Book Reviews

The Potter’s Freedom: A Defeanse of the Ref- misrepresents Calvinistic arguments and ormation and a Rebuttal of Norman Geisler’s argues his own case poorly, employing a Chosen But Free. By James R. White. number of exegetical and logical fallacies. Amityville, NY: Calvary Press, 2000, 343 In this review, I will summarize the pp., $17.99. polemical strategy of White, evaluate his arguments and interaction with Geisler, Several features give unusual importance and relate the issue to contemporary to The Potter’s Freedom for contemporary Southern Baptist life. in general and Southern Norman Geisler’s Chosen But Free [CBF] Baptists in particular. First, the debate warned his readers against a system of involves two effective and passionate thought that he considered a “hideous Christian apologists who affirm inerrancy error, … shocking, …hav[ing] a devastat- without equivocation. Both also have ing effect on one’s own salvation, …theo- trained themselves to detect error destruc- logically inconsistent, philosophically tive of Christian truth and have active insufficient, and morally repugnant.” It ministries of positive instruction in the makes its adherents go through “exegeti- faith and debate against error. Second, it cal contortions.” Geisler names the system has immediate implications for the cur- that he describes as “extreme .” rent turmoil in evangelicalism over Open He intends to defend a kinder gentler Theism. Third, these doctrines under dis- version of Protestant doctrine that he cussion reflect the give-and-take of the prefers to call “moderate Calvinism.” Southern Baptist theological renewal. [White, 17-19] Fourth, White presents an argument that James White cannot conscientiously corresponds perfectly with the theologi- allow Geisler to go unchallenged on these cal concerns of Southern Baptists in the unkind and ungentle charges, particularly early generations of denominational life. in light of the mangled portrait of historic Geisler’s book prompted the strong Reformed theology set forth by Dr. response by White in its claim to repre- Geisler. An artist would go far in his sent “moderate Calvinism” as opposed to credibility to compare his talents with “extreme Calvinism.” Just as one man’s “The Night Watch” by Rembrandt rather trash is another man’s treasure so is one than “Saturday Night Bath” by a third man’s “moderate Calvinism” another grader. White considers Geisler’s presen- man’s . Along the way of tation so flawed at the point of accurate defending his moderate version of Calvin- description that it makes his own presen- ism, Geisler seeks to repudiate every dis- tation virtually useless in advancing seri- tinctive doctrine of Calvinism and replace ous discussion on these important issues. it with his own stylized theology. James Rather “CBF will be a source of great con- White could not let this redefinition go fusion, not enlightenment, on the subject unchallenged. Not only, according to of the sovereignty of God and the will of White, does Geisler give misleading man” [19, 20]. White knows Dr. Geisler signals with his nomenclature, he badly personally, considers him a worthy apolo- 92 gist of mere , and respects his are Matthew 23:37, 1 Timothy 2:4, and style of direct confrontation. His rejoinder 2 Peter 3:9. Chapter seven unfolds several takes the course of an “honest, direct refu- key passages in which Jesus himself tation and interaction,” consistent with the proves to be an “extreme Calvinist,” such spirit and style of Geisler himself. as John 6:37-40, John 6:41-45 along with In his introduction, White gives a the ways in which CBF treats the passages. clear presentation of five particular issues Chapters eight and nine consist of White’s that he finds disturbingly misleading in response to Geisler’s exegetical evidence Geisler’s diatribe against Calvinism. for election conditioned on human White repeatedly engages Geisler along response with chapter nine being given the line of these five issues: redefinition totally to Romans 9. Chapter eight has an of the terms of the debate, poor presenta- extensive exposition of Ephesians 1:3-11 tion, the nomenclature of “knowingly pre- closing with the remark, “If it is Dr. determining,” inexplicable omissions Geisler’s intention to lead people to ‘avoid of Reformed argument and exegesis extreme Calvinism,’ that is, avoid the (“silence speaks volumes” as White puts Reformed faith, then he must do more it), and poor exegesis. We will visit each than offer eight short sentences in of these issues briefly later in this review. response to such passages as this” (181). In chapter one, “The Vital Issue,” White Chapters ten, “The Perfect Work of Cal- summarizes briefly the Reformed doctrine vary,” and eleven concern particular of God’s sovereignty and the five-lettered atonement, the former containing White’s flower of Reformed soteriology. In chap- exposition and the latter White’s critique ter two, White leads the reader through a of Geisler’s assertions of general atone- critical examination of Geisler’s construct ment. This chapter also includes discus- of “Determinately Knowing.” Chapter sion of the vexed historical question three contains White’s exposition of concerning Calvin’s position on atone- human inability and chapter four follows ment for the elect. Chapters twelve and with White’s examination of CBF on thirteen follow the same pattern for irre- human will. Chapters five through nine sistible grace, first White’s exposition and all treat unconditional election within dif- then His critique of CBF. White’s opening ferent contexts of the argument. Chapter sentence to chapter thirteen gives due five defines the Reformed view of uncon- preparation for the shocking portrayals ditional election through a series of perti- CBF gives of this doctrine. “It is our hon- nent and contextually full quotes from est opinion that CBF shows the greatest leading Reformed thinkers, including dislike and uses the strongest language in James P. Boyce. White’s intent is to show denying the Reformed doctrine of irresist- that Geisler’s view can lay no claim to fit ible grace than in any other area of its within historic Calvinism. Chapter six presentation. The idea that God would engages in vigorous exegetical interaction sovereignly change a sinner from a God- with three pivotal verses that appear hater to a God-lover by the exercise of frequently in CBF, ostensibly in demon- divine power seems especially reprehen- stration that “God wants to save all men, sible to Dr. Geisler” (299). In chapter four- but is unable to do so outside of their teen, White argues that Geisler’s freely willing it to be so” (135). These verse inferences about the practical results of 93 Calvinism are false. Geisler’s accusations eternal simultaneity. In the end, however, truly are remarkable, but sadly typical, one must take a position as to whether the of a narrow, unsympathetic, unknowl- knowledge of historic (temporal) decision edgeable, reactionary mind-set. White’s and action gives rise to the decree or responses, therefore, show pluck in his whether the decree gives rise to the his- pointed, plain, and unembarrassed toric decision and action. God does in fact engagement of the issues, while he sin- know both his decree and the actual his- cerely shows perplexity that these impli- torical events intuitively and holds them cations show a style of argument “that is as elements of his perfect knowledge, but far below the kind of material we would that truth in itself does not eliminate there expect to come from Dr. Geisler’s pen” being a logical relationship between them. (333). Geisler, in accordance with his truth- White demonstrates that Geisler clearly ful conviction that “false doctrine leads to takes the Arminian side of this question. false deeds,” loads the Calvinist with a God’s determination in Geisler’s system heavy burden. Calvinism [extreme, that amounts only to an eternally present is] makes a person fail to take personal knowledge, since all of the historic (tem- responsibility for his actions; Calvinism poral) future is before him immediately. blames God for evil; Calvinism lays the The free actions of men give content to groundwork for universalism; Calvinism both His knowledge and thus his decree. is the occasion for ; Calvinism The only free and sovereign action God undermines evangelism, an accusation prosecutes is the creation of the particu- that has achieved most-favored objection lar world in which these things happen. status; Calvinism undercuts motivation God determines the events of the world for intercessory prayer (330-335). only passively. His discussion indicates As mentioned above, one issue his antipathy toward both unconditional addressed intensely by White is Geisler’s election and irresistible grace by charac- foundational understanding of the Divine terizing the historically Reformed view as sovereignty/human responsibility inter- a “double whammy” by which God forces action. Geisler asserts “Whatever he people “into His kingdom against their forechooses cannot be based on what he will” (68). White points out that this view foreknows. Nor can what he foreknows could not be called “moderately Calvin- be based on what he forechose. Both must istic, weakly Calvinistic, or even remotely be simultaneous and coordinate acts of Calvinistic” (71). God. Thus God knowingly determined This leads to another problem with CBF and determinately knew from all eternity to which White returns repeatedly. CBF everything that would come to pass consistently redefines the terms of the including all free acts” (58). White consid- debate. Since Geisler rejects out of hand ers it “vital to understand this concept Calvin’s doctrine of decrees, his view of in Geisler’s theology, for it is the key to unconditional election, his doctrine of unlocking the problem of his use of ter- depravity and the bondage of the fallen minology” (53). Geisler seeks to avoid human will, his argument for the neces- the question of the logical relationship sity of irresistible grace, and the very foun- between knowledge and decree opting dation for his doctrine of perseverance, rather for the assertion of their simple White, understandably, finds Geisler’s 94 attempts at defining himself as a “moder- strongly denounces” (21). White demon- ate Calvinist” confusing. White argues strates throughout that Geisler fails seri- that Geisler even misunderstands Calvin ously to engage Reformed exegesis of on the atonement. Those who maintain major biblical texts. On Geisler’s treat- Calvin’s views and argue carefully their ment of John Owen’s extensive investi- position from within the stream of historic gation of the uses of the word “all” in Reformed orthodoxy, Geisler stigmatizes Scripture, White remarks, “If CBF were to as “extreme Calvinist.” It is a well-put attempt to offer some kind of meaningful question when White asks, “Why should response to the extensive argumentation Dr. Geisler wish to be called any kind of found in Owen’s work at this point (the Calvinist at all?” This question emerges single chapter to which Geisler refers in frequently in the discussion as White dem- Owen’s book comprises thirteen pages of onstrates Geisler’s consistent pattern of small type containing numerous refer- taking the Arminian side of every distinc- ences to the original languages) we might tive issue. White shows that Geisler’s defi- have some basis upon which to accept nition of unconditional election shares these assertions. But we are left with nothing in common with historic Calvin- none” (144). He also shows that when ism but indeed is “fully Arminian” and Geisler quotes Calvinist literature, he “pure Arminianism” (173, 175). On the often ignores the larger context so that atonement, White concludes “there is no his use of the material creates an impres- meaningful difference between Geisler’s sion other than its original intent (259- ‘moderate Calvinism’ and Arminianism. 262). On the question of Calvin’s view of When we find them saying the same the atonement White observes, “There is things all the time, why bother differenti- not the first attempt to interact with a single ating them?” (279) In his conclusion, Reformed work on the subject” (254). White returns to the oft sung chorus, that After citing evidence for this, White CBF “presents Arminianism under the laments, “We honestly cannot understand guise of ‘moderate Calvinism’” and that how one can make such a statement with- “the attempt to turn Arminianism into out dealing in depth with the readily Calvinism involves using words in a man- available works that argue for just the ner that is utterly self-contradictory” (336). opposite conclusion” (255). The reader has to bear in mind that White White also weaves through his does not consider the simple discernment response his disappointment that Geisler that Geisler’s view is Arminian amounts simply remains silent on several key pas- to a refutation of the position. Again, sages that should constitute a large por- when he observes such, he only demon- tion of the discussion and offers no strates that Geisler confuses the issue by response to tomes of Reformed exegesis. redefining the terms of the debate. Geisler includes one paragraph on John In addition to the confusion created by 6:37. Concerning Ephesians 1 White notes, his pattern of redefinition, White believes “CBF offers almost nothing in response to that Geisler gives “poor representation” this tremendous passage. The section is of the Reformed position. He “takes no referred to eleven times in the work, but pains to accurately or adequately repre- in none of these is any meaningful exege- sent [sic] the Reformed position that it so sis offered of the text. A grand total of eight 95 sentences are [sic] offered in response to the position of CBF….It seems to us that this grand passage” (171). White then dis- given the claim on page 83 of CBF that cusses the atonement and does extensive Piper is “mistaken” in his views…, it exegesis of several passages in Hebrews. would be necessary for CBF to at least He points out that, not only does CBF not make [sic] an attempt to rebut some of discuss the biblical doctrine of the atone- Piper’s material. (217) ment or interact with the Reformed doc- White’s critique of Geisler on this trine on the issue, “there is no discussion issue of “silence” appears virtually in of the passages we examined in the pre- every chapter. vious chapter regarding the work of Perhaps more consistent, and insistent, Christ in the book of Hebrews” (251). At than any other critique is White’s recur- the close of chapter 10, “The Perfect Work ring theme that Geisler does poor exege- of Calvary,” White returns to this theme: sis. “Exegesis is not the forte of CBF. Very “Many of these passages are not even few passages are addressed in a truly mentioned in CBF” (248). He then quotes exegetical fashion, and in most cases mere Geisler’s assertion that “there are no assertion takes the place of meaningful verses that, properly understood, support consideration of the important elements limited atonement.” White believes he has of the task of biblical interpretation. just demonstrated that that is untrue, and Unfortunately, CBF provides far more since Geisler failed to treat the most per- examples of eisegesis than it does of exege- tinent passages he has no foundation for sis” (28). The Potter’s Freedom challenges his assertion that “extreme Calvinists have Geisler over and over on this issue: “CBF not offered any satisfactory interpreta- has absolutely no basis for its assertion tions of those texts [that teach unlimited that it is the ‘plain meaning’ of the text” atonement]” (248). Commenting on his (139); “We are given no citations, quota- own close attention to Hebrews 2:17 and tions, or references to substantiate the its context and the comments of Reformed assertion” (145); “Saying, ‘Well God could writers about it, White inserts in a foot- have said “some” if that is what he meant’ note “CBF likewise provides exactly two is a tremendously weak argument nor- sentences of commentary on page 203, mally reserved for use when no exegeti- ‘Christ died for everyone, not just the cal argument can be presented” (149); elect. This is the plain meaning of the text.’ “Hence we see that CBF fails to substanti- No discussion of context, no discussion ate its charge of error against the of the meaning of propitiation” (250, foot- Reformed interpretation, and instead ends note 12). In a chapter on Romans 9 White up making the text say the opposite of its uncovers an egregious omission of mean- actual intention” (186); “The exegesis ingful engagement. offered by CBF on this topic is often tre- While Dr. Geisler will make reference mendously strained, or based upon objec- to John Piper’s work, and hence must tions that are shallow at best” (251); “We know of the extensive discussion that here have a classic example of what Dr. work contains refuting this very concept, Geisler accuses the Reformed of: eisegesis, not a single word is uttered in refutation…. reading into the passage a meaning that There is no discussion of the pages of it could never have borne when first writ- argumentation provided by Piper against ten” (277). Perhaps most damaging to the 96 case of CBF is White’s isolation of the big a more fully contextual quote along with three Scripture passages upon which allusions to other literature to inform the much of Geisler’s argument is based reader. If he detects mere assertion with [mentioned above] and White’s closely no argument provided in support, he reasoned exegesis of them. “If, in fact,” explains the point being contested. If he White writes, “one can present an inter- says Geisler has ignored the bulk of com- pretation of each that is at least as valid, if pelling Reformed scholarship on an issue, not much more so, that his own, does it he provides references to several works not follow that the vast majority of the that should be consulted. He has not biblical response provided in CBF merely fought assertion with counter- becomes suspect?” (150). In his final assertion [is not, is too, is not, is too], or summary White reiterates, “On an registered unverified complaints but has exegetical basis CBF does not pass the given a much meatier body of material for most cursory examination, let alone an discussion for disputants. in-depth critique. The reader has seen Third, White has given a personal examples of eisegesis in every single chap- exposition of the controverted points. ter of CBF” (336). Before engaging Geisler’s views of uncon- Now we must ask, “Does White ditional election, he gives biblical and execute his intended task convincingly?” historical exposition of the doctrine. I would answer positively, not only for its Before isolating his criticisms of Geisler’s content but the manner in which the dis- apparent hostility to irresistible grace, course proceeds. This book serves as a White opens the pertinent biblical mate- model for open and respectful polemical rial for the discussion and affirms what engagement. Several reasons support this he thinks are the beautifully encouraging evaluation. First, White isolates early in aspects of the doctrine. He gives a brief the text the particular points upon which lesson in hermeneutics so that the issues he will criticize Geisler. He follows of interpretation he engages will not be through on these criticisms in each major set in a vacuum. By his doing this through- category of investigation and gives an out the book, the reader knows more abundance of evidence for his focus on about what is at stake in the discussion. those particular issues. He restates each Fourth, White’s discussion of the pas- objection throughout the book in many toral, personal, and evangelistic implica- contexts so that the reader has a clear per- tions of forming right views of these ception of the specific ways in which he subjects was helpful. Of course, Dr. Geisler takes exception to Geisler’s presentation. is just as concerned about those issues Second, White provides an abundance and, in fact, seems to be driven by what of material from the position that Geisler he thinks are the destructive tendencies criticizes so that the reader will grasp of the doctrines in question. That made the substantive nature of his objections. White’s response at that level all the more Before he accuses Geisler of eisegesis, he important. does an exposition of the text in question Stylistically, a few irritations are providing sources from which other sprinkled through the book. Grammati- expositors may be examined. If he accuses cal irregularities such as failure of subject Geisler of misrepresentation, he provides verb relationship and many split infini- 97 tives appear. Some of these are “sic-ed” lute prerogatives over his creatures, and above. Also the overuse of italics is a at the same time subdues rebels to His will throwback to the seventeenth century. so that they confess that He alone is God Surely the reader can read a well-written and to His name alone should glory be sentence and understand the emphasis it given. Instead of undermining motives for is supposed to have without the italicized evangelism, the doctrines of grace give hints of the writer. courage, purpose, and hope for success in The pertinence of this book for contem- the most unlikely situations. The doctrines porary Southern Baptist life is quite pro- have kept James White active in his vig- found. First, the disagreement between orous evangelism of Mormons when White and Geisler precisely parallels a many others have quit because they con- theological issue in the Convention. Sec- sider the prospects of conversion too ond, the objections raised by Geisler along unlikely. Those who believe the doctrines with his characterizations of the practical of grace avoid tactics that focus on effect of Calvinism reflects precisely what manipulative practices and diminish the several leaders have said in recent years. doctrine of sin, the necessity of repen- Third, the answer given by White could tance, the substitutionary and propitiatory seemingly arise directly from the writings nature of the cross, our utter unworthi- of the first generation of Southern Baptists. ness and thus indebtedness to grace alone, They often engaged these objections and and the necessity of imputed righteous- answered with the vigor and confidence. ness for right standing before a holy and Fourth, White’s attention to the practical righteous God. issues, as mentioned above, address con- Every minister of the Gospel should cerns in the minds of many brethren. engage the subject matter of this book and Instead of diminishing one’s sense of master the arguments. It is more than responsibility for his actions, the doctrines internecine evangelical debate of interest of grace produced churches that were dis- to academics only; it concerns some of the ciplined corporately and produced mem- most fundamental issues of preaching and bers that were keen on perseverance in evangelism. holiness. Far from blaming God for evil, the doctrines of grace give hope for the Thomas J. Nettles certain and purposeful disposal of the evil one and all God’s enemies. These doc- Shall Not the Judge of All Earth Do What Is trines unfold in clear terms the infinite Right? Studies on the Nature of God in hatred that God has for sin and the abso- Tribute to James L. Crenshaw. David lute justice with which he exposes it Penchansky and Paul L. Redditt, editors. through a certain and definite atonement Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2000, xxxv and the effectuality with which he will + 268 pp., $32.50. remove corruption from His people (Titus 2:11-13; 1 Thess. 5:23, 24). Instead of cre- This collection of essays is dedicated to ating atheists, the doctrines of grace James L. Crenshaw, Robert L. Flowers Pro- reveal the true hatred in the heart of sin- fessor of Old Testament at Duke Univer- ners against a holy and sovereign God sity. A graduate of The Southern Baptist who justly claims and manifest his abso- theological Seminary, Crenshaw has dis- 98 tinguished himself as one of the most fair to say that this collection of articles respected Baptist Old Testament scholars reflects the current state of Old Testament of our time. It is fitting that a volume of studies. For some contributors, who are essays by his contemporaries and peers overtly deconstructionist, the primary should be published in his honor. Cren- question to pose before a text is not, shaw’s scholarly significance is evident “What did the author mean?” but, not only in the prefatory tribute paid to “Whose political interests are being him by David Penchansky, one of the edi- served?” While the essayists’ interpreta- tors, but also in the bibliography of his tions will not be acceptable to many read- publications compiled by David A. Mills. ers of this Journal, as a whole they have This bibliography lists fifteen books performed a valuable service in exposing Crenshaw has authored, five he has weaknesses and fallacies in traditional edited, two monograph series he has approaches. Many of the enigmas inher- edited, and 125 articles he has written ent in the biblical text are difficult to since 1967. domesticate if they are approached with The title of this volume, borrowed from dogmatic theological categories. On the Abraham’s question in Genesis 18:25, sets other hand, methodological fallacies are the agenda for the book. Although in its not lacking in the volume. Steussy’s literary context the rhetorical question, essay, for example, is impressive for its “Shall not the judge of all the earth do collection of the biblical data, but statisti- what is right?” anticipates a positive cal evidence hardly tells the whole story. answer, “Indeed, he does!” most of the Each statement about or by God must be essays answer the question negatively. interpreted within its immediate literary The judge of all the earth does not always context, and within the context of the do right. Finding inspiration in Cren- entire Old Testament. One would hardly shaw’s own work, A Whirlpool of Torment, know from her treatment of God and the the essayists explore the dark side of God, Israelites in the book of Samuel that the trying to wrestle seriously with Old Tes- events are described against the backdrop tament texts that portray him as violent, of Yahweh’s gracious covenant relation- oppressive, and abusive. Typical is Marti ship with Israel, and that his wrath is J. Steussy’s contribution, the longest in the expressed precisely for the reasons and book, “The Problematic God of Samuel” in terms that he had predicted in the (pp.127-61). After examining how the covenant curses of Leviticus 26 and narrator portrays God’s inner life, his Deuteronomy 28. actions, his speech, and the way other The indices to biblical references and characters speak about him, Steussy biblical scholars cited at the back are very arrives at conclusions that she admits are helpful. But the paucity of evangelical disturbing: God’s inner life is character- scholars in this list is telling. Either main ized more by anger than love, his actions stream scholarship is not listening to what are primarily destructive, and his speech evangelicals have to say, or evangelicals is largely condemnatory. are not addressing the issues. Unfortu- Many of the essays come to similar con- nately both statements are true. The clusions. Limitations of space preclude a approaches represented in this book must detailed critique of the volume, but it is be taken seriously. The volume poses a 99 challenge to persons with a more positive other ID authors like Michael Behe and disposition toward the Old Testament to William Dembski) as driving a thin wedge deal more honestly and at the same time into the cracks of the dogmatic timbers more respectfully with the biblical texts. of evolutionism that are ignored by its adherents (including many Christian aca- Daniel I. Block demics). For example, while ID theorists do not dispute the power of natural The Wedge of Truth: Splitting the Foundations selection to modify various features of of Naturalism. By Phillip E. Johnson. life-forms (like bird beaks), they question Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2000, 192 the lack of any evidence of a mechanism pp., $17.99. that makes possible the macrochanges necessary to create such things as lungs This book is another in a series of short to breath air, wings to fly, and large cere- works by Johnson exploring weaknesses bral cortices to speak and do calculus. in evolutionary theory and defending a Johnson points out that such complex new version of creationism called “Intel- change requires the addition of much ligent Design” (ID). In distinction from the new genetic information simultaneously older creationism, this version does not (many genes are involved in such fea- depend on the and is open to the tures), a phenomenon that seems inex- possibility that the universe is billions of plicable by the genetic mutation causal years old. ID appeals solely to evidence mechanism typically appealed to. in the creation and uses “the scientific Johnson also decries the religious community’s own standards of skepticism devotion of most scientists to what he has and objectivity” (p. 150) to challenge the termed “methodological naturalism,” the hegemony of evolutionary explanations of belief that true science must assume no the forms of life on earth. supernatural causality. Where, Johnson Johnson has written this book to dis- rightly asks, does this assumption come cuss recent work of supporters of Intelli- from? How could anyone possibly be sure gent Design theory and their critics. that God has not/does not intervene in Evolutionists have (predictably) begun to the natural order? respond unfavorably to ID theory, and Though overall the book is a delight- Johnson provides a popular, humorous, ful read, a few weaknesses should be and engaging counter-response, dealing noted. To begin with, the popular level of with such events as the spectacle sur- this book, while helpful for publicizing ID, rounding the Kansas board of education’s plays into the hands of naturalists who standards developed in 1999 regarding criticize ID as unscientific. Johnson’s con- how evolution should be presented in the tribution would be greater were he also schools (subsequently thrown out) and to work on evolutionary theory at a more shows how this was treated prejudicely sophisticated and detailed level. Also, one in the media, and briefly reviewing a few wonders if Johnson has still conceded too books which attempt to refute ID (in a much to natural scientists by relying on chapter called “The Empire Strikes Back”). falsifiability as a criterion of true science. Johnson entitled the book, “The Wedge Though useful in the natural sciences, of Truth” seeing his work (and that of there are many beliefs humans hold that 100 are unfalsifiable (e.g. the existence of other This large, beautifully printed and thor- minds, the validity of perceptual experi- oughly researched book is a must for all ence, and the existence of God). Yet this libraries. Its low cost belies the hundreds does not render them invalid or unrelated of full-color reproductions of great art, to science. In our desire to challenge natu- including prints, photographs of sculp- ralism regarding origins, we must be care- tures, panels, frescoes, miniatures, and ful not to saw off the limbs on which we modern graphics. From earliest museum all sit. Furthermore, while Johnson is pieces through great paintings by Rubens, rightly concerned about the kind of sim- Chagall, Rosetti, Cranach, Michelangelo, plistic, dogmatic biblicism that inhibited and a multitude of other painters, each the acceptance of a heliocentric universe, illustration, printed on heavy, glossy there is no scientific reason to exclude a paper, is accompanied by clarifying, priori the use of the Bible in science. The detailed discussions that expound on the Bible provides a necessary source of artistic vision of each artist represented information regarding fundamental within a theological or historical frame- aspects of the natural order, humanity, work. religion, and God which must be incor- This impressive volume follows the porated into our sciences (as appropriate), wealth of occidental art that inspired writ- if they are to accurately reflect God’s ers to interpret the women of the Bible in understanding of reality (the proper various forms of literature throughout the goal of science, rightly understood). For centuries. From Eve to Mary, women are example, how can we understand human depicted in texts not only from the Bible, nature in psychology without the biblical but also from the Apocrypha, Coptic writ- doctrines of sin or the image of God? ings, the Talmud and Koran, legends and Though there are legitimate apologetic extrabiblical references from literary reasons for avoiding this controversy works by such authors as Goethe, Dante, when writing to a secular audience, one and Thomas Mann. might tragically conclude from ID theory Dorothée Sölle, Professor, Union Theo- that the Bible has no place in science at all. logical Seminary, New York City, sets the But these are largely quibbles. John- tone for each chapter with a critical com- son’s example of fearless, independent mentary that interprets in contemporary Christian thought in the face of the over- terms the biblical texts that tell a woman’s whelming dominance of evolutionary story. The general thesis of the book is both theory in our day is of inestimable value a treasury of religious art and its relevant to the Church. literature, and a confirmation that the problems facing women today are the Eric L. Johnson same as those confronted by women in biblical times. Great Women of the Bible in Art and Litera- Chapters are devoted to: Eve and Lilith; ture. By Dorothée Sölle, Joe H. Kirch- Sarah and Hagar; Lot’s Wife; Rebekah; berger, Herbert Haag, and Anne-Marie Rachel and Leah; Tamar; Potiphar’s Wife; Schnieper-Müller. Macon, GA: Mercer Rahab; Deborah; Jephthah’s Daughter; University Press, 1994, 295 pp., $25.00. Delilah; Ruth; Hannah; Abigail; The Witch of Endor; Bathsheba; The Queen of Sheba; 101 Judith; Esther; Susanna; Elizabeth; wants, hurts and needs of others, rather Herodias and Salome; The Woman of than perpetually looking at the world the Ointment; Mary and Martha; Mary from a “What do I get out of it?” perspec- Magdalene; Mary. tive. This book does not even begin to Mozelle Clark Sherman address the big issues; instead it offers ways for an individual to manage his or Healing Our Anger: Seven Ways to Make her own anger, hence promoting univer- Peace in a Hostile World. By Michael Obsatz. sal peace. The contents of this document Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 2000, 70 pp., support the adage that change occurs one $12.99 paper. person at a time. To create a peaceful world we must first make changes within Michael Obsatz in a professor of sociol- ourselves. ogy at Macalester College in Minnesota. Healing our Anger was something of a He specializes in marriage and family disappointment. Its references to faith and counseling and has written other books, one’s personal spirituality as an inner including one that addresses how to raise source of peace were weak and rather non-violent children in a violent world. generic in intent. It wanders off course by This book is also of the “how to” variety allowing for “some other power” (p.46) and is quite clearly of the self-help vari- to which one can surrender in the search ety. It provides simple suggestions for for personal peace. The Bible is described those seeking simple answers to a very as one possible resource and never complex issue. described as “the” resource. Prayer I sense that the title of the book may be groups are described as merely another misleading. It suggests that there may be type of spiritual support (p.39). The things we can do to change society and author fails to acknowledge the powerful thus create a less hostile world. Instead role prayer could play in making our hos- this book is just another one of many tile world a place of peace. Obsatz’s recipe books that address anger management for healing anger involves two cups of issues. The text is of the garden-variety humanistic thought (self-love and self- and offers few ideas that are new. In forgiveness are two of many facets that essence this book proposes what is really he puts forth), a mild dash of generic spiri- a convoluted solution to a problem that tuality, and a substantial amount of the strikes at the heart of our very nation. We rhetoric which is already in print. Blend do not need overly simplified solutions. until you get a book that is quickly on the I do concur that any solution must market following a number of major trag- begin on a personal level, but perhaps edies of the violent variety. there is also a need to make changes in our homes and in our educational system. Susan Schriver Perhaps what is really needed is a para- digm shift in which we recognize the role Intelligent Design: The Bridge between of the Heavenly Father in life, in the home, Science and Theology. By William A. and in the heart. We might be better off if Dembski. Downers Grove: IVP, 1999, 312 we encouraged people to focus on the pp, $19.99. 102 So you have never heard of Bill Dembski? Dembski told us how. Well, where have you been? Only time Now, thanks to InterVarsity Press, will tell for sure, but William A. Dembski Dembski’s grand idea is presented to a may well have formulated the most broader readership in the wide-ranging important antivenom—next to the Gos- Intelligent Design. And what does he pel—the world has ever known. The Good mean by “Intelligent Design”? Perhaps News of Christ removes the sting of we should first note what he does not death; and it just may be that Dr. Dembski mean. Intelligent Design does not seek to has the cure for the victims of Darwinian corroborate Genesis, though informed naturalism. Christians will welcome its work as inde- Even apart from this staggering possi- pendent confirmation of biblical creation. bility, Dembski cuts an impressive figure. Intelligent Design also does not seek to Consider his education: Ph.Ds in math- make claims on behalf of Christianity in ematics (University of Chicago) and general, though many of the movement’s (University of Illinois at Chi- leaders are Christians. To the consterna- cago); earned degrees in theology and tion of some atheists and Christians alike, psychology; and postdoctoral work in the movement per se is not even religious, mathematics at MIT, in computer science though atheists and Christians alike have at Princeton, and in physics at the Uni- much at stake here. versity of Chicago. He also may be the So just what is Intelligent Design? It is leading theorist in what is likely to be the three things: a way to recognize divine most important intellectual movement of action (encapsulated in Dembski’s elegant our generation, but more on this later. idea); a scientific research program to Most significant about Dembski, how- study intelligent causes; and an intellec- ever, is one of his ideas, one so brilliant in tual movement poised to defeat Darwin- its simplicity that it is amazing no one ism and its naturalistic stranglehold on thought of it before. The groundbreaking Western culture. Intelligent Design, notion was published and defended with becoming widely known simply as ID academic rigor in an earlier Cambridge (fast replacing the reference to your University Press monograph (The Design driver’s license), is not based on religious Inference). The idea is simply this: humans commitments, but limits itself to infer- regularly employ criteria to distinguish ences drawn from observation of the between (a) those things that result from empirical world. The identity of the Intel- chance or the necessity of natural law (e.g., ligent Designer is left open in ID: its lead- signals from a pulsar, or death from a heart ers are content to leave that debate to attack) and (b) those things that are the philosophers and theologians. Among products of intelligence (e.g., signals from prominent leaders in the movement, some Martians, or death from strychnine poi- may be better known than Dembski. soning). So why not isolate and apply Phillip Johnson (Darwin on Trial) spear- these criteria to the natural order itself and heads and strategizes for the movement, see what results? Most people intuit that and provides devastating criticisms of the the world is replete with evidence of its Darwinian worldview. Michael Behe intelligent design but cannot explain (Darwin’s Black Box) brilliantly provides how they know. In The Design Inference biochemical evidence of ID in the very 103 heart of the Darwinian stronghold itself, Shakespearean sonnet” (p.166). So for the cellular world of biology. But the instance, credit card numbers exemplify mantle of chief philosopher and theolo- complex specified information—but the gian of ID seems to have fallen upon same can also be said for the fine-tuning Dembski, and Intelligent Design is an of the universe and the genome of an excellent place to become acquainted with organism. “CSI makes the world go his thought. round” (p.160). The book is divided into three parts. Yet, to infer CSI is to infer design, and Part one sets the stage for understanding the inference to design is an impossible ID by reviewing the historical backdrop pill to swallow for naturalistic science. that undermined the concept of design in Naturalism, then, must attribute CSI to nature and the enthronement of Darwin- chance and natural law. Dembski’s grand ism. Dembski notes that the reading of idea, however, collides head-on with this biblical signs by the ancients provided a assumption. His “explanatory filter” with compelling logic for recognizing intelli- its three decision nodes rules out chance gent causes. But, Spinoza and Schleier- and natural law as sufficient to generate macher denuded modernity’s theological CSI. At the first node the question is asked, landscape of all supernaturalism, and a “Is this object/event contingent?” Contin- 19th century positivist-like approach to the gency ensures that no choiceless auto- natural world sheared the scientific coun- matic process, such as natural laws, has tryside of design. Dembski exposes the determined the result. But since chance flawed arguments that undergirded these can produce contingency, the second revolutions. question must also be asked: “Is it com- Part two is the most important of the plex?” Complexity ensures that the book. Here Dembski spells out in popu- object/event is not so simple that chance lar format how ID can be recognized in might explain it. The third node is central the natural world. The key to discerning in determining design: “Is it specified?” ID in nature is bundled in understanding Specification requires information with a complex specified information (CSI). To pattern that only intelligence can cause. infer ID is to infer CSI, a concept already So then, contingency, complexity, and used (in pretheoretic form) in a number specification must be ascertained to rule of special sciences (e.g., forensics, artifi- out necessity and chance, and to infer cial intelligence, cryptography, archaeol- CSI or ID. ogy, and the search for extraterrestrial Part three demonstrates the coherent intelligence). Random typing can produce relationship of science and theology, and statistically improbable long strings of Dembski argues that ID establishes the letters, therefore constituting complex bridge between the two. Science and the- information. Random typing might also ology need not be understood as neces- generate specified information (such as sarily in conflict or else unrelated. c-a-t) that is not complex. But random Dembski makes the case that they provide typing will never produce that which is epistemic support for each other. Along both complex and specified. “The uni- the way, he tackles a number of relevant verse will experience heat death before hot topics, such as the Big Bang, and random typing at a keyboard produces a divine and human agency. Happily 104 Dembski exposes the idea prevalent not recant his email. When he refused, he was only among naturalists, but also found in removed as director of the think tank. the thinking of some Christian philoso- Perhaps Dembski was premature in phers such as Nancey Murphey, that pronouncing a Waterloo, but he was cer- human consciousness just supervenes as tainly right to recognize dogmatism and a phenomenon of lower order natural intolerance. Happily, work as significant causes. As Dembski observes, this is a ploy as Intelligent Design will gain an ever to mask the inability of naturalists to wider circulation, and though not the account for intelligent causes such as Gospel, those bitten by naturalism will human beings. A nice appendix rebuts find in it a reliable cure. common objections related to ID such as the “god-of-the-gaps” charge, method- Ted Cabal ological naturalism’s claim to sole legiti- macy, and David Hume’s faulty analogy Keith Parks: Breaking Barriers & Opening argument. Frontiers. By Gary Baldridge. Macon, GA: Southern Baptist readers will find of Smyth & Helwys, 1999, 102 pp., n. p., special interest that Dembski was hired to paper. lead an ID think tank at Baylor Univer- sity, the crown jewel of the schools related Gary Baldridge serves as the Associate to the Baptist General Convention of Missions Coordinator of the Cooperative Texas. Though the BGCT and Baylor lead- Baptist Fellowship. This fact is significant ership have long decried accusations that for two reasons. First, because he serves the university cultivated liberalism in the in this capacity, he was able to secure the classroom, Dembski’s hiring has let the cat cooperation of Keith and Helen Jean Parks out of the bag. His appointment created a in the writing of this brief biography. firestorm of controversy, with the faculty Second, this book is part biography and senate overwhelmingly passing a resolu- part advertisement for the CBF and its tion to scrap the center. In specifically cen- missions program. suring ID, eight Baylor professors wrote When I picked up this book, I was Congress on behalf of “mainstream” sci- intrigued because I served as a mission- ence and Darwinism not to be taken in by ary under Keith Parks, when he was presi- this unscientific “creeping creationism.” dent of the Foreign Mission Board. I have Even after an external review committee great respect for Keith Parks and hoped vindicated the legitimacy of Dembski’s to learn more about him. As I read the work, he still found himself on the chop- book, I became increasingly disappointed. ping block. Why? After his vindication, Keith Parks is a major figure in the he authored a widely circulated email history of Southern Baptist missions in the that noted the “dogmatic opponents of twentieth century, but serious students design” had “met their Waterloo,” and will not find much information here. This that thanked the administration “for book contains a little about Keith Parks remaining strong in the face of intolerant and a lot about the missions program of assaults on freedom of thought and the CBF. Certainly, the focus of the book expression.” Dembski was now guilty of is on the years Parks spent establishing not being “collegial,” and was told to the CBF’s mission board, a job he 105 performed admirably. Baptist missions. The author also fails to explain the con- flict that developed between Parks and the John Mark Terry trustees of the Foreign Mission Board. This is a subject that begs for examination. Spirit and Power: Foundations of Pentecostal What one gets from Baldridge is an Experience. By William W. and Robert P. over-simplified distortion of a running Menzies. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000, battle that went on for years. As he tells 233 pp., $19.99. it, the trustees were mean-spirited and unbaptistic, while Keith Parks was gentle, A few years ago James D. G. Dunn wrote a kind, wise, and always true to his deeply book entitled Unity and Diversity in New held Baptist beliefs. Anyone who knows Testament Theology. In that book he called Keith Parks would say that he is conser- on biblical interpreters to recognize the vative in his theology. Why then did he diversity that exists between the various clash with the trustees? What were the NT writings. It might come as a surprise issues? Baldridge does not say. Parks kept to some, then, that two scholars in the Clas- the Foreign Mission Board out of the sical Pentecostal tradition would write a controversy in the Southern Baptist Con- book in which they criticize Dunn for con- vention for serveral years. Why did he struing too much unity among the NT writ- change his mind and enter the fray? ers. That is just what this volume does. Again, there is no explanation. William Menzies is a patriarchal figure Another concern relates to Baldridge’s in the Assemblies of God, having been treatment of Jerry Rankin. Rankin is con- missionary, educator, statesman, and sistently portrayed in a negative light. historian of the denomination. His son According to the author, Jerry Rankin dis- Robert is a NT scholar who obtained his solved Cooperative Services International doctorate at Aberdeen under I. H. Mar- and undid all Parks’ initiatives to evan- shall, and now serves as an educator on gelize the unreached people groups of the mission field. This book is an adapta- World A. It is true that Rankin dissolved tion of his dissertation. CSI, but the real truth is that he made the The authors contend that Paul and whole International Mission Board like Luke do not have a unified doctrine of CSI. Most of the new Regional Leaders are Holy Spirit baptism. Luke’s theology of former CSI personnel, and the emphasis the Spirit is “charismatic,” while Paul’s on the unreached people groups is greater is “soteriological.” Specifically, “Luke’s than before. There are significant differ- theology of the Spirit is indeed different ences between Parks and Rankin, but con- from that of Paul. Luke not only fails to cern for World A is not one of them. refer to soteriological aspects of the The author has a smooth writing style, Spirit’s work, his narrative presupposes and the book is easy to read. Apparently, a Pneumatology that does not include this it was designed to distribute to lay per- dimension” (p. 52). Again, “Indeed, sons who support the CBF mission pro- Luke’s account betrays a Pneumatology gram. One can only hope that a PhD decidedly different from Paul or John, student will undertake a serious study neither of whom could conceive of bap- of Keith Parks’ influence on Southern tized believers being without the Spirit” 106 (p. 53). Further, “Luke can speak of bap- for a classical Pentecostal two-stage tized believers being without the Spirit doctrine of the reception of the Spirit because his theology of the Spirit is not (pp. 98-103). the same as that of Paul” (p. 55). And Several major problems plague this again, regarding Luke’s “pneumatological book. First, the authors are convinced that perspective,” “As we have noted, Paul they can read Luke’s implicit theology would not—indeed, could not—have with as much certainly as they read Paul’s interpreted and narrated the event in this explicit theology. Narrative texts certainly way” (p. 73). Finally, “The Spirit in Luke- contain theology and are written from a Acts is never presented as a soteriological particular theological focus. The Menzies agent” (p. 88). are correct that these theological insights The book features a critique of the must be factored in to the equation but works of Dunn and Max Turner on Spirit they err in assuming that one can deduce baptism, since these two writers have such a construct with precision in areas mounted the most critical assault on the where no didactic texts serve as guides. sort of view that the Menzies’ are defend- The book also takes a confusing turn in a ing, as well as a rebuke to Gordon Fee for chapter on tongues as initial evidence. The abandoning the Pentecostal heritage on authors affirm that glossalalia is the ini- Spirit baptism in the wake of Dunn’s tial evidence, but they propose that one work. The gist of Robert Menzies’s argu- cannot draw such a conclusion through ment against Dunn is that the British the avenue of biblical theology but only scholar has failed to recognize that Paul via , due to the nature was “the first Christian to attribute of the inferential hermeneutic involved in soteriological functions to the Spirit,” and such an examination. Laying aside for a that this new element in Pneumatology moment the viability of this methodologi- did not override the older model, arising cal strategy, the reader seems justified in from Rabbinic interpretations of the asking the Menzies why they feel com- prophets and employing a pesher herme- pelled to address initial evidence as a neutic of the John the Baptist sayings of systematic issue, while they are so certain the Gospels, that the Spirit is the escha- that Luke’s theology of Spirit baptism can tological charismatic gift par excellence, not be handled via biblical theology. Both the sine qua non of individual salvation. theological constructs are inferred from He rejects Turner’s case on different the text, and in this reader’s opinion their grounds. Turner has argued persuasively interpretation of Luke’s view on initial that Spirit-reception is a one-stage “char- evidence is just as tenuous as their ismatic” event which is connected to con- interpretation of Luke’s model for Spirit version-initiation, and that both Luke and baptism. In addition to offering unlikely Paul agree on this. (Turner’s material has solutions to these theological puzzles, been influential in both one-stage Charis- they are guilty of hermeneutical double matic circles and in Third Wave theology.) dealing. Again, this flies in the face of this book’s Second, they are convinced that Luke thesis, which argues rather that Luke sees upholds a theology of subsequence—that the gift of the Spirit as a donum super- the Spirit is not soteriological but is given additum. The Menzies proceed to argue as a second blessing of salvation—but 107 they do not fully answer arguments from answer to that question, but the answer Dunn, Bruner, Gaffin, Fee, and others who is certainly troubling since it requires its contend that Luke is not propounding supporters to conclude that there is a radi- such a view. It is certainly significant that cal dichotomy between the pneuma- even Charismatic theologians have been tologies of Luke and Paul. Of all possible moving increasingly toward the view that solutions to whatever interpretive chal- Spirit baptism is concurrent with regen- lenges might be in the text on the subject eration. This book seems as much as any- at hand, this would seem to be the last thing to be a sort of last ditch effort to possible route “Evangelicals” would want retain the traditional Pentecostal ordo of a to travel. two-stage experience of salvation. Specifi- cally, the authors do not give sufficient Chad Brand treatment to the view that the successive outpourings of the Spirit in Acts are due to the progress of the gospel along the lines of Jesus’ words in Acts 1:8, and that the successive manifestations are to show the Jewish believers that the Gentiles have received the same gift as they, without required adherence to Mosaic law. This thesis, advocated by Bruner, Dunn, and others, not only provides an adequate interpretive framework for the various texts in Acts, but it also demonstrates Luke’s solidarity with Paul in dealing with the Gentile “problem.” This leads to the final observation. The Menzies are apparently content with a NT milieu in which competing theologies not only existed in the church, but found their way into the NT. They make it clear that Luke and Paul are at odds, and that they themselves are more inclined to follow Luke. But one would think that self-pro- nounced Bible-believing interpreters would be distressed at such a claim. Or perhaps this book represents one among many recent gestures from Pentecostal scholarship that Pentecostals are not sim- ply “Evangelicals who speak in tongues.” The authors ask this very question: “How are we Pentecostals different from our Evangelical fellow believers who are open to the gifts?” (p. 47). This book is an 108