This week marks the centennial of a famous riot in Paris on May 29, 1913. Was the cause of this riot political unrest, governmental abuses, or class warfare? No. It was a ballet! Igor Stravinsky’s ballet, The Rite of Spring, premiered in the Théâtre des Champs-Elysées, literally igniting a physical riot in the crowd, as well as an aesthetic riot in the twentieth century music world.

How could a ballet have had such tremendous and far-reaching effects? To answer this question we must explore the man, the music, and the modification of musical aesthetics.

A Man With a Motive: Igor Stravinsky and Neo-Primitivism

Russian-born Stravinsky (1882-1971) was well trained musically in childhood. His father, a professional opera singer, exposed him to prominent musicians and composers. His teacher, Nicolay Rimsky-Korsakov (1844-1908), trained him to mine Russian folk music for artistic material. However, by his third ballet, The Rite of Spring (1913), Stravinsky had altered this practice in expressing a popular philosophy musically: neo-primitivism.

Neo-primitivism was the artistic child of philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778). He believed that natural man, who he identified as the “noble savage,” was superior to civilized man. In fact he taught that education, rather than freeing and improving man, actually dehumanized and inhibited him.

Rousseau’s thought found artistic expression nearly a century later. The French artist Paul Gauguin (1848-1903) became so enamored with the noble savage concept that he left his family, moved to Tahiti, and began painting “savages.” Following Francis Schaeffer’s model of progression, we find Rousseau’s noble savage making its next appearance in music [1]. And Stravinsky was just the man for the hour.

In adapting Rousseau’s noble savage to music, Stravinsky rejected traditional, Western musical forms. For more than 1,000 years, these forms had been based on reason ruling instinct. Composers, therefore, used musical forms to communicate complex reasoning through rational melodies and treatments. Sensuality and physical desire was to be governed by reason and form. As Ken Meyers so succinctly states, “People were taught that one should reasonably control one’s bodily impulses, that one should order one’s life by the reflection of the mind, not by the instincts of the body” (emphasis his) [2].

However, Stravinsky took leave of this aesthetic. Though well-versed in his homeland’s folk music through Rimksey-Korsakov’s influence, he began adjusting his artistic music to the primitive idioms of instinct and sensuality. Although his second ballet Petrushka (1911) had shown signs of this development, no one was ready for what came next.

The Music: The Rite of Spring

The audience of The Rite of Spring’s Parisian debut witnessed the defiant entrance of twentieth century music. Stravinsky collaborated with two others, Sergei Diaghilev (1872-1920), and Vaslav Nijinsky (1888-1950) to usher Rousseau’s “noble savage” directly into the twentieth century. Though Parisians aren’t known for artistic squeamishness, even they were utterly flabbergasted by the final product.

a. The Plot

The The Rite of Spring’s plot centers on a fictional, primitive ritual. The ballet opens with a springtime dance of young adolescents from a primitive Russian village. From this group the elder chooses a sacrifice for the sun god. Though glorified by the village, she must satisfy the gods’ demands by dancing herself to death. It is a weak but visceral plot portrayed as forcefully as possible.

b. The Music

Stravinsky’s score was revolutionary in many ways. First, the actual orchestration was unusual, requiring very heavy brass and percussion sections. This is because the music is not built on the customary string section, but on the rhythm section. The rhythm thus becomes the music’s determinate ingredient rather than the melody or the harmony.

Second, the rhythm is uniquely complex. Stravinsky accents the music so that he destroys any feeling of metrical regularity. The Norton Anthology of Western Music states: “The music is cleverly conceived for ballet: the dancers can continue to count four-measure phrases while the spectator-listener is utterly disoriented metrically and rhythmically” [3]. The effect is truly disorienting and militates against rational listening. In fact the propulsive, driving rhythm demands an instinctual and sensual appreciation from the listener, rather than an intellectual and reflective one.

Third, in addition to the odd orchestration and disorienting rhythms, Stravinsky adds an extremely broad tonal pallet. Eschewing any set key structure or mode, he sets the melodic snippets directly against the harmonization. This creates drastic dissonances and sonorities that grate on the ear, but when carried by the pulsating, insistent rhythm become internalized by the listener. As if this wasn’t enough, these musical concepts were conveyed visually also.

c. The Ballet

Ballet is the act of subjecting dance to rigorous, organizational forms and demands that cause it to transcend the act of movement and become art. The body works in conjunction with music to convey the composer’s message. Here too the body and the instincts thereof had been controlled by reason and order.

Again forsaking the traditional form, Nijinsky intended to reproduce every note of Stravinsky’s primitive score on the floor [4]. Already having a reputation for stretching the limits of accepted choreography, he was the perfect person for the task at hand. His choreography of Claude Debussy’s (1862-1918) Prelude to the Afternoon of a Faun (1894) and personal portrayal of the faun had already caused problems in Paris, being widely decried by critics as lascivious [5].

Nijinsky was tireless and ingenious in designing unorthodox and shocking movements that disavowed the graceful character of classical ballet and accurately portrayed Stravinsky’s score. The movements are disjointed, awkward, and propulsive. The entire body becomes a slave to the rhythm.

d. The Premier

The night of the premier was a disaster. Within minutes Camille Saint-Saens rose from his seat and left, spouting bitter remarks about the music. Others joined in, making cat calls to the ballerinas and cursing Stravinsky, Diaghilev, and Nijinsky. The crowd soon became completely uncontrolled.

The ruckus grew so loud that the music could no longer be heard. Nijinsky was forced to stand on a chair just off stage and shout the beat to the dancers. On the whole, everyone had a horrible time. But The Rite of Spring affected more than just that small, Parisian crowd.

The World on Its Head: Melody and Harmony Now Subject to Rhythm

Of all that happened, The Rite of Spring’s most important result was the revolution of rhythm. Before this piece, melody and harmony had ruled rhythm in western musical aesthetics. This is because art is a reflection of morality and has an inherent moral quality [6]. It communicates our moral beliefs. For music the relationship of melody, harmony, and rhythm communicates our understanding of man and his relationship to God: rational, relational, or instinctual. Certainly each of these qualities are significant components of the human person, but the rational and relational components should govern the instinctual.

Melody conveys rational phrases and concepts, while harmony conveys relational musical progressions and cadences. On the other hand, rhythm conveys the beat, marking out time viscerally and instinctually. With Stravinsky’s Rite of Spring, melody and harmony took a back seat to rhythm. Rhythm became the new master.

When melody and harmony became subject to rhythm, extended and complex melodic concepts and developments became nearly impossible. Instead, melodic material consisted of clipped short pieces of thought, unrelated to each other and the piece as a whole. The only connection lay in the propulsion of the rhythm. And no longer was harmony limited to a mode or key, since the necessity of a relational progression and cadence had disappeared.

Thus, in many ways The Rite of Spring was the precursor to much contemporary music, such as Rock-and-Roll and Pop Music. These have simply presented Rousseau’s concept of the “noble savage” and Stravinsky’s rhythmically-controlled aesthetic to the masses.

When we listen to music that is rhythmically oriented, it tends to discourage reflection, self-control, sober-mindedness, and rationality, encouraging instead reactivity, self-gratification, and instinct. A quick look into the Pauline epistles shows us that these traits are incompatible with the Christian life (Rom. 12:1-2, Gal. 5:16-25, Eph. 4:17-24, 4:31-5:21, Col. 3:1-17).

As Christians our music should be delightful to the ear. But more importantly, it should be spiritually edifying in content and form. We shouldn’t concern ourselves with simply the words. The attitudes and ideals the musical form encourages are important, because form affects listeners as much as the content, if not much more.

Conclusion

Stravinsky is a fascinating person whose influence undoubtedly reaches to our day. The Rite of Spring clearly illustrates that musical forms have a purpose. They convey ideas in themselves, even without words. Therefore, they matter. Because the effect of musical form is much more subtle than its words, it is potentially more dangerous.

As Christians, this must lead us to ask: “What does my music say, not only in its words, but in its form?” The form of our music should reflect the proper order of a biblical relationship with God: rational, relational, and lastly instinctual.

_______________________________________

[1] The Schaeffer model postulates that cultural trends generally advance in this order: Philosophy, Visual Art, Music, General Culture, Theology. Francis Schaeffer, The God Who Is There (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1982), 28.

[2] Ken Meyers, All God’s Children and Blue Suede Shoes (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Publishers, 1989), 144.

[3] Claude V. Palisca, ed., Norton Anthology of Western Music: Volume 2 Classic to Modern, Fourth Edition (New York: W.W. Norton & Company Inc., 2001), 134.

[4] Barbara Russano Hanning, Concise History of Western Music, Second Edition (New York: W.W. Norton & Company Inc., 2002), 510.

[5] “The ballet was starkly original in its sensuous atmosphere and sexually suggestive movements, and in portraying the faun’s visions of ethereal nymphs.” Ibid.

[6] This understanding of the relationship of art and morality is well discussed and defended in both Jonathan Edwards’ Dissertation on the Nature of True Virtue found in The Works of Jonathan Edwards Vol. 1 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2004 reprint of the 1834 British edition), and Donald A. Stauffer’s chapter, “Poetry is Significant” found in his book, The Nature of Poetry (New York: W.W. Norton and Co. Inc., 1946).

Just eight days prior to this article’s post date, my wife and I celebrated our one-year wedding anniversary. One of our favorite hobbies is reading, privately to ourselves and aloud to one-another. We simply love entering a story and dissecting its characters, plots, themes, and twists and turns.

Yet should reading be more than a ‘hobby’? Is it somehow related to our discipleship as Christians? I submit that it is of the utmost importance, especially for Christians. Of course, there are obstacles: “I’m not a good reader,” “I’m not a fast reader,” “I don’t like reading,” “I find reading boring,” “I don’t know what to read,” “I’m too busy to read,” and “I get distracted too easily” are among the many examples. Even so, reading is an indispensable habit for Christian life.

“Eat This Book”

First and foremost, Christians should read because the Bible is a book. This is not some accident of history, but the way a sovereign God has orchestrated it. Furthermore, this Book is God’s inspired, inerrant word. Christianity then is fundamentally a word-based religion. Words are important, sticking around far longer than images, sound bites, and even people. In fact, God’s Word is forever—eternal. “Heaven and earth will pass away,” says Jesus, “but My words will not pass away” (Mt. 24:35).

No doubt, God uses other mediums to speak to us (nature, people, and circumstances, for instance), but He communicates His special revelation through the written word. And it is important that we read these words. They should constantly occupy our thoughts and permeate our beings. Like Joshua, they shouldn’t depart from our mouths, but we should meditate upon them day and night (Jos. 1:8).

In many ways, the Bible is to our souls what food is to our stomachs. In fact, Jesus, quoting Deuteronomy 8:3, says, “Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God” (Mt. 4:4). A similar, rather provocative example occurs in the book of Revelation, where the Lord orders John to open his mouth, feed his stomach, and fill his body with the book that He would give him (Rev. 10:9-10)—similar examples occur in the books of Jeremiah (15:16) Ezekiel (2:8-3:3). In fact, one author titled his book about Bible reading after this verse in Revelation: Eat This Book: A Conversation in the Art of Spiritual Reading.

In reading this Book, we mustn’t approach it as any other old book. We mustn’t read it simply because it’s intellectually stimulating or imaginatively interesting. And we mustn’t read it simply because we feel like we’re supposed to. We should read it because we want to. Reading God’s Word is not an unwanted obligation. It’s a privilege—the greatest perhaps! We don’t nibble on it like school cafeteria mystery meat. We feast on it like a well-prepared banquet, relishing and savoring every bite. Like John, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, we eat it. Or as Paul advises Timothy, we should be “constantly nourished on the words of the faith” (1 Tim. 4:6, emphasis mine).

By consuming Scripture in this fashion, it may taste bitter at first, given our often-unhealthy diet of worldly pleasures. Scripture offers many pointed analogies to this point. As a furnace refines metals and a sword pierces flesh, so God uses His Word to burn away our impurities (Isa. 48:10; Zech. 13:9; 1 Pet. 1:7) and to surgically cut away our spiritual cancer (Heb. 4:12). Despite this bitter, painful, uncomfortable process, however, we will find that God’s Word is more desirable than gold, sweeter than honey (Ps. 19:10), and a lamp unto our feet (Ps. 119:105). As a mirror reflects its image, so Scripture reflects our true natures, pushing us toward that perfect image of Christ (cf. 2 Cor. 3:18; Jas. 1:23-25).

Yet for this to occur, we must read it. “Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy,” writes John (Rev. 1:3). Although he is referring specifically to Revelation, the same principle applies to all of Scripture: Blessed are those who read its words. Numerous creeds, confessions, and statements of faith have captured similar sentiments [1].

Again, we find these mind-correcting, stomach-feeding, body-filling, life-giving, more-desirable-than-gold, sweeter-than-honey, lamp-unto-our-feet words in Scripture. It is therefore important to read them—everywhere and all the time. May we sing with Isaac Watts “Praise to God for Learning to Read”:

-     The praises of my tongue / I offer to the Lord / That I was taught, and learnt so young / To read His holy word.

-     Here I can read and learn / How Christ, the Son of God / Did undertake our great concern / Our ransom cost His blood.

-     Then shall I praise the Lord / In a more cheerful strain / That I was taught to read His word / And have not learnt in vain.

Yet we shouldn’t stop with Scripture.

“Read Everything!”

Most of us, without thinking it seems, can rattle off random sports statistics or useless entertainment trivia—this isn’t necessarily a bad thing. But how many of us can recall our favorite authors or characters? Regretfully few. As Rebecca Deel puts it, “People of the Word must be people of words” [2].

But what to read—that’s the question? In the words of Carol Reid, “Read everything!” [3] Everything includes Scripture, theology books, devotional books, hymnbooks, history books, classic novels, pamphlets, famous plays, modern fictions, educational books, books about hobbies, newspapers, magazines, and much more.

Admittedly though, everything can be a bit overwhelming. The world of reading can be a scary place to enter in part because it is so vast. But like the child initially reluctant about jumping into the water, but soon discovering an entire pool to explore, so should we enter the sanctifying world of books!

Clearly, the most important book we read is the Book. Beyond this, I recommend beginning with books by, about, and for the Church. In many ways, this is the gateway to the great Christian tradition. Neil Postman once said, “A book is an attempt…to contribute to the great conversation conducted by authors of the past” [4]. For Christians this takes on special meaning, for the Church is that universal body of believers extending through history.

Just as earthly families make efforts to know one another, so should spiritual families. Perhaps the best way to do this is by reading books. When we read books by and about our spiritual fathers, mothers, brothers, and sisters of decades and centuries past, we better appreciate our family tree. Such books might include church history books, devotional books, theology books, fiction books, and more.

What is more, we learn from them, as this great cloud of witnesses (cf. Heb. 12:1-2) speaks to us through their lives and books. As John Milton puts it, “A good book is the precious lifeblood of a master spirit, embalmed and treasured up on purpose to a life beyond life” [5]. This rings especially true for believers, whose names are written in the Book of Life (cf. Rev. 20:11-15).

Specific “where to begin” lists abound online. Here are a few:

-     The Huffington Post’s “Spiritual Classics: 25 Books Every Christian Should Read”

-     Christianity Today’s “The Top 50 Books That Have Shaped Evangelicals”

-     Christianity Today’s “Books of the Century”

C. S. Lewis once remarked, “Have you noticed how God so often sends us books at just the right time?” [6] Words have great power, and God often speaks through them. The more we read, the more likely we’ll discover God speaking to us through this medium.

Yet even books that are not specifically by, about, and for the Church, or even by Christians for that matter, still often have value. Much can and has been said on this point, but suffice it to say for now, whatever we read should past the muster of Philippians 4:8. That is, the books we read should be true, honorable, right, pure, lovely, of good repute, excellent, and praiseworthy. Again, specific “where to begin” lists abound online:

-     The Guardian’s “The 100 Greatest Novels of All Time”

-     Modern Library’s “100 Best Novels”

-     Good Read’s “100 Best Books of All Time: The World Library List”

While some may disagree with certain selections, from this and the prior list, they’re a good place to begin if nothing else.

“Read Until Your Brain Creaks”

Excuses for not reading abound. However, it is something we should do. If there is any one book we should read, it is most certainly the Book. But our reading shouldn’t stop there. In an effort to better know our spiritual family from centuries past, we may also read books by and about them. Wherever we start though, we should start somewhere. Jump in! Read something. Fall in love with it. As Doug Wilson puts it, “Read until your brain creaks” [7].

_______________________________________

 [1] Perhaps one of the most significant is the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy, a statement issued by 200+ evangelicals, including Carl F. H. Henry, J. I. Packer, Francis Schaeffer, and R. C. Sproul. Similar type statements appear throughout Christianity’s grand tradition. Some of the General/Free Will Baptist ones alone include A Declaration of Faith, Art. 23; The Standard Confession, Art. XXIII; The Former Articles of Faith, Art. VII; and The Treatise of Free Will Baptists, Pt. II, Ch. I; and Pt. III, Art. 1.

[2] Rebecca Deel, “Raising Readers and Text-Free Teens,” ONE Magazine (Oct-Nov 2010), 30.

[3] Carol Reid, “It Could be Habit-Forming,” Contact (February 1993), 7.

[4] Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business (20th Anniversary Edition) (New York: Penguin Group, 2005), 70.

[5] John Milton, Areopagitica.

[6] C. S. Lewis, “To Dom Bede Griffiths OSB (W),” The Collected Letters of C. S. Lewis (Volume II): Books, Broadcasts, and the War, 1931-1949, ed. Walter Hooper (Wheaton: HarperSanFrancisco, 2004), 392.

[7] Douglas Wilson, “Read Until Your Brain Creaks,” Blog and Mablog, http://www.dougwils.com/Literary-Notes/read-until-your-brain-creaks.html (accessed 14 April 2013).

_______________________________________

For Further Reading:

Tony Reinke, Lit!: A Christian Guide to Reading Books (2011).

Alan Jacobs, The Pleasures of Reading in an Age of Distraction (2011).

Guns and gay marriage are two issues being hotly debated in the public square these days. While they aren’t new issues to American political life, recent circumstances have revived and placed them at the top of the domestic agenda.

The tragic school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut has captured citizen’s and activist’s emotions alike in pushing for legislative reform regarding guns. In the meantime, gun and ammunition sales skyrocket. And while some push for more restriction, others emphasize the need to address alternative culprits behind gun-related crime, such as mental illness.

On the gay rights front, activists are enjoying unprecedented support. Seemingly every week a major political figure makes news by coming out in favor of gay marriage, while others make news for continuing to resist it. Traditionalists, critics maintain, will find themselves on the “wrong side of history.” For them, marriage’s redefinition is inevitable.

American Christians live and minister in this political and social milieu, often unsure of how to respond. Christ’s call to be “wise as serpents and harmless as doves” has never been more relevant. Both of these two debates, while different, demand careful, conscientious reflection in determining the appropriate social, legal, and moral responses.

But what makes both of these issues similar? Most Forum readers would agree that the Bible speaks definitively on homosexuality as a practice, while offering less insight into modern-day gun legislation. I concur. But the rising intensity of public debate surrounding one issue can open a door for reflection and reevaluation of other issues once considered “settled matters.” In short, the arguments used to advance gay marriage and more restrictive gun laws could also be used to restrict and ultimately abolish abortion choice. A few of these arguments will be considered here.

Rights for Whom?

Like women’s rights and slavery in generations past, gay rights is referred to by many advocates as the civil rights issue of our time. “Rights,” as we commonly think of them, are articulated and protected by the Bill of Rights. Supporters of gay marriage increasingly use one part of this document (specifically the Fifth Amendment) to support the right of homosexual couples to marry: “No person shall be…be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

They argue that restricting marriage to heterosexual couples excludes same-sex couples from the basic right of marriage—part of what it means to have liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Recently on “Meet the Press,” MSNBC host Chris Matthews went so far as to suggest that the “due process clause” in the Bill of Rights might (and in fact should) apply to those seeking gay marriage. Similar arguments have been argued before the Supreme Court just prior to the publication of this article.

In the end, gay marriage advocates may eventually win the legal argument that the right to marry is a basic right, meaning that no two citizens (regardless of sex) should be barred from marrying. But, even assuming this legal victory occurs,  many gay marriage advocates are overlooking an obvious implication of their Fifth Amendment rhetoric and reasoning: Specifically, they are excluding these same “civil rights” from another class of people: the unborn.

It is ironic that many argue that it was science, not political pressure, that led to homosexuality no longer being considered a psychological neurosis in the 1970s [1]. But what science and modern technology has shown, beyond any reasonable doubt, is that the being carried in the womb is in fact, in every meaningful sense, a human life. In fact, more and more pro-choice advocates will willingly admit that the life in the womb is a person, just not one with rights legitimate to override a woman’s right to choose [2]. However, while no one would argue that the mother’s life is biologically unrelated to the child’s life, doesn’t it make sense that “due process” should also be applied to a right much clearer than the right to marry whomever—the right to life?

Supreme Court justices from the 1970s managed to find a “right to privacy” in the Constitution. It was a unique discovery as it essentially sanctioned the deprivation of the right to life of an entire class of people—those still inconveniently in the womb, but human in every biological sense.

Rights by Public Opinion?

Given that polls have recently marched upward in favor of gay marriage, backers of traditional marriage are challenged to beware of being found on the wrong side of history. This is what I refer to as the “argument from inevitability.” If something is increasingly favored among the majority, then it must be just. To put it differently, if the majority is highly probable to endorse a given decision, then it deserves legal and moral approval (it’s worth noting that this “argument” is more akin to a warning than an actual argument).

Of course, history is replete with examples of societies that were convinced that certain social policies were good and prudent, but which were later thought to be wrong—the eugenics movement, for instance [3]. Nevertheless, since we believe in government “by the people,” then public opinion bears significant weight.

Yet how far does the majority’s will extend? Does this unconditionally squash the minority’s rights? The historical, American perspective on human rights is that rights are not grounded in the will of the people, but in a Creator Who confers them on human beings. These rights should be recognized and protected by governments. It is for this reason that we have a Bill of Rights.

There is indeed something to be said for the will of the people. After all, government officials and judicial appointees are all where they are ultimately because of the democratic process. However, if public polling is to be relied upon to be a debate-winning argument, then this raises an intriguing question: What other debates might polls settle? The answer is once again abortion.

Public polling has recently demonstrated a remarkable turning-of-the-tide on this sensitive issue. Several news organizations and other polling agencies have shown that 62% of Americans want all or most abortions made illegal [4]. These numbers constitute even greater opposition to abortion than support for gay marriage. Nevertheless, abortion for many has been considered a closed conversation that was settled with Roe v. Wade in 1973.

Of course, I’m not suggesting that public opinion should be the final arbiter on whether or not unborn babies have the same rights as adults. Their right to life is morally-grounded and Constitutionally-supported, regardless of personal preference. Yet if public opinion is to be taken seriously as part of the cumulative case for gay marriage, then an intellectually honest public debate will require Americans to come back to the table to decide to end the 50-year massacre of human life.

Abridging One Right to Preserve Others?

One tragic irony in all of this is that conservatives, particularly those of the evangelical stripe, have failed to use this as an occasion to broach other “rights-issues.” Many who have lobbied for the restriction and abolition of abortion could use the right to bear arms as another window into critical reflection on their cause. The argument for tightening gun laws goes something like this:

1)   It is true that the right to bear arms is protected by the Second Amendment;

2)   It is also true that certain arms appear to pose an imminent threat to public safety;

3)   Ergo, in seeking to affirm premise 1 and acknowledge premise 2, lawmakers could outlaw some arms that pose a threat to public safety, while still upholding the right to bear most arms.

This argument and its permutations have persuaded many to push for tighter restrictions on guns. It persuades some because the right to life is thought to be a more fundamental right than that of bearing arms [5].

This approach of interpreting the Second Amendment in light of the right to life and liberty is reasonable, even if it does not persuade all. But once again, this relates to the rights of the unborn. It may be true that a woman’s right to the “pursuit of happiness” may be slowed by the birth of a child. Yet this does not change the fact that this child has a right to life that supersedes some narrow, contemporary conception of happiness (which has come to mean anything and everything more recently) [6].

Conclusion

Regardless of our beliefs about contemporary gun-laws and marriage, the familiar arguments used to appeal to Americans’ emotional and intellectual sensibilities could equally advance the rights of the unborn. This should give pause to Christians who understand that for all the political issues they may differ over, the cause of life should not be one. Furthermore, whether they style themselves as Republicans, Democrats, or Independents, loving God with our minds demands we follow arguments to their conclusions, even if they force us to adopt different views in the end [7].

_____________________________________

[1] This “list” is otherwise known as the Diagnostic and Statistic Manuel of Mental Disorders (DSM). Homosexuality was originally removed the DSM-III in 1973, though some version of it remained until 1986 when all of the language was removed.

[2] In recent years even pro-choice advocates, including President Obama, have invoked the phrase “safe, legal, and rare” to describe how they would desire for abortion to be in contemporary life.  Yet this word “rare” implicitly acknowledges the moral dimension of this choice to terminate another life. However, why would the exercise of women’s rights to look after their health be something to make “rare” if it isn’t morally questionable?

[3] Margaret Sanger, a lauded matron-saint of Planned Parenthood, was a highly vocal proponent of eugenics in her generation.

[4] http://www.lifenews.com/2011/09/15/cnn-poll-62-want-all-or-most-abortions-made-illegal/ (accessed on 5 April 2013). A Pew Forum poll indicated the same. http://www.pewforum.org/Abortion/roe-v-wade-at-40.aspx.

[5] In fact, this creates even more obstacles for gay marriage. Since many who favor tighter restrictions on gun ownership see the Second Amendment as outmoded socially and culturally  (“A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free-state…”), one could additionally ask “why so much ado about the right to marry? Hasn’t the institution failed in the West anyway? Why should the government be involved one way or the other?”

[6] If adoption agencies were provided with the kind of latitude and financial support that organizations like Planned Parenthood receive, then many women wouldn’t feel that abortion was their only recourse.

[7] Recently this clever video appeared on YouTube. It captures this essay’s sentiments exactly.

Some books elicit interest due to their subject matter. Others do so because of their literary quality. For me, the title Killing Calvinism (Cruciform Press, 2012) was enough to arrest my attention.

As a Baptist pastor with strong convictions about the doctrine of salvation, new books on theological systems frequently pique my interest. Regardless of our spiritual sensibilities about “systems,” we all tend to have them. Written by Greg Dutcher, this book is ironically about the problems these systems can create when they’re not anchored within the great God Who they seek to describe. The subtitle of the book captures this concern: “How to Destroy a Perfectly Good Theology from the Inside” [1].

Summary

First, it’s worth commenting on the unique publisher of this book. Cruciform Press entered the publishing business with its first book, Sexual Detox, in October 2010. In the words of the founders, they were attempting to answer the question,

What would a book-publishing company for gospel-centered Christians look like if it began with the realities of 21st century technology?

Their eventual answer was that “[i]t would focus on Content, Simplicity, Reliability, Trust, Convenience, Voice, and Community.” Cruciform Press then maintains low-cost books through focusing on smaller books (though substantive in subject and argument). While print books are available for purchase, eBooks are a large vein of their distribution. Reasonably-priced, prepaid subscriptions to forthcoming books are available, as well as individual sales. One can visit their website for more insight into their unique philosophy and business model.

Second, the book itself lends itself to this form of publishing. Though one could imagine this book emerging out of a series of blog-posts, Pastor Greg Dutcher presents a unified message that 1) briefly explains his journey into Reformed-Calvinist Christianity, and 2) offers a thoughtful argument warning fellow Calvinists not to allow their theology to eclipse their God.

Dutcher summarizes his concern in this way:

I am concerned that many Calvinists today do little more than celebrate how wonderfully clear their theologically windshield is. But like a windshield, Reformed theology is not an end in itself. It is simply a window to the awe-inspiring universe of God’s truth, filled with glory, beauty, and grace [2].

Lest one think Dutcher is understating the value of Calvinist thought, he follows by clarifying his basic argument:

Do we need something like a metaphorical windshield of clear, biblical truth to look through as we hope to marvel at God’s glory? Absolutely. But we must make sure that we know the difference between staring at a windshield and staring through one [3].

Perhaps the best way to appreciate what Dutcher is trying to achieve in this book is by glancing at the table of contents. The chapter titles themselves demonstrate exactly the substance of what he is attempting to argue:

One – By Loving Calvinism as an End in Itself

Two – By Becoming a Theologian Instead of a Disciple

Three – By Loving God’s Sovereignty More than God Himself

Four – By Losing An Urgency in Evangelism

Five – By Learning Only from Other Calvinists

Six – By Tidying Up the Bible’s “Loose Ends”

Seven – By Being an Arrogant Know-it-All

Eight – By Scoffing at the Hang-ups Others Have with Calvinism

In their own particular ways, each of these statements addresses a potential error that contemporary Calvinists can make unwittingly, or they represent a common objection made by proponents of other theological systems.

While Dutcher celebrates the resurgence of Calvinism in contemporary evangelicalism and hopes it flourishes, he believes cautioning his fellow Calvinists will actually help achieve that long-term vibrancy [4]. To return to his metaphor above, he wants to ensure his co-laborers aren’t “busy polishing windshields just to mutually admire each other’s techniques” [5].

One notable feature of the book is how each chapter concludes with two prayers: a shorter one and a longer one. Each is designed to take the particular spiritual error explained in the chapter and turn it into an opportunity for greater consecration and commitment to the Lord. This is one of the many aspects of this short book that demonstrates it to be more of a spiritual tract for its time as opposed to an enduring theological treatise

Analysis & Criticism

Numerous reflections came to mind as I read this book through “classical Arminian eyes.” First, readers don’t have to be Calvinists to appreciate Dutcher’s careful, nuanced, and wise understanding of the relationship between theology and spirituality. That he would preach to his own theological choir (and in print no less) is something that clearly shows he is an author of integrity.

Second, it’s worth noting that many of the dangers against which Dutcher cautions aren’t exclusive to Calvinists. They could equally be applied to anyone—Arminians, Pentecostals, and Lutherans, for instance. Just consider chapter five where he says that Calvinists can be tempted to learn only from other Calvinists. Since I (an Arminian Baptist) have been attending a Lutheran seminary, I have heard more than one professor comment that their particular Lutheran tradition tends to be too parochial, often not engaging with the broader breadth of Christendom. Killing Calvinism is quite useful in that it is a book that speaks to many besides Calvinists (or uncharitable non-Calvinists demanding Calvinists to do penance for the errors of their ways).

A second part of this observation causes one to consider what implications this might have for organizations such as The Gospel Coalition. Given that groups like these are exclusive to those with a certain brand of Reformed theology, how would the principle of “learning from others” apply to interdenominational associations and fellowship? The Helwys Society has addressed this issue in a prior post, but this book raises the matter once more.

A third issue this book raises, particularly for those critical of Calvinism, is whether these problems are so plausible because the theological system itself is built on faulty assumptions. In other words, if Calvinism itself is so vulnerable to these eight particular challenges that Dutcher explains, doesn’t this speak to the fundamental problems with this way of reading the Bible [6]? While I don’t intend to argue in favor of this perspective here, one could envision someone less sympathetic to Calvinism raising this question.

Conclusion

While this book won’t necessarily change the conversation in Reformed evangelicalism, it is a timely and thoughtful caution. The occasional humor only adds to the overall candor with which Dutcher writes [7]. His book constitutes another discerning voice among others who have attempted to ‘shepherd’ and ‘oversee’ the spiritual vitality of the New Calvinism with humility and wisdom.

Killing Calvinism is to a work to be commended to young Calvinists, but also young theological students more generally.

_________________________________

[1] Greg Dutcher, Killing Calvinism: How to Destroy a Perfectly Good Theology from the Inside (Cruciform Press, 2012), $8.45 paperback, 120 pp.

[2] Dutcher, 14.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid., 16.

[5] Ibid., 17.

[6] Dutcher remarks on page 43: “Isn’t it interesting that most Christians are not instant Calvinists the moment they come to faith in Christ?” This is perhaps the type of comment that would support the non-Calvinist’s objection on the grounds of the sheer complexity of the Calvinist theological system.

[7] Ibid., 37. Dutcher reminds readers of Josh Harris’ term “Cage-Stage Calvinists” as descriptive of “overly zealous Calvinists who perhaps ought to be caged up for a while so they can’t do any harm.”

Interview with Russell Moore

One person to whom many of the Helwys Society’s contributors are indebted is Dr. Russell Moore. Moore has written numerous books on everything from kingdom to adoption to temptation to much more. He speaks especially on issues related to theology and ethics. Since 2004, Moore has served as Dean of the School of Theology and Senior Vice President for Academic Administration. Recently he became the President-elect of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission.

The Helwys Society Forum was recently privileged to interview Dr. Moore on everything from country music to Free Will Baptists to his recent appointment to the ERLC to much more. Check it out.

_______________________________________

Helwys Society (HS): Who is your favorite country music singer? And why?

Russell Moore (RM): Thank you for the opportunity to converse. I have been steeped in country music since I was born. My earliest memories include listening to the Grand Ole Opry records with my family. I love country music because it is rooted in storytelling, and deals honestly with issues of death, depravity, and redemption. My favorite musician is, of course, the late great Johnny Cash. Cash sang with authority, and not as one of the scribes.

_______________________________________

HS: What circumstances led to you ending up with a copy of the Free Will Baptist Minister’s Manual?

RM: I was working on Capitol Hill for United States Congressman Gene Taylor (D-Miss.). The Library of Congress allowed congressional staffers to take copies of discard books. I was assembling books of interest to me and picked up a copy of a Free Will Baptist Minister’s manual. It wasn’t until later that night that I started asking why I wanted this. It was a series of helps on weddings, funerals, ordinances and so on. It was that moment that the Lord used to reawaken my sense of call to gospel ministry. I have overwhelming respect for the ministry of the Free Will Baptists, a people who are rock solid convictionally and who hold Baptist distinctives with integrity. I am running for President of the Matt Pinson Fan Club, because every time I hear him speak I resonate with his vision.

As a 4-point Calvinist, I think the differences between Calvinists and Arminians are exaggerated and over hyped. When I’m gathered with the Free Will Baptists, I feel a sense of kinship. We might disagree on the finer details of how to reconcile God’s sovereignty with human freedom, or how to think about the ongoing effects of the fall, but we are together on the gospel, and on the authority of Scripture, and on the practical out-workings of these doctrines. So many in my tribe tend to equate Arminianism with pragmatism or revivalism or atheological evangelical mush, which so many of us have seen in various places, but that is not that heritage of Jacob Arminius or of Thomas Helwys, and that is certainly not what the Free Will Baptists are about. When we get beyond our caricatures of one another I think we can find strong and God-blessed alliances and friendships. I am in the foxhole with the Free Will Baptists and glad to be.

_______________________________________

HS: Can you tell us a bit more about the role of the ERLC, how it functions, and who it serves?

RM: The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission has a long history in Southern Baptist life, under various names. The ERLC was an early voice calling Southern Baptists out of isolationism and toward seeing how the gospel mandates a social ethic consistent with the kingdom of God. The ERLC was an early pioneer in denouncing Jim Crow white supremacy and calling on Christians to support the Civil Rights Movement and to model racial reconciliation within our churches. The agency, sadly, refused to be such a prophetic voice on the sanctity of unborn life in the immediate post-Roe era. This was remedied with the election of my predecessor, Richard Land, in 1988 who led the ERLC and Southern Baptists to a pro-life witness.

The ERLC functions really in two major arenas. One is to speak to Southern Baptists, and from there to other Christians, about the implications of the Christian life for personal and social ethics. The commission seeks to equip pastors and churches to think through with the mind of Christ questions, such as cloning, abortion, immigration, substance abuse, war and peace, and so on. The commission provides resources and a voice to call us away from being conformed to the pattern of this age, by applying the gospel to ethical and moral questions.

The commission also seeks to speak for Southern Baptists, as part of the larger people of God, in the public arena on questions of ethics and policy. We engage the outside world on matters of importance. This is especially true in calling for religious liberty. Religious liberty, as you know, is a Baptist principle that predates all of our various conventions. Thomas Helwys was a heroic voice for religious liberty, along with other Baptist pioneers such as Roger Williams, Obadiah Holmes, Isaac Backus, and Jonathan Leland. When we articulate a vision of religious liberty, whether in pre-revolutionary America or in today’s society, we are not asking for the government to give us some special privilege. We are asking the government to abide by God-given natural rights. And so I plan to spend my life doing what Paul did before Felix and Agrippa: advocating for a free church in a free state so that the gospel may go forward without hindrance.

The call to protect religious liberty means that one aspect of my job is to try to keep Christians out of jail in the next generation, both in North America and around the world. There is a persistent temptation to marginalize and persecute Christianity, which we see in various places in the world today under totalitarian or terrorist regimes. The same could be true, in the fullness of time, anywhere in the world. But my primary responsibility will not be to keep Christians out of jail, so much as it will be to make sure that Christians are ready to go to jail for the right reasons. The formation of consciences and congregations that see their primary allegiance to Christ rather than to Caesar is an indispensable aspect of prophetic ministry.

_______________________________________

HS: How will your new post affect your work in the areas, such as preaching, teaching, and books and blogging?

RM: My presidency really won’t change any of the things that you mention, except that I will be freed up to give full-time attention to speaking, writing, and so forth. My blog will continue, several book projects are underway, and part of my responsibilities will be preaching in churches, and speaking at colleges, universities, and conferences all over the country. I plan also to be a persistent presence on colleges, universities, and seminaries, teaching wherever folks will let me, because I believe this is where ministry commitments are congealed for the next generation.

_______________________________________

HS: Who is your favorite Christian ethicist? Along similar lines, who is your favorite Christian author(s)? Do you have a favorite Christian classic?

RM: I have been profoundly influenced by several writers in the history of Christianity. These include Irenaeus of Lyons, Justin Martyr, Carl F. H. Henry, and C. S. Lewis. All of them help shape my thought in various ways.

_______________________________________

HS: Do you think the ERLC’s task will evolve over the next decade in a way that is distinct from the role it has served in the past? If so, how? What new challenges do you anticipate?

RM: I think that American Christians have in the last generation often assumed a moral majoritarian stance. The assumption is that we hold to the same basic moral commitments and norms as the mainstream of American society; it’s just that we do so with a distinctively Christian twist. This shows up in the way that we speak, as though we are the majority speaking for the rest of society. I think it is increasingly clear that Christian commitments are not, in fact, just another way of articulating the “silent majority” of American life. We instead have a distinctly counter-cultural message. This does not mean that we withdraw from the culture around us. We can’t, even if we wanted to. It does mean that we see the primary mode of interaction as being, first, in cultivating churches that model the kingdom of God, and then speaking to the outside world about the priorities of the kingdom.

We also must see all ethical engagement as a gospel matter. The gospel informs every aspect of reality, including how we treat one another and live together as societies. We must model in our public engagement for the next generation of Christians how to love neighbor, speak winsomely, and yet never back down from what Carl Henry called “the criteria by which God will judge men and nations.” That takes what I call a spirit of “convictional kindness.”

_______________________________________

HS: In recent weeks, we have seen much news media coverage of the same-sex marriage case before the Supreme Court. Whether the Court adjudicates it as constitutional or unconstitutional, what do you believe is the correct Christian response to this difficult, ethical dilemma in our culture and society? How will the ERLC engage this topic?

RM: Many of our neighbors assume that we would like the state to restrict the definition of marriage, in order to exclude people from the blessings that we enjoy. This isn’t the case. A Christian vision of sexuality sees sexuality within the context of covenant. We believe that marriage is pre-political, and therefore cannot be defined, or redefined by the state. The state has an interest in recognizing marriage that it does not have in other relationships, and that interest is protecting the next generation of children through stable families with both a mother and a father.

The issue of sexual complementarity then isn’t incidental to the marriage relationship, but bound up in it. We believe that the path to same-sex marriage will lead to disappointment, and will be harmful to human flourishing. We don’t hate our gay and lesbian neighbors, or wish them ill. We have a different understanding of what marriage itself is. I think our engagement here must be two pronged. We must speak to the meaning of marriage in human flourishing in the public arena, and we must work to create churches that can disciple people to see marriage in gospel terms, not as merely a romantic relationship, but as a one-flesh union that reflects Christ and His church. This means, among other things, that we must engage in the scandal of the divorce culture in our own churches.

_______________________________________

HS: What contribution has the ERLC made to the pro-life cause? How does this ‘organizational response’ relate to the obligation of individual Christians and churches?

RM: The pro-life issue is among the most critical facing Christians and churches because it hits at the fundamental question of human dignity and human solidarity. The abortion culture seeks not only to act unjustly against unborn children, but to dehumanize and depersonalize them. This shows up even in the way that the culture speaks of the unborn, as “fetuses” or “embryos” or “pregnancies” rather than as persons. We see this in other arenas as well. Think of the way that some will speak derisively of the children of immigrants as “anchor babies.”

When we advocate for the right to life, we are calling our neighbors to recognize what in their consciences they already know: this is not at thing, but a person. This is not only a question of public justice, but of congregational holiness. We must not only be pro-life in our public witness, but in the way that we welcome pregnant women in crisis and children into our churches. This means cultivating a sense of receiving children as a blessing from the Lord, and advocating a Christian view that sees a person’s worth as intrinsic, bound up in the image of God, rather than in the perceived “usefulness” of that person.

_______________________________________

HS: As president-elect, how do you plan to guide the ERLC on adoption issues?

RM: The issue of orphan care is bound up with a concern for the sanctity of human life. From the very beginnings of the Christian church, we have received a mandate to care for “widows and orphans in their distress” (James 1:27). I plan to continue my advocacy for orphans, families, and women in crisis. Not every Christian is called to adopt, but every Christian is called to care for widows and orphans. That can happen in a multitude of ways. I plan to work closely with allies in the orphan care movement from Saddleback Church, to the Christian Alliance for Orphans, to Together for Adoption, to our Southern Baptist North American Mission Board to see to it that the global orphan crisis is consistently before us.

_______________________________________

HS: Having served for nearly a decade as dean of one of the largest seminaries in the world, what is one of the most valuable things you’ve learned about leadership?

RM: I have had the great blessing of serving in a 150-year-old seminary, the mother seminary of Southern Baptists, alongside some of the best visionaries and leaders the Christian church has known. I have learned from President Albert Mohler the importance of gut conviction, in the face of long odds, and the cruciality of investing in and mentoring the next generation. Dr. Mohler is a man of unquestioned integrity, an integrity that I have seen in his leadership in public and in private. Additionally, the team that has worked around me has shown me the value of an iron sharpening iron, diversity of gifts approach to leadership. We have been effective, I think, at Southern Seminary partly because we genuinely love each other and love the opportunity to work together. I pray that God would always give me the blessing of co-laborers like that.

_______________________________________

HS: What books or blogs might you recommend for pastors and laypeople who are particularly interested in engaging ethical issues in their denomination and/or local church?

RM: There are so many resources available right now that I hesitate to recommend just a few, because I would be by definition blocking off many more. I greatly appreciate the work that comes out of Focus on the Family these days, from my friend Robert George and the Witherspoon Institute at Princeton and their blog Public Discourse, and in various other Christian ministries. I always find provocative and helpful my friend Rod Dreher’s blog. I also love the work of magazines, such as Christianity Today, First Things, and Touchstone (full disclosure, I’m a senior editor of Touchstone, but I would love it even if I weren’t).
_______________________________________

HS: Do you have any parting words of direction for our readers, many of whom are committed members of another conservative Baptist denomination?

RM: I would simply remind your readers of what I often have to remind myself. It is easy to get into a pessimistic mode, where one thinks that one is a tiny remnant facing an onslaught. Elijah fell into that way of thinking, and God shook him out of it. We are not a tiny band of losers. Our denominations are not the whole of God’s people. We are part of a kingdom that streams through the ages from Abraham, through the apostles, and onward. We are joined right now to King Jesus, who is triumphant over all things in his resurrection and ascension, and gathered with him to a heavenly assembly of the myriads and myriads of angels and the redeemed of all of the ages. The arc of history is long, but it bends toward Jesus. Let’s remember that we are not crusaders and we are not victims. We are crucified, but we are also united to a risen Christ and therefore overcomers. I love my brothers and sisters in the Free Will Baptist and I look forward to joining arms with y’all as we stand together on the gospel and the permanent things.

_______________________________________

HS: We would like to thank Dr. Russell Moore for allowing us to conduct this interview. You can check out his website “Moore to the Point,” including his numerous publications. 

Many believers are moved by hearing other Christians share accounts of their conversion experiences. In fact, one of the hallmarks of evangelical identity has been what historian David Bebbington calls “conversionism.” [1] He’s right—we believe that lives should be transformed through the new birth, otherwise called regeneration.

Of course, not all experiences are equal. The conversion experience that most Baptists think of has its roots in Jesus’ words to Nicodemus: “born again.” While the specifics of the Holy Spirit’s work in conversion are debated across theological lines, one thing upon which we all agree is that God goes to people through different circumstances, in different stations of life, in the course of bringing sinners to salvation. It is in the spirit of this broad perspective that John Mulder has edited an extensive collection entitled Finding God: A Treasury of Conversion Stories (Eerdmans, 2012) [2].

Summary

Mulder informs readers from the outset that this is not an entirely original project. The book is actually a revision and expansion of an earlier work published under the title Conversions: The Christian Experience, and then later reprinted as Famous Conversions. Eerdmans and Mulder worked together to include more accounts from the Western world in this edition, which ultimately brought together 60 first-person accounts.

Each entry begins with a basic summary and description of the person’s life, followed by a relatively brief, but substantial, first-person account of their journey of faith. Before diving into these accounts, Mulder provides a useful evaluation of the term conversion. He acknowledges that “conversion involves complex questions of theology, psychology, and sociology” (xvi). This is perhaps because conversion is portrayed across the pages of Scripture in ways as simple as “a turning around” to acquiring a new humanity altogether.

In Mulder’s words, there is no “single stereotype for an authentic conversion experience” (xv). Thus, he tries to give an overview of the various nuances of the concept and term, ultimately concluding, “If a new kind of life is what conversion implies in the New Testament, the consequence of the Christian conversion experience is a new sense of mission” (xvi). This comment is significant because it certainly provides much of the basic framework that enabled Mulder to select certain stories over others for this collection.

The selections are quite diverse. Figures included range from the patristic era (Constantine & Augustine) to the magisterial reformers (Calvin) to the 20th-century activists (Dorothy Day).  Mulder shares the stories of missionaries (David Livingstone), noted evangelists (Charles Finney), and Baptist pulpiteers (Charles Spurgeon & Billy Sunday). Yet public intellectuals like Alvin Plantinga and Francis Collins have their place too, along with authors of centuries past (Tolstoy). From science to literature, and civil rights to leaders of religious movements, little territory is left uncovered.

While the accounts included vary in length and theological depth, they do attest to the very point made by Mulder in the Introduction: conversion can be an ambiguous notion. Some of the figures express a great deal of emotional turmoil in passing from one state to another, while others indicate a more intellectually-driven pursuit that led them to faith in God. Regardless, the portraits are complementary from the editor’s standpoint, which is consistent with the thought behind the volume.

Critique & Analysis

In many respects, this book is more akin to a primary source reader for a person beginning to wade into the waters of the Tradition. It is not intended to provide a theology of conversion through example (a history or sociology of famous conversions might be more accurate). It is this very point that will elicit both praise and criticism from many readers. Some will be pleased that Mulder’s choice of converts is equally nuanced and broad, as his opening introduction indicates. On the other hand, others will wonder if such a broad understanding of “conversion” doesn’t create a dilemma for those hoping to retain a role for orthodoxy in validating what it means to turn to God. Two examples from the book help explain this latter concern.

Albert Schweitzer is one name many will be surprised to find included in this book. His The Quest for the Historical Jesus (1910) ignited a firestorm among conservative biblical scholars. Even Mulder acknowledges that “for Schweitzer, the conclusion of the Christ story remained ambiguous” (189). It is true that this powerful academic would go on to become a missionary doctor in equatorial Africa. He even won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1952. It is then a legitimate question to ask how reasonable it is to believe that one could have misgivings about Christ’s identity, and still be a true Christian compelled by something beyond humanitarian ideals.

Leo Tolstoy is another example of one whose powerful intellect has left a legacy in the Western world—one that is certainly Christian in many senses. Yet he, like Schweitzer, was motivated by different moral concerns that fall short of an orthodox understanding of the Christian Gospel. In Mulder’s words, “Tolstoy believed that the perfect society would not be achieved by economic materialism but by increasing the goodness of human nature” (126). What does it mean, then, to be converted in the biblical sense if Christ’s sacrificial death is not to awaken those spiritually dead in trespasses and sins?

One way of reconciling this tension for readers more critical of Mulder’s inclusion of such figures is to recognize his project is much more historical and sociological than it is theological. One need only note some of the book’s endorsers to realize that they come from these two fields. When Mulder’s project is seen from this perspective, readers are more able to appreciate the diversity of the stories, while not feeling that he is imposing upon his readers any kind of final judgment concerning this difficult question.

A final observation that most readers will likely make is that a large period of time is skipped as Mulder moves from Augustine to Luther. Approximately 1000 years overlooked is glaring to be sure! Personally, I wondered if there was truly nothing substantive to say of Saint Patrick, Francis of Assisi, Anselm, and Aquinas, to name a few.

Mulder’s defense of such an oversight is two-fold: First, given that the distinction in the Medieval Age between Christians and unbelievers was blurry (culturally-speaking), personal conversion reports were quite rare. Because of the European expansion of Christendom, it becomes a very “delicate exercise to distinguish between authentic conversions and political conquests by might and sword” (xvii). Additionally, Mulder contends that communication of such conversions would have been oral more often than literary in nature [3].

Of course, the former point encounters a contradiction on the basis of Mulder’s selections. Many of the figures he surveys have conversion stories that are shrouded in political and cultural baggage. To say that the Age of Christendom’s problems make it too difficult to include a single voice from that period in a volume of 60 accounts raises many questions, questions that would likely linger from even the most sympathetic reader. In other words, while he argues that the distinction between believers and unbelievers was blurry, many could likewise argue that several of the figures he includes are blurry!

Conclusion

Finding God is a unique collection that will be fascinating reading for those hoping to engage with the Christian Tradition and Western religious history. Yet readers must pay careful attention to Mulder’s opening explanation about the nature of this volume and especially his comments on conversion. As is the case with any book, if this volume is not first read and evaluated in light of the author’s explicit goals and qualifications, then an uncharitable reading will be the unavoidable outcome. But if read critically with proper expectations, then Mulder’s treasury will be an illuminating survey of a rich spiritual landscape.

___________________________

[1] David Bebbington, Evangelicalism in Modern Britain: A History from the 1730s to the 1980s (London: Unwin Hyman, 1989), 2-3.

[2] John M. Mulder, ed. Finding God: A Treasury of Conversion Stories (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2012).

[3] Mulder also argues that in the case of a few of these figures, the material we have as it relates to a “conversion” is quite scant.

[4] Though I haven’t read it at this point, some readers intrigued by the idea and spirit behind this book might also appreciate Colin Hansen and John Woodbridge’s A God-Sized Vision: Revival Stories that Stretch and Stir (Zondervan, 2010).

by Chris & Rebekah Talbot

The music cued and she turned the corner to walk down the aisle in front of me. I waited patiently on stage as I saw my bride for the first time that day. She was the most beautiful woman I had ever seen. Dressed elegantly in her ivory dress, I resisted my tears and choked down that lump in my throat more than once.

I can recount it like it was only yesterday—in part, because it hasn’t been all that long. My wife and I have only been married three months as we write this essay. I’m told we’ll remember our special day forever, and at this point it is still fresh on our minds.

No matter how beautiful and wonderful our ceremony was, it is but a shadow of that greater marriage to come. We read in Paul’s epistle to the Ephesians of a greater marriage between God and His people, Christ and His Church. But for that image to be seen clearly, Paul exhorts both men and women to fulfill their respective roles in this wonderful institution we call marriage. Although equal, God has created men and women to play different parts in this presentation of the Gospel.

As we consider Ephesians 5:22-33 together, we will consider three themes: (1) the woman’s role in marriage, (2) the man’s role in marriage, and (3) how together they paint a picture of the Gospel.

A Woman’s Role: Submission Is Not a Dirty Word

Immediately following the day of our engagement, I (Rebekah) had much to do. Flowers, food, dresses, music—wedding planning began immediately. My most significant responsibility, however, was preparing to be a wife. While studying Ephesians 5, God taught me much (and is still teaching me) about what a godly wife looks like.

More than anything, I learned that submission is the theme of wifehood. Ephesians 5:22 begins with a straightforward command, “Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord.” Unfortunately, submission is one of the most misunderstood and underappreciated values in modern society. Many women view submission as weakness or the incapacity for intelligent thought and decision-making. Fortunately, biblical submission is much more than unintelligent slavishness. While mankind’s sinfulness does not make these roles easy (cf. Gen. 3:16), it’s a call all Christian wives must accept.

To begin, submission is not a quality reserved simply for wives. Rather it’s expected of all Christians. Immediately before addressing wives, Paul instructs all Christians to walk in love while “submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ.” A wife’s role to submit stems from this general Christian teaching. Submission, therefore, is not a punishment for being a woman. Submission is a call for all Christians, and wives should never feel unequal or inferior as they practice this Christian quality towards their husband. First Peter 3:1-6 shows us a wife’s submission is “a call to something strong and noble and beautiful and dignified and worthy of a woman’s highest spiritual and moral efforts” [1]. It is a specific responsibility to which God has called us, and we can find joy in serving our Lord.

Second, in this Christian act of submission, wives recognize their husbands as “head.” While Chris will further discuss a husband’s headship below, it is imperative for us wives to know we must respect it. John Piper describes submission to this headship as “the disposition to follow a husband’s authority and an inclination to yield to his leadership” [2]. Submitting to a husband’s leadership is not only fulfilled by accepting his decisions, but is also portrayed in our responses, attitudes, body language, and conversations.

Any wife knows that submission isn’t always a simple task. In fact, it can be quite difficult at times. Piper uses the words disposition and inclination when defining submission to remind us that our husbands are not perfect. Submission should never follow a husband into sin, put the husband’s will above Christ’s, or result from fear [3]. A wife’s primary authority is God, and it is through freedom in Christ that she can love even in unlovable circumstances. By respecting our husband’s authority in all circumstances, we follow the example of our serving Savior.

A Man’s Role: Loving Then Leading

Within the first few days of our marriage I (Chris) realized how wonderful and amazing marriage was going to be, and how weighty of a responsibility had been bestowed on me. “But what is marriage for?” you may ask. Timothy Keller answers concisely: “It is for helping each other to become our future glory-selves, the new creations that God will eventually make us” [4]. It is the man’s job to take the lead in this cooperative sanctification. Paul urges men to love their wives in a very particular way—the way Christ loved the Church. Paul continues by illustrating how Christ seeks to sanctify His Church through washing with the word and removing all blemishes. Following this perfect example, men should fulfill their roles by loving and leading.

Men’s role in marriage is biblically defined as “headship.” The original Greek for our word head in 5:23 refers to a husband’s “authority” over his wife [5]. Headship is “the divine calling of a husband to take primary responsibility for Christlike, servant leadership, protection, and provision in the home” [6].

In practical terms, this means that men must love their wives unconditionally and sacrificially. By loving first, leading has its proper wellspring. Then men will seek to lead their wives in Christlikeness. In a world that is drunk on power, Christ redefined for us what it means to be a “servant leader.” Keller articulates it well, “Any exercise of power can only be done in service to the other, not to please oneself” [7]. Men must lead and, thus, follow their Savior who “did not come to be served but to serve” [8].

But how does this look in our everyday, busy, and oftentimes hectic lives? First, it means that men should take initiative in the spiritual realm of their marriage. Although we are each responsible for our own faithfulness to Christ, it’s up to the husband to set the example and lead in biblical faithfulness. This means husbands being constant in their prayer lives, devotion, personal evangelism, bible reading, and other areas. It also means husbands encouraging and exhorting their wives to do the same. What about decision-making? Are men to rule with an iron fist? A resounding “No” is the biblical answer to that question. Husbands should protect and provide both spiritually and physically. Thus their decision process should be shaped by those imperatives. While it is up to a man to lead, all decisions should find their answers firmly within this rubric.

Together: The Gospel

John Piper writes, “The ultimate meaning of marriage—the ultimate purpose of marriage—is to dramatize on earth the covenant-keeping love between Christ and His church” [9]. As we see above, the Gospel is laced throughout the institution of marriage. There is no aspect in which it does not claim authority. Husbands display Christ’s loving-leadership as wives portray the grateful church’s response. “By accepting our gender roles, and operating within them,” writes Keller, “we are able to demonstrate to the world concepts that are so counter-intuitive as to be completely unintelligible unless they are lived out by men and women in Christian marriages” [10]. Married couples are not only able to show the world how the Gospel looks, but also how it’s applied.

The Gospel is not only on display in marriage, but is also the very essence upon which marriage is acted. More than being a Gospel demonstration, marriage is an opportunity to further understand and apply the Gospel. Both men and women are able to emulate Christ in marriage: the male in Christ’s sacrificial authority and the female in Christ’s sacrificial submission [11]. For a wife to be a “suitable helper” (Gen. 2:18), she must look to the great Helper who sent His only son (Jn. 3:16; Deut. 33:26, 29) [12]. For a man to fulfill his role as protector and provider—to be strong and meek, bold and broken-hearted, “lionhearted and lamblike”—he must look to the “Lion of Judah” and “Lamb of God” Who is Christ Jesus [13]. Marriage is so similar to Christ and salvation that we must understand the Gospel to understand marriage [14].

Certainly, we cannot speak from decades of marital bliss. We are new to this age-old institution. We hope, however, through biblical thought and practice to begin to understand the “mystery” that Paul talks about. We pray we realize the immense importance of the covenant into which we have entered and what it displays. As Dietrich Bonheoffer remind us, “[S]o love comes from you, but marriage from above, from God. As high as God is above man, so high are the sanctity, the rights, and the promise of love. 
It is not your love that sustains the marriage, but from now on, the marriage that sustains your love” [15].

_______________________________________

[1] John Piper, This Momentary Marriage: A Parable of Permanence (Wheaton: Crossway, 2009), 95.

[2] Piper, 101.

[3] Ibid., 100-101.

[4] Timothy Keller with Kathy Keller, The Meaning of Marriage: Facing the Complexities of Commitment with the Wisdom of God (New York: Penguin Group, 2011) 120.

[5] Wayne Grudem. ed., ESV Study Bible, English Standard Version, (Wheaton: Crossway, 2008), 2271.

[6] Piper, 80.

[7] Keller, 178.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Piper, 147.

[10] Keller 179.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Keller, 173.

[13] Piper, 74.

[14] Ibid., 130.

[15] Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison, 27-28 as cited by John Piper in This Momentary Marriage: A Parable of Permanence (Wheaton: Crossway, 2009), 80.

_______________________________________

For Further Reading:

Timothy Keller with Kathy Keller, The Meaning of Marriage: Facing the Complexities of Commitment with the Wisdom of God (New York: Penguin Group, 2011).

Andreas Kostenberger with David W. Jones, God, Marriage, and Family: Rebuilding the Biblical Foundation (Wheaton: Crossway, 2010).

John Piper, This Momentary Marriage: A Parable of Permanence (Wheaton: Crossway, 2009).

_______________________________________

About the Authors: Chris and Rebekah are happily married in Greenville, North Carolina. Here Chris serves as the Minister of Youth at Unity FWB Church, and Rebekah teaches elementary school. Both are graduates of Welch College, Chris earning his degree in Pastoral Ministry, Rebekah in Music Education, and both hold degrees in theology. Equal lovers of music, coffee, theology, and food, these two are the best of friends.

by Jared Martin

Existential Needs (chapter 1-3)

The thesis of Clifford Williams’ book, Existential Reasons for Belief in God: A Defense of Desires and Emotions for Faith, is that the best way to acquire and maintain faith in God is through reason and need [1]. Faith may be based on either reason or need, but one without the other will ultimately be found lacking. As Williams puts it, “Need without reason is blind, but reason without need is sterile” [2]. He thinks this dichotomy is a mistake. Both need and reason are crucial to our spiritual lives.

The gist of Williams’ existential argument can be stated as follows:

            1. All humans have existential needs.

            2. Faith in God satisfies these existential needs.

            3. Therefore, faith in God is justified.

Our existential needs (deep desires for justice, love, and meaning, for instance) in conjunction with faith in God justify our faith. This justification stems from the fact that faith satisfies our needs, which demonstrates that faith is prudential. To highlight this, Williams invokes the analogy of eating. One is justified in eating if he or she is hungry. Hunger pangs are a good reason to eat, just as existential needs are a good reason to believe in God.

Objections (chapters 4-7)

Williams’ argument raises four common objections. The first objection is that the premises of the existential argument do not guarantee the truth of God’s existence. Existential needs have no bearing on the truth or falsity of claims about God. The deep longings that we have for things such as cosmic security and justice do not offer reasons for believing that the claim God exists is true. Williams concedes this point. In response, he demonstrates that the existential argument can be combined with either fideism (faith without reason) or evidentialism (faith based on reason) to provide support for the existence of God. A fideist can add evidentially-unsupported belief to the existential argument, whereas the evidentialist can add evidentially-supported reasons for belief. Either way, the argument is now supplemented with the cognitive component (beliefs are paradigmatic cases of the cognitive) needed to meet the objection.

Given that the existential argument needs to be supplemented, Williams warns that it would be too hasty to conclude that the argument is inadequate. Evidential reasoning alone may be enough to convince us of truths that are disconnected with our existential needs. However, both need and evidence are crucial for convincing people of truths that are deeply tied to our needs.

The second objection to Williams’ argument is that it justifies belief in any god, not the Christian God. The concern here is that if our needs somehow characterize God, then some needs will yield a characterization quite different than the Christian God. Williams uses the example of torture. If someone feels the need to see humans gratuitously tortured, then faith in a tyrant-like God would be justified. In response, Williams argues that there are independent criteria whereby we can judge whether or not to accept a need as legitimate. The criteria for legitimate needs are that they must be (1) significant, (2) enduring, (3) strongly felt, (4) common to most people, and (5) consistent with the entire range of human needs and desires. These criteria successfully weed out those desires and needs that justify belief in just any god.

The third objection is that not everyone experiences existential needs. If so, the argument is a nonstarter for them since the first premise is not true in their case. One possible response is that even when some do not feel these needs, others still do. The argument doesn’t have to account for those who don’t feel, only those who do. Furthermore, a case can be made that everyone has the same needs but some don’t feel them. In these instances, certain cognitive techniques might be used to awaken their existential needs, revealing that their needs have gone unnoticed.

The final objection to the existential argument is that there are other means besides faith that can satisfy existential needs. If so, then these means would be justified in the same way that faith in God is justified. One would be justified, for example, in loving someone if it satisfied his or her existential needs. Williams responds by formulating several tests to determine whether or not other means than faith will satisfy existential needs, the outcome being that all means besides faith fail to satisfy our needs.

Faith and Emotion (chapters 8-9)

Williams’ view of faith is that it partly consists in belief and emotion. If so, then it seems that faith becomes susceptible to several common criticisms made against the emotions. These criticisms usually point out that emotions are “unstable,” “fickle,” and “disruptive,” causing us to feel that we lack control. Additionally, emotions are “blind.” As such, they do not seem to be an adequate foundation for faith. Faith needs something more reliable. Williams responds to this critique by claiming that emotions are not entirely non-cognitive. Instead, they are inextricably linked with our cognition, meaning that emotions are partly cognitive and partly non-cognitive. If emotions are partly cognitive, then they have the conceptual resources needed to make them stable.

Up until this point, most of Williams’ book considers the epistemic claim that we acquire and sustain our faith in God by both reason and need. In the final chapter, however, Williams makes a normative claim: “We should let ourselves be drawn to faith in God by need” [3]. The rationale for this is that a life of faith provides one with a range of desirable emotions, and a life of this kind has greater value than a life with less emotions.

Evaluation

One of the best things about Williams’ book is that it brings many overlooked existential needs into focus [4]. Of course, the reason for drawing these needs into view is to show how they connect with faith, and this helps us to better understand ourselves. This tack is nothing new in the Christian tradition, as many have argued that humans have a God-shaped hole in their heart, e.g., Augustine, Pascal, Lewis, and Kierkegaard. But Williams reveals just how gaping the hole really is!

Another virtue of William’s book is that it conforms to Scriptural teachings about our need for God. Christ came to save those who are needy! Throughout the Bible, man is depicted as a creature entirely dependent on God. According to Christ, these are the people that He came to save (Lk. 4:18). In fact, those who don’t have needs are the ones who will have difficulty entering heaven (Mk. 10:23-25).

A final strength is that Williams demonstrates how flexible the existential argument can be. It can be joined with other approaches to apologetics in order to develop a robust defense of the Christian faith. Of course, William’s main objective is to show how need and reason are what faith rest on. To this end, he spends most of the book showing how the existential argument works in conjunction with evidential support. But one can see how the existential argument can be supplemented with a special-knowledge model of faith, where faith is characterized as an appropriate response to God’s Word aided by the Holy Spirit.

A quick sketch of something along these lines might look like this. Faith depends both upon our needs and upon God’s Word. On one hand, our faith depends on needs in the sense that our existential needs give rise to our faith. We are motivated by our existential needs to search for their satisfaction, which can be characterized as a longing to believe God’s Word. On the other hand, faith depends on God’s Word in the sense that we seek security in God’s Word. Scripture grounds our faith, and we grow strong in our faith by believing and resting on God’s promises. So, according to this sketch, faith can depend both upon needs and upon God’s word [5].

Conclusion

In closing, I recommend Williams’ book for anyone who is interested in the role that existential needs play in relation to faith. Obviously, anyone who is interested in apologetics should read it as well, since it is a nice complement to some of the work in the area. Williams is a philosopher, and this shows in his writing and argumentation. Even so, the book is readily accessible to laymen since Williams adeptly communicates complex ideas. There are plenty of issues to wrangle over in Williams book (e.g., the nature of emotions and the nature of faith), but, on the whole, most people will find it thought-provoking, well-crafted, and useful for a defense of Christian faith.

_______________

[1] Clifford Williams, Existential Reasons for Belief in God: A Defense of Desires and Emotions for Faith (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2011), 176.

[2] Ibid., 12.

[3] Ibid., 176.

[4] He accomplishes this by describing thirteen existential needs, separating them into two categories: self-directed needs and other-directed needs. No doubt, his characterization will resonate with most readers.

[5] The dependency relation between faith and needs and the dependency relation between faith and God’s word are different. In the first dependency relation, faith is generated by our existential needs. In the latter dependency relation, faith relies on God’s word for security. To use Williams’ analogy, hunger is a different reason for eating than food. Hunger generates the desire to eat, but food is relied on for nourishment. Eating, then, has a different dependency relation with respect to hunger than it does with respect to food. Similarly, the dependence of faith on needs is different than the dependence of faith on God’s word. Faith is generated by need, and faith relies on God’s word.

_______________

About the Author: Holding degrees in art, music, theology, and philosophy, Jared Martin has wide-ranging interests. Currently, he is pursing a PhD in philosophy at Temple University. When he isn’t studying, he spends time with his wife, Mary Ann, enjoying city life in Philadelphia.

The issue of baptism is the trademark of Baptist identity. Since their beginning, Baptists have taken a unique stance on the issue of baptism: that only believer’s can be baptized. This doctrine is grounded in Paul’s words in Romans 6:3-4:

Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

Thus baptism corresponds with the spiritual reality that is now present in the believer’s heart—newness of life. Because this issue is at the very core the Baptist ethos, they radically broke from the tradition of infant baptism.

Yet opponents of believer’s baptism argue that infant baptism keeps in perspective the covenantal framework for which Christian baptism developed into under the New Covenant. Baptism must be explained in light of its connection with the ethnic boundary of circumcision in the Old Testament for it to be understood in its fullest sense. Believer’s baptism, they say, does not adequately account for God’s purpose of baptism and circumcision within the scope of redemptive history.

Unfortunately, baptism’s important link with circumcision is not usually given its due attention by advocates of believer’s baptism. If we are to understand the true significance of believer’s baptism, we must understand it in light of its function in redemptive history. By taking this into consideration, we will see that believer’s baptism is the only appropriate way under the New Covenant of signifying the spiritual reality that circumcision ultimately pointed toward all along.

Circumcision in the Old Covenant

Circumcision in the Old Covenant had two primary functions: First it served as an identity marker for ethnic Israel (for the men and the people they represented). Circumcision clearly distinguished the Hebrews as God’s people. Genesis 17:9-14 is where God first establishes circumcision with Abraham. He says,

You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised. Every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring, both he who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money, shall surely be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant. Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.

Yahweh makes clear that circumcision was the sign of the covenant that He had made with Abraham and his seed. Circumcision marked them out as God’s people. This was so important that failure to do so meant breaking God’s covenant.

Secondly, circumcision was also spiritually significant. In Deuteronomy 10:12-13, Moses posed a question to the Hebrews:

What does the Lord your God require of you, but to fear the Lord your God, to walk in all his ways, to love him, to serve the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and to keep the statutes and commandments of the Lord, which I am commanding you today?

The answer is given in verse 16. “Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart,” says Moses, “and be no longer stubborn.” Circumcision of the flesh taught that the foreskin of the heart must be removed as well, without which God’s people cannot obey him.

The Problem with Circumcision

Moses’ words address the true nature of the problem: that Israel lacks true circumcision—circumcision of the heart. The Prophets further explain the depth of the problem.  Jeremiah states:

Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will punish all those who are circumcised merely in the flesh—Egypt, Judah, Edom, the sons of Ammon, Moab, and all who dwell in the desert who cut the corners of their hair, for all these nations are uncircumcised, and all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in heart (Jer. 9:25–26).

In order to correct this, God announces a New Covenant to deal with Israel’s hard heart. Jeremiah 31:31-34 says,

Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah…I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Likewise, Ezekiel says, “And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone…and give you a heart of flesh…and cause you to obey my rules” (Ezek. 36:26-27; cf. 11:19-20). As the Prophets demonstrate, circumcision is not a sufficient means of signifying this new reality. What sign, then, points to the new reality about which both Jeremiah and Ezekiel prophesy?

The Need for a New Sign

The sign of this new reality is baptism. Still other questions remain: “Baptism to whom? Believer’s only? Or believers and their children?” Understanding the three-fold function of baptism is important for answering these questions.

First, baptism signifies the forgiveness of sins. Though John the Baptist baptized with a baptism of repentance, Jesus would baptize with the Holy Spirit, Who ultimately cleanses us from our sins (Mt. 3:11; Lk. 3:15). Thus, baptism signifies spiritual purity and forgiveness. Second, baptism signifies the believer’s spiritual death and resurrection of the believer. Romans 6:3-4 (see above) tells us that Christians are baptized (into the water) into death and raised (from the water) to new life. Third, baptism signifies salvation from God’s wrath. As the floodwaters did in Noah’s day, baptism likewise signifies the preservation of Christians from God’s judgment (1 Pet. 3:18-22).

Scripture clearly teaches that this three-fold function of baptism only occurs with a believer. Therefore, it does not mean to point to a reality that might take place within a child in the future.

The New Covenant Link of Baptism and Circumcision

The link between believer’s baptism and circumcision must still be established in order to solidify these claims. Paul connects baptism and circumcision together in Colossians 2:11-12:

In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.

The link between circumcision and baptism is undeniable. Advocates of infant baptism claim that infant baptism functions in the New Covenant the same way that circumcision functioned in the Old Covenant. Both point to the need for circumcision of the heart. And, at first glance, it seems that the Colossians passage clearly supports this.

However, upon closer examination, notice that Paul says Christians were “circumcised with a circumcision made without hands,” and were circumcised with the “circumcision of Christ,” which comes “through faith.” The links that Paul makes are very important. Notice that he does not link baptism with circumcision made with hands—circumcision of the flesh. Yet this is what infant baptism does: it links infant baptism with circumcision (of the flesh).

Paul, instead, links baptism with “circumcision of Christ”—circumcision of the heart—which comes only by faith. In other words, New Covenant baptism signifies circumcision of the heart, not circumcision of the flesh. Elsewhere Paul describes circumcision as mutilation of the flesh in contrast to those who have experienced true circumcision (Phil. 3:2-4). Again, baptism is not to be linked with circumcision of the flesh (as infant baptism does), but circumcision of the heart. And which people can only experience circumcision of the heart? Believers.

Thus believer’s baptism signifies the fulfillment of the New Covenant that Jeremiah announced (e.g. 31:31-34). No longer is there a mixed multitude of the reprobate and remnant within God’s covenant people (unlike in infant baptism). Now God’s people only consist of the remnant—believers (Rom. 11:5) [1]. This is why Paul links faith with baptism, because only the remnant believes and experiences true circumcision. Therefore, it seems only appropriate to baptize believers.

Conclusion

As we can see, believer’s baptism is the only true sign of the New Covenant reality that now resides within Christians. Believer’s baptism signifies a reality that now takes place in a believer that Old Covenant circumcision only pointed toward—a new heart. Though this issue will never be fully resolved among Christians, it provides baptized believers with the ardent support they need to make such bold theological claims. Though this doctrine may go against some church tradition, it is finally upon scrutinizing Scripture that all doctrines stand or fall. Rightfully, believer’s baptism passes this test.

_______________________________________

[1] Some may argue that Matthew 13:24-30 supports the idea of a mixed multitude of reprobate and remnant being present within the Church. The wheat will not be divided from the tares until Christ’s return. Notice, however, that the mixed multitude within God’s kingdom is a result of Satan’s work, not of the intended function of New Covenant baptism. Jesus’ point is that Satan will sow mischief and confusion within God’s kingdom, making it difficult to identify true Christians. Contrary to this, believer’s baptism functions to do the exact opposition. It serves as a covenant marker, as it were.

]]> http://www.helwyssocietyforum.com/?feed=rss2&p=3513 4 http://www.helwyssocietyforum.com/?p=3506 http://www.helwyssocietyforum.com/?p=3506#comments Thu, 04 Apr 2013 01:49:45 +0000 Guest http://www.helwyssocietyforum.com/?p=3506

Paul Copan, Is God a Moral Monster? Making Sense of the Old Testament God (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2011). 252 pp. $14.99 paperback.

review by Kevin Williford

Among the challenges facing the church today is the attack on the Christian faith posed by what is commonly called the “New Atheists.” What distinguishes the New Atheists from those in previous generations is their militancy and efforts to popularize atheism. The primary mode of attack is to use the Old Testament (“OT”) stories to accuse God of being irrational and immoral.

Paul Copan wrote Is God a Moral Monster? to address many of the New Atheists’ charges regarding God as He is presented the OT. Copan is a distinguished evangelical apologist who received his PhD from Marquette University. He currently serves as the Pledger Family Chair of Philosophy and Ethics at Palm Beach University.

Summary

In his first chapter, Copan identifies the New Atheists and presents them as popularizers who gather much attention, but who are really not strong philosophers. He characterizes them as angry men who use flimsy arguments and are unwilling to own up to the atrocities committed in the name of atheism. Copan supports this charge with quotes from noted philosophers, many of whom are themselves atheists.

Chapter two extends this introduction by providing a summary of the charge that is made against theism by the New Atheists. The charge is essentially that the Bible reflects a primitive and brutal ethic that is inferior to modern morality. If God is truly responsible for these barbarisms, then He should be rejected as an impostor. Modern man has achieved a higher morality than the Bible without God as a working hypothesis.

The remainder of the book is Copan’s answer to the specific examples cited by the New Atheists of the brutality, immorality, and irrationality of God from the OT. In each chapter Copan exegetes the passages related to the charges levied by the New Atheists. Chapters 3-5 address the charges levied against God’s character, including:

• The charge that God is arrogant as demonstrated by His continual demands for praise (ch. 3). Copan responds by carefully defining arrogance and humility and emphasizing that God is only arrogant if He demands praise that He is not due.

• The charge that God is an angry and vengeful deity (ch. 4). Copan explains the jealousy of God in reference to His covenant relationship with His people, emphasizing the caring and protective elements of divine anger.

• The charge of divinely-sponsored child abuse as seen in the Sacrifice of Isaac (ch 5). Copan explains the story’s function in the larger narrative of Genesis and as an illustration of God’s grace and Abraham’s obedience.

Chapters 6-18 focus on the charges made against religion that are the result of an insufficient knowledge of ancient Near Eastern culture. In Chapter 6, Copan sets the stage by utilizing the concept of progressive revelation to argue that the Bible does not claim that everything at the time was as God desired. Rather God began with where mankind was and in incremental steps progressively moved from the reality to the ideal. Chapters 7-18 all operate with this principle in mind.

• Chapters 7-8 deal with the kosher food laws that seem ridiculous to modern readers. Copan emphasizes the purpose of these laws in creating consecrated community.

• Chapter 9 addresses other laws that appear barbaric. Copan does a good job of illustrating how they were enlightened in comparison with those current in other Ancient Near Eastern Societies.

• Chapter 10-11 addresses whether God was misogynistic and allowed the oppression of women. Copan explains how these laws were actually meant to protect women and led to the improvement of their lives.

• Chapters 12-14 discuss the issue of slavery in the OT. Copan emphasizes the laws that placed restrictions upon slavery that were unparalleled in the ancient Near East.

• The question of whether God endorsed genocide and ethnic cleansing of the Canaanites by the Israelites is the topic of Chapters 15-17. A key point in this discussion is the characteristically hyperbolic language of the ancient Near East that is often unrecognized today.

• Chapter 18 addresses the New Atheists’ charge that religion is cause of all violence in the world. The New Atheists claim religion is exclusionary and this creates the conditions that produce wars. Copan responds that the God of Scripture is actually an inclusivist. Copan also contrasts the biblical Yahweh Wars with Islamic Jihad.

Chapter 19 is the most philosophical chapter in the book. Copan addresses whether it is possible to be moral without God. Copan concludes the book in chapter 20 with a presentation of the positive contributions made to humanity by both Judaism and Christianity, and he presents Christ as the ultimate fulfillment of the OT.

Critique

Copan demonstrates a good working knowledge of grammar of the text, the history of Israel, and the OT and Ancient Near Eastern backgrounds. The book is far more exegetical than it is philosophical, as Copan utilizes all of these disciplines to provide solid exegesis of the passages pointed to by the New Atheists. Copan’s basic argument is that New Atheists have misunderstood the biblical text, and so have misrepresented God as the OT presents Him.

Philosophers will likely be disappointed with Copan’s work because he does not deal with the philosophical arguments that have been made against theism. However, as he points out in the opening chapters, his work is to be an answer to the New Atheists whose attack has largely not been philosophically based. Rather they have attempted to use the OT text itself as an attack against theism, and the only way to counter that attack is to demonstrate the superficiality of the New Atheists’ reading of the text.

Copan’s work is solid, but it is not without its problems. In some places he overstates his case, such as page 108 where he argues for a priestly role for Eve in the Garden of Eden. Another example may be found on page 138 where Copan equates the designation Hebrew with the Habiru, a conclusion that is not unanimously held by biblical scholars, and in so doing extends the six-year manumission clause of the law to non-Israelites as well as Israelites. By overstating his case Copan may weaken his argument by inviting his reader to question his statements and conclusions.

In other places, Copan is not careful with his terminology. For example, on page 109 he describes the OT priests as having three duties: teaching, prophetic, and cultic. This would seem to equate prophet and priest, although what Copan means by the priest’s prophetic duty is the casting of the Urim and Thummim, which is not identical to OT prophecy in any way.

Due to the book’s exegetical and apologetic nature, it is unlikely that it would appeal much to philosophers in their discussion of arguments for or against theism. It is also unlikely that a committed New Atheist would be willing to engage in Copan’s detailed exegesis. Most of the New Atheists’ arguments rest on surface level readings of the text, and my personal experience in dealing with those who have been heavily influenced by the New Atheists is that they are generally either unable or unwilling to follow an exegetical argument.

Conclusion

The book seems best suited for the Christian who has come into contact with the New Atheism and is seeking answers to the accusations the contact has raised. Two useful features of the book are the suggestions for further reading at the end of each chapter, and the appendix of discussion/study questions for each chapter at the end of the book. These discussion questions could be easily adapted to small group or classroom use.

The book would also be useful to Christian leaders who are often approached with questions about these difficult issues in the OT and need a ready answer. While Copan’s work is not exhaustive on these issues, it is a good starting point and points the way to further study. The book is first and foremost an apologetic work that provides an answer for the hope that we have with meekness and respect (cf. 1 Pet. 3.15). As such it is recommended to my brothers in Christ.

_____________________

About the Author: Kevin D. Williford lives in Kansas City, MO with his wife Sheila, their four boys and their Yorkie. He is the pastor of the Victory FWB Church and serves on the MOFWB Christian Education Board. He is a graduate of Hillsdale FWB College (1996). He also has a Master of Divinity degree from Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (2001), where he is also currently working on a PhD in Old Testament. He also teaches as an adjunct online instructor for Hillsdale. In addition to his love of the OT, he enjoys numismatics and reading Russian Literature.

]]>