The Marriage Bed is a helpful little book from Ray Rhodes who has also written several titles dealing with family worship. This book[let], weighing in at just 32 pages, is a biblical guide to sexual intimacy. Responding to the inevitable critique that this topic has been covered enough times, Rhodes offers four defenses for writing about it once more: 1) Misinformation about the topic abounds and there is room for a book that falls in the space between legalism and licentiousness; 2) His experience in pastoral ministry has shown that problems with marital intimacy continue despite all of those other books; 3) He has specifically focused on applying the gospel to marital intimacy; 4) The ministry he serves, Nourished in the Word Ministries, exists in part to strengthen marriages and families through biblical teaching and he has written with that kind of ministry in view.

The book’s format is simple, moving quickly through an overview of what the Bible teaches about sex and marriage. Rhodes includes a section on Creativity in the Marriage Bed where he looks to the Song of Solomon but, thankfully, without stooping to a kind of interpretation that seeks to explain each metaphor as a specific sexual act. Instead, he looks to the Song for wisdom on creativity, on enjoying not just the act but the experience of sex. Having done this, he turns next to Hindrances and Remedies to a God-Centered and Intimate Marriage Bed and looks at issues such as fatigue, physical inability, past hurt, immorality and rejection. The remedies he suggests are practical and always grounded in the gospel.

He wraps up the book with a Seven-Day Plan for Cultivating Intimacy in Your Marriage, a useful plan that sets aside seven days to focus on what the Bible teaches about marriage and the purpose of sexual intimacy within it.

The fact that this book is so short is both a strength and a frustration. I was a little disappointed because there is so much more he could have said; yet its short length makes it very accessible. Overall, The Marriage Bed is a helpful little book and one that offers a lot of wisdom in just a few short pages. Best of all, it is grounded in Scripture and full of gospel.

The Marriage Bed is available through Amazon or Books That Nourish.

Sponsor:

 

Continue Reading »

I love biography. That’s probably the tenth time I’ve begun a review with those words, yet it’s no less true now than the first time I penned them. The more I read of biography, the more I am enamored with it and the more I see just how valuable it is to my life and faith.

I was in Virginia recently, spending a week on vacation. I decided the occasion merited a biography of a Virginian. That led me to choose between Robert E. Lee and Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson. In the end Jackson won in a shootout. I turned to the epic work by James Robertson. Written in 1997, this biography remains the definitive word on Jackson. I can’t imagine how it will ever be equaled.

Over the years Jackson has been variously portrayed as a great general and a great Christian. It seems that few biographers have managed to do equal justice to the two most notable emphases of this extraordinary man. On the one hand he was a brilliant military strategist who time and again relied on speed and surprise to catch his enemy off-guard. On the other hand, he was a man who deeply loved the Lord and who cherished his relationship with the Savior. He was a man who suffered much from his earliest days to his final days. Fatherless at two, orphaned at seven, he also witnessed the death of two of his siblings, two of his children and his first wife. Some of his closest friends died and he was estranged from others by the war that devastated his nation. Yet through it all Jackson remained absolutely fixed upon the firm foundation of God’s sovereignty. Always he placed his trust in God and always he sought to submit himself to God’s will and to delight in God’s providence.

The facts of Jackson’s life are well-known so I will forego those to comment instead on the lessons I’ve learned from Jackson and to comment on what makes this biography so sublime.

Determination. I saw in Jackson the importance of determination, of being very serious about life. He determined that he could be whatever he would resolve to be. He was determined to rise above his circumstances and to make something of himself. Yet this would be difficult for a poor orphan boy. Throughout life, whether it was in the classroom, the sanctuary or in social situations, he was determined to do better, to honor God. And by God’s grace and by sheer determination, he did so, getting better and better at just about everything he put his mind to.

Love.  Jackson sought to obey Romans 12:16 which says “Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly.” He was not too proud to work with slaves, the lowest of the low. In fact, he loved them as brothers and sisters and treated them with dignity. He was a man of his time, a person who could tolerate slavery even if he did not really approve of it. It is easy to portray him as some kind of a monster for having slaves. And yet we can’t deny his love for them, his desire to treat them well and to see them become brothers and sisters in Christ.

Trust. Jackson had total confidence in the will of God and the goodness of God. He knew the character of God and allowed that to be his starting point. He didn’t allow his pain to redraw the character of God so that God was shaped by pain and suffering. Instead, he knew and loved God and allowed God to speak, to comfort, to console him in pain. He studied God and walked with God in the good times so that his hope was firm in times of sorrow. Not only this, but he saw God’s sovereign hand in everything. Whether things went well or poorly, he saw God’s hand in it and willingly submitted himself.

Prayer. Jackson was a man of prayer. He prayed all the time. He would pray before battles and during battles, often holding his hands up in prayer, asking God to bless and protect his men. He would rise in the night, even when he had had very little sleep and he would pray. He was never too busy to pray. He would go to services held by his chaplains and pray with them. He prayed with his wife and prayed over his daughter. He never grew tired of prayer and always saw the need for it. He was a true prayer warrior who would do nothing, make no important decision, without taking it before God. He had a right assessment of both himself and God and knew the utter importance of being on his knees.

These are at least some of the lessons I’ve learned from his life, lessons I hope to apply to my own life.

As for what makes Robertson’s biography so sublime, well, that is an easy one. It is simply that I could glean all of this. In a biography about a general, a military man, I was able to peer deeply into his life to see not just his accomplishments on the battlefield, but more importantly, the heart of the man, the Christian character of the man. Robertson showed his subject at this best and worst, at home and on the battlefield. This is one of those biographies where to read it is to meet the subject. Jackson was a multifaceted individual and Robertson portrays him in all of his complexity.

I think this may well be the best biography I’ve ever read and if not that, it’s the one I’ve enjoyed reading the most. I enjoyed it so much that I followed it with three other books on Jackson: Stonewall Jackson’s Book of Maxims (a good look at the principles through which he sought to improve himself), Beloved Bride: The Letters of Stonewall Jackson to His Wife (enjoyable, but read the biography first) and Stonewall Jackson: The Black Man’s Friend (an excellent look at Jackson’s faith and his relationship to blacks, both slave and free). Whether or not you are interested in Jackson’s military accomplishments, you will still find great value in reading about his life and learning from his faith, his trust, his determination, his love. Though by no means a perfect man, he is a man who showed clear evidence of his love for the Lord and his desire to honor him in all of life. And in that way, his life can serve as a lesson to any of us.

Sponsor:

 

Continue Reading »

Mark Driscoll must be a busy guy. As if his ministry at Mars Hill isn’t enough to keep him busy every hour of the day, he has also written a long line of books, the most recent of which is titled simply Doctrine: What Christians Should Believe. Like several of his previous volumes, this one is co-authored with his friend and theological mentor Gerry Breshears. While using the term “systematic theology” may not be entirely helpful in describing this book, it at least gives an idea of its contents. Doctrine exists to provide an overview of what Christians ought to believe.

As theological tomes go, this one is particularly interesting, particularly effective, in its structure. Each chapter introduces a topic through a single word and then shows how that topic is really all about God. The first chapter is “Trinity: God Is” while the second is “Revelation: God Speaks.” That sets that pattern that continues through each of the book’s thirteen chapters (the last of which, not surprisingly, is “Kingdom: God Reigns.” This beautifully takes doctrine out of the abstract and applies it directly to God himself. It takes a noun and matches it with a verb, showing for example how the doctrine of the church is not about us, but about God, about his desire to send his Word into all the world (the chapter is titled “Church: God Sends”).

Also effective is the pattern of asking questions through each of the chapters’ subheadings. So as we begin to read the chapter titled “Fall: God Judges” we have subheadings that ask questions like “What Is the Fall?,” “What Is Sin” and “Where Did Sin Originate?” In each case the topics are explained in a way that is clear and concise but in way that does not depend on obscure theological terms. It is a very useful structure and one that differentiates it from so many other similar books, most of which are systematic theologies. It sets it apart in a very good way.

So much for the book’s structure. What matters far more, in the end analysis, is the book’s content. And here Driscoll and Breshears have presented a lengthy look at Christian doctrine that is accurate, biblical and even worshipful.

Endorsed by the likes of Carl Trueman, Wayne Grudem and John Frame, each prominent theologians in their own right, Doctrine aptly defends the historic doctrines of the faith. That is not to say that each of these theologians would necessarily agree with everything the authors write. There will be clear unity on the foundations of the faith but some disagreement on the finer points of doctrine. Areas where some readers will disagree will include the authors’ understanding of Creation (they come down on the side of the Gap Theory), their view of unlimited limited atonement, their view of covenant and baptism (they are firmly baptistic) and their view of the continuation of some kind of special revelation and miraculous gifts. Yet while I myself disagree with them on several of the issues (actually, I think I disagree with them to varying degrees on all of the issues I listed here) I am glad they were willing to not just list the options but also to take a stand. That increases rather than diminishes the value of the book.

Particularly effective are the sections discussing the incarnation as the model for the church’s mission and their defense of the important of celebrating and joining with the local church. Throughout they consistently do a superb job of showing why all this theology matters and how it must work itself out in the life of the Christian. Again, this is not abstract theology, but theology in motion, theology in practice.

I’ve heard it said that Mark Driscoll put far more work into this book than any of his others. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that he put more effort into this book than he put into the rest of them combined. Doctrine: What Christians Should Believe is probably his best book so far (and I think I’ve read just about all of them). Though it may not be the most exciting to many readers, at least on the face of it, its content is biblical and its way of presenting that content superb. It is a good book to read through and then to keep on-hand for reference purposes.

Sponsor:

  

Continue Reading »

If ever there was a book destined to see a lot of negative reviews it has to be Burning Down The Shack. Written by James De Young, professor of New Testament Language and Literature at Western Seminary, Portland, Oregon, this book takes on the bestselling novel The Shack, telling, according to the subtitle, how “The ‘Christian’ Bestseller is Deceiving Millions.” The Shack has a huge community of devoted fans and many of them will be distressed to see this book, and especially so if it begins to sell well and gain some kind of prominence.

It seems that I should begin this article by reviewing the facts of The Shack. But surely you know them already. The Shack has sold millions and millions of copies, has been translated into a host of languages and has remained on the besteller lists for over 100 weeks; it was self-published by an unknown author and an unknown publishing company and had an initial marketing budget of just a few hundred dollars; it is largely a word-of-mouth success that has seen many pastors buy boxes to give away within churches; it is, in short, an absolute phenomenon, the kind of phenomenon that will some day be a case study in a marketing text book.

This would all be well and good if The Shack was a good book. Sadly, though, it is not. Not only is it substandard in its writing, but more distressingly it teaches theology that is at times sub-bibical and at other times fully anti-biblical. Among its predominant themes are the Trinity, the character of God and the nature of good and evil—themes that strike to the very heart of the Christian faith. And in so many ways it is fully opposed to what is true.

James De Young writes from an interesting perspective—that of a former friend, or acquaintance at least, of Paul Young. He begins his book by providing some important but little-known background to The Shack. In April of 2004 De Young attended a Christian think tank and there Young presented a 103-page paper which presented a defense of universal reconciliation, a Christian form of universalism—the view that at some point every person will come to a right relationship with God. If they do not do this before they die, God will use the fires of hell to purge away (not punish, mind you) any unbelief. Eventually even Satan and his fallen angels will be purged of sin and all of creation will be fully and finally restored. This is to say that after death there is a second chance, and more than that, a complete inevitability, that all people will eventually repent and come to full relationship with God. De Young believes that Young’s belief in universal reconciliation is absolutely crucial to anyone who would truly wish to understand The Shack. It is the key that makes sense of the book and the theology it contains. Though far from the only theological problem with the book, it is the one that makes sense of the others.

Needless to say, universal reconciliation is also the theme of De Young’s refutation of The Shack. He seeks to answer big questions such as “What is God like?”, “Why did Jesus Christ die?”, “Does God punish sin?” and “Does mercy triumph over judgment?” Though his questions range far wider than universal reconciliation, in the end most of them lead back to this foundational component of Young’s theology. The author makes it clear that he is not out to attack Young and nowhere does he do this. Instead, he simply seeks to interact with his theology, with what he teaches through his novel. He does this by going through The Shack chapter-by-chapter, showing what Young did well in that portion of the book and then showing from the Bible where he went wrong. It is quite an effective format that refutes and teaches equally well.

While he does all of this, there is a sense in which he inadvertently displays one part of the reason that The Shack has proven so popular. Where Young could use narrative to subtly teach big theological concepts, De Young has to use the theological lexicon. This puts him at an immediate disadvantage. What Young seeks to make so clear through a story, De Young has to make clear through the language of theology. He does this well, but still shows by contrast how powerful narrative can be.

What I can’t quite decide is who the audience is for this book. Burning Down The Shack is 253 pages by the time the reader has finished the appendices and indexes. It is also occasionally heavy, teaching or refuting significant theological concepts. Maybe I am not giving enough credit to those who read and enjoyed The Shack but it seems to me that if you read that novel and took it to be sound theology, you are not too likely to read a 250-page text refuting it. And then there are people like me who read The Shack and were disturbed by it. But we already know The Shack is theologically deceptive, so why would we need to read a book about it? Having said that, the book is currently ranked in Amazon’s top-6000, not a terrible place to be, so I suppose someone must be buying it. I can’t help but think that if it was 100 (or 200) pages shorter it would have a far wider impact. I suspect, though, that it will largely be read by people who already know of the problems with The Shack. That is too bad, really.

Nevertheless, Burning Down The Shack is a solid book and has a lot to commend it. If you are looking for a resource that interacts with The Shack and does so in a way that is more thorough than my review and more discerning than either of the two books titled Finding God in The Shack, this may be just the ticket. Many supporters of The Shack have suggested that it is only Calvinists who dislike the book. I was glad to see that the lone endorsement for Burning Down The Shack is Paige Patterson (certainly no Calvinist) who writes, “[De Young’s] evaluation of the theology and deceit involved in The Shack is on target and critical for today’s world.” Calvinist or not, lover or hater, if you read this book you will benefit from it, I think.

Sponsor:

  

Continue Reading »

There are few issues of theology that confuse me more than issues related to social justice. Those who advocate Christian humanitarianism, those who tell Christians that they are responsible before God to fight injustice, to feed the hungry, to free the oppressed, are able to provide a compelling case and they are able to tap into a deep vein of guilt. It is difficult to hear of poor and hungry children and not feel that the primary mission of Christians must be to feed such people. And yet when we look around we see that ministries or organizations that make such a task their primary calling so quickly fade into theological obscurity. The social gospel so often trumps the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Into the fray step Christian Buckley and Ryan Dobson with their book Humanitarian Jesus: Social Justice and the Cross. They want to find that sweet spot between justice and gospel, that place where we can hold tightly to the gospel of Jesus Christ while still emphasizing the importance of social action.

Humanitarian Jesus is made up of two parts. In the first part, which seems to be written largely by Christian Buckley, the authors provide the theological basis for social justice. And here is where the book is at its best. The authors emphasize again and again (and again after that!) the importance of sound theology. They want Christians to know that first and foremost they must be grounded in the Bible. Buckley and Dobson understand the tension so many of us feel when looking at issues related to social justice. “Some of us resist or diminish temporal engagement because we are focused on the call of Scripture to proclaim the gospel, and see this life as a mere momentary passing. Others resist the gospel and the scriptural implications of death, heaven, and hell, and focus instead on the good that can be done on earth by being living illustrations of God’s great love.”

They say as well, “Christ was and is principally concerned with eternity and the reconciliation of the lost. Fundamentally, Christ came to earth to seek and to save, not to heal and feed. Just as Christ came to provide the only means for spiritual reconciliation with the Father, He calls the redeemed to the specific task of continuing His ministry of reconciliation.” They emphasize here and in so many other places that Christ’s most foundational task was to seek and to save the lost; he did not come primarily to feed people, but to save them. And we are to imitate him in this. They go on to say, “Jesus was a humanitarian, but of a unique kind. He healed to reveal true healing. He fed to reveal true food. He quenched thirst to reveal everlasting water. Christ’s actions were temporal, but His intended impact was for His every word and deed to be eternally transforming.” So here they set Christ as the model for the kind of humanitarian work they want Christians to commit to—work that points people to Christ.

As the book continues, the authors provide some friendly critique of the social gospel. They realize that many who emphasize the social gospel have very quickly left behind the true gospel. In the midst of doing humanitarian work, so many have lost sight of the work of saving souls and even the necessity of doing so. But where the authors seem to go just a little bit beyond what I see in Scripture is in their discussion of evangelism. “Evangelism,” they say, “includes the sharing of the gospel and the meeting of needs. It includes the challenging of injustice and the championing of the oppressed. … We don’t meet needs because it gives us the chance to share Christ, but because it is part of who Christ is, and if He is in us, it is part of who we are.” And so here they make humanitarian work a necessary component of evangelism.

Let me emphasize again that what the authors do very well in this section is emphasize sound, biblical theology—a theology that includes humanity’s fall into sin, that includes Christ’s atoning work on the cross, that includes both heaven and hell. This alone is enough to mark this book as very different from so many dealing with social justice. Before the authors want to call anyone to do humanitarian work, they want to call them to the gospel, not just as a message that saves, but as a message that gives direction to all of life.

In the second part the authors conduct a series of 15 interviews with people who are involved in some sort of social justice ministry or organization. Interviewees range from Ron Sider to Tony Campolo, from Francis Chan to Mark Batterson. I found these interviews a rather strange addition to the book. I felt that they added very little in terms of benefit; some were useful, some were not; some emphasized what the authors emphasize, others went the other way. Though the authors want to emphasize the primacy of sound theology, a guy like Tony Campolo has long since forsaken any kind of biblical theology. This section confused me and disappointed me. It felt at times like it was the easy way out in which rather than writing another 100 pages of material the authors could simply include interviews with a wide variety of people. And at other times it felt like it was directly opposed to the message of the rest of the book and especially so when interviewing people who have set themselves in direct opposition to the gospel that saves.

At the end of Humanitarian Jesus I am as perplexed as ever. Largely I still see things the way I did before. There is a time and a place for humanitarian work, no doubt. Christians can have great ministries serving the poor and the oppressed and in so doing can have remarkable opportunities to share the gospel. And yet still the history of Christianity shows that when Christians do this, the gospel quickly becomes secondary and the work itself becomes the gospel. I still see the Bible primarily emphasizing charity given to other believers; when I look at Acts and the epistles, this is what I see most—Christians helping other Christians as a sign of love and fraternity. Now of course there will be some who engage in humanitarian work outside the context of the local church, but it seems to me that the closer we come to making this a necessary part of the Christian mission, the more likely we are to see the gospel diminish.

I’m sure my confusion shows in that last paragraph. The more I read on this subject, the more perplexed I become. Am I saying that Christians should not engage in humanitarian work? Of course not. And yet still I do not see from the Bible that Christians absolutely have to as a necessary component of their evangelism. Maybe someone who reads this review can leave a comment and help me out of this mess of confusion.

Sponsor:

  

Continue Reading »