Category Archives: Book Review

The Changing Shape of Church History by Justo Gonzalez

Posted on by
Reply

The basic premise of this book  is that history is defined by geography. Regarding church history the old map was centred in the North Atlantic and considered what happened in Europe and North America as relevant but was ignorant of South America, Asia and Africa.

Gonzalez asks how relevant this old map is in light of the current state of global Christianity. For example, the Diet of Worms took place on the same day as Cortes’ siege of Tenochtitlan – which of these tow events was more significant in church history? In the old map, Cortes’ siege barely rates a mention in church history. IN a church history that is cognizant of south America, it becomes a hugely significant event. A new map of church history becomes almost inseperable from a history of missions.

This bias in church history gives a skewed focus to syncretism. Whereas Christmas trees and easter bunnies are usually treated as acceptable forms of syncretism (if they are even recognized as syncretism), assimilating Shintoism and Confucianism into Eastern Christianity seems an almost heretical idea.

Ultimately, the shape of our  Church History must change because the model we have been using is becoming obsolete. So much of Western Christianity is tied up with modernity, which is slowly succumbing to post-modernity. Anyone who has been reading Christian books in the last decade can see the huge focus that is placed onthis change, however very little attention is being placed on what could be called extra-modernity – those who have never been modern – which includes most people outside of the west.

Gonzalez urges us to reclaim the real meaning of catholic (according to the whole). For the whole church the dangers we face are syncretism and sectarianism. In many ways we have a sort of hidden sectarianism, where it is subtly said (or even unsaid but implied) that the western way of doing church is right or best. Now we have a truly global church for the first time, where people of every race, gender class and culture are participating. It is important in light of this to let all of these cultures and voices be heard  to build Christ’s church in any culture and not merely filtered through the lens of Western modernism.

Thank You For Arguing by Jay Heinrichs

Posted on by
Reply

What place would a book on rhetoric, the art of persuading people, have for an evangelist? Of course, you can see the pragmatic value of being able to use the skills learnt to win someone over to your side. But do such tactics have any place in the lives of God’s followers?
Rhetoric today often gets a bad press. It is most often heard in the epithet “mere rhetoric” meaning words speech that amount to nothing more than hot air when examined closely. Jay Heinrich’s book is in many ways a modern apologetic for the lost art of rhetoric. (Or maybe hidden art would be more accurate because although the word may not be popular these days the practice of rhetoric is everywhere, from politics and advertising to the classroom and family.)
One of the main principles in the book is age-old concept of ethos, pathos and logos (character, emotion, and reasoning) as persuasive elements in any argument. I found the approach in this book useful, as it pointed out that all three are needed to win over an audience. So instead of thinking do I need to use ethos, pathos or logos to win this person/audience over, you are thinking how your ethos, pathos and logos in influencing their receptivity to your argument. It encourages a much more holistic view to communication and persuasion.
To give an example, the author includes several ‘tricks’ to persuade an audience and mentions several times that in rhetoric what works (ie what persuades) is important, as opposed to what is true. However, there is a reminder that if an audience suspects that you are not telling them the truth then your ethos will go way down in their standings and so consequently will your ability to persuade.
Another central principle is the focus of the argument, whether it is on the past, present or future. The author mentions that only arguments that focus on the future are relevant for persuasion, because they are the only arguments that can lead to meaningful action. If an argument is focused on the past, it becomes a blame game – trying to apportion who is at fault for the problem. If an argument is focused on the present it becomes tribal, a marker for where peoples alliances are. Any argument that is focused on past or present is therefore doomed to result in zero meaningful action. However, when the argument is focused on the future, it brings people’s minds to bear on what action can be taken and is therefore much more powerful in persuading people to actually do something.
One of the most useful points I found was the addition of a fourth element to ethos, pathos and logos. The fourth element is kairos, which basically means timeliness. It reminds us that a good argument needs to be given at the right time to bring about the best response.
So, is this a book that has anything to offer an evangelist? I would say yes, that the skills of rhetoric are important to apply to our evangelistic conversations so we can find the arguments that will resonate with someone in communicating the gospel. Of course, the underhand tricks that some rhetoricians use do not have a place, but then, they are often damaging to our ethos anyway and of little long term benefit. (On the other hand, it is important to be familiar with these tactics so we can identify and defuse them when we encounter them.) While we acknowledge that it is the Holy Spirit’s work in someone’s heart that is the crucial element in conversion, we must do what we can to smooth the road for someone to make that step, and smoothing that road is what rhetoric, and the persuasion skills in this book do.

Unchristian

Posted on by
Reply

This is a book I have just finished reading by David Kinnaman from the Barna Group. The purpose of the book is to find out why Christians have an image problem in non-Christians eyes, and what we can do about it.

The research they come up with is pretty hard-hitting. There were six key attributes that were consistently applied to Christians. They were: hypocritical, only interested in conversion, anti-homosexual, sheltered, too political, and judgmental. In short, people would describe us as being unchristian. The book also looks at what we can do to turn this image problem around. It suggests that one of the key reasons we have this image problem is that these labels are a lot of the time true, that we need to seriously consider the feedback we are getting and instead show the world that we can be authentic, truly interested in people, caring towards homosexuals, courageous, beyond politics, and compassionate. In as much as we have failed to do that, we have failed to represent Jesus in this world.

I would  definitely recommend this book to anyone concerned about how their non-Christian neighbours or friends views Christianity. Another cool thing about this book is that it comes with its own website – <a href=”http://www.unchristian.com”>www.unchristian.com</a>

The Biblical Basis for Modern Science

Posted on by
Reply

This book is by Henry Morris, who is considered the father of modern Creation Science. I am reading a few books at the moment on the interaction on faith and science because I’m on a discussion group on the topic and we’re hopefully going to put together a strategy on speaking about this topic. I actually found this book to be a bit of a frustrating read. Morris’ approach seems to be to use proof texts to support his findings and I feel that many or his proof texts were taken out of context. For example, he uses Job 38:14 “[The earth] is turned as clay to the seal.” to show that the Bible teaches the earth’s rotation – this verse only has turned in the KJV all the others have changed/take shape or other words that describe how a seal leaves its mark on clay; and Isaiah 45:12 “I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens as a curtain, and all their host have I commanded.” to show that the Bible teaches an expanding universe. It is interesting that he is willing to take an extremely literal interpretation of stretched within the context of a simile, and yet, I am sure he would never have said that God really has hands. He uses this technique throughout the book to attempt to give a biblical basis for all sorts of natural and scientific phenomenon. This causes him to fudge things somewhat when he comes to Jeremiah 10:13 and 51:16 which says that God “makes lightning with rain”. Whereas in other places he uses similar texts to try to prove a scientific observation, here the text is so different from established fact, that he resorts to saying that these instead indicate that rain and lightning are clearly related. What I find frustrating about this is that the verses that he is quoting are not intended as instructions on how the world works, but using commonly accepted observations of the world to demonstrate spiritual truths. He is reading the meaning into the texts, and performing some rather difficult linguistic gymnastics to give the text the meaning he desires. Honestly, I find this approach quite embarrassing. It makes it difficult for Christians to be treated seriously when talking to people who have studied science.

While I believe that God is perfectly capable of creating the whole universe in six days only a few thousand years ago, this book has actually reduced the credibility that the Young Earth Creation movement have in my eyes

Total Truth

Posted on by
Reply

I have just finished reading Total Truth by Nancy Pearcey. The basic premise of the book is that throughout the centuries people’s worldviews and philosophies have been characterized by a split – a false dichotomy that divides truth into a lower storey that deals with public truth or facts, and an upper storey that deals with private truth or values. The main goal of the book is to promote a holistic worldview which embraces total truth and doesn’t divide truth into two classes. Along the way, some of the philosophies that come under scrutiny are feminism, materialism, and post-modernism. However, the bulk of the book deals with the implications of this division of truth into two categories in two worldviews that hold sway over large numbers of Americans (it is rather an American book.) – Darwinism, and Evangelicalism. The author looks at how this truth division is a foundation of Darwinism, not only as a biological theory, but also (and you might say especially) in the area of social Darwinism. She looks at examples from Dewey (he of the Decimal system we encounter in libraries), Pinker, and Dennett to show how this division is a foundational pillar of their theories. The chapters dealing with Darwinism also function as a sounding board for Intelligent Design. She says “Luther once said that if we fight on all fronts except the one actually under attack at the moment, then we are not really fighting the battle. And what is the point under attack today? Mainstream evolutionists may disagree with one another over the precise mechanism and timing of evolution (whether natural selection needs to be supplemented by other mechanisms); but they all agree that it happened by blind, undirected natural causes. On the other side of the divide, Christians may argue with one another over secondary questions like when God created the universe (whether it is young or old); but they all agree that the universe is the handiwork of a personal God. Thus the heart of the battle is whether the universe is the result of Intelligent Agency or of blind, noncognitive forces – and that’s where we must direct our energies. Christians need to bracket peripheral issues and focus on the crucial point of whether there is evidence for Intelligent Design in the universe.” I find this approach refreshing as it does away with a lot of the dogmatic parochialism that I hear on many sides of this argument and focuses on the real issue at hand. The other main worldview that has a large section devoted to it is evangelicalism. She looks at the roots of evangelicalism in the two Great Awakenings in America and notes how the revivalist style of preaching led to a focus on Christianity as something emotional and of the heart and an antipathy towards intellectual activity. Sort of the “Don’t think about it – just let God work in your heart” attitude. This strand of evangelicalism was prominent in the Baptist and Methodist, and later also in the Pentecostal churches (in the US) whereas another ‘bookish’ strand of evangelicalism arose in response to this, mainly in the Presbyterian church. She points out that both of these strands of evangelicalism fell, in different ways, to the fallacy of this division of truth. In particular – their disagreement was over which truth – the public truth/facts, or the private truth/values was the more important or real truth that should dictate how we order our world. She sums up her book much in the same place where she begins, by pointing out the difficulty of living an authentic Christian life in our workplace, neighbourhood, families, etc. But whereas at the beginning the incongruities were raised, at the end solutions and answers were given. A lot of her thinking has been influenced by Francis Schaeffer and her time under his tutelage at L’Abri. All in all, I would recommend this book to anyone who has an interest in the formation of ideas throughout history or feels the incongruity of what they believe with how they live their Christian life.