"Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?" - An Easter reminder that God has already solved our biggest and most important problems

 

In J.R.R. Tolkien's masterpiece, The Fellowship of the Ring, the titular fellowship arrives with its nine members at the Gates of Moria, the old entrance to the ancient dwarf kingdom long since abandoned.  The fellowship are in desperate straits, their first attempt to move forward with the quest of destroying the One Ring had been defeated soundly when a blizzard closed the mountain pass.  Now, with wolves approaching they find themselves facing a locked door.  Gandalf purposes to lead them under the mountain to the other side, but the way forward is blocked.  Unless Gandalf can decode the door's cryptic message, "Speak friend, and enter" by recalling the password that will open the magically sealed doors, this entire mission may end in failure before it accomplishes anything.

As the scene unfolds, Gandalf tries potential solutions in great number, all end in failure.  Despite all his wisdom and skill, nothing works.  That is until someone with a lot less wisdom and skill, the hobbit Merry, realizes that they had the answer all along.  The door's message should have been translated, "Speak 'friend', and enter."  As soon as Gandalf spoke the Elvish word for friend, the doors came open.  The mystery of the sealed doors was really no mystery at all, the answer was written in plain sight.

As the Easter narrative begins in Mark's Gospel, we see Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome on their way to the tomb to honor Jesus by further preparing his body for its final burial place.  Having come very early in the morning, after a Sabbath when few of Jesus' followers could have known any peace following his horrific murder on a Cross, the women don't realize until they reach the garden that they don't have a plan to remove the large stone from the tomb's entrance.  Thus, "Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?" is a question that needs an answer, one the women don't have.  Or so it seems to them.

In reality, God had already moved the stone, the tomb of Jesus had already been transformed from a place of sorrow, into history's most incredible victory monument.  There was nothing wrong with the women being concerned about the stone, it was a legitimate obstacle from their point-of-view, but keeping with the pattern found in the scripture's of God's will and purpose being in motion whether his people are aware of it or not, God had answered their question before they even asked it.

We sometimes forget this, or at least don't act like we know it, but God has already answered all of life's most important questions for us.  There are no riddles left for us to solve before we can move forward, when Jesus rose from the grave, the question, "What is the meaning of life?" had a full and powerful answer.  So too did, "How am I supposed to live my life?" and "What happens to us when we die?"  God has not called us to serve a cause that we can hope might succeed, but one in which the victory has already been secured, no need for us to worry about rolling away the stone.

Sermon Video: Nothing can separate us from the love of Christ - Romans 8:35-39

How confident are you in the love of God?

The Apostle Paul wants you to know that if your hope is in Christ, the love of God CANNOT be taken away from you, it cannot be overcome, deleted, sabotaged, or in any other way removed.  It is permanent, period.

So, why don't we live like we believe that to be true?  How differently would we live if that confidence were as strong as the "more than conquerors" verdict that Romans imparts to us?

The insights gained from a survey of Hebrew Roots Movement followers: Who are they and what do they believe?

The following data is taken from a thesis written by Ben Frostad, by his own account an ardent follower of the Hebrew Roots Movement (or, as he chooses to call it, the Messianic Torah Movement). It was written as a graduation requirement for the Torah Resource Institute (A One Law organization), and was sponsored by Tim Hegg, who until 2009 held a leadership role with the First Fruits of Zion.  In other words, this paper and the survey it contains were created by, and overseen by, true believers in the Hebrew Roots Movement on behalf of an organization promoting those beliefs.  This is thus NOT the supposition of critics of this movement (which I admit to being in my defense of orthodoxy), but the views of those from within the movement as portrayed by someone within the movement.

Here is the paper itself if you wish to read it and see the context of the data that will be shared below: Jews, Gentiles, and Torah: Exploring the Contours of the Messianic Torah Spectrum - by Ben Frostad  Frostad's thesis in it is that the Jewish Messianic movement ought to stop opposing and instead embrace Gentile Torah observance, which they have indicated no desire thus far to do.

The survey was conducted during 2016-2017, online, with 699 qualifying respondents from 31 countries (533 the US, 95 Canada).  Each accepted respondent affirmed both the following statements: (1) "Do you believe in Yeshua (Jesus)?" and (2) "Do you observe any of the following: Seventh-day Sabbath, the Biblical festivals (of Lev. 23), and/or Biblical diet restrictions?"

What can we learn from this self-reporting data?

1. Only a small minority of those participating in the Hebrew Roots Movement are Jewish.

102, or 15%, of those who answered yes to Ben's two questions claimed Jewish identity, although this number is higher than those who would be considered Jewish with respect to ethnicity as it included those (nearly half) who claim to have some Jewish ancestry (rather than Jewish parentage) and those who claimed to be 'spiritual' Jews.

In his thesis, Ben many times emphasizes that this movement is overwhelmingly composed of Gentiles.

2. The 'roots' of the movement are very modern.

68% had joined the movement since 2000, less than 10% before 1990.  It is clear that the internet has been a boon to this particular ideology.  {Side note, a number of respondents reported struggling with Flat Earth conspiracies within their local groups, a strong indicator that the internet is a driving force in spreading this ideology}

3. The organization, First Fruits of Zion, is a major player in this movement.

Respondents were asked to list their influences, that is who/what had helped lead them into this movement both when they began the journey, and currently.  FFOZ was the top source listed (13%) at the start, and third (9%) currently.  They are not a fringe group within this movement, rather one of its driving forces.  When asked for a specific title, FFOZ's HaYesod was the number one book listed.

 {Numerous quotations from HaYesod, FFOZ's basic discipleship manual were utilized in the Franklin ministerium's primary source analysis: An Examination of the unorthodox beliefs of the First Fruits of Zion, their Torah Clubs, and the Hebrew Roots Movement in general}

4. The Church is the mission field for this movement, not non-believers.

This is no surprise given that FFOZ specifically targets people who belong to local churches: "Most churchgoers still have no idea that they are called to be disciples of a Jewish rabbi. The potential to come alongside these brothers and sisters and seriously reorient their understanding of Jesus’ life and teachings is nearly limitless. 'The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few'" - Boaz Michael, founder and president of FFOZ.

65% of those participating in the Hebrew Roots Movement were formerly a part of Evangelical churches!  93% indicated some type of Christian background!  Only 2% participated in a non-Christian religion, and a further 2% were non-religious.  This movement is purposefully targeting the Church, drawing the majority of its adherents from Evangelical churches.

5. Following a rabbinic calendar and refraining from saying the name of God is the plurality position among followers.

While not a majority, it was the largest segment of those surveyed, with 32% saying that it is necessary to follow the Jewish character and wrong to speak God's name (Sacred Name movement).  We have seen this locally, with those in leadership of the local Torah Clubs participating in Jewish festivals and not even being wiling to write out God (replacing it with G-d or L-rd), along with adopting Yeshua instead of the Anglicized "Jesus".  A further 29% of the survey respondents agreed with the need to follow the Jewish calendar, but did not have an issue with saying the name of God.

6. They don't believe that followers of this movement should stay connected to the Church.

67% strongly disagreed (a further 18% somewhat disagreed) that "Gentile believers should remain in established Christian churches, instead of joining Messianic/Torah congregations."  This has been one of the concerns that caused the Franklin Christian Ministerium to take action.  When 85% of the people involved in a movement believe that it is wrong to remain in the Church, and that movement is purposefully targeting people who currently attend churches, the result will be the breaking of fellowship from those churches.  

It doesn't matter to me, as a pastor, what an organization believes, or what it hopes to accomplish, if it is purposefully and actively pulling people away from active participation in a local church, it is unbiblical, it is dangerous, and needs to be treated as a threat to the Church both locally and universally.  Even an organization with orthodox beliefs, which this movement lacks, that pulls people out of churches, is contradicting the Word of God.  Jesus himself established the Church to continue his Kingdom work, by all means reform it when it needs it, but abandon it?  NO.

7. They don't believe that Torah was given by God "just for Jews."

61% strongly disagreed (a further 11% somewhat disagreed), resulting in a solid majority that believe that as followers of Jesus the Law of Moses is obligatory (in some way) for them as Gentiles.  This is the heart of the One Law theology that FFOZ supposedly abandoned in 2009, but continues to be taught through their published materials (see the quotes in the link above for many, many examples).

8. They believe that "modern Christian practice is pagan in origin."

Why the hostility toward the Church?  Why the desire to withdraw from fellowship in Christian congregations?  82% (42% strongly, 40% somewhat) believe that the practices of the modern Church are pagan. 

9. Doubt about the deity of Jesus Christ is a minority opinion, but not an insubstantial one.

25% were unwilling to say that they strongly agreed that, "Yeshua is God."  Of that 1/4, 10% actively disagreed with the statement.  As noted in our research, there is a strand of both Subordinationism and Modalism within this movement.  While I am encouraged that these numbers were not higher (as they no doubt would be with a survey of Jehovah's Witnesses), the fact that a significant minority have abandoned Apostolic teachings of the N.T. about the deity of Jesus Christ remains a further warning sign.

10. A majority believe they are no longer a part of Christianity.

53% (33% strongly, 20% somewhat) disagreed that their faith was a "part of modern Christianity."  Here locally, the Torah Clubs are proselytizing under the idea that this is "just a Bible study."  This is America, you are more than free to leave the Church and Christianity if that is what you choose to do, but people joining what is advertised as a Bible study ought to be aware that the majority of those involved in this movement have self-consciously left Christianity now that they belong to the Hebrew Roots Movement.

11. Those who have left the Church entirely are the most optimistic about the Hebrew Roots Movement.

"Those who agree that Gentiles should stay in established Christian churches rather than joining the Messianic movement tend to have very low optimism about the movement."  In other words, those still connected to a local church aren't entirely sold on where this thing is going, whereas, "Those who strongly agree that Christianity is pagan tend to be more optimistic for the movement."  If you're ready to cut ties with the Church and walk away from Christianity, the Hebrew Roots Movement feels like the winning ticket, or so they believe.

Overall, this survey further confirms many of the concerns that the Franklin Christian Ministerium has expressed about the Hebrew Roots Movement, First Fruits of Zion, and the Torah Clubs.  You don't need to take our word for it, this is what they believe about themselves.

The dangers of teaching that Gentiles must uphold Torah: As admitted by the leaders of First Fruits of Zion

At one point, in 2009, the First Fruits of Zion organization came to the realization that it's "One Law" theology was a practical disaster.  They had been massively invested in spreading this unorthodox and unbiblical view for years with their former partner Tim Hegg as the primary voice.  After significant objections from Messianic Jews that this theology would inevitably lead to a Two House viewpoint that is itself a form of Replacement Theology {Because it views those who keep Torah as the true Jews (literally or spiritually), not those who are descended from Abraham, thus gentiles who follow this view see themselves as authentic Jews, more so than ethnic Jews who don't keep Torah even; it is thus also a form of Antisemitism}.  In what could have been a watershed moment, the organization cut ties with Tim Hegg, and issued a form of repentance by saying,

"The result is a state of anarchy disguised under the name of Law.  Congregations split over calendar arguments.  People are embittered toward one another.  Close friends are separated...Communities shrink...there are no other Messianic believers in the are with whom they can sustain a relationship.  The program is not working...they reject Judaism and Jewish tradition, and they reject Christianity and Christian tradition." - Boaz Michael and D. Thomas Lancaster, One Law and the Messianic Gentile, Messiah Journal, summer 2009 {As quoted by: One Law, Two Sticks: A Critical Look at the Hebrew Roots Movement A position paper of the International Alliance of Messianic Congregations and Synagogues (IAMCS) Steering Committee 1/15/2014  The journal itself is behind the paywall on the FFOZ website, however the IAMCS position paper (link above) is deeply instructive and worth reading if you have any interest in understanding the Hebrew Roots Movement's danger from a Jewish point-of-view.}

When IAMCS released their paper condemning the Hebrew Roots Movement, including the Two House theology and One Law Theology under its umbrella in 2014, IAMCS was under the impression that FFOZ was no longer pursuing the goal of convincing gentile Christians that only through Torah keeping can they please God.  However genuine the change of heart was in 2009, it didn't last.  Having read hundreds of pages published by FFOZ in recent years during my effort of the last few months to understand and combat this false teaching that is spreading in our county and within some of our churches, it was very clear that FFOZ absolutely still believes and teaches that there is only one Law: the timeless Torah.

Rather than reproduce our research again, please see these primary source examples: An Examination of the unorthodox beliefs of the First Fruits of Zion, their Torah Clubs, and the Hebrew Roots Movement in general

In the end, the pastors of the Franklin Christian Ministerium have recognized the danger of this teaching and have taken steps to educate our community of its dangers; at one point at least, the leadership of FFOZ, Boaz Michael and Thomas Lancaster, could see it too.

Titus 3:10-11  New International Version

10 Warn a divisive person once, and then warn them a second time. After that, have nothing to do with them. 11 You may be sure that such people are warped and sinful; they are self-condemned.

They've known of the divisive nature of this movement for years.

Sermon Video: When God sets you free, who can condemn you? - Romans 8:33-34

Using Monty Python and the Holy Grail's infamous witch trial (witch=wood=duck) as a foil for humanity's imperfect justice, the comparison is to God's full, impartial, and absolute justice.  God knows each and every sin (evil) in the hearts of humanity.  And yet, God has chosen to declare some of those same people to be his children, to be 'not guilty' and instead righteous.  How??

The answer is simple: In Jesus Christ

God justifies (declares not guilty) those who have faith in Jesus because Jesus' life of righteousness and total absence of sin enables him to be our substitute, to take our place.

Once God has done that, who is left to condemn us?  Nobody.

Not ourselves, not other people, not Satan himself.  Nobody.

Sermon Video: "If God is for us, who can be against us?" - Romans 8:31-32

"It sounds too good to be true."  Maybe that's what your heart says when you hear the wondrous Good News that God loves you and his Son died to set you free from sin.  "That might work for some people, but not the likes of me."  Maybe that's what trauma and disappointment have taught you to think.

Rest assured, God knows your heart, he knows you need reassurance, encouragement, and hope.  So here it is: When you are on God's team, how can you lose?  Since God was willing to sacrifice his Son (being Trinitarians as Christians are, that always means he was willing to sacrifice himself because Jesus is God too) to save us, there is zero reason to think that God won't finish what he's started, and that includes his work in each of us who have come to know Jesus by faith.

Rethinking the Five Solae - by Jacob Fronczak, First Fruits of Zion's failed attempt to label Protestantism as inherently anti-Semitic

 

Before I begin, an important reminder: The First Fruits of Zion (and the larger Hebrew Roots Movement) is NOT a part of Messianic Judaism, the book discussed below claims to speak on behalf of that perspective, but the author and the organization he represents do NOT belong to it {"FFOZ does not represent the messianic Jewish movement", a quotation from an email I received from a Messianic Jewish Rabbi serving in leadership with the International Alliance of Messianic Congregations and Synagogues (IAMCS) He also wrote, "Messianic Jewish leaders universally reject One Law theology. FFOZ is not a messianic Jewish organization or ministry."}

One of the primary defenses of those leading and participating in Torah Clubs here in Venango County has been, "it's just a Bible study."  As pastors, when attempting to do our duty before God of protecting the flock from dangerous theologies and attempts to divide our congregations and Christian community, it is important that we don't use hyperbole by claiming that bad ideas are heretical ones, or that things that we don't personally agree with are actually affronts to God.  That sort of foolishness happens all too often, and people are rightly wary when a religious leader warns those in his/her charge to completely avoid an idea, organization, or movement.  If you're familiar with my blog, you know how often I've warned against the all too common habit in America today of labeling those on the other side of an issue as evil or claiming their ideas would destroy the nation or church.  With that perspective in mind, and the, "Why are you calling a Bible study unorthodox?" question in firm view, continue reading.

When it comes to the First Fruits of Zion (Torah Clubs), the evidence continues to mount that the warning from the Franklin Christian Ministerium was both warranted and on target {The Franklin Christian Miniserium's warning against the Torah Clubs and the First Fruits of Zion}.  After learning about this book (I just came across it yesterday), the case has only grown that much stronger.

Should Christians really participate in a Bible study designed and created by an organization that believes that each of the churches that you belong to are founded on inherently anti-Semitic beliefs?  If FFOZ doesn't actually believe such a loaded charge, and few accusations could be as damning if they were proved to be true, why would they publish a book built upon that premise?

The following quotations and commentary from Jacob Fronczak's book are pulled from the review of it by Rich Robinson as published in the journal Mishkan in 2021, you can read the full review here: Book Review of Fronczak, Why Messianic Judaism is Incompatible with the Five Foundations of Protestantism - by Rich Robinson {The quotations from Fronczak's book will appear in italics, the commentary from Robinson in bold, and my comments on both in ordinary text following them.}

In the preface to Rethinking the Five Solae, author Jacob Fronczak proffers the thesis that the five solae (or as more often anglicized, solas) of the Reformation are “themselves the root of Protestant anti-Semitism” (p. 2) and that “as they are normally understood, are designed to exclude Jews as much as Catholics from any definition of true and biblical religion” (ibid). These are serious charges, and so the book’s aim is “to re-examine the Five Solae from a Messianic Jewish perspective” (p. 3). Fronczak is himself non-Jewish, though moving in Messianic Jewish circles.

My comment: Is that not a serious charge!  That the very foundations of Protestant thought are the cause of Protestant anti-Semitism!  Let me be clear, the Church as a whole, Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant alike, has a horrific and evil history of anti-Semitism, I will not minimize nor excuse an ounce of it, and have on numerous occasions called out and denounced its modern manifestations.  Each and every cause of Christian anti-Semitism should be examined and reckoned with.  But to say that the theology of the five solas are themselves the cause of the sinful anti-Semitism in Protestant history is to label the entire movement's premise as evil.  Again, hard to say that the Torah Clubs (FFOZ) are just organizing and leading Bible studies meant to enhance the Church, when this is what they are willing to publish about Protestantism.

For those who need a refresher on the Five Solas (or Solae), here they are: sola scriptura (according to Scripture alone), sola fide (by faith alone), sola gratia (by grace alone), solus Christus (by Christ alone), and soli Deo Gloria (to the glory of God alone).

So, what powerful evidence of inherent anti-Semitism does Fronczak follow-up his explosive claim with?

Unfortunately, what the author really ends up addressing is misunderstandings, or misuses, of the solas rather than the way they are understood and utilized by responsible interpreters.

My comment: If all you have are examples of the ideas of Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and the rest being twisted and used in ways they themselves would have rejected, it becomes rather ludicrous to say that their ideas are the problem.

"I aim to show here that when a proponent of sola scriptura studies the Bible, he is relying on something other than the inspired Word of God, whether he realizes it or not. Furthermore, I seek to show that those who malign the investigation and examination of traditional Jewish literature to illuminate the text of the Scripture are themselves ignorant of their own reliance on tradition and the usefulness of extra-biblical literature." (p. 8) In these examples I find the author to be tilting at windmills. Who denies that we should look to extra-biblical sources (Jewish, Greco-Roman, ancient Near Eastern) to arrive at an understanding of Scripture? Sola scriptura teaches that the Scripture is the final, not the only, authority.  And who are these people who “malign” using Jewish sources? They are not scholars, and I’m not sure that I know of any pastors or lay people who would argue that way.

My comment: Tilting at windmills (nice literary reference there), indeed.  It is a rare Protestant who thinks that a high view of the authority of Scripture negates the role of scholarship, archeology, history, and a host of other disciplines that help the Church fully understand what God was trying to say to his people when the Word was given to its original audience, and how that truth can in turn be applied in our world.  Each an every week I lead two Bible studies where we go verse by verse through the Word of God.  Those who have attended (and you can listen to the audio of them here: Bible Study Podcasts) will tell you that we spend an awful lot of time talking about historical context, cultural settings, textual and translational issues, and more, all in the pursuit of that very Protestant belief in sola scriptura.  Like Rich Robinson, I am at a loss as to who Fronczak is thinking of when he claims that Protestants don't utilize or malign extra-biblical Jewish sources as potential insights into the text of Scripture.

Furthermore, Fronczak repeatedly insists that because the solas distinguished Protestantism from Catholicism, they were designed to draw circles and exclude others. Defining boundaries, however, is a part of life. If you are some things, then you are also not other things. This is just a statement of fact. It has precious little to do with denigrating Judaism or Catholicism or anything else.

My comment: From 1517 onward, it was pretty important to offer explanations of why Lutheranism differed with Catholicism, why the Reformed differed from Lutheranism and Catholicism, and for fun, why the Anabaptists disagreed with them all.  Can you differentiate your belief system and or group from similar ones with malice?  Absolutely, but that isn't inherent in the process, to claim that the five solae do this toward both Catholics and Jews could equally be said (and equally foolishly) of every effort that any movement in Church history has made to define itself.

In his conclusion, the author writes that, “In considering the Five Solae from a Messianic Jewish perspective, we have at times questioned their usefulness—at least as they seem to be understood by today’s evangelical Protestants” (p. 131). This however, is a far cry from showing that they are at the root of anti-Semitism (they aren’t) and far from showing that as properly understood, as opposed to popularly (mis)understood, they are not useful (they are).

My comment: Again, Fronczak uses a 'we' there that doesn't belong.  He is himself a non-Jew, the organization he represents, and the movement that it belongs to, have been categorically rejected by the largest Messianic Jewish organizations.  That they think they have become Jews, spiritually or otherwise, by following this theological path, is part of the reason why the Franklin Christian Ministerium has chosen to oppose them.

Robinson's review concludes that Fronczak has failed, entirely, to demonstrate at all his explosive premise.  

"It is contradictory to claim to live a Jewish life in Messiah and at the same time deprecate Jewish tradition (sola scriptura), minimize the importance of good works (sola fide), claim that traditional Judaism is legalistic (sola gratia), distance oneself from organizational Messianic Judaism (solus Christus), and refrain from giving honor to those who have gone before one, those on whose shoulders we all stand (soli Deo gloria)." (p. 134) This is simply put, a raw caricature of what the solas stand for.

My comment: To destroy a strawman is not that difficult, but it doesn't help anyone, and it proves nothing.  It is hardly worth explaining why each of Fronczak's charges against each sola is nonsense, it should be obvious to anyone who has studied Protestant theology.  In brief only, then: (1) Sola scriptura puts tradition in a secondary place, it does not depreciate it or ignore it. (2) Sola fide is a summation of the NT's emphasis on faith, neither Paul nor any other NT author diminishes the need for confirming good works to follow it (see for example: Ephesians 2:8-10, where vs. 8-9 declare the supremacy of faith and grace, AND vs. 10 proclaims that God has good works set aside for each of us to do). (3) The theology of sola gratia does not call the Law of Moses legalistic in the way that Fronczak is using the word, but would indeed take issues with the same abuses of 2nd Temple Judaism that Jesus repeatedly crushed the Pharisees for upholding. (4) Solus Christus in no way is aimed at organizational Messianic Judaism, how could it be?  For those who believe that Jesus is the Messiah, Christ alone makes all the sense in the world. (5) Lastly, Soli Deo Gloria directs all worship and honor to God, as it should be, it doesn't dishonor our ancestors in the faith.  The author of Hebrews was more than capable of lauding the heroes of the faith who had gone before him without taking an ounce of God's ultimate glory, displayed in even the triumphs of those men and women, away from God.

When you set out to prove that the heart of Protestantism is inherently anti-Semitic, but only end up trashing Straw Men that we don't even believe, why would an organization publish and promote such a baseless attack?  

In denigrating the five solas, he both fails to understand them and fails to allow Protestants to speak for themselves as to their meaning...I simply fail to grasp his rationale for choosing the solas as his whipping boy.

For the record, I am a Messianic Jew; I’ve been part of both messianic congregations and mainstream churches. I have studied at a Reformed seminary, I learned my basic New Testament as a young believer from a Catholic priest, and I have had many conversations at Hillel in college and over the years during my studies of Judaism and Jewish literature. I have no Protestant grist in my mill to grind about the solas. 

My comment: Why do I see danger signs blaring loudly when I read material published by the First Fruits of Zion (Torah Clubs)?  If you we a pastor, and learned about a 'Bible study group' from an organization that believes these things about the Church, wouldn't you be?  

Jesus and John Wayne: A few responses to a thought provoking book

Having just finished Jesus and John Wayne: How White Evangelicals Corrupted A Faith And Fractured A Nation by Calvin University history professor Kristen Kobes Du Mez, I have a few thoughts:

(1) The overall premise: that where Evangelicalism finds itself today, reveling in Culture Wars and embracing Christian Nationalism (or as she usually terms it, militant patriarchy), is not a fluke but rather the logical outcome of a fifty year trend, is compelling.  She backs the thesis up, whether you think the destination is a blessing or a curse for the Church (If you read my blog I don't need to tell you where I stand on these issues), ably tying together strands of culture, politics, and the words and actions of generations of leaders of the Evangelical movement.

(2) While the book contains many examples of men and women claiming to represent God which are cringeworthy, even painful, in how far from biblical ethics and any attempt to model the behavior of Jesus Christ they have strayed, the chapter that hits with the most punch is the sad litany of Evangelical leaders in the last decade that have been shown to be either sexual abusers themselves, or willing to enable and/or cover-up abuse {Chapter 16, Evangelical Mulligans: A History}.  This isn't news, the steady drip of new horrific stories has been poured forth for years and shows little sign of abating, but seeing how the individuals and institutions that had played so prominent a role in the earlier chapters largely turned out to be led by hypocrites who preached male leadership and female submission to them while at the same time preying on the vulnerable and protecting monsters, listed one after another in the chapter, is brutal.  If you grew up in the Evangelical cultural/religious atmosphere, you will likely find that your heroes have feet of clay, if not worse.  It is hard to take the theological claims, especially about the roles of men and women in God's design, of men like John MacArthur or John Piper seriously when looking at their roles in abuse scandals and/or supporting theological allies accused of the most un-Christ-like behavior {Doug Wilson and Mark Driscoll for example}.

(3) A sub-thesis to the overall one is that the current Evangelical state-of-mind is more conditioned by culture than theology.  In my experience, this has been proven time after time.  Whether the issue is racism, immigration, sex abuse, or materialism (to name but a few issues), there is a disappointingly low willingness on the part of many (those at one or more steps removed from my ministry here, I'm not bashing my own congregation, rather reflecting on conversations in wider contexts) to hear what the Word of God has to say, and instead a willingness to treat its moral commands as a luxury we can't afford in the battles before us.

In the end, even if you are a complementarian (the theology of firm male leadership and female submission exemplified by MacArthur and Piper), and will likely gnash your teeth at Du Mez's egalitarianism, her criticism of this movement's tactics and leadership has a firm basis in history and fact, reading this book will have value for you.

On the other hand, if you've grown frustrated by the state of Evangelicalism, tired of banging your head each time cultural values displace biblical ones in the words and actions of those who proclaim their fealty to the Bible, Jesus and John Wayne won't make that headache go away, but at least you'll understand how and when things went so awry.  

Sermon Video: The Purpose for which God works all things - Romans 8:28-30

Romans 8:28 is an oft misunderstood piece of scripture, in part because it is often quoted or considered apart from its context, especially vs. 29-30.  So, what is the 'good' to which God is working all things?  Paul defines this in vs. 29: "to be conformed to the image of his Son."  What is God working throughout human history to accomplish?  Christ-like adopted children.

Human failings, tragedies and sorrow, and evil itself, all  are not 'good', and God doesn't want you to pretend that they are.  What they are, however, is NOT capable of derailing God's purpose in your life.