Category: Book Reviews

The wise man never considers it demeaning to ask for counsel, but the fool is ashamed to request advice from others and must be forced to do so.—Steve Wilkins

Steve Wilkin’s Face to Face: Meditations on Friendship and Hospitality is one of the Church’s greatest allies. The author does not equivocate on these two important matters. He is direct in application and uncompromising in his commitment to the Biblical message.

The book is divided into two parts. Chapters one through five focus on cultivating true friendship, as well as learning the characteristics of true friends. He completes chapter five with an analysis of those things which destroy friendships. Chapters six through nine focus on the nature and benefits of hospitality. Rev. Wilkins establishes a thoroughly Biblically saturated understanding of hospitality. The book closes with an encouragement to pursue hospitality as vigorously as any other spiritual virtue; perhaps even with greater fervor than other virtues.

On Friendship

“Friendship requires work,”[1] says Wilkins. It is no easy task to develop lasting friendships. One must be committed to the cause of godliness to pursue friendships. The reality is that friendships presuppose a commitment to community. Unfortunately, some Christian traditions find great nobility in loneliness and solitude. However, the premise of this book is that loneliness is tolerated within a society when a society tolerates sin and covenant breaking.[2] Wilkins writes:

The folly of mankind has never been plainer: encouraging the very selfishness and self-centeredness that destroys true friendship, and then complaining of loneliness.[3]

Loneliness has never been the way of Biblical faith. Christ was alone, but never lonely. The Father provided perfect friendship to the Son. Loneliness is the destruction of civilization. We were created for community; Biblical community. Christians do not love community merely for the sake of community, but Christians love community for the sake of the Church and her Head. This is why God places such great stress on procreation.[4] Procreation is not just children for children’s sake; it is children for the Church’s sake. Children become the foundation of future communities. The Church then serves as the great example of families and communities. Indeed, as Wilkins writes “it is the pattern for all communities in the world.”[5]

Friend and Friendly

The author makes a clear distinction in the book between having friends and being friendly. These are separate categories. Not everyone is our friend, but we ought to be friendly to everyone. It seems that this is at least one of Paul’s intentions when he wrote that we are to have peace with everyone as much as it is possible.

We are called to politeness and civility toward others. We cannot befriend everyone nor should we. Friendships require work and we can only invest so much time in these relationships. Some people will have only two or three friends, while others may have more, but: “It is impossible to have intimate friendships with anyone and everyone.”[6]

How to Find True Friends

Pastor Steve Wilkins suggests three ways to find true friends. The first is that it requires earnest prayer. How often have men and women prayed that God would provide true friends? The answer may be very little. This happens because the Church has forgotten that God is concerned about our relationships. He is the ultimate community-builder and within that community He desires that Christians befriend one another for this is the way of the gospel. The gospel calls us to abandon selfishness and embrace death. For true friendship to exist sometimes one must die so another may live. We must be more interested in giving than in receiving.

Secondly, we find friends through Christian fellowship. The fellowship of the saints is the sweetest of all human fellowships. Christian fellowship is the music of the Psalmist who calls us not to walk in the way of sinners, but in the way of the righteous. Christian fellowship is the closest tangible view we will have of the eternal resurrected community of saints.

Thirdly, one must show himself friendly if he is to find a true friend. This is not to say that one type of personality is more prone to find true friendship, though those who are more outgoing may find greater ease and opportunities to find friends, but this does not negate the command that everyone, no matter what kind of personality is obliged to pursue friends. It is a holy pursuit. There is no magic in this process. The Christian must be aware that God designs us for godly relationships, so he must pray earnestly for a friend, he must be thoroughly invested in the labor of the Church in her worship and fellowship, and finally he must show himself to be friendly.

On Hospitality

The Church must stand in contrast to the ways of our present culture. If our culture preaches selfishness the Church must preach sacrifice. Our redemption in Christ Jesus is redemption into a new community; abandoning the way of evil doers and embracing the new life of the righteous. Paul’s words in Romans twelve reflect this idea. We are to be living sacrifices unto God, and consequently we become living sacrifices for others who have been redeemed by God. In Peter’s letter he addresses the fruit of the people of God. In chapter four, Peter adds the fruit of hospitality as a Christian’s joyful exercise.[7] When we consider the context of Peter’s letter, the reader becomes aware that Peter is writing to a persecuted Church. Wilkins adds: “The Worst thing a Christian can do during a persecution is to isolate himself from the rest of the body.”[8] It is in the worst of times when the Christian most needs his community. In the midst of these situations, the faith is tested and if we overcome the test by God’s grace, we will become stronger.

In the Scriptures, God condemns nations for not being hospitable and He praises His covenant people for being hospitable. God is the great host of the nations. Acts tells us that the very place where we should live is determined by God. God chooses our homes, our parents, and our friends. Hospitality is rooted in the grace of God who brought strangers into His own household. Thus we are called to live out our faiths knowing that God has already prepared a banquet in the presence of our enemies.  While the enemies of God feast in unclean sacrifices, we feast in the perfect sacrifice of Christ. By dying for us, He provided feasting for His people. We are to take this example and live a life of hospitality.

But what is hospitality?

Some have a false notion of hospitality. They assume that they have to entertain guests constantly. But the Bible equates hospitality to meeting each other’s needs and serving one another.[9] Hospitality, says Wilkins is “humble and sacrificial, and it imparts blessing and refreshment.”[10] Hospitality is also communion with one another in our homes. When we open our homes we are opening our lives to our guests. Nevertheless, it is important to note that hospitality—like friendship—requires work. Wilkins equates hospitality to Saul’s (later Paul) pursuit to kill Christians. It required time, money, and it was inconvenient. We are to be zealous in the same manner. It will require time. Perhaps it will require more food and it will certainly be an inconvenience to the daily schedule. This reviewer remembers well the days spent in Brazil with the American missionaries. When they returned home there would always be someone looking for a place to eat and sleep. But this is not simply the work of the missionary, it is the work of the Church; a noble calling for the body to love and minister to the needs of others.

The Benefits of Hospitality

Wilkins concludes the book with the benefits to hospitality. There are three main benefits that come with hospitality. First, we learn to care for others. It teaches us to die to ourselves.[11] It is the process of sanctification, according to the author. Secondly, it teaches us to be friendly. Here we see that friendship and hospitality are joined as a single goal. Hospitality teaches us–even forces us– to be friendly and giving. And finally, it teaches generosity. “We are further sanctified when we learn to give of our time, talents, and resources for the benefit of others.”[12]

Hospitality is also a covenantal blessing. By being hospitable we are passing a legacy of hospitality to our own children who are growing up seeing the graciousness of daddy and mommy to others. As they grow and build their own families, hospitality will become a natural part of their Christian joyful duty.

This book is what the Church truly needs in this day. The reader will find great joy and a great challenge in pursuing friendship and hospitality as God commands.

Personal Note

As one who has enjoyed a Lord’s Meal at the Wilkin’s household and who has known Pastor Wilkins since January of 2008, it is a great joy to endorse a book written by a man who lives what he teaches.

---

[1] Pg. 27.

[2] Pg. 9.

[3] Pg. 10.

[4] Genesis 1:26-28.

[5] Pg. 12.

[6] Pg. 28.

[7] See page 92.

[8] Pg. 92

[9] Pg. 105.

[10] Pg. 105.

[11] See pg. 116.

[12] Pg. 117.

I am finishing Lewis’ The Great Divorce, while one third through The Shack. In light of my interview with blogger Tim Challies on the book, I decided to read it myself in order to stay informed. Lewis’ fiction is remarkably saturated in Biblical imagery. It is speculative, of course, as every fiction is, but it stays within the confines of Biblical revelation. Hell is like people becoming farther and farther away from each other, says Lewis. One can fathom such thought without breaking any creedal assertion or denying Biblical revelation. Lewis places a strong distinction between the ones who submit to God’s will and those who follow their own wills. These are all Biblical evaluations of humanity’s destiny.

The Shack on the other hand is sterilized from the tradition and historic Christian language. God the Father becomes Papa. Though I am not yet in the encounter between Mackenzie and the “godhead”–which begins in chapter 5– I can already picture the trivialization of the sacred Triune relationship. “But you need to make God more like us,” some will say. But this is exactly what He already did when Christ became the Messiah-Incarnate. What more do we need?

The intentions surrounding the book surely are pure. It is hard not to be captivated by the overwhelming sense of loss a father has when his daughter is missing; or the unimaginable thought of a daughter being sexually abused by a serial killer. The story is indeed gripping and if one reads it long enough he/she may even find a touch of redemption; the kind we all look for in movies and fictions. But is redemption always pure? What if redemption is filled with images of a clumsy Jesus? What if the God of all creation is distorted to look like something Church dogma has always neglected? To be redeemed in the truly Biblical sense is to be redeemed as God says He redeems. One must be redeemed by the real Jesus shown and revealed on the cross and ascended to the right hand of the Father.

“But isn’t this just fiction,” one may ask. This is not to be read with theological eyes. But is “Christian” fiction the perfect excuse to eradicate the Biblical view of God and make it into a tangible one? Tolkien and Lewis borrow from the Biblical imagery of lambs and lions and they purposefully place it in a mythical land, so there can be no doubt that though God is like a lion, He is not a real, physical lion. But what apologetic can you use for a fiction that is so real you can actually point to someone who has experienced such a thing? After all, we all hear of disappearances, kidnapping and the like everyday.

William Young seems deeply infected with the God of fiction rather than the God of Scriptures. It has always been easy to make God into our own image. Accepting Him as He is…that’s a different story.

N.T. Wright writes a fine introduction on how Christians should view the saints that have departed. He shatters certain misconceptions that have plagued the Church for centuries. Among them, is the horrific doctrine of purgatory. As an able historian and exegete, Wright traces the central errors in this Roman Catholic doctrine as well as criticize his own Anglican tradition for attempting to restore this doctrine in a form of neo-purgatory.

According to Wright, churches have developed “fresh variations on the old theme of commemorating All Soul’s Day” (xiii) that are unbiblical and find no basis in church history. He is unwilling to compromise if this commemoration is unbiblical. He writes:“After attending several of these annual events, I got to the point a few years ago where I decided that, in conscience, I could do so no longer” (p. 47).

The common doctrine of purgatory teaches that by praying for dead in particular masses–loved ones gone before us–will reach heaven sooner. Wright disagrees with this doctrine and argues persuasively that the Catholic Church has erred greatly in this matter. In fact, even recent scholarship–including the work of Pope Benedict–turns away from this long held Catholic dogma. Perhaps the only well-known text used to defend purgatory is found in First Corinthians 3:10-15. But as Wright argues (p.25) the point of that text is not that some will have to pay for their lack of good works by being purged in purgatory, but rather, that those who are saved will be saved either completely or by the skin of their teeth (as Jude also implies).

In this treatise, Wright rejects universalism (p.42) and implicitly and explicitly condemns inclusivism. But beyond that, he boldly defends the bodily resurrection of all the saints (both alive and dead) in the blessed Second Coming of our Lord. Further, he chastises those who have adopted a subtle gnosticism in their hymnody. Wright delves deep into great hymns and pulls out the good , the bad, and the ugly, proving thus, that our music needs also to re-affirm a commitment to God’s reign and lordship over all things, including the body. But most significantly, Wright affirms the biblical doctrine that the saints gone before us await the same thing we wait: the day when our bodies will rise in glory.

I did mention in a previous post that Goldberg’s list was shrinking to about 50. After reading through the remaining figures, perhaps I exaggerated. I may agree with 80 names on his list. There are a lot of liberals listed and a small number of conservatives (emphasis on “small”). Goldberg’s 100 list are composed of people who fit the following three categories:

a) Those who are passionately seeking to de-moralize our culture through rampant sexuality and through legislation.

b) Those who use their position of power to manipulate others for the sake of their agenda.

c) And finally–this counts for over 50 of the names–those who oppose the Bush administration’s foreign policy on Iraq (ex. Noam Chomsky).

I am in full agreement with the first two qualifications, but the third one is a bit troubling. The impression I get from Goldberg is that it is immoral to disagree with Bush’s foreign policy in any manner. This is the presupposition Goldberg brings to this list. Of course, most, if not all that fit this third qualification are wrong on almost everything else, but is it just possible that criticizing America’s policy may be a patriotic approach? Must we always bow at the feet of our commander in chief simply because he holds our party flag? This is somewhat befuddling to me.

Goldberg is the male version of Ann Coulter (who was added to the list for some reason). His satirical skills are almost too overwhelming in this 300-page book. He is poignant and unafraid to challenge even those he has worked side by side for years in television. Goldberg has written a book on the liberal bias in the media, I wonder sometimes if he acknowledges his. On a positive note, he does well in strongly condemning those who wish to demolish our culture with the unsanitary language and images of Hollywood, but perhaps he should refrain from his neo-conservative pulpit and offer a little more understanding to those who honestly find this war offensive. But again, it’s his list.

Bill Moyers is an intellectual giant. His seasoned career has taken him to a sort of legendary stage in American journalism. He is poignant, daring, and insightful. In 2004, a compilation of his essays throughout the years was put together into Moyers on America: A Journalist and His Times. His essays encompass his early days growing up in the south to his days standing on the side of President Lyndon Johnson.

The essays are fascinating at least from a sociological perspective. If you want to ask the question: How does a southerner growing up in the church slowly become entangled by the liberal web? This book provides a reasoned response. Much of Moyers’ anger is directed towards corporations and their profit. In most cases, I suspect he is correct in his criticism of corporate greed. However, he is also purposefully–I assume–silent about the benefits corporations have brought to poor working Americans in the last century. This is probably the flaw of American liberalism: their inability to at least affirm the good most corporations have brought to society.

Much of his staunch opposition towards conservatism stems from his vast experience in Washington politics. He offers keen insight into the manipulative nature of political discourse in America. Whether in the south or in the north, politicians have overall abandoned the national interest to pursue their political love affairs.

But Moyers is a liberal and his agenda is clear throughout the book. He revises certain portions of historical data to fit his preconceived notions of what a government should look like; and a government should look like every man’s mother. In Moyer’s world–a pure democracy–wealth is properly distributed to the poor and corporations are taxed until death. What is unique about Moyers is that he is not unique in his political framework. He echoes every conceivable liberal line in the play book, but he does it with intellectual fervor. He is the standard bearer of every liberal since the days of his mentor Lyndon Johnson.

Moyers, the progressive, as he calls himself, stands tall in his ability to reach deep into the philosophical foundation of those he interviews. His courage in speaking against Republicans, and at times Democrats reveal a certain integrity that is worthy of emulation. His many years of interaction with the great intellects of our time has made him both brilliant and dangerous. Perhaps even those of us on the other side of the spectrum can learn from Moyers.

In light of my preparation for licensure exam, I have begun to read on various controversial discussions in the Presbyterian Church. Among them, the ever controversial question of Paul’s theology of imputation. A fine book that surveys both the historical analysis of imputation–from the Reformation onward– and exegetical treatment of crucial texts in the Pauline corpus, is Brian Vickers’s doctoral dissertation: Jesus’ Blood and Righteousness.[1]

Vickers defends the traditional view that Christ’s righteousness is imputed to believers. Nevertheless, he is uncomfortable with general Reformed distinctions of a covenant of works and a covenant of grace. He notes that the Reformed tradition has not always been united in accepting the concept of “merit” in the garden. Commenting on Reformed differences, Vickers mentions–in a footnote–that Murray “stresses the principle of grace over that of merit.” Further, Murray preferred to call the period of the first man an “Adamic administration.” [2]

Another interesting nuance of Vickers in the book is centered on his discussion of the active and passive obedience of Christ. There is no denial, in Vickers’s analysis, that the overall treatment of Pauline texts proves undoubtedly that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us, hence making us righteous in the sight of God; nevertheless, Vickers is unconvinced of the necessity to distinguish between active and passive.[3] Though traditional Reformed formulations refer to the necessity of the active obedience (Christ’s perfect obedience to the law of God) and the passive obedience (his submission to the will of the Father unto death), there has always been vocal scholarship in the past and today, which argue that though the passive obedience of Christ is imputed to us by forgiving our sins, the active obedience of Christ is nowhere textually found. As some have argued, Christ’s perfect obedience was not imputed to us; rather it was “that which guaranteed the perfection of his sacrifice.”[4] Vickers’ own conclusion is that “Christ’s obedience need not be sharply divided between ‘active’ and ‘passive’; Christ’s obedience (as all obedience) was active and passive.”[5] He argues also, that “there is no separating one kind of obedience from another in a practical sense.”[6]

While Vickers argues intensely for the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to sinners, he also engages modern scholarship, and particularly the New Perspective on Paul. This book provides an excellent treatment of the historical trajectory and essential texts related to the imputation of Christ’s righteousness.

---

[1] Brian Vickers, Paul’s Theology of Imputation: Jesus’ Blood and Righteousness (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2006).

[2]Vickers, 43.

[3] Melancthon did not distinguish between active and passive.

[4] Vickers, 227.

[5] Ibid. 228.

[6] Ibid. 228.