What do you think?
Rate this book
Joy for the World
Can the church regain its cultural influence? The church in America is losing ground. Unfortunately, our efforts to reverse this trend often seem to do more harm than good. In Joy for the World , Greg Forster explains how the church lost its culture-shaping voice and what Christians can do to turn things around. This book teaches us that the key to cultural transformation is something that we might not explosive, Spirit-produced joy in God and his gospel.
320 pages, Paperback
First published February 1, 2014
28 people are currently reading
199 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 28 of 28 reviews
March 13, 2014
I loved this book.
G. Forster has given me a new perspective on the phrase, "The Joy of The Lord." He explains what that joy is, and how Christians need to develop it in a holistic way, so that we naturally express that joy to everyone around us. This is critical to Mr. Forster's argument that if Christians want to know how to influence, and even change the culture in the USA today, we need to learn how to live our lives with an authentic desire to daily pursue being the very best, obedient, loving, generous Christian that God is calling us to be. If we, as Christian individuals and institutions (Church communities, Christian workers, etc.), will live authentic lives, we will not only improve our lives, but we will also improve the lives of our families, our neighborhoods, and churches, etc., up to, and including our national culture. And along the way, we will very likely win converts.
There is so much to this book that I can't do it justice in a short review. But...I wholeheartedly recommend it to my fellow Christians. This is a gem!
G. Forster has given me a new perspective on the phrase, "The Joy of The Lord." He explains what that joy is, and how Christians need to develop it in a holistic way, so that we naturally express that joy to everyone around us. This is critical to Mr. Forster's argument that if Christians want to know how to influence, and even change the culture in the USA today, we need to learn how to live our lives with an authentic desire to daily pursue being the very best, obedient, loving, generous Christian that God is calling us to be. If we, as Christian individuals and institutions (Church communities, Christian workers, etc.), will live authentic lives, we will not only improve our lives, but we will also improve the lives of our families, our neighborhoods, and churches, etc., up to, and including our national culture. And along the way, we will very likely win converts.
There is so much to this book that I can't do it justice in a short review. But...I wholeheartedly recommend it to my fellow Christians. This is a gem!
February 10, 2015
Joy For the World is about a particular “joy of God”, which Forster defines as the “state of flourishing in mind, heart, and life that Christians experience by the Holy Spirit”. Using this as the foundation for a proceeding discussion of Church and culture, including the Church’s place in affecting and influencing culture, the author begins by giving us a bird’s eye view of some of the questions and problems regarding the position of the Church in relationship to the world through the larger story of history. He then branches out in the second half to a practical discussion of how to appropriately reform the Church in to a culture shaping entity.
Certainly, there are a few concerns the book assumes on to the reader in what is, for the most part, a thought provoking journey to a past, present and future concern for the culture shaping practice of the Church. First, as he puts front and centre in his opening chapters on world and (more specifically) American history, it becomes necessary for the reader to identify which “founding” narrative they tend to adhere to (and this can certainly apply to Canada as well). As he points out (and I think rightly so), there remains a misunderstanding of Christianity’s place in forming our national identity that has crippled the ability of the modern Church to participate in the activity of culture shaping. This misunderstanding is the basis for the problem of dualism, which describes our tendency confuse, separate and categorize the spiritual and physical world and life as separate and/or competing entities.
Secondly, Forster assumes that we should (no… must) care about the question of our cultural influence and we likewise must be concerned about our place as Christians in society as large, not simply as evangelists (although he does give place to evangelism), but as participants.
When he talks about the Church he suggests that he is talking about the “present” “community”. As well when he talks about Christianity he is referring to two separate identity distinctions, “the organic Church” (social) and the “organized” or institutional Church (political). What flows from this is the tension (or tendency) to categorize our Christianity, and/or adopt the practice of taking our “Christian hat on/off depending on which environment we are in.”
To the first question (regarding the founding narrative), the first few chapters present an excellent viewpoint for which to participate in the discussion of culture and Church. Hidden in our tendency to either fully integrate with culture at the expense of any sort of distinctive faith (the secular nation narrative), or to fully separate from culture for the sake of a fully distinctive faith (the Christian nation narrative), is the great problem of dualism that has followed Christianity since its early beginnings. It should be noted that what Forster desires is not simply a middle ground approach, but rather an opportunity to shed some light on what these (misapplied) approaches to world, American and Church history do to our ability (as Christians) to engage with culture, to create culture and transform culture. As he writes, “History is not just facts, it’s a story. The facts are important; fidelity to the facts is essential to good history. But it takes a story to turn facts in to history. You can get all the facts right and still get the story wrong.” He then goes on to write, “Christianity was never either clearly pro-Christian or clearly anti-Christian. It was always driven by a perpetual social tension between the two.”
One of the most challenging notions here, certainly for some, is to be able to let go of the insistence that a theocracy is the best option. Forster does a great job at walking us through the tension that continues to exist between secular and religious worldviews (which appears to pit intellectualism against spiritualism, science and rationality and reason against faith). He challenges the preconceived and tightly held assumptions of both founding narratives by placing it directly in to the actual experiences (story) of history itself (taking sharp aim at how this guides our view of the enlightenment and the reformation, and our inability to see the relationship between Hobbes materialism/Rousseau’s ethical subjectivism and the essential ethical building blocks of religion that move us towards the ideals of democracy and freedom).
The move from institutional authority (which history tells us was largely driven by the dominating religious institution or practice of a particular region) to the eventual marriage of Church and state under the mass conversion to Christianity brought us to the Reformation and the move towards “freedom of religion” on which America is based. It is here that he recognizes the tension: the catch of freedom of religion is that religion is necessary for it to function, while it also depends on a “sufficient shared morality” that can exist “without civil enforcement or religious orthodoxy.” It is here that Forster is able to give excellent treatment to the ethical dilemma that persists when we are forced to accept a unifying ethical premise for a secular democratic society without demolishing the presence of religious conviction. It is out of this that both approaches to the founding narrative tend to break down.
Where Forster eventually brings us by the end of the book is towards a view of culture and church that can embrace a “shared” sense of justice (morality) that can see us distinguish between institutional (a specific setting of worship) and organic (whole life) forms of Christianity. This suggests the ability to live as a part of society, contributing to society and embracing society as a common cultural expression of shared justice, while at the same time recognizing that religious conviction (as theological justice) can still operate from within the boundaries of the social circles that it is intended for.
In this sense, Forster continues to build a persuasive case that if Christians desire to change and form culture (while contributing and participating in it), we must learn how to keep from being combative (Christianity against the world, or the world against Christianity). “We need to fight back against absolutization of politics. Moral disagreements do not make us in to mortal enemies. We have to detach moral victory from religious victory (victory for natural justice must not be identified with victory for our social group).” At the heart of this is Forster’s intent to show that “It is not a choice to be shaped by social forces or by God. We cannot separate these two.”
One of the strengths of Forster’s literary approach is in his ability to logically flesh out his position while asking appropriate and necessary questions along the way. He has a keen eye for the story of history that exists above (and within) the details. He has a strong ability to deal with philosophy, rationality, history and spirituality as an interplay of potential disciplines. One potential hindrance for some is that he has a particular old-fashioned approach that comes out at times in his unapologetically orthodox beliefs. And yet the minute you feel the book is about to slide in to an overly predictable Christian cliché, he pulls it in to an intelligent and relevant discussion of the larger picture.
Here are some of my favorite learning’s from the more practical sections of the book?
1. His whole discussion of the capitalist/socialist/collectivist discussion was helpful and informing. He gives some necessary attention to the discussion between personal conscious and structural influence, challenging our perception of how social membership and morality works. He writes, “The great dangers of our time is the idea that our moral obligations are in some way weaker when they are not chosen. You don’t get to make up the meaning of your life. You do get to decide how best to respond to the circumstances that life presents you with.” On the other hand, he also writes, “The reaction to collectivism is that giving power to the group always means giving power to some individuals over another.” To be fair, he points out that any system faces the dangers of self interest, but suggests that “The idea of “cultural contradictions of capitalism” is false. On one side you have people who say growth ends up being an end in itself where we define all of life economically and for profit (and thus are afraid of growth) On the other side we have those who believe growth is an end in itself.” And because of our tendency to gravitate towards either extreme, many tend to paint a target on the system itself.
2. His discussion of the history of the labor movement is fascinating as a further examination of this capitalist/socialist conversation. The tendency to separate extreme viewpoints often leads us to apply equal tension between companies and unions in America. Forster believes there are many examples in portions of Europe where this is not the case, and that this has provided them with an advantage for weathering the recent economic storm. The difference in Forster’s mind is found in America’s tendency to move forward on the premise/assumption that everyone is out for themselves (and thus must protect against this tendency with an over reaching sense of individualism).
The story of Josiah Wedgewood (a Christian who transformed the modern factory) provides an excellent example of how we can change our assumptions to expect that people CAN respond to a common moral system in positive ways. The rural farm had a built in moral system that was based on family. As people shifted to the industrial regions and in to factories rather than farms, they became separated from the families and systems that had kept this common moral system in place. Forster explains this time in history as one that turned the democratic response to the old world regimes in to an expression of “authoritatrian structures, drunkenness and inhumane conditions”. He goes on to say, “Work was burdensome and meaningless.” Wedgewood’s solution? Treat workers with dignity, provide a safe and clean environment, and in exchange make their work meaningful, expect them to be sober and to work hard and to take responsibility. Under this positive mantra, quality and quantity suddenly exploded.
Forster is insistent that the world has benefited under the implementation of the modern economy. His stance certainly seems to cater to what one might call “capitalism with a conscience”. Indeed, his argument suggests that “there are universal characteristics that are common to every economic system, and then there are particular conditions that differ from society to society.” He goes on to say, “The most basic universal economic institution is wealth and property ownership” (the market system), and suggests that the problems and abuses that arise out of this arise because of growth, (something that is now happening on a staggering scale). As things grow we need new ways of doing things that “address problems institutions are not equipped to handle”. He goes on to say, which I found quite intriguing, “Social structures are necessary for the common moral assumptions… but social institutions being disrupted can be a good thing. When they are guaranteed a permanent existence they tend to become self-serving and oppressive.” Albertus and Aquinas were among the first to describe how the price system serves human needs, and it is the market or sharing system that allows us to create value in a social setting. The basic systems based on wealth and property ownership is necessary for this sharing system to function. But in growth this sharing system becomes displaced from the shared moral justice that drives it. Forster suggests that should simply remain aware of the way the institutions change within this system, and adapt accordingly so as to keep the shared moral justice in view.
To express this further, Forster suggests that we move, whether in morals, economics, or otherwise, under the foundation of a common ground that holds a “free” society together. This should expect some recognizable characteristics that sit above our systems and that inform our efforts to build social systems. These values are found in the “freedom of…” mantra. But out of this flows the specific social activity that responds (at a ground level) to the problems of social living on a daily basis. He encourages a move towards reconciling the large divide in political agendas by allowing this common ground (shared justice) to fuel what he would call a “generous neighborliness”. And as Christians, we don’t need to enforce a theological justice in to a “natural” or shared justice. Generous neighborliness frees us to simply live out that theology in the natural world in a way that speaks to that moral justice that we share on a natural level.
3. The idea of the New Testament Church living in a permanent state of exile was
another memorable part of the book for me. In the Old Testament world we find the people of God consistently going their own way, and subsequently finding themselves in a temporary state of exile. It is in this exile that God pursues reform. This reform consistently comes in the command to set up shop, build cities and live life in the foreign culture in which the find themselves. The same call exists for us today.
Unfortunately, the Church, which should have the benefit of being united by a common faith, is one of the most divided institutions of our present world (inspiration and inerrancy, faith versus works, the Christian practice of prophet, priest and king, sexuality, are a few of the areas that Forster brings up in referencing division in the Church). But the Church can also lead the way in how to live as a divided people with a common foundation (Augustine’s City of God is at its core about transforming civilization as a diverse people with a common bond under Christ). Forster reminds, “The Reformation did not start as a discussion of justification, but rather sanctification”. In this sense, our call to live as a part of society and to build culture along with those who do not share our theological conviction is about first finding a moral consensus that reaches in to all of life, not just in to a closed institution or elite club. It is in this sense that “we affirm the goodness of civilization and activities on a social level” without fear of losing our spiritual soul. Having a sense of “theological justice” as a Christian (in which we find the true joy of God) should not necessarily be the base for opposition and separation between Church and society. It should present an opportunity to bring witness in to a moral common ground.. He goes on to write, “We must be okay to live with disagreeing opinions and points of views rather than imposing our Christian opinions or attempts to Christianize society and political entities” so as to show that we have a sort of special ownership over all morality in the world. Rather, by living a “generous neighborliness” we can demonstrate the spirits transformative nature (and intimate knowledge) in our own lives in a way that speaks positively of societies own moral sensibilities at the same time. This is what it means to participate in culture, create culture and transform culture.
In describing evangelism as the activity of bringing others in to view of the intimate sense of theological justice that informs the joy of God in our lives, Forster writes, “As Christian;s we must first build moral consensus along side society where we have common ground. And as Christians we can recognize theological justice and natural justice as not a divided world, but as two distinct entities that inform our life in the here and now. “ Forster has the opportunity to turn people off, especially in his orthodox approach to sexuality (and in a lesser form on his wonderful chapter on work). It is likely shocking to the modern ear to hear such a cautious approach to sex and sexual expression. But at the same time he is endearing in an old school way. And this is the testimony of his work. For as soon as we tend to move away from his old fashioned sentiments, the sheer weight of his argument in shoved in to full view. And to use his chapter on sexuality as an example, while it might leave us questioning whether we would push the issue as far as he does, it is rather difficult to counter the integrity of the argument itself.
I would readily recommend this book to any Christian who is interested in not just an uplifting spiritual discussion of the joy of God (which this is), but rather those who would appreciate an intelligent and thought provoking discussion of church and culture (which should be clear from its title, but some tend to miss). This book is intended for Christians, but it is a wonderful tool to equip you as Christian “citizens” of this world.
Certainly, there are a few concerns the book assumes on to the reader in what is, for the most part, a thought provoking journey to a past, present and future concern for the culture shaping practice of the Church. First, as he puts front and centre in his opening chapters on world and (more specifically) American history, it becomes necessary for the reader to identify which “founding” narrative they tend to adhere to (and this can certainly apply to Canada as well). As he points out (and I think rightly so), there remains a misunderstanding of Christianity’s place in forming our national identity that has crippled the ability of the modern Church to participate in the activity of culture shaping. This misunderstanding is the basis for the problem of dualism, which describes our tendency confuse, separate and categorize the spiritual and physical world and life as separate and/or competing entities.
Secondly, Forster assumes that we should (no… must) care about the question of our cultural influence and we likewise must be concerned about our place as Christians in society as large, not simply as evangelists (although he does give place to evangelism), but as participants.
When he talks about the Church he suggests that he is talking about the “present” “community”. As well when he talks about Christianity he is referring to two separate identity distinctions, “the organic Church” (social) and the “organized” or institutional Church (political). What flows from this is the tension (or tendency) to categorize our Christianity, and/or adopt the practice of taking our “Christian hat on/off depending on which environment we are in.”
To the first question (regarding the founding narrative), the first few chapters present an excellent viewpoint for which to participate in the discussion of culture and Church. Hidden in our tendency to either fully integrate with culture at the expense of any sort of distinctive faith (the secular nation narrative), or to fully separate from culture for the sake of a fully distinctive faith (the Christian nation narrative), is the great problem of dualism that has followed Christianity since its early beginnings. It should be noted that what Forster desires is not simply a middle ground approach, but rather an opportunity to shed some light on what these (misapplied) approaches to world, American and Church history do to our ability (as Christians) to engage with culture, to create culture and transform culture. As he writes, “History is not just facts, it’s a story. The facts are important; fidelity to the facts is essential to good history. But it takes a story to turn facts in to history. You can get all the facts right and still get the story wrong.” He then goes on to write, “Christianity was never either clearly pro-Christian or clearly anti-Christian. It was always driven by a perpetual social tension between the two.”
One of the most challenging notions here, certainly for some, is to be able to let go of the insistence that a theocracy is the best option. Forster does a great job at walking us through the tension that continues to exist between secular and religious worldviews (which appears to pit intellectualism against spiritualism, science and rationality and reason against faith). He challenges the preconceived and tightly held assumptions of both founding narratives by placing it directly in to the actual experiences (story) of history itself (taking sharp aim at how this guides our view of the enlightenment and the reformation, and our inability to see the relationship between Hobbes materialism/Rousseau’s ethical subjectivism and the essential ethical building blocks of religion that move us towards the ideals of democracy and freedom).
The move from institutional authority (which history tells us was largely driven by the dominating religious institution or practice of a particular region) to the eventual marriage of Church and state under the mass conversion to Christianity brought us to the Reformation and the move towards “freedom of religion” on which America is based. It is here that he recognizes the tension: the catch of freedom of religion is that religion is necessary for it to function, while it also depends on a “sufficient shared morality” that can exist “without civil enforcement or religious orthodoxy.” It is here that Forster is able to give excellent treatment to the ethical dilemma that persists when we are forced to accept a unifying ethical premise for a secular democratic society without demolishing the presence of religious conviction. It is out of this that both approaches to the founding narrative tend to break down.
Where Forster eventually brings us by the end of the book is towards a view of culture and church that can embrace a “shared” sense of justice (morality) that can see us distinguish between institutional (a specific setting of worship) and organic (whole life) forms of Christianity. This suggests the ability to live as a part of society, contributing to society and embracing society as a common cultural expression of shared justice, while at the same time recognizing that religious conviction (as theological justice) can still operate from within the boundaries of the social circles that it is intended for.
In this sense, Forster continues to build a persuasive case that if Christians desire to change and form culture (while contributing and participating in it), we must learn how to keep from being combative (Christianity against the world, or the world against Christianity). “We need to fight back against absolutization of politics. Moral disagreements do not make us in to mortal enemies. We have to detach moral victory from religious victory (victory for natural justice must not be identified with victory for our social group).” At the heart of this is Forster’s intent to show that “It is not a choice to be shaped by social forces or by God. We cannot separate these two.”
One of the strengths of Forster’s literary approach is in his ability to logically flesh out his position while asking appropriate and necessary questions along the way. He has a keen eye for the story of history that exists above (and within) the details. He has a strong ability to deal with philosophy, rationality, history and spirituality as an interplay of potential disciplines. One potential hindrance for some is that he has a particular old-fashioned approach that comes out at times in his unapologetically orthodox beliefs. And yet the minute you feel the book is about to slide in to an overly predictable Christian cliché, he pulls it in to an intelligent and relevant discussion of the larger picture.
Here are some of my favorite learning’s from the more practical sections of the book?
1. His whole discussion of the capitalist/socialist/collectivist discussion was helpful and informing. He gives some necessary attention to the discussion between personal conscious and structural influence, challenging our perception of how social membership and morality works. He writes, “The great dangers of our time is the idea that our moral obligations are in some way weaker when they are not chosen. You don’t get to make up the meaning of your life. You do get to decide how best to respond to the circumstances that life presents you with.” On the other hand, he also writes, “The reaction to collectivism is that giving power to the group always means giving power to some individuals over another.” To be fair, he points out that any system faces the dangers of self interest, but suggests that “The idea of “cultural contradictions of capitalism” is false. On one side you have people who say growth ends up being an end in itself where we define all of life economically and for profit (and thus are afraid of growth) On the other side we have those who believe growth is an end in itself.” And because of our tendency to gravitate towards either extreme, many tend to paint a target on the system itself.
2. His discussion of the history of the labor movement is fascinating as a further examination of this capitalist/socialist conversation. The tendency to separate extreme viewpoints often leads us to apply equal tension between companies and unions in America. Forster believes there are many examples in portions of Europe where this is not the case, and that this has provided them with an advantage for weathering the recent economic storm. The difference in Forster’s mind is found in America’s tendency to move forward on the premise/assumption that everyone is out for themselves (and thus must protect against this tendency with an over reaching sense of individualism).
The story of Josiah Wedgewood (a Christian who transformed the modern factory) provides an excellent example of how we can change our assumptions to expect that people CAN respond to a common moral system in positive ways. The rural farm had a built in moral system that was based on family. As people shifted to the industrial regions and in to factories rather than farms, they became separated from the families and systems that had kept this common moral system in place. Forster explains this time in history as one that turned the democratic response to the old world regimes in to an expression of “authoritatrian structures, drunkenness and inhumane conditions”. He goes on to say, “Work was burdensome and meaningless.” Wedgewood’s solution? Treat workers with dignity, provide a safe and clean environment, and in exchange make their work meaningful, expect them to be sober and to work hard and to take responsibility. Under this positive mantra, quality and quantity suddenly exploded.
Forster is insistent that the world has benefited under the implementation of the modern economy. His stance certainly seems to cater to what one might call “capitalism with a conscience”. Indeed, his argument suggests that “there are universal characteristics that are common to every economic system, and then there are particular conditions that differ from society to society.” He goes on to say, “The most basic universal economic institution is wealth and property ownership” (the market system), and suggests that the problems and abuses that arise out of this arise because of growth, (something that is now happening on a staggering scale). As things grow we need new ways of doing things that “address problems institutions are not equipped to handle”. He goes on to say, which I found quite intriguing, “Social structures are necessary for the common moral assumptions… but social institutions being disrupted can be a good thing. When they are guaranteed a permanent existence they tend to become self-serving and oppressive.” Albertus and Aquinas were among the first to describe how the price system serves human needs, and it is the market or sharing system that allows us to create value in a social setting. The basic systems based on wealth and property ownership is necessary for this sharing system to function. But in growth this sharing system becomes displaced from the shared moral justice that drives it. Forster suggests that should simply remain aware of the way the institutions change within this system, and adapt accordingly so as to keep the shared moral justice in view.
To express this further, Forster suggests that we move, whether in morals, economics, or otherwise, under the foundation of a common ground that holds a “free” society together. This should expect some recognizable characteristics that sit above our systems and that inform our efforts to build social systems. These values are found in the “freedom of…” mantra. But out of this flows the specific social activity that responds (at a ground level) to the problems of social living on a daily basis. He encourages a move towards reconciling the large divide in political agendas by allowing this common ground (shared justice) to fuel what he would call a “generous neighborliness”. And as Christians, we don’t need to enforce a theological justice in to a “natural” or shared justice. Generous neighborliness frees us to simply live out that theology in the natural world in a way that speaks to that moral justice that we share on a natural level.
3. The idea of the New Testament Church living in a permanent state of exile was
another memorable part of the book for me. In the Old Testament world we find the people of God consistently going their own way, and subsequently finding themselves in a temporary state of exile. It is in this exile that God pursues reform. This reform consistently comes in the command to set up shop, build cities and live life in the foreign culture in which the find themselves. The same call exists for us today.
Unfortunately, the Church, which should have the benefit of being united by a common faith, is one of the most divided institutions of our present world (inspiration and inerrancy, faith versus works, the Christian practice of prophet, priest and king, sexuality, are a few of the areas that Forster brings up in referencing division in the Church). But the Church can also lead the way in how to live as a divided people with a common foundation (Augustine’s City of God is at its core about transforming civilization as a diverse people with a common bond under Christ). Forster reminds, “The Reformation did not start as a discussion of justification, but rather sanctification”. In this sense, our call to live as a part of society and to build culture along with those who do not share our theological conviction is about first finding a moral consensus that reaches in to all of life, not just in to a closed institution or elite club. It is in this sense that “we affirm the goodness of civilization and activities on a social level” without fear of losing our spiritual soul. Having a sense of “theological justice” as a Christian (in which we find the true joy of God) should not necessarily be the base for opposition and separation between Church and society. It should present an opportunity to bring witness in to a moral common ground.. He goes on to write, “We must be okay to live with disagreeing opinions and points of views rather than imposing our Christian opinions or attempts to Christianize society and political entities” so as to show that we have a sort of special ownership over all morality in the world. Rather, by living a “generous neighborliness” we can demonstrate the spirits transformative nature (and intimate knowledge) in our own lives in a way that speaks positively of societies own moral sensibilities at the same time. This is what it means to participate in culture, create culture and transform culture.
In describing evangelism as the activity of bringing others in to view of the intimate sense of theological justice that informs the joy of God in our lives, Forster writes, “As Christian;s we must first build moral consensus along side society where we have common ground. And as Christians we can recognize theological justice and natural justice as not a divided world, but as two distinct entities that inform our life in the here and now. “ Forster has the opportunity to turn people off, especially in his orthodox approach to sexuality (and in a lesser form on his wonderful chapter on work). It is likely shocking to the modern ear to hear such a cautious approach to sex and sexual expression. But at the same time he is endearing in an old school way. And this is the testimony of his work. For as soon as we tend to move away from his old fashioned sentiments, the sheer weight of his argument in shoved in to full view. And to use his chapter on sexuality as an example, while it might leave us questioning whether we would push the issue as far as he does, it is rather difficult to counter the integrity of the argument itself.
I would readily recommend this book to any Christian who is interested in not just an uplifting spiritual discussion of the joy of God (which this is), but rather those who would appreciate an intelligent and thought provoking discussion of church and culture (which should be clear from its title, but some tend to miss). This book is intended for Christians, but it is a wonderful tool to equip you as Christian “citizens” of this world.
July 20, 2018
I really enjoyed this book. The author focuses on our cultural, social, and political engagement in society. His analysis and approach are well thought through and emphasize the gospel’s contribution to human flourishing. This book will make you think.
April 16, 2019
Good book. I wouldn’t come to all the same conclusions as him, but I like the conversation he is engaged in and the broad approach. There were lots of interesting ideas that I will ponder more. Also, the cover and the content of this book feel like a serious mismatch.
July 19, 2018
2017 - I don't share Forster's view on the Christian-or-not founding of the United States, nor do I share his view on a variety of other specifics in the book, but I definitely share his enthusiasm for "awakening from the dogmatic slumbers of fundamentalism" and very much enjoyed sharing the "victory feast of [his] liberation" from dualism (page 16). I would recommend this for anyone trying to add a little more Kuyperian into his worldview who doesn't necessarily want to read about, or by, Kuyper himself.
--------------------
2018 - Reread this and talked through it with the men's group at our church. Forster is not Kuyper, and I think he's more happy about that than I am, but it still provoked a lot of good discussion about how Christians can influence our neighbors with more joyful living and labor.
--------------------
2018 - Reread this and talked through it with the men's group at our church. Forster is not Kuyper, and I think he's more happy about that than I am, but it still provoked a lot of good discussion about how Christians can influence our neighbors with more joyful living and labor.
June 30, 2015
Perhaps the best one-stop book on Christian cultural engagement I've read. Widely accessible while being profoundly well-rounded and deep in its insights, it's a book that's bound to boost the cultural imaginations of Christians from all backgrounds.
February 29, 2016
Several of Greg Forster’s previous books, Starting with Locke and The Contested Public Square, have been among the best I’ve read on the topic of government and Christianity’s relation to government. In my opinion Joy for the World does not rise to the level of The Contested Public Square , but it is still well worth reading. It is targeted to a broader audience, but it is seeking to answer the “where do we go from here?” question that remained unanswered by The Contested Public Square.
Forster thinks that if Christians are going to rebuild their influence in American society, they need to have an understanding of Christianity’s role in America and of the nature of society. These two issues are the focus of part one of Joy for the World. Forster believes that Christians tell themselves faulty stories about their past influence. These faulty stories have led to faulty strategies, which have led to the loss of Christian influence.
Forster summarizes three faulty stories. There is the “Christian founding” story. In this story, the United States was founded as “a new model of society more in line with Christian teaching than any before.” Sadly, the Christian foundations of the nation were undermined in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries through unbelieving science and philosophy. As a result secularism threatens Christian America. The second story is the “secular founding” story, which places anti-Christian Enlightenment ideals at the center of the American founding and Christianity at the margins. According to this view ideas opposed to Christianity were “dressed up in a cloak of theological language” to gain the support of American Christians. Now, however, opposition to Christianity no longer needs to be cloaked. This is good because Christians are no longer deceived by American civil religion, but it is bad because of increased hostility to Christianity. The third story is the “it doesn’t matter” story. In this account, the role of the church is evangelism. The church is not going to try to influence the culture; rather, the church will seek to harness the culture to spread the gospel.
Forster raises concerns about all three of these stories. He is concerned that the “it doesn’t matter” approach will lead the church to conform to the culture in the false hope that cultural conformity will increase evangelistic opportunity. He thinks the other two stories both get somethings right: the reality that both Christian and Enlightenment ideas influenced the American founding. But both stories also get some things quite wrong. The “Christian founding” story does not fully account for the rationalism of the leading founders. The “secular founding” story does not account for the Christian influence on the founder’s view of man as both dignified and fallen. Forster argues that this is a Christian idea that preserved the United States from the disasters experienced by political systems built only on Enlightenment principles. Forster’s takeaway: “The American social order was never either clearly pro-Christian or clearly anti-Christian. Ross Douthat has described America as a civilization driven not by Christian orthodoxy nor by heresy, but by a perpetual social tension between the two.” Forster holds that the reason for this tension lies in the departure of Americans from a state church system to one which allows for freedom of religion. Forster praises freedom of religion, but he also notes some complications that arise. Such a system “does not enforce religion, but it requires religion” so that the society can cohere through shared moral foundations.
These shared moral foundations were provided by a general Protestant consensus throughout the nineteenth century, but by the 1920s it was clear that, from the infection of modernism within the churches, that “Protestant consensus” no longer existed because no consensus existed among Protestant churches any longer. As the unraveling of the nation’s moral consensus became apparent, evangelicals attempted to stem the tide. Forster holds that evangelicals did much good in slowing, or in some cases halting, “the rising tide of moral disorder.” However, some of the strategies employed, though enjoying short-term success, have harmed longer-term efforts. Forster ties the faulty strategies to the faulty stories of American history. Those who believed the first story tried to gain for evangelicalism the place of Protestant moral consensus around which the nation should cohere. Forster notes, “Evangelicalism could rightly claim to be the doctrinal heir of the historic Protestant churches, but it had no standing to claim their cultural or historical place.” In trying to reclaim that place, they bred resentment among Americans who thought that evangelicals were attempting to impose an illegitimate conquest on the nation. Christians who believed the second story, Forster says, withdrew culturally. Forster critiques this approach, noting that if Christianity has no place in the culture evangelism becomes more difficult because people end up thinking in categories quite outside those necessary for understanding the Christian message. Forster fears that the failures of these two approaches have led to a rise in a “cultural accommodation” approach for many evangelical churches. Forster wants to maintain Christian distinctiveness, robust evangelism, and cultural influence. On this latter point, he says, “We can’t force a religious society upon our neighbors; we must persuade them to want a religious society. People who don’t share our beliefs and our churches must nonetheless have their own intrinsic reasons to view our beliefs and churches as socially beneficial.”
Forster then turns to the nature of society. He finds in the creation of Adam and Eve the twin truths of “the intrinsic dignity of every individual and the social nature of humanity.” The Bible thus establishes the reality that humans live in society. It does not, however, prescribe particular societal forms. In fact, Forster says, God “wants not just people from every tongue, tribe, and nation, but people of every tongue, tribe, and nation.” Christians can and should live within their cultures as people of those cultures. And yet, because of the Fall and its effects on all cultures, the Christian cannot simply conform to any culture. One area of American culture that Forster indicates needs to be challenged is “individualism.” He praises individualism over against collectivism, but he also notes that the idolization of the “sovereign self” lies at the bottom defenses of abortion, divorce, modern sexuality, and even distortions of the work ethic. Forster observes, “One of the great dangers of our time is the illusion that moral obligations are somehow weaker if they’re not chosen. . . . The whole point about obligations is that you have to do things that aren’t intrinsically attractive to you. You have to discipline yourself for actions that cut against your desires.” Forster’s bottom line is that Christians influence society precisely by living as people in society and allowing a Christian view of society leaven whatever sphere of influence they have.
The next two parts of the book examine how the church can and should influence the culture. Part two looks at the role of the institutional church and part three looks at the role of the church as an organism. Forster makes the institution/organism distinction to protect the mission and distinctiveness of the church as institution while still promoting the involvement of Christians as Christians in society. Forster models his discussion of the institutional church on the “threefold office of Christ—Prophet, Priest, and King.” He argues that each of these three offices represent an emphasis that the church needs. The office of the prophet relates to “doctrine,” the office of priest to “devotion,” and the office of king to “stewardship.” In the chapter on doctrine, Forster argues that belief in the Bible’s inerrancy and authority is absolutely foundational. On this foundation preaching that teaches in detail what the text of Scripture actually says is absolutely necessary. Expositional preaching is not enough however, for the pastor must show the congregation how the text of Scripture applies to their daily lives. In his chapter on devotion Forster makes the case that doctrine is not enough. The goal of Christianity is not to produce people who think rightly and act morally. The goal of Christianity is to liberate people from sin so that they become transformed worshippers of God. This kind of community should stand out as a beacon in the world. In the chapter on stewardship Forster argues that the Christian doctrine of sanctification means that the transformation in the heart must work out in the transformation of the life. The institutional church plays an important role in discipling the people of God. Forster argues that this discipleship ought not focus only on the life of the individual as individual. Since we live in community and work in various vocations, discipleship should extend to these areas as well.
In the final part of the book, Forster looks at the organic church: Christian life in the civilizational spheres. Forster begins with some insightful thoughts about social structures. He notes, in the first place, that these structures are not infinitely malleable. In order to work they must be rooted in our natures and in the way God designed the world to work. On the other hand social structures are not static. Humans can change, improve, or disrupt them. With this foundation in place Forster looks at the following topics: “Sex and Family,” “Work and the Economy,” and “Citizenship and Community.”
Forster begins with sex and family because of their importance: “The most basic building blocks of society—above all, family, but much else as well—arise from our sexual desires. Because our sexual desires affect us so profoundly, their disorderliness is all the more destructive. . . . So it makes sense that sex is a key issue for public witness. If Christianity doesn’t have something to say about sex and family in contemporary America, Christianity doesn’t really have much to say about contemporary America, period.” Forster’s main point is that sexual desires are not merely bodily needs. Spiritual realities underlie these desires, and the sins regarding sexuality are pointers to deeper spiritual problems. Positively, “marriage is a structure designed to recognize that sex creates [a permanent metaphysical] union and to manage its consequences.” This is why “marriage breaks down when we treat it merely as a vehicle for romantic love, or even childrearing.” Forster then moves on for a probing discussion of the importance of the family to the health of a society.
In his chapter on work and the economy Forster argues that work is dignified when it enables people to “make the world a better place.” When we recognize that our work is about relationships with other people, then we can work to serve others. This means that there are certain kinds of work that we might not think of as unchristian, but which in reality are. For instance: “I once heard an ethics professor challenge the little vending machines that stores and restaurants keep in front, selling worthless trinkets for fifty cents or a dollar apiece. The trinkets won’t entertain the kids who buy them for long; the machines are really just there to prompt kids to demand their parents buy them something. In effect, the machines are there to create discord in families so the owners of the vending machines can blackmail parents.” On the other hand, Forster argues that there are many kinds of work that are looked down upon, but which actually are dignified because they are essential to making the world a better place. Forster also discusses matters like the goodness of making high quality products and the goodness of making “good enough” products that raise the standard of living of the poor. In discussing the economy, he looks at American labor law, at the role of markets, and at the regulation of markets.
The final chapter has to do with Christian involvement in politics. Here Forster argues for several distinctions. He makes the case that not all of life should be political life. There should be certain areas of life where we function as neighbors and in which politics is not used to enforce neighborliness. He is concerned that the politicization of everything will damage other important institutions in society. Forster also wants to distinguish between “theological justice” and “natural justice.” The former Christians should seek to further by persuasion. The latter should be something that Christians should press for politically. Forster’s hope is that this approach will allow for moral consensus that won’t be perceived as imposing Christianity on our neighbors.
In his conclusion, Forster examines the virtue of prudence. He exhorts his readers to discern not only where they want to go but what they can plausibly do to get there. They may want to go from A to Z, but they can only plausibly get their neighbors to come with them to G. So, Forster says, let’s try to bring them to G. Some radical cultural changes seem to happen overnight, but, Forster observes, these changes were actually the result of many small steps over a long period. Forster thinks Christians can learn from this.
Forster’s book has many strengths. Too many books on Christians in the public square neglect the role of the institutional church. Forster gives it a full third of the book. Others might assume that the institutional church should play an active role in political and societal issues, but Forster rightly recognizes that the institutional church has its own distinct mission. Another strength is Forster’s grasp of American religious history as his discernment regarding the stories that American Christians tell themselves about that history. Finally, I found Forster’s mediations of the sexual relations, marriage, work, and the economy full of insight.
The book has some weaknesses as well. I’m not yet convinced that the three offices of Christ really serve as a model for church life, though I am starting to see this idea in several places (due, I think, to the influence of Tim Keller). This is a minor complaint, however, because what Forster actually discusses in those chapters are the roles of doctrine, devotion, and sanctification. The cheif weakness of the book, in my view, is Forster’s reliance on John Locke’s politics of moral consensus. At the conclusion of his The Contested Public Square Forster wrote:
“All paths now lead to danger. If we wish to preserve religious freedom, we must somehow find a way to build social consensus around the moral laws that politics requires without going back to dependence upon a shared religion. Locke’s confidence that this would happen simply on its own has proved to be misplaced. Tocqueville gave us what is probably the most penetrating analysis of the problem, and in the end he did not even pretend to offer a clear solution. To the contrary, he warned us that all of the tools available for preserving the moral foundations of democracy can easily become subverted and end up undermining those foundations instead. All of the great defenders of religious freedom since Tocqueville have joined him in confessing that its preservation in the face of this challenge is uncertain. But what is the alternative. Even if we were inclined to declare the experiment in religious freedom a failure, how would that help us? Attempting to restore a shared community religion as the basis of government policy would only deepen our divisions and exacerbate our conflicts. And if the entanglements of worldly and otherworldly powers caused unthinkable slaughter between Protestants and Catholics in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, what would it do now, when our societies are even more radically divided over religion? I do not know the answer to this crisis."
Perhaps the best answer is the one given in Joy for the World: live the Christian life joyfully before your neighbors and attempt to strengthen their acceptance of natural law. I certainly agree that Christians should act prudently and seek to advance righteousness in their limited sphere as they are able. Nonetheless, I remain doubtful that the kind of moral consensus that was possible in Locke’s day is possible today without the pervasive Christian influence on thought and culture that existed then.
Forster thinks that if Christians are going to rebuild their influence in American society, they need to have an understanding of Christianity’s role in America and of the nature of society. These two issues are the focus of part one of Joy for the World. Forster believes that Christians tell themselves faulty stories about their past influence. These faulty stories have led to faulty strategies, which have led to the loss of Christian influence.
Forster summarizes three faulty stories. There is the “Christian founding” story. In this story, the United States was founded as “a new model of society more in line with Christian teaching than any before.” Sadly, the Christian foundations of the nation were undermined in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries through unbelieving science and philosophy. As a result secularism threatens Christian America. The second story is the “secular founding” story, which places anti-Christian Enlightenment ideals at the center of the American founding and Christianity at the margins. According to this view ideas opposed to Christianity were “dressed up in a cloak of theological language” to gain the support of American Christians. Now, however, opposition to Christianity no longer needs to be cloaked. This is good because Christians are no longer deceived by American civil religion, but it is bad because of increased hostility to Christianity. The third story is the “it doesn’t matter” story. In this account, the role of the church is evangelism. The church is not going to try to influence the culture; rather, the church will seek to harness the culture to spread the gospel.
Forster raises concerns about all three of these stories. He is concerned that the “it doesn’t matter” approach will lead the church to conform to the culture in the false hope that cultural conformity will increase evangelistic opportunity. He thinks the other two stories both get somethings right: the reality that both Christian and Enlightenment ideas influenced the American founding. But both stories also get some things quite wrong. The “Christian founding” story does not fully account for the rationalism of the leading founders. The “secular founding” story does not account for the Christian influence on the founder’s view of man as both dignified and fallen. Forster argues that this is a Christian idea that preserved the United States from the disasters experienced by political systems built only on Enlightenment principles. Forster’s takeaway: “The American social order was never either clearly pro-Christian or clearly anti-Christian. Ross Douthat has described America as a civilization driven not by Christian orthodoxy nor by heresy, but by a perpetual social tension between the two.” Forster holds that the reason for this tension lies in the departure of Americans from a state church system to one which allows for freedom of religion. Forster praises freedom of religion, but he also notes some complications that arise. Such a system “does not enforce religion, but it requires religion” so that the society can cohere through shared moral foundations.
These shared moral foundations were provided by a general Protestant consensus throughout the nineteenth century, but by the 1920s it was clear that, from the infection of modernism within the churches, that “Protestant consensus” no longer existed because no consensus existed among Protestant churches any longer. As the unraveling of the nation’s moral consensus became apparent, evangelicals attempted to stem the tide. Forster holds that evangelicals did much good in slowing, or in some cases halting, “the rising tide of moral disorder.” However, some of the strategies employed, though enjoying short-term success, have harmed longer-term efforts. Forster ties the faulty strategies to the faulty stories of American history. Those who believed the first story tried to gain for evangelicalism the place of Protestant moral consensus around which the nation should cohere. Forster notes, “Evangelicalism could rightly claim to be the doctrinal heir of the historic Protestant churches, but it had no standing to claim their cultural or historical place.” In trying to reclaim that place, they bred resentment among Americans who thought that evangelicals were attempting to impose an illegitimate conquest on the nation. Christians who believed the second story, Forster says, withdrew culturally. Forster critiques this approach, noting that if Christianity has no place in the culture evangelism becomes more difficult because people end up thinking in categories quite outside those necessary for understanding the Christian message. Forster fears that the failures of these two approaches have led to a rise in a “cultural accommodation” approach for many evangelical churches. Forster wants to maintain Christian distinctiveness, robust evangelism, and cultural influence. On this latter point, he says, “We can’t force a religious society upon our neighbors; we must persuade them to want a religious society. People who don’t share our beliefs and our churches must nonetheless have their own intrinsic reasons to view our beliefs and churches as socially beneficial.”
Forster then turns to the nature of society. He finds in the creation of Adam and Eve the twin truths of “the intrinsic dignity of every individual and the social nature of humanity.” The Bible thus establishes the reality that humans live in society. It does not, however, prescribe particular societal forms. In fact, Forster says, God “wants not just people from every tongue, tribe, and nation, but people of every tongue, tribe, and nation.” Christians can and should live within their cultures as people of those cultures. And yet, because of the Fall and its effects on all cultures, the Christian cannot simply conform to any culture. One area of American culture that Forster indicates needs to be challenged is “individualism.” He praises individualism over against collectivism, but he also notes that the idolization of the “sovereign self” lies at the bottom defenses of abortion, divorce, modern sexuality, and even distortions of the work ethic. Forster observes, “One of the great dangers of our time is the illusion that moral obligations are somehow weaker if they’re not chosen. . . . The whole point about obligations is that you have to do things that aren’t intrinsically attractive to you. You have to discipline yourself for actions that cut against your desires.” Forster’s bottom line is that Christians influence society precisely by living as people in society and allowing a Christian view of society leaven whatever sphere of influence they have.
The next two parts of the book examine how the church can and should influence the culture. Part two looks at the role of the institutional church and part three looks at the role of the church as an organism. Forster makes the institution/organism distinction to protect the mission and distinctiveness of the church as institution while still promoting the involvement of Christians as Christians in society. Forster models his discussion of the institutional church on the “threefold office of Christ—Prophet, Priest, and King.” He argues that each of these three offices represent an emphasis that the church needs. The office of the prophet relates to “doctrine,” the office of priest to “devotion,” and the office of king to “stewardship.” In the chapter on doctrine, Forster argues that belief in the Bible’s inerrancy and authority is absolutely foundational. On this foundation preaching that teaches in detail what the text of Scripture actually says is absolutely necessary. Expositional preaching is not enough however, for the pastor must show the congregation how the text of Scripture applies to their daily lives. In his chapter on devotion Forster makes the case that doctrine is not enough. The goal of Christianity is not to produce people who think rightly and act morally. The goal of Christianity is to liberate people from sin so that they become transformed worshippers of God. This kind of community should stand out as a beacon in the world. In the chapter on stewardship Forster argues that the Christian doctrine of sanctification means that the transformation in the heart must work out in the transformation of the life. The institutional church plays an important role in discipling the people of God. Forster argues that this discipleship ought not focus only on the life of the individual as individual. Since we live in community and work in various vocations, discipleship should extend to these areas as well.
In the final part of the book, Forster looks at the organic church: Christian life in the civilizational spheres. Forster begins with some insightful thoughts about social structures. He notes, in the first place, that these structures are not infinitely malleable. In order to work they must be rooted in our natures and in the way God designed the world to work. On the other hand social structures are not static. Humans can change, improve, or disrupt them. With this foundation in place Forster looks at the following topics: “Sex and Family,” “Work and the Economy,” and “Citizenship and Community.”
Forster begins with sex and family because of their importance: “The most basic building blocks of society—above all, family, but much else as well—arise from our sexual desires. Because our sexual desires affect us so profoundly, their disorderliness is all the more destructive. . . . So it makes sense that sex is a key issue for public witness. If Christianity doesn’t have something to say about sex and family in contemporary America, Christianity doesn’t really have much to say about contemporary America, period.” Forster’s main point is that sexual desires are not merely bodily needs. Spiritual realities underlie these desires, and the sins regarding sexuality are pointers to deeper spiritual problems. Positively, “marriage is a structure designed to recognize that sex creates [a permanent metaphysical] union and to manage its consequences.” This is why “marriage breaks down when we treat it merely as a vehicle for romantic love, or even childrearing.” Forster then moves on for a probing discussion of the importance of the family to the health of a society.
In his chapter on work and the economy Forster argues that work is dignified when it enables people to “make the world a better place.” When we recognize that our work is about relationships with other people, then we can work to serve others. This means that there are certain kinds of work that we might not think of as unchristian, but which in reality are. For instance: “I once heard an ethics professor challenge the little vending machines that stores and restaurants keep in front, selling worthless trinkets for fifty cents or a dollar apiece. The trinkets won’t entertain the kids who buy them for long; the machines are really just there to prompt kids to demand their parents buy them something. In effect, the machines are there to create discord in families so the owners of the vending machines can blackmail parents.” On the other hand, Forster argues that there are many kinds of work that are looked down upon, but which actually are dignified because they are essential to making the world a better place. Forster also discusses matters like the goodness of making high quality products and the goodness of making “good enough” products that raise the standard of living of the poor. In discussing the economy, he looks at American labor law, at the role of markets, and at the regulation of markets.
The final chapter has to do with Christian involvement in politics. Here Forster argues for several distinctions. He makes the case that not all of life should be political life. There should be certain areas of life where we function as neighbors and in which politics is not used to enforce neighborliness. He is concerned that the politicization of everything will damage other important institutions in society. Forster also wants to distinguish between “theological justice” and “natural justice.” The former Christians should seek to further by persuasion. The latter should be something that Christians should press for politically. Forster’s hope is that this approach will allow for moral consensus that won’t be perceived as imposing Christianity on our neighbors.
In his conclusion, Forster examines the virtue of prudence. He exhorts his readers to discern not only where they want to go but what they can plausibly do to get there. They may want to go from A to Z, but they can only plausibly get their neighbors to come with them to G. So, Forster says, let’s try to bring them to G. Some radical cultural changes seem to happen overnight, but, Forster observes, these changes were actually the result of many small steps over a long period. Forster thinks Christians can learn from this.
Forster’s book has many strengths. Too many books on Christians in the public square neglect the role of the institutional church. Forster gives it a full third of the book. Others might assume that the institutional church should play an active role in political and societal issues, but Forster rightly recognizes that the institutional church has its own distinct mission. Another strength is Forster’s grasp of American religious history as his discernment regarding the stories that American Christians tell themselves about that history. Finally, I found Forster’s mediations of the sexual relations, marriage, work, and the economy full of insight.
The book has some weaknesses as well. I’m not yet convinced that the three offices of Christ really serve as a model for church life, though I am starting to see this idea in several places (due, I think, to the influence of Tim Keller). This is a minor complaint, however, because what Forster actually discusses in those chapters are the roles of doctrine, devotion, and sanctification. The cheif weakness of the book, in my view, is Forster’s reliance on John Locke’s politics of moral consensus. At the conclusion of his The Contested Public Square Forster wrote:
“All paths now lead to danger. If we wish to preserve religious freedom, we must somehow find a way to build social consensus around the moral laws that politics requires without going back to dependence upon a shared religion. Locke’s confidence that this would happen simply on its own has proved to be misplaced. Tocqueville gave us what is probably the most penetrating analysis of the problem, and in the end he did not even pretend to offer a clear solution. To the contrary, he warned us that all of the tools available for preserving the moral foundations of democracy can easily become subverted and end up undermining those foundations instead. All of the great defenders of religious freedom since Tocqueville have joined him in confessing that its preservation in the face of this challenge is uncertain. But what is the alternative. Even if we were inclined to declare the experiment in religious freedom a failure, how would that help us? Attempting to restore a shared community religion as the basis of government policy would only deepen our divisions and exacerbate our conflicts. And if the entanglements of worldly and otherworldly powers caused unthinkable slaughter between Protestants and Catholics in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, what would it do now, when our societies are even more radically divided over religion? I do not know the answer to this crisis."
Perhaps the best answer is the one given in Joy for the World: live the Christian life joyfully before your neighbors and attempt to strengthen their acceptance of natural law. I certainly agree that Christians should act prudently and seek to advance righteousness in their limited sphere as they are able. Nonetheless, I remain doubtful that the kind of moral consensus that was possible in Locke’s day is possible today without the pervasive Christian influence on thought and culture that existed then.
June 7, 2023
Forster attempts to address the problem that Christians don't think biblically about culture and because of this have taken "short cuts" to change culture, but these cultural projects largely fail and alienate people. Cultural change comes about not by some large nationwide project or agenda, though, but through day-to-day discipleship so others see that Christians have something they don't have: the joy of God. He argues that we should be doing things in culture that bless other people: first, through the affirmation of the good, and then within that framework, transformation of the bad through "co-opted cultural entrepreneurship." His use of the three offices (prophet, priest, and king) offers an interesting model for how he sees Christians doing this.
I feel like I have to read this book again and think about it some more to know what I think because the direction it took was so unexpected to me. I did appreciate his emphasis on small, slow progression though our particular callings because that rings truer than the "go change the world" we typically hear.
"We are responsible to infuse the joy of God into civilization, not just build comfortable lives within civilization as it already exists." . . . "Joy is not an emotion, it’s a life lived for God."
I feel like I have to read this book again and think about it some more to know what I think because the direction it took was so unexpected to me. I did appreciate his emphasis on small, slow progression though our particular callings because that rings truer than the "go change the world" we typically hear.
"We are responsible to infuse the joy of God into civilization, not just build comfortable lives within civilization as it already exists." . . . "Joy is not an emotion, it’s a life lived for God."
December 24, 2017
A book better read than listened to. I found it insightful, controversial, revolutionary, and yet real and doable. I think he places too much emphasis on having common sense and rationalization in certain situations and forgets to include sometimes the work of the Holy Spirit moving in our lives. I really disliked how he put it that when Christians try to actively witness it comes across as "Christian converting the heathen!" or something like that. I don't think if witnessing is done right that it always comes across as "Convert, or I'm not interested in you." That would be a very immature Christian. There is a lot of practical suggestions and advice on many factors of the Christians public life that I have learned a lot from though and think it is a good book for Christians to read to get us to think outside the church as our only place of "spirituality."
May 29, 2022
This is a deep read that traces the history of how Christianity impacted the world since Pentecost, how the 20th and 21st century has seen the diminishing of Christianity's influence in the USA (while Christianity has exploded in other places in the world even where there's persecution), and how Christianity can regain influence. The book has 3 parts. Part 1 covers the history of Christianity and the Church in the world and in America. Part 2 sets the foundations in the lives of believers. Part 3 covers 3 topics that are important to most everyone and how a truly biblical view and actions on each topic - sex and the family, work and the economy, and citizenship and the community - can bring God's blessings to believers and nonbelievers. The book is creatively structured around the well known hymn, Joy to the World.
June 19, 2017
I remember this book being a fresh voice in a noisy subject. Worth another read.
April 9, 2021
Generally optimistic and probably right in some sense, I think Christian joy helps in interpersonal relationships, but I don't think it is as transformative as Forster says. I certainly don't think it changes the game of cultural influence.
March 12, 2014
Greg Forster's Joy for the World: How Christianity Lost Its Cultural Influence & Can Begin Rebuilding It (2014) is a must read for Christians. Last year, I had the privilege of going through a Christian worldview program, the Centurions program. As a part of that program, I was required to read several books and I will be heartily recommending this book to them.
In this 322 page book, Forster seeks to be an encourager to the church, specifically as we engage culture. He offers some appropriate pushback on the sometimes dour approach we Christians take to dealing with culture, providing a fresh perspective. As Tim Keller wrote in the foreward, "Greg Forster's important and practical new book helps Christians think out how to engage culture" (page 13).
Forster opens his book explaining why the joy of God has change potential. He described how the joy of God changed his mind, heart, and way of living, leaving me asking what does he mean by joy of God?" He answered: "when I talk about the joy of God, I'm not talking about an emotion. I mean the state of flourishing in mind, heart, and life that Christians experience by the Holy Spirit" (page 23). Forster's description of the joy of God brought to mind Neal Plantinga's concept of shalom discussed in his book Not the Way It's Supposed to Be, another must read book.
His opening chapter, "Christianity and the Great American Experiment," was worth the price of the book in my opinion. It was readable, informative, and engaging. He wades through minefields, such as the idea that America was founded as a Christian nation...or not. In this section, his wise discussion of the foundational importance of freedom of religion is crucial in the time and place in which I live, 21st century America.
Forster calls Christians to be involved with and engaging society, manifesting the joy of God. Forster was right: "if we we focus on intentionally cultivating social transformation only inside the church building, we are failing to cultivate discipleship in 98 percent of our lives" (page 80). Unfortunately, this message is sorely lacking in most American churches.
After issuing a call for joyful cultural engagement, Forster explores how the church might accomplish this in several different areas of our lives ranging from doctrine and worship to sex and government. This book is wide ranging in its scope, but it kept me interested as a reader. I fear that some people will reject this book out of hand due to its long chapters and overall length, but please do not let that deter you.
Though I have read hundreds of books over the last few years, there are only a very few that I consider must reads. Joy for the World will now be on that list and that is especially true if you are drawn to books like Not the Way It's Supposed to Be, Culture Making by Crouch, or any of the works of Tim Keller, Chuck Colson, or Francis Schaeffer.
I received this book free from the publisher through the Crossway Publishing Beyond the Page book review bloggers program. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. 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.”
In this 322 page book, Forster seeks to be an encourager to the church, specifically as we engage culture. He offers some appropriate pushback on the sometimes dour approach we Christians take to dealing with culture, providing a fresh perspective. As Tim Keller wrote in the foreward, "Greg Forster's important and practical new book helps Christians think out how to engage culture" (page 13).
Forster opens his book explaining why the joy of God has change potential. He described how the joy of God changed his mind, heart, and way of living, leaving me asking what does he mean by joy of God?" He answered: "when I talk about the joy of God, I'm not talking about an emotion. I mean the state of flourishing in mind, heart, and life that Christians experience by the Holy Spirit" (page 23). Forster's description of the joy of God brought to mind Neal Plantinga's concept of shalom discussed in his book Not the Way It's Supposed to Be, another must read book.
His opening chapter, "Christianity and the Great American Experiment," was worth the price of the book in my opinion. It was readable, informative, and engaging. He wades through minefields, such as the idea that America was founded as a Christian nation...or not. In this section, his wise discussion of the foundational importance of freedom of religion is crucial in the time and place in which I live, 21st century America.
Forster calls Christians to be involved with and engaging society, manifesting the joy of God. Forster was right: "if we we focus on intentionally cultivating social transformation only inside the church building, we are failing to cultivate discipleship in 98 percent of our lives" (page 80). Unfortunately, this message is sorely lacking in most American churches.
After issuing a call for joyful cultural engagement, Forster explores how the church might accomplish this in several different areas of our lives ranging from doctrine and worship to sex and government. This book is wide ranging in its scope, but it kept me interested as a reader. I fear that some people will reject this book out of hand due to its long chapters and overall length, but please do not let that deter you.
Though I have read hundreds of books over the last few years, there are only a very few that I consider must reads. Joy for the World will now be on that list and that is especially true if you are drawn to books like Not the Way It's Supposed to Be, Culture Making by Crouch, or any of the works of Tim Keller, Chuck Colson, or Francis Schaeffer.
I received this book free from the publisher through the Crossway Publishing Beyond the Page book review bloggers program. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. 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.”
April 13, 2015
This book was well-received by Joseph Loconte in the Weekly Standard (the first Crossway book I'd ever seen reviewed in such a publication). I don't really disagree with anything that Forster wrote. He's just not a very good writer. He wrote 294 pages on engaging with the culture, and I could literally condense his "good advice" down to 2 pages. So this won't be a coherent review but rather a few thoughts about things that stuck out.
-appreciate his emphasis on "joy," but he never really spoke about what "joyful living" looks like.
-great discussion on why the church/state "dividing line" must be nebulous. "A clear and fixed boundary between the church's turf and the social order's turf could only be drawn if the government defined and enforced the boundary. That would obviously violate the whole idea of freedom of religion, since it would require government to adopt and enforce very specific views about what is and is not the church's turf." Very well said. I think this is what people don't realize about RFRA, contraception mandates, and other debates. Progressives are making very theological statements about what are and are not valid assertions of religious rights, and yet they refuse to admit that they're making such statements, and probably don't even realize that they are. The state on its own cannot police the church/state relationship. That is the major pitfall in today's discussions.
-A couple of times Forster strong advocates "the freedom to select your marriage partner" and denigrates arranged marriages. I do not see his point, and would not agree even if I did. He does not defend it in any way. I don't necessarily think marriages must be arranged, but I think it's very difficult to determine which system is better, let alone to be dogmatic about it. If I had to choose, I'd choose arranged. I realize that I haven't defended my view either, but I'm not the one writing the book. I can defend it if challenged. But Forster calls the freedom to choose a marriage partner "one of the most important advances in the history of human civilization." Come on!
-interesting thoughts on the superiority of a two-party system over a multi-party system. In a "plurality takes all" (first past the post) system, I totally agree. He also points out that broad coalitions must be stitched together in the multi-party system. But which came first, the chicken or the egg? Do the political parties have broad coalitions because of, or despite the fact that, there are only two parties?
-excellent historical thoughts on why evangelicals don't have the cultural currency that the old church used to have. He puts it simply: while we are the "theological heirs of the old Protestant consensus that had exercised central moral authority in American life," we are not the "sociological heirs of that consensus." So why we agitate for the same things as the church 100 years ago (in most respects), we don't have the same cultural capital they had. That mainline church broke down, and we haven't taken their place.
-appreciate his emphasis on "joy," but he never really spoke about what "joyful living" looks like.
-great discussion on why the church/state "dividing line" must be nebulous. "A clear and fixed boundary between the church's turf and the social order's turf could only be drawn if the government defined and enforced the boundary. That would obviously violate the whole idea of freedom of religion, since it would require government to adopt and enforce very specific views about what is and is not the church's turf." Very well said. I think this is what people don't realize about RFRA, contraception mandates, and other debates. Progressives are making very theological statements about what are and are not valid assertions of religious rights, and yet they refuse to admit that they're making such statements, and probably don't even realize that they are. The state on its own cannot police the church/state relationship. That is the major pitfall in today's discussions.
-A couple of times Forster strong advocates "the freedom to select your marriage partner" and denigrates arranged marriages. I do not see his point, and would not agree even if I did. He does not defend it in any way. I don't necessarily think marriages must be arranged, but I think it's very difficult to determine which system is better, let alone to be dogmatic about it. If I had to choose, I'd choose arranged. I realize that I haven't defended my view either, but I'm not the one writing the book. I can defend it if challenged. But Forster calls the freedom to choose a marriage partner "one of the most important advances in the history of human civilization." Come on!
-interesting thoughts on the superiority of a two-party system over a multi-party system. In a "plurality takes all" (first past the post) system, I totally agree. He also points out that broad coalitions must be stitched together in the multi-party system. But which came first, the chicken or the egg? Do the political parties have broad coalitions because of, or despite the fact that, there are only two parties?
-excellent historical thoughts on why evangelicals don't have the cultural currency that the old church used to have. He puts it simply: while we are the "theological heirs of the old Protestant consensus that had exercised central moral authority in American life," we are not the "sociological heirs of that consensus." So why we agitate for the same things as the church 100 years ago (in most respects), we don't have the same cultural capital they had. That mainline church broke down, and we haven't taken their place.
April 7, 2016
Greg Forster throws his hat into the how-should-Christians-behave ring. It's a fine read.
Notes:
--Major Thesis: Christians should exemplify (walk the walk) correct moral, societal and economic truths. The world sees that right way working and can't deny the truth. A practical approach
--Challenges the "Christian" founding of America. We were born out of Enlightenment ideas. It's a mix.
Lead to a combative attitude. If we started in power, we have to fight as that power erodes.
--Protestants weren't nice to others
--Holistic Christianity: "the joy"
--Manipulation and pressure Gospel tactics
--Balance of mission and exile
--Selling out to the world's standards is the fastest way to lose our influence.
--America doesn't hate Christians. It has contempt for them. This is because they don't take us seriously. We should desire to be hated.
--Dealing with sin through our efforts is like crushing a nerfball. We can change the shape, but ultimately we're just making it manifest differently.
--Personal note: It's amazing how often I need to be reminded of the above
--The church does not create new hearts. It's created BY new hearts.
--Helpful conversation about sexual slavery (8,16)
--The problem with "enlightened self-interest" is that it has no safeguard for force or fraud. (9, 23).
--Build moral consensus. (10, 20)
--When we think of how long it took to Christianize the Roman empire or settle doctrinal disputes (centuries), it will encourage to take the long view about cultural changes in our time (11, 10)
Notes:
--Major Thesis: Christians should exemplify (walk the walk) correct moral, societal and economic truths. The world sees that right way working and can't deny the truth. A practical approach
--Challenges the "Christian" founding of America. We were born out of Enlightenment ideas. It's a mix.
Lead to a combative attitude. If we started in power, we have to fight as that power erodes.
--Protestants weren't nice to others
--Holistic Christianity: "the joy"
--Manipulation and pressure Gospel tactics
--Balance of mission and exile
--Selling out to the world's standards is the fastest way to lose our influence.
--America doesn't hate Christians. It has contempt for them. This is because they don't take us seriously. We should desire to be hated.
--Dealing with sin through our efforts is like crushing a nerfball. We can change the shape, but ultimately we're just making it manifest differently.
--Personal note: It's amazing how often I need to be reminded of the above
--The church does not create new hearts. It's created BY new hearts.
--Helpful conversation about sexual slavery (8,16)
--The problem with "enlightened self-interest" is that it has no safeguard for force or fraud. (9, 23).
--Build moral consensus. (10, 20)
--When we think of how long it took to Christianize the Roman empire or settle doctrinal disputes (centuries), it will encourage to take the long view about cultural changes in our time (11, 10)
January 30, 2014
If you can get past it's remarkably vague and cliche-sounding title this book might just blow your socks off. I've read too many vaguely pep-talk-sounding Christian books to mention and I was mentally preparing myself for something along those lines when I dived into this one and boy was I surprised!
This book tackles the thorny questions regarding the church and it's often truncated, adversarial or ineffective relationship with the culture at large. How did it get this way? What's wrong with how it works now? How can we think and act differently to change things in the future? The author makes observations which are simultaneously incredibly encouraging and also possible to frustrate one with the typical American church status quo.
The ideas presented are well-researched and presented in a concise way which doesn't waste the readers time with a lot of needless fluff. Every section has a purpose and gets right to the core of the issue.
This is the book on Church and Culture I wish someone had given me 20 years ago!
Worth a read for anyone interested in this topic!!!!
This book tackles the thorny questions regarding the church and it's often truncated, adversarial or ineffective relationship with the culture at large. How did it get this way? What's wrong with how it works now? How can we think and act differently to change things in the future? The author makes observations which are simultaneously incredibly encouraging and also possible to frustrate one with the typical American church status quo.
The ideas presented are well-researched and presented in a concise way which doesn't waste the readers time with a lot of needless fluff. Every section has a purpose and gets right to the core of the issue.
This is the book on Church and Culture I wish someone had given me 20 years ago!
Worth a read for anyone interested in this topic!!!!
June 12, 2014
There's much I appreciate in this book. Forster's chapter surveying Christianity throughout America's history is a helpful diagnostic to see how we got here. His chapter on sex and the family is especially timely. And his chapter on work and economics is refreshing in that not many today are engaging this subject from a Christian worldview.
That said, the overall emphasis on "engaging culture" or "transforming culture" (the back cover: "Can the church regain its cultural influence?") is one I'm often wary about, and one that I think subtly eclipses the mission of the church: preach the gospel and make disciples. The byproduct of faithful Christian living may be used of the Lord to make an impact in our communities and society at large, but we should never blur that with the church's mission.
Cf. Thabiti Anyabwile's address from T4G 2010: "Fine-Sounding Arguments: How Wrongly 'Engaging the Culture' Adjusts the Gospel," (Crossway, 2014), pp. 73-92.
That said, the overall emphasis on "engaging culture" or "transforming culture" (the back cover: "Can the church regain its cultural influence?") is one I'm often wary about, and one that I think subtly eclipses the mission of the church: preach the gospel and make disciples. The byproduct of faithful Christian living may be used of the Lord to make an impact in our communities and society at large, but we should never blur that with the church's mission.
Cf. Thabiti Anyabwile's address from T4G 2010: "Fine-Sounding Arguments: How Wrongly 'Engaging the Culture' Adjusts the Gospel," (Crossway, 2014), pp. 73-92.
March 24, 2014
First in a new series from Crossway on cultural renewal edited by Tim Keller and Colin Hansen, this is a strong lead offering. A lot of good insights in this book, too many to put into a brief review. Main thing I like is his emphasis on thinking about and setting forth what Christians are FOR, not merely being defined by or proclaiming solely what they are AGAINST. His emphasis on joy as a main ingredient of this beautiful vision was another strong point.
May 24, 2016
This book started out very well. I was very excited to learn more about how Christianity can speak to the culture at large. This is where the book started and ended, but the innards didn't seem to follow the same thread. I struggle to really track Forster's thesis of pursuing the Joy of God in the middle chapters. I would still recommend the book to any student of culture or anyone who is interested in how Christians should relate to public policy and political engagement.
September 21, 2016
The book itself is fine for the most part. I got plenty of quotes out of it. However, I bought it to learn more about joy and that theme seemed so disconnected that to be honest, it really didn't seem to have anything to do with the book as a carrying theme at all. It seemed mentioned briefly about 3 or 4 times in this large book. I kept waiting for a chapter on it but never found it.
The chapter on sex was one of the best writings I've read on sex however.
The chapter on sex was one of the best writings I've read on sex however.
November 27, 2016
This is the book to start with when seeking answers to questions like "How should contemporary Christians relate to the culture?" Forster clearly and accessibly explains how we got here and what faithfulness looks like going forward (in some of the most important areas). I highly recommend the book, especially for young Christians looking to form a basic understanding of Christianity in America and religious freedom.
August 26, 2014
I really enjoyed Part 2 of this book. It was the most engaging in my mind. Parts 1 & 2 didn't have bad content. They just didn't hold my attention.
Want to read
March 18, 2015Buster Brown quotes from this book here (around minute 29): https://vimeo.com/122433353.
March 9, 2015
Insightful analysis combined with practical and workable solutions makes this a valuable read for all Christian leaders.
January 10, 2016
Of the three books I've read lately on "Christianity and culture", this is the most accessible and useful.
December 16, 2016
I liked this book it's similar to onward by russel Moore
November 6, 2016
A nice little "Kellerish" primer on Evangelicalism and culture.
Read
January 25, 2017I thoroughly enjoyed this book.
Displaying 1 - 28 of 28 reviews