As I write this I sit aboard an airport shuttle barreling toward Seattle. From there I catch a plane to Chicago for ten days of classes and a denominational conference. I am looking forward to this, but it means untethering myself from technology for a little while. It’s possible I might get on here and manage things a little but expect no new content until February.
Are women leaving the church? Perhaps that is the first question that comes to your mind when you see this provocative title: The Resignation of Eve: What if Adam’s Rib is No Longer Willing to Be the Backbone of the Church?. Certainly when I go to church I see women well represented; yet research conducted by the Barna Group suggests that women are leaving and author Jim Henderson argurs that if the church loses its women, we are in serious trouble:
[Women are] the one groups whose loyalty the church can least afford to lose. The people who for the most part run the church, attend church and pray and serve at significantly higher rates than their male counterparts. Women(23).
Henderson wants to see women given more opportunities to lead and serve than they have in many churches. 
Women are who run the church they just aren’t able to lead the church; yet most women are happy with what their church teaches about gender (according to the Barna Group). Henderson wants more. He wants women to feel the freedom to use whatever gifts God has given them in whatever sphere He calls them. As you may tell from this photo, Henderson, is a man and therefore incompetent when it comes to providing a comprehensive understanding of the fairer sex. He compensates for this by utilizing a qualitative approach, interviewing women about their ‘resignation’ from church. As an evangelical pastor type, Henderson can’t help but engage in tripartite wordplay with the term ‘resigned’. When he says resigned, he means the following:
In speaking to women from fundamentalist and conservative evangelical backgrounds Henderson discovers women who happily toe the line regarding the hierarchical gender roles their church teaches. They are not allowed to teach or have any authority over a man, they need to submit, and they are ‘resigned to’ their secondary role in the church. Some of these women never really gave the gender inequity in their church much thought (why would they want to be a pastor anyway?); others see men as bringing the necessary competencies to spiritual leadership in church and society.
Resigned From
On the other side are women who quit the church, in part, because they have more opportunities EVERYWHERE ELSE BUT THE CHURCH. Many conservative denominations do not ordain women, so if women want to actually have responsibility or get paid for leadership, they have to do it elsewhere. Other denominations affirm women in ministry, but women pastors rarely get hired (especially as senior pastor). Henderson talked to accomplished professional women who disengaged from their church culture because of this gender inequity. A couple of the women he spoke with left the faith altogether.
Re-signed
By ‘re-signing’ Henderson has in mind women who despite the risks, limitations and the church’s slowness to change, re-engage, lead and effect influence from within the church. The women Henderson speaks to in this section all have strong leadership gifts, which have sometimes been stymied by patriarchy in the church. But they have pressed through and are finding a way to fulfill God’s call in their lives.
Along the way, Henderson combines his interviews with evaluative comments and combines his qualitative approach with the quantitative approach of Barna Group. Statistical data peppers each section and he includes Barna survey data at the end of the book.
What I appreciated most about the book was encouraging tone. Henderson wants women to feel like they can pursue where God’s calling and he speaks to a number of women with an array of different views on gender roles. He manages to be respectful and affable with each person and their position, though I think he does seem to reserve his hard biblical questions for the rank complementarians. I loved that Henderson engaged with a variety of women with varying views on the subject of gender roles in the church. Even some of the ‘re-signers’ are theological complementarians but long for and work for greater equality in ministry.
I do not fault Henderson for using and integrating the Barna data with his own findings (it is after all a Barna Group publication); however I didn’t find the data particularly helpful or illuminating. Most of the data is probably accurate, but I am suspicious and would have preferred data from Gallup or Baylor (Rodney Stark and Byron Johnson are quite critical of some Barna findings). But Henderson uses these stats to augment his own research rather than to substantiate it, so I think he used the stats well.
I would recommend this book for women who feel slighted by their church’s views about gender, women who never really thought about it and Christian guys who just don’t understand women (this book may not help you, but hey you need all the help you can get). There are no discussion questions provided in the book, but it might be a useful catalyst for a small group or ministry team wrestling with this issue.
Thanks to Tyndale for providing me a copy of this book in exchange for this review.
In general, I have mixed feelings about Len Sweet’s books. A decade or so ago I would have told you to read his books. His books were then in high circulation for those who were ‘emerging’ from the swamp of 20th century mega-church Protestantism. Len Sweet was thoughtfully engaged with some of the trends that were happening in the church, especially in regard to the then buzzword, post-modernity. I loved Soul Tsunami and yes, there is a special place in my heart for Soul Salsa.
And then I completely lost interest in his books. He basically put out a decade of books on Christian Spirituality with suspect titles which didn’t appeal to me (like The Gospel According to Starbucks). Occasionally I would hear from friends tell me something Len Sweet said at a conference which just sounded Bizarre to me. Like when he says Jesus would tweet (Really? We know this?).
Last year I picked up Jesus Manifesto, the book he co-wrote with Frank Voila and thought that the two of them had some great things to say, so I am back to reading Len Sweet with appreciation. I think Len Sweet at his best calls us to creative fidelity to the gospel. He offers a rich engagement with the Christian tradition and the gospel and explores how the kingdom can seep more into our present context. When I don’t like his writing, I find it too slick, too much acronyms and alliteration and it seems like he is trying too hard to be relevant.
This book is Len Sweet at his best. He creatively and courageously takes on the Christian preoccupation with leadership (a preoccupation which he has contributed to, I might add) and rightly points out that the Christian life is more about followership than leadership. This is a sorely needed and overdue critique on the church in USAmerica and Sweet makes some great points. He challenges that the best-selling ‘Christian’ books are about leadership. He indicts the leadership culture for its glitz and chutzpah and glorification of people’s’ strengths when Jesus’s power is made perfect in our weakness. He gives practical advice on how to enter into the way of Jesus.
After introducing the theme of followership, Len Sweet organizes his meditations into three sections which explore what it means to follow Jesus: The Way, The Truth, The Life. The chapters are short and pithy, probably about 50 chapters if you total up the chapters in each section (they are not numbered). As you may expect, Sweet offers some interactive reflections at the end of each section in order for his readership to internalize his message more.
I found myself really liking this book and think it offers a good critique on how we Christians can sometimes want to lead, but are less thoughtful about how to follow Jesus. The brevity of each chapter makes this book ideal for devotional use. It may be an especially good devotional book for your bathroom. 
The image that Sweet opens his book with, is this viral video from 2009, of a lone dancing man, another man who decides to dance with him and the impromptu big-crowd dance party which ensues. Sweet suggests that Jesus is the lone crazy dancer, but the one who incites the crowd to join in the dance, was the ‘first-follower,’ not the leader but one who followed. He suggests that if we want to see a new movement of God, we do not need the silver-bullet of leadership, as much as passionate followers.
Good point.
Thank you to booksneeze for a copy of this book in exchange for this review. I was not asked to write a positive review, just an honest one. This review is a little of both and you can decide which.
We’ve been stuck inside most of this week because of bad weather (snow, ice, low temperatures) and we are all a little stir crazy. Iona has been nursing some second degree burns from the water cooler at church and yesterday Ember split her chin. So far no injuries for our youngest. I am heading out to a walk-in clinic with Ember because it doesn’t seem like it is clotting right (even though it is smallish).
Last time I went out with the family was Monday and we almost ended up in the ditch (like I said, bad weather). So it has really been one of those weeks.
Of course we also went out and enjoyed the snow, played and made snow angels, came home for some hot cocoa, watched videos and all those things you do when you are stuck enjoying each other’s company. So we are blessed.
Tonight I am volunteering for the first time at the emergency bad-weather shelter run by churches in Bellingham. Having done homeless ministry in the past, I look at shelters and churches that minister to the homeless with suspicion. There is just too much paternalism, too much de-humanizing of those they are trying to help that goes on and not enough sensitivity to certain dynamics. But I for one am glad that churches are working together to keep homeless people from freezing to death (night time temperatures have been around 10-15F). I can count my blessings in having a roof over my head, a wife with a job (my sugar momma) and three healthy (if injured children). Homeless people are people without a network of care, often estranged from family and friends. When hard times hit, they have nowhere to turn. Glad to stand in the gap, even if it means braving the roads in bad weather.
In an election year, like every year, you will here a lot of Evangelicals talking about sex. Recently prominent Evangelicals threw their support behind Rick Santorum. This is probably because of Santorum’s strong opposition to gay marriage, abortion and his integrity in sexual relationships (unlike Newt Gingrich who is on his third marriage). But of course Evangelical obsession with sex goes far beyond the realm of politics. Practically everything Mark Driscoll says about sex goes on the internet and goes viral and books, software and conferences directed at helping Christians have sexual integrity is a huge industry. I bet you are reading this because I’m talking about sex. We like sex, we love to talk about it, we want to have more satisfying sex and we want to be free from sexual sin. And yes, some of this is quite appropriate, though not all.
But what if our obsession with sex keeps us from examining other areas of our heart and life where sin has been crouching at the door?
My thoughts on this come to me as I am preparing a Bible Study on Galatians for my church small group. I have been reading through No Other Gospel: 31 Reasons From Galatians Why Justification By Faith Alone is the Only Gospel by Josh Moody. Josh Moody is the pastor of College Church in Wheaton, Illinois. Whenever I prep something I check more technical commentaries (for Galatians I always look at Richard Longnecker’s Word Commentary and
Jimmy Dunn’s Black’s New Testament Commentary) but I also want to know how it preaches. This is what Josh Moody provides. For the most part he has solid exegesis (with a Reformed Evangelical bias) which attends to the text, but as a preacher he proclaims and draws out the implications for life. In his exposition of Galatians 1:11-12 (verses that are not about sex) he says this:
The gospel of sexual liberation is a gospel of man that hasn’t worked. Why are our inner cities facing great difficulties? Why do our men cave in to the addiction of lust? Why is there rising risk of abuse? The gospel of sexual liberation is running its course. We are told that the Victorians were too strict and prim with their sexual repression, but now we have the fire of sexuality let out of the fireplace and running rampant through the house and setting ablaze and burning out and destroying people in our society.
This is a fairly typical conservative Evangelical interpretation of where society has run amiss. Sexual freedom leads to the breakdown of marriage which in turn causes all hell to break loose. But really? Sexual liberation is why the inner city faces such difficulties?
Or is it that we as a church have failed to take care of the most vulnerable members of our society?
Could it be that we talk about sex so that we don’t have to take an honest look at where we as individuals and as a church have been complicit in injustice?
Have we done our part to care for widows and orphans (James 1:27)?
Have we cared for the resident aliens (Exodus 22:21) in our land or have we ghettoized them?
Are we guilty of racism? Are there those in our suburban congregations (like, lets say in Wheaton, Illinois) who engaged in ‘white flight’ leaving the inner-city when minorities moved in? Did we as a church combat housing policies which discriminated against African-Americans and other minorities (essentially creating the ghettos we have today)?
Are we doing all we can to combat injustice in our neighborhoods and society or are we turning a blind eye?
Does society’s libertine attitudes towards sex contribute to problems in society? Yes. But my problem with naming this as the sole cause of problems in the inner-city is that it doesn’t name our sin. It talks about the sins of those sex-crazed poor folk and not about the sins of an educated, mostly white evangelicalism which has failed to care for the poor.If our obsession with sex causes us to look in judgement on others, maybe we need to also look inward at the ways where our actions (and inaction) have contributed to societies ills.
I am absolutely in favor of sexual purity and fidelity to one’s spouse. Let’s just not end our discussion of sin there.
This is my fourth review of Paraclete Press‘s series of guides on the Holy Spirit. The other books I reviewed, each of the authors seek to articulate their understanding of the Holy Spirit from their own theological tradition (Jewish, Orthodox and Protestant). While the author of Who is the Holy Spirit?, Amos Yong, is deeply formed by the Charismatic and evangelical tradition this book examines the Holy Spirit by providing a close reading of the book of Acts and supplemented by material from Luke. The effect is that Yong is able to draw out some of the social and political implications of who the Spirit is and his activity in the world.
Right now, some of you may be saying, “the Holy Spirit I know, but who is Amos Yong? Why do I need to read this book?” Amos Yong is one of the most well-known and respected Pentecostal scholars working today. He is the J. Rodman Williams Professor of Theology at Regent University School of Divinity in Virginia Beach (as a graduate of Regent College, we call this the other Regent). Because Regent University was founded by Pat Robertson some may be tempted to write it off as a ‘right-wing institution’ but Yong’s analysis has implications for people on both the right and the left (note: I actually have no idea what Yong’s politics are, I just want to make sure you don’t think you know what he’s gonna say before you read the book).
This book came to fruition when the acquisitions editor at Paraclete Press read an article by Roger Olson in Christianity Today entitled, “A Wind that Swirls Everywhere: Amos Yong Thinks He Sees the Holy Spirit Working in Other Religions Too (note: the back of the book mistakenly attributes the article to Yong, but it is an article about Yong).” In response to this idea, Amos Yong went to work on exploring the material on the Spirit in Luke and Acts for a Sunday School class at his church. Who is the Holy Spirit? is divided into 39 chapters covering all of Acts and selections from Luke, and a discussion guide for each chapter.
Acts has been fertile ground for Charismatic reflection. Personally I have read through Acts to see evidence of the Spirit, miracles, to discover how to do (be) the church and to explore missional implications. What sets Yong’s book apart is that he focuses not only on where the Spirit is invoked, but what the Spirit evokes. He doesn’t just point out the Spirit’s presence but he asks us to open our eyes to discover that the scope of the Spirit’s work is bigger, more inclusive than we sometimes imagine. Yong writes:
I now believe that the Spirit is at work not just at the level of the individual but also at the level of society and its various political and economic structures; not just the otherworldly, spiritual level but also at the this-worldly level of the material and concrete domains of our lives; not just in and through the church but also in and through wider institutional, cultural and religious realities. In other words, I now think the world of the Holy Spirit is much wider than I’d guessed, and that the work of the Spirit is to redeem and transform our world as a whole along with all of its interconnected parts, systems and structures (x).
And so, Yong sets out to answer the question of Who is the Holy Spirit? not by giving us doctrinal formula and propositional truth, but by paying careful attention to the narrative of Luke-Acts and showing us the Spirit’s work. He explores how the Spirit brings and is bringing about the full promise of the Kingdom of God, how the Spirit overcomes divisions of language, ethnicity, nationality, gender and class, and how the Spirit brings about new freedom and liberation. This isn’t a denial of the Spirit’s individual and personal work within the human soul, but he probes the narrative also for wider socio-political implications. Acts provides rich fodder for reflection as he explores how the church is born through the Spirit’s work in overcoming divisions of language and culture at Pentecost and the Spirit keeps impelling their witness outward from Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria and to the ends of the earth. Each chapter explores a text (or set of texts), discovers what it is saying, the implications of the Spirit’s work, and explores the implications for our own context.
I found this book refreshing! Too often confessional scholars examine spiritual realities in the text while critical scholarship focuses on the political aspects of the early church. It is exciting to read a Bible study which explores both of these poles. Yong’s bibliography, while only showing the references he deems ‘accessible,’ displays his willingness to tackle the issue and draw on a wide range of scholarship. As this is not a scholarly book, there are no footnotes. Most people probably like this better, but I missed them and my reading would have been enriched by knowing where he drew various aspects from and being able to chase things back. But lucky for me, this isn’t the only thing Yong has written on the topic, and I will get my chance.
Yong’s critics (even Olson) point out that his views weaken the need for evangelism by de-emphasizing Christian particularity and paving the way for pluralism and syncretism. This seems hardly fair. By rooting his reflections in the book of Acts, Yong is able to affirm both the continuities and discontinuities between other religions and the gospel. Yong says:
If the work of the Spirit brought about renewal, restoration and re-appropriation of all that was good and true in the social, cultural, and religious spheres of human life, it could also be seen from another perspective that the coming of the Spirit turned the world upside down in each of these domains of human endeavor. Continuity or discontinuity, when and how? These are questions that require ongoing discernment of the Spirit’s presence and activity(160)
This has implications for how we engage in mission. We do not dismiss other religions out of hand as utterly false; we do look for evidence of where the Spirit is at work (like Paul in the Aeropagus).
This book would be great for personal reflection, or as a curriculum for a small group Bible Study. I certainly think it would inspire a rich discussion of the Spirit’s role, presence and work in our lives and in the church. I am not sure that Yong answers, or intends to give us a firm answer to the question: Who is the Holy Spirit?. Instead through his calling to attention the widening scope of the Spirit’s work, he helps us to see that the Spirit is bigger and more wonderful than we have previously imagined.
Thank you to Paraclete press for providing me with a copy of this book in exchange for this review.
Men’s ministry leader Patrick Morley is an expert on men. He must be, he keeps writing books about them. The Man in the Mirror sold more than three million copies, he has a Bible study with 5000 men (okay most of those watch the webcast) and he has had coffee with thousands of guys. He also has a Ph.D in management and races his 1974 Porsche 911 for sport. All this tells me, he knows and understands what it means to be a man!
Okay, so the case for Morely’s expertise may be laid on a little thick, the proof is in the pudding. Does Man Alive prove his mastery over manhood? Well yes and no. Morely is complementarian in his approach to gender roles (which I am not) but most of his advice is sound. A lot of what he says would applies equally to both genders but men behaving badly don’t always get the message. His ‘seven primal needs’ which, when addressed, can transform your spiritual life can be summarized as follows: the need for community, the need for faith in a benevolent God, that one’s life has purpose, that there is freedom from sin/addictions, the need for transcendence, the need for love/intimacy.
None of these needs seem particularly gender specific to me but I agree with Morely that if you address these needs of the soul, you will become a better man (providing you already are a man, otherwise I can’t help you). This book is full of personal stories and stories of men that Morely has been privileged to walk alongside. It is evident that Morely has helped men come out of their isolated shells, fulfill their God-given potential, and grow in their love for God and others. So, yes, Morely has some good stuff to say here.
I agree with Morely that part of what men want is to love and be loved, do something significant with our lives, and that we were created for transcendence.
Where I would critique Man Alive is that Morely seems to apply an instrumental and formulaic approach to spiritual transformation. The stories shared here are all victory stories. Sometimes men follow God and their lives still fall apart. With Morely, I trust in God’s providential care, but I wonder how helpful this book would be for those guys who have been ‘doing the steps’ but are still stuck in the mire. I know, because Morely tells me, that he has walked alongside men facing divorce, contemplating suicide, and other really bad stuff. So I know he probably sees the reality of things, but what is presented here is a little too simplistic.
That being said, this book would be read profitably in church men’s groups and ministries. Each chapter has questions for reflection and discussion and there is a brief leader’s guide at the back of the book (and a two page bio of all Morely’s accomplishments).
I received this book for free from WaterBrook Multnomah Publishing Group for this review
Here is part 3 of my reflections on ‘traveling the text.’ Using the metaphor of various modes of travel I have explored different ways of reading the Bible. We’ve examined flying through the text where we got a bird’s eye view of the Biblical story. And we have looked at the metaphor of driving where we talked about how we drive to get somewhere (purpose), we drive on particular roadways (read the Bible in the way its meant to be read), and obey the road signs (read in community). Now I want to talk about a whole different method of travel: Feet. This includes walking, running or hiking. Obviously all these metaphors have been plundered when talking about the Spiritual life, but I want to continue with a focus on what they can tell us, specifically, about reading the Bible
I am a father of three and that means I go on walks with my family to get them out of the house; I run to get some time alone and get some exercise(and escape my family). The thing is in the U.S. people generally don’t walk to get anywhere because it is inefficient. The statistics tell us that the average American walks less than 400 yards a day. Compare that with Kenyan women who walk, on average 8 hours a day carrying 45 lbs of water. You see, Americans don’t walk anywhere because we have to, we walk (or run) because we want to. It is something we do for leisure!
I Went Walking
The first two modes of transformation pretty much spells out most of what it means to read responsibly with an eye to the wider context. But it is when we learn to slow down and walk through the text that we really get to know our Bibles. In The Unforseen Wilderness Wendell Berry reflects on having driven the freeway to a walking path along the Kentucky Red River Gorge:
In the middle of the afternoon I left off being busy at work, and drove through traffic to the freeway, and then for a solid hour or more I drove sixty or seventy miles an hour, hardly aware of the country I was passing through, because on the freeway one does not have to be. The landscape has been subdued so that one may drive over it at seventy miles an hour without any concession whatsoever to one’s whereabouts. One might as well be flying. Though one is in Kentucky, one is not experiencing Kentucky; one is experiencing the highway which might as well be in nearly any hill country east of the Mississippi(51-52).
My whole use of the travel metaphor in reading the Bible is predicated on the idea that the pace that you travel determines what you see. Berry is clear, unless you slow down, you can’t say you’ve actually been to a place:
The faster one goes the more strain there is on one’s sense, the more they fail to take in, the more confusion they must tolerate or gloss over–the longer it takes to bring the mind to a stop in the presence of anything. Though the freeway passes through the heart of the forest, the motorist remains several hours’ journey by foot from what is living at the edge of the right-of-way.(52-53)
I certainly know how slowing down has caused me to see things in a new way. For several months I have lived in a small gated community in a family owned house. Over the past several years I have stayed at this house often, but never ventured into the neighborhood. As a result, I didn’t know how the roads fit together (they wind and turn in on each other) or where any of the playgrounds were. Occasionally I used to get lost driving in endless loops. Now living here, I walk and run through the neighborhood. In the spring, I saw which neighbor has the prettiest garden and which yard had the most promising fruit trees. In the late summer, I knew where the sweetest blackberries hung. My jogs explored every roadway, footpath, hill and incline nearby. I know every loop and every dead-end. It is by slowing down, I have finally entered into a place which I have visited often.
How does this relate to Bible reading? How many of us rush through our daily ‘quiet times’ with our reading plans and devotionals and never really slow down enough to see where the Spirit of God is beckoning? If we really want to enter into the land of the Bible, to know the contours of the landscape, we can’t rely on what we see from a car window or our bird’s-eye view overhead. We must discover times of leisure to slow down and really enter into the text.
…I strut my stuff…
Part of slowing down in the text is just for the fun of it. If you want to grow in your intimacy with God, I think it is essential that we learn to play in the pages of the Bible. I think it is intriguing that as Evangelicals we have lots of advice about reading the Bible responsibly and working through the dynamics of Biblical interpretation. We have reading plans, devotionals, commentaries, study guides. But if we are really in a personal relationship with God and the Bible is where we hear His voice speak the clearest, maybe we should find a way to enjoy it. If I spent my entire time ‘working’ on my marriage but never took the time to enjoy my wife, my marriage would be lousy. For a deepening faith, it is crucial that we make the space for play.
So what are some of the ways we can have fun in our Bible reading? Here are somethings I enjoy
1. Walk the same path you did yesterday. You really get to know a place when you travel it lots. Do you have a favorite walking path through a park or a forest? Is there some place you go, just to experience the beauty of creation? Why not do this with the Bible!?As I have read and re-read some of the Psalms, there imagery has become more vivid. By going over the text again and again, you memorize it. Despite what you remember about cramming for exams in college, memorizing can be fun. In highschool I used to quote the Song of Songs to girls at church whose hair reminded me of goats descending down mount Gilead. As an adult, I attended a Bible study where were supposed to recite a memory verse each week. I always tried to find the most outlandish one. As a result, there are a bunch of interesting verses in my head that I know just for the fun of it. When you memorize something, it becomes a part of you and you can enter into it a whole new way. Why not walk a path until you know every tree?
2. Walk where you aren’t supposed to- When you are driving your car, you are restricted to the roads, and constrained by traffic laws. When you are walking, there are much fewer constraints. Walk across the front lawn, take shortcuts and jump fences. When talking about the metaphor of driving, I talked about the need to follow directions and traffic laws. But I think there is also a place for bending rules. When I am reading the text playfully, I am less concerned with responsible interpretation, paying attention more to what a text evokes in you, more than what it says. Of course there are boundaries, pedestrians can still be hit by cars and not all trespassing is benign. But the fact remains that some of our best spiritual insights comes when we think outside the box and let our minds and hearts wander a bit while we read. Where does your reading take you?
3. Explore new ground. Sometimes when I am running, I may notice a road or path I haven’t travelled before and just decided to take it and see where I end up. Frankly the willingness to drop your plans and go a whole new direction opens you up for the joy of discovering new things. Sometimes I become goal centered in my reading plans, wanting to read through certain sections in x number of days. Reading playfully demands that I scrap thinking about reading as work, and sometimes read just for the fun of it. This can mean paying attention to what other Biblical references are referred to in the text and taking the time to follow them back (i.e. Old Testament quotations in the New), stopping reading to research different features of the Biblical landscape in commentaries, journaling wildly about the implications of what you are reading, making your own Bible puns, etc). When you are exploring new terrain, there is freedom to run off in different directions.
4. Reading well involves finding ways to internalize what you are reading Using the text to inspire your creativity One way of slowing down and having fun with the text is doing something creative. This can be art, a poem, a song, etc. Once I lead a bible study where I read a narrative I had written on the passage and then had everyone re-read the passage to see where my story got it wrong. Another time, I assigned characters from a Bible story to people in a group and had them retell the story from that perspective. By finding ways to be creative, we each internalized the text in new ways. My friend Randall writes a haiku based on the lectionary text (read them at Lectionary Haiku). This is his playful way of internalizing what he’s reading. What is yours?
…I don’t even know why
I grew up in an Evangelical culture where there were Bible trivia games, songs sung, discussion about Biblical characters, art and poetry produced, kids crafts, etc. None of these things involve work but through them I know my Bible and my God just a little bit better. In his book on the nature of play, aptly titled Play, Stuart Brown says “Play Activities don’t seem to have any survival value. The don’t help in getting money or food. They are not done for their practical value. Play is done for its own sake. That’s why some people think of it as a waste of time. (17)” The fact is the ‘aimlessness’ of play makes it play. If you attach too firm of a of a goal to it, it ceases to be play(or only play?). This is one of the chief differences between ‘driving through the text’ and ‘walking through it,’ remember in today’s western culture, we drive to get places, we walk because we want to.
This does not mean that ‘play’ in the text does nothing. In fact it is in the playful appropriation of the text that we begin to really know and understand the Spirit who inspired these pages. Brown goes on his book to explore how play teaches both animals and people crucial skills and ways of navigating their social environment. The thing is, working on the text tackles an issue directly. Play is about indirection. You play in the Bible because it’s fun; through your play the Spirit is at work, beckoning, shaping, re-shaping. When you read for the fun of it, God plays too.
This is the third book in Paraclete Press‘s Holy Spirit series which I have reviewed. I now feel like I can say a little bit about the series and what I have appreciated about it (you can read previous reviews here or here). If you are really only interested in the orthodox tradition, skip the next few paragraphs and my review there.
First of all, each of the authors in the series embody their particular tradition. Rachel Timoner wrote Breath of Life to present a Jewish understanding of the spirit of God and she continually references the rabbinic tradition and Jewish history to explicate her points. In presenting Protestant views of the Holy Spirit, Edmund Rubarczyk describes individual thinkers, how they challenged prevailing views (protested) and their impact on our understanding of the Spirit. I didn’t see how each of their approaches embodied the traditions they were describing and representing until I read Fr. John Oliver’s description of the Holy Spirit in the Orthodox tradition. A prayer from the orthodox liturgy frames the entire structure of the book and Father Oliver’s reflections. Not only do each of these authors describe the Spirit through the lens of their tradition, but the unique spirituality of each tradition informs their approach.
Secondly, I applaud the ecumenism of each author. They write from their own spiritual tradition, and do not sacrifice their own identity. It is in offering the insights of their own traditions that each author has contributed to a deeper understanding of the Spirit for us all. Too often ecumenical dialogues and discussion of God devolve into what we can all minimally affirm and doesn’t value the unique contributions. It is so refreshing to read a series on the Holy Spirit where each author is true to their theological convictions but presents them in a winsome and engaging way, offering them to the wider church (or in the case of Timoner, beyond her own religious faith). When unique visions are offered, they are given here without polemics.
Third, all of these books are thoughtfully engaging but accessible to the general reader. This is sometimes a hard balance, but each of the author manages to convey something of substance without getting mired in academic discussions and over complicating the matter. Nor do they retreat to shallow waters. I commend the whole series to you, on to the review:
The Giver of Life: The Holy Spirit in the Orthodox Tradition
Father John Oliver is priest of St. Elizabeth Orthodox Christian Church in Murfreesboro, TN and is a graduate and (former?) faculty at St. Tikhon’s Orthodox Theological Seminary as instructor of Old and New Testament and American Religious History. My first exposure to him was through the Hearts and Minds podcast. 
Here he explores what the Orthodox church’s understanding of Spirit, exemplified by quotations and stories from the Christian East. But more than that, this book is an exercise in prayer. Maximus the Confessor (580-662 C.E.) somewhere said, “Theology is prayer and prayer is theology-Theology without prayer is demonic.” Thus it is fitting that reflection on the Spirit in the Orthodox tradition is given within the context of prayer. Each chapter begins with this epigram:
O heavenly King, the Comforter, the Spirit of truth, Who art everywhere present and fillest all things; Treasury of good things and Giver of life; come and abide in us, and cleanse us from every impurity,and save our souls, O Gracious Lord.
This ancient prayer to the Holy Spirit, often uttered for Morning and Evening prayer, frames the reflections in this book with each chapter reflecting on a phrase from the prayer. Here is the table of contents which shows how Oliver breaks the prayer up:
1. O Heavenly King
2. The Comforter
3. The Spirit of Truth
4. Who Art Everywhere Present and Fillest All Things
5. Treasury of Good Things
6. Giver of Life
7. Come Abide in Us
8. Cleanse Us From Every Impurity and Save Our Souls
9 O Gracious Lord
By probing this prayer, Oliver is able to both probe Orthodox reflection on the Spirit and the grandeur of all the Spirit is and does. In these pages the Spirit emerges as creator and king, God’s comforting presence, the Spirit of Truth who exists in unity with the Father and Son, as both transcendent and immanent, as giver of gifts and God’s abiding gift, the one who brings life, as the one who cleanses our sins and brings us to perfection in God, the gracious God who leads us from our depths to new heights. Along the way, Oliver quotes some of the great saints of the eastern church, quotations and stories and shares how the sacraments nourish life in the Spirit for the faithful.
There is a lot to chew on. I personally love patristics and was pleased to read many quotations from the early church (Cappadocians and desert Christians are well represented). I am not Orthodox, at least with a capital ‘O,’ but loved the prayerful framework and the Spirt in which Oliver offered this to the wider church. There is little I would disagree with in the book, even if my own emphasis would be somewhat different. Oliver stays clear of theologically contentious matters (i.e. he discusses the Nicene Creed but doesn’t pick a fight with the West for changing it) but gives us something that is both true to his theological tradition and instructive for us all. Thus far, this is my favorite book in the series!
Next week I will review the final book (to date) in Paraclete’s Holy Spirit series: Amos Yong’s Who is the Holy Spirit? I am very excited about this because Amos Yong is one of the most well respected Pentecostal scholars and I am sure that his exploration of the Spirit will widen our vision for who the Spirit is and all he does for us!
[Thank you to Paraclete press for providing me with a review copy of Giver of Life and the other books in this series in exchange for my review. I was not instructed to write a positive review but an honest one, which I have done here.]
In the Evangelical world, you would be hard-pressed to find a figure more polarizing than Mark Driscoll (except for maybe Rob Bell. Those crazy, Mars Hill Pastors!). Those of a more moderate or progressive bent, find Driscoll’s theology too narrow, judgmental and misogynistic; Many conservatives stand with Driscoll in his theological commitments, but find his bombastic style, insensitivity and general jerkiness, off-putting.
Personally, I have some fundamental disagreements with Driscoll and concerns with his approach. Chief among these is my commitment to Biblical Egalitarianism and I find some of his comments are damaging to women, based in antiquated gender stereotypes (generally post-industrial, pre-feminist stereotypes), and arrogant. And so when Thomas Nelson, was offering his book free in exchange for reviews, I opted in just to see where the man (and wife) go amiss in their discussion of marriage; however, I found that while I disagree with the Driscolls in important ways, much of what they had to say here, was thoughtful, balanced and helpful. So read on Driscoll fans, I promise not to smear his (ahem) good name, but nor will I let him off easy!
Real Marriage is divided into three parts. In Part 1, the Driscolls address what makes a good marriage, discussing the roles of both husband and wife, their mutual responsibility to one another and ways to nurture their relationship. In Part II, they turn their attention to sex/sexuality (this is the biggest section of the book). Part 3 of the book consists of a single chapter, addressing how to ‘reverse engineer your marriage’ which involves casting a vision for the type of marriage you want to end up with and making a plan to get there. Part 3, despite it’s brevity is quite good. Parts 1 and 2 are generally pretty good with some issues. As an outline for this review, I will explore the Good, the Bad & the Ugly (with apologies to Clint Eastwood). On to my fair and balanced review (Fox newsworthy):
The Good
For the most part, I liked this book and found myself liking Mark and Grace Driscoll a little more as I read. Mark and Grace shares vulnerablely about their relational and sexual past, their marital struggles and offers advice they personally found helpful in their own marriage together. I was pleasantly surprised that their section on marriage has a chapter which underscores mutuality (showing how a good marriage starts with a good friendship). They also have good things to say about the gift of sexuality and do not pull punches in addressing sinfulness (i.e. abuse, pornography, selfishness). Things are said carefully here; I doubt that Driscoll will feel the need to recant or apologize for anything written here (as he has humbly done on occasion when he’s shot his mouth off). Perhaps the addition of his wife, Grace, has made him more gracious in his presentation! The Driscolls dispense good advice about cultivating intimacy.
Also, while I hedge and differentiate my position from Driscoll, I respect his commitment to being Biblical in his approach. This is a commitment I share with the Driscolls and actually agree with them on good many things, though not without reservations and concerns.I am done talking about the good things. On to the bad!
The Bad
Beyond my fundamental disagreement with the Driscolls the thing that is done badly in this book is exegesis. Mark Driscoll has a Master’s degree in exegetical theology and should be much better at this, but he’s not (and yes I am singling out Mark on this one). This book is arranged topically and so doesn’t explore any one text in-depth. Often Driscoll proof texts and occasionally just misuses passages. In the chapter entitled, “Can We ______?” Driscoll uses Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 6:12 as a taxonomy to apply to sexual questions (p.192): “All things are lawful for me, but not all things are beneficial. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.” From this, Driscoll proposes three questions: 1)Is it permissible? 2) Is it helpful? 3) Is it enslaving? (192).
I agree that this can be a useful taxonomy in assessing particular issues, but Driscoll’s employment of it fails to account for the fact that Paul, in saying “All things are lawful for me” is quoting and rhetorically dismantling a Corinthian slogan. Someone with a master’s degree in Exegetical theology, ought to take more care here. Elsewhere he handles scripture better, such as his explication of the Song of Songs, but this book is really inconsistent in regards to the Bible.
Take for instance how he handles ‘submission.’ Driscoll argues that it is the role of the husband to provide leadership to the household (and the church), it is the role of women to submit. They do balance this by addressing the limits of submission (women should not submit to abuse, or to commit a sin), but this is generally what they argue, for all cases regardless of personality, temperament and gifting of each spouse. The basis of their case comes from their reading of the Biblical household codes, particularly the one that we read of in Ephesians 5:21-33. Wives are told to submit (vs. 22) because the husbands are their head as Christ is the head of the church; Thus women submit, men lead.
But this is a skewed picture of this passage. The section on women submitting (5:22-24) is bracketed by two verses which the Driscolls quote but fail to adequately expound. 5:21 says “Submit yourself to one another.” This sets this whole passage in the context of mutual submission (not just wives to husbands). In fact the word used for submit in this passage (ὑποτασσόμενοι), is said here, but not in verse 22, when Paul tells wives to submit. This reads literally “Submit yourselves one to another, wives to your husbands…” The context is mutual submission, not just wives to husbands.
The second verse they fail to properly expound is verse 25: “Husbands love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.” They quote this and talk about the husband’s loving leadership, but not about what it means to love like the Jesus who laid his life down. The Driscolls and I can disagree on egalitarian/complementarian concerns, but they need to trumpet the mutuality and shared submission more than they do here.
The Ugly
Finally, there is the ugly side of this book. The Driscoll’s spend a great deal of their section on sex, talking about sexual responsibility and what can couples do sexually. They give the green light to just about everything from anal sex, cyber-sex, mutual masturbation, roleplaying, etc. Pretty much their modus operandi is if the Bible doesn’t forbid it, and it doesn’t involve anyone else but husband and wife, go for it (yes, they also ask if it is helpful or enslaving). They did not, here say women or men had to perform certain sexual acts they feel uncomfortable with, but they do imply that within the context of marriage, you should be open to experimentation.
While I agree that sexuality is a gift to be celebrated within the context of marriage, and there is some freedom in how it can be expressed, I think the level of detail here is unnecessary and unhelpful. What you can do sexually in marriage is the wrong question if you ask me. I like the title of one of Marva Dawn’s books, Sexual Character: Beyond Technique to Intimacy. I think the Driscoll’s fetish with what you can or can’t do sexually emphasizes technique, sometimes at the expense of intimacy. Healthy Christian sexuality is about mutually sharing, more than about experimentation.
