Monday, October 31, 2011
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Review: Sherman - The Ruthless Victor by Agostino von Hassell & Ed Breslin
Sherman: The Ruthless Victor (The Generals)
by Hassell and Breslin is a nice little biography. It is written in a winsome style, easily engaged, and hits the proper narrative tone for a non-fiction work. I was not sure when I opened this book if it was going to be something that would capture my interest. However, I was hooked early on by the nature and quality of the writing. I thought that Hassell and Breslin did well by tracing the life of Sherman. What I most appreciate was how they were able to connect some dots between his childhood, early adulthood, and the actions that he took in his march through Georgia to Savannah.
I think that there could have been greater attention given to the long range impact of Sherman. I also think that there could have been more done with regards to his leadership skills and how those might translate to today's world.
All in all, I now have a greater appreciation for Sherman's role in the Civil War and the years following.
by Hassell and Breslin is a nice little biography. It is written in a winsome style, easily engaged, and hits the proper narrative tone for a non-fiction work. I was not sure when I opened this book if it was going to be something that would capture my interest. However, I was hooked early on by the nature and quality of the writing. I thought that Hassell and Breslin did well by tracing the life of Sherman. What I most appreciate was how they were able to connect some dots between his childhood, early adulthood, and the actions that he took in his march through Georgia to Savannah.
I think that there could have been greater attention given to the long range impact of Sherman. I also think that there could have been more done with regards to his leadership skills and how those might translate to today's world.
All in all, I now have a greater appreciation for Sherman's role in the Civil War and the years following.
Review: What is the Mission of the Church by DeYoung and Gilbert
What Is the Mission of the Church?: Making Sense of Social Justice, Shalom, and the Great Commission
by Kevin DeYoung and Greg Gilbert is one of the most recent forays into the missional church conversation. They are also engaging in the "good news, good deeds" conversation within this text. In general I found the book helpful and a welcome contribution to the conversation. It is not without its flaws but on the whole it provides a snapshot of the conversation that is good to hear. One note, this book is probably one that should be engaged with chapter by chapter. However, I am simply giving an overview and brief critique.
The book is broken up into three parts; Part 1: Understanding our Mission, Part 2: Understanding Our Categories, and Part 3: Understanding What We Do and Why We Do It.
In Part 1 the word mission is defined and is followed by a discussion of what Jesus has sent us into the world to do. The main idea that is communicated is, "the church is sent into the world to witness to Jesus by proclaiming the gospel and making disciples of all nations. This is our task. This is our unique and central calling (26)." Mission is defined as, "the task we are given to fulfill (29)." Chapter 2 is an argument for the Great Commission to be the controlling text of the mission of the church. In the midst of this argument is the argument that Jesus' being sent is primary over his sending of the church. This is critical to their argument. The primary conclusion for the book is drawn on page 62-63 and I quote it at length,
Parts 2 and 3 go on to buttress this basic premise. DeYoung and Gilbert do a nice job of collecting texts and discussing some of the relevant authors.
I do however, struggle with some of their line of reasoning. The first, thing I disagree with is the inherent distinction they make between the individual Christian and the body of Christ. In the statement you see above they talk about the necessity of Christians to obey all that Christ teaches, but the church corporate does not. The mission of the church is the proclamation of the gospel, according to DeYoung and Gilbert, therefore the corporate church has no place engaging in the world other than the act of proclamation. This is problematic. They clearly state that individual Christians ought to care for the poor, needy, etc...however, the corporate church is to only care for itself. The only blessing the corporate church brings to the world is the message of repentance for the forgiveness of sin. The teaching of the sermon on the mount, Paul's teaching of the application of the gospel, and basically all of James, is useful only for the individual but not for the corporate body. This is a false dichotomy.
Second, the authors give lip service to making disciples. They say it is important, yet do not discuss it. They talk about discipling "die-hard followers of Jesus" but truly regulate the development of the disciple as secondary.
Third, the authors do not think that the Kingdom and the gospel have much connection. They see the gospel in reductionistic terms (though they say they don't, but their line of thinking denies that). They do not take seriously the creation, fall, redemption, consummation biblical narrative that they present. It's fascinating to watch them systematically move from this position into a subtle dispensational perspective. They see strong discontinuity marked by the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. The position of one who holds to a creation, fall, redemption, consummation narrative necessariliy needs to hold to continuity of the story line. That the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus allows for the in-breaking of the kingdom of God. It brings about the already but not yet eschaton that we see through out the Scriptures.
Finally, the position of this text detracts from the necessarily sent nature of the church into the world. The model we see of Jesus and the early church is not a collection of a holy huddle. We see a dramatic engagement of the lost world through proclamation and action. While it is true that Jesus proclamatory message was "The kingdom is at hand, repent and believe" it is no less true that he also healed and cared for the broken. To divorce Jesus' message from his actions is short-sighted at best. It seems that DeYoung and Gilbert are going to great lengths to call the church back to an attractional model.
The mission of the church is well summarized in the Westminster Larger Catechism's first question, "What is the chief and highest end of man? Man's chief and highest end is to glorify God, and fully to enjoy him forever." It is furthered in the 91st question, "What si the duty which God requireth of man? The duty which God requireth of man, is obedience to his revealed will." These questions are helpful. You see the Westminster does not make the distinction between individual and church. The confession defines the church but does not distinguish between the two. The mission of the church is bring glory to God in obedience to his revealed will.
This means then that to summarize the mission of the church as mere proclamation is to fall short.
In conclusion, I would encourage you to read the text, but be careful of the sloppy categories and often myopic interpretations of Scripture.
by Kevin DeYoung and Greg Gilbert is one of the most recent forays into the missional church conversation. They are also engaging in the "good news, good deeds" conversation within this text. In general I found the book helpful and a welcome contribution to the conversation. It is not without its flaws but on the whole it provides a snapshot of the conversation that is good to hear. One note, this book is probably one that should be engaged with chapter by chapter. However, I am simply giving an overview and brief critique.
The book is broken up into three parts; Part 1: Understanding our Mission, Part 2: Understanding Our Categories, and Part 3: Understanding What We Do and Why We Do It.
In Part 1 the word mission is defined and is followed by a discussion of what Jesus has sent us into the world to do. The main idea that is communicated is, "the church is sent into the world to witness to Jesus by proclaiming the gospel and making disciples of all nations. This is our task. This is our unique and central calling (26)." Mission is defined as, "the task we are given to fulfill (29)." Chapter 2 is an argument for the Great Commission to be the controlling text of the mission of the church. In the midst of this argument is the argument that Jesus' being sent is primary over his sending of the church. This is critical to their argument. The primary conclusion for the book is drawn on page 62-63 and I quote it at length,
The mission of the church is to go into the world and make disciples by declaring the gospel in the power of the Spirit and gathering these disciples into churches, that they might worship the Lord and obey his commands now and in eternity to the glory of God the Father. We believe this is the mission Jesus gave the disciples prior to his ascension, the mission we see in the New Testament, and the mission of the church today.
This mission is a specific set of things Jesus has sent his church into the world to accomplish and is significantly narrower than "everything God commands." That's not to say that our broader obligations aren't important. They are! Jesus and the apostles command us to parent our children well, to be loving husbands and wives, to do good to all people, and many other things. Jesus even tells us in the Great Commission iteslf (as Matthew records it) to teach people "to observe all that I have commanded you." But that doesn't mean that everything we do in obedience to Christ should be understood as part of the church's mission. The mission Jesus gave the church is more specific than that. And that, in turn, doesn't mean that other commands Jesus gives us are unimportant. It means that the church has been given a specific mission by its Lord, and teaching people to obey Christ's commands is a nonnegotiable part of that mission. (emphasis original)
Parts 2 and 3 go on to buttress this basic premise. DeYoung and Gilbert do a nice job of collecting texts and discussing some of the relevant authors.
I do however, struggle with some of their line of reasoning. The first, thing I disagree with is the inherent distinction they make between the individual Christian and the body of Christ. In the statement you see above they talk about the necessity of Christians to obey all that Christ teaches, but the church corporate does not. The mission of the church is the proclamation of the gospel, according to DeYoung and Gilbert, therefore the corporate church has no place engaging in the world other than the act of proclamation. This is problematic. They clearly state that individual Christians ought to care for the poor, needy, etc...however, the corporate church is to only care for itself. The only blessing the corporate church brings to the world is the message of repentance for the forgiveness of sin. The teaching of the sermon on the mount, Paul's teaching of the application of the gospel, and basically all of James, is useful only for the individual but not for the corporate body. This is a false dichotomy.
Second, the authors give lip service to making disciples. They say it is important, yet do not discuss it. They talk about discipling "die-hard followers of Jesus" but truly regulate the development of the disciple as secondary.
Third, the authors do not think that the Kingdom and the gospel have much connection. They see the gospel in reductionistic terms (though they say they don't, but their line of thinking denies that). They do not take seriously the creation, fall, redemption, consummation biblical narrative that they present. It's fascinating to watch them systematically move from this position into a subtle dispensational perspective. They see strong discontinuity marked by the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. The position of one who holds to a creation, fall, redemption, consummation narrative necessariliy needs to hold to continuity of the story line. That the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus allows for the in-breaking of the kingdom of God. It brings about the already but not yet eschaton that we see through out the Scriptures.
Finally, the position of this text detracts from the necessarily sent nature of the church into the world. The model we see of Jesus and the early church is not a collection of a holy huddle. We see a dramatic engagement of the lost world through proclamation and action. While it is true that Jesus proclamatory message was "The kingdom is at hand, repent and believe" it is no less true that he also healed and cared for the broken. To divorce Jesus' message from his actions is short-sighted at best. It seems that DeYoung and Gilbert are going to great lengths to call the church back to an attractional model.
The mission of the church is well summarized in the Westminster Larger Catechism's first question, "What is the chief and highest end of man? Man's chief and highest end is to glorify God, and fully to enjoy him forever." It is furthered in the 91st question, "What si the duty which God requireth of man? The duty which God requireth of man, is obedience to his revealed will." These questions are helpful. You see the Westminster does not make the distinction between individual and church. The confession defines the church but does not distinguish between the two. The mission of the church is bring glory to God in obedience to his revealed will.
This means then that to summarize the mission of the church as mere proclamation is to fall short.
In conclusion, I would encourage you to read the text, but be careful of the sloppy categories and often myopic interpretations of Scripture.
Monday, October 24, 2011
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Parentocracy
via donmilleris.com
There are not many posts that I shoot out into the blog realm. But, I thought that this blog post from Donald Miller was especially poignant. Enjoy!
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Friday, October 14, 2011
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
Monday, October 3, 2011
Go Tigers!
When I think of the Tigers there is but one voice that comes to mind. This is it:
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vGEcx4RSZU]