JOSHRHONE [DOT] COM

Book Review: “CRAVE: wanting so much more of God”

There’s so much more to life and faith than this.  And we all know it.  We all crave something that will vanish soon.  Many people chase their cravings into sex, money, work, service, or religion without ever realizing none of these will satisfy.  But others of us are beginning to see our cravings were for one purpose and one purpose alone. So what do you crave?

(from the back cover of Crave)

Chris Tomlinson presents his readers with a book that is intelligible, well-written, and witty.  With each flip of the page one easily gets absorbed in the material in large part due to the passion and exuberance that Tomlinson has for the journey of faith, but more importantly for the God for whom He is desperately and passionately craving.

Tomlinson’s chapters on the subjects of silence and the Pager were startlingly insightful and provided the reader with many opportunities to pause, reflect, and stop to interact with the material by actually applying it in one’s life.

That said, however, Crave falls short in that it treads a path that so many books in the Christian market have already travelled.  Like Blue Like Jazz and Plan B, among many others, Tomlinson’s book mixes thoughts on spirituality and cultivating a vibrant relationship with God with personal stories and anecdotes that serve to underscore the point that is being made, while at the same time helping the reader to understand that he or she can actually take the material and apply it to their life.

All-in-all, Crave was a good read, by an author who I hope to read more from in the future.  While at times the book seems overly anecdotal and periodically meanders down a path that appears light on substance, Tomlinson is a good writer whose passion is infectious.

To order your copy of CRAVE click here.

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received one or more of the products or services mentioned above for free in the hope that I would mention it on my blog. Regardless, I only recommend products or services I use personally and believe will be good for my readers. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s16 CFR, Part 255: “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”

Disclosure of Material Connection: Some of the links in the post above are “affiliate links.” This means if you click on the link and purchase the item, I will receive an affiliate commission. Regardless, I only recommend products or services I use personally and believe will add value to my readers. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255: “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”

‘When You Want Church to be Church We’ll Still be Here – (offering) Traditional Services’ – What is ‘traditional’ anyhow?

I was driving to the hospital to visit someone the other day when I came across a church sporting a sign that read, ‘When you want church to be church, we’ll still be here – traditional services.’

It was a sign that was so unbelievable that I had to actually circle back for a second look (and, of course, a picture). as I was gazing upon this sign and the message that it bore, I found myself asking two questions: 1) does such a sign really encourage people to give this church a try? and, 2) what constitutes a ‘traditional service’ anyhow?

The answer to the first question would be well-nigh impossible to answer without talking to the pastor or someone who attends this church, but my sneaking suspicion is that it is not a messag that encourages passersby to say, ‘let’s give this church a try’.

The far more interesting question for me is what is meant by the term ‘traditional’. Are we talking about 80’s traditional with sappy choruses and readings from the NIV? Are we talking 60’s and 70’s traditional with Gaither songs and Bible readings from the KJV? Will the services make use of the Book of Common Prayer? Will the pastor wear clerical robes? Are services going to be conducted in Latin? Or are we going with early church ‘traditional’ which largely resembled synagogue worship?

KABOOM: “social proof,” church growth, and you

Why do some churches experience exponential growth, while some remained  stagnant?

Why are the voices of the leaders of large or growing churches seemingly valued more than those of small churches that can’t seem to grow no matter what they try?

Undoubtedly, there are a number of answers to questions such as these.  For example, one cannot discount the importance of a fresh wind of anointing by the Holy Spirit.  Let’s face it, if God shows up in a noticeable way each week in services and if lives are being changed- people want to go to churches such as these and other leaders want to hear about how the Holy Spirit might visit with their churches in this fashion.  This, in part, explains why some churches grow and why the voices of the leaders of growing churches are the ones that we most often hear.

Another reason for why some churches grow and others do not is location.  If a church is located in an area in which the majority of residents are “churched” and if there are no new residents moving into the area, for one church to grow it would require a mass exodus from the other churches in town.  Having grown up in a small town and having pastored in such environments, I’ve learned that while there are instances of churches that grow by welcome the disenfranchised members of other churches this is not a common occurrence in many small towns due to the fact that people are fiercely loyal to the church in which they have been raised since they were young.

One of the greatest factors for why many churches, especially those in small towns, do not grow is what social theorist refer to as “social proof.”  As James Surowieki reminds us,

“Social proof”… is the tendency to assume that if lots of people are doing something or believe something, there must be a good reason why. [1]

What constitutes “lots of people”?  I’m not really sure.  I think that cultural context and the subject that we are talking about make “lots of people” a relative term.  For example, many people are eagerly anticipating the first episode of the final season of LOST.  For ABC and the writers and creators of LOST “lots of people” does not mean a couple hundred of viewers.  Lots of people equates to lots of viewers when millions of people have tuned in to validate this show as must-see-TV.

If we applied that logic the local benevolent drive for food and clothes around Christmas and we were to say that the drive has not been successful until millions of people have pitched in to help- we would probably never achieve our goal.  Instead, “lots of people” in such an instance might be a few thousand people stopping by to make donations in a metropolitan area or a few hundred in a small community.

“Lots of people” to some degree is a relative term.  Yet, whether one lives in a city, a town, or a rural community the power of “social proof” still holds sway.  Why will a church that averages twelve eventually end up closing its doors- because as people drive past on a Sunday morning, only to see a couple of cars in the parking lot, they assume that there is a good reason why there are only a few cars in said parking lot.  So they continue on their way, driving five miles down the road to attend the church that has at least twice the number of cars in its parking lot as the one that they just passed.

Surowieki goes on to suggest that as,

…the crowd becomes more influential as it becomes bigger: every additional person is proof that something important is happening. [2]

We might say that as the crowd becomes bigger both excitement and momentum grow.  This helps to explain why movements experience what Malcolm Gladwell refers to as “tipping points.”  As the crowd grows, excitement and momentum often grow in proportional fashion, which leads to increased credibility and even a desire by others to be a part of whatever might be happening.

How large does the crowd have to be for this to happen?

Can a crowd exert the same amount of influence even if they remain smaller?

Is a large crowd truly indicative of the importance of what is happening?

How does cultural context change the dynamics of crowd size as it relates to such things?

[1] Surowieki, James, The Wisdom of Crowds (New York: Anchor Books, 2005), p. 43.

[2] Ibid.

Haiti: How You Can Help