5.5 random things: good reading edition

5.5. This post is dedicated to those who were praying for my wife and me as I was sick and had to miss out of one of our summer mission trips. Thank you so much.

5. As someone who is part of the "charismatic" movement (understanding that the term is defined with difficulty), I found this article from Charisma magazine on the Lakeland "Revival" to be instructive, one that everyone ought to read and think about. I have much I could say, but I'm not sure I will. If you want some follow up, let me know.

4. One of my weekly delights is checking out the "Songs, Hymns and Spiritual Songs" posts from Sojourn Community Church in Louisville, KY. These are posted every Monday, and consist of a rundown of the Sunday setlist at the church, with some thoughts given on each song. Here is the setlist from August 10. I highly recommend this blog.

3. In the "I Can't Wait Until This Book Comes Out" category, you'll find Greg Beale's upcoming release, We Become What We Worship. It's a study of the Bible's teachings on idolatry. Looks terrific. In fact, here's the cover, see for yourself.

2. There's been some debate on a couple blogs recently about the TNIV, but I won't link to them largely because they end up in arguments over quasi-related items in the comments section. Instead, I'll link to an article written by Craig Blomberg about the TNIV, one of the best things to read on this subject. I can no longer find the pdf of this article, but if someone has it, I'd love to get it. It's long, but worth the read.

1. Congrats to my good friends, Bruce and Morgan, as they announce that they will be having their second child. These two are dear friends, and their son Elijah is one of my favorite children in the world. I miss them dearly.

Book Review: How Africa Shaped the Christian Mind

Thanks to Adrianna of IVP for a review copy of this book.

It is still a prevalent but hopefully decreasingly common (thanks to the efforts of scholars such as Phillip Jenkins) view that Christianity is a “Western” (American or European) religion. Whereas Jenkins spends most of The Next Christendom showing that Christianity is growing most in Latin America, Africa and Asia, Thomas Oden’s new book, How Africa Shaped the Christian Mind, helps show the long history of Christianity within Africa, arriving long before both Islam and the camel. But Oden’s goal isn’t simply to show that Christianity has existed, or even thrived, for centuries in some places within Africa. Such a thesis isn’t remarkable for those who have even a superficial knowledge of church history.

Instead, Oden sets out to show that “Africa played a decisive role in the formation of Christian culture” (p9). Historians have been getting it wrong for some time by claiming that the greatest achievements in the early church were from Europe, especially Rome. Oden argues: “Well-meaning European and American historians have a tilted perception of the relation of African and European intellectual history in the third and fourth centuries, and thus at the apex of African influence” (p31).

“This is what the book is about: to state the African seedbed hypothesis in a measured way and begin to sort out the facts that support it” (p31). In doing so, Oden hopes to swing the pendulum back to appreciating Africa’s vital role in shaping Christianity as we know it.

In “Part One: The African Seedbed of Western Christianity” (chapters 1-5) Oden lays out the foundation of the rest of the book. Topics covered include the need to recover ancient texts and excavate ancient Christian sites in Africa (chapter one) and “Seven Ways Africa Shaped the Christian Mind” (chapter 2). He also argues for his definition of “African”, rejecting the idea that skin color should be the determining factor, but rather “if a text was written in Africa it will be treated as African” (p69). The same goes for the theologians/monastics/bishops he surveys. If they were from Africa (whether North African or Sub-Saharan), he counts them as African.

Oden wants his reader to understand that he is not trying to overstate his case, or to discount non-African contributions to the formation of Christianity. His desire is “ecumenical” (which he’ll admit is a bad word in some circles). His desire is to include Africa and Africans into the conversation, allowing their voice to be heard, not create an insular spirit among African believers. “If Africans were saying that they want their sources to come from Africa alone and not from anywhere else, then that would be deficient in the catholic spirit. But this is not the direction of African expectations. They seek a fair hearing for valid arguments based on evidence” (p93).

I’ll admit that this section of the book became a bit repetitive at points. Barely a page goes by without the reader being reminded that Christianity has long existed in Africa, that Africans were dealing with theological and pastoral issues before Europeans made them famous and so on. All valid points, to be sure, and indeed this is the very thesis of the book; but the repetition could have been avoided and trimmed this section a bit more.

In “Part Two: African Orthodox Recovery”, Oden points out why the retrieval of early African Christianity is important. “It is precisely from the ancient African sources that global Christianity can relearn that the church guided by the Spirit is never irretrievably fallen away from the truth” (p103). Rediscovering early African Christianity can also be instructive for the various forms of emerging African Christians. “They now have the benefit of learning about conflict resolution from their ancient African mentors. From that history they learn that not every difference of opinion is demonic and not every union is of God” (p107). As African Christianity grows, “The brilliant instruction and guidance of early African Christian texts and witnesses stand ready to nourish this regrounding” (p109).

For example, Oden notes that many of the early martyrs in the church were Africans, such as Perpetua and Felicitas in Carthage (modern day Tunisia). These African martyrs helped propel the church throughout the world. Also, the early African martyrs can prove inspirational to modern African Christian suffering persecution. “The meaning of the struggle of the early African martyrs begs to be understood in modern Africa” (p120).

Oden ends this section of the book with a biographical note of his growing interest in African Christianity, as well as an impassioned plea for others, particularly Africans, to pick up his vision of voicing the strength of early African Christianity. He confesses he’d love to do more, but admits his life “may be shortened by congestive heart disease” (p141, though we pray this is not true). He actually has helped set up a consortium called the Center for Early African Christianity (website: earlyafricanchristianity.com), to help facilitate this study.

Herein lies the true goal of the book, to spur on the next generation of African scholars to take up the challenge of studying early African Christianity. Oden makes many assertions throughout this book, but admittedly offers only a small amount of evidence to support his claims. What he does offer is provocative and enough to admit that he is probably correct. But much more needs to be done. For instance, it is one thing to show that African church leaders dealt with a certain issue a century before the Europeans did, it's another thing to show the European church leaders relied on the Africans in forming their decisions. This book is a challenge, a shot across the bow of young historians. If Oden is correct, that Africa did in fact play a more decisive role in the formation of Christianity than just about everyone realizes, then the Church will profit from the investigation he calls for.

This is a tremendous book and is worthy of being read by anyone who enjoys church history, or even African history. Thomas Oden has served the Church over the last few decades by editing the Ancient Christian Commentary Series (through IVP) and reminding us of the necessity of remembering our roots in the early church. This book continues his service to us all, may his vision be realized soon.

An Old Testament Theology: Book Review, Part I

Thanks to Chris at Zondervan for the review copy of this book.

Bruce Waltke’s book, An Old Testament Theology, is a massive undertaking, not just for the author, but also for the reader. Reading it is a commitment of time and energy, physical (at least when you’re sick like I am right now), mental and spiritual. But it’s a rewarding experience, as you feel like you understand the Old Testament, and God as revealed in the Old Testament, even better.

Because of its size and quality, I’ve opted to review and interact with this book over a longer period of time than the normal book review. I’ll actually skip most of what he has to say about methodology, not because it’s unimportant or boring (it is neither of those things), but quite frankly, something has to get cut.

Waltke has divided his book into “blocks” of OT literature: “Primary History”, dealing with the Pentateuch and Historical Narratives, and “Other Writings”, with the Prophets, Psalms and Wisdom Literature falling into this category. Oddly enough, he opts to leave Song of Songs out of his analysis in this book. This strikes me as a bit arbitrary, though I realize that it is not a theologically heavy book. But granting that, doesn’t it say something about who God is, even if indirectly?

For Waltke, the theological center of the OT is the “irruption (breaking-in) of the Kingship of God.” The continuing story of how God (Waltke uniquely refers to God as “I AM” throughout the book) brings His kingdom to earth is the story that drives the Old Testament, and continues right on into the New Testament (“All the previous irruptions of the kingdom of God were but a shadow of its appearing in Jesus Christ”, p145). “To put it another way, the Bible is about God bringing glory upon himself by restoring Paradise after humanity lost it through a loss of faith in God that led to rebellion against his rule” (p144).

I found it refreshing, though, that he doesn’t try to cram all theological statements from each book into this category. “To systematize, however, all the biblical materials to the procrustean bed of this message, would falsify their intention. The proposed center accommodates the whole, but the whole is not systematically structured according to it. A cross-section approach to develop that message through various stages in Israel’s history would not do justice to the rich biblical material” (p144). The idea is that the kingdom of God is the central theme of the OT, but the goal is to show the message of each book, even the parts that don’t fit under this theme perfectly.

Chapter 6, entitled “The Bible’s Center: An Overview”, is worth slowly reading and digesting. Honestly, it’d be great for anyone looking for a relatively short overview of the Old Testament teachings on the kingdom of God (it comprises pages 143-169 of the book). One of the strengths of this chapter is showing how narratives are linked by related concepts. For instance, in the history of Israel, we see how God creates a people, giving them the law, providing them with the land and a king to rule over them. However, Israel rebels, which causes God to punish their sin by forcing them into exile, yet leaves them with the hope of restoration.

We see the same pattern in the Garden of Eden. “God also creates a people (Adam and Eve), gives them a garden as the land to sustain and refresh them, hands down the law not to eat the forbidden fruit, and makes them kings to keep his garden. But they rebel against God and disobey him, and as a result, they are banished from the garden, exiled from their home. Yet in the punishment comes a promise and a hope; a ‘seed of the woman’ will triumph over the Serpent on humanity’s behalf” (p150, all italics are original).

Thus, in the Garden story and in Israel’s history, we see the need for the irruption of God’s kingdom (man’s sin has marred creation, Israel’s sin has left them in exile) and receive a glimpse of how the irruption of God’s kingdom will happen (through the “Seed”, through the King or “son of David”).

So, I’ll be posting thoughts as I go through the book and show how Waltke develops this theme of the irruption of God’s kingdom throughout his book. My intention is that the nature of the posts will vary. Sometimes I’ll simply report what he says that I find particularly helpful or interesting. Other times, I may interact with what he says, perhaps even daring to disagree on occasion. I hope you’ll find learning from Waltke vicariously through me to be a rewarding experience, and may you even be encouraged to purchase the book for yourself.

Bruce Waltke & OT Theology

I have always had an interest in Bruce Waltke, the famed OT scholar. I was first introduced to him (not literally) in undergrad by one of my OT professors who studied under Waltke at Dallas Seminary back in the 1970's. There were three things that stuck out to me then, that have been reinforced since, which separate Waltke from so many other Bible scholars.

Waltke is wicked smart.

First, we read an article written back in the 1960's about the "colophones" of the Psalms (the little notations "Written for the director of music. Of David", etc). He argued that our current understanding of how these colophones were used is incorrect. Have you ever noticed that in Habakkuk 3 the "For the director of music" notation comes at the end of the psalm rather than at the beginning (as in our book of Psalms)? Well, Waltke argues that Psalms should be understand that way as well (and pulls in outside sources like Egyptian poetry to buttress his position). This was one of my earliest introductions to evangelical scholarship, thus it has stuck in my mind ever since.

He also coauthored An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, a monster book we used in Intermediate Hebrew. It weighs in at almost 800 pages, and is bigger (dimensionally) than your standard book. It was also surprisingly easy to use for such a difficult subject.

Waltke also holds two doctorates, one in the OT (Dallas Seminary) and one in the NT (Harvard).

These three things stood out in my mind as showing that this man is incredibly intelligent (which is a nice non-Bostonian way of saying "wicked smart").

Waltke is a student of Scripture.

Waltke once taught at Dallas Theological Seminary, which is (arguably) the bastion of dispensational academics in America (probably the world). However, at some point (and I'm not entirely sure when) he underwent a change of theology, leaving behind dispensationalism. Depending on what side you stand on this issue (and I'm on the non-dispensational side), you may or may not like this. But what it said (and still says) to me is that he is a scholar who doesn't mind reexamining his position. Considering how many of us (scholars or laypeople) cement our feet in place and refuse to rethink our current theology, I find this aspect of Waltke's scholarship refreshing.

Since then, I ran across a quote (which I can no longer find) from the early 1990's where Watlke said something to the effect of "I don't think I really understood the OT until I began to read it narratively." It amazed me that someone who was a widely respected scholar (and not just by evangelicals), who had helped teach the Bible to thousands of students from the 50's on, could think he hadn't really understood the Bible.

All this to say, Waltke is a scholar who is constantly learning. It seems that his role as a student of Scripture has never ceased, no matter what "heights" in the scholarly world he has reached. Again, this attitude is a trait all-too-uncommon in the Church today (no, not just in the academy).

Waltke loves the Lord.

My professor once told us that when Waltke was teaching at Dallas, the beginning of the class period would be packed with people not enrolled in the class who would come just to hear Waltke pray. Now, I know of very few people I would go out of my way to hear pray. This says a lot about who Waltke is and the respect he commands, not just as a scholar, but as someone who loves the Lord.

These 3 things conspire together and cause me to admire not just the scholarship, but the humility and service of Bruce Waltke. And so, it's with excitement that I have been reading his new book, An Old Testament Theology. I'll be posting thoughts over the next couple months as a multi-part review/interaction. I do this in part because I get more out of the book because of it, but also because I know that some of my readers may never pick up a 1000 page book on OT Theology. Waltke wrote this book for the Church, so I'd like for everyone to glean from it's teachings. As Waltke says on page 19, "After all, this people has more at stake in understanding the Bible's message than anybody else- they are the ones committed to live out fully the implications of that message to the point of dying for its truth."

Book Review: The Majesty of God in the Old Testament

Thanks to Caitlin at Baker Publishing for the copy of this book to review.

Walter Kaiser’s new book, The Majesty of God in the Old Testament: A Guide for Preaching and Teaching, sets out to help reclaim the subject of the majesty of God in our churches. This book, as the subtitle indicates, is geared towards preachers and teachers, though I imagine it would be useful for small group discussion leaders, as well.

The book is broken down into 10 chapters, each covering a different passage focusing on a different aspect of God’s majesty. Here’s the breakdown:

1. Magnifying the Incomparability of Our God (Isaiah 40:9-31)

2. Magnifying the Greatness of Our God (Daniel 4:1-37)

3. Magnifying the Word of Our God (Numbers 20:1-13)

4. Magnifying the Wonderful Name of Our God (Jeremiah 31:1-44)

5. Magnifying the Pardoning Grace of Our God (Micah 7:11-20)

6. Magnifying the Holy Spirit from Our God (Zechariah 4:1-14)

7. Magnifying the Awesome Character of Our God (Psalm 139:1-18)

8. Magnifying the Glory of Our God (Ezekiel 1:1-28)

9. Magnifying the Grace of Giving from Our God (1 Chronicles 29:6-19)

10. Magnifying the Holiness of Our God (Isaiah 6:1-13)

Now, his actual sermon style and outline is not necessarily something you have to copy, though I suppose you could (but cite your source!). But his outlines, especially, are useful for understanding how a passage is shaped. For those of us who’ve heard Dr Kaiser preach (he was President at Gordon-Conwell when I was there), you can see him throughout the book, from the sense of humor (dealing with Num 20:3-5 he notes that the Israelites “now let their cattle ‘horn in’ on the argument”, p58) to his use of interrogatives and keywords.

What will probably be the most helpful aspect is his ability to bring various aspects of biblical studies into the sermon preparation. To give some examples, he uses archaeology to help us understand just how great Babylon was in the time of Nebuchadnezzar and how that helps us understand Daniel 4:1-37 better. I know I didn't realize how massive and beautiful Babylon must have been, it helped me better understand Nebuchadnezzar's pride. He shows how word studies can be useful, especially in discussing the importance of “name” (ch 4) and “word” (ch 3). His thoughts here can be invaluable and I highly recommend them.

There were a couple weaker points, though part of that is merely a matter of interpretation. But still, he tries to argue that the Holy Spirit indwelt believers in the OT, yet only proves that the Holy Spirit was active amongst God’s people prior to Pentecost, which isn’t really up for debate. He makes much out of Moses saying “must we bring water out of this rock?” (Num 20:10), arguing that Moses was including himself in God’s activity when he should not have been. Kaiser asks, “Who said anything about Moses and Aaron bringing water out of the rock?” (p60)

Um, actually God did, right there in v8: “You will bring water out of the rock....” Moses clearly did something wrong in this passage, but confusing his personal pronouns was not the problem.

But those points shouldn’t detract from an otherwise helpful book. In fact, the first chapter, on Isaiah 40, was terrific; I plan on utilizing it in the future. And I’m in complete agreement with Dr Kaiser that the majesty of God is an underdiscussed topic in our churches today. I’m grateful he has written this book to help us in that deficiency.

On a final note, here’s hoping Dr Kaiser has many more healthy years ahead of him. He has been such a strong encourager and servant of the church for so many years; I pray that the Lord continue to use him in his (semi)retirement.

Book Review: Simple Spirituality

Thanks to Adrianna of IVP for the copy of this book for review.

Christopher Heuertz is the International Director for World Made Flesh, an organization dedicated to showing the love of Jesus through advocacy and ministering among the poorest people in the world. He is a man who lives out some of the most challenging verses of the Bible- those that call us to help those in need (not just feel bad for them) and sacrifice what we have on behalf of others. While not written for this purpose, I came away respecting Heuertz: he is a man who practices what he preaches. Too few have that honor.

There are 3 things to keep in mind while reading Simple Spirituality:

1. It is largely autobiographical. It is not a true autobiography, but contains stories of Heuertz's journey to "see God" and understand things the way they really are. Hence, the subtitle of the book, "Learning to See God in a Broken World."

2. It is a call to help the poor. Again, that is not the entire point of the book, but this comes across page after page. This book is a very real, very powerful call to take seriously Jesus' words and example.

3. It is a book on spiritual disciplines, 5 in particular: humility, community, simplicity, submission and brokenness. It is not a spiritual disciplines book in the classical sense, like Richard Foster's Celebration of Discipline, but it sees the disciplines in light of Heuertz's own story and the global (poor) community.

Keeping these 3 points in mind is helpful because it allows you to read the book for what it is, rather than hoping for something it is not. Thus, it is not a treatise on helping the poor, though it contains elements of that. It is not an in depth look into the biblical teachings of the disciplines, though that's in there too. And it is not a book about the life of Christopher Heuertz, though he writes time and time again of his own journey. These 3 elements are combined throughout this book, and I, for one, thought it was refreshing.

There were a few terrific points, some of which ought to go without saying, but alas, they need to be said anyway.

1. Heuertz notes that "As I learned to love GOd, my love was not motivated by fear or the threat of hell (not even the promise of paradise), but rather by the character of the One who is by nature lovable" (p36). It's true that much of American Christianity is based on the fear of hell or the hope of heaven, which is fine to an extent. But what about serving God because He is worthy to be served, not because of what He can do for us (or against us)? Isn't He worthy of being followed regardless of reward or punishment?

2. Throughout the book there is a simple (that's a big word for this book) following of Jesus' commands. If Jesus says "feed the poor", then, well, go and feed the poor!

3. "The worth of a person is directly related to the fact that he or she is created in the image of God" (p54). Thus, "our dignity comes from God, allowing our identity to be found in God" (p55).

4. "Many of us think that our personal geographical context justifies our disengagement from the hurt and pain of the rest of the world. ...fellow believers in the Sudan or Sri Lanka or Peru are as much an intrinsic part of the body of Christ as are the Methodists, Presbyterians, or Catholics down the street" (p81).

5. His chapter on simplicity was great; for instance, "essentially, simplicity is letting God truly be God, surrending to that in all areas of life as an act of submission to God and humanity" (p84).

6. On brokenness, he states, "We are broken when we recognize our utmost need for God and leave everything behind to have our needs met in God" (p129, italics original).

7. Finally, I'll quote one full paragraph from the chapter on community (p72). Next to it I wrote the word "OUCH."

While Christianity is fractured, the Muslims, who are famous for their brotherhood, take the appealing edge. Poor people know their need for community. They affirm their need for one another. They find strength in numbers. How can the church expect those on the margins to join it if the church can't offer them the one thing they know they need?

Heuertz is able to draw lessons from life and call us rich folk (yes, even us lower middle class Americans are rich in comparison to the majority of the church) without being condescending or manipulative. That is no small feat, given the tendency of many to use guilt trips in attempt to spur God's people into action. I think Heuertz is able to accomplish this because his story is about he came to learn these lessons. You get the sense that he simply wants the reader to learn the lessons he has learned.

I did have a few questions throughout the book that weren't answered, though I suppose that's bound to happen.

He calls the church to help the poor, citing Jesus' words and example. But, do they (Word Made Flesh, his organization) call the poor to "go and sin no more"? Heuertz doesn't answer this, but I'll admit this isn't the point of the book. But still, you can cure an idolatrous leper of his leprosy, but his greatest sickness remains: his idolatry.

Who are the "children of God" (p55)? Who makes up "Christ's body" (p140)? He often blends Christians and non-Christians into these definitions, yet I'm not sure, biblically speaking, we can include non-Christians into these terms. Certainly not "Christ's body", but I'm not even sure the Bible ever refers to non-Christians as "children of God." I may be wrong, and I'm willing to have someone point examples out to me, but that particular term seems to be reserved for those who are in the covenant people of God. With that being said, I'm not sure it matters too much when it comes to who we help- we're called to help whoever is in need (see the parable of the good samaritan). But it's a question worth asking.

Both of these questions are not answered, and I can't expect them to be, I suppose. This is especially true of the first question; this book is not about the practices of Word Made Flesh, so I can't wait around for him to tell me about how his organization handles such situations. But, if I ever have the pleasure of talking with Chris Heuertz over a cup of coffee, I'll ask him.

Finally, I'll point out that the Bible teacher in me would cringe periodically with his "what is the ___ (Goliath, 5 stones, etc) in your life?" style of hermeneutics.

This book was interesting to read on a plane ride to Peru, where I went on a short trip to help a poor town, and a church in that town, in the middle of the Andes Mountains. It was a helpful reminder that the comforts and treasures of our culture are fleeting and unnecessary. It was a reminder that those I was travelling to help are no less important than I am, not less made in the image of God.

If you're looking for a book that teaches you about the classic spiritual disciplines, then maybe you should go with Foster's book. If you're looking for a biblical teaching on possessions and money, I'd recommend Craig Blomberg's Neither Poverty Nor Riches. But if you want a book that combines some of both, Simple Spirituality is a great choice. It's an insightful look at how we can approach and learn the disciplines from the perspective of helping those in need, wherever they are.

Book Review: Worship Matters

Thanks to Denise & Shantay of Crossway for the review copy of this book.

Despite my lack of musical or vocal talent, worship is one topic I've always been interested in. I've written about it before, and I've had plenty of other thoughts that have never made onto the blog of danny (at least not yet). I find myself in a weird position: someone who loves hymns and theologically rich songs, yet I'm actively involved in a charismatic church (and wouldn't have it any other way). Can't I have both? Now, there'll be some who think I'm trying to have my cake and eat it too. Then again, what's the point in having a cake if I can't eat it? And in this ridiculous metaphor, which is the cake: theology or charismata? Let's move on.

Thankfully, Bob Kauflin exists.

Bob Kauflin has been a pastor and worship leader for over 20 years and is the author of the popular worship blog Worship Matters, which is also the name of his new book. Worship Matters: Leading Others to Encounter the Greatness of God is a collection of wisdom from a man who has been around. He's a member of a reformed charismatic group of churches, Sovereign Grace Ministries, now serving as Director of Worship Development. His book covers a wide range of topics related to worship, and despite the relative brevity of each section, he manages to provide helpful insights that show his years of wisdom (I promise, I'm not trying to make him sound old).

Kauflin divides his book up into 4 sections: The Leader, The Task, Healthy Tensions and Right Relationships. The breakdown is fairly natural and allows him to discuss each section with relative ease. While this book is not a biblical overview of worship (he does recommend other resources for that), he has sprinkled throughout the book biblical insights. One aspect of his 4-part division that I appreciate is that it allows him to weave theology into each section, rather than dealing with theology in one section and “more practical” matters in another. Kauflin truly does attempt to have his theology inform all matters of his book.

The first section, The Leader, is divided up in discussions on the heart, mind, hands and life of the worship leader. Here he deals with the worship leader himself before anything else, and doesn’t let them off the hook. You may not be the pastor of the church, but you are responsible before God and your church to take care of your own walk with the Lord, all facets of it. And Kauflin has no room for a division between head and heart (a division that I don’t feel is particularly biblical anyway).

If our doctrine is accurate but our hearts are cold toward God himself, our corporate worship will be true but lifeless. Or if we express fervent love for God but present vague, inaccurate, or incomplete ideas of him to those we’re leading, our worship will be emotional but misleading—and possibly idolatrous. Neither option brings God glory. (32)

He also deals with the issue of skill, offering wisdom in an area often breezed over. Kauflin, an accomplished musician himself, is aware of the tension between needing a certain skill level, but not allowing skill to override the worship. He notes,

Our varied skills should function like the frame around a classic painting. If the frame is too bold or extravagant, we’ll hardly notice the picture it displays. On the other hand, if the frame is cheap, shabby, or married, we’ll wonder why such a masterpiece is surrounded by junk. The right frame complements the picture in all the right ways, directing our eyes to the brilliance of the artist, not to the frame. (38)

The second section, The Task, answers the question: “So what does a worship leader do?” I’ll give you the multi-part answer as it’s broken down in the book so each element will stand out:

A Faithful Worship Leader…
…Magnifies the Greatness of God…
…In Jesus Christ…
…Through the Power of the Holy Spirit…
…Skillfully Combining God’s Word…
…With Music…
…Thereby Motivating the Gathered Church…
…To Proclaim the Gospel…
…To Cherish God’s Presence…
…And to Live for God’s Glory.

Kauflin deals with each portion of the answer as it’s own chapter, with “With Music” taking up two chapters (one on “What Kind?” and one on “Planning Sunday’s Songs”). Again, he manages to weave theology, practical wisdom and advice throughout the chapters rather seamlessly. To give a couple quick highlights:

Not surprising for someone from Sovereign Grace Ministries, I found Kauflin coming back to one point over and over again: Jesus Christ died for our sins. This truth “assures us that our worship is acceptable to God” (p74) and he also notes, “if we help people focus on what God did two thousand years ago rather than twenty minutes ago, they’ll consistently find their hearts ravished by his amazing love” (p75-76).

In regards to God’s presence during worship, he discusses an often presumed aspect of modern worship: we worship to “usher in the presence of God” (not a phrase he uses, but one that I’ve heard more times than I can count). Kauflin, though, brings in the wisdom of D A Carson: “He warns that if we start thinking it’s our worship activities that bring God’s presence near, ‘it will not be long before we think of such worship as being meritorious, or efficacious, or the like’” (p139). I realize that many people when they assume such things are speaking phenomenologically. Suffice it to say, I think using this kind of language can breed more problems than it’s worth.

Ultimately, all this is done for God’s glory. This isn’t mean to be some abstract notion of giving glory to God, but has practical implications. Kauflin quotes Allen Ross, “If worshipers leave a service with no thought of becoming more godly in their lives, then the purpose of worship has not been achieved” (p149).

The third section of the book deals with “Healthy Tensions”, such as God’s transcendence and immanence, planning and allowing room for spontaneity, and whether or not worship is for the church or for unbelievers. I appreciate Kauflin’s desire not to lose balance between each of the “extremes” (though I hesitate to call them that in all cases). But often times in trying to stay balanced, people end up with neither. I don’t think Kauflin ever does that, but I’m not so sure others will be as skilled.

In order to keep these healthy tensions, in my opinion, the worship leader needs to rely on others. So, I think Kauflin’s final section of the book is especially helpful. He deals here with the relationships the worship leader has: the church, the team and the pastor. Here we see two aspects of Sovereign Grace Ministries coming out (and these are good things): a great love for the local church and a great respect for the pastor. The worship leader, though a leader, serves the church and needs to hear from it. The worship leader is also ultimately under the leadership of the pastor and may need to submit when necessary. In fact, Kauflin’s final chapter is written to pastors as some words of advice, perhaps the best being, “A church’s response to God’s greatness and grace rarely rises above the example of its pastor” (p251).

All in all, Kauflin has written a terrific book. He does a great job of blending biblical insight, personal anecdotes and wise advice throughout the book. As for who should read it, I think it’d be a great idea for worship leaders to glean from it. Pastors, too, ought to read it as a reminder of the purpose of worship in the church. And though I am neither, I gained so much from this book. I intend to make use of Kauflin’s insights in my teaching, as many of his points apply to that as well (which shouldn’t surprise us, since worship is a form of teaching). The truth is that any Christian can read this book and come away with something.

I suppose the one thing I wish Kauflin touched on was worship leading in smaller settings. While my church has one worship leader, we have many people who lead worship throughout the week in small groups, prayer meetings, etc. True, all of his points can be transferred over easily enough. But in the NT, especially in 1 Cor 14, Eph 5 and Col 3, we see that singing in church is an activity that all participate in: we bring songs to each other to teach and encourage. On Sunday mornings with 200 people (that’s my church’s size), that’s difficult to do. But it can be done on a smaller scale. But, ultimately, that isn’t the purpose of Kauflin’s book. Maybe he’s a secret reader of the blog of danny and will take up the challenge on his own blog.

This book did make me thankful for the worship leaders we’ve had at my church. I can’t say that I’ve loved all the songs we’ve sung or the style of music we’ve used on every song. But I can say with confidence that our worship leaders aren’t simply looking to create a nice feeling or get everyone hyped up. Our current worship leader often makes it a point to say that we continue worshipping after the songs are down, which reflects his (biblical) understanding of worship.

I hope this book encourages worship leaders and pastors to consider carefully the role of worship in the church. I hope they pick songs with greater care, since, as Kauflin quotes Gordon Fee: “Show me a church’s songs and I’ll show you their theology” (p101). I hope they remember that worship is not about us “connecting with God” or walking away feeling better about ourselves, though those are good things. Ultimately, worship is about praising God for who He is, as revealed in the person and work of Jesus Christ, through the Holy Spirit dwelling in our lives.

Update on blog of danny

I'd like to give a heads-up to my reader about what'll be happening over the next 6-8 weeks or so here at the blog of danny. You'll be getting more book reviews than anything else, for 2 main reasons:

1. It's the summer and I finally get to do some reading.

2. I'm travelling on a couple mission trips, which means I'll have plenty of time on plane rides to read. True, maybe I should be praying all through the plane ride to the other side of the planet, but I'm not as spiritual as you are. Sorry.

As for what I'm reading, I'm trying to branch out a bit beyond my traditional biblical studies and commentaries. So, I'm reading a couple books in church history, one on worship, one on "spirituality" (whatever that means), one on preaching & teaching and one on money and possessions. Unfortunately, one book I'm dying to read (on OT Theology) is so big (over 1000+ pages and hardback) that I won't be able to travel with it. Thus, though I've started reading it, the review itself will have to wait until sometime after I'm back and I can sit down with it.

I hope that you won't check out during this time, though. Instead, I hope you'll interact with the reviews, offering up some thoughts and reactions. In fact, it'll probably be better than the standard fare you've been getting around these parts.

So, stick around. Yesterday I posted some thoughts on Jesus Made in America, I'll probably post some thoughts on another book within the next couple days or so. Thanks for sticking around.

Book Review: Jesus Made in America

Thanks to Adrianna of IVP for the review copy of this book.

A few weeks back I posted some thoughts on the Introduction of Stephen Nichols' book, Jesus Made in America, published this year by IVP. To be honset, I wish I were a full-time blogger, because I feel like this book deserves a post for every chapter. In fact, I hope to do a multi-part interaction with it someday, possibly in the fall. But of course, don't hold me to that.

Nichols does a terrific job combining careful insight, painful observations (painful for someone in the midst of evangelicalism) with a healthy dose of humor. Throughout the book are fascinating accounts and snapshots of how Jesus has been used (and abused) throughout American history in a more-or-less chronological arrangement, from "the Puritans to The Passion of the Christ", as the subtitle states. Nichols sets out to "unveil these pictures of Jesus in American evangelicalism, to tell the story of his American evangelical incarnations" (p13) as well as "to raise signification questions about the state of Christology in American evangelicalism" (p17). Even with my disagreements (see below), I have to say: Nichols' book is a success.

The Puritans stand as Nichols' best form of American Christology, the standard to which the rest of American evangelicalism is measured. Through the words of Edward Taylor and Jonathan Edwards, Nichols, rightly, shows that the Puritans were not simply a boring bunch (though I admit "boring" is subjectively defined), who totally confined religion to the intellect and rule abiding. In fact, they loved the arts and poetry. As much as they taught the deeper points on theology, particularly Christology, in their sermons, they were also capable of writing words like: "Here [Christ] comes to give us the caresses of his love, and lay us in his bosom and embraces" (p31-32). Update the language a bit, and you got yourself a Jesus Is My Boyfriend worship tune! Thus, the Puritans were not simply intellectuals, but passionate worshippers of God (contrary to popular belief).

He does have a criticism, however, and that is "Given their dexterity in articulating both an orthodox, creedal Christology and a heartfelt piety, they didn't always follow through with Christlike action" (p40-41). Mind you, I think he largely lets the Puritans off the hook here, as he spends far more time praising them than critiquing them on this very important point. I have some thoughts as to why this is so, but I'll save that for a later post.

What follows is essentially a lesson in how we tend to "create a Jesus in our own image." I remember reading Albert Schweitzer's comment made over 100 years ago, that the liberal scholars of his day were "looking for the historical Jesus down the well of history, only to see their own reflection." Nichols shows us how the early founders of America (specifically Ben Franklin, John Adams and especially Thomas Jefferson) were concerned not with a divine Jesus (hence Jefferson's cut & paste work on the Gospels). ). "What mattered most to Jefferson, especially for the new republic, was that Jesus was a virtuous man" (p57). These founding fathers help pave the way for the virtuous and moral Jesus, rather than the Jesus who is God and died for the sins of the world (p72-73).

In the 19th century, The frontier Jesus suited the non-educated men and women of the frontier, who did not want to bother with a God-man, but one who can be understood through personal experience and simple stories. The Victorian Jesus introduced the more feminine Jesus, as seen in John Sartain's picture "of the Victorian jesus, gentle, meek and mild, with flowing hair and high cheekbones, and a softness that only a womanly Savior can muster" (p84). Thus, "the prevailing contribution of the nineteenth century to American Christology is that Jesus...became captive to ideology" (p95).

Chapter 4 deals with the battle between early 20th century liberalism (such as Harry Emerson Fosdick) and orthodoxy (see J Gresham Machen). Nichols' quotes Machen's words, "Liberalism regards him as an Example and Guide; Christianity as a Saviour: liberalism makes Him an example for faith; Christianity, the object of faith" (p117). I think Nichols ought to have pointed out that Jesus is in fact an example for us to follow (1 Peter 2:21, Phil 2:1-11), but his main critique is correct: liberal Christianity has reduced Jesus to an example and removed His rightful place as God in the flesh and Savior of the world. The fallout of this period, though, is that "for contemporary American evangelicals... the tug of war between devotion to Christ, on the one hand, over precise thinking about Christ, on the other, often goes in the direction of devotion" (p120).

In more recent years (chapters 5-8), Nichols gives us an honest (and sometimes painful) look at Christianity. Here, we see the rise of "Jesus Is My Boyfriend" music (whoever invented that term is my hero, by the way), where "like a good boyfriend, Jesus shows up at the right moment, says the right thing and knows how to hug" (p140). While I felt that his dealing with movies about Jesus (in chapter 6) is his weakest of the book, he makes a good observation: that these movies tend to appeal to emotion and personal experience more than anything else.

Chapter 7 deals with the commercialization of Jesus and Christianity, whether through WWJD bracelets, t-shirts or Jesus action figures. Perhaps his greatest point is during his discussion of The Shepherd's Guide: The Christians' Choice of Yellow Pages, which is a book for Christians to help them find other Christians in various types of businesses. Nichols states, "The Shepherd's Guide, not to mention CCM and even the union of Christian insurance agents, creates an insular world for Christians" (p185). Christians, ostensibly in an effort to witness by wearing Christian t-shirts or buying only from Christian businesses, have isolated themselves from the rest of the world, who tend to laugh at us more than weep in repentance. It makes me ask: what purpose do these products actually serve?

Chapter 8 deals with Jesus in American politics. This chapter, I would imagine, may have been the hardest to write, simply because there's so much to deal with. He's weakest when discussing the right wing portrayal of Jesus, largely because (in my opinion) there is less about Jesus and more about Christianity here. With that said, it's well known that the right wing of American politics has often appealed to Christianity to support its agenda. On the left wing, we see men such as Jim Wallis (which is spelled correctly and incorrectly- with the homophonical "Wallace"- multiple times in the same paragraph), who use the stories of the Gospels to show that Jesus cared primarily about helping the poor and the outcasts of society, which they claim lends support to the left wing cause. Ultimately, what happens is that we end up with a truncated Jesus (my term); a Jesus that does not take into account the whole of the Gospels.

There were a few points that stood out to me as particularly poignant from this book:

1. We haven't been especially strong in letting the depth of the Gospels come out. Nichols warns us that "we need not shrink back from complexity" (p226). It's true, we tend to keep Jesus limited to our experience (Jesus is my fishing buddy, etc) rather than allow the fullness of who He is (as seen in the Bible) impact us.

2. Interestingly, while we ignore (or fail to be impacted by) many of the stories about Jesus, we tend to "fill in the gaps." Time and time again throughout this book, Nichols shows how Americans have simply not been comfortable with letting the Gospel stories to speak for themselves. We want to know what Jesus' face looked like when He spoke to someone. We love to read Max Lucado stories, as he offers up imaginative stories that we do not find in the gospels (p78-79). The problem, however, is that these types of stories tend to provide the substance of the presentation of Jesus, rather than allowing the Bible itself to do so.

3. His treatment of "Jesus Is My Boyfriend" music is terrific. It's often true, that you can take many Christian songs and substitute "Jesus" with "baby" and end up with a love song fit for a cheesy romance movie. Many would consider this harmless, but Nichols makes a great point: "Even lovesick teenagers on the shores of life or shaking like leaves need more than a hug from Jesus. Even they need to know that he is the God-man. If they don't hear it in the songs, the locus theologicus of today, then where will they hear it?" (p145).

4. American Christianity, for the most part, does not care what the ancient creeds of the church say about Jesus. We think that we have come to the Bible with a blank slate and come away with a biblical portrayal of Jesus. We don't need some dead guys who spoke Latin to tell us what to believe. The problem is that Christians who do not learn from Christians of history will be more susceptible to cultural influences of their day. Nichols shows this time and time again.

5. We need to go back and revisit our idea of who Jesus is. Do we have a truly well-rounded and biblical idea of Jesus? What episodes of Jesus' life do we neglect at the expense of others? What aspects of Jesus' character do we think about / pray about / sing about / preach about? What are we leaving out? Are we being conformed to Jesus' image (Rom 8:29) or are we conforming Him to ours? I found myself asking these questions of myself over and over throughout the book.

To close, I really enjoyed this book. It's one of the best books I've read in some time, and even where I disagree with Nichols (and I certainly do at points), I found myself conceding that he had a point to consider. If you are at all interested in Christianity and culture, American religious history or how evangelicalism has evolved over the last few hundred years, you ought to read this book.

Contemporizing Theology in American Evangelicalism

I just received a copy of Jesus Made in America by Stephen J Nichols (thanks to my new friend, Adrianna of IVP). It'll take a bit before I can actually review it, but I've read the first little bit and have already found it to be an interesting read. He observes that it is natural for Christians to bring their cultural understanding and expressions into their reading and application of the Bible. But, he claims, "there is something peculiar to the tendency to contemporize in American evangelicalism" (10). He lists 4 areas he sees as American tendencies to contemporize, which I'll summarize (these are found on pages 10-12).

"First, American evangelicals reflexively harbor suspicions of tradition." He notes that this tendency "leaves American evangelicals more vulnerable than most when it comes to cultural pressures and influences. In the absence of tradition, we tend to make up a new one, one not tested by time and more or less constructed by individuals or by a limited community."

Second, is the tendency to appeal to sola scriptura, one of the rallying cries of Luther's call for reformation. But, Nichols notes, "the mistaken conclusion is that because American evangelicals hold firmly and prize sola scriptura, it naturally flows that all of the beliefs of American evangelicals naturally flow from the pages of Scripture."

Third, "much of contemporary evangelicalism... operates under the assumption that we are neutral in the acquisition of knowledge. The upshot of all this is that our ideas or beliefs are not held as our ideas or beliefs but as the ideas or beliefs."

Fourth, "American evangelicals are strongly influenced by pietism, which emphasizes personal religious experience, and values devotion and practice over doctrine."

These four tendencies, Nichols claims, "all conspire to make American evangelicals quite susceptible to culture in the shaping of beliefs and interpretation of Scripture."

Now, I suppose it's open to debate that contemporary American evangelicals are any more susceptible to this than any other group of Christians in various times, places and cultures. The questions I ask you: do you think Nichols observations are true? What are the potential outcomes (good or bad) of these tendencies?

I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

Free Book Giveaway

Hey everyone, over at Challies Dot Com there's a promo going for a free book (and other goodies) giveaway from Monergism Books. I've entered and am encouraging you to do so as well. If you click on the banner below, you can earn me more ballots as well as enter yourself. So, in other words, help a brotha out! Thanks to both my readers.

Reader's Hebrew Bible: A Review

After years of playing baseball, I ended up being a pretty decent fielder. I had a much better glove than I did a bat; I found turning a double play easier than hitting a curveball. Part of why I became a good fielder was my hatred of running. You see, in practice during my teen years, my coaches would make us run every time we made an error. Botch a ground ball- start jogging. Overthrow the cutoff man- run some laps. I hated running laps. So, my thought was: I don't want to run, so I'll become a better fielder. It worked well (and I'd like to think I had some natural ability).

I took the same mentality to learning biblical languages in undergrad and in seminary. Most of us studying Greek and Hebrew grew weary of looking words up all the time, especially if you had to bring a huge lexicon with you to the library. There were 2 main options for handling this dilemna: (1) using something like BibleWorks to look up the definitions or (2) learning the vocab necessary to translate. I always felt that option (1) was cheating a bit, and truth be told, most who relied on BibleWorks (or other similar programs) didn't really learn the language. I preferred option (2), though possibly more due to my pride rather than my industrious nature.

So, I'll admit to some initial hesitation in using the Reader's Hebrew Bible because it feels a bit like option (1). You see, the RHB gives the Hebrew text (from the Westminster Leningrad Codex), with vocabulary helps. Every word that occurs less than 100 times is footnoted and given a gloss from HALOT and BDB, probably the top 2 Hebrew lexicons around (they do use a couple others, but these are the primary ones). Proper nouns that occur less than 100 times are shaded grey rather than footnoted, which I'll be extremely grateful for if I ever decide to translate Chronicles. (For the Aramaic portions, it's anything used less than 25 times, but I don't know Aramaic so I can't comment on those portions).

Swallowing my pride and receiving help on the vocab is a good idea for me right now, since my Hebrew has slipped significantly. My understanding of grammar is mostly still there, but that only means so much if you don't know what any of the words mean, right? I started off by reading some of Ruth (which is generally one of the first books Hebrew students translate, often right after Jonah). I was certainly rusty, but the vocab footnotes really helped (and it doesn't hurt that there's a glossary at the back of the book for words used over 100 times- oh how far I've fallen!). Since then I've bounced around a bit to get a feel for different sections (prophets, Psalms) and get the sense that this is a really helpful resource for those of us whose Hebrew vocab has dwindled drastically.

Most book reviewers talk about the printing and binding and use words like "attractive" or "handsome", but quite frankly, I can't get into that. My wife is attractive. A book is a book. It looks cool, and I feel smarter having it in my possession, and the binding seems strong enough that it won't fall apart any time soon, which is good since it'll be costly to replace. The book is huge (weighing in at 1600+ pages), which means I probably won't be lugging it to church any time soon.

Note well, this is not really a tool for in depth translation or exegesis. Not to say it isn't useful for that, but the glosses given are possible (largely unnuanced) glosses, it cannot replace doing the hard work of a word/concept study, nor does it include any help in syntax. Also, there is not critical apparatus (textual variants), which one needs in order to do true translation work. There is an appendex that shows the differences between the WTC and the BHS, though that doesn't account for the DSS or the LXX (yes, I used all abbreviations to feel like a VIP, recall Good Morning Vietnam). None of this is a criticism, since that's not the point of the book (otherwise it'd be called A Translator's Hebrew Bible).

All this to say, it's a great resource, one I plan on using as I work my way back into the Hebrew language. But, as much as I like it, I hope to graduate back up to my much smaller BHS that doesn't have the vocab helps. I know I'll never reach the point where I'll know all the vocab, but it'd be nice to be able to read without having to stop and look up definition a couple times every verse. I feel like I'm running laps again, and I hate running laps.

Note: Thanks again to Chris for providing this review copy.

5.5 random things: book wishlist edition

5.5: This post is dedicated to Chris at Zondervan, who recently sent me a couple books to review (just scroll down a couple posts). He now has me thinking about what books I'd love to have (I'm leaving out commentaries). So, here's a completely selfish post, in no particular order.

5: Putting Jesus in His Place: The Case for the Deity of Christ. Don't worry, I'm not needing to be convinced of Jesus' place in the Godhead. But from a teaching perspective, to have a book that is (1) written so non-seminary trained people can read it and (2) contains great insights gleaned from top scholars would be so helpful. I first noticed this book because of those who give their endorsements, which is like reading a Who's Who of evangelical Bible scholars. At any rate, I think this can be a great book that would help so many in the church reap the benefits of scholarly insight without having to learn all the background of theological and exegetical discussions.


4: Worship Matters by Bob Kauflin. Bob Kauflin is involved with Sovereign Grace Ministries who seems (according to reviews I've read) to have written a book that is both theological and practical. As someone who is very interested in how worship through music is used in the church, I think this book has a lot to offer. It is difficult to write theologically yet offer simple advice for how to carry out a worship service. Apparently, Kauflin has succeeded.



3: How Africa Shaped the Christian Mind: Rediscovering the African Seedbed of Western Christianity by Thomas Oden. I want to read this book because it helps correct the Western-centric understanding many of us have of Christian theology. I've grown to love church history, especially as I've learned how much of a role African theologians have played (Augustine, Tertullian, etc). Oden is a top-notch historical theologian, so you know this has to be good.

2: I'm not familiar with the author, but I've heard a lot of good things about Jerry Bridges' Respectable Sins, a look at how we've allowed subtle, "respectable" sins to creep into our life. I think this could be an interesting book for a group study.

1: Stephen Nichols has a book out called Jesus Made In America: A Cultural History from the Puritans to "The Passion of the Christ" that looks very interesting. I'm always fascinated by how culture plays a part in our shaping of how we think of Jesus, this book takes a look at that throughout American history. In my opinion, studying the mistakes of history often helps us understand how we make those same mistakes ourselves. Plus, it looks like this book might be good for a laugh or two.

free books & another update

A week ago I had a seemingly random post about the new Reader's Hebrew Bible, and made the statement that I'll write a review if I receive a free copy. That was because there was an offer on Between Two Worlds (Justin Taylor's blog) that if anyone would post about the Reader's Hebrew Bible, promise to write a review and e-mail some guy named Chris at Zondervan- and be one of the first 5 people to do all this- you'd get a free copy. I was the 3rd person. So, Chris at Zondervan agreed to send me a free copy for me to review.

He also mentioned that he might be able to send me other books as well under the same agreement- that I'd review them. So, I may have mentioned in passing that I was really interested in Bruce Waltke's new book, An Old Testament Theology. Well, both books came in the mail today! So, expect reviews of each of these. I'll do the RHB first, since that was the original deal, Waltke's book will probably take a little bit longer, but I am looking forward to reading it. The great part is that I now have an excuse to read books, free ones!

While I'm here, I'd like to point out that I added a new feature to the blog of danny, Joshua Project's Unreached People of the Day. The Joshua Project is an organization that attempts to collect information about people groups around the world and their level of reachedness (I just made up that word). I don't know if their definition of "people group" and "reached" are necessarily the perfect ones, but I like how they are at least trying to bring "definition to the unfinished task" (their words). I hope that maybe you'll take a few moments to pray for each people group as you see them here. May the gospel be preached to all nations in our lifetime!

why all the hype?

I'm often pretty late to the ballgame when it comes to Christian trends. I don't know any of the newest worship music, except for that which is played in church on Sundays. I don't pay much attention to the newest popular preachers- the Matt Chandlers, Mark Driscolls, and so on. It's nothing personal, it's really more a matter of time. There are so many new things- preachers, worship leaders, books, etc- that I don't have time to keep up. I'd rather allow the business to settle down and I'll wade through the carnage and pick out what I want.

So, I say that to explain a bit about why I've just now read the bestselling book by Donald Miller, Blue Like Jazz (published 2003). Some of you, most of you, probably, have read this book by now, perhaps multiple times. I've been saying for some time now that I needed to get around to reading it. As I spend more time teaching in my church, the more I realize I need to be up to speed with what folks are reading. So, consider this a late book review, only it's not really a book review.

You see, the thought that kept coming to my mind as I read this was "why was this book such a big deal?" When I finished the book (which didn't take long, it's a very easy read), I found myself asking the same question.

But I mean that in 2 different ways. I wonder why some folks loved this book so much. Hearing from some made me think this book could be the best thing to happen to American Christianity in recent years. After reading it, I can't help but wonder if that is a tremendous overstatement. But, to talk to some other folks, you'd think this is a dangerous book, one that is fraught with awful theology and destined to lead some to heresy. Got to be honest- don't see that either. Not even close.

Let me say it this way: I found 25% of the book annoying, 25% really insightful, 50% just fine. One minor annoyance was his writing style- I wasn't sure if it was cool or childish. For instance, if he were writing about me, he might write something like this:

One of my friends, Danny the Red Sox Fan, is a good guy. He married this girl, Lisa. Lisa is way out of his league. Danny is obsessive about the Red Sox. Danny also has this blog that no one reads. He writes anyway, maybe because he's bored. I like Danny.

Miller is, at points, very insightful. He'll have an interesting way to look at things, especially on loving the broken and downtrodden. And contrary to what you might think from talking to his detractors, he does in fact believe people need to acknowledge their sin and repent. It seems to me that he emphasizes the need to love people before they get "fixed", not just after. I'd consider that a pretty good idea.

To be sure, there are things I don't like. It'd be easy to walk away from this book thinking that only Christians who cuss, don't like Republicans (or churches that do) and call everything "beautiful" are really cool. I'm not saying that was Miller's intention, but I could see how people might walk away from this book thinking that.

Anyway, I'd thought I'd throw out some thoughts on the complaints I've heard over the last couple years and my thoughts on them. First, is the claim he's simply anti-Republican. Yeah, that's pretty much true, and he has a major problem with churches that "toe the party line." I certainly think he's right that there's a problem when so many Christians are blindly Republican. But I personally find the blindly Democrat just as annoying (perhaps even moreso, since they make the same errors they speak against). But hey, it's his book, he can write what he wants.

Second, some say he doesn't have enough of a developed theology. Again, this is true, though there are some "theological" moments in the book- he just goes about them differently (his section on tithing, for example). For instance, Miller is a firm believer that all people have an inherent "sin nature" (his favorite term). He doesn't go about defending it through Scripture or theological reflections on total depravity. He reiterates the need to repent before God, though doesn't show how one goes from being sinful to being repentant (the regeneration/election of the Calvinist system, or the prevenient grace of Wesley). But again, he isn't pretending to be a theologian, and for some who aren't well-versed in Scripture, especially a non-Christian, he might present the idea better than most of us. No, he's not on the level of C S Lewis, but why should we expect him to be?

Third, some argue that he is too hard on the church. Again, I'll agree with this to an extent. I'm a huge believer in the local church. If I were to write a book of this sorts, I'd have tons to say about how much I love my church, warts and all. But Miller isn't anti-church, he's anti-some-churches. I think he's overly critical. If someone already struggles with anger against the church, this book could feed that.

But, I'd also point out two things. One, as critical as he is of others (and he admits as much), he's just as critical of himself throughout the book. Two, he does find himself a church he loves and is challenged by, and he spends a decent amount of time talking about it. I would have preferred he tempered himself a bit more, though. I guess I just think it's too easy to pick on the church, and a bit too trendy for my tastes. I will say, many who pick on churches will end up saying (in attitude as much as in their words) to non-Christians "but hey, we're not like that, we love Jesus and what we're doing is even better than what they're doing." To his credit, I don't think Miller ever goes that far.

Lastly, I found one part amusing, given the successful nature of the book:

Imago, our church, is made up of mostly artists and fruit nuts and none of us have any money, so Rick [his pastor] said if I was going to be a writer, I needed to write a bestseller so that the church could have some money.

In the end, it's what you would expect out of an autobiographical look on the Christian life (not properly an autobiography). At times I wondered how some of it ever got published. At times I was annoyed by his idiosyncratic outlook. At times I found his take on a subject uniquely refreshing. So read it (I'm sure you can borrow it from someone). Enjoy it. But don't believe the hype- either side of it.

Reader's Hebrew Bible

For those of us who haven't kept up with their Hebrew as much as we should (sorry, Dr Stuart), then the Reader's Hebrew Bible just might be the thing. It really should help with my ever-shrinking vocabulary, especially. And, if I'm lucky, I just may receive a free copy- I'll even write a review if I do.

HT: Justin Taylor.

I've died and gone to heaven

This week was a monumental time for me, one that will go down in history as the week of 2 unexpected, life changing surprises (if I may use a little hyperbole, though not too much).

First, on Sunday, I received my favorite wedding gift of all, Gordon Fee's new (destined-to-become-a-classic) book, Pauline Christology. I love it so much, I'm giving you a picture:

Fee, as many of you know, is my favorite Bible scholar. God's Empowering Presence (on the Holy Spirit in Paul's writings) is my favorite biblical studies book, by a large margin. One point of interest for me in both of these books is that they were written largely because no one else has covered these subjects. Fee, while working on other projects, noticed that few, if anyone at all, have actually sat down to write books on these two topics, which is astonishing considered the centrality of Christ and the life in the Spirit in Paul's life and ministry (biblical studies has become such a "niche discipline" that the main points often get overlooked). I'm really looking forward to diving into this book (I've read the first 30 pages or so, which were enough to cause me to sit around and day dream about becoming a Bible scholar again).

So, thanks to my good friend who bought this book for me as a wedding gift (you know who you are). If salvation were obtained by good works, your ticket would be purchased and heavenly passport stamped.

My second unexpected blessing was the discovery of biblicaltraining.org. This is a site meant to provide opportunities for those who do not (or cannot) attend seminary to listen to classes given by scholars and professors. A number of my former profs are on here, including a class or two that I took in seminary. You have to register, but it is free. The classes can be listened to through Windows Media Player or Quicktime (for Mac users), and can be downloaded on MP3 (perfect for our iPod culture). Many of the classes have the lectures transcribed and outlined. They are adding more classes soon (I can't wait for some more Craig Blomberg).

I'd highly recommend Douglas Stuart's Old Testament Survey. I did not take this class in seminary, but I knew a few folks who said that this was their favorite class in their years at school, so I look forward to checking them out. Honestly, OT Survey wouldn't rank on too many people's list of anticipated classes, so if it this highly regarded, you know it has to be good. Also, I also want to give a plug for Tim Tennent's missions classes (there are more to be put up, hopefully soon). Tennent is, quite simply, one of the best professors and lecturers I've ever had the pleasure of hearing. You will be richer for listening to them.

As someone who teaches Bible classes in the local church, I've been looking for good online resources I can recommend to my classes (I teach 2 nights a week). For various reasons (maybe to be discussed in another post on another day), there has been a long standing rift between the church and the academy, one that I think is to the serious detriment of both. I seek to bridge that gap as best I can when I teach. More often than not, those in my class (I can't really call them my "students", that sounds way too formal for my teaching) have to rely on my own personal anecdotes and take my word for it that these scholars are not stuffy, ivory tower types (Doug Stuart is a great example of a world-class scholar who is anything but stuffy). This online resource enables me to point members of my church to specific lectures and classes to get a "scholar's take" on a topic. Some of the classes are even condensed to shorter classes (called "Foundations" on the site), so they don't have to listen to the full 30 hour version (though they may want to).

One feature I hope to utilize when I have more time is the "custom class" feature. I can pick lectures and classes that I want and set up a "class" for folks to log on to and listen. I may be able to supplement much of my own teaching (or am I supplementing them?). I can have a "listen to this" portion of a class, enabling folks to download them to their iPods and listen on their own time, and we can discuss the content in class. At any rate, I can't stop thinking about it and I'm beginning to become obsessed.

Yes, Christmas came a few weeks early for me this year.

my top 5 NT studies books

Those who know me well are aware of my affinity for books, especially books in the realm of biblical studies. A while back I decided to post my favorite 5 NT books from my own personal library, but I'm just now getting around to it. Please note, these are only from my personal library, there may be (and probably are) some out there that would make it on the list but I don't own them. Also note that these are not commentaries (maybe I'll get around to that), but rather books that cover a particular topic or theme. These are not necessarily in any particular order, except that my favorite is last, because I believe in saving the best for last (which is why I eat the edges of my Pop-Tarts first, as well as the crusts of my sandwich).



So my first one is actually an honorable mention, which is kind of cheating (maybe I should have called this my top 6). The Bible Background Commentary on the New Testament by Craig Keener is technically a commentary, so it doesn't fit the criteria for my list. However, I feel that I can't leave it off because I have found it to be an indispensable resource (I just realized after I typed this sentence that those exact words are on the cover of the book, weird). The truth is that most of us never study ancient history or ancient cultures, so our knowledge of important background information is limited. We often get the sense that there is something going on that we don't understand because the NT culture is so far removed from our own. So whether you're dealing with head coverings or Jewish dinner customs, Keener has given us a crash course in ancient culture all in one book going passage by passage. I personally think that if someone learns the basics of exegesis and hermeneutics (see the Fee and Stuart books pictured on the right), then the most important resource for them is a good book on background information. Keener fits that bill.

Back in my senior year of college I took a class on the Life and Teachings of Jesus. One of the books assigned to us was this book, The Jesus Quest, by Ben Witherington III. I suppose it isn't so much an NT studies book as it is a book about NT studies and studiers. Witherington is a master of making clear what is often confusing, especially when it comes to the view points of other scholars. In this book he takes on what is known as the "Quest for the Historical Jesus." He gives an overview of various scholarly opinions, from those of the Jesus Seminar (his chapter is great for those who aren't familiar with this group) to more serious scholars, such as John Meier and N T Wright. He gives solid critiques of the views presented, but also is able to pull away some good lessons to learn from just about any scholar. It would be nice if he would update this book to include some of the recent works (such as that of James Dunn), but if you're one of those who watch all those "Jesus specials" on TV (I'm raising my hand) and wonder who these scholars are, chances are Witherington will talk about them.

I've always found Richard Hays to be an absolutely fascinating scholar. Though I often disagree with his approach, he never ceases to challenge my reading of a text. At least one of his books has become something of a modern classic (Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul) that is referred to frequently by NT scholars. Simply put, he's one of those scholars that you must deal with even when you disagree. That is how I approach this book on NT ethics, The Moral Vision of the New Testament. Hays will no doubt infuriate those from a strong conservative viewpoint (that would be me, by the way) because he doesn't really take an "inerrancy" point of view, but if you read him carefully you'll find that he presents strong cases for his arguments. He often comes away with conservative stances (abortion is wrong, homosexual intercourse is wrong, etc), but is probably not strong enough for some. In a rare touch for Bible scholars, he even includes some personal stories, which I find refreshing (his story about his good friend who was gay was particularly touching). His chapter on war and pacificism (he's a pacifist) was, to be honest, challenging. I'm not saying he turned me into a pacifist, but he certainly made me think. All this to say, I highly recommend this book, but only for those who are well grounded in Scripture. For someone who is still trying to figure out where they stand on some issues and struggle with the authority of the Bible in our lives, this is not the book for them.

One of the hardest things about making this list is choosing only one N T Wright book. I could just as easily have chosen his book on Paul, The Climax of the Covenant or even better is his phenomenal treatment of the resurrection, The Resurrection of the Son of God, which is probably his best book. I have opted, however, to go with Jesus & the Victory of God because it was this book that introduced me to Wright's scholarship and made me a fan. Mind you, there are plenty of points of disagreement, but he often forces me to rethink my position. Wright is probably the most consistent scholar I've ever read, even if consistent to a fault. For example, Wright opposes much of popular Christian writing on Jesus by arguing that Jesus did in fact have a message to preach to His original hearers, not just a timeless system of salvation (this is easily misunderstood, Wright certainly believes in salvation for all ages). Wright reads the gospels in light of this understanding, which I agree with. However, being stubbornly consistent in this has led Wright to take some unlikely interpretations, such as the notion that Jesus never refers to His second coming. Those references in Mark 13 (and parallels) to Christ coming on the clouds of heaven are Christ's judgment on Jerusalem in 70AD rather than Him returning some day (again, Wright does believe Jesus is coming back from other texts, notably Paul, he just doesn't think Jesus Himself predicts it). I tend to think that runs contrary to the words of the angel in Acts 1:9-11, spoken a mere month and a half after Jesus uttered His words. At any rate, Wright is masterful in placing Jesus within His historical context and explaining His message in His own time (which does, in turn, help us understand it more clearly, rather than confusing it as some might suppose). Wright is also quite adept at pointing out the fundamental flaws in some scholars (such as Crossan & the Jesus Seminar). If you get nothing else out of his writings, you should pay attention to his methodology and his critiques of other's presuppositions. You will learn more than you counted on.


As with N T Wright, I had trouble choosing which Richard Bauckham book I would add to this list. Interestingly, my favorites are two small books. I could have chosen God Crucified: Monotheism and Christology in the New Testament (a mere 89 pages) and been quite happy with it. But I opted for his book in the New Testament Theology series, The Theology of the Book of Revelation. What I love about Bauckham (again, similar to Wright) is that you can learn how to do exegesis/theology while you read his books. Packed into 164 pages are discussions on the high Christology of Revelation (the sharing of divine titles and worship between the One who sits on the throne and the Lamb as evidence of this), the importance of God as Creator for the book ("Where faith in God the Creator wanes, so inevitably does hope for resurrection, let alone the new creation of all things. It is the God who is the Alpha who will also be the Omega." p51), a great discussion on true victory as depicted in Revelation (faithful witness through suffering and death), and so on. As I am currently teaching Revelation I continually find myself refering to Bauckham to make clear what I often find muddled.


Without a doubt my favorite book in NT studies is Gordon Fee's magesterial tome, God's Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul. In this book, Fee discusses (in great depth) every instance where Paul mentions or alludes to the Holy Spirit. He covers grammatical issues, theological issues, contextual problems and so on with great clarity. This book is over 900 pages (!), but can be read in portions (although if you want to read it cover to cover I'm sure you'll still learn a lot). He pulls his exegetical discussions together at the end with a helpful synthesis of Paul's view of the Holy Spirit. One of the distinctive contributions Fee makes to this discussion is his insistence that the Holy Spirit was an experienced reality to Paul and his churches. In other words, there were actual manifestations of the Spirit's power and presence (see 1 Corinthians 14 and Galatians 3:5). While Fee comes from a Penecostal background, he does have some differing views from this tradition. Most notably is the view that all Christians are full of the Spirit from the moment of conversion. In Paul's mind, there is no such thing as a non-Spirit filled Christian, those terms are contradictory (see Romans 8:9 and the assumption that his readers all have the Spirit in Galatians 3:1-5 and 5:22-25).

We're Not in Kansas Anymore: what will Christianity look like in the future?

Back in December, I bought a book by Philip Jenkins, Distinguished Professor of History and Religious Studies at Penn State, called The Next Christendom: The Coming of Global Christianity. I am now finally getting around to reading it. I could have read it before now, but I wanted to be able to give this book more attention. What Jenkins attempts to do is look into the future and see how the religious makeup of the world will be different than it is now. He produces some interesting figures (though I'm still in the early parts of the book, so I'm sure there's more to come).

I have great interest in this for a few reasons, but mostly because I hope to be involved in missions in the future. Jenkins looks at worldwide growth rates of Christianity and comes to some interesting conclusions:

In 2025, if current growth rates stay the same as now, “there would be around 2.6 billion Christians, of whom 633 million would live in Africa, 640 million in Latin America, and 460 million in Asia. Europe, with 555 million, would have slipped to third place.” (3)

“By 2050, only about one-fifth of the world’s 3 billion Christians will be non-Hispanic Whites.” (3)

Think about that: by 2050 only one-fifth of Christians will be non-Hispanic whites. Ask your non-Christian coworkers to describe the average Christian and I'll doubt that's what you will get. It's interesting, many people that I talk to assume that Africa is a Muslim continent, but statistics show that Christianity is growing quite well over there. And any claims that missionaries are importing a "foreign" religion to Africa are difficult to support in light of the fact that North Africa was largely Christian before the Muslim Arabs swept in (and obviously something other than Christian before that).

Anyway, I'm not sure I'm trying to make a definite point just yet, I'm simply noting certain trends. I'm still trying to figure out what all this means for us today. I've maintained for some time now that in the future Europe will become a frontier for preaching the gospel. I think this is true for two reasons: Christianity is fading rapidly in the lives of Europeans (especially in Western Europe) and Isalm is on the rise due to immigration and out-breeding the Europeans (note the problems with Arab Muslims that have arisen in the last year in some European nations).

This may change, however, because European countries might make efforts to stop the inflow of Arabs into their countries. That's one thing that studies such as this one by Jenkins can't always do accurately: predict outside variables that factor into making the future what it will be. Nonetheless, his thoughts are insightful and need to be taken seriously.

I want to mention two points Jenkins makes in his first chapter about the difference between the "Southern Church" (meaning from the Southern Hemisphere, specifically, Latin America and Africa) and the "Northern Church." First, he notes that Christians from Africa and Latin America tend to be among the poorest peoples of the world. Many from the more affluent countries have tended to think they would then be among the more liberal Christians, since liberalism often sees itself as the champion of the poor and oppressed (I'm speaking more of theological liberalism here, rather than political, the connection is, contrary to the belief of some conservative Christians, not necessarily always there).

This is partially true, but not to the extent that some might imagine. In fact, while these churches are concerned with the poor (since they are poor themselves), they tend to be among the most conservative morally and theologically. This was seen a few years back when the African Anglicans voted against the liberalizing tendencies of other Anglicans (especially those from America and Britain), particularly in regard to the issue of ordaining homosexual priests. I remember reading a letter from an African pastor who began to refuse money from American churches of his denomination because he feared they would try to use that to "buy" his influence. If this isn't evidence of the downfall in mainstream Western Christianity I don't know what is.

Second, like it or not, these newer churches live in a world where the supernatural is real. Our culture and worldview do not allow much room for demons, angels, healings, exorcisms, and so on. These Christians, however, consider these things basic. Again, I note that many feel that opening Christianity to these things simply makes liberalizing the faith that much easier. But the opposite has happened. This fear is at times true, because there are certainly churches who have syncretized pagan practices with Christianity. But there are just as many who believe in casting our demons and healing the sick who are faithfully and effectively preaching the gospel and demanding repentance from sin. Dare I say that these Christians are much closer to what we see in the New Testament than we are?

Finally, I also want to note another interesting point that Jenkins makes regarding the rise of Pentecostalism. In 1900 there were only a handful of Pentecostals, but now there are several hundred million. By 2050 there will be over 1 billion. If you were to ask just about any educated sociologist which social movements have been the most effective in the last century, it is doubtful any would mention Pentecostalism. You might hear them talk about feminism, the civil rights movement, and so on, but Pentecostalism probably won't make the cut. Yet, the numbers show that it is growing at a phenomenal rate. Why is that?

Like I said, I'm not really trying to put out answers right now, I'm still attempting to sort through everything. It is thought provoking, to say the least. I pray that we all seek wisdom for the future as the kingdoms of this world become the kingdoms of our Lord (Rev 11:15).