The Gospel - A Review

in

The central concern of Christianity is the gospel. The good news that is at the core of the Christian faith is the beginning and ending of everything that the local church and the life of every believer should be about.

How many of us can give a good, succinct explanation of the gospel?

I don’t mean how many of us can explain how we are different since we have been born again. That is an important story, but that is a story about the effects of the gospel, not the gospel itself. In my experience, I have found that too few Christians understand the gospel at a basic level, which makes evangelism very difficult.

In Ray Ortlund’s book, The Gospel, he offers a careful, but brief summary of the gospel:

“God, through the perfect life, atoning death, and bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ, rescues all his people from the wrath of God into peace with God, with a promise of the full restoration of his created order forever––all to the praise of the glory of his grace.” (16)

There is more that could be said about the gospel. Orlund’s summary leaves room for expansion, for explanation, and for greater detail. However, the core truth is there.

This year my local church walked through Ortlund’s book as we sought to build community within the congregation. Our desire is to frame our community around the gospel and establish a baseline understanding about the content and implications of the gospel.

The Gospel is one of a series of helpful resources produces by IX Marks, many of which have been published by Crossway. This “gift sized” books are all brief, written at an accessible level for all church members, and brief. It was helpful for a large-group study and would be a useful volume to put into the hands a new believer.

One of the interesting aspects of this book is how reliant upon Francis Schaeffer Ortlund is for this book. For those who have read much of Francis Schaeffer, this is not at all surprising. Though some have attempted to classify Schaeffer primarily as a culture warrior, particularly because of his opposition to abortion, but the main thrust of his work was consistently about the gospel and how that should shape the life of the community of faith.

Ortlund’s book is not a simplistic account of the good news. He describes a thick gospel, which require living in a community that takes the renewal of both the individual and the community seriously. This is a short book, a serious book, an encouraging book, and a useful book that I would commend for broad reading and application.

Against Liberal Theology - A Review

in

The more I study modern theology, particularly modernist theologies, the more I am convinced that J. Gresham Machen was right. He wasn’t right about the letter he wrote during seminary to his mother protesting the integration of Princeton Seminary’s dorms. However, he was correct about his theological analysis of modern liberalism that it is a distinct religion from Christianity.

Machen’s point has often been disputed. The main objections are that he was a racist (especially currently) and that he was mean (because he was critical of bad theology). I have not yet encountered anyone saying that Machen’s conclusion was incorrect based on the merits of his argument. (This may exist, it’s not my wheelhouse and it may be that I just haven’t found it.)

However, Roger Olson of Baylor’s Truett Theological Seminary has recently penned a book that argues that Machen is right. In Against Liberal Theology: Putting the Brakes on Progressive Christianity, Olson makes the argument that based on its own descriptions, modernist theological liberalism is something different from Christianity.

Olson is a theologian that specializes in the historical evolution of Christian though. Two of his books, The Story of Christian Theology and The Journey of Modern Theology are very helpful surveys. Olson is a self-described “moderate.” He believes Scripture is mostly true and authoritative, and that it infallibly points toward true things. He generally judges theologians and their theology on their merits in comparison to orthodoxy, as it has been historically understood. Olson is exactly the sort of person to write a book like Against Liberal Theology because he holds mediating positions on the questions in play—everyone already knew that Machen thought liberal theology was bad; Olson was previously critical of full theological liberalism, but he draws some lines in this book that surprised me.

Olson’s main beef with liberal theology is, “It allows modern knowledge, whatever that is at the moment, to stand in authority over the Bible in the most important matters.” This methodological flaw leads to either overt rejection of or redefinition of basic doctrines that are essential to Christianity. Therefore, some modern liberals reject the deity of Christ or the truthfulness of the resurrection. Some of them redefine the terms to explain it away. Others will repeat the orthodox confessions without actually believing it because their Christianity is not a quest for truth, but participation in an experience that conforms to historical patterns of action. Olson rightly identifies that by rejecting or redefining the central doctrines of Christianity, modern liberal theologians have created another religion. It sounds like Christianity sometimes, but it is really something different.

After a brief introduction where he begins defining his terms and outlining his thesis, Olson begins with a chapter on the sources of authority for theological liberalism. Tellingly, the next chapter is on the relationship between liberal theology and the Bible. Then Olson moves through specific theological topics like theology proper, Christology, soteriology, and eschatology. He then closes the book addressing the reality that, even as the number of faithful Christians dwindles, participation in modernistic liberal faith practices is plummeting. He closes by encouraging those Christians who find socially progressive causes attractive to no lose the animating force of real Christianity as they pursue their vision of justice.

This is a helpful book in many respects. Olson is particularly careful as a scholar when dealing with those to the left of him. Thus, this is not a polemic against theological liberalism. He affirms much of what Machen identified much earlier on, but because he’s “not one of those dirty fundamentalists” his critique is much stronger. Olson relies on original sources and secondary sources that are sympathetic to theological liberalism. This adds strength to his argument. Although most liberal Christians would not identify their religious beliefs as anything but authentic Christianity, Olson shows how theologians at the heart of liberalism agree with the substance of the critique. It’s just that they think their departures from historic Christian doctrine are warranted.

On the edges of this book are Olson’s side quests. He tries to rehabilitate Clark Pinnock, who rejected orthodox theology in favor of open theism, as conservative. He also seems to be open to severing Christian ethics from Christian theology, particularly in his definition of “progressive Christianity.” These, however, are minor distractions from what is otherwise a very helpful book, especially for those among theologically conservative evangelicals who recognition of liberal Christianity (as it were) as a distinct religion are ignored because of supposed bias.

The Snakebite Letters - A Review

in , ,

If there is anyone who I think might possibly pull off a version of C. S. Lewis’s Screwtape Letters, it would have to be Peter Kreeft.

Kreeft is deeply steeped in Lewis and in the same source material that Lewis was infatuated by. Kreeft writes well, is witty, has similarly strong opinions, and generally expresses them clearly.

In The Snakebite Letters: Devilishly Devious Secrets for Subverting Society as Taught at the Tempter’s Training School, Kreeft takes a swing and misses the mark.

The book is entertaining and at points helpful. Kreeft is at his best when he is engaging modernity with a pre-modern, Christian vision. That is exactly what he does through much of the book.

Kreeft identifies the real, spiritual nature of the ongoing strife in the lives of Christians. He notes how the media helps saturate every minute with unhelpful thoughts, especially about sex. This leads to undermining any helpful conception of chastity and advocacy for abortion, often as a matter of convenience, even by those who recognize that it is reprehensible and evil.

Somewhere Kreeft here slips away from talking about Christianity to talking about a defense of Tridentine Roman Catholicism, which is the particular sect of Christianity that he converted to as an adult. Much of the rest of the book shifts away from spiritually helpful resistance to modernity to his particular concerns about the internecine struggles within his own tribe. More than many of his other books where he dabbles in pro-Roman apologetics and swipes against the Reformed faith, this book majors in those topics.

Kreeft, of course, has every right to defend his particular version of Christianity. This is likely a very helpful book for those seeking to evade the weird balkanizations within the membrane of Catholicism, with Trads that hate the pope but are stuck with him and Liberals that often dislike the historic teachings of Roman Catholicism that serve as the supreme authority but like the pomp and circumstance. As odd as so much of Protestantism is (and it is odd!) the tensions within Roman Catholicism are sometimes baffling.

Lewis’s appeal in Screwtape is that he is arguing for mere Christianity. That is, his book is generally applicable to a wide range of Christians. Kreeft leaves most Protestants behind for much of this book.

More significantly, however, Kreeft is simply not as capable as carrying out the schtick as Lewis. I’m a fan of both Lewis and Kreeft and have found Kreeft to be one of the most enjoyable contemporary writers of apologetics and wit. His inability to consistently carry the motif is more a testament to Lewis’s brilliance than any detriment to Kreeft. There are times where Kreeft’s own didactic voice comes through and it is clear that it is him talking to the reader, not the demon Snakebite writing to his apprentice, Braintwister. There are holes in the plot, the wall isn’t quite sound, and it becomes possible to catch a glimpse of the man behind the curtain.

The fact that Kreeft can’t pull off a copycat of Screwtape is probably a sign that so many others that try it shouldn’t. As Kreeft notes in his introduction, Lewis would likely have “wanted such ‘plagiarisms’”. It’s not the copycatting that is the problem, it is that the bar is so high that everything else seems like weak sauce—even what Kreeft provides here.

My appreciation for Kreeft remain undaunted. I was left a little unimpressed by The Snakebite Letters, but not really disappointed. It’s a credit that Kreeft came as close as he did. Who knows, the next person to try may actually pull it off. I doubt it, though.