Coffeehouse Theology

The second book, also from viralbloggers.com, was Coffeehouse Theology by Ed Cyzewski. I have to say that I enjoyed this considerably more than The Colors of God and it was a very different book as well. While the title for the book seems silly and the explanation for it was somewhat nonsensical, there are some good ideas in this that I truly believe are crucial in interacting with the Bible.

The two main things I took from here which were exciting to potentially get in the hands of a population outside the scholarly world:
1. Being aware of all that you bring into reading the Bible. How does your context shape the way you interpret it?
2. Based on how you come at the Bible, how does that correspond(or not generally!) with the original recipients of the Bible in its various forms.

I believe being conscious of both of these is extremely radical and crucial if we hope to truly study the Bible. The other facet to this, which is part of the first, is how much the church or other community you have that has "helped" you interact with the Bible previously affects you. I think if we can be this honest with God in how we face it we can approach it with much more humility than is often done. The texts were not meant to be plucked out individually in shaping some topic, but we are to try and find the currents and rhythms throughout that give us an idea of the nature of God and God's interaction with us all.

With that said, I believe Cyzewski did get many things right, however there was still some exegesis throughout that was not given as much attention as you'd hope. Additionally, if I remember correctly the name of a leading scholar was butchered in this as well which is an extremely unfortunate error. I believe this can be an important gateway for many and I do truly hope it is able to take this shape in people's lives.

The Colors of God

I have several books as of late that are a bit overdue as my life has been in a massive state of transition lately. With that said, I am actually reviewing a couple months after having read it so while my reactions won't be quite as immediate there are undoubtedly parts that linger from them.

The first book is one written by several key members of a Canadian church. It is called The Colors of God which is based on several colors that make up the core values of what the church is about. Additionally, this book is mainly written as a conversation which supposedly was done in a hotel room if I remember correctly(although it sounds like serious preparation had to of been made before doing this if that was truly the case!).

This book is mostly made up with the background of how their church came to be and what the central tenets are that they value in a church. Sounds like a recipe for success and truly a gift for a faithful member of their congregation as well? Unfortunately, however, much of it seems to fall short in ending up with much substance or much that they truly get behind. As is becoming more and more customary of writers today, they are quick to say how much they are not like most evangelical churches and how all are welcome regardless of what they've done, etc. With the latter, while that should sound like something fantastic, it seems that based on their response to sin(lackadaisical at best) that there need not be much of a repenting or turning away from sin. Not only a turning away from sin but a turning towards God. No, they seem quick to offer unhelpful grace at the expense of much and it ended up leaving somewhat of a foul taste in my mouth. I never would have thought a couple of years ago that I would be the one representing the side against excess grace and more focus on sin(although contextualizing that would take much longer than this post) but I believe there is a somewhat clear line of what is appropriate and when it is not. Kids that do not have any sort of discipline in their life don't turn out for the better because of it. It is either in spite of it or not at all.

I truly did want to like this book. I am as open to innovation in the church as much as anyone, however when it is done while substance is foregone then it brings up many different questions. Additionally, all that said, I do believe they can and probably do serve an important niche in the community they're in and believe God is able to work through them and connect with folks that otherwise would have nothing to do with church. Unfortunately this is a book review and the content combined with several typos made for a somewhat frustrating read.

A Different Sort of Kingdom

"When I was in Jerusalem I went, as one does, to the garden of Gethsemane; and among the thoughts which struck me very forcibly in that spot was this. On the night he was betrayed, Jesus could have taken two options very different from the one that he did. He could have summoned the twelve legions of angels, literally or (perhaps) metaphorically: if he'd wanted to spring a surprise attack, there would have been hundreds, maybe thousands, who would have rallied to him. All the Jameses and Johns that were crowding Jerusalem for Passover would have produced swords and daggers from under their cloaks, and they might well have got away with it. They might have established a new regime, a Jewish state free from the Romans, no longer ruled by the jumped-up pseudo-aristocrats who held office as chief priests.
But what would that regime have stood for? Loving your enemies? Praying for your persecutors? Not a chance. It would have been yet one more government that started with high ideals and achieved power by compromising them. Whoever's kingdom that would have been, it wouldn't have been the kingdom of God. Not, at any rate, the God who desired to bless all nations through Israel.
Jesus' first option, then, was to lead the revolt. The other option was the quietest one, the option of retreat. He could have left Gethsemane, taken his disciples up and over the Mount of Olives, through Bethany, and down all the way to the Jordan. King David did it in a single night a thousand years before, fleeing from Absalom. He could have been well away from trouble; they could have set up a community in the wilderness, saying the Lord's Prayer three times a day, and waiting for God to do something. Perfectly safe; apparently pure, probably useless.
...Everyone knew that the Messiah should be the triumphant warrior king. Everyone, that is, except Jesus; because he had grasped, or rather been grasped by, a secret-a secret that the Jameses and Johns of the world, the Adolf Hitlers of this world, never ever glimpse in their dreams: the secret that there is a different sort of power, a different sort of Messiah, a different sort of King."
-Following Jesus by N.T. Wright

This is a remarkable quote, and speaks largely for itself(on many levels more than I'll ever be able to expound), but I have a couple of thoughts as I read this minutes ago.

Fight or flight. These are the first responses that take place when faced with stress. These are the natural impulses and they are littered throughout the histories of each country all over the world. For some there are moments where fighting has meant a new era of power and progress and shame for those that have fled. As pointed out in the quote above, a new era was being initiated that could only be foretold by the true prophets(although it clearly did not stick with most people at that time).

While this was definitely not a new concept for me as I read this, I still find it very profound and refreshing to hear this from a more theological perspective rather than simply a liberal perspective. This is very common among more liberal circles and is something that seems to have been run into the ground and allowed for different liberties to be taken. While our modern understanding of this may perceive that Jesus' life was little more of preaching social justice and pacifism by all, we are reminded by theologians that these are the ethos of God's kingdom being brought forth and initiated(as well as handed of) by Jesus. While Jesus healed, silently responded to his attackers, and spoke of the kingdom belonging to the "leasts," he did all with the relationship to God at the forefront. His life should not be reduced to one of social action or teaching people how they can escape this Earth to move onto the next. His was a life that bore much fruit and prospered as a result. It was connected to the source, and was planted on the most fertile ground.

We've come to "make sense" of much of Jesus' life and turn it into something easily attainable for all. What's harder to understand is that His response to those that crucified Him did not make logical sense then and only makes sense now on the other side. The only way to assert complete authority over those with the power is to take on their most absolute punishment and overcome it. In doing so, the Messiah has made fools of the powers that thought they would have the final say. This is the message we carry forward in trying to understand the World as it is today. It is easy to be discouraged and feel that God's pull on the World is "just not what it used to be," but as this is continually put before me I seek to understand that the same God who made everything and declared it good is in control and is over the evil principalities and powers. I so often have no problem seeing God as the Alpha, but I must put faith that God will also be the Omega when everything is said and done.

Thanks be to God!

Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy by Eric Metaxas

Dietrich Bonhoeffer is someone that is widely recognized(and surprisingly largely uncontested) in the catholic church as being extremely influential and a pillar of true faith. I have read a couple of his books and have been extremely challenged by his call to community(before it was popular!) and costly grace. In this biography by Eric Metaxas, we are given an extremely thorough look into his life, from growing up in a house of extreme intelligence and pressures all the way to the days leading up to his eventual death as part of the plot to kill Adolf Hitler.

Metaxas did a fantastic job of having just the right amount of information that while still a pretty long book, I never felt bogged down by it at any point. It was extremely apparent that he spent large amounts of time before compiling this book and it really helps as a fantastic supplement to his works. We are able to see the silly side of Bonhoeffer as well as many letters of correspondence between him and others are shared in great detail throughout the book.

Overall, I am quite happy that this was the first and only biography that I have read on Bonhoeffer. It truly seemed so comprehensive and well-researched that no other would be able to compete in providing more information about the remarkable man Bonhoeffer was.

P.S. As full disclosure, I must not that I reviewed this book as part of Thomas Nelson's book review program and so received this for free. I am not required to write a positive review, however, and would certainly do so if necessary.

Review of The Gospel You’ve Never Heard: Who Really Goes to Hell? by David Rudel

As I've noted on another post here, I signed up for a website where you can get books so long as you blog/review(revog?) them after the fact. By doing this, they are getting publicity in all sorts of places that may not otherwise get, etc. I really appreciate this and enjoy reading books I otherwise may not read. This book is through a program called viralbloggers.com. This does not seem to be limited to a specific publisher but rather gets books from different ones.

The first book I received was The Gospel You’ve Never Heard: Who Really Goes to Hell? by David Rudel.

A brief synopsis given to me that engaged me enough to choose this over others:

Do you ever struggle with how limited our contemporary understandings of the gospel seem? How Jesus and Paul sometimes seem to be saying different – indeed, opposite – things about the ‘good news’? About why there seems to be the good news of Jesus and good news about Jesus? If so, then The Gospel You’ve Never Heard by David Rudel is for you. The Gospel You’ve Never Heard makes a lateral move away from conventional descriptions of the Bible’s teachings in a way that allows the reader to view modern dogmas of the Left and Right alike through a fresh lens. The book’s first two chapters raise questions evangelical Christianity has considerable trouble answering. Rather than attempt incredible rhetorical acrobatics to explain away these very real issues, the author asks the reader to entertain, at least provisionally, that there might be genuine Biblical problems with the gospel portrayed by the modern church.

How poignant! I figured this would be great as much of these questions and issues are essentially a major part of where I find myself right now. Additionally, I looked forward to this because it appeared to be much less weighty than other books I have read recently(with portions going over my head) which have brought me to my current state. After reading this, however, I found it was not weighty enough. While the main thrust of his points I found solace in(namely there are too many doctrines read into the text rather than text truly forming cohesive doctrines), I found his approach to be extremely frustrating and lacking in scholarly grounding.

His approach was very critical of groups of people and he tended to make broad brush strokes in his critiques. Throughout the book he said how "evangelicals," "conservatives," "liberals," and "commentators" were incorrect for various reasons. I put these in quotes because I can only assume what he means by these different words are found mostly in the COUSA(church of United States of America) and we are to blindly follow his assumptions that different viewpoints fit the whole group. I wish we would have been more direct in truly wrestling with a specific person or doctrinal statement. He spends more time saying what he doesn't agree with and less on what he actually means and this is very unfortunate.

In addition, while I don't need an endless bibliography or footnotes taking over pages, it would have been helpful for him to note the study he did in preparation for the book. Instead by mostly citing Scripture only and not having much outside help we are left with a book that is trying to make many points written by someone who has not established themselves in the world of biblical scholars.

This was just too difficult a pill to swallow and combined with his unfair critiques, typos(citing James Dunn as "James G. D. Dunn" was the kicker ), and eyesore of Scripture quotes all bolder made this a frustrating read. It was especially frustrating because I wanted to like this. I wanted this to be a book that would appeal to a larger audience so that necessary questions will be asked. I still think some of this will happen, but if done at the "evangelicals" expense, the tradeoff for perpetuated disunity is unfortunate and discouraging.

So what?...

The past couple days I had the privilege of attending the 2010 Wheaton Theology Conference where the focus was on N.T. Wright's work on Jesus and Paul and so included papers read by those that were both critical and in support as well as a response and sessions by Wright himself. As I am relatively new to the whole theological world and likewise have no formal training, a good portion of this conference went over my head. This largely stems from not understanding a lot of background through New Testaments studies as well as where each speaker was coming from. Given this, however, there was still much I was able to retain as well and I'd certainly much rather be learning from people of their capacity rather than below mine. I think it was fair to say their collective iron was able to sharpen my aluminum.

One of the presentations during this time was by the couple Brian Walsh and Sylvia Keesmaat. The way they presented was a dialogue of sorts in that they asked questions that folks might likely have and sought to answer them as well. They were certainly the most socially-focused of all presentations and practice this by engaging in organic gardening in Canada(and also Walsh has done some writing/work on/with homelessness). Also, through their presentation and the sharing that took place with Wright, we learned that Walsh and Wright debated many times early on in their studies over the importance of what they were studying. Walsh always sought to bring Wright to task on his work by providing the helpful question of "So what?" To be sure, this certainly is an important question that should constantly be before scholars(as well as people with other disciplines within Christendom) as they argue the seemingly nit-pickiest of items(clearly a subjective statement and not to be taken across the board as hopefully this blog will try and show from my viewpoint!).

Indeed, this question of "so what?" is certainly helpful for even the likes of this conference in general. While some have done an excellent job of comparing and adding on to why over 1100 people would be showing up for this conference, it still begs the question. This conference was not being simulcast to multiple churches in many countries(although incredibly, free mp3's as well as video are up). This still remains a significant feat within the world of Christian scholarship(as compared to annual SBL meetings), but will the effects of this be felt in the church at large? The world at large? Even Wheaton at large? Personally, I think if Wright's talks were taken to heart by the influential there(and specifically his talk on Paul) the ramifications of it could be absolutely monumental. It was an energizing experience for me and convinced me even further of the importance of Bible study and also Wright's potential influence he could continue to have for the catholic church(especially with Jeremy Begbie's nudging). He spoke of most churches falling into a category of teaching of either the cross or the kingdom, but rarely both. To me, this is incredibly apparent as I have experienced both sides and found them wanting.

Years ago when our family first got a DVD player, we were excited to find out that with that we would get five free DVD's. One of these were Stargate and it was on two sides as I suppose it was a longer movie. Being new to the world of DVD's, I put it in as I would any other and thought nothing of it. After watching until the end, I could not help but be extremely confused and frustrated by the movie as a whole as it completely lacked cohesion and as such seemed incredibly shallow. In case it has not already been figured out, I had put in the second half of the movie and completely missed out on the first. This same identity crisis that I associated with the movie(and still have to this day because I never chose to bother going back to it) is largely similar to that of the church body. The sides of the kingdom or the cross don't dare associate too much with the other side lest they offend those they might want to enter into the fold. With this, however, I think those that are outside the church are subject to seeing a lifeless church that is lacking in cohesion and incredibly shallow.

Wright, sharing the words of Paul and echoing them through to today presented us with the need of unification and called us all, as Jesus did, to understand our role as kingdom dwellers and an announcing of a new lordship that the powers can not simply say no to. This was most definitely a rousing speech to a captive audience and I think there was a spirit amongst a majority of us to instantly want to "turn the world to rights," and yet in spite of this there was a nagging question that persists today as the excitement of it all has died down and "reality" has set in again. So what?

While I plan on taking more seriously the study of the Bible and prioritizing it over other things that I spend/waste my time on, as I went shopping with my wife at Meijer today I noticed the zeal in that room last night was not found in maneuvering the cart amongst people that were blocking the aisle, walking to slow, or just living their life. Indeed, the fruit of patience was not first and foremost in myself and so this question of "so what?" really took shape there as well. Walsh and Keesmaat proclaimed that if we were seeking more after kingdom ethics than what we had to say might be received by more than "a small circle of friends," I believe this still largely misses out on a good majority in the west. What of the average shopper or employee of Meijer?

I wish I had a settled answer for this, however I'm hoping that the question of "so what?" never leaves me as I seek to learn more and become more in the likeness of what I worship.

Evangelism in a Post-Modern World

Andy, this is for you. I tried putting it on your Facebook as a response, but for whatever reason it was not letting me do it. I would certainly covet a response from you as well as your additional thoughts at where you find yourself currently for this difficult question:

I think the more I learn about the Bible, the less relevance I truly see to our society. How do we try and share this good news that we fail to live out so much ourselves? More than that, once we get past the good part, how do we then share these teachings(or torah; chalk me up for one point! haha) that bid us to take up our cross and abandon family and other distractions. I think part of helping this has been coming to some sort of resolve within myself to think through it "logically" rather than through my life's context so far. For me, I can recognize that this world as it exists needs to be "put to rights" and that there has to be some sense of order that has initially created it and seeks to restore that. Now, this is where I am somewhat limited to my context, but I can say at this point the character of the Christian God is most compelling in completing this puzzle in my brain. If I at least have a starting point, I feel this can aide in setting some mutual footing.