First Enns, Now Franke
Reformation 21, the online journal of The Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals has a review of John Franke’s The Character of Theology.
Steve Bush responds here.
Deja vu all over again.
Share on Facebook
Share on FriendFeed
November 7th, 2005 at 8:05 am
I probably should not have read this review, but continued on with my day. I do not really know what to say after reading Paul Helm’s review. Sadly (perhaps), I believe that this is the first thing by Helm that I have read. I had heard that he was a great scholar. Reading something like this review tells me the opposite. I am hard pressed to find anything good to say about it. Reviews like this (along with D.A. Carson’s lectures on the NPP given at RTS-Charlotte…for just one other ‘fun’ example that came to mind while typing now) muddy the waters for those who read them for the purpose of understanding what the book/review is addressing. It misrepresents and vilifies Franke by reading him in the worst possible light (even doing that should not be able to produce an understanding-conception of the book along the lines of what Helm presents in his review), associating misrepresentations of Franke with everything a ‘good Reformed person’ should find repugnant.
I must go now and get on with my day. Lastly, let me positively add that, with the possible exception of one page in Franke’s book (and that probably because I wish he had used different language, I am possibly not correctly understanding how he is using/referring to another scholar’s work, and I think that people will misunderstand his language on that page…), a good ‘Van Tilian’-Reformed Christian (I specify beyond simply saying Christian as I am taking into account the main people who read Mark’s blog) should love and approve of Franke’s book. In one sense, it is an exploration in what it means and looks like to ‘know in a creaturely way.’
November 7th, 2005 at 7:13 pm
Stephen,
We need to do much more than “get on with our day.” Some of the “emergent” Christians I’ve met lately have been a real kick in my backside that while we’re spending so much time spilling tears over scholars battle-axing one another over who gets to be Truly Reformed, there are believers in Jesus who are literally down in the gutters with the kinds of people Jesus spent his time on when he was here on earth.
The best response we can have to the destructiveness of the critics we’ve been discussing is to pursue the life in the Spirit manifesting itself through us in works of righteousness (i.e. mercy, justice, and walking humbly with our God) so that the poor and oppressed will know the Kingdom of God has come/is coming.
November 7th, 2005 at 8:11 pm
It gets old reading commentary by supposedly good theologians that don’t have any idea how to talk about postmodernism. Now I certainly don’t think that there is a totally clear definition out there, but we can certainly make a few definitive statements:
First, postmodernism isn’t to be equated with relativism. Second, postmodernism doesn’t reject truth. Third, postmodernism doesn’t reject the possibility of knowledge. Fourth, postmodernism doesn’t lead to nihilism. Helm doesn’t appear to understand this, and in fact his review would indicate that he believes just the opposite.
Helm’s review just comes across as fearful of some mythical slippery slope of evil postmodern, relativist, nihilistic teaching. There are ways of talking about theology, the church, etc that have been around before the Enlightenment. We need more books like the ones from Enns, Franke, et al. I wonder what Helm would have to say about Leithart’s Against Christianity?
November 7th, 2005 at 8:35 pm
Well, part of the problem is that a few very vocal (and published) academic postmoderns actually do believe that there is no truth (except your own) and all is relative. The mistake made by critics like Helm and Carson (and you’re right, they ought to know better) is to equate those who believe that non-radical, non-academic postmodernism has some valuable critiques of modernity with that academic variety, even though they reject it as loudly as do their critics!
And Against Christianity? The only reviews I’ve seen of it by conservatives dismiss it in less than a paragraph (usually in a sentence or two). Which basically means they have no answer to it.
November 14th, 2005 at 12:55 pm
And Helm responds here.
November 14th, 2005 at 10:22 pm
And Bush responds to Helm once again here.
November 14th, 2005 at 11:08 pm
Rather like a tennis match, eh?
November 14th, 2005 at 11:11 pm
I’m just afraid it will end up being a tennis match where the two players are on different courts.