Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.24 AVERAGE
4.24 AVERAGE
I LOVED this book. It briefly presented some ideas that beg for more study and prayer. Although Jersak never purports to introduce all the perfect answers to the hard questions, he presents his well-researched theology with humility and leaves appropriate space for mystery.
Ten years ago, my relationship with God was extremely dear and intimate. After several traumatic, nightmarish experiences, I came to a place where I loved God at arm's length. I truly loved him, but I was afraid of him. I didn't want to speak to him because I felt that calamity befell me when I came too close.
Neo-calvinism didn't mesh with my experience with God. It painted a divine monster and sent me to tears. Arminianism didn't make sense, felt like willful blindness. Recently God's spirit put it in me to seek him for healing. That led me to this book. This book directs me to other books, leads me into prayer. It's a process, but I'm healing. Thank you, Bradley Jersak.
Ten years ago, my relationship with God was extremely dear and intimate. After several traumatic, nightmarish experiences, I came to a place where I loved God at arm's length. I truly loved him, but I was afraid of him. I didn't want to speak to him because I felt that calamity befell me when I came too close.
Neo-calvinism didn't mesh with my experience with God. It painted a divine monster and sent me to tears. Arminianism didn't make sense, felt like willful blindness. Recently God's spirit put it in me to seek him for healing. That led me to this book. This book directs me to other books, leads me into prayer. It's a process, but I'm healing. Thank you, Bradley Jersak.
challenging
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
This first book in the More Christlike trilogy, which taken together, provide a beautiful direction for Christians today who struggle with the many ways the church is failing, but are still compelled by Jesus. This entry tackles the gospel and particularly our view of the atonement (what exactly happened on the cross and it’s meaning for us.) This book is medicine for those of us who have experienced the abuse of the extreme form of Penal Substitutionary Atonement (God had to kill Jesus in order to not be angry at you.). Jersak brings to light the teaching of many of the Patristic writers (Christian thinkers between the 2nd and 4th century) who saw things vastly differently than the way they are taught today in many Evangelical churches. This book will flood your mind and heart with grace and help you see our other-centered, co-suffering God more clearly.
Parts of it are excellent but at some point it felt like he was repeating himself. I'm too old to slog through a book I agree with. I'll save the work.
This book sat in my TBR pile for around 18 months before I read it, but I read it at the time I needed to read it. That might be why it has taken me several days to decide how to review it.
At times the book was affirming and had me nodding along. Jersak asks the questions that many of us think about and try to avoid, or ask and find that the answers or lack of them can destroy faith.
At times I was frustrated and wanted to shout at him to stop putting things off and get to the point. The problem being everything he was saying was interlinked, so often he would mention something and then say he’d come back to it later - normally the things I wanted to know.
Other times I wanted to throw the book across the room violently (no, I didn’t do, don’t want to destroy my kindle). His overall thinking on things like theodicy (the problem of pain and evil) made coherent logic with his thinking, but I found that even though it was based on God’s love it was impersonal. I couldn’t see how it would help a child hiding in a cupboard listening to their dad beating up their mum, or a teen assaulted by a youth leader and finding her church blame her. If we are to believe in a personal and active God, then shouldn’t any solution also be personal?
Overall however, I found the book solidly good. 4 stars is my standard review (so I can differentiate the top spots). It is dense in its argument, but still accessible especially in small chunks.
Jersak’s main emphasis in the book is to remind us that God is like Jesus. If we want to know what God is like then we should look at Jesus. When we look at any other Bible passages or descriptions of God, it should be through the lens of Jesus. This applies not just for the 33 years of Jesus’s life on earth, but as part of the trinity for all time. He looks at several commonly held views of God - not views any of us would say we have, but views that are shown through how we pray and how we act, and talk, and he shows how these views (Santa clause, doting grandad etc) are false.
When it comes to wrath and theodicy Jersak bases his argument on the theology of Kenosis, emptying. He argues that God in love empties himself of coercive power in the incarnation, and that this emptying is his character for all time. In love God cannot act in coercion. God has put natural rules like gravity in place, and actions cause reactions and consequences. What we suffer as evil, as sickness, as natural disaster is not God acting to do those things, nor him choosing not to stop them - but the consequences of nature and sin. For God to do anything else would be for him not to be who he is. God consents to nature taking its course and to consequences following sin, even for those who did not commit that sin, because God chose love and consented to man choosing will.
I am oversimplifying his argument a little, it reminded me too much of the general free will argument, ie it’s our own fault and we suffer, as a whole, even those children we deem innocent. However I think Jersak is much more nuanced than that.
His section on atonement, without wrath, without hell, without a forensic courtroom was good, although I have previously seen the gospel in chairs as a video, and think it works better to see it. It really did clarify things for me.
The book was helpful, the sections on how we view God and looking at Jesus to see God were excellent, and although his treatment of theodicy left me still seeing it as a big problem, it has given me some helpful lines to think about.
At times the book was affirming and had me nodding along. Jersak asks the questions that many of us think about and try to avoid, or ask and find that the answers or lack of them can destroy faith.
At times I was frustrated and wanted to shout at him to stop putting things off and get to the point. The problem being everything he was saying was interlinked, so often he would mention something and then say he’d come back to it later - normally the things I wanted to know.
Other times I wanted to throw the book across the room violently (no, I didn’t do, don’t want to destroy my kindle). His overall thinking on things like theodicy (the problem of pain and evil) made coherent logic with his thinking, but I found that even though it was based on God’s love it was impersonal. I couldn’t see how it would help a child hiding in a cupboard listening to their dad beating up their mum, or a teen assaulted by a youth leader and finding her church blame her. If we are to believe in a personal and active God, then shouldn’t any solution also be personal?
Overall however, I found the book solidly good. 4 stars is my standard review (so I can differentiate the top spots). It is dense in its argument, but still accessible especially in small chunks.
Jersak’s main emphasis in the book is to remind us that God is like Jesus. If we want to know what God is like then we should look at Jesus. When we look at any other Bible passages or descriptions of God, it should be through the lens of Jesus. This applies not just for the 33 years of Jesus’s life on earth, but as part of the trinity for all time. He looks at several commonly held views of God - not views any of us would say we have, but views that are shown through how we pray and how we act, and talk, and he shows how these views (Santa clause, doting grandad etc) are false.
When it comes to wrath and theodicy Jersak bases his argument on the theology of Kenosis, emptying. He argues that God in love empties himself of coercive power in the incarnation, and that this emptying is his character for all time. In love God cannot act in coercion. God has put natural rules like gravity in place, and actions cause reactions and consequences. What we suffer as evil, as sickness, as natural disaster is not God acting to do those things, nor him choosing not to stop them - but the consequences of nature and sin. For God to do anything else would be for him not to be who he is. God consents to nature taking its course and to consequences following sin, even for those who did not commit that sin, because God chose love and consented to man choosing will.
I am oversimplifying his argument a little, it reminded me too much of the general free will argument, ie it’s our own fault and we suffer, as a whole, even those children we deem innocent. However I think Jersak is much more nuanced than that.
His section on atonement, without wrath, without hell, without a forensic courtroom was good, although I have previously seen the gospel in chairs as a video, and think it works better to see it. It really did clarify things for me.
The book was helpful, the sections on how we view God and looking at Jesus to see God were excellent, and although his treatment of theodicy left me still seeing it as a big problem, it has given me some helpful lines to think about.
Thank you to NetGalley and CWR Press for this free readers edition. In exchange I am providing an honest review.
Truth be told I read 68% of this last month but couldn't get it finished in time for that bookshelf. So it becomes book 1 for the new year and new month!
Wow. What a book. Several times I would read something, ponder it, have to put down the book for a minute and all I could think was "mind.blown." Jersak writes a book on theology that challenges the traditionally held beliefs/views of Protestants. He was first challenged personally and then as he couldn't ignore certain truths rising to the surface of misunderstanding he began to change the way he expressed faith, taught faith, lived faith, saw God. I get it. I'm on that same journey and Jersak has just given me a lot of reasons to continue to chew and ponder God as he really is and not as I was raised being told he is. And yes, there is a huge difference between what I've been told about God and who God actually is.
Just wow. That's an insufficient statement and review for this book but it's all I can manage. I'm going to read the book again, probably right away, because when I started it I didn't realize the depth it was going to take me in thought and so I want to read it again and give it full attention for anything I may have missed due to ignorance. I also want, and will recommend it to pretty much everyone I know. What Jersak does in this book is completely turn upside down who God is - gives biblical support for it - and it changes everything for people of faith and for people who scoff at faith in Christ. The whole section on 'unwrathing' God was especially mind blowing and revealing! Jersak aimed to write a book in a manner of coffeehouse talk but I maintain that would be one deep and somber coffeehouse meet up. Wow. I highly recommend this book. And that's an understatement.
Truth be told I read 68% of this last month but couldn't get it finished in time for that bookshelf. So it becomes book 1 for the new year and new month!
Wow. What a book. Several times I would read something, ponder it, have to put down the book for a minute and all I could think was "mind.blown." Jersak writes a book on theology that challenges the traditionally held beliefs/views of Protestants. He was first challenged personally and then as he couldn't ignore certain truths rising to the surface of misunderstanding he began to change the way he expressed faith, taught faith, lived faith, saw God. I get it. I'm on that same journey and Jersak has just given me a lot of reasons to continue to chew and ponder God as he really is and not as I was raised being told he is. And yes, there is a huge difference between what I've been told about God and who God actually is.
Just wow. That's an insufficient statement and review for this book but it's all I can manage. I'm going to read the book again, probably right away, because when I started it I didn't realize the depth it was going to take me in thought and so I want to read it again and give it full attention for anything I may have missed due to ignorance. I also want, and will recommend it to pretty much everyone I know. What Jersak does in this book is completely turn upside down who God is - gives biblical support for it - and it changes everything for people of faith and for people who scoff at faith in Christ. The whole section on 'unwrathing' God was especially mind blowing and revealing! Jersak aimed to write a book in a manner of coffeehouse talk but I maintain that would be one deep and somber coffeehouse meet up. Wow. I highly recommend this book. And that's an understatement.
As soon as I saw the email about this book, the title caught my eye. "A more Christlike God". I read the description and was intrigued, so I ordered it for review.
The idea of the book is so many people, myself included, have struggled to have the right view of God. Yet, it is rare for people to have the wrong view of Jesus. According to the Bible, Jesus and God the Father are one, so if that is the case, then God is just like Jesus. It is somewhat heavy of a thought, yet totally biblical and one that makes a lot of sense.
The author tackles the most common wrong views of God in chapter two, then spends the rest of the book showing what the right view of God is.
This book is classified as theology, and that is the kind of book I rarely read, but it isn't your grandfather's old dusty and dry theology books. Even though there is a lot of depth in the book, it is an interesting and easy read, yet one that still makes you think.
After each chapter, there is a "pausing to think" section, which has some points and questions to ponder relating to the chapter. Following that is a short prayer.
As with any theology book, I don't agree 100% with the author or how he presents a few things, but it is a book I would highly recommend, especially for those who struggle to have the right view of God.
The idea of the book is so many people, myself included, have struggled to have the right view of God. Yet, it is rare for people to have the wrong view of Jesus. According to the Bible, Jesus and God the Father are one, so if that is the case, then God is just like Jesus. It is somewhat heavy of a thought, yet totally biblical and one that makes a lot of sense.
The author tackles the most common wrong views of God in chapter two, then spends the rest of the book showing what the right view of God is.
This book is classified as theology, and that is the kind of book I rarely read, but it isn't your grandfather's old dusty and dry theology books. Even though there is a lot of depth in the book, it is an interesting and easy read, yet one that still makes you think.
After each chapter, there is a "pausing to think" section, which has some points and questions to ponder relating to the chapter. Following that is a short prayer.
As with any theology book, I don't agree 100% with the author or how he presents a few things, but it is a book I would highly recommend, especially for those who struggle to have the right view of God.
I was eager to read "A More Christlike God" by Bradley Jersak. He is one of my favorite Christian teachers. While there was some good stuff in the book, I found it to be a bit dry. Even more so, didn't find anything new or fresh in it. All that Jersak talks about, that is, Christ being God and all that we need to know about God we can find in Christ is... well... a traditional and standard understanding of who God is. To be fair, I did like Jersak's illustration of the restorative view of the gospel rather than the penal or substitutionary view. It is a view that I too ascribe to. Other than that, I didn't find anything new or insightful with exception to a handful of great quotes. Would I recommend the book? It is theologically heavy and a bit dry. But, if you like those types of reads then I would recommend it. Otherwise, simply watch "the gospel in chairs" on YouTube for a brief summary of what the book is about.
If we worshipped a more Christlike God, perhaps we would become a more Christlike people. That's a key take away for me from "A More Christlike God: A More Beautiful Gospel." Bradley Jersak is a theologian who has migrated from conservative evangelical to Anabaptist to Eastern Orthodox, and all three streams are evident in this book.
The book asks the question, “What is God like and how is he present in the world?” The answer is simple: God is Christlike. “Jesus is not just a filter through which God is seen – Jesus is God. God is, was, and always will be exactly like Jesus.” (81) And through Jesus we understand that God doesn’t accomplish his purposes in the world through coercion or force, but through a cross. The cross is the most accurate portrayal of God’s being. (92) Additionally, “The cross reveals God’s person (who he is), but also his kingdom (how he reigns).” (121)
Specifically, Jersak addresses how a Christlike God shapes our understanding of:
• The wrath of God
• The presence of evil in the world
• The atonement
• Christian discipleship
Jersak is on to something in his discussion of God's wrath, but he never quite "got there," and he didn't support his conclusions well. He needed a better editor. Though on occasion he quoted church fathers, his points would have been much stronger and perhaps clearer if he had grounded the book more deeply in their writings. I struggled to decide whether or not to give the book 3 or 4 stars.
In spite of some big name endorsements (Eugene Peterson, Richard Rohr, and the forward written by Brian Zahnd), there were no Orthodox endorsements. He did dedicate the book to his Orthodox Spiritual Father. I'm not sure if he had fully converted at the time he wrote it.
What was brilliant was the idea that God is Christlike. He compares the Christlike God to un-Christlike images of God that permeate the Church today: the doting grandfather God, the deadbeat dad God, the punitive judge God, and the Santa Claus God. But if God is Christlike, then why all the commands to slaughter people in the Old Testament? Why the prophecies of bloody judgment? And what does the cross reveal about God? With more attention given to the Church Fathers, he could have done a better job answering these questions. In many places the book came across as a good rough draft.
Part 2 describes a God who reigns through love rather than control, a “Cruciform God.” Cruciformity takes the form of divine consent – God’s relinquishing control to natural law and human autonomy, Jesus’ submission to his Father’s will, and his consent to suffer the hostility of humans, all of which shape Jersak’s understanding of the atonement. “Rather than control and coerce, God-in-Christ cares and consents to suffer with us and for us.” (133) It’s laying down of divine privilege and emptying himself of divine power that reveals the nature of God and his method of ruling. God participates in our world by becoming human and suffering all our hostility. Needless to say, this is not penal substitionary atonement.
Jersak's understanding of atonement shapes his response to the problem of evil and suffering. God is not the author of evil, but he has consented himself to it – like Aslan does to the White Witch in Narnia. God is all-powerful, but “his power is not akin to control.” (171) So how is God’s power manifest? He is all-powerful as the Creator who establishes and sets the limits of the universe. He is all-powerful as the one whose love and grace know no limits. He is all-powerful in that there is nothing in the universe that can separate us from his love. The cross doesn’t solve our understanding of evil and why it exists, but it reveals and responds to it.
Part 3 is an explanation of what he means by “unwrathing God.” Jersak suggests that the phrase “the wrath of God” is a metaphor for what Greg Boyd calls “organic” or “intrinsic” judgment. The wrath of God is built into the fabric of reality in that sin carries its own penalty (Rom. 6:23), but God doesn’t actively punish. Living in sin is its own punishment, which is why Paul describes God’s wrath as giving people over to their sinful desires (Rom. 1:24, 26, and 28). Jersak provides us with much material to think about in this section, though it raised many unanswered questions in my mind. First, it doesn’t appear that all biblical examples of God’s wrath can be attributed to natural law and human freedom, as he tries to do. Stories like the flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, the Egyptian plagues, Jesus' clearing of the Temple, and the deaths of Ananias and Sapphira don’t seem attributable to natural law or human evil. Second, there are too many scriptures that refer to the wrath of God to assume that this is just a metaphor for something less obvious. That doesn't mean that God's wrath is like ours, but Jersak seems to claim that wrath is not something that can be attributed to God at all.
In his own words, “This, then, is what I mean by the ‘unwrathing of atonement.’ Yes, every being on the planet is destined for wrath (Eph 2:3). Wrath, not as the vengeance of an angry God, but as the process of perishing under the curse and decay of sin. And what did God do? He unwrathed us! He freed us from sin’s slavery and unwrapped us from death. How? By wrathing Jesus in our place? No! By becoming one of us and, as Jesus, overcoming death by his great mercy!” (262-263)
In Chapter 14 Jersak argues that the gospel isn’t that when we turn our backs on God, God turns his back on us until he sends Jesus to suffer his wrath in our place. Rather, when we turn our backs on God, the wrath we experience is life without God or life lived as objects of a divine love we don’t want. He explains this using a simple illustration of “The Gospel in Two Chairs.” Rather than seeking to punish us, the Good News is that God is pursuing us. He went with Adam and Eve out of the Garden. He protected Cain after he murdered Abel. He maintained relationships with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in spite of their faithless disobedience. He sits with the Samaritan woman, parties in the home of a tax collector, and eats pork with the Gentiles. He justifies the ungodly and while we were yet sinners, he dies for us. We can read the Bible as stories of God punishing or pursuing those who forsake him.
Which paradigm will we choose?
Which God will we become like?
The book asks the question, “What is God like and how is he present in the world?” The answer is simple: God is Christlike. “Jesus is not just a filter through which God is seen – Jesus is God. God is, was, and always will be exactly like Jesus.” (81) And through Jesus we understand that God doesn’t accomplish his purposes in the world through coercion or force, but through a cross. The cross is the most accurate portrayal of God’s being. (92) Additionally, “The cross reveals God’s person (who he is), but also his kingdom (how he reigns).” (121)
Specifically, Jersak addresses how a Christlike God shapes our understanding of:
• The wrath of God
• The presence of evil in the world
• The atonement
• Christian discipleship
Jersak is on to something in his discussion of God's wrath, but he never quite "got there," and he didn't support his conclusions well. He needed a better editor. Though on occasion he quoted church fathers, his points would have been much stronger and perhaps clearer if he had grounded the book more deeply in their writings. I struggled to decide whether or not to give the book 3 or 4 stars.
In spite of some big name endorsements (Eugene Peterson, Richard Rohr, and the forward written by Brian Zahnd), there were no Orthodox endorsements. He did dedicate the book to his Orthodox Spiritual Father. I'm not sure if he had fully converted at the time he wrote it.
What was brilliant was the idea that God is Christlike. He compares the Christlike God to un-Christlike images of God that permeate the Church today: the doting grandfather God, the deadbeat dad God, the punitive judge God, and the Santa Claus God. But if God is Christlike, then why all the commands to slaughter people in the Old Testament? Why the prophecies of bloody judgment? And what does the cross reveal about God? With more attention given to the Church Fathers, he could have done a better job answering these questions. In many places the book came across as a good rough draft.
Part 2 describes a God who reigns through love rather than control, a “Cruciform God.” Cruciformity takes the form of divine consent – God’s relinquishing control to natural law and human autonomy, Jesus’ submission to his Father’s will, and his consent to suffer the hostility of humans, all of which shape Jersak’s understanding of the atonement. “Rather than control and coerce, God-in-Christ cares and consents to suffer with us and for us.” (133) It’s laying down of divine privilege and emptying himself of divine power that reveals the nature of God and his method of ruling. God participates in our world by becoming human and suffering all our hostility. Needless to say, this is not penal substitionary atonement.
Jersak's understanding of atonement shapes his response to the problem of evil and suffering. God is not the author of evil, but he has consented himself to it – like Aslan does to the White Witch in Narnia. God is all-powerful, but “his power is not akin to control.” (171) So how is God’s power manifest? He is all-powerful as the Creator who establishes and sets the limits of the universe. He is all-powerful as the one whose love and grace know no limits. He is all-powerful in that there is nothing in the universe that can separate us from his love. The cross doesn’t solve our understanding of evil and why it exists, but it reveals and responds to it.
Part 3 is an explanation of what he means by “unwrathing God.” Jersak suggests that the phrase “the wrath of God” is a metaphor for what Greg Boyd calls “organic” or “intrinsic” judgment. The wrath of God is built into the fabric of reality in that sin carries its own penalty (Rom. 6:23), but God doesn’t actively punish. Living in sin is its own punishment, which is why Paul describes God’s wrath as giving people over to their sinful desires (Rom. 1:24, 26, and 28). Jersak provides us with much material to think about in this section, though it raised many unanswered questions in my mind. First, it doesn’t appear that all biblical examples of God’s wrath can be attributed to natural law and human freedom, as he tries to do. Stories like the flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, the Egyptian plagues, Jesus' clearing of the Temple, and the deaths of Ananias and Sapphira don’t seem attributable to natural law or human evil. Second, there are too many scriptures that refer to the wrath of God to assume that this is just a metaphor for something less obvious. That doesn't mean that God's wrath is like ours, but Jersak seems to claim that wrath is not something that can be attributed to God at all.
In his own words, “This, then, is what I mean by the ‘unwrathing of atonement.’ Yes, every being on the planet is destined for wrath (Eph 2:3). Wrath, not as the vengeance of an angry God, but as the process of perishing under the curse and decay of sin. And what did God do? He unwrathed us! He freed us from sin’s slavery and unwrapped us from death. How? By wrathing Jesus in our place? No! By becoming one of us and, as Jesus, overcoming death by his great mercy!” (262-263)
In Chapter 14 Jersak argues that the gospel isn’t that when we turn our backs on God, God turns his back on us until he sends Jesus to suffer his wrath in our place. Rather, when we turn our backs on God, the wrath we experience is life without God or life lived as objects of a divine love we don’t want. He explains this using a simple illustration of “The Gospel in Two Chairs.” Rather than seeking to punish us, the Good News is that God is pursuing us. He went with Adam and Eve out of the Garden. He protected Cain after he murdered Abel. He maintained relationships with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in spite of their faithless disobedience. He sits with the Samaritan woman, parties in the home of a tax collector, and eats pork with the Gentiles. He justifies the ungodly and while we were yet sinners, he dies for us. We can read the Bible as stories of God punishing or pursuing those who forsake him.
Which paradigm will we choose?
Which God will we become like?
Growing up in the 1990s and early 2000s Christian church, there was a lot of implications about fear and the wrath of your potential sins. This book redeems that viewpoint in the most beautiful way that will forever change the way I view Christ and God.