Pastor Scott's Thoughts

Claire's Question

Claire left me the following comment/question on one of the posts. It is a great question (and one I receive frequently) and so I thought I'd give a response here. Here is the question:

I'm interested to hear more about the Wesleyan/Arminian concept of Salvation versus the Calvinistic view. I have heard the Wesleyan/Arminian view from some of my readings and my friends, but what I increasingly hear from individuals at my church is more of a Calvanistic view from your description. And I'm in the same denomination as you. While I have heard several dismissing the idea of predetermination, I haven't heard as much from those in my church family about Jesus revealing the Kingdom of God. The message I hear is Jesus is the fulfillment of divine justice and we must accept Him as our Savior to avoid Hell. Am I missing a subtle semantic difference, or am I hearing Calvanism out of Nazarenes?

Claire, Thank you so much for your question. I don't think the question you are presenting points primarily to the differences between Calvinism and Wesleyan/Arminian understanding of salvation. Certainly there are differences between Reformed and Wesleyan views of atonement and salvation, but I think the problem you are pointing out is something that has plagued American Evangelicalism of both stripes.

It is my opinion that in the early twentieth century Evangelicalism separated itself from the Social Gospel movement (and perhaps rightly so) because it saw in that movement (1) a decline in the view of the Bible's authority and (2) an over-estimation of the goodness of human nature. In leaving the Social Gospel behind, however, Evangelicals instead had a tendency to become revivalistic and focus exclusively on personal rather than social evil. (So for Jesus a good Christian looked like a citizen of the Kingdom of God who was transforming the world by taking up the politics of the cross and ministering to the poor, naked, and imprisoned. For much of evangelicalism a good Christian looked like a regular church attender who came to the altar and stopped drinking and lusting. Both are good - but the second certainly seems much more shallow that the first). The advent of postmillennialism in the late 19th century and its view that God would rapture the saints out of the world (rather than renew the heavens and earth) also tended to make Evangelicals more interested in getting to heaven rather than transforming the creation.

So both Reformed and Wesleyan evangelicals have tended over the last fifty years or so to view salvation as primarily making sure that "if you were to die tonight" that you would make it to heaven, rather than understanding salvation as being fully transformed into the image of God that you were created to be. Because of the Wesleyan view of sanctification, it would seem that losing this holistic understanding of salvation would be more difficult for us, but the example you have used doesn't surprise me, we have seemed to lose it at times also.

The good news is that I sense in almost every book I read from both Reformed and Wesleyan writers a call to re-examine what it means to receive the saving and sanctifying grace of God. Certainly eternal life is part of the equation, but I believe we are in both traditions re-discovering what it means for the eternal resurrection life of Christ to break into the systems and structures of the world today. Especially we Nazarenes who were raised up with a highly optimistic view (not of human nature but) of God's grace have to have a holistic understanding of salvation.

I hope that helps. Thanks for the great question.

#12 - Johnny Cash and the Great American Contradiction

Although I'm still preaching Sunday and teaching on Wednesday night, I am on "stay-cation" these next couple of weeks which is giving me a chance to catch up on some reading.

I really enjoy reading Rodney Clapp (A Peculiar Peoplewas one of my favorite books to use with students). His latest book Johnny Cash and the Great American Contradiction: Christianity and the Battle for the Soul of a Nation sort of sounds like a book about country music, but it really is a nice little book of essays about the many contradictions that make up America's political, cultural, and religious life.

Arguing that America "speaks with a southern accent," Clapp looks at the tensions inherent in American life: individualism and community, holiness and hedonism, tradition and progress, guilt and innocence, violence and peace. He uses the music of Johnny Cash - a music icon who embodies these tensions while being deeply rooted in Christian faith - as a backdrop to illustrate how these tensions play themselves out in American life a culture. Clapp is one of my favorites at drawing out the implications of what it means to be Christian first and American second. (There is a great quote from his pastor who was criticized for never having the congregation recite the Pledge of Allegiance. The pastor responded, "We say our pledge of allegiance every week - we recite the Nicene Creed every single worship service.").

One of the things that Clapp is so good at is summarizing and interpreting American history from a Christian perspective. Here is a great quote about the tension many of us feel between the two dominant political parties: "The subsequent polarization on religion and such issues as abortion has left many American Christians (along with other traditional religionists) in an unhappy and untenable position. Many - and I include myself in their number - worry over the American right's tendency to valorize military solutions to most international difficulties and to pander to the interests of big business while effectively ignoring the welfare of minorities. Yet the American left, the Democratic Party most particularly, has stubbornly disallowed the importance and reality of traditional faith, and has made little room for differences on such controversial issues as abortion. It is unfortunately true - and should never be forgotten - that many southerners and evangelicals long resisted civil rights for African Americans. But the Democratic Party resolutely ignored the vitally Christian roots of that same movement for civil rights. A distinctly different scenario was possible..."

Good stuff to think about - especially on July 4th week.

#11 - "Surprised by Hope" by N.T. Wright

I finally finished the last chapter of NT Wright's latest book Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church. I like Wright's NT theology so much that it is a little hard for me to be objective.

This book is a great study of the way the NT writers understand not only the resurrection of Jesus from the dead but what their hopes were for the life after death of believers. This book may be challenging for some people to read because Wright clearly exposes and in someways deconstructs the heavy influence of Greek dualism upon most popular understandings of concepts like heaven, but it may also open up wonderful excitement once they discover what the biblical writers believed about eternal life.

My only criticism of the book is that it probably could have had 50 pages edited out of it. (That's part of the reason it took me so long to finish the last chapter). But despite its length, the content is well worth the effort. Here is one of my favorite quotes regarding the hope that God is going to renew all things:

"...what we can and must do in the present, if we are obedient to the gospel, if we are following Jesus, and if we are indwelt, energized, and directed by the Spirit, is to build forthe kingdom. This brings us back to 1 Corinthians 15:58 once more: what you do in the Lord is not in vain. You are not oiling the wheels of a machine that's about to roll over a cliff. You are not restoring a great painting that's shortly going to be thrown on the fire. You are not planting roses in a garden that's about to be dug up for a building site. You are - strange though it may seem, almost as hard to believe as the resurrection itself - accomplishing something that will become in due course part of God's new world. Every act of love, gratitude, and kindness; every work of art or music inspired by the love of God and delight in the beauty of his creation; every minute spent teaching a severely handicapped child to read or to walk; every act of care and nurture, of comfort and support, for one's fellow human beings and for that matter one's fellow nonhuman creatures; and of course every prayer, all Spirit-led teaching, every deed that spreads the gospel, builds up the church, embraces and embodies holiness rather than corruption, and makes the name of Jesus honored in the world - all of this will find its way, through the resurrection power of God, into the new creation that God will one day make. That is the logic of the mission of God. God's recreation of his wonderful world, which began with the resurrection of Jesus and continues mysteriously as God's people live in the risen Christ and in the power of the Spirit, means that what we do in Christ and by the Spirit in the present is not wasted. It will last all the way into God's new world, In fact, it will be enhanced there" (pp. 208-209).

Reviewing the Reviews of "The Shack"

I am probably about to write my longest post ever, but I thought I'd take some time to respond to some of the negative reviews of The Shack that are circulating around. If you haven't read the book yet, you can just skip this post altogether because it may not make sense, but for those who have read it and have also read some of the critiques of it, I hope this post is helpful. I really do appreciate some of the reviews that have been forwarded to me since I endorsed the book here on my blog. As strange as this may sound, it was actually some of the negative reviews of the book posted on Amazon that finally convinced me to read William P. Young's novel. I so disagree with the tone and content of the Christian faith articulated by many of the negative reviewers that I had a sneaking suspicion that I would really like the book. And I was right.

Especially in the world of blog (of which I am obviously now a perpetrator) there are many scathing reviews of The Shackavailable. There was even a scathing critique written in the comments section on my blog urging me to "repent" for my apostasy while there was still time. (I deleted it). Today a friend sent me a lengthy and detailed negative review written by "a pioneer in the Christian blogosphere" Tim Challies. I thought I might take some time and respond to Challies' articulate critique because his article captures most if not all of the criticisms that I have seen of Young's book. If you would like to read his complete review it is posted here: http://www.challies.com/archives/book-reviews/the-shack-by-william-p-young.php

Challies has four primary critiques of The Shack. He argues that the problem with the book is that it is subversive, it has a poor view of revelation, it teaches an incorrect doctrine of salvation, and it misrepresents the doctrine of the Trinity. Let me address his concerns one by one because he is actually pointing to some of the very things I liked about the book. When I quote Challies I will put the print in green.

1. Subversive

Challies: The Shackhas a quietly subversive quality to it... He criticizes seminary education... Sunday School... the church as individuals... family devotions... theological certainty... the word "Christian" as a descriptor... (and) preconceived notions [of God]... Many preconceived notions are theological sound and informed by biblical truth.

I find the idea that subversiveness is somehow a negative quality sort of laughable. All it takes is one reading of the story of the Hebrew children in the fiery furnace to know that Israel more often than not saw itself as a subversive community. Jesus was killed for being subversive not only to Rome but most importantly to established religious practices. In this same way, Young is trying to raise subversive questions in his little novel. He is not opposed to seminary, Sunday school, the church, or family devotions, he is clearly opposed to the way those good institutions have often been used at times to turn God into a subject to be studied rather than a Father to whom we have a living and vital relationship. For example, Young doesn't critique having family devotions as an institution (he even has a moment of "devotion" with the Trinity) he critiques having family devotions that become a routine of talking about God rather than to God or with God. He doesn't dislike seminary educated pastors, he dislikes pastors who have been trained to talk about God as an object and not to wrestle (like Jacob) with God.

Young does critique theological certainty, but so do I. I believe that religious fundamentalists were the primary force in killing Jesus and their track record hasn't improved much since then. The lesson of the Pharisees is that we are all too prone to self-deception in the name of God. I don't believe in theological uncertainty but I do believe that we are called to the assurance of faith blanketed in humility. I would agree with Young that many of our preconceived notions are not biblical or sound theologically and thus need to be set aside in order to truly see God. What would have happened if the disciples had not finally set aside their preconceived notion that the Messiah was a warrior king and not a suffering servant? Or what would have happened to the faith if Saul had not profoundly converted from his preconceived ideas of what constituted righteousness in order to become Paul?

It doesn't bother me in the least that Young wants to turn in the term "Christian" for "Christ follower" or "Disciple of Christ." There are many believers who feel that way today, and I don't find anything sacred in the term itself. I don't believe Jesus came to establish a new religion, I believe he came to form followers of himself. BTW - the reason people are trading in the term "Christian" is because of the way people with too much theological certainty have misused the name.

2. Revelation

Challies: There are few doctrines more important to settle than the doctrine of revelation. It is this doctrine that teaches us how God has chosen to reveal Himself to human beings... Christians are known as being a people of the book, people who cling to the Scripture as the revealed will of God... Christians hold to the belief that the Bible is the only infallible source of God's revelation to us... A question worth asking is this one: does The Shackpoint Christians to the unfailing standard of Scripture or does it point them to a new and fresh revelation?... God's revelation to us is now mediated communication... How will God reveal himself to us according to William Young? "'You will learn to hear my thoughts in yours' (195), says Sarayu [The Holy Spirit]. 'You might see me in a piece of art, or music, or science, or through people, or in Creation, or in your joy and sorrow. My ability to communicate is limitless, living and transforming, and it will always be tuned to Papa's goodness and love. And you will hear and see me in the Bible in fresh ways. Just don't look for rules and principles; look for relationship - a way of coming to be with us'" (198)... Young consistently downplays Scripture at the expense of personal experience.

I just disagree with Challies here. I think his view of scripture borders on a form of bibliolatry. I do not believe that the Bible is the only infallible source of God's revelation to us, I believe that Jesus is. (As I say often, we are not Bible-onians we are Christians). If the OT had been an infallible source of revelation we would not have needed the incarnation as an act of revelation, instead Jesus comes and critiques (reinterprets and fulfills) what was held as scripture ("You have heard it said, but I say to you"). I believe that the scripture is our infallible witness to Christ and to the meaning of salvation through him, but it is not our ONLY source of revelation.

As a Wesleyan Christian my heart resonates with the quote Challies gives from Young. Wesleyans believe that God reveals himself through sources like the Scripture, reason, tradition, and experience. Certainly the Bible gets the primary place and anything we receive through other sources must be consistent with what Jesus reveals about the will of God in the Scripture, but what Young is talking about is nothing more than the Pauline doctrine of learning to have the "mind of Christ." It's basic Pauline doctrine that the believer can be filled with the Spirit in such a way that they can discern the mind and will of the Father (apart from the law).

I believe that what Challies suggests is actually contra-gospel because it is a way of binding us back to the law. To read the Bible to simply find propositions and rules to follow rather than to discover the relationship that God desires is - as I believe Paul would say - giving ourselves back over to slavery.

3. Salvation

Challies: "A person unfamiliar with the Christian faith will not be able to glean from this book a biblical understanding of what the cross was for and what Jesus' death accomplished. Nor will he understand how God saves us and what He saves us from. The Bible is clear that the cross is the very apex of the Christian faith... The penalty He faced was the just wrath of the Father - the punishment due to those who would turn their backs on the Creator. On the cross we see that great mystery of Jesus becoming sin and of being separated from His Father so He might satisfy the demands of justice. This is the gospel! ...What is clear, though, is that the God of The Shack is not a God who could have punished His Son for the sins of others... The Bible makes it clear that redemption has already been accomplished. The redemption of God's children was accomplished once and for all when Jesus died on the cross. All that awaits now is the application of that redemption to children of God... The book presents less than the full gospel message. It teaches that God died for the sins of the whole world and that He now waits for us to respond to this potential gift. It teaches that God does not punish sin, but that sin is sufficient punishment in itself. It opens the possibility that people can come to God in ways other than saving faith in Jesus Christ. It obfuscates the doctrine of salvation that the Bible makes so clear and so central. It muddies the very heart of faith."

Challies critique here is not really someone orthodox criticizing someone for being non-orthodox. It is someone who is strongly Calvinistic critiquing a Wesleyan/Arminian. So, I have to simply claim that if Young is a heretic here than as a Wesleyan/Arminian so am I.

Challies "biblical" view of salvation is that God the Father crucified the Son in order to fulfill divine justice. (BTW - this creates not only Trinity problems but it also elevates retributive justice as the essential divine quality that God cannot act against. I can give you ample biblical evidence that God's mercy often trumps his justice and that love is his essential quality). And now, according to Challies, forgiveness (really appeased justice) simply "awaits application" - which means it awaits God's dispensing of that irresistible grace through divine election.

The Wesleyan/Arminian view of salvation, in contrast, is that Christ revealed the kingdom of God and was crucified by sinful men (not by God), but that God in Christ entered into that suffering as the innocent one (he became sin who knew no sin) and returned that sin with grace. The cross becomes the final statement that nothing (even our killing of God's Son) can separate us from his love. The cross now becomes the call of discipleship ("take up your cross daily") as we too become instruments of the Kingdom of love displayed in the cross. This salvation is available to all who will receive it in faith believing that indeed the Lamb of God has conquered sin and death. This is the gospel!

I would also want to disagree with Challies that the cross is the apex of the Christian faith. I believe the resurrection is the apex. The reason we know that the Kingdom of love has been established is because God resurrected the crucified one from the dead. Had Jesus only died, he would have only been an interesting political martyr. If the cross was the apex we would worship on Friday instead of Sunday.

So again, part of the reason I like the theology of The Shackis because it is very close to a Wesleyan/Arminian understanding of faith, so I understand why someone from Challies' perspective would not like it, but I don't agree with Challies' perspective.

4. The Trinity

Challies: "The Bible is celar that God cannot and must not be portrayed in an image... The third of the Ten Commandments likewise forbids attempting to make any visual portrayal of God. To worship such an image, to acknowledge it as God or even to pretend it is God is to commit the sin of idolatry. It is to worship a creation rather than the Creator. So while Young's portrayal of Jesus may be based on some fact, his portrayal of the Father and the Holy Spirit in human form is sinful and expressly forbidden within the Bible...Young goes so far as to suggest that submission is inherently evil - that it is possbile only where there is sin.. Denying roles and heirarchy within the Trinity is an error that has implications that may reach to the very foundations of human relationships... We must maintain proper distincitions between the members of the Trinity. Without such distinctions we allow ourselves to believe in a false God - a God other than the One who has revealed Himself in the Bible... Young chooses to portray God the Father as feminine... Yet God has chosen to reveal Himself as masculine. Nowhere in the Bible would we find any suggestions that God expects us to relate to Him in anything but masculine terms... One of the most disturbing aspects of The Shack is the behavior of Mack when he is in the presence of God... This portrayal of the relationship of man to God and God to man is a far cry from the Bible's portrayal."

Challies just simply doesn't "get it" here. He doesn't get fiction, he doesn't get how metaphors work, and he certainly doesn't get the second of the ten commandments (he even mistakenly switches the second and third commnads). In the book, God the Father appears to Mack as both genders. He first appears to him as a woman and then later as a man (a point Challies conveniently ignores). I think Young's point in the book is well made. Because of the pain Mack experienced growing up with a distant father, calling God "Father" carried all sorts of baggage with it. It was only after understanding God as neither male nor female that he could relate to him in healthy ways. Challies' view is simply sexist.

The second command prohibits worshiping graven images made by hand (out of material stuff) as representations of God, it certainly doesn't prohibit describing God in personified metaphors. If the second command prohibited talking about God in human metaphors then not only would we have nothing to say about God, but every biblical person (including Jesus in the parables) who described God as a Shepherd, a king, a mother hen, a bride-groom, a vineyard owner, a woman looking for a lost coin, etc. would be committing the same sin Challies accuses Young of committing. Simply calling God "Father" (a metaphor taken from a human form) would commit this sin... What craziness!

Challies' critique that Young violates the Trinity by giving the Father scars on his/her wrists so separates the Trinity from one another that it ends up violating the unity of the Trinity. Personally, I thought Young's treatment of the sharing of the marks among the persons of the Trinity (although only a metaphor) helped give imagination to the idea of the Crucified God as articulated by theologians like Jurgen Moltmann. And Callies' point about submission and hierarchy demonstrates that he doesn't really understand the point of mutual submission that Young beautifully describes.

Finally, I don't share Challies' sense of being disturbed over the way Mack in the story interacts with God. I believe the rending of the veil in the temple and Jesus' encouragement that we approach the Father as dearly loved children (with the spirit that cries "Abba") gives us the ability to be honest and vulnerable before God. I actually find the idea that Challies is tip-toeing on, that God is not able to deal with our true feelings, deepest doubts, and even our sarcasm, shrinks God. The Pharisees believed that God could only be approached with lofty words and pious phrases. I am convinced that books like Job are in the canon of Scripture to assure us that it is okay for us to question God and even to express our deepest frustrations with God. He is not threatened by our honesty, but instead invites it.

I apologize for such a long critique of the critique. I don't certainly don't believe The Shack is the end all of books, but I do think that it deserves a fairer treating than many of its critics are giving it.

Big Day for a Couple of Daniels

Today was a big day for a couple of members of the Daniels family. Caleb graduated from 8th grade today with highest honors. He also won the citizenship award which was voted on by his classmates. We're really proud of him, but we're way too young to have a kid in high school.

It was also a big day for Sophie. She lost her first tooth today. Last night she went to bed very distraught because although she had a tooth loose, she was sure that she was going to end up being the only kid in Kindergarden to not lose a tooth this year. Today was the last day of school - and guess what? She lost her tooth.

Great day.

#10 - The Shack

Debbie and I recently finished reading The Shack together. I want to begin this little review by saying that I have a tendency to be SUPER suspicious of things that are popular - especially books that become pop-Christian sensations. So for me to say nice things about this new book that is quickly becoming an under-ground hit among followers of Jesus cuts against my nature.

However, I think this is an amazing book. It is certainly an interesting and moving story, but what I think makes it great is its theological underpinning. There are times as a preacher and theologian that I struggle to find creative ways to articulate a Christ-centered vision that can break through the fixed way we see the world. I believe deeply that we suffer from a lack of Kingdom imagination. Young's book not only helps followers of Jesus work through some very difficult issues, but I believe this book can perhaps help us imagine the world in ways more consistent with God's inbreaking kingdom.

It is a quick read (in part because its difficult to put down), and I highly recommend it. Eugene Peterson (author of The Message) believes that The Shack will be the Pilgrim's Progress of this generation. When I first read that review I sarcastically thought, "yeah, right." After reading the book, I thought, "Yeah, right!" Enjoy it and I think it's the kind of book you will want to get a group together and discuss.

Billy and Sandy's Wedding

Today was Billy and Sandy's wedding. We met Billy and Sandy at the Garfield Care Center over a year ago and they have been hoping to get married for a while. They knew each other 25 years ago when Sandy worked in Billy's family restaurant and bar. They lost touch with one another after Billy was sent to Viet Nam, but they ended up reconnecting at the Care Center.

It was a long process of finding a birth certificate for Billy and a lot of people pitched in to make it a very nice day for them. Thanks to all of the PazNaz folk who gave Billy and Sandy this gift of grace.

It wasn't quite the wedding in Cana, but I still think it was a celebration that made Jesus smile. More pictures of the ceremony are available in the photo album section.

Congratulations Billy and Sandy.

Prince Caspian and Violence

We rented a theater last night for folk from PazNaz who wanted to go see the new Prince Caspian movie together. We filled the theater and had a great time. Personally, I thought the movie was really well done.

I've had a few people, however, ask me what I think of the proliferation of violence in the film (and in the book).

A few months ago I was asked to respond at the Wesleyan Theological Society meeting to a very interesting paper, written by Point Loma professor Tom Phillips, on the Harry Potter series of books. (Tom's paper and all of the papers from the annual meeting are available at: http://wesley.nnu.edu/wts/annual_meetings.htm

In my response to Tom's paper I confessed my love for C.S. Lewis' books because they were the first set of books that I devoured as I learned to read and (although it makes some Christians nervous) I've really enjoyed reading the HP novels along with Caleb as their release has followed along with his development as a reader. (He's also read the Chronicles). 

Although Rowling, unlike Lewis, intentionally tries to avoid explicit Christian themes in her books, I do in some ways prefer the way evil is finally overcome in her last book to the way it is overcome in Narnia. (Spoiler alert) In HP although the wizards of Hogwarts must defend the students, the evil of Voldemort ultimately destroys itself when Harry literally lays down his life for his friends. In the end, love conquers because it is a power Voldemort does not understand and is the one power he could never control. Whereas in Narnia, although Aslan lays down his life at Table Rock, he comes back and quite literally bites the head off the White Witch. Lewis' books, like Tolkein also, always seem to resolve with a great battle scene.

I often argue that our imaginations for how evil will be overcome is usually captured by the surrounding culture. I believe it is for this reason that the scripture frequently encourages the people to not put their trust in chariots and horses, to beat their swords into plowshares, and to learn to overcome evil with good. In Revelation, I believe the most powerful image is John's realization that the Lion of Judah is the Lamb that was slain.

When I read or see the film versions of the Narnia books I am reminded of C.S. Lewis' post-war setting in which the embodied evil of the Nazi regime was overcome by the allied forces. Watching Caspian one could easily switch film images back and forth between Narnia and Saving Private Ryan. I still deeply love the Narnia novels but they remind me of how easy it is for our imaginations to be fixed on violence as the only way to overcome evil.

There are hints of goodness being a contrast to evil, and evil turning in upon itself, in Caspian, (for example, Caspian's unwillingness to kill his uncle), but watching all of the battle scenes last night reminded me that although there are probably times when war is our only option, we could use some creative and imaginative people - some new C.S. Lewis types - helping us have different horizons of imagination.

A Great Cartoon

A friend of mine sent this cartoon to me today. I think he meant it as a compliment... I'm not sure.

#9 - Flawed Families of the Bible

It is a wonderful rainy reading day, so I finished Flawed Families of the Bible: How God's Grace Works through Imperfect Relationships, by Daivd and Diana Garland. I am using this book as one of the resources for the sermon series that I am starting on Sunday called "Mosaic of Grace." The series and the book deals with some of the fragmented relationships and people in the Bible that are really quite problematic to deal with. Most of the biblical stories they deal with are those ones that you read and think, "Why in the world did Israel consider this quite tragic story worth keeping?"

This book deals with tragic folk like - Hagar, Leah, Dinah, Tamar, Michal, Bathsheba, Jephthah's Daughter - and deals with them well. The book is very accessible for any reader and is worth wrestling through. David Garland has a theology background and his wife Diana has a social work background and so they bring a nice diversity of academic insight to these troublesome narratives. Although many of the male characters are dealt with (Abraham, David, etc.) the book acknowledges that the Bible gives us many stories about abused and mistreated women. Although the Garlands make good use of some of the feminist scholarship that has been done on these narratives, I thought their interpretations of these stories were a little more gracious and well-rounded than some feminist readings.

This would be a really good book for a small group or Sunday school class to work through together. Especially given the fragmented nature of so many of the family units in the church and the world it is good news to see how God worked his purposes through some pretty disfunctional family systems. One of my favorite ironies of the stories they selected is that these characters end up being included in the genealogies of Jesus. I guess if you think your family tree is crooked, you should check out the Messiah's! :)