The Rise & Triumph of the Modern Self – A Reflective Response

This has taken me far far longer than I intended it to take, and far longer than it should have taken. It’s not a short book (407 pages) and it isn’t a particularly easy book to read. It isn’t a lightweight book. It isn’t a cheap book. I’ve been told Dr Trueman is working on a briefer more accessible edition. I think that’s good, and bad. Good because more people might read it than otherwise, but bad because so much will need to be left out in order to fit the brief. An idea might be to produce a Study Guide – perhaps on its own. That, I think, would be helpful, perhaps to use in a church setting or reading group. Anyway, I’ve read the book. Having read it, I really could do with reading it again.

After saying that, It’s not my purpose here to review the book, others have done that already. But what I want to do is share some thoughts I had as I was reading it. As I say then, this post is more response than review. I do need to say that this is an absolutely brilliant book. If I get to meet him I ought to thank him for writing it. It is well written. I like his style. It’s divided up well with plenty of headings. It has an index, and footnotes. so what’s not to like. It’s a significant book. It’s a book that should be read by Christians, and especially ministers, seeking to understand not just where we are, but how we arrived at such a juncture.

What struck me most powerfully is the momentous task we face. This was my thinking very early on  as I read, some of which are picked up in the last section of the book – more of that later. The realisation that the ‘cultural moment‘ isn’t a moment at all but is in fact two or three hundred years of movement away from God and his authority. In the West that is anyway. Yes, there have been revivals, and I do not want to minimise them at all, but the trend continues downward. And the trend is not just down, but is picking up speed as well.

I don’t know how true this is (perhaps someone can tell me) but I was told by a friend (no longer with us) that Dr Lloyd-Jones told him that the length of time it takes to get ill, is the length of time it takes to (fully) recover. If that is true of individuals, could it also be true of churches, and of the ills of society? and maybe of Nations too – unless there is a Revolution (or a Reformation) when everything can change. So bearing that in mind will give you some idea of what we are facing. The Catholic church and Islam do not think in moments, but in centuries. Perhaps us Protestants need to have a more realistic perspective of time.

Another analogy I thought of is the Oil Tanker. Once the decision is made to turn round, or to stop, it can take a very long time to for anything happen. Although with that analogy we may be completely unaware the command to stop, or to turn, has already been given. This may be the case. The command has been given, but to us everything goes on as before. Rather, it seems as if everything is going on as before. From our perspective then it’s still moving and it seems as though nothing has changed. But in reality everything may have already changed. We just aren’t aware of it yet. The command to turn may have been given. That’s an encouraging thought. Obviously, the Command I’m talking of here is that given by God.

Encouraging as that thought may be, and it is, the reality is that revival may not come (for us) and God may not intervene in any obvious way at all. When we read of the past it’s sobering to realise the culture still has a very long way down to go, and despite us thinking how bad it is, and it is, it has not yet reached the bottom. When will that be? No one can say. No one can say what is at the bottom either. Carl does make a comment in a footnote, about the culture destroying itself. You would’ve thought we would be crying out to God for help. I don’t see too much of this happening.

How are we then to respond?

In writing to our MP’s, for example, we will have to realise making logical arguments isn’t going to cut it. Here in Wales (and the UK in general) the Assembly are absolutely committed to pursuing policies that push a Transgender ideology. Biology makes no difference now. Even in the church making rational arguments sometimes makes no headway against someone saying ‘how it makes me feel.’ If that’s where we are in the church how can we expect arguments with godless governments to be any more effective! Perhaps, and I’m being quite serious, when we write to our MP’s we need to sprinkle our letters or emails with several references to how it makes us feel. Not a very good idea but surely when we see truth trampled in the street it makes us feel something. Doesn’t it? To illustrate where we are at I’ve typed up a few quotes from Carls book. These are mainly in the last section:

‘Yet transgenderism is only the latest and most extreme form of this move; it stands in obvious continuity with antimetaphysical thought of the nineteenth century, most notably Friedrich Nietzsche. Transgenderism is a symptom, not a cause. It is not the reason why gender categories are now so confused; it is rather a function of a world in which the collapse of metaphysics and of stable discourse has created such chaos that not even the most basic of binaries, that between male and female, can any longer lay claim to meaningful objective status. And the roots of this pathology lie deep within the intellectual traditions of the West.
The contemporary debates surrounding LGBTQ+ also offer evidence of Alasdair Macintyres contention that ethical debate today is not about reasoning from commonly accepted premises but rather about the expression of emotional preferences.’ Page 376.

The agreed rational basis for debate has gone. All that is left is emotional preference.’ P. 377.

‘But as i noted in the introduction, this book is neither a lament nor a polemic. It is rather an attempt to explain how the revolution of the self came to take the form it has in the West and why that is so culturally significant.’ Page. 382.

‘It should also enable us to have a better understanding of why the sexual revolution has apparently moved so fast and, if anything, appears to be gaining speed, as transgenderism seems to be making such headway in the culture and as one after another sexual taboo collapses in the face of what often looks like an unstoppable tidal wave of sexual revolution. The reason for this speed is that the underlying causes of these phenomena are deeply embedded within our culture and have been slowly but surely transforming how we think of ourselves and our world for many, many generations.’ Page, 386.

The book sets where we are in context, and I think sets before us an overwhelming and impossible task. That was my response as I read it. Even after reading this book, we still believe ‘the arm of flesh’ will deliver us. My friends, it will not. The ‘arm of flesh’ will not undo 300 years of movement away from God. And ‘the arm of flesh’ will not undo where we are now. That’s one reason why we need to be reading and hearing about what God has done in the past.  I’m reminded of something Leonard Ravenhill said: ‘The answer isn’t in the White House (or Downing Street), it’s in God’s house.’ It doesn’t mean we stop reading books like this, or stop writing to our MP’s, or engaging where we are able (The Lord does use means), but it does mean we have to face up to the current situation – or the cultural moment that we find ourselves in. When chatting to someone recently I was reminded of Isaiah 42:13:

‘I will work, and none shall prevent it.’

I will work, and who shall let it? as when he wrought the work of creation, there was no opposition to it, or hinderance of him; and in providence all things are done as he pleases; so all his purposes and decrees, which are his works within him, are exactly accomplished according to his pleasure, and none can resist his will. The work of redemption is finished just according to the draught of it in his eternal mind; and when he works upon the heart of a sinner at conversion, whatever obstructions and difficulties are in the way, these are removed, and the work is begun, and carried on, and performed, until the day of Christ. The work of the Lord in his churches, and the setting up of his kingdom in the world, in a more visible and glorious manner, shall be done, and none will be able to hinder it: (John Gill)

Let us not forget, or be tempted to forget that God is at work even when we cannot see it. The Gospel is the power of God unto Salvation!

 

Defining Evangelicalism?

Defining Evangelicalism?
by
Michael J. Iliff
(Any errors below are all mine)

What follows was first written back in 2007 (ish) and I’ve reproduced it here with a few changes in the hope that it makes sense. Some of the references might be a bit dated and some of the links are (sadly) no longer available, but, the point is to show that recent articles (or blog posts) on trying to define Evangelicalism is nothing new.

Evangelical[1] is, or can be, difficult to define, particularly when it has been suggested[2] that the term be dropped.  The word, whilst retaining a much older meaning,[3] has become so broad – it is said – to be of little or of no real value, and as regards any historic definition, become almost meaningless.  Evangelicalism is seen to be in crisis – at least definitionally. Is there any basis to this?  When one considers just a few titles[4] there is the impression of crisis. The evangelical umbrella has continued to widen, with several theologians, or popular figures, such as Clark Pinnock,[5] and Steve Chalke,[6] still[7] broadly viewed as evangelicals. They continue to write for evangelical publications, even though they have moved away from historic[8] orthodox teaching.

In 1992 Michael Horton[9] wrote,

‘Labels are often confusing, especially when the jar’s content changes. Grape juice can become vinegar over the years in the cellar, but the label doesn’t change with the changes in the substance.  The same is true of the term “evangelical.”’[10]

Evangelicals are finding it increasingly difficult to define themselves. Horton writing, again in 1992 said,

‘A number of evangelical leaders met at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School near Chicago two years ago for the purpose of defining the term “evangelical”, but many left as confused concerning what that label comprehends as they were when they arrived. It is becoming increasingly difficult to say what an evangelical is and is not.’[11]

John R de Witt[12] lists seven particulars of Reformed evangelicalism, rather than the Quadrilateral David Bebbington[13] suggests describing Evangelicalism as a whole.  de Witt calls this The Reformed Faith, not Reformed Evangelicalism.  Nevertheless, those of the Reformed Faith are Evangelicals, but not all evangelicals are Reformed.  For Reformed Christians the word ‘evangelical’ is packed with historic and Biblical meaning rather than an academic description[14] of a particular religious movement beginning in the 18th Century.  The distinction is between the reality of the evangelical movement, and Evangelicalism as understood by the Reformed Churches.  De Witt’s seven points are:

    1. The doctrine of scripture.
    2. The sovereignty of God.
    3. The grace of God.
    4. The Christian life.
    5. The law and gospel.
    6. The kingdom of God.
    7. Preaching.

Evangelical Times ran a series[15] of articles with the title ‘What is a Reformed Church’.

The Reformed Evangelical position is well summarised by the five Solas of the Reformation.  These are, “Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Soli Christus, Soli Deo Gloria”[16]. I don’t believe Reformed Evangelicalism can be summed up and categorised in quite the way David Bebbington describes Evangelicalism as a whole.  In 1977 Evangelical Times printed an article[17] that tried to answer the very same question that is being asked today in 2022 – What is an Evangelical? It’s been an ongoing problem for Reformed Evangelicals.  Lloyd-Jones addressed this same problem of definition in 1971 at the International Fellowship of Evangelical Students – reprinted as late as 1992.  Under a subheading, ‘Succumbing to the Ecumenical Spirit’, we read the following,

‘…there is the … danger… of being so broad, so wide, and so loose that in the end we have no definitions at all.  As I see things today, this is perhaps the greater danger because we are living in what is called the ecumenical age.’[18]

In 1996 The Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals (ACE) issued ‘The Cambridge Declaration’[19] calling Evangelical churches to repentance and a return to Reformation theology.  The Alliance, although primarily American,[20] through Evangelical Times published[21] the ‘Declaration’ in full, taking up a centre page spread.  Restating the “five Solas” it lamented the current condition within Evangelicalism. The opening statement of the ‘Declaration’[22] describes churches as dominated by the spirit of the age and changes to how evangelical is defined.

Whatever happened to the Reformation[23] urges readers ‘to turn to the theology of the Reformers’,[24] and is described as more ‘hard-hitting and to the point’[25] than other books and ‘as the title indicates, the problem with modern evangelicalism is its complete abandonment of all the Reformation stood for.  It has cut its ties with the Reformation and is like a ship adrift on stormy seas’.[26] With no clear alternative ‘Evangelical’ will continue to be used albeit with a defining hyphenation.

Moving forward to June 2005 in Evangelicals Now, evangelicalism appears to be no further forward.  Jonathan Stephen[27] writes,

‘…there is currently a huge crisis in evangelicalism …the term itself has become virtually meaningless. Virtually every conceivable religious deviation can now shelter under the umbrella of evangelicalism, if it so wishes’.[28]

However, it does appear that Dr Bebbington’s[29] four-point definition[30](Bebbington’s Quadrilateral) has become a commonly used umbrella term, even though many Reformed churches may find it a difficult and unsatisfactory category, as it falls short in addressing the distinctiveness of Reformed churches. Evangelical then, has a much longer history than what is presented to us in the Tele-evangelism found in America. You’ll get no argument from me about continued vigilance over usage and commentary on its abuse, but I see no reason why historic Evangelicals should abandon it. However, we, Evangelicals, should perhaps, be more careful how we use and abuse it ourselves and continue, or switch to, maybe, hyphenating it as ‘Reformed’ – Evangelical.

As a late addition: In 2006 Geoff Thomas gave two lectures in Rugby on Evangelicalism (Especially Part 2). Both well worth a listen. Evangelicalism: What’s in a Name – Part 1 & Part 2. ‘I’m not going to give it up because other people have abused it (Geoff Thomas Part 2).’ In fact you’d be much better off listening to these two lectures by Geoff! The links for these work.

[1] According to Strongs: G2097 εὐαγγελίζω – euaggelizō – yoo-ang-ghel-id’-zo

From G2095 and G32; to announce good news (“evangelize”) especially the gospel: – declare, bring (declare, show) glad (good) tidings, preach (the gospel).  Translated Preach/Preaching & Gospel/Good News

G2098 εὐαγγέλιον – euaggelion – yoo-ang-ghel’-ee-on

From the same as G2097; a good message, that is, the gospel: – gospel.  Translated Gospel.

For a more comprehensive definition see Thayer.  Available on e-sword.

[2] See Hart, D. G.  Deconstructing Evangelicalism: Conservative Protestantism in the Age of Billy Graham.  2004.  Baker Academic.  Grand Rapids.  R. C. Sproul has been heard to say the same, but no reference is available at this moment.

[3] Iain Murray writes: ‘Evangelion (that we call the gospel) is a Greek word; and signifieth good, merry, glad and joyful tidings, that maketh him sing, dance and leap for joy.  So Tyndale wrote in 1525, and at the same period all who so thought became described as ‘gospellers’ or, less commonly, as ‘evangelicals’.  Over two hundred years later it was the latter term that was to pass into more permanent usage at the time of the ‘Evangelical Revival’.  That it did not do so earlier is largely due to the fact that all the churches of the Reformation were ‘of the gospel’ in their creeds and confessions.  By the eighteenth century, however, while the profession of the national churches in England and Scotland remained orthodox there were many pulpits from which no gospel was heard and when the evangel was recovered a term was necessary to distinguish its preachers from others: they were the ‘evangelicals’.  Murray, Iain H.  Evangelicalism Divided.  2000.  The Banner of Truth Trust.  Edinburgh. p. 1.

[4] A small selection of titles: Armstrong, John.  (Ed.)  The Coming Evangelical Crisis.  1996.  Moody Press.  Chicago; Armstrong, John.  (Ed.)  The Compromised Church.  1998.  Crossway Books.  Wheaton; Glover, Peter C.  The Virtual Church and How to Avoid it.  2004.  Xulon Press; Johnson, Gary L. W. & Fowler White, R.  (Eds.)  Whatever Happened to the Reformation?  2001.  P & R Publishing.  Philipsburg, New Jersey; MacArthur Jr, John F.  Ashamed of the Gospel: When the Church Becomes like the World.  1993.  Crossway Books.  Nottingham; Murray, Iain H.  Evangelicalism Divided.  2000.  The Banner of Truth Trust.  Edinburgh; Phillips, Richard.  Turning Back the Darkness.  2002.  Crossway Books.  Wheaton.

[5] Pinnock holds to and promotes the doctrine of Open Theism.  For a larger treatment of this topic see: Ware, Bruce.  in Johnson, Gary L. W. & Fowler White, R.  (Eds.)  Whatever Happened to the Reformation?  2001.  P & R Publishing.  Philipsburg, New Jersey. P. 95 – 131.

[6] This refers to the recent controversy over penal substitutionary atonement as expressed by Steve Chalke in his book The Lost Message of Jesus.  Reviews of this book are available by searching the ET & EN websites. Also see Evangelicals Now September 2005 for a review of ‘The EA Symposium – Conference on the Cross’ by Mathew Mason.  Mason writes, ‘it is also sad that EA appears willing to permit people who deny a core evangelical belief to continue as members’.  Available: http://www.e-n.org.uk/3129-Conference-on-the-cross.htm

[7] ‘The Evangelical Alliance has so far failed [at the time of my writing] to act with regard to Steve Chalke’.  EN Jonathan Stevens.  There is also no sign of this happening at the Alliance Website. Available: http://www.eauk.org/theology/headline_issues/atonement/atonement-statement.cfm

[8] See a previous footnote.  Three people in three different areas of theology will demonstrate this and why they compromise evangelical theology.  Briefly, the names of three people; John Stott on eternal punishment; Clark Pinnock on Divine Foreknowledge and Steve Chalke on the Atonement.  In addition to this, more recently, ‘The New Perspective on Paul’ (e.g. Bishop Tom Wright) has caused concern.

[9] The Rev. Dr. Michael S. Horton is the J. Gresham Machen professor of systematic theology and apologetics at Westminster Seminary California. He is the main host of The White Horse Inn radio broadcast and editor-in-chief of Modern Reformation magazine. He received his M.A. from Westminster Seminary California, his Ph.D. from Wycliffe Hall, Oxford and the University of Coventry, and also completed a Research Fellowship at Yale University Divinity School.  Dr. Horton is the author/editor of more than fifteen books.  Available: http://www.whitehorseinn.org/about.htm

[10] Horton, Michael S. ‘What is an Evangelical?’ Available: http://www.christianity.com/partner/Article_Display_Page/0,,PTID307086|CHID560462|CIID1415584,00.html.

[11] Horton, Michael S.  ‘Evangelical Arminians: Option or Oxymoron?’  Available: http://www.modernreformation.org/mr92/mayjun/mr9203oxymoron.html (21/04/03).

[12] de Witt, John R.  What is the Reformed Faith?  1981.  The Banner of Truth Trust.  Edinburgh.

[13] Bebbington, D W.  Evangelicalism in Modern Britain: A history from the 1730s to the 1980s.  Routledge.  London and New York.  2000.  The four are: Biblicism, a particular regard for the Bible (e.g. all spiritual truth is to be found in its pages); Crucicentrism, a focus on the atoning work of Christ on the cross; Conversionism, the belief that human beings need to be converted; and Activism, the belief that the gospel needs to be expressed in effort.  Pp. 2 – 17.  Or, as on page 3, Bebbington puts it: ‘Together they form a quadrilateral (the underlining is my Emphasis) of priorities that is the basis of Evangelicalism’.

[14]  Hart, D. G.  Deconstructing Evangelicalism: Conservative Protestantism in the Age of Billy Graham.  2004.  Baker Academic.  Grand Rapids.  Hart argues the popular usage of the word ‘evangelicalism’ is a modern academic construct.

[15] ET. November 1996 – February 1997.

[16] Or, scripture alone, faith alone, grace alone, through Christ alone, to the glory of God alone.  We may also add to this the TULIP acrostic.  Also see Appendix 2, The Cambridge Declaration for an elaboration of the Solas of the Reformation.

[17] Evangelical Times. July 1977. p. 15 & 4.  ‘Who are we?  What is an evangelical?  Tell us somebody please!’  This was a report on the NEAC conference of that year.  The report in ET began by saying ‘It comes up here, it comes up there, the issue comes up everywhere.  Some duck it, some face it.  Some dismiss it, some debate it.  It is the burning issue of: ‘what is an evangelical?’’

[18] Lloyd-Jones, D.M.  What is an Evangelical?  1992.  The Banner of Truth Trust.  Edinburgh.  P. 22.

[19] The ‘Cambridge Declaration’ is essentially a restatement of the five Solas of the Reformation.  The full text of this document is available at: http://www.alliancenet.org/CC_Content_Page/0,,PTID307086|CHID581262|CIID,00.html

[20] Now also has UK members on the council.

[21] Evangelical Times, December, 1996, p 12 – 13.

[22] See Appendix 2 for the Declaration in full.

[23] Johnson, Gary L. W. & Fowler White, R.  (Eds.)  Whatever Happened to the Reformation?  2001.  P & R Publishing.  Philipsburg, New Jersey.

[24] From the Alliance bookstall: http://www.reformationalresources.org/merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=RR&Product_Code=B-JOHNS-1

[25] Hanko, Herman C.  PRT Journal.  Vol 35, No.2, April 2002.  Book Reviews.  Review of ‘Whatever Happened to the Reformation’  Available: http://www.prca.org/prtj/apr2002.html#WhateverHappened

[26] Hanko, Herman C.  PRT Journal.  Vol 35, No.2, April 2002.  Book Reviews.  Review of ‘Whatever Happened to the Reformation’  Available: http://www.prca.org/prtj/apr2002.html#WhateverHappened

[27] Jonathan Stephens was for many years the Pastor of Carey Baptist Church, Reading, and combined this with becoming President of the Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches.  He also became General Secretary of the BEC, changing to Affinity under his leadership.  He is presently Principal of the Evangelical College of Wales (Bryntirion).

[28] Stephens, Jonathan.  Evangelicals Now, June 2005, ‘The current crisis in evangelicalism’.  Available:  http://www.e-n.org.uk/2005-06/3026-The-current-crisis-in-evangelicalism.htm

[29] http://paulhelmsdeep.blogspot.com/2007/08/calvin-am-toplady-and-bebbington-thesis.html

[30] David Bebbington continues to use his four-point definition in his latest book THE DOMINANCE OF EVANGELICALISM: The Age of Spurgeon and Moody.

The Morality of Spying, Lying, Deceiving – Interview with a former CIA Intelligence officer.

Last night I sat and watched this fascinating interview on Al Mohler’s ‘Thinking in Public’ channel with a former CIA operative whose wife was also a spy. It was promised to be fascinating. And it was. Here’s the full title of the interview:

Spycraft and Soulcraft on the Front Lines of History: A Conversation with Former CIA Chief of Counterintelligence James Olson

If you’ve ever contemplated the idea of the Nazis knocking on your door and asking if ‘there are any Jews in there?’ then you’ll be interested in this. Or if you’ve ever wondered what it takes to go about your life in relative peace and safety you might like it. Would you lie? I’d like to think I would. No question. Not even a debate for me. I’d rather not lie of course, but for me, it would be the moral thing to do in that situation. The spies of Jericho were quoted to make the case for lying in certain situations (Josh 2:1).

‘Spying has always been based on deception. I look for guidance from the greatest of all sources, the Bible. And we all know the story from the book of Joshua, about how when Joshua was conducting his campaign for the conquest of Canaan, he’s standing before Jericho, and he sends two spies into Jericho to gather intelligence on the defenses. And the spies are sheltered, protected, hidden by the prostitute Rahab. And thanks to Rahab they survive when the king’s men came looking for them, she lied about their whereabouts. They were able to return safely to the Israelite camp. And I think it was because of their intelligence to a large extent that the campaign was successful.’ (Quote is from the transcript)

Just this Sunday we had a sermon about Ehud. Ehud straps on a sword with the intent of killing Eglon. It was just assumed that he did the right thing but he entered with a concealed weapon and used subterfuge and lying to get an audience with the king in order to get him on his own and plunge the sword into his belly; literally spilling his guts before making his escape. He went there with one aim: kill the king. It wasn’t murder, he delivered justice. (Judges 3:19-23) So it isn’t just the spies of Jericho.

‘I often ask my students, “What are your moral absolutes?” And students say, “Well, I would never kill anyone.” I say, “Well, you’re a soldier, our country’s being attacked. You are a parent, your children are being threatened. Could you kill to protect your children or your right?” Yeah, there are exceptions. Would you ever steal? I know I can never steal anything, but how about to feed your family? How about to steal the secrets from an enemy? Would you ever lie? No, but we all tell white lies. And there are occasions, as you mentioned, where lies I believe are the only course of action to protect human life.’ (Quote is from the transcript)

The espionage world in which this man lived and operated, with his wife, and now training other operatives, is a world of lying, deceit, manipulation, subterfuge, torture, and execution (killing). What might surprise some is that he operated with a Christian moral worldview. The prospective spies he trains are expected to have a moral compass. He didn’t say this, but without some sort of objective morality they might just as well employ as many psychopaths as they can. I’m sure Russia aren’t the only ones to have psychopaths on the payroll.

You might find the whole interview intensely annoying and not agree with a single thing he says. And that’s fine. But remember this: while you sleep peacefully in your bed or go about your life each day there are men and women out ‘there’ literally putting their lives on the line for our safety and doing things so we can keep our moral superiority. I recall some years ago a story in the papers of a British Army colonel, I think, who had infiltrated the IRA. I remember thinking about what would happen to that man had he been caught.

‘And it’s really unfair after the fact, I think, for people sitting back in Washington to say, “You went too far, you should not have kidnapped that person. You should not have waterboarded that person.” Because it’s easy to say, and our people were doing this with the best of intentions. Waterboarding is nasty. I hate the fact that we had to do that. But it’s easy to take the moral high ground and say, “We’re not going to do that.” And of course the Obama administration decreed that we would not do it anymore. That’s fine, tell us, we won’t cross the line. But we have to realize that when we refrain from activities like that, and I would contend as my good friend and colleague Jose Rodriguez wrote in his book, Hard Measures, that waterboarding these three people did save lives.’
(Quote is from the transcript)

It’s a messy fallen world, and yes I know, governments aren’t always working for the interest of their own people. I’m putting a best case on this knowing, that other governments are probably operating with more dubious moral standards.

One other thing he said was that if they’d (The US) have had the intelligence at the time they could’ve prevented Pearl Harbour as the German ‘chatter’ about it was being listened to. One of the ‘What If’s of history.

A brilliant TV series, (I think), is ‘The Americans.’ It’s about Russian operatives in America living as Americans, complete with a family, but living double lives. And you get to see the CIA as well. Quite gruesome in places so if you’re squeamish or object strongly to bad language then best not to watch it. But it is quite brilliant. 6 seasons I think.

I’m fascinated by it all so I’d like to hear more on this. He’s written a couple of books so they might be worth checking out.

Note: Because the CIA was like it was in James Olson’s day, it doesn’t mean it’s the same today. Check out for example Andrew Klavan’s show.

Some might (will be) be outraged by this, but then we don’t have to make these decisions – someone else does. There was so much more and it all raises so many many questions, but here’s the video link.

History: A Students Guide by Nathan A. Finn – A Review, sort of.

History: A Student’s Guide by Nathan A Finn, Crossway, 2016. This is part a series called ‘Reclaiming the Christian Intellectual Tradition.’ I came across this book through a casual reference by Michael Haykin on Facebook. So, thank you Michael, I really enjoyed reading it.

I’m not going to be pursuing any career, let alone a career in history, so the book has no relevance to me in that regard. But if you are at the beginning of your further education or are considering a change where studying history is a requirement or especially if you are a Christian studying for a degree in history, then you should read it. Typically, it would probably be found in a university book store. I can’t really recommend the book for general reading because it probably isn’t meant to be used in that way. But if you are so inclined then do read it. Ministers / Pastors would probably find it helpful. Also, check out the other books in the series.

It’s not a long book (111 pages) but the text is on the small side and the footnotes (Hooray for footnotes!) are even smaller. It has ‘Questions for reflection (p.101), a Glossary (p.103-4), Resources for further study (p.105-6), a General Index (p.107-9), and a Scripture Index (p.111). He packs a lot in! I’m not sure, but I think all the ‘Resources’ are all of Christian ‘Historians.’

The book then is written for Christians and there are many aspects of the book that I found helpful and encouraging. Here are three things that I found helpful – maybe you would too.

Presentism. This absolutely plagues our world today. Here’s the Glossary entry, ‘Presentism: Any attempt to read present assumptions back into the past.’ We see this in shedloads today. It is like an epidemic. It is abhorrent. Every historian will know the quote from L. P. Hartley even if they haven’t read the book. Nathan quotes it on p.29 “The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there.” He also points out this applies to the recent past as well, and not just to ancient history. In the strongest possible way I can, dumping present morals on the past is not only dangerous, it is also stupid.

Providentialism. This was quite an interesting discussion. This is the way Christian Historians (can) see the hand of God working in or through history. God is clearly working in history and the world is on a linear path to its end, and if it were not for God there would be no history at all. But reading the hand of God into a particular event, for good or ill, is notoriously difficult. God has chosen to make his revealed will known only through the Scriptures. Perhaps as an example of Providentialism, I read a book on Machiavelli where Savonarola is given a fair bit of space. Some Christians (BoT) read back into Savonarola a ‘Revival of Religion.’ I’m afraid I don’t. It’s a lovely thought but I really don’t see a ‘Revival’ there. Not in the same sense as we see in the Evangelical Awakenings of the 18th Century anyway. You may disagree – which is fine.
The point being, care is needed with any attempt at reading God working in the past. We also need to be charitable as not all Christian Historians will read providence in the same way. Later in the book Nathan does urge Christian Historians to make judgments in the present by using the past – but carefully.

Providentialism is a slightly different point to what is dealt with in Chapter 2 on ‘Historical Interpretation.’ Nathan lists five interpretive grids. One of these is the Marxist view. He Mentions Christopher Hill in the book. Here’s an amusing anecdote. I wasn’t there unfortunately, I couldn’t make it, but a friend was. Professor Hill visited a school in Rugby (my home town – born & bred) to lecture on an aspect of the English Civil War. One questioner asked something like, ‘Professor Hill, how would a Marxist interpret the Civil War?’ to which he replied ‘What do you think I’ve been doing for the last hour.’ There you go. It isn’t always obvious, and we should definitely not throw everything out because they (other historians) have a different worldview. Discernment is required.

Usefulness to the Church. He means here, not just The Church, but the local church. While at secondary school we had a history exam where I scored -1 (minus 1). And that wasn’t the lowest score either! History had absolutely no relevance to me at all. Plus, the History Teacher (Mr Baldwin) was a sadist – I exagerate. But he did like to lift boys up by their sideburns and give them a twist on the way up. It didn’t endear me to the subject. What changed? God intervened and a love of history was kindled almost straight away – with the help of Peter Jeffery, my first Pastor.

My experience over the years has shown that although some Christians have an interest in history – churches as a whole don’t. It’s a great shame. Your church might be blessed to have an historian as a member, though I’m sure many do not. But if your church does, or you are an historian, Nathan gives some suggestions how historians might be useful in the local church. Here’s three:

* A Sunday School Class on the History of Christianity.
* Start a history themed reading group.
* Ask about occasional Church History lectures.

Not the normal book I review. More could be said. Hope it has been helpful.

 

Is Jesus History? by John Dickson – Get a copy

Is Jesus History? By John Dickson. 2019. The Good Book Company. On 10 of Those for £6.79 (discounts for 5 or more copies)

It’s a standard paperback size of 150 pages. It’s not a big book then, and I enjoyed it from the very start. The text and style is easy to read and it isn’t overly technical. There are headings throughout each chapter with a summary (‘In a Nutshell’) and period readings at the end. The readings are mainly from the New Testament but not exclusively. The book has a few footnotes but these are kept to a bare minimum which in this case is a big help.

I loved the way he used his treasured coin (pp. 13ff) to teach us about how the past is (was) a real place and not a fictional world that has left a great deal of evidence that can be read, seen, and touched.

One objection I’ve heard is that if Jesus was so influential why are there not more records of him? These criticisms fail to understand how history works. So it was helpful when John tells us there is not ‘even one piece of personal correspondence from the emperor.’ P.16. There may be reasons God has not chosen to leave mountains of ‘evidence’ but whatever the reason it doesn’t violate any principles or historical method. Rather, it is totally in accord with the way the study of history, and especially ancient history works.

A great book for any Christian to read and an excellent book to give to your sceptical friends. It’s a good companion to Peter Williams book ‘Can we trust the Gospels.’ As Christians we often seem to be on the back-foot. At least it can feel like that. So this book is a great resource. I believe in evidence, but I’m not an evidentialist. But this book really will help, in a brief and easy to read way, I think, to give Christians confidence when talking to skeptics. Well worth reading and an excellent ‘Stocking filler.’ Buy a copy.

Can we trust the gospels? by Peter J. Williams – A Recommendation

Can we trust the gospels? by Peter J. Williams.

From the preface;

‘I have long felt the need for a short book explaining to a general audience some of the vast amount of evidence for the trustworthiness of the four Gospels. There are various great treatments of this topic, and each book has its own focus. This one seeks to present a case for the reliability of the Gospels to those who are thinking about the subject for the first time. …. for the sake of brevity I have cut out everything unnecessary.’ p.13.

‘It is common today to speak of world faiths or to describe some people as having faith, as if others do not. Faith is seen as a non-rational belief — something not based on evidence. However, that is not what faith originally meant for Christians. Coming from the Latin word fides, the word faith used to mean something closer to our word trust. Trust, of course, can be based on evidence.’

‘The book’s title, Can We Trust the Gospels?, is therefore carefully chosen. It addresses the question by looking at evidence of the Gospel’s trustworthiness. The great thing about trust is that it is something we all understand to a degree because we all exercise it.’

From The Introduction. P.15.

This is a book for anyone, and I would include non-Christians in that. The writing is easy to read, the text is easy to read and none of it is difficult to understand. There are eight chapters, a general index and a Scriptural index. There are also helpful footnotes throughout where the reader will find references to sources and recommendations for further reading.

The first chapter focuses on ancient non-Christian hostile sources to make a historical case for the authenticity of the Gospels. He makes several helpful observations that serve to support his (and the Christian) case.

Chapter 5 is the longest chapter where the author shows how the Gospels, are highly unlikely to have been made up, as some claim. There are some nice charts that support Gospel accuracy from local knowledge about place names.

Dr Williams presents in a very straightforward way ample evidence that the Gospels can be trusted. He is an expert in his field: the field of textual criticism. He inhabits, intellectually speaking, the world of manuscripts, with other experts (not necessarily Christians) in that discipline. Most of us do not.

There are other good reasons to trust the Gospels, but this book should help a) Christians that are perhaps struggling with doubt about whether the Bible can be trusted and b) Non-Christians that need to understand that trusting their souls to The Lord Jesus Christ is NOT a leap in the dark. Committing intellectual suicide is not required. In fact, the Bible itself speaks against doing so.

The last chapter deals with objections, especially from committed materialists – atheists. What is really amusing is that atheists committed to freethinking or a search for truth can’t do either of those things. Why? How can you search for truth if you don’t believe, objectively, that it exists. And so a commitment to freethinking is also impossible. Dr Williams presents a small, but significant, amount of evidence which the atheist will dismiss with a wave of the hand when any crackpot produces something that has previously been proved false, thus demonstrating a denial of that which he claims: freethinking and a search for truth. This book probably won’t satisfy the determined atheist – and I doubt anything will.

Ultimately then, all of us, come to trust in Christ through the intervention of God the Holy Spirit through whom we surrender to the God of The Bible. Thank God it is so. Although we need to be ‘born again’ by the supernatural actions of God in order that we might trust in Christ, God doesn’t ask us to believe in fairy stories (despite the protest of Atheists) but in things that happened in time, real historical events that are faithfully recorded in the Gospels. So as for the question, this book asks: Can we trust the Gospels? Yes we can.

D-Day – What about Salerno – 1943

My Dad wrote an all too brief account of his life – especially his time serving in the 46th Recce Regiment in the Second World War. I’m so sad I didn’t sit down with him and talk more about it. In my defense, he didn’t talk about it much as that generation tended not to do so. In fact, those that are most quiet about these things are those that have seen the most. War is a terrible thing. Here’s a very brief extract from a few sketchy notes he made.

Regroup of all 46th Division – sent to (undecipherable) practice landing not knowing next stop. Better not to know. Soon found out. Landed at Salerno. Lots of casualties. Lost all my kit when co-opted as infantry.

Not so good seeing so many dead and some crying for their mothers.

Lasted only 3 days. Not Bad!!

Bike arrived with ship (He was a Dispatch Rider). Great relief.

Lost a good friend in Italy when I took his place taking a message up line. When I returned farmhouse had been shelled and 3 dead. Saw many things too sad and horrible to mention.

Home on leave for 28 days after 2 years 9 months abroad.

There’s a link to a page about 44 Recce where the 46th is mentioned. I have a book somewhere of my Dad’s called ‘Only The Enemy in Front.’ which I’m sorry to say I have not read. Think it’s time to read it! Extracts from that book are quoted on the 44 Recce website. They were under the command of the US Army. This makes sense because I remember my Dad commenting on how they (The Americans) had all the best equipment!

My Dad saw terrible things, and many times providentially, he was spared.

He wrote this:

Returned to Unit. Posted missing. Never mind. Still in 1 piece.

Although he never came to faith in Christ till later in life, he never forgot the fact he was ‘in 1 piece.’ Some see the horror of war and they become Atheists – or so they say. Others, like my Dad, eventually, by the Grace of God become Christians. So when people say about all the evil in the world as an excuse for not believing God – I don’t buy it. And neither did my Dad! Praise God.

The men of that Generation deserve our thanks. Thank you, Dad, for your service, and those that serve and have served in the cause of freedom.

Below are a few extracts from the book. Worth reading.


Only The Enemy In Front (2008) pp70–71.

The first wave of Fifth Army was at sea between North Africa and Salerno when Italy’s surrender was announced. Hitler had anticipated this and German forces moved to neutralise the Italian army. As leading elements of 46th and 56th British and 36th US Divisions came ashore Kesselring had already deployed von Vietinghoff’s Tenth Army to meet them. Resistance was light at first as Vietinghoff held back his forces until he was certain that the Salerno landings were not a feint; then he hit the Allies with two Panzer and two PanzerGrenadier divisions in an attempt to implement Kesselring’s order that ‘the invading army… must be completely annihilated and… thrown into the sea.’

Two regiments of the Reconnaissance Corps were in the Salerno beachhead. 41 Recce with 46th Division and 44 Recce with 56th Division.

Only The Enemy In Front (2008) pp80–81.

On the west coast of Italy, Fifth Army had entered Naples on 1 October but their struggle on the Salerno beaches has been, to paraphrase Wellington, a close run battle. The two British divisions of X Corps which had been in the first wave of invaders had included recce regiments in their orders of battle. In Fifth Army’s situation there was little scope for the normal operations of a reconnaissance regiment and once again it was a case, for 44th and 46th Regiments, of helping to hold a line.

Believing that the Americans were the weak link in Fifth Army, Kesselring tried to drive a wedge between the British and American elements on the beaches. The attackers had the line of the River Sele as their axis of advance for that river marked the inter-Allied boundary in the beachhead.

On D Day, 9 September, elements of both recce regiments had been among the first troops of their divisions ashore

 

More Gunpowder, Treason and Plot!

I’d been reading this for a while in between dipping into other books but I have now finished it. It is absolutely brilliant! I thoroughly enjoyed reading this. And I do recommend reading it, not just for the plot itself but to understand the times. I’m not sure who said it but before reading anything from the past you should chant to yourself this phrase: ‘The past is another country, they do things differently there.’ Or do they?

To the book. Faith and Treason: The Story of the Gunpowder Plot by (Lady) Antonia Fraser. I have it in paperback. I bought it used via Amazon. The print is small and dense. There are two sections of pictures – that are great. There’s a detailed index, endnotes (I do not like endnotes), and a list of Reference Books (quite a few). There are also helpful footnotes (thumbs up) throughout the chapters. To be fair, the endnotes are mostly references with only the occasional note, and I scanned through them first so I didn’t need to refer to them while reading. The book is very detailed. She gives a great overview of the earlier reigns to set the scene for the arrival of James 1. In setting the scene though she doesn’t tell us about the St Bartholomew’s day massacre (1572) and I don’t remember any mention of the people Queen Mary (Bloody Mary, Queen in 1552) burnt at the stake. Fifty years or so isn’t that long, so it isn’t surprising sympathy for Catholics from some quarters is lacking.

Antonia Fraser wrote the book in 1996. This is significant. She wrote the book before 9/11 but I’m reading it post 9/11. Reading the book with that in mind the parallels are quite incredible. The author is obviously unaware when of writing and this makes it very interesting to read. I should mention the author is a Catholic. I’ve no idea how committed she is to her faith, but the bias I think is there. I knew this before reading so I wasn’t put off by this at all. She is a brilliant writer. And I think for the most part gives a fair account.

Robert Catesby and his band of terrorists wanted to blow up a mostly Protestant Parliament. That included the King and Queen and their children. Had they pulled it off this would have been a catastrophe for the country. There were to be Catholic Lords in ‘The House’ at the time, friends of his, but this was no deterrent to him. But it would have been uncharted territory and from that perspective, we are left with a lot of ‘what if’s.’ He was a fanatic. Not just any fanatic. He was a Catholic fanatic. He didn’t bring the Houses of Parliament down but he did bring down the wrath of the government and the ire of the King upon the Catholics in the country. The Toleration that Catholics wanted probably would have happened in time. As it eventually did in fact. But their cause had a huge setback.

What did the Government know? In the last chapter, she goes through a few views ranging from a Government plot instigated by Salisbury to complete ignorance. For me, Salisbury knew a lot, but it wasn’t a Government plot. They did need to catch them in the act. And so they caught Guido Fawkes preparing to set the thing off. It seems the powder had separated and might have been useless anyway but who knows.

Some of the questions the book raises are; The Power of The State, Freedom of Religion, Torture, Capital Punishment, and Fanaticism. All the conspirators that were caught were put to death in a horrible way. Father Garnet, the Jesuit leader in England was also put to death but mercifully died at the hanging stage. But here’s the thing about Father Garnet, he did know about the plot. He hid behind the confessional and kept quiet. But he definitely knew beforehand. Here’s something else to think about, should a Priest (or counselor) upon finding out about a crime, or possible crime report it to the authorities? She (the author) dwells upon the Catholic doctrine of Equivocation. (There’s a similar Islamic doctrine – do you get the parallels?) So initially when Father Garnet was being questioned he continued to equivocate. That is, he made it seem he knew nothing. When it finally comes out that he knew, the council rightly ask ‘why did you leave it till now to tell us?’ A fair question. We don’t know if he was tortured. Was Father Garnet, a Jesuit, the instigator of the plot. It was convenient to lay it all at the Jesuit door, but we don’t know. Robert Catesby was (conveniently some say) killed at Holbeach House and so was never questioned.

In the first three pages of the ‘Author’s Note,’ she provides a framework for the book, her aims and some questions she would like to see answered. Assuming the episode is a tragedy (it is) ‘Who was it a tragedy for?’ she asks. Other themes she cites are ‘Terror’ and ‘Terrorism’ thinking primarily of Northern Ireland and the Palestine / Israel conflict with no idea, as I said before, of what was to come. And by terror, she includes the terror of The State. She’s also keen to give a prominent place to women and so, for example, we read a lot about Ann Vaux.

Assuming then, a plot at all, she is ‘… concerned to convey actuality: that is to say, a sense of what an extraordinarily dramatic story it was, with all its elements of tragedy, brutality, [and] heroism …’ You may not, of course, agree with her answers, but whatever point of view you take on The Plot it’s still a brilliant book and a great read – I thought so anyway.

It’s quite a story and full of intrigue. I’m familiar with some of the places which made it more exciting to read. I was in Dunchurch and Ashby St Ledgers last November so I’ll try to post a few pictures.

 

Patrick of Ireland: His Life and Impact by Michael Haykin – Brief Overview

Now I have visited Ireland (RoI and NI) I wanted to read about Patrick (Circa 390-Circa 460 AD). So I decided to read Patrick of Ireland: His Life and Impact by Michael A. G. Haykin. For such a small book there is an awful lot packed into it yet avoids being a dense read. Probably too short at 102 pages (total) for an index but each of the chapters has easy to follow headings. There are quite extensive footnotes throughout each chapter, mainly references to other works with the occasional helpful comment. The text is small but not difficult to read. There are a few pages at the end of the book with recommended further reading with helpful summaries of each work should you wish to research further into the life and times of Patrick.

The book is easy to read and not overly concerned about the historical difficulties: although at first, I thought it might overshadow Patrick Himself. However, Dr Haykin doesn’t shy away from the problems so the book isn’t a hagiography. The two primary sources are his ‘Confession’ and ‘Letter to the Soldiers of Coroticus.’

The explanatory boxes throughout the book, I thought, are a nice touch and help the context. For example: ‘The fall of the Roman Empire’, ‘On The Teaching of Arius’ and ‘Celtic Paganism.’ Not all the pages are so full of page notes (see example below) but if notes are not your thing you can easily read through without referencing them. Unfortunately, I like to read them so it can break the flow a bit. Very helpful if I wanted to look into the life of Patrick in more detail. His Confession and Letter are referenced throughout.

After being captured by a party of Irish raiders Patrick is taken to Ireland. Patrick interprets this as a judgment for ignoring the Word of God. After coming to know Christ he escapes back to Britain and some 20 years later (after theological training) returns full of missionary zeal to proclaim the Gospel of Christ to the very same people who kidnapped him!

There are quotes from his Confession and Letter throughout – all referenced. Embedded in the test the words of Patrick really brings the man alive. There were huge controversies in Patrick’s day, not the least of these was the Trinity. What comes over very clearly is a man committed theologically to The Triune God, The Gospel of Christ and a fearless missionary burden to bring the Gospel to the unreached no matter what the cost to himself. Patrick’s life challenges us in these areas: Theological commitment, Love for Christ and the Gospel and Missionary Zeal.

After a brief chronology and preface there are five chapters:

  1. ‘I Am Patrick’: The Life and Historical Context of Patrick.
  2. ‘One God in the Trinity of the Holy Name’: The divine foundation of Patrick’s theology
  3. ‘I am bound by the Spirit’: Patrick and his Irish Mission
  4. ‘God has spoken’: Word and Spirit in Patrick’s piety
  5. An Evangelical reflects on Patrick – Very brief

This a great introduction to Patrick. It gives a flavour of the man and his time. I enjoyed it very much and thoroughly recommend it. I bought it for a £1.00 with another book plus postage on 10 of Those (still £1). It normally sells for £7.99. Buy it anyway, you won’t be disappointed.

‘A History of the Gunpowder Plot’ by Philip Sydney – Some Observations

My second (of three now) book on the Gunpowder Plot has the catchy title of A History of the Gunpowder Plot by Philip Sydney. If I have it right this was published in 1905 – 300 years after the plot – by Protestants Today. I bought it for £5.95. There are few illustrations and no sub-headings to speak of and so the reader is confronted with page after page of dense text. Mercifully the text type is easily readable and most of the chapters are short. Every chapter has quite a few endnotes which need to be read. There is no index and no bibliography. Not a particularly inviting book – so probably a book of its time. Very plain.

Perhaps mistakenly, I read a few reviews on Amazon that said it was dry and difficult reading. One ‘reviewer’ didn’t finish it. If I’d taken any notice of their reviews it would have stayed on a shelf in the Christian Bookshop. I obviously took no notice of them and bought it anyway. But given my comments above and the reviews I can see what they mean.

But, I really enjoyed it. I think I must be weird! The book has no Evangelistic emphasis (as the previous book) and has no real context other than a few meager references as you move through the book. What I’m enjoying though is all the detail – another thing the ‘reviewers’ didn’t like. There are a lot of quotes from the original case and a number of letters are included.

Sydney is quite upfront about his own belief that ‘it was a put up job.’ The Government (that is, Robert Cecil – Secretary of State) it seems had all the main players on a ‘watch list’. It’s extraordinary the plotters thought they could get away with it, and even when the game was up they still thought they could stage an uprising in the Midlands. There are a few references to Dunchurch, Rugby (where I grew up), and several other places I know well. Dunchurch is built around a crossroads with a couple of historic Coaching Inns and a house (then The Red Lion Inn) that apparently was where some of the plotters met. I knew a guy some years ago that lived there and have been in the house. Sadly, at the time I had no interest in any of this – a shame that. Next time I’m in Dunchurch I’ll get a few pictures.

The propaganda value of gruesome public executions seems quite obvious – especially if the authorities knew all the time. Some things don’t change. Although, the plot itself, had they actually pulled it off, would have changed the country. It was of epic proportions. But it failed. Thank God.

The historic controversies (so I have learned) concern when the authorities (Cecil) knew of The Plot, the delivery of a mysterious letter to Lord Monteagle (or Mounteagle) warning him to stay away from Parliament on November 5th and whether the Jesuit hierarchy also knew of The Plot. Sydney deals with these and drops in his disagreement with other views as he goes along. The book seems quite thorough and as far as I can tell he argues his case.

The whole thing is an incredible story. I suppose there is always going to be room for conjecture on some of the issues but Sydney quotes from primary sources – letters, trial transcripts and secret transcripts between prisoners in The Tower (that is, The Tower of London). I need another visit to the Tower myself now after reading about The Plot.

Do I recommend the book? If you get hooked on the subject, then yes. If you are a history buff, yes. Otherwise, I think you’ll survive without reading it. But:

‘Please to remember
The Fifth of November,
The Gunpowder Treason and Plot;
I see no reason
Why the Gunpowder Treason
Should ever be forgot.’ (On the inside page)

The whole episode raises enormous questions, especially about propaganda, freedom of religion, security and torture as a means to elicit information. And so in that sense reading of The Plot is ever relevant as we face those very same questions in our own day.

So I have another book to read on The Plot that will be a bit more demanding. I’ll do a post in due time.