Book Review>Peculiar People by Rodney Clapp

Just finished this wonderful book, recommended to me by my good buddy Mr. Caldwell.Clapp's thesis is the church needs to reclaim Christianity as a way of life, as it's own distinct culture. He asserts that the church doesn't need to
blend or mold to "culture" but rather, seek to form/be it's own culture.

Adam read this in seminary, and another close friend who is attending Asbury also has recommended the book. Clapp does a good job of being practical yet I also had to sound out several words, and look up even more on dictionary.com

Clapp points out that there really is no distinct "culture" in modern
America, and that any social analysis will instead yield a picture of
pluralism where there are many varieties of culture. So it's not so much
"the church vs. the culture" but rather the church BEING culture, as
the subtitle suggests. Excellent book. Very thoroughly footnoted and also written in good humor.

One "issue" I took with the book was Clapp's critique of what he called "foundationalism",being the

"pervasive Western philosophical doctrine that all rational belief must be builton the foundations of a-cultural and universally compelling beliefs or
realities, themselves in no need of support" (as made popular by Rene
Descartes).

He cites C.S. Lewis' "moral law" as a failing exercise in moral foundationalism. But then later the next page Clapp refers to "the human conditon". Isn't that a foundationalist assumption? That there is a universal, a-contextual condition thatevery human is in? I just really feel like people really haven't changed much since we've been around once you get down to the bottom of
things, and the way Lewis talks of the moral law makes a lot of sense
to me and I believe is a very compelling "argument" towards the existence of God.

I dunno, maybe a small point to pick on. But I would really recommend this book to any one interested in studying culture or how the church behaves as the body of Christ.

Great book, and it was written in 1996! Mr. Clapp was very prophetic, in that I've read books like Brian McLaren's "Secret Message of Jesus" that share topics and conclusions that Clapp wrote about over a decade before. Let's get peculiar baby! (oddly enough, I have been through Peculiar MO many times.)

Book Review: Can Man Live Without God?

I'm home sick today with an ear infection. So you know what that means, lots of time to blog! A couple weeks ago I finished this book by Ravi Zacharias. I have also read "Jesus Among Other Gods" by the author, and his CD of a lecture series entitled "Why I Am Not an Atheist" really affected me in a positive way.

This book is very much a synthesis of Zacharias' lectures, built mostly upon those delivered at Harvard. There is a section at the end with actual dialogstranscriptions from audience-posed questions. So if you listen to his podcasts or are familiar with any of his audio lectures, then you will already be privy to the material.

In terms of format, the book is very conversational and is divided into three sections:

“Antitheism is Alive—and Deadly,” deals with issues such as God’s existence, ethics, evil, and death. “What Gives Life Meaning?”, investigates man’s relationship to God, and the nature of truth, knowledge, and love. The third section, “Who Is Jesus (and Why Does It Matter?),” compares Jesus’ truth claims with those of other religions. from review here"

Ravi is very much an analytical, logical thinker and his style lends itself to scholarly credibility while at the same time not writing from such a cold and detached posture that it alienates anyone outside academia. His critiques are formed by taking antitheism to its fullest logical conclusions and then juxtaposing those against existential problems that arise. For example, from page 140:

Two contemporary cosmologists make the terrifying comment, "Ultimately it is not human beings that are important, it's DNA." From those words one may infer that prejudice is not personal, it is merely an aversion for certain DNAs. Is this not the inevitable slide of an antitheistic view of man, even though counterintuitively and in practical terms such a bizarre conclusion is incongruent with life itself, where personal love and concerns outweigh all other considerations? Can we just reduce people to chemicals?

We can look at any one of the major tragedies going on in the world right now and if antitheism is true, no body should care because there is no point anyway- after all, we're just DNA.

Ravi is huge on worldview and I believe he is right when he looks at four questions that every worldview must answer: Questions of origin, meaning, morality, and destiny. Great author, great book, great discussion opportunities within a local community.

Ravi Zacharias official website

Book Review>UnChristian>part 2 Busters, Mosaics, and 6 Criticisms of the Church.

In UnChristian David Kinnaman seeks to discover how those outside the church view the Christian faith. The bulk of Kinnaman's research was done among two generations: Mosaics (born between 1984 and 2002) and Busters (born 1965 and 1983). I'm right at the beginning of the Mosaics baby! From the book:

"This book will focus primarily on the oldest Mosaics, those in their late teens up through age twenty-two, and the youngest Busters, primarily describing those under thirty...Keep in mind that identifying a "generation" is an analytical tool for understanding our culture and the people within it. It simply reflects the idea that people who are born over a certain period of time are influenced by a unique set of circumstances and global events, moral and social values, technologies, and cultural and behavioral norms...Recognizing the generational concept as a tool, rather than as definitive for every person means that exceptions are to be expected."

This is a great snapshot of Kinnaman's writing. He clearly defines his terms and is not pretending that his research is the ultimate authority, nor does any study capture 100% of reality. Consider this quote from page 20: "Jesus is so much more than a logical proof". In clarifying the generations he studied as well as allowing for "grey" with exceptions Kinnaman shows that he is a top notch researcher with integrity and does not pretend to have the silver bullet.

Each chapter contains some charts and graphs to visually demonstrate Kinnaman's findings. There are also some thoughts/real life examples from leaders within the church at the end of every chapter. This is the 3rd or 4th book with "reflections" after each chapter that I've read, and these were the best.

The chapters are built around 6 major areas of "heartburn" people expressed about Christianity:

Hypocritical
To focused on "Getting Saved"
Antihomosexual
Sheltered
Too Political
Judgmental

throughout the book there is sort of a "thesis" at the beginning; how Christians are perceived followed by an appropriate Christ like "position" on the issue. More on those with later posts. As you can see, these certainly interweave. So for those of you who just want to know what the book is about and the format it takes, there's two parts for ya. I hope to write on each chapter soon.

Right now I'm off to replace some tires on the Malibu.

Book Review>UnChristian>part 1 Knowing your audience

UnChristian is an empirical effort to examine how those "outside of the church" view Christianity. The research was done by David Kinnaman from The Barna Group, sort of a Christian Gallup Polling organization if you will.

The subtitle reads "what a new generation really thinks about Christianity...and why it matters". So as you might infer research was primarily focused on those aged 16-29. Which is a crossing of two generations: "the leading edge of the Mosaic generation and the trailing half of the Buster cohort". Throughout the book, Kinnaman provides well defined terms so even if you disagree with them at least you know up front with what you are not agreeing. Also, there is just the right amount of graphs/charts/pictures to know that this is great research, without feeling like a boring communications class presentation.

The overall "posture" of the book seems to be towards born-again evangelical Christians. Kinnaman seems to be peeling back the curtain for those folks that are along his own theological lines of thinking. He'll use the words "we" and you're not sure if that means Christians, or those that subscribe to particular doctrines within Christianity. Kinnaman does lay out different "tiers" to Christianity:
Self-identified Christians, Nonevangelical born again Christians, and Evangelical Christians. Since no one likes a mega-post, and Kinnaman has essentially written this book for an evangelical audience, here's his definition: (which is found in a small "glossary" in the back, great idea)

Evangelicals are "born-again" (meaning they have made a personal commitment to Jesus Christ, and believe they will go to heaven when they die as they have confessed their sins and accepted Jesus Christ as their savior).

Evangelicals also meet the following criteria-
1. saying their faith was very important in their life today
2. believe they have a personally responsibility to share their religious beliefs about Christ with non-Christians
3. believe that Satan exists
4. believe that eternal salvation is possible only through grace, not works
5. believe that Jesus Christ lived a sinless life on earth
6. asserting that the Bible is accurate in all that it teaches
7. describe God as the all-knowing, all-powerful, perfect deity who created the universe and still rules it today.

Kinnaman's definition of evangelical did not consider any denominational affiliation or requisite for church attendance.

This could be a misinterpretation on my part, but evangelicals are the audience to whom this book is written. This makes sense, because that is where David Kinnaman is coming from. To me, that is a fundamental (no pun intended!) factor in how one will receive the information. If you are not a part of the "we" that Kinnaman addresses, you could be in for a bumpy ride. If you're wondering whether I am on the fence on this, I happen to agree, if I had to pick yes or no, with Kinnaman. I would identify myself as an evangelical, with only a slight amount of trepidation given his definitions. But again, Kinnaman is very upfront with this, and kudos to him for not being wishy washy nor arrogant in his assertions. We could go round and round about the definition of "evangelical" and his criteria, etc. The most important part of the book is not what I've started out discussing, the most important part is the research and what it reveals about the state of the church in relation to the world around it.

So, now that you understand the basic premise of the book, and equally importantly the assumptions ( I'm not saying "bad" assumptions) behind the audience let's get to the good stuff.

Book Review: Justice in the Burbs

On Adam Caldwell's suggestion, I ordered this last week and finished it up a couple days ago. The book is written in a particular flow- the author(s) Will & Lisa Samson present a fictional scenario of a suburban family who starts a relationship with the leader of a downtown mission and the courses of their life change. Following that there is a commentary by both authors (usually Will I take it) discussing real life application/theology about the things depicted in the story of Matt and Christie. After that there is a short meditation from other authors. (the meditations I didn't care so much for, part of me felt like it was just a way to get Brian McLaren or Doug Paggit's name on the cover, but that's very cynical of me, so we'll give the Samson's the benefit of the doubt.)

Frankly, I didn't think I was going to like the format but they did a really good job! I was concerned about the fictional family- a high "cheese factor" possibility, but it was very well done. Also Will and Lisa discuss "emergent" theology/ideas very plainly, with no pretentious attitudes, which was again, very well done.

In terms of depth, it was ok. There wasn't a lot here I hadn't thought/experienced myself, but I think that is kind of a good thing. It's sort of like having a discussion with a friend you really agree about something with, it's just not as exciting as a good ol' point-counterpoint. But that is a little shallow of me to critique.

All in all, I would recommend this book, especially for folks who might have a small inkling that there's more to life than their kids schedules and ralph lauren clothes and want to look into making some life style changes.

Justice in the Burbs- an excellent book to spring board lifestyle change and kingdom theology. Creative yet accessible format. Pretty cool.

(by the way, i'm blogging from a very...let's say..."non-traditional" location right now!)

The Secret

Secrets don't make friends.
Secret is a woman's deodorant.
James Taylor says "The secret of life is enjoying the passing of time".
"Gnosis" is secret knowledge.
"The Secret" makes a funny book.

From the introduction: "As you travel through its pages and you learn The Secret, you will come to know how you can have, be, or do anything you want. You will come to know who you really are. You will come to know the true magnificence that awaits you."

Well, I guess I'll just read this book, imagine myself kickin back on an island somewhere and hang out until it happens! Why didn't anyone tell me about this before!?!?!?

Oh man, this ought to be good. Lately I've been enjoying finding out "what else is out there". Right now I'm got the God Delusion and The Secret going, and earlier this year read "The End of Faith".

I'll let you guys know how "The Secret" suits me. It's going to be fun.

Fantastic 4/The Dawkins Delusion

Saw Fantastic 4 on Sunday. It was a lot better than the first, which is great news considering the first F4 was right up there on the movie scale with Judge Dredd. The action was continuous and the movie didn't take itself too seriously. So, definitely worth seeing, but wouldn't be upset if I never saw it again.

Also, yesterday I bought The Dawkins Delusion. It was a short read, only 100 pages. Um, I guess it was "good". I was hoping for some entertaining stabs at Dawkins and really granular explanations of why his writings were crap. But, the author (Alister McGrath- one of the coolest names ever) was very courteous and relied on very masterful ways of dissecting Dawkins "God Delusion". So now it's on to "The God Delusion" which is thicker, and looks a lot cooler. I hope they'll be some good discussion out of that.

Now I Understand

I had heard so many graduation speeches or sermons or blogs talk about C.S. Lewis I would get all snooty and thought he was played out. Now I know why so many people are just enamored with his writings. Some of us are going through "The Screwtape Letters" and i've been listening to "Mere Christianity" on audiobook. It's just nuts. Here's one good selection:

"One of our great allies at present is the Church itself...when he goes inside, he sees the local grocer with rather an oily expression on his face bustling up to offer him one shiny little book containing lituragy neither of them can understand...When he gets to his pew and round him he sees just that selection of his neighbours whom he has hitherto avoided...Provided that any of those neighbors sing out of tune, or have botts that squeak, or double chines, or odd clothes, the patient will quite easily believe that their religion must therefore be somehow ridiculous." (pgs 5-6) Written as a letter from one demon giving advice to another in securing a human soul for hell.

It's easy to have some high ideal of what church is like. But it's filled with people with a bunch of problems, just like me and you. Sometimes as a church staff member you can read so many books about leading or evangelising or discipling that you get so puffed up and concerned about the forest that you dont' take care of the trees. I hope that is as profound as it felt to type, or at least makes sense. More from Mr. Lewis soon i'm sure.

I just bought, read, and am reflecting on Sam Harris' Letter to A Christian Nation. In essence, Harris lays out his case that religion is threatening modern society as it does not alleviate human suffering but actually contributes to it. This book was written largely in response to negative feedback from Christians that Harris recieved over his NY Times bestseller "The End of Faith" which I also bought today but it's a lot longer. Harris favors the progress of science and rationality over the absurdity and irresponsibility of religion (not JUST Christianity, but mostly).

Harris has several good points, some of which I might even agree with. But overall this is a very polarizing strategy- remember, he's trying to sell books! He says some very inflamatory things, but it kept the pages turning. I'm gonna have a hayday with this one. More later.

The Emerging Church

I literally just finished Dan Kimball's "The Emerging Church". Also, to make me feel really cool i'll also add in that I recently attended a workshop tought by Mr. Kimball, and got to chat with him briefly. He's a cool guy, who handles critisicm VERY graciously as I saw folks taking issue with him in his own workshop.

To put it shortly, Kimball is addressing the cultural, phiosophical, and theological (plus many other words that end in "al") issues that "emerging generations" are facing. Or more accurately, the issues that the church is facing in dealing with these new generations.

I think he makes lots of great points, highlighting "modern" approaches just don't satisfy people like they used to; as America has moved past a largely judeo-christian worldview into a more pluaralist and individually motivated worldview. So things like 5 point sermons with all the answers won't cut it for folks, especially when they don't want to set foot in a church at all. To paraphrase David Crowder, people are tired of neat solutions to sloppy questions.

So, lots of great stuff. But I also feel like it's too complicated. Suggestions for layouts of services, lighting, incorporation of experiential elements into worship services, getting outside the building of a church, etc. Lots of things he talks about are great!

But I find some irony here. For instance, he asserts that emerging generations are put off by organized religion...then explains how to organize your religion emergently.

I'm really oversimplifying things here, but the more I think about stuff the more I realize that people haven't really changed in thousands of years, and really...ever. The Hebrews argued about the same things 20th century Christians argued about. Thomas a' Kempis talked about how men couldn't sit still...and in the 15th century they didn't even have cell phones or iPods or ritalin. To me it's sad yet comforting that people are still dealing with the same crap we always have. There is no progress. We can just distract ourselves more efficiantly, have more faster access to information, more convienient travel, and our capacity to inflict pain is wider and more devastating (laser guided bombs, etc).

So I will definately rip off/steal plenty of things from Dan Kimball's book! But also, we can dress up or name human needs all we want (adding "post" infront of words, etc). I have noticed and felt some of the shifts he's talking about myself. As the church lets work to address culture all of its ebbing and flowing states in creative and meaningful ways. But I think that human needs haven't changed a bit, we're just finding different ways (or going back to more 'vintage' as Kimball might say) to meet them. To pepper this blog with another quote...as Rob Bell might say- if it's true than it isn't new.

That being said, he brings up some great points to get us to think why the church does certain things. Anybody know what the letters "IHS" stand for on so many crosses on our alters? I don't. There's just one little symbol that probably goes un-noticed, definately goes unexplained. How many other things do we do that are just mindless tradition to the familar and foriegn ritual to the rookie?

Having read this thought provoking book, i'm going to try and get at the question "Why" in ministry a lot more. A good but dangerous thing.