Works in progress

I’ve decided to write more book reviews. Now that I am out of school for the summer, I’ve made up an extensive reading list I’d like to get through. Currently I’m reading a book written by one of the elders in my church, Douglas Bond. He is the head of the English department at the high school my church hosts and is a pretty good writer. The book is the first in a two part series, “Fathers and Sons.” The first book is subtitled, “Stand Fast In the Way of Truth.” Once I’ve completed it, I’m going to post a book review on my other blog http://greatmindsbookreview.wordpress.com/. Hopefully, I can do the same for the second book in the series.

I’ve also read Voddie Baucham’s newest book “What He Must Be: If He Wants to Marry My Daughter.” Unlike my brother’s teasing hinted, I’m not planning on courting Pastor Baucham’s daughter, as wonderful a young lady as I’m sure she must be. However, the initial read was pretty fast and I would like to go back to write a review after a more in-depth reading. Personally, I found Pastor Baucham’s approach to courting a little more Biblically oriented than other’s have approached the subject.

Book Review: “The Barbarian Way”

So, as per my agreement with a friend, I have read The Barbarian Way. Here is my review and some thoughts:

Personal feelings concerning the book: I can honestly say that it is the most mind-numbing book I have ever read. Every time I picked it up to read a little more, I hoped it would get better, but unfortunately for me, it only got worse. By the end, my mind felt like Jello. I could almost hear (as my older brother would say) my little gray cells scream as they died in mass quantities. If you liked the book, I am sure you really want me to explain, so I will.

Ambiguity: First off, before I can thoroughly review the book, it must be understood that McManus never clearly defined his terms resulting in a very confusing read. Every example he used for the “barbarian way,” as he called it, seemed to me to be just the opposite of barbaric. He used Paul as one example, saying that Paul was civilized when he was killing Christians, but barbaric when he converted and was traveling and peacefully preaching to the gentiles (page 45-47). He used another example of his son who went to a summer camp and got into a fight, claiming that his son was following civilized religion when he was fighting, but barbaric when he apologized (85-89). I really, don’t think that McManus understands the English language very well or something. Many other words were left undefined like religion, Christianity and so on. In many ways this makes the book all the more dangerous.

Certain dangers with this teaching: First off, there is a lot of physical and emotional dangers (not to mention spiritual dangers) with this guy’s teaching, exemplified by his own children, his own life, and the way he leads his congregation.

1. He makes the statement that he and his daughter have been journeying together on what he calls the “barbarian way.” He continues by mentioning that they “revel” in being barbarians and that whatever they are doing, there is always some sort of medical/rescue team around (66-68). As he explained how his daughter got hurt, I realized it was because he was foolish enough to let her do higher adventure things than she could handle. Yes, I do make that judgment on his daughter because of how he says she handled herself. So far, none of this inspires me to follow Christ. Heck, it doesn’t even teach me anything about Him.
2. Secondly, McManus never answers any of his son’s questions that were in the book. The first one being “What does God’s voice sound like?” (84-85). The second being a series of questions of doubt concerning his son’s faith that McManus doesn’t even bother hearing (89-91).
3. Thirdly, McManus uses an example of a man in his church that he insists must be baptized in the ocean even though the man is afraid of the water (due to a traumatizing experience when he was younger). The reason? To “unleash” the “barbaric faith within” (95-99). That is abuse!
4. Lastly, and the most disturbing to me, was his account of his experience at Biola University. He was on the board of Intercultural Studies when some of the people of the university approached him with their desire to help foreign missionaries by providing counseling for their mental health. He replied that they shouldn’t “make our missionaries mentally healthy” because then the missionaries would all come home. (Not to mention his ludicrous statement that missionaries travel to countries to evangelize without any knowledge of the language). The man at Biola, to his credit, very politely responded “Erwin clearly has a different view of professional counseling than we do” (80-81). What does McManus think? That only someone crazy would be a missionary? Yes, he even says so (81-82). Heaven forbid that a person with a healthy mind would want to be a missionary! That’s impossible.

Well, I think that these examples are pretty self-explanatory about the emotional, physical, and spiritual damage that this teaching can cause.

Theological dangers with this thinking: To start this analysis, I will give a lengthy quote from the beginning of the book about the early church “barbarians” that really gives the best overview of the book’s teaching.

“They are not about religion or position. They have little patience for institutions or bureaucracies. Their lack of respect for tradition or ritual makes them seem uncivilized to those who love religion. When asked if they are Christians, their answer might surprisingly be no, they are passionate followers of Jesus Christ. They see Christianity as a world religion, in many ways no different from any other religious system. Whether Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, or Christianity, they’re not about religion; they’re about advancing the revolution Jesus started two thousand years ago” (6).

Okay, so we are not supposed to be about religion or position? Well, then I should not be able to say what is right or wrong because that is taking a position. Also, unless religion is something other than what the dictionary says, I cannot have a belief concerning God (however that is possible) because that is religion. Both of these things McManus himself contradicts, so this statement is theological foolishness.

Next, we are not supposed to have patience with institutions or bureaucracies? Well, the early church (Paul to be specific) gave us forms for elders, counsels, pastors, and so forth, meaning that we have institutions. Paul also mentions in Romans 13 how we are supposed obey the governing authority. So McManus’ claim is obviously erroneous.

Lack of respect for tradition and ritual? Excuse me? What about communion, baptism, Christmas and Easter traditions and rituals? I think that McManus would be displeased if people decided to stop attending his church every week because of their lack of respect for that tradition. Sorry, this claim is also false.

We are not supposed to call ourselves Christians? Um… we are called Christians in the Bible. It is everywhere in the New Testament letters. Where does McManus get these ideas?

Seeing Christianity as any other world religion is exactly what the secular world wants and McManus just gave that to them. If this is not harmful to the church then I do not know what is.

Okay, what revolution did Jesus start? He came to bring us back to Him, to conform us to him that we might be more like him in holiness and righteousness because of our sins. “And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren” (Rom 8:28-29). He wants to conform us to himself. McManus says that “God’s desire for you is not compliance and conformity” (82). That seems to directly contradict Scripture to me.

Some more things that McManus says that are theologically wrong and dangerous:

• “A civilized faith relates to right and wrong as a moral obligation. A barbarian faith loves good and hates evil. There is no obligation fueling the actions of His people” (92). This particular view is exhibited many places in the book and is extremely dangerous because it can only mean that right and wrong is what ever the “barbarian” thinks is right and wrong without the obligation of following the Bible.
• When McManus was writing about “talking to God” (“Most of us would call this prayer” he says, indicating that he doesn’t call it that), he says, “God’s voice sounds a lot like my voice” (84). Oh my goodness! Is he really insinuating what I think he is insinuating? It sounds like he means that God’s voice within him is the same as his own thoughts. This gets way too close (and I am sure many will say I am generous) to saying that McManus gets to decide what is right and wrong and what God says.
• Lastly and somewhat ridiculously, McManus tells a story of him going to a session on leadership where he was going to speak with some other prominent speakers. The speaker before him made the statement “Don’t be an innovator; be an early adopter.” McManus continues “The speaker went on to explain that the innovator is the guy who eats the poisonous mushroom and dies. The early adopter is the guy right next to him, who doesn’t have to eat it. He can learn from the innovator’s misfortune” (50). Well… I don’t think that McManus has ever heard of the sixties expression to be a mushroom eater meaning to be a drug addict because he follows by describing himself as a mushroom eater. He says that “John the baptist was a mushroom eater, and it cost him his life.” McManus also adds quite blasphemously that “Jesus, too, was a mushroom eater, and He found Himself nailed to a tree” (53). Excuse me, Jesus, the all knowing God knew what was going to happen and didn’t need to try it as if he were randomly eating a mushroom. McManus, you are done. When you start using my God this way in your little pet metaphors about which you don’t even know, I am no longer listening to you.

An extra point about the author: Although McManus does not specifically identify himself with the emerging church, he holds exactly the same beliefs and I want to just point out what the emerging church is and says.

First, they put on equal level personal experience with Scripture (which McManus does as well). Secondly, they say that the historical church has gotten it wrong over the ages and that we have now gotten it figured out (which McManus says as well). Thirdly, they sacrifice clarity for mystery (which McManus does as well). They essentially pride themselves on their ambiguity. Fourthly, and worst of all, they are extremely critical of the instituted church and give the secular world a pass (which McManus does as well). Here is an excellent article from Answers in Genesis on this.

Conclusion: With all of these things in mind, I do not recommend anyone read this book. It is not worth the risk of confusing yourself about your own faith. McManus says many more things in his book that are just as or more ludicrous than what I have already shown. One could literally go through each page and give a long dissertation on why it is theologically wrong. If someone wants to read an inspirational book, I recommend reading a prominent biography of a prominent church father. Right now, I have been reading Through Many Dangers about John Newton. It is very inspirational and you will grow a lot more theologically, doctrinally, spiritually, and in your faith toward God than you will by reading The Barbarian Way.