Guest post: Devon Swanson reviews The Local Church: God's Plan for Planet Earth (by Jim Gent)

 As I (Paul Himes) continue to cheer for my beloved Texas Rangers in the MLB post-season, I am posting here a book review by my former research assistant Devon Swanson. The book is The Local Church: God's Plan for Planet Earth by Jim Gent of Garden State Baptist Church (North Fort Myers, FL: Faithful Life, 2012). We had received a free copy of this book a few years ago, and I figured it would be a good exercise for my research assistant to craft a book review. The following is Devon's work, with some editorial adjustments by me.

Devon Swanson’s review of THE LOCAL CHURCH: GOD’S PLAN FOR PLANET EARTH, by Jim Gent.

Published in 2012 by Faithful Life Publishers|112 pages

Introduction

Jim Gent is currently the senior pastor at Garden State Baptist Church in Old Bridge, NJ. He has a long history of both planting and developing churches, and his writings adequately reflect his experience. Besides The Local Church: God’s Plan for Planet Earth, Gent has also written another book entitled The Pilgrim and the Lamb. Even at a glance, these books radiate the author’s conviction and sincerity in dealing with key issues he considers important. In the case of The Local Church, Gent addresses the role of the church in completing God’s program in the world. As a pastor, he is a fitting spokesman for this topic. Gent describes the goal of his book as follows: “To assist believers in getting a Biblical view of the church by stepping aside and letting the Bible speak” (pg. vii).

Before the start of Chapter 1, Gent shares a helpful disclaimer in his opening introduction. He begins by describing himself as a “busy pastor” who makes no claims for “literary excellence.” Additionally, he assures the reader that his book is not “a complex theological treatise” nor is it “exhaustive” in its material (pg. vii). As it seems, Gent tries to distance himself as much as possible from being perceived as a scholar or any kind of leading authority on the local church. This honest introduction will prove to be invaluable as the remainder of the book is reviewed.

As far as the audience for The Local Church, Gent is very clear regarding whom he intends to reach. This is especially evident as he lists his various intentions for the book: to “help new converts get headed in the right direction, stimulate believers to realize the primacy of the church, foster Biblical thinking among Christian High School and Bible College students..., and incite Bible-teaching and Bible-preaching about ‘the pillar and ground of the truth’” (pg. vii). Gent does well here in identifying the scope of his book as being primarily a guide and not an academic resource. While his experience as a pastor gives him ample qualification to exegete and exhort, his distance from academia as a whole impedes his work from becoming a standard textbook on the subject of ecclesiology. The message that Gent’s book presents becomes much more powerful as it is studied in its proper context.

Content

The Local Church is 112 pages long with 16 chapters divided into 3 parts. Chapters 1–11 form Part I, which is entitled “Characteristics.” This section aims to describe what a biblical, local church should look like. Chapters in this section have titles such as “New Testament Church Members Were Saved” (ch. 1), “New Testament Church Members Had Spiritual Pastors and Supportive Deacons” (ch. 8), and “New Testament Church Members Were Persecuted” (ch. 11). Chapters 12–13 make up Part II, which is entitled “Importance.” This section addresses the significance of the church in God’s program. The names of the 2 chapters are “The Primacy of the Local Church” (ch. 12) and “The Local Church: God’s Only Program for Planet Earth” (ch. 13). Part III includes Chapters 14–16 and is entitled “Obligations.” These pages deal with a few of the church’s responsibilities that belong to each of its members. The titles of these 3 chapters are “New Testament Church Members Were Identified” (ch. 14), “New Testament Church Members Were Faithful” (ch. 15), and “New Testament Church Members Were Generous” (ch. 16). Gent addresses a vast array of themes in an already broad topic. As a result, his time spent on each one is considerably brief. Though some deeper thoughts exist throughout the study, The Local Church is predominantly a basic overview of the role of the church as seen in the Bible.

Evaluation

If the entirety of this review dealt only with whether or not the author fulfilled his book’s purpose, the answer would be a simple “yes.” As intended, Gent created a work that gives believers focused insight on the biblical teachings surrounding the church. It strongly points to the primacy of the church and is inspirational to both students and preachers alike. Even unbelievers can benefit from this book by reading the Gospel message found in the first chapter and learning how salvation is a requirement for church membership. Gent effectively achieves the desired goals of his book by biblically presenting the church in an inspiring light to both new and seasoned believers.

That being said, The Local Church is not without its share of mistakes. Although Gent’s disclaimer in the book’s introduction both forewarned and pardoned many of his technical oversights, a deeper inspection reveals there may be some more serious flaws. Before addressing these, however, this review will first look at the positive attributions and major successes of the book and also give examples of how the author excelled in his objectives.

Gent’s first success is his skill at connecting with his audience through his personable introduction and engaging illustrations. Generally, any author who seeks to inspire or compel his readers will benefit most by being relatable to them. In this same way, Gent effectively presents his book as being one that has value for everyone. He demonstrates this from the beginning in his personal bio found in the book’s introduction. Here, he describes himself as “a busy pastor wearing many hats” and as an “active preacher.” He also stresses that his book is written specifically “for the everyday average Christian” (pg. vii). Gent makes a point of putting himself on the level of his audience. His assurances will undoubtedly be a relief to any seeking to avoid complex, scholarly treatises. 

Another way in which Gent connects with his audience is by using illustrations to interest, inspire, and identify with his readers. In numerous instances throughout The Local Church, a discussion is briefly suspended in order to provide a relative example of the subject matter at hand. Gent uses a large variety of illustrations throughout his book, which all successfully support his main point. In Chapter 1, the historical story of George Wilson rejecting a pardon illustrates the necessity of accepting Christ’s forgiveness (pgs. 3–4). In Chapter 2, the biblical stories of Cornelius, the Ethiopian eunuch, and the Philippian jailor illustrate the pattern of baptism following salvation (pg. 9). In Chapter 6, a current events story detailing the ‘homosexual tendencies’ of an Episcopalian priest illustrates the depravity of man in today’s society (pg. 28). And in Chapter 9, a personal story by the author of one of his acquaintances leading several of his coworkers to the Lord illustrates the significant responsibility that every believer has to reach the lost around him (pg. 56). These are just a few of the many analogies that the author expertly employed to reach his target audience.

Gent’s second success lies in the biblical support that reinforces each of his passionate beliefs.  From beginning to end, The Local Church is infused with the conviction of its author. As we shall see, Gent displays a significant measure of dogmatism that clearly shows his confidence in his own biblical interpretations. Although this does, at times, lead him to unfounded prejudices, Gent’s zeal, when based in Scripture, predominantly aids him in presenting truth. His determination to instruct with a biblical foundation may well be his most notable accomplishment in this book.

Examples of scriptural support are present in every chapter of The Local Church. One such example appears in Chapter 2 in a discussion on baptism. Here, Gent provides several occasions in which believers were clearly baptized after their salvation (pg. 8). These include the 3,000 Christians baptized at Pentecost (Acts 2:41), the Ethiopian eunuch baptized by the side of the road (Acts 8:36–38), and Cornelius, along with many Gentiles, baptized after hearing Peter’s presentation of the gospel (Acts 10:47). 

Another example of strong biblical support in The Local Church is one in which Gent uses multiple references of Scripture to reinforce his own bold statements. This is found on page 46, where he says, “The Bible does not teach that witnessing for Christ is a gift that is possessed by only a few choice people. The Bible never teaches that only those who have the gift to witness are to witness. Witnessing is not a gift; it is a command.” He continues, “Anyone who indicates that only a select few are to witness is simply not acquainted with the plain teaching of God’s Word.” Though this view may be controversial to some, Gent is quick to cite the source of his conclusions by referencing Matthew 28:19, 20; Mark 16:15; and 2 Corinthians 5:20. This pattern of prioritizing Scripture is exactly what the reader may expect to find throughout this book.

Gent’s third success is the source of his book’s true value. This is the culmination of his main points into practical applications for the readers. Considering that part of the goal of The Local Church is to “help” and “stimulate” its audience, application at some level is a necessity. Gent reveals his true intentions for writing by consistently providing ways in which each discussion can be beneficial for all believers. He does this in a number of ways—sometimes with a warning, sometimes with a challenge, sometimes with a question, and sometimes with a convicting illustration.

One example of application is located on page 21. Here, Gent issues a warning concerning the impurity of the modern world. He says, “If there was ever a day in which we need to be on guard and alert in order that we will not have permissive attitudes concerning the dirty, profane, depraved, salacious, and shameless: television programs, music, magazines, movies, and dress styles, that encourage and promote unbiblical behavior, IT IS TODAY!” 

A second form of application is presented as a general challenge to believers. This is found on page 61 and comes in the midst of a discussion on being a missionary-minded Christian. Gent writes, “Involvement in getting the Gospel out and establishing churches at home and abroad is God’s will for all believers and all churches.” 

Another application is in the form of a question. Page 101 provides a good example of this. Here, Gent focuses on how the unfaithfulness of parents directly affects their kids. He asks, “When we are unfaithful, what message are we sending to our children? The message that the Lord Jesus Christ, the church, the things of God, the work of the Lord, are really not important comes through loud and clear!” 

One final form of application that Gent utilizes is convicting illustrations. As this review has noted, these are a major tool that is used throughout Gent’s book to directly impact his audience. A fitting example of this is found on page 111. It reads, “IMAGINE IF GOD HAD BEEN LIKE SO MANY OF US AND HOARDED HIS WEALTH by keeping His Son in Glory! We would have all gone to hell!” (emphasis in the original) In summary, The Local Church proves itself to be much more than a conglomeration of proof texts for its author’s personal beliefs. Emphasized throughout its pages is the practicality of the Bible and the purpose it holds in each believer’s life.

Overall, Gent successfully pairs Scripture with his own specific burdens to present a convicting progression of ecclesiological truth. His book reveals his concern for the misunderstanding and neglect of the local church seen readily among believers today. As a whole, Gent succeeds in communicating his message and faithfully interpreting and applying the Scriptures to his audience. With its many triumphs, it’s easy to see how The Local Church will be a helpful guide in navigating biblical teachings on the church. For the sake of this review, however, a few of the book’s more significant shortcomings should also be noted. Though not adverse enough to negate its usefulness, the weaknesses of The Local Church definitely warrant mentioning. 

Three major concerns stand out in reading this book. First, Gent occasionally uses overgeneralization, assumptions, and sometimes even untrue statements within his arguments. Although his intentions are always in the best interest of the reader, his methods are not always quite as sound. Most of these errors seen throughout the book are fairly harmless and can easily be forgotten. Others, however, are much more significant and deter greatly from clear biblical teaching.

On page 13, Gent makes a claim that is ideal, but simply untrue. He says, “It is difficult to Biblically and systematically observe the Lord’s Supper and remain in a backslidden condition. The Lord’s Supper will help any Christian be a better Christian.” Though this may be the result for some, it is not realistic to say every believer that has ever taken the Lord’s Supper has done so with a heart that lends itself towards growth, and if Gent were correct, then one wonders whether or not 1 Corinthians 11:28 is superfluous. Page 30 provides another unrealistic claim. Here, Gent writes, “The most likely place to find a demon is behind a pulpit!” Although this may get the attention of the readers, it is in the very least an unverifiable statement, entirely impossible to prove. While Gent’s concern to combat false doctrine is commendable, such statements are more than likely to cause some believers to look with suspicion on their own born-again pastors who may not cross every theology “t” or dot every theological “i” just as they would like.

Another interesting example comes in the form of a misleading question. On page 94, Gent asks, “Do we ever learn about any converts in the book of Acts who did not become identified with a local church?” It’s very clear from the context that Gent meant this to be a rhetorical question with the assumed answer of “no.” However, in Acts chapter 8, the Ethiopian eunuch clearly believes the gospel without any further reference to him joining a church. Another similar example is found on page 99. Here, Gent passionately writes, “There are many people (some well known and popular) who actually call themselves Christians and seldom attend church!” It’s easy to see here how that Gent was attempting to emphasize the shame of a Christian not attending services, but his statement seems to imply that we should automatically doubt such a person’s claim to be a Christian. However, the Bible clearly teaches that the requisites for being a Christian have nothing to do with works, including one’s faithfulness to church (Galatians 2:16; Ephesians 2:8–9; Titus 3:5). Therefore, a true believer may very well call themselves a “Christian” without faithfully attending a local church (however shameful that may be). Gent adds to this idea on page 99 when he asks, “Is it a sin if I do not faithfully attend church every time the church door is open?...Yes, it is a sin!” Once again, this is another claim that supersedes the laws of Scripture, specifically his statement “every time the church door is open.” Although the Bible does challenge believers to not forsake “the assembling of ourselves together” (Hebrews 10:25), nowhere do the Scriptures specify which services or how many services are required.

One final example of wayward statements in The Local Church is one which is referenced more than once in the book and is likely the most concerning of them all. The first mention is found in the opening introduction where Gent states that God “has no other plan or program to carry on His work in this world apart from His church” (pg. vii). He continues this thought on page 84, where he says, “The local church was God’s only unit on earth for propagating the faith and the disciples were content to work only within that context. Certainly, God has a wonderful plan and program for the family; He also has a definite program for civil government; however, He has no other plan or program to carry on His work in this world apart from His church.” Gent is insistent that the church is God’s only plan in reaching the world. He fails, however, to mention God’s original plan (Isaiah 49:6) and future plan (Revelation 7) for His people Israel. Whether Gent forgot, minimized, or rejected the role of Israel in God’s soteriological program, he missed a very significant piece of biblical history and prophecy. Although, it may be inferred from portions of Gent’s writings that he favors replacement theology, that assumption cannot be confirmed from this book alone.

The second major concern worth mentioning is Gent’s occasional tendency to focus more on his personal beliefs rather than on what the Bible actually says. Much of The Local Church is filled with the author’s passion for communicating truth. This is both commendable and convicting. However, when this fervor centers more around his own personal convictions rather than his discovery of definite truths, then the book begins to err from its intentions.

A significant example comes from pages 85–88. This section of the book is entitled, “Christian Organizations And Parachurch Groups of Human Origin.” In these conviction-filled paragraphs, Gent makes his position on these groups very clear. While elaborating on the dangers of operating apart from the church, the author provides several Scripture references supporting his position. However, Gent appears to deviate at times and become so preoccupied with the vulnerabilities of parachurch organizations that he enters into assumptions and accusations that are unfounded, unnecessary, or simply untrue.

On page 86, Gent writes, “Not a few Christian organizations are parasitic, because they encourage people to use their God-given gifts in an unscriptural place. According to Ephesians 4, God gives gifts to His church to be used for its edification.” This strong accusation is an unfortunate limitation that goes beyond Scripture. God never limits His gifts to be used only in the local church. Even in Ephesians 4, just because believers are encouraged to use their gifts in the church does not mean that they are restricted elsewhere. Also on page 86, Gent uses sarcasm to jab at parachurch groups. He writes, “According to Matthew 28:19, 20, the first thing we are to tell a convert is to get in a sound church and be baptized. Maybe Matthew 28:19, 20 and the book of Acts are no longer in the Bible, or at least, not in the Bible of some of our parachurch friends.” Even if Gent’s point contains truth, his negative method of delivery was neither helpful nor necessary.

 Gent continues his criticism of Christian organizations on page 87. Here, he writes, “In regards to finances, man-made alternatives to the local church certainly are parasitic! It takes enormous, vast, exorbitant sums of money to keep these organizations going!...Think of all the money that is not being used in a Biblical way.” This is another example of Gent stepping beyond the Bible and ultimately declaring his own truth. First, his claim of all parachurch organizations being “parasitic” in their finances is surely unfounded. The somewhat exaggerated description of their cost fails to negate the impact that these ministries have on millions of people. Christian camps and addiction ministries are a couple examples of successful outreaches. Of course, there certainly can be significant cost in operating these, but the reward in seeing people saved and lives changed should definitely outweigh any financial burden. To say that this money is being used in an unbiblical way is to limit God’s working in those organizations and cheapen the eternal difference being made. Although Gent proves himself to be a strict adherer to the Scriptures throughout his book, his proclivity towards personal bias in this section greatly weakens the message.

One final concern from Gent’s book is undoubtedly the least significant of the three. This is in regard to the grammatical errors, typos, and stylistic peculiarities of the writing itself. The author’s disclaimer in the introduction of the book that “No claim is made for literary excellence” further minimizes the gravity of this point (pg. vii). Nevertheless, a quick evaluation of the work’s literary level may help potential readers determine the best setting for the book.

As has been mentioned, Gent writes with incredible passion and intensity, especially when discussing the issues he considers most important. Subsequently, readers should expect to find bold text and uppercase sentences used liberally throughout the book. While these are helpful techniques in emphasizing specific points, the extent they are used in The Local Church may become a distraction to some. 

Another possible distraction is the numerous pages of Scripture that accompany certain of Gent’s points. In a few different sections of the book, Bible verses fill several succeeding pages as they act in support of a previously stated idea. In Chapter 13, three pages of Scripture follow just two sentences at its opening (pgs. 81–83). In Chapter 11, only a single heading at the very beginning proceeds eight pages of verses (pgs. 63–70)! Half a page of text at the end of the chapter provides its only original content. Chapter 4 is similar with the author contributing only seven sentences of his own material amidst four pages of Bible references (pgs. 15–18). While Scripture is necessary in confirming truth, perhaps fewer references or abbreviated examples would better aid the flow and thought progression of Gent’s book. Readers are, after all, capable of looking up Bible verses on their own.

A few other instances of stylistic or grammatical issues include redundant reasons to leave the liberal church (examples 1, 7, 8, 11 on pgs. 23–31), the obscure sentence “The Word is clear; it wasn’t abnormal” (pg. 70), and a double negative in the phrase “Not a few, never take a clear stand...” (pg. 86). Once again, in the grand scheme of this book, these mistakes and ambiguities remove very little from the work’s overall value. However, the level of writing will likely have an impact on where and how this book may be used as a guide to ecclesiology.

Conclusion

In summary, The Local Church succeeds in its mission to clearly distinguish and promote the biblical teachings on the church. Gent’s writing is both convicting and inspiring, while predominantly focused on the words of Scripture and not personal bias. Though in places points are weakened by a lack of thoroughness or understanding by the author, no errors endanger the powerful message of this book. 

As the author intended, The Local Church would best serve as an individual’s exegetical guide to a scriptural understanding of the church. Since it is neither comprehensive nor scholastically designed, this book would likely not be a good fit as a college textbook. Whatever its use, however, readers are sure to benefit from the author’s sincere burden and careful biblical study. In a day where the church is constantly under attack and false teachers abound, The Local Church is a timely addition to the fight for truth.

Book Recommendation: Chester, Reading Paul with the Reformers

At Baptist Theological Seminary, I have the privilege of teaching New Testament Intro every two years and Exegesis of Romans every 4 years. As such, my job demands that I have a solid grasp of the New Perspective on Paul (really "New Perspectives," but that's a different story) and all the issues surrounding it. In light of that, I am happy to recommend Stephen J. Chester's book Reading Paul with the Reformers, which I just finished reading in its entirety (Amazon link here).

The point of the book, in a nutshell, is to moderately push back against NPP caricatures of Reformation theology while also providing an in-depth examination of what, exactly the Reformers (especially Luther, Calvin, and Melanchthon) believed about Pauline theology. 

The key term here is "exegetical grammar," i.e., what Luther meant about the term "justification" compared to his Catholic opponents, etc. Chester focuses a lot on the debate between Luther and Erasmus, including how they appropriated Augustine differently.

The last section of the book focuses on facilitating a dialogue between between a theology of the Reformers and the New Perspective on Paul. To be clear, Chester does not give the Reformers a free pass, and offers clear criticism of Luther, etc., when necessary. However, he generally argues (fairly, I believe) that the NPP has misunderstood Reformation Pauline theology; thus, for Chester, the NPP has "thrown out the baby with the bathwater," so to speak.

I believe Chester has written an extremely important book that offers an appropriate but irenic corrective to some of the excesses of the NPP. This book helped me understand both Reformation theology and the NPP much better. The one main downside of this book is that if historical theology, specifically Reformation-era theology, does not interest you, it takes a long time to get to the point where Chester dialogues directly with the NPP, and so some readers might lose interest. Those readers only interested in a critique of the NPP should skip to chapter 8.

For the interested reader: the best and worst of the NPP is, I believe, adequately summed up by Chester on page 361:

"The NPP does represent a very significant advance in its portrayal of Judaism. Former descriptions of Second Temple Judaism as a religion centrally concerned with earning righteousness were a distortion and the exegesis of the Reformers lay at the historical roots of this distortion. Their interpretation of Paul's contrasts between the law and his gospel almost exclusively in terms of self-achieved works-righteousness is unconvincing. . . Yet NPP scholarship simply perpetuates the opposite error. A theoretical acknowledgement that the phrase the 'works of the law' denotes the whole complex of conduct required by the law is coupled with an actual insistence that Paul's concern is always with the boundary-defining function of such works. This boundary-defining function is indeed important, but the exclusive emphasis upon it does not do justice to the multi-faceted and all-embracing nature of the conduct required by the law. . . . To say that justification does not result from human ethical achievement coheres with and is an inevitable consequence of saying that it does not result from Jewish ethnic identity. Paul is not always concerned with human ethical achievement, but in those texts where it does arise (e.g., Rom 4:4-5; 9:10-13; Phil 3:6) he means what he appears to say."

Review of Defending Hope: Semiotics and Intertextuality in 1 Peter by Justin Langford

Note: I was not given this book; rather, I purchased it with my own money (like almost all of the books I review) which means I can review it any way I want, bwahahahahahhahaha!!! [JUST KIDDING! I'll try to be fair.] Also, as a personal preference, I will always have at least a little bit positive and a little bit negative to say, my reasoning being that even Bart Ehrman is a zippy read and can contribute to the discussion, while only Scripture itself is inerrant (so only Scripture would get a perfect review by me!).

Dr. Justin Langford, at the time of publication, is an adjunct NT professor at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. His book Defending Hope: Semiotics and Intertextuality in 1 Peter (Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf and Stock, 2013) seems to be a revision of his dissertation. I also had the privilege of hearing him speak at last Fall's ETS in Baltimore, and I look forward to interacting with his work on 1 Peter more in the future.

Defending Hope focuses on a branch of study known as "Semiotics" and its relation to the NT use of the OT in First Peter, especially 1 Peter's citation of Isaiah (or allusions, echoes, etc. of Isaiah). As Langford states early on, "The fundamental assumption behind intertextual study is the belief that 'no text exists in a vacuum'" [quoting Fewell, Reading between Texts] (xv). Yet Langford bemoans the fact that "no standard or agreed-upon method exists for doing such studies" [re.: "methodological applications of intertextuality"](p. xv). Consequently, Langford proposes using "semiotics" to pave the way forward. Thus, early on, he states, "The purpose of this study, then, is to explore the use of semiotics as an overarching method for doing biblical intertextual studies" (p. xvi). Soon after, he defines "semiotics" as "a broader term [compared to semiosis] referring to the scientific study of signs and sign systems" (p. xvii).

In the first chapter, Langford focuses mostly on a history of the theory and application intertextuality, eventually narrowing in on the history of intertextual studies in 1 Peter (noting also key dissertations such as Edward Glenny's discussion of NT use of the OT in 1 Peter). At the end of the chapter, he declares, "The importance of this book lies in both the application of a semiotic method for interpreting intertextual references and the treatment of Isaiah in 1 Peter" (25).In chapter 2, Langford focuses on developing a methodology for his study, stating that he will follow linguist Stefan Alkier--1. "Establishing a theory of textuality based on semiotics, 2. perform[ing] an intratextual investigation of 1 Peter, and 3. perform[ing] an intertextual investigation of the use of Isaiah in 1 Peter." Later in the chapter he focuses on the work of C. S. Peirce, Pierce's concept of "universe of discourse," and the concept of an "encyclopedia (including the role of "cultural knowledge," see p. 46).

In chapter 3, Langford focuses on "The Textual Universe of 1 Peter," which includes both the "epistolary" and "rhetorical" outlines of 1 Peter (Langford includes some helpful charts comparing various scholars). In chapter 4, "Opening the Encyclopedia of 1 Peter," Langford the social, historical, and cultural background of 1 Peter. After this, he focuses on how citations function in 1 Peter  (which texts are cited [LXX? Masoretic?], how they were cited, etc.).

Finally, in chapter 5, Langford discusses "'Signs' of Hope in 1 Peter." He (mostly convincingly, in my opinion) follows the thread of "hope" all throughout the quotations, allusions, and echoes of Isaiah in 1 Peter. He states,
      "A semiotic investigation of the use of Isaiah in 1 Peter demonstrates the integral role of the book of      
      Isaiah in the composition of the epistle. As the dynamic object, the book of Isaiah motivated the
      generation of numerous Isaianic signs in 1 Peter. The signs all point to one specific aspect of the book of
      Isaiah, their immediate object, and in doing so create an interpretant. Each interpretant was described in
      the sections above, and most of these interpretants were determined to communicate the idea of hope.
      While each interpretant communicates in its own right a picture of hope for the audience, the cumulative
      force of all the interpretants points to a message of hope, one that saturates almost every section of this
      short epistle" (p. 124; see also his excellent chart on page 125).

Now for critique: on the (very) plus side, this is a worthy addition to the panoply of scholarship on 1 Peter. Langford gives us a unique contribution (1 Peter, Isaiah, and semiotics), he delves deeply into the realm of semiotics, and artfully focuses on Isaiah in 1 Peter.

I believe that, for the most part, Langford demonstrates his thesis on hope in 1 Peter via Isaiah. Indeed, chapter 5 alone is worth the price of admission. Furthermore, Langford demonstrates excellent scholarship, interacting with almost all the major sources [with one major exception, noted below]. At an affordable price (thanks to Wipf&Stock's publishing model, of which I am also benefiting), it would be almost inexcusable for any budding scholar on 1 Peter or (more generally) NT use of the OT to not own this book. Let me stress again, this is an excellent discussion of 1 Peter's use of Isaiah.

And now for some quibbles (and please, dear reader, don't let the length of my discussion detract from the fact that this is a mostly positive review, and you should buy this book if you're serious about researching 1 Peter). First of all, I felt that for what the author was trying to accomplish this book was way too short. We do not see near enough discussion of the concept of hope in Scripture in general (what I feel would be a necessary precursor to discussing hope in both Isaiah and 1 Peter; however, Langford does clearly know the difference between concept and word, and he does discuss the concept of hope in the relevant chapters; I just think he could have done more, including a more clear definition of hope), and we do not enough discussion of the original contexts of the various Isaiah passages. I think this book would have benefited from another 50 pages (and yes, I know what it's like to have to add material to a book, so this is not just an armchair quarterback speaking!). In addition, I felt Langford could have segued into a more comprehensive "theology of hope" in 1 Peter.

Secondly, there is already an entire article devoted to the concept of "hope" in 1 Peter, and Langford does not cite it (John Piper's "Hope as the Motivation of Love: 1 Peter 3:9-12" on NTS vol. 26); now I know, I know, it's easy to nitpick and always find some obscure source that an author doesn't cite (I anticipate this if anybody reviews my own book on 1 Peter), and, to be fair, Piper does not focus on any of the passages that Langford focuses on (see Piper's article here). Nevertheless, I feel there is enough overlap in topics for at least a mention--after all, the whole point of the book is to provide an intertextual discussion of hope in 1 Peter, and New Testament Studies is a major, top-tier journal.

Thirdly, occasionally the author hurries over a statement that should need much more explanation, or at least a footnote. For example, on page 95, he states, "the formula pistos o logos . . . found in 1-2 Timothy and Titus reflects a phrase found in the Qumran Book of Mysteries that refers to a prophecy." Even without the controversial assertion "reflects a phrase . . ." I would expect a footnote for this (the only footnote in the paragraph is at the very first sentence). Another example: the whole socio-political situation of the recipients (metaphorical? literal? both?) of 1 Peter deserves more than the one paragraph he allocates on page 90 (if I'm missing something, I apologize, but that's all I saw in a thorough reading of the book), especially since this ties directly into the necessity of hope.

Finally, a complaint that is not unique to Langford's book: Scholarly, technical books need indexes!!!!!! Please let me repeat that: scholarly, technical books need at least a subject index and a Scripture/ancient sources index! This should not be optional! (but, as I said, a lot of books coming out these days, including revised dissertations, sadly do not have any).

In conclusion, though, let me state Langford's Defending Hope  is an excellent book on 1 Peter. It gives us an excellent introduction to semiotics, a decent discussion of intertextuality, and a fantastic overview of the concept of hope weaved throughout 1 Peter's use of Isaiah. Let me emphasize again, concerning the last point, Langford succeeds masterfully, and may my critique not detract from my praise.

I did not receive this book in exchange for a review; I purchased it with my own money, and it is well worth the price!

Book Review--"Hymns Modern and Ancient" (with a subsequent discussion of lyrics and theology)

Ever been part of a spontaneous "singspiration"? Just within the past year at my local church, occasionally after the evening service a few of us, both young and old, have started gathering around the piano and begun singing even while folks are still mingling in the auditorium (sometimes we're still singing past closing time; Pastor Joe just reminds us to set the alarm code when we're done). This is not a part of the "formal" worship service, but it is worship nonetheless. This can easily last for an hour or so, and can include anywhere from 3 to 16 or so of us together at one time. We sing from a variety of songbooks, but one of our favorites is the recent Hymns: Modern & Ancient (compiled by Fred R. Coleman; Milwaukee, Wis.: Heart Publications, 2011).

We are told multiple times in the Psalms to sing a "new song" to the Lord. While there are plenty of old classics ("There is a Fountain Filled with Blood" remains one of my favorites), I don't think the Creator of the universe, the ultimate Creative Genius, intended us to sing the same songs day after day. Rather, I believe he intended us to stretch our intellect and our imagination in both poetry and music, and to appreciate the efforts of others, especially when it teaches us good theology!

This, then, is my greatest praise of Hymns: Modern & Ancient--it has taught me many new songs with powerful theological messages which have consequently had a positive impact on me at the emotional and spiritual level.

The first section of this post will give a basic overview of the book, the second section will offer some positive (and slightly negative) critique, while the third section will then launch off into a discussion of lyrics and their theological message.

Overview
Hymns: Modern & Ancient (hereafter referred to as HMA) deliberately patterns its title after the great Anglican book Hymns: Ancient and Modern (1861). Like the older work, ultimately the purpose of HMA is to "include both ancient and modern texts that articulate the timeless truths of Scripture and are rich in biblical doctrine" (from the introduction, n.p.). Unlike the older work, however, compiler Fred Coleman hopes that HMA will prove more accessible to the average congregation of a local church. Concerned that "modern congregations ignore too many great hymns of the past and shun too many great hymns of the present," Coleman hopes that "the tunes in this collection will prove to be both accessible and memorable for any who revel in the Gospel and its life-changing power."

The book itself (available from Heart Publications; it also appears on Amazon.com but is currently listed as "unavailable") comes either in a hard-cover format or a "concealed spiral binding" format that allows it to be opened on a music stand without closing. It's roughly 16 dollars and contains 133 songs, together with an introduction and the indexes you would expect. Interestingly, the songs are all in alphabetical order.

The reader should note that first and foremost this is a supplementary songbook. In other words, this is not the kind of songbook that you'll find in the pew of your average church, simply because most of the songs will not be as familiar to the average Christian (or at least the average Baptist). This is deliberate, and simultaneously represents both the songbook's greatest strength and its only major obstacle to widespread use. You won't find "A Mighty Fortress" or even "Amazing Grace" in here, but those songs exist in virtually every mainstream Christian hymnal and there is no need to introduce them to believers. You will find many obscure (yet awesome) songs, as well as some that have started becoming more popular lately such as "Before the Throne of God Above" and "Complete in Thee" (and for good reason). Some songs will be familiar, but most probably will not be.

The book does live up to its name. Some of the songs have very old roots (e.g., "Jerusalem the Golden," with the words written by Bernard of Cluny; also a song paraphrased off of the 4th century Te Deum Laudamus, etc.), while others were penned by contemporary authors (NT scholar D. A. Carson himself is behind about five of the songs). In fact, you'll find a lot of songs by Keith and Kristyn Getty, Bob Kauflin, Stuart Townend, and Fred Coleman himself (along with his wife). As will be discussed below, given the ecclesiastical background of this particular book, this is actually more surprising than you would think (I'm deliberately being cryptic here; more on that below).

Here's some of the more noteworthy songs. First of all, "Before the Throne of God" (#14) is fast becoming a Christian classic, as it should! When I took the doctoral seminary "Hebrews" with visiting NT scholar George Guthrie (possibly the Best Class Ever!), Dr. Guthrie ended the week-long seminar by having us sing this song together as a class. The theology is straight out of the book of Hebrews and contains a powerful message. Christian, if you have not yet learned this song, do so immediately!

Other modern classics that may be better known in broader evangelical circles include "Complete in Thee" (28) and "How Deep the Father's Love for Us" (#52), which has even been sung by The Irish Tenors.

Other songs may be lesser known but contain familiar tunes. "O Love Divine," for example, is based off of the Irish tune "Star of the County Down" (still sung by modern group Celtic Woman). The rhythm, however, has undergone a major overhaul, going from a fast-paced, "spunky" folk song to something slower and considerably more reverent. The lyrics, of course, are first-rate.
More importantly, however, there are some songs that I learned directly as a result from singing from this book alongside of friends. These include #70 "Jesus, the Son of God", #15, the Getty's "Behold the Lamb,"#48 "His Robes for Mine," and the emotionally powerful #35, "Free from Guilt and Free from Sin."

Note: copyright laws prohibit me from quoting even a tiny snippet of the lyrics of these songs, though I can quote older songs that are public domain. However, I urge you, dear reader, to find the lyrics somewhere and meditate on them.

HMA, then, has enough content in it to keep any congregation occupied learning both new and old songs.

Review
As already mentioned, my greatest praise for HMA is that it taught me new songs rich with powerful theology. When I take  that into consideration with all the hours I've spent singing these songs in spiritual fellowship with my friends, and the powerful conviction and assurance that these songs can bring, I conclude that this songbook is definitely spiritually beneficial both to the individual Christian and to any community of believers (provided you aren't daunted by learning new songs). Thus, although I cannot critique individual songs, I believe overall this is an all-star selection that is reasonably accessible to a church.

It may, however, be a bit too obscure for its own good. Since the vast majority of songs are not those you'd find in the average hymnal, the average Christian may struggle a bit to get enjoyment out of it without help.  Even though I can more-or-less read music (if you don't rush me!), I still feel that as an individual Christian I had no hope of utilizing the songbook to its fullest potential without the help of my friends. Only when paired with somebody who knows how to use the piano have I truly benefited from it initially; once I learn the song, though, then I'm set and can sing it by myself. This will not be an issue for the truly musically talented, of course, but may be a stumbling block for most individual Christians.

Given the obscure nature of most of these songs, and given  that this is a supplementary songbook, perhaps a brief history of some of the older songs might have been appropriate. In addition, some other hymnals place an appropriate Scripture verse below the song's title; off all songbooks, that would have been especially appropriate here given that the theological depth of the songs in HMA put many others to shame.

Other than that, my only negative critique stems from certain omissions. There are only two Christmas songs that I could tell (#59, "Holy Child,"and #106, "See in Yonder Manger Low"). A few more would have been very beneficial since generally we end up singing the same dozen or so every November and December (and not all of them are theologically deep).

It's hard to critique HMA beyond that, since making the book any bigger would have hindered its accessibility. I do wish, however, that "Be Thou My Vision" had been included, just because it would "feel right" in this kind of book even though it's more well-known that most (yes, I realize that's a purely subjective critique; deal with it :)

This are all very minor, picky critiques (and I'm only offering them as a matter of principle; it's a personal quirk of my writing that I'm not going to give any book a perfect, 100% score unless I'm reviewing Scripture itself!), and they are fairly insignificant in light of the benefit this book can bring.
This, then, naturally leads into a discussion of lyrics in our songs . . .

Lyrics and Theology
I have a confession: it irritates me to no end when people sing only the first verse to "A Mighty Fortress" (yes, I've heard this done, including on an otherwise top-notch CD by a men's music group). Think about it; where does the verse end? "And armed with cruel hate, on earth is not his equal," a reference to the devil himself! You absolutely must follow it with the second verse ("Did we in our own strength confide our striving would be losing/were not the right Man on our side? The man of God's own choosing").

The sad fact is, many congregations don't pay attention to the actual content of their songs (this is why, this December, many congregations singing "The First Noel" will skip from verse 1 to verse 3, which makes absolutely no sense if you're actually paying attention to the lyrics). This results in some flat-out inaccurate phrases. In "Away in a Manger," for example, the phrase "No crying he makes" is, at best, inaccurate, and at worst, a diminishing of Christ's true humanity. Likewise, "We Three Kings" is inaccurate even in the title. It should be "We Three Magi" (there's a major difference between a "king" and a "magi"). Even theologian Roger Olson recently noted in a blog post about the irony of a premillennial church singing the postmillennial song "We've a Story to Tell to the Nations" (right after a sermon on the imminent return of Christ, no less!)

Now, this can be taken a bit too far, of course. I'm not going to stop signing "We Three Kings," I'm just going to replace "Kings" with "Magi" because accuracy matters, especially in worship. How can I dare to sing a lie to God who is literally "the un-lying One" (Titus 1:2--Gr. apsudeis)? Thus when singing "Away in a Manger," I replace "no crying" with "some crying."

I'm a little less harsh on theological issues in songs. The writers of "We've a Story to Tell to the Nations" felt they were accurately representing Scripture, and I'll respect them for that even as I disagree with their eschatology. I'm not going to throw out the song, I'll just hum a certain part of the chorus. Similarly, I have some friends who believe a certain phrase in verse 4 of the song "In Christ Alone" (by Getty/Townend) is too Calvinistic for them to sing. I'm not totally convinced that the phrase necessarily implies hyper-Calvinist theology, but even if it did I'm unwilling to throw out a beautiful and powerful love message to the Creator simply because I disagree on a relatively minor theological issue (and I firmly believe issues of Calvinism and Arminianism are relatively minor, in the grand scheme of things).

I say all that with a recognition that my own theology and exegesis and thinking is going to be inaccurate and even flawed in some places. Yet I hope that people will still read what I write in spite of that!

Having said all that, my point is simply that lyrics do make a difference and we should be aware of them and seek those songs that will be edify the church. I've long wondered, for example, what theological benefit a classic song like "I Come to the Garden Alone" really brings. Granted, the song isn't heretical, and it may even be quite beautiful. It reads like a personal love letter to Jesus, and that isn't necessarily a bad thing. Yet there is not much theological depth to it, nothing that can really teach the congregation. As such, I wonder whether or not this song is best sung by oneself rather than by the congregation. (feel free to disagree with me on this, dear reader)

In closing consider two modern songs about Mary. The first one, "Still Her Little Child" by Ray Boltz and Steve Milikan, I once heard sung in an IFB church by two ladies who cried all throughout the song (nothing wrong with the crying part per se; frankly, I think we should cry more often when we sing). The song is all about how Jesus was still, in Mary's eyes, her little boy throughout his ministry and culminating in the crucifixion. Now, there is a hint of theology in the song (find it for yourself; copyright laws prohibit me from quoting from it). The focus, however, is all wrong. Not that it focuses on Mary per se, but rather that in this song Mary's relationship to Jesus as her child trumps everything else in the Gospel narrative. Not only is this a wrong focus, it may be bad theology, because in both Matthew 12:46-50 and Luke 11:27-28, Jesus declares that obeying God trumps genetic relationship. Indeed, it is not the one who gave birth to him that is family, but rather the one who follows him and does the will of God (not that this is any excuse for us to neglect our moms on Mother's Day! :)  Whatever the case, this is theologically inadequate for worship, especially congregational worship. I don't mean to criticuze Boltz/Milikan directly; I'm sure they're good folk who love the Lord. I just wish they had thought their song through a bit more.

Consider, on the other hand, "Mary Did You Know," by Mark Lowry and Buddy Greene. Now, granted, I've heard this song sung in ways that I would consider inappropriate for congregational worship (that's a very subjective discussion for another time), but I've also heard it sung very reverently. More importantly, however, the message is extremely power and focuses on Christ's deity, the mystery of the incarnation, and the fact that the Child whom Mary gave birth to will actually bring her (and others) redemption.

Notice the difference between these two songs. The first one focuses on Mary's relationship to her little boy; the second one focuses on Mary's relationship to her Lord and Savior!! This makes all the difference in the world. The first one is nice and sweet, but it's not worship. The second one makes you want to fall down on your face or raise your hands in triumphant adoration.

Dear reader, let's celebrate good lyrics, especially those that reflect good theology! If the ESPN commentators pull out all the stops to both imaginatively and accurately describe a football game, should we not strive to do the same when worshipping the Uncreated One?

Some Quick Thoughts on Book Reviews

Book reviews have been a staple part of literature, both popular and academic, for quite some time. Ideally, a book review provides the consumer with an informed opinion that helps one decide whether or not to buy a book. In some cases in academia, a reviewer may even enter into dialogue with the book and advance scholarship on a certain issue (occasionally a scholar, when critiquing another author's position, will cite book reviews of the other author's works).

Yet a recent article by New York Times writer David Streitfeld indicates that quite often this is not the case. In his article "The Best Book Reviews Money Can Buy" (online: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/best-book-reviews-money-buy-131408538.html?page=1 accessed 9/5/2012), Streitfeld tells the story of a certain Mr. Rutherford who had a revelation regarding book reviews. While initially working in marketing attempting to get others to review his clients' books, he recognized the potential for a whole new business model; Streitfeld writes, "Suddenly it hit him [Rutherford]. Instead of trying to cajole others to review a client's work, why not cut out the middleman and write the review himself? Then it would say exactly what the client wanted . . ." By 2010 Rutherford had his own website and was offering various pricing options ($99 for one review, $499 for 20 reviews, etc.). Eventually, Rutherford was making almost $30,000 dollars a month!

Streitfeld further narrates how Rutherford began hiring other reviewers to work for him. One such reviewer admitted in an interview that for a simple 50-word review, the reviewer didn't even need to actually read the book. She could find enough information on the internet to write a glowing report! For a 300-word review, a mere 15 minutes was all that was necessary.

Apparently Rutherford's company's reviews were not the only ones of their kind. Streitfeld quotes Bing Liu (from the University of Illinois) stating that "about one-third of all consumer reviews on the internet are fake." In Streitfeld's article, this seems to be linked both to the perception that a 5-star review is necessary for a book to sell well and to human nature itself.  Elsewhere, Streitfeld cites Stanford professor Robert Sutton, who makes the following observations: "Nearly all human beings have unrealistically positive self-regard. When people tell us we're not as great as we thought we were, we don't like it. Anything less than a five-star review is an attack" (emphasis added). Sadly, I think this is a generally accurate analysis of human nature.

The result, as Streitfeld notes in his article, is that often reviews have come to resemble the endorsements that one reads on the cover of a book, rather than actual reviews.  (There is, of course, the complete opposite problem: an entirely negative review stemming from issues unrelated to the book itself [e.g., "I know that this author is a Calvinist/Arminian/Calvaminian-hypochondriac, so anything he or she writes must be downright heresy!!"] It's not only the 5-star reviews that are sometimes suspect but the 1-star ones as well!)

While I am fairly certain that Biblical studies does not suffer from the same problem described above (at least not to the same extent), this still raises a few issues that I wish to address. To begin with, why do we write book reviews in the first place? Secondly, what should a book review actually provide the reader?

Of course, there will never be a totally objective way to analyze books. All of us have our presuppositions going into a book and those probably won't change. Thus two intelligent scholars may both review the same book and come away with differing conclusions. For example, within the past year or two both Stanley E. Porter (JETS 53.4) and Robert W. Yarbrough (BBR 21.1) have reviewed Daniel Wallace's Granville Sharp's Canon and its Kin, the former negatively and the latter positively. Now, both writers are intelligent, published New Testament scholars. I happen to very strongly disagree with Dr. Porter's review (and have already defended Dr. Wallace some time ago on this blog), but the fact remains that Dr. Porter clearly read the book, and his review is thus an intelligent opinion on the content of the book, not an attack against Dr. Wallace himself. Furthermore, he tries to fairly represent Dr. Wallace.  Likewise, Dr. Yarbrough's review is a critical review, not a marketing endorsement. Both of these reviews, then, are true reviews, yet this illustrates that good people can disagree on certain issues, that some subjectivity exists.

A book review, then, should be a thorough, intelligently expressed summary and opinion (I use "thorough" in the sense of "the author actually read the book and does not omit discussing key portions of it" rather than regarding length per se; a 1-page review may be more thorough than a 2-page review in that sense). Since a review should, ideally, help in determining whether or not I want to actually spend money on this book (either as an individual or as an institution), the review should provide me with, at minimum, two key pieces of information: 1. What the book is about, and 2. what the book's focus and limitations are.

Regarding the first, a review should summarize the content of a book with accuracy. This means that a reviewer should actually have read the book (duh!). If I'm considering buying a new book on the theology of the Apostle Paul, for example, I want to know what areas the book focuses on, what (if any) space is devoted to the apostle's life and conversion, what chapters deal with the New Perspective,  etc. I also want to know where the author is coming from. Is he or she Roman Catholic? Liberal? Protestant? Hyper-Covenantal-Pentecostal-Post-Tribulationist? Are there certain obvious theological presuppositions that the author holds? (this last point would be especially important if I were teaching a college-level class for a particular denomination or theological tradition).

As for the second point, I want the author's intelligent opinion on the content. I may or may not agree with the reviewer, but at least I should be treated to a well thought-out analysis of the contents of the book. Ideally, a critical thinker reviewing a book should be able to recognize strong portions of a book he or she disagrees with as well as weak portions of a book he or she agrees with. Furthermore, if the book omits key material, I want to know about it before I buy it. A book on Pauline theology that fails to discuss justification would be severely handicapped, and I probably would not be interested in adding that to my library. Conversely, a statement like "author Josephine Johnson's treatment on the use of second temple literature in the General Epistles is nearly unparalleled" would definitely make me sit up, take notice, and possibly make a bee-line to Amazon.com (if, in fact, we can make "bee-lines" while traversing the internet). Finally, the author should qualify what  the book is useful for. A book on Hebrew poetic structure in Genesis would probably be a poor choice for an "OT Survey class" for college freshmen but may be quite appropriate for a doctoral class on Hebrew exegesis.

Let me close by pointing the reader to a book review in an academic journal that, in my opinion, gets it right. Granted, I'm a bit positively biased towards the author here, because he's a former college classmate of mine back in the late 90s and early 2000s, so keep that in mind (although I'm still a bit jealous he got higher grades than me and finished his doctorate first . . . :)!
(for the record, I don't think a book review needs to be in a peer-reviewed academic journal to be valuable. I've read quite a few reviews on personal blogs, etc. and have benefited from them. One of my friend's blogs pretty much focuses exclusively on book reviews as well as linking  the reader to other reviews, author interviews, etc. [see the blog roll])

A test case. Kevin W. McFadden, "Review of Romans by Craig S. Keener," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society vol. 53.2 (June 2010): pp. 407-409.

My old friend Kevin McFadden reviews Craig Keener's commentary on Romans in the New Covenant Commentary series (Eugene, Oreg.: Cascade, 2009). The review is approximately 2 pages long. It's a bit different than standard reviews in that there's less summary of the content simply because the book is a commentary (after all what, how can you summarize a book that's going chapter by chapter through another book? "In chapter 1, Keener covers Romans 1. In chapter 2, Keener covers Romans 2 . . ." and so forth ad nauseum)

McFadden does, however, point the reader to specific areas of Keener's commentary that may differ from other commentaries. Furthermore, he clearly discusses many of Keener's positions on key points in Romans (e.g., Keener's view of the purpose of Romans, the nature of God's righteousness, various New Perspective issues, etc.)

While McFadden's review is mostly positive, it is nevertheless a critical, well thought-out review. When he likes something Keener does, he tells us why. Conversely, when he thinks Keener's work falls short, he also tells us why. Thus I am informed what the strengths and weaknesses are of this particular commentary, in McFadden's view (if you want to know, read the review for yourself! Or better yet, read the commentary). Also, I am informed by McFadden that the book "In general, . . . accomplishes the goals of the author and the series" and also that "it is amazingly concise for a letter as long as Romans." More importantly, however, McFadden tells me that the commentary "will be understood by a general audience, although in some cases readers may be confused by technical terms . . ." (this is an absolutely essential observation for this kind of a review, and one that may very well determine whether or not I would use this book for a class).

In conclusion, from a good book review such as McFadden's, I glean the following:
1. what the book is about, 2. the views of the author on key issues, 3. the strengths of the book, 4. the limitations and/or weaknesses of the book, and 5. the suitable audience for the book. When those points are covered, I generally have enough information as to whether or not I would wish to purchase this book or suggest it for class reading. In contrast, a poorly written review could conceivably cause me to waste my money (hey, theological works aren't cheap!) The bottom line, once again, is that a book review is neither a song of praise nor a spiteful attack, but an opinionated summary and analysis.

With special thanks to all my professors that forced me to write book reviews for a class!

Review of "The Post-Racial Church: A Biblical Framework for Multiethnic Reconciliation"

 In the spring of 2009, I had the privilege of attending my first regional ETS meeting at Tennessee Temple University. One of the sessions I attended was a co-presentation by Kenneth Mathews and Sydney Park on “Biblical Perspectives on Racial Reconciliation.” Imagine my surprise, then, when the other day my adviser, Dr. Black, handed me a book by two authors entitled, The Post Racial Church: A Biblical Framework for Multiethnic Reconciliation (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel, 2011). Sure enough, it was the same two scholars (both professors at Beeson Divinity School, in Old Testament and New Testament, respectively).

At the heart of The Post-Racial Church lies a desire to see what Scripture says about race and racial reconciliation, and to exhort the church of the 21^st century to embrace a Biblical perspective. The book, then, could just as well be titled “A Theology of Race Relations.” The authors desire, with this book, “. . . to better equip the church in answering why Christians claim that the gospel and the Christian church are the first and last best hope for peace in a racially diverse world” (22). In the process, the authors build a theology of race from Scripture and then proceed to apply it to the modern church.

At its core, this is an extremely valuable book that most definitely helps answer a deficiency within evangelical scholarship. The Post Racial Church does an excellent job of examining what, indeed, Scripture says about race and how that applies to us today, especially in its examination of how worship, by its very nature, was meant to be multiethnic. Furthermore, this book provides one of the best combinations I have ever seen of scholarship and accessibility, mixing solid exegesis with a very readable style interspersed with personal anecdotes.

I will have some negative critique (one major issue and a bunch of minor quibbles), but the reader should note that this is an important and challenging book that has earned its place on the Christian’s bookshelf, both that of the pastor and the layperson.

The book is split between the two authors. Mathews writes the introduction and first four chapters, while Park writes chapters 5-8 and then the conclusion. At the end of each chapter, the authors have a series of questions, dubbed “thought provokers,” for personal meditation or group discussion. The first part of my review will summarize the book while the second park critiques it.

Summary

In the introduction, Matthews articulates his desire to go beyond issues of cooperation and into integration. He notes that the first church service, at Pentecost, featured the integration of various races; he then asks, “Will authentic integration, not just toleration, be the next step for the church?” Mathews then provides a brief overview of the civil rights movement in the US, arguing that it was driven by Christian ministers. Nevertheless Evangelicalism still faces racial problems, and Mathews hopes that he and Parks will assist in helping the Christian understood the role of the Gospel in establishing racial reconciliation. Throughout the introduction, Mathews also defines terms such as “ethnicity,” “racism,” etc.

In chapter 1, “God’s Design for Creation,” Mathews draws from the book of Genesis in order to examine God’s design of the human race and his desire for worship. He notes that humans were designed for a relationship with God, in order to worship God, etc., and that humans were meant for “freedom,” defined as “liberty to love and live with God, to be what God intended for us” (49). Within this overview of creation and Genesis, Mathews also discusses how such narratives as the “mark of Cain” and “the curse of Ham” became misinterpreted as justification for slavery and racism. He also stresses that in Genesis, “There is no ‘Master Race’ concept in the Bible that excuses racial superiority, because the theology of creation undercuts the ideology that one race is inherently superior to others” (44). Matthew concludes by positing a few key observations regarding God’s plan in Genesis, e.g., that “creation in the image of God was for all humanity, both male and female” (64).

In the second chapter, Mathews discusses “God’s Blessing for All Nations.” At this point Mathews spends a lot of time discussing the so-called “Table of Nations” in Genesis 10. His main point is that “. . . the Table of Nations does not in any way indicate that God has unalterably determined the moral nature of the nations. It does not suggest that God has ordained certain groups to achieve greatness and others to follow behind or serve the interests of the superior peoples. The Table of Nations tells us, on the contrary, that God’s creation blessing is for all nations” (70; indeed, later on pages 76-77 Mathews suggests that it is significant that there are 70 nations in the table, possibly indicating that “the nations were created in the image of Israel”). Mathews grants the historical significance of the Table of Nations, but argues that the theological aspect is the focus: “The theological message of the table is God’s purpose to bless every nation through a newly created nation descended from Shem . . .” (77). Both Abraham and the Jewish nation, then, are not theologically isolated from all others, but responsible to minister to the rest of the world. Furthermore, strictly speaking, the Jewish race was never an “ethnically pure” race, so to speak (the Scriptural evidence indicating that the Jews and Arameans are basically two branches of the same family).

In chapter 3, “‘God’s people’ and the 'Also Peoples,’” Mathews discusses what constitutes nationhood for the Jews and what causes a group to be called God’s people. Mathews once again emphasizes that the Jews were not, technically, an ethnically “pure” race (as evidenced by Exodus 12:38, etc.) What held them together was not DNA, but rather their allegiance to the Lord. Indeed, “Ethnicity, therefore, was never the determinative feature, not the make or break factor, in forming a person’s identity as a person of faith” (103). Mathews then proceeds to discuss immigration (noting that “Protection for immigrants was built into the governing constitution of Israel—the covenant law of Moses,” 114) and interracial marriage (observing that the point of forbidding the Jews to marry certain people was always their theological, rather than racial, protection).

Finally, in chapter 4 (“God’s Welcome to All”), Mathews deals with the issue of biblical hospitality (including a helpful discussion of hospitality in the ANE) and God’s inclusive invitation for all to worship him. He argues, “Hospitality is to know and worship the triune God—accepting and participating in his transcendent welcome” (135). Ultimately, hospitality is an essential part of worship. From here, Mathews explores how the worship of God will include various nations alongside of Israel (e.g., Isaiah 19).

In chapter 5, “Jesus’ Story of Reconciliation,” Park picks up the mantle by looking into the New Testament. She examines the various interracial interactions in the Gospels (e.g., Jews and Samaritans), paying special attention to Jesus and the Gentile centurion and Jesus’ treatment of the Samaritan women. She then provides a long discussion of the Parable of the Good Samaritan and how it ties into discipleship (as seen in the surrounding context of Luke 10, etc.). Park aptly notes, “In opening up our compassion for the ‘foreigner’ we show that God the Father has truly been revealed to us. For it is not possible ‘to know’ God’s compassionate love for the sinner as exemplified on the cross and not practice the same compassion for the unfortunate, the wounded, and the ‘foreigner’ as demonstrated by the Samaritan” (171).

In chapter 6, “Stories of Peace and Worship,” Park utilizes the theme of worship in Revelation as a springboard for a discussion of racism in general. She then focuses on Ephesians 2:11-22 as “one of the most explicit theological treatises on reconciliation of Jews and Gentiles,” noting both the individual and corporate dimensions in the text” (176). Park focuses on how, according to this passage, “. . . genuine racial reconciliation is found in the church” and that this is directly tied to the work of Christ (186). As a result, “The church as the living body of Christ is multiethnic . . . the result of the work on the cross is specifically the formation of all humanity, side by side, being fitted together as one holy temple before God.” Consequently, “. . . racial enmity, like all sin, is conquered only through the blood of Jesus Christ, and the ensuing peace is profound and sincere” (186). Park then comes full-circle back to Revelation, noting how the picture of worship in this book is somewhat contradictory to the fact that “Sunday morning is the most segregated hour in America” (197). She then closes with a touching personal testimony of her own sense of belonging in her local church, despite being the only Asian in a church of whites and some African Americans.

In chapter 7, “The Proclamation of the Church,” Park attempts to answer the critique that preaching racial reconciliation would essentially boil down to preaching social justice. Rather, Park argues, since racial reconciliation is brought about by the cross, it is a spiritual issue and must be proclaimed. Park then discusses the Christian’s role in opposing injustice in society. [more on this chapter later, since almost all of my negative critique will focus on this section, despite my acceptance of Park’s statement that racial reconciliation must be preached].

In chapter 8, “One Salvation, One Fellowship,” Park deals with the practical issue of how a multiethnic body of Christ can successfully worship together. She makes an important point when, in her discussion of Acts 15:20, she notes that “The question of whether or not they [Jews and Gentiles—i.e., disparate racial entities] should have table fellowship is not raised; it is assumed that there should be table fellowship between Jews and Gentiles based on the fact that all are now saved in the same manner—by grace” (243). From there she discusses the Apostle Paul’s statements on Christian liberty, then closes with a discussion of Christian humility in servant-hood, making the provocative (and challenging!) statement that we are all to serve each other as slaves/servants. Mutual submission, then, is one of the keys to multiethnic worship.

In the conclusion, “From Here to Eternity,” Park delineates four “windows of opportunity” (practical areas of concern) that Christians need to give heed to in light of this book’s theology: 1. Immigration and our relation to immigrants in light of our own status as ‘strangers and foreigners,” 2. interracial marriage and the need “to re-evaluate the factors that define ‘kinship’—is it culture, ethnicity, or Christ” (263), 
3. multicultural worship (Park appropriately argues on page 264, “We do not feel the need to press every church to be integrated, but we do strongly encourage each church to be ready to receive those of diverse ethnicity, and, where possible, to seek out peoples of different ethnic backgrounds”), and 4. evangelism, missions, and the need to seek out who needs the Gospel in all areas. Park then concludes the book with a powerful personal testimony on her own struggles with racism, having been on both the receiving end and the giving end, and her ultimate discovery that self-worth comes through Christ.

Analysis

In the end, this book succeeds admirably in what it sets out to accomplish, namely establishing a theology of race that can inform our church in the 21^st century. The theology is solid, and this is probably one of the most acute, Biblical treatments of the topic.

There are a couple areas where Park and Mathews truly excel in their study of the Biblical data. First of all, I greatly appreciated their emphasis on how the Jews were never truly a “pure” ethnic group, and that ethnic identity had less to do with DNA and skin color and more to do with the organization of a disparate group of people into a nation that would focus on the worship of the Lord. This does not, in my opinion, minimize the nationhood of Israel, but it does point out that nationhood was not, technically, dependent upon skin color.

In addition, the treatment of Ephesians 2 and Acts 15:20 is well done and clearly makes the points that (a. racial reconciliation is a natural outcome of the Gospel and a natural part of church life, and (b. the early church was multiethnic. It was assumed that Jews and Gentiles would worship together. This latter point, in my opinion, cannot be stressed enough, in light of the failure of much of conservative evangelicalism and fundamentalism to allow for integrated churches in the 20^th century. The 1^st century church, from the moment of Pentecost, was multiethnic and multicultural, and this was assumed to be the norm. In light of this fact, any ecclesiology that prohibits or even discourages such a church is unbiblical. This does not mean that a primarily white church (or black, or Asian) is necessarily wrong; after all, in a nation with an embarrassing wealth of churches, most people generally go where they feel welcome. What it does mean, however, is that a multiracial church is an ideal that should be embraced, when possible (and Park’s treatment of this issue in chapters 6 and 8 is excellent and balanced).

Overall, I was very impressed and satisfied with the authors’ treatment of the Biblical evidence. Apart from its other values, it’s status as a “theology of race in the Bible” alone makes this book worth the price.

The book also attempts to deal with practical issues in the 21^st century church, and this also is to be commended. Some of the book’s insights were cogent, though I felt they sometimes waffled a little bit (e.g., I was never totally clear on what exactly they felt Christians should be doing re.: immigration, other than some general observations on showing compassion, etc.) Ideally, every scholarly work by a conservative evangelical should have practical application, and this book models that ideal.

As for style, this book is one of the best hybrids of “academic” and “readable.” On the one hand, the authors are solid NT scholars at an academically solid school, and they have clearly done their research. Obscure JBL articles are cited in close proximity to monographs and top-notch commentaries, and their exegetical work indicates clear thought and scholarship. On the other hand, the authors write in a very accessible, understandable, and enjoyable style. They define difficult words such as “anachronism” while mixing in personal anecdotes and references to current events. The book, then, is an enjoyable read and a model of good writing.

Overall, this is a solid book well deserving of praise. Nevertheless, I have some quibbles (since only the Word of God is inerrant, any book review I write will always include some negative critique). First, a few minor issues. Though their focus on the practical application of theology is commendable, sometimes the transition from theology to practice is a bit abrupt and confusing, in my opinion (e.g., Mathews, last full paragraph of 105), and this is also sometimes the case with their transition from ANE background to contemporary issues (e.g., Mathews, pp. 96-97). Also, sometimes they don’t go far enough or leave questions unanswered. On page 231, for example, Park states, “The key to genuine worship is not a particular style; rather it is a life of faith . . .that yields true worship.” Granted, but this glosses over the difficulty, in some cases, of incorporating the worship styles of multiethnic groups, or compromising when everybody has their own ideas or standards of worship (I’ll be blunt! I have no desire to listen to “Biblical rap”! J) A discussion of worship in missions church plants would have been helpful, too (how does a missionary establish a “worship style” overseas, especially when the new believers might have come from a culture steeped in Buddhism, etc. Is it truly advisable to always go with that culture’s music style? This is not a strictly academic question, since I distinctly remember my church in Japan’s hymnbook containing a tune that came from a Buddhist hymn). Also, I would have preferred a much deeper discussion, particularly from Park, on how one can go about building a multiethnic church if the majority of the congregation is already one particular race or ethnicity.

Yet those are all minor quibbles. Here, however, is my only major critique. In chapter 7, Park appropriately argues . . . “that all Christians should be committed to proclaiming racial reconciliation” (215), and I believe she makes a convincing point via her exegesis of Ephesians 2-3. Her treatment of Revelation 6 and 16-17, however, is puzzling. Somehow, Park concludes that the believers in Revelation 6:9 were martyred because “either passively or actively, [they] stood against the political, social, and economic oppression described in the preceding verses (6:2-8)” (219). This follows from, among other things, her conclusion that the third horseman in 6:6 refers to “economic oppression” (218). Contra Park, I see the horseman as punishment from God rather than descriptions of military and economic oppression, per se, and I would suggest that the believers of the fifth seal were killed, in general, for their allegiance to the Gospel rather than for their social commentary, per se (the former does not, of course, necessarily exclude the latter, but the focus of the former is Christ the Messiah and forgiveness of sins; one can preach the Gospel without ever mentioning economic oppression, as seen all throughout Acts).

In her discussion of the woman on the beast in Revelation 17, Park concludes that the woman’s sins were “spread beyond the theological into social and economic dimensions” (220), which I mostly grant (though she seems to take a more preterist view on Revelation at this point, which I do not agree with, but that’s neither here nor there). What I do not agree with, however, is that Revelation 17-18 indicates, according to Park, “That Christians are to stand in complete opposition to political, social, and economic oppression . . .” (220) Yes, Christians are called to separate themselves from such behavior as evidenced by the Great Harlot, but in my opinion Park in this section confuses personal purity and personal ethics with political activism. Park argues that Christians “are slaughtered because they stand against the various forms of tyranny represented by the Great Prostitute. The final stand of Christianity, as described in Revelation, resists economic, political, and social oppression at the risk of death” (224). I would counter by arguing that the Christians are slaughtered for refusing to deny Christ. Contra Park, nothing in Revelation 6:9-11 and 18:24 suggest that it was opposition to unfair economic practices that caused martyrdom (see her argument on p. 224).

I agree with Park that Christians should speak out against injustice. However, if we look at the Christian church in Acts and the Epistles, we do not see “opposition to economic oppression” per se. Rather, we see the proclamation of the Gospel, a Gospel which causes change and demands that Christians treat each other as brothers and sisters, no matter the ethnic or economic status, in stark contrast to how unbelievers treated each other. When Paul preached in the Roman Empire, it was not with the intent to cause sweeping economic or social change (he did not, for example, seek to end slavery as an institution at that point; what he demanded was that Christians treat each other as brother and sister regardless of their social status--conversion to Christ, then, would have naturally caused a shaking up of the social order). Rather, Paul proclaimed the Gospel, a Gospel that by its very nature would ultimately cause change and present a Church where equality and servanthood would rule the day. Granted, the Gospel will have repercussions in the area of how we treat each other, but the Gospel itself is less about economic reform and more about the forgiveness of sins through Christ, the Messiah.

Thus my main point of contention (if I understood Park's argument in this chapter correctly) is this: in my opinion, Christians are not called to change the world; rather, we are called to be a light in the world, an example of the power of the Gospel. The Church is not here to cause political, social, or economic change. The Church is here to offer the world a picture of a new community that stands in stark contrast to the status quo. When Christians are martyred in India, for example, it is not because they are speaking out against unfair demands by rich landlords. Rather, it is because they proclaim Christ above all else.

Once again, though, let me emphasize that overall both Mathews and Park do a fantastic job with the text. The amount of time I spend critiquing them is grossly disproportionate to my opinion on the value of the book. Overall, this is a fabulous book that has the potential to greatly inform and challenge us regarding race in Scripture.

Conclusion

Conservative Christianity has, in my opinion, come along way in the past few decades. When the most iconic fundamentalist school can publicly apologize for its past unbiblical views on interracial marriage, when a (very) fundamentalist evangelist can brag about how he walked out of a church and refused to preach there when he learned they kept non-whites from attending, when many evangelical churches present an eclectic mix of races in their morning service—these are all positive indications of the current state of Christianity.

Mathews and Park, however, offer to take us further with a thorough, biblical, and practical discussion of race and racial reconciliation. This book offers an invaluable treatment of race in the 21^st century church, and those truly concerned about a biblical ecclesiology would do well to pay attention.