Author: admin

[rating:4.0]

(Nashville: B and H Publishing Group, 2016)

153 pgs

Mark Clifton has a passion for revitalizing churches. He has done it himself and he encourages many others to do so across North America. In his book, he cites alarming statistics. Between 70-80% of evangelical churches in North America are plateaued or in decline (xv). Southern Baptists are currently closing approximately 900 churches every year (3). Many of the churches that are closing are located in areas of cities where more churches need to be planted.

Mark shares the wisdom he has gained first hand from helping turn dying churches around. His focus, as the title suggests, is on God’s glory. He asks: “What about a dying church brings glory to God?” (11). He argues that dying churches rob God of His glory (12). Clifton acknowledges that it is far easier to plant a new church than to revitalize an existing one (9). Yet, if America is to be reached for the Gospel, evangelicals cannot keep closing churches almost as quickly as they are starting them.

Clifton offers a number of observations about churches that find themselves in need of being replanted. Some of these include: Dying churches value the process of deciding more than the outcome of their decision. We all know such churches. They will spend more time arguing about the proper interpretation of Robert’s Rules of Order than they will focus on what God is leading them to do. Dying churches value their own preferences over the needs of the unreached. Worship styles, building use, and numerous other issues are driven by what pleases the handful of members rather than on what would make unchurched people comfortable to attend. Dying churches are unable to pass on leadership to the next generation. Often there are few young people or children left in attendance. Dying churches gradually cease to be a part of the fabric of their community. They become irrelevant to their neighborhood. Dying churches tend to blame their community for their lack of response. People in dying churches cannot understand why non-Christians do not like their music or feel comfortable in their worship services.

Clifton suggests four different approaches to revitalizing a dying church. One way is to give the building to a church plant. He suggests this is generally effective and the simplest approach. The second approach is to share the building with a church plant. The third is to merge with a church plant. The fourth is to replant the existing church from within. Each of these has its challenges, but each can also be a practical solution to a dying church’s situation.

Clifton concludes the book by offering practical counsel for those attempting to replant a church. He stresses that such an undertaking requires the pastor to not only have a church planter’s focus on the unchurched, but also a pastor’s heart to love the existing people in the congregation. Clifton urges pastors to be patient with their people, for “They are the kind of people they are because of the men who have led them” (57). He also advises pastors to focus on reaching young men. He suggests that developing leaders in the church, especially men, will bring their entire families with them and will raise up a core group of leaders to bring health to the church (68).

This is a straightforward, practical book that is based on successful experience by someone who lives and breathes this subject material. It is an easy read. Hopefully it will inspire people to undertake the enormous challenge of taking a church that has lost its way and redirecting it back to God so it can bring glory to God once more.

by Richard Blackaby

[rating:4.0]

(Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Books, 2014)

189 pgs

 I recently had the opportunity to speak alongside Os Guinness at a meeting in Phoenix. I had heard of him before and had read his book, The Call. But this was the first time I heard him elaborate on his thoughts. I found him fascinating. Of course, most people with British accents and Ph.D’s from Oxford sound fascinating! He spoke on the material for the book here reviewed, Renaissance. His fundamental issue was whether the church can impact the culture of the western world or, is western culture too far gone to be saved?

This is a topic Christians ought to concern themselves with. While this book is not long, it is filled with nuggets of wisdom. In speaking with him and then reading this book, I found Os to be a solid evangelical scholar who is seeking to speak to the church in the west and to inspire it to trust God to bring revival once more. Os is an eloquent speaker and writer. He is clearly brilliant and widely read. He knows many of the leading apologists of our day. He was leaving our meeting and travelling to India to speak with Ravi Zacharias. He is a good friend of John Lennox. If that weren’t enough, he met Winston Churchill when he was a boy and has his autograph! This guy is well connected and well informed! The following are some of the quotes and insights I found interesting from the book.

Guinness claims that more than all the persecutions the church has faced in 2,000 years, it is modernity that has delivered some of the most devastating blows. He asks: “Has modernity finally done what no enemy or persecutor has ever succeeded in doing and reduced the authority of scriptures to a shifting weather vane and the church to babbling impotence?” (13). He also quotes G.K. Chesterton who claimed: “”At least five times the Faith has to all appearances gone to the dogs. In each of these five cases, it was the dog that died” (14).

Guinness suggests that civilizations are extremely fragile. He notes: “. . . all civilization, whatever their momentary grandeur, have an ultimate flimsiness that is paper thin and cannot be held back from barbarism” (17). Guinness also coins the phrase; “illiberal liberalism” by which he means that modern liberals often forsake their inherent belief in freedom of speech and inquiry in an effort to silence the Christian voice (19). He challenges that today’s “progressives” have made bold claims about society that they have been unable to fulfill. He notes: “Neither secular progress nor secular progressives have brought the west where they once promised. Nor can they. They are merely parasites on the Jewish and Christian beliefs and ideals that made the West the West” (19). Interestingly, Guinness suggests that the fundamental qualities that made the West spectacularly successful came from its religious, primarily Christian roots. He argues that, therefore, the church should take heart and realize that, not only can it speak into culture, but it has done so, powerfully, for half a millennium. He argues: “That transforming power is precisely what must be understood all over again, re-examined and demonstrated once more in our time” (21).

Guinness also challenges the current clichés about leaving a legacy as well as making an impact on culture. He points out: “Like ants on the vast floor of the Grand Canyon, none of us can see far enough to truly know where we are in the surging course of history. Only God knows” (22). He also argues that: “Christian extremism is little better than secularist or Muslim extremism” (25). He argues that there is a middle road between apathy and extremism. Guinness believes the same creative brilliance Christians have demonstrated in the past must be brought to the fore once more. Yet, “We do not know the outcome, so we must act in faith through the chronic obscurity of the present” (28). He claims the world’s dominant emotion is “fear” (28). Yet this is a time for Christians to step up and speak into that fear.

While Guinness claims that Christianity is the world’s first truly global religion, he also challenges that: “The seduction and distortion of modernity are in fact the central reason for the sorry disarray of the church in the western world” (31). He claims that Judaism and Christianity both have a “global vision” in their DNA (33). That is why they have within their roots, the compulsion to set the world aright.

Guinness suggests there are three major tasks that await the church today (35). The first is to equip the Global South that has, as yet, not been thoroughly corrupted by modernity. Guinness has a scathing rebuke on the western church that has succumbed to metrics and opinion polls for its direction rather than seeking direction from its Head. He claims that the church “counts opinions rather than weighs them” (42).

Guinness defines culture as “a way of life lived in common” (58). A civilization is a “culture with sufficient extension, duration, and elevation” (62). He argues that “a critical mass of believers constantly living out the shape of a set of ideas in a culture will always have an impact on the culture” (75) Yet, he calls the west a “cut flower civilization” as it has cut itself off from the very roots that nurtured it to greatness in the first place (68).

While Guinness does not call the west a greater civilization than others, he does note that there are several unique aspects to it that come largely from its Judaic and Christian roots. These include a major emphasis on philanthropy (68). No other culture has demonstrated as much concern for the weak or sick or elderly. There have also been recurring reform movements. Historically western culture has been able to change course when it was becoming unhealthy. Revival is not unknown to the west. Third is the rise of universities. Christian culture has promoted learning. Finally is the thriving of science and technology in the west. These have combined to make western civilization great and they have all stemmed from its religious roots. He denounces the claim by the atheist Christopher Hitchens that “religion poisons everything” as all of western civilization disproves that assumption (70).

Guinness cites C. S. Lewis’ essay “Some Thoughts” where he claimed that some religions are world-denying while others are world-affirming (76). Yet Christianity is one of the only belief systems that actively does both. This, Guinness believes, is one of its secrets for success. Guinness has a number of great “one liners” including: “Contrast is the mother of clarity” (78). When he examines the fruit of other belief systems, they always fall short of the Christian worldview. He argues that, rather than embracing modernity, the church must offer a prophetic voice. He cites G.K. Chesterton who claimed: “A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it” (85). Guinness argues against a mere presence if the church is going to transform society. He claims: “The key to changing the world is not simply being there, but an active, transforming engagement of a singularly robust and energetic kind” (86).

Guinness says a number of things that make the reader stop and think, such as his rebuke for assuming our generation is superior to those that preceded it. He notes: “Hindsight enables us to see where those previous generations went wrong, but we cannot see ourselves” (87). He challenges the church to resist trite clichés about changing the world, as only God can do that. Yet we can do our part. He regularly asks: “Is the church shaping the culture or is the culture shaping the church?” (88). He raises the question of whether God changes culture or we do (90). He chastises Christians for becoming enmeshed in fruitless discussions about God’s sovereignty and to simply be obedient to what God calls them to do. He concludes: “. . . the lesson of the Scriptures and Christian history is that we should rely firmly on both truths, and apply the one we most need when we most need it” (91). I enjoyed his balance in these areas. There are times when we must depend entirely upon God’s sovereignty, but then there are other times when clearly there are actions God asks us to undertake. He concludes: “There is a mystery as to how God’s sovereignty and our human significance work together, and there always will be” (92). We do not have to understand the distinction or theological nuances, but we should experience them!

Guinness makes several claims that were interesting. He argues that, “the ideas of leaders always outweigh the ideas of followers” (97). While we live in a populist society today, he argues that grassroots movements have never had the lasting impact as those initiated by leaders. “Like stormy waves breaking on a great rock, their mass movements have at times been impressive, but they have left the rock—and the culture—unmoved” (98). Yet, of leaders Guinness points out: “For God chooses messengers who are every bit as surprising as he himself” (105). “The kingdom of God is an upside-down, back-to-front, inside-out kingdom that stuns our expectations and blasts us out of our ruts and our prejudices” (106).

Guinness constantly urges humility in the task of world-changing. He has heard the numerous Christian slogans and clichés that have come and gone. He suggests: “Only God can handle the whole world. The world is not ours to manage or to save. Our task is to focus on our individual callings in engaging the world, to trust that others are following theirs too, and to leave to God the masterminding of the grand outcome” (108). To add to our humility, Guinness suggests: “. . . even the best and highest of our human endeavors usually have a single word written over them—incomplete” (110). He cites Reinhold Niebuhr who claimed: “Nothing that’s worth doing can be achieved in our lifetime” (110). I am not sure I agree with that statement, but it makes one think!

He argues that periods right after the church’s greatest “success” has often followed some of history’s greatest catastrophes. He states: “It would be idle to speculate what terrible new order today’s trendy clerics and faithless Christian activists are greasing the slipway for” (119). He cites a conversation a woman had with Theodor Mommson, when she argued that America should be excused due to its relative youth. He responded: “. . . your nation has had open before it the whole history of Europe from the beginning and without exception you have consistently copied every mistake Europe has ever made” (121). Guinness argues that “Times of the greatest success often carry the seeds of the greatest failure” (125). He goes on to say, “It is no wonder, then, that out of the great “success” of Christendom and the ‘great age of faith’ in both the Medieval and the modern ages, came not only magnificent learning, architecture, art, and music, but the worst evils ever perpetrated on the world by the Christian church” (128). He notes that in America, during the age of evangelicalism’s prominence, has also come a great moral decline, unstopped by evangelicals in their heyday (129). He notes that, “prophets themselves need prophets” (129).

Guinness cites Dean Inges who stated: “The person who marries the spirit of the age soon becomes a widower” (164). Finally, he notes that, “The politicization of faith is never a sign of strength but of weakness” (172.

Guinness was a part of the committee that developed a manifesto in 2008 of Evangelicalism. In the final pages of this book, he lists the manifesto. It is a call for evangelicals to rise up and be the change agents God has called them to be. The manifesto also acknowledges the failures and shortcomings of the past. It also takes exception to others defining evangelicalism on their behalf. Certainly in our day, the term “evangelical” has been distorted and misrepresented to the point that many no longer want to be identified by the term. This book is a helpful reminder of what an evangelical is and what they should be about.

I found this book refreshing and stimulating to my thinking. It is not a long book. Clearly he could go into more detail if he chose. He does have a sequel to this book coming out soon! But I think in light of the times in which we live and the assault evangelicals are presently under, this is a very timely, worthwhile read.

by Richard Blackaby

[rating:3.5]

(New York: Little, Brown and Company, 2012)

1182 pgs

I may as well begin this review by confessing that I am a major Winston Churchill fan. My children have another name for my condition! This book is the third in a trilogy on Churchill. William Manchester began this series in 1988. I thoroughly enjoyed his first two volumes. I felt they were the best biographies on Churchill that I had read or was aware of. However, health and age caught up with him and it looked like volume three would never go to print. In 2002 Manchester enlisted Paul Reid to take his notes and research and to complete the volume. I, and many others, are glad that he did. While perhaps not gifted with the same eloquence and turns of phrases as Manchester, I am glad volume three was produced so I could complete my set on the life of one of the most notable leaders of the twentieth century.

I won’t attempt to summarize a biography that runs over 1,000 pages. This book actually only covers Churchill’s life from 1940 until his death in 1965. This time period covers his rise as Prime Minister of Great Britain at its darkest hour in World War Two until his resignation as prime minister and his decline in his final years. Certainly what he is best known for is his leadership during World War Two when Britain stood alone against Hitler’s unstoppable military might. Churchill has often been designated the greatest leader of the Twentieth Century, and not without reason.

Rather than summarize over 1000 pages of biography, let me suggest why anyone should devote themselves to reading through roughly 3,000 pages studying the life of someone now dead for over fifty years.

I have studied leadership most of my adult life. I have shelves upon shelves of leadership books in my office. After a while, many of them are repetitive or they fail to offer anything new to the discussion. I discovered that, though I still read such books, I often gleaned more by reading biographies about leaders. In that context, I could see how they handled difficult situations and troublesome people. It was no longer theory but history.

There are some people, such as Churchill who capture people’s imagination. It is not because they were perfect, for most assuredly Churchill was not. What is intriguing is how they overcame their obvious shortcomings and changed their world in the process. The authors state:

“In many ways he was an alarming master. He worked outrageous hours. He was self-centered and could be shockingly inconsiderate. Because of his lisp. And because he growled so often, his speech was often hard to follow” (3).

Several things are evident with Churchill.

For one, he overcame a dysfunctional home. His father Randolph had no time or love for him. Churchill’s parents routinely spent Christmas on exotic vacations while leaving Winston with his nanny. Randolph ignored his son even when he begged for attention. It was Winston’s great ambition to one day serve in the House of Commons with his father, but that never came to pass. It does not take much speculation to consider that much of what drove Churchill was an insatiable desire to prove himself worthy of his father. What is most important is that Churchill overcame his painful past and numerous failures to become one of the greatest leaders in his nation’s illustrious history.

Second, Churchill seized his moment. He was a senior adult before he became prime minister. Yet when he rose to that office it was as if he had been destined for it all of his life. It would seem that God does not raise up leaders merely for their own benefit, but for a specific purpose. Churchill’s clearly was to save his nation from the Nazi war machine that destroyed numerous other countries in their path.

Churchill also grappled with some of the most basic and dramatic of leadership issues. He faced a challenge so difficult, no other leader had been able to successfully address it. He dealt with evil in its basest, most vile form. He dealt with other leaders who often believed they knew better than he did. He dealt with other world leaders who could be extremely difficult to work with and to understand. He also dealt with aging and knowing when to step down and to bless the next generation of leaders. To study the life of Churchill is to study most of the prevalent leadership issues of history as well as our day.

What makes Churchill particularly attractive is that he had so many shortcomings and moments where his humanity was evident. He also had a vast intellect, an impressive command of the English language and a memorable sense of humor. In the following paragraphs, I thought I’d list some of the memorable quotes from this period of Churchill’s life.

“I wish Stanley Baldwin no ill, but it would have been much better if he had never lived” (5) “Occasionally he stumbled over the truth, but hastily picked himself up and hurried on as if nothing had happened” (5)

“The Socialist dream is no longer Utopia but Queuetopia” (6)

“Almost all the food faddists I have ever known, nut eaters and the like, have died young after a long period of senile decay” (9)

“I have taken more out of alcohol than alcohol has taken out of me” (11)

“This report, by its very length, defends itself against scrutiny” (13)

“It is conceivable that I might well be reborn as a Chinese coolie. In such case I should lodge a protest.” (19)

“I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat” (56)

“You ask what is our aim? I answer in one word: Victory” (57)

“If this long island story of ours is to end at last, let it end only when each of us is choking in his own blood upon the ground” (82)

“We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall never surrender” (86)

“People who go to Italy to look at ruins won’t have to go as far as Naples or Pompeii in the future” (91)

“Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few” (147)

 “Remember this, never maltreat your enemy by halves” (179)

 “When my time is due, it will come” (192)

 “A Hun alive is a war in prospect” (200)

 “The inherent virtue of Socialism is equal sharing of miseries” (280)

 “Why do we regard history as of the past and forget we are making it?” (341)

 “Fate holds terrible forfeits for those who gamble on certainty” (403)

 “I would rather be right than consistent” (430)

 “The almighty in His infinite wisdom did not see fit to create Frenchmen in the image of Englishmen” (587)

 “Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, the end of the beginning.” (591)

 “Never give in. Never give in. Never, never, never, never—in nothing, great or small, large or petty, never give in, except to convictions of honor and good sense. Never yield to force. Never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy” (592)

“Nothing avails like perfection! . . . May be spelt shorter, ‘paralysis’” (623)

“There is only one thing worse than fighting without allies, and that is fighting without them” (715)

“I have always held . . . that the skin of the bear must not be distributed until the bear has been killed” (731)

“I would rather be taken out in the garden here and now and be shot myself rather than sully my own or my country’s honor by such infamy” (765)

“The truth is so precious that it must always be protected by a bodyguard of lies” (767)

“I believe God is on our side, at least I have done my best to make Him a faithful ally” (783)

“Trying to maintain good relations with a communist is like wooing a crocodile. When it opens its mouth you cannot tell whether it is trying to smile, or is preparing to eat you” (813)

“If I were the first day of May I should be ashamed of myself” (824)

“The idea that you can vote yourself into prosperity is one of the most ludicrous that was ever entertained” (871)

“There are few virtues that the Poles do not possess, and there are few mistakes they have ever avoided’ (931)

“When the eagles are silent the parrots begin to jabber” (932)

“Mr. Editor, I leave when the pub closes” (950)

“Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy” (987)

“I am ready to meet my Maker . . . Whether my Maker is prepared for the ordeal of meeting me is another matter” (981)

[Speaking of Clement Attlee} “A sheep in sheep’s clothing” (1007)

“I am for the ladder. Let all try their best to climb. They are for the queue. Let each wait in his place till his turn comes” (1014)

“I feel like an aeroplane at the end of its flight, in the dusk, with the petrol running out, in search of a safe landing” (1032)

“I would never have dared; and if I had dared, I would certainly never have dared to stop” (1044)

“Today is the twenty-fourth of January. It’s the day my father died. It is the day I shall die too” (1052)

I felt that Reid took on an unenviable task to complete what a master storyteller such as Manchester had begun. Comparisons are unavoidable. Overall I would conclude that Reid fell far short of Manchester. He does not have the same charm and delivery of a Churchillian phrase as did Manchester. He also seemed to get bogged down in certain aspects of Churchill’s life that could have been told more succinctly for brevity’s sake. Nevertheless, I far prefer the completed set with Reid’s contribution than an incomplete set, even if the first two volumes are superior.

Nevertheless, I found several phrases by the author that I felt were worthy of Manchester. Perhaps these were Manchester’s phrases, we have no way of knowing. I’ll list a few of them here.

“The furnace of war had smelted out all of the base metals from him” (4)

“It was the curious absence of interest or affection that may have helped make him a great leader” (8)

“Churchill cannot be an alcoholic because no alcoholic could drink that much!” (11)

“He could out argue anyone, even when he was wrong” (14)

“Churchill did not thrust and parry in such duels; he knew only how to thrust” (14)

“He was not a pillar of the church but a buttress. He supported it from the outside.” (19)

“He was an optimist, not a determinist” (20)

“He did not live in the past; the past lived in him” (24)

“Woe unto the typist who had to ask the Great Man to repeat a phrase” (29)

“Now the hour had come for him to mobilize the English language and send it into battle” (114)

“He put his pants on one leg at a time, but his valet held the pants” (276)

“Ambiguity was alien to the man” (313)

“He had a way of seeing gold when others saw dirt” (341)

[F.E. Smith] “Churchill spent his entire life rehearsing his impromptu speeches” (365)

“He had little time for family affairs, and little inclination to find the time” (412)

“Yet any gardener who has ever fled a swarm of wasps knows that size and maneuverability do not always carry the day” (432)

[George Bernard Shaw of the USA and England] “Two countries separated by a common language” (456)

“The tenth army would not so much assume a role as suffer a fate” (589)

“Churchill, always determined, was now confident as well” (671)

“He came, he saw, he consulted” (798)

[Marlborough] “The pursuit of absolute victory without slaughter will, in the long run, result in slaughter without victory” (851)

“In America, consumption was now a way of life; in Britain, consumption was still a disease that took off old people” (974)

This book is probably not for everyone. If you have not read volumes one and two of this series, don’t take on this one. If you are unfamiliar with Churchill, you probably want to begin with a one-volume biography. If you are a slow reader, you may also want to choose a slimmer tome. If you have little knowledge of World War Two, you may find the names and places listed in these pages to be overwhelming.

However, if you are familiar with these issues and you enjoy extensive biographies, then this might be a challenge worthy of your time. I for one feel as if no biography can do a major subject justice in under 1,000 pages. But that’s me. I am becoming an increasingly rare breed! So I share this book with you in this review knowing few will choose to undertake it. If you do, let me know what you thought!

by Richard Blackaby

[rating:4.0]

(Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 2004)

512 pgs

Nancy Pearcey is one of the leading Christian apologists of our day. She has a long pedigree, including rejecting the Christian faith as a teenager herself and eventually finding herself sitting around the dinner table with Francis Schaeffer at his chateau in the Swiss Alps. Pearcey co-authored an earlier work with Chuck Colson. This book has become a textbook for many Christian universities and seminaries, and well it should.

Pearcey claims that her own story is descriptive of many North American youth today. She grew up going to church, but her Sunday School teachers and youth workers never taught her a Christian worldview. Nor did they prepare her for the rabid atheists she would be assaulted with in university. She states: “Training young people to develop a Christian mind is no longer an option; it is part of their necessary survival equipment” (19). She also argues that, “The best way to drive out a bad world view is by offering a good one” (58).

This book is over 400 pages long and written extensively enough to be a textbook. So I will not try and summarize all of her points. She cites much science as well as philosophy that at times stretched me and my limited background in apologetics. In fact, one of the reasons I read this book is because I have two children currently working on Ph.D’s in apologetics and they instructed me that every Christian ought to have a rudimentary background in apologetics and this book would surely provide me with that!

Pearcey argues that secular thought has pushed Christianity from the public square. Naturalists argue that religion, if it has a role at all, concerns morals and values. However, it does not deal with facts or science. Pearcey argues that too many Christians have accepted this false dichotomy and unnecessarily yielded the field of science and truth to secular Darwinists.

Pearcey goes into great detail outlining the course of history and various prominent philosophers who were intimidated by science and yielded the field without even challenging many of the secularist’s presuppositions.

An interesting section of this book is in the “false” evidence cited by evolutionists in defending and promoting Darwinism. She cites evidence where evolutionists promote and defend their view even when there is no evidence to support it. Pearcey shows the hypocrisy of evolutionists who denounce Christians for being unscientific, but then these same people promote science that lacks evidence. They make their own “leap of faith” even while ridiculing Christians for trusting in an invisible Creator.

Pearcey also makes a solid case for why Christianity provides a robust worldview that not only is supported by scientific evidence, but it also “works” practically in life when practiced. Pearcey demonstrates how evolutionary theory cannot determine what is “right” or “wrong.” In fact, it is impossible to practice evolutionary ethics because society could not sustain it. She also points out how evolutionary theory breaks down repeatedly when addressing ethics. For example, evolutionary theory suggests that traits survive in creatures because they serve a purpose. But then when confronted with such issues as rape or infanticide, Darwinian ethicists must conclude that nature sees a reason to have these practices survive through the generations. Such ethicists find themselves forced to find the “good” in rape etc. Pearcey points out that clearly an ethic based on evolutionary theory is unsustainable.

Pearcey seems to go off on something of an excurses where she examines how, historically, evangelicals conceded the field of intellectual thought to the secularists. I felt that this took up too much space in the otherwise captivating book. Her point is valid, that evangelicals too quickly yielded large areas of truth and were content to talk about spiritual matters and morality. Nevertheless, this might have been shortened to keep the book length somewhat more manageable.

Overall, however, I felt that Pearcey did a great job in making the reader familiar with the key issues. She certainly made me want to read more and to familiarize myself with the key apologists. While I had previously learned to be wary of naturalist interpretations of science, Pearcey gave me compelling examples of how they misuse evidence and remain blindly devoted to their naturalistic views regardless of where the evidence takes them.

Pearcey also made me realize afresh the great need for Christian thinkers and apologists. Historically, Christians have produced some of the most brilliant minds through the ages. But, as she points out, many of those minds today have left the field of science or apologetics and have confined themselves to talking to other Christians about matters of faith. This book gave assurance to this father that his children were on the right track by all three majoring in apologetics!

Pearcey concludes by saying: “May God give us grace to be world view missionaries, building lives and communities that give an authentic witness of His existence before a watching world” (378).

by Richard Blackaby

[rating:4.0]

(New York: Harper Collins, 2009)

276 pgs

Rodney Stark is well known for his politically incorrect approach to history. This book follows that tradition! In this book, he expresses concern for the revisionist approach to the Crusades that portrays Christian invaders as barbaric, imperialistic, greedy, proselytizers who invaded the lands of the peaceful, sophisticated Muslim peoples. He summarizes the popular view today this way: “During the Crusades, an expansionist, imperialistic Christendom brutalized and colonized a tolerant and peaceful Islam” (8). He claims that many scholars today believe that “Far from being motivated by piety or by concern for the safety of pilgrims and the holy places in Jerusalem, the Crusades were but the first extremely bloody chapter in the long history of brutal European colonization” (4). Such a popular view today has been reinforced by Christian as well as government leaders such as US president Barak Obama, issuing apologies to the Muslim people for the barbarities inflicted upon them during the Middle Ages. Of course, anyone aware of current world events knows that Christian suffering at the hands of Muslims is much more current than the Middle Ages.

Pope Urban II sparked the First Crusade by a sermon on November 27, 1095 (2). Nevertheless, Stark argues that no one sermon could have instigated such a massive and expensive undertaking. Clearly there was far more at play than an emotional response to a well-delivered sermon.

Stark begins his presentation by examining the aggressive, often violent expansion of Islam into territory that had previously been Christian. Muhammad, in his farewell address had proclaimed, “I was ordered to fight all men until they say, ‘There is no god but Allah.’” (12). Stark notes that it was economic pressure and overpopulation that drove Muslims out of Arabia to conquer Syria and regions beyond (13). Stark cites numerous example of Muslim brutality as they conquered cities and beheaded all of the men and enslaved the women and children. Generally occupied peoples were told to convert to Islam or be killed. In more tolerant regimes, Christians and Jews were allowed to live but were to be treated to feel “inferior” to their Muslim neighbors (28-29). Often Christians were forced to pay fines in order to remain in the land under their Muslim overlords.

Stark goes into some detail to disprove the commonly held view that the Muslim culture was far more advanced and sophisticated than the backward Crusader culture that invaded it. Stark demonstrates that whether it was architecture, or medicine, or technology, the Muslim knowledge stemmed from the peoples’ it had conquered, not from its own advances. Stark argues that there never was a “Dark Ages” in Europe (54). Rather, it was during that period that Europe advanced in numerous areas of human achievement so that it was clearly more advanced than any other culture at its conclusion. The invention of the saddle and stirrups made European cavalry far superior to Muslim cavalry. The invention of the crossbow gave Europeans an enormous military advantage. The Muslim navy was always inferior to the Europeans and often relied upon Europeans to sail their ships.

Stark notes that two events incited Europeans to launch the Crusades. One was the desecration of Christian churches and relics in the Holy Land. The Church of the Holy Sepulchre was destroyed which incited much Christian protest. A second grievance was the harassment and often the killing of Christian pilgrims. A plea was issued for Christians to subdue the Holy Land so pilgrims could travel to it in safety and so Christian holy places could remain unharmed.

It has been commonly assumed that the Christian knights were typically landless younger sons of the nobility, or adventure seekers, or people greedily seeking to colonize foreign lands for profit. However, Stark points out that it cost a fortune to finance or undertake a crusade. Many noblemen had to sell off lands and go into enormous debt to finance them. Likewise, wealth did not flow from the conquered lands back to Europe. Rather, Europe had to continually send support through additional soldiers and funds to sustain the Christian bridgehead in the turbulent Middle East. Stark also points out the piety of many of the Christian leaders. He cites a term, “penitential warfare” as a descriptor of the Crusades. (107) This combined the Christian knights who spent their lives training for warfare with an act of penitence. This enabled “laymen” to use their skills for religious purposes. It also helped them find a significant means for performing penitence for their numerous sins. This may explain in part the widespread zeal for undertaking such a dangerous and costly enterprise./p>

Stark challenges popular myths surrounding the Crusades, such as that the Christians were barbaric but the Muslims were civilized. He cites numerous examples of Muslim cruelty. At times they promised safety to citizens of a besieged city if they would surrender. However, once the soldiers marched out of the city, they were seized upon, contrary to the vows of the captors, and all the men were beheaded while women and children were enslaved. Stark challenges the view that Saladin was an enlightened leader, and recounts his pleasure in watching while captured Christian knights were beheaded (200). He also challenges those who criticize the killings and pillaging by Christians. He notes that it was a barbaric age and it is not helpful to retroactively judge the Middle Ages by the standard of the Geneva Convention 158). He also notes that, compared to Muslim atrocities, Christian excesses were typically more humane. He also points out that generally Christian rulers in the Middle East allowed Muslims to practice their own religion without penalty or persecution. This generally was not true of Muslim governments (171).

He concludes his book by stating: “The Crusades were not unprovoked. They were not the first round of European colonialism. They were not conducted for land, loot, or converts. The Crusaders were not barbarians who victimized the cultivated Muslims. They sincerely believed that they served in God’s battalions” (248).

Stark readily acknowledges that he is not a specialist in the Crusades (9). Nevertheless, he seeks to challenge the current revisionist approach to the Crusades. This faulty view of history motivates many Christians today to feel guilt for the “crimes” of their fellow Christians in the Middle Ages. Stark does not deny that atrocities occurred, but he argues that the Muslims were equally guilty and often more barbaric than the Christians they now seek to chastise. Stark believes that the Crusades have become a convenient excuse every time a Muslim seeks to kill a Christian today or to justify his own imperialistic ambitions.

Stark is an interesting writer who tackles relevant historical issues. I appreciate his effort to make history accessible and readable for the common person. I felt he was generally fair in his approach. He did not overlook Christian excesses but he tried to place them in the larger context of the times they occurred. He also has the courage to tackle widely held opinions, even if it makes him unpopular.

In light of the relevance of this particular topic and the continuing citing of the Crusades as a critique of contemporary Christianity, it behooves Christians to read books such as this so they do not blindly accept attacks on their history without being able to make a knowledgeable rebuttal. Surely it is time to put the Middle Ages behind us and to judge the actions and abuses of Christians and Muslims based in what they are doing today.

by Richard Blackaby

[rating:4.5]

(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2014)

208 pgs

While I am sure that most if not all of us have a sense of who we are, it occurs to me that I often don’t take time to consider the current state of who I am, much less give attention to the cultivation of the inner self. I am easily distracted by the stuff of daily living and if not careful, find myself living life from the “outside in” and losing touch with the things that really matter.

John Ortberg refers to this needed spiritual discipline as “soul keeping”, getting in touch with the destiny God has for us, not simply one day to come in Heaven, but in this day, today. Ortberg takes us on a journey into the inner life of the soul, challenging us to move beyond “reputation and appearance” to who God has made us to be, in His image, in constant fellowship with Him.

Early in the book is a story you should take time to Google – “The Keeper of the Stream”. I had read it once upon a time, but in the context of Ortberg’s focus on the soul, it took on new and deeper meaning. At the conclusion of the story is the following quote from Dallas Willard, a great influence on Dr. Ortberg’s understanding of who we are as living soul

Our soul is like a stream of water, which gives strength, direction, and harmony to every other area of our life. When that stream is as it should be, we are constantly refreshed and exuberant in all we do, because our soul itself is then profusely rooted in the vastness of God and his kingdom, including nature; and all else within us is enlivened and directed by the stream. Therefore we are in harmony with God, reality, and the rest of human nature and nature at large. – Dallas Willard

Ortberg’s working definition of the soul is perhaps stated most clearly in chapter 2 – “Your soul is what integrates your will (your intentions), your mind (your thoughts and feelings, your values and conscience), and your body (your face, body language and actions) into a single life. A soul is healthy – well-ordered – when there is harmony between these three entities and God’s intent for all creation. When you are connected with God and other people in life, you have a healthy soul.”

Sin is the great enemy of the soul, threatening our intimacy with God and our harmony with those around us. In an insightful way, Ortberg uses the parable of the sower to call attention to the constancy of the sower and the seed, but the variable condition of the soil, equating the word “soil” with “soul”. He describes the “hardened soul”, the “shallow soul” and the “cluttered soul” as aberrations of what God intends for us and as prelude to the heart of the book, chapters 6-15, where he addresses “what the soul needs” to be and become all that God desires.

The soul must orbit around something other than itself – something it can worship.  It is the nature of the soul to need. What the soul truly desires is God. We may try to fill that need with other things, but the soul will never be satisfied without God…our soul begins to grow in God when we acknowledge our basic neediness.

John Ortberg

Over the next chapters, the focus in on the key needs of the soul – a keeper, a center, a future, to be with God, rest, freedom, blessing, satisfaction and gratitude. These pages are filled with wonderful truths and statements that pierce to the heart of the matter – God has placed in each of us eternity as “man became a living soul” and we have a stewardship to live in such a manner that we place singular importance on our relationship with the one who gave us life. Here is a brief sampling of these statements:

    I am responsible to take care of my soul not just for my own sake. The condition of my
    soul will affect the people around me…

    When my soul is not centered in God, I define myself by my accomplishments, or my
    physical appearance, or my title, or my important friends.

    The soul seeks God with its whole being. Because it is desperate to be whole, the soul
    is God-smitten and God-crazy and God-obsessed. My mind may be obsessed with idols;
    my will may be enslaved to habits; my body may be consumed with appetites. But my     
    soul will never find rest until it rests in God.

    We were made to make a difference beyond ourselves…our lives were meant to be signs
    that point beyond ourselves to God.

    Significance is about who we are before it is about what we do.

    The space where we find rest and healing for our souls is solitude.

    God’s law was given to us not to force us to obey a list of rules, but to free our souls to
    live full and blessed.

    Jesus said if you devote your life to pleasing yourself, you will actually destroy your soul,    
    whereas if you place honoring God above pleasing yourself, then your soul will be
    truly satisfied.

At the conclusion of the short story, “The Keeper of the Stream”, is the statement “The life of the village depends on the health of the stream. The stream is your soul. And you are the Keeper.”

I commend this book to you and pray your soul will find its true resting place in God.

by Rick Fisher

[rating:2.5]

(New York: Harmony Books, 2014)

352 pgs

The day Arianna Huffington found herself face down on the floor with a broken cheekbone and a cut eye she knew she needed to re-evaluate her life. Thrive is the compilation of wisdom and experiences she acquired on her journey to a more balanced and healthier lifestyle.

Huffington was born in Greece, but was educated at Cambridge and eventually moved to the United States. She co-founded The Huffington Post in 2005 and serves as its editor-in-chief. By worldly standards, she is considered wildly successful. She has accumulated wealth, fame, and countless accolades. But her success came at a cost—long hours, sleepless nights, and diminished time with her daughters and friends. When she collapsed in 2007, she discovered that the accident was caused by a single factor: exhaustion. That was her wake-up call that there had to be more to life than money and power.

In her book, she describes what she calls the “Third Metric.” She writes, “We need a Third Metric, a third measure of success that goes beyond the two metrics of money and power; and consists of four pillars: well-being, wisdom, wonder, and giving” (4). Only when the Third Metric is integrated into our lives, she argues, can we experience truly fulfilling lives.

Huffington makes several good points:

1. We need to unplug. In a technology-crazed world, it’s easy to become so immersed in email, text messages, social media, Netflix, and 24-hour news cycles that we lose our ability to focus on what’s important. She writes, “Being connected in a shallow way to the entire world can prevent us from being deeply connected to those closest to us—including ourselves” (8).
2. Sleep is underrated. One of the most drastic life changes Huffington made following her fall was to take sleep seriously. She writes, “There’s practically no element of our lives that’s not improved by getting adequate sleep. And there is no element of life that’s not diminished by a lack of sleep” (74). She argues that, contrary to the common workplace practice of wearing exhaustion as a badge of dedication, taking adequate time to sleep significantly improves our competency and productivity.
3. Go-givers are happier than go-getters. Human beings have an innate desire to help others, and it is only when we give of ourselves that we feel fulfilled. Huffington writes, “If well-being, wisdom, and wonder are our response to a personal wake-up call, service naturally follows as the response to the wake-up call for humanity” (224). She cites various studies showing that the joy we feel from giving is similar to the joy of receiving a significant salary increase (239).  Huffington concludes, “Essentially, giving is a miracle drug (with no side effects) for health and well-being” (239).

While Huffington offers some practical insights, the book is shrouded in her New Age, semi-Buddhist worldview (despite her multiple assertions to the contrary). As a Christian reading Thrive, I couldn’t help but think that she identified real problems but frequently mislabeled the solution. For example, Huffington is a huge proponent of meditation. She writes, “What study after study shows is that meditation and mindfulness training profoundly affect every aspect of our lives—our bodies, our minds, our physical health, and our emotional and spiritual well-being” (42). While there are benefits of quiet contemplation, Huffington overlooks the true source of our peace, wisdom, and well-being. She looks inward for fulfilment rather than to God. But all the “mindfulness” and yoga in the world cannot fix a problem if the solution lies outside ourselves. She does not necessarily solve the problem; she simply shifts it.

While her Oprah-esque spirituality needs to be taken to with a grain of salt, her primary message is an important one. Essentially, she realizes that what the world has to offer—money and fame—ultimately leaves one feeling empty. She writes, “We now know through the latest scientific findings that if we worship money, we’ll never feel truly abundant” (259). Therefore, she argues that we need to redefine success and start focusing on what truly matters.

by Carrie Blackaby Camp

[rating:4]

(New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2014)

228 pgs

Sheryl Sandberg’s book offers remarkable insight into challenges women face in the workforce. Not only does this book empower working women, but it also offers an eye-opening perspective for their male co-workers, bosses, partners, or fathers who might inadvertently be holding them back. As the Chief Operating Officer of Facebook and the mother of two children, Sandburg speaks from personal experience as well as from her keen social observations and research when she encourages women to “lean in.”

She begins by looking at what she calls the “Leadership Ambition Gap” in the workforce (15). It is no secret that women in earlier eras were expected to have few ambitions beyond marrying well and raising children. Sandburg notes that in her mother’s generation many women believed the workforce consisted of “two career options for women: teaching or nursing” (13). However, even in today’s more progressive society very few women are reaching upper-management positions or making use of their full professional potential. Sandberg notes, “Girls growing up today are not the first generation to have equal opportunity, but they are the first to know that all that opportunity does not necessarily translate into professional achievement” (15). For example, even though women earn more than fifty percent of college degrees, men hold the overwhelming majority of high-level corporate positions.  Sandberg argues that one reason more men reach senior level jobs than women is because more men aspire to them (16).

Of course, one can point to a number of external factors that keep women from climbing the corporate ladder such as gender bias and family responsibilities. Sandberg does not downplay these issues. But her focus is on ways women often—though usually unintentionally—hold themselves back.

Sandburg contends that women often hinder themselves as a result of their self-doubt. She writes, “multiple studies in multiple industries show that women often judge their own performance as worse than it actually is, while men judge their own performance as better than it actually is” (29). When applied to the workforce, Sandburg argues that it is this lack of confidence that often keeps women from taking the risks necessary to receive promotions and better-paying jobs. Sandberg writes, “Like so many things, a lack of confidence can become a self-fulfilling prophecy” (33). She encourages women to break the cycle of insecurity.

Another challenge women face—and often a contributing factor to women’s self-doubt—is the prevailing bias that ambitious, successful women are unlikable. Sandberg describes a study in which two groups of people were given a case study about a successful female entrepreneur named Heidi Roizen (39). However, for one group, the subject’s first name was changed to Howard. Interestingly, while both groups rated the entrepreneur competent, those who were given the case study with the female name rated her much lower in likeability. The point Sandberg makes is that professional success in women is negatively correlated for women, but the opposite is true for men (40). Because most women desire to be liked, they often feel the need to “mute [their] accomplishments” (44). However, they often themselves in a catch-22, because “owning one’s success is key to achieving more success” (44). Sandberg acknowledges the difficulty of this situation, but she encourages women to communicate in ways that maintain their “likeability” without negating their success.

Perhaps the most poignant point Sandberg makes is that women should not “leave before they leave” (93). She writes, “Women rarely make one big decision to leave the workforce. Instead, they make a lot of small decisions along the way, making accommodations and sacrifices that they believe will be required to have a family” (93). Sandberg notes that many women begin worrying about the toll a career will take on their family before they even have a husband or children. As a result, women often pass up opportunities for advancement. She encourages women not to sabotage their career because of a situation that might occur in the future; rather they should take that time to “keep a foot on the gas pedal until a decision must be made” (103).

While the purpose of Sandberg’s book is to encourage women to “lean in” to their careers, it is important to note that she in no way belittles women who choose to focus on motherhood rather than career, nor does she propose that all women should remain in the workforce. She writes, “Not every parent needs, wants, or should be expected to work outside the home” (95). She also notes that many factors outside a women’s control can necessitate that she leave the workforce. On the contrary, Sandberg shows a great deal of respect for the immensely important work of motherhood. However, Sandberg does argue that far too many women are leaving the workforce—or settling for a sub-par career—for the wrong reasons.

Sandberg is writing from a secular standpoint that does not acknowledge God-ordained and gender-specific responsibilities. Therefore, some readers may find that her desire for equality between men and women at times veers over the line of biblically sanctioned gender roles. However, Sandberg raises some vital questions about an important issue that can only be addressed once both women and men understand the problem.

by Carrie Blackaby Camp

[rating:3]

(New York: Doubleday, 1992)

151 pgs

Henri Nouwen was a Catholic priest and scholar who taught at Notre Dame, Yale Divinity School, and Harvard Divinity School. In 1983, while taking a leave of absence to minister in a home for mentally handicapped people in Trosly, France, he became aware of Rembrandt’s painting of the return of the prodigal son. So enraptured did he become with the painting that he travelled to St. Petersburg, Russia to view it in person. By the close of that year Nouwen decided to leave the Harvard faculty and to become the chaplain to the mentally handicapped at L’Arche Daybreak Community in Toronto, Canada.

This book chronicles Noewen’s spiritual pilgrimage as he studied and meditated upon Rembrandt’s masterpiece. This short book is divided into three sections. The first examines the younger son. The second looks at the elder son, and the final section examines the father. In each section, Nouwen describes how he came to see himself in each person.

I enjoyed this book. Nouwen is a Catholic philosopher and artist. He helped me look at a painting with perceptive eyes and imagination. I enjoyed hearing his ruminations on the work of art and his applications to Jesus’ famous parable. Of course much is speculative, as we cannot know with certainty what Rembrandt intended. However that is the beauty of art. We can have our own experience with art that is impactful to us, regardless of what the artist might have originally intended. While I did not agree with all of Nouwen’s conclusions, I was inspired by his many insightful comments. It made me want to be a better-informed student of art.

Nouwen looks at Rembrandt’s life and early artistic work and demonstrates that in his youth, he was a talented, proud, confident, worldly man with a desire to win fame and fortune. However, he experienced numerous heartaches both in the loss of loved ones and in bankruptcy. Rembrandt painted this work near the end of his life. At that point he painted himself as the prodigal son who has been humbled by life and finally made his way home to his father. Nouwen examines the reasons we leave the home of our loving Father in search of love and happiness from the world. He notes: “Soon after Jesus heard the voice calling him the Beloved, he was led to the desert to hear those other voices . . . Those same voices are not unfamiliar to me. They are always there and, always, they reach into those inner places where I question my own goodness and doubt my self-worth” (40). Finally, Nouwen notes, the prodigal son “hit the bedrock of his sonship” (49). Nouwen suggests that the Beatitudes provide the most direct rout back to the father (54).

He then looks to the elder son. He believes that Rembrandt also identified with him. He points out that the prodigal son is not pictured at the center of the painting. To one side is the elder son. Though Jesus makes it clear that he was not present when his younger brother returned home, Rembrandt inserts him into the painting. It becomes clear that there are two lost sons in that household. Rembrandt painted a light on the father’s face and hands and also on the elder brother’s face, but not his hands. It is clear that he is unhappy with the return and with his relationship with his father. Nouwen suggests that each person must make his way back to his father’s arms where love and joy can be experienced. The younger son was humiliated to a degree that he realized that was his only hope. The elder son remains on the sidelines, missing his father’s love. Nouwen comments: “The lostness of the resentful ‘saint’ is so hard to read precisely because it is so closely wedded to the desire to be good and virtuous” (71).

Nouwen began to realize that he was actually the older brother. He lived a respected, dutiful Christian life. But he began to ask: “Have I already had my reward?” (79). He confesses, “Outside of the light, my younger brother seems to be more loved by the Father than I; in fact, outside of the light, I cannot even see him as my own brother” (81).

Finally, Nouwen examines the father. He observes that Rembrandt painted two very different hands on the father. One is quite effeminate, caring, and caressing. The other is strong and firm. Nouwen speculates that Rembrandt represented the father as both maternal and paternal, just as God is described in both ways. He also describes the presence of the father as a place of joy. He notes that joy has been the mark of the people of God (117). He notes that, “The joy of the father is vastly different from the pleasure of the wayward son” (138).

Nouwen explains that he came to realize that God intends for him to move from being a son to behaving like his father. To welcome people with love and to bless them. He concludes by saying, “As I look at my own aging hands, I know that they have been given to me to stretch out toward all who suffer, to rest upon the shoulders of all who come, and to offer the blessing that emerges from the immensity of God’s love” (139). Nouwen would spend the remainder of his life blessing some of the humblest people in society.

I enjoyed this book. Perhaps because it is written in a different style and from a different perspective than I am accustomed. I found many of his insights to be thought-provoking. While I did not agree with everything he said, I did appreciate that he made me think. I also appreciate the way he exegetes a painting. He made me want to spend more time with the masterpieces left through the ages. I also enjoyed reflecting on one of Jesus’ most famous parables. I enjoy having someone take something that is so familiar and then shedding fresh light and insight on it that I had never considered before.

I recommend this book. It might not be the style you normally read, but you may well find it thought-provoking and refreshing. Certainly a fresh look at the beloved parable could do us all some good.

by Richard Blackaby

[rating:3]

(Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2003)

623 pgs

Last year I had the opportunity to speak at a church located near the battlefield at Gettysburg. I had never had the opportunity to visit the site and had always wanted to. While there I picked up this book and was inspired to read about the epic battle that turned the tide of the Civil War. I have read a great deal on the Civil War but I had never read an in depth study focusing entirely on this battle. Because of the length and historic complexity of this volume, I’ll not try and summarize or necessarily critique the book in detail.

While touring the battlefield, I was struck by several things. For one, everywhere there are tour groups. Clearly 152 years after the battle, it still captures peoples’ interest and imagination. I was also struck by how many people came in period costume, both gray and blue. There were numerous readings, speeches, and services being conducted. I suppose what most impressed me was the sense of the courage that was required to have fought on that landscape. Standing atop Little Round Top and Cemetery Ridge, I could not help but imagine what it was like to see 13,000 soldiers charging across the open fields during Pickett’s famous charge. To know that, for three days in a hot July, the fate of the United States hung in the balance in that relatively obscure town in Pennsylvania, compelled me to want to read this book.

I must add a quick preamble. There are those who are repulsed at battles and death, especially for a cause today viewed by many as unjust. I have had people criticize me for drawing leadership principles from Southern generals such as Lee and Jackson. However, one reason that so many books on leadership reference military exploits is because there is perhaps no greater field in which to exercise leadership than among people who may have to lay down their lives as a consequence of what their leaders do. The stakes are never higher than in the heat of a battle. It is when death is on the line that the mettle of leaders is clearly revealed. I would also add that great leadership can be exercised even when for a less than noble or misguided cause. It would seem foolish to discount the leadership brilliance of people like Robert E. Lee and Jackson simply because they fought on the losing side of history.

I enjoyed Sears’s style for the most part. At times the narrative grew somewhat tedious as he described the various brigades and corps commanders. For a thorough history, it is important to set the stage and to describe the main players. However, this part seemed to be a bit tedious. I far preferred it when he introduced us to officers and soldiers as their role was described in the actual battle. For the most part, Sears used the accepted style of military narrators in describing in vivid imagery the enormous import of the three days’ events. I suppose Winston Churchill is one of my favorite writers of military history and few can match his use of the English language. Nevertheless, Sears does a good job of describing the various events and introducing the reader to the wide array of characters involved in this epic battle.

Part of the allure of the Civil War is the cultured, gentlemanly manner in which people spoke and described the barbaric events that were occurring. Phrases such as, “Only battle could satisfy an objective so grand” (16). They “were compelled to make a retreat more rapidly than was consistent with dignity and comfort” (98), “The slaughter was mutual and assured’ (210); “. . . caused much strong language” (247). At times the gentlemanly way in which events are described shields the reader form the stark horror of the actual events being depicted.

I must confess that in other books I have read, particularly focusing on Robert E. Lee, the role of subordinates such as General Longstreet always seemed tarnished. Longstreet clearly did not endorse Pickett’s charge. As a result, he has been castigated by many who believe his reluctance may have cost Lee the victory. However, Sears is generally sympathetic to Longstreet. He makes it clear that Lee was not at his best at Gettysburg (237). Sears quotes a subordinate who declared of Longstreet: “I consider him a humbug . . . a man of small capacity, very obstinate, not at all chivalrous, exceedingly conceited, and totally selfish’ (262). Sears also acknowledges that, “James Longstreet could be a remarkably stubborn man” (347). Nevertheless, Sears argues that Longstreet was correct in his assessment that victory could not be won on the decisive day of the battle by a direct frontal assault and that Lee made a series of mistakes that ultimately cost him the battle.

Several things struck me as I read this book. One was the way some leaders valiantly rose to the occasion while others failed miserably. In an amazing contrast you see some men performing heroically and sacrificially while others flee at the first sign of danger. The same battle reveals the heroes and the cowards.

Several people stood out in Sears’ account. On the negative side were people such as General Dan Sickles. Of him Sears commented: “As corps commander Dan Sickles was operating at a level far beyond his talents, and most everyone realized it but Dan Sickles” (35). When he was ultimately wounded, his soldiers concluded that, “The loss of his leg is a great gain to us, whatever it may be to him” (301). Of General Robertson, Sears notes: “General Robertson was an excellent man in camp to train troops . .  but in the field, in the presence of the enemy, he lost all self-possession and was perfectly unreliable” (140). Of Colonel Edward O’Neal, Sears notes that his “talents were those of a politician he had been than the warrior he aspired to be . . . he remained safely in the rear rather than personally directing the assault, as was expected of any officer in Robert E. Lee’s army” (197). General William Mahone refused to advance even when his commanding general sent word for him to do so (317). There was general Dick Anderson. When a courier was sent to his post, he found General Anderson “back in the woods, where he found the general’s horse tied to a tree and all his staff lying on the ground (indifferent) as though nothing was going on . . . I am quite certain that Gen’l A. never saw a foot of the ground on which his three brigades fought on 2^nd July” (318). John Brockenbrough was to lead the left wing of the assault on July 3. Yet almost immediately his force was routed, leaving the left flank exposed (418). In reading of the shortcomings and skill of officers in both armies could affect the outcome of a battle. Sears makes much of Jeb Stuart’s misguided ride around the rear of the Union army. While he was out of contact with lee, Lee was left in the dark about the enemy’s whereabouts. It is safe to conclude that Lee would have approached Gettysburg much differently if he had been better informed of his enemy’s position and strength.

In contrast are Sears’ descriptions of heroism at Gettysburg. John B. Gordon had said to his men: “I ask you to go no father than I am willing to lead!” (53). During the battle of Gettysburg, it was said that Gordon “was a self-taught soldier with a talent for inspiring his men and personally dominating a battlefield. . . ‘Standing in his stirrups, bareheaded, hat in hand, arms extended, and, in a voice like a trumpet, exhorting his men. It was superb; absolutely thrilling’” (213). (53). It was said of Lee that, “We looked forward to victory under him as confidently as to successive sunrises” (59). Corporal James Kelly pled as he was dying from his wounds in battle, “Colonel, won’t you write to my folks that I died a soldier?” (179).

Of General Meade, Sears writes: ‘There was nothing in his appearance or his bearing . . . that might have made the hearts of the soldiers warm to him, . . nothing of prose, nothing stagy, about him. His mid was evidently absorbed by a hard problem. But this simple, cold, serious soldier with his business-like air did inspire confidence” (243). Colonel Joshua Chamberlain was riding with his two brothers when cannon fire exploded near them. “Boys” he said, “I don’t like this. Another such shot might make it hard for mother” (278). He therefore dispatched his brothers in opposite directions.

During the battle, four brothers from the Thomas family fought for the South. One of their brothers had been killed in battle earlier. At Gettysburg, three more would be killed (290). It was said of William Wofford that he was “a self-made, aggressive officer who on attack made himself highly visible” (302). Isaac Avery led his troops on horseback so he would be more visible to his men. Unfortunately he was also more visible to enemy sharpshooters. As he lay mortally wounded, he asked, “Major; Tell my father I died with my face to the enemy” (336-337).

General Hancock was everywhere in battle cursing and exhorting his men. When the Union cannons unleashed a devastating barrage toward his men, “General Longstreet felt obliged by this counterfire to show himself to his men to reassure them. ‘Longstreet rode slowly and alone immediately in front of our entire line . . . His bearing was to me the grandest moral spectacle of the war. I expected him to fall every instant. Still he moved on, slowly and majestically, with an inspiring confidence, composure, self-possession and repressed power” (404). It was said of Colonel Sherrill that he was “too brave a man to live” (435).

During Pickett’s charge, Lewis Armistead and Dick Garnett fearlessly led their men. Garnett rode on horseback despite the murderous fire fro the enemy. Armistead led twenty feet ahead of the line. Sears notes: “Finally, this leadership was inspired and inspiring. Dick Garnett, mounted and clearly visible to his followers, and Lew Armistead, marching resolutely twenty paces ahead of the line, hat on his upraised sword, were generals that men would follow to the death” (447). When his men began to waiver under the devastating fire of the enemy, Armistead shouted: “Come forward, Virginians! Come on boys, we must give them the cold steel! Who will follow me?” (449). Sears concludes: “It was his example, his coolness, his courage that led that brigade over that field of blood” (415). Reading of such courage and standing on the battlefield still inspires people today.

This particular battle continues to baffle military experts to this day. Should Lee have attacked the entrenched position of the North when he had a smaller force? Without proper intelligence, should Lee have allowed himself to become entangled in a battle he did not wish for? Should he have heeded the concerns of his senior general in Longstreet? Lee had confidence that led him to favor the offensive but this confidence could also lead him to assume he could will his forces to victory even against the odds. Sometimes he was successful. In this instance he was not. There were a number of lost opportunities on both sides that might have turned the tide of the battle. There were moments of failed leadership that cost men their lives. There were moments as well, when ordinary soldiers laid their lives down for their cause.

There certainly are other books on this battle as well as the Civil War as a whole that cover much of the same material. Clearly Sears is an expert on this battle and the people involved. I would encourage those who are interested in leadership to take some time to learn lessons that can be gleaned from America’s deadliest war. I was carrying this book with me into an airport lounge. A man noticed what I was reading and felt compelled to tell me that he had been to Gettysburg a dozen times and that he learned new lessons on each occasion. Certainly there are many leadership insights to be gained from a study of those three days in July 1863.

by Richard Blackaby