A Dubious Disciple Book Review
351452
This book has an interesting theme. Being Jesus-like means not merely being humble, which is a foundational point of all major religions, but going to the next level: embracing obscurity. The cute gimmick (which the author insists is not a gimmick, but is cute nonetheless) is that the book is written anonymously.

We crave recognition to overcome the natural obscurity of sharing our world with billions. Why? Why does it seem natural, human, to want to rise above the billions, to be someone important? This craving conflicts with our spiritual well-being. Says the author, "I am astounded by Jesus' complete lack of concern over His reputation."

By way of warning, a chart is presented showing Christ's disposition alongside Satan's. To summarize the entire chart for you: Jesus lives a life of humility followed by honor, while Satan lives a life of pride followed by humiliation. And unless we stop imitating our enemy, we can be absolutely certain that we will also reap the same end: ultimate (perhaps even eternal) humiliation.

As the last paragraph shows, this book is afterlife-oriented, so you can guess that it wasn't a perfect fit for my brand of Christianity. "Life is not about comfort, but about doing hard things now"--(wait for it, that's only half of the quote)--"so that we can reap rewards in the life to come." Yeah, not my brand. Yet there are some very helpful, very uplifting teachings herein. Mr. Anonymous points out that "living for an audience of One is at the heart of embracing obscurity," and that is a lesson we could all learn...whatever our picture of that One.

This book will be especially appreciated by conservative Christians in need of hope-filled encouragement to continue being Jesus-like.
4105458
Oddly, I can't really think of much to say about this book.  It's an overview of the various aspects and claims surrounding the issue of whether Jesus was really God, and whether he really rose from the dead.

In order to prove these things, Strobel travels around to speak with various experts; philosophers, scientists, medical experts and so forth, asking questions like "could Jesus have survived crucifixion?"  "Could the New Testament documents be mere legends, which developed over time?"  "Can we prove that Jesus really appeared to people after his death?" and so forth.  Ultimately, he finds that the evidence is firm and strong, in favor of Jesus being exactly who he said he was.

The book is structured in a rather non-standard way, comparing the various questions about Jesus to types of evidence that might be brought forth in a courtroom.  Legal proceedings are rarely objective in terms of their approach to the evidence, and in terms of whether the evidence is accepted or rejected, so I don't personally find the analogy all that helpful, but the question that matters is whether the evidence presented in this book is good and strong.  It certainly is.

Argument by argument, Strobel poses the typical skeptic and atheistic responses to these experts, and finds that there are good answers for every last one.

As a Catholic, I of course believe that there are other good reasons to believe in Jesus, aside from just these, but these are the reasons that I think will sync with most people, and all things considered, I have no problem with that.  This book does what it claims to do; lay out a strong case for Christ, and it does it very well and professionally.

I've also heard that some folks have taken issue with this book; saying that it doesn't sufficiently address the opposing case, and I have two things to say about that.

The first is that the book is called "the Case -For- Christ."  From the title, anyway, there's no reason to pick it up and expect to see a debate, or any other form of two-sided argument.  That said, if you want to read a debate, the book does cite a couple of excellent ones in book form, which can still be picked up and read today.

The second thing I have to say is that in fact, for the most part, contrary arguments against the divinity of Jesus tend to take the form of asking questions, intended to disprove it, and I would argue that Strobel asks many of these questions himself.  In fact, this is what drives the book.  Questions are asked, and those same questions are answered, so I would say that much of the book consists of the answering of atheistic and skeptical objections to the claims of Christianity, and therefore, there's no reason to not see the book as two-sided or fair, just because it arrives at a decisive conclusion.

Others may object that the book won't "convince" certain people.  Of course it won't.  It's just a book.  You need to be willing to learn from it if you're going to be convinced by it, regardless of how good the evidence is.

Still others have claimed that this kind of issue shouldn't even be decided on the basis of evidence, which is rather like saying "I'm irrational in my faith, and if you want to believe in God, you need to be irrational too."  There's no better way to scare honest thinkers out of the church, which may be part of the point of such objections.  When you've got people there, who are good at thinking about what's right and what's wrong, you often find it much harder to do whatever you feel like.

For the record, nothing about faith requires a lack of evidence, or God forbid, an irrational philosophy of knowledge.  Thinkers won't be forced out of Heaven for being thinkers.  Only for being impenitent sinners.

So, in summary, this book is about presenting a convincing case for the divinity of Jesus, and it does an excellent job.  There's not much more to say about it than that.
1105153
The author provides the reader with a careful survey of the New Testament writings that have come to represent the life and teachings of Jesus.  In doing so, he asks us to imagine the world that was the source of these writings--one that existed well before modern printing, editing, and journalism.  He makes it clear that the various writers who composed the Gospels, Pauline letters, and so fourth were often unaware of each others writings; while at other times they borrowed from each others work.  The working of these many hands led to various issues becoming clouded.  For example, was the kingdom of God immediately at hand and about to arrive before the last of the disciples died, or was this event to occur in the distant future?  It also seemed that the Pauline letters were written without any knowledge of Jesus' supposed biography.  Such discrepancies are in keeping with the account of a life that is largely legendary--which is the central and well-argued point of the author.

The discussion of the Gospel of Mark is of particular interest.  It is generally believed that Mark was written before the other four Gospels, and that the Gospels Matthew and Luke borrowed heavily from Mark.  Therefore, Mark is closer to the origin of the Jesus legend than the other Gospels.  The author views Mark as a literary work where drama is enhanced at the expense of realism.  For example, the disciples are shown as unable to understand Jesus' parables--which made them seem impossibly dull!  This dullness, however, served a dramatic purpose in that they were later able to understand after the Resurrection.  He also observes that some aspects of the Gospel of Mark may reflect the conflict between Christian and Jewish communities during the time that the book was written (70-100 AD?)--rather than the situation characteristic of 30 AD Palestine.  I would also make an additional observation, that the attempt of the gospels to present Christianity as an otherworldly religion that does not challenge Roman temporal power, was meant to aid Christians at the time of the Gospels' composition.
4156459
Title: Youth Ministry 3.0: A Manifesto Of Where We've Been, Where We Are, And Where We Need To Go by Mark Oestreicher.

Pages: 155.

Time spent on the "to read" shelf: None. I read it right away.

Days spent reading it: 1 afternoon.

Why I read it: I'm a youth pastor, so I figured I'd like to hear what Mark Oestreicher had to say about where youth ministry needed to go. Mark Oestreicher (aka Marko) is president of Youth Specialties, a leading company in youth ministry resources. I heard about this book through Marko's blog ([...]).

Brief review: Youth Ministry 3.0 is Marko's attempt to talk about the previous, current, and future direction of youth ministry. The book includes a brief discussion about adolescent development, a brief history of youth ministry since post-WWII, and then a few suggestions on how we can take youth ministry to the next step.

The center thesis of this book seems to be that youth ministry has gone through two phases already, and is about to enter the third phase. Phase one was driven by proclamation. It was centered around evangelism and teaching. Phase two was driven by programs. "Bigger is better" would be a favorite slogan. This phase focused on discipleship. Many churches are in this phase right now. But as youth ministers we know there is something wrong. Kids are dropping out at ridiculous rates (it is not uncommon to hear statistics that 80% of kids drop out of church after high school, this number seems to be inflated, but you get the picture). We know somethings wrong, so what do we do? Marko proposes phase three which would not be driven by any particular motivator. Instead it is present (or incarnational).

So the question is obviously how do we get to an incarnational ministry from a program (or even proclomation) driven ministry? Marko offers up a few solutions. We can focus on smaller groups, and literally have a youth group for each sub-culture in our youth. We could focus on making our youth ministries a place for a supra-culture--where everyone comes together and no one group is better or dominate over the other groups. Finally, we could have hybrid of the two. Perhaps a large group for some events, and a small group for others.

Honestly, Marko's ideas are aimed at larger groups. Although he addresses the question of how smaller groups can incorporate this kind of thinking (on pgs. 95-96) it seemed forced. Seeing that I work with about 20-30 students, many of his ideas on how to move to Youth Ministry 3.0 seemed impractical or unnecessary.

I'm not convinced Marko has the solutions, but at least he is willing to think outside of the box to create some discussion about this topic. It is important to wrestle with, and I think this book has created great discussion and thought on where we need to take youth ministry in the upcoming years in order to stay relevant to a culture that changes every single day. One great thought Marko has at the end of the book is that youth ministers need to begin to consider themselves missionaries. We are becoming more and more distant from the culture we are attempting to reach. In order to be effective we need to begin thinking like missionaries. We need to begin studying youth culture like we would other cultures around the world. (Should youth ministers begin to take missions courses in college? That's probably not a bad idea...)

Every youth leader should read this book and wrestle with the thoughts, problems, solutions, and overall structure of their youth ministries. There are many great little gems in this book. I underlined a lot of it as I read and digested the ideas. It only takes about 2 hours to read through. The book is short, the typeset and spacing are large. It is definitely worth the investment.

Favorite quote: "We must live incarnationally, positioning ourselves humbly and openly on the somtimes cold, dark, and scary stairwell to the underground of youth culture."

Stars: 4 out of 5.

Final Word: Challenging.
4355772
In 2009 (a point in time when I had been reading historical Jesus research for almost forty years) I came across a little book entitled The Historical Jesus: Five Views (edited by James K. Beilby and Paul Rhodes Eddy). Four of the five views in that book were so well known to me that I was tempted to return the volume to its place on the bookstore shelf. There was one view, however, that demanded further attention--the view of Robert M. Price "that it is quite likely there never was any historical Jesus" (55). Since reading Price's essay, I've continued to be intrigued by that argument (but I'm not yet fully convinced).

So, when I recently discovered the new book Bart Ehrman and the Quest of the Historical Jesus of Nazareth: An Evaluation of Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist? I bought the Kindle edition and read it. Sadly, in my view, it did not live up to its billing. Let me explain my disappointment.

Like the contributors to this book, I had hoped for more from Ehrman's book Did Jesus Exist?  For example, he certainly could have (and arguably should have) provided his readers a fuller introduction to the work of mythicist researchers (the common designation of those who argue that there never really was an historical Jesus). Nevertheless, Ehrman did provide his audience (educated non-specialists) an adequate summary of the current "scholarly consensus." And it is on that little phrase that I focus my critique of this collection of responses to Ehrman's book.

That there is a long-standing scholarly consensus that Jesus did exist is a fact. If Al Gore were describing the situation, he might call it "an inconvenient truth." Despite Ehrman's explicit acknowledgement that "this [scholarly consensus] is not a piece of evidence" (DJE, 5), the contributors to the present volume invariably insist otherwise. That is, they repeatedly accuse Ehrman of offering only "an appeal to consensus" instead of evidence and argumentation. Of course, those who have actually read Ehrman's book know better. Although I would have liked Ehrman to have done a more thorough job of engaging the mythicist arguments, he did accomplish what he set out to do, which was to explain WHY that "scholarly consensus" remains the prevalent view.

If one is making an extraordinary claim, one must necessarily offer extraordinary evidence; yet that is precisely what is lacking in this collection of essays.

Elsewhere some of these same writers have outlined the best available evidence, and they have offered solid arguments concerning a number of issues (but not all) relevant to the question of whether Jesus existed. However, in my opinion, the present series of responses to Ehrman's book does not represent anything like the best of their work. It is terribly uneven in quality and offers little of substance that isn't already available in their earlier publications.

To be fair, those who want to read and consider the best of what mythicist scholars have to say should read the earlier books of Robert M. Price (an editor & contributor  to the current volume), The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man: How Reliable Is the Gospel Tradition? [2003] and The Christ-Myth Theory and Its Problems [2011]. The latter volume begins with the same essay noted above that provided my own initial introduction to the mythicist view. In addition, Price's previous books will point serious readers to the best of earlier writers whose works would likely be of interest, individuals such as George A. Wells and Earl Doherty.

One final note: In the Preface, Frank R. Zindler writes, "[I]t has been hoped that an authoritative and comprehensive statement of the historicist case would allow for a more focused argument," something he suggests Ehrman has failed to offer. Be that as it may, those who are interested in this subject might ask for something comparable from mythicist writers. Instead of the present hodgepodge of petulant reactions to Ehrman's book, why don't these writers work together to provide "an authoritative and comprehensive statement" of the mythicist case?
2371207
I read this book last week and really enjoyed it; however, while reflecting on it one week later, I'm struggling to decipher exactly what I took away from it.  Miller rightly criticizes many things mainstream US churches do wrong but this sometimes felt to me like he was almost trying too hard to create his own kind of cool Christianity.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciated a lot of what Miller had to say and certainly learned a great deal from him.  I just think he may have erred too far in that direction at times.  Nevertheless, this angle might be an effective part of the approach Miller employs to present the gospel to particular types of people, who are more liberal, artsy, contemplative, intellectual, etc.  Chances are slim that it will be mainline churches who deliver the gospel to them.  But if not those churches, then who will reach them?  They should not be ignored or written off as helplessly evil.  Miller is absolutely right as far as that goes.

This book revealed areas of my life where I am judgmental or self-righteous toward others.  It's a good thing any time one is made aware of sin in his life, so Miller deserves credit there.  But, theologically, I'm not sure I gained much from this book.  His comments on Christian spirituality were vague enough to potentially steer readers off in a wrong direction.  Also, his calls for Christian emphasis on social justice is presumptuous because it assumes that justice is best achieved through governmental means.  I disagree with Miller here because a) I don't think that presupposition is Biblically sound and b) if social justice is to be sought after, it is better achieved through means other than the state.

Despite my gripes, though, I enjoyed reading this book.  I recommend it to all Christians as well as non-Christians who are either searching for spiritual answers or are already intrigued by the gospel.
2968168
Dear brothers and sisters in Christ,

I urge you to beware of this book and its lies. Rob Bell has done a fine job of manipulating and twisting the foundational truths of Christianity. This book will seem most appealing to new Christians, who may not be well versed or educated in the Word of God, as well as older Christians who are looking for something to jump start thier weak faith.

I admit, sometimes its useful to pick up a good book so we can experience God in a new way, but we must remember, that the Gospel, the good news of Jesus Christ never changes. God is the same today, yesterday and forever. There are no mysteries or hidden truths in the bible. The bible simply means exactly what it says. But according to Rob Bell, "The more people insist that they are just taking the Bible for what it says, the more skeptical I get." A very interesting statement from a so-called Christian. Rob Bell also believes the bible to be completely mysterious and opened to interpretation. I find this interesting because the Bible tells us "All scripture is God-breathed and is useful in training, rebuking, correcting and teaching in righteousness, so that the man of God will be thoroughly equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:16) If the bible is opened to interpration, how could it be useful in these four attirbutes listed above? It couldn't be, because there would be no absolutes. It would be too confusing, too hard to follow, too opened to interpretation.

Rob Bell also makes the comment of, "Sometimes, when people are backing up thier points and the Bible is used to prove they are right, everything within me says "There is no way that's what God meant by that verse." I counted three ill-used verses before the end of the 2nd chapter, so I guess you could say that this statement would be no different than a Hypocrite calling another man a hypocrite. Didn't Jesus mention something against telling your brother about the plank in his eye?

Rob Bell also suggests that God ordered the massacre of innocent people when he sent the Israelites to take over Jericho. For Rob to make the statement that our loving, gracious and just God would demand the violent slaughter of innocent people is absolutely revolting and is flat-out blasphamy. The inhabitants of Jericho were NOT without sin. On the contrary, they were as bad.....and possibly even worse...then the Egyptians. To make such a statement is to call God a liar. To make such a statement is to condemn your very own soul.

Rob Bell also condemns an evangelistic woman he knows who urges others to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ so they can know God the Father. He believes that since the phrase 'personal relationship' isn't found anywhere in the bible, that somebody made up this phrase then said you could have one with God. Again, this is in complete contrast with the very teachings of Jesus Christ himself, who desperately wants and hopes for a personal relationship with all of his creation. God told Moses "I am passionate about my relationship with you." And 2 John 9 says "...Anyone who remains in the teaching of Christ has a relationship with both the Father and the Son."

The Velvet Elvis is an attempt to repaint the Christian faith. It is the replacement of God's precious truth with Satan's lies. Rob Bell could be considered a false prophet. I am saddened that so many Christians have fallen into this false doctrine and New Age philosophy of his. Rob believes himself to be a Christian, yet he doesn't seem to have faith in Christ. He has never been to any seminary, and even states that he 'teaches and tries to understand the bible." Shouldn't one understand the bible before he teaches it? This would be a warning come to pass when Jesus told the parable of the blind leading the blind.

If your looking for a book to jumpstart your faith, recommend to a new Christian, or even just a good read, try "Everyday with Jesus" by Greg Laurie, or any book by Max Lucado.
4910455
I am very glad, and blessed to be a part of the blogger review team with Thomas Nelson Publishing. The biggest challenge I have is managing to find time to read the books...I working hard to get better at this discipline. It will just take me a bit to get to that point...but, believe it or not, it is getting easier; I am slowly getting myself into a rhythm.

I am always interested in books regarding entrepeneurship and the book "Knockout Entrepreneurship" really had my attention as I knew of George Foreman's strong stand for Christ and his work with troubled kids.

Overall the book was okay.  It was not outstanding as Foreman seemed to steer clear of presenting Christ as the foundation for anybody being successful in life and spent more time focusing on stories about his adventures in life and how "he" achieved his success.  The tone of the book came off very prideful and self centered not something that I would have thought a minister of the Gospel would have written. So, basically, I cannot recommend this book as it does not really do anything to help me pursue Christ as the foundation of my success.
1764510
Instead of sticking with the more traditional (and often ubiquitous) word discipleship, Thomas asserts apprentice is a better translation for the biblical idea of discipleship. For Hawkins, this is true primarily in being apprenticed to Jesus, but also in being apprenticed within a discipling community. Hawkins seeks to shift us beyond learning solely for information toward learning in an apprenticeship model, where we learn by observing and doing.
I wish, however, that Hawkins would have stuck with what I took to be his thesis at the end of the first chapter when he states, Jesus calls a community of disciples who will do what he did - heal, announce, and teach. I felt a bit let down that he didn't pursue Jesus apprentices as those who heal, announce, and teach. Instead, Hawkins structures the book around the discipleship attributes of apprentice, witness, and freedom.
 By focusing on an apprenticeship model over a knowledge-based understanding of discipleship, Hawkins not only shows the weakness of Sunday school models of discipleship, but also cautions against small groups as the simplistic, trendy solution. About the still prevalent Sunday school model, Hawkins is correct to point out that it relies on individualistic and consumerist assumptions about adult learning (113). Hawkins then notes how some small groups are not much different from Sunday school because they too can be based on modern educational pedagogies (101 style classes), have vague goals, and fall into the same cultural assumptions as Sunday school.
Hawkins describes discipleship as a journey with four stages: inquiry, call, growth, and maturity. He uses a couple of different images, most notably that of the journey from seed to harvest, to get at the process of discipleship. He also shows how discipleship corresponds to the more traditional Wesleyan terminology of prevenient, justifying, and sanctifying grace. While his attempt is more than a nod to Wesley, my guess is many will wish he had covered this in more depth.
Thankfully, Hawkins book is not vague or overly simplified. He gives helpful images, explains his understanding of discipleship, spells out what growth as a disciple looks like. Additionally, he provides valuable illustrations, charts, and structures for church leaders reflection.
In the end, Hawkins spells out discipleship in a Wesleyan way better than most. I am often skittish when it comes to making charts and stages regarding the divine/human relationship that forms discipleship. Hawkins acknowledges this as well: It is important to remember that the flow of phases and practices of discipleship formation is neither linear nor sequential (106). Hawkins is able to blend biblical resources, research, and practical advice and charts useful for church leaders. He combines describing the process of discipleship (where the book excels), a process for churches to help implement discipleship, and assessment of discipleship in a readable format. For readability, practical wisdom, and some Wesleyan emphasis, Apprenticed to Jesus can be a helpful start in strategizing for discipleship making.
69092
What is the church supposed to look like? Is it the club of similar people that many of us know, or is it an outpost of Gods kingdom that consists of a group of people who would never get along if it weren't for Gods grace? Prolific New Testament scholar Scot McKnight has written a book exploring this question (I call him prolific because I was about to call this book his latest, but it came out in February so now Im not so sure).

The book, A Fellowship of Differents: Showing Gods Design for Life Together, draws on the letters of the Apostle Paul (and the analogy of a salad bowl) to argue that the local church should be a diverse group of people who become a new kind of family that is only made possible by grace and love. He writes, A good salad is a fellowship of different tastes, all mixed together with the olive oil accentuating the taste of each. The church is supposed to transcend difference, while honoring difference at the same time.

McKnight further argues that the church shapes discipleship. That is, for ordinary Christians, what they  experience at church is what the Christian life is for them. This means that there should be diversity in church. There should be different races, genders, socioeconomic groups, cultures, styles, histories, ages, marital statuses. For churches to achieve this diversity, McKnight writes, the Christian life in those churches needs to be characterized by six themes: grace, love, table fellowship, holiness, newness, and flourishing.

I mentioned above that McKnight is a New Testament scholar, but over the years he has learned to write for a popular audience, not just seminary graduates like me. It is a testament to how successful he has been at this transformation that at various times in the book I wanted to share it with people in my church, as well as people who regard themselves as spiritual but aren't part of a church. Sometimes I would come across an analogy in the book and think, Well, thats corny. But then I had to remind myself: Snooty overeducated types like me aren't the main audience for this book.

The classic exploration of Christian community is Dietrich Bonhoeffer's Life Together. This book won't replace that one, but I think it can supplement it for our time. I hope this book does find a large audience among people who love the church, are frustrated by the church, or don't see the need for a church, and I hope they're inspired by what God intended the church to be.

Note: Thanks to the publisher for a review copy of this book. I was not asked to give a positive review.
626841
Call me a disciple, if you will.  Someone linked to someone who linked to ... through a myriad of weblog links I found myself at RealLivePreacher.com and became hooked with the first sentence.

My copy of Preacher's book came in the mail today and my own muse hit with a fury after I dipped into it.

"It arrived in a plain bubble wrap envelope and was sitting in the mailbox at home. As soon as I saw it, I knew what it was. Something I was anxious to read. I plucked it out of the box, hoping the rain hadn't damaged the book inside. Nervously, I opened the envelope full of hope and pulled the book out; no damage. As I squeezed between the recycle bin and the shed to put the envelope in the trash can, my hands shook as I opened it.

What would the inscription say? Did they even remember to send it to the author for signature? He doesn't know me from anyone. Well, maybe as that woman who has sent him more than a couple of emails basically saying, 'your blog piece on this really touched me.' He also knows me as that woman who asked him to read a story of hers. Gracious man that he is, he read it and replied. I held my breath and found it, 'Hi Stephanie, peace!' Cool.

As I squeezed back out to the driveway, I completely forgot about the groceries in Car's backseat. Randomly flipping pages, I stopped on a two page piece and started reading. The words sucked me in, I was completely transfixed. It was like jumping into a really comfortable swimming pool and staying under for the sheer joy of it.

I forced myself to go back and read the parts I skimmed over because I was so anxious to read it. The topic was fundamentalism. As I read, I wondered how one of the people I work with would feel were she to read these words. That thought lasted a femto-second as I kept reading. At the end of the piece, I breathed and came out of the book. There, in the cool air that promised more rain, I had lost track. I stood in my driveway, looked at the cover and blinked. Darn, now I have to put the groceries away.

The book is RealLivePreacher.com and all I have to say is, 'Thanks, Preacher and peace to you too.'"

Read Preacher's book and you'll understand why his readers are so devoted.
3390197
Does the title of this book arouse your curiosity? If you are a Southern Baptist, it should. If you are a Christian and follow the world of Christianity, it should. Serving as a Southern Baptist pastor, it sure piqued my interest. What's this volume all about  projection, prediction, propaganda?

First, let's get into the basics of the book. The formal title is The SBC in the 21st Century: Reflection, Renewal, & Recommitment. It is written by an all-star cast of Southern Baptists. You know  the likes of seminary presidents and professors, SBC presidents (former) and a few other SB luminaries. It was edited by Jason K. Allen, president of Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and published by B&H Academic, a division of Lifeway.

The volume is sectioned off into three distinct divisions with an Introduction and Conclusion (those written by the editor). The first section, Southern Baptist Convention and Cooperation, is historical both in prose and statistics. If you have a numerical interest in Southern Baptist history, Thom Rainer, currently in charge of Lifeway, contributed an essay analyzing the historical numbers of the SBC. It is highly informative.

Section two is Southern Baptist Doctrine and Distinctives. It is this section I found most appealing, particularly the essays by Christian George, Downgrade: Twenty-First-Century Lessons from Nineteenth-Century Baptists, and Owen Strachan, Steel-Toed Birkenstocks and Doctrine-Loving Christians: Southern Baptist Witness and Ethics in the New Sexual Age. George is the curator of the Spurgeon Library at Midwestern and make a compelling comparison between Spurgeon downgrade challenge and the present day. Strachan takes on the issue of sexuality in the church in todays culture.

The third section is entitled Southern Baptist Ministry and Mission. In summary, its a Whats Up and a Whats Going to be Up series of essays. Pay attention to the entries by Jason Allen concerning the training of new Christian workers and by Tony Merida on Southern Baptist preaching in the 21st century.

I will admit I was pleasantly surprised that there were only hints of propaganda in the book. It is rich in history and how we as Southern Baptists can draw from that history to present the Gospel in the 21st century. The overall emphasis presents a challenge. If you are at all involved in ministry or leadership in the Southern Baptist Convention, The SBC in the 21st Century is a volume that should must be read. If your pastor is unaware of the book, do him a favor and buy him a copy.

Disclaimer: This book was provided to me by B&H Academic for a fair and honest review.
2823505
While the book has many good ideas related to the right or biblical way to evangelize, the author (Mr. Touchton) negates the good found in the book by espouses a Calvinistic interpretation of the word "world" which is found in John 3:16.

First, that Gods love is for all men of the world, including even wicked unbelievers, is made certain by John 12:47.  As for the person who hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge him. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save it.  Note carefully how Jesus used the term world in John 12:47, in which he used the term world to include all unbelieving sinners, even those who would not keep or embrace His teachings. The clear testimony of scripture is that Jesus never used the term world to refer to the elect or to believers. In fact, Jesus repeatedly identified believers or the elect as being separate from the world of sinners (See John 14:27, 30; 15:18, 19; 16:11, 33; 17: 6, 9, 11, 1416, 25).  Thus, Jesus repeatedly used the term world to refer to the world of sinful humanity. Jesus never used the term world (Gk. cosmos) to refer to the elect. Rather, Jesus used the word eklektos to refer to the elect (Matthew 22:22, 24, 31; Luke 18:7).

The whole context of John 3:16 is focused on Jesus trying to change the faulty thinking of Nicodemus the Pharisee who believed that only the legalistic Jews were loved by God and that God does not love the whole sinful Gentile world. Interestingly, Calvinists have fallen back into the same way of thinking as the Pharisees, in that Calvinists state that Gods love is limited to the elect and that it does not extend to the whole sinful world. Remember, the Pharisees thought that the Jewish people were the only ones who were loved by God and elected for salvation. The Pharisees thought that the Gentiles were automatically damned by God. Like the Pharisees of old, the Calvinists of today think that they have God all figured out and that Gods love cannot possibly extend to the entire world as is clearly stated in John 3:16, 17 and John 12:47. God loves all mankind in the sense that He has provide the way and the means for all sinners to come to Him through Christ (John 14:6 and 1 John 2:2).

Secondly, God the Father sent His son Jesus into the world.  Note carefully that Jesus was not just sent just to the elect. John 12:47 makes this clear. At the time that Jesus was sent into the world, the elect was part of the world that Jesus was sent into, but so were all the sinful masses. Therefore, since Jesus was sent into the world of sinful humanitywhich included not only the elect but all those who would not believewe can safely say that the world does not refer to the elect alone. Again, John 12:47 makes this perfectly clear.
Note carefully how Jesus used the word world in John 12:47:

As for the person who hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge him. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save it,  (John 12:47).

In my opinion, it is indeed unfortunate that the good found in Mr. Touchton's book is totally undone by interjecting the doctrine of a men (John Calvin and his apologists).

Sincerely,
harry Murphy
1222769
There is wide interest about the life of Jesus, Paul and other early figures of Christianity and this book offers much more information than can be obtained by simply reading passages in the Bible. However, I have  certain reservations  that cause me to take some of the information with a  grain of salt.  I recall reading an account of an interview with a famous  author about his newly published book. Literary critics had developed  various theories about the "deeper meanings" in a particular passage, and  the author was asked which of the theories, if any, were correct. The  author replied "none of them" because he had intended no "deeper meaning"  in that particular passage. I am sure that if the author had died before  revealing this position that the scholarly debate over the "deeper meaning"  would still be continuing to this day.
In science there is a vague  concept I like to call "The Sufficiency of Information". It is possible to  take measurements in which the readings are close to the limits of accuracy  of the equipment. Trying to force meaning out of the data is in this case  very misleading and close to the phenomenon of seeing faces and other  shapes in the clouds. At such a point the resultant meaning  is coming from  the mind of the observer and not from the data itself.
In Cahill's book  he discusses the different Gospel versions of some of the accounts in the  life of Jesus. One of these struck me particularly as bordering on the  phenomenon I discussed above.  Mark 10:29 "There is no man that hath left  house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children,  or lands, for my sake, and the gospel's, ... "
Significance is attached  and analyzed regarding the slightly differing wordings in the Matthew and  Luke versions (e.g. Luke omits "sisters" and "lands", Matthew omits  Gospel's").
Perhaps I am just a skeptic at heart, but it seems to me that  just as one can not see the message and beauty of a painting by examining  the brushstrokes under a magnifying glass, one can not appreciate the  intent of the messages in the Gospels by analyzing in minute detail the  particular choice of words used by the different human authors. If we  believe that God inspired these messages, it seems to me that he would not  necessarily consider that there is great significance in the minutia we see  here, but instead would prefer that we stand back and focus on the  important messages that the authors were inspired to convey.
If we are  not careful we may not see the forest for all those pesky trees.
185451
Pretty interesting book. Really deals with ethics and provides a framework for ethics in the real world. He argues that real world situations don't necessarily have the perfect ethical answer.
His theological framework is this:

1) Creation mandate - was never revoked. Still continues
2) The greatest commandment - Love God and Love others.

Other commandments are all subordinate to these commandments and should be read within the context of these commands. For example, the great commission exists because if we make disciples, we're loving them by introducing them to God, and we're loving God by getting more people to worship him. He concludes that because of this framework, it's okay that we do not know the consequences of every action that we do. Sure, if we go to war there might be some unintended or unforeseen consequences. But because we're seeking to fulfill these commandments above, overall good is being done.

He then applies a lot of specific issues to this theological framework. For example, should we go to war? Stackhouse argues that if it is a just war, we should go to war while acknowledging that peace is the ultimate answer. It might not be the answer right now in this real world situation that is corrupted by sin, but in the future, peace will be the answer. So we go to war, knowing that it's not completely right, but God is okay with that. On top of that, there could be another group of people that believe in pacifism. God might be telling them to protest the war. So God's will is captured in that 1) we went to war but 2) there are people protesting the war. In that tension is where God is really at.

He deals with a lot of the stuff that the emerging church people have been trying to address but he doesn't talk about the emerging church movement or anything.

The first half of the book is pretty boring though, where he talks about the history of this type of ethic, the Niebuhrs, Bonhoffer, CS Lewis and how those people approached it. His theological framework is also not very encompassing. It doesn't address every aspect of the bible and it doesn't seem very well integrated. He seems to elevate the creation mandate to the same level as the greatest commandment without much reasoning behind that. It's also not very gospel integrated. NT Wright's theological framework is much more Christ and gospel centered and shows how the two commandments really relate to each other and are necessary for each other. But Stackhouse didn't bring those aspects of the gospel in. It seems like there are just two separate commandments.

Another issue with the book is, who is he writing this book to?  Is it a scholarly work?  Or is it made for laypeople?  It seems like a cross between both due to the fact that there are a lot of unnecessary illustrations if it's for scholars.  He also doesn't need to summarize Neibuhrs, Lewis and Bonhoffer in such depth.  Yet if it's written for laypeople, they'd get lost in the background and want him to get to his point sooner.

Overall, some of his points are extremely interesting dealing with realism and operating as a Christian in the real world.  If you get the book, skip the first half and read the ones where he talks about his own opinion and his theological framework.
4684325
"Justification by faith" is not the total thrust of Paul's message, according to Fee, as it is too narrowly focused.  The life of the Holy Spirit has been minimalized in the church when it should be an  experienced reality.  The Spirit enables us to live an ethical, holy life,  not by some New Testament rule-keeping, but by "walking in the  Spirit".  This Spirit-life is lived in a now/not yet existence inwhich  kingdom life has begun, but is still yet to be fulfilled.  Fee rules out  "triumphalism" inwhich the "not yet" side of  eschatology is supposedly "now".  Fee maintains that the  charismata(gifts of the Spirit) are mentioned by Paul in a passing,  matter-of-fact sort of way, as they were the common experience of the early  church.  Paul's "theology" is not of the armchair type as Paul's  letters were written to correct problems.  I urge those of the Reformed and  those of the Dispensationalist stripe(not to mention Baptists) would do  themselves a favor by reading this book.  Fee is a Pentecostal, true, but  doesn't toe the Pentecostal line on everything.  He agrees with Calvin that  the true saints perservere to the end!  Pentecostals and Charismatics who  think for themselves will find much to ponder.  MAKE SURE TO READ THE  APPENDIX FOR FEE'S VIEW ON THE "BAPTISM OF THE SPIRIT".  Fee is a  first-rate biblical scholar and one would be poorer for ignoring this book.  The fact that he doesn't fit perfectly in anyone theological  "box" shows his attempt to be true to his reading of the  scriptures.
2703953
This is a relatively short book for a church history, containing seven chapters, of about 20 pages each, on what Kaatz believes to be key developments in the early church that are generally "under reported". It is not designed to be a comprehensive church history by any means.

The topics covered are: Chapter One: Paul and the Early Christians; Chapter Two: The Early Defenders of the Faith; Chapter Three: Marcion: A New Interpretation; Chapter Four: The Manichaeans; Chapter Five: The Christianizing of the Empire; Chapter Six: Arianism; Chapter Seven: The Power of the Bishops.

Kaatz writes with an awareness of critical issues such as the authenticity of the Pauline letters but does not make a big deal of such - though he states that the apostle Luke was the author of Luke (and Acts) without noting widespread scholarly dissent about this, so he is not overly critical focused in his scholarship, trying to answer every possible objection.

I enjoyed reading his book and think that it is a decent introduction to some interesting topics in church history, however this book is marred by sloppy editing, just too many instances of verbal nonsense or the wrong word - relying on spell check I assume.

Still if one can find it at the library, I definitely recommend reading it as it is not too scholarly in tone and the last two chapters are really interesting especially in light of continuing United States of America and Canadian government subsidies to religious organizations in the form of tax write-offs and exemptions.

I should add that there are numerous occasions where he makes rather debateable statements. One example is his claim (pages 27-28) that Gentile Christians did not mix Jewish and Christian traditions, while many Jewish Christians did without providing the evidence for such. Strangely, he even expects the Jewish communities to have repudiated Judaism rather than Pharisaic interpretations, perhaps, of such. I would also counter argue that Jewish festivals might be something that Gentiles could embrace without too much trouble as opposed to circumcision which their non-Christian Gentile neighbours would notice at the baths and gymnasia - their self mutilation would become evident in Greco-Roman culture. Indeed, if God fearers, that is Gentiles attending synagogue and community functions, had been a prime target of the early Christian mission while trying to win the Jews over, then I would expect God fearers to have participated in synagogue worship, study, meals, and community festivals and events prior to Christian conversion, even if they did not keep strict Jewish dietary laws and practice circumcision. Paul, though a missionary to the Gentiles had the habit of going first to the synagogue when he came to a new city, suggesting that he focused on converting the Gentiles that hung around the Jewish community as much as anyone else. Hence, I am not convinced that former Gentiles, now Christians, would have been so unattached to things Jewish. So to my mind some of his claims are questionable as in this example.