Evening is the whole day

I've recently finished Preeta Samarasan's novel - RRP hardback £16.99, I picked it up for £2.99 at Oxfam! I was a little apprehensive at first, wondering, probably unfairly, whether this was going to be pretentious and overbearing, but it exceeded my expectations. I'll probably go as far as saying it's the best Malaysian novel in English I ever read. Granted, that doesn't say much, considering I have not touched Rani Manicka, Tash Aw and Tan Twan Eng; my diet so far consisting of a few of the Silverfish collections, a tiny bit of K.S Maniam, and Adibah Amin in translation. And the last one probably doesn't count.

She exhibits very fine control over the narrative, subtly switching between the characters points of view and voice very well. The Manglish is spot on, and she captures the politics of family accurately enough that at times it made me squirm. I did feel Amma's transformation was a bit abrupt, and there were one or two things that didn't mesh perfectly, but those are rough edges that don't detract much from the overall novel.

Definitely worth picking up. I haven't given even a plot summary here, but for those of you who would like one, the NY Times review is your next click.

Book Log

An overdue update...

Planet Narnia – Michael Ward
Currently reading. Got this as a gift via an Amazon voucher from my lovely international team, after my boss overheard me talking about it (I think!). Fun reading literary criticism again. In case you haven’t heard of this, Dr. Michael Ward argues that Narnia is based on the seven heavens of medieval imagination. Chapter on Sol was particularly compelling!

A Praying Life – Paul Miller
I have surprisingly few books on prayer, and so thought a refresher would be good. This one exceeded my expectations. I can safely say there’s probably no other book on prayer like this one. Miller applies the gospel to our prayer life and makes us want to pray. Could have more on praying for things we don’t naturally incline to (eg. churches in faraway lands we know little about). But very much recommended.

Why There Almost Certainly is a God – Keith Ward
Great little book which gently but devastatingly takes apart Dawkin’s thesis. Witty, readable, philosophically inclined. Ward is a liberal Christian, so I have fundamental disagreements with him, eg. universalism, but worth a look for the discerning reader.

Beginning Well – Gordon T. Smith
Intermediate level book on what conversion actually is. Something I’m trying to think about, being involved in international student ministry. Ecumenically-minded, drawing from many traditions. Probably needs reread with pencil in hand? For a more introductory book, see Stephen Smallman’s Spiritual Birthline.

Theology in the Context of World Christianity – Timothy Tennent
Missions professor, recently appointed as president of Asbury Seminary. Reflects on issues of concern to global Christians which might not necessarily be obvious to Western Christians, eg. sin as guilt or shame?, the relationship of the Bible to other sacred texts, Jesus as Ancestor in the African context.

The Lost History of Christianity – Philip Jenkins
Well-known author of The Next Christendom explores Christian history in the Middle East, Africa and Asia and so fills a gap, as most Christian history books on the market focus on the West. (This is definitely changing with a recent glut of books on this subject). I struggled at times because my knowledge was shown to be really lacking, eg. not quite sure what Byzantium empire is really all about. Billed as introductory but still not easy reading. Nonetheless, important book.

The Tipping Point – Malcolm Gladwell
Yes, I know I’m really late on this one! But fascinating read even if his case is a bit overstated at points. See also critique of Gladwell’s thesis by Duncan Watts.

One Good Turn – Kate Atkinson
Took this on my recent mission trip as my light reading! Melancholy literary detective thriller, tracing how a road rage incident in Edinburgh changes the lives of everyone involved. I think I prefer her earlier book, Case Histories.

The Declaration – Gemma Malley
Interesting premise: what if we found a cure for aging? What would the world look like, especially with the threat of overpopulation? Good, but contrary to blurb, isn’t quite in the league of Meg Rosoff’s How I Live Now. The writing occasionally relies too much on the omniscient narrator.

Back...with reviews of 2 books on 2 movements

Thoroughly enjoyed going on a week-long student retreat, and then doing some children's work at my church family weekend away, but it's taken a lot out of me! So am still recovering...

But I thought I'll break my blog silence with a couple of quick, brief book reviews.

Post-charismatic? by Rob McAlpine

This is not a book for non-charismatics. Nor is this a book for ex-charismatics, despite the title. Those who fall into those categories can and will benefit from reading this. But ultimately, this is an insider's book. It is for those who wish to remain charismatic but are weary of being characterised as charismaniacs. It is for those who want to aim a flaming arrow at the next bigwig who pronounces imminent revival for our nation, or who want to force a dollop of petrol down the throat of the next releaser of "the anointing". And it is for those who don't want to be forced to retreat to a position of long-range sniping, nothing more.

I've been pretty interested in the history of charismaticism ever since I read Nigel Scotland's Charismatics and the New Millennium, especially as I find setting the charismatic movement in its historical context lend much needed perspective often lost in the heat of the next prophetic moment. That book, written by an Anglican charismatic, focused on the British side of things in particular. But I discovered that most books tended to focus on the health-and-wealth side of things or deal with second-blessing theology, which frustrated me. There wasn't much stuff that dealt with the apostolic and prophetic movement side of things (although there are a few biblical studies on prophecy, such as those by Wayne Grudem and Jack Deere), which seemed to me to be the kind of stuff that dominates Malaysian charismaticism. From what I know, there were quite a few books in the 80s critiquing this when it was especially promienent in America, and one or two more recent ones dealing specifically with the Toronto Blessing, but most of them are out of print and hard to get.

So I was quite pleased to discover Robbie McAlpine's material on the internet, but I didn't get much of a chance to plough through as he had secured a publishing contract and had to take it down. So I thought, I'll wait for the book! And here it is.

McAlpine works with YWAM, an organisation that I have personally found both a blessing and a source of exasperation. He wants to tackle charismatic disillusionment by tracing the origins of a lot of charismatic theology, and in doing so provide relief for those who have been wounded by charismatic hype and excess. He covers three areas, of which the first was of most interest to me. The other two are health-and-wealth, and the shepherding movement. The first, however, is the Latter Rain movement. Although the term Latter Rain will probably not be familiar to many, but a lot of today's underlying theology and terminology ("Overcomers", "Joshua/David Generation" etc.) originate here. McAlpine looks at the teachings of William Branham and George Warnock in particular.

But he also attempts to offer a constructive way forward, and so the last third of his book is an attempt to provide guidance on biblical spiritual formation, on doing community, on right expressions of authority, while remaining sensitive to the leading of the Holy Spirit. You could say he leans in an "emerging" direction. Although I wouldn't myself put such a label on him.

McAlpine mostly achieves what he sets out to do, and that's a good thing, considering there aren't many books like his out there. There are a few things I could nitpick. He's actually quite hard on cessationists, which is a bit of a pity considering he is actually extremely gracious throughout the book (He's just as good at picking apart the critics of the charismatic movement!). He clearly didn't want to land firmly on the side of either the Calvinists or the Arminians, which meant that he indulged in a few generalisations which would not please either side. He assumes a bit of knowledge on the part of his audience, as I said at the beginning of this review, those who have never been part of the charismatic movement might be confused by some of his descriptions. And I wish he had done more in explicitly showing the reader how looking at the historical roots of the movement bear out today. Once or twice I was asking, "Yes, I see how that worked in the past, but how does heretical doctrine X/detour Y/etc. show up in the contemporary charismatic movement?"

But this is a much needed book, and I hope the Holy Spirit will use it to truly heal many.

Alternative review.

Don't Stop Believing by Michael Wittmer

So the emerging/ent movement has been around for a while now, and so has its critics. There was D.A Carson and his Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church, which probably didn't achieve anything but tons of hate mail for poor Don. There was R. Scott Smith's Truth and the New Kind of Christian, which was decent (Tony Jones was happy to commend it) but too narrowly focused on philosophy and was always going to be unlikely to achieve any kind of mass appeal. There was John MacArthur's The Truth War, which, judging from some reviews I read, was abysmal.

Now you'll expect my next sentence to be either "and yet another critique of Emergent that misses the mark" or "at last! A worthy critique!". Well, to be honest, I feel like I'm being unfair to the book by framing it as a critique of the emerging church. It certainly is that, but I think it better to consider this as a more positive book that seeks to remind us that Christianity is both about right belief and right living. Mind, heart and hands, as it were.

Mike Wittmer has already written a superb book on living Christianly in every sphere of life (Heaven is a Place on Earth), so I was quite excited to see he was coming out with this book. What he does in this book is to tackle a series of questions which bring out the differences between traditional evangelicals and emergentish types. For example, must we believe something to be saved? Can you belong before you believe? Is it possible to know anything? In each case he shows the position of conservative evangelicals and "postmodern innovators" (his term), the pros and cons of both positions, and then a third way forward (or biblical, but then every Christian writer must claim that his position is biblical!).

And I think generally, he succeeds. Some chapters are particularly strong. His final three on whether we can know anything, whether the Bible is really God's word, and his concluding thoughts were spot-on, I thought. Wittmer has probably provided the most accessible explanation of Reformed epistemology! As was the chapter on the cross and how both penal substitution and Christus Victor are complementary. His endnotes - yes, I'm a geek, I read endnotes - show that he has definitely read widely in the emerging literature, another big plus.

There were other chapters where I thought he could have said more, and certainly a few where, while I agree with his conclusions and have no objections to his approach, I would have taken a different route, I think. I think I occasionally wanted more discussion of specific biblical texts, but that's just me. I think the one quibble I had was terminology. Are "conservatives" and "postmodern innovators" really the best phrases to use? I'm just afraid that some people who would otherwise be receptive to this book might be turned off by what they might perceive to be caricatures.

That would be a real pity, because this book has real value. I've only had a brief look at another book, Why We're Not Emergent, by Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck, which seems to cover much of the same ground but is a bit more focused as a critique of Emergent. Don't Stop Believing is more of a book for fence-sitters, I think. It would be especially good for those who are ready to plunge in headlong into emerging stuff undiscerningly. It would also be great for those put off by fundamentalist/conservative style churches but aren't ready to go off in a completely new direction just yet. But as I indicated earlier, it need not only be for those who are acquainted with the emerging movement. I think us younger evangelicals would be helped as this book helps provide a few safeguards from going completely off-track in our zeal.

So, don't stop believing!

Alternative review.

N.B I use emergent/emerging interchangeably in the review, but I am referring more to the strain represented by the likes of Brian McLaren and Tony Jones, rather than to the wider emerging church, which in any case, has now largely abandoned the term and preferred "missional" instead.


P/S So much for being brief!

† Expand post

Lists! Glorious lists!

The New York Times has offered theirs. So has Amazon. And the Economist. Not forgetting popular Christian blogger Tim Challies. Yes folks, it's that time of the year again where top 10 (or 100, or whatever number you like) list-making is in fashion, and the bibliophiles are out in force.

To be honest, I can't remember off-hand every single book I read this year, much less compile and rank them. So instead I thought I'll just offer a short annotated list and categorise them to the best of my ability. Remember, this list doesn't mean I endorse completely all the books mentioned!

Page turner of the year: The Curse of Chalion - Lois McMaster Bujold
This was probably my favourite read of 2008. A thoroughly enjoyable fantasy romp with a very likable hero and - very important for a fantasy novel - a well-imagined world which sucked you right in.

"Worthy" novel of the year: The Echo Maker by Richard Powers and The Poisonwood Bible by Barbara Kingsolver
Both were among the (allegedly) more weighty works I tackled these year and I can't really decided between the two, both prize-winning novels which were critically-acclaimed. The former deals with the aftermath of an accident which leads to one of the characters suffering from Capgras Syndrome, a rare neurological disorder in which the sufferer is unable to recognise his loved ones. The latter deals with a disastrous sojourn in the Congo by a missionary family in the middle of the 20th century. Both thought-provoking in their own right.

Novel (Honourable mention): Death of a Red Heroine - Qiu Xialong
Couldn't quite decide what category I should put this under but it merits a mention. It's a detective novel set in Shanghai in the early 1990s, as well as a vividly painted picture of modern China. I certainly won't mind picking up the 2nd book in this series!

Mind-bending book of the year: The Stuff of Thought - Steven Pinker
No question, this book was easily hands-down the one that made my brain ache the most. Pinker tackles stuff like the relationship between words and thoughts, language and space-time, why some names are popular and so on. He's a very, very good writer, and he explains things well, but the concepts he deals with are innately difficult so ouch!

Inspiring read of the year: Faith that Endures - Ronald Boyd-Macmillan

Best Christian living book: You can Change - Tim Chester
Clear and simple, but gets at the heart of our ongoing struggles with sin. This and Kris Lundgaard's The Enemy Within will probably be the first two books I recommend to any Christian on day-to-day living.

Best "old" book: The Doctrine of Repentance - Thomas Watson
C.S Lewis once advised, if I remember correctly, that for every three 'new' books you read, you should read an 'old' one. So I tried to, and set a low target of two 'old' books for the year, defining 'old' as anything that predates C.S Lewis. I failed miserably, as this was the only 'old' book I read, so it wins by default. Still, it's a good one. Written in 1668 by a Puritan, and pretty accessible; my edition was, anyway. If you can read C.S Lewis you can certainly read this. It has a certain weightiness to it that is missing from many contemporary books. Next year: I'll see if I can finally get round to G.K Chesterton's Orthodoxy!

Best Christian theology-type book: The Worshipping Trinity - Robin Parry
Now this was hard, but I guess this one edges ahead of the competition: concise, instructive and a joy to read. Parry shows how the Trinity is fundamental to our faith and to Christian living. There were some other very good ones as well. Tim Keller's The Reason for God is superb and I would love to have my own copy. I enjoyed what little I read of Tom Wright's Surprised by Hope as well as the lesser-known 666 and all that by John Dickson and Greg Clarke.

Commentary: Colossians (NIVAC) - David Garland
I actually did use a few commentaries this year, and though I'm still very much a novice at learning how to utilise them for maximum benefit, thought I'll create a category for them. Garland's Colossians commentary seems to be close to what I think you want in this type of work. He discusses issues well, lays out the options and defends his position clearly. I also read two very good expositions this year - Roy Clements on 2 Corinthians (The Strength of Weakness) and Sinclair Ferguson on Ruth (Faithful God). And I think I will be going back to Michael Bird's introduction to Paul, A Bird's Eye View of Paul.

The one that got away: The Bible and Other Faiths - Ida Glaser
I regret not finishing off this series, and I'll see if I can. But this was definitely a thought-provoking read, especially her insights into the links between gods/powers-people-land.


† Expand post

Book Recommendation: Faith that Endures

This is my most inspiring read of the year. And I had not even heard of it just over a week ago! I was on a weekend away last week, and upon perusing the little book table, this one leapt out at me as it was the only title I didn't recognise. I picked it up, read a couple of pages, then read a few more pages, and before I knew it I had forked out my chequebook! But it was worth it. I finished it in 3 sittings - utterly compelling and challenging.

Ronald Boyd-Macmillan is a long-time journalist and researcher with Open Doors International, having also worked for a couple of other news organisations and seeing the persecuted church up-close. Faith that Endures bills itself as "The Essential Guide to the Persecuted Church", and Boyd-Macmillan seeks to answer 5 questions:

What does contemporary persecution look like?

What is a persecuted Christian?

Where is the persecuted church?

How can we best assist the persecuted church?

What does the persecuted church have to teach us?

So it sets itself pretty lofty standards! But Boyd-Macmillan rises to the challenge admirably. It is a remarkable blend of even-handed reportage, incisive analysis, and passionate exhortation. He takes us on a tour of places like Kurdistan, India and China to give us a flavour of persecution today. He then deftly navigates his way through the current literature on the subject, as he thinks through both legal and biblical definitions of what "persecution" means. This is one thing I especially appreciated about his work. His style was readable and clear, but I had no doubt that the author had done his homework; I could feel the weight of learning.

The persecuted church is bigger than we think, and Boyd-Macmillan takes us through the different regions of the world. How, then, can we help the persecuted? This section is a good example of the nuanced approach with which Boyd-Macmillan approaches the issues. He shows how often well-intentioned Christians can do more harm than good, as well as the politicised nature of the NGO world. He helps us see two sides to each tactic ("Bible-bombing", for eg.).

Also, he helped me see the importance of keeping informed. I discovered, to cite one instance, that my assumption that state churches in China were banned from preaching the 2nd coming of Jesus was at least a decade out of date. There was also a very moving account of how, upon meeting some of the Chinese church leaders, they broke down in tears when the author gave thanks to God for the revival in that nation. Astonished, he asked them why. Their reply was instructive: "we often ask God, why he has given us more converts than we are able to disciple!" I thought that was a very insightful and mature perspective on the biggest revival in modern history, given that in Matthew 28, Jesus asks us to go and make disciples, not converts. Finally, there is a section on learning from the persecuted church, and he rounds up by providing an informative annotated bibliography.

Another thing I really appreciated about his work is how often he tries to set things in wider context. So he is keen to emphasise that for every dazzling story of martrydom we hear, there are so many more ordinary stories of endurance that we might not know about this side of heaven. For some of the persecuted, deliverance from their suffering might never come in this life. Indeed, to focus only on the more sensational stories is to distort the true picture. Nor is it always true, he contends, that the "blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church". There are times where it has had adversely negative effects. But it wakes us up to the reality of what it means to take up our cross to follow Jesus and reminds us that in all things, we can trust that God will be with his church.

Sure, I wish there was more explicit engagement with biblical texts at times, but that's a minor point. This has got to be currently the best one-volume work on the persecuted church. But sadly, it's not well-known at all. I hope blogging about it would go a tiny way to rectifying that situation.


† Expand post

Book notes

I haven't had time to update my book list on the sidebar, so here's just a few quick scribblings on some books I read recently.

Spiritual Birthline - Stephen Smallman
A little book about conversion and evangelism. Smallman assumes a Reformed understanding of the entire process of new birth, although he isn't too particular about terms. He thinks this is a much more helpful way to think about conversion, which is a healing balm particularly for those never really had a "spiritual" or "crisis" moment which led to them being Christian. He then develops the idea of us being "spiritual midwives" in our evangelism. God may use us to help someone in various stages of their journey towards God. There's plenty of stories, and I found this helpful especially as I considered the many people I have met and their diverse responses to the gospel. Oh, and you don't have to be Calvinist in your beliefs to appreciate it. Hey, it's not everyday you find a book recommended by both Justin Taylor and Scot McKnight!

The Reason for God - Tim Keller
This wasn't my copy, so I read through it speedily. I have nothing to add that hasn't been said already. Great book, especially for educated urbanites. The first half of the book deals with common objections to the Christian faith in a winsome manner, but the second half of the book was what particularly stood out for me. There, Keller seeks to put forward a positive case for Christianity (as opposed to merely defending it), and it was very, very well-done. I will certainly consider getting my own copy.

Promoting the Gospel - John Dickson.
Again, not my copy, so read through it even more speedily than Keller above. I'm certainly keen to reread this one again. I was pleasantly surprised by it, as Dickson shows how we can promote the gospel not just with words, but with prayer, money, Christian living etc. and backed it up with exegesis. I'm rapidly becoming a big fan of Dickson, if only because it's not easy to find someone who writes with simplicity and depth.

Showing the Spirit - D.A Carson
I recently got a great deal and managed to pick up some books for £1-2 each, and this is one of them! Written in the late 80s; basically a commentary on 1 Corinthians 12-14 with an eye on the charismatic/non-charismatic debate. Carson is always even-handed and shows where both camps err. He's not afraid to take cessationists to task and often cites Max Turner, a charismatic scholar, approvingly, although he also warns against the excesses of the "signs-and-wonders" movement. The context being John Wimber and Vineyard, I think. This book, I suspect, did a good job of initially paving the way forward so that today, it is no longer oxymoronic to find "Reformed charismatics".

Death of a Red Heroine - Qiu Xiaolong
This is the first in a series featuring the poetry-quoting Inspector Chen and set in Shanghai, and won a prestigious crime novel award. So I thought I'll have a look, especially as I needed to scratch my crime novel itch. As it (unsurprisingly) turns out, this is much more than a murder mystery, it's a portrait of the changing face of modern China and the underlying tensions. I enjoyed it, and certainly wouldn't mind picking up another in this series.

Some books I'm looking forward to:
Don't Stop Believing - Michael Wittmer
Will be out in December, hopefully. Loved Wittmer's first book, Heaven is a Place on Earth, and this one looks promising, as he tackles the need for right belief and right practice.

Jesus wants to save Christians - Rob Bell and Don Golden
I haven't read any Bell, partly because I have limited time and money and so I need to proritise, i.e not be consumed with reading those whom I suspect I will fundamentally disagree with. (Btw, if you're looking for good reviews of his previous books, Ben Witherington has some good ones, just google them)

Still, I'm intrigued by his latest because I understand that he's popularising the "New Exodus" theme. I remember in my Bible studies in Mark being quite taken with how the New Testament alludes to the Old so often, and the Exodus in particular being quite a useful lens to read certain passages, but I don't know enough to comment on it intelligently. Nevertheless, I suspect some take this hermeneutical key too far in the way they apply it to our immediate socio-political concerns. Am not saying Bell does this, but it would be interesting to see his take on it.

There are others too, but will stop here, because I am aware that what I need with my reading habits is not more breadth but depth!

Btw, does anyone know of a good basic Christian book on work? Some that has been suggested so far to me include Tim Chester's Busy Christian's Guide to Busyness and John Beckett's Mastering Monday; Ian Coffey's Working it Out, new from IVP, could be worth a look as well. Thanks!


† Expand post

More books

Before I go on to some of the other books, I just wanted to write a little more on Chester’s. I was thinking about the title of his book, which is admittedly, a little odd – it even has a whiff of self-help about it, a notion which will no doubt horrify Tim. (Is this a secret agenda to sneak the title into mainstream bookstores? :-> ) But I guess the title is meant to communicate hope: You, the reader, can change. It’s possible! And as my friend pointed out, it isn’t titled You will change, as in any other number of books that promises a fail-safe formula. More than that, though, I was wondering, and it’s possible that I’m making a leap too far, whether "You" could be referring not (only) to the reader, but to God, as in, it’s not the nature of God which changes, but it is God who can bring about change in us, which is in keeping with the content of his book. Of course, the absence of an object on which the verb acts upon might shoot my theory to bits. By now you’re wondering why I’m tying my boxers in a knot over this – I blame it on another book I’m reading further down this post.

I was really struck reading Chester’s chapter: 'How can we support one another in changing?' today though. I know that although I do pay lip service to the role of the Christian community, it is true that I often think of personal holiness as between me and God. But Chester is quite clear that the church needs to be a community of openness and repentance. It is full of messy people with messy lives, especially when we remember Jesus words that he came not for those who are well, but the sick. Yet at the same time we should not "stroke" the sin, but to, as Chester puts it, "accept people with God’s agenda for change". I know that while I have no problems with the idea of confessing sin before God, I think I would find it much harder to confess sin to one another, something which does have biblical warrant (not the same thing as confessing sin to every single person though!). Similarly, I know that I’m not very good at confronting others.

The thing about Chester’s book is that it’s clear, simple and most Christians would probably agree with most of it, until they realise that if they actually think what it would look like in the “real” world, ouch. But it’s a necessary kind of ouch because, as Tim unflaggingly points out, it’s nothing compared to the riches found in Jesus.

A Bird’s Eye View of Paul – Michael F. Bird
I’ve read through and/or listened to a sermon series on every Pauline book in the last 4 or so years; I’ve even led Bible studies on one or two myself! (Well, not including his own biography, i.e Acts). So I thought it would be nice to grab a title just to synthesise some of the things I’ve been picking up from Paul. This was advertised as an introductory book, conversant with the best recent scholarship, by one of the rising stars in biblical studies, so it seemed ideal, especially as the other more heavyweight titles (Gorman, Schreiner) were probably too much too soon.

I liked it. The first half is especially good, as he paints Paul as persecutor, missionary, theologian, pastor and martyr, and then shows the connection between the OT and the Pauline literature, that is, salvation-history. There are a few chapters on the gospel, with perhaps more stress on the diachronic, or in other words, the creation-fall-redemption-glorification schema than the holy God-sinful man-Saviour Christ-our response presentation. One of his best points, with which I am in full agreement, is that the gospel can’t just be reduced to “Jesus is king/Lord” as some circles currently do, because we need to know that Jesus shows his kingly power in the most paradoxical way, by giving himself up in the place of our sins. There is also discussion about the key terms in Paul, such as justification, righteouness, etc, plus stuff about Jesus and Caesar.

There were some things I didn’t understand on a first reading. I found his chapter on ethics quite difficult, and couldn’t, for instance, understand what his reading of Romans 7 was. It seemed to me that he was charting a 3rd way beyond the two main interpretive routes but I could be completely misreading him!

The Undercover Economist – Tim Harford
I did take Econs at A Levels but haven’t touched it since, so felt like I needed a refresher. Harford writes for the Financial Times here, and he uses real-life examples to illuminate basic concepts here like scarcity, comparative advantage and so on. I think the value in this book lies especially in his applied egs., and he certainly opened my eyes on a few things – externalities played a bigger role in the thinking of economists that I realise! I also don’t think the book went overboard in extolling the free market, although there’s no doubt Harford is very much in favour. Those trained in economics might find things oversimplified, but it’s a good read for laypeople like me.

The Poisonwood Bible – Barbara Kingsolver
A third of the book in, I wasn’t impressed. This book has been lavished with many superlatives, you know, great postcolonial novel blahblahblah. She’s a good writer, since the words obviously flow easily on the page, but I was thinking to myself, this is supposed to be great characterisation? But at the end of it, I was won over. It’s not the greatest book ever, but it is good.

Is it an attack on Christianity? No, I don’t think so. Nathan Price is enough of a singularity to convince me otherwise – Kingsolver has us peek into his past as a shattered soldier who’s obviously haunted by the war, and seeks atonement in his newfound vocation as a preacher. His venture into the Congo is not sanctioned by the Missions Board, and tell me, which Baptist preacher actually thinks the Apocrypha should be in the Bible? That’s enough to signal to me that he’s not to be taken as representative of the entire Christian missionary endeavour. But that isn’t to exonerate that endeavour completely from its colonial form. There’s one especially arresting scene where the village elder holds an election to decide whether they should follow Jesus, which was a superb if ironic way of framing how Christianity and Western trappings, in this case liberal democratic values, can end up enmeshed in a such a way as to take on a damaging form. Kingsolver, who grew up in the Congo, is certainly critical of the colonial project, and at the end, she doesn’t really offer up a huge vision of hope.

This book made me think again of the poverty of fiction writers with an evangelical worldview. Fiction is a good litmus test of culture as well as a shaper of it, and while I certainly think that there’s no reason Christian characters can’t be portrayed critically, there is a sense in which I do think that it is no wonder evangelicals are misrepresented so heavily if we do not offer up any compelling counter-narratives. There are plenty of Catholics, where are the Protestants? I can think of Marilynn Robinson and Gilead but no others in recent memory.

The Stuff of Thought – Steven Pinker
I’m still slowly reading this. This is one of those books that make your brain ache. Pinker is a popular (in both senses of the word) science writer who’s written extensively on the relation between language and cognition, eg. The Language Instinct. There’s a reason he’s popular, he’s brilliant at explaining things. But the subject matter is such that you can’t avoid needing to use your brain.

What he does is examine closely a lot of our language and its relation to time and space and reality. Why do we “fill a glass with water” but not “pour a glass with water”? The former puts the emphasis on what is happening to the glass, whereas the latter is more concerned with the state of the liquid. It’s this kind of minuscule details that Pinker examines and pushes, and in doing so shows the implications of how we think and interpret the world. I noticed that some of my friends, when they do memes, like to exploit the ambiguities in some of the questions so as to answer in a way which avoids the design of the meme, and Pinker explores stuff like that as well. Think about the word “now”, what timeframe is it exactly referring to? And so on. Pinker does use jargon though, although he always explains them, but it doesn’t take me long to lose track of what a dative-container or pluperfect tense is! I just recently finished reading the chapter 'Cleaving the Air' and that was very hard work. I probably won’t remember very much. The point of Pinker’s book, I think, though, is not so much to remember facts but in pushing you to think about language and thought in a fresh way. For a better review of the book, see that of one of my former lecturers, Deborah Cameron.


† Expand post

Book roundup

I've recently updated my reading list on the sidebar, but I wanted to say a bit more about each of them than the margins allowed. It's nice to be able to rediscover the joys of reading in the past couple of weeks, like tasting mum's homemade cooking after a long absence. More than I care for this year, tedium has held forth like an oppressive tyrant over the written word, locking the gates to the promised treasures that comes from getting lost in a good book.

1. You can Change - Tim Chester. If we were to trace the genealogy of this book, we would probably discover that its dad is Transforming Grace, its mum The Pursuit of Holiness, both by Jerry Bridges, its grandpa J.C Ryle's Holiness and its ancestors the Puritans. Chester has written a book that never loses sight of the basic fact that it is ultimately God, through the cross of Christ and the work of the Spirit, who changes us. Tim Keller calls this book neither quietistic nor moralistic, but still practical, and that is praise indeed.

This is a bit of a tangent, but one of the things that I've noticed is that Chester appears to have very deliberately kept things simple. Nothing is assumed, and short sentences are the norm. Chester is no theological slouch, he has written a well-regarded book on the relation of social action to the gospel after all. But he's also a hands-on practitioner as a church planter, and he has previously reflected on reaching "non-book people", i.e those who are often intimidated by the written word because of a disadvantaged educational background etc., so I wonder if that has fed into his adopted writing style.

And that's a good thing. I think a precocious 12-year old could get through this book, yet it is truly insightful even for long-time Christians. For eg., in asking "why would you like to change?", Chester offers 3 possible answers. The first two perhaps aren't so surprising: to prove ourselves to God, and/or to prove ourselves to other people. But his third answer: to prove myself to myself, i.e to feel good about ourselves, to feel as if we've not let ourselves down was an astute observation, I've never thought about before. There's more stuff like this.

I was actually going through this book at a fairly quick clip before I realised that I needed to slow down if I didn't want to be the target of Edmund Burke's sardonic remark that "reading without reflecting is like eating without digesting"! So that's what I've been trying to do. It will almost certainly be reread, and copies given away. Tim Chester talks about his book here.

2. Worshipping Trinity - Robin Parry. Wow! I really enjoyed this one, devouring it in one sitting. I've seen this recommended in more than one place as a great introductory book to the Trinity (UCCF's Mike Reeves included), so when I saw that it was available on the cheap, I gave it a go. I had previously attempted to get through Bruce Ware's Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and I know I'm in the minority here, but I found that book dull, dull, dull. Parry, IMHO, has written a much better book.

Parry's basic idea is that "worship is about God and God is the Trinity, therefore worship is about the Trinity." From there he takes us on a theological journey which is amazingly lucid and accessible. He shows us how the Trinity matters in creation, salvation, mission, and holy living, to name just a few. He also homes in on worship songs, partly because I think Parry, a self-confessed "mild charismatic", is writing for a mainstream charismatic-leaning Christian audience, and so this is an especially effective way of showing us the relevance of the Trinity. It's not exhaustive, as he doesn't discuss, say, the historical development of the doctrine, but confines it to the biblical material. Again, like Chester, Parry obviously knows his stuff (the endnotes are full of citations of academic works, not all of them evangelical), but he keeps it simple.

Definite recommendation.

3. God's Lesser Glory - Bruce Ware. This isn't on the sidebar, but I feel a bit bad about impugning on Dr. Ware's good name in the previous section, so I should say that this is very readable and nothing like his book on the Trinity. This is a defence against open theism, the view that holds that God does not exhaustively know the entire future, from a Calvinistic perspective. It's definitely more dense, since a good deal of it is exegetical discussion. In his introduction, Ware states that "this book is unkind to open theism. I hope it is not unkind to open theists" and I think he is successful in that regard. He is firm and unapologetic that open theism is a dangerous view, but I think he was always gentlemanly to his opponents. To me, and again, I read it (too) quickly, his case is convincing. Ware doesn't stop at the level of exegesis however, as he shows how devastating open theism is pastorally, applying it to areas of prayer and guidance. Ware has also written a more pastorally oriented, layperson-friendly book, Their God is Too small, that summarises his arguments here.

I'll stop for now and talk about a couple more books in my next post. :)


† Expand post

Review: 666 and all that

As a young Christian, I often struggled with reading the Bible. (It’s still a struggle, although I’ll like to think I’ve made progress!). One of the books that caught my imagination however was the book of Revelation. I mean wow! Dragons! Beasts! Angels! Who needs the X-Files? The Internet only served to stoke the fire, as I pored over reports of how the latest actions of Libya fulfilled verse 14 of chapter 17 and prophecies darkly warning of the rise of the Illuminati corresponding with an apostate church with ever-widening eyes that would rival any anime heroine. And of course, it was fun guessing who the AntiChrist was: the Pope, Bill Clinton, Maitreya. It was inevitable that I would eventually suffer prophecy burnout. Plus, I grew up. It became easier to recognise that many prophecies were simply conspiracy theories all dolled up in Christianese.

As a slightly older Christian, I got excited once more as I discovered the Bible storyline of creation, fall, redemption and consummation. No longer obsessed with cracking the Bible code, I was sobered by the reality of coming judgement and the justice of God. I understood a little more of the already/not yet nature of God’s kingdom. I saw how living in light of eternity shaped the present. In many ways it was simply a result of learning to read the Bible better. Being pretty much an organic process, I sometimes found myself unable to capture all these newfound insights and put them all together. I think this is true of many Christians too: people find it hard to discern if the latest prophecy from some Christian celebrity is bunk, or are too easily caught up in a wave of triumphalism or alarmism because they have a misshapen view of the future.

Which is where 666 and All That has proved to be a great help. This book is the latest from the pens of John Dickson and Greg Clarke, both associated with The Centre for Public Christianity. I had been very impressed with some of the other books of Dickson, a musician and evangelist who holds a PhD in Ancient History, as he is very good in writing simply but not simplistically. This also holds true here – I never felt for a moment that this book was flimsy despite its breezy style. Such inklings are confirmed when we refer to the endnotes, the majority of which are devoted to showing their exegetical homework of the various verses discussed in the main text rather than citations of other books.

The authors first lay the groundwork with some autobiographical jottings, Dickson having gone through the same apocalyptic zeal as I have. They note that hope has often been the poor cousin of the Christian triad of love-faith-hope and then show the central place hope should play in the Christian’s life. Two chapters are spent discussing how to read prophetic and apocalyptic literature, using concrete examples such as the rapture. The rest of the book is then devoted to various topics on the future, such as death, hell, the second coming, the fate of those who have never heard the gospel, and heaven/the new creation.

In many ways, this book is very similar to a much higher profile book, Tom Wright’s Surprised By Hope, which I managed to read halfway in a Waterstones. Indeed, the authors even borrow one of Wright’s phrases, "life after life-after-death" for the title of one of their chapters. (For those interested, Wright’s book has been reviewed to death online – just google it). Where I think Dickson & Clarke’s book distinguishes itself from Wright’s is in its conception of its audience. Wright is a very lucid writer and his book appears to be a valuable contribution, but I think his primary appeal is to those of a more intellectual bent. I really enjoyed his anecdote about Wittgenstein and Popper, but I can also see many of my less bookish friends reading that and either feeling intimidated or put off. In any case, those who are most likely to read Wright are also less likely to be those who would fall prey to Rapturemania in the first place.

On the other hand, with Dickson and Clarke’s book, I feel more confident about putting it into the hands of an earnest but confused Christian, who has imbibed unhelpful teaching on the apocalypse et al. from the likes of Rick Joyner and his ilk. As a guide to eschatology (to use the technical term), a correction to popular misconceptions, and a reflection on how the future should shape our lives, this book is probably easier to navigate than Wright’s without losing any of Wright’s perceived strengths, eg. exposing Platonic myths or reminding us of the cosmic implications of the gospel. Yet even those further on in their Christian walk would benefit from this book as well as their discussion of various biblical passages is often insightful. To give one example, in addressing the question of "anonymous Christians", they give a creative reading of the story of Cornelius in Acts which was new to me and certainly compelling on first reading! This will also surely serve as a reference point for me whenever I feel myself needing to gather my thoughts on eschatological issues.

Sadly, this book, published by a small Australian press, would probably not be easy to obtain if you’re not in Aussieland. It is available from The Good Book Co. and St Andrew's Bookshop in the UK. If you’re looking for a primer on what the Bible says about the future, there are few better places to start.


† Expand post

Two books

Some amateur jottings on two recently read books...

The Wondrous Cross, Stephen Holmes

Holmes is both a Baptist pastor and lecturer at the University of St. Andrews, and has been labelled as one of the most thoughtful young British theologians by others. Using recent debates regarding the atonement in the UK as a starting point, Holmes defends penal substitution but argues that we need many complementary descriptions to describe salvation, or as Scot McKnight has put it elsewhere, "stories of the Story". As such, his book reads more like positive statement rather than a defensive reaction, although he does not shirk from engaging various objections to a penal substitutionary understanding of the cross.

Written for the layperson and a model of brevity at only 130 pages, Holmes starts by reviewing the biblical material on the cross in both the Old Testament and the New Testament, before moving on to how the atonement has been viewed throughout history. He then paints a mutifaceted view of the cross before defending the "story" or "metaphor" of penal substitution, and ending with how we should speak of and live under the cross.

There is a lot to like in this book. Its length means that it is not offputting to the average churchgoer, and Holmes is like a patient, laidback teacher with no axe to grind. He is also very restrained in many of his conclusions (sometimes too restrained!), frequently showing how the language of the Bible and of the early church fathers lead to the ways we can understand the cross without necessarily being over-dogmatic about it. Holmes is not afraid to invoke "mystery" and his overriding concern is finally, to move us to worship rather than complete understanding (although he does not pit the two against the other). His emphasis on the many stories/models/metaphors of the cross is to be welcomed as there is some grain of truth in the charge that some evangelicals emphasise penal substitution to the exclusion of other models. Other highlights include his dismantling of the common myth that the tradition of penal substitution started with Anselm and his discussion of God's identification with us.

Its very brevity can also be a weakness however. His 2 chapters on the biblical text often leaves the reader wanting more. And while he explains that he leaves out references because the book is for a general audience (i.e people like me!), it means that one has to take his word for it in the historical section. Finally, Holmes argues that the story of penal substitution needs to take a backseat in today's culture, which has largely lost any notion of sin and guilt. This is a wrong move, I think, whereby the surrounding culture has been allowed to take the upper hand over the biblical material. The images Scripture uses of the cross are surely not arbitrary and cannot be so easily tossed aside in the name of contextualization, for losing the story of penal substitution could have distorting effects on the other stories. He is surely right in his reading of today's culture, but I think the right move therefore is not so much to relegate penal substitution to the periphery, but to find creative ways to express this afresh, as well as to interweave it with the other stories. (See for eg., Romans 3:21-26 and Colossians 2:13-15)

Nonetheless, this is an ideal book for many who have perhaps vaguely heard and been disturbed by some of the discontented rumblings over the atonement in recent years. I will also continue to recommend Mark Meynell's Cross-Examined as the best introductory book on the cross.


Evangelicals in the Public Square, J. Budziszewski

J. Budziszewski, a well-regarded professor of government and philosophy and also known to many as Professor Theophilus (formerly of Boundless, now at TrueU), examines evangelical political thought in the 20th century through 4 key exponents: Carl Henry, Abraham Kuyper, Francis Schaeffer and John Howard Yoder. His main task is to open the door for more sustained reflection on a specifically evangelical political thought. This is followed by rejoinders by four scholars, each of whose area of expertise is on one of the four men above.

Budzizewski starts off with an opening chapter where he outlines the distinctives of an "evangelical" political theory. All political theories must satisfy the criteria of having an orienting doctrine (a guide to thought), a practical doctrine (a guide to action) and a cultural apologetics (a guide to persuasion). He then gives us some principles derived from the Bible, before noting that Scripture does not give us a comprehensive doctrine of politics. As such, he argues, this needs to be augmented by an understanding of general revelation and natural law.

He then provides an overview of the thought of the four aforementioned thinkers, showing where he agrees and appreciates them and then critiquing them, often from a specifically "natural law" perspective. As I do not have any background in political theory and very little idea on the specific issues at play, I did find this hardgoing at times, although Budzizewski is a clear communicator and provides very helpful explication. I learnt more about Kuyper's sphere sovereignty, for instance, and saw where Yoder was going off-base more clearly. This book is not a substitute for reading the primary texts themselves, such as Kuyper's Lectures on Calvinism or Yoder's Politics of Jesus. However, I can imagine it being a very illuminating commentary if read alongside them. Although the United States obviously provides the backdrop for a lot of the discussion, this did not prove to be a hindrance.

The rejoinders are a bit of a mixed bag. The respondents agree with some of the thrusts of Budzizewski's portraits and critiques and disagree with others. William Edgar's rejoinder on Schaeffer is particularly strong and easy to follow, and David Weeks on Carl Henry is also competent. John Bolt's response on Kuyper is quite dense, while Ashley Woodiwiss on Yoder is just too short.

I picked up this book hoping to learn a bit more about an evangelical approach to politics. Budzizewski's opening essay is very good and accessible to anybody and I am sure I will be looking it up from time to time by way of reminder. The overviews are helpful if you're looking for a historical approach and have already have some grounding in the questions of politics being discussed (eg. the place of the state or the limits of civil liberty). Those looking for something more systematic and introductory will still glean helpful bits here, but will be less likely to be find this book ideal. Nor will those looking for specific proposals on public policy be likely to turn to this book as their first port of call.

So I did learn a bit from this book, but I wasn't quite the right audience for it!


† Expand post

The Gospel, Personal AND Cosmic

An excerpt from Trevin Wax's review of John Piper's new book, The Future of Justification: A Response to N.T Wright:

In other words, Piper and Wright are agreed on the gospel message and its effects, but the two scholars are looking at the gospel from two different perspectives. Piper is looking at the gospel as primarily about the salvation of individual sinners, which has as an effect the restoration of the entire cosmos. Wright is looking at the gospel as primarily the restoration of the entire cosmos, which includes the personal salvation of individual human beings.

There is a danger in both ways of viewing the gospel. Piper’s way of viewing the gospel could lead us to so emphasize personal conversion and the salvation of individuals that we forget the cosmic implications of the lordship of Christ which are manifested politically and socially. If we negate the cosmic effects of the gospel, we truncate the message and leave the Caesars (idols) of the world on their thrones.

On the other hand, Wright’s view of the gospel could lead us to so emphasize the cosmic implications of the gospel that we devote all of our time and energy to politics, social work, and philanthropy and leave little room or passion in our outlook for personal salvation, evangelistic activity and bold proclamation of the gospel for individual sinners. If we negate the personal, individualistic aspect of the gospel, we neuter the message by failing to call individuals to repentance and faith.

We needn’t choose between the personal and cosmic gospel. We need both dimensions. Thankfully, Piper and Wright agree that the gospel includes both these dimensions. But I would suspect that they would also argue that the primary lens through which we view and preach the gospel should be either personal or cosmic.

Trevin Wax's entire review series. For another brief review, go here.

Books of the year

It's that time of year where best-of lists come out. I'm a sucker for such lists. I doubt anyone noticed, but I never actually posted my top book of 2006. And I’ve decided not to for the moment. I’ll keep that in reserve for the day when I might actually write about it.

I’ve been fortunate that my Masters has surprisingly afforded me with a lot of free time this year. I doubt I’ll ever have as much time to read ever again. Rather than do a top 10 this year though, I thought I’ll just list, as far as I can remember, all the books I’ve read (or skim-read) this year with short comments.

CHRISTIAN
Shining Like Stars by Lindsey Brown is the gripping story of the IFES movement and a testimony to God’s goodness and faithfulness. You could say it’s the unofficial sequel to Howard Guinness’ Sacrifice. Clinton Arnold’s 3 Crucial Questions about Spiritual Warfare is a balanced treatment of an often sensationalised topic. He believes Christians can be harassed and influenced by demons although not possessed, and argues for the existence of territorial spirits, with the caveat that we are not told to engage directly with them, and therefore a lot of talk in some charismatic circles of “spiritual mapping” (to use one eg.) and the like is misguided. Chris Wright’s Knowing Jesus through the Old Testament is a helpful book both about Jesus in light of the OT, and the OT in light of Jesus, looking at Jesus in relation to OT mission, identity, promise and so on. What Jesus Demands from the World is a devotional book from the pen of John Piper as he systematically works through all the commands of Jesus found in the Gospels.

Immanuel in our Place by world-renowned OT scholar Tremper Longman III is a book for the layperson on various aspects of Israel’s worship, such as temple worship, sacrifices, priesthood and the Sabbath and how they apply to Christians today. I’ve only read portions of Eugene Peterson’s classic A Long Obedience in the Same Direction, on the Songs of Ascents (Psalm 120-134), but as you’d expect from Peterson, it is thoroughly refreshing. I also got through his Christ Plays in Ten Thousand Places, his tour de force on Christian spirituality, way too quickly, just enough to get a vague idea of the overall shape of the book – it really needs to be read slowly and savoured, and his words need time and space to reflect upon. Spirit of Truth by David Jackman is a back-to-basics exposition of the person of the Holy Spirit. Anyone who has heard Jackman knows that he is a fantastic preacher, but for some reason, his writing style was a bit dry here. Graham Beynon’s Experiencing the Spirit, which covers similar ground, is written in a more conversational style which perhaps appeals to below 30s like me.

Tom Wright’s Simply Christian is a warm introduction to Christianity, both for believers and non-believers alike, although comparisons to C.S Lewis’ Mere Christianity are definitely overblown. Bruce Milne’s Dynamic Diversity will unfortunately probably not be widely known, but he presents a compelling vision of a church which in its diversity of gender, race and socio-economic status will be able to show that in Jesus they are one people. John Stott’s The Message of 2 Timothy is the most enjoyable commentary I have ever read, and should be your first stop if you’re looking for a popular level commentary on that particular letter. I wish he treated 2:24-26 in detail though...William Taylor’s exposition on Philippians: Partnership, published by Christian Focus, is clear and encouraging. I finally read George Eldon Ladd’s classic The Presence of the Future. Since it’s an old academic book, it is a little dated and hard-going in places and most of the detail will be forgotten by me. Nonetheless, I remember having my eyes opened by some of his discussion on the prophetic/apocalyptic dimension. I have written a more in-depth review of Brian McLaren’s The Secret Message of Jesus. It’s a good book on the Kingdom of God, although it seems to have an overrealised eschatology and has a provocative appendix.

I have not finished Ida Glaser’s The Bible and Other Faiths, and am thinking of starting over and making a blog series out of it. T.M Moore’s I Will Be Your God, a book on covenant aimed at laypeople, was surprisingly dull and would definitely have benefited from better editing. I just couldn’t get into it and might give it away. Peter Jensen’s At the Heart of the Universe, on the other hand, was a very pleasant surprise. Picked up on the cheap, this is a good book on basic Christian doctrine that does so without using the template of a textbook. It is now the second book I will turn to (the first being the Bible of course!) if I’m looking for Christianity 101. Richard Tiplady’s book World of Difference? is quite interesting as it explores globalization and the need for fresh paradigms for both missions and mission agencies. I quite enjoyed Tim Chester and Steve Timmis’ Total Church, a “missional” book stressing the twin priorities of gospel and community, although I also appreciated the critique given by a good friend of mine on this book, who found it overly prescriptive in places.

Possibly the best book I read this year was the magisterial Pierced for Our Transgressions by Mike Ovey, Steve Jeffrey and Andrew Sachs. N.T Wright, who wrote a very critical review of the book, even calling it sub-biblical, got it wrong on this count. It defends the doctrine of penal substitution, showing the exegetical, historical, theological and pastoral underpinnings of it, but in a warm and charitable way without ever sounding defensive. The only thing that would have made this book better was if they had showed in detail how the motifs of victory and penal substitution complement one another, but that would be a book for another day. Ben Cooper’s little book Just Love is a book I’m sure I’d go back to again and again to clarify my thinking on the necessity of punishing sin. A book that would be at odds with the two above is Steve Chalke and Alan Mann’s controversial The Lost Message of Jesus. It is similar to McLaren’s book in many respects and has many good things to say (for eg. I’m glad he brought attention to the fact that the Ten Commandments are framed within the context of God’s grace, shown in the rescuing of his people out of Egypt), but seems to me to fail to take sin seriously enough. I was willing to give Chalke a generous berth, but his final chapter was disappointingly inadequate and contrary to his defenders, does not merely attack a caricature of penal substitution. In any case, I hope this dialogue continues in the spirit of love.

Esther Meek’s Longing to Know is subtitled The Philosophy of Knowledge for Ordinary People, and she does so by drawing on the insights of Michael Polanyi (without ever mentioning him by name outside the Intro!) as well as deconstructing Enlightenment notions of certainty and doubt. I thought she was convincing! Turning Points by Mark Noll is a potted introduction to key events in church history. It’s very readable, although invariably some events might be more fascinating than others depending on people’s interests...I have already raved about Alister McGrath’s Christianity’s Dangerous Idea...Graham Cray’s Disciples and Citizens had a misleading title, as I thought it was a book explicitly about a Christian approach to politics. Its subtitle A Vision for Distinctive Living sums up the contents of the book better, and is fairly insightful, especially in the British context. I read big chunks of David Wells’ God in the Wasteland partly for my thesis. 5 Paths to the Love of Your Life (ed. Alex Chediak) sounds like a cheesy New Age book, but actually lays out the 5 different viewpoints on the courtship/dating/relationship debate amongst Christians. It’s also got one of the worst written blurbs I’ve ever seen. I’m probably closest to Rick Holland’s Guided Path, although his position overlaps significantly with Lauren Winner’s well written chapter (Countercultural Path) and Doug Wilson’s Courtship Path. The other two positions are a little more off. A book to get if you’re looking beyond Josh Harris.

I only dipped in and out of R. Paul Steven’s Doing God’s Business, a book on marketplace theology, that is about work, business, vocation and the Christian life. John Dickson’s A Spectator’s Guide to World Religions is a superb succinct introduction to the world’s major religions. Although Dickson is a Christian, this is not an apologetic work; rather, he allows each religion to speak on its own terms. Dean Flemming’s Contextualization in the New Testament is, as far as I am able to evaluate, a sane and admirable exegetical treatment which is restrained in its conclusions. Great book for anyone involved in cross-cultural ministries, and that’s probably virtually everyone these days! I have read a little of Kevin Vanhoozer’s First Theology: God, Scripture and Hermeneutics. This one is not for the faint-hearted! I got through his first essay, more of a survey on hermeneutics, alright, but his chapter on effectual grace defeated me. Andrew Perriman’s Faith, Health and Prosperity is a comprehensive evaluation of Word of Faith teaching.

FICTION
I can’t quite remember if I finished Kazuo Ishiguro’s The Remains of the Day before or after the New Year, but whatever – it’s a great book! I also read his moving Never Let Me Go, where he explores an alternative future where cloning is possible. Jennifer Donnelly’s A Gathering Light won the Carnegie in 2003 and is the best young adult fiction I’ve read in years. It’s set at the tailend of 19th century America, featuring both a coming-of-age tale and a murder mystery. One of those books which can be enjoyed by all ages...Christian fiction gets a lot of bad press, much of it deserved, for being hackneyed and generally poor, but there are signs that it is improving. I tried Karen Hancock’s series Legends of the Guardian-King this year and it was moderately entertaining. The first two books are well-plotted and there is adequate characterization, but the last two books were definitely weaker. Still some way to go then...The graphic novel is a genre that deserves to be taken seriously. I previously read Craig Thompson’s Blankets on growing up in fundamentalist Christianity and was similar enthralled by Marjane Satrapi’s Persepolis, a memoir of growing up in Iran (hmmm, maybe this doesn't belong in fiction). Scott Turow, known for his legal thrillers, has written Ordinary Heroes, a touching World War II novel. Ian McEwan’s Atonement is seen as his masterpiece – reading it did not give me any cause to dispute that. George Pellecanos’ The Night Gardener was described as the best crime novel of 2006, and it certainly did transcend the genre. Anne Tyler’s Saint Maybe and Digging to America are lovely, lovely slice-of-life books on oddball characters; the former is better than the latter.

My favourite space opera Star Wars returned to form this year with a projected 9 book series, Legacy of the Force. So far six books have been released, and it’s a welcome relief from the X-Wing wreck that was the Dark Nest Trilogy. How in the world did Troy Denning, who also wrote Star by Star, considered by many to be in the upper echelon of the many Star Wars books, manage to conjure up that mess? Still, he has redeemed himself, especially with Inferno, the latest. It’s sad to see one of my favourite characters, Jacen, go dark though...I finally got round to reading Shusaku Endo’s classic, Silence. A lifelong Catholic who struggled with his faith, Endo has his characters endure the silence of God and does not offer a way out at the end. The longest book I read this year was the epic Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell by Susanna Clarke, which clocked in at over a 1000 pages. It certainly was different and I did find it enjoyable, although I struggled to keep track of the main threads of the plot. Neil Gaiman’s Stardust is old-fashioned fairytale storytelling at its best, without ever toning its more adult elements down. I’ve only read two of Flannery O’Connor’s short stories so far, after spotting it at a second-hand bookstore. A devout Catholic, she stands in the tradition of the American gothic south, and her stories are known for both its brutality and grotesqueness, as well as its unflinching portrayal of grace. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows was satisfying overall, even if I wish one or two things were done differently.

Zadie Smith’s prize-laden On Beauty is delightful, even though I have ever only read the first 40 pages of Howard’s End, the E.M Forster book to which she pays tribute. Anyone who is in the humanities will surely recognise some of the characters in the book. I’m not sure if non-humanities people will get it though. Kate Atkinson’s Case Histories is a detective novel that nevertheless easily transcends the genre, with its meditation on memory and the frailty of the human condition. It’s also pretty funny. Ann Patchett’s Bel Canto is a bit too slow-moving in places, but overall she really makes you feel for her characters, especially when you know the enforced utopia in which her characters dwell could never last forever. Laura Lippman’s What the Dead Know is a clever, if more conventional crime thriller. Lippman is a good writer and is not adverse to showing her more “literary” side by occasionally alluding to various classics. Philip Pullman’s Northern Lights, the first in His Dark Materials trilogy, was ok. It could be confusing at times and is not that exciting. His anti-Christian leanings start to show by the end of the book. I am currently in the middle of Lloyd Jones’ Mister Pip, a 2007 fan favourite which made the Booker shortlist.

NON-FICTION
Jonathan Wolff’s An Introduction to Political Philosophy is touted as the best book of its kind. Its conversational style is both a strength and a weakness – it means that you can follow through arguments in depth but also means that looking up something for quick reference is difficult. Stephen Tomkins’ biography of William Wilberforce is good, focusing on the parliamentary battles and his friendship with William Pitt. He prefaces each chapter with a real-life account of slavery. It’s appreciative without being hagiographic. This bio is shorter than either Kevin Belmonte’s or William Hague’s. TIME journalist Pico Iyer’s travelogue, The Global Soul, is a great anecdotal read about the global village we live in, although he occasionally overreaches in his usage of analogy when trying to make a particular point. Kua Kia Soong’s May 13 was an unexpected gift and an important read on this watershed event in contemporary Malaysian history. Thomas De Zengitota’s Mediated is a good introductory look at a postmodern and media-saturated society written in a journalistic style, although his name-dropping is at times infuriating and seems to betray a certain smugness (look, I know Baudrillard! Heidegger! All the shamans of cool!). Paul Johnson’s Creators, which I have not finished, looks at famous creators such as Shakespeare, Bach etc. and muses on aspects of creativity. His sketches tend to be fairly conservative; I had a look at some of his endnotes for his chapters on Shakespeare and Chaucer and I know my tutors would likely have considered the books he references old-fashioned. I found Jan Greenwood’s Protestant Evangelical Literary Culture and Contemporary Society, which I gather is a revision of her dissertation quite interesting. It was useful for my thesis anyhow! But I think I’m in the minority of one here.

---

I was hoping to read a missionary biography this year but just never got round to it. I was also thinking of reading a couple of older Christian books (by which I mean anything that pre-dates C.S Lewis), like Chesterton or Ryle. Oh well. I had my eye on a couple of non-fiction books to do with sports. Yasmina Khadra’s The Attack was meant to be my summer purchase but other books kept distracting me. And now I’m wondering if it’s worth reading Khaled Hosseini’s follow-up to The Kite Runner as it appears to be one of the biggest sellers of the year.

Here are New York Times's 100 Notable Books of 2007
The books of the year according to various writers
The Village Voice's list
Sharon Bakar has more links and a useful breakdown
IVP editor Al Hsu's list

What were your top/favourite books of the year?


† Expand post

Book Recommendation: Christianity's Dangerous Idea

I once heard it said that Alister McGrath is at his best when he’s writing as a historian. On this evidence, I agree. Christianity’s Dangerous Idea is a fantastic book on the history of Protestantism that is – to selectively quote from the blurbs – highly readable, wonderfully wide-ranging, accessible and engaging. All those adjectives are important, for they highlight that McGrath is not writing for an academic audience, as he makes clear in his Introduction, although he does make extensive use of the best scholarship available. (Looking through his endnotes was exhausting – where does he find the time to read this stuff?)

This is both an important and great book because it shows why history matters in a manner that is accessible to the layperson. History helps us make some sense of how we got here and offers some answers as to why that is so. It gives us context. History makes things concrete: it shows how various values, beliefs and cultures are sewn together in a complex web and affect the lives of real, living people like you and me. In that sense, it can never be abstract: for us younger ones, imagine living through May 13, 1969 in Malaysia. History helps us avoid the pitfalls of the past, not perfectly, mind you, since it is surely difficult to detect the newly-laid snares of well-worn pathways. History also shows that life is messy; it sharpens our recognition of complexity and humbles us in the process, but does not sacrifice a fundamental coherence of narrative. And it surely matters for Christians especially, not just to know, remember, honour and learn from those who've gone before us, but also to recall that the Christian faith itself is rooted in history. Our own sacred text tells of a God acting in history, culminating in the life, death and resurrection of Christ, which is, amongst other things, a historical event.

So what is the dangerous idea alluded to in the title? For McGrath, it is "that the Bible is capable of being understood by all Christian believers - and that they all have the right to interpret it and to insist upon their perspectives being taken seriously". Doesn’t sound like much I know, which just reveals how much we take it for granted today. He proposes to "trace [the impact of this idea] on the unfolding of the movement in the past and its development in years to come", seeking to clarify the identity and internal dynamics of the movement. The book is divided into three parts. The first section explores how Protestantism came into being, constructing a compelling narrative that examines the key players and factors that gave birth to this phenomenon. The second section looks at some of the basic ideas of Protestantism and how that has shaped Western culture in particular. Finally, he considers Protestantism in the twentieth century, honing in on its global expansion and particularly on Pentecostalism, before addressing the future of Protestantism in a concluding chapter.

His main premise is really, really thought-provoking, in that he shows how a clear adherence to the authority of Scripture has necessarily led to diversity within Protestantism; such a diversity, however, shouldn’t be taken as unequivocally good or bad. In some ways, this is a book about contextualization: he shows how Protestantism is intrinsically adaptable, capable in its very nature of responding to new challenges or situations. Each new generation will need to wrestle afresh with what Scripture is saying to their particular context or setting. "At its heart, Protestantism represents a constant return to the Bible to revalidate and where necessary restate its beliefs and values, refusing to allow any one generation or individual to determine what is definitive for Protestantism as a whole." (p.199).

This is both a strength and a weakness. The lack of clear boundaries and the democratization of interpretation account for tensions and sometimes, deviations from orthodoxy which are only clear in hindsight. But each new generation might recover lost emphases as well. McGrath, interestingly, tells of how the application of the Great Commission to today was only made in the 18th century, with the saints of yesteryear having previously only seen it as applying to the apostles. One surely could make a similar case for the role of the Holy Spirit in the 20th. I also remember reading another seminal history book, David Bebbington’s Evangelicalism in Modern Britain earlier this year and finding it quite shocking that the notion of a personal second coming only began to take root sometime in the 17th century; previous generations had believed in the second coming of course, but conceived of it in vague, impersonal terms.

There are so many things to appreciate about this book. I like the way he tells the story of the birth and development of Protestantism. Like any good drama, we get a sense of why the principal actors behave as they did, the external factors that tipped events one way or the other, and the urgency of the matters being debated. Even more impressively, an introductory work of this nature necessarily has to paint in broad strokes, but McGrath shows nuance whenever he can. For example, what is known in the popular imagination as “the Reformation” was in reality a “series of reformations”; and it was quite a surprise to discover how conservative Luther really was, in that he sought to find continuities with the Catholic tradition of his day. It was quite funny actually to read about some of his contemporaries denouncing Luther for not being radical enough! It was really good too to learn a bit more about the differences between Lutheranism and those of a more Reformed persuasion. I have sometimes heard segments of the emerging church today described as Anabaptistic, and after reading a little on the Anabaptists here, I can see why. I found the chapter on Protestantism and the shaping of Western culture highly satisfying as well for personal reasons. I surveyed similar material (in much less detail) for part of my thesis and am gratified to discover that McGrath and I virtually reach the same conclusions! You know, Alister called me and asked to see an advanced copy... ;-)

Of course, one could quibble here and there. Although he does talk about the Anabaptists, I wish he had said a bit more about them. The Socinians, a 17th century heretical movement that have largely been forgotten until recently, only received one mention – I wanted more! Ditto with Laudianism, with which I became acquainted with in passing when studying 17th century literature, as well as the consequences of Gutenberg and printing. But I guess when you’re trying to cover 500 years in less than 500 pages, you need to be selective. I wished too that he would interact more with some of the theological positions presented, but again, this is not the purpose of this book - this is a historical work, not a theological one. McGrath occasionally references material such as the "English Civil War" without comment, assuming his readers would be familiar with them. I would imagine those who were brought up in the British education system and weren’t throwing paper planes while Mr. Barkin droned on would at least recognise these events. For the rest of us, tough luck. But then again, in the age of Wikipedia, laziness is a harder excuse to sell.

On matters I know more about, he calls Bunyan’s Pilgrim's Progress a novel, which certainly could be contested; I would probably say that it was an important forerunner for the rise of the novel, but I wouldn’t claim more than that. Finally, I thought his chapter on the Pentecostal revolution wasn’t quite up to the high standards of the rest of the book. He mentions C. Peter Wagner’s influential description of the charismatic movement coming in "three waves" but otherwise doesn’t seem to deal with Third Wave views at all, preferring to stick to classic Pentecostals. Maybe classic Pentecostalism is still more prevalent than I imagined, and conversely Third Wave charismatics less influential than I thought? Also, I was surprised to see him devote some paragraphs to Oneness Pentecostalism (a heteredox movement that denies the classical view of the Trinity) when discussing Pentecostal tensions with Protestantism as I thought that was a fairly marginal group, and more space could have been devoted to other, more important controversies, such as "signs and wonders". But maybe this is a more significant movement than I thought, considering that (I think) TD Jakes adheres to some form of Oneness Pentecostalism. And no Toronto Blessing! Overall, I just thought McGrath could have been better in his selection of the material here.

But these are mere trivialities. Let me say it again: this is a fantastic book. Probably in my top 3 of the year. In an age of consumerism and globalization, Protestantism might find itself shaped in unexpected ways yet again. And we need to be humble and dependent on the Spirit, knowing that it is easy to fall off the path of orthodoxy, and yet we can also joyfully trust that God is sovereign as he leads his Bride.

# Here is an audio interview with Dr. McGrath on his book.


† Expand post

Drawing an arrow from Bhutan to Barcelona

I read The Global Soul: Jet Lag, Shopping Malls, and the Search for Home by TIME journalist Pico Iyer around July. It's an absorbing read, as Iyer tells the story of his multicultural upbringing and the globe-trotting that forms part of his profession, while reflecting on what it means to be a global citizen in today's connected world. Occasionally he overreaches - attempting to establish a link between an observation and a more general point he's trying to make when none exist. Still, I guess you could say that about a lot of reportage.

The anecdote he shares about Bhutanese archers is, for some reason, the one that sticks the most in my mind, and when I read this little story, I knew I wanted to share it. Here is Iyer, at the 1992 Barcelona Olympics:

They were archers, from Bhutan, as it transpired, who couldn't quite orient themselves amidst this crush of alienness.

They'd never seen a stadium before, one of the teenagers explained, They'd never seen a high-rise building, or a working television set, and they'd never seen a boat. I remember how, in their landlocked home, I'd watched students practise archery between the willow trees behind the Druk Hotel., their arrows whistling through the silent air.

None of them had ever boarded a plane before, one of them went on (in careful English - the Raj having penetrated even those places that television could not reach), and none of them had ever competed before crowds (besides, Olympic rules are so different from Bhutanese that they were all but guaranteed last place). "I thought Barcelona was going to be peaceful, like Thimbu," one of the young students said. "It's so busy!" The Olympic Village alone was almost the size of their capital.

...what stays with me, many years later, is the image of those guileless, bewildered, excited, souls, one day in a hidden kingdom where everyone has to wear medieval clothes and all the buildings are constructed in fourteenth century style, and the next, in the midst of the greatest planetary show on earth. And then, after two weeks surounded by exploding flashbulbs, to be back in their forgotten home, where the only concrete mementos they'd have of their surreal episode would be their photographs. Whenever she had a free moment, one of the archers told me, she hurried off to take pictures of the habor. She'd never seen an ocean before.

P/S I never saw him, but when I was at Oxford, the Bhutanese prince was studying there too, and had to leave halfway to quell a civil war! Kind of puts my essay crisis into perspective...

Fiction roundup

I have been reading a lot of fiction lately – the most I’ve ever read for fun in years!

World War 2 is a favourite setting for many novelists, and I remember reading many young adult novels that used it as a teenager, eg. Joan Lingard’s Tug of War, Summer of my German Soldier (I can’t remember the author offhand). As far I can tell, the supply has not been exhausted – the 2005 Carnegie Medal winner Tamar (Mal Peet) is a WW2 novel. But Scott Turow’s Ordinary Heroes is the first so-called “adult” WW2 novel I’ve ever read. Turow, of course, is well known for his legal thrillers, and I’ve always wanted to pick up one of his books. At the same time, I had been looking for a war novel to read, and so this proved to be the ideal choice.

Mourning the death of his father, Stewart Dubin decides to find out more about the man he has always looked up to, but who always remained something of a mystery to him. "All parents keep secrets from their children," Dubin says. "My father, it seemed, kept more than most." He digs through personal letters and discovers a portrait of a conscientious legal officer in the army, who is nevertheless court-martialled when he fails to obey orders. The mystery lies in the motivations behind his act of defiance.

The story is told through flashbacks, and effectively touches on the corrosive effects of war, the way it transforms people, the moral ambiguities and the startling clarity of how a desperate need to survive overrules everything else. Turow was especially praised for one particularly pivotal battle scene, and it lives up to the praise. It was evocative and I felt like an eyewitness. Another big theme was the importance of memory and how much the past should be allowed to shape the present. The book did drag in places, although I felt the pace really got going once he parachutes out of the plane about a third way through the novel, and I suppose some will accuse Turow of breaking the “show, don’t tell” rule towards the end, but those are minor complaints.

Atonement is Ian McEwan’s masterpiece, by all accounts, and it was another book I greatly enjoyed. In it, he shows how one misconstrued event can change lives forever. Like Turow, WW2 also serves as a backdrop of this novel, although war is not really its concern. The first third of the novel is the strongest, as McEwan effortlessly shows life in an upper-class mansion pre-WW2. His big theme is that of the power of the imagination. He also shares with Turow, although it is emphasised more strongly, the question of how our past affects our present. What makes McEwan different though, is that he questions the reliability of memory and how dependent we are on textual mediation. Classic postmodern themes. Expect plenty of musings on the role of the author-narrator and how the distinction between the external world and that of the inner life (imagination, consciousness etc.) isn’t so clear-cut, i.e they affect each other in suprising ways.

The biggest (pleasant) surprise, though, was George Pellecanos and The Night Gardener. Prior to the aforementioned novel being hailed as the best American crime novel of 2006, I had never even heard of the writer, although crime aficionados have been in the know for years. I was expecting a straightforward police procedural, but Pellecanos transcends all the generic conventions and turns it into a social commentary on race and society’s ills. A lot of the novel is spent simply detailing the day-to-day family life of Gus Ramone, the protagonist, as well as painting what life in inner city Washington DC looks like. He painstakingly chronicles what racial prejudice sounds like in the daily banter and conversations of normal people, and he shows us his beliefs that escape from the ghetto of drugs and violence is somewhat of a lottery, aided in part by good education and upbringing. The actual solving of the crime is almost incidental. I suppose if you want to place him on the spectrum of crime writing, he will probably belong in the James Lee Burke/Dennis Lehane category of so-called “literary” crime fiction.

Anne Tyler. Wow. I devoured both Saint Maybe and Digging to America in the space of 5 days. Tyler, a Pulitzer Prize winner, delights in following the lives of oddballs in her hometown Baltimore, and her art lies in that she manages to accomplish so much with such simplicity of language. The former follows Ian Bedloe, who is saddled with guilt after some ill-informed accusations leads to his brother’s suicide and the mental breakdown of his sister-in-law. (Atonement would also have been an appropriate title). He finds solace in a rather strange if endearing version of Quaker/Anabaptist religion and in bringing up his brother’s orphaned children, and Tyler simply just lets us vicariously live Ian’s life. The latter, not quite as strong as Saint Maybe, deals with what it means to belong: two Korean babies are adopted by an Iranian immigrant and classic American families respectively. Both sets of families have very different parenting philosophies, but somehow manage to forge a friendship in spite of the inevitable cultural clash. Tyler is always gentle with her characters, we love all of them in spite of their flaws.

If you’ve read any of the above or read something you’ve enjoyed lately, I look forward to hearing from you!


† Expand post