Books

Categories Book Reviews

Book Review: “Lost in Rooville” by Ray Blackston

Leave a comment by

What do you get when you cross two couples, a trip to the Australian outback, and a quest for the perfect place to propose?

A perfectly hilarious novel.

Ray Blackston’s Lost in Rooville had me laughing from start to finish. Main character Jay Jarvis and his girlfriend Allie venture out into the outback alone–ostensibly racing their best friends for most animal sightings, but really looking for a great spot for Jay to make a sunset proposal. They eventually do find some animals–but get hopelessly lost while doing so.

What follows is a wickedly amusing account of Jay’s actions and thoughts as he and his new fiancee sit by their broken-down Land Rover waiting for rescue–if rescue is forthcoming.

Blackston is one of those authors that I picked up willy-nilly from the library shelves one day–and discovered that I really enjoyed. Most Christian “romance” fiction is written by women–and while that’s just fine, it does mean that a lot of Christian “romance” fiction is, well, pretty feminine. Blackston’s romances are definitely not feminine. This isn’t a feel-good, gushy story–it’s a feel-good, almost-wet-your-pants-laughing story. And that’s nice for a change.

Something in the last few chapters tipped me off to the idea that this wasn’t the first Blackston had written of these characters. I investigated a bit–and it turns out that this was a sequel to Blackston’s first novel Flabbergasted. Obviously, since I made it all the way through the book before realizing that this was a sequel–it works fine as a stand alone novel.

This was a fun book, a great turn-off-your-brain read–and I recommend Blackston for anytime you need a nice light laugh.

Rating: 3 stars
Category: Fiction
Synopsis: In the quest for a perfect place to pop the question, Jay finds himself and his girlfriend stranded in the middle of the Australian outback, with nothing to do but wait for rescue.
Recommendation: Amusing but not necessarily profound, the storyline is engaging but not spectacular. Nevertheless, this is a great read for anyone who likes a laugh.

Categories Reading My Library

This book’s a blast!

2 Comments by

Romeo and Lou, a penguin and a polar bear, play together in the snow, molding themselves a space ship for imaginary travels.

When their spaceship takes off, they unexpectedly find themselves in the midst of an alarmingly unusual forest.

Romeo and Lou Blast Off

They’re stymied by unfamiliar sites until they finally see something that looks right–another polar bear (actually a small white dog) and penguin (actually a rather large man in a suit.) They ask for directions–and well, things don’t really go so well.

They meet some walruses (workmen) busy “ice fishing” (actually using a jackhammer on a road). They find another space ship (mini-van) and get inside–only to be chased out by a school of angry fish (children coming out of the swimming pool.) A shark (policeman) chases them all the way over a bridge and onto a ship, where Romeo and Lou build themselves a new spaceship and sail home.

Reading My Library

Derek Anderson’s Romeo and Lou Blast Off absolutely enthralled me with its funny juxtaposition of everyday life and polar animals. The story itself is imaginative, even fantastical–but the real treat is seeing the walruses, the shark, the penguin, etc. all just everyday men that you never would have really noticed…well, they really do look rather like walruses, sharks, and the like. It’s uncanny!

If you happen to be able to find a copy of Romeo and Lou Blast Off, I encourage you to pick it up. You won’t be sorry.


Categories Book Notes, Faith

Our incomplete theology

Leave a comment by

Notes on Francis Chan’s
Forgotten God
Chapter 3: Theology of the Holy Spirit 101

“I’m reading this book by Francis Chan called Forgotten God–”

“Forgotten God?” my dad quizzed.

I described the thesis of the book as I understand it now: Chan believes that Christians have “forgotten” the third person of the Trinity and need to remember Him again.

“I think he’s right.” Dad replied–and went on to tell me that he’d just been thinking that same thing in relation to the Nicene Creed. He quoted the pertinent passage:

“And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets.”

And I thought, “Huh, yeah. He’s right.”

When was the last time I heard a sermon on the Holy Spirit–on who He is, not just what He does? I have no idea. When was the last time I heard a hymn of adoration to the Holy Spirit? I can’t remember. My church does not publicly recite the creeds, so I know it has been years since I heard or recited the Nicene creed.

This fundamental confession of our faith declares that the Holy Spirit is the Lord and Giver of life–and that He is worshiped and glorified together with the Father and Son–but I see little evidence that the church accords the Spirit the same adoration that they do the Father and the Son.

I remember one particular year where I found myself in a liturgical church on Pentecost Sunday. My own church is not liturgical and pays no mind to the liturgical calendar except for lighting advent candles (frequently in the wrong order, although I try to refrain from being nit-picky)–so I know better than to expect a Pentecost sermon on Pentecost there. But in a liturgical church, I had high hopes of hearing a true Pentecost sermon–a sermon on the Holy Spirit. Sure enough, the readings were rife with mention of the Holy Spirit. My anticipation mounted for the sermon–and then was quickly dashed when the pastor mentioned the Holy Spirit exactly…never…in his sermon. Forgotten God is right.

Recently, I was visiting the website of some churches in my area–and I found a “statement of faith” that quoted from Mike Yaconelli of Youth Worker Magazine from Nov/Dec 2003:

“We’re about Jesus. We know He’s a part of the Trinity and all the other important stuff we also believe, but if we’re honest, we’re partial to Jesus. Don’t get us wrong. God is like a Father-no, God IS the Father-and the buck stops with Him (if you’re going to have the buck stop somewhere it might as well stop with Someone who is…well…all about love with a capital L. Of course, He’s also about justice with a capital J, but we’ll take out chances that, in the end, justice will also feel like love!) And then there is the Holy Spirit-mysterious, windy, seems to like fire a lot, whispering, and always pointing us to…you guessed it…Jesus. We not only like Jesus a lot, He likes us a lot, enough to die for us. We know that when life gets tough (and it always does) He’ll be there for us.

I was absolutely shocked by the way this “statement of faith” treated the Holy Spirit. Mysterious, windy, pyromaniac whisperer who points at Jesus? Honestly? I understand that within the original context, this likely (hopefully) was never intended to be a distillation of belief about the Trinity. Yet I don’t doubt that this is the essence of many a Christian’s beliefs regarding the Holy Spirit.

Even as I look at my own church’s statement of faith–I see discussion of the Holy Spirit, but more in reference to the “baptism of the Holy Spirit” than in regard to WHO the Holy Spirit truly is.

It’s a hole in our theology. The word theology strictly means theos-God, -logy-study. The study of God. Yet we study the Father, we glorify the Son, and we forget about the Holy Spirit–or at best, turn Him into little more than a cosmic gift-giver. We’ve got an incomplete theology–only two-thirds formed. The Christian God is a triune God. Why then do we not include all three persons of the Trinity in our theology?

Seeing a hole in our theology makes me glad that Chan chooses not to jump right into the “practice” of the Holy Spirit–into charismata or the “baptism of the Holy Spirit” or even the supernatural power of the Holy Spirit that accompanies Christian witness. Instead, Chan takes the time to establish a basic (although non-comprehensive) theology of the Holy Spirit–both who He is and what He does.

Some of Chan’s main points:

  • The Holy Spirit is a person
  • The Holy Spirit is God
  • The Holy Spirit is eternal and holy
  • The Holy Spirit has His own mind, and He prays for us
  • The Holy Spirit has emotions
  • The Holy Spirit has His own desires and will
  • The Holy Spirit is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient

It seems to me that we can easily fall into a trap of either ignoring the Holy Spirit entirely or considering Him as a means to our own ends. Either way, we tend to deny Him His deity.

My heart, then, is to reverse this trend–starting with myself. I want to know the Holy Spirit so that I might worship and glorify Him together with the Father and the Son.

I love the description Chan gives of why the Christian should be interested in the theology of the Holy Spirit:

“Know that even as you seek to understand the Spirit more, He is so much more and bigger than you will ever be able to grasp. This is not an excuse to stop seeking to know Him, but don’t limit Him to what you can learn about Him. The point is not to completely understand God but to worship Him. Let the very fact that you cannot know Him fully lead you to praise Him for His infiniteness and grandeur.”

Why should I develop my theology of the Holy Spirit? In order that I might worship Him–and the entire Trinity–more fully.

(See more notes on Forgotten God here.)

Categories What's on Your Nightstand?

Nightstand (April 2010)

5 Comments by

It’s time again to report the contents of our Nightstands, a la 5 Minutes 4 Books. I was hoping to be able to link up before I left for my interview–but I s’pose 6 am is a little early to expect a post to be up by. So enjoy browsing my books and check out 5M4B to see more Nightstand posts.

Last month’s nightstand:

On my nightstand

What I actually read this month was:
(Links lead to my reviews of the book, never to a site selling you something.)

Fiction

  • The Apothecary’s Daughter by Julie Klassen
  • Divine and Human (and other stories) by Leo Tolstoy
    I haven’t read many short stories since my anthology days in middle school–but this collection of short stories by Tolstoy definitely piqued my interest. Like I noted when I reviewed Resurrection, Tolstoy’s characters are fantastic and the interactions between them often complex–but Tolstoy tends to moralize and certain of the stories can be heavy-handed in their conviction that socialism is the appropriate application of Christ’s words. Now that I’ve read a collection of Tolstoy’s works from after his conversion to Christ and embrace of pacifism and socialism, maybe I’ll have to read some of his earlier, better known works. Anybody got suggestions for my next Tolstoy read?
  • Mozart’s Sister by Nancy Moser
  • Once upon a Summer by Janette Oke

Nonfiction

  • Bible Babel by Kristin Swenson
  • Biology: High School Review by Princeton Review
  • The Blue Zone by Daniel Buettner
  • The Glass Castle by Jeannette Walls
  • Home by Julie Andrews.
  • Male/Female Roles: Opposing Viewpoints
  • The Power of Half by Kevin and Hannah Salwen
  • The Ten Big Lies About America by Michael Medved
  • Unveiling Islam by Ergun Mehmet Caner and Emir Fethi Caner
    I also wrote extensive notes on this title as I read it.
  • Vegetables Every Day by Jack Bishop
    I made several recipes from this book and was quite pleased with the results. I modified a recipe for honey glazed parsnips and liked it so much that I posted my modified version. I’ll probably be checking this one out of the library again–it has TONS of vegetable recipes, most of which can be easily modified as needed. This is a book worth having.
  • Words to Live By by Charles Panati
  • The World’s Last Night and other essays by C.S. Lewis
  • A Year of Blind Dates by Megan Carson

Juvenile

  • Catch-up Children’s Picture Books ALBOROUGH-ALIKI (11 titles) including:
  • Children’s Picture books author ALLARD-ANDERSEN (68 titles) including:
  • The Haunted Cabin Mystery by Gertrude Chandler Warner
  • I, Coriander by Sally Gardner
  • Inkdeath by Cordelia Funke
    It took me several chapters to get hooked into Inkheart. I slipped easily back into that world with Inkspell. And Inkdeath absolutely captivated me. This is a rare trilogy that improves with every tale.
  • The Melted Coins by Franklin Dixon

This month’s nightstand

On my nightstand

Fiction

  • Eye Contact by Cammie McGovern
    Added to my TBR list after reading a review by Framed and Booked
  • Lost in Rooville by Ray Blackston
  • Washington’s Lady by Nancy Moser
  • Where Love is, There God is also by Leo Tolstoy
    I’m dancing around reading the big two: Anna Karenina and War and Peace. I think my library has one more collection of short stories that I can procrastinate with before I start in on the two that still manage to majorly intimidate me (despite the fact that I enjoyed Resurrection–which is almost as long as Anna Karenina–a great deal.)
  • The Winds of Autumn by Janette Oke

Nonfiction

  • The Children’s Blizzard by David Laskin
    Added to my TBR list based on somebody’s review–but unfortunately this was before I started saving the locations of all the reviews that got added to my TBR list.
  • Dave Barry Does Japan by Dave Barry
  • Five Aspects of Woman by Barbara Mouser
    Didn’t end up starting this one last month–I had so many other books to read, not to mention going to school and teaching. I plan on starting on this as soon as I’m done with Forgotten God
  • **Forgotten God by Francis Chan
    So far, I’m loving this book about the Holy Spirit. Check out my notes on the first few chapters here.
  • The Gentle Art of Domesticity by Jane Brocket
    I’ve picked up this blogger’s book before and enjoyed perusing it–but didn’t have time to finish it before I sent it back to the library. Maybe this time I’ll get all the way through it.
  • **Get Married: what women can do to help it happen by Candace Watters
    I read about this when Carrie reviewed it last fall–and then essentially forgot about it. Something or another reminded me of it while I was blog-hopping a week or two back and I figured I’d ILL it. It’s a slightly different perspective than the “If God wants you to marry, He’ll land someone in your lap” perspective so common in the Christian world today. So far, it’s quite interesting.
  • Human Rights: Opposing Viewpoints
    After reading on that human rights treatise disguised as a children’s book, I figured I might look a little deeper at how folk define “human rights”.
  • Life’s Instructions for Wisdom, Success, and Happiness
    A quote book. I probably like them just a little too much.
  • Nourishing Traditions by Sally Fallon
    Another title I’ve barely had a chance to look at this month. Since I’ll likely be just working on thesis this summer (not working or going to school else-wise), I might have a bit of extra time to peruse this cookbook with its extensive nutritional/ideological sidebars.
  • **The Occasional Vegetarian by Karen Lee
    Vegetarian recipes for people who aren’t necessarily anti-meat, but who just want to go meatless more often. I’ve made one recipe already–it was pretty good but a little too fussy for everyday use. I hope to make a few more recipes before I have to take this title back to the library.
  • **On Grief and Grieving by Elizabeth Kubler-Ross and David Kessler
    I read the first few chapters of this book after my mom recommended looking into the stages of grief. I found the discussion of stages of grieving very helpful. However, since I’m not dealing with grief from a death, which the book is primarily geared towards, I’m not sure if I plan to finish the rest. For now, it may have served its purpose.
  • The Prodigal God by Timothy Keller
    Another one on the TBR list that I can’t pinpoint the source of.
  • Superhuman by Robert Winston and Lori Oliwenstein
    It seems to be a book about how our bodies fight disease–and about modern medical technology. It seems especially interesting to me since my brother is in biological systems engineering and works quite a bit with biomedical appliances and the like (currently, he’s doing some research with adult stem cells.)

Juvenile

  • Children’s Picture Books author ANDERSON-?
  • The Boy in the Striped Pajamas by John Boyne
  • The Deserted Library Mystery created by Gertrude Chandler Warner
  • The Shortwave Mystery by Franklin Dixon
  • Sun and Moon, Ice and Snow by Jessica Day George

What's on Your Nightstand?

**The asterisks marks books I’m currently in the middle of.

Drop by 5 Minutes 4 Books to see what others are reading.

Categories Book Reviews

Book Review: “Home” by Julie Andrews

Leave a comment by

I’m not a huge audiobook fan–but I’m even less of a long-drive-on-my-own fan. So when I was planning on visiting my sister during Spring Break, I figured I’d pick up an audiobook to occupy me on the drive up and down. After browsing the library’s collection for what seemed like forever, finding little that interested me, I finally settled on Julie Andrew’s Home read by the author herself.

It turned out I didn’t listen to it on the way up to my sister’s–I was too worked up about other things and needed that couple of hours to pray. I did start the discs on my way back home. And since it’s now springtime when I riding places (on my bicycle) rather than driving, I’ve been listening to Home in my car for weeks now. When you’re listening in fifteen minute chunks or less, it takes an awful long time to get through a book–especially when those listening times are pretty infrequent.

The first few chapters of this title weren’t that interesting to me. Andrews starts her story with a short biography of her parents and then reports her life chronologically. She goes into quite a bit of detail that is frankly boring. Only the melodious qualities of Andrews’ voice kept me listening.

Once Andrews got her first Broadway gig, singing the part of Eliza Doolittle in My Fair Lady, the content suddenly picked up and I started sitting in my garage to finish a chapter after a jaunt around the town. Julie speaks of the people she met, the plays and shows she did, the places she lived, and the experience of traveling back and forth from England to America.

The story at this point probably appealed to me the most because of my long-time infatuation with My Fair Lady. I loved hearing about the antics Rex Harrison pulled on set and the difficulties Andrews had learning a Cockney accent. I enjoyed the behind-the-scenes stories, the differences between the Broadway and the London shows, and the struggles of maintaining a voice during a 7-show-a-week Broadway run. Likewise, I enjoyed Andrews’ reminisces about working with Richard Burton in Camelot.

I wonder if I would be more inclined to recommend this book if I had read it rather than listening to it. Since silent reading is much faster than reading outloud, I probably could have easily skimmed through Andrews’ early life and gotten right to the exciting bits of her stage career instead of being bogged down with hours of girlhood anecdotes that seem to have little meaning in the overall framework of the story.

As it is, I can only give this lukewarm ratings. Andrews’ (physical) voice is always beautiful and her stage career is fascinating–but I couldn’t care about the lukewarm facts and anecdotes Andrews shared from her childhood. It was as if Andrews’ (authorly) voice abruptly shifted halfway through the title, from being a dispassionate historian of her childhood to being a refined but slightly gossipy actress reminiscing about old times. If the book had been cut in half, telling only the story of Andrews’ Broadway days, I would have been much more delighted.

Rating: 2 Stars
Category: Memoir
Synopsis: Julie Andrews reminisces about her life from birth through her Broadway career immediately prior to starring in the Walt Disney film Mary Poppins
Recommendation: If this book had been split in half and only the second half published, it would have been a much stronger book and worthy of my recommendation. As it is, it’s a take-it-or-leave-it title.

Categories Book Notes, Faith

The Holy Spirit terrifies me

2 Comments by

Notes on Francis Chan’s
Forgotten God
Chapter 2: What are you afraid of?

Chan’s first question made me think. His second question no less, but in a completely different way. To answer the first question, I had to dig deep into Scripture. To answer the second, I have had to plumb the depths of my own soul.

Chan’s second questions is: “What are you afraid of?”

It’s not an easy question to answer, for fear can be a subtle captor, binding one with chains so light they almost seem not to exist except for the inability to move.

I’m afraid I’ll lose things I value if I surrender my life to the Holy Spirit. I have known many who have given up houses, jobs, comfort, and possessions in order to follow the Holy Spirit’s leading to the mission field. I have known some who have lost friendships, even family, over differences in doctrine regarding the Holy Spirit. I, too, have experienced loss as a result of my beliefs regarding the Holy Spirit.

I am afraid of surrendering, of letting the Holy Spirit be my guide rather than setting my own agenda. What if He leads me where I don’t want to go? What if He leads me to take up my cross? What if He leads me to leave father and mother, career and family, dreams and aspirations? What if His plan for my life is different than my own?

I am afraid of the heresy I have seen in experientially-based charismatic movements. I have seen those who have latched on to the prosperity gospel, making God into little more than a cosmic gift giver. I have seen those who have replaced Scripture with prophecy, “words from God”, and ecstatic experiences. I have seen how this folly has borne destruction in my friends and peers, leading them away from God, from true doctrine, and from holy character.

I am afraid that saying “Yes” to the Spirit is turning off my brain. I have seen many for whom that is true. Convinced of the wisdom of following “the Spirit”, they throw all logic and thought to the wind. They act in ridiculous ways, following half-baked schemes with more enthusiasm than wisdom–and then wonder when the results aren’t what they expected.

Ultimately, I have two fears–both very valid but very different.

The first fear is the fear of having to die to self in order to let the Spirit reign. This fear is completely founded. As Chan says,

“The truth is that the Spirit of the living God is guaranteed to ask you to go somewhere or do something you wouldn’t normally want or choose to do. The Spirit will lead you to the way of the cross, as He led Jesus to the cross, and that is definitely not a safe or pretty or comfortable place to be….The Holy Spirit does not seek to hurt us, but He does seek to make us Christlike, and this can be painful.”

There is no doubt about it: surrender to the Holy Spirit means dying to self, but it also means experiencing the greatest joy–knowing Christ and being conformed into His image.

The second fear is a fear of being experience-based rather than truth-based, and being led to error thereby. This fear is based on experience–on seeing many who have been led into error in their emphasis on the charismatic gifts. But the fruits I saw were not the fruits of the Spirit. They were the fruits of an immature faith, of believers who were tossed to and fro by every wind and wave of doctrine, not testing the spirits to see that they are from God.

This second fear need not be an issue, so long as I am truly led by the Spirit–because the Spirit does not lead into error but into truth. The Spirit does not lead into debauchery but into self-control. I must not equate the fleshy outcome of some charismatic indulgence with the actual activity of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is not the author of confusion, error, and sin. He is the author of discernment, truth, and righteousness.

I tremble in fear as I approach the throne of God to ask that His Holy Spirit take control of my life. I beg Him that I might know His love–and that His love would drive away my fear of relinquishing control. I beg Him that He might lead me in all truth–and that my path would be kept far from the error of experientialism. My knees knock and I fall in terror. Lord, I don’t want to relinquish control. I don’t want to die to self. I don’t want to lose my life. But I want to be led by Your Spirit. I want to see and know You. I want to experience the power of the Holy Spirit. So despite my fear, I surrender. Holy Spirit, have Your way in me.

(See more notes on Forgotten God here.)

Categories Book Notes, Faith

The Undeniable Activity of the Spirit

1 Comment by

Notes on Francis Chan’s
Forgotten God
Chapter 1: I’ve got Jesus. Why do I need the Spirit?

In the first chapter of Forgotten God Chan encourages his readers to ask themselves a seemingly simple question:

“When was the last time I undeniably saw the Holy Spirit at work in or around me?”

It seems simple but for the difficult corollary question: How can I incontrovertibly identify the Spirit’s working? How can I be sure that what I see is the Spirit at work?

Acts 2 gives an example of the undeniable activity of the Holy Spirit. The disciples are filled with the Holy Spirit. They start speaking in tongues. They’ve got tongues of fire sitting on them. Wind is rushing through the house they’re in. This is undeniably the action of the Holy Spirit.

But if you asked me the last time I saw something like that, I’d have to say…Never. I’ve never heard a rushing wind through a house. I’ve never seen tongues of fire resting on people’s heads. I’ve heard people speak in tongues–but then I’ve also heard people babble in imaginary languages. So I don’t know that I can claim that as an undeniable act of the Holy Spirit.

I’ve known people who would exclaim after a particularly emotional church service that “the Spirit was sure moving tonight.” But how do we know that? I’ve seen people emotionally moved by political speeches–but that doesn’t mean the Spirit was moving.

I’ve known people who identified “goosebumps” moments as the working of the Spirit. But I get goosebumps when it’s cold and shivers up my spine when I see a cool scene in a movie. That doesn’t mean the Spirit is at work.

So what is an undeniable act of the Holy Spirit? What does the Holy Spirit do that only the Holy Spirit does–so that when I see it, I can clearly identify the activity of the Holy Spirit?

A quick word study of “Spirit” in the New Testament highlights a few main activities of the Spirit.

Scripture is clear that the Spirit is active in salvation. He washes, justifies, and sanctifies the believer (I Cor 6:11, II Thess 2:13, Titus 3:5, I Pet 1:2). He grants access to the Father (Eph 2:18). He frees us from the law of sin and death (Rom 8:2). He gives life (John 6:63, II Cor 3:6).

The Spirit gives the believer assurance of salvation. It is in the Spirit that we cry out “Abba, Father” (Rom 8:16, Gal 4:6). The Spirit is given as a guarantee (II Cor 5:5, Eph 1:13-14). At salvation, we are sealed with the Holy Spirit (Eph 1:13-14, Eph 4:30).

The Spirit of God is intimately involved in sanctification of the believer. It is by the Spirit that the believer puts to death the deeds of the body (Rom 8:13). When one walks in the Spirit, he no longer fulfills the lust of the flesh (Gal 5:16). The Spirit produces fruit of godly character in the believer: love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control, righteousness, and truth (Gal 5:22-23, Eph 5:9). The Holy Spirit transforms the believer into the image of Christ (II Cor 3:18).

The Holy Spirit gives understanding of the things of God. He teaches and brings to remembrance the things that Jesus said (John 14:26). He speaks what He hears from Jesus (John 16:13-15). In Him, the mystery of Christ is revealed (Eph 3:5). Indeed, Scripture says that no one can understand the things of God except by the Spirit of God (I Cor 2:10-12)

The Holy Spirit is a witness to God and enables believers to be witnesses. Jesus said that when the Spirit comes, He will testify of Christ (John 15:26). He promised that when the Spirit comes, the disciples would receive power and be witnesses to Christ (Acts 1:8). When the early church was filled with the Spirit, they testified boldly of Christ (Acts 4:31, 5:32; 18:5). John repeats that the Spirit of God witnesses (I John 5:6-8), and expands it to say that we can test the spirits to know if a spirit is the Spirit of God by whether or not the spirit confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh (I John 4:1-3).

The Holy Spirit additionally enables tongues, prophesy, and a variety of other gifts (Acts 2:4, 10:45-46, 11:28, 19:6, 21:4; Romans 12:7-12). The Holy Spirit gives the believer hope and comfort (Acts 9:31, Rom 15:13, Gal 5:5). The Holy Spirit gives direction (Acts 8:29, 10:19, 13:2, 16:6-7, 20:28).

Ultimately, the Holy Spirit enables the believer to say that Jesus is Lord. I Corinthians 12:3 states that there is one thing that the Spirit and only the Spirit can do. No one can do this thing without the Holy Spirit’s enabling.

“Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God calls Jesus accursed, and no one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit.” (I Cor 12:3)

So how can I know undeniably that the Holy Spirit is at work? I know if the word of God is being boldly proclaimed, if people are being saved, if the saints have assurance of salvation, if there is understanding of the Scriptures, if believers are being freed from the power of sin and are walking in godly character, if believers walk with a clear sense of direction, if believers have hope, if believers are walking in the gifts of the Spirit.

Ultimately, if the Holy Spirit is at work, the Lordship of Christ will be both proclaimed and demonstrated through the lives of believers.

In the Bible study Experiencing God, Henry Blackaby talks of things that only God can do. The aforementioned list is a list of things that only God, working through the Spirit, can do.

So tell me, does your life show evidence of the Holy Spirit at work? Does your church show evidence of the Holy Spirit’s work? Or does your life indicate that you are quenching the Spirit (I Thess 5:19)–not allowing Him access to do His thing?

When I answer that question, I have to say–yes, the Spirit is alive in me. My life does show some evidence of the Holy Spirit’s work. I have assurance of salvation. I have hope in Him. These are things only God can accomplish in me. But am I experiencing the full activity of the Holy Spirit? No. I do not have boldness as a witness of Christ. There are many areas in which I have not, by the Spirit, put to death the works of the flesh. My attitudes and actions only occasionally reflect Christ-like character.

Yet the Spirit of God dwells inside of me. That is true. I do not need to be “filled with the Spirit” as if He was not already inside me. I was sealed with the Holy Spirit at salvation. That’s a done deal. But, maybe, as Chan suggests, I have “forgotten” or ignored the Holy Spirit. Instead of walking according to the Spirit, I have walked according to the flesh–and in doing so, I have reaped of the flesh.

Like Chan, I have to say:

“…I am tired of living in a way that looks exactly like people who do not have the Holy Spirit of God living in them. I want to consistently live with an awareness of His strength. I want to be different today from what I was yesterday as the fruit of the Spirit becomes more manifest in me. I want to live so that I am truly submitted to the Spirit’s leading on a daily basis. Christ said that it is better for us that the Spirit came, and I want to live like I know that is true. I don’t want to keep crawling [like a caterpillar] when I have the ability to fly [as a butterfly, a new creation, alive by the Spirit].”

(See more notes on Forgotten God here.)

Categories Book Notes, Faith

A Balanced Life (More of Him, Less of Me)

2 Comments by

Notes on Francis Chan’s
Forgotten God
Introduction

Variety. Balance. Moderation.

Buzzwords for healthy eating. Buzzwords for healthy living.

Try lots of different things. Have them in proportion. Don’t have too much of anything.

I’m by no means perfect, but this is how I try to live–finding a balance between the hundreds of things that attract my interest, trying to moderate my affections and attentions.

I find this spilling over into my spiritual life, where I’m constantly trying to find a balance–between holiness and grace, between spirit and truth, between orthodoxy and relevance.

But this is where I go wrong–and where Chan’s words hit me:

“When we are referring to God, balance is a huge mistake. God is not just one thing we add to the mix called life. He wants an invitation from us to permeate everything and every part of us. In the same way, seeking a “healthy balance” of the Holy Spirit assumes that there are some who have too much Holy Spirit and others who have too little. I have yet to meet anyone with too much Holy Spirit. Granted, I’ve met many who talk about Him too much, but none who are actually overfilled with His presence.

When it comes to God, I don’t need variety. Deuteronomy 4:35 says “…the Lord Himself is God, there is none other beside Him.”

When it comes to God, I don’t need balance. I don not need to walk a fine line between which character attribute I emphasize and which I de-emphasize. I need to emphasize them all.

When it comes to God, I don’t need moderation. I need everything.

When it comes to God, I need to see Him entirely, experience Him completely, and cling to Him wholeheartedly.

The imbalances I see in those who emphasize holiness to the exclusion of grace or spirit to the exclusion of truth are not solved by running a balancing act between the two. They are solved by emphasizing God to the exclusion of all else.

Imbalances come when I try to pick and choose between radicalism and stagnation–when instead, I should be choosing God.

Imbalances come when I, a human, try to balance God instead of recognizing that God needs no balancing. I need God. Period.

It is not possible to have too much of God. Imbalances occur not when I have too much of God (or even to much of a specific one of God’s attributes). Imbalances come because there is too much me.

My goal in life, then, should be like John the Baptist’s: that He would increase and that I would decrease. My goal should be to have all that He is, to embrace Him fully, to let Him take over my life.

It is not possible to have too much of God.

Lord, I repent of placing myself in Your place, trying to be the judge weighing You on my balance. I see now that the opposite should be true. You are the judge, the arbiter of right and wrong, of balance and imbalance. You are all that is good–and I have only to embrace all of You for my life to be balanced. I repent of picking and choosing which parts of You to embrace. I repent of trying to choose how much of Your control I’d allow. And today I choose to desire all of You. I want Your exclusive reign over every part of my life. I offer my life to You. Take it–until all that remains is You.

(See more notes on Forgotten God here.)

Categories Reading My Library

A delightful tale, for sure!

2 Comments by

What happens when one silly chicken loses a feather and giggles “The more I pluck myself, the more gorgeous I look”?

Hans Christian Andersen's For sure! For Sure!Not much, except that another chicken hears and tells her best friend.

And Momma Owl hears the chicken friends discussing it and rushes off to tell the nice owl next door.

Who then shouts the news to the pigeon house below.

The story spreads and spreads until the coop where the silly chicken lives hears the dreadful story. Apparently five chickens had all plucked themselves bare trying to prove that they were pining away for the rooster. Then they had pecked each other to death!

Of course the story was true–everyone said so, for sure.

The original silly chicken was an upstanding citizen and roundly renounced the goings on, not realizing that she was the chicken who had started the whole rumor.

Hans Christian Andersen's For sure! For Sure!Hans Christian Andersen’s For sure! For sure! translated by Mus White and illustrated by Stefan Czernecki is a timeless tale about gossip and how rumours spread. I had never heard this particular tale of Andersen’s and was delighted to discover it in my trek through the children’s section of my local library.

The story was told just as stories for children should be told: using straightforward language without overly simplifying sentence structure. The story never once use the word gossip or rumors–but it makes its point clear nonetheless. Many an author could take a note from Andersen’s book and show instead of telling.

Reading My LibraryThe bright, simple illustrations perfectly complemented the text, indicating the delight the many birds were taking in sharing their news with yet another person.

This picture book has definitely got my thumbs up! For sure!

Categories Rants, Reading My Library

Universal Rights?

5 Comments by

Reading My LibraryDisclaimer: The book I describe and rant about within this page was read during my endeavor to read every book in Eiseley library and while following along with Carrie’s Reading My Library project. However, the contents of this post are more a political/social rant than a book review. Just letting you know.

I’d never heard of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (adopted by the UN in 1948) until I found a children’s version published in my local library. The book was entitled We are All Born Free: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Pictures.

I had relatively low expectations of the book. After all, it’s an ideological children’s book written by a committee (Amnesty International). That doesn’t exactly make for soaring prose or beautiful language. In fact, it usually means it’ll be boring as all get out and clunkier than your first car. And so it was.

But that wasn’t what bothered me. What bothered me was the ideology contained within the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (which I have now taken a look at, thanks to this book.)

We are all born free

I didn’t have a problem with statements 1 and 2, dumbed down for children as “We are all born free and equal. We all have our own thoughts and ideas. We should be treated in the same way. These rights belong to everybody, whatever our differences.” Okay.

So too, the third statement: “We all have the right to life, and to live in freedom and safety.”

The fourth statement, against slavery? Statement five against torture? Yep.

A right to equal protection under the law? Sure. I’ll allow habeas corpus for all. (Statements 6-11)

After this, the statements get a bit sketchier. A few I don’t mind (although I’m not sure they’re followed anywhere–even in the US). Equal rights for males and females. Right to your own property (and against seizure without good cause.) Right to believe whatever we’d like. Right to make up our own minds. Right to speak our minds. Right to peacefully assemble. Right to vote. Okay. I’ll grant these.

But right to a home? Right to enough money to live on? Right to medical care? Right to ART? Right to a job? Right to a vacation? Right to a good life? Right to a free education? Right to learn a career?

Are you serious? In my mind, these things aren’t RIGHTS–these things are things you earn. You work to own a home. You work to earn money. You work to get medical care. You enjoy art because you choose to and you pay for it. You take a vacation when and if your employer allows it–or you quit your job and live with the consequences. You pay for your own education. You choose to do whatever it takes to learn a career. These things aren’t rights. They’re privileges that are earned. Who comes up with this stuff?

We often excuse such blather as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights because we’d love it if this Utopian society it describes existed. We’d love it if everyone had a free education, if everyone enjoyed the good life (Come to Nebraska–we are “The Good Life”), if everyone had access to art, if everyone had a roof over their heads and enough money to live on. We’d love it. We want that to happen. I want that to happen.

But just because something is desirable does not make it a right.

The noun right means something due to a person or community by law, tradition, or nature. If we are to modify the noun right with the adjective universal (which means of, relating to, or affecting the entire world or all within the world), then we must strike out the words “law” and “tradition”, since there is no universal law or tradition. We must define a universal right as something due to a person or community by nature (although I would argue that the modern “nature” is less appropriate than America’s founding father’s explanation of the source of inalienable rights: our Creator.)

In other words, universal rights are things that are due to people for the sole reason of their being people, regardless of who they are or what they do. Notice that term “due”? Universal rights are things that are owed to every person, regardless of their condition. They are the things that we all have a moral obligation to give to one another.

Most of these things listed as “rights” by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are nice things. Wouldn’t we all love to have a free education? Wouldn’t we all love to have a roof over our heads? Wouldn’t we all love to have a job? Wouldn’t we all love to have enough money to live on? Wouldn’t we all love a vacation? Sure. (At least, I would love to.)

But the question is, do I have a moral obligation to give everyone else in the world a free education? Do I have a moral obligation to give them a roof over their heads? Do I have a moral obligation to give them a job? Do I have a moral obligation to give them enough money to live on? Do I have a moral obligation to give them a vacation? If those things truly are universal rights, than I am morally obligated to do all those things for every other person.

But I’m not. I don’t have to give everyone else an education, a roof over their heads, a job, enough money to live on, or a vacation. Those aren’t universal rights–things owed to everyone for mere virtue of their existence.

Universal rights means that I have an obligation to not kill anyone else (they have a universal right to life). I have an obligation to treat others justly (they have a universal right to equal protection under the law and habeas corpus). I have an obligation to not enslave or torture others. I have an obligation to not steal others’ property. These are universal rights–things due to all people by nature.

The rest? Many are nice to have but not necessarily defensible from a natural or moral point of view. It’s nice to belong to a country–but do I have a moral obligation to give another belonging in a country? It’s nice to have a “good life”–but do I have a moral obligation to give you a “good life”? No, not really. (I might, however, have a moral obligation to not give you a bad life–or to not interfere with your pursuit of a good life.)

Others are not only indefensible from a natural or moral point of view, but are actually contrary to other, clearly defensible universal rights. If everyone has a right to a free education, who pays for it? If everyone has a right to a home, who provides it? If everyone has a right to enough money to live on, who gives them this money? If everyone has a right to medical care, who provides this care? These things are not free. They all have a cost, either in time or in money or both. If these are universal rights, that indicates that they are due to all people REGARDLESS of what they do or do not do. Which means that the only way to ensure that everyone gets what is “owed” to them under this definition of universal rights is to compel another person to give it to them either by laboring under compulsion (slavery) or by giving up their possessions under compulsion (a form of stealing). Yet, slavery and stealing are clearly recognized as violations of true universal human rights.

In the midst of feel-goods about free medical care and education and homes and jobs and money, we forget that for every privilege we wrongly define as a right, we take away another true right.

For the sake of preserving human rights, let’s let our list of rights be short–but strictly observed.