|
RenewingMinds
|
A Review by Bill Muehlenberg
of the book
Repenting of Religion
Turning from Judgment to the Love of God.
Gregory A. Boyd
Baker, 2004
Part One
This book rightly
argues for the primacy of love and our need to more closely reflect Jesus. Yet
in a number of respects I found this book to be somewhat disappointing and
frustrating, when it need not have been so. Its main theme is important and
needs to be heard (although it is not without its shortcomings), but the way in
which the message is delivered at times may turn some people off.
In brief, the
book urges us to get back to basics: to enjoy God’s outrageous love and be a
conduit of it. Also, we need to stop being critical and judgmental, and show a
needy world what God’s unconditional love is like. Instead of living by
legalism, rules, and human effort, we need to rest in the acceptance and grace
Christ offers us, then share this with others.
For the most part
that is an important message and one which all of us need to be reminded of. But
perhaps because Boyd seems to think that we are all so far from where we should
be in this regard, he tends to resort to unnecessary polarization and
overstatement. His message thus at times comes across as unbalanced and skewed.
The fullness of the biblical data seems to be lost and the whole counsel of God
seems not to be presented.
Of course others
may not receive this book in such a way. They may find it exactly what they
need. And I hope this book helps many. Indeed, its central message is one that I
must take to heart as well. But as shall be seen, there are some problems along
the way that, for this reviewer at least, keep it from making the impact it
might have.
Thus there are
two main issues to discuss here. One is the theological content of the book, and
the other is the style or presentation of the message. I will take each in turn.
Because there is so much to interact with in this book, I present this review in
two parts.
Theological Considerations
As to the
theology of the book, it first needs to be pointed out where Boyd is coming
from. That will help place this volume into its proper context. Boyd is a
leading proponent of what is known as free-will theism, or openness theology. It
is a relatively new theological position (although based on much older
theological antecedents) which has attracted a lot of attention and much
controversy.
Openness of God
theology cannot here be explored, but suffice it to say it is for many believers
problematic at best, and in the eyes of some, heretical at worst (It claims, for
example, that God is not really sovereign, he does not know the future, etc.).
But that is not the subject of this review.
Boyd’s emphasis
on the love of God – which of course is a major biblical emphasis – is heavily
influenced by this particular theology. (And bear in mind that this framework
can take a good doctrine, like the love of God, and turn it in unbiblical
directions. Thus, fellow free-will theist Clark Pinnock, who praises this book,
now teaches annihilationism and inclusivism, the ideas that there is no hell and
people can be saved even if they don’t believe in Jesus. Pinnock, like Boyd,
heavily focuses on the wideness of God’s love and mercy. It remains to be seen
if Boyd will also travel further down these theologically dangerous paths.)
As I already
mentioned, there is much here that is of value. But even though much of Boyd’s
case needs to be heard, it can be questioned in parts. For example, he seeks to
make love the primary attribute of God. And of course a case can be made for
that. God is love, and it is certainly central to what we know about God.
But elevating
love above every other attribute can be problematic for several reasons. First,
it may be more in accord with the entire biblical revelation to acknowledge that
all of the attributes of God are primary – that is, all are to be seen as
operating together. Each individual attribute of God is equal to the whole of
his being. No single attribute can be singled out from another. They stand or
fall together, and one cannot be elevated above another. Thus we can speak of
the holy love of God, or of his merciful justice, and so on. Each one is part of
the other.
Second, even if
one could select one attribute as pre-eminent, love is not the only possible
candidate. For example, many theologians would argue that holiness may be
regarded as the overriding attribute. The holiness of God is proclaimed
throughout Scripture as much as his love is.
Third, Boyd
offers little direct exegetical support for this conclusion. He does discuss a
number of passages that urge us to love. But does that adequately make his case?
For example, he appeals to the commands to love made by Jesus as showing love’s
centrality (p.58). While important, these passages have to do with our obligations
to God. They do not speak about his attributes as such. Moreover, while there
are numerous commands to love, there are also numerous commands to be holy, to
be mature, to be perfect, to abstain from sin, and so on. They go together. Can
they or should they be minimized or subordinated to love?
Still, one might
argue (as Boyd does) that love is the glue which holds all this together, that
love puts everything in focus. True, but it still seems that the various
attributes come as a package deal. So too are they commands for Christian
living. We are to do all things in love, but that does not exclude other
considerations. Thus we are commanded to discipline in love. We are to warn in
love. We are to exhort in love. We are to rebuke in love. These are composite,
not isolated, actions.
To single out one
attribute of God and effectively ignore or downplay the others would seem to
present a truncated picture of God. Yes, God is love. But God is also holy. God
is also just, and so one.
Given Boyd’s view
on the love of God, it comes as no surprise that he has little to say about the
wrath of God. And when he does raise the issue, Boyd in fact claims it has
nothing to do with God. He quotes from Catholic philosopher Peter Kreeft
(someone I quite enjoy for the most part) to suggest that there is no actual
wrath in God (p.59). What comes across as wrath, what appears as wrath, is only
the absence of his love.
But to make this
claim Boyd (and Kreeft) must nullify or ignore hundreds of Scriptural passages
which clearly affirm a very real wrath of God. Let me just present a few verses:
“God judges the
righteous, and God is angry with the wicked every day”. (Psalm 7:11)
“Again and again I sent my servants the prophets, who said, ‘Do not do this
detestable thing that I hate!’” (Jer.44:4)
“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and
unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness” (Rom.1:18)
“And one of the four beasts gave unto the seven angels seven golden vials full
of the wrath of God, who lives for ever and ever. And I heard a great voice out
of the temple saying to the seven angels, Go your ways, and pour out the vials
of the wrath of God upon the earth.” (Rev.15:7-16:1)
God is love, but
that love is never separated from his holiness and his hatred of sin. Boyd seems
to downplay these truths and we seem to be left with a caricature of God.
In fact Boyd is
aware of these objections. He even mentions the fact that people will speak
about the need for balance and so on (p.57). Yet he claims this call for balance
is itself unbalanced (p.58). But is Boyd being selective here? One could equally
write a book on another attribute of God, much as Boyd has written here, and
come up with similar results. Consider holiness for example. This is surely a
vital attribute of God. Not only is it true of who God is, but the followers of
God are constantly urged to mirror God in this respect. We are called to be holy
perhaps as often as we are commanded to love.
Of course mere
number counts do not determine if one attribute or command is superior to
another. Yet Scripture makes a number of assertions about God, and gives a
number of commands to believers. They are presented as an integrated whole, and
we should accept them as such.
To emphasize the
love of God and our need to love God and others is a clear biblical theme. It is
vitally important. But so too are many other attributes and commands. I see no
need to act as if one has to be chosen to the exclusion of all others.
Conclusion to Part 1
I finish here by
offering some qualifying remarks. I wish to state that I do not want to be
overly critical of this book. It has much to offer. And I know that some people
can go overboard as they seek to defend orthodoxy, as they perceive it.
For example, I am
aware that some believers have become self-appointed heresy-hunters and
guardians of the truth, criticizing other believers far and wide, often in an
unloving and ungracious manner. I do not want to be counted among their number.
However, there is
a genuine place for teachers in the body to not only teach sound doctrine but to
warn against error. We are to guard the flock and warn of wolves seeking to
enter in and cause damage (Acts 20:28-31, for example).
But I am aware
that some can spend so much time criticizing others that they are not able to
hear what God may be saying through other believers. And I do believe God is
trying to speak through Boyd. Love is certainly paramount in the Christian
faith. And much of Christianity is loveless and judgmental. But the way Boyd
makes his case seems to undo the very good work he wants to accomplish.
A friend of mine
who likes Boyd (and also appreciates my ministry) tried to defend Boyd by saying
he has a prophet’s passion, and this is his way of getting his point across: by
going to extremes and lunging from one side of the pendulum to another. Maybe
so. I realize we are thick of hearing at times and God’s prophets sometimes had
to go to extreme measures to get our attention.
But it seems to
me that for every person who gets blessed by this book, there may be another who
gets turned off by it. I for one want to hear what Boyd is saying here, but he
has made it difficult for me to do so.
Part Two
I
begin by reiterating what I said in part 1: much of the message of this book
needs to be heard. But because it seems to latch on to certain biblical themes
over against others, it can come across as theologically unbalanced at times.
Boyd of course would argue that his argument properly reflects the biblical
data. The reader must judge for himself.
The
Relationship Between Love and Judgment
Boyd seems to
make unnecessary or forced antitheses at times. Consider his major thesis, that
love and judgment cannot co-exist. He argues that if you love, you will not
judge, and if you judge, you cannot love. Thus he claims that we “love only
insofar as we abstain from judgment” (p.9). He also says, “love and judgment are
opposed to each other” (p.78). Or again, “We either live in love, or we live in
judgment” (p.111). “Love and judgment represent two antithetical ways of living”
(p.112).
But, is this
really the case? I can think of at least three very important counter-examples
here. 1) God seems quite capable of loving and judging simultaneously.
2) Parents are
called to do the same. 3) And Christians are enjoined in Scripture to do just that
as well.
That love is
antithetical to judgment is certainly not true of God. He is love, and he is
judge, simultaneously. His love is not sentimental or wishy-washy but based on
his holiness and righteousness. In love he judges his enemies, and with
discerning judgment he loves us. Even Boyd concedes this point briefly at one
stage (p.168).
Parents also do
this all the time. Really loving parents will exercise judgment and discernment
and discipline with their children. It is because they love their children that
they exercise judgment, make rules and censure unacceptable behavior. The two
are not contradictory but complimentary. That is the very point being made in
Hebrews 12:1-13. At least Boyd does fleetingly acknowledge the need for tough
love for various harmful addictions (p.202).
And what about
believers? Boyd makes it clear that they certainly should not judge. But why
not? Why can we not judge with righteous judgment (John 7:24), and act in love
at the same time?
If a father loves
his children, his family, and his community, will he not judge that a proposed
new brothel in his area would be harmful and dangerous? Similarly, it is because
a mother loves her daughter that she will warn her against drug use. And is it
not a loving thing to assess a heretical cult, to judge its dangerous doctrines,
to prevent people from being sucked into a lost eternity?
Boyd seems to set
up a false antithesis or artificial tension here. It is not a case of either/or,
but both/and. He seems to engage in unnecessary polarization where Scripture
does not.
He does allow
that “in exceptional conditions” there will be a place for “confrontation and
questioning” (p.195). I am glad he does make this concession. But how does this
square with the New Testament evidence? There we find numerous examples of Paul
and others challenging people, confronting people, even rebuking people. Numerous passages enjoin us to make righteous judgment, to warn and rebuke, to
chastise and to admonish.
But Boyd thinks
this should be done sparingly at best. But Scripture seems to say it should be
done when needed. It seems to be a part of the normal Christian life. Of course
such discipline and admonition must be done in love, with humility, and with the
recognition that we are all fallen. But it is a regular part of church life. Jesus himself insisted upon this, as in Matthew 18.
Added to this are
the many dozens of warnings about false teachers and false teaching. The New
Testament writers are quite strong about all this, as was Jesus. Many warnings
are given about the need to guard one’s doctrine from the false prophets. Yet
Boyd actually says we are not even to confront other religious groups who are
leading people astray (p.205)! Were the apostles wrong on this? Was Paul unloving
and out of God’s will when he confronted the Judaizers or withstood Peter to his
face? Was Athanasius being judgmental and unloving when he took on Arius and his
heresy?
Coupled with this
are the many dozens of exhortations to stand up for good doctrine and sound
theology. All of that supposes bad theology which needs to be countered. Yet
Boyd seems to minimize this as well.
Boyd also
indicates that there is no place for speaking prophetically to non-believers:
“the church must always remember that it has no business confronting people
outside the covenantal community” (p.205). None at all? Were William Wilberforce
and Charles Finney, to name but a few, out of God’s will for working so hard to
stamp out slavery, and expecting non-believers to do the right thing in this
regard?
And what about
today? Are believers to say and do absolutely nothing about the evils of
abortion, pornography or racism because that is being judgmental and not loving? Are we just to allow any and all evil to run unchecked, because we do not want
to be seen as judgmental?
And what about
the Old Testament prophets? They made prophetic denunciations against foreign
nations which featured the same themes and language as they used against
In the closing
chapters of his book, Boyd does try to temper his remarks somewhat, and does
admit that at times confrontation and the like are called for. But again, they
are to be the exception he argues, not the rule.
What the
Church Should Look Like
Consider also the
picture of the church which Boyd envisions. Appealing to the gospel accounts
where Jesus fellowshipped with sinners, Boyd wants that to be our model. It
seems he basically wants people to get together and enjoy each other in a
non-judgmental fashion. He even admits that such a church “would look very ‘unchurchy’
to say the least”. It would be known more for its “outrageous, puzzling love”
than “its distinctive beliefs and ethical teachings” (p.222). No tough sermons it
seems, no harsh words, no condemnation.
But just how is
the church to be unlike any other social club if “distinctive beliefs” are so
minimized? Christianity is about love, but it is also about doctrine, and
beliefs, about creeds. If it were not, much of the New Testament would not have
to have been written.
Boyd seems to
make a false distinction here: you either embrace love, or you latch on to
doctrine and theology. But surely holding on to both is the biblical position. Paul could tell Timothy, “Watch your life and doctrine closely” (1 Tim. 4:16). That gets the right balance. We love God and each other not in a vacuum, but
based on the revelation God has given us.
Moreover, many of
the marks of the church seem absent from such a scenario. What about teaching,
correcting, instructing, church discipline and the like? Boyd does touch on
these issues briefly, albeit grudgingly, at the end of his book. But these
aspects of church life seem perhaps secondary for Boyd.
An
Ethical Example
Consider one
example that has been the focus of much of the Christian church: homosexuality. Basically Boyd, like many of the religious left, thinks we are far too concerned
as a church about this, and we should just stop being so worried about it. He
spends a few pages talking about the issue, and does so by comparing
homosexuality with overeating. He says these sins are equally bad, and to be
consistent we should spend a lot of time condemning gluttony. He even suggests
that there is no real problem with homosexuality. Why not get excited about
overeating instead? “Is it because homosexuality is more harmful to society? It
is not clear what distinct social harm homosexuality causes” (p.87)
It seems
Scripture has a different view of things. Yes, on the one hand, all sin is
terrible and earns the judgment of God. But there seem to be sins which God
singles out. For example, homosexuality is seen as so reprehensible by God that
he calls it an "abomination," and says that it deserves the death penalty. Neither
is true of overeating.
And the
homosexual lifestyle has all kinds of negative repercussions for society, not
least of which is HIV/AIDS. To seek to argue that the militant homosexual lobby
is nothing to be concerned about seems to be naïve and irresponsible. Is the
breakdown of family of no concern? Is the corruption of our children of no
concern? Is the undermining of marriage and society simply no big deal?
Delivery
I mentioned at
the outset that the way Boyd presents his case is perhaps also a cause of
concern. The at times excessive and polarizing presentation seems to run counter
to the fullness of the biblical revelation. He seems to highlight certain issues
and texts while ignoring others all which are germane to the discussion.
This might be
excusable if Boyd were some unlearned country bumpkin. But he has had
theological training and should know better. Yet he persists in his dialectical
and at times dramatic approach.
Some might reply
that Boyd is just being dramatic or using hyperbole to get his message across. Perhaps. But if he is exaggerating for effect, he should be aware that this
opens his remarks to possible misinterpretation.
On occasion he
will modify his remarks, offer a brief corrective, or throw in a qualifying
comment. And his closing chapters seek to look at these issues in a bit more
detail. But these qualifications seem few and far between, and one suspects that
Boyd makes them grudgingly.
And then there is
the problem that Boyd seems to do the very thing that he rails against
throughout this book. On a number of occasions Boyd makes judgments about the
rest of the Christian church. Consider these statements:
“Most Christians
tend to walk more in judgment than they do in unconditional love” (p.98).
“If anything, the
church today is largely known for its petty divisiveness along denominational,
doctrinal, social and even racial lines” (p.46).
While such
judgments might be true they are nonetheless just that: judgments, the very
thing Boyd thinks we should not be making. Indeed, he accuses believers who are
not following his scheme of things of “spiritual pathology” and “religious
idolatry” (p.89). It seems that even Boyd cannot make his case without
resorting to judgment. And that makes my case, I would argue. One can seek to
build up the Body, to be loving, while at the same time making judgments and
pointing out shortcomings.
Conclusion
I found this book
to be somewhat frustrating. Its message is important. Yet I can’t help feeling
that for all that he says, he leaves much unsaid, and the end result is a
somewhat skewed message. He could perhaps have written this book in a different
fashion and still made much of his case.
I for one will
try to apply some of the truths contained in the book to my life. I know I need
to be a lot more loving and a lot less judgmental. But I have enough
reservations to be hesitant about passing this on to others without at least
some qualifying remarks.
“…the emergent church is the latest version of liberalism. The only difference is that the old liberalism accommodated modernity and the new liberalism accommodates postmodernity.” Driscoll
Editor's Note: "Frustrated?" "Skewed message?" Is Mr. Muehlenberg's book review being overly gracious and kind (wishy-washy) toward the author? Dr. Boyd is a preeminent, modern-day heretic. His extreme errant beliefs include: Open Theism (the zenith of humanistic rationalism), charismatic-demon warfare (responsible for untold spiritual wreckage and suffering), and postmodern Emergent theology (kindred spirit and ally of the radical religious and political Left).
After surviving a close vote in 2000 to dismiss him from his professorship at Bethel University (Baptist General Conference), he resigned in March 2002. This book, first but not the last, may best be understood as a cathartic reaction and retaliatory diatribe against those conservative evangelical leaders who held him accountable and courageously sought to exercise judgment and discipline. In Titus 3:10,11 the Apostle Paul wrote, "A man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject. Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself" KJV.
- SEATED
- ASCENDED
- RAISED
- BURIED
- CRUCIFIED
