Part Two Will Appear December 18

Here it is, a list of books; the best books we’ve read in 2023, which are different from the best books published in 2023. Why give you a list of books? Because we think reading is important and we think Christians ought to be reading books. If you have time for Instagram and Netflix, you ought to make time to read soul-shaping books. Here are a few books we commend to you.

Jason’s Recommendations

Kenneth Gentry, He Shall Have Dominion: A Postmillennial Eschatology (Chesnee, SC: Victory Hope Publishing, 2009).

Psalm 72 disrupts the evangelical eschatology that thinks the world is getting gradually more un-Christian. “May he have dominion from sea to sea, and from the Riverto the ends of the earth!” (Ps. 72:8). “Blessed be his glorious name forever; may the whole earth be filled with his glory!” (Ps. 72:19). “May his name endure forever, his fame continue as long as the sun! May people be blessed in him, all nations call him blessed!” (Ps. 72:17).

The message of Scripture is that Christ won when he died, which is why there was a resurrection. The church started in an upper room with 120 people. Now it spans the globe with millions of baptized believers. Christ shall have dominion on the earth. Jesus commanded the church to make disciples of all the nations because this is what’s going to happen.

After reading Gentry’s thorough defense of postmillennialism, I was left with two eschatological convictions. First, it is unhelpful to sort the different eschatology positions around the millennium. Modern theology—note, modern theology—has different eschatological positions defined in terms of the millennium: Premillennial, amillennial, and postmillennial. Why does each define itself around the millennium? The three main eschatological positions self-define around a controversial period in which the timing of the millennium is nearly all the controversy. The problem with this approach is that the thousand years are mentioned once in Scripture, in Revelation 20:1-6. Revelation 20, as you might have discovered, is a difficult passage to interpret in a difficult book to interpret. What if instead of defining the eschatological position around the murky timing of the millennium, we gathered up clearer biblical concepts and featured those? This wouldn’t be an eschatology free from all boundaries. It would be one with the proper boundaries, the likes of which can tame the interpretation of Revelation 20:1-6.

Consider a few biblical concepts that should be at the center of all eschatology. The Kingdom of the Lord will start small but eventually spread to the whole earth (Mk. 4:30ff). The nations are ruled by the Lord and over time they will remember him, turn to him, and worship Him (Ps. 22:27ff; 86:9). Yahweh’s rule will be from sea to sea, from the river to the ends of the earth (Ps. 72:7f; Zech. 9:9f). All the kings of the earth will bow down before Him and all the nations will serve Him (Ps. 72:11). The earth will be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea (Is. 11:9). In the last days, the Mountain of the Lord will be established as the highest of mountains, to which all the nations will stream. God will judge between the nations and they will learn war no more nor lift their swords against each other (Is. 2:2-4; 1:6-9; Micah 4:1-4). Christ is ruling sovereignly in the world. All things are put under his feet (Mt. 22:44).

The amalgamation of all these biblical concepts suggests it is more helpful to call it optimistic eschatology rather than postmillennialism. Fine with me if the word “postmillennialism” is completely purged from usage.

The second eschatological conviction is that preterism is not the answer for every biblical passage. Gentry doesn’t force Matthew 24:36-44, 2 Thessalonians 1:5-12, or 2 Peter 3:1-13 into a preterist interpretation. He also argues that “the last days” can refer to the time before the destruction of the temple and the time before Christ’s Second Coming.[1] He sees each as referring to the Second Coming of Christ. While some postmillennialists have good reasons to interpret these passages as fulfilled in A.D. 70, it is possible to consistently keep an optimistic eschatology while also interpreting these passages as fulfilled during the Second Coming.

Excerpt:

“The destruction of the heavens and the earth that he envisions involves the current material creation. Hence, it refers to the distant consummation and not the approaching AD 70 conflagration, despite certain similarities between the two events (since one is the type of the other). Peter expressly refers to the material creation order: ‘from the beginning of creation’ (2 Pe. 3:4; cf. Ge. 1:1); ‘by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water’ (3:5; cf. Ge 1:2, 9); ‘the heavens and the earth which now exist’ (3:7). Thus, he defines the ‘heavens and earth” to which he refers and which God will replace with a ‘new heaven and a new earth’ (3:10, 13). He is not contemplating the destruction of the old Jewish order in AD 70, but the material heavens and the earth at the second advent.”

Sean McMeekin, The Russian Origins of the First World War (Cambridge: Belknap, 2011).

It’s hard to understand the modern world without coming to terms with World War I. When the war began, Russia had a population of 200 million and Germany 65 million. Russia joined Serbia not to help Serbia, but because of widespread panic over the Balkan Straits. Russia was obsessed with this issue and thought it was a matter of national security. The Straits were their passage into the Mediterranean Sea. This was a matter of economic and military necessity. Roughly half of Russian export trade went through the Straits.

Complicated events have many causes. Yet some cause comes in first place. That there are many causes doesn’t destroy the fact that there is one well-founded cause. The argument for German war guilt is as old as the War itself, as is made plain in the Treaty of Versailles. German war guilt was cemented by the German historian Fritz Fischer in the 1960s when he argued that the outbreak of the war was entirely Germany’s fault. His book was called Germany’s Aims in the First World War. The Fischer Thesis has been assumed ever since. For example, David Fromkin writes in 2004, in his book Europe’s Last Summer: Who Started the Great War in 1914?, “Briefly and roughly stated, the answer is that the government of Austria-Hungary started its local war with Serbia, while Germany’s military leaders started the worldwide war against France and Russia that became known as the First World War or the Great War.”

But there are holes in the Fischer Thesis. Hole #1: Germany wanted a localized conflict to punish the Serbs. Why didn’t this happen? Serbia’s delay in issuing the ultimatum to Serbia spoiled the German plan of quick action in Serbia. The delay allowed France and Russia to coordinate war measures. The Germans did not want world war. Hole #2: There is a document gap, not from Germany (as is often claimed) but France and Russia. The French and Russians knew about the ultimatum one week advance. They knew about the ultimatum when they issued their own counter-ultimatum of no ultimatum, which means that Russia bears a fair share of responsibility. There are four days of meetings between the French and Russians in which there are no documents in the diplomatic archives. Why were they destroyed? What are they hiding? Through surrounding evidence, it is likely that they were in cahoots, planning their next moves because they knew about the ultimatum ahead of time. Russia and France developed a hard line on the response to Austria-Hungary ahead of time, which suggests they were willing to go to war. The Russians mobilized troops ahead of the Austrian ultimatum, which caused the Austrians and Germans to mobilize troops. Russia knew this would lead to war and by this point Russia thought the war was inevitable. The Russians knew of the Archduke’s assassination ahead of time and subtly approved of it, knowing it would lead toward the war they wanted.[2]

Excerpt:

“To assume that Russia really went to war on behalf of Serbia in 1914 is naïve. Great powers do not usually mobilize armies of millions to protect the territorial integrity of minor client states. To take an obvious example from recent history, it beggars the strategic imagination to believe that the United States-led coalition truly fought the First Gulf War to reconstitute the internally recognized boundaries of Kuwait. The ‘New World Order’ of universally sanctified borders was a useful rhetorical fig leaf to cover up the sordid-but-necessary business of restoring order and predictability to Persian Gulf oil supplies and deterring further aggression that might disrupt them … There are several important observations to be made here. The first is that, at the last planning conference of Imperial Russia’s leading civilian and military officials before the July crisis, there was no mention of Serbia and only passing reference to the mobilization timetable against Germany and Austria-Hungary. The strategic issue of eth day was clear and unambiguous: Constantinople and the Straits. The second point is that, despite all the hue and cry about Russia’s Army Great Program of October 1913, and the (soon to be announced) Naval Program of March 1914—neither of which would be completed before 1917 at the earliest—Russia’s leaders were under no illusion that they would be able to wait that long before going to war.” (p. 28, 35)

Brian’s Recommendations

Gerrit Scott Dawson, Jesus Ascended: The Meaning of Christ's Continuing Incarnation

This is an excellent work on the importance of Christ's ascension, which is surprisingly neglected in the realm of theology - at least compared to other subjects, such as the atonement or incarnation. The subtitle says it all: In a culture that tends to think about heaven and earth in terms of spiritual vs. physical, the church needs to have a robust understanding of Christ's bodily ascension, because it has massive implications for how the church engages the culture. Dawson's book has a nice mix of academic and practical matter, certainly accessible to the layperson, but interacting with significant theologians both past and present. For instance, Dawson interacts with Augustine, Chrysostom, Tertullian, Luther, and Calvin, but he also engages with the works of Leslie Newbigin and T.F. Torrance (two of my favorite modern theologians). The book is divided into three sections: Part I sets the table for why the ascension is important, Part II digs into the theology of the ascension, and Part III deals with the practical implications. Part II is worth the price of the book alone, particularly the chapters "The Ascension as Public Truth" and "Union with Christ: The Head and Firstfruits." Just wonderful.

Excerpt:

"Participation in the Lord's Supper is a profound Yes to the work the Spirit desires to do. We lift up our hearts in faith and believe that the Spirit is lifting us up to the ascended Christ to be fed with his very life. This is the visible enacting and strengthening of the work of the Spirit in joining us to Christ in salvation. He quickens our faith to believe the gospel even as he unites us to Jesus, knitting us into the life of our savior and all his benefits. The Lord's Supper confirms that work and tightens the bond of our union, in as much as partaking of the Supper in faith makes us more and more conscious of who we are in Christ, seated now with him in the heavenlies. Though we are already in Christ, the sacrament reveals that our union is not static, but dynamic. It can grow and deepen as the wonderful exchange is freely entered again and again. The Lord's Supper, then, is crucial if we seek to maintain a living vision of Christ ascended."

P.D. James, The Children of Men

Set in the near future, civilization is crumbling and humanity is lost in despair as the end approaches, due to world-wide infertility. No more children; no more future; no more hope. Theodore Faron spends his remaining years in apathy, awaiting the end in relative comfort, alone, reminiscing about once was... until he is approached by Julian, a woman who may just hold the key to the survival of the human race, with Theo's help. 

This is my third time through this book, and I find new things to appreciate in every reading. P.D. James is typically known for her mysteries - this is one of her rare forays into science-fiction - and she famously weaves her Christian worldview into her stories. In The Children of Men, James makes it clear that the loss of children is judgment on a world that despises the gift of children through its pursuit of childlessness and abortion. A glimmer of hope comes in the form of a Nativity - the book is rife with Christmas symbolism (and pay attention to all of the barnyard animals that pop up throughout!).

As you may know, there is also a movie based on this book, directed by Alfonso Cuaron, that is well worth watching. While it does diverge from the book in a number of ways, it still gets the thematic elements right, and contains one of the most moving scenes in movie history, in my opinion. 

Excerpt:

"The world is changed not by the self-regarding, but by men and women prepared to make fools of themselves." This is said to our protagonist, Theo, who begins his journey as a self-regarding, self-serving academic, but becomes a selfless, sacrificial "fool." This line reminded me of the great Christian philosopher, Eugon Rosenstock-Huessy, who said that contrary to Descartes - who famously declared, "I think, therefore I am" - identities are formed by others who speak to us. Who we are is not a self-constructed determination, but comes from those who birth you, care for you, love you (hopefully) and invest in you... in other words, the people who are willing to look foolish and make goo-goo noises at the baby before them. In a very specific way, this is Theo's story. 

[1] Kenneth Gentry, He Shall Have Dominion: A Postmillennial Eschatology (Chesnee, SC: Victory Hope Publishing, 2009), 265, 283, 285, 305, 357f, 540.

[2] Sean McMeekin, The Russian Origins of the First World War, pg 31-40, 43.