I recently finished reading Leo Tolstoy's War and Peace. And yes, I am bragging! OK, well maybe not really but I do feel a major sense of accomplishment. This is true mostly because I've been reading it for so long that I'm not even sure when I started it. I think it was at the end of the summer but it honestly feels like it was even longer than that. Never before has it taken me so long to finish reading a book, especially a work of fiction. Obviously, being a pastor and a father makes it difficult to find large chunks of time for reading anything but aside from that this book was just an absolute beast.
Nevertheless, I enjoyed the long journey. This was actually the second time I had started reading this book. The first time I got through about 200 pages and realized I had no idea what was going on and needed to start over. That was a few years ago. But I decided to take it up again as a portion of a larger effort on my part to read more fiction. I am more or less convinced that there has to be some correlation between reading/watching/hearing good stories and being able to tell a good story. And since a considerable part of what I do in preaching is to tell stories, I would like to be as good at it as I can be.
With the disclaimer that I am by no means an educated critic of great works of literature (although I do spend considerable amount of time in one particular collection of literature) and am completely certain that there were all kinds of things in this book that were completely lost on me, I thought that such a long read was worthy of at least a few disjointed observations.
1. The worldview exhibited in Tolstoy's story gives high priority to the individual responsibility of average men and women while also allowing sheer chance to play a significant role in the story. In contrast to this interplay between chance and the lives of average people, the "movers" and "shakers", the people who should be the real brokers of power in Tolstoy's story seem to have little impact on its actual outcome. More than once, Tolstoy talks about how generals discuss maneuvers and military tactics at length without ever realizing that it is the courage or cowardice of each man on the field that wins or loses the battles which they so carefully plot. A military advantage provided by greater numbers and superior position seem to melt away in the face of a group of men who set aside their fear of death and refuse to give up their position.
2. Tolstoy's story seems to be a critique of the system of honor and recognition that exists in Russia at the time (and perhaps of all societies?). Repeatedly, soilders or commanding officers are given medals for acts of no real significance while individuals who perform truly heroic acts go unnoticed by those in power. One of the main characters in the story even ends up being imprisoned on false accusations after rescuing a baby from a fire. The climax of this reality is when the general of the Russian army, who defeats Napolean essentially by just outlasting him, is repeatedly chastized for not pursuing Napolean's retreat so as to destroy his army and make victory complete. Even though this general saves all of Russia from utter destruction, he is considered imcompetent and unpatriotic by the commanding officers beneath him simply because he refuses to risk the lives of Russian soilders in pursuing a French army that is already defeated.
3. Tolstoy spends a considerable amount of space reminding us of the reality of death. I think this is characteristic of most of Tolstoy's writings. It is, at least, of the one other work of his that I have read; The Death of Ivan Illyich. Tolstoy demonstrates some of his most profound skills as a writer when he narrates the thoughts of a character who is dying or thinks they are on the verge of death. Everything seems to suddenly fall into perspective for these characters in their final moments. They suddenly realize that so many of the things they have pursued in life are nothing but vanity. It seems that for Tolstoy somehow understanding death is the real key to understanding life.
Of course, there is much more to a classic like this one but those were a few of the major themes that stood out to me. I'd be interested in hearing anyone else thoughts.
Showing posts with label Book Review. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Book Review. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Surprised by Hope
Wright, N.T. Surprised By Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church. (New York: Harper Collins, 2008).
I finished reading this book last night (I've been reading a lot with my wife and daughter being away for 10 days). I think that just about everything written by Wright is pretty fantastic and this book was no exception. In it, Wright challenges the thinking about the resurrection and heaven that have become common place among many Christians today. This typical Christian thought usually goes something like this: When we die our immortal soul or spirit is separated from our bodies and this soul or spirit goes to a place called heaven to be with God until Jesus' second coming when the Christians who have not yet died will be raptured and everyone else will be punished.
Wright definitively demonstrates that this is not the orthodox, biblical Christian view of the resurrection as laid out in the New Testament, despite its popularity among many Christians today. Instead, Jesus' resurrection is the beginning of God's new creation. Early Christians did not see Jesus' resurrection as a promise that they would eventually escape this fallen world and go to heaven when they die. It was a promise that God was and is actively working to restore and redeem this world to make it what it should be. As a result, the Christian life and the mission of the Church are not about just remaining pure in this life so that we can get to heaven. The mission of the Church is actually to engage this world in God's work of new creation. Of course, we can never accomplish this work on our own. Only God can establish God's kingdom but we can and should work toward and witness to that kingdom in the here and now.
I have tried to relay many of these same points in my own teaching and preaching but Wright goes into much more detail than I have. I would highly recommend this book to anyone who wants a better understanding about what the New Testament says (and doesn't say) about the resurrection and heaven. The resurrection is so vital to the whole message of the gospel that how we understand it truly impacts how we understand our role as Christians on this earth.
I finished reading this book last night (I've been reading a lot with my wife and daughter being away for 10 days). I think that just about everything written by Wright is pretty fantastic and this book was no exception. In it, Wright challenges the thinking about the resurrection and heaven that have become common place among many Christians today. This typical Christian thought usually goes something like this: When we die our immortal soul or spirit is separated from our bodies and this soul or spirit goes to a place called heaven to be with God until Jesus' second coming when the Christians who have not yet died will be raptured and everyone else will be punished.
Wright definitively demonstrates that this is not the orthodox, biblical Christian view of the resurrection as laid out in the New Testament, despite its popularity among many Christians today. Instead, Jesus' resurrection is the beginning of God's new creation. Early Christians did not see Jesus' resurrection as a promise that they would eventually escape this fallen world and go to heaven when they die. It was a promise that God was and is actively working to restore and redeem this world to make it what it should be. As a result, the Christian life and the mission of the Church are not about just remaining pure in this life so that we can get to heaven. The mission of the Church is actually to engage this world in God's work of new creation. Of course, we can never accomplish this work on our own. Only God can establish God's kingdom but we can and should work toward and witness to that kingdom in the here and now.
I have tried to relay many of these same points in my own teaching and preaching but Wright goes into much more detail than I have. I would highly recommend this book to anyone who wants a better understanding about what the New Testament says (and doesn't say) about the resurrection and heaven. The resurrection is so vital to the whole message of the gospel that how we understand it truly impacts how we understand our role as Christians on this earth.
Monday, May 19, 2008
Sex, Orthodoxy, and the Emergent Church
I recently finished reading two books by guys who are associated with the Emergent Church.
Sex God: Exploring the Endless Connections Between Sexuality and Spirituality by Rob Bell. Zodervan, 2007
and
A Generous Orthodoxy: Why I Am A missional + evangelical + post/protestant + liberal/conservative + mystical/poetic + biblical + charismatic/contemplative + fundamentalist/calvinist + anabaptist/anglican + methodist + catholic + green + incarnational + depressed yet hopeful + emergent + unfinished Christian by Brian McLaren. Zondervan, 2004.
If you have not heard of the Emergent Church before (which I am fairly certain many in our congregation have not) it is...well... actually it can be little difficult to explain exactly what it is because it is such a broad, sweeping movement. McLaren's subtitle to his book probably says it best. In many ways, it is an attempt to get past all the extra labels that sometimes define us as Christians so that we can be more genuine disciples of Jesus Christ. However, as the subtitle also suggests (and as McLaren is careful to explain in his chapter "Why I am emergent") this is not a matter of just ignoring the titles or different traditions of Christianity. It is a matter of trying to recognize the truth that exists in every tradition while also being honest about the ways in which each tradition has failed to be truly Christian.
On one hand, I find these books and the movement that has produced them to be very encouraging and exciting. They are encouraging because these authors are well trained, well educated pastors who are also excellent writers that are able to translate their learning into language that is clear, understandable, and relevant to our culture. (I found Sex God to be particularly good and would recommend it to anyone but especially to teens, parents of teens, or young adults. ) The ability to speak the depths of theology in words that anyone can understand is always a trait to be admired. Furthermore, these books and authors are exciting because they are simply seeking to be faithful disciples; to be the Church in a changing culture which is, of course, a challenge with which we must continually wrestle.
On the other hand, after reading these books and engaging in some conversations with others about the Emergent Church, I feel I am left with the question "What's the big deal?" I mean this in both a positive and negative sense. I don't want to take away from what I have already said at this point. I really do think these are good books that are worth reading because they will challenge many Christians to think about their faith in a way that they previously had not.
I wonder what the big deal is because the Emergent Church has generated a considerable amount of buzz. There have been some who have attacked it vehemently as if it were some enormous threat to the Church. In fact, in the Church of the Nazarene, one of our General Superintendents (the highest position in our denomination, for anyone reading this who may not be Nazarene) listed the Emergent Church as one of the three biggest challenges facing the Church today in a speech that she made. Many others have warned that the Emergent Church is a great danger, something to be feared by anyone who truly values their faith. To which I must respond "Really?!?". What exactly is so dangerous about it? Is it the fact that it encourages us to have the kind of unity we are supposed to have as the Church? Is it that it remembers that the whole point of doctrine is not more propositions to be memorized but words that are to guide us to be more Christ-like? Is it that it actually gives greater importance to the story of Scripture and the traditions of the Church than it does to denominational identity? Certainly, these are risky and dangerous endeavors but they are risky and dangerous precisely in the way that God wants us to be risky and dangerous as Christians, not in a way that endangers our faith. This is not to say that I agree with everything that Bell or McLaren have to say but I do agree with their general approach to what it means to be Christian and to me it seems to be such an obviously correct approach that I wonder why there are those who oppose it so adamently.
However, I also wonder what the big deal is on the other side of the buzz. I imagine that there are also those who have embraced the Emergent Church as if it were the answer to all of the Church's problems which it obviously is not. It too will have its flaws like any other Christian movement even if all of those flaws are not yet apparent. Similar to other broad, sweeping movements in the Church, I suspect that the danger of the Emergent Church is not so much a danger inherent in the movement itself but a danger in the attitude people can take toward it. The attitude of "if our congregation could just become Emergent then the masses would flock to Jesus" which is clearly misguided. To the credit of McLaren, Bell, and other leaders in the movement they do not promote this kind of attitude. In fact, for a church to wear the title "Emergent" would probably go against the very grain of the movement itself since the whole point is not to be this or that kind of Christian, whether Emergent or otherwitse. The point is simply to be Christian.
Therefore, I find these books to be good reading that I would recommend to others. I find the movement as a whole to be encouraging and at times exciting because I think it represents a proper approach to being the Church in our present culture. However, I also really have no interest in becoming "emergent" myself or making our church into an "emergent congregation" or allowing the Emergent Church to be my model for what I believe about the Church and the Christian faith. Instead, I think that every Christian and every church must simply be a part of the same conversation of which the Emergent Church is a part; the conversation that asks "How are we to be the Church in the situation where we find ourselves today?"
Sex God: Exploring the Endless Connections Between Sexuality and Spirituality by Rob Bell. Zodervan, 2007
and
A Generous Orthodoxy: Why I Am A missional + evangelical + post/protestant + liberal/conservative + mystical/poetic + biblical + charismatic/contemplative + fundamentalist/calvinist + anabaptist/anglican + methodist + catholic + green + incarnational + depressed yet hopeful + emergent + unfinished Christian by Brian McLaren. Zondervan, 2004.
If you have not heard of the Emergent Church before (which I am fairly certain many in our congregation have not) it is...well... actually it can be little difficult to explain exactly what it is because it is such a broad, sweeping movement. McLaren's subtitle to his book probably says it best. In many ways, it is an attempt to get past all the extra labels that sometimes define us as Christians so that we can be more genuine disciples of Jesus Christ. However, as the subtitle also suggests (and as McLaren is careful to explain in his chapter "Why I am emergent") this is not a matter of just ignoring the titles or different traditions of Christianity. It is a matter of trying to recognize the truth that exists in every tradition while also being honest about the ways in which each tradition has failed to be truly Christian.
On one hand, I find these books and the movement that has produced them to be very encouraging and exciting. They are encouraging because these authors are well trained, well educated pastors who are also excellent writers that are able to translate their learning into language that is clear, understandable, and relevant to our culture. (I found Sex God to be particularly good and would recommend it to anyone but especially to teens, parents of teens, or young adults. ) The ability to speak the depths of theology in words that anyone can understand is always a trait to be admired. Furthermore, these books and authors are exciting because they are simply seeking to be faithful disciples; to be the Church in a changing culture which is, of course, a challenge with which we must continually wrestle.
On the other hand, after reading these books and engaging in some conversations with others about the Emergent Church, I feel I am left with the question "What's the big deal?" I mean this in both a positive and negative sense. I don't want to take away from what I have already said at this point. I really do think these are good books that are worth reading because they will challenge many Christians to think about their faith in a way that they previously had not.
I wonder what the big deal is because the Emergent Church has generated a considerable amount of buzz. There have been some who have attacked it vehemently as if it were some enormous threat to the Church. In fact, in the Church of the Nazarene, one of our General Superintendents (the highest position in our denomination, for anyone reading this who may not be Nazarene) listed the Emergent Church as one of the three biggest challenges facing the Church today in a speech that she made. Many others have warned that the Emergent Church is a great danger, something to be feared by anyone who truly values their faith. To which I must respond "Really?!?". What exactly is so dangerous about it? Is it the fact that it encourages us to have the kind of unity we are supposed to have as the Church? Is it that it remembers that the whole point of doctrine is not more propositions to be memorized but words that are to guide us to be more Christ-like? Is it that it actually gives greater importance to the story of Scripture and the traditions of the Church than it does to denominational identity? Certainly, these are risky and dangerous endeavors but they are risky and dangerous precisely in the way that God wants us to be risky and dangerous as Christians, not in a way that endangers our faith. This is not to say that I agree with everything that Bell or McLaren have to say but I do agree with their general approach to what it means to be Christian and to me it seems to be such an obviously correct approach that I wonder why there are those who oppose it so adamently.
However, I also wonder what the big deal is on the other side of the buzz. I imagine that there are also those who have embraced the Emergent Church as if it were the answer to all of the Church's problems which it obviously is not. It too will have its flaws like any other Christian movement even if all of those flaws are not yet apparent. Similar to other broad, sweeping movements in the Church, I suspect that the danger of the Emergent Church is not so much a danger inherent in the movement itself but a danger in the attitude people can take toward it. The attitude of "if our congregation could just become Emergent then the masses would flock to Jesus" which is clearly misguided. To the credit of McLaren, Bell, and other leaders in the movement they do not promote this kind of attitude. In fact, for a church to wear the title "Emergent" would probably go against the very grain of the movement itself since the whole point is not to be this or that kind of Christian, whether Emergent or otherwitse. The point is simply to be Christian.
Therefore, I find these books to be good reading that I would recommend to others. I find the movement as a whole to be encouraging and at times exciting because I think it represents a proper approach to being the Church in our present culture. However, I also really have no interest in becoming "emergent" myself or making our church into an "emergent congregation" or allowing the Emergent Church to be my model for what I believe about the Church and the Christian faith. Instead, I think that every Christian and every church must simply be a part of the same conversation of which the Emergent Church is a part; the conversation that asks "How are we to be the Church in the situation where we find ourselves today?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)