Don’t say you were never told. John Carroll’s The Wreck of Western Culture is one of the most underappreciated volumes published in recent memory.[1] Readers beware, however. Carroll’s book is for readers who like their coffee strong (the book is more like a Green Eye than a Café au Lait), and perhaps that’s one reason for its relative neglect. So although I’ve not been able to write up a review, here’s a brief notice about the book.

Carroll, an Aussie sociologist, argues that secular humanism has wrecked Western culture by depriving it of the deep insights provided by faith. He begins the book by prophesying the universal ruin of Western culture: “We live amidst the ruins of the great, five-hundred-year epoch of humanism. Around us is that ‘colossal wreck.’ Our culture is a flat expanse of rubble” (p. 1) But diagnosis is not Carroll’s primary concern; intellectual genealogy is, and he immediately launches his investigation into how we have arrived at this state of affairs: we turned away from theism and toward humanism, trying “to create out of nothing something as strong as the faith of the New Testament that could move mountains” (p. 3). To do so meant that one must build an anthropocentric, rather than a theocentric, worldview: “To place the human individual at the center meant that he or she had to become the Archimedean point around which everything revolved.”

He accomplishes his argument by tracing Western intellectual and spiritual history in general, and Western works of art in particular. He focuses on Holbein’s The Ambassadors and Shakespeare’s Hamlet. Both of these works illustrate the modern retreat from the theological narratives that have sustained Western society and culture for more than 2,000 years. Both works of art center on a skull. Holbein’s painting includes a distorted and oblong skull in the foreground of the picture, while Shakespeare’s Hamlet contains Yorrick’s skull. In Carroll’s narrative, these skulls symbolize Western culture’s fear of death; if life and death have been divested of divine meaning, then death becomes the ominous and dominant force in our lives and culture. If death has no more meaning than the Darwinist sense, then life has no meaning either, and life becomes absurdly horrible, as Nietzsche argued.

The Wreck of Western Culture is a richly imaginative and passionate interpretation of the intellectual and spiritual history of the West. Its strengths lie in Carroll’s ability to create a vigorous and comprehensive narrative explaining the fall of Western Civilization; its weaknesses lie in Carroll’s sometimes-deficient interpretations of art and theology. Strongly recommended.

As many readers will know, the SBC Annual Meeting will gather in Houston on June 11–12, 2013. In conjunction with the Convention, I teach an elective travel course at Southeastern Seminary titled The Southern Baptist Convention. The course is divided into three components. First, we meet on campus for one full day to discuss Southern Baptist history, theology, and polity, as well as specific information related to the upcoming annual meeting. Second, the students read several books and articles and listen to numerous audio resources related to these themes. Finally, the students attend the SBC Annual Meeting itself. While at the Convention, the students attend most of the proceedings, meet a couple of times with key SBC leaders, hobnob at the SEBTS booth, and attend the SEBTS Friends and Alumni Luncheon. Most also attend auxiliary events such as the Pastor’s Conference, Baptist 21 Luncheon, and 9 Marks at 9 events, among others.

I thought I would pass on to you some of the resources I use to prepare students for the SBC Annual Meeting. Obviously, we spend quite a bit of time walking through the Convention program, which, along with numerous other helpful resources, is available online. In addition to my lectures and guided class discussions, the students also watch or listen to several lectures, sermons, and panel discussions. This year, I’ve required them to watch the various Baptist 21 panel discussions from previous years (available at the B21 website), which are a helpful gauge of the “hot topics” in the SBC in recent years. I also required the students to watch one of the panels from last year’s 9 Marks at 9. The panel, which included Mark Dever, Al Mohler, and Danny Akin, discussed Fred Luter’s presidential election, the nature of SBC cooperation, and Calvinism, all of which remain important topics a year later.

I also point the students to four lectures or sermons. They watch David Dockery’s fine sermon “Participants and Partners in the Gospel,” which was preached in SEBTS chapel back in February. The sermon is vintage Dockery, calling for denominational unity around the gospel and basic Baptist orthodoxy for the sake of the Great Commission. Students also listen to Dockery’s lecture “The Southern Baptist Convention since 1979,” which helps to orient them to recent Baptist history. The final two lectures are Timothy George’s “The Future of Baptist Identity in a post-Denominational World,” which remains a timely topic, and Al Mohler’s “The Future of the Southern Baptist Convention,” an address that every Southern Baptist needs to listen to at least once.
The students read two books and over a dozen journal articles or book chapters. The first book is Roger Richards’ History of Southern Baptists (Crossbooks, 2012), which is the most recent history of the SBC. The second book is a helpful collection of essays titled The Great Commission Resurgence: Fulfilling God’s Mandate in Our Time (B&H Academic, 2010), edited by Chuck Lawless and Adam Greenway. The latter volume touches upon most of the current tension points in the SBC from a perspective that advocates unity for the sake of gospel advance.

Unfortunately, for reasons of copyright I can’t make most of the additional essays I require available outside of the class. The students read chapters, articles, and booklets written by SBC leaders and thinkers such as Danny Akin (on the Great Commission Resurgence), David Dockery (on Baptist theology), Nathan Finn (on Baptist identity, Calvinism, and the future of the SBC), Timothy George (on Baptist theology), John Hammett (on regenerate church membership and the ordinances), Chuck Lawless (on Calvinism), Al Mohler (on Baptist identity), Paige Patterson (on the Conservative Resurgence), Ed Stetzer (on missional churches), and Malcolm Yarnell (on the priesthood of all believers).

One resource that I can make available to you is Dr. Patterson’s e-booklet “The Southern Baptist Conservative Resurgence: The History, the Plan, the Assessment ” (Seminary Hill, 2012). In this booklet, was which was originally published as three separate articles in The Southwestern Journal of Theology, Dr. Patterson offers a first-hand account of the Conservative Resurgence. It is a helpful look at recent Baptist history from one of the most important shapers of that history. It is also a reminder that Dr. Patterson needs to publish a volume that brings together his collected articles and essays, a topic I have pestered him about in the past. (And again, now, on a public blog . . .)

Anyway, I hope you find these resources helpful. And I hope that many of you will consider attending the 2013 SBC Annual Meeting in Houston. Perhaps I will see many of you there.

(Note: This post was cross-published at Christian Thought & Tradition)

Several weeks ago, I had the privilege of participating in a consultation on “Transdisciplinary Scholarship” sponsored by the Paideia Centre for Public Theology in Ontario, Canada. The meeting lasted for two days and was populated by thirteen scholars or public figures including Craig Bartholomew, R. R. Reno, Hunter Baker, Claudia Beversluis, C. Stephen Evans, Derek Halvorson, Michael Healy, Eric Johnson, Todd Ream, Robert Sloan, W. Jay Wood, Edward Zinke, and your scribe.

The notion of transdisciplinarity is fetching and, in my opinion, significant for the renewal of Christian higher education. Our discussion of transdisciplinarity began with a co-presentation by Bartholomew and Johnson, in which they assessed the state of affairs in Christian higher education. Their presentation was divided into three parts, which I shall try to distill in the next several paragraphs of this post.

First, Bartholomew and Johnson asked “Where are we?” In response, they noted that Christian scholars are still living in the shadow of the so-called death of Modernity, a complex ideological movement that handicaps Christian scholarship in myriad ways. This ideology “can be characterized by a reliance on autonomous reason and the scientific method for knowledge (often synonymous with positivism), skepticism regarding tradition and biblical revelation, the proliferation and growing specialization of knowledge, a commitment to individualism and human rights, and a strong belief in cultural progress.” Although many of the positive aspects of the modern agenda spring from the West’s Christian roots, the negative aspects arose because the Christian worldview was abandoned. Western scholars ultimately displaced a Christian framework for knowledge by embracing a naturalist metaphysic and epistemology, and a secular system of public and scientific discourse. As a result higher education came to have no center, and experienced disciplinary fragmentation.

Second, they asked “What is the next phase in Western thought and practice?” Although evangelicals have tried to overcome de-centered education and disciplinary fragmentation by embarking on a project of “integration,” this project often is tainted by late modern presuppositions and therefore often is unable to offer a truly Christian account of the academic disciplines. For this reason, we must go beyond “integration.” We must recognize the ways in which late modernity has reified and isolated the disciplines from one another, and replace the later modern paradigm with a truly Christian one. In order to do so we leverage the Christian Scriptures and worldview toward the end of promoting a Christian “transdisciplinarity.”

Third, they asked “What is transdisciplinary scholarship? Transdisciplinary scholarship is scholarship which promotes the synthesis of human understanding for a distinctively Christian viewpoint. Against the late modern academic model, which results in ever-increasing specialization and the fragmentation of the disciplines, Bartholomew and Johnson argue that transdisciplinarity’s goal is “the transposition of each discipline into a higher, ever-increasingly unified order of knowledge and love, based on a Christian metaphysic.” Transdisciplinary scholarship relies upon certain metadisciplines (biblical studies, theology, Christian philosophy) to guide it in building an integrated body of knowledge, understanding, and practice. Instead of merely learning within isolated disciplines, therefore, we are able to bring the disciplines into conversation with one another, with each discipline being enriched, and with new transdisciplines being created.

Bartholomew and Johnson’s presentation was followed by several others. Robert Sloan spoke on “The State of the Nation” in regard to higher education. Eric Johnson presented “Transdisciplinary Scholarship as an Alternative Model.” Craig Bartholomew presented “Spiritual Formation, Intellectual Community, and Transdisciplinarity.” C. Stephen Evans presented “Philosophy and Transdisciplinarity.” Finally, yours truly wrapped up the consultation with a presentation which sought to point the way forward in light of the previous presentations.

The consultation was refreshing, in part because it was a small collaborative discussion rather than a sprawling and disconnected “conference,” but also because the concept of transdisciplinarity is a useful one for bringing unity to the field of Christian higher education in upcoming years. I agree with several of the presenters that the academy is experiencing an ever-increasing fragmentation, that this fragmentation keeps us from building an increasingly unified and God-centered body of knowledge, that it further handicaps the specialized disciplines themselves, and that it impoverishes human existence by separating out what ought to be held together.

I am not arguing that the universities and seminaries should discourage specialized knowledge, but that specialized fields of knowledge should remain in conversation with one another, and they should together be informed by certain metadisciplines (such as biblical studies, theology, and Christian philosophy) which are vital to their ultimate fruition. In other words, the Christian university should seek truly to be a uni-versity, a unified endeavor. The Christian university should center itself on biblical studies, Christian theology, and Christian philosophy, allowing the various scholarly disciplines to flourish within this truly Christian framework.

The obstacles to building a transdisciplinary Christian university are many, but not insurmountable. Presidents and Provosts must re-prioritize by hiring faculty members who will invest in the project, providing forums in which professors from various disciplines (e.g. arts, sciences) remain in close conversation with one another, and in which they together converse with biblical scholars, theologians, and Christian philosophers. Professors must re-prioritize, by investing time and energy in reading more broadly (in the meta-disciplines and in other disciplines) and engaging in their research projects communally. To re-prioritize in this manner poses a challenge, in light of the fact that many scholars are already stretched thin because of their teaching, advising, writing, and committee-attendance. However, the challenge is not insurmountable, and those persons and universities will be rewarded who meet the challenge in order to forge a genuinely transdisciplinary environment.

One final note: I hope the reader does not come away from this post with the impression that I think “all is bad” in Christian higher education. On the contrary, there is much about which to be optimistic. There are many Christian universities who have a vision to build a truly Christian university and who are realizing the fruits of their efforts. Union University, California Baptist University, and Houston Baptist University immediately come to mind, as do others. However, although everything is not bad, neither is everything good. Christian institutions of higher education have been adversely affected by our late modern and postmodern context, and find themselves struggling to build a truly unified and God-centered framework for knowledge. Toward that end, the concept of transdisciplinary scholarship seems a helpful one, and worthy of extended discussion and reflection.

These days, it seems as if everyone is talking about the late evangelical theologian Carl F. H. Henry (1913–2003). Greg Thornbury has authored a widely acclaimed new book titled Recovering Classic Evangelicalism: Applying the Wisdom and Vision of Carl F.H. Henry (Crossway, 2013). Thornbury, Collin Hansen, and John Starke recorded a conversation for The Gospel Coalition about a famous encounter between Henry and Karl Barth. A few months ago, Jason Duesing wrote an online essay honoring Henry in 100^th year of his birth. The Carl Henry Center for Theological Understanding at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School is hosting a major academic conference later this year, among other Henry-related scholarly activities. If you’re not familiar with Henry, he was a founding faculty member of Fuller Theological Seminary, the first editor of Christianity Today, and one of the architects of postwar neo-evangelicalism. His book The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism (1947) offered a broadside against the fundamentalist tendency to divorce evangelism and social engagement, while his six-volume God, Revelation, and Authority (1976–1983) was one of the most important works of evangelical theology written in the second half of the 20^th century. Though he is known primarily as an evangelical theologian, Henry was a Baptist. In fact, for much of his adult life he was a Southern Baptist. In 2004, Russell Moore wrote an article for The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology titled “God, Revelation, and Community: Ecclesiology and Baptist Identity in the Thought of Carl F. H. Henry.” Moore concludes that Henry was a convictional Baptist, but his ecclesiology was underdeveloped in his writings, in part because of his historical context. Simply put, few neo-evangelical theologians wrote on ecclesiology other than in the broadest strokes, in part because of the parachurch nature of postwar evangelicalism. I would say it like this: Henry was a conservative evangelical who held to Baptist ecclesiological convictions; the accent, however, was on the former aspect of his identity. By contrast, I consider myself an orthodox Baptist, which also makes me, by definition, a type of evangelical. I would encourage you to read Moore’s excellent essay to learn more about Henry’s Baptist identity. Henry himself discusses this topic in his essay “Twenty Years a Baptist,” which has most recently been reprinted in Why I Am a Baptist (B&H Academic, 2001), edited by Tom Nettles and Russell Moore. For an excellent short introduction to Henry’s thought, including his identity as an evangelical and Baptist theologian, see Al Mohler’s chapter on Henry in Theologians of the Baptist Tradition, edited by Timothy George and David Dockery (B&H Academic, 2001).

(Image credit; This post has been cross-published at Christian Thought & Tradition)

In a recent article in The Chronicle Review, David Orentlicher argues that two are better than one, at least when it comes to the United States Presidency.[1] Citing falling approval ratings, intractable political scuffles between the President (past and present) and Congress, and abuses of executive power (e.g., Watergate and Guantánamo) Orentlicher argues that the U.S. ought to adopt a system whereby each major party has a President, serving at the same time.

Orentlicher believes the problems with Congress are structural failings – “the decision by the founding fathers to place a single president atop the executive branch” (B4). While the original plan was for the legislative and judicial branches to check the power of the executive, according to Orentlicher, that increasingly does not happen. Thus, while we may not be able to reduce the amount of power in the Presidency, “we can, however, channel executive power in a more productive direction” with two instead of one at the top (B4).

Orentlicher cites examples from Switzerland and France, where politicians from different parties served in apparent “cohabitation” to bring about governing successes. Orentlicher believes that shared power, far from fostering an extended and destructive gridlock, would instead create an environment of cooperation because of the incentive both persons would have to build their legacy. Moreover, he cites game theory as a supporting idea–two people in a continuing relationship are more likely to cooperate (B5). According to Orentlicher two is better than one.

For my part, I’m more than a little bit skeptical. However, since I am not a political scientist, I’ll limit my comments to a related, and more theological, set of issues surrounding the intractable political scuffles and abuses of executive power to which Orentlicher refers.

The roots of any political dysfunction are complex and multi-faceted; they can be social, moral, practical, geographical, historical, etc., but almost always they involve a religious element. Politics is a function of the broader culture, and at the heart of culture is religion. In other words, an “ecology” of our American socio-political environment would show that the “roots” of the socio-political tree are “faith.” At the bottom of dysfunction in general, and political dysfunction in particular, is the direction of the human heart. A society is populated either by those who love, trust, and obey God, on the one hand, or by those who love, trust, and obey idols, on the other hand.

The United States, like other countries, is a teeming ecosystem of idolatry, providing a lush environment in which citizens may cultivate an inordinate love for sex, money, power, success, and the approval of man. These types of idols exist in a co-dependent relationship and foster the “isms” that dishonor God and disable human flourishing—isms such as consumerism, relativism, eroticism, naturalism, and scientism. Only as citizens find Christ can they be set free from enslavement to idols and for conformity to Christ.

Jesus Christ is Lord over the social and political process, just as he is Lord over everything else, and this Lordship is best understood in relation to three great truths. First, God created us as social and cultural beings. He endowed us with the spiritual, moral, rational, creative, relational, and physical capacities necessary to interact in the public square.

Second, political activity is marked by a great antithesis. After the fall, humans have lived in the midst of a great struggle between the kingdom of light and the kingdom of darkness, between Christ and Satan, and between truth and error. These invisible realities, represented by certain principalities and powers, are manifested in visible, tangible cultural realities such as greed, vitriol, dishonesty, and relativism in politics. This great struggle between light and darkness cuts across the entire creation and every human culture. Christians should resist this comprehensive assault on our shared cultural life. We should fight it tooth and nail, not only from the pulpit, but also from the public square.

Third, political activity takes place within an ordered realms which has its own creational design. Human cultures can be divided into a variety of realms—such as art, science, business, politics, and education—which have their own creational design and God-given integrity. Because we live in a fallen world comprised of sinners, these realms will be to some extent corrupted and directed toward wrong ends. In each realm (including the political realm), we should ask three questions: What is God’s creational design for this realm? In what ways has this realm been corrupted and misdirected toward wrong ends? How can I bring healing to this realm by redirecting it toward God’s creational design in Christ? To the extent we engage the public square with those questions in mind, we glorify God and provide our neighbors a preview of God’s future rule over a renewed and restored creation.

In other words, academic activity should take place under the absolute Lordship of Christ. Christ is the creator and King over all things, and one day will restore all things. He is not merely the Lord over my quiet times; he is Lord over my work, my leisure, and my politics. He is not merely sovereign over local church gatherings; he is sovereign over the public square. No piece of our (“secular”) life is to be sealed off from Christ’s lordship. Every square inch of it belongs to Christ and ought to be made to honor him. Missional Christians not only proclaim the gospel with words, they promote it in their public and political lives.

SEBTS professors Heath Thomas and Jeremy Evans are at it again. This time, they have co-edited with Paul Copan a new book Holy War in the Bible: Christian Morality and an Old Testament Problem (IVP, 2013). Essay contributors include Stephen B. Chapman (Duke University), Daniel Heimbach (SEBTS), Glen Stassen (Fuller Seminary), and Alan Bandy (OBU). Why do I recommend the book? It is a collection of essays which wrestles fruitfully with the question of holy war in the Bible, draws upon scholars from multiple disciplines and traditions, and possesses one of the best front cover graphics in recent memory.

In a nutshell, Holy War in the Bible addresses “the challenge of a seemingly genocidal God who commands ruthless warfare has bewildered Bible readers for generations.” This challenge arises from biblical stories such as God’s dealings with the Canaanites that in turn give rise to perennial questions for Bible readers. Some of these questions include: Why does God apparently tell Joshua to wipe out whole cities, tribes or nations? Is this yet another example of dogmatic religious conviction breeding violence? Did these texts help inspire or justify the Crusades? What impact do they have on Christian morality and just war theories today? How does divine warfare fit with Christ’s call to “turn the other cheek?” Why does Paul employ warfare imagery in his letters? Do these texts warrant questioning the overall trustworthiness of the Bible?

The book’s approach is cross-disciplinary, with contributions being made by scholars in biblical studies, ethics, philosophy, and theology. As the introduction states, “The variety of responses and approaches that emerge in the volume are warranted. Such a difficult and delicate topic cannot be cleanly ‘answered,’ as if theological questions such as these can be resolved in a simplistic manner. Biblical, moral, philosophical and theological threads inevitably weave together in arguments laid before the issue of divine war” (p. 18).

An example of this interdisciplinary approach, and its practical value, can be found in the discussion “holy war” in the Writings (Ch. 4) In the chapter, Heath Thomas argues that “the Writings provide a human response to the issue of divine war (YHWH war) not particularly advocated or explored in the rest of the canon, and this perhaps may provide a shape to Christian response in regards to the theme of Old Testament ‘holy war’ and Christian morality” (p. 68). As Thomas makes evident, a major component of that Christian response becomes clearer from a text like Lamentations 2. This passage shows us that lament has a place in the Christian life, especially lament over issues like “holy war.” Thomas states, “too often, in honest attempts to deal with the issue, some may tend to move outside of life before God and address challenging issues, like divine war, as if God would not actually respond to the prayers and tears of humanity” (p. 82). Thus while Christians may struggle to “figure out” such issues, Scriptures like Lamentations teach that Christians must first remain devoted to God in prayer and that he willingly hears their cries.

Such discussion provides a window into the nature of this fine volume by Evans and Thomas. For this reason, students at the college and seminary levels in biblical studies, philosophy, and ethics courses will find the discussions illuminating, and teachers will find much in the way of resources for guiding such students. The editors and contributors take on a complex issue with skill and Christian wisdom. For this reason, we recommend you purchase this book and put it to good use.

HONORING “LETTER FROM A BIRMINGHAM JAIL

By Mark Liederbach with Tom Iversen

April 16^th marked the 50th anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s “Letter from the Birmingham Jail.”

Many (including us) rank his letter as one of greatest pieces of American literature ever written.  It is at once a powerful and elegant exposition of, and argument for, natural law as well as a sturdy call to repentance and an outright challenge for those who claim to be aligned with the Gospel of Jesus Christ to stand up and be counted in the fight for truth and justice.  Fifty years later it is still poignantly relevant to a culture experiencing a full assault on notions of moral truth, ethical standards, religious conscience and rightly ordered freedom.

Sadly, too many evangelicals (both white and black) are unfamiliar with the masterpiece that is MLK Jr.’s “Letter from a Birmingham Jail.” But consider some of the astounding statements found within:

Wherever the early Christians entered a town the power structure got disturbed and immediately sought to convict them for being ‘disturbers of the peace’ and ‘outside agitators.’ But they went on with the conviction that they were a ‘colony of heaven’ and had to obey God rather than man. They were small in number but big in commitment. They were too God-intoxicated to be ‘astronomically intimidated.’ They brought an end to such ancient evils as infanticide and gladiatorial contest. Things are different now. The contemporary Church is so often a weak, ineffectual voice with an uncertain sound. It is so often the archsupporter of the status quo. Far from being disturbed by the presence of the Church, the power structure of the average community is consoled by the Church’s silent and often vocal sanction of things as they are.

The early Christians rejoiced when they were deemed worthy to suffer for what they believed. In those days the Church was not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and principles of popular opinion; it was a thermostat that transformed the mores of society.

Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.

In considering the philosophical and biblical sturdiness as well as the theological and moral challenge present in the Letter, we can’t help but be drawn to the words and thoughts of the Apostle Paul in Acts 17 that have a similar shaping influence on questions of justice, truth and morality.  There, in Athens, on Mars Hill, while engaging the Greek philosophers and bringing the truth of the Gospel into the marketplace of ideas, Paul made this remarkable statement:

and God made from one blood every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation, that they should seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; for in Him we live and move and have our being… (Acts 17:26-28. Italics added for emphasis). 

One Blood

In Him we live and move and have our being.

Ideas to rock the status quo and change a world.

One blood means there is only one race: the human one.  Thus, racism is fundamentally stupid and unbiblical.

In Him we live and move and have our being means all humans will only find hope fulfilled and a satisfied soul as each person rightly aligns him or herself to the God who created all things for His own glory.  And that can only happen through faith in Jesus Christ.

One important difference between Dr. King’s Letter and the Apostle Paul’s speech on Mars Hill relates to the audience to whom each was directed.  It is interesting to note that Dr. King made his argument not so much to unbelievers or those who directly persecuted him, but to his brothers and sisters in Christ.  His target audience was those tepid, timid “white churchmen [who] stand on the sideline and mouth pious irrelevancies and sanctimonious trivialities” and justify their inaction by saying “those are social issues with which the Gospel has no real concern.”

Perhaps the reason the words of MLK Jr. and Paul are so powerful and transcend notions of race or ethnicity is not because of the elegance of the writing or the catchiness of certain phrases, but rather (and far more importantly), because truth always transcends categories of race and ethnicity.  And speaking truth in the face of injustice or ideas that stand in opposition to the Gospel of Jesus Christ is one of the key ways true Christ followers must “take captive” and “destroy” ideas and speculations that stand against the things of God in their own heats and in the culture at large.

It is for this reason that at the 50 year anniversary of Dr. King’s “Letter from a Birmingham Jail”  we are especially grateful to God for Dr. King and his calling all of us to be stand and fight not just for ending the moral stupidity of racism, but even more so, to be the kind of people who do not acquiesce to the ideas of culture but rather shape it for the Glory of God.

Fifty years ago Martin Luther King Jr. stood like a man and called all of us to be better.  Fifty years later he is still calling us up to be men with him.

“Letter from a Birmingham Jail” is timeless work of ethics, philosophy, theology, amazing writing … AND a good reminder of two astounding truths: 1) The Gospel is thicker than blood (and therefore skin color) and; 2) our lives and our world can only be transformed into wholeness  through the person and work of Jesus Christ.

(Image credit)

—————————————-

Mark Liederbach is Professor of Theology, Ethics, and Culture at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. He also serves as Vice President for Student Services and Dean of Students, and is a Research Fellow for the L.Russ Bush Center for Faith and Culture. Tom Iversen serves as an elder at North Wake Church in Wake Forest, NC.

On a regular basis I am asked about my views on Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility, Calvinism and Arminianism. Sometimes the question asked is, in light of all the talk, blogging, conferencing, etc., “Have you changed your views on any of the relevant subjects?” There is an easy answer to that question: No. My views of these important biblical doctrines are the same as they were in 1988 when Paige Patterson hired me to teach at Criswell College. They are the same as they were in 1992 when Paige Patterson hired me to teach at Southeastern. They are the same as they were in 1996 when Al Mohler hired me to teach at Southern. And, they are the same as they were when I was called to be the president of Southeastern in 2004. My Systematic Theology Notes are available at danielakin.com for anyone to freely access. They will bear witness to my claim. And, in April 2006 SBC Life invited me to write an article showing how we might navigate this theological minefield while being true to Scripture, faithful to our BF&M 2000, and finding a way to cooperate together for the glory of God and the good of the nations. I still believe the article charts a way forward, and so I share it again for review and critique. Of one thing I am certain: we will either find a way forward together or we will find ourselves vanishing into obscurity. May the way be forward!

Was Hitler ill? You bet he was, but not in any sense that would exonerate him or make him less responsible for his actions. In a recent edition of London Review of Books, Richard J. Evans reviews Was Hitler Ill? by Hans-Joachim Neumann and Henrik Eberle.[1] Neumann and Eberle survey the various explanations offered as the reason(s) for Hitler’s violent reign over the Third Reich (and extermination of over 6 million Jews and dissenters), but focus on the “mental illness” explanation which has been one of the most popular. They conclude that Hitler was sane “according to any reasonable definition of the term, and fully responsible for his actions.”

Evans recounts the possible explanations for Hitler’s actions. Explanations for his anti-Semitism include: that he had Jewish ancestry (and presumably was ashamed of this); he had a bad Jewish doctor who had overcharged his family; he once visited a Jewish prostitute; and he was a sadomasochist, and in Freudian manner, “projected his sexual perversions onto a world stage.” Numerous biographers have argued that Hitler was homosexual and the Night of the Long Knives in 1934 was a means to cover up (to that point), by murder, any with knowledge of his forays.

His heterosexual relationship with Eva Braun was for Hitler likely a public relations move to protect his public persona and health (per his doctor, Theo Morell). Evans provides a laundry list of health problems Hitler experienced: chronic hoarseness from speechmaking, dysentery, irritable bowel syndrome, a tremor in his left arm that many began to notice in 1941, and bad teeth. His health declined and never fully recovered after the injuries he suffered in the unsuccessful assassination attempt of 1944. During all this Hitler’s doctor, Morell, prescribed at least 82 drugs taken by Hitler, according to Neumann and Eberle.

Kudos if you already feel a sense of irony. For as Evans states, “the contrast with his regime’s obsessive drive to breed a race of healthy Aryans . . . was striking.” By cataloging Hitler’s health (or lack thereof) Neumann and Eberle, then, firmly answer the question of their book Was Hitler Ill? The answer is “a resounding no; or, to put it more accurately, he was no more so than everyone is at one time or other. He wasn’t mentally ill; whether his beliefs were rational is an entirely different matter.” Most would rightly argue his beliefs were not rational, rather they were the basis of his racist, perverse, and evil thoughts manifested in political control and violence.

In response to the authors’ fine point that Hitler was responsible for his actions, and cannot be exonerated on the basis of “mental illness,” I’ll make only one point, albeit an extended one: Hitler was indeed sick. He was sick unto death, and as such, was sick not only physically, but more important spiritually, and his spiritual sickness affected him in all of his capacities: moral, rational, creative, relational, affective, and so forth. For sin is a multi-faceted horror that affects the whole human being; it is a vandalism of the shalom God intended for his human imagers.

As Cornelius Plantinga outlines in Not the Way Its Supposed to Be: A Breviary of Sin, sin vandalizes shalom in at least nine ways.[2] Those nine ways shed light on Hitler’s sickness unto death. Sin is a corruption, in that it both blurs distinctions and destroys unions. This can be seen in Hitler’s destruction of the union God intends for the human race (e.g. Jew and non-Jew).  Sin is a perversion, in that it twists God’s creation toward unworthy or wrong ends. This can be seen in the way Hitler turned his own loyalties, energies, and desires away from God and toward building his own kingdom with a jerry-rigged ideology that sought to justify the diversion. Sin is a pollution, in that it brings together what ought to remain apart. It is a disintegration, in that it divides that which ought to be together. It is a progressive corruption, in that one sin leads to another. Like a cancer, it not only kills but reproduces itself. One notes the progressive corruption taking place over the course of Hitler’s life.

Sin is both a privation and a parasite. It is not normal. It is an alien intruder, party-crashing God’s good creation. C. S. Lewis writes, ““Goodness is, so to speak, itself: badness is only spoiled goodness.” Evil must draw upon God’s good creation in order to attack God’s good creation. “The smartest blows against shalom,” writes Plantinga, “are struck by people and movements of impressive resourcefulness, strength, and intelligence – that is to say, by people and movements gifted by the very God and with the very goodness that their sin attacks.” And again, “…rebellion borrows boldness, imagination, and creativity from the very God it attacks.” Precisely because God had created Hitler in his image and gifted him greatly, Hitler was able to draw upon those gifts to attack his fellow imagers and vandalize God’s shalom.

Sin is a masquerade, in that it pretends to be what it is not. “To do its worst,” Plantinga writes, “evil needs to look its best. Evil has to spend a lot on makeup. . . . Vices have to masquerade as virtues – lust as love, thinly veiled sadism as military discipline, envy as righteous indignation, domestic tyranny as parental concern.” Hitler’s Aryan philosophy did exactly this, making his Aryan agenda appear attractive to the German people. But sin is also a great folly, in that it goes against the grain of the universe. It flouts wisdom, and at no point moreso than its desire to worship something or somebody more than God.

Finally, sin is addictive. God created us to long for him, but sin is taps into this longing and siphons its energies into false gods who strangle life rather than giving life. Hitler, an addict like the rest of us, needed to face the truth about his addiction, tearing away the layers of denial and self-deception that have “protected his supply.” In fact, as Plantinga writes, “Addicts are…tragic figures whose fall is often owed to a combination of factors so numerous, so complex, and elusive that only a proud and foolish therapist would propose a neat taxonomy of them.”

Hitler’s evil life arose from numerous and complex factors which we cannot firmly or comprehensively discern, so it would be proud and foolish of us to propose a neat taxonomy of them. The one thing we can affirm, taking our cue from Paul in the book of Romans, is that Hitler was an idolater whose suppression of the truth led him on a downward and evil spiral in which his thoughts were futile and his foolish heart was darkened, in which he did evil deeds and approved of others who did them also (Rom 1:18-32).  Hitler was sick unto death.

In recent years, the subject of altar calls has been sometimes hotly debated among Southern Baptists. If you don’t know the term, altar calls are a form of public invitation wherein attendees are urged to walk to the front of a worship center or other gathering place to discuss spiritual matters, normally near the conclusion of a worship service. Evangelists such as Billy Graham give altar calls at the conclusion of their evangelistic meetings. In many churches, pastors invite attendees to the front to seek counsel related to conversion, to express a desire to be baptized and/or join the church, and to discuss any number of other spiritual matters. Many churches also invite folks to pray at the front of the worship center, even if they do not discuss these prayers with a pastor or other spiritual counselor.

Altar calls have been common among American evangelicals for about two hundred years. During the Second Great Awakening, frontier Methodists first used this practice in their camp meetings. Some Baptists in the South also adopted the practice, which they almost certainly learned from the Methodists, since these two groups frequently cooperated in camp meetings in the Carolinas and Georgia through the 1810s. In the 1820s and 1830s, Charles Finney popularized the view among Presbyterians, Congregationalists, and Baptists in the urban Northeast. Though he was accused of introducing “Methodist” practices among these more Calvinistic churches, altar calls (along with his other “new measures”) became popular among many evangelicals.

Though it is impossible to determine with certainty when altar calls became a part of the weekly liturgy of most Southern Baptist churches, the practice was common after the Civil War and nearly uniform by the early twentieth century. This more or less coincides with the same period that Southern Baptists almost universally embraced “protracted meetings” (revival meetings) as a means to evangelize their communities. Though I can’t prove it, I suspect the two trends are related, since both reflect practices that emerged during the Second Great Awakening.

Back to the present. In my opinion, the debate about altar calls is “much ado about nothing.” I put altar calls in the category of what Augustine calls adiaphora: the “indifferent matters” that various Christians might disagree about without breaking fellowship. Simply put, altar calls are a particular strategy, born out of a particular context, that may or may not work in other contexts. Though open to various abuses (what strategy isn’t?), I don’t believe altar calls are inherently anti-biblical or manipulative. Though helpful in some contexts, altar calls aren’t biblically mandated means of encouraging spiritual decisions. As a mostly itinerant preacher, when I preach, I adapt my practice to the tradition of the church or other context in which I’m preaching. I would estimate that I extend an altar call about 75% of the time.

In taking this approach, I’m deliberately pushing back against two tendencies that I think are extremes and that frequently shoot at each other in this particular debate. On the one hand, I reject the argument that altar calls are (almost) always inappropriate. Some folks who make this argument are Calvinists who believe the practice is out-of-bounds because of its roots in the more Arminian wing of the Second Great Awakening. Other Calvinists reject altar calls because of their particular understanding of the regulative principle of worship; since altar calls aren’t in the Bible, we shouldn’t employ them today. Still others, from a variety of soteriological perspectives, reject altar calls for methodological reasons. Altar calls are seen to be relics of a bygone era of revivalism and cultural Christianity that simply do not work in a more postmodern, urban, post-Christian world.

On the other hand, I reject the view that altar calls are (almost) always necessary for one to be an evangelistic preacher or church. Some folks who make this argument are vocal non-Calvinists who are reacting negatively to the theological critiques that some Calvinists have advanced concerning altar calls. Others are simply pastors and other leaders who have found that altar calls useful in their contexts and seem to have a hard time understanding that the strategy might not work in other contexts. I suspect that still others defend altar calls for experiential reasons; they have expressed their own significant spiritual decisions in part by responding to altar calls.

I suspect that much of the debate isn’t about altar calls per se, but rather is about concerns each extreme has about the other extreme. Therefore, I want to offer some constructive advice to those who are strongly for or strongly against altar calls.

If you are strongly in favor of altar calls, be sure that you don’t require altar calls for individuals to seek spiritual counsel. To say it a different way, make sure that altar calls are but one avenue through which an individual can seek counsel, make spiritual decisions known, etc. Second, when it comes to conversion in particular, make sure that the altar call doesn’t replace baptism as the public profession of faith. This elevates the altar call, which is simply a human strategy, and downplays baptism, which is an ordinance commanded by our Lord. Finally, don’t turn altar calls into a sacrament by implying that one is saved through walking an aisle. I know that no pastor really teaches this, but I also know that many folks seem to hear this. (I did throughout my teenage years.) Pastors need to be extra careful to be as clear as possible that an altar call doesn’t convey any sort of grace, but is simply a way to encourage folks to share what the Lord has already done in their lives or to seek spiritual counsel from pastors or other leaders.

If you are strongly against altar calls, be sure that you are being intentionally evangelistic in your corporate worship gatherings. Press the claims of Christ upon sinners and plead with them to repent and believe—in that very moment. Provide them with avenues to make spiritual decisions known or to seek spiritual counsel. In my church, where we don’t regularly extend altar calls, we always remind folks that elders are standing at each door and are eager to talk and pray with anyone who desires to do so. Much of what happens in other churches during an altar call happens in our church after the service as individuals talk to a pastor about spiritual matters. Second, don’t assume that just because altar calls were popularized by folks with theological convictions that Southern Baptists reject (Methodists; Finney) means that altar calls are, by definition, theologically suspect. There are good and bad forms of altar calls; give your brothers the benefit of the doubt on this unless you have clear evidence that someone is being manipulative.

There is much in the Southern Baptist Convention that is worthy of debate and discussion, provided we are Christ-like and extend brotherly love towards one another. But I don’t think this issue is worthy of too much debate (discussion, perhaps). Let’s extend each other Christian charity in methodological strategies that don’t conflict with biblical teachings, since churches are free to adopt these strategies or dispense with them. This includes the altar call. For readers who want to consider appropriate ways to extend an altar call, check out Danny Akin’s chapter “Giving an Invitation: Soul Winning from the Pulpit” in Engaging Exposition (B&H Academic, 2011).

(Image Credit)