Book Reviews From Outside the Compound

[Away-From-The-Umbrella]

My former pastor and many on his staff hawk their books on Amazon. IMHO, they think they owe it to the rest of Christianity to share their <strike>crazy, biblically incoherent </strike> ideas, and like making a few extra bucks while doing so.

Most reviews are glowing (of course) and seem to come from friends and church members.

But every now and then, someone from outside the IFBx compound buys one of their books and posts a negative review. Some of these "views from the outside" are hilarious and quite thoughtful.

My favorite quote: " this book seems to be a parody of certain corners of Fundamentalist Christianity."

Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha!

The review:

This review is from: The Saviour Sensitive Church:Understanding and Avoiding Post-Modernism and the Seeker-Sensitive Church Movement (Hardcover)

This book is divided into three sections. In the first, John Goetsch addresses postmodernism. In the second and third, Paul Chappell addresses the seeker-sensitive mentality.

THE UPS

First, Paul Chappell has a pattern of trying to address things from a positive angle. For instance, where an old-school Fundamentalist might have titled the book "The Seeker Sensitive Church (What's Wrong with it)," Chappell tries to describe the positive, biblical approach and rebuke more as a function of contrast. I think the attempt is admirable.

Second, the issues addressed in the subtitle do need to be addressed. This book attempts to do so.

THE DOWNS

First, this book seems to be a parody of certain corners of Fundamentalist Christianity. Chapter one introduces anti-intellectualism, philosophical illiteracy, logical fallacy, ethnocentricity, and over-simplification. The following chapters demonstrate a pile of additional problems: shallowness, name-dropping, logical incoherence, rants on pet issues (the KJV, CCM, "the movies," etc.), and of course the frog in the kettle illustration is thrown in to complete the cliché. It's simply not reasonable to make arguments in this way and expect them to be taken seriously.

Second, the first section by Goetsch resembles a ritual burning of a caricature of postmodernism. Goetsch seems to flatly equate postmodernism and moral relativism, placing their emergence in the hippie culture of the United States in the 1960s (p. 5). He even admits to discovering the existence of postmodernism sometime around the turn of the millennium (pp. 3-4). Arguing that postmodernism developed from the "do your own thing" mentality of the American '60s into a "think your own thing" moral relativity--as Goetsch does on page five--is to mistake the result for the cause and the cause for the result. It is also historically inaccurate on a number of levels. His handling of postmodernism doesn't improve in the following chapters which are riddled with instances of logical fallacy leading to an almost incoherent mishmash of truth and error.

Third, the book's handling of Scripture is deeply unfortunate. Goetsch cites 2 Timothy 4:1-5 repeatedly but makes almost no connection between it and what he says. That this book was developed from a series of sermons makes this point more concerning. Chappell, on the other hand, devotes the bulk of his sections to Scriptural exposition, attempting to draw his points from the text of Scripture. Unfortunately, his handling of Scripture is too often dubious. For instance, he characterises the Laodicean church based largely on the etymology of the name Laodicea. This raises the question as to whether the city of Laodicea was named after the character of the church that assembled there at one point in its history or whether the church was named after the town. Other instances could be given.

Fourth, there are multiple instances of misrepresentation in the book which border on blatant dishonesty (e.g. the characterisation of the New Evangelicals on p. 38).

CONCLUSION

The topics of the book are important topics that need to be addressed. Unfortunately, this book is so deeply mired in a particular Christian ghetto that it is hardly even coherent to Christianity in the mainstream. A disappointing read.

[Away-From-The-Umbrella]

Here is another review:

his review is from: Leaders Who Make a Difference: Leadership Lessons from Three Great Bible Leaders (Paperback)

I got this book expecting to read about something good-hearted and instead it is written like a piece of propaganda. If you are a baptist religiously, you may not be offended. But if you are of another denomination, it is written in a way that explains that you are wrong for being that way. Honestly, it is like listening to a snob tell you how great he is.

[Away-From-The-Umbrella]

Contradictions are being pointed out! Gasp!!!



This review is from: Discerning Alcohol: What Does the Bible Say about Drinking? (Paperback)

This book reads more like a sermon that grew into a booklet than an honest attempt at presenting well-researched evidence of how wine is represented in the Bible. "I believe" is all Chappell needs to support his claims, as he offers no sources for his facts and no reasoning for his conclusions. He also makes copious use of Misleading Vividness (a logical fallacy) by presenting a number of tragic news events or anecdotes, all of which involve alcohol, and subtly suggesting, against statistical evidence, that a similar fate awaits anyone who consumes alcohol.

Chappell does make some valid points as to the fact that drunkenness is uniformly condemned throughout the Bible, and that leaders are exhorted to stay away from alcohol. However, he ignores the fact that wine in the Bible is not only presented in a negative light, but also as a sign of abundance, blessing and merriment. Additionally, some of his other ideas are presented in such an awkward and careless manner that they end up either making little sense or contradicting one another. For example, in page 26, Chappell goes through the following sequence in relation to leaders and alcohol: A) He states that wine in the Bible is not alcoholic: "In ancient times, wine (as we would call it) was mixed with water in an eight-to-one mixture for purification purposes. The Bible word wine does not have the same connotation as alcoholic beverages. When water purification was a problem, people would add crushed composites of a grape-type syrup called wine for the purpose of purifying the water from parasites. When the Bible refers to wine, it is not speaking of an intoxicating beverage at all; it is speaking of treated water." B) In reference to spiritual leaders he cites 1 Timothy 3:3: "Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous." C) Chappell concludes "This verse makes it clear that God's desire is that Christian leaders abstain from alcohol and live radically different lives from the world." However, if statement A is true, then the wine in statement B is treated water, therefore statement C is false, as the verse would not refer to alcohol at all. But, if Chappell's conclusion C is true, then the wine in statement B must be alcoholic, therefore statement A must be false. At no time can all three propositions be true, or at least not in the manner in which Chappell presents his thoughts. Similar logic is offered in page 41 when Chappell explains that Jesus, in John 2, did not turn water into wine, but into a "safe, purified, and refreshing beverage that was non-alcoholic." Given that the Bible usage of the word wine is the same for the wine consumed at the wedding at Cana and the wine made by Jesus there, one is left to conclude that the guests at the wedding have become drunk on purified water.

It could be argued that Chappell, by failing to cite evidence for his claims or by purposefully being vague, manipulates the facts to advance his unstated abstentionist view. For example, it is a historical fact that wine in the Old Testament was not mixed with water. While it is the case that wine in New Testament times was indeed watered down, by simply stating "in ancient times wine was mixed with water," Chappell leads the reader to conclude that the ancient times include Old Testament times as well, and that all wine in the Bible was watered down. The ratio of the mixture (8:1) is suspect as well, as most serious scholars would place it closer to 3:1 or 4:1. References to Hebrew and Greek words for wine are vague and the reader is lead to believe that all Bible usage of the word wine is non-alcoholic.

I do not recommend this book and would suggest to anyone looking for a serious research tool on this subject to look elsewhere.

[Away-From-The-Umbrella]

This was a review of a book written by John Goetsch, who is a VP of West Coast Baptist College. If anyone would know how to research and document a book - it would be a high-ranking college admin...Right? I mean, he IS a doctor after all...

This review is from: Contemporary Compromise: Standing for Truth in an Age of Deception (Hardcover)

I unfortunately forked out $20 on this book because I liked the topic. I personally thought this book would be kinda like John MacArthur's the Truth War, instead found a book that has been poorly written, and very narrow minded. I have not yet finished the book, so why I give it 2 stars. The author makes poor arguments to defend his opinions, quotes full scripture verses on virtually every page (which is a great way to take up space) but a poor way to do exegesis, and write an academic work. The author makes a big deal of minor issues such as Bible translations, and church music. The sad thing is, that he does not make very good arguments for his views. Everything to him seems to be written around his opinion, which he does very little to defend with rational argumentation. On his evangelism examples he also places too large of an emphasis on the preacher and the Bible translation, rather than the power of God unto salvation. The Bible is quite clear that God calls man, and man chooses to respond. Free Will is all over the Bible, as well as God's gracious election. Salvation is both a choice by man, but a calling by God and power of the Holy Spirit.

For a in-depth view on this subject I'd recommend John MacArthur's The Truth War Instead.

[Papa Bear]

Sounds like typical Fundy argumentation. The good thing is, when they try it in public, someone usually calls them on it. Then they circle the wagons. I don't know which is better, that they cut off this avenue of self-promotion to avoid ridicule, or that, when made public, their own words warn people away.

[phil]

With Goetsch on post-modernism: How could you even talk about that kind of thing and not do any research on when it started?

[Away-From-The-Umbrella]

(07-14-2012 03:57 PM)phil Wrote:  With Goetsch on post-modernism: How could you even talk about that kind of thing and not do any research on when it started?

A college VP!!!

Shouldn't someone in that career position be setting a high standard for such works?

smh

[Tiarali]

Why bother going to all that hard work, when it's so much easier to train those within fundy land to simply never question you?

[captain_solo]

(07-14-2012 02:10 AM)Away-From-The-Umbrella Wrote:  This was a review of a book written by John Goetsch, who is a VP of West Coast Baptist Bible College. If anyone would know how to research and document a book - it would be a high-ranking college admin...Right? I mean, he IS a doctor after all...

This review is from: Contemporary Compromise: Standing for Truth in an Age of Deception (Hardcover)

I unfortunately forked out $20 on this book because I liked the topic. I personally thought this book would be kinda like John MacArthur's the Truth War, instead found a book that has been poorly written, and very narrow minded. I have not yet finished the book, so why I give it 2 stars. The author makes poor arguments to defend his opinions, quotes full scripture verses on virtually every page (which is a great way to take up space) but a poor way to do exegesis, and write an academic work. The author makes a big deal of minor issues such as Bible translations, and church music. The sad thing is, that he does not make very good arguments for his views. Everything to him seems to be written around his opinion, which he does very little to defend with rational argumentation. On his evangelism examples he also places too large of an emphasis on the preacher and the Bible translation, rather than the power of God unto salvation. The Bible is quite clear that God calls man, and man chooses to respond. Free Will is all over the Bible, as well as God's gracious election. Salvation is both a choice by man, but a calling by God and power of the Holy Spirit.

For a in-depth view on this subject I'd recommend John MacArthur's The Truth War Instead.

Yeah, Random Verse Crapping - its how he preaches too, I used to think it was cool.