Crazy Love

Crazy Love: Overwhelmed by a Relentless God by Francis Chan

My review

rating: 3 of 5 stars
Maybe the book was too hyped up that I was left almost disappointed when reading it. I would recommend the book. It is a theology book that is not academic and that is helpful to many readers and made the book very easy to read (it is a very quick read too). I did love the fact that it was saturated with Scripture. It is a convicting book. He hyped up the videos in the book so much that when I went and looked at them online, I was disappointed to an extent. Of course, I had just looked at some sonogram pictures of a friend that is having a baby, and I was overwhelmed more by God's creation in the womb than in the universe at that point. I do think that Christians in the church should read this book. I think that many will have their eyes open to the condition of the church by reading the book. I am more of a realist or pessimist, so I already knew some of that about the church. I also tend to have more introspection than most, so I already knew a lot of what he pointed out about my life. The book seemed to trivialize God at times or at least lacked in reverence where there was a sense of awe. The author's passion is overwhelming, and that is one of the attributes that I think makes this book a "should read" for Christians. I think I am just at a point right now where I want to dwell in the Psalms instead of reading man's words.

View all my reviews.

Update on Darryl

On Wednesday, Darryl was doing great. He had surgery on Tuesday to remove the floating bullet, and that was successful. He was still in one of the more critical care units (maybe ICU?) on Wednesday, but only because there was not a room open to transfer him to. He was awake, eating Rally's (I believe it was supposed to be his mom's lunch, but I am sure she didn't mind), and pretty calm. On Monday and into Tuesday morning, he was pretty agitated so they were glad to see him calmer. He had surgery yesterday morning to work on his arm with the hopes that it will be fully functional. I have not heard how that surgery went. He was to be transferred to a room following the surgery. I still cannot imagine being shot that many times (I think that once is one too many for me) and surviving. God was clearly at work that day and has continued to be at work through the wisdom and steady hands of the doctors.

Pray for Darryl

Yesterday, I received a New Orleans newspaper update in my e-mail, and thought that the address reporting the shooting sounded too familiar.  It sounded like a place that I had dropped off one of the kids at the last time I was in New Orleans.  I waited for my phone to ring for a while, but it didn't, and gradually throughout the day, I forgot about it.

Around 6:45 last night I checked my voicemail messages on my phone, and sure enough, it was the address I knew.  Jennifer called to let me know it was Darryl who we call Buddy that had been shot.  He is alive, but fighting for his life.  He was shot six times in the upper torso.  He may lose use of one of his arms.  There is a bullet still floating in him that is close to one of the major arteries.  This morning he is in surgery to try to repair the arm or remove the floating bullet or both.

You can make a case for most of the kids in NO that their lifestyle choices lead to something like this.  In fact, one of the most overused statements when someone is shot is that "he didn't do nothing to nobody."  In fact, there are probably very few people that this statement can be said about.  Unfortunately, Buddy is one of them.  He really has done nothing to no one.  He is not caught up in the drug culture.  He is not a fighter.  He does not get caught up in the turf wars.  He has never been in trouble.  He has a job, and has had it for a while.  He goes to work, stays out of trouble.  He can honestly say that he has done nothing to nobody, yet he still got shot.

The reports of what happened are sketchy at this point, but it looks like that Buddy was just sitting out on the front porch with some other people when a guy came up and started shooting.  It was probably an attempted robbery.  Buddy ran to the post office that is probably a block, block and a half away.  There may have been two or three other kids that I know there.   There is no word on who did the shooting.

"The views contained herein ..."

I have a new pet peeve.  Every time I sit down to watch a DVD, pick up a newspaper or magazine, turn on the television, and now even read blogs or attend conferences, there is a lovely little disclaimer that says something like "The views expressed by the persons in this [fill in the blank] do not necessary reflect the views of [big named company or organization] and are solely the views of the ones expressing them."  Here is why this irks me.  Obviously someone within the big company or organization, on behalf of the company or organization, agreed with the person enough to allow that person's views to be expressed.  Someone acting on behalf of the company or organization chose to endorse this person by inviting them to share their views, but it seems that the companies/organizations do not want to accept responsibility for the views that they are putting out in the public.  This person would not have a platform or stage from which to speak so that I hear it if this company or organization had not given them the opportunity.  These companies/organizations seem unwilling to take responsibility when something goes wrong, and the views are criticized.  Wouldn't it be better for them to screen the information, be more responsible in presenting information to the public, and stand behind what is produced when they do believe it (or at least endorse it)?  Then, maybe, when the random crackpot flies off the handle and says things that no one was expecting and that are highly offensive, we, the public, may actually believe the company/organization who now states that they do not agree with what is said.  Of course we don't live in a society that is too big on accepting responsibility, either individually or corporately.  

Jane Austen Books

I have been on a real Jane Austen kick here recently.  I re-read Pride and Prejudice and realized how much I enjoyed her books.  I think that now I have read all of them except Emma (although it is next on my Jane Austen reading list) and the one that her niece finished after Jane's death.  Therefore, I thought that I would rank Jane Austen's books from favorite to least favorite:

1.  Pride and Prejudice -- I love this book.  It was the first Jane Austen book that I read (and I think that I read it the first time for a class in college), and I still think it is her best book.  It is such a commentary on the society life at that time, full of humor and satire.  Also, being the legal geek that I am, I cannot help but enjoy a book that contains the archaic (and in the US now, illegal) fee-tail property ownership where the property only passes to male descendants of a man, or to his brother's family at his death.

2.  Persuasion -- This book almost surpasses Pride and Prejudice, but not quite.  I could not put this book down.  I think that I read it quicker than I read all the other Jane Austen novels.  I think it might be shorter than the others (except maybe Northanger Abbey).  If you cannot get into the story of Pride and Prejudice, I would suggest reading this book instead.

3.  Sense and Sensibility -- Who cannot love the Dashwood sisters?  The movie just does not do the book justice in my opinion.  I love the fact that Jane takes her heroines through so much adversity before the happy ending that always seems a little rushed.  The journey is what matters to Jane and she makes fun of the customs and manners of her society while getting her characters through the journey.

4.  Northanger Abbey -- This was probably the hardest book for me to get interested in.  I think I was halfway through the book before I really wanted to continue to read on to find out what happened in the end.  Once I finally got to that point, I could hardly put the book down.  I love the way that Jane Austen pokes fun at the gothic novels that were popular at that time and that women were reading for entertainment.

5.  Mansfield Park -- Maybe I am just a little weirded out by the fact that it was ok during that time period in England to be in love with and marry your first cousin.  This heroine seems to be the least strong of all of the Austen heroines, so maybe it was just harder for me to connect with her.  Sure, I felt sorry for her, and was impressed with her discernment, but that was as far as it went.  This would probably be the easiest to turn into a modern movie (once you make the cousins a little further removed ... or adopted instead of by blood), and maybe that is what I did not like about it.

Once I read Emma, I will add it to the list or at least post about where I think it belongs in a list.  I was encouraged at one point in the past year to read all that an author has written in order to see the style of the author and how that person developed over time.  I am glad I was given that advice, and followed it, because it is interesting to see the common themes and structure in Jane Austen's novels.  A lot can be learned about English society during the time period that she lived from reading her novels, and that has been entertaining for the history nerd in me.

Sound Doctrine Results in Good Deeds

I am participating in another Precept study.  This time it is a short, three week study over the book of Titus.  I am actually surprised that it is only a three week study.  There seems to be so much to learn in such a short book.  It seems to me that too many elders (pastors, overseers) in the modern church have not read the book of Titus (or the book of Ephesians for that matter).  It is clear that Paul is saying that sound doctrine results in good deeds.  You cannot teach those in the church how to engage in good deeds (meaning the deeds that God laid out beforehand and saved us to -- Ephesians chapter 2) without teaching sound doctrine.  For those of us that are more doctrinally minded, Paul has a word of warning as well.  You cannot have sound doctrine unless it is backed up by good deeds.  You have to have orthodoxy and orthopraxy.  You cannot have one without the other.  It is interesting to see that Paul told Titus to teach sound doctrine so that the people would live right.  He didn't tell Titus to give the people "how to" messages on how to live, but to show the people by example and set up leaders who would show the people by example.  Maybe that is our problem in the church today.  We teach people "how to" but we do not teach sound doctrine or have leaders that are examples of sound faith and good deeds.  I am looking forward to continuing to study the book of Titus (even if it means that I will be convicted of my lack of good deeds).