I just finished reading Gene Edwards' The Three Kings. I was introduced to Edwards in the early 90's, right after I had become a follower of Christ, and his work The Early Church had a pretty significant impact on my view of what church was supposed to be like. I was attracted to the house church movement and was involved in the Plymouth Brethren movement - a group that emphasizes lay leadership and informal church structures. I haven't read anything by Edwards since, so I picked up The Three Kings a couple years because of the sub-title (a study in brokenness) ago and just got around to reading it.
(Just for the record, I am no longer in the house church movement or the Plymouth Brethren. I do believe the house church movement is seeing a resurgence and will likely continue to grow in the coming years with more and more immigrant communities and even postmodern types being drawn to its simplicity and specificity of contextualization... and honestly don't remember much about The Early Church.)
I will say up front that if you want a study in brokenness, there are better books. I would recommend Leading with a Limp by Dan Allender, a book I read this last summer, if you are wanting to explore the nature and power of brokenness in ministry.
So, what did I think? Well, first the good. I thought his paradigm of Christian leaders either being of the order of Saul or the order of David was good. I also appreciate his emphasis on examining our hearts so that we can be transparent before God in his service. It is easy and incredibly tempting to build kingdoms to ourselves - to serve our ends, build our reputations, and prop up our misplaced identity issues. Edwards does a good job drawing the distinction between a Saul, who is about self-promotion and building and protecting his own kingdom, and David who learned the value of a humble promotion of God's ends over his own.
I also appreciated his emphasis on the need for young bucks who think they have it all together to cool their horses before talking a big game and bringing division to the church. To paraphrase one of the lines from the book, "It is a small gift that can see the problems in the church." It is a much better gift to be able to humbly move forward to (1) correct problems and bring healing, or (2) leave humbly and seek God's leading without causing division.
So now the not so good. First, the quality of the fiction. The Three Kings, while written as fiction, is anything but great fiction. The dialog and plot structure is forced and is simply used as a narrative structure to allow Edwards to make his didactic points. It reads like a fictionalized sermon. Second, it seems Edwards' primary point is don't cause harm - do no evil. This is a great point when we are faced with Sauls in leadership over us (or with Sauls who are under our authority but are seeking to supplant us), but it surely isn't the only point that could, or should, have been made.
Edwards does not spend any time exploring the time and place for confrontational conversations. If Edwards' point is to not gossip and cause division over poor leaders, a fuller point would be to have the right conversations with the right people. These hard converstaions, while not easy and often painful, are essential to the advancement of God's purposes in the church. There many who will not gossip, will not tear the church apart, but will sin nonetheless with the "sin of niceness" - simply smiling and allowing injustice, false teaching, and selfish manipulation to continue instead of confronting it like Paul did with Peter in Galatia.
So, was it worthwhile? Sure. Would I recommend it? Hmmm... I suppose I might for specific people who were facing an impending church split or a young guy tempted to split a church because of personal ambition and dissatisfaction.
(Just for the record, I am no longer in the house church movement or the Plymouth Brethren. I do believe the house church movement is seeing a resurgence and will likely continue to grow in the coming years with more and more immigrant communities and even postmodern types being drawn to its simplicity and specificity of contextualization... and honestly don't remember much about The Early Church.)
I will say up front that if you want a study in brokenness, there are better books. I would recommend Leading with a Limp by Dan Allender, a book I read this last summer, if you are wanting to explore the nature and power of brokenness in ministry.
So, what did I think? Well, first the good. I thought his paradigm of Christian leaders either being of the order of Saul or the order of David was good. I also appreciate his emphasis on examining our hearts so that we can be transparent before God in his service. It is easy and incredibly tempting to build kingdoms to ourselves - to serve our ends, build our reputations, and prop up our misplaced identity issues. Edwards does a good job drawing the distinction between a Saul, who is about self-promotion and building and protecting his own kingdom, and David who learned the value of a humble promotion of God's ends over his own.
I also appreciated his emphasis on the need for young bucks who think they have it all together to cool their horses before talking a big game and bringing division to the church. To paraphrase one of the lines from the book, "It is a small gift that can see the problems in the church." It is a much better gift to be able to humbly move forward to (1) correct problems and bring healing, or (2) leave humbly and seek God's leading without causing division.
So now the not so good. First, the quality of the fiction. The Three Kings, while written as fiction, is anything but great fiction. The dialog and plot structure is forced and is simply used as a narrative structure to allow Edwards to make his didactic points. It reads like a fictionalized sermon. Second, it seems Edwards' primary point is don't cause harm - do no evil. This is a great point when we are faced with Sauls in leadership over us (or with Sauls who are under our authority but are seeking to supplant us), but it surely isn't the only point that could, or should, have been made.
Edwards does not spend any time exploring the time and place for confrontational conversations. If Edwards' point is to not gossip and cause division over poor leaders, a fuller point would be to have the right conversations with the right people. These hard converstaions, while not easy and often painful, are essential to the advancement of God's purposes in the church. There many who will not gossip, will not tear the church apart, but will sin nonetheless with the "sin of niceness" - simply smiling and allowing injustice, false teaching, and selfish manipulation to continue instead of confronting it like Paul did with Peter in Galatia.
So, was it worthwhile? Sure. Would I recommend it? Hmmm... I suppose I might for specific people who were facing an impending church split or a young guy tempted to split a church because of personal ambition and dissatisfaction.
Comments