Bests & Worsts Reviews from Amazon

When my family first joined our church here in London, we immediately noticed there was something different about it than our previous church experience. The preaching was strong and unapologetically biblical, the music was Christ-exalting and the people seemed to really get the mission of the church. There's a sense in which this should be a normal experience for Christians with their local churches. We should be able to go and see Jesus' name praised, the Bible faithfully taught and lives impacted as the Holy Spirit works through the proclamation of the Scriptures. This is what I see our church striving to do every week. We don't want people to come and merely have a good time; we want to see their lives changed as those whose love has cooled find their passion for the Lord reignited and those who are dead in sin are raised to new life in Jesus. That's also the heart behind why James MacDonald founded Harvest Bible Chapel in 1988--he was driven by the conviction that the local church should be first and foremost God-oriented; that Jesus should be the true focus of every Sunday gathering. His new book, Vertical Church, explores this concept of a local church focused on experiencing the glory of God. Along the way, he shares the story of Harvest Bible Chapel and how this vision of a vertically oriented church has grown from 18 people in a Chicago suburb to more than 70 local churches across the planet. The premise of the book is strong. When God's people are gathered together for worship, we ought to have a real, tangible sense of God's presence in a different sort of way than when we're simply walking down the street. "When our churches serve banquets of self-centered theology, we create disillusionment in the hearts of people who feel God has failed them; but in reality God has not met with them at all," he writes (Kindle location 696). On this point, I think MacDonald is at his strongest--he gets that there's something special about God's people gathered together corporately. He gets that people are wired to long for eternity (cf. Eccl. 3:11). "Deep in the soul of every human being is a longing for transcendence created within us by God Himself. . . . God designed us so that we can't find fulfillment or lasting enjoyment apart from this eternity." So strong is this desire, MacDonald says, that it even forced Maslow (albeit reluctantly) to reject his theory of mankind's hierarchy of needs. "Maslow realized in the end that the need for transcendence was much more pervasive than the need for self-actualization," he writes (Kindle location 419). This is hugely important for us to realize because if it brings home the need to be clear on what we're about as a Church. If we're not about making known our great God and Savior, He who is the only truly transcendent one, then what do we have to offer the world? What makes us different from the local community center? Indeed, most of the big ideas found within the book and that drive a vertical church, I would generally agree with, if not always his emphases within these principles (but more on that in a minute). The focus on the preaching of the authority of Scripture without apology, bold witnessing, faithfully lifting up the name of Jesus, persistent prayer... Yes, yes, yes and amen! These are things to which the Church (not just our local church) is called. Indeed, without them, it's difficult to say that a local church has a legitimate claim to the name (although, again, there is still another thing needing to be addressed). As much as I appreciate the big ideas of the book, there is much that deeply troubles me about Vertical Church. Too often, MacDonald's arguments are theologically simplistic (note, I didn't say "simple"), built upon men of straw, and sometimes outright detrimental to a believer's spiritual health. For the sake of time, I'll do my best to keep this section brief: 1. The tone. James MacDonald is not known for his sensitivity, and this is very apparent in this book. The book comes across as hostile, often arrogant and combative. Indeed, whenever a different methodology is mentioned, it is done so with a cute but cutting nickname--"Bible-boredom church," "shoulders-up worship," and so forth (see Kindle location 99). Now, here's my question: Is Jesus more or less exalted when we tear another church down? Is His name made great or diminished when we "bite and devour one another" like this (Gal. 5:15)? While I'm not advocating niceness in place of godliness, and I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't offer criticism to our brothers and sisters intended to help them get back on mission, I have to wonder if the best approach is to resort to name-calling? Frankly, as one who has been on the receiving end of such comments on multiple occasions, MacDonald should know better. 2. Unwise illustrations. MacDonald exhorts pastors to avoid making themselves the heroes, which is a good word of caution. Yet, too often he sets himself up as the hero of the story. A particularly troubling example is his illustration of how he saved Harvest Rolling Meadows from bankruptcy during a particularly messy building campaign. He went out to the shell of the building, prayed "fervently and loudly" and then came up with an idea: call the owner of the steel company, order him to give the steel being held in storage for free and if he refuses, bankrupt the church and spend the rest of his life pursuing legal action (see Kindle locations 5046-5099). While I want to assume good motives behind this story, it can be seen in a couple of ways. Maybe it's an illustration of God showing him great favor in coming up with this scheme. But (intentionally or otherwise) it's also a horrific illustration of extortion! A pastor intimidating a private citizen in order to get what he wants? No matter what the intent, this is not a story illustrating God's answering of our fervent prayers. 3. Emotional Expressiveness is No Sure Sign of Vertical Affection. In MacDonald's survey of signs that you've got a Vertical church, he writes that a Vertical church is one "where people line up at the doors long before the service starts and rush to the front to get the best seats for passionate, expressive worship where the voices are loud, hands are raised, tears are flowing, minds are expanded, and hearts are moved as Christ is adored by every one in every corner of the room, from the very first note." While I agree that this can be a sign that your church is oriented toward the Lord rather than man, it is not necessarily a sign that it is. Jonathan Edwards' Religious Affections is particularly helpful on this point, when he writes: "Nothing can be certainly known of the nature of religious affections by this, that they much dispose persons with their mouths to praise and glorify God." Simply, people can fervently praise God and still be far off from Him. Thus, it is unwise to conclude that, as MacDonald writes (citing 1 Cor. 14:22-25), "The passion of their praise testifies to the reality of God's presence and melts the hearts of those attending who do not yet believe." This also plays later into a bit of what may be some historical revisionism as he later writes, "Theological giants like Wesley, Whitefield, Edwards, and Lloyd-Jones all embraced and experienced great emotional expression as evidence of a deep work of God in their services." Again, while Edwards, Whitefield and the rest were certainly not opposed to emotional expression, it's probably going to far to say they embraced it "as evidence of a deep work of God in their services," especially when Edwards explicitly contradicts MacDonald on this point, as does Paul when he warns the Corinthians that you can have a great outward show, but without love, it's worthless (cf. 1 Cor. 13:1-3). 4. Simplicity vs. Simplistic. Frequently MacDonald complains about "shoulder's up" worship--worship that engages the mind, but not the heart. Fair enough. But in making his argument, he suggests that hymns aren't helpful for vertical worship. "Intimacy demands simplicity, and with all due respect to hymns filled with great theology, that level of complexity is not what the Scripture reveals as God's personal preference," he writes. I'm not one to get into a big hubbub about music. Personally, I love hymns. Not everyone does. No big deal. But MacDonald's argument here is overly simplistic. The problem here is that he's ignoring history and human nature. Who were many of the hymns written for? Farmers. Illiterate farmers, at that. Therefore, because many either didn't have access to their own Bible or because they couldn't read it, the hymns necessarily communicated fundamental truths about the Christian faith. Our problem today is not that we can't read the Bible, but that we don't want to. And if we look at our preeminent example of songs of worship (the Psalms), what do they do? They communicate profoundly deep--and often complex--truths about God. I would argue the objection many have today about hymns is not because they are too complex, but that we are too stupid to understand them. So, does intimacy "demand" simplicity? Well, think about marriage. My wife and I have known one another for 13 years. And over time as our relationship has grown both in intensity and intimacy, my knowledge of her has only become more complex and how I relate to her is even more so (in a good way). I better understand the nuances of her personality and preferences than I did when I was 20. We relate to one another on a deeper level. Now not all of our conversations are profound, but our understanding of one another certainly is. Ultimately, the problem is not complexity, the problem is preference, and the real danger here is that MacDonald seems to be importing his preferences onto the Lord. 5. Straw men, unclear definitions and false dichotomies. MacDonald has a tendency to build up arguments that are very easy for him to tear down or uses theological terms in a rather novel fashion throughout his writing. For example, when speaking of mission he makes a distinction between what he calls "soteriological" and "doxological" churches. "Placing evangelistic mission above the mission of God's glory is the single most destructive error in the church today and the one from which many other errors fall out. . . . When soteriology becomes a higher priority than doxology, much is done `to reach people' that grieves the Holy Spirit and forfeits manifest presence." (Kindle locations 2213, 2229) While I agree that there are many churches do themselves great harm in the name of "reaching people," it's a confusion of terms to call one driven by soteriology and the other driven by doxology. It's more accurate to say that these churches are driven by pragmatism. But by setting up the seeker movement as "soteriology driven," it sets up a false dichotomy. Soteriology leads to doxology; they are hardly mortal foes. Additionally, there's the question of fruit--how does MacDonald define it? Unfortunately, he doesn't, at least not explicitly. He speaks confidently of the need for visible fruit: "It was never God's desire that He would sit on the sideline and watch us frantically devise impressive ways to reach people or simply hold the line on orthodoxy as though faithfulness can exist in a vacuum apart from fruitfulness. (Kindle location 159) "It's self-deception to believe there is a true faithfulness apart from visible fruit; a barren tree is not an upgrade to trees with bad fruit." (Kindle location 2396) "When your view of God's sovereignty has you denying or explaining away Bible content that details our role as His witnesses, you have sailed off the big ocean of biblical belief and into a backwater of rationalized fruitlessness." (Kindle location 4344) Now, I agree. But the question comes back to, what does he mean by fruit? From what I can see in reading the book, it comes down to one thing: Baptisms. But, is this how the Bible primarily speaks of fruit? Is this how Jesus defines being fruitful? When Jesus speaks of fruit in Matt. 7:15 and following, it's not about getting conversions, it's a pattern of life. It's about obedience. "Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock," Jesus tells us (Matt. 7:24). That is the true definition of fruit--obedience. Not how many people show up, not how many people you baptize over the course of a year (although those indeed may be the fruit of our obedience). When we define obedience in any way other than Jesus does, we risk throwing the prophets including Jeremiah and Elijah, godly pastors like Tom Carson (a man who is a true example of fervent, persevering prayer), and, indeed, Jesus under the bus. 6. The Extrovert Ideal and Simplistic Biblicism. MacDonald makes a very good point that we ought to be expressive in worship--that worship involves the totality of the person. Fair enough. But after surveying ways in which Scripture describes the body being used in worship, he writes: "Keep in mind that these physical expressions of whole-body worship are not like optional items you might check when ordering a sandwich. They are commanded and modeled in Scripture and are to be entered into increasingly, without using personality or tradition as an excuse." This is perhaps the most arrogant and foolish statement about worship I have ever read--one that I believe will do more harm than good to readers for a number of reasons. First, while I agree that we ought to be expressive, expressiveness varies from person to person. Personality and culture inevitably play a part in what it means to be expressive. In MacDonald's case, he lives in America--the center of the extrovert ideal. And I suspect he's bought into the notion that it's better to be the out-there guy. Thus, it seems right to him that whole-body worship have a very "out there" type of expression. However, to say that God prefers that is going much farther than the Scriptures allow. We can't forget that God is the author of all things--including personality types and dispositions. So you can sing as loud as you want, dance in the aisles, do whatever... it doesn't mean that God is more pleased with that than with the man or woman who is more reserved physically. This is the whole point of God's rebuke to Israel through Isaiah (see Isa. 58 and on). They were super-expressive--but they were dead inside, as evidenced by their lack of care for the needy among them. God is most pleased with our worship when it's genuine, not when it's someone's notion of what it means to be "expressive." Secondly, his basis for the command to be physically expressive, while not necessarily wrong, is a little weak. To do so, he cites a portion of Luke 10:27: ""You shall love the Lord ... with all your strength." But the word translated "strength" is closer linked to "ability" than it is to physical prowess. Simply, what Jesus was communicating when he gave the greatest commandment was that we are to love the Lord with the totality of our person ("heart," "soul," "mind"), to the fullest of our abilities. Can you infer that this would include using our bodies to the fullest in worshipping the Lord? Most certainly. But is it right to say, "God commands you to dance and clap for `you are to love the Lord your God with all your strength'"? Consider the implications of the statement. If it is, in fact, true that God commands us to clap, dance, sing as loud as possible and so forth, with ever increasing fervency, as MacDonald states, then what are we to do with those who fail to do so? Following MacDonald's logic, they are overtly rebelling against God's command. Thus, we are left with no choice but to begin the process of church discipline. We'll also have to bring back the holy kiss--which is explicitly commanded more often than we have examples of clapping (see Romans 16:16, 1 Cor. 16:20, 2 Cor. 12:12, 1 Thess. 5:26). More importantly, though, is this example is indicative of a simplistic Biblicism that causes MacDonald to be far more prescriptive than the Bible. The Bible does give lots of examples of things people did in worshipping the Lord, rarely offers specific commands (outside the ceremonial laws) as to how you are to worship. And yet, MacDonald deems it right to be more prescriptive than the Bible on matters of worship. This is the same error the Pentecostals make in their view of tongues and the same error Mark Driscoll makes in addressing sexual activity. We must use the whole of Scripture to build our doctrine of worship, appropriately weighing explicit commands, literary style, and cultural context. That's what a careful theologian does. But trying to build a system of whole-body worship from a few descriptive passages in the Psalms as MacDonald does only serves to condemn those God has not. When you turn the descriptive into the prescriptive, you turn congregational worship into a burden rather than a blessing. The most significant concern I have regarding Vertical Church is this: What does the Bible say is the mark of a true Church? The clear, unashamed proclamation of God's Word, is essential. Being a people committed to prayer, absolutely. Evangelism is a must, of course. But the most frequent theme I see in Scripture about how the world will know we are truly God's people is not in the whizz-bang of our worship services, but in our love for one another: "By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another." (John 13:35) "Above all, keep loving one another earnestly, since love covers a multitude of sins." (1 Pet. 4:8) "For this is the message that you have heard from the beginning, that we should love one another." (1 John 3:11) "And this is his commandment, that we believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another, just as he has commanded us." (1 John 3:23) "Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God." (1 John 4:7) "No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us." (1 John 4:12) "And now I ask you, dear lady--not as though I were writing you a new commandment, but the one we have had from the beginning--that we love one another." (2 John 5) Genuine, Spirit-filled, Spirit-enabled love for one another. That's the mark of a truly "vertical" Church, according to Scripture. We can be expressive in our singing; we can be bold in our preaching and witness; we can pray until our knees fall off... but if our love for God isn't playing out in our love for one another, our church is not vertical. A final question is that of intended audience. Who is this book for? Primarily, this book strikes me as one for church leaders, and senior pastors in particular. Even so, many who are not in church leadership in any capacity will inevitably read this book (which is not a bad thing in and of itself). The difficulty is, because of the book's structure, it seems to offer little by way of application for the average churchgoer. In fact, my great concern for the book, beyond the condemnation MacDonald's overstatements may bring to genuine believers, is the potential for needless division and dissention it may cause in the hands of an immature believer. Because MacDonald is borderline hostile to any methodology that differs from his own, inevitably a young Christian with more fire in his belly than wisdom in his heart is going to go on the rampage. The desire for writing this book was a good one. All our churches need to be focused on the glory of God, in lifting the name of Jesus high... These are the things MacDonald identifies rightly. But is what MacDonald offers actually any better? Honestly, I'm not sure. Is it the book I'd give to my small group or recommend to the pastors in my circles? Absolutely not. The weaknesses of this book are far too great for its strengths to outweigh them.