In the World, but Not of the World

I thought about headlining my post, "It's the Uncertainty, Stupid," but in the present environment I worried that such might be considered uncharitable, even though I am only using the final word rhetorically. Those old enough to remember old political slogans will realize my play on one if they choose to do so.

Nonetheless, this lament continues my writing on the way that the church, at least as I witness its pronouncements by online representatives, focuses on the wrong things. I see lots of attention being given to whether or not to wear masks (mostly decided one way or the other based on poor reasoning), social distancing, and when and how to re-open services.

It is hard to find much attention being given to various uncertainties general to life but magnified during this crisis such as illness, the loss of loved ones, isolation from friends, fear of economic privation due to job loss, and hopelessness about the future -- and where is a sovereign God in all of this.

I am not saying that the first set of subjects are unimportant -- quite the contrary -- but those are subjects driven mostly by forces outside the church -- by the world. The second set of subjects are priorities of Scripture, which is full of texts to be expounded and applied. Each furnishes the opportunity to provide contextualized hope as it is found only in the Gospel. In so doing, the church would be providing a unique perspective, rather than one parroted with Bible verses.

So, why are so many Christian leaders obsessed with masks and distancing while virtually ignoring death, sickness, and hopelessness? The provocative answer is that the present crisis has opened the curtain to show an unseemly worldliness that dominates the church. The crisis sheds light on a great need for repentance and reform among God's people.

The term "worldliness" is biblical, yet in cultural terms hopelessly old fashioned. Many of us will associate the word with a past age of complaints about card playing and dancing and liquor. Be that as it may, this present worldliness is far more deep seated yet easily ignored and therefore pernicious. Our worldliness means that churches and Christians that claim allegiance to biblical authority set priorities based on agendas from outside of Scripture based on social and political concerns tangential to the biblical witness, though we have the capacity to find creative ways to pretend that they are biblical. Rather than recognizing that Scripture should drive our concerns, we instead use it to rubber stamp whatever social and political views we happen to hold.

The result is a failure to minister to the great needs of the day to which Scripture speaks -- needs related to the discipleship of our church members and to the evangelization of our communities and that recognize that by His death Christ put death to death. While I have focused on the COVID crisis, similar laments could be stated regarding the present dilemma regarding racial issues, about which many Christians have much to say about "cultural Marxism" ind "critical race theory," subjects about which frankly they don't seem to know much beyond sloganeering, and relatively little to say about the imago dei in man, which could form the basis for deep Christian reflection for how to move forward. The present crises have provided an opportunity for the church to bring the Gospel to bear on deep human concerns. To date, the church has largely failed in that endeavor. We need to repent.

"As a Dying Man to Dying Men"

Some readers will be old enough to remember when it was said that a community or national crisis would bring people back to church. Eventually, levels of attendance would revert to the mean, but at least for a while those who attended only sporadically if at all attend church looking for answers to address their deepest fears.

Of course, that could not happen during the present pandemic because churches, along with other entities that hold mass gatherings, either have been required to close their doors or restrict attendance. However, the financial crisis of a decade ago also did not result in an upswing in church attendance, and it may be that old maxims no longer hold true. If that is the case, one might wonder why. It would seem that most of those who do not already attend church in the United States no longer think of the church as a place to find answers to life's deepest problems. If that is the case, it might be said that the present crisis has served to verify that they are right.

Rightly understood, a pandemic might seem like just the sort of crisis into which the church could speak with comfort, authority, and deep value. It has been said that the purpose of a minister -- and of a church -- is to prepare people to die, but accepting that as true, one must also recognize that the subject is one that most Americans would just as soon avoid. In fact, churches on the vanguard of what passes for relevance in our day are more interested in offering advice for improving life than they are in addressing the more ultimate concerns of sin and death.

The spread of a disease without a known cure but with unpredictable morbidity and vast levels of mortality has forced people to think about that which during normal times they prefer to ignore. Add to illness and death the other disruptions created by the present crisis -- social isolation, financial uncertainty, and so on -- and one sees that it is no wonder that many are filled with fear. Things that once seemed stable and predictable are now wobbly.

Thus, people have been brought to the place where the church could help, if only it would.

I have not surveyed churches on how they have responded, but what I have witnessed online -- to the extent that provides a window into the soul of American Christianity -- has not been encouraging. It is understandable that churches have lamented the loss of the ability to gather, but we have seen too little creative activity in terms of finding ways to minister to both Christians and non Christians in our communities. Thus, many church communities have experienced only subtraction -- the loss of gathered worship but without any effort at offering temporary ways to connect people and needs during this time.

Even worse, many churches have ignored the crisis as an opportunity to show love toward the fearful and hurting and have addressed the crisis primarily in the sorts of political categories that are tangential to Christian faith. While conclusions regarding wearing masks at worship are matters where Christians may differ, it is rather disheartening to see moral reasoning that devolves into navel gazing fixated on personal autonomy and unconcerned with either the Great Commission or the Great Commandment -- or even the Good Samaritan. Now, I see that some ministers are desperately pleading for people to return, when even church members might find themselves conflicted about rejoining a congregation where the leadership has demonstrated that they do not care for the wellbeing of the most vulnerable -- the elderly, the cancer patient, the diabetic, or the overweight. It is correct that every believer has the obligation of church attendance, but it is sad to see the obstacle of having realized that the local congregation doesn't care enough to help one feel safe, particularly given the slight nature of the needed sacrifice in the big scheme of things.

The church had an opportunity to urge upon congregants to ignore the predictable political categories and find ways to care for people. In many ways, the church has failed. May God drive us to repentance, that we might speak to our communities, in the words of Baxter, "as a dying man to dying men.

What is conservatism? What is science?

This is a different sort of post than the ones that I generally compose for this site. Typically, I avoid political topics, or topics that may be regarded as political. This is not because I am uninterested in politics -- the job that pays my bills requires that I be interested -- but it is because for the church, both those segments of it that lean to the right and that lean to the left, I regard politics as a temptation drawing their attention away from matters of first importance about the inbreaking of a kingdom not of this world to secondary matters about which they frequently opine without any real knowledge, expertise, or ability to influence.

Nonetheless, I see many religious leaders, in the name of their religious convictions, promoting what they refer to as a sort of political conservatism. I am going to take the risk here of adding to my criticism of pulpit politics an accompanying criticism that what many call conservatism is not particularly conservative.

Of course, there are many streams of conservatism that have flowed through the course of history. I have waded in varieties of those streams over the course of my life before ultimately landing in that which seems to have the best pedigree, which is the understanding that conservatism, as Russell Kirk put it, is not an ideology so much as it is a sentiment, a sentiment that there are things about the past that are worth preserving, that human nature is not ultimately malleable, and that improvement in some area is likely to have mal effects elsewhere. This sort of conservatism differs from progressivism, various forms of liberalism, and conservative libertarianism in various ways. For one thing, those views make their beginning point their ideologies and tend toward various forms of utopianism that typically end in disappointment, sometimes tragically. Conservatism, rightly understood, does not begin with ideology, but with the real world. Conservatism is not utopian because it views human nature as incapable of attaining it in this world (or ever, for those who do not believe in an after life). Conservatism is not opposed to change, but tends toward skepticism and concerns about unintended consequences.

This sort of conservatism stands in sharp contrast to family values (a hopelessly relativistic term) conservatives or social conservatives, who tend toward utopianism, even positing spiritual revival, based on using political power to achieve desired results. It is odd to see self-described conservatives advocating centralized power in ends justifying means arguments.

How does this relate to the other part of my title: science? Like many of the ministers who feel free to comment on and advocate regarding scientific matters, I have no expertise in this field. Nonetheless, I make some effort at reading widely and make my living working around people with strong scientific interests. The conservative British historian Paul Johnson began his history of the 20th century, Modern Times, with an account of Albert Einstein's statements surrounding findings he expected regarding red light shift during a solar eclipse. In advance of an eclipse, Einstein made the extraordinary statement that if the red light shift phenomenon was not observed that his theory of general relativity "would have to be abandoned." That, to his credit, was falsifiability on steroids.

What if those with ideological commitments nowadays would put themselves on the line in the same way? You may recall that back in early and mid July, after states had begun the effort at reopening their economies, that the number of COVID infections had begun to increase, but the number of deaths had remained low. I had multiple conversations about this with skeptical friends. I am no Einstein, but I hope I have learned from history. I told many people the following: Death is lagging indicator. It takes a couple of weeks after changes to see the impact on cases. Additional time is needed before seeing the impact on hospitalization and ICU usage. After that, we start to see an uptick in deaths. I told many people that we would see an increase in deaths (raw number, not rate because many of those infected were younger and healthier) by the first of August. If that did not happen, my concerns could be dismissed.

How I wish I were wrong, but I was not! But I haven't found that my conversation partners have been in any rush to acknowledge that they needed to change their minds about how to respond.

Reasonable people do not use racial terms to refer to this as a Chinese infection, but there may be some merit in thinking of the American response as a form of Chinese water torture. Instead of acting decisively in the face of unusual but real circumstances, Americans have responded based on ideology and political predilection. The result has been the ongoing, insanity inducing drip of social and economic tragedy.


In the face of this, many well meaning people have declared beliefs and made statements about this pandemic without having any knowledge or expertise in pandemics, infectious disease, or even economics. Ok, we know what opinions are like. However, in an age where social media platforms give anyone with sufficient hubris the delusion of expertise, how about putting yourself on the line. Make a clear prediction without wiggle room. If you are wrong, own it.

I realize such thoughts are subversive of modernity. So be it, says this conservative.

Because the 9th Commandment is Actually in the Bible....

Lest I be accused of Biblicism, I will note it is also in reformed confessions of faith! Nonetheless, I am thankful to see a group of Orthodox Presbyterian Church officers taking a stand that ministers who engage in public debate have a duty to do so honestly and charitably. I wrote about this subject recently more broadly. Those who fail to disagree in that way are conducting themselves in a manner that violates their ordination vows.

For those who perhaps do not keep up with the debates of current American reformed and evangelical Christianity, this dust up involves a book recently published by Aimee Byrd, a member of an OPC church and until recently a participant in a podcast of some prominence in the reformed world. Her book addresses issues of discipleship of women in conservative and confessional churches. In so doing, it expresses disagreement with some aspects of what is known as complementarianism, which is a rather broad term related to the way women and men relate to one another. I say broad because complementarianism is claimed by a variety of people who find themselves occupying the area between egalitarianism on the left and patriarchy on the right. Ms. Byrd would not for herself use the term "complementarian," but she is accused of being a "thin complementarian" and she is criticized by those who dislike that she interacts, sometimes favorably, with egalitarians.

I will now remove myself from the weeds.

I have not read Ms. Byrd's book, so any knowledge I have is second hand. As such, it is not my place either to defend or disagree with it, at least not in any detail. My wife has read the book and, in fact, wrote 4,000(!) words of notes that provided a basis for discussion of the book among leaders of a FB group that she participates with. My wife found aspects of the book helpful and disagreed with others. She along with others engaged in debate that I would consider healthy.

That is a reminder that discussions on controversial subjects can be vigorous and ought to be healthy and charitable. What has been shocking has been the reaction of some ministers and officers of churches that have been dishonest, vicious, and sometimes misogynist. One might expect certain types of language from profane unbelievers, but not from officers of the church. Some of this has taken place in online groups deemed to be "private." I have wondered what it would be like to have to sit under the ministry of a pastor that conducts himself in this way when he erroneously supposes himself to be in secret.

I am not an officer of the OPC, so I cannot sign this letter, but I would urge those who are eligible to do so. Those who do so are not expressing wholesale agreement with Ms. Byrd's book, but they are opposing conduct by ministers that is not becoming of a follower of Christ. Does that even require a "courageous" stand? One would hope not. Nonetheless, it is perhaps of interest that some ministers have expressed outrage at Ms. Byrd's employment of "feminist imagery" in the form of yellow wallpaper on the book's cover. If one will forgive me, I am more concerned about ministers displaying a yellow streak. If you can't take a stand on this, what are you going to do in the face of real persecution?

Wisdom and the Coronavirus

I don't recall having read Alistair Roberts prior to this post, but he provides an excellent summary of the nature of wisdom based on the biblical wisdom literature along with some worthy applications. I highly commend it.

It was hard to pick a single snippet to highlight when so much in the post is good, but here is one:

"One of the dismaying features of too many Christian contexts is their narrow fortress mentality, their failure to interact receptively with and learn from insightful non-Christians, and the way that their thinking is so driven by political and ideological antagonism and entrenchment."

Read the whole thing.

Hat Tip: The Aquila Report

"Promoting ... the Good Name of our Neighbor"

Ask most Christians about immorality on the internet and discussion will likely turn immediately to the prevalence of sexually explicit material. This is not an entirely wrong response, as internet pornography is reported to be big business, and sexual obsessiveness damages both individuals and relationships. However, the response also results from an unfortunate reduction of morality to matters involving sex in the minds of many religious conservatives. In fact, one might suggest that among Christians one finds more promiscuous -- and casually indifferent -- violations of the 9th Commandment (bearing false witness) than of the 7th (adultery).

People seem naturally to get their backs up at accusations of violating the 9th Commandment, as no one likes being called a liar (even when it happens to be true). In fact, during an earlier era of American history, a man who called another a liar might find himself shortly thereafter squaring off at 10 paces. Nonetheless, the Westminster Larger Catechism (question 144) explains our duty with regard to the 9th Commandment rather expansively:

"The duties required in the ninth commandment are, the preserving and promoting of truth between man and man, and the good name of our neighbor, as well as our own; appearing and standing for the truth; and from the heart, sincerely, freely, clearly, and fully, speaking the truth, and only the truth, in matters of judgment and justice, and in all other things whatsoever; a charitable esteem of our neighbors; loving, desiring, and rejoicing in their good name; sorrowing for and covering of their infirmities; freely acknowledging of their gifts and graces, defending their innocency; a ready receiving of a good report, and unwillingness to admit of an evil report, concerning them; discouraging talebearers, flatterers, and slanderers; love and care of our own good name, and defending it when need requireth; keeping of lawful promises; studying and practicing of whatsoever things are true, honest, lovely, and of good report."

The same catechism proceeds with the next question to summarize forbidden sins, but just the list of positive duties would seem to provide enough to shut down much of what happens on social media.

My wife and I were discussing this last night, and in the course of that discussion she brought up a valid and disturbing point: how can we expect church members to acknowledge the 9th commandment in the way that they engage social media when they are being discipled under the authority of ministers who routinely commit the same sins?

Now, I should hasten to add that we were not discussing matters related to anyone in our congregation -- or even the presbytery of which our church is a part. Nonetheless, the fact that we are Presbyterians means that we are in a denomination and tradition that holds to governing structures and processes we believe to be grounded in Scripture and adapted in our Book of Church Order. Yet, I see things written by ministers of our denomination (and similar ones) that are brazenly false. That is to say, I am not talking about matters that are open to varying interpretations; I am talking about clear falsehood. Because it is on the internet, the spreading of falsehood is public sin.

Whether the falsehood results from mental incompetence, a failure to make simple investigation, or willful moral deficiency, it is still false. Sadly, in many instances, sessions and presbyteries do not seem to care about counselling and, if necessary, disciplining their ministers who are guilty of this sort of sin. The practical result of this is that men stand in the pulpits of churches to preach the good news of Christ when some among their listeners know about their public sins against the truth. This is a matter of disgrace for the church.

it has been said that the American Constitution's First Amendment was not needed to protect speech about cute puppies. Protection of speech is required to protect the right to controversial speech. Similarly, we rarely violate the 9th Commandment regarding those we like: we fail in our duty more often when we disagree with someone or have some other reason for wanting to tear them down.  The conversation that my wife and I were having concerned the reaction of others to Aimee Byrd's recent book. I have not read it: Lanette has read it and provided 4,000 words of notes about its contents to a Facebook group. Thus, she knows the book pretty well.

Of course, Ms. Byrd's book is controversial, and there is plenty of room for discussion and disagreement with her conclusions and applications. I am not here to defend Ms. Byrd, in part because I have not read the book and am not therefore competent to do so, and in part because I am sure she was prepared for controversy given the subject matter and is more than capable of defending herself. However, much of the discussion on the internet features more heat than light, and by heat I mean illegitimate name calling, ad hominem attacks, and false and misconstrued information about Ms. Byrd's arguments and character. These are serious sins, and when ministers routinely commit them they should be counselled appropriately and brought to repentance.

It's not the differing conclusions; it's the reasoning

How should Christians talk about the Coronavirus? I am not sure we have been doing a terribly good job at it.

Last weekend, many states began the partial re-opening of economic activity. In many instances, that resulted in little change to the way people have been going about their business. While activists on left and right argue loudly about what should or should not be done, the mushy middle seems to have found consensus that caution remains in order. While that disappoints the activists on either side, in this instance it seems wise. Those in the middle who apparently have no leader nowadays seem to be acting in a way that fails to comport with the political disintegration that afflicts the country.

The small church that I attend opened its doors with spread out seating and continued streaming the service. For reasons I will describe momentarily, I watched on a computer. When I attend again personally will be based on my best understanding of the level of risk living in an area where the infection rate has been relatively modest but continues to increase, albeit slowly at present.

Anyone entering this fray should be aware of their own biases, and I believe I have an understanding of my own, which are affected by political predilections and interactions based on my employment, but most of all by health status. By most measures, I am actually currently in better health than I have been in for many years, going back to when I was younger but not as physically active. However, a health condition requires me to take medication that keeps me in remission while compromising my immune system. Thus, if I got this, it probably would not be a good time.

I am not paranoid about this -- my dog is enjoying daily walks in the nearby park, and I make frequent quick trips to the grocery store. I just stay away from anyplace I would expect to find crowds or gathered groups. In terms of the hot button questions of opening the economy or not, my views tend toward the more cautious side, but it does not bother me that others disagree -- my wife and I do not fully agree (though she is of course respectful of my personal situation) -- and our marriage has somehow remained happy even though she has to tolerate my nearly constant presence while I have worked from home these last two months. So, it remains possible in America to have differing opinions and still walk together.

Thus, I do not worry about differing conclusions. What strikes me as shocking is the reasoning with which people get there. It is one thing to weigh the relative merits of public health impacts versus economic damage (though I will note in passing that very few making these arguments possess either the skill or the effort needed to assess the economic impact of more widespread morbidity and death: what would it mean to the economy if what has happened to the meat processing industry was occurring in many more industries had they not shut down). What strikes me most is an increasingly dismissive attitude toward the lives that could be lost. I most note those who take pro-life positions on other issues that quickly dismiss concerns for the sick and the elderly as mere collateral damage that should not be bothered with.

It is not that the sick should imagine the world revolves around them. But, are Christians regarding their plight in a way that shows brotherly love toward fellow believers, as well as kindness toward those outside the household of faith?

The questions facing the nation are not easy, and Christians should expect that among us there will be a spectrum of understandings. I have my own views, but they are leavened with a considerable amount of uncertainty -- perhaps I am learning humility in middle age. The novelty of our situation finds wisdom in admitting that there is much that we do not know about the ramifications of our decisions. All of that said, while circumstances may require hard, even unpopular, decisions, they never permit us to leave the Second Great Commandment at the church house door.

Will We See a Transition toward Small Churches?

I don't know the answer to the question in the title. I am not a prophet, and given that very few foresaw two months ago what we are experiencing now, there perhaps should be a healthy skepticism of anyone who pretends to know what or when the next state of normalcy looks like. However, it appears that big crowds may remain a big problem for some time. This fascinating interview with Bob Costas (the portion relevant to this discussion starts several minutes in) for the prospects of the return of professional and collegiate sports any time this calendar year could be described as pessimistic but not obviously wrong, and many national trade organizations who have relied as a staple of personal identity, not to mention revenue, on large national and statewide meetings also now find those at significant risk. Many churches obviously pack in large numbers of people in relatively small spaces on a regular basis, and those may be deemed risky beyond the time when most businesses that are less crowded begin to open their doors again.

It is important to note that the worst of the COVID-19 outbreaks in the U.S. and elsewhere have been in places where people can't spread out: large cities such as New York where transit and other aspects of life place people in close proximity, nursing homes (recognizing age and health condition also to be relevant), cruise ships, sporting events, weddings and funerals, church services, and so forth. If much of economic life attempts a comeback, but crowded places remain suspect farther into the future, those types of gathering places will require evaluations (hopefully self-evaluation rather than government mandate, but we have seen instances of irresponsibility that will encourage the government to act).

Church growth experts have long warned that church sanctuaries that are 80% full are for all practical purposes maxed out and churches that reach that level of saturation will begin to decline. Will churches need to rethink that percentage to a lower number in the future? Will seating need to be altered to allow smaller crowds in the same size of sanctuaries? Will more churches go to multiple Sunday morning services to reduce crowding? What about classroom space? Will more churches limit growth beyond a medium size by starting additional congregations to disperse Christians geographically? Are churches truly welcoming if older persons or those with comorbidities are put at risk by attending a crowded facility?

I don't know the answer to any of those questions, but I hope that they are being asked. Worshipping with a congregation for a month or two via videoconferencing is difficult; it will be more challenging for churches if they have to extend that for a much longer time -- or if they don't make changes and have an outbreak of sickness and mortality within their congregations.

I attend a small church, but our seating is extremely tight. That is a reminder that large churches may experience the biggest impact, but medium and small size churches will have questions to answer as well.

And, this post doesn't pretend to know the answers. Perhaps three months from now this whole thing will be in the rear view mirror and life will go back to what it was like the first of the year. Perhaps. However, secular organizations are busily preparing contingency plans for all sorts of possibilities. Churches would be foolish to fail to do the same.

The Tempting of the Church in America

Thirty years ago, Robert Bork published his account of the rejection of his nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court under the title "The Tempting of America." Given the direction evident at the time, it hardly took a prophet to realize that Mr. Bork's jeremiad over the politicization of the court would come to pass. Nonetheless, one should not be stingy, and regardless of his other virtues or defects, Judge Bork was right about this: the court, at the hands of both liberals and Trump supporters, is today more widely regarded as a political than a legal institution. Such accrues to the nation's detriment.

These admittedlly old thoughts come to mind afresh upon reading about Albert Mohler's public declaration of his intent to vote for the aforementioned Trump in the upcoming election. Rev. Mohler, in fact, has declaimed the possibility that he will ever vote for a Democrat. For those who do not know, Dr. Mohler is the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, long considered the flagship of Southern Baptist institutions, and it seems that he may be elected president at the next session of the Southern Baptist Convention. Dr. Mohler also is associated with a parachurch group of some influence, The Gospel Coalition, among those commonly referred to as being "young, restless, and reformed."

Mohler's ringing endorsement will undoubtedly tickle the ears of those who support the president, and others will say he made a bad choice. While this blogger has his own views of that -- of note to what follows, those views are not being written here or elsewhere -- the debate over whether Mohler made the right choice veers away from a far more interesting discussion that merits attention, though it rarely receives it. That discussion centers around this:

Why would Albert Mohler, who is widely regarded as a representative of the church, need to express an electoral political preference at all?

Those responsible for politicizing the federal courts have viewed it as a matter of relevance, and those that continue to drag the church into American electoral politics do the same. However, it is not noted frequently enough that church ministers are ambassadors, not of any temporal earthly kingdom, but representing the inbreaking of the age that is coming. God's ambassadors announce the inbreaking of another, eternal kingdom as a pronouncement of judgment on earthly kingdoms which are necessarily time limited. While the inbreaking kingdom has things to say about judgment and mercy to the time limited ones, in fact, the inbreaking kingdom moves among its citizens across geographic borders and includes persons of every people and tribe and nation. The ultimate message is that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself and is followed by a command: be reconciled to God.

Again, in the course of declaring God's word regarding justice and mercy in the present age, there are things to be said addressing political matters. That said, the church is most relevant when it understands it belongs neither to the left or the right, but to the age that is coming, the one that is both here and not yet here in its fullness. The interest in relevance through temporal political power is a temptation, and those ministers who embrace it are guilty of dereliction of duty before the King whose glory shall have no end.

The God We Worship

My pastor was ill last weekend and in a pinch asked me if I could fill the pulpit on Sunday. It was the first time I had preached since allowing my PCA licensure to lapse 2 and a half years ago.

The advantage of preaching on rare occasions is being able to focus on grand subjects. I spoke on "The God we worship." For anyone who is interested, you can listen to the sermone at this link.

Books Read 2019

I am pleased with my reading list for last year. I had set a goal to read 20% fiction. I didn't quite make it, but came closer than in previous years. I will make the same goal for the coming year.

This year I am adding occasional annotations.

 

Books Read 2019

 

 

Fiction

 

1.      Alexsandr Solzhenitsyn, November 1916 -- I have read many novels by Solzhenitsyn I like -- One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, Cancer Ward, In the Inner Circle. The Russian Revolution historical novels are not his best work. I am continuing to read them, but only because I have gotten so far in I want to try to finish.

 

2.      Scott Turow, Limitations -- there is no better modern writer of legal fiction than Scott Turow.

 

3.      Aleksandr Solzhnitsyn, The Red Wheel, March 1917 Node III Book 1

 

4.      Robert Penn Warren, All the King’s Men -- it took me about 50 pages to get into it, but this was a great read.

 

5.      Charles Dickens, The Old Curiosity Shop

 

6.      Thomas Hardy, The Return of the Native

 

7.      Charles Dickens, The Pickwick Papers

 

8.      Samuel Shem, The House of God: the Classic Novel of Life and Death in an American Hospital -- this seems to be intended as a sort of Catch-22 for medical residents. It was funny at times, but it is not Catch-22, which is by far the best of the genre.

 

9.      Charles Dickens, Dombey and Son -- I have read most of Dickens' novels. I love reading Dickens. I hated this book. All of the bad things people say about Dickens characterize this novel. Read David Copperfield. Read Tale of Two Cities. Trust me: skip Dombey and Son.

 

 

Nonfiction

 

10.  Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will. Luther's writing style translates well -- into English and across generations.

 

11.  Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Ethics. It is impossible not to admire Bonhoeffer's courage. As a theologian and Christian writer, he is given more credit than he really deserves. Note to American evangelicals: he is not really one of you.

 

12.  Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology: Vol. III (Soteriology). I read the earlier 2 volumes the previous year. I like Hodge. He is brilliant at times. Like all of us, he at times is the prisoner of his age. 

 

13.  Committee on Home Missions and Church Extension, Planting an Orthodox Presbyterian Church

 

14.  G.K. Beale, Handbook on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Beale is always worth reading. If you are interested in biblical theology, read Beale.

 

15.  G.K. Beale, The Erosion of Inerrancy in Evangelicalism

 

16.  Sinclair Ferguson, In the Year of our Lord. 

 

17.  Jonathan Haidt, The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion. This was an interesting read, though I disagreed with most of its reasoning. 

 

18.  Meredith G. Kline, Images of the Spirit

 

19.  D.G. Hart, From Billy Graham to Sarah Palin: Evangelicals and the Betrayal of American Conservatism. Hart's book length efforts, whether in his major field of American Christianity or on contemporary concerns, are always worth reading.

 

20.  Danny Olinger and Geerhardus Vos, The Teaching of Jesus Concerning the Kingdom of God and the Church. For the record, I talked to Olinger and he doesn't like the cover to the book. The book itself -- intro by Olinger, rest by Vos, is excellent.

 

21.  J. Daniel Hays, The Tabernacle and the Temple: a Study of God’s Dwelling Places from Genesis to Revelation. This has really good information on the furnishings and on Herod's renovations. I disagreed with some of Hays' conclusions, particularly his harsh treatment of Solomon's temple.

 

22.  Richard C. Barcellos, Getting the Garden Right. I found this really helpful while preparing my study of the temple. Read Beale's book first, though.

 

23.  Darryl Hart, A Secular Faith

 

24.  John L. Girardeau, Calvinism and Evangelical Arminianism

 

25.  Hannah Arendt, Eichmann in Jerusalem: a Report on the Banality of Evil. This should be read by nearly everyone.

 

26.  Darryl Hart, Recovering Mother Kirk

 

27.  Donald Rumsfeld, When the Center Held. This is an apologia for the Ford administration. I am not really a fan of Ford's political vision, though he seems to have been a decent man.

 

28.  Michael J. McVicar, Christian Reconstruction. This was a very good biography of RJ Rushdoony. It helped me understand a movement that has had an unfortunate influence on American reformed churches.

 

29.  D.G. Hart, John Williamson Nevin: High-Church Calvinist

 

30.  Paul Hendrickson, Hemingway’s Boat: Everything he Loved and Lost. This was an interesting take on an unfortunate man -- and family.

 

31.  George M. Marsden, Religion & American Culture. I have read a lot of Marsden. This would be  a good text book for a course in American church history, but is too general for those of us wanting a deeper dive. If that is you, check out Marsden's other works.

 

32.  John Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied

 

33.  John R. Muether and Danny E. Olinger, eds., Confident of Better Things: Essays Commemorating 75 Years of the OPC

 

34.  Ron Chernow, Titan: the Life of John D. Rockefeller. All of Chernow's biographies are outstanding. This is no exception.

 

35.  Walter Stahr, Seward: Lincoln’s Indispensable Man. Begins slowly, but is worth the read. 

 

36.  John Gray, Seven Types of Atheism. I really enjoyed and benefited from this. Gray is a British philosopher and atheist. He gets the origins of Christianity completely wrong, but his breakdown of different varieties of atheism is interesting and helpful.

 

37.  RC Sproul, John Gerstner, and Arthur Lindsley, Classical Apologetics. These writers don't like John Frame. While I have disagreements with their own apologetic approach, I overall enjoyed reading this.

 

38.  D.G. Hart, Still Protesting: Why the Reformation Matters

 

39.  Richard Baxter, The Reformed Pastor. For decades I have heard what a great book this is for pastors. Now that I have finally read it, I have no idea why others praise it. Bleh!

 

40.  Edmund P Clowney, Called to the Ministry

 

41.  C. John Miller, Powerful Evangelism for the Powerless

 

42.  D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Spiritual Depression: its Causes and Cure. As a series of sermons, it is sometimes repetitive and uneven, but I still found it good and helpful.

 

43.  David F. Wells, The Courage to Be Protestant. Wells has an integrated theological approach rare among evangelicals. He is always a good read.

 

44.  John Pollock, Wilberforce. I enjoyed this biography. Skip the monstrosity produced by Metaxas and read this instead.

 

45.  J. Gresham Machen, God Transcendent. Machen preached these sermons in the '20's. They are excellent.

 

46. K. Scott Oliphint, God with Us. Oliphant has been charged with teaching views outside confessional standards, though the charges have been ultimately withdrawn following a complex procedural history. Whether other charges will be filed remains at present uncertain. Anyway, this book is the reason for the charges. Frankly, Oliphant's book is awful for its deviations from historic orthodoxy.

 

47.  David F. Wells, Above all Earthly Pow’rs

 

48.  Jim Mattis and Bing West, Call Sign Chaos. Mattis is a fascinating person.

 

49.  Bryan Caplan, The Case Against Education. I expected to like this book and found it disappointing.

 

50.  Alister McGrath, Heresy: a History of Defending the Truth.

 

51.  Jordan B. Peterson, 12 Rules for Life. I read this after reading and hearing about all of the fascination among evangelicals with Peterson. I understand that they like many of his conclusions, but his reasoning is eccentric and generally not consistent with historic Christianity. Evangelicals should find someone else to be fascinated with.

 

52.  Chad Van Dixhoorn, God’s Ambassadors. I read this after hearing the author at a conference. This presented aspects of the Westminster assembly I wasn't previously aware of.

 

53.  Alister McGrath, The Twilight of Atheism. Part 1 of the book is interesting; The last half generally is not terribly helpful.

 

54.  Mortimer J. Adler and Charles van Doren, How to Read a Book. This book is beneficial. I would especially recommend it to serious students and young adults.

 

55.  Justin S. Holcomb, Know the Creeds and Councils

 

56.  Alf J. Mapp, Jr., The Faith of our Fathers. Mapp is happy that the founders mostly believed in morality and an afterlife. Whatever. 

 

57.  Raymond C. Ortlund, Jr., Whoredom: God’s Unfaithful Wife in Biblical Theology. I think the publisher later changed the provocative but offensive title. The book is actually interesting and well-done.

 

58.  C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock. Lewis is brilliant at times, maddening at others.

 

59.  Doris Kearns Goodwin, Leadership in Turbulent Times. This is a good read, though if you have not read Goodwin, check out her work on Lincoln, Team of Rivals, first.

 

60.  Michael S. Lundy and J.I. Packer, Depression, Anxiety, and the Christian Life: Practical Wisdom from Richard Baxter. Baxter was a terrible theologian, but this work on pastoral care for the mentally ill is actually helpful.