Christian Manifesto on The Feast – Joshua Graves: Exploring the Collision of Culture & Faith

Christian Manifesto on The Feast

January 6, 2010

The Christian Manifesto recently reviewed my book, The Feast. Here’s the review. I will respond at another time.

By C.E. Moore

GENRE: CHRISTIAN LIVING
PUBLISHER: LEAFWOOD
PUBLICATION DATE: SEPTEMBER 1, 2009

Debut author Joshua Graves’ The Feast is a book dedicated to taking a compartmentalized Christianity and introducing people to a faith that charges all of creation with the grandeur of God. Does it make the grade, though? That is the real question.

What I like about this title is that Joshua Graves has a gift for story-telling and asking probing questions that won’t let you go just because a person has moved on to the next chapter. This book has the bite of a pitbull for someone who has been living out their faith lethargically. Even for someone who has been living out their faith in vibrant, Christ-exalting ways, Graves still manages to ask some dangerous questions.

A few samples.

In Chapter Two, titled “Theotokos,” Graves tells the story of Joseph and Mary in a way in which most people likely have not heard it before. Graves brings out the weight of the situation. Joseph’s position in life is threatened if he believes Mary’s story and Mary’s reputation and life are both threatened if Joseph chooses not to believe her. Excavating Hebrew customs and Greek understandings, Graves paints this story in a light that I had never understood before.

In Chapter Four (alone worth the price of the book itself), titled “The Greatest Risk,” Graves juxtaposes a personal story of learning to be bold in his faith against the Parable of the Talents. In this chapter he poses this poignant conundrum for the clean-cut Christian mind: “Why is the master so hard on the man? After all, Jesus uses the phrase “outer darkness” and “weeping and gnashing of teeth.” I don’t think the master is upset because the servant is afraid. I think he is upset because the slave allows his fears to carry more weight than the commission of the master. Fear God or fear everything else….The greatest risk, in the economy of Christ, is to take no risk at all.”[1] Far from the self-help masquerading as Christianity that fills the shelves of our bookstores, Graves asks meaty questions that latch on and refuse to let go.

The whole book is like this. Story after story after story of people meeting with or being used as means by God to accomplish His purposes in the earth.

Some difficulties exist, however.

First, a weak difficulty. The Feast reads like a lot of other books of the same ilk, like Rob Bell’s Velvet Elvis or Skye Jethani’s The Divine Commodity. While imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, I’d like to have heard Graves’ more distinct voice. As this is his first title, I’m sure this will work itself out in time. Having had the pleasure of hearing the man preach several times, I can pretty much guarantee he’ll be writing more.

My strong difficulties with The Feast stem from my decidedly different theological outlook than Graves, so some will need to take this with a grain of salt.[2] First, is Graves’ adoption of Dallas Willard’s distaste for the practice of “Vampire Christianity”—the evangelical’s tendency to “only want Jesus for his blood.” While neither Willard nor Graves’ position openly attacks the traditional understanding of the atonement of Christ, there is an ongoing assault from within Christianity itself that is downplaying the necessity for and paramount importance of Christ’s blood shed for us. Graves calls to account evangelical Christianity’s love affair with comfort, but also seems to be espouse a works-based maintenance of one’s faith (diametrically opposed to Paul’s theology and James’ understanding of “faith without works is dead.”) In fact, a person cannot be a Christian without good works showing a living faith. But, those good works are impossible without the redeeming work of Christ accomplished through the shedding of his blood.

Second, there is also the theme running throughout the volume that asks us to “imagine what it would be like for things on earth to be as they are in heaven.” This is “missional” language that currently tends to defy description. And, while I am not critical of all things missional, I get the distinct feeling that The Feast espouses more social gospel/kingdom expansion than it does the gospel of Jesus Christ as preached in Scripture. As Kevin DeYoung writes in Why We Love The Church, “…there is no language in Scripture about Christians building the kingdom. The New Testament…uses verbs like enter, seek, announce, see, receive, look, come into and inherit….We are given the kingdom and brought into the kingdom. We testify about it, pray for it to come, and by faith it belongs to us. But in the New Testament, we are never the ones to bring the kingdom.”[3]The seeming social gospel in lieu of the gospel of Jesus Christ espoused in The Feast is problematic. Additionally, several times throughout the title I got the sense that “Jesus doesn’t seem so concerned with ‘x’ cause over there as he is with ‘x’ cause over here” is some sort of license to not care about both, as if solidarity with the poor is more important than caring about drinking and gambling (two contributors to vast poverty).

Overall, The Feast is a good title. It’s not the best I’ve read, but it’s not the worst. Despite my strong misgivings about some of the things said, I think the good far outweighs the bad. I really think people should be reading Joshua Graves’ work. Too many people have been sitting in the pews listening to sermons week-in and week-out, nodding, and then shuffling out the door to…do nothing. Graves is not content with this and he invites you to stop living a compartmentalized version of the Christian faith and to come feast with him at the table and take Jesus to a famished world.

Review copy provided courtesy of Leafwood Publishers.

[1] Graves, Joshua, The Feast: How To Serve Jesus In A Famished World, (Abilene, Texas: Leafwood Publishers, 2009), 55.

[2] Graves is Church of Christ. I am Reformed. Though, I am sure both of us would argue that neither of us fit nicely into the categories laid down for us.

[3] DeYoung, Kevin & Ted Kluck, Why We Love The Church: In Praise of Institutions and Organized Religion, (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2009), 49.

Labels: The Feast

9 Comments

So…is that a B+? It must be a curious experience to have a professional critic review what’s intended only for good and suggest that in fact it may have not only failed to reach the threshold of “good”, but in fact was “bad” (in parts anyway). Maybe that’s just how I would feel in your shoes. I’ll look forward to reading your response.

by Tim (Jan 6 2010, 9:23 pm)

Just remember that most critics have never actually written a book, they make their money (or make it a hobby) to critique the ones who actually do write. Of course, this is a generalization (class example is C.S. Lewis–he as a critic as well as a profound writer) and there are exceptions.

I welcome the insights of critics because they often point out “blind spots”–I’ll be responding soon to this particular piece.

by josh (Jan 7 2010, 8:33 am)

If I were to “grade” the title, I’d give it a solid A. As I said in the review, my critique comes from a decidedly Reformed point of view, which colors the way I see things. Even as a critic, I cannot completely remove myself from my theological biases. (Most critics wouldn’t even admit that bias.)

However, after having spoken with Josh on the phone this afternoon about his book and the review, I am more at ease with the approach he is taking, even if I would not necessarily take that approach myself. In other ways, I felt we are saying the same thing in different ways.

As for writers and critics….LOL…I do have a book in the pipeline. It’s only fair that if I’m going to critique other people’s art and literature, I should put mine out there for the masses…we’ll see.

by C.E. Moore (Jan 7 2010, 10:58 am)

What’s your point in saying most critics have never written a book? I’m not sure it would be parallel to something like “most armchair quarterbacks have never played the game.” Books are generally written for public consumption in an attempt to engage or argue or illustrate, etc. A critic need not have written a book to say whether another book has done well what it sets out to do, whether there are arguments or flaws in someone else’s presentation, or whether he disagrees on the basis of differing theological presuppositions.

by Phillip (Jan 7 2010, 12:28 pm)

“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; because there is not effort without error and shortcomings; but who does actually strive to do the deed; who knows the great enthusiasm, the great devotion, who spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement and who at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly. So that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.”
-Theodore Roosevelt

by Mike (Jan 7 2010, 1:24 pm)

Consider the critique/response process to be a “conversation.” We’re all about dialogue and conversation these days, right? Critics do indeed point out blind spots, and Josh, you are right in saying so.

I read the review on The Christian Manifesto website before I saw it here, and actually it seemed to me that C.E. Moore rather liked the book. He was surprised by it, and gained insights from it. But he has some theological differences. He implies in footnote #2 that the differences may be due to Church of Christ vs. Reformed outlooks. I think it would be more accurate to say, however, that they may be due more to Emerging/Emergent vs. Reformed.

I am interested in seeing your response to his criticism that your message is more about (earthly) kingdom expansion than preaching the gospel.

by rjohns (Jan 7 2010, 1:32 pm)

Hey Josh, What does he mean by “social gospel”?

by KirtHunt (Jan 7 2010, 7:26 pm)

Perhaps it would be good to distinguish between a critic who merely criticizes and finds faults, and a critic as one who carefully evaluates something, examining its strengths and weaknesses, as a helpful exercise. I think we all need critics in the latter sense and to be critical in that sense. The reviewer under discussion here is a critic in the latter sense, a book reviewer. These critics are useful in helping us discern what books are worth our time and effort and for making us aware of issues as we read (to reveal not simply the author’s but also the reader’s potential blind spots).

by Phillip (Jan 8 2010, 8:31 am)

Calvin and I had a great interview yesterday in which we thoroughly discussed his review. I agree with Phillip’s initial question and second observation. I wrote my comment in a rushed, hurried moment.

Mike: The Teddy R. quote is one that has fascinated me for a long time.

rjjohns: I’ll be responding in the coming days (as soon as I have time to write a careful response).

Kirt: “social gospel” reference to 20th century movement out of Harlem, NY and mainline Christianity’s response to poverty. Fascinating movement.

by josh (Jan 8 2010, 9:47 am)