I am still trying to decide why I didn't love this book. I mean, it's solid theologically, well-written, has a semi-controversial title, written from conviction and has a decent narrative to each chapter; however, I found it overall lackluster. This is like the new Sherlock Holmes movie: it has a decent setup and should work well-enough, but left me wanting so much more.
What I Liked: Again, this book does what it set out to do. It seeks to call out, convict, and encourage people who claim they believe in God, but in their day-to-day live as if He doesn't exist. I've waited for a few years now to read a book like this, and Groeschel beautifully weaves in and out of biblical concepts and his own personal journey. It's obvious to see the heart of a pastor coming out from the chapters of this book. I think especially in high school this book would have been monumental for my spiritual growth.
What I Found Lacking: For a book that desires to call out the lukewarm within the church body, this book has little bite. This is not to say that Groeschel is timid in his approach/writing, but rather that at times he danced around an issue instead of calling things like he sees them. I knew where he was getting and I honestly agreed with basically every point of this book, but there was just something missing in his overall presentation.
My Favorite Quotations:
- "Over time, we accumulate such a long list of sins that we can't understand how God could possibly forgive us. Locked in a prison of shame, many Christian Atheists hate their pasts and themselves in equal measure -- and there seems to be no hope of escape."
- "Our actions confirm that a disturbing number of us truly believe this equation: better possessions + peaceful circumstances + thrilling experiences + the right relationships + the perfect appearance = happiness."
Recommendation: I DO widely recommend this book; however, I think the best audience might be a newer believer, or a believer who has been in a rut for years. That having been said, there still is a wealth of analogies and everyone will likely be challenged in one way or another throughout the course of this book. I would recommend this most widely to my high schoolers who are more inexperienced in the day-to-day life of a believer.
Friday, January 13, 2012
Saturday, December 31, 2011
Overall Book Ratings for 2011
Although I still have a few (8 actually....wow) to post for my 2011 reading list, I have finished all of my books for this year (finished last night, just in time!). Here is my list in order of which books I thought were a combination of best-written, highest clarity, most valuable (important), and overall which book I would most recommend to someone!
1. Just Do Something, by Kevin DeYoung
3. The Pursuit of God, by A.W. Tozer
4. Generous Justice, by Timothy Keller
5. When The Bottom Drops Out: Finding Grace in the Depths of Disappointment, Robert Bugh
6. Think: The Life of the Mind and the Love of God, by John Piper
8. The Heavenly Man: The Remarkable True Story of Chinese Christian Brother Yun, by Brother Yun
9. Respectable Sins: Confronting the Sins We Tolerate, by Jerry Bridges
10. The God Who Risks: A Theology of Divine Providence, by John Sanders
11. Seeking and Savoring Jesus Christ, by John Piper
12. God’s Lesser Glory: The Diminished God of Open Theism, by Bruce Ware
14. God of the Possible, by Gregory Boyd
15. Strengths Finder 2.0, by Tom Rath
16. Rites of Passage: A Father's Blessing, by Jim McBride
17. Churched: One Kids' Journey Toward God Despite A Holy Mess, by Paul Turner
Check out the reviews I've already written if you're interested in one of the books as well, and keep an eye out for my last reviews in the next two weeks!
Stay tuned for my 2012 Reading List!
Friday, December 16, 2011
Review of "Just Do Something" by Kevin DeYoung
Wow. This little book by a pastor in university-city Michigan contained much more wisdom than I anticipated. I know in my review of Pursuit of God, I said, "nearly this entire book is quotable." I don't want to sound like a broken record, but nearly this entire book is quotable.
In this book, DeYoung attempts to help the reader understand how to make biblically-wise decisions without relying on "dreams, visions, fleeces, impressions, open doors, random Bible verses, casting lots, liver shivers, writing in the sky, etc." He succeeds in spades.
What I Liked:
DeYoung calls things like they are. He beautifully mixes humor, pith, biblical exposition, challenges, and understanding into an extremely accessible volume. Some authors spend several hundred pages saying a fraction of what DeYoung communicates into a 123 page book. I read it in just a few days, but have been digesting it for weeks.
My favorite part of this book is that he deals with the logic behind our interaction with the "will of God" and helps us understand how we think, why we think that way, and why most of our thoughts about how God works is not biblical. But he doesn't simply diagnose the problem. In the second half of the book, he helps the reader apply biblical truths into how we please God with our futures. That is, he gives us practical ways to make decisions based on Scripture. This book was a breath of fresh air.
Favorite Quotations:
- "Waiting for God's will of direction is a mess. It is bad for your life, harmful to your sanctification, and allows too many Christians to be passive tinkerers who strangely feel more spiritual the less they actually do."
- "That's often what we are asking for when we pray to know the will of God. We aren't asking for holiness, or righteousness, or an awareness of sin. We want God to tell us what to do so everything will turn out pleasant for us."
- "We risk because God does not risk. We walk into the future in God-glorifying confidence not because the future is known to us, but because it is known to God. And that's all we need to know. Worry about the future is not simply a character tic, it is the sin of unbelief, an indication that our hearts are not resting in the promises of God." <----- that's what we call a verbal punch to the gut.
- "The only chains God wants us to wear are the chains of righteousness - not the chains of hopeless subjectivism, not the shackles of risk-free living, not the fetters of horoscope decision making - just the chains befitting a bond servant of Christ Jesus. Die to self. Live for Christ. And then do what you want, and go where you want, for God's glory."
Recommendation:
This review isn't very in-depth because the book is so short and so full of godly wisdom that I simply want you to go out and read it. All of you.
In this book, DeYoung attempts to help the reader understand how to make biblically-wise decisions without relying on "dreams, visions, fleeces, impressions, open doors, random Bible verses, casting lots, liver shivers, writing in the sky, etc." He succeeds in spades.
What I Liked:
DeYoung calls things like they are. He beautifully mixes humor, pith, biblical exposition, challenges, and understanding into an extremely accessible volume. Some authors spend several hundred pages saying a fraction of what DeYoung communicates into a 123 page book. I read it in just a few days, but have been digesting it for weeks.
My favorite part of this book is that he deals with the logic behind our interaction with the "will of God" and helps us understand how we think, why we think that way, and why most of our thoughts about how God works is not biblical. But he doesn't simply diagnose the problem. In the second half of the book, he helps the reader apply biblical truths into how we please God with our futures. That is, he gives us practical ways to make decisions based on Scripture. This book was a breath of fresh air.
Favorite Quotations:
- "Waiting for God's will of direction is a mess. It is bad for your life, harmful to your sanctification, and allows too many Christians to be passive tinkerers who strangely feel more spiritual the less they actually do."
- "That's often what we are asking for when we pray to know the will of God. We aren't asking for holiness, or righteousness, or an awareness of sin. We want God to tell us what to do so everything will turn out pleasant for us."
- "We risk because God does not risk. We walk into the future in God-glorifying confidence not because the future is known to us, but because it is known to God. And that's all we need to know. Worry about the future is not simply a character tic, it is the sin of unbelief, an indication that our hearts are not resting in the promises of God." <----- that's what we call a verbal punch to the gut.
- "The only chains God wants us to wear are the chains of righteousness - not the chains of hopeless subjectivism, not the shackles of risk-free living, not the fetters of horoscope decision making - just the chains befitting a bond servant of Christ Jesus. Die to self. Live for Christ. And then do what you want, and go where you want, for God's glory."
Recommendation:
This review isn't very in-depth because the book is so short and so full of godly wisdom that I simply want you to go out and read it. All of you.
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
My Words Fail
In his blog today, Kevin DeYoung differentiated between story-telling and preaching and it got me thinking. Personally, I love to tell stories. Like many others, I find that I am easily swept up in a strong/compelling narrative whether it's a book, movie, song, or the experience of a friend. Moreover, because of people like Lyle Cruse in my life always telling interesting stories during my high school years, I've been told numerous times that I am a good story-teller. I used to wear this like a badge on my sleeve, glad that I could peak the interest of others, especially the teenagers with whom I work daily.
However, lately, I've been convicted in my use of story-telling. At the end of the day do I want students to hear my stories and laugh, cry, think or is my desire for them to hear the words of God himself through me when I speak? In my effort to let God speak for himself through the Bible, lately in my talks I've been focusing more on the exegesis of a passage over story-telling with some biblical application thrown in. Admittedly, it's a balance I am still trying to find as I know that stories help my audience relate to me and can help the meaning of a passage be more clear and applicable to their own lives. However, too many times I've caught myself using my personal stories in order to elicit some sort of visceral reaction from my audience rather than to help impart truth.
This came to light through two things. First, this quote by Jonathan Edwards gripped me:
"I should think myself in the way of my duty to raise the affections of my hearers as high as possibly I can, provided that they are affected with nothing but truth."
Again, my goal should be to allow the truth to speak, not just create an emotional reaction through my stories. Second, was through the words of a TreeHouse teenager. After going through the first chapter of James, trying to let the Word of God speak for itself, I was discouraged, realizing that I had lost most of my audience by the end of my talk (again, I'm still trying to figure out my own balance to this more exegetical approach to communicating along with some story-telling). However, after the talk I asked one of my guys what he thought. He said (i'm paraphrasing)
"I liked it. I wish it was longer, it seemed too short. I always get bored when you tell stories. Like, I know that you're trying to relate to me, but we relate all the time. Sometimes I just want you to get up there and help me understand what I need to know and what I need to do as a Christian."
I think God used this student to speak to me more that night than vice-versa. It was much needed. My prayer is always that God would just speak to even one student whenever I give a talk. It was amazing to see my personal convictions lining up so blatantly with what God was communicating to this student. Praise God that his words never fail.
However, lately, I've been convicted in my use of story-telling. At the end of the day do I want students to hear my stories and laugh, cry, think or is my desire for them to hear the words of God himself through me when I speak? In my effort to let God speak for himself through the Bible, lately in my talks I've been focusing more on the exegesis of a passage over story-telling with some biblical application thrown in. Admittedly, it's a balance I am still trying to find as I know that stories help my audience relate to me and can help the meaning of a passage be more clear and applicable to their own lives. However, too many times I've caught myself using my personal stories in order to elicit some sort of visceral reaction from my audience rather than to help impart truth.
This came to light through two things. First, this quote by Jonathan Edwards gripped me:
"I should think myself in the way of my duty to raise the affections of my hearers as high as possibly I can, provided that they are affected with nothing but truth."
Again, my goal should be to allow the truth to speak, not just create an emotional reaction through my stories. Second, was through the words of a TreeHouse teenager. After going through the first chapter of James, trying to let the Word of God speak for itself, I was discouraged, realizing that I had lost most of my audience by the end of my talk (again, I'm still trying to figure out my own balance to this more exegetical approach to communicating along with some story-telling). However, after the talk I asked one of my guys what he thought. He said (i'm paraphrasing)
"I liked it. I wish it was longer, it seemed too short. I always get bored when you tell stories. Like, I know that you're trying to relate to me, but we relate all the time. Sometimes I just want you to get up there and help me understand what I need to know and what I need to do as a Christian."
I think God used this student to speak to me more that night than vice-versa. It was much needed. My prayer is always that God would just speak to even one student whenever I give a talk. It was amazing to see my personal convictions lining up so blatantly with what God was communicating to this student. Praise God that his words never fail.
Friday, November 4, 2011
Review of "God of the Possible" by Gregory Boyd
This is the first book I've read by Gregory Boyd and the third one in my personal study of Open Theology (or Openness Theology). Boyd is a local pastor up here in Minnesota, and is the counterpart to Reformed, Classical Theist John Piper. This book goes less into detail of the open view and instead is more pastoral in nature as it is more of a "layman's guide" to OT.
What I liked:
Gregory Boyd, being a pastor, is able to make the current debate on the openness of God accessible to most any audience. While he still uses some theological jargon, he does explain all of his terminology well. I don't believe his main goal is to convince his audience, but rather to spur them on towards change. Although I don't agree with his conclusions, I love that he realizes the implications of his stance, is willing to embrace them, and show how such a fundamental change in our view of Theology Proper changes everything. I just don't think the root of those changes is true to the biblical portrayal of God.
What I Didn't Like:
I know that he is intentional about building on mainly the relational and practical aspects of Open Theology, but if this was the first book I'd read on OT, I would be a little confused. His attention to practical implications means that he deals less with biblical languages, nuances, and history. This makes his work inspiring at first, but upon further thinking and questioning, it seems to deflate once more of the arguments occurring at the root level of the issue are developed. Furthermore, since many of his arguments are underdeveloped, I think that this volume fails to be an entrance-level, layman's guide to the Open View of God.
A few examples of quotes I found disturbing/did not agree with/sounded good at first:
- "Practically, a God of eternally static certainties is incapable of interacting with humans in a relevant way. The God of the possible, by contrast, is a God who can work with us to truly change what might have been into what should be."
- major implications behind this, especially as relates to God's plan of salvation for us.
- Of Peter's denial being prophesied by Jesus, Boyd says, "...it seems evident that we do not need to believe that the future is exhaustively settled in God's mind to make sense of Jesus' prediction of Peter's denial. We need only believe that God possesses a perfect knowledge of the past and present and that he revealed some of it to Jesus."
- in this paragraph Boyd claims that Jesus simply knew the character of Peter because of his divine knowledge of the past and present, and therefore could guess properly that in this situation, Peter would deny him. However, he never even mentions that Jesus prophesied specifics about the situation, like a rooster crowing and the number of denials Peter would utter.
- About Moses' response to God's commission for him to represent Israel to Pharaoh in Exodus 4, Boyd says, "The Lord initially tells Moses that the elders will listen to his voice.... Moses apparently doesn't hold to the classical view of divine foreknowledge, however, for he immediately asks, 'suppose they do not believe me or listen to me?' (Ex. 4:1)."
This argument is misleading for several reasons:
1) There is a major difference between doubting and deep belief. Many people (myself included) sometimes doubt God when our own humanity fails to trust a holy capable God. Just because Moses has a moment of doubt does not mean that he actually believes God does not know the future conclusively.
2) Even if Moses did believe this to be true, God's character/nature is not contained within our individual beliefs.
3) God giving Moses several things to do so that the people "may believe" does not mean that God in his sovereignty actually wonders if and when the people will listen to Moses' message. To assume that God could have no other reasoning/purposes and in fact doesn't know what's gonna happen is quite presumptuous.
Favorite Quotation:
- "Striving to have a plausible theology is necessary because, for many of us, the mind must be thoroughly convinced if the heart is to be thoroughly transformed."
Recommendation:
- People who want to hear a real pastoral-like application to the implications of the Open View should read this book; however, if you're simply wanting to understand the basics of this theological view, there are better books out there.
What I liked:
Gregory Boyd, being a pastor, is able to make the current debate on the openness of God accessible to most any audience. While he still uses some theological jargon, he does explain all of his terminology well. I don't believe his main goal is to convince his audience, but rather to spur them on towards change. Although I don't agree with his conclusions, I love that he realizes the implications of his stance, is willing to embrace them, and show how such a fundamental change in our view of Theology Proper changes everything. I just don't think the root of those changes is true to the biblical portrayal of God.
What I Didn't Like:
I know that he is intentional about building on mainly the relational and practical aspects of Open Theology, but if this was the first book I'd read on OT, I would be a little confused. His attention to practical implications means that he deals less with biblical languages, nuances, and history. This makes his work inspiring at first, but upon further thinking and questioning, it seems to deflate once more of the arguments occurring at the root level of the issue are developed. Furthermore, since many of his arguments are underdeveloped, I think that this volume fails to be an entrance-level, layman's guide to the Open View of God.
A few examples of quotes I found disturbing/did not agree with/sounded good at first:
- "Practically, a God of eternally static certainties is incapable of interacting with humans in a relevant way. The God of the possible, by contrast, is a God who can work with us to truly change what might have been into what should be."
- major implications behind this, especially as relates to God's plan of salvation for us.
- Of Peter's denial being prophesied by Jesus, Boyd says, "...it seems evident that we do not need to believe that the future is exhaustively settled in God's mind to make sense of Jesus' prediction of Peter's denial. We need only believe that God possesses a perfect knowledge of the past and present and that he revealed some of it to Jesus."
- in this paragraph Boyd claims that Jesus simply knew the character of Peter because of his divine knowledge of the past and present, and therefore could guess properly that in this situation, Peter would deny him. However, he never even mentions that Jesus prophesied specifics about the situation, like a rooster crowing and the number of denials Peter would utter.
- About Moses' response to God's commission for him to represent Israel to Pharaoh in Exodus 4, Boyd says, "The Lord initially tells Moses that the elders will listen to his voice.... Moses apparently doesn't hold to the classical view of divine foreknowledge, however, for he immediately asks, 'suppose they do not believe me or listen to me?' (Ex. 4:1)."
This argument is misleading for several reasons:
1) There is a major difference between doubting and deep belief. Many people (myself included) sometimes doubt God when our own humanity fails to trust a holy capable God. Just because Moses has a moment of doubt does not mean that he actually believes God does not know the future conclusively.
2) Even if Moses did believe this to be true, God's character/nature is not contained within our individual beliefs.
3) God giving Moses several things to do so that the people "may believe" does not mean that God in his sovereignty actually wonders if and when the people will listen to Moses' message. To assume that God could have no other reasoning/purposes and in fact doesn't know what's gonna happen is quite presumptuous.
Favorite Quotation:
- "Striving to have a plausible theology is necessary because, for many of us, the mind must be thoroughly convinced if the heart is to be thoroughly transformed."
Recommendation:
- People who want to hear a real pastoral-like application to the implications of the Open View should read this book; however, if you're simply wanting to understand the basics of this theological view, there are better books out there.
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Review of "The Pursuit of God" by A.W. Tozer
I am always trying to find new authors that I enjoy reading. Recently I've discovered Timothy Keller, Kevin DeYoung, and Jonathan Edwards. Obviously, most people have heard of all of these authors before-- they come highly recommended. A.W. Tozer was an author that I was directed towards in pretty much every class I took at Moody Bible Institute. I finally caught up with one of his books and can honestly say that I'm ready to read anything this man has written.
What I liked: Tozer has such a heart for the Lord, it comes out in every line of this book. There is no question left to the reader about what Tozer's intentions were in writing this volume. I found myself challenged, impassioned, and encouraged time and time again.
Tozer writes beautifully. He has a way of stating basic principles of Scripture and Christian life in the most profoundly simplistic way. Nearly this entire book is quotable. He writing is clear, concise, stretching, and exciting. It was truly a pleasure to read. On a more formatting level, each chapter is short enough to easily read along with Scripture for daily devotions.
What I Didn't Like: The only problem I had with The Pursuit of God is some of Tozer's theology. This really doesn't get in the way of most of the message of the book. Simply, he mentions God's prevenient grace a couple of times in regards to the salvation process. Having moderate calvinistic leanings, I personally don't believe Scripture teaches prevenient grace; however, it was only mentioned a few times, and again did not distort or confuse the message of the book.
Favorite Quotations:
- "Everything is made to center upon the initial act of 'accepting' Christ... and we are not expected thereafter to crave any further revelation of God to our souls. We have been snared in the coils of a spurious logic which insists that if we have found Him, we need no more seek Him."
- "We read our chapter, have our short devotions, and rush away, hoping to make up for our deep inward bankruptcy by attending another gospel meeting or listening to another thrilling story told by a religious adventurer lately returned from afar."
- "Religion has accepted the monstrous heresy that noise, size, activity and bluster make a man dear to God."
- "One of the greatest hindrances to internal peace which the Christian encounters is the common habit of dividing our lives into two areas - the sacred and the secular."
Recommendation: I highly recommend this for all Christians. It is fairly accessible to all readers (there is a bit of Old English flare, but still quite comprehensible), and I believe any believer would be greatly challenged and encouraged by reading the heart of this great man of God.
What I liked: Tozer has such a heart for the Lord, it comes out in every line of this book. There is no question left to the reader about what Tozer's intentions were in writing this volume. I found myself challenged, impassioned, and encouraged time and time again.
Tozer writes beautifully. He has a way of stating basic principles of Scripture and Christian life in the most profoundly simplistic way. Nearly this entire book is quotable. He writing is clear, concise, stretching, and exciting. It was truly a pleasure to read. On a more formatting level, each chapter is short enough to easily read along with Scripture for daily devotions.
What I Didn't Like: The only problem I had with The Pursuit of God is some of Tozer's theology. This really doesn't get in the way of most of the message of the book. Simply, he mentions God's prevenient grace a couple of times in regards to the salvation process. Having moderate calvinistic leanings, I personally don't believe Scripture teaches prevenient grace; however, it was only mentioned a few times, and again did not distort or confuse the message of the book.
Favorite Quotations:
- "Everything is made to center upon the initial act of 'accepting' Christ... and we are not expected thereafter to crave any further revelation of God to our souls. We have been snared in the coils of a spurious logic which insists that if we have found Him, we need no more seek Him."
- "We read our chapter, have our short devotions, and rush away, hoping to make up for our deep inward bankruptcy by attending another gospel meeting or listening to another thrilling story told by a religious adventurer lately returned from afar."
- "Religion has accepted the monstrous heresy that noise, size, activity and bluster make a man dear to God."
- "One of the greatest hindrances to internal peace which the Christian encounters is the common habit of dividing our lives into two areas - the sacred and the secular."
Recommendation: I highly recommend this for all Christians. It is fairly accessible to all readers (there is a bit of Old English flare, but still quite comprehensible), and I believe any believer would be greatly challenged and encouraged by reading the heart of this great man of God.
Monday, September 19, 2011
Review of “God’s Lesser Glory: The Diminished God of Open Theism” by Bruce A. Ware
This is the second book in my personal series studying the Open Theism debate among Evangelicals. The first book I reviewed was by a well-known proponent of OTH (open theism) named John Sanders. To read my review of “The God Who Risks” click here. “God’s Lesser Glory” is written by Bruce Ware, a well-known conservative evangelical theologian, and senior associate dean at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Obviously, his views offer a critique of OTH stances.
What I Liked: Bruce Ware’s critiques of OTH seem to be spot-on from a purely biblical standpoint. This volume is formatted nicely offering the OTH stances on a topic, their perceived flaws of classical theism, and then Ware’s refutation based on Scripture. More than Sanders, Ware seems to desire a pure biblical conclusion above all else. His hermeneutic seems more consistent and thought-through, rather than seeking to prove his own point. His refutations analyze OTH arguments point-by-point, offering clear answers and asking questions open theologians need to answer.
Much like Sanders, Ware’s heart for God shines through each chapter. I believe God is truly the center of this debate above all else, not denominations, not church politics, and not schools of thought. This controversy is about God Himself as we perceive Him through His revelations in the Bible, and I do believe that both sides are desiring to know God better and make Him known more clearly. However, Ware makes a fantastic stand for orthodoxy and beautifully refutes the bulk of propositions made by open theists.
What I Didn’t Like: There is very little I did not enjoy about this book. At times, Ware’s confrontation of open theists brinks on becoming more of a personal attack than a debate on doctrine. However, I think he only toes this line and does not cross it.
Favorite Quotes: (also major points he makes against OTH)
- “The fact is that God cannot be subject to and limited by the libertarian free choices of people of which he has no prior knowledge and over which he has regulative control, and still be able to know and ordain all the days of our lives.”
- “If God’s glory rests, ultimately, in His control of all that is, then it stands to reason that when God’s control is diminished and human control elevated, so too is His glory diminished- while human pretense to assume that glory is encouraged.”
- “Again, the truth of the matter simply is that, because God’s knowledge and wisdom is vastly superior to ours, we would be utter and absolute fools to want God to wait to ‘hear from us first’ before he decides what is best to do.”
- (this sums up the book well) “...the sobering truth here is that, by the openness view, neither we nor God know now whether in fact God will so win in the end. If God is at war, and if God has taken significant risks, then we must wait to see if God will win, and so wait to see if God is in fact glorious.”
Personal Takeaways: God is glorious. He is glorious because of his infinite wisdom and knowledge of all things past, present, and future (Isaiah 41-48; Deut 31:16-21; Ps 139; etc). I cannot make the views of OTH sync with this understanding of the glory of God.
Who’s It For?: This book is fairly accessible for most readers. It gets technical in some of its theological language, but I believe is very understandable and straightforward. Anyone desiring a classical theism refutation of open theism would do themselves a great favor in reading this book.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)