I felt a certain connection with Karl Barth this morning as I sat on my front balcony, pipe in hand, to review certain portions of Webster’s book. It is a shame, or at least a reflection on my cultural-theological context, that I have completed two theological degrees with very little familiarity with the man whom many consider to have been, in his own time, the greatest theologian since Schleiermacher. My familiarity with Barth, in fact, has been entirely non-existent except through a number of quips such as “Barth was the father of neo-orthodoxy” or “For Barth, the Bible becomes the Word of God.” Aside from these two phrases, I don’t know that I would have even recognized the name Karl Barth. Given that Barth would have rejected the former description and would have at least wanted the latter to be heavily nuanced and qualified betrays the fact that my understanding of this deeply influential theologian was tragically lacking during much of my academic life. With that said, this review is not intended to be a critique of my former studies or theological framework (at least not primarily), so I will move on.

Let me make it very clear from the start that I do not consider my own familiarity with Barth to be by any means adequate having finished Webster’s introduction to the man and his theology. Barth was a deeply complex individual, thinker, dogmatist, churchman, and political commentator. His writings are extensive and his style is not always highly accessible. I do not want to fall into the common trap of thinking that I have become a Barthian scholar now that I have familiarized myself with a broad outline of his life and theology. With that said, Webster’s work has been tremendously useful in helping me gain an initial acquaintance with the man, his context(s), his presuppositions, and a basic framework of his essential theological conclusions.

I want to accomplish three very modest tasks in this review: 1. Provide an overview of what I see to be the benefit of Webster’s book; 2. Provide a very basic review of what I see to be Barth’s most important theological conclusion; 3. Briefly describe my own response to Barth’s theology as I currently understand it and describe how I intend to work through some of these themes in my own study.

Webster’s Work

I found Webster’s book to be a very helpful introduction for a number of reasons. First, he emphasizes the importance of seeing the inter-relationship between Barth’s life—in his own social-theological-political context—and his theology and provides a helpful biographical sketch to assist in understanding his life and theological work. Second, Webster is helpful in drawing out Barth’s relationship to the prevailing modernism and liberalism of his day. This was very important for my own understanding of Barth and I think will be so for many. It is important to understand that Barth was, in his own words, a product of the nineteenth century. That is, Barth’s context was that of modernism and theological liberalism. Though he spent much of his theological career opposing the presuppositions and faulty conclusions of the day, he did so in categories and terms, to a large extent, defined and established by the prevailing schools of thought. Nevertheless, Barth did oppose the prevailing notions of his day in no uncertain terms. Often, his confrontation of established thought put him clearly on the fringe (at best) of the academic community. Barth was not comfortable with many of the given theological and philosophical conclusions of his day and was not timid about confronting them in light of his own biblical and theological convictions derived from deep study of and reflection on the text. One cannot adequately (or fairly) understand Barth’s thought without understanding his cultural and theological context. Finally, the primary strength of Webster’s book comes, in my opinion, from his ability to do little more or less than summarize Barth’s actual thoughts and key theological convictions. Though no work can be entirely objective, Webster’s book comes as close to any that I have read. Throughout the work, one has the impression that Webster’s only purpose is to capture Barth’s thoughts accurately. While he interjects his own judgments occasionally, this is rare. In the majority of his work, he simply portrays Barth’s own thoughts, often in Barth’s own words.

Barth’s Theology

As I explained earlier, I have not had a tremendous amount of exposure to Barth’s theology prior to this time and, thus, encountered much of Barth’s theology for the first time as I read Webster’s. I am still working through a number of Barth’s conclusions in order to understand them more fully and fit them into my own theological context. I will try to present brief outlines of a few of Barth’s dogmatic themes one by one in future posts. For now, I will comment only on what I see to be Barth’s most important theological conviction and contribution and one that influences all of Barth’s thought.

The most important theological conviction of Barth’s, emphasized throughout Webster’s work (and in simultaneous study over recent weeks) is Barth’s commitment to the absolute deity of God. This may sound like a given conclusion and one that needs little explanation. However, the reality is that, in Barth’s day, this was not the case. In fact, in the liberalism of the early 20^th century, the deity of God was under tremendous attack. For the modernists that made up the prevailing thought in Barth’s day, God was understood primarily in terms of his relation to humanity. Barth categorically and vehemently rejected this way of looking at God. Whereas, the prevailing theological context understood God strictly in terms of his immanence or his relationship with creation, Barth argued for the absolute transcendence and strictly-otherness of God. Barth rejected the validity of viewing humanity as the starting point for theological reflection and viewing God’s relation with humanity as a given conclusion. Barth argued that God is subject before he is object; though he is both the subject and object of theology. God alone is free. God is the initiator. God is the Creator. God is God. Whereas liberal, modern theologians attempted to bring God into humanity and to understand him through human terms, Barth argued that God is wholly other and that he cannot be known or understood apart from his own free revelation of himself.

This conviction impacted every aspect of Barth’s theology. He could not discuss a single point of theology without emphasizing this central theme. This central conviction influenced his view of Scriptures, grace, the Trinity, Christology, reconciliation, and ethics, and etc. While this seems to be a great strength of Barth’s theology, at times, his commitment to this aspect of theology seems to have led him to some unusual conclusions. However, if we adequately understand Barth’s context and the battles that he was fighting, we might understand and appreciate his need to emphasize this aspect of theology.

Initial Reactions and the Way Forward

As my exposure to Barth has been and remains very limited, I want to be careful to avoid firm conclusions at this point. However, I will give a few of my initial reactions and briefly discuss where I see Barth fitting in to my own theological framework and future study.

I am encouraged by a number of aspects of Barth’s theology:

1.    I appreciate Barth’s battle against the theological liberalism of his day and am saddened by the refusal of some conservative theologians to deal honestly with the life and work of Karl Barth. The reality that Barth confronted liberalism does not justify errant conclusions that he may have held but it should warrant at least some bit of appreciation and willingness to deal honestly with his thoughts. Given Barth’s context, it is remarkable that he formed the conclusions that he did and is an indication that his attempt was to deal honestly with the text. This drove him to confront liberalism at its most basic level, its refusal to accept God as God.

2.    I appreciate Barth’s commitment to the deity and transcendence of God. I appreciate that this conviction flowed through every point of theology that Barth addressed. Barth was absolutely committed to protecting God as God and was opposed to any theological framework that did not keep God in the place of transcendent autonomy.

3.    I appreciate that, for Barth, ethics are critical to the theological task. He argued that ethics is an essential and indispensible component of the theological task. I think he’s right at this point. He did not view the theological task as simply an attempt to grasp the propositional truth about God, but as a task necessary to understand the proper relationship between the church and the world. Additionally, in the ethical discussion he always viewed propositional truth as primary and no place for ethical discussion that did not flow from careful theological reflection.

4.    I appreciate Barth’s emphasis on theology as a task for the church. For Barth, theology is not some abstract discipline to take place in academic or cultural circles. Theology is necessary for the church and properly takes place in the sphere of the church. I think his emphasis on this point is important.

Nevertheless, there are certainly aspects of Barth’s theology that cause me concern:

1.    His view of revelation and the Word of God seems inadequate at certain points. As explained above, Barth’s emphasis on God’s freedom and otherness was primary. In the case of revelation, this seems to have caused Barth to arrive at a few unhealthy conclusions. While I appreciate Barth’s emphasis at a number of points, in the end, his view of the Word of God seems to be unsatisfactory. For Barth, Scriptures are not the revelation of God; they are an account of the revelation of God. This conclusion is largely driven by the fact that Barth rejects the notion that human actions can reveal God. God is transcendent and his being and his ways cannot be captured adequately in human language. God can, however, choose to reveal himself to humans through his Word. This again is a free act of God.

2.    Barth’s understanding of the Trinity is probably the most troubling and confusing of all of his conclusions. I cannot comment in great depth on this point primarily because I don’t have a great grasp on his understanding of the Trinity. However, from what I do understand, it seems to me that Barth minimizes the existence of three distinct persons in the Godhead and seems to be close to modalism at some points.  His peculiar understanding in this area is driven largely by his commitment to the oneness of God. He wants to be careful to avoid any understanding which leads to a tritheistic conception of God. He also wants to avoid a monadic understanding of God. He is uncomfortable with the term ‘person,’ and prefers the term ‘mode’ to describe the three entities within the Godhead as he thinks that this term best captures God’s ‘unity-in-distinction.’ For Barth, Trinitarian theology is critical to a proper understanding of God and to all aspects of theology including primarily revelation. I appreciate Barth’s emphasis  on the importance of this doctrine and his linking of the doctrine of the Trinity and revelation. However, it seems that Barth’s statement is at least not as clear as would be desired.

The way forward:

I plan to spend more time with Barth’s theology in coming days as I have found my initial reading to be encouraging in a number of areas. In particular, I am interested in doing further study related to his understanding in the areas of revelation, the Trinity, and ethics/politics. I would like to gain further familiarity with his understanding of revelation as I think that he has some helpful and appropriate things to say in this area (as already discussed, I also think there are some problems). I intend to do more investigation into his doctrine of the Trinity as I think that this may be his weakest theological position but am not sure that I am presently in a position to comment appropriately on his weaknesses. I am interested in a better understanding of his view of ethics and politics as he thought deeply in these areas and, at least, his approach and framework seem helpful. Barth was at the center of a number of political controversies. In fact, much of his theological reflection was driven by his disillusion with the standard theological-political response of his teachers and contemporaries. His strong political views cost him his job on one occasion. It seems to me that we have largely failed in the task of formulating an appropriately Christian and theological approach to dealing with the political challenges of our day and I am interested to see further where Barth may be helpful in this task.

Finally, I recommend Webster’s book to anyone who wants to gain a basic familiarity with Karl Barth’s life and theology.

As you can see, my ‘summary’ of Wright’s book, Evil and the Justice of God, got away from me a bit as I found it difficult to ignore any significant point. I’m sure that many will not have the stamina to make it through the entire review. For this reason, I want to provide a second post to actually summarize a few of the points that I have found most helpful in Wright’s short book.

1.       His skillful summary of the way that God has dealt with evil throughout biblical history.

2.       His emphasis on the atonement as the central act wherein God faced the full onslaught of evil in all its fury and demonstrated his decisive victory over evil in the crucifixion and resurrection of his Son. God dealt with sin once-and-for-all in the cross work of Jesus. This event is the God’s ‘solution’ to the ‘problem of evil.’

3.       His caution to avoid seeing evil as something that is ‘out there’ and exists only or primarily in persons, groups, cultures, and governments that are different than themselves. He makes it clear that the line between good and evil runs through all of us. A biblical-historical review of God’s relationship with his people reveals over and over that even those who are called to be part of the solution inevitably turn out to be part of the problem. This is an important corrective for the Western Church which loves to see evil as something that exists ‘outside’ in unbelievers, varying political or philosophical viewpoints, non-Western governments, or different cultures. The reality is, however, that the line between good and evil runs right through the church.

4.       His emphasis on our need to recognize that, as believers, we live in the time between the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus on the one hand and the new world on the other. Our task in this age, then, is to find ways to live out the former in meaningful ways in anticipation of the latter. Wright encourages Christians to imagine the world that will exist with no evil, and to find creative ways to bring that world into the present in meaningful ways as we eagerly anticipate God’s new creation to come.

5.       His emphasis on forgiveness as of central importance in the Christian life. We are indeed forgiven people and must live lives that are through and through characterized by this forgiveness. He argues that one’s capacity to offer forgiveness is directly proportionate to one’s capacity to receive it. He explains that the biblical view of forgiveness does not belittle or tolerate evil. In fact, it recognizes evil for exactly what it is and then makes every effort to seek reconciliation and relationship that is ultimately sourced in the cross work of Jesus.

6.       His insistence that we should not treat the ‘problem of evil’ as a theoretical or philosophical problem to be solved. While he submits that there are solutions to be found at this level, he argues that we will not find or understand these solutions in this life. Thus we should see the solution to the problem of evil not as a theory but as a life.

Finally, I want to recommend this book to you. In this short work, Wright applies a thorough familiarity with the Scriptures, great skill in elucidating narrative texts, compelling logic, cultural awareness, and a passionate and practical appeal to live an authentic Christian life in this evil world. This book is a refreshing challenge to the individual Christian and to the church to think deeply and creatively about the atonement as God’s genuine solution to the problem of evil; and to live out this solution in the present evil age through lives characterized by gospel forgiveness, in anticipation of the day when God will create a new world that is free from all evil.

Matthew 6:9-15 – This, then, is how you should pray: “Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name, your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us today our daily bread. Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.” For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.

A couple of weeks back I worked through Brian Vickers’ treatment of the doctrine of imputation titled, Jesus’ Blood and Righteousness. I have been interested in the debates surrounding justification, imputation, new perspective, and have thought it necessary to at least gain familiarity with the framework of the debate. These issues are debated very passionately in current evangelical circles. The extent of one’s theological orthodoxy is often seen to be at stake in these debates and I think it is important to understand the matters in question. Unquestionably matters that relate to salvation (or the entire cross-section of theological studies that fall into this general category) are of central importance and cannot be taken lightly. Thus, the fervor with which these matters are debated is, at least to a certain degree, understandable. However, humility and due consideration for the complexity of these issues seem to be missing in many cases.

I cannot say that I have entirely settled these matters in my own mind and must therefore admit that I may not be in the best position to discuss these matters. There are a number of themes that I have been working through in relation to justification and imputation but many of these themes are far from crystallized in my thinking. I will try simply to summarize Vickers work, provide a synopsis of my initial response, and will attempt to revisit some of these themes in later posts.

At the start I should note that I am encouraged by a few recent “conservative evangelical” treatments of these issues that have, at a minimum, maintained a level of decorum and respect toward those who take opposing viewpoints (I’m very encouraged with Piper’s tone in his recent work addressing the doctrine of Justification). While matters related to soteriology are of central importance, Vickers seems to recognize that some of the particular and more nuanced elements of soteriology are not as clear-cut as one might desire. Vickers takes a humble approach in his treatment and acknowledges that those who disagree with his position do so primarily out of what they understand to be Scriptural grounds. The debate is not, therefore, one primarily between conservatives and liberals or evangelicals and apostates (though that distinction does exist in some extreme cases). Of course, this does not justify his conclusions, so on with the review.

Vickers takes a straightforward approach to addressing the doctrine of imputation. His primary goal in the book is to review key Pauline texts for the doctrine of imputation. Specifically he addresses three primary Pauline texts: Romans 4 (specifically, Paul’s quotation of Genesis 15:6 and Psalm 32:2), Romans 5:12-21, and 2 Corinthians 5:21. He addresses these texts with certain theological questions framed in advance. One might argue that his questions are designed to lead him in a certain direction. That is, given his questions and his perspective, it is unlikely that he would arrive at a conclusion other than what he does.

The book begins with a very brief review of the history of theological interpretation of the doctrine of imputation. Interestingly, he begins with the reformers (Luther, Melanchthon, and Calvin), moves through various protestant confessional material, on to modern theologians, then to the primary symbols of the New Perspective (Sanders, Dunn, and Wright), and ends with a few current evangelical theologians (Ridderbos, Murray, Ladd, Gundry, Morris, Moo, Schreiner). Two features of this historical review were particularly frustrating to me: First, it is peculiar that Vickers begins with the Reformers. It seems that it would be worthwhile to see a review of interpretation prior to the Reformation. Understandably, these interpretations may not follow the same systematic categories or answer the same questions as later theologians but it seems that something is tragically lacking in a historical review that begins in the 16th century. Second, the brevity of the review necessitates that certain elements are oversimplified or all but ignored. It is difficult to fault Vickers too much in this area. The task of tracing the history of theological interpretation is a difficult one, especially if one wishes to keep the work to a manageable length. Additionally, I appreciate that Vickers attempts to be fair to various viewpoints and avoids caricatures.

As explained earlier, the substance of Vickers’ work is his discussion of three major Pauline texts generally understood as key to the doctrine of imputation. He begins with an investigation of Romans 4. He concludes that Paul’s emphasis in this text is on forgiveness as one element of justification. This emphasis is seen particularly in the fact that Paul links justification/imputation with the non-imputation of sin (forgiveness) in Psalm 32:2. Vickers argues from Romans 3 that the righteousness imputed to the believer is the righteousness of Christ but is honest with the text here and acknowledges that the idea of Christ’s active obedience being imputed to the account of the believer is at least not obvious from this text.

Next he moves to a discussion of Romans 5:12-21. In this section Vickers probably does his best biblical-theological work. He provides a helpful review of Paul’s teaching related to sin as sourced in the one man Adam and righteousness as brought about by the one man Christ. His interaction with the text and context is helpful. However, his conclusion regarding the imputation of Christ’s active righteousness does not seem to follow smoothly or seamlessly from this exegetical work. Having carefully reviewed Paul’s thoughts through detailed textual investigation he takes a sharp turn and asserts, on what appear to be logical grounds, that the human condition necessitates the imputation of Christ’s active obedience. The context of Romans 5:18-19 seems to connect the obedience of Christ specifically to his atoning sacrifice on the cross (a connection that Vickers acknowledges in pp. 146-9). However, Vickers still argues that the imputation of Christ’s active obedience is in view in this text. At the end of this chapter dealing with Romans 5, Vickers argues that the condition brought about by Adam necessitates more than mere forgiveness (153-6). The argument goes like this: Adam was not only given the command to avoid eating the fruit, he was also given commands related to exercising dominion over the earth – something that Adam failed to do because of his disobedience. Thus, not only is Christ’s atonement necessary to reverse Adam’s disobedience, his active obedience is also necessary to achieve the righteous standing that Adam failed to achieve. While this logic might be compelling, there does not seem to be any textual warrant for this conclusion. It is difficult to imagine this conclusion emerging apart from a framework heavily influenced by Reformation (or post-Reformation) categories.

Next Vickers turns to an interpretation of 2 Corinthians 5:21. Here again he provides some helpful insights into the text. He argues that Paul’ language “made to be sin” in this text is primarily sacrificial. He makes this argument on the basis of the “made to be sin” language itself and the theme of reconciliation to which he finds links in the OT, specifically the link between Paul’s use of reconciliation language and the Suffering Servant language found in Isaiah (a connection expounded by Beale). Next he discusses the meaning of righteousness. Making the connection between verse 17 and verses 14-15 he concludes, “God’s righteousness in judging and punishing sin and God’s righteousness in salvation are revealed in Christ’s representative death and his resurrection” (186). Vickers argues from this passage that the union with Christ theme is closely connected with the statements “new creation” and “become the righteousness of God” and that this theme is critical for the doctrine of imputation. He argues that this theme most clearly indicates that, just as sin is reckoned to Christ, the sacrificial death of Christ is counted as righteousness to those who are “in him.”

Finally, Vickers briefly reviews some of the other texts that have relevance to the topic of justification and attempts to handle some of the common objections to his traditional formulation of the doctrine. Some of this material is helpful. If for no other reason, it is helpful in gaining insight into the traditional formulation of this doctrine.

Overall, I have mixed opinions of Vickers work. At many points his interaction with the text is detailed, honest, and insightful. However, there are definite points where his conclusions do not seem as strong as his textual examination (at least his conclusions do not always appear obvious from his textual interaction). Particularly, his arguments regarding the imputation of Christ’s active obedience are not convincing. The debate regarding whether or not systematic and Biblical theology can take place simultaneously will continue and I do not intend to answer that question (it seems to me that this topic is more complex than some might wish). However, it does seem, at points, that Vickers’ questions and categories lead him to conclusions that are not always as strong as his textual examination. To this extent his systematic categories (at least as a starting point) may be hurtful.

I may or may not recommend the book based on one’s purposes for reading. It is certainly valuable in terms of gaining familiarity with the traditional formulation of the doctrine of imputation. Additionally, it offers some very helpful insights into the interpretation of some key Pauline texts. I do not know that it is very helpful in placing the various arguments within the context of the broader debate over the doctrine of imputation.

As for me, there are number of questions that still exist. I cannot say that I know precisely where I stand in the current debate over imputation, justification, and etc. I am certainly concerned about some elements of the New Perspective and by no means wish to fully embrace this viewpoint. However, I have some definite concerns over certain points of the traditional (following the Reformation) formulation of the doctrines as well. I intend to post additional thoughts related to these themes in the future as I continue to work through these matters. I welcome your thoughts, questions, concerns, and insights.

I have read a number of books since I started my ‘one book at a time policy’ and intend to give my very brief thoughts on these books during the coming days and weeks. I will start with a small book that I completed as one of the first books under this policy. A close friend of mine, Tom Daily, strongly recommended this book to me while I was in the US. TD is a good friend whose recommendations I value so I had the book mailed to me overnight so that I could bring it back with me to the ‘City of Joy’ (Kolkata, India). I read the book during my first week back and found it a great joy to work through Dr. Carson’s short reflection on the life and work of his father Tom Carson.

This is a peculiar little book. If you’re looking for a tail of brilliant genius, remarkable scholarship, spectacular ministry, or an astonishing revival driven by a singular talent or uncharacteristic working of God – the stuff of most biographies – this is not the book. If you’re interested in a brief account of a rather unimposing man who accomplished little more or less than to love his God, love his family, and faithfully invest in the ministry to which he knew he was called, I commend this book.

Most biographies tend to encourage the reader to do extraordinary things for God by introducing us to the singular accomplishments of a man or woman with spectacular giftedness, devotion, brilliance, and etc. This book does nothing of the sort. In his loving reflection on the life of his father, Dr. Carson seems rather to encourage the reader to do quite ordinary things for God by seeking, like his father, to devote one’s self to God and seek simply to faithfully do the mundane things of life that he requires.

The book really does not read like any book I have read in the past. There is simply not much extraordinary that happens in the life of Tom Carson. One gets the impression that he is reading an account of the life of a regular guy. Dr. Carson quotes extensively from the journal entries of his father and these are generally filled with the rather mundane things of ordinary life. Tom Carson was a missionary pastor to French speaking Canadians from the early 1940s until his death in 1992. He remained faithful to his calling to this difficult field throughout his life though his ministry, for many years, yielded very little identifiable fruit. He experienced what seem to be times of great joy and enthusiasm, but more often times of depression, regret, and self-criticism. He often criticized his own commitment to the Lord and ministry and struggled with his own perceived ineffectiveness. Relatively late in his ministry he came to the difficult realization that he functioned more effectively as a ‘second man’ and took step back in his church involvement. He took a secular job and placed himself under the leadership of a younger man in the pastorate. These years seem to have been more fruitful and profitable than the years that he spent as the official pastor of the church. During these years, he continued to give himself to active ministry through teaching, preaching, evangelism, and counseling and was used in ways that proved, at least in retrospect, to have been highly fruitful. Late in life he found himself caring for his wife who was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease. Here again Tom Carson remained faithful to his marriage vows and cared for his wife lovingly, selflessly, and without complaint until her death. Following her death he continued to serve in the church in humble and meaningful ways until his death.

The life of Tom Carson is one of quiet and humble service to God. In retrospect, it seems that God used the life of Tom Carson in a mighty way, in his own mighty way. In summary, what I gained from reading this brief account was the value of the life of a man who faithfully loved his God and his family, remained true to his calling, and died faithful. Maybe this isn’t so ordinary after all.

Through this book I have been reminded of Paul’s words in Galatians 1:10, “Am I now trying to win the approval of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ.” So many of us want so deeply to accomplish something noteworthy, something to be remembered by – I want to write a book, I want to start a significant ministry – but how many of us want nothing more than to faithfully and humbly love the Lord and finish well the ministry to which he has called us?

In short, this is an encouraging book. I highly recommend this book but caution you that it is not a thrilling page turner – it is not intended to be. I especially recommend this book to so many of my friends who are young (like myself) and filled with the aspirations and ambitions of youth. May our aspirations be nothing more or less than to live as faithful servants of our Lord and finish well the task that he has for us.

1 Timothy 6:11-16 – But you, man of God, flee from all this, and pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, endurance and gentleness.  ¹² Fight the good fight of the faith. Take hold of the eternal life to which you were called when you made your good confession in the presence of many witnesses.  ¹³ In the sight of God, who gives life to everything, and of Christ Jesus, who while testifying before Pontius Pilate made the good confession, I charge you  ¹⁴ to keep this command without spot or blame until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ,  ¹⁵ which God will bring about in his own time– God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords,  ¹⁶ who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen

1.    I am at times frustrated by the pseudo-scholarship that is promoted in such forums. That is, the blogosphere has seemed to produce an entirely new group of ‘scholars’ who are such neither by virtue of their legitimate education, their extreme intellect, nor their unique perspective on life, but simply by virtue of the fact that Blogspot or WordPress captures their words in a manner that is indistinguishable from those of legitimate scholars. This phenomenon often fosters pride and arrogance and leads to little that is helpful to the community of Christ. Now, I am not resistant to this motivation because I am above it. Quite the contrary, I can absolutely see myself being drawn into this scene. I am not looking for yet another way to see my pride and arrogance increased. I, like others, at times deem my own insights and perspectives as far more helpful and wise than they are in reality.

2.    I am busy, lazy, and not very well organized. It is unlikely, outside of the grace of God and the accountability of others, that I will keep a blog current. Showering at regular intervals takes almost all of the planning energy I can muster. I am not interested in hosting yet another empty shell within the blogosphere.

3.    I did not have any real purpose. I’ve given a good deal of thought to what the purpose of my blog would/should be and have been unable to define what the purpose would be. Maybe this search for a purpose violates the idea of blogging. If one is to engage in one of the primary media of the postmodern era, it could be that it is entirely inappropriate to define anything like a purpose. However, if I am going to invest time and energy that could otherwise be spent with family, friends, books, the Bible, my Savior, or in ministry pursuits, I think that I should have a purpose. Additionally, to go along with the second point, it would be unlikely that I would keep the blog up to date if I do not have a particular purpose or direction.

Nevertheless, I have decided, somewhat reluctantly, to engage myself in the blogging world for a few very specific reasons. I offer the following as the most important:

1.    I hope to be an encouragement to the body of Christ (albeit a very limited segment of it), or, at least, to keep myself in regular dialogue with the Christian community. This is particularly important to me at this stage of my life given my current context. I live in a place where I have very little interaction with anything like a Christian community. Furthermore, the Christian community that I am able to interact with would not be the sort that could challenge me in the area of theology or academics. It is simply not possible for me to have the type of regular interaction that I once had with like-minded Christian individuals to discuss matters of faith, theology, books, academics, and etc. This forum should be helpful for me in this area.

2.    I hope to keep myself accountable to do intentional reading and writing. Again, I am not currently in a position where I am required to read anything in particular (or to read at all), and my schedule is such that it makes it very difficult for me to accomplish much in this area (I work very long and odd hours). Without some specific accountability and plan, it is highly unlikely that I will accomplish much in these areas and think that it is necessary for me to devote regular time to intentional reading and keeping my writing skills sharp (or further sharpening them).

3.    My wife has encouraged me to do so. My wife is my best friend and usually offers me the best, and most practical advice that I find anywhere. She has encouraged me a number of times to start a blog in order to engage in theological discussion. She knows me well and I trust her advice. Furthermore, I trust her to provide the accountability necessary to accomplish what she has suggested. In other words, she needs to make me do it!

So, with that behind us, here is what I propose to accomplish through this blog:

1.    My primary goal will be to write regular book reviews. By this, I do not intend to write extensive critiques or in-depth analyses. I intend only to very briefly summarize books that I am reading in an attempt to begin dialogue (in the unlikely event that anyone desires further discussion) and to provide enough information for others to decide whether or not they would be interested in reading the book that I have reviewed. With my current schedule I have set a goal for myself to read one book each week. For some larger books this will not be possible but I will try, primarily, to target books that I can get through in a relatively short time frame so that I can make progress in this area. I have tended, for most of my life, to be an undisciplined reader. I am easily distracted and usually have about 10-12 totally unrelated books going at any point in time. Given my current situation, I simply cannot read more than one book at a time and expect to accomplish anything. I hope to make regular progress by establishing better discipline in this area and provide reviews so that others can dialogue with me or make informed decisions regarding their own reading selections.

2.    I would like to interject these posts with reflections on the occasional and ordinary happenings of my life. Much of my thinking these days related to theology, church, the Christian life, and etc. comes from the “ordinary” things in life where I spend the majority of my time (e.g. work, home, interaction with my wife and children, and etc.). I am looking forward to an outlet to reflect on, or at least relay, some of the interesting thoughts that come from these ordinary happenings of life. In other words, I’d like to talk about whatever I feel like (not very different from any other blog right?).

Finally, what this blog will, or will not, accomplish remains to be seen. I obviously do not have any grandiose intentions or expectations. I hope, by God’s grace, to be humble and helpful and to use this forum as a means to dialogue with fellow believers (or unbelievers if they are so inclined). If any of this interests you, I will look forward to dialoguing with you. If not, you will find an address bar at the top of this page. You can use this address bar to locate any one of an estimated 209,593,000 additional blogs (as at the time of writing). If none of these suit your interests, you will have an additional 175,000 to choose from tomorrow. Enjoy.

Soli Dio gloria.

How to describe myself I am not sure, so I’ll just start with the basics. I am a believer in Jesus Christ as he is revealed in Scriptures. I am married to a beatiful woman who is my best friend and the best compliment to me that I can imagine. I have the joy of living with and attempting to raise two extradinary and peculiar miniature persons named Madeline Grace and Noah James. I am currently working for one of the largets organizations in the world and am posted by this organization in Kolkata, India on a two-year assignment.

I have a number of varied and unrelated interests. These include, my family, reading, theology, philosophy, education, history, travel, business, sports, fitness, music, cooking, fine cuisine, wine, and cigars.

I received my B.A. in from Clearwater Christian College, my M.Div. from Central Theological Seminary, and am working on an MBA from Regent University (on the company’s dime). I intend to pursue a Ph.D. in Philosophy in the future if the Lord sees fit to so arrange things.

I am very interested in ministry. I currently look for and pursue various opportunities to present the gospel in my current context which can be very challenging at times. My wife and I are thinking and praying about potential church planting upon return to the US and look forward to what the Lord has for us in the coming days and years.