5 comments about I Promise: How 5 Essential Commitments Determine the Destiny of Your Marriage.

1. I have read this book with the soul purpopse of furthering my knowledge of relationships, and Dr. Gary Smalley is the "Guru" when defining and directing anyone interested in improving, or salvaging a relationship. It written in the simplest of chapters, with some very personal and poignant dialogue straight from his own marriage.



2. What's more important in a marriage than learning a partner's love language, being proficient in conflict resolution or having great sex? According to popular author and speaker Dr. Gary Smalley in I PROMISE: How 5 Commitments Determine the Destiny of Your Marriage, the answer may be "security."
   
   "Do you feel secure enough to open up and share who you really are, including your deepest thoughts, hopes and dreams without those uneasy feelings creeping in --- feelings that maybe you'll be blamed, criticized, condemned, judged, or ridiculed?" This is the sort of intimacy Smalley believes is necessary for the best marriages.
   
   Security, he says, means keeping your promise to love your husband or your wife no matter what. "It doesn't matter if either of you loses your attractiveness, turns grumpy, sour, or uncommunicative, gets a debilitating illness, or falls into deep depression. You will love him. You will cherish her. You promised. And that promise gives your marriage security." The more secure each partner feels, the more their feelings of affection toward each other grow, Smalley writes. But if partners don't feel emotionally safe with each other, he believes it will put the marriage in jeopardy.
   
   Smalley, the author of more than 40 marriage and parenting books (MAKING LOVE LAST FOREVER, THE BLESSING) makes his points with a winning combination of personal, sometimes vulnerable, anecdotes about his own marriage of 41 years. Particularly impressive is his willingness to share his own serious marital mistakes in the early years of his marriage, and a sweet testimonial to his wife Norma toward the end of the book. Smalley's anecdotes are often delivered with a good helping of humor and an ability to poke fun at his own marital misdeeds. He includes practical take-aways ("Becoming a student of your mate," "List your mate's positive qualities") so that his ideas can be easily understood and applied.
   
   Some of his advice will feel familiar: "Make eye contact when you talk. Don't try and change your spouse, change yourself. Men need to be good communicators with their wives." Other ideas might be new to the reader: "Quit being a victim. Take responsibility for your own happiness." Each chapter ends with a teaser that gives the reader a taste of the next chapter.
   
   Five of the chapters unpack five promises that Smalley says create security in marriage. Conform your beliefs to God's truths. Be filled with God. Find God's best in every trial. Listen and communicate with love. Serve your spouse. At the end of the book is an "I Promise Constitution," which both spouses are invited to sign.
   
   Readers will find some stereotypes ("Women want to be attractive, men want to be strong" or "Girls, he loves it when you send out his clothes for cleaning, cook his favorite steak, or watch a ball game with him"). When talking about sticking by a spouse and letting difficult circumstances become "God's hammer strokes" to form in you the character of Christ, Smalley sidesteps the issues of what happens when a spouse is abused or repeatedly cheated on. Sometimes the tone becomes a little over the top: "The principle in the next chapter...offers a promise of fulfillment beyond your wildest dreams!" And far too much research cited ("Intimate talk increases a man's chances of staying healthy 500 percent") is not footnoted or part of the skimpy endnotes, so the reader has no idea specifically where the statistics or information came from.
   
   But this book's core message about affirming commitment and establishing a secure marriage is a welcome one. Engaged couples, newlyweds and longtime married spouses will find ideas for creating deeper intimacy in this accessible book; pastors and marriage counselors will also pick up some tips to pass along to their parishioners and clients.
   
   --- Reviewed by Cindy Crosby



3. My husband and I went to the "I Promise" seminar because we were struggling. We bought this book there and took it home and we both devoured it. This seminar and book completely turned our life around. We have BOTH been actively using these principles from the book for about 9 months now and are truly changed for life. We've never been closer to God or eachother because of this. We have since bought the DVD as well. We've also bought 9 more books since we bought our first one, just to hand out to friends and family that were struggling. Everyone we've given the book to have had similar experiences. This is the BEST marriage book I have ever read!



4. This is a wonderful book on CD for any couple or single person who wants to lead a Christ like relationship. It makes you think about how you can better yourself as you go through your relationships.



5. This book is great! I have read lots of relationship books looking for help with my relationship and none of them really helped. The Five Love Languages just made me want to tell my boyfriend everything he was doing wrong. And all other relationship books just seem to have this list of things that will be a miracle cure for problems in a relationship, but they never are! I worried about that with this book but it definitely proved me wrong!
   
   I absolutely loved this book! It points out five basic ways that help you fix things. My boyfriend and I have been together for 3 1/2 years and had been going through a tough last year constantly talking about breaking up. Finally it came to the point where it was going to be totally over. We took some time apart and I bought this book. It made a huge differnce for me! I realized all the things that I was doing wrong to hurt the relationship. I was always focusing on the negative and pointing out things that my boyfriend would do wrong. I love how the book really reminds you to look at yourself and fix your faults before going and trying to fix your significant others. All of the points are brought back to God, and I love that! It just makes it so much easier to follow than advice from some person. When your focus is brought to God and what God wants for you it makes it so much easier to fix your relationship or keep it going strong! There is not much scripture reference, but it is definitely God centered!
   
   I absolutely loved this book and it definitely saved our relationship. If you are the person in a relationship having doubts and always looking at the negative and complaining, I would highly recommend this book. Chances are the relationship isn't as negative as you think and your significant other is not as bad as you make them seem! Read this book! Or if you are the one in the relationship opposite the complainer, this book is also great because it is really written from that person's point of view I felt. I think girls can tend to be the complainers and the book is written by a man so I think that is why. But all the points can help someone whose significant other is complaining and finding fault. It helps them remember to give them respect and understand where they are coming from. Don't waste your time with other relationship books! They never got me anywhere! This one did! Or if your relationship is fine, buy this book over other relationship books too! It keeps you focused on God and with that your relationship will always be great!

4 comments about Evangelical Theology: An Introduction.

1. Barth wrote "evangelical theology" at the very end of his academic career. it consists of reflections upon what it means to be a theologian and a christian. This is a tremendous book and i would recommend it to any serious student of theology.



2. The book, which was originally a lecture-series, begins with a definition of what "evangelical" theology is. From this point on, Barth elaborates (further) "biblical" definitions -- which is the starting and ending point of all of Barth's theology; the theology of the Prophets and Apostles, of God Himself, as He has made Himself known to His specially-selected "witnesses" throughout history.

   One will find hints of Barth's (so-called) "crisis theology" here; the Bible, attesting to and confronting, humanity with His Word, Jeusus Christ -- who speaks, and has spoken -- and will continue to speak to all....

   Karl Barth disdained the term "neo-orthodoxy" which was designated to his 'type' of theological-beliefs, or as "his" system. For him the Gospel was "ever anew" and always "fresh" to each generation, as well as every individual in it.

   He has maintained a patent and resolute singularity with the Reformers, being regarded as one of the greatest Christian thinkers in the Reformed tradition. At the same time, he continually challenges both the orthodox and heterodox to "re-think" our theology and to make sure we are in conformity and within the blessed assurance of the theology of Prophets and the Apostles: God's Word (New Testament Greek: theou logos = "theology").

   This isn't "past time reading". (Not for the theologically uninformed). Yet the style, method, and "logic" is easily followed -- if one doesn't "skip" a thought here or there. I (personally) use the book as both a "devotional" and as a technical-reference.

   Chapters on: Prayer, Solitude, The Word, The Witnesses, Community....more!

   Buy it (you'll like it)!




3. Among 20th century theologians, Barth is arguably without peer. Here we have a beautiful introduction written in his later years to Barth's entire theological output. If one were serious about beginning to read Barth, there is no better book through which one could enter into his thought. A very helpful book for those interested in what Barth has to say about the nature and purpose of theology. A treasure.



4. In this series of lectures, Barth outlines what it means to do theology. He begins by outlining four components of the context of theology. He then treats four characteristics of a theologian. After that, four threats to theology are listed. Finally, four essential components of theological work are listed. Central to the work are Spirit, faith, hope, and love, the final components of each section.
   
   As one would expect, central elements of Barthian theology are present. The Word of God and the community of faith are central to the theological endeavor. God is the ultimate object of theology, rather than humanity.
   
   This is an excellent introduction to Barth. It is also a good way to begin theological exploration.

4 comments about It's Not About Me Teen Edition.

1. This book was amazing. Easy to read and short chapters. As a parent of two teenagers, I thought it had a lot to offer my kids and myself as well. I am also a High School Youth Group sponsor, so I spend a lot of time in the teen world. Today's society spends all it's time telling our kids to think only of themselves. This book challenges them to think beyond themselves and put God first.



2. This book is wonderful to spark discussions with Middle & High School age students in your church. I highly recommend this book.



3. I purchased this book for our High School Sunday School class. The kids seem to enjoy the subjects presented and as always, Max Lucado is excellent!
   I would recommend this book for any teen or for discussions with your teen or group of teens.



4. My 13 year old daughter has been reading this book for school and has had a very difficult time with it. She is a voracious reader but this books lacks clarity and continuity and had been very hard to follow. Read something better by John Piper, JI Packer - something of substance.

5 comments about Read-n-See DVD Bible: Narrated by: Max Lucado, Joni Erickson Tada, Twila Paris, Rebecca St. James, Roy Clark & Others.

1. Reviewed by Tammy Petty Conrad for Reader Views (11/06)
   
   This children's book includes forty Bible stories with bright and cheerful illustrations including the actual Bible verse it is taken from. Stories are included both from the Old and New Testaments. Better yet, there is an accompanying DVD which includes three hours of viewing with the words highlighted on the bottom of the screen. This will not only ground children in the literature of the Bible, but can't help but improve their reading and pronunciation skills with repeated viewings.
   
   It is recommended for ages 3 - 8, but I would imagine it is better suited to the younger of that range. The illustrations while beautiful are not animated and I'm not sure how long it will keep the attention of older kids. While there are forty stories, there is no menu to select which story you would like to view, so that might be frustrating to children who would like to watch their favorite over and over.
   
   The songs in between stories remind me of the days when my daughter sang in the children's church choir many years ago. I can see the little ones dancing along and trying out the lyrics as they watch. It won't take too long before they know the words by heart! Also, they will get the message of the Bible.
   
   "Read `n' See DVD Bible" is a great gift book and would be treasured by most young children growing in their faith.



2. Read 'n' See DVD Bible by Stephen Elkins is a simple beginning reader Bible and also suitable for pre-schoolers not yet able to read. The pictures are bright and cartoonish and on every page. The book comes with a DVD which uses the same cartoonish illustrations and interesting voices to read the book to the child. Each Bible story (Old and New Testament) is a very simplified version of many of the most significant Biblical characters, with the lesson of each story emphasized in a one-liner



3. I love the book, will make wonderful gift for my grandchildren. Fast service and a very good experience.



4. Wonder why we have "dumb" down the Bible for kids. Not the preserved word of God. It's fine if you don't care if your kids have a full Bible.



5. My husband and I co-pastor an inner city church and have struggled to get very worldly kids into our program. Everything they do is a handheld game, on the computer, television or cell phone - BUT if I put a visual DVD in to tell the same story I was trying to read and VOILA! The kids love it. A little simple but know what? I'll take it.

5 comments about Will the Real Heretics Please Stand Up: A New Look at Today's Evangelical Church in the Light of Early Christianity.

1. I struggle with this book by David Bercot - as a critique of the evangelical church in America I would give this book 4 stars, but as an historical glance at the primitive church it would only receive 2 stars. Bercot begins in his introduction by saying that he will allow the early fathers to speak for themselves. Yes, he does this to some extent, but he fails to give the reader any historical context. He also only allows the fathers to say the things he wants them to say - in other words, there are many other things these early fathers said that are not included because they either contradict his thesis or are not as flattering. I could lift numerous passages from the Gospel of Truth (we think Valentius was the author) that would sound great; I could also find numerous passages from almost any of the fathers Bercot used that would be far less flattering. Historical context is everything.
   
   After my critique of a similar work someone sarcastically wrote to me, "...You think nobody can possibly read the early fathers and understand them. I guess we all need a Ph.D. to be able to understand anything." I certainly do NOT want to give anyone the idea that only pinheaded Ph.D.s can read/understand the early fathers, but it is not an easy task. Most of us have some idea of what the apostle Paul means when he tells women not to cut their hair, and tells the men not to wear their hair long. While commentaries on 1 Corinthians are fairly easy to find, very few people have scholarly works sitting on their shelves to help them understand what Tertullian means when he describes how to deal with "sinners" in the church,
   
   ...when you lead the penitent adulterer into church to beg the intercession of the brethren, place him on his knees in their midst, covered with sackcloth and ashes, in an attitude of humiliation and fear, in the presence of the widows, in the presence of the priests, moving all to tears, kissing the footprints of all, embracing the knees of all. On Purity 13
   
   I do not want to come across as demeaning and I do not want to critique each and every issue I disagree with in this book, but there are many shortcomings I think should be pointed out. I will mention the places where I agree with Bercot, and I will try to illustrate why I disagree on some issues. My overview of Bercot is that he takes a very simplistic reading of these early writers. My primary methodology will be to give examples from these writers that either contradicts, or shows a different angle, from what Bercot reports.
   
   Bercot's introduction is the martyrdom of Polycarp - it is almost impossible to criticize the use of this inspiring passage. In Chapter 2, however, Bercot reveals what to me is a telling bias when he says, "...these men were not church fathers! Most of them were fairly ordinary, hard-working Christian leaders with above-average education. They would have been highly indignant at being called 'church fathers.' The only 'church fathers' they recognized were the apostles." (p.6)
   
   This statement is silly. My guess is that Bercot is anticipating an anti-Catholic bias in his audience that would view the term "church father" as a four-letter word. The second century fathers certainly would not have considered themselves to be "fathers" - they only became fathers in the next few centuries! As a good friend suggested, most of these men were fairly educated and thus could not have been "fairly ordinary" during this timeframe. They lived in a world where the overwhelming percentage of the population was illiterate. Indeed, most of these writers were far from ordinary men since they were leaders in the church. And they ARE now known as "fathers" precisely because they were extraordinary.
   
   In Chapter 4 Bercot begins his direct critique on 20th century North American evangelicalism (remember this book was written in 1989). I basically agree with many of his comments regarding divorce and abortion - if he were writing now he might criticize the basic evangelical position on homosexuality. I have my own concerns regarding feminism and the effect this issue has had on American Christian men, but Bercot's comments on women in Chapter 4 reveal either a lack of understanding of the biblical text (at least of NT scholarship) and the ancient world, or a rejection of the best evangelical scholarship on the topic. I realize that many fundamentalists and ultra-conservatives would agree with Bercot.
   
   Gordon Fee released his NIV commentary on 1 Corinthians in 1987 where he showed, quite convincingly, that the "women shall keep silent" passage in 1 Cor 14 almost certainly was not in the original Pauline letter. Because of this it is problematic to use the complimentary text from 1 Timothy since most non-conversative scholars doubt Pauline authorship of that NT letter (the fact that I DO hold to Pauline authorship of the Pastorals does not change my mind - this is NOT a good argument from the biblical text). Bercot's comments regarding women in the ancient world are stunning - is he really saying that women were seen as equals in the Greco-Roman world?
   
   "But Roman women were hardly known for their submissive character. As one Roman commented, 'We rule the world, but our women rule us.'" (p.36)
   
   When I read this I found myself thinking, "Who said that?" I followed the footnote and found that Bercot is citing a secondary work...and only gives us the page number! Bart Winer said this on page 176!? This is Bercot's ONLY scholarly notation for making such a claim.
   
   He says that the early church went against the ancient culture by denying women any role in leadership. I would say that the apostle Paul went against Greek, Roman, and Hebrew culture by OPENING the doors of leadership to women. This is not the place to present this data. It was the non-Pauline early church that went against the Pauline tradition left to us in the New Testament.
   
   Chapters 5 and 6 are basically just "good preaching."
   
   "This was one of the secrets of the early Christians. They were able to reject the ungodly attitudes, practices, and entertainment of their culture..." (p.42)
   
   It becomes clear reading these chapters that Bercot is Wesleyan, or anti-Reformed, in his theology. Bercot wants to challenge evangelicals to shun what Bonhoeffer coined "cheap grace." While I agree with this challenge, I do not like using these early writers for support. Each of these early church fathers had their own challenges: Clement of Alexandria did cite the New Testament quite a lot, but he also cited, and was heavily influenced by, Plato as well. Although he attacked the Gnostics, he embraced some aspects of Gnosticism. Tertullian stays away from Greek philosophy, but he holds a very strict view on repentance and restoration - he actually joins the Montanists (the group Bercot calls heretical on page 37), the sect that had women serving in leadership. He eventually left the Montanists because they were also too "liberal" regarding repentance and started his own group.
   
   At the end of Chapter 6 (pp.66-67) Bercot tells us that the Gnostics preached salvation by grace alone. I have read and studied 15 or more Gnostic texts, and I have read numerous scholars whose expertise is Gnosticism - I have never heard Gnostics referred to in this way. Gnostics believed that salvation was obtained through learning gnosis, knowledge. This knowledge helped them traverse through the heavenly levels by equipping them with secret passwords. Salvation through grace alone? I have never seen or heard anything in Gnostic texts that made me think of salvation by grace alone.
   
   Tertullian is one of the strictest second century fathers yet he says this regarding the struggle against sin,
   
   "It is a fact that there are some sins which beset us every day and to which we all are tempted. For who will not, as it may chance, fall into unrighteous anger and continue this even beyond sundown, or even strike another or, out of easy habit, curse another, or swear rashly, or violate his pledged faith, or tell a lie through shame or the compulsion of circumstances? In the management of affairs, in the performance of duties, in commercial transactions, while eating, looking, listening -- how often we are tempted! So much so that if there were no pardon in such cases, no one would be saved. For these sins, then, pardon is granted through Christ who intercedes with the Father." On Purity 19
   
   I am not sure what Bercot would say about this passage, but it seems to go against his focus in these two chapters.
   
   In Chapter 7 Bercot attacks the doctrine of Predestination. One of his targets seems to be Martin Luther. I have never read/heard Luther attacked for predestination and I have no idea if he held to this position. I agree with Bercot that the second century fathers did not promote predestination, but a significant part of his argument comes from a lengthy passage in Origen's On First Principles. In this same document Origen presents his speculative theory of universalism. This is one of several issues that led to the "Origenist controversy" which caused problems for several centuries. For Bercot to use anything from this document seems ironic at best.
   
   Chapter 8 is on baptism. Bercot basically maintains that evangelicals have marginalized water baptism. I agree with him for the most part.
   
   Chapter 9 is on prosperity and the "name it, claim it" teaching that was far more popular in the 80's. Again, I basically agree with Bercot on his criticism, I just would not use these early Christian fathers as evidence. As I mentioned earlier, these men were NOT ordinary. Few believers had wealth in the second century - most were of the lower class. But there were wealthy believers who did not give away all of their possessions and were not urged to do so. One interesting point is that Bercot uses a quote from Clement of Alexandria's Who is the Rich Man Being Saved. It might be interesting to hear a few of the points Clement gives in that treatise.
   
   Rich Man is Clement's commentary on the story of the Rich Young Ruler as told in Mark's gospel. It is important to remember that giving away one's possessions to live in poverty (or at least to live a very simple lifestyle) was not something new in the day of Clement, or during the time of Jesus for that matter. Neo-Pythagoreans, most notably Apollonius of Tyana, promoted a rigorous asceticism which included a rejection of material possessions. Clement does his best in all his writings to present Christian faith as THE best philosophical system, so he tends to take some positions that appear to go against typical orthodox thought if it will help him accomplish his desired goal. He also has in mind people like those in the Montanist movement which advocated the rejection of material worldly goods in favor of the soon coming heavenly kingdom.
   
   In chapter 13 of Rich Man Clement argues that the Lord enjoins us to "give drink to the thirsty, bread to the hungry, to take the houseless in, and clothe the naked," but that this is impossible to do IF you have given ALL of your material possessions away.
   
   "Riches, then, which benefit also our neighbours, are not to be thrown away. For they are possessions, inasmuch as they are possessed, and goods, inasmuch as they are useful and provided by God for the use of men; and they lie to our hand, and are put under our power, as material and instruments which are for good use to those who know the instrument. If you use it skilfully, it is skilful; if you are deficient in skill, it is affected by your want of skill, being itself destitute of blame. Such an instrument is wealth." Rich Man 14
   
   "So that (the expression) rich men that shall with difficulty enter into the kingdom, is to be apprehended in a scholarly way, not awkwardly, or rustically, or carnally." Rich Man 18
   
   When Bercot presents the early church as one that embraced poverty, he is correct - the majority were poor and were encouraged to embrace that state as something they could not easily change. To say that the early church fathers consistently taught the rejection of wealth is just not accurate.
   
   In Chapter 10 Bercot focuses on the proper Christian attitude towards war? Bercot does admit that "the early church made no law that Christians could not serve in the army...Neither Jesus nor the apostles ever strictly forbade Christians to serve in the military," but he goes on to say that the empire was experiencing peace during the second century and soldiers were more like police officers. (p.97)
   
   Here is the historical context: every 20 to 40 years Christianity would get slapped around. Pastors and bishops would be arrested, thrown in jail, and some would be executed. Laypeople would be tortured and forced to sprinkle salt on the altar to the empire at the risk of being thrown to wild animals in an amphitheatre. Roman soldiers were known for their cruelty in battle, but they were also known for their cruelty towards Christians during these times of persecution. Even during times of peace Roman soldiers had license to make harsh demands on average citizens.
   
   With this context in mind, why would Christians be encouraged to serve in the military? I know a man who was a pastor in Cuba when Fidel Castro led the Communist takeover. He fled with his family, but many of his friends were ripped from their beds in the middle of the night, beaten, imprisoned, and some killed. Would it surprise anyone if Christians in Communist Cuba were discouraged from enlisting in the military after the takeover? You cannot compare military service in modern-day USA with the Roman empire. You might disagree with the actions of the USA in Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq, but you simply cannot objectively compare Christians serving in the USA to that of the Roman Empire. You cannot compare soldiers in the US military to those in the Roman empire.
   
   The early fathers discouraged military service, but they also discouraged believers to be involved in politics. Overall, they speak negatively about politics. Does this mean that we should discourage believers from serving in the political arena as well? The problem with this presentation is that the New Testament does not have this prohibition against military service or politics. As much as I respect the early fathers, the NT is our primary authority when it comes to the teaching of the apostles.
   
   In fact, we are given a fairly positive view of military service in the NT.
   - Jesus heals the daughter of the Roman centurion with no indication of displeasure for his military service - Luke 7:1-10
   - Peter shares the gospel with Cornelius - Acts 10
   - Paul refers to believers in the household of Caesar - Phil 4:22
   - Paul uses soldiers as a positive analogy - 1 Cor 9:7; Phil 2:25; 2 Tim 2:3-4
   
   The remainder of the book is basically an attack on Constantine, Augustine, the Nicean Council, and everything else Catholic. Bercot argues that the second century church was far more dedicated, yet the writers he uses complain in many places about the worldliness of the church in their day. Were there growing problems in the church after the second century? Yes, as the church grew numerically and into new cultures, and as church leadership became more structured and hierarchical, problems increased. Theological issues developed due to heretical movements - a growing theology led to theological disputes.
   
   My overall critique of Bercot's book is this: he points to the second century church as an ideal that should be emulated. While I think there are positives to be seen in every era of church history, I do not think the second century, or any other era, should be pointed to as the "ideal." In addition to the various specific critiques I have offered, the second century writers also held numerous doctrinal positions that Bercot would NOT want us to embrace: purgatory (Origen), mortal and venal sins (Tertullian), forgiveness of sins rests with the bishop (Ignatius, Cyprian), and many others. It appears to me that Bercot takes the Early Church Fathers on CD and does a "Ctrl + F" to "Find" passages that speak to a particular issue. If he likes a passage, he uses it. If the passage does not support his thesis, he ignores it.
   
   The writings of the early church fathers must be read with a good secondary scholar in hand and used with care. I would recommend W.H.C. Frend, Hans Lietzmann, and Henry Chadwick. Historical context is critical.
   
   R.A. Baker
   Ph.D., Ecclesiastical History



2. It is funny how people read this book and still come out the other side with a "Paul" or "Apollos" stand. The church is an organism not an organization. I am neither Roman Catholic nor Protestant. Yet I do admit I would have troubles with someone who has a image of the virgin Mary in their home with candles burning in front of it and holds the pope as supreme. I would also have trouble with someone who profits from the Gospel and does not define and live by Gospel precepts. To walk away from this book and say "see the Protestants are wrong or see the Roman Catholics are wrong" is siding with your religion in order to avoid persecution. Both are wrong. Both are idolatrous and are consumed with "their" orthodoxy over orthopraxy. With ritual over love.



3. For those of us who think our own religion is the "true church" and none other, this book will really give you an eye opening experience as to what it meant to be a genuine Christian before about 350 A.D. There is no theology presented in this book, because at the time the Christian church began, after the death of Christ, there were no division of beliefs for all were of one faith, one baptism and one flock. The original faith of Christ was held together with no internal schisms for 300 years.
   
   It was a time of true suffering to be a Christian, suffering to the point of having a hot iron put on the bottom of your feet and other atrocities too horrible to mention. Something people in the U.S.A. in modern times have not had to deal with, for we can all worship as we please. It shows how all religions that exist today (24,000 roughly since the Reformation period of about 1550 A.D. do not entirely follow the true teachings of Christ as much as we think we do). Before Christianity was accepted as a religion by Constantine, and the Milan Edict was issued, no one accept true believers in God wanted to became a Christian, because being a Christian meant suffering and truly carrying your cross to bear and was no accepted by society, as Jesus so often mentioned in the gospels. It wasn't until Constantine came into power that it became popular to belong to the church, where the church began to have some presence in that the converted emperor built lavish and beautiful cathedrals throughout the land, as well as, had scribes make beautiful bibles for all to read, that began to attract the masses to join the church. Prior to this time, Christians gave all their money to poor and lived in poverty and sometimes starvation for the good of the whole community. How many of us today can really say we have given our all to help the poor? I know myself, I cannot truly say that I have concentrated on the needs of our poor, but I know now I am going to pay more attention to this area of my life and become truly giving to those in need.
   
   After reading this book, no longer will I judge others for their beliefs erroneously thinking that my religion is the true church, because as Jesus said, "all of us have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God". This book will open your eyes and let you really see the truth from God's point of view, free from theology biases and just plain make you aware. I cannot give this book a higher rating than 5 stars, but if I could I would give it a 10 star. It is the best book I've read in 2 years. It was so good, that I didn't go to bed the night I bought it, until 5:00 a.m., until I finished it completely.
   
   If you are one of those people that have made up their minds and do not want to change their minds about their beliefs, then this is not the book for you. If you are a seeker of truth, wisdom and God's enlightenment through the Holy Spirit, this book will make you radiate with sincere love for your fellow man and put a smile on your face from ear to ear. Read it if you dare.



4. It is interesting how Bercot tries to reconcile the salvation by grace sayings of the Church Fathers with their works-related statements. He attempts to do so by the example of a son who received half his father's kingdom for picking a basket of apples! He wrote,
   
   "The fact that the gift was conditioned on the son's obedience doesn't change the fact that it was still a gift. The early Christians believed that salvation is a gift from God but that God gives His gift to whomever He chooses. He chooses to give it to those who love and obey Him."
   
   Although Bercot seems sincere, I see some very serious flaws in his logic. First of all, the son still earned his wages for his actions. So it was not actually a gift, but a very generous wage, because the son worked for it.
   
   Secondly, Bercot is doing a bait and switch on us. Granted, the example he gives sounds almost like a gift. But if we read him carefully, he is not speaking of a single act of obedience (like picking a basket of apples) being required for salvation, but rather a lifetime of love and obedience. How much more WORK could we do? From a temporal perspective, that is not a small price to pay!
   
   Granted, from an eternal perspective, a lifetime of obedience seems small compared to an eternity in paradise. But this still begs a very important question. If our salvation is conditioned on a lifetime of obedience, doesn't that amount to "earning our salvation" by a lifetime of good works? If a lifetime of obedience is not "works" then what is?
   
   So it seems to me that Bercot, though sincere, is wresting with the scriptures here. By using subtly flawed logic, bait and switch, and trying to soften the meaning of the word "works," he seems to desire, for some reason, to squirm out of the Holy Spirit's words:
   
   Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
   9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.



5. I don't read very many books, in fact, I'm a self proclaimed "slow reader" so to say that I read this book in two weeks is SUPER fast! It's outstanding, I want to start at the beginning and read it again... It's an unbiased view of early Christianity and how it compares to the way we are today. It's convicting and 'real' approach to the topics is enjoyable and life changing. Highly Recommended!

5 comments about No Place for Truth or Whatever Happened to Evangelical Theology?.

1. People have a legal right to worship as they choose. It is human nature to make this decision based on Utility. The term utility is not used in David F. Wells' book titled No Place for Truth . In Microeconomics, utility is term to describe value. An individual chooses one item or activity over another because it brings a greater utility. Utility is an abstract concept of measure. It is a concept to explain how people make rational decisions based on cost (alternative product or activities one abstains from to get another product or activity. A unit of measure for enjoyment, security, friendship, belonging, comfort, and feeling of competence? People make a choice between churches based on what they can get out of it. This book tells why more and more people choose to attend churches that do not teach a comprehensive theology.
   
   David Wells goes into great length to describe the limited choices people had a couple hundred years ago. He uses Winah Massachusetts for illustrative purposes. Church shopping did not exist. No one had the temptation to stay to watch football or This Week with George Stephanopolis. People tended to go to bed earlier on Saturday night, so less temptation to sleep in . Less distraction made for a more consistent church going public. Pastor did not have the pressure to alter their message for the fear that the parishioners would leave his church. The church building was the focal point of the town. The Pastor of a church was well respected in the town. David Wells goes nostalgic for the first hundred pages in this book. It seemed to go on and on how different society was.
   
   How society has changed and in turn changed the character of the preached word in the Evangelical church? As transportation and communication became faster & dependable, the individual heard and saw more alternatives. The individual has had more ideas thrown at him and had a greater ease to attend other places of worship. When more people acted upon their new found alternatives, ministers altered their message to retain and attract new members. Slowly evangelical theology becomes something else; it no longer is the truth as told in the Bible.
   
   What it means to be a Christian has changed. Christianity as taught by the Apostles after Pentecost. The time when the church became into being through the preaching of those who followed Jesus earthly walk. To be a believer meant to accept the teachings of Jesus. How did Jesus teach from the Old Testament? How did Jesus life on earth, death on a cross, and His resurrection bring the fulfillment of scripture? Theology came from the mouth of God . A confession is an exposition of God. This type of exposition includes how God acts in this world, how God influences the human race, the character of God, and the Will of God. Knowing God and obedience to God comes through theological understanding of God. One does not know truth unless one knows God. The Word of God is absolute truth. Jesus Christ is the only way to heaven. David Wells argues that there is no supposition in scripture that other religions have cloudy form of truth or attributes of God. Everything is not relative.
   
   Theology has a confessional element. Statements that assert truths about God. One should reflect on these truths. Relate how one part of scripture pertains to or is made clear through another part of scripture. One should ponder how truth presented in the Bible corresponds to what is normative is society. Does what learns as common in society conflict with what the Bible teaches; compare what one confesses to what the World claims to true. David Wells argues today's Christians must not find much conflict if surveys are to be understood as accurate.
   
   I get upset over details in my life. Yes I worry and get confused by the smallest problems that come my way. Yes I want to act calmer, feel more in control, and feel better about myself. Should I seek a church that makes me feel more competent, talented, and a person of value? Should a church be a place to elevate my self perception? Should I choose a church based on what it can do for me? Every individual wants to feel healthy and competent. For the most part people choose activities, clothing and food that makes them feel better about themselves. I eat chocolate;it brings a sensation of contentment. I enjoy the moment. Does one attend a specific church because that is where God wants him? Some go for a sense of belonging, others to network, and others for euphoria of the worship service. David Wells argues people choose what is exciting over what is true. The ultimate aim to know God, to be forgiven for ones sins, and to become Christ like are not sought by church attendees. Someone may want to become close to God, but yet not want to know the truth about God. No longer do people constuct their understanding of the World based on the Truth proclaim in God's Word.
   
   Urbanization, technology, and mass media have effected how society and the individual perceive God. The Christian Faith is found margenalized. Paul Tillich's theology: "every person has objects and interests that are of ultimate concern. God or one's thoughts about God are to be manipulated. One chooses how one wants to understand the World and finds a god that fits into that philosophy. People choose not to believe in the transedent, a sovereign God nor the absolute word of the Bible. So call evangelicals do not want a god that intrudes into their life, a god that demands obedience, that has control over one's destiny, and bring down evil ultimately. Many want a god to be used for one's own convience. Such evangelical structure is not consistent with the Bible.



2. The following situations and beliefs are true in many Protestant/Evangelical churches today.
   - `Worship' is the pinnacle of the church service. Worship is considered successful based on the feelings of those involved.
   - Sermons are focused on self-gratitude and self-esteem rather than the Bible.
   - Theology is considered a bad word, just a few rungs higher than Hitler.
   - The Bible is used only to support a thought, belief or idea rather than our thoughts, beliefs and ideas being based on the Bible.
   - The `experience' of God is more foundational than the truth of God.
   - 53% of those claiming to be Bible-believing, conservative Christians claim there is no such thing as "absolute truth."
   
   The title of this book summarizes it well. The author's main point is that Evangelical churches have been heavily influenced by the culture and have thus lost the conviction that truth is absolute and theology is important. With this as a premise for the book, the author writes (sometimes painstakingly) about the process by which our Western culture has morphed into what it is today. With detail, the author then traces the history of Protestantism that later spawned Evangelicalism. Weaving it all together, the author presents how Evangelicalism has succumbed to a relativistic culture. And ultimately how this led to the death of theology.
   
   How has all of this happened? The stated purpose of David Well's book is "to explore why it is that theology is disappearing. (emphasis mine)" No claim is made for the content of theology, or even for the poor quality of theology. This is not the intention of the book. The book reads more like a culture-write-up that a missionary would study before entering a field of service with anthropological insights into the behaviors of the Evangelical Christian living in the contemporary world. The `Western Christian' culture is thoroughly analyzed, especially in its esteem toward truth, and namely theological truth.
   
   David Wells' writing style is unique. Unlike many contemporary authors (Christian or secular), Wells writes in a way that forces you to think. In many ways this is a positive. The reader must read the book slowly and thoughtfully in order to grasp the language that the author uses. But, it can also make for painfully slow reading. Perhaps this irritation found in the book is a result of the desire of our society for the instantaneous and the undemanding. With that said, I personally found myself getting bogged down in the author's writing style. Constantly I was forced to check the dictionary, and sometimes the dictionary didn't even help. This particular peculiarity of our society drives Wells' crazy, but he should realize that the readers of his book are products of the society that he is criticizing. If these people are the `mission field,' then they need to be reached in their heart language. The author should not compromise his academic standards, but a clearer `dumbed-down' writing style may have more effectively reached the church of today.
   
   The content, or main message of the book is excellent. Christianity in the past 100 years can be compared to the frog in the boiling pot of water. Unknown to the church, just recently have we started to boil. There definitely is a problem but unless fixed, the church faces certain demise. The evangelical church today is a large, potentially powerful organization that has the ability to turn the world upside-down. Yet it remains largely ineffective and instead, the church has been turned upside-down by the world.
   
   The manner in which Wells traces the history of both Western culture and Protestant culture is interesting and revealing. The book accomplishes its stated goal in explaining why these problems have come about in the Evangelical church of today. Personally, the book has produced an awareness in me regarding the direction and follies of today's church. And as a church planting missionary, I need to be careful in not carrying over these problems into churches in the Philippines.
   Lastly, I believe there is a small danger in culture bashing. A large part of the book is dedicated to exposing the folly of today's society. While this is important (as reflected in Wells' second aspect of theology- reflection), it has its limits. The Bible is clear that the world is foolishness and that we should find our trust in the spirit and His words (see 1Cor. 2). Though the culture needs to be evaluated in light of Scripture, we should not expect the culture to change apart from the wisdom that the Spirit gives. The culture needs the reflection that Wells calls for, but it also needs to be reached. A reoccurring frustration with Fundamentalism (the assumed camp that David Wells is a part of) is that it does not reach out into the culture in which it exists. Because of their fear of contamination, effective reaching out is rarely done. Admittedly, reaching out is like playing with fire (which the church has clearly been burnt by). But this reaching out is necessary.
   
   In conclusion, this is a good book. The author does an excellent job of exposing the weaknesses in churches today, and he also does an excellent job of tracing the influences that weakened the church. Church leaders would do themselves well to read this book and take appropriate action in their churches and ministries.



3. This is a provocative, demanding and rewarding book that attempts to grapple with some of the central challenges of Christian thought and life in a modern or post-modern world. Looking through Amazon and one or two other online sites, it is clear that many readers have also read Mark A. Noll's The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind. I have too; and by way of introduction to David F. Wells' book, it is worth making brief reference to the other.
   
   Both books touch on similar subjects, though with different emphases. Both are concerned with the decline of what Noll calls "the life of the mind" within American evangelicalism; and both are concerned with how authoritative Christian thought can be sustained in this modern or postmodern world. I suspect that Noll's book has proved the more popular, even if the only direct evidence for that is the number of customer reviews on this site: 29 for Noll; 12 for Wells. And both books were published a year apart -- Wells in 1993, and Noll the following year. With a title like that, Noll was always going to be onto a winner!
   
   However, I suspect that one of the reasons for these differing figures is that Wells writes from a different perspective, one that ultimately makes more demands on the reader. Another might be that Wells' position is subtly yet noticeably more pessimistic. Noll is an historian who is eminently capable of working in theology; Wells is a theologian who is eminently capable of working in history. One only has to look at satellite television to realise which of these subjects is the more popular; and I hope that nobody reading this review imagines that Christian television has any connection with theology!
   
   One of the great strengths of this book is that it approaches its subject with the very breadth of thought that both authors find wanting in evangelicalism in general. While its focus is on North America, it spreads its net wide; and Wells is especially good at teasing out subtle relationships between culture and religious thought. It also manages to be at once highly opinionated, generous in spirit, full of subtle humour, and intensely passionate.
   
   How's this for a start? When, in his Introduction Wells asserts his "disbelief in much that the modern world holds dear" (p. 10), he also says that while he feels he must use this pugnacious style, he intends "no disrespect either for the reader or for the modern world. After all, I work for the one and must live with the other. The pugnacity is only in the appearance, not in the intention. The problem is that even the mildest assertion of Christian truth today sounds like a thunderclap because the well-polished civility of our religious talk has kept us from hearing much of this kind of thing." He then draws on John Kenneth Galbraith and G.K. Chesterton, to demonstrate a point that has nothing of religion or theology in it -- at first. So when the theological point arrives, it has force: "Evangelicals are antimodern only across a narrow front; I write from a position that is antimodern across the entire front. It is only where assumptions in culture directly and obviously contradict articles of faith that most evangelicals become aroused and rise up to battle 'secular humanism'; aside from these specific matters, they tend to view culture as neutral and harmless. More than that, they often view culture as a partner amenable to being coopted in the cause of celebrating Christian truth. I cannot share that naivete; indeed, I consider it dangerous. Culture is laden with values, many of which work to rearrange the substance of faith, even when they are mediated to us through the benefits that the modern world also bestows upon us."
   
   This epitomises Wells' ability to lay a profoundly humane groundwork for a theological starting-point, and then for an entire historical and theological argument; and that is one of the main reasons why this book is such a compelling indictment of contemporary evangelical theology. Or perhaps I should say non-theology; for that is what Wells finds everywhere -- though like Noll, he finds the malady less prevalent outside the USA.
   
   Beavers who are over-eager might get impatient at Wells' methods. Indeed, I suspect that at the root of one or two of the more negative responses this book has received, there lies a typically modern impatience. But for those willing to take time, there are rewards a-plenty. For example, the opening chapter's title is "A Delicious Paradise Lost." The Eden-like innocence belongs to the town of Wenham, Massachusetts, in the two hundered of so years after the town's foundation in the 1630s by a group of puritans of English descent. Less than ten years later an English visitor described the place as "a delicious paradise" which he would choose "above all towns in America to dwell in." Via authoritative comparisons with contemporary towns in Britain and America (the book has plenty of informative footnotes and cross-references), Wells charts Wenham's growth, which was very slow. He embraces the role of the church as a building and as community of believers (and a community which included many who were nominal believers); he shows how, as people of differing religious backgrounds moved into the town, they interacted with the dominant puritan heritage; and he follows the lives of a number of prominent figures, notably the schoolteacher. This was a community defined partly by its strong sense of place, and partly by its awareness of how people lived together -- or how they should live together. Of course, it wasn't really Eden. But until well into the 19th century it was so utterly different from the modern world that we might imagine it to be such.
   
   In a series of similar historically rooted pictures, Wells shows how those qualities disappeared, to be replaced by transience, by superficiality. In one of his many virtuoso analogies, he shows how Truman Capote (1924-84) was transformed by publicity "from an author of some initial repute into a personality. . . He bonded briefly with his devotees, but the bond was synthetic. In this new world, the statues are made of celluloid, not of stone; here the achievements are those of personality, seldom of character. . . This is experience without community. It is the experience of mankind in the mass, bereft of the forces that once drew it into centers of human fraternity and organization." Gloomy stuff! But it has precision and insight.
   
   All this proves to be an essential preliminary for the theological discussion that makes up by far the larger part of this book. The theological discussion is fed from the ground up, by being rooted in the communities in which theology should, and at one time did, hold its discourse. The third chapter takes its title, "Things Fall Apart", from Yeats' poem The Second Coming (yet another example of the broad synthesis that characterises this book), and charts the decline of theology from its place as the "queen of sciences" to an irrelevance, even in the evangelical world to which Wells and most of those who will read his book belong.
   
   Wells explains, with a magisterial grasp of history, culture and theology, how the decline of evangelical theology in the last two hundred is a direct result of the church's engagement with the world and its prevailing culture. It is a striking demonstration of the adage that the church rarely now turns the world upside (Acts 17:6); rather, the world has turned the church upside down. Hence the title: the church has been so concerned with accommodating itself to the world that it has forgotten how to sustain the mission God intended it to have to the world.
   
   Wells shows how thought, including that of some greats of American theology, became gradually corrupted by this accommodation. Along the way the religious institutions have become corrupted too. One of his most devastating critiques is of the modern seminary. Great institutions like Princeton and Yale began with Christian values at their core, with subjects designed from a Christian perspective. But as these universities have become inexorably secularised, other institutions had to take over their role; and those in turn have been run off their feet to maintain recognition by the world. Many of the qualifications issued by modern Christian colleges, including doctorates, have very little real value: they merely provide a veneer of respectability so that being a pastor might appear to have the same worldly status as being a lawyer, an academic or a doctor. It is not just that there is little reflection: there is no time for it.
   
   As for the corruption of the church's life . . . I'll leave you to read the examples Wells gives, which are shocking even to someone who knows something of what the God Channel and things of that kind spew out indiscriminately.
   
   As I say, this is not an optimistic book. But it is honest. It offers few large-scale solutions. But it is a clarion call to those who read it, and who believe that we should indeed love the Lord our God with all our minds. If one follows Well's thesis through, it becomes clear that institutions are not readily amenable to reformation. But individuals are. Just as the Gospel began with individuals, so it will be with individuals that any reformation of theology will begin.



4. This is a book that really sets out to accomplish a monumental task. It attempts to grapple with the broad questions of why theology and objective truth are so absent in the evangelical church today, and what has been the affect of modernism on the church. Due to the vast scope of this undertaking, the analysis can become somewhat unwieldy at times. However, while drawing in analyses from many angles, Wells maintains a sharp and accurate analysis of the problem. It ends up being too much information to soak in by reading it only once through. I found this also to be true of his other book in the series "Losing our Virtue: Why the Church Must Recover it's Moral Vision."
   
   Wells vigorously argues that the evangelical church's chasing after "relevance" has rendered it weak and irrelevant to the culture. He shows how theology is essential to the life of the church, and properly belongs to the church, not merely to academia. The disconnection of theology from the church has cut the church free from its moorings, and set it adrift in a sea of fads and relativism. Theology no longer unifies and defines the church, he says, and instead the church mimics modernism. It does this by patterning itself after the business models of capitalism; preaching borrows heavily from psychological and therapeutic language and concepts, and the Gospel of Jesus Christ is lost or diluted for a "self-help" gospel replacement.
   
   One of the interesting parts of the book was the discussion of the American tendency toward two ideals--individualism and conformity, which might at the surface seem at odds with one another, yet are held in tension in our culture. The church has been heavily influenced by these concepts as well. He also clearly refutes the idea that the exclusive claims of the Bible about salvation through Christ alone are just part of the "parochial" or simplistic worldview of the Biblical writers. He shows clearly how the ancients were very much in tune with pluralism, and that it was not foreign to them. Yet the Biblical writers clearly rejected pluralism in favor of the exclusive claims of the One and Only true God. After a thorough critique of the loss of truth in the church, Wells does offer a positive answer to how the church can recover from this crisis. He points us back to the Word of the Eternally Holy God, who alone can accomplish a Reformation of the church by the restoration of the Word and the objective truth of that Word in the theology that properly belongs in and with the church. A recovery of the understanding of God's holiness will restore to us the proper biblical understanding of sin and grace, rather than therapeutic understandings that modernist Christianity has put forth. Hopefully the church at large in America will hear Wells' call to repentance and reform



5. Although written almost two decades ago this book still hits home. In "No Place For Truth" David Wells describes what he and many others see as the decline of evangelical theology. Starting with a historical outline of the possible causes then analyzing trends in twentieth century thought Dr. Wells points out how modernity has changed evangelicalism into something more like 19th century theological Liberalism (not to be confused with today's political liberalism), than our evangelical forbears. What he describes is churches not only empty of theology, but hostile to it. The remainder of the book is about the dangers of this situation to the spiritual state of the Church. This is not alarmist propaganda that looks for scapegoats in the culture around us. Instead, Dr. Wells' criticism is with evangelical institutions, theologians, seminaries, and churches. Written in a firm but not combative style Dr. Wells paints a picture that will be familiar and alarming to many. Thankfully, in the years since this book was written the tide has begun to turn, but the leaders of today who are reforming evangelicalism often cite this book as a catalyst for the changes we see today.
   
   This is the first book in a series. Thus it is mostly concerned with identifying the problem with the work of proposing changes reserved for later volumes. Read this book!

5 comments about Divided by Faith: Evangelical Religion and the Problem of Race in America.

1. I had high hopes for this book, as I was expecting an analysis of why church congregations are one of the most segregated places in America. Except for one chapter (more on this chapter below), that is not at all what the book is about.
   
   Unfortunately, the bulk of the book plays out into a typical conservative/liberal disagreement. Much of the disagreement between conservatives and liberals stems from two very different views on how the world works. Conservatives generally view the world on an individualist basis, and they count the bulk of life's happenings to be the result of cause and effect from the individuals actions. Liberals generally see the world with a more corporate view; they tend to claim institutions as the causes of problems, and collective responses as the remedy.
   
   The main conclusion of the authors from their interviews with Evangelical Christians is that they claim to want racial equality, and in fact the bulk of them sincerely desire racial harmony in the world and act accordingly in their own lives, but the vast majority of Evangelical Christians are doing nothing to change *the system*. Per the authors, the main cause of racism today is institutional racism - e.g. a stacked legal system, unfair lending practices, unequal salaries, etc. The fact that Evangelicals are not standing up against this is inexcusable to the authors.
   
   The statistical proof for this institutional racism is laid out in chapter one, which brings me to my main criticism. The authors' use of statistics to back up their claims is both sloppy and irresponsible. The issue of race in America is important and filled with emotion; proclaiming loud condemnation based on very poor statistical analysis does not help. I am a professional statistician by trade, and if I was to draw definitive conclusions from the stats that the authors quote, I would be out of a job quickly. If institutional racism does exist, then Christians absolutely should be fighting against it. But I am unconvinced by the given statistics.
   
   But at this point it degenerates into politics. These statistics have been lobbied and attacked by liberals and conservatives for years. This book argues nothing new. Its point: there is a lot of division in America, and if conservatives would adopt the world view of liberals we would all get along.
   
   Chapter 7, however, is the wheat among the chaff. Chapter 7 is an insightful view on race and religion and why congregations are so segregated. The chapter is a bit more theoretical, but the analysis is thoughtful and the conclusion challenging. If possible, I would recommend that people read only Chapter 7 and ditch the rest, unless of course you are in the mood for some typical political bickering.



2. First off, I am a white evangelical in a moderately sized city to give you some idea of the perspective I bring to reading this.
   
   THE GOOD:
   The statistics in the book (the median net worth of blacks is $3,700 compared to $43,800 for whites, P.13...the subtle racism in depiction of the 'evils' of heavy metal music which is usually consumed by Caucasians and rap music which is more favored by urban blacks, p.15...the 1998 National Congregations Study showing 90% of U.S. congregations are formed at least 90% by one race, P.136) reveal that the Church has a long way to go to demonstrate that "Red and yellow, black and white they are precious in His sight".
   
   The personal anecdotes of average evangelical laypeople, both black and white, help put a human face on the views of those on each side of 'the divide'. It helps to remind us that the answers may not lie in 'one size fits all' political solutions.
   
   Chapter 7, as another reviewer mentioned, does a good job of explaining why it is difficult to maintain a mixed-race congregation. "Birds of a feather flock together" and over time, congregations tend to bleed toward one hue or another even despite the pastor's attempts and the founding members best intentions. (The story of 'First Church' 147-150 is illustrative) Also, the tendency of churches to 'market' themselves toward specific groups cause this too...most churches that feature hymns do not also feature contemporary rock-tinged praise and worship music..those who feature 'black' gospel chorals don't tend to feature country infused "Southern gospel".
   
   THE BAD:
   The book seems to be very dismissive towards free will determination and individual effort, even as it states these are evangelicals' bedrock values. Since the authors themselves are evangelicals, it seems self-flagellating that they more or less paint two crucial elements of the evangelical belief system as endemic to preventing racial harmony.
   
   It also does seem to embrace a government oriented method of "fixing things": i.e. whites and blacks would get along better if they rubbed shoulders as neighbors, therefore laws must artificially mandate that this happen. The problem with this is the authors seem to not try and understand WHY the inner city areas, which tend to have a higher percentage of black population, don't have as much racial diversity as they would like to see. Is it all simply "white flight"...or is it possible that people desiring the best they can manage for their families choose not to live in neighborhoods they perceive as crime-ridden and unsafe? The same reason why middle and upper income blacks would choose to leave the same areas...they're doing the best they can to provide safe haven for their children as that's what good parents do (or at least try to do).
   
   The argument can be posited I suppose that what Jesus would do is to go where the 'trouble' is and I can see the wisdom in that perspective, but I'm more willing to take more risks with my own PERSONAL safety in the attempt to minister to others than I am willing to do with my FAMILY'S safety. My wife and child are more vulnerable to criminals and because of that I do my best (nothing's 100 percent mind you..even in our 'better' neighborhood we've seen break-ins) to minimize danger and try to make them feel sheltered.
   
   I second the comments another reviewer made in that the problem seems to be 'fixable' in the authors' view primarily through human efforts. Little to no mention is made of individual believers, both black and white (and other races for that matter), who strongly desire to see Christian racial unity as the beginning of the larger healing of the country by actively PRAYING for it on a repeated basis. For an evangelical, the belief that God ANSWERS prayer is foundational and should be a cornerstone of any push to bind society's wounds.
   
   BOTTOM LINE:
   Asks a lot of the right questions and for that it's worth reading. Just don't expect to find the answers for the "race problem" here.



3. What we have here is a leftist author who believes the way to fix all racial problems is for everybody to accept his policy prescriptions.
   
   He thinks white conservative Christians, although showing little racial animus toward blacks, are "part of the problem" because they don't accept his particular political views. This bias taints any insightful parts of the book.



4. Please, don't read this book without reading the "sequel": United by Faith.
   
   "Divided by Faith" probes the problem, as understood through a dissertation research project, of race relations in Evangelicalism in America in the 1990s. The results are troubling and at times produce hopelessness. However, facts are facts, and this sort of detailed quantitative and qualitative study is all-too-rare in Evangelical circles.
   
   Emerson's premise is that much of what white Evangelicals do to unite across racial lines end up being counter-productive. He does so by showing a concise history of Evangelical thought about racism from Colonial times to the Civil Rights movement. His basic premise is that most work done is too individualistic--one person trying alone to cross racial boundaries. His basic suggestion is the cross-cultural congregation. Unfortunately, until one reads "United by Faith," how to accomplish this goal is left to the reader's imagination--which may by now have been stunted by all the piles of statistics suggesting that Evangelical racial reconciliation is futile.
   
   The power of God, starting with one person's commitment to cross-cultural relationships, can start a chain reaction--and lead to hope.
   
   Reviewer: Bob Kellemen, Ph.D., is the author of Beyond the Suffering: Embracing the Legacy of African American Soul Care and Spiritual Direction , Soul Physicians, Spiritual Friends.



5. This book gets you out of your own hide and context and helps you better understand your context as opposed to the context of others from another type of family, neighborhood, race. We in america have a terrible bias that makes us think of ourselves as the best in the world. We base that mostly on material possessions and military power, not on any real attempt to identify with those in other parts of the world. The same is true of the white culture of this country who do not realize - and cannot without a lot of hard work and introspection - what it is like to be non-white and to grow up in a non-white family, neighborhood, and deal with whites and the predominant white culture. There are multiple white contexts just as there are multiple black and multiple Hispanic contexts - looking at them and seeing the bias helps towards understanding one another and working together. We have a lot to learn about God and Jesus that we can simply learn from breaking down walls and talking.

5 comments about Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience, The: Why Are Christians Living Just Like the Rest of the World?.

1. THE SCANDAL OF THE EVANGELICAL CONSCIENCE:
   Ronald J. Sider
   
   
   Ron Sider has drawn a line in the sand for the evangelical church. He argues that the church has two options, live like the culture around them or live like the church. As a pastor in one of the "evangelical" churches that Sider refers to, I strongly resonate with his statements. I agree that we can tell little difference today between those in the world and those in the church.
   Sider refers several times to George Barna and the work he has done in measuring where the church is today. It might have been good idf he had included some statitics from other pollsters as well in order to make some comparison.
   Sider issues a call to the church. He says we must rally around six very important issues.
   · Jesus is our source and center.
   · The church is holy.
   · The church is a community
   · The church is counter-cultural in lifestyle (This is the point I think the church misses, and therefore succumbs to culture.)
   · Mutual accountability and responsibility are essential.
   
   In the light of these issues Sider does go on and say that there is hope. Christ Jesus is willing to transform and re-form His church. Renewal and revival are not enough.
   This is a book that every Christian leader should read. If you disagree with Sider, or accept all that he says will make no difference. What is important is that today's church be challenged, chastised, and corrected, and this book will help in all three areas.



2. To those who have followed the Gallup and Barna polls the problem of worldliness among American Christians is old news. While worldliness among Evangelicals is statistically better than among the notional, born again or liberal Christians, the gap between their stated beliefs and their behavior is still abominable. The fundamentalists of all theological persuasions have long sounded the trumpet against embracing the culture. The problem is that they tend to be judgmental and are all too often equally hypocritical in other areas of their lives. Consequently, they are viewed as intolerant extremists rather than prophets.
   
   Ronald Sider in The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience confronts the most politically powerful religious demographic in America with its sin. However, instead of simply wagging his finger at these Christians or gleefully using their hypocrisy as a wedge issue to humiliate them for political gain, he holds up the biblical vision which to which they aspire and calls them to live up to their beliefs by strengthening the accountability structures in the local congregation, the denomination and among para-church organizations.
   
   To anyone concerned about genuine Christianity being lived out in their daily lives, The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience is a must read.



3. Ronald Sider is very concerned about a scandal that is undermining Christianity. In almost every conceivable moral category, the behavior of Christians shows no statistical difference from the rest of society. This scandal is especially shocking for evangelical Christians who have traditionally held that transformed lives are the best proof of the reality of the gospel.
   
   Sider writes, "To say there is a crisis of disobedience in the evangelical world today is to dangerously understate the problem. Born-again Christians divorce at about the same rate as everyone else. Self-centered materialism is seducing evangelicals and rapidly destroying our earlier, slightly more generous giving. Only 6 percent of born-again Christians tithe. Born-again Christians justify and engage in sexual promiscuity (both premarital sex and adultery) at astonishing rates. Racism and perhaps physical abuse of wives seem to be worse in evangelical circles than elsewhere. This is scandalous behavior for people who claim to be born-again by the Holy Spirit and to enjoy the very presence of the Risen Lord in their lives" (page 28).
   
   After laying out the depth of the scandal, Sider walks through the New Testament texts that call us to live a life of holy dedication to God. He then turns to causes of the scandal. Sider sees two basic causes of the evangelical scandal. First is a reduction of the gospel message to the forgiveness of sins. We must reclaim justification and sanctification as both central to the gospel. The second cause is cultural syncretism. Christians are being conformed to cultural individualism, materialism, and consumerism rather than living as a biblical community that subverts these "isms".
   
   With the very public scandals that have surfaced within evangelical Christianity, The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscious is a very timely book. If Christians read it and take it seriously, then Sider's hope that "this book will renew evangelical resolve to live what we preach" just might be achieved.



4. Jesus gave a stern description and warning to His disciples: "You are the salt of the earth, but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trampled under people's feet." (Matt. 5:13). Christ wants His followers to live in a way that honors him and proclaims the Gospel by their presence and behavior in the world. We are to be "salty" and live lives that are different from the culture around us, while still interacting with, loving and working in the culture. Ronald J. Sider's book, The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience: Why Are Christians Living Just Like the Rest of the World? asks some hard questions about how well the American Evangelical church is living up to that call to discipleship and holy living. This is not an easy book to read - not because of length (it's only 131 pages), nor because of its writing style (easy to read), but because of the uncomfortable lens it turns and focuses on our failures as God's people.
   
   "We proudly trumpet our orthodox doctrine of Christ as true God and true man and then disobey his teaching. We divorce, though doing so is contrary to his commands....Christ died to create one new multi-cultural body of believers, yet we display more racism than liberal Christians who doubt his deity." (pp. 50). Sider's tone throughout is close to sounding exasperated, but I think, that for the most part, his message needs to be heard! He is right, that much of our problem comes from poor teaching and understanding of the Biblical message: "If all there is to accepting the gospel is receiving the forgiveness of sins, one can accept the gospel, become a Christian, and then go on living the same adulterous, materialistic, racist life that one lived before. Salvation becomes, not a life-transforming experience that reorients every corner of life, but a one-way ticket to heaven, and one can live like hell until one gets there." (pp. 57-58).
   
   Do I recommend this book? Yes, with qualifications. I think sometimes it is good to read people who challenge you and stretch your understanding. Sider, is at times, not careful enough with his words, as he can make behavior change seem like part of coming to Christ, rather than the result of Christ changing u s after we come to Christ. He also focuses a lot on social and political areas, sometimes in ways that are not helpful. Still, all in all, I believe that all Christians should read this book and be reminded, that the grace that saves us, is also the grace that must transform us. As Paul writes in Titus 2:11-12, "For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people, training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in the present age." I pray that God would use books like this, to remind us that we are called to a transformed lifestyle when we come to Christ, and the more we fail to strive for holiness-the more the world sees our hypocrisy. Again, not a fun book to read, but an important one for all who are serious about following the Savior.



5. Hard to deny that Sider scores hits on evangelic Christianity in this book. American Christians are soft, and that's all there is to it. However, my criticism is that he's guilty of too much dependency on Barna's findings for so-called "born again Christians." This group includes a majority who believe other religions are good enough to get to God. Nearly half don't believe in a personal Satan.
   
   Based on this crew, Sider and Barna conclude that just as many Christians get divorced as non-Christians. The problem is, these aren't Christians. Only the Barna category, "evangelicals" can reasonably be called Christians in my opinion. We certainly don't see divorce rates anywhere close to those in the world in our church, and I don't hear from other evangelical pastors that they see such rates either. We're not even seeing a tenth of the rate typical of secular society in our church.
   
   I also didn't like Sider's Lordship rhetoric which makes it seem like salvation is by works.
   
   Other than these problems, it's a well-worthwhile read.
   
   Dennis McCallum, author Organic Disciplemaking: How to promote Christian leadership development through personal relationships, biblical discipleship, mentoring, and Christian community

5 comments about Lose It for Life Workbook.

1. I love this book. It has really helped me to examine my eating habits from God's prospective. I have learned to put food in its proper place, which is not always in my mouth! I have dug into God instead of in the pantry. My relationship with God has improved as I've turned to Him for help instead of to food. One key is eating only when you are physically hungry (versus spiritually hungry.) I have lost 23 pounds in 3 months without denying myself foods that I've craved, counting anything, or going hungry. This book/workbook may change your life. It has mine!



2. What can I say this workbook along with the book itself hits you right between the eyes! BAM! It's no joke. If you are looking for a shallow book then don't buy this one. The authors really do want to help you and I feel better already.



3. This book and program is the best I have used. I have tried other faith based programs...along with ever diet known to man, and this book and the program that goes with it (loseitforlife.com)...has not only changed my life, but the samll group I lead at my chruch, are also finding it life changing.
   
   It digs DEEP into the emotions around WHY we use food, the addictions, the patterns, and provides material to help you get out of the war against food...allowing you to not let the food control you , but with Gods help, YOU CONTROL THE FOOD< and all the EMOTIONS that go with eating. Food addictions are just as hard to break as any other form of medicating to avoid life...so dig in, and let God help you as he is calling you to decide, is this for me, or not...I would say, if you believe in God and want lasting relief from the struggles of weight...the answer is YES. God bless you on this wonderful journey.



4. My Bible-study group enjoyed this book and had varying success in losing weight as a result of the study. We felt it was helpful in learning to change ones lifestyle and attitude toward food. However, as a Bible study, we'd like to see more scripture in the daily sessions.



5. This book is a good book, just not what I needed. It seamed to be for people with deep issues with other things in life which has lead to over eating. To be honest, I started but did not finish the book, I was just not feeling it.

5 comments about Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical Theology.

1. "The Bible is used as the authority in defining every position described here. That should be enough for any evangelical to give it consideration."
   
   This sort of philosophy found in the book is deadly. Just because some theologaster quotes verses to 'support' the position doesn't legitimize it. How naive and silly to suppose that mere citation of Bible texts sanctions a theological position as Evangelical or Scriptural.
   
   Where does this sort of sloppy thinking lead? Cults, that's right. LDS and Jehovah Witness quote more verses than almost everyone. Does that make their doctrines Evangelical or Scriptural???? NOT.
   
   Think again, amigos, when imagining that multiple differing viewpoints about significant doctrines is acceptable in the Evangelical Fellowship of Faith. Is that how the Lord taught his disciples - agree to disagree? Is that how Paul in Romans taught his flock, with the apostolic injunction to tolerate doctrinal diversity in key areas like afterlife, God's attributes of Omniprescience and Omniscience, whether Scripture is wholly inerrant/infallible or only Ltd. inerrancy???? Sounds a lot like speculative theospeak and redefining of terminology to confuse the weakminded.
   
   This book teaches the polar opposite of Paul's warning in Romans 16:17-18:
   
   "I urge you brothers to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way contrary to the teaching you originally learned. Keep away from them. For such purveyors are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites (intellectual speciousness). By smooth talk and flattery they deceive naive minds."
   
   Cafeteria evangelicalism is not evangelical, but contra-Scriptural. Even the devil can quote scripture for his purposes.



2. It shouldn't have to be said, but since no one has REALLY said it, I will. Do you negative reviewers actually believe that the authors hold all of these views? And that it is their intent for you to just pick any of them (cafeteria-style) and that they're all equal? Do you think that they crafted all of these positions? From many of the comments, some of you are placing the blame on Boyd and Eddy for presenting views held by a good number of your fellow believers. PLEASE....before blasting away with all the negativity, understand what the intent of the book is.
   
   Several of the reviewers here "get it." I have read this book and refer to it regularly when trying to understand the basis for a position that I do not hold when I have come across someone who does hold such a view. And, by the way, you can't tell from reading this book what position the authors actually hold, anyway. Can any of you tell me which of these views are held by Paul Eddy? I don't think so. Just because you may have read some of Boyd's other books and think you have him pegged, doesn't mean that these topics aren't treated very fairly in this book. It's a great resource and its a shame that many of us are so quick to criticize without using the wisdom that God has for us.
   
   Note to Jan from Baltimore - I read your four other reviews, too. Do you have anything edifying to say about anything? You're very verbose (are you sure you didn't go to an Ivy League school?) but really didn't say anything of value, in my humble opinion.
   
   This book has helped me to strengthen my conservative beliefs (not obtained from "liberal Yale or Princeton", Jan) via solid scripture and to better understand other evangelical beliefs (and their history) held by Christians with whom I will celebrate with in heaven. Just because we don't all hold the same EXACT beliefs about non-core salvation issues, if we have repented and now follow Jesus, we can sing His praises in the Kingdom....together.
   
   Let's focus on what we have in common as believers rather than simply trash something we don't understand.
   
   By the way, if you're an evangelical Christian, I'll bet that your beliefs are fairly presented in this book. Nice work to the authors on this one!



3. Are we to condone Open Theism, the Literary Framework view of Genesis, and the Moral Government view of the atonement as legitimate evangelical viewpoints that can be set along side other historically credible believed truths? Moreover, if so, are they to be given equal space? Should evangelicals be led to believe that anyone affirming the Bible contains mistakes be given equal credence with one who believes the Bible is inerrant? Granted, the authors have sometimes specified where a new belief has entered the discussion. For example, under arguments against women in pastoral ministry, the topic of church tradition is mentioned, but only briefly. It states, "...the church has almost always forbidden women leaders until recent times," p. 229.
   However, it is the opinion of the reviewer that more weight should be given to well-established beliefs that have guided the church for centuries. No one new to the Christian faith should be taught that the annihilationist view has run concurrently along side the classical view throughout the last twenty centuries.
   It seems that in a world of pluralism, it is popular to present a smorgasbord of ideas for consideration and let the readers "fend" for themselves. Books seeking to avoid coming across as overly dogmatic and authoritative present multiple options with the hope that the shear weight of the truth will carry the day. Surely, Boyd and Eddy, themselves two evangelical scholars, want readers to come to the truth. However, instead of writing to convince, they write in a very non-biased way (self-described as the "liberal arts approach" to theology, p. 6). Boyd and Eddy use this approach with hope that the beginning theology student will not only gain the correct perspective amidst all the dizzying array of point, counter-point, banter, but that they will understand the truth, and in the process, gain a deep appreciation for the other side.
   This may not be the best approach in a day and age when truth and clarity are so needed. Instead of being conformed to the world's subjectivism, evangelical writers should write to persuade readers, contending for the faith once delivered to the saints. Evangelicals should be more polemic. Classical positions that were once secure need to be fought for again with added vigor. It seems wishful thinking to present four or five different perspectives to readers, some novices at logic and theology, with dangerous ideas and incredulous thoughts, along side with classical views, all with the hopes that they will be better off in the end.
   Boyd and Eddy hope the beginning student will be tempted to get more direction from the bibliographies, but alas, that is often not the case. A student confused about what to believe about the hell debate goes to the bibliography only to find more confusion in the form of Crockett's "Four Views on Hell." Granted, there are books that argue for the truth, but they are thrown in with others that militate against it. What is a person to believe? Why are there so many evangelicals writing "View" books, and less and less writing for the truth? Evangelicals are loosing their influence because they are loosing their passion to advance the truth. Moderate and liberal writers seem to have no such problems. While "Across the Spectrum" is a well-written, well-researched book, it cannot be recommended to college students (the targeted readership, see p. 6) because it is the firm conviction of this reviewer that students introduced to biblical theology should be introduced to a more conservative work that seeks to advance what the church has taught for centuries.



4. Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical Theology by Gregory A. Boyd and Paul R. Eddy is a fantastic introductory book on the various doctrinal viewpoints of evangelicals, including the foreknowledge debate, the creation debate, the Christology debate, Calvinism/Arminianism, charismatic gifts, women in ministry, and end times I used it in the preparation and teaching of a Theology 101 course at National Community Church.
   
   It is not meant to be a systematic theology textbook nor is it written from the doctrinal positions of the primary authors. It does not attempt to present a balanced overview of Christian doctrine or to argue for the superiority of one viewpoint over the other. Rather, it serves as an introduction to the diverse theological perspectives represented in the evangelical church. Obviously, we don't have everything figured out yet and probably won't have most things figured out this side of heaven. But this book made me want to dig into Scripture more, search for the Truth more, and appreciate the diversity of the Body of Christ more.
   
   The writing is clear, concise, and engaging. It was an easy yet informative read. It's not comprehensive, and some of the chapters certainly do not capture the complexity of the issue at hand. But it's a great reference point for understanding the diversity of thought in evangelicalism.
   
   As endorser Dennis Okholm of Wheaton College said, "At a time when some are tempted to mistake the white light of evangelical orthodoxy for a single band in the spectrum, Boyd and Eddy remind us just how colorful evangelical theology can be. The authors do what no book on the market does: In one volume they faithfully represent divergent views on the crucial issues that divide evangelical, and they do so in an ubiased, succinct, and lively manner."
   
   If you are looking for a quick snapshot of Biblically-rooted theological perspectives, I would recommend Across the Spectrum. Hopefully, this book will help us understand and appreciate the diversity in the Body of Christ more.



5. I appreciate the approach to disputed theological issues that provides an explanation of the various views associated with the issue and the biblical reasoning for those views. That is what is provided in "Across the Spectrum". Boyd and Eddy address a number of important areas where Evangelical Christians disagree, e.g., The Inspiration Debate; The Foreknowledge Debate; The Sanctification Debate; The Destiny of the Unevangelized Debate; The Charismatic Gifts Debate; and many others. These authors definitely jumped head-first into some very real and passionately argued subjects.
   
   When Boyd and Eddy address a viewpoint they provide the biblical argument for the position; as well as supporting arguments; and a response to the typical objections for the position. I got the impression that they did not intentionally shortchange a viewpoint. In their defense of each position, they made a genuine attempt to provide a compelling and convincing argument. In fact, occasionally, I agreed with all the points of view that were presented regarding an issue. In those cases, it was helpful to read an "Archie" comic book and then lay down for a while to regain my mental equilibrium.
   
   For many years, I've heard Christians defend a particular theological point of view with an attitude that suggested: "It's impossible for any thinking, rational, biblically sincere person to arrive at any position on this matter other than the one I'm explaining." That bothers me. It's fine to be sincere and it's fine to be firmly convinced. But it seems to me that it can be intellectually dishonest to look at a theological issue that has been debated by brilliant minds for centuries without resolution--for example Predestination vs. Free Will--and suggest that your viewpoint is obviously the only conclusion that any true Christian could possibly reach.
   
   A book like "Across the Spectrum" is very helpful to someone like me who would like to try to understand the various positions and why they are held.