Book Reviews

Just War as Christian Discipleship: Recentering the but a war of incipient irreligion as the old, conse- Tradition in the rather than the State. By crated thinking evaporated. Daniel M. Bell, Jr. Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2009, The book has much to commend it. It’s a fasci- 267 pp., $21.99 paper. nating thought experiment, and it’s clearly writ- ten. I may well use it as one of my texts in a future Back in the 1990s, Notre Dame philosophy pro- course on war and peace. It starts with a helpful fessor Tom Morris wrote If Aristotle Ran General survey of just war thought through the centu- Motors: The New Soul of Business. Now, Methodist ries and then, chapter by chapter, treats the seven elder and Lutheran seminary professor Daniel main criteria common to the literature—legiti- Bell has given us what amounts to If Ran the mate authority, just cause, right intent, last resort, Pentagon: The New Soul of War. And the results reasonable chance of success, discrimination, and are surprising. We’re conditioned to think that proportionality. Jesus would counsel non-violent love for all, but In each instance, he takes pains to distinguish Bell will have none of that. Following Augustine, CD from PPC thinking, and his standards are he is persuaded that true love entails some “harsh generally gratifying and bracing, e.g., scrupulous kindness” in the form of war making. And he has attention to the well being of non-combatants. no patience for those who would deem all combat He is merciless toward those who pay mere lip the “lesser of two evils.” service to the rules, but he stands against those After reviewing the development of just war who are so finicky that no war could ever qualify. thinking, he draws a line between the secular/ He teaches a self-forgetful, sacrificial approach to secularized approach, which he labels the Public military service and lifts up such virtues as hope, Policy Checklist (PPC), and his own position, that courage, temperance, and patience, showing that of Christian Discipleship (CD). He argues that his the character of the rule-follower is as crucial as take on the matter is truer to the classic thought the framing of the rules. of Augustine and Aquinas and that modernity Yet, for all that, his application and execution has drained just-war thinking of its wisdom and are wanting. First, it would have been a better book virtue. In this connection, he turns conventional had Bell spent less time denigrating the “Public judgment on its head, claiming that the Thirty- Policy Checklist,” beginning with this snide label. Years’ War (1618-1648) was not a war of religion He could well have given it due honor as a basic

74 SBJT 14.1 (2010): 74-89 statement of principles, uniting the lost and the or the high-country of CD. Unfortunately, this saved in essential, common tasks of war. Romans sort of this thinking would encourage believ- 2:14-15 says that even the pagans, who lack the ers to say that only Christian marriage is wor- Torah, have its work written on their hearts, with thy of the name. Jewish neighbors may call their their consciences testifying to what is right and 40-years-and-counting of monogamous fidel- wrong. (Thus, for example, it is not surprising ity and mutual care “marriage,” but they’ve just that ancient Greeks, in Book V of Plato’s Repub- learned some rules and stuck to them by force lic, insist that “barbarian” non-combatants not of will. Why not, instead, give thanks for the be harmed, their lands not ravaged.) If Bell had marriage they have nurtured and pray that they spent some time in Romans 2, he might have been will come to a fuller understanding of its role in less inclined to repeatedly (and tediously) typify the Kingdom, even as a picture of Christ and his the noblest wartime efforts of non- as bride, the church? simply a matter of rule-memorization and will Another problem is reader whiplash. Though power. Surely, many “heathens” work from heart- he is good at nuance, it seems that Bell justifies felt conviction, thanks to their innate, God-given crusades but then renounces them, justifies war- conscience, not to mention some discernment of as-punishment but then insists on far-reaching the creation order pictured in Romans 1. leniency, denounces unconditional surrender I think Bell would have been better served by but then allows for comprehensive reordering an Aquila-Priscilla-Apollos approach (Acts 18:24- of the defeated state. To put it otherwise, he has 28), whereby he could show his readers “a more a tendency to have it both ways at a number of excellent way.” On this model, he could coun- points. sel the believer serving alongside the agnostic As the treatments of detail proliferate, so do and Jew in a just cause to fight with love for the the questions: When you say the voice of the enemy, a Spirit-filled love beyond the capability of church should be heard loud and clear in public his unbelieving comrades. Perhaps the Christian policy, do you mean the voice of combat-ready infantryman would be more inclined to throw Southern Baptists or that of combat-averse Men- himself on a grenade to save his buddies and more nonites? How are small Christian minorities fastidious (or at least heartfelt) in his regard for the in India and Indonesia to pick up on the public safety of civilians, but acts of conspicuous virtue policy implications of CD warfare? Why should in war are well-distributed among believers and war be so limited as to refrain from attacking non-believers alike. ideologies? Wasn’t it a good thing that the Allies By severing PPC from God-ordained natural essentially and intentionally erased the cultures law, and showing scant appreciation for natural of “Aryan” Nazism and Japanese emperor wor- law itself, Bell says that PPC “suits the kind of ship? Is killing really “the business of armies,” people and politics that believe there is nothing or might it equally be the force of intimidation, but the force of their arms, the numbers of their which largely won the Cold War? Must the enemy chariots, and the speed of their horses that stand currently be using a bridge to attack you before between them and oblivion.” This is like saying you may take it out to protect your flank? Do you that freedom of speech is unsavory because it have any historical examples of enemies, who on “suits the kind of people who publish pornogra- the eve of war, “repented, turned, and sought jus- phy” and freedom of assembly is toxic because it tice and reconciliation”? (Alas, the book is virtu- “lets anarchists and Marxists caucus.” ally devoid of instructive examples.) Throughout the book, a kind of false dichot- So yes, there are problems and puzzles, but, omy is in play—choose either the horrors of PPC again, Bell’s work is a fascinating read, well worth

75 the purchase for those wondering, “How does just stimulus moves rapidly in the direction of arousal, war mesh with the Christian life?” lust, and pressure to act out sexually. For this “consumer,” sex is not an intimate marital expres- —Mark T. Coppenger sion as God intended, but rather an escape—not Professor of Christian Apologetics unlike addictive drug use. The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary The distinctive chapters on neuroanatomy and neurotransmitters are surrounded by a biblical of marriage, with a focus on masculinity Wired for Intimacy: How Pornography Hijacks the and progressive sanctification. Struthers argues Male Brain. By William M. Struthers. Down- that our sexuality, a good gift from God, should ers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2009, 196pp., be part of the process of sanctification. The book $16.00 paper. suggests that sanctification and biblical thinking leads to the development of different pathways, a William Struthers, an associate professor of psy- “superhighway” that leads to Christlikeness and chology at Wheaton College, draws from his community rather than self indulgence, shame, research in the area of the neurosciences and and despair. neuroethics to contribute to the understanding This volume contributes significantly to the of the long-term impact of exposure to porno- counselor’s deeper understanding when dealing graphic materials. Citing current evidence in the with sexual sin issues in their clients and the grav- fields of neuroanatomy and neurotransmitters, ity and impact of visual stimulation. Thus, treat- he develops the contention that viewing pornog- ment and recovery are neither easy nor quick. raphy causes actual physical and physiological Confession of the problem, safeguards, and changes to the pathways within the brain. These accountability are all helpful but not sufficient. A difficult-to-reverse changes in the “hard wiring” biblical understanding of masculinity and femi- of the brain result in significant impairment to the ninity, of sexuality and community, can begin to pursuit of holiness. build the right pathway to Christ—and ultimately After outlining the grim statistics regarding put a “road closed” sign in the brain, to hinder any the availability and accessibility of pornographic further mental traffic. material, Struthers argues for a disordered view of Contrary to the book’s title, the author’s train- masculinity with the objectification of females in ing in Christian psychology yields a perspective general and the female form in particular. By using that emphasizes thought, reason, and emotion an analogy of consuming food to illustrate taking over empiric research. However, the unique sec- in pornography—eating a meal which is then tions of this volume, describing the physical and digested, metabolized and distributed throughout functional brain changes resulting from sensory the body, causing alterations in the physiology stimuli, make this book a valuable resource for and anatomy of the consumer—Struthers points those who counsel. out that “consuming” porn changes the brain anatomy by stimulating new neural pathways to —William R. Cutrer, M.D. form. Another effective analogy is that of compar- C. Edwin Gheens Professor ing a new walking path in the woods, widened and of Christian Ministry deepened by frequent use, leading ultimately to The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary a “super highway” or Grand Canyon. Repetitive intake of pornography similarly creates a widen- ing path, easily traversed such that every visual

76 Manifold Witness: The Plurality of Truth. By John appreciate this. The book does contain some sam- R. Franke. Nashville: Abingdon, 2009, xvi + 152 ples of such language, but from other authors: pp., $18.00 paper. “freezing if not fossilizing in a kind of theologi- cal retrenchment” (Brian McLaren, xii) and “a This book represents an attempt by the “emerg- spectrum that runs from mildly allergic to wildly ing village” movement to provide a theological apoplectic” (Merold Westphal, 14). Franke prop- framework for its ministry. Since the death of erly points out that third world Christians may Stanley Grenz, to whom this book is dedicated, have a different perspective on some beliefs and John Franke has emerged as the movement’s prin- practices, and their approach may be just as valid cipal professional theologian. for them as others are for Western Christians. Early in the book Franke states his thesis: “the He cautions against too quickly identifying our expression of biblical and orthodox Christian interpretations with “what the Bible teaches.” He faith is inherently and irreducibly pluralistic. The rightly emphasizes that there should be agreement diversity of the Christian faith is not, as some on the cardinal matters of Christian faith, but that approaches to church and theology might seem there should be room for differences on secondary to suggest, a problem that needs to be overcome.” and tertiary matters. Franke goes on to offer a theological rationale Having said this, however, a number of features for this thesis: “Instead, this diversity is part of of this book will trouble many evangelicals. Just the divine design and intention for the church as a few of these problems can be mentioned here. the image of God and the body of Christ in the One is the lack of criteria for how we identify the world.” nonnegotiable essentials. This in turn is part of a Franke offers several types of evidence for larger problem found in a number of other post- this thesis: the fact that there are four different modern or postconservative evangelicals. There is Gospels, each with a different perspective and vagueness and at times even ambiguity on a num- emphasis; the variety of forms that “the historic ber of issues. Some postmodernists exploit this Christian faith” has taken during the centuries of ambiguity, using the more radical interpretation the church; the different cultures in which Chris- to gain rhetorical leverage, but shifting to a softer tianity is expressed and practiced at the present interpretation to deflect criticism. Franke seems time; and even the fact that the is a plu- impatient with those who want him to be more rality of persons. He also cites the familiar post- specific, but those insistences should serve as modern emphasis on perspectivalism, in view of clues to him that he is unclear. It would be helpful the historically and socially conditioned settings to know, for example, what Franke means by “the that influence how we perceive and judge. Yet he one faith.” While he says that not all expressions is emphatic that this does not lead to the kind of of the faith are appropriate (129), he offers no con- relativism in which “anything goes.” What pre- crete criteria of appropriateness. His description serves from such a relativism is that of the ongoing work of the (77) and there is a God for whom there is Truth. For all the dynamic nature of revelation sound strongly other persons, however, there is only truth. reminiscent of neo-orthodoxy’s view. The truth There is much to commend in this book from is a person, Jesus Christ (9), but there have been a conservative evangelical perspective. Its tone widely varying conceptions of who Jesus was and is irenic and courteous, which is conducive to is. In short, while insisting that his view does not dialogue with more traditional Christians. Those mean that “anything goes,” he seems reluctant to accustomed to the emotive and pejorative lan- tell us what does not go, and why. He cites with guage found in some postmodern thinkers will approval James Cone’s critique of white religion,

77 but fails to note that Cone’s version of black theol- of expressions such as, “in other words.” Regard- ogy is not typical of the faith of the vast majority ing style, both the writer of the foreword and the of African-American Christians, and has even series editor’s introduction commend the lack of been criticized by his brother, Cecil Cone. technical theological jargon, but emergent village Further, at some points (such as the discus- jargon—such as “God gives, receives, and shares sion of foundationalism), the discourse seems love from all eternity in self-differentiated unity seriously out of date. Franke tends, as do many and unified self-differentiation” (56)—is liberally postmodernists, to identify objectivism with the sprinkled throughout the book. Enlightenment, whereas what he is opposing is Readers should note that this is a very Western a whole Western tradition going back into pre- book, and rather upper middle class, educated, modern times. And, although this is intended to and suburban in orientation. Franke makes much be a popular, rather than a technical theological of the diversity of perspectives from non-North treatise, there are issues and other perspectives Americans (or those whose first language is not that are touched on but not adequately dealt with. English). I agree that Christians in Latin America, For example, when discussing the historic Chris- Africa, Eastern Europe, and Asia are indeed con- tian faith, it would not be unreasonable to expect scious of Christian doctrinal provincialism and Franke to interact with the study done jointly by even imperialism. I have found, however, that Thomas Oden and J. I. Packer. Although Franke many of them have little sympathy for the kind insists that all thought is conditioned, and there of “generous orthodoxy” that Franke and others is no neutral point from which to think, he does of the emergent village espouse. Their vision of not raise the question of how those of different Christianity is more conservative, more sharply cultures and paradigms can communicate with defined, and more conscious of antithesis to the one another, or what paradigm he is employing in prevailing culture than the type of approach the discussion of paradigms. He gives no indica- Franke follows. tion of awareness of the issues. While he cites with Evangelicals can benefit from considering the approval John Caputo’s view of deconstruction, issues Franke raises in this book, but need to read he fails to note that Caputo ruled out the decon- it with a critical and discerning approach. struction of deconstruction itself. Why should not Franke’s emergent village and its contentions be —Millard J. Erickson deconstructed? Author, Christian Theology Terminologically, Franke uses “plurality” and “pluralism” indiscriminately. He cites the same types of phenomena that pluralists like John Hick Puritan Papers, Volume 4: 1965–1967. Edited by J. do, but without giving an adequate rationale for I. Packer. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2004, viii + 305 rejecting that more extreme form. In light of the pp., $16.99 paper. topic Franke has adopted, it is surprising that he makes no mention of one of the Church’s most One the key stimuli behind the resurgence of pressing issues: what is the relationship between interest in the Puritans and their theology has to the God of Islam and that of Christianity? Are the have been the Puritan Studies Conference, co- Christian and the Muslim simply worshipping the founded by Martyn Lloyd-Jones and J. I. Packer in same God, but under different names? the 1950s. Under God, it has introduced a number Sometimes Franke offers a paraphrase that of generations to the riches of Puritanism and actually adds to the original statement without those Puritan-style movements and communities argumentation. The reader should be watchful that are the Puritans’ theological heirs.

78 The organization of the conference was fairly In brief, Lloyd-Jones’s paper—though this is simple. Six papers would be given, the last of true of all the papers in the volume—demon- which was normally by Lloyd-Jones, and each strates an important reason for the study of church would be followed by extensive and edifying history: the edification of the church. While those discussion. This pattern is still continued in the studying the history of God’s people must do so December Westminster Conference, which orig- with academic rigor, the academy is not the final inated in 1970 after significant disagreements for such study. Rather, it is that the between Lloyd-Jones and Packer. people of God, through recollection of their iden- This is the fourth volume in a series of reprints tity from the past, might better understand their of the papers given at Puritan Studies Conference. calling in the present and for the future. In this case, it contains the papers given between 1965 and 1967, momentous years in the history —Michael A. G. Haykin of Western culture. Here we find timeless studies Professor of Church History of the Reformers—the subject of the 1965 con- and Biblical Spirituality ference—and papers from the 1966 conference The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary that range from reflections on Henry Jacob (by Lloyd-Jones)—a relatively obscure figure, but one with great importance for the emergence of This Mortal Flesh: Incarnation and Bioethics. By the Calvinistic Baptists—to a study of Charles Brent Waters. Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2009, 205 Finney by Paul Cook. pp., $21.99 paper. The final set of papers, from 1967, has a similar breadth: from the Puritans to Abraham Kuyper. I rarely have been challenged to think so deeply as Of importance is the topic of Lloyd-Jones’s 1967 by Brent Waters in this work. Waters is associate paper, which was “Sandemanianism,” in which professor of Christian Social Ethics at Garrett- he analyzed what some might have considered Evangelical (not used as in referring to evangelical an esoteric topic, namely, the teachings of Sande- Christians) Theological Seminary in Evanston, manianism. Ever the one to apply church history, Illinois, where Rosemary Radford Ruther served Lloyd-Jones argued that the errors of this eigh- 22 years; and Waters has two graduate degrees teenth-century movement had much to teach his from Claremont where Ruther was taught to hearers, for he felt that there were far too many in think Christians should become pagan. Because contemporary evangelical circles who were repli- of these associations, it is both welcome and quite cating the central Sandemanian error, namely that unexpected to find this author developing a level true faith can be held without deeply-felt affec- of moral analysis truly helpful to biblically faithful tion. Now, in the course of his lecture Lloyd-Jones Christians. gave a brief historical overview of the early years Though one finds points in this book worth dis- of this movement. He noted especially that it was puting, I will not do so here because none discom- in the late 1780s and 1790s that Sandemanian fits the book’s thesis, which is that postmodern teaching truly became something of a menace thought turns biomedical research and healthcare to English and Welsh . Moreover, into a false religion inimical to humanity and he stated that the key theologian who was raised essential Christianity, and that this false religious up to refute the errors of this movement was “the ethic can be exposed and resisted only by explicat- famous Andrew Fuller” who “more or less demol- ing the biblical doctrine of the Word made flesh in ished Sandemanianism” in his 1812 work, Stric- order to vindicate and redeem the lives of human tures on Sandemanianism (272-73). beings made to bear the divine image in mortal

79 bodies. After analyzing the way postmodernism is Chapters 6 and 7 criticize the posthuman lure affecting a range of bioethical issues, Waters offers of postmodern biotechnology, and argues that the a Christological response that relies heavily on the only hope for addressing the ultimate human con- work of Oliver O’Donovan, professor of Christian dition comes not from trying to immortalize our Ethics and Practical Theology at the University bodies through science but through the Creator’s of Edinburgh, and John Kilner, professor of Bio- offer of redemption and achieved by ethics and Contemporary Culture and director the Word made flesh in order to free humanity of Bioethics Programs at Trinity International from death both mortal and moral. University. Chapter 8 analyzes the core fallacies of post- Chapter 1 describes how the convergence of modern bioethics by explaining how it resurrects biotechnology, nanotechnology, robotics, and ancient heresies combining a will to self-deify- medicine extends the promise of ever longer, ing power with a will for self-achieved immortal healthier, and happier lives, but in a way that now perfection. The way to address human finitude bypasses healing and curing to favor loathing of without devaluing or destroying humanity in natural human finitude and even mortality. Chap- the process is by receiving the promise of eternal ters 2-5 go on to analyze how postmodernism has life as a gift of grace from God, not by trying to affected moral thinking on a range of issues and make ourselves posthuman. Finally, in chapter 9, in ways that treat advances in biotechnology and Waters widens analysis beyond biotechnology and healthcare as a proxy for —one promis- healthcare to warn against the morally destructive ing self-perfection and hope of eternal life at the trend of postmodernism to rely on information cost of devaluing and ultimately destroying essen- processes over the spoken word. Christians, he tial human nature. And chapters 6-9 suggest how insists, must defend the centrality of words (not Christians should respond. processes) to assess the moral value of human Chapter 2 shows how advances in reproduc- lives, and so also to conform life in the flesh to the tive technology are affecting the way people Word made flesh. think about parents and children, transforming That is indeed a worthy project. parents into commissioners and children into artifacts. Chapter 3 examines how developments —Daniel R. Heimbach in human genetics are changing moral attitudes Professor of Christian Ethics toward human finitude, now aiming not only Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary to cure wounds and diseases but also relegating any human finitude to the category of evil to be challenged and overcome. Chapter 4 addresses A Peaceable Psychology: Christian Therapy in a embryonic stem cell research and therapeutic World of Many Cultures. By Alvin Dueck and cloning and the way advances in these fields are Kevin Reimer. Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2009, 288 changing regard for the moral status of human pp., $24.99 paper. embryos. Chapter 5 looks at developments in regenerative medicine, which are beginning to Christ blessed peacemaking (Matt 5:9), and treat aging more as a disease than a common with the obvious need for peace in the world, in denominator of humanity. On this Waters the church, and even in the Christian counsel- observes that research in this field is becoming ing world, any book that sees peacemaking as tantamount to a war on mortality—one hoping one of the highest priorities of the Christian ultimately to escape human mortality by reaching counselor is intriguing. This well-written and a “posthuman” state. thought-provoking book, however, is even more

80 distinctive in the Christian counseling literature (including the Anabaptist tradition!), for in such on two counts: first, because of its faithful adher- an approach, the self is ultimate, rather than ence to a specific Christian tradition—the paci- the Creator, who Christians believe has estab- fist, Anabaptist orientation (13, 166-68)—and lished a specific way of healing the soul, through second, because of its significantly postmodern Christ—a universalizing claim, to be sure, but and multicultural sensibilities. Consequently, issued by the Lord of the universe for the good there is unusual interest in and understanding of all humanity. of cultural differences and tradition distinctives. The peace of Christ, both objective and sub- Perhaps its most important positive contribution jective, is not like the world’s (John 14:27), for is a thorough rejection of the modern secular it was purchased by his blood (Eph 2:14-18; Col values that currently dominate mainstream psy- 1:20)—a death necessary because of personal sin chotherapy. Dueck and Reimer argue that the and social-cultural sin, both of which flow from requirement in the field today that all therapists our original universal alienation from God—and speak in “secularese” constitutes an unjust, total- it spreads through the verbalized gospel that offers izing, and universalizing imposition by modern- peace with God to all through repentance from ists on people of faith. They argue instead for sin and faith in Christ who died on behalf of a a pluralist mental health field where the voices world that is tragically, but deeply opposed to this of particular religious and ethnic traditions are kind of particularity. Yet this has been at the heart allowed to be heard. I thoroughly agree. of the tradition of genuine Christian therapy since However, secular postmodernists could make Pentecost. the same point. What makes the therapy devel- The authors rightly object to counsel that oped in this book particularly Christian? This is would “force” others to believe as the counselor reflected in its use of aspects of contemporary does, but one can avoid this error without resort- Anabaptist thought. Suffering would seem to be ing to its near opposite. Christians, for example, the primary concern of this therapy—so, social- may work towards a genuinely pluralistic mental cultural sin is often discussed, while personal health system that would recognize that all thera- sin is rarely addressed. Preference is also shown pies have their own goals and means for realizing to the Christus Victor, exemplary, and suffering them and that therapists ought to be full par- God models of the atonement over satisfaction ticipants in the therapeutic dialogue, along with theories. The use of explicit Christian content in counselees, and therefore all therapists, includ- counseling is not promoted; the focus is instead ing Christians, ought to be free to share fully on the life of Christ, particularly its self-sacri- (and Christians could add lovingly, patiently, ficial nature, so that the Christian influence is and gently [Gal 5:22, 23]) their way of healing largely limited to the ethical sphere—demon- the soul. strated in how the Christian therapist treats the By so embracing the postmodern ethicism of counselee. Postmodern and pacifist frameworks Levinas and others, Dueck and Reimer have made unite in the authors’ advocacy of therapy that a case for a Christian therapy that should not accepts and works within the faith perspective offend postmoderns nearly as much as the Father’s of one’s counselees. The Christian therapist, for demand that we find peace in the love of his Son. example, “draws on the counselee’s tradition But as a result, this book is less peaceable than the and holds the client accountable to his or her authors suppose, since it unwittingly does a kind professed convictions” (167). There is an admi- of violence to God. For by encouraging Christian rable consistency in this model, but it resembles therapists to “recognize God’s presence in reli- postmodernism more than historic Christianity gious confessions other than one’s own” (185) in

81 their therapy, it formally trivializes the blood of with an overview so students will know what to Christ and the gospel of his peace (Eph 6:15). expect. Missing from the new edition is the lec- ture summary CD, the content of which has been —Eric L. Johnson moved to the improved Teknia website. Lawrence and Charlotte Hoover Professor Two other changes are worth noting. First is of Pastoral Care the “halftime review” within each chapter, which The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary is designed to distill the key points of the lesson up to that point. Second is the addition of an exegesis section at the end of many chapters (e.g., 52-54, Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar. By William D. 138, 255-56) which shows the student how a par- Mounce. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009, 419 ticular chapter’s topic is important in the ultimate pp., $49.99. goal of exegesis. This latter addition will encour- Basics of Biblical Greek Workbook. By William D. age some beginning students while overwhelm- Mounce. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009, 223 ing others. pp., $22.99 paper. The BBG Workbook is very helpful for putting into practice what is learned in the grammar, and Introduced seventeen years ago, William D. changes to this edition are minimal. There are six Mounce’s Basics of Biblical Greek is now is in its sections for each chapter that include parsing prac- third edition. The primary distinctive of BBG is tice and extensive translation exercises. Added to “reduce the essentials to a minimum so the are two concluding chapters designed to show the language can be learned and retained as easily as student how much he has learned by translating 2 possible, so that the Word of God can be preached John and a significant portion of Mark 2-3. in all its power and conviction” (x). This practical Mounce’s approach has much to commend it, approach has helped to make BBG popular among blending vocabulary, morphology, phonology, different kinds of students. inductive vs. deductive learning, and paradigm The first thing one notices about the new edi- memorization. The morphology recalls the earlier tion of BBG is its appearance. The new edition’s approach of Goetchius’s Language of the New Tes- increased space surrounding the text provides tament, while the practical nature of BBG brings to needed space for taking notes, and the binding is mind S. M. Baugh’s Greek Primer such that this edition will now lay open on a desk. and D. A. Black’s Learn to Read New Testament Layout, design, and color have been improved, Greek—though both of these mix the verb and and the effect is pleasing to the eye. An exception noun systems whereas BBG provides an option to might be the entrance of “The Professor,” a car- keep them separate. toonish figure who appears in the margins, sharing This new edition gives every indication that the helpful information at times, while at other times book’s popularity will not wane in the near future. providing information that ranges from the funny Its practical approach and innovative learning to the bizarre (e.g., 133, 135, 138, 161). methods will continue to make it a good choice Concerning the book’s substance, minor for self-learners, homeschoolers, Bible college, and changes have been made. There are now 36 chap- seminary students. ters instead of 35; the increase is due to splitting the old chapter 35 into two chapters. The old chap- —Barry Joslin ter 35 attempted to cover too much material, so this Associate Professor of Christian Theology is a welcomed change. The grammar is still broken Boyce College down into six sections, yet now each section begins The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

82 The War of the Lamb: The Ethics of Nonviolence applied, Just War doctrine has certain common and Peacemaking. By John Howard Yoder. Edited commitments with pacifism, such as a presump- by Glen Stassen, Mark Thiessen Nation, and Matt tion against violence in its principle of last resort Hamsher. Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2009, 230 pp., that should lead Just War advocates to stand with $24.99 paper. pacifists in seeking alternatives to violence, which will actively oppose evil. Such alternatives, and John Howard Yoder was one of the most influ- the principles that sustain them, make up the ential theological critics of war, and coercive third section of the book, which may be the area force in general, in the twentieth century, both with which casual readers of Yoder will be least through his writing and teaching—including two familiar, and for that reason it deserves a bit more decades at the University of Notre Dame—and attention. through his impact on scholars such as Stanley Yoder is ambitious in the third section, not only Hauerwas and Glen Stassen. The War of the Lamb, seeking to defend pacifism against what he sees therefore, is worthy of serious engagement, espe- as fundamentally utilitarian arguments for war, cially by those who will resist Yoder’s critique of but also arguing that in the big picture nonviolent war. According to Stassen, in his introduction, direct action is more effective, “because it goes Yoder planned the book before his death in 1997. with the grain of the universe, and that is why Thanks to the work of the editors, and Yoder’s own in the long run nothing else will work” (62). Suf- memos, this collection of lectures and articles is fering love is not merely passive, for followers of now available. Jesus must resist violence in the double sense of Readers familiar with Yoder may not find being willing to suffer rather than resorting to vio- anything principally new in this collection, yet lence and of being actively opposed to violence. he considered it necessary to publish in order to When harmed, our instinct, which is defended emphasize aspects of his work that he thought had with rational arguments, is to respond with force. not been taken seriously enough by his critics. He Yoder seeks to cultivate a different instinct, which seeks to present a robust Christian pacifism that resists violence when wronged. Against those who does not merely condemn war and violence and argue that his view is passive and ineffective in resist corrupt power and authority, but also seeks the face of evil, he suggests that the problem is not to effect change through nonviolent direct action. that nonviolent action has been tried and found Yoder also challenges those who would marginal- wanting, but that it has not been attempted with ize Christian pacifism by portraying it simply as a seriousness that approaches the effort put into a minority, sectarian tradition in church history war. To be effective, it requires discipline, train- that embraces passive suffering in order to avoid ing, and fortitude, just as force does (162). He violence. points out that in war, loss of life is considered an After an introduction from Stassen, which unfortunate but expected cost, and yet in consid- highlights Yoder’s concerns and the themes that ering nonviolence, the predictable losses are seen will follow, the book consists of three sections. as evidence of failure and reason enough to reject The first seeks to establish the case for nonvio- the strategy from the outset (163). lence, a perspective which, Yoder asserts, is not I am grateful to the editors for bringing Yoder’s simply an alternative system of ethics to those that work together in this volume. There is much here defend war, but a way of envisioning the world, to challenge a thoughtful reader. While I am not grounded in the cross and resurrection of Jesus persuaded by some key points, I do agree with Christ. The second section interacts with Just much of Yoder’s critique of war and violence. He War thinking. Yoder argues that if it is strictly is right to insist that Just War doctrine is presump-

83 tive against war, placing the burden of proof on help (47), which has a pietistic appeal, but what those who seek to justify war; that Christians does that mean? It could be argued that God can should—but too often do not—speak propheti- feed the poor or defend the oppressed without our cally and hold their political leaders accountable help, but God has chosen to use people, through for the decision to wage war; and that it is easy appointed “offices,” to serve His purposes. Simi- for Christians to adopt a sense of nationalism larly, Just War advocates argue that God defends that overshadows deep Christian convictions, justice through his appointment of human agents, using Just War criteria to defend whatever war and that may include the just use of force. one’s nation happens to be waging. Yoder offers an Yoder and others rightly insist on reading important reminder that for Christians, a priority Romans 13, with its description of government should be placed on peacemaking, and rather than and its power to punish wrongdoing, in light of seeing reasoned pacifists simply as antagonists, Romans 12, with its insistence on not repaying Just War advocates ought to join them in pressing evil for evil but leaving vengeance to the Lord. for peaceful resolutions to conflict wherever pos- However, often government is thus depicted sible. The third section of the book, on nonviolent merely as a secular power that makes use of direct action, draws attention to the need for more ungodly means that cannot be affirmed by Chris- careful thinking and greater effort on peacemak- tians. For Christians to advocate using the sword ing initiatives, though, in my view, it is not strong for a just cause is understood to be a Constantin- in terms of concrete strategies of nonviolence. ian compromise. In response, Just War advocates Stassen’s work on Just Peacemaking is a more con- agree that Romans 12 teaches that Christians are crete extension of what Yoder is pressing here, the not to repay evil for evil but are to leave vengeance specifics of which ought to be seriously discussed to God. But it is precisely in that context that and evaluated. Romans 13 teaches that in this age God has made I do have significant differences with Yoder. provision to restrain evil in part by appointing Space does not allow a defense of Just War doc- government to avenge wrongdoers. To be sure, the trine here, so I will simply indicate a point or two power of the sword is easily abused, and it is right of contention. First, while Yoder seeks to sum- to challenge abuses, to seek to restrain the power marize Just War thinking fairly, he doesn’t engage of government and direct its efforts in the service significantly with particular advocates and argu- of justice, and to remind magistrates that they do ments. Further, while Yoder does differentiate in not possess power for their own interests, for they places between Just War doctrine and other views too will be judged for wrongdoing. on war, in the end he tends to conflate all positions that allow for the use of lethal force, presenting —Kenneth T. Magnuson all war as utilitarian, and a Constantianian com- Professor of Christian Ethics promise with worldly authority (47). Just War The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary doctrine can be defended against such charges. To be sure, Just War principles are sometimes— perhaps often—misapplied or ignored in order to James. By Dan G. McCartney. Baker Exegetical defend an unjust aggression. Yet Just War think- Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rap- ing at its best is principled rather than utilitarian, ids: Baker, 2009, xxi + 335 pp., $39.99. driven by a mandate for justice against tyranny and oppression. Further, it lays claim to one of Dan G. McCartney, professor of New Testament Yoder’s themes, that Jesus is Lord over all. Yoder interpretation at Redeemer Theological Seminary argues that God can defend justice without our in Dallas, Texas, was previously professor of New

84 Testament at Westminster Theological Seminary format is like other BECNT volumes. James is for over 25 years. The thesis of this latest addition not conducive to a linear outline, but since it has to the BECNT series is that the book of James is many logically organized units, the shaded-box- “about true faith as opposed to a false one” (2; cf. feature—my favorite distinctive of the BECNT xi, 1, 56–57, 63, 267–71). Contra Peter H. Davids, series—at the beginning of each passage of Scrip- the book’s controlling theme is not the problem of ture could be extraordinarily useful. The shaded suffering (56–57). “James is interested primarily boxes in this volume, however, are disappoint- in practical Christianity. He assumes the content ing because they do not trace the argument logi- and saving power of the Christian gospel ... but cally and grammatically with the care that other his interest is on how that is worked out in life, BECNT volumes do (e.g., Thomas R. Schreiner and he denounces a kind of faith that does not act on Romans). McCartney concludes the book with accordingly” (3). four valuable excurses: “Faith as the Central Con- James focuses on works, argues McCartney, cern of James”; “Faith, Works, and Justification because faith is so important. The most well in James and Paul”; “James and Wisdom”; and known section of the letter, James 2:14–26 (esp. “James and Suffering” (267–300). v. 24), superficially appears to contradict Paul’s McCartney evidences a firm handling of the doctrine of justification by faith alone in pas- text as well as the secondary literature, and he sages like Rom 3:28 (154–75; 272–79). But Paul writes clearly and thoughtfully. His book joins and James use “justification” in different ways Moo, Bauckham, George H. Guthrie (2006, because they have “different concerns, different revised EBC), and Craig L. Blomberg and Mariam backgrounds, and different audiences with differ- J. Kamell (2008, ZECNT) as one of the volumes ent problems” (154). Paul means “to declare righ- that preachers, teachers, and students will consult teous” in a forensic sense, and James refers “either first and with most profit when studying the book to the eschatological confirmation of righteous- of James. ness at the last judgment (as in Matt 12:37; Rom 2:13) or to the effectual proving of righteous- —Andrew David Naselli ness.” Douglas J. Moo argues that James means Doctor of Philosophy Candidate the former, while McCartney argues for the latter, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School though noting, “It also may be that James implic- itly includes both meanings.” For James, to justify means to vindicate in the same way that Jesus uses Reforming or Conforming? Post-Conservative Evan- the verb in Luke 7:35: “wisdom is justified by all gelicals and the Emerging Church. Edited by Gary her children” (276–77). Nevertheless, the main L. W. Johnson and Ronald N. Gleason. Wheaton, point of James 2:14–26 is clear: “that which dis- IL: Crossway, 2008, 300 pp., $20.00 paper. tinguishes living faith from dead faith is works of faith” (172). In Reforming or Conforming? Post-Conservative McCartney’s main conversation partners Evangelicals and the Emerging Church, editors include commentators Joseph B. Mayor (1897 Gary L. W. Johnson and Ronald N. Gleason have commentary), James Hardy Ropes (1916, ICC), assembled a cadre of scholars and pastors tasked Martin Dibelius (1975, Hermeneia), Peter H. with defining, assessing, and critiquing various Davids (1982, NICNT), Luke Timothy Johnson aspects of the post-conservative and emergent (1995, Anchor Bible), Richard Bauckham (1999), church movements within evangelicalism. John- Douglas J. Moo (2000, Pillar NT Commentary), son, senior pastor of Church of the Redeemer and Patrick J. Hartin (2003, Sacra Pagina). The in Mesa, Arizona, and Gleason, senior pastor of

85 Grace Presbyterian Church in Yorba Linda, Cal- nas, Francis Turretin, and even Herman Bavinck, ifornia, each contribute chapters, as do others and will counter post-conservatives and those such as Paul Helm, R. Scott Clark, Guy Prentiss within the emergent church who “are extremely Waters, and Phil Johnson. They cover topics as nervous about truth claims in general” (89). diverse as ’s epistemology to Helm’s essay provides an in-depth examina- cultural engagement to an examination of Brian tion of the work of post-conservative theologian McLaren’s doctrine (or lack thereof) of hell. John R. Franke. Helm maintains that Franke ulti- Each of the contributors to the volume comes mately argues merely for “a seriously deficient at the task from a confessionally Reformed per- form of foundational theology” that “concedes spective. As David Wells asserts in his foreword to too much to the culture and downplays the impor- the book, “The Reformed have always been uneasy tance of truth” (93). Franke’s overemphasis on the about the post-World War II evangelical alliance role of culture in the theological task leaves him that brought together so many ministries and with sociology triumphing over theology, Helm viewpoints into a working relationship around a asserts, and a kind of epistemological uncertainty small core of commonly held beliefs” (11). What’s that makes the theological task much more dif- needed in today’s evangelical climate, according ficult than it ought to be. to Wells, is a reaffirmation of the supremacy of Clark argues that, contrary to assertions made the truthful Scriptures—and a proper Christian by some within the emergent church—and most engagement of the culture will follow. especially Brian McLaren—“there are objective, Gary L. W. Johnson sounds the doctrinal warn- divinely revealed theological boundaries inherent ing bell in his introduction to the book, parallel- and essential to Christianity” (112). Paul Kjoss ing Friedrich Schleiermacher’s theological project Helseth argues that post-conservative evan- with the proposals put forth by post-conservatives gelicals have misunderstood those in the Old and emergent church adherents in the contempo- Princeton tradition. He asserts “that the Princ- rary era—proposals that, if followed, will likely etonians were neither naïve theological realists lead these evangelicals to accommodate their the- nor rigid, uncompromising dogmatists, but that ology to today’s “cultured despisers of religion.” they weren’t rigid, uncompromising dogmatists In his chapter on the doctrine of Scripture, Paul precisely because they weren’t naïve theological Wells assesses contemporary proposals on the realists” (129-30). Jeffrey C. Waddington argues humanity of the Bible from Donald Bloesch, Clark that Cornelius Van Til was not a foundationalist, Pinnock, and Peter Enns—proposals he finds at least not in terms of the way that foundational- lacking, ultimately—and instead argues for four ism is typically defined. axes for “reimagineering” the humanity of the In his chapter, “Church and Community or Bible. Community and Church?”, Gleason finds com- John Bolt pens a chapter on evangelical theo- monality between the emergent church and the logical method in which he argues that the best Federal Vision and the , theology today will not only be characterized by for all three movements have shifted away from the content of the biblical data, but also by “an an emphasis on soteriology and toward a greater explicit metaphysic that though it cannot arise focus on ecclesiology. More specifically, he con- directly from the biblical data—the Bible is not a tends that the emergent church is focused on com- book of metaphysics—is nonetheless consistent munity at the expense of doctrine, and “is rushing with Scripture and perhaps even coinheres with headlong down the path of classic liberalism and/ it” (62). Such a proposal is, according to Bolt, in or the Social Gospel” (181). Gleason’s lumping of the “great tradition” of Augustine, Thomas Aqui- Dan Kimball in with such emergent church adher-

86 ents as Doug Pagitt and Brian McLaren (172) may of the emerging church movement could have strike some readers as imprecise. been helpful in several of the chapters, lest the Waters compares New Testament theologian reader receive the impression that someone like N. T. Wright with Brian McLaren, arguing that McLaren represents all. McLaren is dependent on Wright—especially In the months since these essays were first pub- when it comes to his views on Jesus and the Gos- lished, the emergent church movement has been pel accounts—though not always explicitly so. in sharp decline—perhaps reflecting the vacuous Phil Johnson argues that while the emergent nature of some of what came along with it. As the church movement seeks theological diversity, essays in Reforming or Conforming? point out, the Christians are instead to seek theological unity. theological foundations upon which much of post- He also argues that the emergent church move- conservatism and the emergent church are built ment is drifting toward disaster due to its partici- are precarious. Given the movement’s decline, pants’ embrace of postmodernism, their doctrinal then, perhaps the challenge going forward for indifference, and their unwillingness to receive conservative evangelicals is whether they will criticism. Martin Downes contends that several hear discerningly the good and right critiques of leaders in the emergent church, like Protestant contemporary evangelicalism that the emergent liberals before them, have become entrapped doc- church has had to offer. trinally within the culture. Greg D. Gilbert writes an incisive essay exam- —Robert E. Sagers ining Brian McLaren’s doctrine of hell. He roots Special Assistant to the Senior Vice President McLaren’s deficient doctrine of hell in his defi- for Academic Administration cient view of the gospel. Gilbert examines also, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary somewhat tangentially, McLaren’s view of the atonement of Christ and his approach to non- Christian religions. And Gary Gilley’s concluding God’s Battalions: The Case for the Crusades. By chapter examines postmodernism and how it is Rodney Stark. New York: HarperOne, 2009, 276 applied within the context of the emergent church pp., $24.99. movement, providing essentially his own survey of the entire movement. Gilley’s description of Baylor University sociologist Rodney Stark’s medieval Catholicism as an “apostate religion” books on religion are usually interesting and pro- may distract some readers. vocative, and God’s Battalions is no exception. Anyone concerned about the doctrinal aber- Stark argues that modern historians typically mis- rations within post-conservative evangelicalism construe the crusades. They commonly portray and the emergent church will benefit from this the crusades as a decadent Western imperialist book. The essays are thoroughly footnoted, and assault on a morally and intellectually superior positive proposals are often given in addition to Islamic culture—an effort to despoil Muslims of negative critiques. As may be evident even from land and wealth aided by religious bigotry, fanati- this brief survey, many of the essays in Reforming cism, and superstition. Stark persuasively refutes or Conforming? only loosely hold together, as the this interpretation, and at the same time provides topics with which they deal are somewhat eclectic. a compelling, attractive, and readable history of Though the emergent church movement is itself the crusades. quite diverse and varied, Brian McLaren is a com- Stark’s account of the violent Arab conquest of mon recipient of critique in many of the essays. predominantly Christian lands beginning in the Perhaps a clearer delineation of the various wings seventh century—Syria, Persia, Palestine, Egypt,

87 North Africa, Spain, Sicily, and southern Italy— An Uncommon Union: Dallas Theological Seminary is gripping. The claim that Islamic culture was and American Evangelicalism. By John D. Hannah. superior, Stark demonstrates, is deeply flawed. He Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009, 399 pp., $24.99. also refutes claims of Muslim tolerance. Muslim rulers in fact imposed severe religious, social, and Accomplished church historian John Hannah tells civil restrictions, as well as onerous taxation, upon the story of Dallas Theological Seminary, an insti- Christians and Jews, and massacres of Christians tution that has stood for evangelical conservatism, and Jews were not uncommon. Stark acknowl- dispensational theology, and expository preach- edges that so-called Christian rulers often acted ing. Along the way Hannah provides rich insights no less reprehensibly. He argues only that his- in American fundamentalism, evangelicalism, torians are mistaken to portray Muslim rule as and the challenges of theological education. Han- tolerant and enlightened. Efforts to valorize medi- nah has taught at Dallas Seminary for many years eval Muslim culture at the expense of Christian and has an insider’s sensitivities. He also made Europe are driven by politics, not by historical good use of the manuscript collections necessary evidence. for telling much of the story. Lewis Sperry Chafer Stark documents well the destruction of established the seminary in 1924 at the height of churches and the attacks on Christian pilgrims the fundamentalist-modernist controversy and that prompted the Byzantine emperor to invite was its president until 1952. Chafer was an evan- the Latin nations to come to his aid to free Jerusa- gelical’s evangelical. An itinerant evangelist who lem and make it safe for Christian pilgrims. Pope lived in Northfield, Massachusetts, the site of D. Urban II enlisted the nobility of Europe and urged L. Moody’s summer conferences, Chafer became upon them their duty before God to free Jerusa- friends with the leaders the early twentieth cen- lem, and he promised release from penance to all tury fundamentalism. Cyrus I. Scofield especially who fought from spiritual motives. Stark rightly impressed him. Scofield mentored Chafer, and in concludes that the popes and other Europeans 1911 put Chafer in charge of Scofield’s expanding supported the crusades because Muslims had Bible teaching ministry. Chafer ran Scofield’s itin- invaded lands that once belonged to Christians, erant Bible conferences, correspondence courses, and because they abused Christians under their and night schools in New York and Philadelphia. rule and raided neighboring Christian lands. His When Scofield died in 1921, Chafer took up his account of the course of the crusades is helpful mantle and established Dallas Theological Semi- and interesting. nary to advance Scofield’s vision of effective Bible Starke’s specialty is not the crusades or the teaching. medieval era, but he makes excellent use of the Chafer designed the curriculum around Cal- best scholarship available, and quotes frequently vinism, Keswick holiness teaching, and dispen- from medieval Christian and Muslim sources. sational premillennialism, which, due in part to More detailed volumes by medievalists are avail- Scofield’s own interpretive notes in his popular able—see the fine books by Jonathan Riley-Smith reference Bible, had become the main features for example—but for a clear understanding of the of the era’s evangelicalism. Dispensationalism’s crusades, this is a superb book. recognition of Scripture’s “right divisions” was the key to correct interpretation of the Bible. Chafer —Gregory A. Wills wanted to produce men who were skilled espe- Professor of Church History cially in expository preaching. Chafer wanted a The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary premillennial Princeton. From the beginning Dallas’s relationship with

88 other fundamentalists was difficult. Chafer was tive, but the administration believed that it was disgusted by the aggressive, sensationalist, and acceptably within the bounds of the school’s creed dictatorial methods of fellow fundamentalists J. and tradition. Dallas was still located on the most Frank Norris and William B. Riley. Fundamental- conservative wing of evangelicalism (three faculty ist Baptist leader John R. Rice attacked Chafer’s had to leave in 1987 for affirming John Wimber’s views of evangelism, apparently because they were views on the charismatic gifts), but now identified too Calvinistic. Harry Ironside and Moody Press more with broad evangelicalism. defended Chafer’s views. Bob Jones privately sup- Hannah has made a fine contribution to the ported Rice but refused to criticize Chafer pub- history of American evangelicalism. licly. Westminster Seminary protested strongly Dallas’s dispensationalism. Wheaton College —Gregory A. Wills president J. Oliver Buswell and Biola president Professor of Church History John MacInnis criticized the seminary’s exclusive The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary insistence on dispensationalist interpretation. Hannah’s narrative illuminates Dallas’s late twentieth century movement toward a broader evangelical identity. The school eschewed both strict and strict dispensationalism. In 1977 the seminary released S. Lewis Johnson because of “his agreement with Dordtian Calvin- ism.” The Board of Regents objected to his belief that Christ died for the elect alone and that regen- eration preceded faith. President John Walvoord initially held that Johnson’s views were compat- ible with the seminary’s creed, but changed his mind, perhaps because he believed that Johnson had become strident and critical of the seminary’s official position. In the “Lordship salvation” controversy of the 1980s, New Testament professor Zane Hodges felt that there was still too much Calvinism, since many professors taught that acceptance of Jesus’ Lordship was a necessary element of saving faith. John MacArthur and John Gerstner published refutations of Hodges’s position, and some fac- ulty sympathized more with MacArthur than with Hodges. The administration maintained that there was room for both views on the faculty. This tolerance represented a trend in which some faculty in the 1980s and 1990s developed revisions of dispensational theology known as “progressive dispensationalism.” John Walvoord, Charles Ryrie, and others felt that progressive dispensationalism was erroneous and destruc-

89