jtcochran.com

The Spectrum of Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage

The Spectrum of Marriage/Divorce/Remarriage

Because of the news about Joshua Harris’s “separation as friends”, which was posted on Instagram recently, I mentioned on facebook that this kind of news would stimulate a re-visitation to this doctrine of marriage, divorce, and remarriage by pastors and scholars. Thus, in my post I shared a bibliography that I had created in 2013 when Fellowship Bible Church Tulsa commissioned me to perform a biblical and theological study on this. I performed this study for the elders and pastors of that church in order to provide for them unbiassed study that they might review, so they could come to their own doctrinal conviction about marriage, divorce, remarriage.

My Facebook post created quite a stir of conversation. I’ve fielded a lot of DM requests about this and have been able to share both on a scholarly and practical level about these matters. A number of people requested to see the full study and hear more about my view. Below is a very brief synopsis of my view. My synopsis is followed by the full study performed for Fellowship Bible Church Tulsa in 2013.

I hold to the first view that marriage, divorce, and remarriage are legitimate.

I believe that the Lord, the Church, and a couple should never desire divorce. According to the book of Malachi, men should sustain a joy over the wife of their youth. Marital difficulties should always be handled with a posture towards reconciliation and restoration. Space and opportunity for repentance should be provided for those who commit a marital indiscretion or simply despair at the prospect of a marriage characterized by discontent, unhappiness, unmet expectations and desires, and ongoing conflict.

Nonetheless, I believe that the Lord and the Church make allowances for divorce.

First, on a practical level, people enter into the Christian faith with different life experiences. There are those that don’t experience conversion until after they have experienced a divorce. Those individuals should be love and accepted by a church’s leadership and membership.

Second, New Testament Scripture gives allowance for the specific indiscretion of sexual infidelity. There is a spectrum of what constitutes sexual infidelity. I take that the kind of sexual infidelity that Scripture allowances for a divorce is constituted by an actual physical sexual encounter between two people outside the confines of marriage. That said, and let me be honest, this view could be troublesome for many married couples who have been faithfully married all their lives. Because this view allows that a pre-marital sexual encounter could qualify for being grounds for a married couple to become divorced, even if that couple is themselves. I’m serious. That’s a real potential and problematic scenario. However, my view of marriage circumvents the issue if it is the couple themselves, because I take a historic view of marriage to be consecrated at the first physical sexual encounter rather than at a public civic or ecclesial ceremony. So, there, all you kids who hooked up before your wedding day and have been married for 25 years are off the hook.

Third, my reading of Matthew 5 and Jesus’s words on divorce indicate that he does not prohibit a divorce, even for reasons other than sexual infidelity. His words entertain the possibility that a man would write a ticket of divorce, in spite that there was no sexual infidelity. However, he tells his audience that the consequence is that the act of divorcing a person who has not committed a sexual indiscretion is that they will then do so. Thus, the man if making the woman and himself an offender of sexual infidelity by the act of divorce, if either remarries. Why? The second marriage is not the marriage of one’s youth. Nonetheless, people may make this choice; in doing so, they must bear in mind that they will pay a social and spiritual penalty for this choice. This final reasoning gives space for the person who feels that they are in an “impossible” marriage and despairs and the prospect of continuing in it. These people will always walk with a sense of shame about their decision and will have to figure out how to manage that shame. They need support and love from the church in that walk.

Here are some concluding remarks: Practically speaking, it’s likely that I know more individuals that have divorced and were under one of the three conditions listed above, than I know those who have been happily married all their married lives. This is an important factor to account for when considering this matter.

Also, and I can’t stress this too much: church leadership, family, and friends should warn vigorously against divorce—tenderly but directly having candid discussion about the severity of divorce, the complexity of divorce, and the consequences of it. These people should also give careful and cautious advice about remarriage, even in the case of a widow (a topic for another day).

Below is the complete study.

Synopsis of Pertinent Biblical Texts

Christ appeals to this text as being the ideal. This reveals Christ’s view of marriage is even more conservative than either the school of Shammai or Hillel (see below).

Scholars argue that this text is not an endorsement of divorce. Rather it is meant to regulate and mitigate the present practice of divorce.

Key to interpreting this text is the phrase “erwat dabar” meaning “some indecency” or “something indecent.”

This phrases has been traditionally interpreted by two rabbinical schools, the school of Shammai and Hillel. Shammai are the conservatives. They believed that some sort of sexual immorality must have taken place. The Hillel school separates the two terms and says that divorce could take place if the wife did anything displeasing to the husband.

Regardless of the translation of “erwat dabar” in the Old Testament it did not refer to adultery. Why? Because adultery was grounds for execution not divorce in the Old Testament.

See also Lev 21.7; 13-14; Deut. 22.13-29; Ezra 10:3

Isaiah 50.1; Jeremiah 3.1-14; Ezekiel 44.22

Most scholars believe that Isaiah 50.1 states a rhetorical question. Essentially Yahweh is arguing that there has not been a divorce between Judah and He.

Jeremiah 3.1-14 clearly point out that Yahweh has divorced the nation of Israel (Jer. 3.8). Yet, in 11-14 Yahweh remarries Israel. The relationship is reconciled.

Ezekiel 44.22 says that priests are not to marry divorced women or widows, only virgins.

This text provides the picture of idolatrous Israel being akin to Hosea’s wife Gomer. Gomer is a prostitute and an adulterous. Hos 2.2 states that Gomer is no longer his wife and he is no longer her husband. He takes back the gifts he gives her as part of his marital provision. Most see this as a cosmic picture of God’s divorce to Israel/Judah. He then remarries her (Hos. 2.16). She is seen as if there was no divorce and she is looked at as a virgin, “betrothed” (Hos. 2.19-20).

Verse 16 gives clear indication that the Lord is against a person who breaks one’s marriage vows. The one who is the offender is in mind here. Fundamentally divorce falls short of God’s ideal.

These texts indicate that Jesus view of Deut. 24 viewed God as accommodating the hardness of the human heart. Deut. 24 did not replace God’s original intent at creation (Gen 2.24).

The disciple’s reaction to Jesus indicates that Jesus clearly had a more conservative ideal. Jesus expected for people to not divorce at all. When sexual immorality occurred the rabbinical schools required divorce. Jesus simply permitted it.

Central to the discussion of the exception clause is the definition of “porneia.” There are three views regarding this term.

1. Porneia means adultery/sexual immorality. Divorce and Remarriage is legitimate. This view is commonly referred to as the “Erasmian View.” Scholars and pastors who hold to this view are Craig Blomberg, D. A. Carson, John and Paul Feinberg, John MacArthur Jr., John Murray, Robert Stein, John Stott, and William Heth.

2. Porneia is some kind of sexual sin which includes adultery. This view permits divorce but not remarriage. Scholars and pastors who hold to this view are Gordon Wenham, Robert Gundry, and Jacques Dupont.

3. Porneia means fornication and regards the situation of a betrothed couple who break off the betrothal. This view permits no divorce or remarriage. Scholars and pastors who take this view include F. F. Bruce, James Montgomery Boice, Joseph Fitzmyer, J. Carl Laney, Dwight Pentecost, John Piper, and Charles Ryrie.

This text indicates that a woman is not allowed to remarry unless her husband is dead. Is this the case if he has issued a certificate of divorce? That is the question. If he has issued the certificate, then I suppose he is no longer her husband and she is not his wife. Perhaps, then it will not be considered adultery. That is one argument. Another argument is that regardless of the certificate of divorce, if the man is living a woman may not be joined to another man.

Verses 10-11 indicates “no divorce, no remarriage.” Then immediately following we get the impression that an unbeliever can either divorce or have a permanent separation from a believer. Apparently this must be initiated by the unbeliever. It appears that the entire text desires for the believer to always be seeking after reconciliation (see v. 11). Copyright 2013 Fellowship Bible Church 3

Confusion over the meaning of the term “not bound” or “not enslaved” in verse 15 gives rise to the possibility of divorce and remarriage. Does this mean they are not bound to singleness?

1. Some say that it is as if the unbeliever is dead to the believer. They may then remarry (See. 1 Cor. 7.39).

2. Others say that the believer is not “bound” to contest the departure of the unbelieving spouse. They may simply let the spouse go, but they are not permitted to remarry. Remarriage is only expressly permitted when a spouse has passed.

This particular matter is very interesting. There are aspects of hermeneutic and eschatology that drive this decision. You see, Covenant theologians will be more inclined to be okay with Divorce. They will see that God divorced the nation of Israel and betrothed a new virgin bride the Church. Israel has no more place in future history.

On the other hand, Dispensationalists will be more inclined to either not permit divorce altogether or permit long term separation/divorce with the hope of reconciliation. This is because they still see a place for Israel in God’s unfolding redemptive plan.

Divorce and Remarriage Spectrum

What follows is a study of the three views of divorce and remarriage. Most of the discussion surrounds the Matthew 5 and 19 texts. This is where the three views typically divide and disagree. In this study there will be some examination of the texts that directly affect our understanding of Matthew 5 and 19. Those texts are Genesis 2.24 and Deuteronomy 24.1-4. Most of this discussion will be about the meaning of the “exception clause.” In greek the exception clause is “parektos logou porneias” in Matthew 5.32 and “me epi porneia” in Matthew 19.9. How one translates the term porneias and understands the placement of this phrase in the sentence is critical.

View One: Divorce and Remarriage Legitimate

Resources Supporting this View

Blomberg, Craig L. “Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage, and Celibacy.” Trinity Jounal 11 (1990): 161-196.

Carson, D. A. Matthew. Expositor’s Bible Commentary 8. Grand Rapids: Zondervan 1984, pp. 412-19.

Feinberg, John and Paul. Ethics for a Brave New World. Wheaton: Crossway 1993, 299-344.

Heth, William. “Jesus on Divorce: How My Mind Has Changed.” Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 6, no. 1 (2002): 4-29.

Heth, William. Remarriage after Divorce in Today’s Church. Edited by Mark Strauss. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, Chapter 2.

Murray, John. Divorce. New Jersey: P&R, 1989.

Stein, Robert. “Divorce.” Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Edited by Joel B. Green et al. Leicester; Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity, 1992, pp. 192-99.

This argument posits that covenants are not inherently unbreakable. Heth writes, “As many have observed, Jesus’ statement, “Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate” (Matt. 19:6), does not mean “no one can separate,” but rather it means “it is possible to separate, but you should not (Strauss, loc 918).” Earlier on in Heth’s discussion he distinguishes between divorce for justifiable and unjustifiable grounds. He points to research performed by Raymond Westbrook. Westbrook studied Ancient Near Eastern practices and discovered that men would divorce for legitimate reasons (objective sexual impropriety) and for illegitimate reasons (subjective hate, dislike, or dissatisfaction with the spouse). Deuteronomy 24 seems to indicate these two reasons for divorce, but this text distinguishes the legitimacy of the two reasons for divorce. A matter of indecency is legitimate reason for divorce. But the second reason for divorce, “hate” is not considered legitimate grounds for divorce. Though men divorced for this reason, it is a less valid reason and God distinguishes the two grounds for divorce in this passage.

David-Instone Brewer references Deuteronomy 22.13-18 where a man hates his new bride and decides to falsely accuse her of not being a virgin on their wedding night. This is meant to be grounds for legitimate divorce. However his grounds are false and he is whipped. Brewer writes, “The fact that the husband in Deuteronomy 22.13-18 tried to find false grounds for divorce suggests that a groundless divorce was either not permitted or resulted in severe financial penalty (Instone-Brewer, loc 276.”

Again, with respect to Deuteronomy 24 John Murray points out that the text does not give God’s divine approval or sanction on divorce. Rather this text is instructive for men to know that they shall not remarry their own divorced spouse after issuing a certificate of divorce. Latter when Murray discusses Matthew 5, he argues that Jesus one exception is the only exception that is permitted for divorce. All other reasons are illegitimate. Murray says, “It is rather that the husband may not put away for any other cause. It is the one exception that gives prominence to the illegitimacy of any other reason (Murray, 21).”

In Matthew it appears that Jesus priority is to uphold and protect the sanctity of marriage. Jesus operates out of a mindset of reconciliation. In Jesus time if a man chose to stay with his adulterous wife, the man was suspect. That’s why the scripture refers to Joseph as being righteous for wanting to divorce Mary. Joseph would have maintained propriety. Instone-Brewer writes, “Jesus was less concerned with illegitimacy and the religious propriety of the time than with the principle that marriage was meant to be lifelong. Both partners should do all they can to make sure that their marriage survives (Instone- Brewer, loc 1598).”

The fact that a woman is issued a certificate of divorce gives probable argument for remarriage. Instone- Brewer argues that the certificate is intended to assist a woman with remarriage. He remarks, “The purpose of the divorce certificate was to help the woman remarry (Instone-Brewer, loc 327).” Brewer’s argument is built on extra-biblical evidence. The Pentateuch does not provide the wording of a divorce certificate. Instone-Brewer relies upon extant rabbinical certificates of divorce dating back to 500 B.C.E. (Before Commons Era) and Babylonian marriage certificates dated as early as fourteenth century B.C.E., which both indicate in the certificate the woman’s right to remarry. This evidence is supposed to corroborate that issuing a certificate of divorce in essence frees a woman for remarriage, because that is what the purpose of these documents fulfilled. They fulfilled the purpose of giving the woman documentary evidence that she was free to remarry on grounds of a legitimate divorce. Copyright 2013 Fellowship Bible Church 5

The validity of the divorce is critical in Matthew and its parallels. When commentators discuss the problematic nature of these texts the discussion of why a man or woman commits adultery after having “divorced” their spouse is central. Most commentators believe that the term “divorce” placed along-side the solution of adultery means that the “divorce” was illegitimate or on illegitimate grounds. In Jesus eyes it was not a true divorce. Matthew clarifies the confusion by adding, “except for a matter of indecency.” This addition clarifies what constitutes a legitimate divorce. Regarding this problematic text of what “divorce” alongside “commits adultery” means, Instone-Brewer concludes, “The solution that almost all commentators have found is to assume that the divorce was invalid (Instone-Brewer, loc 1626).”

View Two: Divorce Legitimate and Remarriage Illegitmate

Gundry, Robert. Matthew. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2011

Hagner, Donald. Matthew. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1993.

Wenham, Gordon. Jesus and Divorce. Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 2010.

Much of this view is built on the historic tradition of the church. Upon close study of church history we see that for the early church remarriage was not permitted. Though at time divorce would be permitted, those who divorced would not remarry. Wenham references H. Crouzel’s study on divorce and remarriage when he says, “The author of the most comprehensive study ever written on this subject contends that in the first five centuries all Greek writers and all Latin writers except one agree that remarriage following divorce for any reason is adulterous (Wenham, 22).”

When looking at the Old Testament this view sees great interconnectivity between Genesis 2.24, Leviticus 18 and Deuteronomy 24. Genesis 2.24 gives grounds for the one flesh joining of husband and wife. Leviticus offers instruction that limits people from intimacy with family members. One reason repeated through this passage is that this act violates the oneness of the marriage covenant. This oneness is in effect beyond the life of the marriage or one’s spouse.

Deuteronomy 24 from this view argues that when the woman remarries she is in effect committing adultery. Her husband cannot receive her back. Another explanation is that because she divorced and remarried, returning to her husband would essentially be incest like in Leviticus 18. This second explanation seems suspect. This view denies that the divorce that takes place in Deuteronomy 24 dissolved the marriage bond. The marriage bond is metaphysical and extends beyond the dissolution of the marriage covenant. This is built off the argument that Leviticus 18 regulations are in effect after the dissolution of a marriage or after the spouse dies.

In Matthew 19 Wenham argues that the placement of the exception clause is critical. The placement of “except for immorality” is in the position that gives cause for the most conservative view of remarriage. Had the position of this clause been after “whoever” it would indicate that they person must divorce and remarry. If the position were after “and marries another” then it would advocate clearly the view of remarriage. However, where the phrase currently stands creates ambiguity and seems like a likely read would be that the person ought not to remarry. The current position speaks not to remarriage as much Copyright 2013 Fellowship Bible Church 6

as it does to the freedom for separation. Wenham writes, “Had the clause come after ‘marries another’, it would have expressly sanctioned remarriage; while placed before ‘puts away’ it would have made separation mandatory for unchastity (Wenham, 115-16).”

Wenham continues to deeply analyze the exception clause “except for immorality.” Based on his studies of negated prepositional statements in the protasis of a conditional statement (if/then clause) and specifically noting as study of prespositional statements in the first seven chapters of Matthew, the book of concern, it is apparent that these statements immediately follow their object. Thus, “except for immorality” intentionally follows “put away” and not “marries another” because the exception only applies and is in force with the divorce not with the remarriage. Remarriage is not approved. Divorce is permitted. Wenham says, “All of this seems to mean that on the grounds of New Testament word order in general and Matthean style in particular, the elliptical negated propositional phrase, ‘except for immorality’, is intended as a simple limitation of the verbal action that immediately preceides it: ‘put away’. Matthew did not intend the phrase also to qualify the action which follows: ‘marries another’ (Wenham, 118).” Wenham concludes that it is likely that the early Church Fathers intuitively understood this grammatical principle being intimately acquainted with Greek and simply submitted to the concept that remarriage was not within the purview of Jesus.

Wenham also appeals to the plain reading of Mark 10.11-12 and Luke 16.18 for his case. These readings indicate that divorce and remarriage unequivocally lead to adultery. In addition, there is not text in the bible that approves or supports remarriage in regards to divorce. There is permission to remarry in the instance of widowhood in 1 Corinthians 7.

Furthermore Wenham points out the incongruence between Jesus view and the rabbinical view. Jesus view of divorce is more extreme and conservative then either the Hillites or the Shamaites. This is exactly why the disciples cry out that this is a hard teaching. Jesus point is not to give permission for divorce through the exception clause. Rather, his goal is to uphold the ideal he already presented in referencing Genesis 2.24. The ideal is reconciliation. For men it is better to either stay single or stay married and reconcile. Divorce is not desirable.

View Three: Divorce and Remarriage Illegitmate

Bruce, F. F. New Testament History. Garden City: Doubleday, 1980.

Boice, James Montgomery. The Sermon on the Mount. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1972.

Ibid. “The Biblical View of Divorce,” Eternity (Dec. 1970): 19-21.

Fitzmyer, Joseph A. “The Matthean Divorce Texts and Some New Palestinian Evidence.” Theological Studies 37 (1976): 197-226.

Laney, J. Carl. The Divorce Myth. Minneapolis: Bethany, 1981.

Pentecost, Dwight. The Words and Works of Jesus Christ. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981.

Piper, John. This Momentary Marriage. Wheaton: Crossway, 2009.

Piper, John. What Jesus Demands from the World. Wheaton: Crossway, 2006.

Ryrie, Charles C. “Biblical Teaching on Divorce and Remarriage,” Grace Theological Journal 3, no. 3 (Fall 1982): 177-92.

Most of the study for this section is built off of John Piper’s work in This Momentary Marriage (Chapters 14-15) and What Jesus Demands of the World (Chapters 40-42). Piper’s approach is to discourage divorce by not condoning it. The only person who really can break the bond of a marriage covenant is the one that made the bond – God. “What God has joined together… (Genesis 2.24)”

Piper goes on to look at the exception clauses in Matthew 5 and 19. First, we’ll notice that Piper distinguishes the meaning of porneia from Instone-Brewers translation. Instone-Brewer translates porneia as indecency. So divorce may take place on a spectrum of sexual indeceny up through adultery. Piper sees this term as being specific to fornication. Fornication is distinguished from adultery in that adultery is an extra-marital affair commited by one who is married. Fornication is the activity of two non-married individuals. Piper argues that the exception clause specifically is referencing the kind of divorce that may take place between two betrothed people. The betrothed would break off the marriage covenant if there was cause, such as one of the individual’s sexual impropriety. Matthew may point this out specifically in Matthew 5 and 19 because he is the one who discusses how Joseph thought he would quietly divorce Mary. This was because he suspected that she had fornicated, being that she conceived and was found to be with child. Matthew is specifically legitimizing the righteousness of Joseph for doing so. Piper writes, “In this way Jesus makes clear that the action his earthly father almost took – to “divorce” Mary because of porneia – would not have been unjust. It would have been right. That is the kind of situation the exception clause is meant to exclude (Piper, loc 4871).”

On Having a Civil Conversation about Evolution and the Doctrine of Creation

Calvary Memorial Church , where I have the pleasure to contribute as one of the pastoral team members, has been studying the doctrine of Creation during the month of June. Part of the impetus of this study is the John Stott award that our church received from the Carl Henry Center at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. One of the community engagement initiatives that we undertook with this study was to offer a workshop where three of our pastors presented their views on science and faith. Pastor Todd Wilson, Pastor Gerald Hiestand, and me presented views on the doctrine of creation. Pastor Todd presented his view from the standpoint of a theistic evolutionist. Pastor Gerald presented his view from the standpoint of a patient, investigative but noncommittal view. I presented my view against evolution (of any sort) and for creation.

Each of these views was designed to foster empathy for real people we know in our congregation. There are a number of people that have accepted the evidence of evolution and are doing their best to integrate a view of creationism along with a view of evolution. This is who Todd represented. A number of people are not ready to commit to evolution and yet they see the compelling evidence of it, so are not so entrenched against evolution. Gerald, who really took the more difficult position, was tasked to represent this view, as one who recognizes the concerns of creationists but also see the compelling evidence of evolution. Thus, is uncertain of what view to take and is willing to patiently wait things out until more definitive evidence comes to light. My task was to represent, in an irenic and intellectually compelling manner, those who are more steadfastly in opposition to evolution. Because I approached my argument in a non-traditional way, I thought it might be helpful to make my case, cleverly entitled “Contra Evolution,” available for any interested reader.

The format for, what we called the “Mere Creation Workshop,” was that each person presented his view in about 7 minutes and then each person presented on what they felt was at stake if we get the doctrine of creation wrong. The whole conversation was moderated by Rob Barrett (PhD in Physics, Stanford; PhD in Old Testament, University of Durham) from the organization The Colossian Forum —an organization that fosters charitable dialogue on doctrinal issues in the church. My colleagues each gave admirable presentations and responses to the question of “What is at stake?” Unfortunately, I can’t make their material available, but I can share my own argument. After each pastor stated his position and response to the question “What is at stake?” attendants had the opportunity to reflect on their own position, share their view at a round-table discussion with other attendants, and then publicly share reflections to the three presenters, who in turn, were able to build on and respond to any thoughts or questions shared. This was an enjoyable workshop, and it was an excellent way to demonstrate to a church congregation how to have a civil and robust dialogue on important matters of doctrine where differences clearly exist. What follows is my presentation and my response to the question of “What’s at stake.” You may access the .pdf of this presentation through Academia.edu here .

Before I launch into my argument, I’d like to make a couple opening remarks. First, it’s an extreme pleasure to pastor at Calvary along with these two colleagues and to sit under the preaching of Pastor Todd, especially during these last weeks of exploring the doctrine of creation. Second, I adamantly submit that there is no doubt in my mind that Todd, Gerald, and I submit to the Rule of Faith, namely the assertions found in both the Apostles and Nicene Creed. In addition, it’s clear that all three of us work diligently to construct our exegesis of Scripture and theology of Scripture with the Scripture Rule in mind—we put the interpretation of Scripture by other Scripture in the place of first order for the development of doctrine. This means that none of us—Todd, Gerald, or I—operate from a dangerous place of heterodoxy, nor do any one of us risk undermining Scripture’s authority or the integrity of the Creator by our individual expressions of the doctrine of creation.

Nonetheless, we differ in our view on science and faith, and it is worthwhile for each of us to share those differing views magnanimously and with deference towards one another. Permit me now to state my reservations concerning evolution of every sort. These reservations fall under two particular heads, partially because I imagine seven minutes really only allows for two arguments. Many other very good arguments might be levied, but I find that these two arguments are especially intriguing and compelling.

My argument is that evolution and creation are mutually exclusive systems according to their philosophical and linguistical outworkings. To try to reconcile the two, puts one on the horns of a dilemma where one would not find a home in and be fully accepted by either community. That person is then self-selected out of both communities, and in turn, ultimately becomes extinct, pun intended.

Evolution is built on six sine qua nons . [1] They are the following: 1) all organic life has a common ancestor, 2) all deviation of organic life into individual species is the result of 3) random genetic variation (commonly referred to as mutation) 4) which took place gradually over long periods of time (generations of time), these changes serve to help the species 5) adapt for survival. Traditional evolution asserts that all changes are 6) undirected. These are the fundamental premises of evolution. To negotiate a different definition, for instance, to proffer that these processes are directed is to create a distinct system. Both theistic evolution and neo-evolution attempt to re-negotiate this definition but for different reasons. I believe that those who assert creationism should reject the language game of evolution if they are unable to affirm all six of these sine qua nons . My later argument on “what’s at stake” will expose the risk of modifying this definition to foster the idea of directed evolutionary processes.

The process of evolution philosophically elevates the virtue of power above all other virtues. The dominant species, the one in the position of power, because of its superior adaptation to its ecological surroundings, is not fundamentally concerned with the protection of other species. It may not even be concerned with the protection of others within its own species. Rather, each individual animal within this system is concerned with its own survival, and each one will do what’s necessary to assure its own survival.

Fundamentally, evolution is not a system that is concerned with flourishing. Instead it is concerned with consumption and colonization. If you carry anti-bacterial hand sanitizer or get irritated with red or black ants in your yard, you’re actually feeling the real dissonance that you ought to have towards evolution. You should be weary that you, as a human being, sit on the cusp of being culpable for the role humanity plays in this system. In the era of dinosaurs, it was the biggest, fastest dinosaur, with the sharpest claws and teeth, and the most heightened senses that dominated its environment. This isn’t the case today. There are many animals that have the strength and power to dominate over humanity. However, they lack one thing humans have—the intellect. Human intellect is the advantage that sets us apart from all other species. The question is, has our intellect been endowed to us by an intelligent designer who wishes for us to steward the ecology he has given us with humility and love? Or, has our intellect emerged from an undirected process for the purpose of our survival—that we can consume the resources around us, and once depleted, colonize another resource-rich environment?

I don’t have to spend much time developing how the philosophical system of creationism differs from evolution. God created humanity in an elevated place to care for and steward all creation. According to God’s special revelation, he has given us other virtues more important than the virtue of power, reserving power ultimately for his own stewardship, protecting us from its corrupting allure. God has communicated to us virtues like humility and love, imagination and passion, and he has given us moral virtues, which include justice and mercy. Every single one of these virtues are virtues that defy the system of evolution and make no sense within such a system.

In my view, these two systems are incompatible. As noble as the aim may be, I believe that it is futile for a creationist to identify himself of herself as a theistic evolutionist in the attempt to reconcile these two systems by embracing the language game of evolution and affirming 5 or 6 of its sine qua nons . Integrating these two systems is fruitless. A theistic evolutionist gains no ground by doing so. He or she will not find themselves at home with philosophical naturalists who embrace scientific evolution. The naturalist will always see the theistic evolutionist as a suspect superstitionist. It’s no different than how an evangelical sees a Mormon. Mormon’s may use the same language game but their language is loaded with an entirely different meaning.

On these grounds, it seems fitting to accept Scripture’s account of Genesis 1-2 at face value, believing that all flora and fauna, and the elevated role of humanity, is the result of the creative designer who spoke all of it into existence by the power of his word.

If we accept evolutionary theory as a viable interpretive framework for understanding the doctrine of creation, we step into dangerous ethical territory. You see, theistic evolution is an open system that invites a superior intelligence to direct the process of evolution. This premise is fine as long as that superior intelligence is God. But imagine for a moment that the unguided process of evolution became a guided process, and the guide for the process is not a benevolent creator with the attributes presented in Scripture. Rather, the guide for the future of evolution is us, the superior intellectual species, whom now has unlocked the human genome and has the capability to rewrite the code or improve the code to produce a superior being. This species, whose instinct is to consume and colonize, will preserve itself and the best of its kind by improving its own genetic code. This is the neo-evolution that Harvey Fineburg, former provost of Harvard (1997-2001) and former president of the Institute of Medicine (2002-2014), predicts.

It is not a matter of whether humanity has the power to do this. We already have the power. The question is, do we have the power to restrain ourselves from doing so. Scientists project that by 2045, they will not only have the power to evolve humanity through directed processes, but they will have the power to leverage an even more superior intellect than humanity. [2] Perhaps by the 22 nd century homo-sapiens, as we know them, will no longer be recognizably homo-sapiens. Rather, they will be something more like supra-sapiens. Perhaps our own intellect will be our undoing, and we will have self-selected ourselves out of the system giving way to a species of Transhumans who leverage computers, robotics, nano-technology, molecular transistors in order to extend life indefinitely, even if that life is nothing more than the memory of a consciousness that has been downloaded into a supercomputer control system. [3]

A very important article appeared in the Guardian on Tuesday April 18, 2017. [4] The article is written by former Moody Bible Institute student, Meghan O’Gieblyn. Meghan, having become disillusioned by Christianity, found consonant hope with the emerging movement of Transhumanism as propogated by men like Ray Kurzweil, director of engineering at Google. She says:

What makes the transhumanist movement so seductive is that it promises to restore, through science, the transcendent hopes that science itself has obliterated. Transhumanists do not believe in the existence of a soul, but they are not strict materialists, either. Kurzweil claims he is a “patternist”, characterising consciousness as the result of biological processes, “a pattern of matter and energy that persists over time”. These patterns, which contain what we tend to think of as our identity, are currently running on physical hardware – the body – that will one day give out. But they can, at least in theory, be transferred onto supercomputers, robotic surrogates or human clones. A pattern, transhumanists would insist, is not the same as a soul. But it’s not difficult to see how it satisfies the same longing. At the very least, a pattern suggests that there is some essential core of our being that will survive and perhaps transcend the inevitable degradation of flesh.

She goes on to later say:

Transhumanism offered a vision of redemption without the thorny problems of divine justice. It was an evolutionary approach to eschatology, one in which humanity took it upon itself to bring about the final glorification of the body and could not be blamed if the path to redemption was messy or inefficient.

The union of humanity and technology seems inevitable, and it seems to be the inevitable next step of evolution. Please listen carefully. This step is a guided step of evolution, not an unguided step. It is a step that humanity should not only hesitate to step through, but we should insist on running from it in the other direction. The creature should not take on the role entitled only to the creator. Philosophical naturalists who adhere to scientific evolution cannot help but take that step. Their philosophical system built on the instinct for power and survival drives them to this inevitable conclusion. Creationism offers virtues that circumvent this threat.

I have sought to wager an argument on moral and ethical grounds. Those who are inclined to accept the warrant of evolution have no doubt done so based on empirical evidence alone. However, I am convinced that the criteria to receive a theory should not be built on evidence alone. Moral and ethical principles have to be taken into account. I believe that theistic evolution, with its guided understanding of evolution, regardless of the fact that the guide is God, does not safeguard humanity from taking that step. Rather, it seems to prime humanity for that step by logically affirming guided evolution. Fortunately, self-preservation is an admirable virtue of our intelligent species, and I am appealing to that virtue now.

There is better language to use in order to convey the reality by which the creator created the cosmos and everything in it, including us, the very capstone of his creativity. I believe that it is in humanity’s best interest to foster a community that articulates a doctrine of creation built on the language God gave us in Scripture. This language might well have been part of his divine program to protect us from our own intelligence.

[1] Adapted from Jerry A Coyne, Why Evolution is True (New York: Viking, 2009).

[2] Cf. Nick Bostrom, Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 2014.

[3] Cf. Ray Kurzweil, The Age of Spiritual Machines (New York: Penguin Books, 1999).

[4] Meghan O’Gieblyn, “God in the Machine: My Strange Journey into Transhumanism,” accessed Friday June 23, 2017, https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/apr/18/god-in-the-machine-my-strange-journey-into-transhumanism .

Before You Change Your Church’s Bible Translation…

I think perhaps one of my greatest concerns for the Church right now is the inclination for church leaders to change the pew Bible used weekly in their church with each generation as new Bible translations release. The late 80’s heralded the release of the NIV. The turn of the millennium ushered in the use of the ESV. And, now, in 2017, we see the reboot of another valuable Bible translation. You see, this concern is driven by the release, or should I say, the revision of a very good Bible translation, the HCSB, which is now revised and re-branded as the Christian Standard Bible.

Before I continue, I want to say that I have a profound joy in personally reading from multiple translations. I’m not a KJV, NASB, NIV, ESV, CSB only person. I’ve enjoyed reading and studying the Scriptures from all these translations. There is a great bounty of benefit from being immersed in multiple translations, and, even, engaging in comparative studies—whether you are familiar with the biblical languages behind the vernacular text or not. Also, this is not an argument for “the” legitimately faithful text of Scripture. I recognize all these texts as legitimate, faithful, and excellent for use in a pulpit. Furthermore, this is not some smear against the Christian Standard Bible. Men I dearly respect have thrown in their best effort to produce the best translation and make that translation available to their audience, which I imagine is primarily those of the Southern Baptist Convention. I commend them for their work, and their sincere conviction that the text of Scripture can and must be contextualized, to some degree, for each generation of Christ-follower. I enjoy my own copy of the CSB, kindly given to me from my friend Brandon Smith. It sits on my desk in my study, and I’ve already enjoyed thumbing through it and reading selections of text that I am currently working through for preaching and teaching. Nonetheless, I have no intention shifting from the ESV for several reasons.

To begin, I am a Pastor under submission of elders and other pastoral colleagues, and we all have a shared value of preaching the same text across the spectrum in every context. However, I have not always felt that way. During my first two decades of ministry leadership, I often switched texts on a whim. One week I’d preach from the NIV. The next week, the NASB. One year I’d preach exclusively from the NASB. The next year, with the release of the NET, I preached from that translation. At one point, I decided to at least be consistent, and preach from whatever translation I was currently reading from for the year, so that year, since I was reading the HCSB, I taught high school students I pastored from that text.

I learned something valuable from this. I kept confusing the people I led. The common response from students—any time I asked them to read a text for the group—would be: “Umm…I’m reading from a different text. It’s going to be different.” And it was. Students sometimes commented: “Pastor Joey, you talked a lot about that specific word in your translation. Mine uses another word.”

Another thing I learned is that it is exceptionably valuable for every person to be reading the same text. Sure, we can celebrate that a room of teens is a welcoming environment for a number of different translations. Yet, there is a level of instructional momentum and continuity that is reached, from a pedagogical standpoint, when everyone is using the same text. There is also a level of dissonance that exists when one person is out of place because they use a different text.

I am especially attuned to this because I personally have selected the ESV to be my EDC (every-day carry) Bible. However, I attend Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, and because of its strong relationship with Don Carson, who is the general editor for the NIV Zondervan Study Bible, the school uses the NIV11 in its chapel each week. I have feel this dissonance every time I pull out my ESV text and listen to a reading from the NIV11, so much so that I began to look onto the NIV11 from a phone app each week.

Let’s just say that I strongly urge every ministry leader to follow his or her leadership and be in continuity with a wider ecclesial structure when it comes to selecting a translation from which to teach Scripture. Youth Pastors, children’s ministers, small group leaders—teach from the text your church uses in the pew (or under the chair). This is a sign and symbol that you are willingly under another’s authority. Not doing so, may be a sign of a disposition that is otherwise.

When it comes to a church-wide initiative to shift Scripture translations, I caution church leaders from being Bible translation faddish and swift to transition an entire church congregation from one text to another every 20 years. Sure, if you’re a person of influence, you might be rewarded by the publisher for such a change, or, perhaps your church might be rewarded with free pew Bibles for the whole congregation. But you are still going to pay a cultural cost for that shift, at one point or another. The language of the text plays a significant role in developing the community around the text.

Churches like the one I attend, which preach from the text lectio continua (progressively through books of the Bible), and read that text weekly, develop a level of continuity by keeping with a translation over the course of multiple generations. Churches that have well-developed Scripture memory programs are able to tap into the reservoir of advanced generations who coach younger generations to learn and internalize the same text. It’s remarkable how much of a dissonance exists when a 30 or 40-something is trying to teach a 4-year old a different text then one that 30 or 40-something had memorized. I witness this all the time with generations of NIV memorizers who attempt to instruct a generation of ESVers.

By all means, if you are a church-planter, who is beginning a new work in a community, I commend you to consider this new CSB translation as your pulpit and pew Bible of choice. But before you make that decision, you need to weigh the cost of what that means for discipleship, and how you might lose a generation of attender because of this decision. Your Bible translation may determine the age of your audience, and that audience could likely be under 30 years of age.

Book Review / Gospel-Centered Library

Old Paths New Power by Daniel Henderson

Daniel Henderson. Old Paths New Power. Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2016. 272 pp. $14.99.

Many churches struggle with a famine of prayer. Invite people to the fellowship hall for a free meal, and you’ll fill the place up with eager appetites; invite people to the fellowship hall for prayer, and you never know the outcome—of course, unless a church culture has developed around valuing the spiritual discipline of prayer. But if this kind of culture does not exist in your church, you might want to listen up, and get a copy of Old Paths New Power by Daniel Henderson. This recent book is extremely helpful for church leadership to foster a prayer culture. I’m sure individuals will gain much from this book for the sake of their own personal discipline of prayer, but this book is best fit for helping leaders lead the church in prayer, preaching, and preparing to send other to multiply revival.

In chapter two Henderson says that the paradigm of leadership, which has been fostered in recent time, has become a strategy built more on “competition, self-promotion, and notoriety” (49). But this hasn’t been how leaders are characterized in the Bible; they were characterized as “being with the Lord.” Thus, Christian leaders should foster humility, and build their leadership paradigm, not on getting ahead, but on spending time with the Lord in the Word and prayer. This kind of leadership example trickles down below to lay leaders and the wider church culture. In chapter four Henderson shows that the leadership paradigm, and other distractions, are just what the enemy wants us preoccupied with to keep from the old power of prayer and preaching God’s Word. Diversion is a “subtle archenemy of pastoral health and spiritual awakening in today’s society” (71). Distractions from the old power are variegated. But Henderson particularly keys in on technology, especially apps, tweets, posts, and text messages. (Sorry for contributing to the diversions with this post.) As a pastor, I get this. Almost every week I have some business vendor that wants to take me out to lunch, and distract me into spending more of my church’s precious budget on something that’s supposed to guarantee me “more people.” Henderson offers church leaders “the Highest Five” as a response to these kinds of distractions: 1) maintain a Christ-honoring life, 2) model a commitment to prayer, 3) master study of the Word, 4) multiply leadership within the church, 5) mobilize the church to God. By the end of chapter four, many readers will realize that they’ve been well-diagnosed and that they need to return to the old paths of faithfully praying and preaching God’s Word—two well-trod paths from which they might have strayed for the jungle of the world’s ways.

In chapter 5, Henderson gives readers seven stages that they must go through to achieve effective prayer leadership. The first is realizing that there is a complacency towards prayer and that something must be done about it. Second is starting to cooperate with other to include prayer in the church setting in a meaningful way. Third, a pastor will develop a real concern for prayer, most commonly as a result of external forces. Fourth, a leader will become committed to prayer. Five, “At some point, commitment must lead to clear, uncompromising conviction” (99). Six and seven are interlocked, and it has to do with growth and perseverance. The sixth stage is to grow in competency; the seventh stage is to weaponize prayer into a viral contagion within church life.

This book is filled with practical principles and methods for fostering prayer and a prayer culture just as described in chapter five. Chapter seven provides eight guiding principles for leading life-giving prayer experiences. Part three is a juicy discourse on how preaching leaders should foster a biblical atmosphere in the pulpit built around preaching with understanding, unction, and utterance of God’s Word—and, in turn, becoming the kind of man that matches that message. And the final part, part four, is about leadership being a sending force that multiplies leaders, who will be on mission for the sake of the gospel.

This book comes with a heavy recommendation to pastoral leadership. I think an excellent companion read for this work is J. C. Ryle’s classic, Old Paths. One might see ways in which this work has impressed upon Henderson as he’s recast and re-schematized the old ways as renewed power for this generation.

The Primacy of the Postils by John M. Frymire

John M. Frymire. The Primacy of the Postils: Catholics, Protestants, and the Dissemination of Ideas in Early Modern Germany . Studies in Medieval and Reformation Traditions, vol. 147. Boston: Brill, 2010. xiv + 642 pp. $186/£150.

John M. Frymire’s, Primacy of the Postils , endeavors to retrieve overlooked documentary evidence in order to recover forgotten memories of the Reformation and counter-Reformation; this study seeks to overturn erroneous theories that resulted from favoring one kind of documentary evidence over another. Frymire studied Late Medieval and Reformation studies with Heiko Oberman and received his Ph.D. in 2001 from the University of Arizona. He is currently an Associate Professor of History at the University of Missouri. Though Primacy of the Postils is Frymire’s only published monograph to date, he is researching and writing two other forthcoming publications: Pestilence and Reformation and Catholic Preaching and the German Reformation .

Primacy of the Postils examines the publication and print of religious literature, called Postils, in Germany from 1520-1620. Postils are collections of sermons that follow the lectionary of the church; they are resources for clergy to use in sermon preparation or as homilies to be read during mass. This monograph is a comparative study of Lutheran and Catholic postils in Germany (with a chapter length excursus of Calvinist postils in Germany, chapter 4, pp. 225-251). The scope of time allows examination of both Lutheran and Catholic postil production beginning with Luther’s publications and covering pre-Tridentine, Tridentine, and Post-Tridentine eras in order to evaluate two common presuppositions regarding Catholic practice—first, that Catholic preaching was a counter-Reformation response to the German Reformation critique of Late Medieval Catholic preaching and use of Scripture practice, and, second, that the Catholic counter-Reformation was a post-Tridentine phenomenon. This study emphasizes “the perspectives of sixteenth-century Catholic preachers and their overlords,” and asserts that “postils were the key conduit for the dissemination of ideas in early modern Germany” (emphasis added, 3). Frymire’s thesis is best surmised by his contention that “postils were the key instance of mediation between authorities and their subjects, between learned and unlearned, between what for lack of better terms we call elite and popular cultures” (3).

This study begins by re-examining the state of Catholic preaching during the period leading up to the German Reformation. Frymire dispels misperceptions that Catholics did not preach nor use Scripture in vernacular language prior to the Reformation; rather, there had been a resurgence of Catholic laity expecting clergy to read Scripture and expound it; Frymire insists that when Luther critiqued the Catholic Church for not “preaching the gospel,” he was not saying that they did not preach nor read Scripture, but that they had misinterpreted its meaning and disseminated ideas antithetical to the gospel. Frymire clarifies that Luther did not invent postils. Rather, this genre predated Luther; Frymire supplies ample evidence that postil collections existed in the fifteenth century leading up to Luther’s publication of the Kirchenpostilles (Church Postils) and the Hauspostilles (House Postils), compiled by Steven Roth and later completed by Caspar Cruciger. Nonetheless, Luther’s postils were a powerful method for spreading his ideas throughout Germany and allowed him to control discourse and its interpretation. In response to publication of Luther’s postils, Catholics engaged in a postil publication war; they strove to outpace the spread of Luther’s ideas in an effort to retain the hearts and minds of Germans. They did so by demonstrating how Luther’s reproach of Catholicism was fallacious; rather, Catholic clergy preached both the Scriptures and a gospel that emphasized faith in God. Key Catholic postillators of this era include Johannes Eck, Friedrich Nausea, Antonius Broickwy, and the foreigner, Josse Clichtove—each were critical exponents of counter-Reformation postils. Altogether, from 1520-1535, Catholic printers produced over 25,000 copies of complete postil collections, with an additional 21,000 of postil reprints from the Church Fathers and Medieval Scholastics.

In 1535 Anton Corvin, another evangelical, joined Luther in publishing postils. His collection of postils was shorter than Luther’s, better suited for public reading (usually postils were printed in folio format with large single column typeface), and designed for impoverished—educationally and financially—rural pastors, whom needed assistance with sermon preparation; Corvin’s strategy became the “industry standard” for postil production. Corvin dedicated his first volume to Philipp of Hesse, which began a trend that most later postillators, whether Lutheran or Catholic, would follow; almost all postillators dedicated postils to local authorities, whether princes or bishops. Frymire contends that this trend is because of the nexus between “preaching and the maintenance of order” (79). Corvin’s concise postils were ideal for pulpit reading, continuing the pattern of pastors merely reading postils in pulpits; later evangelicals would lament this trend, especially Luther (91), and they would accuse postillators of being Postillenreiters (Postil-riders) and Postillenfressers (Postil-feeders). In addition to Corvin’s contribution, Melancthon produced an academic set of postils and Johann Spangenberg produced a very popular set of short postils in catechetical form built upon the trustworthy interpretations of Luther and Corvin. The addition of Veit Dietrich’s House Postils in 1544 followed by Caspar Huberinus’s in 1545 guaranteed that there was a solid supply of evangelical “authorized sermons” from which pastors might preach (93), but it would be the shorter more concise postils that would have greater “success on the market” (89).

These evangelical postil collections stimulated a Catholic response. Catholics, like Johannes Dietenberger and the aforementioned Friedrich Nausea, produced equally concise collections for pulpit reading and spreading propaganda. Others like George Witzel wrote postils to reconvert Lutherans to Catholicism, just as Witzel himself had done after eight years as a Lutheran preacher. During this stage of postil production shifts in power connected to military victories may be observed. When Leipzig fell so did the print production of Catholic postils, and, during the Augsburg Interim, a resurgence of Catholic printing existed, until the Prince’s War victory reset the balance of power that led to the Peace of Augsburg in 1555. After the Augsburg Interim the Diocese of Mainz emerged as a major center of Catholic postil publication. Johann Wild’s Winter Postils became a critical resource for Catholic Germany. Wild’s postils were answered by Lutheran production of Johannes Brenz’s postils, compiled by Johannes Pollicarius, and were in the spirit of Luther’s postils, for Brenz “had been with Luther early on;” these postils were meant to help Lutherans “persevere under the cross” (150, 151). By the Peace of Augsburg, Catholics had produced 132 thousand sets of postils since 1530, which according to Frymire, “explodes the common scholarly notion…that the Catholic response to the German Reformation in the pulpits amounted to a non-response” (154).

The last segment studied is the period from 1555-1620—covering the remaining four chapters and 300 pages of content—equally detailed but with very similar conclusions as chapters one and two. Chapter three considers Lutheran postil production. During this period, postils emphasized controlled discourse to maintain order and confessionalization. Critical events—like the Treaty of Passau (1552), emergence of Calvinism in the Palitinate (1559), and the Formula of Concord (1577)—inspired production of new postils to respond to these unique situations and educate Germans accordingly. This period stimulated reprinting of popular Lutheran postils. Lutherans not only produced pericopic postils but also epistolary postils in order to encourage virtue and “social discipline” (165). Postillators were selected because of their importance as preachers, professors, and “spokesmen of their princes” (172). As such, many reprints lasted the duration of that person’s life or service to his prince. Chapters five and six cover Catholic postil production. Catholic postils became more militant and many postillators were produced from the university training and teaching center of Ingolstadt, but as the seventeenth-century dawned, the preponderance of postil collections were introduced from foreigners outside Germany. Frymire spends much of chapter six exploring why Jesuit postil production was not as influential as one might expect, considering the huge influence of this burgeoning monastic order. What is most surprising is how postils became predominantly produced in Latin as a result of improved training of clergy.

The four appendices are extremely helpful resources that qualify and quantify Frymire’s research. Frymire gives readers an introduction into the breadth of study that has just had its surface scratched. His expectation is that serious scholars will be stimulated to delve deeper—looking at the social history of ideas within the postils—by leveraging his work as a significant aid. In fact, Frymire concludes by demonstrating how such postil archival work would have thickened the attenuated study of witch-hunts that emerged in recent decades; he alludes that he will be doing this kind of research as he finishes his other two forthcoming studies on pestilence and Catholic preaching in Germany.

Diligent readers, who stay with Frymire all the way through the course of his argument, will not be disappointed by the details within this text. Rather, longsuffering will be greatly rewarded with a confident understanding that Frymire sufficiently debunks longstanding misperceptions about the Catholic and Counter-reformation; he accurately conveys the circumstances of Catholic preaching leading up to and during the German Reformation. Readers will be immersed and well versed in the interior details of the German Reformation and the pressures that attempted to counter it. This excellent monograph has immeasurable value for Reformation scholars researching in the field. As serious lay readers and pastors enjoy this intriguing narrative, they will find presuppositions about Late Medieval and Reformation Catholicism overturned.

Satan and Salem by Benjamin C. Ray

Ray, Benjamin C. Satand and Salem: The Witch-Hunt Crisis of 1692 . Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2015. 252 pp. $29.95/£27.95.

Benjamin C. Ray chronicles the events of the Salem witch-hunt (1692) in his recent monograph, Satan and Salem . This historical work relies heavily upon primary records, including depositions, case records, along with historical testimony from pastoral journals and published works written in response to or in mediation of the crisis. Rather than structuring this history diachronically, Ray elects to arrange his account by topic. These topics include people, places, and pivotal events related to the crisis. One advantage of this approach is that, though some of the history is repeated, the repetition locks the events into readers’ minds, helping them situate the history from a meta-perspective, which allows many different ideas to become part of an interconnected web rather than a linear path.

Ray’s approach is not to re-interpret the events from a post-modern mindset that benefits from today’s psychological and sociological study. His desire is not to speculate about the real reason why events unfolded or to critique the pre-critical mindset of his subjects. He did not set out to undermine colonial metaphysical understanding and deny the spiritual conflict taking place. Rather he aims to enter into the colonial context of 1692 and permit the subjects to speak from their own understanding about what took place. For instance, he does not cast doubt upon the afflicted’s testimony—those young women who accused many of witchcraft due to the affliction they experienced—but Ray allows their testimony to bear itself out.

Though the study is chronicled by topic, the arrangement does have an eye towards the actual chronology of the events. Ray begins by looking at Samuel Parris, the newly arrived pastor at Salem. Ray reflects on Parris’s initiative to protect the sacraments from the halfway covenant, and his efforts through preaching and relational alliances to consolidate authority and power within the Salem village’s meetinghouse. This meant arousing people’s guilt for not aspiring to membership and participation in the Supper. Samuel Parris’s sermons, arouse minds to think upon the spiritual conflict and see a spiritual battle between Satan and Christ in Salem village, which very well serves as a catalyst for what soon comes.

When the first accusations and affliction occur it is the testimony of Tituba, Parris’s slave, that catapults the town into frenzy. Her testimony of spectral manifestations, conversations with specters, and initial witness to the witchcraft activity sets the course for how the afflictions of Abigail Williams, Ann Putnam Jr., Mary Wilcott, Mercy Lewis, Elizabeth Hubbard, and Mary Warren would soon be interpreted. Ray indicates that these young women appear to have genuine afflictions, regardless of motive, according to the accounts of second-hand witnesses and their own testimony. Yet, one is left wondering if the pricking of pins, the touch test, or the actual displays of affliction are staged out of a desire for attention, self-preservation, or a fanatical sense of being in the throes of this spectacular drama. Ray’s chapter on the magistrates seems to indicate that perhaps these young women were merely playing their part from a desire to please authority figures, and, perhaps, a fear of being caught in a lie.

The chapter on the witch meetings and the progression of the hunt in Andover accomplishes two aims for readers. One, it helps them understand the popular lore on witchcraft during the seventeenth-century and the provenance of some of this lore. Also, it helps one see how exaggerated and accelerated the accounts become—to the point where the stories foster a panic involving a meta-narrative where Satan wishes to destroy Christ’s kingdom in New England. Possibly the most outlandish part of the matter is that all of these witch-gatherings near Parris’s home are either spectral accounts or confessions. No outside first-hand witnesses come forward who are not complicit in the events themselves.

I found Ray’s account to be riveting. He does an excellent job of helping the reader understand the sincerity of all the people involved in the witchhunt. Though it appears that he is fairly biased towards his favorite interpreters, such as Thomas Brattle. He could have given readers more of the interpretive thought of the Cottons; I would have liked more on their publications, which I will likely skim later. It was interesting to see how the father and son, Increase and Cotton respectively, had different reads on the events and fell into different groups—Increase wishing the trials and acceptance of spectral evidence to cease and Cotton endorsing the continuation of trials and use of spectral accounts as evidence.

Perhaps it is what is left unsaid that left this reader most disappointed. But it is possible that the author intentionally left this gaping hole, so that he could come around and do another work entirely dedicated to the project left untouched, which is this: the stories and experiences of those who would not confess to witchcraft, who in turn were executed; these people were left mostly as enigmas. What little Ray gives concerning their testimonies and last words is extremely moving. Nonetheless, these people, who were marched out to Proctor’s Ledge and hung, remain as but apparitions and specters to readers. Truly, I imagine a chapter could be dedicated to each of the tortured and executed.

Finally, I appreciate the effort Ray took to talk about how Salem’s history is exploited for the sake of tourism. The chapter on mapping out Salem was very interesting. I also found the ultimate conclusion of regret, admission of “mistakes”, expunging the prosecuteds’ records, and reparations for their families to be compelling. The historical retelling itself, with its final outcome, paints the picture that something was clearly not right about the whole trial process.

The New Abolition by Gary Dorrien

Dorrien, Gary. The New Abolition: W. E. B. Du Bois and the Black Social Gospel . New York: Yale University Press, 2015. 647 pp. $45.00/£27.00.

Gary Dorrien is the Reinhold Niebuhr Professor of Social Ethics at Union Theological Seminary and Professor of Religion at Columbia University. His exceptional work on the black social gospel movement is entitled, The New Abolition: W. E. B. Du Bois and the Black Social Gospel . This voluminous work, which no doubt will remain the definitive volume for some time, pivots on the biography and intellectual thought and influence of Du Bois. Nonetheless, this monograph is much more that a biography of Du Bois. The New Abolition chronicles all the significant players, organizations, and movements that preceded the Civil Rights movement. Each subnarrative locates itself at abolition and reconstruction, demonstrating that pivotal promoters of the black social gospel either knew or were told firsthand from their parents about a time when they knew no freedom. Each hero or heroine overcame diversity in order to gain education, which would then be the training ground to launch he or she into a role of influence.

The premier example that education is a vital trope throughout The New Abolition may be drawn from the story of W. E. B. Du Bois. Du Bois studied in Germany for two years before running out of fellowship monies and then returned to America to complete his Ph.D. from Harvard, making him the first Afro-American doctoral graduate of Harvard. Du Bois went on to have a distinguished career as a professor, with a number of important sociological titles in publication, until he became the founder and editor of Crisis , a magazine publication that was the news source for the NAACP. And of course one cannot overlook the importance that Booker T. Washington placed on the role of education—having founded Tuskegee College, fundraising for it so effectively, and creating a machine through it by which he might assert influence in all areas of the initiative to change social circumstances for blacks.

But these famous Civil Rights forerunners and rivals, Washington and Du Bois, are not the only characters that Dorrien describes. Dorrien sketches lives of black social gospel luminaries such as Henry McNeal Turner, Ida B. Wells, Reverdy Cassius Ransom, Alexander Walters, William J. Simmons, Nannie H. Burroughs, and Adam Clayton Powell Sr, among other micro-biographies. In the process, we learn about the schools they led (Tuskegee, Oberlin, Wilberforce), the publishing houses and periodicals they pioneered ( Crisis, Opportunity , et al.), and the denominations/organizations that they created (i.e. Niagara Movement, NAACP, NBC, AME Zion, et al.). Dorrien’s retelling of the events and portraits of these leaders in no way could undergo the accusation of hagiography. These are raw stories—stories where heroes who could be a league of justice appear more often like a team of rivals, even enemies in some cases. Each character has his or her flaws. For instance, W. E. B. Du Bois’ intellectual superiority often isolates him from working with a team. Ida B. Wells’ passion and proclivity to create scenes makes her one who has to go it alone. Reverdy Cassius Ransom is plagued by alcoholism, which jeopardizes his influence, especially after his botched visit to Huntsville, Alabama.

Important to The New Abolition is the role that faith played in enacting social action and how Christianity was leveraged as an indelible link to the solution of the black man’s plight. Part of Dorrien’s argument is that many of the key figures were tied to the church. Though Du Bois was not himself a deeply spiritual man, others with their zeal, passion, and the organizational machines that they constructed were part of the critical vehicle that moved things forward in catalytic fashion towards Martin Luther King Jr. Dorrien argues that this was necessary for lasting transformation to occur. He says:

But small groups of middle-class activists were not going to transform U. S. American society by themselves. To be serious about abolishing racial caste, the new abolitionists had to reach deep into religious communities through which millions of Americans made moral and spiritual sense of their lives. (297)

Adam Clayton Powell Sr. and Reverdy C. Ransom are probably the best two examples of individuals who led in both the church and in other subsidiary organizations in order to further the message of race equality.

Helpful to Dorrien’s telling is the detailed research and vivid retelling of history. At times I felt like I was in the South or in the North or in the room with a featured character. Readers will understand the intense hate that existed in the South and will be horrified by the details of lynchings. Dorrien’s portrayal and reporting of these events caused me to be grieved that Ida B. Wells did not have greater success in her personal campaign to end that horror. Readers will be disappointed in Presidents who do not keep their promises of better race relations and give justice to all peoples. Likewise, readers will sympathize with whites, blacks, and colors of all sorts as they endeavored to effect societal change to better America. Perhaps that is one of the encouraging parts about The New Abolition . Dorrien reminds readers that though there were initiatives to migrate backs to Africa and resettle in Liberia, initiatives like Garvey’s, most of these culture-changers believed in America and were hopeful. Perhaps this is a message that is exceptionally fitting at this stage of American history. We need hope. Thus, the binding power of the American identity caused these black social gospel influencers to temporarily put their initiatives on hold and accommodate the status quo, for a time, as America rallied through WWI—knowing that a much greater threat existed at the time.

Another important point in regards to Dorrien’s historiography is how he delineates that there was no monolithic solution to the problem of race inequality. Black leaders had different solutions to the problem. Some thought they should repopulate Africa; others thought that they could accommodate Jim Crow regulations until they prove they are of equal standing, by pulling themselves up by their bootstraps, relocating themselves higher up the echelon in America’s social stratification, and proving that they can effectively partner with the South in stimulating economic growth. (I hope you can tell that this is my best attempt to summarize Bookerism in a sentence.) Still others fought more militantly leveraging agitation or bold rhetoric to incite blacks to act. And possibly the most astonishing reality is that some didn’t like the idea of bi-racial couples—I’m thinking of Burroughs in particular here. There was not consensus on how to best move things forward, which explains tensions between leaders like Du Bois and Washington who could not work together because neither believed the other proceeded with the best approach.

Those seeking an introduction to the Civil Rights movement from Abolition on through the Progressive Era will find Dorrien’s account to not just be sufficient but prolific. This is a massive read, requiring patience and stamina, but it is extremely rewarding for those who persevere. I eagerly anticipate Dorrien’s next installment that looks at Martin Luther King Jr. and the continuation of the Civil Rights movement.

Clerical Discipline and the Rural Reformation The Synod of Zurich, 1532-1580

Gordon, Bruce. Clerical Discipline and the Rural Reformation The Synod in Zurich, 1532-1580 . Bern: Peter Lang, 1992. 297 pp. $99.95/£61.00.

The French theologian, Bernard Vogler pioneered local studies on protestant clergy with his Vie religieuse en Pays Rhenan dans las seconde moitie du XVIe siècle (1556-1619). Subsequent to this work, a number of other important studies have now been published. One of those studies is Bruce Gordon’s, Clerical Discipline and the Rural Reformation The Synod in Zurich, 1532-1580. Bruce received his PhD from University of St. Andrews and currently teaches at Yale Divinity School. His most recent noteworthy work is John Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion: A Biography in Princeton University Press’s Lives of Great Religious Books series.

Primarily a treatment of the relationship between the function of the Synod in Zurich to rural clergy around Zurich, this book secondarily provides insight into Heinrich Bullinger’s role as Zwingli’s heir to the Swiss Reformation. Since the key leaders of the Reformation hailed from urban centers, it is valuable to see how Reformation was received by people living in rural contexts, and how it contended against the Catholic alternative. Gordon presents how the teaching and disciplinary function of the Swiss Synod “imposed” the Reformation in those contexts and maintain the quality of the church as the Reformation held its ground in the surrounding area of Zurich, holding off Catholic resurgence or Anabaptist insurgence.

Gordon begins by presenting how important clerical reform was leading up to the Reformation. One of the contributing stimuli for the Reformation was laity’s disappointment with the moral and ethical fiber of clergy. This led to acts of anticlericalism throughout the fifteenth century. In the sixteenth century, Zwingli emerges as a leader who clarifies the ecclesiology of the church through his theology. The Disputation of Bern in 1528 becomes a landmark example of how he successfully advocates for “the legitimacy of local churches” while having them be united “in their common confession of Christ” through the Synod (40). After the first war of Kappel but before the second, Bern and Zurich held their first Synods. These gatherings set the expectation for future meetings by focusing on clerical discipline.

Chapter three of this study offers a detailed discussion of Synod gatherings, including the official offices that people held, the roles that those offices accomplished, the agenda for the meeting, and what that agenda was meant to accomplish. Two meetings occurred a year: one a week after May Day (May 1), and the second a week after the feast of St. Gall (October 18) (82). The meeting had a six-part agenda: Invocatio, Catalogus, Sacramentum, Externi, Senatus, and Censura . Records of these meetings are consulted in the two-volume Synodalakten , which includes Bullinger’s own notes concerning these meetings. In addition, there are also records from the Synod clerk for meetings during the 1560s.

The two most important parts of the meeting, though we know little about the Externi stage, are the Sacramentum and the Censura . The Sacramentum is when new clergy were interviewed and ordained into the ministry. The final portion of the meeting ( Censura ) is the one that is pertinent to the issue of church discipline. During this stage of the meeting, clergy were confronted for either being morally lax in their dealings with parishioners or being morally lax themselves. Consequences for moral laxity might be as gentle as private rebuke but as serious as two or three days of imprisonment in the Wellenberg with nothing but bread and water. The most common behavior that would precipitate consequences of any kind is drunkenness.

The discipline measures employed in Synod gatherings were critical for maintaining civil order in Zurich during this tumultuous period of the Swiss Confederacy’s history. Gordon argues that these measure were a form of social control to extinguish grumbling, which under minded civil and ecclesial leadership. Gordon does not reduce the function of Censura to social control. He insists that church discipline is a critical function of teaching doctrine (111). Both Zwingli and Bullinger had a vision for fostering Reformation theology in the ecclesiology of the church, and they served as paternal figures, who shepherded under-shepherds in establishing healthy ecclesial and civil contexts that deter wickedness and insubordination to civil authorities (ideas that were one in the same).

The teaching element of Censura had much to do with the reality that the earliest reformed clergy were rarely well-educated; they were given to slip back into rituals and practices of Catholicism, which had been condemned. Thus, not just was Censura employed but preventative measures—like establishing Humanist learning centers to teach exegesis to rising clergy, writing postils, and also publishing biblical commentaries—were leveraged as well. Nonetheless, the measures did not ensure that rural clergy would be enthusiastic about study or desire to teach the doctrines of the Reformation. Ultimately, matters of doctrine and heresy were not just ecclesial matters in Zurich; they were civil matters. “All decisions regarding theology were ultimately in the hands of the magistracy” (100).

The disciplinary element was for those clergy that practiced personal moral laxity—whether it was excesses in drinking, gossip, fighting, or adultery. Gordon gives detailed accounts, accompanied with the Prosopography beginning of page 225 that summarizes each clergy’s case record (presented alphabetically). Social control, such as the prohibition of particular festivals connected to Catholic feasts would be prohibited (123). This was done to circumvent excesses in drinking, which often led to other sin. Alcoholism was a serious cause for problems in these rural communities. Cases include church discipline related to couples presenting their children for baptism, while intoxicated (124), or clergy becoming drunk at wedding or funerals, or holding services while drunk. Some pastors became known for being far too frequent in taverns and one even was known for running a tavern in his home. The problem of drunkenness became so serious that the council and church set civil regulations on the quantity of wine that an individual could purchase (129).

Excesses in drink often led to looseness of the tongue. The church used the preaching of the Word to guide people in understanding the kind of civilization that Zurich was fostering. Non-conformity to the Reformation, by those who advocated Catholicism or Anabaptism, was a serious threat to the delicate balance of hegemony that Swiss reformers were trying to hold on to following the Second War of Kappel. Other common matters of concern for the Synod included clergy who did not care for the poor or the sick. The sixteen century was a time of economic distress, which hit the rural economy worse, incubating challenges like famine and plague. The Synod saw these difficulties as a serious concern and clergy should be greatly concerned with caring for these needs. Unfortunately, there was already little tithe to go around as it was. Caring for spiritual health might also be lax because clergy failed to catechize and encourage catechism in homes or they may not even hold services at all (often because they were busy in the tavern).

Gordon’s study is absolutely fascinating. The vivid accounts through the use of Synod documentation gives life to the rural situation around Zurich. One often thinks that men like Zwingli and Bullinger simply wooed people to their ideas and that the Reformation was readily embraced. However, this study demonstrates how complex the life situation was, and, perhaps, how well contented people were with Catholicism. For many, Catholicism did not interrupt their manner of living: show up for the mass, do penance, and work hard. But the ideas of the Reformation set a new benchmark for expectations—often times rural common people and their clergy did not even find this new benchmark a desirable one to meet. The various methods that Bullinger and other city leaders employed to foster reformed ideas or deter ideas that ran counter to their hopes for Zurich and the surrounding area demonstrate their earnestness to cultivate change.

The greatest challenge for readers is that one must have an understanding of Latin and German in order to glean the largest benefit from this study. Zwingli’s theology and many of the comments from the case records are footnoted in Latin or German. On the other hand, making this material accessible—rather than forcing researchers to dig into archives in Zurich—is a welcomed asset. Gordon’s even-handed and sympathetic approach to understanding why and how leaders in Zurich achieved reform, is also appreciated. I did not get a sense that the Swiss reformers’ methods were oppressive. Rather, Gordon demonstrates the level of patience with which Bullinger and others brought clergy to repentance and improved conditions for those living in rural contexts.

This work is recommended to those wishing to have a richer understanding of the complexities related to Reformation in Zurich.

Jonathan Edwards’s Bible by Stephen R. C. Nichols

Stephen R. C. Nichols. Jonathan Edwards’s Bible . Eugene: Pickwick, 2013. 229 pp. $29.00/£21.00.

Stephen R. C. Nichols reads history at Christ’s College, Cambridge, and theology at Wycliffe Hall, Oxford. Nichols’s recent monograph, Jonathan Edwards’s Bible , is an examination of Jonathan Edwards’ exegesis and theology primarily drawing attention to one of Jonathan Edwards’ ambitious projects of harmonizing the Old and New Testament. In October 1757 Jonathan Edwards responded to the College of New Jersey’s invitation for him to become their next President. In that hesitant response Edwards shares about two important writing projects, one of which was a harmony of the Old and New Testament. Nichols spends much of his time studying the extant notebooks that Edwards used to research this project. Each chapter begins with an overview of the subject in wider scholarship, followed by an understanding of Edwards approach to that subject in his corpus, followed by how that subject was handled in Edwards’ research for the “Harmony.” Chapter one is on prophecy; chapter two is on typology; chapter three is on doctrine and precept, and chapter four is a case study in soteriology. Because such little work has been done on Edwards’ exegesis, this is a significant contribution.

Chapter one studies Jonathan Edwards’ views of prophecy, particularly examining how Edwards uses prophetic Old Testament fulfillment within the Old Testament as a polemic against the deistic claims of Anthony Collins. Edwards’ initiative with his harmony was to “highlight ‘the unreasonableness of [the] deists’ and to offer a more reasonable way of reading the prophecies” (p. 21). According to Nichols, Edwards’ effort to defend orthodox Christian belief made good use of two staple interpretive principles—the Analogy of Scripture and the Analogy of Faith (p. 24-25, 29, 31). In addition, Edwards was a proponent of employing not just a literal sense of the Bible but also a spiritual sense of the Bible, which welcomed the use of typology (p. 24). According to Edwards, arriving at the spiritual sense involved spiritual maturity that could be “made available to the saint only by its divine author, the Holy Spirit” (p. 29). Contra to Stein, [1] Nichols asserts that Edwards’ Old Testament interpretation of Scripture “is not the unprincipled exercise of imagination.” Rather, Edwards engaged in the practice of allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture. Nichols explains that Edwards method required a literal reading that makes use of figural devices, including typology and metaphor. Interesting enough, typology may also be employed in interpreting historical event, which, according to Edwards, still fits within the Scriptural account that goes from Creation to the Eschaton. No to be overlooked in this chapter is Nichol’s discovery that “Miscellanies” no. 1347 is part of the nascent study leading to the “Harmony.”

Chapter two is a deeper exploration of typology. In this chapter Nichols assesses Edwards’ typological methods, beginning with a brief historical introduction to typology, which leads into comparing Edwards to his forebearers or contemporaries in Reformed orthodoxy (such as Johannes Wollebius, William Guild, and Samuel Mather). Nichols enlists the help of some of today’s experts on typology (Goppelt, Danielou, and De Lubac).

Nichols claims that Edwards locates the seeds of typological interpretation within Edwards metaphysics. To Edwards all material creation is a shadow of spiritual reality. So typology is not just found in Scripture and history; typology is found in general revelation as well. “Material type was connected with spiritual antitype” (p. 75). Furthermore, all typology is best explained in the language of Hebrew—Edwards relied on Andrew Wilson for this principle—which explains Edwards’ lifelong interest in studying Hebrew; some even say that he might have had Cabbalistic tendencies (p. 77-78). This chapter continues by studying Edwards’ “Miscellanies” no. 1069 and assessing Mason Lowance’s work of interpreting Edwards’ typology. Like Stein, Lowance appears to overlook Edwards emphasis on Scripture’s help for understanding typology. Though there appears to be an innumerable amount of types, Edwards relies heavily on evidence of Scripture to validate a type.

Chapter three studies Edwards’ harmonization of doctrine and precepts. Edwards’ research indicates the importance of covenant in his harmony. His harmony includes discussion on the Covenants of Works, Grace, and Redemption—all key doctrines in relation to Reformed and Puritan Theology. Possibly most interesting in this chapter is how Nichols asserts that Edwards notebook on “Genius, Spirit, Doctrine and Rules” was a draft for the third part on the “Harmony,” and he intended to use the Sermon on the Mount as a connecting point in harmonizing doctrine and precepts between the Old Testament and New.

Chapter four is the case study on soteriology. It seems that in each chapter Nichols has a quibble with someone’s interpretation of Edwards. In this chapter that quibble is primarily with Anri Morimoto’s view of Edwards’ dispositional soteriology. Morimoto, in step with his advisor, Sang Hyun Lee’s dispositional ontology, applies the concept of “disposition” to Edwards soteriology, which ultimately leads to a more Thomistic and Catholic view of soteriology. Nichols believes that this is in error and argues that Edwards had a reformed view of soteriology that was very much in line with the idea of justification by faith in the Messiah, regardless of which testament a saint lived in.

Stephen Nichols study is fascinating. He clearly has an agenda to reclaim Edwards within the safety of Reformed Theology. A large part of his work is to show the continuity that Edwards held between the Old Testament and New Testament. One observation of Nichols study is how he managed to critique other interpreters of Edwards, while withholding critique on Edwards himself. There might have been much to say about Edwards rather free way of employing typology. Of course Nichols is reacting to Stein’s apparent overreaching critique of Edwards use of typology. So, perhaps Nichols is a welcomed balance. I think he could have offered more illustrations of Edwards typology and how the spiritual sense that Edwards arrived at is consistent with both the Analogy of Faith and the Analogy of Scripture. Likewise, it would have been helpful to see typological blunders of Edwards—blunders that I’m certain do exist.

If Nichols reading of Morimoto is correct, then I think I am inclined to agree with Nichols on his understanding of dispositional soteriology. Here I felt like Nichols provided overwhelming evidence for Edwards Reformed soteriology and helped us properly appropriate Edwards intentions with the concept of the “new disposition.” From my reading of Edwards, it seems that the “new disposition” is employed to illustrate or demonstrate vibrant extant faith rather than be the instrumental means of salvation.

Perhaps one stirring question that Nichols invoked in his case study on soteriology is whether it would be worthwhile to perform another case study on Edwards’ understanding of the relationship between Israel and the Church? How does Edwards harmonize these two?

This is one of the best studies on Jonathan Edwards’ use of Scripture, particularly the his appropriation of the Old Testament for the New Testament people of God, and, certainly, Nichols has made important contributions to understanding Edwards’ prospective study on the Harmony of the Old and New Testament .

[1] Stein, “The Quest for the Spiritual Sense: the Biblical Hermeneutic of Jonathan Edwards,” in the Harvard Theological Review 70.1-2 (1977) 99-113.

Remaining Spiritually Fresh in Busy Times: Suggestions for Devotional Reading

The academic year is about to begin and many seminary and bible college students are about to experience the challenge of remaining spiritually fresh during the rigors of study. Likewise, families are revving up for the busyness of the school year that also seems to be full of extra-curricular activities as well. I understand this full well as our family prepares for my second year of doctoral work, my eldest child’s second grade year, and my second child’s kindergarten year; Awana, soccer, and other miscellaneous activities are about to commence as well.

So with all this going on, how does a student or family remain spiritually fresh during all the busyness? For me, it requires carefully carved out devotional reading. Devotional reading is a great way to slow yourself down and realize that things can and should wait on time with God. When you do devotional reading, you give your full attention to what you are doing. It’s not the same as listening to an audio book, while you’re really busy thinking about errands and other things that are going on. It’s not the same as being plugged into your smart phone, listening to a podcast of your favorite pastor, who actually isn’t your under-shepherd, while you’re in the grocery store, commuting to campus, cycling, or on a run. Devotional reading requires you to pause, sit, with undivided attention, in order to meet with God. In my opinion, the best kind of devotional reading is sermon reading. Find someone whose sermons are available in print or digitally and eat those sermons up voraciously.

If this is something you long for, then let me share with you what I did this summer and what I’m doing this year. If you’re looking for more ideas of who or what to read, I think you should consult your pastor. Your pastor will be able to give you helpful suggestions.

During this summer I had the delight of reading through Jonathan Edwards sermon series, Charity and Its Fruits . This collection of sermons is built off the famous 1 Corinthians 13 text on love. Edwards preached fifteen sermons, each discussing one of the phrases from this text. It is excellent devotional reading. I used the Yale Edition , which I have the complete set from Logos , but if you’re interested in reading these sermons, Crossway has a more affordable edition of Charity and Its Fruits , edited by Kyle Strobel.

For the coming year, I am working through Thomas Manton’s sermons on Psalm 119. Again, I am using Logos, because it is very portable, and I have Manton’s entire works through my subscription to Logos Cloud . Ideally, I would read from the Banner of Truth text of Thomas Manton’s sermons on Psalm 119 , which is the best way to read through the printed collection of these sermons. Unfortunately, I don’t currently have this set and am not in a position to buy it right now, but it is on my Christmas list.

Thomas Manton preached 140 sermons on Psalm 119 over the course of a year, three sermons a week. He preached on nearly every verse, one or two verses at a time. And these sermons are rich with imperatives of living according to the Good News.

The first sermon from Psalm 119:1 is devotionally juicy. Here’s the text of Psalm 119:1

Blessed are those whose way is blameless, who walk in the law of the LORD! (Psalm 119:1 ESV)

Here’s some quotes from the first sermon, which I read this morning:

Nothing can give us solid peace, but what doth make us eternally happy. (p. 7)

Nothing but the favor of God is from everlasting to everlasting. (p. 7)

Many times we are doctrinally right in point of blessedness, but not practically. (p. 8)

That sincere, constant, uniform obedience to God’s law is the only way to true blessedness. This is called a way , and this way is said to be God’s law …which implies not absolute purity and legal perfection, but gospel sincerity ; and in this way we must walk. (p. 9)

A civil orderly man is one thing, and a godly renewed man another. (p. 10)

Human laws are good to establish converse with man, but too short to establish communion with God. (p. 10)

The will of God must not only be known but practiced. (p. 11)

To single out what pleasures us is to make ourselves Gods. (p. 12)

Sincere and constant obedience is the evidence of our right to future blessedness. (p. 12)

The joy of the presence and sense of the Lord’s love will counterbalance all worldly joys. (p. 15)

That’s just a quick selection of some of the sweet drippings of devotional goodness that come from these texts. The goal here isn’t to get you to walk with me in my devotional reading for the coming year, but, of course, I’d love to hear from you if you decide to read these sermons. I hope you are simply stirred to find something to read devotionally and dive in. You don’t have to wait until January to begin new habits or rekindle dried up habits. And, of course, you might not be on the same devotional rhythm that I am, so you might not be ready to shift gears to new material yet. But I want to alert you to the fact that you don’t have to read the most current devotional or be locked into a podcast from today’s preachers. Sometimes entering into another time period is even more refreshing and reading old sermons is even better than listening to recent ones. Whatever you do, don’t give up, use it to refresh you, especially if you think that you have too much on your plate or are too busy to take 15-30 minutes to commune with the Lord. There is nothing so sweet as spending time with him.

Sections

September 2014 – jtcochran.com. Social media is both a blessing and curse as we all know and have experienced. One curse is that it facilitates the sensation of missing out.

April 2014 – jtcochran.com. Finding the best books to read on a subject of theology can be a challenge. This series provides suggested resources for hot topics of Theology. Each title is linked to Kindle. If you have another title to suggest for this area of study, please comment.

October 2014 – jtcochran.com. South Elgin, IL — On Thursday evening, October 30th, Grady and Lora Hauser hosted a dinner party for Alliance Defending Freedom in their S. Elgin home.

June 2014 – jtcochran.com. Martin Hengel has written the definitive work on the crucifixion, entitled fittingly, Crucifixion .

March 2014 – jtcochran.com. Brian Croft. Prepare Them To Shepherd: Test, Train, Affirm, and Send Into Ministry . Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2014. 109 pp. $12.99.

January 2015 – jtcochran.com. With the Clouds of Heaven by James M. Hamilton Jr. is a recent installment in the New Studies in Biblical Theology Series, edited by D. A. Carson. I spent the last week immersed in this excellent biblical theology on the book of Daniel.

Yohoho