Why Johnny Can't Sing Hymns: How Pop Culture Rewrote the Hymnal

By: T. David Gordon

As I wrote concerning the predecessor of this book, Why Johnny Can't Preach: The Media Have Shaped the Messengers (reviewed above), the same goes for this one: I cannot recommend it highly enough (P&R Publishing). I have read several books addressing this issue, but this one is especially good. Gordon makes some observations that others overlook, which we’ll come back to in a moment.

Gordon again knows what he is talking about, since in addition to being currently professor of religion and Greek at Grove City College, he has also taught in the humanities and media culture. So, he doesn't make flippant remarks after a quick glance, rather observations based on careful scrutiny.

The observation that struck me the most profoundly was when Gordon pointed out today’s “insistence that many, most, or all forms of worship,” especially music, must “be contemporary.” This attitude is, in fact, unique to our day. Gordon goes on to make his point, a point I've not heard anyone else make:

My father’s generation did not demand that all hymns be written in big band idiom, and mine did not demand that they be written to sound like Eric Clapton or The Who. So why do we now find something unique in the history of the church: a considerable number of people who appear to believe sincerely that it is not merely permissible, but in some sense necessary or preferable to jettison hymns that previous generations employed? Why? (pp. 42-43).

Now, taking that to its next logical step, Gordon submits, in thirty years, when “the prevailing popular musical idiom of our culture” might very well be “gangsta rap,” will we then “be required to worship exclusively in this idiom” (p. 43)?

In the same vein, Gordon makes another observation I've not read elsewhere, namely, “the criterion of contemporaneity trumps all the criteria of all the hymnal-revision committees that ever labored.” With very few exceptions, such committees throughout history have weighed several factors in considering the merits of hymns, including:

theologically orthodox lyrics; theologically significant lyrics; literarily apt and thoughtful lyrics; lyrics and music appropriate to a meeting between God and his visible people; well-written music with regard to melody, harmony, rhythm, and form; and musical setting appropriate to the lyrical content (p. 47).

Most, if not all those, however, are thrown to the wind in today’s obsession with contemporaneity. “Only the most artistically gifted (or arrogant) of generations could possibly imagine that it could, in a single generation, be expected to produce a body of hymns that surpassed all previous hymns and rendered them obsolete” (p. 47). As Gordon observes elsewhere, “Ours is a contemporaneous culture—hook, line, and sinker. Nearly all the mediating institutions of our culture regard the past with contempt; the past is passé. We don't disagree with the past; we just pay it no attention at all. It was primitive, it was pre-electronic, and ‘wouldn't understand us today’” (p. 172). As is also true of historic doctrines, historical truths, and historic texts of Scripture, the common attitude of our day is that history is irrelevant, but we ignore it at our peril.

In an Appendix (pp. 187-88), Gordon also includes an extremely helpful and revealing table, taken from Kenneth A. Myers’ book, All God’s Children and Blue Suede Shoes: Christians and Popular Culture (Crossway, 1989). In a two-column comparison, he dramatically demonstrates the many differences between “Popular Culture” and “Traditional and High Culture.” Just a few include: focusing on the new vs. focusing on the timeless; emphasizing information and trivia vs. emphasizing knowledge and wisdom; celebrating fame vs. celebrating ability; appealing to sentimentality vs. appealing to appropriate, proportion emotions; and, most notably, tending toward relativism vs. tending toward submission to standards.

So, why does contemporaneity trump everything else? Even more to the point, however, Gordon submits, “Why does contemporaneity deserve to be included as a criterion at all, much less a criterion more important than all of these?” In fact, he goes on to ask something that is a truly scathing rebuke to the church today:

Why are there no signs outside churches that read: “Theologically Significant Worship,” or “Worship Appropriate to a Meeting between God and His Assembled People,” or “Worship That is Literarily Apt and Thoughtful”? Why do the signs say “Contemporary Worship,” as though that criterion were itself worthy of promoting? (p. 48)

Gordon also addresses the issues of form and content. Can anyone honestly deny that most contemporary music is basically superficial, often even trivial? Is such superficiality, therefore, appropriate to such subjects as: “repentance, sacrifice, obedience, and selflessness” (pp. 60–61)? “Would it make good sense, for instance, to take the lyrics of something like ‘O God, Our Help in Ages Past’ and put it into a contemporary-sounding musical form” (p. 60)?

This is, I am convinced, a crucial point. I once heard Ligon Duncan ask a similar question: “Did you know that metrically you can sing ‘Amazing Grace’ to the tune of the old TV show ‘Gilligan’s Island,’ but would that be appropriate?”

Gordon also makes a powerful point when he reminds us: “The very existence of the expression sacred music once conveyed the notion that some music was different from other music, intentionally different, different precisely because it was devoted to a sacred (not common) cause” (p. 68, emphasis Gordon’s).

Gordon also takes on the popular adage, “This is just a matter of style. We like our kind of music, and older people like their kind of music.” But, as he well states, “traditional sacred music is not older people’s ‘kind of music.’” Such music remained unchanged no matter what the popular music was (such as the aforementioned big bands and The Who). “Such traditional forms are not ‘our’ music; they are the church’s music, and they antedate us by many generations” (pp. 75-76. emphasis Gordon’s).

Now, I have only one major criticism of Gordon’s work. While I most certainly agree that the guitar is the number one instrument of contemporary music, and while I also agree that it is overused (that is, almost exclusively) and misused (as in unskilled rhythmic strumming), I respectfully disagree that it is to be anathema, a point he makes several times. (I would also certainly agree, however, that the kazoo would be inappropriate, p. 50.) I have played the guitar for 40 years and have used it respectfully and reverently in churches. Gordon admits that he is not a musician, so to say that Martin Luther’s great hymn, “A Mighty Fortress is our God,” cannot be accompanied on a guitar (p. 99) is a bit silly. It most certainly can, and I have done so. It is written in 4/4 time and a soft, smooth pick-pattern is quite reverent.

This reminded me of a situation a preacher friend of mine once faced. Part of his ministry at the time was music, of which his guitar was a part. A certain pastor came to him one day and said, “I couldn't allow you to come to my church because you use a guitar.” My friend asked why and the answer followed, “Oh, because it's a stringed instrument, and we feel that those are worldly.” My friend lovingly asked him, “Well, then, do you have a piano in your church? It, too, is a stringed instrument.” The pastor was noticeably taken off guard and blurted out his answer, “Well . . . yes, but you can't see the strings.”

I would humbly submit here that the problem often is not the instrument itself, but rather the incompetence of the one playing it. I am by no means a great guitarist, but I do know how to play it appropriately. Is the piano a classical instrument? Of course it is, but can it not also be used to play honky-tonk? Likewise, in the right hands a guitar is also a classical instrument, while, granted, in the wrong hands it is worse than inappropriate.

That aside, Gordon’s overall arguments (IMHO) are compelling. He recounts an incident with which I will close this review. His former colleague, author and professor David Wells, encountered a seminary student one day at the photocopier. Wells was copying a draft of the book he was writing: Above All Earthly Pow’rs: Christ in a Postmodern Word (Eerdmans, 2005). The student thought the title interesting so Wells told her it was from Luther’s hymn, to which she replied that she was not familiar with it. “Imagine,” Gordon writes incredulously, “a student at a theological seminary who has never heard ‘A Mighty Fortress is our God!’”

That does, indeed, underscore where the church is headed. If we keep going the way we are now, how long will it be before other great hymns not only vanish from use but even from our memory? 

Why Johnny Can't Preach: The Media Have Shaped the Messengers

By: T. David Gordon

Let me say right out of the gate that I cannot recommend this book highly enough. It should be mandatory reading both for men training for the ministry and men already there. It is among the most important books of its kind to be written in our modern era.

I have read many books on preaching (e.g., Preaching and Preachers by Martyn Lloyd-Jones literally changed my life and ministry), but this one is unique. Though barely 100 pages, it directly confronts the lack of good preaching that characterizes the Church today and provides reasons why this has occurred. Gordon claims, in fact, that of all the sermons he’s heard in the last 25 years, only 15% had a discernible point and that of these less than 10% based their point on the text that was read. While some readers would immediately scream, “Oh, that’s just anecdotal evidence!” such evidence cannot be avoided (or ignored) here; trends must be observed and reported on, and that is what Gordon is doing. (A. W. Tozer, for instance, did the same thing in his day.) Besides, this would still be a sad condition if the first percentage where “only” 50 and the second was any number.

Gordon also reports something he has encountered about 100 times and which I too have heard uncounted times in my own almost 40 years of ministry, namely, church members who verify that their pastor doesn’t preach very well. When asked, “What do you think of your minister,” the reply is usually, “Well, he’s not a good preacher, but . . .” (22). The answer I have heard repeatedly is, “Well, he’s not a very good preacher, but he has a pastor’s heart,” which of course totally ignores the one specific requirement of a pastor as far as his job description is concerned: he must be a skilled teacher (1 Tim. 3:2; cf. Acts 20:27–31). This is non-negotiable.

The first fundamental reason for this breakdown in preaching, Gordon insists, is that men can’t read, that is, they can’t read texts (chapter 2). “There is a profound difference between reading information and reading texts,” he writes, “reading a text is a laboriously slow process” (42). Many ministers “read the Bible the same way they read everything else . . . for its most overt content . . . but they don’t raise question about how the passage is constructed” (46, emphasis Gordon’s). Why? Because our electronic media culture has trained them to do this. Gordon should know of what he speaks, since in addition to being currently professor of religion and Greek and Grove City College, he has also taught in the humanities and media culture.

The second reason, Gordon contends, is that neither can men write anymore (chapter 3). While we once had a culture that was demonstrably “articulate, thoughtful, and well-composed” in its writing (67), look at where we are today. (If I may interject, Facebook, Twitter, IMing, and texting are graphic examples; that is, of course, in my humble opinion—oh, I meant to type IMHO.)

I especially appreciated Gordon’s emphasis on the great 19^th-century theologian Robert L. Dabney and his classic book on homiletics, Sacred Rhetoric: or a Course of Lectures on Preaching (1870). In it Dabney delineates “The Seven Requisites of Preaching,” of which Gordon comments: “These seven requisites (not excellencies, but requisites) are seven minimal requirements that Dabney believed (and his reviewers agreed) were essential to every sermon. None of these categories is subjective; each is perfectly susceptible of objective evaluation.” Gordon then goes on to list and briefly summarize them: textual fidelity; unity; evangelical tone; instructiveness; movement; point; and order (23–28). As he also observes, and which is again demonstrably true, these are “manifestly absent” in most pulpits today.

A final problem in preaching today, Gordon submits in chapter 4, is that preaching is often not Christ-centered, having been replaced by four flawed alternatives: moralism, how-to, introspection, and social gospel/so-called culture war.  He also adds a brief note on “the contemporaneist/emergent alternative, which is to dispense with expository preaching altogether, since it is regarded by them as passé” (79[f11]). None of this truly feeds God’s people (74), which again is the pastor’s function.

I do have some criticisms of the book, and while they are minor I think they are worth noting. First, as a former professor at Gordon-Conwell Seminary for 13 years, Gordon insists that the fault of all this does not lie at the doorstep of our seminaries (34–41). Granted, there are many good men in our seminaries, such as Gordon-Conwell’s own Haddon Robinson and others elsewhere. But I humbly submit that this is simply not true across the board. First, I have heard men fresh our of good seminaries who are not good preachers. Second, I have also many times over the years been able to know where a man went to school just by hearing him preach (and that often was not a good thing). I would also submit that even if a school teaches homiletics flawlessly, it still must assume part of the responsibility if it goes ahead and graduates a man who can’t preach. Second, I am also a bit troubled about Gordon’s suggestion that churches should perform an “annual review” of the pastor using “carefully designed survey questions” or even by phone calls (97–99). This simply is not biblical and is a non-issue if a man is truly anointed of God. Third, I just cringed when in reference to when writing “one begins a sentence, partway through realizes that it cannot be successfully completed, and therefore begins again” Gordon dubbed this with the “inelegant” term “sentence f---” (39). Sorry, but I think that comes from the very culture he criticizes. A wordsmith (which Gordon clearly is) can do better than that.

Minor criticisms aside, this is an extremely important and pertinent book for our day. I recommend it highly.

NOTE: My next post will review Gordon’s second book: Why Johnny Can't Sing Hymns: How Pop Culture Rewrote the Hymnal.

Humility: True Greatness

by J. C. Mahaney

It’s a little intimidating to write a review of a book on humility. I mean, where do you begin? I decided, therefore, to start with myself, that is, to apply this truth to my own life, as did the author of his life, and C. J. Mahaney’s book is challenging, indeed.

This is one of the best contemporary books I’ve read in quite some time. There’s no pop-psychology here, no feel-good clichés, no humanistic philosophy, no diluted Gospel, so if that’s what you prefer, you won’t enjoy this read. If, however, you want to be challenged about the destructiveness of pride and God’s hatred of this very “core of all sin” (as the author points out), then I encourage you to read this diagnostic book.

I would even humbly suggest a method for reading this book. While it’s actually quite short and a quick read, I urge you to resist reading it straight through. Its twelve brief chapters yield themselves nicely to a chapter a day approach, an exercise that will be of far more help to you than today’s popular so-called “40 days of purpose.” Instead of puffing you up and elevating your self-esteem, here is a book that confronts you with the sinfulness of self and the greatness of God.

In Part I, the author outlines the battle between humility and pride, demonstrating that pride is “when sinful humans aspire to the status and position of God and refuse to acknowledge their dependence upon Him,” and that humility “is honestly assessing ourselves in light of God’s holiness and our sinfulness.” Part II looks at our Savior and the secret of true greatness by demonstrating that the latter is “serving others for the glory of God.” In Part III, the longest section of the book (eight chapters), the author offers many practical suggestions and principles for practicing true humility. Some of those that struck me the most profoundly are: reflecting on the wonder of the cross, beginning each day acknowledging our need for God, and studying the attributes of God and the Doctrines of Grace (including the doctrine of sin). Those will, indeed, keep us humble.

As excellent as this book is, I dare to submit humbly that it could have been better. One of the characteristics of most books written today is a lack of Bible exposition. While there is some here, such as a wonderful study of Habakkuk, there could have been much more. I wish, for example, that the Greek words and historical concepts behind “pride” and “humility” had been examined, which is a key to good exposition. Additionally, while the many principles offered in Part III are good, several of them need more Biblical support. Several key verses on this issue were also surprisingly overlooked, such as: Mk. 8:34, II Tim. 3:1-5, Rom. 1:25, and I Jn. 2:16.

While I’m confident that the author knows that both “pride” and “self” are never, not once, used in a positive way in Scripture, I was disappointed that this point was not made clearly enough. A common teaching today is that there is “positive pride,” that we can, for example, be proud of our children when they do good, so I think it should have been made crystal clear that such attitudes are unbiblical because they lift up self instead of God alone. I also found the author’s thoughts on sports a little weak. While he rightly points out, as a “discerning fan,” that “sports heroes” are not “great” in God’s eyes, as they are in the world’s, I don’t think he goes quite far enough. There are few things in our society (if any) that elevate man’s pride as much as athletics.

Also, while I know it’s a popular teaching, I still have a problem with the notion that the lists of spiritual gifts recorded in Scripture are not exhaustive but are just a “sample” of the gifts that God gives, a view the author mentions in passing. The Bible simply doesn’t say that, and I find it a weakening of the sufficiency of Scripture that ultimately places the recognizing and defining of any other so-called gifts in man’s hands. 

In spite of those observations, I highly recommend this book with all my heart and mind. It was a deep blessing and pointed challenge to my own spiritual life, especially in one particular area where I admit to and struggle with pride. In a day when pride characterizes our personal lives and drives our entire culture, here is book that meets it head on and condemns it for the sin that it is. I encourage you to read it and meditate upon the principles it humbly offers.

Pillars of Grace

By Dr. Steven J. Lawson

[NOTE: This title is on sale for only $.99 in ePub and Kindle until Reformation Day (10/31) at : http://www.ligonier.org/blog/pillars-grace-99-ebook-sale/]

In our last post, we reviewed the first of five projected volumes in Dr. Steven J. Lawson’s series, A Long Line of Godly Men. That first volume, Foundations of Grace, masterfully traces the Doctrines of Grace from Genesis to Revelation. “The teaching of sovereign grace,” Lawson writes, “literally stretches from cover to cover in the Bible” (p. 36). Beginning with Moses, moving on to the historical writers and prophets, and then marching on to the Apostles, early Church Fathers and their descendants throughout Church History, and finally up to modern defenders of the faith, the doctrines of sovereign grace are shown to be biblical and historical beyond the slightest shadow of a doubt. As I also recently wrote (Issue 67), this is on my “Top Ten” list and is an absolute must.

Well, in the long-awaited Volume 2, Pillars of Grace (Reformation Trust), Lawson does what he did in the first volume, this time covering the 2nd- through 16th-centuries, noting such “pillars” as: Clement of Rome, Irenaeus, Jerome, Augustine, Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin.

As does the first book, this one demonstrates that any notion that “sovereign grace” was the novel creation of John Calvin (“in an ivory tower in Western Europe,” p. 19) is ludicrous. It is rather rooted in Scripture and historic theology. In fact, “concerning the doctrines of grace,” Lawson contends, “virtually nothing new was taught during the Reformation era. No teaching of divine sovereignty was proclaimed during the sixteenth century that had not already been developed and taught in previous centuries, to some degree, by the Church Fathers, Monastics, Scholastics, and Pre-Reformers. The renowned Scottish church historian William Cunningham notes, ‘There was nothing new in substance in the Calvinism of Calvin.’” (p. 20). As Calvin believed (and I am convinced correctly so), the medieval Roman Catholic Church had abandoned the true Gospel. To him the Reformation was simply a return to biblical theology, which included the Doctrines of Grace as the core of the faith.

Chapter 1, “Pillars of Sovereign Grace,” is in itself a gem. It is a complete nine-page (plus end notes) overview from the Church Fathers (AD 100–500), through the Medieval Leaders (500–1500), and finally the Protestant Reformers (1483–1575), encapsulating the faithful men who embraced the biblical truth of the sovereign grace of God in salvation. Chapters 2 through 24 then detail each of these: Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus of Lyons, Tertullian of Carthage, Cyprian of Carthage, Athanasius of Alexandria, Basil of Caeserea, Gregory of Nazianzus, Ambrose of Milan, Augustine of Hippo, Isidore of Seville, Gottschalk of Orbais, Anselm of Canterbury, Bernard of Clairvaux, Thomas Bradwardine, John Wycliffe, John Hus, Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingli, William Tyndale, Heinrich Bullinger, and finally John Calvin. Each modest length chapter also provides study questions, and there are Scripture and Subject indices.

“From Clement of Rome in the first century to Calvin of Geneva in the sixteenth,” Lawson writes, “there is a progression in the church’s understanding of the doctrines of grace, a gradual maturation in the comprehension of these glorious truths. What began as mere restatements of Scripture grew into fuller descriptions of God’s sovereign grace in salvation.” While Lawson makes clear that “these  stalwarts  had  feet  of  clay” and “were capable of holding views that contradicted their own teachings”—such as baptismal regeneration that was held by several of the Church Fathers—they nonetheless “helped bring great clarity to the church regarding many essential truths” (p. 37).

Some readers might feel a little repetition at times, while others will simply view this as consistency. There is the occasional omission, such as Bernard of Clairvaux’s devotion to the Virgin Mary, but as noted above, Lawson admits the “clay feet” problem upfront. For my taste, there could have been a little more detail of each person’s theology and overall contribution—then again, the book is already 530 pages.

In short, as with Volume 1, I cannot recommend this book highly enough. It is absolutely essential reading for students in training for ministry and pastors who are already there. In a day when we are running away from history and biblical doctrine, these volumes remind us that we are giving up the ship.

(To comply with Federal Trade Commission rules, I would note that I will receive a free copy of this book as compensation for my review. Such, however, in no way effects my honest review.)

Foundations of Grace

By: Steven J. Lawson

While some teachers insist that the Doctrines of Grace are “a twisting of Scripture” or are a teaching that is simply “based upon a few isolated proof texts,” there is in reality nothing that permeates the Bible more than these doctrines, doctrines that proclaim God’s sovereign grace. From Genesis to Revelation, in literally hundreds of verses, these doctrines call, capture, and command our attention.

That is the theme of Dr. Steve Lawson’s Foundations of Grace. I mentioned this book in our top ten list back in February (TOTT #67), but I wanted to expand that review. I recently recommended this book to a friend and colleague who had not yet heard of it. The next time we talked his first comment was that next to the Bible this was his favorite book. There is good reason for that, and I think this will be true of many readers. This book is nothing less than a modern classic.

“The teaching of sovereign grace,” Lawson writes, “literally stretches from cover to cover in the Bible” (p. 36). Beginning with Moses, moving on to the historical writers and prophets, and then marching on to the Apostles, early Church Fathers and their descendents throughout Church History, and finally up to modern defenders of the faith, the doctrines of sovereign grace are shown to be biblical and historical beyond the slightest shadow of a doubt.

Of Erasmus, Luther declared: “Your God is too man-like” (cited in Sinclair Ferguson, “The Fear of the Lord: Seeing God As He Is,” Discipleship Journal 52 [1989], p. 42). One of the saddest developments that has again overtaken Christianity is the rejection of the historical Doctrines of Grace in favor of a man-centered “theology.” But there are no doctrines that are more life-changing, character-transforming, evangelism-driving, and Christ-exalting than are these. I would dare predict that anyone who currently rejects these doctrines (either in total or just “certain points”), if they would just quietly and prayerfully read Lawson’s book, they would reconsider and very possibly be transformed forever. The Doctrines of Grace are not part of a system imposed upon the Bible, rather truth that is infused within it, and Lawson’s masterpiece repeatedly demonstrates this with clarity, comprehensiveness, and conviction—while “masterpiece” is perhaps an overused label nowadays, I have no hesitation whatsoever using it here.

A few chapter titles well illustrate this wondrous subject. Old Testament chapters include: “Where the Long Line Begins” (Gen.); “Sovereign Grace in the Wilderness” (Exod.); “Spokesman of Sovereign Grace” (Isa.); and “Heralds of Divine Regeneration” (Jer., Ezek., Dan.).

The New Testament chapters begin with one that might offend some: “Christ, the Calvinist” (Matt., Mk, Lk.), which graphically and accurately presents how “our Lord boldly proclaimed the sovereignty of God in the salvation of men wherever He went” (p. 242). As Lawson reminds us for history’s sake, quoting James Montgomery Boice, “The doctrines known as Calvinism are not something that emerged late in church history, but rather are that which takes its origins in the teaching of Jesus.” Other chapters then include: “The Mount Everest of Theology” (Jn.); “By His Grace and for His Glory” (Rom.); “Preacher of the Doctrines of Grace (1 & 2 Cor. and Gal.); “Before the Foundation of the World” (Eph.—2 Thess.); “Evangelism and Divine Sovereignty” (Acts and Heb.); and “Sovereign Regeneration” (the epistles of James John, and Jude).

As a book reviewer, the publisher (Reformation Trust) sent me a PDF copy for this review, a very unique approach. Upon final approval of my review, they will send me a hardcopy as “compensation.” My review doesn’t have to be “positive,” only “serious, substantive, and fair.” My comments, therefore, are not motivated by “compensation,” rather by true excellence. Believe me, if I didn’t like it, I would tell you so.

This volume is actually the first of five in Lawson’s series, “A Long Line of Godly Men.” Again, this first one (Foundations of Grace) covers 1400 BC through AD 100, tracing the doctrines of grace throughout every book of the Bible. Volume 2 (Pillars of Grace) will cover the 2nd- through 16th-centuries (Irenaeus, Jerome, Augustine, Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin). Volume 3 (Forces of Grace) will cover the 16th- and 17th-centuries (Knox and the Puritans). Volume 4 (Progress of Grace) will cover the 17th- through 19th-centuries (Edwards, Warfield, Hodge, Princeton Seminary, and Shedd). Volume 5 (Triumph of Grace) will cover the 19th-century through the present (Spurgeon, Ryle, M’Cheyne, Kuyper, Pink, Lloyd-Jones, and MacArthur). We eagerly await each one.

In a day when doctrine is not only on the decline, but on the defensive, having to prove itself to be “relevant,” it is books like this one that underscore the need for truth and the necessity of its proclamation. There are few books that I can recommend as highly as this one. Read it, my dear Christian Friend, and be blessed.

(To comply with Federal Trade Commission rules, I would note that I will receive a free copy of this book as compensation for my review. Such, however, in no way effects my honest review.)

The Doctrines of Grace: Rediscovering the Evangelical Gospel

By: James Montgomery Boice

While a simple, straightforward title, it could not convey more clearly the point of this wonderful book. More precisely, it is the subtitle that is critical, for the Doctrines of Grace are, indeed, the Evangelical Gospel. Evangelicalism, in fact, “stands or falls with” these doctrines (p. 18), and “their abandonment generally leads to liberalism” (p. 12).

I have studied dozens of books on these doctrines, and God has even been so gracious as to enable me to publish a short one of my own with another more complete one on the way. Boice’s book, however, is the best single volume I have seen that both clearly delineates these truths and convincingly answers the challenges that are leveled against them.

Boice makes a crucial and pivotal point early in the book: “It is perhaps more accurate to describe this theology as ‘Reformational’ rather than ‘Calvinist’” (p. 19). This is critical because those who attack what is commonly (and in a way regrettably) called “Calvinism” are usually ignorant of the Reformation and the understanding of theology that it brought back after 1,000 years of the darkness of Pelaganism and its siblings. It was through the preaching and teaching of the Puritans, in fact,

that England and Scotland experienced some of the greatest and most pervasive national revivals the world has ever seen. Among these Purtians were the heirs of the Scottish Reformer John Knox: Thomas Cartwright, Richard Sibbes, John Owen, John Bunyan, Matthew Henry, Thomas Boston, and many others. In America many thousands were influenced by Jonathan Edwards, Cotton Mather, and George Whitfield. (p. 19)

While these doctrines are often accused of destroying evangelism, no statement could be more contrary to the facts. “the modern missionary movement,” Boice continues,

received its direction and initial impetus from those in the Reformed tradition. The list of those pioneers includes such great missionaries as William Carey, John Ryland, Henry Martyn, Robbert Moffat, David Livingston, John G. Paton, and John R. Mott. For all these men, the doctrines of grace mere not merely an appendage to Christian thought; rather, these were the central doctrines that fueled their evangelistic fires and gave form to their preaching the Gospel. (emphasis added)

Boice follows that statement by rightly pointing out that these doctrines “did not emerge late in church history, but find their origins in the teaching of Jesus, which has been preserved throughout the church in many periods.”

I was thankful that Boice mentions Charles Spurgeon several times, since Arminians often ignore (or at least explain away) the fact that he was “one of [England’s] staunchest defenders of the doctrines of grace.” Boice then quotes Spurgeon:

I have my own private opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the Gospel . . . unless we preach the sovereignty of God in His dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah; nor do I think we preach the Gospel unless we base it upon the special and particular redemption of his elect and chosen people which Christians wrought out upon the cross; nor can I comprehend the Gospel which allows saints to fall away after they are called. (p. 24)

All that and more is why Boice’s first chapter in Part One is titled, “Why Evangelicalism Needs Calvinism.” As he outlines in another section of that chapter, “Today’s False Gospel,” a whole plethora of trends have made today’s church weak, including: little emphasis on theology, casual Christian conduct, entertainment, group therapy, political activism, signs and wonders, personal happiness, secularism, humanism, relativism, materialism, pragmatism, and the general “dumbing down” of popular culture. In short, Boice submits, “evangelicalism has become worldly. . . . What has replaced the gospel of grace is a message that is partially biblical but ultimately self-centered” (pp. 20–23).

Also in Part One is the chapter, “What Calvinism Does in History,” which recounts four noteworthy periods in history that underscore how these doctrines have had “a salutary influence on the life of the church” (p. 40). Boice then goes on to demonstrate how setting these doctrines aside led to liberalism and the state of the church today.

In Part Two, Boice then outlines and carefully delineates these doctrines from Scripture. Avoiding the traditional TULIP acronym (which we agree has weaknesses), Boice wisely chooses instead to speak of radical depravity, unconditional election, particular redemption, efficacious grace, and persevering grace.

Finally, in Part Three, Boice puts all this into practical perspective, such as how these doctrines change how we think and serve the Lord. “What is most on the Calvinist’s mind,” Boice insists, “is the glory of God” (p. 180). This principle, in fact, is what most puzzles me about those who get upset (and even angered) by these doctrines. Why get upset when it is God alone who is getting the glory? To alter or weaken these doctrines literally robs God of glory. God alone is to receive glory, and these doctrines of salvation are the only ones that give Him alone that glory. That is why Paul wrote three times in Ephesians 1, “To the praise of His glory” (vv. 6, 12, 14). The one who embraces these great doctrines “has seen this,” Boice writes, “and thus keeps God at the center of everything he does. God is the center of his worship, for in true worship attention is drawn away from earthly things and reverently fixed upon God and His glory. God is also the center of [his] thinking. . . . His vision of sovereign majesty shapes his entire mindset, filling his mind with thoughts of God and His glory, and in this way the God of grace becomes the center of his whole life” (p. 183).

While Philip Graham Ryken is the co-author and finished the book when Dr. Boice was too ill to do so, half the book was already written and the rest outlined with extensive notes (p. 11). This book, in combination with Boice’s Whatever Happened to the Gospel of Grace? (which we reviewed in our previous post), provides today’s Church with one of the best introductions to the historical Christian faith available. We should thank God for these two gems left behind by a true man of God.

Whatever Happened to the Gospel of Grace?

by James Montgomery Boice

Our first review is one previously posted on our website but one that bears repeating. While not all our reviews will be this lengthy, we believe it is justified here.

On June 15, 2000, God took James Montgomery Boice home to glory. He left behind some great books. His final book, however, which was actually published after his promotion, could not have been more appropriate or a more fitting legacy. Titled Whatever Happened to the Gospel of Grace? with the added subtitle Rediscovering the Doctrines That Shook the World, this book well addresses the contemporary church and how it has drifted far from its biblical and historical foundations. (Boice was also working on The Doctrines of Grace: Rediscovering the Evangelical Gospel, which was completed by Philip Ryken and which we will review in our next post.)

In Part 1, Boice outlines the problem in two chapters: “The New Pragmatism” and “The Pattern of this Age.” He masterfully demonstrates how secularism, humanism, relativism, materialism, and pragmatism have not only infiltrated the church but have now inundated it (my words). It is his contention, and I think it impossible to refute him, is that the church as a whole is, in virtually every area, embracing the world’s wisdom, theology, agenda, and methods (his words). That sets the stage for what follows.

Part 2, “The Doctrines That Shook the World,” is the heart of the book. In five chapters, Boice lays out in wonderful detail the five solas of the Reformation. Concerning “Scripture Alone” (sola scriptura), he writes:

The most serious issue [facing the church today], I believe, is the Bible’s sufficiency. Do we believe that God has given us what we need in this book? Or do we suppose that we have to supplement the Bible with human things? Do we need sociological techniques to do evangelism, pop psychology and pop psychiatry for Christian growth, extra-biblical signs or miracles for guidance, or political tools for achieving social progress and reform?” (p. 72)

Concerning “Christ Alone” (Solus Christus), after discussing three essential words for understanding what the Cross was about—satisfaction, sacrifice, and substitution—Boice then concludes:

It has been a popular idea in some theological circles that the Incarnation is the important truth of Christianity . . . and that the Atonement is something like an afterthought. . . . To focus on the birth of Jesus apart from the Cross leads to false sentimentality and neglect of the horror and magnitude of sin. . . . Any “gospel” that talks merely about the Christ-event, meaning the Incarnation without the Atonement, is a false gospel. Any gospel that talks about the love of God without showing that love led him to pay the ultimate price for sin in the person of his Son on the Cross, is a false gospel. The only true gospel is the gospel of the “one mediator” who gave himself for us (1 Tim. 2: 5, 6). If our churches are not preaching this gospel, they are not preaching the gospel at all, and if they are not preaching the gospel, they are not true churches. Evangelicalism desperately needs to rediscover its roots and recover its essential biblical bearing . . . (p. 105)

I was very glad for what I read in “Grace Alone (sola gratia) concerning Jonathan Edwards’ contribution to the “free will” debate in his book The Freedom of the Will, in which he actually proved it is not free. As Boice recounts, while most people think the will is its own entity and therefore free to make a choice, Edwards viewed the will as part of the mind, which means that we choose what the mind thinks is most desirable. Boice goes on to further report that Edwards discussed not only the mind but also motives, which drive the mind to choose the things that are best. The crux again, however, is that man’s mind does not want God or His sovereign rule because he doesn’t think that is better. He wants his sin and invariably chooses it because he thinks that is better.

Of “Faith Alone” (sola fide) Boice addresses today’s abandonment of the very essence of true, biblical faith:

For many evangelicals faith is only mental assent to certain doctrines. It is something we exercise once at the start of our Christian lives, after which we can live more or less in any way we please. It does not matter in terms of our salvation whether or not this “faith” makes a difference. Some evangelicals even teach that a person could be saved and secure if he or she possessed a dead or dying faith or, incredible as this seems, if he or she apostatizes, denying Christ. In contrast to such an eviscerated faith, throughout church history most Bible teachers have insisted that saving, biblical faith has three elements: “knowledge, belief, and trust,” as Spurgeon put it; “awareness, assent, and commitment,” as D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones said (pp. 137–138).

Concerning “Glory to God Alone” (Soli Deo Gloria), Boice writes:

No people ever rise higher than their idea of God. Conversely, the loss of the sense of God’s high and awesome character always leads to the loss of a people’s highest ideals, moral values, and even what we commonly call humanity, not to mention the loss of understanding and appreciation for the most essential Bible doctrines. . . . We deplore the breakdown of moral standards in the church, even among its most visible leaders. But what do we think should happen when we have focused on ourselves and our own, often trivial needs rather than on God, ignoring his holiness and excusing our most blatant sins? To listen to many contemporary sermons one would think man’s chief end is to glorify himself and cruise the malls (pp. 151–152).

Part 3, “The Shape of Renewal,” offers two chapters—“Reforming Our Worship” and “Reforming Our Lives”—that challenge us to renounce the “circus” atmosphere and the “what’s in it for me” attitude that pervades today’s churches and return to true Christian worship. While there are a couple of things in this section that bothered me—such as a praising of Brother Lawrence, for example—these do not diminish the pointed and powerful challenge for reformation. As for the individual Christian, Boice challenges in that last chapter that

the five areas in which the lives of today’s Christians most need renewal are: 1) a fresh awareness of God’s presence, 2) repentance, 3) an ordering of our lives by that which is invisible, 4) Christian community, and 5) Christian service. Significantly, these things will be developed in us as we begin to recover and actually live by the essential doctrines that I have been exploring in this book: [the five solas] (p. 192).

I cannot recommend this book highly enough and strongly encourage every Christian (especially leaders) to read it, heed its warning, and follow its counsel. As Boice writes, “I would like to see the beginning of a new Reformation in our day, and I hope you would like to see it too and are praying for it” (p. 65). Well, our dear brother did not live to see it. Perhaps we will. Are you praying for it?