Dallas Willard died May 8th, 2013, which also happens to be my mother's birthday. Willard was a giant figure among evangelical philosophers. John Ortberg has written a moving tribute to Willard that anyone with an interest in philosophy, or in Christianity at all, ought to read.

Ortber's reflections can be found here

The New Testament features many examples of cooperative ministry between churches. Paul commissioned Luke to help the Philippians for a period of time and he also took up offerings from Christians in Asia and other places to help the church in Jerusalem. I have a new article in the 9 Marks journal online that details some of this material.

To see my article, go here

I have published an essay called “A Case for Limited Government,” at the website of The Institute for Faith, Work, and Economics, where I am a Senior Rsearch Fellow. The essay argues historically, philosophically, and theologically for Limited Government. What we have in our country today is anything but limited government. Hoping the essay will be part of a new book that Tom Pratt and I are writing that will make a whole cloth case from Scripture and the Christian tradition.

If you would like too read my essay, go here

There has been a long debate over the historicity of Adam and Eve, going back to early theological liberalism (early nineteenth century), a debate that heated up considerably in the aftermath of the publication of Darwin's The Origin of Species in 1859. Both the doctrines of gradualism and natural selection, promoted by Darwin, eroded what little confidence was left in liberal theological circles for the direct creation of the first couple by God. What was substituted was the notion of the slow evolution of humans from lower primates, who themselves were evolved from older and earlier forms of life.

Evangelicals, however, long held out. Intellectuals among them proposed a variety of theories to explain the apparent discrepancies between “science” and Scripture, including the Day-Age theory, the Gap theory, Catastrophism, Progressive Creationism, and so on. But in recent years many “evangelicals” have given up the task and have simply capitulated on this issue, the issue of the historicity of Adam and Eve, though many have attempted to affirm the activity of God as ultimate creator.

Vern Poythress, polymath and Professor of New Testament at Westminster Theological Seminary, has just published a remarkable essay in World Magazine in which he takes on the claims in recent scientific literature that alleges the the smallest “bottleneck” of human beings that could have existed at any time in the past is in the thousands, though it might be in the low thousands.

If you wish to take a half hour and read this critique of prevailing scientific theory, go here

Mark Galli of Christianity Today has just published an assessment of Rob Bell's theology. While he offers some critique, his evaluation is largely affirmative. Even the little aside comments in his analysis are actually kind of scary. In the opening paragraph he writes of Bell, “He believes the Bible is authoritative at some level–that is, he always tries to understand his life in light of his reading of the Bible.” Does that sound like the ringing endorsement of the authority of Scripture that evangelicals have traditionally affirmed? When commenting on whether Bell believes in divine judgment, that is, whether Bell is a universalist, Galli states, “He says people who abuse and exploit others and creation will not participate in the glorious restoration of heaven on earth.” I get the first part of that statement, but does the second part mean that if I don't recycle, that I will not participate in the resurrection to life in Bell's view?

At several points the article gets really dicey, but one in particular. Galli offers several quotes from Bell's new book, What We Talk Abut When We Talk About God, including this one: “So, when we talk about God, we're talking about our brushes with spirit, our awareness of the reverence humming within us, our sense of the nearness and farness, that which we know and that which is unknown” (page 91). Galli's comment? “Bell believes our knowledge of God is grounded not in doctrine, not in the Bible, the preached Word, the sacraments, our institutions, or even what Jesus revealed (all ways theologians ground our knowledge of God), but in our experiences and our intuitions–especially that sense that many have that there is a deeper reality in, with, and under this life. This is an appeal to general revelation, how God makes himself known naturally to the world.” In the course of the rest of the assessment, Galli indicates that he has no serious problem with such intuitive forms of spirituality, indicating that he wrote an endorsement for Margaret Feinberg's book, Wonderstruck.

Those of us who have followed Bell's writings and career have watched him fall deeper into the morass of murky liberalism. The quote above could have been written by Schleiermacher or even by Joseph Campbell (and no, I am not equating Bell with Campbell). But what is odd is that Galli, editor of Christianity Today, considers the quote from Bell to be perfectly appropriate. What is more, he seems to be saying that finding God in general revelation, rather than in Jesus or the Bible, is perfectly fine and leaves one's evangelical credentials intact.

By the end of the article Galli indicates that he does not think Bell's overall method is right. We do need the Bible, and Jesus in order truly to express that faith once delivered to the saints. But the concessions he makes along the way are troubling.

What would Harold Lindsell and Carl F. H. Henry think? We knew for years that CT was drifting. Is it now becoming the new Christian Century?

Chad Owen Brand

You can read Galli's article here

Maureen Dowd is hardly the voice of conservatism in American politics. She normally toes the Democratic Party line, or, at the least, takes her stand with the left-leaning voices on everything from abortion to foreign policy. But anyone reading her editorial column in yesterday's New York Times would have wondered if her column had been hijacked by Greta Van Susteren or even Laura Ingraham. She blisters the White House and the State Department in light of the new revelations coming out concerning Benghazi. She refers to the original Susan Rice talking points as “mythological” and actually refers to President Obama as “Barry.” She is already getting heat from the political left, but you have to admire her for actually making some of us hopeful that at least one editorialist at the leftist NYT has suddenly remembered what the press is supposed to be doing. While the rest of them are fawning over Obama to the degree that you expect to see him signing autographs at the end of each press conference, Ms. Dowd has remembered what it means to call the Administration to task. For a look at the whole article go here

In his classic account of the battle of Arnhem in World War II, Cornelius Ryan details that though the Allies won the battle, they extended themselves more than they should have by going one bridge too far in their planning, causing unnecessary loss of life. Charles Leiter has written a helpful book on justification and regeneration, one that fills a gap at the layman's level. This book has many helpful things to say about the relationship between these two aspects of the doctrine of salvation. At the end of the day, however, I am concerned that the book goes too far in its exposition of regeneration, farther than Scripture would allow.

Let me first say some things about the value of the book. It begins by laying out a biblical doctrine of the nature of sin. It depicts human sin as universal, pervasive, irrational, deceitful, hardening, enslaving, debasing, and defiling. It explains that sin is both internal (a bad heart) and external (a bad record). The book then explains in no uncertain terms a Reformation doctrine of justification. Leiter depicts the fact that in justification, God has “put down his gun,” and given us eternal life (p. 41).

Leiter then gives an exposition of the doctrine of regeneration. He shows, rightly, that Scripture uses a variety of metaphors and images to explain what regeneration means. When I teach the doctrine of regeneration in Systematic Theology I lay out the message in very much the same fashion as this author does. Regeneration means that we are new creatures, new men, that we have a new heart, that we have been given a new birth, a new nature. It also means that we have been united with Christ in his crucifixion and his resurrection. Regeneration entails the truth that we are no longer “in the flesh,” rather, we are “in the Spirit.” We are now seated in the heavenly realm in Christ. We are no longer sold under sin, but have the righteousness of Christ. We are no longer under the law, but under grace, and are not now in Adam, but in Christ (pp. 47-130). All of this is true, and is crucial for Christian people to understand.

At several points the author asserts doctrinal beliefs that are quite controversial. At some of those points I am in agreement with him. In chapter nine he gives his view that the Christian has a new nature of righteousness, and only a nature of righteousness. In other words, the Christian does not have two natures, one of sin and another of righteousness. I agree completely! Christians are “good trees” (Matt 7:15-20). A few years ago the Christian rock group Petra recorded a song called “Jekyll and Hyde” in which they portrayed the Christian life as something like that fictional character. While intuitively we may feel that way sometimes, that is not exactly what Scripture teaches. Leiter also contends that since we have been saved, we are no longer in the flesh but in the Spirit, and we can never again be in the flesh. That is exactly what the Apostle Paul teaches in Romans 8:1-11, and I concur. The author also believes that regenerate persons will be in the process of growing in grace and in obedience to the Lord, and, generally speaking, I think that is correct.

So, what's the problem? The problem is not in his exposition of these ideas, but in the inferences he draws from these ideas. I am convinced that Leiter's case is flawed at three basic points: his understanding of “the flesh,” his understanding of the believer's relationship to the law of God, and his failure to examine Scripture texts which counter his main argument.

First of all, what does Scripture mean by “the flesh”? Here is Leiter's definition: “The flesh is the unredeemed physical body viewed as the place where sin still tries to assert itself” (p. 85). In other words, “the flesh” is the body. The soul or spirit has been redeemed, but the body is still a place where sin makes its presence known. This is not a novel idea, but it is not an adequate interpretation of the biblical teaching on “the flesh.” In several places in the book Leiter makes it clear that he is drawing on the work of D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones. For instance, Lloyd-Jones, in dealing with a passage that addresses “the flesh” in the life of a Christian (Gal 5:17), calls the flesh, “the sensuous part of our nature” (Romans 7:1-8:4), p. 70. Paul reminds the Galatians that they are to walk in the Spirit, and he warns them that they might still walk according to the flesh (Gal 5:16-18). As believers we are not “in” the flesh, but we might still “walk in” the flesh! Paul's language here might be daunting, but it is important to follow the biblical model. The Christian has a new identity in Christ, but he or she also knows what it is like to live in a different way, and that sinful way of life is always luring us back, back to a life that finds its happiness in the pursuit of that which brings momentary pleasure, but which is contrary to God's Word.

The second issue has to do with the role of the law in sanctification, or, as Leiter would put it, in the life of the regenerate. Leiter writes, “The Christian is free from the law as an external rule that contradicts his real nature and desires” (p. 118). He goes on, “The righteous man has no need for such external restrictions, since he is restrained by his own holy nature” (p. 119). For Leiter, the law is internal, written on the heart. And as a result, as we grow in grace, we will have little need for the external law, whether found in the OT or the NT. Really! The Apostle Paul did not concur, since many of his writings contain explicit and sustained expositions of the moral implications of the gospel. In the Reformation Luther generally saw little need for the “third use of the law” (the law as instrument of sanctification), while Calvin believed it was necessary since humans are still subject to self-deceit regarding their walk before God. In a casual reading of Leiter's book one would think of him as more in the Calvin camp than in the Luther camp. Perhaps not.

Third, Leiter fails to examine texts which call his thesis into question. There are many passages which demonstrate that there are real believers who have not progressed in their spiritual walk in the way they should have. The most specific is in 1 Corinthians 5, where a man “has his father's wife.” Paul passes his own judgment to consign the man's flesh to Satan, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord. Paul considers the man to be a believer, albeit an inconsistent one. Leiter's theology seems to have no place for such a person, but the Corinthian correspondence is filled with such examples.

This is where it really gets interesting. If one compares Leiter's theology to that of, say, Keswick interpreter Watchman Nee, the parallels are fascinating. In his book The Normal Christian Life, the Chinese Christian leader also argues for a life of almost pristine Christian obedience and devotion. The difference between the two is that Leiter believes such a life is based on genuine regeneration, while Nee argues that it comes after a second experience of grace. Leiter would reject this second blessing, but in his theology the net effect is the same. Something approaching Christian perfectionism is the goal.

I have suggested that Leiter is in some ways closer to Luther than to Calvin. If that is the case, perhaps he should remember another Luther dictum. Luther argued that Christians are “at the same time righteous and sinful.”. We never get beyond the proclivity to sin in this life. Spurgeon once said that the really big repentances come late in the Christian experience. The closer you get to God the more you realize that you are not yet close enough. Of all the problems of the Leiter book, the most egregious is that he seems to believe that texts that speak of the greatness of our salvation can be fully realized in this life. I would call that soteriological triumphalism. Our salvation is “already/not yet.” The fullness of our salvation lies in the future. It can be sweet in this life, but it will be sweeter in the life to come. Leiter has taken us a bridge too far in understanding the nature of salvation in this age. In a sense he has done us a service, but it is also important to recognize that his exposition must not be followed uncritically.

Chad Owen Brand

Easter, or better, the Paschal celebration, is nearly upon us. What is the real meaning of Easter? Christian people in our churches often have a distorted understanding of eschatology. The common idea that has been communicated by our classical hymnody and much preaching and teaching in our churches is that when you die, you go to heaven. And that is true, as far as it goes. But that does not go far enough.

In the world of the New Testament age, there were three basic ideas about what happens when a person dies. The Epicureans and their ilk held the view that when you die, that is it. You are dead. Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die, and that is it. Like the old song says, “Is that all there is? Then let's start dancing.” On the other hand those who followed the Platonist or the Stoic teachings believed that people have an eternal soul, one that existed before we were born and that will continue to exist after we die. At death, that soul goes some place, though there was disagreement among them about exactly where the soul went. People who still held some commitment to the old Greek and Roman myths thought the soul went to the underworld, while Plato had taught that it goes back to “god” or to the world of the Forms.

Many (but not all) Jews believed that in some sense, when we die, we go to God, since there are passages in the Old Testament that hint at that (Psalm 23:6), but even more, that at some future point, there will be a resurrection of the body. Daniel 12:1-3 teaches that this is the case, and Jews in the period between the Old and New Testaments had incorporated that revelation into their theology, or at least most of them had. Therefore, they expected that at some point in the future, the Day of the Lord would come, and he would rescue them from their enemies, raise the dead, and God would rule the world in righteousness.

Enter Jesus. On several occasions, especially late on his ministry, Jesus predicted his imminent death and subsequent resurrection (see esp. Mark 8-10). The disciples would have known about resurrection, but his words baffled them, since they had been taught that this would only happen at the end of the age. Jesus knew, and the NT writers would later make explicit, that in some sense Jesus was inaugurating a new age. His bodily resurrection bright about the age of the Kingdom of God as a possible reality in our lives. And his resurrection demonstrates what the eventual future is for all of the saved. Not an eternity in a bodiless existence in heaven, but an embodied existence in a resurrected body living forever in the presence of the Lord on a renewed earth (Revelation 21-22).

What is the meaning of Easter? It is that all of those who trust in Christ as Savior will one day rise from their graves, will receive glorified bodies no longer subject to sin or corruption, and they will dwell on the renewed earth, serving the Lord with gladness through all eternity. Think about that between now and March 31.

For an excellent treatment of this subject, go here:

Chad Brand

We have all heard about how environmentally friendly electric cars are. The federal government is giving $7,500 tax credits for those who buy them. They are the wave of the future, and everyone who really cares for the environment will buy an electric car, will recycle their trash, and will Go Green! in every way.

On the subjects of electric, cars, environmental expert Bjorn Lomborg has just published an article in the Wall Street Journal with some very “inconvenient” facts. Carbon emissions are of course the real evil monster in the whole debate over cars and climate change. OK, so, let's assume for the moment that carbon dioxide is bad for the planet (something in no way proven). But let's just take that assumption as valid. The Journal of Industrial Technology and the MIT Technology Review (hardly right-wing PACs) have warned that those who own electric cars should not drive them too many miles, and have also confirmed that a great deal of CO2 emissions are involved in the manufacturing of the batteries for these vehicles and in the constant charging of the batteries.

These vehicles are regularly touted as “emission-free.” The fact is, that if electric cars are driven 50,000 miles, they will on the average emit 15 ounces of CO2 per mile (in part due to the lithium battery pollution) while gasoline powered cars will emit on the average 12 ounces per mile.

Now, who's the environmentalist?

Check out the article here:

Green Cars Have a Dirty Little Secret

Posted with Blogsy

Today my wife Tina and I, along with several friends from Magoffin County, KY, had the chance to see Spielberg’s new film on Lincoln. Movies like this often garner mixed reviews from both critics and casual film goers, so I was not sure what to expect. I am something of a Civil War buff (though I do actually study other things), so it was fascinating to see how the famous film-maker handled this subject, and the conversation after the film was also very enlightening.

I have to say that I was skeptical about Daniel-Day Lewis as the great president. Could the star of Last of the Mohicans and Gangs of New York pull off such a different kind of role? Well, he did, and he did so spectacularly. No, he did not look exactly like Lincoln, and no, he did not look quite as haggard as the real Lincoln of 1865, but he played the role with all of the home-spun humor, the occasional verbal malapropisms, and the passion for his country that the sources have given us as characteristic of the real man. The ambiguity of home life, with his difficult wife and the strained relationship with son Robert, are handled with great sensitivity but are also presented in all their stark reality.

There were some problems with the film. At the start of the film the president is shown talking with some soldiers, two of whom are black, and who claim to have been at Gettysburg.  There were blacks at Gettysburg with the Confederate army, but the United States Colored Troops (a regiment of black Union soldiers) was not at Gettysburg. Also, toward the end of the film, as a sort of penultimate climax, after the Thirteenth Amendment is ratified by the House, Thaddeus Stevens is pictured going home to his mistress, who is black, to let her read the amendment and rejoice with his after his long struggle for emancipation. Thaddeus Stevens did have a quadroon housekeeper named Lydia Hamilton Smith. Stevens never married and there were rumors about some sort of relationship between him and Smith, but no historical evidence has ever been produced proving this claim. It makes a nice little flourish to the story, but responsible historical scholarship would probably have dictated leaving that out.

The film demonstrates in no uncertain terms the absolutely crucial need for passing the Thirteenth Amendment. Teaching history, I have found that students often do not understand this. They assume that, since Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation January 1, 1863, that emancipation was a fait accompli. Not so! Spielberg brings this out vividly. The Proclamation was an Executive Order that was applied to a war-time situation. Slaves were “freed” in order to encourage them to abandon their masters and flee to the North. This would have two effects. One, it would make them candidates to serve in the Union Army and thus help the Northern cause. But even more than that, it would eliminate their crucial role in helping the Southern economy in farming and other necessary tasks while the vast majority of the white work force was at war. The film does not bring out these latter two issues, but it does make clear that the Proclamation would have little force in the South once a truce had been effected. Only a duly prosecuted law, and in this case an amendment to the Constitution, could make that happen. Without this amendment, all of the bloodshed of the war, while it would end in the restoration of the Union, would not have accomplished the other aim–the emancipation of the slaves, and with that the reaffirmation of the Founding Fathers’ clarion cry, that “All men are created equal.” In the long run, if the Civil War was about anything, it was about that. Even the restoration of the Union was really about renewing and reapplying that conviction to a new generation.

Perhaps the most fascinating aspect of the film was the detailed presentation of the give-and-take in governmental wrangling. Lies and half-truths were bandied about on both sides in the debate over this very important issue. Lincoln is shown at times to be something of a fascist (in the original meaning of that word), as he suspends habeas corpus to prevent the secession of Maryland, he withholds important information from his cabinet and Congress, he uses back alley and strong-arm tactics to get his way. Thaddeus Stevens makes compromises with his earlier more hard-line abolition position. Men change their votes with the promise of lucrative positions once they leave office. To the viewer who thought such politics was invented by FDR or LBJ, this film may be something of a revelation. The fact is, some of that has been around ever since there was government. Remember what Augustine taught us: government is itself one of the effects of the Fall. No Fall, no government.

We all enjoyed the film very much. Tommy Lee Jones’s portrayal of Steven was brilliant, and Lewis’s Lincoln is unforgettable. If you have not yet seen the film, go see it. See it on the big screen. You will have a deeper sense of why it is that “Now he belongs to the ages.”

Chad Brand