kinnon.tv

Bloggers Need to Invoice Publishers for Their Marketing Efforts on Publishers' Behalf

UPDATE: Jordon Cooper adds another post to this conversation, The Christian Book Whore.

Forgive the long title but this post has been brewing since I read Jordon Cooper's Theological Debate As Blood Sport. His post was written early in the "debate" around McLaren's new book. Jordon said this near the end of his post, in regards to the marketing of books like Brian's;

(We) have to take into account how bloggers get played by the publishing houses. In exchange for “review copies”, they get to turn us into their own personal marketing whores. You don’t think Harper Collins isn’t feeling pretty happy for the “buzz” that we generate from their free, cheaply produced review copies. We get to feel like “insiders” when we are marketing pawns, rushing to review the book on Amazon and posting the reviews on our blogs. Harper Collins (as a division of News Corp.) has an obligation to the bottom line, not to the faith. [emphasis added]

Brad Boydston, the king of great random links, wrote this last night,

BRIAN McLAREN'S new book A New Kind of Christianity is getting lots of reaction. That was certainly his goal.

I WISH that Mark Noll's book The New Shape of World Christianity: How American Experience Reflects Global Faith would get as much attention. The whole postmodern cultural shift discussion that McLaren and the emerging folks want to lead is so insular and so Western -- while so much of what is shaping the church in 2010 is so global. [emphasis added]

Jordon's point and perhaps Brad's is that we bloggers are getting played by, at the very least, the publishers and in some cases, the book authors. HarperOne (ANKoChristianity's publisher) doesn't care whether I slam or sing the praises of Brian's book. In the market place of idea-based books, any PR is good PR. In fact, they probably love that I discuss Brian's book over and against McGrath's Heresy - another HarperOne book.

Michael Hyatt, Thomas Nelson CEO sings the praises of his company's Book Sneeze program. He's got all kinds of bloggers who've signed up to be "sneezers" for Thomas Nelson.

Their site trumpets, Booksneeze Gives (BOOKS) to Bloggers for Free. But that would be free ONLY from Thomas Nelson's perspective. Since they place ZERO value on the time of the Bloggers reading their books.

Let's have a bit of fun with math, kids, shall we.

We will use Brian's new book as an example even though it's not a Thomas Nelson book.

ANKoChristianity is 320 pages in total length (according to Amazon.) With the preface and main body text and excluding the endnotes, index, title page, etc, the book is about 260 pages. Average word count per page is around 350 - 400 words. We will use the lower number.

Now considering that the average reading speed for an American adult is in the 200 words per minute range, with Brian's book being approximately 90,000 words - it will take the average reader about 7.5 hours to finish the book. Basically, an average working day.

Now to get a book from Thomas Nelson, you need to promise to write a minimum 200 word review of that book and post it on your blog AND a consumer website (like Amazon). When you provide links to prove to Thomas Nelson you've done so - you get another "FREE" book.

Forgive me, but this is almost Pavlovian.

Let's say you only take 30 minutes to write your review - you've still spent 8 hours of your time on a book that publishers want you to help them market.

There is no way in the world that the real costs of the books publishers and their PR and Marketing Firms are shipping you cost more than 10 dollars including shipping (and I'm being very generous to the publishers with this figure).

Are you really willing to work for a publisher for a little over a dollar an hour?

Where I Stand on This
I remember being flattered when I was asked to join the Ooze Viral Bloggers a couple of years ago. Wow. My blog is important enough that they want to send me free books. (Gullible is my middle name.)

But the books really aren't free folks.

The expectation was that I'd read them and then write something about them - the unwritten contract. When a book Oozed it's way to me I would commit my time to reading it, shortly after it hit my doorstep - and at least say something about it. Even if the book was crap - which far too many were.

And human nature being what it is, most of us don't want to say bad things about "gifts" from anyone, even publishers - whether they're oozing or not. No doubt publishers are very aware of this basic reality of human nature. They aren't in the gift-giving business - they are in the book publishing business. As Jordon says, their bottom line is making a profit - and I do not begrudge them that.

I'm just not willing to work for them for free.

With much of this in mind, I opted out of the Ooze a year ago in terms of asking for books. (I officially asked not to receive anymore emails about the Ooze books in January.) I've never opted in to Booksneeze and won't.

With shipping and taxes, I paid just under $28CDN for McLaren's new book. I chose to spend the time I did reading the book and critiquing it - not feeling like I was beholden to the marketing efforts of the OozeTV team & Mike Morrell, HarperOne or anyone else. (BTW Mike, though I'm sure you really do like Brian's book, when you comment on people's blogs about said book, it would be good if you noted you were paid for your efforts in the Ooze viral marketing campaign for it. There probably are one or two people who don't actually know that and it could be perceived as a conflict of interest.)

I still receive the occasional email offering to send me a book. Some I accept - but with no promise to review the book one way or the other. And I mention in the review that the book was provided for free - even though there is no law in Canada to force me to do that.

But to my fellow bloggers.

Your time really is worth something.

If publishers want you to join them in their efforts to market their books - it's only fair they pay you - and that you tell us you are being paid to read and review their books.

Or.

They can ACTUALLY send you free books - without stipulating anything.

If the books you receive really are great, you might just write something about them.

(And can people please go read the Cluetrain Manifesto. This old school marketing stuff is getting old.)

Jordon Cooper, Show Me The Money, Mr. Publisher, book marketing, bloggers as marketing pawns, Brad Boydston

Peter Gabriel - Oh my goodness...

...(or the lack thereof), his new album is fantastic. Sparse yet majestic classical arrangements of some of his favourite songs by writers like Paul Simon, David Bowie, (my favourite band) Elbow, Neil Young and others.

I strongly recommend you check out Scratch My Back.

Peter Gabriel, Scratch My Back

Pointing to A Few More ANKoChristianity Reviews

There are some days that I wish I could be paid to blog. (I hear that laughter.) But I get paid to produce television and media content for clients. And my blogging and focus on ANKoChristianity has caused me to get rather behind on work that needs to be finished. I hope to respond to Brian McLaren's response to me in the next 72 hours - but that will depend on how much paying work I get done in that timeframe.

So.

Let me point you to a few other reviews of Brian McLaren's A New Kind of Christianity.

Trevin Wax is simply one of the best bloggers in Christian blogdom. Gracious, scholarly and a very good writer. Though I would not share all of the finer points of Trevin's theology, I look forward to his posts showing up in Google Reader. Trevin has dome some of the very best interviews with N.T.Wright. Please read Trevin's take on Brian's book, Why Brian McLaren's New Book is Good for the Emerging Church.

I took Kevin DeYoung and his co-writer, Ted Kluck to task for their book, Why We Love the Church. Brian's book, which I would actually agree with less than DeYoung & Kluck's book, has been treated with kid gloves in comparison (by me). That being said, DeYoung has written a firm, even handed and indepth critique of McLaren's book that is a must read, Part 1 and Part 2. His paraphrase of the late Stan Grenz and Roger Olson on classic liberalism is one of the most effective moments in the review - at least for me.

Nathan Gilmour of The Christian Humanist (?) pens an interesting review as one of the Ooze Viral Bloggers. (I hope you can get a prescription for that / GRIN.) He outlines where he sees Brian getting it right, wrong & sneaky while giving the book "a nod" at the end. Nathan takes McLaren to task particularly for pitching himself as an available consultant at the end of the book. (I confess I skimmed over that in my reading.) Nathan writes,

I realize that not everybody is as suspicious of out-of-town “experts” as I am, and I’d be fine if McLaren were consistently sanguine. But as it stands, it looks like he decided to use this book, which pitches itself as a moment of honesty, as a platform to promote himself and his Emergent Village buddies while calling dedicated ordained folks prison guards, and that’s an inexcusable bit of duplicity.

Nathan may call it "inexcusable" but he still goes on to recommend we purchase the book,

...a book’s excellence lies not in its being right but in its being interesting. Given that criterion, I’d still recommend this book for folks interested in reading some philosophical-progressive alternatives to modern evangelicalism. There are some moments of sloppy thinking and others of outright self-serving dishonesty, but on balance, I can accept those sorts of things in a book that spurs me to think for a while, and I think that this book did.

Ron Cole is about 1/2 way through reading ANKoChristianity and has a generally favourable response to the book, along with a deep love for Brian himself. (That is a good thing, btw.)

Jeremy Bouma, in the process of placing Pagitt beside Pelagius and eliciting something stronger than a "hmmmm" promises to peruse ANKoChristianity and publicly place his thoughts before us. (Some people say I'm alliterate.)

And finally, as perhaps many folk who read me would not read Challies (the #1 Christian Blogger in the Universe - as far as statisticians are able to ascertain - and a near-Toronto lad to boot), Tim writes a very well written, hard and angry response to Brian's ANKoChristianity. (102 comments at this point in time)

[Humour Alert] And finally, finally (or the last word and the word after that) I have been told that there is no truth to this rumour from the future that when ANKoChristianity finally takes over;

Albert Mohler, former President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (now renamed the ANKoChristianity Southern Seminary) will still be permitted to teach. But only in German. On Thursdays. Wearing a cardigan. In a shuttered Episcopal Church. In Poughkeepsie, NY.

A New Kind of Christianity, Brian McLaren

A Question or Two About Brian McLaren's A New Kind of Christianity

UPDATE: Brian McLaren graciously responds to this post and a previous couple of posts of mine. No one does gracious quite as well as Brian. (Not a snark, simply an observation and a trait of Brian's I can definitely learn from.)

This is my 2nd attempt at reviewing Brian's new book. The first was 3,000 words and I was barely half done. A good friend said, "It looks like you've begun a response to the book, Bill. I thought you were writing a review?" She was right. I

Another good friend thought it might be helpful for me to turn my verbosity into questions. A good and helpful point.

So.

I'm going to ask some questions that have come up while reading Brian McLaren's new book A New Kind of Christianity, including all the footnotes. I will do my best to explain why I have those questions.

Let me begin.

Jesus asked his disciples, "Who do you say I am?" Peter's immediate response (the immediacy assumed based on his character) was "You are the Christ (the Messiah), Son of the Living God."

Again, based on my finished reading of Brian's book, I am left with this rather uncomfortable question:

Who do you say Jesus is, Brian?

Is Jesus the second person of the Trinity, as Paul says in his letter to the Phillipians, "Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death— even death on a cross!"

Or as the Nicene Creed says "the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made."

Should this not be a relatively simple question to answer? Yet it is one I am left asking after finishing Brian's book.

Here's are a few of the reasons I ask the question?

On page 118, you say;

...the character of the living God is like the character of Jesus.

And later,

When you see him, you are getting the best view afforded to humans of the character of God.

And then at the top of page 132;

And the term “Christ” or “Messiah” literally means “anointed one,” suggesting a king or leader chosen by God to – like Moses – liberate the people from oppression.

In your 28th footnote for Chapter 18, you interpret Peter in Acts 10:42-42 as "Jesus is appointed by God to be both..."

These are just a few of the places where your description of Jesus confuses me. Now, you have a Master's Degree in English, so I'm pretty sure you know what you mean. My problem is that I don't.

Is "the character of the living God" like Jesus - or is Jesus the very character of the Living God?

Is Jesus the "best view afforded to humans of the character of God" or is Jesus simply God Incarnate?

Was Jesus "chosen by God" or did Jesus choose His way as God. And if Jesus is God, how is He "appointed by God"?

In John 14:9, Jesus tells his disciples: "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father."

Is He not claiming to be God there? Or am I missing something? Or do you believe He is God and I just don't understand you? Help a brother out here.

Now it would seem that you have a problem with John 14 and the way it's interpreted as you outline in Chapter 19. Particularly John 14:6 where Jesus tells the disciples; "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me."

My reading suggests that you simply dismiss what appears an obvious understanding; that Jesus is actually saying He is the Only Way to the Father.

You write that those of us who would think this do not understand that this is a preprogrammed response based on our Greco-Roman understanding. (Page 212)

And about wrestling with that whole Greco-Roman thing. I realize that your entire thesis hangs in the balance on this, but wasn't the Apostle Paul rather Greco-Roman? I know, it's probably a weird place in my questions to ask this question, but I was thinking; Paul was a Roman citizen, who spoke Greek, was trained in the Scriptures, and in Greek thought, and Jesus chose him as the disciple to replace Judas. Right?

So, did God make a mistake? Should he have rather picked a non-Greco Roman type who could have kept the Greco-Roman wrestling out of Christianity? Perhaps Mike Wittmer deals with this better than I do, so I should probably leave that to him.

Anyway, back to John 14:6.

Your interpretation of the passage suggests that if we could only break out of our "dominant position" we would see that Jesus is simply responding to Thomas' fearful question, "Jesus where are you going?" You say he is not commenting, in one way or another, about the many different ways one might find God.

You write that for anyone to suggest that Jesus words have him claiming he is the ONLY way to the Father is "misappropriating them, twisting them, abusing them." (Page 217). Isn't that a little harsh or do you need to be harsh to get through my rather thick skull?

You seem to say that Jesus would never ever suggest that he was the only way.

Would the logical reason for that be because you don't believe he is God Incarnate? Since only God could claim to be the ONLY way. Or am I missing it again?

But what about Jesus telling the scared disciples that if they've seen him, they've seen the Father. Is that just a metaphor?

Which leads me to wonder if you agree with your friend, Marcus Borg, who you footnote a number of times in the book and talk about in your Introduction as one of the people whose "emerging mission" points toward the title of your book.

Borg sees John's Gospel as "the most metaphorical and furthest removed from the deeds and words of Jesus."

He says this about Jesus' "I am the Way statement"

...the way of Jesus is the way of death and resurrection--the path of transition and transformation from an old way of being to a new way of being. To use the language of incarnation that is so central to John, Jesus incarnates the way. Incarnation means embodiment. Jesus is what the way embodied in a human life looks like.

That last line sounds to me a lot like your statement that Jesus is "the best view afforded to humans of the character of God." But I probably don't understand, right? And I really don't want to suggest guilt by association. You should meet some of my friends. Oh right, you have.

And in his book, Jesus in Contemporary Scholarship (1994) Borg says about Jesus in light of that scholarship,

We are quite certain that Jesus did not think of himself as divine or as the "Son of God" in any unique sense, if at all. If one of his disciples had responded when reportedly asked by Jesus in Mark's gospel, "Who do you say that I am?," with words like those used in the Nicene Creed, we can well imagine that Jesus would have said, "What???"

Oh and Borg goes on to say that "most Jesus scholars" don't buy the Virgin Birth, the Ascension - "..there is a further reason the story cannot be taken literally, namely, one cannot imagine it happening" - or that there will be a literal second coming. They do all agree that Jesus was crucified, died and was buried. (But Borg's scholarship folk don't buy the Resurrection, either.)

Are you with Borg here, or do you think he might be a tad confused?

Now, Borg's friend N.T. Wright would be one of those Jesus scholars who definitely would not agree with him. In fact, the good Bishop of Durham says this, (and I confess that I cried when I read it - at the part which I've highlighted),

Let me put it like this. In Paul (and this is really a Pauline conversation, after all), what happens is that the word of the gospel is announced. That is to say, Jesus Christ is proclaimed – one-on-one or in a large meeting or out on the street or whatever, and even though that message is crazy (and Paul knows it’s crazy; he says it’s folly to Gentiles and a scandal to Jews), some people find that it grabs them and they believe it. This is bizarre. I shouldn’t be believing this. A dead man got raised from the dead and he’s the Lord of the world. I really shouldn’t believe this, but it does make sense. And it finds me and I can feel it changing me. Paul’s analysis of that is that this is the power of the word (he has a strong theology of the word), and another equal way of saying it for Paul is that this is the Holy Spirit working through the gospel. He says, no one can say that Jesus Christ is Lord except by the Holy Spirit.

Your book suggests that N.T. Wright has greatly helped your understanding of theology, correct?

So my final question would be - Do you think Borg or Wright is correct? Wright believes in the physical resurrection and that the physically resurrected Jesus is now "the Lord of the World".

Borg, well, not so much.

One of them may be Wright - but they both can't be right!

Right?!

I just can't find the answer to these questions in your book that is all about A New Kind of Christianity.

Brian McLaren, New Kind of Christianity

Reviewers Reviewing McLaren's A New Kind of Christianity

UPDATE: Brian McLaren graciously responds to this post, my previous post on Framing the Discussion and my later post where I have Questions for him (which he responds to).

I have no time today to write a substantive review of Brian McLaren's A New Kind of Christianity. (As an independent producer/director, I have work that needs to get finished.) So I will point you at two reviewers that I would recommend you read and some further background for the on-going discussion.

Mike Wittmer has begun a series on the book. He's on Question 2 right now. Of course, Mike is part of the Military Industrial Complex Theological Seminary/Church Leadership Vested Interest Group (TS/CLVIG for short) and a Kuyperian, no less. You've been warned. :-) Here are direct links to his Introduction and Question 1.

The second link is to Darryl Dash in a review that is possibly stronger and more blunt than I've ever heard him before. He quotes Brian on the need to rethink the whole Christian enterprise,

At some point, though, more and more of us will finally decide that it would make more sense to go back and revise the contract from scratch. And that work has begun. It is nowhere near complete, but the cat is out of the bag… [emphasis added by Darryl]

And Darryl responds,

And that cat is on a tear. McLaren attempts the impossible, essentially tossing out what you always thought was true, and starting again from scratch. The Fall of Genesis 3? That’s really a coming-of-age story. The storyline of the Bible? It’s really about the downside of progress, and about how good prevails in the end anyway. The Bible is a community library, and the violent, tribal God of the Genesis flood is “hardly worthy of belief, much less worship” – but those were early days, and our view of God is always changing. Jesus didn’t come to start a new religion, nor is Christianity the answer in itself. In short, almost everything you know about God, the Bible, and Christianity is wrong, according to McLaren. [emphasis added]

McLaren is quite upfront that his theology has been powerfully informed by Harvey Cox's The Reason for Faith and by the theology of Marcus Borg. (He identifies Borg as a fellow emergent traveller and Cox winds his way through McLaren's footnotes.) So you might find Borg's BeliefNet post on John 14:6 informative - as it squares with that of Brian's understanding of the verse in ANKoC. And this will give a little taste of the theology of Cox along with this. (I confess that I find Cox's definition of the present "Age of the Spirit" rather bizarre - as if the Holy Spirit was incapable of doing much until now. An extremely low view of the power of the Spirit I would posit.)

As pointed to in the previous post, Jeremy Bouma has begun a series that investigates and questions the theology of the Emergent Village wing of the Emerging Church. As Brian has been and still is a key leader in the theology of EV, Jeremy's posts are important to the discussion.

I also want to point you to my friend Sonja, blogging as Calacrian, and her post from this morning that begins with a Frost poem that has been resonating of late for me, as well.

...we’ve come to a place where there are a goodly number of people who are comfortable with the way things are (or are headed) in the emerging conversation. But there are also a goodly number of people who (for a variety of reasons) are no longer comfortable with it. Me, I feel like Robert Frost standing at the two roads diverging in the woods. Do we really have to choose?

This discussion around Emergent and ANKoC is going to be hard. Lines have already been drawn. (I hear, "nobody's right if everybody's wrong" echoing that last sentence.)

I was awake until 4am last night struggling with this stuff. Wondering how a conversation that had begun in part about oppression had itself become oppressive - where transparency would be talked about but not practiced. Where questioners would have shame labels hung around their necks - while the questioned would play the victim card. It has begun to feel like the Twilight Zone or perhaps what my kids once called Opposites Day.

I awoke this morning to an interlocutor suggesting I was in league with Screwtape - because I dared to ask questions - of an Emergent leader.

That is the level of dis-ease in this discussion. Which extends further and deeper than the present presenting symptoms - as stories of betrayal, infidelity and coverup are woven into the very fabric of the marketing of this new kind of Emergent Christianity.

And yes, Bob, Screwtape is laughing. But at what or whom, exactly?

Brian McLaren, Darryl Dash, Mike Wittmer, A New Kind of Christianity

Musical Recommendation: Phil Keaggy & Jeff Johnson - FRIO suite

Imbi and I met Jeff Johnson on a Kindlings Hearth retreat earlier this year. Jeff's a composer, keyboardist, writer, singer and worshipper. (He's also funny and extremely energetic - but I won't hold that against him. The cropped image to the right was captured by Imbi.)

Jeff was kind enough to send us a copy of his new CD with Phil Keaggy, FRIO suite - which we received yesterday. The recording was inspired by their "experience at Laity Lodge on the Frio River in Texas." The music was produced as a collaboration with visual artist, Kathy Hastings. (We met Kathy this summer at The Kindlings Fest on Orcas Island. She's just as much fun and artistically gifted as her good friend, Jeff.)

I'm amused that iTunes classifies this music as New Age - a category that it may fit stylistically, if not spiritually. These two committed Christians have produced an artistic work that is layered, intriguing, engaging and very pleasing. Keaggy's guitar playing, as to be expected, is as good as ever. Jeff builds gorgeous and delightful sonic environments that allow Keaggy's guitar to soar. I recommend the album highly. (I'm bound to drive my family nuts with how often it gets played. A good thing I'm up north and they are in the city - though I'm pretty sure the muso Kinnon kids will love it too.)

Available from iTunes and Jeff's label website, Ark Music. (Check out Jeff's other albums on iTunes and at Ark - he's a gifted guy.)

U2, Too

According to the Toronto Star headline writers, U2 blew the roof off of the Rogers Centre last night (I still think of that venue as the SkyDome). Actually, the weather has been so dry these last 18 days, the Dome's roof was wide open for the event - treating downtown T-dot to U2's tunes. Torstar had this to say,

It's a satisfying spectacle, with enviable musicianship – Edge the most dominant, with his intense ringing sound on electric guitar (and a deft acoustic turn on "Stay (Faraway, So Close)" – fantastic sound and consistent energy and emotion. They made use of the stage, wandering its outer rim and running across the moving bridges. Even drummer Larry Mullen Jr. left his kit at one point to walk around playing portable congas.

Bono, as limber physically as he was vocally, was jumping, skipping, spinning with arms outstretched.

Triple D was there and tweeted,

@DashHouse: Wow. I'm a U2 fan and that concert still blew my mind. They are at the top of their game. #U2360

UPDATE: Triple D goes back for a second helping. Whatta guy. (GA = General Admission)

@DashHouse: In the lineup. Yes, I'm going again. This time general admission. http://twitpic.com/i31e1

I saw U2 a few years back - well 17.5 to be exact, and wrote about it here when I was promoting another North East Atlantic band, Elbow (and the sonic quality of their Seldom Seen Kid album).

I remember two live music experiences at the same Toronto venue in the last millenium - five days apart. (If the great google god is correct - March 19th and March 24th, 1992 respectively.) The first was Dire Straits. The sound was amazing - when they played quietly they were quiet - when they played passionately and full-on, they were loud. U2's Zoo TV, five nights later, was a different story. Whether a quiet tune or full-on, the sound pressure levels were the same - compressed to death. There were no dynamics. It was painful to listen to - even if the tunes were great.

Apparently that's not the case on this tour as the Star reviewer says - "fantastic sound." Maybe having the roof open helped. I saw Dire Straits and U2 in that old hockey barn, Maple Leaf Gardens - and the U2 sound engineers just couldn't make that old barn ring true. (Oddly enough, I'm listening to Mark Knopfler's fantastic new album, Get Lucky, as I type this. And loving it. If you are interested, buy the digital download from Knopfler's site as you get extras iTunes doesn't offer.)

The Kinnon boys and a group of their friends (whose bodies litter the floors of our loft) head down to the U2 show tonight. I'll update this post with their feedback.

My buddy, Gerry and his son, Jason, are in town for the show, as well, from points west and wanted me to join them. I said I was too old. Now I'm regretting my decision. Perhaps it's just that I still haven't found what I'm looking for, eh. I'm having breakfast with Gerry in the morning, and will add his thoughts. (He's just a bit younger than moi.)

BTW: Mike Todd has the video of the U2 EPK (Electronic Press Kit) @ his blog, if you want to see what U2 is providing the media for interview footage and B-roll.

Darryl Dash, U2, Toronto Star, Toronto

Matthew Shardlake and Me

Ben Witherington III, a few posts back at his blog (which now appears @ Belief Net, shudder), wrote about C.J. Sansom's Matthew Hardlake series.

The real strength of Sansom's writing is detailed historical description of the ordinary life of ordinary people in London and the surrounding areas during a tumultuous period in English history. This was the period of Cranmer and Cromwell and Coverdale when the memory of Sir Thomas More was still fresh, and those today who care about or are interested in the rise of the English Protestant Reformation under Henry's instigation will find these novels fascinating. Sansom doesn't gild the lily at all, and so we are regaled with Reforming preachers who are busy condemning every one to Hell (the so called 'hot Gospelers') and people who go on killing sprees, in the name of the Lord (the subject of the novel Revelation where a crazed Reformer uses the seven bowls judgments as a pattern for a series of seven murders). These were perilous days for Refomers who could be hauled off to jail by Bishop Bonner in a heartbeat for nothing more than preaching the Gospel on a street corner. Needless to say this is not your momma's Sunday school literature about how pure the Puritans were.

When you read these novels you can certainly understand why, by the beginning of the 18th century when John Wesley was born (1703), England was sick and tired of religous wars and of killing each other in the name of Christ, and so the watchword of the age was 'tolerance'. Does that sound familiar?

It does indeed.

At Ben's blog recommendation, I ordered the series. They arrived on Friday and I began reading the books on Monday. I'm now on page 188 of the third book, Sovereign. (I obviously like the series.)

I find myself identifying with the series' central character, the hunchback lawyer Matthew Shardlake. He's a man who's Protestant faith once burned white hot, but his working in close proximity to Thomas Cromwell, one of the Reform leaders, has seen Shardlake's zeal cool. (Shardlake is fictional - Cromwell real.)

Lawyer Shardlake in conversation with Lady Honour, from the second book in the series, Dark Fire, (Pan Paperback Edition, Pg 228)

'When I was young I was in thrall to the writings of Erasmus. I loved his picture of a peaceful commonwealth where men worshipped in good fellowship, the abuses of the old Church gone.'

'I too was much taken with Erasmus once,' she said. 'Yet it did not turn out as he hoped, did it? Martin Luther began his violent attacks on the Church and Germany was flooded with anarchy.

I nodded. 'Erasmus would never comment on Luther, for or against him. That always puzzled me.'

'I think he was too shocked at what was happening. Poor Erasmus.' She laughed sadly. 'He as much given to quoting St. John chapter six, was he not? "The Spirit gives life, but the flesh is of no use." But men are ruled by their passions and always will be." (Emphasis and link added)

And later in the book, Shardlake in conversation with former monk/physician Guy, (Dark Fire - Page 535)

'Why does faith bring out the worst in so many, Guy?' I blurted out. 'How is it that it can turn men, papist and reformer both, into brutes?'

(Guy responds) 'Man is an angry, savage being. Sometimes faith becomes an excuse for battle. It is not real faith then. In justifying their positions in the name of God, men silence God. But having the comfortable belief that, having read the Bible and prayed, they cannot be wrong.' (Emphasis added)

I had someone comment this morning on one of my posts from much earlier this year, It's All About Me, NPD and Church Leaders. I'd forgotten about this post, but I am struck once again how many leaders in the various manifestations of that living entity we call The Church - operate no differently than Thomas Cromwell - leaving a trail of bodies and virtual bloodshed in their wake - all to the glory of god - and would you please buy their latest book.

Whatever label they self-confess, whether conservative, progressive, emerging, reformed, missional - the story is the same. They have the answers. And we, the sheep, are fools if we don't listen. Ah, but what a fool believes, eh.

C.J. Sansom, Matthew Shardlake, Thomas Cromwell, 16th Century Britain

Review: Why We Love the Church

UPDATE 2: Threaded comments are now properly turned on in TypePad's new, rather buggy, comment system here @ kinnon.tv. I apologize for any confusion caused by some comments being threaded and others not.

UPDATED: Worth reading in light of this post (or not in light of this post), Brian Auten @ the BHT, the iMonk's post that is partially a response to this one and Frank Turk's series on not leaving church. (And I've removed a few "approvingly" adverbs, from the original post.)

I was contacted by Moody Publishers a while back to see if I was interested in reviewing Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck's Why We Love the Church. I said yes. (More on that later.) Before I begin the review, let me quote a little advice on book reviewing.

Over the years, I have come to find writing book reviews even more distasteful than reading them. Part of this is my own fault, for being one of those old-fashioned holdouts who still believes that you should actually read the book before reviewing it.

Sometimes I am only into the first 20 pages of a 500-page book when it becomes painfully clear that this one is a real dog. The rest of the ordeal is like crossing the Sahara Desert—except that often there are no oases. True, the reviewer gets to slaughter the author in print at the end of it all, but this merely appeases the desire for revenge, which only real blood would satisfy.

I think the writer might be a little over the top in his 2nd graf, though he does make a point.

Reading DeYoung and Kluck's book to the very end (Page 234), I was reminded of a scene in the first Indiana Jones movie, Raiders of the Lost Ark. Spielberg shot a large portion of the movie in Tunisia. Most of the crew & cast came down with dysentery. On the day Harrison Ford was to shoot a fight scene - Indy's whip against a giant's sword, Ford suggested a rewrite - as he was rather ill. After shooting only a few segments of the scene, Ford suggested, "What don't I just shoot the bastard?" (Apparently Ford was aware the sword-wielding giant had been born out of wedlock.)

After forcing my way through all 234 pages of this book, I'm sorely tempted to follow Ford's suggestion. But I won't. Instead, I'll follow DeYoung's advice - at least the advice he quotes from Thomas Sowell - found in this post's first quote on book reviewing, above.

Challies nails the book when he says this,

...much of the book is a response to Leonard Sweet and William Young and George Barna and the other naysayers.

If you're Young, Restless, Truly Reformed and in need of cheap cuts of red meat, then this book is for you. On page 208, DeYoung states, "This book has been an attempt to develop, in a pastorally sensitive and culturally savvy way (edit) a more thoughtful, biblically robust, and historically rooted ecclesiology." To which I would respond in the language of my 20-something sons, "epic fail."

Rather than a thoughtful and engaging book on Christ and His Church, this book's title could just as easily have been "Why We Love Hebrews 13:17 - Obey your leaders and submit to them." Kluck and DeYoung (who write separate chapters in the book) both quote this verse and approvingly quote other writers who say things like, "Without church membership there's no place for the important role of church discipline (page 162)." My note scrawled in the margin screams "versus discipleship?"

DeYoung/Kluck have read lots of books on the disaffection of many Christians with the Institutional Church (see page 222) but rather than actually speaking to one or two, they instead create the straw man, Disgruntled Johnny (Page 23). It's so much easier to create a character you can make fun of - rather than listening to flesh and blood folk from a wide cross section of the church who have left the IC. (DeYoung/Kluck might have attempted communication with a number of the voices in the People Formerly Known As the Congregation meme from 2007. But that would have required listening to people who didn't fit their stereotype.)

DeYoung/Kluck's notoriety came from their first book, Why We're Not Emergent. I haven't read it. Nor do I now have any plans to do so. But this new book, apparently, continues in the same vein. DeYoung appears to be making a second career out of being anti-emerging. His first career is as Reverend Kevin of the Bible Rust Belt's East Lansing University Reformed Church.

Challies recently quoted DeYoung appealing to his Truly Reformed base with a rather tortured "how you will know if you're emerging" statement. The iMonk makes this comment about it,

When I first read this, it tipped my already leaning inclination to be highly annoyed at needless stereotyping and dividing of the Christian family by things that are neither significant nor truly divisive, but simply are the perceptions and caricatures of one team over another. We’ve come to the point where portraying emergent Christians as “useless idiots” is an approved form of bigotry...

In keeping with his anti-emerging second career, earlier this year RevKev had a bit of a set-to with Tony Jones over comments RevKev made about Shane Claiborne (and Doug Pagitt - who according to the reports of statements made by RevKev, "is in no recognizable way a Christian.". For the record, I'm not a particular fan of Jones or Pagitt - but as a wise South African friend once said to me, "there's only room for one person on the Judgment seat of God - and that person ain't you.") Regarding Clairborne, DeYoung opined,

...my beef with Shane Claiborne (is) that it gets to be sort of pseudo-Marxist, liberation theology lite without a robust doctrine of gospel reconciliation.

Unfortunately, RevKev had never read Claiborne nor spoke with him. His opinions were probably based on memes from within his TR tribe - opinions somewhat moderated when he was shamed into speaking with Claiborne directly. According to Jones, RevKev neither confirms nor denies the Pagitt comment.

Following the natural path of unrestrained hubris, RevKev recently decided to take on the theology of the Bishop of Durham, NT Wright, and Wright's book on Justification. Kevin's rapier-edged wit sees him title his final post of three on Wright, Flying Monkeys and the New Perspective. A note to RevKev; if you're going to attempt to hunt Theological Big Game, you need to pack more than the rhetorical equivalent of an Airsoft Pistol. I'm just saying.

Now RevKev wants to protect you from thinking that might upset your theological apple cart. He wouldn't want you confused by theological opinions that differ from his own. As he suggests when he says this about Wright's book,

Too many dangerous spots to recommend except to those already well-grounded in the doctrines of justification, imputation, and faith alone.

That's right kids, RevKev will tell you what you should and should not read. No reason to think for yourselves. Which leads me back to the book. It feels like DeYoung/Kluck have stepped out of the 50's where Father Knows Best. (A quote from page 169, "Mom and Dad make the rules, with Dad leading the way.") Pastors are shepherds, pew-fodder are sheep. And we all know what happens if sheep aren't properly led and disciplined. They leave to gather together at Starbucks - which can in no way represent the "visible church", of course.

And, since you are probably confused on this, the church really is a building. Because the building houses the "visible church." Which leads me to ask the question, if the church people are inside the church building, how are they visible exactly?

On page 121, DeYoung seems to think he's making an argument-winning statement about church buildings and the complaints of many of the dechurched about said buildings,

Here's the bottom line: The whole conversation about church buildings is much ado about nothing. (It is interesting that DeYoung uses a Shakespearean quote from a play that deals with love and deception - deception mainly on the part of the male sex - Shakespeare taking a shot at the patriarchal society in which he lived. But I won't bother chasing that rabbit right now.)

Really Kevin?! Is it really, "Much Ado About Nothing"?! In 2006, the American church owed 28 billion dollars in mortgages, loans and church bonds; this figure only a small part of the what's been spent on churches in the U.S. It is commonly acknowledged that the average church in America spends 85% of its budget on it's building and staff. Is this really "much ado about nothing." Hardly! And contrary to Kevin's assertions, most churches are only used to partially-full capacity a few hours a week. (Although most church staff I know are over-utilized.)

Kevin's opinion on church buildings, is just that, opinion. It fits his world view. He doesn't engage the arguments of church-leavers - he simply attempts to make their arguments appear irrelevant. And no doubt his TR base eats it up.

But let's get back to the underlying theme of DeYoung/Kluck's book, the overarching stupidity of Emergents, church-leavers and missional folk. With his vast knowledge, DeYoung categorically states that "Emergents, church-leavers and the missional folks have a vision for a planet without mourning, crying or pain (Rev 21:4)."(He means they think they can do this in their lifetime.) How does he know this? Did he hire Barna to do a poll? Or is this just RevKev's assertion that Disgruntled Johnny et al are biblically illiterate. I know more than a few missional folk who are abundantly aware of the brokenness of creation and who look forward to the new heaven and the new earth. This doesn't stop them from having both a hope and an expectation that Christians can and should be impacting the planet for good. What a bunch of ninnies, eh!

You may have noted by now that I really haven't said anything about Kluck, the Laurel to DeYoung's Hardy. Kluck is particularly taken with their new found notoriety - mentioning it many times. He loves sports metaphors. His comments on his wife's inability to conceive and their not homeschooling their two children reveal more than I'm sure he intends to about their church culture. (Though I do appreciate Ted's positive comments about Tim Horton's.) Kluck even manages to upset Challies by interviewing Chuck Colson, "who, through his efforts with Evangelicals and Catholics Together, seeks to undermine much of what the church is." Challies statement perfectly encapsulates the DeYoung/Kluck world of the TRs.

Kluck is the cheerleader for DeYoung. He loves that RevKev spends 20 hours a week preparing his sermons. And like Kevin, he seems to enjoy taking shots at McLaren, Bell, Sweet et al. (Guys, after a while, isn't this like shooting fish in a barrel.) And Kluck is not afraid of using timeworn clichés like his 'letter to his five year old son' which really is a letter to you, dear reader. It just makes it easy to excuse Kluck's patronizing tone.

Not surprisingly, I guess, I find Jesus strangely absent from much of this book. Oh sure, He appears occasionally here and there - whatever proof-texting references necessary to support DeYoung/Kluck's thesis that Jesus was all about the Institutional Church. But, since DeYoung/Kluck resist the Kingdom of God arguments of their emergent targets, it's best to ignore the fact that (according to my friend, Jonathan Brink) the word church only appears twice in the Gospels, whilst the word kingdom appears 116 times. We wouldn't want Jesus' words to screw up our carefully crafted arguments, now would we.

And just when I think DeYoung is going to say that the cure for the church's ills is a return to its first love, Jesus, he says instead that the hope for the church is a return to the doctrine of original sin - which, in his TULIP way, he conflates with Total Depravity (Page 208).

(I should note that I do believe in original sin, I believe that the world is broken because we broke it and I believe that our sinful natures are the primary cause for the problems in this world. I believe our free will has caused us to make choices that infect and affect our family, friends, neighbours and the planet. I do not believe in a God who foreordains every action, but in a God who is not surprised by anything. As an example, the collapse of the I35 bridge in Minneapolis/St. Paul was not part of God's sovereign plan - no matter what Piper told his young daughter.)

DeYoung/Kluck are the young celebrities of the Truly Reformed book audience. They are content to splash and scream in their end of the theological swimming pool. The rest of us are idiots for swimming where we choose to swim. (Of course, DeYoung/Kluck were predestined to be in the correct end of the pool where the water is perfectly clear.)

There is much more that I could write, but I've already written more than I intended. In a future post, I will make the connections to Clay Shirky, Bruce Medina, Umair Haque et al that I intended for this post. (As I mentioned previously.)

We live in a liminal space in the church. Whether or not everything must change, everything is changing.

To quote John Armstrong,

The way we gain real access to people's minds and hearts is being altered so quickly that only those who are doing evangelism in the trenches seem to recognize the real significance and power of this hyper-change.

John quotes former Navigator's President Alan Andrews,

In my opinion the time has come to do church differently. I am convinced that we must shift our focus from highly programmed ministry to developing Missional / Transformational Communities that are formed as a seamless organic whole. These types of communities are rare and difficult to visualize because we have moved so forcefully to programmatic ministry in the last half of the previous century. . . . Now the climate in America has begun to shift. Much of the culture is beginning to look for integrity and wholeness. Many people are coming from broken backgrounds with deep wounds in their souls. They long for something that provides real relationships, something that provides integration for their lives, and something that fills the longings of their soul. In short, though they are not aware of it, they seek the whole Gospel for their whole lives.

Roger Thoman reviews a book that I've ordered and am excited about, Steve Addison's Movements That Change the World - which I believe stands in stark contrast to DeYoung/Kluck.

Jesus did not come to found a religious organization. He came to found a missionary movement that would spread to the ends of the earth.

And

Christianity conquered the Roman world without an organizational structure, without access to significant resources, without academic institutions, and without a professionalized clergy. Ordinary people, on fire with the love of Christ and empowered by the Holy Spirit, told their families, friends, and casual acquaintances what God had done for them.

For a movement to grow rapidly it has to spread both within social networks and between social networks.

Jesus turned individual encounters into opportunities to touch whole social networks. The Gerasene demoniac begged Jesus to be allowed to join his band of disciples. Instead, Jesus told him to go home and tell his family what God had done.

My friend, Ed Stetzer, says this about the book

Steve casts a compelling future vision by tracing God¹s discernible lessons demonstrated in movements. He taps into the heart hunger of the growing number of us that want to see God do something great.

I look forward to reviewing the book myself - which leads back to the opening comment that I said I'd get to later. I won't be reviewing anymore books that I haven't chosen myself. If publishers wish to send me a book, that will be their choice. I will no longer agree to review what's has been sent - unless I feel it's worthwhile. Had I not agreed to review Why We Love the Church, I would not have. DeYoung/Kluck will not easily be ever again on my reading list - which was predestined by my reading this book of theirs.

And if you're looking for reformed writers that are a little more irenic in their writing while not afraid of being strong, please read my friends, Darryl Dash, the aforementioned Ed Stetzer and John Armstrong, Dan MacDonald (who has just begun blogging, at last) and, of course, Jared Wilson. (Whose book I managed to leave in the city - and which I genuinely look forward to reading. As noted in an earlier post, the iMonk raved about Jared's book.)

Please also make a point of reading this post from Michael Spencer, Checking the Pulse of the Post-Evangelical Conversation in Three Manifestos, which I believe to be an important comment on where we find ourselves now.

And, as Michael recommends, read this from the DeYoung/Kluck-despised Leonard Sweet & Frank Viola. I'm not normally a fan of Frank's writing, but this from Sweet Viola brought tears to my eyes.

epic fail, Kevin DeYoung

iMonk on Gospel-Driven Jared Wilson's Book

My copy of Jared Wilson's book, Your Jesus is Too Safe arrived in the post late last week. It's near the top of my list of books to read. Being a fan of Jared's blog (he was #3 in my Top 13.5 list of 2008 bloggers), I expect it to be a good book. Michael Spencer's review confirms that expectation;

What millions of evangelicals need is a solid, Biblical, interesting, well-written, compelling, intense and thoroughly balanced revisioning of the Christian faith with Jesus at the center. I thoroughly recommend Jared Wilson’s Your Jesus is Too Safe as the popular level, highly readable re-introduction to Jesus you’ve been looking for, or should have been looking for, all along.

What Jared has produced is a mini-Biblical theology, shaped around the major assertions about Jesus, and using an outstanding mastery of contemporary prose/preaching to take us thematically into the Bible in a quest to discover and appreciate every aspect of Jesus. There is much more to learn in this book than the cover and title would suggest. This isn’t a scholarly book, but it reflects deep, intensive, challenging sermons and teaching. This is real meat, but served up with all the right kinds of seasoning to make you remember this meal long after you’ve forgotten others.

A perfect book for a study of Jesus in any church or small group. A really amazing intro to Jesus that draws from scholarly sources like Wright and Ladd, but makes them accessible and fresh to anyone with an interest in Jesus. Not a wasted page, I assure you. Great preaching. Compelling retelling of the Biblical stories. Forceful application that applies to the sad state of evangelicalism today. [emphasis added]

Buy Jared's book. In fact, buy a few copies and give them to your friends. That will help compensate Jared for my free copy. And Michael's, too. :-) But I would buy it... if I had to. And I probably will, as my books tend to go walkabout.

Gospel-driven, InternetMonk, Jared Wilson, Michael Spencer