Book Review: The Savior Sensitive Church – By Paul Chappell & John Goetsch

chappell savior sensitive church.png

letter-aAnybody who’s paid attention to the happenings in the Christian church throughout the past few decades cannot help but notice the advent the megachurch, what are often popularly termed “seeker-sensitive” churches. As one might guess by the title, The Savior Sensitive Church is an attempt at rebuffing what its authors see as a detrimental mindset within the contemporary church.

The seeker-sensitive movement in this context can be seen as those churches which attempt to cater to the desires of contemporary congregants. On a light level these may simply be churches which modify their music to embrace contemporary styles or who do away with a pulpit and suit for a stool and casual wear (or at least the author would likely posit these churches as such).

On a heavier level these are churches which make pop psychology and entertainment the central aspect of the service, as opposed to the expounding of scripture and the presenting of the means of grace (ie, the sacraments, though the author wouldn’t focus on the ‘means of grace’ aspect); they are those churches which desire to fit in with the culture by creating and environment in which the natural man is not confronted with their nature.

At the root of this issue the author places the emergence of post-modernism, which he defines as that which “asserts that external absolute truth – that is a truth that is true for all people in all places at all times – cannot be known through reason or science because truth is non-existent or unattainable.” According to the authors “this relativity has led to a tolerance of any and all ways of thinking, except any thinking that declares or believes in absolute Truth. You see, the only thing that post-modern culture intolerant of is absolute Truth.” Thus, the churches attempt to create an environment tolerant of the world’s culture.

After positing post-modernism as the issue the authors then go on to designate the two types of truth which have arisen as a result: designer truth (that of the relativists) and discovered truth (that of the Christian). This is followed by an analysis of the ways in which a seeker sensitive church operates, and offers the solution of a savior sensitive church (that is, a church which focuses on catering to Christ rather than the culture). His goal is to bring back the authority of Christ in the church and to make the Gospel the center of the message, as opposed to psychology or entertainment.

At just under 100 pages this is a very easily read and easily digestible book, though chances are nobody who isn’t already in agreement with the author is going to care to read it or gain anything by the arguments presented. The book doesn’t really say anything new, though taking a few minutes to read it may help to give the reader a cursory understanding of one way in which post-modernism and the emergent movement are seen as plagues to the church, though only through the strong conservative Baptist lens which the author wears.

Memorable Quotes:

[I’m fairly certain many of these are not original to the author, simply because I recall hearing them. For instance I’ve seen the fourth quote attributed to John C. Maxwell, and I believe I’ve heard the first two from C.S. Lewis at some point…]

-“God does not believe in atheists. Man does not scoff at the Bible because he does not think there is a God or because he does not think it is true… Man scoffs at the Bible because he is walking after his own lusts.”

-“You cannot improve on ‘Thus saith the Lord.'”

-“It is not the business of the church to adapt Christ to men, but men to Christ. We must never forget our calling to bring men and women to the Savior.”

-“People do not care how much we known until they know how much we care.”

-“We must come back to the conviction that it is the Gospel, alone, that will draw men to the Savior and bring true spiritual results in the church.”

Specific Criticisms

There were a few things which came at me like a curve ball in this text, some of which I’m simply not sure how to interpret. One such statement is that “Though Baptists are not Protestant, it is interesting to note, the author of the article gave explanations for the decline of Protestantism.” This is a bit of a fuzzy assertion. While many try and trace a shaky line back to older style Anabaptists, and there may be an argument for a few baptist groups falling outside a strict definition of ‘protestant’, for all intents and purpose they’re the same thing.

Another possible criticism is of the author’s division of truth into the categories of ‘designer truth’ and ‘discovered truth’. Designer truth for the author is that truth which is formulated to fit the individual, it’s tailored to their relativistic needs. Discovered truth on the other hand is that truth which is present and eternal, simply in need of being ‘discovered’ by man. One might present a better category for the second classing, that is ‘revealed’ or ‘revelational’ truth, simply because it makes these truths not only eternal, but it makes them God’s truths (as opposed to truths which have simply been discovered by man).

Still further in offering a critique of this book is strong conservative Baptist bias which the author bring forth. This can be seen in such quotes as “Worse yet, we now want a new King James Bible, or a new International Version or a new American Standard.” As if updating our translations of the Bible (due to whatever reasons, whether because updates in scholarship or to better express the thoughts such as with the New King James) were somehow detracting from our dedication to truth. By this sort of logic the King James Bible itself should be suspect, ridiculed for being some ‘new’ version which further removes us from the original texts.

In a similar vein comes the authors critiques of music, stating that “In an effort to attract people with ungodly music, we distance them from God and defile His church with carnality. Spirit-led, Spirit-filled music will always be greatly different from the world and will in no way mimic or reproduce a secular style or feel.” Somehow the author feels that traditional hymns are somehow more Biblical than contemporary Christian music, as if the hymns weren’t simply the contemporary music of a bygone era. The author argues against the amorality of music, stating that certain types of music (even without words) create a carnal mood. He fails to actually elaborate or defend this notion.

My last criticism comes in the author’s critique of people who go about studying their Bibles. In this the author singles out “seminary cloisters” (whatever that refers to) and other such people working to interpret the Bible. The author’s position is that instead one should let the Bible interpret/examine them; as he quotes “Quit studying your Bible; let your Bible study you!” The author is quick to note that he doesn’t want the reader to literally stop studying their Bibles, but rather to “give ourselves to God’s word in a spirit of humility and submission – truly allowing the living oracles of the eternal God to search our deepest hearts and pierce the innermost recesses of our beings.”

He states that we need to read the Scripture with an attitude of submission instead of one where we try and discover and interpret what it means, however he never actually says what this looks like. In the end the result is a vague pietistic anti-intellectualism.

It is this anti-intellectualism that likely results in the author settling for the most general and stereotypical definition of ‘postmodernism’. It is unlikely that the author has any real understanding of the movement beyond what he has read from those who critique it.

Book Review: Who’s Afraid of Postmodernism? – By James K. A. Smith

Smith WAOP.pngLetter PPostmodernism is an idea that is [intentionally] ill-defined and poorly understood, both by those who call themselves postmoderns and by those who attack them.

One of the groups which has set its sights on postmodernism in recent years is the Christian church, which has had no shortage of condemnations for it. Granted, we may also witness many within the Christian church embracing the movement (ie, the Emergent Church), only to be thrown into the fire by the rest of the Christian populace.

Who’s Afraid of Postmodernism? is James K. A. Smith’s contribution to shedding light on the situation by clarifying just what it is that postmodern thinkers mean and what their effect (for good or ill) on the church should be. On one level, the goal is to tackle the thought of postmodernism head on both to show how Christian critics and Christian adherents have misunderstood it in both their attacks and implementation of what they think to be postmodernism. On another level the goal is analyze the key ideas of three major postmodern philosophers – Derrida, Lyotard, and Focault – and to discuss how we may properly view and incorporate these ideas into the church, what our reactions to them should be.

Two main themes giving form to Smiths text are a discussion of postmodern ideas as they are seen in recent film and an explanation of the various bumper-sticker phrases which are often thrown out as embodying post-modern thought along with analysis of what they actually mean, whether they are really at odds with Christianity or whether they may be employed to further the interests of the church. After a short historical and philosophical introduction to the topics being discussed, Smith then analyzes these phrases chapter by chapter: Derrida’s “There is nothing outside the text,” Lyotard’s “Incredulity toward metanarratives,” and Foucault’s “power is knowledge.”After giving his analysis and removing false understandings of these ideas, Smith offers his view of how these ideas can and should be incorporated into the church. Granted, he acknowledges that the ideas are not necessarily in complete agreement with the ideas of Christianity, but they are not diametrically opposed either. Thus we can see that:

  • “when Derrida claims that there is nothing outside the text, he means there is no reality that is not always already interpreted through the mediating lens of language… Texts that require interpretation are not things that are inserted between me and the world; rather, the world is a kind of text requiring interpretation (p39)… To say that there is nothing outside the Text is to say that there is no aspect of creation to which God’s revelation does not speak.”(p55)
  • “For Lyotard, metanarratives are a distinctly modern phenomenon: they are stories that not only tell a grand story (since even premodern and tribal societies do this) but also claim to be able to legitimate or prove the story’s claim by an appeal to universal reason… It is the supposed rationality of modern scientistic stories about the world that makes them a metanarrative (p65)…the problem with metanarratives is that they do not own up to their own mythic ground.”(p69)
  • “Christians should eschew the very notion of an autonomous agent who resists any form of control. By rejecting Foucault’s liberal Enlightenment commitments, but appropriating his analyses of the role of discipline in formation, we can almost turn Foucault’s project on its head.”(p99)

Thus we can create a church which removes the modern isolationism and realize the presuppositional nature of our ideas; we can recognize the story-telling nature (in a non-pejorative sense) of the church and the fault in the materialistic worldview; we can do away with modernistic view of autonomy and allow for the disciplinary and authoritative role of the church; we can refuse the Cartesian model of thought and realize that we can have knowledge without absolute knowledge, that we are finite; that we can incorporate a rich liturgy, social concerns, tradition, and a working creedal theology.

It is this “Radical Orthodoxy” that Smith promotes, a move away from the fundamentalism that sees postmodernism in a purely negative light, away from the emergent movement which misinterprets it as a reason to do away with truth claims and any sort of discipline, toward a revival of the church that isn’t caught under the presuppositions of modernism.

Memorable Quotes:

-“Whenever science attempts to legitimate itself, it is no longer scientific but narrative, appealing to an orienting myth that is not susceptible to scientific legitimation.”(p68)

-“We confess knowledge without certainty, truth without objectivity.”(p121)

-“We were created for stories, no propositions; for drama, not bullet points.”(p140)

Specific Criticisms

I don’t have any criticisms of this text. This isn’t to say that it is a perfect text or that the ideas presented have no flaws, but only that I’m not informed enough to be able to pick them out.

Book Review: The Fall of Interpretation – By James K. A. Smith

james k a smithWhile there has been much scholarship written in the realm of hermeneutics, these discussions on the whole tend to limit themselves on how to go about hermeneutics; they generally confine themselves to discussing how to apply interpretational models, rather than looking at interpretation itself. Furthermore, those scholars who have taken up the task of addressing the more meta aspects of hermeneutics and interpretation have historically gone about this in one of two ways, two traditions which James K.A. Smith here refers to as ‘The Fall of Hermeneutics’ and ‘A Hermeneutics of Fallenness’.

Respectively, these traditions view hermeneutics as either “a postlapsarian phenomenon, coming upon the scene after Eden… [and thus] an evil to be overcome” or else “an inescapable, violent state of affairs.” In his book The Fall of Interpretation, Smith seeks to analyze these two leading traditions, and then to offer an alternative, a so-called ‘Creational Hermeneutic’. In this Smith disagrees with the first tradition, in that he does not view hermeneutics as a result of the fall, but an aspect of the original creation; he therefore both agrees and disagrees with the second tradition, agreeing that interpretation is inescapable, but arguing that it is good rather than necessarily violent. Thus: “Interpretation, as I will argue, is creational; it is an inescapable state of affairs that accompanies the finitude of creaturehood and, since it is an aspect of creation, is ‘good'” (p.24).

The book is divided into three primary sections, each focusing on one of these approaches to hermeneutics. In discussing the view that hermeneutics is a result of the Fall, Smith engages with scholars Richard Lints and Rex Koivisto. This discussion is almost wholly negative; in refuting the views of Lints & co., Smith seeks to demonstrate not only that interpretation is original and not postlapsarian (and in turn, good), but he also seeks to demonstrate that the view presented by Lints (the view that interpretation can be overcome either in this life or the next) ultimately falls into the Platonic trap of seeking to raise mankind to the level of gods. It is thus argued that “if interpretation is a constitutive aspect of human experience and be-ing, then it is impossible to overcome (without our becoming gods); and further, the desire to escape the finitude of human existence itself marks the essence of the Fall, the quest to ‘be like God.’ The grasping of the forbidden fruit, rather than initiating the history of hermenuetics, was an attempt to overcome such mediation and to ‘know’ as God does, sans courier”(p.90). One of the more interesting ways Smith goes about arguing this is through his re-reading of the tower of Babel narrative, arguing that “The hermeneutical structure of creation is good; it produces goods: a plurality of interpretations and a diversity of readings. The sin of Babel was its quest for unity – one interpretation, one reading, one people – which was an abandonment of creational diversity and plurality in favor of exclusion and violence; and ‘the ravages of hatred have an ominous sameness'” (p.32).

While Smith is primarily antagonistic to the view exemplified by Lints, he is much more sympathetic towards that of Heidegger and Derrida. From these two thinkers – and his own reading of Genesis – Smith fortifies his argument as regards the inescapability of hermeneutics from a more epistemological perspective, and then argues for the fundamental goodness of interpretation (as opposed to the inherent violence posited by Heidegger and Derrida).

Finally Smith moves on toward his Creational Hermeneutic. Here Smith develops his argument through discussion of Augustine, through the human place in time & space (and thus our situationality and human be-ing), and the inherent risk of communication. The heart of this discussion may perhaps be best summarized in the Smith’s argument that: “[I]f interpretation is part of being human, then its analogue is a creational diversity: a multitude of ways to ‘read’ the world. This is not to give up the notion of truth, but it does abandon a certain understanding of truth; further, to say that everything is a matter of interpretation is not to abandon criteria, but it does require a reconsideration and reformulation of what those criteria will be”(p.168).

With this Smith proceeds into a discussion of this understanding of truth, and how it relates to the hermeneutical endeavor. Thus, Smith argues that “While the ubiquity of interpretation does require a rethinking of truth, it by no means signals the abandonment of truth; that is, to say that everything is interpretation is not to say that all is arbitrary. Or in other words, to emphasize that understanding is relative to one’s situationality is not to espouse a relativism… This doesn’t preclude identifying, and even privileging, certain interpretations as normative; it just means that any normative interpretation remains an interpretation not a pristine, objective delivery of ‘the way things are'” (p.175); and to continue: “…interpretation is not merely a subjective appropriation: it is a subjective construal of an objective reality… Interpretation is indeed the only game in town, but there are rules to the game – not rules concocted by a council and printed in a rule book but a rule as simple as this: you have to play on the field, staying within the boundaries. And it is the same field for all of us”(p.187).

A final summation may be given that “Given the phenomenological constraint of the world (what is interpreted) and the pneumatological criterion in the fundamental guidance of the Spirit as rooted in a primordial trust, a hermenteutical space is opened that invites our creation, that beckons us to heed the call and accept the gift and risk of human be-ing in its creatureliness, refusing both the metaphysical dream of immediacy and the differential narrative of violence”(p.197).

All in all, Smith argues well for the incapability of interpretation, and for the goodness of that fact; that it is not something that we should hope to escape from. In doing so he urges the reader on toward a somewhat different understanding of truth than what was triumphed by the Enlightenment, yet at the same time pushes back against the notion that this different understanding necessarily leads to relativism; rather, there are constraints on interpretation – it may not be possible to posit one authoritative interpretation, but it is possible to rule out bad interpretations.

Even if one disagrees with Smith’s conclusions, he does offer a lucid explanation of many terms which are often used but generally misunderstood by those who discuss postmodernism (to include ‘postmodernism’ itself) and also offers a clear explanation of the thought of Heidegger and Derrida. Finally, Smith offers much insight into the current epistemological and hermeneutical that presently exists within philosophy, and so this book is an excellent resource if for nothing else than becoming aware of the present philosophical climate from somebody who understands both sides of the issues.

Memorable Quotes:

“The secret life of the soul can never be fully present in language.”-146

“To be human is to interpret – to negotiate understanding between two or more finite entities.”-159

“Every act of reading or listening is an act of translation: a negotiation between two (or more) universes of discourse, two (or more) traditionalities, two (or more) ways of understanding the world.”-160

“Rather than indicating a historical epoch, postmodernism refers to a gestalt: grounded in a recognition of the historical and contextual determination of thought, postmodernity signals the collapse of any myth of either reason or religion as a universal guarantor of truth.”-177

“[N]ot every interpretation is a good interpretation.”-37

“Questioning – the heart and soul of suspicion – does not have the last word, precisely because it does not have the first word, because it is itself grounded in trusting a promise.”-193

“Only a hermeneutic that recognizes the creational nature of faith can truly recognize the all-the-way-downness of undecidability. Thus instead of undecitability’s making it impossible to choose between the two, it is precisely undecidabiliy that requires that we choose, in spite of the fact that our decision of faith is haunted by undecidability. Undecidability means we can’t put all of the data and options into a computer ad let it generate a decision; we do not have time to wait for the machine to tabulate all the data, nor could the machine ever be supplied with ‘all’ the data. But we must decide.”-173

Some other, more in-depth quotes:
“What I am suggesting is that we give up certain criterion for interpretation: namely that inasmuch as it is finite, it is a violation. Instead, and following Derrida, we might understand the ‘as-structure’ of interpretation as a structure of respect, as a way of doing justice to the other by recognizing that it exceeds our finite comprehension… Following from such a construal, interpretation is not a violation of purity but rather a way of connection, a way of being-with that is essential to be(com)ing human. Rather than being the first violence, to be named is to be loved, is to be part of a community.”-p.133

“[T]o deny that there is one normative interpretation is not to deny that there are interpretive norms. Every assertion or articulation of truth functions within very specific conditions of human finitude; that is, every truth claim is an interpretation, and it is conditioned by the situationality and traditionality of the interpreter, meaning that the interpreter cannot transcend space and time. Therefore, an interpretation cannot be ‘objective’ and legitimated in a universal or all-encompassing sense – the one, true interpretation. However, what is interpreted remains a norm for every interpretation; there is something or someone who stands before all of our interpretations and is binding upon every construal. This interpretive norm, which stands before (or even ‘outside of’) interpretation, constitutes the phenomenological criterion of every construal; there are universals that are binding upon interpretation. But these universals are better understood as empirical transcendantals than a priori transcendent criteria. By ’empirical transcendentals’ I simply mean worldly states of affairs – the world as given and experienced… As ‘outside’ of me, or transcendent, the tree is not ‘mine’ to be manipulated. As such it imposes upon me limits for its interpretations; bad interpretations will be precisely those construals that transgress those limits.”-p.181

“But the limits placed upon interpretation do not prescribe a single ‘correct’ interpretation but only preclude an infinite number of interpretations… Truth, then, is not something uncovered; it is instead the process of uncovering. Truth happens; it is itself the uncovering that discloses something to us, something of a world that is given. But it must also be recognized that it is the interpreter (Dasein) that does the uncovering; thus, in a radical sense, truth is ‘subjective.’ That is, it is dependent on the uncovering role of Dasein.”-182

“[In Derrida] At root, what is at stake are the conditions of possibility of communication, not the possibility of communication… but in fact Derrida’s claim is that language is posse non commincare, able not to communicate, but also able to communicate.”-206

Book Review: How Jesus Runs the Church – Guy Prentiss Waters

waters05Church government is an important part of the way Christ rules his people, a crucial part of Christian discipline, uniquely tasked for world missions, and is “a way to give concrete and visible expression to the present reign of our risen and exalted Mediator, Jesus Christ” (xxiv). Naturally, it is important to know the form that this government should take and how it should be run.

It is this question that Guy Waters takes up in his book How Jesus Runs the Church. His goal is twofold: to offer a biblical case for the Presbyterian form of church government, and to make that case as accessible as possible.

In his defense of the Presbyterian form of church government, Waters is clear that he is not saying that non-Presbyterian churches aren’t true churches – the church can exist without Presbyterian polity – but he is arguing that Presbyterian polity is better for the well-being of the church. He draws this argument primarily through implication from the way that the church is described as being run in Scripture and the imperatives or mandates which are placed upon it; a case for church government must be made this way given that “the New testament, by design, does not give us an exhaustive manual of church polity… Rather, the New Testament gives the church her government in the form of principles that need to be applied” (p49).

In laying out his understanding of church government, Waters begins by first defining what the church is. This involves centering the church in God’s redemptive history, distinguishing between the visible and the invisible church, laying out who the members of the church are (those who make professions of faith along with their children, and presenting the fact that church membership is required for those who profess the faith. With this groundwork of ‘what is the church’ laid, Waters moves on to discuss the government of the church, noting that it derives it’s authority from Christ, that its is determined by principles drawn from Scripture, that it is separate from the civil magistrate, and briefly answers objections to his arguments.

After discussing the source of the church’s authority and its source, Waters moves on to discuss the power of the church, pointing out that “Men exercising power in the church do not do so upon the authority of their own person or character. They do so as representatives of Jesus, who posses all such power in his own person” (p63) and that “No officer of the church and no court of the church has any right to draft and to impose legislation on the church. By definition, officers of the church are authorized only to enforce the Word of God” (p66).

With the grounds for church government and its power outlined, Waters moves on to discuss the offices of the church. Here he describes both the ordinary and extraordinary offices of the church. The latter of these offices are the temporary offices of apostle and prophet. The former of these offices are those of elder and the deacon (where deacon is divided into both Teaching and Ruling Elders). Here Waters discusses the various rationale for these positions and there responsibilities, also touching on the topic of women as elders (taking the position that the Scriptures do not allow for them to hold this position).

With the offices covered Waters moves on to what might be called the explicitly Presbyterian aspect of the text, where he begins to lay out the various courts of the church. In this he lays out a system of both higher and lower courts as he sees them in Scripture, where the higher courts have authority over the lower courts only insofar as the higher courts contain the lower courts. In this sense it is perhaps better to speak of ‘smaller’ and larger’ courts, such that “There is subordination, to be sure, but it is ‘a smaller body to a larger body of officers of the same order – the smaller constituting a part of the larger'” (p142), or in more detailed terms: “Each church court has inherently all the powers that nay court of the church possesses – ‘the power of the whole is in every part.’ The courts of the church, however, are not autonomous or independent. The lower courts are subject to the review and control of the higher courts, in regular gradation, according to the provisions of the church’s constitution – ‘the power of the whole is over the power of every part'” (p144).

On the whole, Waters gives a solid outline of and basis for the Presbyterian form of church government. His explanation the church builds from the ground up, first working through the basic idea of what the church is, moving through to discuss the basis for its government and its power, what its offices are, and finally the courts that make up the ruling bodies. Waters also does a good job of touching on some of the more minor aspects of the debate, such as whether the office of elder is meant to be divided into two parts (Teaching and Ruling).

While Waters works to maintain a Biblical basis for his points, there are times in his book when he suffices to appeal to the Book of Church Order rather than giving direct Scriptural grounding to his conclusions. This can be seen perhaps most clearly in his discussions of the role of ruling elders versus the role of teaching elders, and even more so in his discussion of the lower courts of the church. While Waters’ justification for the higher courts seems valid, his justification for the lower courts seems flimsy at best, a conjecture based on little more than such things as the fact the multiple congregations in Jerusalem being referred to under the umbrella term of ‘the church in Jerusalem.’

That aspect of his book could have benefited from some deeper development, but on the whole this book is a good outline of the basis, form, and justification for Presbyterian polity.

Memorable Quotes:

“God has had one and only people throughout redemptive history.”-5

“Church power does not derive from the members of the church. It derives from Jesus alone.”-57

“The church is not authorized to speak to matters to which Christ has not authorized her in the Word of God to speak.”-67

“Prophesying is a revelatory gift – the prophet is the instrument through which God speaks his Word to the church. Teaching is not a revelatory gift – the teacher explains and applies what God has already said in his Word. While God has allowed women to be instruments of revelation, he does not permit them to teach that revelation in the public worship of God.”-110

“Presbyterianism is essential to the well-being but not the essence of the church.”-126