"Jesus Made In America"

I had the pleasure of recently meeting Stephen J. Nichols at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary where he was participating in a conference on Southern Seminary and American history. I really enjoyed his paper presentation and I have really enjoyed his latest book "Jesus Made In America: A Cultural History From the Puritans to the Passion of the Christ."

The book does what the title suggests. Beginning with the Puritans and ending with modern Evangelicalism, Nichols traces the belief and doctrine of Christology in the American Church. At the end, I must admit, although we started off wrong, we have ended in horrendous fashion.

The Puritans, though primarily mocked today in America, at least cared about the text of Scripture, what it meant and what it means. The Puritans wanted a pure Christianity as laid out in Scripture. As a Baptist, I disagree with some of their conclusions and beliefs, but at least they took Scripture seriously and raised their children to be godly.

But since the Puritans, our Christology in America has only gotten worse. Nichols traces this history with a scholars mind, but with the skill of a great orator. He allows humor, but also careful Scriptural and historical critique of each movements main leaders, pastors, scholars, and events.

The chapter I found most insightful was the one on the Jesus People movement and Contemporary Christian Music. As someone that has spent much time following the bands, the history, the festivals, and everything else around Christian music and products, I was could not agree more with Nichols assessment.

Nichols makes a few points (and this will not be an exhaustive list) regarding this movement that has affected our culture's understanding of Christology. First, Nichols notes that much of the lyrics in the CCM world today can be confused with everyday romance songs. Sing words like "I need you," can be applied to both Jesus or your girlfriend. Nichols provides many many examples of this trait throughout the movement using many different bands of different genres. This trend has attributed to the "lackluster intellectual rife in American evangelicalism" (128)

Furthermore, Nichols points to the danger of consumerism. Christianity and her Christ has become nothing more than a product to sell rather than a Savior to worship. This trend has had horrendous results. Christian products emphasize the self mirroring many self-help books in the secular world. Furthermore, books on the atonement, theology, Church history, practical living, etc. are rather absent because they do not entertain quit as well as the Joel Osteens of the world.

One possible solution to these things, Nichols points out, can be seen from the CCM world itself. Artist Steve Camp once wrote his 107 Theses to Reform the CCM world. Nichols points out Theses 41: "Christian music, originally called Jesus Music, once fearlessly sang clearly about the gospel. Now it yodels of a Christ-less, watered down, pabulum-based, positive alternative, aura-fluff, cream of wheat, mush-kind-of-syrupy, God-as-my-girlfriend kind of thing." The solution, it would seem, would be to return to the gospel and let the music reflect the gospel. But then again, whenever Christianity is for sale, the gospel becomes less entertaining.

Nichols also looks at movies and plays of Christ. Here I want to mention two dangers he points out. First, no matter how hard we try, after viewing a movie about Christ, for example Mel Gibson's The Passion of Christ, whenever we come to the Gospels, we will view Jesus through the lens of that actor. I find myself doing this. Oftentimes I picture Jim Caveziel (The Passion of the Christ) or Henry Ian Cusick (The Gospel of John). To modernize Jesus can be dangerous.

Second, movies about Christ must emphasize Christ's humanity. It is very difficult to show the divinity of Christ on screen. For one, it is less entertaining because Christ becomes more of a superhero than a Jewish carpenter. Secondly, it gets to be a bit cheesy, Christ becomes a cheap magician. As a result, Americans are placing more emphasis on Christ's humanity over His divinity. As Christians, a healthy balance of both should be emphasized.

Although Nichols is not saying, "Thou shalt not watch such movies," his words do cause us to rethink the issue. I loved Gibson's film and found it incredible and a reminder of what Christ did because of my sin, but there are many dangers in it. As Christians, we should be more careful and discerning in what we view, what we take in, and how it affects our faith, our understanding of the gospel, and our theology.

I really enjoyed this book. More could be said and discussed. One good example would be the dual Nichols presents between Henry Emerson Fosdick and J. Greshem Mechen. But I will end the review here. Anyone interested in a scholarly, yet from someone not locked in a tower and down to earth, survey of American Christianity Christology since the Puritans, I can think of no one better than Stephen Nichols and this book. I had the pleasure of meeting him and talking with him. And I encourage everyone to give this book a try.

"The Great Awakening" Part 2

In Part 1, I laid out a number of problems I had with Jim Wallis' book, "The Great Awakening: Reviving Faith & Politics in a Post-Religious Right America." I want to turn to more problems I had with this book. Again, it should be pointed out that these are not exhaustive and more could be said. The major problem I have with Wallis is with his understanding of the gospel. Because he gets it wrong, everything else has fallen apart.

ABORTION AND MARRIAGE ARE DEFINING ISSUES

Another common theme among Progressive Evangelicals like Wallis is the argument that the Religious Right only cares about fighting against homosexual marriage and abortion. Wallis wants Christians to broaden the scope to issues like global warming, justice, poverty, war and peace, racism, and many more issues. What Wallis offers is bigger government to solve these problems.

For example, Wallis suggests that some form of reparations should be issued to African-Americans because of slavery and racism of the past. No one disagrees on the horrendous things that whites did to blacks for too long in this country. He argues, "most of the slavery apology resolutions in the southern states are just that - apologies without reference to restitution" (164). He goes on to argue that "affirmative action" was never truly an effort to take national responsibility for racism (165).

His main argument here is that Americans have only apologized for our racist past but have not shown the fruits of repentance. I find this simply appalling. First, we did more than just apologize. Thanks to great and honorable men like President Abraham Lincoln, America not only apologized to slaves, but gave them the freedom that was rightly theirs. Blacks now had the same rights, for the most part, that whites had. Grant it, there remained a lot of racism above and below the Mason Dixon Line. However, restitution was laid by freeing slaves (which they more than deserved, it was their right) and after decades of more bigotry and hatred, other leaders gave restitution and repentance (not mere apology) to blacks by banning segregation laws.

If Wallis wants equality for both race and sex, then he will be consistent with that world view. To write suggesting reparations (though he may not want that) is not equality but stealing from one race to give to another what is not theirs. That is racism. Only the gospel can solve this issue. We are made in God's imagine. Therefore, whenever we see each other, regardless the race or sex, we see the image of God. And it is beautiful.

Again, government is not the answer, the gospel is the answer.

But though poverty and racism are critical issues, they are not primary issues. Why? As long as we are murdering our own children, we will never overcome racism, sexism, or poverty. Until we stop killing one another, how we treat one another doesn't make much of a difference. Until we learn to love everyone and give them the right to live, regardless of their age or handicap, we will never solve social problems within our nation.

Therefore, issues like abortion and homosexuality are primary issues.

But the solutions put forth by Wallis on these issues are nothing short of appalling. Wallis supports abortion reduction. Abortion reduction only adds to the problem, it does not solve it. Whenever one has a worldview that believes that all life is sacred, then limiting the number murdered in cold blood doesn't change a thing. Furthermore, at what point of reduction would Wallis and others like him be satisfied? If only a million were killed a year, would they be content? If only a thousand were killed a year, would they be content?

Abortion Reductionists argue that the reason for abortion is primarily due to socio-economic reasons. Therefore, they want to end poverty. No. We must first end the culture of death as a solution to our problems of socio-economics.

As for the issue of homosexuality, marriage defines a culture. To redefine marriage and sexuality are definitive issues. Marriage is a gospel issue. Not just because the Bible says that homosexuality, and other abominations, are wrong, but because marriage is to be a model of the gospel. Scripture is clear (see especially Eph. 5) that marriage is to reflect Christ's relationship with His Bride, the Church. Christ died for His Bride. So too, each spouse is to sacrifice for the other. Therefore to redefine marriage is a gospel issue.

I wish Wallis and others like him would embrace the cross and the message of the gospel and be consistent with that one and only Christian worldview, rather than lecture us as being distracted by just 2 issues writing them off as somehow equal to other issues. Marriage and murder are definitive issues.

Progressive Evangelicals like Wallis might offer answers, but the answers they offer are simply wrong.

GLOBAL WARMING

Finally, Wallis is vehement in his call to solve the global warming crisis. Global warming has become a serious issues for Christians to think about and since the release of Al Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth," the issue has only become bigger. But Wallis is clear what he thinks about the issue: "Christians, especially ones associated with the term 'evangelical,' are part of the problem, not part of the solution." (139). So to Wallis, Christians are part of the problem, and rarely part of the solution when it comes to the issue of climate change.

But I have two major problems with Wallis' assessment and proposed solution to the problem.

First, despite what Wallis may claim, the debate isn't over. In fact, the debate is only getting more divisive. I find it funny that I happen to have read this book (which I only read because I am working on my thesis) we just recovered from one of the worse ice storms in Kentucky history, that one storm caused our church to cancel the first week and then have it in our basement the second week. Thousands of people did not have power for weeks due to ice.

The debate continues not just because it is the middle of winter but because the evidence remains inconclusive. Though Wallis writes: "there is little reasonable doubt left about the threat posed to the earth by global warming" (147). And yet, a number of scientist have come out giving seriously reasons for why to doubt the global warming argument not to mention the fact that the whole movement seems to be more about big government than solving problems.

Which leads to the second point. If Wallis is serious about solving this "crisis," then he should lead by example. Note the following text:

"The point [is] that slow incremental action to counter climate change is no longer enough, that only dramatic and transformational action will ow suffice." (150).

I am left scratching my head. Wallis is writing a book that requires "precious" resources from our planet, like trees which provide needed oxygen for us and takes in our carbon dioxide to survive thus benefits us in a number of ways, while lecturing us about using up those resources. Furthermore, this book is the result of the success of his previous book, "God's Politics." That book was a best seller which means more resources were used to print those books.

Also, Wallis speaks frequently, and proudly, that he has traveled around the country and even around the world lecturing, preaching, talking, participating, and listening to the country and the world. I am left wondering how huge his carbon footprint must be. I am willing to bet that the majority of people that read his books have a much smaller carbon footprint than Wallis and yet he is lecturing us about making "dramatic and transformational action" to solve this crisis?

How dramatic is he calling for? And will such action apply to him? Shouldn't he stop traveling and writing books? It is one thing to say we need to solve this crisis, it is another thing to be hypocritical as you call for solutions. Wallis' own words indite him and he should be ashamed of himself.

I personally doubt the reality of human caused global warming. I will not go into why. But regardless of what I believe, the hypocrisy I see among the fear-mongers regarding this issue cause me to doubt this "crisis" even more. If it is so serious, then why haven't they changed? Wallis might offer solutions, but apparently he doesn't think he should abide by them.

In light of all of this, and more, no wonder Christians aren't as involved in global warming as Wallis would like especially whenever we see the hypocrisy and true agenda of some global warming alarmist.

More could be said regarding Wallis and the global warming but we will not look into them here. Another one that should be mentioned is his bad hermeneutic. For the most part, whenever Wallis turns to Scripture (and this happens throughout the book) he takes verses out of context and completely misinterprets and misapplies them. One example is his use of Deu. 30:19. Also, though Wallis and his Emergent friends emphasize conversation, there is very little offered here.

CONCLUSION

My frustration with Emergent politics is clearly made evident in this two part series. Persons like Jim Wallis, Tony Campolo, and Brian McLaren represent a growing problem in postmodern Christianity. In hopes of being relevant, they become irrelevant. They care more about the culture and opinion polls than the gospel.

Regarding "The Great Awakening," do not be fooled. Wallis, in the end, does not offer a way out of the left vs. right debate, he only complicates it. If Wallis really cared about the gospel and the Kingdom of God, as he claims, then he would proclaim it from the roof tops, like those who lead previous Great Awakenings before him, and let the politics happen as ramification. Let's begin with the soul, and then we'll work on society.

"Jesus Christ paid a price he did not owe because we owe a price that we cannot pay." Let that be the anthem of the New Great Awakening and let us stay away from the "remedies" proposed by Wallis.

"The Great Awakening" Part 1

Something is stirring in the air. Something is changing in American politics and how Christians perceived and vote for candidates. At least that is the argument put forth by Emergent leader Jim Wallis in his book, "The Great Awakening: Reviving Faith & Politics in a Post-Religious Right America."

Wallis is tired of the left vs. right, liberal vs. conservative mode of politics. Wallis offers something new. This is not, he argues, an attack on either side, however, just from the title, it seems clear that Wallis is most frustrated with the Religious Right. To Wallis, the Religious Right has been married to the Republican Party and pro-capitalism, pro-antigay, pro-life, anti-global warming, and anti-big government for too long. Furthermore, Christians have narrowed the scope of their faith in the political realm by only focusing on homosexuality and abortion. Their are other important issues, Wallis argues, that Christians are ignoring because of this marriage such as poverty, global warming, sexism, peace, and racism.

But things are changing and Wallis seeks to show us were to go next.

I have numerous problems with this book and there is no way I can give an exhaustive list of what I found fallous with this book. However, there are some important things to point out in response to Wallis and his belief that this new movement, away from left and right, is the next Great Awakening.

Wallis considers himself a "Progressive Evangelical" (25) and believes that as more follow his direction, a better society will result.

ANOTHER GREAT AWAKENING?

First and foremost, politics does not bring about a Great Awakening. Wallis concedes this point and does not disagree with it. But Wallis is clear that spiritual revivals have political consequences. I do not disagree with that argument, in fact I agree with it. All one must do is look at the issue of abolition of slavery as a result of one of America's Great Awakenings with ministers such as John Wesley and others clearly opposing the institution.

The problem with Wallis is the notion that this Great Awakening is beginning with politics. Though Wallis would say he disagrees with this assessment, he does not act like it. The far majority of Wallis' books, lectures, sermons, articles, blogs, etc. deal with politics. It seems that Wallis, not the religious right, is obsessed with politics.

Therefore, Wallis is guilty of the same crime he accuses the Religious Right. Even if one disagrees with the Religious Right, one must concede that Wallis is falling for the same trap. He has become too invested in politics and falsely believes that politics is the answer to our problems. Politics helps, but politics and government do not solve our problems.

The gospel saves. The gospel heals. The gospel redeems. The gospel solves. Not politics. Not the President. Not government. Not politicians.

While criticising the Religious Right, Wallis and Progressive Evangelicals are guilty of the same sin. This is nothing short of hypocrisy. Wallis writes: "This will clearly be a book about politics, but is about much more than polities. It will also be a book about theology, moral philosophy and spirituality - because politics can be shaped by all three" (26). If this be the case, then why not write about the gospel and let the political ramifications play out naturally? If Wallis is consistent with his purpose and goal, then politics would be a minor part of his books rather than the far majority.

The first and second Great Awakenings were spiritual revivals that just so happened to have politics ramifications. Jonathan Edwards was concerned with the destination of the individuals soul, not their voting habits. "Sinners in the Hand of an Angry God," had nothing to do with politics, but hell, judgment, sin, grace, the cross, Christ, and the gospel. Likewise, John Wesley and others were primarily concerned with the gospel, not social revolution. That does not mean that these men did not care about slavery or any other issue. They did. But, their conviction regarding sin, Scripture, Christ, the cross, God, His holiness, etc. forced them to preach the gospel and it is the gospel that shaped social action.

Wallis thinks the answer to our problems is spirituality. Americans have always been spiritual and that has not changed. Spirituality does not lead to social change, only the gospel can. So rather than lecture the Religious Right about being too occupied about being too political and then turn around and be too occupied with politics while at the same time confusing the order of politics and the gospel to gain social change is foolish and wrong.

The gospel. The gospel. The gospel. Wallis should really begin there!

UTOPIA ON THIS SIDE OF HEAVEN IS FARCE

Another problem I have with Wallis, Progressive Evangelicals, and similar social movements is the false idea of utopia. Humans will never reach utopia no matter how they vote or who is President. Why? The answer is in the gospel.

The gospel says that man is sinful. Man is evil. Man hates God. Man rebels against God and refuses to obey Him. Sin, anger, hate, envy, pride, etc. are spiritual problems. No one can legislate or ban human nature. We are, by nature, children of wrath (Eph. 2). Man is not, at root, good. Rather, man is evil. That means that unless man is saved from his sins, via the cross and resurrection of Christ will full and obedient repentance and sanctification, society will never look for the common good. Society will never reach utopia. Society will never be fair and equal.

The reason we have racism, sexism, murder, theft, corruption, and the rest is because man is corrupt, not because of ecnomics, their home life or anything else.

That means that as long as we look to a politician, things are only going to get worse. A politicians can only solve poverty but stealing someone else's money. A politician can only end war by winning it. This is why politics and politicians are corrupt. Power corrupts. By putting our trust into politicians, political parties, and political/social movements we only add to the problem rather than solve it because we put all of our trust in them rather than in the gospel.

An example of this Utopian worldview comes in his chapter on war, peace, and "nonviolent realism." I agree with Wallis that war should be avoided at all cost. We disagree about whether or not the War in Iraq was the right decision. Wallis is clearly on the left and believes that Iraq was wrong and unjust. But the solutions he offers for global security are naive. To think that we can come together, hug one another, and solve our differences through a summit are ridiculous (I am being a bit sarcastic here only to drive the point).

Wallis believes that there is a better way to solve our global security problems. He writes:

"The good news is that many voices are calling for change, for a deeper vision of global security and a more holistic view of how to confront the genuine threats in our world - a better way...British prime minister Gordon Brown has clearly linked the struggle for social and economic justice with the battle against terrorism and the pursuit of global security...The struggle against 'global terrorism in a new era of global insecurities' includes 'the battle for the hearts and minds that can and will ensure security and justice for all' (250-251)...Increasing economic interdependence of the world will help to make war less attractive, and even encourage a 'humanitarian' approach." (254)

Notice the utopian worldview? The solution to terrorism is to solve their economic struggles. Clearly Wallis knows nothing of the worldview of the terrorist. Osama bin Laden has no problem with money, and yet he still hates us. Sometimes hate has nothing to do with economics. Oftentimes hate needs no reason.

I wish Wallis would understand the Scriptural teaching of sin before he begins telling us how to vote and for whom to vote for. If Wallis understand human nature, he would quickly realize that this entire book will fail. Spirituality is not the answer. I repeat: the gospel is the solution to our problems. Only the gospel can solve human nature and thus solve our problems.

No matter how hard Wallis tries, his solutions or anyone else's will never work because they do not deal with the sin issue. So rather than run around and lecture to people on how to vote, maybe he should run around and spread the gospel to every living soul on earth as Christ commanded us to do!!!!

Utopia will never be reached this side of heaven. This is why Christians pray, "Come quickly Lord Jesus," because only Jesus will bring justice, end of poverty, end of war, suffering, pain, sickness, and death.

Come quickly Lord Jesus! Come quickly!

CHRISTIANS ARE DOING SOMETHING ABOUT POVERTY AND SOCIAL JUSTICE

Thirdly, I am exhaustive at the lie that Emergents, Red Letter Christians, Progressive Evangelicals, and whoever else who say that Christians (by that, they mean the Religious Right) aren't doing anything about poverty. This is simply false.

I have served in ministry for a number of years and have grown up in the church. Every church I have been involved with, for however long, has done much to help the poor and the needy. As pastor, our church is invested in a inter-denominational ministry in the community that helps persons in need with food, clothes, housing, furniture, etc. Where I served as youth pastor we were invested in a similar ministry where we would volunteer our time and energy to help those in need. I have been on mission trips in and out of state and over seas that minister to the physical needs of others.

However, and this is key, we cared more about spiritual needs than physical needs, just as Jesus did. Meeting the needs of others is rooted in our embrace of the cross. Christ gave up everything for us, we must do the same. Therefore we get dirty, we roll up our sleeves, and we do all that we can to help others, but, we do it for the sake of the cross. We make it clear that what drives us to serve is not a politician or a political movement, but the love and mercy of Jesus Christ. A person who meets only physical needs will always have physical needs to meet. But a person who has spiritual needs will find satisfaction in only Jesus Christ.

To say that Christians, that is, the Religious Right, are doing nothing about poverty, racism, environmental issues, etc. is simply false. Most hospitals were started by Christians. Most ministries that help those who are suffering are Christian. If anything, conservative Christianity is doing more for others than any other movement or belief. There is your Great Awakening!

The reason they say this is because the Religious Right isn't doing much politically to solve poverty. The fact that most Christians don't want the government in their lives is not because they don't care about the poor, justice, or peace, but because they believe that it is the responsibility of Christians and society to solve these issues, not government. To many conservative Christians, government will only add to the problem, not solve it.

I am tired of people saying that the Church isn't concerned with poverty and the rest. We are. And we are doing something about it. If only persons like Wallis would open their eyes to reality before writing false accusations about something that he clearly doesn't understand.

Part 2 coming soon.

Welcome to the Family

As a pastor, I have the responsibility to lead the church to evangelize and to disciple. Therefore, much of my responsibility involves teaching, training, and discipling young believers for the purpose of ministry. Prior to my coming to Goshen, we had a few new converts in the church that we baptized. Since their baptisms, I have been wanting to get them, and any new believer in Christ, something more than just a Bible. All new converts get a Bible, but I wanted them to have more. Something that will encourage them and help them as they walk in the light of Christ.

I have found that resource. Pastor, Teacher, Theologian, and radio personality Dr. John MacArthur has written a book called "Welcome to the Family: What To Expect Now that Your a Christian." The whole purpose of the book is to introduce new believers to what it means to be a Christian, how to live like Christ, and how to be faithful to God.

MacArthur covers issues such as the Bible, prayer, obedience, worship, the church, suffering, evangelism, and other important foundational Christian truths that all Christians must understand. He writes as a pastor who has served in the ministry for 40 years.

What I love about this book is that it is honest and straightforward. It is more than just, "pray and read your Bible," but rather, "because you are a Christian and have been redeemed by Christ, you are obligated to obey His commands, be soaked in His Word, to turn to Him in prayer, persevere through hard times knowing that Christ is in control, etc. He does not offer pat answers, but the answers that are truth, are what we need, and are found in God's Word.

The final chapter was enjoyable as well. MacArthur finishes his little book discussing heaven and the hope we have for eternity. The reader leaves wanting and anxiously waiting for the return of our Lord. What a refreshing reminder that all of the hard work and difficulty of serving and living as a Christian will be worth it whenever we see our Savior face-to-face.

I highly recommend this book for any new Christians, anyone who disciples young believers, and for those who are wanting to return to the basics. I can think of no better place to turn.

The Preacher and the Presidents

Two of my great interests in life include a preacher/evangelist by the name of Billy Graham and the Presidents of the United States. Put them together, and you get an outstanding book by Nancy Gibbs and Michael Duffy titled, "The Preacher and the Presidents: Billy Graham in the White House."

Billy Graham has been considered the nation's pastor for decades now and I have always been interested in his relationship to each President. Graham has known, ministered, and influenced every President since Harry Trueman. Trueman was the only President that ever had an unfavorable opinion of Graham. Current President Barack Obama will be the first President not to have Billy Graham to lean on as Graham has chosen not to get involved due to his health. Every President between Trueman and George W. Bush have leaned on Graham during times of trouble and need.

The story of Graham and the Presidents is certainly interested. Graham had a life-long vow to never mix his ministry with politics. Rather, he was interested in ministering to the politician. As he has said many times before, the Presidents are in as much need for spiritual guidance as any other person. And Graham has been there for each of them. And Gibbs and Duffy chronicle that relationship and ministry with America's most powerful men.

Gibbs and Duffy trace Graham's history with each President prior to their election, during their administration, and even after. They chronicle the high points and the low which makes for fascinating reading.

Some of my favorite parts include Graham's heavy influence on Eisenhower to run, which he did. Graham was there for the entire 8 years of his presidency. Also, just prior to the Kennedy assassination, Graham had tried to reach Kennedy (of which he was probably least closest to compared to the other presidents) warning him that tragedy awaited him in Texas. Sadly, Graham could not get through.

Also, perhaps the most controversial parts of Graham's ministry regarded his close relationship to President Richard Nixon. Every America knows about what happened with Watergate and the cover up that followed. Most, perhaps, do not know Graham's relationship with Nixon and some of the things he said and were recorded by the Whitehouse wire tap. The fall out of Nixon and Watergate caused Graham much grief, shock, and danger to his own ministry. Graham was very close to Nixon, considered him a dear friend, and got caught up in the whole politician scene. Graham's approach to the Presidents would never be the same in the decades that followed.

I have also been intrigued into Graham's relationship and influence on President George W. Bush. Bush gives Graham credit for his conversion to Christianity and for changing his life. In any good biography on our most recent former President would include the account of W. and Graham walking on the beach discussing their faith. And the rest, they say, is history.

But the most disappointing part of this book was how quick the book ends, especially regarding President George W. Bush. It isn't that the book has no conclusion, it does (and a good one at that), but that the entire story of Graham's influence and involvement in the W. Bush Whitehouse was not told.

For example, I believe that one of the great hallmarks of Graham's incredible legacy and life came on September 14, 2001 whenever he spoke to the nation. At that point, there was no doubt that he was the nations pastor. His words were appropriate and comforting to a hurting nation. At that moment, all that Graham had experienced, learned, and done came to a climax; at least in my life.

I am, therefore, disappointed that this was left out of the book. To make things worse, the concluding chapter that wrapped up the entire book makes mention of the Iraq War and nothing regarding his role as the nations pastor following the events of September 11, 2001. But with that said, this stands as an excellent read for anyone interested in Billy Graham, the Presidents, and American history in general. It provides new insight into the lives, thought, and beliefs of our nations leaders and how one man has been there through it all. I highly recommend this book.

Here is a video of the authors discussing the book:

"Christianity & Liberalism": Part 2

Next, the issue of Jesus as the Christ is debated in "Christianity & Liberalism." Here it is plain to see the vast difference between true Christians and liberals. To begin, Jesus was the promised Messiah of the Old Testament because He fulfills all of it’s prophecies. To Christians, Christ is salvation, but to Liberals He is just an example on how to live, thus, removing His saving abilities.

Paul is among much of the debate when it comes to this issue. It is clear that according to Paul, Jesus was the object of faith, not just an example of faith. Others add that Paul doesn’t use the word "God," but instead he uses the word "Lord." The desperation of liberals is seen here. Paul’s use of the word Lord is the same as referring to Jesus’ deity as God, in fact, Paul’s usage of "Lord," reaches the gentiles much clearer. Pagans viewed the word "Lord," as referring to someone as deity, therefore, they too were reached with the message of Christ through the writings of Paul.

Another issue that surrounds this is the belief in the supernatural and miracles. In short, to reject the miracles of the Bible and of Christ, is to remove Christ as Person with all power. Liberals believe that miracles and the supernatural shouldn’t be included in history. It is true that the New Testament would be much easier to believe if we disregarded the miracles, but believing in the truth of the miracles recorded in the Bible allows us to have a Savior who intercedes for us, so that we might dwell with our Creator in heaven. When liberals deny miracles and the supernatural, they become another faith.

Thirdly, there’s the issue of whether Jesus was fully man, fully God, or both. Christians believe that He is both, and because He is, He is the perfect mediator for us. Some liberals believe otherwise, accepting the practices of Arianism and Apollnarians. They reject Jesus as being a direct part of the trinity, and/or reject Him being a mere human being who was a good man who did a lot of good things. This claims clearly contradict scripture, but somehow, it has crept into the church unnoticed. Jesus was not just an example or guide, but the Holy One sent down from heaven as a ransom for us and the object of faith worthy of the same worship we give God, because He is God.

This next chapter discusses the issues surrounding salvation, and when compared, Christians and liberals, again, disagree with each other. To simply put, Christians believe that it is only through Christ death and resurrection that we are saved. We must put our trust and faith in Him and become new creations.

The liberal on the other hand teaches that the inner good of man is all that is needed. Their theory is that the Christian’s version of salvation is too narrow. What about those who don’t hear of Christ and His redemptive work? Because of this dilemma, liberals have come to the conclusion that salvation is found within the person. By what means is this salvation obtained? From where do they get this theory? Trusting the "goodness" of man has always failed. The Christian view on salvation is not narrow. The Bible clearly states that salvation is for all who will receive Christ. True, there is only way to get to heaven, but that way can be applied to all mankind. Its also true to say that every man has some "goodness" in them, but ultimately, unforgiven sin will overcome the good with evil.

Most liberals attack the Christian phrase "new creature." It is obvious that baby Christians don’t physically change. But, there is a change within the soul delivered by the Holy Spirit. When the Holy Spirit is within someone the soul changes in the effect of being kind, showing love, and striving to end sin in their life. It is true that the Christian will never be without sin, but our sin is forgiven and forgotten. We are seen as being pure before God through the process of justification, sanctification, and regeneration.

To add to this, there’s the issue of how to govern people. Many argue that Christianity is about the individual and shouldn’t be given any consideration when the issue of governing people come up. Christian growth is centered on the family. When the family falls, a nation falls, and that is clearly seen in history. Government should be grounded in the Bible and it’s teachings, but the modernist believe otherwise.

The Christian lives by faith alone, and without it, there is no salvation. The liberal missionary tries to spread Christian civilization, which they have misunderstood completely. Whereas the Christian missionary is focused on one thing; salvation of the soul. To repeat previously, liberalism isn’t in the same category of Christianity, it is a completely different belief.

Machen ends his book with a discussion about the Church. It is obvious in Scripture that all believers should have fellowship with other believers within a church setting. But there is one problem. There are many liberals within the evangelical church. Not only that, but they are seeking ministry opportunities in those churches. This is a big problem. If a church has a set of beliefs, then it should only hire those who believe those same things. Liberals view this problem as mere trifle. But it is plain to see that liberals and conservatives do not mix together when it comes to their beliefs, therefore, the evangelical church must make a stand, refusing any hiring of any liberal. The liberals must start a church of their own if they want to preach and teach.

The local church is a place where fellow believers, with the same core faith beliefs, can come together and worship God. Within the church, doctrine, salvation, Christ, and the Bible must be presented according to what the church has state it beliefs. This is not to say that the unsaved isn’t welcome at church. On the contrary, the church should reach out to the lost because that is our calling and responsibility. But those of another faith should not have leadership roles within the church. A church cannot stand together when it’s leaders are divided.

So who should leave, the conservatives or the liberals? For now, it must be the liberals. This is true because they have crept into the conservative churches and defiled it, but, if the liberals continue to grow, out growing its conservative influence, then the conservatives must withdraw from that church and begin their own again. The main point on this issue is to worship with other believers with the same faith, whether liberal or conservative.

"Christianity and Liberalism": Part 1

J. Gresham Machen begins his book landmark book, "Christianity & Liberalism," by talking about where liberalism began. It is stated that modernism didn’t come by chance, but as a result of events reigning from science, sociology, history, and psychology over the past several years. Christianity hasn’t changed since the day of Pentecost, but liberalism has. Therefore, it is argued, the two worldviews should not be related to one another, but placed into two different categories of belief.

There is little debate that the world we live in is radically better from that of our ancestors based on technology and the physical world. But it cannot be said the same about literature and art. Socialism, utilitarians, liberalism, and more are evident in modern art and literature, whether it be paintings, movies, or even education. As time continues, schools have become more liberal in the fact that it teaches modernist beliefs, such as creation being caused by a big explosion, but neglect the teaching that God is the Creator. In short, liberalism is rising rapidly in every part of our life, but with God’s Grace, there is still hope.

Chapter 2 discusses the issue of doctrine and what it means between Christians and Liberals. For one thing, when it comes to issues about doctrine, Christians should not back down. Every time another belief or doctrine was presented to Paul, he never once backed down from the truth of God. Therefore, Christian doctrine is not tolerant despite modern liberalism.

Christianity begins at salvation. One must believe that Jesus is the promised Messiah who came and lived a perfect life and died for our sins. Then, one cannot forget, Christ rose from the grave defeating the power of sin and death on the believer. Without the resurrection, there would be no salvation through Him (1 Corinthians 15).

Christianity is based on two main factors; history and doctrine. The Bible, in no way, contradicts history. In other words, archeologist, historians, etc., will never find anything that contradicts what is already found in scripture. For example, a historical fact found in the Bible is that Jesus was crucified. We know this to be true because of external and internal evidence supporting this historical event. On the other hand, believers in Christ believe in doctrine as well. For instance, to say that Jesus was killed is historical, but to say that He died for everyone’s sins, that is doctrinal.

One of the things that is debated, is the interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount. In short, liberals claims that Matthew 5-7 tell us that if we live right with our fellow man, we will have a relationship with God, not by following a certain religion or belief. The problem with this, and others, is that they do not fully understand Christ. Christ will judge all men based on whether or not he/she is forgiven of their sins. Also, what can help us is to read Christ’s words with our name in mind. "For God loved me," and "For I have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God." This is what Christianity teaches, which is radically different from liberals.

Finally, Machen wants to make clear that not all beliefs of the Christian are equally important. There are many things that separate Baptist from Methodist, or Calvinist and Arminianism. As long as one’s faith is based on salvation based on Christ death and resurrection, all believers will have fellowship with them in heaven despite minor interpretations.

The third chapter discusses the issues surrounding God and Man. Machen first discusses God and whether or not we can know Him personally or not. The obvious Christian answer is that we can know him pesonally, but many liberals beg to differ, thus, supporting the reason why liberalism aren’t in the same category with Christianity. Modernist have misunderstood the Bible to say that God is so great that we can not know Him intimately. If this is the case, then why is it we can personally know Jesus. Christ says that knowing Him is knowing the Father. Therefore, God is personal to the believer.

Also, we see in Jesus a man who desired a relationship with God. We constantly see Him praying to God and studying His Word in His pursuit to know God more. Jesus wasn’t just practical, but also theoretical. Finally, liberals have misinterpreted the word "Father." In Biblical sense, that phrase simply means an intimate relationship between God and the redeemed. At the base of Christianity is a personal relationship with the creature and Creator.

Then there’s the difference between the two sides on the issue of man. The Bible clearly states that "all have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God." It is no secret to a true Christian that everyone has sinned from Adam to present day and time. This, too, is found at the base of Christianity. Liberals, on the other hand, teach that man’s good works will overrule their bad. We should, in a way, ignore the "little" sins because their not as bad as the "big" sins and don’t affect society very much. This is ludicrous. The fact is that Satan uses those ignored "little" sins and uses them to bring a person down. Christ teaches this doctrine as plain as day.

This issue has crept up in America slowly over the past 75 years. America has gone from a predominately Christian nation to a paganistic nation. With this change of pace, we have neglected Truth for falsehood. Christianity begins with a broken heart, but will leave you with a joyous heart. Unforgiven sin will lead to condemnation, but Christ leads to salvation. Modernists seek to cover up "sin" whereas Christianity makes no effort to hide it. It is the Church’s responsibilty to counteract against this problem. Instead of calling for the repentance of the righteous we are to call for the repentance of the unsaved world, including liberals.

Chapter 4 compares the liberal and Christian views about the Bible. According to the Christian view on the Bible, it is a book that reveals the thoughts of God to man. Christians, though not all, believe in plenary inspiration meaning, that the writers were inspired by the Holy Spirit as they wrote their letters, psalm, prophecy, etc. without error. The Bible is not merely words of man, but the words of God Himself. Every word and letter were placed there by God, from Genesis to Revelation, all sixty- six books.

Liberals attack much of this belief, including the contents of the Bible. They disregard the doctrine of plenary inspiration completely, and declare that it isn’t a trustworthy book, which is heresy to many Christians. Liberals debate that they believe only in the words of Jesus and not the words of man. Jesus was God, so therefore, only His words are infallible. Therefore, the Old Testament is practically useless, as so with the words of Paul. Their "authority" is on Christian experience and conscience.

This attack on the Bible is ridiculous. The fact is, we need the words of Paul and the apostles, and the contents of the Old Testament because they give us a better glimpse of God. Also, we do not learn everything we need to know just from the words of Christ as recorded in the Gospels, including the doctrine of salvation. One would have trouble finding all of the information needed to be saved without the sermons of Peter in Acts or Paul in Romans. With these other writings, we can understand the teaching and meaning of Christ better because most of these men walked with Christ and were His apostles.. Truth is, modernist do not have the authority that they claim to have because they are using the words of man over the words of God.

One final note, there are many people in churches today who do not believe in every words and story, but they are still Christians. They are so because they believe that Jesus died for their sins and rose from the grave. So one should be aware of this common belief even among some believers, and be ready to give a defense for the doctrine of plenary inspiration. We should not assume that only liberals believe this way.

"The Theology of the Book of Revelation": Part 2 - The Bad

Though there are many reasons to praise Bauckham and his treatment of Revelation, there is much to disagree with. First, his approach to Revelation is not always correct. One such area is his inconsistency between what is symbolic and literal. A better approach is to take the text at it’s words unless it is clear that the author is using symbolic imagery.

One such example of this inconsistency is his approach to the references to years in Revelation. John describes a seven year tribulation and a thousand year millennium following that seven years. The author sees these as being symbolic, and this interpretation is incorrect for several reasons.

First, John marks the seven year period in different ways. John frequently breaks the seven years into two three and a half parts. We must take these numbers as literal because John marks the three and a half period in different ways. He refers it to three and a half years, forty-two months, and one thousand two hundred sixty days.

Also, since we take Daniels sixty-nine week prophet to be a literal prophecy concerning the birth of Christ (one week equals seven years), then why don’t we take the seventieth week prophecy (which equals to be seven years, and a reference to the tribulation) as literal? To interpret Daniel’s sixty-nine weeks as literal and not the seventieth as symbolic or allegorical is inconsistent and wrong. Daniel and John are clearly telling us that there will be a literal seven year period of judgment on the earth commonly referred to as the Tribulation. We must, therefore, interpret these phrases as meaning that there will be a literal seven years.

If the seven year tribulation is to be interpreted literally, we must therefore interpret the thousand year reign of Christ as literal. Logic demands it, and so does the Biblical text. John is not being symbolic here. We must take John at his word instead of trying to find some hidden reason or symbolic meaning behind those words. If he gives us a time frame, then we must take that to be literal.

Another area where he interprets things as symbolic is his treatment of the two witnesses. Here, again, the author takes the two witness as being symbolic representation of the church which is just incorrect. First, John spends too much time describing them for them to be just the church.

John has already used the word for church (e[kklasia) several times at the beginning of Revelation (since he wrote seven letters to seven different churches), and so why would he spend so much time and space whenever he could have simply made it clear that he is talking about the church?

John seems to be describing specific actions that two specific people perform. He gives them a mission, a story, and a time frame in which they live. Since we must interpret the three and a half years literally, and if we take the two witnesses to be symbolic, then is the church therefore raptured after three and a half years? It is only logical. If the two witnesses ascend into heaven, and they represent the church, then should we assume that the church will ascend into heaven in the midst of the tribulation? We cannot, therefore, interpret the two witnesses as mere symbolic imagery, but as literal men who will spread the gospel through their actions, miracles, and words. Overall, the authors reasoning behind his interpretation of the two witnesses is weak and not what John is trying to reveal to the reader.

The author takes the twenty one specific judgments (seals, trumpets, and bowls) to be symbolic and allegorical. He does not see them as chronological or specific events. This is disappointing that he would come to this conclusion, especially in light of his faithfulness to the Biblical text and careful study of it’s content.

First, the judgments are chronological because that is how John lays them out. It is clear from the text that John sees one happening after the other. He frequently uses transitional phrases that indicate that.

Secondly, John makes it clear that these judgments are real, literal, and have catastrophic results. John describes what happens on the earth as a result of them, how many die, the devastation they cause, and how the people of the earth reacts. To say that they are symbolic or allegorical is not what John is trying to tell the reader. We must always interpret the text as it is unless the author tells us otherwise.

The author was also inconsistent with his interpretation of numbers. As previously mentioned, the author sees the years as symbolic (seven years of tribulation, and a thousand year reign of Christ). However, the author sees the hundred forty-four thousand Jews as literal. So which is it? Neither numbers give us any reason to interpret them as symbolic, and so why do so? The author seems to pick and choose what he takes to be symbolic and what is literal in order to fit his interpretation. His inconsistency leads him to make some wrong interpretive mistakes.

Similarly, his treatment of numbers is wrong. He first sees the number seven as being a number that represents completeness and so interprets that meaning into every time seven is found in Revelation. This is good and well, but we must be careful in interpreting everything with the number seven as being symbolic. For instance, the seven year tribulation is literal, not symbolic.

Yes seven is a significant number, and it has been since the completion of creation, but that does not mean that it is a number that cannot be interpreted literally.

Likewise, the author sees other numbers as symbolic and not as literal. For example, he turns the number four as the number representing the world. Nowhere in Scripture do we see such an interpretation and the texts he sites do not support his claim. We must be careful in making such statements because they lead to wrong interpretation of the text.

Reading too much into numbers is dangerous and leads to misinterpretation. This is a problem with Bauckham and he should be more careful whenever he tries to determine what specific numbers mean. If these numbers have symbolic meaning then what does a thousand, forty-two, ten, etc., mean? Are we to take such numbers as literal while four and seven are symbolic?

Another problem with Bauckham’s book is his view on Babylon being a reference to Rome. I am not for sure that I agree with this interpretation quit yet. If Revelation is not concerning issues during the first century, then Babylon cannot simply be Rome for Rome has been destroyed. Babylon is either a metaphor for what it was during Israel’s captivity, or is a real city that will be built during the end times.

Similarly, the author saw John writing about events that were to take place during the Roman Empire, and not solely at the end of the world. He did this most clearly by referring to Rome as being the Babylon in Revelation. Also, he made several references to Nero, the emperors, and the persecution of the believers under Roman rule.

Such an interpretation takes away much of the eschatological prophetic purpose of the book. Revelation tells us of how the world will end, how Christ will set up His kingdom, and what final judgment will be like. To view much of Revelation as being more geared towards the first and second century AD takes away much of what John says in the apocalypse.

Finally, if we take the Ovilet Discourse as eschatological prophecy and as literal events and judgments, then why do we not do the same with the book of Revelation? The author makes little reference to it and that is perhaps his problem. It seems like Jesus provides a basic outline of the end times and Revelation lays out more details. Jesus describes earthquakes and famines, and so does John. They both seem to have the same pattern and it is inconsistent to take Jesus’ words as literal and John’s as symbolic.

Therefore, a proper interpretation of Revelation must rely on what Jesus has to say about the end times for He describes exactly what John sees here. The author failed to see this connection and almost completely ignores it. If one were to see this connection there is no way they could see so much symbolic and allegorical language in Revelation. The words of Christ lead us to conclude that John was describing literal events that must be interpreted as being literal.

Overall, Bauckham’s book is well written and well researched. He is a good writer with academic ability that is needed in order to understand the difficult book of Revelation. His use of Scripture is amazing and helpful and the reader is able to follow his argument throughout the book.

Though this is true, Dr. Bauckham is simply wrong on many of his conclusions. His inconsistent approach to Revelation is perhaps his biggest weakness. What he sees to be literal here is symbolic elsewhere. The reader is left confused and unable to believe everything that he says. We must be careful when deciding what is to be taken as symbolic in Revelation. It is a better approach if we take John at his word.

This is a helpful book that should be read by all who wish to understand Revelation better. It is a resource that gives great insight at his type of interpretation. Although there are many things in which to disagree with, it is important to see his argue and be able to defend your own. You will know where you truly stand and if your interpretation is credible if you are able to defend it even against a gifted writer and theologian like Richard Bauckham.

"The Theology of the Book of Revelation": Part 1 - The Good

Dr. Richard Bauckham has written an interesting book concerning the book of Revelation and some of it’s theological importance, titled "New Testament Theology: The Theology of the Book of Revelation." The author manages to take a difficult book and break it down in a clear manner that is understandable and Biblical. He is able to explain to the reader what the text means, how we are to interpret it, and what it has to add to theology.

Bauckham begins his book by discussing what kind of book Revelation is. Revelation is a book of prophecy and is also an apocalypse. The author goes through issues of interpretation and understanding related to prophecy and apocalypse genre. He looks at specific details within Revelation and similar writings during this time.

Revelation is also a circular letter. Like other letters in the New Testament, Revelation was passed around among several churches. We know of at least seven churches that it was sent to (as laid out in chapters 2-3). Circular letters were important in the first century and this helps us in our interpretation of the apocalypse.

From there, he looks specifically at more specific theology issues in Revelation. The first one relates to the theocentricity of Revelation. He begins by discussing the theology of the Trinity in Revelation. We see this in the first chapter of the apocalypse and there, John clearly lays out each person of the Trinity.

This chapter goes on to discuss God’s holiness and righteousness in His judgments. Revelation is full of judgments upon mankind on earth that are harsh and deadly. The author reveals to the readers that God’s holiness requires Him to judge unrighteous man. God is Sovereign and in control and Revelation reveals that.

Chapter three looks at Christ. In this chapter, the author points out several important things that Revelation reveals about Christ. Bauckham shows the reader the clear parallels between descriptions of God and descriptions of Christ. Like God, Christ is the "alpha and the omega," the "first and the last," etc. In other words, Revelation makes it clear that Christ and God are one and the same. What Christ does, God does, he says.

Likewise, Jesus accepts worship throughout Revelation. In the apocalypse, John himself begins to bow down and worship angels and other mighty beings, but they all refuse to accept such an act. Jesus, on the other hand, accepts worship and expects it. In addition, we see martyred saints praying to Christ for vengeance. Thus, the author further argues for Christ divinity, and the unity of the Trinity.

The author continues the theme by then looking at the role of the Spirit in Revelation. To do so, the author must deal with some of the difficulties this brings up, including the reference to the "seven spirits," throughout the book. Bauckham shows the read the important role the Holy Spirit has throughout the book of Revelation including His prophetic role, His role within the churches, etc.

Chapter six looks specifically at the different cities throughout Revelation. To begin with, he looks at the New Jerusalem and what that means. To do so, he seperates the meaning into Jerusalem as a place, a people, and as divine presence. Likewise, the author looks at the references to Babylon and how we are to interpret it.

Finally, the author reveals to the reader the importance of Revelation and why studying it is so important. Bauckham ends his book by looking at eleven ways Revelation is relevant for us today. They are helpful, insightful, and appropriate end to his book.

There is much to praise in Bauckham’s book. First, the author gave a careful interpretation of the Biblical text. In other words, he didn’t just make it up. Everything he said and believed he backed up with the Biblical text. This is refreshing since many books on Revelation sort of pick and choose how they interpret things and what they mean.

This was most clearly seen in his frequent reference to the Old Testament. The author is right in saying that John makes several references to the Old Testament and in order to get it right interpretation, we must be willing to interpret Old Testament eschatological imagery as well. For whenever we take the time to do so, we will better understand Revelation.

By referring to the Old Testament, the author manages to help the reader understand some of the difficult imagery of Revelation. He is not afraid of the hard scenes and images, and has the academic skill to take the reader into the text and give a clear understanding of his interpretation of what John is describing. As a result, the reader leaves with a better understanding of the Biblical text and what exactly it is saying about Christ, eschatology, and believers worldwide.

The author also is able to put each passage into it’s context. He looks at the Jewish world, the Gentile world, the Roman world, the political world, societal world, etc. Revelation isn’t written out of a vacuum, but was written at a certain time in history. Therefore, the author looks at other Jewish and Christian apocalypses that help us better understand exactly what John may be trying to convey. The author never considers these extra-biblical references as authoritative, but rather uses them to put Revelation in context and to get more insight into what John was saying.

A second thing I enjoyed was his focus on Christ. The author makes it clear that Revelation is not about John, Christians, the churches, eschatology, the anti-Christ, or anything else. Revelation is about Christ! This was very pleasing and correct. Anyone who reads Revelation in full and understands the imagery, they are simply amazed at what John is saying about Christ.

Christ is seen as God, resurrected, and Savior. The imagery surrounding these things is profound and the author takes the time to explain to the reader what such imagery means and what it says about Christ. We see Christ on His throne, ruling and judging the world in all power and might.

The author is willing to spend much time on this issue and sees it as key to understanding Revelation. Likewise, the author finds the importance of the Trinity throughout Revelation very important. He takes the difficult of the Trinity and shows how each member plays a part in the apocalypse. All three members are considered God, are unified, and yet, at the same time, distinct from one another. The author reveals these differences and similarities and lays out an accurate description of the doctrine of the Trinity.

Similar with this, the author is right in his discussion on God as judge. Most today hate to think that God would ever punish anybody. The author does not picture God as a being that only loves and does not punish, but also does not picture God as being only wrathful and hateful. God is not a bully, He is rather holy. The author points this out clearly, and the reader leaves knowing exactly why Revelation is so hard and full of so much blood, death, and destruction. Because God is holy, He cannot let sin go unpunished, and the author points this out in a brilliant way.

Thirdly, I really enjoyed the authors conclusion to the book. He concludes by citing eleven reasons why Revelation is still relevant for us today. This is appropriate because any reader of Revelation and any reader of this book leave worn out due to all of the imagery, hard passages to interpret, etc. It is fitting and helpful to come to the end of Bauckham’s book and be reminded the task of interpreting such a book is needed and applicable.

These eleven points are very clear and great points. He tells us that the truth of Revelation is the truth of God. God is glorified in this book because He judges sin, sets up His promised kingdom, fulfills His promises, gives eternity to the faithful, and is ruling on His throne the whole time. This is how we must view God and the author makes this point.

Likewise, he points out that in light of Revelation, the doctrines of creation, redemption, and eschatology are very closely linked together. Of all of the books of the Bible, Revelation makes this point most clear and the author drives this point at the end of his book. We come to a greater understanding of these great doctrines after reading and understanding Revelation. This is a great point that many neglect and forget and the author considers it very important.

All of these points are important and should be reflected upon every time the book of Revelation is read and studied. It is a fitting reminded of why Revelation is in the canon and why it is so important for believers to take the time to read, understand, and interpret correctly the imagery. The author leaves the reader with comfort and encouragement that the task of interpreting Revelation, and all of the Bible for that matter, is well worth it and significant, even today.

"The Passion Driven Sermon"

"The Passion Driven Sermon," by Jim Shaddix.

The first part of Shaddix’s book was very intriguing and very helpful. Throughout all the pages, the reader is given advice, exhortations, and practical helps concerning the importance of the Scriptures in preaching. One of the great points he makes is the importance of preaching the cross.

To Shaddix, the preacher’s main goal, subject, objective, and purpose is to preach the cross of Christ. Perhaps this is the most important point because it leads to all of his other points throughout the book. The cross of Christ is the cornerstone of which our faith is built upon, and we should preach in a way that reflects that.

To do this, the author gives excellent illustrations and examples to make his words apply. Descriptions as the preacher being a reporter, who preaches only facts, a reminder, who reminds his congregations important points, and finally as a reflector, a preacher that reflects Christ in his sermons and life.

Another point is important here. As I was reading this book, I felt that the author was saying that we should only preach the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. This was the most apparent when he was exhorting pastors to remind their congregation of this monumental fact. But, as I continued, the author made an excellent point, and that is, that preaching the cross of Christ means that we will preach the implications of the cross of Christ. In other words, the practical application will come whenever we fully and faithfully preach and stand firm on the cross.

Also, as it relates to application in sermons, the author makes another excellent point. He says that many pastors are looking so hard for relevance in their sermons that they are leaving the Biblical text and finding their "applications" by using psychologist, researchers, statisticians, and other extrabiblical sources. Instead, we must be rooted in the Scripture, in whose application is timeless and will always work.

The second part of Shaddix’s book was helpful as well. One of the main themes was to preach the inerrant and infallible Word of God. He points out a contradiction that many pastors are guilty of, and that is, though they believe that the Bible is inspired, they don’t preach like it is. Therefore, the author concludes, we must preach expository, letting the text drive the message. My only problem with this section is that this theme had already been explained and discussed in previous chapters, and I felt that he was just repeating himself, only this time in more detail.

Another excellent thing about part two is his comments concerning the Seeker Sensitive movement. The author is against this new church growth message, and he backs up his argument with both logic and God’s Word. He was never rude, but was clear about why he disagrees with this approach.

One of the most beneficial section of part two was his discussion concerning application in sermons. The model in which he proposes is very helpful and appropriate. It keeps the original intent and application of the author intact, but at the same time, it makes it relevant to the listener. The author was clear the problem with many sermons applications. They start with contemporary relevance instead of the original intent of the author. That is why there is so much heresy and wrong teaching going on in our churches. We must preach what we believe and nothing else.

Section three brings ties everything in the book together. These concluding chapters are a good word of encouragement to all of the pastors that read this book.

One thing that I found intriguing this section was his advice on Biblical exposition. He puts much emphasis on the words of Scripture. He points out that we must maximize what God is saying, and minimizing what He is not saying. A good rebuke to for many sermons being done today.

Another praise I must give him is his treatment of the Bible, not just the text, but the book itself. The author sees the Bible as the source of worship. It drives our worship, it leads us to worship, it tells us about our creator, and it tells us what we are to do in our daily lives. Therefore, the author tells the reader to treat God’s Word with the utmost respect. We should revere it with praise and awe.

Also, the author sees the pastor as someone who passes on a baton. We must do our part as pastors to lead our team, the church, to the finish line. And after we have ran, we should be able to say that we ran in a way that we can pass the baton on to continue the leadership and growth of the church. This should be our goal as ministers. To equip the saints for the work of service (Eph. 4:12). Though the author has already referred to this goal when discussing the seeker sensitive movement, it seemed appropriate at the conclusion of the book to remind the reader of the goals and roles of the pastor.

Finally, there is one thing that shows up throughout the book that I did not care for. And that is the "Where Do I Go From Here..." section at the end of each chapter. At these sections, the author tells the reader, in essence, that if he wants to skip certain chapters then that is fine, because they may not be relevant to them. How is the whole book not applicable to all people, both pastors and laymen? Although this does not affect the content of the book, it did bother me a bit. I felt that it interrupted the flow of the book, and therefore should be omitted.

"The Purpose Driven Church"

"The Purpose Driven Church" has become the manual for church leadership and structure for many throughout the world. Likewise, the author, Rick Warren, has become the leader of the "Seeker Sensitive" movement that has reshaped ecclesiastical life in the United States and abroad. What started out as a simple guide for ministers and pastors has become a culture shaping work that has changed how many approach their congregational ministry.

A pastor in Trinidad last summer told me to read this book and use it in my own ministry. This is just one example of this book has had an immense impact on the world in which we live. Millions have read it, and continue to practice it in their daily lives.

The book breaks up into 5 sections. The first section is titled "Seeing the Big Picture." Here, the author gives the reader the story behind the growth of his church, Saddleback in California. Since it’s birth, Saddleback has become one of America’s leading churches in growth, church movements, and evangelicalism. The author describes how he went about planting the church and growing it to where it is today. For the rest of the book, he describes the specifics of his form of running a church and it’s different components.

Also, in this section, he describes several myths about growing churches. He provides several helpful explanations concerning these myths. Many have made wrong assumptions concerning mega-churches that are simply wrong. He seems to emphasize that the goal of every church is to be authentic and more specific; purpose-driven. This is, then, the "purpose" of the book; how to make your local church "purpose-driven."


The second section of Warren’s book really begins to get to the heart of the book, that is, how to be purpose driven in your approach to ecclesiology. The first thing he discusses is what drives churches. Some churches have different purposes of your church. Some churches want to have the best buildings, some driven by events, programs, etc. Warren, however, wants the church to have a different purpose.

Whenever the church decides it’s purpose and writes it down in a clear, precise way, we must communicate that purpose to the congregation and to those who will become members in the future. Whenever we communicate our purpose to the people, we must organize around that purpose. This means that all events we plan must have a purpose. Get people on your staff who understand the purpose and will practice it.

The next section in Warren’s work concerns reaching out to the community, a vital part of the church’s mission. The first step in reaching the community is to know who you are targeting. This involves knowing your city very well. We must study the geography, demography, etc. This will tell us how we can reach the people, what programs and activities to involve, what type of service to have, what age groups to emphasize, and many other vital information that helps the church minister to the surrounding area.

After this careful study of who you are going to target, we must develop our strategy. To do so, we must understand what are people are saying about our church, what we need to keep, what we need to take away, how to reach the lost, etc. Warren, when he was building Saddleback, he sent a flyer out to the surrounding area of where he was trying to reach, and included information that would attract the people.

Part four is concerned with bringing in the crowd. To do so, we must study how Jesus brought in crowds. He reached out to everyone, He met their needs, was applicational in His teaching, and many other techniques.

After this discussion, Warren then describes how the church can be "seeker-sensitive." This means to offer multiple services, focus on importance of worship, make visitors feel comfortable, and many other important techniques.

We must also select appropriate music for worship. This can be a sensitive issue for many people in our day, and doing the original study of your community will do a lot of help in this area. We must make sure that the music is purposeful and worshipful and you need to preview the music before it is played in the service.

The final section of Warren’s book is concerning building up the church. Prior to this section, Warren has made it clear that the purpose of his church is to reach the lost. To him, the church must appeal to lost sinners, bring them into the church, and get them saved. At this point, Warren realizes the problem that creates; what do you do with all of these new believers? His answer is simple; disciple them.

To do so, we must first make them members of the church so that they can get involved. To do so, we must communicate the importance and need for membership. When people present an interest in becoming members, Warren suggest having a new members class. This way, each new member will know what the church offers, programs it has, how they can serve and get involved, and many other vital information.

Once they become members, we must turn them into mature believers. To do so, we must encourage the new members in their daily walk. To do so, we can offer classes for them to grow in Biblical knowledge, theology, and application for their daily lives. We must encourage and exhort them to continue to grow in their faith. As discussed previously, hiring the right staff is vital, and this is one reason why. The right youth leader or children’s minister must be someone who encourages members to grow in their faith.

The final stage of this growing maturity of the believer is to lead them into ministry. This does not mean that all of the members must become pastors, but rather that they serve the church in some type of ministry. At this point, the believer has shown themselves as a strong believer, knowledgeable, and capable to serve others and encourage them to grow in their faith. We must make sure that we don’t vote on a ministerial position, but rather appoint according to their abilities and gifts.

My main concern with the book as a whole is the whole seeker sensitive movement. It appears to me that it contradicts much of what Scripture teaches. Rick Warren is a firm believer in the infallible inspired Word of God, but yet, apparently, he has missed some of what it says. We are not to make church and worship essentially a social club where non-believers can gather and be saved, but a place where the redeemed can fellowship with one another and be trained to minister to the lost.

This whole idea that the church should be built on unbelievers is simply biblically flawed. Is it not the churches goal to train up believers so that they can minister to the lost? Sometimes I feel that Warren just doesn’t get that. The church must evangelize, but the churches main objective is to train up believers so that they can go out and do the ministry. This false understanding of the role of the church leads Warren to several mistakes.

Also, there was one particular comment that I found troubling. I don’t want to take him out of context, but what he essentially said was that members who no longer come to your church, you should not be worried about them. Instead, he suggest to continue to reach out to new people.

To me, what Warren is saying is to simply to leave the "inactive" members out to dry. He comes out and says that they will probably join and be involved somewhere else and so Saddleback does not need to worry about them.. By doing this, these believing members will not learn to do the ministry. Instead, the author is suggesting that the church bring new people in, and then bring more new people in. This is all fine, but the problem is, the "saints" aren’t being equipped to do the ministry, because if the members stop coming, then the church is required to bring in and raise up new babies. Again, I don’t want to take him out of context, but I think Warren needs to reevaluate what he says here.

Similarly Warren believes in simply delete people from their databases whenever they don’t show up for a while. I hope that they are contacting them and finding out why they haven’t been coming to church or if something is wrong. Hopefully, they are doing more than just hitting the delete button on their computers. I’m sure that they are reaching out to them, but he doesn’t say whether they do or not. So, it would be appropriate that they move those individuals back to another category instead of just deleting them.

I also have problems with Warren’s approach to preaching. He says that he spends twenty weeks every year on the five purposes of the church. True, as he mentions, that allows over half the year to preach on other things, but the problem is that the he isn’t growing the congregation as much as he should. It is not a good thing for the members of the church to come to the worship service already knowing what the pastor is going to say and what he wants them to do.

Rather, the members should be anticipating on discovering what else God wants them to do. The Christian life is a work in progress, and we must be continually nourished with the Word and it is the pastor’s main responsibility. I am all for reminding the church it’s purpose is, but twenty weeks a year is way too much.

I worry about is that the church may think that the ministers don’t know about anything else because they continue to preach about the purpose. This can easily be avoided if the minister is careful, but if he does the same sermon several times, the congregation will be bored, or tired of hearing the same sermon. I do believe that repetition is important when stating the purpose, but there must be caution used. You don’t want to over repeat yourself.

Also, it appears that his view on expository preaching is wrong. To him, it seems like people are unable to understand the whole Bible. True, much of the Bible is difficult, but it should not be ignored. I understand that he teaches theology, just not the terms, but does he spend much time in Scripture in his sermons, or is he too busy telling cute stories? The stories and illustrations of a sermon, although they are helping, are nothing in comparison to the explanation and application of the biblical text. If one has too much material in a sermon, the illustrations should go first, not the explaining of the biblical text.

Also, his comment that "most unbelievers are looking for relief, not truth," bothers me a bit. To me, it appears that he is saying, "make them feel better, and they’ll convert." Relief is important, but without the truth of the Gospel, what good is relief? What good is it if a man gains the whole world, or is relieved, and still loses his soul? I know that Warren seeks the lost, but he must present truth to unbelievers, but at the same time, feed the others steak and not milk.

He also thinks that expository preaching is only useful for believers because the Bible can be intimidating. He must not know that the Bible is more powerful than any two edged sword. We shouldn’t shrink in our preaching just to be appealing. We’re to "preach the Word" and let the Holy Spirit move. I also fear that he is slow at helping the believers grow in their faith because he’s always doing simple, easy to understand sermons. Babies eventually grow up and desire more than milk. If the pastor doesn’t expect much out of his congregation, the people are not going to strive real hard to grow in their faith. They will simply plateau in their Christian walk and never be prepared for the ministry the church is to be training them for.

This overemphasis on being "Seeker Sensitive" isn’t good. As already mentioned, the believers need to stop drinking milk, and begin chewing meat. This will not happen if the church is running around seeking new visitors. It seems that the church is more evangelistic than shaping the saints for ministry. Notice that the church is to raise up ministers so that they can go out to world and preach the gospel. Warren does the opposite. Also, the church should focus on all groups, not just one or two, such as the lost or even youth. If the singles ministry is lacking, it needs to improve. If senior citizens are being ignore, they need to be noticed by the church.

Everyone is equal in God’s eyes, and they all need the gospel! If you want to have a contemporary service to attract younger people, go for it. But, you should provide a service that would attract older adults. Instead, Warren suggest having multiple services that are identical. I wonder what people who want to feed on something more than John 3:16 think of the services?

However, there are several things I did like about this book. First, Warren says that he isn’t going to waste time on events and activities that have no purpose. This is good thinking. The activities that are planned are done so with a purpose in mind, whether it be evangelism, spiritual growth, or something similar. Also, Warren teaches the importance of organization and pre-planning. Warren makes it clear to his congregation what they will be doing that year. As a result, things can be done right and organized with the maximum results. This is one thing that
Warren purposes that I am in heavy favor of.

Also, I like his comment that it isn’t wise to compare the attendance of one church with another. This is so true and much needed in Ecclesiastical life today. A small rural area may not have a population of hundreds of thousands of people like a city does. Therefore, city churches will more than likely have more members. So, Warren concludes, comparing attendance records is useless. Each church ministers to their area. Population has nothing to do with it. Amen to that!

I agree that people will come to the church if they can relate to the pastor. So, the pastor must know what type of people they attract, and focus on that group and reach out to them. This is why I believe his section on the importance of knowing your area very well. Such research will allow the minister to be more effective and grow more when it’s target is named.

Finally, I like his emphasis on the lost in that they should constantly be on our mind because Jesus Christ demands it. So, we must be sensitive to their needs, and to how they can better understand the gospel. The ideas and suggestions he puts forth are helpful and should be used.
Overall, Rick Warren’s book is a helpful resource to understanding how Ecclesiology could be practiced and approached. His gives a thorough account of how he does his ministry and how the reader can practice it as well.

Although there are many things that I question in this book in that he makes several Scriptural and fundamental errors, he does have a lot of great things to offer in this best-selling book. There is a reason why millions have turned to this book in search of how to run their church. It is helpful, practical, simple, and at times, wise to follow his instruction.

"A Theological Introduction to the Book of Psalms"

What follows is from the book, "A Theological Introduction to the Book of Psalms: Psalms as Torah."

J. Clinton McCann has written a very helpful book on an introduction on the book of Psalms. McCann uses this book to answer a lot of difficult questions that surround our understanding and interpretation of this pivotal book. Many throughout the years have used Psalms when looking for comfort, help, encouragement, and praise of God. Therefore, a proper understanding of the book is very important for the believer. And so, the author sets out to provide the reader with such important skills.

Summary

The first part of McCann’s book really sets up his basic approach to the book. The author uses the word "Torah," not just meaning the Mosaic Law, but it’s more precise meaning; "instruction." So, the author develops the idea of the Psalms as Torah (instruction).

In this section, the author exegetes several Psalms that parallel the discussion. Some of the Psalms include Psalm 1, 19, and 119. While exegeting these Psalms, the author discusses how the particular Psalm has been understood and interpreted throughout history by various scholars. Throughout this section, the reader understands better how the Psalm relates to God’s instruction.

Also, in this section, the author also describes the Psalms that discusses the reign of God. Here, McCann discusses the literary links between the Psalms previously discussed and the Psalms that the author now discusses. For example, there is a literary link between Psalm 1 and Psalm 2 by the use of the word "blessed."

The second chapter also describe royal Psalms. These are Psalms that exalt God while He is on His throne. These Psalms are concerned with God being on His throne ruling in all Sovereignty and control. These Psalms include Psalm 2, 95, and 96.

PART 2 The second part of the book deals with some of the praise sections in the Psalms. Many of these praise Psalms can be found at the end of the book, but there are several throughout that fall under this category. For example, the shortest Psalm, Psalm 117, is considered a praise Psalm.

The author also discusses the similarities between Psalms, Job, and the New Testament. Throughout the text, modern scholars have noticed many parallels between those writings. The author provides the reader with several examples of this. McCann shows the importance of understanding the Old Testament in light of the New Testament.

PART 3 The third part of McCann’s book discusses Psalms of prayer. He first points out that many of these Psalms are prayers and songs of lament and complaint. Throughout the Psalms, the Psalmist pours his heart out to God questioning some of the things in their personal life and in the world.

Another common form of prayer Psalms are those of forgiveness. Probably the most infamous of these Psalms is Psalm 51 where David is lamenting his sin with Bathsheba and her husband, and asks for God’s forgiveness. In this Psalm, and others like it, we learn that God only can forgive, and they introduce the idea of grace and mercy that is more developed in the New Testament by writers like Paul.

A third kind of Psalms of prayer are Psalms of vengeance. Like Psalms of lament and complain, these Psalms are very controversial. These are the Psalms where the writer asks God to destroy his enemies. A good example of this type of Psalm is Psalm 137. In this Psalm, the writer is asking God to destroy his enemy, and even asks God to dash the little children’s heads against the rocks so that they might die. When many people read this kind of Psalm, they are shocked that this type of language is in the Bible. But yet, it is these Psalms that we learn new things about God and how we are to respond to such situations.

PART 4 The last part of the book discusses the Psalms of profession. The first thing the author discusses related to this topic are Psalms of Assurance. The most popular of this type of Psalms is Psalm 23. There, the Psalmist describes God as "my Shepherd" who leads the believer wherever we need to go. The author goes through verse by verse exegeting this incredible Psalm showing the reader how the Biblical author develops this idea of God giving us assurance. At the end of his treatment of the text, the author shows how Psalm 23 is seen in Christ with a compelling argument and inspirational insights.

The second chapter in this section describes the issues concerning time and space. In this chapter, the author goes about these difficult issues by looking at Psalms such as Psalm 48, 90, and 112. Some of the conclusions that the author comes to is that phrases such as "the house of God" is symbolic for heaven. Likewise, the Psalmist might refer to a heavenly Jerusalem or something similar, and the author shows how we are to properly interpret those passages.

The final part of the book contains vital information on seeing Christ throughout the Psalms. The author walks throughout the Psalms and it’s many prophesies relating to all of the aspects of Jesus’ earthly life, including His birth, teachings, death, etc. This seems to be a fitting conclusion for the book because the author shows the reader that within the Psalms we learn more about God, and ultimately we see Christ.

Critical Evaluation

In terms of critical evaluation, McCann’s book is very intriguing and well done.

Throughout his book, the reader is present with scholarly and helpful helps that lead us into a better understanding of the book of Psalms. There are several things that the author does well.
The first thing is that the author does a good job exegeting the different Psalms. Although this is not a commentary on Psalms, but rather an introduction to Psalms, the author, nonetheless, explains several of the Psalms in order to prove his point. Every Psalm he discusses, he goes into enough detail on it’s background, interpretive challenges, how it has been understood throughout history, and how it affects the modern believer. Anyone preparing a sermon or paper would find this book a helpful resource for them.

Another great thing about McCann’s book is his discussions on the different types of Psalms. Throughout the book, the author discusses Psalms of prayer, praise, lament, vengeance, and many other types. The author is not afraid of diving into some of the difficult issues surrounding the book of Psalms. For each topic, he provides the reader with sound reasoning that he backs up with Scripture and background information that gives the reader a better understanding of why the Holy Spirit has included that particular Psalm, or type of Psalm, into the Word of God.

One of these difficult types of Psalms is the Psalms of vengeance. As discussed in the summary section, Psalms like Psalm 137 ask God to destroy their enemies, even asking them to kill infants and young children. Many look at text like this are shudder at the thought that a Biblical writer would ask God for such a thing. But yet, that is precisely what the Biblical author does. So, how are we to respond to such a difficult issue? The author answers such difficult answers with clear reasoning and sound advice. The author is so successful that he convinces the reader that these Psalms are very important in our understanding of God and man’s relationship with Him.

Another thing I loved about this book was how the author tied the book of Psalms into Christ. This is pivotal in our understanding of Psalms. For throughout the book of Psalms, we see multiple prophesies concerning the coming Jewish Messiah. The author provides the reader with a helpful discussion on these prophesies and how they were literally fulfilled by Jesus Christ in the New Testament. He shows the reader how the Psalms predicted the birth of Christ, His teachings, His death, and His resurrection. After reading this discussion, the reader is left with a better understanding of prophesy, how to interpret it, and how it impacts our lives.

There were very few things that raised flags while I was reading this book, but each time I thought I was in a disagreement with the author, after he explained himself more fully, I found myself in full agreement with him. This goes to show the authors careful treatment of the text, and his excellence as a scholar and teacher.

Overall, I thought McCann’s book was very well done and helpful. Any student of Scripture who desires to have a better understanding of the book of Psalms would greatly benefit from this book. The author answers many of the difficult issues surrounding the interpretation of the Psalms. He also exegetes and explains many of the Psalms for the reader. And in the midst of all of that, the reader’s devotional life is lifted up. The reader comes to understand why it is that the Psalms have been used so greatly in the life of Israel and the Church. They comfort, encourage, help, and pray for us. There is a certain satisfaction that comes with studying the book of Psalms that cannot be replaced, and the author builds on this and encourages the reader to continue his walk with Christ.