Kim Gentes Book Reviews

We Belong to the Land - Elias Chacour / Mary E. Jensen (2001)

2012-01-24T22:29:15Z

Elias Chacour is a Melkite Palestinian priest living in Galilee. He is a central figure in reconciliations efforts to draw an end to the persecution and expulsion of Arabs from the Jewish country of Israel. The territory occupied by Israel following the establishment of the state (after World War II), created a polarized ethnic feud, perpetrated by Zionist Jews (claims Chacour) that have resulted in the persecution of Palestinians. In his book “We Belong to the Land”, Chacour outlines his struggles as a priest and local leader in a the community of Ibillin. In that small community, Chacour fights to build unity amongst different people groups, religions and ages. His efforts include building a unified inter-faith group, constructing and managing a secondary school and high school, and eventually a college. The struggles Chacour outlines, explore the racist and discriminatory efforts of Jewish establishment officials to minimize the rights and opportunities of Palestenians in an effort to force them to leave the country (allowing the Jews to have a completely Zionized state).

Unlike his other book, Blood Brothers, Chacour focuses this book on details of injustice, his programs and building efforts, his organization and leadership across Galilee, Israel and around the world. Much of the book includes his philosophical and rhetorical foundation for his opposition to Jewish radicalism within the occupied territories where Palestinians once thrived. Chacour is a brilliantly practical man, with wit wisdom and far reaching appeal. He intuits things that others only come to understand through years of deep thinking and research. For example, he speaks eloquently about the value of human beings:

"The true icon is your neighbor", I explained to my companions on Mount Tabor, "the human being who has been created with the image and with the likeness of God..."[1]

We Belong to the Land especially follows the details of corruption not only with the the Zionist corners of the Israeli government, but scandalous and complicit efforts of Chacour’s own overseer, the local Bishop of his church’s diocese in which he is serving. In fact, corruption of values across the church and even “western” society is brought largely into focus by Chacour’s damning indictments of the “Christian” supported US government’s efforts to support and sustain Israel’s policies.

Much of what Chacour elucidates he does so as we follow the story of his building of his local school in the community of Ibillin. The seemingly simple matter of securing a building permit becomes the plot device which allows us to explore the broader injustices to both Ibillin and the Palestinian people. But Chacour is careful not to become the very thing he despises, which is common a trend. Instead of hating the Jewish people who have repressed the Palestinians in the country, he constantly calls for a fellowship of love in which both people’s can live in harmony within the land. His most articulate arguments become prayers of commonality that we can all join in. He says,

Human worth, human qualities, are much more important than Jewish, Palestinian, or American nationalism, peoplehood, or land. Sometimes it seems to me that Zionism pushes the Jews to Zionize themselves rather than humanize themselves.[2]

His thesis in the book centers around his belief that the thousands of years of living in the land have united the Palestinians with the essence of what it is to be an agrarian people.

Mobile Western people have difficulty comprehending the significance of the land for Palestinians. We belong to the land. We identify with the land, which has been treasured, cultivated, and nurtured by countless generations of ancestors.[3]

The examples and clarity of Chacour’s convictions become crystal clear. He is intent on peaceful freedom for Palestinians within the national borders of Israel. But for all his brilliant practicality, Chacour takes his altruism and misapplies it at least once, when he says,

God does not kill, my friends. God does not kill the Ba’al priests on Mount Carmel, or the inhabitants of the ancient city of Jericho. God does not kill in Nazi concentration camps, or in Palestinian refuge camps, or on any field of battle.[4]

It is obvious to many that Elias Chacour reflects the best of a heart of justice found in our world today. Yet, we cannot, even in our desire for justice, pretend to know more than God. God, in fact, is most just than us, and more loving than us. But He did kill, not just people in the Old Testament (uncountable peoples of all the inhabited the land of Canaan that were wiped out as Israel settled and conquered the region, including both of the instances of Ba’al preists and Jericho inhabitants that Chacour blatantly denies God is responsible for, though the text clearly indicates He is), but people in the New (Ananias and Sapphira, plus the multitudes of opposition to Jesus righteous judgments in John’s Revelation). While we have a hard time reconciling those actions to our comprehension of a loving God, we cannot dismiss God’s actions of these final earthly judgements of death as though they didn’t happen or he didn’t mean it. He did, and He is still God. Misstating these facts to shape God into your vision of justice does not do God, himself, any justice.

The other (more dangerous) issue to me on the above quote is that Chacour combines things that God clearly does instigate (Jericho and Mt. Carmel) with things that man (or perhaps Satan himself) have deeply inspired and carried out (Nazi Germany, Palestinian refuge camps). One cannot attribute all evil actions to God, unless one decides to make man faultless of his own predilections, choices and sinfilled actions. Of course, there is the grand question "why do bad things happen to good people" and why is there suffering and hurt. The short answer is - sin. But there are rife volumes and lives spent on the topic, so I won't pretend to sort that all out here. But munging God's clear actions and man's sinful ones in a single list of activity (as though they belong together) is a terribly grievous error, for which I cannot let go without mention.

My confidence in his writing flags when I see that he never actually deals head on with the specific claims of moderate Zionist Jews who believe they are following an edict from God to reclaim the land granted to Abraham (and therefor, Israel) by Yahweh. I am convinced that he is a man of integrity, and certainly not afraid of confrontation and working against the norm, so it surprises me that he never broaches the subject from the Jewish point of view, even if to discredit the weak points of their argument. Second, he takes the broad tact that all Christians (and especially all American Christians) are somehow in rabid support of Jewish Zionism. Again, he washes his hands of details and accuses the US of global blood guilt without taking on specifics and details from which a more reasonable (balanced) response could be given to his condemnations. It feels a little like he deals so beautifully with the story of the Palestinians that he doesn’t want to address the 800lb gorilla issue in the room- the contrary story which lives along side him every day- the Jewish Israeli claim to the land of Canaan, promised to them through the Old Testament scriptures.

I feel quite guilty having brought up what I think are short comings of his fine book, since one feels ultimately humbled and speechless in light of such a great witness of Christ’s love and reconciliation. I am very glad to be wrong on all my points, and would feel better about it. For me, the things I have said negatively don’t deter from his great accomplishments or his stature as a preeminent leader of peace in our generation. It is hard not to love the heart, desires and unbelievable work ethic of Elias Chacour. The accomplishments he has made in the midst of being a nearly singular voice within a tragic situation is remarkable. He has much to teach the world about the true nature of reconciliation and its practical outworking. I would love to meet him.

Amazon Book Link: http://amzn.to/w5PTZ2

Review by Kim Gentes

[1]Chacour, Elias & Jensen, Mary “We Belong to the Land”. (Notre Dame, IN: Notre Dame University Press 2001), Pg. 46

[2]Ibid., Pg. 69

[3]Ibid., Pg. 80

[4]Ibid., Pg. 163

Blood Brothers - Elias Chacour / David Hazard (1984)

2012-01-24T22:15:35Z

"Blood Brothers" is the first book from Palestinian Israeli Elias Chacour. Elias is a Christian priest and community leader in Galilee, Israel. He lives and serves his community of Palestinian Christians in a village of Muslim, Druze and Christian villagers. This book is the personal story of his youth, the expulsion of him and his family from his home village of Biram, his training as a Melkite priest, and his eventual work in the ministry of bringing hope to a broken and terrified group of alienated Arabs in Jewish Israel. Unlike his other book We Belong to the Land, Chacour focuses more poigniantly in Blood Brothers on his personal and family life. Most profoundly, he explores the character of his father who serves as an arch-type for both God and the image of what good men can be. Elias Chacour treasures and follows this image into a lifetime of seeking reconciliation, hope and love for the Palestinian people of the village of Ibillin.

One such powerful example is his father’s statement about Jews and Palestinians, which he declared before the full extent of persecution would begin for the Palestinians:

“But How do we know the soldiers won’t harm us?” Rudah pressed him.

Father smiled, and all the tension seemed to relax. “Because,” he said, “the Jews and Palestinians are brothers-blood brothers. We share the same father, Abraham, and the same God. We must never forget that. Now we get rid of the gun.”[1]

This image turns out to be misinformed, though hopeful premonition to the tragedy that would ensure. After taking over the land of Palestine, the Jews of Israel began to programmatically terrorise the people of the rural villages such as Biram. Demolishing their homes and farms and confiscating the land became the program of the Zionist Jews. Even thought Chacour’s father has his land taken from him and his home destroyed, his connection to the land and its plants shows a level of care foreign to us.

I could scarcely believe it! His life's work had just been torn from his hands. His land and trees-the only earthly possessions he had to pass on to his children-were sold to a stranger. And still Father would not curse or allow himself to be angry. I puzzled at his words to us. Inner peace. Maybe Father could find this strength in such circumstances. I doubted that I could....

Father's other response to the sale of his land was more of a wonder to me. In a few weeks we heard that the new owner of our property wanted to hire several men to come each day and dress the fig trees, tending them right through till harvest. Immediately, Father went to apply for the job, taking my three oldest brothers with him. They were hired and granted special work passes, the only way they could enter our own property.[2]

Elias portrays his father with such magnanimous character that he seems barely real to our western sensibilities and callousness. The story of Blood Brothers is much deeper than just Elias Chacour’s life, it is a story of the non-violent Palestinians who are persecuted as evil by Israeli government programs meant to lodge them from hope and from land within the Galilee communities. Chacour is not just a concerned priest, he is a thoughtful change agent and leader. Speaking about the inversion of the Jews from persecuted to the persecutors he says :

Now I determined to find out how a peaceful movement that had begun with a seemingly good purpose-to end the persecution of the Jewish people-had become such a destructive, oppressive force. Along with that determination, I was driven by a respect for history that Father had planted in me. Did the seeds of our future hope lie buried in our past, as he had so often said?[3]

Elias is brilliant to turn to the teaching of his father to recall the thought that history can teach us and, perhaps if heard, can lead us back together. Blood Brothers tries to convince the reader that Zionist Israel is the major obstacle to reconciliation with the Palestinians, though he is against violence of all sort, including from the Palestinian people. He outright rejects the military efforts of the PLO and looks instead for a reconciled Israel in which Jews and Arabs can live together.

Amazon Book Link: http://amzn.to/wMi0KA

Review by Kim Gentes

[1]Chacour & Hazard “Blood Brothers”. (Grand Rapids, MI: Chosen Books 1984), Kindle Location 325

[2] Ibid., Location 613

[3] Ibid., Location 1158

Experiencing Healing Prayer - Rick Richardson (2005)

2011-11-16T22:10:56Z

A Brief Review of Experiencing Healing Prayer

As a book, Experiencing Healing Prayer is largely an anecdotal text told from the author’s personal narrative. Author Rick Richardson employs extensive personal examples and ministry situations as a means of covering both his own story and the major teaching points he has called out in this book. Richardson does this while focusing clearly on the topic of “inner healing” primarily. While the book connects to some physical aspects of healing, its primary concern is with the foundational change in the psychological, mental and spiritual aspects of a person. Physical healing is not discussed in depth, and certainly not the extent that inner healing is addressed.

Experiencing Healing Prayer is a book which is a joining of two main ideas- restoring the holistic identify of the person, and restoring the communication/relationship to God and his presence. Out of these ideas the author explores everything from sexual issues, gender conflict, family archtypes (mother/father) and many more. The goal, it seems, is to explore the territory of identity to recover the missing elements (or confused ones) such that a person can “re-live” the confusing experiences in light of God’s love, allowing for “reprogramming” of the foundational understandings that were altered in light of such powerful experiences.

As these understandings are re-moored to God’s love, Richardson also explores how we might communicate better with God. He explores various ways we hear God, and helps walk through common misconceptions and guides us to clearer sense of knowing God’s voice. Towards the end of the book, he prescribes liberally the power of sacramental practice and human touch as remedy for all sorts of healing. More practical exploration of ministry techniques and personal freedom from various religious vices round out the book, as Richardson returns time and again to the power of forgiveness as a primary truth in our stories.

Readers will note an acknowledged reliance on the work of CS Lewis and Leanne Payne (along with theological underpinnings via Dallas Willard) making their way throughout this book. Philosophically, Richardson draws from Lewis on major points where he finds it difficult to work through complex understandings. Practically speaking, he leans on Leanne Payne for examples that help him work out a practice of healing prayer. Willard is not referenced much except for the beginning of the book for his theological influence.

In truth, Richardson does win the empathy of most readers with his personal stories and thoughtful inner explorations about the nature of people (beginning notably with his own failed and healed nature). This gives life to his writing and allows him to lay out his six (6) main “signposts” (as he calls them) which are his self-described roadmap for a journey from brokenness to wholeness. These signposts are clearly articulated through the book and drive the chapter layouts, sub-points and stories. Richardson has thought well and given a nice sketch of the healing journey of a soul, but one should be careful not to take the architecture as a highly prescriptive formula to inner health. The next section will discuss details of some of these points and also some of the main critique of those points within the book that we can see.

Critical Review of the Book

My initial reading of Experiencing Healing Prayer was very positive. I found his insights quite compelling and helpful. The signposts he uses are reflective of many people’s understanding of the main issues that need to be addressed in bringing holistic renewal to human beings. In his signposts I found both my main positive support and my main criticism are contained in the first of his points. While there are critiques to be made on this work, they are relatively small, and don't deter from the effectiveness and positives this book makes to the field of healing prayer. My critiques given below represent nuances and positions which would improve the book, in my opinion, and should not take away from anyone referencing and garnering the overarching positives that this book brings to us.

I appreciated the initial focus of his signposts was the person’s actual relationship with God, specifically the need to hear his “voice”. In fact, Richardson uses this as his first point. While many of the points in his signposts are not necessarily required to be sequential for application, he is pointing out that we must first practice faith of our Christianity in that we rely on the reality of God’s presence and care to be our profound “reality check”. That is, Richardson is saying that apart from God’s voice and inclusion in the matter of healing, we cannot even begin such a process.

...we practiced the healing presence of God and waited to hear God’s still small voice. In that environment, healing descended on our hearts...[1]

This is a profound and positive point to be made, and this inclusion of the reliance on God’s presence to enter into and bring about revelation in the hurting person is a repeated point in the IHP model presented by W. Thiessen (found in the “prayer based” section[2], the “God of IHP” section[3], and the article “Turning Inner Healing Outward”, where it is stated explicitly that the process is ‘followed by a direct invitation from God into at least the potential “embrace”’[4]).

The benefit of this focus is clear- this is a uniquely Christian approach that appropriately requires the presence and activity of God for any healing to occur. One cannot apply the methods taught in Experiencing Healing Prayer (or the IHP model presented by W. Thiessen) without this foundational element. This also seems useful as both a distinctive of Christian inner /healing prayer therapies and a boundary for which Christian practice of the such therapies (as far as they are called “Christian”) can possibly be laid.

This very point also leads to a possible problem. While Experiencing Healing Prayer excels at its Christian centric solution path, it occasionally does so at the expense of validating counseling or talk therapies. Richardson says, crisply:

Counseling can lead us to talk our feelings round and round without any ultimate relief or change.[6]

Likewise, he also perjures himself slightly against talk therapies by saying:

Talking about our emotions can lead us into self-absorption, enmeshment in an anxious, subjective inner world.[7]

This is an interesting tact to take, since, while God is clearly the center of the therapeutic map, Richardson expects people to get their using their own faculties of the mind and emotions. Specifically, an entire chapter is engaged on exploring the concept he starts regarding the need for the client imagination to be in full cooperation of the process:

Images and the imagination matter.[8]

The criticism being made by the author against other (counseling and talk) therapies may not be necessary and might wane on the credulity of his request for the use of the imagination (instead of God intervention) as part of the process.

That said, the need for God-focused solutions was especially helpful to me to see, especially in a context when trying to help in a problem saturated situation was not having success at taking the focus off of the broken person.

Amazon Product link: Experiencing Healing Prayer - Rick Richardson

Review by Kim Gentes

[1]Rick Richardson, Experiencing Healing Prayer (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2005) Pg. 46

[2]See the section on “Prayer-based” component in the notes from - Walter Thiessen, Inner Healing Prayer - Draft (St.Stephen’s. NB: VBI, 2005), Pg. 4

[3]Walter Thiessen, Inner Healing Prayer - Draft (St.Stephen’s. NB: VBI, 2005), Pg. 9

[4]Walter Thiessen, Turning Inner Healing Outward / Practical Theology in South Africa (South Africa: University of South Africa, 2008), Pg. 138

[5]Walter Thiessen, Narrative Therapy from: Summary excerpt from chapter 2 - Praying in a New Reality (St. Stephen’s, NB: University of South Africa, n/a), Pg. 1

[6]Rick Richardson, Experiencing Healing Prayer (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2005) Pg. 36

[7]Ibid., Pg. 36

[8]Ibid., Pg. 36

Erasing Hell - Francis Chan (2011)

2011-11-03T19:22:58Z

The early words of Francis Chan are an excellent preface to what you will find in "Erasing Hell", a new book that resoundingly challenges the premise and conclusions of universalism, especially as highlighted recently in Rob Bell's "Love Wins".

So I decided to write a book about hell. And honestly—I’m scared to death. I’m scared because so much is at stake. Think about it. If I say there is no hell, and it turns out that there is a hell, I may lead people into the very place I convinced them did not exist! If I say there is a hell, and I’m wrong, I may persuade people to spend their lives frantically warning loved ones about a terrifying place that isn’t real! When it comes to hell, we can’t afford to be wrong. This is not one of those doctrines where you can toss in your two cents, shrug your shoulders, and move on. Too much is at stake. Too many people are at stake. And the Bible has too much to say.[1]

Chan takes the high ground in this well researched book- he refuses to label or harangue Bell, and in fact compliments him on the admirable aspects of several of his points. Francis Chan is careful to deal directly with the material on the issue of hell, salvation and our purpose on earth. What is helpful about the book, is that he provides solid exploration of all the Biblical texts dealing with the pertinent issues- including ones that look (at first) to support an opposing view. This is precisely what Rob Bell failed to do in "Love Wins", and "Erasing Hell" is clearly written to correct and critique on both content and method.

I won't go into the details of each point made by Chan, but one point that is of major importance is his refutation of Bell's false interpretation of hell, which shows the disparity between Bell's unresearched work and Chan's book. Chan says plainly:

Much of what Bell says about hell relies upon a legend from the Middle Ages.[2]

This is backed up by the appropriate details and further context. Additionally, Chan helps explore the actual scripture understandings, especially from Jesus and his followers that speak about hell (Chapter 3) and our understanding and responses to it (Chapter 5). Again, he faces several passages that are normally used by universalists as support and mines through the various interpretations and understandings of them.

Beyond the core of refutation of universalism (and Bell's book), Chan also provides a helpful FAQ (frequently asked questions) section in the Appendix which handles 6 common questions about hell. This material is very helpful and should be read by all pastors, as it is excellent summary to issues that have been discussion for centuries.

Chan's "Erasing Hell" is not a monolithic or even deeply impressive work, but it is a contrite and succinct response to Rob Bell's "Love Wins". It sets out to be a clear corrective on postmodern Christian universalism, and succeeds by taking classical and appropriate steps to expose the error and excise it as a sickness from the body of Christ - the American church.

Even if you haven't read "Love Wins", this book ("Erasing Hell") provides the outline for understanding these important issues.

Amazon Product Link: http://amzn.to/rvlG3C

Review by Kim Gentes

[1]Chan, Francis. “Erasing Hell”. (Colorado Springs, CO: David C Cook, 2011), Kindle Edition. Pg. 14

[2]Ibid., Pg 61

The Next Christians - Gabe Lyons (2010)

2011-11-03T17:18:14Z

In his book "The Next Christians", Gabe Lyons articulates in layman's terms the practical outworkings of creational/restorative theology for the postmodern era and a post-Christian America. Lyons is particularly well acquainted with the struggle of Protestantism to survive and thrive in the increasingly secular foundations of Western society, especially America. As a participant behind intentional studies of the American Christian community and its efforts (and failures) at evangelism, Lyons became convinced that we were entering an era that would fully expel Christian morality as its foundational framework. He saw this in his studies and began looking at what might be done to equip the postmodern church to live powerfully in a post-Christian America.

Lyons pins his hopes on a vision of Christians, as God's people, who have a call to every society (including our North American one), to penetrate the culture and to live as lights within it, while bringing the restorative nature of God's kingdom to bear in our normal, everyday lives. He sees this as a commission to which our salvation has sent us. This is in contrast to a gospel story which calls people out of culture to focus on a coming distant heaven. Lyons says it well:

The next Christians believe that Christ’s death and Resurrection were not only meant to save people from something. He wanted to save Christians to something. God longs to restore his image in them, and let them loose, freeing them to pursue his original dreams for the entire world. Here, now, today, tomorrow. They no longer feel bound to wait for heaven or spend all of their time telling people what they should believe. Instead, they are participating with God in his restoration project for the whole world.[1]

"The Next Christians" is very inspiring and very practical. It could have quickly become a treatise for a "social gospel" and left Jesus behind, but he harkens often to the practicality that Christ has called each of us to lay down our lives within our very real contexts. For example:

I’m also not suggesting that every person’s calling is to start a nonprofit organization to address a huge global problem. For you, it probably doesn’t mean leaving your job or career at all. It simply means restoring right where you are.[2]

But along with being practical, the book retains its moorings in the larger story of Christian scriptures. Lyons fields the tension between ancient texts and current realities by proposing that we are a sub plot within the ongoing narrative of God's plan.

Instead, they enjoy Scripture as they believe it was meant to be: a grand narrative that tells a story of a God who loves and pursues, rescues, gives grace, and goes to any length to restore relationships with his most prized creations. Without robbing the Scriptures of their timeless, propositional truths, the next Christians are also rediscovering the thematic Hebrew stories of exodus and liberation, exile and return.[3]

The entire book is chock full of examples of how Lyons "Next Christians" approach vocation, family and spiritual formation. He also challenges the internal workings of the Christian clergy to have a focus that supports the lives of its community, since the "real work" is being carried out within the contexts of homes, jobs, and schools that are part of a society in which Jesus is using those individual Christians to bring God's restorative love into reality. This means churches are not known for their current internal successes (buildings, worship, etc) but for character formation in its communities.

The church of tomorrow can’t be identified by the architecture of their buildings or the styles of worship music they practice. Although many of them have a few similar qualities (like the ones described throughout this chapter), their most significant attribute can be found in the type of people they produce.[4]

Like many of his contemporaries (Dallas Willard, NT Wright, Chris Seay, Tim Keller, Sean Claiborne) Lyons is a hopeful voice while provided a needed a critique. Lyons is particularly helpful in his critique and recommendations because be provides details to seeing how society works and how we might influence in a more natural way. His "Seven Channels of Cultural Influence"[5] are particularly insightful in this regard, but it is just one of many examples where Lyons does his homework and isn't just throwing out lofty ideas without practical application.

Lyons further gives plenty of good wisdom for the "leaders of leaders", helping to outline how to prioritize "first things first" and make sure that the order of understanding and approaching ministry in post-Christian America is most effective. "The Next Christians" also gives plenty of examples of "success" stories (and a "failure" stories, thank God). Including failure stories is refreshing and honest- and in doing so Lyons also critiques for us possible pitfalls of "Christians influencing culture" approach by showing us that impact in society without spiritual character will often lead to moral and family collapse.

This book is one of my new favorites, not just because it is a practical guidebook with thoughtful premise, but because (in the spirit of restoration that he preaches within it) Lyons reclaims his place inside of the Christian tradition, instead of distancing himself from it. This, more than anything, shows a profound sense of wisdom. Lyons says :

No longer embarrassed to claim the label, these Christians have finally recovered what many who have gone before them always understood about the faith: namely, that the Christian view of the world informs everything, that the Gospel runs deep, and that the way of Jesus demands we give our lives in service to others.[6]

This is nothing short of humble (yet brilliant) honesty. By reclaiming the Christian label he enters not only into the story of the New Testament believers, but places himself in the tradition of the 2,000 year old Church. He is effectively both offering a some new thoughts for our current age, without rejecting the historic community of the church through the ages. This is the kind of thoughtfulness that should not be missed (though it will be by many). Lyons is again providing a powerful self-critique to the "postmodern" changers who have been throwing off the Christian moniker in hopes of gaining a few members who might not like the baggage that comes with the label "Christian". Lyons doesn't buy it. Thank God. In doing this one thing, Lyons accomplishes what Brian McLaren, Rob Bell, Peter Rollins, Mark Driscoll and others have failed to do- he calls us forward as a unified Christian community, rather than splintering us by parsing new "palatable" labels for a future brands of faith in Jesus. And more than that, he provides restoration to those on both sides of the discussions within the Christian communities by reclaiming the name we've had since Acts 11:26, when we first became known as Christians.

"The Next Christians" is the best new book I've read, and is probably one of the top 5 books in the last 10 years. This book wins my Editor's Choice Award as the 2010 Best Book.

You may find deeper theology and philosophy books, but nothing as practical and wisdom filled as Lyons wonderful work here. Seriously. Read it. You won't regret it.

Amazon Product Link: http://amzn.to/so2cG9

Review by Kim Gentes

[1]Lyons, Gabe. “The Next Christians: The Good News About the End of Christian America”. (New York, NY: Random House, 2010), Kindle Edition. Pg. 53

[2]Ibid., Pg 126

[3]Ibid., Pg 135

[4]Ibid., Pg 162

[5]Ibid., Pg 116

[6]Ibid., Pg 201

The Weight of Glory (Sermon) - C.S. Lewis (1941)

2011-10-29T03:45:58Z

C.S. Lewis is one of the most celebrated Christian writers and thinkers in modern times. His literary gift extended his philosophical genius into almost every kind of written scope- children’s books, science fiction, morality lessons, personal narratives, apologetics, theology, counseling, and more. Lewis’ most prized construct was the narrative allegory, exampled most brilliantly in his most well known work of the Narnian Chronicles. Because he is such a master of language, one rarely reads Lewis simply and directly on a given topic. Rather, even his shorter works often speak about the thing obliquely, as a better method of communicating powerful points (drawing on the readers imagination to fill in the powerful truths). While the gift of allegory is at play in poignant manner in his famous sermon, The Weight of Glory, it is his contrasting forthrightness that makes the paper take shape so quickly it stands out as, arguably, Lewis’s most brilliant short work, and what I consider the best sermon recorded since the New Testament preaching of Peter and Paul.

The Weight of Glory is nothing less than an essay on what it means to be truly human, what rewards are truly in store of those of aiming at “heaven” and what God intends by creating us in the first place. As tall an order as this seems, Lewis accomplishes this in just 10 pages of some of the finest English writing ever composed. Lewis begins by outlining the nature of love and desire. He moves to comprehending our desires, God’s wishes, and his commendation on us at “glory”. He concludes by circumspection back to love, but this time as a union of both our desires and God’s, founding us centrally in the great belief that we can please God and that God loves us.

What is astounding about Lewis is that he arrives in so many of his works at such great theological conclusions, without primarily taking the route of theology to explain them. Allegory, philosophy and logic are the language here, but Lewis uses them to make points only now being made by some Biblical researchers and scholars. Primarily, in this work, Lewis comes to the powerful conclusion that humanity is weighted down by the image and glory of God to an extent rarely considered orthodox by his Biblical scholar contemporaries. Lewis explores with us the nature of our desiring God and his nature to give us immense desires, and then grant them through His love.

So great is the immense attribution of God’s favor on us, Lewis contends we must revise our understanding of the glory set upon us from the creator. In this revision, we find ourselves moored to the profound love of God and enraptured by a favor of God so great it has no match within creation.

There are no ordinary people. You have never talked to a mere mortal. Nations, cultures, arts, civilisations—these are mortal, and their life is to ours as the life of a gnat. But it is immortals whom we joke with, work with, marry, snub, and exploit—immortal horrors or everlasting splendours.[1]

and

Next to the Blessed Sacrament itself, your neighbour is the holiest object presented to your senses.[2]

But the profound truth we encounter on the road to this glorious discovery is that we are foundationally loved of, and pleasing to, God. In the context of the thread of human desire (for something we call heaven) and God-ordained glory that Lewis draws together for us, the treatise culminates into a richly relational understanding of God and our place with him. We find, most surprisingly, that his promise of glory and heaven meets with our deepest desires not only of him, but in him. This is said best, of course, by Lewis himself:

The promise of glory is the promise, almost incredible and only possible by the work of Christ, that some of us, that any of us who really chooses, shall actually survive that examination, shall find approval, shall please God. To please God…to be a real ingredient in the divine happiness…to be loved by God, not merely pitied, but delighted in as an artist delights in his work or a son—it seems impossible, a weight or burden of glory which our thoughts can hardly sustain. But so it is.[3]

The Weight of Glory examines our deepest longings and, in its final sentences, places them soundly on the hope of utter delight and joy in a life founded in God’s love and acceptance. We are his, and we can live like it- for the good of ourselves and the betterment of our neighbor.

Amazon Product Link: http://amzn.to/vfmZqF

Review by Kim Gentes

[1]Lewis, C. S. “Weight of Glory (Collected Letters of C.S. Lewis)”. (New York, NY: HarperCollins, 1949), Pg. 46

[2]Ibid., Pg 46

[3]Ibid., Pg 38-39

Love Wins - Rob Bell (2011)

2011-10-29T03:40:00Z

It's true. There is a long history of a small segment of Christianity that has held to the belief that God will save all people, even those that reject him on this earth. Rob Bell's recent book "Love Wins" takes a look at another spin of this age-old concept of universalism. Bell writes and thinks well. There is no denying it. But ultimately he stays well within the context of the best argument for universalism- human reason and human attribution of the qualities of "love" on to the Divine Person. As long as you use logic that does not look at all the scriptural record, and rely heavily on personal anecdotes to frame the "kind of God" that you are willing to believe in (and that He is a good God), then you can arrive at the doctrine of universalism and feel pretty good about it. And this is primarily what Bell does.

I was surprised at how anecdotal the entire book was. I love much of Bell's writing, but his treatment of this topic relies initially on a logical progression of human reasoning (not based primarily on Scripture) and ignores investigation, explanation and support of key texts that seem to contradict Bell's thesis. I wanted to emotionally agree with Rob Bell. But neither the specific texts of the Bible that might seem to support universalism (but on deeper look, do not), the historical context of Jesus timeframe or a comprehensive review of all Scripture (including texts which clearly contradict universalism, and overtly declare literal judgment in a literal hell) line up to do anything but refute the premise and content of "Love Wins". I am not a Bell basher, and I appreciate and like some of his other works. Throughout, there are a number of concepts based on specific redefinitions of words (such as forever not actually meaning "eternal", hell not meaning a non-earthly place of punishment but instead meaning "Hell is our refusal to trust God’s retelling of our story"[1] according to Bell). And you see the conflict here- yes Hell could include our refusal to trust God's retelling, but it is a definition that removes the imagery Jesus used of suffering and eternity.

Bell begins with exploring some thoughts about what kind of God we might be talking about, who is ultimatley in control, some thoughts about hell as a concept (placing it on earth mostly, and certainly not as a reality in the ethereal world), understanding more about what God's desires are and how they might work and ultimately towards a conclusion that just assumes that a good God would not send a person intentionally to a painful punishment for all eternity. But Bell uses conjecture as his backbone to the book, not scripture. He proof texts some support when possible, but does not draw his primary thoughts from the bible.

I love that Bell asks so many profound questions. For this, his voice is refreshing. But "Love Wins" ultimately answers none of its questions except to give universalism a "pass" because ultimately Bell's anecdotal view of life leads him to that conclusion.

Amazon Product Link: http://amzn.to/sHSMrk

Review by Kim Gentes

[1]Bell, Rob. "Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived". (New York, NY: HarperCollins, 2011) Kindle Edition. Pg. 170

Life Together - Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1939)

2011-10-29T03:30:35Z

Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s Life Together is a modern classic manual to understanding and practicing Christian community. The book, though short, provides thoughtful and crisp perspectives on what people foundationally believe about community, some of the misguided premise which people start with and what a core of Christian community should be based on. From there, he guides people through a myriad of important issues dealing with community. Each sub-topic is addressed in terms of its value to the individual and its value to the community. Always, we see Bonhoeffer subverting the desires of the individual by exposing them to the underlying truth of the selfishness of their practices.

Bonhoeffer begins his treatise by exploring the need and nature of fellowship.

The physical presence of other Christians is a source of incomparable joy and strength to the believer.[1]

This definition is quickly assigned a real world understanding in the representative place that a believer has as the reflective image (Imago Dei) of God:

The prisoner, the sick person, the Christian living in the diaspora recognizes in the nearness of a fellow Christian a physical sign of the gracious presence of the triune God.[2]

This kind of understanding of community as a mutual mirroring of God’s presence to all around us throughout the fellowship is not simply an inward blessing club, rather, it is a entrance into the reality of Bonhoeffer’s understanding of what Jesus has given us in the kingdom of God.

Bonhoeffer assigns his weightiest words on the deconstruction of the mythic utopia that some think Christian community to be, when he says:

Those who love their dream of a Christian community more than the Christian community itself become destroyers of that Christian community even though their personal intentions may be ever so honest, earnest, and sacrificial. God hates this wishful dreaming because it makes the dreamer proud and pretentious. Those who dream of this idealized community demand that it be fulfilled by God, by others, and by themselves. They enter the community of Christians with their demands, set up their own law, and judge one another and even God accordingly. They stand adamant, a living reproach to all others in the circle of the community. They act as if they have to create the Christian community, as if their visionary ideal binds the people together. Whatever does not go their way, they call a failure. When their idealized image is shattered, they see the community breaking into pieces. So they first become accusers of other Christians in the community, then accusers of God, and finally the desperate accusers of themselves. Because God already has laid the only foundation of our community, because God has united us in one body with other Christians in Jesus Christ long before we entered into common life with them, we enter into that life together with other Christians, not as those who make demands, but as those who thankfully receive.[3]

Once this misunderstanding of Christian community is thoroughly shattered under his lithe polemic of artificial Christian community, the remainder of Life Together builds a construct that expresses, for Bonhoeffer, the reality of true fellowship. Such architectural work is clearly informed by the very real situation and community in which Bonhoeffer found himself during World War II, within the confines of Nazi Germany. In such a stark environment, this great Christian leader is trying to practically give people tools for caring, in faith, for Jesus (as represented in each other) and for experiencing the co-unity of God with his community. This kind of effort manifests itself very practically in Life Together.

The exclusion of the weak and insignificant, the seemingly useless people, from everyday Christian life in community may actually mean the exclusion of Christ; for in the poor sister or brother, Christ is knocking at the door. We must, therefore, be very careful on this point.[4]

But Bonhoeffer is careful not to assign every care for the community on the conscience of the individual. In fact, he finds wayward desires in the system itself (often controlled by leader with poor agendas) and sets them to rights by verbalizing the offense in the book. For example, here he charges those in leadership of communities to seriously evaluate the fruit of the local communities they pastor.

Has the community served to make individuals free, strong, and mature, or has it made them insecure and dependent? Has it taken them by the hand for a while so that they would learn again to walk by themselves, or has it made them anxious and unsure? This is one of the toughest and most serious questions that can be put to any form of everyday Christian life in community.[5]

There are literally dozens of quotable sentences and phrases in Life Together, not because it is snippets of wisdom compiled, but because of the authors compact writing style that brings the up quickly and answers the dilemma within the same sentence often. One particular point rises powerfully to the surface in Bonhoeffer’s acknowledgement and treatment for loneliness among Christians. He clearly believes that loneliness is a powerful foothold for the work of the enemy.

The more lonely people become, the more destructive the power of sin over them.[6]

For Bonhoeffer, the antidote is clearly confession, a unifying force requiring the presence of one another. Unlike modern western culture whose individualism has told them to confess to God in private, Bonhoeffer sees that as a misplaced and powerless position. Instead, he says:

A confession of sin in the presence of all the members of the congregation is not required to restore one to community with the entire congregation. In the one other Christian to whom I confess my sins and by whom my sins are declared forgiven, I meet the whole congregation. Community with the whole congregation is given to me in the community which I experience with this one other believer. For here it is not a matter of acting according to one’s own orders and authority, but according to the command of Jesus Christ, which is intended for the whole congregation, on whose behalf the individual is called merely to carry it out. So long as Christians are in such a community of confession of sins to one another, they are no longer alone anywhere.[7]

And profoundly,

Confession is conversion.[8]

You cannot spend time in the book Life Together without being changed by its powerful message, which has obviously been informed by the realities of living under the persecution of the thoroughly anti-Christian Third Reich.

Amazon Product Link: http://amzn.to/uWCUj3

Review by Kim Gentes

[1]Bonhoeffer, Dietrich; Albrecht Schonherr; Geffrey B. Kelly; Daniel W. Bloesch. “Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works v.5: Life Together and Prayerbook of the Bible”. (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1996),Kindle Edition, Location 561

[2]Ibid., Location 570

[3]Ibid., Location 671

[4]Ibid., Location 805

[5]Ibid., Location 1453

[6]Ibid., Location 1745

[7]Ibid., Location 1758

[8]Ibid., Location 1779

The Language of God - Francis S. Collins (2006)

2011-10-29T03:18:41Z

In the last 150 years, since Darwin, science has advanced significantly in every field and discipline. On every level of natural science, the continued discoveries and study have led to a waterfall of on going re-interpretations of principles and exposure of new ones. Whether Christians like it or not, science has become the leading voice of truth in the modern age. The Church, once the global bastion of truth to the world, bequeathed its preeminence as a guardian of moral, philosophical and practical understanding by arrogance and oppressive posture towards society in general. While the Church was busy disconnecting itself from the humanity it once served, science was forwarding its framework of modernity and filling out its broad structure of the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution has especially seemed to be a particularly “anti-Christian” concept, since it seemed to (on first blush) be directly contradicting the literal interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative found in the bible. This is the arch-type of the modern scientific v.s. traditional Christian creationist conflict that has become a major issue not just for converting non-Christians to a belief in the Christian God, and savior Jesus, but also to retain a sense of truth and integrity within the well-thinking ranks of its own membership (Christians). In the last 20 years, the study of genomics has become a particularly powerful field of advancement in the scientific and popular worlds.

Within this context of a great show down of scientific discovery and post-modern Christian change, Francis Collins, a noted scientist, writes the book “The Language of God”. Collins convincingly argues for a more thoughtful interpretation of both science and the Bible, such that a faith-centered belief might not be incompatible with such a scientifically understood world. Collins begins with the usual larger picture issues in developing his thesis towards a scientifically compatible faith, establishing a list of natural descriptors that make man unique in the natural world.

It is the awareness of right and wrong, along with the development of language, awareness of self, and the ability to imagine the future, to which scientists generally refer when trying to enumerate the special qualities of Homo sapiens.[1]

The Language of God walks judiciously through both arguments of the uniqueness of the humanity and arguments related to creation as a whole that some Christians try to use to make science compatible with faith. The best thing this book does is to discount unprotectable positions made by Christians that are simply not reasonable or scientifically accurate. What Collins is doing is both deconstructing false Christian/scientific theories and opening up the possibility to leave space to have the story of creation and human place in it become tellable in a post-modern, scientific world. Without walking through many arguments, he uses CS Lewis, Augustine and other great thinkers to steer away from poor logic and reason, and keep the understanding of morality within the confines of generally accepted thought (although he largely discounts post-modernity as a methodology to achieve deeper understanding of the faith /science conflict).

While deconstructing much falseness about the scientific provability of creation science, Collins introduces the importance of “the Anthropic Principle: the idea that our universe is uniquely tuned to give rise to humans.”[2] He elucidates that so many parameters and probabilities exist in the physical universe that make the possibility of the existence of the physical universe, the development of the stars and planets, the flourishing of life on earth and the development of humans within that- all but an impossibility in a reality which contains no preeminent being (God) from whom such precision is possible. He says,

There are good reasons to believe in God, including the existence of mathematical principles and order in creation. They are positive reasons, based on knowledge, rather than default assumptions based on (a temporary) lack of knowledge.[3]

In addition, he adds two other important points to the Anthropic Principle, both of which have no scientific solution either now or in the foreseeable future.

First, is the problem with actually having the universe at all. Collins argues that no scientific work has even proposed a reasonable hypothesis from which the “singularity” (an initial state of mass/energy) can be explained. That is- even if we attribute all things from having come from a Big Bang (from which develops all other things through evolution), how does the first point of the universe (before the Big Bang) come into being? Simply put, science has no answer. Somehow, everything came from something, but no one can account for how that something came about.

Second is the actual origins of first life on earth. Collins carefully tracks understandings of origin of life theories but comes to this conclusion:

how did self-replicating organisms arise in the first place? It is fair to say that at the present time we simply do not know. No current hypothesis comes close to explaining how in the space of a mere 150 million years, the prebiotic environment that existed on planet Earth gave rise to life. That is not to say that reasonable hypotheses have not been put forward, but their statistical probability of accounting for the development of life still seems remote.[4]

After dismantling the scientific plausibility of life and universe existence without some supreme being, Collins turns his mind to breaking up false concepts of creation put forth through groups like the YEC (Young Earth Creationists). This is heartening, not because of an anti-Christian standpoint, but because of a need to keep credulity inside of a thoughtful Christian response to scientific /atheistic attacks.

What Collins gets to is the reality that neither Christian misinformation about science or atheistic pride based on science can lead to the real answers of the prime questions of our universe, life and the human place in it. He eventually leads the discussion to the clear questioning of the atheistic/scientific modernist mindset, from which much criticism is leveled. Collins, after deconstructing their presumed positions of pride (by the 3 main points listed above), challenges scientists by saying this:

Are you simply uncomfortable accepting the idea that the tools of science are insufficient for answering any important question? This is particularly a problem for scientists, who have committed their lives to the experimental assessment of reality. From that perspective, admitting the inability of science to answer all questions can be a blow to our intellectual pride—but that blow needs to be recognized, internalized, and learned from.[5]

I found the book to be enjoyable and interesting. Collins ends with a profound call to both sides of the discussion:

Science is not threatened by God; it is enhanced. God is most certainly not threatened by science; He made it all possible. So let us together seek to reclaim the solid ground of an intellectually and spiritually satisfying synthesis of all great truths.[6]

Amazon Product Link : http://amzn.to/vJVN3Z

Review by Kim Gentes

[1]Collins, Francis S. “The Language of God”. Kindle Edition (New York, NY: Free Press 2006), Pg. 23

[2]Ibid., Pg. 74

[3]Ibid., Pg. 93

[4]Ibid., Pg. 90

[5]Ibid., Pg. 232

[6]Ibid., Pg. 233

How (Not) To Speak of God - Peter Rollins (2006)

2011-10-29T03:01:59Z

The argument is made that naming God is never really naming God but only naming our understanding of God. To take our ideas of the divine and hold them as if they correspond to the reality of God is thus to construct a conceptual idol built from the materials of our mind.[1]

Thus launches a compact and insightful book on the Christian church for the postmodern age. The book is “How (Not) To Speak of God” and is written by Peter Rollins. This book is a philosophical building block for what is considered a new brand of Christianity- one that places itself beyond Catholic or Protestant confines as a re-invention of the foundational core Christian tenants of faith on a new trajectory than previous “Christian” classes of belief. As with all belief centered in logic, foundational comprehension and exploration of such belief begins with language. Rollins begins and fuels much of his book with the clarifying of language in his “emerging church” conversation. This is done through visiting constructs such as definitions, re-definitions, syntax (a/theology, a/theist, mis/understood etc) and even ambiguating subject/predicate grammar (God rid me of God[2]).

The purpose of Rollins use of language in this way is to break ground on traditional use of language against which our faith is eventually handcuffed into suppositions that it cannot adequately make it s way free of. As you can see from one of the opening arguments (top), one of the primary points of his re-imagining what it means to talk about God is to re-think about how conceive about him as an object in a sentence. The noun for God, in Rollins logic, is itself rife with our own thoughts about that noun. We name it and believe it in a circular motion, which continues to define who God is by our use of a label-- thus an undefinable God has become something by use of such a label that we cannot be sure he is.

It is with this kind of linguistic and philosophical approach that How (Not) To Speak of God uses to arrive at several points such as the meaning of what it is to be a Christian, what it is to become one, what belief is, reason and its place in belief, influenced observation (Heisenberg principle), ideology as idolatry, revelation as concealment and more. He then explores many inversions of current orthodox belief such as a/theistic belief- the concept that our deconstruction of edifices about God (what he calls “unknowing”) actual lead us closer to God by removing what we think of God. He says this well:

This a/theistic approach is deeply deconstructive since it always prevents our ideas from scaling the throne of God. Yet it is important to bear in mind that this deconstruction is not destruction, for the questioning it engages in is not designed to undermine God but to affirm God. This method is similar to that practised by the original cynics who, far from being nihilists and relativists, were deeply moral individuals who questioned the ethical conduct they saw around them precisely because they loved morality so much. This a/theism is thus a deeply religious and faith-filled form of cynical discourse, one which captures how faith operates in an oscillation between understanding and unknowing. This unknowing is to be utterly distinguished from an intellectually lazy ignorance, for it is a type of unknowing which arises not from imprecision but rather from deep reflection and sustained meditation.[3]

All of this redefinition is helpful to allow in the inverted /dark side of thought as things which can become a vital part of faith- dis-belief, doubt, longings, sorrow and hunger. Rollins hopes that his straightforward, though at times over-done, approach allows a more holistic exploration of broad formation of “theology”. His goal is to bring religion back to the ability to build in a orthodoxy of both knowing God and a tradition of self-critique, saying “To be part of the Christian religion is to simultaneously hold that religion lightly.[4]”

Rollins has a target, however, beyond just language and philosophical theological editing. He leads the reader to a point of both the need for transformation and the need for a desire for transformation[5]. This is an important primer to creating a fresh man/God vacuum expository (Pascalian God-shaped hole: retold) he sets up the focus of need (hunger) that leads his readers to the primacy of Christianity. For Rollins, the climax of all thought towards God leads self-critiquing people to the core tenant of love, but even that is re-envisioned:

Thus we can never rest easy, believing that we have discovered the foundations that act as a key for working out what we must do in different situations: for the only clear foundation laid down by Jesus was the law of love.[6]

The remainder of the book deals with practical exploration, including several case studies (examples) of gatherings that Rollins and others have designed to help with post modern expression, in the form of art/drama and concept that allow the attendants to enter imaginatively into this process of deconstruction and opportunity for re-envisioning God not as we see him now, but as we are relearning.

Amazon Product Link: http://amzn.to/tL2hSq

Review by Kim Gentes

[1]Rollins, Peter. “How (Not) to Speak of God”. Kindle Edition (Brewster, MA: Paraclete Press 2006), Location 238

[2]Ibid., Location 265

[3]Ibid., Location 642

[4]Ibid., Location 971

[5]Ibid., Location 1054

[6]Ibid., Location 1333