I am in hearty agreement with Fred Sanders’ critique of Larry Crabb’s new book on gender. The connections that Crabb makes between Trinitarian doctrine and gender roles seem to be entirely speculative and not founded in what the scriptures actually say. In short, Crabb’s paradigm is unmoored from the Bible, and Sanders has shown the flawed basis of Crabb’s thesis. Having said that, there’s one detail in Sanders’ critique that I would take exception with. I’m reluctant to mention it because I’m a big fan of Sanders. He’s one of the bright lights of evangelical theology and has produced some remarkable work on the Trinity. If you haven’t read his…

I think John Dickson may have written the most devastating review of Reza Aslan’s book that I have seen yet. It’s lengthy and does not pull any punches. He catalogues the errors and exaggerations and shows how Aslan’s conclusions are well outside the mainstream of historical scholarship on Jesus. But there is one particular bit at the end that I thought was telling. Dickson writes, For a brief moment, Reza Aslan will be heralded as a breakthrough author. In a month or so, some other theory, equally unsubstantiated and certainly contradictory, will get the same kind of airtime. Such works are generally ignored by working scholars, who tend to be…

Craig Evans is at the top of the heap as far as scholars of the Gospels go, and he has a review at Christianity Today that eviscerates Reza Aslan’s book Zealot. Evans says Aslan’s book makes numerous historical errors, relies on an outdated thesis, ignores the testimony of eyewitnesses, and forces Jesus and Paul into a theological cagematch. In short, it’s a bad book. Here’s an excerpt from the review: There are numerous problems with Zealot, not least the fact that it heavily relies on an outdated and discredited thesis. But it also introduces a number of its own novel oddities and implausibilities. Aslan has canvassed much of the responsible scholarship…

“But the LORD was pleased To crush Him, putting Him to grief; If He would render Himself as a guilt offering, He will see His offspring, He will prolong His days, And the good pleasure of the LORD will prosper in His hand.” -Isaiah 53:10 “God put [Christ] forward as a propitiation in His blood through faith, in order to demonstrate His righteousness.” -Romans 3:25 “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us– for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree.’” -Galatians 3:13

About a week ago, a reporter asked me to comment on the Reza Aslan dust-up. I told the reporter that I had not read Aslan’s book, and I thought that would be the end of that. Nevertheless, he still wanted my comments, so I agreed to talk narrowly about the infamous interview, which I did watch. Even though my academic specialty is New Testament studies, I still haven’t read the book, and I don’t have any plans to do so. Why? We have to make our priorities when we read, and not every book that comes down the pike is worth the time. You have to have some ability to…

Russell Moore has a helpful piece on the wrath of God over at the Washington Post. He highlights several texts that show that the wrath of God was once much more a part of the American vernacular than it is now. Reading these texts reminded me of another one–Lincoln’s second inaugural address. It is my favorite political speech, and it is laden with biblical allusions to God’s wrath and justice. Lincoln does not appeal to God’s judgment to vindicate the North over and against the wicked South. Rather, he appeals to God’s transcendent justice to show that both North and South had fallen short. In his own words:

Yesterday, I posted a note about the PCUSA’s decision to drop the hymn “In Christ Alone” from their hymnbook. Reports say that the song’s reference to “the wrath of God” was just too much for those making the decision. The songwriters refused to give permission to amend the language, so the PCUSA decided to leave it out. I have to say that I have been quite surprised at the response to this short post—a response that is still ongoing. I am not surprised, however, that the topic still provokes strong responses from people—strong reactions on both sides of the issue.

As the Southern Baptist Convention meets in Houston, Texas, Albert Mohler has published a statement about the SBC’s Calvinism Advisory Committee. The committee was formed to address controversies about Calvinism within the denomination. Mohler’s statement is conciliatory and statesmanlike. Here’s an excerpt:

Last week, I wrote a blog post critiquing Andy Stanley’s brief remarks about the historicity of Adam and Eve. In short, I concluded that his remarks were a “poison pill” for the doctrine of scripture. Even after Stanley responded in the comments underneath that post (here, here, here), I believe that my concerns still stand. Since then, both Scot McKnight and Michael Bird have suggested that I have erred in my critique of Stanley. Bird says he was “deeply frustrated” by what I wrote while McKnight said my reflections were a “failure to think theologically.” This has been an interesting exchange, to say the very least. And I hope that…