Crazy Love is a book about the Christian’s relationship with God but in particular, it is a book about the serious state many North American Christians are in regarding their relationship with God. At the crux of it is an incorrect view of who God really is and a failure to grasp his eternal, holy, all powerful and all knowing nature. As a consequence, many Christians place themselves in the centre of their lives and rather than the Lord Jesus.
Chan tells his readers to get over themselves:
To be brutally honest, it doesn’t really matter what place you find yourself in right now. Your part is to bring Him glory – whether eating a sandwich on a lunch break, drinking coffee at 12:04 am so you can stay awake to study or watching your four-month-old take a nap. The point of your life is to point to Him.
Within that realization is the truth of the great love God has for His children and the love we are to have for Him. If we grasp who God really is, Chan argues that our lives should then be characterized by a great transformation. But there are distractions. As Chan puts it pointedly “Are we in love with God or just His stuff?” God’s stuff, His material creations that He has provided to us for our sustainment and enjoyment, often serve as distractions or worse as idols.
In probably the most pointed part of the book, Chan recalls Jesus’ parable of the sower and cautions the reader “Do not assume you are good soil.” He believes most churchgoers in America are the soil that chokes the seed because of the thorns; those worries, riches and pleasures of life.
Then Chan makes this stunning statement:
A lukewarm Christian is an oxymoron; there’s no such thing. To put it plainly, churchgoers who are “lukewarm” are not Christians. We will not see them in heaven.
Chan points to Revelation 3:15-17 where Jesus talks about the lukewarm within the Laodicean church and that He is about to spit them out of His mouth (3:16). Chan says many believe this passage is talking about the saved but Chan argues how could the saved be spitted out of Jesus’ mouth? In other words, Chan does not see this as a form of discipline but an outright rejection, an “I never knew you. Away from me you evil doers.”
But is this interpretation correct? Looking a little further in Revelation 3:19, Jesus says to the church at Laodicea, “Those whom I love, I rebuke and discipline. So be earnest and repent. ” It seems here that Jesus is saying His statement on the spitting out of His mouth to be more of a correction than a rejection. He still loves those whom are lukewarm but will spit them out as a form of rebuke and discipline, not a taking away of their salvation.
This corresponds to Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians where he details a set of serious spiritual and moral problems that many in the church are participating in. Some, such as incest, are so serious one could question if these people really are true believers in Jesus. Yet Paul calls them brothers, expresses love to them and never questions their salvation. He affirms in his letter that God has called them into fellowship with His Son Jesus Christ while at the same time rebuking them and calling on them to repent.
Chan follows up with another bombshell:
In an earlier draft of this chapter, I quoted several commentators who agreed with my point of view. But we all know that you can find quotes to support any view you want to take. you can even tweak word studies to help you in your effort. I ’m not against scholarship, but I do believe there are times when we come to more accurate conclusions through simple reading.
Rather than examining a verse and dissecting it, I chose to peruse one gospel in each sitting. Furthermore, I attempted to do so from the perspective of a twelve-year-old who knew nothing about Jesus. I wanted to rediscover what reasonable conclusions a person would come to while objectively reading the Gospels for the first time. In other words, I read the Bible as if I’d never read it before.
This is the weakest point in the book. In order to defend his conclusions on what it means to be lukewarm in the faith, Chan relies on an exegetical defence from the Gospels. However, he sabotages that effort in two areas.
In the first area, he says he was prepared to quote several commentators who agreed with his conclusions but he decided not to so for the odd reason that you can find quotes to support any view you want to take. Although this may be true to a certain degree, it does not invalidate the use of the thoughtful and rigourous findings of others who have seriously studied the scriptures. In effect, Chan is committing one of the gravest mistakes of contemporary evangelicalism: the personal interpretation of the Bible while ignoring 2000 years of serious biblical exegesis and scholarship by saints who have gone on before us. Chan decides to ignore the work of others and rely solely on his own reading of the Bible, as if that gives his conclusion greater objectivity. If anything, it is an example of subjective hermeneutics. He himself says that one can tweak word studies to help you in your effort. How do we know that Chan didn’t do such “tweaking” in his simple reading of the Gospels?
In the second area, Chan didn’t want to examine a passage by dissecting it but to read each gospel in a single sitting and to do so like a 12 year old for the first time. It isn’t at all clear how this method of exegesis is superior to doing proper basic Bible study. Chan gives little in the way of explaining how this method provides greater objectivity than pondering the verses over and over again to see what Jesus is saying. It would appear that Chan is saying simple Bible reading is superior to in-depth Bible study but he fails to provide arguments as to why this is the case.
Jesus’ call to commitment is clear: He wants all or nothing. The thought of a person calling himself a “Christian” without being a devoted follower of Christ is absurd.
Despite weaknesses in his exegetical approach, Chan draws an accurate conclusion. Contemporary pop theology has produced a weakened definition of what it means to be a disciple of Jesus. Jesus was quite firm about the need for obedience in order to truly follow Him and that it was not simply a matter of calling Him Lord (Matthew 7:21)
Chan writes: “Let’s face it. We’re willing to make changes in our lives only if we think it affects our salvation.” In other words, the main focus of much of contemporary evangelicalism is ‘am I going to heaven and what do I have to do to get there’. Going to heaven becomes more important (an anthropocentric view of the faith) than loving the Lord Jesus and following Him (a Christocentric view of the faith).
Chan could be accused of promoting a works-righteousness gospel but he rightly points out that all of us have lukewarm areas in our lives. The difference lies in striving for obedience and surrender to Jesus day by day, all the while being covered by His grace. The hardened lukewarm would never concern themselves about the areas of their lives that were not under Jesus’ lordship and it is to those people that Chan is speaking to. He questions their motivation: Can I go to heaven without truly and faithfully loving Jesus?
Crazy Love highlights the depth of God’s love for His children and how that should motivate the Christian to live for Him and to move out of his comfort zone. The book is a challenge to all Christians, and those who call themselves Christian, to examine themselves and determine if their lives reflect being a true disciple of Jesus, as the Scriptures define it.
Despite the weaknesses of his exegetical method and view of lukewarm Christians, Chan’s conclusions are consistent with what the scriptures do say about true discipleship and authentic Christianity. Chan is not advocating a kind of works gospel but rather a true conversion that leads to repentance, dependence and obedience to the Master and Lord. It is a message that many North American Christians need to hear and heed.
Three out of five stars.
2014 © Ed LeBlanc