Lewis was a writer in the bad habit of being nearly always correct, which can be thoroughly irritating. In this short but tasty book he dissects modern educational trends, a subject we all enjoy, and he does it well. Let it be known that Lewis was dissecting the modern educational trends of the forties. He recognized the problems then and predicted the logical conclusions that would follow from them. We, who are wading knee deep in the very conclusions he predicted, are still having trouble spotting the flaws in education which he saw fifty years ago.
Throughout the book Lewis interacts with an English grammar he charitably calls The Green Book, so as not to overtly embarrass its authors. The discussion he presents is very specific in its references to this grammar book, and he tears the poor thing limb from limb. One particular example of his far-sightedness is found in his reaction to the grammar's discussion of the word sublime . After demonstrating the book's foolhardy subjectivism, he concludes with the following statement about the hapless school-children, "That is their day's lesson in English, though of English they have learned nothing. Another little portion of the human heritage has been quietly taken from them before they were old enough to understand." Brer Lewis touched the thing with a needle.
But Lewis is not the only one to recognize the fact that today's education is worthless. To quote the wisdom of a lesser philosopher: "When I think back on all the, um, course of study I learned in high school, it's a wonder I can think at all." Lewis, however, was one who knew how and why education tubed. Perhaps the reader resembles Paul Simon, knowing he was instructed by losers, and wishing to see a cogent evaluation of the situation. Go to Lewis, man, and the lights will start to go on.
Sola Scriptura! The Protestant Position on the Bible
Don Kistler, editor
Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria Publ. 1996
Reviewed by Douglas Jones
The doctrine of Sola Scriptura is not just some arcane dispute with conservative Roman Catholics. It sets the foundation for a Christian understanding of the Church, reason, worship, politics, history, the arts, education, and more. If we misunderstand the teaching at its origin, then many tributaries could get choked.
Soli Deo Gloria Publications is to be commended for its efforts in responding to recent Roman Catholic objections to Protestantism. For many years, nothing was said by any publisher. This book on sola Scriptura is a sister discussion to the publisher's Justification by Faith Alone. Sola Scriptura! collects seven essays on the topic from Robert Godfrey, James White, R.C. Sproul, John Armstrong, John MacArthur, Sinclair Ferguson, and Beeke/Lanning, and it includes a forward by Michael Horton. The essays by Armstrong and Ferguson stand out as especially thoughtful and interesting.
Though the work is commendable in many ways and very worthy of reading, I'm afraid the book as a whole could be improved. I greatly respect the publisher and all the authors as my betters, and I certainly don't pretend to have the last word on these questions, but I worry for those Protestants who are sincerely struggling with the issue of sola Scriptura in light of Roman Catholic objections. For them, I suspect that this text may be unhelpful on several points.
Perhaps most confusing for some is that the various authors don't seem to have any agreed upon definition of the doctrine in a discussion where careful definition is so very, very important. For example, we find sola Scriptura defined as just plain sufficiency in numerous places; also as "all things necessary for salvation . . . are taught in the Bible clearly enough for the ordinary believer" (i.e. formal sufficiency -- an important implication but not the whole question); "All truth necessary for our salvation . . . is taught either explicitly or implicitly in Scripture" (i.e., material sufficiency -- a notion unobjectionable to many Roman Catholics); "Scripture alone is our authority"(an anabaptistic take); "Scripture alone is our ultimate religious authority" (closer but doesn't exclude ultimate fallible authorities, like a Supreme Court); "sole sufficiency" (a mixed falsity); and "supreme, final, and sufficient authority" (closest though a little redundant but recognizes that formal sufficiency is only a part of the classical Protestant doctrine).
Ultimacy and sufficiency are both key parts of the doctrine, but they are very different concepts and require different arguments. Not all the authors seem to recognize this, and a few authors appear unknowingly to switch definitions mid essay. Most of the authors take formal sufficiency as the most important concept, but it's not. Many books could be formally sufficient but not authoritative. Calvin's or Turretin's Institutes might be formally sufficient, having clear teachings of everything necessary for salvation and ethics, but they are not authoritative. Sufficiency is certainly part of sola Scriptura but it's not the whole. And proving just a part of the doctrine doesn't prove the whole.
Armstrong best recognizes that the sola of the doctrine was not historically connected with sufficiency but that "the Reformation debate was more directly about sole authority," namely sole infallible and ultimate authority, which assumes as parts: perspicuity, sufficiency, holiness, necessity, etc.
Also, some of the authors don't hear the Roman Catholic objections or counterarguments correctly. It would have been helpful to see the main Roman Catholic objections -- impracticality and canon silence -- receive more attention. Yet for all my complaints, it is an important work that contains many helpful discussions.
Revival and Revivalism
Iain Murray
Carlisle, PA; Banner of Truth, 1994
Reviewed by Douglas Wilson
Regular readers of Credenda know that we frequently refer to a religious phenomenon which we call modern evangelicalism. By and large, what we have to say on the subject is not complimentary, and some readers may have wondered where this thing we call modern evangelicalism first originated -- they may also have wondered about the nature of the older evangelicalism which preceded it.
This is an outstanding book which provides the necessary historical background for understanding the history of our decline into the modern religious inanities which surround us. The reader of this wonderful book will never see the history of the Christian church in America the same way again. We have been told so many things which are simply and demonstrably false; and, more importantly, we have never been told at all about many men whose honor in heaven is considerably higher than it is here. We cannot honor them here; for the most part, we do not know their names, and even if we did, our standards for praise and blame differ in a marked degree
For example, the legacy of Charles Finney is held up in modern evangelical circles as a wonderful example of an older time when revival was a commonplace in our churches. The reality was far different. But even though Murray patiently explains the historical and theological connections which made Finney the destructive force he was, at the same time, he is not out to "get Finney." He explains Finney was not so much the instigator of our troubles, but rather a prime specimen of the new frontier attitude; Finney was on the front end of the democratization of American Christianity. Far from being the theologian of revival, as he is represented, Finney -- that Ishmael!was the death of revival in our nation.
But he did not just remove and destroy. He had a vision for what should replace the older trust in God. He should be considered the father of the "can-do" pragmatic spirit in religious affairs which dominates the church today. The machinery of the modern church runs on programs, schedules, trained professionals, marketing, advertising, ad nauseam .
The fact that the new measures swept the country left those who had taken the field with a considerable freedom to represent their opponents in any way they pleased. The Christians of an older stock were calumniated as "anti-revival men," cold, dead, lifeless, orthodox . . . .Thus, even when someone came to question whether the new foolishness was what we needed, there could be no doubt that the new measures had at least done the valuable service of ridding the church of a clammy and oppressive orthodoxy. Murray shows us, in a painstaking way, the slanderous nature of the charges. The men who stood against the spirit of the coming age -- men like Nettleton, Alexander, Griffin, Spring, Dabney -- were men who loved Christ, and who preached Him with fervency, zeal, and great effect. In opposing the new measures, some of them testified together, saying, "if their consequences should prove widely ruinous, and confessedly wrong in the end . . . that it may be at least known , though our heads should then be low in dust, and known by witnesses that we furnished, and that shall survive and faithfully interpret us, that some were NOT their patrons " (p. 236). In resurrecting their testimony, and setting their example before us once again, Murray has provided the church with a wonderful service.
Every pastor needs to obtain and study this volume.
Modern Art and the Death of a Culture
H.R. Rookmaaker
Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1993
Reviewed by Stephen Thomas
This little book authored by a former Professor of the History of Art at the Free University of Amsterdam and associate of the late Dr. Francis Schaeffer shows how modern art reflects a whole culture -- in this case a dying culture. And since culture is religion externalized, we rejoice that our reigning King is destroying His enemies!
We receive an overview of the faith and works of the modern art movement and a demonstration that it did not come about in a vacuum, but within a society endeavoring to rid itself of the light of biblical revelation. The saints also did their part in bringing us to our present state in not resisting this evil and not fostering the arts. This the author blames on a pietistic view which sees the arts as evil per se but wrongly blames the Puritan influence as a cause of this pietism.The jibe at the Puritans, while not accurate, is understandable, he being a Dutch Calvinist and what all.
The meaning in art, we are reminded, is to understand what the author meant to convey and not how the observer feels. So true. Those who decry deconstructionist thought in academic circles often employ it in the arts. "Who's to say?" This brings up the question of the author's epistemology. How does he know that the artist meant what he claims the artist meant?
Even so, he masterfully shows why so much art, which is merely presenting people, places, and events as they would have been seen, is quite frankly, unbiblical, for it gives no meaning to history and therefore presents a visual argument for the existence of "brute facts." On the other hand, art which seeks to avoid presenting "bare reality" can nevertheless err in attempting to invoke mere sentiment without propositional truth ( a la Precious Moments -- available at your local Bauble bookstore).
The book concludes with a sermonic appeal for recapturing this dimension of
life. It's not really about art, but society and religion as art is evidence of
something greater -- rthe god of the artist. This author has shown with uncanny insight
that our God, who is the only One, is worthy of better. If we heed Rookmaaker
there shall be many glorifying works of art to place at the Chief Artisan's feet
in that day.
