A House For My Name

I have just finished reading Peter Leithart's OT survey 'A House for My Name'. Besides being suitably pacy, readable, and popular-but-scholarly, the book is a fine example of Christological biblical theology.Infact, together with the Goldsworthy trilogy and Through New Eyes, AHFMN is now in my all-time top three introductions to biblical theology.

Although in some sense it's unfair to compare these three great books (they are written to serve differing purposes, for differing audiences, and AHFMN is only an OT survey), doing so does highlight some of the relative strengths of AHFMN.

In comparison to Goldsworthy's 'Gospel and Kingdom', AHFMN is less concerned with finding precise repetition of a particular pattern. So whereas Goldsworthy's 'people-place-blessing' can at times feel a little forced, or limited by its generality, AHFMN sits lightly enough to its unifying theme (the building of the house of the Lord) as to allow for a greater level of detail. Leithart's journey through the bible allows for more taking in of the scenery, without losing an overall sense of the journey's direction.

In comparison to Jordan's 'Through New Eyes,' AHFMN employs a more restrained interpretive maximalism. The result is greater accessibility and (for those used to breathing the more minimalist air of contemporary UK conservative evangelicalism) believability. Where some will be put off by several of Jordan's wilder assertions, Leithart's challenge to employ more maximal readings of scripture almost slips under the radar, since even at his most (for some) eyebrow-raising his conclusions are difficult to write off as speculative. Part of this is because Leithart argues his case more frequently (Jordan deliberately doesn't, and wouldn't have the space to either).

Those who read should read all three, but perhaps Goldsworthy first, then Leithart, then Jordan.

Bible-Bashing?

Today I received an email from a major distributor of Christian books. They were emailing to advertise their extensive selection of bibles. The email was titled 'Your Bible, Your Choice' and included the following list of the different types of bible they sell:

By Translation
By Occasion
Favourite
Devotional
Study
Reference
Parallel
Audio
Spanish
Large Print
For Men
For Women
For Infants
For Children
For Tweens
For Families
For Academics
For Your Valentine

A visit to their website revealed this list only told part of the story. In fact you can choose your bible according to size, colour, season, or your favourite doctrine (I'm curious as to what a 'Spirit-filled life bible ' actually is).

I can't decide whether the fact that this makes me feel uncomfortable is a good thing or whether in actual fact I'm turning into a grumpy so-and-so.

Is the list above evidence of something fairly healthy (say, getting the word of God to as many people in as many ways as possible) or something rather more rancid (say, the adoption within evangelicalism of all that smells bad about individualism, consumerism and the worship of choice, and a me-centred desire to have even God Most High speak to me on my terms)?

Answers on a post-card (of your choice of colour, size, picture, message, gender, season...)

Summer Reading

September has arrived and the summer is drawing to a close (meteorologically it never arrived of course). As usual I have achieved a lot less than I hoped I would, though my 'to-do' list was particularly ambitious this year. I have read a few books though, which I list and describe briefly here for your delectation.

Against Christianity (sample online here): Peter Leithart thinks the Church is a new city. That means he's against 'Christianity' (a private/unsuccessful gospel and Church) and for 'Christendom' (a public/successful gospel and Church). And who wouldn't agree? Leithart also writes with considerable wit and style, which makes his book enjoyable as well as provocative.

Tested by Fire: Suffering in the lives of Bunyan, Cowper and Brainerd. John Piper has served us well with his brief (but not shallow) reflections on various Christian figures from history.

He Shall Have Dominion: A Postmillenial Eschatology. Kenneth Gentry Jr.'s comprehensive and mostly persuasive book on the ultimate in gospel optimism. Seems to be the book that other-millenialists must contend with, both exegetically & theologically.

All Families are Psychotic. Hardly Douglas Coupland's finest moment. Some interesting commentary on consequences of actions, and of course on families and relationships. Less-than-believable ending doesn't really help things. Okay as beach reading.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. Satisfactory and enjoyable conclusion to the series that has been disproportionately lauded (not J.K. rowling's fault I stress). Won't change your life, but then it isn't meant to.

Pierced for our Transgressions: Necessary, scholarly, readable. More (but brief) comments here.

By Faith, Not By Sight. Richard Gaffin helps us understand justification and sanctification, showing how the forensic and the renovative aspects of the salvation of individuals flow from the same basic reality - union with Christ.

The Radical Reformission. The unique Mark Driscoll on modern mission that doesn't sell out. All that needs to happen now is for someone to write the same kind of book for the UK but in a style that won't immediately offend and repel the conservative evangelical constituency here.

I've also started reading 'City of God' by St Augustine. Man, was that guy thorough (long-winded). I'm enjoying the ride but it might be some time before I blog on that one.

'Through New Eyes' 1

During the Christmas holidays I read ‘Through New Eyes’ by James B. Jordan. Several people have commended the book to me as a seminal work in the field of biblical theology. This is the first post of my reflections on the book. I’ll try to summarise Jordan’s views cogently and make my own comments constructive to those who have or will read the book.

Jordan’s aim (p. 4) is not ‘to try and set out a Christian philosophical worldview’ (though he thinks that’s important of course) but to ‘get into the bible and become as familiar as possible with the Bible’s own worldview, language and thought forms.’[1] His methodology is more ‘shock and awe’ than careful argument of every point. In some senses this makes for an exhilarating and at times frustrating ride, especially for the student, as Jordan lays before our eyes his understanding of Biblical symbolism. Details for further study and debate are reserved intentionally for the footnotes, which, I would argue, must therefore be read along with the main text.

Jordan’s task of helping us view the world from the bible’s perspective kicks off with a helpful discussion on the difference between a merely symbolic reading of Genesis 1 which excludes the possibility of the literal, and one that views the chapter as using ‘the language of visual appearances’ to both describe the world as it actually is (‘the sun is a great light’ after all) and also ‘sets up a worldview grid that is used later on in Scripture for symbolic purposes.’ (I must confess this made me think again about whether indeed the ‘days’ of Genesis might not in fact be literal periods of 24 hours). Jordan argues that the symbolic significance of the physical world stems from it being designed to reveal the creator and give instruction to humanity (pp. 9-13).

For Jordan this way of looking at the world fits with a generally ‘associational’ way of reading the imagery found in the bible that pays attention to metaphors, typology, allusions, literary structure and device, number symbolism and so forth. This does not reduce the bible into some kind of code but does mean we must interpret the bible’s symbolism in terms of its own ‘presuppositions and philosophy’ rather than, for example, the Platonic-allegorical method of the Alexandrians (and the naturalistic-scientific worldview of the modern west) (pp. 14-17, also 9-10).

Part one concludes that ‘we need to learn again’ how to understand ‘God’s created symbols’ which means paying attention to the primary symbols God has given us (his Word, the Sacraments and Humanity) all of which are gifts of grace. Only restoration of these primary ‘powers’ in creation will lead to Church renewal and thus also to cultural renewal (p. 30-38) as reality is shaped by a redeemed humanity understanding and interpreting the world through God’s eyes.

In one sense these early chapters are the most significant, though in another sense it is only really when the basic principles within them are applied and unfolded in the rest of the book that we see the value. At the very end of this series of posts I will make some comments about the enormous value to the Church of Jordan’s thesis that we pay attention to metaphor, typology and allusion as well as principles, commands and statements. For the moment it is worth noting that the basic presupposition is a reformation one, flowing inevitably from the conviction that the bible is the Word of God. If we believe that the form as well as the doctrine of the bible is God-breathed, we will want to pay great attention to its thought-forms, symbolism and metaphor. And, along with the Reformers, we will seek to interpret scripture by scripture itself. This means more than the necessary task of pondering apparent tension or contradiction and making the necessary distinctions and formulations (the task of systematic theology in some ways); it will also mean interpreting scriptural symbols within the symbolic worldview of scripture itself. None of this is controversial per se, but, understood properly, taking scripture’s detail seriously in this way makes the task of exegesis, interpretation and application a lot broader (and therefore a lot richer) than is customarily thought.

A question remains in my mind from these early chapters as to the way in which the creation reveals the Creator. One of the main texts employed by Jordan is Romans 1: 18-23 (pp13, 20-23). Following discussions in doctrine lectures last semester, I’m not convinced it will stand up to the weight here laid on it, since the very things revealed about God in those verses are his 'unlikeness' to anything created (his deity and eternality). exactly how does the created order reveal God to us. That it does is well established, not only in Romans but in the many ways in which God employs the symbolism of creation in his word to describe himself in some way, but I for one feel the need for some more rigorous thought on this one.[2]

[1] NB. It should be noted that this entails that we look to the bible not just for doctrinal instruction but also for hermeneutics and epistemology. This contradicts those, for e.g., who argue that whilst we follow the apostle’s teaching we should not follow their thought forms, especially their use of the Old Testament. Jordan’s point is that we see the world biblically when we think ‘the way people thought in Bible times.’
[2] And of course, Jordan is clear that sin has marred our perceptions, and, along with Calvin, that the bible is needed for a proper reading of the symbolism of creation. See e.g. 26, 31. With regard to Romans 1:20ff., it may be that Jordan's use of Romans rather than his basic point is what needs revising, since the created order is quite clearly all to be interpreted within the knowledge and fear of the LORD.

Books, books, and more books

So, you're in London, you've got some time off from your studies, what to do? Visit the Evangelical Library of course. This is a very extensive library of (roughly 80,000) books largely from the reformed evangelical stream, including some rare collections, copies of journals/ periodicals going back a century or so and a significant collection of old hymn books. Stepping into the library was a little like stepping back in time at least a century or two. Lloyd-Jones was involved in establishing it back in the 1930s, though the vision really belonged to a guy called Geoffrey Williams who saw it as a resource for the church in this country and beyond for generations to come. The library was not insignificant in the resurgence of calvinism in the UK in the 1950s-60s.

If you are an Oak Hill student and you are reading this then go visit and join, benefit from and support this important resource. I got the impression from my first look round the place today that someone who had a little more of a clue about our forefathers in the faith from the 17th-18th century than I do would've been even more excited about the place than I was.

The second place I visited today was the Metropolitan Tabernacle Bookshop - the bookshop attached to the church where C. H. Spurgeon was once the minister. The staff were really friendly and even let us have a little peak in the actual church building itself. Only the front of the building remains from the original which Spurgeon had built in the 1800s as most of the building was destroyed by fire in the late 1800s and then again in WWII. The bookshop itself was a little limited in scope though it was very well endowed with works by the Puritans.

Of course, neither the writers whose works are found in the Evangelical Library, nor Spurgeon, would want either of these places to be mere memorials - which was one reason why I didn't stop to bow before the little statuette of Spurgeon (pictured above) at the tabernacle bookshop. But I do think they would be glad to know that Christ's people are mining some of the riches left behind from the Spirit's work in the Church of yesteryear. Of course, books are not good simply because they are old (and man, some of the books in that library especially are Old) but we are fools if we collectively fail to tap into what our 'older brothers and sisters' in Christ found and did as they reflected on the bible.