Lee Harmon's Blog, page 137
February 26, 2011
Jeremiah 25:27
This is what the LORD Almighty, the God of Israel, says: Drink, get drunk and vomit
//Thought maybe you could use a good Saturday night verse. Here you go; have a good time tonight, with God's blessing.
Or have I aroused a bit of suspicion? Let's read the verse again, in the context of the next few:
Then tell them, "This is what the LORD Almighty, the God of Israel, says: Drink, get drunk and vomit, and fall to rise no more because of the sword I will send among you.' But if they refuse to take the cup from your hand and drink, tell them, 'This is what the LORD Almighty says: You must drink it! See, I am beginning to bring disaster on the city that bears my Name, and will you indeed go unpunished? … The LORD will roar from on high; he will thunder from his holy dwelling and roar mightily against his land. He will shout like those who tread the grapes, shout against all who live on the earth."
Still sound like fun? This is the doom saying of the prophet Jeremiah, about God's own city. Jerusalem is about to be leveled, its people falling under the heavy yoke of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon. This image provides the inspiration for the whore of Babylon in the book of Revelation, and those destined to "drink of the wine of God's fury, which has been poured full strength into the cup of his wrath."
The grapes of wrath. Still thirsty? Still planning to stop by the corner bar? Now in Revelation the wine turns into blood: "Then the angel swung his sickle on the earth, gathered its grapes and threw them into the great winepress of God's wrath. They were trampled in the winepress outside the city, and blood flowed out of the press, rising as high as the horses' bridles for a distance of 180 miles."
Stay home tonight, guys. Please?
//Thought maybe you could use a good Saturday night verse. Here you go; have a good time tonight, with God's blessing.
Or have I aroused a bit of suspicion? Let's read the verse again, in the context of the next few:
Then tell them, "This is what the LORD Almighty, the God of Israel, says: Drink, get drunk and vomit, and fall to rise no more because of the sword I will send among you.' But if they refuse to take the cup from your hand and drink, tell them, 'This is what the LORD Almighty says: You must drink it! See, I am beginning to bring disaster on the city that bears my Name, and will you indeed go unpunished? … The LORD will roar from on high; he will thunder from his holy dwelling and roar mightily against his land. He will shout like those who tread the grapes, shout against all who live on the earth."
Still sound like fun? This is the doom saying of the prophet Jeremiah, about God's own city. Jerusalem is about to be leveled, its people falling under the heavy yoke of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon. This image provides the inspiration for the whore of Babylon in the book of Revelation, and those destined to "drink of the wine of God's fury, which has been poured full strength into the cup of his wrath."
The grapes of wrath. Still thirsty? Still planning to stop by the corner bar? Now in Revelation the wine turns into blood: "Then the angel swung his sickle on the earth, gathered its grapes and threw them into the great winepress of God's wrath. They were trampled in the winepress outside the city, and blood flowed out of the press, rising as high as the horses' bridles for a distance of 180 miles."
Stay home tonight, guys. Please?
February 25, 2011
Book review: The Days of Vengeance
by David Chilton★★★★★
For those of you that read my review of Alan Bondar's book (http://www.dubiousdisciple.com/2011/02/book-review-reading-bible-through-new.html) and yearned for more, here's a book you absolutely must read. Chilton (1951-1997) is no stranger to preterist scholarship and first-century eschatology. I suspect this book sits on the shelf of every preterist researcher. And it should.
It's not a quick read; over 700 pages. A comprehensive exposition, going verse by verse through Revelation, showing its relevance to first-century happenings. It is Chilton who quipped, "Not once did [John] imply that his book was written with the twentieth century in mind, and that Christians would be wasting their time attempting to decipher it until the Scofield Reference Bible would become a best-selling novel."
Some of the analysis goes a bit deep; one of Chilton's most important contributions is a long, convincing explanation of how rabbinic numerology would have recognized the number 666 already as the mark of both a king and a kingdom in the Dragon's image. They also identified, from Daniel, the Roman Empire as the fourth and final kingdom before the end times. Then, lo and behold, along comes a Roman emperor (Nero Caesar) matching this very number!
Do you really want to understand why first-century Christians were so completely convinced of Christ's impending return? Then this book is a must-read.
(click picture to buy on Amazon)
February 24, 2011
Exodus 6:3
And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.
//Today's topic is for all you Universalists out there. Sometimes the King James interpretation we are familiar with flat-lines the meaning of a verse so much that it becomes unnoticeable. This one is an example. What exactly is this verse saying? Let's try reading it in the New International Version:
I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob as God Almighty, but by my name the LORD I did not make myself known to them.
Ouch, that's even worse! God's name, Jehovah (Yahweh), has become the generic LORD. How about the New Living Translation:
I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob as God Almighty, though I did not reveal my name, the LORD, to them.
Sigh. We're not getting anywhere. How do you "appear" as "God Almighty?" And who is the LORD? What is this verse really saying? Here's a non-watered-down version of the original Hebrew:
I am Yahweh. I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob as El Shaddai, but by my name Yahweh I did not make myself known to them.
Now we're getting somewhere! So who is El Shaddai?
Answer: The "high god" of the Canaanites, the top fella, the almighty one above all other gods. Here we learn that the high god of the Canaanites before Israel arrived in force was Yahweh all along. The God of the Hebrews before there were ever any Hebrews. When he presented himself to the Patriarchs, he did so as the god of the Canaanites, and only later revealed himself also as the God of the Jews.
//Today's topic is for all you Universalists out there. Sometimes the King James interpretation we are familiar with flat-lines the meaning of a verse so much that it becomes unnoticeable. This one is an example. What exactly is this verse saying? Let's try reading it in the New International Version:
I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob as God Almighty, but by my name the LORD I did not make myself known to them.
Ouch, that's even worse! God's name, Jehovah (Yahweh), has become the generic LORD. How about the New Living Translation:
I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob as God Almighty, though I did not reveal my name, the LORD, to them.
Sigh. We're not getting anywhere. How do you "appear" as "God Almighty?" And who is the LORD? What is this verse really saying? Here's a non-watered-down version of the original Hebrew:
I am Yahweh. I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob as El Shaddai, but by my name Yahweh I did not make myself known to them.
Now we're getting somewhere! So who is El Shaddai?
Answer: The "high god" of the Canaanites, the top fella, the almighty one above all other gods. Here we learn that the high god of the Canaanites before Israel arrived in force was Yahweh all along. The God of the Hebrews before there were ever any Hebrews. When he presented himself to the Patriarchs, he did so as the god of the Canaanites, and only later revealed himself also as the God of the Jews.
February 23, 2011
Book review: The Resurrection of Jesus: John Dominic Crossan and N.T. Wright in Dialogue
[image error]
Edited by Robert B. Stewart
★★★
When this book first appeared, I purchased it with great anticipation. Crossan and Wright are respected and respectful scholars, both with a reputation for digging deeply. But they sit on opposite sides of the fence.
To set the stage, there is no mention of an empty tomb in Paul's writings, and the earliest Christian tradition contains no description of the resurrection itself. By the time the Gospels were written, it would have been very hard to certify what the tomb had contained. Tombs in that period were not permanent places of burial but only temporary places where the body decayed, leaving the bones, which were then either pushed to the back of the tomb or collected in ossuaries. In other words, no evidence existed to prove or disprove the claim of bodily resurrection by the time the claims were committed to writing.
Did it happen? How?
Wright believes in the bodily resurrection of Jesus and the empty tomb. He puzzles, as a historian, why anyone would continue to belong to the Christian movement in the first century and regard Jesus as the Messiah, unless the stories were regarded as literally true. Crossan, on the other hand, understands the resurrection as a metaphor for Jesus' continued presence in the church. Bodily resurrection, to him, means "the embodied life of Jesus," which continues to be experienced by believers today.
Sound like an interesting discussion? The dialogue between the two lasts all of 18 pages, and is rather uninspiring. The rest of the book contains commentary by other authors, where at least we appear to get a real peek into the minds of Crossan and Wright.
Disappointing.
(click picture to buy on Amazon)
Edited by Robert B. Stewart★★★
When this book first appeared, I purchased it with great anticipation. Crossan and Wright are respected and respectful scholars, both with a reputation for digging deeply. But they sit on opposite sides of the fence.
To set the stage, there is no mention of an empty tomb in Paul's writings, and the earliest Christian tradition contains no description of the resurrection itself. By the time the Gospels were written, it would have been very hard to certify what the tomb had contained. Tombs in that period were not permanent places of burial but only temporary places where the body decayed, leaving the bones, which were then either pushed to the back of the tomb or collected in ossuaries. In other words, no evidence existed to prove or disprove the claim of bodily resurrection by the time the claims were committed to writing.
Did it happen? How?
Wright believes in the bodily resurrection of Jesus and the empty tomb. He puzzles, as a historian, why anyone would continue to belong to the Christian movement in the first century and regard Jesus as the Messiah, unless the stories were regarded as literally true. Crossan, on the other hand, understands the resurrection as a metaphor for Jesus' continued presence in the church. Bodily resurrection, to him, means "the embodied life of Jesus," which continues to be experienced by believers today.
Sound like an interesting discussion? The dialogue between the two lasts all of 18 pages, and is rather uninspiring. The rest of the book contains commentary by other authors, where at least we appear to get a real peek into the minds of Crossan and Wright.
Disappointing.
(click picture to buy on Amazon)
February 22, 2011
Mark 1:4
And so John came, baptizing in the desert region and preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.
//In a recent forum, the topic came up of whether Jesus, the man, ever existed. Doubters point out the unlikelihood that any writer of the New Testament had ever met Jesus, and then point to the lack of reliable evidence external to the Bible. The external references that do exist are rare, and some, such as the famous Testimonium Flavianum passage by Jewish historian Josephus, where Josephus describes Jesus as the Messiah and tells how he rose on the third day, are universally considered forgeries.
Yet most New Testament scholars have little doubt about Jesus' existence, based on the sheer volume of indirect evidence. Let me give you an example.
Virtually every scholar recognizes from the Bible that the Baptist movement and the Christian movement were in competition. And virtually every scholar recognizes the embarrassment of admitting that Jesus was initially a follower of John, and was even baptized by John. Mark's Gospel hints that, like everyone else, Jesus approached John to be baptized "for the forgiveness of sins!" Yikes! No wonder the connection between Jesus and the Baptist is progressively downplayed in the Gospel accounts until, when we get to the final Gospel, John's Gospel, Jesus isn't even baptized!
It's safe to conclude that, if Jesus wasn't baptized by John, there wouldn't be a whisper of the whole embarrassing connection in any of the Gospels.
So, there you have it, one little indirect piece of the pie that helps scholars conclude Jesus was a real, living, breathing person.
//In a recent forum, the topic came up of whether Jesus, the man, ever existed. Doubters point out the unlikelihood that any writer of the New Testament had ever met Jesus, and then point to the lack of reliable evidence external to the Bible. The external references that do exist are rare, and some, such as the famous Testimonium Flavianum passage by Jewish historian Josephus, where Josephus describes Jesus as the Messiah and tells how he rose on the third day, are universally considered forgeries.
Yet most New Testament scholars have little doubt about Jesus' existence, based on the sheer volume of indirect evidence. Let me give you an example.
Virtually every scholar recognizes from the Bible that the Baptist movement and the Christian movement were in competition. And virtually every scholar recognizes the embarrassment of admitting that Jesus was initially a follower of John, and was even baptized by John. Mark's Gospel hints that, like everyone else, Jesus approached John to be baptized "for the forgiveness of sins!" Yikes! No wonder the connection between Jesus and the Baptist is progressively downplayed in the Gospel accounts until, when we get to the final Gospel, John's Gospel, Jesus isn't even baptized!
It's safe to conclude that, if Jesus wasn't baptized by John, there wouldn't be a whisper of the whole embarrassing connection in any of the Gospels.
So, there you have it, one little indirect piece of the pie that helps scholars conclude Jesus was a real, living, breathing person.
February 21, 2011
Book review: Reading the Bible Through New Covenant Eyes
by Alan Bondar★★★★★
This is a very important book, and I beg all Christians to read it slowly. It might make you think differently, but there is nothing here to be afraid of, I promise.
I should confess up front that I asked for a review copy of Alan's book because I have a deep interest in Christian eschatology (the study of the end times). I have written my own book about Revelation (www.thewayithappened.com), and Alan and I both read the Bible more literally than most people. When the scripture says "soon," we believe it means soon. When Jesus says "within this generation," we believe Jesus meant his own generation. Yet, though we read the same words with the same literalness, we disagree—quite radically, I might add—about its message. Our two books are polar opposites. And here I am wholeheartedly endorsing Alan's book. How can that be?
Question: Is the Bible the inerrant, inspired word of God? I personally don't think of it that way. When I read the scriptures, I see multiple contradictions, differing opinions, human motives, outdated morals, historical inaccuracies, and blatant evangelizing. This is not to say I don't consider the Bible the most influential and miraculous piece of literature in the history of the world; I do, and I'm greatly inspired by it. I just don't read it as inerrant scripture.
My approach to interpreting scripture is sometimes called the historical-critical method. This method seeks to uncover the meaning and setting of each passage without resorting to supernatural suppositions. For example, Revelation refers directly to several events that happened during the Jewish war of 66-70 A.D. So, quite naturally, I conclude it must have been written after the war. How else could its author write about what happened?
There is a second way to read the Bible. If read through the eyes of a believer, one who finds that the Bible is prophetic and inerrant, then the logical conclusion is that Revelation could have only been written before the events it describes, since it seems to promote itself as prophecy.
Enter Alan Bondar's book, Reading the Bible Through New Covenant Eyes. Another equally descriptive title may be Reading the Bible Through Believer's Eyes. Bondar is a believing Christian who writes under the assumption that the Bible is both holy and inspired—and entirely written before the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D. Now, I don't often take sides like this in my book reviews, but I consider myself a scholar of Revelation and first-century eschatology, and here is my conclusion: If Bondar is right about the Bible's inerrancy and traditional authorship (a big if, but I know many of you share this belief with him) then there is only one way to interpret the Bible as a whole, and Bondar has nailed it. His interpretation remains true to the spirit of urgency throughout the New Testament. Take this to the bank from an impartial judge (yeah, that's me, the agnostic Christian): If the Bible is everywhere consistent, Bondar's careful research has uncovered the most logical and contextual way to read it. Deep study of the Bible has turned him into a full preterist: a person who believes God's promise of a new age, as described in books like Revelation, was fully realized in the first century.
Preterism is a branch of Christianity that believes most of the prophecies and covenantal promises have been fulfilled. Armageddon is over. Full Preterism, Bondar style, carries this to extremes: It's all been fulfilled. Christ has already come back, the earth is not going to be destroyed, the general resurrection has happened.
Let's get right to the dirt: Jesus promised he was coming back immediately. Futurists point out that Jesus never came back, and conclude he must not have really meant "immediately." Full Preterists point out that Jesus clearly said "immediately," many times in many ways, and conclude Jesus must have somehow already come back. Oh, and irritants like me point out that the writers of the New Testament could have been mistaken in their beliefs, but let's ignore the irritants for now.
So, how and when did Jesus come back? What about the general resurrection? Has death been abolished as promised? Did the final judgment occur? These are all questions that Bondar answers with simplicity, consistent with the teachings of the Bible. Well, with one exception: I confess Alan Bondar's explanation of the millennium, the thousand year reign of Christ, seems weak to me.
I was disappointed that this book does not discuss the external evidence of Preterism. That is, the events of 66-70 A.D. that map directly to the story in Revelation. But I've read several great Preterist books, and I'll try to do a review on one or two in the near future. Besides, for Bondar to exhaustively argues his case would take a book twice the size of this one, and obscure its real value: that of bridging the misunderstanding of many Christians, that Preterism is some kind of wacky uprising to destroy one's hope, and showing it to be just as "Christian" as orthodox beliefs.
Let me leave you with some advice: If you are content in your belief that the Bible is imperfect, read my book and don't let Alan corrupt you. If you are a literal believer in the Bible, pick up Alan's book and don't touch mine with a ten foot pole. And if you are happy with your creedal, orthodox version of Christianity, burn both books and keep scanning the skies for Jesus to return on the clouds.
(click picture to buy on Amazon)
February 20, 2011
Genesis 33:10
…for therefore I have seen thy face, as though I had seen the face of God, and thou wast pleased with me.
//Said by Jacob to Esau at their meeting.
A few days ago, in a review of Karen Armstrong's book In The Beginning ( http://www.dubiousdisciple.com/2011/02/book-review-in-beginning.html ) I discussed the day Jacob fought with God.
Actually, the man Jacob wrestled with refused to identify himself. Desperate to escape before daybreak allowed recognition, Jacob's opponent begged to be let go, but Jacob refused, and held tight to the mysterious man until he blessed Jacob. Jacob then decided he must have been wrestling with God, and changed the name of the place to Peniel, "face of God."
Karen Armstrong wonders if the author didn't mean to imply that Jacob dreamed the whole affair. I guess that makes sense, since the Bible is clear that no man can see the face of God and live. But how, then, did Jacob's thigh get out of joint?
Sorry, Karen, this time you're wrong, it was no dream. Let's continue the story. The next morning, along comes Esau, Jacob's long-lost brother. Jacob feared the meeting, for he had stolen Esau's birthright through deception. Curiously, Esau meets Jacob not with anger but with forgiveness! What brought about this sudden change?
As they hug one another, Jacob makes this strange pronouncement: "I have seen your face, as though it were the face of God." Jacob suddenly identifies the man he wrestled with in the dark … it was the face of his brother, Esau.
//Said by Jacob to Esau at their meeting.
A few days ago, in a review of Karen Armstrong's book In The Beginning ( http://www.dubiousdisciple.com/2011/02/book-review-in-beginning.html ) I discussed the day Jacob fought with God.
Actually, the man Jacob wrestled with refused to identify himself. Desperate to escape before daybreak allowed recognition, Jacob's opponent begged to be let go, but Jacob refused, and held tight to the mysterious man until he blessed Jacob. Jacob then decided he must have been wrestling with God, and changed the name of the place to Peniel, "face of God."
Karen Armstrong wonders if the author didn't mean to imply that Jacob dreamed the whole affair. I guess that makes sense, since the Bible is clear that no man can see the face of God and live. But how, then, did Jacob's thigh get out of joint?
Sorry, Karen, this time you're wrong, it was no dream. Let's continue the story. The next morning, along comes Esau, Jacob's long-lost brother. Jacob feared the meeting, for he had stolen Esau's birthright through deception. Curiously, Esau meets Jacob not with anger but with forgiveness! What brought about this sudden change?
As they hug one another, Jacob makes this strange pronouncement: "I have seen your face, as though it were the face of God." Jacob suddenly identifies the man he wrestled with in the dark … it was the face of his brother, Esau.
February 19, 2011
Book review: Jesus Christ: The Jesus of History, the Christ of Faith
by J. R. Porter★★★★★
I have no idea how this book slipped through the cracks. I never heard of it until one day it appeared on the discount rack at Borders. With lots of colorful pictures and insightful sidebars, does it not look scholarly enough? Would that explain its obscurity?
This is more than a beautiful book; it's carefully researched and fun to read. Oh, that's another sin, isn't it? Scholarly books are supposed to be boring, reserved for the studious.
Here's the deal: If you've ever wondered about all the hoopla surrounding the Historical Jesus, this is a highly recommended first book, taking you deep into the world of first-century Palestine. It's respectful but not evangelical; the typical Christian will find it enlightening while the fundamentalist may not. In a simple example, Matthew and Luke provide long genealogies of Christ, that unfortunately contradict one another. Porter points out that such genealogical compilations were common, and were for political or religious reasons, never intended as a straightforward historical record. They are, in the biblical instance, artificial constructions with a theological aim, needing no harmonizing, and the contradiction between the two should not disturb Christians.
Let's take another example. When Porter discusses the Massacre of the Innocents (King Herod's slaughter of children when Jesus was born), he discusses how the story in Matthew is woven from various biblical themes, probably influenced by Jewish embellishments of the story of Abraham in the book of Genesis. Many scholars hold the view that Matthew has manufactured the entire story. But Porter doesn't downplay the possibility that such a massacre did occur at the hands of Herod; it may be authentic, its victims simply not numerous enough to draw the attention of contemporary historians. Such brutal acts were not unheard of for the time.
This constant determination to present all sides of a discussion—in particular, his portrayal of both the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith—is not being wishy-washy. It's merely good scholarship, and it makes you think.
Beautiful, quite readable, highly recommended.
(click picture to buy on Amazon)
February 18, 2011
Genesis 22:10, 15-16
Then [Abraham] reached out his hand and took the knife to slay his son. And the angel of the LORD called to Abraham from heaven a second time and said, "I swear by myself, declares the LORD, that because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore."
Oops. That's not how the story goes, is it? Abraham doesn't really kill Isaac, does he?
Yes, quite possibly, he does. Several midrashic sources actually confirm that Isaac was indeed sacrificed. Why else does Abraham now appear to descend the mountain alone? The story continues: Then Abraham returned to his servants, and they set off together for Beersheba.
Scholars have long recognized that the books of Moses are a collection of multiple authors' writings, and this particular story is contributed by what scholars label the "E" writer—the one who refers to God as Elohim. Not surprisingly, this "E" writer will never again mention Isaac (though other sources will). But inserted after the sentence where Abraham appears to slay his son are a few verses that I've left out; verses written in a different style, verses in which an angel of Yahweh intervenes and stops the sacrifice. Likely, these verses were inserted into the story much later.
The story of Abraham and Isaac may mark a turning point in Hebrew history, when human sacrifice became repugnant. But what's not exactly clear is when this turning point came … when the story of Isaac was rewritten to be morally acceptable. We don't know.
Oops. That's not how the story goes, is it? Abraham doesn't really kill Isaac, does he?
Yes, quite possibly, he does. Several midrashic sources actually confirm that Isaac was indeed sacrificed. Why else does Abraham now appear to descend the mountain alone? The story continues: Then Abraham returned to his servants, and they set off together for Beersheba.
Scholars have long recognized that the books of Moses are a collection of multiple authors' writings, and this particular story is contributed by what scholars label the "E" writer—the one who refers to God as Elohim. Not surprisingly, this "E" writer will never again mention Isaac (though other sources will). But inserted after the sentence where Abraham appears to slay his son are a few verses that I've left out; verses written in a different style, verses in which an angel of Yahweh intervenes and stops the sacrifice. Likely, these verses were inserted into the story much later.
The story of Abraham and Isaac may mark a turning point in Hebrew history, when human sacrifice became repugnant. But what's not exactly clear is when this turning point came … when the story of Isaac was rewritten to be morally acceptable. We don't know.
February 17, 2011
Book review: The Unworthy Servant
by Bob Williston★★★★
The Unworthy Servant is a fictional narrative of a young man who joins an obscure Christian "cultic" group. Bob Williston was raised in such a sect (sometimes called the 2x2s or the "Friends and Workers," hereafter abbreviated F&Ws), and anyone who knows the author knows precisely the religious group which forms the inspiration for his writings, but this isn't meant to be a story about only the F&W's. Bob purposefully introduces idioms and rituals that don't derive from the F&Ws. For example, he writes about foot washing, which the F&W's don't practice; he speaks of "confessing" (the common F&W term is "professing") and of attending "retreats" (F&W's will call them "conventions.") When I asked about this, Bob explained: "The reason I used some different language and some different practices was to make the book focus more on the dynamics and personalities in a cultic group, rather than have it appear to be simply a presentation of life among the 2x2s."
But don't be fooled: while Bob writes "generically" of such sects, his storyline and characters derive from an actual living, breathing religious movement. The F&W religion originated in the late 19th century, and maintains a worldwide nondenominational Christian fellowship of a few hundred thousand members that meet in homes and are directed by a homeless, travelling ministry. The group prefers to keep a low profile, and doesn't have a legal organization or website to tell about it, but here is a website maintained by a prior member that can provide more information: http://www.tellingthetruth.info/home/
F&Ws will, of course, bristle at Bob's use of the word "cult" as he describes the book, because this word can be misinterpreted in some very derogatory ways. I don't want to put you in mind of another Heaven's Gate or Waco, Texas. The F&W religion is benign by comparison, in my opinion only slightly more "cultish" than mainstream Christianity. Its members are satisfied, happy members of society. Nevertheless, Bob's story will carry you deep inside a world that is very foreign to most Christians.
Meet Aaron Finkelstein, a young man who finds his spiritual emptiness met by a Christian group called "The Way." Enamored of its simplicity and friendliness, he offers to become a "servant" (a minister, or, in F&W terms, a "worker"). As instructed, he signs over his life savings to the group so that he can become homeless and penniless. Thus begins a journey into a world of critical fundamentalism, aggressive exclusivity, under-the-surface legalism, subtle extortion and irrational over-admiration for group leaders. (Note to members of such groups: Yes, whether you feel it's deserved or not, many outsiders and former members really do see your group in exactly these terms. The lack of financial accountability does not help.)
Ninety percent of the book is dialogue, which can be a challenge for an author. At times this style makes the book appear unimaginative and preachy (you can only do so much with "he said, she said") but at other times makes it insightful and hard to put down. For me, perhaps because of my religious background, it was a page-turner. I particularly recommend it for anyone with connections to similar religious groups.
(click picture to buy on Amazon)
