2007 Reading

The Heavenly Man, by Brother Yun **** Dancing Under the Red Star, by Karl Tobien *** The Great Bridge, by David McCullough **** God's Smuggler, by Brother Andrew **** Getting Things Done, by David Allen **** The Broker, by John Grisham ** In a Pit With a Lion on a Snowy Day, by Mark Batterson *** When God Comes Calling, by Ted Fletcher **** Freakonomics, by Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner *** The Kite Runner, by Khaled Hosseini *** A Thousand Splendid Suns, by Khaled Hosseini **** Thunderstruck, by Erik Larson **** What Jesus Demands from the World, by John Piper ***** The Cades Cove Story, by Randolph Shields **** Peace Like a River, by Leif Enger **** The Killer Angels, by Michael Shaara ***** A Briefer History of Time, by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow *** Made to Stick, by Chip Heath and Dan Heath **** The China Fantasy, by James Mann ***** Masters of the Air, by Donald L. Miller ***** Geronimo: His Own Story, by Geronimo *** America Alone, by Mark Steyn *** The Bookseller of Kabul, by Asne Seierstad **** Six Days of War, by Michael Oren **** Night, by Elie Weisel **** Infidel, by Ayaan Hirsi Ali **** Into Thin Air, by Jon Krakauer **** Digital Fortress, by Dan Brown ** Good News About Injustice, by Gary Haugen, The World Is Flat, by Thomas Friedman The Life of David Brainerd, by Jonathan Edwards *** The Heart of a Saint, by Bert Ghezzi **** His Dark Materials, by Philip Pullman ** Cat and Dog Theology, by Bob Sjogren and Gerald Robison In Defense of Israel, by John Hagee * A Long Way Gone, by Ishmael Beah ***

The Little Gunner Boy

One of the more disturbing books I've read so far this year is A Long Way Gone: Memoirs of a Boy Soldier, by Ishmael Beah. A victim of the civil war in Sierra Leone, Beah was orphaned at 12 and left to fend for himself in a rural part of his west African homeland. Eventually, he found refuge in a village protected from rebels by a squad of the Sierra Leonean army. When the village was in danger of being overwhelmed by rebels, Beah was conscripted (along with several other boys in the village), given an AK-47, drugged with amphetamines and pot, brainwashed with Rambo movies and initiated into life as a soldier.

By the time Beah was removed from the war several years later by UNICEF, he had become a heartless killing machine who had lost count of the number of men, women and children he had tortured and murdered. After being "rehabilitated" and "repatriated" into civilian society, Beah was adopted by a woman in New York, where he went to high school and now lives and works as a human rights advocate.

Throughout the narrative, those rehabilitating Beah would assure him, "It's not your fault," in an effort to get him to forget his past. However, these platitudes seem simplistic and did not ring true to me, only reinforcing the difficulty of addressing such human depravity apart from a biblical worldview that confronts both the sins committed against us and the sins that we commit in response. Are child soldiers guilty? When should they be held accountable for war crimes? When they're seven or seventeen? I'm sure their dismembered victims' families would have a different answer than I would.

Ultimately responsible are the depraved individuals who place guns and bayonets in the hands of children. However, apart from an encounter with the cross, self-redemption will be fleeting for the victims and the perpetrators of these atrocities--particularly when the line between the two is so fuzzy.

The Little Gunner Boy

One of the more disturbing books I've read so far this year is A Long Way Gone: Memoirs of a Boy Soldier, by Ishmael Beah. A victim of the civil war in Sierra Leone, Beah was orphaned at 12 and left to fend for himself in a rural part of his west African homeland. Eventually, he found refuge in a village protected from rebels by a squad of the Sierra Leonean army. When the village was in danger of being overwhelmed by rebels, Beah was conscripted (along with several other boys in the village), given an AK-47, drugged with amphetamines and pot, brainwashed with Rambo movies and initiated into life as a soldier.

By the time Beah was removed from the war several years later by UNICEF, he had become a heartless killing machine who had lost count of the number of men, women and children he had tortured and murdered. After being "rehabilitated" and "repatriated" into civilian society, Beah was adopted by a woman in New York, where he went to high school and now lives and works as a human rights advocate.

Throughout the narrative, those rehabilitating Beah would assure him, "It's not your fault," in an effort to get him to forget his past. However, these platitudes seem simplistic and did not ring true to me, only reinforcing the difficulty of addressing such human depravity apart from a biblical worldview that confronts both the sins committed against us and the sins that we commit in response. Are child soldiers guilty? When should they be held accountable for war crimes? When they're seven or seventeen? I'm sure their dismembered victims' families would have a different answer than I would.

Ultimately responsible are the depraved individuals who place guns and bayonets in the hands of children. However, apart from an encounter with the cross, self-redemption will be fleeting for the victims and the perpetrators of these atrocities--particularly when the line between the two is so fuzzy.

Hagee's Heresy

I recently read John Hagee's latest book, In Defense of Israel--a book which he claims will shake Christian theology with its assertion that Jesus did not come to be the Messiah. In his typical fashion, Hagee holds up the implicit trump card that disagreeing with him means agreeing with antisemites and replacement theologians (interestingly, the only "replacement theologian" he quotes in his book is aberrant and discredited "archbishop" Earl Paulk).

Thankfully, many respected leaders are disagreeing with him--and not antisemites, replacement theologians or the heresy hunters who react to charismatics, Pentecostals, word-faithers, dispensationalists, prophecy hacks, etc. The strongest, most eloquent and gracious reactions have come from people who agree with Hagee on many issues. I considered writing on it, but the book is so aberrant, I get tired just thinking about it. Here are a few samples:

"... I sincerely do not mean to be disrespectful to anyone, but this book is written as if he did not think that anyone with any serious knowledge of the Scriptures, or power of reasoning, would be reading it. ... it seems as if someone else has taken over the writing and reduced it to a level of spiritual foolishness that I do not believe I have ever witnessed in the writings of such a well-respected teacher and preacher before." - Rick Joyner

" ... Tragically, in the attempt to fight against these serious errors, a more serious error has now been introduced. Yet some believers – and even leaders! – are buying into this error hook, line, and sinker, and some have begun to teach and preach it as well. Since the publication of the book, Pastor Hagee issued some clarifying remarks, but the clarifications only complicate the issues and fail to renounce and remove the error... " - Michael Brown

" ... These teachings contradict biblical doctrine, undermine the testimony of Jewish followers of Jesus, and weaken the cause of Christian supporters of the Jewish people. ... Hagee's book also weakens the cause of Christian Zionism to which he has devoted so much of his life's work. If his theology is so clearly aberrant on the Messiahship of Jesus, why should thinking Christians accept anything he says in support of the Jewish state? But the extreme interpretations that he advocates are not necessary to build the case for support for Israel and the Jewish people." - Union of Messianic Jewish Congregations

" ... If his theology is so clearly aberrant on the Messiahship of Jesus, why should thinking Christians accept anything he says in support of the Jewish state? Indeed, the book includes a surprising number of factual errors, along with its careless handling of Scripture. ... " - Rabbi Russell Resnik

Hagee's Heresy

I recently read John Hagee's latest book, In Defense of Israel--a book which he claims will shake Christian theology with its assertion that Jesus did not come to be the Messiah. In his typical fashion, Hagee holds up the implicit trump card that disagreeing with him means agreeing with antisemites and replacement theologians (interestingly, the only "replacement theologian" he quotes in his book is aberrant and discredited "archbishop" Earl Paulk).

Thankfully, many respected leaders are disagreeing with him--and not antisemites, replacement theologians or the heresy hunters who react to charismatics, Pentecostals, word-faithers, dispensationalists, prophecy hacks, etc. The strongest, most eloquent and gracious reactions have come from people who agree with Hagee on many issues. I considered writing on it, but the book is so aberrant, I get tired just thinking about it. Here are a few samples:

"... I sincerely do not mean to be disrespectful to anyone, but this book is written as if he did not think that anyone with any serious knowledge of the Scriptures, or power of reasoning, would be reading it. ... it seems as if someone else has taken over the writing and reduced it to a level of spiritual foolishness that I do not believe I have ever witnessed in the writings of such a well-respected teacher and preacher before." - Rick Joyner

" ... Tragically, in the attempt to fight against these serious errors, a more serious error has now been introduced. Yet some believers – and even leaders! – are buying into this error hook, line, and sinker, and some have begun to teach and preach it as well. Since the publication of the book, Pastor Hagee issued some clarifying remarks, but the clarifications only complicate the issues and fail to renounce and remove the error... " - Michael Brown

" ... These teachings contradict biblical doctrine, undermine the testimony of Jewish followers of Jesus, and weaken the cause of Christian supporters of the Jewish people. ... Hagee's book also weakens the cause of Christian Zionism to which he has devoted so much of his life's work. If his theology is so clearly aberrant on the Messiahship of Jesus, why should thinking Christians accept anything he says in support of the Jewish state? But the extreme interpretations that he advocates are not necessary to build the case for support for Israel and the Jewish people." - Union of Messianic Jewish Congregations

" ... If his theology is so clearly aberrant on the Messiahship of Jesus, why should thinking Christians accept anything he says in support of the Jewish state? Indeed, the book includes a surprising number of factual errors, along with its careless handling of Scripture. ... " - Rabbi Russell Resnik

I'm Sorry, Muslims

After reading a recent letter from evangelicals to Muslims apologizing for the crusades, the war in Iraq and just about every offense in between, I feel that it is important (since I was not invited to sign the document) that I issue a formal apology as well.

No, I'm not Catholic. No, I can't trace my lineage to Sir William Moorcrusher or any other 13th-century knight errant. No, I do not have a history of discriminating against followers of Muhammad in word, thought or deed. No, that was not me in the alley last night firing my AK47 in the air chanting, "Death to Saudi Arabia."

You're confused.

I'm just apologizing for the fact that stuff like that happened and that I share certain cultural characteristics with those who have participated in the above activities. The bottom line is that I'm just trying to cover my bases with a heavy dose of good, old-fashioned American penitence: the apology.

Ahh ..... Now that I have that off my chest, I await the response of conciliatory Muslims worldwide as they apologize for raiding Jerusalem and thereby initiating the crusades in the first place, for their imperialistic attempts to take over Europe from the 9th through the 15th century, for killing and torturing my Christian brothers and sisters in places like Sudan, Afghanistan and Indonesia, for ... well, you get the picture.

How is my goofy little apology any more naive than that of a group of Western evangelicals, safely insulated from the bloody reality of the global Islamic-Christian conflict making an ad hoc statement of reconciliation with a bunch of moderate Muslim scholars, pasting it as an ad in The New York Times and then acting like they’ve accomplished something of significance? The conflict is not being fought at this level, so how can it be resolved at this level?

None of this means squat for the Arab warlord butchering the tribal Christian in Sudan or the Western missionary having an "interfaith dialogue" over Turkish coffee in a cafe in Amman. Yes, God is at work in the Muslim world, but His work is not that of reconciling Muslims to Christians or vice versa, but of reconciling Muslims to Himself through His Son.

I'm Sorry, Muslims

After reading a recent letter from evangelicals to Muslims apologizing for the crusades, the war in Iraq and just about every offense in between, I feel that it is important (since I was not invited to sign the document) that I issue a formal apology as well.

No, I'm not Catholic. No, I can't trace my lineage to Sir William Moorcrusher or any other 13th-century knight errant. No, I do not have a history of discriminating against followers of Muhammad in word, thought or deed. No, that was not me in the alley last night firing my AK47 in the air chanting, "Death to Saudi Arabia."

You're confused.

I'm just apologizing for the fact that stuff like that happened and that I share certain cultural characteristics with those who have participated in the above activities. The bottom line is that I'm just trying to cover my bases with a heavy dose of good, old-fashioned American penitence: the apology.

Ahh ..... Now that I have that off my chest, I await the response of conciliatory Muslims worldwide as they apologize for raiding Jerusalem and thereby initiating the crusades in the first place, for their imperialistic attempts to take over Europe from the 9th through the 15th century, for killing and torturing my Christian brothers and sisters in places like Sudan, Afghanistan and Indonesia, for ... well, you get the picture.

How is my goofy little apology any more naive than that of a group of Western evangelicals, safely insulated from the bloody reality of the global Islamic-Christian conflict making an ad hoc statement of reconciliation with a bunch of moderate Muslim scholars, pasting it as an ad in The New York Times and then acting like they’ve accomplished something of significance? The conflict is not being fought at this level, so how can it be resolved at this level?

None of this means squat for the Arab warlord butchering the tribal Christian in Sudan or the Western missionary having an "interfaith dialogue" over Turkish coffee in a cafe in Amman. Yes, God is at work in the Muslim world, but His work is not that of reconciling Muslims to Christians or vice versa, but of reconciling Muslims to Himself through His Son.

Mike Murdock

Mike the Cat

I've been enjoying a good book with a strange name, Cat and Dog Theology, by Bob Sjogren. Sjogren's basic premise is that people look at God in one of two ways: Like a cat, some people assume that God exists for them--to help them achieve their dreams, reach their destiny, and fulfill their hearts' desires. Others, like dogs, recognize that they exist for the pleasure of their owner, not vice versa. Sjogren argues that American evangelicalism has been corrupted by "cat theology." Of course, cat theology is no theology at all. It is merely the American values of achievement and self-fulfillment wrapped in a religious shell. Check out this brief clip from "wisdom" guy Mike Murdock, who explains that God is all about achievement, and that the biggest people in the Bible were the achievers. As Sjogren effectively asks in Cat and Dog Theology, what about the people in the Bible (and in church history) who weren't necessarily models of achievement, but who appear to be grist in God's mill, glorifying Him through their suffering, death and unfulfilled dreams?

Mike the Cat

I've been enjoying a good book with a strange name, Cat and Dog Theology, by Bob Sjogren. Sjogren's basic premise is that people look at God in one of two ways: Like a cat, some people assume that God exists for them--to help them achieve their dreams, reach their destiny, and fulfill their hearts' desires. Others, like dogs, recognize that they exist for the pleasure of their owner, not vice versa. Sjogren argues that American evangelicalism has been corrupted by "cat theology." Of course, cat theology is no theology at all. It is merely the American values of achievement and self-fulfillment wrapped in a religious shell. Check out this brief clip from "wisdom" guy Mike Murdock, who explains that God is all about achievement, and that the biggest people in the Bible were the achievers. As Sjogren effectively asks in Cat and Dog Theology, what about the people in the Bible (and in church history) who weren't necessarily models of achievement, but who appear to be grist in God's mill, glorifying Him through their suffering, death and unfulfilled dreams?

Our Creche

When the kids were younger, my dad made them a non-porcelain, wooden nativity set that they could play with without us worrying about them breaking the pieces. Today, Andy noticed that they had rearranged the pieces in a rather non-aesthetic, but theologically correct orientation--with all the figures facing the Baby in the manger, rather than the room. You'll notice that one of the sheep appears to be slain in the spirit in the left side of the photo.

Our Creche

When the kids were younger, my dad made them a non-porcelain, wooden nativity set that they could play with without us worrying about them breaking the pieces. Today, Andy noticed that they had rearranged the pieces in a rather non-aesthetic, but theologically correct orientation--with all the figures facing the Baby in the manger, rather than the room. You'll notice that one of the sheep appears to be slain in the spirit in the left side of the photo.

The Authority Sock

When I was a worship leader back in the late '90s, our church was a big fan of the song "I Went to the Enemy's Camp ... and I Took Back What He Stole from Me." I couldn't stand the song, because I felt it dripped with "Holy Ghost bravado." Not to mention the fact that I could find no biblical substantiation for entering the enemy's camp and reclaiming my stuff. Not to mention the fact that I couldn't find any biblical support for the idea that the devil could steal my stuff in the first place.

The song--like the "authority socks" featured in this ad--proudly proclaimed "Satan is under my feet!" [You're supposed to stomp when you get to that part of the song. C'mon, your not stomping loud enough!] However, the verses printed on the sock (presumably in support of the socks' proclamation) are Psalm 110:1 and Matthew 22:44--both of which refer to Jesus having the enemy under His feet.

A more appropriate passage that could have been printed on the sock is Romans 16:20: "The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet." But even in this passage, it's God who seems to be doing the crushing--and at some time in the future. According to Scripture, we really don't have any authority over Satan at this time. Although Satan was decisively defeated at the cross and we have been empowered to resist his temptation, we await--with bated breath, no less--his final crushing.

The moral to this tale? If you're going to "stand strong on the Word of God" like the ad proclaims, at least pick the right words to stand on!

The Authority Sock

When I was a worship leader back in the late '90s, our church was a big fan of the song "I Went to the Enemy's Camp ... and I Took Back What He Stole from Me." I couldn't stand the song, because I felt it dripped with "Holy Ghost bravado." Not to mention the fact that I could find no biblical substantiation for entering the enemy's camp and reclaiming my stuff. Not to mention the fact that I couldn't find any biblical support for the idea that the devil could steal my stuff in the first place.

The song--like the "authority socks" featured in this ad--proudly proclaimed "Satan is under my feet!" [You're supposed to stomp when you get to that part of the song. C'mon, your not stomping loud enough!] However, the verses printed on the sock (presumably in support of the socks' proclamation) are Psalm 110:1 and Matthew 22:44--both of which refer to Jesus having the enemy under His feet.

A more appropriate passage that could have been printed on the sock is Romans 16:20: "The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet." But even in this passage, it's God who seems to be doing the crushing--and at some time in the future. According to Scripture, we really don't have any authority over Satan at this time. Although Satan was decisively defeated at the cross and we have been empowered to resist his temptation, we await--with bated breath, no less--his final crushing.

The moral to this tale? If you're going to "stand strong on the Word of God" like the ad proclaims, at least pick the right words to stand on!