In our urban-dominated landscape, hunting, particularly sport hunting, has increasingly been viewed as a remnant of a barbaric era that is no longer needed and should be abolished. Clearly there is a cultural divide between hunters and anti-hunters. Hill and White sought to deepen their understanding of this intellectual and ideological divide and investigated how Christians have understood and understand their faith in regards to sport hunting. As Hill clearly says, “… this collection of essays was to provide a window into the different perspectives held historically by Christians in relation to sport hunting and to hear new voices on the debate. … The secondary goal was to encourage its readers to thoughtfully consider the various perspectives, many times not set in clear apposition, and the merits (and weaknesses) of each” (p.411). In brief, the book clearly accomplishes its goals.

Before delving into the text, readers should know that I was a contributor to this volume. My article, “Dominion Over Animals: Taking the Scriptural Witness and Worldview Seriously” (pp.33-348) summarizes my dissertation published in Dominion over Wildlife? An Environmental Theology of Human-Wildlife Relations, Wipf and Stock, 2009. My engagement with the specific contributions made by my fellow contributors to this volume occurred only after the book was published.

The editors did a superb job providing readers with an overall perspective on the topic. Their writing not only helped prepare readers to grasp the major themes and controversies, but their summaries of the articles enhanced reader pre-understanding and thus apprehension of the material. Heuristically, the book (both sections 1 and 2) stand as a model for educational best practice. I would note, however, that Hill’s contention that Christianity was a syncretistic religion (p.23) reflects a modernistic comparative religions bias and not the testimony handed down by Christ’s apostles.

The articles are organized into two major sections. Section One takes a descriptive approach to the debate over recreational hunting. Articles focus on historical attitudes and perspectives held by Christians over the centuries, starting with the biblical text and culminating with interviews of contemporary Christian hunters. The articles show how Christians argued both for and against sport hunting. Articles often described prevalent views by the way “Nimrod” of Genesis was portrayed in the literature. Interestingly, when hunting was in vogue, Nimrod was portrayed as a neutral or valuable character. When hunting was not in vogue, Nimrod became a term of derision and symbol of moral turpitude.

The second article entitled, “A Dying Legacy?: A Century of Hunting in the Stories of Texas Families”, Hill provides a sort of meta-analysis of the interviews contained in the following chapter. He keenly identifies key themes, concepts and sociological factors that impact one’s adoption (or lack) of hunting. If one wishes to have a quick, but not simplistic, look at the cultural-historical issues embedded in the hunting experience, this article is must reading. Though it focuses on the American, albeit Texas, experience, I suspect that the categories and insights will be useful elsewhere in the United States if not the world. The third article is actually a collection of interviews. These interviews are valuable for providing a more granular look at the motivations behind the desire to hunt as told by various hunters who claim a Christian heritage.

Section Two contains articles addressing the ethical or prescriptive views on hunting. Authors from both sides of the debate use a variety of rationales to support their position for or against the morality of hunting. Unsurprisingly, the majority of the emphasis focused on the justification (or lack thereof) for the killing of animals for “fun”.

Two articles that attempted to use Christian theology to condemn hunting (Killing and the Kingdom: A Case against Sport Hunting” by Shawn Graves and “Muscular Christianity and Sport Hunting: Missing the Target?” by John B. White were quite disappointing. Both ostensibly tried to use Christian teaching to condemn hunting but neither dealt with the concrete realities and teaching of the Biblical text. Their arguments reminded me of Supreme Court justices that attempt to argue that capital punishment violates the U.S. Constitution’s cruel and unusual punishments clause even though the authors of the Constitution clearly supported the death penalty. Any rational reading of the constitution clearly reveals that the authors were only referring to cruel execution methods such as Drawing and Quartering, etc., not to a condemnation of execution in general. Grave’s approach tended to avoid Scripture entirely choosing instead to rely on the vague notion of not causing harm. White’s article, on the other hand, argued that God’s intention was for humans to not kill animals. It never occurred to these scholars to even consider the ontological status of animals. If they did, the anti-hunting authors would perhaps understand that harm to an animal is categorically different (morally speaking) than harm to a person. (I suspect they would both grant that fact but apparently, they did not consider the full impact of that view). If God grants humans permission to kill His property, who are we to say that somehow violates God’s will? Neither of them considered how Christ was quite comfortable killing animals, sometimes for no apparent reason other than to demonstrate he could (e.g., miracle of the fishes). Dismissing this by saying that Jesus was God (though true) does not resolve the problem because Jesus was also the perfect human who provided an example of a sinless life before God.

Regrettably, Christian anti-hunters continue to commit two key mistakes that I have repeatedly pointed out over the years. First, they have either an inability or unwillingness to read literature that disagrees with their perspective. Not every scholarly article is found in top tier (often liberal) journals. Second, they are unwilling to consider the whole testimony of Scripture. Instead, Christian anti-hunters find a generic passage, such as “reconciling all things” and then use that generic principle to truck in every idea that fits their narrative even when specific passages counter those ideas. By rejecting or perhaps ignoring the principle of the general rule is constrained by the specific, they allow themselves to fly off into fanciful arguments without sufficient grounding in the Word of God.

Overall, this book provides an important contribution to the topic of sport hunting that is scholarly, yet accessible to college-level readers.

Reviewed by Stephen M. Vantassel

Publisher’s page: https://www.mupress.org/God-Nimrod-and-the-World-Exploring-Christian-Perspectives-on-Sport-Hunting-P952.aspx

Exploring Theology is a compilation of three books originally written by Clarence H. Benson (1879-1954), who helped found the Evangelical Training Association in 1930 and was a Presbyterian minister for many years. The three-in-one volume is compiled and edited by Robert J. Morgan. Exploring Theology begins with God, exploring his nature, character, and work. The first five chapters regard the Father, the next seven chapters regard the Son, and the following two chapters within the first section regard the Spirit. Readers of The Pneuma Review will immediately notice that the explicit coverage of the Spirit in no manner equals that of either the Son or the Father. Perhaps this thin coverage is attributable to Benson’s Presbyterian/Reformed roots, which seemingly emphasizes the Son’s role within the Trinity at the expense of the other members of the Godhead. Nevertheless, in the two chapters covering the Spirit, one will find numerous assertions that are agreeable and welcomed by those who value the contemporary ministry of the Spirit. For example, Benson highlights that the Spirit has the characteristics of personhood, including intelligence, purpose, and activity. Moreover, Benson notes that the Son himself recognizes the Spirit as a person in that Christ uses personal pronouns in referring to the Spirit. Additionally attesting to the personhood of the Spirit, Benson notes that the Spirit is mentioned within the baptismal formula in Matt. 18:19 and in the benediction by Paul in 2 Cor. 13:14. Further, Benson highlights that the Spirit speaks to believers, prays to the Father for believers, guides believers, commands believers, and teaches believers, actions that clearly point to the personhood of the Spirit. Most importantly, Benson notes, the Spirit empowers believers to live lives that are in accordance with God the Father’s will. So then, despite the somewhat paltry coverage of the Spirit, this text nonetheless contains a helpful explanation of the Trinity.

Compiler and editor, Robert J. Morgan

In the second of the three books included within this volume, Benson provides a concise and pointed presentation of twelve basic beliefs that serve to separate Christianity from other religious faiths. In the third book included within this volume, Benson examines and depicts the historical and physical evidence for the Christian faith by elucidating the creation of the world, Christ’s resurrection, prophecy fulfilled by the life and death of Jesus of Nazareth, and the historical reliability of the Bible.

At the end of each chapter there are discussion questions and application points for readers to ponder, which is well-suited for use in small group studies. Overall, this volume is logical and accessible in its presentation of systematic theology and apologetics from a Reformed theological perspective. That this writer is Reformed in theology (i.e., Calvinistic) may be of importance to some of the readers of The Pneuma Review. His Reformed perspective, for example, influences his argumentation for propitiation (appeasement) in reference to Jesus’ sacrificial atonement, his support of verbal plenary inspiration of the Bible (i.e., that every word of the Bible is exactly what God desires it to be), as well as advocating predestination. One will likewise find within this book dated references to generally perceived Fundamentalist theologians, but this aspect is to be expected because of its original composition date. All in all, I recommend this book for readers of The Pneuma Review.

Reviewed by Bradford McCall

Publisher’s page: https://www.crossway.org/books/exploring-theology-tpb/

This review was originally published on the In Depth Resources index of the Pneuma Foundation website on May 23, 2008. The Pneuma Foundation is the parent organization of PneumaReview.com.

Included on the panel were Dr. Clifton Clarke (Fuller Seminary), Dr. Lisa Bowens (Princeton), Dr. Jamal-Dominique Hopkins (Gordon-Conwell).

Left to right: Clifton Clarke, Lisa Bowens, Jamal-Dominique Hopkins, and Antipas Harris.
Image: Potters House

Exploring Ecclesiology promises “an evangelical and ecumenical introduction” to the doctrine of the church. This subtitle to the otherwise aptly entitled book is multi-faceted and, judging from the nature of the book, intentionally so. On the one hand, the book is an introduction for evangelicals to the discipline of ecclesiology and the ecumenical discussions on the nature and purpose of the church. On the other hand, the book is an introduction for non-evangelicals to the problems and concerns of the church as they are perceived and discussed in the evangelical community. The authors define their use of “evangelical” with reference “to that post-World War II movement in Protestant American Christianity that prized the ‘fundamentals of the faith’” (p. 13). With that in mind, the combination of “evangelical” and “ecclesiology” is a welcome contribution to the growing debate about ecumenical ecclesiology.

The history of evangelicalism in America shapes the ecclesiological perspective of the authors. Emerging from the modernist-fundamentalist controversy of the early twentieth century, and shaped by the development of fundamentalism after World War II, evangelical ecclesiology exhibits a considerable diversity. While this diversity makes it difficult to speak of an evangelical ecclesiology, in a doctrinal sense, the authors lament the neglect of ecclesiology among evangelicals and reject the common perception that evangelicals have no ecclesiology at all. Instead, Harper and Metzger intend to make this diversity their advantage and propose that the image of a mosaic is perhaps the best metaphor for ecclesiology from a contemporary evangelical perspective.

W. David Buschart, Exploring Protestant Traditions: An Invitation to Theological Hospitality (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2006), 373 pages, ISBN: 083082832X.

This book skillfully explores a number of contemporary Protestant traditions by tracing their historical and ecclesiastical backgrounds, their theological and hermeneutical methods, and their characteristic beliefs. Buschart offers the reader “an invitation to theological hospitality,” and this is perhaps the best metaphor to describe the scope and intentions of the book. The considerable theological diversity among just the Protestant traditions make this work a valuable resource and ecumenical field guide. For those familiar with the Protestant heritage, Exploring Protestant Traditions offers an organized way to access and compare significant information; for those unacquainted with Protestantism, the book presents a valuable and reliable introduction to the classical theological traditions.

The book concludes with a call to theological hospitality. Buschart surveys Lutheran, Anabaptist, Reformed, Anglican, Baptist, Wesleyan, Dispensational, and Pentecostal traditions. Obviously there are more traditions within Protestantism, not to speak of the larger ecumenical world of Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christianity. The mere existence of these divisions bespeaks the dilemma of Christian relationships and the sinfulness that attends the emergence of ever new denominations. Buschart, among many others, upholds hospitality as an antidote to polarization and divisions among the churches. Christian hospitality, emulating the hospitality of God toward humankind, has made it obligatory for Christians to pursue meaningful and honest relationships with one another. “A tradition of theology that flows from God’s preemptive hospitality,” Buschart argues, “is a good gift and … a resource for, not an enemy of, Christian hospitality” (264). In this sense, the book is likely to introduce the reader to more strangers than friends. And it is precisely the call to embrace the stranger that stand at the heart of the Christian life of hospitality.

W. David Buschart (PhD, Drew University) is associate dean and professor of theology and historical studies at Denver Seminary.

The introduction of the book defends the use of the term “Protestant traditions.” Nonetheless, a number of readers may prefer not to find themselves described as “Protestant,” because the term indicates particular historical events and theological convictions with which they do not identify. Pentecostals may by particularly well-known among this group. Historically, Pentecostals did not participate in the movements of Reformation and Counterreformation that swept Western Christendom. More precisely, Classical Pentecostals were ostracized and persecuted by the major Protestant traditions in North America, and an association with Evangelicalism did not develop until after World War II. On the other hand, Pentecostals have also disassociated themselves from Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. To describe Pentecostalism as “Protestant” is historically, ecclesiastically, and theologically incorrect. It may suggest that Pentecostals somehow “fit” better with Protestant Christianity. On the other hand, if Pentecostalism is a universal movement of the Holy Spirit, then we may find Pentecostals in all major Christian traditions with no particular “Pentecostal” identity.

Peter Darg, host, Yeshua/Jesus: Exploring the Jewish Roots of Jesus (Gateway Films, distributed by Vision Video www.visionvideo.com). Starring: Barbara Babcock, Ken Howard and Ossie Davis.

As an introduction to Jewish roots studies, Yeshua/Jesus is a good start. It takes a wealth of available information, boils it down, and presents it in an 85-minute film (VHS). Written for the uninitiated, it assumes the viewer knows little and takes them on a whirlwind tour of Israel and Israeli life as it was 2,000 years ago.

Cinematically, it does not compare to a film like the Visual Bibles’ Matthew, but the visuals are adequate for the purpose.

As far as context is concerned, the film covers most aspects of Yeshua’s life with accuracy, save one. The producers, like many other Christians, take the biblical account of Yeshua’s visit to Jerusalem and the temple when he was 12-years old and assume he was participating in a bar mitzvah. As a matter of history, the tradition of the bar mitzvah took root in European Jewish society during the Middle Ages. Yeshua was likely accompanying his father to the temple to learn what would be expected from him the next year, which, being of age, he would be required to offer his own Passover lamb. That appeared to be the only subject where history met misinterpretation.

Overall, the film is a reasonable entry-level to Jewish Roots information.

Reviewed by Kevin M. Williams