An Unsettling God by Walter Brueggemann

An Unsettling God is both provocative and timeline (5 out of 5!) as Walter Brueggemann dazzles us with a portrayal of God - both unsettling and exciting - as the ancient Hebrews testified of him.

When Brueggemann approaches the scriptures he does not ask, is the God of Calvin here or the God of Arminius or the God of Pinnock? Instead when he approaches the Old Testament he asks the question to the ancient Hebrews, “Who do you say that He is?” Sometimes we see the categories of Calvin and sometimes we see the categories of Arminius, this is partly what makes God “unsettling”, because YWHW cannot be made to easily fit into our “static categories of interpretation” – He is too big, and we are too fallible. Yet it is a fearful road Brueggemann offers, it is a road of discomfort; because in asking the Hebrews and not the Greeks “Who is YWHW?” he finds himself immediately at odds with classical Christian theology. “In… much classical Christian theology, ‘God’ can be understood in terms of quite settled categories that are, for the most part, inimical to the biblical tradition. The casting of the classical tradition… is primarily informed by the Unmoved Mover of Hellenistic thought… a Being completely apart from and unaffected by the reality of the world” [p.1]. Brueggemann insists that "a Christian reading of the Old Testament requires, in the present time, a recovery of the Jewishness of our ways of reading the text" [p.6].

The "big idea" of the Old Testament, according to Brueggemann is that "the God of ancient Israel (who is the creator of heaven and earth) is a God in relationship.... Such a notion of God in relationship that pervades the Old Testament is both a stark contrast to much classical theology that thought of God only in God's holy self, and to the modern notion of autonomy whereby God and human selves as well are understood as isolated and independent agents who are only incidentally related to each other" [p. xi].

According to Brueggemann the difining category for faith in the Old Testament is "dialogue" whereby "all parties - including God - are engaged in a dialogic exchange that is potentially transformative for all parties... including God". This reality holds as much relevance for believers today as it did for the ancient Hebrews: "The Old Testament is an invitation to reimagine our life and our faith as an on-going dialogic transaction in which all parties are variously summoned to risk and change" [p. xii].

Throughout his book Brueggemann explores the four partners whom God is in relationship with according to the Hebrew testimony; Israel, the Human Person, the Nations and finally, Creation itself. An Unsettling God is a fascinating and fairly accessible study of the God revealed in the Old Testament, and in today's day and age when it is becoming more and more appearant that many of the old categories of classical Christian theology can no longer ignore or be embarrassed by the anthropomorphic character of God [p. 2], Brueggemann's book is a breath of fresh air! Yet in the introduction Brueggemann puts in a single stroke both a challenge and a warning: "such an open and thick articulation of faith may be threatening to some and may require unlearning by us all" [p. xii].

If you are at all interested in biblical studies, in theology or in understanding the nature of God and the Old Testament this book is an absolute MUST HAVE for your library.

Derek Ouellette
ouellettedd@hotmail.com

Christless Christianity by Michael Horton

Christless Christianity does not propose that the evangelical Christian Church in North America is devoid of Jesus – not yet anyways. But Michael Horton does build a strong argument throughout the book that the evangelical church is heading in that direction.

Horton’s incisive analysis of the preaching and practices of the North American “Evangelical” Church reveals that many of its preachers and pastors have lost confidence in the “Evangel” or “Good News” of Jesus Christ. We have not only lost confidence in the Gospel but have lost our sense of need for it.

According to Horton, the reason for this is that we do not take God and His holiness seriously enough. In His place, we take ourselves, and our own happiness, as all-important. The need for the redeeming work of Christ is downplayed when we emphasize God’s love without trying to integrate it with His righteousness and justice. Who needs a Mediator or forgiveness with such a god?

Horton writes: “My concern is not that God is treated so lightly in American culture but that he is not taken seriously in our own faith and practice” (p. 23). The minimizing, and even disparaging, of doctrinal and creedal instruction in the life of the contemporary Church evidence this. But doctrine is the teaching of the Church regarding who God is and what He has accomplished in Christ for salvation. The apostolic creeds are the Church’s faithful witness to the historic, objective facts of Christ’s person and work. These historic facts and events are the foundation of the Church’s existence.

In a desire to be relevant, we have so emphasized our subjective wants and feelings that our “peace of mind” has become more important than achieving the objective status of “peace with God”. We have succumbed to the secularizing forces of our culture that insist on privatizing all Christian claims. As a result, the Christian faith is being transformed into a form of therapy. “Christ, then, is our answer to bad feelings, not to any actual state of enmity or guilt before God” (p. 53).

Horton goes on to critique Joel Osteen’s teaching in a detailed way. Osteen’s ministry epitomizes the moralistic, therapeutic deism that is rampant in today’s “Evangelical” Church. Horton summarizes Osteen’s teachings by these words: “Basically, God is there for you and your happiness. He has some rules and principles for getting what you want out of life, and if you follow them, you can have what you want” (p. 68). If the goal of our existence is to be happy and to enjoy personal success, then our biggest need is the instruction and motivation of a life coach.

Jesus is transformed into a Tony Robbins or Dr. Phil from the biblical Christ who saves us from the coming wrath through a bloody cross. This biblical gospel is perceived to be too offensive and negative for many in our churches to accept.

Horton also looks at some of the teaching of “The Emergent Movement”. These emergent teachers are not as narcissistic or individualistic in their teaching as Osteen and other prosperity teachers seem to be. They, however, also confuse law and gospel. They downplay what God has done for us in Christ (Gospel) and instead emphasize the need for the Church to be more involved in peace and justice issues like global warming and AIDS (law). These emergent teachers assume that the Church already knows what the Gospel is and all we need to do is work harder in social justice. This is the path to transformation in the world.

Horton, however, builds a strong case that many parts of the Church do not really know the Gospel and its full implications. Horton closes his book with these prophetic words: “The church in America will have to learn what it means to mourn before it can dance. Sticking to the story, fixing our eyes on Christ – even if it means distracting us from what we have diagnosed as our real issues – is the kindest thing a pastor can do for a congregation, the most precious gift we can receive and pass along to our neighbors, and the most relevant mission on earth” (p. 259).

One shortcoming, I think, that is worth mentioning is that Horton paints all revivalist-oriented Christian churches with the same wide brush. He prominently mentions Charles Finney as an example of a man-centered approach to revivalist ministry. It is not surprising that Finney’s ministry produced dubious long-term spiritual fruit. But there are church denominations that began in the holiness revivals of the late 1800s who were contemporary with Finney and who are still producing spiritual fruit for the kingdom of God today.

This book is highly recommended as a critique of the contemporary evangelical church. I give it a 4.5 out of 5.

In Christ’s love and service,
Pastor John Neposlan
Devonwood Community Church of the Nazarene

Surprised By Hope, By N. T. Wright

In his book, Surprised by Hope, N. T. Wright demonstrates again why he is one of today’s most readable New Testament scholars. He combines a great intellectual acumen and rigor with a wonderful pastor’s heart, which is always burdened to foster the faithfulness of God’s people.

In this particular book, Wright begins by demonstrating that both Christians and non-Christians are often confused about what the ultimate Christian hope is. Wright contends that most people have a very vague, sentimental and non-biblical view of life-after-death. This is understandable for non-Christians but it is more troubling and surprising that this is the case for Christians.

The most common cultural view regarding life-after-death is that somehow things will all work out in the end. We’ll either turn into angels or become liberated souls carried on clouds or floating in some ocean of endless peace. Wright shows how these owe more to Platonic or pagan beliefs than to biblical teaching.

Wright does a great job of expounding what the actual biblical teaching is on life-after-death. He shows that the Jews and early Christians always believed that what happened to the faithful right at death was a temporary or intermediate stage. The deceased believers are somehow held in the powerful and loving embrace of God. They are conscious but do not possess their new and glorified bodies until that Final Day.

Wright writes that in the bodily resurrection of Jesus, God has shown us ahead of time what will happen to all of His people. The Jews always believed in the resurrection but it was a great surprise to Jewish expectation that their Messiah would arise from the dead to a new life right in the middle of this present age. It was also a great surprise to them that their Messiah died on the cross in the first place. From solely a human perspective, the crucifixion of Jesus meant that he was not the Messiah or the Christ, not that he was. But the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ reveals to us that He’s full of surprises.

Wright not only expounds that the Christian hope is specific, solid and sure but then he does on outstanding job of explaining the difference that biblical hope should have in our day-to-day lives. Wright demonstrates how the bodily resurrection of Jesus was a vindication by God the Father regarding the claims of Christ. In the bodily resurrection of the Messiah, God was showing that Jesus was the true Lord of the world and that the Roman Caesars were only pretenders to the world thrones.

It was this kind of message or gospel that was troublesome to worldly rulers and not the message of the Gnostics who only believed in a spiritual or inward resurrection. The early Christians were faithful to the biblical teaching and understood that Jesus’ actual bodily resurrection had implications for the whole cosmos.

Their hope in the resurrected Christ not only motivated them to grow in a personal relationship with Christ but also to work for a transformed world because one day, God would remake all of creation. Bible study and corporate worship on Sunday morning are important but also work and play the rest of the week is important. Our ultimate hope is to live in a resurrected body in a new heaven and new earth that will be more solid and beautiful than anything we have experienced so far in the old earth.

This is the surprising hope that God has gifted us with in the resurrected Jesus. Thank you, Lord, and thank you, N.T. for opening our eyes and hearts anew to this very Good News.

Pastor John Neposlan
Devonwood Community Church of the Nazarene

Imminent Domain: the Story of the Kingdom of God and Its Celebration

It has been a long held secret of mine that the phrase “Kingdom of God” held the greatest enigma in the Gospels for me as a teenager. When the Gospels compare the Kingdom of God to mustard seeds or to farmers, and when Jesus said that some of his disciples would not die before they saw the Kingdom of God arrive or when he said that we have to receive the Kingdom of God like little children; my young head began to split with confusion.

What is the Kingdom of God? Where is the Kingdom of God? Even when is the Kingdom of God? Is it future, is it present? Is it only for a thousand years when Christ returns or was it in the midst of the Pharisees when Jesus was casting out demons? It is to these questions and the practical applications of them that Ben Witherington III takes up his pen.

In Imminent Domain: the Story of the Kingdom of God and its Celebration, Witherington exposes my preconceptions which were a barrier to understanding the biblical phrase “Kingdom of God”; he says, “To most modern people the term ‘Kingdom’ always implies a place, whether one is thinking of the United Kingdom or the Magic Kingdom.” (p.2) To this he teaches that the word “Kingdom” in the scriptures refers both to a place and an event or condition. So this means that when the words “Kingdom” and “God” are joined together they are usually used to convey the idea of the rule or activity of God leading to the consummation of his will. For this reason he prefers the term “Dominion” over Kingdom, “God exercises or has dominion over us and we are in turn ruled by God” (ibid). To this we can say that the Kingdom of God is here already as Jesus told the Pharisees, and that it is still to come or rather that it is "Already, but Not Yet".

After diverging into a short discussion distinguishing between the Kingdom of God with Israel and the Church he sets about the rest of the book illustrating how and what it means to live out the Dominion of God here already, and the implications of those actions for the Not Yet – or future reality of the Kingdom. The Dominion of God is manifest in the miracles of Jesus and his disciples (p.3), and the Dominion of God is manifest in godly character and living (“When God’s character is reflected in our character in our daily lives, then the dominion of God is evident here on earth”, p.17). But when we get right down and personal on the subject of the Kingdom he says, “Godly character rather than goodly gifts and talents is a better indicator of whether God is ruling in a persons life or not” (p.40). As far as the future consummation of the Kingdom is concerned, it is not ‘out there’ somewhere, but rather it will be here on earth: “It is never adequate theology to say ‘this world is not my home, I’m just passing through’ as if heaven were all that really mattered” (p.53), heaven is not our home, but only the place where we pass between when we die and when we rise again. What this means is that in a very real way “Believers are God’s beachhead on earth” (p.55). For this reason Christians should follow God’s lead in maintaining this planet, “God is the ultimate conservationist or ecologist” (p.74).

Witherington maintains a certain amount of (deliberate?) ambiguity throughout his book. At times he seems almost Covenantal and then when you least expect it he says something like “non-Christian Jews will in some inevitable way be included in the final form of God’s people.” (p.64) – this is staple Dispensational thinking. Furthermore he avoids all discussion revolving around the Millennium. It seems to me that Witherington’s intention is more pastorial then academic and so perhaps his ambiguity in these matters is with the hope to reach as wide an audience as possible.

I give this book 3.5 out of 5. The introduction is very helpful and only mildly detached from the rest. I would have liked Ben to explore deeper into the distinctions of the Kingdom of Israel (with their prophetic expectations of the Messiah and the Kingdom he would bring) with the concept of the Kingdom of God which Witherington develops. It’s a light read and one could make good use of it in a sermon.

Derek Ouellette
ouellettedd@hotmail.com

God's Battalions: the Case for the Crusades

“A Respected and Controversial Scholar Argues that the Crusades Were a Justified War Waged Against Muslim Terror and Aggression” – Back of the Book

I had not read much on the crusades, but I certainly had many ideas about them which I probably acquired via the influence of our culture. But as soon as the advanced copy of Starks book came across my path I read it in two days flat! First let me present my stereotype; secondly, let me present Starks thesis.

In the 1991 film Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves I remember a comical scene where the Christian Crusader, Robin Hood (Kevin Costner) and his Muslim friend Azeem (Morgan Freeman) are looking over the hill at the enemy forces. While Robin is squinting his eyes to see the distance, Azeem quickly creates a telescope using makeshift materials and hands it to Robin who, when peering through, scrambles for his sword and starts swinging it through the air like a maniac thinking that the enemy is upon him. Azeem hangs his head in disbelief and comments, “how did your kind ever take back Jerusalem”. The message of course is that Azeem the Muslim is advanced his sophisticated while the great Christian Robin Hood is barbaric and uncivilized. This theme comes out often in the film and plays directly into a typical stereotype.

Shortly after 9/11 former president Bill Clinton said, “those of us who come from various European lineages are not blameless”, referring back to the Crusades; and everyone from the Catholic Pope – John Paul II – to Protestant march rallies are tripping over themselves apologizing for the Crusades. Why? Because in them we see the worst of Christendom: Barbaric and uncivilized Christians marching with sword in hand in the name of Christ slaughtering civilized, sophisticated and innocent Muslims for the purpose colonization and greed.

But is this portrayal of history accurate? Rodney Stark says ‘No’. It is easy (perhaps too easy) to demonize the Catholic Church of that era for the Crusades having existed and to jump quickly (too quickly) into hypothesis involving perceived motives and half truth stories about specific events. But when those events are placed in their context then clarity becomes 20/20 and humility is had! God’s Battalions is a highly readable and well researched case for the Crusades: that contrary to popular opinion “the Crusades were not unprovoked. They were not the first round of European colonialism. They were not conducted for land, loot, or converts. The crusaders were not barbarians who victimized the cultivated Muslims.” (p.248) On the contrary, “the Crusades were precipitated by Islamic provocations: by centuries of bloody attempts to colonize the West and by sudden new attacks on Christian pilgrims and holy places” (p.8) until Europe finally said "Enough is enough". In other words, the Crusades were an answer to a plea for help by the Christian East who were being brutalized, slaughtered or forced to convert. Someone had to come to the rescue, and someone did. Consider this, had Constantinople been taken by the Muslims “the way would have been open to invading Europe” (p.36) and historians see Constantinople’s withstanding of the Muslim forces as no less than a “turning point in the history of mankind” (p.37 italics added) because, “Had they captured Constantinople in the seventh century rather than the fifteenth, all Europe – and America – might be Muslim today” (ibid). So it appears we might owe more to the crusaders then we typically pay them due.

All in all I give this book 4.5 out of 5; it is an excellent read and I suggest anyone interested in the subject to pick it up as soon as it comes out (October 2009 - all page references are subject to change as I was using an uncorrected proof and not the final product).

Derek Ouellette
ouellettedd@hotmail.com