Eby
John Stott(1)
This is a very clear, well-written book by a famous British Evangelical setting forth the essential tenants of Evangelicalism. As such, it reveals the great strength of Evangelicalism as well as some of its weaknesses. I will address what I take to be the most significant aspects of this book.
After his introduction, Stott sets out to define Evangelicalism. He begins by contrasting Evangelicalism with fundamentalism. These contrasts were quite helpful in making sense of Evangelicalism. Here are the contrasts he provides:(2)
1. Fundamentalists of the old-school give the impression that they distrust human thought or scholarship, including scientific disciplines. Some are thorough-going anti-intellectual. Evangelicals have a strong intellectual tradition. 2. Fundamentalists believe the Bible is literally true in a too sweeping fashion. Evangelicals believe that portions of the Bible are figuratively or poetically true rather than literally true. 3. Fundamentalists tend to regard biblical inspiration as a mechanical process. This is how the Koran was written. Evangelicals, however, emphasize the double authority of Scripture, the divine author spoke to the human authors while they were in full possession of their faculties. 4. In regard to biblical interpretation, fundamentalists seem to suppose that they can apply the text directly to themselves as if it was written primarily for them. They do not fully appreciate the cultural chasm between the biblical world and the contemporary world. Evangelicals struggle with the task of cultural transposition. They seek to identify the essential message of the text, detach it from its original cultural context, and then recontextualize it. 5. Fundamentalists reject the ecumenical movement. Many Evangelicals, however, while critical of the liberal agenda, do affirm ecumenical efforts. 6. Fundamentalists have a separatist ecclesiology. Most Evangelicals believe that it is right to seek doctrinal and ethical purity for the church, but they also believe that perfect purity cannot be attained in this world. 7. At times, Fundamentalists tend to assimilate the values and standards of the world uncritically, as in the prosperity gospel. Then, at other times, they stand aloof from the world, fearing contamination. Evangelicals seek to be salt and light. 8. Some Fundamentalists have clung to the myth of white supremacy. Evangelicals reject this myth. 9. Fundamentalists tend to insist that Christian mission and evangelism are synonymous. Evangelicals affirm the vital importance of evangelism, but do not disconnect it from social responsibility. In this regard, Stott affirms, "As in the ministry of Jesus, so today, words indeed, proclamation and demonstration, good news and good works supplement and reinforce one another."(3) 10. Fundamentalists are dogmatic about the future and they go into considerable detail about the fulfillment of prophecy. They also espouse a Christian Zionism that ignores great injustices done to Palestinians. Evangelicals affirm the personal, visible, glorious,and triumphant return of the Lord Jesus Christ, but prefer to remain agnostic about the details of his coming.
Fundamentalism represents a very powerful force in America's social and religious life, and in my view, it is vital that someone of Stott's stature, evident faith, and spiritual credibility step forward to counter aspects of Fundamentalism's rigid perspective.
Having defined himself over against Fundamentalism, Stott then presents a more positive definition of Evangelicalism by referencing various definitions of Evangelicalism. Among them, the definition of Evangelicalism given by J.I. Packer would appear to be closest to how Evangelicalism is normally conceived. According to Stott, Packer gives six characteristics of Evangelicalism: 1. The supremacy of Holy Scripture. 2. The majesty of Jesus Christ, the God-man who died as a sacrifice for sin. 3. The Lordship of the Holy Spirit who exercises a variety of vital ministries. 4. The necessity of conversion, a direct encounter with God effected by God alone. 5. The priority of evangelism. 6. The importance of fellowship, the church being a living community of believers.(4) Stott affirms these characteristics yet recognizing that the first three, reflecting the nature of God, have a priority with respect to the second three, reflecting a human response to God's grace. For that reason he defines Evangelicalism in a trinitarian fashion, summarizing his position as the authority of God in and through Scripture, the majesty of Jesus Christ in and through the cross, and the Lordship of the Holy Spirit in and through his manifold ministries.(5)
Stott then describes four categories of revelation, general revelation given in creation, supernatural or special revelation given as God speaks and acts as known in Christ, the progressive revelation of the Old Testament leading to Christ, and personal revelation which is the work of the Spirit making God's revelation personal.(6) Theologically, reflecting on these four revelations, we really have only two revelations: that of creation and that of special revelation which includes the progressive and the personal. The progressive revelation of the Old Testament is supernatural revelation culminating in Christ, and personal revelation, though it entails the work of the Sprit, relates believers personally to Christ. In other words, theologically, of the four types of revelation presented by Stott, there are ultimately only two, the general revelation given in creation and special revelation culminating in Christ.
When one considers the Nicene Creed, we have the revelation in creation corresponding to the Father (the first article), the revelation in Christ (the second article), and the revelation corresponding to Spirit (the third article). All have revelatory significance, and therefore, there are three primary revelatory events, the revelation in creation, that of Christ, and that of the Spirit, comprising the one revelation of the one God. God the Son comes forth from the Father and personally reveals the Father, and at the same time, redeems the Father’s creation that has been corrupted by sin. The Spirit comes forth from the Father and the Son, making real, in present life, the redemptive work of the Son who heals the Father’s broken creation and brings his lost children home. This means that the words and deeds of Jesus narrated in the gospels are repeated today by the Spirit as saving events similar to the original saving events two thousand years ago.
This third aspect, the revelatory work of the Spirit, is not clearly enunciated by Stott since he sees the work of the Spirit in terms of illumination of what is written in Scripture.(7) Stott is an Evangelical and this is the evangelical emphasis, but it is not the full biblical emphasis. The Spirit does illumine Scripture, but more than that, he recreates biblical events through Word, sacraments, and ministry. In short, there are three, fundamental, revelatory events, corresponding to Father, Son, and Spirit, and related to each other by the inner-triune relations of the eternal generation of the Son from the Father and the procession of the Spirit from both.
As this discussion was taking place, Stott commented that "it used to be fashionable among liberal (especially neo-orthodox) scholars to insist that God's revelation was personal, not propositional."(8) Karl Barth was an neo-orthodox scholar, but he was not a liberal. He also believed that God's revelation was given in words, divine/human words, and at the same time, was personal.
In the following section on "The Double Authority of Scripture,"(9) Stott gives a very helpful discussion of how Scripture is both human and divine. In his discussion, he uses the term “through,” saying that God spoke through the human authors. As seen in my essay, "Barth on Anselm," the phrase “God spoke as the human authors” is more adequate to the biblical revelation. By the communicatio idiomatum, God spoke as Jesus spoke. In regard to the Bible as a whole, Stott’s statement, "God spoke his words through their words in such a way that their words were simultaneously his,” is a good summation of the matter. If the words of the biblical writers were simultaneously the words of God, then God spoke as the human writers spoke and not just through the human authors. This means that the Bible is not only the Word of God, but the words of God. The unity of the Bible is the Word, Jesus Christ, witnessed to by the biblical words.
As one reads through this section of Stott, it becomes apparent that he understands supernatural revelation as given by words. This is an evangelical emphasis, and it needs to be affirmed. But more needs to be said. Words do communicate the reality of God, but not only words. God is not only heard, but also seen. This is affirmed throughout the biblical revelation. One of the most important instances is Exodus 24 where, after the covenant was read and sacrifices were made, the elders ate and drank in the presence of God upon the mountain. At that time “they saw the God of Israel. There was under his feet as it were a pavement of sapphire stone, like the very heaven for clearness. And he did not lay his hand on the chief men of the people of Israel; they beheld God, and ate and drank” (Exodus 24:10-11). The Psalms, used in worship, give frequent allusions to seeing the face of God. Several implications follow from this.
First, God is beautiful, and in order to perceive his beauty, it helps to make worship spaces as beautiful as possible. In this regard, it is not unusual for churches in the evangelical tradition to lack beautiful places of worship. This is an impoverishment of the glory of God. Among other things, Scripture devotes chapters of text to the description of the tent of meeting and the temple, emphasizing their beauty. Second, although physical surroundings contribute to seeing and hearing God, God is supremely seen in deeds, above all, the deeds of Christ. He is not only the Word, he is also the Image of the invisible God (2 Cor. 4:4, Col. 1:15). For this reason, the dramatic and visible enactment of his saving events, above all, the crucifixion and resurrection as celebrated in Holy Eucharist, enables believers to see and hear God. In the section on general and special revelation, Stott stated that general revelation is "'glorious' because it reveals God's glory in creation," while special revelation is "gracious because it reveals God's grace in salvation." God's glory is not only seen in creation, but also in special revelation, above all, in worship.
Of the two, heard and seen, Word and Image, Scripture emphasizes sound a bit more than sight. As Stott says, the meaning of what we see requires the word. The right order between sound and sight may well be described in John 1 where Jesus is first termed the Word, and then, in the following verses, the Light. People need to be taught this because light is important, especially to those suffering from depression.
Although Stott holds to a two-fold authority in Scripture, he believes that the divine/human nature of Scripture is not like that of Christ who was one person in two natures. In Stott's view, the two-fold nature of Scripture cannot be equated to Christ's two-fold nature. "In this case the imperfection is evident, for the Bible has no intrinsic deity as Christ has."(10) How the dual authority of Scripture reflects that of Christ's two-fold nature is a vital subject for theological reflection, for if it is not thought through properly, the authority of Scripture can be undermined. Hopefully, my discussion of this matter in the essay, The Bible Did not Die for Us, was on the right track. Stott, however presents a concise summary of where we can stand on the matter, "Nevertheless, there is in both Christ and in Scripture such a combination of the divine and the human that we must affirm each without denying the other."(11) It is important in doing theology to say only what can be said, and the prior sentence may well be an example of Stott doing just that.
Stott accepts the historical-critical method of interpreting Scripture and he does so because Scripture is a human document. He does not, however, accept some of the presuppositions of certain exegetes who take a critical approach. Specifically, he rejects the belief that history is a close continuum of cause-and-effect with no possibility of divine intervention or prophecy, that the universe is a self-contained system in which miracles are impossible, and that religion is a purely human phenomena so that there is no such thing as revelation.(12) His rejection of these assumptions is absolutely crucial to a sound doctrine of Scripture, and we can be thankful for his championing the Truth in the face of so much academic resistance.
Chapter Two, the heart of Stott's evangelical faith, is entitled “The Cross of Christ.” The cross cannot, of course, be separated from the resurrection, nor can both be separated from the earthly ministry, and this in the context of the entire drama of salvation from creation to eschaton. Stott knows this, and therefore he will state, "Of course we must never separate the crucifixion from the incarnation and the resurrection of Jesus.”(13) Having said that, his treatment does separate crucifixion from resurrection since he claims that the cross alone was central for Jesus, for Paul, and that it should be for us. As evidence Stott gives various passages from Scripture, taken from the words of Jesus and Paul. These very texts, however, bring cross and resurrection together. For example, the first one, Romans 5:8, is followed by 5:10 which states, “For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life.” The “much more” refers to the new life of the resurrection. Or again, the second passage on the cross, 1 Corinthians 15:3, is followed by 15:4 which states, “that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.” Subsequent verses describe further resurrection appearances. Of particular significance in this chapter is Galatians 6:14 where Paul says he will not boast of anything “except the cross of Christ.”(14) This verse is followed by Galatians 6:15 where Paul states, “For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation.” This new creation was given by both crucifixion and resurrection, and not simply the cross alone. In short, when Paul speaks of the cross, he connects it at once with the resurrection. They go together.
Stott also quotes Jesus on the centrality of the cross, Mark 8:31, 9:12, 9:31, 10:34, and 10:45.(15) According to Stott, these passages, together with the words of institution, all describe the priority of the cross. All these passages refer to the Son of Man, the eschatological figure from Daniel 7 who will come in glory, a reference to the resurrection, ascension, and even the second coming (see Matthew 24:30, 26:64, Mark 13:26). Secondly, apart from 10:45 which refers to ransom (which implies both cross and resurrection), and 9:12, these passages all proclaim the cross in connection to resurrection. Further, the synoptic Eucharistic passages all end with a verse like this, “Truly, I say to you, I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God" (Mark 14:1). This refers to his post-resurrection appearances in which Christ ate and drank with his disciples. Further, these passages refer to the vital fact that the Eucharist is not only a showing forth of Christ’s death, as Stott rightly proclaims, but also, to the fact that the Eucharist is a foretaste of the eschatological banquet in which believers, even in this life, sit at table with God in the age to come. This eschatological life began with the resurrection. Further, this understanding is fortified by the gospel of John, the Eucharistic teaching of John 6, where Christ says, “Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has (indicative present active 3rd person singular) eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him” (John 6:54-56). In John’s gospel the concept of abiding is described by Jesus in his Farewell Discourses, given the night he was betrayed. In those discourses he describes the new life found in him by virtue of his death and resurrection. For this, and many other reasons, the death of Jesus cannot be discussed apart from his resurrection. Together, not the cross alone, they are the center of the Christian faith.
What is the relevance of this? Or does it make any difference? It makes a profound difference. Let me take only one example, the Holy Eucharist. According to Stott, the Holy Eucharist makes “the historical event of the cross a contemporary reality …”(16) Yes, that is true, but that is not all. Among other things, by virtue of cross and resurrection, Eucharist brings believers to the very throne of God and allows them to sit at table with him in the age to come. I described this in the essay entitled Eucharist as the Dawn of the Age to Come.
Sitting at table with God, however, is not part of Stott’s picture because he thinks the center of the biblical revelation is the cross alone. In his view it dominates the New Testament.(17) Teaching and actions go together, the one illumining the other. Unless teaching brings cross and resurrection together, in the context of the entire biblical narrative, believers will not know what to seek or expect as they receive the Holy Eucharist.
Having claimed the centrality of the cross, Stott’s next step is to show its significance. He sets forth the blazing holiness of God, the depth of our sin, and the great doctrine of justification by grace through faith. Stott describes justification under five headings which can be summarized as: Justification's source, God gives undeserved, undesired, unsolicited love, freely given for nothing in return. 2. Justification's ground, we have been justified by his blood, on account of Christ's sacrificial death. 3. Justification's sphere, we are justified in Christ, only when we are united to Christ. 4. Justification's means, we are justified by faith. 5. Justification's fruit, we are saved unto good works, not by good works.(18)
This is vital, critical, and refreshing, for without Christ, we cannot stand before a holy God. For this reason, we cannot thank enough the evangelical movement in the church for their faithfulness to this saving doctrine revealing a God of such great mercy. What a blessing.
Stott then contrasts justification and sanctification under five headings: 1. Justification is God's judicial verdict, declaring a sinner righteous; sanctification is his moral activity, making a sinner righteous. 2. God justifies sinners in the death of his Son, but sanctifies them through the regeneration and indwelling of his Holy Spirit. 3. Justification is instantaneous. Sanctification is gradual. 4. Justification is complete. Sanctification is incomplete. It begins when we are converted and continues throughout our life. 5. Justification is by faith only without works. Sanctification is by faith and works.(19) All this is to the good, but it needs to be remembered that the effect of justification is to allow sinners to enter into the presence of God, be in fellowship with him, receive him in the sacraments as a present reality, and be authorized to proclaim his message and carry out his ministry.
Once justification has been affirmed, Stott describes two of its consequences, a life of daily discipleship and the command to proclaim the gospel. Both are vital, and the proclamation of the cross is absolutely essential when integrally related to resurrection. As Stott proclaims, we find the cross humiliating as “it strips us naked and declares us bankrupt before God”(20) Yes, this is true, and there is no entrance into the Kingdom apart from recognizing the depth of our sin and the need for repentance.
On the other hand, the fact that we all have, in our rebellion, nailed God down on the hard wood of the cross, thereby revealing our pride and bankruptcy before God, is not the only meaning in Scripture in regard to the cross. For example, Isaiah 53 is the Old Testament passage most quoted in the New Testament in reference to the cross and resurrection. According to this passage, we are humbled by the cross, and at the same time, we are healed and lifted up by the power of Christ's mighty resurrection. In this connection, I have written an exercise, "Ministering the Cross and Resurrection," to be done in small groups, or used by Christian pastors and counselors, giving a practical way to apply the cross and resurrection to deeply hurting people. It is a way of praying with people similar to what the tradition calls “lectio divina.”
As one reads this book by Stott, it becomes clear that his emphasis is the message, the gospel, the preaching of the gospel. But this raises a question, “What is the gospel?” According to Mark 1:1, the whole of the book of Mark is a gospel. Matthew, Luke, and John are also gospels. Paul proclaimed a gospel. When Stott thinks of gospel, he is primarily thinking of Paul and the doctrine of justification by faith. There is, however, only one gospel. Justification by grace through faith is one aspect of it, a vital and important aspect, rooted in the ministry of Jesus who ate and drank with sinners. But what of all the other things that Jesus did -- healing the sick, feeding the five thousand, forgiving sinners, calling disciples, teaching, casting out evil spirits, and above all, reconciling human beings to God and each other by his atoning death and resurrection? Are all these things part of the gospel? And if so, what is their relationship to each other and to justification? Stott, like most Evangelicals, emphasizes the preaching and teaching, and to some degree, social action such as feeding the poor, but he does not give full attention to the other works of Christ. These works of Christ are done today in the church as the Spirit not only illumines the biblical word, but recreates biblical events, enabling believers to do the works of Christ.
In Chapter 3, Stott discusses the work of the Holy Spirit. First and foremost, and this is classical theology, that the “Spirit delights to witness to the Son,”(21) that is, the Spirit makes real the Son in present experience who in turn reveals the Father. The question then becomes, what aspects of the Son’s work does the Spirit enliven in present experience? Stott answers by describing six works of the Holy Spirit, beginning with new birth and ending with Christian hope. All these works are rooted in the work of Christ and made effectual by the Spirit. There are three matters that I would like to briefly address.
First, there is Stott’s discussion of the controversial issue of baptism in the Holy Spirit, some saying it is a second experience subsequent to new birth, while others link it to the gift of the Spirit given to all believers. His treatment of this issue is irenic, very even-handed, biblical, and helpful. His final comments are so important that they merit an extended quotation.
Is it really necessary for evangelical Christians to be divided on this issue by an excess of rigidity? Pentecostal Christians need to ask themselves whether they must insist on a two-step stereotype. Non-Pentecostal Christians who claim to have received the Spirit once for all at their conversion, need to ask themselves if they are open to fuller and fuller experiences of him. Would it not be possible for both sides to agree (1) that all Christians have received the Holy Spirit; (2) that the New Testament emphasis is on the initial reception of the Spirit, associated with the vocabulary of new birth, new creation, and resurrection from the dead; (3) that the process of sanctification follows this; and (4) that during this process many richer, deeper, fuller experiences of the Spirit may be granted?(22)
Stott’s treatment of signs and wonders is quite weak.(23) One claim of the essay, Knowing the Christian God, is that all God’s deeds, words, and appearances are miraculous. The new birth, a sense of assurance, growth in holiness, the formation of the Christian community as described by Stott, are all acts of God and all of them are miraculous because, apart from God’s action, they would not have happened. God is not just an immanent force in the world. He can act within and upon the world, but he always acts from beyond the world. He created the world ex nihilo, and he acts from beyond the world to order its causes and to create new conditions beyond the causal order. Therefore, the argument that miracles are not God’s normal way of working, a “deviation from God’s usual activity,”(24) fails to recognize that all God’s works possess miraculous aspects. For example, when someone is given new birth, something Stott thinks is a normal act of God, that new birth is from God (John 1:13), a miraculous act of God, creating something new within the existing order. Further, Stott seems to assume that John Wimber, and others like him, teach that you can be healed in this life if you have enough faith. John Wimber does not teach this, nor do others such as Francis McNutt. Even more to the point, if some do teach this, and there are some who do, that is not an argument against healing. It is an argument against the abuse of healing. Finally, Stott lampoons Wimber’s claim that God has given the church the authority to do the works of Jesus. If this be true, Stott asks, then why don’t Christians multiply loaves and fishes and solve the problem of world hunger.(25) If Stott’s argument against healing is valid, the same argument works equally well against preaching, or anything requiring God’s grace. One could wonder why preaching does not suddenly convert the whole world and solve the problem of world disbelief and endless wars. In fact, if one considers Jesus' life and work, his ministry of healing and deliverance was far more "successful" than his preaching and teaching. Many, many came for healing and deliverance, but only a few obeyed the teaching. From that perspective, since the ministry of Christ is the norm of the church, one would think that the church would expect a greater response to the healing ministry than preaching and teaching. For Stott, however, it is the other way around.
Finally, Stott’s treatment of sanctification could be stronger. God sanctifies, and Stott describes the process in the section on “Christian Holiness."(26) The question is, however, what methods does God use to enable us to be holy? There are many ways in which God enables us to crucify the flesh and walk in the Spirit. Essentially, they fall into three broad categories, preaching/teaching, sacraments (especially Eucharist), and ministry, where ministry would include healing, deliverance, and more. Stott, and this characterizes Evangelicalism, emphasizes the first of these but not the other two. If that were sufficient, Jesus may well have limited himself to preaching and teaching, leaving aside his ministries of healing, deliverance, and feeding the hungry. Nor would he have submitted to baptism and instituted the Eucharist, or done the other visible prophetic acts that revealed the love and power of God. I really do not think preaching and teaching alone would have been sufficient to liberate the Nepalese from their terrible idol worship and bondage to evil spirits as narrated in Nepal Testimonies. Nor do I think the Christian message would have conquered the Roman world if God’s power had been limited to preaching and teaching and not to visible miracles as described in an excellent book by Ramsey MacMullen. It seems clear to me from Scripture, church history, and contemporary experience, that one of the most effective ways God has of revealing his authority is through healing, deliverance, and blessing people in ways beyond the resources of any other power. Having said that, however, the church cannot live on visible miracles because these often seem to come and go. The church needs all the means of grace, preaching, teaching, Holy Eucharist, ministry, and all the blessings that God has given that we might know him and walk in his ways.
Finally, in his last chapter, Stott discusses a number of issues, including an irenic call for evangelical unity as well as a section on suffering for the gospel. He observes, citing a number of passages from Scripture, that following Christ will entail suffering. Given the "gospel" of prosperity frequently proclaimed in many quarters, as well as the therapeutic model of the gospel, his comments are salutary. Further, he issues a call for evangelical unity. Evangelicals are notorious for church splits and divisions since so many believe that truth is so readily available in the Bible. Stott lists a number of matters he considers adiaphora, that is, matters of secondary importance. Many of these issues, such as the role of women in the church, relations between church and state, baptism, the Lord's Supper, the charismata,(27) would not be considered secondary by many Evangelicals. Be that as it may, his point is well taken. Many of our divisions are not over essentials, and we have not always applied the maxim that Stott recommends, “In truth unity, in doubtful matters liberty, in all things charity.”(28)
I wrote this review because I believe the central message of the evangelical faith is absolutely crucial to knowing God, being blessed by him, and being obedient to his Son, Jesus Christ. Personally, I do not think I really became a Christian until I had heard the great message of justification proclaimed to me by one of my seminary professors. Having said this, however, I believe that Evangelicals have not fully embraced certain elements of the Catholic and Pentecostal traditions, and this has hurt their effectiveness as ministers of the gospel. None of us have fully received the gospel, but it is good to immerse oneself by study and practical experience in the various Christian traditions so that the words of Paul for us might ring true,
I do not cease to give thanks for you, remembering you in my prayers, that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of him, having the eyes of your hearts enlightened, that you may know what is the hope to which he has called you, what are the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints, and what is the immeasurable greatness of his power toward us who believe, according to the working of his great might that he worked in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. And he put all things under his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all (Ephesians 1:16-23).
Endnotes
1. Stott, John. Evangelical Truth. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, Second Edition, 2003.
2. Stott, pp. 18-21.
3. Stott, p. 21.
4. Stott, pp. 23-4.
5. Stott, p. 25.
6. Stott, p. 35f
7. This can be seen throughout Stott's text, but see the comments page 43 where he notes that revelation entails an objective event, the revelation in nature and Scripture, followed by the subjective event illuminating what was set forth in nature and Scripture.
8. Stott, p. 39.
9. Stott, pp. 46f.
10. Stott, p. 50.
11. Stott, p. 50.
12. Stott, pp. 52-53.
13. Stott, p. 69.
14. Stott, pp. 67, 71, 80.
15. Stott, p. 68.
16. Stott, p. 82.
17. Stott, pp. 70.
18. Stott, pp. 77-78.
19. Stott, p. 79-80.
20. Stott, p. 83.
21. Stott, p. 88.
22. Stott, p. 95.
23. Stott, pp. 105-6.
24. Stott, p. 106.
25. Stott, p. 106.
26. Stott, pp. 96-99.
27. Stott, pp. 117-8.
28. Stott, p. 118.
The Rev. Robert J. Sanders, Ph.D.
April, 2012
