Liz Murray – Breaking Night, part 2.

Back in January last year, I promised I’d review this book.  At last, here it is.  

Liz Murray is a young, American woman with a Harvard education, and a career as a motivational speaker.  ‘Twas not always so; ‘born to a drug addicted father who was in and out of prison, and an equally dependent mother who was in and out of mental institutions, she seemed destined to become just another tragic statistic,’   (from the jacket flap).  This book is her story.

It is very well written; gripping and compelling (perhaps a little longer than it needed to be, but that’s just a quibble).  I’m pleased to say that there is very little bad language in it, even when quoting friends from life at its worst.  There’s no salacious scenes at all – just some hints about what was going on.  It is refreshing to find someone not glorying in dirt and evil.

It’s refreshing too to read someone determined to take responsibility.  She sees clearly that, however dark our situation, we are responsible for how we react to it – the need to make ‘empowering choices.’  (As I remember, she only lapses once from this, when she says that the addiction of her parents was ‘not their fault’ when it is plain that they had made wrong choices again and again when they had had no need to do so.  But you can forgive a daughter that unconditional love for her parents, surely!)  What I particularly love is that Liz does love her parents, and cherishes their memory – even though it seems to me, an outside reader, that there was very little to love and cherish.

So, young Liz found herself sleeping rough often, increasingly dependent on friends who would house her for a night, or nights – and increasingly fearful of the day of the day that it would stop. 

'At what point would I become too much?  When would they start saying no?  this couldn’t go on forever.  And just the thought of being in dire need and having to, one day, hear my friends flat-out say no to my hunger and my need for shelter – and to turn away from my desperation – well, the thought of that rejections was just too much to deal with.  I dreaded that moment of ‘no’ that I sensed was coming.  What does it feel like, the moment someone you love turns you down?  I didn’t want to find out.'

Getting to know a girl called Paige was a turning point.  Paige had been a runaway, but now held down a job, had her own apartment – and pointed Liz to the way out.  After several rejections, Liz enrolled at an ‘alternative high school’ in New York City – a school for anyone who was motivated, with or without money.  There the hard work began, and the climb our of dependence.

Here she tells how the climb took not one decision, but hundreds of day-by-day decisions that are empowering, rather than disempowering.  Early morning, cold and surrounded by sleeping friends – with an hour’s subway ride to get to school – the easy decision was to stay with them, warm, sleepy and – going nowhere.  The empowering decision was to walk away, get to school, and work.  Years of such empowering decisions took her first to Harvard, and then to more success as’ the founder and director of Manifest Living, a company that provides a series of workshops that empower adults to create the extraordinary things in their lives.’

What’s interesting about this video clip is the similarity – and difference – to Biblical holiness.  Liz emphasises that it’s not a once-for-all decision, and neither is holiness.  She emphasises that there are lots of pressures to hold us back – as there are with holiness.  She knows and declares powerfully that consistent movement in the same direction inevitably leads to real progress – as with holiness.  She is realistic about the temptations from well-meaning friends to be less committed – as with holiness.  The two big differences, of course: our goal is not our own prosperity, but pleasing him.  And we have, within, the Holy Spirit, driving us ever on and empowering us to make empowering changes.

An excellent book – and I commend it.

Packer on the Lord's Supper

As you will know, one of the books I'm reading this year is Packer's "Serving the People of God."  Packer's a great hero of mine, though I've only got to page 63 of this in nearly three months!

 Here he is on the real presence in Lord's Supper:

Christ is really present with us according to his promise whenever two or three meet together in his name to do something that he told us to get together and do.

He's right there, isn't he?

He continues:


The Lord's Supper, of course, stands at the head of those activities.  

But he's wrong there - do you agree?

Convergence

I’m troubled by this book.  I’ve had it on my shelves for a blog review for months now, but it troubles me and I’ve kept putting it off.  The problem is this: though Sam Storms is  a friend of, and much respected by, John Piper and Wayne Grudem and others of similar pedigree – I just don’t believe the book.

The book is a plea for the uniting of charismatic phenomena (tongues, prophecy and the like) and Reformed doctrine.  In that its focus is on phenomena, not ‘merely’ a deeper experience of God’s love, it is several stages beyond the arguments of Lloyd-Jones, and should not be confused with them.

A large part of the book is anecdotal, in the sense that it says ‘this is what happened to me’.  And I don’t believe it…

Let me highlight three things that to me are major problems.

First, he tells us that he has lied in print.  He went into print several years earlier arguing for a cessationist position when he not only did not believe that the gifts had ceased but actually was, himself, a tongue-speaker (at the time, suppressing the gift).  If by his own admission he’s lied in such a way, why should we believe him now?

Then – second - there’s the type of prophecy he describes.  A dream that a window in their yard would be broken by a foul ball in a baseball game.  And – wow! – baseball had never been played in that yard.  But sure enough, some visitors to the home, knowing nothing about the dream, played base-ball in the yard and broke a window.  Sure proof that God is at work?  Not really; the Bible gives four clear marks that God is at work and this isn't one of them.  (Jonathan Edwards unpacks them helpfully and at length in ‘Distinguishing Marks.’  Storm professes to be an Edwards fan - he must have read it.)  But this kind of thing – if it happened – is on a level with psychic claims in all religions and none.  Why would Almighty God give a dream about a window?  Is there anything like this in the Bible?

And then – third -  there’s his demonology – more ‘Buffy’ than Scripture.  A demon sat in their lounge wrapped in a scarf and beckoning their daughter to come to him; a ‘force’ which Storms himself compares to ‘Star Wars’: ‘a “wall” of energy or power or, as I said, what felt like “liquid air”, engulfed me.  It actually pushed me backward a step or two.’ A demon-possessed man smelling so badly that Storms asks ‘Do demons have an odor?’ and answers ‘Yes, they do!  And it is far from pleasant!’  Is there any of this in Scripture?

Some of it is pure spiritism: ‘Does the name “Derek” mean anything special to you?'  Oh, wow – again!  A God who can make a name pop into your head, but not tell you what it means!  Pop down to Waterstones in your lunch-break: you can read any number of mediums making the same claims – and they’re frauds.  It’s called cold reading, and easy to learn.  Waterstones will also sell you the 'How to' books!

And if you want a fourth,  there’s his naiveté; he apparently still believes that Paul Cain was an anointed man of God even at the time of his greatest sin and hypocrisy.  Really?  And the respect for the ‘Kansas City Prophets’?  Really?

So what do I think of Sam Storms?  Is he lying?  Exaggerating? Deluded, delusional, spin-doctoring, faulty in his memory, soft in his head, naive beyond belief?  Possibly. Some of these things.   I don’t know.  Just consider: if these things really happen, it’s very kind of the Devil, isn’t it, to make sure they only happen to charismatics?  And reason enough, in itself, never to become charismatic!

This is one of the most frightening books I’ve ever read.  Not because of the spiritual, evil, forces it describes.  But because story after story is designed to undermine serious Biblical thought and reflection, and infect the Reformed community with the worst of charismatic claptrap.   It is a most frightening trajectory, if the Reformed get on to it.

Confident Christianity

Had the joy of hearing my 'old' colleague Chris Sinkinson today, on preaching Old Testament narrative.  Chris pastors Alderholt Congregational Church, lectures at Moorlands Bible College in Apologetics and (apparently) serves as part-time heart-throb there, too. His lecture/seminar/fraternal was stimulating, as always.  BUT the purpose of this little blog entry is to introduce his new book on apologetics, which he brought along today.  Called 'Confident Christianity', it's a whistle-stop tour through history, philosophy and theology ('from ancient Greek philosophers via Enlightenment thinkers through to the worldviews of twenty-first-century thinkers' says Steve Brady's blurb) - with the aim of making Christians more confident in their faith.


Sounds heavy, eh?  But that's the brilliance of Chris - it's not heavy at all.  Chris is a brilliant communicator with an ability to make complicated things not just simple, but interesting too. 

So easy, even a dog could understand it.


Whenever I think of Chris, I'm reminded of an old story about Billy Butlin (the founder of Butlins) and Fred Pontin (the founder of - well, have a guess).  As a young man, Pontin worked for Billy, before striking out on his own.  Later in life, Sir Fred had to introduce Sir Billy to someone and did so like this: 'Billy Butlin taught me everything I know about this business, didn't you Billy?'  To which the older man apparently replied 'Yes, Fred.  But not everything I know!'


I can't say anything like that about me and Chris - but we at MBC did give him opportunity to practice for a while.  

Of the reading of several books...

This time last year, I asked the good folks over at genevanet for suggestions of some substantial books to read in 2011.  The were very helpful.  And I didn't read any of them...
This year, these books are my targets to begin with; alongside them, I expect to read many lesser books.

First, Martyn Lloyd-Jones, 'Born of God' - sermons on John Chapter 1.  Lloyd-Jones is THE hero for me; I was awakened under his preaching, trained at the seminary he set up and am doing my doctoral research into his evangelistic ministry at Westminster Chapel.  I have at least two full shelves of his books, maybe more; but the publisher promises that this is one of his most significant yet.

Then, Packer on 'Serving the People of God' - vol. 2 of his shorter writings.  Dr. J.I. Packer was my first theological teacher - I'll never forget the impact his 'Introductory Essay' to Owen's 'Death of Death' had on my thinking, nor the sweetness 'Knowing God' had for me on first reading - and still has.

Third, Conrad Mbewe's 'Foundations for the Flock' - a newly published collection of his teachings on church and ministry.  Conrad himself helped me get hold of a copy (from here), and they couldn't have been more helpful - it arrived yesterday, and the 'dipping' has started.  (Definitely a dipping, not a sprinkling - a Baptist reading a Baptist book...)

Finally, Andrew Atherstone's and David Ceri Jones' editing of 'Engaging with Lloyd-Jones' - necessary reading for my doctoral research, but much more than that.  Interesting not least because DCJ used to be something of a Ll-J fanatic, I'm told, but now - well, isn't; while Atherstone is an Anglican who think Lloyd-Jones read the situation well in 1966!  On this one, at least, I plan to let you know what I think, if the Lord wills.  Keep reading.




And that's it for today. A little light-heartedness on Monday, I hope, followed by some serious postings next week.  Meanwhile, the Lord bless you and keep you and make his face to shine upon you this Lord's Day - whether you're preaching or listening, may it be 'as the oracles of God.'

Intellectual Laziness and the New Atheists

David Hart's article here is worth a read. Among other things,

I think I am very close to concluding that this whole “New Atheism” movement is only a passing fad—not the cultural watershed its purveyors imagine it to be, but simply one of those occasional and inexplicable marketing vogues that inevitably go the way of pet rocks, disco, prime-time soaps, and The Bridges of Madison County.

The principal source of my melancholy, however, is my firm conviction that today’s most obstreperous infidels lack the courage, moral intelligence, and thoughtfulness of their forefathers in faithlessness.


But all the evidence suggests that Dawkins has never understood the point being made, and it is his unfortunate habit contemptuously to dismiss as meaningless concepts whose meanings elude him. Frankly, going solely on the record of his published work, it would be rash to assume that Dawkins has ever learned how to reason his way to the end of a simple syllogism.

On matters of simple historical and textual fact, moreover, Hitchens’ book is so extraordinarily crowded with errors that one soon gives up counting them. Just to skim a few off the surface: He speaks of the ethos of Dietrich Bonhoeffer as “an admirable but nebulous humanism,” which is roughly on a par with saying that Gandhi was an apostle of the ruthless conquest and spoliation of weaker peoples. He conflates the histories of the first and fourth crusades. He repeats as fact the long discredited myth that Christians destroyed the works of Aristotle and Lucretius, or systematically burned the books of pagan antiquity, which is the very opposite of what did happen. He speaks of the traditional hostility of “religion” (whatever that may be) to medicine, despite the monastic origins of the modern hospital and the involvement of Christian missions in medical research and medical care from the fourth century to the present. He tells us that countless lives were lost in the early centuries of the Church over disputes regarding which gospels were legitimate (the actual number of lives lost is zero). He asserts that Myles Coverdale and John Wycliffe were burned alive at the stake, although both men died of natural causes. He knows that the last twelve verses of Mark 16 are a late addition to the text, but he imagines this means that the entire account of the Resurrection is as well. He informs us that it is well known that Augustine was fond of the myth of the Wandering Jew, though Augustine died eight centuries before the legend was invented. And so on and so on (and so on)... In the end, though, all of this might be tolerated if Hitchens’ book exhibited some rough semblance of a rational argument.


The article is well worth a read. So, I imagine, is the book, which 'tackles such contentious moments in history as Galileo's trial and the witch hunts, explaining history and faith without resorting to popular misinformation or rhetoric' (from a review on site).

Is the Reformation over?

A review in Evangelicals Now put me on to MIchael Reeves' book 'The Unquenchable Flame' - subtitled 'Introducing the Reformation.'

I haven't read it all yet, in spite of receiving it yesterday evening (I've been busy).  But I want to draw attention to it today because of its very helpful last chapter 'Is the Reformation over?' looking at issues raised by (among others) Noll and Nystrom, in their book of that title.

Noll and Nystrom argue that Rome and Evangelicals are now so close together that we may regard one another as fellow Christians - and that, in fact, we are close together on the issue of justification by faith. 

Reeves is able to show - in a non-technical way that even I could understand - that it is not so; the Joint Declaration of the Roman Catholic Church and the Lutheran World Foundation (1999) does not indicate much progress since the Regensburg Statement of 1541, which Luther dismissed as a messy patchwork of theologies.

Further, Reeves even manages to show why we are so ready, today, to believe that the disputes are over.  I'm not saying it's exhaustive - but it's a fine chapter and worth the cost of the whole book.