Trendiness

In the past few years, I have had opportunity to visit many churches in the area where I live. Part of this was due to my position at the Rescue Mission, but part was also as pulpit supply (and just when you thought that the Sunday morning service couldn’t get any more tragic). I have noticed that many of these congregations are feeling the pressure to become “trendy.” We’ve moved beyond the contemporary stage – trendiness is now what we seek. Trendiness goes with the flow of culture and catches the waves of the newest look, feel, and practice. In order to move away from a stogy traditionalist look and flavor, churches have adopted styles they consider to be a departure from the old and outmoded rituals of yesterday.

If your church is stuck in a rut, if it unthinkingly follows patterns of the way people “do church,” I would suggest the following radical measures:

• Ditch the pulpit for a small table to hold your bottle of water or travel coffee mug. Make sure there is room to set a Bible on it (in some places this is optional)
• By all means, put away the suit and tie. For the maximum coolness effect, wear a plaid shirt, untucked. For extreme coolness, a ball cap is the right touch.
• 2 words: Praise band
• Don’t forget the coffee. If you are brewing espresso drinks in the lobby, you are approaching the pinnacle of relevance.
• Tats. The more the better – on everyone.
• Remove the “holy hardware” from the church and decorate the “stage” (because it can no longer be called a platform or altar) with wood from used pallets.
• And the pews; lose the pews. They are so 1960.

These are but a few of the things that I have seen that cause churches to consider themselves to be “on the cutting edge.”  Here’s the thing: does anyone else notice that these features have become more or less standardized and have become the accepted way of “doing church?” Those who follow this path do so, in part, as a way of breaking the traditional mold. Yet, in so doing, they have established a newer, more contemporary, but still just as normative, set of expectations as the ones they were trying to escape. When I was younger, people were wrongly criticized for not wearing proper church clothes to church on Sunday. That was wrong. I know someone who wore a shirt and tie (without a jacket) to church and was criticized because he was trying to dress above the rest of the people. So now, jeans, tee shirts and flip flops are proper church attire? I am not advocating dress codes, but it is amazing how we become what we are trying to escape.

Caffeinated Ramblings

Recently I have been thinking about coffee. You may think that strange, but there are people who are obsessed with coffee – and even some who lose sleep over coffee (pun intended). Second only to crude oil, coffee is the most traded commodity in the world. Entire economies rely upon coffee trading for their well-being. So, if I spend some time poring over (pun intended) this fantastic brew, it should not be surprising.

I am by no means a coffee aficionado. But I do like good coffee. When dining out, I have occasionally chosen a restaurant based on the quality of the coffee they serve instead of the food menu. My wife is not always in total agreement with my choices, but she is a forgiving woman.

Coffee entered my life when I was in the first grade. Back then, we would walk home from school during lunch and on cold days, my mother would make a “glass” of coffee with plenty of milk and sugar served in one of those colorful aluminum tumblers that were popular in the 50’s (the 1950’s that is). I can honestly say that the well-worn caveats about coffee that were then popular proved to be urban legends. It did not stunt my growth nor did it put hair on my chest (all theoretical methods of accomplishing that feat have proven to be unsuccessful).

In those early days, coffee was brewed in a stainless steel drip coffee maker; the water was brought to a near boil and then poured over the grounds.  In our home, mom would change between that and the stove top stainless steel percolator.  Coffee is still made this way for large functions in large electric percolators. There is something nostalgic (and awful) about boiled coffee. I call it “church basement coffee.” The advent of the Pyrex percolator helped a little by removing the metallic flavor, but it is still boiled coffee. Mr. Coffee (the coffee maker, not Joe DiMaggio) came on the scene and revolutionized home coffee brewing. Describing making coffee before Mr. Coffee is like describing record players to Millennials.

Fast forward to the present. Coffee choices are legion. Never would I have imagined that fast food restaurants and gas stations would compete over specialty coffees. The term “gas station” hardly describes the combination of fuel stop/convenience store/fast food restaurant that we know today (I know; “gas station” shows my age). One local establishment advertises a pumpkin spice and caramel macchiato. I have no idea what this is.

Now there are places that specialize in coffee only – espressos, cold brews, pour overs, and other unique ways of extracting the flavor from freshly roasted and ground coffee. And churches are getting in on this too. In my wildest dreams, I never would have thought that churches would make their pitch based on the existence or the quality of their coffee bars. Of course, a coffee bar must be baptized and sanctified if it is located in a church. If the musicians in the band (and I don’t care what they’re called – it’s a band) are called the “Praise Team,” then maybe an appropriate name for the coffee service would be, I don’t know, maybe “mocha ministry?” I actually saw a church bulletin asking for volunteers to be part of the Sunday morning “coffee ministry.” I’m sure that barista is somewhere listed among the spiritual gifts necessary for the building up of the body. Maybe I need a new translation.  

Phobia

According the Oxford Dictionary (online edition), a phobia is an “extreme or irrational fear or aversion to something.” Oxford Living Dictionary gives a list of phobias. As I read these, I find that I possess several:

• Zoophobia – a fear of animals. I’m not sure that my aversion to animals counts as a phobia, but I am not one to run up to a dog to pet it (technically cynophobia); when a bat comes in the house I run screaming like a little girl (sorry if that phrase is sexist); I would never want to sit on a park bench and feed the pigeons (which is technically orithophobia).
• Electrophobia – a fear of electricity. I suffer from this big time. On those rare occasions when I replace a light switch, I pull the main circuit and cut off the power to the entire house. This is much easier than trying to get the electric company disconnect my service from the utility pole.
• Acrophobia – a fear of high places. This is ironic, since the word derives from the Greek word akron, meaning summit, and I am from Akron, Ohio in Summit County. Actually, my fear is not of heights as much as it is falling from them.

I am surprised to see how many things have a phobia attached to them: touch, poverty, metal, Italian/German/ Scottish people, vomiting, and a list of others (pinaciphobia is a fear of lists). When I think of the things about which I am phobic, I realize that they are irrational. Much of the fear stems from a failure to understand the nature of the thing. For example, those who understand and work with electricity know how it works and work around it with ease. I do not understand these people.

Unfortunately, we tend to use words without paying close attention to their meanings. A phobia is an extreme and irrational fear. This describes how I feel about high places and roller coasters – extreme and irrational. Now, however, the word is used in our culture as a label for those who may hold differing opinions about hot button issues. One of the most misused words in this context is homophobic. That word appears on the list in the Oxford Dictionary as a “fear of homosexuals.” I imagine that there are some who have an irrational fear of anyone who is homosexual, transgender, or whatever happens to be the preferred descriptive initial.  But I object to labeling people as “phobic” because they disagree based on either moral or religious convictions. If I – as likely the majority of people in our country – believe that gender is binary, or that one’s sexuality is defined by gender, does that make me phobic? I realize that we live in a culture that allows free expression, even if that expression is in ways that I would not endorse. Does my lack of endorsement equate to an irrational fear? Call me unenlightened if you will, consider me hopelessly out of touch if it suits you, but don’t call me phobic. I certainly do not endorse, agree with, or support many things that our political leaders are doing – some of whom I voted for and some I did not. Does that make me politicphobic (a real phobia, by the way)?

Please allow for rational disagreement and discussion about such a powerful issue as same sex attraction without reverting to pejorative epithets, regardless of your position.  I have had rational (I hope) conversations with people about these matters. They haven’t usually ended with consensus, but I don’t consider those who disapprove of my position as heterophobic. Neither of us is phobic. Just stop it.

Anxiety

I don't know if there is a gene for worry. If there is, I inherited that tendency from my mother. Probably, it is not genetic, other than the sinful nature that I have inherited from Adam. There are times when I think that I may have a legitimate cause to worry about something. However, for me, it quite quickly degrades into anxiety. There are those times when I feel as though I am inching ever so closely to the abyss of complete despair. I don't like this personality flaw within me, but it is part of what I deal with as I try to bring "every thought captive" (2 Cor. 10:5). Some people get angry; I get fardeiget.

Tim Challies posted a brief article today on this topic. I found it help, encouraging and convicting at the same time. He ends the article referencing 1 Pet. 5:6-7: 

Rather, we are to "humble ourselves under the mighty hand of God so that at the proper time he may exalt us, casting all our anxieties upon him because he cares for us" (1 Peter 5:6-7). His care, not our anxiety, is our refuge. When we hand it all to him, we can be truly be anxious for nothing. We can care deeply without worrying for as much as a moment.

From my struggles with this malady, I would add verse 8; "Be sober; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour." It is not accidental that this text is embedded in this context. One of Satan's tools to cripple us is anxiety. When we are devoured by anxiety, we are paralyzed and ineffective. We become a drain on those around us, even those we love and who love us the most. Instead of being an encourager; instead of having words of grace on our lips; instead of the high praises of God in our mouths, we are consumed by and with the anxiety that we allow to live rent free in our heads. And the lion licks his chops. 

Culture Wars

For decades we have heard about the culture wars. This speaks of a contest to define which values will dominate the American culture. It describes competing worldviews that influence the political agenda of our nation, usually aligning in 2 major camps: traditionalists and conservatives versus those of a more liberal and progressive viewpoint. There are many issues that are flashpoints in this conflict: gender identity, abortion, marriage and sexuality, and women’s rights to name but a few.

Certainly these are important issues. There seems to be, in my opinion, an unfortunate consequence in this struggle, particularly where Christians and the gospel are concerned. Regardless of one’s position, it appears to have developed to the point that those who hold opposing views see their counterparts as enemy combatants. After all, it is a war. The enemy must be destroyed at all costs. For the conservative, the voices of the “secular humanist,” left-wing, gay-rights affirming, abortion loving proponents must be silenced. If that means destroying their mouthpiece, the “liberal media,” then so be it. Send those godless commies back to Russia where they belong. For the liberal or progressive,  those Bible thumping fundamentalist, chocolate chip cookie baking “stand by your man,” homeschooling  women, gun owning and loving conservatives, and “fill-in-the-blank phobic” people must be eliminated from modern society – or lobotomized, if that is easier.

We are way beyond the place for intelligent dialogue. There is very little discussion and a whole lot of rhetoric, verbal abuse, and propaganda from all sides. For those who profess allegiance to Christ, our attitude must be different. Certainly, we desire to stand for truth and the propositional statements of Scripture. But we often forget the one whom we claim to represent.  Richard Phillips posted these words on the blog for the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals. Though he was commenting in a slightly different context, his words started me thinking about the culture wars and the Christian’s place in it.

Far too many evangelical Christians look upon their political opposites as culture war "enemies" rather than as neighbors to be loved, served, and evangelized. If, for instance, proponents of sexual perversity and gender confusion are perceived as our enemies, then Jesus has told us what to do: "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven" (Matt. 5:44-45). Unlike tax collectors and Gentiles, who love only their own, let us heartily welcome perceived enemies as neighbors who need to hear about our gracious God and his gospel.

The words of Jesus are difficult to read. Are we to love those who denigrate the biblical values and truths we treasure? Are we to love those who may wish us ill or worse? The cultural context of the New Testament was one of totalitarian rule, religious idolatry, moral perversity on a scale that would make the Motion Picture Rating Committee members blush, and institutional hostility toward Christianity. Yet, they influenced their culture by speaking truth to power (see Paul’s testimony before King Agrippa in Acts 25:24), loving “not their lives, even to death” (Rev. 12:11 ), and by diligently living out Jesus’ teaching from the Sermon on the Mount. Apparently, we have discovered a better way to influence culture.

Book Review: The Hermeneutics of the Biblical Writers

Abner Chou has produced a valuable contribution to the field of hermeneutics in The Hermeneutics of the Biblical Writers: Learning to Interpret Scripture from the Prophets and Apostles. The issue of the New Testament writers’ use of the Old Testament has been an ongoing discussion, particularly in the context of eschatology. For those who hold to a strictly literal interpretation of Scripture, the way the New Testament writers use the Old Testament appears to be fast and free. For those who are fond of allegorical interpretations, these same references seem to vindicate their position. While he does not specifically address the hermeneutical distinctions of the different approaches to eschatology, Chou has something to say to all sides of the discussion.

In this work, Chou holds that the Old Testament writers were masterful theologians and capable interpreters of the revelation in their possession.  His emphasis on intertextuality demonstrates that the Old Testament prophets based their pronouncements on antecedent revelation and were aware of the textual links between their contemporary pronouncements and what had been previously revealed. When the New Testament writers quoted their Old Testament forebears, they were likewise aware of this intertextuality. They used the Old Testament in much the same way that the prophets who produced it used the unfolding volume of revelation.

This is not a casual read, but well worth the time and effort necessary to digest it. It seems like there is more to say on this, especially in relation to how one’s eschatology might be influenced by Chou’s conclusions. A follow-up volume would be most valuable.

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from Kregel Publishers as part of their Blogger Review Program. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission's 16 CFR, Part 255: "Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising."

Carry the Cross

In Luke 14:27, Jesus says that bearing a cross is a key component to discipleship. In this discourse, delivered to a random group of people who followed him – termed “great crowds” – Jesus gave 3 features of discipleship: prioritizing Christ over all other relationships (14:26), carrying a cross (14:27), and renouncing all that one has (14:33). I have heard this passage expounded as call to a fuller commitment to Jesus (called discipleship) that differs from entry –level Christianity. If one becomes a Christian one may (or may not) opt for the discipleship commitment. However, a casual reading of this passage shows that Jesus makes no distinction between following him and being a disciple. And this message is not given to a group of people debating the issue of a deeper commitment. These are random people who were accompanying Jesus: some seeking another free meal, some intrigued about his teaching, and some merely out of curiosity. “A crowd draws a crowd,” as the saying goes.

 I think we would be wrong to imagine that this great crowd consisted of people who were hungry to hear what Jesus had to say; those who wanted to know more about him and wanted to follow him more closely. In fact, the message he gives them seems to indicate this. He almost discourages people from following. Using masterful hyperbole, he places before them the fact that no other relationship, regardless how good and wholesome and pure it is, can take priority over him. No love can be greater and no allegiance can be stronger.

The point I want to make concerns the issue of cross bearing. We have trivialized the idea by using the phrase to refer to rather minor inconveniences that we must tolerate on a regular basis. But the initial readers knew what this meant. Those who carried a cross were not those who were suffering under a temporary inconvenience. They were on the way to crucifixion, one of the most sadistic forms of execution ever devised. And it was a one-way trip. Those who carried the cross to the place of crucifixion usually met with the scorn and jeering from a crowd that more often than not, heartily approved of the whole affair. Followers of Christ are called to carry a cross – to endure the scorn and hostility that comes with allegiance to Christ and his gospel.

We have conveniently avoided the call to bear this cross. We embrace the Bible’s call to “deny ungodliness and worldly lusts (Titus 2:12 KJV) and rightly so. It is too easy to tolerate the sinful habits and values of the world around us. The sin that remains within each of us gravitates toward it with very little encouragement. But our attempts at separation often aim to protect us from the harsh realities of cross-bearing.  The scene on that Good Friday is all too familiar. On the one hand, we see our Lord Jesus embracing the cross, “bearing shame and scoffing rude.” On the other, we see 11 disciples scattering to avoid capture and identification with this Savior. For us, it is easier to run and avoid bearing a cross. Better yet, don’t even get into a situation that might require one to take up a cross.

Cross bearing is not pleasant. It is not intended to be. But, as followers of Christ, we are called to this. As Jesus told the large crowd in Luke 14, the can be no rivals (v. 26) and no refusals (v.27).

"It's Not Religion, It's a Relationship"

“It’s not religion, it’s a relationship.” I cannot count the number of times that I have heard this phrase. Recently, I attended an event where a young lady led the group in worship (by that, she meant music – another venue for a rant, but I will refrain for now) and remarked, “We don’t want to do “religiousy things here; we just want to do Jesus.” I get the sentiment behind this. For too long, many have substituted an association with a church or a religious organization for a vital union with Christ. I have met people for whom their church membership and affiliation is more important than the truth about Christ, the authority of Scripture, or the urgencies of repentance and faith. But to throw out the idea of religion because of how others have misused the concept is unwise.

I find it amusing that those who seek to distance themselves from an “organized religion” (what is the alternative, disorganized religion?) seem to fall into a pattern that looks a lot like, well, religion. In our area we have a church that advertised itself on billboards in the community as “the church for people who don’t like church.” Think about that for a minute. If I don’t like church, why would I want a church substitute? For example, I despise liver and onions (actually, I like caramelized onions; I think liver profanes them).  I’m not looking for something that I can enjoy that is similar to it. I’ve never gone to a restaurant and asked the server if they have something like liver for people like me who don’t like liver. My policy is to stay as far away from it as I can. I met the pastor of this church who was quick to point out that his quirky hair style, earrings and tattoos “scared off religious people.” Ironically, this “anti-church” met on Sunday morning. And to add to the irony, this individual referred to himself in decidedly religious people terms; he was the “pastor.” My intent is not to be critical of this church, but merely to point out that even those who distance themselves from what they call religion tend to do so in very religious ways. By the way, I would guess that many of the same ones who have the “relationship not religion” bumper sticker on their cars came to faith through some ministry, outreach, or small group that was sponsored or instituted by a church. Some of the people that I have heard speak this catch phrase are well-intentioned, faithful members of a church.  

Instead of demeaning religion why don’t we redeem it? Religion is simply the structure that we use to express our devotion, a “particular system of faith and worship.” Do people place church before Christ? Yes, some do. Are people attached to their denomination or church in the same way that some are mindlessly attached to a political party? Yes, some are.  So the answer is to fix it, not forsake it. If our “particular system of faith and worship” draws us to Christ, then I see no problem with that. The issue arises when the means takes the priority over the ends.

Why the Exposition of the Scriptures is Important

It is important - no, it is vital - to faithfully expound the Scriptures. We do not uncover God's glory in Scripture with our weak, thematically driven, topically motivated  and textually dusted "therapeutic deism." Solid exposition is needed. John Piper says this well in A Peculiar Glory. Commenting on 2 Corinthians 4:4, Piper says: 

... The glory of God that marks the Scriptures as divine is manifested through the meaning of the writings. I emphasize this because, among other reasons, it seems to be one of the implications of Paul's words in 2 Corinthians 4:4, when he refers to the "light of the gospel of the glory of Christ." The "glory of Christ" shines its "light" into our hearts (v.6) as the "light of the gospel." But this is not the light of the Greek letter epsilon, upsilon, or any other isolated letters or isolated words. The "gospel" stands for a historical complex of events and the meaning those event have in the purpose of God" (p. 155, italics original).

Marriage and Gospel: Some Thoughts on Haters

I am reading through James Hamilton’s commentary on Revelation titled Revelation: The Spirit Speaks to the Church. This is one of the volumes in Crossway’s Preaching the Word Commentary Series. I don’t usually read commentaries; I use them for reference. But I determined to read one commentary each year, and this is my New Testament selection for this year.

Chapter 18 of Revelation speaks of the judgment of Babylon. In writing of this, Hamilton made an observation that set me thinking. Of this judgment he said:

There will be darkness with no more relationships, as we see in 18:23a: “and the light of a lamp will shine in you no more, and the voice of the bridegroom and bride will be heard in you no more.” Marriage is about the gospel. It is about Jesus and the church. Babylon hates Jesus, rejects him as King, and kills those who preach his gospel. So they have the gift and joy of marriage removed (p.343).

In writing to the Ephesians, Paul addresses the responsibilities of husbands and wives as they live together. He concludes the discussion by saying, “This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church” (Eph. 5:32). As Lames Hamilton observed, marriage reminds us of the gospel.

This reminds me the current cultural debate over the issue of sexuality and gender identification. Is the world’s hatred of Jesus and his gospel at the core of the culture’s hostility toward one man and one woman marriage? If the gospel cannot be destroyed, then perhaps the goal is to deface this demonstration of it.

How can one man + one woman = one flesh be true of those in same sex unions? I understand that heterosexual marriages end in divorce and heartache and that some same sex relationships experience years of loyalty and commitment. That, however, begs the question exegetically. According to the biblical category, only one man and one woman can know this one flesh relationship. In the same way, it is hard to image how transgender individuals demonstrate the gospel.

When commending human sexual relationships, the Bible speaks in the context of marriage. Serial fornication without marriage does not demonstrate Christ’s commitment to the church. 

I realize that this kind of language labels me as “bigoted,” “phobic,” or whatever current disparagement is in vogue. Christians do not hate people, particularly they do not hate people who are in these kinds of relationships. Some have acted as though they hate, but true Christians do not hate.

The culture at large hates the gospel because it is exclusive and it demands holiness. Current expressions of “sexual freedom” are but covert attempts to deprive the gospel of one of its most powerful expressions.

Book Review: The Atheist Who Didn't Exist

In my opinion, anyone associated with Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (RZIM) is definitely worth reading. RZIM is known for its reasoned and cogent approach to apologetics. So, when I had the opportunity to get Andy Bannister’s The Atheist Who Didn’t Exist it was a no brainer. That I could get a free copy from Library Thing just for reviewing it sealed the deal. Let it be known at the outset that I received this book free from Library Thing in exchange for a review. I was not required to write a positive review. This disclaimer makes me compliant with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255, “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.” The last thing I need is a black SUV with 4 FTC goons pulling up to my house and breaking down my door because I neglected to include a disclaimer. I would not do well in prison.

I was not disappointed with The Atheist Who Didn’t Exist. The subtitle tells it all: the dreadful Consequences of Bad Arguments. Dr. Bannister sets his sights on the arguments (or rather, the polemical invectives) of the popularizers of what has been termed the New Atheists (Hitchens, Dawkins, et.al). While atheism is as old as Moses, the modern version is particularly militant and zealous. Bannister notes this in a citation from Stephen Prothero who notes that “the question of God is never far from their minds” (p. 45). Bannister’s approach, however, is not to answer the arguments one by one. He does not present alternative ways of looking at the fossil record, discussing macro-evolution or possible alternatives to the Big Bang. His primary thrust is to look at the arguments that are usually offered by the New Atheists and demonstrate how the arguments in themselves are wretched and nonsensical. Bad arguments do not need refuted; they need only be exposed.

Andy (note the gradual familiarity in this review) casts his premises in a winsome and readable fashion. He makes sense and he makes you smile. His humor does not mean that the subject matter is not serious – it is indeed. It does, nonetheless, help to show how laughable bad arguments are, especially when clothed in the robes of academia.

Get this book and read it. Underline and highlight or whatever you do, but you will love this book. It will make you think and it will generate confidence as you live in a world that has, by and large, fallen hook, line, and sinker for the New Atheist agenda. 

Goebbels: A Biography by Peter Longerich

In the New Testament book of Revelation, there is a curious individual known as “the false prophet.” He is sometimes considered to be the mouthpiece of the Antichrist. If Adolph Hitler was the antichrist, then Josef Goebbels was the false prophet.  Peter Longerich’s new work on this mysterious individual is based upon new scholarship and recently released and translated editions of Goebbels’ personal and private diary. Goebbels brings this man to life for a generation now decades removed from the last World Conflict.

Longerich begins the story in the Berlin Bunker in April of 1945 when, after the suicide of Goebbels’ idol and Hitler’s new wife, and after all attempts at honorable surrender have been exhausted, Josef and Magda Goebbels methodically poison their children then take their own lives. Of all the loyalists who surrounded Hitler during the Third Reich, only the Goebbels choose to remain in the bunker and join der Fuhrer in suicide. 

Goebbels is the story of a rather ordinary man who longed to be something out of the ordinary. Saddled with a disability that affected the way he walked, Josef overcompensated by trying to form himself into an intellectual and scholar. By all reports, he was mediocre at best. However, he did legitimately earn a PhD in Germany and set his sights for a career in academia.

Longerich shows Goebbels as a normal man who experienced broken heartedness, familial love, and the normal passions that any person would possess. There was little clue in his early life that indicated that he would one day become the man who could speak for the Third Reich.

Two important character traits began to emerge in young Josef. The first was his narcissism. He became so completely narcissistic that cruelty to others was considered a legitimate tool if it could be effectively used to support his ego. The second was his growing anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism was not unique to Goebbels or the Nazis for that matter. Many in Germany at this time embraced it or overlooked it. In Goebbels it grew to a passion. These two character flaws were to cataclysmically converge when Goebbels met Adolph Hitler. 

Goebbels’ diary entries show a symbiotic relationship between the Fuhrer and his Propaganda Minister. Hitler relied on Goebbels narcissism and Goebbels fed into Hitler’s aggression and anti-Semitism. Sometimes during the account, it is difficult to know who was pulling whose strings. Hitler depended upon the Goebbels family as his surrogate family, and even appears to have been in love with Magda Goebbels. Josef relied upon Hitler to feed his constant need for approval. Though at times frustrated with his indecision, Goebbels looked upon Hitler as almost god-like.

Peter Longerich presents a compelling biography of one of the most notorious men of the 20^th century. My version was an audiobook, which I requested from LibraryThing. At times, a hard copy would have been beneficial to recheck names, acronyms, German words, etc. Notwithstanding, this is a great book

Book Review: 40 Questions About Creation and Evolution

Kenneth D. Keathley and Mark F. Rooker present a biased set of questions and answers in 40 Questions about Creation and Evolution. They are biased because they are both creationists who take seriously the creation account in Genesis. This book deals with questions that often arise within the context of a literal understanding of the opening chapters of Genesis. The questions are grouped in 6 categories: Questions About the Doctrine of Creation; Questions About Creation and Genesis 1-2; Questions About the Days of Creation; Questions About the Days of Creation;  Questions About the Age of the Earth; Questions About the Fall and the Flood; and Questions About Evolution and Intelligent Design.

In 40 Questions about Creation and Evolution, you will find that many of your questions will go unanswered. In fact, you may finish the book with more questions than you had before you began. For example, does the Bible teach a young earth or an old earth? The authors admit that they are divided on the issue, one being an Old Earth Creationist, and the other a Young Earth Creationist. In fact, they identify four major positions that fall under a “creationist” umbrella: young earth creationism, old earth creationism, evolutionary creationism, and intelligent design. They candidly state that, “none of the four views… are without serious problems.”

Keathley and Rooker address topics that have become shibboleths for conservative and fundamentalist Christians, including the influence of Whitcomb and Morris and the work of Archbishop Ussher. Young Earth Creationists, in particular, have been impacted by these works.

The authors are not concerned about converting the reader to a young or old earth position. They do convincingly demonstrate the problems inherent with the evolutionary model and show the reasonableness of the doctrine creation (which they helpfully distinguish between creationism). They devote a section to questions about the historicity of Adam and Eve and the implications that this has regarding one’s view of the New Testament.

I appreciate the Christian humility and charity shown by these authors to those who may disagree with them. For some of us, a particular position on the age of the earth, the length of the days of creation, and a particular view of creationism have been tests of genuine faith. This book lessens the heat of discussion and lets in the light.  

Book Review: 30 Events

Alton Gansky selected 30 events that impacted the Christian church in his book titled, 30 Events That Shaped the Church – Learning from Scandal, Intrigue, War, and Revival. Of course, there are many more than 30 events that shaped the church; these 30 are, however, the ones chosen by the author.

Some of the events chosen are no-brainers. The Edict of Milan, The first Nicene Council, Gutenberg’s Press, The Reformation, and the Great Awakening in America would undoubtedly show up on most lists of church shaping events. Gansky includes some surprising events – surprising in that they do not rise to the level of The Reformation or Edict of Milan, but are influential nonetheless. Among these are the publication of Ussher’s Chronology, the publication of the Scofield Reference Bible, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Jesus Movement, and the rise of movements like the Religious Right and the New Atheism.

This book was easy and delightful to read. It will inform the reader of movements that have gone little noticed in larger treatments. I recommend it.  

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from Baker Books as part of their Blogger Review Program. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255: "Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising

Book Review: A Commentary on Exodus

Commentaries are not necessarily designed to be read as one would read a novel or a biography. They are reference books. But I agreed to review A Commentary on Exodus by Duane Garrett for Kregel, so I began to read it as one would read any book. I was surprised to discover the delight that I experienced as I read. Certainly, this commentary has value as a reference work, but it is a good read as well. This is a great addition to the growing Kregel Exegetical Library.

As one would imagine, the commentary begins with a lengthy (145 pages) introduction. In this are included discussions about textual, archaeological, historical, and geographical issues. Since the Documentary Hypothesis has been largely debunked, Garrett does not spend much time with it. He carefully examines the evidence for the dating of Exodus and shows that there is no conclusive evidence to nail down a date. In the end, however, he points out that the dating has no bearing on the message of the book.

After the introduction, the commentary consists of the author’s translation and translational notes provided in footnote form, an outline or “structure” of the passage, commentary, and a section titled “Theological Summary of Key Points.” A working knowledge of Hebrew is vital to understanding the textual and translational issues, but the non-Hebrew student will not be completely lost in this commentary.

One of the battle ground issues in the study of Exodus concerns the plagues visited upon Egypt. Some modern commentators view these as naturally occurring phenomena that were given mythical and supernatural status by the compilers of the Pentateuch. Garrett does not dismiss that some of these may have indeed been naturally occurring phenomena. Yet, in most cases, they occurred at the command of Moses, and dissipated likewise at his command. Note:

“…the Bible does not assert that the frogs, mosquitoes, flies and locusts that swarmed over Egypt were specifically created ex nihlo or that the hail fell from a blue sky… Furthermore, to assert that these events do fit within the facts of natural history is not to deny their miraculous nature. The intensity of the plagues, together with the fact that they begin and often end at Moses’ word is proof enough that they were a work of God” (p. 319).

Garrett is aware that the point of the Scripture is to testify of Jesus, and he is quick to run to the gospel in the commentary. Commenting on 32:9-35, he writes, “Moses intercession with God is also analogous to Christ’s heavenly intercession in that the people of Israel did not even know it was happening or that they needed it. So also, our survival depends on Christ’s intercession, even when we are wholly unaware of it” (p. 635).

Once again, Kregel has provided us a great addition to commentaries on the Old Testament canon. Garrett’s A Commentary on Exodus should be included in any library of this pivotal section of the Pentateuch.

 Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from Kregel Publications as part of their Blogger Review Program. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255: "Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”

SCOTUS Will Rule

In today’s paper we learn that the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has decided to rule on gay marriage in the coming session. This should come as no surprise to culture-watchers. It has never been a matter of “if,” but “when.” At issue is the legality of same sex unions in every state. Currently, 36 states have legalized these marriages. If SCOTUS decides in favor of gay marriage, that decision will overturn the ban in the remaining states.

Obviously, this ruling would have serious implications for organizations that seek to uphold marriage as defined scripturally as one in which a “man shall leave his mother and father and cling to his wife” (Gen. 2:24). Jesus repeated this in Matt. 19:5 so that the principle can be located in both Testaments. For example, many Rescue Missions, (the ministry with which I am affiliated), have family units that provide emergency shelter for families. If family is redefined, these shelters will need to decide which definition will prevail.

I predict that SCOTUS will rule in favor of gay marriage, allowing same sex couples across the country to enjoy the legal rights and privileges of any married couple. And when this happens, a lament will be heard throughout the land that we have lost ground in the cultural war. Being a contrarian by nature, I offer these observations:

·         We lost the culture war a long time ago. It is doubtful if we were ever winning. While evangelicals were fighting and protesting against same sex marriages and abortion (which we should have done), heterosexual immorality (an archaic phrase if there ever was one) crept in to the church and has become an accepted practice. I know of individuals who are violently opposed to homosexual immorality, but thought little of their own heterosexual immorality.

·         It seems to me that Christianity thrived and flourished and “turned the world upside down” in a culture that was hostile to faith. That Christians would have even considered that they were losing the culture was foreign to them. They confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims.

Not only do I predict that SCOTUS will rule in favor of gay marriage, I also predict that, when they do:

• The gospel will still be the power of God for salvation.
• Christians will still be called to live counter-culturally
• Truth will still continue to be offensive to a world estranged from God.
• Jesus will still be King of Kings and Lord of Lords. SCOTUS will only be SCOTUS.

Book Review: The Evangelism Study Bible

When I agreed to review the Evangelism Study Bible, I did so out of a sense of curiosity. My perspective is that all of Scripture is about Christ, and therefore it is all evangelistic in the sense that one can get to the gospel all throughout its pages. I was curious to see how the editors would handle something that that is inherently evangelistic and make it more overtly so. I was also curious to see this Bible because it seems to me that the last thing the church needs is another study Bible.

Now that I have perused the Study Bible and read many of the notes, I readily admit my surprise at how much I enjoyed this work. Several features commend the work. Specifically, it aids in showing that the Bible is a “Jesus book.” The notes in the Evangelism Study Bible help the reader to see Christ, especially in the Old Testament.  In many ways, this is a study Bible for apologetics.  The editors address some of the hard questions and apparent contradictions that sometimes become barriers to belief.

Two additional observations are in order; one of which is practical and the second is somewhat theological. First, I would like to see this Bible offered in a variety of translations. I like the NKJV, but it is not my translation of choice. I understand that this may involve publication and copyright issues, but a wider choice would be nice.

Second, the editors continue to promote a perspective that separates salvation from discipleship. The idea that one can become an entry level Christian and later opt to become (or not to become) a committed follower of Christ has a long history and a vast following. In the notes, discipleship is presented as a costly and attractive option (see the notes on Matthew 16:24-27, p. 1070), but an option nonetheless. The goal in this is to emphasize the free grace of God in salvation, denying any mixture of human effort. This, of course is scriptural and right. But the grace that is free is not cheap. It does more than save a sinner; it transforms him. This complete transformation is taught in verses like 2 Corinthians 5:17 and receives scant comment in the notes. Perhaps if we spoke more about conversions as opposed to salvations we might come closer to the truth.

In all, I like this Study Bible. It offers a different perspective that will be useful for those who are committed to follow Christ’s injunction to “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to every creature.”

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from Kregel Publications as part of their Blogger Review Program. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255: "Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising

Book Review: Not a Chance

If chance exists, God does not. Indeed, He cannot exist as God if there is such a thing as chance. In sum, this is the thesis behind R.C. Sproul’s Not a Chance: God, Science, and the Revolt of Reason. Anything that comes from Sproul’s pen is worth reading (even a grocery list). This is not your typical theology book by R.C.

If he is known as anything, R.C. Sproul is known as a peerless theologian. He even calls himself a theologian. In Not a Chance, Sproul reveals himself to be a philosopher, historian, and theologian who is not a bit uncomfortable entering the domain of theoretical physics, cosmology, and quantum mechanics.  As a master logician, he disarms ideas that have been passed off as scholarly, erudite, and sophisticated.

This book is written for popular consumption, but it will require some thinking to stay on board with the flow of logic.  Keith Mathison’s concluding chapter “Ex Nihilo,

Nihil Fit” is the icing on the cake.

Do not read this book if you do not want to think. Do not read this book if your mind is closed or if you are so enamored with scientific cosmology that you think that matters of faith are contrary to reason. Do read this book if you desire to be more amazed at the power of the sovereign Creator of the universe.

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from Baker Books as part of their Blogger Review Program. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255: "Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”

Book Review: Urban Apologetics

The gospel is good news for the city. This is the subtitle of Christopher Brooks Urban Apologetics. Much has been written, even from an evangelical perspective, about urban and inner city ministry that tends to default to an emphasis on “social justice,” however defined. In the minds of some people “social justice” is a euphemism for greater supportive services and more federal dollars. This is not to infer that there is no place for funded services. But, important as these may be, this is not the gospel. Brooks departs from this call for governmental intervention and actually takes the gospel seriously.

The author boldly tackles issues that trouble the inner cities. He is taking names. Brooks confronts the issues of sexual immorality, abortion, and ethical behavior, to name a few, from a perspective that is theological, biblical, and emanates from a God-centered worldview. Though he may not make friends with statements like this, he certainly speaks the truth; “There is a growing sentiment in our society that the acceptance of homosexuality is the civil rights movement of our day” (p.76); and; “Far too many Christians have unfortunately made the mistake of exchanging personal evangelism for partisan electoral victories” (p. 79).  

Get this book! It is a quick read, but a valuable one.

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from Kregel Publications as part of their Blogger Review Program. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255: "Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”

Book Review: A Commentary on Psalms Vol II

Volume II of Allen P. Ross’ A Commentary on the Psalms is a welcomed addition to his fine work on the on the Psalter.  All of the features that made Volume 1 profitable are continued in this work.

Dr. Ross has written with the pastor/teacher in view. The current volume, like the first, is richly devotional in nature. Likewise, it is scholarly without being academically stuffy. This is not to say that A Commentary on Psalms, Vol. II fails to interact with scholarly works on the Psalms. Quite the contrary, Dr. Ross refers to relevant authors and texts as well as variant readings from other ancient versions and textual traditions.

The goal appears to be one of opening the meaning of this rich body of literature instead of obscuring it in pedantic commentary. Psalms is a worship book. This volume brings that theme to light for the student, teacher, and expositor.

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from Kregel Publications as part of their Blogger Review Program. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255: "Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”