Gregg Strawbridge: An Appreciation

I cannot say for sure what year it was. It would have been between 2003-2005. I was the minister of East Columbus Church of Christ in Columbus, MS and was working in my office at the church when the phone rang. The man on the other end explained that he was visiting family while on vacation and was looking for a Church of Christ minister who knew something about the history of the movement. My car was scheduled to be serviced, so I dropped it off and arranged for the caller to pick me up at the dealership. We went to a Mexican restaurant and sat down to eat and to talk. The man was a Presbyterian minister from Pennsylvania. His name was Gregg Strawbridge.

Gregg was the first Presbyterian I ever met, the first Reformed Christian I ever talked to. I had grown up in the Churches of Christ, and even though I had been called to full-time ministry in those churches in 1998, my contact with Christians in other communions was very limited. That was partly due to the fact that I didn’t think there were Christians in other communions, at least, not any faithful Christians. I had been taught to believe--and for many years taught--that the Churches of Christ were the only faithful churches, and not even all of them qualified. Denominationalists were in denominations because they did not believe the Bible. Some of them might have been scripturally baptized, usually if they had been baptized in a Church of Christ, but most of them were in no meaningful sense Christians. That was my frame of reference when I met Gregg Strawbridge. Those beliefs and assumptions took a long time to change, many years in fact, but I can tell you when they began to change. It was when I ate lunch at a Mexican restaurant and spent a couple of hours talking to Gregg Strawbridge.

When Gregg picked me up for lunch, he was immediately friendly, kind, and respectful. He did not treat me the way that I viewed him. He treated me as a brother in Christ, as a Christian. We sat down and began to talk, and God began planting seeds of grace in my heart. I had no idea how profoundly that conversation with Gregg would shape me, but I continued to think about it for many years. He had asked to meet to talk about the history of the Churches of Christ. The most prominent organizers of what became known as the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement were originally Presbyterians, and Gregg had been doing research on that topic. I was not an expert, but I was a fifth generation member of the Church of Christ and had done a lot of reading. We talked about the Churches of Christ and Thomas and Alexander Campbell, but we quickly moved on to other topics. Maybe it was because I didn’t have much knowledge to share. Maybe Gregg realized I could not be as helpful as he had hoped. Or maybe he simply loved talking about the Scriptures. Whatever the reason, we began discussing the Bible, and the conversation that followed began, slowly, to change my life.

The Lord had already begun exposing me to Reformed theology, though I did not realize it. I had read J. I. Packer’s Knowing God and Jerry Bridges’s The Practice of Godliness some years before and was profoundly impacted by both books. I first heard John MacArthur preaching on the radio while serving a little church south of Birmingham, AL from 1999-2002. I would tune in every week as I drove to teach a Bible study. I didn’t know who MacArthur was. I didn’t even know his name for several weeks because I never heard the beginning or end of the program. But the sermon in the middle was thoroughly biblical. I am ashamed to admit how astonished I was that a preacher outside the Church of Christ could be so committed to Scripture. After listening for several weeks, I concluded this radio preacher might even be a Christian! It would be many years before I realized how many Reformed authors and influences God had placed in my life, years before I attempted to preach through a book of the Bible as I heard John MacArthur do, years before I realized these men all agreed on the sovereign and efficacious nature of God’s saving grace.

Gregg did not disparage or directly confront any of my idiosyncratic and unbiblical beliefs that day. He simply talked to me about the Bible. He pointed out things I had never noticed in texts I had read all my life. He listened to me when I spoke and treated me as a brother worthy of respect, even though I didn’t know what I was talking about. He raised questions that would remain with me for many years only to bear fruit at a later point in time. I had no idea that I would ever leave the Churches of Christ, no idea that one day I would be the Reformed pastor reaching out to ministers in the Churches of Christ, no idea that my meeting with Gregg would become an important way station on my journey to the Celestial City. But since embracing the doctrines of grace in 2011-2012 and joining a Reformed communion in 2016, I have told dozens and dozens of people my story about meeting Gregg Strawbridge.

When I realized almost ten years later what God was doing in my life in leading me to the Reformed faith, I reached out to Gregg online. I did not expect him to remember me, but he did, and I thanked him for the ways God had used that first meeting to bless and encourage me. He rejoiced with me in how the Lord continued to lead and bless my life and ministry and in the changes I was making. We remained in irregular contact by email after that. I would reach out to him periodically to express appreciation for his influence in my life and to share with him what I was learning and questions I had. I contacted him when I came to love the Book of Common Prayer and began learning about Reformed liturgy. I shared with him sermon notes and blog articles on various topics, and he continued to encourage me in various ways. I listened to his debates and sermons and continue to learn from him even today. I was last in contact with him in August of last year. I used some of his material on reconciliation in preparing a workshop on biblical peacemaking, and I sent him what I developed and acknowledged my debt to him and his work.

I had no idea where my first conversation with Gregg would lead or how it would continue to shape me even after I became Reformed. My contact with Gregg was a major factor in my own pursuit of Reformed catholicity. His grace toward me was a model I continue to aspire to but consistently fall short of. He did not have to treat me with the kindness that he did. I did not recognize him as a brother. I thank God that he recognized me.

When I woke up this morning, I learned that Gregg had a massive heart attack and died on Wednesday. We were not close friends. I never met his family, visited his church, or saw him in person since that one visit in Mississippi almost twenty years ago. But I have never forgotten our conversation, and I will continue to thank God for it and for him as long as I live.

ALMIGHTY and everliving God, we yield unto thee most high praise and hearty thanks, for the wonderful grace and virtue declared in all thy saints, who have been the choice vessels of thy grace, and the lights of the world in their several generations; most humbly beseeching thee to give us grace so to follow the example of their stedfastness in thy faith, and obedience to thy holy commandments, that at the day of the general Resurrection, we, with all those who are of the mystical body of thy Son, may be set on his right hand, and hear that his most joyful voice: Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. Grant this, O Father, for the sake of the same, thy Son Jesus Christ, our only Mediator and Advocate. Amen. (1928 BCP)

Precious in the sight of the LORD is the death of his saints. (Psalm 116:15)

--JME

Book Review: "It's Good To Be A Man"

Michael Foster and Dominic Bnonn Tennant. It’s Good to Be a Man: A Handbook for Godly Masculinity. Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2021. Reviewed by Joel Ellis, January 2022.

The authors of It’s Good to Be a Man have not attempted “to create a timeless work but a timely one” (225). What they have written is a concise and accessible manifesto propounding a biblical alternative to the secular manosphere and the red pill response to feminism in the broader culture. “Every boy is born a male--but manhood is something into which he must mature” (107). This requires teaching men who they are as image-bearers of God, made for dominion (17-22), instilling a sense of the goodness of masculinity, warped though it will inevitably be in a fallen world (25-27), attaining manhood by learning sonship under the Fatherhood of God (107-125), cultivating masculine virtues of wisdom, workmanship, and strength (145-149), and pursuing mission (175-187) within a spiritual brotherhood (189-206).

Chapter one begins by laying a foundation for the authors’ discussion. “Patriarchy is inevitable,” they affirm. “Men were made to rule…. It is not a question of whether men will be ruling, but which ones and how” (1, emp. in original). Thus in a fallen world, we can expect the appearance of “an evil patriarchy: the rulership of wicked fathers, who do not represent the fatherhood of God” (5). Foster and Tennant briefly survey biblical texts in describing how this evil patriarchy targets young men by seeking to harness, pacify, and finally destroy them (7-15). The next three chapters respond to these attacks by demonstrating the creational goodness of masculinity (ch.2) and sex (ch.3) and by describing the war on sex and why the Devil hates and opposes it (ch.4). This last point may seem counterintuitive, but the authors employ biblical theology and ontology to demonstrate Satan’s “primordial strategy of turning the sexes against each other--and against God” (50).

Chapter five places the struggle within and against God’s creational order in its spiritual context, as a spiritual war regarding worship. Citing the work of Peter Jones and supporting it by referencing secular authors, Foster and Tennant argue, “Androgyny is a foundational doctrine of paganism” (59). Chapter six chronicles the war between the two humanities, those in Adam and those in Christ, that unfolds through redemptive history and how that story displays the persistent problem of “toxic sexuality.” They explain: “Toxic sexuality exists for both sexes. In both cases, it takes the form of a spiritual subversion of God’s design. So just as there really is toxic masculinity--wicked patriarchy--there is also toxic femininity” (75). Chapter seven describes the effects of this war in “The Church Effeminate.” This may be the most controversial chapter in the book for many readers, but the authors provide a helpful caution against the false dilemma, so common in churches today, between “man as trapped spirit” and “man as biological machine.” They insist, “We must reject both the pietistic neo-Gnosticism of evangelical androgyny and the mechanistic materialism of evolutionary psychology” (95-98).

The second half of the book outlines a model, drawn from Scripture, for masculinity that glorifies God and serves one’s family, church, and neighbor faithfully and effectively. Chapter eight describes the need to learn manhood by first learning sonship. Many men will not receive this mentoring from their biological father, but every believer has such a relationship with their heavenly Father. Chapters nine and ten discuss the masculine virtues of wisdom, workmanship, and strength which every godly man ought to cultivate and employ in his social responsibilities. Chapter eleven cautions men against the “red pill rage” which has developed as a secular (and ungodly) response to feminism and the madness regarding gender in western culture. Instead, godly men will find strength to be faithful and to endure in submitting to Christ and focusing their strength on the missio Dei. Chapter twelve unpacks that mission in more personal and individual terms, helping men to understand how to serve God where he has called them. Chapter thirteen describes the necessity of brotherhood, and chapter fourteen concludes the book with a discussion on “The Excellence of Marriage.”

Foster and Tennant finish the book by stating: “Our goal has been to give every man a place to start. Whether you are single, married, or divorced, young or old, wealthy or broke, driven or listless, starting out or starting again, you have to start somewhere--and that is with being a man” (226, emp. in original). The book is a call to action, to faithfulness, to obedience and submission to God by taking responsibility and exercising leadership and rule in God-honoring ways. No doubt, many will find the title and contents provocative, but the substance of the book is biblical, accessible, and ought to be largely unobjectionable to those who look to Scripture for authoritative guidance in matters of gender and gender roles. This volume can be a helpful resource for discipling men, especially young men, and helping to offset the hostility toward masculinity which they are exposed to in our current social context. --JME

2021 Reading: Q4 & Final Summary

As I write this, there are still more than four and half hours left in 2021 in the time zone where I am sitting, and two hours more than that at my usual residence, so it is entirely possible at least one more volume will be added to my 2021 Reading Log before the new year commences. But I am content to draft the fourth quarter review and yearly summary now. It is entirely possible I will have more to say next year about the volume that remains incomplete at the moment, but it is unnecessary to say anymore about it here.

I previously posted reviews of my reading in the first quarter, second quarter, and third quarter of the year, as well as a description of my plan for reading in 2021 and the way in which I have recorded the books I read. The plan for 2022 has already been written, but its description will be posted in a separate note.

I completed 36 books during the fourth quarter after finishing 25 titles in quarter one, 21 in quarter two, and 33 in quarter three. The total volumes finished for 2021 stands at 115. While I expected a drop-off in my total volumes read in the fourth quarter, the opposite occurred. My reading pace increased during the second half of the year, a trend that I hope bodes well for 2022 when I anticipate several new challenges to my regular reading.

 

Quarter 1	Quarter 2	Quarter 3	Quarter 4
Jan: 7	Apr: 8	July: 10	Oct: 12
Feb: 6	May: 7	Aug: 14	Nov: 6
Mar: 12	June: 6	Sep: 9	Dec: 18
Total: 25	Total: 21	Total: 33	Total: 36
Total for 2021: 115

 

My fourth quarter reading included ten works of theology (8 in December alone), one volume of philosophy, four classics, one work on current events, and three biographies. I finished the year with 32 works of theology, 4 of philosophy, 4 of history, 18 classics, 4 on current events, 1 on ministry, 9 biographies, 8 on personal development, and 17 which I re-read yearly. None of the volumes are listed in multiple categories which creates one of the challenges in logging reading as I have in 2021. Many volumes could fit under multiple headings--the distinction between theology and philosophy or current events and ministry are not always easy to identify. I decided to list each volume once under the most representative category.

 

Category	2021 Goal	2021 Actual
Theology	12	32
Philosophy	12	4
History	12	4
Classics	12	18
Current Events	8	4
Ministry	4	1
Biography	4	9
Personal Development	4	8
Re-reads	18	17

 

I am content with the distribution of my reading in 2021. My only disappointment is in the area of philosophy and history; however, several of the works I categorized as Theology could also be placed under Philosophy, and I more than doubled the number of Biographies I originally planned to read, all of which could also fit under the heading of History. I realized early in the year that Current Events and Ministry are not useful categories for much of my regular reading. Some attention to each of these areas is necessary, but my soul (to say nothing of my work) is better served by feeding on Theology, History, Philosophy, and Classics. I continue to urge and encourage those who wish to read more and more profitably to adopt a strategy and plan for reading. My specific plan is adjusted every year, but I have found that simply having a plan and recording my yearly reading for the last several years has been immensely helpful.

 

Here are three highlights from the fourth quarter that deserve special mention.

First, Neil Postman’s The Disappearance of Childhood is the third book by the philosopher of technology I have read, and while Technopoly remains my favorite, this one also gave me a lot to think about. Postman is writing as a secularist, yet his insights are profound. There are a number of ideas in this volume worth developing, and I expect I will revisit it at some point in the near future. Postman postulates that popularization of the written word largely created what we think of as childhood and that the pervasiveness of digital media is causing childhood to disappear. His thesis is fascinating, compelling, and useful.

Second, Iain Murray’s The Puritan Hope has been on my shelf for a couple of years, but I never got around to reading it. I only regret waiting so long to do so. It is certainly one of my favorites of this year. A work of historical theology, Murray discusses the eschatological optimism of the Puritans. While disagreeing among themselves on certain points of exegesis and expectations for the future, the volume manifests the consistent hopefulness and confidence our Puritan fathers had in the power of Christ and the outworking of gospel ministry.

Third, C. H. Spurgeon’s John Ploughman’s Talk was witty, winsome, and wise. I laughed out loud repeatedly while reading it and sent many excerpts to elders, deacons, and friends. Spurgeon steps into the character of John Ploughman, a plain-spoken Christian with a gift for discernment and description. Though I would quibble with a couple of minor jabs he takes at Presbyterians, the work is thoroughly delightful, entertaining, and useful. I highly recommend it.

As I look back over the master list of books I read in 2021, I see many that I enjoyed and profited from that have gone unmentioned in these reviews. Some are not ones I would recommend to a general audience, being more specific in their target readers or content. Others were enjoyable or helpful for more personal reasons. But I am thankful for (almost) all of them. Those I profited from the most will probably be reread in the next few years, and those that are not might not have been worth reading at all. Every year the list of books I reread grows and the number of new volumes I read diminishes. This is by design. I am reading today to find the handful of books I want to reread in my final days. But life is only a vapor, and it is more likely that I will continue to reread books without realizing that I am doing so during my final days. I cannot know how many volumes I have left to read in my life, so I aspire to choose wisely and to spend what minutes and hours I have left reading the books that have been my best teachers and have most inspired me. I hope in some way these brief reflections will help and inspire you as well in pursuing a more disciplined and satisfying reading life. --JME

Thanksgiving 2021

Today the United States pauses for a day of thanksgiving. But since our society has largely jettisoned the concept of a divine governor to whom we owe thanks, the holy-day has become, in most cases, a festival of gluttony, football, and self-recrimination. Secularists will feel undirected gratitude for the happy accidents of prosperity in their primate existence which stand in contrast to the sea of pointlessness which characterizes their daily lives. Social justice warriors will spend the day feeling superior to other people as they lament the colonization, exploitation, and racism upon which this nation was founded. Many people will give no thought at all to the day beyond being thankful not to be at work. They will express their joy in a day of leisure by gorging themselves on food and intoxicating themselves with alcohol before capping the day off with heartburn, nausea, and a hangover. Unbelievers have all the fun.

As Christians we know that our God is the Giver of every good and perfect gift. We owe thanks to him for all the good that we enjoy in this world. Therefore believers should not observe Thanksgiving the way unbelievers do. The Lord may not have consecrated the fourth Thursday in November as a holy day of thanksgiving, but he has commanded his saints to give thanks, and while we ought at all times to do so, it is good and proper especially to do so when the civil magistrate sets aside a particular day for that purpose. So eat the fat, drink the sweet, sing the hymns of Zion, and give thanks to the God of heaven. Make this day one of holy, grateful feasting, and as you eat and drink or whatever you do today, do it to the glory of God. --JME

Preface to the 2021 Advent Series

Every year at ROPC we preach an “Advent series” during the Christmas season from the last Sunday in November until December 25th. Some Presbyterians are vexed by this and describe it as papist and a product of human tradition, but the Continental Reformed churches have upheld the value of the “evangelical feast days,” i.e. those days which historically commemorated significant events in redemptive history recorded in Scripture: Christmas, Good Friday, Christ’s Resurrection, Ascension, and Pentecost.[1] Our yearly Advent series focuses attention on biblical texts and themes related to the Lord’s Incarnation and first Advent. These are truths the Church ought to remember, meditate upon, and celebrate at all times, and there is no biblical warrant for spurning such celebration during the winter months of the year.[2]

This year our Advent studies will be divided into two parts. In the morning services each week, I will be preaching a series on biblical theology related to the typology of Eve, Mary, and God’s promise to bring salvation and blessing out of the barrenness of sin and judgment. In the evening services, Dane will be unpacking the doctrine of the Incarnation summarized in the Larger Catechism questions 36-42. It is hoped that these two series will complement one another, helping us all to better understand and appreciate both the poetry and the propositions by which God has made his salvation known.

I should say a few things about the morning series before it begins lest it be misunderstood. The Roman church has made much of Mary, and much of what they have said about her and the devotion arising from it is plainly unbiblical, even idolatrous. If Rome has said too much about the mother of our Lord, then many Protestants have said too little. It is not uncommon for evangelicals to shun ancient language that is creedal, thoroughly biblical, and ought to be uncontroversial--such as referring to Mary as Theotokos or Mother of God. This is an overreaction against Roman errors, but orthodoxy and piety are not well-served by steering into the ditch on the other side of the road.

The name Theotokos (God-Bearer) was used to refer to Mary by the Council of Chalcedon in AD 451, long before the superstitious errors of Rome had grown to their present proportions.[3] If some think we ought to reject such language now given the misuse Rome makes of it, it should be noted this was not the position of our Reformed fathers even after the Council of Trent. Francis Turretin affirms:

“XI. Mary is rightly called the Mother of God (theotokos) in the concrete and specifically because she brought forth him who is also God, but not in the abstract and reduplicatively as God. Although this is not expressly stated in the Scriptures, still it is sufficiently intimated when she is called the mother of the Lord (Lk. 1:43) and the mother of Immanuel. If the blessed virgin brought nothing to the person of the Logos (Logou) absolutely considered, still she can be said to have brought something to the person of the incarnate Logos (Logou) economically considered, inasmuch as she gave the human nature which he took into the unity of person. 

“XII. The title Mother of God given to the virgin was perverted by superstitious men into an occasion of idolatry… Although, I say, this most gross error either arose from or was increased by this occasion, it derogates nothing from the truth because the abuse and error of the papists ought not to take away the lawful use of this name.” --Institutes of Elenctic Theology Vol. 2, 13.7.11–12, p. 320 (emp. added)

Even more recently, Geerhardus Vos wrote at the beginning of the 20th century:

“It must in fact be said: Mary gave birth to God (according to His human nature); that is to say, the subject, who is God, has undergone the process of being born by the Virgin Mary.” --Geerhardus Vos, Reformed Dogmatics Vol. 3, 61

We should lament both the idolatrous excess of Rome which terms Mary a Co-Mediatrix in God’s work of redemption to whom the Church may address prayers as well as the Protestant reactionary ambivalence toward a servant of God so greatly favored and used to bring salvation to earth. R. C. Sproul observed in a sermon:

“Because of… the heretical veneration Rome has given to Mary over the centuries, Protestants tend to flee so far in the other direction that we almost despise this one who was highly favored by the Lord, who was filled with the grace of God, and who was a model of submission to the authority of God Himself.” --R. C. Sproul, “Mary’s Fiat” (Nov. 13, 2011) https://www.ligonier.org/learn/sermons/marys-fiat

In that same sermon, Sproul decries and denies any parallel that may be drawn between Mary and Eve in the history of redemption, and so further explanation is needed to justify what we hope to introduce and explore this year. Simply stated, Rome’s errors and superstitions regarding Mary became possible because her role in redemptive history is so significant. There are many parallels that may be drawn from the pages of Scripture between Mary and Eve as well as many other women, wives, and mothers in Israel that lived in between. These parallels are neither an exercise in cloud-watching nor a manifestation of covert Roman Catholicism; they are observations of biblical typology in unison with the historical Church. Just as it is unnecessary (and unwise) to reject the language of Theotokos because of misguided devotion to Mary, it is likewise unnecessary and unhelpful to deny the many obvious parallels and instances of foreshadowing throughout the Bible that connect creation, covenant, and the Incarnation of the Christ-Child in Mary’s womb.

This year we plan to introduce and explore the biblical theology of Christ’s Incarnation in four lessons. First, we will examine the theme of blessing from barrenness and observe how often the covenant is preserved and salvation comes through a child of promise born to a barren woman. This is not a coincidence, and it does not happen merely once or twice. Second, we will look at the parallels between Mary and Eve, the mother of the living. We will see how Gabriel describes the birth of Christ as a new creation and learn to better understand Paul’s statement in 1 Timothy 2:15 that the woman will be saved through childbearing. Third, we will consider how women play a role throughout redemptive history in crushing the serpent’s head, typologically leading to the birth of Christ who is the true Serpent-Crusher and Dragon-Slayer. Fourth, we will study the doxology of redemption as we examine Mary’s Magnificat and the historical and covenantal preparation for it in Miriam’s Song (Exodus 15), Hannah’s Prayer (1 Sam. 2), and the Psalms.

I hope this series of studies will be profitable to us all. There are many ways they might be misunderstood. They should not lead us to devotion to Mary, nor are they designed as a feminist re-reading of redemption. Indeed, in view of the poisonous errors of both Mariolatry and feminism, my hope and prayer is that this series will provide a robust and biblical alternative to such human doctrines. May we find our true joy and satisfaction in Christ and in the work of redemption he has prepared, performed, and proclaimed in powerful and poetic ways. --JME

[1] Cf. Daniel Hyde, “Not Holy But Helpful: A Case for the ‘Evangelical Feast Days’ in the Reformed Tradition” MAJT (2015): 131-149.

[2] Cf. “Celebrating the Birth of Our Lord” https://joelellis.blogspot.com/2012/12/celebrating-birth-of-our-lord.html

[3] “Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us.” --Definition of the Council of Chalcedon (AD 451)