Mark Batterson: Wild Goose Chase
- Posted by: Todd
- Posted on: Thu, August 14, 2008
- Viewed 111
- (16) comments so far
All you have to do is go here! You WILL enjoy this read!
Mark Batterson has a brand new book coming out next week called "Wild Goose Chase". According to Mark, Celtic Christians had a name for the Holy Spirit–An Geadh-Glas, or ‘the Wild Goose.’ The name hints at mystery. Much like a wild goose, the Spirit of God cannot be tracked or tamed. An element of danger, an air of unpredictability surround Him. And while the name may sound a little sacrilegious, I cannot think of a better description of what it’s like to follow the Spirit through life. I think the Celtic Christians were on to something…
You can now download a free chapter of this new book before it's released!...
Comments
if you want a Globally Recognized Avatar (the images next to your profile) get them here. Once you sign up, they will displayed on any website that supports them.
CS on Fri, August 15, 2008
I read the sample chapter available from the website. The impression that I got was that it is a great concept, describing the Holy Spirit and the way Christians should lead lives that are filled with doing things boldly for Christ. Hermeneutically, though, the first chapter used minimal Bible verses, citing nothing directly, and when Batterson exegeted narratives such as the rich young ruler, he got the main points wrong. If the sample chapter is to be used as a demonstration for the rest of the book, it may be a fun read, but I’d pass due to the Scriptural problems.
—
CS
Leonard on Fri, August 15, 2008
what did you think he got wrong CS?
CS on Fri, August 15, 2008
Leonard:
I started noticing problems when he moved into the part of the sample chapter entitled, “Sense of Adventure.”
The first paragraph contained a minor point that started to alert me. In it, he cites Kierkegaard in saying, “The Danish philosopher and theologian Søren Kierkegaard believed that boredom is the root of all evil. I second the notion.” I realize that this is totally minor, but the Bible says that the root of all evil is the love of money. Like I said, minor, but it set me on edge.
The following paragraph, when he started to talk about the rich young ruler, is when I began to see incorrect hermeneutics. Batterson said, “On paper the rich young ruler had it all: youth, wealth, and power. But something was still missing. The rich young ruler was bored with his faith. And I think it is evidenced by the question he asked Jesus: ‘What do I still lack?’”
The narrative of the rich young ruler was that he was self-righteous, looking for a way to prove himself, and that his wealth had become an idol. When Jesus asked him to give the money away, it showed how the ruler valued his wealth over God. With proper exegesis, those verses show how even a person believing that he is adhering to God’s Law still falls short of the perfect standard, and how money can be a god to some people.
Batterson, instead, alluded that the ruler was offered to, “come out of his cage” for adventure, and that it was more of a life of adventure versus a life of comfort. He said of the ruler, “I’ll tell you exactly what he was lacking: spiritual adventure. His life was too easy, too predictable, and too comfortable.” This wasn’t the point of what was written in Matthew and Luke; this is incorrect eisegesis.
I’m also wary of the analogies being used of the Holy Spirit as the, “Wild Goose.” This is not because of the description, but to whom and for what purpose this chase is happening. Batterson said of the ruler, “He opted for the cage. And he made the mistake so many of us make: he chose an accessorized life over a life of adventure, over a life of chasing the Wild Goose.”
As believers, the Holy Spirit dwells in us. The verses in John 3 describes the way the Holy Spirit acts within the world. Therefore, it’s not us chasing the “Wild Goose,” as he would describe in this first chapter, or an unsaved person doing so. Sure, we have adventures and risk in doing God’s will, but it’s not some ephemeral pursuit.
All of this, combined with the general lack of Scriptural references (of which there should be plenty in talking about the Holy Spirit), makes me tend to believe that the book may be entertaining or introspective, it is probably not the best for doctrine or theology. At the end of the chapter, as he outlines the various “cages” into which people get trapped, combined with the free study guide, makes me believe this is more of a self-help or how-to book with some Christianity mixed in.
Hopefully I’ve stayed objective here, and not gone too far off of the deep end. And hopefully the rest of the book does better, but I’ll err on the side of Spurgeon here when he said, “When you begin to read a book and find it pernicious, put it aside. Someone may upbraid you for not reading it all through. But why should you?”
—
CS
Leonard on Fri, August 15, 2008
CS, thanks for the thoughtful reply. I might disagree with you in that I don’t think the author was seeking a literal exegesis for the rich young Ruler nearly as much as being analogous. His metaphor of the cage was just that, a metaphor. It was not meant to be exegesis. This is actually the tool of many good communicators, such as Jesus and even Paul. They at times abandoned exegesis to make a point.
I also thing the analogy of the Holy Spirit and the Wild goose were appropriate as it related to Jesus saying the Spirit, like the wind blows where it wants. The wild good chase metaphor simply means to not live “inverted”
I will get this book, because I think it has value for stiff American Christians whose God lives in a box on their shelf. I won’t take it as theology but will read it like eating fish. Eat the fish, spit the bones. I would have missed some awesome trout dinners without this approach.
Thanks again for your thoughtful answer.
Peter Hamm on Fri, August 15, 2008
CS,
I agree that if the comments of the rich young ruler were posed as theology, it could be problematic, but not as problematic as the idea that the love of money is the root of all evil. This is, as you must know, not actually what the Bible says. The love of money is the root of all KINDS of evil, not all evil. Big difference.
In any case, I think he was using a bit of hyperbole there anyway.
I don’t think Batterson’s exhortation to us is so far off base here, but your thoughtful reply is also appreciated by me.
CS on Fri, August 15, 2008
Leonard:
Thanks for your insight and appreciation of my thoughts. I think one big problem in the modern Christian bestseller world is the misuse of Scripture as analogies or metaphors for illustration to make what would otherwise be a valid point.
For example, if I said, “God loves you,” most people would be totally fine with this thought. It resounds in Scripture and conveys truth. No problem there.
But, if I said the reason God loves you is because you’re wearing a scarf with tassels and fringe, and this is something God commanded people to have as demonstrated in Deuteronomy 22:12, therefore He must love you—this thinking is flawed.
We cannot use bad logic and understanding to make good points about God’s Word. It’s like being back in school and getting the correct answer on a math problem, even though the formulas used to prove the equation were wrong. You still get docked points for using incorrect arithmetic. Except, in the world of faith, this allows for deviant theology and doctrine to creep in and spread, instead.
You’re right, that so many people put their lives (or their god) on a shelf, instead of getting out and living for God boldly as Batterson is trying to communicate. And this is something that needs to be shouted so badly to Christianity, because people who are sitting around and not doing God’s work put themselves in bad places. But starting the book off with analogies that misrepresent the intent of the narratives in Scripture and avoids proper exegesis instead opens the doors to bad theology.
I have often, in the past, used the fish & bones metaphor of which you speak. However, nowadays I find myself siding more with Spurgeon who also said:
“If I have a joint of meat on my table of which the smell and the taste at once convince me that it is putrid and unwholesome, should I show discretion by eating the whole of it before giving my judgment that it is not fit for food? One mouthful is quite enough, and one sentence of some books ought to suffice for a sensible man to reject the whole mass. Let those who can relish such meat feed on it, but I have a taste for better food.”
Thanks for the conversation.
—
CS
Peter Hamm on Sat, August 16, 2008
CS,
The only problem with Spurgeon’s analogy is that sometimes somebody comes along with something we’re not used to, telling it in a new way, and if we don’t give them a proper hearing, we might not get something great that they have to say. Let’s face it, the Pharisees did this with Jesus, didn’t they.
There’s a big difference between the analogies Batterson uses in a book on Christian Living (not a theological tome) and the claims and beliefs of somebody like Todd Bentley, wouldn’t you agree? I would hardly, even if I was more theologically in “your camp” on this, define Batterson as “putrid and unwholesome”.
Thanks for the exchange.
CS on Sat, August 16, 2008
Peter:
“The only problem with Spurgeon’s analogy is that sometimes somebody comes along with something we’re not used to, telling it in a new way, and if we don’t give them a proper hearing, we might not get something great that they have to say. Let’s face it, the Pharisees did this with Jesus, didn’t they.”
You’re absolutely right. That is why I didn’t rush to judgment with the sample chapter, and had to read through it several times before I came to my conclusions. And I am still saying that there is a benefit of the doubt for the rest of the book—just that I probably wouldn’t read it.
“There’s a big difference between the analogies Batterson uses in a book on Christian Living (not a theological tome) and the claims and beliefs of somebody like Todd Bentley, wouldn’t you agree?”
Oh, absolutely. Todd Bentley is clearly a heretic, and I would not lump him anywhere near Batterson. Different worlds entirely.
The problem I face is that when a book is on Christian Living, relationships, or any other modern topic that is not totally theologically based, that it seems to get a pass from having to adhere rigidly to doctrine. For example, “The Shack” is a big hit, although it clearly mangles the definition and standing of the Trinity. But, because it is seen as “fiction” and not as a “theological tome,” it is getting clearance to be held as the #1 Christian bestseller right now.
Just because the intention of the book is not something that is driving at the core of theology, that does not preclude it from needing to have good exegetical hermeneutics in its application of Scripture. If Scripture is going to be used, it should be done properly, within its context, no matter what’s on the cover of the book.
“I would hardly, even if I was more theologically in ‘your camp’ on this, define Batterson as ‘putrid and unwholesome’.”
You’re right, here, too. And I’m sorry that my comment came across that I was lumping Batterson in with the ‘putrid and unwholesome’ category. My statement was more of a generality, saying that that is something I am coming across more and more. For example, I would lump “The Shack” in with the “putrid and unwholesome” category pretty quickly.
—
CS
Leonard on Sat, August 16, 2008
Did Spurgeon say he had a joint? (smiley face here) I think that (forgive me in advance please all you Spurgeon lovers) that Spurgeon did not live in 2009, speak to people in 2009, function as a pastor or leader in 2009.
Spurgeon is used by a lot of people today to discuss or point out how far we have fallen. But in his day, Spurgeon the Cigar smoking, rough and tumble, occasional bad word guy was to his culture what I hope I am to mine.
I hope I am a bible believing, understand the language of my culture speaking preacher. As much as I love him and have read his works and still use his insights into scripture, I cannot go with everything he says, at least in the way he says it. I also think far to many people use his quotes to draw lines I am not sure he would draw. So his quote about rancid meat does not apply to Batterson’s book here.
I also think that the quote reveals something else and that is our bent in interpreting scripture. All scripture only means 1 thing and 1 thing only. The author has an Idea, the Spirit had an Idea, the intent of the author and the Spirit have only 1 meaning. But as Jesus showed us, as Paul showed us that while scripture has only 1 meaning, it has multiple interpretations.
I don’t think Batterson was trying to exegete a passage but rather to give an interpolation of the passage. Interpolation is to take information and from that information project or draw a conclusion. This is a tool Jesus uses from time to time. So while I value strong exegeses and I value great hermeneutics, I thing to dismiss or critique this work on the basis of those would be to miss the point all together.
It is kind of like using a Chevy auto manual on repairing a V8 to fix your lawn mower. Sure there is spark, combustion, and power but that’s about all there is. I believe we must be careful to not use a standard that does not apply to this book. I would say Batterson is interpolating the passage not trying to exegete it.
Jesus did not use scripture in context but rather created new contexts for it through interpolation… You are God’s comes to mind. Paul also did this, maybe Spurgeon would have a problem with them…(wink, wink)
Wendi on Sat, August 16, 2008
CS – I too thank you for your thoughtful response, and your desire to remain objective. I will suggest though, that just as we cannot remove or deny the presuppositions we bring to reading and interpreting scripture, you have presuppositions about Mark that influence your reading.
You criticize Batterson’s interpretation of the rich young ruler by saying:
[The narrative of the rich young ruler was that he was self-righteous, looking for a way to prove himself, and that his wealth had become an idol. When Jesus asked him to give the money away, it showed how the ruler valued his wealth over God. With proper exegesis, those verses show how even a person believing that he is adhering to God’s Law still falls short of the perfect standard, and how money can be a god to some people.]
I would push back just a little. I feel that sometimes western moderns have developed a bit of arrogance in our claims that we have the single and original “meaning” of all scripture. This is not to propose a relativistic theory which logically leads to anarchy in biblical interpretation, but rather to suggest that although meaning is determinate, assigned by the author (through the HS of course), it is also complex. I would also suggest that as human beings, thousands of years removed from access to the author’s motives (and thus his intended meaning), we should have caution in stating unequivocally what Jesus “meant” for us to learn from a story of an interaction or what the gospel writers “meant” for in writing it down. I appreciate Gadamer here:
“Understanding is not merely reproductive but always a productive attitude as well.”
All to say that I don’t consider Batterson’s use of the narrative of the rich young ruler to illustrate the [very real] problem with spiritual boredom to be incorrect or even sloppy hermeneutics.
Wendi
Peter Hamm on Sat, August 16, 2008
CS writes [And I’m sorry that my comment came across that I was lumping Batterson in with the ‘putrid and unwholesome’ category.] Don’t worry, it didn’t.
But I read “The Shack” and quite honestly don’t see what the big dilly is about. It’s just not that theologically offensive, and I’m not certain it doesn’t give us a “parable” for understanding the trinity that is totally harmless. (It is a fictional story after all…)
CS on Sat, August 16, 2008
Leonard, Wendi, and Peter:
I thank you for this lively discussion as well, and for your perspectives. And Leonard, I did get a kick out of the “Spurgeon has a joint” joke. Very funny.
I understand the ideas brought into narratives by interpolation. I know that I have intercalated things into many of the stories within the Bible to bring forth the meanings of what God, through the authors of the Books, to life and provide greater understanding.
My big thing is this: there is a difference between interpolation and putting things into the Bible that aren’t there. For example, going back to the book, Batterson said:
“On paper the rich young ruler had it all: youth, wealth, and power. But something was still missing. The rich young ruler was bored with his faith. And I think it is evidenced by the question he asked Jesus: ‘What do I still lack?’”
There is nothing specific in those verses that showed that the ruler was bored. We do not find any evidence in the original language, the context of the conversation, or the times that there was a hint of ennui in the ruler’s tone.
If it was a matter of boredom, then why would the ruler have gone away “sorrowful, for he was very rich”? I would expect that if it was boredom that he was trying to solve, he would have said in response to Jesus’ demands, “Meh, oh well. That sucks. I’ll find something else to do.” Boredom doesn’t cause sorrow that causes Jesus to comment, “How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!”
Pardon the pun, but if we allow for lax interpolation in these types of understandings, by the same token in this story, I could say that the young ruler was incontinent. He wanted a quick answer to the question of, “what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” and when he heard that it would require intensive selling of all of his stuff quickly, and since he had so much wealth, he knew that he might have an accident along the way. So, he went away for fear of something happening instead of sticking around.
It’s a horrible interpolation, and I wrote it for exaggeration purposes, but putting more into the Bible than is already there is wrong.
—
CS
Joe on Sat, August 16, 2008
If the Bible is truly the word of God, how could it be possible for different people to interpret it differently? Would not God make Himself clear?
From an outsider perspective, it appears to me that a large part of the Christian faith is debating scripture. Different denominations interpret the Bible differently, and then spend lots of time proving to themselves why the other people are wrong.
Further, since no translation is perfect, would not translating the Bible be changing the meaning, however subtly? And changing meanings would be altering the word of God.
Just sayin’.
I expect responses (if any) would take the form of “The Bible is very clear if you read it.”
The only problem with that is that there are equally passionate Christians who read it differently.
Submerse vs. sprinkle. Predestination vs. free will. Once saved, always saved vs. turning one’s back on God.
Back to my original question. Why wouldn’t the word of God be absolutely clear to anyone that hears it?
If it isn’t, why would God deliberately be unclear? In order to trick humanity?
Peter Hamm on Sat, August 16, 2008
Joe,
I would argue that, first of all, everything God wants us to understand clearly, that Jesus came and why and how he did what he did, is very clear. Finer points of what I would term as “higher theology”, for instance explaining the nature of the trinity… Well, we might understand what God wants us to about it, but to understand God fully in this human flesh? I can’t do it.
Some of the things you bring up I have strong opinions about, but even among those of us who argue predestination vs. free will for instance (that’s an oversimplification of the discussion I know), we still usually respect that those who disagree with us are still Christ-followers. (Some will unashamedly NOT respect those differences… I avoid them usually.)
CS,
Your concern about the rich young ruler being described as being “bored” with his faith is noted. You have a great point! Thanks for bringing it up.
I still think I’m gonna read the book though. http://www.mondaymorninginsight.com/images/smileys/wink.gif
JOB on Mon, August 18, 2008
I see the same problems CS has noted. Especially the leap to make the rich young ruler “bored”.This isn’t unusual for Mark. If you read his blog he tends to make the Bible say what he wants it to say. For example, in January 2008 he said,
“I’ve always believed that anytime you can preach anywhere besides behind the pulpit you need to do it. Jesus rarely preached in the synagogue.”
Sure, Jesus preached in other places then the synagogue, but he didn’t rarely preach there, he was always preaching there.
Here is just one verse of many.
“So he traveled throughout Galilee, preaching in their synagogues and driving out demons.”
I read the free chapter and believe Mark has something good to say, however if you want my attention please stay true to the word. And please don’t make the bible say what you want it to.
Page 1 of 2 pages 1 2 >
Post a Comment