Archive for the ‘Book Reviews’ Category
Review of “Did Muhammad Exist: An Inquiry into Islam’s Obscure Origins” by Robert Spencer
Was Islam “born in the full light of history,” as Ernest Renan claimed? Or is its origin “covered” in the “mystery” that Renan believed shrouded all other religions? Robert Spencer argues for “Islam’s obscure origins” in his new book, Did Muhammad Exist?
The “canonical story” of Islam’s origins, accepted by all Muslims and (arguably) most non-Muslim scholars begins with the birth of Muhammad in 570 C.E. in Mecca, a hub in the trade routes from east to west. In 610, Muhammad began to receive monotheistic revelations through the angel Gabriel that he preached to Mecca’s polytheists. In 622, because of the polytheists’ opposition, he and his followers made hijra, or emigrated from Mecca to Medina, where he established the model Muslim community. In 630, he and his followers captured Mecca peacefully and destroyed its idols, establishing Islam as the religion of Arabia. In 632, Muhammad died. United in faith and led by the four “rightly guided Caliphs,” the Arabs rode forth from Arabia, conquering Syria, Armenia, Egypt, North Africa, and Cyprus, laying siege to Constantinople, and pressing into modern-day Pakistan and India—all within decades of the Muhammad’s death. The Qur’an is the record of the revelations Muhammad received, and the ahadith (singular, hadith) are the recorded memories of his authentic words and deeds.
The “revisionist scenario” that Spencer outlines argues that “the Muhammad of Islamic tradition did not exist, or if he did, he was substantially different from how that tradition portrays him.” Rather, Islam arose from the political needs of the Arab conquerors. “The realm of political theology, then, offers the most plausible explanation for the creation of Islam, Muhammad, and the Qur’an.” The Arab conquerors practiced an “Abrahamic monotheism” in their early years, one that was friendly to Christians especially. Indeed, Spencer argues that the Qur’an betrays the influence of a heretical (because nontrinitarian) form of Syriac-speaking Christianity. During the late Umayyad and early Abbasid caliphates, however, the figure of Muhammad began to rise to prominence, the form of the Qur’an solidified, and ahadith about Muhammad proliferated. The Arab empire needed an Arab religion, and Muhammad fit the bill.
Obviously, this revisionist scenario is devastating to Islam if true and potentially blasphemous if false, at least to Muslims. What evidence does Spencer provide in favor of it? Two kinds: silence and contradiction.
Spencer argues that the earliest biography of Muhammad appears more than a century after his death. Early accounts by the conquered people don’t mention “Islam,” “Muhammad,” or “Qur’an,” instead referring to Muslims (whom they never call “Muslims”) as “Ishmaelites,” “Saracens,” “Muhajirun,” and “Hagarians” (i.e., descendants of Hagar). Numismatic and inscriptional evidence don’t mention Islam or the Qur’an. These silences are telling, Spencer argues. They are contrary to what would be expected if Muhammad, his revelations, and his words and deeds lay at the foundation of the Arab conquests.
Then there are the contradictions. Some coins and at least one building from early in the Arab conquest include a cross, which contradicts later orthodox Muslim denials of Jesus’ crucifixion. The canonical story argues that the Qur’an was collected in the 650s under the caliph Uthman, but conquered peoples never mention it until the 8th century. Moreover, in the 690s, the claim was made that it was collected during the caliphate of Abd al-Malik. Explicit references to “Islam” and “Muhammad” began to proliferate in the 690s, and ahadith began to proliferate in the mid-700s. So many ahadith were generated, in fact, that even Muslim scholars distinguish between authentic and spurious ones. Muhammad was a Meccan, but Mecca was never a center for trade and pilgrimage. And portions of the Qur’an betray the influence of a heretical Syriac-speaking Christian group.
What, then, to make of Did Muhammad Exist? Arguments from silence are tricky. The absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. And they presume that our literary and archaeological records are complete enough to know what should be but is not present. Furthermore, the contradictions themselves are judgment calls. For example, a Syriac background to the Qur’an is possible—all things are possible!—but no Muslim scholar and few scholars of Islam find it convincing. Between the tricky logic of arguments from silence and the scholarly disputes that surround some of the contradiction arguments, the safest conclusion to draw is that Spencer has drawn attention to problems in the canonical story of Islam’s origins, without providing a more convincing alternative, however. In other words, Islam was born in the light of history, but not the full light. There were shadows too.
P.S. If you found my review helpful, please vote “Yes” on my Amazon.com review page.
Review of Destined to Reign by Joseph Prince
If you combine a Word of Faith understanding of biblical promises with a Dispensationalist understanding of grace, the result is Destined to Reign by Joseph Prince, a book about “being radically transformed by His grace and His grace alone” (p. ix).
The Word of Faith understanding of biblical promises is evident on page 1: “You are destined to reign in life,” Prince writes, by which it becomes clear he means this life. “You are called by the Lord to be a success, to enjoy wealth, to enjoy health, and to enjoy a life of victory. It is not the Lord’s desire that you live a life of defeat, poverty, and failure. He has called you to be the head and not the tail.”
How do we experience this “life of victory”? Through grace. “Many believers are defeated today because they are struggling to qualify themselves for God’s blessing by their own works. Self-effort will rob you of reigning in life by His grace. You cannot earn your salvation, your healing, or your financial breakthrough by your own efforts. If the greatest miracle—being saved from hell—comes by grace through faith, and not by your works, how much more the lesser miracles, such as healing, prosperity, and restored marriages” (p. 10).
Why do I think Prince’s understanding of grace is Dispensationalist? Because his approach is hyper-Pauline and because he emphasizes “rightly dividing” the Bible into a rigid before-and-after scenario of “law” vs. “grace.”
Regarding hyper-Paulinism, Prince writes: “The best way to understand the gospel, therefore, is not to base it on what you have heard from various sources, but to go back to what the apostles preached in the early church. Let’s examine what Apostle Paul, the apostle of the new covenant, preached. After all, Paul was the apostle whom God appointed to preach the gospel of grace. He received more revelation on the new covenant of grace than all the other apostles put together, and he was responsible for writing more than two-thirds of the New Testament” (pp. 73, 74).
Regarding “rightly dividing,” Prince writes: “There is a lot of confusion and wrong believing in the church today because many Christians read their Bibles without rightly dividing the old and new covenants. They don’t realize that even some of the words which Jesus spoke in the four gospels [sic] (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) are part of the old covenant. They were spoken before the cross as He had not yet died. The new covenant begins only after the cross, when the Holy Spirit was given on the Day of Pentecost” (p. 92, emphasis in original).
This emphasis on grace vs. law leads Prince to contrast faith and works, which are understood as self-effort: “My friend, I have good news for you today: Faith is not a struggle. The hearing of faith and the works of the law are total opposites. And since the law is about our self-efforts, there is no self-effort in faith” (p. 271, emphasis added). That is why the subtitle of the book is “The Secret to Effortless Success, Wholeness and Victorious Living” (emphasis added).
In other words, we might say that not only does Prince believe in justification by grace through faith, but also in sanctification by grace through faith. “It is clear that if a person lacks good Christian qualities like self-control, godliness, and brotherly kindness, it is not because he lacks discipline, but because he has forgotten the main clause of the new covenant. He has forgotten that the blood of Jesus has purchased for him the forgiveness of all his sins. Beloved, if you remind yourself daily that you have been cleansed from all your sins, you will exhibit more and more of these Christian qualities. Your heart will overflow with self-control, godliness, perseverance, brotherly kindness, and love” (p. 103).
Critiquing Destined to Reign is a tricky proposition because a few diamonds of genuine biblical insight about grace are mixed in with lots of cubic zirconia of nonsense, but let me try.
First, Prince’s Word of Faith understanding of biblical promises is unbiblical. Yes, the new covenant promises believers forgiveness, resurrection, prosperity, and a kingly role. But how those promises are realized in this present life is complicated. Sins are forgiven, but believers still experience death, financial frustration, and powerlessness. The biblical explanation for these experiences is that we will not experience the promises in fullness until the age to come. The Word of Faith understanding of biblical promises is thus an example of over-realized eschatology.
Second, Prince’s explanation for these negative experiences is that we are laboring under self-condemnation. He writes, “the deepest root is condemnation” (p. 131). And, “There are many believers who are suffering from sicknesses and diseases because of guilt. Whether or not there is any real basis for their guilt and condemnation, the guilt and condemnation are still destructive. That is why the gospel is so powerful. It is the good news of God’s grace and forgiveness that frees the believer from every sense of feeling dirty or condemned and gives him the power to break free from the vicious circle of condemnation and sin” (p. 290).
I find this explanation for (at least some) people’s sickness odd. Elsewhere, Prince rights: “By the way, a believer should never feel guilty for being sick. We have to be careful not to create a culture in the church where people think that you will never be attacked by symptoms of sickness if you are walking with God. Having a sickness or disease does not mean that you have sinned or that God is teaching you a lesson. It just means that your healing is on its way!” (p. 162). I agree. But if we’re going to decouple sickness from sin or chastisement, why not decouple it from self-condemnation too? Perhaps sickness has less to do with spirituality and more to do with physical conditions like bad diet, no exercise, and stress or with germs, viruses, infections, and congenital defects.
Third, Prince’s hyper-Paulinism doesn’t get Paul right. Paul is not against works or self-effort per se, he is against their being used as the ground of justification. Paul’s vision of sanctification is not “effortless,” in other words. Thus, for example, in Ephesians 4:17–32, Paul exhorts the Ephesians to “put off your old self,” “be made new in the attitude of your minds,” and “put on the new self.” This requires effort. It may even require hard work.
But the motivation for this effort is not the hope of gaining God’s favor. God’s favor has already been bestowed. That is, as it were, the diamond of insight in Prince’s book. Whatever work the Christian performs is motivated precisely by the knowledge that one already has God’s favor. Work, then, is not the ground of justification. Rather, work—the work of holiness—is the expression of having been justified.
Fourth, the same logic applies to confession. Prince can only see the practice of ongoing confession of sins as an attempt to gain God’s favor. So, in regard to 1 John 1:9, he writes:
For us believers, the moment we received Jesus, all our sins were forgiven. We are not to live from confession to confession, but from faith to faith in Jesus Christ and His finished work. You see, there are no two ways about it. If you believe that you have confess your sins to be forgiven, then make sure that you confess everything! Make sure that you don’t just confess the “big sins” (“big” in your own estimation). Make sure that you also confess your sins every time you are worried, fearful, or in doubt. The Bible says that ‘whatsoever is not of faith is sin.’ So don’t just confess what is convenient for you. Make sure that you confess everything.
If you really believe that you need to confess all your sins to be forgiven, do you know what you would be doing? You would be confessing your sins ALL THE TIME! How then can you have courage before God? How can you enjoy liberty as a child of God? I tried it and it is impossible! (pp. 106, 107).
Well, yes, if you think your confession of sins is the reason God forgives you, you’ll be anxious and enslaved. On the other hand, if you think God’s faithfulness and righteousness is the ground of your forgiveness, you’ll confess your sins freely and joyfully. The question, then, is not whether we confess our sins, but for what reason and with what motivation. Because Prince misunderstands the reason and motivation for confession, he comes close to doing away with the entire practice.
Two subsidiary points need to be made here: (1) Prince is simply wrong that 1 John 1:9 was written to Gnostics, not Christians (p. 106). The only letter is addressed to Christians. (2) Jesus himself taught us to pray, “Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors” (Matt. 6:12). Though Prince does not set this verse aside explicitly, others who make the type of argument he makes about ongoing confession—I’m thinking of Bob George, for example—say that Jesus’ instruction came “before the Cross” and is thus not binding on the Christian. And thus does hyper-Paulinism exalt the apostle over the Sender, the servant above the Master! It takes some hair to set aside Jesus’ teaching on the basis of Paul, especially when you’ve misinterpreted Paul.
Fifth, another way Prince goes wrong is in his entirely negative view of the Law. For him, it has only a negative purpose. “God gave the law for one purpose, and that is by the law, the world would the knowledge of sin, and recognize their need for a Savior. Without the law, there would be no sin” (p. 16). And, “Let me give you a practical tip on how you can grow in this revelation of ‘no condemnation’: Learn to see the Ten Commandments (the law of God) and condemnation as the same thing. Whenever you read or think about the law, think ‘condemnation’” (p. 151).
Is the Law really entirely negative? In reality, the Law has at least three purposes. First, it reveals God’s righteousness. If, as Paul rights, “the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good” (Rom. 7:12), it is only so because God is holy, righteous, and good. Second, because the law reflects God’s character, it reveals our sin. It is in this sense that the law condemns. But third, the law, reflecting God’s character and revealing our sin, guides our actions. The Israelites to whom God gave the Law viewed it as a blessing (cf. Pss. 1, 119). Paul himself cited the Ten Commandments in Romans 13:8–10, concluding, “Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.” If whenever we read or think about the law, we only think about condemnation, how can we view it as holy, righteous, and good? How can we view it—as Paul viewed it—as a meaningful guide to truly loving behavior?
There are some excellent passages in Destined to Reign, ones with genuine biblical insights about grace. However, those diamonds are mixed in with so much cubic zirconia that I cannot in good conscience recommend this book.
P.S. If you found this review helpful, please vote “Yes” on my Amazon.com review page.
Review of Mitch Stokes, “A Shot of Faith (to the Head): Be a Confident Believe in an Age of Cranky Atheists” (@ThomasNelson)
Is belief in God irrational? Does science show that God doesn’t exist? Does evil?
Over the past decade, New Atheists such as Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and Victor J. Stenger have answered these questions affirmatively. Their best-selling books have promoted the ideas that Christian faith is based on insufficient evidence; that in light of scientific advances, God is a “failed hypothesis”; and that suffering—when not actively caused by believers—disproves God’s existence.
Stokes disagrees. Building on the philosophical insights of Alvin Plantinga (who blurbs the book), Stokes argues that theistic belief is rational, that science points to a designed universe (and where there’s a design, there’s a Designer), and that the problem of evil actually points to an incoherence in atheism (for how can there be moral law without a Moral Lawgiver?). One-sentence summaries don’t do justice to the nuances of Stokes’s arguments, but they point in the right general direction.
Although New Atheists can read this book with profit, its subtitle points to Stokes’s intended readers, namely, Christians. He aims to help them “be a confident believer in an age of cranky atheists” (and I would’ve added, “atheist cranks”). It is less a book of apologetics, then, than a book aboutapologetics. And that’s a shame, for the Christian book market is saturated with apologetics books written for Christians, and Stokes writes clearly and winsomely enough to directly engage nonbelieving readers. Nevertheless, the book is still worth reading, if only for its discussion of evidentialism.
In epistemology, evidentialism is the notion that, “to be rational, a belief must be supported by sufficient evidence.” The “evidentialist objection” to theistic belief is that it “is not supported by sufficient evidence and therefore is not rational.” Some Christian apologists subscribe to evidentialism and think Christianity crosses the evidentialist threshold for rationality. Following Plantinga, however, Stokes argues that evidentialism itself is self-defeating, since the chain of evidence for it—or for any other belief—will be circular or infinitely regressive, or will terminate in a basic belief that requires no further evidence. Since circular reasoning and infinite regresses do not produce knowledge, for evidentialism to work, it must be grounded in a basic belief, a belief which requires no evidence. Which means that evidentialism is a belief that doesn’t have sufficient evidence. Obviously, that’s a problem for evidentialism.
Thankfully, there’s a better way to understand rationality. Again, following Plantinga, Stokes argues that “a rational belief is one formed by a properly functioning cognitive faculty operating in the appropriate environment.” If, for example, my eyes are working properly and there is enough daylight for me to see clearly, I will form the belief, when I look out my window, that there are cars parked outside my office building. I don’t need to infer this belief from other beliefs or provide a chain of evidence for it. Such a perception is a basic belief. There are many other kinds of beliefs that are basic in this way: beliefs formed on memory, for example, or testimony or personal experience. Perhaps, Stokes argues (again following Plantinga), belief in God is also such a basic belief that doesn’t need an argument, let alone “sufficient evidence,” to render it rational for the believer.
As Stokes point out, basic beliefs have potential “defeaters.” Perhaps, for example, my perception of cars in the parking lot below has been caused by a holograph that my coworkers pasted to my windows. Stokes interprets science and evil as potential defeaters for belief in God, but offers arguments for thinking that both potential defeaters are unsuccessful, based on the design of the universe and existence of a moral law. While a believer can be rational in the absence of such arguments or evidences for faith, Stokes nonetheless thinks arguments can be helpful in clearing away objections and in shoring up a Christian’s faith.
How, then, should a Christian use this book? In two ways, one intended by Stokes and another not. The intended way is as a manual in Christian apologetics. The unintended way is as an introduction to Alvin Plantinga’s epistemology and philosophical theology. Either way, I highly recommend this book to Christian readers.
P.S. If you found this review helpful, please vote “Yes” on my Amazon.com review page.
Two Evangelical Cheers for Bart Ehrman: A Review of “Did Jesus Exist?”
A small but prolific group of agnostics and atheists argues that Jesus of Nazareth did not exist. Many of them are cranks and conspiracy theorists. A few of them are scholars, though generally not with expertise in the relevant fields of New Testament studies. They refer to themselves as “mythicists,” i.e. people who believe that Jesus was a myth.
In Did Jesus Exist?, Bart D. Ehrman refutes the core thesis of mythicism by providing a careful historical argument for the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. Like the mythicists, Ehrman is not a Christian. He describes himself as “an agnostic with atheist leanings.” Unlike the vast majority of mythicists, however, Ehrman has relevant expertise in New Testament studies and the history of early Christianity.
Ehrman divides his argument into three parts: First, he outlines the evidence for the existence of Jesus from a variety of sources, both outside and within the New Testament (chapters 2–5). Second, he responds to specific mythicist claims, showing that they are “weak and irrelevant” (chapter 6), or, if relevant, nevertheless “not persuasive” (chapter 7). Third, he identifies criteria for establishing “historically accurate” traditions about Jesus (chapter 8): “contextual credibility,” “multiple attestation,” and “dissimilarity.” On the basis of those criteria, he concludes that the historical Jesus was an “apocalyptic prophet” (chapter 9).
As an evangelical Christian, my response to Did Jesus Exist? is ambivalent. On the one hand, I agree with Ehrman’s argument that Jesus of Nazareth existed, and I find his refutation of mythicism persuasive. On the other hand, I disagree with his conclusions about what we can reasonably infer about the historical Jesus based on available evidence. Or rather, I believe that we can reasonably infer more about the historical Jesus than he does. But that is an argument for another day. For today, it is sufficient to thank Ehrman for his yeoman work in refuting “the Jesus myth.”
P.S. If you found this review helpful, please vote “Yes” on my Amazon.com review page.
Review of Karl W. Giberson, The Wonder of the Universe: Hints of God in Our Fine-Tuned World
Like many Christian ministers, I did not study science at the undergraduate or graduate level. Instead, I opted for philosophy and theology, academic disciplines which I felt would better prepare me for ministry. Thus, while I am not wholly ignorant of modern science, my understanding of it is admittedly thin. My conversations with ministerial colleagues indicate that this thin understanding is the rule among us, not the exception.
Such a thin understanding of science is, it now seems to me, a hindrance to ministry in the modern world. While the most enduring objections to Christianity—the problem of evil, for example—do not arise from scientific inquiry, the most interesting ones today do: the origins of the universe (Big Bang cosmology) and the origin of the species (biological evolution). According to the so-called New Atheists, scientific explanations have displaced theological ones, so that God is a “failed hypothesis,” as the subtitle of a book by Victor J. Stenger puts it.
One response to the scientific critique of Christian belief is simply to reject the science. This is the strategy of Young Earth Creationism and the Intelligent Design Movement, both of which reject biological evolution, although they disagree on cosmological issues such as the age of the universe and the Big Bang. These two responses are very prominent within North American Pentecostalism and evangelicalism.
Another response—more commonly found among Christian academics and professional scientists than among laypeople—is to accept the scientific consensus on cosmology and biology but to reject the atheistic inference. This is the strategy of Karl W. Giberson in his new book, The Wonder of the Universe. Rather than dispute either Big Bang cosmology or biological evolution, Giberson argues that they may provide “hints of God in our fine-tuned world,” in the words of the subtitle of his book.
From 1984 to 2011, Giberson was professor of physics at Eastern Nazarene College. In 2008, he became president of the BioLogos Foundation, “a community of evangelical Christians committed to exploring and celebrating the compatibility of evolutionary creation and biblical faith.” He currently directs the Science & Religion Writing Workshop at Gordon College.
Young earth creationists will dismiss Giberson’s acceptance of mainstream cosmology and biology out of hand because they conflict with a literal reading of the Bible. Intelligent design advocates will split the difference, accepting the cosmology but rejecting the biology. (To be accurate, most of the book deals with cosmology and physics. Only one chapter addresses biological evolution.) Those who give Giberson’s argument an open ear, however, might discover that “fine-tuning fits comfortably, supportively and logically within a worldview grounded in the belief that God is the Creator of all that is.”
Whether you ultimately agree with Giberson’s scientific conclusions on cosmology and biology, you will find that The Wonder of the Universe is an accessible introduction to mainstream cosmology, and thus a partial remedy to a thin science education. You might also find that the atheistic inference from science is not as strong as New Atheists say it is.
P.S. If you found my review helpful, please vote “Yes” on my Amazon.com review page.
Review of “Work Matters: Connecting Sunday Worship to Monday Work” by Tom Nelson
In the late 1990s, I took a two-year hiatus from pastoral ministry to work in corporate America. My experience there shaped the way I think about Christian vocation. It taught me that the pastoral vocation was but one of many Christian vocations. Its purpose was to help people respond to both their primary vocation (faith in Jesus Christ for salvation) and their secondary vocation (faithful presence in the workaday world).
Tom Nelson’s Work Matters is an insightful treatment of how Christians’ primary vocation affects their secondary vocation. The book grounds its treatment of the subject in the biblical categories of creation, fall, redemption, and glorification (chapters 1–4). Based on that foundation, it then examines practical issues such as dealing with the ordinariness of work, how work shapes us, working for the common good, vocational giftedness, workplace integrity, and the church’s role in shaping good workers (chapters 5–10). In each chapter of this well-written book, Nelson moves seamlessly between biblical exposition, culturally relevant illustration, and practical application. Each chapter concludes with a personal testimony from a Christian worker explaining how their faith shapes what they do.
Nelson is pastor of Christ Community Church in Leawood, Kansas, and author of Five Smooth Stones and Ekklesia. In Work Matters, he writes for Christian laypeople, not pastors, and each chapter includes discussion questions. I would recommend this book to adult Sunday school classes, small groups, and book clubs. Pastors might also consider using it as a resource for a preaching or teaching series on work.
P.S. If you found this review helpful, please vote “Yes” on my Amazon.com review page.
Interview with Dr. Gary Tyra, Author of “The Holy Spirit in MIssion” (@IVPress)
In this video, I interview Dr. Gary Tyra of Vanguard University regarding his new book, The Holy Spirit in MIssion: Prophetic Speech and Action in Christian Witness. You can purchase the book for $9.99 here.
Review of Ronald J. Sider, “Fixing the Moral Deficit: A Balanced Way to Balance the Budget”
“America faces a historic choice,” writes Ronald J. Sider in the Introduction to Fixing the Moral Deficit. “We have a deficit crisis, a poverty crisis and a justice crisis.” The deficit crisis arises from spending more than we earn. The poverty crisis results from increasing numbers of Americans falling into the ranks of the poor even as wealth increasingly concentrates at the top. And the justice crisis occurs when we ignore either the deficit or the poor. “These three crises add up to a huge moral deficit,” Sider argues. “But there is a balanced way to fix it.”
That balanced way begins with understanding the facts on the ground: the deficit crisis is real, and both poverty and economic inequality are on the rise. It continues with mapping out biblical principles on the nature of persons as individuals in community, the social responsibility to care for one’s neighbors—especially the poor, the nature of distributive justice, the limited acceptability of some economic inequality, and the role government plays in alleviating poverty. It then sifts through current proposals, in light of biblical principles, and finally offers a reasoned alternative. Sider’s “balanced way to balance the budget” steers a centrist course between the Scylla of tax cuts and the Charybdis of increased spending. He argues that “we should adopt a roughly equal (50-50) mix between increased revenue and cuts in spending.”
There is much to admire in Sider’s book. Chapter 3, “The Big Questions in the Debate,” outlines biblical principles that should garner agreement from Christians of all stripes. Their disagreements will center on Chapter 5, “A Better Way,” where Sider applies those principles to policy. The interesting question for Christians across the political spectrum will be whether they recognize that disagreements about policy revolve around differing prudential judgments and do not necessarily implicate biblical principles. In other words, can one agree with Sider’s principles but disagree with his policies?
By the same token, the book has several weaknesses. It discusses the moral deficit almost solely in terms of the federal government’s revenue and expenditures, ignoring broad cultural trends that impact both poverty and income inequality but are not easily ameliorated by government policy. One thinks here of the breakdown of marriage among America’s lowest economic classes as an example of the former, and globalization and the information technology revolution as examples of the latter.
Furthermore, this almost exclusive focus on federal government obscures local and state solutions. Granted, government plays a role in fighting government, but government at what level? Might national, one-size-fits-all anti-poverty programs crowd out locally tailored ones?
Finally, the concluding chapter offers 18 “Action Steps” to “help solve our moral deficit.” Tellingly, none of them involves starting a business or creating jobs. Instead, they involve informing oneself about the issue, advocating for effective political action, supporting charitable organizations, and living simply. These are worthy actions, of course, but the solution to poverty must include both public-sector distribution of goods and services and private-sector creation of wealth.
Despite these weaknesses, I highly recommend Fixing the Moral Deficit. It is a morally serious attempt by a respected Christian scholar and activist to apply biblical principles to our nation’s multiple economic crises. Whether or not one agrees with Sider’s every proposal, he is a model of how Christians should eschew bumper-sticker slogans, engage in rigorous analysis of issues, and work for the common good.
____
P.S. If you found this book review helpful, please vote “Yes” on my Amazon.com review page.
Interview with Doug Clay, Author of “Dreaming in 3D” (@GetInfluence)
In this video, I interview Doug Clay about his new book, Dreaming in 3D. Clay is general treasurer of the General Council of the Assemblies of God.
Interview with Brian Dollar, Author of “I Blew It!”
In this video, I interview Brian Dollar, author of I Blew It! The Biggest Mistakes I’ve Made in Kids’ Ministry…And How You Can Avoid Them.
