Pages Menu
TwitterRss
Categories Menu

Posted by on Nov 16, 2012 in Book Reviews, Ecclesiology |

Review of the Creedal Imperative by Carl Trueman

creedalimperativeThe Creedal Imperative by Carl Trueman is vying for best book I’ve read in 2012. I found it compelling, engaging, and convincing, and I hope that many of those in the young, restless, and Reformed crowd reads it.

Trueman’s burden in the book is his “belief that creeds and confessions are vital to the present and future well-being of the church.” He makes a well-reasoned case for why we should have creeds and confessions, including the ongoing use of those from the past. Given that in my ordination vows I stated that I agreed the Westminster Standards contain the system of doctrine found in the Scriptures, I greatly appreciated his explanation of why it is important to have such creedal standards.

Perhaps the most important point that Trueman makes in the book is this: everyone has a creed or confession–but not all of them are written down. In his words:

I do want to make the point here that Christians are not divided between those who have creeds and confessions and those who do not; rather, they are divided between those who have public creeds and confessions that are written down and exist as public documents, subject to public scrutiny, evaluation, and critique, and those who have private creeds and confessions that are often improvised, unwritten, and thus not open to public scrutiny, not susceptible to evaluation and, crucially and ironically, not, therefore, subject to testing by Scripture to see whether they are true.

In other words, when pastors say, “I just believe the Bible,” what they are really saying is that they hold a certain set of beliefs that cannot be publicly examined because they aren’t written down. This alone gives a pretty convincing case for why creeds and confessions should be written down: so that we can compare them carefully with Scripture to see if the doctrine contained in the confession is taught in Scripture.

The Creedal Imperative works systematically through the bases and arguments for confessionalism. In chapter one, Trueman analyzes why our contemporary culture (even evangelical culture) is skeptical about creeds and confessions, particularly older ones. His observations are insightful and instructive for the groundwork that may need to be laid in order for churches to begin to embrace creeds and confessions more today.

In chapter two, Trueman argues from Scripture itself that creeds and confessions are indeed a biblical idea anticipated by how Paul trained leaders in the early church. This is a powerful chapter, as Trueman anticipates arguments suggesting that creeds and confessions will reduce our commitment to sola Scriptura, arguing that instead creeds and confessions allow us to continually make sure that the “tradition” we pass down is in line with Scripture.

In chapter three, Trueman looks at the development of the earliest creeds in the church, such as the Apostles’ Creed and the creeds that came out of the early ecumenical councils. These are instructive as they represent the importance the early church attached to written summaries of Scripture’s teaching.

In chapter four, Trueman looks at classic Protestant confessions, such as the Belgic Confession and the Westminster Confession. I highly recommend this chapter, as it demonstrates not only the beauty of these confessions, but also the particular historical circumstances in which these confessions emerged. This is helpful as we consider the role of confessions in our own day and how they can continue to be used fruitfully.

In chapter five, Trueman tackles the relationship between confessions and praise. Contrary to the perhaps popular image of confessions as dry and dusty documents, he shows that they ought to lead to doxology. That is, while they teach truth, they are also meant to be used in leading us to worship, and so we ought not to present a bifurcated view of what we teach and how we praise our Savior.

In chapter six, Trueman explores further how creeds and confessions can be used profitably. The appendix is dedicated to discussing the writing of new creeds and amending of confessions.

Again, I highly recommend this work, as it is a much needed antidote to the common mindset that we “just believe the Bible” and so don’t care about what the church has produced in the past as summaries of Scriptural teaching.

Read More

Posted by on Aug 4, 2012 in Book Reviews |

Review of Subversive Kingdom by Ed Stetzer

Ed Stetzer’s new book, Subversive Kingdom: Living as Agents of Gospel Transformation, is written to encourage the church to move beyond viewing the Christian life as a matter of attendance at an event one day per week. As the title suggests, Stetzer wants to challenge (American) Christians to see themselves as agents of God’s kingdom who subvert the agenda of the world through living as the subjects of the Lord Jesus.

Some Positives

The basic thrust of the book is compelling: living lives in subjection to Jesus with the intent to witness to the reality of his kingdom is a vision that surely the American church needs to adopt. As Stetzer shows from the gospels and the epistles, we really should see this emphasis throughout the Scriptures, but we too often miss it because of our idols confused allegiances.

I really liked the way the book started. Stetzer established early on that one way to conceive of our role in our Christian lives and in God’s mission is to rebel against the rebellion. That is, mankind is in rebellion against God (and this shows itself in people, systems, and relationships), but we are called to rebel against this widespread rebellion. How do we do that? By living subversive lives, which are revolutionary not in their political tactics and motivational speeches, but in oftentimes small, unnoticed acts of love, faith, and service in our churches and communities.

Stetzer also gives some examples of the way that people and churches are living subversive lives. From churches helping their neighbors in need, to businessmen using their skills to helping the impoverished church overseas, he gives beautiful and inspring examples. I would offer one criticism in that I think the book needed much more of this. And it need more of it in the small, little ways that mentioned in the book. I.e., it’s great to hear of the thousands of dollars Brook Hills church and others use for kingdom-minded purposes. But what about your average person and your average, even tiny church? The book is targeted to that, but there are few examples of what that looks like.

A Concern

There is one aspect of the book that I felt disappointed by, and that is that there I’m not sure that it is theological enough for those theologically trained nor practical enough for those not so trained. E.g., while he briefly mentions the question of the institutional church versus the role of individual Christians, it’s really never examined in any sort of serious way. Similarly, the discussion of the relationship between the church and the kingdom was insufficiently clear and thorough, in my opinion. Those were the big question marks for me in terms of how the church itself lives subversively, even as I greatly appreciated the overall thrust of the book in moving towards a mission-minded life.

Read More

Posted by on Mar 28, 2011 in Book Reviews |

Sabbath by Dan Allender

Given my own Sabbatarian beliefs, I was intrigued to read Sabbath by Dan Allender. It is not something that is discussed regularly in broadly evangelical circles, so seeing it from a broadly evangelical publisher and a broadly evangelical author made me curious.

There is some that is commendable in the book. Allender illustrates in practical ways why a Sabbath is helpful, he unequivocally argues that the Sabbath is a command to be obeyed, and he gets at the root of why many people do not observe the Sabbath in any form. Further, he emphasizes helpfully that the Sabbath is supposed to be a delight, not a hindrance. Too often we view any sort of restriction on the things we want to do as a bad thing, but in this case, in can be a healthy and wonderful thing.

Nonetheless, I cannot recommend this book for several reasons. First, he rarely lets the Scriptures speak in order to determine what the Sabbath is or how it is to be used. Most of it is practical reflections on the Sabbath–some helpful, some not–with precious little biblical interaction. Other than a brief mention of Matthew 12, he does not address the New Testament’s teaching on the Sabbath at all (Hebrews 4, Colossians 2, Romans 14).

Secondly, his presentation is quite out of tune with church history. There is a rich reflection on the Sabbath in the Reformed tradition, and he does not even attempt to interact with it. And this leads to the third problem.

Thirdly, in his eagerness to show how the Sabbath is a delight, he puts emphasis in a misguided direction. His summary of the delight of the Sabbath covers four areas: (1) “sensual glory,” (2) “rhythmic repetition,” (3) “communal feasting,” and (4) “just playfulness” (31). Neither Scripture nor church history quite puts the Sabbath in such a perspective. Glorying in God’s creation, having family rituals, enjoying meals together, and having fun through playing together can all be good, God-honoring things. They’re just not what Scripture uses to describe the Sabbath. Scripture presents it as a rest from work to both physical and spiritual rest. Thus while Allender de-emphasizes the role of corporate worship on the Sabbath, Scripture seems to put a high priority on that as a means of spiritual rest.

Thus while I am happy that some evangelicals are reconsidering the beauty of the Sabbath, I also wish that in so doing, they would connect it with Scripture rather than just personal touches for having a delightful day.

[Note: I received this book free from BookSneeze for review purposes.]

Read More

Posted by on Jan 1, 2011 in Book Recommendations | 2 comments

Reflecting on Reading: July-Dec 2010

2010 is now over, and so I get to reflect on the reading I’ve done over the past year.  It’s probably been the best year for reading of my life, as I’ve both read more (quantity) and reflected more (quality) on my reading than ever before.  I wrote briefly in June about what I read in the first six months of the year, so I’ll follow that with another brief post about what I’ve read since then.   My reading pace definitely slowed in the latter half of 2010, but I was still able to read some good books.

Thought-Provoking

  • Republocrat by Carl Trueman: While Republocrat is certainly not a detailed work on politics, and while it really doesn’t even offer help for figuring out how one thinks about politics per se, it is certainly a thought-provoking book that American evangelicals need to read.  Trueman’s outsider’s perspective and considerable writing skill combine to make an immensely enjoyable read.  See my review and Andy Naselli’s much more comprehensive (also thought-provoking) review here.
  • Radical by David Platt: Platt’s book is less of an intellectually stimulating book than it is a practically challenging book.  As I wrote in my review, there are some areas that could be more nuanced, but on the whole, it is a book that American Christians need to read, because it is far too easy to life a comfortable, American-dreamish lifestyle without truly caring about the cause of God’s kingdom in the world.

Most Helpful

  • Islam in Context by Riddell and Cotterell: This was a very helpful book serving the cause of thinking about Islam both in its historical context and in its contemporary context.  It helped refine my thinking in a number of areas.
  • Fresh Vision for the Muslim World by Mike Kuhn: This is the last book that I read in 2010, and it is one that I would highly recommend.  As I wrote in my review, it provides something quite different from most evangelical books on Islam, and that is its ability to cause us to view issues from multiple perspectives.

Most Spiritually Challenging

  • A Praying Life by Paul Miller: I never did find the time to write a review of this book, but it is one that is deeply challenging in that central practice of Christian faith: prayer.  Filled with honesty and humor, Miller’s book provides both helpful ways to think about prayer and practical approaches to the discipline of prayer.
  • Calvin’s Institutes, Volume 2: The latter half of Calvin’s masterpiece is not only theologically helpful and illuminating, but it is genuinely a challenge to any notions of dead spirituality, for he makes the connection passionately between orthodoxy and orthopraxy.

There’s obviously much more that I could say about all of the books that I read in 2010 (and I plan to write a few more reviews of books that I finished during the past year), but that should suffice for now.  I look forward to a lot of great reading this coming year, and thankfully, I will have the chance to read a lot of material by Herman Bavinck and Johan Herman Bavinck in preparation for my MA thesis.

Read More

Posted by on Jun 19, 2010 in Book Reviews, Dispensationalism, Eschatology |

A Case for Amillennialism by Kim Riddlebarger

As I mentioned in my last post (From Spark to Sun: Calvin on the Covenant of Grace), I decided to go ahead and read a book that I have owned for some time: A Case for Amillennialism: Understanding the End Times by Kim Riddlebarger (see his blog: the RiddleBlog).  What follows is just a brief overview of the contents of the book with some observations about what I thought were positive and negative elements of his presentation.

Brief Overview

In Part 1, Riddlebarger seeks to provide a clear foundation for the discussion of eschatology (the last things/end times).  He provides an overview of the issues separating the three primary views (premillennialism, in classic and dispensational forms, amillennialism, and postmillennialism).  Additionally, he gives an overview of the issues of interpreting prophecy (particularly addressing the issue of “literalism” from the dispensational camp).

In Part 2, Riddlebarger seeks to approach the issue of eschatology from biblical-theological perspective.  In other words, he attempts to put the discussion of the end times in the context of the whole Bible and the whole story of the Bible.  Dealing with such topics such as “the covenant context of Old Testament eschatology,” “Christ and the fulfillment of the prophecy,” and “the kingdom of God,” he argues for the amillennial approach to the end times.

In Part 3, he moves on to look at four key texts that affect eschatological viewpoints: Daniel’s Prophecy of the 70 weeks, the Olivet discourse, Romans 11, and the millennial passage, Revelation 20.  He argues that only the amillennial approach adequately deals with these texts.  Contra premillennialism, he argues that there simply is no Scriptural evidence to suggest that there is a 1000 year gap between Christ’s second coming and the consummation.  Against postmillennialism, he argues that Scripture presents suffering and persecution as the norms for the church’s experience till the return of Christ.

Positives

There are a number of things that I thought Riddlebarger did very well.  (1) His presentation of the two-age model of eschatology (this age, and the age to come) presented in the New Testament was quite convincing.  This forms the foundation for the amillennial insistence on “the already and the not yet,” and his presentation was convincing enough that I need to spend some time figuring out how that fits into my own view of these things.  (2) His refutation of (classic) dispensational premillennialism was outstanding.  Critiquing the dispensational view of hermeneutics, of the dichotomy between Israel and the church, of its dual view of redemptive history, and the “we’ll-return-to-types-and-shadows-like-the-Temple-in-the-Millennium,” he makes the case very well against such a view of Scripture. (3) His exposition of Revelation 20 was quite compelling, particularly because of the clear connection he made with the parallel passage in Revelation 12.  (4) His exposition of Romans 11 was, for the most part, quite balanced.  I’m not sure that he characterized postmillennialism completely fairly, but for the most part, he examined the various options and explained what view he takes, which is that national Israel will en masse convert to Christ and therefore become part of the church right before Christ returns.

Questions/Negatives

I hesitate calling this section “negatives,” because I do have a lot of respect for Rev. Riddlebarger, and I thought that his book, overall, was quite well done.  However, there are some points at which I don’t think he made his case well.

(1) It seemed to me that he did very little in the way of serious interaction with postmillennialism. Now, that’s an overstatement in some ways, as he did certainly mention it regularly and did interact with some postmillennial writers such as J. Marcellus Kik.  But it seemed to me that to convincingly make his case against postmillennialism, he needed to extensively interact with the arguments of Ken Gentry, Greg Bahnsen, Gary DeMar, Keith Mathison, and others.  I’m somewhat confident that they wouldn’t have entirely agreed with his characterizations of postmillennialism.  In particular, his primary argument against postmillennialism was that Scripture doesn’t indicate economic, social, and political success for Christianity prior to Christ’s return.  There are postmillennialists who wouldn’t necessarily expect success in that way, but rather in the propagation of the gospel.  Additionally, in what reading I’ve done on the issue, it seems that postmillennialists argue that the whole period between the two advents of Christ is the millennium (as amillennialists would), not some future golden age (that was a version of postmillennialism more commonly held by some Puritan authors).

(2) His critique of dispensationalism focused almost entirely on the classic form of it. Now, given that in many churches today, this form of dispensationalism is alive and well, that’s understandable.  And I can’t expect that he would cover everything in one 250-page book.  However, given that many (scholarly) dispensationalists would now consider them progressive (PD), it seems that it would have been helpful to more extensively interact with their views.  He did briefly mention PD, but did not really address its approach in much detail.

(3) His exposition of the Olivet Discourse was, in my opinion, weak.  That’s not to say that he did nothing well in that chapter.  His basic approach was that some parts of it referred to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, some will happen in the future, some will happen at the Second Coming, and some have a double fulfillment (AD 70 and the future).  However, I did not get the sense that there were any strong guidelines for deciding which elements went where.  He made a lot of assertions about when each part was/will be fulfilled, but I didn’t see much in the way of textual evidence to support these claims.  In particular, I felt that his refutation of orthodox preterism (partial preterism) was not very strong, for one primary reason: he did not deal well with the orthodox preterist insistence on the hermeneutical guideline of Matthew 24:34 (“This generation will not pass away till all of these things have been fulfilled“). As I have studied Matthew 24, I simply can’t get away from the implications that verse has for the first 33 verses of the chapter.  Riddlebarger argues that some of the elements prior to verse 34 refer to Christ’s second coming, and he doesn’t adequately address how that can be the case with the statement of verse 34 (he primarily discusses verse 34 in connection with dispensational predictions of the future).

Regardless of these aspects of his presentation, I felt that his book was an excellent contribution to the literature on the subject.  And I know now that I need to think through some of this more before figuring out where I stand between amillennialism and postmillennialism.

Read More
%d bloggers like this: