The Fight of Faith

Title: D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones: The Fight of Faith, 1939-1981

Author: Iain H. Murray
Publisher: Banner of Truth
Number of pages: 809
Purchased: May, 2005, $20 (BOT American headquarters)
Begun: 1-6-2009
Finished: 5-16-2009
Rating: ****


Review: The Fight of Faith is the second in a two-volume biography of Martyn Lloyd-Jones. I read the first volume, which was only half the length, last year . This one, to be sure, is truly a behemoth in size. However, I found the many hours I spent between its bindings (remember, I am a slow reader) to be not only profitable but genuinely enjoyable. The second volume picks up with ML-J’s pastorate in London (he had previously pastored in his native Wales). These were the war years and London felt the worst that the Hitler’s war birds could produce. (For 57 nights in succession, an average of 200 German bombers were over London every night.) ML-J originally came to Westminster Chapel as an assistant to G. Cambell Morgan. Morgan was not a Calvinist like his assistant, but in the words of ML-J at Morgan’s memorial service:

“We differed theologically, but we never discussed that; we believed in the same final authority of this Book. If one of us was a little bit Calvinistic in his preaching, the other was always Calvinistic in his praying! So we never quarreled at all, and we just said nothing more about it.”

The book details ML-J’s efforts to transform Westminster from a “preaching station” into a church family--something that remained a continual challenge in such a large, transitory city. It also explains his great influence in Britain and the English-speaking world beyond. I found the discussion of Lloyd-Jones’ battle with the rising ecuminism of his day to be extremely helpful and relevant even to issues today. His concerns were doctrinal to the core , and he was willing to stand alone in his defense of truth. However, he never saw himself as the crusader of a certain “party” or group and longed for the unity of all true Gospel believers. I would highly recommend this book, especially to Gospel ministers.

Descartes' Bones

Title: Descartes’ Bones

Author: Russell Shorto
Publisher: DOUBLEDAY
Number of pages: 257
Purchased: 12/2008
Begun: 12/20/2008
Finished: 6/6/2009 Rating: ***


Review: This book, published in October 2008, provides (in the words of its subtitle) “A Skeletal History of the Conflict between Faith and Reason.”

Russell begins with an overview of “The man who Died” (chapter 1). Descartes lived in a an age of many scientific discoveries. However, he perceived them to be without any unifying foundation. The crises he experienced was a loss of meaning, and he began a quest for truth, for something to believe in. He was resolved to slash every idea until he came to a proposition that was impossible to deny. Aristotle, Aquinas, Plato, the Hebrew prophets and the Apostle Paul were all regulated to the same dustbin. Even his own senses could not be trusted since senses can deceive. There might be a tree in front of me, or I might be just dreaming that that is a tree.

“At the end of this remorseless reduction there is only one thing that remains, one proposition that can’t be denied, one sound, as it were, in the universe, like the lonely ticking of a clock. It is the sound of the thinker’s own thoughts. For can I doubt that thoughts are occurring right now, including this one? No: it’s not logically possible.” Hence the conclusion: “Cogito, ergo sum,” or, “Je pense, donc je suis,” or “I think, therefore I am.” This was way more than a slogan. As Shorto explains, it declared that “the mind and its ‘good sense’--that is to say, human reason--are the only basis for judging whether a thing is true…. Human reason supplanted received wisdom. Once Descartes had established the base, he and others could rebuild the edifice of knowledge. But it would be different from what it had been. Everything would be different.”

Following the overview of chapter one, the majority of Shorto’s book is devoted to a description of the peregrinations of the French philosopher’s bones down through the centuries following his death in 1650. The story is fascinating, not only because the skull was separated from the bones sixteen years after Descartes’ death (and followed a completely different trajectory through different countries), but because of the recurring connection that Descartes’ bones had with the developing ideas and events of the “modern” world that Descartes’ philosophy had produced. Thus, in an odd way, Descartes’ skull and the ideas which emerged from it keep intersecting.

This is a fascinating read, because it is on the one hand a non-fiction historical detective story, and on the other hand a philosophical analysis of modernity. Descartes introduced “modernism” which eventually gave way to “postmodernism.” The postmodern world ended, according to Shorto, on September 11, 2001. He borrows from the German philosopher Jurgen Habermas the term postsecular to describe the next stage in the evolution of Western society. This is a stage in which the two radical extremes--radical secularists (such as Christopher Hitchens and other “radical Enlightenment” warriors) and the “theological camp” (people “at the fringes of Western society who [refuse] to go along with the basic ideals inherited from the enlightenment,” who reject homosexuality, etc., and who value supposed divine revelation over human doubt)--are brought into the “moderate Enlightenment camp” in which it is recognized that “scientific and religious worldviews aren’t truly inconsistent but that perceived conflicts have to be sorted out.” (He explains how the American Revolution was the result of “moderate Enlightenment” thinking, and the French Revolution the result of “radical Enlightenment” thinking.)

Our understanding of the relationship of faith to reason and reason to faith have titanic implications to our own personal worldview. Understanding how these two have related throughout western history helps us better relate to the millions around us who, indifferent as they may be to the doubts concerning the authenticity of Descartes’ skull, are nonetheless the products of the doubts that skull produced.

Here a video of the author explaining the thesis of his book, at the book’s official website.

On Being a Pastor

Title: On Being a Pastor
Authors: Derek Prime & Alistair Begg
Publisher: Moody Press, 2004
Pages: 310
Begun: April 13, 2009
Completed: June 6, 2009

Prime and Begg have produced an impressive work on pastoral theology in On Being a Pastor. Mostly written in an informal style and very practical in content, the two pastors share their experiences in the pastorate. Prime ministers at Charlotte Chapel in Edinburgh, Scotland and Begg currently ministers at Parkside Church in Cleveland, OH.

The two men discuss myriads of situations a pastor must face in his ministry including a minister's devotional life, his family life, pastoral care, study, counseling, delegation, interpersonal relationships with his congregation, and interpersonal relationships with his fellow elders. Overall, I found the work helpful. There were many good ideas as well as some that I really didn't care for. Though I do not entirely agree with all their suggestions or practices, I appreciate their overall thrust and philosophy. Here are a couple of statements from the first part of the book (the more objective section):

"Before ever we are shepherds and teachers, we are first and foremost sons of God, and our spiritual life demands to be nurtured...God wants us and our fellowship with Him more than He wants even our pastoral and teaching ministry, important as it is." (85-86)

"Right teaching always leads to Him and shows the relationship of all other truths to His saving work and His supremacy in God's purposes." (56)

Don't Make Me Count to Three

Title: Don't Make Me Count to Three
Author: Ginger Plowman
Publisher: Shepherd Press, 2003
Pages: 151
Begun: May 27, 2009
Completed: June 1, 2009

This book is a Mom’s look at heart-oriented discipline. This is written by a mom for moms. She follows Tedd Tripp’s (who endorses her book, btw) emphasis in Shepherding a Child’s Heart and gives some practical applications for mothers with young children. This book was very helpful for me and I plan to re-read it as often as necessary in the years to come. Her focus is on using Scripture to reprove your chidren and on helping them verbalize their own sin. “When a child learns how to recognize what is in his own heart, he is more likely to demonstrate godly responses on his own.” (p. 41) Not only is it a parent’s responsibility to teach our children to recognize their sin, but we must give them a way of escape. 1 Cor. 10:13 says,” God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it.” She uses this verse to encourage parents (and mother’s in particular) to not only reprove your children for sin, but also to teach them and instruct them in the godly response or action they should have had. So often the instruction part is left out.

There are many things I could say about the book. It is full of examples and humor. It is an easy read and definitely well worth the read for those mothering young children. I’ll simply sum it up by listing the six parental responsibilities that she gives.

1. To use every opportunity to point children to their need for Christ.

2. To train them to obey God by honoring and obeying their parents.

3. To teach them wisdom.

4. To train them in righteousness.

5. To pray for them.

6. To be a godly example.

She does have a companion booklet, I believe, called Wise Words for Moms. I don’t have it but I think it is a collection of specific verses to use for specific attitudes/behaviors your child is demonstrating.

My Grandfather's Son

My Grandfather’s Son
Written by Clarence Thomas

289 pages

I honestly couldn’t remember a whole lot about this era, probably because I was in college and uninterested in current events! (Distracted by dating, perhaps?)

Anyway, I enjoyed this book and learning more of his background, and the difficulties he had as a young black man seeking to get a good education and succeed in life. He worked so hard and still he and his wife hardly had any money, and he writes of them having to wash out their clothes in the bathroom sink each night, or at another time either paying for bus fare and not eating, or walking to work and eating.

It is interesting to note all of the ups and downs of his journey; first of all getting his law degree and passing his Bar. Secondly, of his different jobs, salaries, and then the Supreme Court Nomination?! Wow!

He of course brings up the Anita Hill scandal, and convincingly (to me at least) provides a strong argument of his uninvolvement with her. (She seems like a real flake!)

He quotes from the Bible, and leans towards conservative political views, but I didn’t get a real clear read as to where he is at spiritually. Maybe he’ll write another book on that topic some other time. ;-)

The title is due to his grandfather’s guidance throughout his life. His grandfather raised him, loved him and his brother, but was not very ‘warm and fuzzy’. He took his job of raising them very seriously, and made sure they weren’t wimpy. He would make them work very hard, and let’s just say he wasn’t too concerned with their ‘self esteem’. J It’s funny, because later on when Clarence has his son, all of a sudden Clarence’s grandfather spoils his great grandson absolutely rotten, and cuddles him all of the time. Clarence has a tough time with that!

I enjoyed it, I’d give the book a 7. (I don’t know if he had an editor, but……in my opinion, he should have either had one, or hired one! :-)

Brenda

Nickle and Dimed, On (Not) Getting by in America

Part of my reading this year and last has included a real effort to acquaint myself with books that are required reading on the campuses of American secular universities (assuming, of course, that I can read them as a Christian). It's the way some of choose to contextualize without wearing nose-rings and tattoos.

How I find these particular books is rather unscientific. It usually happens by taking note of a comment in another book about an author or book that it is assumed everyone knows about. I then jot the name down on a piece of paper and retain the tidbit of information for a later time when I might have time, money, and opportunity collude conveniently for me to acquire the book that "everyone knows about" but me. Thus, I heard about Barbara Ehrenreich's book. I think I saw her on TV one time -- or mentioned -- and she is a flaming liberal and pro-Obama feminist.

I have to say at the outset that I have increasingly been unhappy with the American evangelical's conviction that Jesus is a Republican and that capitalism is the sanctified way of life among the nations that will separate the sheep from the goats at the bema. I personally have a bitter and cynical feeling toward raw, unchecked capitalism as anyone who has been on the losing side of a Monopoly game as many times as I have been may fully understand. There is no year of Jubilee. My Calvinistic theology convinces me that men are bad and that greed will prevail anywhere, be it a capitalistic or socialist system or in game of Monopoly. However, while it is incredibly naive to insist that capitalism is the best hope for the poor, it is also naive to think that socialism checks greed.

The disparity between the rich and the poor is even further in Western Europe than it is here in this messed up system and the gulf that separates the two classes is unbridgeable. Socialism, like Stalin's communism, classifies people permanently. In France or Sweden, for example, there is an impassible separation between the very rich and the not-so-miserable poor. At least in capitalism there is the technical possibility, though the probability is minimal, that one could move from class to class even though the poor or more miserable

Ironically, I also think that there is really a case to make that the poor in America are poorer than the poor in socialist Europe, but since I have also seen the downside of socialist government I am just as cynical and doubtful about the so-called hope that the new socialism is bringing to the United States of America.

The inability of the American Christian to see a third way (or fourth or fifth) or to weigh the arguments of economic liberals is because there is a patriotic head-buried-in-sand surrealism among American Christians about what life is really like in this country for most people. They believe in the "American Dream" without realizing that it is just a "dream." But worse, they only read or listen to people who are certified red-white-and-blue, anti-abortionist, Jesus-is-a-Republican, pro-Wal-mart, America-is-a-Christian-nation bona fide patriot. Anyone that does not fit that category is dismissed as an un-American quasi-communist infiltrator that has no other agenda but to see American go down in flames. Thus, with homeschooling and the Christian school and the Christian colleges there has developed another culture, another view point, and another concept of the America that we live in that is so radically different than the one their neighbors are learning about that they simply cannot even relate. Worse, the America they believe exists doesn't equate to reality. There is no America like the one most conservative Christians are willfully indoctrinating themselves to love and defend.

What is a Christian to do? The solution is not easy. You just don't switch parties. You don't fix lemming-hood by becoming the lemming of another party. Besides, in a two party system like America has presently, the morality issues of abortion and homosexual marriage, etc. are polarizing issues. For example, I may be sympathetic to some kind of governmental healthcare provision, but I can't in good conscience support a system that takes away the liberty of doctors to choose against abortion.

Thus, part of the solution for today's Christian is to get in the conversation. At least in conversation we don't have to be so either/or about things. As thoughtful Christians we should know what other people are thinking. That's what I suggested to my successful and generous Christian chiropractor yesterday. He had never heard of Ehrenriech's book. The goal is not political. The goal is missional. The goal is the Gospel. The Gospel is only really good news in reality.

The goal is present-day realism that makes one a much more effective witness to the world he lives in and demonstrates a more mature (and ultimately more effective) contextualization that goes beyond wearing hip-hop bling-bling.

We live in a world where ideas have consequences and thoughtless, driveling repetition of the party line exposes us as unhelpful minions of a perceived if not real oppressor. Can "good news" really come from someone who regurgitates something demonstrably bad?

It may also make him a more helpful contributor to the world's pursuit for practical solutions.

Christians need to face a reality that rich Republicans don't want Americans to see. I don't think it's a conspiracy on their part. I really don't think there are back-room deals among the very rich Republicans. I simply think that they and scores of thousands of comfortable middle-class evangelicals really don't see it; therefore, they think the mention of that reality is a conspiracy on the part of the liberals.

Listen to Hannity and Limbaugh scoff the poor. Listen to them say that anyone -- anyone! -- who wants to can be rich in this country. Just look at them, they say. They scrapped and clawed their way to their success by good old-fashioned work, they shrill. Basically, if you're poor and caught in a vortex of increasing poverty it's because you're lazy, they imply if not overtly declare. Of course, this is not new with them; we basically grew up with this Americana doctrine. However, the facts do not support the dream that these unimaginably rich men perpetuate.

The most blasphemous words a preacher of the Gospel of Jesus Christ can say from the pulpit are, "Weep and howl, you rich men." That they are biblical and applicable are irrelevant. These words are blasphemous to American Christians who grew up with a "Christian" worldview about American capitalism. One group of people that the American preacher knows he cannot address is the rich. After all, in most cases, they butter his bread.

Although, for the bold castigator of the rich there is always the realistic hope of, well, riches. Think Jesse Jackson and so forth.

In theory, I agree with the liberals in this state that think minimum wage should be elevated, but that puts me at odds with the accepted way of thinking among most Christians who for some bizarre reason think that employers are always fair and generous. I think the wages of the poor have "reached the ears of the Lord of hosts." However, I also think that the socialist answer is pocked with humanistic and naive thinking. Socialism obviously does not solve the greed problem and so far it only has a broken record which includes the stifling of innovation and liberties.

Millennialists are looking forward to seeing how Jesus will manage the economy since anything that includes unregenerate men will ultimately be abused. In the meantime, however, I think Christians would do themselves a service by accepting the fact that it is possible to be Christian without drinking the kool-aid of one party or the other. One doesn't have to sell his soul to a system. If capitalism is the "American Dream" they need to realize that for most people it's just a dream; and for others it has become a nightmare in which they are the losers of Monopoly that repeats itself over and over and over with no end in sight. If socialism is the answer, they need to realize that no legislation whatsoever will be just when unjust men are trying to shape society.

Instead, I think Christians need to see that all human beings have both an accurate and distorted perspective of the human problem of government, poverty, and wealth. I learned some things from Nickle and Dimed: On (Not) Getting by in America that not only opened my eyes to a reality that I knew existed but patriotically attempted to ignore, but I also saw that the liberal author is choosing her own set of blinds as well.

With that I conclude the introduction to my book review!

Putting Jesus in His Place: The Case for the Deity of Christ

The title might jar a little, but the result of reading the book is the exact opposite of what one might sense in the title: honor and fear and awe and love and thankfulness.

I really needed to read this book. Sometimes I forget who I am serving. Putting Jesus in His Place: The Case for the Deity of Christ is probably the most thorough study on the deity of Jesus Christ that I have ever read. Perhaps because we take things for granted that we already know and believe we don't take the time to read, much less study, foundational doctrines. After all, we aren't Christians if we don't already believe that Jesus is God. But do we really know what we mean.  I can honestly say that this read has sharpened my own convictions in this area. 

The fact that Jesus is God has been forcibly restored to the forefront of my mind by this exhaustive but readable study. There are 280 pages plus 70 pages of endnotes and the book has the unique quality of being appealing to the average reader and the scholarly.  My highlighting pen was going crazy: yellow for powerful insights, orange for helpful exegetical points. 

The authors presented the case for the deity of Christ with the acronym HANDS. Jesus shares the same Honors as God, the same Attributes, the same Names, the same Deeds, and the same Seat. I was especially helped by the explanation of the "right hand of God" and my understanding of the bema of Christ was also very much enlightened. 

Most importantly, I was humbled, convicted, and at times ashamed that I knew Jesus so little. 

D.A. Carson has written a great summary of the book here. I commented briefly on it here.