Book Review – “The Lost World of Genesis One” by John H. Walton


As someone still studying various issues related to science, the Scripture, and how to interpret them both, I have been reading books by authors on various perspectives.  One recent author who has gained some attention is John H. Walton.  He has written a few books now trying to understand Genesis in its ancient context.  The Lost World of Genesis One starts, quite literally, “In the beginning.”

The subtitle of the book is “Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate.”  Walton’s view is that we must understand the ancient context of cosmology and creation origin stories in order to better understand ancient thought on the issue of origins and creation.  By understanding the ancient mindset, we can then better understand Genesis 1 and what it is trying to say.

The layout of the book has Walton presenting 18 propositions to help us understand his arguments.  These include propositions such as “Genesis 1 Is Ancient Cosmology,” “Ancient Cosmology Is Function Oriented,” “The Cosmos Is a Temple,” and “The Seven Days of Genesis 1 Do Not Concern Material Origins.”

From here on out, please excuse any mistakes in my understanding or representation of Walton and his arguments.  The views he presents are very new to me, and I may not be understanding him perfectly.  If so, I fully accept any mistakes on my part.

I was raised understanding the Genesis creation account as explaining “how and when things were created.”  This would essentially be a material origin view.  Walton’s argument is that Genesis is not concerned with material origin (when and how things came into being).  Rather, he believes that Genesis is concerned with functional origin (why things came into being).

As a result, Walton argues that science may present one understanding of how things came about, with Scripture providing the importance of the creation.  This, of course, results in allowing science and Scripture to not be at odds with one another, unless science is saying God is not involved at all.  While Walton argues that his goal is not to defend evolution or any scientific views in particular, one cannot help but wonder if that may not be at least an underlying desire, if not explicitly discussed.  I suppose that crosses into judging motives, however, and we do have to be careful about doing that.

Walton’s central argument is that the Earth is viewed in Scripture as God’s cosmic temple, and that the creation account deals with the establishing, filling, and functioning of that temple.  It is, to say the least, a novel view compared to many I have read.  I cannot, at this point, say whether I agree with him or not, as I still have to think through many issues related to his perspective.

Perhaps the most interesting part of his book was his last proposition that public science education should be neutral regarding purpose.  It almost began to feel a little like the old “non-overlapping magisteria” arguments presented elsewhere.  Science and faith are in different fields, and the two have no contribution to each other.  I’m not sure I can fully agree with that perspective.  Primarily, I would argue that there is no such thing as total neutrality; one’s worldview will always at least partially color one’s perspective, and I’m not convinced we can escape that, although we can try to account for it and minimize it.  At the same time, his view, if adopted, could solve some issues in teaching science as a Christian in a public arena.  It would also have to apply both ways, so atheists could not push a purely materialistic view of science anymore than Christians could push a supernatural one.

Despite Walton’s claims, I think one would be hard-pressed to understand how Walton is not arguing ultimately for evolution, however.  In one proposition, he argues how other theories of Genesis and science either go too far or not far enough.  In this chapter, he argues against Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, Literary Framework Hypothesis, and forms of the Gap Theory.  He also seems to explain that since Intelligent Design is concerned primarily with purpose, it has no place in public education of scientific ideas.   At least from my studies, I cannot figure out what would be left, short of some view of Evolutionary Creationism.

Granted, Walton would argue that I am asking the wrong question.  His emphasis is that the Genesis account is not trying to discuss science, as we think of it, since it deals with material origins.  But if all the above views are thrown out, I cannot see any view left other than the current standard evolutionary view of material origins, as far as science is concerned.

Also in his defense, Walton explains that he is concerned primarily with the best way of understanding Genesis 1, regardless of what science currently says.  As a result, his view of Genesis would not change, even if our scientific understanding of how things developed does change.  This provides some sense of solidarity on understanding Genesis that does not require one to argue that science is wrong in what it says, as the two are not even addressing the same questions.

If Walton is right regarding how to understand Genesis 1, it would be a huge relief to many, as it would allow them to let science speak on its own, and however one interprets Genesis it would have no bearing on our pursuit of scientific understanding.  I admit that is an attractive thought.  At this point, however, I am not sure if it stands up to total scrutiny yet.  I admit, I am new to both understanding science and trying to look deeper into the creation account in Genesis, so I am not able to provide an in-depth critique one way or another beyond my thoughts listed here.

I am in no way saying Walton is wrong; for all I know, he is spot on.  The view is so novel to me, however, that I am struggling to reconcile it with the interpretations I was raised with.

If you are a student of the science/religion questions, and if you like trying to see if we can “harmonize” (for lack of a better term) the two and how best to do it, then The Lost World of Genesis One (as well as the follow-up The Lost World of Adam and Eve) are great books to add to your list of books to study.

*Note: I received a complimentary copy of the book from InterVarsity Press in exchange for my honest review.

Book Review – “The Good and Beautiful Life” by James Bryan Smith


I am always looking for fresh ways to explore who God is and how to live the Christian life.  When I originally read The Good and Beautiful God, I found some fresh ways of understanding who God is.  That book is the first in a three-book set by James Bryan Smith.  After finishing the first book, I wanted to continue to expand my views by reading the next book in the series, and InterVarsity Press graciously agreed to send me a copy of The Good and Beautiful Life.

Where the first book attempted to help us reexamine our views of who God is, The Good and Beautiful Life sets out to help us get a better sense of how to put on the character of Christ, to borrow from the subtitle.

Smith draws a lot of his inspiration from Dallas Willard, and, as I understand it, Smith’s three books are a sort of “curriculum of Christlikeness” that Willard encouraged him to write.  If you are familiar with Willard, you will certainly sense a lot of the same ideas coming through Smith’s writing.

The book takes the Sermon on the Mount and breaks it down by representing it as Christ’s blueprint for what a disciple’s (or to borrow Smith’s term, “apprentice’s”) life should look like as he or she increasingly follows Jesus.

The chapters follow the Sermon on the Mount in order, tackling ideas such as learning how to live without anger, without lust, and without vainglory, as well as learning how to bless those who curse you and living in the kingdom day by day.

After each chapter is a brief “Soul Training” exercise to try to apply the material to one’s life and help the process of inner transformation.

At the end of the book is a 32-page appendix that is a small group discussion guide to help walk small groups through that material as a way of supporting and encouraging one another to grow.

Smith points out throughout the book that the idea is not one of changing one’s outward life only (or even primarily).  The real focus is on allowing Christ to change one’s inner self so that the outward actions follow as a natural result.  It brings back the idea of Christ’s talking to the Pharisees and explaining that rather than cleaning the outside of the cup and dish while leaving the inside dirty, they should have cleaned the inside first, and the outside would have been clean also.

There are a few areas where I am not sure I agree with Smith, but I am still considering what he has to say.  For example, he tackles the idea of casting one’s pearls before pigs and argues that Jesus is not saying to withhold something precious from those who don’t deserve it (pages 192-195).  Rather, he interprets it as saying that pigs cannot digest pearls, so they will get hungry and turn on the owner, whom they can digest.  The idea being that the pearls represent condemnation and judging and that people cannot “digest” that, or handle it, so it won’t help them but will leave them starving for help.  Based on most interpretations I have read, Smith is definitely in a minority view here, and he acknowledges as much in the book.  I have to say that I am not totally convinced by his view yet, although it would make the passage flow better.  But to me, pearls always represent something expensive and precious (pearl of great price, the gates of pearl in Revelation, etc.); this would be one of the only places, if not the only, where that would not apply, especially if Smith’s view is correct, as judging and condemnation could not be interpreted as precious.

Overall, however, I found this book very refreshing, and there are many great ideas to take away from it.  Where Willard provides a lot of the theoretical side of kingdom living, Smith works more on the practical side, so combining Smith’s work with Willard’s will give a more well-rounded idea of the type of kingdom living they advocate.

If you are looking for a “curriculum” for Christlikeness, this book (and this series) is a good one to consider.

*Note: I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher in exchange for my honest review.

Book Review – “How I Changed My Mind about Evolution”


Anyone who knows me knows that I do not shy away from tough topics or from potentially controversial ones, even if that means reading things that go against what I have always thought.

Just this year, I switched to teaching science instead of English language arts.  As a result, I have been diving deeper into scientific topics than I have in the past.  Obviously, this leads to questions on things such as evolution and the age of the earth.

I was raised with a Young-Earth Creationist view, and have only slightly studied outside of that view, including Old-Earth Creationism, Intelligent Design, and to a lesser degree, a Literary Framework view.  One view I had not really read on was a Christian view of evolution.  Yes, you read that right.  A view of evolution in support of the idea from a Christian viewpoint.  I like reading about all sides of an issue, and I prefer to read about them from proponents of the view, as opposed to just reading about it based on critiques from its opponents.

I heard that InterVarsity Press had a newer book called How I Changed My Mind about Evolution: Evangelicals Reflect on Faith and Science, and I thought it would be a good place to start learning about a Christian view of evolution.  IVP was kind enough to send me a copy, and I am glad they did.

The book is not so much an explanation of evolution as it is an attempt by various contributors to explain why they came to believe in evolution, even as Christians, and why they don’t believe it contradicts their evangelical faith.  Let me state up front that as far as I can tell, none of the contributors are what we would think of as liberal; they all embrace evangelicalism, and they hold the Bible in high regard.  But they also hold science in high regard, and they feel that God would have the Bible and science read in light of each other.  It is viewed as a “two-book” model of Scripture and nature, based on Psalm 19, I believe.

The contributors come from a wide range of backgrounds and positions, including scientists, pastors, seminary professors, and so on, as well as from a decent range of denominations.  Some of the more well-known contributors are James K. A. Smith, Scot McKnight, Tremper Longman III, Franic Collins, N. T. Wright, and John Ortberg. One thing that is insisted on is that they don’t refer to themselves as theistic evolutionists (as the older name would have it); rather they call themselves evolutionary creationists, with an emphasis on the idea that evolution was the way they believe God chose to create the world and bring it to the point it is currently at.

What really struck me was how many had been raised to believe in and defend a young earth who ended up switching their viewpoints in light of the evidence of science, as they put it.  I was raised primarily hearing stories that went in the other direction.  In at least one case, the contributor went into a scientific field with the sole purpose of proving evolution and an old earth wrong, only to be totally convinced by the evidence.

I was also struck by a reoccurring theme of people (either the contributors or people they knew) going through major struggles out of a sheer fear of science as a result of their upbringing.  Honestly, I can sympathize with those people.  After all, Young Earth views are often pushed in such a way that all of science (biology, astronomy, geology, etc.) is part of one big conspiracy theory to try to brainwash people away from God’s word, so we must be ever vigilant and remember that Christians must interpret science in a completely different way than most people might.  Is that really the case?  Honestly, everyone has to decide that for themselves.  But it saddens me to think about how something so majestic as all of God’s creation could become a point of tension for so many, as it has for me in the past.

One thing I really liked was how frequently the contributors would admit that they don’t have all the answers.  To be honest, reading Young Earth literature growing up, there never seemed to be room for lack of knowledge; there was an answer for everything, even if it didn’t seem to make much sense.  It was refreshing to see people honestly admit that they may not always know all the answers, but they are willing to continue to study and hold on to faith in the mean time.

Again, this book is not an all-out defense of evolution, although there are parts of the book that provide some reasoning for that view.  Rather, it is an attempt to open doors of communication and to show that contrary to many Young-Earth arguments, people don’t just come to believe in evolution as a way of doubting Scripture or moving away from God.  These contributors all stand firm in their love and devotion to their Creator, even though their understanding of His word regarding creation is different from others.

Regardless of where you stand on the question of evolution and the age of the earth, you should read this book to gain a sympathetic understanding of where evolutionary creationists are coming from.  While it may not change everyone’s mind on how old the earth is and whether evolution in any form is a viable mechanism for creation, it will at least allow a discussion to occur with a proper understanding of where one side is coming from, as opposed to setting up false caricatures of those people.

*Note: I was provided with a complimentary copy of the book in exchange for my honest review.


Book Review – “Justification” by N. T. Wright


I want to preface this review by saying that N. T. Wright’s work is very dense (in a good way).  I have only read the book one time, and I feel I would need to read through it a second time, at least, to really grasp everything he is saying, as his explanation of justification seems to be a major overhaul of what  we normally think when we hear that word.  While I will do my best to provide my thoughts, I know it will fall way short.

Having been raised in traditional evangelical churches that held to a “Reformation” view of justification, I wanted to try to understand Wright’s views, as he is often linked to the “New Perspective on Paul.”  I put the word Reformation in quotes because, as Wright argues, those who hold to the traditional perspective on Paul are, in his view, actually not holding up to the ideas of the Reformation; namely that we will constantly reevaluate our ideas and views in light of what Scripture actually says.

While N. T. Wright has bits and pieces of his view throughout essays, articles, and other books, his book Justification is his attempt to explain his views on this issue in one place.  It was primarily written as a response to John Piper’s critique of his stance, and it works to lay out all of the historical and primarily exegetical reasons that he holds to the views he does.  Since it is a response to Piper, Wright holds little back as he points out the weaknesses in Piper’s critique, as he sees them.  Yet he does so out of a concern that everyone interpret Scripture rightly.  For Wright, this means trying to do more than just read the words of Scripture; it also means we must understand the context from which Paul was writing those words.

The book is laid out in two parts.  In the first part, Wright explains why the discussion matters, how to approach the discussion, explains some background on first century Judaism, and then gives some helpful explanations regarding the term “justification.”  The second part applies what he has laid out in the first, as it works on exegesis with central parts of the New Testament dealing with justification: Galatians, Philippians, Corinthians, Ephesians, and Romans.  In addition, the book includes a section with notes, a bibliography section for those who want to dig deeper, a name index, a subject index, and a Scripture index.  All told, the book comes in at 279 pages, but it is far from a quick read.

Wright sums up God’s purposes in justification as being God’s “single-purpose-through-Israel-for-the-world” (p. 243).  In other words, to really understand justification, we have to step back and follow the flow of the entire Scriptural narrative, understanding that Israel is the primary focus, rather than creating a division between Israel and the rest of the world.  This flows along with what I have been reading lately regarding our need to read Scripture with a large picture view as opposed to taking it apart at the expense of the whole.  Why did Jesus come?  Because Israel, being weakened by the flesh as all humanity is, failed to bring God’s restoring work to the entire world, as they were supposed to do.  Jesus, then, came as the Messiah, God incarnate, to do what Israel failed to do.  By dying on the cross forgiveness could be offered, by rising from the dead the resurrection was inaugurated, and by going back to be with God, the Spirit could come.  Together this allows us, through faith, to be forgiven, to begin the process of being made new, and to be enabled to live the way we should, something the Torah could never accomplish.

As Wright argues, a large part of Paul’s explanation of the “mystery” of God was that both Gentiles and Israel were brought back to God, together, in the same way, through faith in the Messiah.  Both Israel and the Gentiles had failed, and both needed to be restored to God.  Israel mistakenly thought this was accomplished through Gentiles being made to follow the Torah and the ways of Israel.  Paul points out that both Jews and Gentiles need to follow the ways of the Messiah and be restored through faith in Him, as the one who brought the promises to Abraham, that he would be the father of many nations, to fruition.

Wright points out that the focus on justification as the aspect of receiving forgiveness of sins, while important, is not the whole point of what God is doing.  He likens it to taking the steering wheel of a car (which is vitally important) and mistaking it for the car itself.  I found this refreshing and eye opening.

This, of course, can have major implications for how we read certain passages.  For example, I found that reading Romans with this in mind made it seem quite different from the way I had read it with my prior understanding.  Romans 7, for example, seems very different when understood from Wright’s perspective.  The traditional argument over whether was talking pre-conversion or post-conversion disappears.  In reality, he is merely explaining his discovery that the Torah, which he had tried to follow as a faithful Jew, could not deal with his broken/fallen self.  All it could do was show him his weaknesses.  This, then, leads the way to understanding how life in the Messiah is the answer to this dilemma.  Read this way, Romans 7 has nothing to do with whether or not Christians still struggle with temptation to sin and whether or not they fall a lot.  While that may be an important discussion, Wright’s perspective would mean that Romans 7 is not relevant to that issue, as I understand it.

While there are some great insights through Wright’s book, interestingly, however, I seem to sense a lot of the same emphasis even coming from Piper and others.  I have seen a huge push for understanding the entire story of redemption (creation, fall, redemption, and restoration) in many traditional works of evangelical scholars.  In other words, I wonder how much Piper (and other traditional Pauline scholars) and Wright (and others who focus on the New Perspective) are really saying the same thing in slightly different ways or with slightly different emphases?

Overall, I found Wright’s book refreshing and challenging.  I do want to read it again, as well as reading more works by Wright.  I also want to read Piper’s book that Wright is responding to, although I probably should have read it first, to see what the primary issue seems to be in Piper’s perspective.

I would highly recommend Wright’s book to anyone wanting to understand his perspective on justification as it is presented in Paul’s writings.

*Note: I was provided a complimentary copy of the book from InterVarsity Press in exchange for my honest review.

Book Review – “Saving the Bible from Ourselves” by Glenn R. Paauw

saving the bible

Mark Twain has been quoted as saying “A classic is a book that everybody praises and nobody reads.”  It seems that this is true for the Bible in many cases as well.  Someone has said the Bible is the “most owned, least read book in history.”  Sadly, this is the case among Christians too.

One of the reasons many fail to read the Bible is that it seems too daunting.  It is one volume made up of 66 separate books (by the Protestant count).  These books span several hundred years of history, and were written to a time and people far different from ours.  Glenn Paauw, in his book Saving the Bible from Ourselves, suggests that there are other issues as well, problems that we have introduced ourselves.  But don’t fear, he proposes solutions throughout.

According to Paauw, one of the biggest problems with our Bible reading is that we have complicated the Bible over time.  It started with the addition of chapter numbers.  Then verse numbers came along.  The decision was then made to separate each verse out into its own paragraph. To save space and for ease of printing, the text was then separated into two columns.  Along the way various notes were added (textual variations, study helps, cross references) and then section headings were put in to make things easier to find.  In some cases, when all is said and done a page may have more study helps and notes than it does the actual text of Scripture.  Needless to say, all of these additions that were intended to help may have actually done more harm than good.  While they were meant to help, they ended up making the text itself harder to read and follow.  We took a book that was meant to be read and turned it into a reference book.

There were benefits to some of these decisions.  Chapter and verse numbers make it easy to reference information.  But, as Paauw points out, it also makes it so much easier to take verses out of context and make them say whatever we want.  I think of a boxer I heard about one time who had Philippians 4:13 emblazoned on his robe.  I’m relatively certain that when Paul wrote “I can do all things through him who strengthens me,” he didn’t have in mind knocking an opponent unconscious in a boxing match.  But without context, who’s to say?

In the book, Paauw calls for a return to actually reading the Bible.  Not just reading a verse or two every day or jumping around and reading various portions out of context, but to slow, determined, deep reading of the text itself.  Reading whole books at one time (or over only a few readings), reading books in order for flow (there is a definite plot to Genesis through Judges, for example), and remembering that we are reading a story that must hang together.  While Paauw is not the first or the only author to call for this kind of reading (I think of James Gray, for example, among many others), he does a great job of presenting an ideal type of Bible reading.

The main way Paauw does this is by calling for a return to seven aspects of Bible reading we need to recover: Elegance (in design), Feasting (reading large portions in order), History (remember the Bible was written for us, but not to us), Story-Turned-Drama (there is a narrative, and we are part of it), Creation (the Bible was written to show how God is working to redeem and restore all of His original creation), Community (the Bible is not merely a book we read by ourselves for independent life change; it is a book we read together to grow as a community called by God), and Beauty (paying attention to the flow and writing of the authors themselves). (Taken from p.213 and summarized from ideas throughout.)  There is no question that reading the Bible in this way would be revolutionary (and I don’t use that word all too often) for our growth and understanding of God’s plan and our place in it as His people.

Anyone who is familiar with N.T. Wright (especially) and Dallas Willard (in part) will sense certain similarities of ideas that they write about throughout this book.  That is really the only possible weakness I saw.  In an effort to restore a communal mindset to salvation, that it is not merely about individual salvation from sin and Hell, but that it is about creating a community of people who follow the Messiah and help inaugurate God’s plan of redemption for all of creation, I feel that Paauw occasionally overlooks the individual aspect that is there, as well.  To me, it is not either/or, but both/and.  It seems that authors tend to overemphasize one or the other.  To be fair, the individual aspect has been emphasized so much that we probably do need a correction the other way, but if we aren’t careful, the communal will be overemphasized to the opposite extreme over time.  We need both in tension.

There are parts of the book that people, such as myself, who have been raised in churches with a heavy emphasis on individual salvation from sin and its consequences will struggle through (but in a good way, I think).  For example, on pp. 138-139, Paauw gives an overview of Creation/Fall/Redemption/Restoration that is very standard.  I read it a few times while wondering what was wrong with it.  As I kept in mind Paauw’s overall argument, I started to see what he was getting at, but we are truly so taken by the common explanation that it is hard to see past it to anything else.  This issue does not detract from the main impact of the book, however, and the main idea is still a much-needed insight.

One of the Bible’s Paauw mentions as an elegant Bible is Biblica’s Books of the Bible edition of the NIV, as Paauw had a hand in its development.  I do have to say that Biblica had it right in redividing the text based on actual breaks in thought and intention, and while Crossway has been doing a lot in their “Reader’s” editions, I hope they may consider it in the next release of their 6-volume set.

Overall, if you are looking for a book to help you understand where we may have gone wrong in our Bible reading and what we can do to correct it, I highly recommend Saving the Bible from Ourselves.

*I edited the original review.  When I first wrote it, I mentioned the one-sided aspect of mentioning only the Biblica reader edition as being a negative.  Mr. Paauw very graciously explained in a comment on my Amazon review that he only mentioned that one as others, such as Crossway’s, had not been published at the time he wrote his manuscript.  I apologize for any confusion.

*Note: I received a complimentary copy of the book from InterVarsity Press in exchange for my honest review.

Book Review – “Fool’s Talk” by Os Guinness


As a lay apologist, I am always looking for good books on the topic.  I have heard Os Guinness speak more than I have read things by him, but I knew that I liked what I heard.  When I saw he released a book on apologetics, I immediately added it to my “to read” list.  Guinness’ book, called Fool’s Talk: Recovering the Art of Christian Persuasion, did not disappoint!

The first thing I want to point out is that the book is dense.  Not in a bad way, but it is certainly  not a quick read.  Guinness includes a lot to think about, and it is both deep and well rounded.  Honestly, I’m not sure I feel qualified to write a review after reading it only once, but I will have to read even slower the next time, so I am going to give it my best shot.

Fool’s Talk is an interesting addition to the apologetic genre.  It is not a book primarily filled with answers to tough questions, although there are some.  It is not primarily a book on methodology.  In fact, Guinness points out a few times throughout the book that he is no fan of scripted methodologies of apologetics or evangelism.  To Guinness, we should know the person we are talking to well enough to have a genuine conversation that is geared toward the needs of the hearer.  I suppose I could describe Guinness’ book as being a primer on why apologetics is necessary, with many reminders as to the ultimate goal: loving people enough to persuade them into God’s kingdom for their benefit.

Along those lines, then, Guinness’ book is also a crossover into evangelism. Again, nothing scripted.  Rather it is an encouragement that the reason for apologetics is not ultimately about “winning” an argument.  Instead, the goal is heart and life transformation of those we are reaching out to.

Guinness tackles various subjects such as why people fail to believe, how to “turn the tables” to expose the presuppositions (and the weakness of those presuppositions) of the hearer, how to trigger more of  desire for our hearers to know God, understanding that our lives must increasingly match our talk, and more.

I found myself wondering throughout the book whether Guinness would support more of an evidentialist-based approach or a presuppositionalist-based one.  Guinness ends up answering that question in the book, and I love his answer:

“One of the most futile arguments in contemporary apologetics is the debate between the so-called evidentialists and presuppositionalists. But what should be clear from this description of the journey toward faith is that the answer is not either-or, but both-and and which-when.  Both presuppositions and evidences are a key part of our apologetics approach, and the real question is which to focus on and when.” (p. 246)

Guinness then proceeds to explain how someone who is hardened to Christianity is in need of more presuppositional explanations, while someone who is open is in need of more evidentialist ones.  I think that he does a phenomenal job of bringing together something that is normally divided (and often harshly so).

Throughout, Guinness reminds us that the goal is love.  We love people.  We want them to know God. Therefore we must recover the art of Christian persuasion.  It is not about being smarter than others.  It is not about winning an argument; if all we do is win arguments, we may be winning small battles but ultimately losing the war for the hearts of people who need to know God in Christ.  It is about knowing the love of God and life in His kingdom and wanting others to know and experience the same.  That is the goal of Christian persuasion, and it is a much-needed reminder for those of us who delve into apologetics.

I truly believe every Christian needs to read this book.  It needs to be read slowly, thoughtfully, and prayerfully.  And then it needs to be implemented in our lives.  If we can lovingly recover the art of Christian persuasion, the Church will make great strides in leading people back to God’s loving kingdom.

*Note: I received a complimentary copy of this book from InterVarsity Press in exchange for my honest review.