Thoughts for Young Men

1. Reasons for Exhorting Young Men
2. Dangers of Young Men
3. General Counsels to Young Men
4. Special Rules for Young Men

Between Two Worlds is based on the fact that “preaching is indispensable to Christianity (15). Here John Stott attempts to prove this point through a look at what God’s Word has to say about preaching. His goal is that all preachers strive to properly present God’s Word to their flock.

Stott follows a logical flow in his work. He begins with a historical look at preaching running from Jesus to the Reformers, the puritans, and finally today. His next step in the book is to address the current view of preaching. The 20th century (and the 21st even more so) saw many anti-preaching obstacles including the television, hypocrisy, and postmodernism. From here, Stott moves on to the foundations for preaching. These involve one’s view of God, the Scriptures, the Church, the Pastorate, and the finally preaching.

The next major movement of the book showed how preaching is able to be a “bridge-builder.” The message should not merely focus on today, nor ought it to merely take a person back to the historical context and leave them there. The message must build a bridge between the original context and today so that the hearer may see the veracity and applicability of the Scriptures.

The author then addresses the preacher and his study, sermon making, sincerity and finally courage and humility in the process. These final chapters focused more on the heart of the preacher as he proclaims the Word of God.

One aspect about the book which I greatly appreciated was the author’s desire to have the input of others. He mentioned a book club in which he participated. They would meet monthly and discuss a certain book, learning from each other. He also mentioned having medical students critique him on his sincerity and earnestness. He desired to hear what they saw in him. Again he mentioned the other leaders in his church and consulting them about the direction of the church and what passages and topics he should be addressing or which he has neglected. Along these lines the author quotes an Indian proverb, “He who has a good friend needs no mirror.”

A negative side of Stott’s work was that it seemed to be a compilation of quotes. Many of them were helpful, but at times it seemed like the author merely filled in the gaps between the words of others.

Overall the book was average. He was not as thorough in the sermon preparation chapter as I though he would be. His background is influenced heavily by the Anglican Church, and ecumenicalism.
I appreciated much of what he said, and may read the book again, however his book does not rank in the top five of those I have read. It may be worth it for you to purchase, but I would recommend Christ-Centered Preaching: Redeeming the Expository Sermon by Chapell and Biblical Preaching: The Development and Delivery of Expository Messages by Robinson.

If this review was helpful, let me know here

1. Paperback: 96 pages
2. Publisher: Moody Publishers
3. Date Published:2012

Is There Meaning In This Text: the Bible, the Reader, and the Morality of Literary Knowledge

“Texts, like dead men and women, have no rights, no aims, no interests. They can be used in whatever way readers or interpreters choose. If interpreters choose to respect an author’s intentions, that is because it is in their interest to do so.” (Rober Morgan, quoted on page 371). Vanhoozer disagrees with this conclusion, and argues that there is a way that a reader is able to understand and appropriate a text.

Vanhoozer skillfully leads the reader through this difficult discussion by addressing a number of pertinent issues. He begins by evaluating the deconstructionists and their attempt to undo the text. Those seeking to eliminate any meaning from the written word have first attacked the author and his initial intention. Men such as Derrida, Rorty, and Fish have all taken it upon themselves to facilitate this deconstruction.

They move from refusing meaning to the author to robbing the text from its meaning. This is the natural step in the progression, because there can be no meaning in an “authorless” text. This finally results in the undoing of the reader. He is left afloat in the sea of subjectivity and allowed to do with the text whatever suits his needs.
Hermeneutics has not always been such a hot bed of discussion. It was only in the nineteenth century that hermeneutics became essentially a study of human understanding (20). Since that time it has served as the conversation piece of the academia. In the midst of the theorizing and discussion it has been made evident that language and meaning combine to become the most important instrument for the progression of humanity (22). It almost seems as though they were to late in realizing this fact as they had already robbed meaning from language.

Schleiermacher was on the forefront of the relieving assigned meaning from the author. As his theories spread, a multitude of other intellectuals stood and continued the movement. As meaning was relinquished, relativism ensued. “Hermeneutic relativism shadows the epistemological discussion like a parasite that lives off its host” (27). Vanhoozer argues that the death of the author is a direct result of the “death of God” in the previous century (43). Nietzsche, arguably the most notable in this “discovery”, taught that all words and concepts are devoid of internal meaning. Rather, they have only been ascribed meaning by mankind. This was a reaction against Plato’s belief in the correspondence of truth (57).

Hermeneutical non-realists have relinquished themselves from any need of determining the meaning of the text because they reject the notion that there is any meaning to be found (49). They open themselves to the abyss of nothingness, and lose all connection with reality. Some have attempted to assign meaning through consensus of community, but this only slows the inevitable conclusion of complete relativity.

As with other ideas and authors with whom Vanhoozer interacts, he makes a fair and helpful observation concerning deconstructionism. It is not a synonym of “destruction.” Destruction involves demolition, deconstruction involves disassembling. The deconstructionist does not seek to annihilate the text, but to take it apart one piece at a time and demonstrate its arbitrary nature (52). He also notes one of the benefits of this movement. Vanhoozer states, “I wish at this point to commend deconstruction as a standing challenge to interpretive pride” (184). Those who have excelled at separating the text have offered a valuable critique of those who believe they are the sole proprietors of interpretation. The author is able to make this statement because he does not believe that meaning is absolutely knowable, though he disagrees with those who believe that it is absolutely undecidable (187). This evaluation, however, must be guarded. If Vanhoozer is going to argue for meaning from the author, in the text, available for the reader, then at some point one must be able to say that they understand a given text. The complete intentions and understanding of an author can never be known, but the meaning ascribed to it at some level must be knowable.

The author argues that “the process of interpretation is governed by certain rational procedures” and that meaning can be determined through a method of “thick description” (27). This must be carried on through responsible authors and readers (207). These readers, in contrast to the subjective creatures of the postmodernist mindset, are required to seek out the intended meaning of the text. This is the focus of the second half of his book.

In part two of the work, the author takes up the task of restoring some semblance of order in the chaotic world left by deconstructionism. He begins where his opponents began, with the author. If there is to be any meaning in a text at all, the author must be recognized as the giver of meaning. The text is then able to be read for its intended meaning. The author as well is assigned a role in the interpretive process, a role which is not free to read anything he desires into the meaning.
The “speech act” is the process by which an author ascribes meaning to a text. Vanhoozer would argue that this is the only way in which meaning can be ascribed. A text without an author is a text without a meaning and ceases to be a text itself.

An author communicates a variety of messages in any text. Some of the messages are intentional, some unintentional. Vanhoozer argues that the author’s intended message is that which contains meaning (259). Here he leaves questions unanswered. At times an author may not intend to convey a certain message to the reader, but through the very medium through which he is communicating, he is. Even though this message was not intended by the author, it was communicated. Is there not real meaning there?
Following his view of the author as the investor of meaning in a text, the next step is to accept the fact that the text must have some meaning to be discovered. Because the author is not always available, the text itself is left with the responsibility to hold meaning for the interpreter (303). The reader is therefore accountable to the text in order to come to the meaning of the author. This involves a detailed process, seeking to “to specify the what, whys, and wherefores of the text considered as communicative action” (293).

The reader must display honesty, openness, attention, and obedience in order to properly evaluate the text. These interpretive virtues are developed through the reading of great literature (377). The author concludes by reviewing the ground covered in the previous chapters, and encourages the reader to develop humility and conviction in one’s hermeneutic.

Vanhoozer takes a few pages (424-26) to describe his reaction against “fundamentalism.” He desires to disassociate himself from this mentality because first, they ascribe to a common sense interpretation of the Bible. Second, they assume “that the truth of the Bible is a matter of its correspondence to historical fact.” They have clung to a “misleading, and modern, picture of meaning and truth.” Third, fundamentalists have declared that they are the sole proprietors of valid interpretation.

These critiques are duly noted. At times, fundamentalists have erred in grievous ways. However, if Vanhoozer believes that there is meaning vested in the text, by the author, for the reader, at some level that meaning can be known. This interpretation is clearly not as easy as common sense realism, but it can be known. As far as taking the Bible as historical fact, Vanhoozer would admit himself that the Bible does contain historical fact. How much it contains is now the only question.

This short section reveals some of the inadequacies of his work. In all his attention to the text, he seems to come short on the exegetical work done by interpreters of the Scriptures. This process can properly be employed to assist the reader in coming to a possible interpretation of the Scriptures. The word “possible” is used because exegesis alone cannot reveal the complete meaning. The Holy Spirit is necessary, as was duly noted by the author.

Vanhoozer has provided an exceptional volume for the student of hermeneutics and philosophy. He has interacted with key intellectual leaders and has given a fair and thoughtful critique of their positive and negative contributions. He has not resorted to characterization nor straw man tactics. Instead he has taken many pages to explain those with whom he disagrees. This work is a valuable contribution to the study of hermeneutics

If this review was helpful, let me know here

Genesis

1. DVD: 115 minutes
2. Producer: Gateway Films
3. Date Performed: 1998

The Younger Evangelicals: Facing the Challenges of the New World. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2002.  

The Younger Evangelicals was a very informative book. The author outlines the younger evangelicals, the emergent/emerging church, and shows how they will lead the Church. He gives a brief background of fundamentalism, evangelicalism, and new evangelicalism before moving into the young evangelicals as thinkers and practitioners. Webber seeks to display the differences found between the traditional, pragmatic and younger evangelicals in each chapter.

Agreement:
I found several elements of Webber’s book to be extremely helpful. His charts at the end of each chapter, although very broad, helped me to understand not only the emergent church but also the pragmatic/mega church, and the traditional church. These comparisons clarified his observations in each chapter and allowed me to follow his reasonings.

As I write a response to the book I have to keep one thing in mind, I thoroughly appreciated the book, not because I agree with Webber’s conclusions, but because he helped me to understand this new movement. I do not agree with much of what the emergent church holds so dear, and see great harm in many of their modes of worship, beliefs about salvation, denial of truth, and discernment of the the past, however I comprehend the movement better now because of the book.

One thing that I appreciate about the whole movement is their desire to be unified. One idea presented by Mark Driscoll caught my attention. He doesn’t endorse Sunday School because he can’t see how we are to teach a unified body when we are all split up. I appreciate their pursuit of unity in the body of Christ, causing them to look past race, social status, or age.

Disagreement:
One of the areas where I saw Webber was clearly wrong was in his presentation of the fundamentalist mentality of separation. He portrayed fundamentalists are separatists for separatists sake. He believes that their separation “is understandable, but it came at the expense of the biblical mandate regarding the unity of the church” (pg. 29). Clearly, many churches could be convicted of that very charge for separating over non-separable issues, but I don’t believe that it properly represents the idea of true fundamentalism. Proper separation is not done against the unity of the church, but in order to preserve it. Without biblical separation from heresy and those who accept heresy, the church cannot be obedient to Christ. They can still be unified with other disobedient believers, but they are not unified with Christ if they fail to obey. This failure to separate is why some of the younger evangelicals are following the same path which has led many believers astray throughout the centuries.

Another overarching theme which I became very wary of was that of the younger evangelical’s embracement and absorption of all that has gone before. It is as if they were saying, “if the church of several hundred years ago did this, then it must be beneficial,” failing to realize that many of these ideas they are embracing caused other influential leaders in their ideas to leave the church at that time. An example would be their obsession with icons. It was this form of idolatry which helped to cause the split in the catholic church. They fail to see this as they take whatever suits their experience.

Webber conveyed an interesting salvation experience, one which was oddly lacking any idea of sin or sacrifice (pg. 94). He also presented a distorted view of salvation as he linked it to the preservation of the environment (pg. 89-90). Many of these different beliefs were endorsed throughout the book, helping me to understand the movement better.

Personal App: Overall I appreciated the book as it helped me to understand the younger evangelicals in a better way. However, as I understand their views, I am not sure why we call them evangelicals.

If this review was helpful, let me know here

1. Hardcover: 488 pages
2. Publisher: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company
3. Date Published: 2004

Does anyone know what is going on? Many have become sidetracked and disillusioned with the New Perspective debate. In the burgeoning discussion on Paul’s view of Judaism and works of the law, Westerholm provides a seasoned voice to the perspective.

Point: Three options exist for the interpreter of Paul. Paul understood Judaism of the first century, and Luther (et. all) properly interpreted Paul. Or, Paul understood Judaism of the first century, and the New Perspective has righted the misunderstanding and misrepresentation of Luther and his company. Or, Paul did not understand Judaism of the first century.

Westerholm argues that the “Lutheran” interpreters did understand Paul’s view of righteousness, works, law, and grace, but the New Perspective has contributed some valuable points of understanding.

Path: The author has divided his work into three sections, each contributing to the overall purpose of explaining what the Lutheran Perspective and New Perspective taught, and how they align with Paul himself. Part one walks through the theology of Augustine, Luther, Calvin, and Wesley in regard to the foundations of the fall, redemption, the law, grace, and sanctification. These men, though separated by hundreds of years show an agreement on Paul’s understanding of “works of the law” and righteousness. They obviously differ in other areas of their doctrine, but Westerholm shows where they agree on Paul.

In part two, the author compiles the work of twentieth century interpreters who have contributed in some way to the New Perspective. Men such as Schweitzer, Sanders, Kümmel, Bultmann, Wright, and Dunn are allowed to present their case through the collection of Westerholm.

Part three evaluates Paul along side of these two systems of thought. Was Paul against works as means of attaining grace, or did he preach against works as an excluding strategy of keeping the covenant a purely Jewish entity? In order to answer these charges, the author asks what Paul really meant when he used terms such as “righteousness” and “law.” He then evaluates how Sanders’ view of grace aligns with that of Paul. A brief summary is then made of Paul’s letters.

Sources: Westerholm does an excellent job on compiling, processing, representing and addressing the major scholars in the debate. His bibliography alone is of great value. His treatment of each side has been tempered with the understanding that not everything old deserves to be cherished and not everything new deserves to be rejected. He patiently walks the reader through the possible minefield of authors and exegesis in order to provide them a broader view and better base of understanding.

Agreement: The author ought to be commended for his work. Through humor, compilation, summarization, and evaluation, Westerholm allows the reader the best possible environment to step into this whirlpool of a debate. Many have been swept up into a frenzy on one side or the other without fully understanding what is at stake, or what has been said. It would do the reader well to read through Paul’s corpus before and after this book and be ready to interact with the ideas in those pages.

I appreciated not only the author’s style, but also his grasp on the subject. I would not consider myself even a knowledgeable reader on all that is taking place in the New Perspective world, but after reading several works I believe that the authors quoted here would not be upset with their representation.

One particularly helpful portion of the book was Westerholm’s summary of Paul’s Christian understanding of the Mosaic Law. He gives the reader nine statements concerning the role of the Mosaic Law. The author stresses the fall of man, the gracious giving of God’s commands to a marked people group, the depravity and exacerbation of Adam’s descendants highlighted by the Law, the work of Christ, and the freedom and fulfillment of the law in the lives of the believer.

Another section worthy of study is his work on dikaiosune. The author wades through the difficulties behind the words around which Paul focuses his argument, and divides his understanding of righteousness into two principle meanings. He states, “But when the terminology is granted its ordinary sense (those who do the right are the righteous, and God will acknowledge them as such) as well as its extraordinary sense in Paul (sinners who have not done the right are, through the death of Christ, declared by God to be righteous), then the difference between Paul’s usage and that of Judaism becomes both intelligible and telling” (295-96).

Disagreement: One question which I was left with following my reading was, “in the treatment of nomos, where does the Law of Christ land?” Christ specifically stated “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them” (Matt 5:17). Yet in his fulfilling he left new commands. Both 1 Corinthians 9:21 and Galatians 6:2 (cf. Rom 8:2) address this. These commands, to love God over all and love one’s neighbor as oneself, are equally impossible to fulfill in the flesh.

Another area of questions I noticed in the whole debate centers on John the Baptist and his call to repentance. What do both John’s and Jesus’ scathing remarks to the Jews teach us about the spiritual climate of the first century Jewish religion? Clearly, some of these (namely the Pharisees) would have been pleased with their position with God. Perhaps both because they were considered to be in the covenant, and also because they were doing good works such as tithing, fasting, and command keeping. But in this group we also find the disciples, we find “all of Judea” (Mark 1:5), we find Anna and Simeon (Luke 2), and we find the masses (Matt 13:2). Where did they stand?

Favorite Quote: Westerholm has left the reader with a valuable reminder. “Attending a baseball game in the company of a child is a Good Thing; but the seat cannot be found from which something that a child desires to see is not obstructed from view…No one vantage point captures all that is important in Paul” (226).

It would be worth another read and I would recommend it.

For more information see his article in Justification and Variegated Nomism: The Paradoxes of Paul

and Simon Gathercole’s article in Christianity today, What did Paul really mean? <...>

See also Piper’s The Future of Justification: A Response to N. T. Wright

If this review was helpful, let me know here

1. Paperback: 120 pages
2. Publisher: Canon Press
3. Date Published: 2011

1. Know something about the world, and by this I mean the world outside of books. 
2. Read. Read constantly. Read the kind of stuff you wish you could write. Read until your brain creaks.
3. Read mechanical helps.  
4. Stretch before your routines.
5. Be at peace with being lousy for a while.
6. Learn other languages, preferably languages that are upstream from ours. 
7. Keep a commonplace book.