Briefly

by Frank Turk

I had a great idea for a blog post, but Life got in the way.  Shameless self-promotion today instead.

Yes, I really, really am going to be in Winona Lake, Indiana, the weekend for the 2012 Every Thought Captive Conference. (click the sidebar ad to get info)  If you're anywhere in northern Indiana, Southern Michigan, or Western Ohio, you could drive in.  I am driving from Little Rock, so you prolly aren't driving farther than me. (I'm looking at you, Ted and Zach)

The topic?  They say "sexual confusion," but it's really about marriage and society.  My hour will be interesting to say the least, and Tim Challies (headliner, superstar, publisher, pastor, humble disciple) will have two hours before and after to fix whatever it is I break.  There will also be an open forum on Saturday afternoon after the talks.

Come join us -- it'll be a great time to be inside and stay warm and think about, well, lots of stuff.

Also: you need to be following Chris Rosebrough on Fighting for the Faith as he covers the Code Orange Revival.  Stellar.

See you this weekend; if not, be in the Lord's house with the Lord's people on the Lord's day this weekend.

---

Play to your strengths, but challenge your weaknesses

by Dan Phillips

You may have heard that I wrote a book about Proverbs. True fact! Then in looking at my cred, you might notice that my M. Div. major was OT, and that I taught classes in Hebrew and OT Theology. More true facts!

So naturally you might assume that I did all that study, which resulted in all that teaching and writing, because I was naturally inclined to the OT and to Hebrew, and found those subjects easier and more congenial to study.

Untrue fact!

So why'd I do it?

I'll get there in a second.

I hope we can agree that it's a mistake, whether as a pastor or as any other Christian, not to play to your strengths. If a pastor is terrific in the pulpit but not so great at the one-on-one, he mustn't stop preaching/teaching so he can do vistation instead, just to address his failings. Equally, if a pastor is a terrific people-person but not so great in the pulpit, he can't simply cancel the sermon and hand out counseling numbers like tickets in a butcher's shop. ("Now being discipled... Number 1347!")

Paul tells the Ephesian elders, "I did not shrink from declaring to you anything that was profitable, and teaching you publicly and from house to house" (Acts 20:20). We must do both, though we are stronger in the one than in the other.

At the same time, an exceptional preacher or teacher may do a great deal of preaching and teaching, and an exceptional personal worker may do a great deal of personal work — while not neglecting the other. Meanwhile, we who are exceptional at neither simply work equally on both.

HSAT:

It is good for a pastor to give special effort to (A) get out of his comfort-zone, and (B) push himself in the areas of faithful service where he may be weak. In fact, if he is to grow, he must accept that he must push himself, or else he'll just naturally settle down in Comfy Rut Lane. Paul urges Timothy, "Take pains with these things; be absorbed in them, so that your progress may be evident to all" (1 Tim. 4:15 NAS). Do the hard work, let folks see you progress. Paul also presses Timothy to "do the work of an evangelist" (2 Tim. 4:5), perhaps suggesting that evangelism did not come easily to the timid apprentice (cf. 1 Cor. 16:10-11).

So why did I major in OT? Not because that is where I was strong, but because that's where I was weak. It was because I knew that around 2/3 of the Bible was, in fact, the OT, and I was called to preach the whole Bible, so it made sense to focus on the part I grasped less adeptly. So that led to focusing on the OT in my classes and thesis, which led in turn to teaching Hebrew and OT Theology and that little book-thingie I may have mentioned earlier.

Again, in an early pastorate I was challenged to teach Hebrews, and I did. Why? Partly because it was difficult. Because it didn't come easy to me. And because that meant that it would prod and challenge me to teach out of my comfort-zone, thus going into areas of God's counsel that I might otherwise bypass.

Don't misunderstand me. My point is nothing like "Behold Iron Dan Vs. Wild, as I eat grubs and leap off mountains to prove that I am mas macho!" I have many, many bitter regrets concerning areas where I failed to challenge myself and get out of my comfort-zone, and thus failed to be the faithful pastor I should have been.

My point is to share that challenge with you, pastor and non-pastor alike. Is prophecy hard for you? Then start preparing to teach a prophetic book, pastor; or get a good book and study, non-pastor. Is Proverbs hard? Well, maybe there's some good book that can help you so that you can get it, and dive in. The same applies in any area of theology or Christian practice.

If it's in God's Word, it's important.

And if it doesn't come easily to you, then it may be especially important for you and for those you serve.

---

Word-of-Faith Doctrine: A False Religion Full of Greed and Discontent

by Phil Johnson

"Keep your life free from love of money, and be content with what you have" (Hebrews 13:5).

I wrote the following article at Jovan Mackenzy's request for his album, "Famine."

n 1 Timothy 6:6-11, the apostle Paul writes:

Now there is great gain in godliness with contentment, for we brought nothing into the world, and we cannot take anything out of the world. But if we have food and clothing, with these we will be content. But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare, into many senseless and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs.
    But as for you, O man of God, flee these things. Pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, steadfastness, gentleness.

Paul's own testimony gives us a vivid picture of true faithfulness and blessedness: "I have learned in whatever situation I am to be content. I know how to be brought low, and I know how to abound. In any and every circumstance, I have learned the secret of facing plenty and hunger, abundance and need" (Philippians 4:11-12).

Clearly, contentment is a great virtue, especially in times of suffering and poverty. In fact, this is the consistent teaching of Scripture from beginning to end: God's blessing is not measurable by a person's material prosperity. True biblical prosperity is about spiritual health, joy in the Lord, rewards in heaven, and grace in the midst of earthly sufferings. True prosperity has nothing whatsoever to do with material wealth or an abundance of worldly riches. In fact, those things are often hindrances to spiritual blessings.

The wicked often prosper materially, while truly godly people suffer. "Indeed, all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted" (2 Timothy 3:12-13). Christ himself suffered, "leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps" (1 Peter 2:21).

All of that flatly contradicts the message of the Prosperity Gospel—the so-called "Word of Faith" movement. Word-of-Faith teachers insist that worldly wealth, physical health, and material prosperity are the ultimate gauge of how blessed you are by God.

Furthermore, they say, you yourself are the one who ultimately determines how much or how little of God's blessings you enjoy. You can manipulate God with your words. You have it within the power of your own heart to summon enough faith to claim whatever blessing you want. And if you are not materially prosperous; if you are sick; if you suffer in any way, you are the one to blame because you didn't have enough "faith" in your own ability to create a new reality by making a positive confession. You didn't claim your own dream by faith.

That is a lie from the pit of hell. In John MacArthur's words, the prosperity gospel "is no different from the lowest human religions—a form of voodoo where God can be coerced, cajoled, manipulated, controlled, and exploited for the Christian's own ends." It is rooted in greed. It glorifies the sinner at the expense of Christ. It fosters unbelief and spiritual defeat rather than genuine trust in God and triumph in Christ. It makes faith into a formula for manipulating God, rather than a humble, repentant trust in him.

In fact, Word-of-Faith doctrine flatly contradicts everything Scripture says about faith and the promises of God; about suffering and prosperity; about contentment and covetousness; about the work of Christ and the depravity of fallen humanity. It is the religion of mammon-worship; it is not the way of the cross. In short, it is a false gospel—meaning it is no gospel at all. It is a damning and damnable lie, and those who follow such a false and materialistic religion are on the broad road that leads to destruction.

---

Don't Mix the Law with the Gospel

Your weekly dose of Spurgeon
posted by Phil Johnson

The PyroManiacs devote some space each weekend to highlights from The Spurgeon Archive. The Following excerpt is from "The Warrant of Faith," a sermon preached Sunday morning, 20 September 1863 at the Metropolitan Tabernacle, London.

, when will all professors, and especially all professed ministers of Christ, learn the difference between the law and the gospel? Most of them make a mingle-mangle, and serve out deadly potions to the people, often containing but one ounce of gospel to a pound of law, whereas, but even a grain of law is enough to spoil the whole thing.

It must be gospel, and gospel only. "If it be of grace, it is not of works, otherwise grace is no more grace; and if it be of works, then it is not of grace, otherwise work is no more work."

---

An Open Letter to Frank Turk

Sir Aaron, as posted by Phil Johnson



his message came to us via e-mail and is posted without editorial revision:

Dear Frank: I know your open letter series has come and gone, but since your last open letter I've been thinking that there was one open letter that was never written but should have. So I took it upon myself to fill that gap by writing this letter to you. I think I started reading the Pyromaniacs blog in 2008 or early 2009. I suspect I'm unusual in that I first discovered Dan Phillips and only after following his blog for a while did I take my first jaunt over to Pyromaniacs. From the very first post I read at Pyro, I was hooked. Fortunately for me, that first post wasn't written by you because, and I hate to say this, of the triumvirate that really is Pyromaniacs, I just didn't get you. I shamefully confess that I did not look forward to days you posted, at least not at first. If my first introduction to Pyromaniacs had been one of your posts, I might have left and never returned. Had that happened, I know you and the other Pyros would have missed me like a horse misses a fly, but I truly would have missed out on some life changing content. But let me be more specific: I would have missed out on posts you wrote that changed my life. When I say life changing, I don't mean it in some amorphous way, the same way a man looks back through time and says his life has changed. I realize we are always changing so it's an easy matter to say "my life changed." And for that matter, one cannot read every blog post at Pyro for nearly three years and remain unchanged. But when I say you changed my life, I mean that I can point to specific posts you wrote that affected my thoughts and my deeds in such a way that it unmistakably altered the trajectory of my life. As much admiration as I hold for both Phil and Dan (which sometimes borders on idolatry), I cannot point to a specific post by either one of them that had as much singular influence as I can with you. I don't recall how I started reading this particular series since it predated any comment I made at Pyro, but your Stay or Go series forever changed my thinking about church membership. More specifically, in your post, Why I Left, I was immediately convicted by your statement: "when my church fails, I am at least partially responsible." Church membership was not a new concept to me and the need to be part of a local congregation was never a doctrine I, in any way, disputed. But until I read your post, my membership was closer to intellectual assent than genuine action. Never before did I accept personal responsibility for the state of the church to which I belonged. So in 2011, when my church had some significant challenges, I didn't mosey on to greener pastures nor did I sit on my hands. I translated my belief into action and took a leadership role that I believe has helped me and helped my local church body. And that, my brother, is something I credit to you, through God's grace. You also have used a phrase in several posts that resonated with me. You've said, "Be in the Lord's house on the Lord's day with the Lord's people." I know it is such a small thing but after a long work week, sometimes it takes just a gentle reminder to get my lazy self out of bed. When Sunday mornings roll around and I'm eyeing the clock from my bed contemplating sleeping past the Sunday service, it is your words that motivate me: "You—Be in the Lord's house today." And it works. It's weird, I know, but there you go. My appreciation for you has grown since I've been reading Pyro, but this last year I was overwhelmed by your generosity towards me, personally. A few months ago, I tweeted you asking if I could email you about something unrelated to Pyromaniacs. You didn't just send me your email address, but offered to let me call you even though you had no idea what it was I wanted to discuss. I don't know a single blogger who would have done the same, and that gesture touched me. So you gushed on and on about Phil and Dan and even the great John MacArthur, but somebody needed to say something about the tremendous work you've done at Pyro and other places. You have truly been a blessing to me and I'm sure to all the other readers at Pyromaniacs. May the Lord continue to bless you and your ministry at Pyromaniacs in 2012. Sir Aaron

---

Is Christianity rational? (Re-post from 2006)

by Dan Phillips


Re-posted from 8/31/2006, slightly edited.

A Mormon friend, in passing, remarked that religion is not rational, so he didn't expect it to make sense. It's a matter of faith, not reason.

You might think, "Right: Mormon. I don't expect rationality, either." Hang on.

He went on to give an example—but the example was not how a human could become a god, or how there could be only one god and many at the same time, or how God can keep changing His mind about things, or how two equally-inspired books could contradict each other. His example was the virgin birth. I said there was nothing irrational about the virgin birth, and the conversation simply moved on elsewhere. (I now wish I'd asked instead of stated; still looking for a do-over.)

But was he right? Is religion irrational?

"Religion," maybe. Christianity, no.

Now, before we stay too focused on my friend's Mormonociousness, I'd add that some Charismatic friends have said the exact same thing. Try to follow out some thinking to its uncomfortable conclusion, and you get a shrug and a dismissal. It doesn't have to make sense. It's faith, man. "A man with an experience is never at the mercy of a man with an argument," I heard a Charismatic church elder say.

Perhaps definitions are part of the problem. There is a world of difference between rational and rationalism. The latter is a philosophy, a worldview that asserts that man can know truth by the use of his unaided reason. The former merely means that something is in accord with reason, it doesn't violate fundamental canons of thinking such as the law of non-contradiction.

Is Christianity rational? Without re-writing van Til, Gordon Clark, Carl Henry and the gang (—as if I could), I'd rather just focus on one generality and two specifics.

First, some who karaoke this tune are actually simply anti-intellectual. Their religion is a Schleiermacheranian mish-mash of feelings and sentimentality; and, lazily, they like it that way. Like Alice's queen, they have "believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast." They can splop! down an absurd statement and, when challenged to try to make any kind of sense of it—let alone Biblical sense—they can loftily murmur that their religion is a matter of the heart, not of the mind.

This is of course to stand Biblical religion on its head (pun noted, but not intended). As soon as you assert anything about God, life, reality, you find yourself in the arena of thought and ideas. Even the assertion that nothing can be asserted about God is an assertion about God, open for analysis, criticism, acceptance or rejection.

This is by the design of God, who crafted us to analyze, understand, exercise dominion (Genesis 1:26-28). Thus He positions the first commandment as "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind"(Matthew 22:37; cf. Deuteronomy 6:5).

The resurgence of the irrational is not new, either. It was in vogue in the seventies, but was already old then. J. Gresham Machen had fought and slain this dragon a half-century earlier — nor was he the first. The shade of rouge, the odor of the cheap perfume, and the color of the plastic jewels change, but it's the same old whore.

But second, even among Christians who are not anti-intellectual jellyfish, I've met some who very reverently think that some of our beliefs simply are not rational. They're mysterious, they have to be held by faith, not reason.

To this I'd just begin by noting that the opposite of faith is not reason; it is sight (cf. 2 Corinthians 5:7).

But are some of our faith-tenets irrational? Two that I hear cited specifically are the Trinity, and the Virgin Birth.

The second example is just plain silly. I have never understood how this can be an issue to anyone who believes Genesis 1:1, and thus grants the premise of a God who created everything out of nothing. It's like saying, "Everything out of nothing? Sure! But make an existing egg alive without a sperm? No way!" Canons of rational thought are not even stretched, let alone violated, by the fact of the Creator and Ruler thus operating within His creation.

How about the Trinity? Surely the doctrine that God is three and one is not rational?

When I informally debated a Jesus-only heretic on the radio once, he described the Trinity as the belief that "God is three people and one person at the same time." That belief is irrational; if that were what the doctrine of the Trinity meant, I would agree with him. God is not one in one way, and three in the same way.

Yes, the Trinity, stated that way, is irrational. That statement is also irrelevant. Because Biblically-instructed Christians do not believe this.


(By the way, this is a classical straw man argument. You'll meet it in every anti-Trinitarian cultist or heretic. The procedure is as old as dirt: mis-state, then refute the mis-statement, then declare victory. This is yet another reason why it is so vital that we know what we believe better than those whom we seek to evangelize.)

The Trinity is the Biblical teaching that there is but one God (Deuteronomy 6:4), and that this one God is Father (2 Peter 1:17), Son (John 1:1), and Spirit (Acts 5:3-4). The simplest way I have been able to understand and express the truth is that God is one in one way, and three in another. Or, we could say that God is one "what" (i.e. one as to His essence), and three "who's" (i.e. three as to His persons).

Now, do we understand the Trinity exhaustively? Of course not! How exactly does God manage being what He is? We don't really need to know, since we'll never need to be God. Nor should the finite expect to understand the infinite exhaustively. It is as C. S. Lewis says:

If Christianity was something we were making up, of course we could make it easier. But it is not. We cannot compete, in simplicity, with people who are inventing religions. How could we? We are dealing with Fact. Of course anyone can be simple if he has no facts to bother about. (Mere Christianity [Macmillan: 1960], p. 145.)

But we know enough to love Him, to worship Him, and to discern truth from error. And we know enough to know that there is nothing irrational about the doctrine.

Is Christianity rational? I daresay it's the only worldview, ultimately, that is.

Put another way: if it isn't rational, it isn't Christianity.

---

A Made Man

by Frank Turk

Well, happy new year.  Nice to see you.  I feel like it's been a whole year since I have just flat-out blogged, and I have a great list of things to blog about.  There's the question of Mark Driscoll's blog post saying he has historical proof that the gifts didn't cease, which will be a delight to unpack.  Then there's the Elephant Room, which we'll have to wait a couple of weeks for, and the counter-furor over Mark Driscoll's sex book, and if we get bored we could take a look at Rick Warren's Twitter feed for laughs.

I'm going to leap off with some lite fare -- a blog article everyone and his tweeps tweeted approvingly about last week which, in my view, wasn't the man's best work.

Now, look here: I like Russell Moore.  I enjoy his blog.  I think he's a credit to SBTS and the Southern Baptists as a breed.  I'll bet he's a wickedly-challenging professor and a clever and charming fellow in person.  I have absolutely nothing against him.

This blog post got passed around last week like the titular Rose in Matt Chandler's tale of bad evangelism, so maybe my problem is that I got to it after everyone else did and it was falling apart.  It's a text, though, and not a fragile piece of flora, so that's not very likely.  You can read it for yourself, and (since this is the internet) read the whole thing.  It won't actually hurt you.

My friend Mark/Hereiblog objected to the piece because Dr. Moore unfortunately equated Jonathan Edwards, Charles Wesley, Billy Graham, Charles Spurgeon and Mother Theresa as Christian leaders of equal stature. Meh - he's not really making that theological point in that paragraph, so I'm willing to cut him some slack on that.  He's really saying that God can do anything with anyone by grace through faith -- he literally says, "the Spirit of God can turn all that around. And seems to delight to do so."  That's good enough for me.

My problem is the actual larger point of the essay, which stems from a report Dr. Moore makes of something Carl Henry once said to him and a group of fellow seminarians.

Several of us were lamenting the miserable shape of the church, about so much doctrinal vacuity, vapid preaching, non-existent discipleship. We asked Dr. Henry if he saw any hope in the coming generation of evangelicals. 

And I will never forget his reply. 

“Why, you speak as though Christianity were genetic,” he said. “Of course, there is hope for the next generation of evangelicals. But the leaders of the next generation might not be coming from the current evangelical establishment. They are probably still pagans.” 

“Who knew that Saul of Tarsus was to be the great apostle to the Gentiles?” he asked us. “Who knew that God would raise up a C.S. Lewis, a Charles Colson? They were unbelievers who, once saved by the grace of God, were mighty warriors for the faith.”

And to make sure we don't miss the point he is trying to make here, Dr. Moore concludes thus:

Jesus will be King, and his church will flourish. And he’ll do it in the way he chooses, by exalting the humble and humbling the exalted, and by transforming cowards and thieves and murderers into the cornerstones of his New City. 

So relax. 

And, be kind to that atheist in front of you on the highway, the one who just shot you an obscene gesture. He might be the one who evangelizes your grandchildren.

Now, let's take this stuff as it comes and not in such a way to merely take a pot-shot at a reputable man and good Christian brother.  In some sense, the point he makes is one I have made often in the past: God saves people, and he doesn't just save good people.  He saves lousy people (and in my case, I can say plainly, "like me").

That is actually the Gospel hope: to proclaim good news to the poor, to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor.  That's what we do, and what we hope for, and what we think has happened to us.

But, as I read it, Dr. Moore and the beloved Dr. Henry have leveraged that hope one too far.  In the best case, they have not shown us all the work, as my High School Calc teacher used to say.  Because the hope of the Gospel is not that all leaders will be, as Dr. Moore intimates in his essay, just like Paul.  In fact, I think the church is in a lot of trouble right now because we have too many people who, from their own hermeneutical crow's nests, think they are just like Paul -- except for the chains, if I can put it that way.  Some of them think they have been called by the voice of God to lead the church, and unless that's patently true it's patently the pattern for a great fall from orthodoxy.  Some think they are great defenders of the faith, forgetting how loving and pastoral Paul was before he brought out the lash for the foolish Galatians or the sassy girls possessed by a prophetic spirit.  Some others still think they are like Paul because they have written fantastic books, or planted many churches, or maybe because they have a messy eye disease.

... for example ...

My point, before we dwell on that last bit too long, is that not every leader in the church is a Paul.  They don't become leaders by divine caveat and by instantaneous transformation.  In fact, if we read the actual Paul, we find something out pretty quickly: he didn't think that there were almost any like him at all.  The ones who would come after him would be more like Titus, and Timothy, and the men they would teach and raise up as leaders in the church.

And surely: some of those were once, as they say, ones such as these -- once foolish, disobedient, led astray, slaves to various passions and pleasures, passing our days in malice and envy, hated by others and hating one another.  But the way they got from point "A" to point "B" was not merely by Gospel anti-taxidermy where the dead thing has its atrophied and lifeless guts taken out and replaced with living stuff which, it seems, is also the stuff of leaders.  There's a middle step, a long step which requires the actual church, and the Gospel itself, and stuff like love, joy, peace, patience and so on, not the least of which is self-control.  And, as Paul also says, whatever it means to be one who is "not a recent convert."

So yes: Christ saves sinners, and some of those are surely going to be leaders at some point.  But when we are concerned that the church is, herself, sick, and that her leadership is a warren of ignoble furry ticks and not men with pure hearts and good consciences and a sincere faith, to simply declare that the Gospel makes criminals into spiritual paragons misses the point.  It may in fact undermine that point.

And in this new year, where what kind, how many, and for what purpose we have leaders is going to be a highlight (or low-light, as you may wish to call it) of what happens in the English-speaking church, we should consider it, and reconsider it: there's more to Christian Leadership than merely claiming that Jesus has made you a made man.

Think on it, and we'll tackle something really interesting next week.

---

The Holy Spirit is not a failed Ed McMahon

by Dan Phillips

Re-post from 12/14/2006, very slightly edited.

Most of our readers are old enough to remember Ed McMahon, genial MC for The Tonight Show, with Johnny Carson. His job was to announce the show, and introduce Johnny Carson. Then he sat out there, played straight man to Johnny, laughed at his jokes, made Carson look good.

Through the years, Carson had various guest hosts including, I think, Seinfeld, Leno, Letterman, and Brenner. Never, as far as I know, Ed McMahon.

(Here's a funny thing: I'll bet scores of folks are already offended at this post, without even knowing for certain where I'm going with it.)

My allusion to McMahon has one point, and one only: McMahon's job was go make another person look good, to draw attention to him. It was to produce anticipation, and then, with his famous "Heeeeere's Johnny!", to bring on the star of the show.

If the camera had remained on McMahon, if the spotlight had been trained on him, immediately we'd have known something was very wrong. Ed wasn't the focus. Nor have I ever heard that McMahon resented his role. In fact, when he wrote a book, it was titled Here's Johnny!, not Hey, Look at Me! McMahon's job was defined, he embraced it, and he did it well.

So, where am I going with this? Am I suggesting that the Holy Spirit, then, is like Ed McMahon? In virtually no way. The august Person of God the Holy Spirit produced Scripture (2 Peter 1:21), was involved in Creation (Genesis 1:2), empowered Jesus' ministry (Luke 4:14), is the mode of believers' immersion into Christ (1 Corinthians 12:13), seals us until the day of redemption (Ephesians 4:30), and a great deal more. He is God.

But there is one point of analogy, and one only: the delight and joy of the Holy Spirit is not to train attention upon Himself. The Holy Spirit's great love, fascination, and focus, is the Lord Jesus Christ.

Before the Incarnation, the Spirit moved in the prophets. And of what did He speak through them? Among other things, He spoke of the sufferings of Christ, and of His glories to follow (1 Peter 1:11).

The Holy Spirit performed the miracle by which the virgin, Mary, became mother to the human nature of the Messiah (Matthew 1:18, 20; Luke 1:35). He appeared at Jesus' baptism, not to flutter in mid-air while until everyone noticed and admired Him, but to rest on Christ, to mark Him out as Yahweh's anointed (Matthew 3:16; cf. Luke 4:18).

And so the power of the Spirit continued in the ministry of Jesus, to guide Him in what He did (Matthew 4:1), and to bring glory and honor to Jesus, marking Him as God's Son (Matthew 12:28; Acts 10:38). This He did preeminently in Jesus' resurrection from the dead (Romans 1:4).

And what would the Spirit do after Christ's resurrection and ascension? More of the same. "He will glorify me," Jesus says of the Spirit, "for he will take what is mine and declare it to you" (John 16:14). It is worth repetition: "He will glorify me." In fact, the Greek is a bit more emphatic: "That one, Me will He glorify." The Spirit will come to bring glory, and it is to Jesus that He will bring this glory.

Imagine that. God though He is, personal though He is, the Spirit's aim is not to glorify Himself. It is to glorify Jesus. And how does the Holy Spirit do that? By imparting inerrant revelation to the apostles, revelation which we have today in the Bible alone. He did this by granting them inerrant memory of Jesus' words (John 14:26), by bearing witness to them about Jesus (John 15:26), by convicting the world of truths related in each case to Jesus (John 16:8-11), and by continuing to tell them the "many things" that Jesus still had to say to them (John 16:12-13). Jesus emphasizes this last point, assuring the apostles that the Spirit would not speak aph' heautou, from Himself, but rather from Jesus.

When the Holy Spirit wrote a book, what was it about? At least one has to confess that the Holy Spirit's recurrent theme, strain, melody, was the person and work of Christ (Luke 24:25-27, 44-46; Acts 3:18; 10:43; 24:14; 26:22-23). If I may put it this way, you could almost re-title the New Testament "Here's Jesus."

Does it not follow, then, that the Spirit's presence and prevalence will show the impress of His personality, His grand interest?

So how do you know when the Spirit is present and prevalent in a man? By how the man relates to Jesus. He confesses Jesus as Lord (1 Corinthians 12:13). He has the character of Jesus (Galatians 5:22-23). He moves men to confess the incarnation of Jesus (1 John 4:2). He makes the presence and person of Christ real.

A man full of the Holy Spirit will be a great lover of Jesus, whom the Spirit loves, and of that great work of the Spirit, the Scriptures. That is, he will love Jesus, and he will love that Spirit-breathed witness to Christ, the written Word. He will passionately care about the truths of Christ, and of the Word. That will be the proof of the Spirit's rule in his heart.

So how can we evaluate a movement whose icon is a descending dove, who wishes thus to identify itself by a peculiar view of the Spirit and His works? What are we forced to conclude about a movement whose great concern is insisting on a few of what they mis-identify as the Spirit's gifts, after changing the definition and description He Himself had given in the Word?

What of men or women who wish to be distinguished from all other Christians by their view of the Spirit's work? People who do not tend to get much exercised when the person and work of Christ, and the Word of Christ, are misrepresented, attacked, slighted, smeared, rejected either outright or by implication—but who fly into action if anyone expresses skepticism about The Gifts{tm}? Who are known not for their robust defense of the inerrancy and sufficiency of Scripture, nor of penal, substitutionary atonement, nor of the truth of by-grace-alone, forensic justification, nor of the imputed righteousness of Christ, nor of the exclusivity of Christ's claims and Gospel, nor of the objective nature of the Word's truth—but for the right to label an activity "prophecy" or "tongues," despite the fact that it does not approach the Spirit-breathed, Biblical definition?

As a pastor I again and again observed folks who could never be content in a church that seeks to be Christ-centered, and to preach the Word, if it doesn't engage in certain peripheral activities. They can't "feel the Spirit" without certain worship-styles, entertainments, play-times. For them, "feeling the Spirit"—not preaching Christ—is the be-all and end-all.

More to the point, what would the Spirit of God make of such a movement? Does it bear His impress, His mark? In Scripture, He is everywhere present and active, but He is always pointing to Christ, to the Father, to the work and words of God. Consider this: in contrast to the Father and the Son, no Scripture (that I can find) presents the Spirit as prayed to nor directly addressed, nor does any verse command believers to do so. I can't say that I'm sure I know what that means, but it means something.

To make another imperfect analogy, it is as if the Spirit's delight is to grab hold of the spotlight, and then to bring all attention to the Star of the show, Jesus Christ. But if we turn to the spotlight and focus on it, and on the one who mans it, can we think that His intent is honored?

What would be the mark of a genuine movement of the Spirit? Would it not be love for Christ, and for His Word, with resultant godliness and holiness?

... and not fascination with the Spirit?

---

Evangelical Exhibitionists

by Phil Johnson

After hours of writing and half a dozen drafts, I've decided not to review or link to Mark Driscoll's latest book, Real Marriage. Over the past two weeks or so, lots of our readers have written via e-mail, Twitter, and Facebook to ask for a TeamPyro review of the book. Last week I said I'd go ahead and do it. But after trying for most of the weekend to write a review without breaching the boundaries of propriety and chaste conversation, I'm throwing in the towel. The book is the umpteenth incarnation of Driscoll's infamous homilies on sex and the Song of Solomon. It is by no means the first book in which he has dealt with supposedly taboo sexual topics in graphic ways that are calculated to shock. (Now that I think of it: Has he ever written a book that doesn't somehow get around to the same themes that make up the table of contents of Porn-Again Christian?) For several years, one of Driscoll's websites has featured a lot of the same kind of explicit material that recent reviewers have found so offensive. (The website actually includes some links and recommendations that point readers to even more outlandish and sex-saturated websites, such as "Christian Nymphos" and XXXChurch.) So the current controversy about the book's second half is literally years late. I'm quite amazed so many influential bloggers and Christian leaders seem totally unaware that Driscoll has been teaching this same stuff for years. Furthermore, this latest book is somewhat toned down compared to Driscoll's earlier, totally uncensored material on the Song of Solomon, so I am frankly a little surprised that it has been so controversial. But that's not to say the controversy is unwarranted. For at least four years I've been expressing concern about Driscoll's obsession with erotica and explicit sex-talk. Does anyone who has heard me speak or read my material really need to hear a detailed account of my thoughts about this latest book? Is there anyone who knows me who can't guess what I thought of it? Yes, I did read the whole book. I was given a set of page proofs several weeks before the book was published. There wasn't anything particularly new or stunning in the book—other than the details Driscoll reveals about his wife's personal history and the admission that his own marriage was dysfunctional for more than a decade. Those are facts I didn't need (or want) to know, and I am not interested in analyzing them further. If I understand Driscoll's timeline, his marriage was unhealthy for many more years than it has been "healthy." I don't know why he didn't wait and at least balance the scales (and mature a bit more) before writing a book telling his disciples how to fix their marriages and liven up their sex lives. (And while we're on the subject of maturity and the lack thereof, there's something extremely ironic and annoying about Mark Driscoll lecturing men—as he does at the start of chapter 3—on the dangers of perpetual adolescence.) Anyway, the book really doesn't merit a full review, in my judgment. I'm sorry it has already received so much attention.1 It's a bad book, full stop. The good things in Driscoll's book (and there are some) are like the leftover bits of half-eaten Egg McMuffins at the bottom of a McDonald's dumpster: potentially nutritious, but not worth the effort. So rather than a review, here are some random comments about the controversy the book has stirred; about the recent history of evangelicalism's growing obsession with seamy subjects; and about the current state of evangelical thinking on sex, holiness, propriety, and prudishness. Some of these comments will parallel what I said on Wretched Radio last week when Todd Friel asked me to comment on Driscoll's book. And if you want more, watch THIS. Sadly, I think the state of evangelical churches in general today is far worse than it was three years ago when that message was taped at the Shepherds' Conference.

he notion that evangelicals are naïve and squeamish about sex and don't discuss it openly enough is a myth. Evangelical sex manuals have been all the rage as long as I have been a believer, going back to the early 1970s. You had Marabel Morgan's The Total Woman in 1972, which generated tons of evangelical sex-talk. (Marabel was known for—among other things—a kinky suggestion involving the use of Saran Wrap as a dressing gown.) You had Ed Wheat's book Intended for Pleasure: Sex Technique and Sexual Fulfillment just five years later. It has sold multiple millions of copies. Even Tim Lahaye wrote a surprisingly candid sex manual, The Act of Marriage in the mid-1970s. Having sold more than two and a half million copies, that book is still in print.

Yet evangelicals have been complaining for decades that we don't talk enough or hear enough teaching about sex. From the point of view of many non-evangelicals, sex is about the only thing evangelicals have demonstrated a serious and sustained interest in for the past 40 years. As early as 1977, Martin Marty, a liberal religious scholar, referred to the trend as "Fundies in their Undies."

So the premise that evangelical churches are in desperate need of more and more explicit instruction on sex techniques is a risible falsehood.

But evangelical leaders who aspire to be at the vanguard in this trend have to keep looking for even kinkier ways to contextualize their Kama Sutras and spice up their "sexperimentation." Ed Young, Jr., for instance, announced this weekend that he and his wife "will spend 24 hours in bed on the church roof next week and stream themselves live on the Internet to encourage married couples to see firsthand the power of a healthy sex life."

I doubt any regular TeamPyro reader (including some of our longtime critics) would think us too censorious for saying that's a profane and shameful way to deal with a sacred subject.



But aside from the different ways they contextualize their sex-talks for their respective audiences, how is Young's preoccupation with sex as a sermon topic substantially different from Driscoll's? Both men have done multiple sermon series on the subject. Both have suggested that evangelicals' opinions on sex are shot full of taboos and naïveté that need to be demolished, while showing little respect for any of the classic principles of propriety, protocol, and decorum that are worth safeguarding. Both have a puerile obsession with lurid terms and topics. Both have at times used off-color, bawdy, indelicate words and anecdotes in their public presentations. Both like to give details of their own sex lives.

In short, both Young and Driscoll come across as exhibitionists. In one of Young's earlier sex series, he famously taught from a bed on the church platform. In order to top that, he's now moving the bed to the church roof, where he'll teach by webcam. What could be more exhibitionistic than that?

But if Driscoll's exhibitionism is less ambitious than Young's, Driscoll's approach nevertheless seems darker. He reveals dishonorable and scandalous details about private aspects of his relationship with his wife, her sin, and their sex lives. He does this in a way that elevates him to new heights of mysticism and authority, portraying himself as a prophet and seer entrusted with the ability to see others' sin as if on a movie screen—or so he claims. (Why do his revelatory dreams always feature sexual sin or some violent act involving physical abuse of women? Why do Driscoll's dreams and visions never seem to expose white-collar criminals—tax cheats, embezzlers, or religious hypocrites?)

If you ask me (and some readers have), Mark Driscoll fails to safeguard his wife's honor and reputation. He uncovers her sin for all the world to analyze, giving intimate details that should have been kept between husband and wife. In the process, Driscoll portrays himself first as victim, then as hero. In the words of Todd Friel: "Not a manly thing to do." Oh, sure: he admits a personal fault of his own here and there—but readers are left with the distinct impression that the problems that plagued the Driscolls' marriage for more than a decade stemmed mainly from Grace Driscoll's sin and subsequent cover-up.

Driscoll and his book's endorsers refer to Driscoll's tell-all approach as "transparency"—as if it were an utterly benign and wonderfully humble thing. But given Driscoll's history and swagger, it's hard to see it as anything other than carnal exhibitionism. And someday the Driscoll children will grow up and read their father's account of their mother's fornication.

I know some will dismiss my scruples about such things as outmoded Victorian values. But when it comes to the intimacy of the marriage bed, a strong sense of biblical propriety has governed Christian discourse about these matters from the time of the apostles till now. Name one Christian leader from Pentecost until 2005 who ever made public as much detail about his sex life as we have heard in the past three years from Mark Driscoll and Ed Young, Jr. about theirs.

This trend toward increasingly explicit sex-talk and more deviant practices is a bad one for the church. The ease and speed with which evangelicals have embraced the trend is troubling. Just a couple of decades ago (and in every era of church history prior to that), shenanigans like Ed Young's rooftop exhibition would have been roundly and universally condemned by evangelical leaders. The silence (or weak, accommodating response) of most Christian leaders today in the face of such an obvious sea-change is deeply troubling.

It's yet another sign of evangelicalism's growing conformity to worldly values and worldly behavior. The various evangelical coalitions and young Reformed movements that looked so encouraging five years ago have done more to encourage and enable this kind of exhibitionism than to challenge it. These things ought not to be.

How bad will it have to get before true leaders in the church and in the various gospel-centered movements find their voices and start calling the church—and some of these out-of-control exhibitionist preachers—to repentance? I for one hope we get an answer to that question before very long. I pray for it every day.

---

PS: Read Carl Trueman on Ephesians 5:12 for a helpful addendum to this post.

1. Speaking as a member of TeamPyro, it's especially annoying that The World-Tilting Gospel, has been deliberately ignored in some of the very same venues where Driscoll's book has been treated as hugely important.

No Refuge in a Lie

Your weekly dose of Spurgeon
posted by Phil Johnson

The PyroManiacs devote some space each weekend to highlights from The Spurgeon Archive. The following excerpt is from "Refuges of Lies and What Will Come of Them," a sermon preached on Sunday morning, 26 October 1879, at the Met Tab in London.

ach age would fain have its own gospel, and the present is not behind hand in the desire to be its own prophet. Many are ready to help in this presumptuous design.

Certain divines attain to eminence by undermining the gospel they pretend to defend, and forging new theories upon the anvils of their own fancy. Men who would never have been known if they had acted honestly have gained a cheap notoriety by vending heresy, and yet wearing the garb and eating the bread of orthodoxy.

The most fashionable form of this evil just now is the production of novelties with regard to the future punishment of the wicked. False prophets prophesy smooth things, and talk of a larger hope which being interpreted is this, that men may live very much as they like; but some time or other, and somehow or other, character will cease to operate upon destiny, and the righteous and the wicked will stand on a par. This is the old doctrine of falsehood with which the sinner blesses himself in his heart, saying, "I shall have peace, though I walk in the imagination of mine heart."

The punishment of sin has been doubted from the very beginning. The chief of all subtle thinkers said in the garden of Eden, "Ye shall not surely die." By this larger hope, insinuated rather than boldly stated, the serpentine philosopher tempted the woman, and ruined our race. Pleased with his success, he continues to use the same artifice, asserting either that sin is trivial, or that penance can remove it, or that hell is temporary, or that the soul will be annihilated, or some other form of the same radical lie. His perpetual cry is, "You shall not surely suffer what God threatens; you may sin, and yet there is a hope larger than the revelation of Jesus Christ, wider than the Savior has proclaimed."

In this refuge there is no Christ, and no faith in him, and assuredly there is nothing in it that conduces to holiness. Mark its influence wherever it is received.

When any of our friends embrace the novel theology, do they become more devout, more earnest, more gracious, more holy, as the result of it? I think not. Are these the persons who make our prayer meetings a power? Are these the winners of souls? Are these the men who speak much of Jesus, and live in daily fellowship with him? Do we see them more careful to avoid conformity to the world?

Our witness is that the consequences are the reverse. Did you ever hear of a man who was converted from vice by hearing that sin would be lightly punished, and who, in proportion as he grew purer in life, grew more heterodox in his views? Such an instance would be a rarity, if indeed it ever existed; but when a man who holds orthodox doctrine backslides and declines, as a general rule he finds it convenient to adopt some novel hypothesis, in order that he may feel comfortable in his sin. IS it not so? So far as my observation goes, these modern notions go with looseness of life, with worldliness of heart, with decay of prayerfulness, and with backsliding from the living God, and as you lay this line and plummet to them it will soon be seen that they are refuges of lies.

At any rate, sirs, suppose your larger hope should turn out to be correct, in what respect will the orthodox be the losers? But suppose your larger hope should turn out to be a mere delusion, what will become of you who venture your all upon it? We are in any case upon the safe side of the hedge, and this is no small advantage when the weightiest interests are at stake. Suppose there shall be no hell, if I am a believer in Christ it matters not to me; but suppose there is and there is—then you who are unbelievers are in an evil plight.

If you do not catch this will-o'-the-wisp of a larger hope, as I believe you never will, then where are you? It behoves every man not only to make sure, but to make doubly sure. About the soul we want the utmost certainty. I would counsel you to dig deep, and see what you are resting on. I would have you make sure that you do not permit a falsehood to lie like a worm at the root of your hope.

Seek to know the reason for your building on Christ, and when you have ascertained that, then look for God's warrant for placing stone upon stone in the upbuilding, and without this do not rest. Nothing but divine authority ought to content you in the business of eternity.

The views and hypotheses of the learned Dr. Somebody are of no value to me, for I can theorize for myself if I have a mind to. I want fact and certainties, for I dread every refuge of lies.

---

Salt of the Earth

by Phil Johnson

What follows is an article I wrote for the current issue of TableTalk—my favorite monthly periodical. You should subscribe if you're not already a subscriber. Also, heads up: You won't want to miss "The Pursuit of Holiness: An Interview with Jerry Bridges" in the January edition.

"You are the salt of the earth . . . . You are the light of the world . . . . Let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven" (Matthew 5:13-16).

hat text is often cited as if it were a mandate for the church to engage in political activism—lobbying, rallying voters, organizing protests, and harnessing the evangelical movement for political clout. I recently heard a well-known evangelical leader say, "We need to make our voices heard in the voting booth, or we're not being salt and light the way Jesus commanded."

That view is pervasive. Say the phrase "salt and light" and the typical evangelical starts talking politics as if by Pavlovian reflex.
But look at Jesus' statement carefully in its context. He was not drumming up boycotts, protests, or a political campaign. He was calling His disciples to holy living.

The salt-and-light discourse is the culminating paragraph of the introduction to Jesus' Sermon on the Mount. It comes immediately after the beatitudes. Jesus was pronouncing a formal blessing on the key traits of authentic godliness.

What's most notable about the beatitudes is that the qualities Jesus blesses are not the same attributes the world typically thinks are worthy of praise. The world glorifies power and dominion; force and physical strength; status and class. By contrast, Jesus blesses humility, meekness, mercy, mourning, purity of heart, and even persecution for righteousness' sake. Collectively, those qualities are the polar opposite of political clout and partisan power.

In other words, Jesus blessed people who were willing to be oppressed and disenfranchised for righteousness' sake—peacemakers, not protestors; poor in spirit, not affluent and distinguished; people who are persecuted, not the pompous and power-mongers.

This is consistent with Jesus' teaching throughout the New Testament. He said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave, even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many" (Matthew 20:25-28).

Notice, furthermore, that "You are the salt of the earth" and "You are the light of the world" are statements of fact, not imperatives. He doesn't command us to be salt; He says we are salt and cautions against losing our savor. He doesn't command us to be light; He says we are light and forbids us to hide under a bushel.

Jesus was saying that a corrupt and sin-darkened society is blessed and influenced for good by the presence of the church when believers are faithful slaves of their Master. The key to understanding what Jesus meant is verse 16: "Let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven." Personal holiness, not political dominion, is what causes men to glorify our Father who is in heaven.

Salt has several properties. Perhaps the most important (at least in first-century commerce) is that it acts as a preservative. Raw meat can be cured and preserved with salt. Christians in the midst of an evil and decaying society have a similar preserving and purifying effect. God told Abraham he would have preserved Sodom from judgment if there had been just ten righteous people—a little salt—in their midst.

Salt also is an antiseptic, and it can be used in the treatment of wounds. Salt water is good medicine—albeit painful—for broken blisters. There may be an element of that idea as well in Jesus' metaphor. The presence of believers in the world stings the conscience of the ungodly because it is a painful reminder that God requires holiness, and the wages of sin is death.

But salt also gives flavor to food and causes thirst—and I believe that's the main idea Jesus had in mind when He used this metaphor, because He speaks of "its savor." Remember, Jesus had just blessed those who "hunger and thirst after righteousness" (verse 6), and this imagery suggests that the presence of conscientiously godly people in society will have the natural effect of arousing an appetite for God and a thirst for righteousness.

Light, of course, simultaneously dispels darkness and illuminates whatever it reaches. When we properly let our light shine before others, they see our good works and glorify God.

So this is not about wielding political clout. It's not about organizing protests against ungodliness. It's not about trying to make society righteous through legislation. It's about how we live. It's about exemplifying the same traits Jesus blessed in the beatitudes. That's how we let our light shine, and that's the saltiness we inject into an otherwise decaying and tasteless society.

---

This is where I'll be, DV (hello, Houston/Copperfield!)

by Dan Phillips

Hello again, gang.

If all goes as planned, tomorrow I shall be heading off for the great state of Texas for a week.

According to my calculations, I've been in Texas twice before: about an hour each time, in Dallas International Airport. So that doesn't really count.

This time, I'm heading off to the Houston area, specifically in Copperfield, with expectation of enjoying a much broader experience of Texas — at least that part of it.

I am to have the great joy of bringing the Word at Copperfield Bible Church over the week to come. This is a work with a long tradition of bringing the Word of God to that community. I'm very excited about meeting the good brothers and sisters there (some of whom read the blogs), and looking forward to getting to experience Texas' culture and cuisine at firsthand.


That means that some (or all) of the posting at both blogs will be pre-programmed. But it also means that, if you're in that area, maybe we can meet. You can find directions at the web site linked above. I'd be happy to see you.

Any questions, drop me a line; email's in my profile.

---

The "pious heretic" dodge (NEXT! #28)

by Dan Phillips

Challenge: Anyone who does good works in the name of Jesus must be acceptable to God. Especially if they're really-really good.

Response: ...and the man who rapes your daughter but gives her car an oil change because he "loves" her so much should be acceptable to you?

NEXT!

(Proverbs 21:22)

---

Literately

by Frank Turk

This is a reprint from 2010, and back then, I tweeted the following:

Of course, my iPod corrects a lot of typos (whether they need it or not), but it didn't catch that one. So much for actually-literate. But some have asked, “well, what do you mean by that?” That’s a reasonable question, and I have a reasonable answer.

The biggest book in the Bible is the book of Psalms, yes? It’s huge. Nothing compares to it as a feat of literature, or, if I may be so bold, as a feat of theological exposition. And you would think that, for the latter to be true, it would have to be rote seminarian essays in somewhat-bloodless prose. But instead we get stuff like this in Psalms:

Oh give thanks to the LORD, for he is good; for his steadfast love endures forever!
Let Israel say, "His steadfast love endures forever."
Let the house of Aaron say, "His steadfast love endures forever."
Let those who fear the LORD say, "His steadfast love endures forever."
Out of my distress I called on the LORD; the LORD answered me and set me free.
The LORD is on my side; I will not fear. What can man do to me?
The LORD is on my side as my helper; I shall look in triumph on those who hate me.
It is better to take refuge in the LORD than to trust in man.
It is better to take refuge in the LORD than to trust in princes.
All nations surrounded me; in the name of the LORD I cut them off!
They surrounded me, surrounded me on every side; in the name of the LORD I cut them off!
They surrounded me like bees; they went out like a fire among thorns;
in the name of the LORD I cut them off!
I was pushed hard, so that I was falling, but the LORD helped me. [Ps 118:1-16]

That’s not an essay. That’s not a book report. That’s not “exposition” in the sense that it has a topic sentence, three examples and a summary statement. It’s a poem about the grace of God.

Now, that should be enough to run after the idea of literate reading – for example, is this poem about a promise being made or a promise being kept? Why is that distinction necessary to comprehend and therefore interpret the meaning of the Psalmist’s thanks to YHVH? A literate person would grasp this immediately and know it’s part of what we’re getting ourselves into here.

But there’s more to it than that. This poem occurs in the Old Testament, and speaks to both some event in the history of Israel, and ultimately to the victory of Christ. Therefore the literate reader sees this psalm occurring in the narrative of the Gospel; that is, somehow the story of which it is a part is necessary and meaningful for the reader who is actually reading the psalm. The ESV study Bible tells us that this is the Psalm the crowds sang as Jesus entered Jerusalem in triumph, and that Christ intimated it would be sung at his second coming.

Now seriously: so what? Is this just another kind of internet snobbery about to make the rounds? Is this just another way to look down the nose at other people and dismiss their use of Scripture and their kind of faith in Christ?

It could be. In fact, I would say that in some circles it is. For me, I bring it up for one reason only.

We love the Bible: all you readers and me love the Bible. Let’s not love it like we love Ice Cream – that is, for the short and self-centered moment in which it tastes sweet and cold. Let’s love it like a living and active thing which will cut us meat from bone, and also equip us, and inform us – if we treat it like what it is.

But this was said to me yesterday, also via Twitter:

I agree. It's most common to tell stories in Scripture. But it is not the way the apostles taught the Church ab Christ.

There are at least three things wrong with this view of the NT which point to a deficiency in having or showing knowledge of literature, writing, etc.:

[1] The apostles preached the Gospel, but they aren’t hardly the only place where Christ is expounded and extolled. For example, the letter to the Hebrews is almost entirely a book about Christ fulfilling the Old Covenant – which is a narrative point, requiring all the types and symbols, and yields a rich theology of salvation in the Bible.

[2] This completely overlooks the role of the four Gospels in presenting the Gospel, and neglects the book of Acts as a book which informs us on everything from soteriology to evangelism to ecclesiology.

[3] This denigrates the Old Testament in an entirely unacceptable way because it ignores the apostolic use of the OT, and it ignores the nearly-complete apostolic reliance on it as the firm foundation of scripture.

The bottom line is that the Bible – not our doctrines of the Bible – will do more to help us reform ourselves and evangelize and inform others than our cultural pup tents set up for a short time in the changing world will do. We have to read it as if it was literature and not as if it was merely the annotated and unabridged version of the reformed confessions.

---

Book impression: The Baker Illustrated Bible Handbook

by Dan Phillips

The Baker Illustrated Bible Handbook, edited by J. Daniel Hays and J. Scott Duvall

(Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2011; 1144 pages)

My page-by-page scan of this book Baker sent me for review left me with these impressions.

First: one immediately notes that it is a heavy, weighty book. Literally. It weighs a lot! Just shy of 5 pounds. Hand it to someone without warning, and he'll lurch.

This is because the book is packed with really excellent photos and illustrations of various kinds, about 500 in number (not counting charts and maps). You'll see archeological finds and sites, maps, modern photos of locations and animals and such, tables, coins, ancient manuscripts. For instance, p. 267 has a DSS Psalms ms. showing the interspersal of paleo-Hebrew script when the name Yahweh is written; plus doezens of bas-reliefs, vistas, cups, coins. Visually and graphically, the book is a stunning achievement.

Does the content measure up?

First, a glance at the contributors. In my overview, I'm first impressed by the fact that I don't recognize most of the four pages of contributors, and many of those I do recognize don't excite me. Knowing nothing of the book going in, it isn't a plus to me that Peter Enns, Tremper Longman, and John Walton are contributors. On the other hand, Stephen Dempster, Dan Wallace, and Darrell Bock add articles to the volume. Maybe that's just me being out of touch, maybe not.

Most of the writing is carried by the editors, J's Daniel Hays and Scott Duvall, both professors at Ouachita Baptist University and published authors many times over.

Are the contents good? For the most part, well, I'll say they're not bad, and parts are quite good. The reading-level is very accessible without being at all juvenile, though some might not love every idiomatic turn. For instance, Song of Solomon is "a collection of mushy love songs," and is "a steamy, R-rated book" (303), that teaches marrieds that "when the lights go out, we should...be a little goofy and crazy about each other" (307). Truth, there; but no mention of any allusion to Christ, even sideways. I'll return to that.

Similarly, Jeremiah is "the Dirty Harry of the Old Testament" (335). Almost thirty years ago, I gave a similar distinction to Ezekiel, which I think fits him better; Jeremiah is not nearly Stoic enough.

There are a number of helpful elements, including sometimes sharp observations salted as "extras" at the bottom of the pages.

Joe Sprinkle has a helpful and very readable article on the important similarities between Hittite Treaties and the structure of Deuteronomy (109). I found the table of comparisons and contrasts between Rahab and Achan on 133 thought-provoking. The book does lean in conservative directions, such as affirming the authority of the Psalms' superscriptions (267) and the Solomonic authorship of Ecclesiastes (294). Also, there is an interesting sidebar on the fate of the Ark of the Covenant (339).

Mostly, the discussion of authorship-type issues is reliably conservative. Mostly. The section on Daniel simply doesn't notice the long-burning controversy, though its aside on the four kingdoms gets wobbly and accommodates liberalism or copping out altogether (375). The book's outline of the book of Daniel ignores the two languages, of which Robert D. Culver made very good sense many decades ago.

Pauline authorship of the Pastorals is affirmed, but it's hardly a trumpet blast ("Nevertheless, solid arguments remain in favor of Pauline authorship," 882), nor is the affirmation of Pauline authorship of Ephesians (836). The book is noncommittal on 2 Peter (936), which is disappointing.

A number of elements bother me, however. There is no help in understanding Creation or Flood, as to how to read them or how to relate them to the world we inhabit.

Maybe worse: don't look for help in seeing the OT in any Christ-centered or Gospel-centric way. There is no serious treatment (if any treatment at all) of Messiah in the sections on the Pentateuch. "Favorite verse" in Genesis is neither 3:15 nor 15:6, but 17:1 (55). Balaam's oracles are discussed, without even a sidelong glance at Messiah (100). "Favorite verse" in Leviticus is not 17:11, but 19:18 (89). First mention of Messiah that I noticed does not come until 269. But in summarizing "the Prophets in a Nutshell," Messiah finds no place whatever (312-313).

In fact, here's a perfect illustration. As far as it goes, the section "The Grand Story of the Bible" (19-22) is really quite good, quite descriptive of the flow of events and focii of the Bible as a whole. The outline of highlighted themes does say that Christ is the climax of the story. However, Christ comes in at point #11 in a series of 13, and Christ/Messiah has not been mentioned heretofore. So the grand story of the Bible is mostly tellable without reference to Jesus — though He is the "climax." This suggests that the Bible reads a bit like a mystery where the key character isn't brought out nor even hinted at until the last pages of the last chapter. That is one approach believers take to the Bible, but I think it is... less helpful than it could be. (I worked to develop that theme that at the Ashford Bible Conference last summer.)

Also, Bible quotations neither correct "LORD" to Yahweh nor preserve the capitalization device (e.g. 121), which underscores one of my ongoing objections to the practice. In fact, a text-box article on Yahweh is pretty poor, misstating that Yahweh "doesn't really mean 'Lord'" but saying they will "simply translate Yahweh as Lord" (65). Weak. Yahweh doesn't mean "Lord" in any sense, any more than "Dan" means "husband"; and "Lord" is not in any sense a "translation."

Peter Enns shows up to write on the dating of the Exodus, granting that a "literal reading" favors the early date, but leaning for the late date (59). Hardly a surprise, but not terrific.

Of course it will irk me that the section on "the Heart of Proverbs" completely misses the inclusio signals I discuss in my book, which are (A) really important to understanding the book, and (B) hardly top-secret. Plus (fast-forwarding) the note on 1 Corinthians 11 actually revives the old chestnut — you will think I am kidding, but I'm not — that the word head here "could refer to 'source'" rather than authority (792).

In sum: there is much that is helpful, and almost nothing truly harmful, in this book. It is easy reading, engaging, and graphically very impressive. A new reader to the Bible will find helpful information, and a more advanced student will enjoy the graphics without being too exercized over the shortcomings.

The "harm," if any, comes in terms of omission. One could wish for an equally beautiful and accessible book that takes a Christ-centered, emphatically theologically conservative approach to all of Scripture.

For such lavish illustrations, a price in the $20s is a good buy.

---

Listen to This

by Phil Johnson





hris Rosebrough interviews Dan Phillips. The subject: The World-Tilting Gospel. The venue: My favorite Web-based radio program.

This is not merely promo for Dan's book (which deserves all the promo it gets); it's an engaging and edifying discussion about the gospel and its ramifications. Plus, Dan gives his testimony. A great kickoff for the New Year.

Click HERE for the link to listen.

---