A very rough guide to Calvin's theology: The Trinity

I sometimes wonder if the doctrine of the Trinity is neglected in contemporary Evangelical Christianity. We will arise to defend the doctrine in the face of attacks from so-called Jehovah's Witnesses and Islam. But is the biblical revelation that God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit a defining feature of the teaching, life and worship of our churches? How many of our hymns are explicitly Trinitarian? In our prayers are we conscious that we are calling upon the Father in the name of the Son in the presence of the Spirit? Does the Trinity feature much in our preaching and teaching? To all intents and purposes are many Evangelicals practical Unitarians? I’ve lost count of the number of times that I’ve heard believers begin their prayers by addressing the Father and then go on to thank him for dying on the cross!

Calvin can help us here. In the Institutes, you could almost say that the doctrine of the Trinity is his doctrine of God. The Reformer does not reflect on the Trinity after a prolonged discussion of the being and attributes of God. Without warning he simply introduces the subject in Book I , Chapter 13, "The Unity of the Divine Essence in Three Persons Taught, in Scripture, from the Foundation of the World". Calvin insists that God has revealed himself to us in Scripture as One God in three persons; Father, Son and Holy Spirit. He would have preferred a minimalist doctrine of the Trinity, saying, 'I wish, indeed that such names [theological terms like person, substance, etc] were buried, provided all would concur in the belief that the Father, Son, and Spirit, are one God, and yet that the Son is not the Father, nor the Spirit the Son, but each has his peculiar subsistence.' But in order to clarify and safeguard the truth in the face of heresy, Calvin was willing to employ the traditional formula that in the one divine essence there are three persons.

Contrary to more speculative teaching on the begotteness of the Son, the Reformer stressed that the Son did not receive his deity from the Father. He is God in his own right [autotheos] alongside the Father and the Spirit. The begotteness of the Son and spiration of the Holy Spirit should be understood relationally rather than causally. The Father is not to be conceived as the "fountainhead of the deity", communicating the divine essence to the Son and the Spirit. "the Godhead is absolutely of itself. And hence also we hold that the Son, regarded as God, without reference to his person, is also of himself; though we also say that, regarded as Son, he is of the Father. Thus his essence is without beginning, while his person has its beginning in God". (I:XIII:25). The Son, in his divine essence is I AM, the self-existing God. He does not derive his deity from the Father. He is Son in relation to the Father, but he is God because he is God. In the Godhead there is an order of persons; Father, Son and Holy Spirit, but no gradation of deity. Thus Calvin helped to correct subordinationist tendencies in the church's doctrine of the Trinity.

For Calvin, the doctrine of the Trinity is not a matter of abstract theological reasoning. We confess this truth on the basis of divine self-revelation in Scripture. The Reformer shows us that the Trinity of the godhead must be central to the teaching, life and worship of the Church. We should take great delight in the fact that by grace we have been brought into communion with the one God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Calvin commended Gregory of Nazianzus' wonderfully meditative teaching on the Trinity,

"No sooner do I conceive of the One than I am illumined by the Splendour of the Three; no sooner do I distinguish Them than I am carried back to the One. When I think of any One of the Three I think of Him as the Whole, and my eyes are filled, and the greater part of what I am thinking of escapes me. I cannot grasp the greatness of That One so as to attribute a greater greatness to the Rest. When I contemplate the Three together, I see but one torch, and cannot divide or measure out the Undivided Light."

Blogging in the name of the Lord: Rob Bradshaw

This is the fourth in a series of interviews with Christian bloggers. In the hot seat today is...

Rob Bradshaw

GD: Hello Rob Bradshaw and welcome to Exiled Preacher. Please tell us a little about yourself.

RB: Hello Guy. I’m a graduate of Bangor University (where I became a Christian during my first year) and of Mattersey Hall Bible College (Assemblies of God) 8 years later. In the past I’ve worked for TEAR Fund in Nepal and for a short time with a church in Vancouver, British Columbia. My most unusual job was carrying out a tree survey of Windsor Safari Park prior to it becoming Legoland (they locked the lions up first!). For the last 9 years I have worked for the Deo Gloria Trust as administrator of the national follow-up service Contact for Christ. In 2001 I launched a series of websites intended to provide free resources for Bible students – particularly those in the developing world - which I run in my spare time. I am married with three little boys whom we homeschool.

GD: You have several blogs, BiblicalStudies, TheologicalStudies, EarlyChurch, MedievalChurch and Missiology, what made you get into blogging in such a big way?

RB: The main reason for the blogs is to keep visitors updated when new material is added (in that sense they are what you might call “announcement blogs”). When your site reaches over 500 pages you begin to suffer from the law of diminishing returns – you have to do more work to make it look like the site is still active. Announcing new material gets round this problem and also makes sure that new material is picked up by the search engines quickly.

GD: What are the strengths and weaknesses of blogging as a medium for theological/ reflection?

RB: I think that blogs dealing with the Bible (the “Biblioblogs”) have been great at creating a sense of community amongst laypeople and scholars working in this field. Perhaps one of the weaknesses is that on controversial subjects those who disagree with you are more vocal in the comments than those who agree (perhaps they don’t want to be ‘flamed’ themselves). I noted this in the past when I wrote about the role of women in the church and in my critique of the teachings of Brian McClaren.

GD: It is evidently a good thing that sites like "Biblical Studies.org.uk" and "Theology on the Web" have made theological resources readily available on the internet. We should use modern means of communication just like the Reformers utilised the printing press. But do you think that there is a danger that "Googling" can sometimes replace proper thought, reflection and research? What can be done to avoid producing "instant experts" who have read something on the net and then think they know it all?

RB: Absolutely – but that’s not the medium’s fault. The solution is better education to get students to refer to printed material when they can access it. My own concern is to provide good theological material to those in countries where no printed version is available. In the past the poor quality of material available has been an issue, but with more and more theological journals making heir back issues available free on-line that is changing.

GD: Who has had the greatest influence on your theological development?

RB: Shortly after I became a Christian I was introduced by a student at Bangor to the teaching ministry of the late Roger Price of Chichester Christian Fellowship. Roger’s enthusiasm for the Word of God was contagious and gave me a real thirst to know more. While I have since learned that on some points his enthusiasm led him in the wrong direction (on minor issues) his teaching provided me with a grounding that I will always be grateful for.

GD: If time travel were possible, which figure from post-biblical Church history would you most like to meet and what you say to him/her?

RB: F.F. Bruce – I’d like to thank him for his work in reestablishing evangelical scholarship.

GD: You often express concern over the state of our nation, highlighting some rather alarming stories of Christians being questioned by the authorities over their beliefs. How did we get into a situation where mounted police confronted a Christian for handing out Easter leaflets on the street?

RB: It’s a good question. I think that Evangelicals are suffering from a crisis of faith in the face of the rise of postmodernism. It takes courage to assert that we have a source of authority beyond our own opinions in the face of a society that denies any absolute authority.

GD: The forthcoming Equality Bill threatens to remove our freedom to say that homosexual conduct is wrong. What can we do to express concern over this matter?

RB: Every Christian should contact their MP and explain why this change should not be made in the first instance. I would also recommend that your readers support the work of the Christian Institute as they work to oppose the change.

GD: Is the traditional evangelical stance on homosexuality based on selective use of biblical texts? For example we quote Leviticus 18:22 on the issue, but we don't follow the regulations prohibiting clothing with mixed materials, Leviticus 19:19.

RB: Unless I had time to explain to someone how to interpret the OT law first (see here) I don’t think I would start to argue from Leviticus. The New Testament teaching on the subject is clear and is consistent with that of the Old.

GD: How can pastors help prepare their churches for what may be tough times ahead for Christians in the UK?

RB: Sorry – I’m not a pastor and wouldn’t presume to tell them what to do beyond encouraging them to teach the whole of Scripture.

GD: In the past, revivals have had a dramatic impact on society. Should we just batten down the hatches and hope for revival to come?

RB: No, I believe that we need a revival of the Word of God starting with families reading the Bible together, learning it, talking about it in their day to day lives. I have heard from Bible College lecturers how Biblical knowledge even amongst those preparing for ministry is declining. Recently I even heard a minister apologise for preaching from the Old Testament. We should be ashamed of this!

GD: What is the most helpful theological book that you have read in the last twelve months? It is a must read because?

RB: Not in the last 12 months, but the most helpful one I have read is Gordon Fee and Douglaw Stuart’s 'How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth'. Having read widely in hermeneutics I have noted how Fee & Stuart have carefully distilled down a great deal of material in order to produce this book. I would place it in the hands of anyone who is serious with getting to grips with the Scriptures.

GD: Care to share your top three songs or pieces of music?

RB: I rarely listen to music, but my wife and I devour unabridged audio books in the evenings. Our favourites are the works of P G Wodehouse, C.S. Lewis and J K Rowling.

GD: What is the biggest problem facing evangelicalism today and how should we respond?

RB: We are losing our young people to the World. At the risk of being controversial I agree with Dr Voddie Baucham when he says that this is due to the professionalization of youth ministry and the decline of role of the family. What previously was the responsibility of the parents – teaching the Children the Bible - has been taken over in many churches by a member of staff. I am in favour of family integrated churches (rare in the UK) where all age groups stay and worship together throughout the service.

GD: Which blogs do you enjoy reading and why?

RB: Voddie Baucham’s – although he seems to the little known in the UK what he says (see above) strikes a chord with me.

GD: Thanks for dropping by for this conversation Rob, and for all your efforts in making good theology resources avaliable on the internet.

A very rough guide to Calvin's theology: Knowing God

Calvin opens the Institutes with this statement, 'Our wisdom, in so far as it ought to be deemed true and solid wisdom, consists almost entirely of two parts: the knowledge of God and of ourselves.' For Calvin the whole point in doing theology (although he did not like that term) was to gain wisdom that we might live for the glory of God. God has revealed himself to us in creation. Each human being has a sense that God exists – Romans 1:18ff. In our sin we distort and suppress this sense of God, but its witness cannot be totally eradicated from the human heart. We know enough to be held accountable for our unbelief and idolatry Romans 1:18ff.

But if we are to be saved from sin, we need God to reveal himself to us as our Redeemer. He has done this in Holy Scripture, where God accommodates himself to our capacities that we might know him as our Saviour in the Lord Jesus Christ. God is infinite and we are finite. God is holy and we are sinners. He is way beyond is. Yet in Scripture, God has stooped to reveal himself to us in a way that we can understand. In the Bible, we are not given knowledge what God is in himself, in his divine essence. God’s self-revelation in Scripture shows us what he is to us as our Redeemer. That is why the Bible uses anthropomorphisms such as God’s “right hand” or “the eyes of the Lord”, or his “back parts”. Such langue makes God’s ways understandable to us. We cannot conceive how God as an omniscient Spirit sees all things. But we take great comfort in the fact that “the eye of the Lord is upon the righteous” and that he “holds us in his hands”. Similarly, when God is said to “repent”. He does not really change his mind, but it may seem as if he does. We see a good example of this in the Book of Jonah. God threatens us with terrible judgements. We turn from our sin and seek his mercy in Christ. Then God relents from the threatened judgement. Now, the eternal purposes of the Lord are not subject to change on the basis of human actions. Indeed, our response to him in repentance and faith is a divinely enabled response. But those passages of Scripture that say that “God repented and did not destroy Nineveh” help us to understand very vividly how an eternal and unchangeable God relates to his time-bound creatures.

The Bible gives us divine self-revelation that is suited to our ability to receive it,

"For who even of slight intelligence does not understand that, as nurses commonly do with infants, God is wont in a measure to 'lisp' in speaking to us? Thus such forms of speaking do not so much express what God is like [in himself] as accommodate the knowledge of him to our slight capacity. To do this he must descend far beneath his loftiness." (Inst I:13:1).

But we are only able to receive Scripture as God’s Word through the witness of the Spirit. The Holy Spirit authenticates the Scriptures to the believer so that the Bible is received as the very Word of God. The Spirit also enables us to understand the essential message of Scripture concerning salvation in Christ.

A very rough guide to Calvin's theology: Biographical Sketch

Calvin's life

2009 marks the 500th anniversary of the birth of John Calvin. He was born on Tuesday 10th July 1509. The child of up-and–coming French parents was to become one of the greatest and most influential of the Protestant Reformers. Originally his father had him educated for a career in the church. But Gerard Calvin had second thoughts about that. The legal profession offered more lucrative rewards, so John had to change tack. He threw himself into the study of law. The young Calvin sat at the feet of some of the foremost jurists and Latin scholars of his day. His rigorous education would serve him well later in life when Calvin deployed his learning in the service of Biblical scholarship and Reformed theology.

We don’t know exactly when Calvin turned his back on the Roman Catholic Church with its corruptions and false teachings. But at some point he came under the influence of the Protestant faith. He wrote in the preface to his Commentary on the Psalms,

"since I was too obstinately devoted to the superstitions of Popery to be easily extricated from so profound an abyss of mire, God by a sudden conversion subdued and brought my mind to a teachable frame, which was more hardened in such matters than might have been expected from one at my early period of life. Having thus received some taste and knowledge of true godliness I was immediately inflamed with so intense a desire to make progress therein, that although I did not altogether leave off other studies, I yet pursued them with less ardour."

In August 1536 Calvin found himself in Swiss city of Geneva, where William Farel was struggling to reform the Church. Farel was desperately in need of allies in the work of Reformation. He recognised that Calvin had the necessary godliness, gifts and abilities to advance the Reformed cause. But the young Calvin was somewhat reluctant to get involved. He preferred the reclusive life of a scholar to that of a preacher in the tumultuous city of Geneva. But Farel was not to be put off. The need was desperate and he was not a man to take “no” for an answer. The fiery Farel turned up the heat on the timid Frenchman. He said that God would curse his studies should he refuse to lend his assistance to the Reformed cause. Farel’s words struck Calvin like a thunderbolt,

"By this imprecation I was so stricken with terror, that I desisted from the journey which I had undertaken; but sensible of my natural bashfulness and timidity, I would not bring myself under obligation to discharge any particular office."

Perhaps despite himself Calvin became the leading pastor and preacher in Geneva. At first the city resisted his attempts to reform the Church and sent him packing to Strasbourg for a couple of years. Calvin was happy in Strasbourg, where he became pastor to the French refugees. There he was given the freedom to implement his ideas for reforming the church. It was during his stay in Strasbourg that Calvin met his wife. But the pro-Reformation interests in Geneva had begun to get a grip on the city. They invited Calvin back. After the grief and trouble he had suffered during his first Genevan period, the Reformer was none too keen to return saying, “Rather would I submit to death a hundred times than to that cross on which I had to perish daily a thousand times over.”

But return he did. On the first Sunday Calvin reoccupied his pulpit in St. Peters Cathedral, he took up where he left off in his series of sermons on Colossians. It was business as usual.

The Reformer was above all a preacher. For one week in two he would preach every day and twice on Sundays. He produced learned and accessible commentaries on most books of the Bible. His reforming work in Geneva provided a pattern for Reformed churches across Europe. The Scottish preacher John Knox called Calvin’s Geneva “A most perfect school of Christ”.

Exhausted by his labours and racked by ill health, Calvin died on 27 May 1564. In accordance with his instructions, the self-effacing Reformer was buried in an unmarked grave.

Calvin the theologian

Calvin was one of the great theologians of the Reformation. Indeed, he can be ranked alongside Tertullian, Athanasius and Augustine as one of the foremost theologians of the church in all ages. In our exploration of some of the main themes in Calvin's theology, we will follow the contours of his Institutes of the Christian Religion. The Institutes began life in 1536 as a brief outline of Protestant doctrine. But over the years, Calvin updated expanded his work until it reached its final form in the definitive 1559 edition.

In the fully expanded Institutes, Calvin intended to provide a summary of the Christian truth in all its parts. With that summary in mind, people could then read their Bibles with greater understanding. Also, because he had discussed doctrinal issues at some length in the Institutes, he did not feel obliged to go over such points again in his commentaries,

"Having thus, as it were, paved the way, I shall not feel it necessary, in any Commentaries on Scripture which I may afterwards publish, to enter into long discussions of doctrines or dilate on common places, and will, therefore, always compress them. In this way the pious reader will be saved much trouble and weariness, provided he comes furnished with a knowledge of the present work as an essential prerequisite."

The Institutes is Calvin’s theological masterpiece. While Calvin did not set out to write a complete systematic theology, in the Institutes he gives us a thorough, warm and clear exposition and defence of Reformation doctrine. On the whole, Calvin avoided the speculative excesses of medieval scholastic theology. He was above all else a biblical theologian. But Calvin wasn't above using the insights of the scholastics when it suited his purpose. The remainder of this series will be something of a whistle-stop tour of some of the key themes in Calvin’s theology.

Calvin 500

Yes, next Friday, 10th July will mark the 500th anniversary of John Calvin's birth. Still wondering what all the fuss is about but can't afford to go to the swanky Calvin 500 Conference in Geneva? Never fear, dear reader. Cinderella shall go to the ball. Well, not quite. But in the next day or so I'll be starting a new series called, "A Very Rough Guide to Calvin's Theology" right here on this blog.

Some thoughts on the life and death of Michael Jackson

I was never really a great fan of Jackson's music, but his passing last Thursday calls for some reflection on the emptiness of modern day celebrity culture. His untimely death has sent his music rocketing back to the top of the charts. He has joined the immortals of rock and pop who died before their time, Buddy Holly, Elvis, Hendrix, Morrison etc. On one level, Jackson had it all, adoring fans, huge album sales and vast wealth. But his life was characterised by self-loathing, disfigurement, and scandal. He paid surgeons to refashion his face, but what he needed was the transformation of his soul. We can only really accept ourselves for who we are when we find acceptance with God. We are his broken image bearers. He accepts us for what we are in Christ, offers us forgiveness and promises us renewal. The Christian is being transformed into the image of the perfect Man, Jesus Christ. This includes not only the restoration of our spiritual lives in true righteousness and holiness, but also the hope of resurrection glory. Our lowly bodies, marked by age, disfigured by sin and bound for the grave will be raised up and made like the glorious body of the Lord Jesus Christ. No amount of plastic surgery can do for us what our mighty Saviour will do when he comes to summon the dead to life. Then those who believe in him will be raised incorruptible and immortal (1 Corinthians 15:50-58). Is that your hope?

Justin Taylor has gathered together some more reflections on Jackson's death here.

Young, Restless, Reformed by Colin Hansen

Young, Restless, Reformed: a journalist's journey with the new Calvinists,
Colin Hansen, Crossway, 2008, 160pp

Colin Hansen, a journalist with Christianity Today spent two years of his life mixing it with some of the top movers and shakers in Reformed Christianity in America. He had begun to notice a resurgence of interest in Reformed theology in some unexpected places and set out to investigate some of the reasons for this theological and spiritual renewal. It seems that a new generation of believers has grown tired with bog standard evangelicalism. They want depth, truth, and reality. And they are looking to Reformed theology, or more precisely, the sovereign God of biblical revelation to satisfy their longings and transform their lives.

Large conferences such as Passion, New Attitude and Together for the Gospel have exposed a new generation of believers to the Reformed faith. The ministry of John Piper is another factor. Piper's preaching (freely broadcast on the internet) and his books such as Desiring God have had a huge impact. Many cite Piper as the reason why they embraced the Reformed faith. But the Minneapolis pastor is certainly not the only influential figure. The long and faithful ministry of R. C. Sproul has had an effect. Al Mohler has been busily taking the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary back to its Calvinistic roots. Thousands of men are now leaving the seminary with Reformed convictions. As well as preachers with a more traditional Reformed stance like John MacArthur, leaders usually associated with the Charismatic movement are helping to spread the word. C. J. Mahaney of Sovereign Grace Ministries is both Charismatic and Reformed. John Piper and Wayne Grudem have also helped to introduce Charismatics, who are sometimes a little light on doctrine to the wonders of Reformed theology. The controversial Seattle pastor Mark Driscoll is reaching the unreachable with a combination of missional engagement with the culture and good old Calvinistic theology.

There are several key features of this renewed fascination with Calvinism. It seems to be a movement comprising mainly of the up and coming generation of believers who are weary with seeker sensitive megachurches. Reformed student missions are having a real impact on American campuses. It is young people who gather in their thousands at the large conference meetings.

The resurgence of the Reformed faith has crossed the dividing line between traditional Calvinistic churches and the Charismatic movement. This has had an impact on the worship style adopted at Together for the Gospel and other big conferences. Perhaps we can see something similar happening in the UK at the New Word Alive events. New Frontiers Charismatics who have embraced Reformed doctrine gather with Free Church and Anglican evangelicals to hear the likes of Don Carson against the backdrop of Charismatic style worship. It is surely a good thing that Charismatics are being drawn to the doctrines of grace. We should rejoice in that. But there are still some differences between the traditional Reformed Churches and our Reformed Charismatic brethren. The use of noisy music groups, song leaders and other accouterments of Charismatic worship is one of them. Then there is the issue of the continuation or not of the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit. Charismatic theology sometimes does not give enough emphasis to the fact that the Holy Spirit is active in the church in, by and with the Word. I'm not saying that fellowship with Calvinistic Charismatics should be curtailed, not at all. We stand united by the gospel of sovereign grace, but real differences should not be swept under the carpet.

The name of John Piper seems to pop up again and again in the book. I hope there isn't a danger of the new Calvinism becoming overly reliant on one man. In the second half of the 20th century Reformed evangelicalism in the UK was dominated by Dr. D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones and his death left a huge hole in the movement. Still today discussion in fraternals and conferences can be brought to a shuddering halt when an old timer recalls something that "the Doctor" said on an issue. Leadership of the Reformed resurgence in the States seems to be more collegiate. Perhaps there is less reliance on one central figure than was the case with "the Doctor", but a glance at the index will show that Piper does seem to feature rather a lot in Hansen's account.

Among the new Calvinists there is an appreciation for Jonathan Edwards and the Puritans. A chapter is devoted to Edwards, the 'Big Man on Campus' at Yale university. But above all, it seems that people are embracing Calvinism because they have seen that the Reformed faith is the faith of Scripture, deep and true. And contrary to what a UK-based critic of the new Calvinism had to say (see here), I don't think that what we have here is a merger of Calvinism and worldliness. From what I can see the "Young, Restless, Reformed" aren't simply embracing a form of intellectual Calvinism. They have gathered that truth properly understood transforms lives and calls for radical obedience to Christ. Some of them have endured painful opposition from their churches as they preached the sovereignty of God in salvation. At best they are passionate for holiness and concerned to reach the masses with the gospel of grace. New churches are being planted and there is a strong desire to proclaim Christ to the nations. We should not reject this movement as "worldly" simply because of concerns over musical styles. Reformed catholicity of spirit demands that love for the truth should be recognised and encouraged wherever we find it. Worldliness cannot be defined by a list of evangelical taboos. That approach is more Fundamentalist than Reformed.

Maybe I'm not best placed to judge on this, but I think that Hansen is overstating his case in suggesting that what we have here is revival. However, we should be grateful that many in America are returning to the deep wells of Reformed theology. A recovery of vibrant Calvinism that is God-centred, Christ exalting and Spirit dependent is surely to be welcomed.

Blogging in the name of the Lord: Jon Mackenzie

This is the third in a series of interviews with Christian bloggers. In the hot seat today is...

Jon Mackenzie

GD: Hello Jon Mackenzie and welcome to Exiled Preacher. Please tell us a little about yourself.

JM: Hey Guy. I am a white Caucasian male of medium build (11st 3os) and short height (5ft 7.5 ins). I was born in ’85 (making me 23) and yet I do not feel like a child of the eighties. My friends describe me invariably as a hyperchondriac (should that be ‘an’ hyperchondriac?) and, consequently, a pedant. I describe myself as a student – it has served me well as an appellation for the last 18 years so why change the habit of a lifetime? If you were to try and engage me in conversation, the following might be good loci from which to begin: theology, sport (almost any – I love football, cricket, golf, rugby (watching – not playing – refer to ‘medium build’), squash (playing), etc., etc.), I enjoy clever literature (i.e. I’m reading a lot of Will Self at the moment), spending time with friends, being active, sucking the marrow out of life. Having read this, you would probably describe me as a narcissist.

GD: Your blog is called "Mixophilosophicotheoligica", please explain.

JM: I first came across the phrase in a work by Eberhard Jüngel (God as the Mystery of the World, if you were wondering (pg 153, fn 1)). It comes from Abraham Calovius originally (a Lutheran scholar in the 17th Century) and doesn’t really mean much more than the mixing of philosophy and theology. Obviously, Jüngel and Barth are careful to avoid any ‘mixophilosophicotheologia’ in their theology. I tend to agree with them – theology doesn’t necessitate philosophy (or vice-versa). However, on my blog I am regularly mixing thoughts on both disciplines and so I thought that the name was quite fitting.

GD: So, it's got nothing to do with the horrible rabbit disease, myxomatosis. Now, what prompted you to start blogging?

JM: I really could’t say – I started blogging when I was about 15 I think just about life’s little exigencies (my old blog can be visited at http://www.yeah-i-blogged.blogspot.com/ but isn’t really worth visiting). I guess being a teenager, it was nice to know that I could feel as though I was making some difference in the world. The blog also introduced me to a whole network of friends who shared similar interests, etc., so I guess it gave me a certain amount of intellectual stimulation.

GD: Talking of intellectual stimulation, I remember your old blog where you made a rather desperate hint about doing a "proper" blog interview. You were afraid of being "left behind". You needn't have worried. Now, what are the strengths and weaknesses of blogging as a medium for theological reflection?

JM: For myself, I am not the sort of person who sits down and has ‘great thoughts’ – I suppose not many people are. I am a firm believer in distraction. One of the primary reason why there tends to be less creativity within the word today is, I think, undoubtedly linked to the inability within today’s society to use distraction properly. So these days, people will listen to music, for example, as a distraction from various epiphenomena so that they can concentrate on something more fully – in my experience, distraction has to be used more constructively – I like to listen to music whilst working because it acts as something outside my thought-process which constantly impinges upon my thinking and causes my mind to wander – to think of things that, without the music to distract me, I would never have conceived. Another technique I used, particularly in Scotland, was golf – occasionally I would play a round on my own when I had to think through an essay topic. The golf gave me a distraction which actually focused my mind on the topic and actually mixed up my thoughts about my game with my essay (it also helped my round – I only ever broke 80 when I played a round with a particularly thorny essay topic at hand!). This is why I love blogging. You get distracted, you related disparate topics, it makes you a better-rounded individual. This is, I think, a theological strength. Theology is a creative endeavour and blogging (properly done) can only benefit it.

With regards to the weakness of blogging for theological reflection, I would say that the blogging ethos is not necessarily apt for theological reflection. Often on blogs, arguments break out which are more concerned with secondary issues (concern to be ‘right’ or at least not to be ‘wrong’, misunderstanding of positions, love of tendentiousness, etc. – I’m pointing at myself more than anyone else). Ultimately, it takes a certain type of self-relation to begin blogging (i.e. I think I have something valuable to say which other people should hear) and sometimes we little egos clash and there is little theological benefit. (Obviously this isn’t always true but I feel as though this is exhibited in my own blogging escapades!)

GD: Who has had the greatest influence on your theological development?

JM: I’m not sure how to tackle this one. Do you mean tangible influences, external influences, creative influence or simply in terms of good advice? I’ll try and cover the whole gamut: in terms of doctrinal directions, I suppose I have been influenced mainly by my parents and various people within the churches that I have attended. To this end, I suppose I would describe myself as ‘Reformed’ (although I’m afraid I’m becoming more and more Lutheran – when pressed, I term myself ‘Refutheran’). However, in terms of classical Reformed theology I would not necessarily be categorised as Reformed. The way I look at it is that the Reformers were those who were ‘most right’ in many ways – however, there are a plethora of other theologians who were ‘more right’ than the Reformers on certain issues. Before I am labelled a ‘post-modern’ I want to say, I am certain that I would be able to tie down some dogmatic (i.e. anti-post-modern) position which I held to – it’s just that my influences are a bit spread out at the moment. I look forwards to a time when I could evince my position more clearly!

Academically, I’d divide my influences up in two ways: lecturers and professors, and theologians whose writings have influenced me. My lecturers at St Andrews were those who were most influencial – particularly Steve Holmes simply because he convinced me that I didn’t have to be embarrassed by my background theologically. Reformed (small ‘r’) theology isn’t the joke that it is made out to be in the Academe. Alan Torrance and Trevor Hart were also influential here.

In terms of theologians my Doktorvater is the German theologian Eberhard Jüngel (a Lutheran). I wrote my undergraduate dissertation on his theological methodology and he formed a large part of my recently completed masters’ thesis. Beyond this, I enjoy the 20th-Century German-speaking theologians (Brunner, Bonhoeffer, Barth, Bultmann, Pannenberg, although not Moltmann as much). Also von Balthasar is a bigger and bigger influence. Then we’re back into earlier theology – Reformation thought (Calvin, Luther, etc.), Patristics (Cappadocians, Athanasius, Irenaeus, etc.), Augustine. If I had to pick three: Calvin, Jüngel, Luther (in Chronological order).

GD: An eclectic mix there. What impact has studying theology at St. Andrews & Cambridge had on your theological position?

JM: A great deal. St Andrews taught me that Reformed theology wasn’t an oxymoron. It also taught me that Reformed theology could be good theology. I think the biggest change on my theological position has been in terms of wiggle-room. Before I began university I was fairly hard-line and unaccommodating with regards to theology – i.e. if it’s not 100% believed, it’s not 100% right. I think I have learned more and more that theology is a human endeavour and, therefore, is liable to human error or even simply human limitedness. To suggest that the totality of what ‘is’ can be depicted in human language is simply absurd. Therefore, theology is undeniably a human attempt to talk about God – it isn’t simply ‘what is the case’. However, the paradoxical part of such a claim is that God himself came into the world to disclose himself. Thus, we should be confident that we CAN talk about God because he enabled it in Jesus Christ. The theologian walks a fine line between over-confidence and mute awe.

Cambridge has taught me that theology is not simply factual but that theology is additionally beautiful. It is not that theology is a boring endeavour done by those who could not function within society. Instead, theology is the greatest of occupations. Theology is beautiful because it seeks to encompass linguistically the transcendent God who is beauty. Theology, therefore, is the interplay between truth and beauty to the extent that the truth about God cannot but be appreciated in its beauty. This is why the Narnia Chronicles are so gripping – Lewis, a true medievalist, appreciated that truth isn’t just cold, hard Enlightenment fact, but that it compels, it provokes a response. Theology should be the same – if it doesn’t produce a response in the hearer, it hasn’t got to grips with its subject matter (God) in the fullest sense.

GD: Why do you think that Barth is once again grabbing the attention of the theological world?

JM: I’ll just tender this question slightly – Barth has been huge in Protestant theology for the last 40 years. I suspect interest in Barth in academia is dwindling now for a couple of reasons – firstly, academia works on principles of originality and (after 40 years) Barth studies is finally drying up (although it will never abate, I suspect) – secondly, people are discovering different theologians. Here’s the point – Barth has been instrumental to theology for this reason: he made theology possible after the Enlightenment. I don’t know if you’ve read Susannah Clarke’s book Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell? It may not be everyone’s cup of tea, but I found it a fantastic allegory for the development of theology in the 20th Century. Basically, it describes a world where magic has become stale and purely theoretical before the arrival of a couple of ‘practical’ magicians arrive on the scene. The same is true in theology: after the rigours of modernist thinking, theology became simply theoretical – a ‘talking about’ theology rather than a ‘doing of’ theology. After Barth, who simply got on with it and wrote what he thought, rather than tendering it with methodological caveats, theologians realised that the Enlightenment critique was actually not to the detriment of theology, it simply clarified the theological task to a greater degree. Why is Barth great? Because without Barth, we might not be ‘doing’ theology now – we might simply be ‘talking about’ theology.

Barth is now dripping into evangelical thinking much more I agree. This is probably because we evangelicals are always careful to disagree with phenomena until they’re ‘out-dated’ and then we feel as though then we can see what all the fuss is about! I suspect that Barth could be very useful to evangelical theology. Barth teaches us how to ‘do’ theology. People may get het-up about his doctrine of scripture or alleged ‘universalism’ but that is to miss the brilliance of his theology – it was uncompromising in a time when theology had become a psychological study of innate human behaviour. It was Barth who suggested that perhaps theology was right and that God was really there.

GD: The recent book, 'Engaging with Barth' is a good example of "classic Reformed" theologians getting to grips with Barth (see here for an interview with co-editor, David Gibson). What is the subject of you postgrad thesis and why did you choose that particular area of theology? And how's it going?

JM: As a general rule, you should never ask a postgrad about his or her thesis unless you have a strong fortitude, lots of time and even more patience. I’ll try and keep it short. I have recently completed my masters thesis which will be worked up into a full PhD thesis I hope. My title for PhD thesis is “The Creative God and the Void called Subject: investigations towards a concept of Christian subjectivity”. The basic premise behind my work is that subjectivity has fallen out of philosophical and theological parlance (to their detriment). As a response, I’m trying to think what it means to be a ‘subject’ (most broadly an ‘individual’) within Christian theology – given that we believe that there is a God who is in control of the world. Ultimately, I am rejecting much of the modernist understanding of what makes us a subject and reversing it – the Enlightenment conceived of the subject in terms of positive ontological content (that just means ‘I’ am male, Caucasian, sporty, brown-haired, etc.) – I am using a modern philosopher who conceives of the subject as a void or precisely ‘nothing’. However, rather than just saying that I don’t exist, this language allows me to talk about a transcendental aspect of the subject – I am nothing because I don’t really fit into the empirical world – I cannot be described simply materially. I then go on to talk about the Christian doctrine of creatio ex nihilo (out of nothing) and talk about how the subject as a void allows us to express God’s interaction within the physical world. My main proposal is that this model actually fits into the Reformation understanding of the human person – so Luther’s distinction between inner and outer man, and the wider Reformation exploration of the Romans 7 man. Working with this language allows me to pass through a simple dualism of physical and spiritual (that is to say, spiritual and physical suggest two concomitant spatial ‘realms’) and suggest that we should think in terms of ‘actuality’ (what is the case) and ‘possibility’ (the options available to God). I’m sorry if this all seems a little incoherent – I’ll be working on making it a little more coherent over the next few years!

GD: What kind of am impact have theological studies had on your Christian life?

JM: I think they have made me more excited. Before I began studying I had almost got to a position where theology was superfluous – it had all been done before and you just pointed people to the right passage in the Institutes - job done. Now God feels much more of a reality to me in the sense that I find it much easier to conceive of him as an ‘actor’ within this world rather than just some remote static point which didn’t move. That is not to say I adopt a ‘process’ position (me genoite!) but to say that God being real is now far beyond a simple epistemological accession to God existing i.e. being ‘real’, but now far more real in the existential sense – I feel as though now I am living in a more tangible relationship with the living God who I can speak about and yet who transcends even my clearest exposition of who he is. My theology doesn’t make me a better expositor – but it does make me a better expector. That is a bad catch-phrase but I feel as though it comes closest to answering your question! Apologies!

GD: What do you hope to do once you studies are completed?

JM: Never suggest to me that being a student is a finite endeavour! I never want to lose the dream. Jokes aside – (tax payers insert joke here as a counter) – I envisage a life in academia. However, I hope to be more useful than simply life-long student – I see myself teaching in the future (be it in university, seminary, etc.). My long-term goal is to allow others to think of their faith in God in such a way that it is evangelical. I don’t see my role as a ‘higher level’ role – bringing others to a position where they can tell others – but rather to excite people about how great God is (even if that is through our own inability to describe how great he is!) so that the only response available is to go out and tell others about the revelation of God through Jesus Christ.

GD: If time travel were possible, which figure from post-biblical church history would you like to meet and what would you say to him/her?

JM: I imagine Luther would have been fun to hang around with. I wouldn’t necessarily have a burning issue to discuss (apart from possibly the communicatio idiomatum of course!) but it’d be cool to chat to him for a couple of days. If I’m honest, I’m happy enough talking to anyone about theology! The real object of my time travel fantasies would be far less ‘theological’ (I’m almost embarrassed to say). Winston Churchill. Pink Floyd in their hey-day. Cambridge when Fry and Laurie were in Footlights. (I have a strongest urge to meet Hugh Laurie!)

GD: Winston Churchill, Pink Floyd and Hugh Laurie aren't strictly a figures from church history, so I'm not sure that the Exiled Preacher Time Machine can accommodate you there, but Luther would be OK. Care to name your top three songs or pieces of music?

JM: No but I will make some observations: I really like Lily Allen’s music (although there are certain songs I would NEVER listen to). I would only listen to one opera which is Les pêcheurs de perles by Georges Bizet. The Beatles are over-rated. Jazz is actually better the older you get. Learn an instrument as a child – it IS worth it.

GD: What is the most helpful theological book that you have read in the last twelve months? It is a must read because...

JM: Richard Muller’s book 'The Unaccommodated Calvin'. I’m presenting a paper at a Calvin conference at our church this summer on Calvin’s methodology. This book has been a real insight into the theological context of Calvin’s writing. It is a must read because we shroud Calvin in mystery, much of which is unhelpful.

GD: I've been reading Muller's 'God, Creation and Providence in the Thought of Jacob Arminius'. It was a challenging read to say the least. What is the biggest problem facing evangelicalism today and how should we respond?

JM: Two things: Dualism where we seem to think that the spiritual is a realm which exists side-by-side with the physical and which will end up in Christianity becoming more sterile and Christians distancing themselves from the world. How do we combat it? Read the Bible carefully to understand how the spiritual realm is quite simply the work of the Spirit within the world. We are physical beings – we are nothing outside the physical realm in some sense. However, as Christians, we know that there is more possible beyond the physical realm – the realm where the Spirit will work within the world according to the purpose of God through Jesus Christ. Secondly, promoting theology to a position it can never hold. In evangelical theology, there seems to be some assumption that theology is the ‘truth’ about God. However, often we humans mess up and so we must be able to conceive that our theology might not be accurate (even though we hold to it 100%). If there were a little more humility within evangelical theology, there might be a lot less misunderstanding between evangelical theology and much of which is unnecessarily opposed to it.

GD: Which blogs do you find most helpful and why?

JM: I guess I follow about 80 blogs (using bloglines) – some theology blogs, others blogs of friends and acquaintances. It’d be hard to list them. I follow Ben Myer’s blog as a rule simply because it is a useful hub for theological blogging. I do enjoy your blog – especially the willingness with which you engage with those who you disagree with, reading around the subject rather than making ad hominem attacks out of context. Sorry for being a creep! I used to love Alastair Roberts blog (alastair.adversaria) but unfortunately he’s packed in for the meanwhile – maybe when he’s ensconced in his PhD position he’ll bring it out of retirement. Alastair is another huge influence – I should probably have answered your questions better! Thinking back there was so much more I could have said which remains unsaid. Thanks for the opportunity to talk about myself to people who are probably bored of me by now. I hope there is something helpful amongst all the sludge.

GD: Thanks for dropping by for this chat, Jon. All the best with your studies!

Ben Midgley on Tips for Preacher's Confidantes

Ben and his confidante, Sian

Earlier today my good friend Ben Midgley spoke to our local Ministers' Fraternal on 'Tips for preacher's confidante'. It was Ladies' Day, so pastors could bring their wives along, hence the focus on 'confidantes'.

Ben introduced the subject in a typically lively and interesting way. The Lord has given us wives that they might be suitable helpers for us (Genesis 2:18). How may pastors' wives best help ther husbands to be better preachers and pastors? A good way to approach this question is to look at the pastoral practice of the apostles. We worked through several passages in Acts that give us a glimpse into the apostles' pastoral work. Rather than commenting on these verses himself, Ben invited discussion from the meeting. There were insightful contributions from pastors and their wives.

Acts 5:3-4 - Peter treated Ananias and Sapphira as grown-ups not children, holding them accountable for their actions.

Acts 6:2-4 - The apostles prioritized prayer and preaching, but did not neglect practical matters. They delegated work to other suitably godly and gifted men rather than micromanaging everything themselves.

Acts 8:20-23 - Peter denounced Simon Magus for offering to buy the ability to bestow the Holy Spirit. We should not be swayed by those who hold the purse strings. In church life he who pays the piper may not call the tune.

Acts 11:4-17 - Peter showed good people skills in explaining his actions to the church. He carried the church with him so that by the end of his address they shared his vision and glorified God for saving the Gentiles.

Acts 15:1 - Paul and Barnabas were willing to stand up to false teachers whose doctrine undermined the gospel and threatened the unity of the church. We need to confront heresy and be willing to stand up to those who would divide the church on secondary matters.

Acts 15:32-35 - At Antioch men with various gifts collaborated to strengthen the believers. We should be willing to allow others to share in the work of exhorting and teaching the church. Is our preaching strengthening believers?

Acts 19:9 - Paul was willing to listen as well as speak.

Acts 20:7-11 - Paul showed even handling of different people and circumstances.

Various points were also made with regard to the manner of the apostles' preaching as evidenced in their letters.

Variety and liveliness. Warmth, humanity and engagement. Intimate without being light, or insubstantial. Deep communion. Variety of tone, adaptability. Respectful to from, practicality and courtesy. Tackling different subjects firmly. Appropriate poetry. Presence. Ultimately Christ centred, reverent and worshipful of God.

With this checklist in mind our longsuffering wives should be able to offer constructively critical feedback when we ask "How do you think the service went tonight, love?"

After the meeting we had a lovely alfresco lunch. An encouraging time was had by all.

Blogging in the name of the Lord: R. Scott Clark

This is the second in a series of interviews with Christian bloggers. In the hot seat today is...

R. Scott Clark

GD: Hello R. Scott Clark and welcome to Exiled Preacher. Please tell us a little about yourself.

RSC: Hello Guy. Thanks for the invitation. I became a broadly-evangelical Christian in the mid-70s. I found the Reformed faith (or perhaps I should that it found me!) about 1980. I was raised in the midwest of the USA and attended seminary at Westminster Seminary California and served a congregation in Kansas City, Missouri (pronounced "Miz-ur-rah" in Kansas City) from 1987-93. For the next two years my family and I were in Oxford, UK pursuing graduate studies. After that we were in Wheaton, IL at Wheaton College. I've been back at Westminster Seminary California since 1997.

GD: Your blog is called 'The Heidelblog' please explain.

RSC: The title is a reference to the home of the German Reformed Church and theology, Heidelberg. It's also a pretty blatant plagiarizing of Kim Riddlebarger's "Riddleblog."

GD: What made you start blogging?

RSC: I began the HB as a way to comment on the Heidelberg Catechism (1563), a worthy project from which I've been diverted and to which I need to return. Somewhere I read that "writers write." I needed a place to write on a regular basis and to try to do on a more public basis what I found myself doing privately by email, namely, answering questions.

GD: What are the strengths and weaknesses of blogging as a medium for theological reflection?

RSC: One strength is that it has taught me certain particularly sinful habits and attitudes and thence it has taught me humility. It regularly reinforces to me the limits of my abilities and reading. The immediacy of the medium puts me quickly into contact with a wide range of questions and issues of which I would otherwise be ignorant. It usually takes months or longer to get an article into print and it usually takes at least a year to get a book into print. Because it can be done so quickly it can be a great way to start or have a conversation and to try out new ideas. It is not a good medium for presenting detailed, careful, academic research. Because blogging lacks editorial controls it demands of the writer the virtues of self-control and prudence—virtues that are not as much in evidence in me as they should be.

GD: Who has had the greatest influence on your theological development?

RSC: Packer's 'Knowing God' and Calvin's 'Institutes' were the first Reformed works I read. I'm sure that they have shaped me in ways of which I'm not even aware. Bob Strimple's biblical-exegetical approach to systematic theology at WSC laid strong foundations. Bob Godfrey's lectures in church history put me into contact with the whole Christian tradition. Reading 16th- and 17th-century Reformed orthodoxy (especially Wollebius) Recently I think I've been most influenced by Mike Horton's series with WJKP and by Darryl Hart's work (especially, 'The Lost Soul of American Protestantism').

GD: Why should today's Christians be interested in church history and historical theology?

RSC: Christians are redeemed by Christ alone (sola gratia, sola fide) to be a part of the covenant community, i.e. the visible church. The church did not begin last week. It has a history and every Christian, by virtue of the the fact of being a Christian, is a part of a historic tradition. Consider the very name "Christian." We are given the name of Christ in baptism. It is a historic name (given to us by others). It is the name of a historic person, God the Son who entered into history to be our Redeemer. Thus our faith itself is grounded in the history of salvation. The Christian faith is unavoidably historical. The way we worship, the way we read Scripture, the way we think of God, man, Christ, sin, salvation, the church, sacraments, last things, and the Christian life are all conditioned by history. Thus the question is not whether we are going think about history but whether we are going to do it well.

GD: There has been a reassessment of the value of scholastic theology in the last few years. What can Reformed Christians learn from the scholastics?

RSC: Much in every way. They mediated to us a theology, piety, and practice. Many of the great Protestant confessions were formed by and under the influence of Protestant orthodoxy. They gave us our vocabulary, a hermeneutic, an approach to worship, to prayer, to the Christian life that we've been begun to recover.
For much of the modern period we were tempted to try to think of the history of the church after the medieval period as consisting of the Reformation and modern churches. We sort of leap-frogged the post-Reformation church and theology. In this view we were too often willing victims of Enlightenment hostility to a rich resource for theology and church life. Now, however, thanks to the pioneering work of a number of scholars in the 70s and 80s we've begun to clear away the vines from a solid old footbridge between the Reformation and the modern church and we've found there was much to learn. My students can't imagine what it be like to be without Ursinus, Ames, Wollebius, Turretin, or Wtisius, just to name a few.

GD: David Bebbington famously claimed (in 'Evangelicalism in Modern Britian') that evangelicalism is largely a product of the 18th century Enlightenment. What do you make of his thesis?

RSC: It's all a matter of definition. If the adjective "evangelical" is used in its original Protestant sense, then "evangelical" simply means "confessional" or "magisterial Protestant." It refers to the recovery of the biblical (and Pauline) doctrine of justification in the Reformation, the Reformation doctrine that acceptance with God is by God's undeserved favor alone and received through faith resting in and receiving Christ and his righteousness imputed alone as the ground of acceptance with God. It refers to the notion that salvation (justification and sanctification) is mediated through the visible church, through the preaching of the gospel and administration of the sacraments. It refers to the hermeneutical/theological distinction between law and gospel. As a matter of sociology and modern history, the modern evangelical movement is, in many important ways deeply influenced by modernity. The theology, piety, and practice mediated to us by the so-called "First Great Awakening" is at least partly indebted to the idealism of the Cambridge Platonists. The subjectivism of modern the evangelical movements is indebted to Romanticism. Modern fundamentalism was influenced by Enlightenment rationalism. In 'Recovering the Reformed Confession' I describe the subjectivist impulse of modern evangelical religion as the Quest for Illegitimate Religious Experience (QIRE), i.e. the desire to experience God without mediation. This quest was fueled partly by a reaction to the doubt and fear created by early modern criticisms of the faith. The rationalism of modern fundamentalism reflects the Quest for Illegitimate Religious Certainty (QIRC) or the desire to know things the way God knows them as distinct from the way he reveals himself to us. It is a desire to get behind revelation.
There is also a real question as to whether there really is such a thing as "evangelicalism," at least in North America. The project of the modern evangelicals, especially since the mid-1940s was to form an alliance organized around a common religious experience and a high view of Scripture. The movement was intentionally churchless. The minimalism of the neo-evangelical movement, however, did not prepare it well for what was to come. Today, in North America, it's almost impossible to say what makes one "evangelical" since there is no common doctrine of God, man, Christ, salvation, church, sacraments or last things. For example, the split over "Evangelicals and Catholics Together" revealed that there was no longer even a common definition of "the gospel" or of justification and that was the material doctrine of justification. There's been no shared doctrine of Scripture since at least the early 70s. Thus, Darryl Hart, in 'Deconstructing Evangelicalism', has questioned whether "evangelicalism" even exists anymore.

GD: You have written on "Recovering the Reformed Confession". If "the Bible alone is the religion of Protestants", why do we need confessions of faith?

RSC: In the book I use the word "confession" in two ways. In the first and narrow sense it refers to those public, authoritative, ecclesiastical summaries of the Word adopted by the Reformed churches in the 16th and 17th centuries. In the broader sense, however, it refers to the theology, piety, and practice of the Reformed churches that forms the context for those documents and in light of which they must be read. I wrote the book to try to encourage those who identify with the Reformed faith to see the confessions as the definition of the adjective "Reformed." Too many folk think that the doctrine of predestination is the alpha and omega of Reformed theology. The Reformed churches know nothing of such a definition! The Reformed churches confess much more than divine sovereignty and predestination. They confess a holistic theology, a distinct piety (that is neither pentecostal nor sterile), a churchly, sacramental practice of the faith. So the confessions themselves are essential to being Reformed and to recovering an authentic Reformed identity and life. Confessions are unavoidable. Every Christian has a confession, even if very brief. "No creed but Christ" is still a confession. The church has always confessed her faith whether in the Shema of Deut 6:4 or in 1 Tim 3:16, to name but two places. So the question is whether one will have a confession that reflects the scope of biblical revelation and practice. The original evangelicals were confessing people. Modern evangelicals have experimented with churchless, "creed-less" Christianity for two centuries and it has been a failure. We should take note of Luther, Bucer, Bullinger, and Calvin and of all the great Protestant churches of the Reformation in virtually every place. They were all confessing churches.

GD: What factors under God have led to a widespread recovery of Reformed teaching in the States?

RSC: If you're referring to the 'Young, Restless, and Reformed' movement or the increased interest in divine sovereignty among some segments of evangelicalism, that is a cause for encouragement. The doctrines of grace essential to the historic evangelical faith but they are just an on-ramp to Reformed theology. The most obvious cause for a turn to the doctrines of grace is the vacuous, narcissistic, therapeutic, and moralistic nature of so much modern "evangelical" theology, piety, and practice. The baby-boom generation largely wrecked what they inherited from Carl Henry (and that inheritance was problematic). It is not surprising that the children of those ruins have begun to cast about for an alternative. I hope they don't try to add a doctrine of divine sovereignty to the rickety house of modern evangelicalism.

GD: If time travel were possible, which figure from post-biblical Church history would you most like to meet and what you say to him/her?

RSC: Oh, this is very difficult choice for a historian! I have questions for some many different people. I think I would enjoy talking to Luther more than to Calvin (whom, I fear, I might find a little solemn). I would ask Luther about his view of baptism (did he really teach baptismal regeneration?) and his view of Calvin.

GD: Martin Luther said that when it comes to contending for the faith we should fight for the truth that is most under attack at any given time. Where is the battle raging most fiercely today?

RSC: The most fundamental question of the modern (early and late) period has been the authority and reliability of Scripture. The great question of the pre-modern period was, "What has God said?" The Roman and Protestant communions gave different answers but they they agreed that divine authority is pre-eminent. In the modern period the question became, "Has God said?" Of course that's not a modern question The current attempt to revise the doctrine of justification is probably a manifestation of that problem. It has been in the background for the last two decades but it appears to be re-emerging into the foreground. Related to both of these is the hermeneutical crisis of the last several decades. These were the formal and material issues of the Reformation: sola Scriptura and sola fide so it shouldn't surprise us too much to see that they are the most basic issues we face today.

GD: What is the most helpful theological book that you have read in the last twelve months? It is a must read because?

RSC: This is very difficult to answer. For one thing my interests tend toward history and historical theology. One volume that stands out might be Herman Selderhuis, 'Calvin's Theology of the Psalms' (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007). Everyone should read it because it's a model of how to read texts and how to write about them winsomely.

GD: Care to share your top three songs or pieces of music?

RSC: In no particular order here are three tunes I always turn up.
Green Onions, Booker T and the MGs
I Wanna Be Sedated, Ramones
Gimme Shelter, Rolling Stones

GD: Tell us three things you know about Wales and the Welsh.

RSC: The Welshmen I know (and have known) have
1) a wonderful grasp of the English language
2) a dry sense of humor
3) dislike generalizations about the Welsh

GD: You must be thinking of your colleague at WTS, Hywel Jones, who was Principal of the London Theological Seminary when I studied there many years ago. Do give him my regards. Now, what is the biggest problem facing evangelicalsim today and how should we respond?

RSC: There are three great problems: Christlessness, Wordlessness, and churchlessness. The very fact that there is likely no such thing as "evangelicalism," i.e., virtually no common confession among those who identify themselves as "evangelicals" signals the magnitude of the problem faced by those who identify themselves as evangelicals. They are bound together by a common experience of or quest for the immediate experience of the divine but they are united in and defined by little else. Such could not have been said about the original evangelicals. The original evangelicals were united by their understanding of the gospel, the doctrine of justification and the unique and normative authority of Scripture as God's Word and by their conviction that God has promised to work savingly in the visible, institutional church through Word and sacrament. Modern evangelicals have really been gradually becoming Anabaptist in their approach to theology, piety, and practice since the 1970s. However passionate the Anabaptists were they were not Protestants and they were not evangelicals. The Christian hope is not grounded in immediate experience of the divine presence nor in continuing, extra-biblical revelation, but in the good news of the risen Savior revealed in the inerrant, canonical Word of God and sealed in divinely instituted sacraments and administered in the visible church.

GD: Which blogs do you enjoy reading and why?

RSC: I'm subscribed to more than I should admit. I am enjoying many, including this one. If I had to pick five (with apologies to all the other outstanding blogs):
Martin Downes, Against Heresies
Darryl Hart and John Muether, Old Life Theological Society
The Confessional Outhouse (Zrim, Rick, and Ruberad)
Creed or Chaos (Brannan and Chaos)
Adiaphora

These, among others, come to mind because they are consistently faithful or thoughtful, and thought provoking or all three. I always learn from them.

GD: Well, that just about wraps things up. Thanks for dropping by for this conversation. Bye!