If You Care About Abortion, Do Something About Gun Control

It’s really that simple.

Evangelical Christians are losing credibility by the day when we declare out of one side of our mouths that we are “pro-life” and yet, over and over again reject any and all measures to make it more difficult for people to buy semi-automatic weapons like those used in San Bernardino that are designed, marketed, and sold for the purpose of taking human life. As was said in the first NY Times editorial to appear on that paper’s front page in almost 100 years: “It is a moral outrage and national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency.”

We cannot continue, with any credibility at least, to say we are ‘for’ life, and do absolutely nothing to prevent it being taken by gun violence.

And let me add this. The president is right. If a person is on a terror watch list that prevents them from boarding a plane, then they should not be able to walk into a gun shop and buy an assault rifle. And yet, immediately after the attacks in San Bernardino, every Republican senator except one voted against measures that would have made that very thing hard to do. Yes, that is correct. Republicans in the Senate decided NOT to ban people on a terror watch list from buying guns. Their reasoning: such a law might accidentally keep somebody from buying a gun who is not a terrorist.

That is complete idiocy! I mean after all, accidentally keeping someone from buying a gun seems to me far less serious than accidentally executing the wrong person, something these same people seem completely unconcerned about doing. There are just inconsistencies piled upon inconsistencies here and its time we take stock of them if we are to be taken seriously in public debate (And no, I’m not unilaterally against capital punishment, nor am I a pacifist – in case you were wondering). Rather, It seems to me that this is an argument of convenience, and not one built on firm moral convictions (or else it would be applied broadly, no?).

No, stricter gun laws won’t prevent every atrocity, but they will most likely prevent some. That certainly seems to be the case with conservative-led Australia, and it may work here. In Australia, “There have been no mass killings — defined by experts there as a gunman killing five or more people besides himself — since the nation significantly tightened its gun control laws almost 20 years ago.”

Even if one mass shooting is averted, is that not better than none?

So what does all this have to do with abortion? I am appalled by the callousness of the pro-choice movement and its cry for abortion-on-demand simply because a baby would be inconvenient. Yet, I am becoming almost equally appalled by the unwillingness of gun owners and politicians to even budge on the issue of stricter regulations, regulations that would almost certainly curb SOME of the violence that is racking our nation. There can be no doubt that this unwillingness by certain politicians to give even a little ground is driven by an immoral gun lobby whose primary concern is their own financial gain. As far as I’m concerned, the gun lobby and the NRA in America have become the immoral equivalent of Planned Parenthood. Because of the gun lobby, Congress refuses to restrict the sale of body-armor piercing bullets and refuses to expand background checks. They are therefore morally culpable for the current wave tsunami of shootings.

At what point will Evangelicals become so fully “pro-life” that giving up a cherished privilege will not be too much to ask (like owning an assault rifle or purchasing “cop killer bullets”). When we will start caring enough about human life that we’re willing to do whatever it takes to reduce gun violence?

But what about the 2nd amendment? After all, I have a constitutional right to own a gun, don’t I?

Ok. If that’s your argument, here’s my (tongue-in-cheek) proposal.

I say make black powder rifles the only legally obtainable guns. First, this would allow gun enthusiasts to exercise their 2nd amendment rights in the most literal way possible, as that was most assuredly the type of gun in mind when the amendment was written. Second, for the sport enthusiast, it would make hunting even more enthusiastically sporting. I mean, if you only get one shot at the bear before it comes after you, you better have darn good aim right? Third, these rifles require so much effort and hard work to use and maintain, I suspect it won’t be long before we’re back to pre-Civil War numbers on gun ownership in America: Somewhere around 14% of the total population.

But what about the fear factor? If only the criminals have assault rifles, and everybody else only has muskets, won’t they run roughshod over the country, raping and pillaging while we haplessly and helplessly stand by?

Ok. That’s a valid point. I’m being slightly facetious about the musket thing (only very slightly). But I’m doing so to make a point. We don’t need to ban all guns except black powder rifles. But why, though, can’t we keep a guy on a terror watch list from buying an a rifle designed for mass destruction? Because it might keep Bubba from getting one too? Give me a break!

The point is that our choice is not between a total ban on all guns and doing absolutely nothing. Its between doing absolutely nothing and doing something that may save even one life! And the something we can do is force our elected representatives to either enact stricter laws or lose their jobs.

So, back to my main point. If we have any hope of winning the argument against abortion in America, we need to start doing something about gun control. It is too late now to sit idly by and declare that this or that won’t work, when we haven’t so much as tried. Human life, all human life, from infants to adults, are too precious to do nothing. And if we are going to be credible in declaring that we oppose abortion because we are pro-life, then we must do at least something to show that we are consistent in this. Laws making it harder for people on no-fly lists to buy assault rifles would be a good start.


The Missiological Necessity of Presence: How Being Gives Purpose to Our Doing

In all honesty, I don’t always love being in Africa. I do love the people we work with and I love the work we do. But Africa itself can be a taxing place to live. This past week was a good example of the challenges, ranging from the mildly frustrating to the somewhat terrifying. On Tuesday I spent hours trying to stay online long enough to do something as seemingly simple as book airline tickets. Then, we spent the next two days running back and forth to the clinic because our daughter had malaria. In the midst of all this, I found myself asking…

…Could we not be more productive in a country with slightly better infrastructure and a little less malaria?

After thinking about this for sometime, I’ve come to the conclusion that productivity is perhaps the least important reason we should pack up our family and move to a foreign country as missionaries.

In missions, we are often driven by the need to do. Sending churches want regular updates telling, not about what we have thought about, prayed about, or read about, but rather what we’ve actually done. Because of this, cross-cultural missions work tends to be action-oriented. Plus, I think as Americans, we’re sort of wired that way to begin with (at least the adult versions of us are).

But Jesus taught that presence is more important than productivity. And I think there is a significant missiological implication to this.

In the Gospel account of Jesus visiting the home of Mary and Martha (Luke 10:38–42), we find a discussion that well captures the importance of being. While Martha is busy making preparations, she becomes agitated with her sister Mary, who sits at Jesus’ feet, listening carefully to what He has to say.

The point of the story is not to make Martha out as the bad guy for being productive. Productivity is a good thing and is commended in Scripture (Prov. 10:4). Rather, there is a cultural dynamic that one might easily miss in this passage. In Jesus’ day, women were not usually considered worthy of receiving religious instruction, and instead were usually confined to domestic tasks. As one commentator observes, “Jewish women were normally cast in the role of domestic performance in order to support the instruction of men rather than as persons who were themselves engaged in study.”[1]

Jesus though transforms this cultural norm. Martha, in her busyness, has missed a golden opportunity. She was looking for her sister to provide a little temporary relief from her domestic burdens, not realizing that Jesus was offering that very thing in far greater measure!

Mary would surely at some point return to her domestic chores. But she would do so as one who had sat at the feet of Jesus, heard his words, and been transformed by them (cf. Luke 6:47–49). She would never again be simply a woman going about her duty in a society that had little regard for women. She would be a woman forever born along by the transformational Words of her Lord. She would return to her work knowing that her work did not define her as it seemed to define Martha. Rather, Mary would be defined by the radically different door to self-understanding that Jesus had opened to her. She was now one worthy of instruction in the things of God, and not just somebody who set out the coffee and doughnuts for others.

So what is the point of the story then? I think it’s this: Presence gives greater meaning and greater significance to our productivity. Otherwise, we can be very productive in a lot of things that really don’t matter very much. But spending time with Jesus transforms us and gives us clarity about who we are and what we should do. This is true of us spending time with Jesus, and its true of Jesus’ disciples spending time with each other. Our being with Christ should compel us not to busyness, but to community:

“By entering into fellowship with Jesus, who emptied himself and became as we are and humbled himself by accepting death on the cross, we enter into a new relationship with each other. The new relationship with Christ and the new relationship with each other can never be separated.”[2]

So what precisely is the missionary implication of this? I believe the key is exactly the point made by the story of Mary and Martha: effective doing depends first on effective becoming.

What I mean is that when we spend time with Jesus and with fellow believers, we become defined (like Mary was) by his transformative words rather than by cultural definitions of success or significance. For cross-cultural workers, this means we cannot know our task or even ourselves until we know Christ and the faith community to which we belong.

Remember, Jesus’ missionary commission to the disciples was followed by the promise of His presence: “I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Likewise, Paul frequently spoke of the necessity and importance of being with those he served. To the church in Thessalonica he said, “So deeply do we care for you that we are determined to share with you not only the gospel of God but also our own selves, because you have become very dear to us” (1 Thess. 2:8). Therefore, we need not only time in the presence of Jesus through personal devotion, but time in his presence through fellowship with the saints. We need to be with each other in order to be truly for each other.

Whether living in West Africa or the West Bank then, our reason to be there must first be about who we become in the shared reality of togetherness. Only when we have through the power of community become who Jesus wants us to be, can we then begin to do what Jesus wants us to do.

[1]Joel B. Green, The Gospel of Luke, New International Commentary on the New Testament. Accordance electronic ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), n.p.

[2] Henry Nouwen, et. al. Compassion (New York: Doubleday, 1982), 48-49.

When Christians Took Down the Ten Commandments

A few days ago a marble statue of the Ten Commandments was removed from the grounds of the Oklahoma Capitol. Some of my fellow Christians are all up in arms, claiming that this is just another example of the cultural oppression of the Christian faith. The world may not have ended last Wednesday, they say, but it surely will end one Wednesday soon.

I happen to think though that it was us Christians who took down the ten commandments long ago. Let me explain.

First, I agree that American culture holds a certain antipathy toward Christianity that doesn’t just border on bizarre, it specializes in it. For evidence we need only consider that last week the NY Times ran an article on the deliberate and intentional shooting of Christians in Oregon, without ever using the term “Christian,” invoking the ire of actor James Woods via Twitter.

But here’s the problem with the outcry over the Oklahoma Capitol: The Ten Commandments were given, not to be inscribed upon the tabernacle wall or upon the grounds of city hall but upon the lives of God’s people. They were given as a means for the people of God to draw near to God and served as the fundamental basis for loving God and loving neighbor.

It is at least interesting, then, to observe that the original ten commandments were not publically displayed at all. They were put away in the ark of the covenant and kept in the holy of holies. Why? Because their public display was to take place in the daily lives of God’s people! They were not written on any walls or inscribed on monuments because they were meant to be etched upon people’s hearts. The commandments were to be evident in the everyday living and being of the Israelites as an indication of God’s presence among them.

And yet, among Christians in America, the argument could easily be made that we haven’t done a very good job of keeping even the first commandment—you shall have no other god before me. The materialistic idols of American culture are no secret. Our addiction to technology, to houses, cars, and clothes that we neither need nor can afford is evident in that Americans spend over $6 million per minute on stuff. All this while most of the world ekes out a living on less than $2 a day. And there is no national outcry.

So, here’s my point. We have no right to demand the display of the ten commandments in any public sphere other than in the lives of those who call themselves Christ followers. And yet, oddly, that is precisely where our enthusiasm is most wanting. Perhaps it’s because it’s much easier to erect a monument (or, more truthfully, have someone else erect one) than it is to pass on the latest iPhone or settle for a 27 inch TV.

Consider this then: Maybe God allowed or even brought about the removal of the ten commandments from the Oklahoma Capitol in order that they might be more prominently displayed in the lives of Oklahomans.

It’s at least a thought worth considering.

Politics and the Lost Art of Empathy

To empathize means to share the feelings of another. It means to put ourselves in the place of the other, as though that person’s perspective was ours and as though their pain was ours. It means to enter into their lives so deeply that our feelings and emotions are inextricably entangled.

The Bible is full of instructions that empathy should characterize the life of believers. Jesus said, “In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets” (Matt. 7:12). Jesus’ compassion often flowed from his concern for the plight of others: “Seeing the people, He felt compassion for them, because they were distressed and dispirited like sheep without a shepherd” (Matt. 9:36). Paul in his letter to Galatians says “Bear one another’s burdens, and thereby fulfill the law of Christ” (Gal. 6:2). And in another letter he says “If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together” (1 Cor. 12:26). For Paul, not only was this to be a way of life characterizing the inner life of the church (though it seems to be especially that), but it was also part of church’s concern for others. Paul writes, “To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some” (1 Cor. 9:22). For Paul, it seems, every thing took a back seat to the need for the Gospel to get through and he refused to let anything get in the way of that, and especially pride and the need to be right. In short, we might say that the Gospel and empathy go hand in hand. The more we care about others, the more we try to understand the struggles others face, the more opportunities we have to share with them the greatest story of empathy ever told, namely that of God who so identified with the struggles of humanity that, as John says, “he pitched his tent among us” (John 1:14).

As I contemplate the current political climate in America, I can’t help but think that it would, at the very least, be a much more civilized debate if Christians would re-discover the power of empathy. What might that look like? Perhaps like this:

With empathy, we would see those who identify as homosexuals as real people struggling with real issues that are complex and that defy simplistic explanations.


with empathy, we would see county clerks who struggle with questions of faith and public office not as bigots, but as human beings struggling to live out their convictions authentically, however imperfectly it may appear from our positions of comfort and care-free commentary.

Should not this fact alone prompt us to see through the lens of grace and to seek after more dialogue and less name calling, mud slinging, and overly-simplistic analysis? I tend to think that empathy, and the kind of love for others that Jesus modeled, demands at least this.

Another Reason I Hate the Prosperity Gospel

I had a rather fascinating conversation today with a friend who is helping me with my French. This friend asked me what I thought about foot washing services. It was sort of a strange and out-of-context question because at the time, he and I weren’t really talking about church or theology at all. Rather, right in the middle of an explanation of when to use “leur” and when to use “eux”, my friend sort of blurted out a question about foot washing services that apparently his church holds with some regularity. He asked me what I thought about these services, and I responded that I needed more information. He then went on to explain that his church has regular foot washing services, because, as he put it, “through foot washing you can get special power.”

I almost choked on a past participle. “What did you say?”

I was stunned and had to investigate this for myself. So, as soon as our language session finished, I went online and did a quick search. Within seconds I found exactly what my friend had described, clearly outlined on one of the church’s blogs. If you would like to see for yourself what I found, you can, here. After reading it, honestly, I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry.

Basically the pastor of this church uses the biblical story of Jesus washing the disciples’ feet to teach that this was “a mystery” by which Jesus transferred to the disciples things such as “power, wisdom, riches, strength, honor, and glory.” From the Genesis account of the fall, and God’s declaration that the heel of Adam would crush the head of the serpent, the pastor deduces that “dominion is in the feet.” I confess to having no idea what that means.

According to the blog post, the “mystery of foot washing” was supposedly handed on to Jesus’ followers so that they might continue to acquire these things (power, riches, wisdom, etc.). The use of the word “mystery” is meant to highlight a special insight that this pastor has which others do not. The site even states that the reason others have not understood the story in this way is because they supposedly view it as a parable. To quote the website, “To many Christians these Mysteries are Parables and therefore they loss [sic] where they are expected to win.” Ironically, I don’t know of a single pastor or theologian who treats the story of Jesus washing the disciples feet as a “parable” other than the pastor of this church. The fact that he goes on to describe foot washing as a “symbol” seems to indicate that not only is he a terrible exegete, but he also doesn’t know what the word “parable” means.

My language partner in fact, went on to ask me how he could get more wisdom, because when he compared himself to his pastor, he felt that clearly his pastor had insight that he didn’t. I wanted to tell him it wasn’t insight that his pastor had, but an overactive imagination and total disregard for the basic principles of interpretation, but I refrained.
Of course, what is absolutely appalling about all this is that the real point of Jesus washing the disciples feet is exactly opposite of what this pastor claims. The story (John 13) emphasizes the servant role that Jesus took in coming “not to be served but to serve” (Mark 10:45). In Luke 22:24 we find that when this event took place, the disciples were arguing about who would be greatest in the Kingdom. In the midst of that, Jesus stoops down and performs a task normally performed by a slave or servant. In other words, it was an act of complete humility, an act of service. Its purpose was to teach that serving one another through simple but practical acts of kindness is fundamental to being a follower of Jesus. In other words, the real meaning of the passage is diametrically opposite the meaning taught at my friends church.

What really bothers me about this, and what bothers me about the prosperity gospel in general (of which this is clearly a variety), is that this teaching takes one of the most important Scriptures calling the church to a life of service and care for one another, and inverts it in favor of self-centered “riches and glory.” It would be one thing if this pastor were merely a poor exegete, and had inadvertently come up with the wrong interpretation. That would be forgivable. But this is clearly not the case, since the pastor claims to have “mysterious” knowledge that others do not. The fact that he makes this claim shows that he knows quite well that he’s gone off the reservation, but wants to justify his departure through having uncovered this secret “mystery.”

Perhaps worst of all, this teaching represents a turn away from the most fundamental aspect of the Gospel, namely the death and resurrection of Christ. In fact, this is the very argument (involving not too different circumstances) that the apostle Paul addresses in his letter to the Colossians. In Colossae too there were teachers claiming special knowledge, claiming visions (2:18) from which they gained knowledge not available to others. And through this supposed special knowledge, the false teachers at Colossae were leading members of the church astray. Paul responds by asking the church, “why are you turning now to religion after you have been given the Gospel?” (my paraphrase; see 2:20-23).

All through chapters 2 and 3 of Colossians Paul keeps coming back again and again to the importance of the resurrection. And he over and over emphasizes that for the Christian there are two aspects of the resurrection that form the foundation of our life in Christ. The first is that we have died with Christ (2:20), and the second is that we are raised with Christ (3:1).

But the main problem with the prosperity gospel folks is that they want to be raised without having died. Because the Bible does indeed teach that there is abundant life for the people of God, and there is even glory for the people of God. Paul says so explicitly in the beginning of chapter 3. “When Christ who is your life appears, then you will also appear with him in glory!” But what the prosperity folks leave out is that you can’t have resurrection without crucifixion and you can’t have glory with out Calvary. And if you really believe the Gospel, if you really want to follow Jesus you have to have both: crucifixion and resurrection.

And if you put crucifixion first, then there’s no room prideful interpretations that take a beautiful example of selflessness and transform it into a monstrosity of self-indulgence. And this is what the prosperity gospel folks consistently (and conveniently) leave out of their message time and time again.

How To Do Research: 5 Basic Questions to Get You Started

During my student days, I had very little, if any, formal instruction in how to actually go about the research process. Of course, I had writing classes and instruction on how to outline a paper and so on. But the proper way to do research often went unaddressed and over the years there were times when I found myself buried in a pile of books, sticky notes, and legal pads, not quite sure how I got there, or how to get out.

So, I thought I would write a brief and simplistic description of the approach that I now use, which I mostly developed during my PhD studies through a process of trial and error. This is the cliff notes version, though and meant to be very simple. A complex project, in my view, needs a simple beginning. And for me, this is it. These are five basic questions that I use to start the research process, to help get things moving in the right direction. I’ll be sharing these with an undergrad class next week, and so I thought perhaps others might find them helpful as well. So here goes:

  1. How’s the view from up there? Start with a bird’s-eye-view of your subject. Get a good overview and discern the crucial peaks (and valleys) related to your topic. Topical dictionaries are a good place to start. The peaks would be those issues that rise above everything else and command the most attention. These often will feature prominently in your outlines. But don’t neglect the valleys, or the less noticeable, and seeming less interesting places. Treasures lurk in the shadows!
  2. Who are the main actors? What names come up over and over again in the literature? What are the classic texts to which everyone who writes on this issue refers? A word of warning though: its not enough to just know the key players; you also have to understand why they are key! For example, some key players have prominent positions related to this topic simply because of their historical importance. But this does not mean that their argument still stands. Another word of caution: good research isn’t just about summarizing the arguments of others and using their perspective to defend yours. Its about getting into the nuts and bolts of those arguments and finding  the lose parts. Good research crafts a new proposal that borrows from yesterday and reaches into tomorrow. It is not creativity for the sake of novelty, but reasoned and learned creativity for the sake of resolution.
  3. What’s the question? Your not ready to really begin a research project until you can state your topic in the form of a question. Without a question, you don’t have a problem, and without a problem you don’t have a reason to conduct the research to begin with. As you survey the material, some questions should emerge. Write them down and somewhere along the way, one or two very interesting but unanswered questions should appear. That is your topic.
  4. What’s the dominant story line? Every research question is likely to have some standing answer that dominates current thinking. Or, sometimes there will be competing story lines that are widely supported. Competing story lines often hold great promise for new research projects, especially if you can locate a false presupposition or untenable position in one line of thought.
  5. Where do you fit in? I think this is the most important and the most often neglected aspect of research. The researcher forgets to ask where they fit into the equation. Yes, you are to try as much as you can to set aside your prejudices and strive for objectivity. Good research depends on this. But you can never set aside yourself (entirely) nor should you. There is something in you that is driving you to consider this topic. Some part of you must genuinely care about it, because you (hopefully) chose it. So why? Why does this topic matter to you and why do you think YOU have something unique to contribute? Perhaps you have an interest in an aspect of this topic that most have not cared about or thought irrelevant. Because of this you will discern a long neglected aspect. It doesn’t matter (so much) that others have studied and written on this topic (of course they have!). But the exciting part is that YOU have not (yet) studied and written on this topic, and surely what you bring that is unique, is, well, you!

Finally, I would add that these are not sequential questions to explore, but rather ones that sometimes you have to examine and kick around simultaneously. For me, yellow legal pads are an invaluable part of the kicking around part. This is especially true if you have a general idea of what you want to tackle, but don’t yet have the precise question. So don’t be afraid to chase the occasional rabbit now and then. Just know when to give up and move on (hint: when you’ve forgotten why you’re chasing that rabbit is generally a good time!).

Happy researching!

BookReview: John Stott, The Living Church. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2011.

living church

Few people in modern church history have combined pastoral concern and theological depth as well as has the late John Stott. His book The Living Church, originally published in 2007 but re-released in 2011 (the same year Stott died), is a passionate plea for the Church to be all that it is called to be, holding its diverse callings together. But its more than that. This book is the culminated wisdom of a lifetime serving Christ and the church, and as such should be read by every pastor, missionary, and layperson who cares about the local church and its mission.

Like Stott himself, this book is both scholarly and practical. In many ways, the book is an expansion of one of Stott’s sermons given at All Souls Church, where Stott grew up, pastored, and retired. And at the 150th anniversary of this church, Stott, with apologies to Martin Luther King, offered his own “dream” for what a biblical church could and should look like. He expounds throughout on what he considers the four essentials: a learning church, a caring church, a worshipping church, and an evangelizing church. In concluding, he wraps these up neatly with the slightly broader categories borrowed from Paul’s first letter to Timothy (6:11-2), of an ethical church, a doctrinal church, and an experiential church.

The real value in this volume lies in its balance. Stott let’s no excess go unchecked. For example, he argues eloquently that preaching should be biblical and contemporary—it should speak from the biblical world to the present world. It should be both prophetic—warning people of God’s judgment, and pastoral—comforting those who are distraught. Stott argues that we must not minimize the paradox’s of the church’s life (e.g., “in the world but not of the world”), but learn to balance these tensions in ways that fully capture the reality of the church as the pilgrim people of God.

There is a tremendous need today for the church to more fully understand itself. Various theological and social issues have divided the church into numerous factions that more often than not have led to imbalances in what the church is called to do and be, as everyone is out defending their preferred perspective. This book though will encourage pastors to teach this material to their congregations, and it will encourage congregations to perhaps become more than they have been. Its lucid, its faithful to Scripture, and it is chock full of wisdom. I suspect this will be one of those books that I will pick up every so often and re-read, if for nothing else, for its simple clarity. I highly recommend it.

Why I (as a Pentecostal) Believe in Evangelicalism

Two things deserve credit for this post. First, my good friend Andrew Williams recently wrote a post on his blog titled “Can We Stop Trying to Be Evangelicals?” that in many ways served as a catalyst for this post. I agree with much of what Andrew said in that post regarding the tendency away from a dynamic expectation of the work of the Spirit in the church by a new generation of adherents and consider his point a good one. But I was a little troubled by the title, mostly because I know that many of my fellow Pentecostals feel that Evangelicals are to our movement what Pope Leo X was to Luther—namely, our theologically short-sighted forefathers who have sold out the true gospel. This was not my friend Andrews point, nor do I believe this assessment for a minute. But, I do think it’s widely held among some Pentecostals and Charismatics and that is the reason I am writing this. Second, my book on Carl F. H. Henry, the elder statesman of Evangelicalism, was officially released this week , and some are sure to wonder why an Assemblies of God missionary would take an interest in a Reformed Baptist theologian who was himself a defining force of the neo-Evangelical movement. After all, aren’t Pentecostalism and Evangelicalism diametrical opposites, the proverbial oil and water of the theological world?

For me, they are not, and here’s why.

  1. Evangelicalism must be defined, historically, as more than its 20th/21st century expression. The modern use of the term “Evangelical” can be traced all the way back to the Reformation, which itself was seen as a return to apostolic Christianity. And yet, is this not fundamentally the chief claim of Pentecostal theology? When Pentecostals desire to completely disassociate ourselves from Evangelicalism we are in effect cutting off an important part of our theological heritage.
  1. The most widely accepted definition of Evangelicalism (Bebbington’s quadrilateral) centers on four aspects: Biblicism, crucicentrism, conversionism, and activism. What of these four things is at odds with Pentecostalism? (Hint: NONE!). Yes Pentecostalism may be seen as more than this, but it cannot be less if it is to be orthodox.
  1. There are indications all throughout the NT of the non-ubiquitous nature of charismatic expression, indicating a somewhat non-uniform nature to ecclesiastical expression of various gifts, including tongues. And so, if our argument is that evangelicals don’t believe what we believe and they don’t practice what we practice, then we are faced with reality that not even all Pentecostal denominations agree with one another, and that there was at least some diversity on this issue right out of the gate (NOTE: this is not a who’s right, who’s wrong point, but rather, a note that diversity rather than uniformity has long characterized the exercise of the charismata).
  1. Evangelicalism holds forth the greatest promise for a united front on important issues such as theological reflection, cultural engagement, social justice, and evangelism and missions. The more divided and fractured the body of Christ becomes, the less potential there is for mounting an effective response to the world’s most pressing challenges, especially reaching the lost. This is presumably what caused classic Pentecostal denominations such as the Assemblies of God to join the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) in the mid 1940’s.
  1. Evangelicalism may not speak for Pentecostals now, but it will never speak for Pentecostals if Pentecostals close the door to communication and dialogue. Yet, isn’t it possible that God would have us learn from each other and grow together in our understanding of what it means to follow Jesus? We need look no further than the sad history of fundamentalism to see that barricading one’s self behind closed doors can lead to nothing but disaster.

Free Sample Chapter: Carl Henry’s Theology of Evangelism and Social Concern

Wipf & Stock, the publishers of my book, Evangelism and Social Concern in the Theology of Carl F. H. Henry, released a few days ago, have graciously made available a free sample chapter (ch. 1). This chapter lays the ground work for the study and introduces some of the key themes and issues addressed. If you are interested in this topic, this free chapter will help you know whether this volume will be useful to you. Feel free to share any questions, comments, or concerns you may have. I look forward to hearing from you!


Used with Permission of Wipf and Stock Publishers


Were Adam and Eve Historical Persons?

Book Review: John H. Walton. The Lost World of Adam and Eve: Genesis 2–3 and the Human Origins Debate, Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2015. Kindle edition.

lost world

Thoughtful readers of the opening chapters of Genesis have long wrestled with not only internally difficult passages, but also with how these chapters relate to developments in science. Resultantly, interpretations of the world of Adam and Eve and its significance to contemporary Christianity have produced wildly different conclusions ranging from the overly simplistic to various forms of concordism that do obvious violence to a biblical worldview and to the stability of the text. In this excellent volume, John H. Walton has provided an intriguing study of these passages and the difficulties involved that deserves careful attention and consideration. Walton, professor of Old Testament at Wheaton College and Graduate School, sets forth a fascinating set of propositions that aims for the very thing that is most often missing in this discussion, namely, the need to read these chapters of Genesis primarily in their Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) context. His presentation is lucid, thoughtful, and challenging, and this text should be read by all interested in this topic. But be warned; this is not light reading, and, if you are an Evangelical, as I am, you are likely to have one or more of your cherished understandings of Gen. 2–3 challenged.

Perhaps the most promising aspect of this text lies in its methodology. Walton, though interested in how the biblical text comports with science and modern thought, does not take an approach that seeks to harmonize Scripture with scientific developments. Rather, his primary concern is rightly to advance an understanding of the Genesis narrative that finds its hermeneutical guide in its own ANE context. As such, he concludes for instance, that Genesis is an account of “functional origins, not material origins,” (Proposition 3). That is, “the seven day origins account in Genesis is a ‘home story’; it is not a ‘house story.’” He does this, as he does throughout this text, by looking first to the biblical text, and second to other ANE literature to better understand how various images and ideas functioned in that cultural context. Interestingly, though Walton, like others, finds parallels with other ancient texts, he also shows how the biblical text often comes to vastly different conclusions about the world, humanity, and God than do many of the contemporary ANE pieces of literature. Thus, Walton has shown that one of the goals of the Genesis account is to present a direct challenge to then prevailing notions about human relationships both to each other and to their Creator, and in relation to the theme of order and chaos.

Some of the more interesting and challenging perspectives Walton advances include the idea that Adam and Eve are both historical persons, but also archetypal. That is, in Scripture the words for Adam and Eve are used in more than simply a single uniform manner. Plus, the words “adam” and “eve” are Hebrew, and Hebrew as a language did not exist during the time Adam and Eve lived. Thus,

That means that these names are not just a matter of historical reporting, as if their names just happened to be Adam and Eve like someone else’s name is Bill or Mary. Although I believe that Adam and Eve are historical personages––real people in a real past––these cannot be their historical names. The names are Hebrew, and there is no Hebrew at the point in time when Adam and Eve lived.

 Though such concepts may be at first somewhat difficult for some to swallow, that difficulty most often lies in the tendency to read Genesis through our own cultural lens and conceptual categories. This is the very thing that Walton seeks to overcome, and he does it in a very thorough and convincing way.

My only criticism of this text, even though I don’t always agree with all of his conclusions (I do find them all at least worth considering though) is that there are times when I think he fails to give adequate attention to the notion of progressive revelation, and consequently leaves certain key canonical questions unresolved. While I think Walton is correct to say that ancient Israelites would not have interpreted the serpent as referring to Satan, an idea that awaits further development in salvation history, it seems he could have done more for the reader in clarifying his view regarding how contemporary believers should understand this element of the story in light of New Testament (NT) passages that do make this connection (Rom. 16:20; Rev. 12:9; 20:2). Walton does note the NT development, but in my view, could have done more to aid the reader in how to best interpret the relationship between the OT and NT understanding.

In conclusion, this is one of the most exciting books I’ve read on this subject, and provides some of the most reasonable resolutions to difficult issues in Gen. 2–3 that are biblically faithful, grounded in sound exegesis, and thoughtfully considerate of ANE literature and imagery. Not to mention, the book also contains an excellent excursus by N. T. Wright on Paul’s use of Adam. Thus, I suspect that this text will be a central feature in future discussions about how to understand not only the Genesis account of Adam and Eve, but also Pauline interpretation of these important passages.