In this he mostly succeeds. Of the books that would be compared to this book by genre, interest, etc., Arterburn has a tremendous amount of helpful biblical material. He offers hope to Christians who are experiencing physical, emotional, spiritual and relational brokenness that need the restorative power of a God who lovingly intervenes. Sometimes he promises too much. Sometimes he goes off into a psychological wonder-land, but for the most part, the material is helpful, reflective, and beneficial.

As it happens, the best part of the book is the preface, where you find a nice summary of contemporary scholarship on Proverbs. It’s generally helpful and sets Proverbs nicely in its ancient near eastern context. Afterword, all the Proverbs are systematically ripped from their original contexts, and organized according to topics that are seemingly organized by every noun Proverbs has to offer (for instance, there’s a section for all occurrences of “bear” in Proverbs). There is no question that Proverbs sometimes reads haphazardly, but there is an organizational logic and integrity to the book, and that unfortunately has not been recognized by Dallas in this work. It would have been better titled “Proverbs Deconstructed.”

Rather than insights into the wisdom literature of Scripture, and how one can skillfully navigate within the created order in the fear of God, we are left with a list of pithy statements that more closely resembles William Bennett’s Book of Virtues than it does the biblical canon. If you want to understand Proverbs, identify a good commentary and work through it slowly, prayerfully, and confidently (Bruce Waltke has produced an excellent commentary on Proverbs).

But wait! They still believe that can cooperate for the Gospel! That’s not the behavior of schism, right? We can’t recognize their baptisms (or lack of) as valid and can’t allow them to receive the Lord’s Supper together with us, but  we can still be the Church!

Right. No. It doesn’t work like that.

For example, introduce issues of remarriage, abstinence from alcohol, whether children remain believers, etc. in regards to ordination of church leaders. Throughout the Christian world there are a number of positions on all of these issues and more. If we were to be consistent, then we’re back to the Reformation era and not recognizing one another’s ministers as valid leaders in the Church. Now can we still cooperate for the Gospel, right? We can still be the Church together, right?

On what basis? The historic reformational definition of where the Church can be found is where (1) the Word of God is rightly preached, (2) the sacraments (Baptism and Eucharist) are properly administered, and some would add the third, (3) where church discipline is lawfully exercised. That gives us three tests of Church identity: faithful Gospel preaching, legitimate sacramental practices, and  valid leadership and authority. All of these are necessary for a legitimate church, according to the reformational tradition.

In what sense is a group of folks who only agree on preaching forming the Church?

Hopefully the problem is self-evident here. When we make interpretation of sacrament a matter of morality (sin and faithfulness), we have shifted the focus from Christ (to whom we are being united by the Holy Spirit) to us (because of our obedience to His commandment), we have lost something of the significance of baptism.

Historic Anglican expression about baptism is summarized in Article XXVII of the Thirty-Nine Articles:

Baptism is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from others that be not christened, but it is also a sign of Regeneration or New-Birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the Church; the promises of the forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed, Faith is confirmed, and Grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God.

In other words, baptism is the work of God. Our responsibility as Christians is to do as best we can in submission to the Scriptures in terms of who we baptize (whether those convictions are credo-baptistic or paedo-baptistic) and remain confident that there is one baptism, and that the Holy Spirit isn’t hindered by our honest mistakes. When we come together as believers, we can be confident that those who are professing, baptized believers are our brothers and sisters living faithfully by the power of the Holy Spirit that we can share full communion with as we work together for the mission of God to take the good news about Jesus throughout the world.

It’s greatest strength is also it’s greatest weakness. While commentary and explanation are present in-text and that makes them unavoidable for the reader, it also requires the reader to be attentive to what is commentary and study note, and what is translation. Special formatting (emboldened and italicized types) is very helpful, and the approach here is similar to ancient manuscripts where scribal notes and comments were more integrated with the Scriptural text itself. My recommendation now is the same as it was two years ago: this is an excellent resource in reading and understanding the Scriptures, but should not be your primary study Bible.

The book is written as an extended exegesis of the Church, the culture, and the work of Jesus through the lens of the Great Commandment. Batterson writes to explore what it would mean for us to love God with all our heart, mind, soul, and strength. The fundamental problem of our slack obedience and bitter squabbling and heated conflicts is not in our methodology, tradition, or leadership but in our own failure to love God for all that He is with all that He has made us. That is our individual and corporate sin, and our response should be thorough repentance and learning to love God.

Batterson writes in a personable, casual style that allows the reader to relate and “talk it through” with him. His own experiences of loving God are insightful, often humourous and always convicting as he challenges the reader to pursue the love of God. His challenge invites us back to knowing God, loving God, and serving God in ways that exceed the norm and resonate with the radical nature of our ancient faith. I would recommend Primal with no reservations whatsoever.

People pose questions about theology, about the nature of good and evil, about suffering and sovereignty, and yes, about suicide. But when those questions are really, really posed, they often are not done so in a purely theoretical way.

There’s something else going on.

Read the rest here.

And yet, there’s one thing that Paul will have no tolerance for in Corinth: their divisions. In fact, the reason he says he can’t address them as people who are living by the Spirit isn’t due to their lack of proper ethics or seeming ignorance in the Scriptures, but because “there is still jealousy and dissension among you” (3:3). Another shock. Paul will eventually call them to lives worthy of the Gospel in regards to holiness and in relating to the rest of the world and in their worship, but his first priority is their dissensions and schismatic behavior.

Schisms most often occur because of strong reactions to human leaders. In some cases, it is a matter of extreme devotion to particular leaders in the church. In others, it is because of extreme opposition to particular leaders in the church. In all of these cases, Paul is downright disapproving and, perhaps, confused. “What is Apollos, really? Or what is Paul? Servants through whom you came to believe, and each of us in the ministry the Lord gave us.” (3:5). In other words, not much. God causes the growth. “[Christian leaders] are coworkers belonging to God. You [Christians] are God’s field, God’s building.” (3:9)

And this is where we begin to see the stupidity of these dissensions: why do we moan about Apollos’ humanity or exalt Paul’s apostolic ministry as if we belong to either of them? We are God’s. He called us. He made us grow. He owns us and is building us His way. “Do you not know that you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit lives in you?” (3:16). Christians these days too often identify so deeply with human leaders that they are sparking an identity crisis: who are we? Who is a good Christian? Who is a bad Christian? Who needs to repent? Who needs to receive the confession? It’s when we are in the midst of those times we need to remember Paul’s challenge to us: “Are you not influenced by the flesh and behaving like unregenerate people?!” (3:3). It’s despicable when we deny the power of Christ in our lives, and deny the Spirit that lives in us, when we make our dissension about human leaders go this way, and are controlled by their jealousy. If anyone needs to repent, it is us, for behaving so divisively and acting more the like a temple of demons rather than the temple of God.

That doesn’t mean human leaders won’t be held accountable for their work. Neither do they get a free pass on what they do. That’s what Paul interrupts his own rebuke of the Corinthians’ dissension to remind them of: leaders will be held to account. But just like you, as the Church, belong to God, so do the leaders, and God will judge them on the Day of His return (3:9-15). Paul even goes more into detail later on, commanding the Corinthians, “So then, do not judge anything [about leaders] before the time. Wait until the Lord comes. He will bring to light the hidden things of darkness and reveal the motives of hearts. Then each will receive recognition from God.” (4:5). The reason for this is simple: “What do you [Christians] have that you did not receive [from these leaders]? And if you received it, why do you boast as though you did not?” (4:7).

But he returns to addressing the Corinthians here. and pronounces what is perhaps the most dreadful statement in this epistle: “If someone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him. For God’s temple is holy, which is what you are.” (3:17). That isn’t addressed to human leaders. That is addressed to everyone. If we destroy the Church of God through our dissenting and jealousies, there will be consequences, and the evidence of such unregenerate behavior is that we indeed have unregenerate hearts, and will come under wrath.

It’s why we need Paul’s admonition: “Guard against self-deception, each of you. If someone among you thinks he is wise in this age, let him become foolish so that he can become wise.” (3:18). If we think we are wise enough to condemn the leaders of the Church, or one another. If we think we have unlocked some deep secret in Scripture about how repentance works, or how Christians are “supposed to” confess or why one method of judgment and vindication for ourselves is biblical, we better check ourselves. Because we live in an age and culture where knowing how to scandalize, shame, and bring down religious leaders (not only Christian ones)  is the epitome of worldly wisdom. We’ve become too good at it. We need to repent.

But when we become foolish – when we commend ourselves into the hands of God, knowing that He cares for His Church, Paul has a word for us: “So then, no more boasting about mere mortals! For everything belongs to you, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future. Everything belongs to you, and you belong to Christ, and Christ belongs to God.” (3:21-23). And we will come to it, someday, by the grace of God, when all things will be brought to light, and we shall be as He is.

Through a series of interviews, Carlson goes on a journey to understand how people in monasteries responded to 9/11 and what their context and training helped them to do and how to reflect on it. These brothers and sisters who have sworn vows of stability, obedience, and renounced pursuit of possessions for the sake of prayer and the good of their neighbors have many helpful insights and a love for God and people that is inspiring. And, yet, Carlson often misses the opportunity to see that the Gospel itself is radical enough without having to indulge some of his own less orthodox tendencies. It’s a good read, but one that requires discernment.