THE PRISM AND THE RAINBOW
A Christian Explains Why Evolution Is Not a Threat
By Joel W. Martin
Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 2010
ISBN 13: 978-0-8018-9478-7
Here’s a great little book, helpful, that is easy to read. I read it in 2 hours.
The bulk of Martin’s arguments are against creationism and intelligent design as valid hypothesis deserving of being taught in school. While the author made every attempt to be gracious and to qualify his arguments, out of necessity he did sometimes paint with a rather broad brush. However, Martin is also sharply critical of many noted scientists who have insisted there is no God. Some may even perceive that he is harsher on them than he is on creationists.
Martin outlines exactly what science is, with definitions for Fact, Hypothesis, Law, Rule, & Theory. In particular, Martin (who is both a Presbyterian Elder and Biologist) explores the meaning of both fact and theory: A fact is an object or event ‘”having real, demonstrable existence” while theory is “the entire body of inter-locking and well-supported explanatory statements about a given subject.” By these explanations, Martin explains, an apple that falls from a tree is a fact, while gravity itself is a theory.
Hypothesis, “a suggested explanation for something” with the further restriction that it must be testable, is differentiated form theory, which is the body of knowledge about a subject and “does not imply doubt,” as commonly supposed.
Martin admits that ambiguity that is attached to many of these terms- for instance, the word theory is applied to many underlying mechanisms that are still under study.
Therefore Martin argues that evolution is not just another theory, and that creationism and intelligent design lack sufficient supporting evidence to be theories, nor do they qualify as hypothesis because they are not testable.
Yet Martin is a man of faith. Martin argues that science is meant to answer questions that begin with how, when, where and what but cannot answer questions that begin with why. Other authors- notably Karen Armstrong- have made the same argument, but Martin’s wording is easier to grasp AND more believable, because he shares his faith when doing so: “The light of science and the light of faith are meant to be illuminating, not blinding. And like other sources of light, the two will compliment, and not negate, one another. No finding of science will ever lessen your capacity or your need for worship.” (p. 100)
The book includes a fine appendix, many chapter notes, a good glossary and a fine list for further reading. It is a great introduction to the subject.
George R. Pasley
November 11, 2010
Ketchikan, AK
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Monday, November 8, 2010
THE TIGER
THE TIGER: A True Story of Vengeance and Survival
By John Valliant
ISBN 978-0-307-39714-0
This book is a true account of a tiger killing near the village of Sobolonye in the Russian far eats in December 1997. As such it is a gripping narrative, describing how the Tiger seems to have stalked and killed a man who had earlier tried to kill the tiger, how the Tiger went on to kill one more man and terrorize a village, and how authorities tracked down and killed the tiger at risk to their own lives.
But it is more than a true story, and that is the genius of the book. Each of the characters in the story came from somewhere else far away, for reasons other than choice, and stayed because for the most part they had no choice. Instead, they were compelled both to come and to stay for reasons of history, politics and economy. Valliant weaves those reasons into the narrative.
Even more, Valliant gives vivid description to the exceptionally unique ecology of the region known as Primorye, to the evolution of tigers, to the history of interaction between men and predatory beasts (including a vivid and chilling description of baboons hiding in caves by nighttime), the environmental predicaments posed by perestroika, the economic depravity in which the current residents of Primorye live, and finally, efforts to save the Siberian Tiger from extinction.
I found the book holding tight grip on my interest, and loved the way the author helped us to see both the larger environmental, economic and political pictures as well as the intimate picture of a life and death struggle in the winter forest, and yet held the larger picture and the intimate picture in balance.
Valliant ahs apparently made a career out of this sort of writing. After reading a few chapters I read the dust jacket and learned that he also authored “The Golden Spruce.” That book tells the story of a Sitka Spruce on Haida Gwaii (Queen Charlotte Islands), British Columbia. It had a rare genetic mutation causing its needles to be golden in color, but an unemployed logger cut it down as apolitical statement.
The Tiger is educational reading and compelling narrative. I would read it again, and read anything else Valliant has written.
George R. Pasley
November 8, 2010
By John Valliant
ISBN 978-0-307-39714-0
This book is a true account of a tiger killing near the village of Sobolonye in the Russian far eats in December 1997. As such it is a gripping narrative, describing how the Tiger seems to have stalked and killed a man who had earlier tried to kill the tiger, how the Tiger went on to kill one more man and terrorize a village, and how authorities tracked down and killed the tiger at risk to their own lives.
But it is more than a true story, and that is the genius of the book. Each of the characters in the story came from somewhere else far away, for reasons other than choice, and stayed because for the most part they had no choice. Instead, they were compelled both to come and to stay for reasons of history, politics and economy. Valliant weaves those reasons into the narrative.
Even more, Valliant gives vivid description to the exceptionally unique ecology of the region known as Primorye, to the evolution of tigers, to the history of interaction between men and predatory beasts (including a vivid and chilling description of baboons hiding in caves by nighttime), the environmental predicaments posed by perestroika, the economic depravity in which the current residents of Primorye live, and finally, efforts to save the Siberian Tiger from extinction.
I found the book holding tight grip on my interest, and loved the way the author helped us to see both the larger environmental, economic and political pictures as well as the intimate picture of a life and death struggle in the winter forest, and yet held the larger picture and the intimate picture in balance.
Valliant ahs apparently made a career out of this sort of writing. After reading a few chapters I read the dust jacket and learned that he also authored “The Golden Spruce.” That book tells the story of a Sitka Spruce on Haida Gwaii (Queen Charlotte Islands), British Columbia. It had a rare genetic mutation causing its needles to be golden in color, but an unemployed logger cut it down as apolitical statement.
The Tiger is educational reading and compelling narrative. I would read it again, and read anything else Valliant has written.
George R. Pasley
November 8, 2010
Saturday, September 18, 2010
WASHINGTON RULES
WASHINGTON RULES: America’s Path to Permanent War
Andrew J. Bacevich
Metropolitan Books, 2010
ISBN 978-0-8050-9141-0
Review by George R. Pasley
I’m not sure I’m glad I picked this book up, because it makes me very sad indeed.
Bacevich, a retired military officer now serving as professor of history and international relations at Boston University, chronicles American military policy since the end of World War Two. He does not paint a pretty picture.
Bacevich begins his chronicle with an account of sudden awareness that things were not what he had always thought them to be. This begins with the realization that the capabilities of our enemies were far less than we imagined- or were led to believe, and is compounded by a growing awareness that we are not as untainted as we like to believe.
Bacevich lauds Eisenhower for pointing out the powers and danger of the military-industrial complex, but criticizes him for not bringing them under control. He then shows how that complex has grown over the decades, and how it has always adjusted to failures (Bay of Pigs, Vietnam, etc) and changes in public opinion to maintain it’s grip on elected officials, the federal budget, and public priority.
After surveying the decisions of every president since Truman, Bacevich reaches Obama and describes his decision over Afghanistan: “Though the president’s national security team went through the motions of presenting him with a range of choices, the options actually on offer amounted to variations on a single theme…One option, of course, remained conspicuously ‘off the table’: getting out.” (p. 218)
Bacevich comes to a conclusion that ought to be embraced, considering the careful case he brings against it, that America has accepted a permanent state of war- yet viable options exist for something different.
Beginning with the premise that American clairvoyance is non-existent and that American power has its limits- in fact, that it is a “wasting asset”, Bacevich sets out a proposal that is not so much isolationist as it is no-interventionist. It is three pronged:
First, that the purpose of American military is not to combat evil, or to remake the world, but to defend America. Second, that the primary duty station of the American soldier is in America (an argument for reduced forces and for elimination of bases around the world). Third, “Consistent with the Just War tradition, the United States should employ force only as a last resort and only in self-defense.” (pp. 238-239)
Reading the book is like reading an indictment but it is good reading if we truly love our country and seek to love our neighbor.
George R. Pasley
September 18, 2010
Ketchikan, AK
Andrew J. Bacevich
Metropolitan Books, 2010
ISBN 978-0-8050-9141-0
Review by George R. Pasley
I’m not sure I’m glad I picked this book up, because it makes me very sad indeed.
Bacevich, a retired military officer now serving as professor of history and international relations at Boston University, chronicles American military policy since the end of World War Two. He does not paint a pretty picture.
Bacevich begins his chronicle with an account of sudden awareness that things were not what he had always thought them to be. This begins with the realization that the capabilities of our enemies were far less than we imagined- or were led to believe, and is compounded by a growing awareness that we are not as untainted as we like to believe.
Bacevich lauds Eisenhower for pointing out the powers and danger of the military-industrial complex, but criticizes him for not bringing them under control. He then shows how that complex has grown over the decades, and how it has always adjusted to failures (Bay of Pigs, Vietnam, etc) and changes in public opinion to maintain it’s grip on elected officials, the federal budget, and public priority.
After surveying the decisions of every president since Truman, Bacevich reaches Obama and describes his decision over Afghanistan: “Though the president’s national security team went through the motions of presenting him with a range of choices, the options actually on offer amounted to variations on a single theme…One option, of course, remained conspicuously ‘off the table’: getting out.” (p. 218)
Bacevich comes to a conclusion that ought to be embraced, considering the careful case he brings against it, that America has accepted a permanent state of war- yet viable options exist for something different.
Beginning with the premise that American clairvoyance is non-existent and that American power has its limits- in fact, that it is a “wasting asset”, Bacevich sets out a proposal that is not so much isolationist as it is no-interventionist. It is three pronged:
First, that the purpose of American military is not to combat evil, or to remake the world, but to defend America. Second, that the primary duty station of the American soldier is in America (an argument for reduced forces and for elimination of bases around the world). Third, “Consistent with the Just War tradition, the United States should employ force only as a last resort and only in self-defense.” (pp. 238-239)
Reading the book is like reading an indictment but it is good reading if we truly love our country and seek to love our neighbor.
George R. Pasley
September 18, 2010
Ketchikan, AK
Monday, August 9, 2010
PAUL AMONG THE PEOPLE
PAUL AMONG THE PEOPLE: The Apostle Reinterpreted and Reimagined In His Own Time
By Sarah Ruden
Pantheon, 2010
ISBN 978-0-375-42501-1
194 pages
A Review by George R. Pasley
My local librarian recommended this book to me after I wrote a poem about “thorns in the flesh,” a reference to one of the Apostle Paul’s personal experiences. I am glad she made the recommendation. It was on the shelves at our local library, but I intend to purchase my own copy forthwith.
Ruden is a scholar and a Christian (Quaker) but not a biblical scholar, even though at the time of the books publication she was a research fellow at Yale Divinity. Rather, she is a scholar of Greek Literature, and brings her knowledge of language (Latin and Greek, both classical and Koinonia) and culture to the interpretation of Paul’s New Testament epistles.
Specifically, her aim is to interpret them as they would have been heard by the Greco-Roman culture but her interpretation is powerful in our time.
Though her work is scholarly it is also personal and as such each chapter, and the corpus, is a powerful sermon.
The first chapter serves as a bit of introduction, with six chapters following that deal with pleasure, homosexuality, women (and marriage), Christians and government, slavery and love. Actually, the first chapter is a bit more than introduction- it sets the case that Ruden has figured out that the socially-conscious church is not an invention of modern times, but is present with Paul’s letters to Christians.
Ruden brings formidable translation skills to her work, and they are most evident in the chapter on pleasure, where she works through Paul’s lists of works of the flesh and fruits of the spirit. Especially helpful is her summary of Paul’s use of Sarx (Greek for flesh). “Paul’s point is not that the body or nature is bad and the mind or spirit good. It is about two ways of using the body, the one for a life that is worth living forever, and the other for a life that is as good as death in the short time before it vanishes.” (p. 41)
Homosexuality being a subject of strong division within the church today, Ruden deals with it rather thoroughly. Yes, it was a sin in Paul’s Jewish faith (though Paul set aside other Jewish things), but that is not what Ruden notices with what Paul says about homosexuality. First, she notes the pervasiveness of homosexuality in the Greco-Roman culture as an abusive practice. Her examples from Greek literature are quite numerous, and bawdy. But she makes her point: abusive sex was rampant, but the stigma was on the passive partner- victim- and not the aggressive partner, which was almost everybody (or so it seems). Linguistically she points out that Paul’s condemnation is to both partners, a novel thought in those days, and then she makes a final translation revelation: the word most often translated as “wickedness” would have been understood among the Greeks as “Injustice,” which paired with”ungodliness” in itself was a rather novel concept since there was no “thoroughly just god in their traditional pantheon” (p. 69) Ruden concludes:
“Paul’s Roman audience knew what justice was, if only through missing it. They would have been surprised to hear that justice applied to homosexuality, of all things. But many of them- slaves, freedmen, the poor, the young- would have understood in the next instant. Christ, the only Son of God, gave his body to save mankind. What greater contrast could there be to the tradition of using a weaker body for selfish pleasure or a power trip? Among Christians, there would have been no quibbling about what to do: no one would have imagined homosexuality’s being different than it was, it would have to go. And tolerance for it did disappear from the church.” (p. 71)
In effect, Paul’s ban on homosexual practice was an act of justice, not holiness.
I had to wonder about the accuracy of Ruden’s depiction of the rampant nature of sexual abuse in those times, until I watched a documentary on sex trafficking in our time. Considering that it is as rampant as it is, even in a so-called Christian nation, it is no longer hard for me to imagine widespread abuse in ancient times.
In the same effective manner Ruden deals with various issues regarding women (having their heads covered was an act of justice that lifted up the poor, non-ladies< to the same status as the most respected women)
Particularly moving is Ruden’s treatment of the book of Philemon (which has some sharp criticism for Crossan!). Paul was most definitely not asking Philemon to set Onesimus free. But what he was saying that Philemon would do, if he kept in mind what God has done for us, was even more radical: Forgive him, and treat him as a brother. In our time that seems quaint and easy, but it was most definitely counter-cultural, radical, and revolutionary in Philemon’s day. On pages 165 and 166 Ruden has a list of 14 things that Paul is doing and that Philemon ought to do that are completely at cross-currents with the culture.
One might be amused to find the love chapter included in a book that helps us to re-imagine Paul, but indeed the last chapter, on Paul and Love, is also very helpful. For one, Ruden emphasizes that agape was relatively unused outside of Christianity, that people in the Roman world only gave things to get things. But there is more.
Ruden emphasizes the verb nature of love, with a very helpful literal translation and little chart that shows how Paul new verbs out of three adjectives: kind, boastful and arrogant. Love is not a feeling, it’s a verb, and we need to DO things.
Which of course is hard, nay, impossible? But in a way that becomes quite personal, Ruden shows how Paul’s reference to himself as a child (Unheard of in ancient literature) helped her to realize that Love is something that is outside of us, doing for us, leading us, helping us to love as love does.
George R. Pasley
August 9, 2010
Ketchikan AK
By Sarah Ruden
Pantheon, 2010
ISBN 978-0-375-42501-1
194 pages
A Review by George R. Pasley
My local librarian recommended this book to me after I wrote a poem about “thorns in the flesh,” a reference to one of the Apostle Paul’s personal experiences. I am glad she made the recommendation. It was on the shelves at our local library, but I intend to purchase my own copy forthwith.
Ruden is a scholar and a Christian (Quaker) but not a biblical scholar, even though at the time of the books publication she was a research fellow at Yale Divinity. Rather, she is a scholar of Greek Literature, and brings her knowledge of language (Latin and Greek, both classical and Koinonia) and culture to the interpretation of Paul’s New Testament epistles.
Specifically, her aim is to interpret them as they would have been heard by the Greco-Roman culture but her interpretation is powerful in our time.
Though her work is scholarly it is also personal and as such each chapter, and the corpus, is a powerful sermon.
The first chapter serves as a bit of introduction, with six chapters following that deal with pleasure, homosexuality, women (and marriage), Christians and government, slavery and love. Actually, the first chapter is a bit more than introduction- it sets the case that Ruden has figured out that the socially-conscious church is not an invention of modern times, but is present with Paul’s letters to Christians.
Ruden brings formidable translation skills to her work, and they are most evident in the chapter on pleasure, where she works through Paul’s lists of works of the flesh and fruits of the spirit. Especially helpful is her summary of Paul’s use of Sarx (Greek for flesh). “Paul’s point is not that the body or nature is bad and the mind or spirit good. It is about two ways of using the body, the one for a life that is worth living forever, and the other for a life that is as good as death in the short time before it vanishes.” (p. 41)
Homosexuality being a subject of strong division within the church today, Ruden deals with it rather thoroughly. Yes, it was a sin in Paul’s Jewish faith (though Paul set aside other Jewish things), but that is not what Ruden notices with what Paul says about homosexuality. First, she notes the pervasiveness of homosexuality in the Greco-Roman culture as an abusive practice. Her examples from Greek literature are quite numerous, and bawdy. But she makes her point: abusive sex was rampant, but the stigma was on the passive partner- victim- and not the aggressive partner, which was almost everybody (or so it seems). Linguistically she points out that Paul’s condemnation is to both partners, a novel thought in those days, and then she makes a final translation revelation: the word most often translated as “wickedness” would have been understood among the Greeks as “Injustice,” which paired with”ungodliness” in itself was a rather novel concept since there was no “thoroughly just god in their traditional pantheon” (p. 69) Ruden concludes:
“Paul’s Roman audience knew what justice was, if only through missing it. They would have been surprised to hear that justice applied to homosexuality, of all things. But many of them- slaves, freedmen, the poor, the young- would have understood in the next instant. Christ, the only Son of God, gave his body to save mankind. What greater contrast could there be to the tradition of using a weaker body for selfish pleasure or a power trip? Among Christians, there would have been no quibbling about what to do: no one would have imagined homosexuality’s being different than it was, it would have to go. And tolerance for it did disappear from the church.” (p. 71)
In effect, Paul’s ban on homosexual practice was an act of justice, not holiness.
I had to wonder about the accuracy of Ruden’s depiction of the rampant nature of sexual abuse in those times, until I watched a documentary on sex trafficking in our time. Considering that it is as rampant as it is, even in a so-called Christian nation, it is no longer hard for me to imagine widespread abuse in ancient times.
In the same effective manner Ruden deals with various issues regarding women (having their heads covered was an act of justice that lifted up the poor, non-ladies< to the same status as the most respected women)
Particularly moving is Ruden’s treatment of the book of Philemon (which has some sharp criticism for Crossan!). Paul was most definitely not asking Philemon to set Onesimus free. But what he was saying that Philemon would do, if he kept in mind what God has done for us, was even more radical: Forgive him, and treat him as a brother. In our time that seems quaint and easy, but it was most definitely counter-cultural, radical, and revolutionary in Philemon’s day. On pages 165 and 166 Ruden has a list of 14 things that Paul is doing and that Philemon ought to do that are completely at cross-currents with the culture.
One might be amused to find the love chapter included in a book that helps us to re-imagine Paul, but indeed the last chapter, on Paul and Love, is also very helpful. For one, Ruden emphasizes that agape was relatively unused outside of Christianity, that people in the Roman world only gave things to get things. But there is more.
Ruden emphasizes the verb nature of love, with a very helpful literal translation and little chart that shows how Paul new verbs out of three adjectives: kind, boastful and arrogant. Love is not a feeling, it’s a verb, and we need to DO things.
Which of course is hard, nay, impossible? But in a way that becomes quite personal, Ruden shows how Paul’s reference to himself as a child (Unheard of in ancient literature) helped her to realize that Love is something that is outside of us, doing for us, leading us, helping us to love as love does.
George R. Pasley
August 9, 2010
Ketchikan AK
Saturday, July 31, 2010
LIFE IN YEAR ONE
LIFE IN YEAR ONE: What the World Was Like in First-Century Palestine
By Scott Korb
Riverhead Books, 2010
Review by George R. Pasley
Hear is an easily read, thorough, and enjoyable summary of the entire sum of knowledge about life in Galilee during Jesus’ lifetime.
Scot Korb has devoured everything written on the subject, arranged it into ten easy chapters so that non-scholars can easily understand it, and busy scholars can easily digest it. Furthermore, he makes it funny (Talking about cleanliness- or the lack thereof, due to water shortages, he says “A place like Nazareth, without much of local body of water to speak of…would have remained small. A town can only take sop much concentrated stink.”).
Beyond reading all the literature (though he quotes Crossan and Reed most often), Korb visited Israel and Palestine himself, and interviewed numerous archaeologists. The book has numerous annotations, references to quotes, and along bibliography. Makes a great addition to any church library, and affine introduction to the subject for all biblical scholars.
July 31, 2010
By Scott Korb
Riverhead Books, 2010
Review by George R. Pasley
Hear is an easily read, thorough, and enjoyable summary of the entire sum of knowledge about life in Galilee during Jesus’ lifetime.
Scot Korb has devoured everything written on the subject, arranged it into ten easy chapters so that non-scholars can easily understand it, and busy scholars can easily digest it. Furthermore, he makes it funny (Talking about cleanliness- or the lack thereof, due to water shortages, he says “A place like Nazareth, without much of local body of water to speak of…would have remained small. A town can only take sop much concentrated stink.”).
Beyond reading all the literature (though he quotes Crossan and Reed most often), Korb visited Israel and Palestine himself, and interviewed numerous archaeologists. The book has numerous annotations, references to quotes, and along bibliography. Makes a great addition to any church library, and affine introduction to the subject for all biblical scholars.
July 31, 2010
Friday, July 30, 2010
BLAMELESS
BLAMELESS
By Thom Lemmons
WaterBrook Press, 2007
Review by George R. Pasley
I’ve only once before read a modern Christian novel and was not disappointed, but still I haven’t gone looking for more. I found this one by accident, and it’s premise of being a retelling of the book of Job intrigued me.
It was well done, a romance about two college professors who have been hurt in love before, and are afraid of the consequences of falling in love. The basic plot line was parallel to the plot of the biblical book of Job, but even though there was a preacher in the story, and references to the question of undeserved suffering, one wouldn’t know it was Christian in nature without the “Note to Readers” posted by the author at the end.
Lemmons’ main character was Joe Barnes, a professor with a mysterious past. In the course of one horrible week he lost his job and his reputation, with little hope of finding a replacement for either one of them. His new-found romantic interest is the Dean of Humanities, who could rescue his reputation, but he chooses not to ask her, preferring instead to hope for her love.
The dean, Alexis, discerns that he indeed does love her, but does not step in when by virtue of her authority she could save his reputation. Instead, when she ahs complete freedom to do so, she saves his reputation by demanding that other parties involved tell the truth.
How she did that was a plot twist that I loved. Not a complicated read, but a book that manages to provide a thoughtful definition of what it might mean to be loved by God, and to love in return.
July 30, 2010
By Thom Lemmons
WaterBrook Press, 2007
Review by George R. Pasley
I’ve only once before read a modern Christian novel and was not disappointed, but still I haven’t gone looking for more. I found this one by accident, and it’s premise of being a retelling of the book of Job intrigued me.
It was well done, a romance about two college professors who have been hurt in love before, and are afraid of the consequences of falling in love. The basic plot line was parallel to the plot of the biblical book of Job, but even though there was a preacher in the story, and references to the question of undeserved suffering, one wouldn’t know it was Christian in nature without the “Note to Readers” posted by the author at the end.
Lemmons’ main character was Joe Barnes, a professor with a mysterious past. In the course of one horrible week he lost his job and his reputation, with little hope of finding a replacement for either one of them. His new-found romantic interest is the Dean of Humanities, who could rescue his reputation, but he chooses not to ask her, preferring instead to hope for her love.
The dean, Alexis, discerns that he indeed does love her, but does not step in when by virtue of her authority she could save his reputation. Instead, when she ahs complete freedom to do so, she saves his reputation by demanding that other parties involved tell the truth.
How she did that was a plot twist that I loved. Not a complicated read, but a book that manages to provide a thoughtful definition of what it might mean to be loved by God, and to love in return.
July 30, 2010
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
BREAKING THE MISSIONAL CODE
Ed Stetzer and David Putnam, authors
Broadman & Holman, 2006
Review by George Pasley
Over the last few years I’ve read a number of books on evangelism and reaching the unchurched. “Breaking the Missional Code” is my favorite this far. I read it last fall and marked it up with notes, underlines, highlights and questions, then skimmed it again and re-read several chapters to reinforce and revisit my earlier thoughts.
I like it primarily for two reasons: One, it does not insist that a certain theological perspective is necessary for evangelistic success. There are some books out there that do, and they seem more aimed at proving their point than helping you introduce people to Jesus. “Breaking the Missional Code” does say “we must take the Bible seriously” and does reference a theology that does not compromise faith, but it leaves room for considerable differences and it does not overwhelm the reader with its bias.
Second, “Breaking the Missional Code” repeatedly makes list of key points, making it easy to understand and easy to apply.
In particular, page 81 lists four questions we need to ask before setting out on evangelism: 1) where are the unchurched/unreached? 2) Who are the unchurched/unreached? 3) Why are they unchurched/unreached? 4) What is God already doing among the unchurched/unreached? (I found the 4th question especially significant).
These lists are found in most every chapter but others that I found helpful were on page 102, barriers to helping seekers understand and feel safe in worship; page 103, list of important assumptions to make about engaging people in a meaningful way; and page 128, patterns for spiritual formation.
Regarding barriers to worship, I like the way they recognized that even though seekers and believers are looking for different things in worship, and that tension will exist between serving both groups, we all need to worship together to experience the Christian community.
Key principals the book lifts up: 1) North America is a poly cultural context, with many cultures being micro-cultures in a local community. If we want to reach people with our message we need to find them, get to know them, and deliver our message in a way they will understand. 2) Many persons are spiritually receptive but not familiar with Christianity. 3) Discipleship now begins before conversion as people need to experience and participate in the Gospel before committing to it. 4) Evangelism is now relational instead of propositional. 5) Evangelism will require patience since much of it is more about sowing seeds rather than harvesting.
I also like the book because it is, by definition, adaptable. Every culture and context is different. Though the book seems written by persons more familiar with locales of growing populations, it could easily be adapted to other contexts, such as my won, where populations are not growing but the numbers of unchurched persons ARE growing.
While reading the book I occasionally noted questions or critiques, only to have them answered a bit later. My most serious critique is that it emanations “servant evangelism” but them passes it by as if it were insignificant or nor worth pursuing, but perhaps it is only “beside the point.”
Broadman & Holman, 2006
Review by George Pasley
Over the last few years I’ve read a number of books on evangelism and reaching the unchurched. “Breaking the Missional Code” is my favorite this far. I read it last fall and marked it up with notes, underlines, highlights and questions, then skimmed it again and re-read several chapters to reinforce and revisit my earlier thoughts.
I like it primarily for two reasons: One, it does not insist that a certain theological perspective is necessary for evangelistic success. There are some books out there that do, and they seem more aimed at proving their point than helping you introduce people to Jesus. “Breaking the Missional Code” does say “we must take the Bible seriously” and does reference a theology that does not compromise faith, but it leaves room for considerable differences and it does not overwhelm the reader with its bias.
Second, “Breaking the Missional Code” repeatedly makes list of key points, making it easy to understand and easy to apply.
In particular, page 81 lists four questions we need to ask before setting out on evangelism: 1) where are the unchurched/unreached? 2) Who are the unchurched/unreached? 3) Why are they unchurched/unreached? 4) What is God already doing among the unchurched/unreached? (I found the 4th question especially significant).
These lists are found in most every chapter but others that I found helpful were on page 102, barriers to helping seekers understand and feel safe in worship; page 103, list of important assumptions to make about engaging people in a meaningful way; and page 128, patterns for spiritual formation.
Regarding barriers to worship, I like the way they recognized that even though seekers and believers are looking for different things in worship, and that tension will exist between serving both groups, we all need to worship together to experience the Christian community.
Key principals the book lifts up: 1) North America is a poly cultural context, with many cultures being micro-cultures in a local community. If we want to reach people with our message we need to find them, get to know them, and deliver our message in a way they will understand. 2) Many persons are spiritually receptive but not familiar with Christianity. 3) Discipleship now begins before conversion as people need to experience and participate in the Gospel before committing to it. 4) Evangelism is now relational instead of propositional. 5) Evangelism will require patience since much of it is more about sowing seeds rather than harvesting.
I also like the book because it is, by definition, adaptable. Every culture and context is different. Though the book seems written by persons more familiar with locales of growing populations, it could easily be adapted to other contexts, such as my won, where populations are not growing but the numbers of unchurched persons ARE growing.
While reading the book I occasionally noted questions or critiques, only to have them answered a bit later. My most serious critique is that it emanations “servant evangelism” but them passes it by as if it were insignificant or nor worth pursuing, but perhaps it is only “beside the point.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)