John J. Collins, Encounters With Biblical Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005), 243 pages, ISBN 0800637690.

In the book Encounters with Biblical Theology,¹ author John Collins offers a collection of essays on different aspects of the Biblical Theology movement. Collins is the Holmes Professor of Old Testament Criticism and Interpretation at Yale University, and has written ably in the field of biblical theology. The essays in this volume are selections of Collins’ work, spread over a period of some thirty years; each engaging a different element of biblical theology, and addressing a variety of theoretical issues. Collins, himself, humbly concedes that, “taken together, they have the character of probes and soundings.”²

Fifteen essays that make up the book are clustered under four distinct headings. First, are those that deal with “Theoretical Issues” within biblical theology (e.g., the very viability of a “Critical Biblical Theology,” etc.—pp. 11-46). Second, are topics in the Pentateuch (e.g. Faith and works in the command to sacrifice Isaac, the Exodus of the Israelites, etc.—pp. 47-88). Third, is the category of “Wisdom and Biblical Theology” (e.g., the biblical “Precedent” for natural theology, how the “biblical theology” movement all but ignored the Wisdom literature—pp. 91-117). And fourth, are works dealing with “Apocalyptic Literature” (e.g., the Legacy of apocalyptic literature and how it was used politically, both in ancient Israel and in the modern United States, etc.—129-189). Collins provides the reader with a brief survey of the biblical theology movement. Beginning with J.P. Gabler and Ernst Troeltsch, Collins moves to Wilhelm Wrede, G.E. Wright, Brevard Childs, and to a general examination of historical criticism. The task of the biblical theologian, Collins suggests, is “the critical evaluation of biblical speech about God”³ This, he insists, includes not only historical narrative within the Bible but other genres as well.

John J. Collins is Holmes Professor of Old Testament Criticism and Interpretation at Yale Divinity School.

Like James Barr, Collins believes that historical criticism is not, strictly speaking, a method, but a collection of methods, such as source criticism, redaction criticism, sociological criticism. He states that throughout this work his goal is uncompromising “objectivity.” Yet, Collins himself acknowledges that objectivity is an elusive characteristic; easy to describe but difficult to attain. He states in the “Introduction” that although he strives for an impartial neutrality (and he believes such objectivity to be obtainable),⁴ such detachment cannot be attained by those who approach the Bible from a confessional or believing approach. “A confessional approach…wants to privilege certain positions…thus in effect taking biblical theology out of the public discussion.”⁵ Obviously, this goal for objectivity in interpretation did not begin with Collins but can be traced to the early 1960s.

In an article on biblical theology in 1962, Krister Stendahl posited a sharp distinction between what the Bible meant and what the Bible means.⁶ Since that time, this characteristic has come to be the accepted norm in virtually all conservative, evangelical interpretation. Popular New Testament author Gordon Fee states as much when he states, “[T]the task of interpreting involves the student/reader at two levels. First, one has to hear the Word they [i.e., the original audience] heard; you must try to understand what was said to them back then and there (exegesis). Second, you must learn to hear the same Word in the here and now (hermeneutics).⁷ This initial step seeks to be rigorously objective, thrusting all personal and ecclesiastical biases aside. Yet with the rise of postmodernism the claim to “objectivity” has come under intense scrutiny, and has, in many cases, been dismissed as a misguided goal that is little more than a fool’s errand.⁸ Although some believe Collins to have been successful in his quest for objectivity,⁹ it does not appear that such unbiased detachment was ultimately achieved by the Yale professor, as he approaches the biblical text with a “hermeneutics of suspicion.” Such suspicion, or mistrust, can be seen in the following examples. Collins writes:

“It is no longer possible to defend the historicity of the stories of Abraham…it cannot be the historical truth” (p. 57); “…the historicity of the individual (Bible) stories cannot be defended” (p. 203); “The story (of Exodus) has a ‘history-like’ character, but nowhere in the biblical corpus has the ‘collapse of history’ been more painfully obvious…” (p. 67); “The Bible cannot support the claim to transcendent authority…The Bible can no more provide us with objective, transcendent moral certainties than can natural law” (p. 78); “Christianity is not a deposit of timeless truth but a religious tradition that derives its identity from continuity with the past” (p. 79); “Daniel 2 was not actually written in the Babylonian era, but some centuries later, under the fourth kingdom…and it does not report the actual dream of a Babylonian king, but a Jewish fabrication” (p. 134); “It is, of course, a notorious fact that the kingdoms predicted in apocalyptic visions (including Revelation) never come, and so…are…nourishing illusions” (p. 140); etc.

Mark A. Noll and Carolyn Nystrom, Is the Reformation Over?: An Evangelical Assessment of Contemporary Roman Catholicism (Baker Academic, 2005), 272 pages, ISBN 0801027977.

“Is the Reformation Over?” This is the question raised in a recent book by Mark Noll and Carolyn Nystrom. In this work, the authors do not attempt a “final” or “universal” assessment of Roman Catholicism” (13), instead their principle goal is an evangelical assessment of contemporary Roman Catholicism within primarily North America, with special attention given to the dramatic changes that have taken place since the Second Vatican Council (13). Understandably, then, there are large segments of Roman Catholic life and history that are not addressed in this work. As a secondary goal they seek to “provide evangelical interpretations, grounded in both classical Christian theology and the broad history of Christianity, of what we see in the contemporary Catholic Church” (14).

This exceptionally well researched book begins with an overview of the developments between Catholicism and Protestantism over the past fifty years. They note the strategy of Billy Graham and his adjustments over time as he sought to work more ecumenically with Roman Catholicism. Additionally, they offer numerous examples of evangelical individuals and organizations 50 years ago and how their reactions to Roman Catholicism ranged from deep hostility to mere suspicion, and the changes they have gone through over the decades, becoming more and more amenable to the idea that Roman Catholics are genuine brothers and sisters in Christ.

The second chapter chronicles the relationship of different groups from the time of the Protestant Reformation to the present. As before, many examples are provided that serve both as documentation and as illustration. “So Why Did Things Change?” This is not only the logical question from the preceding, but it also serves as the title for chapter three. In short, they suggest that things have changed because “God willed the changes to take place” (59). The authors see the change from hostility to friendship as the work of Divine providence, and hail it as a unity sent by God. They note significant changes within the Catholic Church, especially since Vatican II. These changes lead evangelical theologian David Wells to conclude that Protestantism must, therefore, revise its analysis of Catholic doctrine as most of it is now “obsolete” (60).

The book continues as it follows a number of the “Ecumenical Dialogues” since the time of Vatican II. These conversations have occurred among a wide range of groups, including Anglicans, Pentecostals, Disciples of Christ, Baptists, and Reformed churches, just to name a few. They continue by examining the “Catechism of the Catholic Church (chapter five), and provide a truly exceptional summary of the Catechism and its teaching. This is significant because the Catechism is “the official teaching of the Catholic Church,” and therefore it “speaks (officially) for everyone within the church” (116).

Kenneth J. Collins, The Evangelical Moment: The Promise of an American Religion (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), 288 pages, ISBN 9780801027444.

In his work, The Evangelical Moment: The Promise of an American Religion, Kenneth Collins covers a tremendous amount of territory in a little over two-hundred pages. Collins begins his work by painting a picture of the larger background into which modern evangelicalism now finds itself. By providing this brief but reasonably well-rounded historical backdrop it provides the reader with a sense of awareness of where the evangelical church is located and how we arrived here. Collins then outlines what he understands to be the unique characteristics of evangelicalism: (1) the normative value of Scripture, (2) the significance of the atoning work of Christ, (3) the necessity of conversion, and (4) the imperative of evangelism.¹ He quotes liberally from theologians, past and present, in support of his basic contentions; that Scripture is absolutely authoritative, that Christ worked a real atonement, that the need for conversion is essential, and that evangelism, even though attacked,² is still fundamental to the Christian message.

One of the more distinctive characteristics of Collins’ work is its Wesleyan approach to evangelicalism. Although Collins is obviously not the first Wesleyan to write to/for evangelicalism, it is clear that Wesleyan authors are the minority. Collins recounts a debate that took place between Wesleyan theologian Donald Dayton and reformed author George Marsden. Collins uses the debate as a platform to showcase Wesley’s own words on some very contemporary subjects that have recently come into question within evangelicalism. For example, the authority of Scripture—”if there be any mistakes in the Bible there may as well be a thousand. If there be one falsehood in that book it did not come from the God of truth.”³ The origin of real virtue, “Let reason do all that reason can: employ it as far as it will go. But at the same time acknowledge it is utterly incapable of giving either faith, or hope, or love; and consequently of producing either real virtue or substantial happiness. Expect these from a higher source…Seek and receive them…as the gifts of God;”⁴ etc. Collins summarizes when he writes, “Wesleyanism is not a species of liberal “Arminian” accommodations to human effort or initiative but is informed by the theological genius of both John Wesley and Thomas Cranmer.”⁵

One of Collins most helpful sections is his chapter entitled “The Promise of Evangelical Theology.” It is an exceptional introduction to some of the more tricky notions active in modern theological discussion today. For those who are not familiar with terms like “Foundationalism,” “Postfoundationalism,” “Postliberalism,” or “Postmodernism,” and the way are used in theological circles today, this chapter alone is worth the price of the book. Collins doesn’t assume the reader has a background in the field so he starts from the beginning and carefully explains each topic. If you read slowly and carefully through each section, by the time you’re finished with the chapter you should have a reasonably good grasp of these concepts.

David Bebbington, The Dominance of Evangelicalism: The Age of Spurgeon and Moody (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2005), 288 pages, ISBN 9780830825837.

In The Dominance of Evangelicalism: The Age of Spurgeon and Moody, David Bebbington provides an outstanding introduction to modern evangelicalism by tracing its origins. In most treatments of the subject the distinguishing characteristic is usually along theological lines. That is, evangelicals are normally (at least until recently) defined in terms of what they believe. For example Alister McGrath in his Evangelicalism and the Future of Christianity gives a list of “six fundamental convictions”¹ that define evangelicalism, and Stan Grenz gives a similar list in his Revisioning Evangelical Theology.² This kind definition-by-list could be cited over and over;³ the lists may vary, but it is almost always the discipline of theology that brings the planets of evangelicalism into their proper orbit. Bebbington, however, approaches the subject with a slight variation. He contends that evangelicals are first and foremost a people of the book—a Bible people (pages 23-26). Secondarily, they are a people with a message—the message of the cross (26-31). A third element in Bebbington’s explanation is the utter need and centrality of conversion—men and women must be “born again” (31-36). The final component which constitutes evangelicalism, is what Bebbington calls “activism” (36-40). Here he has in mind nothing more than the idea that someone who is truly born-again will live differently. What Wesley and other eighteenth century theologians called experimental religion—the actual lived-out experience of knowing God in everyday living.⁴

The author begins his examination of evangelicalism’s impact by focusing on two particularly influential representatives: Charles H. Spurgeon and Dwight L. Moody. It should be understood, however, that this volume is not a biography on Spurgeon or Moody. In total, only eleven pages are devoted to biographical elements, as such. Rather, the focus of the work is directed to examining the ways in which evangelicalism has influenced the world over the past century and a half. There are questions that Bebbington raises that challenge the way in which denominational lines are currently drawn. For example, within the evangelical world today, we usually make dividing lines along national boarders. However, the historical reasons behind this are remarkably complex. “Normally…the church history of Scottish Presbyterians has been written as though Scotland were the only natural unit for study. Equally, however, the Reformed tradition in different lands during the Victorian era, as a recent volume has shown, forms a suitable topic for investigation. The book includes Scottish congregations but highlights their similarities to Presbyterians in American and Congregationalists in England.”⁵

One of the most significant historical changes Bebbington tracks was the transition from enlightenment thinking to what became known as Romanticism. “[Romanticism] was a diverse and evolving phenomenon, but its essential temper can be identified by contrast with the Enlightenment. Instead of exalting reason, those touched by the new spirit of the times placed their emphasis on will, spirit and emotion” (148). This “Romantic spirit” (149) affected Christianity as well, and Bebbington demonstrates this throughout the second half of the volume. Evangelicalism responded to the challenges of Romanticism in at least three ways. The first way evangelicals responded was associated with the faith principle embodied in the practice of George Müller (259). “The idea of undertaking some venture in entire dependence on divine provision gathered support as the century wore on. It was applied to finance, to healing and above all to missions” (259). A second way in which evangelicalism responded to the threat of Romanticism was through the rapid growth of premillennial teaching. Premillennialism had not always been at the core of evangelicalism (137-141), but with the new challenges that were raised through the advent of Romanticism, Premillennialism became a central feature (259). The third and final way in which evangelicalism answered the challenge of Romanticism came in the various forms of the holiness teachings. Within the reformed churches it usually came in the form of the Keswick movement. Within the Wesleyan or Methodist traditions it came out in what became known as “entire sanctification.”⁶ Additionally, Bebbington argues that this third response of evangelicalism also was the impetus behind Spurgeon’s strident resistance in what became known as the “Downgrade Controversy” (260). Simply put, advancements in the natural sciences in the late nineteenth century called into question many long-held assumptions about virtually every aspect of life. Eventually this led many within Spurgeon’s own denomination (he was a Baptist) to also call into question the truthfulness and accuracy of Scripture. Spurgeon simply would not sit idly by and say nothing. “From our inmost souls, we loathe all mystic and rationalistic obscurations of the plain and full-orbed doctrines of grace” (260).⁷ Although the pressure of the conflict nearly ended his life, Spurgeon ultimately emerged victoriously from this conflict.