Category: Theology

Classic Arm Chair Theology at its best (or should that read worst?)

Eucharistophobia, the Common Cup, and Moore on Communion

~ Bob Hayton ~ 1 Comment

I recently came across some posts by Dr. Russell Moore (dean of the School of Theology at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) on the subject of Communion. He has contributed to Understanding Four Views on the Lord’s Supper (a Zondervan Couterpoints book). From what I’ve seen in his post, and from the reviews at Amazon, Moore’s “Baptist” view is much more sacramental friendly then what is typical of Baptists. He prizes Communion in a way many Baptists don’t.

I’ve argued on my site for the Lord’s Supper being more than just a memorial, and also for it being more than just a thimble-sized drink with a mini-cracker. It seems Moore makes the same points.

I encourage you to take the time to check out a few posts by Dr. Moore. I’ll provide some excerpts below.

…many of our congregations come to the Table quarterly or even less often. If you ask (and I have), some of these pastors and church members will say it’s for fear of an overly ritualistic understanding of the Supper, or in order to keep the congregation from growing callous to the Supper out of repetition. But the repetition is kind of the point…..

The Lord’s Supper is proclamation, the Bible tells us: it speaks to us of the past crucifixion and the present kingdom of our Lord Christ (1 Cor. 11:26). And that’s just the point. We ignore the Supper because we don’t understand the role of gospel preaching for the believer. ~ from Why Is the Lord’s Supper So Rare?

A little bit ago, I wrote here about the scandal of the infrequency of the Lord’s Supper in so many American conservative Protestant churches. It’s a gospel issue, I believe. Our eucharistophobia atrophies gospel preaching in our churches more than I think than we realize. But imagine how you could reclaim the gospel focus of the Supper in your church….

The Lord’s Supper then should never be seen to be an afterthought, tagged on to the end of a service, perhaps after the final musical number of a visiting youth choir. This doesn’t mean the Supper needs to take a great deal of time. There’s no mandate to have a “special Lord’s Supper service,” …

The Supper should require though the same pattern as the Passover and Jesus’ institution of the Supper: explanation of God’s redemptive act followed by the enactment of it in the meal. Sinners shold be called to see in the bread and the wine their own crucifixion through the crucifixion of the Christ in whom they are hidden (Col. 3:3). It should be an opportunity to present to sinners the tangible evidence that their transgressions are forgiven. ~ from Getting the Gospel Back at the Lord’s Table

The Christian concept of the church as household necessarily entails a recovery of the Lord’s Table in our churches, especially in “low church” evangelical congregations who have, for too long, defined our vision of the Lord’s Supper too heavily on what we don’t mean.

Table fellowship is a sign of familial solidarity and of the messianic reign. This is why Jesus was so revolutionary when he announced, “Many will come from east and west and recline at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 8:11 ESV), and that’s why Simon Peter was so reluctant to sit down with the uncircumcised.

So why do our evangelical Lord’s Supper services so often look like the clinical communal rinse-and-spit of fluoride at an elementary school rather than like a loving family gathered around a feast table?

Often I’ll preach in churches about the Lord’s Supper and will call on congregations to go back to using a common loaf and a common cup. I’ll challenge the churches to recover the sign of bread being torn, not daintily picked up in pre-fabricated bits. I’ll call the congregations to drink the wine, together, passing along a common cup.

I’m not offended by people disagreeing me on this. I’m just stunned by the reason they most often give for dismissing this ancient Christian practice: germs. ~ from Swine Flu and the Common Cup

Be sure to read the posts in their entirety (they aren’t very long). You can also listen to a message by Dr. Moore on Why the Lord’s Table Matters. Also feel free to see my posts on the Lord’s Supper, and also on something Moore mentions in relation to Communion: preaching the Gospel to believers.

“Using Old Testament Hebrew in Preaching” by Paul Wegner

~ Bob Hayton

UsingOTHebrewAuthor: Paul D. Wegner
Publisher: Kregel
Format: softcover
Publication Date: 2009
Pages: 166
ISBN: 9780825439360
Stars: 5 of 5

One of the most bewildering aspects of biblical studies is the study of ancient languages like biblical Hebrew and Greek. In some circles using Hebrew or Greek is frowned on. In many it is a necessary evil. The aspiring pastor must prove he can pass a few semesters of the languages. After this, he will likely use Greek sparingly and Hebrew not at all. In our day and age, however, there is a proliferation of bible study tools available to bring the wealth of language learning to the fingertips of even interested lay students. There is no excuse for a pastor to not grapple with the original text to some degree.

Paul Wegner has provided a tool to help out busy pastors and once-upon-a-time Hebrew students. His new book Using Old Testament Hebrew in Preaching: A Guide for Students and Pastors explains just how to put even a beginning level of Hebrew to use in preaching and studying the Bible.

The book is laid out very simply, and is designed to be a tool in itself. It starts with an explanation of why Hebrew study matters, and why pastors should take pains to try and use it. Wegner goes on to discuss the tools that are available to help use Hebrew. He compares software programs, Hebrew grammars and other study aids. The book proceeds to discuss how to study a passage using exegesis, literary analysis, theological analysis, and application. Wegner then goes on to explain how to put it all together and prepare an OT sermon. He illustrates just how to do this. The book closes with a discussion on various ways of keeping Hebrew language study fresh, and includes several appendices as aids in their own right.

The book is written in a simple and straightforward style, which makes it accessible to students of all levels of proficiency in Hebrew. Even those with no knowledge of Hebrew would benefit from this book as they plan on pursuing some kind of training in the language.

I learned several helpful things to benefit my own study of Hebrew. Structural analysis of Bible passages is apparently easier with Hebrew than Greek. (This gives some hope!) I also learned to be wary of older Hebrew study tools which prize etymology too much, specifically Brown, Driver and Brigg’s lexicon. Modern study has shown the history of words does not always impact their meaning at a given time. On that note, the study of Hebrew nouns is going to be most beneficial and rewarding. This is different than Greek, where verbs are key. The book also includes an excellent list of recommended scholarly and lay commentaries for each OT book.

I can’t recommend this little book enough. If you have studied Biblical Hebrew or if you think you will (or you should), you would be blessed in having this book.

Paul D. Wegner is professor of Old Testament at Phoenix Seminary and is the author of three books, Bible Introduction: The Journey from Texts to Translations; A Student’s Guide to Textual Criticism of the Bible; and An Examination of Kingship and Messianic Expectation in Isaiah 1-35. He is a member of the Evangelical Theological Society, Institute for Biblical Research, Society of Biblical Literature, and Tyndale Fellowship.

Disclaimer: this book was provided by the publisher for review. The reviewer was under no obligation to provide a positive review.

This book is available for purchase at the following sites: Amazon.com or direct from Kregel.

A 21st Century Theological Taxonomy

~ Bob Hayton ~ 8 Comments

The fundamentalist blog Sharper Iron is running a series of posts by Dr. Jeff Straub of Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Minneapolis) on the future of fundamentalism. The series is entitled “The Fundamentalist Challenge for the 21st Century: Do We Have a Future?”. The first post is quite good.

The post links to a chart describing the different groups within fundamentalism. The chart goes on to describe a few groups within evangelicalism as well. I’m always impressed by such charts, and the word “taxonomy” just sounds so smart. No, actually, it really does help, especially for those who have changed from one category to another (as I have).

I am in general agreement with the chart as a whole, although there will probably be exceptions to the rule, and a few people listed that don’t fit exactly where they are listed on the chart. I think it’s a helpful chart all in all, and wanted to point you to it.

Click here to find the chart (you can also save it, as it is a .pdf file).

The chart splits Fundamentalism up into 3 categories: Hyper Fundamentalism, Historic Fundamentalism, and New Image Fundamentalism. Evangelicalism also finds itself a tripartite being: Evangelical Right, Broad Evangelicalism, and Evangelical Left. Then there’s Neo-orthodoxy and Radical Non-orthodoxy. Currently I find myself at times within the Evangelical Right category and at times in the New Image Fundamentalism category.

Let me know what you think, and be sure to read the next parts of Straub’s assessment of fundamentalism.

“The Erosion of Inerrancy in Evangelicalism” by G.K. Beale

~ Bob Hayton

Author: G.K. Beale
Publisher: Crossway
Format: Softcover
Publication Date: 2008
Pages: 304
ISBN: 9781433502033
Stars: 4 of 5

In recent years, Evangelicalism has seen a number of challenges to the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture. Chief among these have been new insights into the cultural and historical background of the Old Testament provided by newly found ancient Near Eastern sources (ANE for short). A recent turmoil was raised by a professor at Westminster Theological Seminary named Peter Enns who published a controversial book Inspiration and Incarnation. Eventually he was deemed to have violated the Westminster Confession of Faith in his views and was removed from his teaching post at Westminster.

In scholarly journals, G.K. Beale responded to Enns’ book and open questioning of the popular understanding of biblical inerrancy. Enns and Beale responded back and forth to each other in a series of journal articles, which in a slightly emended form make up the first four chapters of this book. I’m glad that G.K. Beale chose to put the discussion in a book for a wider Evangelical audience, as he has done us all a great favor. His book, The Erosion of Inerrancy in Evangelicalism: Responding to New Challenges to Biblical Authority addresses this issue head on and offers a confessionally faithful model of approaching ANE parallels to Scripture.

I must admit that when I began this book, I was skeptical of Beale’s position and open to what Enns had to say. By the end of the book, I realized that Enns had indeed erred, and that Beale represented a careful scholarly approach worthy of consideration. Still, the objection could be raised that Beale is making a mountain out of a molehill and is just interested in muddying Enns’ image, even as he threatens the scholarly Evangelical community with the same if they dare tip the sacred inerrancy cow. Such is not the case however. Let me allow Beale to explain his rationale for the book:

… most of the problems that [Enns] poses are not that hard to solve, though he gives the impression that they are difficult to square with a traditional view of inerrancy. Indeed, this is partly why I felt a burden to write the review (of Enns’ book) that I did. Instead of helping people in the church gain confidence in their Bibles, Enns’s book will likely shake that confidence””I think unnecessarily so. (pg. 66-67)

After laying out the issues, Beale jumps right in to the back and forth between Peter Enns and himself. He splits the discussion into two topics: recent OT studies’ developments and the study of the Old Testament in the New. For each he gives his rejoinders to Enns and Enns’ responses. While at times the back and forth leaves the typical reader dazed and confused (at times one feels like he’s looking over the various scholars’ shoulders or that the discussion is moving on too quickly to follow), key issues and main points are driven home through these first four chapters. Differing approaches to ANE myths and their implications for Genesis, and second Temple Judaistic hermeneutical principles and their bearing on our understanding of the New Testament are fleshed out.

After the various approaches are displayed through the back and forth of chapters 1-4, the book moves on to the unity of Isaiah as a case study. Will we trust the Bible’s witness to itself when it comes to Isaiah’s unity, or move with the scholarly winds and deny that which Jesus and the apostles appeared to assume? While Beale is a NT scholar, he handles the Isaiah question capably, referring to recent scholarly evangelical assessments on this point.

Beale then provides a fascinating discussion of Gen. 1 and a biblical cosmology model in the form of the universe as God’s temple. In this section, Beale really shines as he develops a compelling case for the tabernacle, Temple and indeed Eden and the universe as a whole as all being models of God’s true cosmic temple. This applies to the book in general because to understand Gen. 1-2 as a temple cosmology allows one to assimilate insights from ANE studies without defaulting to teaching that the early chapters of Genesis are intended to be taken as a myth.

Two appendices are also provided. One is a rather detailed discussion of postmodernism, epistemology and the like. The second is an exposition of the “Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.”

This book is not for the average reader. Beale develops a case and brings you into the world of Biblical scholarship today. He explains how one can maintain a high view of Scripture and assimilate insights from scholarship successfully. He also warns of the dangers of forsaking inerrancy. I learned a ton in reading this book, but the part I enjoyed the most was when Beale left polemics aside and focused on a positive development of his cosmic temple idea concerning Gen. 1-2. Beale has written an entire book on that subject (The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God), and I’m interested in picking it up soon.

I recommend this book, but have to admit it was put together in a piecemeal fashion. Still it has great value and needs to be read by anyone interested in OT scholarship.

Disclaimer: this book was provided by the publisher for review. The reviewer was under no obligation to provide a positive review.

This book is available for purchase at the following sites: Westminster Bookstore, Amazon.com, or direct from Crossway.

Goodbye TNIV, Hello 2011 Updated NIV

~ Bob Hayton ~ 7 Comments

Yesterday, Zondervan Publishing House and Biblica (formerly the International Bible Society) announced plans to revise the NIV in 2011 and discontinue the controversial TNIV. Many conservative evangelicals, and groups like the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) openly opposed the gender neutral translation choices of the TNIV. So to hear this coming from Zondervan is encouraging. Every gender neutral decision will be reviewed, but they aren’t promising a wholesale about face when it comes to their translation philosophy.

Still I am encouraged and hope the best for the updated NIV. Personally, I prefer a more formally equivalent translation (word for word), but I admit the validity and value of a dynamic equivalent translation. In fact I think the ESV which I use, is closer to the NIV in its translation philosophy than it admits.

Anyway I wanted to spread the news in case my readers hadn’t heard. Here are a few links which may help you get a better understanding of what this all means.