Book Review: Ordinary: Extraordinarily Bad

With a lot of my interest in valuing the Brother Lawrence-esque approaches to life, I was eager and hopeful to read Ordinary: How to Turn the World Upside Down. The book description is very much in line with what I like to emphasize:

What if the path toward an extraordinary life is becoming more ordinary?

Ordinary is not a call to be more radical. If anything, it is a call to the contrary. The kingdom of God isn’t coming with light shows, and shock and awe, but with lowly acts of service. Tony Merida wants to push back against sensationalism and “rock star Christianity,” and help people understand that they can make a powerful impact by practicing ordinary Christianity.

Through things such as humble acts of service, neighbor love, and hospitality, Christians can shake the foundations of the culture. In order to see things happen that have never happened before, Christians must to do what Christians have always done­. Christians need to become more ordinary. 

Let’s think together about how we, ordinary people, doing ordinary things, might turn the world upside down.

However, the book is minimally about the value of ordinary things. Rather, it is really a rather legalistic argument for some social acts with a lot of assumptions, offensive statements, and bad theology. Sadly, the narration made the entire book sound like a dry speech rather than something with passion and life behind it.

The biggest problem I had with this text was Merida's reasons for loving others. In biblical Christianity, we love others because we are infused with the love of God and this is the fundamental frame with how we approach other people. However, Merida asks us to love people to meet Jesus’ commands, to be able to preach the Gospel explicitly, and to show the world that Christians are not all that bad. These are not the reasons Jesus asks us to love our neighbor. They may be added benefits, but if we do "good works" for these reasons, we functionally doing the acts for manipulative purposes, and we will hurt and damage other people.

This is where he gets into some of his offensive framings. Some examples:

• He talks about foster care not costing anything financially and actually coming with financial incentives. While technically true, we shouldn't even be discussing this if we're approaching foster care out of divine compassion. Having worked with plenty of foster families, I've seen some who essentially do it for the allowance. It's incredibly damaging. Those who foster for the right reasons wind up spending plenty of their own money.
• Merida horribly adds stigma to foster youth when he explains that foster youth often age out with only $500, which doesn’t last long, so that is why, he argues, that it's not surprising that many former foster youth turn to crimes, gangs, and prostitution. He needs to do some accurate research and recognize the implications of sharing uninformed slices of the lives of the voiceless. This statement does nothing to help the situation and likely only damages a very difficult system.
• He also adds stigma to prisoners. While encouraging readers to welcome prisoners into their homes, he explains how one family told the prisoner he could not be at home without another member present, and the father told his daughter to block the door with her dresser at night. This framing just reinforces negative (and often inaccurate) stereotypes about the untrustworthy and dangerous nature of former prisoners.
• Merida sounded self-congratulatory about adopting a fifth child from Ethiopia after four adoptions from the Ukraine: Their reason for adoption was because "We had enough love in our hearts." He talked about the need to rescue children as fundamental to adoption. Later, he calls adoption the "Cinderella doctrine of Pauline doctrine." As being a proud adoptive parent, this is the kind of approach to adoption that stigmatizes adoption and causes true psychological damage in adoptees.
• On a related note, his cultural insensitivity is astounding. He told stories of his Ukrainian-born son wanting a "sun tanned" brother (referring to his Ethiopian heritage) without recognizing the potential problematic interpretation. I don't blame the child; but this is a learning moment, even if to the reader only. He also talks later about his Ethiopian-born child not wanting to eat salad and thinking of his own mother's response to his asking why he needed to eat food: Because there are starving children in Africa. Rather than talking about how international adoption has opened his worldview and challenged his assumptions, he casually states, "Well, I guess that's not always true."

Merida also states things that are just wrong, both socially and theologically, that contribute to stigma and culture wars. Towards the end of the book, he asserts that despair is one of the greatest sins. This is one of the most psychologically harmful statements Christians make. And there's not legitimate theological support for it.

He also states at the start of the book about tolerance being problematic because we should not agree with others in the name of tolerance. Except tolerance is not agreement. It is simply acknowledging differences and allowing differences to exist without trying to force the other person to change. By incorrectly stating that one must agree in order to be tolerant, Merida is effectively advocating for a homogenous culture.

Finally, he argues that a quote attributed to Francis of Assisi ("preach the Gospel always, and if necessary, use words") is wrong. Merida emphasizes that words are always required, as we much explicitly direct people toward Christ. Some Christians believe this, but I find this to be a legalistic, narrow interpretation of the Gospel that misses its true heart, along the lines of the start of this review.

Ultimately, the book title and description is completely misleading. Merida argues that any ordinary person can engage in acts that some may call social justice (I have a hard time calling what he's saying social justice as the true justice component is missing, and there is a lot of social inaccuracies and offensiveness), but his whole book is about encouraging people to engage in prescribed activities that explicitly match biblical mandates.

In contrast, some of the central beauty of the Gospel is that lives (and even social systems) can be transformed by simply living life in a Christ-like way, loving people out of a fundamental character virtue stance of love and valuing of life and making simple decisions that contribute to systemic change that treats all people as made and loved by God.

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the publisher. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255: “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”

When Do We Engage in Debate?

Once again, great debate is raging in Christendom, casting judgment on who's in and who's out of Christ's love. Much text has been spilled on both sides of the World Vision debate. And I'm not sure much good is coming of the debate itself (likely because it's the equivalent of much yelling). My wife wrote a wonderful response (and I'm quite proud of her eloquence--I'm confident I wouldn't have had that much grace at the time).

As we saw people cite clobber verses that were completely decontextualized, I had an urge to argue their poor hermeneutics, history, and theology. My wife thought no good would come of it, as I wouldn't change their minds.

She's right--no amount of discussion, debate, or arguing will change the minds of people doing the talking. But can it impact those who are listening?

I've been in situations before when I felt the need to offer another opinion, not even necessarily to change the minds of anyone, but to raise awareness that people have honest disagreement and that other conclusions are possible. Last week, I asked if people really always reject the living God when they reject an angry, wrathful God. The problem is that often the only God some people have been told about is that one, narrow view. Without another option, many people feel like they lose all faith by changing their views.

In a similar fashion, if people believe the only way to be a Christian is one particular theological construct, when they have a concern with that perspective, then they either ignore their own reactions (which is problematic in many ways) or they feel like they have to abandon their faith completely. That is not fair (nor theologically accurate to most of Christendom) and only leads to more crises of faith rather than the building up of the body of Christ.

I loved World Vision's initial letter because it beautifully preached the centrality of love and unity in the Gospel. Their bullied retraction was the opposite, overemphasizing one issue that despite what they said, is not central nor fundamental to the Christian faith and never has been (except in a few minority denominations in the past decade).

Will we change the minds of those who publicly decried World Vision's grace? No. But if we stay silent and only allow Pharisaical voices to reign without dissent, then what message are we sending? The method is important, and there are many who responded in a much more appropriate and grace-filled way than I ever could.

But when is staying silent in the face of disagreement the best option? We see both responses from Jesus: from knocking over tables in the temple court to acting rather non-responsive in the face of crucifixion. As with most things, there is likely no perfect rule or formula. Context matters. But I'm not sure silence is always the best policy...

The Gospel According to Dickens @christianaudio

I haven't read any of Charles Dickens' original writings since probably middle school. At that point, I know I never really appreciated the beauty of his work and words. I recently listened to christianaudio's version of A Christmas Carol, which is one of their best audiobooks yet. Simon Vance's narration was excellent, with an engaging dramatization.

At a recent Bible study, someone brought up how A Christmas Carol was particularly a message about caring for our neighbors. While most of us have heard the story many times, hearing Dickens' original words really sent the message about the power and importance of loving our neighbor. While God was never explicitly mentioned, the Gospel is written all over this classic.

While it is a short book that can be easily found for free, christian audio is also offering it for free for this month!

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the publisher. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255: “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”

Love or God? @markgalli @christianaudio

The first part of my review of Mark Galli's God Wins, primarily based on Randy Alcorn's preface is here. This post reviews and engages the rest of the book, solely based on Galli's words.


Galli cites Jeremiah that the human heart is evil and deceitful. However, this is not the full picture. It ignores the New Covenant promises that Paul describes and that John Eldredge has spent many books emphasizing: Christ gives us a new, good heart. This missing element is overlooked by many of the neo-Calvinists today, which creates a punitive justice-focused system of salvation and theology and that I believe is far too narrow in focus.

Galli's first chapter clarifies different types of questions: Questions about God and questions about oneself. Galli illustrates this with examples from Mary when she asks how God will make her pregnant (not doubting that God will be able to do it) and Zechariah questioning how he can be sure that God really will give him a son (doubting the agency of God). Galli argues that Mary's type of question is good, while Zechariah's is sinful.

The contrast is compelling, but I'm not sure it's accurate. Galli seems to forget the clear case of Thomas after Jesus' resurrection, demanding to see physical evidence to believe that the resurrection has actually occurred. This sounds more like a Zechariah question to me. Yet Thomas was not at all condemned, rather met with deep love and the evidence he needed. God, of course, does not always provide the evidence we want, but asking is not necessarily sinful.

Galli argues that Bell only presents God as agent. He describes the downfalls of this extremely well, explaining that God as agent means God doing things for us. I completely agree with Galli that God as agent misses the Gospel, with God as lover as a more accurate and deeper understanding of God. This is one of my criticisms of most of the neo-Calvinist movement--I only see them presenting God as agent and leave out the whole relationship thing. At the same time, to be fair, this may be my reading of them, just as that is Galli's reading of Love Wins. I actually read that lover element in Bell's work far more than an emphasis of God as agent. If Bell limited God to this agent role, I would be in complete agreement with this criticism.

Additionally, Galli and other critics of Love Wins have argued that Bell does not present a full picture of the Gospel. I agree; he didn't. But I don't think he meant to. He was focusing on a particular element, just like most books do. In academia, an entire book can be focused on an incredibly narrow topic in order to go in-depth. In the popular press, people aren't used to this, but I think that's a better analogy for Bell's work. Bell was simply asking questions about the theology of Heaven and Hell, which is only a small element of the Gospel.

Further, Galli has joined the chorus of many others who have criticized Bell for asking questions and not resolving them. I don't see the problem there. Bell explicitly states he wrote Love Wins in order to get people to think, not necessarily to draw a line in the sand. Readers of my blog know that I value that type of perspective, so I obviously appreciate that type of writing more than taking a clear stance. Yet that makes it harder to categorize someone...

At one point, Galli criticizes Love Wins as presenting Christ's Incarnation as more important than the crucifixion and resurrection. I'm not sure that's an accurate depiction of the book anyway, however, even if it were, that may not be incorrect. Protestantism has historically emphasized the resurrection, hence the empty cross that is frequently displayed in churches. Roman Catholicism has focused on the crucifixion, resulting in the crucified Christ on display. However, a lot of the Orthodox Church has prioritized the Incarnation. So there is, in fact, a significant history of focusing on the Incarnation.

One of the central lines and arguments in Love Wins is the question, "Does God get what God wants?" while referencing Scripture that God wants all people to be reconciled to him. Yet the book also discusses how God loves us so much that he gives us what we want, so if we want Hell, we can have it.

Honestly, the way Bell phrased this no-win question was not entirely fair, but it's a beautiful literary style and excellent for an argument. However, Galli takes it a bit concretely, emphasizing how people's wants are not stable nor can be very healthy for us. Using the analogy of a child's wants, a loving parent does not simply give into those desires. In fact, love gives someone what they need, not what they want. True enough.

However, I didn't read Love Wins in the same way. I would have a hard time believing Bell meant this type of superficial wanting. Rather, it is a deeper acceptance or not of the reality of God's love. The best example of this I can think of is from Les Miserables (spoiler alert, if you don't know the story). Javert, the officer of the law, has been tracking Jean Valjean for decades, with the belief that once a thief, always a thief. When Valjean spares Javert's life later, Javert is unable to accept that reality. He cannot live in a world of grace and transformation, so he commits suicide. He would rather die than live. That's the wanting that God will not force on us. There are people who will not be able to handle who would be accepted in Heaven, so they choose Hell.

This relates to another one of Galli's central criticisms of Love Wins: It gives too much weight to people's free will. Galli argues that people running their own lives is not freedom, but rather slavery to sin, and there is definite truth to that. He also basically argues for a bondage of the will perspective, explaining how the Holy Spirit is what gives us faith to believe in God. Again, I think Galli read Bell's book too literally. The bondage of the will and freedom of the will debate has existed for centuries and continues to do so, now particularly in the realm of neuropsychology. I'm not going to get into that debate for now, but again, the point is that there is a long, strong history supporting a freedom of the will and even some combination of bondage and freedom.

Galli also criticizes Love Wins as presenting God as impersonal and not present in Heaven. I would simply chalk this up to differences in reading because I read Love Wins as an intensely personal, relational Father who is the epitome of Heaven. Bell may have used different language than many evangelicals do in describing the personal nature of God. However, I found the language incredibly meaningful and personal.

Like many critics of Love Wins, Galli labels it as supporting universalism. The problem with most of these comments is that they use a particular definition of universalism. The way I have always heard universalism defined is that all religions are essentially equal, along the ideas that all paths lead to God. That's most definitely not what is presented in Love Wins. In fact, on page 78, Bell states, "What Jesus does is declare that he, and he alone, is saving everybody." Earlier, he explains that Jesus is the only way to God. However, does not mean that people of other faiths cannot be saved through Jesus: "What he doesn't say is how, or when, or in what manner the mechanism functions that gets people to God through him. He doesn't even state that those coming to the Father through him will even know that they are coming exclusively through him. He simply claims that whatever God is doing in the world to know and redeem and love and restore the world is happening through him" (p. 77).

Some people cannot comprehend how a person Jesus could save someone from another religion and not be a universalist. But this perspective would state that Christianity does have greater value and insight into life and God than other faiths. It is a Christianity worth believing, as Doug Pagitt has said. True universalism would say Christianity is not better than any other faith. That is simply not present in Love Wins.

What I think was the best contribution this work provided to Christian literature on the argument for eternal damnation was that finite events have long-term consequences. A car accident that was not my fault can result in an amputation or many other issues. The decision to get drunk once can lead to all sorts of behaviors with very lasting consequences. This is how many things work, although we try to think all consequences don't last. Galli's argument is that this is the situation with Heaven and Hell and our decision to follow God in the present life. Rather than God necessarily punishing us, those eternal states are simply the natural consequences. The question Bell raises that many people have asked still remains, though: Would a loving God set up these as the natural consequences?

Ultimately, God Wins is stimulating, but I found Love Wins to actually demonstrate a fuller and deeper view of the Gospel and God than God Wins, albeit Galli's reason for writing this book was the lack of fullness and depth in Love Wins from his perspective. If one is very interested in the Heaven-Hell debate, this is a good resource for additional ideas.

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the publisher. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255: “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”

The Selfish Gospel @9MarksOnline @nextchristians @christianaudio @caReviewers

The latest book I got to review for christianaudio's reviewer program (meaning I received a complimentary copy) was Greg Gilbert's What is the Gospel? This book is actually part of a series from 9marks, going in-depth about what that organization considers to be the nine marks of a healthy church, as argued by Mark Dever.

I actually finished this audiobook over a week ago, but I didn't feel any urge to get a review out quickly because I really didn't care for the book. I was also trying to figure out good ways to positively engage with it.

The purpose of this tome is to answer the question of the title: What is the Gospel? Gilbert makes the excellent point that Christians are fragmented in our definitions of what the Gospel is. While I see that (generally) more as an element of different people emphasizing different aspects of the Gospel, Gilbert seems to almost take offense that there is not a simple, unified definition. His writing seems to question the salvation of people who do not understand the Gospel in the same way he does of Penal Substitutionary Atonement as paramount.

He begins the book by arguing that the Gospel is larger than most people make it to be, a statement with which I agree. However, he quickly simplifies it to issues of salvation. I find it somewhat interesting that his book was offered to review at the same time as The Next Christians, which I loved. The latter does a much better job at explaining how the Gospel is much more than simply salvation from Hell.

In any case, I think I found some of the reasons I had problems with Gilbert's text. First of all, he states that as Christians, we value the Bible as infallible and inerrant, thus taking a literal view. This is a big theological assertion, as the majority of Christendom does not view Scripture as both infallible and inerrant. This is an example of how Gilbert implies that if one does not interpret Scripture the same way he does, that individual is not actually a Christian. There are people who take this view. I am not one of them and feel very strongly about this.

This approach to Scripture shapes all of his interpretations, which is where my problems begin. With a literal view, people often approach the Bible from a "plain meaning" perspective, assuming they understand it from a simple reading. Therefore, explanation is not often needed. Gilbert exemplifies this approach by providing evidence for his statements by simply stating, "see Revelation," without additional explanation.

While he makes some good points about the Gospel, this approach of simply citing Scripture without providing his interpretation of it makes his arguments unsupported, in my view. Further, I simply disagree with his reading of many elements of Scripture because I do not approach the Bible as inerrant.

I believe many other things should be considered to help us understand the Bible, including tradition, intuition, science, etc. These things should not supersede the Bible, but they are relevant, as the Bible is not always clear. Gilbert, however, argues that relying on tradition, intuition, etc. for truths, leads to unanswered questions. And he indicates that unanswered questions are unacceptable. This is an area with which I strongly disagree. I think God gives us many unanswered questions, and that is not a problem. In fact, it creates a rich space for growth. And ironically, Gilbert uses the Bible the same way the people he criticizes use tradition and intuition--just accepting what they have been told and not critically engaging it to find Truth.

One of the things Gilbert frequently says is that the Good News of the Bible is that we can be rescued (I agree). However, he says, that unless we know we need to be rescued, it's not good news. So we need to emphasize the sinful, wicked nature of people to point out how depraved they are. I disagree with this. Most people I know actually know very well how much they need help. They don't need others reminding them. That just makes things worse. And sometimes the way we find out we need help is by getting the help and getting out of the situation.

In any case, Gilbert seems to emphasize how we need to know how the Gospel is Good News for me. Not for other people. For me. There's a selfish feel to it, in my opinion. In many ways, he presents what Gabe Lyons describes in The Next Christians as a view of doing good for the most people rather than for all people. Jesus and the Gospel definitely focus on emphasizing good for all people, not just a few. While only a few may take advantage of it, they do not only offer it to those few.

So therefore, cultural change is a powerful thing that is very holy and central to the Gospel. Gilbert argues that cultural transformation is not part of the Gospel. However, the way he describes it seems to be more related to Lyons' description of cultural Christians, those who take Christ in-name-only and look like the culture. In contrast, the restorers are people who are deeply connected to Christ and want to restore the world and the culture to God's hope and dream for the world in a way that will benefit all people. That's a powerful and True Gospel.

Don't Waste Your Life @JohnPiper @christianaudio @caReviewers

John Piper is a prolific writer who people seem to either love or hate. In December, I had the opportunity to review his latest book (in audiobook format), which made me into a non-fan of Piper. I cross-post my reviews on other sites, including Amazon. It was quite interesting to see how passionately people defended Piper in response to my review. And how they review the usefulness of a review and people's comments based on their agreement with them.


Another of Piper's books became available in christianaudio's reviewers program (with a complimentary copy), so I decided to take the opportunity to give Piper another chance. Don't Waste Your Life is actually an older book of Piper's (from 2006), and it definitely gave me a more positive view of Piper.


I'm still not a Piper fan, but he presented a much more balanced view of life in this book. As the title suggests, he is encouraging people to not waste their lives. In short, we need to live for Christ and not for the materialism of the world in order to not waste our lives. He gives an excellent story from his childhood that his father would frequently tell people about an older man who died feeling like his life was wasted on "worldly" endeavors.


I agree with this viewpoint. We need meaning and purpose in life, and the only way to get true meaning is by loving others through Christ (or more accurately, letting Christ love others through us). I also appreciated that Piper acknowledged the various ways people can enhance the Kingdom--not always through explicit ministry. He did an excellent job of supporting an incarnational view of spreading the Gospel, as he noted the critical need of people to do "mundane, secular" jobs.


He illustrates these points with nice stories, anecdotes, and metaphors. At the same time, it would have probably been easy to make a more concise version of the book.


In his eagerness to emphasize the tragedy of a wasted life, Piper also invalidates other life tragedies. He explicitly states that people getting cancer and dying in accidents are not tragedies. I greatly and passionately disagree. These are all tragedies; just different types.


Further, there was still too much emphasis on sin and leading a holy (meaning morally pure) life. From my post Wednesday: "While we do need to combat sin and move toward moral purity, this is something that is impossible in this world. And it's not the primary goal of the Gospel or what God wants, in my opinion. He wants a relationship with us. And battling sin can get in the way of that. If we are always beating ourselves up in order to repent, we are ignoring God's redemption and therefore ignoring God."


Different Christian traditions emphasize the roles of repentance and redemption to varying degrees. Piper clearly comes from one that sees the role of continual repentance as central. I think we need to emphasize redemption more.

Salvation, Gospel, and Evangelism Without Repentance

When people talk about salvation, the Gospel, and evangelism, repentance is almost always central. Along the lines of the morality discussions from the last couple of days, repentance is a good thing. We need to recognize where we've screwed up so we can rectify that and grow.

However, I'm coming to realize that one can evangelize without emphasizing repentance. As I have discussed over the last couple of days, the Christian life is not about repenting of sin and becoming "holy" (i.e. pure). Rather it is about becoming holy by coming close to God through Christ.

That includes repentance and morality, but does not necessarily start nor end with it. It starts and ends with desire and love for Christ. Yet so often salvation, the Gospel, and evangelism begin and end with "Repent!" and give a cursory nod to love of and for God.

The problem is that most people I know already know how and that they have screwed up. They don't need to be reminded of that. Having God shame us and beat us up even more is not helpful. (No, I don't believe God does this, but that is the message I always get from the message people discuss of repentance.)

I thought I was not big on evangelism because I'm not big on shaming people more. And the centrality of repentance has never felt right to me. These were thoughts I had while listening to an audiobook version of Blue Like Jazz (review forthcoming).

Then I read a Celtic prayer book my wife got me for my birthday. And I realized that I actually am quite passionate about evangelism. My passion is for emphasizing the journey of faith. It's about telling people about transformation that is possible in relationship. It's about finding Truth through struggle. If I didn't have that passion, I would not be maintaining this blog or doing many other things I do.

I believe a lot of other people have a passion for evangelism but have been shamed into believing they are not evangelists because they are not telling people they suck but God loves them anyway. How different would the face of Christianity and the world be if we included repentance as a natural step in the path of faith rather than a shaming gate?

I think this is where repentance can be quite helpful: Not in telling people they suck (since most know that already), but that they need to rely on God to help with their suckiness. I think that's where a lot of us falter, even after our initial "repentance." Reliance on God and walking with him is central to the Christian faith journey. And trying to go it alone is where the central sin is, I think...

Luther's Incarnational Gospel

This weekend, I found a neat plaque with a quote from Martin Luther, saying "God writes the Gospel not in the Bible alone, but also on trees, and in the flowers and clouds and stars."

Anyway, I really like and agree with this quote and find it quite interesting that it comes from Luther. As many people know, Luther advocated Sola Scriptura, stating that we only use Scripture to come to conclusions. I wrote an earlier post challenging this theology, too.

Assuming this quote really did come from Luther and is not a popular misattribution (Googling it seems to show that it really was attributable to Luther, although I don't know the original source), I think it emphasizes that followers of various leaders and theologians may not understand them correctly. Even before Luther died, many people misinterpreted his work and took it to disturbing levels, which included the deaths of many people. We need to be aware of our potential misinterpretations of various theologies.

Sola Scriptura is one of them. I think it's really important to remember the other ways God writes and shares the Gospel. It's not just in the explicit text of the Bible. And we must remember that the world around us influences our interpretations of the Gospel. How and where have you seen the Gospel?

Set Apart

Last week, I discussed the love one another verse in Leviticus and a way of looking at Leviticus other than the legalistic way we often approach it.

This past week, Luke 6:27-42 was part of the devotional liturgy in the Mosaic Bible. This is the passage on loving your enemies. As I was reading it, I thought back to the Levitical love passage and blog post. This is another passage that is often approached legalistically, with people sometimes literally saying to have people whack you on both cheeks.

I'm not sure Jesus was advocating a literal adherence to this way of loving our enemies. This time reading through it, the passage hit me more as a way of living out the "love one another" command and setting ourselves apart from the rest of the culture. The culture at the time of Jesus was not very loving. There was a lot of hierarchy and abuse (including quite literal, physical abuse). So engaging people in a different way was as a significant a difference as the ways the Israelites were commanded to act in Leviticus in contrast to the other Canaanites. Frankly, in Jesus' time, living out Leviticus would not have really been that significant as a way of setting believers apart.

We are a much more loving society, at least on the surface. Treating people fairly is expected (again, at least on the surface). Are we really asked to become doormats and walked all over. I don't think so. Rather, we need to love people radically in ways that are holy and biblical and are different from the rest of the world. This is not to say that loving people in the ways of the world are inappropriate. We just need to do something more, too.

I'm honestly not totally sure what this would look like. I have some ideas, but I'd rather hear what some of yours are.

Priorities

So often in so many churches, we fight about little things. This post by Dan Kimball really emphasizes that we need to live out our priorities. What do you think the priorities of the church should be?

I am not always convinced we should pay attention to eternal lives while neglecting current lives, as I alluded to in an earlier post. However, life in any form is more important than carpet... :)

Holism

This is an interesting article on looking at the holism of the Gospel and people often ignoring the whole Gospel and the whole church. It's a different use of holism than I had discussed earlier.

Biblical Witness to Peacemaking

As many of you know, my dissertation was on faith-based peacemaking, so this document, the Biblical Witness to Peacemaking, is quite interesting to me. I like how they break up so many elements to peace. That's one of the things I think is most important when "evangelizing" peace: It's not just nonviolence. That's a very limited perspective of peace. Rather, peace is better defined as human flourishing and prosocial actions. Anyway, I'll leave it at that for now. :)

More on Evangelism Definition

This is an interesting article that was just posted today on the definition of evangelical. Convenient based on my earlier post. :)

Cultural Engagement & Slippery Slops

This is an excellent, accurate, historical argument against the slippery slope arguments condemning cultural engagement.

Gospel Problems

This is a great post entitle What's Wrong With Out Gospel. I really like the Incarnational elements.