In response to Wielenberg's first argument, it seems perfectly reasonable for the Theist to assert two propositions.  The first being that it is impossible for God’s character to be different than it is, and the second being that it is impossible to actually change the nature of moral perfection, as the evil contestant does in Wielenberg’s story.  The second claim rests on the first.  God’s character simply is the definition of moral perfection, and if His character cannot change, than neither can moral perfection.  But to the first proposition Wielenberg might ask why God’s character cannot change.  The response is simple, because if it did, then He would cease to be morally perfect, and thus cease to be God.  At this point, Wielenberg might accuse the Theist of a contradiction.  If God’s character cannot change without ceasing to be morally perfect, then isn’t there some outside standard to which we are holding God’s character?  To this the Theist may reply that God’s character is indeed the only standard of perfection, and that all things are either good or bad based on their relation to Him alone, but that His character, being what it is, cannot be otherwise.  It is simply a brute fact of the universe.  For God is the ground of all being, the source and foundation for all reality.  He simply is.  And he could not be otherwise.  If Wielenberg still wishes to object to this claim, then the Theist can quickly remind him that this is precisely what he wishes his reader to believe about the brute moral facts of the universe.  Indeed, this is the thesis of his book!  Moral facts such as “it is wrong to torture babies for fun” are, according to Wielenberg, real moral entities that exist and simply cannot be otherwise.  But as far I can tell, there is no reason to believe that brute moral facts cannot change and not believe that God’s character cannot change.  Thus, for Wielenberg to reject the Dependency Thesis for this reason would also be for him to reject his own moral theory.

    For the second argument, I believe that two possible responses are open to the Theist.  First, it can be argued that since a thing’s nature is given to it by God, it is still possible for something to be either good or evil by virtue of its nature, even though God indirectly made it so.  Taking the example of falling in love, a Theist might say that falling in love is most certainly an instance of intrinsic good, its very nature is simply and completely good, but that because its nature was given to it by God, it is ultimately God that has, in a sense, “declared” it to be what it is.  It sounds to me as though Wielenberg’s argument is actually saying, “nothing can be good in virtue of its nature because God gave it its nature.”  But of course that doesn’t follow.  What Wielenberg is really attacking is the notion that falling in love is not good for its own sake, but that it is good because God told us so.  What he overlooks is the simple solution that God “told us so” by giving it a nature that was either good or evil. 
   
    However, there is another response that seems perfectly reasonable to me, namely that the Theist simply accepts that nothing actually is intrinsically good or evil apart from God.  Why is suffering evil?  Because God doesn’t want his creatures to suffer.  Why is falling in love good?  Because God wants us to be happy, and in part because it facilitates the creation of families, children, and society.  Wielenberg is relying on the unshakable intuition that pain is evil in and of itself.  It is better to keep this obvious truth than to accept a theory that rejects it.  But isn’t it just as likely that the unshakable intuition in question is merely that pain is evil, leaving entirely open the question of why or how it is evil?  This seems more plausible to me.

   In Chapter Two of Value And Virtue In A Godless Universe, Erik Wielenberg introduces two theses that he believes implicitly support Divine Command Theory.  The first is the Control Thesis which states that “every logically consistent ethical claim, E, is such that God could make E true.”   The second is the Dependency Thesis which states that “every true ethical claim is true in virtue of some act of will on the part of God.”  Essentially, the great difference between these two is that in the former God creates ethics (by divine fiat we might say), while in the later ethics is based upon and originates from God’s nature or character.  From this, Wielenberg distinguishes between two forms of Divine Command Theory.  The first or “strong” form accepts both the Control and Dependency Thesis, while the “weak” form accepts only the Dependency Thesis.

    It is important to consider Wielenberg’s objection to the strong form of Divine Command Theory first (which is essentially an objection to the Control Thesis), since it will play a role in his objection to the weak form.  He objects to the strong form by way of an illustration.   He asks us to imagine a competition in which the prize is omnipotence.  One contestant is a very good person, while the other is very evil.  Suppose, he says, that the evil person wins the contest and gains omnipotence.  According to the Control Thesis, the evil contestant can now make it such that all of the evil acts he intends to perform (mass slaughter of innocents, torture, etc.) are actually very good.  Moreover, he can make it such he is now a morally perfect being, not by changing himself, but by changing the nature of moral perfection.  Thus, in the end, evil becomes good and the killing and torture of innocent people is morally commendable.  Wielenberg relies primarily on intuition to argue that “there is simply no amount of power that would enable a being to make that true.”   He further argues that “This story seems to get things backwards by making morality subject to power.”  Fair enough.  Our moral intuitions certainly do seem to suggest to us that no amount of power could make such atrocities good.  We want to argue, especially as Christians, that morality is somehow objective and fixed, and that it could not be otherwise.  At least on the surface, Wielenberg’s argument seems to offer convincing reasons to reject the Control Thesis on just such grounds.  And so, for the sake of argument, we will grant him his conclusion.

    Now Wielenberg turns his philosophical gun on the weak form of Divine Command Theory, specifically on the Dependency Thesis, which he states as follows, “It is still divine willing that determines which ethical claims are true, but the scope of divine willing is limited by the divine character.”   In other words, God still retains the prerogative to say what things humans can and cannot do in certain times and places, but contra the Control Thesis He cannot command simply anything, but can only command those things which are in accordance with His own character, which sets the standard of moral goodness.  Wielenberg proposes three objections to this thesis.  First, he suggests that “implicit in the proposal is the notion that God has the power to make any logically consistent ethical claim true.”  In the weak claim, God’s character prevents Him from making evil things good, but Wielenberg seems to be suggesting that the Control Thesis still manages to slip in the back door, and that we are left with the same problem, just moved back a step.  If it were the case that God’s character turned out to be like the evil contestant in Wielenberg’s imaginary story, then even on the Dependency Thesis alone it would still be conceivable that God could make the slaughter of innocents a morally good thing.  But Wielenberg has already refuted such a notion. 

    Wielenberg’s second objection to the Dependency Thesis is even stronger.  He argues that an implication of the Dependency Thesis is that nothing is intrinsically good or evil.  He says, “If an act of will on the part of God bestows value on something distinct from God, that value cannot be intrinsic.”   By intrinsic value he means that a thing is valuable only in virtue of its nature.  As an example of an intrinsic evil, he suggests pain.  Pain is just bad, in and of itself, without reference to anything else.  Conversely, falling in love is intrinsically good; it is simply good for its own sake.  Following Chisholm, who argues that any theory of epistemology that doesn’t allow for obvious instances of knowledge should be rejected, Wielenberg suggests that any theory of morality that rejects something as obvious as the fact that some things are intrinsically good or evil should also be rejected. 

    What might the Christian say in response to these arguments?  Tune in tomorrow!

So, I realize that this method of breaking up my critique of Storms' book into small, brief sections lends itself to the suspicion that I'm just taking cheap pot shots.  But I hope the reader will understand that I'm simply doing this for practical reasons, mostly relating to time (and besides, you don't want to read a 1500 word blog post anyway!).

In Are Miraculous Gifts For Today?: 4 Views, Storms gives two suggestions to explain the "dormant" periods in history, where the Spirit was not ubiquitously and supernaturally active among the people of God.  The first is sin and apostasy, the second is Biblical ignorance.  The first suggestion is meant for Old Testament history, the idea being that Israel's constant sin and rebellion against God caused the quenching of the Spirit's power.  But as Dr. Robert Saucy points out in his response to Storms, this suggestion can hardly be taken seriously, since one of the most active periods of supernatural power in Israel's history is the time of Elijah and Elisha, and this is arguably one of the worst times of apostasy, at least in the Northern Kingdom.

The second suggestion is meant for the early medieval period.  Rampant Biblical ignorance, primarily due to illiteracy, is a primary reason that the Spirit was not working miraculously in the same way that He was in the 1st century.  My question is, does Storms extend this charge to his contemporary cessationist (or even open-but-cautious) brothers?  I would think not, since Storms praises cessationists for being word-centered and having a high view of doctrine, etc.  And yet, the only other option Storms has left us with is sin and apostasy.  One of these two things must be true, or, according to Storms, cessationists should be experiencing the power of the Spirit on a regular basis.  He might want to suggest that some cessationists do in fact experience the power of the Spirit, but dismiss or rationalize it.  But this seems unlikely on any large scale, especially when it comes to things like speaking in tongues.  It could also be argued that cessationists don't experience such things beacuse they don't believe in them.  This seems problematic for two reasons.  First, it seems to adopt the "if it didn't happen, then you just didn't have enough faith" mentality that is antithetical to a true Christian worldview.  Second, according to Stroms, one of the primary purposes of the spiritual gifts is to engender and strengthen faith, so it would be odd to argue simultaneously that faith must preceed them (with the possible exception of initial, regenerating faith). 

The fairly obviously conclusion, that Storms and others seem stubbornly unwilling to accept (and I'm really not sure why), is that it is God who ultiamtely determines when and where (and how) the Spirit works, not just on any given Sunday morning, but within history as a whole.  I personally don't see how this conclusion is harmful to the Third Wave position, and I see no reason why Storms must attempt to rationalize the Spirit's "dormant" periods by appeals to apostasy or ignorance. 

 

 

In Convergence: Spiritual Journeys Of A Charismatic Calvinist, Sam Storms lays out a solid case for the continuation of spiritual gifts in the church today, and argues that "charismatics" need not be anti-intellectual or anti-doctrine.  He believes that cessationists have historically done a wonderful job developing doctrine and what we might call the "life of the mind" in the church, and he admits that charismatics have often ignored the life of the mind in favor of spiritual experiences.  But he does not believe that this divide is a necessary one, and takes his own story to be evidence that one can be both charismatic and a "Word-centered" Calvinist.

 

I found the majority of the book to be both helpful and informative.  I was a cessationist not too long ago, but now I would consider myself in the broad middle category of "open but cautious" (in part due to Storms' arguments against cessationism).  But I found several of Storms' arguments to be inadequate, and at times even ad hoc.  I wish to address these concerns in a series of posts.  This first post will deal with just one of the arguments.

 

Storms argues that Charismatics don't put immediate Spiritual guidance ahead of guidance found in the Word.  Why not?  Because, says Storms, every prophetic word or dream or vision that is received is immediately and meticulously weighed against Scripture.  Scripture, then, is the final authority. 

 

That answer sounds good, but it actually dodges the question.  Notice that, while the Bible may act as a rubber stamp that will allow a certain bit of direct Spiritual guidance to pass, it is still the direct guidance itself that remains central.  It is not Scripture that is actively guiding a person, Scripture merely allows (most often by its silence) someone to be guided by other means.

 

This is no knock-down, drag-out rebuttle, but it does seem that Storms' attempt to show that the Bible remains just as central to daily guidance for the charismatic as for the cessationist mostly fails.  The difference between "active guidance" and "passive allowance" is a big one, and one that Storms cannot ignore. 

 

In today’s tense political climate, many analysts have speculated that Reagan conservatism is dying out. Among other things, they point to the popularity of big government Republicans who may seek to lower taxes, but overcompensate through increasing government programs and spending. To Reagan conservatives, the future looks bleak. But in Reagan’s Children: Taking Back the City on the Hill, Hans Zeiger looks to the rise of conservative values among young Americans today.

Zeiger has essentially one point throughout the book: there is a resurgence of conservatism and faith among the youth of America today and this should be a great cause of optimism. To make his case, he provides countless statistics, case studies, and anecdotes. He explores the reasons why it’s occurring, the historical significance and importance, and how conservative Christians can further strengthen their cause.

Perhaps the greatest value of Reagan’s Children is Zeiger’s relentless optimism. It’s refreshing, and almost shocking, considering the typical doom and gloom rhetoric often put forward by conservative commentators worried about the future of America.

However great this optimism is, though, it is rooted in the book’s greatest problem: Zeiger contends that God is calling this generation to change the world and that when Christians take charge of this calling America will continue to be (or return to being) “that shining city on a hill.” The problem is that the primary mode for making a difference is through political action. What’s missing in the calling of Reagan’s Children is the role of the church. It is the church’s responsibility to change the world, not a secular government. In this, Zeiger perpetuates a serious problem common to the Religious Right: confusing the role of the government and the role of the church. While America may well be the “greatest nation on God’s green earth,” it is not so because America is God’s chosen country. America is not God’s country, but the church is His, and it is through the global community of believers that God will bless the nations.

When preparing for overseas mission trips, Christians often go through some sort of training to learn about the cultures, languages, and religions of the people to whom they’ll be evangelizing. They understand that these differences present barriers for these people to hear and understand the gospel message. Yet in America, Christians often assume that there are no such barriers. In They Like Jesus by Not the Church Dan Kimball examines the church through the eyes of non-Christians in today’s emerging generations. He attempts to show that there are barriers and misunderstandings we must address if we are to effectively present the gospel message today.

Through the first few chapters, Kimball sets up the situation by showing that our culture’s perceptions of Christianity have changed. For example, instead of being view as trusted spiritual leaders, pastors today are often referred to as “creepy.” Kimball argues that for many of us, we haven’t realized the changes because we’re trapped in Christian bubbles. The trend is that the longer we are Christians, the fewer non-Christian friends we have. What we fail to perceive is that while the church, and Christians in general, is not viewed favorable, most people do have a favorable impression of Jesus. Many of their impressions of Jesus’ life and teachings may be inaccurate, but they do provide a place ripe for fruitful conversation.

Much of the book takes a look at specific issues through the experiences of several non-Christian friends Dan interviewed for the book. According to Dan, their sentiments represent general misperceptions about Christians and the church that we must listen and respond to. The six misperceptions are: The church is an organized religion with a political agenda, the church is judgmental and negative, the church is dominated by males and oppresses females, the church is homophobic, the church arrogantly claims all other religions are wrong, and the church is full of fundamentalists who take the whole Bible literally. In each topic Dan explains what his friends have said, what the Bible says about the issue, and how Christians should respond.

In the first of the concluding chapters, Dan explores what his friends wish the church were like. He then revises the old “gap” illustration where man is separated from God by a chasm called sin that can only be bridged by the cross. Dan argues that another chasm exits called Christianity and the Christian subculture that must be bridged by trust before we can effectively speak to the problem of sin and their need for a savior.

There are some things in this book that will make some Christians uncomfortable. For the most part, this is a good thing. While I don’t agree with every single point made, I still recommend the book without reservation. Christians must begin understand how we are perceived in our culture so we can seek to correct our missteps. Dan Kimball is an outstanding guide toward this task. They Like Jesus but Not the Church effectively shows significant problems Christians must address in evangelism and offers practical solutions along the way.

Francis Schaeffer has drawn many people to the feet of Jesus through his persuasive writings and personal relationships. But not everyone has been satisfied with that legacy. One journalist recently claimed that, “The tragedy of Francis Schaeffer is that, at some deep inner level, he knew what he preached was a con.” With statements like these, it’s helpful to look to fresh perspectives on what Schaeffer taught and how he lived and what that means for Christians today. Bryan A. Follis has provided such a perspective in his book Truth with Love: The Apologetics of Francis Schaeffer. Dr. Follis traces the intellectual roots of Schaeffer’s theology and apologetics in order to expose the true picture of one of the 20th century’s most noted apologists.

After a brief introduction and biography, Dr. Follis explores the theology of John Calvin and Reformed interpretations since. This lays the groundwork for Schaeffer’s understanding of the dignity of humanity despite its depravity and the role of reason in his apologetic. The second chapter considers the various arguments Schaeffer put forward, including the well-known “taking the roof off,” and places Schaeffer’s love and compassion in proper relation to his apologetics. Francis Schaeffer has been accused of rationalism by some evangelicals, so Dr. Follis seeks to defend him against that charge in the third chapter. He argues that Schaeffer’s argumentation cannot be separated from his spirituality and that critics simply do not consider the full canon of Schaeffer’s work and life.

In the fourth chapter, Dr. Follis explores methodology, noting that Schaeffer was not a presuppositionalist in the tradition of Cornelius Van Til, but more like a verificationist in the tradition of Edward Carnell. He makes the important note, however, that Schaeffer did not believe “there is any one apologetics which meets the needs of all people. The concluding chapter considers the role of love in Schaeffer’s work and life, which Schaeffer called “the final apologetic.” Dr. Follis explains the personal nature of Schaeffer’s evangelism and the importance of community.

Truth with Love by Bryan Follis not only sets the record straight about the beliefs and life of Francis Schaeffer, but also puts forwards an inspirational vision for apologetics in our current postmodern culture. It’s main fault is that some of the points are placed repetitively throughout the book, but with such important points that may be forgiven.

I was impressed with the well-rounded picture of discernment expressed in The Discipline of Spiritual Discernment.  Tim Challies approaches the subject from all angles:  its necessity, the centrality of knowledge, the importance of character, decision making in our practical everyday lives, the dangers of failing to discern as well as the pitfalls we can easily fall into when we succeed (pride, witch hunting, withdrawal from Christian fellowship, etc.), and more.

But what I appreciate most is that he puts everything into the proper perspective by grounding the whole enterprise of discernment first and foremost in knowing God:

We can only know God's will when we first know God's truth, for what God desires and requires of us must always be consistent with his character.  Wise decisions are those that are made on the firm basis of what is true about God and, thus, what is true about the world, about life, and about ourselves.  Those who make decisions that honor God are those who have invested effort in studying what God says to be true.  (p. 54)

And he communicates all of this in a clear, accessible, engaging way.  This is why I'm excited about the book--its wisdom, accessibility, and practical help (he doesn't just leave you with a vague challenge to become discerning but gives specific exercises you can use to develop your skill) make this book a great tool for small groups in any church.  And we need this.  We need this to better love, honor, and follow our great and glorious God.

I posed a question to Tim about discernment and will post his response tomorrow, then he'll be ready to discuss the subject with you; be sure to stop by with your comments.  We'll see you then!

An Emergent Manifesto of Hope is a large collection of essays by leaders and participants in the emerging church edited by Doug Pagitt and Tony Jones. This loose collection of writers is united generally by faith and friendship and brings to the table some diversity as to how their emerging faith and friendship should be practiced. Due to the nature of the book, each chapter will be individually summarized and reviewed below (my reflections begin after each *):

1. Growing Pains by Mark Scandrette: Friendships and communities are the foundation for what is being done in the emerging church and are vitally important for the “Kingdom of God” being lived out. *Mr. Scandrette speaks of the questions being asked within these communities (such as “What is the message of Jesus?”) but does not attempt to explain how these questions are answered.
2. Meeting Jesus at the Bar by Heather Kirk-Davidoff: According to Mrs. Kirk-Davidoff, the best way to evangelize is through relationships. It’s not about “recruiting” people to Christianity, but conversing with others about life. *While she tries to deny “recruitment” mentality, her motivation for evangelism is still the same.
3. What Would Huckleberry Do? By Nanette Sawyer: Ms. Sawyer contends that we should not be concerned with categories or boundaries but with loving people. Traditional interpretations don’t work and are broken by paradoxes, but love guides all things. *The result of this perspective is a biblically uninformed view of love. A love not directed by biblical boundaries can become less than loving and lead away from the God of the Bible.
4. The Postmodern Parent by Carla Barnhill: Parents are not to be “instructors” but are to share life with their children. Children should be valued members of the community because of imago dei. Spiritual maturity isn’t really about being well-behaved but being socially acclimated and experienced. *This seems to promote the “parents as friends” model that offers few boundaries and direction from experienced authorities (parents). Parents should guide by example, but must also instruct and discipline.
5. The Art of Emergence by Troy Bronsik: Emergent is an exploration of faith (or story) and practice. It is like art in that it creatively explores fresh expressions on the canvas of the world. *The reader is left wondering what motivates the creative expressions of Emergent.
6. An Ever-Renewed Adventure of Faith by Sherry and Geoff Maddock: According to the Maddocks, salvation isn’t so much about “saving souls” as it is about manifesting God’s love and justice in the world. We must expand our notion of salvation to include local communal living and caring for the poor. *While Jesus did “reconcile all things to Himself,” He also redeemed the elect, and the approach of this perspective neglects the elect.
7. Jailhouse Faith by Thomas Malcom Olson: This chapter makes the point that jailhouse conversion and rehabilitation are examples of Christian community at work through stories from a prison ministry. *This chapter bears great testimony to the power of God to change lives, but it’s unclear what this has to do with the emerging church specifically.
8. The Existing Church/Emerging Church Matrix by Tim Conder: Traditional and emerging churches often clash resulting in little to no productivity. We can begin to work together by focusing on three things: 1) common cultural criticism 2) openness to historical traditions/theologies 3) Allowing for diverse theological discussion. *Mr. Condor points out some good ways forward. “Traditional” and emerging churches should realize more often that we’re on the same page in criticizing modernity and some times post-modernity. But biblical boundaries for theological discussion must be emphasized.
9. The American Catholic Merger-Church by Brian Mitchell: The Roman Catholic practice of merging smaller parishes has unforeseen consequences for ministry. There is an urgent need to address questions of leadership and membership. *This chapter may be good and accurate, but I have no idea what it’s doing in this book.
10. Presbymergent by Adam Walker Cleaveland: Reflections are offered from Mr. Walker’s struggle to be PC(USA) and Emergent. He sees himself as a “loyal radical.” *It’s unclear whether he can be both well, especially considering how clashes occur as noted in Tim Condor’s chapter.
11. Following Jesus into Culture by Ryan Bolger: Dr. Bolger offers five aspects of godlike movements that the Emergent Church seeks to live out: communal, reconciliation, hospitality, freedom, and spirituality. *Most of the insights offered here are good and helpful. However, the goodness, truth, and beauty of God are absent. Without Him in the picture, there’s nothing necessarily Christian about the movement being described.
12. Church Emerging by Brian McLaren: It’s time to stop debating “postmodern epistemology” and shift to postcolonialism. We must make right the errors of the past through progressive faith and “proper confidence.” *Mr. McLaren makes some interesting points but never defines what his “proper confidence” looks like as opposed to the extremes he criticizes. Some of his controversial points are unsupported and he continues (as he has in the past) to say things about his critics and then refuses to defend what he says.
13. The End of Reinvention by Will Samson: How we join in God’s work is determined by our prior understanding of who God is and what He’s doing. The desire for certainty, doctrines such as Sola Scriptura, and creedal division have led us to misunderstand God and His work. Instead of seeking to be right, we should seek to understand God within our current context and community experience. *Though the chapter asks some good questions, the diagnosis of the problem offered here is misguided and results in a socially relativistic solution.
14. Converting Christianity by Barry Taylor: Traditional religion cannot sustain Christian faith into the future. We must seek an open faith lived out in real world contexts. *The chapter is vague (the “religion” it rails against is never defined) and borders on relativism. What is clear is that the Christianity it advocates lacks biblical boundaries.
15. Leadership in a Flattened World by Sally Morgenthaler: The mechanical CEO style of leadership has been damaging the church. A crucial part of flattening leadership is to promote more women into leadership. *We can agree about the problems with CEO style leadership, but the solution commanded by the Bible is to seek a plurality of male elders who serve their community.
16. The Sweet Problem on Inclusiveness by Samir Selmanovic: Western Christians have made an idol of Christianity. We must humble ourselves and accept that there are truths we can learn from other religions. *Christianity is the whipping boy never defined. Instead of looking to the Bible to explain the Gospel and its relation to the world, Mr. Selmanovic argues for unbiblical inclusivism.
17. Orthoparadoxy by Dwight J. Friesen: Christians should seek to practice orthoparadoxy- the right holding of tensions, paradoxes, and contradictions. Good conversations and relationships are more important than converting or debating. *There seems to be little value for knowledge and seeking truth in this perspective. It ends up affirming orthopraxy at the expense of orthodoxy.
18. Humble Theology by Dan Kimball: It should be okay to explore theology with humility. We must believe and discuss theology with humility, realizing that our methodology flows from it. *An excellent chapter with important correctives for those on both sides of the theological spectrum.
19. Leading From the Margins by Tim Keel: The world is changing and requires leaders who understand it. They must be able to shape environments where people can grow in diverse ways. *A good but brief chapter with an excellent emphasis on balancing the “left” and “right” brain in forms of leadership.
20. Digging Up the Past by Chris Erdman: We must realize that our future is connected with our past. Karl Barth provides some historical context for doing theology freely in urgent times. *Mr. Erdman offers a good perspective on the importance of history and helpful application of Barth’s methodology.
21. A Pound of Social Justice by Rodolpho Carrasco: God is very serious about social justice, so if we are concerned about doing God’s work, we must invest in long-lasting relationships in our local communities with a giving heart. *Mr. Carrasco offers the ministry of Harambee as an example of how this can be done well and the result is an excellent picture of how biblical social justice can happen today.
22. Emergent Kissing by Karen E. Sloan: Too often the church only offers superficial reflection on sexuality. We need to create environments where people are able to discuss sexual sin and think critically about it. *This is a good chapter that challenges the church to deal openly and aggressively with sexual sin.
23. Our Report Card in the Year 2057 by Deborah and Ken Loyd: We have opportunities to help women, the poor, and the oppressed. The church is called to recognize, seek out, and act in ways that bring justice to these people. *The emphasis on helping the poor and oppressed is an important reminder for the church today. Though some claims here lack support (particularly controversial ones regarding women), the general call for Christians to advance God’s Kingdom in these areas is necessary for the church to hear.
24. Practicing Pentecost by Anthony Smith: Racial division still infects the North American church because it’s still clinging to the teachings of modernity. We must repent and seek reconciliation. *The description of the problem is not well argued- it’s not clear what acts of racial injustice are being criticized. It is clear, though, that racial division is something that must be crushed by the advancement of God’s Kingdom.
25. Restoring Honor in the Land by Randy Woodley: Native Americans are still suffering the consequences from having their land stolen and identities broken. The Emergent Church has shares some core values with Native Americans and they may be able to help each toward a better future. *The plight of the Native Americans is often ignored or forgotten. There are at least some good suggestions offered here for moving forward that should be heeded by the church universal, not just the Emergent Church.

One thing that should become clear to readers of this book is that the Emergent Church is not, nor is it seeking to be, a monolithic movement. Voices in this book range in their views of theology and the role of the Bible in their ministries- some calling the church to fulfill its biblical mandates and some others straying from biblical teaching.

An Emergent Manifesto of Hope is valuable in that it presents a variety of Emergent practices and theologies in the words of its promoters. Those who are looking to participate or to better understand the movement will benefit from reading the volume.

The Roots of Endurance is the third volume in a series of biographical books by John Piper called “The Swans Are Not Silent.” Each book covers three figures from Christian history under a common theme. In this book, Piper looked at the lives of John Newton, Charles Simeon, and William Wilberforce, each of which endured to their ends facing remarkable adversity.

Piper set the stage with an introduction connecting the three men together in history, spiritually, and theologically. As usual, his words are salted with spiritual wisdom and worth meditation. From the life of John Newton, Piper explored “habitual tenderness” and what it means to have “a tender heart and a theological backbone of steel.”

The biography of Charles Simeon is one of my favorite from the series so far. For the first twelve years of his service at Trinity Church his congregation resisted and rebelled against him, and yet he remained there for fifty-four years! And as many now know due to the recent movie, "Amazing Grace," William Wilberforce also maintained his service through many years, though for him it was in Parliament fighting slavery. Piper told the stories of these men’s inspiring lives along with great academic footnotes and insightful practical application.

Unlike the other books in this series, I thought the concluding thoughts to The Roots of Endurance were a bit shallow (compared to Piper’s other reflections) and perhaps rushed. However, the book stands well enough on its own without the conclusion and I would recommending reading it if only for the biography of Charles Simeon.