it was all based on an assumption that needn't be made that life had to find its meaning in God I mean we can obviously derive meaning from other things like family or friends and find fulfillment in that don't you think?

Me: (trying to pick myself up from the bullet train in front of me) Errr...yes...but isn't it, um, true, um, that his central point was how much life would simply be meaningless without a God? And um, what an empty life that would be?

Girl: Sure but do you really need a God for that I mean I don't see why you need God for life to be meaningful at all when you can be perfectly happy with what you've got at the moment...

Me: (screaming silently at brain to come back from lunch break and voicebox to stop stuttering) Yes, I can see where you're coming from... (obviously stalling for time while brain wakes up from siesta)...so um, what you're saying is that ultimately, there's no reason why it can't be up to us to find our own meaning in life...

Girl: Yes... (looks expectantly at me while I desperately attempt to look to be in deep contemplation)

Me: Errm...(here I started a sentence - twice - before hastily rephrasing it)That's interesting, as um, I think he (Joe Boot) chose a particular line looking at how ultimately only Christianity lends our lives deep meaning. But you're right, why shouldn't we be able to um, make our own meaning? But the question isn't simply pragmatic, it isn't just about where we find meaning or fulfillment or happiness, it's also about truth. If God is God, if he's real, he's there, then surely he's the one who has the final say as to where we find real meaning or happiness? I mean, if there's no God, then you're right, we can invest meaning in whatever we wish. But if God is there, then surely he's the one whom we derive meaning from, and so we want to live in conformity with what he says.

Girl: (finally slowing down a little) I see...so what you're saying is, there's actually another issue at stake here, whether God exists or not...

Me: (Whew!) Yes, exactly, that's what we need to think about first...

Girl: But...I don't see how that question can ever be answered. I don't think there's any way we can ever find out if God does exist or not.

Me: (depending on reflex at this point, and probably the Holy Spirit) That's interesting, because that's exactly what the Christian claim is. You know, in John's Gospel, it says that we can actually find out whether God exists, what he's like because, because, and this is what Christians believe, Jesus has made God known. Look at Jesus, Christians say, and you'll know God.

Girl: ...never really thought about that before...

Me: And so Christians will say, look at Jesus' claims. What's he like? Is he whom he says he is? I mean, if he isn't, then Christianity falls completely. But if he is, can you see how that completely changes everything? (Girl nods) It just turns your world upside down! So we need to find out more about Jesus. He's the pivotal figure.

Girl: So you're saying I need to go find out more about Jesus because he's basically the pivot, the one on which everything stands? Yeah I can see that.

Me: Do you think you'll be exploring more on this then?

Girl: Yeah, I think I will! Got to go!

Me: (still slightly dazed) What just happened??

The conversation lasted, I think, only 7 minutes or so, but I don't think I've quite wrapped my head around it just yet. But I guess, the Sunday School answer is really, still the best one. I certainly hope she'll realise that.

*Conversation not verbatim obviously, but I think I've reproduced the phrasing fairly accurately


† Expand post

The Simple Truth

God doesn't think you're awesome.

He doesn't. He is not "enthralled by your beauty."

He sees you as you are: broken, sinful, hard, selfish.

And he loves you anyway.

That makes him the awesome one, not us.

But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
- Romans 5:8

: Jared Wilson

Really liked this short post. Profundity in simplicity, and a great reflection during the Christmas season.

One-Anothering: A Communal Gospel

I just finished listening to this talk from the Total Church Conference, having picked it at random since the title looked helpful. I'm blown away - it's outstanding and challenging, and also scary on one level actually! Dave Fairchild, the speaker, shows how the gospel and community relates to one another in fresh and convicting ways. I was struck by how much "one anothering" is there in the NT: love one another, care for one another, forgive one another, don't pass judgment on one another, spur one another to good deeds etc., and how that's intricately related to the indicatives of the gospel. So often the construction in the NT goes along these lines: "As I have loved you, so love one another".

If you have an hour or two, this is worth listening to. Don't worry about the first 5 minutes, where there's some audience interaction, as the talk only really gets going after that. The Q&A is pretty long and I think starts around the 55 minute mark.

One Anothering: A Communal Gospel

The wrap

Looking back, I think I had a pretty good week. A tiring one for sure, as I've had something going on every single night, and in some cases, had no break between the afternoon and the evening, but God was good in granting me enough energy and helping me to pace myself. Tuesday morning, for instance, I was simply peopled out and so I made sure I got some time to myself during lunchbreak, chomping on a wrap while walking along small, lonely alleyways, which really helped for that evening, where I would have been engaging lots of new faces.

So that's the personal update. Here's an internet roundup update of sorts! Here's some good stuff on the web:

Greg Gilbert at 9Marks has done some reflecting on what the gospel is. It's stimulating. Kingdom language gets thrown around a lot nowadays when it comes to defining the gospel, often over and against a "repentance of sin" gospel. And yet I think the two must hold together, and we must be clear on what we mean by "kingdom". But I accept it's quite hard to be able to articulate it clearly, simply because I guess the gospel is both simple and yet so comprehensive in scope it's hard to say everything in a short soundbite!

The Cruciform Life. I am grateful to those who first exposed me to worldviewish thinking, and how a Christian worldview has helped me in seeing the world with new glasses, as it were. But there is also a danger that the language of worldview devolves into an intellectual game with no corresponding desire to grow to be more like Jesus. But as Jimmy Davis points out in this article, ""my worldview was not biblical until it was also cruciform". (Cruciform simply means cross-shaped). One book that does a great job of showing us the entire shape of the Christian worldview is J. Mark Bertrand's (Re)Thinking Worldview.

I was really fascinated by English professor's Mark Edmundson's observations about my generation (though in an American context) in Dwelling in Possibilities. A snippet:

"They want to study, travel, make friends, make more friends, read everything (superfast), take in all the movies, listen to every hot band, keep up with everyone they've ever known. And there's something else, too, that distinguishes them: They live to multiply possibilities. They're enemies of closure. For as much as they want to do and actually manage to do, they always strive to keep their options open, never to shut possibilities down before they have to."

There are some other startling observations too, like the one about people going to parties only to whip their mobiles out, or the advent of the age of the iPod, which allows us all to have our own personal soundtracks. Well worth reading. I suspect that even non-American readers will be able to recognise hints of similar things in their own contexts.

Mission in the 21st Century. The title is indicative of its content! A survey of what the current mission situation looks like globally, and some brief reflections on how to adapt and engage new realities and challenges.

After Lehman Brothers: Desperate City wives. ("The City" in London refers to the central financial district like Wall Street does in New York). I know it's fashionable at the moment to treat all investment bankers with disdain and to rejoice at their comeuppance. And I don't doubt the fact that in many, many cases, they've been a showcase for greed. But they've also been a convenient mirror for many to project their moral superiority on. I thought this was a very well-done feature, simply getting us into the shoes of the spouses of the (formerly?) wealthy, and also perhaps giving us occasion to reflect on our own habits without being preachy.

Novelist Margaret Atwood looks at the cultural history of debt. A very interesting exploration and a model of how the tools of literary analysis could be applied!

A Conversation with Tan Twan Eng in the Far Eastern Economic Review on the state of Malaysian writing and other things. Tan Twan Eng's novel The Gift of Rain was longlisted for the Booker last year. Haven't read it, and not quite sure if I will. There's another novel by a Malaysian writer which has gotten good press this year - Preeta Samarasan's Evening is the Whole Day. I'm wondering too if I should tackle that one, looks like it would not be light reading though.

I think all the above have substance, so do go have a look! :)


† Expand post

Christianity is for broken people

I was quite struck by something I heard somebody say in passing yesterday, that a true Christian isn't so much someone we immediately think of as "morally upright and disciplined" and all that jazz but someone who "loves Jesus and is clinging on desperately to him". I suppose on one level, that's an obvious point, but I still think it's worth reminding ourselves again and again, because in practice, we just don't naturally think that way. We're drawn to the externals.

The point here isn't that both are mutually exclusive, as if Christians must either be morally upright and therefore Pharisees or become antinomians of some sort, using forgiveness as a crutch. Rather, it's simply that the true mark of a Christian is that he or she loves Jesus, not how well he or she is doing in life. I think Tim Keller makes this point very well in The Reason for God. The gospel we believe in is the gospel of grace, so it should not be surprising that the church is full of broken people who still have a long way to go emotionally, morally or spiritually. So it is entirely possible for someone who has become a Christian, but who happens to have a past filled with so much heartache and sorrow and insecurity that he or she on the outside will probably still look less well-adjusted that a non-Christian who happens to be disciplined and a-ok. It could be that a church could look really dysfunctional compared to, I don't know, the NGO or something. As a Christian goes on in life, he or she is looking to be more like Jesus, but he/she also knows that it would never happen on their own. All they can do is say: "Nothing in my hand I bring / Only to your cross I cling". And so they trust that the Spirit is making them more like Jesus, bit by bit, as they behold him, and as they continually get on their knees to their heavenly Father.

That's the gospel. Even as Christians, I think we still miss it all the time. So when dwelling on my insecurities, I should taste and see that the Lord is good!

Is the Bible the Word of God? (Part 4)

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3

And all this works out in life, how?
Tim asks, what is the purpose of the Bible? For Mat, the Bible is much stronger "if we accept that God did not write it". I will have to disagree strongly with Mat here. The poet and writer Thomas Hardy professed Christianity for a time, but he abandoned the faith in despair because to him, God was mute. He was distant from his world. We find this theme throughout his books and poems. Tess of D’Urbervilles, possibly his most famous book, is a profoundly sad one. Tess suffers misfortune after misfortune before meeting a tragic end. Hardy’s worldview comes through bright and clear: "God’s not in his heaven, / All’s wrong with the world".

But the Bible is testimony to that amazing truth: God speaks! The beginning of the Bible assumes the speech of God; he speaks creation into being. Or according to Psalm 33:6: "By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and all their host by the breath of his mouth." God speaks, it is the idols who are dumb. More than that, God promises! He makes a covenant with Abraham and renews it with Israel, that He will be their God, and they will be his people (eg. Ezekiel 37:27). Most amazingly, the Word was made flesh! All God’s promises are found in Christ. Jesus says that whoever has seen him has seen the Father, in other words, God himself. The Message has a nice rendition of Hebrews 1:1-3:

"Going through a long line of prophets, God has been addressing our ancestors in different ways for centuries. Recently he spoke to us directly through his Son. By his Son, God created the world in the beginning, and it will all belong to the Son at the end. This Son perfectly mirrors God, and is stamped with God's nature. He holds everything together by what he says—powerful words!"

Barthians and evangelicals agree that Scripture points away from itself to Christ. But conservative evangelicals also believe that the Bible does point away from itself to God, our Saviour-King, who nonetheless speaks to us through the words of Scripture. We know Jesus because Scripture itself gives us access to him, thus, there is no neat separation between the incarnate Word and the written Word. Neither can the Bible be interpreted properly apart from a living faith in Christ. Just as my words are distinct, yet not separate from me, so the analogy (I think!) applies here too. Our view of God impacts our view of Scripture and vice versa.

But Scripture is not there merely to impart information, but as an instrument in our transformation. "And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe" (1 Thessalonians 2:13). God’s word is active in the transforming of lives. It reminds us of God’s character and his trustworthiness. It gives us hope in a world of suffering. It gives us the big story, of creation defiled, redeemed, and one day restored to its full glory. Only if the Bible is Word of God can we be confident of this narrative.

Nicky Chiswell's song, Where else have to go?, captures it well:

We have come to see,
To know and understand
Things the very angels long to see.
God, who owes us nothing,
Has spoken to us all.
Christ the word of God Himself has been

Where else have we to go,
When you alone have words
Of eternal life?

Come all you who labour,
You who are weighed down,
You who thirst and hunger for the right,
There is truth and meaning,
Mercy , rest and hope.
True salvation comes through Jesus Christ
(audio sample, track 14)

In the Christian life, it will ultimately be the living and enduring word of God is that which sustains us.

Misc. observations
One of the saddest posts I read fairly recently is this one: Christian students struggle with Christianity. As I reflect on Mat and Tim’s post, it does seem as if mainstream evangelicalism has failed its young people on this one. The emerging and Reformed critiques are united on this front: contemporary (Western) Christian culture is overly shallow and consumeristic. There are times when I get very exasperated with McLaren et al. because it seems to me that his depictions of evangelicalism are complete caricatures, but there are other times when it does seem to me that he is spot on in his diagnosis, if not his treatment.

Scripture is not simply a moral handbook. I think Tim and Mat do get at this. Too much preaching simply picks verses out of context and construct a self-help pitch out of them. All of us can learn to read the Bible better, and afresh. This post is too long already and so there’s no reason to get into questions of biblical interpretation, but one safeguard against wild interpolations or radical relativism is to read it in community, as Tim does point out. All of us will see things in Scripture others miss, and we can help each other on this front as we come together as God’s people to worship him. There is no need to disavow the Bible as the word of God to investigate its claims. Rather, it is because I am confident that God’s words have integrity, that they are true truth, to use Francis Schaeffer’s words, that I am able to wrestle with them and ask honest questions of them. I share Mat and Tim’s concern that the church be a community where we can be honest with each other (and I admit that I all too easily prefer to wear a mask too) and pray that will be the case.

However, I should say that there is a false dichotomy between doctrine and story. As Dorothy Sayers once said: “The dogma is the drama”. The drafters of the Gospel Coalition’s Theological Vision for Ministry has got the balance right I feel. We read "along" the whole Bible, as we take in the whole plotline of God’s story of redemption, climaxing in Jesus Christ and pointing forward to the new heavens and the new earth. But we also read "across" the Bible, understanding that there are propositions found in the Bible and that the Bible holds right believing and right living closely together (eg. 1 John, and contra some in the emerging camp like Doug Pagitt).

We live in a culture that is inherently hostile to the notion of authority. I suppose in a world of corrupt politicians and pedophile priests, that is not surprising in itself, and yet, we should not extend those negative connotations to the Word of God. Mat suggests that it is only "authoritarians-who-don’t-like-to-be-challenged" who would affirm such beliefs. Mat is probably again being provocative and I believe, will agree with me that this is an overgeneralisation. Again, distinguishing between authority and authoritarianism is useful, and as Mat himself notes, we often submit to some kind of authority in many areas of life, as in the skill of the pilot. Jesus shows us how he utilises his authority, by humbling himself to become a man and death, even death on a cross! This is the kind of authority, the kind of leadership that Christian leaders have to aspire to. That God himself accommodates himself to human language also tells us again of a God who desires to be in relationship with his creation.

We also live in a time where words are devalued. When every advertisement markets its product as the best thing ever, it is no wonder good words like “remarkable”, “astounding” and so on lose their meaning. When words are prostituted, we fail to see how important they are as relational capital. I hope I am not guilty of doing the same here! In the meantime, as an antidote to so much verbal diarrhoea, I’ve previously written a more reflective and doxological piece: On the Word as word.

---

Thanks for indulging me. I’ve undoubtedly said some things poorly, forgot to mention other things and probably been overly pompous. Mat, I hope you will find this fruitful and you can blame Tim if it isn’t! :-p I should say beforehand that I am happy to receive comments but I hope you’ll forgive me if I am unable to reply to them. I also welcome people more learned than me who might want to correct me. Maybe one day I’ll try to summarise this into one accessible post.

Addendum: Bibliography
I’ll be shocked if I had any original thoughts in my post. Well, apart from the chair eg. Here’s the giants on whose shoulders I stand. Warning: bibliophiliac tendencies on embarassing display! And sorry, too lazy to link!

I’ve already mentioned David Gibson’s essay above: ‘For the Bible tells me so?’, found in Encountering God’s word, Philip Duce and Dan Strange(eds.). The other 3 essays in that volume on the OT, NT, and a survey of biblical interpretation is also worth perusing.

Bruce Milne’s Know the Truth is a clear and simple handbook of Christian belief and is rightly popular with many students. It has a good list of further reading suggestions for those who want to go more in-depth. I used this for quick reference, and I think its section on the doctrine of Scripture is very good especially considering its brevity.

Peter Jensen’s At the Heart of the Universe is another Christianity 101 book I like. Unlike Milne’s book, which is organised in a more traditional textbook fashion, Jensen takes a more narrative approach. It has a section on the revelation of God.

Incidentally, Jensen has also written a much bigger theological tome, called, The Revelation of God! Much more scholarly and very insightful.

It’s really hard to find an entire book for the popular level on this issue. N.T (Tom) Wright is one those rare writers that has no problem writing for laity and the academy alike, and his little book Scripture and the authority of God (US Title: The Last Word) is pretty accessible. I don’t necessarily agree with Wright on everything, but this is very useful. For an appreciative critique of this book’s limitations, see John Frame’s review.

Christ and the Bible by the late John Wenham, is the book that first (well, in the 20th century anyway) carefully investigated what Jesus thought of the Bible. I’ve not read it myself, and it’s out of print now, but that’s the one if you come across it.

On canon, I haven’t read either, but the standards are F.F Bruce’s Canon of Scripture and Bruce Metzger’s book, whose title I can’t remember – it has canon in the title somewhere I’m sure.

On the reliability of the gospels. Lee Strobel’s Case for Christ is still a very helpful primer. F.F Bruce’s New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? has stood the test of time. Reinventing Jesus by Dan Wallace et al., which I’ve not read, has been reviewed very positively. Although written in response to the Da Vinci Code, the reviewers all agree that it’s value lies beyond that, and as far as I can tell, although they write for a popular audience, they include more detail than is normal. Greg Boyd and Paul Eddy’s book Jesus: Lord or Legend? treats some of the less common questions, especially on orality and myth. The Historical Reliability of the Gospels by Craig Blomberg is more scholarly if you’re looking for that sort of thing, and if you want something ultra-scholarly, Richard Bauckham, currently at Cambridge, has a massive tome that was considered a bit of a mover and shaker in the academic world: Jesus and the Eyewitnesses.

On reading the Bible better. There are lots of good books that help capture the sweeping metanarrative, the drama of Scripture well. Actually, there’s a book with that very title: The Drama of Scripture, by Craig Bartholomew and Michael Goheen. God’s Big Picture by Vaughan Roberts is a great place to start. Some consider Graeme Goldsworthy to be the granddaddy of this particular genre of books, so you might want to look up According to Plan or The Goldsworthy Trilogy. Arty types would love New Way to be Human by Charlie Peacock.

I like Living by the Book by Howard Hendricks. It assumes nothing, and I suppose for some it might feel condescending, but it helps you be more confident in reading the Bible for yourself. Dig Deeper! by Andrew Sach and Nigel Beynon has a similar aim. On the question of genres, there’s the seminal How to Read the Bible for all its worth by Gordon Fee & Douglas Stuart. Other books on biblical interpretation which I’ve not read include Reading the Bible with Heart and Mind by Tremper Longman, a highly-regarded OT scholar, and Let the Reader Understand by Dan McCartney. My friend said that he found John Stott’s Understanding the Bible a Godsend at a time when he was struggling to read through a particular section of the OT. See, you’re spoilt for choice!

I should mention the works of Kevin Vanhoozer. I didn’t utilise his favourite line of argumentation, those of speech-acts, in my post above, but he is a major figure in the field of hermeneutics. His books, both not for the faint-hearted, are Is There a Meaning in this Text? and First Theology: God, Scripture and Hermeneutics. The latter is too much for me to handle.

On Christian epistemology, that is, knowing how we know, the standard in the field is John Frame’s The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God. Not exactly bedtime reading, this! Another one I deem too tough to tackle at this stage. I am currently reading through J. Mark Bertrand’s Rethinking Worldview, however, and he’s got some very good thoughts on Christian epistemology that isn’t couched in jargon.

Finis.
† Expand post