What is 50/52?
Book #22: A Heretics Guide to Eternity
Author: Spencer Burke
Genre: Christianity/Theology
Rating (1-5): 1.0
Review:
I would like to thank both Spencer and TheOoze for sending me a copy of this book so that I could review it for you. I have been plugging away at this book for just over a month and finally finished it up. It has been a difficult read because, quite frankly, I was frustrated with about 90% of the book (hence the 1.0 rating). First a synopsis of the book, a review of the craft behind the book and then a review of the book itself.
Synopsis of Heretic's Guide
The book is divided into three sections consisting of three chapters each. In his introduction, Burke states, "The first chapter in each section will present the major subject matter, the second chapter will focus on my dissent, and the third will leave you with a new perspective to consider" (xxvii). Intermixed within the three major sections are brief one to two page "interludes," which serve as miniature history lessons on subjects like heresy, inquisitions and torture (fun topics, eh?).
Review of the craft
Burke states in his introduction that the focus of the book deals with our current understandings of God. He says: "Our views must be continually revised, reconsidered, and debated. Spirituality in the twenty-first century is not etched in stone but fashioned out of the fabrics of our lives in new and ever-changing permutations. This is the focus and the hope of this book" (xxiv). He chooses to approach "the idea of heresy" from two angles: "First, heresy as a means of dissent... Second, heresy also implies new thought" (xxvi). Therefore, it can be surmised that Burke's two-fold purpose in writing this book is 1) to offer alternative, heretical views that are enlightened by our current culture for the purpose of understanding God and 2) to bridge this understanding into spiritual practice.
So far as his purpose goes, Burke certainly suggests alternative, heretical views of understanding God, but they are nothing new. In reality, most of what Burke suggests as alternative views of understanding God is simply neo-liberal theological ideas. For instance: Burke states that scripture is open to multiple interpretations (140); sin is neither an inherent part of the "human condition" nor a result of disobeying God's law, but rather is a result of broken relationships with others and with the world (64); and all persons are "saved" from judgment lest they choose not to be (194-208) (Burke calls this idea "opting out of grace").
Burke's critique of organized "Christian religion" is dead on for the majority of the book. Instead of his conclusions dealing with finding new ways to be the church, Burke makes a reductive leap backwards to reinvent understanding God. This fallacy of logic (leaping from Church practice to theological understanding of God) is how Burke tackles the purpose he set out to do in the book: provide new understandings of God. Granted, much of what is going "wrong" with Christianity today comes from a flawed view of God. But that doesn't mean we need to "reinvent" or "create" a new understanding of God as much as reclaim a Biblical understanding of God. Hence the fallacy of logic in Burke's methodology.
Burke fails to come through on the second part of his purpose: to discuss new pathways of spirituality in the twenty-first century. He stops short of offering any sort of tangible ways of implementing this "new" understanding of God outside of suggesting that one simply change his mind to Burke's understanding of God. Oh, and also that when Jesus said he is "...the way..." he means that he is the Tao (126). Therefore, the craft of this book does not lend itself to academic or theological credibility, nor does it lend itself to missiological or other practical ways of implementation. It simply presents one perspective--that of alternative understandings of God--and fails to bridge the gap to the practice of such spirituality.
Review of the book
Okay, I'm going to be as nice as possible here...
The book was nothing more than an attempt to redefine "grace," but failed miserably because this concept has been around for several decades [centuries?] within the circles neo-liberal theology. The entire concept of universal salvific grace seemed to be the focus of Burke's work and he simply used "heresy" as a means of talking about it. Certainly the idea of heresy is appropriate for much of the content of the book since Burke essentially draws some heretical conclusions from his observations, but outside of that the title seemed more like a gimmick to get someone to read his book. In fact, the "interludes" between the chapters had little to nothing to do with the book except to point out some of the more embarrassing and shameful moments of the church in the past few centuries. Which brings me to my second point...
Burke clearly has an ax to grind with the religion of Christianity, Christendom and institutionalized religion in general. It should be clearly noted right here that I agree with the majority of his assessments of institutionalized Christianity, but his conclusions are simply non-Biblical. There are plenty of Bible believing and Bible loving Christians who would agree with his assessments, but grieve at his conclusions.
Likewise, Burke rarely has anything positive to say about Christianity. He offers little to no comment on the merit and positive things that have occurred in the past two millenia of Christendom, nor on the positive community transforming things that are happening today (for instance, think of poverty relief in Africa, recent disaster relief response and the countless social justice services churches provide in all our major cities across this country). Instead he focuses on a ridiculous amount of time on "what not to do." One gets the idea that Burke did not study any sort of Christian history in writing this book because he rarely if ever mentions the good that has come through "Christendom."
Burke periodically states in the book that he "left the church" in the late 90's. "Church" is now eating a bucket of chicken in a park with his family (123ff). Honestly, this really aggrevates me about a lot of Emergent Conversation folks--not all, but a lot of them. Namely, if you're going to write a critique about the church or if you're going to offer something constructive to the conversation... shouldn't you at least be actively part of a church? When it comes down to it, Burke has zero authority to write about changes that should be made within the church since he has voluntarily removed himself from it.
I found myself in thinking something like this for the most part of the book, "Okay. I understand you're an angry man. Yes, that bugs me about Christianity as well. Wow! That was a great observation--dead on! Now, what kind of suggestions do you have to mend this? Uhm, re-invent God? Ignore scripture? Defame the millions and millions of God-fearing, God-honoring, God-loving saints who have gone before us? Sorry, dude. I can't go there with you."
It was rather apropos for Brian McLaren to write the introduction for Burke's book because like McLaren, Burke writes a lot of words to fill a book but in the end you realize you just ate a lot of cotton candy and pre-packaged baby spinach for dinner.
(Check out Scot McKnight's critique of the book on his blog, Jesus Creed.)
Title: Planting Churches In the Real World
Recent Comments