Are Head Coverings Cultural? 1 Corinthians 11:2-16

Thomas Schreiner wrote an article (chapter 5) for Recovering Bibilical Manhood and Womanhood. In this article Schreiner exposits and interprets 1 Cor. 11:2-16 in order to clarify the head coverings issue. I highly recommend reading the article in its entirety because Schreiner goes into great detail to support his conclusions, and because his sources aren’t included in this post. I agree with Schreiner’s overall conclusion, but I would nuance it. Here is Schreiner’s conclusion:

The significance of this text for the twentieth century must be examined briefly. Am I suggesting that women return to wearing coverings or veils? No. We must distinguish between the fundamental principle that underlies a text and the application of that principle in a specific culture. The fundamental principle is that the sexes, although equal, are also different. God has ordained that men have the responsibility to lead, while women have a complementary and supportive role. More specifically, if women pray and prophesy in church, they should do so under the authority of male headship. Now, in the first century, failure to wear a covering sent a signal to the congregation that a woman was rejecting the authority of male leadership. Paul was concerned about head coverings only because of the message they sent to people in that culture.

Today, except in certain religious groups, if a woman fails to wear a head covering while praying or prophesying, no one thinks she is in rebellion. Lack of head coverings sends no message at all in our culture. Nevertheless, that does not mean that this text does not apply to our culture. The principle still stands that women should pray and prophesy in a manner that makes it clear that they submit to male leadership. Clearly the attitude and the demeanor with which a woman prays and prophesies will be one indication of whether she is humble and submissive. The principle enunciated here should be applied in a variety of ways given the diversity of the human situation.

Moreover, both men and women today should dress so that they do not look like the opposite sex. Confusion of the sexes is contrary to the God-given sense that the sexes are distinct. For example, it would be wrong for a twentieth-century American male to wear a dress in public. It would violate his masculinity. Everything within a man would cry out against doing this because it would violate his appropriate sense of what it means to be a man. The point is not that women should not wear jeans or pants, but that in every culture there are certain kinds of adornment which become culturally acceptable norms of dress for men and women.

Finally, we should note that there is a connection forged in this passage between femininity and the proper submission of women to men. The women in Corinth, by prophesying without a head covering, were sending a signal that they were no longer submitting to male authority. Paul sees this problem as severe because the arrogation of male leadership roles by women ultimately dissolves the distinction between men and women. Thus, this text speaks volumes to our culture today, because one of the problems with women taking full leadership is that it inevitably involves a collapsing of the distinctions between the sexes. It is hardly surprising, as the example of the Evangelical Woman’s Caucus demonstrates, that one of the next steps is to accept lesbianism.31 Paul rightly saw, as he shows in this text, that there is a direct link between women appropriating leadership and the loss of femininity. It is no accident that Paul addresses the issues of feminine adornment and submission to male leadership in the same passage.

In conclusion, we should affirm the participation of women in prayer and prophecy in the church. Their contribution should not be slighted or ignored. Nevertheless, women should participate in these activities with hearts that are submissive to male leadership, and they should dress so that they retain their femininity.

My addition to Schreiner’s conclusion would be that Paul’s instruction also accomplishes unity within the church. Just like Paul’s other prescriptions (e.g., eating meat sacrificed to idols), unity is achieved through an instruction that douses the fire of contention. The dishonoring of the head that Paul talks about causes strife and disunity within the church. Imagine if a married woman walked into a church wearing what a prostitute wears, and had no wedding ring on. The congregation would surely burst out in contention, bringing disunity over the issue of modesty, lust, and dishonoring her husband.

In order to prevent the potential for disunity, Paul prescribes adherence to a cultural standard. Is there any other way Paul could have prevented this disunity? The issue is honor and dishonor at the core and Paul’s answer is a cultural appeal. Does this mean all of Paul’s gender-roles prescriptions are cultural? Schreiner doesn’t think so, “We must distinguish between the fundamental principle that underlies a text and the application of that principle in a specific culture.” And I agree with him. As I outlined in my last post, Paul’s prescription for headship and submission is grounded in the way he views the Christ-church relationship which cannot function properly without headship (Christ) and submission (the church). Why isn’t headship/submission cultural? Because it has to do with Christ and the church, and that relationship is not cultural.

The Christ-Church Metaphor: Gender Roles in Marriage

In the theology of gender debate there are many passages that can easily be translated to fit a preferred paradigm. If you want men and women to be equal in essence without functional distinction, you can (rightly or wrongly) read those things into any gender-related passage. Likewise if you want men and women to be equal in essence and distinct in function, well you can (rightly or wrongly) read those things in too. If you really want to, you can make a good biblical case for either Egalitarian or Complementarian agendas.  As a Complementarian, I admit that many Egalitarian arguments are good arguments.

Word Choice: Essence and Function

Before diving into the reason you started to read this post, I want to be clear about some verbiage. Egalitarians too frequently perpetuate a caricature of Complementarianism that pushes Complementarians off the civil rights band-wagon and off into the archaic gutter, “Go hang out with those old oppressive father-knows-best types!” they say. Let’s make a deal: if I refrain from such slander, will you? It doesn’t help the discussion. So, some clarifying terms: essence and function. Essence- “the inward nature, true substance, or constitution of anything” Function- “the kind of action or activity proper to a person” (dictionary.com). These must be understood as dynamics that work together. I argue that the common denominator between Complementarians and Egalitarians is essential equality. The point of divergence is how this plays out in roles (or lack thereof).

It is possible for equality of essence and distinction of function to coexist (Post-modern buzzword alert!) without violating either essence or function. In this co-existence, equality of personhood before God is not threatened because function does not add or subtract to essence. That is, whatever the function of a human being, he or she is essentially equal before God and between other humans (just like Galatians 3 spells out, which by the way is a passage about justification before God, and not gender roles). With this foundation of essential equality, gender distinctions must exist because God did not create us as sex-less beings. He made us distinctly male or female with distinctly male or female characteristics. Your value as a human being does not have to do with your function. It is a worldly principle that position, roles and function add or subtract value to a person. I also contend that it is the Egalitarian agenda which puts so much weight on roles and positions as having greater or lesser honor. Think about all the condemnation of stay-at-home moms. Complementarians aren’t the ones making such a calling seem unworthy of a human’s potential.

To further my rhetoric, equality must be understood as an essential characteristic having to do with a human being. One example is a football team. The quarterback is not “more equal” than his receivers or linemen. They are all equal, all on the team, and all contribute distinct roles towards the same goal—essential equality harmonizing with functional distinction. Some roles are indeed more “glamorous” than others, but you must admit that Peyton Manning could not be a successful quarterback without his trusty linemen whose names most of us don’t know (and yes I am a proud Denver Broncos fan). Function does not increase or diminish essential equality.

The Metaphor

Now, then, on to the main point. The most frequently cited passage in the gender roles debate is Ephesians 5:22-33. For clarification, I am leaving out verse 21 from this citation because it is still in address to the body of Christ in general, not husbands and wives in specific. Yes, husbands and wives are a part of the body of Christ in general, but it would be hasty to reject specificity for the sake of generality. As verse 22 begins, Paul narrows down his audience from “you church” to “you wives…and husbands.” Or at the very least, Paul is qualifying verse 21 and bringing it into practice for husbands and wives as in verses 22 and following. That is, the kind of “mutual submission” (not a preferable term) Paul is referring to between the husband and wife is qualified by a wife’s submission to her own husband, and a husband’s sacrificial laying down of his life that secures unity between them both.

The kind of headship Paul calls husbands to is not in contrast to the “submit to one another” he calls everyone to in verse 21. The kind of headship Paul calls husbands to allows for the submission of verse 21 to take place. Laying down one’s life like Christ did for the church is far from self-assertion (the opposite of submission, and what Egalitarians assume Complementarians mean by headship). Headship does not mean self-assertion. Some have posed the question, “Why would any man want this role? Laying down one’s life? That is far more difficult and painful than anyone would want! No man really knows what he’s getting himself into.” So, let the thought be far from your mind that (good) Complementarians are seeking power, position and privilege. What we are really seeking is humility, lowliness, sacrifice, suffering, and hardship. Don’t get those confused. Headship is self-denial and self-sacrifice. Are wives called to such a thing as a disciple of Christ? Yes, but let’s look at how Paul gets specific:

“Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.” (Eph. 5:22-33)

Let’s skip the submission language briefly and address why Paul is writing this in the first place. In verse 32 Paul writes, “This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church.” I would argue that verse 32 here establishes the reason for Paul even using submission language in the first place. If someone asked me why there is such thing as gender roles within marriage I would say that it has to do with Christ and the church. Verse 32 is the “why?”

This relationship should model and frame every understanding and nuance of how we view the marriage relationship. This mystery gives a reason for why wives should submit to their own husbands and why husbands should love their wives as Christ loved the church, giving himself up for her. For Paul, this functional instruction is not merely to make us all get along nicely. The Bible does not justify headship and submission because it is “best practice.” There is something much more transcendent going on here than civil codes, it’s part of God’s redemptive history and it’s a witness to the world. When a husband and wife pursue headship and submission knowing that what they are doing represents something bigger than the universe, marriage becomes a lot weightier than mere civil codes.

Christ-church Dynamics

“For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body.” We (the church) are part of his (Christ’s) body, we are united with Christ; likewise, husbands and wives are “one flesh.” What an honor! The people God seeks to redeem are united with Christ as part of his body. This clearly communicates unity. But how can unity occur with different functions?

First Corinthians 12:12-27 speaks of the diversity of function harmonizing with unity and equality. In this context, equality is established because all are a part of the body (same essence), yet this equality is not the same as function (different parts of the body). Function is distinct but equality is in tact. Paul makes it clear that function and even perceived honor do not dictate membership or standing.

Christ is the head of the church and we are Christ’s body. Much debate surrounds the meaning of “head” (Greek: kephale). Many Egalitarians argue it means “source,” while most Complementarians argue for “authority over.” In the context of Ephesians 5, I could see “source” being a secondary meaning, but it needs to include at least a nuance of “authority over.” In the case of Eph 5:24, submitting to a “source” must still imply deference to authority—some sort of “followership.”

Verse 24: “Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.” How does the church submit to Christ? This is where “source” can be a part of the meaning of “head.” Christ established the church. If it weren’t for Christ, the church wouldn’t exist, so “source” can be encapsulated in the meaning, but it cannot end there. Even if it did end there, I would argue there is still a sense of deference to authority that invalidates the Egalitarian notion of mutual submission because the source itself does not honor what comes from it, but that which comes from the source honors the source. However, the church does look to Christ as her head having authority over her—authority to instruct, guide and correct. So whether you use “source” or “authority over” there must still be a sense of “authority over.” The church listens, follows, obeys, and seeks Christ. This should characterize a wife’s submission to her husband too: listening, followership, obedience, seeking out.

We need to be specific about what headship means. The husband giving himself up for her for the sake of their unity primarily characterizes husbandly headship. Headship is not self-assertion. He is to sacrifice himself in a way that promotes her holiness and secures their unity as one flesh. By the husband doing this, he enters into a sanctifying process as well. So, essentially, this headship/submission dynamic that is also present in the Christ-church relationship is for the sake of unity and the married couple’s sanctification. Christ’s sacrificial life secured the church’s holiness and provided for unity between Christ and the church.

Marriage should maintain the kind of headship/submission dynamic that characterizes the Christ-church relationship. I argue that the only sound way to view gender roles within marriage is with the emphasis being unity between a husband and wife exercised through a husband’s headship that looks like Christ’s sacrificial life, and his wife’s submission to him that looks like the church’s obedience to Christ. If this dynamic is thrown out it will have serious implications for the way the church sees Christ as her head. If “head” excludes “authority over” for a husband’s headship, it does for Christ’s headship over the church too.

I referred to a kind of “mutual submission” above. Why don’t I fully affirm this language? The Bible doesn’t use it. The Bible calls for wifely submission and husbandly headship. Yes, the verb for “submit” is found in verse 21, and not 22, but it is found in 24 (in a ver black and white kind of way, I might add) and its directed at wives, not husbands. Nowhere in the Bible are husbands called to submit to their wives. This is a principle known as “gender-specific” and “gender-inclusive,” the former being where only one gender is addressed at the exclusion of the other, while the latter includes both genders. Here in Ephesians 5, submission is gender-specific towards wives and not husbands, while headship is specific towards husbands and not wives.

I argue that the kind of mutual submission Egalitarians support risks an independence similar to that found in a disciple who does not submit to Christ—in this scenario Christ’s headship is rendered useless to the disciple and the disciple’s submission is fatally lacking. Likewise, a husband who does not seek to lay down his life like Christ did seeks his own independence from his wife, this does not foster unity, and a wife who neglects to submit to her own husband also seeks her own independence from her husband and this does not foster unity either. In other words, I argue that true unity comes from headship and submission founded on essential equality and justified by the Christ-church relationship.

Headship and submission, therefore, is a beautiful, God-glorifying dynamic between husband and wife founded in the essential equality of human beings between each other and before God intended to secure unity between husband and wife, and witness to the world just like the dynamics found in the Christ-church relationship secure unity and witness to the world. Far from mere first century civil codes, this dynamic within marriage testifies to God’s interaction with his people. It is ecclesiastical, it is redemptive, and it is much more grand and mysterious than we think.

End Note: This language sounds very similar to how the Trinity is described, but as I’ve written here, I want to avoid that comparison and keep the marriage relationship analogous to the Christ-church relationship where Paul keeps it and away from the Trinity because the Bible just doesn’t go that far.

Can I Swear When I Pray?

There are moments in life when everything seems to fall apart. Suffering is a part of life and it can bring about the most powerful emotions. These events of suffering hopefully cause us to draw nearer to God, but when they do, is it okay to address God in lament saying, “Why the *insert choice word* did this happen?!” Can God handle our emotion? Can he handle obscenities coming from our mouths and in our thoughts? Doesn’t he know our frame, our weakness, our sin, and can’t he put up with some strong language in the heat of powerful emotion?

The words “messy” and “broken” are pretty trendy words these days. Postmodernity encourages authenticity and honesty, and in prayer to God this means being real with him, bearing even the most volatile and messy sins and secrets. Don’t hold back, “God can handle it,” we are taught.

Indeed our God is gracious and understanding, and even at our most broken, sinful, and wicked moments he is near to us because of Jesus Christ. Because of Christ’s death and atonement for sin and through faith in him, nothing separates us from his love. Nothing. Not even our most potent language or volatile emotions.

So, because of God’s glorious act of reconciling us to himself, shouldn’t we be able to bear ourselves before him in an honest way? Isn’t he big enough and gracious enough to handle our volcanoes of emotion and the words that come forth? Sure, but it’s not about what God can handle, its about honor, respect, contrition, and humility. 

But, they’re just words right? What do they mean to God? Well, if they are just sounds, and they don’t really have any meaning then why use them? If the “F-bomb” doesn’t really mean anything, then what purpose does it have in communication? Why say it? The words we use have conceptual meaning prior to being used. That is, we think of the idea or meaning, then use the appropriate word.

Words invoke meaning, whether negative or positive and God knows it. You can actually pray to God in English or any other language and he knows what you’re praying. He understands you. Since this the case, is it even necessary to use obscenities in prayer and lamentation to God? You and I know what unwholesome words mean. So, simply by knowledge of their meaning, saying them to God communicates that meaning to him. I submit, again, that it’s not about whether God can handle our messiness, it’s about knowingly throwing unwholesomeness into our interactions with God who deserves more from us.

Take the Psalms for example, or Lamentations. These books document some serious and heavy emotions. Yet even in the writers’ strongest emotions and deepest honesty, they approach God with much reverence and fear—desperation and limited sight, but still with reverence and fear. So, shouldn’t this be our example of how to approach God in our deepest pain?

Under the same logic the Apostle Paul uses in Romans; “What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means!” I submit that we avoid presuming upon God’s grace and give him the highest reverence, fear and honor even in our deepest, most upsetting and excruciating moments. Like a little boy who out of contrition approaches his earthly father with a sorrowful yet respectful disposition, may we while broken and upset approach our holy Lord with fear and the highest respect. 

Part II of II: The Gospel in Devotion

In my last post, I briefly explained rehearsing the Gospel in a corporate worship setting. Mike Cosper wrote a book called Rhythms of Grace in which he explains this idea in far greater detail, but basically, to rehearse the Gospel in corporate worship is to lead the congregation through three over-arching ideas: (1) Call to worship, (2) Call to confession, and (3) Call to assurance.

Rehearsing the Gospel in prayer and Scripture reading can be a great way to grow in discipleship. This doesn’t mean re-reading one of the four Gospels, necessarily. It means acknowledging who God is, acknowledging the bad news, then rejoicing and resting in the good news. If you’re like me, certain devotional practices can seem to lose their effectiveness—or rather, my heart just grows impatient and dull over time.

Hopefully rehearsing the Gospel in devotion won’t become another adventure that eventually grows stale, but rather one that remains dynamic and truly connects your heart to Jesus—renewing your understanding of his love as your understanding of the Gospel deepens.

So, how does this work? It works the same way as rehearsing the Gospel in corporate worship: first, reading or praying about reasons to praise/worship God, second, confession of personal sin and/or lament over the brokenness of the world, third, acknowledging assurance in Jesus Christ.

Call to Worship

Taking a lesson from Job we know there is always a reason to praise God, for though our hearts are fickle and circumstances can be extreme, God remains unchanged. This is God’s immutability. He is infinitely and eternally benevolent—good all the time. Blessed be the name of the Lord!

Search Scripture for reasons like this to praise and worship God. They’re everywhere. Acknowledge who God is. Not to sound like a mystic, but let your mind go wild! Declare to yourself something about God’s character, or something about his actions and make connections back and forth, finding more reasons to praise. Command your soul to recognize the goodness of God that is revealed in Scripture and in your own life.

An easily accessible yet deep location in Scripture for this is the Psalms:

“Oh give thanks to the Lord, for he is good; for his steadfast love endures forever!” (118:1)

“I will bless the Lord at all times; his praise shall continually be in my mouth.” (34:1)

Let your heart and mind profess, declare, confess and affirm God’s praiseworthiness. Meditate on a whole Psalm or just a verse, for example, and dwell in the truth of God’s character, letting your heart and mind exalt him.

Lord, you are indeed great! You are so much greater than I. May my soul acknowledge it!  Blessed be your name. Thank you that you are who you are. May my heart lift you up and bless your name, may I proclaim your goodness, steadfast love, your holiness, for you are blameless and set apart, unstained by the world. There is no one like you.

Call to Confession

Contrition and broken-heartedness humble us and bring us closer to Jesus. From our realization that we fall short comes dependence on Jesus. Confession is difficult and rightly so. It is important to address and confront sin. Without doing so we leave hindrances and barriers between Jesus and us. We also surrender opportunities for growth, and more importantly, we surrender the experience of grace!

Regardless of apparent sin, there is always something to confess, from habitual sins of commission and omission to sneaky attitudes or unexpected behavior. If nothing seems apparent, ask the Lord to show you how He wants to work on you.

When He shows you these things, its okay to lament. The contrast between our sin and God’s holiness is sharp and drastic. Let this be an opportunity to feel a significant need for grace.

But my people have changed their glory
for that which does not profit.
Be appalled, O heavens, at this;
be shocked, be utterly desolate,
declares the Lord,

 for my people have committed two evils:
they have forsaken me,
the fountain of living waters,
and hewed out cisterns for themselves,
broken cisterns that can hold no water.

Jer. 2:11b-13 

Lord, indeed I am full of sin! Have mercy on me. I fail to uphold Your commandments and whether intentionally or unintentionally, I rebel against You. May I feel the need for grace as I realize how far short of Your holiness I fall. Show me the areas of my life you want to reprove, but be gentle as You bring about that reproof.

Call to Assurance

Here’s the good part. If you are indeed in Christ, your sins are forgiven! This is so simple yet so profound. Forgiven! Don’t move on from that sentence too quickly. Rejoice in Jesus’ work on the cross to wash away your sins and reconcile you to the Father. The objective reality of your status in Christ provides objective assurance for your salvation. You weren’t, but now you are. Just like Peter writes, “But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy” (1 Pet. 2:9-10).

Elation! What praise this invokes! It is the simple yet profound truth of the Gospel. You and I were in a poor, forsaken state, but not anymore. Though our struggle with sin continues until Christ comes again, our status is secure before the Father.

Along with elation and praise, hopefully this invokes an urgency of serious discipleship and obedience. Like many have noted, the cost of our security in Christ is too great to take discipleship and obedience for granted. Costly grace vs. cheap grace. The heart that realizes the cost of grace and the extreme transition from “not a people” to being “God’s people” is a heart that takes seriously the importance of obedience leaving God’s grace honored and His love requited.

There is no exact formula here. These are general steps to work through. Call to worship, call to confession, and call to assurance. Try it out!

Book Review: Hearing God’s Words by Peter Adam

It has long been a pursuit of mine to understand, practice, and teach a reformed-evangelical concept of spirituality. This is no easy endeavor. In fact it is a regular criticism against reformed-evangelicals that they are all head, no heart, and as such lack a deep and engaging spiritual life. This criticism is interesting because it is difficult to get a handle on whether or not it is an accurate description. As I have had the blessing and opportunity to study at Talbot School of Theology, I had taken classes and pursued studies engaging some of the major thinkers, theologians, and pastors in the reformed-evangelical tradition. Men like Augustine, John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, and Francis Schaeffer. Each of them—as well as their contemporaries that I have studied—displayed a deep, engaging, and even community altering spirituality. Take Schaeffer for example, the now famous L’Abri movement that began in the living room of his Swiss chalet with a few of his daughter’s university friends asking him questions is currently operating in several countries and (at least) two continents. This ministry grew for several reasons (Schaeffer’s cultural engagement and knowledge, the ability to dissect worldviews and expose inconsistent logic), but standing above all the reasons was Schaeffer’s spirituality. Schaeffer had a deep relationship with the God who is there, the God who is not silent. In that statement we find the key to his and the rest of the reformed-evangelicalism’s spirituality. Edwards, Calvin, and many others displayed the same thing; and yet I have many friends who have either been raise in this tradition or learned it while in school (notably Biola University where I studied for my undergraduate degree) who feel a distinct lacking in this area, a short coming in their spirituality.

It was my own feeling of lack that drove me to study this particular area, and though I believe I somewhat accidentally stumbled across the answer before picking up Peter Adam’s Hearing God’s Words, it gave me the words and understanding to communicate what I found. Adam’s thesis is, essentially, that true spirituality created and cultivated by God’s word. This should come as no surprise to those aware of the major themes of reformed-evangelicalism. God is there (he exists) and he is not silent (he speaks). He has spoken audibly, he has spoken through prophets, and finally he spoke through his son—Jesus the Christ. For us today, though he still can and does speak audibly, we primarily experience God’s speech through the recorded words of scripture, which reformed theologians describe as living and active.

So what is the cash out for us? True spirituality, deep spirituality is created and cultivated by hearing the word of God as it comes to us in the Bible. In Adam’s words:

The great means is the Bible, in which we find Christ clothed in all his promises. To love God is to love his words, and to be alert to the Spirit is to receive the words of the Spirit in the Bible…. A corporate and personal spirituality of the Word is at the heart of biblical faith and life. (173)

However, we cannot just pick up the Bible and read it, we must pick up the Bible and pursue God by reading it. What is the difference? The latter comes to the Bible with humility, gratitude, and—most importantly—understanding of brokenness. These three elements should lead into some kind of prayer that thanks God, praises God, asks for illumination and transformation, and confesses sin. From there the Bible is opened and studied devotionally and intelligently. Again Adam is very helpful to point out, “True spirituality need not and should not perpetuate the false distinction between heart and mind; and that true spirituality will find the whole person addressed by God’s powerful words” (165). After listening to God’s word, we ought to transition back into prayer that will probably focus again on gratitude, praise, and confession. I want to highlight these three as crucial because they reveal our heart in their presence and their absence. Take confession for example, if you are a Christian you have been justified, but not yet fully sanctified, you are still, like the rest of us, struggling with your sinful flesh, the depraved world, and the attacks of our enemy—Satan—because of these you fail to be holy as God is holy and in doing so you fail to love God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength. In other words you sin constantly. When you come to the Bible you meet a holy and righteous God and in doing so your sin ought to become evident by contrast, it is crucial that we acknowledge our sin and confess it to God (1 John 1:9), as Adam points out, “the great barrier to spirituality is not a lack of technique in spiritual aptitude, but sin” (173). Confession is how we act out repentance and show ourselves to be citizens of his kingdom in Jesus.

A little bit about the book itself. The book is a theology of biblical spirituality from the New Studies in Biblical Theology series, which boasts D.A. Carson as the series editor. Adam’s book contains six chapters settled in between the introduction and conclusion. The first chapter acts as an introduction to the dilemma I mentioned above (how does one remain reformed and pursue spirituality). Chapters two and three trace the biblical theology of spirituality through the Old and New Testaments. Chapter four discusses John Calvin’s view of spirituality. And the book comes to a close with chapters five and six articulating the issues and examples of spirituality. I highly recommend it to those trying to grapple with the struggles of spirituality in the reformed-evanglical tradition. Many have opted to try a hybrid of evangelicalism and eastern or mystical Christianity from the medieval era, but Adam provides a helpful explanation and answer for engaging a deep spirituality without venturing outside of a robust and well informed reformed-evangelicalism.

Thanks for reading,

t.d.h.