Review — Erasing Hell: What God said about eternity, and the things we made up (Francis Chan & Preston Sprinkle: David C Cook 2011).

This book by Francis Chan and Preston Sprinkle was released earlier in 2011, and was among several that responded to Rob Bell’s book, Love Wins. As is usual for my particular book-review-niche-market, my reading and review come after the wave of interest and popularity has crested. For the stragglers out there, this is for you.

Chan and Sprinkle present a response of sorts to Bell’s thesis, although it is not completely directed solely at countering his book. They instead use Bell’s arguments by reference to frame their discussion of what Scripture truly says about the subject of hell and eternal punishment.

Erasing Hell is an impassioned plea not to consider the subject of hell purely from a philosophical standpoint, or from the view of detached, scholarly research into what Scripture says about it. Instead, we should recognize the sober reality of hell’s torments and do what we can to ensure that people don’t go there. When we consider the awful destiny that awaits those who reject Christ, Chan and Sprinkle argue, we should find great motivation to proclaim the gospel.

Balanced against this call to sober consideration of hell from the emotional perspective — and giving proper foundation for it — is the responsible and skilled handling of the Scriptural instruction on hell itself. In stark contrast to Bell’s biblical method, Chan and Sprinkle treat the Scriptural material rightly, giving proper deference to languages, context and original understanding to arrive at a conclusion about the Bible on hell: or more accurately, about God on hell.

Erasing Hell is fairly short and is very accessible, despite a thorough treatment of biblical material. It is worth reading.

Rating: 5/5

Review — Money, Possessions and Eternity (Randy Alcorn: Tyndale 2003)

If you don’t want to be challenged regarding your beliefs, attitudes and actions regarding a Christian’s use of money, don’t read this book.

This has been out for several years, but is nevertheless a thorough and biblical look at what Christian’s should think about money, and how we should think about money. Alcorn leaves virtually no subject untouched in his call for believers to approach wealth and possessions with a view to building up treasures in heaven, rather than on earth. And no one’s ox remains ungored as he calls on us to examine whether we truly trust God for our daily provision, or whether our blind acceptance of western wealth practices reveals that we really trust in Mammon.

Alcorn’s treatment of the subject tends toward lengthy, with several appendices as well, but one should remember that this is as thorough a treatment as you are likely to find.

Worth a read, but be sitting down when you do.

Rating: 5/5

I thought initially that it only applied to Mark Driscoll and his “scandalous” book, Real Marriage.

It seemed that everyone and his proverbial brother were hopping on the pummel-Mark bandwagon and offering critiques of his book, causing me to wonder how I — a normally fast reader — were woefully behind the blogosphere in reading, then reviewing, Driscoll’s book.

As it turns out, buried in the blogs and articles labelled “reviews” of Real Marriage was the whispered disclaimer, “I have not yet read the book, but…” The reviews were so fast in coming, as it were, because the reviewers skipped a crucial step: reading the book.

Occasionally what was not whispered in the dark was proclaimed from the housetops, and some actually took pride in the fact that they not only had they not read the book for which they offered scathing critique, they also boldly announced that they “would never read such a book”, obviously possessing a gift of the Spirit for sanctimony, private revelation and Solomonic wisdom, to boot.

But I find that such talents are not just applied in critique of whipping-boy pastors of the West Coast, but also to prominent, well-known pastors from the heartland. One well-known website offering ostensibly Christian critique of culture posted an article blasting John Piper’s book, Bloodlines: Race, Cross and the Christian (offered as a free download by Piper). The author admits in his article that he has not read the book. Yet he is comfortable saying things like:

Although I have not had the opportunity to read Bloodlines yet, if Mulder’s review is accurate, I have to agree with him that Piper’s solution ignores the reality of institutional racism.

“Piper’s solution” has not been explored by the author, but by someone else. Does anyone else see the obvious problems with this? The reviewer is disparaging Piper’s conclusion based upon what someone else has concluded about Piper’s conclusion.

This is madness.

There are certainly occasions when I read that someone’s book is forthcoming and I see the flurry of activity in reviews, articles and blogs about the book. That might reasonably prompt me to write something on the topic. And there are times when other bloggers and writers take up a topic in a way that spurs my own thoughts on the matter and prompts me to post them. But without having read book or blog, I dare not make statements to the world claiming how I know that they are wrong (or right, for that matter).

Yet this is precisely what happened ad nauseam to Driscoll, and what appears to be happening to Piper.

My plea to my Christian brothers is simply this: should you be tempted to offer your conclusions about what someone has said, read what he has said.

In It is Dangerous to be Right when the Government is Wrong, Andrew P. Napolitano argues his central premise that liberty is the overriding concern of the U.S. Constitution and of the American experiment, and is precisely the realm of individual freedom that government is most likely to now impede.

A brief background of the founding principles of the United States is given, and then numerous examples through our history are given to demonstrate how those principles are overlooked, neglected, and sometimes outright trampled. At times the treatment of historical issues becomes a bit labored and tedious.

Napolitano does a fair job illustrating government encroachment with real examples, and most readers will find themselves irate that such actions are being undertaken by our own government, which has historically existed to serve the people.

However, Napolitano sometimes gives a confused view of how liberty actually works. For instance, in criticizing national government actions in the realm of marriage in relation to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), Napolitano suggests that the U.S. government should leave such things to the States. But he also challenges any State encroachment upon marriage relationships, too, leaving the reader wondering who is left to regulate marriage, if anyone should.

After lauding the Judeo-Christian heritage that gave rise to the U.S. Constitution and our form of government, Napolitano seems to set as the highest goal of any organized society the preservation of individual liberty. Yet this ignores the Judeo-Christian heritage that limits individual liberty, as we see in the Old Testament laws that directed farmers to leave the corners of their fields unharvested so that the poor could get it themselves.

I also would have liked Napolitano to treat the question of how those principles that he asserts preserve liberty are either consistent with or violate a Judeo-Christian ethic.

Disclosure: I received a copy of this book from the publisher through the Book Sneeze (BookSneeze®.com <http://BookSneeze®.com>) book review program. I was not required or encouraged to write a positive review; the thoughts expressed here are my own.