Stuck in the Present
Klavan provides a thoughtful, winsome, and engaging treatment.
The author’s top-shelf classical training (Yale and Oxford) is employed very well. That said, this is not a stodgy or dense academic tome. It is accessible, but offers much food for thought.
Most Christians find theology unimportant. Whether it is due to poor Christian education in churches, poor teachers, boredom borne of spiritual apathy, or any number of other things, there is no doubt that the lifelong study of theology in most American churches has gone the way of the dodo bird.
Philosophy is even less valued than theology which is saying something. So, imagine trying to make the case that certain distinctions in philosophy are critical for doing theology well! That is a herculean task that few can persuade others to consider.
As many of us have heard, you can’t get away from being a theologian. It’s not whether we are a theologian. It’s whether we are thinking well theologically or not. When it comes to philosophy, we may conclude that we are definitely not a philosopher. I will let Dallas Willard take it from here. Willard regularly heard people object to the importance of philosophy by saying, “I don’t need philosophy. I am a practical person.” Willard would respond, “They don’t realize that their view is a philosophy!”
I have not included the subtitle to this chapter at the beginning for one simple reason: most of you would stop reading. For those curious types who are still reading, here it is: The Via Moderna, Nominalism, and the Late Medieval Departure from the Realism of Thomistic Augustinianism, and its Soteriology.
Barrett’s discussion about what constitutes an orthodox view of salvation is extremely well-done, and very helpful. Barrett introduces us to the debate in a way that illuminates what the proper truths are to keep in mind as one navigates the most important issue of all: What is the biblical view of how one enters into a relationship with God?
Moore: How much of this book was sparked by you wanting to make better sense of your own public and sometimes fraught relationship with American evangelicalism?
Prior: Wow. You just dive right in, don’t you?
I explain in the introduction how this book emerged in large part through watching my students–I’ve been teaching evangelical students for 25 years–wrestle with their own fraught relationships with American evangelicalism.
But you have rightly intuited that it hasn’t been just my students that have had to contend with what we’ve all witnessed over the past several years within American evangelicalism. I have been formed and discipled by conservative evangelicalism for nearly 40 years. I was (am?) a culture warring evangelical. But, like so many, I’ve seen what that has gotten us. And I’ve seen what we’ve lost, too. So as much as I still very much identify as evangelical and want to recover whatever in it that is good, I also lament what we have gotten wrong.
I know some (too many of my students, to be honest) have given up–not only on evangelicalism, but on the faith, too. No movement is perfect, of course. But I don’t see how any faithful person would not want to engage in an ongoing process of discernment, correction, and repair. Yet, in doing that–and in doing it very publicly–I have been attacked, misrepresented, and had my very faith called into question. (Others have had the same experiences.)
So, fraught? Absolutely.
Moore: In my thirties, I was an associate pastor (more on that modifier in the next question) in a large, evangelical church. Some of the elders had a penchant for calling families “giving units.” In your book you write about the use of “Enlightenment-era machine metaphors.” Would you describe what you mean by that description?
Prior: I’ve got to be honest: “giving units” is a new one for me. I wish I’d heard of it to include in the book!
There are so many of these machine metaphors. They are so common we often forget they are such. When we talk about calculating our productivity, processing our thoughts, the light bulb going on, firing on all cylinders, or being fully functioning, we are using machine metaphors.
Now, there’s not anything inherently wrong with using these metaphors. But if we lose sight of what we are comparing ourselves to, then we risk losing a bit of the full sense of our humanity.
Moore: Modifiers like youth, assistant, associate, music, discipleship executive, lead, senior, are more still (!), are common to use before pastor. Specialization in this sort of way is a recent thing. I think it would be hard to find much of it prior to the nineteenth century. How has specialization affected our imaginations as to the responsibilities of every pastor?
Prior: Late modernity is most definitely an age of specialization. Again, that is mostly a blessing. How good it is to have some physicians who can treat cancer so well and others who are skilled in brain surgery! What we can lose in overspecialization, however, is the essence of the calling: a physician is called to care and to heal. A teacher is called to teach no matter what the subject or who the students. And a pastor is called to shepherd his flock. When we lose sight of the telos (of anything), we lose sight of the thing itself.
I think this is partly why the Southern Baptist Convention (for example) is in the midst of so many controversies over titles, and names, and terms. The same is true with controversial social issues: so much of the battle over labels is over the nature of things. Yet, we also live in a culture that increasingly denies the nature of things. A shepherd and a leader are quite different things, for example. Yet many think they are somehow supposed to be the same. I can’t help but wonder if the shortage of pastors that has been much reported recently is related to what the role is imagined to be like compared to what it really is.
Moore: I regularly develop mnemonic devices and I also like to come up with sayings that remind me of critical truths. Over the decades, I have listened to hundreds of Christians giving their “testimonies.” During my time on staff with Cru, I sometimes helped others put together their testimony. The only kind of testimony I have ever heard (and now you know I was guilty for aiding and abetting things!) is one of achieving some sort of spiritual victory. I now call this “Watch out who has the microphone.” What fuels the American evangelical love for only “overcomer” kinds of testimonies? Why don’t we ever hear “testimonies” where someone describes that they are presently struggling, but still trusting God?
Prior: Ok, here’s my chance. I want to say that I am presently struggling–but still trusting God!
But back to your very good question.
I think there are a few things at play here. First, it is simply human to love a great story, the more dramatic, the better. And it is particularly modern (although not exclusively so) to especially love the underdog who overcomes great obstacles or experiences a great transformation. And even further, it is especially American to desire or applaud the individual achievement of some kind of greatness.
When these cultural factors are added to the biblical reality of conversion, then you have a perfect set of conditions for cultivating an appetite for extra spicy testimonies.
Moore: Offering non-Christians the opportunity to have a “personal relationship” with Christ is a regular feature of evangelical evangelism. This approach to evangelism is rather recent, isn’t it? If so, why is it, and what would be a better way to communicate (I was tempted to say “share”) the gospel?
Prior: Again, this is a particular feature of the modern age. Modernity is characterized by the rise of the individual. Evangelicalism’s emphasis on the individual experience of salvation and the conversion experience makes it harder for us to put this reality in balance with the passages in the Bible that describe families, households, and generations as being part of a covenantal faith. As an evangelical, I do see the need for individual acceptance of Christ or following him. But I am coming to see more and more the role that families, churches, communities, and cultures play in preparing the ground for individuals to believe.
Moore: I believe it is safe to say that the evangelical model of Christian growth is largely behavioristic. It seems that the Victorian Era, of which you write so well on, could be an influence with our focus on external behavior rather than addressing our inner motivations, or what Augustine called “properly ordered loves.”
Prior: Absolutely. The Victorians were very concerned with “keeping up appearances.” (Really, this is true of all human societies, of course, but the Victorians were just extra good at it and lived in a context, one largely shaped by evangelicalism and the industrial revolution, that facilitated it.)
Then came behaviorism as an approach to human understanding in the early twentieth century. There is some truth in this school of thought, but as you point out, Augustine has a lot to offer us in understanding the relationship about how our inner desires are cultivated–and that they are cultivated–often by externals such as the social imaginary. If we fail to integrate the inward and the outward, one will always lead at the expense or deformity of the other.
Moore: What are a few things that you hope your readers take away from reading The Evangelical Imagination?
Prior: I hope that readers have a greater awareness of the powers of the imagination, our social imaginaries, and language–even on our deeply held beliefs. Even more, I hope they see how it is Christ who holds all these things together. He is at the center, and our desire should be to be centered in him.
The Reformation as Renewal: Retrieving the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church by Matthew Barrett
Chapter 4: Thomas Aquinas as a “Sounder Scholastic”
The Reformation’s Critical Retrieval of Scholasticism
This is the longest chapter of Barrett’s nearly 900-page book. The chapter on Martin Luther comes in at second longest, but pride of place goes to Thomas Aquinas.
Why ninety pages on Thomas Aquinas? Didn’t Aquinas believe many things that are at odds with “biblical” Christianity? Shouldn’t we Protestants steer clear of “Catholic” thinkers like Aquinas?
All of the church’s history is for every Christian. Protestant Christians who believe their history began with the Protestant Reformation are robbing themselves of the riches of 2000 plus years of God’s dealings with His people. As historian Timothy George likes to say, “There is a whole lot more history to the Christian faith between the death of Jesus and the birth of your grandma.”
The “sounder Scholastic” in Barrett’s chapter title is to underscore the need to separate Aquinas (1225-74) from later medieval Scholastics. Some of these later Scholastics like Biel (ca. 1420-95) misrepresented what Aquinas wrote. In doing so, a young Martin Luther thought that Aquinas was of little value. Barrett does a great job of showing that Luther and Aquinas both valued the work of previous theologians like Augustine.
After a short-term mission in 1986 to the former Yugoslavia, I travelled throughout Europe for two weeks. One of my stops included four days of study at L’Abri in Switzerland. Some of you will know that this is the study center started by Francis and Edith Schaeffer. Francis Schaeffer’s blockbuster How Should We Then Live? is still worth reading, but he badly misrepresented Aquinas. Schaeffer wrote:
By the thirteenth century the great Aquinas (1225-74) has already begun, in deference to Aristotle (384-22 BC), to open the door to placing revelation and human reason on an equal footing. (p. 43, emphasis mine)
While I was at L’Abri, I asked one of the tutors about Schaeffer’s misrepresentation of Aquinas. Though this tutor was very fond of Schaeffer, he admitted that Schaeffer relied on poor, secondary sources.
Many believe that Aquinas leaned hard on Aristotle. Thomas did gain insight from Aristotle, but as Barrett shows, the great Christian thinker was very influenced by Augustine. And so was Luther. The irony, and it has led to much confusion, is that unbeknownst to Luther he shared much of Aquinas’s theology.
If you are looking for an entertaining, insightful, and short book on Aquinas, you will be hard-pressed to do any better than the one written by the master stylist, G.K. Chesterton in Saint Thomas Aquinas: The Dumb Ox.
The Reformation as Renewal: Retrieving the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church by Matthew Barrett
Chapter 2: Spiritual Assent and Mystical Dissent
Chapter 3: Faith Seeking Understanding
Due to various factors, I am going to make these summaries shorter. I hope they clarify some important matters and motivate you to go deeper into the Protestant tradition.
I will again be adding some of my own reflections…
In chapter 2, Barrett covers various monastic orders and mystical movements of the medieval period. A few thoughts…
It is all too easy for us Protestants to discount or discard all together the best of the monastic and mystical traditions. My two short, yet good recommendations to correct this problem are:
The Rule of St. Benedict and Of the Imitation of Christ by Thomas à Kempis (William C. Creasy, ed.)
In closing out chapter 2, we must remember that the late Middle Ages was hardly a “spiritual graveyard, lifeless and full of darkness.” (Barrett, p. 69)
Chapter 3 covers one of my favorite topics: faith seeking understanding. Too many conservative Christians in the West are confused about what biblical faith is and what faith entails. Biblical faith is neither a subjective wish-fulfillment nor is it mathematical certitude. People like Augustine and Anselm invite us to appreciate that there is both struggle and increasing clarity that comes from trusting in God.
A seminal book for me, and one that I regularly recommend is: Lesslie Newbigin’s Proper Confidence: Faith, Doubt, and Certainty in Christian Discipleship. Newbigin makes a compelling case that many Christians view faith as almost mathematical certainty or on the other side of things, as simply a subjective choice.
If you are looking for a clear introduction to church history, I would recommend Church History in Plain Language, fifth edition, by Bruce L. Shelley.
The Reformation as Renewal: Retrieving the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church by Matthew Barrett
Chapter 1: The Catholicity of the Reformation
I’ve had several conversations with pastors, seminary graduates, and other Evangelicals who are not clear about main features of the Protestant Reformation. To adapt what Howard Hendricks said on numerous occasions, “If there is a mist in the pulpit, there will be fog in the pew.”
The history of the Christianity is not often taught in our American churches, so it is no wonder why many Christians would see little importance in learning about it.
If you end up reading this book, here are a few things to keep in mind:
Read the footnotes. There are important things to pick up.
Mark up your book. Physical engagement is a boon to reading well.
If you are stumped, do a Google search, or ask a learned friend. If those fail to help, feel free to reach out to me in the comment thread of the blog.
Note well: I shall be adding several things from my own study of church history to augment and/or illumine the points Barrett has made in The Reformation as Renewal.
Let’s get started!
Defining Catholic and catholic
The subtitle is worth pondering, especially the catholic part: Retrieving the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church
Make sure to pick up when I capitalize Catholic and when I put the “c” in the lower-case.
It is crucial to get a clear sense of what “catholic” means. It means general or universal. So, all true Christians, whether they are Roman Catholic (a descriptor that Barrett seeks to avoid)[1], Protestant, or Eastern Orthodox, ought to be committed to the universal church.
I call myself a Christian of catholic and Protestant convictions. My use of the small c catholic causes both Protestants and Roman Catholics to be confused. Roman big c Catholic is decidedly what I am not. Protestant little c catholic is decidedly what I am. I’m sure we will talk about this again.
The Protestant Reformers Did Not See Themselves as Starting Something New
The Reformers understood that theological innovation is bad. They did not see themselves as innovators, but as faithful heirs of the church’s tradition. The debate between Protestants and Roman Catholics was not simply the Bible against human tradition. This is how it has been popularly understood: Luther and others were the Bible folks while the Roman Catholic church was holding to human traditions.
Tradition is actually a good and biblical word. It means that which has been “handed or delivered over.” One esteemed historian memorably said that “Tradition is the living faith of dead while traditionalism is the dead faith of the living.”
The Protestant Reformation addressed several matters, but it certainly included debates over who was more in line with the church’s tradition. This may come as a surprise to many/most of you. Again, more on that in the future commentaries.
The Protestant Reformers did not see themselves at odds with the ancient or even medieval church. They were trying to highlight areas of doctrine, especially issues related to salvation and the papacy, that they believed the Roman Catholic church had departed from with both the Bible and Christian tradition.
Protestants are not Just Protestors!
It is crucial to define the word “Protestant” as it is widely misunderstood. Take some time to digest the following quote. It relates to Barrett’s footnote 21 on page 7.
Patristic scholar (=early church fathers) D.H. Williams offers much clarity on an issue riddled with loads of confusion:
The term “Protestant” is commonly used with a negative connotation. Everyone knows that Protestants are those who “protest” and dissent from Roman Catholicism. While historic Protestantism did indeed register a series of objections to Roman Catholic dogma and practice, such a definition is nonetheless unfortunate and even imbalanced for the reason that the Reformation was at heart an affirmation, a vigorous protestation of positive principles. A Protestant was, as the primary meaning of the Latin verb protestare indicates, one who seeks “to bear witness,” or “to declare openly.” Historically, Protestants are those who have sought to affirm certain tenets of their faith which bear witness to the apostolic message. John Wesley’s letter to a Roman Catholic acquaintance on 18 July 1749 offers a prime example of this when he defined “a true Protestant” in accordance with a series of doctrinal professions, each beginning with the ancient words, “I believe.” Wesley obviously felt it was more important to describe what Protestantism stood for rather than what it stood against. Not once did he tell his reader what Protestants rejected and opposed.[2]
Remember it well. We Protestants are not just “protestors.” We have many glorious truths to proclaim!
Are Protestants Responsible for the Secular Idea of the Individual?
As Barrett describes, there are Roman Catholic scholars who argue that the Protestant Reformation ushered in rabid individualism and chaos. As some Roman Catholics argue, you can draw a straight line from Martin Luther to the “my truth” of our relativistic age. As the argument goes, since everyone can be their own priest or pope, you are going to get lots of confusion in the Protestant tradition.
I am sure you have had a Catholic friend raise concerns over the thousands of Protestant denominations. It’s too bad that there is no one in the Protestant camp like the Pope who can be a theological umpire. All kinds of people are calling balls and strikes. Barrett’s lengthy response to this false claim is very well done. For sake of space, I will not summarize it, but Barrett’s reasoning is comprehensive and convincing.
I do have a few brief comments of my own about this common criticism of Protestantism.
First, some Roman Catholics focus the blame of rabid individualism on ideas alone. Those who advocate for Scripture alone (sola Scriptura), another very misunderstood notion, are to blame. More on the confusion about sola Scriptura in a future post.
Even if the idea of sola Scriptura was somewhat responsible for the rabid individualism among many of us Protestants,[3] it is not the only culprit. Carl Trueman highlights how those who emphasize ideas tend to forget how much material culture like cars have influenced the individualism of modern America.[4]
Second, it is true that the thousands of denominations raise concerns that should grieve us all. However, the Roman Catholic claim to offer a safe haven for theology and Christian living is mythical. Anyone who has studied Roman Catholic theology or even interacted with many Roman Catholic believers discovers that there is much diversity.
No, the Roman Catholic does not have official denominations, but there are de facto denominations. For example, Richard Rohr gets to stay in the Roman Catholic church even though he holds various heretical teachings that are contrary to the official teaching of the Catholic Catechism. Other Roman Catholics have no problem being at odds with papal encyclicals and other teaching on things like abortion. There are several public figures who don’t agree with the church on many matters, yet they still are welcome to worship as genuine members of the Roman Catholic Church. Many Roman Catholics are alarmed by these things, but the chaos continues. One Roman Catholic scholar who teaches seminary students preparing for the priesthood told me how troubled he is by this hypocrisy. He believes that only 15% of those attending mass are true Catholics.
The Gospel
Whether when teaching in Poland or here in the United States, I have met many Roman Catholics who love Jesus and place their faith entirely in Him. I also know so-called Evangelicals who are unclear about the gospel. Confusion about the gospel is not solely a Roman Catholic problem!
Some ideas that will be new to many of you are introduced in this first chapter. Those will be discussed in much more depth in later chapters, so I will hold off on my commentary until then.
[1] In footnote 91 Barrett mentions why he tries to steer clear of using the name Roman Catholic. He has good reasons for doing so, but I am sticking with it to avoid the confusion that might come from saying Catholic big C versus catholic small c.
[2] D.H. Williams, Retrieving the Tradition & Renewing Evangelicalism (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1999), 173-74.
[3] Again, I would argue that sola Scriptura properly understood was not responsible for rabid individualism. Rather, it is the distorted version of sola Scriptura that far too many of us Protestants hold that is the real culprit.
[4] Carl Trueman, “Taylor’s Complex, Incomplete Narrative,” in Our Secular Age: Ten Years of Reading and Applying Charles Taylor,” ed. Collin Hansen (Deerfield, IL: The Gospel Coalition, 2017), 19-20.
Join in on the discussion. It is not necessary to read the book, though I highly recommend it!
Jennifer Rosner has written a winsome, probing, even dare I say, provocative book.
Rosner is a Jew by birth. Later, she became a Christian by believing in Jesus as her messiah. As she tells so well in this book, her love of all things Jewish did not stop when she trusted in Jesus. Just the opposite.
This book does a terrific job of challenging Christians to consider whether we properly appreciate the debt we have to the Jewish religion. Most of us have not digested the reality that the Christian faith is anchored in the Jewish world. Rosner makes a strong case that Jesus would want us to ponder more deeply how much we owe to our Jewish ancestors.
Burton’s book combines terrific writing, first-rate reporting, telling illustrations, and the competence of a brilliant scholar. Burton’s Oxford doctorate does not get in the way of writing in an accessible and compelling style.
As many others have said, and I certainly concur, this is a terrific resource to better appreciate the many bizarre ways people embrace the “spiritual.”
My Interview with Tim Keller, Endorsing My Favorite Keller Book, and Reflections on His Life…
I was hesitant to interview Tim Keller, but not for the reasons you may think. I was slated to interview him on his book about trusting God with suffering. I have read many books on the subject, so I was a bit skeptical that any fresh angles could be articulated.
I was wrong, and so very glad to do the interview which you can find here:
It was also a privilege to blurb what is perhaps my favorite Keller book:
https://timothykeller.com/books/making-sense-of-god
Keller had his critics, and some of that criticism seems well-founded. However, there are many things we can learn from his example.
Many times, God uses the most unlikely people. Keller’s awkwardness socially would not have made one think he was destined to the ministry we now know him for. By the way, Keller got a C in his seminary preaching class, not an encouraging sign that he would amount to much as a preacher.
Some other things we can learn from Keller’s life:
*Mentors are hugely influential. Keller had several, but Edmund Clowney was one of the most formative. Clowney’s kindness, learning, and commitment to Keller reminds me of the role Ambrose played for Augustine.
*Keller’s ability to synthesize material, commitment to listen well to others, free people up to use their own gifts, but most of all, his humility, are things God has honored.
*There is no Tim Keller as we know him today without Kathy Keller. If you have a spouse who is a partner in ministry (I am graced by God to say that I do), then thank God for that blessing. If you are single and looking for a spouse, be diligent to find someone who shares the vision God has laid on your heart.
*If I were asked to list a couple of specifics that make a minister used of God, I would list true piety, humility, ability to keep loyal friends over the long haul, and courage. For the latter, Keller had a powerful model in a pastor who preceded him. He is a long-forgotten name, but you will be inspired by getting to know William E. Hill Jr. Many obscure figures had a big impact on Keller.
