2014 Books In Review

Very late in posting this, but here it is!  The list of books I read in 2014, divided by category.

THEOLOGY

Living in the Gap Between Promise and Reality by Iain Duguid
Let the Reader Understand by Dan McCartney
Understanding Dispensationalists by Vern Poythress
Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology by Pascal Denault
The Gospel in Genesis by Martyn Lloyd-Jones
Jesus on Every Page by David Murray
Covenant Theology: A Reformed Baptist Primer by Doug Van Dorn
The Goldsworthy Trilogy by Graeme Goldsworthy (most read in 2014, finished 2015)
Sermons On The Deity of Christ by John Calvin

Favorite for the Year:  Covenant Theology: A Reformed Baptist Primer by Doug Van Dorn.  So there were a lot of good books in this category for 2014, but I give the nod to my friend Doug here.  (Denault was a very close second!)  I've been waiting for Doug to write something on Covenant Theology for a while, and although I still like his baptism book better, this is an EXCELLENT piece of work.  Perfect for a good understanding of covenant theology from a Reformed Baptist perspective.  I think paedobaptists will appreciate it, and baptists will learn something new.  A very worthy companion to the baptism book and one every Christian should read.  Although make no mistake, you can't go wrong with Calvin or Lloyd-Jones!

POLITICAL

Guilty by Ann Coulter
One Nation by Ben Carson

Favorite for the Year:  One Nation by Ben Carson.  I love this guy, he makes a lot of sense, and I am praying and hoping he has a successful presidential run.  This book is inspired common sense and if you have never heard of Ben Carson, google "Ben Carson Prayer Breakfast" and listen to the speech he gave.  Fantastic.  Then, read this book.  Then, go vote for him.

HISTORY

We Were There: Revelations from the Dallas Doctors Who Attended to JFK on November 22, 1963 By Allen Childs.  By default, this is the favorite of the year for this category since I decided to make History it's own category and not mix it with the Biographies.  It was a fascinating book, a collection of stories from the doctors who attended to JFK the day he was shot.  There are one or two tidbits in this book that I didn't already know surrounding the death of JFK, so well worth it.

FICTION

The Brethren by John Grisham
The Realms Thereunder by Ross Lawhead
What I'd Say To The Martians by Jack Handey
Die Trying by Lee Child
Breathless by Dean Koontz
The Bone House by Stephen Lawhead
The Wise Man's Fear by Patrick Rothfuss

Favorite for the Year: The Wise Man's Fear by Patrick Rothfuss.  Once again, my favorite author, Stephen Lawhead was edged out by Rothfuss.  This is the second book in the King killer Chronicles and it is great story telling.  It does take a little time, measuring at over 1100 pages, but worth it.  There is a section in the middle that I could have done without, but overall, a great story with a great hero to root for.  It left me anxiously awaiting the third book in the series.  Lawhead was as great as ever of course, and I'm enjoying the Jack Reacher novels by Lee Child as well.  I'm hooked.  Now, the biggest waste of the year for any category was Breathless by Dean Koontz.  I won't spoil the ending, but it was awful.  Just awful.  Lots of build, fairly interesting, and then at the end, he just completely drops the ball.  I think I remember this from a couple of his other books though.  He just can't finish a story well.  When I finish a book, and I say out loud, "that's it?"  It isn't a very good book.  It might be quite a while before I pick up another Koontz book.

CLASSIC

The Man Who Was Thursday by G.K. Chesterton
Tarzan of the Apes By Edgar Rice Burroughs

Favorite for the Year:  Tarzan of the Apes by Edgar Rice Burroughs.  I loved this book.  I knew the story, but Burroughs is a fantastic story teller and it was hard to put this book down.  Captivating.  Highly recommend reading this if you never have, even if you know the story.

CHILDREN

The Slippery Slope by Lemony Snickett
Bible Animals by Richard Newton

Favorite for the Year: Tie.  I liked both of these for different reasons.  Snickett is just funny and I appreciate the humor, but Newton does a great job relating Scripture truths to children and i'm a big fan of his work and so thankful they are being published again.

BIOGRAPHY

Walt Disney: An American Original  by Bob Thomas
Gospel Focus of Charles Spurgeon by Stephen Lawson
Jim Henson: The Biography by Brian Jay Jones
The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt by Edmund Morris

Favorite for the Year:  The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt by Edmund Morris.  The Disney biography was a very close second.  Anything about Walt Disney fascinates me.  However, Roosevelt is definitely a hero of mine and Morris does a great job with this biography and while long, (780pages) I find myself more and more intrigued with Roosevelt and that's a good thing.  I have the other 2 volumes and plan on reading the second one in 2015.

APPLIED CHRISTIANITY

Date Your Wife by Justin Buzzard
Fools Rush in: Where Monkeys Fear to Tread by Carl Trueman
What Did You Expect? by David Paul Tripp
Ordinary by Michael Horton

Favorite for the Year: Fools Rush In by Justin Buzzard.  This is a weird category, I admit.  Not everything in it is actually applied Christianity, but it isn't theology either so I compromise.  Anyhow, Trueman is a funny guy, and I really enjoyed this book.  The Date Your Wife book was excellent too, and a lot more help than I was expecting.


Well there you have it, my own little awards show of sorts for books.  If you have comments, questions or recommendations, let me know!

Interview with Doug Van Dorn, Author of "GIANTS-Sons of the Gods"

I've known Doug for a long time, and I was honored to be a part of the preliminary work on his first book, "Waters of Creation".  He has now published a second, "GIANTS - Sons of the Gods" and in it, he addresses the Biblical issue of giants, the supernatural, and the victory that Jesus Christ won.

He was gracious enough to answer some questions about his latest book and about the supernatural in general. - Along with LEGO Legolas.

Sean: Why did you write, "Giants: Sons of The Gods" ?

DVD  I wrote the book for a couple of reasons.  First, it is simply fascinating.  I mean, who doesn’t love stories of giants?  Goliath is one of the best known stories in the Bible.  But when I found out just how many giants were in the Bible, and what the early Jews and church thought happened to them when they died, I thought this is a perfect way to tell the story of Christ in a way most people have never imagined possible. 

Sean:  I know in the book you addressed some of your frustration at the question, "what makes this practical?" But give me an idea of why this particular subject matters to us today.

DVD To our first mother, Eve, God promised that through her, one of her descendants would destroy Satan.  But along the way, there would be a great battle between the “seed” of Satan and the seed of Eve.  The giants are that seed in physical form in the OT.  This battle is a spiritual battle for the very souls of humanity, for our allegiance, obedience, and submission to the God of all creation.  These ancient foes present in very physical terms the spiritual battle that remains for Christians today.  We fight against the same foes.  Our battle is not against flesh and blood, but principalities and powers in heavenly places.  However, Christ has won the war.  It is his victory in this battle that gives Christians hope and freedom in the face of slavery and fear against our spiritual adversaries.

Sean:  If there is one thing you want people to take with them from your book, what is it?

DVD Jesus Christ has won the victory over the giants in the most stunning of ways.  This book is written so that he might be praised for his great work.

Sean: Explain a little more on how Jesus gained the victory over the Giants.

DVD I’m working on a catechism that will hopefully explain this in more detail, but one of the questions answers, “Jesus bound the ... giants in his life, disarmed and triumphed over them at the cross in his death, proclaimed victory over them in his resurrection, and rules over them in his ascension  and through his church, and will finally and totally destroy them in his glorious Second Coming.”  In other words, his entire earthly life was spent displaying his power over the demons, which the early Jews and Church Fathers believed were the disembodied spirits of the giants.  At the time of his death, Peter says that he went and proclaimed to them his victory over them.  Now, in his ascension, he is seated at the right hand of God, the position of power and authority.  This is a power over the powers and rulers and principalities that exist in heavenly places.  His victory and power is especially displayed in and through his church, which is where the kingdom of God comes, for in the preaching of the gospel, demonic strongholds are laid waste, and the people they hold captive are freed from their tyrannical and evil rule.

Sean:  If you had to do it all over again, would you change anything in your book?

DVD Not so far, but I’m always open to suggestions for a revision.

Sean:  Some of what you talked about in the book, for example, the half-breed creatures, was honestly, downright creepy.  Did any of this work keep you up at night knowing the reality of the things you were writing about?

DVD You know, that is actually an interesting question.  My first response was “no.”  However, I would be lying if I said I haven’t had a few creepy dreams about some of this stuff.  If the Fathers were correct, then even if the physical giants have all been slaughtered today (the verdict is still out on that question in my opinion), what they have left behind is perhaps too frightening to really deal with.  But that is exactly why the one thing to take away from this book that you asked a moment ago is so important.  Because Christ has overcome them (and their evil fathers), what has a Christian to fear?  I think Martin Luther may have said it best.  “And though this world with devils filled, has threatened to undo us.  We will not fear for God has willed, his truth to triumph through us.”  Christ will gain all the glory, and his saints will be saved and protected.

Sean:  Why do you think the supernatural explanation of Genesis 6 has been so discarded among evangelicals?

DVD  I’ve thought a lot about this question, and talked about it with several pastors.  My opinion is that we have been much more infected (I use that term like a disease) with modern rationalism and naturalism than we ever care to admit.  We are people of our own times, and this is all the more true when we do not read older things in order to help us see the blindness that our own culture can create in us.  C. S. Lewis wrote about this quite a bit in terms of what he called chronological snobbery, the lack of reading of old books, and the demythologization of our days.  What finally converted him (instrumentally speaking), was when he realized that the Bible was the myth that was true. 

But something else happened a lot earlier than modernistic philosophies.  It seems to me that what happened was that somewhere between the 3^rd and 5^th centuries, the church lost the worldview of the fathers of the giants—the sons of God, created the heavenly beings.  If the giants’ fathers are not supernatural, then it follows that neither are the giants.  In so doing, the church lost the very categories that makes such belief possible.  I’m not quite sure how it happened, but it is clear that by the time of Chrysostom and Augustine (around the 400 A. D.), this worldview had been thoroughly rejected by the church.  Perhaps the influence of the Rabbis, who basically outlawed the idea of supernatural “sons of God” because of the rise of Christianity after the destruction of their temple in 70 A. D. had some kind of a negative impact in the church in this regard, I don’t know.   Perhaps the sands of time literally buried older stories in the sands and deserts of the Middle East.  The later Fathers sometimes called these things “the silly ideas of the Jews” (and worse).  So it is ironic that it was the Jews that first put the kibosh in believing these things.  

Whatever the case, we need to stop paying lip service to our belief in the supernatural and then denying it when it stares us straight in the face, no matter how uncomfortable that may be for us.  We need to realize that this is no more “silly” than belief in a Trinity or a God-man or a virgin birth.  To secular people, these things are ridiculous and absurd.  To us, they are true, historical, and the core of our faith.

Sean:  I think that's a good way to put it, "paying lip service" to our belief in the supernatural.  In fact, it made me reflect on my own views of things and how at first all of what you write about seems so strange, but then again, so does a talking serpent, a talking donkey, a floating axehead etc. etc... yet all of those are in the Bible as well.  I think it's important to realize that for a lot of people, what you present in your book really is a kind of a shift in worldview for them.  I find it fascinating that many Christians (past and present) scoff at the supernatural view and yet the secular world embraces it. In Hollywood for instance with all the movies and books about vampires, giants, and even all the mythology that is so prominent at the box office with "Thor", the "Avengers", "Superman" etc.  Based on that, do you believe this subject matter could (and should) be used as an apologetic in the same way Paul used "the unknown God" to witness to the Greeks?

DVD  Very much so, and this also gets at the question you asked a moment ago about practicality.  X-Men, Superman, the Avengers—these are but the recycling of ancient myths for modern sensibilities.  We wrap it up in evolutionary and scientific garb, but it’s the same thing.  Thor is probably the best example, as he is both a modern comic superhero and a real Nordic demigod like Hercules, which would make him a giant.  If Christians can understand the old ways of thinking and wrap their minds around the idea that sometime in our ancient dim past, heavenly beings came down to earth and produced a race of demigods who were revered and then worshiped the whole world over, then suddenly we can make sense of why these themes do not go away (these beings never die), and we can begin to think of situations where we can enter into conversations with people to help them understand that there is tyranny involved when such powers are in play, even though it seems fun and cool the way it is portrayed in the comics and the movies.  But Jesus has freed us from that necessity; he has defeated the Prince of Demons, and ushered in the glories of the age to come through his work and his church.  I think two particularly fertile fields here are Mormonism, since they already have a worldview that accepts the gods, and Roman Catholicism, since their practice of saint worship is almost identical to the ancient practice of venerating and worshiping demons through statues.  We just have to figure out ways of making Christ’s absolute rule and authority, his utter uniqueness and power known, and the dangers of engaging in misplaced beliefs and practices to those who do not understand what they are doing.

Sean: By the way, are you aware that LEGO has an entire theme called "Chima", which is based on "Chimera" (and I think it was originally called Legends of Chimera before they changed it)? 

DVD  I’m not sure.  Is this the same LEGO that makes Leggo-My-LEGO-Eggo-Legless-LEGO-Legolas and his friend Legless-LEGO-legolas’s LEGO Lass? 

Sean:  While reading, "Giants: Sons of the Gods", I noticed you were very careful to avoid pure speculation, conspiracy theories, and just plain nonsense.  What did you encounter in your research that kept you looking for facts and reliable stories?

DVD  It is just a bent I have.  Actually, there are two bents that I have.  I’m actually drawn to conspiracy theories.  I find them fascinating.  But I’m not sure how helpful they are.  Did you ever see the Mel Gibson movie Conspiracy Theory?  People always remember that he got one conspiracy right, and that becomes the main storyline of the movie.  What people forget is that he got hundreds of them ... wrong!  In fact, the character was basically certifiable.  That’s what delving into conspiracies can do to a beautiful mind.  So I wanted to go against my darker side and write a book that was researched by respected and peer reviewed authorities.  Besides, there are a growing number of conspiratorial books on giants out there right now, so I needed to be different. 

That’s my other bent.  Perhaps it makes me a bit crazy, given that I like conspiracies.  But even those conspiracies I like to see how well documented and researched they are, and what kind of sources people are using.  I don’t like pure speculation.  I also know that there are a lot of claims I’m making that are difficult enough to swallow, even with good, solid research behind them.  So, I figured, let’s stick with the facts, and give people a good trail to follow in footnotes, so that they can check for themselves if what I’m saying is true.  The reader can draw whatever conspiracy hypothesis he or she wants to draw without any help from me.

Sean:  I think most people are in some way drawn into conspiracy theories.  I think they fascinate us because often times we hope it will lead us into a larger world, or a darker world, or a more mysterious world.  However, I also think they are very dangerous because it breeds fear (even if there are some truth to them) and in Christ, our fear has been cast out. Knowing you for as long as I have, I know you have a great and wonderful burden to proclaim the gospel.  What then is the appropriate response of a Christian embracing the view you present in the book?  Do you view it as a worship issue?  What can and should churches be doing in light of the facts you presented?  (I know, that was 3 questions rolled into one)

DVD  First, I think we need to be willing to embrace that which is clearly taught in the Bible, even if it seems strange to us.  This works on the level of our presuppositions.  It is a basic attitude we approach the Bible with.  Frankly, most of what I write about in the book is perfectly clear—if you have the ancient worldview to comprehend it. 

Second, all of life is in one way or another a worship issue.  So, yes, it is about worship.  We can fall off either side of the boat, however.  People who recognize the supernatural can still fall prey to its seductions.  They can even engage in demonic behavior while justifying that it keeps the devil away.  I think of saint worship or—and I don’t want this to offend anyone needlessly, so I’ll try to say it carefully—much of the “tongues” phenomena that takes place around us.  It looks so foreign to what we see regarding tongues in the Bible, and I believe it can certainly have demonic origins.  On the other hand, when we refuse to understand or acknowledge the invisible realities of what is before us, we can be duped into thinking it doesn’t really even exist or doesn’t really have much of an impact in this world.  This can have serious repercussions if we are not able to recognize that others, especially in places where demon worship is still so strong, are bound up in slavery by forces we don’t understand.  I have serious concern that this is exactly what is happening again in America at the present moment.  Perhaps Hollywood’s fun movies are portending something of a great evil that even now is descending upon our land, bringing about a neo-Dark Age.  But the gospel works at the supernatural level, proclaiming to them that when God saves a person (supernaturally), they no longer have a right to hold them captive. 

Thus, third, the church can start talking about these things again.  There is a ton of solid research that backs up the worldview I present in this book.  We first need to educate the church and understand how to make sense of these things while maintaining Christian orthodoxy.  Then we can strategize how we can use this knowledge to reach people with the only Word that will free them from that which they do not even know binds them in slavery.  This will in turn mean that we must recover the only gospel message that has any power over these entities.  “One little word shall fell them, that word above all earthly powers, no thanks to them, abideth.”  It is the message of Jesus Christ, born in flesh, dead in the tomb for our sins, buried to proclaim his victory, raised to life for our justification, ascended into heaven as King and Lord of the universe, returning again to judge the living and the dead.  This Word they cannot stand, for He has defeated them and they are powerless against the risen Christ.

Sean:  Has writing this book inspired you to start on another?  Is there something in your research and or writing that you would love to expound on one day?

DVD   I’m always working on books, too many of them probably.  If I could find a way to write a book on the fathers of the sons of God that was new material or old material told in a new way, I would do it in a heartbeat.  I’m also working, as I said, on a catechism to train people in the supernatural things in the Bible.  I’m calling it The Erie Catechism (a double entendre based on the town I live in). 

I would like to thank Doug for taking the time to do this little interview.  "Giants-Sons of the Gods", is available here  in both paperback and kindle versions.   You can also listen to Doug's sermons preached at Reformed Baptist Church Of Northern Colorado online here.

2012 Books In Review

A little late, but here is the list of books I read in 2012, in the various categories I've labeled.  I've done a very brief review of my favorites from each category.

THEOLOGY

Table Talk  by Martin Luther
Right In Their Own eyes  by George Schwab
The Works of Thomas Brooks, Volume II  by Thomas Brooks
The Bondage Of The Will  by Martin Luther

Favorite:  Table Talk  by Martin Luther
     I haven't enjoyed a book like I enjoyed this one in a long time.  I usually mark pages for quotes and passages that I want to remember, or that i love etc.  This one has little page markers all over it.  Luther is hilarious, insightful, witty, and an amazing storyteller.  What I wouldn't give to have been one of the students who sat at his table!

FICTION

The Two Towers  by J.R. Tolkien
The Hunger Games  by Suzanne Collins
Catching Fire  by Suzanne Collins
The Endless Knot  by Stephen Lawhead
Chosen  by Ted Dekker
Patrick  by Stephen Lawhead
Killing Floor  by Lee Child
Mockingjay  by Suzanne Collins

Favorite:  The Hunger Games  by Suzanne Collins
     My favorite author is Stephen Lawhead, and most of the time, his book(s) would definitely be the favorite.  However, this year, I was intrigued with the Hunger Games.  It was an amazing page-turner, and although Collins isn't the best writer I've read, she can certainly tell a good story, and that's what the Hunger Games was.  Unfortunately, the rest of the series wasn't as good in my opinion, and went nowhere.  The Hunger Games thrived where the other two books, Catching Fire, and Mockingjay, lost steam as they progressed.  It was actually a big disappointment by the time I finished the third book, but that takes nothing away from the brilliance of the Hunger Games. 

HISTORICAL/POLITICAL/BIOGRAPHY

Through My Eyes  by Tim Tebow
God's Battalions  by Rodney Stark
American Conspiracies  by Jesse Ventura
Walt Disney by Neal Gabler

Favorite:  Walt Disney  by Neal Gabler
     This could have been tied with American Conspiracies, but "Walt Disney" edged out.  It was a long book.  A LONG book, but very interesting and I couldn't really put it down.  Perhaps it stems from our love of Disneyland/World, but it was extremely insightful into who Disney really was.  At the same time, it's a sad story of a man who has left so much conjured up happiness in the world.  I highly recommend this biography to anyone in the least bit interested in Walt Disney.  The sections on Snow White and Disneyland are especially notable. 

CLASSIC

Crime and Punishment  by Fyodor Dostoevsky
To Kill A Mockingbird  by Lee Harper

Favorite: To Kill A Mockingbird  by Lee Harper
     Easiest choice of the year.  I didn't get to read hardly any classics this past year which was disappointing.  This is due to "Crime and Punishment".  The book took FOREVER to trudge through and thus deprived me of time to read other classics.  I know a lot of people like this book, but it just never took off for me.  However, "To Kill A Mocking A Bird" was every bit the classic I've always heard it was.  The character of Atticus Finch is one of the best in literature, of all time, hands down.  His morality, courage, and the lessons you get along the way are phenomenal.  My only regret is that I was never asked to read this in high school! 

PRACTICAL CHRISTIANITY/OTHER

Lit!  by Tony Reinke
The Trellis And The Vine  by Colin Marshall
The Intolerance of Tolerance  by D.A. Carson
Manly Dominion  by Mark Chanski
The Archer And The Arrow  by Philip Jensen

Favorite:  Manly Dominion by Mark Chanski
     This was the hardest choice of the year.  So many great books in this category.  A very close second runner up is "Lit!".  (Any book on reading books gets my nod!)  However, "Manly Dominion" was very timely, goring through a year with little Aisley.  It has such great insight and knowledge on what God requires of men as men, as husbands, and as fathers.  Given to me by dear friends, I would very much like to see this book read and discussed by groups of men (and women!). 

The Hunger Games

I picked up the “Hunger Games” for about 6 dollars at a Walmart around Christmas time.  I’ve never been a fan of reading something because it’s a fad, but for the price, and the fact I had heard nothing but good things about it from friends of mine, I was compelled to read it.

That’s the key word for this review.  Compelling.  “having a powerful and irresistible effect; requiring acute admiration, attention, or respect.”

I found “The Hunger Games” compelling.  Let me just say that I have a distaste for things that become fads.  However, it has to be noted that sometimes there is a good reason it becomes a fad.  Agree or not, I believe this is what has happened with the Hunger Games. Is Suzanne Collins the best author I’ve ever read?  No.   Is this the best fiction book I’ve ever read?  No.  However, Collin’s can tell a story, and tell it with suspense, there’s no question about that.  For me, this was a page turner.  I love a good story, and this is a good story.  Although I had an idea of how it would end, how Collins arrived there was, in a word, again, compelling.  She did a masterful job ending every chapter in such a way that I really wanted to know what was going to happen next. 

The three main Characters, Katniss, Peeta & Haymitch are crafted well, and it’s a proven fact that if no investment is made in character, then it doesn’t matter how good the story is, you simply won’t care.  Inner turmoil and character clashes abound in this book and thus makes this what I would call a heavy – not hard, but heavy – read.  Especially for young adult fiction, which this book classifies itself as.  Be forewarned, there is a lot of death, but that’s to be expected based on the premise of the book.  Set in what the perhaps not-so distant future,  the Capitol, or controlling city, selects one boy and one girl from the surrounding towns, or “districts” as they are called, to compete for their lives and their district.  This happens in the book’s namesake, the Hunger Games.  Where only one competitor, or “tribute” can survive.

The story keeps moving, and as I mentioned, it’s quite a ride to the end, with unexpected twists and the theme of desperation carrying you along.  I think what makes part of it so compelling, is that while the premise is crazy – it’s not THAT crazy.  Knowing the depravity of man and just how fallen this world is, the world of the “Hunger Games” is certainly within the realm of possibility.

Overall, I enjoyed reading the “Hunger Games”, and recommend it.  What didn’t I like about it?  I will only tell you if you’ve read the book, I don’t want to ruin it for anyone.

****SPOILER ALERT****  Do NOT scroll down if you have yet to read this book and plan on doing so.  I reveal the ending and don’t want to ruin it.  I’m serious.  Don’t scroll if you don’t want to know.  I won’t be held responsible for it.  I’m not kidding.  Oh no no no, you aren’t going to blame me buddy, it’s on your head if you scroll down and ruin it for yourself.

















Okay, so what didn’t I like about it?  The ending.  Oy vey!  The ending!!  After this compelling story, after reading chapter after chapter as a race to the end, I get to the end and I think… WHAT?!?  Now, before I continue, I will say the ending is most likely a setup for the next book in the series, “Catching Fire”, so I’m hoping that book cleans up the mess that this book left.  After all the build-up of the idea that only 1 out of 24 can win.  After all the time built into the suspense on who will it be, Katniss or Peeta, …  the book ends with BOTH of them winning?  It makes no sense and really takes away from the rest of the book if you ask me.  Especially because of WHY they both ended up surviving.  Because if they both died, the Capitol would be embarrassed??  Really?  Since when would the Capitol care?  All the audience wanted was a show, they got one, and because the two last survivors would have rather died together than decide who would live, then the Capitol decides to develop a conscience?  I mean, this is the same Capitol that CONTROLS the districts right?  The same Capitol that FORCES the tributes to compete in the games right?  The ending just didn’t make sense after all the buildup and suspense.  The Capitol really shouldn’t have cared and changed the rule like that if they weren’t going to go through with it.  If they said only one can win, then only one should have won.
But, overall, great book. 

The Trellis & The Vine

I'm currently reading the Trellis and the Vine, and admittedly, I'm not finished with it yet, but I have recently finished chapter 8, "Why Sunday Sermons Are Necessary, But Not Sufficient". Of course, being the high-churchman that I am, I was not very impressed. So while a full review of the book may be forthcoming, I present the below my disagreements and arguments with the current chapter.

The Trellis And The Vine, Chapter 8

pg 94 - "However, there are also very real (and obvious) disadvantages with this approach.  For a start, the ministry that takes place in the congregation will be limited to the gifts and capacity of the pastor:  how effectively he preaches, and how many people he can personally know and counsel.  In this model, it becomes very difficult for the congregation to grow past a given ceiling (usually between 100 and 150 regular members)."

This paragraph is based on a presupposition first and foremost.  How do they KNOW the ministry will be limited to the gifts and capacity of the pastor?  I think the most glaring objection to this paragraph comes from scripture.  "And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues."  God is the one who has appointed pastors to serve the congregation.  God is the one who has given these men the gifts they need.  Even if the man is not an effective preacher, or does not get to know everyone on a deeply personal level. isn't it God who uses weakness to show his strength?  It seems as if the authors are taking the holy spirit entirely out of the equation when talking about ministry being limited to the gifts and capacity of the pastor.  The church did quite well with a man named Paul whom God appointed despite not being effective in preaching in person, and who didn't know everyone in the churches he planted.  The second objection I have to this paragraph is the assumption that the congregation (in their mind) cannot grow past a certain number is labeled as a "disadvantage".  In this way of thinking, the authors are putting the standard of effective ministry on numbers of regular members, which goes against the very theme of their entire book.

pg. 95 - "Perhaps the most striking disadvantage of this way of thinking about ministry is that it feeds upon and encourages the culture of 'consumerism' that is already rife in our culture.  It perfectly fits the spirit of our age whereby we pay trained professionals to do everything for us rather that do it ourselves.  The tendency is for Christian life and fellowship to be reduced to an hour and a quarter on Sunday morning, with little or no relationship, and very little actual ministry taking place by the congregation themselves.  in this sort of church culture, it becomes very easy for the congregation to think of church almost entirely in terms of 'what I get out of it,' and thus to slip easily into criticism and complaint when things aren't to their liking."

Another paragraph based on assumptions and presuppositions.  There is no proof that it feeds upon and encourages the culture of consumerism in our culture.  What the authors are doing are perfecting a terrible injustice - taking the spirit of the age and saying it fits this model of ministry, rather than saying that the spirit of the age has crept into the church as a whole and is trying to change the ministry much in the same way the authors are speaking against it.  There is a reason not all are pastors or teachers.  Called them trained professionals if that makes it easier to fit the chapter, but in a world where everyone is a shepherd, then all you have are sheep with no leader.  The fact that people have made Christian life about an hour and a quarter on Sunday morning has about as much to do with the model of ministry as "There was a man from the land of Uz whose name was Job", has with the Calvinism/Arminianism debate.

pg. 95 - "For all its historic strengths, the professional pastor-as-clergyman approach speaks loud and clear to church members that they are there to receive rather than to give.  As a model, it tends to produce spiritual consumers rather than active disciples of Christ, and very easily gets stuck in maintenance mode.  Outreach or evangelism, both for individual congregation members and the church as a whole, is down the list."

It seems that the desire of the authors to downplay tradition as something as evil has left them vulnerable to not recognize the history of the "classic Reformed-evangelical model" that they think produces so many disadvantages.  The fact of the matter is, looking historically at the corporate worship service - (going back a lot farther than the reformation, back to when Israel gathered at Mount Sinai) we find that members ARE there to receive!  To receive the law, to receive the gospel... to receive Christ!  If that makes someone a spiritual consumer, then that's exactly what we would want to strive for isn't it?  To have people so enthralled with the word and with Christ that they want to "taste and see that the Lord is good" - that is BIBLICAL spiritual consumerism.  In addition, it's tiring that the authors want to make every statement an all inclusive, or all exclusive statement.  For instance, if church members are there to receive, why does that automatically exclude the idea they are there to give as well?  Those things can co-exist and are not mutually exclusive.  As far as the last sentence about outreach and evangelism being "down" on the list, - that is simply an untrue statement that is based more on the imagination of the authors rather than facts of history.  In this "classic Reformed-evangelical model", some of the very first protestant missionaries came from Calvin's geneva.  Luther himself housed students and refugees for years and told them the gospel while taking care of their physical needs.  It was the "Classic Reformed-evangelical model" that ignited the fire in the hearts of thousands which led to some of the greatest "evangelical" preachers the world has ever known.  It seems that the very title of this chapter should be very concerning.  When they say that the sunday sermon is necessary but not sufficient, they are claiming that the preached word is necessary but not sufficient.  That is a dangerous biblical proposition.

pg 95-96  "In many respects, this first way of thinking about pastoral ministry reflects the culture and norms of a different world - the world of 16th and 17th century Christianized nations, in which the whole community was in church, and in which the pastor was one of the few with sufficient education to teach.
Once again, the obvious dislike of tradition shown by the authors rears it's ugly head.  It reflects a different world, and because it does, does it mean this world is any better?  Are we to change those things because OUR culture and age are mixed up and entirely subjective?  Why was the whole community in church?  Does that question cross the minds of the authors?  Could it possibly be because God was using His preached word to change entire nations of people?  Was this "different world" such a bore?  Was there ever a time in history next to the very early church in which God's word was going forth as strongly as it was in the 16th and 17th centuries?  The reformation was known as a time that recovered the gospel - and that time has influenced Christianity for the better, because it was an echo of the past, when pastors actually believed the preached word WAS sufficient, that it didn't have to be dressed up or aided, but rather it produced a natural outflow of the very things the authors are wanting to focus on.  The problem is, when you want to focus on the results rather than the source, then eventually the source of those things will become unimportant, and when that happens, it can truly be said that they have "lost their first love".  That's the great thing about the preached word... it transcends all cultures and deals with men as sinners, and Christ as Savior.  That's the mindset behind all the funky bible translations.

pg. 99 - "We have been arguing from the Bible that:  All Christians have the privilege and responsibility to prayerfully speak the word of God to each other and to non-Christians, as the means by which God gives this growth."

I would argue that in this model, the pastor is nothing more than a cheerleader with a divinity degree, only there to cheer on the members of the congregation  in their efforts of evangelism, rather than being an appointed servant in the office of the church to preach the word of God to depraved sinners.

pg. 102 - "The sermon is a rallying call..... To say that sermons are necessary but not sufficient is simply to stand on the theological truth that it is the word of the gospel that is sufficient, rather than any one particular form of its delivery.  "

I could not disagree more.  First, the sermon is NOT a rallying call.  If that is what the authors believe the sermon to be, then it's no wonder the entire chapter is based on false presuppositions.  The sermon, far from being a rallying call, is God's means of slaying sinners with the law, and raising them up in Christ with grace.  The preached word (i.e. sermon) is not the center of a pep rally trying to fire up the emotions of it's hearers.  As far as the idea that it is the word of the gospel that is sufficient, rather than any one particular form of its delivery" goes.... that is refuted by scripture.  It is by the foolishness of PREACHING (the form of the word's delivery) that God intimately links with the power of the word.  When you change the delivery or the means you will without a doubt begin to change the message as well.  That is why there are so many movie clips shown in place of sermons today.  Because people simply don't believe, as do the authors, that the preached word is sufficient.  Yet, the preached word is God's ordained means of regeneration, and it has worked for thousands and thousands of years.  In fact, where would the authors themselves be if this "Classic Reformed-evangelical model", which has so many disadvantages as they say, where would they be right now without it?  Preaching is not just one of many forms of delivering the word, it's the GOD ORDAINED means.  If this was not the case, Paul would have done better to put on plays and tell jokes in the areas of Corinth, Ephesus and Rome.  Instead however, he wrote this:  13 For "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."
14 How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching?
15 And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!"
16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?"
17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ."
It seems as if Paul held preaching in high esteem.  It also seems if it was just one method among many, he would have mentioned the others in this passage.

pg. 103 "Adam (Peter) goes on to define preaching as the "explanation and application of the Word to the congregation of Christ in order to produce corporate preparation for service, unity of faith, maturity, growth and upbuilding."

I would define preaching (as did the reformers) as giving people Christ.  It's ironic that in the same chapter that claims the classic reformed-evangelical model as producing "consumerism", that it would then lend credence to a quote that says preaching's job is to "produce" various things.

All in all, the straw-man that the authors have built, which basically says that this classic reformed-evangelical model has no room for personal ministry, is one they themselves feel they need to fight because it has no basis in scripture or history.  Calvin himself, who held the office of preaching in high regard, and would never say the preached word is not sufficient, built a school to train ministers.  As previously noted, Luther took students and others in in order to train them, and for him there was nothing more important than preaching CHrist to the congregation.  C.H. spurgeon was a great example of the classic reformed-evangelical model of ministry and yet, much to the disbelief of the authors i'm sure, still managed to build 2 orphanages, a pastor's college, a book fund for training clergy, doexens of sunday school classes for school-children, his own hymn book, and catechism, and a church that had 5000 members.  But, according to the authors, as they admit, their view is a stereotype, in which those things - preaching the word, and personal ministry are mutually exclusive in that model.