Category: Book Reviews

Book Review: The Genesis Debate

On By Jovan PayesIn Biblical Cosmology, Book Reviews, Christian Apologetics, creation, Genesis, Hebrew Bible, Interpretation, Primeval History, Theology

David G. Hagopian, editor, The Genesis Debate: Three Views on the Days of Creation (Mission Viejo, CA: CruXpress, 2001), pb., 319pp.

Reading The Genesis Debate: Three Views of the Days of Creation provided a front row seat at how heated the conversation about origins among fellow-believers can be. The book brings together three teams of Christian scholars set to represent three views on the days of creation and how these views impact Christian thinking about origins and cosmology.

The Teams and Views

Each team is made up of two terminal-credentialed scholars, who present their view and critique the other viewpoints. Team one is made up of Presbyterian affiliated scholars J. Ligon Duncan, III, and David W. Hall. They write a chapter on the traditional 24-hour view of the days of creation, and engage the other view points from this young earth lens.

Team two is comprised of astrophysicist Hugh Ross and Old Testament scholar Gleason L. Archer, representing the Day-Age view of the days of creation in which they believe natural theology informs reading the days of creation from a deep time perspective. The final team provides a literary-framework approach to reading the creation story of Genesis 1. The literary framing of the story of creation is the heart of how to read the creation development outlined by Genesis 1. This chapter is written by New Testament scholar, Lee Irons, with Old Testament scholar Meredith G. Kline.

Observations

Due to the nature of this views book, I want to make some general observations about the interactions found in this work. I am doing this for a couple of reasons. First, some of the missteps I believe in this book provide examples to learn from to improve my own case-making. Second, while I believe in the legitimacy of a young earth and universe point of view, and that we ought to engage other viewpoints, fellow-believers should participate in gracious disagreement.

Evangelical Scholars Misunderstand Each Other

Each team complained of being misunderstood. The most pronounced and heated misunderstandings came from the exchanges between Duncan-Hall and Ross-Archer.[1] Duncan-Hall’s assertion of the testimony of the history of interpretation was misunderstood as the elevation of ecclesial dogma over scripture.[2] Ross-Archer’s assertion that evidence must be gained from both special revelation and natural revelation was misunderstood as an equivocation to anti-supernatural science.[3] Irons-Kline’s non-sequential framework was marginalized as a version of Ross-Archer’s Day-Age theory.[4] At various times, these evangelical scholars did misread and inadvertently misrepresented their opponent’s argument.

I was greatly concern in how the teams misread and misrepresented their opponents. It made me wonder how much crosstalk there should be between scholars on opposite sides if the purpose is to flesh out differences and promote solutions. This was not an oral discussion subject to off the cuff remarks. Surely, there was sufficient time to properly understand their opponent’s view. It strained reason for Ross-Archer to sidestep Duncan-Hall’s point about Jesus turning water into wine as example of Divine control over substance to illustrate God’s creative power. It showed an unwillingness to see Duncan-Hall’s point by reducing the miracle into “flavor” and “color” changes. Ross-Archer’s explanation ultimately calls into question the miracle of Cana in their fake whiskey story.[5] Listening carefully is important.

Methods Slant Emphasis

Each team presented their position from their unique methodological emphases which illustrates that conclusions are not only derived from the text but also from the methodology one employs. Duncan-Hall seize on the exegetical tradition of the church­ to buttress their position from which they will not be moved.[6] Ross-Archer find corroboration between “modern science” of an old cosmos and Genesis 1 from which they offer a radically different life origins narrative.[7] Irons-Kline uniquely offer an elastic approach able to embrace old or young cosmos viewpoints because their approach to the literary features of Genesis 1 allows them to read the text as providing a figurative portrait of a real historical event.[8]

The debate helped me reflect on the methods I use for interpretation. I should not be surprised at the results of the methods employed. If the method is to only use the rule of faith, the history of interpretation, then it should not surprise me that I may defend traditional interpretations. If I emphasize the tools of literary criticism, then I should not be surprised that it may force me to purely literary conclusions which may not be able to account for macro-theological truth. Methods which seek knowledge from natural revelation to inform my reading of the scriptures may subject the text to eisegesis. The methodologies used by Duncan-Hall, Ross-Archer, and Irons-Kline have strengths, but each were shown to have weaknesses as well.

Humility: Same Commitment, Different Results

Humility is vital when evangelicals hold the same core commitments, but their divergent methodologies lead them to different conclusions.[9] Although I gravitate towards Duncan-Hall, I found that they had the most difficulty with humility throughout the discussion. Their responses to Ross-Archer and Irons-Kline revealed their intolerance for their views. In fact, their disposition forced the discussion into a two-views debate rather than three-views. There was far more cordiality between Ross-Archer and Irons-Kline. The aggressive responses by Duncan-Hall provided impetus for more detailed responses by Ross-Archer and Irons-Kline in their critiques of their view.

This made me do some self-reflection. The assumptions I held about the Day-Age View and the Framework View before reading this book were very uncharitable. There is one exception. I was aware of the Framework approach and found it helpful for seeing additional layers to what could be seen in the text of Genesis 1. After reading their commitment to the core elements of creation I felt more sympathetic to each of their views. Furthermore, Ross-Archer and Irons-Kline really gave Duncan-Hall a powerful pushback and criticism. Duncan-Hall presented a “change my mind” argument, failing to offer an exegetical foundation for their argument.

While I remain in general favor of a 24-hour viewpoint, I truly appreciated the tone, presentation and engagement of Ross-Archer and Irons-Kline. They raise some really important questions and offer an approach that should not be dismissed out of hand. Their arguments did not provide enough reason for me to change my view, but their disposition made them come off as cool heads in a heated discussion.

As a final note here, I make a plea to those who wade into the tempestuous waters of the debate on how to read Genesis 1. I support being forthright in case-making, but let us not confuse rudeness with directness–they are not the same.

Recommendation

Despite some of the weaknesses in this book, in particular the cross-talking and overt suspicion of sincerity, each chapter represents a clear argument that explains their view. I would strongly encourage to focus on the author’s commitment to a belief in God as the source of creation, give consideration to their methodology and their assumptions. As a “debate book” it was unnecessarily combative. Aside from this concern, it represents a helpful volume to understanding the sorts of issues believers debate over regarding how to read the creation days of Genesis 1.

Endnotes

[1] David G. Hagopian, ed., The Genesis Debate (Mission Viejo, CA: Crux Press, 2001), 189, 195–211.

[2] Hagopian, Genesis Debate, 89.

[3] Hagopian, Genesis Debate, 169.

[4] Hagopian, Genesis Debate, 108–09.

[5] Hagopian, Genesis Debate, 203.

[6] Hagopian, Genesis Debate, 21–60.

[7] Hagopian, Genesis Debate, 123–57.

[8] Hagopian, Genesis Debate, 217–53.

[9] The three teams shared a clear commitment to God’s existence, fiat ex nihilo creation, Genesis 1 affirms a historical event, and special creation of humankind; yet, they are divergent on their young earth, old earth, temporal agnosticism conclusions.

Book Review: Textual Criticism of the Bible, Revised Edition

On By Jovan PayesIn Articles, Bibliology, Book Reviews, Greek Studies, Hebrew Bible, New Testament, Old Testament, Textual Criticism

Amy Anderson and Wendy Widder, Textual Criticism of the Bible, revised ed., Lexham Methods Series, edited by Douglas Mangum (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2018), Paperback, 236 pages.

The authors of the present volume are professional scholars in Old Testament (Wendy Widder) and New Testament (Amy Anderson) respectively.[1] Widder, a contributing editor for Logos Mobile Education, holds a Ph.D. in Near Eastern Studies from the University of the Free State (South Africa), an M.A. in Hebrew and Semitic Studies (University of Wisconsin-Madison) and the M.Div. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary. Her published works include a technical linguistic work for the BZAW series (De Gruyter), commentaries on Daniel (ZECOT, SGBC), and was the original author of the first edition of the present work (2014).[2]

Amy Anderson joins the revision of this project as co-author. She is Professor of New Testament and Ancient Greek at North Central University (Minneapolis, MN), and holds a Ph.D. in New Testament Textual Criticism (University of Birmingham) and an M.A. in New Testament from Fuller Theological Seminary (Pasadena, CA). Additionally, Anderson has published technical works on New Testament textual criticism for Brill (Texts and Studies) and serves on the steering committee of the Editio Critica Maior for the SBL steering unit of the International Greek New Testament project (IGNT).[3]

Thesis of the Book

In keeping with the stated goal of the Lexham Methods Series to provide an overview of the “broad movements” within the fields of biblical criticism, Anderson and Widder introduce textual criticism of the Bible for the emerging scholar and biblical interpreter in order to better equip them to understand the basic question for many English readers of the Bible is translation: why are there differences in among the English versions?[4] Anderson and Widder offer an updated guided tour of textual criticism to equip the emerging scholar to “take on” the text critical issues that are behind some of the more technical reasons which account for these differences among Bible translations of the ancient original language manuscript copies.[5]

Summary of the Book

In the “Introduction” the authors isolate the practical importance of how understanding the field of textual criticism contributes to providing sensible answers for certain variations among contemporary Bible translations.[6] As a “ground clearing” chapter, it distinguishes changes brought about by the theories and practice of translation from the task of resolving “variations in the readings of [the] ancient manuscripts” of the Bible in pursuit of the ancient form of the text, i.e., the Ausgangstext.

In chapter two Anderson and Widder provide a general introduction to the field of textual criticism of the Bible. Despite different textual evidence for each Testament, the general principles of the discipline apply overall and the authors illustrate what is common to both fields.[7] As no two ancient hand-copied manuscripts of the Bible agree in every detail, the authors demonstrate the various types of scribal errors detected when comparing the extant copies of the manuscripts (accidental omissions, additions, misspellings, and intentional changes).[8] These examples illustrate the goal of textual criticism is to “establish the original reading of the biblical text” of the autographs, which for the transmission history of the Old Testament it is “more complicated” due various unknowns of scribal and editorial activity over a vastly longer period of time than the New.[9] The authors explain the importance in knowing the difference between external evidence and internal evidence, and how the former focuses on “what kinds of manuscripts is a given variant found” and the latter considers what is probable habits of the transcriber(s) of the manuscript and the author of the book (intrinsic).[10]

Chapter three offers a short history of the unique difficulties found in the transmission of the Old Testament. With no manuscripts available predating the canonical copies of the Dead Sea Scrolls (250 BC–AD 135), the authors begin their history with awareness of variants in the Hebrew text by early Christians. Representative of this early period are Origen’s textual notes in the fifth column of his Hexapla.[11] The textual history of the Old Testament is largely interwoven with Christian history (Greek and Latin translations, and other ancient polyglot texts) and the medieval scribal tradents of the Masoretic manuscript tradition. The Hebrew text in the modern period is represented in the two types of critical editions, diplomatic (e.g., BHK, BHS, HUB) and eclectic editions (e.g., HBCE). The textual resources available today (Masoretic Text, LXX, Dead Sea Scrolls, and translations) demonstrate the importance of carefully assessing each variants in light of the probabilities of the scribal habits of each tradition and the which reflects an older state of the Hebrew text.[12]

Chapter four introduces the history of the Greek New Testament text.[13] This history reveals not only a proliferation of the early translation, citation, and copying of these texts, but also that a number of copying communities can be detected in the “patterns of variation” found in groups or family of manuscripts (Alexandrian, Western, Caesarean).[14] With the rise of Christianity, Byzantium (Constantinople) became a center for transmission, giving rise to the period of standardization culminating in the advent of the printing press in which a Greek New Testament would be printed (700s–1600s). This gave rise to what is called the Byzantine text-type. Today, scholarship has largely moved away from the Textus Receptus (or, Majority Text) in favor of eclectic critical approach to establish the Greek New Testament text, which weighs the strength and weakness of variants and manuscripts (seen in UBS, NA). Today, there are over fifty-five hundred manuscripts (papyri, majuscules, and minuscules) from which textual critics must work with in establishing the original wording of the text (the Ausgangstext), as they seek “to identify the reading that best explains how the other readings arose.”[15]

In chapter five, the authors bring their discussion to a close as they comment on the connection between textual criticism and English translations, and how many of the variations between them rely on the text the translation committee agrees to work from.[16] The scholarship of textual criticism directly impacts the practical life of church life, especially one’s doctrine of Scripture, inerrancy and infallibility, and its authority. While debated extremes exist, the inspiration of the text can be maintained as it relates to the original manuscripts. The transmission of the text of Scripture is a history of God’s providential use of imperfect human scribes to reliably preserve the text of the Bible for all generations.

Strengths and Weaknesses

Anderson and Widder have produced a very effective pedagogical-centered volume introducing the field of textual criticism to the emerging scholar of the Bible. The authors were neither overly academic nor did their discussions lack the specialty knowledge essential to this field of methodology. The strongest contribution is the practical hands-on approach illustrating how to evaluate textual variants, how to use the critical apparatus and critical sigla, and how to interact with the different resources (manuscripts, translations, lexicography, etc.) available to the emerging textual critic.[17] These helpful text-critical walkthroughs will guide the students well moving from theory to practice.

Overall, it is very difficult to find weaknesses in the current volume, but when they observed that biblical scholarship seeks to establish the “final form” of the authoritative text instead of the “original wording” of the autographs, little space is provided to address this important text-critical topic.[18] Outside the mention of the philosophical debate over the Urtext, the matter is only briefly commented on.[19] With the lack of older witnesses, important questions are sidelined, such as, “is seeking the original wording of the autograph no longer feasible in Old Testament studies? What are the implications of this issue?” I humbly suggest that Anderson and Widder would have served their readers better by exploring this question.

Endnotes

[1] Amy Anderson and Wendy Widder, Textual Criticism of the Bible, rev. ed., Lexham Methods Series, ed.  Douglas Mangum (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2018).

[2] For more information regarding Dr. Widder see her blog: https://wendywidder.com.

[3] For more information regarding Dr. Anderson see her teacher’s page at North Central University: https://www.northcentral.edu/academics/amy-anderson-2.

[4] Anderson and Widder, Textual Criticism, ix–x, 2–3.

[5] Anderson and Widder, Textual Criticism, 7–8.

[6] Anderson and Widder, Textual Criticism, 1–9.

[8] Anderson and Widder, Textual Criticism, 16–40.

[7] Anderson and Widder, Textual Criticism, 11–48.

[9] Anderson and Widder, Textual Criticism, 40–41. For this reason, Anderson and Widder note that the Old Testament critic “has to decide exactly which state of the OT composition or transmission is the goal” (41).

[10] Anderson and Widder, Textual Criticism, 42–46.

[11] Anderson and Widder, Textual Criticism, 49–114.

[12] For example, the hands-on section of the text critical process illustrates that sometimes translations are preferred over original language manuscripts as they reflect “what Hebrew the translators had in front of them” (Anderson and Widder, Textual Criticism, 95).

[13] Anderson and Widder, Textual Criticism, 115–77.

[14] Anderson and Widder, Textual Criticism, 116.

[15] Anderson and Widder, Textual Criticism, 158.

[16] Anderson and Widder, Textual Criticism, 179–87.

[17] Anderson and Widder, Textual Criticism, 90–109, 149–74.

[18] Anderson and Widder, Textual Criticism, 41–42. This concern may be theological motivated but more clarity would have appreciated (cf. Ferguson, “Textual Criticism of the Bible,” Presbyterion 46 [2020]: 158–59).

[19] Anderson and Widder, Textual Criticism, 93. If this was intended to supplement the “final authoritative form” discussion raised earlier, it seems completely disconnected (54–57).

Bibliography

Anderson, Amy, and Wendy Widder. Textual Criticism of the Bible. Revised ed. Lexham Methods Series 1. Edited by Douglas Mangum, et al. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2018.

Ferguson, Anthony. “Textual Criticism of the Bible, by Amy Anderson and Wendy Widder. Revised edition. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2018. Pp. xv + 236. ISBN 978-1-57799-663-7.” Presbyterion 46.1 (2020): 157–59.

Book Review: Leadership Questions Confronting the Church

On By Jovan PayesIn Book Reviews, Christian Leadership, Church Leadership, Deacons, Elders, Preacher, Word Studies

Jack P. Lewis, Leadership Questions Confronting the Church (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate, 1985), paperback, 111 pages.

Dr. Jack Pearl Lewis (1919–2018) was educated at Abilene Christian University and Sam Houston State Teacher’s College, receiving a PhD. from both Harvard University and Hebrew Union College. Lewis was associated with the Harding Graduate School of Religion (now Harding School of Theology) since it opened in 1958.[1] Lewis’s biblical scholarship, his influence as a teacher, his involvement as a translator of the NIV, his estimation in the academic community, and his love for the Lord’s church earned him a great deal of respect. He has laid much ground for those seeking an understanding of the biblical text and its historical context.

When I was a residential student attending Freed-Hardeman University (Henderson, TN), Lewis’s lectures were always a “must attend” session during the Annual Bible Lectureships. Thanks to my Greek professor, I had a chance to talk with him. When I asked him what an undergraduate Bible major should focus on when preaching and teaching Dr. Lewis said in his understated voice: “be prepared.” Clearly, it was advice he lived by as Dr. Lewis “prepared” himself for the task of providing guidance in the study of God’s word. As a result, he became a scholar’s scholar.

In 1985, Lewis released an anthology of articles from a variety of Christian periodicals and lectureships on critical leadership topics. These articles were collected into a single volume of fifteen chapters, Leadership Questions Confronting the Church.[2] Chapters 4 and 7 are the exceptions, having been serialized word studies now combined here. Each chapter can stand alone as a profitable study on leadership questions, but as a collection, it provides a helpful series of studies.

In the “Foreword,” Dr. Lewis states the reason for the collection: “The reception they received, both from those who criticized and those who applauded, suggested that they would be of use to a wider audience.”[3] The goal of this collection rests in his prayer, “May the Lord help us to find out and to practice his will in matters of leadership as well as in all other matters.”[4]

Well-Researched

The best feature of this compact volume is the wealth of research, analytical thinking, and practical wisdom crystallized on every page. In 111 pages, Dr. Lewis tackles a variety of thorny issues regarding the eldership, the eldership authority-influence debate, leadership without elders, preachers, and their function and authority, and responds to misunderstandings regarding authority (who has it, what kind is it, etc) in a style that is often described as an “economy of words.”

Dr. Lewis places the biblical evidence on display, summarizes the evidence in a few words, and calls attention to complications that often fall upon the church in applying the thrust of a word or passage. There are many instances where Dr. Lewis reveals his heart for the Lord’s church as a church “statesman” (Dr. Lewis would probably prefer Bible student). All these observations seem to be best demonstrated with the following quotation:

Words create the patterns in which men think. Before we divide the church over the implications of a word that does not occur in the Bible in the context with which we are differing from each other, would it not be rational to give thought to the possibility of the need for a more Biblical pattern in which to express ourselves? If we use Biblical terms we might not find ourselves so far apart after all.[5]

Jack P. Lewis, Leadership Questions Confronting the Church (1985)

Dr. Lewis is sensitive to pointing out a perceived or traditional view of leadership that is influenced by denominational tendencies, early Restoration Movement misconceptions, or a lack of preparation to study the Scriptures. He calls on the teaching leaders in the Lord’s church to adequately prepared themselves to understand their function and purpose by properly studying and applying Scripture. Only then will they have a foundation for their ministry.

Valuable Word Studies

A second aspect that makes the volume very useful is the word studies on the elders (ch. 4) and on the preacher (ch. 7).[6] The majority of the chapters are brief; however, the section on word studies stand as the bulk of the book. It demonstrates Lewis’s painstaking scholarship and his confidence in the Bible as the source for Biblical research.

While these approaches have their place and invite a wide appeal, Dr. Lewis approaches such topics by delving into the language of the Scriptures reflecting the very principles he calls others to apply:

“You must apply the seat of your pants to a chair for long periods of time.”[7]

In the course of these word studies, Dr. Lewis explores the various terms in all of their cognate and morphological considerations in order to explore their contextual use.

Where some may spurn such a study, Dr. Lewis explores the stewardship necessary to understand what God has said regarding leadership roles in the church. For this very reason, Dr. Lewis encourages his readers,

“As a preacher you need time in your schedule, not directly related to sermon preparation, when you are not available for the telephone […] a time in which you will sharpen up your Greek and Hebrew.”[8]

Why? Lewis explains the responsibility,

“Have you ever thought of the presumption there is in passing yourself off as an interpreter of a book you cannot read?”[9]

His words are a wake-up call to every leader who desires to understand God’s Word and to lead God’s people in the follow-through of obedience.

Slight Limitations and Suggestions

In general, it may be said that Leadership Questions Confronting the Church is quite valuable and provides guidance in particular areas; however, Dr. Lewis only indirectly addresses questions confronting the church with regard to the role of women and the topic of deacons. Dr. Lewis touches on certain elements of the role of women in chapters 1 and 2 but does not address the broader issues. It should be said that Dr. Lewis addresses the positive case of Scripture — what does the Scripture say? — and then proceeds to call upon church leaders to uphold what the Scripture teaches.[10] In both cases, Dr. Lewis concedes his focus is not to exhaustively treat the question of women’s roles in the church.[11]

Regarding the leadership question of deacons, Dr. Lewis pays little direct attention aside from allusions to certain similarities of qualifications with elders or in those distinctive qualifications that separate the two ministries.[12]

In the second place, there are a few modest suggestions that would improve the usefulness of Dr. Lewis’s anthology as a leadership resource. Should a revised or updated edition be considered, an index of Scriptural, Rabbinic, and Ancient Literature references, an original language word listing index, and a topical index would be a welcomed feature of the book. The content is very rich and quickly invites many personal notations and highlights, these suggested indexes would be very welcomed to make this book more useable.

Another suggestion that would require an updated edition is to re-release in two formats, in print and electronically (Mobi, Kindle, Logos, Adobe, etc). This suggestion would bring a very helpful book into the hands of the “e-reader” generation, and such an update would allow perhaps an appendix to include other available material such as his “A Challenge to New Elders.”[13]

Recommendation: High

For its size and for the fact that Leadership Questions Confronting the Church is nearing its 40th anniversary, Dr. Lewis has produced a primer of enduring value for those searching for answers to broad and thorny issues regarding the ministry of elders and preachers. Few books can boast that kind of longevity. The scholarship, the wisdom, the clear thinking, and the leadership to call out observed inconsistencies in brotherhood applications make this small volume a must-read for preachers in training and the veteran, for newly called elders, and elders who have been in the work for some time.

Christian leaders need to sharpen their deliberative skill set, as Dr. Lewis writes, “The most valuable thing about a man is his power of judgment.” The work is well written and there is much to chew on, and aside from the larger specialized word study chapters (4 and 7), this series of articles would benefit every concerned leader and Christian looking for guidance on these leadership topics. Leadership Questions Confronting the Church is more than a mere series of articles, it is a reminder of the importance that church leadership must constantly be undergirded by biblical authority and proper study of the Scriptures.

Endnotes

  1. Jack P. Lewis, Basic Beliefs (Nashville, TN: 21st Century Christian, 2013), 7.
  2. Jack P. Lewis, Leadership Questions Confronting the Church (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate, 1985).
  3. Lewis, Leadership Questions, “Foreword.”
  4. Ibid.
  5. Lewis, Leadership Questions, 11–12.
  6. Lewis, Leadership Questions, 13–35, 49–70.
  7. Lewis, Leadership Questions, 104.
  8. Lewis, Leadership Questions, 106.
  9. Ibid.
  10. In one instance he writes, “It is not the purpose of this paper to discuss the minutia of what women can and cannot scripturally do. It is to call attention to specious reasoning that is being engaged in on a concept that is not in the Greek text at all” (Lewis, Leadership Questions, 8)
  11. Lewis, Leadership Question, 6, 8. Elsewhere Lewis addresses the matter of Phoebe in “Servants or Deaconesses? Romans 16:1” in Exegesis of Difficult Biblical Passages (1988; repr., Henderson, TN: Hester Publications, no date), 105–09.
  12. At the time of publication, Dr. Lewis had not addressed New Testament materials regarding deacons of the church. See Annie May Lewis, “Bibliography of the Scholarly Writings of Jack P. Lewis, ” Biblical Interpretation: Principles and Practice – Studies in Honor of Jack Pearl Lewis (ed. F. Furman Kearley et al.; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1986), 329-36. An online search on the Restoration Serial Index results in no articles by Lewis on deacons.
  13. Jack P. Lewis, “A Challenge to New Elders,” Gospel Advocate 143.5 (May 2001): 34-35. Another suggestion would be to include, “Elders’ Wives,” Gospel Advocate 136.12 (Dec 1994): 35.
  14. Lewis, Leadership Questions, 37

Book Review: Scripture and the Authority of God

On By Jovan PayesIn Bible Study, Book Reviews, Hermeneutics, Interpretation, New Testament, Old Testament

N. T. Wright, Scripture and the Authority of God: How to Read the Bible Today (New York: HarperCollins, 2005), pb, 210 pages.

In his volume, Scripture and the Authority of God: How to Read the Bible Today, the former Bishop of Durham (2003–2010) and Anglican scholar, Nicholas Thomas Wright (1948–), argues in close quarters (200 pages) that the “authority of God” is mediated in the scriptures and this authority is properly accessed today when the church takes the biblical narrative seriously—Jesus redeems, renews, and completes the human story—as the rubric by which it engages today’s meaningful questions in face of God’s victory revealed in the gospel.

Book Summary

Wright argues that God is the only authority that can be spoken of concretely and that the authority of God manifested in the world is a necessary reality in way of sin’s corruption of creation in the fall. This assertion of divine authority is realized by the concept of rulership and kingdom. The written word, properly understood as the scriptures (i.e., the Bible), is not authoritative in a moralistic sense as being a scrapbook of good ideas, but instead communicates God’s authority in a narratival sense. For Wright, the flow of this story is played out in five acts (creation, the fall, Israel, Jesus, and the church) revealing the way in which God plans to heal and renew his image-bearers and the creation itself through the work and person of Jesus Christ. The scriptures, therefore, mediate God’s authority in the same way as revealed in the work of prophets as they spoke and proclaimed his word. Today, that same authoritative word is mediated properly to the church—the Bible reading community—when this overall message is narratively understood, contextually appreciated, and Christologically applied.

The overall purpose of the book is to provide a remedy to the “bible wars” in which the question and place of the scripture’s authority have lost their fixed placement in the “culture wars.” The church has always been a “Bible reading” entity and its history reflects this point; however, the church interacts with culture as well as the Bible and must constantly apply afresh its narrative to the church’s ever-changing setting and questions. The areas of contemporary tensions (culture, politics, philosophy, theology, and ethics) the church faces “interlock” with how the Bible-reading church applies the scriptures.[1] The most important resource which sets the scriptures apart as a unique source of Christian guidance is that the Bible is “the authority of God.” This is, as Wright describes a “shorthand” to help densely pack into a phrase that the narrative of the scriptures has an effect upon its readers because it carries a transcendent narrative that reveals the only true authority—God—as one who has created, and is now confronting the fall of his creation by the manifestation of his kingdom through Jesus Christ. 

In this significant sense, the Bible reveals that in the kingdom (the kingship), in Jesus, God is confronting a fallen world in order to redeem, renew, and complete it in him. To do so God not only enlists his image-bearers (humans), but must also in the process redeem, renew, and complete them to be those who embrace the kingship of God. Authority, according to Wright, is not static nor flat but must be understood within the conflict of the biblical narrative. The authority of God includes the scriptures, but the scriptures do not exhaust God’s authority. In other words, “the authority of God” resides in the scriptures because it is the form God has chosen to mediate his kingship authority to his bible reading image-bearers, who will be redeemed, renewed, and completed in Jesus Christ. The narrative of scripture as alluded to above, unfolds in five stages, beginning with the good creation, the fall of humanity, the call of Israel, the incarnation of Jesus Christ, and the full consumption of God’s plan in the church. God’s authority in scripture only makes sense within that narrative. 

Wright conceives of a theological foundation for his approach to the authority of scripture. This approach brings his main purposes and overarching points into focus. Much of what Wright sees in the broader church culture are significant influences and forces on the academic study of scripture that undermine its authority and accessibility to the church—the intended Bible reading community—and therefore his proposal. Wright spends a major part of his proposal engaging and providing clarifications based on his extensive body of research (which he self-references) to highlight the lingering benefits and problems from the Enlightenment (i.e., Age of Reason), and the influence of the Reformation. Negatively, the development of scientific tools of historical research birthed a movement of pure rationalism, and with it an accompanying skepticism of the divine (or tendency toward deism). This has created a polarization within the theological academy which is still felt to this day represented in his catalog of various “misreadings.”[2] Wright argues that good historical criticism and the Bible can co-exist without the loss of the scripture’s supernatural authority. It is not only possible but necessary for the church to contextually understand the Bible’s story.

Meanwhile, the celebrated Reformation period has likewise contributed to contemporary problems in Bible reading. In particular, Wright culls out the mantra of the Reformation—sola scriptura—and contextualizes it. The slogan was not intended to eviscerate any appreciation for the history of how the historic church had responded to the authority of the scriptures. Wright affirms the Reformer’s “insistence that scripture contains all things necessary to salvation… was part of their protest against the Roman insistence on belief in dogmas like transubstantiation as necessary articles of faith.”[3] The slogan was to affirm a limit, namely, that “nothing beyond scripture” could be taught as an article of salvation.[4] The need to stress this speaks to the “muddled” understanding of the “protest” theology behind the slogan. Furthermore, Wright goes on to underscore a common misunderstanding of another term reaffirmed in the Reformation period, being on insisting on the “literal” sense of scripture. This phrase does not pursue “the sense of the letter” but instead it means “the sense that the first writers intended.”[5] For Wright, this is crucial because it underscores the importance of historical criticism in understanding the text, and it discards a misunderstanding of a hermeneutical principle.

A Brief Evaluation

Wright argues that the question regarding the “authority of scripture” is not a flat discussion, and must take into account more than a book citation by observing how a text of scripture fits within his five-act biblical narrative, and how the trajectory of the “new creation” frames an important narratival hermeneutical context to understand the relevance and application of these texts.

Simply because there may be a “proof text” of an idea found in the Bible does not provide sufficient warrant that the notion is provided positive authority for the practicing Christian today. More is required. This is certainly an important point which Wright demonstrates in the two case studies that Sunday is not the new Sabbath and that the Sabbath ultimately speaks to the coming divine-human co-habitation,[6] and on how to establish the proper basis for male-female monogamy in the face of considerable evidence that the Old Testament tolerated polygamy.[7] What is extremely helpful in Wright’s model is how it grounds the textual and the application of the text in the renewing story of the gospel, and in this way provides God’s authority mediated through these scriptures.

If there is any drawback to Wright’s argument it may be found in his writing style. Granted, it is refreshingly straightforward, but the inclusion of caveats and parenthetical notations can detract from the argumentation. It is not so much of a drawback in Wright’s argument, but the writing style of a very aware scholar seeking to maintain in every statement an accurate reflection of the substance of his thesis. More significantly, Wright does not spend any time working through 2 Timothy 3:16-17, being by his own admission, “the famous passage about scripture.”[8] His only observation is that the passage is not about the nature of scripture but an encouragement to study the scriptures. Certainly, Paul’s focus the usefulness of “all scripture” to make its students “proficient, equipped for every good work” (3:17 NRSV).[9] Nevertheless, “all scripture” is both “useful” (ōphélimos) and “inspired by God” (theópneustos) which are both adjectival statements in the same clause about scripture in general, and are affirmations of their origin (theópneustos) and purpose in particular (ōphélimos). The explanation for this lack of attention is probably because the work presupposes the Bible as God’s mediated authority on the one hand, and that Wright is focused on how to appropriate this authority.

Finding Application

The thesis of Wright’s work has proven to find an immediate application in my life. First, the emphasis on the renewing work in Christ as the “end game” of the theological trajectory has an immediate and personal application in how I process scripture. Second, recognizing that scripture still mediates God’s authority has invigorated my confidence in the theological process.

First, Wright’s work has significantly challenged how I apply the same principle behind the transformative “renewing” of my mind principle of Romans 12:2 to the trajectory of the gospel narrative. As Paul says, “So if anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation: everything old has passed away; see, everything has become new!” (2 Cor 5:17). It has certainly made me more aware of the need to ground my conclusions to what Christ is renewing in the world. The narrative framework looks at the promises of God as “speech acts” wherein he heals not only me, but the world around me.

Second, even in the wake of its historical, occasional, culturally bound essence which requires reason and the Spirit to evaluate my experience(s) and church traditions, God’s authority is still mediated in the scriptures. This has re-invigorated my confidence in the theological process. Wright’s survey of biblical interpretation and authority was extremely helpful in providing better clarity of how authority and scripture have been connected over the centuries.[10] Wright also called attention to the importance of private and communal study, not just in the academic context but also in the congregational setting. Since our insights are limited, it is worthwhile to gain insight from what others see in their in-depth study of God’s word.

Conclusion

What Wright accomplishes in Scripture and the Authority of God is to chart an important course that affirms that “the authority of God” is mediated in the scriptures, and this authority is properly accessed and applied when the redeeming, renewing, and completing work of Jesus Christ is applied to understanding the narrative of scripture as the church answers its call today.

Endnotes

  1. Wright, Scripture and the Authority of God, 4–18.
  2. 107–14.
  3. 72.
  4. 72.
  5. 73–74.
  6. 143–73.
  7. 176–95.
  8. 97.
  9. New Revised Standard Version of the Holy Bible.
  10. Wright, Scripture and the Authority of God, 61–81.

Book Review: The Safest Place on Earth

On By Jovan PayesIn Articles, Book Reviews, Christian Ethics, Christian Leadership, Church Leadership, Church Membership, Church Practices, Family Studies, Holy Spirit, Kingdom Ethics, Leadership Ethics, New Testament, Pastoral Leadership, Perspective, Practical, Spiritual Formation, Spiritual Growth
Safest Place on Earth - Crabb.jpg

Larry Crabb, The Safest Place on Earth: Where People Connect and Are Forever Changed (Nashville, TN: W Publishing, 1999), Hardback, 240 pages.

Dr. Larry Crabb is an established licensed psychologist, a well-known Christian author on marriage and biblical counseling topics, and current Distinguished Scholar in Residence at the Colorado Christian University (Morrison, CO).[1] 

Dr. Crabb earned his Ph.D in Clinical Psychology from the University of Illinois, and has been a professor of psychology since 1970. Dr. Crabb also provides workshops and weekend seminars across the United States as part of his non-profit New Way Ministries and its web presence which features interviews, video lectures, and other multimedia outlets to share resources from his School of Spiritual Direction.

Dr. Crabb has been involved in counseling and marriage, in self-help ministry, and in developing a context of “spiritual community” for over 40 years, and so has earned a place among the various “Christian voices” seeking to make the church a better place.

In 1999, Dr. Crabb released a significant but brief volume on the church as a safe spiritual community. The volume is entitled, The Safest Place on Earth: Where People Connect and Are Forever Changed (238 pages).[2] Dr. Crabb has registered his own frustration with two elements which bear upon the community of the church and its spiritual health, which he further addresses in Real Church: Does it Exist? Can I Find It? (Nashville, TN: Nelson, 2009).

In The Safest Place on Earth, however, Dr. Crabb establishes a vision for the church as a group of believers on a journey towards God, and it is within the journey that spiritual community must begin and end for spiritual healing and direction. Despite Dr. Crabb’s own training in psychology, he believes when it comes to the soul care that ought to go on within the church, such assistance must yield “to special revelation and biblically dependent thinking.”[3] Dr. Crabb is adamant,

We don’t need more churches, as we usually define the word. We need more spiritual communities where good friends and wise people turn their chairs toward each other and talk well.[4]

Structurally, The Safest Place on Earth is organized in seventeen chapters, divided into three parts, and finishes with a section of questions for each chapter. The layout follows a very clear program of development, and the content is written in a popular style. Dr. Crabb is able to articulate and shape a conceptual paradigm of what is a spiritual community and what is not a spiritual community without complex vocabulary. His illustrations, personal anecdotes, and insights from personal interactions are delivered to support his vision for a spiritual community is very clear and helpful ways.

Dr. Crabb also interacts with and depends upon the works of Dutch Catholic priest Henri Nouwen[5] (1932-1996), who focused on spiritual solitude, spiritual community, and spiritual compassion, along with Swiss Catholic philosopher Jean Vanier (b. 1928) and his work connected to L’Arche communities which have overlapping concerns.[6]

A Book Summary

In part one, Dr. Crabb develops and sharpens the idea of spiritual community and how the church needs to develop sensitivity to being the spiritual community it was intended to be. Spiritual community is, according to Crabb, at the core of what the church is.

It is people facing each other in intimate, honest, and safe ways as they journey together on their way to God. Spiritual community, however, will not occur if there is no opportunity for vulnerability and a full sense of validation from these that witness the vulnerable parts of who we are.

One of the difficulties in church community life is to wrestle with the crux,

if they knew who I really was, the church would probably not like me.

To be a spiritual community, then, we must be able to love free from ego and embrace those so broken by those things which burden our souls and even cripple us.

The health metric of a spiritual community is its ability to love the unlovable, the broken, those that can only let you love them in their brokenness.

In part two, Dr. Crabb reframes the New Testament discussion of flesh and spirit elements of our soul in terms of the analogies of the Lower Room (carnal/wretchedness) and the Upper Room (spiritual/greatness).

It is in this phase of the book that Dr. Crabb focuses on the part of the church community that needs to be addressed first — our internal struggles to be spiritual. Enter Dr. Crabb’s “two rooms” analogy which he builds from the words of Jesus:

If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. (John 14:23)

And he amplifies these words with Paul’s regarding “Christ in you” (Colossians 1:27).[7]

In essence, the two rooms represent fully furnished environments that exist within us.

Now there are two rooms inside us, the one we built where our natural self thrives, and the one the Spirit built where our natural self suffocates and our new self flourishes.[8] 

Dr. Crabb does not explicitly use all the terms, but these “rooms” parallel the Freudian id, ego, and superego dynamics, the difference being they are spiritualized.[9] The lower room is self-furnished by our wretchedness and “dark forces” with its corruption and stench (id). The upper room is furnished by the Spirit of God only enjoyed once we open the doors of the lower room, acknowledge its stench, and celebrate the confidence to be a new us (an obedient us) empowered by God’s grace and teaching (superego?).

Finally, we consciously (ego?) take these “two rooms” within us and the internal struggles that go with them —because we prefer to be in the lower room— to receive outside help from “another room” which is the spiritual community, the church. This room is furnished by the Spirit with safety, vision, wisdom, and power.

In part three, Dr. Crabb continues his visioning for spiritual community with another analogy of “turning our chairs toward each other” but now by “turning our souls toward each other.”

In this process, the members of the church community must practice three needed things. First, spiritual community can only be done by the Holy Spirit. Second, personal holiness grounded in the Spirit influences the pursuit of personal holiness of others. Third, there must then be a safe place to “own and trace our desires to their source.”[10] 

Spiritual community, however, will only occur when spiritual passions are “supernaturally” aroused when we are together in spiritual community experiencing acceptance, mutual faith in God’s presence in our lives, affirm the “upper room” elements in our lives, and allow God to change us without applying human pressures of forced change.

It is certainly a place of risk, but risk will always be a factor when embracing the need for vulnerability. Therefore, the real question is: will we, the church, be the safe place for those being vulnerable?

Response and Review

I chose this book principally because of the title. In fact, I had seen this title on the cover of the September/October 2001 New Wineskin magazine as part of the issue theme of “Authentic Christian Community.”[11] The concept peaked my interest because I do feel the church has not been the safest place on Earth in managing people’s sin. One example will suffice. I once heard a preacher react to the exposed sins of others with the derogatory question, “where are the normal people?” That’s not a safe place for healing. Nor is the following response to a fellow congregant’s addiction any safer, “there’s a word they need to learn – repent.”

Rebuking sin is the easy work of preaching, but creating a compassionate environment to help brothers and sisters work through repentance is the harder – and in my judgment – more fruitful work of ministry.

Crabb’s book further calls the church to be the community through which Christians experience spiritual healing for spiritual problems often mistreated —according to Dr. Crabb—as psychological disorders or problems. The gospel and the New Testament teaching that the church is the dwelling place of God, and Christians are the temple of the Holy Spirit, seem to support the overall agenda that the culture of the local congregation should be more attuned to openly working through sin, temptations, and openly celebrating grace, and spiritual empowerment by God. Even Paul declares that the church is being recreated (2 Corinthians 5:17) and repurposed for ministry (Ephesians 2:10).

Dr. Crabb’s book both intrigued me and made me uncomfortable in that he elevates the spiritual components of the church where the Holy Spirit dwells. Again, it is not that I’m troubled by the Holy Spirit, it is that in many pockets of the Churches of Christ the Holy Spirit and the use of “community” have been so tinged with so-called “liberal agendas” in the latter, and doctrinal controversial hotbeds regarding the former. His emphasis that the church is specifically designed to be a spiritual community and therefore it must be that spiritual community on a journey to God is what stands out the most to me. If we are not a spiritual community, then there will not be the Spirit.

I do not agree with all of his points on the “wretchedness” of man, but Dr. Crabb has challenged me to speak more about the Spirit and the church as the community in which God does His best work to heal us from the effects of sin.

Concluding Thoughts

What I liked overall about the book is the Dr. Crabb’s challenging call to the church to be a safe place for the sort of healing love that needs to exists between God’s people, so that the Spirit of God may work through the church to heal its members as they bear each other’s burdens with the gifts of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-26). The church must be so, because, as Dr. Crabb reminds us, we are traveling together on a journey to God.

I recommend the challenge of this book to every Christian and church leader. The reminder that Scripture centers the body of Christ as the place where the Spirit dwells, and therefore must be the safe place where the members of the body can serve each other empowered by the same Spirit. To overcome sin, the church must be, and in some cases become, the place where no one struggles with sin void of love, compassion, support, and patience as we journey to God breaking free from the bondage of sin.

Endnotes

  1. “About Larry Crabb,” http://www.newwayministries.org/larrycrabb.php.
  2. Full details: Larry Crabb, The Safest Place on Earth: Where People Connect and Are Forever Changed (Nashville, TN: W Publishing, 1999).
  3. Crabb, The Safest Place on Earth, 7.
  4. Crabb, The Safest Place on Earth, 10.
  5. “Henri Nouwen Society,” http://henrinouwen.org.
  6. “History of L’Arche,” https://www.larcheusa.org/who-we-are/history.
  7. Unless otherwise stated all Scripture quotations are taken from the English Standard Version of The Holy Bible (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2001).
  8. Crabb, The Safest Place on Earth, 62–63.
  9. Crabb, The Safest Place on Earth, 78–79.
  10. Crabb, The Safest Place on Earth, 121–30.
  11. Larry Crabb, “Is the Church the Safest Place on Earth?,” New Wineskins 5.4 (Sept/Oct 2001): 12–15.

Book Review: Love Must Be Tough

On By Jovan PayesIn Articles, Book Reviews, Books, family, marriage, New Testament
Love must be tough

James C. Dobson, Love Must Be Tough: New Hope for Families in Crisis (1983; repr., Tyndale Momentum, 2007), hardback, 238 pages.

Dr. James Dobson (1936-) is a well known and established licensed psychologist (Ph.D., University of Southern California), who has addressed social and family issues from an evangelical perspective for about 40 years. He held a teaching post at USC’s School of Medicine as Associate Clinical Professor of Pediatrics and was on staff at the Children’s Hospital in Los Angeles for many years. And he served on a number government advisory panels and testified at several government hearings.[1]

Dr. Dobson is perhaps known more for the ministry network Focus on the Family he founded in 1977 through which he has provided a steady evangelical voice with regards to social issues on radio, television, print, and online. Since 2010, however, Dr. Dobson formally transitioned away from Focus on the Family and established another multi-media ministry venture, Dr. James Dobson’s Family Talk.

Love Must Be Tough to Save Families

The book under review, Love Must be Tough, is not a new contribution. Dr. Dobson wrote it in 1983 and because of its popularity, it is often reprinted. I read this book as part of a family ministry class. I found it to be an insightful and highly useful volume designed to provide a strategic proposal to help restore marriages struggling under the burden and crisis of marital infidelity. Dr. Dobson argues that his strategy strikes at the heart of the recovery from marital infidelity better than those provided by the then-current advice by counselors and literature.

What appears to be at the heart of the problem lies at a spouse’s passivity and allowance for the other spouse to have all the control in the relationship. This imbalance is subversive to the marriage. Dr. Nancy M. Rockstroh, M.D., who often recommends Love Must be Tough agrees:

when the balance of power switches so that one person has undue control, the potential for abuse of that power becomes imminent. Once individuals have the opportunity to do anything with the tacit acceptance of their partner, they have carte blanche to engage in destructive patterns of behavior without fear of losing the benefits of the relationship.[2]

Nancy Moultrie Rockstroh, “Love Must Be Tough: Proven Hope for Families in Crisis,” Primary Care Companion to the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry (2000)

It is not just theories or bad counseling which Dobson believes to be destructive and subversive to marital restoration. Marriage culture also is to blame, in particular, those which are so co-dependent that there is a loss of self-respect and the mutual respect which should exist within a marriage. Or, as Dobson argues, what marriages in crisis really need is the application of a simple principle: love must be tough.

Book Overview

Dr. Dobson develops his thesis by first showcasing the destructive nature of common approaches advised for reclaiming an unfaithful spouse. But, perhaps most instructive is the fact that he shares real experiences of infidelity and how the wounded spouse attempts to restore the marriage. According to Dobson, counselors tend to advise self-loathing, fault assuming, affair indulgent, and spiritually careless strategies. But even still further, wounded spouses often attempt to regain their unfaithful spouse through strategies (planned or not) that can be summed in the phrase: a complete lack of self-respect and identity (Panic, appeasement, etc).

This behavior must be stopped. Dobson argues strongly that this lack of self-respect and identity is a leading contributor for both the circumstances for a spouse to become unfaithful and for the pushing away of a cheating spouse. Dobson explains this character “defect” can be permissive as it “allows” flirtation with a potential lover, or it passively “allows” the spouse to continue dangerous relationships with a would-be lover. And once suspicion (or infidelity) occurs, the concerned spouse begins to tighten their grasp upon their beloved in order to keep them, but this often times pushes them farther away. The distrusted spouse feels caged and develops a need to escape. The spouse needs freedom. To further aggravate the situation, the worried partner who cannot feel complete without their spouse loses their individual identity and panics only to try to appease their unfaithful spouse. This behavior feels more like constrictions around the unfaithful spouse’s neck, and continue to fuel the desire for freedom (extramarital freedom).

Case upon actual case is rehearsed as testimonial evidence to support Dobson’s thesis that love must be tough. Consequently, if Dobson is right that popular counseling has it wrong in its strategic opinions, and that a consistent lack of self-respect and identity provide the stimulus for infidelity, then a new approach must be considered. Dobson argues therefore that the marriage relationship must include a number of applied principles. Despite the concept of “union” in marriage, each partner must exist with their sense of individuality intact, and each partner must be able to respect themselves. This sets forth the building blocks for a healthy sense of mutual accountability needed in a marriage that will allow it to thrive.

Thus, should signs of a potential extramarital affair begin to loom in the distance, a perceptive spouse can be grounded in their self-respect and identity, provide strong warnings set forth in love, self-respect, freedom, and independence (example: “I love you, but if you continue this course, then I will leave”). Spouses must be able to hold their ground, despite loving their spouse and not wishing them to depart. This “willingness to end a relationship,” says Dr. Rockstroh, “is the very essence of freedom and independence.”[3] Yet, this principle must be, according to Dobson, practiced with caution (see below).

Chapter 12 provides a timeline of eleven benchmarks showing how good marriages end in abandonment, adultery, divorce, and guilt. Side-by-side, the storyline of a husband and wife is unfolded. It shows how emotional starvation experienced by a loving spouse can lead to frustration and depression, only to work the heart into fertile soil for an extramarital affair. Preoccupations, such as work, only blind them of their beloved’s pain and that they too have contributed to this isolation. Eventually, an affair does ensue and is discovered. At this point, Dobson argues, the marriage can still be saved if both partners want to use “tough love” to regain themselves and restore their marriage. In this scenario that Dobson narrates, the cheating spouse leaves and a divorce is finalized. As in many cases which Dobson is aware of, at the end, the love affair turns mundane, the enabling but wounded spouse lives in ignorance of their contribution and the guilt for the children’s situation overshadows their heart.

Here Dobson makes one more appeal to confront misunderstandings that affect marital happiness. He appeals to the fact that culture essentially lies to our young ladies and young men in the aspect of who provides the happiness in the home. For the women, the lie is simple but devastating: “that marriage is a lifelong romantic experience.”[4] Moreover, the husband is entirely responsible for making this a reality; hence, women enter marriage with unrealistic expectations. And when these expectations are not met, it is her husband’s fault. For the men, the lie is relatively clear: “his only responsibility is to provide materially for his family.”[5] The love must be tough principle affirms individual responsibility for one’s happiness, and each spouse must play a role in creating marital happiness.

Of many of the valuable aspects of the book, is Dobson’s honesty that as much as the love must be tough principle is valuable and helpful, it can also be dangerously misapplied. The development of self-respect, individual identity, of creating a culture of freedom, of forgiveness, and many other traits can be so developed to the point where the wounded spouse uses them to destroy the marriage. For example, a person may become so independent that they want nothing to do with their spouse. Another spouse might defend their self-respect to the point where they become so outspoken that there is no mutual accountability. Dobson, therefore, warns against running wild with this strategy.

A Critique on Dobson’s Divorce and Remarriage View

There is no debate that Dr. Dobson’s book is valuable; however, his discussion on divorce and remarriage is perhaps the most egregious section in an otherwise well-developed book.[6] To Dobson’s credit, he inserts a disclaimer that he knows some Bible students will disagree with him. I register here as one who finds Dobson’s discussion of what constitutes a scriptural divorce and remarriage completely lacking biblical support.

Dobson affirms three matters to keep in mind in the discussion of divorce and remarriage. We agree with his discussion on what constitutes adultery in Matthew 19:9 so we will focus on the second passage discussed.

First, Dobson alleges that 2 Corinthians 5:17 sanctions the notion that it “includes divorce prior to salvation,” leading him to conclude:

when the marriage and divorce occurred prior to salvation, I believe God grants His “new creation” the freedom to remarry.[7]

James Dobson, Love Must Be Tough: New Hope for Families in Crisis (1983)

Dobson’s view hinges upon a phrase in this passage, namely “old things.” “Old things” as part of the “new creature” is typological imagery that supports the real emphasis of the verse, namely, that of a new creation. The person –not his/her marital situation– is made “new.” Paul had said previously to the Corinthian church that some of them had been adulterers (1 Cor 6:9-10) but not anymore because of their conversion (1 Cor 6:11). They changed their behavior. Conversion requires a change in behavior (Acts 2:38), it is not a simply a status change.

The third discussion Dobson enters is based upon a misrepresentation of 1 Corinthian 7:25-40. Dobson alleges that if a Christian is abandoned the believer has a right to remarry. Maybe there are other circumstances involved in the abandonment (i.e., adultery), but that is not discussed in this passage. Paul, however, argues that the abandoned spouse is not under an obligation -enslaved- to follow the departing spouse. The emphasis here is about fidelity to God’s sexual and marital laws (cf. 7:1ff). In fact, earlier in the passage Paul addresses “the married” and the potential of a legal separation,[8] to which he clearly gives two options: remain separated or be reconciled (1 Cor 7:10-11).

These are significant drawbacks from an otherwise really helpful book. I further understand that many would disagree with my critique of Dobson’s view. Still, neither conversion nor mere abandonment is biblical grounds for divorce and a subsequent remarriage.

Concluding Thoughts

In the final analysis, the book is generally sound and very helpful. But, because of the material on divorce and remarriage, I would recommend an alternative to sharing its articulation Dobson’s love must be tough strategy. Perhaps create a series of handouts (with due credit) with the strategies listed and illustrated. Or, recommendations to people well versed in the scriptural teachings on marriage, divorce, and remarriage. The material on self-worth and boundaries is the relevant and helpful element of Dobson’s work.

Dobson tackles a hard issue but the counsel he offers is advantageous. It is dated somewhat. For that reason, I would use Love Must Be Tough as a supplemental work to the more current volume by Henry Cloud and John Townsend, Boundaries in Marriage.[9] “Boundaries,” as Cloud and Townsend articulate, help to develop the issues Dobson is concerned with: a healthy sense of identity, personal responsibility, and mutual accountability. So, in the end, I offer a limited recommendation of Dobson’s book for the counselor and minister.

Endnotes

  1. “James Dobson,” Wikipedia.org.
  2. Nancy Moultrie Rockstroh, “Love Must Be Tough: Proven Hope for Families in Crisis,” Primary Care Companion to the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 2.6 (Dec. 2000): 229.
  3. Rockstroh, “Love Must Be Tough.”
  4. James Dobson, Love Must Be Tough: New Hope for Families in Crisis (1983; repr., Waco, TX: Word, 1996), 176.
  5. Dobson, Love Must Be Tough, 176.
  6. Dobson, Love Must Be Tough, 129-33.
  7. Dobson, Love Must Be Tough, 130.
  8. It is documented by R. L. Roberts, Jr., very clearly that the passive phrase “to be separated” (Grk. choristhenai) in these verses is a “technical expression for divorce” as it exists in ancient legal documents before and during the apostolic era (“The Meaning of Chorizo and Douloo in 1 Corinthians 7:10-17,″ Restoration Quarterly 8.3 [1965]: 179-80). Consequently, those that only see a “separation” as we commonly conceive of it as temporary “space” between spouses are unreasonably limiting the meaning of this word here.
  9. Henry Cloud and John Townsend, Boundaries in Marriage (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1999).