Tag Archives: church

Book Reviews, Theology

Book Review: Five Views on the Church and Politics, by Amy E. Black, editor

Leave a comment

Five Views on the Church and PoliticsPart of Zondervan’s Counterpoints series, Five Views on the Church and Politics includes perspectives on the church and politics from five traditions, as well as an introduction and conclusion by editor Amy E. Black. Views and authors include the following (as labeled in the text): Anabaptist (Separationist) – Thomas W. Heilke; Lutheran (Paradoxical) – Robert Benne; Black Church (Prophetic) – Bruce L. Fields; Reformed (Transformationist) – James K. A. Smith; and Catholic (Synthetic) – J. Brian Benestad. The authors were asked to provide the following for their respective tradition’s view of the relationship between the church and governmental politics: a brief historical development, it’s view of the role of government; how Christians should engage and participate in government, and a short case study illustrating the latter. A response from the other authors follows each of the main essays.

This book really is about tradition. There is little to no biblical reasoning for these positions (the Anabaptist tradition does point back to Jesus, his example, and his words in the Sermon on the Mount). The essays may be summed up as follows: Anabaptist: because Jesus via Yoder; Lutheran: because Luther; Black Church: because oppression(?); Reformed: because Calvin via Kuyper; Catholic: because popes and unquestioned documents. Responses are hardly engaging with respective essays, usually boiling down to something akin to, “I read it, and now here’s what my tradition says.” Heilke and Smith do appear to be more honest and sincere in their essays and responses and engage better than their peers.

Black misses the mark altogether, introducing the text with extreme bias and poor exegesis. On the first page, she quotes a 1994 commentary on Jesus’s response to paying taxes (Matthew 22:21), stating, “With this reply, Jesus refused to take a side in the fierce political debate of his day over the poll tax and ‘implied that loyalty to a pagan government was not incompatible with loyalty to God’”(7). What?! Jesus implies nothing of the sort—he does, however, say something to the contrary concerning two masters (Matthew 6:24). In fact, we couldn’t even substitute “fealty” for “loyalty” in the quote and come out any better. Black’s skewed perspective comes out in the conclusion when she misattributes commonalities among all represented traditions, seemingly ignoring or misrepresenting that for which she is not in favor, and promotes the perpetuation of a two party system (Democratic & Republican) in American government as if those parties are all that matter.

This is a very disappointing addition to the Counterpoints series. I cannot recommend the whole of this book for any worthwhile purpose.

 

*I received a temporary digital copy for review from Zondervan via NetGalley.

Book Reviews, Theology

Book Review: The Pastor Theologian: Resurrecting an Ancient Vision, by Gerald Hiestand and Todd Wilson

Leave a comment

The Pastor TheologianIn The Pastor Theologian: Resurrecting an Ancient Vision, Hiestand and Wilson add to the ongoing argument in favor of the need for pastor-theologians, noting the unhealthy dichotomy perceived by modern Christians wherein pastors are seen as preacher-counselor-managers and theologians are seen solely as university academics. Bringing more specificity to the conversation, the authors promote what they call ecclesial theologians over local and popular theologians. They do, however, go on for six chapters before finally nailing down in the seventh exactly what they believe an ecclesial theologian is and/or ought to be, also noting that they are pilgrims on this journey and are contributing to a conversation that they hope will continue into the next generation in a hopeful resurgence of pastor-theologians.

So, what is an ecclesial theologian according to Hiestand and Wilson? Before stating what it is, they note what it is not—or, perhaps more appropriately, what it is more than. They write, “The local theologian is a pastor who provides theology to a local congregation; the popular theologian offers more widely accessible theological reflection for a broader swath of the church; and the ecclesial theologian gives theological leadership to other theologians and scholars, all the while keeping a close eye on genuine ecclesial (as opposed to academic) concerns” (17). So, the authors do not mean to say that an ecclesial theologian does not care for the local congregation, nor does he refrain from writing for a larger Christian audience or the academy; they claim that ecclesial theologians are first pastors to their local congregation and then contributors to ecclesial scholarship with a primary focus on the church and leaders therein rather than the academy. Pulling from church history, the authors bring forth Athanasius, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Calvin as examples of their ideal ecclesial pastor-theologians, citing N. T. Wright as perhaps the best example of in our time—at least for a number of years before Western Christian culture seemingly eventually forced a decision to be either an academic or a pastor, Wright prayerfully landing back in the former.

If one is so inclined, one may skip straight to the seventh chapter for the authors’ detailed explanation of what an ecclesial theologian does via the following subheadings: The Ecclesial Theologian Inhabits the Ecclesial Social Location (88), Foregrounds Ecclesial Questions (90), Aims for Clarity over Subtlety (92), Theologizes with a Preaching Voice (93), Is a Student of the Church (94), Works Across the Guilds (96), Works in Partnership with the Academic Theologian (97), and Traffics in Introspection (99). This is all encouraging and helpful. So, how does one become an ecclesial theologian? The authors’ strategies are listed in chapter 8: Strategy One: Get a PhD (104); Two: Staff to the Vision (107); Three: Get Networked (108); Four: Guard Your Study Time with a Blowtorch (110); Five: Read Ecclesial Theology (and Other Stuff) (113); Six: Refer to the Place Where You Work as “Your Study” (116); Seven: Build Studying-and-Writing Time into Your Schedule (117); Eight: Recruit a Pastor-Theologian Intern (118); Nine: Earn Buy-In from Your Church Leadership (120); and Ten: Let the Necessity of Love Trump Your Love of Truth (121). Though surely helpful for some, this, in culmination with terminology and implication found in the rest of the book, is where I want to push back on the authors and hopefully encourage the pastor-theologian conversation to move in a more holistic and biblical direction.

 

This book is written on behalf of “evangelicalism” for a “resurrected vision” from the past. I note three significant problems stemming from the authors’ perspective:

One: What is evangelicalism? There are a plethora of definitions, no few of which claim to be “the one” from popular pastors and scholars, but the one common denominator I have found is that all who claim this guild are “Protestant” (most nondenominational churches who claim the same title still function and promote theology from their founders’ Protestant heritages and traditions).

Two: If Protestant, then is a pre-Reformation vision desirable? This is not intended to speak from my own convictions, but rather question the foundation of the vision put forth. I’m looking for consistency here. If the authors are speaking for protestant evangelicalism (they do not include their Catholic and Orthodox contemporaries in the discussion), then they must recognize the hurdle before them in convincing Protestants that Catholic and Orthodox history and theology matter and can be helpful, as I believe they are. However, if we’re going to drop denominational labels and ties and look at our history by recognizing that from which we came, for which I am in favor, then why refer to “evangelicals” and “evangelicalism” and perpetuate an “us vs. them” mentality?

Three: The authors make two assumptions. First, they assume there was an “ancient vision” and that it wasn’t simply an organic development with cultural and societal variables, two of the most notable affecting the rise of notable “pastor theologians” being widespread illiteracy and the Constantinian shift. Second, again missing problems and difficulties with Christian culture, the authors assume churches are business establishments of hundreds to thousands of members with boards, staff, and a convoluted understanding of the term “pastor” itself. This perpetuates the problem of North American churches and their international plants that places more emphasis on a branded institution than the body of Christ.

 

I applaud the Heistand and Wilson for contributing to this ongoing conversation and pushing it forward in specific ways. I now pray the Spirit guides us further with a more holistic and less taxonomical view of the body of Christ.

 

*I received a temporary digital copy for review from Zondervan via NetGalley.

Book Reviews, Theology

Book Review: The End of Protestantism: Pursuing Unity in a Fragmented Church, by Peter J. Leithart

1 Comment

The End of ProtestantismUnity in the church is a passion of mine. So, when Brazos Press asked for participation in a book launch for The End of Protestantism: Pursuing Unity in a Fragmented Church, how could I resist such a title? I’d not heard of the author, Peter J. Leithart, but I looked forward to reading his thoughts on our common ground.

As is the foundation of many of our efforts toward unity in the church (both local and universal), Leithart’s first sentence references Jesus’ prayer in the garden before his crucifixion where he asks the Father that his disciples be united. Shortly thereafter: “Denominationalism is not union. It is the opposite. It is the institution of division. Our friendliness is part of the problem. It enables us to be complacent about defining ourselves not by union with our brothers but by our divisions” (4). Yes! But he continues: “My agenda will make Protestant churches more catholic … I call this ecclesiology and this agenda ‘Reformational Catholicism’” (6). And this is where I let out a sigh, not of relief, but of disappointment. To be clear, his first statement does not imply that churches ought to be more “Catholic” in the Roman sense; he means, rather, that they should be all-encompassing, the general definition of the term. However, his use and interchangeability of “catholic” and “Catholic” in the text do not aid in this clarification, especially since he has labeled his vision of the universal church as “Reformational Catholicism.”

The way Leithart envisions the universal church is fairly detailed. It will include a highly liturgical (meaning more of a “high church” liturgy) service (30) with “energetic” music “accompanied by strings, horns, and drums” (31) where everyone wears white robes (32) and “will use wine, not grape juice,” with the Lord’s Supper (196, n.8). Local churches will be labeled according to their location or a saint (26, with no reasoning for the “saint” part), include stained glass (32), and be lead by a single ruler (33). There’s enough in these few selected details to give the perception of another “made in my image” denomination and enough fodder for people to argue over for days. Of course, there’s nothing wrong with dreaming, but what we do with those dreams can be helpful or devastating.

Leithart rightly encourages throughout the text that we work through our disagreements in order to be more unified and that denominations encourage the opposite (e.g., 77–78). What I find to be a foundational disagreement I, and likely many others, have with Leithart is what we do with the following: “The true church, it is said, is an invisible reality that can coexist with visible conflict, division, estrangement, and mutual hatred. That certainly was not Paul’s perspective” (18). While concurring with his critique, I do not believe, as he argues, that the universal church must look and act the same in all places at all times. Conformity and unity may be brothers, but they are not equal. We can both agree that denominational justifications based on this distinction still fail to acknowledge the real division perpetuated therewith, but that does not mean there can be absolutely no difference in those who are unified. Leithart’s dream church does not, for example, take into account the likely inability of some churches to have buildings (not that they are even necessary) or the financial means to maintain stained glass, instruments, and white robe trappings. And what about those who face real persecution and the threat of violence and potentially death just for meeting? If one is to dream up what the universal church will look like before Jesus’ return, it must be practical and take into account a still broken world. Therefore, I maintain that unity can exist without universal conformity. There are some things on which we must necessarily conform (e.g., teaching that Jesus is Lord), but much of what we do and how we do it cannot be codified (e.g., how we love our neighbor) and those differences do not necessitate a new denomination. I hope we can agree that the Spirit may lead two people in two different directions in how they glorify God: one will stay and the other go, one will speak and the other stay silent, and one will die and the other run for his life. We see this in the book of Acts.

For a book that claims universal unity in the church and rightly pushes against American denominationalism, it is actually too American in its focus to be universally beneficial. This is one I want to like so much more than I do, and one I want to dislike more than I do. I’m torn. Perhaps the project we have would have been better approached as The End of American Denominationalism. So, this is where I’ve landed with The End of Protestantism: It is a great contribution to the conversation on unity in the church, one that is obviously in need of more dialogue even after reading this book.

 

Who is the book for? In my estimation: Church leaders, Christian educators and students.

 

For promotional material (video clips, images, etc.): www.theendofprotestantism.com.

Book Reviews, Theology

Book Review: Women in the Church (Third Edition): An Interpretation and Application of 1 Timothy 2:9–15, editors Andreas J. Köstenberger & Thomas R. Schreiner

Leave a comment

Women in the ChurchCrossay recently published the third edition (1995, 2005, 2016) of Women in the Church: An Interpretation & Application of 1 Timothy 2:9–15 by editors Andreas J. Köstenberger & Thomas R. Schreiner. This is not a collection of articles from differing positions; to the contrary, it intentionally and thoroughly espouses a complementarian position by all contributors. This volume focuses more on attempts to thwart the ever-increasing egalitarian position rather than provide sufficient and convincing arguments for its own. (I’ve read elsewhere that the second edition was better at arguing for rather than against, but I have not read that edition) I believe the volume as a whole “fails to convince,” as is often stated about opposing positions, often using probably, likely, and most likely in reference to its own arguments when denouncing other positions that do the same. An inherent problem in these varying hermeneutics is a lack of verifiable absolutes; the complementarian position here goes with “majority rules” and ignores exceptions when trying to understand the Greek texts, using history only when suitable for its needs while chastising opposing positions for doing the same.

There is much focus on single words & phrases in 1 Timothy 2:9–15 without properly addressing the whole of Scripture and its intended trajectory. Appealing to a “plain sense reading” of verse 13, it is assumed that there is an intended creation order of male authority and female submission (are we also to assume this order in the new heavens and new earth?), and therefore no reason to address the whole of Scripture. The final chapter is a roundtable Q&A in which the editors ask people for their thoughts on several issues, but only includes complementarians already in agreement on virtually anything of importance, meaning the entire “discussion” is unhelpful and pointless. Everyone skirts around what women should or should not wear, ignoring a “plain sense reading” of verse 9, while assuming any good Christian using rigorous biblical exegesis will agree with the “plain sense reading” of verse 13.

 

There are two points made in the text (paraphrased and summarized below) that really need more attention if they are to be at all convincing:

1) Ephesus was not unlike any other Greco-Roman city, and therefore Paul’s words (their “plain sense meaning”) must be for all people at all times. There is much effort made to demonstrate the lack of uniqueness in the culture of Ephesus, but it wasn’t enough to demonstrate how Paul’s text can under no circumstances be culturally based.

2) Paul did not use the exact words and phrasing in this passage as he did in another passage that referenced husbands and wives, so the Greek text here must mean men and women even if used to refer to husbands and wives elsewhere. This is almost a side note in the text that is quickly brushed to the side. Again, there needs to be much more effort and evidence for this argument to convince.

(I received a digital copy of the book without page numbers, so forgive the lack of specific locations for references above.)

 

All in all, this volume is the most thorough of any complementarian arguments I’ve read in a single source, but it fails to convince on a number of levels in the same manner spoken of other positions. One section fervently appeals to the reader by pulling in references to a number of female PhDs that agree with the authors all at once, as if to say, “See! Smart women agree with us!” It was a low point in the text. This may be useful to students and scholars as a resource of the traditional complementarian position if they need one in their library.

 

For those interested, I read and addressed the text from a position of neither traditional complementarianism nor pure egalitarianism. I find fault with both extremes on some level, and reviewed this book as one expecting a thoroughly convincing exegetical argument, which I did not find.

 

*I received a complimentary digital copy of the reviewed book from Crossway through the Blog Review Program in exchange for this honest review.

Book Reviews, Theology

Book Review: Why Church History Matters: An Invitation to Love and Learn from Our Past, by Robert F. Rea

Leave a comment

Why Church History MattersRobert F. Rea, a professor of church history, wrote Why Church History Matters: An Invitation to Love and Learn from Our Past to fill a void he had in providing (primarily Bible and seminary) students with a resource that both explains the necessity of studying church history and instills a practical and encouraging desire to want to study it. I, too, have been hoping to find such a resource for students, so I was excited when I stumbled upon this one. After reading, I was hoping this book would be accessible to a broader audience than that for which the author intended. Granted, IVP Academic published it, but one can still hope, right?

The nature of the text makes me wonder for whom the book is really written. It seems as though it may be most helpful if taken before a history course, although without some knowledge of history one may be lost on some of the references. It’s rare that a Bible/seminary student would follow a strictly prescribed course schedule, so I’m not sure when this would be read—in some introductory course for the program, in another non-history course, or within the first week or two of a specific history course that may or may not be taken as the student’s first? Some people (like me) enjoy reading academic literature outside of educational institutions, but I don’t think this is one that’s going to be picked up by the average churchgoer who really needs something like this. So, when, where and by whom is it really going to be read? I don’t know.

 

The book’s sections and chapters are as follows:

Part One: How We Understand the Tradition

  1. What Is the Tradition?
  2. How Have We Understood Tradition Historically?
  3. How Do We Understand the Tradition Today?

Part Two: Expanding Circles of Inquiry

  1. Who Am I? Christian History and Christian Identity
  2. A Great Cloud of Witnesses: Christian Community Across the Centuries
  3. Accountability Partners: Sharing Accountability with Historic Christians
  4. Mentors and Friends: Historic Christians Broaden Our Horizons and Fill Gaps in Our Understanding

Part Three: Tradition Serving the Church

  1. Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth
  2. Tradition and Ministry

 

“Part One” is fantastic and especially helpful in defining “tradition, traditions, traditioning, and Tradition” as they are used and understood among different Christian spheres, including why some people like and others oppose them. This is the most unbiased and informative section in the book, and that which I highly recommend to anyone.

“Part Two” begins with a helpful description of our spheres of influence and why it is important to become more aware of others, which should helpful increase our own spheres without being one who simply buys into anything and everything. However, the author’s particular beliefs in what is right and wrong about Christian history via specific examples begins to come out, though he never explicitly states the tradition from which he writes, perhaps distancing some readers and himself demonstrating why it is important to study church history—if one has read a good bit of history and understands more of the politicking involved in some faith decisions among some traditions he or she may see that there is more involved than just the Holy Spirit, and that power grabs sometimes win the debate, leading some to come to a different conclusion about the specific examples Rea uses.

“Part Three” takes an even more practical approach to the title’s question with an ever-increasing bias from the author’s own tradition.

If one is able to recognize the author’s biases and take them in stride, I believe this book can be quite helpful (again, if nothing else, especially “Part One”). However, as it is, the audience has been unnecessarily limited to students of particulars strains of evangelicalism, which is quite ironic given the broad spheres of past and present influence from which the author desires we pull in our understanding of the church and its continued direction.

Life, Theology

Church, Life Groups, and Family: Be Fruitful and Multiply

Leave a comment

What is the relationship between life groups and churches, and what is their purpose?

First, let’s begin by defining some terms in contemporary, Christian language:

  • Church: A group of Christians committed to one another in worship and service to God meeting together on a regular basis (usually every Sunday).
  • Life Group (also known as a cell group, small group, etc.): A group of people committed to one another in worship and service to God meeting together on a regular basis.

What?

Right. This is why some people don’t really care for life groups, and why some life groups don’t really care for “church”: They are seemingly identical. So, how do we differentiate between the two? Hierarchical language may help one to understand the order of the two (a life group is a subgroup of a church), but that’s often not very satisfactory in determining whether they are practically and functionally distinct. After all, if they are not, why do we care to have both? Wow, that’s a great question! I know, right?!

Since we’re all brothers and sisters in Christ—we’re all part of a family in this kingdom of God—let’s approach the subject in relational terms, or more specifically, familial terms.

The universal inclusion of all Christians is referred to as the body of Christ, which is often referred to as the universal (catholic, not to be confused with “Catholic”) church (gathering or assembly). We all stem from Adam, so we’re already “family” in one sense, but we take another step by being connected through the promise of Abraham in the messianic king and lord of all, Jesus, through whom we are all children of God and a collective bride by the shedding of his blood. (Yes, we are “blood” relatives!) So, think of this universal family as the extended family you sometimes hear about but more likely than not have no real connection—your fourth cousin twice removed, the great grandmother of your uncle by marriage, and that one branch in the tree no one really wants to claim: they’re all family, even if you’ve never met them.

Then there’s the extended family you see sometimes at Thanksgiving, Christmas, family reunions, and the like. This can be quite large or quite small, all depending on the family dynamic and number of twigs on the branches. For me, this would have included grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, parents, siblings, nephews, and nieces. For you, there may be “greats” thrown in the mix, or those “seconds” and “thirds” that most of us don’t even understand. For some it’s as simple as a single parent and maybe a sibling. The point is, our close extended family is really going to vary in size, but we have a relatively closer relationship with and have at least an inkling of what’s going in in the lives of this particular family group. This is your local church! And just like there’s often a few matriarchs and patriarchs who tend to set the pace and guide these families and events, we have shepherds who guide the flock of the church.

For really small families, that’s often where the depth of intimacy ends. There is no smaller grouping within the family; there is no smaller gathering within the church. There are a number of reasons for this, but figuring that out isn’t the point of this particular discussion.

For many of us, though, there’s a big difference between the extended family with whom we watch football on Thanksgiving and our immediate family with whom we tend to live much of our lives. We’re a smaller family within the larger family. This is the life group of a church. And just as our immediate families tend to have one or two who lead the family, the same can be said for these small subgroups of our churches.

My immediate family included two parents, a brother, and two sisters for the earliest part of my life. However, a time came when we all got married, had our own families, and were too big for the roost. (There’s a lot that can be said here about adoption and the inclusion of those who become part of our “family” outside the scope of blood and a legal system, but I’ll let you work through those connections on your own!) We eventually had different needs, goals, and directions. We had to split.

What?!

Now, you know no one ever says that when families multiply, divide, and continue to multiply. That doesn’t mean we’re no longer family and don’t talk to one another, but it does mean our focus shifted more on our own families and social circles. Such is the case with these subgroups in churches! Some of us get really comfortable with the same group of people and never want to grow in numbers and never want to split. That happens. But we hope that somewhere there is this kind of growth, division, and multiplication, all for the sake of the kingdom of God!

So, division can be a good thing, especially when it leads to multiplication. That’s what God expected from creation in the beginning, and I think we can apply the same principle to the church.

So, are you saying we have life groups within life groups? Does a church have a church that has a church that has a church?

Okay, you’ve found where the analogy starts to break down a bit. Remember, not all families are the same, and not all local churches are the same. This is okay (really!). They’re going to do things differently and at different paces. Here’s what I think we can take away from the family analogy from this point on:

People groups can grow to the point where there is no real connection between smaller groups or individuals. Even when smaller groups have deep relationships, they are utterly disconnected from the majority of the larger population. At some point a decision needs to be made regarding quantity, quality, depth of relationship, and whatever else you want to name that becomes a factor in the life (and quality thereof!) of the given people group. Our churches will need to work through these same dilemmas. There may come a time when there are so many life groups (or people in general) that a new local church is birthed from them. This is good division leading to an increase in the kingdom! There’s always room for heartbreak, mourning, and a number of levels of sadness, just as there is when kids move out, get married, and even move to the other side of the world—parents will be parents, and kids will be kids. This is part of life, this is part of families, and this is part of the universal church. But there is also rejoicing and celebration at new births and seeing kids out on their own (especially when responsibility for them has been lifted, right?)! This, too, is part of life, families, and the universal church.

You still didn’t answer my question about churches having churches…

Well, I did…kinda. Jesus is the head of his body, the church. I don’t think local churches should be over or have other local churches—I just don’t see that kind of hierarchy as necessary or prescribed in Scripture, if you’re looking for that. So, just as my parents still speak into my life, they only lead and guide in so far as I allow and accept it. But the amazing thing is that I am able to speak into their lives, as well! We have a common goal in glorifying God and mutual respect as adults. This, too, is how I believe our local congregations should work together in the larger family.

Our churches should be living entities pulsating with the desire to heat up, grow, and multiply, just as our families do. If we don’t multiply, a part of the family eventually dies off. Our churches are no different.

May God continue to bless you, your churches, and your churches yet to come!

Book Reviews

Book Review: Rise: Bold Strategies to Transform Your Church, by Cally Parkinson with Nancy Scammacca Lewis

Leave a comment

RiseI chose to review Rise: Bold Strategies to Transform Your Church by Cally Parkinson and Nancy Scammacca Lewis because I’ve always been skeptical of a lot of statistical data and any “plug & chug” Christian programming meant to “fix” a church. I wanted something to challenge those notions, and hoped this might be that book. It was certainly more than I expected and quite helpful!

REVEAL researchers took survey material from 727 churches from different areas of the USA, different denominations, and different cultures (this is all charted and explained in an appendix), all between 2008 and 2010 (churches involved in surveys from years pre-2008 were tossed because they did not include what turned out to be some key questions) and pulled from it eight archetypes in which most American congregations find themselves: troubled, complacent, extroverted, average, introverted, self-motivated, energized, and vibrant. Each of these is explained with charts, typical symptoms, and model case studies of participating churches—where they were, what they changed, and where they landed a few years later. There is then a final chapter that offers ways in which churches may grow in a number of areas that were assessed.

I found the information quite helpful because its generalizations are offered as starting points—the authors even explain where a church might have secondary, or “shadow” archetypes (e.g., a primarily extroverted church may be tend to be energized or average). Before offering ways in which churches may use this information, the authors provide this honest and helpful statement: “Our sole caveat is to begin with a cautious and sincere reminder that we do not pretend to be capable of advising your own particular, individual church. Only you and your fellow leaders, in concert with God’s wisdom and mercy, can truly discern the best “next step” to help your people grow closer to Christ” (153–4).

The reader may not agree with how some of the particulars were put together and may still remain skeptical about how one may be certain of the accuracy of surveys, a Spiritual Vitality Index (SVI), etc. (I’ll probably always remain in that boat!), but when used as a base, at least as far as I can tell, typical American churches are quite likely to find themselves in one of the archetypes and able to use that as a starting point in determining where they may or may not want to begin making changes in order to be better disciples of Christ.

I’m surprising myself with this recommendation, but here it is: I believe this can be a helpful resource for church leaders to have in their libraries, perhaps revisiting it every couple years or so to reassess things.

 

*This book was provided by Tyndale House Publishers for review. I was not required to write a positive review, nor was I offered or provided any compensation.

Book Reviews, Theology

Book Review: Searching for Sunday: Loving, Leaving, and Finding the Church, by Rachel Held Evans

Leave a comment

Searching for Sunday: Loving, Leaving, and Finding the ChurchRachel Held Evans is a blogger with a substantial following, from what I hear, though I’ve not read any of her posts. In fact, Searching for Sunday: Loving, Leaving, and Finding the Church is the first bit of writing I’ve read of Rachel’s. Friends who speak positively about her (those who know her and those who read her) tend to be of the same theological cloth—promote ordination of women as leaders in churches and promote the acceptance of homosexual relationships in the church; those who speak negatively about her tend to say she attacks straw men. So, when the opportunity to read and review one of her books arose, I thought it’d be good for me to check it out for myself.

Though there are obviously people who love this book and offer positive reviews, I did not find it particularly helpful or entertaining. The chapters are organized into sacramental sections, though it’s not always clear how or if many of the chapters fit anywhere in the book, let alone under their subheadings. I think it’s supposed to be memoir, but it’s quickly apparent that this is turning into a narrated lecture with moments of “shock-and-awe” language and imagery. (Perhaps this is what readers of her blog enjoy and are used to.) Sure, we all have hang-ups and frustrations with our churches, but there are a number of positive books for working through that struggle.

From the start, Rachel hammers her frustration, anger, and sadness over churches that deny the ordination of women and do not accept homosexual relationships, eventually stating it quite plainly: “There are denominations of which I cannot in good conscience be a part because they ban women from the pulpit and gay and lesbian people from the table” (184). There’s much more to the book, but this point is made so often (some more forcefully than others) that it overwhelms anything else she has to say. Rachel shares her struggle of not finding a church wherein she can revel in problems and doubt (except for wrestling with her battle cry—that must be fully accepted, as noted), eventually leaving public gatherings altogether while still touring and discussing her faith with churches and other organizations. For one with a broad understanding of denominational distinctives, it’s obvious after the first few chapters that, if she lands in another church, she would find the Episcopalians, though she concludes the book without any real recognition of “finding the church,” contrary to the book’s subtitle. It appears Rachel is still searching.

If the reader is in favor of the aforementioned hammering, then he or she will probably like the book; if not, then it’s probably going to be a difficult read. Either way, I just don’t think it would be at all helpful for those struggling with frustration, doubt, and questions in and about the church. If one argues that the intended purpose is not to guide but to describe, then I would suggest another look at the text.

(In Rachel’s defense, she notes in the introduction that she did not want to write this book, even losing a bit of it to a spilt chai on her computer, but was pushed by her publisher to do it.)

Not recommended…but…

I pray for blessings on Rachel and others with similar struggles as they continue searching; may we all lovingly engage in a healthy wrestling with questions, doubts, one another, and God.

 

*Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the publisher through the BookLook Bloggers book review bloggers program. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255: “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”

Book Reviews, Theology

Book Review: The Mission of God’s People: A Biblical Theology of the Church’s Mission, by Christopher J. H. Wright

Leave a comment

The Mission of God's PeopleFor those who’ve read the latter, Christopher J. H. Wright’s The Mission of God’s People: A Biblical Theology of the Church’s Mission should not be thought of as a sequel to his larger and quite dense work, The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible’s Grand Narrative (my review here); rather, it might be seen as an elaborated point of that work written to be more accessible for a book series (Biblical Theology for Life), the writing of which Wright was asked to be a part. Do not, however, let that lessen your interest! Though there is certainly overlap—even quoting of MoG—this is incredibly insightful and convicting, even for those of us who have been preaching and teaching the same things for years. Since I deal mostly with students in these kinds of recommendations, my order of recommendation would be to read first MoGP and then MoG, with a few exceptions. For the more advanced, MoG would naturally provide a greater foundation for MoGP—and, yes, I’d still recommend reading both.

In Wright’s own words:
“If the basic argument of my earlier book, The Mission of God, was that we need to read the whole Bible in all its parts comprehensively to discern and describe God’s great mission of cosmic redemption, then the argument of this book, The Mission of God’s People, is that we likewise need to read the whole Bible comprehensively to discern and describe what the implications are for us, the people whom God has loved, chosen, called, redeemed, shaped and sent into the world in the name of Christ” (267).

Keep in mind that this is not a how-to book, but one of A Biblical Theology of the Church’s Mission. If in search for a “what to do when my mission program fails and no one is being converted,” then one should probably read this book for a number of reasons, though it certainly won’t provide the specific answer anticipated. Wright looks to answer, by way of several avenues within a truly holistic picture of mission, “Who are we and what are we here for?” A detailed outline is provided at the beginning of the book, making it easy for one to locate sections for specific material and lesson planning, though I still recommend reading it through in its entirety.

As I have read others’ reviews of this book, one concern that is sorely misguided and needs correcting is that Wright does not deal with our mission as expressed in the New Testament, specifically Jesus’ “Great Commission.” Not only does he address this tree (perhaps these readers/reviewers didn’t make it all the way through the book), but he does so by looking at the forest of the Bible in its entirety to better understand what that means. The reader certainly benefits from Wright’s scholarship in Hebrew and the Old Testament as he makes the narrative come alive and become practical and applicable for us all by understanding our story—the story. The mission of God’s people is the same from the beginning ‘til now. It would help to better understand our past in order to better understand and appreciate this great truth of Scripture!

Here’s yet another book added to my “must read” list!

Book Reviews, Theology

Book Review: Kingdom Conspiracy: Returning to the Radical Mission of the Local Church, by Scot McKnight

Leave a comment

Kingdom ConspiracyScot Mcknight’s latest book, Kingdom Conspiracy: Returning to the Radical Mission of the Local Church, takes on contemporary understandings of the “kingdom of God” and offers his own. He initially sets up two straw men: 1) the social justice loving “Skinny Jeans” kingdom, full of millennial youngsters who (according to McKnight) simply focus on working toward the “common good,” and 2) the heavy thinking, not-so-pragmatic “Pleated Pants” kingdom, associated with scholarly theologians, typified (according to McKnight) by the kingdom interpretation of “God’s rule.” It is rightly pointed out that, at least in so far as they are generalized, these two exaggerations (they are exactly that) don’t learn from the other and have both, in fact, missed it altogether. McKnight offers his understanding of “kingdom” as a proper balance of “definition” and “doing” in its appropriate context. The problem here is that McKnight does not bridge the gap between the straw men, but, if we are to only consider these three perspectives, creates a third point on a triangle, in the center of which the actual kingdom of God may be found.

The most hammered and significant point McKnight makes concerning the kingdom of God is that it is the church, noting no distinctions between the two and arguing a great deal against those who have differing perspectives about how the may indeed be referring to two distinct things, the most common being that the church is a part of the kingdom but is not the kingdom. He argues that anything done without the sole purpose of trying to convert someone to Jesus, and consequently coming to that end, is not “kingdom work,” rather it is only “good work.” It is also to be understood that anything outside of corporate, local church work is not kingdom work—individuals cannot do kingdom work; kingdom work is only the work of the church (because they are the same thing). McKnight attempts to work out a number of nuances, but never satisfactorily equates “kingdom” and “church,” but does continuously remind the reader of the equation to further his larger work.

Admitting that a kingdom needs a king, people, land, and law, McKnight offers the following: Jesus = King (sufficiently noted in Scripture); church = people (by definition); wherever a Christian is standing = land (no support offered, only a claim and never mentioned again); law/Torah = the Sermon on the Mount (no support offered, only a claim, though used later in the book). However, even after acknowledging all of this, even if in passing, he keeps coming back to “kingdom = people = church,” arguing throughout the book from this perspective.

Ironically, McKnight, through arguing against other perspectives, provides much support for perspectives contrary to his own. On a number of occasions he contradicts his own conclusions, yet fails to see it, even to the point of writing that “the kingdom is the church, and the church is the kingdom—that they are the same even if they are not identical” (206). I preordered book hoping to use it for a course I’ll be teaching, but even though there is a lot of good stuff here (I really appreciate his work on varying assumptions of the kingdom that was to come by those before and during Jesus’ life, especially by not shying away from apocryphal texts to illuminate the culture of a particular time in history), there’s just too much inconsistency and unhelpful material to include it in the required reading. However, if I were emphasizing an extended exercise in critical reading and wanted to increase the level of debate, I think this would be a great book to critique.

McKnight shows his hand at the end of “Appendix 2: Kingdom Today,” wherein he takes on liberation theology and notes the real intent of writing the book: to oppose the “social gospel.” Perhaps a shorter and better book could (should) have first been written to this end, but it likely would not have garnered the attention a book about “Kingdom Conspiracy” would have for marketing and sales. I recommend reading at least chapter 13 of Ken Wytsma’s book Pursuing Justice: The Call to Live & Die for Bigger Things for a well-articulated argument and explanation of the controversy between “social justice” and “social gospel,” which may be helpful in better understanding the positions of fellow brothers and sisters in Christ as it concerns “good work” and “kingdom work.” There ought not be an equating of “kingdom” and “social justice,” but there can also be no separation. (My review of Ken’s book may be found here.)

As a whole, I cannot recommend this book to just anyone, though I would certainly use parts of it. Just as McKnight, in support of his own arguments, often cites N. T. Wright and Christopher J. H. Wright, both theological giants and neither of whom would in my estimation concur with McKnight’s conclusion, I would cite McKnight in support of my own while knowing full well he would not agree. We both believe in our Lord, Jesus Christ, bringing his love to others through pacifism and peacemaking, and desire others to want the same. May all our efforts be for the glory of God and the furthering of his kingdom, even if we disagree on its definition.