Without a doubt, Abraham Lincoln will remain one of our greatest presidents. Where George Washington was the father of the country, Lincoln was our po...moreWithout a doubt, Abraham Lincoln will remain one of our greatest presidents. Where George Washington was the father of the country, Lincoln was our poet. His words humbly proclaim the idea of America: “As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master.” Delving deeper than mythology, one hopes to discover the thoughts of this great man. By examining Lincoln’s faith, Michael Burkhimer gives us insight into an essential part of the president’s intellectual biography.
Following Lincoln’s death, many tried to appropriate Lincoln for their particular view of Christianity. Burkhimer acts like a detective weighing the testimony of the various witnesses and even Lincoln himself. The author discovers that Lincoln was a man of complex faith. He was not a traditional Christian, but he was clearly influenced by the Scriptures and the life of Jesus. Lincoln tried to live the gospel although he did not necessarily hold to a particular creed or confession.
Burkhimer’s book is wonderful except for one flaw. Rather than simply reporting the characteristics of Lincoln’s faith, he offers a historical critical examination of the bible. He specifically lifts up Q, a hypothetical collection of the sayings of Jesus which supposedly influenced the writers of the gospels of Matthew and Luke. I am familiar with this approach to the Scriptural texts, and frankly I find it uncontroversial. However, Burkhimer suggests that since the 16th president primarily quotes biblical texts found in Q, Lincoln is a “proto-orthodox Christian.” Burkhimer, rather than force Lincoln into a particular Christian mold, attempts to defend the “Christianity” that he does find. Unfortunately, Q and the language of “proto-orthodox” do not belong to Lincoln’s self-identity. As a result, the argument falls flat.
Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams were not orthodox yet were influenced by the Christian witness. Contemporaries like Charles Dickens and Leo Tolstoy were more influenced by the words and deeds of Jesus than the Nicene Creed. Burkhimer does not need to justify Lincoln’s Christianity for us. As a pastor who holds firmly to the traditional teachings of the church, I can still respect Lincoln. I can even affirm the theological insights of the Second Inaugural Address.
That being said, Burkhimer offers a helpful and engaging look into the faith of Abraham Lincoln.(less)
Although “The Invention of Hugo Cabret” contains over 500 pages, it is deceptively short. I was able to finish the book in an afternoon. This has much...moreAlthough “The Invention of Hugo Cabret” contains over 500 pages, it is deceptively short. I was able to finish the book in an afternoon. This has much to do with Brian Selznick’s illustrations as well as his compelling story. In reality, the book is a graphic novel. Images are as important as words in telling the story. That seems fitting considering the prominent role that the movies play in the whole story.
The story focuses on Hugo Cabret a boy who is twice an orphan. First he loses his father tragically in a museum fire. He is then forced to live with his drunken uncle at a Paris train station in 1931. Hugo’s life is difficult. He is mistreated until the uncle’s untimely demise caused presumably by alcohol. Hugo desperate to connect with his dead father discovers another world in the person of Georges Méliès.
At one point in the story, Hugo tells Isabelle, goddaughter of Georges Méliès, “Did you ever notice that all machines are made for some reason…Maybe that’s why a broken machine always makes me a little sad, because it isn’t able to do what it was meant to do…Maybe it’s the same with people…If you lose your purpose..it’s like you’re broken” (374). Hugo and Georges both are broken, and only by finding each other do they get “fixed.”
Brian Selznick weaves a story of clockwork, automata, fantasy, magic, and movies. I am actually a little surprised how well he does it. Today, we have a separate understanding of magicians and movie makers, but in the early days of film, the line was blurred. Selznick successfully creates this world and makes a fun book.
The only part that I found distracting in the book was the emphasis on deception and stealing. Characters are constantly hiding secrets and stealing from one another. No character seems entirely noble in this regard. At first, I wondered if the deception was part of the brokenness. It certainly gets in the way of the characters finding their purpose. However, Hugo recalling a picture of Prometheus that he saw at the Academie du Cinema Francais fondly describes the god as a thief. This is done without any irony or explanation. Moreover, movies and magic are both about deception. They both create the illusion of things that are not there. Still, there are distinctions between Prometheus and your average thief or a magician and a liar. I would have preferred that the author helped us see those distinctions.
That being said, the “Invention of Hugo Cabret” was a great book.(less)
I have seen how the “The Shack” has helped many get closer to God. I know some wonderful church ladies who credit the book for helping them grasp the...moreI have seen how the “The Shack” has helped many get closer to God. I know some wonderful church ladies who credit the book for helping them grasp the Trinity for the first time. Others have spoken forcefully about the God of grace depicted by the book. “The Shack” has allowed them a glimpse of the height and depth of God’s love. Those are wonderful results, and I am reluctant to offer my own perspectives. However, I have also met a few folks who felt bad that didn’t like the book. They believed that they were less faithful because it didn’t speak to them. For these folks, I offer my critique.
I wasn’t particularly interested in reading “The Shack”. I did so primarily because a few church members encouraged me. For me, I knew the basic plot, and I just didn’t want to wade into the emotional waters with Mack. To be fair, I know that God wants to redeem our whole lives including the parts filled with hurt and sorrow. Our theology shouldn’t ignore our pain, and “The Shack” faces the challenge directly. As the tears flow freely, these readers identify with the characters’ pain. I wish I could have experienced that. Instead, riding the emotional rollercoaster left me feeling manipulated. I experienced Mack’s pain as an outsider or worse as a voyeur.
Soon after my ordination, I was at a gathering of clergy, and someone asked me about my “faith journey”. From the time of entering seminary and onward, I have shared that story a number of times. I shared trying my best to offer an abridged version. Before I finished, one church leader proceeded to lecture me: “I was once where you are. Someday, I hope you will rise to my maturity.” All that was missing was the pat on my head. Assuming for a moment that this man was absolutely correct, his encouragement still fell flat. I felt similarly after reading “The Shack.”
When Mack finally enters his spiritual vision, the author expects that his readers will be surprised by his teachings. The author wants to shock our prejudices. God tells the main character that “this weekend is not about reinforcing your religious stereotypes.” Traditional authorities such as the seminaries, the Church, and even the Scriptures serve as foils for his theology. I certainly agree that religious error and hypocrisy are rampant among today’s Pharisees, but it’s tough to call for humility when you are also placing pages and pages of words in the mouth of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Even John Bunyan failed to do that in “Pilgrim’s Progress.”
The book is a narrative and not a systematic theology, but the theological statements are thrown at the reader from all angles. Some have merit, but others are purely speculative. For example, all hierarchy is a creation of sinful humanity. Economics, politics and religion are idolatry, not simply powers corrupted by sin. God refuses to judge humanity. I could argue that there is Scriptural evidence to the contrary. At the very least, I wouldn’t settle the matter with God-given pronouncements. I don’t personally have a problem with speculation. I love reading books that stretch my understanding of God, but rejecting thousands of years of tradition with “thus saith the Lord” seems a little too easy. God in the book of Job is modest by comparison.
Finally, I will not suggest that this is the most important theological point in the book, but it pained me. The Church seems absent from “The Shack”. Jesus does profess his love for his bride, but that love is abstract. Almost every concrete example of the church is negative. Mack’s father is a church leader who beats his son. The church hierarchy wants to lock God away in a book. Mack’s seminary education perpetuated religious stereotypes. Mack doesn’t recognize the church that Jesus describes. Now, the Church has long understood itself as flawed. Jesus’ parable of the wheat and the tares should keep all of us humble. Still, that simple group of imperfect believers who gather weekly for worship are heirs of the Church at Pentecost. For all the talk of community in “The Shack”, I was surprised at how little we saw.
Again, I do not want to take away the comfort that others have found in the book. I would welcome a dialogue with William P. Young. I think he and I might enjoy reveling together in the grace that God has given us in Jesus Christ. Nonetheless, we should approach our faith with humility, and humility is not simply a rejection of arrogance. We should examine ourselves in the light of Scripture and in concert with the Church.(less)
**spoiler alert** The superhero genre was created when Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster imagined a bullet-proof crime fighter from another planet. The gen...more**spoiler alert** The superhero genre was created when Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster imagined a bullet-proof crime fighter from another planet. The genre took another step when Stan Lee wondered how a teenager with the proportionate strength of a spider would deal with the challenges of adolescence. With “The Watchmen,” Alan Moore pushes the genre even further. What happens when superheroes wrestle with a morally ambiguous world? Deal with mental illness and depression? Grow old? How does the world react to a hero who is seemingly omnipotent? What are the social, political and cultural ramifications of heroes in tights?
Following these issues to their ultimate end is what makes “The Watchmen” classic. The multiple plots and the endless allusions make for dense reading, but they are done well. The authors understand the conventions of the medium, and they stretch them. They create a world that is rich and textured.
That being said, the graphic novel is very dated. I can understand why the movie didn’t do well at the box office. The market in 2009 for movies about an alternative 1985 in which Richard Nixon is still president must be pretty small. In the book, the Cold War and the threat of nuclear war dominate ever page. The ever present threat of death and destruction pushes society to the point of neurosis. “The Watchmen” outlines the transition from the moral clarity of the early superheroes to nihilistic confusion.
This descent is probably what bothers me most. The underlying assumption of the book is that there is no purpose or meaning in life. All of the major characters accept this worldview without question. No one in the novel stands for an objective reality. As the Comedian demonstrates, fighting for truth, justice and the American way is laughable. God is dead, yet the novel does not celebrate. There is something sorrowful and regrettable that moral clarity has no foundation or basis. In one of the last scenes of the book, a group of New Yorkers try to do the right thing by intervening when an argument gets out of control. All are slaughtered in a monstrous act of random violence. We lament their deaths and their pointless desire to help their neighbor. (less)
Looking at organizational life, one notices that there are times when a company breaks through. An organization moves from being simply good to being...moreLooking at organizational life, one notices that there are times when a company breaks through. An organization moves from being simply good to being great. Why do some companies make the change while others flounder? This question is at the heart of Jim Collins' book, Good to Great.
In the process of their research, Jim Collins and his team sifts through over a thousand companies to discover eleven good to great companies. From these, the same lessons rise to the top again and again. Leaders of good to great companies are not egotistical jerks. Great companies focus on having the right people in place. They are honest about the hard realities, yet they do not lose hope. Great companies are focused. They believe in discipline.
Frankly, these are not profound insights. An organization might get lucky ever so often. However, sustained results are the result of competence. A company needs to do the right things over and over again. Throughout the book I kept thinking of the fable of the tortoise and the hare. Slow and steady wins the race.
As obvious as the conclusions were, I was not bored with the book. In fact, the research and the writing were sobering. It was like finally shaking off all those “latest-and-greatest” fads from a plethora of management books.
The only difficulty that I had with the book involved some of the company choices. As time goes on, some of the “great” companies are no longer great. The most eye-rolling example for me was Fannie Mae. Nonetheless, Collins addresses even that concern in the book. Companies need to remain diligent. It's easy to fall by the wayside. Usually a fall from grace is precipitated on failing one or more of the lessons outlined in the book.
Good to Great tries to live by its own principles. The book does not try to be showy or cute. It is methodical, building it's case simply and persuasively. The book delivers on what it promises. (less)
“...whoever wants to be great among you must be your servant” (Matthew 20:26b).
Jesus' charge to become servants has been the definition of Christian...more“...whoever wants to be great among you must be your servant” (Matthew 20:26b).
Jesus' charge to become servants has been the definition of Christian ministry, especially the work of the ordained clergy, for millennia. Even more important has been Jesus' own acts of service, including washing the feet of his disciples (John 13). Servanthood as the life of discipleship seems so obvious that few have ever questioned it. Edward Zaragoza takes on the formidable task of making the case against servanthood directly.
Personally, I do not want to throw out the biblical language of servant so quickly. Nonetheless, I found the book, “No Longer Servants, but Friends,” very helpful. Many clergy try hard to please their parishioners, and they justify their co-dependency with Jesus' words on service. Being a doormat, however, does not honor the Christian calling. Likewise, being the pastor who does everything for everyone accomplishes nothing except a congregation of the spiritually immature. We are not the Messiah, and the clergy must never forget it.
In the best part of the book, Zaragoza offers a necessary critique of “servant leadership.” Interestingly the concept was never rooted in Scripture. Instead, Robert Greenleaf based the idea on a character from a novel by Hermann Hesse. At best, Jesus is not the source of “servant leadership” but merely illustrative of the idea. At worst, “servant leadership” is merely one more cynical technique for leaders to get their way.
To replace these misunderstandings of “servant”, Zaragoza offers another biblical image. In John 15:15, Jesus tells his disciples, “I no longer call you servants...Instead, I have called you friends...” Friendship becomes the new paradigm for the church's ministry. The Church and her ministries mirror the relationships found in the Godhead--Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Church's practices especially Baptism and the Lord's Supper define the concept of “friendship” in the Church. Zaragoza goes so far as to suggest that “friendship” become another mark of the Church alongside the traditional ones of Word and Sacrament. In other words, the practice of friendship is necessary evidence for the presence of the Church.
The book did leave me wanting more in some areas. The author decries treating people functionally, yet he was willing to speak of the persons of the Trinity in functional terms such as the job description of Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer. A deeper biblical exploration of the concept of friendship would also have been helpful. Analyzing the limits of “servant” as a model for ministry was an important service to the Church. Suggesting the limits of “friendship” could be helpful as well. In a culture where parents try to be friends to their children, where friendships can have “benefits”, and where friends are reluctant to hold each other accountable, how is friendship in the Church different? Nonetheless, the book provides a good introduction to a new way of thinking about ministry.(less)
Where many others have failed, Google has survived in the age of the internet. More importantly it has led by taking full advantage of the new medium....moreWhere many others have failed, Google has survived in the age of the internet. More importantly it has led by taking full advantage of the new medium. Not only has the company created an effective business model, but it has changed the way we think of information. Jeff Jarvis, who writes on media and news at Buzzmachine.com, explores the company's leadership in shaping the assumptions in the new culture in his book, “What Would Google Do?”. However, Jarvis does not rely on corporate documents such as “Ten Things Google Has Found to be True.” Instead, Jarvis generalizes his own rules and principles based on his own observations of the company. Then, in the most interesting section of the book, Jarvis asks, “What would Google do?” if we applied those principles to existing businesses, industries, and organizations.
Jarvis suggests that organizations who follow Google's lead will empower their clients, partnering with them. They will not seek to be everything to everyone, but they will become the platform for conversation and community. Rather than seek the highest price that the market will bear, they will seek the lowest. They will even be willing to give their services away. Organizations will focus on their purpose rather than a product, a technique, or a cash cow. The book pushes the reader to application through numerous helpful examples. I was constantly thinking about how the Google model would apply to a friend's business, a service club of which I am a member, or even the church that I serve.
Granted, my perspective will have minimal appeal, but my only real disappointment with the book is Jarvis' religious outlook. In the book, Jarvis acknowledges with a smug satisfaction that the book title plays off the “What would Jesus do?” theology of a few years ago. Unfortunately, he never delves into why his joke is so funny. Likewise, he spends only a paragraph applying Google's principles to the practice of religion. God seems to be merely a foil to Steve Jobs and Apple. Where God can learn from Google, Apple transcends the Google paradigm.
From Jarvis' blog, I have learned that he considers himself a liberal Presbyterian. Even his sister is a minister. As a result, I thought he might take more seriously how faith communities might learn from Google. Despite this criticism, I enjoyed the book and its analysis of our current culture.(less)
Among the books on management and leadership, there is a subcategory which looks at the topic from a the perspective of a historical person. A quick p...moreAmong the books on management and leadership, there is a subcategory which looks at the topic from a the perspective of a historical person. A quick perusal of the bookshelves suggests that a CEO can learn from Aristotle, Queen Elizabeth or even Attila the Hun. Often, these books are a little too clever for their own good. Reducing Jesus' teachings to bulletpointed tactics or applying Napoleon's life lessons to the boardroom seem a bit trivial. Nonetheless, the genre is not without some benefit. The greatest is that these books create a new audience for biography and history. Richard Brookhiser's book on leadership through the example of George Washington is one of the best books of its type.
The author is not a business writer who tries his hand at history. Instead, Richard Brookhiser is a biographer first. As a result, his stories about the founding father are told well. The usual leap from the pages of history to modern application doesn't appear forced to Brookhiser. The depth of his knowledge of the subject makes Washington as contemporary as today's newspaper.
Brookhiser creates three broad categories for his reflections: problems, people, and self. As he explores each category, specific topics emerge, and then the author explores events from Washington's life and career. In a more traditional biography, some events would necessarily be edited out. For example, I never knew of Washington's concern for the building of latrines to protect his men from disease. The only problem with this approach is the difficulty of finding some coherence. Some events are relayed several times for different reasons, and the reader sometime gets mental whiplash trying to keep the chronology correct.
One of the greatest benefits of the book is that Brookhiser doesn't write a hagiography. He is willing to show Washington's leadership mistakes. For example, he writes about the shortcomings of his collaborative leadership style. Although a collaborative approach might adopt the wisdom of several ideas, it can also promote the weaknesses of each. George Washington is shown as a fallible human being with his own personal failings. His greatest is derived in part from a self-knowledge which allows him to compensate for those failings.
George Washington was a farmer, a soldier, a president and a patriot. Throughout all his career, he was a great leader. Brookhiser reminds us why we should continue to study and emulate the man.(less)
Fuller Seminary professor and president, Richard Mouw wrote Uncommon Decency about the crisis of civility back in 1992. That bygone year seems like an...moreFuller Seminary professor and president, Richard Mouw wrote Uncommon Decency about the crisis of civility back in 1992. That bygone year seems like an eternity ago in the post-9/11 era of cable news loudmouths, Red States, Blue States, and economic meltdowns. Almost universally, people now acknowledge that things have actually gotten more divisive not less. Mouw does not suggest that Christians retreat or merely try to get along. Instead, he suggests civil engagement within proper limits. He draws from the just war tradition to discuss the extent and limits of Christian civility. Mouw's simple suggestion that crusaders need to check their motives and methods before acting is both simplistic and necessary. Thankfully Mouw's advice has not been discredited by the changes of the past decade. Instead, his proposals have the benefit of rarely been tried.
To describe our modern situation, Mouw quotes W. B. Yeats, "The best lack all conviction, while the worst/Are full of passionate intensity." Mouw argues that these two extremes have contributed to the downfall of civil society, and Christians especially should live out a "convicted civility." For the rest of the book, he tries to show what civility looks like. Although his analysis is very helpful, Mouw spends little time articulating the content of his convictions. They are assumed out of the Reformed and evangelical tradition.
I personally would love to see a book written directly to those who "lack all conviction." There are many in our world who start out nice. For these people, civility has never been hard. These people have the skills and abilities to become leaders in our communities and churches. Their leadership is ineffective precisely because their conviction remains elusive. For those readers, Uncommon Decency only gives them permission to be passionate. It teaches that niceness does not preclude conviction. Unfortunately, the book does not guide them into the passionate life.(less)
Over the years, I have read several volumes of Paul Johnson, and I have enjoyed his easy and readable style. He does not disappoint in his small volum...moreOver the years, I have read several volumes of Paul Johnson, and I have enjoyed his easy and readable style. He does not disappoint in his small volume on George Washington. The father of our country is revealed as a man of wisdom, great character and leadership. Johnson depicts Washington in a variety of roles—soldier, farmer, commander, leader of the Constitutional Convention, president, and entrepreneur.
Thanks to my education, I always had a better grasp on the intellectual founding of America. Figures such as Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams always stood out in my mind. The documents such as the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Federalist Papers had prominence. I never understood exactly what made Washington, in the words of some, “indispensable.” Thanks to Johnson, I understand.
Although Johnson does not neglect the negative, the author is not a dispassionate chronicler of facts. He has strong opinions, and he uses the narrative to make his points. Washington is clearly the hero of the story. Alexander Hamilton also shines. On the other hand, Thomas Jefferson appears much smaller than his soaring rhetoric. The book only fails when it lapses at occasional editorials. For example, when Johnson describes the modern problem of judicial activism, he writes, “If Washington had been aware of the possibilities of judge-made law he would have recoiled in horror” (pg 113). No matter the merit of Johnson's position, he is clearly putting thoughts into Washington's head. The volume would have been much better by avoiding such speculation.
Nonetheless, I heartily recommend the book. (less)
As the political season is upon us, I recently decided to read Barry Goldwater’s “The Conscience of a Conservative.” I was a bit surprised at what I r...moreAs the political season is upon us, I recently decided to read Barry Goldwater’s “The Conscience of a Conservative.” I was a bit surprised at what I read. There was little concern for the social agenda which has dominated conservative conversations in recent years. One might argue that back in 1960 at the book’s writing, the “culture wars” were not on anyone’s radar screen. Even in later life, however, Goldwater sparred intensely with religious and social conservatives. Their agenda does not seem to be Goldwater’s.
Goldwater’s agenda is freedom. His primary observation of human nature is its diversity. Each human being is unique, and it is the responsibility of each individual to realize his or her full potential. When government must exercise control, that action should occur at the most local level possible. Politics, for Goldwater, is “the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of the social order” (pg 5). In modern parlance, Goldwater is probably more libertarian than conservative.
Every other concern of Goldwater flows out of this agenda of freedom—the defeat of the Soviet Union, his reverence for the rule of law, the importance of federalism, his opposition to federal welfare programs, and his disagreement with court decisions and legislation on desegregation. The last is probably the most controversial. Goldwater agrees with the proposition that racial segregation in schools is wrong, but he believes that Brown vs. Board of Education is wrongly decided as an encroachment of the federal courts on what is a state issue. For some, they view Goldwater’s position as an issue in semantics hiding racism. Others saw a man who desegregated his family department stores and worked to end segregation in the Arizona National Guard and in the schools and restaurants of Phoenix. Those facts, alas, are not in the book. Nonetheless, one still wonders how the agenda of freedom applied to unenforced civil right laws dating back to Reconstruction or the judicial activism of “separate but equal.”
In the preface of my edition, George Will suggests that Goldwater’s conservatism was greatly influenced by his Arizona upbringing. The spirit of the West certainly promotes individualism and a desire for limitless opportunity. Perhaps, being raised in Texas, I found some attraction in Goldwater’s agenda of freedom. Moreover, I agree with Goldwater that there are human needs for which the government cannot provide. Unfortunately, since this book was about government, Goldwater had little to say about meeting those needs. Goldwater is silent on what is most important. Similarly, the Declaration of Independence hails the importance of the “pursuit of happiness” but is silent on what happiness actually is. Apparently, the individual has the freedom to decide. This isn’t a criticism of the book, but it reminds me that politics isn’t the source of my salvation. Instead, a free society merely gives me the opportunity to seek it.(less)
Ever so often, a pastor retires and thins out his library. Not too long ago, one such pastor offered me a dozen books by Lyle Schaller from his librar...moreEver so often, a pastor retires and thins out his library. Not too long ago, one such pastor offered me a dozen books by Lyle Schaller from his library. Lyle Schaller is one of those church growth gurus who started writing a few decades ago. Generally, I am not too fond of those writers, but Lyle Schaller is probably the best of the bunch.
Besides a few articles, “Growing Plans” is the first book that I have read by Schaller. It’s not bad. Clearly, the author has experience dealing with churches, conflict, and the mechanics of running a church. He uses a case study approach to examine small, medium, and large congregations. He asks good questions concerning assimilation of new members, congregational staff, and even parking lots. He brings insights from management, psychology and sociology to bear on the work of the church.
Still, something is missing. There is very little theology. I can’t even recall a single verse of Scripture. Some of the biggest problems of the church are rooted in questions of identity. Who is God? Who is the Church? Frankly, the answers to those questions should dominate how we “do church.” We may even decide to ignore the best advice of the management consultants if it goes against our identity as Christians.
Schaller is writing for a wide audience and for a variety of denominations. Perhaps, that is why he ignores the theological subtleties. He acknowledges that a church’s approach to growth is based upon its own “values, goals, dreams, prejudices, assumptions, interpretations of reality, theological perspectives, and understanding of the biblical imperative.” However, he does not do much besides acknowledging it. Pastors who wrestle with evangelism and mission must do the hard work that Schaller just assumes.
Thankfully, Schaller welcomes critique. He is a happy writer. He is merely offering his extensive practical experience to others. If it provokes the reader to think for himself or herself, I sense that Schaller would be content. (less)
I have been a fan of Rich Mullins, the Christian singer and songwriter, for a long time. I only discovered later that Mullins named his Ragamuffin Ban...moreI have been a fan of Rich Mullins, the Christian singer and songwriter, for a long time. I only discovered later that Mullins named his Ragamuffin Band in honor of Brennan Manning’s book. After reading the book (including a testimony by Rich Mullins) I realize that the author and the musician are kindred spirits.
In an afterword, Brennan Manning claims that his book has led to his criticism. His detractors have clucked that Manning is “a heretic, schismatic, universalist, and cockeyed optimist.” Frankly, he has committed only one sin which has been the proclamation of the grace of God in Jesus Christ. One critic claims that he has “out-Luthered Luther.” In a world of Christian books which promote spiritual laws, principles, and action plans, a book on God’s grace is extremely refreshing.
We are saved by God’s grace alone. The enemy of grace is the self-satisfied. These folks can be satisfied with their own righteousness or even their own sin. Relying on the love found in Jesus Christ leads to lives of gratitude and humility. When we reject the nominal for the deeper, we begin to follow God’s calling in our lives.
Although Manning has disagreements with the Roman Catholic church (he is a former priest), he is greatly influenced by its history and teaching. He also is influenced by the twelve step program of Alcoholics Anonymous. The book is filled with great illustrations from church history, literature, and his personal experiences. The appeal he makes to his readers is passionate. He makes strides to show the goodness of the gospel. He plays especially on the emotions of the reader. He also intends the book to be read devotionally. One of the last chapters actually has prayer exercises for the reader.
I loved the book. Of course, I am not a hostile audience. I know that my life depends on the manna of God’s grace. To the person just beginning in faith, I don’t know if I would recommend this book. Manning understands himself simply as a redeemed sinner, but many ragamuffins that I know would still feel out of place here. They would probably long for the earthiness and colorful language of Anne Lamott. Whether intentional or not, Manning’s audience appears to be church folks who finally get it. They realize that they are really ragamuffins in the hands of a merciful God.
Finally, the book is a bit dated. Some of the illustrations which were current in the 1980s when the book was written don’t read well in 2008. Nonetheless, I heartily recommend this book.(less)
Although the title and the forward suggests that this book speaks to the practical differences of men and women in small church ministry, sex plays re...moreAlthough the title and the forward suggests that this book speaks to the practical differences of men and women in small church ministry, sex plays really no role save for some hackneyed observations. Women are more concerned about relationships. Small churches care about relationships. Therefore, women have an important voice in our understanding of small church ministry. Nonetheless, Foltz draws many of her categories and descriptions from men such as Tex Sample and James Hopewell. In itself, mention of these men and their work is not bad. However, the title speaks more to the currents in academia and the mainline church with their discovery of "gender" rather than substantive contributions to practical theology.
Another troubling aspect of the book is its emphasis on the social sciences rather than the traditional resources of the church such as Scripture, theology and liturgy. As a result, God plays little role in the entire book. The book is about leadership based upon relationship and experience. The fact that it is about the Church's ministry is merely arbitrary. Profiles of women C.E.O.s would have taught me more concerning the leadership styles of women and about the same amount concerning the Church of Jesus Christ.
The best example of the book's ignorance of the traditions of Christianity is the chapter entitled, "Caring for Your Spiritual Life." In the chapter, Foltz describes the "cycle of spirituality." This cycle consists of three phases. One phase involves our discontinuities of life--when the need for change is immanent. The next phase is improvisation--trying to make meaning by "reweaving the threads of past experience." The last phase is composition--living out our new situation. Scripture, the Sacraments, or even the Church's rich heritage of spiritual disciplines are overlooked. Traditional categories such as sinfulness and forgiveness are not criticized. They are merely ignored.
Experienced pastors will discover little in the book that they don't already know. For example, one chapter discusses the rituals of church life. These rituals occur on more levels than merely the visible. These unspoken rituals say much about the identity of a church. For example, the dinner to welcome new church members into its fold says something different than not having that dinner. This is not exactly new revelation but still an important observation. Nonetheless, these tidbits of wisdom did not redeem the book. (less)
Almost always bibliographies for rural ministry include Brueggemann's "The Land." After reading the book, I don't understand why. Brueggemann's observ...moreAlmost always bibliographies for rural ministry include Brueggemann's "The Land." After reading the book, I don't understand why. Brueggemann's observations appear applicable to urban and suburban as well as rural ministries. (Granted, I read an earlier edition of the book. Perhaps, a later edition would clear my confusion.) Brueggemann's insight is in biblical theology, not a particular subset of Christian ministry.
Brueggemann uses "the land" as a category of interpretation from Genesis to the ends of the New Testament. Granted, the scope of the book is ambitious, but Brueggemann does a commendable job. I was particularly intrigued in seeing connections between the land as gift, Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, and Paul's teaching on grace. Brueggemann's method helps us overcome blind spots in traditional interpretation. Nonetheless, I would not suggest jettisoning more familiar ways of looking at Scripture in favor of "the land." As one who reads the Old Testament through the New, I would have appreciated more emphasis on Christology, Soteriology and their relation to the land. Still, there is plenty of food for thought.
Some practical observations. The book is dense. Anyone with merely a cursory knowledge of the Old Testament will find the book a slow read. Moreover, I recommend reading the last chapters first. They lay out where Brueggemann's interpretation is going. (less)
As a pastor who has been exposed to models of ministry based upon modern psychology and business management, St. Chrysostom's treatise is refreshing....moreAs a pastor who has been exposed to models of ministry based upon modern psychology and business management, St. Chrysostom's treatise is refreshing. Being famed as a preacher, I especially appreciated the "Golden-Mouth's" chapters on preaching and teaching. At one point, he compares the priest's work to the doctor. Whereas the doctor has a variety of medicines and treatments available,
"there is only one means and only one method of treatment available [to the priest], and that is teaching by word of mouth. That is the best instrument, the best diet, and the best climate. It takes the place of medicine and cautery and surgery. When we need to cauterize or cut, we must use this. Without it all else is useless." (pg 115)
That being said, the modern reader will probably not be happy with the entire work. The whole treatise is a dialogue between St. Chrysostom with and Basil, a friend whom he has deceived into the priesthood while avoiding it himself. That deception casts a shadow over the whole book, making the reader less than sympathetic toward St. Chrysostom. Nonetheless, the author forces the modern pastor to wrestle with the possibility that deception can be a useful tool of the ministry.
Graham Neville's translation is extremely readable, especially compared to older English translations. Moreover, his introduction is very helpful not only as a introduction to the book but also to ministry in the early church. He surveys pastoral works by Gregory of Nazianzus and Pope Gregory the Great as well as Chrystostom. The modern pastor must never forget that he or she is surrounded by a "great cloud of witnesses" whose advice is as timely as when it was written. (less)
Tom Long's "The Witness of Preaching" is a refreshing and readable look at homiletics. Long is well versed in the dominant literature and gives insigh...moreTom Long's "The Witness of Preaching" is a refreshing and readable look at homiletics. Long is well versed in the dominant literature and gives insight into preachers such as Fred Craddock and David Buttrick. However, his real accomplishment is found in the first chapter. Unlike some homiletics texts which focus on rhetoric or communication theory, Long begins with theology. Drawing from Old and New Testament roots, Long offers an image of preacher as the one who "bears witness." Long's beginning chapter is well worth the price of the entire book. In actuality, the chapter probably could stand alone. Will Willimon suggests as much by excerpting part of the chapter in "Pastor: A Reader for Ordained Ministry" (Abingdon Press, 2002).
The image of the preacher "bearing witness" guides the rest of the book. Instead of promoting rigid forms or rules, Long promotes flexibility in preaching. The preacher must make choices based upon the task of preaching. The author offers practical advice on sermon forms, introductions, conclusions, and the like without being pedantic. I only wish that Tom Long had included more examples. However, an interested reader can easily find collections of Long's sermons on Amazon.
I only have one other reservation. This one concerns the sticky issue of hermeneutics. To be fair, interpreting the Bible faithfully is a challenge. Giving advice for faithful interpretation is even more challenging. However, Long leaves the reader wanting more. At one place, he suggests that biblical preaching "does not mean merely talking about the Bible, using the Bible to bolster doctrinal arguments, or applying biblical 'principles' to everyday life" (pg 48). As a preacher who suffers to be "biblical," I could not be in greater agreement. Scripture contains ideas and principles, but these cannot be ripped away from their context. Otherwise one easily preaches abstractions, cut from the moorings of Christ's life, death, resurrection, ascension and return. However, Long does not seem consistent dealing with difficult texts such as household codes in the New Testament: "Slaves, be obedient to those who are your earthly masters." There he suggests the need to separate gospel from what is culturally conditioned. According to Long, the task is difficult--
"The point is that texts which scream cultural bias are also gospel texts, and texts which shout the gospel are also culturally conditioned. There is no surgical procedure for separating the tissues, no guaranteed way to separate the wheat from the chaff. Hearing the claim of God in and through a biblical text always demands and act of faithful imagination, a refusing to let a text go until it has blessed us..." (pg 52).
How different is this "blessing" from discovering "biblical `principles'"? Long offers no distinction except the term "faithful imagination." Interpreting difficult texts is the challenge of every preacher, and this reader would have loved some guidance in what consists a "faithful imagination."
Despite these reservations, Tom Long delivers an excellent primer on homiletics. (less)
Someone really needs to write a book for Reformed Christians that guides them through the landscape of American Christianity. Sadly this book does not...moreSomeone really needs to write a book for Reformed Christians that guides them through the landscape of American Christianity. Sadly this book does not accomplish that task. It raises questions, and answers them with a tepid Christology and a watered-down Bible.
American Christianity is an eclectic mix. We worship the Creator from the Declaration of Independence who gives inalienable rights. We practice the piety of WWJD bracelets echoing the liberal Christianity of Charles Sheldon. We embrace the Jesus of Mel Gibson's "Passion" drawn from pre-Vatican II Roman Catholicism. We accept the dispensationalism of the "Left Behind" books. We follow the moral teachings of Veggie Tales and the psychobabble of Norman Vincent Peale and James Dobson. Our politics draws from both Martin Luther King Jr. and Pat Robertson. The forty days of Lent have been replaced by the forty days of Rick Warren's "The Purpose Driven Life." Finally, set the whole thing to a soundtrack of bubble gum praise choruses and Fanny Crosby hymns. Presbyterians wonder if this theological pop culture is all there is. Many wonder who they are and what makes them distinctive.
As Presbyterians we draw upon the historical ecumenical consensus of the faith found in the Scriptures and outlined in texts such as the Nicene Creed. Instead of engaging the culture of the Bible Belt with this consensus, the authors of this book propose an alternative. They make a distinction between the Jesus of history and the Jesus of faith. Doesn't Jesus proclaim that he is the way, the truth, and the life (John 14:6)? The authors attribute it to the anti-Semitism of the early church (pg 72). Then they reinterpret the meaning of the verse. Wherever one finds the way, the truth, and the life, they seem to argue, one finds Jesus (pg 73).
I agree with the authors that the Bible needs to be interpreted. Moreover, I agree that there are some lousy interpretations out there. However, the authors do not engage those who interpret the Bible differently. Rather they merely rail against those who interpret the Bible literally. The authors engage in rhetoric that they themselves find offensive among "neo-evangelicals." For example, they make an argument in favor of "Biblical universalism." They then ask the question, "What then do we make of biblical references to the `fires of hell'?" The response: "We've already noted that literal interpretations of many scriptures are problematic" (pg 39). There is no discussion of the argument on its merits. Rather, those who take the Scriptures seriously concerning hell just don't know how to read the Bible. To make matters worse, the authors then imply that those who accept the traditional notion of hell probably just want to populate it with people they don't like (pg 39).
As a Presbyterian pastor in the Bible Belt, I am constantly encouraging my congregants to move beyond a cultural Christianity to embrace the faith for themselves. Essentially, this book is a hindrance to my efforts. The book is a wasted opportunity. (less)
Post-modernity is all the rage. It used to be that great epochs of history would be named and categorized only after the fact. Now, we try to define a...morePost-modernity is all the rage. It used to be that great epochs of history would be named and categorized only after the fact. Now, we try to define and judge history as it happens. It is probably fitting that in our wired world of blogs that our era of history would come with its own running commentary. Leonard Sweet, self-proclaimed theologian and futurist, offers his own commentary. He speaks to the Church in non-technical language about post-modernity and its implications for ministry.
Generally, I like Leonard Sweet. He is creative and fresh--witnessing to the relevancy of the gospel rather than trying to make it relevant. I have read a few of his other books, and I am a regular subscriber to his website for preachers, www.preachingplus.com. Overall, I am pleased with his book, "Post-Modern Pilgrims." Suggesting that we must continue to keep the past and the future in conversation is sound advice. His exegesis of modern American culture rings true, and it that light, his acronym EPIC is helpful. (Congregations need to promote consciously the ways in which their ministries area Experiential, Participatory, Image-driven, and Connected.)
Sadly, there are ways in which the book fails to go far enough. For all the talk of keeping the past and future in conversation, it is clear that the future dominates the book. The subtitle of the book is "First Century Passion for the 21st Century World." I would have loved some of that "first century passion." There is no extended treatment of how the early church understood itself or its mission, or why this might matter to the future of the church.
Although I tend to accept some of Sweet's concerns of modernity, he could sharpen his analysis. For example, Sweet asks the question, "Why has praise music been such a pet hate in so many church circles (pg 143)?" His answer may surprise you. The fault lies in the scientific method. I still cannot fathom how praise music is antithetical to the scientific method. Elsewhere, he suggests that modernity was "word-based" but post-modernity is "image-driven" (pg 89). The evidence for this switch, Sweet argues, is the importance of metaphor. However, what is metaphor if not "word-based"? Throughout the book, Sweet rejects modernity, while embracing the technology it has wrought.
The new world in which we live means the gospel should be expressed in new ways. However, I do not see in Leonard Sweet how the gospel critiques post-modernity. Could our over-reliance on technology be hurting real relationships? Could the 17th Century Reformers be right about their concern with icons and imagery? Could an ever expanding desire for experiences be idolatrous? Leonard Sweet praises the potentials for ministry in this post-modern period, yet the Church needs a better roadmap to navigate the pitfalls.(less)
Being a Presbyterian minister who attended the same seminary as Fred Rogers (albeit many years later), I was intrigued by "The Simple Faith of Mister...moreBeing a Presbyterian minister who attended the same seminary as Fred Rogers (albeit many years later), I was intrigued by "The Simple Faith of Mister Rogers." When Mister Rogers passed away, I had scanned the newspapers and the internet about glimpses into his life of faith. I found little, and what I found were platitudes. All I really knew about the faith of Mister Rogers was that he took it seriously, and he was ordained in the United Presbyterian Church as an evangelist to children. Guessing that Mister Roger's faith did not fit the stereotypical protestant evangelical mold, I was even more intrigued when I discovered that the book's author, Amy Hollingsworth, worked eight years as a writer and researcher for the 700 Club.
The book is part eulogy and part devotional. It effectively plays on emotions although not in a manipulative way. Intellectual biography or systematic theology is not the intent. Don't expect it. Through the book, we take away simple lessons from the life of Fred Rogers on prayer, forgiveness, quietness, etc. In some ways, the book is really about the author as she struggles with these lessons. In fact, some of the best anecdotes are about her life, not Mister Rogers. Nonetheless, I met Mister Rogers in this book (after having met him countless times on television).
More importantly, I have a glimpse into his faith. That faith is profoundly influenced by the gospels, authors like Henri Nouwen and Madeleine L'Engle, books like the "Little Prince" by Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, and his own studies of child development psychology. That faith is disciplined by prayer, scripture reading, the singing of hymns and times of quiet. I'm sure there are doctrinal issues with which Fred Rogers and I would disagree, but I cannot disagree with the kindness, compassion, and love of this gentle man. Someone once asked Jesus, "Who is my neighbor?" It would be hard to do better than Mister Rogers.(less)
Just a few days ago, I went to school to listen to the second-graders read. My son had picked up "Love that Dog" on the recommendation of a friend. As...moreJust a few days ago, I went to school to listen to the second-graders read. My son had picked up "Love that Dog" on the recommendation of a friend. As he read the book aloud, I became intrigued. That afternoon, as I drove my son home from school, he shared a passage from the book that was particularly poignant. I was hooked. After he finished, I asked him if I could borrow the book myself. He graciously allowed me the chance to read it despite his misgivings that I would not return the book before the library due date.
This is a beautiful book. It's about poetry and love. It's written like a journal for an elementary school class. It is told from the perspective of a boy struggling with writing, poetry and his love for his dog. As the book continues, the boy finds his voice through the poetry that the teacher assigns. Ultimately, the book is about the power of poetry. Reflecting upon the language and imagery of William Blake, Robert Frost, or Walter Dean Myers, the young boy shares his own imagery and his own life. Good poetry (especially divine poetry) reads us rather than we read it. It frees us to live and to love.
Loading...
