I got a copy of this
book when the publisher offered it for free.
This book is far too
long. If someone had made him to cut out all the needless
repetitions, this book may well have been about half it's current
size.
I hardly know where to
begin in properly critiquing the unholy mess that is this book.
First, I seriously think
that this author has never read the Bible. Oh, he has his pet verses
he hauls out ad nauseam, thinking they prove his points when they
actually don't. But any hint of a serious study of what the Bible
teaches is missing in the book, and his conclusions have little if
anything to do with what any passage says.
For example, his
mangling of the story of Jacob in this book is enough to disqualify
him from any pretense of being a Christian minister. “Jacob
received the blessing from his father, Isaac, and became a renewed
person.” (p. 8). Where does the account of Jacob tricking his
father tell us that he became a renewed person? It ain't there.
“Jacob was about to leave to begin blazing the trail that was alive
within him when his father, Isaac, blessed him again:” (p. 9). This
is laughable! Jacob left because Esau was making plans to kill him
for his trickery. And blazing the trail that was alive with him? What
kind of nonsense rhetoric is that! “But we see that Jacob arrives
at Bethel and he is at rest. He is not striving to prove himself or
create significance.” (p. 11). It was night! Jacob was sleeping,
what most people do at night! This guy's attempts to read his ideas
into Jacob's life are so pathetic, that they cross over into the
comedic!
Oh, and what he does to
the account of Jesus raises Lazarus is, if anything, even worse.
“Lazarus was wearing grave clothes, probably could have been
considered unclean and in need of some help before he could go
forward in life. Even Martha, who so eagerly waited for the miracle
she wanted, couldn’t help but focus on the stench of death.” (p.
49). When Martha spoke about the smell, it was when her brother was
still dead. “Rather, Jesus called out the life in Lazarus knowing
that death would be left behind as Lazarus began to live forward.
Jesus spoke to the potential of life within him, “Lazarus, come
forth!” (John 11: 43).” (p. 50). What??? There was no life in
Lazarus! He was DEAD!!! He had been DEAD for a few days! Lazarus
didn't begin to live forward (whatever that means), he was brought
back to life. There was no potential of life in him, Jesus himself
made a dead man alive again.
Shall I go on? He tries
to say that we have to be “shaken”, because of something that
happened to a small group of people in the account in Acts 4. That is
never taught in Scripture. “How many of us are waiting to be lifted
into the same palace of our calling as Joseph was? That palace is
waiting for you too, but it might not be where you thought it would
be.” (p. 66). The account of Joseph is not intended to tell us that
we all have some kind of real or metaphorical palace just waiting for
us, any more than the account of Moses tells us we have to leave the
palace and go into the wilderness.
This guy's main idea is
unity. That's all well and good, but for all of his words in this
too-long book, we get very little notion of what that unity is to be
built around. And Christian unity is built around certain things.
Read the epistles, and you'll see that those who tried to come into
the churches and teach against sound doctrine, for example saying
that Gentile Christians needed to put themselves under the Mosaic
law, or that Christ had already returned, or attempted to add any
works to salvation, were decried in the harshest terms. The early
church was hardly a big tent.
But this guy's rhetoric
is postmodern. “Unity in the Spirit is a seemingly misaligned
alignment held together by the One who celebrates our diversity and
created us to come together not in spite of, but because of our
differences.” (from the Introduction). What diversity are you
talking about? “The Father’s Blessing changes this; it embraces
the differences in our lives and releases us to approve and empower
the differences in others.” (p. 6). What differences are you
talking about?
This isn't just a
nitpicky set of questions. One of this author's other books,
Revolutionary Freedom, has a positive review in it from Shane
Claiborne, who is a part of the Emergent Church, someone way far to
the left on theological and social issues. Any “unity” that
welcomes someone like Claiborne is not Christian unity. The author
favorably quotes Bill Johnson in this book. Any “unity” that
welcomes Bill Johnson is not Christian unity. The author writes of
the nonsense that happened in Toronto as if it were from God, which
is wasn't. Any “unity” that says that is not Christian unity.
In the end, this book is
more fairy tale than theology. As I've shown in a few examples, this
guy doesn't tell us what the Bible says, he creates his own ideas and
adds a little seasoning of biblical verses to make it seem like
biblical teaching. His rhetoric about some special generation reveals
him to be an NAR dominionist, but one with a postmodern twist. It's
not the first time I've noticed the young NAR types sliding to the
left, and it's not surprising, given that both the NAR and
progressive theology are build on foundations of extra-biblical
thought and whatever feels nice.
No comments:
Post a Comment