Tag: commentary

Dr. Russell Moore: A Gospel-Centered Response to the Komen Foundation and Planned Parenthood

~ Bob Hayton

Dr. Russell Moore struck gold in his comments Friday on the Susan G. Komen Foundation’s reversal of their decision to remove funding for Planned Parenthood. I really appreciated his viewpoint and wanted to share some of his article posted on Christianity Today here.

Some pro-life persons might wish that the Christian churches had as much influence in the public arena as Planned Parenthood, that we were able to mobilize as many callers and threaten as many boycotts. Some might see this as a sign that we need more money and respect. After all, if some Christian foundation had more financial firepower than Planned Parenthood, Komen might have stood firm…

In all of this, though, we can gain an opportunity to see what the abortion culture is all about: cash. Planned Parenthood and their allies use the thoroughly American language of freedom of choice and women’s empowerment, but what’s at stake, as seen here, are billions of dollars…

The answer for those of us who cherish the lives of women and their children, regardless of stage of development, isn’t to long to compete with Planned Parenthood in the influence that comes with massive amounts of wealth. It’s instead to see, first of all, how our own captivity to Mammon devolves us in the same way…

We don’t need a Christian foundation to compete with the merchants of death. We don’t need one more coalition with enough signatures to counter the threatened boycotts of the abortion rights peddlers. And we sure don’t need to sell bumper stickers with a line drawn through a pink ribbon.

What we need, first of all, are churches who recognize that this isn’t all that surprising. Mammon is a jealous god, and he’s armed to the teeth….

And then we need to demonstrate what it means to believe that a person’s life consists in more than the abundance of his possessions.

Let’s stop highlighting how God “blesses” the millionaire who tithes. Let’s stop trumpeting the celebrity football players and beauty queens as evidence of God’s blessing. Let’s show that God has blessed us in a Christ who never had a successful career or a balanced bank account, but who was blessed by God with life, and with children that no one can number, from every tribe, tongue, nation, and language.

Planned Parenthood has won this one. They spent a lot of money, and they’ll make a lot of money. And they’ll do so off the shredded corpses of children and the raped consciences of women. If Jesus’ kingdom were of this world, we’d be fundraising to keep up with them.

But what we have is greater than that. We have a word that tells a pregnant young woman that we believe her Down Syndrome baby is a gift, not a health care burden. And we can offer the kind of gospel that cleanses the conscience and offers what outlasts money and power: life and that to the uttermost.

Let’s work to legally protect women and children. And let’s grieve that old Mammon has won the day, again. But let’s not grieve like the pagans who have no hope. When it comes to the struggle for life, the color of victory isn’t pink like a ribbon. It’s red like a cross. [Read the full article]

Romanticism and “The Authorized Version”

~ Bob Hayton ~ 1 Comment

Lately, I’ve been reading a fascinating work on the King James Bible produced by Baylor University Press. The King James Bible and the World It Made edited by David Lyle Jeffrey includes contributions from Mark Noll, Alister McGrath, Lamin Sanneh, David Bebbington, Robert Altar, Philip Jenkins, Laura Knoppers and others. The book is a collection of essays reflecting on the legacy of the King James Bible. But these essays are a cut above the typical book touting the King James on its 400th Anniversary. Many of the essays offer profound historical insights and analysis on the King James Bible.

David Bebbington, professor of History at the University of Stirling, Scotland, pointed out the fact that the King James Version was not always known as “The Authorized Version.” The title was first applied to the King James Version in 1805 by the newly created British and Foreign Bible Society.

The following conclusion to Bebbington’s chapter, captures his contention that “the enthusiasm for the translation of 1611 rose and fell with the growth and decay of Romantic sensibility.”

————————————-

Over the previous two and a half centuries, the King James Bible had passed through a striking trajectory. In the middle years of the eighteenth century, the version was generally used but not especially respected. Its status rose from the last years of the century onwards as a taste for the past developed, the translation became identified with national feeling, the British and Foreign Bible Society circulated it, and the title the “Authorized Version” emerged. Criticism of the defects of the translation nevertheless created a demand for revision, but both the practice of the revisers and the reaction of the public confirmed the high esteem enjoyed by the King James Version. Appreciation by a wide cross section of the population culminated in the celebrations of 1911, when it was hailed as a marvel of religion and literature alike. The English Bible, it was generally held around that date, was the foundation of national greatness. Dissenting voices came from critical scholars, Roman Catholics, devotees of Tyndale, and increasingly from those within the churches who thought the cult of the Bible as literature was obscuring its spiritual value. The result was the plethora of new translations which gradually eclipsed the Authorized Version during the later twentieth century. The rearguard defense of the older Bible was mounted by intellectuals concerned for its cultural role and conservative evangelicals bolstering their doctrinal position. The former were rather more salient than the latter by 2011. The changing estimate of the King James Bible was clearly bound up with the whole history of Britain during the period, political as well as ecclesiastical, social as well as intellectual, but the key explanation for the trajectory was identified by both C.S. Lewis and Ronald Knox. The two men pointed out that the enthusiasm for the translation of 1611 rose and fell with the growth and decay of Romantic sensibility. A “taste for the primitive and the passionate,” as Lewis called it, flourished in Britain during the nineteenth and much of the twentieth centuries, but was superseded in the later twentieth century by other attitudes that have been variously labelled “expressivist,” “postmodernist,” or simply “anti-Romantic.” The Authorized Version, fortified by the preferences of the times, could withstand the call for greater accuracy in the nineteenth century but not the challenge of more intelligible versions in the twentieth. This cultural factor, more than any other, explains the altering fortunes of the translation of 1611. The reputation of the King James Bible in Britain was hugely but temporarily enhanced by Romantic feeling. (pg. 65-66)

————————————-

You can pick up a copy of this book at any of the following online retailers: Christianbook.com, Amazon, Barnes & Noble, or Baylor University Press.

Disclaimer: This book was provided by Baylor University Press for review. I was under no obligation to offer a favorable review.

“Old Testament Wisdom Literature: A Theological Introduction” by Craig Bartholomew and Ryan O’Dowd

~ Bob Hayton ~ 2 Comments

Few Old Testament books are more puzzling than Job and Ecclesiastes. And few books are more frequently misunderstood and misapplied than Proverbs. The Wisdom literature of the Hebrews may be challenging for Western minds to grasp, but it is very rewarding. Craig Bartholomew and Ryan O’Dowd have helped the student of the Bible’s Wisdom literature immensely with their new book Old Testament Wisdom Literature: A Theological Introduction, from IVP Academic.

The authors aim to introduce the reader to Wisdom literature and the theology behind it. This is not just a commentary, although they do offer plenty of insights and comments along the way. Rather it is an introduction and orientation after which one will be more prepared to pick up a commentary an study the Wisdom books more closely.

After the author’s preface and introduction, the book starts with an introduction to Old Testament Wisdom. They compare Egyptian and Babylonian wisdom writings with that of the Hebrews, showing the similarities and differences. The authors appreciate the insights such comparisons provide but make no apologies for the unique approach that the Bible presents. Rather than a pantheon of gods and contradictory wisdom writings, Israel is presented with the one true God, in whose fear is the only place where wisdom can be found.

Next the book gives a helpful treatment of poetry, it’s role in life and the three OT books which are the focus of this work (Job, Ecclesiastes and Proverbs), as well as a discussion of the techniques of Hebrew poetry.

After these introductory chapters, each OT book is discussed as a whole followed by a more in-depth treatment of one special passage: Prov. 31, Job 28, and Eccl. 3:1-15. Next comes a discussion of Jesus as the Wisdom of God, where the New Testament’s treatment of Wisdom and its portrayal of Jesus Christ as Wisdom incarnate.

The book ends with a discussion of the theology of OT Wisdom and then an application of how Wisdom is relevant for today.

My copy of this book is filled with dog-eared pages, scribbles and underlined sections. The authors have done a fabulous job of bringing the best research to bear and digging up the most appropriate quotes for each theme they address. They do a masterful job of discrediting the current criticism of OT Wisdom literature that Proverbs focuses strictly on act-consequence and Job and Ecclesiastes offer a counterpoint or crisis where such a simplistic view is shown to be untenable. Bartholomew and O’Dowd argue that Job and Ecclesiastes merely make what’s implicit in Proverbs, explicit. The nuances and tension in Proverbs itself finds expression in Job and Ecclesiastes. The character of the righteous life is what is blessed in Proverbs, not righteous actions by themselves. And life on earth never realizes divine justice in full.

Proverbs in all its diversity is carefully handled, and I especially appreciated the emphasis on Lady Wisdom and how the Proverbs 31 woman may be understood as Wisdom personified, in a theological way.

The discussion of Job was most illuminating. The struggle and difficulty one has in trying to read through Job is part of the genius of the book, illustrating the perplexing situation Job found himself in. The diagrams in the chapter on Job are helpful, as most of the diagrams sprinkled throughout this work are. I also appreciated the discussion of Job 28 and it’s key role in Job.

Ecclesiastes was similarly handled well. “The Preacher” (or Qohelet) is never expressly said to be Solomon, yet a comparison with Solomon is intended by the author/narrator of Ecclesiastes. The treatment of Ecclesiastes shows how the book traces the intellectual struggle of Qohelet as he struggles with employing Greek wisdom to his world yet knowing the truth that Hebrew wisdom had already taught him. Seeing Ecclesiastes as a struggle with many passages set in “contradictory juxtaposition” with one another, goes a long way in helping one make sense of the book as a whole.

I very much appreciated the discussion of Jesus as the Wisdom of God, it helps to situate OT Wisdom in the redemptive flow of Scripture. The authors resisted a simplistic equation of Jesus and Lady Wisdom, and take pains to show how the authors of the New Testament in their own unique ways appropriated the Wisdom tradition in their exposition of Jesus Christ and his uniquely Divine status and mission.

The final chapters summarizing OT Wisdom theology and it’s impact today is an outstanding example of how to apply Scripture to life and not leave the heady study of doctrine and theology on a shelf away from life in the real world.

The tenor and tack of the authors is profoundly evangelical, yet appreciative of the insights gained from all sorts of scholars. One won’t agree with all of the conclusions of this book, but the clarity and candor with which the authors present their own view is both commendable and refreshing.

Perhaps the point the authors drive home the most is that OT Wisdom literature is anything but dualistic. It is rooted in creation theology and offers us a way to live in God’s world appreciating all of life. I will close with a summary quote which encapsulates the primary message of the OT Wisdom books.

At the heart of the distinction between folly and wisdom is one’s relation to the creation: does one receive it with joy and wonder as the Lord’s gift, or does one make oneself the center around which one relates to the world? The classic term for the latter approach is idolatry. (pg. 316)

I came away from my study of OT Wisdom literature reflecting on the hold idolatry may have in my life. A study of the OT Wisdom books may be just the thing to encourage us to live all of life to God’s glory. Such a study would be greatly helped along by using this book from Bartholomew and O’Dowd as a text-book or study tool. I highly recommend it.

Disclaimer: This book was provided by InterVarsity Press. I was under no obligation to offer a favorable review.

You can purchase a copy of this book from any of these fine retailers: Christianbook.com, Amazon.com or direct from IVP Academic.

Are We Guilty of Homophobia?

~ Bob Hayton ~ 8 Comments

Al Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY, recently was quoted as saying the following in an interview about homosexuality.

“We’ve lied about the nature of homosexuality and have practiced what can only be described as a form of homophobia… We’ve used the “˜choice’ language when it is clear that sexual orientation is a deep inner struggle and not merely a matter of choice.”

He was then asked to defend this statement in the recent SBC Annual Convention. The video of the exchange with SBC pastor and blogger, Peter Lumpkins is here.

I happen to agree with Mohler, especially as he clarified his statements. The Associated Baptist Press summarized Mohler’s response to the question by Lumpkins:

Mohler said at the convention “there is no way anyone in fair mindedness can be confused about what I believe about homosexuality,” because he has written more than 200 articles about it, but that “the reality is that we as Christian churches have not done well on this issue.”

“Evangelicals, thankfully, have failed to take the liberal trajectory of lying about homosexuality and its sinfulness,” Mohler said. “We know that the Bible clearly declares — not only in isolated verses but in the totality of its comprehensive presentation — the fact that homosexuality not only is not God’s best for us, as some try to say, but it is sin.”

“But we as evangelicals have a very sad history in dealing with this issue,” he continued. “We have told not the truth, but we have told about half the truth. We’ve told the biblical truth, and that’s important, but we haven’t applied it in the biblical way.”

“We have said to people that homosexuality is just a choice,” Mohler said. “It’s clear that it’s more than a choice. That doesn’t mean it’s any less sinful, but it does mean it’s not something people can just turn on and turn off. We are not a gospel people unless we understand that only the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ gives a homosexual person any hope of release from homosexuality.”

Mohler said churches have not done their job until “there are those who have been trapped in that sin sitting among us.”

Now the use of “homophobia” is a sticky subject, for sure. But I do agree that Mohler is right. And in this, I echo the sentiments of blogger Elijah Friedeman, and want to quote him at some length (HT: The Aquila Report).

I realize that much of what Mohler said flies in the face of conservative Christianity. No one likes to be called homophobic. And religious people especially don’t like to be called to repentance. But Albert Mohler is absolutely right.

What did Albert Mohler say that was so outrageous? Was it the part about Jesus being the only Savior from sin? Was it the claim that our sinful nature goes beyond a simple choice?Any orthodox Christian should affirm salvation from our sin through Jesus and that we can’t simply decide to turn off our sinful nature.

I know that many conservative Christians want to turn homosexuality into an easy choice. But it doesn’t work like that. Don’t get me wrong. Everyone has a choice about whether or not to engage in sexual acts outside of marriage. But not everyone has a say about whom they’re sexually attracted to.

There are a lot of people in the world with addictive personalities – they’re addicted easily – these people don’t have to give in to their addictive temptations, but they have a problem that can’t be solved with a choice – a problem that only Jesus can fix.

Homosexuality is much the same. Homosexuals have deep-rooted attraction to the same gender that they can’t solve with a choice. Mohler stated that homosexuality, like any other sin, requires a Savior. When did that become a radical sentiment? Last I checked, it’s a biblical concept.

But I have a feeling that most people disagreed with Mohler, because he labeled Southern Baptists as homophobic.

I can’t speak to homophobia in Southern Baptist churches. I’ll have to trust Mohler on that front (apparently he explained exactly how Southern Baptists are homophobic, but I can’t find the transcript). But I know from what I’ve seen, read, and heard, a form of homophobia is very present in many conservative churches.

For some reason there is an irrational fear of and extreme aversion to homosexuals in a lot of churches. We may not come right out and say that we think homosexuals are nasty creatures, but if you read between the lines, it’s pretty easy to pick up on. This is homophobia.

We should not elevate homosexuality above other sins. If we condemn homosexuality as sin, we must also condemn other forms of sexual immorality as sin.

I’ve seen many religious people castigate homosexuals, but turn a blind eye to the other, more pervasive, forms of sins in the church. I’m more concerned about the prevalence of divorce in churches than I am about a few cases of homosexuals trying to silence their critics.

What do you think? Is Mohler totally off base? As for me, I’m standing with him on this one.

For more on this question, see other articles on homosexuality I’ve posted here on my blog. You’ll find reviews of two helpful books I’ve read on this topic.