Dan Phillips has “tagged” me. Thanks for nothing, Dan. I’m now “it” in the blogging tag game that should really be called the proof that I’m as shallow as you think I am game. This is a no-win situation, especially for a father of 4 girls whose most substantive reading is too often The Hungry Caterpillar. (I love that book. That and Chicka Chicka Boom Boom.) Nevertheless, to avoid being like the section of the stadium that keeps stopping “the wave”, I’ll give it a go, then pass the disease game to someone else.
1. One book that changed your life
Yikes. I’d love to cite something really profound and impressive (you know, something big & old like the books in the picture), but I’ll go with a book that made a big impact on me early on in my pastoral ministry: Bill Hull’s The Disciple Making Pastor. The book focuses on the pastor’s responsibility to equip the entire body to be active in ministry–to “decentralize” ministry. That’s been a big idea in my life & ministry. It’s focus on Ephesians. 4:11-12 was particularly helpful.
Several books on the division between New Evangelicalism & Fundamentalism (e.g. Ernest Pickering’s The Tragedy of Compromise) have influenced me to a great degree, as well.
2. One book that you’ve read more than once
Wow. We’re back to The Hungry Caterpillar, I think. Anyway, what’s the point of reading a book twice? I thought the whole point of reading a book was the sense of conquest you have once you finish it. I don’t get the question.
If I have to give an answer, I have enjoyed Tozer’s The Pursuit of God more than once. (You’ll notice that it’s not very long.)
3. One book you’d want on a deserted island
Well, I’ve hoped to read through The Works of John Owen, and I haven’t done too well with it here on the mainland. That would pass the time, eh?
4. One book that made you laugh
That’s easy: Into the Twilight Endlessly Grousing and anything else by Patrick McManus. Oh man, is he funny.
5. One book that made you cry
Yikes again. I’m coming up empty here. I’ve had some bad paper-cuts, but none that were that bad. Hmmm….let’s see.
Nope. Nothin’.
6. One book that you wish had been written
Why I Rejected Ecumenical Evangelism: The Autobiography of Billy Graham.
Either that or How I Became This Successful This Fast: The Autobiography of Chris Anderson. (Look for it in the year’s ahead: you’ll find it in the science-fiction section.)
We can now debate which of the two is more realistic. :)
7. One book that you wish had never been written
That’s a tough one. Although it is not as “momentous” as the books which have spawned world-wide ideologies or religious movements, I think Swindoll’s Grace Awakening was bad for the church.
You could argue that the Koran has been more harmful, I suppose.
8. One book that you are currently reading
Well, I’m not making much progress in them, so “currently reading” may be stretching the truth a bit. However, the books I’m supposed to be reading can be seen here.
9. One book you’ve been meaning to read
That’s not hard. I’m surrounded by books I intend to read.
Somehow I haven’t read The Gospel According to Jesus, and I should. I just haven’t.
First, however, I need to read A Guide to Biblical Sites in Greece and Turkey. I know it may not sound like a real page-turner, but I’m going to Greece in October with some pastor-friends. YES!
Extra Credit
Here’s a tip for readers who have great intentions and little time (or discipline): this site has made me feel “well read.” As I said elsewhere, A Christmas Carol is my favorite.
_________
Okay: how about encouraging friends who hardly ever blog to actually post something: Mark Perry, Greg Linscott & Michael Riley: You’re it!
Late addition: I was supposed to link to five? Okay, I’ll add Andy Efting and Frank Sansone.
(No need to thank me, guys.)
Filed under: The Junk Drawer
Interesting, as I anticipated. Well, once you get past all the whining and excuses.
So tell me: what do you hate about Grace Awakening? The “grace” part?
(c;
Chris,
Your link to Michal Riley’s site takes you to Greg’s site. Just thought I would mention that.
MBS
Thanks, Matthew. Got it.
Dan, you’ve got me pegged. It’s the grace part. Nice.
I think he sets up a straw man legalist, argues against the straw man with a faulty understanding of Galatians, and ends up with a liberty position that is more akin to libertinism. That’s off the top of my head. I’ll try to be more specific & offer some examples when I get to the office tomorrow.
Other than those minor things, I loved it.
Oh…and whining and exuses are my spiritual gifts.
[...] Well, I have been doubly tagged by Fred Butler and Chris Anderson, so I suppose I’d better join the One Book Tag game… [...]
Done.
I’m it.
Come on, come on — who knows what depths of libertine vice I’m falling into unawares, waiting for you to tell me what’s wrong with Grace Awakening? I just thought it was a good book.
Okay, Dan. Here are some quick thoughts. Sorry they are jumbled.
First, I think Swindoll misrepresents believers who maintain standards of Christian conduct. Now, Swindoll seems like one of the nicest guys around, but he is brutal toward those more conservative than he. I spoke earlier of him setting up a straw man fundamentalist; I think his reproduction of Dr. Henslin’s chart comparison of “Shame-based Spirituality” and “Healthy Spirituality” is an example of this (pp. 232-233). Now, I realize that there are some who fit his descriptions…somewhere. But making this sort of thing the norm for “fundamentalistic ministries” (p. 228) is far from honest.
As an example of his tirades against “grace-killers,” in the Introduction, Swindoll speaks them as “a well-organized, intimidating body of people who stop at nothing to keep you and me from enjoying the freedom that is rightfully ours to claim,” “religious kings of the mountain,” “religious kill-joys.” And that was in the first 3 pages! It doesn’t stop: he refers later to “grace killers…who are plugging up breathing holes and trapping people under the ice pack of their manipulations and rigid controls” (p. 127). So much for grace, eh? So much for his charge from Romans 14 not to “look down” on “those who are more restrictive and rigid” (p. 161). Yikes.
The second problem I mentioned is far more important: I think Swindoll misrepresents Scripture. He bounces back and forth from passages which focus on freedom from sin (like Romans 6, p. 39 and following) to his own applications of those passages, which focus on freedom from restraint. So writing of John 8:30-32, he says the following:
So much for John 8:34’s description of that freedom as freedom from sin.
Now, I’m not arguing for domineering “expectations and demands,” at least not as Swindoll caricatures such things. I am saying that Christ was not addressing those issues in John 8:30-36. I’m saying that Paul was not addressing that in Romans 6. I’m saying that when Paul wrote the book of Galatians to battle the false gospel of the Judaizers, he wasn’t arguing that people are free to watch what they want, listen to what they want, or go wherever they want; he was arguing that they were free from sin and free from a dead religion based on justification by works. So Swindoll’s use of these passages is bogus: Christ argues for freedom from sin; Swindoll for freedom from rules of Christian conduct. Paul argues against another gospel; Swindoll argues against standards. Even if you agree with him, the way he gets there is wrong.
Let me provide another example of this, one which may be clearer. On p. 128, Swindoll quotes Gal. 5:1; Rom. 6:7; Rom. 8:2, 31-32; John 8:32 and John 8:36. His applications of these verses?
See? He hijacks them to prove his point, which is very different from the authors’ point. It’s bogus exegesis. Another example is on p. 132 of my edition:
My third complaint was that he tends toward libertinism. I think that’s inevitable when he applies freedom from sin passages to choices of music, dress, etc. So, for example, he ends up defending “dancing…square, ballroom, disco–whatever” (p. 159). He argues for leeway regarding our understanding of charismatic gifts (p. 188). He urges a non-sin definition of compulsive behavior (whatever he means by the term, p. 232).
Worse than those specific examples, the whole tenor of the book seems to be “Stop letting people tell you what to do. You’re free.”
Here are a few clarifications: I’m not arguing for externalism. I’ve said many times that many standards of fundamentalists of the past and present are biblically indefensible. I believe with all my being that growth in Christ is a spiritual transformation–inside out. Standards don’t make anybody godly. The church I pastor is a gracious place.
But I think Swindoll’s book gives people a green light to live as they want. Scripture says we are free from sin…and actually enslaved to God. That’s not the message the book communicates, and I think it’s dangerous.
On the other-hand, I may just be a “grace-killer.”
Thanks, Chris; I really appreciate you taking the time.
Okay, I’m have now posted my answers as well.
Book Tag
[...] Chris Anderson [...]