Sunday, February 21, 2010

Review: Live Sent. you are a letter.

In his new book, Live Sent, Jason Dukes encourages Christians to live out their relationship with Jesus constantly. There are four ideas that Jason highlights in order to help the reader to “live sent”, that is, to live as a Christian focused on loving God and others, rather than having a self-serving faith like so many do today.

“First, in order to live sent, there may be some things we need to rethink. Foundational stuff. Life. Church. Relationships. Intention.
“Second, living sent is all about trusting your value. The primary hindrance for a follower of Christ who is made to live sent is that he/she does not trust their God-given value. What we need to understand is that our value is not appraised, it is declared. Trusting what God has declared about us and that He has entrusted His message to us for delivery is crucial to being the letter He made us to be.”
Third, “Living sent is all about doing life together. The epic of humanity… should be seen most beautifully within the movement Jesus started that He called His ‘church.’ Unfortunately, this is too often not the case. We tend to just be letters to each other [within the church] and miss the importance of being letters into culture.
“Finally, living sent is all about giving ourselves away intentionally. Jesus gave Himself away with restorative intent. We know what love is in that Jesus gave up His life for us, so we should give up our lives for others (1st John 3:16). It’s one thing to want to serve because of how it makes us feel. It’s another altogether to love and serve completely for the sake of what happens in the life of the ones we love and serve.”

As I read Live Sent I found myself being moved more and more to loving people all the time, to getting out of the shell I sometimes hide within, and getting to know and love others who I have not bothered with because of some sort of spiritual laziness. I was pleasantly surprised to be encouraged in this way.

However, there are two major problems with the book. The first problem is literary. To be frank, it seems that the author published his first draft without taking the time to correct grammatical errors and tighten up his prose. Of course, the book is written with the mood of a friend talking casually with a friend. I understand that. But writing is more than stringing words together. Also, the author could cut the book almost in half if he would have tightened up his sentences and stopped repeating himself, as if his audience would have trouble following:
“Your story matters, too. As do all stories of living sent. So capture them creatively and redundantly.
“Your story matters, too. As do all stories of living sent. So capture them creatively and redundantly.”
The above quotation is from page 139 of Live Sent. Of course Jason is being funny and friendly as he beats us with redundancy, but this makes for poor literature.

The other problem with the book is that it buys into a philosophy that seems weak. I was glad to read that Jason combated the problems of 19th and 20th Century evangelicalism, but I am not so sure that the system he buys into is much better. I think that Jason’s good ideas can find a home in a better philosophical system.

Part of the problem is that Jason often reacts too strongly against the negative trends of 19th and 20th Century North American evangelical Christianity. For instance, many people are tempted to relegate their relationship with Jesus to special times, places, events, and people. Although he takes issue with all of these I would like to highlight his view of the church, expressed early in the book, on page 11. Jason writes, “The suggested statement of how church has been defined implies that we go to church on Sundays to WORSHIP, as if that is the only time during the week that we worship.” Here, Jason is reacting against the idea that many people reduce their relationship with and worship of Jesus to a two-hour time-slot on Sunday morning. Of course, the reaction against such a reduced Christianity is valid, but does this mean that we should reduce the importance of meeting on Sunday mornings? No.

The kingdom of God requires that we worship God in practical and theoretical ways. For instance, it is important to love our neighbours in their practical, day-to-day lives. This is a way that we love God. But it is also important to praise God by having what I call a “philosophical awe” directed towards him. This can be as simple as seeing a beautiful sunrise and being filled with awe at God’s beauty, goodness, and ability to create. But our best and most consistent form of expressing philosophical awe is at special times, such as in quiet prayer, reflecting on the words of the Bible, or through songs of praise and worship. (Josef Pieper, in his book, Leisure, the Basis of Culture, has written very well on this subject.)

The leveling of places, times, and actions is detrimental to the Christian life. I appreciate Jason’s insights into the problems of a form of Christianity, but he need not toss the baby.

Despite the two major criticisms listed above, I am very pleased that Jason Dukes reminded me to live less selfishly, to care for others, and to encourage the “sending out” and not just the “gathering in” of Christians.

I would recommend this book if it was better written. I would highly recommend Live Sent if, in addition to the last stipulation, it was less reactionary and more balanced.

5 comments:

Shawn Miller said...

I have a feeling that your clear-thinking and intellectual sophistication would make short work of the whole genre if it were allowed. Yet, to your credit, charity prevailed!

The flattening of man's religious sensibility which once expressed itself in cathedrals stretching to the throne of God, is almost the essence of the secularization narrative, isn't it? Would it be a fair analysis to speculate that existentialism, that is to say a crisis of meaning inundated by the mundane, is then inevitable?

Egalitarianism demands no special times or places, or, more-to-the-point authorities. Yet evangelicals, coping as best they can, will always be betrayed by their doctrine of Sola Scriptura. For SS always (i.e. it is philosophically necessary) reduces ultimately to egalitarianism. Or hermeneutical contest.

I'm thinking along the lines of this:

http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/01/the-canon-question/

and also:

http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/09/hermeneutics-and-the-authority-of-scripture/

Lovin the blog. Do you think it's best to stick to one topic per post, or potpourri?

Cheers,

A said...

Thanks for your comment Shawn.
Yes, I find that the "flattening" of religion into mere practicality one of the worst religious trends at present. Without that "philosophical awe" experienced beauty, singing songs of worship, reading the Bible, praying, meditating, etc. I suspect that you are on the right track when you say that a crisis of meaning is created by over-saturation of the mundane (i.e. no "high times", places, people, etc.
Interesting that you point to Sola Scriptura. I probably agree with your general assessment of SS.
I'll read these articles (I kept up with them a bit when they were new, but they got too long).

Egalitarianism isn't terrible, if all things really are equal.

Also, though it is true that the two important aspects of the book could greatly improve, I did appreciate the book.

A said...

Also, I have been sticking with one topic instead of a bunch for a few reasons:
1) It is a little easier on the reader.
2) It makes me care more about the quality of the article when I focus on one, rather than feeling the need to hammer out a bunch of articles.

Shawn Miller said...

"Egalitarianism isn't terrible, if all things really are equal."

I'm not sure which you're saying here, do you mean 1) Egalitarianism isn't terrible, if it's truly actualized or implemented without concession, or, 2) Egalitarianism wouldn't be terrible if the world were actually that way, i.e. it's idealistic or naive?

I would be grateful for your clarification.

Cheers,

A said...

Sorry, I wasn't as clear as I thought i was. What I had in mind was a married couple who are virtually equal in regards to virtue. In such a household, equality is real, and so the couple should act accordingly (i.e. consulting each other before going ahead and doing things, etc., etc.). (Of course, the situation changes when the two completely disagree and a decision needs to be made...then egalitarianism must be put on the back burner.)
So what I meant was that, if people really are equal, then egalitarianism (as I understand it) is not terrible.
So I suppose I am closer to your #2, but that's not exactly what I mean either, as far as I understand it.