Book Review: Who Is This Man?

Book Review: "Who Is This Man? The Unpredictable Impact of the Inescapable Jesus," Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2012. 219 pages.

When you have such notables as Max Lucado, Patrick Lencioni, N.T. Wright, Phillip Yancey and Dallas Willard writing testimonials and Condeleeza Rice providing the foreword, you know you're in for a treat! I may have found another new favorite book. Leave it to John Ortberg to hit it out of the park.

I grabbed this book when I heard John mention it at this year's Leadership Summit. I was intrigued by the question that is implied by this book: what would this world look like without Jesus? What difference did He really make? As Ortberg shares, our world would be barely recognizable without his influence.

Jesus is the ultimate paradox. Born in obscurity to an oppressed people, never traveling more than 200 miles from his home, rejecting the normal avenues to power, limiting his public ministry to only three years, being struck down in his prime: none of these hint of a world-changer. Yet, as historian H.G. Wells wrote, "The historian's test of an individual's greatness is 'What did he leave to grow?' Did he start men thinking along fresh lines with a vigor that persisted after him? By this test Jesus stands first."

Ortberg shares a myriad number of ways that Jesus has impacted our world for the better - many of which would surprise our secular world which has lately been studiously trying to erase any vestige of him. The rise of Western Civilization is largely due to the principles taught by Jesus in his public ministry. We can begin with the promotion of human dignity which changed the way that society treated women and children.

While some cultures may have valued women and children, it was Jesus' followers who spread those values to the world. Before Christ, in the world  ruled by Rome, women were viewed as chattel, children were often abandoned to die if they were born weak or the wrong gender (read female). Jesus accepted women as disciples, and the church which he established became the first egalitarian organization on earth, according to historian Thomas Cahill. All were welcomed and valued. Abandoned children were adopted by Christians because Jesus had taught them that each of them were created in God's image and were loved by Him. It was Christ-followers who established the first orphanages.

Mother Teresa

When plagues struck cities, the healthy would leave the sick to fend for themselves. It was Jesus' followers who would go and care for them, nursing them back to health and caring for them until their death. They cared because Jesus taught that caring for the hurting was a reflection of loving him. They established the first hospitals that even cared for the poor and they advanced the medical profession. Christ-followers like Florence Nightingale and Mother Teresa, in turn, left their imprint on society.

Because Jesus valued children, Christians began to teach them - all of them. Education was restricted in Roman culture to children of the wealthy and privileged. Christians taught children of the poor and slaves alike, wanting to help them to serve God with their minds as well. Philosopher Mark Nelson writes, "If you ask what is Jesus' influence on medicine and compassion, I would suggest that wherever you have an institution  of self-giving for the lonely (and for practical welfare of the lonely), schools, hospitals, hospices, orphanages for those who will never be able to repay, this probably has its roots in the movement of Jesus."

The first universities found their impetus in the monasteries. Christ-followers devoted their lives to study - not just of Christian works, but of the classics and pagan works as well. In fact, after the sacking of Rome, it was these Christian communities, particularly in Ireland, that preserved the great works of ancient literature for future generations. Christ-followers established the first universities, like Oxford in the 13th century, whose motto is taken from Psalm 27:1 - "The Lord is my light." The Sunday School movement was largely responsible for the foundation of the first public schools. The first law to require mass universal education was also enacted by Christ-followers - the same ones who founded Harvard and Yale and William and Mary and Princeton, etc...

It was Christian missionaries who found languages that had not been committed to writing and who devoted their lives to doing so. They compiled the first dictionaries, wrote the first grammars and developed the first alphabets. It was Methodist missionary, Frank Laubach who was called "the Apostle to the Illiterates. He traveled to more than a hundred countries and his organization developed primers in 313 languages.

Contrary to popular thought today, Christianity was largely responsible for the development of modern science. As Alfred North Whitehead, one of the dominant thinkers of the twentieth century asked, "What is it that made it possible for science to emerge in the human race? It's the medieval insistence on the rationality of God." The vast majority of the pioneers of science were believers in Christ, men like William of Ockham, Francis Bacon, Galileo, Copernicus, Blaise Pascal, Joseph Priestley, Louis Pasteur, Isaac Newton, etc...

The book also deals with Jesus' influence on government and the arts, technology, architecture, marriage and the family and so much more. As Yale historian Jaroslav Pelikan wrote, "Regardless of what anyone may personally think or believe about him, Jesus of Nazareth has been the dominant figure in the history of Western Culture for almost twenty centuries. If it were possible, with some sort of super magnet, to pull up out of the history every scrap of metal bearing at least a trace of his name, how much would be left?" How much, indeed.

Whether you are a skeptic or a Christ-follower, I recommend you read this book. It will change your thinking of this man called Jesus, the one I am so blessed to call my Saviour.

Related Articles:
Book Review: I Am A Follower
Made For Relationship
The Power of the Mind
Book Review: "Why Jesus?"
What Is A Christ-follower?


   

A Picnic - Or A Pilgrimage?

A friend of mine posted this quote below on his Facebook page. I liked it so much that I decided to use it as a springboard to a new post. I tracked it down to its source, and it's from an article that Eyvonne wrote in her blog called: "Real Faith in a Hard World."  

"Christians act as if we have the right to live in a society where our 'Christian' sensibilities are never offended. We want the world to be beautified, anesthetized, and purified before we step foot into it. Instead of facing the ugliness we see and sharing the best news of humankind, we create impenetrable fortresses for ourselves where the dark cannot get in and the light cannot escape. We don’t realize how bad life really is for many because we’ve insulated ourselves from it. If Jesus acted like many of us, He would have stayed in heaven." - Eyvonne Sharp

The article in question is about a decision by "Lifeway" books to stop selling the movie "The Blind Side" in its stores due to “explicit profanity, the use of God’s name in vain, and racial slurs.” It's a very balanced article that expresses the sentiments of a great many people, if the comments section is any indication. The quote above, by itself, struck me enough to make me want to comment.

I grew up with a "fortress mentality," being told that it's a big scary world out there and we needed to do everything we could to avoid it. This was well-meaning, and partly true. There are, and always will be, things that we need to stay away from in culture. There are also things we need to stand up to and confront. But, I think more than anything else, there are things we need to understand, and people we need to love. It was Billy Graham who wrote, "Jesus didn't call us to a picnic, but to a pilgrimage."

When the early church began, it was in the context of a hostile environment. Jesus had been crucified just forty days before in the same city where Peter stood and boldly proclaimed the Gospel. It wasn't long until persecution broke out and the church was spread out throughout the Roman Empire - which was also hostile. In fact, a cursory glance at history will reveal that the Church has had to learn to thrive in cultures where they didn't call the shots, and was often healthier.

 There are a whole lot of subjects rolled up in this, but the main point I want to make is this: we are responsible to reflect the love of Christ regardless of the context within which we find ourselves. This speaks of Jesus' call to be "in the world but not of the world (A paraphrase)." How did they live this? In a time when infanticide was common in Rome and babies would be left beside open sewers to die, Christians would rescue them and raise them as their own. When disease spread through cities and the healthy would leave town, it was the Christians who stayed to care for the sick and dying, risking their own lives in the process.

It was the church's unconditional love for the people around them that was the "salt and light" that transformed society from the inside out. They demonstrated a better way with their lives, often laying down their lives in the process. Much of what is good in Western society is a result of Christians assessing and engaging the culture with love, attempting to live out Jesus' prayer, "Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven." Much of Christendom has either forgotten how to do this or simply stopped trying.

It's past time to stop with the angry protests and pick up a servant's towel. The old saying is true: "People don't care how much you know, until they know how much you care." Thanks for the reminder, Eyvonne. If you are called by the name of Christ, go out there, find a hurt, and heal it in Jesus' name. Do something to enhance God's reputation in the world. Lord knows there are enough people tearing it down.

Related Articles:  

What's Wrong With the Church? 

Book Review: The Last Christian On Earth 

What Is a Christ-follower? 

Straight Talk For Tough Times 

Follow Me!

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

Who Was St. Patrick?

When most people think of St. Patrick's Day they think of wearing green, Ireland and green beer. But who was this St. Patrick and why do we celebrate a day in his honour?

It surprises a lot of people to discover that Patrick wasn't even Irish. He was born in Roman-occupied Britain in 390 AD. When he was 16 he was captured by Irish raiders and taken to Ireland, where he was sold to an Irish king who put him to work as a shepherd.

In his loneliness he looked for comfort in the Christianity he'd heard about growing up. His solitude gave him time to focus on the relationship with the God he'd never had time for. In his book Confessions, Patrick said he heard God telling him "Your hungers are rewarded. You are going home. Look—your ship is ready." Risking everything, he walked 200 miles to the coast and boarded a waiting ship for home.

In Britain, he studied and became a minister, and eventually a Bishop. Thirty years later he returned to Ireland as a missionary, understanding the challenge he faced. The Irish of the time were barbarians - human sacrifice was common and they hung heads of victims as trophies from their belts.

Patrick was undaunted and eventually saw the entire country converted. In so doing, he may also have saved the future of the Western world. James Cavill writes in How the Irish Saved Western Civilization, that it was the newly converted Irish who preserved the important writings of history after Rome fell to the barbarians in AD 406.

A wave of missionary monks left Ireland for the European mainland and spread the Judeo-Christian values which provided the framework for the society we, in the West, know today. So the next time you think of St. Patrick - be thankful, he's more than just a good excuse to get drunk. Happy St. Patrick's Day!

 

Related Articles:

Apostle to the Irish: The Real Saint Patrick

What Is a Christ-follower?

"Truth" - by Ravi Zacharias

The Truth About Easter

The Great Paradox

"Gendercide" - A Deeper Look

I just read a very disturbing article by, Allison Pearson, a British journalist writing for The Telegraph. The article was following up on the same subject I posted about yesterday - the fact that girls are being aborted now in the U.K. simply based on their sex.

The article is disturbing enough based upon the fundamental facts discussed - sex-selection abortions. What was also disturbing to me was the line of reasoning followed by the writer, who can't seem to follow a logical argument. She rightly criticized this practice of killing girl foetuses because it was against the law. She called the practice "Unbelievable. Horrifying." I couldn't agree more.

But this is where Allison and I part company. She went on to declare that she was in favour of abortion in general, based apparently on the "kind of life" some of these babies would have if carried to term. She goes on to rail against those women who use abortion as a form of contraception, giving examples of many who have had multiple abortions. She also quotes this alarming stat: "Over the past 40 years, there has been a 3,700 per cent increase in abortions." (Emphasis mine)

Here's a shocker, the medical director of the largest abortion provider in the U.K. shared this statement: "I’ve had a consultant colleague in the north of England who expressed a view – that consultant was from an ethnic minority –… he didn’t think [gender selection] was ethically wrong because he thought that the cultural reason why some communities may prefer to have four male babies is as good a reason as the, if you like, Anglo-Saxon cultural view of: 'Well I’m pregnant, I just don’t want it anyway’.”


The problem with this statement by the "ethnic minority" consultant was that he's absolutely right. We in the West have lost the moral ground to defend the life of a baby girl in the womb. It brings Psalm 11:3 to mind,
"When the foundations are being destroyed, what can the righteous do?” What indeed?

Allison makes reference to the "slippery slope" that Western Civilization has been on but doesn't seem to recognize the fundamental issues involved. A history lesson is necessary here.

Our basic principles in the West have been based upon a Christian consensus. This is true of the U.K., most of Europe, Canada, and particularly the U.S. There was a common framework and worldview upon which to establish the role of government and even the laws by which we are governed.   

Delegates to the Charlottetown Conference

This worldview accepted the fact that there is a Creator God who is sovereign and who has established boundaries within which mankind should function in a civilized society. In Canada, our founding fathers looked to Psalm 72:8 to paint a picture of the future of the nation. Today the following words hang in the corridor near the Confederation Chamber in Province House: ‘In the hearts of the delegates who assembled in this room on September 1, 1864, was born the Dominion of Canada.  Providence being their guide, they builded better than they knew.’” 

The Us. Declaration of Independence presented, within it's preamble, the foundation for the decisions of future generations: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." It was God who provided life - an inalienable right!

Over the past 50 years or so we have seen a rapid change in how we view government and its role and how we view ourselves and our rights. We have focused on individual rights versus the common good. We have "created" rights never intended by our forefathers, which have promoted selfishness and the breakdown of the family - the building block of a civilized society. We have denied that there is a role for God in culture and have therefore removed the very ground under our feet.

The result of our folly is the kind of faulty reasoning that Allison Pearson is using that says, in effect, "It's okay to kill babies in the womb, as long as you're not killing them just because they're girls." It also leaves us in the position of having to explain to those in India and China why it's wrong for them to kill their baby girls because they're girls, but it's okay for us to kill our girls or boys because it's inconvenient for us to raise children right now.

Face it, Allison, you have nowhere to stand. It's simply your opinion against theirs.

Why is sex-selection abortion wrong? It's wrong because that is a living child that is being killed, and that child has a God-given right to life. It's the same reason that abortion is wrong - period. If you deny that there is a God-given right to anything, prepare to lose your own rights, because they have no sustaining force other than the changing opinions of men.

We took the top off the bottle a long time ago and the genie doesn't want to return. This moral relativism we have been left with has given rise to organizations like NAMBLA, lobbying for the right to have sex with minors. What is our moral ground to refuse them? What about polygamy? Why can't a man have as many wives as he can support? And while we're at it, our health care system is under strain, wouldn't euthenasia take a lot of pressure off by doing away with the sick and frail? According to recent stats, 90% of all pregnancies of Down Syndrome children in the U.S. end in abortion. What if we end the lives of all children with a high likelihood of abnormality, even after they are born? After all, who are you to tell me that I should have to raise a child that I fathered? Isn't that my business, not yours?

It's a scary world when we remove an objective moral standard from the table. It was T.S. Eliot who said, "If you will not have God (and He is a jealous God) you should pay your respects to Hitler or Stalin." What he was saying was that in the absence of a moral consensus, it is simply survival of the fittest, and strong men rise to rule with an iron fist.

As Dostoevsky so eloquently put it: "If God is dead, then all things are possible!" Victims Against Crime, a South African organization, states that. "At least 180 million people have been killed by secular governments in the 20th Century. And that is a very conservative estimate. We are not here talking about people who have died in wars caused by secular humanist states, because that would massively increase the body count. No, over 180 million people have been killed by their own secular humanist governments in the 20th Century... More people were killed by their own governments in peace time than were killed by foreign invaders in war time."


We rightly condemned Hitler for his barbarism during World War II, in his attempted annihilation of the Jews and others, but on what basis? Was Stalin wrong to kill millions of his own people during his reign of terror? What about communist China and their strict one child policy? This has resulted in millions of cases of infanticide, little girls murdered at birth. Of course these are wrong - all of them. They are wrong because they violate God's law.

We, all of us, have been created in the image of God. Every human being has rights that have been endowed by God, rights which no-one else has the right to violate. If we do not grasp this fundamental truth, we will continue down this road which leads to the victimization of the weak and the vulnerable.

Yes, it is wrong to kill our unborn baby girls. But please, Allison, understand this. It's wrong to kill the boys too.

Related Articles: 

Words of Death: "It's A Girl!"   

Why the abortion issue won't go away

Christianity & Science

Worldview - an introduction.

The Manhattan Declaration
Following Up - The Latest News