Karl who?

Knowing God, by J.I. Packer

2007-04-21T08:21:00.001-07:00

Many thousands of words must have been written and read about the impact of this undoubtedly influential book, originally published in 1975 by Jim Packer. As such, the value of another opinion is even smaller than usual, especially when it comes from a 20 year old who has spent most of his life studiously ignoring the word of God. However, I felt compelled to write a shortish review of this book for those who may be yet to experience or appreciate its excellence.

One need only look at the quotes on the back cover to understand something of the book's far-reaching importance. Here one finds John Stott, telling us that the book 'fires the heart'; and, amazingly, the Church Times' memorable description of it as 'strong meat'. One wonders how many books have been written since 1975 which have been given such strong recommendation - and, to be more apposite, how many have deserved it.

Why is this book such an ever-present on the average evangelical Christian's bookshelf? Well, simply put, it is probably the finest, concisest, precisest survey of God's character and how we are to commune with Him in existence. Packer's writing is pithy, and full of consideration for his reader, but also occasionally dappled with superb, incisive illustration. It does not behove anyone to attempt to unpack Packer, as his writing is of such quality that one would only succeed in muddying what are crystal clear waters. However, I would draw your attention in particular to a couple of jewels in the crown.

The treatment Packer gives to the concept of God Incarnate (Part I, Chapter 5, p. 52) is simply exemplary, and extremely challenging. The emphasis he places on the incarnation as 'the real stumbling-block in Christianity' and 'the profoundest and most unfathomable depths of the Christian revelation' is simultaneously shocking and correct: shocking because the church tends to overlook the subject so much of the time, and correct because, even if one's experience of evangelism is limited, this is unquestionably where the rubber hits the road for almost all unbelievers. Yes, they will have intellectual questions about Christianity, but ultimately it comes down to their refusal to recognise Jesus as the Christ and the Son of Man, and what that means about His ministry and His word - and, in turn, what it means for their lives. Yet Packer's touch in this section is far from heavy-handed or harsh, but rather gentle and persuasive, which gives even greater weight to his statements.

It is no surprise, then, that when it comes to the section of the book which focuses less on the attributes of God, and more on the essential response that we owe Him, Packer is equally magisterial. Particularly in his chapter dealing with Christians as 'Sons of God', his masterly description of the New Testament's overarching revelation of the Fathership of God the Creator draws out the essential difference between Christianity and every other religion. Where Jews, for example, are forced to regard God simply as the 'holy, holy, holy Almighty' of the OT, Christians are His adopted sons, able to call Him, as Jesus does, 'Daddy'. It is Packer's subsequent application of this relationship to our lives as Christians that really needs to be read, though.

I can't praise this book enough. It is, indeed, strong meat: it repays reading many times over, and never have I read a book (other than the Bible) which is so re-readable. In times of hardship, in particular, it is a marvellous reminder of God's unchanging, wise, and loving character, and of our need to climb down from the thrones of our lives and give Him the glory. If you haven't read it, go out and buy it today; if you have, why not read it again?

Amusing ourselves to Death: Neil Postman

2005-07-16T22:57:00.000-07:00

This book is not written by a christian. However, Postman's incisive comments on the contemporary scene provide useful analysis, and are well worth reading.

_____________________________________

Neurotic people build castles in the sky,
Psychotic people live in them.

Two of the most influential books of the twentieth century have been George Orwell’s ‘1984’ and Aldous Huxley’s ‘Brave New World.’ There is a common misconception that both portray roughly the same thing. However, as Postman points out, there is a fundamental difference. As Postman puts it, “Orwell warns that we will be overcome by an externally imposed oppression. But in Huxley’s vision, no Big Brother is required to deprive people of their autonomy, maturity and history…What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no need to ban a book…Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance.”

‘Amusing ourselves to Death’ is the Argument that a Huxleyan Utopia is more likely than an Orwellian Utopia.

Entertainment is an important part of people’s lives – that much is relatively undisputed. More contentious is what the cause of this phenomenon is, and whether or not its impact is positive.

Postman’s argument is, in short, this: that the way we conduct ‘conversations,’ it must here be understood that by conversations I refer to all ways in which people exchange messages, will have an affect what ideas we express, and that this in turn will influence culture. Or as Postman puts it, “the medium is the metaphor.”

Surprisingly, since he is not a Christian, he here appeals to the Bible for support. He appeals to Exodus 20:4, “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.” To allow Postman to speak, “It is a strange injunction to include as part of an ethical system unless its author assumed a connection between forms of human communication and the quality of a culture. We may hazard a guess that a people who are being asked to embrace an abstract, universal deity would be rendered unfit to do so by the habit of drawing pictures or making statues or depicting their ideas in any concrete, iconographic forms.” (Italics author’s own)
He then goes on to contrast the culture of the ‘Typographic Age’ with the ‘Age of Show Business.’ He shows how since, the shift has moved from the written word, to visual communication with the advent of television, our whole concept of politics, Religion and all serious pastimes has changed.

He quotes a speech by Stephen Douglas in the mid-nineteenth century. As Postman says, “The language is pure print. That the occasion required it to be spoken aloud cannot be allowed to obscure the fact. And that the audience was able to process it through the ear is remarkable only to people whose culture no longer resonates powerfully with the printed word.” This he contrasts to the world today where everything is about image not content.

For example, he says, 100 years ago newspaper adverts were written in a manner designed to persuade the reader that the product was good by means of coherent argument. However, with the advent of ‘image advertising’ adverts became, not about what product was best, but rather about what product is the ‘coolest.’

Postman traces the decline back to the telegraph. “The telegraph made a three-pronged attack on typography’s definition of discourse, introducing on a large scale irrelevance, impotence, and incoherence… telegraphy gave a form of legitimacy to the idea of context-free information.”

The telegraph led to newspapers reporting news that had no relevance to its audience. “The Associated Press was founded, and news from nowhere, addressed to no one in particular, began to criss-cross the nation.”
All in all the telegraph made, to quote Postman, “relevance irrelevant…The telegraph may have made the country into ‘one neighbourhood,’ but it was a peculiar one, populated by strangers who knew nothing but the most superficial facts about each other…The telegraph introduced a kind of public conversation whose form had startling characteristics: its language was the language of headlines…News took the form of slogans…Its language was entirely discontinuous. One message had no connection to that which preceded or followed it… ‘Knowing’ the facts took a new meaning, for it did not imply one understood implications, background, or connections…To the telegraph, intelligence meant knowing of lots of things, not knowing about them.”

The next step after the telegraph was the photograph. Postman says. “In a peculiar way, the photograph was the perfect complement to the flood of telegraphic news-from-nowhere that threatened to submerge readers in a sea of facts from unknown places about strangers with unknown faces…it provided the illusion, at least, that ‘the news’ had a connection to something in one’s sensory experience. It created an apparent context for the ‘news of the day.’ And the ‘news of the day’ created a context for the photograph.”

However, the context talked of above is apparent only, to illustrate this point Postman uses a helpful illustration, “imagine a stranger’s informing you that the illyx is a subspecies of vermiform plant with articulated leaves that flowers biannually on the island of Aldononjes. And you wonder aloud, ‘Yes, but what has that to do with anything?’ Imagine that your informant replies, ‘But here is a photograph I want you to see,’ and he hands you a picture labelled Illyx on Aldononjes. ‘Ah, yes,’ you murmur, ‘now I see.’”

The point above is clear. Just as seeing a picture of it in no way makes the ‘Illyx on Andononjes’ suddenly relevant to one, neither do pictures suddenly make ‘the news’ relevant.

Television, Postman argues, “gave the epistemological biases of the telegraph and the photograph their most potent expression, raising the interplay of image and instancy to an exquisite and dangerous perfection.”

He goes on to argue that this world devoid of context will result in a Huxleyan Utopia, where people will simply not want to think, and serious pastimes will mean nothing to them.

We can see it around us already. Going back a few years, why did William Hague lose the general election, 2001? I have heard many people say that they didn’t vote for him because he had a funny face, and according to some people a funny voice. In other words they are not interested in politics, rather in show business. Whether or not a person’s policies are right is irrelevant so long as he ‘performs’ well.

In conclusion, I would definitely recommend this book to anyone. It is readily available, and the list price is £8.99.

The McDonaldization of the Church - John Drane

2005-05-25T08:26:00.000-07:00

The church is often in a mess. Everyone knows that. But how do we deal with the church when it is in a mess? The first solution to every problem is the diagnosis of the root problem. That is what John Drane does. From the outset of his book he looks at the fundamental problem facing the church today. That problem is firstly the paradigm shift in philosophy from a Modernistic outlook to a Post-Modernistic outlook. As a furtherance of this shift, he looks at aspects of the present day church which prevent post-modern people from continued attendence; these he splits into four aspects based upon the thesis of George Ritzer in his work The McDonaldization of Society

Efficiency - the Fact that the church is never efficient or too effiecient. It never finds the right balance.

Calculability - the mentality which is more concerned with figures of attendence and sizes rather than the spiritual wellfare of the congregation.

Predictability - the suffocation of the individual in the norms of corporate worship.

Control - the stifling of an desire to change anything.

From these, John Drane goes on to look at the practical implications of this McDonaldization as he projects these four ares onto the church. The 3 main areas he looks at are dance, drama and story telling. He then goes on to look at the future of the church. The book in a whistle-stop tour.

However, I do want to comment on the method of Drane. I sincerely benefitted from his critique of why the church has problems (chapters 1-4). But after this, once Drane started to "get practical" he lost all of my interest. He spoke from his own perspective with some VERY bad prooftexting in places. (For example, we should all dance as "there is a time for dance" Ecclesiates 3... Not to mention a time to do EVERYTHING and the verse preceding this one claims thier is a time to kill too... It put me off worshiping at any church Drane might pastor!)

Most condeming of Drane's book is his method: Drane thinks that church should cater more for the post-modern person but by doing this, all vestiges of modernity are removed. However, with modernity being the belief in an overarching metanarrative and post-modernism being the belief in no over-arching metanarratives (or everyone having an individual metanarrative) I believe that Christianity is far more suited to a modernistic approach than a post-modern one. Thus, Drane's seeking to make the church post-modern is counter-intuitive.

However, the church SHOULD be analysing how they can be reaching out to post-modern man and presenting them with the overarching metanarrative: that of Jesus Christ, who said, "I am the way, the TRUTH and the life". Drane is more concerned to change the message of the church than to change the people who come into church. Drane presents a Christ-less church which caters for the individual. It is bound to be successful... But does success in numbers reflect an eschatological success?

Is God Past His Sell-By Date? - John Blanchard

2005-05-04T11:51:00.000-07:00

Having picked this book up for just £1 at a local book sale there was nothing that could go wrong. Having read and enjoyed titles by John Banchard before I approached this book confident that I would enjoy it and benefit from the reading of it.
This book is very typically JB (as I like to call him). Readable, humourous (to some extent), convincing the book uses the same font as both "Does God Believe in Atheists?" and "Has Science got rid of God" as well as all the pamphlets recently produced by evangelical press. The content of the book wasn't particularly new to me as it repeats a lot of what was written in "DGBiA" (the codename I will now use for Does God Believe in Atheists) as well as stuff he repeated in "Has Science got rid of God?" which I had already read.

The book is a strong defense of belief in a supreme and personal creator of the universe which is a great encouragement to any Christian who reads it amidst a climate of entrenched atheists such as Richard Dawkins holding sway with the media. Blanchard claims this book was written for atheists but I would argue that it is jst as useful for believers (and more likely to be read by them).

Blanchard sets the cards on the table right at the beginning saying he wants to prove the existence not just of any God, but to prove the existence of the God of the bible who is, "unique, personal, plural, spiritual, eternally self-existent, transcendant, imanent, omniscient, immutable, holy, loving Being, the creator and Ruler of the entire universe and the Judge of all mankind." Although Blanchard explains briefly what he means by each of these terms I would have liked to have had a whole chapter devoting more time to defining these attributes and supporting them with biblical evidence.
In the same chapter he briefly lays down some very convincing claims to show why the bible can be trusted as the infallible word of God drawing useful comparisons with documents from similar times in history. He very briefly and usefully deals with the issue of miracles in the Bible showing that if one believes in the God of the Bible who put into being the very laws of nature it is certainly possible that he can overcome these laws and allow miracles to be performed.

The next two chapters define both agnosticism and atheism. As ever, Blanchard pulls out all the stops in finding the top quotes from thousands (not quite literally) of agnostics and atheists to prove his point.

Chapter 4 is a very nice summary of his book "Has Science got rid of God?" looking at the influence of Science in this day and age and throughout the ages highlighting once again that Science isn't the be all and end all of everything. Usefully he mentions many esteemed scientists from both past and present who believe in the same God as he.

The next four chapters are expanded on a sermon that I heard John Blanchard preach at Thanet Bible week (albeit on tape) which I would thoroughly recommend all to listen to. He shows the alternatives to the ludicrous big bang and evolution theories and sets out reasons to believe in the God he outlined at the start by looking at the complexities of our universe, planet and most potently ourselves.
Granted, Blanchard doesn't confound all the critics in these chapters and doesn't use too much scientific language but the arguments he puts forward are backed up with many quotes and good reasoning. Humour plays a part in these chapters but I missed the great quote from the sermon where he said "asking a retarted orang-utan to write a concise up-to-date version of encyclopedia Britannica on a broken laptop during a powercut and getting a result is more likely than the universe being caused by an explosion: explosions don't cause order and reason." These chapters contain much of what I have already read but it was nice to refresh my memory.

Chapter 9, entitled "Where was God on September 11th?" (which may sound familiar to many) is where the pamphlet of the same title came from and is an excellent chapter which logically explains the existence of suffering in the world and is an encouragement to the soul. The best quote in the chapter is from a Jew who suffered at Auschwitz who said "It never occured to me to associate the calamity we were experiencing with God - to blame him or believe in him less, or cease believing in him at all because he didn't come to our aid. God doesn't owe us that, or anything. We owe our lives to him. If someone believes God is responsible for the death of six million because he doesn't somehow do something to save them, he's got his thinking reversed." It just blew me away that someone who didn't even believe that Jesus had died for him could say that in the face of such adversity; a challenge to us all surely.

This great chapter is followed up by another great one about the God-man Jesus Christ who displays all the characteristics set out at the beginning of the book. Blanchard traces Jesus life from his birth (explaining briefly the mystery of the Virgin birth) all the time highlighting the uniqueness of our saviour. He then goes on to highlight the voluntary and vicarious nature of the death of our Lord and with a short story brings home to the reader the awefulness of what Christ had to suffer.
Many would be prone to stop the talk of Christ there and leave us with a picture almost of a defeated foe. John blanchard however continues and gives us many reasons to believe that Christ did indeed rise again and is victorious demanding every human beings attention.
The final chapter presses the reader to turn to Christ with a change of heart, mind and will. I found it useful to challenge myself as to whether I display the attributes the authour mentions.
I hope that this (brief) sketch of the book doesn't put you off it. I certainly felt challenged by the content as well as encouraged that there is more evidence for belief than unbelief.

To leave the review there would be wrong however. In my humble opinion the book is made even better by 10 short testimonies by 10 different people. The peoples testimonies on the whole are relevant to the chapter that they conclude and are a delight to read. I will highlight but two which I found helpful.

Dr Monty White talks of his conversion and mentions Micah 1:6. Go read the verse with this in mind: In AD1265 Samaria was finally defeated when the Muslims defeated the Crusaders. Today, Vines can be seen growing on the site.
Peter Sammons who mentions how his interest in Christianity sprang from the fact that at a very traditional (and potentially daunting) church the members of the congregation took interest in him as a person and not just a visitor.

The other testimonies have similar extracts but I will leave that to you as the reader to find them out.

Obviously there must be criticisms of the book.

As I already mentioned, I would have liked a chapter devoted to the attributes of God.
I feel that Blanchard doesn't use enough scripture in his arguments.
Having read his commentary on James I know what an excellent expositor of Bible text John Blanchard is (also having heard him preach a few times) and would have liked to have had a whole chapter devoted to explaining Genesis 1 and 2 and the apparent conflicts we see there.

All in all this was an excellent read. It was not a laborious task and I benefited very much from reading it. It combines different aspects which is something "Has Science Got Rid of God?" doesn't really do (just focusing on Science) and isn't as long as "DGBiA" avoiding the lengthy description of the change of philosophical thinking (still worth a read). Out of the three books I would recommend this one the most.
I purchased this book for £1 which was nice and cheap. It can be purchased from ICM books for £4.95

The State of the Arts: From Bezalel to Mapplethorpe – Dr. Gene Veith

2005-04-23T19:44:00.000-07:00

Many Christians today hold extreme views on art. While some believe that whatever the ‘art’ trend is, it should be accepted, others say that all art is worldly and unedifying. Others again are completely unconcerned with art.
Dr. Veith, Professor of English at Concordia University-Wisconsin, argues for a more moderate view of art. While much (particularly modern art) is not glorifying to God, art is still an essential part of our existence.
Veith firstly looks at exactly what art is. He does this in a section entitled; ‘Comprehending the arts.’ He looks in this section at four things. Firstly, what things does the term ‘art’ encompass? Here he looks at the early view on art, of Aristotle, as any work. Then art that is purely for the purpose of being used. Then art which is for decoration. Finally he looks at what he calls ‘fine art’ – art that is made for its aesthetic meaning alone.
He then moves on to how we are to understand art. He shows how to discern between ‘good art’ and ‘bad art.’ He shows the dangers of ‘bad art’ and how it can affect us as Christians:

The problem with religious kitsch is that its cuteness and self-gratifying nature can domesticate and thereby distort the biblical faith.

Next Veith takes us ‘through the museum.’ Here he looks at the changes in art over time starting from the middle ages, through the renaissance and enlightenment, right up to modern art. He notes how their ‘worldview’ influenced them in their art, and how it still does today.
Finally, in this first section Veith looks at ‘the abdication of the arts.’ He explains what he calls ‘the cult of the artist,’ and how far from enhancing art it is in fact profoundly anti-art. He also looks at how systems of thought like existentialism influence art and its portrayal.
Veith’s second part is entitled; ‘The Biblical Foundations.’ Here he starts be looking at a biblical artist – Bezalel. He looks at why Bezalel was an artist, thus forming a view of what an artist should be. He then looks at what Bezalel made, thus forming a loose conjecture as to the biblical pattern for what an artist ought to create. This is followed on by a look at biblical artists who did not glorify God. He looks primarily in this section at Aaron’s creation of the golden calf.
Next he takes first the Hebrew then the Greek, way of viewing art, and looks at their respective characteristics. He looks at the Hebrew emphasis on abstract art, due to fear of breaking the commandment to have no graven images. He contrasts this to the Greek emphasis on imitation of the world around them – representational art. Finally he looks at the Christian merging of these art forms, and the reasons for it.
The third and final part of ‘The state of the arts,’ has the title, ‘Christianity and the Arts.’ This starts with a look at contemporary Christian artists, and on one non-contemporary but still modern artist. The non-contemporary artist is Georges Rouault. He gives quite a lot of attention to this artist, before moving on to some other contemporary Christian artists. After this he looks at Art in relation to the Church, and how, when and if it is to be used.
Veith then has a chapter called, ‘Conclusion.’ I will not however relate what he says because certain people may then be tempted not to read the book (as they 'already know his conclusion') . It is fully worth reading. Indeed, it is important reading for anyone who wishes to understand and appreciate the arts biblically.
The book is attractively bound in paperback, and runs to 252 pages. It can be purchased from Amazon for £7.54.

Fit Bodies, Fat Minds - Os Guinness

2005-04-13T12:41:00.000-07:00

Operating under its sub-heading, "why Evangelicals don't think and what to do about it", this book by Os Guinness, Director of the Trinity Forum (at least in 1995 he was!), explores the plethora of influences that have lead to this conclusion. Guinness argues from the statement, "To the extent that God has given us minds, we must love God with all our minds and in all of our lives in a way that is shaped decisively by him."

From this stand-point, Guinness splits Evangelical history in two: 1660 - 1860 and then 1860 to present. With these as his basic text divisions, he argues that from 1660 to 1860, much of what the Puritans fought for was lost. He singles out 8 problems (or positives which lead to problems) to which he accounted for finally burying over the ground left by the Puritan Fathers. (NB. he doesn't argue these brought about the downfall of Puritanism but that these covered over the already brought-down Puritanism) These are:

Polarisation - the creation of diametrics between faith and reason specifically.
Pietism - or the shift from objective to subjective resulting in the refusal to accept creeds or tenets in favour of "belief".
Primitivism - the restorationism which constantly seeks to "restore the primitive or original order of life" to its bare bones or origins.
Populism - an over affixation with the rights of the common person.
Pluralism - a shifting of attitude from belief to behaviour.
Pragmatism - the importance of consequence rather than ultimate truth.
Philistinism - the treatment of non-believers as stupid and evil and the neglect of culture.
Premillenilism - specifically dispensational premillenialism which looks at times of evil as being normative and thus being negligent to counter them.

These, Os Guinness ties together as he looks at 1860 onwards and the effect that the problems mentioned in the first section had upon society in general. To do this he looks at the changing perspective on specific objects and ethoses: TV, materialism, the image, the word and its humiliation, postmodernism, tabloids and virtual reality. Not only does Guinness analyse each area effectively and, more important, insightfully, but he does so with cogent argument and rational logic and achieves both of these without descending into the morase of "academic terminology".

Although perhaps, it might have been sufficient (and moreover pessamistic) to leave his argument their, Os Guinness rounds off the book with a further 8 practical pointers to where we should go from here. He begins humbly with a period of repentence and always speaks to others "as to himself". His advice is pertinent and not unrealistic and ultimately ties the book off in a positive, although still realistic, note.

The book isn't too long (153 pages plus bibliography) and only took me 3 days to read (and I am a slow reader!) A minor detraction from the excellent layout of the book was the fact that the bibliography was found at the end of the book rather than being footnoted at the bottom of each page. Another negativity (perhaps!) was a small mention of the negativity of allowing women to pray in church which I felt was a little too personal (especially regarding his argument on page 142-146) but that is just me being picky!

On the whole, an excellent read which should be perused by any serious reader who ascribes to the Evangelical nomenclature.