Book Review: Blood and Bone by Don Hoesel

I am reviewing a work of fiction this month. Blood and Bone by Don Hoesel.  It was actually a pretty nice change of pace to read this genre during this season in my life, and overall I’d recommend the book for a light read. It was only a little over 300 pages and published by Bethany House Publishers this year.

The book starts out with a jungle artifact search reminiscent of an Indiana Jones movie, but in this case Jack Hawthorne is searching for the bones of a prophet. Fast forward a few years, and  Jack and Epsy Hawthorne get a call that they have to get out of the house with their kids immediately. The drama that ensues is a result of Jack’s burying the prophet’s bones instead of giving them over to someone else. The problem is that someone has now dug them up, and he can’t find them. Jack and Epsy are distraught that their children are then kidnapped, but they are not dissuaded from their own intrigue in rummaging through secret mazes and figuring out ancient codes. What starts out as an Indiana Jones story turns into a National Treasure hunt with a little bit of the Da Vinci Code.
The book is a quick read, and for a book with no bad language or immoral scenes, it is a good addition to the Christian fiction genre. However, the characters are a little unbelievable and the plot is sometimes forced. How parents can be so at ease with terrorists kidnapping their children and thinking only of the adventure is somewhat offensive. Moreover, if you aren’t already familiar with the story from the prequels, it takes about one third of the book before you can fully appreciate the protagonist and his plight. With those faults, though, it is a good thriller and adventure book for Christians.

I received this book for FREE from the Publisher, Bethany House to read and write a review. It is NOT required for this review to be either positive or negative, but of my own honest opinion. I was provided no money to read this book nor to write this review.  I am disclosing this information in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission's 16 CFR, Part 255, http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_03/16cfr255_03.html
Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.

Interactive Conversation with missionary author Kevin Greeson of The Camel Method

Last year, I published a book review on Kevin Greeson's The Camel Method. In recent days, Kevin has responded with some insights about several issues I raised in that review. I invite you to look again at this article and see the dialogue that follows in the comments section:

http://buckburch.wordpress.com/2012/12/19/buck-burch-review-of-camel-method-of-evangelizing-muslims/

Missiological Implications of Payton's Approach

For the past couple of weeks, I've been posting about James Payton's Light from the Christian East. On Facebook & Twitter as well as a few comments posted on this blog, there have been some strong reactions to Eastern Orthodoxy's tenets and whether they can really be called Christian. I still think Payton's book is a good starting point for anyone wanting to learn more about Orthodoxy or beginning to work in a predominant Orthodox culture. The strength of Payton’s approach is his historical perspective, something that is often lost in many interfaith conversation. He does a good job in explaining several of the key differences  between the diverging perspectives that generated as the East and the West (pardon the pun) went their own ways. This historical lens is necessary for the Eastern and Western missiological dialogue.

However, I also admit that Payton also exhibits several weaknesses in my opinion. Payton arguably places too much emphasis on the differences between Eastern and Western theologies. It is true that the historical contexts of each have led to a diversification in development, but he seems to embellish them to make his point. In a surprisingly naive way, he seems to stereotype all of Eastern Orthodoxy with the same beliefs, not allowing for varying views within the faith. He does the same with Western Protestantism. At times he makes the Eastern Church affirm the same things that the Western Church also affirms, but he identifies them as unique stances. In truth, there are simply some theological points that bind us together and other points that differentiate us.

I also disagree with Payton’s presumption that Eastern Orthodoxy encompasses all of Eastern Christianity. In doing so, I believe Payton fails to take into account the various other non-Orthodox Christian movements that have sprung up throughout history in Eastern Europe as well as the non-Orthodox divisions out of the officially sanctioned church. Albeit the numbers are significantly smaller than Protestants of Western Christianity, there have been some other Christian groups that exist besides Orthodoxy. It seems the very reason why the Protestant movement is included with the Roman Catholic Church in Western Christianity should give warrant to include the sectarian groups of the East. Having spent 13 years with evangelicals from the East gives me pause to simply whitewash the Eastern church as being stereotyped.

            Yet another significant missiological weakness is his blind insistence that both Eastern and Western Christian perspectives are equally valid. Without a biblical point of reference, he asserts that the “Orthodox approaches are legitimate interpretations of biblical revelation” (108). This seems to contradict the historical evidence that the two views are polarized on many points. Where there are areas for dialogue, a complete merging of the two without regard for theology is ecclesiologically dangerous at best and a negation of theology at worst. Or have we truly come to the point where every point of view is equally valid?

            Regardless of these weaknesses, Payton’s book is definitely useful as an introduction to the Eastern Church and for understanding its doctrines and practices. Payton argues that Orthodoxy can help the West overcome its own sabotaging wording in the creation-evolution debate. He believes it can deepen our recognition of the distance between God and his creation. He also believes that Orthodox can help make us aware of our own cultural mandate by appreciating creation’s holistic purpose for communion with God. The unique value of the text is how Payton ties human history to Christian theology. As such it is a worthy read with more than just academic significance.

How Orthodox View Salvation

James Payton gives a glimpse into how Orthodox Christians view their salvation. He bases his study on the eastern and western differences in soteriology on the doctrine of grace. He believes that the West has placed the bulk of its concentration on grace in the aspect of “what grace does, how it operates upon us, the effects it has on believers and so forth” (156). Conversely, the Eastern Church has taken a different slant by looking at what grace is. This is probably one of the biggest differences between the two branches of Christianity albeit probably one of the least dialogically explored.

            The eastern soteriological stance is more one of belonging while the western mindset developed more toward a utilitarian actualization of grace. This is useful as Western Christian theology rarely raises the question of the essence of grace. The soteriological aspect of grace is much more than its outworking, and the eastern historical development has contributed a welcomed perspective to the dialogue. Arguably, much of eastern soteriology is entertained in western conversations about sanctification, but western soteriology usually does not begin there.

            Certain church fathers have influenced both Eastern Orthodoxy and Western Evangelicalism. Modern Orthodoxy has been influenced most significantly by Gregory of Nyssa, Pseudo-Dionysius, Maximus the Confessor and Gregory Palamas. These theologians put a bigger emphasis on man's interaction with God's energies over His essence than those who influenced the west. Western theologians have tended to relate more to the actual redemptive outworking of salvation in man when he communes with a Holy God. 

            As already posted, the eastern Christian sees salvation as a corrective action designed to realign the human journey to enjoy more of God's energies. The western Christian sees salvation as an act of substitutionary atonement wherein a man is completely changed from the inside and is protected from God's wrath. So, if salvation for the eastern Christian is a metaphysical experience with manifestations of God's power, and if salvation for the western Christian is a transformational work in man, can the two really discuss soteriology without defining what salvation really means? When an eastern Christian says, "Jesus saves," what does he mean? When a western Christian uses the same words, what does he mean? Perhaps the East could benefit greatly from Luther's atonement constructs, and the West could be informed greatly from Gregory Palamas' images of communion.

Eastern Orthodox Doctrine of Sin

On Wednesday I introduced a brief overview of how Eastern Orthodoxy has historically differed from western evangelicalism in its view of God the Father. The historical division between the East and the West led to differences in the doctrine of sin as well. According to Orthodoxy, the impact of the fall of man was to detour God’s purposes for creation, and somehow Jesus corrected that. Orthodoxy now tends to take a more holistic approach in its doctrine of man.

The Eastern view of the human body comes into play within this historical development. For the Orthodox, the physical body “is a visible form that uniquely matches the invisible divine glory (although God has no body)” (James Payton, Light from the Christian East, 107- Kindle Edition Here). Although Orthodoxy differentiates between the image of God in man, which is a gift, and the likeness of God, which is a calling empowered by the Holy Spirit, the fall of man had some unique issues. Payton says we are “inescapably surrounded” (112) by these dying circumstances, and therefore we are influenced to sin. Orthodoxy denies that our human nature is depraved, something that radically differs from the historical development of John Calvin's teaching about man's total depravity.

The East also developed a new slant in terms of imputation of sin. Because Orthodoxy does not believe that anyone pays for any sin but their own, Adam’s sin is seen as just that, Adam’s sin. According to Orthodoxy, “no one can be guilty of another’s sin” (111). Sinfulness is not imputed in Orthodox harmatology, but all creation has inherited death as a consequence. Because of this, we have inherited physical corruption and everything that goes with it. However, “none of us bears or suffers from a depraved, corrupt or sinful human nature, according to Orthodoxy” (114). Thus, it is natural for humans by default to do good, but because of our external circumstances, we are influenced to do bad. Whereas the West tends to portray sin as breaking the rules, the East views it as a “violation of a personal relationship with God” (119).

So, is it either/or? Is it both/and? What effect does an understanding of sin have on truth? on salvation?

Orthodoxy & Evangelicalism: Comparative Theology

Ok, so my buddy Larry brings up an interesting point about Eastern Orthodoxy's basic theological framework. To the Orthodox, God is defined in two aspects–the aspect of God’s essence, or who He is on the inside, and the aspect of His energies or His outworking, the things that he does. Even this mystery involves God being present in His energies or His outworking. James Payton, the author of Light from the Christian East I've been recommending in my previous two posts, attempts to define the Orthodox presentation of God by saying that there are two categories of existence. There are things that have been created and things that have not been created. Anything never created is God, whereas anything defined as never having been created is God, including all godly attributes like love and justice. The actions of God are not created things, because He inhabits his energies or His actions.

Eastern Orthodoxy’s theology can be divided into two categories. Positive or cataphatic theology is what can be affirmed about God.  Negative or apophatic theology is saying what God is not. Eastern Orthodox theology has developed due to a understanding that our words about God are “inadequate to contain him” (Payton, 76). “Thus, in Orthodoxy, theology- ‘talking about God’- done rightly leads to silence before God, to serene contemplation of God” (78). Eastern Orthodoxy takes a very skeptical view of the rational mind and its capabilities. This is what Payton says is exhibitive of the differences between how the East and West historically developed.

What can be said about God is limited according to Eastern Orthodoxy. “Since he is God, there is no way that we as mere human beings, as his creatures, can understand him” (73-74). Payton explains this Orthodox limitation to human speech:

In all this, God speaks truly as he reveals himself to us, but he does not speak exhaustively and penetratingly, such that we could comprehend him. Thus, God’s revelation in Scripture is true, although it does not say everything about God. It is adequate for God’s purposes and for our needs, but not sufficient to enable us mere limited human beings, his creatures, to obtain discursive knowledge of him (74).

Historically, the Orthodox Church would much rather err on the side of not saying something

untrue about God than naively espousing small truth statements.

This historical development of doctrinal differences can be seen further in how God relates to his creation. The West saw the development of an understanding of the ad intra interrelationship in the Trinity as opposed to how God relates to his creation ad extra. But the East created other categories. God’s essence is unknowable, reflective of the East’s distrust of rationality. God’s actions are knowable. Although these are distinct categories, God inhabits both.

            There is yet another distinctive and more personal experience based on God’s energies. Orthodoxy contends that we can only know God in his energies, never in his essence. It is not possible for mortals to know or understand God completely in his being only in what he does. And this is only possible through a corporate relationship within the Eastern Church. So, I guess the bigger question is: can knowing God only in his energies be sufficiently salvific?

            There is a big distinction in Orthodoxy between the Creator and his creation. Our “human inability to conceive of and speak appropriately about God in his relationship to the creation” (88) is what defines this distinction. Orthodoxy places parameters around what was created and what was not created. Time did not exist prior to creation. Yet there was existence prior to creation. The Creator is “totally other than his creation” (89). Orthodoxy developed a belief that humans cannot truly understand the Creator, therefore they can never truly speak about him.

The way that Orthodoxy describes intra-trinitarian relationships is different than the way it describes the relationship between Creator and creation however. The internal essence of God cannot be understood, but the external energies are God’s divine will. It says that “in creation we are not confronted with the divine nature, but with the divine will” (90). God necessarily exists, while creation does not. Creation was made ex nihilo. Orthodox believers hold to God’s utter transcendence in his essence, but they insist that “he is absolutely immanent in his energies” (91).

Payton points to the first chapters of Genesis and John to explain the Orthodox differential between God the Logos, or the ultimate purpose, and our logoi, or God’s purposes within us. With a uniquely Eastern stance, Payton says that “each created nature has that logos within himself, herself or itself ” (95). Creatures must “live up to [our] divinely implanted logos” (95).

Payton shows various potentials whereby the western church can be informed by the Eastern Church. He says that “Western Christians can learn more measured respect for ‘positive’ theology” (85). He also says that “we might sense the futility of some of our western Christian wrangling about Scripture” (85) if we will allow Eastern Christianity to inform our theology. If somehow the Western Church might “appropriate negative theology in some measure as it practiced within Eastern Orthodoxy, we would end up with a richer sense of who God is, on the one hand, and a greater humility for what we say about him, on the other” (85-86). But what about the reverse? Within the Eastern church, would there be any redemptive value in western evangelicalism's emphasis on man-God intimacy that leads to enlightened understanding of God the Creator?

Orthodoxy- Look at it from an Historical Viewpoint

Yesterday, I posted on James Payton's book, Light from the Christian East: An Introduction to the Orthodox Tradition. (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2007), and it brought an interesting reaction from another missions practitioner (whom I highly value).  Perhaps it would be helpful to shed some historical light on this contrasting form of Christianity. In his book Payton builds his argument on several elements to describe the division between the Eastern and Western Church. Linguistically, the East was influenced by the Greek language with all of its Hellenistic nuances while the West was influenced by the structure and Roman mindset of Latin. Ancient Greece gave the world an emphasis on human reason while Roman Empire insisted on law and justice. Payton believes these orientations are some of the deep roots in the later development of Eastern and Western psyches. With the development of large Hellenic cosmopolitan centers, the East moved philosophically into impersonality and “even what reason could not reach” (23). Roman philosophy evolved with a greater stress on practicality and utilitarianism. It only stands to reason that “during the early third century a significant difference arose between Christian leaders in the two halves of the empire as to how best to present the claims of Christianity” (24). The schism that followed could be traced politically and doctrinally.

Payton’s modus operandi in building his defense of Orthodoxy as a valid viewpoint is threefold. He first shows the argument and why the argument has taken place. Secondly, he refutes the argument with data or proofs. And finally he turns it around to argue that the same could be said of Western Christianity. As almost a postscript, he presents a statement on each point of how the west could benefit by looking at things from an eastern mindset.

Political Schism

Historically, the East and the West faced a schism based not only on doctrinal issues but on political moves. Payton argues that the political sacking of Constantinople in AD 1204 by Western Christians “led to the deep chasm between Western and Eastern Christianity that continues to the present” (34). This ultimately led Pope John Paul II to a public apology in 2001.

On doctrinal ends though, Payton says the way the East and the West differ in talking about God is even more “disconcerting and disorienting” than any other distinctive between the two (72). Even the varied influences led to a differing orientation in viewing the Trinity. 

Already by the fourth century, two contrasting approaches of setting forth Trinitarian doctrine had developed. Eastern Christianity followed the Cappadocian fathers, who started with the three persons and moved to the oneness of God. By contrast, Western Christianity took the path of St. Augustine, who began with the oneness of God and moved to the threeness of the persons (70).

This orientation eventually led to a huge doctrinal schism based on the West’s adherence to Augustinian pneumatology as proceeding from both the Father and the Son over against the East’s Cappadocian insistence that the Father was the source for both the Son and the Spirit. This filioque clause became the permanent rift between the two sides that has continued.

            The distrust continued as the Byzantine Empire became overrun by the Turkish Muslims

in 1453, and the “church became inextricably intertwined with nation” (38). The Turkish influence not only led to national churches that could not meet without imperial control, but it also led to a church leadership that was heavily influenced by that political regime. The only place where this did not happen was the Russian Orthodox Church, but the twentieth century brought a repressive empire of communism yet gave way to a general feeling that Moscow was the new Rome.

Doctrinal Schism

Payton believes that the major differences between the East and the West are doctrinal though, as does my missionary friend. The Western Church’s “attitudes toward doctrine lead to expectations of clarity and explanations in doctrine” (66). The East, on the other hand, sees creeds as forbidding warning signs. The goal in the Eastern Church “is not explanation of the Christian faith, but faithful adherence to its mysteries” (67). While some might argue that Orthodoxy has a flavor of Pagan philosophy, Payton successfully rebuts this argument by showing how Orthodoxy opposed Gnosticism and drew a clear distinction between the Creator and creation. He explains how Orthodoxy opposed to the Hellenic understanding of cosmos with an Orthodox proposal of God’s immutability. Moreover, Payton proposes that Orthodoxy is theology influenced by its historical Eastern development.

            So, if there are real differences, what are they? How does Orthodoxy differ in its view of God as Almighty Creator? What about the fall of mankind? What about how to be saved? In these concepts, the clearer picture of Orthodoxy emerges.

Understanding Russian Orthodoxy

This week one of my good friends was ordained to be the pastor of a Russian congregation in Eastern Atlanta, so naturally we had some Russian guests who were not evangelicals. Again my thoughts were taken back to the growing interaction between Western Protestantism and Eastern Orthodoxy. In essence there is a great need to understand the Christian East, the culture, the language, the world view and the religion. For a Baptist, it's almost like having Lutherans over for dinner: you know that there are similarities, and you are keenly aware that there are differences, but what are they? One of the best resources on the subject is a book by James Payton, Light from the Christian East: An Introduction to the Orthodox Tradition. (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2007).  Its stated purpose is to “introduce Western Christian reader to some of the distinctive perspectives and emphases of Eastern Orthodoxy in a way that facilitates understanding and appreciation” (15). Payton contends that Orthodoxy has been “shaped by significantly different questions” (12) than those that have shaped Western Christianity. In fact, he places a large emphasis on what he suggests has been a vastly overlooked half of Christian history, the Eastern half, but he also gives a brief survey of Western reactions to Orthodoxy’s suppositions. Having lived in a predominantly Russian Orthodox environment for 13 years, I can attest to the contrasting starting points that make up the eastern and western theological matrices.

Payton lays the groundwork for discussing the larger distinctions between the Eastern and Western church. It could be argued that he writes this book from a western perspective with a sole intent of making a western protestant at least aware of Eastern Orthodoxy or the Eastern Church but not to critique it. I would go so far as to say that they attempt is more to help westerners understand Eastern Orthodoxy, and it is not a reciprocal conversation. Perhaps more accurately, he attempts to see where Eastern Church might inform western theology and thereby gain an appreciation for how the East has developed; therefore, he ends each chapter with lessons that western Christians could learn from the East. His book could be praiseworthy on the sole basis that it links the beliefs of the Eastern Church with its historical development, but as a theological survey it also has merit. This book is best served as a survey of how the historical development of the East and West affected specific doctrines like Trinitarian theology, harmatology and soteriology. Whenever I'm asked to name a good resource for Americans going to serve as missionaries in Russia, I always mention this book as one of the best primers for understanding the larger culture.  

Payton believes that the East and the West have formed their theologies in two radically separate spheres. They have been influenced by their environments and thereby been crafted by those influences. The West, for example, he shows to be influenced by a very legal-oriented Roman mentality, something that he contends thereby affects our understanding of God from a legal mindset. Therefore the court room genre of justification as evidenced in all of our literature from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries up to today affects the way we make presentations of the plan of salvation from a legal perspective. Because the west has a very rational mindset, we tend to approach our theology from a different definition of theology from the East. Payton posits that the West tends to approach theology within categories for understanding God and theologies are built upon logical arguments that must be defeated or proven. 

The East is different. Thought processes are not typically linear nor progressive. Instead they are crafted with more of an aesthetic goal; thus, to the westerner they might seem more circular or haphazard. Perhaps a better, albeit over-simplistic, example would be to say that Russians enter into a conversation with the goal to experience the conversation, whereas an American would enter the same conversation in order to come to some agreement or decision. Similarly, the foundation for Russian theology is more of an experience than a dogma, and often the greater study of God is not confined to logical human arguments that place parameters on the Creator. 

            Payton introduces his book by listing four preliminary thoughts serve to guide this discussion on the historical divergence of Eastern and Western Christianity. He says that each side has differing questions regarding theology. He dislikes the term Eastern Orthodox and would prefer to call Eastern Christianity simply Orthodox. To Payton, Eastern Orthodoxy is Eastern Christianity. And he defines Western Christianity simply on geographic terms. Payton deals with theological issues like doctrines of God, mankind, original sin, salvation, church, and authority; yet he does so from a historical developmental perspective. If Payton’s desire is to give Western Christian thinkers an appreciation for Eastern Orthodoxy, then he achieves his goal. If his purpose is to help the West to become acquainted with those main topics that surround Eastern Orthodox thought and why they became the way they did, then he also succeeds. It is not Payton’s stated goal to convince in either direction, but he does desire to create an atmosphere for dialogue whereby the West and the East can learn to appreciate each other. Payton’s book, although a survey of a historic journey from the early church into what we see today as the Eastern Church, creates a platform for discussing the differences and appreciating them for how they originated.

            In many ways, Russians living in America have become affected by their interaction with a new worldview. Some have taken on the step-by-step framework that western society has built. Others have recoiled into a fortress of Russian Orthodoxy, complete with nationalistic traditions and impatience toward outside theologians. Whenever Russians and Americans do have a dialogue about God, I have found it enriching for mutual discipleship and giving greater definition to our limited perspectives.

Missiological Implications from Latourette

Several of Latourette’s emphases are outstanding especially when considering the time period that this book was published. At a time when disciplines observed strict boundaries, Latourette was radical in his interdisciplinary approach. Using his training both in history and missions, he integrated secular history into missiology in such a way as to not merely restate church history. Ed Rommen in Missiology and the Social Sciences once said that true missiology utilizes history as a tool to analyze historic missionary activity as a context for understanding the spread of Christianity. Andrew Walls in “Modern Pioneers: Kenneth Scott Latourette,” in the Nov. 2001 edition of Christian History, said that Latourette “redirected Christian scholarship by presenting missions as the history of Christianity itself, not as an appendix to ‘church’ history” (45). This integration has impact on missiology as a true science, because without it we are left with a reductionistic isolation devoid of the fuller picture.

            His emphasis on the interaction between Christianity and the historical or social environment was also revolutionary for his time. Even up until Paul Hiebert began to identify anthropological aspects of missiology, there was arguably very little missiological work being done within a larger socio-economic context. Latourette was innovative in presenting this in a duo-directional mode, how Christianity was impacting secular development and how secular life was impacting Christianity’s development. This has impact in the discipline of missiology, because it raises the validity of missiology to a higher disciplinary level.

            Andrew Walls notes Latourette’s failure to include data from non-western Christian sources, but he quickly forgives his failure on the basis of lack of availability of such data. This failure can also be forgiven as he was a man of his times, and it was truly in vogue to think of the west as leading Christianity’s development. Today’s David Boschs of the missions world are helping to facilitate a broader range of study for world Christianity and especially provide supplemental emphases on non-western Christianity. Latourette can truly be hailed as a pioneer in preparing the Christian history “readers for the situation of the early twenty-first century” (Walls, 45).

Latourette Continued

I'm continuing to talk about what Latourette called "The Great Century" in Christian history. Within the Russian Orthodox Church during that time period (1800-1914), a small movement to reform was developed as well. The Church made extensive efforts to evangelize unreached people groups within Russia, like the Laps and the Chuvash, by employing indigenous methods. Led by Nicholai Ilminski, the Russian Bible was retranslated into the vernacular. However, a nationalistic emphasis on russification caused the Orthodox Church is begin to look inwardly, and the Church set itself against any new western currents. There were “earnest efforts to strengthen the Orthodox Church. Yet ground was lost rather than gained” (147).            

In the latter part of his book, Latourette turns his attention more specifically toward the United States. The United States grew in population on a massive scale only surpassed by Russia and India, and these numbers were met by increases in church membership. During this time great revival broke out as settlers came from the Old World to pioneer this new land. The Methodist Episcopal Church was very aggressive on the frontier and became very attractive through its charismatic preaching and its Arminian theology founded upon individualism and free will.

The two denominations that benefited most were Baptists and Methodists. The jump in their membership was largely due to circuit riding preachers and camp meetings. Some of the more extreme meetings were known for bizarre groans and screams, falling or being slain in the Spirit, jerking, barking, running, jumping and falling into trances. Still, despite the excesses of some of the more fringe groups, the growth among mainline denominations was not deterred. Charles Finney, focusing strongly on the new American spirit of individualism, helped to push conversion growth. Moreover, new denominations like the Cumberland Presbyterians, the Christians and the Disciples of Christ, were born as well as new sects like the Mormons.

Congregationalism became the widely accepted mode of Protestant church polity. Regardless of how secular revisionists want to rewrite history, bands from schools like Yale Divinity School and Illinois College went out as missionaries, and churches began to become all the more interested in missions. Even entire Baptist associations began to take responsibility for missions, and this associational work led to a greater sense of cooperation. Sunday schools were seen as a means of empowering future missionaries, and denominational colleges were formed to expand that base of training.

            Latourette also highlights the impact of immigration. Between 1820 and 1860, about five million immigrants patriated the United States. Mostly from western and northern Europe, the great majority of those who came from the Old World were not members of any church. Therefore, Protestants and Catholics seized upon this opportunity.     

            The Roman Catholic Church expanded school systems to reach these new settlers. Their efforts were organized through an episcopate and supervised by Rome. Protestants, however, focused their efforts specifically through the Germans and the Swedes to increase Lutheranism in the north. The Russian Orthodox Church made an effort to evangelize Alaska, but it withdrew its missionaries when the local government there was sold to the United States.

            Latourette highlights several of the problems associated with evangelizing immigrants. They were initially reluctant to abandon their Old World loyalties, even in terms of religion. There were more Protestant adherents gained than Roman Catholics, largely due to the zealous Protestant preaching to the uneducated, the unsophisticated and lower classes of society. Most Baptist growth was from Scandinavians. Across the board, there was an insignificant effort to reach Jewish immigrants. All in all though, the church was center of immigrant social life, so the growth that occurred was a natural effect of seeking out social stability in a strange new world.  

            Reaching the American Indians proved to be a unique challenge fraught with political implications. Latourette mentions that the Indian population was small and scattered. They were won more as individuals or families instead of being converted as entire tribes. Although the Russian Orthodox Church tried to begin a tribal work among Alaskan natives, they abandoned their attempt because they said the US government would not allow them to “make Russians of their pupils” (312). Russification trumped mission as the Russian Orthodox Church became more nationalistic.

            Latourette explains how the negro slaves in America discarded their tribal solidarity and communal customs. With the large numerical increase in the African-American population in America during this century, this created a great evangelistic opportunity for the Christian church.  After the emancipation proclamation, Methodists and Baptists accepted more negro members. Moreover, the black community became very active in starting their own organizations and exclusive denominations.  

Several socio-political movements were fostered against this backdrop. Many non-Christians led in an antislavery movement. The abolitionists became very violent, and a rift between north and south widened. The Southern Baptist Convention was formed specifically over the issue of slavery within the context of missions. Yet black protestant Christianity grew. More black clergy, particularly Baptist, gained prominence. Hampton Normal and Agricultural Institute was founded as a first day school for freedmen, and schools like Howard University gained recognition in black history.

Latourette gives special attention to the change in US demographics. The Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodoxy both concentrated heavily on urban populations in America. Therefore, the cities in America became largely more Catholic than Protestant. Protestants concentrated on rural at first, but interestingly their revivals were centered on cities. Because of the decline of bible teaching in homes, Sunday Schools were founded to fill in that gap and empower a new generation to enter into foreign missions with a strong bible foundation.

            Latourette cites the growing trend in environmental responsibility and efforts to create global awareness. Predominantly led by Protestantism, the Christian movement directly impacted secular thought. Among the greatest influences Latourette sees the church had upon society was the idealism of a Christian nation; the courage and initiative to dream; personal imagination, individualism and social activism; social reform; celebration of diversity; moderation in conduct and attitudes; a prominent role of clergy in society; moral order; governmental reform movements; the peace movement; anti-secret societies; women’s equality; better care for insane; prison reform; and labor reform.        

However, the environment also had an impact on Christianity. Latourette identifies several religious ideologies that developed as a direct result of the spirit of the day. Most notably, the idea of the separation of church and state, religious toleration, volunteerism, democracy, lay involvement, activism, revivalism, humanism, evolution, cooperation, new denominations, immigrant community life and less speculative theologies were among those that he sees as being directly influenced by outer stimuli.

            In my next post, I'll highlight some missiological implications of Latourette's documented history.

Interesting Read- Latourette- Europe Part 1

The Great Century in Europe and the United States: A.D. 1800 – A.D. 1914 by Kenneth Scott Latourette is volume 4 of  The History of the Expansion of Christianity and deals with Christian history up to the end of World War II. It is a worthy read, so I'll only briefly highlight some of the content in these posts. Although the other volumes cover Christianity’s expansion in Europe, his fourth volume entails the expansion of Christianity during "the Great Century in Europe and the United States of America," as the subtitle suggests. Optimistically, he begins his survey of nineteenth century Christianity as a “burst of religious life” (4). Due to western European’s “denial and rejection of Christianity” (6), this burst was primarily in Protestantism. However, Latourette’s examination of the great century also incorporates the Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodoxy.

            Latourette establishes the inquiry for his fourth volume by asking qualitative questions. He seeks to identify “what was the Christianity that was spread” and why it spread. He is interested in discovering the process by which it spread and why it failed in some places. He is also interested in establishing some key indicators that show the effect Christianity had on the secular atmosphere as well as what effect that environment had on Christianity’s development. Latourettes questions provide a good framework for studying church growth and trends in Christianity still today.

            He immediately lays the secular backdrop against which Christian expansion is highlighted. During the nineteenth century, there was an explosive growth of man’s knowledge about the physical universe. Mankind began to master his environment and took broad steps to eliminate poverty. With an increased trust in the scientific method and an emphasis on objectivity and the individual, Latourette believes there was a dulling effect on the Christian faith. The entire structure of man’s life changed as did the ideology of society as a whole. The intellectual emphasis of rationalism seemed to hurt Christianity, while Latourette believes romanticism had helped. Moreover, world peace helped missions efforts as did a greater sense of optimism that the world could actually be reached for Christ. As western & northern people groups expanded in Europe, there was a transformation of non-European cultures. Consequently, there developed a world culture with English serving as the major global language.

            These socio-economic and political/idealogical elements either worked for or against Christianity’s evangelistic thrust, but without judging them Latourette sees them as role players in the larger scene. He identifies new movements which expanded Christianity. These movements had the cumulative effect of helping nineteenth century Protestantism to become “more purely religious than ever before” (330).

            Amidst an underlying religious skepticism of the day, several new revivals or organizations were formed in the west. The Salvation Army began its work at this time. The YMCA was formed. Sunday School became a staple of church education. The individualist spirit of the west filtered through the western church and several new denominations were formed as a result. Disciples of Christ, Free Baptists, Mormons and Christian Science were among those who enjoyed this newfound religious expression, as did the Pietists and Wesleyans.

In the same way, the western church began to deal with a growing criticism from European Christian thinkers. In Germany a critical historical study of the Bible gained popularity as men like Schleiermacher and Hegel made their mark on society. And although there was a revival in the Russian Orthodox Church, the overwhelming growth in the nineteenth century in Europe was still within Protestantism and the Roman Catholic Church.

            Latourette identifies several methods of expansion. Because there was an “absence of action assistance by governments” (47), churches began to take a greater responsibility for missions. Average lay Christians saw their involvement in missions as extremely important. Women began to see their own role expand in missions. Because missionaries raised a high standard for church membership, salvation was celebrated as the result of an individual personal decision.

Specifically within the Roman Catholic Church, missionary work expanded. Franciscan Missionaries of Mary, for example, rose in the ranks of those Catholics who actively involved themselves in mission. The Society for the Propagation of the Faith and the Association of the Holy Childhood became leaders in collecting funds for Catholic missions. This led to mission stations, a prefecture apostolic, a vicariate apostolic and revamped diocese structures specifically geared toward missions. There was an unprecedented support of Roman Catholic missions.

Protestant missions took on a whole new dimension as well. The Baptist Missionary Society and individual mission leaders like William Carey, David Brainerd and Zinzendorf led in the pursuit of active missions engagement. The Religious Tract Society and the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts also created new opportunities for Protestant missions. This increase in missions emphasis led to Evangelicalism as a movement where conversion of the individual, greater education of church members and healing the sick was stressed. American missionaries sought to transform society as a whole and not just convert individuals. Missionaries like Samuel Mills, Adoniram Judson and Luther Rice became heroes of the faith.

As Protestantism spread other missions organizations were founded. As mission societies multiplied, the United States emerged as a leader in protestant missions. College students and women developed their own missions organizations. Laymen like D.L. Moody raised the bar in average church members’ engaging the lost. There was an exponential rise in nondenominational societies, and universities themselves sent out missionary bands. As a result, more Christian colleges were formed, and a greater cooperation in Protestant missions efforts was forged.

In the Russian Orthodox Church, there was also an increase in missions emphasis with the main difference being the financial support of the state. The Orthodox Missionary Society began to raise additional funds for missions which led to new churches in Siberia. With the combined efforts of the Russian Orthodox Church, “the total of all the organizations, local, regional, and national, must have mounted into the thousands” (94).

In chapter five Latourette turns his attention to the people groups being reached. Protestants began to actively target Jews, the most prominent organization being the London Society for Promoting Christianity amongst the Jews. Britain accounted for ore than half of all Protestant organizations in Europe that were actively engaging Jews, and the largest number of Jewish conversions to Protestant Christianity was in the British Isles. Germany held second place, and together these two countries accounted for three out of every four Jewish baptisms for the years between 1815 and 1914. Latourette points out that nineteenth century Christianity saw the largest number of Jews converted since first century. Most Jews of the world lived in European Russia where they experienced what Latourette calls “conversion by coercion” (117). Unfortunately in Southern Europe, little headway was made to advance the gospel to Jews.

Russia had its own rich Protestant history. While German Mennonites went to southern Russia to advance the gospel among Russian peasants, Lord Radstock began to reach the upper class who consequently reached the common people of northern Russia. Shtundists and others who emphasized ecstatic manifestations of the Spirit marked a Protestant awakening in Russia. Nonetheless, “scores of zealous missionaries laboured, and yet, except in few rare cases where they took advantage of non-religious factors and in Russia, where the state gave determined support to Orthodox missions, only a relatively few thousands of converts were made" (143). Mark Edworthy, in his book The Wall that Remains: A Fascinating Account of God's Faithfulness, gives another good backdrop to the Eastern European and Russian protestant movement.

In other places in Europe, missionary evangelists like Florence Nightingale and George Mueller who emphasized the humanitarian aspect of the gospel also made headway. Consequently, social involvement of missionaries led to reform movements and the temperance movement. This in turn moved toward total abstinence in places where alcoholism was rampant.

Latourette also discusses the cultural impact of these reforms and their opponents. With the concept of revolution, Karl Marx made his mark on the world. There was a progressive Liberalism growing. Interestingly, Latourette identifies modern democracy as a direct result of Protestant Christianity. Nineteenth century culture was impacted greatly by a strong Christian influence on nationalism, architecture, art and sculpture. Writers like Tennyson, Browning, Dostoevski and Dickens included elements of Christian influence in their own writings.

I'll continue in the next post with Latourette's some specifics about the Russian Christian movement during this century.

THE GREAT CENTURY IN EUROPE AND AMERICA- A REVIEW

It always fascinates me when people are creative in their blending disciplines, like missions and science or missions and business. Kenneth Scott Latourette was a pioneer in integrating the fields of missiology and history to deliver a global history from a Christian perspective.[1] He studied science in Oregon and history at Yale University. These two fields became a passion for him that he shared with his missions and history students at Yale from 1921 to 1957. He also held a professorship at Reed College and Dennison University. Before he became a professor, he served briefly as a missionary in China through an initiative out of Yale University. He was also an ordained Baptist preacher.

            Latourette was a true missions historian. He is most remembered for his multi-volume works, including A History of the Expansion of Christianity, Christianity in a Revolutionary Age, and A History of Christianity. Andrew Walls calls these works “the most comprehensive attempt to cover Christian history in all parts of the world and in all its traditions.”[2]

            For my next few posts, I will review Latourette's volume on Europe and America that he uniquely identified as great. I wonder how many others are out there that are using a variety of tools from the toolbox in the workshop known as missions.

---

[1] Most of this biographical information about Kenneth Scott Latourette has been adapted from  information provided by Andrew Walls in his article, “Modern Pioneers: Kenneth Scott Latourette,” Christian History 20. (November 2001): 44–45.

[2] Andrew F. Walls, “Modern Pioneers: Kenneth Scott Latourette,” 44. 

Review of CAMEL Method of Evangelizing Muslims

I was asked again just the other day about the CAMEL method for evangelizing Muslims. I tried to explain that the CAMEL method is a bridge, but just like any man-made bridge, it has some spots that might need repair. A bridge is useful to cross a barrier, but traffic flows both ways. The materials used to build that bridge will either stand the test of time or they will succumb to the elements. Therefore, it would behoove any bridge builder to give great care in how he builds such an instrument.

Kevin Greeson describes the bridge that the International Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention has tailored for work among Muslims in his book, The Camel – How Muslims are Coming to Faith in Christ. In this work, Greeson argues for the use of an old Muslim proverb and one particular Quranic text, Al-Imran 3:42–55. According to the book, there is much frequency in God granting supernatural and revelatory dreams about himself, but Greeson claims that God is using this conversational method more than any other means for bringing Muslims to Christ. This method opens the door for controversy as to how much credence a Christian can give an extra-biblical text, especially that of another world religion, to be utilized for evangelism. Questions of both Christology and biblical authority can be raised.

The CAMEL Method

Greeson claims that the CAMEL method is a mnemonic device for remembering the words chosen, announced, miracles, and eternal life when exegeting Al-Imran 3:42-55. It would be similar to using the Southern Baptist acronym for FAITH (forgiveness, available, impossible, turn, and heaven) in evangelism. In this passage from the Quran, Greeson claims that it is possible to find a message about Jesus Christ. Almost tongue in cheek, he also employs an old Islamic proverb about only a camel knowing the last of the hundred names of God. He insists that the Quranic passage speaks about Jesus (Isa) as holy, as born of a virgin, as victorious over death, and as having knowledge of the way to heaven. The book places a great deal of stock in the conversion results that have occurred from using this method. Greeson’s thesis is that this method which he learned from a Muslim-background believer (MBB) is best program for finding a man of peace among Muslims (p. 13). He insists that “reaching Muslims for Christ is not the ultimate goal” in this method (p. ii). Instead, the method is to be a useful tool for finding the man of peace.

            In his book, Greeson cites Paul’s message at the Areopagus as biblical proof that Christians should use non-Christian cultural texts in building a bridge for establishing communication that can turn toward evangelism. He claims that Paul quoted Greek poets as sources for what immediately communicated the gospel message and later became biblical text itself. He sees this biblical precedent as no different from a modern missionary or MBB using the Quran for expressing truths about Jesus Christ.

            Greeson claims that the CAMEL method is a mere bridge for sharing the gospel. He then takes great great pains in the opening chapter to reiterate that it is only a bridge and should not be a parking lot. Throughout the book he reveals that method itself is potentially dangerous if not abandoned early enough in the evangelistic conversation.

Observations and Criticisms

Although the book has some strong points about engaging Muslims with their own cultural texts and perhaps even disarming the traditional animosity by citing their holy scriptures, Greeson’s book reveal some areas for potential criticism. Greeson claims that the Quranic texts reveal truth about Jesus Christ that can be cited for a gospel presentation, but the question immediately arises as to what kind of Christology can be formulated from the texts of a non-Christian religion. This in turn raises questions as to the authority that can be granted to non-Christian texts as well as the possibility of syncretism.  Yet another question is the semantic nature of Christian terms.

Greeson admits openly that a Christian theology cannot be formed from a Quranic understanding of God. However, he toys with this premise by saying that these Quranic verses can be used to communicate truth about Jesus Christ. The very verses that are employed in the CAMEL method may communicate that the Islamic Isa is holy also may communicate that he is “one of those who are near to Allah” (vs. 45), thus contradicting the uniqueness of Jesus Christ. They also communicate that Isa was a man who was created (vs. 47) as opposed to being God himself. These verses, by implication, formulate a Christology that denies the divinity of Christ.    

            The dialogue used to converse with a man of peace might not be easily abandoned. The use of Quranic verses for finding a person of peace among Muslims might be akin to using the lyrics of Black Sabbath or AC/DC for finding a person of peace among head bangers. At some point the person of peace must come to understand that the very words used to attract him to an evangelistic conversation are in reality anti-Christian and therefore must be denied for his conversion. And yet the question remains as to whether the verses or lyrics used ever held any authority at all.

            Greeson seems to imply that the Quran, albeit having no authority for salvation, still is a source for salvific truth. When Greeson poses the question, “May I show what I have found about peace and salvation in the Koran?” (p. 48) he is in essence still granting some semblance of authority for finding God and salvation through that Islamic text. In yet another place, Greeson tells a story which posits that the Quran’s translation “into all the languages of the world” provides the means for which we can “know what God wants us to do and believe.” Although he quantifies his statement with a clarification as to truly understanding God through further means, his implication is that the Quran is still useful for being introduced to Jesus Christ. The question arises as to conversion through this conversation, namely at what point a convert, if ever, renounces his former religion.

            This problem is exacerbated by his instruction to “make some vocabulary changes” (p. 58). The word for God should be replaced with Allah, the generic name for a higher deity in the Muslim world. Jesus should be identified as the Isa of the Quran, and thus followers of Jesus would be called Isahi instead of the historical term Christian. In fact, Greeson admits that the term Christian carries a very negative and immoral connotation. The word church becomes jamat, and instead of having identification with the Christian churches of the western world, they are seen as specialized branches of Islam giving preference to following Isa. 

Missiological Considerations

These aforementioned observations carry some huge missiological implications. The question of biblical authority must be addressed at some point. Questions about Christiology and soteriology also must be clarified. Moreover, the issue of Christian identification is at stake.

Whatever tool employed to reach the lost becomes, by necessity, an instrument for ongoing discipleship. This has been seen historically in the western church as more and more elements of non-Christian culture have become staple forms for worship and entertainment among modern Christians. Extra-biblical texts and songs become forms of communication by which gospel truth as well as personal discipleship is passed on. Thus, any texts, lyrics, or speeches from extra-biblical sources are open media for communicating God’s truth, but they must be judged as to their ongoing value for growth in Christ.  

Is it possible to exegete the Book of Shadows from the Satanic Bible or other non-Christian texts to witness to a Satanist? The question is the basis for general verses special revelation. Are there other ways outside of the Christian Scriptures useful to make a person wise unto salvation? Are dreams, visions, and other non-biblical sources truly valuable for missiological purposes? Greeson seems to believe they are.

Albeit attractive, these same sources can produce a faulty Christology and a heretical soteriology. Greeson seems to indicate that these Isahi have truly left Islam and have identified themselves with Christ alone. It could be argued though that building a Christology on such extra-biblical parameters has in reality created a new sect, one that arguably is more syncretistic than biblical. The missiological test of any church planting is the openness to not only identifying with Christ himself but also the universal Christian church. Anything less would be unhealthy.

Greeson places a great emphasis on this bridge, perhaps too great an emphasis. He is to be commended in identifying this method as a possible means for which to initially relate to persons of peace. His book has value as it opens a dialogue for further discussion about the ways for communicating the gospel to Muslims. Missiologically, it is a pioneering work in that it opens the door for dialogue about the means for gospel communication using cultural texts in an unprecedented way.

            Unfortunately, there are theological grounds for rejecting the CAMEL method that Greeson fails to answer in his text. He also does not completely address the reaction of Muslims to his prooftexting of their sacred writings. It would be interesting to read a Muslim’s reaction to Greeson’s book. If Greeson’s purpose is to be simply descriptive of a possible method for reaching some Muslims through a nonbiblical text, the book has missiological warrant. However, it seems that he wrote the book to describe the method as normative and prescriptive, as a valid method to be indiscriminately employed. If this is the case, then at best the book is reckless.

Critical Evaluation of Morgan & Peterson

On Monday, I gave a brief summary of Morgan & Peterson's Faith Comes by Hearing. Here is a little more critical evaluation of the work. Keep in mind that I like the book, but I'm writing this from what I hope is an unbiased perspective.

            The book is definitely one-sided, and the nine biblical scholars who contribute their essays believe this is rightly so. Probably best understood as an introduction to exclusivism, it presents the case of exclusivism as the superior and more biblical position. More of a theological survey than an apology, it never attempts to defend its position apart from scriptural claims. Although weighted in favor of exclusivism, the authors give fair treatment to the inclusivist position and do a thorough job in surveying the overall dialogue between the two camps. Beyond the superficial layer of cultural dialogue in the debate, though, Morgan and Peterson expose the deeper issues of revelational sufficiency, God’s sovereignty and categorical inadequacy.

Sufficient Revelation

The editors highly acclaim Daniel Strange as one who has best answered the question of revelational sufficiency. Strange exegetes Psalm 19 and three chapters of Romans to clearly show how general revelation gives enough knowledge about God to condemn mankind, but he shows that only the special revelation of Jesus Christ is sufficient to provide salvation. As such, Strange’s essay becomes the heart of the argument for all of the other essays.

            Strange cites both the inclusivist and exclusivist arguments as presented in the four key Scripture texts in the debate over revelational sufficiency. When he attempts to identify six distinguishing points in the debate, however, he hones the dialogue into a manageable conversation. Strange distinguishes God from his nature and his work. He places a primacy on external objective revelation, and he marks a distinction between prelapsarian and postlapsarian special revelation. He also defines pneumatological operations as different for regeneration and general work. These distinctions are very helpful in drawing the debate into a more focused look at what the Bible actually says.   

  

Holy Pagans

Walter Kaiser argues that Old Testament saints may not have had the fuller picture of Jesus’ advent, but they did respond to special revelation from God. As such, he insists that these as well as any believing Gentiles were saved through the same response of faith to special revelation. He bases his exegesis on texts as early as Genesis 3:15; therefore, he rejects the concept of holy pagans who were saved by another kind of non-Christological revelation.

            At the very heart of the issue is the question of salvation under Jewish law. Neither Kaiser nor any of the other writers identify Scofield or traditional dispensationalism as evidence for their argument against inclusivism. Instead, they tend to uphold that there is no difference between saints before or after Christ. Interestingly, they also do not contend with any eschatological perspective on salvations during the tribulation. Perhaps this is an oversight, or perhaps the writers do not see its place in the current debate. For a more robust response to inclusivism, however, it would behoove the authors to include these perspectives as well.

God’s Fairness and Sovereignty

William Edgar’s argument is one of the basic sovereignty and independent justice of God. He blatantly states that if God decided to save no one, he would still be completely just. Since God is not obligated to save anyone, any salvation only goes to show his absolute grace. However, Edgar’s argument raises the ethical issue of studying God’s behavior.

            The larger question becomes whether humans have the right to judge God’s behavior. It also poses the question as to the means by which to judge God. Edgar argues for a biblical standard, thus placing any judgment outside of human hands. Inclusivist arguments, however, give merit to extrabiblical sources. Apart from Scriptural reference, to say that God would not be fair if he acted a certain way is to place the sovereignty of God under the judgment of men. This is something that Edgar cannot uphold. Therefore, exclusivism’s claims are grounded in Scripture alone.

 

Inadequate Categories

In the first chapter of the book, Morgan describes the three traditional approaches to understanding the relationship between the gospel and the lost. But he readily confesses that these three approaches are not enough to adequately describe the wide range of nuances among popular camps. As such, he offers nine positions in a spectrum of potential responses.

            Although Morgan’s contribution is a praiseworthy addition, it may still be inadequate. Sanders, Erickson and Tiessen also offer varying classifications. Morgan’s spectrum ranges from pluralism at the one end to church exclusivism at the other. However, there may yet be another more defined response, more narrow even than church exclusivism which defines salvation only within the universal church. There are some independent churches who see their particular church as potentially the only faithful body and therefore the only saved ones. Although Morgan briefly hints at ecclesiocentric exclusivism existing among some Roman Catholics, there are arguably even more narrow responses than the nine he presents.

Western Culture

The book exposes the Western cultural milieu in which the current debate exists. In a society where intellectualism has traditionally been the hallmark for scholarly dialogue, this particular debate has ironically been subjected more to emotional responses. Interestingly, Morgan devotes his opening comments to the feelings that “sometimes run deep in the debate” (17). Moreover, his spectrum of potential responses could be argued to provide a more tolerant or at least benevolent attitude to the current diversity.

Why cultural response plays a role at all in the book’s apologia is unknown, especially considering the final verdict is that men must not judge God’s decisions. Yet the authors insist throughout the book that our cultural feelings are important. They are somehow challenged by interpretations that require “us to broaden our hermeneutic of Western individualism and to understand that God deals not just with humanity as individuals, but as families, peoples, nations and cultures” (72). On the one hand, the authors make clear statements in support of exclusivism, but on the other they seem hesitant to apply the exclusivist perspective to infants who die or to the mentally challenged. It is this hesitancy that unfortunately weakens the overall biblical argument.

Summary of Morgan & Peterson's Faith Comes by Hearing

So what does it take to get saved? What about those who have never heard the gospel? What does the Bible have to say about these things?

            Christopher Morgan, Mid-America graduate and associate dean of the School of Christian Ministries at California Baptist University, and Robert Peterson, Drew University grad and professor of systematic theology at Covenant Theological Seminary, compile a variety of essays that make up a conservative evangelical response in the debate between exclusivists and inclusivists in Faith Comes By Hearing: A Response to Inclusivism (Downers Grove, Ill., InterVarsity Press, 2008). Not so much a dialogue as a rebuttal, the book seeks to be more of an answer to the inclusivist position. The largest questions at play are the fate of the unevangelized and the potentiality of salvific grace within general revelation.

The book exhibits three natural divisions. The first section is introductory with a chapter on the categories and terminology involved in the debate and then a chapter defining the inherent weaknesses of those rigid categories. In this latter chapter, Morgan cites Sanders, Erickson, Strange and Tiessen as opponents of the classic threefold classification. To highlight what most theologians would say are nuances, Morgan presents an alternative spectrum of nine potential responses.

As a continuation of this line of questioning, Morgan and Peterson employ five traditional Reformed evangelical essayists to answer specific issues related to inclusivism. In chapter three Daniel Strange answers the question as to the salvific value of general revelation. He presents three overarching responses to general revelation–namely, totally sufficient, sufficient but not salvific and finally insufficient. For the total sufficiency position, he cites Pinnock and Sanders as the supporters of synergistic inclusivism and Morgan and Tiessen as proponents of monergistic accessibilism. For the non-salvific suffiency position, he interacts heavily with Clark and Tiessen to show that general revelation simply “does not contain the truth content necessary for saving faith" (68-69). He then closes the insufficiency argument with an appeal to reject the inadequacy of revelational categories while yet being positive about the gospel.

In chapter four William Edgar seeks to answer the question of God’s fairness by briefly delving into the nature, origin and conquest of evil. After asserting God’s sovereignty, Edgar underlines the value of the gospel and the uniqueness of Christ’s sacrificial death. He identifies the condemnation of the lost with their refusal of God as opposed to any refusal of the gospel. However, he makes exceptions for believers before Christ and with the mentally handicapped.

Eckhard Schnabel highlights Paul’s theological exclusivity in chapter five. Looking at Paul’s own interaction with the Isis cult, with the religious debate on Mars Hill in Athens and with Jewish pride, Schnabel draws comparisons that relate to the current debate. According to Schnabel, Paul was critical, condemning and confrontational with other religious views. Instead of an accommodating religionist, Paul is painted as a missionary with exclusivist Christology.

Because inclusivists have argued for non-Christian believers who were seemingly saved by a different kind of faith, Walter Kaiser demands a more correct exegesis of Genesis 15:6. In his essay in chapter six, he claims that the focus of faith must be Jesus and that merely fearing God cannot result in salvation. Kaiser takes each of the biblical personalities cited by inclusivism and redirects the argument by focusing on the object of his or her faith.

Stephen Wellum handles the fifth question in chapter seven. To deal with the issue of implicit faith, Wellum revisits Pinnock’s synergistic inclusivism and Tiessen’s monergistic accessibilism. Wellum exposes Pinnock’s pneumacentrism as the source of his error, as it places the Holy Spirit above the work of Christ. He then interprets Tiessen’s theology as one based upon hypothetical situations. Wellum concludes his critique with an admonition to avoid such extra-biblical speculation.

The book then takes a turn from these essayists answering specific questions to more broad implications of exclusivism based on exegetical study. In chapter eight Peterson takes eight specific Scripture texts and presents both the inclusivist and exclusivist hermeneutic in each one. Interestingly, Peterson concludes that the inclusivists reckless handling of Scripture makes it impossible to refute theologically and fruitless to engage with dialogue.

Andreas Kostenberger argues in chapter nine that the gospel is most central to the Bible’s message and thus necessary for salvation. In doing so, he places a primacy upon biblical theology and the urgency of Christian missions. In his concluding thoughts related to inclusivism, he highlights the salvific nature of the gospel, the Christocentricity of the gospel and the missions mandate of the church.

Nelson Jennings outlines a similar argument in chapter ten, but he bases his tenets upon God’s own passion for mankind. He states that God’s zeal to reach lost men is much greater than man’s need to believe. He interacts somewhat with Tiessen’s monergistic accessibilism, but he concludes that real faith in God can only come through the exclusivity of the gospel.

Almost as an addendum, Morgan and Peterson attach chapter eleven to re-answer questions related to the fate of the unevangelized. They cast blame upon the faulty assumption that condemnation is based on interaction with God through general revelation. They do respond to the question of infants who die and the mentally challenged. They also speak to the issue of other world religions and the purposes of general revelation. However, in the end they reaffirm saving faith as being only actualized as a response to the message of the gospel.

Regardless of your theological palate, I highly recommend this book as a primer on the conservative evangelical stance in the exclusivism/inclusivism debate. I make no apologies for being an exclusivist personally, in that I believe no one can ever be saved apart from personal faith in Jesus Christ. But later this week, I'll do a critical evaluation of the book. Suffice it to say, though, this book should be a staple in any library of a serious student of theology.

Compare/Contrast Garrison & Sinclair

Due to my travel schedule, this post is a little later than I planned. But here is a comparison between two great missiological minds- David Garrison and Dan Sinclair.  Garrison and Sinclair agree on the basics of church planting as the primary vehicle for effective evangelization. Although they disagree on minor points, they both adhere to the primacy of the Word of God and the powerful impact of correct biblical teaching. As such, their differences are more in line with strengths and weaknesses in their respective approaches rather than polarized stances. For example, they both agree on a timely exit for any foreign catalytic influence, but they disagree with how much foreign support is necessary to initiate and maintain a grass-roots movement. However, these small dissimilarities only work to enhance their purpose in writing a book. The very fact that Sinclair disagrees with Garrison’s admonition of unpaid workers shows that Garrison’s didactic approach does not work. Garrison begins by presenting raw data, and then he moves to showing the frequency of certain data. If his data are considered one of his strengths, then Garrison’s argument is lost somehow on the incidental advocate of national support.

            Indeed, Garrison moves quickly from a descriptive list of observations to a prescriptive set of strategies. In contrast to Sinclair, Garrison’s prescriptive strategies somehow fall short of detail and practical tactics. Garrison does attempt to use Scripture at times to defend his conclusions, but he seems to depend more on his current data to support CPM theory. Moreover, the sheer volume of statistical data mixed with the lists of do’s and don’ts might make a potential church planter wary of making mistakes in starting the wrong kind of church.

            Garrison places a strong emphasis on the strategy coordinator as the prime mover in initiating a church planting movement, but Sinclair’s text speaks directly to church planters and missionaries. It is an admonition to join a team and begin the work. It seems to carry a hint of encouragement and possibility in missions. A great strength of the book, the practical details of how to construct certain documents to avoid mistakes and direct vision give the reader hope. Sinclair gives practical advice for missionaries throughout the work, both on macro levels such as directing movement through phases to micro levels of preparation in language and cultural acquisition.

            Sinclair uses Scripture as a rationale for his argument. This is not totally lacking in Garrison’s text, but Sinclair does not promote any extra-biblical support for his teaching. Instead, he defends his choice of biblical texts with personal examples of how it has or has not worked for his teams. Therefore, Sinclair’s text seems more personal, more like a testimonial statement than a persuasive speech. When Sinclair defines apostleship and church, his personal investment can be sensed. Sinclair deals with more practical issues like ecclesiology from a biblical perspective. Consequently, when he incorporates supplemental material like Scoggins’ phases for church planting, they are seen more as a communication model than a prescriptive plan.

            Sinclair does have his limitations as well, some of which may be self-imposed. He quite often presents illustrations from and admonitions to workers in Muslim contexts. Perhaps this is because of his own experience in those areas, but his singularity in attention to that milieu could isolate any reader not involved in missions work in those areas. He addresses this at points throughout the book, but this criticism is nonetheless justified.

            As mentioned earlier, his approach could be considered linear. He attempts to address this when he admits that work in Scoggins’ church planting phases often goes on simultaneously on several levels (p. 60). However, the very fact that even his book is structured in a linear fashion speaks to his preferences. Garrison would argue more for a nonlinear multi-tasking as an effective mode of initiating CPM.

            Sinclair also disagrees with Garrison’s conclusions regarding the desirable level of outside support for national workers. Whereas Garrison would advocate a nonpaid approach as the basis for rapid reproduction, Sinclair believes that being an unpaid worker “often means unable to be much involved in concerted expansion work” (p. 207). He explains that the economy of most Muslim countries lead to polar extremes of unemployment or overwork. In either case, this is not conducive to the expectation that a lay worker be bivocational. At any rate, Sinclair argues with Garrison only “reluctantly” (p. 210), because he does not see this issue as being the central point to CPM theory.

            Sinclair does call CPM theory into the negative spotlight for its insistence that churches are the catalysts for starting other churches. On the contrary, Sinclair admits that “key individual disciples are uniquely called, gifted, and effective in starting new fellowships” (p. 207). This is yet another example of how Garrisons text speaks to churches whereas Sinclair expects individual church planters for his audience.

            Sinclair also broaches some subjects that Garrison does not. For example, the issue of multiplicity of church elders does not appear in detail at all in Garrison’s text, but Sinclair spends an entire chapter discussing the biblical basis for this approach and the best way for the foreign church planter to choose and ordain elders. Garrison briefly highlights house or cell church models as normative in CPMs, but he cites examples of traditional church models for North American growth. On the contrary, Sinclair shows no clear preference for any particular model as more biblical than the rest. He does seem to express a level of comfort with the house church model based on his personal past experience, but he makes a clear statement that no one model is more spiritual than the others.

            Interestingly, both Garrison and Sinclair place specific assignments at the end of their texts. Garrison designed a checklist for churches to discover where their approach does not line up with his CPM theory and a plan for realignment. In the last of his appendices, Sinclair lists the top ten pitfalls teams make when planting churches. Both of these lists are subjective, of course. However, the unique thing about Garrison’s list is the corporate nature of realigning vision with practice. Sinclair’s list is more about realigned practice with mission. So perhaps the overarching theme is the role of the church and individual member in missions. Sinclair’s text should inform Garrison’s by its insistence that church planting is done by individuals, not just by churches.