Elliot Ritzema

Author: Elliot

  • Book Review: The King Jesus Gospel

    The problem that Scot McKnight’s The King Jesus Gospel is intended to address is that the way evangelical Christians preach the gospel doesn’t often lead to lives characterized by discipleship. Evangelical evangelism has been geared toward getting people to make decisions (“accepting Jesus into your heart”), but “we lose at least 50 percent of those who make decisions” (20, italics in original). People become “saved,” but they don’t become disciples of Jesus. Clearly, the evangelical understanding of gospel and evangelism is not leading to changed lives as often as it should.

    After calling attention to this problem, McKnight asks, “What is the gospel?” He turns to the New Testament–Paul, Jesus, and Peter–and concludes that the gospel “is declaring the story of Israel as resolved in the Story of Jesus” (79). He argues that Christianity left behind the emphasis on story in favor of an emphasis on salvation during the Reformation; the story-formed Creeds were de-emphasized in favor of confessions (McKnight mentions in particular the Augsburg Confession and the Genevan Confession). He takes pains to point out that the Reformers can’t be blamed for the “salvation culture” that we’ve ended up with. However, the seeds of a salvation culture were planted during the Reformation’s shift from an emphasis on story (of which salvation is a part) to an emphasis on salvation (without the rest of the gospel).

    McKnight closes the book with five things that are necessary to regaining a gospel culture:

    1. We have to become people of the Story (153).
    2. We need to immerse ourselves even more into the Story of Jesus (153).
    3. We need to see how the apostles’ writings take the Story of Israel and the Story of Jesus into the next generation and into a different culture, and how this generation led all the way to our generation (155).
    4. We need to counter the stories that bracket and reframe our story (157).
    5. We need to embrace this story so that we are saved and can be transformed by the gospel story (158).

    I would recommend this book, but not on its own. It needs other books to flesh out the full picture. It does a good job of arguing that evangelical understandings of the gospel have led to a salvation culture rather than a gospel culture, but doesn’t go into detail about what a gospel culture looks like when it is lived out (McKnight himself has written a book on that subject called One.Life: Jesus Calls, We Follow). Also, and this is not really a fault of the book, but I am concerned that as a result of McKnight’s argument there may be people who get an impression that the gospel is “either/or”: that is, it is either the story of Jesus fulfilling the story of Israel, or it is salvation. In reality, salvation is part of the gospel. McKnight makes that point (88), and I think it is very important that we do not lose sight of it.

  • Book Review: Job 38-42

    This is the third volume in David J.A. Clines’s monumental study of Job. The first volume came out in 1989, the second in 2006, and though the final volume was delivered to the publisher in 2008, it has finally seen the light of day here at the end of 2011. It consists of commentary on Job 38-42 (God’s response to Job, and the epilogue) in the first half of the book, and an extensive bibliography takes up the second half.

    The great strength of this commentary is its comprehensiveness. Perhaps no reader will agree with all of Clines’s interpretive decisions, but he does a good job of laying out the possibilities before he settles on a solution. While some readers might wish that Clines would “get to the point” a bit sooner (I did feel this way on occasion), the helpful aspect is that he leaves no stone unturned. Rather than offering a conclusion without justification, he interacts with other opinions. I came away with a much deeper knowledge of these five chapters, and how they have been interpreted, than I had before.

    Finally, a note about the format of the commentary. I’ve read several reviews of various volumes in the Word series that are critical of the format. For each passage (e.g, Job 38:1-40:2), there is a bibliography, the author’s translation, textual notes, notes on the form/structure/setting, verse-by-verse comment, and a final summary explanation. While the format is idiosyncratic, I think it is not so bad once you get used to it. If you are uninterested, for example, in the textual notes, they are all collected together so you can feel free to skip that section. Even if you don’t care for the format, this is still a commentary worth consulting.

  • Sermon: Why Doesn’t God Do Something?

    On Sunday, I preached a sermon at my church. It was the first Sunday of Advent, and I decided to preach on Isaiah 64:1-9, the lectionary text for the day. You can find the audio of the sermon here.

  • Book Review: Decision Points

    Instead of proceeding chronologically, George W. Bush structures this memoir of his presidency around the various “decision points” from his time as president and before: his decision to quit drinking, to run for governor and then president, to put the United States on war footing after 9/11, to invade Iraq, how to deal with the financial crisis in 2008, etc.

    While he does express regret at times (e.g., that there was a “Mission Accomplished” banner on the USS Abraham Lincoln in 2003, that he flew over New Orleans after Katrina rather than landing), he is confident that the major decisions he made were the best ones to make under the circumstances. In other words, if a decision is big enough to warrant its own chapter, then it was the right decision. This confidence can sometimes be maddening, but I believe that it flows inevitably from Bush’s understanding of leadership as primarily concerned with decision-making. Since Bush believes that decision-making is what makes a good or bad leader, he is heavily invested in his major decisions being the right ones. Through much of the book, he comes across as a genuinely likable person: thoughtful, caring, empathetic, desiring to put the needs of others before his own. But when it comes to evaluating the consequences of his major decisions, it’s like he puts blinders on. He believes that major decisions are what make or break a leader, and he wants to think of himself as a good leader. Therefore, his major decisions were the right ones.

    I recommend this book, but not because I agree with every decision Bush made. In fact, I agreed with some and not others. This book is unique in that it provides a view of historic events from 2000 to 2008 that is available nowhere else, and for that reason it is valuable. Like him or not, Bush was the most powerful political figure in the world for eight years. Learning about his decisions, and the rationale behind those decisions, is important for anyone seeking to gain an understanding of what happened in the first decade of the 21st century, and why.

    Note: I received this book for free from WaterBrook Multnomah Publishing Group for this review.

  • Book Review: The Documents in the Case

    This is the fifth Dorothy Sayers mystery I’ve read, and it was different from the rest. In the first place, as the title indicates, it is not a straightforward third-person narrative. It is a series of documents (some letters, some written statements) regarding a man’s mysterious death. In the second place, it is the only book which Sayers co-wrote. And in the third place, it does not involve Sayers’s famous detective, Peter Wimsey.

    For all the unusualness, it was an interesting read. The earliest of the documents begins well before the man’s death, so the death itself does not take place until nearly halfway through the book. There are a few places where the narrative lags, but I’ve come to appreciate these places in Sayers’s books. They are where she (in the words of her characters) tends to make her most thought-provoking statements about the nature of human existence. For example, this conversation took place near the end of the book between Perry, a priest and Matthews, a biologist:

    “So here we all are. I never thought you’d stick to it, Perry. Which has made your job hardest–the War or people like us?”

    “The War,” said Perry, immediately. “It has taken the heart out of people.”

    “Yes. It showed things up a bit,” said Matthews. “Made it hard to believe in anything.”

    “No,” replied the priest. “Made it easy to believe and difficult not to believe–in anything. Just anything. They believe in everything in a languid sort of way–in you, in me, in Waters [a chemist], in Hoskyns [a physicist], in mascots, in spiritualism, in education, in the daily papers–why not? It’s easier, and the various things cancel out, and so make it unnecessary to take any definite steps in any direction.” (200-201)

    If you are a fan of Sayers, you’ll enjoy this book. But for those who are just starting with Sayers, I’d recommend beginning with a book that has Peter Wimsey in it.

  • Book Review: Basic Christian

    John Stott had gradually slipped off the world stage over the last few years. But when he died at the age of 90 this past July, suddenly he became an object of conversation. He was without peer as an evangelical Christian leader in Britain and the world. It is a testament to his talents as a bridge-builder that tributes to him came from all over the world and all over the spectrum of political and religious belief. There was even a tribute from Nicholas Kristof in the New York Times. Reading it, I was reminded that David Brooks had said in the same newspaper in 2004 that “if evangelicals could elect a pope, Stott is the person they would likely choose.”

    This biography by Roger Steer was written in 2009, and was based in part on conversations with Stott and several of his friends. It traces Stott’s life from his early days as the son of a prominent physician, to his days at Cambridge and his decision to become a pastor, to his time as curate and rector of All Souls in London and his rise to international prominence. It gives details about his many travels, his contributions to the evangelical Christian movement and his friendships with other well-known people.

    In it, Stott comes across as a man with a gift for friendship, a sharp mind, a sense of humor and a deep commitment to Jesus as Lord of all of life. The book is not afraid to present Stott “warts and all,” but there really aren’t many warts. Despite his gift for friendship, Stott could be reserved. With his great intelligence and disciplined lifestyle, he could sometimes be impatient with those who were more sloppy in their thinking or less disciplined in their living than he was. However, he was a man who was conscious of his faults and humble enough to admit them.

    Stott has long been a hero of mine, and this book did nothing to change that. If anything, it made me miss Stott even more. He was able to remain biblically faithful and speak charitably with those whom he disagreed. The latter characteristic is in especially short supply these days, both in the church and the world. I’d recommend this book to anyone who is interested in Stott’s life, especially those who might be intimidated by Timothy Dudley-Smith’s larger two-volume biography.

  • Book Review: Between Heaven and Mirth

    Martin, a Jesuit priest who has been called “The Official Chaplain of Colbert Nation,” is convinced that joy, humor and laughter are central to spirituality. He calls readers’ attention to humor in the Bible and in the lives of spiritual leaders throughout the centuries.

    Most of the jokes that he tells and examples that he gives are from his own Catholic tradition – all the cartoons on the cover seem to be of Catholics, save Martin Luther, who had a well-known spat with the Catholic Church. However, he does give space to humor in Protestantism and even other religions. When writing about humor, there is always the danger of being unfunny. Thankfully, Martin escapes this danger. This was a fun read, and it was fun in large part because Martin is able to poke fun at himself. I had no idea there were so many jokes about Jesuits.

    Here is a link to an interview with Martin at Duke Divinity School’s Faith & Leadership blog. This is a great quote from that interview:

    We feel drawn to religious leaders with a sense of humor. It shows us that they understand their essential poverty of spirit and their own reliance on God. It shows humility, which is also essential in the spiritual life. You take God seriously, Jesus seriously and the gospel seriously, but you shouldn’t take yourself too seriously.

    To which I can only say: Amen.

  • Book Review: Going Deep

    We all know people who could best be described as “deep.” They know who they are; they live their lives with wisdom; they give good advice; they respond to life’s difficult situations in a way that most of us could only dream of.

    How do you become a deep person? If you’re a pastor, how do you cultivate deep people in your church? Gordon MacDonald sets out to answer these questions in the book Going Deep: Becoming a Person of Influence. He does not answer the questions directly, but instead explores them in a fictionalized format. He tells the story of himself and his wife Gail (the only real-life characters in the book) as they attempt to grow deep people in their church. Over the course of the book, they explore what it means to be deep, look at models of how to cultivate deep people, come up with a plan to cultivate depth in a small group in their church over the course of a year, and execute that plan, dealing with bumps and challenges along the way.

    I enjoyed the fictionalized format of the book (which MacDonald tried earlier in his book Who Stole My Church?), and I appreciate that MacDonald decided to explore the concept of cultivating depth this way. It made the book easy to read, and I think it gives readers a tangible idea of what cultivating depth might look like and how long it might take that would be harder to pull off in a non-fiction format. My only criticism is that the story started off slowly. I was not really hooked until probably a third of the way through, which, in a 383-page book, is a long time. Early in the book, there was no conflict that I wanted to see resolved, and no mystery that I wanted to see solved. I think that MacDonald could have done a better job of hooking readers early by cutting down on introductory matters and getting into the action more quickly.

    In spite of the slow start, I’d recommend this book, especially to those pastors who are interested in growing deep people in their churches.

    Thanks to Thomas Nelson for a review copy of this book. I was not asked to give a positive review.

  • Book Review: Integrity

    Popular psychology books get a bad rap. So do business books. That means Henry Cloud’s Integrity: the Courage to Meet the Demands of Reality, which fits in both categories, is not supposed to be a good book. But it is.

    Early in the book, Cloud tells the story of a company he consulted for. The CEO didn’t know what to do about one of his employees. This employee was very profitable for the company, but he was very difficult to work with. He caused other good employees to leave, his presence was bad for company morale, and the CEO had to spend a lot of time dealing with the effects this employee had on others. Cloud then informed the CEO that every person has two aspects of the “wake” they leave behind them: the tasks and the relationships. If you only look at the tasks, you don’t see the whole picture. If you ignore someone’s character and only look at the “bottom line,” you’re blinding yourself to a huge chunk of reality. This eventually leads to failure, because character affects the bottom line in unforeseen ways.

    Cloud then spends the rest of the book looking at six aspects of integrity. A person with integrated character:

    1. Creates and maintains trust.
    2. Is able to see and face reality.
    3. Works in a way that brings results.
    4. Embraces negative realities and solves them.
    5. Causes growth and increase.
    6. Achieves transcendence and meaning in life.

    One unfortunate part of the book (which came out in 2006) is that Cloud uses Tiger Woods as a positive example of someone with character. Woods, he says, was able to focus on growth in his golf game despite overwhelming success. He wasn’t satisfied with how he was playing, even when he was winning. Of course, the revelations about Woods’s private life only came out later.

    But using Woods as an example doesn’t weaken what Cloud is saying. He says that someone with an un-integrated character can be successful in many areas of life. A person can leave a very positive task wake and a negative relationship wake. I wonder if this characterization could also be applied to Steve Jobs. I have read several articles about him in the past week, and the consensus seems to be that, while he was brilliant and a visionary, he was a very difficult person to work with. Here is an extended quote from Cloud:

    [S]ometimes people think that it is the lack of development that got someone to the place where he is. I hear this all the time when people talk about leadership character. They say, “Well, it is his drivenness and dictator personality that made him so successful. It is a problem in that it makes him difficult to work with, but without it he wouldn’t be where he is.” Wrong! What they are calling “drivenness” means an unbalanced achiever who is aggressive about getting the goals accomplished, but absolutely immature or terrible in working with people, or so narcissistic that he is unconfrontable and has a “God complex.”

    That is not what made him successful. It is what created the collateral damage along his path toward success. His initiative, assertiveness, good use of being aggressive, brains, charm, strategic thinking, and other things made him successful, in spite of the imbalance and narcissism, not because of it. If he integrated those aspects of his character as well, the good ones that made him successful would not disappear! They would be augmented by other skills and make him even more powerful, not less. There often seems to be a fear against becoming a balanced person, as if accomplishment only belongs to the truly dysfunctional. (266-7)

    This book isn’t groundbreaking; it’s filled with a lot of common sense, but sometimes common sense isn’t all that common. I came away from it with a greater understanding of integrity and how it plays out in a work environment. It confirmed my suspicion that only caring about the bottom line can actually be harmful to the bottom line. Not only that, but it was a good challenge for me to grow in my own character.

  • The Goldilocks Principle and Journalism

    I read three articles recently that put me in mind of the fairy tale “Goldilocks and the Three Bears.” In it, three bears head out for an afternoon trip to the mall or someplace while a local vagrant, Goldilocks, breaks into their home. She tastes the porridge they have left out, saying that Papa Bear’s is “too hot,” Mama Bear’s is “too cold,” and Baby Bear’s is “just right.” She does a similar thing with the bears’ three chairs and beds, finding two extremes before settling on the third one that is “just right.” Eventually the bears come back and find her in their home. She is scared straight and becomes a productive member of society.

    When I read these three articles over a couple of days, I decided that the difference between them could be viewed as a difference in how the writer views the subject. One was “too hot,” one was “too cold,” and the last was “just right.”

    Too hot: Richard Dawkins, an Original Thinker who Bashes Orthodoxy. This article, while presenting some interesting background, reads like it was written by a card-carrying member of the Dawkins Fan Club. It is no sin to like your subject, but it is not a good thing to like your subject so much that you don’t challenge them. You end up with a profile that doesn’t actually tell anyone anything they don’t already know. This profile ends up being mildly interesting, but breaks no new ground.

    Too cold: What I Learned in Two Years at the Tea Party. This article is written by someone who spent a couple of years attending Tea Party meetings and observing the people there. The argument that the Tea Party is not all about economics is an interesting one, but the article itself is marred by the writer’s clear contempt for those he writes about.

    Just right: Dubya and Me. This article, while written by a person who explicitly points out that he disagrees with Bush politically, is a wonderful attempt to understand who George W. Bush is and why he thinks the way he does. What makes this article great is that the author, knowing that he disagrees with Bush, still attempts to understand him. This is a character trait called empathy, which has never been common. In our world, it is positively endangered.

    A lot of bad journalism comes down to being “too hot” or “too cold.” This amounts to a character flaw in the writer: either an uncritical love of the subject, or a contempt for the subject. Journalists who get it “just right” are able to show empathy for the subjects they find it hard to relate to, and challenge the subjects they find it easy to relate to.