Tag Archives: Reformed

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

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 Review: Church in Hard Places: How the Local Church Brings Life to the Poor and Needy, by Mez McConnell and Mike McKinley

Church in Hard PlacesWhen browsing Crossway’s list of available books for review, I was intrigued by the title Church in Hard Places: How the Local Church Brings Life to the Poor and Needy, but given the growing number of similar books addressing the same thing, it was when I saw that Brian Fikkert (co-author of the wonderful When Helping Hurts) had written the foreword that I decided to read it. As I read, I was shocked by Fikkert’s words—an honest and not-so-glowing reference that made me wonder why it was even included. Fikkert writes, “You might not agree with every word of this book. Indeed, I wish there were some things that were stated differently. But do not let that deter you.” I now stand on similar ground in regards to this book.

Mez McConnell and Mike McKinley, church pastors in Scotland and the US respectively, begin with straight-forward, hard hitting thoughts on poverty and the damage that has been done by incorrect perceptions thereof, emphasizing that poverty and lack of education do not equate to stupidity and the inability to comprehend complexities, as has often been the approach to spreading the gospel in inner-city areas and poorer nations. Though they then proceed to emphasize the need for spreading the whole gospel message alongside meeting physical needs, I believe they have still oversimplified and narrowed the gospel, which is most often spoken of in the New Testament as the “good news of the kingdom of heaven.” Jesus is at the center of the good news, but there’s a whole kingdom he wanted us to know about and live in now that the authors have missed in their address. I concur with that that “getting the gospel right” is important, which is why I mention this. They also place heavy emphasis on the necessary belief that hell is a place of eternal conscious torment, on which there is much historical tradition but nothing in Scripture.

The authors then tackle the issue of whether or not doctrine matters, that which has recently been set aside by many who, with good intent, desire to focus on the love of Christ but throw out the way in which we live a life in God (the rules, commands, or whatever you want to call them that let us know what righteousness and justice really are!). It is at the end of this chapter that the authors explicitly state that they are “convinced Calvinists.” Given that Fikkert is (to my knowledge) Dutch Calvinist and he disagreed with how some things were presented, I could only imagine that the text was not Reformed enough, too hard lined, or too soft. After reading the entire text as one who is not a Calvinist and strongly disagrees with the foundation of Calvinism (summed up in the acronym TULIP), I’ve concluded that the authors and I agree on the big umbrella points of the book: poverty needs to be rightly defined, the gospel in its entirety, doctrine, local churches (parachurch organizations should support and enable local churches, not hinder or replace them), evangelism, preaching (I would say “teaching” with the implication of a two-way relationship), and discipline are important, as well as wisely preparing oneself, family, and team for work in areas of poverty; however, the way we talk about these things, indeed some of our definitions, may differ significantly. I don’t want to speak for Fikkert, but I suppose we may have read this book similarly, that there is heavy emphasis on a Calvinist approach (especially regarding the foundation of “unconditional election”) that may prove divisive, or at least a barrier, to those who could really benefit from the helpful approaches to working in poverty that are found within.

I greatly appreciate the heart of Christ and heart for those need that I read in both McConnell and McKinley. That said, I’m not sure this book is one that I will recommend. However, should one pick it up, I’ll state again that there is some excellent material that may found while wading through the heavily Reformed current.

 

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

Book Review: The God Who Smokes: Scandalous Meditations on Faith, by Timothy J. Stoner

The God Who SmokesI picked this one up years ago because it had a nifty title, sweet cover, and what I assumed would be some wrestling with American Christian culture. So, five or six years later, I’ve finally gotten around to reading it. The never-ending lesson: don’t judge a book by its cover.

The God Who Smokes: Scandalous Meditations on Faith is written by Reformed-Baptist-lawyer Timothy J. Stoner, someone who grew up as a missionary kid in Chile and Spain with 1950’s fundamentalist-evangelical parents, is pushing back on some of his upbringing, and really wants to be a writer. It’s basically autobiographical narrative with quotes primarily from the Bible and C. S. Lewis (or people writing about Lewis). Much of the book rails against Rob Bell’s Velvet Elvis, Gregory A. Boyd’s God of the Possible, and Brian McLaren’s A New Kind of Christian, which Stoner uses as his only examples of postmodern Christianity and Open Theism. At the time of writing (published in 2008), much of Stoner’s family lived near, worked for, and/or attended Rob Bell’s church, which appears to have heavily influenced the purpose of writing the book (I think it’s really for his kids). I concur with much of his concern with how he understands these authors, although not having read these works myself and merely working with Stoner’s text and what he has to say in his endnotes, I think he may at times be reading them incorrectly—I don’t know.

Though I am neither “Reformed” or “Baptist” and at times disagree with Stoner, my biggest concern with the book is that it simply has absolutely nothing to do with the title and reads like someone who really wishes he was writing a novel (see above). The idea behind God “smoking” comes from him being on fire, but other than mentioning it at the beginning and end of the book, there’s nothing that I found to actually connect the material to that claim. I’m not sure that even in 2008 most people would consider saying it’s okay to watch movies, make art, dance, and talk about sex to be “scandalous” outside of a few remnants of extreme fundamentalism.

If you know Stoner, then this book may be of interest in learning more about him and his theology; if not, then I find no compelling reason to pick it up (other than misunderstanding the intentionally deceptive title—like me).