In a town called Rogues’ Harbor, because of its many rogues and outlaws, Peter Cartwright found salvation from a life of debauchery. He experienced conviction of sin and redemption during the Kentucky Revival in the early 1800s. The revival itself faded due to infighting and influence from outside groups such as the Quakers, but Cartwright managed to live a life that brought revival to frontier America for the next sixty-five years. He stands as a giant in his influence in the Methodist Church and in American religion in general. His ability to sustain the fire of revival throughout his life provides an example to those seeking to sustain revival in the church today. W. S. Hooper in his introductory statements at a jubilee celebrating Cartwright’s unprecedented fifty years as a Methodist presiding elder observes Cartwright’s influence: “The whole West recognized his superiority, his supremacy. He was the primate of all Prairiedom. For two generations he ruled that realm.”[1]

Once while staying in a hotel in New York City, the clerk placed the elderly Cartwright in a shoddy room on the top floor. Cartwright took offence to the slight and began ringing the bell for the steward. He summoned the poor steward up the stairs several times and finally asked him for a hatchet. The poor steward inquired for Cartwright’s need for the woodsman’s tool and Cartwright replied that on the frontier when a man feared losing his way in the wilderness he would blaze the trees with a hatchet mark. Cartwright wanted to blaze the corners of the hotel corridor in case a fire started and he needed to escape. The clerk promptly moved Cartwright to a better room on the second floor. Cartwright blazed many trails in his life, and he constantly used frontier manners and wit to promote his primary cause—Jesus. In this paper, I will explore Cartwright’s success in extending the Kentucky Revival to three states and the next two generations of Americans. His motives and methods provide insight into sustaining revival to the current generation.

Sustained Revival Through Missional Focus

Peter Cartwright used his fists, politics, biting rhetoric, tent revivals, and home meetings to advance his cause. He sustained the revival fires of his conversion in the face of many critics of his methods because he never wavered on the motive behind his bold methods. He always sought to promote Jesus among those who desperately needed Christ. Phillip M. Watters, a key Cartwright biographer, observes Cartwright’s unyielding motive:

We find one central source dominating all these activities, as the life had its energy from one supreme source. Christ was its fountain, its wellspring of power; and to reveal Christ to others, to proclaim the good news of salvation to lost men—this was the central purpose, the controlling motive of Peter Cartwright’s career.[2]

Cartwright sustained the revival for two generations because he never lost sight of the source and purpose of revival.

Advancement into New Territory

Peter Cartwright was born on September 1, 1785 in Amherst County, Virginia, to an agnostic father and a Methodist mother a year and a half before their marriage. At his birth Indians still attacked the frontier settlers of Amherst County. His family moved to the edge of the frontier again in 1791 to what would eventually form the state of Kentucky. In 1793 they moved to an area called, due to its outlaw activity, Rogues’ Harbor. Cartwright adopted the life of the rogue and used playing cards and a racehorse to make a living in his early teens through gambling. God convicted him of his sin at seventeen through a sermon by John Page during James McCready’s Kentucky Revival in the early 1800s. He sold his racehorse and allowed his mother to burn his playing cards. Cartwright found salvation and determined to live a life in the wild frontier that honored Christ.

His family soon moved again into new and uncharted territory in 1802 to the mouth of the Cumberland River. The new territory had no Methodist churches, and Cartwright inquired as to the possibilities for faith in the new land. His leaders surprisingly gave him a license to exhort (a lay credential in the Methodist church) and papers authorizing him to explore the establishment of a circuit in the new territory. He found himself an eighteen year old with the authority to establish a new work in a new territory. Cartwright managed to establish the Livingston Circuit with seventy new members. The legendary Bishop Asbury ordained Cartwright as a deacon (a Methodist credential that allowed him to be a circuit riding preacher and establish churches) in 1806. Four years later Bishop McKendree ordained him as an elder (the highest credential level). In 1812, Bishop Asbury appointed Cartwright a presiding elder, a key leadership position that Cartwright would hold for an unprecedented fifty years. He spent the remainder of his life establishing circuits and churches in the emerging frontier eventually moving to Illinois. He was part of the formation of three conferences: Tennessee (1812), Kentucky (1820), and Illinois (1824).

The Centre for Pentecostal Theology (CPT) Press is initiating an ongoing series of “short introductions”. To date they include the present volume by Onyinah under review and Lee Roy Martin, Fasting: A Centre for Pentecostal Theology Short Introduction (2014). Several others are expected to follow in due time. The Centre for Pentecostal Theology is a residential library dedicated to facilitating the conception, birth, and maturation of constructive Pentecostal Theology across the theological disciplines. Obviously, CPT Press is the publishing arm of that same endeavor. (In the interest of full disclosure, I have previously published with CPT but not in the series under discussion.) The Series Preface explains that these short introductions “offer a distinctively Pentecostal perspective on various topics that are of relevance to the movement.” Further, they “are designed to introduce the reader to the topic at hand while not overwhelming him or her with all the secondary literature.” To be clear, “The goal is a straightforward introduction with helpful assessments by leading scholars in the tradition.” We may approach Onyinah’s Spiritual Warfare from this declared context. However, a reading of Onyinah indicates he has his own contextual concerns as well, which nevertheless appear complementary with those of CPT without necessarily completely contained therein.

Professor Opoku Onyinah is an Apostle of the Church of Pentecost (COP). He holds a Doctor of Philosophy in Theology from the University of Birmingham (United Kingdom). Currently, he is the Chairman of The Church of Pentecost. The Church of Pentecost originated in Ghana but now claims 20,000 congregations worldwide with more than three million members. Given Onyinah’s diverse background, it will not be too surprising to discern in Spiritual Warfare administrative and pastoral concerns articulated alongside biblical and theological scholarship. Indeed the Introduction affirms an intention to address laity, clergy, and academia.

Spiritual Warfare is organized in four sections: Part One: The Nature of Spiritual Warfare, contains three chapters surveying the history of demonology in Pentecostalism; Part Two: Redefining Spiritual Warfare, contains two chapters articulating the importance of the life and victory of Jesus Christ for demonology; Part Three: The Devil’s Scheme: Strongholds, has eight chapters identifying specific areas of demonic activity; and, Part Four: The Weapons of our Warfare, has thirteen chapters (including the Conclusion) which lift up resources available to believers in resisting and overcoming demonic powers.

As implied earlier, Onyinah’s Spiritual Warfare is very contextual. It draws heavily on the experiences of COP believers and churches in Ghana and similar locales. Since African Christianity, and especially African Pentecostal Christianity, has a distinctive appreciation and emphasis for the reality of the demonic, this contextualization is a decided strength of the work. Global Christianity can learn much here that can be of benefit for many other contexts. However, it is also the case, as it perhaps always is, that one context does not necessarily transfer to another in a straight line, so to speak. Readers from international contexts will likely wish to appropriate particular themes in a somewhat selective manner.

Spiritual Warfare has administrative insight, pastoral concerns, and academic depth. Often these are intertwined together on the same page or even the same paragraph. I found it interesting that Onyinah brings these diverse agendas together in ways that are often mutually enriching and challenging simultaneously. I imagine that pastors and laypeople will be stretched by the academic theological considerations. I also imagine that academicians will be stretched by the pastoral applications. And I am sure both will be enriched. Generally, it works well.

Spiritual Warfare indulges in some sweeping generalizations. For example, it castigates postmodernism without bothering to understand it or engage it. Accordingly, it misses sometimes. It also makes assumptions about praise and worship that fit more with populism than Biblicism. And it is quite selective in its list of categories of demonic activity, focusing on individual fetishes and mostly ignoring social atrocities. Admittedly, these features may be—to an extent, at least—elements of the contextualization mentioned earlier. Or they may simply be due to the creative attempt to accomplish so much on several different levels. However, the work would be stronger with more care in such conversations.

Perhaps the greatest value in this volume is that it addresses the topic of spiritual warfare at all. Or at least that it takes the topic seriously. Many modern theologians avoid the topic (even Pentecostals) or approach it only in abstract form (Tillich) or primarily as institutional expressions (Wink). Onyinah takes the topic seriously and addresses it with theological credibility from a historic Pentecostal perspective. To an extent, this text may help to authenticate and legitimate Pentecostal theological discussion of demonology. Overall, I would certainly recommend Spiritual Warfare to readers—as Onyinah intends—from the Church and the Academy. Furthermore, if Spiritual Warfare by Opoku Onyinah (and Fasting by Lee Roy Martin) is a representative foretaste of CPT’s Short Introduction Series, one can only hope and pray that further volumes will be forthcoming soon and frequently.

Reviewed by Tony Richie

Yes, the last decade has been a challenging time, but no, it’s not as bad for evangelicals as many have made it out to be. What can be done to assure that biblical, compassionate, evangelistic Jesus-followers continue to live out the story God has given us? Stetzer offers five things to keep pursuing for the next ten years.

“Where the Public Stands on Religious Liberty vs. Nondiscrimination” Pew Research Center (September 28, 2016).

Two-thirds say employers should provide birth control in insurance plans, but public is split over same-sex wedding services and use of public bathrooms by transgender people.

Caleb Lindgren, “Evangelicals’ Favorite Heresies Revisited by Researchers: Second study examines what Americans believe about 47 theological statements” ChristianityTodayOnline (September 28, 2016).

How well does the average American understand basic Christian doctrine? For that matter, how about the average evangelical?

Perhaps not all that differently. And perhaps it matters how the questions are asked.

Jason Cook, “How I Learned to Separate Meat from Bone in the Charismatic Tradition” The Gospel Coalition (October 7, 2016).

Jason Cook writes, “As a sophomore in college I was discipled by a Reformed African-American man who challenged me to study Scripture beyond mining it for trite clichés. He graciously and faithfully challenged my unbiblical thinking. Our church boasted a cohort of young African-American men, Reformed in their thinking, who welcomed me into their community.”

Kate Shellnutt, “InterVarsity Asks Staff to Choose a Stance on Sexuality: Campus ministry’s push for theological consistency prompts painful backlash” ChristianityTodayOnline (October 7, 2016).

Al Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, gives this warning, “There is no place to hide. Soon we’re all going to know what everyone believes on all of these issues, and Christian institutions, Christian organizations, Christian ministries, and Christian churches, indeed every single Christian will eventually have to give an answer.”

Beth Moore, “The Scandal of Election 2016” Living Proof Ministries (October 18th, 2016).

Thanks to William De Arteaga for suggesting this article. “We have convinced ourselves the end of the gospel is near while Jesus stated in no uncertain terms it would be proclaimed throughout the earth before the end of this age. We are convinced government has the power to gag God while 2 Timothy 2:9 says the word of God cannot be chained. Difficult days are ahead. We cannot endure them faithlessly. Opposition is inevitable no matter who makes it to the White House. At some point we’ve got to quit looking to leaders to fight for our faith. Faith we haven’t fought for is faith we don’t possess.”

Craig and Médine Keener, “The Story of a Love Separated by Civil War” Crosswalk.com (October 18, 2016).

Craig S. Keener writes: “For those who would like to read it, Crosswalk published our brief, true ‘Story of a Love Separated by Civil War.’ It gives an inside-experience perspective on one kind of refugee crisis.”

Médine and I had met through an evangelical campus ministry when I was a doctoral student at Duke and she was a doctoral student at University of Paris 7. We were interested in each other, but both of us were too shy to let the other know. Our friendship persisted over the years, however, and we each prayed that God would send the other a good spouse. Now that we had finished our Ph.D.s, I was teaching at a seminary near Philadelphia and writing New Testament commentaries. Médine, no less qualified than I, had returned to her war-torn country of Congo seeking work. Unfortunately, war had now overtaken her, and I had no way to locate her—or even to be sure if she was alive.

Tony Reinke, “Why Christians Love Books: A Brief History” DesiringGod.org (October 22, 2016).

“In Memoriam: C. Peter Wagner” Fuller Theological Seminary (October 25, 2016).

Roger E. Olson, “What Is Pentecostalism? What Do Pentecostals Believe?” Patheos (October 29, 2016).

Theologian and historian Roger Olson describes basic beliefs of Pentecostals, speaking and praying in tongues, and the movement’s struggle with anti-intellectualism. He also shares some of his own story of growing up in a classical Pentecostal home, why he no longer considers himself Pentecostal, and how some of the positive changes he has seen in the movement came too late for him.

Roger E. Olson, “The Dark Side of Pentecostalism” Patheos (October 31, 2016).

Following up with his previous essay about Pentecostalism, Roger Olson, as a former adherent, talks about the errors and shortcomings he sees in classical Pentecostalism.

Lawrence Reed, “Undercover in Auschwitz: The Man Who Volunteered to Be a Prisoner” Intercollegiate Review (Fall 2016).

“Fired by a determination that almost defies description, [Witold] Pilecki made the most of every opportunity during his thirty-month imprisonment at Auschwitz. Despite bouts of typhus and pneumonia, lice infestations, stomach ailments, backbreaking toil hauling rocks, extremes of heat and cold, relentless hunger, and cruelties at the hands of German guards, he formed an underground resistance group, the Union of Military Organization (Związek Organizacji Wojskowej, or ZOW). His initial reports of conditions within Auschwitz were smuggled out and reached Britain in November 1940, just two months after his [voluntary] detention began. Using a radio transmitter that he and his fellow ZOW conspirators built, in 1942 he broadcast information that convinced the Allies the Nazis were engaged in genocide on an unprecedented scale. What became known as ‘Witold’s Report’ was the first comprehensive eyewitness account of the Holocaust.”

Philip Yancey, “Sex and the Elk” (October 16, 2016).

Bobby Ross Jr., “Where’s the Money to Fix This?: Six tips that will keep a church from breaking the bank on big-ticket fixes” Church Finance Today (November 2016).

Karl Vaters, “Why I’ve Stopped Saying ‘Church Growth’ – And What I Say Instead: The words Church Growth are packed with so much emotional baggage that they’ve become virtually useless in my context” Pivot (November 14, 2016).

Hank Berrien, “Earliest Alphabet Ever Identified As Hebrew: Substantiates Biblical Narrative” The Daily Wire (November 21, 2016).

Suggested by Kevin W.

“Glasgow University archivists find John Knox’s Bible” BBC (September 21, 2016).

“Experts believe a unidentified bible held by Glasgow University may have belonged to John Knox – a founding father of the Protestant Reformation.” PneumaReview.com author Jon Ruthven commented: “[Knox was] an amazing, anointed charismatic preacher!” Suggested by Renato C.

Roger E. Olson, “Do Adherents of Abrahamic Faiths Worship the Same God?” Patheos (November 25, 2016).

Amos Yong, “Evangelicals, Pentecostals, and Charismatics: A Difficult Relationship or Promising Convergence?” Fuller Studio.

Issue theme: “Calvin, Councils and Confessions—How the Church Became the Churches” Christian History 120.

The full issue of Christian History is available for online browsing or download and you may order a print version of the magazine.

“‘We’re teaching university students lies’ – An interview with Dr Jordan Peterson” C2C Journal (December 1, 2016).

PneumaReview.com author Calvin Smith writes: “A fascinating, if troubling interview with University of Toronto professor Dr Jordan Peterson. He has steadfastly refused to use trans gender pronouns and is about to pay a serious price. A philosopher and researcher of psychology in totalitarian regimes, he’s making a stance to highlight the huge detriment to Western civilisation currently taking place and its philosophically-bankrupt basis. It’s a long piece, you may not agree with it all (or some of his language), nonetheless for Christians observing and seeking to understand the culture wars, identity politics, safe spaces and what’s coming next, I really think this is a must-read that explains a great deal.”

David Livermore, “We’re All Scared of the Same Things…or Are We? Emotional Differences Across Cultures” Cultural Intelligence Center (December 15, 2016).

PneumaReview.com author David Livermore discusses how everyone reacts to certain things the same, even when our expressions are radically different. He begins his story with, “Last week I had the misfortune of seeing a Chinese man jump from a tall building in Shanghai to his death below. My heart stopped.
What could possibly lead this guy to such immense despair?

“What happened next traumatized me almost as much as the actual suicide sighting. Several people gathered around and were quietly laughing. Some took pictures and others were calling to their friends to come see what happened. I was so unnerved by the whole scene. Why were people laughing? Why wasn’t anyone covering his body?”

Mark J. Cartledge, “C.S. Lewis as Public Theologian: Pentecostal Appreciation, Evaluation, and Challenge” Pneuma: The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies 38 (2016): pages 436-455.

J. Lee Grady, “Discernment—the Most Neglected of All Spiritual Gifts” Fire In My Bones (December 14, 2016).

John Lathrop writes: “This is a good word. We need to be discerning and not fall for every claim or gimmick that is presented to us as Christians.”

What people get paid is a sensitive and personal topic. It is no different for church staff, and particularly so for pastors who often live under standards and scrutiny higher than of volunteers. This mini-series will dive into a candid look at this practical and often complicated topic.

In my first full time job out of seminary, as a pastor in a local church, I made an annual salary of $18,000. That was the total package, and I was thrilled. I was thrilled for several reasons. First, I was making about $40.00 a week serving food in the cafeteria at Asbury, so this seemed like a lot of money. Second, 18K went a lot further in 1982 than today. Third, I wasn’t worth much more than that, (experience wise) and last, but mostly, I really didn’t care. Patti and I were a young married couple without kids and so happy just to serve in a local church it wasn’t about the money. Perhaps we were just young. Today, some 25 years later, it still isn’t about the money, but I will admit that a mortgage and kids in college changes one’s perspective. The reality of what a pastor is paid is a sensitive topic that eventually must be addressed.

There are extremes. We read about pastors who drive Bentleys and live in mansions. And we hear about pastors who must work two jobs in order to barely make ends meet. This article doesn’t reflect these extremes. The context of this article reflects the big middle. My focus is on the vast majority of pastors who are neither rich nor poor. In this first part of the series, let’s start with:

Common mistakes in salary setting

• Lack of clarity in communicating the financial package
  A mistake here can cause an otherwise sweet deal to go south really fast. Pay attention to detail. If you are the employer, you are focusing on finding the perfect staff member. You are likely not focused on the details of their financial compensation. This is why we so often speak in generalities such as, “The job pays in the 40K — 50K range.” I promise you that if you say that to a potential staff member, they heard only one number. 50K. This is a guarantee. Know your numbers before you start. You may have a range, but you must quote the low end. If you can go higher, then do and everyone is happy.Be clear about the difference between basic salary which is comprised of salary and housing, and benefits. Benefits include a number of possibilities such as: health insurance, self-employment taxes, 401K, paid vacation time, supplemental life insurance, disability, sick days, continuing education in either time off for school with pay or in some cases contributing to the tuition.There are other items that are benefits but are typically not included in personnel numbers such as car mileage, business meals, books and magazines etc. These items typically come from their individual ministry budget areas. Where these items are budgeted isn’t as important as how much and that you are clear up front with the potential new employee.Make sure you put all this in writing, and have the potential staff member take it home to read and sign before he or she shows up for their first day of work! This will help you avoid nightmares like, “What do you mean I have to pay for my health insurance out of my salary — I thought you said it was covered!!”
  Do your homework, know your numbers, and put it in writing.
• Determining a salary based on issues of emotion
  This is so common. I remember the first time I did it. I was inexperienced, and foolish about established trust and friendship. I knew the person well and couldn’t wait to have them on staff. This person was experienced and competent. We locked in and made the whole process overly spiritual saying “Ah, we’ll catch the details later”. Big mistake. I didn’t take the time to discover that one of their kids needed a special medication that cost $500.00 a month and wasn’t covered by insurance. Their previous church had paid for this medication. Somewhere in the midst of our “friendly” conversations a huge assumption was made. And this late in the game, if I didn’t cover the medication, they wouldn’t or couldn’t come. I wasn’t desperate, but close. I / we really wanted him. We really liked each other. The whole team liked he and his spouse. The thought of starting all over was overwhelming. I hired him and he was wonderful, but things continued to get complicated from day one regarding his financial package.Know your numbers and stick to them. If you make an exception, make it in the form of a one time bonus or special hiring agreement that isn’t part of the ongoing salary.
• Promising what you cannot deliver
  This mistake isn’t about integrity. I don’t know of any church who has ever knowingly misled a new employee in terms of setting a salary. But church leaders do often speak in highly general terms of “evangelistic exaggeration” in order to encourage the potential staff member. Statements like this are made. “Just join the team, I know the salary isn’t where it should be, but we’ll get it there as soon as we can.” That’s not smart. Even though it’s a sincere gesture, you can never promise (and thereby unknowingly mislead) because you don’t know what the church can and can’t do in a year or two.You can say something like “If God continues to bless us financially and you do well in your job, we have a track record of being generous with our staff.”On more than one occasion, because we couldn’t afford someone, we started them part time and built from there. With one person in particular we set up a three year plan, increasing his salary by 1/3 each year, along with his relative time commitment until he was full time.The good news is that in the local church you can promise the job of a lifetime based on a vision attached to the Kingdom of God. Now that is big. The salary might not be impressive, but the work is the most exciting and rewarding in the world!
• Paying all staff members the same
  I’ve only seen this in a few churches. The leaders were bright and innovative and it sort of worked for them, but as the churches got larger the system broke down. The need to hire more experience “senior or executive” staff required salaries that couldn’t be paid to all levels of the pastoral team.The main thing here is not structure as referenced above, but morale and performance. One of the worst things you can do that will lower morale is to pay everyone the same. In other words, you pay the least experienced, and least productive person, carrying the least responsibility and pressure as much as the top staff. This is not a wise move. Your team may be spiritual and mature, but if this doesn’t bother them, they are not smart.By the way, staff salaries should not be public or known by other staff members any more than you should post the congregation’s salaries or tithe numbers in the bulletin. It is essential that you have guidelines and accountability with the board and an annual audit etc., but I recommend that you don’t publish the numbers. It doesn’t help anything, and never really proves trust as some would say. The requirement to publish is more often a sign of mistrust. Aside from those more negative thoughts, if for no other reason, it kills the morale of the staff. Let’s be candid, nobody thinks anyone works harder than they do. And not all of your staff are mature enough to really understand levels of pressure and responsibility. This is not a harsh statement, it is actually one of major grace that recognizes and embraces our humanity.You will make your own decisions on this sensitive topic, and hopefully I’ve given you some helpful thoughts to guide you to a policy that works for you and your church.
• Lack of generosity
  If anyone has told you that if you want top staff, it will cost you more, they told you the truth. I began by saying that church staff are not in it for the money and that is still true. But keep in mind that a world class staff will more than pay for themselves if you get them working in their sweet spot. We’re all aware of limited resources, salary structures, and the importance to be wise stewards. Nonetheless, within those realities, be as generous as you can. Your staff will know if you are or not. They understand the realities of limitations, but they will know if your heart is in doing all you can for them, or if you are trying to save a buck.

There is much more to cover but I’ll close for now. In part two, I will cover:

• The wrong reasons to increase salary
• Key issues in setting the first salary
• Key issues to consider when increasing a salary
• And five important questions to ask in determining salary

This article is used by permission from Dr. Dan Reiland’s free monthly e-newsletter The Pastor’s Coach available at www.INJOY.com. Copyright 2007, INJOY PO Box 2782, Suwanee, GA 30024.

What do Muslims believe about the birth of Jesus, and how is it different from what Christians believe?

Many Evangelical Christians are surprised to discover that Islam believes in Jesus as the Virgin-born Messiah and Prophet. Indeed, it is interesting we have many professing Christian leaders who deny the supernatural birth of Jesus, but all orthodox and believing Muslims hold to it firmly. The starting point for any theological dialogue between Evangelicals and Muslims could be this common ground. However, there are important differences that must be recognised.

Jerusalem in the early 20th century.
Image: Wikimedia Commons

The chapters of the Qur’an are termed “Surahs” (meaning “fences”). Surah An-Anbiyaa 21:91 states: “And (remember) her who guarded her chastity: We breathed into her of Our Spirit and We made her and her son a Sign for all peoples”. Similarly in Surah Al-i-Imran 3:45ff we encounter terms that resemble the Lukan Annunciation narrative: “45 (And remember) when the angles said: O Mary! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a word from Him, whose name is the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary … 47 She said: My Lord! How can I have a child when no mortal hath touched me? He said: …Allah createth what He will …He saith unto it only: Be! and it is.” Similar expressions are made in Surah Maryam 19:20.

Although there is this common ground, notice that Islam attaches no theological significance to the Virgin birth; Surah 3:59 states: “Lo! the likeness of Jesus with Allah is as the likeness of Adam. He created him of dust, then He said unto him: Be! and he is.” Muslims often state that Adam’s creation was a greater miracle, since he had no parents at all! Moreover, there does not seem to be any compelling reason for the virgin birth in the Qur’an, since Islam denies original sin; the miracle is merely an arbitrary act of God’s will, an expression of His power. However, one interesting point in the Hadith, the narrations of Muhammad (the second source of authority for Muslims), indicates the uniqueness of Christ’s birth: Narrated by Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, “When any human being is born, Satan touches him at both sides of the body with his two fingers, except Jesus, the son of Mary, whom Satan tried to touch but failed, for he touched the placenta-cover instead.” (Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 4.506)

The meaning of “spirit” in Surah 21:91 is uncertain. It can mean God Himself, although the title “Holy Spirit” usually refers to the Angel Gabriel. The birth of Jesus is accompanied by Mary’s retirement to a remote place under a palm-tree (Surah Maryam 19:23) not a journey to Bethlehem. The figure of Joseph does not occur. Many Muslims attempt to quote the medieval forgery the Gospel of Barnabas to persuade Christians that it is the true Gospel. One of its many failings is that it reproduces contemporary Catholic superstition about Mary that she experienced no pains in child-birth: “The virgin …brought forth her son without pain …” In contrast, Surah Maryam asserts that Mary did experience pain: “And the pangs of childbirth drove her unto the trunk of the palm tree.” The canonical gospels are silent on the issue, but we may presume that the actual delivery was normal.

The Biblical infancy narratives are not reproduced in the Qur’an; instead we have the wunderkind of apocryphal gospels, with Jesus speaking in the cradle (Surah Maryam 19:19ff, cf the apocryphal Gospel of the Infancy) “1 …Jesus spoke …lying in His cradle …’I am Jesus, the Son of God …'” Surah Maida 5:110 presents Jesus performing the miracle of animating clay birds: ” …thou makest out of clay as it were the figure of a bird …and thou breathest into it and it becometh a bird …Again in Infancy 36, we read that the seven year-old Jesus: ” …made figures of birds and sparrows, which flew when He told them to fly …” Similar ideas are found in the Gospel of Thomas the Israelite.

It follows that Evangelicals must comprehend that when Muslims agree that Jesus was virgin-born and worked miracles, their understanding differs markedly from the Christian position. We Christians must relate the miracles to Christ’s public ministry following the baptism, and explain the significance of the Virgin birth for Christians in terms of fulfilment of prophecy (Isaiah 7:14) and relation to the doctrine of Original Sin.

Further reading:

• Peter Riddell & Peter Cotterell, Islam in Conflict: Past, Present and Future (IVP, 2003)
• Samuel Zwemer, The Muslim Christ (Oliphant Anderson and Ferrier, 1912). Online
• Neal Robinson, Christ in Islam and Christianity (Macmillan, 1991). Preview

 

This article originally appeared on the Pneuma Foundation website on March 16, 2006. The Pneuma Foundation is the parent organization of PneumaReview.com. Used with permission by Verbum: WEA Theological News (January 2006).

Introduction

In the opening pages of his three-volume Renewal Theology, J. Rodman Williams makes an observation which merits our attention. Theology as a task of the Christian church, he explains, is an essentially participative activity: “theology cannot be an exercise in neutral observation but can be done only by those who are genuinely participants. Of course, many things might be written about God and His ways (and they could even seem to be adequate and true), but without participation there is inadequate grasp of what it is all about.”¹ Herein this fundamental point is strongly affirmed; true theology is a setting forth of all that pertains to the Church’s knowing of God, organically relational, experiential—participative.

The dilemma, of course, is not in reaching agreement on the importance of participation theoretically, but in defining appropriate epistemology—the “grounds, method, and limits of knowledge” with which the Church’s knowing takes place.² In rather cyclical fashion, as one’s epistemology goes, so goes his participation, so goes his theology. Defining not just the necessity but also the nature of participation thus becomes critical to the theological task. In the West today there is great emphasis upon individualism, the intellect, reason and word; paradigms of rationalism which focus on the frontal lobe seem to have crowded out those which require experience. Arising from this context do Western Renewal theologians, following Williams, have unique contributions to make to theology writ large? With hope for such in view, criticism below dares us to a fresh and qualified appreciation for both ecumenicity and the mystical. In particular, we might heed the charge to become better informed and enriched by theological traditions of the Orthodox East.

Image: Avel Chuklanov

The Contemporary Context

Unfortunately, complex historical currents, particularly within academia, are working against those most likely to offer a unified theology-spirituality today. Such candidates are, of course, Western. Most Pentecostals/Charismatics are from the Third World (66 percent), and 87 percent live in poverty. Thus, we may expect historical trends to continue; though the “Worldwide Holy Spirit Renewal” is not primarily a Western phenomenon, highly literate Western thinkers with access to means of promoting their ideas will likely give rise to the most influential theologies.⁵ Meanwhile, commentators from both inside and outside this camp are convinced that a theology-spirituality rift is a real dilemma in the West.⁶

Change can be exciting; but it is also stressful. Many people are excited and others are anxious about what change will mean for them.

For a moment, let’s move away from our own struggle to adjust to change and pay attention to  the devastation some nations are enduring. According to reports, the Syrian crisis in the City of Aleppo has escalated such that millions of people’s lives are absolutely devastated in this region of the world, alone. Not to mention parts of Haiti, Japan, and other places that continue to try to recover from hurricanes and earthquakes. In addition to relief efforts and caring for wounded people, I want to encourage you to do something that makes the world of a difference.

1. We can pray for them!
2. We can consider the needs such as these and open our hearts with compassion for those in our immediate circles; there are people in your neighborhood who are in need of love and compassion.

Peace gives way to violence when there is a systemic breakdown in values. But, when we do our part to contribute to upholding godly values, we help curtail some problems, and we contribute to the solution where problems already exist.

At Christmas time, many people enjoy the fairy tales of Santa Claus, put up beautiful lights and sing lovely songs that have inspired us for years. While we don’t know the exact night of Christ’s birth, we are sure that Jesus, the Christ, was born, and it was indeed a holy night!

Let’s remember, however, that Christ was born amidst a world of chaos. Additionally, only the angels sang His praises at first. No one else understood the good that was happening; in fact no one cared.

Advent reminds us that Christ was born in such a situation to bring hope to the very ones who just didn’t get it.

Jesus’ birth was the birth of divine vision of a world unrighteousness, injustice, hate, violence, and war no longer exist.

Today, Christ invites us to participate in God’s vision for the world.

Raul, when we fully embody Christ’s values, the Body of Christ becomes the solution the world needs.

Jesus is the answer for the world today!

Will you pray this prayer with me?

Come Holy Spirit; heal our world. May we embrace Christ’s values and be His presence in the world. In Jesus’ name, Amen!

Have a great week!

Dr. Antipas

December 19, 2016

Jerry Walls is not the first to observe that the doctrine of hell seems to have slipped from contemporary Christian consciousness. Among theologians, the slide towards annihilationism or universalism (in one form or another) has not been confined to the liberals¹. And in the culture at large, ‘genuine concern about hell seems to be lost in our past, along with powdered wigs and witch trials’.

A detailed account of how this has happened is beyond the scope of Walls’ study. But the question of why belief in eternal punishment has been increasingly abandoned among the more orthodox has a fairly simple answer: the doctrine of hell is ‘widely regarded to be morally indefensible’. In fact, the famous philosopher Bertrand Russell had no qualms about finding fault with Jesus Christ Himself on this point, since nobody, Russell argued, “who is profoundly humane can believe in everlasting punishment”. For James Mill, a God who sent people to hell represented ‘the most perfect conception of wickedness’.

In the face of high-powered criticism, and with its negative impact upon an already difficult ‘problem of evil’, it is not surprising that many have been tempted to drop belief in eternal hell as a stumbling block that is inconsistent with a Christian conception of a loving God, and an intellectual encumbrance on the gospel.

Nevertheless, for many conservatives, the attractive reinterpretations of biblical teaching proffered by theologians rejecting this aspect of the Faith, whilst not without merit, are not entirely convincing. Walls for one believes that, on reflection, the doctrine of hell turns out to be more intimately interwoven with the heart of traditional Christian belief than may at first appear. If this is the case, he argues, then Christians face an unpleasant dilemma: if belief in hell is a basic part of Christianity, and if it is a moral defect to believe in hell, then one cannot be a Christian without being morally defective. In this book, Walls’ argues that the doctrine of eternal hell can be construed in ways that are neither immoral nor unintelligible. In what follows, I shall attempt to offer a brief synopsis of his argument.

1. Hell and Human Belief

Interestingly, as Walls relates, the actual phenomenon of belief in eternal hell has been used against the doctrine – and on both flanks. On the one side, it has been argued that Christians themselves do not really believe in it. And on the other, it has been observed that some Christians seem altogether too willing to believe in it! No one, of course, is claiming that hell’s existence is actually contingent upon the intentional state of people’s minds. The arguments from belief (or non-belief) are epistemological.

Some Christians have suggested that, when we honestly look into our hearts, we discover a universalist hope that cannot bear to think of anybody being lost, and that this presents us with a prima facie reason for thinking the traditional doctrine of hell to be untrue. People may accept the doctrine, but in their hearts they find they do not believe it, and the Christian heart is purportedly ‘shaped [in some measure] by the Spirit of God’. Further evidence that they do not believe it is that they do not act like it: we would immediately warn our unbelieving neighbour if his house was on fire, but we seem ‘strangely reconciled’ to his eternal fate. Walls takes these objections seriously, but ultimately rejects them. The burning house analogy, for instance, is flawed. ‘In the first place, if [our neighbour’s] house was on fire, he would certainly want to know about it. And second, he would surely consider it a real danger … However, these assumptions do not necessarily hold with respect to hell’. Nor can the seriousness of someone’s damnation be ‘instilled in a moment’. More troubling, however, is the thought that this sort of argument, if it went through, would place a good deal of Christian belief in question, besides the doctrine of hell. That few ‘seem to be appropriately moved… in the normal course of their daily routines’ by the extraordinary content of Christian teaching is interesting, and something we should reflect on, but not something we should accept as warrant for questioning the veracity of Christian doctrine. And there are shining counterexamples in the life and ministry of such saints as John Wesley. Regarding the evidence of Christian feelings, which ‘relies mainly on the testimony of contemporary Christians’, Walls contends that ‘the witness of the Christian heart is divided’. The same emotions may attend the state of ‘regretting the doctrine of eternal hell’ as well as the state of ‘hoping that is not true’, and Walls believes that many Christians fall in the former category. Moreover, ‘the compatibility of hoping for something while believing it is not very likely to happen blocks any direct argument from the existence of a widespread Christian hope that none will finally be lost to the conclusion that Christians “deep down” do not really believe in eternal hell’.

Vern S. Poythress is Professor of New Testament interpretation at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, where he has taught for over twenty-five years. Holding degrees in New Testament studies, apologetics, and mathematics, Poythress is also a minister in the PCA. Within this text, Poythress seeks to demonstrate how a proper understanding of biblical theology allows consonance with scientific truth. Based upon a strong commitment to Reformed theology, this text makes explicit the beauty and complexity that is inherent within the universe that points toward an intelligent designer. Although an advocate of Intelligent Design theory (IDT), Poythress’ approach to the sciences is balanced and open-minded (he focuses upon the ‘hard sciences’ of physics, chemistry, and biology) . In what follows, important points from the text shall be examined, and if apropos, critically engaged.

In the introduction, aptly entitled ‘Science Mixing with People’, Poythress notes that ultimately this is God’s world, and as such, science reflects his wisdom. He acknowledges that whether one appreciates the contributions of science or not, everyone has to deal with it on the practical level. Poythress asserts that science should serve as a pat for praising God and a instrument of service for humanity (10). A God-Centered science restores the correct response by humans to scientific study, one in which people praise the God who created nature and sustains it. This view is somewhat counter-cultural in that the dominant form of contemporary science stresses an ideology of ‘objectivity’ that virtually ignores or outright banishes fascination, delight, beauty, and mystery from the objects of inquiry. This malaise within science, unfortunately, is also indicative of the larger malaise of meaninglessness that engulfs (post)modern society.

Poythress begins with one of the most important chapters, ‘Why Scientists Must Believe in God: Divine Attributes Of Scientific Law’, and lays the foundation for the remainder of the text. He boldly posits that all scientists – due to the nature of their work – believe in God, whether they do so openly or not. The very regularity that is the foundation of practical science necessitates the steadiness imparted by the Judeo-Christian Godhead. Indeed, according to the bible, the divine is responsible for the regular and predictable events found in nature, the repeating patterns throughout the natural world, and the exact mathematical formulations in nature. Poythress construes the ‘natural law’ studied by scientists as the law of God, or better, the word of God, which is approximately described by human investigations (15). Indeed, all scientists are ‘realists’ in the end analysis with respect to scientific laws, as the scientists to not invent the laws, but merely discover them instead (16). Regarding the characteristics in common between the nature of God and natural law, Poythress notes that both are omnipresent in the since of pervading the cosmos, both are eternal in the sense of being applicable at all times, and both are immutable in that that they do not change. Moreover, both God and the natural law are ideational in character insomuch as we do not directly experience the reality of the natural laws, or the direct reality of God; rather, both are essentially immaterial and invisible, known through their effects and not in their essences (17-18). Note, however, that these statements do not implicate a divinization of nature, but rather are an admission of God’s presence throughout the environ, as the natural law stems from the creative activity of the Godhead.

Chapter two describes ‘The Role of the Bible’, and makes several significant statements to the relation between science and religion. Therein, Poythress states that because both nature and the bible are, in effect, the ‘word’ of God, they harmonize with each other seamlessly when properly approached. When discrepancies appear between the two, Poythress suggests that one should be ready to examine both their thinking about science, as well as their thinking about the bible (43).

In chapter four, which is simply titled ‘Creation’, Poythress begins his examination of the account of creation presented in Genesis 1, the examination of which continues through chapter ten. Poythress avers that the ‘beginning’ spoken of in Genesis 1 is an absolute beginning, a creation out of nothing; however, it is a creation that is initially unformed, which necessitates further refinement over time (73). It is apparent, then, that Poythress does not support a literal depiction of six, twenty-four days, comprising the creation event. Indeed, he makes this point explicit when he examines, in chapters six through ten, the popular interpretations of Genesis 1 known as the 24-hour-day view, the local creation theory, the mature creation theory, the gap theory, the day-age theory, and the analogical day theory. He notes that Genesis 1 does not use modern ‘scientific’ language, but ‘phenomenal’ language instead (92). In supporting the analogical day theory, Poythress contends that the passage in Genesis 1 simply teaches that God made the world in six ‘days’ of undetermined length. Moreover, this analogical view affirms the chronological progression of complexity as well as the reality of the structure of work that humanity should emulate (145).

In the concluding chapter, Poythress emphasizes the primacy of serving God, which all who read this essential text would do well to remember. Because we who operate in science merely think God’s thoughts after him, we must be cautious as to not allow our discoveries to displace the reality of God. Poythress is forthright in stating that his intended audience is Christians who already believe in God, and the independent reality of the world around us. As such, it is not an apologetic tome, as per se, though it does contain apologetic overtones. His overarching theme is that the relation of science and theology does not result in the antagonism that some popular thinking suggests. In sum, I recommend this title to those who are interested in how the Christian faith interacts with the scientific enterprise.

Reviewed by Bradford McCall

Publisher’s page: https://www.crossway.org/books/redeeming-science-tpb/

This review originally appeared on the Pneuma Foundation In Depth Resources page on May 11, 2009. The Pneuma Foundation is the parent organization of PneumaReview.com.

Introduction

This article is a spiritual and historical reflection on the two American wars of the Cold War, Korea and Vietnam. Many younger American readers may not be aware that the British successfully fought a Communist insurgency in Malaya (1948-1960) and the French fought the First Indochina War against Communist insurgents from 1948-1953 (described below) – all part of the not-so Cold War that I have not the space to adequately acknowledge in this essay. I will also deal with the difficult moral issue of civilian casualties in wartime, whether accidental or intentional.

For the sake of transparency, let me state that this is written from the perspective of Christian Just War theology that goes back to St. Augustine, and ultimately to St. Paul’s understanding of the state in Romans 13. Christian Just War theory was masterfully articulated by the theologian Reinhold Niebuhr in the 1930s and extremely influential in the period under discussion (see below). For a more recent articulation of the Just War theory one should consult Nigel Biggar’s work, In Defense of War. [1]

In this essay I take a positive view that the hot wars of America’s Cold War were Just Wars. I do not apologize for, or disguise this viewpoint. I believe within a few decades, and as the history of the Twentieth Century becomes clearer, the American role in these wars will be viewed more positively then they are now.

But in historical perspective, both wars were important in countering the attempt of Germany and its racist expansionism from becoming the predominant power in Europe and then on the planet. In World War I, Imperial Germany had not yet morphed into the vulgar and Pagan manifestation of Hitler’s Nazism. But the seeds were there, as in its Germanic contempt for the Slavic peoples. This disdain dated as far back as the Middle Ages and the Teutonic Knights. It was manifested in the treaty of Brest-Litovsk in 1917 when Germany triumphed over Russia. (The treaty was annulled one year later with the defeat of Germany by the Allied powers). The definitive countering of Germanic imperialism took place at high cost to Americans in World War II. Not waging that war might well have resulted in a disaster for the whole of mankind.

Second, a major, and indeed unprecedented event, was in the positive and merciful occupation of Germany, Italy, and Japan. In these countries the military was disbanded, war criminals prosecuted and some executed (after generally fair trials).[3] The population was treated with respect and without vengeance, and democracy and economic recovery stimulated. Under the Marshall Plan, large amounts of American money was spent as seed money to aid in the reconstruction of our devastated European allies as well as our former enemies. This was a manifestation of Christian ethics on a global political scale. There was also self-interest, as by 1948 it was obvious that Soviet Communism would be an adversary and a restored Germany and Japan could be assets. But that does not negate the Christian and sacrificial elements of these policies.