The Baptists, vol. 1 of 3, by Tom Nettles

Tom Nettles, The Baptists: Key People Involved in Forming A Baptist Identity (Beginnings in Britain), Ross-shire, Scotland: Christian Focus, 2005. 390pp. Hardcover, $29.99. 

Tom Nettles teaches at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, the flagship seminary of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC). Understanding history demands patience, humility, and love. If historical personalities are not treated by one who exercises these virtues, history easily becomes a club wielded by those primarily interested in pursuing their own agenda. Nettles exercises patience, humility, and love, and this is evidenced in his ability to explain why General Baptists (whose positions Nettles’ does not hold), for instance, rejected the conclusions of the Particular Baptists (with whom Nettles agrees). One sometimes wonders if the contemporary heirs of these disputes have taken the time to understand why their opponents have rejected their conclusions. The SBC desperately needs a patient, humble, loving treatment of its Baptist heritage, and this is exactly what Tom Nettles has provided. The book under review here, Beginnings in Britain, is the first of a projected three volume series. 

This volume is broken down into three parts: In Part I, “Competing Models in Setting the Profile,” Nettles describes previous summaries of Baptist history and identifies major points of division among those who identify themselves as Baptists. Nettles describes two approaches to being Baptist. The first he labels “the soul-liberty party,” which identifies with the enlightenment and emphasizes the primacy of Christian experience. The second, which Nettles argues for, identifies with the reformation, historic Christian orthodoxy, evangelicalism, theologically integrated ecclesiology, and a conscientious Confessionalism. Nettles calls this the “coherent-truth model.” The “soul-liberty” people emphasize the doctrine of the priesthood of the believer to the point that each individual believer can pick and choose which parts of the Bible are authoritative. The “coherent-truth” people submit themselves to the authority of both Scripture and orthodox Christian thought as represented in historic creeds and confessions. 

Part I sets the stage, and the rest of this book is a biographical approach to history. Major figures have been selected, and their lives, ministerial experiences, and theological contributions are surveyed. This approach gives the volume a personal feel and makes for fascinating reading. 

Part II treats three General Baptists: John Smyth (d. 1612), Thomas Grantham (1634–1692), and Dan Taylor (1738–1816). Smyth began as a Reformed Puritan, eventually separated from the Church of England, and by 1609 concluded that church membership should be based on believers’ baptism. Smyth baptized himself because though the Mennonites and Anabaptists practiced believers’ baptism, he considered them doctrinally suspect and perhaps even heretical (63–64). He later repudiated his baptism, rejected Augustine on predestination and original sin, rejected Luther on justification by faith, and sought to join the Mennonites. 

Grantham, who like Paul was stoned for his preaching (73), drafted a confession of faith signed by 41 General Baptist ministers. Grantham held to general atonement, to election based on foreseen faith, and thought that believers could lose their salvation (74–75). Consistent with his other positions was Grantham’s view that God does not require of his creatures things they are not able to perform. This leads naturally to inclusivism (as opposed to universalism or exclusivism): if people never hear the gospel, but respond rightly to natural revelation and the law written on the heart, they “do know this Mediator virtually, and believing on the Lord as such, do know him savingly” (91, quoted from Grantham, St. Paul’s Catechism [1687], 11). 

This issue of what is required of those who are not otherwise able is at the heart of the “Modern Question.” Nettles explains, “The Modern Question plainly stated is this: ‘Whether it be the duty of all men to whom the gospel is published, to repent and believe in Christ?’” (248). What Grantham shows us is that there were erroneous responses to the Modern Question in two directions: some Particular Baptists slipped into hyper-Calvinism, mistakenly thinking that if God does not require of his creatures what they cannot do, there is no sense calling sinners to repent and believe the Gospel. Grantham shows us the other error, of inclusivism, which claims that people can be saved apart from conscious faith in Jesus Christ (people who have not heard of Christ cannot trust him, therefore God does not require them to trust him for salvation). We will see that those who held fast to both Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility avoided both hyper-Calvinism and inclusivism. 

Taylor was confirmed in the Church of England, but Particular Baptists spurred him to revisit the question of Baptism (96). When he became convinced of believers’ baptism, the Particular Baptists refused to baptize him because of his Arminian convictions (97). Taylor became a General Baptist but was forced to separate from the General Baptist General Assembly in 1769 because they refused to affirm the full deity of Christ and stand against Socinianism and Arianism. Those who went with him formed the “New Connection of General Baptists.” This group eventually united with the Particular Baptists to form the Baptist Union in 1891. Taylor avoided Pelagianism, but misunderstood Calvinism. He could not comprehend how Andrew Fuller could be both fully Calvinistic and evangelistic (the Modern Question again). He thought that regeneration, rather than preceding faith, followed and arose from it, and “took it for granted that the hyper-Calvinism of the eighteenth century did not arise at all as an aberration but constituted the essence of historic Calvinism” (105). 

Part III  deals with seven Particular Baptists: John Spilsbury (1593–1662/68), William Kiffin (c. 1616–1701), Hanserd Knollys (1598–1691), Benjamin Keach (1640–1704), John Gill (1697–1771), Andrew Fuller (1754–1815), and William Carey (1761–1834). 

Spilsbury, Kiffin, and Knollys were roughly contemporary. They were followed by Keach, who passed the torch to Gill, who was followed by Fuller, who “held the rope” for Carey.[1]

According to Nettles, Spilsbury, Kiffin, and Knollys completed the reformation by leavening its theology through their ecclesiology. Spilsbury’s views gave a clear answer to the Modern Question before it ever became an issue: he held that everyone was bound to believe the Gospel (125). This, in good biblical fashion, maintains human responsibility. An early observer called Kiffin the Father of the Particular Baptists (129). Both his parents died of the plague when he was nine. Like Spilsbury, both Kiffin and Knollys held that all were required to believe long before the Modern Question was ever asked. Nettles writes, “the issues addressed in the next century were not really such a ‘modern question’ and . . . leading Baptist Calvinists already had reasoned through the implications of the question and had preceded Fuller and Carey in the answer” (138, cf. 157). Knollys was originally a minister of the Church of England, and his resignation of that post and adoption of Baptist views resulted in much hardship. Like the Apostle Paul and Thomas Grantham, he lived through being stoned for his preaching (152). 

Benjamin Keach’s views on the atonement and the human will changed, and he became a great proponent of Particular Baptist Theology. The church he pastored in London had to move to a location that would accommodate nearly one thousand people (166). John Gill followed Benjamin Keach (after Benjamin Stinton) at the Horsly-down Church in London. Nettles finds one place where Gill “appears to hold the hyper-Calvinist view,” in that “Theoretically Gill held that the non-elect were not obligated to evangelical obedience, because the necessity of such obedience did not exist in unfallen humanity as deposited in Adam” (226). Nettles demonstrates, however, that this view did not work its way into Gill’s own practice (227). Gill disputed with Wesley, but he “did not differ in any essential theological category from the Grand Itinerant, George Whitefield” (241). 

Some took hold of Gill’s “theoretical” answer, and as a result they did not call sinners to repentance. They reasoned like Grantham: sinners are not obligated to do what they are unable to do (247–48). Helped by Jonathan Edwards’ distinction between Natural Inability—what one is physically unable to do, and Moral Inability—what one is unable to do because one is unwilling to do it (the Gospel does not call people to do what they are physically incapable of doing but to what they volitionally refuse to do)—Andrew Fuller wrote The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation, which argued for “the congruity between divine sovereignty and human responsibility” (250). Like their Baptist forefathers, Fuller joined with John Ryland Jr. and William Carey in the opinion that “the affirmative side of the Modern Question [the Gospel should be indiscriminately proclaimed and all called to believe it] was fully consistent with the strictest Calvinism” (290). These three men who held to “the strictest Calvinism” initiated the modern missions movement. Clearly “strict Calvinism” is not to be equated with “hyper-Calvinism,” which Fuller rejects as “false Calvinism” (245). There is an important point here. Hyper-Calvinism is a specific theological position. It seems today that some non-Calvinists are ready to label anyone who appears to be less evangelistic than they think themselves to be as hyper-Calvinistic. The rejection of manipulative methods and coercive techniques in favor of boldly proclaiming the pure Gospel and trusting the Spirit to quicken hearts is not less evangelistic but more so (compare Paul’s practice in 1 Cor 2:1–5). 

Tom Nettles’ important book imparts much truth that speaks directly to several battles taking place in Baptist life today: the new IMB policies on Baptism do not appear to be Landmarkist, historically speaking.[2] The move to accept people who have not been baptized as believers as members at Bethlehem Baptist Church, where John Piper pastors, has been argued against by William Kiffin, who engaged in controversy with John Bunyan over the same issue (138–42). Hanserd Knollys long ago argued against the principle behind the modern multiple campus phenomenon (158). Some contemporary Baptists allege that having a plurality of elders is not Baptist but Presbyterian, but even the General Baptist Thomas Grantham held that biblical church officers are “Elders and Deacons” (75). Moreover, the 1925 version of the Baptist Faith and Message states that the “Scriptural offices” of a Gospel church are “bishops or elders and deacons.” 

If Baptists today are to be unified, we must pursue two things: (1) the ability to articulate the positions of those with whom we disagree in a way that satisfies those who hold those positions, and (2) the fair representation both of what the Bible indicates and of the historical record. We must approach those with whom we disagree from a spirit of brotherly love. If we consider others benighted by mistaken conclusions, let us dialogue with them in such a way that they feel that we love them and want to help them. There is no place for caricature and misrepresentation for rhetorical advantage. The book discussed here is a model of the kind of contributions needed. This history will take us a long way toward understanding those who have gone before us. May many Baptists read this book that Tom Nettles has given to us. It will inform our discussions, and we will surely be inspired and humbled by the faithful suffering of our forefathers. Let us remember them, consider the outcome of their lives, and imitate their faith (Heb 13:7).

---

[1]John Ryland Jr. reported on Andrew Fuller’s words as follows, “Our undertaking to India really appeared to me, on its commencement, to be somewhat like a few men, who were deliberating about the importance of penetrating into a deep mine, which had never before been explored. We had no one to guide us, and while we were thus deliberating, Carey, as it were, said, ‘Well, I will go down if you will hold the rope.’ But before he went down, (continued Mr. Fuller,) he, as it seemed to me, took an oath from each of us, at the mouth of the pit, to this effect, that [we] ‘while we lived, should never let go of the rope.’ You understand me. There was great responsibility attached to us who began the business” (267, the bracketed note is Nettles’, quoted from John Ryland Jr., Life and Death of the Reverend Andrew Fuller [London, 1816], 251).

[2]See also Gregory A. Wills, Democratic Religion: Freedom, Authority, and Church Discipline in the Baptist South 1785–1900 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), 6: “most Baptists would not recognize what they termed alien immersion—immersion performed by non-Baptists—conceiving that no minister who believed in infant baptism could validly baptize even by immersion.”

Ringing the Bell for the Next Generation: Voddie Baucham’s Family Driven Faith

Many American churches are in many ways more American than they are Christian. This is reflected in the way that the “Christians” in these churches—and their kids—think about the world. For many, sitcoms, movies, and pop culture have a greater influence on what is considered relevant than does the Word of God. The standards by which things are evaluated, the measure of what is worthwhile, and the goals and hopes people have are shaped more by what they see on the screen than what they read in The Book.

Voddie Baucham’s book Family Driven Faith helpfully diagnoses this problem, and Baucham proposes a solution. This book strikes me as an important application of the truths explored by David Wells in his four books: No Place for Truth, God in the Wasteland, Losing Our Virtue, and Above All Earthly Pow’rs. It’s as though Voddie has applied Wells’ concerns to the family.

This book is a must read for anyone in ministry. If you want proof of the importance of what Voddie says here, go read W. Bradford Wilcox’s essay in First Things, “As Goes the Family.” This is one of those essays so important that Dr. Mohler summarized it on his blog.

If you care about the next generation being more Christian than American, you should read this book. And if you’re in the Houston area, check out the first annual “Family Integrated Church Conference” hosted by Grace Family Baptist Church, where Voddie serves as the preaching elder.

I think that one of the highest compliments I can give to a book is that I’m going to recommend it to my sweet wife for her to read. This is a high compliment because as a mother of small children, her time to read is scarce, and because she is my own dear wife and the mother of my kids, I care very much about what she reads.

I didn’t even need to recommend this one, though, because she read it before I could get to it myself!

Devoted to the Service of the Temple: Piety, Persecution, and Ministry in the Writings of Hercules Collins

The new book exploring the spirituality of 17th century Baptist pastor Hercules Collins is now in stock at Reformation Heritage Books and available for order online here.

Description:

While largely forgotten in modern times, Hercules Collins (1646/7-1702) was highly influential among the late 17^th and early 18^th century Calvinistic Baptists of London. Through a biographical sketch and 35 sample selections collected from Collins’s writings, Michael A. G. Haykin and Steve Weaver introduce us to the vibrant spirituality of this colossal figure.

Product Details:

ISBN: 9781601780225

FORMAT: Paperback, 160 pages

RETAIL PRICE: $10.00

Commendations:

“Hercules Collins is one of the great figures from our Baptist heritage—a pastor who suffered much for the cause of Christ and left a great legacy for generations that followed. There is something especially compelling about the witness of a man who was oppressed and imprisoned for his faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. The witness of Hercules Collins as pastor, prisoner, and preacher is worthy of the closest attention in our own times. We are indebted to Michael Haykin and Steve Weaver for bringing Hercules Collins to life for a new generation.” —R. ALBERT MOHLER, JR.

“The secret of Collins’s courage and strength lay in his relationship with the Lord Christ. The enormous contemporary value of reading his life and writings is not just in its exposition of his evangelistic methodology, and its indirect comments on today’s broader theological scene, but in the inspiration it gives to the heart of each Christian for growth in grace and deeper spirituality.” —GEOFF THOMAS

“We are indebted to Michael Haykin and Steve Weaver for these carefully chosen selections …. For too long Baptists have had little access to the richness of their theological tradition. We have a great past, and many able servants have given their lives to the cause of our churches, and yet so few of their works have been reprinted. This book continues a very encouraging recent trend, in which the best works are being restored to print. May the Lord bless this book, and the efforts of its editors.” - From the FOREWARD by JAMES M. RENIHAN

Authors:

MICHAEL A. G. HAYKIN is Professor of Church History and Biblical Spirituality, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Kentucky & Research Professor of Irish Baptist College, Constituent College of Queen’s University Belfast, N. Ireland.

STEVE WEAVER is the pastor of West Broadway Baptist Church in Lenoir City, Tennessee.

Previews:

Front Cover

Back Cover

Foreword by James Renihan

Excerpt #1: “God is the Gospel”

Excerpt #2: “Plain Preaching”

Laus Deo Interview

Lord willing, I’ll be joining Dr. Paul Wolfe on his weekly radio program, Laus Deo (Praise to God) Sunday afternoon, August 12, from 4pm to 5pm (CST). I believe the plan is to discuss my book, God’s Indwelling Presence.

You can listen by tuning into FamilyNet Christian Radio Channel 161 (satellite radio), you can call in, or you can download the program and listen later.

Review of Jesus and the Origins of the Gentile Mission, by Michael F. Bird

Michael F. Bird, Jesus and the origins of the Gentile Mission, Library of Historical Jesus Studies. New York: T&T Clark, 2007. 212 pp. $140.00, Hardcover.

This published version of Michael Bird’s dissertation, done at the University of Queensland down under, asks the question: to what extent did the views of the historical Jesus provide the impetus for the later Gentile mission? The book is not concerned with what Jesus said after the resurrection, in the obvious great commission, but with what Jesus did prior to the cross that might have set patterns for the theory and praxis of the mission to the Gentiles carried out by his followers.

Bird is challenging the prominent position put forward by Joachim Jeremias, and contributing to work done by the likes of G. B. Caird, N. T. Wright, and Eckhard Schnabel. The standard view, which Bird convincingly improves upon, holds that Jesus exhibited no hope for the Gentiles beyond a general expectation that they would be saved at the eschaton. Against this, Bird argues that “Jesus’ intention was to renew and restore Israel, so that a restored Israel would extend God’s salvation to the world” (3). Because Jesus understood himself and his followers as replacing the temple and taking on the role of being a light to the nations, “a Gentile mission is implied in the aims and intentions of Jesus and was pursued in a transformed context by members of the early Christian movement” (3).

Bird advances his case in Chapter 2 by showing that Jesus’ understanding of Jewish restoration eschatology saw the Gentiles being saved as a sequel to the restoration of Israel. Chapter 3 then explains that neither the negative remarks Jesus makes about Gentiles (calling them “dogs”) nor Jesus’ restriction of his ministry to Israel are in conflict with this understanding of how and when the Gentiles would be included. Chapters 4 and 5 advance the argument by presenting “sayings material” and “narrative traditions” that lead to Bird’s understanding. Chapter 6 concludes the argument by contending that the disciples appropriate the role of Israel and the temple as “light to the nations.” Bird thus helpfully establishes that the mission of the early church flows naturally out of Jesus’ own mission prior to the resurrection.

This volume is commendable for its comprehensive interaction with both scholarship on the question and the relevant ancient sources. The book’s real contribution comes in the plausible explanation of how Jesus understood his role and mission developing naturally out of his understanding of the Old Testament, with the early church then carrying the program forward.

Mike Bird is a prolific and clever writer, whose prose is only encumbered by the restrictions of the guild, which makes it necessary for him to enter into less than interesting discussion of the authenticity of this or that statement. Jesus and the Origins of the Gentile Mission, however, is a book whose thesis transcends the limitations of the disputed field of historical Jesus studies. That is to say, even those who think that discussions of authenticity are unnecessary will find Bird’s thesis stimulating and helpful. This is an important book with an engaging and convincing argument, and it is unfortunate that its price makes its availability limited.

SWBTS Bloggers

I am thrilled to see this new site: http://swbtsbloggers.wordpress.com/.

This site will link to the blogs of the faculty and students of Southwestern Seminary.

Let the word go forth!

New Mooney Blog

It’s always encouraging when solid thinkers join the blogosphere. Today it’s my privilege to point to a blog that has just come to my attention.

I met Jeff Mooney while we were both students at SBTS. We didn’t get to spend a lot of time together, but everything I know about him I respect and appreciate. He arrived at SBTS to study under Paul House, and the published version of his dissertation on the Day of Atonement in Leviticus 16 should be out in the near future from Edwin Mellen Press.

He now teaches at California Baptist University and serves a local church. Check out his new blog here.

Grudem’s Response to Piper on Baptism

Anyone who is vaguely aware of John Piper’s position on Baptism should check out Wayne Grudem’s response to Piper’s post on the way that Grudem revised what he had written on Baptism.

I love Piper. I have learned a ton from him, and I resonated with everything in Mark Dever’s tribute to him. But I think that Grudem’s reply to Piper’s position is absolutely devastating, and I pray that Piper will change his mind.

This interchange is a model of godly interaction between brothers who disagree. Praise God for both of these men and their example to us!

Another David Wells Interview, and the Capstone of a Great Series

Praise God for Mark Dever and 9Marks ministries!

Click this link right now and go download this interview that Dever has done with David Wells.  Don’t keep reading, go get the interview. While you’re downloading, you should get the first one with David Wells from a couple years ago, too.

You’re back from the other page–you got the interview? Okay, we can go forward.

As I scrolled through to find that first Wells interview, I thought about recommending a few of my favorites, but the list started to get too long. So I’ll simply link to the archives page and recommend that you listen to all of these. Put them on your MP3 player and enjoy. Thank God that Dever lets us listen in as he poses great questions to these knowledgeable folks.

And the Final Installment of Dever’s 10 part answer to the question “Where’d All These Calvinists Come From?” is here. Here’s his concluding paragraph:

This is Christianity straight and undiluted.  And the questing, probing spirit of the rising generation has, by this God’s grace, found this Rock.  May they stand upon it faithfully in these unbelieving times, until God calls them home to Himself.

Amen. And Hallelujah!

Justin Taylor has links to the first 9 posts, and he contributes his own number 11, the web.

May the Lord bring reformation in our day. . .

Review of Why John Wrote a Gospel

Published in JETS 50.2 (2007), 396-98. Posted here by permission.

Why John Wrote a Gospel: Jesus–Memory–History. By Tom Thatcher. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2006, 193pp. $24.95. 

Tom Thatcher, Associate Professor of New Testament at Cincinnati Christian University, sets out to explain Why John Wrote a Gospel. His thesis is hinted at in the subtitle, Jesus–Memory–History. 

Seeking to explain why John would commit a Gospel to writing, Thatcher argues against the view that John sought to provide a historical archive of what Jesus said and did so that others would trust Jesus. Thatcher contends that the Gospel of John testifies against this way of understanding its author’s purpose. Discussing texts such as John 2:17, 22; 7:37–39; 12:16, 31–33; 13:6–11; 20:9, Thatcher suggests regarding John 12:32–33 that the disciples “subsequent recall of the saying was thus somewhat different from, and in John’s view better informed than, their first memory of Jesus’ words” (30). But these texts in John do not tell us that it was the disciples’ recall that was different. The texts say that it was their understanding of what was recalled that was different. John does not say that the disciples remembered something different than what actually happened. Rather, he recounts what happened, and then he notes the disciples’ post-easter insight into what happened. 

This is a crucial point because it informs the whole of Thatcher’s argument. Thatcher writes, “In these three cases [John 7:37–39; 12:31–33; 13:6–11], as with John 2:22 and 12:16, the disciples’ memories of Jesus—the initial recollections of those people who witnessed his actions, based on their empirical experiences—must have been altered in light of the deeper understanding to follow” (30, emphasis added). He then suggests that John’s account of what happened has undergone “revision through memory,” such that John was “oblivious” to the “problem” that he “consistently postures his images of Jesus as someone’s direct ‘witness,’ yet makes these recollections contingent upon a subsequent faith in Jesus’ resurrection and the Christian interpretation of the Hebrew Bible” (31–32). This explains Thatcher’s subtitle: Jesus–Memory–History. The “history” is “Jesus” once he has been revised through “memory.” 

It is important to point out that John is claiming to describe what actually happened during Jesus’ life, then explicitly noting how his interpretation of those words and deeds changed after the resurrection. On the basis of these places where the author presents a historical incident, notes a misunderstanding, and then notes later understanding, Thatcher is claiming that John was unable to distinguish between what happened and his own altered interpretation of what happened (“John . . . apparently oblivious to this problem . . .” [32]). 

According to Thatcher, “John portrays memory as a gift of the Holy Spirit to all believers after Jesus’ death and glorification” (32). He argues that in John’s view the anointing of the Spirit described in 1 John 2:20–27 makes a written historical archive unnecessary (32–33). He claims that most of John’s contemporaries would have been illiterate or would have had no access to texts of the Gospel. He claims that written documents have “symbolic value” (40). Then the conclusion is posited, “It seems likely, then, that John wrote a Gospel primarily to capitalize on the potential symbolic value of writing” (48; cf. 142). Each of the premises on which this conclusion is based are, being as kind as possible, questionable. Can Thatcher’s reading of 1 John 2:20–27 bear the weight he puts on it? Does John present the Spirit functioning in lieu of, or in conjunction with, his own eyewitness account of what happened during Jesus’ life? What if more people could read than Thatcher thinks? If there is so much symbolic value in written documents, why did the AntiChrists (see below) not write their own “gospel” until much later, and why were these not more successful? The early Christian rejection of spurious documents, the loss of many other written documents, and the careful preservation of the biblical texts would seem to indicate that biblical books were understood to possess more than merely “symbolic value.” Can the “symbolic value” of the biblical texts account for the astonishing growth of the church in spite of its inauspicious beginnings, regular persecution and disadvantage, and the martyrdom of key leaders? 

Thatcher argues that the Epistles of John were written first, and then in order to counter the AntiChrists John wrote the Fourth Gospel. The Gospel of John was not written as a historical archive of what actually happened. John has the Spirit, he does not need the written record. Further, “the persuasive power of appeals to ‘what the book says’ is enhanced by the fact that most people can’t check the book to challenge these claims” (142). The Gospel served a symbolic function. The people who sided with John pointed to the authoritative written text to settle disputes, even if they could not check what it said for themselves. Does Thatcher suppose that ancient people would be persuaded by the symbolic power of a document whose contents they could not verify? Thatcher describes John and his allies as exploiting the “vagueness inherent in memory” (153). The evidence in Richard Bauckham’s recent Jesus and the Eyewitnesses would weigh against such suppositions. 

Some sections of this book seem to legitimate the position held by the opponents of John (see esp. 74–81). Thatcher does not argue for the position held by the AntiChrists, but he does write, 

“Applying these principles to the problem at hand, it seems that the AntiChrists were a threat to John, not simply because they disagreed with his theological position, but because they were able to create a coherent and appealing Christian countermemory [sic] of Jesus. . . . There is, in fact, no clear evidence that the AntiChrists rejected John’s traditional database or doubted that Jesus did most of what John claims that he did. Nor is it clear that the AntiChrists developed their vision by importing alien, Gnostic elements into the orthodox Johannine framework; certainly there is no evidence to suggest that they thought they were doing this or intended to do so” (79–80).

What is perhaps most surprising about this book is Thatcher’s audacity. He overturns the authority of the Gospel of John by unhinging it from historical reality and reshaping it into John’s creative attempt to make Jesus relevant to his situation (85). He then suggests in many places that the way John remembered things is analogous to the way that he has remembered and interpreted his own experiences. Thatcher gives many of his own experiences as examples of the ways all people remember things—he tells of the time he threw a rock through a church window (54–58), of the way he remembers how to operate his lawnmower and advise students (59), of what happened among some Roman Catholics who claimed visions of Mary in his home town (93–99), of the way he [mis]remembers the Wounded Knee Massacre (112–119), of reading to his son about an African spider-god (120–21), and of the way he believes he saw a World Series game in person, even though he knows he wasn’t at the game, and then he tells of how he is not sure whether it was a World Series game or a regular season game and does not know the year it took place (145–46). If I believed all this was analogous to the way John remembered, I would be very depressed, yea, hopeless. Thatcher expresses his greetings to a doctoral student who may be writing a thesis “a century from now” on “the major concerns of Johannine scholarship in the twentieth century” (159), but a surprisingly small amount of space in the 167 pages of this book is given to discussing the actual words and concepts found in the Gospel and Epistles of John. The Gospel of John will continue to command attention, but I find it difficult to even take the argument of Why John Wrote a Gospel seriously.