I read about 80 pages before I just couldn't take any more.
This is hard . . . I don't necessarily disagree with Swindoll, none of my problem is that he is wrong or unbiblical, not by any means. I think he is wise, I think he is truly taking the word of God and making it much more accessible to the people. There is nothing wrong with that, but this thing is like the lowest common denominator.
Most of his points start with, "imagine you are . . ." and then basically placed in the most extreme situation that kind of parallels what the Bible is saying. Ananias going to see Paul, would be like one of us going to meet Hitler. Imagine being attacked in church. Imagine having to flee in a basket. Imagine, imagine, imagine. If all we ever do is put ourselves in the situation. If the only way we can understand the Bible, or engage the Bible is by pretending we are there, then we are the authority, not the Bible. If the Bible doesn't make sense to me, or if I see the situation differently, or if I've been in a similar situation, etc. All of that is me-first theology. My engagement, my experiences are the authority. We aren't really expositing the text, we are expositing how we feel about any given hypothetical situation.
Everything about the book becomes speculation. He claims Paul's mother died when he was nine, but I can't find any reference to that anywhere. He claims Paul probably saw Jesus teach during His earthly ministry, but I don't see that anywhere. He claims Paul was probably there for Gamaliel's speech regarding the Apostles, but I don't see that anywhere. These might be inferences we could make, and if this were a book of fiction, or any other biography you might be able to make those claims, but you are trying to get people to engage with Scripture, with the inspired Word of God. Where the Scriptures remain silent, it is best for us not to speculate.
When Swindoll does finally make his point, they are the most bland type of Sunday preaching. Again, it is not that any of these things are wrong, or that they aren't worth hearing or being taught, it's that they are nothing new, nothing significant, nothing that even I (who has only preached for a couple of years) haven't taught. Swindoll has a 60+ year ministry, he has lifetimes worth of experience, and every one of his deep points is borderline trite Christianese that sounds good in the moment but is largely lacking in anything substantial. It is snack food instead of the rich engaging meal I expect from someone of his background.
Chapter 1:
Everyone has a dark side, no one is beyond hope, anyone can find a new beginning in Christ, focus on the future, not the past.
Again, by no means is this wrong or bad, but it is severely lacking in substance. It is more about how I feel about myself, more about forgiving myself, more about me, me, me, and lacks the amazing grace of Jesus Christ. It lacks the overarching point that salvation, grace, and mercy are not about me, but about my loving savior who looks down at me in my "dark side" and pulls me out. It is His work, His deeds, His action, I offer nothing, and my "dark side" deserves the deepest pit of Hell. Stop sugar coating the bad news, and instead hit the life giving power of the gospel.
I will also admit I'm giving Swindoll a lot of grace here, more than I've given other writers. We do not have a "dark side" but are inherently sinful from birth. Our hearts are the worst of liars, and I would describe us more like the pre-flood world. Every thought is on wickedness all the time. We are totally depraved. The idea of a "dark side" implies the existence of a "light side," where people can be good. That is simply not the case. There is nothing inside of a human that is good. Show me in the Bible where it says man is good, has good, can be good, does good, or knows good apart from God.
He is using the "dark side" to mean the moments in our past that we regret, so I do give him credit and cut him slack, he is not teaching that man can be good, but that we should focus on Christ and not each other's sins, it is just made so soft and agreeable as to be poorly explained.
Chapter 2:
This chapter is largely speculative based. He considers the idea of kicking against the goads and takes it to mean that God has been working to soften Paul's heart for a long time. God has been working in Paul and Paul has been rebelling against Him . . . I mean, maybe, but even just the goads of Stephen's preaching, or the Apostles' healing, or the teaching of the Old Testament would have all been enough. We don't need huge amounts of speculation to how God was trying to get to Paul. Largely, it would make it seem like God was unable to soften Paul's heart in an instant, on the Road to Damascus, like the scriptures kind of say happened. Never in any of his epistles does Paul claim that God was trying to soften his heart before his conversion.
Chapter 3:
This chapter is about Ananias, and how he was a man working behind the scenes. Swindoll had some really strong points in this chapter, mainly how most Christians will never know the fruits of their labors until they are in heaven. The pastor laboring away in a small, dying, rural church is just as important as the pastor of the mega-church. That hits close to home . . . but is only like a paragraph in the chapter, and Swindoll struggles to really go that far. Mostly the chapter becomes about listening to God and taking the first step in faith. I honest-to-goodness HATE that advice. It is meaningless and has always left me with a feeling of doubt and inadequacy.
Swindoll just knew it was time to leave California and head to Texas. So God took him from one of the darkest places in the country, to one where most people will agree with him, to a state without income tax, and that isn't an absolute hole. He was also made president of Dallas Theological, so I wonder if Charles knew the calling was there before he even got off the phone with DTS. Seems like an easy decision for him and his wife to make. Seems to me like God just gave Swindoll everything he wanted. Must be nice when God just gives you everything you want without challenge. In my experience and understanding, God rarely just tells us to do what we want, but sends us somewhere to challenge us, it is joy through struggle. Not zero income tax, 90% Christian population, and a huge paycheck from one of the most prestigious seminaries in the world.
That kind of advice makes it sound like we should be hearing personal messages from God, and if we are not obeying those messages then we are in trouble. I, for one, have never heard a voice telling me what to do. I have never even heard a voice to have the opportunity to ignore it. And it is remarkable when I say that, how many times I am told to just pray more, pray harder, or how some other person hears voices all the time, and then we are discussing the amazing things God has "told" them to do. We have to give people a place to start, we have to show them what it means to step out in faith. We have to give them something little more concrete than "take the first step." FIRST STEP WHERE? I'm already lost.
How I deliver the trust and obey message: start with the basic Christian disciplines: prayer, Bible, Church. Keep doing those three no matter what. Then understand that God is sovereign, He will put you where He wants you. Trust God by doing your best work, trying your hardest at everything you do, let your actions shine for Christ, and when the time comes open your mouth to speak Christ. That is solid and concrete. It's not "step out in faith and see where God takes you." I can't stand that faith and I struggled for years trying to find what it meant and where I should be going to "step out in faith."
Chapter 4:
Chapter 4 is about the need for solitude and quiet time to draw closer to God. This is a double edged sword and needs a lot more explanation and insight than what is given here. Me, walking into the woods to have quiet time, is not the same as Paul in the wilderness, all of which is speculation because we don't know what he did in the wilderness. He was discipled and learned about the Lord, that's what we know and we can debate what that looked like, but if he was being beaten and persecuted as the scriptures seem to imply, then it doesn't seem like much quiet time was had. This is a better lesson from our Lord Jesus Christ, who went off to pray by Himself. As far as David, Moses, Elijah, John the Baptist . . . we are largely speculating again. David had men with him, he had followers, and he traveled throughout the country, Elijah took a nap by the river, but hard to say he was there for the entire three years it didn't rain, Moses's whole family were shepherds, and Jethro had to be a leader of some kind, so there were people there too. John the Baptist is said to be in the wilderness preaching . . . and multitudes went to find him.
Again, this is a message that sounds good as a topical sermon, but is a little trickier when the Bible is read.
It also largely ignores the realities of most people's lives. My quiet time is the ten minute walk I get on the way home, and I'm happy to have it. Most people can't take the six-weeks off that Charles Swindoll was able to take (good for him, don't misunderstand me) but Charles Swindoll is already at the top of his field, he can command a hefty speaking fee, and is able to write generic vanilla books that become best sellers because they have his name on them.
It's easy to tell people to stop trying to run the rat race, and to slow down in life. A lot of people are still just trying to survive. Not a bad or wrong message, but seemed to be given in a very tone-deaf topical sermon Sunday morning kind of way. Is a six-week sabbatical really what the Bible teaches? Were Corrie Ten Boom and Richard Wurmbrandt bad Christians because they couldn't take time off from their prison cells? Should Christians really consider spending time in a monastery, or should we be expected to seek God in the storms of life?
Peace is when the world around us is raging out of control, but we are held by the anchor of Christ. When we remove ourselves from the storm, we are no longer looking for God in the storm, we no longer have need for the anchor.
Chapter 5:
This chapter is about how we are dependent on one another and need each other to survive. This chapter was the breaking point for me. For starters, he spends an inordinate amount of time telling his readers that they are not has bad as Timothy McVeigh (Oklahoma City Bombing). Understand, that just because we haven't blown up a building, doesn't mean the evil in our hearts is any less. We are far closer to McVeigh in nature than we are Jesus Christ.
He then goes on to explain how we all need each other. He doesn't use the body metaphor . . . but nor does he say anything of value. It is all just so generic, it is vanilla ice cream, it is milquetoast, it is there to make us feel good, there to make us agree without looking any deeper. Of course we will all agree, but there is nothing underneath to support what he says. There are people who can live fine by themselves. There are people who do not need others in the same way as he describes.
Again, we are lacking the foundation of Jesus Christ and real obedience. We love others because our Lord and Master tells us to. And even though we need others, or perhaps because we need others we must give them the truths they need to hear, not sugarcoat what they may not want. A lot of this becomes permissive niceness. An effort to be nice, sound nice. It lacks the hard hitting truth, doing for someone what is right and best. The fruit of the spirit is kindness, doing the right thing for someone even when they won't appreciate it.
This entire book is so generic. I wasn't interested. My wife said it sounds like countless other Devotional books for women. Filled with feelings based thinking, and generic ideas that housewives can agree to without being challenged in their faith and how they act.
These are topical sermons that sound good in the moment, but leave no lasting change or difference.
I've found more in Warren Wiersbe and John MacArthur. I wouldn't waste my time here.