The reason I picked up this book was because I wanted to strengthen my faith in God and to learn how to follow His will.
This book covers just that topic, how to learn God's will by turning from the American Dream.
Radical opens up talking about underground churches, which I like. I have long respected Christians in closed countries and pray for their strength, during this day and age of Christian persecution; which is worse then it has ever been in history.
Then it talks about how you can be a radical Christian and implies you will be a strong Christian like underground church members. The book goes in depth on a 5 point plan to become a stronger Christian:
This book covers just that topic, how to learn God's will by turning from the American Dream.
Radical opens up talking about underground churches, which I like. I have long respected Christians in closed countries and pray for their strength, during this day and age of Christian persecution; which is worse then it has ever been in history.
Then it talks about how you can be a radical Christian and implies you will be a strong Christian like underground church members. The book goes in depth on a 5 point plan to become a stronger Christian:
1. Pray for the world2. Read the entire Bible
3. Sacrifice your money
4. Give your time for God
5. Join a Church or Small Group to help you grow in your faith
If you do these five points you will be a Radical Christian, and I agree with all of these 100%. I need to read my Bible more often, I should go on a mission trip, I try to keep track and pray for both local and world problems, I also give what I can to church and charity, and I am an active church member. But I don’t consider myself a true Radical Christian, at least not what I want my version of Radical to look like. I guess this book is perfect for Christians who go to church, then live like anyone else the rest of the week, and for middle road Christians who do the actions but don’t share their faith.
David Platt also brings some strong points to mind like; How can we sit in comfortable multi-million dollar churches while children starve to death? Shouldn’t we be more concerned about people’s eternal lives then what fast-food joint we should eat at? Just he never gave a good solution about how to solve this. Other then donate, but American churches are not going to stop expanding and building. VBS still helps teach young kids, Retreats still save eternal lives, so I don’t know how David Platt expects us to stop growing our churches yet do all he wants in the American church.
David Platt also brings some strong points to mind like; How can we sit in comfortable multi-million dollar churches while children starve to death? Shouldn’t we be more concerned about people’s eternal lives then what fast-food joint we should eat at? Just he never gave a good solution about how to solve this. Other then donate, but American churches are not going to stop expanding and building. VBS still helps teach young kids, Retreats still save eternal lives, so I don’t know how David Platt expects us to stop growing our churches yet do all he wants in the American church.
Over-all this book is a good read, just I don’t think this book covers what it said it would. Use it as a motivational plan to strengthen your faith, by doing the 5 point plan, but don’t expect a radical change. I know that, at this time, I don't have the strength to deal with half of what most underground church members do, but I hope to some day with God’s strength.
So I guess yes, follow his step by step and you will be a stronger Christian, but I think radical is not the right word.
So I guess yes, follow his step by step and you will be a stronger Christian, but I think radical is not the right word.
C
Thank you Waterbrook for giving me this book to review.
Logging you in...
Nathan Keeneye · 717 weeks ago
And he's absolutely right.
Part of this point of the book is to understand that our faith is severly weak in America. Sacrifice our money. What does that REALLY mean? Give our time. ALL of it.
The book was not about his step by step plan. It was about SO much more. His step by step was an extra, addition, to the book. As an expierment for the lukewarm Christian. I wish I'd written a review of this book after reading it....it was literally life changing. Reinforced much of what I'd decided upon and provided the momentum I needed.
To each his own...I think he got his point across very well, not only is the book worth reading, it SHOULD be read hahaha :)
Michelle_Archer 14p · 717 weeks ago
I guess he started the book well, but it lacked a good driving finish for me.
Thank you for the feedback.
Jake · 717 weeks ago
Personally...I got the feel from this review that you were approaching it from the wrong angle. Not, what can God teach me, but what can I get out of this book?
I don't think being radical is about doing a five-step plan. It just doesn't work that way. Being a radical Christian is telling God, "Do whatever You want with me, and take me wherever You want me to be; I'm yours." *Faith* is radical. Not a five-step plan. The subtitle isn't, "Become a better, more radical Christian in five easy steps", it's "Take back your *faith* from the American Dream"
And that's what I think Platt is getting at here. :)
One more thing: "Other then donate, but American churches are not going to stop expanding and building. "
Exactly why I think the church is going from megachurch to house church. Because, you don't have to pay bills for a house church. You don't 'expand' in a house church. You don't have to construct an elaborate worship service. Whatever money is donated doesn't go to pay for electricity bills or water fees or whatever. It goes straight to where God wants it to be.
Sorry for the long comment. ;) This is one of the things I'm passionate about.
Michelle_Archer 14p · 717 weeks ago
In my area mega churches are popping up left and right. House churches are almost unheard of, I only know of one local house church. Only a week ago I toured a mega church that had 3 rooms for worship. Why? Because one was for people that like hymns, one for modern worship, and one for young adults that was more rock music. I love my large church but one of the things I love the most about my church is that we worship together, in one room.
And don't worry about long posts, I love reading others thoughts and seeing if I can get more insight through them.
Jake · 717 weeks ago
Not everything is bad in bigger churches, of course. Worshiping with many believers is one. And the sermon is another. But there is so much more fellowship we could have and so much more we could do as a church, for God, if we weren't spending money on Wiis and Playstations for the youth room. (I've seen that in churches, believe it or not.)
To speak to you truthfully, Michelle, you won't find how to give your life fully to him in a book written by man. It may help, yes. And that's what you're looking for, if I'm reading this correctly. But to truly find it, you find it in God, in the Bible. Only He'll give you that strength and help.
And I don't know how else to put it. *shrug* How can you express such things without seeming preachy? :)
I'll be praying for you, by the way. :) Only God can show you how to do it, lol. My attempt to explain is puny in comparison. :)
Michelle_Archer 14p · 717 weeks ago
And yes I see and visit churches with video games, funny thing is no one plays them because they came to meet and talk with their friends.
IK this book doesn't have all the answers, I was looking for a push in the right direction because giving your life 100% to God is like falling off a cliff. At first at least.
Jake · 717 weeks ago
That means I'm agreeing and nodding to all that you said. :)
Nathan Keeneye · 717 weeks ago
I see nothing wrong with dividing a group of believers into different atmospheres that allow them to worship more effectively. The Church (big C) never worships under one roof, and no one sees any fault in that. Why then, must a smaller version?
The best church, healthiest and most biblically minded, I've ever seen did it like this: house churches meet thorughout the week and then congregate together on the weekeneds for their Gathering. Very cool. Very effective. Needless to say, when churches do things right...they ALWAYS expand to near mega size. That should be our goal shouldn't it? Fill every church with thousands.
There comes a point where we as people need to quit telling ourselves that we're radical, telling ourselves that we would do anything for God, and actually do something. To me, that was the point of the book. And either way we need to do something about it haha
Jake · 717 weeks ago
There's a lot of points here that I disagree with. But most of all, I disagree with this: "Needless to say, when churches do things right...they ALWAYS expand to near mega size. That should be our goal shouldn't it? Fill every church with thousands. "
No. No, no. i strongly disagree. Our goal is NOT to fill the churches with thousands, our goal is to disciple all nations. Can TRUE discipleship happen in a megachurch? I think not. True discipleship does what Jesus did: he didn't take 3,000 to disciple. He TAUGHT many, sure. But His disciples numbered twelve. And only twelve. And Matthew 28:19 says NOTHING about churches, or filling them, for that matter. If our goal is to fill churches, we will destroy the church. The church in America is already suffering from this.
And take into account how much money is wasted in bigger churches. Even if you're keeping things down in a big church, you still have to pay for electricity, water, upkeep, etc. If you have one big church, or twenty house churches, which one will donate more to the cause of Christ and expanding His Kingdom to the world? Which one will grow faster, too? House churches in both respects. I can go into greater detail, but I won't.
As I said, this is one of the things I am extremely passionate about. So, I apologize if I came across as harsh or "loud". :) Caps means emphasis, not yelling. ;)
Nathan Keeneye · 716 weeks ago
3,000 saved does in fact mean that it WAS a mega church. It didn't become one. It already was. Those people attended Peter's message. His church service. Therefore, they had a mega church service.
I didn't once condone crowd religion "going" to church instead of radical "being" the church. I simply said that they did in fact "not forsake the gathering of saints". And they did so, yes, in large numbers. Does this mean they did not meet in smaller groups as well? Of course not. And by neccesity, to be the church, you must be broken up into smaller "house churches" or small discipleship groups. Especially to make a local impact.
Nathan Keeneye · 716 weeks ago
Preaching: The proclamation of the Gospel from one person to a large group of people. A pep rally or mega-conviction of sorts. Seems the holy spirit likes to show up for these. (Pentecost as an example, every old testament prophet as another).
Teaching: Theological points explained to the minds of small groups--the meat typically. The holy spirit also condones this (Paul's constant mentioning of doctrine).
Disicipleship: The active application explained, demonstrated, and guided by a small group of individuals among themselves. BEing the church, as it were.
Nathan Keeneye · 716 weeks ago
Jake · 716 weeks ago
Nathan Keeneye · 716 weeks ago
As to costs and such I believe my original point still stands: "The best church, healthiest and most biblically minded, I've ever seen did it like this: house churches meet thorughout the week and then congregate together on the weekeneds for their Gathering. Very cool. Very effective."
You actively disciple in house churches, then you gather as one body in Christ for worship and a group message once a week.
As to my growth comment yes, churches who do things right WILL grow. They will add new believers to their fellowship. And if a church continually reaches people logically what happens? You get thousands. So what I said is true. Healthy churches expand.
Jake · 716 weeks ago
I've seen some statistics on this. House churches that multiply as opposed to megachurches that just get bigger not only add more believers but they save so much more money to use towards God's purposes. House churches spread like wildfire, whereas megachurches don't.
And besides, the bigger the church, the more red tape you have to go through for things like ministry. My family has personal experience. :P
If you want, read Church Planting Movements by David Garrison. It's a great book about how God is doing things, by MULTIPLYING the churches instead of making one big church. :)
And, no offense, but you still haven't given a better alternative to spending money—what could be used to God's glory—to upkeep megachurches as opposed to the little cost it takes for a church to meet in a house. Maybe I missed it?
Nathan Keeneye · 716 weeks ago
For the record, I've never been a part of a mega church. I have been a part of smaller churches. And nearly every one of them has fallen away from the gospel due to complacancy. House churches that meet regularly would not have this issue I do not think, assuming its founders are biblically focused.
Nathan Keeneye · 716 weeks ago
1. Red tape should never matter. Ministry is worth the cost.
2. Spending money is not wrong so long as it is for a good purpose. To say that spending money on building a building for truly mission and biblically focused believers is a sin is to say that you living in a house instead of on the streets spreading the Gospel is also a sin.
3. Buildings, monuments as you say, attract people. It's less threatening to invite someone to a large group than to a small group.
4. How dare we say that God cannot use an establishment that is focused on his service and is not at present a sinful establishment?
5. I'm not arguing for the elimination of small churches, mega churches, house churches, or anything. I believe all should be used to spread God's glory as there are merits for each. I think it would be extremely unwise to denounce a large group of Christians in spreading the Word the best they know how.
Jake · 715 weeks ago
I'm not sure what you meant by not addressing it. O_o I just don't think house churches being part of a megachurch is Biblically accurate. Sure, they met in large groups and house churches at the same time in Acts...before persecution. I don't think we have any indication that they kept doing so.
I've been in a house church for nearly a year now (and due to God taking us different directions, to the mission field, back home, etc. we may be stopping) and we've never floundered because of complacency. And we're not, in any way, connected to a larger church. *shrug* I say these things because I've seen 'em in action. House churches, done Biblically, are more powerful, more passionate, and have a greater capacity for God's will than most megachurches. And, like I've said, megachurches are capable of accomplishing God's will too. I'm not ruling them out. :)
As to your points...next comment.
Jake · 715 weeks ago
2) I never said it was a sin. And I don't think it is. But the money used in big buildings could sustain much more in different places. It could do God's will so much better overseas than invested in a church building. I know a man who lost a child from Africa he was adopting, because the child didn't have 10 dollars worth of medicine to treat her illness. How can we spend money on a big church—and the comforts, even if limited, that it implies—when such things are happening everywhere? When the water crisis causes thousands, millions, to die? When people are dying without Christ?
3) Is it? I think it's just the opposite. Assuming you were a non-Christian (for illustrative purposes) would you go to a neighbor's house or go to church and dress up for Sunday morning? Many people wouldn't step foot in an American church to be preached to, but those same people wouldn't feel as awkward being invited to a meal in a neighbor's house. My cousin, for instance, doesn't like going to church (and probably felt quite awkward when she did), but she has no qualms coming over to my house to spend some time with us.
And is the Gospel supposed to be made attractive by buildings? Maybe this isn't what you meant. But we should not supplement the Gospel with things to attract people.
4) Good thing I don't say God cannot use an establishment, Haha. God uses anything and everything, and megachurches can do things to greatly further God's Kingdom!
5) Neither am I. I don't want to eliminate any churches at all! And I'm not denouncing them. I'm trying to point the way to a mindset that can do more for God's Kingdom.
And if there is a better way to spread the Word, shall we not tell them? Or will we say, "It's God's will to let them spread the Word like this," and leave them to accomplish less than they could?
In summary:
Megachurches can be used by God. They often ARE used by God! But house churches can often be used better. It's something that I've been seeing more and more. My house church reaches out to refugees from other countries (often Muslims). My regular church does not. It is used in other ways, and often in big ways! But I find that house churches are a better way to reach out.
I've read some studies on house churches and megachurches. You'd be surprised how little megachurches grow! People come in the door more and more, but people slip out the door as well. House churches grow much faster than megachurches, actually. They reach more people and disciple better.
One last point. I'm a very missions-minded person. I'm thinking overseas. And when I go overseas, what am I going to do? If I go to a closed country, will I build a megachurch?
No.
If persecution comes to America, the megachurches will collapse and Christianity will be carried on by house churches.
Bottom line: house churches are able to use all of their money instead of paying bills, they grow faster, they disciple better, they are almost invisible, they are more accessible for unbelievers...for these reasons, I am leaning towards house churches.
And again, I'm not denouncing megachurches. But I think the Church is going to the houses. They're moving into the world instead of sealing themselves off into a building (which is not implying that all brick-and-mortar churches do that, but that's the way it is seen). Already, EIGHTY PERCENT of evangelical Christians are not Western. They aren't American. They come from China. Africa. The Middle East. And house churches. This is why I am more-or-less going small instead of large gatherings. In mission, house churches are the way to go.
Sorry if this post is a little redundant. ;) Basically, I'm saying that megachurches can do great things for God, and that I believe that house churches are the way the Church is going.
Tell me if I accidentally avoided the point again. O_o My thoughts get confusing when in big long comments. :)