"Dirty Little Secret"

Pornography is becoming more and more mainstream everyday. As a result, more and more Christians are having to control their lustful desires and how easy it is to give in to them. But that is not the only need in this over-sex culture. How do we minister to the pornography industry and our pornographic culture? It certainly isn't easy and it is only getting more difficult. One of the ministries on the forefront is xxxchurch.com who minister to those affected by the porn industry and to those in the porn industry.

I recently read the book, "The Dirty Little Secret: Uncovering the Truth Behind Porn" by Craig Gross (founder of xxxchurch.com) and Carter Krummrich. In their book, the authors provide the reader with the real world of the porn industry and how it affects its makers and consumers. xxxchurch.com even go to the major porn convention in California every year. This was originally controversy and for good reason. Since then, however, many have found it un-newsworthy.

The authors detail many of the stories and persons they have met over the years revealing the truth behind the industry. The truth is, people are craving for a way out. The porn industry is dark and not the perfect world that it is portrayed as. The stories the authors provide are heart breaking to say the least.

Also, the struggle of those dealing with porn addiction and overcoming that addiction is frightening. It is simply eye opening to realize that those who view porn do so like a drug. There is no such thing as moderation and marriage will not resolve it. Story after story are provide to prove this thesis.

The book as a whole is mostly written in story form. Each story and each chapter are written to make a point. The industry is dark, pornography is an addiction, there is no such thing as moderation, it destroys lives, and Christians need to be better able to minister to porn addicts and porn insiders.

The authors are clearly insiders who have the experience and insight to fill the reader in on the truth of the world. Though I question some of their methods of ministry, one must hand it to them; at least they are involved in a ministry that too many Christians have ignored. The book is mostly stories and that is not my favorite books to read, but it is effective nonetheless. the book should not be read by those who struggle with the lust or are young. The world of pornography is dark and the writers tell the truth (without being inappropriate). One gains important insight into the industry that they perhaps could not get elsewhere. In the end, one must remember to pray for the industry, and for the gospel to pierce those involved and those struggling with it. Let the gospel reign supreme and men and women repent to the glory of God. Yes, Jesus does love porn stars . . . so much so that he has died in their place. As He has for all of us.

"A Century Turns" by William Bennett

I've been reading a lot of history lately, in particular American history. I recently picked up William Bennett's new book, "A Century Turns: New Hopes, New Fears," to gain more insight into the events of the past 20 years. Bennett notes that he was hesitant about writing on the history of 1988-2008, but became convinced of its necessity. Bennett is a well known conservative writer, political pundit, contributor to CNN, radio host, and historian and his credentials show up throughout the entire book.

The book is pretty straight forward. Bennett chronicles the major events from 1988-2008. However, the book is more about politics than anything else. In fact the dates selected note Presidential elections. In 1988 President George H. W. Bush was elected to office while in 2008, President Barack Obama was elected. Each chapter begins with the presidency of a new president or with the start of a president's second term. Though the book is not just about the history of politics in the last 20 years, it is the major focus.

But how could it not be? Certainly the cultural wars, the events, and the major news events are political. The Gulf War, the War on Terrorism, 9/11, President Bill Clinton's sexual scandals, the rise and fall of the economy, the Oklahoma City bombings, numerous terrorists attacks, media leaks, etc. Most of the major events have been political.

Regarding his history of politics, Bennett is a first rate writer and historian. As the book reveals, Bennett had a front row seat to many of the major events. His brother represented and President Clinton during the impeachment process. As a radio host, Bennett was frequently in contact and in commentary with many of the events. He personally knows many of the movers and shakers of politics that have shaped the last 20 years. So on the political level, Bennett has great insight.

But there is more to like regarding the political history in the book. Bennett leans conservative and it bleeds through. This does not mean that it is just a conservative hit piece that tries to make an argument. Rather, Bennett goes into details in areas that a non-conservative historian would not. For example, Bennett goes out of his way to reveal the international evidence of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Though he is critical of the Bush administration in its handling and compiling of the evidence, he does reveal how everybody, Republican, Democrat, conservative, liberal, the UN, and the international community, were all saying the same thing. This does not make Bush a liar.

But the book isn't just about politics. Bennett discusses a number of the major events away from the world of policy. For example, Bennett discusses the OJ Simpson trial as well as the King trial which led to looting and riots after the police that brutally beat him were found not guilty.

Overall, Bennett does a good job surveying and providing a historical perspective on all of the major event so the past 20 years. Being only 25, the first president I can remember is Bush Sr., but I knew very little (obviously) about politics and the presidency. I enjoyed learning more and gaining some perspective on the events and those who shaped history over the past twenty years.

I recommend this book to not just history buffs or presidential lovers, but to all Americans. History is not just about dates and dead people (and in this book, many of the people mentioned are still living). Rather, history gives us insight into where we have been (the good and the bad) and where we are going (what needs to remain and what needs to change). To be blind to history is to be blind to the present. I really enjoyed the book and I think you will too.

I received this book free from Thomas Nelson Publishers as part of their BookSneeze.com book review bloggers program. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255 : “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”

"Sex Is Not the Problem (Lust Is)"

I have a lot of reading to do this week. Coming Sunday we will be discussing lust, adultery, pornography, and sexual sin in light of what Jesus says in Matthew 5:27ff. At the top of my reading list is Joshua Harris' book, "Sex Is Not the Problem (Lust Is): Sexual Purity in a Lust-Saturated World." Like all of Harris' book, this is biblical and theologically sound, centered on the cross, practical, and a necessary read.

This is not a 10 step program on how to conquer lust. Harris is emphatic that lust can't be "conquered" in the sense that once we do something or go through a number of steps we don't have to worry about it anymore. No, lust is an ongoing battle, and one that must be raged constantly.

There are a couple of things I'd like to highlight from his book (though I could discuss all of the chapters). First, his discussion on the difference between men and women was well received. Too often we think of lust, pornography, masturbation, and other sexual sins to be primarily a guy problem. Although this is primarily true (in the sense that there is a higher percentage of guys viewing pornography than girls), that does not mean that lust is exclusively a guy problem. All women struggle with lust. Most, however, struggle with it in different ways.

This is what I found particularly helpful at this point. Harris points out how men and women differ in their struggle over lust and sexual sin. For example, men like to pursue whereas women like to be pursued. Likewise, men like to notice and see, while women like be be noticed and seen. He then makes the point at how compatible God has made us. However, one can see where the danger lies. In their pursuit of being noticed and pursued (giving into their lust), women oftentimes compromise and encourage other men to stare and thus lust after them. Similarly, when women see the same billboard that men see, they too lust but in a different way. Men think of sex or the imagery, whereas women think of the relationship. Finally, Harris points out some of the dangers of romantic novels (and I would add some chic-flicks) in a woman's struggle over lust. If pornography portrays what is most desired and yet unreal, then so do such books and movies (this does not mean that such books and films are worse than pornography and should be avoided in the same way as pornography, but only to say that there is real danger with them).

Secondly, Harris' discussion regarding masturbation was really helpful with some important insights. As a former youth pastor and as one that still works with youth as a pastor, this is an important and popular subject (though very few shout out, "Let's talk about masturbation!"). Harris doesn't waste his time discussing Obed or other unqualified biblical passages. Rather, he points out the real dangers and some of the myths of masturbation. For example, one of the main dangers of the practice is what it says about sex. According to the biblical model of sex and romance, sex is to be about the other partner, not about us. Masturbation is inherently self-centered. Also, Harris points out the almost impossibility of some who say that it is possible to masturbate ("for release") without lusting after someone. In the end, though there remain some questions unanswered Harris offers a good treatment of the subject.

Furthermore, Harris' distance from legalism in light of the cross is helpful. In fact, he goes out of his way to warn of legalism. Instead of legalistic models of overcoming lust, what we need is the gospel; justification and sanctification. Harris walks the reader through these critical doctrines to show how they affect our sex lives and our sexual desires. All doctrine is practical.

Finally, the book is full of practical advice. Harris talks about guides to picking out movies, logging onto the Internet, steps to take avoid common pitfalls, etc. He recommends resources and other practical things to help the reader. One can tell that he has a pastors heart as he writes.

Overall, this book is everything I expected out of it. For those struggling with lust (and who isn't these days?) this is a good place to start. Harris is a good writer with great insight and is theologically sound. I highly recommend.

"John's Story"

Tim Lahaye and Jerry B. Jenkins are co-authors of the worlds best selling books, the infamous Left Behind series. I have read almost all of them (none of the prequels and I have yet to read the last book in the series) and have found them interesting. Although I disagree with some of the interpretations and conclusions in their eschatology, I do consider myself a Pre-Trib, Pre-millennial dispensationalists.

With that said, one must understand that the duo have not just written about the end times. In recent years, the two have written books tracing the story behind the writing of the four Gospels. I recently sat down and read about the story of the writing of John's Gospel in a book called "The Last Eyewitness: John's Story." One must remember that, like the Left Behind series, this is historical fiction. Where needed, the authors filled in some of the gaps of the story that we know nothing about.

There are three main characters: John the Apostle, Polycarp, and Ignatius. All three of these men are important leaders in the Early Church and all of them suffered for the cause of Christ. The setting is the rise of the Gnostic heresy which forces the aged John to write his account of the life, ministry, death, and resurrection of Christ. Each chapter walks us through the Gospel giving us an idea of perhaps how it was written.

But there are a number of historical problems. It is likely that Gnosticism was a leader cause of why the Gospel was written, but we don't know of any specific event or teacher that forced John's hand. Again, this is the fiction part. Furthermore, we do not know who exactly penned the Gospel as John dictated. Certainly the "we" section at the end of the Gospel raises some issues, but we don't know if Polycarp was the secretary or not. Likewise, the book asserts that the Epistles of John were written to Polycarp while in Smyrna which too is unknown. 2 John is written to the "lady" and 3 John is said to be written to someone else.

The point is that although the book is a fascinating look at what the writing of John's Gospel might have been like, there is much that we do not know. The authors mention the continued persecution of the Church and how John suffered and they give us a context in which to help us understand Gnosticism. It is important for Christians to understand Gnosticism some because elements of it are present today (not to mention to love-fest for the many Gnostic "Gospels").

Overall, I enjoyed the book as a work of fiction based on historical events. John's Gospel is probably my favorite and the authors emphasize the 7 signs leading up to the resurrection proving Jesus' divinity. Furthermore, the book was a reminder that John was a real person, dealing with real people, suffering real persecution, serving a real church with real needs and through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit penned five of the 27 books of the New Testament.

So I would recommend this series (just from what I've read so far) as an interesting look into the historical background and reasons behind the Gospels. Many Christians are very ignorant regarding the historical context of the Gospel writings and so the Left Behind duo have come to help us understand it a little better.

"The Voice of Luke"

I'm not a fan of paraphrase "translations" of the Bible. Translations like the Message only water down the Scripture to where the real meaning is almost lost. I believe there is real danger in approaching the biblical text in such a way. I want to know what was written in the most accurate way. No translation is perfect, but any paraphrase should not be part of our daily Bible reading or study.

However, I did pick up one and read it. Well, its not the whole Bible, it was just one book: Luke. In his paraphrased translation, "The Voice of Luke: Not Even Sandals," Emergent leader Brian McLaren offers his rendition of the biblical Gospel. I just had to give it a read. I knew he would offer a few unique retranslations (like translating Savior as Liberator throughout the text and translating baptism as ritual cleaning), but I was most interested in how he dealt with the here and not yet reality of the Kingdom of God and what He did with Jesus' preaching of the gospel and the cross.

The Kingdom of God is central to understanding McLaren's deconstructive theology. To not understand what he means by the phrase is to fail to understand what he believes. He has said repeatedly that the message of Jesus could be summed up as, "the Kingdom of God." I agree with him. The problem, however, is what we mean and how we interpret Jesus' understanding of the Kingdom of God.

It should be said and pointed out here that theological liberal movements usually emphasize the present reality of the Kingdom over its future hope. Both Schleiermacher and Rauschenbush did this. Schleiermacher introduced the world to Protestant liberals while Rauschenbush became the poster child of the social gospel. McLaren, in his understanding of the Kingdom, has joined their ranks. This does not mean that he rejects the future hope of the Kingdom, but that he without a doubt overemphasizes the present reality to the point that many miss the future hope aspect of his theology. In fact, McLaren seems to want to write off the future hope of the Kingdom. By fundamentally rejecting the doctrine of hell (or at the very least deconstructing it to the point that no one knows what he believes about it) and by criticizing Christians for caring too much about heaven, eternal life, and judgment, McLaren is guilty of preaching only the present reality of the Kingdom.

I found this fascinating in this translation of Luke's Gospel because Jesus emphasizes both aspects and yet the devotional comments throughout this book are only on the sections centered on the present reality. Though he says things like heaven and judgment throughout, McLaren does not clarify or go any deeper than simply mentioning them. An example of McLaren's emphasis on the present reality of the Kingdom is found in chapter 4 of Luke which happens to be the same chapter where Jesus quotes Isaiah and says that He has come to liberate the captive and help the poor (an important passage to Emergents, McLaren, and social gospel proponents):

The essential message of Jesus can be summed up this way: 'the kingdom of God is available to everyone, starting now.' when Jesus refers to the kingdom of God,He doesn't mean something that happens after we die, far off i heaven; He equates the kingdom of God with God's will being done on earth as it is in heaven. so the kingdom of God is life as God intends it to be -- life to the full, life in peace and justice, life in abundance and love. Individuals enter the Kingdom when they enter into a relationship with the Liberating King, when they trust Him enough to follow His ways. But make no mistake, the Kingdom is about more than our individual lives; it is about the transformation and renewal of all God has created. it may stat with our individual responses, but it doesn't stop there. -34

You can see where he is going. It is amazing the silence McLaren gives on the texts that are clearly regarding the future hope of the Kingdom.

I also was interested in seeing how he treated the cross and resurrection. In Emergent theology, the cross and resurrection are not as central as more Reformed theology and this is one of the major problems I have with the movement. Unless we understand the cross and resurrection as being propitiatory and expiatory, then the teachings and says of Jesus do not set Him apart from anyone else. Notice how McLaren defines the phrase "Son of Man" in Luke 24 shortly placed after the resurrection:

In this way, 'Son of' suggests 'new generation of' and 'Man' suggests 'humanity.' Jesus is Himself the new generation of humanity (a second Adam, a new beginning), and the community He creates will also share this identity (a new creation, a new humanity in Christ). -164

I'm afraid he misses the point. Jesus is not just a new generation of humanity, He is the God-man. Yes He is the 2nd Adam, but in the sense that from the 1st Adam we got sin, but through the 2nd Adam (Jesus Christ) sin is propitiated. McLaren just misses it and one can see the present reality again. The cross and resurrection, as laid out in his rendition of Luke's Gospel, is about creating a new humanity for the here and now. Certainly we become new creatures in Christ on account of the cross and resurrection, but it is much bigger than that.

Overall, I found this to be a telling and interesting read. There were times where McLaren just translates and refrains from commenting. Those moments seemed to me to be the moments that contradicted much in his and Emergent theology. But where it concerned Emergent interests (like Jesus' teachings on money and religion) McLaren was there to "continue the conversation."

On will not find anything new here except the pick and choosing from the Red-Letter Christians. They want some of what Jesus said, but not all of it. On one final note, I was struck that as an Emergent work, there was no green or red letters. How did they miss that?

"Humility: True Greatness" by CJ Mahaney

Writing a book on humility has got to be tough. During the entire process one's pride must be constantly under attack and yet continues to rise for more. It takes a special person. It takes a qualified person. It takes a humbled persons. CJ Mahaney is that guy. One of the most important books for Christians too read, I believe, is his book, "Humility: True Greatness." Over recent years, I have grown to love Mahaney, his sermons and his books. This is perhaps his most important work.

If Christians would learn to hand their pride over to Christ and live in humility, we would be a more godly Church and a more authentic Church. Pride is both consuming us and destroying us. Mahaney writes a book that needs to be read by all. What I particularly love about Mahaney's work is his focus on Christ and the cross. It is at the cross that we are humbled the most. There, Christ accomplished what we could not. There, Christ died for us. If that doesn't humble us, nothing will.

In addition to the centrality of the cross, Mahaney offers great practical advice in conquering pride in our lives. And, as expected, these practical steps are biblical and center on the cross. Mahaney offers biblical advice mixed with hilarious stories where pride overthrows common sense (I liked the story about putting air in the tires). These stories we can all relate to and they illustrate exactly how easily pride enters our lives. If only we would humble ourselves at the cross, we would be the sort of Christians Christ has called us to be.

I read this book several times over the years and recently listened to it through an audio download from http://www.christianaudio.com/. To download the book, click here. Though the reader did not keep my attention as other readers I have downloaded at the site, he still did a good job. With a book this good, the read does an adequate job at presenting the text.

Overall, I encourage everyone to take the time to read this little book. It is much needed in our day. Pride is the root of many of our sins. We desperately need to cultivate humility.

For more:

Humility - original review

"The Practice of the Presence of God"

"Lord Save Us From Your Followers"

http://mereorthodoxy.com/?p=2800We need to talk. That's the synopsis of Dan Merchant's book (and movie) "Lord Save Us From Your Followers: Why is the Gospel of Love Dividing Society?" Merchant is tired of what Christianity has become and believes that if only we start a conversation where we are open and honest with one another. The author seeks to answer the question in the subtitle, "why is the gospel of love dividing society?"

Merchant's understanding of the gospel is rather simple. To him, the message of Jesus is all love and no substance. Instead of standing for something, we should just dialogue and be friends. When I read the title of the book, I couldn't help but think of Jesus' words that He didn't come to bring peace, but a sword. The gospel is itself offensive and divisive.

This does not mean that Christians have always gotten it right. However, to abandon the gospel for a weak wristed message of love and peace is not the right answer. The author sets out to interview various persons from various perspectives like Al Franken, Tony Campolo, and Rick Santorum. The point is to encourage the reader to start a conversation instead of living in a "us-verses-them" mentality that we currently live in.

I concur that conversation is good and needed. However, if we only talk and listen without holding firm to our convictions and calling on men to repent, we are not living out the true message of Jesus Christ. Is it really a bad thing that the culture hates the gospel? Jesus Himself was hated despite His message of love because He called on everyone to repent. Repent of their sin. Repent of their walk of life. Repent of their very being. Such a message is divisive and leads to persecution. It leads to crucifixion and Jesus, the guy that called us to love and forgive, calls us to pick up our cross and follow Him to Calvary.

As I was reading the book I couldn't but help find myself thinking that this is nothing more than like a bad root bear: a lot of fuzz and a little bit of liquid (I got this quote from Dr. Rick Holland from Grace Community Church). Merchant spends a lot of time talking and confessing, but little no time proclaiming the message of Christ. With all of his talk about the red-letters he only focused on but a few. If we really want to live like Christ, we must be willing to be divisive. Yes Christians have much to be sorry for, but that should turn us towards the gospel, not away from it.

I have not seen Merchant's film and make no plans too. Although if it keeps snowing, I may have no other choice. But as I look at the current state of Christianity I have much to concerned with. Those within the Emergent Church and postmodern Christianity just want to have a conversation without borders nor orthodoxy. Conversation is fine, but that cannot be the end of it. Unless we are willing to hold fast to the gospel of Jesus Christ, we are wasting our time.

Jesus brought a sword and upon His ascension He handed that sword to us. Will we yield it like Him, or will we just talk about it?


For more:
Mere Orthodoxy - Lord Save Us From Poorly Made Documents

"Manifold Witness"

Truth is plural and that is the singular truth. That is in essence the argument made in John R. Franke's new book, "Manifold Witness: The Plurality of Truth." Franke is a well respected scholar in the postmodern/Emergent Church Movement and his voice resonates with many Christians today. Franke gives his readers the academic tools many are lacking and in his latest book (series editor is Tony Jones and the foreword is written by Brian McLaren) Franke gives Emergents plenty of fire and plenty to chew on.

Is truth plural? I would say no based solely on the singularity of God and the transcendence of the exclusivity of the gospel, but Franke obviously has a different argument. I want to focus on just a few aspects of the book rather than give a complete review. I have read a number of other thought-provoking and thorough reviews which are better than anything I can do (read Dr. Albert Mohler's for example). But here, I want to narrow the focus a bit.

Franke begins his argument suggesting that increased globalization has created a serious problem to the gospel and the belief in the singularity of truth. If we are honest with ourselves, the exclusivity of the gospel means that a lot of people will live and die without Christ. As globalization increases, the earth gets a little smaller and one of the challenges we face is reaching everyone with the gospel. Franke offers a different option: plurality of truth. Perhaps the numbers aren't so daunting after all. If truth his plural, then missions should not just be about making converts before people die, but something totally different.

This obviously is a serious issue to me. If the truth is plural, then missions is redefined. The Great Commission recorded in the Gospels take on a whole different meaning. Though Franke does not really discuss missions and evangelism thoroughly for it is not his main focus, but if missions is redefined, then so is the gospel. And that is my main concern.

Frank mentions how if someone saw the church throughout her 2,000 history, that person would witness a plurality of gospel truth. They would seek truth among the monks, the Reformers, the Crusaders, the Religious Right, etc. Franke suggests that these different expressions of Christianity suggests that Christians have always understood gospel truth to be plural.

But is that really the case? My biggest concern with Franke's argument and those in the Emergent conversation who affirm his beliefs regards the transcendence of the gospel. The more I study postmodernism, the Emerging Church, Protestant liberalism, and many of the heretical movements within the Church I am constantly reminded that the core issue being fought is the transcendence of the gospel. If the gospel changes with the culture, then it is not transcendent. And, I would argue, if the gospel is not transcendent, then God is not immutable. Enter Open Theism.

Franke had an interesting section regarding the culture and its influence on the gospel, Christianity, and the truth that deserves attention. He begins by quoting Lesslie Newbigin's famous assertion that "we must start with the basic fact that there is no such thing as a pure gospel if by that is meant something which is not embodied in a culture" (17). You can see his argument and the danger it represents. If the gospel, every expression of it, is culturally driven then it is not pure, and if it is not pure, then God has failed in given us the pure gospel. God, therefore, is a failure.

Obviously, Franke does not go this far or anywhere near such an assertion, but I believe this is where such an argument takes us. If there is no pure gospel, then our Holy God failed. He, therefore, is no longer Holy. The whole purpose of giving us Divine and direct revelation is for the discovery of the pure gospel, not a corrupted one. What Franke offers us is not clarity or hope, but confusion and uncertainty. If no one possesses the pure gospel, then what hope do we have? We, thus, must result to works righteousness and Scripture is clear that that will not do.

Is the gospel oftentimes culturally choked? Of course it is. How many times have we equated the gospel with voting Republican or Democrat? This is corrupting the gospel and it is obvious. But reforming the gospel to tickle the ears of modernism or postmodernism is equally dangerous. By asserting that the gospel is always culturally corrupted implies that it is no gospel at all. To preach such a gospel is not counter-cultural as Scripture demands us to preach, but rather tickles the ears of our hearers. If we refuse to proclaim truth because the culture doesn't want to hear it, can we really say we have a gospel? If we downside the gospel to fit in an age of science, can we rally say we have a gospel?

Culture is the problem when it corrupts the gospel. The fundamental rejection of the gospel's transcendence is a serious issue and no academic or lay person should act like it is no big deal. Franke presents an argument that suggests that when postmodern dies, so will the postmodern gospel, only to be replaced with something new and fresh. Is God subject to the same mutability? If God subject to our cultural preferences? If so, then who is God in light of the various cultures? Is He postmodern like in the West or patriarchal like in remote villages?

Franke makes his argument for the plural, cultural driven gospel based on Scripture's apparent change in various cultural contexts. For example, while among the Jews, Paul presents the gospel very differently than when in Athens. The problem with such an argument is that to change the delivery does not mean to change the message. Survey Acts and you will find that the gospel remains the same in each and every city and culture: 1) believe in Jesus Christ as God and Man sent to earth to serve as our substitute and was then raised, and 2) repent of your sins and walk in newness of life remains the same. The gospel doesn't change, only the context and the delivery.

But Franke is careful. He is not suggesting that anything goes and that any gospel is the gospel. He calls on his reader to differentiate between legitimate and illegitimate gospels. But I must ask myself, "how?" How does one go about making that distinction? Even Franke allows the idea that those who reject the Trinity can still consider themselves Christians (though Franke makes a very big deal about the belief in the Trinity). Do Unitarians have an adequate gospel that pleases God even though their understanding of God lacks two persons of the Trinity?

One can see the Pandora's Box that is being opened here. The Emerging Church is quickly showing us that the thin line that some are able to walk in postmodern theology will not be walked by others for long. Once one makes such an argument, they are opening the doors to serious heresy. If all theology is local, then is it really theology. How does one pastor various churches without starting his theology all over again? Why travel and preach when the gospel is different?

The attack on the gospel's transcendence is a serious issue that more Evangelicals need to consider. To deny that is to adopt any heresy that seems relevant. Franke offers an academic book, but one will find an empty argument. The fallacy of the book is seen in the title. If truth is plural, then why should I bother reading. I am content living in my own little world with my own little truth. Leave me alone.

That is not gospel ministry.

"Angels" by David Jeremiah

David Jeremiah is one of America's most recognizable and influential Evangelical leaders of our day. His sermons are watched and listened to by thousands and many more buy his books. Jeremiah's recent book is called, "Angels: Who They Are and How They Help - What the Bible Reveals." When I was a teenager, intrigued by the subject of angels, I read Billy Graham's book on the subject and as I was reading Jeremiah's book, I was constantly reminded of Graham's work. Jeremiah has only added to what Graham has written.

The book is pretty straightforward. Dr. Jeremiah seeks to share with the reader everything the Bible says about angels, who they are, and what they do. What is most encouraging about the book is that Jeremiah is not interested in folklore or common myths and legends regarding angels. He only cares about what the Bible says. Throughout the book, Jeremiah raises questions regarding angels that many people ask and always draws the reader to the text of Scripture, not to pop culture. It is amazing how many things we believe about angels are actually remnants of pop culture which have no resemblance of what the Bible teaches.

Overall, the book was really good. Jeremiah is first and foremost a pastor and writes as one. Anyone looking for a deep theological treatment of the text will not find what they are looking for here. Jeremiah's appeal is to laymen and women. He writes with simplicity and clarity that are imperative for pastoral ministry. Jeremiah has clearly studied the subject and carefully articulated what the Bible says on the subject. Certainly he could have gone in more detail in some areas, but overall, Dr. Jeremiah offers a precise, yet thorough enough treatment of the subject to satisfy the reader.

The subject of angels is important for Christians to study. What Graham did in the 20th Century regarding the subject, Jeremiah is doing in the 21st. I have always said that Christians should study and know subjects like angels, demons, spiritual warfare, heaven, hell, and other supernatural subjects. I would recommend this book to anyone interested or confused in the subject, even those with little or no biblical knowledge.

This book was provided for review by the WaterBrook Multnomah Publishing Group