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.

Are We Good Or Evil? @jonathanbrink

Jonathan Brink recently released his book, Discovering the God Imagination, and he provided me a complimentary copy to review.

In this book, he tackles the assumptions most Christians have over the salvation story. He nicely argues that most theories and interpretations place the problem outside of us: On God, on Satan, on the law. And the solution is that a ransom has to be paid to one of those things. Each way of approaching this problem has major problems of its own (which Brink details).

Rather, he argues that the problem is actually our perception of ourselves, specifically how we answer the question, "Are we good or evil?"

Beginning with the creation story, Brink argues that God has judged humanity as good. What happened with the Fall is that we have given into a lie that we are evil and only redeemable through violence and bloodshed.

Brink continues through major stories within the Bible, exploring how God is not judging humanity as evil, but rather engaging in redemptive acts. What Brink says is that God's actions are not for him or for Satan, but rather for us. WE are the ones who need the violence, judgment, etc. Without that, we are unable to see the lie we have given into.

The best analogy I can think of is the standard interpretation of the establishment of kings in Israel. God didn't want or need kings. Israel wanted them. And God gave them a king to show them that this would not solve the problem. As Brink ays, "The long, slow progression of God interacting with a chosen group of people reveals an astonishing idea. God establishes and uses the human constructs in Israel to exhaust their possibility. God allows Israel to explore pride, social comparison, relationships, the law, and religion to see that they don't work" (p. 195).

All our ways of trying to save ourselves don't work. We need Jesus. However, it is not God, Satan, or the law who requires this sacrifice. It is humanity:

The religious contract is our final demand for satisfaction. We need the atonement. We need a way to appease our own sense of guilt. We demand something so perfect that it will fill our sense of violence with a nauseating stench. The brutality of this act is seen the moment we place our own children in the hands of the crowd. What we would never do, God does for us. The final act of atonement is the father giving up his son at the demands of humanity. (p. 239)

This is a rather radical idea and one I haven't heard before. I'm still processing it and its theological consequences (many of which Brink skillfully tackles). I can see many more conservative Christians getting up in arms with this "new" perspective. But that's the problem: Our perspective. We need to change it anyway. And the theological implications of this interpretation are actually quite in line with traditional, orthodox Christianity. It just approaches it all differently. And that can be quite good.

Everything he says fits with what I know about the Bible, God, and humanity. It all fits. I've had a lot of problems with many of the traditional salvation interpretations. There's hole that just don't fit with what we know about God.

As a result, I highly recommend this book. Not only does Brink present a very good, well written theological treatise, he does so while approaching the Bible as completely true (unlike even some of the traditional theologians). He knows the Bible well. And truly the arguments come from the Bible.

Additionally, Brink is part of the emerging conversation, which has contributed to a lot of deconstruction of our preconceived notions of church, theology, God, ourselves, etc. One of the things I particularly appreciate about this book and Brink is summarized in the book's subtitle: "Reconstructing a Whole New Christianity." Deconstruction is important, but so is reconstructions, which is the purpose of this blog.

My one complaint about the book is actually the cover. It looks a cheesy, bad theology book or some lame New Age, self-help book. But we have to remember not to judge a book by its cover, right? :)

Polarized Thinking in the Church

Last year, when I was running group on cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), we would often discuss polarized thinking (also known as black-and-white or dichotomous thinking). In exploring how this can be damaging, people often discuss how it hurts ourselves. But I also think it's important to point out how it hurts others.

When we view people with our dichotomous thinking, we often thinking of them as either perfect or horrible (this idea is known as splitting). While it can feel good to be thought of as perfect, it is also anxiety provoking and setting others up for failure.

A perfect example is clergy. As a society, we often view clergy as perfect (or supposed to be perfect). A perfect example of this expectation of perfection is when people make mistakes. We've had several big-name pastors "fall" in the last couple of years.

We're never shocked when an actor has an affair (or even a politician), but a pastor? What makes them so special that they are free from temptation and sin? Really, they're more susceptible to such problems because of how the church community uses and abuses pastors.

So we hold this view of perfection, then the person doesn't meet that expectation, and so they move to the opposite extreme. This is not healthy, helpful, or biblical. Jonathan Brink wrote a nice post regarding Ted Haggard and the shock people have that he could start a new church. He also has nice, but sad joke about the situation.

But seriously. Why can't he start and led a church? He should not have been kicked out of his last church, in my opinion. He's human. He's made mistakes. That's what would make him a GOOD pastor! But then again, he moved into the area of sexual sin, the black hold of evil...