“I am distressed at the zeal of the heretics; and at the amnesia of the believers.”
Conviction-laden poetry, combined with a metaphorical call to ar“I am distressed at the zeal of the heretics; and at the amnesia of the believers.”
Conviction-laden poetry, combined with a metaphorical call to arms.
This is my first reading of any of Ravenhill's works, and it won't be my last. His prose is British through and through--with all the King James styling one would expect from a dude who was born in 1907. (He reads much like a contemporary of C.S. Lewis, with a slightly more chastising and paternal feel.)
Here, he's admonishing the Church at large--as well as individual churches--for their sleepiness and laxity toward the lost. As well as the general ignorance toward prayer in the general body of Christ. In getting his point across, he alternates between eloquent and earnest rebukes in the form of mini-sermons interspersed at regular intervals by rhythmic quatrain poems. (I didn't do a word count, but it felt as though nearly half the book was poetry.) Some were quite lovely, and some were less memorable in their simplicity. But I appreciated the way the artform both reinforced and broke up the work.
It's a quick read, but it packs a punch.
The Revival Song
Lord, we are hungry for blessing This is in tune with thy word Now is our need we're confessing Give us new hearts, cleansed and stirred
Great is the need of our nations Great is the need of this hour Lord, we abhor our stagnation Answer with Holy Ghost power
Look on our great desperation Hold back thy judgment, we pray Move through the length of our nation Open thy windows today
Lord, fill the church with thy spirit Lord, save our nation, we pray Quicken our love and our zeal And send us revival today ...more
I've appreciated Jackie Hill Perry for some years now. And whenever her husband appeared alongside her in Don't let your pride murder your message."
I've appreciated Jackie Hill Perry for some years now. And whenever her husband appeared alongside her in interviews and podcasts, I was consistently impressed by Preston's gentle, steady, and poetic nature. So when this (his first book) came out, I wanted to show my support.
I think I went into this assuming it would be a memoir. (And it is, in small part.) But at its core, this book is more of an introduction to effective Christian evangelism. And with Preston Perry's personal and sometimes vulnerable take on it, he's given a heartfelt and invaluable resource to anyone interested in expanding their ability to share their faith--regardless (but also incorporating) of their background.
"I believe in the last days, God will use His people to set the most rebellious souls free. If we remain faithful with God's truth, He will use us to soften the most hardened hearts. Angry fists will bloom into open palms of praise when we speak."
Perry admits from the very beginning that he was once one of those rebellious souls of which he speaks. His heart for reaching the lost through direct evangelism is both hard-earned and a natural extension of his outgoing and people-oriented personality. His prose is much the same as his manner of speech: conversational, intentional, relatable, and imminently accessible.
He regularly mentions but doesn't get deep into apologetics--rather pointing first to right motivations and the regular examination of one's heart via the Holy Spirit.
I would highly recommend this book for teens and parents of teens, as Perry has much to offer by way of orientation to the basics of outreach. It's a fairly quick, easily digestible read. His warnings about evangelistic approach are necessary, and his encouragement runs deep without invoking scare tactics or shame....more
A good reminder of where we place our trust and why.
As seems true of other works by this author, this book is about 50% made up of testimonies and peA good reminder of where we place our trust and why.
As seems true of other works by this author, this book is about 50% made up of testimonies and personal accounts that were sent in to him. Each account is, of course, encouraging and faith-building. Some are quite harrowing.
This is my second book from Prince, and I appreciate the conversation prose and consistent kindness in his teaching voice. ...more
As someone who happens to be in the middle of some dark nights of the soul... I'm afraid I found this book to be a time-consumptive letdown.
In a nutsAs someone who happens to be in the middle of some dark nights of the soul... I'm afraid I found this book to be a time-consumptive letdown.
In a nutshell: This was the book equivalent of a long meeting that could have been a simple email. Plenty of words with a dash of accessible humor... but precious little substance.
I had no idea going into this of the controversies surrounding Peter Enns. I'd never heard of him (though I had heard of Rob Bell, whom he quotes). So I approached it with open curiosity and a degree of agreement with the basic premise. But early on, something felt off. And it wasn't just that the author decided to set the tone by drawing a parallel between the horror movie Silence of the Lambs and Trump 2016. (For the record, I never have and never will vote in that particular direction. But anyone who opens a supposedly faith-centered book by signaling their political stance tends to make me see red (flags).) I hoped as it went on that it might still prove worth the investment. Or at the very least, thought-provoking. But aside from some empathy for the personal stories, all I really walked away with was frustration.
The title is more marketing bait than anything. Meant to be controversial-sounding to grab attention. At no point does the author offer evidence that certainty is a sin--rather, he seems to be pointing to blind faith and legalistic ignorance as problematic. (Which I, and I think most people, can easily agree with.) But then he begins to refer to the Bible in mythological terms, and faith as "mystical" and "transrational." For every good point made, there are two or three that ring intellectually dishonest, if not completely misleading.
This is a deconstructionist handbook that attempts to break down the Christian faith with oversimplified assertions (while citing very few credible sources) and relies on a lot of sweeping generalizations fused with strawman arguments. Enns apparently comes from some unnamed background where he was taught (or perhaps just inferred) that he wasn't allowed to question his faith, nor work through anger toward God. And while I feel bad for him, I can't say I share that experience.
Enns admits to having hidden behind his own knowledge--and insecure academic need to be "right"--prior to his Disney movie-induced crisis of faith. Which, I commend him for both recognizing and doing something about. But his process thus far sounds less like a measured course correction and more like the usual human tendency to overcorrect--ending up in the opposite ditch rather than back on a productive path.
And for a guy who is making a case against certainty, he seems to miss the irony of how certain he is on a number of things.
The latter half of the book is largely autobiographical and anecdotal, as the author relates his domestic troubles coinciding with the impending loss of a teaching job. In it, the notion of trusting God is repeated ad nauseam... but with nothing compelling offered regarding HOW one can, or why they ought to. It's deconstruction without anything approaching reconstruction....more
A great addition to the Rabbi Jesus installments--working well both as a stand-alone work or building onto what was covered in Sitting at the Feet of A great addition to the Rabbi Jesus installments--working well both as a stand-alone work or building onto what was covered in Sitting at the Feet of Rabbi Jesus.
For anyone seeking to know better and understand Jesus, his Jewish roots are a logical place to look. And Tverberg is just the kind of engaging, humble teacher to help explain the cultural and religious context of both Jesus day--and of the Rabbinical title he held.
A portion of this book (perhaps my favorite) is spent on relevant Jewish sayings and idioms. For example: Biblical Hebrew turns up a number of uses for the word "eye"--describing our attitudes toward others, our relationship with God, and/or our sense of generosity vs. greed. *akin tovah="good eye" *akin ra’ah="bad eye" For me, this added some revelatory meaning to passages like Matthew 6:22-23 "The eye is the lamp of the body. If your eyes are healthy, your whole body will be full of light. But if your eyes are unhealthy, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light within you is darkness, how great is that darkness!" While I think I've always known intuitively that there was symbolism going on, the explanation the author gives really helped the whole thing click into place.
Another invaluable aspect of this book is its examination of Jesus' rabbinical teaching style. For some reason, I always assumed Jesus was some wild anomaly, as rabbis go (perhaps based on Him being, you know, the living fulfillment of prophecy.) But that isn't reason enough to think His methods would be wholly unique. It actually makes sense for Him to have utilized tools His audience would have found familiar--i.e. parables, and the sometimes humorous comparisons and contrasts contained within many of them.
The divide between Western and Middle Eastern thought is wider than many suppose. It's books like this that help fill in that self-centric gap we Westerners have inadvertently perpetuated. ...more
A thoughtful (and sometimes pleading) examination of The Lord's Supper, and the nuances behind partaking in communion. And while the title makes it soA thoughtful (and sometimes pleading) examination of The Lord's Supper, and the nuances behind partaking in communion. And while the title makes it sound like some sort of religious-flavored diet program... that's not what this is at all. (Thankfully!)
I had heard some of Prince's preaching, but this was my first taste of his writing. Prince's writing style is straightforward--simple, accessible word choices and a kindly, sincere tone. He's a bit repetitious, but only in a reinforcing sense. And his use of scripture is supportive without being cherry-picked.
He certainly got me thinking of communion differently than as the occasional symbolic gesture I regretfully have seen it as for much of my life. Really, his primary point is that we ought to be partaking in it OFTEN. (Which, at the bare minimum, there's no harm in doing.) But then he offers testimonies from his own life, and from numerous others, attributing rapid recoveries and inexplicable healings to the deliberate and regular taking of communion--not as a magical act, but as a means of focusing on God's promises and power.
Not new information, but differently presented. It gave me a lot to consider and study--for which I am grateful. ...more
It's taken me entirely too long to get to this famed book. And I'm afraid I may have overly built up my expectations for it.
In retrospect, it3.5 Stars
It's taken me entirely too long to get to this famed book. And I'm afraid I may have overly built up my expectations for it.
In retrospect, it helps to think of this book as part apologetics and part memoir. Strobel opens with the inciting incident that sent him on his quest to investigate the claims of Christianity: His wife's conversion. An event that he, in his then comfortable state of hedonic skepticism and ethical grayness, was at first immensely displeased over. He expected his "fun" wife to turn into some sanctimonious sad sack. And when instead the change in her was both pronounced and positive, Strobel was forced to reconsider his ingrained assumptions and biases.
As Strobel goes around interviewing renowned experts (at times giving them more of the 3rd degree in some vaguely annoying "gotchya" side quest), he parallels the evidence he's examining with past criminal cases he reported on--sharing insights and perspectives that largely worked with the overarching theme.
I think my biggest hang-ups with this book had more to do with the author's tone and approach than the actual content. Strobel was no doubt being honest in presenting himself as all but belligerent in his interviewing style (He regularly reminded me of J. Jonah Jamison from Spiderman--which was both humorous and irritating.) It made me sympathetic to his wife, for sure... but I can't say I formed much of a connection with him throughout. And there was a lot of inserted excess about his interviewees that went beyond descriptive mannerisms. It was like he was trying to break up impending monotony with subtle shifts in posture or mundane movement that didn't add anything to the telling. (I might be picking nits here, but it felt like the visual equivalent of too many "ums" in dialogue.)
As far as the apologetic angle goes... I find I have more affinity toward one of the men Strobel interviewed: Gregory A. Boyd. His works I have found more compelling and overall digestible (although, granted, much more theological in focus.) For those looking more into the historical evidence and validity of eyewitness testimonies, this isn't a bad starting point. ...more
Bright and conversational--in a tone reminiscent of C.S. Lewis--this relatively small bite of apologetics aims to assert and defend one important poinBright and conversational--in a tone reminiscent of C.S. Lewis--this relatively small bite of apologetics aims to assert and defend one important point: Science and faith are not at odds.
"Christians do not deny the laws of nature. On the contrary, they regard the laws of nature as descriptions of those regularities and cause/effect relationships which have been built into the universe by its Creator--and according to which it normally operates. If we did not know them, we should never recognize a miracle if we saw one."
Lennox is a Professor of Mathematics and Pastoral Advisor at the University of Oxford--a marriage of roles that are far more complementary than contradictory. He opens the book with an account of a time early in his academic life when a number of his colleagues sat him down and essentially berated him for his faith, insisting he'd never advance in his career unless he gave it up. He was astonished by this conviction they seemed to have of the incompatibility of religion and higher learning, and it put him on a path to reeducate others regarding this misconception.
One of the first things Lennox explores at length is the long history of faith-filled men who were also major contributors to the scientific world. Not despite their metaphysical beliefs--but BECAUSE of them. Some obvious names like Newton and Galileo... but also a few I knew nothing about.
Speaking of Galileo. >.> Am I alone in being told only that he was persecuted by the Catholic church for concluding that the Earth wasn't the center of the universe? Because that's literally the only thing I retained from my public school experience.
Turns out, Galileo's troubles were a heck of a lot more complex than that.
For starters, Galileo may have been a bit lacking in the social diplomacy department. (Apparently, he irritated the elite of his day by publishing in Italian and not in Latin, to offer some intellectual empowerment to new people.) And then he had the gall to contradict, and present compelling evidence against, the reigning worldview at the time: Aristotelianism. "In his famous letter to the Grand Duchess Christina in 1615, Galileo claimed that it was the academic professors who were so opposed to him--that were trying to influence the church authorities to speak out against him. The issue at stake for the academics was clear: Galileo's scientific arguments were threatening the all-pervading Aristotelianism of the academy." Yeah... that little tidbit blew my mind and sent me down a research rabbit hole. And I can't thank the author enough for that massive reorientation. But really, it shouldn't have surprised me that it was Galileo's own academic peers who used the church as a weapon against a man they found threatening to Aristotle--and by extension, their whole perception of scientific reality.
"The Bible and science evidently agree that the universe had a beginning. That is quite remarkable. For from the cosmological perspective, the idea of a beginning belongs to the 20th century. Up until that time, the view of Aristotle--that the universe was eternal--had dominated European thinking. The irony is that the Bible had been saying that there was a beginning for thousands of years."
I much appreciated the author's Cake analogy. (Essentially, science is useful to tell us how a cake is made, and what it's made of. But it cannot tell us why the baker made it. It cannot explain the intended purpose.) Science answers 'what' and 'how' questions. God answers 'why' questions. They are not at odds--by their nature, they are simply answering different questions. Or to put it another way:
"We may say that God no more competes with science as an explanation of the universe than Henry Ford competes with science as an explanation of the motor car. God is an agent creator explanation of the universe--He's not a scientific explanation."
I also had no idea it was a man of the cloth who came up with the idea of The Big Bang.
"It was in fact a Belgian priest, Georges Lemaître, a believer in God, who first suggested on the basis of Einstein's theories, that there had been a beginning to space-time. That beginning was eventually jokingly called The Big Bang by the cosmologist Sir Fred Hoyle, who did not himself believe in it."
Loading...