Review of The Resignation of Eve by Jim Henderson

Warning: My introduction may be totally unwise.  It could add fuel to what could become a wild fire.  Read on…

A few years ago I attended my very first Missouri Baptist State Convention.  At one point there was a very heated discussion on the issue of alcohol.  Anyone following SBC life knows that the use of moderate alcohol for recreational (or missional) purposes is highly debated. 

In my opinion there are people who give very reasonable arguments on both sides of the discussion.  But what happened at the MBC was not a reasoned discussion.  What ended up happening was that at least four people right after another came to the microphone and gave emotional and passionate stories of how alcohol use had ruined their life.  We clearly moved from reasonably debating the issues from a biblical standpoint to emotional appeals based on varying personal experience. 

That is what you have, in my opinion, in Jim Henderson’s book The Resignation of Eve.  The fundamental question in this book is what would happen if women stopped coming to church.  Henderson believes that all across the church landscape women are overcome with a sad resignation.  Women are wondering why it is that God has gifted them but leaders in the church (men) are not allowing them to lead. 

What follows are numerous stories of women and their views of women in the church.  The book begins by highlighting women that are “resigned to” their position.  In other words they agree with the complementarian position.  Then the stories slowly move towards the other end of the spectrum.  Henderson does an excellent job showing that this issue is far more complex than simply complementarian and egalitarian. 

The problem, though, is in the way Henderson frames his arguments.  He treats those on the complementarian problem as those that are simply blind to the problem.  They do not hold their position because of a reasonable biblical defense.  They hold their position because they are blind to the other world that could be theirs.  For Rose Claxton who is committed to a more traditional interpretation of submission, Henderson cannot help but note that “none of us escape the influence of our past”.  It must be because of her “confusing childhood” that Rose is “grateful for the structure and security submission has provided for her”.  (35)

Fast forward to Jennifer Roach.  She too had a troubled past but through the help of “three important men” she has risen above that past and is now “being ordained as a priest and becoming one of the first female church planters in her denomination”  (223).  Yes, this is Jesus’ rescue, and his empowering of Jennifer and elevating her.  Not even considered is that her story of abuse does not impact her understanding of Scripture. 

This is the problem throughout the book.  Henderson has a bias—which appears to be the same structural disdain found in all things Barna—and it clouds everything in the book.  And that is really sad.  It is sad because I think there are actually some really good things to be said here.  It is true that men have abused power and that churches have been really sloppy in how they handle the teachings of Scripture concerning women.  These stories are real and they are sad.

But what I find increasingly sad is that the mindset that permeates this book is the same one that I have encountered in counseling struggling couples that pursue a divorce, or those struggling with homosexuality that decide to give up on the struggle.  The argument is simple.  A) God made me this way.  B) What you are saying the Bible says would go against how God made me, and would lead to my unhappiness.  C) God would never desire me to not use my gifts, not be who I am, not be happy.  D) Therefore, what you are saying must be incorrect and your interpretation of the Bible must be outdated. 

There is much room here for discussion and reasoned debate.  The problem is, as it was at the MBC a few years ago, such a discussion is not allowed to happen because of the emotional appeal, sloppy rhetoric, exaltation of personal experience, and anthropocentric world views. 


Should You Buy It?

I wouldn’t.  It’s irresponsible.  These stories might very well be ones that should be told.  There is much that those of us that come from a complementarian position can learn from hearing these stories.  But at the end of the day this book is just simply irresponsible on a very difficult and often heated topic. 

Yes, it comes from the same perspective as I do but I have found Tom Schreiner’s book Women in the Church very reasonable and a good defense of the complementarian position.  Which by the way is never really fairly represented in this book.  It’s just caricatured and then torched as an outdated and brainless (perhaps heartless if the analogy would fit) straw-man. 

On the Barna agenda you might find this beneficial.  It’s far from watchblogging.
---
I received this book for free from Tyndale (I think) in exchange for a review.  It didn’t have to be positive—as you can clearly see. 

People You’ve Maybe Never Heard Of But Should: Charles Simeon

Charles Simeon was born in 1759 in Reading, Berkshire.  He attended Eton College and Cambridge.  While at Cambridge he came to know the Lord.  John Piper helps us to see the miracle of this when he says, “He had no mother to nurture him.  His father was an unbeliever.  His boarding school was a godless and corrupt place.  And his university was destitute, as far as he knew, of other evangelical believers.”

After his conversion he soon became the pastor at Trinity Church in Cambridge.  Here he remained for the next 54 years until his death.  We have much to learn from a pastor that has such staying power as Charles Simeon. 

Why You Should Know Him:

Simeon was vital in the modern missions movement.  He used his influence through his position at the university to not only fill many pulpits throughout England with evangelicals but also to send missionaries to the East.  Many of those that would pioneer missions movement go back to Simeon as a mentor.  His branches extend far throughout the world. 

Simeon was also a wonderful preacher.  Simeon said that the three great aims of all his preaching where, “To humble the sinner, to exalt the Savior, and to promote holiness”.  For 54 years that is precisely what Charles Simeon did.  And he did it, especially in his early years against the backdrop of much persecution. 

The newly minted preacher was not wanted by his parishioners.  They wanted another guy.  So they revolted.  It wasn’t until 1794 that the congregation allowed their own pastor, Simeon, to give the Sunday afternoon lecture.  When Simeon tried to start a Sunday evening service the churchwardens locked the door.  They also had a habit of locking the pew doors on Sunday morning and then going home.  Those that wanted to hear Simeon would have to do so while standing.  When Simeon decided to provide seats in the empty spaces (at this own expense) the churchwardens threw them into the churchyard. 

All of this is not to mention the cold reception that he would receive when visiting peoples houses.  On top of this he was despised as he taught at Cambridge University.  All of this lasted for at least ten years.  Finally, through patient plodding and preaching the Word the community gradually began to accept Simeon. 

Charles Simeon’s faithful endurance under very difficult circumstances is a model to all of us.  Many pastors—(perhaps even including myself)—would not have been strong enough to have endured such attacks.  But Simeon kept pressing on and left a lasting gospel legacy. 

Samples:

One particular thing that is endearing about Simeon is his response to controversy and his refusal to needlessly engage in it.  I love his word to a pastor encouraging Simeon to engage in controversy:

I know you will forgive me if I say that the very account you give of yourself in relation to controversy is a dissuasive from embarking in it.  Let a man once engage in it, and it is surprising how the love of it will grow upon him; and he will find both a hare in every bush, and will follow it with something of a huntsman’s feelings.

Simeon was also very passionate about experiencing and enjoying grace and not merely defending it:

By this then, my brethren, you may judge whether you are Christians in deed and in truth, or whether you are only such in name…For a nominal Christian is content with proving the way of salvation by a crucified Redeemer.  But the true Christian loves it, delights in it, glories in it, and shudders at the very thought of glorying in anything else. 

There is much more gospel centered and humble preaching that flows from the works of Charles Simeon. 

Further Reading:

John Piper’s Biography on Simeon is one thing that I used in putting together this article.  It’s very helpful. 

There is much on Google Books by Simeon and about Simeon.

Also check out the Simeon Trust.

Hump Day Humor 3.7.12

I’d take guitar lessons from this person:

I love this commercial (HT: 22 Words): 

I should probably just call this feature HT: 22 Words because here is another funny from there:

Pentecostal Gorilla:

The only hope for Cubs fans (and probably Royals fans too):

This from a fun site called Questionable Advice:

Review of How to Read the Bible Through the Jesus Lens

Part of God’s calling on my life is to teach students how to read the Bible.  Occasionally, I will have some students that desire to learn how to do Bible studies, write sermons, and do other types of ministry.  Inevitably, in both these endeavors I find myself consistently telling them to make sure that Jesus is the hero of every text.  That is a question I ask of my own preaching and one that I hope to instill in the lives of students that God has entrusted me with. 

One of the difficult things in this endeavor is to have a Christ-focus in various Old Testament passages.  It can be rather difficult for the beginning Bible reader to discover how exactly Christ is found in Leviticus, the conquest of Canaan or other passages.  Even in some New Testament passages it can be easy to apply the imperatives (do this) without first putting on the Jesus lens (indicatives). 

Michael Williams’ new book, “How to Read the Bible through the Jesus Lens” is written to help beginning Bible readers learn how to use a Jesus lens in reading all of the Scriptures.  The book covers all 66 books of the Bible in four pages each.  Every section has a short summary of the book with a helpful statement of the books major theme.  A memory passage is also highlighted as well as a few “hook questions” to give each chapter staying power.  Williams also applies the Jesus lens to the books major theme and then dives into a few contemporary implications. 

What you are getting with this book is a brief, popular level (though not shallow), introduction to the Bible.  This book is written for beginning Bible students with the hopes of “avoiding the dry, data-intensive introduction to the Bible” that most introductions fall into.  Here you will get a simple and concise theme for each book and then be shown how the books overall thrust can be read with a Jesus lens. 

I figured one of the best places to give the book a trial run would be the book of Job.  Here Williams views the theme of the book as being the truth that “God is active in areas and realms beyond our understanding”.  In response to this theme, Williams encourages the reader to use the book of Job to “see God at work in our suffering”.  When we put on our Jesus lens we see that Christ gives us the “ultimate picture of the righteous sufferer as he accomplishes God’s saving purposes” (71). 

How To Use This?

With every book that I read and review I try to determine who would benefit from reading the book.  With this particular book I know that the audience will be those that are relatively new to reading the Bible (or perhaps those new to trying to reading it in a Christ-centered way).  As I went through this book I tried imagining one of my students that is newer to reading Scripture.  How would he use this book?  Would it be beneficial?  What disciplines would reading through this book cultivate in his walk with Christ? 

I picture a new believer opening up his Bible to Job.  The only Bible that he has is just a simple pew Bible with very little “helps” inside of it.  There is no introduction to his copy of Job, but he did just pick up a copy of this Jesus Lens book.  Before he begins reading Job he reads through this book.  He learns here that the book of Job is about suffering—and suffering that doesn’t seem to make sense.  From the beginning pages he knows that Job will be exhorting him to trust in God even when it seems really dark.  He will find—through picking up his Jesus lens—that Christ is not only a model for enduring suffering but is the one by whom we are able to endure suffering and the one in whom suffering is ultimately conquered. 

My Take

Part of me really likes this idea.  I am in absolute agreement that we should read the Bible “through a Jesus lens”.  I also welcome a simple and easy to read introduction to not only this practice but also to books of the Bible.  I love being able to hand someone a quick reference that will help them see how to apply a “Jesus lens” to the book of Job, or Nehemiah, or any other book in the Bible.  So, part of me loves this idea.

The other part of me is…something.  I’m really not certain what word to call it.  Disappointed?  That’s too strong.  Cynical?  Yes, but that probably doesn’t apply here.  Whatever word you want to call it I question whether this book will actually accomplish what it intends to do.  I do not think it is myopic (that means narrow focused) to read everything through a Jesus lens.  But what I do think might be myopic is applying the Jesus lens only to the books major theme. 

Job has more gospel in it than simply that “God is active in areas and realms beyond our understanding”.  There is more to it than that Christ is the ultimate righteous sufferer and that He is in the business of making all things right even when we do not see His hand.  I agree with all of this theologically, and I even agree that these truths you can find in Job.  But what about what we can learn through Job about Christ-centered counseling?  What about the truth that Christ is the instrument by which God’s proclamations in Job 38-41?  There is so much more that a Jesus lens enlightens than could be covered in four pages. 

So again I’m…still can’t find the word.  I love the idea.  I love the practice.  I even like the simplicity of this book.  I just wonder if the fact that each book is only given four pages will be training readers to be a tad too myopic in their reading of Scripture.  Does it really train them to read through a Jesus lens or does it train them to read the Bible through a meta-narrative?  Both are crucial, but they are different.

Should You Buy It?

If you have been reading the Bible for years and already practice reading the Bible through a Jesus lens you may not find a ton of help here.  It’s not really written for you.  But you could buy it and give it to a new believer.  Even with my reservations I do heartily recommend this book for new Bible readers.  Do not attempt to make this book a stand alone or even the definitive book on teaching someone “how to read the Bible through the Jesus lens”. 

You can buy the book here.  And you really should.  Williams is a really good writer and he packs some in depth stuff into a really short section.  He does it, though, in a way that is not “heady” but it is written on a popular and very helpful level.  You will benefit from the book. 

---

I received this book free from Zondervan in exchange for a review.  This review is also part of a Blog Tour that you can check out here.  Read the other reviews because other reviewers focused on other books of Scripture. 

The Root of Angry and Divisive Calvinists: Part Two

Yesterday we looked at the story of Mark, a young seminary student coming back to his home church to set them straight.  We wondered “what happened to Mark”.  Unfortunately that fictional story is all too real in many church settings. 

For our discussion we will be tackling the problem of angry and divisive Calvinists, but truth be told we can make Mark’s sermon topics whatever you desire. In our day and age many may be tempted to drop the C word (Calvinism) as one of those topics bearded Mark picks up. 300 years ago it may have been Arminianism. It doesn’t matter what topic you pick because the problem isn’t as much Mark’s sermon topics as it is a much greater issue. A bigger issue that has replayed itself within different circumstances for centuries.

In the late 1700’s John Newton wrote this to a student in divinity:

Though I am no enemy to the acquisition of useful knowledge, I have seen many instances of young men who have been much hurt by what they expected to reap advantage from. They have gone to the academy humble, peaceable, spiritual, and lively; but have come out self-wise, dogmatically, censorious, and full of a wisdom founded upon the false maxims of the world.[1]

“What happened to Mark?” was a question asked even in Newton’s day.


Is seminary the problem?

Perhaps. I remember as a freshman in seminary many of the warnings that professors gave about the dangers inherent in the nature and rigors of a seminary education.  Seminary can have a tendency to train the mind to the neglect of the heart. Helmut Thielicke, in his exceedingly helpful primer, A Little Exercise for Young Theologians suggests this much when he says:

The man who studies theology, and especially he who studies dogmatics, might watch carefully whether he increasingly does not think in the third rather than in the second person…This transition from one to the other level of thought, from a personal relationship with God to a merely technical reference, usually is exactly synchronized with the moment that I no longer can read the word of Holy Scripture as a word to me, but only as the object of exegetical endeavors.[2]

Yes, it is quite possible that what happened to Mark is that he has been ruined by stale-hearted academia. It is possible, indeed quite likely, that Mark has puffed up his brain to the neglect of his soul. Perhaps he has “busied himself daily with divine things, with a cold and impassive heart.”[3] But it is also quite possible that though Mark appears to all to be a man trained by seminary to combat error with a sniper’s poise and an equally cold heart that he is, in actuality, passionate to refute error because he has learned how deadly it can be to the vibrancy of the faith of a local church.

More than likely Mark’s problem is not necessarily a fault of the institution. It’s probably not even the newfound theology that he is embracing. And it may even be quite possible that Mark is not simply a jerk that has gotten a little theology to puff him up. It may be that Mark still loves Jesus just as much as he did before he took his first systematic theology class.

What happened to Mark, then?

---

[1] Works of Newton, Volume 1, 139
[2] Thielicke, A Little Exercise for Young Theologians, 33
[3] Cameron and Rosner, Trials of Theology, 56