by Michael Hare. You know how a math nerd likes a book of intricate math problems or a chess enthusiast likes a book of chess strategies, or a word nerd loves solving cross-word puzzles? This book is kind of like that, or all of those. In addition to great principles and strategies for solving church problems, this book is full of real life examples, or problems that need to be solved. It's like a ministry puzzle book for ministry nerds. Some of the problems, I smile, because I remember going through them, and solving them in similar ways. Other problems remind me that the playing field is huge, as intricate as the people involved. Unlike math, each problem is unique, based on history, culture, personalities, intergroup fighting, intragroup fighting, intrapersonal, etc, and there are multiple solutions.
 
Here's a small exerpt:
The board recommended a congregational meeting for resolving a controversial issue. It started out okay, but then several people started talking at the same time, then it came to yelling at each other. Others joined in, and it got pretty ugly. Within a month, the church split and about a third of the congregation went down the street and started a new church.
 
Sadly, this example is all too common, so there are actually many books that address church conflict. This book, in my opinion is the best one. It has great principles for solving any church conflict, including a workbook section to work on your specific issues at church. I recommend this book for anyone in fulltime church ministry. A necessary book for any senior pastor or executive pastor.

I would like to thank Moody Publishers for an advance copy of the book.

would be better without all those stories.
 
I don't agree that all 9 are common beliefs. For example, although I know some Christians who cannot forgive themselves, I don't think it's common that many Christians believe that God cannot forgive them. Here's a few points that were presented in the book.
 
1: God won't give me more than I can handle
All of life is more than we can handle; we need God's help to handle it.
Yes, God gives you more than you can handle. It's actually, God won't give you more than He can handle.
 
3: God just wants me to be happy.
This is a weak chapter. He pretty much says God wants us to have joy, there's a difference. OK then, is it "God just wants me to have joy?" That's also a lie. There's a greater purpose than just having joy. Life isn't about me. I was hoping he would approach the lie in this way, but he doesn't.
 
5: Follow your heart
Don't follow your heart. Follow God.
 
9: Believe in Yourself
Yes, I admit it's a common lie, even among Christians. But I think every true disciple can defeat this lie of the self-esteem movement.
 
 Moderately recommended.

​I would like to thank Multnomah Publishers for an advance copy of this book:

the work of John Piper and the greatness of Apostle Paul. Without an appreciation of both, this book will fall flat. On the other hand, you will see how deeply indebted Piper is to Paul’s life and writings, how they shaped his theology and the greatest theological discoveries of his life. We wouldn’t have “God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in him” without Apostle Paul.
 
Piper gets really personal in this book. It’s not about teaching people something new. It’s about sharing his personal journey in relation to how the teachings in Paul’s writings helped him, including his personal struggles with his cancer, habitual sins, or racism.
 
This book is definitely not his best, in structure or eloquence, but still Piper-esque.
 
Moderately recommended.

​I would like to thank Crossway Books for an advance copy of this book:

of Sardis. This criticism is only valid if the book was indeed meant only to be a theological commentary. Instead, this is more of a sermon.
 
It is not MacArthur's intention to "turn this country back to God." Rather, it's to turn the church back to God. He is definitely not a post-millennialist, although there used to be a strong tendency for such in his dispensational theology. In essence, he's saying, "Stop trying to change the world and make it a better place. Instead, be the church." He unpacks God's message to the 7 churches in the book of Revelation to show what it means to be the church.
 
I expected a moral tirade and a desperate call to repentance. Instead, he just presents the Word as it is, and let the message convict the reader, or not. He doesn't slap the reader to attention. Almost unemotionally, he explains, like a commentary, what Jesus demands from his church and the consequences of disobedience. The subtitle of the book is Christ's Call to Reform the Church, not "John MacArthur's Call." He doesn't go off on his own criticism of what the church is now and all the things that need to change. He rarely says, "The church has to..." Actually, he rarely addresses the Church at all. He lets Christ speak for Himself, as he soundly exposits the passages in Revelation like a commentator. I wished he would speak out more, because he has clout, and people would listen to him, and he does so behind the pulpit and other venues, but in this book MacArthur is just a messenger. It's not his personal call to the church based on his convictions and observations.
 
However, it is in the final chapter that we actually get what we were looking for when we picked up this book - John MacArthur's assessment, criticism, and call to reform the church. I wished that he started off with this chapter, because that's what we really want to read, not a commentary on Revelation. But then, it would be seen as a just a personal message, from a mere man, albeit a respected and proven pastor. By putting this chapter at the end, it serves as a culminating warning that summarizes and puts into today's context the rebukes of Jesus from Revelation. It's hard to disagree with the man, when he's simply mimicking the words of our Lord (although I do disagree with a few of his generalizations).
 
It's a must-read for anyone who even vaguely recognizes that there's something terribly wrong with the Church today. At least, read the last chapter.

​I would like to thank Moody Publishers for an advance copy of this book:

​Not his best work, but Max Lucado's newest book Unshakable Hope is classic Max Lucado (comes out next month Aug 7). Unlike his other works, there's more exposition and less poetry. But you won't be disappointed; his writing style is still superb.
 
He starts off each chapter with a specific promise from Scripture. As expected, each chapter can stand on its own, but the overarching theme is that God keeps his promises, and that gives us hope. He unsuccessfully keeps trying to push the "we are people of the Promise" theme, as if to inspire us, but I don't think it works. Nice try, though. It may have worked if he devoted a poetic chapter to it first, a tear-jerker.

All in all, Max Lucado does it again. Good work, but nothing that really stands out from his other works.
​

Many people try to live like Christians without Jesus because they see the attractiveness of the religion without the conviction of sin and the need for a savior. They do this without thinking, which is part of the problem. I wanted to see the best logical defense of living this way from someone who actually thought it through (and wrote many books and articles on this Middle Way topic).

​You know there’s a problem when chapter 7’s title is “Christian Agnosticism.” This must be the most liberal book I was given to read, but I wanted to give its logic a chance. Also, it’s apparent from my conversations with many supposed “Christians,” that this is relevant to the real experience and lifestyle of many more people than I would like to admit.
 
He shows what this book is about in the introduction. He states that it is possible to enjoy the benefits of Christianity without being “Christian” in true belief. He also proposes that strong Christian beliefs (deity of Christ, gospel, etc) actually have “no positive effects on the lives of Christians.” A belief in God may in fact have detrimental results. Yet there is meaning in the Christian experience even, or especially, without them.
 
The author is an agnostic who believes only in the possibility of absolute beliefs. He believes that God is real, but we as humans are unable to make an “absolute presupposition that God exists” or that he has sent special revelation in the form of the Bible.
 
Let me get to the point. He writes, “The importance of Jesus in our lives does not depend on…whether he was actually the son of God.” What matters is how we “interpret his advice” and how his story affects our lives. This belief is in stark opposition to traditional Christianity and the revelation of the gospel.
 
Although logical gymnastics is used to redefine words like “faith” and “belief,” the author’s presupposition boils down to this common thinking – The story/beliefs of religion is unimportant insofar as it helps you on your path to enjoyment and self-discovery. That’s what matters, not the actual beliefs.
 
This book highlights the subjective experience. In contrast, absolute beliefs undermine human responsibility. Not only that, he writes that to believe in divine revelation is to disrespect God. Say what? Wow, his version of God (or the God archetype) must be entirely different from yours and mine, because I’d be offended if someone didn’t believe my words.
 
I’ll concede that absolute beliefs have been the cause of many religious wars (e.g. Crusades, Ireland) and splits in the church (e.g. Reformation), and many of these disputes have been ugly. Yes, there’s a problem. However, it does not mediate a pragmatist effort of anti-absolutist, veiled subjectivism.
 
The author’s premise most obviously falls apart when he talks about science, "not as a discovery of truths." He maintains that science cannot give us real knowledge of “supposedly true facts.” Rather, science is more of a social construct, much like religion. More than theologians, I think scientists would be more in disagreement by that remark.
 
It’s ironic that he criticizes the results of the liberal Jesus Seminar for “applying criteria…to ensure results that fit the preferred liberal picture…and confirmation bias.” Yet he does the same thing to Jesus by elevating human experience above absolute claims of divinity (the Bible). By that criterium, the conclusions are already mapped out, and Jesus is just a character in a story, relevant only to our subjective experience and journey. By the end of the book, as predicted, the teachings of Jesus are more important than the person of Jesus. What’s worse is that he insinuates that Jesus was thinking in the same construct.
 
I think it’s fine to disagree with the Gospel. But what is offensive about this book is that he tries to redefine the Gospel. He redefines “atonement, grace, and salvation.” He ridicules the very essence of what it means to be Christian and denigrates it to a mere culture of faith (not belief). He says that Jesus has been misinterpreted by history, that Jesus never meant to take anyone’s place of sin responsibility, and sin “cannot be removed by magic.” He draws from mostly anti-Christian philosophers like Sartre, Nieche, or Kierkegaard. It’s no wonder he ends up with mostly anti-Christian implications.
 
In terms of writing style, like most academics, he takes a long time to get to his point. He feels the need to define every subject word ad infinitum and explain every tangential detail. It’s not necessary; people could easily follow your train of thought. In addition, the dual categorization of the left hemisphere God (i.e. of the brain) and the right hemisphere God was simply ridiculous.
 
You could actually start reading this book with chapter 7 without missing too much; everything is summarized in the first few paragraphs. Interestingly enough, his writing becomes more focused hereon.
 
It’s unfortunate that a book that purports fresh new ideas is riddled with spots of failed logic and rational thinking. But the author reveals why he started with negative bias against Christianity. He writes, “My overwhelming experience of church…left a negative impression so deep that I struggle to engage more positive emotions with Christian worship even today. I think this was because it was primarily about power: the power of a social institution imposed upon participants by appeal to the authority of a supernatural entity.”
 
This actually explains a lot. I could understand fully why he cannot examine this subject with objectivity. In short, this book isn’t worth the read, Christian or not.

However it reveals that for someone to be logically consistent in trying to live as Christian without Christ, you have to disregard the Bible and treat it as nice little moral stories to learn from, not as divine revelation. You have to treat everything in life as subjective to your own experience, including discoveries in science, since there is no absolute truth. This kind of subjectivity will wreak havoc on your sense of morals, observation of facts, and the importance of life after death.

As the author summarizes, religion indeed acts as a power play among political characters. However, to lump the whole of the Christian gospel in that mix fails to see why a person cannot be Christian without Christ.

On the other hand, I now see that in order to counter the failed logic of those who try to be Christian without Christ, I have to emphasize the importance of absolute truths as revealed in science and nature (and life), and that divine revelation is the only way we can know God. And there is nothing subjective about that!

I would like to thank the publisher for an advance copy of this book.

to his points, but his story-telling is actually enjoyable. You want to sit back and go for the ride.
I actually think he’s hoping this book will be adapted into a movie, because that’s how it’s written – a curious journalist traveling hundreds of miles to interview experts in their field to get at the truth. The “Case” he presents is in the content of those interviews.
 
Maybe after you read this next paragraph, you don’t have to read the book.
 
There are thousands of well documented cases of miracles, medically examined, peer reviewed, and scientifically confirmed. There are millions more that are not documented. But this is not proof that merely a supernatural plane exists beyond scientific explanations. It is specific proof that prayer to the Judeo-Christian God may elicit answer in the form of miracles. Thus, scientific tests using prayers of non-Christians or not-real Christians came up empty. This is not proof that God exists, because it’s possible that a super intelligent alien is actually answering these Christian prayers. However, they are real proof of miracles.
 
If I have any criticism, it’s this: chapter 10 isn’t really a case for miracles. He borrowed from his other book, and it’s really a case for a creator. Then it spills over into the next chapter, which then becomes a case for the resurrection. We know where he’s going with this. He’s trying to point out that miracles prove not just any deity, but it’s the Christian God who created the universe and rose from the dead. However, he doesn’t link these subjects together with logic.
 
I was hoping he would go back to Michael Shermer with these proofs of miracles, to get his response or rebuttal, because that’s how this story started out. But, in the end, he does deliver a strong case for miracles and the reason it matters. I recommend this book, and it’s also a book you could give to your skeptic friend.

There are thousands of Christian books out there, and half of them suck! But there are still hundreds of good Christian books, so where do you start?

not because ​of any anti-homosexual propaganda, media – what Christians have said. It’s what Christians have not said. Yes, there’s plenty of gay-bashing Christians in the media, some of them crazy. They know it’s part hype. But there’s usually silence from the majority of Christians and churches. There’s no welcoming, no embrace, the topic is avoided altogether. Among their Christian “friends,” there’s no condemnation, but neither is there acceptance. It’s like they’re walking on egg shells, so just avoid that path of discussion. Pretend it’s not an issue and ignore the elephant in the room. That leads to superficial conversations and superficial relationships.
No wonder they don’t want to come to church.

So how should Christians and churches respond? How do we act around our homosexual friends and neighbors? And what do we talk about? And foundationally, what do you think about the issue, Biblically? Social commentary and logical arguments abound on the internet, some wrapped in religious clothes, but where does your Biblical understand lead you in light of all the scientific and social information about homosexuality and transgenderism (including genderqueer, pangender, gender fluid, etc)?

In her new book, Love Thy Body, Nancy Pearcey shows us a well-balanced description of the issue and how to approach it Biblically and socially. Pearcey is a highly intelligent philosopher, well read in secular and theological literature, and is a good writer.

In chapter 1, Pearcey makes it clear that all these issues pertaining to sexuality is really a war of worldviews. What is the human body? Is there a sense of self regardless of the body? She first uses Abortion as an example to discuss the philosophy of worldviews, and how they affect everything we talk about.

In all my theological studies, I have never studied the theology of the body. It was a given, a non-issue. Well, due to a critical misunderstanding of the body, as God’s creation, Christians have no theological response to the modern issues of sexuality, e.g. Homosexuality, Transgender. I expected to read mostly social commentary, but this book is theologically and biblically based, because both deal with worldviews, which is the very foundation of the author’s points.

Biologically speaking, the male human body is designed to be in union with the female body. But the postmodern society is asking, “Why should my body direct my psychological identity?” There is a disconnect. “When a person senses a dissonance between mind and body…the body is dismissed as irrelevant.”

Today’s thinking of gender and sexual identity has evolved from even 10 years ago. Sexuality and Genderism is not based in science or even a scientific search. 10 years ago, people were looking for a gene that influences homosexuality in the DNA, or a gender identity influenced by chemistry in the brain. Now, the leaders of the movement proclaim that is a moot point. Regardless of my male physical body or what goes on in my brain, I could declare my preference to be considered a female. I don’t have to undergo a sex change operation, nor do I have to alter my physical appearance to look female (like the old drag queen stereotype). Who I am in the inside has nothing to do with biology.
When factual science, based on biology and chemistry (as opposed to social science), is taken out of the equation, gender and sexual preference is all subjective. Employers must recognize these preferences or face heavy fines, all without any proof of surgery or hormone treatment. With the rise of postmodernism, physical traits or biology takes a back seat to the inner feelings. These feelings are not innate since birth, unchangeable. They are in constant flux, even among the leaders of the movement. It’s not about being recognized as queer or homosexual or pangender by the mainstream. It’s about not having to check a box - male, female, or trans. They don’t want to be put in a box. I can be male today but female tomorrow.

Then how are these feelings formed? Some of them seem quite unchangeable. Pearcey says we must take “individual responsibility for our identity,” and we interpret our identity by “sifting through” our cultural grids, through the norms therein. Is it weird for a little boy to be gentle, sensitive, and emotional (instead of shouting with army toys)? Does this indicate he may be transgender or homosexual? No! Boys can be sensitive, just like girls can be take-charge, assertive, and adventurous. Instead of letting gender stereotypes play out, Christians must speak out against this subversive type of meta-bullying. The “speaking out” isn’t against this little girl who is questioning herself why she doesn’t play with dolls like all the other girls. It’s against society and the laws that want to question what a “male” or “female” is. Identity is based on biology, not social culture. When this cultural grid better reflects reality, people will have a healthier barometer by which to discover their identity. It should be socially acceptable for a girl to like “manly” things and want to fight like a soldier. She’s not “in the wrong body.” Nor is she supposed to “act like a girl” because of her biology. These gender stereotypes end up confusing people when they think there’s another option: they’re “in the wrong body.”

The Bible is against the old Gnostic teaching that the physical body is not part of the authentic self. “Male” and “female” are not mere social constructs. They are rooted in biology and creation. There’s a need for Christians to speak up and present the Biblical worldview, not for moral condemnation, but rather to present “a more appealing, more life-affirming worldview,” because they care about people. She continues, “holding up a moral ideal for sexuality has nothing to do with self-righteousness, [but] it stems from the conviction that certain acts are healthier and more fulfilling because they are in line with the way God created humanity.”

Instead of speaking out against male-bodied transgenders who go into womens’ shower rooms at the gym, Christians must show compassion to those who are struggling with their sense of self. They “despise their own bodies and reject their biological identity.”
​
I encourage everyone to read this new book by Pearcey. It really tackles all the good arguments raised by these issues of sexuality. In addition, not just on an intellectual level, her motive stems from the desire to build strong relationships with the real people struggling with these deeply personal issues. Far from a stance of religious condemnation, this book is a call to reach out and actively help.
​

They are not unappealing because they are difficult to understand, but because we actually don’t like what we read, the parts where God sounds so mean, the parts where children are killed, the verses you would never use in a bedtime story.
 
Not only does he collect these unhighlighted verses, he says there’s a bigger story behind it. It shows the God who is real, who is there in the discomforts, even causing them. It shows the God we can’t put into a box, a God who is stranger than we think.
 
Having been so well read, I’m embarrassed that I’ve never read Kandiah before, because he is quite the prolific writer! He draws you in so well in the first chapter, you’ll be hooked to the rest of what he wants to show.
 
Through Abraham, he shows that trusting is God is very complicated – that’s not what you heard from a 3-point sermon. Believing in God actually creates more questions than answers. But is that ok? Through Jacob, he shows that God actually hurts us, that he’s the author of the pain in our lives. Why? Isn’t that strange? He proposes some Biblical reasons by showing us the full narrative of Jacob, juxtaposed in our very real modern situations.
 
A good teacher doesn’t merely make good observations; he asks the hard questions, even questions we are afraid to ask. “Where was God when the bombs were falling on Aleppo?” (97) Why did God turn up so late? too late. Or like in the book of Ruth, God doesn’t even show up (Ch. 5). Or, why does God kill a servant named Uzzah who was just trying to help, yet not intervene when a terrorist truck driver mows down a crowd of people in France? (158)
 
In a way, each chapter is like a really long 1-point sermon, with plenty of related tangents, which could become another sermon in itself. Each chapter is also very detailed, and it deals with our real world circumstances. It’s like the plight of Gideon is more relevant today than it was 20 years ago, or 2000 years ago. For example, he likens Gideon’s act of destroying a Baal altar to the religiously insensitive act of burning a Quran (107), a culturally sensitive issue more in our social consciousness today than even 10 years ago. And then he flips the script and says it’s really more like removing anti-Christian graffiti from the walls of a church, not just aggravating an opposing religion.
 
These strange and unhighlighted sections of the Bible show that these are not cookie-cutter bedtime stories filled with heroic characters. These were real situations. These were real people, and if we know people, we know that even the greatest among us are far from perfect. So in the Bible, heroes like Moses and David are also seen as real people, with real sins, and real pathetic weaknesses. We’ve judged them harder (or skip those uncomfortable stories) because we’ve put them in a pedestal, but you won’t blame a friend who has similar displays of bipolar emotions. This honesty of the Bible “shows us authentic humanity across the spectrum of human experience” (162).
 
Chapter 7 wasn’t as interesting because of its changed perspective. There’s only a little bit of the notion of Isaiah encountering a stranger God. The bulk of the chapter is more like a long sermon that’s a little disconnected from the theme of the book. However, Isaiah also includes some teachings on how this strange God deals with people, and how we should deal with strangers. He ends the chapter by saying that when we open up our hearts to strangers, we open up our hearts to God (203). I thought that would be just a minor side note in the book, but apparently it takes up the whole chapter and is actually the overarching theme of the entire book, being “the litmus test of the Christian confession” (254), or “the litmus test of authentic discipleship” (256), the thing that shows whether our faith is genuine, our “response to the needy” (260). I would disagree with that, but he builds up an excellent case as the book continues. And he adds that this is the way Christianity will “win a hearing for the gospel” in today’s global community (310).
 
I think I saw this book listed in the theology section. Although the author is a very able theologian, a theology book this is not. His theological training is evident in his use of good hermeneutics to manuever the hard-to-accept passages in the Bible that portray God as abusive to women (223). The genre is more Christian Inspiration or Christian Living. It’s also social commentary, as he consistently intertwines the lessons over the backdrop of the current refugee crisis.
 
This book is awesome. The best book I’ve read in 3 years. If there is one criticism, he overuses the term “turn up.” The first 10 times seemed current and refreshing, and then it got old real fast.
 
I would love to read a hypothetical God is Stranger Part II, with more insight and observations into more “unhighlighted” passages of this stranger God. But alas, that is not his point. He selects these specific examples to highlight his own agenda – to teach that a true Christianity that follows the real God loves and actively helps the refugees and strangers of the world.
 
In the end, he shows that this stranger God gives us a better understanding of God and his relation to the world. And it is not that he is so different from what we expect or want him to be. It is actually that we have been the stranger all along.

Other Honest Book Reviews:
​Dwell by Barry Jones
Fool's Talk by Os Guinness