…Dispensationalism: Rightly Dividing the People of God by Keith A. Mathison. On Tuesday evenings, a group of men from a church I have been attending gather to read various books on things of faith and discuss them in light of Scripture. We began reading through the book last Tuesday though my copy did not arrive till the following Saturday. I finished it on Monday.

Before I continue with my thoughts on this book, let me give you a bit of my back-story. I never spent very much time in church growing up, but I did manage to pick up a bit of the ‘culture’ through reading popular books on eschatology (Late, Great Planet Earth, etc), by occasionally listening to teachers/preachers on the radio and television, and by engaging conversations over the years on some of the the issues addressed in Mathison’s book. I came away from these influences with a bit of confusion over eschatology, with an ill-defined understanding that God had a different agenda for the church and the people of Israel (and with a strong leaning towards Christian Zionism), and a with tendency to interpret certain Biblical texts in light of current events rather than by the intent those passages had for the original audience.

I am under the impression that there has been a consensus in the American church, almost monolithic I think, of dispensationalism, a term I really could not clearly define for myself until recently. Also, I affirm that there are many, many godly men and women who affirm this theological grid, so any engagement of dialog must be entered into with grace, humility, and respect. What is in question here is not the character of the adherents of dispensationalism, but the correctness, the Biblical truth of the claims of this theological framework. Also, I affirm that what one thinks about dispensational theology should not be a litmus test for fellowship, for overarching orthodoxy. It is, I think, a subject that one can be in error over, but still affirm the core doctrines of Christianity. However and with that being said, the subject is not without import because to varying degree, I think all major doctrines are interrelated. Perhaps how one thinks about ecclesiology can effect how one thinks about eschatology; perhaps how one thinks about eschatology can effect how one thinks about soteriology. Doctrine matters, especially in a season where so many adhere to a ephemeral, insubstantial ‘deeds, not creeds’ mentality. I hope that in the final analysis we all  measure our thoughts on things doctrinal  by Scripture as the final authority.

What I appreciated about this book is it’s clarity.  It cuts to the chase in  it’s defining and characterization of dispensationalism;  it is primarily the dividing of the people of God into two groups: Israel and the church.  The church is considered a parenthesis, a mystery, a sideline in the Triune God’s plan of redemption.  Further, this theology is relatively new, less than two hundred years old.  One questions how this grid went without notice by 1800 years of church history.  Though dispensationalists define themselves by and strive to adhere to a literal hermeneutic, they are not, in the final analysis, able to be completely consistent in such when interpreting prophetic passages.

Take my meanderings for what they are worth, but my growing understanding of dispensationalism leads me to believe that it interjects discontinuities  in the redemptive narrative  that unfolds in the Bible.  It may, though unintentionally,  present God as One who reacts, rather than One Who is absolutely sovereign.  Also, and though not directly addressed in the book, I see dispensational thought as introducing two of some things where there only need be one.  There are, within the dispensational framework,  two (or more accurately, 1.5) returns of Christ, two peoples of God, two fulfillments of much of prophecy, two resurrections, two judgments, and sometimes in hyper-dispensationalism as represented by teachers such as John Hagee , two redemptive paths to God, one for the Jews and one for the gentiles.  Though growing increasingly contra-dispensational, I was impressed with the irenic tone of the book.  The book is also very clear in presenting the doctrines of grace.  All that being said, I will continue to be edified by men like John MacAuthur and Charles Swindoll, both dispensationist. I could ramble on for hours on my thoughts on this book, and perhaps I will do a part two of this review at some point in the future.

Also, this is a rather quickly composed post, so please forgive any errors in grammer, etc.

…by John Piper to arrive at my doorstep in 3 to 21 days. Hope its closer to 3 than 21. Started reading Portraits of Christ in Genesis by Dr. DeHann, hidden away and unread in my modest library, a few days ago, a title written circa 1965 if memory serves. Don’t know much about this guy, but so far, the book is quite engaging and, not surprisingly as per the title, Christ-centric. His exegesis on Adam’s partaking of the forbidden fruit as an act of sacrificial love towards now fallen Eve, an act portrayed as an archetype, a protevangelium, of Christ’s redemptive love for His bride, His church, is an ‘interesting’ and honestly quite lovely take on the third chapter of Genesis. To tightly encapsulate, Dehann sees that Eve, after being deceived by the snake and partaking of the forbidden fruit, is now lost, under the sentence of death while Adam, at the time, is still a son of God (Luke 3:38) Adam, in his profound love for her, sees that Eve’s only hope is to “lower himself to her level, assume her guilt, become partaker of her sin and condemnation, and then, the separation between them being removed, he could become the father of her seed.” Later, he states that Adam, while not being deceived (1TIm. 2:14), “stooped to her level in order to save her by becoming the only one who could bring forth the seed of the woman – the Redeemer” As interesting as this interpretation of Adams act of rebellion as the federal representative of mankind towards God may be, does your eyebrow raise a bit at this unpacking of Genesis 3? Need to think about this a bit more…I’ve never seen the text as an allegory of Christ’s sacrificial love for His bride before. Not saying it’s correct or in error, just something new to me… and I am curious to know what others think of this view of Adam’s rebellion, if they have heard this interpretation of the text. I would really like to hear some comments on this… (addendum on 6:28:09 – further elaboration on this issue found in this post)

As an aside, a friend of mine asked me what I thought of The Shack. She had just finished reading the book and quite enjoyed it. Never read it, but have read reviews of the book written by people whose judgment I trust. I did not go into any great detail about my reservations about The Shack (not the time and place…busy day at work), but I did later print out for her Tim Challies excellent review of the book. Let me tell you, Christian bookstores can be a potential minefield for the unwary.

In light of the previous assertion, I have really grown to appreciate Westminster and Monergism bookstores.

Almost immediately after writing it, I am struck by the irony of the title of this post.  Usually, I compose the content of a post, then come up with a supposedly catchy, provocative title

Today, I started with the title. The initial purpose of the title of this post was to declare that I have finished reading Christless Christianity: The Alternative Gospel of the American Church by Michael Horton thereby setting the stage for the content of the post, my thoughts on said book.  The secondary purpose, though at first unintended, informs that I have seen, experienced much of what Horton describes.

I ran through this book rather quickly and will probably read it again sooner rather than later.  From this first quick read, here are a few things I take away: Horton diagnoses certain  ills that infect the body of the American church, and two main themes seem to dominate. First, there is a strong element of Pelagianism that permeates much of the church.  Secondly, there is a strain of Gnosticism that parallels the Pelagianism.  This Pelagianism often takes on the form of a ‘legalism lite’ while the Gnosticism arrives in the form of the subtle primacy of subjective religious, emotional,self-focused experience over the objective authority of Scripture.   His diagnosis is not unique to either of the broad, polar extremes of ecclesiology, the liberal and conservative branches; there is an overarching  human-centricity that permeates both.  He also points out the ironic commonality of the ‘deeds, not creeds’ mindset that has been so firmly ensconced in liberal Christianity and now boldly infects much of the church growth movement as well as the neo-liberal Emergents. Before continuing, Horton does not argue that the church, as a whole, has necessarily arrived at a Christless Christianity, but that signs are evident that the church is well on its way to that state.  He argues that what is being engaged is not so much heresy, but more silliness, lightness, and self-focus.  Almost gone are the days where the flock comes to church to be ministered to and taught, fed,  truths of Scripture and have the sacraments administered.  Some pastors no longer see their role as being one who feeds the flock and regularly administers the sacraments, but rather view church as the place where they cast vision and give marching orders to the flock.  These marching orders can range from calls to engage those Joel Osteenesque steps to having a better life now to an exhortation to the flock to get out there and ‘be the Gospel’ without ever really and carefully explaining what the Gospel is, the proclamation of Good News given and offered to us more than something we ‘do’ or ‘are’.  Think again on that ‘deeds, not creeds’ mentality previously mentioned.

Horton, with much clarity, traces the pragmatic methods of Charles Finney, quite frankly Pelagian in his theology, to the formulas used by contemporary church growth experts today.  The fallout from this pragmaticism is often an unintended devaluing of the supremacy of Christ in both corporate worship and evangelism.  Rather, church is to be an entertaining event to draw crowds wherein the Gospel (hopefully)  may be found on a table filled with personal anecdotes and calls to moralism by self-effort without a clear expounding of the absolutely astounding nature of grace through faith found in Christ, God incarnate, in light of our sin nature, our total depravity. We end up, sadly, with a de-clawed  Gospel,  that  ‘therapeutic, moralistic deism’ mentioned in a quote in the book.  Even more sad, so many are content with just that.  What is often engaged in that often  ill-defined call to a personal relationship with Jesus, is a narcissism, a salvation solely focused on self rather than one lived out in covenant community.  I have been guilty…

All in all, a sobering read, clear and concise. Another good book in the same vein is The Courage to Be Protestant: Truth-lovers, Marketers, and Emergents in the Postmodern World by David Wells. Next on the list to read, God of Promise: Introducing Covenant Theology, also by Horton.

Hey! It dawns on me…this is my first book review ever.  It dawns on me, too, how hard it is to be objective when you are close to the subject matter of the book being reviewed.

This is apparently a popular video and I know a number of churches have performed this drama. I, however, have some reservations. I would be interested in feedback concerning the validity of my discomfort regarding the drama that follows. I give voice to my objections at the bottom of this post.

Perhaps I am a bit of a contrarian, but does this video, beyond the highly questionable propriety of an actor portraying God, make the Lord of salvation seem a bit weak and needy, a bit of a hand-wringer? Does sovereign God Almighty struggle? Does this also seem more of a therapeutic Gospel than the Gospel of the Bible, the call to repent and believe? Where is real repentance found here? Where is the conviction over sin? I see the effects of sin and the sorrow over the results of sin, but this drama does not, I think, portray a heart broken and contrite over sin itself. Though many seem to find solace in this video, I find it to be bit disturbing. But there again, so much of the contemporary American church is markedly man-centered. This video seems to make much of God making much of mankind.

Too, does the Gospel, faithfully exposited, need layers of media, of drama, to clarify the message, or do such layers actually tend to obscure the message? Is Scripture insufficient in clarity and power that we need to jazz it up?

(As an addendum of 10-12-08, I note and question with irony that perhaps in sharing this video wherein an actor portrays God, perhaps I am guilty of the same questionable propriety)

….from Amazon. “The Courage to Be Protestant: Truth-lovers, Marketers, and Emergents in the Postmodern World ” is the title. I read an insightful review on this book from Challies Dot Com and am quite looking forward to it’s arrival. Other reviewers think highly of the title, too. A while back, the Pyro’s hosted an interesting comparison/”smackdown” between Well’s book and Tim Stevens’, of Granger Community Church, “Pop Goes the Church,” an interesting study in contrasts. As an aside, one of Granger’s ‘alumni’ is a pastor and “chief strategic officer” at a church I once attended.

Also, I recently finished reading “Essential Truths of the Christian Faith” by R.C. Sproul, perhaps a very good adjunct or introduction to more comprehensive systematic theology themes and tomes.

I often find myself starting a book while half-way through another. While reading the aforementioned title, I was also began reading “Chosen By God” by R. C. Sproul. Again, a very worthy read but I honestly liked “Chosen for Life” by Sam Storms a bit more. Both are quite good primers to the daunting doctrine of predestination, but I found Sproul to be a bit more philosophical and Storm to be a bit more exegetical in approaching the topic of election.

A quote from Joshua Harris, senior pastor of Covenant Life Church found at Conservative Reformed Mafia :

“If you really understand Reformed theology, we should all just sit around shaking our heads going, ‘It’s unbelievable. Why would God choose any of us?’ You are so amazed by grace, you’re not picking a fight with anyone – you’re just crying tears of amazement that should lead to a heart for lost people, that God does indeed save, when he doesn’t have to save anybody.”