Review of Dan G. McCartney, James [Amazon | WTS Books]. The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 14:1 (Spring 2010): 84–85.

My conclusion:

McCartney evidences a firm handling of the text as well as the secondary literature, and he writes clearly and thoughtfully. His book joins Moo, Bauckham, George H. Guthrie (2006, revised EBC), and Craig L. Blomberg and Mariam J. Kamell (2008, ZECNT) as one of the volumes that preachers, teachers, and students will consult first and with most profit when studying the book of James.

Here are those other four books on James:

Amazon | WTS Books

Amazon | WTS Books

Amazon | WTS Books

Amazon

1. Review of Barry J. Beitzel, The New Moody Atlas of the Bible. Themelios 34 (2009): 367. [Amazon]

2. Review of Douglas Bond, The Betrayal: A Novel on John Calvin. Themelios 34 (2009): 409. [Amazon | WTS Books]

3. Review of John Bunyan, The Pilgrim’s Progress: From This World to That Which Is to Come (ed. C. J. Lovik; illustrated by Mike Wimmer). Themelios 34 (2009): 409–10. [Amazon | WTS Books]

4. Review of Kevin DeYoung, Just Do Something: A Liberating Approach to Finding God’s Will: or, How to Make a Decision Without Dreams, Visions, Fleeces, Open Doors, Random Bible Verses, Casting Lots, Liver Shivers, Writing in the Sky, etc. Themelios 34 (2009): 451–52. [Amazon | WTS Books]

5. Review of Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck, Why We Love the Church: In Praise of Institutions and Organized Religion. Themelios 34 (2009): 457–58. [Amazon | WTS Books]

6. Review of C. S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters: First Ever Full-cast Dramatization of the Diabolical Classic (produced by Focus on the Family Radio Theatre). Themelios 34 (2009): 453–55. [Amazon]

7. Review of The New International Commentary on the Old and New Testamentst (40 vols.) in Logos Bible Software. Themelios 34 (2009): 455–57.

8. Review of Timothy Keller, Counterfeit Gods: The Empty Promises of Money, Sex, and Power, and the Only Hope that Matters. Themelios 34 (2009): 452–53. [Amazon | WTS Books]

9. Review of Timothy Keller, The Prodigal God: Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith. Themelios 34 (2009): 458. [Amazon | WTS Books]

10. Review of Gregory A. Wills, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1859–2009. Themelios 34 (2009): 403–5. [Amazon]

1. Review of The Story: Read the Bible as One Seamless Story from Beginning to End. Themelios 34 (2009): 106–7.

“The Story is an edifying tool for a variety of situations: a supplemental textbook for students (junior high, high school, or college), an introduction to the Bible’s storyline for non-Christians or young Christians, and a creative refresher for mature Christians.”

2. Review of The Books of the Bible: A Presentation of Today’s New International Version. Themelios 34 (2009): 108–9.

“The Books of the Bible is ingenious. The way it presents the Bible as a library of literature is unique, simple, and elegant, and it naturally encourages better Bible reading.”

3. Review of Christopher R. Smith, The Beauty Behind the Mask: Rediscovering the Books of the Bible. Themelios 34 (2009): 109–10.

“Smith clearly and persuasively argues that visually presenting the Bible in a single column without chapter or verse references encourages reading that is more informed and engaged.”

Jennifer J. Naselli, “Is This Good News for Women? A Review of Carolyn Custis James, The Gospel of Ruth. (PDF | HTML)

She wrote this review in June during a small window of time right after she completed four years of full-time teaching and then gave birth to our first child. No doubt I am biased, but I must say that the (controversial) review is well done!

Above are a couple cover designs for reprints of this classic book. Below is a summary and outline of the book that I prepared on March 1, 2003.

Summary

Packer’s popular paperback is a succinct, non-technical explanation of how God’s sovereignty and human responsibility affect evangelism. It is not a blueprint for modern evangelistic action (7). The aim is to dispel the suspicion that belief in the absolute sovereignty of God hinders evangelism and to show that it actually strengthens evangelism (8, 10). The book divides logically into four chapters. (See the outline of the book below.)

If you are a Christian, you already believe in God’s sovereignty because you pray (11). To be more specific, you already believe that God is sovereign in salvation for two reasons: you give God thanks for your conversion (12), and you pray for the conversion of others (15). The difficulty comes when one tries to reconcile God’s sovereignty and human responsibility. That is a mystery (24) or antinomy, which is merely an apparent incompatibility between two apparent truths (18), as opposed to a paradox, which is a dispensable, comprehensible play on words that seems to unite two opposite ideas (19–20). The antinomy of divine sovereignty and human responsibility in evangelism may lead to the temptation to an exclusive concern with human responsibility (25–29) or to an exclusive concern with divine sovereignty (29–36). [Although D. A. Carson agrees with Packer that this is a mystery, he prefers not to use the word "antinomy." See How Long, O Lord? Reflections on Suffering and Evil (2d ed.; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006), 201n13.]

People are confused about what evangelism is primarily because they think of it in terms of the effect produced rather than the message delivered (27). “Evangelism is just preaching the gospel” (41). Paul’s account of the nature of his own evangelistic ministry is exemplary. He evangelized as the commissioned representative of Christ as His steward, herald, and ambassador (42–46). His primary task was to teach the truth about Christ (46–49), and his aim was to convert his hearers to faith in Christ (49–53). One reason that evangelism is not limited exclusively to special evangelistic meetings is that there are many others ways such as personal evangelism, home meetings, group Bible studies, and regular Sunday services (54–55). The evangelistic message is about God, sin, Christ (both His person and work), and the summons to repentance and faith (57–73). Conviction of sin is essentially an awareness of a wrong relationship with God; it always includes conviction of particular sins in the sight of God from which one needs to turn; and it always includes conviction of one’s complete sinfulness and consequent need of a moral re-creation (62–63). People’s belief about the extent of the atonement should not affect their proclamation of the evangelistic message (69).

Faith and repentance are both acts of the whole man. Faith is more than just credence; it is essentially the casting and resting of oneself and one’s confidence on the promises of mercy that Christ has given to sinners and on the Christ who gave those promises. Equally, repentance is more than just sorrow for the past; repentance is a change of mind and heart, a new life of denying self and serving the Savior as king in self’s place. Mere credence without trusting and mere remorse without turning do not save (70–71).

Two motives spur believers to evangelize constantly. The primary motive is love to God and concern for His glory (73–75), and the secondary motive is love to humans and concern for their welfare (75–82). Evangelism should spring up spontaneously and naturally for believers (76–77). A “scalp-hunting zeal in evangelism . . . is both discreditable and alarming” because it reflects arrogance, conceit, pleasure for power, and “a ferocious psychological pommelling” (80). “The right to talk intimately to another person about the Lord Jesus Christ has to be earned, and you earn it by convincing him that you are his friend, and really care about him” (81).

The “last analysis” of evangelism reveals that it has only one means, agent, and method. Its means is the gospel of Christ explained and applied; its agent is Christ through His Holy Spirit; and its method is the faithful explanation and application of the gospel message (85–86). One should test all his evangelistic plans and practices with five questions:

1. Is this way of presenting Christ calculated to impress on people that the gospel is a word from God (87)?
2. Is it calculated to promote the work of the word in men’s minds rather than their emotions (87–88)?
3. Is it calculated to convey the whole doctrine of the gospel and not just part of it (88)?
4. Is it calculated to convey the whole application of the gospel and not just part of it (88–89)? Packer essentially defends what would later be called “Lordship salvation” and then argues, “It is even more dangerous for a man whose conscience is roused to make a misconceived response to the gospel, and take up with a defective religious practice, than for him to make no response at all” (89).
5. Is it calculated to convey gospel truth in a manner that is appropriately serious (89–90)? The best method of evangelism in principle most completely serves the gospel (90).

It is legitimate to distinguish between God’s will of precept (law) and purpose (plan). The former is what believers know, and the latter is what only God knows and what will ultimately occur (94). Packer defends two propositions. First, the sovereignty of God in grace does not affect anything previously mentioned about the nature and duty of evangelism (96–106). It does not affect evangelism’s necessity (97–98), urgency (98–100), genuineness (100–104), or the sinner’s responsibility (105–6). Second, the sovereignty of God in grace gives believers their only hope of success in evangelism (106–25). Successful evangelism without God’s sovereign grace is impossible because humans naturally and irresistibly oppose God and because Satan actively keeps humans in their natural state (106–12). God’s effectual calling makes successful evangelism possible and certain (112–17). “Meanwhile, our part is to be faithful in making the gospel known, sure that such labour will never be in vain” (118). This confidence and certainty should have effects on the attitude of believers when evangelizing. It should make them bold, patient, and prayerful (118–25). “The idea that a single evangelistic sermon, or a single serious conversation, ought to suffice for the conversion of anyone who is ever going to be converted is really silly” (120). Both preaching and praying are essential (124). Evangelistic prayer consists of at least three elements: confession of one’s powerlessness and need; acknowledging one’s helplessness and dependence; and entreating God’s power to do what one cannot do (122).

Packer concludes by acknowledging that coming to terms with God’s sovereignty with reference to evangelism is not essential for a person to evangelize, but “he will be able to evangelize better for believing it” (126). I strongly agree. The emphasis of Packer’s book is scriptural, and its conclusions are lucid, enlightening, and convicting. This is an excellent little book for any believer who has wondered about the relationship between God’s sovereignty and human responsibility in evangelism.

Outline

The following outline follows the logic and wording of the book.

I. Divine Sovereignty

A. You already believe that God is sovereign in salvation because you give God thanks for your conversion.

B. You already believe that God is sovereign in salvation because you pray for the conversion of others.

II. Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility

A. The antinomy (mystery) of divine sovereignty and human responsibility in evangelism may lead to the temptation to an exclusive concern with human responsibility.

B. The antinomy (mystery) of divine sovereignty and human responsibility in evangelism may lead to the temptation to an exclusive concern with divine sovereignty.

III. Evangelism

A. What is evangelism?

1. Illustration: Paul’s account of the nature of his own evangelistic ministry is exemplary.

• a. Paul evangelized as the commissioned representative of the Lord Jesus Christ.
  1. Paul was Christ’s steward.
  2. Paul was Christ’s herald.
  3. Paul was Christ’s ambassador.
• b. Paul’s primary task in evangelism was to teach the truth about the Lord Jesus Christ.
• c. Paul’s ultimate aim in evangelism was to convert his hearers to faith in Christ.

2. Evangelism is not limited exclusively to special evangelistic meetings.

• a. There are many others ways of evangelism such as personal evangelism, home meetings, group Bible study, and regular Sunday services.
• b. Some believers are committed to the ways of evangelism above but do not have special evangelistic meetings (e.g., believers in NT times).
• c. A special meeting is evangelistic only if it teaches the truth of the gospel—not whether it appeals for decisions.

B. What is the evangelistic message?

1. The gospel is a message about God.

2. The gospel is a message about sin.

• a. Conviction of sin is essentially an awareness of a wrong relationship with God.
• b. Conviction of sin always includes conviction of sins: a sense of guilt for particular wrongs in the sight of God from which one needs to turn.
• c. Conviction of sin always includes conviction of sinfulness: a sense of one’s complete corruption and perversity in God’s sight and one’s consequent need of a new heart and new birth (i.e., a moral re-creation).

3. The gospel is a message about Christ.

• a. We must not present the person of Christ apart from His saving work.
• b. We must not present the saving work of Christ apart from His person.

4. The gospel is a summons to faith and repentance.

• a. The demand is for faith as well as repentance.
• b. The demand is for repentance as well as for faith.

C. What is the motive for evangelizing?

1. The primary motive for evangelizing is love to God and concern for His glory.

2. The secondary motive for evangelizing is love to man and concern for his welfare.

D. By what means and methods should evangelism be practiced?

1. The last analysis of evangelism reveals that it has only one means, agent, and method.

• a. Evangelism has only one means: the gospel of Christ explained and applied.
• b. Evangelism has only one agent: Christ through His Holy Spirit.
• c. Evangelism has only one method: the faithful explanation and application of the gospel message.

2. Test all your evangelistic plans and practices with five questions.

• a. Is this way of presenting Christ calculated to impress on people that the gospel is a word from God?
• b. Is this way of presenting Christ calculated to promote, or impede, the work of the word in men’s minds?
• c. Is this way of presenting Christ calculated to convey the whole doctrine of the gospel?
• d. Is this way of presenting Christ calculated to convey the whole application of the gospel?
• e. Is this way of presenting Christ calculated to convey gospel truth in a manner that is appropriately serious?

IV. Divine Sovereignty and Evangelism

A. The sovereignty of God in grace does not affect anything that we have said about the nature and duty of evangelism.

1. The belief that God is sovereign in grace does not affect the necessity of evangelism.

2. The belief that God is sovereign in grace does not affect the urgency of evangelism.

• a. It is always wrong to abstain from doing good for fear that it might not be appreciated.
• b. The non-elect in this world are faceless men as far as we are concerned.
• c. Our calling as Christians is not to love God’s elect and them only, but to love our neighbor irrespective of whether he is elect or not.

3. The belief that God is sovereign in grace does not affect the genuineness of gospel invitations or the truth of gospel promises.

4. The belief that God is sovereign in grace does not affect the responsibility of the sinner for his reaction to the gospel.

B. The sovereignty of God in grace gives us our only hope of success in evangelism.

1. Successful evangelism without God’s sovereign grace is impossible.

• a. Man naturally and irresistibly opposes God.
• b. Satan actively keeps man in his natural state.

2. God’s effectual calling makes successful evangelism possible and certain.

3. This confidence and certainty should have effects on our attitude when evangelizing.

• a. This confidence should make us bold.
• b. This confidence should make us patient.
• c. This confidence should make us prayerful.

1. The PDF appears exactly as the review is printed in the fall 2007 DBSJ.
2. The plain text adds some hyperlinks.

Content:

1. Part 1 (about 1,750 words) make a case for using electronic commentaries in Libronix.
2. Part 2 (about 600 words) compares the three commentary series in general.
3. Part 3 (about 5,500 words) comments briefly on each of the 28 volumes (and mentions the authors for the forthcoming volumes).

Outline:

1. Advantages of Using Electronic Commentaries in Libronix
   • 1.1. Searchability
   • 1.2. Versatility
   • 1.3. Cost
2. General Comparison of PNTC, BECNT, and NIGTC
3. Brief Comments on Individual Commentaries in PNTC, BECNT, and NIGTC
   • 3.1. PNTC (8 vols.)
   • 3.2. BECNT (8 vols.)
   • 3.3. NIGTC (12 vols.)
4. Conclusion

Related:

1. my review of Scholar’s Gold
2. “Adding a Second Screen to a Personal Computer“

Last summer I reviewed the above book, and the review is now available here:

Review of Layton Talbert, Beyond Suffering: Discovering the Message of Job. Trinity Journal 28 (2007): 298–300.

After summarizing the book, the review highlights six strengths:

1. “Its method is robustly expositional and contextual.”
2. “Its theology is integrated with the big picture of the book and canon.”
3. “Its organization is easy to follow.”
4. “Its illustrations and applications are appropriate and practical.”
5. “Its writing style is colorfully expressive and engaging.”
6. “Its tone is warm and passionate, not cold or sterile.”

Conclusion:

“I would be remiss not to mention my relationship to Talbert. He was my professor for six undergraduate courses and four seminary courses, one of my oral examiners for my doctoral comprehensive exams in 2005, a final reader for my dissertation, and a groomsman in my wedding. He dedicates Beyond Suffering to two couples and in memory of two children. One of those couples is my parents, and one of those children is my youngest brother Michael, who was diagnosed with Stage IV Neuroblastoma cancer in 1998 at age three and died in 2002 at age six. God used Talbert to minister the message of Job to my family when we needed it most. With the publication of Beyond Suffering, Talbert can now minister the message of Job to a much wider audience.”

Related MP3s: Dr. Talbert recently preached a couple short series on Job that summarize his book (but are not a substitute for it!).

1. “Job: Learning to Trust a Sovereign God” (May 21-24, 2006; Morning Star Baptist Church)
   • 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
2. “Beyond Suffering” (Nov. 16-18, 2007; West Ashley Independent Baptist Church)
   • “Three Questions About Suffering” (Job 1-2)
   • “How Does a Spiritual Person Respond to Suffering?” (Job 3)
   • “What Do People Talk About During Suffering?” (Job 4-37)
   • “God’s Response to Job” (Job 38-41)
   • “The ‘End’ of Suffering” (Job 42)

In fall 2006 I reviewed the above book, and the review—now available here—was published in spring 2007:

Review of Stanley E. Porter, ed., Hearing the Old Testament in the New Testament. Trinity Journal 28 (2007): 153–54.

Lindars, Barnabas. New Testament Apologetic: The Doctrinal Significance of the Old Testament Quotations. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1961. 303 pp. Out of print.

New Testament Apologetic (henceforth NTA) was the first major published work by Barnabas Lindars (1923–91). It was the published version of his B.D. thesis submitted to Cambridge University, where he would later serve as an assistant lecturer (1961–66). (F. F. Bruce adds that Lindars’s B.D. “is not as other B.D.s are; at Cambridge it takes precedence over Ph.D.!” [Review of Barnabas Lindars, New Testament Apologetic, Modern Churchman, n.s., 5 (1962): 170.])

Summary

Lindars’s major argument is that after the NT authors embraced Christianity (i.e., they believed that the crucified and resurrected Jesus was the Messiah), they searched the OT to prove it (i.e., to provide a “New Testament apologetic” for Christianity); they used OT proof texts, however, in an eisegetical manner, twisting them out of their historical-grammatical context (cf. pp. 283–86). Lindars acknowledges (pp. 13–14) that he is building on C. H. Dodd‘s According to the Scriptures: The Substructure of New Testament Theology (1952) and Krister Stendahl‘s The School of St. Matthew and Its Use of the Old Testament (1954). His “aim” is to use OT quotations “as a clue to the thoughts and problems which occupied the Church in the period for which we have no written documents” (p. 251).

He calls OT quotations “Testimonies,” and he focuses on them topically in this order: Jesus’ resurrection (ch. 2), passion (ch. 3), baptism and earthly ministry (ch. 4), and origins (ch. 5), followed by Paul’s writings with reference to the church’s needs (ch. 6). This is the order in which the early church allegedly developed their use of the OT for their NT apologetic.

The NT authors shifted the application of the OT out of context—sometimes deliberately altering the text itself—to answer Jewish objections that Jesus was the Messiah (pp. 17–31, 284–86).

“Such alterations are to be regarded as interpretive renderings, comparable to the Targums. Similarly one text interprets another, and so conflate texts are formed. There was nothing morally reprehensible about such treatment of the text, because it was felt that the real meaning of the Scripture was being clarified by it. This is because the Church’s interpretation is based on the rule that what God has done in Christ is the key to the understanding of all the Scriptures” (pp. 27-28).

For example, “The work of Jesus, as remembered and interpreted by the Church, itself became the definition of Messiah’s function” (p. 153), so the NT authors read passages like Isaiah 53 in light of their conviction that Jesus was the Messiah (pp. 75–88, 135, 153–54, 234–37, 248, 252–53, 257–58). Similarly, the early church needed to come up with an explanation for Judas Iscariot’s apostasy to vindicate Jesus for choosing him, so they searched the OT for an explanation and altered the meaning of Psalms 41 and 109 and Zechariah 11 (pp. 98–99, 109–10, 116–22, 263).

Analysis

Lindars’s NTA is thoughtful and insightful, technical yet readable. Its thesis, however, is demonstrably false, not to mention irreverent to those with a high view of Scripture (myself included).

I. Howard Marshall cites “two assumptions” in NTA that “need greater justification than he provides.” (“An Assessment of Recent Developments,” in It Is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture. Essays in Honour of Barnabas Lindars, SSF, ed. D. A. Carson and H. G. M. Williamson [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988], pp. 8–9. Cf. J. M. Owen, review of Barnabas Lindars, New Testament Apologetic, Reformed Theological Review 21 [1962]: 86.)

1. Lindars assumes rather than proves that “the earliest use of OT texts was apologetic rather than anything else.” The NT uses the OT in ways other than a polemical apologetic, including explanation, “still-valid teaching,” and “the form and content of its own praise and prayer to God.”
2. Lindars assumes that “resurrection-apologetic” was “the very earliest apologetic.” Marshall finds this assumption “puzzling” because “it was by no means the only form of apologetic, and it is a strange assumption that every text used in the earliest days of the church must have had an initial reference to the resurrection.”

Furthermore, Lindars rejects what I believe to be the most compelling view, namely, that reading the OT and NT through a salvation-historical grid reveals that the NT’s use of the OT is warranted because of the person and work of Christ and the unitary nature of the canon. D. A. Carson’s critique of Peter Enns‘s Inspiration and Incarnation (“Three Books on the Bible: A Critical Review,” TJ 27 [2006]: 44-45) applies to a heightened degree to Lindars’s NTA:

“Enns is more respectful [than Lindars], but it is difficult to see how his position differs substantively from that of Lindars, except that he wants to validate these various approaches to the Old Testament partly on the ground that the hermeneutics involved were already in use (we might call this the ‘Hey, everybody’s doing it’ defense), and partly on the ground that he himself accepts, as a ‘gift of faith,’ that Jesus really is the Messiah. This really will not do. The New Testament writers, for all that they understand that acceptance of who Jesus is comes as a gift of the Spirit (1 Cor 2:14), never stint at giving reasons for the hope that lies within them, including reasons for reading the Bible as they do. The ‘fulfillment’ terminology they deploy is too rich and varied to allow us to imagine that they are merely reading in what is in fact not there. They would be the first to admit that [1] in their own psychological history the recognition of Jesus came before their understanding of the Old Testament; but they would see this as evidence of moral blindness. As a result, they would be the first to insist, with their transformed hermeneutic (not least the reading of the sacred texts in salvation-historical sequence), that [2] the Scriptures themselves can be shown to anticipate a suffering Servant-King, a Priest-King, a new High Priest, and so forth. In other words, Enns develops the first point but disavows the second. The result is that he fails to see how Christian belief is genuinely warranted by Scripture.”

Selected Bibliography

• Bruce, Frederick F. Review of Barnabas Lindars, New Testament Apologetic. Modern Churchman, n.s., 5 (1962): 170–71.
• Carson, D. A. “Three Books on the Bible: A Critical Review.” Trinity Journal 27 (2006): 1-62 (esp. 44–45).
• Jones, James L. Review of Barnabas Lindars, New Testament Apologetic. Journal of Biblical Literature 82 (1963): 132.
• Marshall, I. Howard. “An Assessment of Recent Developments.” Pages 1–21 (esp. 8–9) in It Is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture. Essays in Honour of Barnabas Lindars, SSF. Edited by D. A. Carson and H. G. M. Williamson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.
• McIntyre, J. Review of Barnabas Lindars, New Testament Apologetic. Expository Times 73 (1962): 203–4.
• Moule, Charles Francis Digby. Review of Barnabas Lindars, New Testament Apologetic. Theologische Literaturzeitung 87 (1962): 680–82.
• O’Rourke, John J. Review of Barnabas Lindars, New Testament Apologetic. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 24 (1962): 317–18.
• Owen, J. M. Review of Barnabas Lindars, New Testament Apologetic. Reformed Theological Review 21 (1962): 86–87.
• Rist, Martin. Review of Barnabas Lindars, New Testament Apologetic. Iliff Review 19 (1962): 51–52.
• Rowlingson, Donald T. Review of Barnabas Lindars, New Testament Apologetic, and Robert M. Grant, The Earliest Lives of Jesus. Religion in Life 31 (1962): 637–38.
• Sparks, Hedley F. D. Review of Barnabas Lindars, New Testament Apologetic. Journal of Theological Studies, n.s., 13 (1962): 399–401.

Andrew David Naselli
Trinity Evangelical Divinity School
Deerfield, Illinois
November 27, 2006

[I prepared the following book review for John Woodbridge’s “History of Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism” course in fall 2007 at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. Special thanks to Rolland McCune for reading my review and providing a lengthy response at such short notice. His rejoinder is included below with his permission. –Andy Naselli]

McCune, Rolland D. Promise Unfulfilled: The Failed Strategy of Modern Evangelicalism. Greenville, S.C.: Ambassador International, 2004. xvii + 398 pp.

Promise Unfulfilled is the most penetrating book-length evaluation of the “new evangelicalism” (about fifty years after its genesis) by a self-identified fundamentalist. McCune (b. 1934) is former president and current professor of systematic theology at Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary. He testifies, “I first heard that there was such a movement called ‘new evangelicalism’ when I entered Grace Theological Seminary in the fall of 1957. . . . In 1967 I began teaching on the seminary level and annually lectured on the new evangelicalism. This book”—McCune’s first—“is a partial harvest of all my years of research, study, and teaching on the subject” (p. xv).

Summary: Tracing the Argument

The title reflects McCune’s thesis: Evangelicalism (which is now synonymous with “modern,” “new,” and “neo-evangelicalism”) deliberately distinguished itself from fundamentalism in the 1940s and 1950s with a fresh promise and strategy, but its promise is unfulfilled and its strategy has failed. By “new evangelicalism” McCune means “a strain of conservative, traditional, Protestant, religious thought that coalesced into a movement in the mid-twentieth century, purporting to avoid the fundamentalist right and the neo-orthodox/neo-liberal left” (p. xvi). McCune argues his thesis by discussing historical and theological issues, divided into nine parts (and twenty-five chapters).

1. “Historical Antecedents” (pp. 1–26) recounts the rise of liberal or modernist theology and how that resulted in the fundamentalist-modernist controversy in America. Fundamentalism’s “esprit is principally its militant separatism. Fundamentalism is a movement, not an attitude of belligerence, ugliness, or a negative mentality as often depicted” (p. 16). The fundamentalist movement’s “essence” consists of (1) “core biblical truths, principally those concerning Christ and the Scriptures,” (2) “ecclesiastical separation,” and (3) “militancy” (p. 16).

2. “The Formation of the New Evangelicalism” (pp. 27–63) begins with “four crucial issues”:

• (1) Unity/separation: The National Association of Evangelicals began in 1942 and declined to merge with Carl McIntire’s American Council of Christian Churches.
• (2) Social concern: Carl Henry’s The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism (1947) decried “the lack of social concern in the fundamentalist movement of which he considered himself a part” (p. 34).
• (3) Scholarship/intellectualism: Fuller Theological Seminary began in 1947, partly as a reaction to fundamentalists who “simply were not up to par intellectually” (p. 38).
• (4) Evangelism: Billy Graham’s evangelistic crusades from 1949 to 1957 came to a head at the 1957 New York Crusade, which “finally made the two camps irreconcilable” (p. 45) because of Graham’s new and compromising policies on both sponsorship and convert referrals. “Graham brought an end to evangelical unity” (p. 55).

Eight other factors contributed to evangelicalism’s formation:

• (1) Vernon Grounds’s “The Nature of Evangelicalism” in Eternity (Feb. 1956);
• (2) Christianity Today, created in 1956;
• (3) “Is Evangelical Theology Changing?”, a symposium in Christian Life (March 1956);
• (4) Harold Ockenga’s news release announcing evangelicalism’s change of strategy from separation to infiltration (Dec. 8, 1957);
• (5) Robert O. Ferm’s 100-page Cooperative Evangelism: Is Billy Graham Right or Wrong? (1958);
• (6) Edward Carnell’s The Case for Orthodox Theology (1959);
• (7) Donald Grey Barnhouse’s support of evangelicalism from 1953 until his death in 1960; and
• (8) articles by evangelicals published in the liberal Christian Century.

3. “Ecumenism” (pp. 65–123) defines the term as the effort to implement a unity that ignores or greatly minimizes “doctrine, truth, and group distinctives” for “a united front,” particularly “the collaboration between evangelicals and non-evangelicals in promoting various religious and spiritual projects” (p. 65). This ecumenism errantly extends to evangelism, church councils, accolades, journalism, charismatism, and Roman Catholicism.

4. “Ecclesiastical Separation” (pp. 125–54) explains arguments for non-separatism (pragmatism, infiltration, apostasy, and the impossibility of a pure church), refutes them, and then explains four “categories of separation”:

• (1) Christians must separate from heresy, which denies what is essential to Christianity (Acts 20:28–30; Rom 16:17–18; 2 Cor 11:4; Gal 1:8–9; Phil 1:15–18; 1 Tim 6:3–5; Titus 1:3; 2 John 9–11; Rev 2:14–15).
• (2) Christians must avoid unequal alliances by separating from non-Christians in spheres such as worship, marriage, and ministry (2 Cor 6:14–7:1).
• (3) Christians must separate from organized apostasy, which includes belonging to apostate denominations or associations, giving them money, speaking for them, and sponsoring them (Rev 18:4; cf. Isa 52:11; Jer 50:8; 51:6, 9, 45; 2 Cor 6:17).
• (4) Christians must separate from disobedient Christians (2 Thess 3:6–15; cf. Matt 18:17; 1 Tim 1:20; 5:22). This fourth category is unique to fundamentalism and is known as “secondary separation,” which “is the refusal to cooperate with erring and disobedient Christians who do not adhere to primary separation and other vital doctrines” (p. 146). “Ecclesiastical separation does not really admit of ‘degrees.’ [n. 26: “Bob Jones, “Scriptural Separation: ‘First and Second Degree.’”] Separation is directed to the other person because of his deviations from Scripture in whatever ways he may express them. If the erring brother runs with the wrong crowd, separation at this point is from him as well as from the unbiblical company he is keeping. The reason for separating may well involve someone’s unscriptural involvements, but in reality this is no more ‘secondary’ than a ‘primary’ separation from apostasy” (p. 147).

Separation “is not one-size-fits-all,” but includes three levels that “carry their own doctrinal and practical requirements”: (1) personal, (2) local church, and (3) organizational (p. 154).

5. “The Bible and Authority” (pp. 155–94) chronicles the controversy over biblical revelation, inspiration, and inerrancy. This issue arose largely because of neo-orthodoxy’s influence.

6. “Apologetics” (pp. 195–228) argues that “the new evangelical view” of apologetic methodology is “semi-rationalism or semi-biblicism” (p. 198–99) and concludes that after fifty years of evangelicalism, its leaders “have abandoned the sense of an absolute and infallible religious authority, and today the evangelical movement is groping to find some kind of a basis or an authority to meet a rootless, non-absolutist, relativist culture on the culture’s own terms with the claims of the living and true God” (p. 195).

7. “Social Involvement” (pp. 229–74) traces the history of evangelical social activism and contrasts it with “the biblical idea of social action,” which (consistent with Alva J. McClain’s form of dispensationalism) maintains “there is not presently a messianic kingdom of God in existence; there is no ‘kingdom now.’ The church is not the kingdom and cannot participate in any social proposals attributable to the kingdom, and for that reason there can be no tenable sociopolitical kingdom advancement by the church in the present age” (p. 264).

8. “Doctrinal Storms” (pp. 275–308) highlights three unfortunate controversies in evangelicalism: (1) the status of the unevangelized, (2) the destiny of the finally impenitent, and (3) the open view of God.

“These internal controversies have not caused groups to break away from the evangelical movement because division, schism, and separation are the scarlet sins in new evangelical thought. What happens is that the avant garde ideas cause internal controversy and calls then go out for more prayer, more open-mindedness, more finessing, and more effort to find some kind of tolerable middle ground. These summons may be accompanied by not-so-veiled charges of causing disorder in the body of Christ, but when the turmoil quiets down, the new element is simply absorbed into the general new evangelical movement, and life goes on in the name of Christian brotherhood. Meanwhile as the movement has become doctrinally diluted and less and less biblical there is internal debate about what an evangelical really is. In the end, no one seems to be excluded from being considered an evangelical” (p. 275).

9. The “Conclusion” (pp. 309–60) evaluates evangelicalism:

“The new evangelicalism has been slowly but decidedly moving toward neo-orthodoxy and beyond. . . .

“When ultimate religious authority cannot be successfully identified, the gospel has no sure parameters. When the gospel cannot be precisely defined, what it means to be a Christian cannot be agreed upon. If the marks of a genuine Christian cannot be construed, then the question of what the Christian church is becomes moot. In liberal Protestantism the church became everyone and, in reality, was no one and thus nondescript. If everyone is a Christian, then no one is a Christian in this amorphous blob of religion. The new evangelicalism appears to be well on its way toward becoming such a conglomerate bereft of true biblical distinctives.

“A movement that wants to be called evangelical and yet has to debate itself over what the genius of Christianity actually is, is putting the finishing touches on its own coffin. It seems certain that the new evangelicalism is incapable of self-correction” (pp. 309, 319–20).

Following this evaluation is a critical review of Robert Webber’s The Younger Evangelicals, a time line of major events in evangelicalism from 1942 to 2003, and an informative annotated bibliography.

Analysis

Strengths

In the summers of 2000 and 2001 (following my sophomore and junior years of college), I was privileged to take two seminary classes at DBTS from McCune. I stocked up on his lengthy course syllabi and devoured them (about 900 pages on systematic theology as well as lectures on hermeneutics, apologetics, and the like). I have listened to dozens of his audio lectures and sermons, read his journal articles, interacted with former students (including one of my former pastors) who esteem him as their mentor, and interacted directly with him a bit (e.g., I interviewed him for my dissertation on Keswick theology). His thinking is rigidly logical, his conclusions firm, his commitment to God and His word immovable, and his character unquestionably above reproach. Promise Unfulfilled, which I first read when it was published in 2004 and then a second time in October 2007, evidences McCune’s strengths:

1. It is well researched, which is not surprising since it is the result of nearly four decades of teaching and research on the subject. This is evident simply by scanning the footnotes, bibliography, and index.
2. It is unusually well informed. McCune has intimate, first-hand knowledge of many of the people and events he discusses.
3. It is logically and clearly organized (with some exceptions, e.g., the headings in chap. 2).
4. It is genuinely earnest and courageous. McCune did not dispassionately write this book as a mundane, scholarly exercise to climb the academic ranks or secure tenure. He is committed to obeying God by guarding the gospel. He knew that it would not be a popular book, but rather than floating along with the current, McCune addresses a controversial issue head-on, including the application of a series of Scripture passages that many others are inclined to ignore or at least not study in detail (e.g., Rom 16:17–18; 2 John 9–11; 2 Thess 3:6–15). It is disappointing that many are unaware of or perhaps have ignored his work. (To my knowledge not a single review of Promise Unfulfilled has been published in a theological journal, and now most journals consider the book too old for a review.)
5. It is convincing. McCune successfully proves his thesis with the vast majority of his supporting arguments. Spurgeon’s downgrade controversy is an exceptionally moving illustration supporting ecclesiastical separation (pp. 126–28), and numerous evangelical analyses of evangelicalism (several of which McCune mentions in his annotated bibliography) corroborate McCune’s thesis.

Weaknesses

From my young, inexperienced, limited perspective, Promise Unfulfilled also has some weaknesses (besides more than a handful of typos and formatting issues). Since I do not want to give the impression that I have everything worked out infallibly, I submit these suggestions corrigibly and respectfully (though not timidly).

1. It appears at times to shape fundamentalism into what McCune thinks it ought to be rather than stating what it is or presenting arguments with which most fundamentalists would agree.

• (1) It does not critique fundamentalism as intensely as it critiques evangelicalism. One of the fundamental rules of book reviewing is to analyze a book on its own terms rather than criticizing the author for not writing a different book, so I simply mention that a similar critique of fundamentalism could be embarrassing for fundamentalists.
• (2) It argues for the superiority of Van Til’s presuppositional apologetics, but many evangelicals are Van Tillian and many fundamentalists are not Van Tillian.
• (3) It rejects evangelicalism’s social activism partly because it does not line up with McClain’s postponement theory of the kingdom, a subset of revised dispensationalism (pp. 36; 263–66), but some fundamentalists reject dispensationalism and a much larger group rejects that particular variety of dispensationalism.

2. It lacks sufficient nuance, notably in the following five areas.

(1) Some of its arguments do not logically follow. For example, “Promise Keepers has many strata of belief and practice, one stratum of which is charismaticism, as seen in the charismatic conference speakers and their writings (such as Greg Laurie, Chuck Smith, and Jack Hayford), the conduct of the public gatherings (including the music and hand lifting/waving), and the composition of its governing board” (p. 108, emphasis added). Moving from such “conduct” to charismatism is a non sequitur since many non-charismatics worship with similar music and “hand lifting/waving.” That seems to be an unguarded statement that would understandably frustrate non-charismatics who worship with that kind of music and “hand lifting/waving.”

(2) It employs a slippery-slope argument, namely, that evangelicalism, because it rejects at least some categories of separation, inevitably leads to doctrinal aberrations such as non-inerrancy, neo-orthodoxy, or open theism (cf. the concluding evaluation in Part 9 quoted above). It does not logically follow, however, that all evangelicals tolerate such error or are moving on an unavoidable trajectory in that direction. For example, Ligonier Ministries has avoided this slippery slope. Further, there are many churches (some of which I have visited) that McCune would not consider to be fundamentalist but that do separate from heresy, unequal alliances, organized apostasy, and disobedient Christians.

(3) It includes “interdenominationalism” as an objection to ecumenical evangelism since it cannot agree on “what is truly essential and what is non-essential or peripheral” (pp. 74–75), but this objection lacks sufficient qualification. No doubt his description of interdenominationalism is often—perhaps usually—the case, but this is not necessarily so. McCune acknowledges that fundamentalism itself is interdenominational (pp. 17, 20; cf. McCune’s “Doctrinal Non-Issues in Historic Fundamentalism,” DBSJ [1996]: 178–79). Furthermore, evangelicalism includes many doctrinally sound groups that are interdenominational, six of which readily come to mind:
(1) Ligonier Ministries led by R. C. Sproul; (2) Desiring God Ministries led by John Piper; (3) 9 Marks led by Mark Dever; (4) The Shepherds’ Fellowship led by John MacArthur; (5) Together for the Gospel led by Mark Dever, Ligon Duncan, Al Mohler, and C. J. Mahaney; and (6) The Gospel Coalition led by D. A. Carson and Tim Keller.

(4) Its criteria for applying “secondary” separation based on 2 Thess 3:6–15 could be clearer. McCune explains that fundamentalists sometimes tolerate “those who fellowship with new evangelicals, or those who engage in entangling unbiblical alliances of various sorts, or whose standards of personal deportment and music are intolerable. . . . If, after the passing of reasonable time, and appropriate biblical confrontation, it is apparent that the organization is unable or unwilling to put its house in order, then the Bible-believing separatist has no choice but to withdraw” (p. 148). At what point do fellow believers qualify for separation with reference to their “personal deportment and music”? How does positive Scriptural teaching on unity fit into this paradigm?

(5) It lacks nuance when distinguishing fundamentalists from evangelicals. Sometimes McCune’s description of fundamentalism is unrealistically narrow:

“Broadly speaking, ecclesiastical separation is the refusal to collaborate with or the withdrawal of a working relationship from an ecclesiastical organization or religious leader that deviates from the standard of Scripture or that does not believe and obey the word of God in doctrine or practice. Separation is the refusal to join hands or make common cause with those who deny or disobey the Scriptures” (p. 138, emphasis added; cf. 125, 148, 151).

Based on that definition, I would have to separate from everyone—including myself since I often “disobey the Scriptures”! McCune obviously means that only certain types of deviation from the Scriptures (i.e., flagrant, habitual unbelief or disobedience) merit separation, but his statements lack nuance and clarity.

At other times he has an “us vs. them” mentality that seems to view all evangelicals as disobedient Christians from whom fundamentalists must equally separate. For example, while McCune greatly appreciates many aspects of their ministries, he lists the Southern Baptist Convention as an example of “organized apostasy” (p. 146) and John Piper and John MacArthur as “disobedient Christians” (pp. 151–53). Many who are intimately familiar with the SBC, Piper, and MacArthur (including some within fundamentalism) would disagree with McCune’s assessment. Such people might counter that (1) efforts by men such as Mark Dever, Al Mohler, and Tom Nettles in the SBC’s conservative resurgence are similar to what David Beale calls “nonconformist fundamentalism” (In Pursuit of Purity: American Fundamentalism Since 1850 [Greenville, S.C.: Unusual Publications, 1986], pp. 3–12) and that these men are worthy of support on several levels and (2) Piper and MacArthur are militantly orthodox but apply the same principles of separation differently.

The issue here seems to be nuance. People have a tendency to broad-brush groups of which they are not a part, often because they fail to see distinctions from a distance. Movements are complex, and pockets of people within a particular movement are often frustrated when others critique their movement without acknowledging its complexity or diversity. For example, many Mormons are understandably frustrated when the media lumps them together with fringe Mormons who are polygamists, and many fundamentalists are understandably frustrated when evangelicals lump them together with, say, the King James Only movement, anti-intellectualism, or legalism.

At least two groups are similarly broad-brushed in Promise Unfulfilled. (1) Many non-cessationists (e.g., D. A. Carson, John Piper, or Wayne Grudem) would be understandably frustrated with McCune for how he implicitly lumps them all together with charismatics whose “presence in the new evangelical ranks has contributed to the deterioration of evangelical theology as a whole and has fostered an experience-oriented Christianity” that gives “an enormous boost to the ecumenical movement” (pp. 108–9). (2) Many evangelicals would be understandably frustrated with McCune for how he lumps them all together as non-separatists. It seems that evangelicals and fundamentalists tend to caricature each other with the result that evangelicals have as much trouble fitting intellectually respectable fundamentalists like McCune and Kevin Bauder into their conceptual grid of fundamentalists as fundamentalists do fitting militantly orthodox men like Carson, Dever, MacArthur, Piper, and Grudem into their conceptual grid of evangelicals. (See, e.g., Bauder, “What’s That You Smell? A Fundamentalist Response to The Smell of Sawdust,” part 2 in Pilgrims on the Sawdust Trail: Evangelical Ecumenism and the Quest for Christian Identity, ed. Timothy George [Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004] and “A Fundamentalism Worth Saving”; and Grudem “Why, When, and for What Should We Draw New Boundaries?” chap. 10 in Beyond the Bounds: Open Theism and the Undermining of Biblical Christianity, ed. John Piper, Justin Taylor, Paul Kjoss Helseth [Wheaton: Crossway, 2003], pp. 339–70.) McCune seems to treat all non-fundamentalist Christians as “new evangelicals,” as though the current theological milieu is the same as it was in the 1950s. The fundamentalist-evangelical landscape, however, has changed considerably.

Conclusion

Despite the disproportionate space given to them, the alleged weaknesses are relatively peripheral to McCune’s thesis, which he argues convincingly. McCune is on the side of the angels. Evangelicalism has become increasingly diluted, and the result is that it has compromised what is most precious to Christians: the gospel. Promise Unfulfilled is a sober, eye-opening reminder that all believers are charged with the important and often difficult responsibility to guard the gospel.

Andrew David Naselli
Trinity Evangelical Divinity School
Deerfield, Illinois
October 16, 2007
Related: Review of Iain Murray’s Evangelicalism Divided

~~~~~~~

“A Brief Response to Andy Naselli’s
Review of Promise Unfulfilled“

[In email exchanges on October 16, 2007, Rolland D. McCune graciously wrote, “Andy: Thanks loads for the review; it is well-written and well-taken. You must have spent a tremendous amount of time and cerebral energy to put it together. Attached is my brief and somewhat hasty response to some of the weaknesses. I am happy for the interface on these issues. You may use my comments as you wish; all, some, or none. Whatever suits your purposes. Cordially, for the Cause, RDM.” After I sought clarification to make sure that McCune did not mind if I shared his reply with my TEDS class or later posted it on my blog, McCune replied, “You may use the response in any way you prefer.” –Andy Naselli]

1. The New Evangelical Paradigm, Motif, or Even Its Sina Qua Non

I think I tried to make clear that there is no “official” maximum/minimum set of explicits that are true of all card-carrying new evangelicals (pp. xvi, xvii). The same can be said of virtually any movement, be it fundamentalism, Republicans, Democrats, or what have you. Any such movement, endeavor, or coalition has its peculiar motif, and one is always vulnerable when trying to extract it. There are always varying shades of difference and/or expression within that can be claimed as atypical. E.g., failure to see this formed many of new evangelicalism’s early answers to fundamentalist criticism. They could always point to some new evangelical(s) who didn’t hold to a particular aberration and thereby could cleanse the whole movement. But, nevertheless, one must press on as objectively and honestly as he can.

A somewhat reverse argument for interdenominationalism is made when it is stated that “many doctrinally sound groups . . . are interdenominational” (six groups are listed). This is true, of course, but based on highly subjective and pragmatic footings, I would think.

2. Logical Non Sequiturs

Regarding Promise Keepers, “moving from such ‘conduct’ to charismatism is a non sequitur since many non-charismatics” also have such conduct.

This is formally true but is probably itself a non-sequitur since many things charismatics do are done in almost all churches. (See the preceding point.) But hand-lifting/waving and a particular style of music rhythm, among other phenomena, have distinguished the tongues/charismatic movement from the beginning. This was not true in the early evangelical/fundamentalist coalition nor the new evangelicalism itself until comparatively recently (1960s). My take is that this was imported into the new evangelicalism by propinquity or more direct means. Witness the second-class citizen status of tongues/charismatics in the NAE from the 1940s to the mid-60s or so. Also note Carl Henry’s strong resistance (wanting to scrap the NAE and begin over again with an obviously non-charismatic platform, p. 105) in contrast with Barnhouse’s, Packer’s, Pinnock’s, and many others’ much less restrictive, if not positive, attitudes toward charismatic practice and doctrine.

3. Slippery Slope Separatism

I would argue that repudiation of ecclesiastical separation has been a significant factor in the inroads of neo-orthodoxy, and worse, into the new evangelicalism. Harold Lindsell tacitly affirmed the same when he said that deviations/denials of inerrancy would lead to the “sapping” of the movement and the dissolution of its doctrinal base (p. 140). But, incredibly, while he held that inerrancy was a test of orthodoxy, it was not to be a test of organizational fellowship (i.e., not an article of ecclesiastical separation, p. 167). Lindsell’s and Henry’s lamentations over the virtual demise of the movement in the later 1970s and 80s, to say nothing of M. Erickson’s quasi admission that neo-orthodoxy had seeped into evangelicalism already in the 1960s (p. 309), must be accounted for somehow, and non-separatism (or inclusivism) in its many manifestations contributed a major portion thereof.

So, in the book I lay a good share of evangelicalism’s decline on its non-separatist (actually anti-separatist) stance, which was one of the crucial pillars of the beginnings of the movement in the early 1940s. (Technically, new evangelicalism had no viable and workable rubrics of separation at all, certainly not from the apostasy; it sported largely a visceral reaction to fundamentalist separatism. The inclusivism of Billy Graham forced a biblical look at the issue, Cooperative Evangelism by Robert O. Ferm being one of the first such attempts.)

My tome puts heavy guilt on the non-separatist principle of “dialogue” in numerous areas (see the index, and especially Part Nine, as you note). Exceptions, such as Ligonier Ministries, et al., do not, in my judgment, invalidate my conclusion about some of the unavoidables of non-separatism. As well, there are undoubtedly many in the NCC and other such institutions/organizations who have not imbibed the apostasy, but those anecdotal exceptions bear no weight, in my thinking, regarding the much larger (biblical, doctrinal) issue.

It is true that some elements in the SBC, for instance, are working “from within” to capture the denominational political/ecclesiastical machinery and thus reinstate orthodoxy. But fundamentalists, then, rightfully wonder why Al Mohler, et al., had a lead role in the Billy Graham Louisville ecumenical evangelistic crusade a few years back. And why/how Mohler, Dever, Nettles and other resurgents can also fellowship with liberalism, small and ineffective as it may seem to them, within the SBC? Further, it appears that the orthodox resurgence in the SBC for many years has been less interested in a purge of the apostates as much as maintaining a high form of plurality over them. (For a while it seemed as if a vacuous polarity was going to be sufficient.)

I guess I am saying that the “nonconformists” in the SBC at this late stage are not really comparable to the nonconformist, separatistic fundamentalists in the NBC and northern Presbyterians who eventually became formal separatists in about 1930. Mohler, Dever, Nettles, and many other good men in the SBC show no signs of a come-out mentality. Indeed, the opposite is evident. I applaud and support those who are trying to regain lost ground in the GARBC, for example, and can still have a certain amount of organizational fellowship with them (I am one of the speakers at the Bible Conference at FBBC&S, Ankeny, IA, in a couple of weeks.). But the GARBC has not taken the apostasy on board like the SBC did long ago.

4. Not Critiquing Fundamentalism

It is suggested as a weakness that the book does “not critique fundamentalism as intensely as . . . evangelicalism.” This is certainly the case, but I wonder if you haven’t surrendered the point by acknowledging an author’s option to write what he wants and states as his purpose. How can that option be construed as a weakness here? A “similar critique of fundamentalism could be embarrassing” may or may not be true, but seems somewhat irrelevant in this case.

By the bye, I do come down on some of my fundamentalists forebears and contemporaries on certain issues, such as social programs (hospitals, for one example) on the mission fields as pre-evangelistic or pre-missional endeavors, entertainment evangelism at home and abroad (such as gospel magic, sword chopping a watermelon off the pastor’s stomach, among numerous other forms), certain breezy worship styles and orders of service, fundamentalist interdenominationalism, etc. However I have not felt the burden to be our movement’s general watchdog in this regard; we have plenty of these, within and outside our ranks, who do that for us.

5. Nuancing Ecclesiastical Separation

The doctrine of ecclesiastical separation certainly could be nuanced much more than I did, but other constraints did not warrant. For one, I don’t think it is feasible to draw up a complete list of rubrics and contingencies that would settle all situations. The legalistic offspring of such parentage would be uncontrollable and totally unworkable. Second, I’m not convinced that the real, load-bearing issues today are all that different from those in our general history. I.e., I’m not sure that our day presents unique and unheard of separational issues or that the “fundamentalist and evangelical landscape has changed considerably.” Third, admittedly, my writing of the book was essentially finished by 2002, well before all the nuanced forms of hyphenated fundamentalism and evangelicalism became fashionable. But in numerous blogs (Sharper Iron, among others) I have contended that the current nuanced “labels” are too subjective and in the end are basically irrelevant to ecclesial decision-making anyhow. These nuances usually subordinate Scripture to themselves, subliminally or otherwise.

The suggestion (in jest, I’m sure) that you would have to separate from yourself, to say nothing of everyone else, save for the hyphenations proposal, probably carries more truth than fiction. The reason is that separation in the last and most primitive sense, in almost every practical application and scenario, does come down to one’s individual soul liberty and conscience. This is what drives the idea of “levels” of cooperation/separation that I speak of in the book. To go against conscience, whether it is right or wrong, is still sin (Rom 14:22-23). So there is an inevitable subjectivism or individualism in the final analysis. But fundamentalism (and a local church, or association of churches, et al.) can, must, and always does have as well a general “corporate conscience” or common soul liberty in this and numerous other areas that informs the movement or endeavor. And while I try to be charitable to individuals and institutions, long-standing patterns and track records of bad and/or unbiblical decision-making and ecclesiastical behavior warrant separation.

The frustration of the nuanced “pockets of people” and their “conceptual grids” (Carson, Piper, and MacArthur are mentioned) underscores the point I am making. Such categorical structuring of fundamentalism and modern evangelicalism is counterproductive. It tacitly employs group-think and not individual scrutiny. But, personally, I want to look a their belief-system and its inevitable ensuing practical, behavior patterns in light of the Bible rather than in whose hyphenated pocket they are. I wish to be judged that way, and I’m sure the aforementioned would feel likewise.

6. Van Tillian Apologetics

Presuppositional, transcendental, Van Tillian apologetics is not an article of fundamentalist faith to be sure. One can be a Van Tillian new evangelical as well as a Clarkian/Carnellian/Geislerite fundamentalist in this discipline. But in the early stages of the formation of new evangelicalism, both Millard Erickson and Ronald Nash declared the verificationist methodology as the “official” stance of the new movement. And Henry, Ramm, Carnell and Pinnock certainly wrote with that assumption in mind even if it were not formally expressed. Fuller was the flagship new evangelical institution in apologetics and philosophy of religion and, while most assuredly not promoting hillbilly evangelism, was anything but of the corrective Reformed school of Kuyper, Dooyeweerd, Van Til, and others, which I espouse. My options were to ignore the issue, despite Erickson and Nash, or give the only viable rebuttal I know of, and I chose the latter. But, as stated at the first of this point, I do not speak for fundamentalism on this matter. (Naturally, I do have a strong opinion on the subject. See my “Is There or Should There Be A Fundamentalist Apologetic Methodology?” DBTS, MACP, Oct 18-19, 2001).

True, the old fundamentalist/evangelical coalition got their rational and semi-rational apologetics and philosophy of religion honestly from old Princeton, and much of it was carried over into both fundamentalism and new evangelicalism. But as I tried to demonstrate, the intellectual autonomy of Thomism, via Butler and Paley, carried much of the water that is required to make the old Reformed methodology function. In my judgment, this intellectual autonomy eventually ate up true biblical presuppositionalism so that new evangelicalism was essentially presuppositionless in the end. Thus there was a certain pragmatic intellectual freedom also brought to the table in the controversies over revelation, inspiration, and inerrancy. This spilled over into the separation/cooperation issue and probably others, and genuine biblical authority suffered.

7. Dispensationalism and Social Activism

Dispensationalism as an approach to understanding the Bible has always been pessimistic toward the social and theological progress of the present church age. With the discovery (some evangelicals would say recovery) of social and political sensitivities as incumbencies on the NT church in post WW II, evangelicalism came to the need for an evangelical biblical/theological justification for such. The driving enginery of non-evangelical activism had always been, and still is, the social gospel and a “kingdom now” eschatology. While the social gospel was not an option early on in the new evangelical coalition, the insights of the relatively recent “inaugurated eschatology” or “realized eschatology” were at hand. And so dispensationalism with its delayed kingdom doctrine was totally unsuitable for the new evangelical vision, and it had to go. It took a while but eventually the theology, notably of George E. Ladd and Fuller Seminary, was able to penetrate the premillennial ranks and turn the tide away from dispensationalism toward a modified covenant premillennialism. But it was the “already/not yet,” “kingdom now” that furnished the biblical basis for sociopolitical activism for the institutional church because the messianic kingdom has a wide social dimension and the church was the instrumental vanguard in bringing the kingdom to the whole of society and the whole of the human personality.

But if there is no present form of the messianic kingdom, then social activism is shorn of a biblical mandate. Dispensationalism, up until the1980s, declined to identify the present age as a form of Messiah’s reign. So I would say that there is more to the issue than “not lining up with McClain’s postponement theory of the kingdom,” which phrase has pejorative overtones in much of current scholarship; instead it was an understanding of the Bible that was at stake for many. Henry and others saw the need to excise dispensationalism from the new movement, according to Marsden’s Reforming Fundamentalism. This was unacceptable to many fundamentalists and was thought to have bordered heavily on the old liberal social gospel. (Historically, I think there is good evidence that such has happened.)

Sticking to the biblical data, I don’t see how dispensationalists can have any choice here without abandoning their approach to understanding the Bible. If there is a kingdom now in any messianic sense, then the church is obligated to be socially active in spreading the kingdom ethic to the whole of mankind. If there is no form of the messianic kingdom, then the focus of institutional church ministry does not entail these particular obligations. It is true that “a much larger group,” along with some fundamentalists, “rejects that particular variety of dispensationalism,” but again, I wonder if that particular datum is really relevant to the issue. What is significant is that the progressive dispensational proposal with its inaugurated eschatology has at last found a place at the evangelical table here, but at what cost? Bruce Waltke (who of all people ought to know) and others rather quickly called the dispensational credentials of the new progressives into serious question, and I think they are right.

What troubles me is that many of the so-called young fundamentalists are advocating a global social agenda for the local church without any understanding of its theological underpinnings. And I am not sure as yet if their new (to fundamentalism) philosophy of ministry is a sub rosa feeling to be “with it” and come out of the dispensational fundamentalist ghetto and join their contemporaries on the subject, or whether the putative basis is more of a string of proof texts bereft of theological correlation. Maybe it is neither.

Rolland D. McCune
Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary
Allen Park, Michigan
October 16, 2007

Yarbrough, Robert Wayne. The Salvation Historical Fallacy? Reassessing the History of New Testament Theology. Edited by Robert Morgan. History of Biblical Interpretation Series 2. Leiden: Deo, 2004. xiv + 402 pp.

1. Introduction

Yarbrough is a NT professor at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, where he serves as chair of the NT department. The Salvation Historical Fallacy? (henceforth SHF) builds on Yarbrough’s “The heilsgeschichtliche Perspective in Modern New Testament Theology” (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Aberdeen, 1985; xiii + 520 pp.), incorporating two additional decades of research (cf. many of the articles in Yarbrough’s Curriculum Vitae).

2. Need

SHF fills a gap in NT studies by highlighting (1) “underrated” NT theologians and (2) the “overlooked” hermeneutical and historiographical perspectives of salvation history or Heilsgeschichte, as opposed to focusing primarily on its “theological construct” as did the Biblical Theology Movement after World War II (pp. 4–5). SHF is ideal supplemental reading for upper-level seminary courses on NT theology, the history of interpretation, or contemporary theology.

3. Thesis

SHF is a diachronic study from the early 1800s to the late 1900s (p. xiii) that contrasts two major approaches to NT theology: traditional critical approaches (F. C. Baur, William Wrede, and Rudolf Bultmann) versus a better alternative, namely, Heilsgeschichte (J. C. K. von Hofmann, Adolf Schlatter, Martin Albertz, Leonhard Goppelt, and Oscar Cullmann), a term that Hofmann “apparently coined” (pp. 2–3). Yarbrough convincingly argues his thesis: contrary to Baur, Wrede, and Bultmann, the salvation history approach to NT theology is not necessarily a fallacy.

“Whereas Baur-Wrede-Bultmann saw a largely negative relation, so that a “historical” synthesis of New Testament convictions must be fatal to classic Christian belief, these scholars lodge a fascinating minority report. In ways that set them apart from many of their peers, they saw Christian salvation and the world’s historical processes as positively related” (p. 3).

“New Testament theology in the Baur-Wrede-Bultmann heritage has overreached in its often swashbuckling conviction that a salvation historical approach must necessarily constitute a fallacy. We will show that the “critical orthodox” hegemony has been more dependent on philosophical, theological, and historiographical convictions intrinsic to the changing times than has been good for either scholarship or religion. At the same time there has been since Hofmann a consistent, if today little remarked, response to Baur-Wrede-Bultmann that appears worthy of a second look. This view has assumed various characteristic forms; it is also fraught with its own philosophical, theological, and historiographical liabilities” (p. 7).

4. Chapter Summaries: Tracing the Argument

Chapters 1, 2, and 6 “frame the investigation by setting forth distinctives of the [Heilsgeschichte] outlook in contrast to what we term ‘critical orthodoxy’” (p. 5). The representatives of the two views are diverse and not necessarily part of a uniform school of thought. Chapters 3–4 summarize the state of NT and OT theology between the world wars and after World War II, and chapter 5 discusses Cullmann to set the stage for the contrasts with Bultmann in chapter 6.

Ch.	Critical Orthodoxy (The Foil)	Salvation History
1	Baur (1792–1860)	Hofmann (1810–1877)
2	Wrede (1858–1906)	Schlatter (1852–1938)
5–6	Bultmann (1884–1976)	Cullmann (1902–1998), Albertz (1882–1956), Goppelt (1911–1973)

1. “Tübingen Versus Erlangen: F. C. Baur and J. C. K. von Hofmann on New Testament Theology” (pp. 8–59): “For Baur a [non-Hegelian (cf. p. 27)] salvation historical approach was fallacious because of the nature of the New Testament sources and the largely philosophical certainties that inform ‘critical’ methods used to analyze them. For Hofmann, those same sources remained unintelligible apart from the material influence of a transcendent God who involved himself in the historical process in much the same way that biblical writers claim” (p. 9). Baur’s “interpretive grid” is “historicistic” (p. 27). Using a rationalist epistemology similar to Descartes and Kant, Baur rejects the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection, dates for the Gospels earlier than the second century, the NT’s theologically harmonious unity, Jesus’ divinity, and Jesus’ supernatural works (pp. 11, 18–20, 23–25). Baur seems to have elevated “his particular modern outlook to the status of judge of the New Testament” (p. 20; cf. 24). Hofmann, who has been “inadequately assessed” (p. 28) and whose “views are profoundly rooted in the covenant theology of Cocceius” (p. 33), contrasts with Baur by seeking “to understand the New Testament texts in their stated context” (p. 41). Hofmann was a modified critic, not a biblical inerrantist, so his non-Cartesian epistemology was not due to inerrancy (pp. 42–45).
2. “Religion Versus Theology: William Wrede and Adolf Schlatter on New Testament Theology” (pp. 60–117): Like Baur, Wrede thought “that a salvation historical approach to New Testament theology is fallacious judged by the conventions of modern thought” (p. 61), and he claimed “methodological exclusivity” for his NT theology approach (pp. 67–68), which absolutized the modern viewpoint (pp. 74–78). Yarbrough, who is an expert on Schlatter, presents what he calls “the new perspective on Schlatter” since NT scholarship has unfairly marginalized him (pp. 81–83). Schlatter was a NT scholar unusually proficient in philosophy, first century Judaism, rabbinic studies, and linguistics, especially Hebrew and Greek (pp. 83–88). Although “neither a Cartesian in the sense of absolutizing a modern view, nor purely non-Cartesian in the negative sense of jettisoning modernity for the sake of allegiance to a cherished view of the past,” Schlatter is “not simply a mediating theologian, shrewdly seeking a golden mean by which to reconcile opposing factions” (p. 113). As part of “the salvation historical outlook,” he “regards the New testament writings as evincing substantial theological unity and historical veracity and as enjoying temporal proximity to the events or words they relate” (p. 115). His epistemology merges “openness to the transcendent and careful observation of the phenomenal” (p. 115).
3. “The Debate Continues: Religion Versus Theology Between the World Wars” (pp. 118–65): Non-salvation historical approaches, primarily Religionsgeschichte, dominated OT theology prior to 1918 (pp. 123–24) as well as between the world wars (pp. 128–46), but salvation history received “renewed attention” (p. 145). Salvation history’s “re-entry” in NT theology preceded Cullmann’s Christ and Time with G. Schrenk, C. Weth, O. Piper, C. H. Dodd, H. D. Wendland, E. Stauffer, L. Goppelt, and A. M. Hunter (pp. 152–63).
4. “Slouching Toward Crisis: Salvation History in the Biblical Theology Movement” (pp. 166–212): After World War II, debate about Heilsgeschichte “intensified,” producing “some clarity and progress” but ending in a “meltdown” (p. 167). According to Childs, the “Biblical Theology Movement” led by W. Eichrodt, G. von Rad, and E. Jacob lasted only until the early 1960s (pp. 168–69). Salvation history’s prominent role during this period “breaks decisively with a Hofmann-Schlatter model” (p. 193), and Childs “rightly diagnoses its fallacy: it stressed the theological important fact of God’s act in history but typically declined to affirm their concrete historical reality” (p. 210). Schlatter-like salvation history approaches to NT theology rebounded, however, with scholars such as A. Wilder, B. Reicke, L. Goppelt, G. Ladd, and H. Ridderbos (pp. 200–210).
5. “Prophet Without Honor: Cullmann’s Unseasonable Salvation Historical Synthesis” (pp. 213–60): Cullmann has unnecessarily received a bad rap from NT scholarship (cf. pp. 259–60). Although he did not consciously see himself in the same salvation historical stream as Hofmann and Schlatter, he likewise was a biblical non-inerrantist, insisted “that the starting point for the meaning of the New Testament texts is what the texts themselves say,” positively related revelation and history, and criticized biblical criticism (pp. 250–59).
6. “The Perfect Storm: Final Assault on Salvation History and Counterinsurgency” (pp. 261–338): Bultmann coincided with conditions that were unusually conducive for marginalizing Heilsgeschichte. Although Albertz and Goppelt differ drastically from Bultmann, they are not uniform themselves. Goppelt differs from Hofmann, Schlatter, and Albertz both epistemologically and materially (cf. pp. 328, 334), and his work “may be regarded as a Trojan horse in the salvation historical camp” (p. 335; cf. 338). There is “a striking lack of collaboration, or even mutual awareness” between Albertz and Goppelt—and Cullmann to a lesser degree (p. 337).
7. “Epilogue: The Salvation History Fallacy?” (pp. 339–46): This study of salvation history is “a rediscovery of significant labor unjustly forgotten” (p. 339), and “salvation historical alternatives to ‘critical orthodoxy’ will continue to find supporters” for “a discipline that appears both fraught with difficulties and ripe for resurgence” (pp. 340–46).

5. Analysis

Cons:

1. Its Scripture index lists only sixteen biblical references, which is not surprising since SHF focuses on history, but readers would no doubt appreciate more examples from Scripture.
2. The combination of relatively dry content with a formal, academic writing style results in a challenging read that requires exceptional concentration.
3. It includes over a dozen minor typos.

Pros:

1. Its quality is superb. Yarbrough has a scholarly command of the vast field of biblical theology from Gabler in the late 1700s to the present, and SHF demonstrates this by penetratingly interacting with hundreds of primary and secondary sources—many of which are German and thus inaccessible to most English speakers. The impressive bibliography is forty-four pages.
2. Its outline is clear, the diachronic progression logical, and frequent “summary” sections valuable.
3. As best I can discern, its main arguments are sound. SHF is a book that NT scholars will ignore at their peril.

6. Selected Bibliography

This annotated selection of four reviews reflects a spectrum of perspectives.

• Guthrie, George. Review of Robert W. Yarbrough, The Salvation Historical Fallacy? BIBLICA 87:3 (2006): 442–46. “To seek to reassess the development of an entire sub-discipline of New Testament Studies might seem staggeringly ambitious in a guild currently given both to fragmentation and specialization. Yet, this is what Robert Yarbrough does in” SHF (p. 442). “Robert Yarbrough’s monograph has a number of strengths. First, both the hegemony and commitments of the dominant current in New Testament theology, exemplified in the works of Baur, Wrede, and Bultmann, stand out clearly in dialogue with scholars from a salvation historical perspective. In the presentation of this dialogue’s history, Yarbrough has helped not only to clarify the primary differences between the two orientations but also to clarify both the connections and differences between those in each trajectory. For example, while Baur, Wrede, and Bultmann share certain negative responses to the concept of revelation in history, Yarbrough is keen to point out the very different philosophical orientations of these scholars. Bultmann departed significantly from both Baur and Wrede, for example, but his posture towards the possibility of revelation in history caused him to stand with them over against the salvation historical approach” (444). “Second, Yarbrough has shown that the highest commitments of the Baur-Wrede-Bultmann trajectory were to dominant philosophical systems of their times, whether Cartesian, Hegelian, Kantian, or Neo-kantian. These philosophical orientations, moreover, are shown to have predetermined the outcome of their New Testament theological research” (pp. 444–45). “Third, in accordance with the dictum that history is written by the victors, Yarbrough demonstrates that significant and prolific voices in the history of New Testament theology have been all but lost to current consideration by most in current New Testament studies. Yarbrough’s wide reading and grasp of his sources, most of which are in German, have resulted in him bringing sometimes obscure works to light and highlighting not-so-obscure but often neglected works. At numerous points, he also draws connections in method or conclusions between works, connections that are not overt in the works themselves. . . . Moreover, Yarbrough has demonstrated that key scholars of the salvation history perspective, such as Hofmann, Schlatter, and Cullmann, rather than offering simplistic, biblicist, or uncritical perspectives, were responsible for extensive, well-researched, and nuanced discussions on the nature and work of New Testament theology. While aware of their own presuppositions, they nonetheless were more open than Baur, Wrede, and Bultmann to allowing the events and data of the New Testament era to ‘speak’ over against the philosophical systems of their day” (p. 445). “In spite of these strengths, the book is not without its weaknesses. The presentation leaves the impression that another round or two of editing was needed before this volume’s release” (p. 445). Its organization is “less than optional” and “somewhat erratic in its development” (p. 445). “These concerns aside, this monograph offers important food for thought concerning the state of and future directions for the practice of New Testament theology. . . . At the end of the day, Yarbrough has demonstrated that the dialogue between the dominant voices in New Testament theology and the alternate voices of the salvation historical perspective does not constitute a dialogue between a critical and an uncritical approach to New Testament study, but rather a clash of worldviews” (pp. 445–46).
• Johnson, David. Review of Robert W. Yarbrough, The Salvation Historical Fallacy? Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 49 (2006): 183–85. “The agenda for this volume is clear before one opens the book, since the title is crossed out on the cover. The purpose is to show that there is no salvation-historical fallacy. Yarbrough asserts that standard accounts of NT studies in the last half of the twentieth century focused on Rudolf Bultmann, his precursors and legacy. Therefore they have neglected or invalidated the work of those who follow a salvation-historical approach. . . . The book does not attempt to prove a genetic relationship between any of the scholars, although such relationships probably exist. This gives the study a more historically objective appearance” (p. 183). “Whereas Räisänen thinks the Baur-Wrede-Bultmann approach is the best example and model for the discipline, Yarbrough thinks the so-called salvation-historical model of Hofmann-Schlatter-Cullmann is best, or at least a viable alternative (agreeing in some measure with Peter Balla)” (p. 184). “Yarbrough’s conclusion is that faith and history must go together in the construction of NT theology because the Christian faith (as well as Israel’s faith) is founded on historical events. Critical orthodoxy cannot grasp the meaning of the NT. A few scholars have been tempted to follow a strictly literary approach to the meaning of the NT. This book should call them back to a historical mooring. . . . [W]ithout a historical base to NT study one cannot identify with the NT authors and thus cannot truly understand the theology of the NT” (p. 185).
• Räisänen, Heikki. Review of Robert W. Yarbrough, The Salvation Historical Fallacy? Catholic Biblical Quarterly 68 (2006): 160–61. Yarbrough’s “comparison of the similarities between” Wrede and Bultmann “is superficial” (p. 160). “‘Salvation history’ is used loosely with reference to scholars who largely rely on the biblical texts as historical (though not infallible) sources and accept their traditional Christian interpretation. As a result, Gerhard von Rad, usually closely associated with salvation history, is located close to the opposite camp, and Goppelt gets an ambiguous evaluation, ranging from an ally to a Trojan horse” (p. 160). “Yarbrough claims that he ‘seeks to tell a story more than render a verdict’ (p. xiv), yet the book leaves a different impression. Page after page, the trio Baur-Wrede-Bultmann and their like emerge as hardened positivists, unable to do justice to the NT simply because of their a priori commitment to a modern worldview” (p. 161). “As the work moves mostly on a theoretical level, it leaves the impression that one’s historical conclusions vis-à-vis the Bible depend simply on whether or not one accepts the possibility of miracle or of divine intervention. Y. shows no sensitivity to the significant for biblical scholarship of accumulated commonsense observations on the texts themselves. The book paints an overall picture of its subject that is in many ways informative, and it makes use of a vast amount of secondary literature. Unfortunately, a check on the author’s use of Wrede revealed serious flaws. Page after page, sentences are detached from their context, misinterpreted, and arbitrarily woven to make a new patchwork” (p. 161). Yarbrough’s “first three allegations” against Wrede “miss the target. As for the fourth, Wrede does hold that contemporary Judaism makes a more direct interpretive context for the interpretation of the NT than does the OT—but then, what is wrong with such a view?” (p. 161).
• Thielman, Frank. “Setting the Record Straight: The Significance of Robert W. Yarbrough’s Reassessment of New Testament Theology.” Review of Robert W. Yarbrough, The Salvation Historical Fallacy? Bulletin for Biblical Research (forthcoming). (The following summary is based on the draft that Thielman submitted to BBR for publication. Thanks to Dr. Thielman for kindly sharing an advance copy with me.) Wayne Meeks’s 2004 presidential address to the Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas posed the question, “Why Study the New Testament?”, and his answer is a foil to Yarbrough’s SHF. Yarbrough demonstrates that (1) the salvation history approach is diverse and not quickly dismissed and (2) NT scholars who use a salvation history approach have been marginalized because of their epistemology does not follow Descartes and Kant.

Andrew David Naselli
Trinity Evangelical Divinity School
Deerfield, Illinois
September 10, 2007

Related:

1. Review of Neill’s and Wright’s “The Interpretation of the New Testament 1861-1986″
2. Review of Harrisville’s and Sundberg’s “The Bible in Modern Culture”

Harrisville and Sundberg (henceforth, HS) are professors at Luther Seminary in St. Paul, Minnesota. Harrisville is professor emeritus of NT, and Sundberg is professor of church history. This second edition updates the 1995 edition, subtitled Theology and Historical-Critical Method from Spinoza to Käsemann, by slightly revising the pervious chapters and adding new ones on Schlatter, Ricoeur, and Childs.

HS believe that a historical-critical method is essential for studying the Bible (p. 1), and they recognize its historical conflict with church traditions (p. 2). Their book is “a confessionally critical history of modern biblical criticism” that is “historically aware of the influence of cultural contexts on the formulation of ideas while, at the same time, seeking to be responsible to the church and its dogmatic tradition” (p. 3). Some historical critics prided themselves in approaching the Bible with scientific objectivity, but HS argue that they were neither neutral nor impartial. HS’s method is to analyze diachronically thirteen “principal figures whose ideas represent major movements in the history of historical criticism” (p. 3). They divide the work into fifteen chapters, and the middle thirteen each break down into about four parts: (1) cultural background (e.g., politics), (2) biographical sketch, (3) discussion of at least one significant primary source, and (4) analysis.

1. “The War of Worldviews” (pp. 10–29) lays the foundation for the rest of the book. Historical criticism, which has produced “agony” in the church, differs significantly from the precritical reading of the Bible by men like Luther and Calvin. Since the rise of historical criticism, two dominant worldviews have warred with each other: the Augustinian worldview is the basis for the church’s dogmatic tradition, and the Enlightenment’s rationalistic worldview is the basis for modern criticism, which rejects the Bible’s inspiration and authority and treats it like any other book.
2. “Baruch Spinoza: The Emergence of Rationalist Biblical Criticism” (pp. 30–45): Spinoza blazed a new trail by using the “scientific” historical-critical method as a weapon against religious-political authorities who used the Bible to support their ways. His theological method involves four components: (1) “the Bible is treated like any other text”; (2) “the dogmatic tradition of exegesis” is rejected; (3) “the ‘truth’ of Scripture is that which is recognizable to unaided human reason”; and (4) “it is only an educated elite that is fit to judge what is and what is not reasonable” (pp. 41–42).
3. “Hermann Samuel Reimarus: Pressing the Rationalist Attack” (pp. 46–61): Reimarus applied Kant’s Enlightenment philosophy to biblical criticism, and he is “more responsible than anyone else” for introducing “historical criticism into the mainstream of Protestant theology” (p. 49).
4. “Friedrich Schleiermacher: Formation of the Liberal Protestant Tradition” (pp. 62–82): Schleiermacher’s Christmas Eve illustrates romanticism applied to historical-critical study. He has been falsely accused as a Docetist (pp. 81–82).
5. “David Friedrich Strauss: The Bible As Myth” (pp. 83–103): Strauss’s The Life of Jesus illustrates idealism applied to historical-critical study. His work “demanded response at the level of the historical and temporal. And however bankrupt may be the methods of biblical-historical research now become traditional, it was Strauss, and Strauss above all, who rendered them unavoidable” (p. 100).
6. “Ferdinand Christian Baur: Historical Criticism in the Shadow of Idealism” (pp. 104–22): Baur, Strauss’s teacher, also applied idealism to historical-critical study, but he “gave a truer and deeper picture of the history of dogma and theology” (p. 115).
7. “Johann Christian Konrad von Hofmann: The Bible As Salvation History” (pp. 123–45): Hofmann’s Heilsgeschichte allegedly follows an experiential trajectory from Schleiermacher, one of his teachers.
8. “Ernst Troeltsch: The Power of Historical Consciousness” (pp. 146–68): Troeltsch illustrates theological liberalism at the end of the 1800s, focusing psychologically and philosophically on faith itself rather than “the faith.”
9. “Adolf Schlatter: Biblical Criticism and the Act of Faith” (pp. 169–94): Schlatter allegedly blazed a trail between liberals and conservatives. HS wisely interact with works on Schlatter by Werner Neuer, but they overlook works by Robert Yarbrough and Andreas J. Köstenberger.
10. “J. Gresham Machen: The Fundamentalist Defense” (pp. 195–216): Machen, although not preferring the label “fundamentalist,” is the most scholarly representation of early American fundamentalism, and his Christianity and Liberalism illustrates fundamentalism’s firm opposition to theological liberalism.
11. “Rudolf Bultmann: Biblical Scholarship in Crisis and Renewal” (pp. 217–48): Bultmann illustrates a strand of theology of crisis or dialectical theology, which exalted modern thought in biblical criticism and is a trajectory of Karl Barth’s famous Romans commentary.
12. “Ernst Käsemann: Biblical Theology Under the Cross” (pp. 249–70): Käsemann, Bultmann’s student, illustrates how many of Bultmann’s previous followers severely critiqued Bultmann’s theology.
13. “Paul Ricoeur: The Risk of Reading the Bible” (pp. 271–303): Ricoeur utilized linguistics in his “Christian” hermeneutic philosophy in which the biblical text has priority over the interpreter. HS do not interact with any works by Kevin J. Vanhoozer, including Biblical Narrative in the Philosophy of Paul Ricoeur: A Study in Hermeneutics and Theology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990).
14. “Brevard Childs: Biblical Criticism Under the Discipline of the Canon” (pp. 304–28): Childs popularized approaching Scripture with a canonical context.
15. “Two Traditions of Historical Criticism” (pp. 329–40) contrasts the approaches of the Enlightenment and Augustinian traditions. HS rightly prefer the latter:

Historical criticism in the Enlightenment tradition relies on rational, scientific investigation to reveal the content of Scripture. In its ideal form, this tradition believes that it is able to go beyond the reach of cultural presuppositions and philosophical commitments to establish the historical meaning of biblical texts once and for all. It is this tradition of scholarship that is being called into question. We share this suspicion. . . . The fundamental lesson of the story we have told is this: no method of interpretation can transcend its cultural milieu. This means that no biblical critic can escape the reach of history to achieve true meaning by the use of reason and critical method (p. 330).

Whether it was deistic rational religion (Spinoza and Reimarus), romantic devotion to feeling (Schleiermacher), the Hegelian dialectic (Strauss and Baur), or the demands of historicism (Troeltsch), the Enlightenment tradition has been motivated by its need to make apology for its “faith” in the Enlightenment worldview. This faith has gone so deep that it has led its army of believers either to the wholesale rejection of biblical religion or the radical resymbolization of orthodox faith according to the demands of the prevailing culture. J. Gresham Machen was right. What we have in the Enlightenment tradition of criticism is nothing less than another religion that supplants biblical faith (p. 335).

HS’s work is disappointing for at least three reasons.

1. Despite HS’s praise of Machen, they confusingly and disappointingly describe Bultmann and Käsemann as “Augustinian to the core,” exalting them more than Hofmann, Schlatter, and Machen for allegedly using historical criticism to exposit “what the Bible says” as “the hallmark” of their work (p. 337). Bultmann clearly does not belong in the Augustinian tradition because he flatly denied Jesus’ resurrection! Furthermore, both Hofmann and Machen repudiated what HS call the Augustinian view. (Cf. reviews below by Silva and Yarbrough.)
2. HS smugly dismiss fundamentalism’s “stubborn defense . . . of a theory of verbal inerrancy” that “is largely the product of seventeenth-century Protestant scholasticism and lacks deeper roots in the Christian tradition” (pp. 212–13). This hackneyed allegation is as irritating as it is errant. (Cf. John Woodbridge’s Biblical Authority: A Critique of the Rogers/McKim Proposal.)
3. HS are often dry and obtuse (perhaps accurately reflecting some of the historical critics!). This book is not bedtime devotional reading along the lines of what one of my professors calls “The Winnie the Pooh—Thomas Kinkade Study Bible.”

Nevertheless, HS’s volume is worth owning and consulting.

1. Its overall organization is clear. The entire book is outlined, and both the table of contents and the introduction serve as convenient, logical, structural overviews.
2. It is a useful overview of major figures in historical criticism.

Selected Bibliography

This partially annotated selection of about twenty-five reviews reflects a spectrum of perspectives. Nearly all of the reviews discuss the volume’s first edition (1995); an asterisk (*) indicates a review of the volume’s second edition (2002).

• Adam, A. K. M. Review of Roy A. Harrisville and Walter Sundberg, The Bible in Modern Culture: Theology and Historical-Critical Method from Spinoza to Käsemann. Critical Review of Books in Religion 9 (1996): 137–39. “One surprising—and welcome—feature of the book is a thoughtful chapter on J. Gresham Machen and the fusion of common-sense realism with evangelical theology characteristic of American fundamentalism. The authors present Machen’s approach to interpretation patiently and sympathetically, contrasting his intellectual subtlety with facile dismissals of fundamentalism from mainstream Protestants; their careful sketch of the argument in Christianity and Liberalism shows that Machen’s hermeneutic is far from anti-intellectual. At the same time, the authors are not uncritical of Machen; their concluding summary of this chapter makes clear their preference for a Barthian line of resistance to liberalism” (p. 138). “This book is a useful contribution to the field. Its format is evidently tailored to fit an academic semester—one could easily assign a chapter for each week along with readings from the appropriate primary sources, though this would be easier if the authors had not drawn so heavily on works that have not been translated from German and had not omitted mention of such existing translations as Adams and Bense’s collection of Troeltsch’s essays in Religion in History (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991). The book’s consistent engagement with social influences on interpretation is commendable, though it still falls far short of a thorough social history of biblical scholarship. The authors’ dialectic of Enlightenment and Augustinian paths in historical criticism oversimplifies the hermeneutical conflicts they describe, but does so in service of the clear case for the alternative they espouse. Readers who sympathize with Harrisville and Sundberg may find in this book a pedagogical touchstone; for unsympathetic readers, it is at least a solid account of modern biblical interpretation in its cultural context” (p. 139).
• Badley, Jo-Ann. Review of Roy A. Harrisville and Walter Sundberg, The Bible in Modern Culture: Theology and Historical-Critical Method from Spinoza to Käsemann. Religious Studies and Theology 17 (June 1998): 107–9. “I did not understand why, in the end, Schleiermacher was evaluated adversely when Bultmann is not; both were historically skeptical and neither based their theological conclusions on their historical work” (p. 108). “The strength of the book is its detailed attention to the aims and methods in the work of the ten selected historical figures. The narrowness of such a focus, in that only ten figures are selected from almost 300 years, is somewhat overcome by mentioning other important contributors in the introductory background material in each chapter and by a few references to other secondary material in the footnotes. I note that eight of the ten figures are German, most are Protestant and most are scholars of the Christian scriptures/New Testament/history of early Christianity. This inevitably skews the discussion. I was surprised that Julius Wellhausen was not included. The absence of any British scholars is notable” (p. 109). “The book is forceful in pointing out cultural factors which influenced the development of methods of biblical studies in the modern period with their adverse effects for faith and theology. As well, studies such as this one on the historical location of the methodology of biblical studies are rarer than overviews of the conclusions of biblical scholars and so a study of this particular aspect is a welcome contribution, perhaps especially for those scholars who are trying to practice biblical studies to make application to questions of theology and faith. However, Harrisville and Sundberg seem to assume their audience will agree with their categories of analysis (even the title, The Bible in Modern Culture, for a book which focuses on New Testament methodology assumes a Christian audience) with the result that the book does not engage the pluralistic culture of the present academic community which studies these texts for a variety of purposes” (p. 109).
• Brueggemann, Walter. Review of Roy A. Harrisville and Walter Sundberg, The Bible in Modern Culture: Theology and Historical-Critical Method from Spinoza to Käsemann. Theology Today 53 (October 1996): 414, 416, 418. This is “an intriguing study of the rise and course of historical criticism in the modern period” (p. 414). “Von Hofmann, who tried to articulate ‘salvation history’ on the grounds of ‘history’ rooted in ‘experience,’ a no-no for this book” (p. 414, 416). Rather than a “mere historical account,” HS’s work is “a determined critical assessment of the course of historical criticism, cast as a relentless, heavy-handed polemic that views historical criticism as it was shaped in the Enlightenment as an ‘enemy’ of faith. From the perspective of church faith and church scholarship, there is obviously a great deal of truth in the polemic. And yet, I have the impression that it would be more valuable and more effective to present the historical data without such an explicit polemic and to let the reader make a judgment. . . . On the whole, they are quite uninterested in the actual context of the interpreter, the requirements of the particular situation, and the seeming limitations of the context. They give ample evidence of knowing about such nuance, but they do not permit it to tone down the polemic in any sensitive way. The single criterion by which matters are measured is ‘the Augustinian tradition’ as it was given nuance by Luther” (p. 416). “This is a welcome, informed book. It has an important role to play in our further investigation. It is important, at the same time, that it not be taken as a final word, because its ‘Augustinian’ insistence makes things too easy for us in our own present obligation of criticism. It is surely to be valued that even some scholars who resist the preferred slogans turn out to be courageous practitioners of obedient interpretation-and vice-versa. It gives one pause” (p. 418).
• Coggins, Richard J. Review of Roy A. Harrisville and Walter Sundberg, The Bible in Modern Culture: Theology and Historical-Critical Method from Spinoza to Käsemann. Expository Times 107 (April 1996): 216. “Two claims are made: first, that some form of historical criticism is an essential ingredient of the church’s engagement with its Bible; secondly that no method of study can be truly objective and context-free—all scholarly methods are culture-bound. Several historical surveys of the kind here attempted have appeared in recent years and a minor regret is that there is not very much engagement with these other readings. But his book is still to be welcomed; it offers some unusual insights into what has too often been a dialogue of the deaf, with fundamentalists regarded as hopeless reactionaries, and critics such as Bultmann as betrayers of the Christian faith. We are reminded of some of the important underlying principles at stake.”
• *Dyer, Lesley-Ann. Review of Roy A. Harrisville and Walter Sundberg, The Bible in Modern Culture: Baruch Spinoza to Brevard Childs, Paul S. Minear, The Bible and the Historian: Breaking the Silence About God in Biblical Studies, and Luke Timothy Johnson and William S. Kurz, The Future of Catholic Biblical Scholarship: A Constructive Conversation. Perspectives in Religious Studies 31 (2004): 233–36. HS “add a delightful Lutheran spice to their work because, when least expected, the authors will tie in some relevant aspect of Luther’s life or writings. Harrisville and Sundberg achieve their stated purpose to write a ‘confessionally critical’ history of modern biblical criticism” (p. 234). HS “wisely admonish Protestants to distinguish between the two schools of criticism—the Enlightenment and the Augustinian” (p. 236).
• Howard, Thomas A. Review of Roy A. Harrisville and Walter Sundberg, The Bible in Modern Culture: Theology and Historical-Critical Method from Spinoza to Käsemann. Journal of Religious History 21 (Fall 1997): 115–17. “Problematically, after lambasting German liberalism and historicizing German historicism, the authors indulge in their own brand of nationalism: they praise the American critic J. Gresham Machen” and what they call “the pervasive consensus of American evangelicalism” . . . . [HS’s] defense of Machen’s American common-sense theology thus raises troubling questions about the relationship between national identify and religious conviction. Furthermore, if American common sense provides the proper grounding for theology, what does one make of the apologetics of, say, Blaise Pascal, Karl Barth or a Søren Kierkegaard? Although deeply Augustinian, one could hardly say that these thinkers reflect a common-sense epistemology. . . . Furthermore, by adopting an historicist mode of argument to delegitimize Enlightenment criticism, the authors make clear how indebted they are to the very intellectual traditions that they desire to criticize. One could even argue that the authors . . . argue that [their] highest ideas and ideals [are] simply socio-cultural products, not statements of transcendent truth. But when one begins historicizing in this manner, where does one stop? Are not the voices of Harrisville and Sundberg only products of American seminaries with Augustinian leanings?” (p. 116). “Despite these criticisms, the book makes a worthwhile contribution to the intellectual history of modern biblical study—a much-neglected topic. The authors’ strength lies in their attempt to come to grips with modern critical presuppositions from a standpoint that does not embrace these presuppositions” (pp. 116-17).
• Huber, Donald L. Review of Roy A. Harrisville and Walter Sundberg, The Bible in Modern Culture: Theology and Historical-Critical Method from Spinoza to Käsemann. Trinity Seminary Review 19 (1997): 48–49. [Huber’s review is suspiciously similar to Mark Allan Powell, review of Roy A. Harrisville and Walter Sundberg, The Bible in Modern Culture: Theology and Historical-Critical Method from Spinoza to Käsemann, Trinity Seminary Review 18 (1996): 49–50.] HS “have masterfully combined attention to detail with the careful setting of historical contexts and useful generalizations. The book is an example of historical theology at its best” (p. 48). “The critics are not gods from Mt. Olympus, but fallible human beings who have used the best insights available to them in their time and place to try to discern the meaning of the scriptures” (p. 48). “There is much to ponder in this book, and much even to question. But make no mistake—Harrisville and Sundberg have done a fine job of describing the development of the methodology which more than any other has determined the course of modern theology. I will be using this book in my classes at Trinity and I recommend it to anyone who puzzles over the relationship of historical truth to faith” (p. 49).
• Jacobson, Rolf. Review of Roy A. Harrisville and Walter Sundberg, The Bible in Modern Culture: Theology and Historical-Critical Method from Spinoza to Käsemann. Koinonia 8 (1996): 98–100. “This volume is both a welcome contribution to the growing body of literature about the historical method, and also an intriguing critical interpretation of biblical interpretation” (p. 98). “These chapters are essentially a Great Thinkers/Great Books approach to history” (p. 98). “The heroes of the book appear (to this reader) to be Bultmann and Käsemann” (p. 99). “This book is not a simple read. The subject matters it addresses are at times difficult and the authors make no attempt to dumb them down. . . . [T]his volume is a sterling example of theological interdisciplinary cooperation” (p. 99).
• Johnson, David H. Review of Roy A. Harrisville and Walter Sundberg, The Bible in Modern Culture: Theology and Historical-Critical Method from Spinoza to Käsemann. Didaskalia 8:2 (1997): 75–76. HS “have done a fine job of laying out for us the contributions of ten biblical and theological scholars. No other single book has done this . . . . The genetic connection with Machen, Bultmann and Ksemann [sic] is interesting and helpful” (p. 76).
• Kinsbury, Jack Dean. Review of Roy A. Harrisville and Walter Sundberg, The Bible in Modern Culture: Theology and Historical-Critical Method from Spinoza to Käsemann. Interpretation 51 (1997): 100, 102. “This book does not make for light reading. Pastors and teachers who take it in hand, however, will be richly rewarded. I heartily recommend it” (p. 102).
• Koester, Craig R. Review of Roy A. Harrisville and Walter Sundberg, The Bible in Modern Culture: Theology and Historical-Critical Method from Spinoza to Käsemann. Word & World 16 (1996): 382–83. “This is an excellent study of the relationship between historical criticism of the Bible and Christian theology. If historical criticism sought to show how biblical texts are products of their time, Harrisville and Sundberg show in a fresh and stimulating way how historical criticism was the product of its time” (p. 282). “There have been many accounts of the emergence of biblical criticism, but Harrisville and Sundberg make a distinctive contribution in allowing us to see so clearly the social function of the method. We live in a time of changing patterns of interpretation, and many are quick either to defend or dismiss historical criticism as a tool. Harrisville and Sundberg neither propose a new paradigm for biblical studies nor allow for a facile rejection of the enlightenment or Christian tradition. What they do is to call us to listen patiently to what our forebears have done in order that we might better understand the tensions with which we live. ‘Each generation of biblical scholars has too easily assumed that it has achieved the consummate approach to biblical analysis when, in fact, what it has done is to equate cultural norms with eternal truth’ (3). This is as true today has it has ever been, and as we move into the future, this book prompts all interpreters of the Bible to ask who is being served by the methods we use” (p. 283).
• Krentz, Edgar. Review of Roy A. Harrisville and Walter Sundberg, The Bible in Modern Culture: Theology and Historical-Critical Method from Spinoza to Käsemann. Currents in Theology and Mission 23 (April 1996): 143. “This work on a very complex topic is a good read. The authors have the gift of clarity, both in thought and presentation. Their evaluation is unabashedly theological—from a Reformation perspective. But they neither rage against the use of historical criticism nor yearn for a return to the pre-Enlightenment world. They call for a rethinking of the role of critical exegesis in the academy for the church. Pastors who ponder the role of critical Bible study in their own work would do well to read this book and ponder the implications of the final chapter for their own proclamation. It is disturbingly stimulating, the mark of a good book.”
• *________. Review of Roy A. Harrisville and Walter Sundberg, The Bible in Modern Culture: Baruch Spinoza to Brevard Childs. Currents in Theology and Mission 30 (February 2003): 63–64. “It is an interesting and stimulating read, as each chapter anchors the account in the life story of each interpreter. There are extensive notes, which provide bibliographical references—though it would help the reader if there were a bibliography appended to each chapter” (pp. 63–64). “The authors provide a good introduction to the issues at stake in the critical interpretation of the Bible, without discussing some contemporary issues such as postmodern interpretation, reader-response criticism, feminist interpretation, and the like. This deserves wide reading” (p. 64).
• Lemke, Steve W. Review of Roy A. Harrisville and Walter Sundberg, The Bible in Modern Culture: Theology and Historical-Critical Method from Spinoza to Käsemann. Southwestern Journal of Theology 40 (Fall 1997): 101–2. “One will not find a better summary of the history of modern exegesis than in this volume . . . . [T]he authors write with such artistry and theological depth as to offer the reader a richer offering than a mere survey treatment. The authors weave an elegant tapestry with threads drawn from biblical studies, theology, philosophy, history, and hermeneutics” (pp. 101–2). “The evaluations of each thinker are insightful and fair. . . . This volume would be an exceptionally valuable contribution in any theological library and highly useful, either for a class text or for personal enrichment” (p. 102).
• Levenson, Jon D. Review of Roy A. Harrisville and Walter Sundberg, The Bible in Modern Culture: Theology and Historical-Critical Method from Spinoza to Käsemann. First Things 64 (June–July 1996): 53. “Examining fairly and sympathetically an array of important thinkers . . . the authors provide brief but helpful summaries of the lives and teachings of their ten main figures and offer many probing and perceptive observations about the interaction of Christian theology with modern intellectual history. The title of Harrisville and Sundberg’s book can be misleading, since the role of the Bible in modern culture includes elements likely to be undervalued by those committed, like them, to ‘Augustinianism nuanced by Luther.’ Their volume is, in fact, not just exclusively Christian, but very Lutheran, very theological, very German, and very much focused on the New Testament. Another book with the same title might have dealt with the role of the Bible in the arts, with the contribution of originally secular methods of reading to the elucidation of the Bible, with the increasing relevance of the methods and substance of rabbinic midrash to biblical studies, with the positive effects of recent historical-critical study on Jewish-Christian dialogue, and with the astonishing revival of Hebrew as a vernacular over the last century. Even with its limitations, however, The Bible in Modern Culture is a welcome and accessible contribution to an increasingly important discussion.”
• Liefeld, David R. Review of Roy A. Harrisville and Walter Sundberg, The Bible in Modern Culture: Theology and Historical-Critical Method from Spinoza to Käsemann. Concordia Journal 22 (1996): 340–41.
• Lust, Johan. Review of Roy A. Harrisville and Walter Sundberg, The Bible in Modern Culture: Theology and Historical-Critical Method from Spinoza to Käsemann. Ephemerides theologicae Lovanienses 72 (1996): 210–11.
• McKim, Donald K. Review of Roy A. Harrisville and Walter Sundberg, The Bible in Modern Culture: Theology and Historical-Critical Method from Spinoza to Käsemann. Reformed Review 50 (1996): 56. “This work is a very significant contribution to our understanding of the historical-critical method of biblical interpretation. The book shows the contributions, and the limitations, of this approach. But it also recognizes the tradition of ‘believing criticism’ in which the authority of Holy Scripture can be vigorously maintained while, at the same time, a rigorous use of scholarly tools can be employed.”
• Müller, Markus. Review of Roy A. Harrisville and Walter Sundberg, The Bible in Modern Culture: Theology and Historical-Critical Method from Spinoza to Käsemann. Pro Ecclesia 7 (1998): 376–77.
• Powell, Mark Allan. Review of Roy A. Harrisville and Walter Sundberg, The Bible in Modern Culture: Theology and Historical-Critical Method from Spinoza to Käsemann. Trinity Seminary Review 18 (1996): 49–50. HS “have in this volume made a valuable contribution to the understanding of biblical interpretation in the modern era. . . . [T]hey have masterfully combined attention to detail with the careful setting of historical contexts and with useful generalizations. The book is an example of theology at its best” (p. 49). “The critics are not gods from Mt. Olympus, but fallible human beings who have used the best insights available to them in their time and place to try to discern the meaning of the scriptures” (p. 49). “There is much to ponder in this book, and much even to question. But make no mistake—Harrisville and Sundberg have done a fine job of describing the development of the methodology which more than any other has determined the course of modern theology. I will be using this book in my classes at Trinity and I recommend it to anyone who puzzles over the relationship of historical truth to faith” (p. 50).
• Silva, Moisés. Review of Roy A. Harrisville and Walter Sundberg, The Bible in Modern Culture: Theology and Historical-Critical Method from Spinoza to Käsemann. Westminster Theological Journal 58 (1996): 159–61. “Historical surveys of theological and biblical scholarship, more often than not, attempt to cover too much territory. The typical result is an encyclopedic reference work, useful for quick consultation but not terribly satisfying. Readers tend to perceive such books as boring, partly because the authors are unable to analyze any one figure in depth, partly because it is very difficult to find unifying threads in the story. . . . [HS] have managed to avoid these problems with a format that may be unique in the literature” (pp. 159–60). “The inclusion of Machen in particular will startle some readers, especially those of us who have become accustomed to the way mainstream scholarship routinely ignores him” (p. 160). In light of HS’s affirmations of Machen, “readers of this journal will be perplexed to find out that the final heroes in the book are Bultmann and Käsemann. Indeed, on the same page where the authors commend Machen for insisting on the ‘external grounding of the Christian proclamation in the narrative integrity of the biblical record’ (can anything be more antithetical to Bultmann’s skepticism of the biblical narrative?), they state: ‘Historical criticism pursued for the purpose of expositing what the Bible says is the hallmark of the work of Bultmann and Käsemann’ (p. 270). We are also told that Bultmann’s use of Heideggerian philosophy to articulate ‘the desperate flight of the human . . . is Augustinian to the core’ (p. 271)” (pp. 160–61). “Without for a moment doubting the sincerity or the positive strands of Harrisville and Sundberg’s analysis, one must seriously question their judgment when they locate Bultmann’s contribution on the Augustinian side of the great ideological divide. . . . What they totally pass by is that Bultmann considered the historical facts quite irrelevant to faith. In the very last paragraph of the book, the authors assert that historical criticism is the church’s friend insofar as it reminds us that such criticism can neither destroy nor support faith. This is of course a commonplace of modern theology, and if one tries hard enough it can be interpreted in a way that conforms to the theology of the Reformers. But, in essence, does it not reflect the very Kantian dualism that lies at the root of the Enlightenment and the historical-critical method? Do the authors really believe that an Augustine or a Luther or a Calvin would have detected anything but antithesis between the faith they themselves professed and the deepest commitments of a Bultmann or a Käsemann? There are a few other passages in the book that struck me as ambiguous or inconsistent. As a rule, however, the discussions are interesting, the facts brought out are instructive, and the evaluations are penetrating. Even if the authors’ solutions are not persuasive, all students of history of ideas can profit greatly from a close reading of this volume” (p. 161).
• Smith, Louis A. Review of Roy A. Harrisville and Walter Sundberg, The Bible in Modern Culture: Theology and Historical-Critical Method from Spinoza to Käsemann. Lutheran Forum 30 (1996): 54–56.
• Thiselton, Anthony C. Review of Roy A. Harrisville and Walter Sundberg, The Bible in Modern Culture: Theology and Historical-Critical Method from Spinoza to Käsemann. Nederlands theologisch tijdschrift 51 (1997): 325–26. “The strength of the book lies in its account not only of social and philosophical backgrounds but also of political factors in the situations of seminal thinkers of biblical criticism” (p. 325). “This volume’s greatest strength is also its greatest weakness. It tends to impose a ‘single-issue agenda’ onto the very complex and convoluted history of modern biblical interpretation. If only it had been selective and narrowly focused in its examples, it would have verged on the brilliant. Thus it incisively illuminates the political concerns which contributed to the de-privileging of theology in Spinoza, Reimarus, Lessing, Strauss and Baur. Political pressures sometimes left them embittered and disillusioned. The authors pose the dilemma of religion and politics poignantly: both the individualism of democratic egalitarianism and the alliance between religion and an authoritarian state generate seductions for the unwary. But they try to extend their thesis to examples which will not fit. I doubt whether the attempt to assess Schleiermacher from the brief text of his Christmas Eve does justice to a thinker who produced 30 volumes of works. I should find difficulty in endorsing all their comments about Luther, Strauss, Baur or Troeltsch. They have also fallen prey to the very polarization of either/or which they so perceptively explain as a feature of American theology. Nevertheless this book is full of useful insights, especially into the background of European social politics which cannot be separated from an understanding of the rise of biblical criticism. With some notes of caution on these points, I most warmly commend the volume. It would have been even better if the authors had traced the political divergence (political correctness, egalitarianism, antipathy to traditions, pressure-groups) up to the postmodern climate in which most hermeneutical discussion takes place today” (p. 326).
• Yarbrough, Robert W. Review of Roy A. Harrisville and Walter Sundberg, The Bible in Modern Culture: Theology and Historical-Critical Method from Spinoza to Käsemann. Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 40 (1997): 516–18. “HS use history to expose the historical critics. While the bad guys in this book are the historical critics, the good ones are, first, HS, who blow the whistle on them, and then von Hofmann, Machen, Bultmann and Käsemann, all of whom uphold an ‘Augustinian’ approach to historical-theological matters” (p. 517). Yarbrough is surprised at how charitable HS are to conservative biblical scholars: “Historical-critical readers will marvel at HS’s kind words for von Hofmann and Machen, especially the latter . . . .HS thus break ranks with a regnant NT scholarship in North America that follows James Barr in demonizing fundamentalists and evangelicals . . . while turning an indulgent blind eye towards its own theological bankruptcy and sometimes plain zaniness. Others are apt to be surprised that Bultmann and Käsemann are given so much credit for upholding the ‘Augustinian’ strand of Biblical interpretation. . . . HS fail to convince me that either Bultmann or Käsemann deserve much credit for upholding these venerable truths in anything like the sense that von Hofmann and Machen did. Von Hofmann reacted directly and emphatically to F. C. Baur, on both historical and theological grounds, while Bultmann and Käsemann operate completely within the Fragestellungen (approach to asking questions) that Baur bequeathed to NT research in the German university” (p. 517). HS assert that historical criticism “can neither destroy nor support faith,” which “sounds very much like a restatement of Kant’s creation of a safe haven for faith via denial of empirical knowledge’s relevance for faith. It is immensely interesting to see how HS press von Hofmann (an avowed if critical historical realist) and Machen (torchbearer of Old Princeton) into service of this view, which both men explicitly repudiated” (p. 517). HS misrepresent both von Hofmann’s and Machen’s attitude toward “written Scripture” and “preached gospel” (pp. 517–18). “The tired assumption on which HS’s argument rests (that Bultmann, and post-Bultmannian ‘Augustinian’ Protestants like Käsemann and HS, are more loyal to Luther than Bible-believing folk who unambiguously rejected Bultmann’s gospel of an unresurrected rabbinic wannabe in favor of a hypostatic figure of full confessional proportions) cannot be examined here. . . . Still, HS’s critique of historical criticism is a welcome addition to the growing literature making the same point from different angles. . . . Since von Hofmann and Machen together get only 16% of the total pages, it is not as if readers from circles traditionally addicted to historical criticism need feel that they are being weaned away from their Troeltsch cold turkey” (p. 518).

Andrew David Naselli
Trinity Evangelical Divinity School
Deerfield, Illinois
September 7, 2007

Related:

1. Review of Neill’s and Wright’s “The Interpretation of the New Testament 1861-1986″
2. Review of Yarbrough’s “The Salvation Historical Fallacy?”

Stephen Neill (1900–1984) was a missionary, Anglican Bishop, professor, and linguist, and N. T. Wright (b. 1948), who earned his Ph.D. from Oxford in 1980, is now the famous and influential Bishop of Durham. The Interpretation of the New Testament 1861–1986 (henceforth, INT) attempts to summarize the major people and events in the vast field of NT interpretation over a 125-year period. Neill’s first edition, which was the outgrowth of his Firth Lectures at the University of Nottingham in 1962 (p. ix), was published in 1966 and covered one hundred years of NT interpretation (1861–1961). Neill began updating INT for its second edition, but he died before completing it. He did, however, discuss the second edition with Wright, who edited Neill’s work (chapters 1–8, pp. 1–359) and replaced Neill’s previous conclusions with a final chapter that accounts for twenty-five more years of NT interpretation (pp. 360–449). The subject matter is almost exclusively British with some discussions of significant advances elsewhere (e.g., Germany), so the volume could be appropriately titled The Interpretation of the New Testament in Britain from 1861 to 1986.

Neill comments that Albert Schweitzer’s famous The Quest of the Historical Jesus (1906) is a summary, “and a summary of a summary would be quite unreadable” (p. 207). Although I feel the same way about summarizing Neill’s book, what follows condenses the nine chapters:

1. “Challenge to Orthodoxy” (pp. 1–34) sets the stage by chronicling significant people and events leading up to 1861. Neill begins in the 1700s with Germans such as Immanuel Kant, Gotthold Ephraim Lessing, and Hermann Samuel Reimarus (pp. 2–3), and he highlights the critical rejection of orthodoxy by David Friedrich Strauss (pp. 13–20), Ferdinand Christian Baur and his Tübingen school (pp. 20–30), and Essays and Reviews, a scandalous book published in 1860 by seven British scholars (pp. 31–34). Chapter 1 is a rather slow start to the volume, but chapter 2 gets much more interesting.
2. “The New Testament and History” (pp. 35–64) details the brilliant response to the Tübingen school by three great British scholars known as “the Cambridge three”: Joseph Barber Lightfoot (“primarily the historian”), Brooke Foss Westcott (“the philosopher”), and Fenton John Anthony Hort (“the exegete”; p. 36). “Hardly ever in the history of the Church have three men of such distinction worked together over so long a period on the accomplishment of what was essentially one great purpose” (p. 35).
3. “What the New Testament Says, and What It Means” (pp. 65–111) summarizes the history of textual criticism (starting with Erasmus but focusing on Westcott and Hort) and lexical tools such as the famous Greek lexicon by Bauer, Danker, Arndt, and Gingrich as well as Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (pp. 91–92). Lightfoot, Westcott, and Hort wrote NT commentaries that were critical, linguistic, historical, exegetical, and genuinely Christian (pp. 93–94). Neill’s colorful anecdotes about these men (in both chapters 2 and 3) are a window through which readers can observe their personalities. For example, Westcott reverenced the text: “One of his pupils records that, when he and a fellow-student had rashly expressed their opinions on a certain passage and then turned to the master for guidance, Westcott stated in hushed tones that this was a passage on which he had never as yet ventured to express an opinion. This humble respect for the text meant that for Westcott no labor was too great, if it would help him to determine the exact meaning of a single particle” (p. 99).
4. “Jesus and the Gospel” (pp. 112–46) addresses the synoptic problem after claiming in the previous chapter, “The gravest failure of the Cambridge school seems to me to have been its neglect of the problems of the Synoptic Gospels and of the life of Christ” (p. 103). By the end of the 1800s, Mark’s priority became “one of the assured results of the critical study of the New Testament” (p. 116; cf. 252). Burnett Hillman Streeter was primarily concerned with NT criticism and analysis, Arthur Cayley Headlam with historical reconstruction, and Adolf von Harnack with theological interpretation (pp. 136–44).
5. “Greeks and Christians” (pp. 147–204) discusses the NT’s Hellenistic environment, including contributions by Sir William Ramsay (pp. 151–57) and manuscript discoveries, which revealed that NT Greek was Koine (p. 157–63). Neill steers a middle course here, arguing that NT Greek literature is lower than Classical Greek but higher than the papyri that first shed so much light on the Ancient Near East.
6. “Re-Enter Theology” (pp. 205–51) studies the reaction to Harnack’s liberal theology by four scholars: Albert Schweitzer, Karl Barth, Edwyn Clement Hoskyns, and Rudolph Bultmann.
7. “The Gospel Behind the Gospels” (pp. 252–312) explains and critiques form and redaction criticism.
8. “Salvation Is of the Jews” (pp. 313–59) discusses the NT’s Jewish environment. Neill acknowledges the importance and limitations of Strack-Billerbeck’s Rabbinic commentary on the NT (pp. 313–17), recounts the Qumran discoveries (pp. 318–35), devotes only one paragraph to Adolf Schlatter (p. 339; cf. Yarbrough’s “Schlatter Reception Now”), and summarizes James Barr’s groundbreaking linguistic contributions (pp. 352–59).
9. Wright’s “History and Theology” (pp. 360–449), the size of a short paperback, evaluates Neill’s previous twelve analyses of NT studies (pp. 360–64). Wright presents “five areas in which real progress seems to have been made” in NT studies from 1961 to 1986 (p. 367): (1) background history, including E. P. Sanders’ seminal work on Judaism; (2) the history of Jesus, coined “a ‘Third Quest’” (p. 379); (3) Pauline studies, including E. P. Sander’s “covenantal nomism” (p. 425); (4) John A. T. Robinson on John’s Gospel; and (5) NT theology. Many NT scholars view Wright’s chapter as weak and disappointing (cf. Porter’s review below).

Its dated content and perspective aside (see, e.g., the short paragraph on speech-act theory on p. 365), I am overall disappointed and saddened by INT.

1. INT disappointing because it is unclear, which surprised me because many reviewers praise its clarity. Both Neill and Wright are scholars who can write well at the popular level. Consequently, INT has a conversational tone that is not nearly as stuffy as it could be. Neill clearly identifies his target audience: “This is not a book for the expert. . . . I have tried to provide a narrative that can be read without too much trouble by the non-theologian who is anxious to know and is prepared to devote some time and thought to the subject” (p. ix). If this book is for non-experts, then on a scale of one to five, I would rate it a one. The overall organization is less than clear, and with the exception of a few headings in chapters 2 and 6, the sub-divisions are only numbered, not titled. This makes it difficult to view a chapter’s progression at a glance. It is too easy to become disoriented in a chapter and focus disproportionately on what is merely peripheral.
2. INT is sad because Neill and Wright are overly kind to influential non-evangelical theologians, the type of leaders whom the NT warns against as false teachers. Rather than warning the readers of their damning doctrines, INT ceaselessly praises them for their brilliance and alleged humble faith while pointing out some of their errors as if they were relatively minor mistakes. For example, Neill exclaims, “One can write of Rudolf Bultmann only with respect, and even with affection. By the time of his death he had become one of the great father figures of Western theology” (p. 237). Further, Neill appallingly disregards biblical inspiration in contrast to objective historical inquiry (cf. pp. 112, 147, 162, 359; cf. McFadden’s review below).

INT is a useful resource for understanding the history of NT interpretation, but readers should be forewarned that using it requires significant patience and discernment.

Selected Bibliography

This partially annotated selection of about thirty reviews and related resources reflects a spectrum of perspectives. An asterisk (*) indicates a review of the volume’s first edition (1966).

• *Blackman, Edwin C. Review of Stephen Neill, The Interpretation of the New Testament 1861–1961. Journal of Biblical Literature 83 (1964): 427–28. Neill’s work is “very able, balanced, and well-written” (p. 427). “All in all, this is a masterly treatment, indicating the real problems and the movement of research with the right proportion. . . . What the author lacks as a specialist scholar he makes up for in his ability to take the over-all view, to make use of all his experience as a churchman, and to make his account readable” (p. 428).
• *Brandon, S. G. F. Review of Stephen Neill, The Interpretation of the New Testament 1861–1961. Modern Churchman 8 (Jan. 1965): 163–64.
• Budd, Philip J. Review of Stephen Neill and Tom Wright, The Interpretation of the New Testament 1861–1986. Churchman 103:3 (1989): 266–67. “Four things are impressive about Bishop Neill’s work. First, there is his capacity to encompass and interpret a remarkable range of ideas and personalities in a straightforward, well-ordered way. Secondly, there is his ability to make the material accessible. . . . Thirdly, there is his combination of critical insight with breadth of sympathy. Even at those points where Neill dissents most sharply from the trends in question he demonstrates an appreciative understanding of scholarship’s motives and interests. Fourthly, there is his capacity to link intellectual rigor and theological concern; for him the critical task was always an imperative of faith” (p. 266).
• Carson, D. A. New Testament Commentary Survey. 6th ed. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007. “For a history of the rise of current critical positions that touch both NT introduction and NT theology, see Stephen Neill, The Interpretation of the New Testament, 1861–1986, second edition brought up to date (1961–1986) by N. T. Wright” (p. 43).
• Godfrey, Peter B. Review of Stephen Neill and Tom Wright, The Interpretation of the New Testament 1861–1986. Faith and Freedom 41 (Summer 1988): 101–2.
• *Hastings, A. W. and E. Hastings. Review of Stephen Neill, The Interpretation of the New Testament 1861–1961. Expository Times 75 (1964): 321–22. “It is a pleasure to be able to recommend to our readers a really first-class book” (p. 321). “The writer presents with notable fairness the viewpoint of each writer, but does not shrink from shrewd and pointed criticism, where he is convinced that there is error. Nor does he hide his own convictions about matters which to him seem of crucial importance” (p. 321). “This is a good book to read, enlightening to the mind and quickening for one’s faith” (p. 322).
• Hickey, Denis. Review of Stephen Neill and Tom Wright, The Interpretation of the New Testament 1861–1986. National Catholic Reporter (November 19, 1993). “This is an account of the more-than-hundred-years attempt to roll back the stone from the tomb and unloosen the centuries of cobwebs that enshroud Mark and Matthew, Luke and Paul, John and the author of Hebrews. It is thereby also an account of the search for the early Christianity that birthed the gospel stories and the gospel theology. If you would like to see this unbinding recounted by a gentle master (Bishop Stephen Neill died in 1985, while working on the revised edition, which was then completed by his disciple, Tom Wright), put this book on your coffee table and read snatches during TV commercials. Soon, you will turn off the set.”
• *Hull, W. E. Review of Stephen Neill, The Interpretation of the New Testament 1861–1961. Review and Expositor 62 (Winter 1965): 96–97.
• *Linss, Wilhelm C. Review of Stephen Neill, The Interpretation of the New Testament 1861–1961. Lutheran Quarterly 17 (Fall 1965): 83–84.
• *Marshall, I Howard. Review of Stephen Neill, The Interpretation of the New Testament 1861–1961. Evangelical Quarterly 36 (Oct.-Dec. 1964): 231–33. Neill’s volume is “essential reading for the first year student who wishes a lucid guide to the development of N.T. scholarship during the last one hundred years. This does not mean that this book is in any way a simplification of its subject or that it is one to be ignored by the professional N.T. scholar. It is an amazingly competent survey of its field by one who is a master of English style and has produced a book which holds the reader’s attention firmly from beginning to end” (p. 231). Neill accurately represents other German scholars with whom he disagrees (p. 232). Marshall issues a warning: “It is possible for a person to give an impression of considerable learning by reading reviews instead of books, and no doubt the same is true of those who read the history of scholarship instead of the work of the scholars” (pp. 232–33).
• McFadden, Kevin. Review of Stephen Neill and Tom Wright, The Interpretation of the New Testament 1861–1986. Posted on kwmc.blogspot.com. August 3, 2005. “Although the title itself may lull some into sleep, believe it or not this is one of the most enjoyable books I’ve read in a long time. . . . Like other ‘non-technical’ books of this ilk, I imagine, Interpretation has probably been of more use to theologians than laymen, giving a readable summary of a massive amount of information. . . . Two words convey my impression of the book: scholarly and readable. . . . Neill covers a multitude of names and ideas in the book, not as an unconnected bulleted list of scholars and their contributions, but as a part of the sweep of recent interpretation, and he offers his own criticism and insight along the way. . . . Despite its scholarship, Neill makes the book surprisingly readable and in fact enjoyable to read. Having a naturally lucid writing style helps, of course, but Neill also writes with tremendous energy, as if he just cannot wait to tell us this story. He has the right balance of the big picture and the details, and he sprinkles in personal anecdotes that bring life to these scholarly names that we read about (as it turns out, they were actually people too!). I have one criticism of the book, and it is a major one. Neill jettisons the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture for the sake of free historical investigation of the text. . . . NT scholarship is a great thing, but scholarship at the expense of faith is a damning thing. Many of the scholars discussed in this work have confirmed the unbelief of many in the church for the sake of free inquiry into the text. So, enjoy the book, but don’t be seduced by Neill’s scholarship and refinement into believing that one can disregard the authority and inspiration of Scripture without any consequences. To pull at the thread of biblical inspiration is to unravel Christianity itself.”
• *Migliore, Daniel L. Review of Stephen Neill, The Interpretation of the New Testament 1861–1961. Princeton Seminary Bulletin 58 (Oct. 1964): 65–66. “It is both informative and very readable.”
• *Mignard, James E. Review of Stephen Neill, The Interpretation of the New Testament 1861–1961. Religion in Life 34 (Winter 1964-1965): 132–133.
• *Moriarty, Frederick L. Review of Stephen Neill, The Interpretation of the New Testament 1861–1961. Gregorianum 46 (1965): 124–27.
• *Murphy-O’Connor, Jerome. Review of Stephen Neill, The Interpretation of the New Testament 1861–1961. Revue biblique 72 (Jan. 1965): 135–37.
• *Nixon, Robin Ernest. Review of Stephen Neill, The Interpretation of the New Testament 1861–1961. Churchman 79 (June 1965): 129–30.
• *Oudersluys, Richard C. Review of Stephen Neill, The Interpretation of the New Testament 1861–1961. Christianity Today 9 (November, 6 1964): 33.
• *Patriquin, Allen. Review of Stephen Neill, The Interpretation of the New Testament 1861–1961. Journal of Bible and Religion 33 (1965): 266–68.
• *Perkin, James R. C. Review of Stephen Neill, The Interpretation of the New Testament 1861–1961. Baptist Quarterly 21 (Jan. 1965): 44–46.
• *Porter, Stanley, E. “The Basic Tools of Exegesis of the New Testament: A Bibliographic Essay.” Pages 23-41 in Handbook to Exegesis of the New Testament. Edited by Stanley E. Porter. Vol. 25 of New Testament Tools and Studies. Edited by Bruce M. Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman. New York: Brill, 1997. Neill and Wright’s work is “probably the best overview of the topic for the period discussed, although admittedly concentrating on British scholars such as Lightfoot, Westcott and Hort (who can blame them?)” (p. 35).
• ____________. Review of Stephen Neill and Tom Wright, The Interpretation of the New Testament 1861–1986. Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 35 (1992): 546–47. “Wright’s chapter, to my thinking, is a disappointment. First, he lacks the ability of Neill to capture what is essential about a significant figure and his importance for a movement. Second, his judgment is not as sound. Besides the fact that I would dispute some of his assessments of the five developments (third quest?), where are sociological criticism, forms of literary criticism, and hermeneutics and linguistics? Third, Wright has an agenda: He is a theologian, and the tone in which he writes regarding the fifth area of advance suggests belief that the other areas of interpretation are to serve theology . . . . Neill can be forgiven his prophetic failure, his outdated estimations, and his now-defunct categories of thought. And he can continue to be enjoyed. But it is far more difficult in light of the progress of the last twenty-five years to understand Wright’s unbridled preaching” (p. 547).
• *Rasmussen, R. D. Review of Stephen Neill, The Interpretation of the New Testament 1861–1961. Foundations 8 (April 1965): 177–79.
• *Richardson, A. Review of Stephen Neill, The Interpretation of the New Testament 1861–1961. Journal of Theological Studies 17 (April 1966): 131–32.
• Rowland, Christopher. Review of Stephen Neill and Tom Wright, The Interpretation of the New Testament 1861–1986. New Blackfriars 70 (1989): 46–47. “I was left wondering whether it is such a good idea to reissue a book like this without substantial modification. . . . Reading through the book in 1988 leaves me with the feeling that the book is both dated and insular” (p. 46). “There is little recognition of the significant contribution of Third World exegesis in the last twenty years nor of the shift in the center of gravity of New Testament scholarship from Germany to North America. . . . I find Neill’s concentration on English New Testament scholarship irritating, and it is a tendency apparent to some extent in Wright’s additional contribution. In this book New Testament scholarship means a sane and reasonable (perhaps one might say Anglican) historical exegesis” (pp. 46–47).
• *Swetnam, James. Review of Stephen Neill, The Interpretation of the New Testament 1861–1961. Biblica 45 (1964): 454.
• Tuckett, Christopher M. Review of Stephen Neill and Tom Wright, The Interpretation of the New Testament 1861–1986, and Robert Morgan and John Barton, Biblical Interpretation. Scottish Journal of Theology 42 (1989): 587–89. “Neill’s style and approach, concentrating on a few select individuals and their personalities, makes for easy reading though the issues are often simplified rather violently in the discussion. (Was the whole approach of the Tübingen school really quashed by Lightfoot’s dating of the Ignatian epistles?) Further, much of Neill’s discussion of many issues looks rather dated and limited today (e.g. on textual criticism, form criticism, Gnosticism, etc.)” (p. 587). Wright’s “sweeping dismissal of tradition-critical work on the gospels as theologically useless, by comparison with the historical quest for Jesus and with ‘literary’ approaches to the gospels considered as wholes (p. 402f.), is slightly breathtaking in its naivety: how can one discover Jesus without some kind of tradition-historical approach to the gospels?” (p. 587).
• Yarbrough, Robert W. Unpublished annotated bibliography for “History of New Testament Theology” at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. N.d. “Highly engaging, sometimes almost gossipy account of how the NT has been read in the last century and a half. The Wright chapter is weak.”
• *Wilson, Robert M. Review of Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, and Stephen Neill, The Interpretation of the New Testament 1861–1961. Scottish Journal of Theology 19 (1966): 491–93. “Due tribute should be paid to the felicity of style, to the judicious use of the author’s missionary experience for apt illustration, to the occasional glint of friendly humor. Altogether this is a delightful book to read, a book to treasure, a book to go back to time and time again” (p. 493).
• Witherington, Ben, III. The Jesus Quest: The Third Search for the Jew of Nazareth. 2d ed. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1997. Neill and Wright’s work is “a detailed review of how the New Testament, including the Gospels, has been interpreted by scholars in the modern era . . . . Wright’s reference in this work to ‘the Third Quest’ (cf. p. 379 and n. 3) may be the first use of this title for the present movement” (p. 9n1).

Andrew David Naselli
Trinity Evangelical Divinity School
Deerfield, Illinois
September 3, 2007

Related:

1. Review of Harrisville’s and Sundberg’s “The Bible in Modern Culture”
2. Review of Yarbrough’s “The Salvation Historical Fallacy?”

Iain H. Murray. Evangelicalism Divided: A Record of Crucial Change in the Years 1950 to 2000. Carlisle, Penn.: Banner of Truth, 2000. x + 342 pp.

Iain Hamish Murray (b. 1931) has authored over two dozen books on historical theology from a Reformed perspective. His mentor was David Martyn Lloyd-Jones, whom Murray assisted at Westminster Chapel from 1956 to 1959 and about whom Murray wrote a stirring two-volume biography (vol. 1, vol. 2). In 1957, Murray co-founded the Banner of Truth Trust, which has published his many writings and for which he serves as Editorial Director.

Murray’s Evangelicalism Divided traces the new strategy by prominent American and British evangelicals such as Harold Ockenga, Edward Carnell, Billy Graham, John Stott, and J. I. Packer from about 1950 to 2000. He concludes that their strategy failed to fulfill what it promised but instead compromised the gospel itself. What follows summarizes the eleven chapters:

1. “Setting the Scene” (pp. 1-23) explains the history of theological liberalism and pinpoints Schleiermacher “as the chief source of the massive change which has occurred in the historic Protestant denominations during the last two hundred years” (p. 11). As it did in Germany, liberal theology “opened the way” in England and America “for the idea that belief is no essential part of being a Christian” since “true experience can exist irrespective of belief” (p. 12). Prior to the 1950s, evangelical leaders—many known as “fundamentalists“—clearly opposed liberalism (pp. 13-17), for example, by refusing “to co-operate in evangelism with non-evangelicals” (p. 14). The “new evangelicalism” changed this strategy (pp. 19-23).
2. “Billy Graham: Catalyst for Change” (pp. 24-50) details Graham’s ecumenical evangelism. It describes his connections to Fuller Seminary, Christianity Today, and evangelical and non-evangelical leaders. “Clearly the new evangelical alignment was prepared, if need be, to lose the support of ‘extreme fundamentalists’” (p. 35). “Only one senior evangelical voice,” Lloyd-Jones, warned evangelicals of compromising with liberals (p. 44). In 1966, Stott publicly rejected the position of Lloyd-Jones, who rightly predicted that the new evangelical strategy “would be bound to promote the doctrinal indifferentism characteristic of the ecumenical movement” (p. 45).
3. “High Aims, Wrong Priorities” (pp. 51-78) argues that the new evangelicalism compromised by allowing pragmatism “to override biblical principles” (p. 51). Examples of pragmatism include the invitation system in Graham’s crusades (pp. 51-54) and Graham’s policy to cooperate with liberals in evangelism (pp. 58-75). In a 1997 public interview with Robert Schuller, Graham unambiguously embraced a form of universalism (pp. 73-74). In the 1960s, both Lloyd-Jones and Francis Schaeffer advised Graham against his ecumenical strategy (pp. 75-77).
4. “The New Anglican Evangelicalism Versus the Old” (pp. 79-111) highlights the public fallout between Lloyd-Jones (”the old”) and Stott and Packer (”the new”), which “marked the saddest period in [Lloyd-Jones’s] life” (p. 110). Murray quotes D. A. Carson’s observation regarding Lloyd-Jones: “What was at stake for him was the gospel . . . his reading of trends was both accurate and prophetic” (p. 98n2).
5. “How the Evangelical Dyke Was Broken in England” (pp. 112-48) argues that the flood that followed the National Evangelical Anglican Congress in Keele in 1967 was a devastating consequence of compromise.
6. “Retrospect: A Different Approach” (pp. 149-72) argues that “when churches lose their influence” and “moral decline is obvious in places which once owned biblical standards,” “the spiritual decline” is probably “due to a fundamental failure to understand and practice what Christianity really is” (p. 151).
7. “‘Intellectual Respectability’ and Scripture” (pp. 173-214) exposes some level of compromise on biblical inerrancy by scholars such as F. F. Bruce, James Dunn, R. T. France, Edward Carnell, David Hubbard, Mark Noll, David Bebbington, Alister McGrath, and Anthony Thiselton.
8. “Rome and New Division” (pp. 215-49) exposes the compromising Evangelicals and Catholics Together movement led by Packer and others. ECT’s danger is advocating “a public policy which implies that there is no vital and essential difference between Christianity and Roman Catholicism” (p. 243).
9. “The Silent Participant” (pp. 250-71) qualifies that although some evangelical leaders did not tolerate “indefinite and superficial teaching” (p. 251) and even retained orthodoxy, they sought success in worldly ways (pp. 254-57). Christianity is not immune from Satanic and demonic attack (cf. pp. 257-68).
10. “‘Church’ and the Unresolved Problem” (pp. 272-93) emphasizes the nature of the true church and restates the prophetic message of Lloyd-Jones against ecumenism.
11. “From the Quarries to the Temple” (pp. 294-318) ends the volume with six conclusions, including these three: “A great deal of the confusion which has divided evangelicalism has been related to the question, ‘Who is a Christian?’” (p. 299); true Christians may have serious disagreements (pp. 306-13); and it is difficult “for leaders to look in different directions at once” (p. 313).

Many have criticized Murray’s book for not being an exhaustive treatment of evangelicalism from 1950 to 2000 (cf. reviews below by Nicole, Searle, and D. Wright), but that misses his point. Murray is purposely selective with reference to evangelicalism’s compromise and decline (cf. Murray’s interviews and articles below). His book, however, is not as clear as it could be for at least five reasons: (1) its progression is not immediately clear by the chapter titles; (2) its chapters lack titled subdivisions; (3) its prose is a bit thick at times; (4) its prose jumps around chronologically and geographically, which may confuse some readers; and (5) it seems to assume that readers have some prior knowledge about certain people and events. He also marginalizes fundamentalism (cf. reviews below by Pettegrew, Sidwell, and Straub). Nevertheless, the volume is fascinating, well documented, sobering, earnest, gracious, and highly relevant for modern evangelicals. While acknowledging my limited perspective, I think that Murray’s argument is convincing.

Annotated Bibliography

This selection of over thirty reviews and related resources reflects a spectrum of perspectives.

• Beckwith, Roger T. Review of Iain H. Murray, Evangelicalism Divided. Churchman 116 (2002): 160-63.
  “For a work that is concerned with fellow Evangelicals, and is so frankly critical of named contemporaries, this is a graciously written volume. . . . When one sees the beginning of the story in relation to the end, it is difficult not to feel that the case is impressive and that it is time to consider our ways. If we learn nothing from this book, we will show ourselves very foolish” (p. 160). Murray “assumes that this is the true Evangelical position. For example, he holds that the Church of Rome is no church, whereas Hooker held that it was a corrupt and heretical church, but a church nonetheless” (p. 160). Murray “rather tends to see everything in black and white” (p. 161). Nevertheless, “the book remains a powerful indictment” (p. 161). “As an old friend of Jim Packer and John Stott (who hopes to remain their friend after this!) I have to confess that their leadership has not always impressed me. John Stott, it seems to me, has been too retiring, and Jim Packer has made errors of judgment” (p. 162).

• Challies, Tim. Review of Iain H. Murray, Evangelicalism Divided. Posted on challies.com. March 2, 2005.
  “While he is unafraid to name names, he avoids slander and conjecture, always speaking in love and always providing ample support for his claims. . . . This book is fascinating, disturbing and critically important. I hope many evangelical pastors and leaders turn to this book to help them understand where evangelicals have come from so they can make necessary course corrections to lead where we need to go next. I give this book my recommendation.”

• DeBoer, Louis F. Review of Iain H. Murray, Evangelicalism Divided. American Presbyterian Press. N.d.
  “Unfortunately, when it comes to drawing and [sic] hard, fast, and concrete conclusions from all this, when it comes to applying Biblical solutions to this problem he is extremely weak. At this critical juncture of the book Murray’s trumpet gives a most uncertain sound.There are no clarion calls for the Lord’s people to separate from apostasy and unbelief. . . . In his conclusions he sees the entire problem as an overreaction to the ‘separatism’ practiced by American Fundamentalists.In a way, therefore, he blames those who have heeded the Scriptural commands for separation from apostasy and unbelief as causing the drive of evangelicals into the ecumenical movement.He sees separatism as unloving and does not seem to allow for any separation from erring brothers other than is generally practiced by denominations upholding their doctrinal distinctives. . . . The most discouraging part is the response.If that is all British Christianity can muster it truly seems to be both dead and buried.If you want to academically study some British church history you should read this book.Otherwise you ought to save your money.If you want to read something on this subject that will challenge you to defend the faith and stir you up to a more militant faithfulness to Scripture and the Lord Jesus Christ I would heartily recommend Ashbrook’s book, ‘The New Neutralism II.’”

• Gilbert, Greg. Review of Iain H. Murray, Evangelicalism Divided. Posted on 9marks.org. N.d.
  “Murray has been criticized by some for seeming to ignore the good that some evangelical leaders have done in favor of focusing on their mistakes. Perhaps, but then again, Murray is not writing a comprehensive history; he is not writing biographies of these men. He is making an argument that men like these made categorical mistakes that affected evangelicalism in a negative way. . . . This book is an extremely important and well-aimed call for the church to recapture its principles, to define clearly what it means to be a Christian and to fortify itself against intruders. . . . Perhaps the most penetrating of Murray’s arguments is that the evangelicalism of the last fifty years has pursued success and influence in ways that smack more of the Kingdom of this world than of the Kingdom of God, ‘in ways,’ Murray writes, ‘which the New Testament identifies as “worldliness.”‘ . . . Every pastor and church leader should read this book and take heed that he does not fall into those temptations. He should take care that he does not, in the interest of his own influence or acceptance in the community, open the gates of God’s church to the enemy. If the integrity of the church is compromised, then its mission, too, is lost. The world will not be affected by a church that is no different from it-that has no stronger beliefs, no higher standards. God calls His church to be set apart. Iain Murray has given a sharp and needed rebuke to those in the latter half of the twentieth century who forgot that call, and a strong encouragement to the church today vigilantly to guard its identity.”

• McCune, Rolland D. Promise Unfulfilled: The Failed Strategy of Modern Evangelicalism. Greenville, S.C.: Ambassador International, 2004.
  McCune includes Murray’s work in his selected annotated bibliography: “The problems and misfortunes of evangelicalism principally in Great Britain as depicted by a biblically conservative Englishman. The book opens with a brief history of the formation of liberal theology and the controversy it generated in America. It goes on to show the influence of Billy Graham and his inclusive evangelism policies in England and the opposition they received from Bible believers led mainly by D. Martyn Lloyd Jones [sic]. Leading evangelical churchmen such as J. I. Packer, John R. W. Stott, and others eventually acceded to and joined in with the changes brought by the new evangelicalism and thus weakened considerably the Bible-believing separatist cause in the UK” (p. 356).

• Murray, Iain H. “Divisive Unity.” The Master’s Seminary Journal 12 (2001): 231-48.
  John MacArthur asked Murray “to give a summary of his recent book Evangelicalism Divided at the Shepherds’ Conference at Grace Community Church, Sun Valley, California on March 11, 2001. This article is the substance of his address. References for all quotations given here will be found in the book itself” (p. 231n1). Abstract: “Murray introduces the origin of Evangelicalism Divided by recalling a meeting in 1966 at which Martyn Lloyd-Jones spoke on ‘Evangelical Unity,’ and had his position challenged by John R. W. Stott, who closed that meeting. The anniversary of that meeting and another series of circumstances led Murray to research and write Evangelicalism Divided. A review of nineteenth-century British church history revealed the cause of the division: liberalism that crept into the church allowed for a faith in Christ without revealed truth and an authoritative Bible, i.e., a new definition of a Christian. When this happened, some evangelicals left the mainline denominations, but others remained and maintained a close tie with other evangelicals who had left. When Billy Graham came to England, he was welcomed by evangelicals, but at first shunned by denominational leaders. Yet when the leaders saw Graham’s large crowds, they accepted him. Some understood the leaders’ change as a new openness to the gospel, yet those leaders were just using Graham as a tool to bring people into their churches. Under the pressure of ecumenism, Graham and others began to think in terms of winning denominations back to evangelicalism, and eventually fell into the error of compromising evangelical doctrine. Two basic problems contributed to the division of evangelicals: neglect of what makes one a Christian and neglect of the depth of human depravity. Lloyd-Jones diagnosed the problem as an evangelical dependence on human methods and a failure to rely on the Holy Spirit. He offered a positive alternative to evangelicals: dependence on God alone and the sufficiency of the Word of God.”

• ________. Interviewed by Mark Dever. “Great Lessons from Great Men.” September 1, 2006.
  Abstract: “In this interview, Reformed evangelical statesman and British author Iain Murray assesses the state of evangelicalism in Britain and America. What’s the state of preaching today? Is hyper-Calvinism a threat? When do Calvinists become prejudiced in their thinking, and what does John Wesley have to teach them? Also, more Martyn Lloyd-Jones stories from this former Lloyd-Jones assistant!”

• ________. Interviewed by Mark Dever. “Jonathan Edwards and Evangelicalism Divided.” May 26, 2001.
  The discussion on Evangelicalism Divided occurs in the second half of the hour-long interview. Abstract: “Iain Murray, co-founder of The Banner of Truth Trust and author of numerous books, talks about his recent biography of Jonathan Edwards. Can one glorify God without enjoying God? Did the fear of hell and the preaching of brimstone enhance Edwards’ effectiveness? Murray also reflects on his controversial latest release Evangelicalism Divided, in which he attempts to clarify what ‘Evangelicalism’ is and how it has been diluted by the ecumenical movement. And his insightful critique of the Billy Graham Crusades is sure to raise some incredulous eyebrows. Buckle up-this one’s apt to turn your evangelical world turned upside down.”

• ________. Interviewed by Mark Dever. “A Writer’s Retrospective with Iain Murray.” November 19, 2002.
  Abstract: “The influential co-founder of The Banner of Truth Trust and long time Presbyterian pastor Iain Murray looks back over his shoulder at the past 50 years of his own ministry and writing. From his definitive biography of D. Martyn Lloyd Jones to his insightful critique of the ecumenical movement in Evangelicalism Divided, Murray has been at the center of both shaping and assessing the last half century of British Evangelicalism. In this interview he gives us a guided tour of what he wrote, why he wrote it, and the effect of his works on Evangelicalism at large. Grab some popcorn and settle in for a delightful hour of conversation with one of the most influential churchmen of the past half-century.”

• ________. “Reviewing My Reviewers.”
  (This article appears to be introduced by someone other than Murray and then written by Murray, but it does not clearly indicate its author.) “Evangelicalism Divided is said to have given a very incomplete history of evangelicalism over the last 50 years. . . . [M]y book never set out to be a history of evangelicalism: that is the reason why those who played no part in the division-such as the leaders of the Proclamation Trust-are not included.” Murray then refutes “a second and more serious criticism” that questions “whether the division was not, after all, more to do with churchmanship than with any real defection from evangelical belief.” Murray cites John MacArthur’s recommendation of his book: “It is one of the best and most eye-opening books I have read in years.” He concludes, “Who is right in these assessments is no small matter. The questions raised by Dr. Lloyd-Jones in 1966 are still more pertinent than they were then.”

• ________. “A Response to Roger Nicole.” Founders Journal 42 (Fall 2000): 11-12, 20.
  “I agree with your reason for the summary you gave towards the end on evangelical growth. If people thought my book was intended to be a history of evangelicalism as a whole in the last fifty years it would leave them with a wrong negative impression” (p. 11). “My main point is the historic evangelical understanding of what it means to be a Christian and how that was challenged (chapter 1) by the liberal contention that it is not essential to believe any set of doctrines to be a Christian. Granting the excesses of fundamentalism, on that issue they were clear. . . . But ecumenism, as liberalism, for the most part assumed a different definition of a Christian from that of evangelicals, and the issue of division, as I have tried to relate it, became whether or not evangelical convictions are necessary to be a Christian. On that issue Graham, Stott and Packer have quite clearly taken a position which none of them took in 1950 and which would have been opposed generally throughout evangelicalism at that date. I think the documentation on that point is unanswerable” (p. 11). “Among ‘our ranks’ pragmatism is probably more widespread than wrong beliefs” (p. 20).

• Nicole, Roger. Review of Iain H. Murray, Evangelicalism Divided. Founders Journal 42 (Fall 2000): 7-10.
  “God has placed us evangelicals in a time of unparalleled opportunity that we should be eager to seize for the blessing of His people and for His glory. Rev. Murray’s book should alert us to the dangers that are ever threatening. One of these is surely the temptation to dilute the truth in order to accommodate the greatest number possible. But another danger is to permit ‘Evangelicalism’ to be divided and thus to blunt the force of our united witness. It is my prayer that we may by God’s grace avoid both of these” (p. 10).

• ________. Interviewed by John H. Armstrong. “A Reformation & Revival Journal Interview with Roger Nicole.” Reformation and Revival 11:3 (2002): 146-74.
  “The strength of this book is that Rev. Murray has documented a certain slippage that has occurred in certain sections of the evangelical world” (p. 168). However, “Murray blames this erosion, at least in the main, on four people. These people are seen as those who misled others. These four are John R. Stott, James I. Packer, Billy Graham, and Harold J. Ockenga. All four of these people are evangelical heroes to me. I think very well of them. I don’t think they are responsible for this slippage because they themselves have not slipped at any major point. It is extremely unfair to blame them and Murray’s argument is thus very one-sided, as if evangelicalism had really slipped as a complete movement. In fact there have been enormous gains made by evangelicalism, even more than may have been anticipated. For instance we now have the majority of the seminary students studying in evangelical schools” (p. 168).

• Payne, Tony. “Understanding the Times.” Review of Iain H. Murray, Evangelicalism Divided. Briefing Web Extras. N.d.
  “Good histories have explanatory power. Judged by this standard, Iain Murray’s history of crucial developments in evangelicalism over the last 50 years is a very good history indeed. It is one of those rare books that repeatedly provokes the ‘aha’ experience. It shows, more effectively than any other book I have read, how the sense of common belief, identity and purpose shared by evangelicals around the world in 1950 had almost completely collapsed some 50 years later.” It “helped me to understand the background reasons for many things that have puzzled me in recent years. Like many, I was dumbfounded when in 1995 J. I. Packer signed the ‘Evangelicals and Catholics Together’ document. Murray’s book provides the background, showing that Packer’s position at this point was not the result of some sinister conspiracy, nor of some momentary lapse, but the logical end-point of positions that had been taken long before.” It “is a powerful, useful and very readable book. It offers a convincing explanation of why worldwide evangelicalism is in such a divided and sorry state at the opening of the 21st century. In doing so it provides a powerful challenge to evangelicals to learn from the mistakes of the past, and to work together in the unity that can only come from the gospel.”

• Pettegrew, Larry. Review of Iain H. Murray, Evangelicalism Divided. The Master’s Seminary Journal 12 (2001): 117-19.
  Murray “has provided an invaluable study of the changes and concessions in evangelicalism in the last fifty years” (p. 117). “Another strength of this book is the author’s ability to identify compromises in evangelicalism in a gracious manner. Murray is never shrill” (p. 118). Unfortunately, “the fascinating events leading to the split of Billy Graham from such American revivalists as John R. Rice, Bob Jones, and Monroe Parker are omitted” (p. 118). “I’m not sure that Murray gives American fundamentalists their due. Murray is respectful of fundamentalists and aware that ‘fundamentalism often suffered from hostile misrepresentation’ (298). On the other hand, he seems to share J. G. Machen’s criticisms of fundamentalism, and also adds a few of his own (17, 298). Though Murray’s passing criticisms of fundamentalism are no doubt true of some fundamentalists, many fundamentalists do not fit the standard caricature” (p. 118). “Evangelicalism Divided is a great book, and all who are concerned about the dilemma of evangelicalism-indeed the future of Christianity-will benefit greatly by familiarizing themselves with the information contained in it. I enthusiastically recommend it” (p. 119).

• Riddle, Jeffrey T. Review of Iain H. Murray, Evangelicalism Divided. Faith and Mission 20:2 (2003): 124-25.
  Murray “does not hedge in his criticism of evangelicals who have attempted to work within the bounds of academic biblical scholarship in the name of bringing ‘intellectual respectability’ to evangelicalism. Murray is unsparing in his criticism of evangelicals such as F. F. Bruce and I. Howard Marshall who have labored as professed evangelicals within secular universities” (p. 125). “Murray’s work is a provocative and informative interpretation of contemporary evangelicalism. Some, no doubt, will be offended by his frank criticism of acknowledged evangelical leaders such as Billy Graham. Others might even see his comments as narrow and unkind. . . . Murray’s analysis cannot be accused of either ‘belligerence’ or of ‘false charity’” (p. 125).

• Roets, Jacques. Review of Iain H. Murray, Evangelicalism Divided. Mid-America Journal of Theology 12 (2001): 312-16.
• Rush, John H. Review of Iain H. Murray, Evangelicalism Divided. Emmaus Journal 12 (2003): 202-4.
  “The main thrust of the argument is that evangelicals, in their desire to shed the exceeding narrowness of fundamentalism, have moved to the opposite extreme of toleration-even in regard to the essential issue of what it means to be a Christian” (p. 203). “Murray reminds us that we must not compromise essential biblical truths in the interests of acceptability and popularity. His reminder is timely” (p. 204).

• Schaeffer, Francis A. The Complete Works of Francis A. Schaeffer: A Christian Worldview. Westchester, Ill.: Crossway, 1982.
  “This problem which started some two hundred years ago has within the past two decades come to the forefront among evangelicals. It is a problem which I (and others) began to address publicly in the mid-sixties, again in the seventies and repeatedly in the eighties. We can be thankful for the many who have taken a strong stand on this; but we must also say, sadly, that the problem continues and is growing. Evangelicalism is divided, deeply divided. And it will not be helpful or truthful for anyone to deny this. It is something that will not simply go away, and it cannot be swept under the rug” (book 5 [The Great Evangelical Disaster], part 2, chapter 2).

• Searle, David C. Review of Iain H. Murray, Evangelicalism Divided. Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology 19 (2001): 85-89.
  “By any standards, this is an extremely impressive work and reformed Christians will be deeply indebted to Iain Murray for his immense scholarship, inexorable logic and clear passion for the purity of the church and the glory of God. However, I would respectfully suggest there are several areas in which many reformed evangelicals will beg to differ with him. First must be the interpretation he gives to the Martyn Lloyd-Jones address in 1966. . . . Those evangelicals who have served a lifetime in mainline denominations without let or hindrance by liberal colleagues will be disappointed that Murray seems unable to understand or empathize with their position” (p. 87). “A further disappointment for some readers will be the astonishing selectivity the author chooses to exercise” (p. 88).

• Sidwell, Mark. “A Call to Separation and Unity: D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones and ‘Evangelical Unity.’” Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 3 (1998): 35-62.
  The purpose of this article is to learn from someone unconnected with American fundamentalism “but who came to the same or similar conclusions about the practice of separation” (p. 35). Militant orthodoxy in Britain has included men such as Charles H. Spurgeon, E. J. Poole-Connor, W. P. Nicholson, and Ian Paisley (pp. 36-40). This article highlights Dr. D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones (1899-1981), a puritan evangelical. He opposed Billy Graham’s crusades because of his Arminian system of public invitations and sponsorship by liberals and Roman Catholics (p. 43), and he also opposed the modern ecumenical movement (pp. 44-46). This built to a climax in the 1960s and peaked with his address to the Evangelical Alliance on October 18, 1966: “Evangelical Unity: An Appeal” (p. 51). When he finished this opening session of the national assembly, John Stott, that evening’s session chairman, “unexpectedly arose to take exception to the Doctor’s comments” (p. 53). From this point Stott and J. I. Packer parted with Lloyd-Jones (cf. p. 57). Sidwell’s summary is informative and his comments insightful.

• ________. Review of Iain H. Murray, Evangelicalism Divided. Biblical Viewpoint 38 (April 2004): 100-101.
  “Murray, although to be commended for this work, is not entirely sympathetic to American Fundamentalism, or at least he does not feel constrained to defend it. Also Murray differs somewhat in his view of issues relevant to fundamentalism. For example, he continues to support evangelicals in the Church of England if they are resisting these comprehensive and ecumenical trends. In this he differs from some of the free-church evangelicals in Britain. . . . But this is still an excellent book. Careful research and clear argument give great weight to Murray’s study. In fact, the book seems to have attracted much more attention from contemporary evangelicalism than most Fundamentalist writings on such topics. Although most of the reaction has been negative, perhaps Murray will succeed in confronting evangelicals in both Europe and America with the demands of purity and discipline necessary to protect the gospel from corruption” (p. 101).

• Sproul, R. C. “The Roots of Division.” Review of Iain H. Murray, Evangelicalism Divided. Table Talk (January 2001): 61-62.
  “Because I read so much, it is a rare event when I find a book that yields a true epiphany. But this one did. As soon as I finished Murray’s book, I decided to order 20 copies so I could give one to every board member of Ligonier Ministries, every member of our executive staff, and every elder of my local church. . . . The book is a keen critical analysis of the history of evangelicalism in Great Britain and the United States” (p. 62). “The fundamentalists were evangelicals who refused to negotiate the foundational doctrines of historic Christianity. They tended toward separatism and a desire to remain unspotted by the world. Westminster Seminary in Philadelphia, the result of a split by the faculty of Princeton Seminary, was content to remain small in size but enormously large in terms of long-term theological influence” (p. 61). New evangelicalism’s “vision was good and the motives were righteous. However, according to Murray’s analysis, the results were disastrous, both in England and the United States. . . . As evangelicals rose in number, they began to look and think more and more like Schleiermacher. During the 1990s, neo-evangelicalism moved so rapidly that it became a movement that would have been better spelled without the ‘e’ in neo. Murray’s critique is as kind and gracious as it is revealing and devastating. The icons of modern evangelicalism are shown as falling into egregious strategic errors that have weakened the evangelical faith at its very core. The bridges built to reach the mainstream became a two-way street by which those who sought to influence the liberals were themselves influenced. The story of how and why this happened could serve as a wake-up call for all of us to fight with all our might against our tendency to value cultural acceptance and the power of numbers above fidelity to the truth of God. We need to read Murray’s book and read it again, because what we do today counts forever” (p. 61).

• Stott, John. Interviewed by The Briefing. “An Interview with John Stott.” Briefing Web Extras. July 2002.
  “I never like talking or writing about people behind their back! Iain Murray is a good evangelical brother, who has done some conscientious research in Evangelicalism Divided. Nevertheless I don’t think your summary of his argument is altogether fair. Speaking for myself, I am not conscious of having ‘put aside’ any evangelical distinctives ‘in order to have a wider influence with the denominations.’ For this savors of a theological compromise of which I don’t believe I have been guilty. No, our decision at the Keele Congress (1967) was to get involved in both the secular world and the visible church, because we saw it as our God-appointed duty to do so. During the last 50 years I have seen the evangelical movement grow in size, scholarship and influence. What worries me now is that we are more a coalition than a party. We need to rally to the evangelical flag, as I have tried to argue in Evangelical Truth (2000), maintaining Trinitarian Truth in love (Eph 4:15).”

• Straub, Jeff. Review of Iain H. Murray, Evangelicalism Divided. Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 6 (2001): 117-22.
  “For the first time, the history of the decline of evangelicalism is set forth. As it has grown larger in size and stature, its doctrinal core has dissipated. Theological certainty has given way to pragmatic opportunity. Murray tells us why this has happened” (p. 117). “Murray’s work provides an important historical contribution to the current understanding of the contemporary theological world. He rightly sees the problems endemic in evangelicalism and shows great courage in bringing this story out into the open” (p. 119). “However, for the fundamentalist, Murray’s work is less than satisfying. It suffers from a very poor understanding of historic fundamentalism and unfortunately has left out much of its criticism of the new evangelicalism, displaying a significant bias. Fundamentalism was an important voice of dissent raised against the new attitude. Murray briefly introduces fundamentalism in the first chapter and offers simplistic comments on its nature and importance” (p. 119). “Murray baldly asserts the failures of fundamentalism without the slightest warrant or supporting evidence of any kind” (p. 120). “He either is unaware or intentionally ignores the fundamentalist literature in defense of separatism” (p. 120). “Separatism is not an idea rooted in dispensationalism as Murray implies” (p. 121). “Murray offers little by way of remedy for the problems of evangelicalism. His observations are so general as to have no real impact. . . . Murray has done a good job diagnosing the cancer, but by disparaging fundamentalism, he has offered to the patient very little hope. If the answer is not in separation (a withdrawal of fellowship), then what is it?” (p. 121). “While Murray’s work provides a valuable record of the decline of new evangelicalism, he sadly offers no real corrective to its malady. He has told the evangelical church it has a terminal cancer that if not checked, will lead to further death and decay. If separation is not an option for the evangelical church, if the cancer is not removed, the theological decay and doctrinal compromise will continue unabated and the theological core of evangelicalism runs the risk of dissipating into oblivion” (pp. 121-22).

• Talbot, Mark R. “Contending for the Faith.” Review of Iain H. Murray, Evangelicalism Divided. Modern Reformation (May/June 2001): 48.
  Unlike every other review, Talbot does not name names. “Names aren’t important here since I’m not trying to assign blame. What is important is assessing a bad strategy.” He supports Murray’s thesis. “Any strategy that requires or encourages us to back away from necessary controversy is ultimately unfaithful.”

• Tinker, Melvin. Review of Iain H. Murray, Evangelicalism Divided. Churchman 115 (2001): 74-81.
  “Perceptive, highly readable, fascinating, disturbing, frustrating, but above all, extremely important” (p. 74). Chapter 5 practically casts Packer and Stott “as the villains of the piece” (p. 76). “The final chapter is one of the most irenic and moving pleas for a greater understanding and indeed, rapprochement, between all sincere and earnest evangelicals I have read” (p. 78). Nevertheless, it is a “half book” that is “significantly and woefully lacking in presenting a complete picture” (p. 78). “Murray sadly gives the appearance of being selective in his material and perhaps more than a little ‘one-sided’ in the presentation of it” (p. 80). “This book is a ‘must’ read, but do bear in mind it is only part of the picture, albeit a significant part” (p. 81).

• Wells, Tom. “An Assessment of the American Role.” Review of Iain H. Murray, Evangelicalism Divided. Reformation Today (July/August 2001): 11-15.
  “Spurgeon had warned against a ‘downgrade’ in the late 1800s and subsequent events in England seemed to bear him out” (p. 11). Murray’s book “is not, of course, a history of evangelicalism but a record of its divisions. It goes without saying that it is not a perfect book, though I have found very little with which to disagree. . . . [I]t does not hold out much hope for the future” (p. 14).

• Wright, Ben. Response to Iain H. Murray, Evangelicalism Divided. Posted on paleoevangelical.blogspot.com. December 30, 2005.
  “Murray’s unique contribution to me is two-fold. First, his documentation is impeccable. . . . The only substantial factual disagreement I can recall of those that I read is tangential and only bolsters the integrity of those who are on his side of the battle. . . . Murray’s second contribution is his tone. He tells the story in a voice that cannot conceal the heaviness of heart with which he writes-a heaviness sourced in two layers of sadness. The first is that the story took place. The second is that it has to be told, and he is the one telling it. . . . This book ought to be mandatory reading for all evangelical seminary students and pastors. . . . But thank you, Dr. Murray, for your courage, your thoroughness, and your willingness to tell a story that needed to be told.”

• ________. Review of Iain H. Murray, Evangelicalism Divided. Posted on paleoevangelical.blogspot.com. August 12, 2005.
  “Evangelicalism Divided by Iain H. Murray is the best depressing book I have ever read.”

• Wright, David F. Review of Iain H. Murray, Evangelicalism Divided. Reformation and Revival 10 (2001): 121-36.
  This “weighty treatise” is “a relentless exposé of the inadequacies of many of the leading evangelicals of the past half-century” (p. 121). “The villains in Murray’s piece are James Packer, John Stott, Colin Buchanan, Alister McGrath and other such luminaries in the Anglican evangelical firmament. There are precious few heroes-Gerald Bray almost alone among Anglicans, along with Martyn Lloyd-Jones” (p. 123). Murray’s defense of Lloyd-Jones is not factual (pp. 124-29, 133). “Behind Murray’s criticisms I rarely glimpsed a passion for the gospel except in terms of purity of doctrine and church” (p. 132). “Yet it is undeniable that the Scriptures afford us little straightforward counsel in coping with our modern evangelical confusions and divisions-anymore than they did in the sixteenth century. In broad terms I find neither Old Testament nor New Testament support for a separatist tendency to break away into conscience-driven disengaged communities. . . . Nor, (if I may speak as a church historian) does the track record of separatism-overall, on balance, in the round-encourage one to back it as a lasting winner” (p. 133). “This book will provoke much debate but do little, I fear, to heal our divisions, although it strikes a more conciliatory note in the final chapter” (p. 134). “It is the kind of book that, even when it wins the arguments, ends up losing the case” (p. 136).

• Zahl, Paul F. M. Review of Iain H. Murray, Evangelicalism Divided. Modern Reformation (Sept./Oct. 2001): 48-50.
  “The objection is almost unanswerable. While Iain Murray is somewhat unfair to a number of outstanding Christian personalities in England, he also forces the reader to decide between two opposing schools of thought within Evangelicalism. That is a good thing” (p. 48). The book “suffers from its length and discursiveness. The reader sometimes stops and wonders, What is Murray really saying? What is he claiming and arguing for? I believe Murray’s argument is well, even irenically, summarized in the six general conclusions found on pages 297 to 318. But it takes a long time to get there” (p. 49).

• Zartman, Joel. Review of Iain H. Murray, Evangelicalism Divided. Posted on unknowing.wordpress.com. February 10, 2006.
  “This is both an interesting and a dull book. Murray doesn’t write with any great liveliness or humor. Very serious, almost grim, he is quite the quintessential presbyterian [sic]. What makes it interesting are the insights that he gives, and the indictments. . . . My only complaint is that Murray is not incisive enough. This is an indictment, a strong indictment, but he backs off on pushing what he needs to push hard. It will not do to find a moderating position and thus somehow find the center by avoiding the periphery of the target. I appreciate Murray’s serious religion and seriousness about religion. I wish he were not so intent on being nice.”

Andrew David Naselli
Trinity Evangelical Divinity School
Deerfield, Illinois
August 29, 2007

Related: Review of Rolland D. McCune’s Promise Unfulfilled

____________________

Timothy T. Larsen, David W. Bebbington, and Mark A. Noll, eds. Biographical Dictionary of Evangelicals. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2003. xvii + 789 pp. Available electronically from Logos Bible Software.

1. Overview

This nearly 800-page tome is a mini-library of condensed biographies. This practical reference tool contains biographical sketches for over four hundred outstanding evangelicals in alphabetical order.

1.1. Theologically, they are part of the identifiable network of evangelicals. Larsen defines an evangelical according to Bebbington and Noll’s standards. In Evangelicalism in Modern Britain, Bebbington proposed that there are four essential characteristics of evangelicals: “conversionism, activism, biblicism, and crucicentrism” (BDE, p. 1). Noll’s Between Faith and Criticism “uses a thoroughgoing descriptive approach, arguing that the evangelical community is a readily identifiable network and that therefore those who can be seen to be a part of that network are the proper subjects of studies in evangelicalism” (BDE, p. 1).

1.2. Denominationally, the evangelicals generally include those with an interdenominational influence.

1.3. Chronologically, they stretch from John Wyclif to those born by 1936. Larsen’s rule of thumb is that it encompasses evangelicals from John Wyclif (ca. 1330-1384) to John Wimber (1934-1997) via John Wesley (1703-1791).

1.4. Geographically, they are generally limited to English-speaking people in the UK, USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa. Exceptions include Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Menno Simons, Arminius, and Spener.

1.5. Vocationally, they include pastors, preachers, evangelists, theologians, missionaries, and authors.

1.6. Historically, they include evangelicals who are the most well-known and about whom readers are most likely to seek information (pp. 1-2).

2. Contributors

Timothy Larsen is the work’s general editor, and the consulting editors are David Bebbington and Mark Noll. Over two hundred scholars contributed to the work including Sinclair Ferguson, John Frame, Ward Gasque, Timothy George, Michael A. G. Haykin, J. I. Packer, Philip Graham Ryken, and Douglas A. Sweeney.

3. Negative Features

The negative features are relatively minor compared to the positive ones.

3.1. The work includes no pictures. It would be pleasant to see at least one picture of the person by his entry.

3.2. It excludes some people who deserve to be included in a work like this. It omits, for example, Henry Ward Beecher, Andrew Bonar, A. J. Gordon, William Grimshaw, John Henry Jowett, J. B. Lightfoot, Asahel Nettleton, John Paton, and James Stalker.

3.3. Some entries exclude key information. For example, R. W. Dale embraced conditional immortality. John Stott publicly renounced the separatism of Lloyd-Jones on October 18, 1966. Van Til vehemently opposed Gordon Clark’s apologetics.

3.4. Some of the entries are not as up-to-date as the publication. For example, H. M. Jones’s entry on Selina Hastings, the Countess of Huntingdon, mentions “her most recent biographer” as Schlenther, whose work was published in 1997. This overlooks Faith Cook’s excellent work Selina: Countess of Huntingdon: Her Pivotal Role in the 18^th Century Evangelical Awakening (Carlisle, Penn.: Banner of Truth, 2001).

4. Positive Features

4.1. It is a handy reference. The last three pages in the book include an index of the 400 articles in alphabetical order with the page number where their entries begin. It is arranged efficiently for pastors and teachers to consult in order to include biographical illustrations in their preaching and teaching. (Even more efficient is the electronic version available from Logos Bible Software.)

4.2. It contains most of the major influential figures in church history from Wyclif to the present. These include Arminius, Bavinck, Baxter, Berkhof, Berkhouwer, Beza, Bonar, Bullinger, Calvin, Carey, Carmichael, Carnell, Chafer, Colson, Cowper, Cranmer, Cromwell, Crosby, Dabney, Dale, Darby, Edwards, Fee, Finney, Fuller, Gaebelein, Gill, Graham, Haldane, Havergal, Henry, Charles and A. A. Hodge, the Countess of Huntingdon, Hus, Ironside, Bob Jones Sr., Kantzer, Knox, Kuyper, Ladd, Latimer, Lindsell, Lloyd-Jones, Luther, McCheyne, Machen, McIntire, McLaren, Martyn, Mather, Melanchthon, Menno Simons, Merle d’Aubigné, Meyer, Moody, Morgan, Henry Morris, Leon Morris, Moule, Müller, Andrew Murray, John Murray, Watchman Nee, Newton, Ockenga, Orr, Owen, Packer, Pierson, Pink, Rice, Riley, Rutherford, Ryle, Ryrie, Sankey, Schaff, Scofield, Scroggie, Shedd, Shields, Simeon, Spener, Spurgeon, Stoddard, Stott, A. H. Strong, Studd, Sunday, W. H. G. Thomas, Torrey, Tozer, Van Til, Vine, Walvoord, Warfield, Watts, John and Charles Wesley, Whitefield, Wilberforce, Wimber, Winthrop, Wyclif, Zinzendorf, and Zwingli.

4.3. It is relatively thorough. Many biographical reference works contain entries that are severely brief containing perhaps one or two small paragraphs. This work, which divides each page into two columns, averages about two large (10 x 6.5 in.) pages per entry. The entries for some of the more prominent evangelicals are three to five pages in length (e.g., John Bunyan, Jonathan Edwards, John Wesley, George Whitefield, William Wilberforce, Charles Spurgeon, B. B. Warfield, David Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Carl Henry, Billy Graham, and J. I. Packer). They survey the person’s life and include the date of major events (birth, death, teaching positions, pastorates, major books, etc.) and key people and places in his life. Each entry ends with a few of the most useful sources for further study.

4.4. It contains interesting facts and anecdotes. For example, Louis Berkhof “is the single most influential theologian within the Christian Reformed Church, having trained virtually all its ministers over a period of nearly forty years” (p. 46). C. I. Scofield and Lewis Sperry Chafer had a father-son relationship: Chafer became a Bible teacher at Scofield’s urging and encouragement; Scofield wrote the foreword to Chafer’s first book in 1915; Chafer dedicated his book Grace to Scofield in 1922 after Scofield’s death; Chafer became the pastor of Scofield’s former church in 1922 and renamed it Scofield Memorial Church in 1923 (pp. 136-137). Chafer “opposed the direct solicitation of funds, insisting that the school live by the ‘faith principle’ of George Müller,” which “resulted in chronic shortages and accumulating debt” (p. 137). Charles Trumbull was Elisabeth Elliot’s great-uncle (p. 207). Both Charles Finney and J. C. Ryle married three times (pp. 226-228, 574). Charles Hodge married Benjamin Franklin’s great-granddaughter (p. 304). Bob Jones Sr. never graduated from college (p. 335). Lloyd-Jones “never gave an altar-call or appeal and refused to cooperate with the evangelist Billy Graham” (p. 373). Neither J. Gresham Machen nor Charles Simeon ever married (pp. 393, 614). G. Campbell Morgan “did not believe in ‘a hell of literal fire’” (p. 442). John Owen’s first work was A Display of Arminianism in 1642 (p. 494). J. I. Packer as a junior librarian “stumbled across the works of John Owen,” and “this discovery of Puritan theology marked a turning-point in his personal and academic life” (p. 497). Packer also has a “lifelong love for Dixieland jazz” (p. 497). Scofield divorced and remarried (p. 589).

The Biographical Dictionary of Evangelicals is an unusual, invaluable collection of 400 brief biographies. Pastors, teachers, and lay people will profit immensely by consulting it often.

Andrew David Naselli
March 4, 2005; Greenville, South Carolina
Updated August 27, 2007; Deerfield, Illinois