kinnon.tv

Bloggers Need to Invoice Publishers for Their Marketing Efforts on Publishers' Behalf

UPDATE: Jordon Cooper adds another post to this conversation, The Christian Book Whore.

Forgive the long title but this post has been brewing since I read Jordon Cooper's Theological Debate As Blood Sport. His post was written early in the "debate" around McLaren's new book. Jordon said this near the end of his post, in regards to the marketing of books like Brian's;

(We) have to take into account how bloggers get played by the publishing houses. In exchange for “review copies”, they get to turn us into their own personal marketing whores. You don’t think Harper Collins isn’t feeling pretty happy for the “buzz” that we generate from their free, cheaply produced review copies. We get to feel like “insiders” when we are marketing pawns, rushing to review the book on Amazon and posting the reviews on our blogs. Harper Collins (as a division of News Corp.) has an obligation to the bottom line, not to the faith. [emphasis added]

Brad Boydston, the king of great random links, wrote this last night,

BRIAN McLAREN'S new book A New Kind of Christianity is getting lots of reaction. That was certainly his goal.

I WISH that Mark Noll's book The New Shape of World Christianity: How American Experience Reflects Global Faith would get as much attention. The whole postmodern cultural shift discussion that McLaren and the emerging folks want to lead is so insular and so Western -- while so much of what is shaping the church in 2010 is so global. [emphasis added]

Jordon's point and perhaps Brad's is that we bloggers are getting played by, at the very least, the publishers and in some cases, the book authors. HarperOne (ANKoChristianity's publisher) doesn't care whether I slam or sing the praises of Brian's book. In the market place of idea-based books, any PR is good PR. In fact, they probably love that I discuss Brian's book over and against McGrath's Heresy - another HarperOne book.

Michael Hyatt, Thomas Nelson CEO sings the praises of his company's Book Sneeze program. He's got all kinds of bloggers who've signed up to be "sneezers" for Thomas Nelson.

Their site trumpets, Booksneeze Gives (BOOKS) to Bloggers for Free. But that would be free ONLY from Thomas Nelson's perspective. Since they place ZERO value on the time of the Bloggers reading their books.

Let's have a bit of fun with math, kids, shall we.

We will use Brian's new book as an example even though it's not a Thomas Nelson book.

ANKoChristianity is 320 pages in total length (according to Amazon.) With the preface and main body text and excluding the endnotes, index, title page, etc, the book is about 260 pages. Average word count per page is around 350 - 400 words. We will use the lower number.

Now considering that the average reading speed for an American adult is in the 200 words per minute range, with Brian's book being approximately 90,000 words - it will take the average reader about 7.5 hours to finish the book. Basically, an average working day.

Now to get a book from Thomas Nelson, you need to promise to write a minimum 200 word review of that book and post it on your blog AND a consumer website (like Amazon). When you provide links to prove to Thomas Nelson you've done so - you get another "FREE" book.

Forgive me, but this is almost Pavlovian.

Let's say you only take 30 minutes to write your review - you've still spent 8 hours of your time on a book that publishers want you to help them market.

There is no way in the world that the real costs of the books publishers and their PR and Marketing Firms are shipping you cost more than 10 dollars including shipping (and I'm being very generous to the publishers with this figure).

Are you really willing to work for a publisher for a little over a dollar an hour?

Where I Stand on This
I remember being flattered when I was asked to join the Ooze Viral Bloggers a couple of years ago. Wow. My blog is important enough that they want to send me free books. (Gullible is my middle name.)

But the books really aren't free folks.

The expectation was that I'd read them and then write something about them - the unwritten contract. When a book Oozed it's way to me I would commit my time to reading it, shortly after it hit my doorstep - and at least say something about it. Even if the book was crap - which far too many were.

And human nature being what it is, most of us don't want to say bad things about "gifts" from anyone, even publishers - whether they're oozing or not. No doubt publishers are very aware of this basic reality of human nature. They aren't in the gift-giving business - they are in the book publishing business. As Jordon says, their bottom line is making a profit - and I do not begrudge them that.

I'm just not willing to work for them for free.

With much of this in mind, I opted out of the Ooze a year ago in terms of asking for books. (I officially asked not to receive anymore emails about the Ooze books in January.) I've never opted in to Booksneeze and won't.

With shipping and taxes, I paid just under $28CDN for McLaren's new book. I chose to spend the time I did reading the book and critiquing it - not feeling like I was beholden to the marketing efforts of the OozeTV team & Mike Morrell, HarperOne or anyone else. (BTW Mike, though I'm sure you really do like Brian's book, when you comment on people's blogs about said book, it would be good if you noted you were paid for your efforts in the Ooze viral marketing campaign for it. There probably are one or two people who don't actually know that and it could be perceived as a conflict of interest.)

I still receive the occasional email offering to send me a book. Some I accept - but with no promise to review the book one way or the other. And I mention in the review that the book was provided for free - even though there is no law in Canada to force me to do that.

But to my fellow bloggers.

Your time really is worth something.

If publishers want you to join them in their efforts to market their books - it's only fair they pay you - and that you tell us you are being paid to read and review their books.

Or.

They can ACTUALLY send you free books - without stipulating anything.

If the books you receive really are great, you might just write something about them.

(And can people please go read the Cluetrain Manifesto. This old school marketing stuff is getting old.)

Jordon Cooper, Show Me The Money, Mr. Publisher, book marketing, bloggers as marketing pawns, Brad Boydston

Pointing to A Few More ANKoChristianity Reviews

There are some days that I wish I could be paid to blog. (I hear that laughter.) But I get paid to produce television and media content for clients. And my blogging and focus on ANKoChristianity has caused me to get rather behind on work that needs to be finished. I hope to respond to Brian McLaren's response to me in the next 72 hours - but that will depend on how much paying work I get done in that timeframe.

So.

Let me point you to a few other reviews of Brian McLaren's A New Kind of Christianity.

Trevin Wax is simply one of the best bloggers in Christian blogdom. Gracious, scholarly and a very good writer. Though I would not share all of the finer points of Trevin's theology, I look forward to his posts showing up in Google Reader. Trevin has dome some of the very best interviews with N.T.Wright. Please read Trevin's take on Brian's book, Why Brian McLaren's New Book is Good for the Emerging Church.

I took Kevin DeYoung and his co-writer, Ted Kluck to task for their book, Why We Love the Church. Brian's book, which I would actually agree with less than DeYoung & Kluck's book, has been treated with kid gloves in comparison (by me). That being said, DeYoung has written a firm, even handed and indepth critique of McLaren's book that is a must read, Part 1 and Part 2. His paraphrase of the late Stan Grenz and Roger Olson on classic liberalism is one of the most effective moments in the review - at least for me.

Nathan Gilmour of The Christian Humanist (?) pens an interesting review as one of the Ooze Viral Bloggers. (I hope you can get a prescription for that / GRIN.) He outlines where he sees Brian getting it right, wrong & sneaky while giving the book "a nod" at the end. Nathan takes McLaren to task particularly for pitching himself as an available consultant at the end of the book. (I confess I skimmed over that in my reading.) Nathan writes,

I realize that not everybody is as suspicious of out-of-town “experts” as I am, and I’d be fine if McLaren were consistently sanguine. But as it stands, it looks like he decided to use this book, which pitches itself as a moment of honesty, as a platform to promote himself and his Emergent Village buddies while calling dedicated ordained folks prison guards, and that’s an inexcusable bit of duplicity.

Nathan may call it "inexcusable" but he still goes on to recommend we purchase the book,

...a book’s excellence lies not in its being right but in its being interesting. Given that criterion, I’d still recommend this book for folks interested in reading some philosophical-progressive alternatives to modern evangelicalism. There are some moments of sloppy thinking and others of outright self-serving dishonesty, but on balance, I can accept those sorts of things in a book that spurs me to think for a while, and I think that this book did.

Ron Cole is about 1/2 way through reading ANKoChristianity and has a generally favourable response to the book, along with a deep love for Brian himself. (That is a good thing, btw.)

Jeremy Bouma, in the process of placing Pagitt beside Pelagius and eliciting something stronger than a "hmmmm" promises to peruse ANKoChristianity and publicly place his thoughts before us. (Some people say I'm alliterate.)

And finally, as perhaps many folk who read me would not read Challies (the #1 Christian Blogger in the Universe - as far as statisticians are able to ascertain - and a near-Toronto lad to boot), Tim writes a very well written, hard and angry response to Brian's ANKoChristianity. (102 comments at this point in time)

[Humour Alert] And finally, finally (or the last word and the word after that) I have been told that there is no truth to this rumour from the future that when ANKoChristianity finally takes over;

Albert Mohler, former President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (now renamed the ANKoChristianity Southern Seminary) will still be permitted to teach. But only in German. On Thursdays. Wearing a cardigan. In a shuttered Episcopal Church. In Poughkeepsie, NY.

A New Kind of Christianity, Brian McLaren

A Question or Two About Brian McLaren's A New Kind of Christianity

UPDATE: Brian McLaren graciously responds to this post and a previous couple of posts of mine. No one does gracious quite as well as Brian. (Not a snark, simply an observation and a trait of Brian's I can definitely learn from.)

This is my 2nd attempt at reviewing Brian's new book. The first was 3,000 words and I was barely half done. A good friend said, "It looks like you've begun a response to the book, Bill. I thought you were writing a review?" She was right.

Another good friend thought it might be helpful for me to turn my verbosity into questions. A good and helpful point.

So.

I'm going to ask some questions that have come up while reading Brian McLaren's new book A New Kind of Christianity, including all the footnotes. I will do my best to explain why I have those questions.

Let me begin.

Jesus asked his disciples, "Who do you say I am?" Peter's immediate response (the immediacy assumed based on his character) was "You are the Christ (the Messiah), Son of the Living God."

Again, based on my finished reading of Brian's book, I am left with this rather uncomfortable question:

Who do you say Jesus is, Brian?

Is Jesus the second person of the Trinity, as Paul says in his letter to the Phillipians, "Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death— even death on a cross!"

Or as the Nicene Creed says "the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made."

Should this not be a relatively simple question to answer? Yet it is one I am left asking after finishing Brian's book.

Here's are a few of the reasons I ask the question?

On page 118, you say;

...the character of the living God is like the character of Jesus.

And later,

When you see him, you are getting the best view afforded to humans of the character of God.

And then at the top of page 132;

And the term “Christ” or “Messiah” literally means “anointed one,” suggesting a king or leader chosen by God to – like Moses – liberate the people from oppression.

In your 28th footnote for Chapter 18, you interpret Peter in Acts 10:42-42 as "Jesus is appointed by God to be both..."

These are just a few of the places where your description of Jesus confuses me. Now, you have a Master's Degree in English, so I'm pretty sure you know what you mean. My problem is that I don't.

Is "the character of the living God" like Jesus - or is Jesus the very character of the Living God?

Is Jesus the "best view afforded to humans of the character of God" or is Jesus simply God Incarnate?

Was Jesus "chosen by God" or did Jesus choose His way as God. And if Jesus is God, how is He "appointed by God"?

In John 14:9, Jesus tells his disciples: "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father."

Is He not claiming to be God there? Or am I missing something? Or do you believe He is God and I just don't understand you? Help a brother out here.

Now it would seem that you have a problem with John 14 and the way it's interpreted as you outline in Chapter 19. Particularly John 14:6 where Jesus tells the disciples; "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me."

My reading suggests that you simply dismiss what appears an obvious understanding; that Jesus is actually saying He is the Only Way to the Father.

You write that those of us who would think this do not understand that this is a preprogrammed response based on our Greco-Roman understanding. (Page 212)

And about wrestling with that whole Greco-Roman thing. I realize that your entire thesis hangs in the balance on this, but wasn't the Apostle Paul rather Greco-Roman? I know, it's probably a weird place in my questions to ask this question, but I was thinking; Paul was a Roman citizen, who spoke Greek, was trained in the Scriptures, and in Greek thought, and Jesus chose him as the disciple to replace Judas. Right?

So, did God make a mistake? Should he have rather picked a non-Greco Roman type who could have kept the Greco-Roman wrestling out of Christianity? Perhaps Mike Wittmer deals with this better than I do, so I should probably leave that to him.

Anyway, back to John 14:6.

Your interpretation of the passage suggests that if we could only break out of our "dominant position" we would see that Jesus is simply responding to Thomas' fearful question, "Jesus where are you going?" You say he is not commenting, in one way or another, about the many different ways one might find God.

You write that for anyone to suggest that Jesus words have him claiming he is the ONLY way to the Father is "misappropriating them, twisting them, abusing them." (Page 217). Isn't that a little harsh or do you need to be harsh to get through my rather thick skull?

You seem to say that Jesus would never ever suggest that he was the only way.

Would the logical reason for that be because you don't believe he is God Incarnate? Since only God could claim to be the ONLY way. Or am I missing it again?

But what about Jesus telling the scared disciples that if they've seen him, they've seen the Father. Is that just a metaphor?

Which leads me to wonder if you agree with your friend, Marcus Borg, who you footnote a number of times in the book and talk about in your Introduction as one of the people whose "emerging mission" points toward the title of your book.

Borg sees John's Gospel as "the most metaphorical and furthest removed from the deeds and words of Jesus."

He says this about Jesus' "I am the Way statement"

...the way of Jesus is the way of death and resurrection--the path of transition and transformation from an old way of being to a new way of being. To use the language of incarnation that is so central to John, Jesus incarnates the way. Incarnation means embodiment. Jesus is what the way embodied in a human life looks like.

That last line sounds to me a lot like your statement that Jesus is "the best view afforded to humans of the character of God." But I probably don't understand, right? And I really don't want to suggest guilt by association. You should meet some of my friends. Oh right, you have.

And in his book, Jesus in Contemporary Scholarship (1994) Borg says about Jesus in light of that scholarship,

We are quite certain that Jesus did not think of himself as divine or as the "Son of God" in any unique sense, if at all. If one of his disciples had responded when reportedly asked by Jesus in Mark's gospel, "Who do you say that I am?," with words like those used in the Nicene Creed, we can well imagine that Jesus would have said, "What???"

Oh and Borg goes on to say that "most Jesus scholars" don't buy the Virgin Birth, the Ascension - "..there is a further reason the story cannot be taken literally, namely, one cannot imagine it happening" - or that there will be a literal second coming. They do all agree that Jesus was crucified, died and was buried. (But Borg's scholarship folk don't buy the Resurrection, either.)

Are you with Borg here, or do you think he might be a tad confused?

Now, Borg's friend N.T. Wright would be one of those Jesus scholars who definitely would not agree with him. In fact, the good Bishop of Durham says this, (and I confess that I cried when I read it - at the part which I've highlighted),

Let me put it like this. In Paul (and this is really a Pauline conversation, after all), what happens is that the word of the gospel is announced. That is to say, Jesus Christ is proclaimed – one-on-one or in a large meeting or out on the street or whatever, and even though that message is crazy (and Paul knows it’s crazy; he says it’s folly to Gentiles and a scandal to Jews), some people find that it grabs them and they believe it. This is bizarre. I shouldn’t be believing this. A dead man got raised from the dead and he’s the Lord of the world. I really shouldn’t believe this, but it does make sense. And it finds me and I can feel it changing me. Paul’s analysis of that is that this is the power of the word (he has a strong theology of the word), and another equal way of saying it for Paul is that this is the Holy Spirit working through the gospel. He says, no one can say that Jesus Christ is Lord except by the Holy Spirit.

Your book suggests that N.T. Wright has greatly helped your understanding of theology, correct?

So my final question would be - Do you think Borg or Wright is correct? Wright believes in the physical resurrection and that the physically resurrected Jesus is now "the Lord of the World".

Borg, well, not so much.

One of them may be Wright - but they both can't be right!

Right?!

I just can't find the answer to these questions in your book that is all about A New Kind of Christianity.

Brian McLaren, New Kind of Christianity

Reviewers Reviewing McLaren's A New Kind of Christianity

UPDATE: Brian McLaren graciously responds to this post, my previous post on Framing the Discussion and my later post where I have Questions for him (which he responds to).

I have no time today to write a substantive review of Brian McLaren's A New Kind of Christianity. (As an independent producer/director, I have work that needs to get finished.) So I will point you at two reviewers that I would recommend you read and some further background for the on-going discussion.

Mike Wittmer has begun a series on the book. He's on Question 2 right now. Of course, Mike is part of the Military Industrial Complex Theological Seminary/Church Leadership Vested Interest Group (TS/CLVIG for short) and a Kuyperian, no less. You've been warned. :-) Here are direct links to his Introduction and Question 1.

The second link is to Darryl Dash in a review that is possibly stronger and more blunt than I've ever heard him before. He quotes Brian on the need to rethink the whole Christian enterprise,

At some point, though, more and more of us will finally decide that it would make more sense to go back and revise the contract from scratch. And that work has begun. It is nowhere near complete, but the cat is out of the bag… [emphasis added by Darryl]

And Darryl responds,

And that cat is on a tear. McLaren attempts the impossible, essentially tossing out what you always thought was true, and starting again from scratch. The Fall of Genesis 3? That’s really a coming-of-age story. The storyline of the Bible? It’s really about the downside of progress, and about how good prevails in the end anyway. The Bible is a community library, and the violent, tribal God of the Genesis flood is “hardly worthy of belief, much less worship” – but those were early days, and our view of God is always changing. Jesus didn’t come to start a new religion, nor is Christianity the answer in itself. In short, almost everything you know about God, the Bible, and Christianity is wrong, according to McLaren. [emphasis added]

McLaren is quite upfront that his theology has been powerfully informed by Harvey Cox's The Reason for Faith and by the theology of Marcus Borg. (He identifies Borg as a fellow emergent traveller and Cox winds his way through McLaren's footnotes.) So you might find Borg's BeliefNet post on John 14:6 informative - as it squares with that of Brian's understanding of the verse in ANKoC. And this will give a little taste of the theology of Cox along with this. (I confess that I find Cox's definition of the present "Age of the Spirit" rather bizarre - as if the Holy Spirit was incapable of doing much until now. An extremely low view of the power of the Spirit I would posit.)

As pointed to in the previous post, Jeremy Bouma has begun a series that investigates and questions the theology of the Emergent Village wing of the Emerging Church. As Brian has been and still is a key leader in the theology of EV, Jeremy's posts are important to the discussion.

I also want to point you to my friend Sonja, blogging as Calacrian, and her post from this morning that begins with a Frost poem that has been resonating of late for me, as well.

...we’ve come to a place where there are a goodly number of people who are comfortable with the way things are (or are headed) in the emerging conversation. But there are also a goodly number of people who (for a variety of reasons) are no longer comfortable with it. Me, I feel like Robert Frost standing at the two roads diverging in the woods. Do we really have to choose?

This discussion around Emergent and ANKoC is going to be hard. Lines have already been drawn. (I hear, "nobody's right if everybody's wrong" echoing that last sentence.)

I was awake until 4am last night struggling with this stuff. Wondering how a conversation that had begun in part about oppression had itself become oppressive - where transparency would be talked about but not practiced. Where questioners would have shame labels hung around their necks - while the questioned would play the victim card. It has begun to feel like the Twilight Zone or perhaps what my kids once called Opposites Day.

I awoke this morning to an interlocutor suggesting I was in league with Screwtape - because I dared to ask questions - of an Emergent leader.

That is the level of dis-ease in this discussion. Which extends further and deeper than the present presenting symptoms - as stories of betrayal, infidelity and coverup are woven into the very fabric of the marketing of this new kind of Emergent Christianity.

And yes, Bob, Screwtape is laughing. But at what or whom, exactly?

Brian McLaren, Darryl Dash, Mike Wittmer, A New Kind of Christianity

Brian Wants to Frame the Reviews: 'If you disagree with me, you are probably a Fundie!'

UPDATE: Brian McLaren graciously responds to this post, my next post on Reviewers Reviewing and my later post where I have Questions for him (which he responds to).

Brian McLaren's new book is now appearing in the hands of those who pre-ordered it. My copy of A New Kind of Christianity arrived last Thursday. I grabbed fleeting moments over the weekend to quickly read it. From the dust cover of the book,

We are in the midst of a paradigm shift in the church. Not since the Reformation five centuries ago have so many Christians come together to ask whether the church is in sync with their deepest beliefs and commitments. These believers range from evangelicals to mainline Protestants to Catholics, and the person who best represents them is author and pastor Brian McLaren. [emphasis added]

Brian's book tells us immediately that Brian best represents those of us who question the institutional church. A little "all your leadership are belong to me" perhaps - at least for those of us who dare question the present state of the church. Now, perhaps it's just marketing hyperbole. Maybe Brian really doesn't think he's God's answer to the present state of the church.

Or God's ten answers that is.

But he certainly wants to frame how his book is reviewed.

Scot McKnight pointed to the binary "Quiz" Brian ran on his blog:

"If A you probably are a Fundamentalist..."

"If B you are curious..."

Scot responds,

...the arrangement smacks of radical individualism and denies the foundational role our communities play in our knowledge and social construction of reality. What's wrong with asking about every new idea what "the Church" or my community thinks? Or if it is logically consistent with what I've already concluded to be sound? Not only that, but the world of Jesus was much more like the first answer than the second, and that is has been brought to the fore by cultural anthropologists like Bruce Malina, who adapts the research of Mary Douglas and others.

I also wonder if this is not a false dichotomy: I know plenty of fundies who are intrinsically curious people, who wonder "what if?" and who are always chasing down their questions. I know plenty on the other side who aren't in the least curious.

My friend, Darryl Dash in his post, Ending the Discussion Before it Starts, says this,

I’ve found that there are ways to end a discussion before it even begins. It’s easy: you set the terms of the discussion so that if you disagree with me, then it’s clearly because you have a problem, so it’s no use even continuing. It’s not really fair, but it allows me to pretend that I have the moral high ground while it effectively silences you, if you let it that is. [emphasis added]

And then later responding to Brian's writing at the end of A New Kind of Christianity where it would seem that Brian insists that he and his friends should get to set the terms of the discussion of his book, Darryl writes,

...if we say that we have concerns, it’s implied that we have a problem and we’re trying to shut things down. This makes it hard to review a book, never mind deal with the kinds of issues raised in a book like this.

There is a level of cognitive dissonance in a writer who offers his book as the answer to all that ails Christianity and then also wants to frame how we engage with that book. And the dissonance is deeper in that said writer chooses to label those who disagree with him as close-minded Fundamentalists.

Perhaps it's time to read the 99 Theses of the Cluetrain Manifesto, Mr. McLaren. You sound like the companies they attempt to educate.

I'm sure it's rather unfortunate for you, but you don't get to decide how the rest of us engage with your book. Let me be blunt, your approach is reminiscent of the divisive politics perfected in the nation you call home. Where people who disagree with your president are labeled as racists - or those who agree are socialists. Of course, you showed some of that tendency yourself here, so perhaps I should not really be surprised.

Jeremy Bouma said this in his Goodbye Emergent post yesterday - a post that has generated a lot of response,

Recently, Doug Pagitt wrote on his blog and Brian McLaren said in a video that those of us who take them and others to task are held in bondage to fear and thoroughly un-loving; my motivation for analyzing the theology and beliefs of leaders within the emerging church is fear-based and inherently un-love. One word: ridiculous. I am not fearful; this has nothing to do with fear. In fact, the loving thing to do is in fact confront, prod, and question. [emphasis added - links to Pagitt and McLaren at Bouma's post.]

Let me offer this piece of advice to you, Brian, if you don't want to receive reviews that question your ideas then simply stop writing. It really is that simple.

Otherwise you will need to deal with the reality that the days of the idea gatekeepers are over. Welcome to the networked conspiracy.

I'll begin to review the book in my next post, later this week.

Brian McLaren, Emergent Village

Mere Churchianity - Finding Our Way Back to Jesus-Shaped Spirituality

I count it a privilege to call the Internet Monk, Michael Spencer, my friend. His writings have been extremely helpful to my family as we've navigated the waters of the church these past five years. [Update: That's these past five years in particular. We've been involved in the church for a whole heck of lot longer than that.]

His support of this humble corner of blogdom has also been greatly appreciated.

I know how excited Michael is about his new book, Mere Churchianity - Finding Your Way Back to Jesus-Shaped Spirituality. I had been looking forward to chatting with Michael about this before Christmas - and then his health concerns turned into a rather severe cancer diagnosis - and Michael's time has been consumed with fighting that battle. (Please continue to pray for Michael and his family as he, his doctors and the prayers of the people continue to fight the cancer.)

Michael's book is now available for pre-Order on Amazon. I haven't read any of it yet, but I know from Michael's writing at Internet Monk and our email conversations that this is going to be both a very good and a very important book. I've pre-ordered my copy from the Canadian Amazon store. It would be a great encouragement to Michael if you ordered a copy now, as well. (Links in this post are to the US Amazon store.)

You can also support Michael via the PayPal Donate link @ Internet Monk. (If you click the linked "Donate link" in the previous sentence - you will go directly to PayPal.)

Michael's medical coverage and his work remuneration have both come to an end and his medical battle is very expensive. (Michael was a teacher at a private Christian school that was more a mission than a profitable venture. They do not have "gold-plated" medical coverage as I doubt they could afford it.)

InternetMonk, Michael Spencer, Jesus-shaped Spirituality

Coffeehouse Theology Study Guide (Free 'til Dec 31st)

Ed Cyzewski (@edcyzewski on Twitter) is a gifted professional writer who blogs on culture and the church @ In A Mirror Dimly - one of my favourite blogs. (Ed's blog on writing is also worth following.)

Ed is also the author of a good book, Coffeehouse Theology:

Coffeehouse Theology will help the reader understand, shape, and live out practical Christian theology in the postmodern context. Beginning with the relationship of cultural context and theology, Coffeehouse Theology roots theology in the church’s mission to be the presence of God’s Kingdom.

If you haven't had a chance to read Coffeehouse Theology, Ed and his publisher are offering a 35% discount (coupon code: K82E1D8E6).

FREE EBOOK STUDY GUIDE:
Until the end of 2009 - a scant 16 days away - you can download a free ebook version of Ed's study guide for Coffeehouse Theology.

I've already grabbed mine.

It's the Story, Stupid

As mentioned below, I'm reading C.J. Sansom's Matthew Shardlake series. In just over a week, I've finished the first three books and am half way through the fourth (while also getting lots of other work done, honest).

I'm a murder-mystery fan (Elizabeth George being my favourite in this genre) and Sansom's series is murder-mystery set in King Henry VIII's England - combining another guilty pleasure of mine, historical fiction. This series is a thoroughly enjoyable read.

A few posts back, I wrote a rather snarky post on book writing called Push Back from the Keyboard, Put Down the Pen - key quote:

It would seem that everyone has a book in them. And perhaps that's where most of them should stay.

But the primary point in the post was that fiction sold better than non-fiction, and writers needed to consider becoming great storytellers - if they were going to inflict their writing on more than their Moms.

Continuing on this topic, Andy Crouch recently pointed to a good article in the WSJ from Lev Grossman on popular fiction vs plot-less, plodding "literary" fiction.

...the discipline of the conventional literary novel is a pretty harsh one. To read one is to enter into a kind of depressed economy, where pleasure must be bought with large quantities of work and patience. The Modernists felt little obligation to entertain their readers. That was just the price you paid for your Joycean epiphany. Conversely they have trained us, Pavlovianly, to associate a crisp, dynamic, exciting plot with supermarket fiction, and cheap thrills, and embarrassment. Plot was the coward's way out, for people who can't deal with the real world. If you're having too much fun, you're doing it wrong.

I've always preferred the pleasure of a good read to the pain of wading through the fictional accounting of a life more miserable than my own. (Though our library shelves might suggest otherwise - in my case, they lie.) And when it comes to said pleasures, 'twould appear I'm not alone. (As Crouch quoted Grossman)

There was a time when difficult literature was exciting. T.S. Eliot once famously read to a whole football stadium full of fans. And it's still exciting—when Eliot does it. But in contemporary writers it has just become a drag. Which is probably why millions of adults are cheating on the literary novel with the young-adult novel, where the unblushing embrace of storytelling is allowed, even encouraged. Sales of hardcover young-adult books are up 30.7% so far this year, through June, according to the Association of American Publishers, while adult hardcovers are down 17.8%. Nam Le's "The Boat," one of the best-reviewed books of fiction of 2008, has sold 16,000 copies in hardcover and trade paperback, according to Nielsen Bookscan (which admittedly doesn't include all book retailers). In the first quarter of 2009 alone, the author of the "Twilight" series, Stephenie Meyer, sold eight million books. What are those readers looking for? You'll find critics who say they have bad taste, or that they're lazy and can't hack it in the big leagues. But that's not the case. They need something they're not getting elsewhere. Let's be honest: Why do so many adults read Suzanne Collins's young-adult novel "The Hunger Games" instead of contemporary literary fiction? Because "The Hunger Games" doesn't bore them. (emphasis added by BK)

Tell me a story that doesn't bore. Pull me into a world that intrigues me. If you have truth to teach, weave it into the lives of your characters and bring it alive in the craft of your prose. As Grossman (almost) concludes,

The novel is finally waking up from its 100-year carbonite nap. Old hierarchies of taste are collapsing. Genres are hybridizing. The balance of power is swinging from the writer back to the reader, and compromises with the public taste are being struck all over the place. Lyricism is on the wane, and suspense and humor and pacing are shedding their stigmas and taking their place as the core literary technologies of the 21st century.

From a hieratic, hermetic art object the novel is blooming into something more casual and open: a literature of pleasure. The critics will have to catch up. This new breed of novel resists interpretation, but not the way the Modernists did. These books require a different set of tools, and a basic belief that plot and literary intelligence aren't mutually exclusive.

Afterall, it is the story, stupid!

C.J. Sansom, Elizabeth George, writing fiction, WSJ, Lev Grossman

Matthew Shardlake and Me

Ben Witherington III, a few posts back at his blog (which now appears @ Belief Net, shudder), wrote about C.J. Sansom's Matthew Hardlake series.

The real strength of Sansom's writing is detailed historical description of the ordinary life of ordinary people in London and the surrounding areas during a tumultuous period in English history. This was the period of Cranmer and Cromwell and Coverdale when the memory of Sir Thomas More was still fresh, and those today who care about or are interested in the rise of the English Protestant Reformation under Henry's instigation will find these novels fascinating. Sansom doesn't gild the lily at all, and so we are regaled with Reforming preachers who are busy condemning every one to Hell (the so called 'hot Gospelers') and people who go on killing sprees, in the name of the Lord (the subject of the novel Revelation where a crazed Reformer uses the seven bowls judgments as a pattern for a series of seven murders). These were perilous days for Refomers who could be hauled off to jail by Bishop Bonner in a heartbeat for nothing more than preaching the Gospel on a street corner. Needless to say this is not your momma's Sunday school literature about how pure the Puritans were.

When you read these novels you can certainly understand why, by the beginning of the 18th century when John Wesley was born (1703), England was sick and tired of religous wars and of killing each other in the name of Christ, and so the watchword of the age was 'tolerance'. Does that sound familiar?

It does indeed.

At Ben's blog recommendation, I ordered the series. They arrived on Friday and I began reading the books on Monday. I'm now on page 188 of the third book, Sovereign. (I obviously like the series.)

I find myself identifying with the series' central character, the hunchback lawyer Matthew Shardlake. He's a man who's Protestant faith once burned white hot, but his working in close proximity to Thomas Cromwell, one of the Reform leaders, has seen Shardlake's zeal cool. (Shardlake is fictional - Cromwell real.)

Lawyer Shardlake in conversation with Lady Honour, from the second book in the series, Dark Fire, (Pan Paperback Edition, Pg 228)

'When I was young I was in thrall to the writings of Erasmus. I loved his picture of a peaceful commonwealth where men worshipped in good fellowship, the abuses of the old Church gone.'

'I too was much taken with Erasmus once,' she said. 'Yet it did not turn out as he hoped, did it? Martin Luther began his violent attacks on the Church and Germany was flooded with anarchy.

I nodded. 'Erasmus would never comment on Luther, for or against him. That always puzzled me.'

'I think he was too shocked at what was happening. Poor Erasmus.' She laughed sadly. 'He as much given to quoting St. John chapter six, was he not? "The Spirit gives life, but the flesh is of no use." But men are ruled by their passions and always will be." (Emphasis and link added)

And later in the book, Shardlake in conversation with former monk/physician Guy, (Dark Fire - Page 535)

'Why does faith bring out the worst in so many, Guy?' I blurted out. 'How is it that it can turn men, papist and reformer both, into brutes?'

(Guy responds) 'Man is an angry, savage being. Sometimes faith becomes an excuse for battle. It is not real faith then. In justifying their positions in the name of God, men silence God. But having the comfortable belief that, having read the Bible and prayed, they cannot be wrong.' (Emphasis added)

I had someone comment this morning on one of my posts from much earlier this year, It's All About Me, NPD and Church Leaders. I'd forgotten about this post, but I am struck once again how many leaders in the various manifestations of that living entity we call The Church - operate no differently than Thomas Cromwell - leaving a trail of bodies and virtual bloodshed in their wake - all to the glory of god - and would you please buy their latest book.

Whatever label they self-confess, whether conservative, progressive, emerging, reformed, missional - the story is the same. They have the answers. And we, the sheep, are fools if we don't listen. Ah, but what a fool believes, eh.

C.J. Sansom, Matthew Shardlake, Thomas Cromwell, 16th Century Britain

Stetzer Interview with Addison

Ed has a good interview with Steve Addison (who I mentioned in my review of We Love The Church, a few posts south of this one) up on Ed's blog. I should have my copy of Steve's book, Movements that Change the World in hand shortly (according to Amazon) and will add my own thoughts. I like this from Steve in response to an Ed question,

You don't get dramatic expansion of a movement if everyone is a paid professional. If anyone is paid, they are paid to pioneer new fields and mobilize others. Whether they are in New York or New Delhi, that's what missionaries do.

The last characteristic (of dynamic movements) is adaptive methods. The best illustration of an adaptive method I can think of is the game of soccer. Soccer is the world's game played by hundreds of millions and watched by billions. Why? I think it's because you can drop a ball at the feet of a three year old and she can start playing. It may take a lifetime of practice to master the game, but only an instant to begin enjoying it. Try doing that with American or Australian football.

Adaptive methods are simple, flexible and transferable. That's one reason why Jesus taught by telling stories. A good story, like the prodigal son, can be told by anyone to anyone, even across the boundaries of culture and time.

Movements are unchanging when it comes to their core message and beliefs. At the same time they are willing to change everything else to get that message out and get the job done. Unfortunately we have churches that are unwilling to change their methods, but quite happy to change the heart of the gospel. They have the worst of both worlds and the fruit is clear to see. (Emphasis added)

And when you are done reading Ed's interview, please pop over to Dave Fitch's blog and read Dave's Missional Church Planting, A Report.

When it comes right down to it, planting a missional community is simply asking 12-15 people to get up and move to a different location and go live into the Kingdom there in the same way that “you’re already doing here.” I know - easier said than done. Of course, you’re going to a strange place so you have to think about getting jobs and a place to live, if you have children, schooling and other issues. All this means is that you’ll be forced to trust God in ways you haven’t had to more recently. Of course, you’ll be alone so you’ll be highly dependent upon the friends and comrades that go with you. You’ll have to be intentional about community because, without your normal social busyness, the isolation of your life will be more apparent if you don’t. And of course, you’ll be forced to live life in the Kingdom because you will have moved here explicitly to seek God, His Kingdom, His working to “set the world right.” You’ll be coming together explicitly to see God work in redeeming lives and shaping a way of life that is rich in Kingdom relationships. In reality then, planting a missional community with 15 others is a spiritual discipline one should engage in if one really wants to have one’s eyes opened to the power of God released in His Kingdom thru Jesus Christ and to engage deeply in that. It is a rich way of life that cannot be surpassed in this lifetime. How else would you want to live life?

Of course I don’t want to over-romanticize missional church plantings. Many go on a missions trip overseas and come back changed for a time. Planting a missional community does this same thing for a lifetime. On a short-term missions tirp however, you can romanticize God’s Kingdom for two weeks and then escape back to routine making that missions trip seem even more romantic (and of course I still highly recommend missions trips). In going and seeding a missional community you must face the boredom and disappointments that come with everyday life in the Kingdom.

I will do my very best to have part 2 of the interview Imbi and I shot with Ed Stetzer and Dave last November, up before the beginning of September. I apologize for the rather long wait. It's been a very busy 2009 - and the busyness is not about to let up. If you missed part one, it's available via the right sidebar of this blog.

And this video of Fitch is worth viewing, even if you have already,

Dave Fitch - the Cultivate Talk on Missional Orders from Bill Kinnon on Vimeo.

dynamic church planting movements, missional movements