Short Review of Michael Fabarez’s “Preaching that Changes Lives”

Overall, I really appreciated Michael’s book – though it was quite eclectic, it was a refreshing read and a good reminder of the task that God has given to those of us who are called to preach.

In his introduction, Fabarez gives the reasons for his book, stemming from the fact that “Jesus’ goal in preaching was to produce a ‘life-changing’ experience” (p. xi). How is this seen in Jesus teaching, Fabarez believes in the simple statement, “He who has ears to hear, let him hear!” But what Fabarez fails to see is he is trying to take statements directed at the listener to be statements directed at the preacher. If anything, Jesus is not saying “Preachers you need to preach for change,” rather, “Listeners, I just gave you the Word, so now the choice is yours, to believe it or not.” Even when Fabarez quotes from James about being doers and not just hearers, again the statement is toward the listeners, but Fabarez makes it out to be to the preacher. Fabarez then back-pedals slightly by saying that “Some of the blame for this failure in preaching can be rightly attributed to the hardness of the pew-warmer’s hearts” (p. xii). He later goes on to say, while Jesus assumed the message being rightly presented in his parable about the soils, “its proper presentation certainly cannot be assumed today” (p. xiii). But why not? Did Jesus get it wrong? Is the message so complex or difficult? I think Spurgeon had it right (in a quote in this book no less!), “It seems to be that there is more preparation needed by the ground than by the sower, more by the hearer than by the preacher” (p. 154). Fabarez eventually gets it right, but I think he could have done a better job at making his case for the book.

A second problem I had with the book (I am focusing on problems, but overall, it was a wonderful read!) this statement: “Since effective preaching rarely springs from manuscripts or memorized scripts, there is always a certain amount of spontaneity in one’s vocabulary….Pray that God’s Spirit will govern your words” (p. 74). I really do not think that is true. Many preachers preach from manuscripts – did not Jonathan Edwards read “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God”? And why must God be limited to directing extemporaneous preaching? Can God not direct the words of a manuscript, hours before the message is given? I do not feel any biblical mandate to never preach from a manuscript, and many times I feel many a preacher would do well to use one, because their thoughts are so jumbled, and their words so vague. I am not advocating that a sermon be delivered without passion, no in fact great passion should be shown, for it is life or death! But whether God can influence the words coming out of my mouth, or the words written on a page is a foolish argument to make a preacher preach extemporaneously.

I was greatly encouraged by Fabarez’s advice to “interlace” (p. 72) prayer into my sermon preparation. To schedule prayer in, as it were, to the various parts of preparation is a wonderfully practical idea, and will be used.

Review of Richard Pratt’s “Every Thought Captive”

[Another short review of an Apologetics book] What a breath of fresh air!  I thought Pratt did an excellent job at communicating his view on apologetics, and while I might not agree with everything he said, I respect him for thinking things through enough to be as clear as he was.  It takes a lot more work, I believe, to be clear, than to just write in a way that only you can understand; so in his field, I think Pratt has risen to heights none of his predecessors had.

Review of Van Til’s “The Defense of the Faith”

[Another short review of an Apologetics book] I must say, Van Til had a mind.  To be honest, it was a little much for me.  He dealt with issues that perhaps a philosopher interacts with, but as a student of God’s Word I have not really even heard of, or in many ways I do not really have an interest in knowing.  It was amazing to me, for someone who is presented as founding his “apologetic” on the Word of God, that he found it so easy to go page after page without even mentioning the Bible!  He really was too steeped in philosophy to be of much benefit to me personally.  But with that being said, I did have a few questions about what he wrote.

Review of Greg Bahnsen’s “Always Ready”

[Another short review of an Apologetics book] Dr. Greg Bahnsen was a smart man, and as such, a lot of what he said went over my head.  I am not all that into philosophy and all the argumentation that is involved in such circles, but I will comment on those parts which I found helpful, and or had an issue with.
His first section on neutrality was excellent (p. 9), and really eye opening.  It made me wonder if modern apologetics was not over-reacting to post-modern thought.  Just as in the first “apologetic” ventures the Church really was over-reacting to philosophy and its stance that Christianity was barbaric, maybe current “apologetics” is over-reacting to post-modernism, in the fact that as a post-modern, neutrality is upheld as essential to understanding.  To be honest, my understanding of the apologetic world is not all that comprehensive, but I enjoyed Bahnsen’s remarks on the fact that giving neutrality was giving too much.  We must look to Scripture – never coming to Scripture with a system and look to prove it.

Review of Steven Cowan’s Five Views on Apologetics

 

I was grateful to have read Cowan’s work, being that there are so many views on Apologetics, it was very interesting to have them all together, and have them all interact with each other in the same book.  But, I will say I was somewhat disappointed with the fact that it seemed some of those he chose to represent certain positions were not necessarily in line with that position as it had been traditionally represented in the past.  But given the nature of the work, it seemed like the contributors were looking for as much “dirt” as possible on each other, so maybe accusations that someone did not line up with “tradition” should not bother me. 

A Critical Review of “Christology: A Global Introduction” by Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen

This book seeks to introduce Christology as it has been viewed over the past two thousand years throughout the globe. The first section of the book explores the Biblical perspective, the second section looks at the early church through the mid-twentieth century. The second half of the book begins with the third section which covers twentieth-century Christologies; this really seems to begin the major focus of the book as Kärkkäinen moves from the well-known Western theologians to the fourth part of the book that covers contextual Christologies such as Process, Feminist, and Third World views from Latin America, Africa, and Asia.

“James” by Richard Bauckham Book Review

I just finished reading this book for the upcoming winterim at my seminary. The full title is “James: Wisdom of James , disciple of Jesus the sage”

To be honest, the book was a bit dry for my taste, though the prologue and end had some interesting parts. Most of the book was obsessed with trying to figure out correlations between the style with which James wrote and other people in history. Even his content was compared with others. For me, not really all that helpful, or important. But it was interesting looking at some of the old writings of Jewish history that I had never read before.

“How People Change” – Book Review

A while back I started reading a book called “How People Change” written by Timothy S. Lane and Paul David Tripp. To be honest, I think the beginning of the book has some of the greatest insight I have seen into the American church today – they call it the “Gospel Gap.” It’s actually something my friend blogged about a while back (“The Disconnect”) and something I blogged about a long time ago, when I first read the book. Even after reading the book, I still think it was really insightful.

The author takes a look at 2 Peter 1:3-9 as describing this “Gap”:

A Critique of Iain H. Murray’s Evangelicalism Divided

In the aftermath of Friedrich Schleiermacher, bringing about the idea that “beliefs are not vital to a relationship with God” (p. 9), there was a battle, a battle between the Evangelicals and the rest of the world over defining what a Christian really is. Iain Murry gives his insights into the past fifty years of that battle in his book Evangelicalism Divided. The term “evangelicals” was first widely used in the eighteenth century, as a means to distinguish those pulpits that remained true to the gospel (p. 1). But Iain Murry picks up the story with Billy Graham. While at first Graham seems to hold to Biblical truth, as he gains popularity he quickly changes his tune in order to be appealing to the widest possible audience. Rather than keeping to his words that, “We do not condone nor have fellowship with any form of modernism”, he changed to, “We should be willing to work with all who were willing to work with us” (p. 29). The effects of Graham’s changed views were apparent during his London crusade of 1966 when “converts” were referred to non-evangelical churches (p 55). Graham seemed to feel than everyone who was friendly toward him was a Christian, the likes included former Presidents Nixon and Clinton (p. 63). It led to Graham stating, “I think that everybody that loves or knows Christ, whether they are conscious of it or not, they are members of the body of Christ” (p. 73).

Around the same time the National Evangelical Anglican Congress met in Keel and there the previous evangelical beliefs were disowned. In a show of good will, the congress invited Archbishop Michael Ramsey to give the opening address, and with the ring of Schleiermacher he pointed out to his hearers that experience goes before theology (p. 42). There was a lone voice of reason, that of Martyn Lloyd-Jones, saying, “Here is the great divide. The ecumenical people put fellowship before doctrine. We are evangelicals; we put doctrine before fellowship” (pp. 45-46). But his words were largely misunderstood and rejected, for the front page report on the meeting in the periodical The Christian read, “EVANGELICALS – LEAVE YOUR DENOMINATIONS, Says Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones” (p. 47).

The next major step downhill was in 1994 when several prominent evangelical leaders signed a twenty-five page document entitled: Evangelicals and Catholics Together: The Christian Mission in the Third Millennium. The basis for the signing was this: “Those who love the Lord must stand together” (p. 223). Although J. I. Packer stated, “I am not and could not become a Roman Catholic” (p. 225) and claims that “the unity which concerns him is ‘with individual Roman Catholics who for whatever reason do not self-consciously assent to the precise definitions of the Roman Catholic magisterium’” (pp. 225-226), he later defies his own words by signing a document that states partnership with those who “are conscientiously faithful to the teachings of the Catholic Church” (p. 231). But even in this there were those who Murray claims were faithful former evangelical truth, including R. C. Sproul and John MacArthur.

Murray closes the book with some simple observations from the past fifty years of Evangelicalism, showing how easy it is for people to fall into extremes when fighting a foe, and how most of the issues that have led to evangelicalism as we know it to be divided stem from the question, “Who is a Christian?” (p. 299). Also, Murray notes that the “church cannot succeed in the same way in which political parties may succeed” (p. 303), for the church is wholly dependent on supernatural aid, not human wisdom.

Overall I was impressed with Murray’s work. Right from the beginning I respected him as a writer because of the way he introduced his topic – looking historically at the reason “Evangelicalism” exists. If there was one thing I would fault him for, it would be on his defense of Martin Lloyd-Jones. Multiple times he tries to show that Dr. Lloyd-Jones was not calling for denominational splits, but even after Murray’s explanations of what the Doctor said, I still was not exactly clear what had actually been said. Since so many misunderstood what Dr. Lloyd-Jones said, maybe it was because he was not clear. But, if there is anyone to shed some light on the matter, it would be Murray, being that he was closely associated with Dr. Lloyd-Jones.

Murray’s criticisms of men like Graham and Packer are well founded, and well documented – I felt no coercion or bending of facts. The simple truth laid bare before my eyes caused my heart to be saddened. Such great men of the faith, and yet I would almost question their devotion to Christ, in that their understanding of the elementary things of the Gospel is seems to have been darkened. The road to heaven truly is narrow. Murray was very gracious in all his criticisms, doing his best to think the best of the men he criticized, especially when they were those who originally were in the camp of Evangelicalism. Murray is a very insightful author, and communicated well the reasons for the division among evangelicals. And so, “let us entreat the Lord to make us all lively stones fit for his building. Amen!” (p. 318).

Book Review: The Baptism with the Holy Spirit and the Value of Speaking in Tongues Today by Oral Roberts

Oral Roberts was born in 1918 and is an American leader in the Charismatic movement. He is a televangelist and also started a university that bears his name in Tulsa, Oklahoma. His book The Baptism with the Holy Spirit is basically a defense and explanation of being baptized by the Holy Spirit with an emphasis on the outflowing gift of tongues.

Roberts’ theological positions reflect the fact that he is a leader in the Charismatic movement as he tries to prove from the Bible that being baptized with the Holy Spirit takes place after salvation and is accompanied by the gift of speaking in tongues. Using Acts 1:8 he argues that the baptism of the Spirit took place, for the disciples, on the day of Pentecost and should be a normative experience for all believers. Looking into the Greek word dunamis, translated in English as “power”, Roberts claims the word means “dynamite” and proves that “This power of the Holy Ghost is more explosive than the power experienced in salvation” (pp. 6, 9). Because of his understanding of the baptism of the Holy Spirit being post salvation, being years in his own experience (p. 8), Roberts believes that only after a person has been filled with the Spirit through baptism with the spirit are they able to “walk in the Spirit” (Gal. 5:16; p. 45). As tongues was the natural evidence of baptism with the Holy Spirit, according to Roberts belief, he claims that the experience of speaking in tongues, “is one of the most revolutionary experiences that can happen to a believer” (p. 15) and is key for “experiencing a new aliveness in Christ” and for having a far more effective witness for Christ (p. 21). Roberts believes instructing believers who are unaware of how the baptism of the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues works is very beneficial and attempts to do so in his book, instructing believers who have never spoken in tongues with words such as these: “As the welling up comes again to you, open your mouth and submit your tongue to God” (p. 35).

Academically Roberts does a better job in the beginning of the book than at the end. He really seems to be trying to get his ideas from the Word and draw conclusions based on what is in the text. Although his reference to the Greek word dunamis and his claim that it means “dynamite” (pp. 6, 9) cuts negatively into his credibility, being that dynamite didn’t exist at the time the New Testament was being written. Roberts’ effort to come to his beliefs biblically is commendable, but he seems to contradict this effort at times. Speaking of the process by which he evaluated a certain idea he says, “I immediately began to examine it; first by God’s Word, next by the experiences of myself and others” (p. 29). But he seems to ignore this process later when he goes on to build a major argument for how the receive the Holy Spirit by a claiming that Peter’s sermon in Acts 2 was “probably an abbreviated form of Peter’s sermon” (p. 33), and then goes on to add in details that he feels Peter would have spoken. Beyond this, in a section devoted to explaining what the “gift” that the Paul refers to in 2 Timothy 1:6 was, he has a series of “if” statements and then acts as though he proved his point (pp. 46-47). Logically, his argument does not prove to be very strong.

Personally I was impressed with some of Roberts’ statements regarding the priority of the Bible and preaching (p. 20), but overall found most of his arguments hard to buy, being that they were mostly based on experience, not the Word of God. One of the most sobering piece of information Roberts gave this: “Every morning when I waken, the Holy Spirit and I begin the day by praying in tongues” (p. 43). He seems to almost to place himself on the same level of causal power as the Holy Spirit and made me think of the words of Moses, “shall we bring forth water for you out of this rock?” (Num. 20:10). Roberts seems to be genuine in his desire to know God and in his understanding of his need for a Savior, but it seems that he has let his experience cloud his mind and cause him to interpret the Scripture to fit his own fancies. People can be sincere, and sincerely wrong (a common phrase of Dr. Rosscup one of my professors at TMS).