Trinity Controversy Omnibus

[Updated 7/8/16]
(*) = Essential Posts.

Earlier today I found myself trying to explain to a friend what has been happening in the Reformed world in terms of the latest discussions regarding the Trinity and the Eternal Functional Subordination of the second person of the Trinity. The trickiest part about explaining it to him was keeping all the different posts straight. In order to help out both myself and anyone else who is either trying to keep up, or get caught up I have compiled (chronologically) this list of links which I believe to be helpful to anyone who is interested. I plan to keep this updated as things progress. This will be an ever evolving post. The earlier entries are articles that have laid the groundwork for where we find ourselves now, and they are certainly relevant. As readers pass along more information and relevant pieces of information I will add them to the timeline, so this list may be worth checking in on periodically.

2004
Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, September 2004
"Toward a Biblical Model of the Social Trinity: Avoiding Equivocation of Nature and Order" by J. Scott Horrell
http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/47/47-3/47-3-pp399-421_JETS.pdf

2006
Book: Jesus and the Father, by Kevin Giles
https://books.google.com/books?id=ACwJIt_bpn4C

2013
International Journal of Systematic Theology, April 2013
"The Obedience of the Eternal Son" by Scott Swain and Michael Allen
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijst.12009/full

"'Eternally Begotten of the Father' An Analysis of the Second London Confession of Faith’s Doctrine of the Eternal Generation of the Son" by Stefan T. Lindblad
http://s3.amazonaws.com/churchplantmedia-cms/arbca_carlisle_pa/2013-eternal-generation-of-the-son---full.pdf

2015
Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society:
*"Eternal Functional Subordination and the Problem of the Divine Will" by D. Glenn Butner, Jr.
https://www.academia.edu/11771377/Eternal_Functional_Subordination_and_the_Problem_of_the_Divine_Will

May 22, 2015
Rachel Miller:
https://adaughterofthereformation.wordpress.com/2015/05/22/continuing-down-this-path-complementarians-lose/

Review of One God in Three Persons by Steve Holmes
http://steverholmes.org.uk/blog/?p=7507

May 31, 2015
Alistair Roberts:
https://alastairadversaria.wordpress.com/2015/05/31/the-eternal-subordination-of-the-son-social-trinitarianism-and-ectypal-theology/

June 1, 2015
Response to Holmes' Review by Fred Sanders
http://scriptoriumdaily.com/generations-eternal-and-current/

May 28, 2015
Rachel Miller:
https://adaughterofthereformation.wordpress.com/2015/05/28/does-the-son-eternally-submit-to-the-authority-of-the-father/

June 3, 2016
*Liam Goligher:
http://www.mortificationofspin.org/mos/housewife-theologian/is-it-okay-to-teach-a-complementarianism-based-on-eternal-subordination#.V1syV_krIuU

June 6, 2016
*Liam Goligher:
http://www.mortificationofspin.org/mos/housewife-theologian/reinventing-god#.V1syRfkrIuV

June 7, 2016
*Carl Trueman:
http://www.alliancenet.org/mos/postcards-from-palookaville/fahrenheit-381

June 8, 2016
Michael Bird:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/euangelion/2016/06/the-coming-war-nicene-complementarians-vs-homoian-complementarians/

June 9, 2016
*Bruce Ware's Response:
http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2016/06/god-the-sonat-once-eternally-g.php

*Carl Trueman's Rejoinder to Ware:
http://www.alliancenet.org/mos/postcards-from-palookaville/a-surrejoinder-to-bruce-ware

*Wayne Grudem's Response:
http://cbmw.org/public-square/whose-position-on-the-trinity-is-really-new/

Carl Trueman's Rejoinder to Grudem:
http://www.alliancenet.org/mos/postcards-from-palookaville/a-rejoinder-to-wayne-grudem

Mark Thompson:
http://markdthompson.blogspot.com.au/2016/06/ers-is-there-order-in-trinity.html

Michael Bird:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/euangelion/2016/06/more-on-the-calvinist-complementarian-divide-on-the-trinity/

*Denny Burke:
http://www.dennyburk.com/a-brief-response-to-trueman-and-goligher/

Jeff Waddington:
http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2016/06/some-thoughts-on-the-current-c.php

June 10, 2016
John Calvin/Carl Trueman:
http://www.alliancenet.org/mos/postcards-from-palookaville/a-guest-post

Mark Jones:
http://www.alliancenet.org/mos/1517/why-did-the-son-become-incarnate-because-he-submitted#.V1roHfkrIuU

Darren Sumner (for a Barthian's perspective):
https://theologyoutofbounds.wordpress.com/2016/06/10/some-observations-on-the-eternal-functional-subordination-debate/

*Mike Ovey:
http://oakhill2.ablette.net/blog/entry/should_i_resign/

Scott McKnight
(read the comments section, especially for interaction between Alistair Roberts and McKnight):
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2016/06/10/the-battle-rumbles-along/

June 11, 2016
Mark Jones:
http://newcitytimes.com/news/story/gods-will-and-eternal-submission-part-one

Steve Hays:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2016/06/fahrenheit-381.html

*Donald Macleod:
http://www.donaldmacleod.org.uk/dm/subordinationism-out-of-the-blue/

June 12, 2016
Michael Bird:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/euangelion/2016/06/even-more-on-the-complementarian-calvinism-debate-on-the-trinity/

Steve Hays:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2016/06/gender-and-trinity.html

June 13, 2016
*Michael Bird/Michel Barnes:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/euangelion/2016/06/patristics-scholar-michel-r-barnes-weighs-in-on-the-intra-complementarian-debate-on-the-trinity/

*Michael Bird/Lewis Ayres:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/euangelion/2016/06/patristics-scholar-lewis-ayres-weighs-in-on-the-intra-complementarian-debate/

Todd Pruitt (Reflecting on Barnes/Ayres):
http://www.mortificationofspin.org/mos/1517/barnes-and-ayers-weigh-in#.V16rRPkrIuU

Andrew Wilson (a nice article summarizing the issues):
http://thinktheology.co.uk/blog/article/submission_in_the_trinity_a_quick_guide_to_the_debate

Owen Strachan:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/thoughtlife/2016/06/the-glorious-godhead-and-proto-arian-bulls/

Aimee Byrd:
http://www.alliancenet.org/mos/housewife-theologian/a-plea-to-cbmw

Derek Rishmawy:
https://derekzrishmawy.com/2016/06/13/on-trinitarian-controversy-why-its-not-always-terrible-and-how-to-go-about-it/

Denny Burke:
http://www.dennyburk.com/the-obedience-of-the-eternal-son/

*D. Glenn Butner, Jr.:
http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2016/06/eternal-submission-and-the-sto.php

Fred Sanders:
http://scriptoriumdaily.com/18-theses-on-the-father-and-the-son/

Mark Jones:
http://newcitytimes.com/news/story/eternal-subordination-of-wills-nein

June 14:
*Liam Goligher Responding to Mike Ovey:
http://www.alliancenet.org/mos/housewife-theologian/dr-liam-goligher-responds-to-dr-mike-ovey

Carl Trueman:
http://www.alliancenet.org/mos/postcards-from-palookaville/motivated-by-feminism-a-response-to-a-recent-criticism#.V2C6ZvkrIuU

Paul Helm/B.B. Warfield:
http://paulhelmsdeep.blogspot.com/2016/06/warfield-on-trinity.html

Mike Ovey:
http://www.credomag.com/2016/06/14/can-michael-bird-read-my-mind-alas-it-seems-not-mike-ovey/

Mark Jones:
http://newcitytimes.com/news/story/biblicism-socinianism-and-arid-scholasticism

June 15:
Alistair Roberts:
http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2016/06/the-eternal-subordination-of-t.php

Andrew Moody:
https://australia.thegospelcoalition.org/article/the-ordered-godhead-1

Michael Bird (response to Fred Sanders):
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/euangelion/2016/06/fred-sanderss-18-theses-on-the-father-and-the-son/

Mark Jones:
https://calvinistinternational.com/2016/06/15/propositions-questions-fred-sanders-trinity/

June 16:
Darren Sumner:
https://theologyoutofbounds.wordpress.com/2016/06/16/what-is-the-immanent-trinity-a-clarification-for-the-eternal-subordination-debate/

Caleb Lindgren (Christianity Today):
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2016/june-web-only/gender-trinity-proxy-war-civil-war-eternal-subordination.html

Matthew Barrett:
http://www.credomag.com/2016/06/16/better-late-than-never-the-covenant-of-redemption-and-the-trinity-debates-matthew-barrett/

John Stevens:
http://www.john-stevens.com/2016/06/are-we-all-heretics-now-reflections-on.html?m=1

June 17:
Mike Riccardi:
http://thecripplegate.com/making-sense-of-the-trinity-efs-debate/

Alistair Roberts:
http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2016/06/the-eternal-subordination-of-t-1.php

Mark Jones:
http://newcitytimes.com/news/story/subordination-in-the-pactum-and-the-irony-of-ess

June 18:
Keith Johnson:
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/is-the-eternal-generation-of-the-son-a-biblical-idea

June 20:
Andrew Moody:
https://australia.thegospelcoalition.org/article/the-ordered-godhead-2

Wayne Grudem:
http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2016/06/another-thirteen-evangelical-t.php

Owen Strachan:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/thoughtlife/2016/06/wayne-grudem-critiques-liam-golighers-historical-theology/

Mark Jones:
http://newcitytimes.com/news/story/wayne-grudems-historical-theology

Liam Goligher:
http://www.alliancenet.org/mos/housewife-theologian/a-letter-to-professors-grudem-and-ware#.V2mJ-1d8XzI

June 21:
Carl Trueman:
http://www.mortificationofspin.org/mos/postcards-from-palookaville/once-more-unto-the-breach-and-then-no-more-a-final-reply-to-dr-grude

Michael Bird:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/euangelion/2016/06/update-on-the-complementarian-trinity-debate/

Luke Isham:
http://thinkingofgod.org/2016/06/subordination-dust-observations-complementarian/

June 22:
Wyatt Graham:
http://thecripplegate.com/the-complementarian-trinity-debate-a-summary-of-its-beginning/#more-88886

June 23:
Christopher Cleveland:
https://mereorthodoxy.com/trinitarian-controversy-inevitable/

Mark Baddeley:
https://australia.thegospelcoalition.org/article/the-ordered-godhead-3

June 24:
Christ the Center Roundtable Discussion of the Trinity Controversy:
http://reformedforum.org/ctc445/

Jamin Hübner:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2016/06/24/subordinationism-some-major-questions/

Carl Trueman:
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2016/06/the-ecumenical-consequences-of-the-peace

June 25:
Matthew Crawford:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/euangelion/2016/06/matthew-crawford-clarifying-nicene-trinitarianism-with-cyril-of-alexandria/

June 28:
Albert Mohler:
http://www.albertmohler.com/2016/06/28/heresy/

Carl Trueman (response to Mohler):
http://www.mortificationofspin.org/mos/postcards-from-palookaville/a-reply-to-dr-mohler-on-nicene-trinitarianism#.V3NPtbgrIuW

Ian Hamilton:
http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2016/06/the-trinitarian-debate-some-re.php

Liam Goligher:
http://www.mortificationofspin.org/mos/housewife-theologian/on-the-word-heresy#.V3ULa7grIuV

June 29:
Bobby Grow:
https://growrag.wordpress.com/2016/06/30/maximus-the-confessors-response-to-the-efs-in-the-trinity/

June 30:
Matt Emerson:
https://secundumscripturas.com/2016/06/30/an-attempt-to-arbitrate-the-trinity-debate/

July 1:
Lewis Ayres:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/euangelion/2016/07/lewis-ayres-on-the-meaning-of-nicene-orthodoxy/

July 4:
Bruce Ware:
https://secundumscripturas.com/2016/07/04/knowing-the-self-revealed-god-who-is-father-son-and-holy-spirit/

July 5:
Mark Jones:
http://www.alliancenet.org/mos/postcards-from-palookaville/a-fulfilled-prophecy-and-another-guest-post-from-mark-jones#.V3xvZbgrIuU

Liam Goligher:
http://www.alliancenet.org/mos/housewife-theologian/we-cannot-but-speak#.V3xvTrgrIuU

July 6: 
Mark Baddeley:
https://australia.thegospelcoalition.org/article/the-ordered-godhead-5

Andrew Wilson:
http://thinktheology.co.uk/blog/article/complementarianism_in_crisis

July 7:
Todd Pruitt:
http://www.alliancenet.org/mos/1517/lets-all-be-nicene#.V35Rq6JQSvR

Darren Sumner:
https://theologyoutofbounds.wordpress.com/2016/07/07/the-heart-of-the-matter-for-eternal-subordination/

July 8:
Bruce Ware:
https://secundumscripturas.com/2016/07/08/an-open-letter-to-liam-goligher-carl-trueman-and-todd-pruitt-ontrinitarian-equality-and-distinctions-guest-post-by-bruce-ware/

Concerning Theologian/Scientists and Scientist/Theologians

How tempting it is to speak on subjects that we really don't understand! Especially when we know just enough about the subject to sound like we know what we're talking about. Consider the ease with which scientists slip back and forth between playing with science and playing with metaphysics. Think, for instance, of Stephen Hawking's book The Grand Design, where he argues that God's existence is not necessary and attempts to do so on scientific grounds.

Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.

Hawking does his best to give scientific-sounding arguments for this conclusion, but at the end of the day one has to ask how one could ever come to such theological conclusions from physical observations without making some sort of metaphysical assumptions at the beginning of the whole enterprise?

It isn't only scientists, however, who are guilty of moonlighting as poor theologians. Sometimes the shoe is on the other foot. Consider William Lane Craig, who almost a year ago pointed out in answer to a question on his blog that the "evidence for inflation" is confirmed by the research of the BICEP team.

The team went to great lengths to ensure that the polarization pattern detected was not due to error in instrumentation or the influence of cosmic dust or galactic factors.

Earlier that week, Craig appeared on Fox News arguing that the BICEP team's research confirms "the Christian view of the universe." He also spoke with Kerby Anderson on the subject. Inflationary expansion, of course, serves as a powerful confirmation for the cosmological argument for God's existence, which argues that if the universe had a beginning, it must have been God who was the cause of that beginning. This argument is a favorite arrow in the quiver of many Christian Apologists. This may be exciting for the moment when the news emerges, but things get less exciting when backpedalling becomes necessary.

The New York Times, in an article posted yesterday, says that things have changed since March of last year: "Now a new analysis, undertaken jointly by the Bicep group and the Planck group, has confirmed that the Bicep signal was mostly, if not all, stardust, and that there is no convincing evidence of the gravitational waves. No evidence of inflation." Is God's existence now more likely? Less likely? Has anything changed? If inflation is no longer "confirmed" does that mean Christian theologians will need to wait for further research before they can feel comfortable telling people that God exists?

As time goes on, I suspect more and more that theologians are far better off speaking of that which they know and not having an apologetic methodology that can be buttressed by one team of scientists only to be thrown into disarray the next moment when that team's flawed methodology is later exposed.

Earlier this week in one of my classes, my homiletics professor, Dr. Charlie Wingard, made an important comment in passing. He said, "In your preaching, when you give an illustration or an argument, never pretend as if you're a scientist or a doctor if that isn't your area of expertise. Inevitably someone in the audience will know better than you and you will lose your credibility."

Is Jesus God? Edited by B.B. Warfield for $0.99

Another project of mine more recently was preparing an eBook of Is Jesus God? which is edited by B.B. Warfield, who also wrote the book's brief introduction. It was actually written by students of Princeton Seminary and published in 1912. The book is succinct and helpful on an important topic. It is now available at the Kindle Store.

Does Edwards Deny Simplicity?

It is a maxim amongst divines that everything that is in God is God which must be understood of real attributes and not of mere modalities. If a man should tell me that the immutability of God is God, or that the omnipresence of God and authority of God is God, I should not be able to think of any rational meaning of what he said. It hardly sounds to me proper to say that God's being without change is God, or that God's being everywhere is God, or that God's having a right of government over creatures is God.

But if it be meant that the real attributes of God, viz., His understanding and love are God, then what we have said may in some measure explain how it is so, for Deity subsists in them distinctly; so they are distinct Divine Persons.

Jonathan Edwards; Unpublished Essay on the Trinity

At first glance, this seems like it could be a departure from Thomas and the Scholastics, I have a real question for our experts on the Fathers or the Reformed Scholastics. Is it a traditional characteristic of divine simplicity that modalities of God are God just as much as His real attributes are God?

The Unprofessional Book Review: Love Wins by Rob Bell (Part 2 of 3)

PART 2: UNIVERSALISM?

So on to the question of universalism. I'm actually going to step out and say that it's hard to tell if Rob Bell is a universalist in any traditional sense (that is not to say that his views are in any sense traditional or orthodox). He is so dogmatic that God never fails and that he wants to save everyone. He is also clear that there are second, third, and so on chances after death. And yet he is also dogmatic that the human will has the power to resist God forever if it so chooses. I will say that his doctrine of post-mortem salvation ought to be controversial enough in an of itself, questions of universalism being almost beside the point.

Sometimes he talks like a classic universalist. For example, in his chapter titled "Does God Get What God Wants?" he makes this argument (a lot less structured, of course).

1. God wants everyone to be saved (cue the many verses where "all" is always supposed to mean "all.")
2. God always gets what God wants (cue the infinite number of verses that say God's will cannot be thwarted, and no one can stay his hand).
3. Therefore... (he leaves you to fill in the blank.)

It's so strange. One minute, he sounds like Charles Finney or Origen, then literally in the next paragraph, he sounds like John Calvin:

This insistence that God will be united and reconciled with all people is a theme the writers and prophets return to again and again...

In the book of Job the question arises: "Who can oppose God? He does whatever he pleases" (chap. 23). And then later it's affirmed when Job says of God, "I know that you can do all things; no purpose of yours can be thwarted" (chap. 42). (Pg. 100)

He completely mocks the God of Arminian orthodoxy by heckling that their God is a failure if he doesn't save all, calling their God "not totally great. Sort of great. A little great" (98). I have done a little heckling like this, myself. Of course, my solution was that we understand God's power to be absolute, but His purposes to be different than the Arminian understands it. Bell combines the Arminian notion of God's intention with the Calvinistic (I use the word loosely here) notion of God's success in all His endeavors. Bell's Arminian readers will have to make a decision, if they want to deny the charge that their God is a failure. Either God is going to save all, or else he never intended, ultimately, to save all. The third option is that God is in fact, a failure, which most will want to deny; Bell certainly does.

There is an intentionality in Bell's words when he says, "The God that Jesus teaches us about doesn't give up until everything that was lost is found. This God simply doesn't give up. Ever" (101). If Bell is so insistent that "all" always means "all," then I don't think we should underestimate his words, here. Bell really means that God never gives up. God never fails to save, when He wants to save.

In this sense, we ought to see that Bell is teaching universalism. He believes that God will keep pursuing people, post-mortem, through all eternity. But at the same time he says that His God isn't a failure or a loser, he seems to ascribe so much power to the mystical notion of "freedom" that it may thwart God's plan through all eternity. He seems to suggest at times that some human wills may potentially never be reconciled to God.

The Bruce Almighty Doctrine
This is where we introduce what I call the Bruce Almighty doctrine. If you haven't seen the movie, then you won't get the joke.

Although God is powerful and mighty, when it comes to the human heart God has to play by the same rules we do. God has to respect our freedom to choose to the very end, even at the risk of the relationship itself. If at any point, God overrides, co-opts, or hijacks the human heart, robbing us of our freedom to choose, then God has violated the fundamental essence of what love even is (103-104).

It reminds me of the scene in Bruce Almighty where he keeps looking at Jennifer Aniston's character and screaming, "LOVE me!" Then Morgan Freeman gives him a lecture on how God can do a lot of things, but he can't change the human heart. Yup, Rob Bell has Hollywood's view of human freedom. And yet this crucial doctrine for Rob Bell is NOWHERE hinted at in Scripture. Not even a little. It is a philosophical assumption that most freedom-loving Americans take as a given. But throughout the book, Bell shows that he doesn't really mind leaving his most central arguments unsubstantiated.

So, because of the Bruce Almighty Doctrine, Bell has it both ways. Love wins precisely because freedom wins. As long as God doesn't control or coerce us, then love wins, regardless of where we all end up. In my mind, this seems to cheapen what we think of when we hear the phrase "love wins." I got the strong impression that the many pieces of Bell's system do not fit together well at all. Which is it? Bruce Almighty, or God gets what God wants? Bell is clearly happy leaving aspects of his system in this sort of tension. If it were me, it would drive me crazy, like a house with a door that's too small for the frame that it's in.

But then again, remember that for Bell, where we end up is just a question of degrees of sadness or happiness. We're not talking about punishment or agony of any sort, because he is clear that those things don't bring glory to God in any sense.

To reject God's grace,
to turn from God's love,
to resist God's telling,
will lead to misery.
It is a punishment, all on its own (176).

I sarcastically commented in the margins, "Oh yeah, it sure sounds truly horrifying."

So I say that he is also not a universalist. Because of the Bruce Almighty Doctrine, who knows what will really happen in the afterlife?

So will those who have said no to God's love in this life continue to say no in the next? Love demands freedom, and freedom provides that possibility. People take that option now, and we can assume it will be taken in the future (114).

Will everybody be saved,
or will some perish apart from God forever because of their choices?

Those are questions, or more accurately, those are tensions we are free to leave fully intact (115).

The question which I really want to ask Rob Bell is this: is it possible that those who are in heaven after death will pass back into hell? If not, then why? After all, what is preventing their powerful wills from overwhelming the grace of God as they descend back into sorrow and madness? I thought at some point before the end of the book he might address this important and (in my opinion) devastating criticism, but alas, he does not. Did he not see such a possibility at all, when he was writing this book?

I had hoped I might see him discuss Hebrews 9:27 (He would call it Hebrews 9) which reads, "It is appointed unto man once to do, and after that comes judgment." To my mind, this is a very definitive refutation of the "second chance" doctrine that Bell is absolutely dependent on.

Tomorrow in our final installment of this review, we will look at questions of Bell's scholarship and I'll wrap up my review. Part 3

Another Misuse of 'Original Sin'

In the modern consciousness, the idea of 'original sin' gets misused in all sorts of ways. One of the prominent misuses is that our less theologically-informed peers think of original sin as the original sin that set us all on our road to misery. Here is an example of such a misuse. It's from Bill Carter's fascinating book The War for Late Night: When Leno Went Early and Television Went Crazy, which I have been reading and greatly enjoying.

Rob Burnett, still an executive in charge...never stopped being a true believer. For him NBC's selection of Leno over Letterman could be linked to the concept of original sin: NBC picked Jay over Dave and had never really overcome picking the apple from the wrong tree.

Of course, original sin is not an act, but a condition. Now, Bill Carter doesn't care, ultimately, whether he misused the concept. The point is, contemporary man rejects original sin for a lot of reasons - among which is that they don't really know what it is. This is not going to improve, however, so it is just one more way in which we as Christians must explain ourselves along the way and never assume that unbelievers actually know what we're talking about when we use words like 'original sin' or 'savior' or any other host of words that we take for granted in the church context. It also means, of course, that since the culture misuses it, you can almost guarantee that there are people in the church who don't understand it, either.

Horton on the Atheist Catechism

For over three centuries now, atheists and skeptics have catechized the West in the belief that as cultures progress, belief in God or at least the extraordinary divine intervention in nature and history will wane. What proponents forget is that this concept of "progress" itself presupposes a certain kind of faith: an interpretation of reality that requires personal commitment. Among other things, it presupposes that reality is entirely self-creating and self-regulating (autonomous), such that the very idea of a personal God who enters into a world that we have defined as "without God" already precludes the possibility of entertaining specific claims to the contrary...Narrative paradigms are resilient. They can be overthrown, but everyone works hard at preserving them from impeachment.

-Michael Horton; The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims on the Way

Horton's Systematic Theology is available at Westminster Bookstore for 45% off for one week only. I will personally be taking advantage of this deal. Having previewed the first chapter on the Kindle, I can definitely say that you've never read a systematic theology that was this fresh, this relevant, and this involved in the current theological issues that the Reformed world is dealing with.

Music for Theologians: Hammock

Back in the 90s, one of my favorite bands was Common Children. I still love Common Children, and I listen to their music with unavoidable nostalgia. With their last album, they took a decidedly dream-pop turn, and all their fans got a glorious taste of Marc Byrd's beautiful guitar work. Since then, Byrd has written songs such as "God of Wonders" and acted as producer for bands like The Glorious Unseen and even produced a tremendous album with his wife, Christine Glass.

In 2004, Byrd partnered with Andrew Thompson and began releasing albums of glorious ambient-shoegaze music under the name Hammock. Now, I mention this band in the context of doing theology because it is perfect music to listen to while working your way through a meaty text or struggling to finish Vos' Biblical Theology. It is at once gorgeous and emotive and yet unobtrusive.

I am a big time advocate of post-rock music because rather than entertain, it is music which enriches our immediate experiences. I am constantly in a worshipful mindset when I listen to Hammock. As I drive to the store, I turn this music on and am reminded that life is more than a series of material experiences; there is a transcendent element to Hammock's music which makes studying theology feel like the most important thing in the universe - which it is. Almost.

Like all music which is without lyrics, listeners of post-rock music can insert their own ideas or notions into the music, but lyric-less music can be redeemed by Christians just as much as it can ruined by pagans. Also, knowing that Byrd and Co. do approach the music they do with a Christian perspective in mind, for me, makes me feel somewhat justified in delighting in God while listening to the gorgeousness of it all.

If someone was to pick an album by Hammock to start with, I would suggest Raising Your Voice...Trying to Stop an Echo. It is the most guitar-heavy (very ethereal guitar; not at all a U2 album by any stretch), shoegazerish album from them so far. Also, Amazon is selling the MP3 version of the album for $6.99 which is a great deal. However, their album Kenotic is a close second. I also would not shy away from recommending their newest album, which is also epically beautiful; it is called Chasing After Shadows...Living With the Ghosts. My favorite song off of the new album is called "Little Fly/Mouchette" which reminds me a great deal of Brian Eno's greatest piece of ambient work ever, "An Ending: Ascent." In fact, as of this moment as I write this, if you go to Amazon's Hammock page, you can see that the first song off of Chasing After Shadows... is available for free download.