Alister E. McGrath

The King James Bible: The noblest work of religious prose in English. The most beautiful translation of the Bible ever made in any language. One of the landmarks of early modern English.

An inaccurate translation of a corrupt Greek and Hebrew original.

This is the sad dilemma facing anyone choosing an English Bible today. The scholars who translated the Hebrew Bible simply did not have enough knowledge of Hebrew to do well, and those who translated the New Testament worked from the Textus show more Receptus of Erasmus, prepared almost a century before, and written under a printer's deadline. Erasmus was a great man, but he admitted that his text was "precipitated rather than edited"; it was based on a handful of bad manuscripts. The bottom line is, The King James Bible, for all its beauty, does not represent the original Bible at all well.

Scholars and lay people can (and assuredly do!) differ on how much this matters. Theologically, it isn't tremendously important; most of the differences between the Authorized Version and the modern translations have no doctrinal significance. But to tell this tale without emphasizing what we now know is to omit a very important facet of the modern debate over the King James Bible. Admittedly this is a history of a translation, not a commentary. And it is a good history within its bounds. But its bounds are too narrow. show less

Summary: An account of the theologian’s faith, life, and theological engagement.

J. I. Packer was one of my personal theological heroes. His impact on my life came primarily through the book Knowing God, which I read during my student days. As a young Christian, I discovered that the chief end of our lives as well as the work of theology is that we know, love, and glorify God, and not just know about him. The first time through, I read a few pages at a time, stopped, reflected, and prayed show more in wonder at the greatness, majesty, holiness, and love of God. It is one of those books I’ve re-read several times. I only heard Packer speak once, giving a series of lectures on revival in Ann Arbor, contrasting Jonathan Edwards and Charles Finney, along with an exposition of Psalm 85 as a prayer for revival. The talks were marked by precision of thought and warmth of devotion.

Reading this account of the life and thought of Packer by Alister McGrath, I came to understand that the qualities I appreciated in his lectures and his books reflected his central passion for theological education and catechesis for the good of the church. McGrath traces this thread through his books and thought and his career first in Bristol, then Oxford, then briefly again at Bristol, and finally at Regent in Canada. In fact, McGrath alternates chapters on his life with ones on aspects of his theological work.

He recounts Packer’s early life, his spiritual awakening and early embrace of the theology of the fathers and their ancient wisdom. He describes the relationship with D. Martyn Lloyd Jones and the development of the Puritan Studies Conferences, and their later falling out. At Tyndale Hall in Bristol, Packer comes into his own as a “theological educationalist.” This period marked Packer’s early efforts in publishing, centered around the editorial work on the first edition of The New Bible Dictionary and his first book on Fundamentalism and the Word of God. McGrath includes marvelous material here on how Packer’s devotional life fed both his pastoral and theological work.

Packer’s return to Oxford in the 1960’s as Warden of Latimer House came at a time of ferment within Anglican evangelicalism. McGrath features Packer’s marvelous reply to Bishop Robinson’s Honest to God, the crisis in 1966 with Lloyd Jones leading to the cooling of their relationship and the Keele conference of 1967 defining an evangelical presence within Anglicanism. A key focus in Packer’s thought is theology for the life of the church. After this conference, Packer became convinced that it was time to move on from Latimer. He returned to take up the leadership of Tyndale Hall in a time of crisis leading to a merger creating Trinity College, with him no longer as principal. Time for writing led to a series of articles that became Knowing God.

One of the personal highlights of McGrath’s account was reading about James Sire’s visit with Packer and offer to acquire the U.S. rights of the book for InterVarsity Press, through which the book came into the hands of this young college student and many others becoming one of IVP’s all-time best selling works. By the 1977 Nottingham Conference, however, it became apparent that Packer was increasingly out of step with the younger evangelicals in England. This opened the door to Canada, and Regent College, and the opportunities for Packer to more fully pursue his ideas of theological education for the church, which he did as faculty and in retirement until his death in 2020.

One of the fascinating aspects developed by McGrath is Packer’s conservatism with an irenic streak. Packer was committed to the idea “test everything; hold onto the good.” He believe the good traditions of the past could deliver us from the idiosyncrasies of the present, all under the authority of the Bible. Hence his emphasis on the Reformers and Puritan studies. This put him at variance with others, particularly at two points: the ministry of women and his views of eternal punishment. Yet he also join the Evangelicals and Catholics Together initiative, finding the places of common ground while delineating theological difference with clarity. It strikes me you needed someone like Packer to do this to avoid making a theological hash of the whole affair.

McGrath has given us a wonderful summary of the life and thought of Packer. Indeed, we see how what Packer thought shaped how he lived. Packer believed in theological education as not merely an academic exercise but as existing for the strengthening of the church in the knowledge of God. McGrath helps us see how the whole trajectory of Packer’s life was shaped by these commitments. It also leaves me two questions to ponder. One is, amid a changing world, what must be conserved? The second is, amid the powerful and competing influences of our culture, how might we carry forward Packer’s commitment to catechesis, the formation of Christians in thought, word, and deed?

____________________________

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received a complimentary review copy of this book from the publisher in exchange for an honest review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. show less

Though I hold a naturalistic world view, do not share the beliefs of any organized religion, and have been a long-time fan and admirer of Richard Dawkins’s science writing, I was surprised and disappointed with his book on atheism, The God Delusion. It is an ill-conceived and poorly researched polemic against religion, primarily Christianity, that does no credit to Richard Dawkins or atheism in general. Instead, the book showcases an accomplished science writer lowering himself to the show more level of a TV “shock-jock,” exhibiting the same lack of concern for accuracy, and the same simplistic, narrow-minded orientation.

The McGraths offer a much-needed response in this succinct and intelligent book, which I noticed in the New Books section of the Kansas City Public Library a few weekends ago. At 118 pages, including end notes, annotated bibliography, and author profiles, it is not a lengthy reading project. In their introduction the authors explain they do not intend a point-by-point rebuttal of all the inaccuracies, misstatements, and mistakes in The God Delusion, which would be tedious indeed given the width and depth of its blunders. Their approach, instead, is to challenge Dawkins “at representative points and let readers draw their own conclusions about the overall reliability of his evidence and judgment.” (p 13)

Their challenges are presented in four chapters, “Deluded About God?,” which critiques the distorted characterization of contemporary religious belief Dawkins presents; “Has Science Disproved God?” which explores scientism (a worldview insisting only scientific investigation can provide reliable knowledge) and takes exception with Dawkins’s argument that the vast majority of scientists are atheists; “What are the Origins of Religion” highlights gross mischaracterizations by Dawkins about research on the historical origins of religion and also demonstrates Dawkins’s conclusion on the subject have no evidentiary basis and, in fact, is nothing more than uninformed speculation; and “Is Religion Evil?,” which provides a balanced view of the healthy and unhealthy aspects of religious belief, as well as other sociological processes that can also lead to violence.

These chapters are not constructed as comprehensive arguments, but provide general overviews of the topics covered and direct readers to more detailed resources for further reading and evaluation. Alister McGrath, the principal author, has a tendency to repetition with increasingly emphatic statements. One rather imagines him typing away at the word processor, becoming more and more heated by some particularly irksome inanity in Dawkins’s book, pounding the keyboard with more and more force, until Joanna pokes her head into the study with a mildly admonishing “Alister, perhaps it’s time for some tea?”

One passage I found telling occurs on page 62, which is in the chapter on the origins of religion. The authors discuss cognitive biases which “predispose us to fail to notice or to discount data that are inconsistent with our view. On the whole we do this because it is efficient – it takes effort and is upsetting to have to change one’s mind – even if change is in a positive direction.” The God Delusion is then presented as an example of such bias. “Without full awareness that he is doing so, Dawkins foregrounds evidence that fits his own views and discounts or distorts evidence that does not.”

This struck me because I have had difficulty accounting for how an experienced science writer with a reputation for accuracy could distort and misrepresent so many reference sources. While reading the book, I began obtaining some of Dawkins’s references and found that he frequently does misrepresent them. Just one salient example is Max Jammer’s Einstein and Religion, which Dawkins uses to support a statement that Einstein was “repeatedly indignant” about being described as a theist; that is, one who believes in God (Dawkins, p 18). Jammer’s book demonstrates exactly the opposite: Einstein was repeatedly indignant about being described as an atheist. “In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for support of such views.” (Jammer, p 97)

Such problems, and this is only one of many examples, demonstrate that Dawkins’s position regarding atheism is so strongly biased he cannot be objective about the evidence. He can’t even read references accurately.

Einstein’s phrase, the “harmony of the cosmos,” recalls another passage from The Dawkins Delusion, which sites an argument for the existence of God, as phrased by Richard Swinburne, “that the intelligibility of the universe itself requires an explanation.” In other words, what can account for the natural order of the cosmos which science has been so effective at discovering? Answers to this question seem clearly beyond the realm of science. Is faith not a legitimate response? Earlier in their book, the McGraths observe that much of the available evidence supports both atheistic and theistic interpretations. Fundamentalists on either side of the argument deny this, but the observation should give pause for thought to readers with an open mind on the subject. show less

I really enjoy biographies. There is something about hearing the story of someone’s life, when told properly and well, that can be moving and encouraging. They can go far in putting people in proper perspective and, when of authors or leaders, lead to a greater understanding of their work.

Alister McGrath is a brilliant author and his work on C. S. Lewis will be the definitive work for time to come. McGrath took his affinity for history and theology and utilized his skills to offer the show more world a brilliant, extensive work on a novelist, theologian, and, most importantly, a redeemed sinner.

I came to this work with a very limited knowledge of all things Lewis. For those who are more familiar, much of the gold that stood out to me might simply be old hat. However, McGrath is brilliant in his presentation and I strongly feel even Lewis experts will enjoy the fruit of his efforts.

Lewis and Tolkien. I thoroughly enjoyed how McGrath traced this tumultuous relationship from its beginning to its end. It is interesting, to say the least, to see Narnia and Middle-Earth intersect, to see such great minds interact as normal people.

Tolkien was not the only relationship that Lewis enjoyed/endured during his life. His relationship with his father was a strained one and the death of his father during Lewis’ absence doubtlessly influenced the remainder of his life. Mrs. Robinson…I mean Mrs. Moore enjoyed a, at least it seemed to me, seedy relationship with young Lewis that lasted for a good part of his life.

This was not the only love interest that seemed much out of place. Lewis’ wife of his later years was a good deed turned bad deal turned love of his life, the death of whom led Lewis to what has been misdiagnosed as a reversion to agnosticism in A Grief Observed.
Lewis’ relationship with academia in England was even strained due to decisions of his and, mostly, due to his popular reception with the common audience.

A real unique aspect of McGrath’s work is how he sets out to make a case for that Lewis’s conversion has been misdated, even questioning Lewis’ on account based on primary documents, specifically Lewis’ correspondence. Whether you come to agree with McGrath or not, it is interesting to see him develop his argument and to go down the road of “What qualifies as a conversion?” to which this investigation can easily lead.

Lewis was an apologist, but definitely not an Evangelical. It is interesting to me how often he is unequivocally received my many who, when pressed, would strongly hold many differing views on doctrines as serious as the atonement, people who in every other case would reject seemingly reject a “Mere Christianity” in favor of sharp denominational divisions.

When we reach the point of Lewis’ death in 1964, the same day as President Kennedy, you are so invested in CS Lewis that it is hard not to experience the angst and grief you would feel from the loss of someone you genuinely knew. I am constantly amazed at this in reading well written works of history or even fiction.

McGrath saves room at the end to go into detail about the resounding legacy of Lewis’ works and how they have interacted with and changed so many readers, young and old. Although his influence was deemed to be “on the wane” in the mid 1960’s, the rumors of this demise were certainly exaggerated.

I learned much about CS Lewis. What stood out to me the most was that Lewis was a flawed, weak, sinful person. Just like me. Lewis was a sinner who was saved by grace. Just like me! Should he be put up on a pedestal? No. Should he be set before someone as the example of how to live? No. Should he be worshiped? No. There is one Lord. One Savior. One who is worthy of worship. CS Lewis is not God but because of the finished work of Christ on the cross He is now in the loving presence of God. And that is what He would want you to remember about his life. I am certain of it! show less