Part 1:
You asked if I had read this book you are reading by Erwin McManus. I thought this would be a good gesture of me to read it and for you, my wife, to learn something about me as I make an honest review of the merits and demerits of his case for how to live life from his worldview perspective. So here is my work in appraising his words and writing my response. Is he speaking in hyperbolic tones or in allegorical forms or gritty street slang? I'm going to pursue this with the respect any hording marauder and Barbary pirate would. I'm hoping that the author will love my raw and uncivilized approach.
How can you have a barbarian heart and a new heart of Christ and the both be compatible with each other? The two, seemingly, are completely incompatible from a spiritual and testamental reference point. Or from any other idiomatic or metaphorical literary style depicting opposites. But Erwin says they are the same in essence and even prefers, existentially, his barbarian method. He says he has a barbarian heart like Jesus has a barbarian heart. Let's read it through and see.
My working title for this review: The Centurion Way or The Way out of Ur.
It needs to be said at the outset that there are some good points in this book. It speaks of an unyielding trust in God, the courage to follow Christ, and the uncompromising stance of the genuine believer. It speaks against spiritual complacency and ritualistic formula in the church sphere, and encourages an intimate, personal walk with the God who saved us. It speaks quite correctly to the need to be whom God has made us, and for us not to try to fit into a preconceived mold that stifles our creativity, gifts, or love of life. We are all individuals, and that is a wonderful thing. Expanding our horizons, spiritual and otherwise, is part of the warp and woof of our human makeup.
All of this, of course, is analyzed, interpreted, and contextualized in the presence of Scripture, which is our ultimate measuring tool for
human culture (Philippians 4.8, I Thess. 5.20-22).
Does McManus ignite my spiritual imagination? Does he have a vision of reality that fits with the 66 inerrant books? As you read this please don't say I'm nitpicking because Erwin comes after his targets with his claws sharpened and his eyes full steam ahead. We come to do battle after the same exact territory with similar passions and savvy. May the best barbarian win, in his terminology.
He has a fascination for old Celtic lore. The ways of the Celts in battle, their commitment to cause and their loyalty to their king seem to be a recurring theme. From the beginning, this book emphasizes the “barbarian way” of doing things and walking through life, hence its name, and declares these ways superior by far to traditional Christianity. McManus declares that the apostles, the early Christians and people like the reformer Martin Luther were all of the same raw, barbarian faith and practice, rough-edged and without the polished veneer of 'civilized Christianity.' Anyone reading this book would think that the Church has really muffed it up in its penchant to bring civility over the past two thousand years and churned out little more than cookie-cutter yes men/women, wimps and wooses who have really been fooling themselves and vacated the true plan of God. For they don't know and are out of step with true spirituality and the guts and honesty to live it out, says Erwin.
We really need a definition of terms here. Since barbarianism is the foundation of McManus’ book, we need to look at what the idea of a barbarian really means, and the life that was lived by these kinds of people groups. The essence of barbarianism, and the true barbarian way, is certainly spiritual—but not in the way in which it is presented in this book. McManus’ presentation, however well-intentioned, is faulty from the get-go. By linking the idea and lifestyle of the barbarian with biblical Christianity, he not so subtly tweaks and redefines what “the barbarian way” really is. It is crucial that we understand that barbarianism is a way of life and thought rooted in basic paganism. It is not merely people of courage, fortitude and devotion to cause. The entire foundation of a barbarian’s life is a spiritually pagan worldview that worships the creature rather than the creator. It is a worldview steeped in false worship, violence and superstition; and is in no way akin and compatible with biblical Christianity. The two are complete opposites.
President Jefferson and the Barbary Pirates
He wants the barbarian spirit as his frontline defensive appeal in how to live to God. I, on the other hand, will call in the Army, Air Force, Navy and Marines spirit to fight against Erwin's tactic for uplifting the average rule-breaking barbarian. No Marine would applaud the rational argument of Erwin's that chaos, corruption and confusion, even insanity, are to be the highly esteemed tactics of winning the hearts and minds on the battle field.
Over and over in Paul’s epistles he makes the point that “you were like that, but now you are like this”. Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles. He said so himself. A Gentile in Paul’s day was anyone other than God’s chosen people. All these others were heathen, pagans, idol worshiping, engaging in sexual temple worship or perversion, misogyny and violence, and hence, from God's handbook, completely shut out from the presence of God. Paul’s before and after contrasts between pagans and Christians make for a lot of reading time in his epistles. For McManus to try to assimilate back into the Christian framework some of the things that comprised the pagan's framework, is an attempt to purify that which God has already, for some 3,500 years or so, called unholy. Or is the book trying just to advance the better natures of the more romantic notions of the hordes? Trying to 'recaste' them in a better light? Sure, some barbarians were courageous, but some were cowards. Yes, some were devoted to king and country, but some were opportunists who couldn't care less about integrity. Yes, some seized life by the throat and lived their time the fullest they were able, but, many many others simply eked out a starvation existence that was colorless and bound up with frustration, worry, and an overriding sense of slavish repetition and useless futility.
McManus calls the reader to a re engineering project that is ripe with strong words: raw; primal; revolution; fight; dangerous; risk; warrior; untamed; revolt; tiger. He is unsatisfied and demeans domesticated religion and wants us to join the revolution and overthrow the status quo. Bad words in his book are: civilized; religion; domestic; proper religion, and Christian.
Civilility and Civilizing as heretical
And as for a “civilizing” Church taking the spiritual life out of Christ’s followers, as Erwin earnestly contends, it needs to be remembered that it was largely the civilizing actions and influence of the Church Body that protected a world from a complete breakdown into chaos in the first few centuries after the resurrection of Christ. This church he portrays as without vigor, in reality, has traveled to every continent doing good. Wherever real Christians have taken the Gospel, conversions guaranteed an end to the mistreatment of women and the less fortunate. Slaves were freed by Christian masters, aid to the poor was a priority, and love toward all was a foundation stone. On the other side, history tells us that it was the barbarian hordes that raped, pillaged, and destroyed the homes of simple God-fearing folk, made them slaves and railed against the true God and His Son Jesus. They were preselected to violence and blood, drunk, managed their affairs with brute force, and were largely unlearned. Not much to recommend them for to the modern followers of Christ. So why does he make such an effort to connect such an ancient creed and foist it on the postmodern rebellious Christian maverick?
On page 32, McManus tells of the “civilized” version of the gospel preached by the contemporary Church. He states that it basically entails just believing in Christ for salvation, and your life will be free and easy from that point on. An insurance plan with some do's and don'ts. Well…I’ve never heard that gospel from the genuine Christ follower. I've heard it from the slicked back 'Snake-Oil' perpetrators but not the real ones. Anyone who’s read the first four books of the New Testament can never come away with that interpretation. McManus does mention that some of the traditional preachers talk about the forgiveness of sins and eternal happiness in heaven, but for the true believer, these things do not make for complacency but overwhelming gratitude. When I received Christ, I knew my sins were forgiven. I wanted to be a learner of Christ with a new heart. I’m a new creation! Now that’s exciting.
On the same page McManus says that Jesus’ call is barbaric.
On page 34, McManus again changes definitions by saying that love and sacrificial serving of one another is what the true barbarian way is all about. Can I say this without sounding harsh...how utterly wrong! Again, the true barbarian way tribal, ethnically closed, is violent, self-serving, and egotistical to any other tribe, in general.
On page 63, McManus notes that a measure of insanity is inherent in the barbarian way, and while he is certainly right that insanity runs in the clan, on the next page he blames this form of madness on God! The Lord, he says, is the one who makes us “passionately” crazed and unbalanced in the spiritual sense. McManus says on page 65 that John the Baptist acted insane. Again, as serenely as I can...No, he didn’t! A quick check of the Bible’s hall of faith in Hebrews 11 shows that many of God’s true servants “…went about in sheepskins, in goatskins, being destitute, afflicted, ill treated…wandering in deserts and mountains and caves and holes in the ground” (Hebrews 11:37-38). Anyone familiar with the Old Testament writings in John’s time would certainly have remembered those heroes of the faith. Certainly they, or he, did not act like madmen. Even many of their enemies recognized that they were sent by God! They were not followers of some mystical “barbarian mad way”....
These below are Contradictions if we look at what Paul tells his Ephesus church in Chapter 6 that your protection is in: 1. the covering of truth 2. right 3. peace 4. covering of faith 5. the covering of salvation 6. the word of the Spirit. 7. in your spirit pray and watch and find purpose.
Page 61
1. it is not about having the right things
2. it is not about a reasonable faith.
3. it is not about faith but experience.
4. it is not about discipleship because discipleship is about standardization. (64)
5. He said God wants uniqueness and not uniformity.
Erwin concludes his proof by saying, "You can't escape that John acted like a madman" and "that God drove him out of his mind." He also states, "Paul considered going out of his mind." (65)
The concept of 'truth in advertising'
I think Erwin has earned the respect that when he writes something he means what he says. The content of this book has an explicitness of meaning and is to be read and to be taken from that meaning. He makes his case that you either get this and are in - or - you are not apart of this 'way' and are out.
Terri on the other hand, is one to make excuses for conveyors of information who speak about 'true spirituality'. She says they maybe off quite a bit, but "who isn't". But what they mean deep down inside is true so the rest can be discarded. They can say some right so anything they say wrong is just to be shrugged off. You can't have perfection, therefore she says, you must allow for some bad ideas along side the good ones. This reasoning process is the exact area where we must focus on like a laser beam. For Terri says that the 'Barbarian Way' has an outside container of thinking by Erwin that is flawed and may have some poorly elucidated comparisons about those 'bad barbary's' but the inside is full of real value; this is where Erwin gets it. But Erwin must disagree with this appeasing stance. For he stands up for the whole of his book and seeks for others to do so also.
Can you be only a little wrong, but you've got a good heart, when you have a contained fire and you let it get out of control and it becomes a large scale uncontained fire? No. You were either doing it correctly or you correct your plan and change what isn't working with that which will.
Can you be only a little wrong, but you have good intentions, when you say that DNA matches are correct but can sometimes be irrelevant at the same time? No. The DNA sequences either match or they don't; you can't say there are mistakes - but - are worth respecting the contradictions. Because the technician is a good guy.
Can you be only a little wrong, but be trusted anyway, when you deliberately misrepresent historical data? No.
Can you be just a little wrong, if you agree with Scotland's cabinet leader and the recent release of Lockerbie bomber Al Megrahi. In this example it would be highly clarifying how you understand compassion versus justice.
Can you be only a little wrong, but keep on teaching others anyway, that the 'law of attraction' is true when it is not? No. The law is true or it is not. This law is bogus where the Law of noncontradiction is always a cause which has an effect.
Can you be only a little wrong, if you say that the maker of the universe isn't always rational and sane? The answer will dramatically infer what your worldview is.
Can you be a little wrong, but esteemed in whatever you say, when you promote the model for 'Global Warming' when these very models have been demonstrated to be false? No, Whatever your intention is, if the model is wrong you are wrong. Science bears this out in one direction or the other and for reasons that can be proven time and again.
( I think that is why Erwin wars against rational congruity. Because he can't have a prayer that his statements are worthy of even thinking on if The Creator is always a reasonable God. But if he can persuade others that you don't need reason and can be irrational and be a part of the God of the Universe then he has broken down the garrison of truth being true and comporting with reality without any exception.)
Gods Workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do. Ephesians 2:10. When John the Baptist and then Paul came and preached they preached the Kingdom, they didn't just preach salvation. Kingdom, simply put, is rulership -- ownership. God is in charge of you. He owns you because He purchased you and then He rules you. People who are Christians in the Kingdom act like they are under rulership. A madman will not acquiesce to that. Only sane people understand rulership. Insanity will not bring a humble spirit of discernment or a logical mind to bear on the days events. Erwin twists so far in his confidence to make John out to be what he wants him to be he simply dismisses that reality isn't his friend. For his somersaults are just not who John the 2nd cousin of Jesus was. Erwin should really be complementing Herod Antipas, the Tetrarch, for he was the uncivil and rash desirer of his half brothers wife Herodias, which the sane man John, the austere prophet and baptiser condemned. Herod Antipas seemed to be covetously mad in the best sense of the barbarian way. But Erwin seems never to be impeded from making things that are already understood facts into things that never were. The idea that John was insane and God brought it upon him, is as true as the story that God was a man once upon a time, and became, ultimately, a God; and just like that he made other gods like him who will be full fledged Gods too. Erwin is as fact based as this claim is. With a mind filled up with madness they would both be right simultaneously. They should sit down and have dinner together and congratulate themselves on such profundity. Bring Antipas to the feast also, he would have some tales of raw passionate exploit to tell. When somebody makes the farcical to act factual; keep your wits about you.
Which leads me to another point— I have been training myself, especially in the last decade, to take on the requirements and standards of a scriptural teacher, in terms of language, context and meaning. Erwin is bringing his own teaching elements and if what I am saying is true, the resulting confusion among those he influences is laid squarely on his shoulders. James said, “Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we shall incur a stricter judgment” (James 3:1). If he had of called his book the 'God's Ownership Way' he wouldn't have had that renegade spirit he desires and that postmodern deconstruction value he likes to utilize.
My review is much less important than Andrew McCarthy and his book; 'Willful Blindness'
For all McManus’ references to the Celtic barbarian, he never quite gets around to telling the reader what they were really like. Your fathers line was from Scotland and I have Irish on my mothers side. I am a student of history and know the belief system of the Irish and Scottish forebears. Believe me, if there was anything in the spiritual lives of our ancient forebears to brag on I would most certainly make it known. But before Christ they were pagans (barbarians) who the bible refers to as enemies of God by nature. Their method was decapitation of their conquered foes, ritual human sacrifice and worship of any number of woodland or other gods. this and much more made up part of the life of the barbarian Celt or euro-Aryan horde or tribe.
Somewhere along the way Erwin says, "the movement of Jesus Christ became a civilized Christianity," he writes. "We created a religion using the name of Jesus Christ and convinced ourselves that God's optimal desire for our lives was to insulate us in a spiritual bubble where we risk nothing, sacrifice nothing, lose nothing, worry about nothing. I wonder how many of us have lost our barbarian way and have become embittered with God, confused in our faith because God doesn't come through the way we think He should." When he says, "We created"...Who is he talking about? "...a spiritual bubble where we risk nothing, sacrifice nothing, lose nothing, worry about nothing..." Who could he possibly be referring to? Is he pointing to all, some, a few, the lawyers, his friends, his mother-in-law, the socialites with class envy or the stubble and tares that have always lived inside the church system? So what if they do. That doesn't make Christianity to be warred against as he does, quite passionately, in this short book.
My book title maybe called the Berean Way
He defines the "barbarian way" as being about love, intimacy, passion and sacrifice. "Barbarians love to live and live to love. For them God is life, and their mission is to reconnect humanity to Him. Their passion is that each of us might live in intimate communication with Him who died for us. The barbarian way is a path of both spirit and truth. The soul of the barbarian is made alive by the presence of Jesus." Defining barbarians like this as counter cultural is quite chick. But, to me, it has the charm and definitional vagueness of redefining marriage to mean something it has never meant before. To give it a modern and dramatically different definition and stance. And making it appear as if the barbar's mysticism hadn't changed but the Christ follower has changed. This hearkens to a SNL skit where make believe is pushed as believable and true. That water isn't really wet and goodness is also bad. How far is the reader willing to go to suspend sound judgement and the real analogical use of language? Even if we were to accept his definition of barbarian for a second, what right-thinking Christian would deny the importance of these qualities? What evangelical group is warring against the movement of love and sacrifice? If Erwin knows, he is only telling us that Christianity is on the skids and even DOA.
Part 2:
Hearing
The book states, "The Scriptures are filled with stories of women and men who heard God speak and acted as if hearing Him were normal." Also, "Jesus expected that those who were His followers would hear His voice, know His voice, and follow only His voice, even as He calls out by name and leads us on the barbarian way." I have covered this claim of Erwin's when I listened to him in March of '09. I wrote a detailed accounting of his sermon and whether it is worthy of being taken seriously. You may read my review of his lesson here.
Mystical redefined
McManus is enamored of the word “mystical”, and uses it repeatedly in his book. Again, he changes definitions to a new one he prefers. The word “mystic” in the Greek refers to someone who is involved with secret rites—i.e. a hidden way to God that is only for the initiated. Now, I understand that McManus probably does not mean this when he is speaking of a closer walk with God and intimate communion with Him. But it is important to use words corresponding to their actual meanings. That is what we have language for. [or am I to change language to mean whatever one wants it to mean?] To call a true follower of Jesus Christ a “mystic”, and his communion with God “mystical” is to mislead by redefining the word. Hinduism, Buddhism, and many world religions are mystical, but learning and following Christ is not. Harry Potter is about mysticism. I resist Erwin's take on Christianity. It is not eastern in it's philosophical system. Where you remove yourself by quieting and sitting in meditation and stamping out self and moving toward emptiness. Culminating, someday, in individual identity being abolished; hence enlightenment.
In this review I would like to say thought it superb the book by Ian Plimer; author of 'Heaven and Earth'
The author, on the back page, is an international consultant with a full calender and was spotlighted in conferences put on by such mega-church groups as the Willow Creek Association. The Willow Creek Association is composed of more than 11,000 member churches and sold a video entitled “Leadership Summit 2003: The Barbarian Way Out of Civilization.” Is this book about tearing down the form of 'civilized Christianity' directly referring to Willow Creek members? I am thinking or beginning to think he must start there. This is the emergent crowds way of finding their own style of Christianity. They have a need for a new and updated “true strain” as they condemn every other style as wrong, sub-Christian, unbiblical, stale, and irrelevant. This book gets veeeeeery far into leaving that impression. Is the barbarian way the 'new' way of following Christ? Similar to the former times of the Baptist way, Reformed way, the Anglican way, The Athanasius or Aquinas way?
I have no issue with people having primal and visceral reactions to ethical confluences; of how we ought to live. For I am fighting, here, on this battlefield in my own primal state of a heightened conscience. That this 'barbarian' book should not stand on the battlefield all by itself, without a worthy adversary. I will engage it and in a daring manner, with others, move it to the outskirts where all silly theories must lie.
What are some contemporary models of barbarism? Well, some rebel rule breakers could be the Hutu and the Tutsi. Hezbollah and Hamas and the Aryan Nation would fit the primal mystique. Mugave, Khadaffi, Ayatollah, Chavez and one of everyones favorite - Castro are high on anyones list of first class barbarists, thugs and do gooders for their own ideology. Graffiti vandals would fit this catagory. They love their own kind and own ways.
Jump off the ledge
Beginning on page 117, under the subheading “Jump School”, McManus tells of an incident involving his son, who climbed out the second story window of their home, stood on the roof and excitedly yelled to his dad for permission to jump. Okay, let’s reiterate—the kid is two stories off the ground and wanting permission from his father to jump. I just needed to say that twice to eliminate any misunderstanding. What is McManus’ response? Why, he gives hearty permission, of course, even remarking (in the book) on the pride he had in his son at the moment of his rooftop conquest. McManus’ wife, who is standing beside him, is (understandably) thoroughly alarmed and (understandably) shoots him a look that questions his sanity. Not sure he heard correctly, the son asks again if he can jump. Again the hearty endorsement from dad. McManus suggests the boy jump soon, for in the event of broken legs, a convenient trip to the hospital can be taken. McManus’ only other suggestion is that his son try to avoid the concrete when he lands, and hit the grass instead.
The boy jumps.
For the life of me I cannot figure this one out. I have never before heard of this kind of behavior from a parent. Two stories is a long way to fall for a young child (I don't know the age and would be important in deciding how loony this idea was). Broken legs, slipped disks, cranial injuries and death can easily result from this kind of fall. It happens all the time. But McManus esteems madness with some vigor so this does make sense to him. But—and this is the point—McManus was proud. He was proud of his son’s daring, and later in the chapter equates his attitude with a desire to let his children enter the barbarian way. No stultifying, civilized “Christianity” for them. He won’t raise them in the “cocoon of a domesticated faith”. He equates taking wild chances as a youngster with a faith that is truly lived to its fullest. Without proving my case here this is not true faith. I remember one example of the Mr. Linkletter's daughter jumping out or her window or ledge with deadly consequences. I highly doubt if he would have 'alignment' with the author on his praise of his boys event. With the lack of precaution, one would need to feign approval to be so foolish as to find Erwin's parenting method to be anything but stupendously dumb.
I would never regard this form of faith as an intelligent, spiritually active, meritorious scriptural faith. It is a faith never approached as mature or given by God, in the bible. [Whether the special one time circumstances of Gideon and his men are anywhere close to what he was proud of in this method can be solved by reasoning: did God ever sanction it for anyone else?] I would also be in opposition of this method being employed in the raising of any sons or daughters. I find this a strange tale. Did Erwin have things under his control like firemen training for some difficult situation with safety checks and back up drills so nothing goes wrong? No. It is telling as to how he sees faith. This type of faith is never praised except in his book. How about encouraging his friends of jumping out of cars or running against traffic?
But I will say that if this were the only thing in this book that seemed out of bounds then I would be much more passionate in his defense. For this is an area where men of good repute can see things a tad differently. There may be a part of the story he didn't convey that would make it more sane and capable of a teaching moment for the father and his son. And he new the risks and must of been willing to live with the possible broken body parts. The reengineering of who Christ is, a new version according to Erwin, is where I am aiming.
Watch out, you will get shot
He draws a useful hermeneutic in saying that Jesus refers to a Kingdom of the Spirit and being born into this existing eternal world, rather than a maternity ward again. But he goes off into saying we have some "wrong conclusions" therein (126). He says, we are dropped off into a war zone. Well, he may be assuming he is communicating with Jesus but I don't think he is picking up the Jesus signal. Though McManus may like combat movies or commando raid movies he can't make the 'second birth' about the army and marines coming on Omaha Beach in 1944. He gives his best effort though. I thought John Eldridge pushed favorably from this dimension. But he was speaking of a heart and mind alive and growing towards the endevours of life. But McManus is bringing the verbiage and regard for warfare and military similes as the de rigeur way of making sense of things. The de facto mode of living, as if we are being dropped from a plane from 40,000 feet. The more I read of his commitment to this formula for a barbarian paradigm the more I disdain his thesis and illogic.
McManus’ little book has received kudos in many circles. In reality there is not much to analyze here. The book is long on inspiration and virtually non-existent on substance. It is in essence a 140 page pep rally for his new paradigm. There is nothing wrong with pep rallies; we all need to be encouraged and challenged to step up to the opportunities afforded us by Christ. But McManus seriously overplays his hand. He is highly critical of any who do not accept his “barbarian way,” calling them "domesticated, civilized Christians" (p. 12) and equating them to the Pharisees and Judaism of the first century (pp. 15, 59, 114) . What McManus and those who applaud him miss is that Jesus never condemned the Jews for their religious system (God set most of it in place) nor for their complacency (their religious enthusiasm was everywhere evident). He condemned the Pharisees for invalidating the Word of God with their own staged agenda (Matthew 15:1-9) and the people for following that agenda. This would be the exact concern Jesus would have with the barbarian way. McManus and friends have great enthusiasm for their agenda—but is it God’s agenda? From The Barbarian Way it would be almost impossible to tell if God is with him or not. McManus only shares his views on the gospel that are recaste to appear apropos of his creed. Scripture or any doctrine of importance to the first or second generation Christians is not shared. We are simply to follow Christ and live as, "savages—without rules or boundaries, except the boundary of love." (92)
But on the contrary, from Abraham to Moses to David to Daniel to Sarah to Abigail to Hosea and Simeon they may have started in "faith" as maybe having a barbaric mindset but over the course of time were transformed to civilized (hagios) men and women. They had standards, praised rules and decorum, comported themselves in society with wisdom, were of exceptional character, winsome and lacked the primal carnality of their earlier and former natures. A barbarian no more.
Timothy is not alive
McManus talks of Paul, as a barbarian, losing a son, Timothy, to the civilized way (121). I've really never seen a characterization of Timothy in such a weird and plainly atypical way. He rips Timothy with words such as 'latent faith', 'not alive in the Spirit', and 'lacking Paul's barbarian fathering' of Timothy. He goes on and makes note of a husband and wife who want to bring their second son up in the 'barbarian way' because their first son was to civilized (121). Seems to be wraped in such a way as only a true-believer cultist would applaud and want to mimic.
Lewis Caroll penned for Alice the words I think are merited to this book, "If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is because everything would be what it isn't. And contrary-wise; what it is it wouldn't be, and what it wouldn't be, it would. You see? "
Rhinoceros
Perhaps his best animal example of the barbarian way that McManus supplies is found in an illustration he gives about rhinos. Rhinos, he informs us, can run at thirty miles an hour but can only see thirty feet in front of them. The term used for a number of rhinos running at full speed is appropriately called a crash. Now, most people recognize rhinos as huge, dim-witted creatures that charge things with a highly developed defensive exterior. They do not create, they eat leaf matter and if provoked will annihilate that which is in their path. I have never heard a parent tell his child that he hopes she will grow up and have the characteristics of a rhino—e.g. be like a prey animal, don't learn much, be destructive, self-centered, have poor eyesight with binocular-like vision with the eyes on opposite sides of the head. To extend some details of the Rhino it's hearing is exceptional, they hear the faintest noise in a thorn bush and from this will occasion flight. And have an acute sense of smell. But McManus sees the rhino as the barbarian’s mascot and prime example. Speaking of the mannerisms of rhinos McManus writes, “That’s what happens when we become barbarians and shake free of domestication and civility. The church becomes a crash” (p. 138). [doing a little research the rhino's sight is poor, but, the rhino cannot see clearly a person past 50 m or a 170 feet distance in open ground. That is different than 30. Let's say they can make out a person from 125 feet for fairness and can change directions readily.]
This is truly amazing—yet totally consistent with what McManus is promoting in this book. The barbarian way is that of highly motivated, heart based, spiritual gnostic-mystics, over-the-top entrepreneurs, each madly pursuing his own vision of what God would have. To the barbarian there are no rules, all traditions and rituals are boring and must be demolished, and there is no indication, at least that I could find, that even the Bible should define or set boundaries for barbarians. What McManus is propagating is for Christians to charge full speed ahead giving no thought about what they might trample or destroy in the process.
President Obama in his public pleas for a 9 trillion gov't operated Health plan appears to be truly upset that his benign view of it isn't obvious to all. In his op-ed Sunday, August 22, for the New York Times he said, "We'll cut hundreds of billions in waste and inefficiency in federal health programs like Medicare and Medicaid." Hundreds of billions? Just like that? With no evidence of ever having done it before. This is nothing but an assertion by one self confident man. Facts show that this man is standing in field full of evidence to the contrary. It's close to Peter Pan telling the children that thinking lovely thoughts will make them fly. So it is similar with this book, where the author seems to make a worthy effort to make us want to believe in his tale of primal values as the path to living. Even if he has to change and redefine facts to fit his solution. His story telling method is akin to the story in Alice in Wonderland where the Mad Hatter said, "words are, whatever I want them to mean." Nomenclature plopped on its ear.
Follow Jephthah
One more note of interest: McManus opens and closes The Barbarian Way with an example of the Old Testament judge Jephthah (Judges 11:1-3). He is apparently the perfect picture of a barbarian, the likes of which we should follow and emulate. While Jephthah was a wild man, a mighty warrior and one who drew “worthless” men to his cause (11:3), there is no indication in Scripture that Jephthah actually walked with God. More importantly, in true barbarian fashion, Jephthah made a rash vow promising to sacrifice the first thing that came out of his house upon his return from a victorious battle with Ammon. As you recall, it was his only daughter who walked through that door and Jephthah the barbarian, in complete contradiction to the expressed will of God (cp. Leviticus 18:21), actually sacrificed her (Judges 11:29-40). Is this really the kind of hero we should make as an example? Maybe you agree with Erwin, for his barbarian way is even better represented by contradicting his wife and telling his son to jump off the window (pp. 117-119) or of men at his church retreat stripping naked to play tug-a-war (pp. 131-133). Indeed these examples are barbaric but David would not be one of them. Erwin trys to bring David to his side but he is wrong about David. For he was exhuberant but did not strip naked, he wore an ephod.
Paul spoke of a similar people when he said of the Jews of a certain area, “For I testify about them that they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge” (Romans 10:2). This is the true barbarian way: a zeal untamed by the truth of the Word. It is not the pathway to which the Christian is called, in my opinion.
should you take the bait? Do you want to be a barbarian?
He should be speaking against the barbarian way. Even confronting the barbarians of our time that wish to bring chaos and destruction to America through their primal desire to rule. For instance, an EMP burst launched from a Shahab-3 rocket that if detonated 200 miles above St. Louis, will result in every electric transformer being destroyed or fried, in all of the 50 states. No electricity for 4-8 years after the burst. That will bring no food, disease and over time 2/3 of the population dying. Now that is barbaric. The present administration is not protecting or advancing any funds to protect from this sobering possible reality. But that is just me finding fault with those ornery barbary pirates of the 21st century.
There will always be religious compulsions in the human being and in almost any form and orientation. Erwin seems to slam other's religious tendencies and then directly publishes a book bringing new ritual and dogma within lopsided institutuions of his own. We probably have much we agree on but my ire is at him formulating a new Jesus. A new slant and formula of how his disciples and learners thought and lead their life. Stealing terms and meaning to fit his own mindset. Esteeming ideas that have no reason to be taken seriously. What is the bottom line. Is it that Jesus Christ wants or doesn’t want us to mimic barbarians. The barbarian heart is the one from which He has delivered us, it would seem to me. That “primal”, sensual, I’ve-got-to-be-me attitude that casts off restraint has no place in the Christian walk. As romantic as that distant era of violence and wild living might seem to Erwin, we can’t go back, and we don’t really want to. There’s nothing back there for us to admire of Barbarism and todays barbars are just as corrosively wicked. The true barbarian way—brutal, self-serving, impulsed—needs to remain exposed and be resisted today by every new barbarians on the block. His book seems to stand up for The Dissembling Way; but in the end, I think it is only The new religion of McManus Way.
Perhaps his best animal example of the barbarian way that McManus supplies is found in an illustration he gives about rhinos. Rhinos, he informs us, can run at thirty miles an hour but can only see thirty feet in front of them. The term used for a number of rhinos running at full speed is appropriately called a crash. Now, most people recognize rhinos as huge, dim-witted creatures that charge things with a highly developed defensive exterior. They do not create, they eat leaf matter and if provoked will annihilate that which is in their path. I have never heard a parent tell his child that he hopes she will grow up and have the characteristics of a rhino—e.g. be like a prey animal, don't learn much, be destructive, self-centered, have poor eyesight with binocular-like vision with the eyes on opposite sides of the head. To extend some details of the Rhino it's hearing is exceptional, they hear the faintest noise in a thorn bush and from this will occasion flight. And have an acute sense of smell. But McManus sees the rhino as the barbarian’s mascot and prime example. Speaking of the mannerisms of rhinos McManus writes, “That’s what happens when we become barbarians and shake free of domestication and civility. The church becomes a crash” (p. 138). [doing a little research the rhino's sight is poor, but, the rhino cannot see clearly a person past 50 m or a 170 feet distance in open ground. That is different than 30. Let's say they can make out a person from 125 feet for fairness and can change directions readily.]
This is truly amazing—yet totally consistent with what McManus is promoting in this book. The barbarian way is that of highly motivated, heart based, spiritual gnostic-mystics, over-the-top entrepreneurs, each madly pursuing his own vision of what God would have. To the barbarian there are no rules, all traditions and rituals are boring and must be demolished, and there is no indication, at least that I could find, that even the Bible should define or set boundaries for barbarians. What McManus is propagating is for Christians to charge full speed ahead giving no thought about what they might trample or destroy in the process.
President Obama in his public pleas for a 9 trillion gov't operated Health plan appears to be truly upset that his benign view of it isn't obvious to all. In his op-ed Sunday, August 22, for the New York Times he said, "We'll cut hundreds of billions in waste and inefficiency in federal health programs like Medicare and Medicaid." Hundreds of billions? Just like that? With no evidence of ever having done it before. This is nothing but an assertion by one self confident man. Facts show that this man is standing in field full of evidence to the contrary. It's close to Peter Pan telling the children that thinking lovely thoughts will make them fly. So it is similar with this book, where the author seems to make a worthy effort to make us want to believe in his tale of primal values as the path to living. Even if he has to change and redefine facts to fit his solution. His story telling method is akin to the story in Alice in Wonderland where the Mad Hatter said, "words are, whatever I want them to mean." Nomenclature plopped on its ear.
Follow Jephthah
One more note of interest: McManus opens and closes The Barbarian Way with an example of the Old Testament judge Jephthah (Judges 11:1-3). He is apparently the perfect picture of a barbarian, the likes of which we should follow and emulate. While Jephthah was a wild man, a mighty warrior and one who drew “worthless” men to his cause (11:3), there is no indication in Scripture that Jephthah actually walked with God. More importantly, in true barbarian fashion, Jephthah made a rash vow promising to sacrifice the first thing that came out of his house upon his return from a victorious battle with Ammon. As you recall, it was his only daughter who walked through that door and Jephthah the barbarian, in complete contradiction to the expressed will of God (cp. Leviticus 18:21), actually sacrificed her (Judges 11:29-40). Is this really the kind of hero we should make as an example? Maybe you agree with Erwin, for his barbarian way is even better represented by contradicting his wife and telling his son to jump off the window (pp. 117-119) or of men at his church retreat stripping naked to play tug-a-war (pp. 131-133). Indeed these examples are barbaric but David would not be one of them. Erwin trys to bring David to his side but he is wrong about David. For he was exhuberant but did not strip naked, he wore an ephod.
Paul spoke of a similar people when he said of the Jews of a certain area, “For I testify about them that they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge” (Romans 10:2). This is the true barbarian way: a zeal untamed by the truth of the Word. It is not the pathway to which the Christian is called, in my opinion.
should you take the bait? Do you want to be a barbarian?
He should be speaking against the barbarian way. Even confronting the barbarians of our time that wish to bring chaos and destruction to America through their primal desire to rule. For instance, an EMP burst launched from a Shahab-3 rocket that if detonated 200 miles above St. Louis, will result in every electric transformer being destroyed or fried, in all of the 50 states. No electricity for 4-8 years after the burst. That will bring no food, disease and over time 2/3 of the population dying. Now that is barbaric. The present administration is not protecting or advancing any funds to protect from this sobering possible reality. But that is just me finding fault with those ornery barbary pirates of the 21st century.
There will always be religious compulsions in the human being and in almost any form and orientation. Erwin seems to slam other's religious tendencies and then directly publishes a book bringing new ritual and dogma within lopsided institutuions of his own. We probably have much we agree on but my ire is at him formulating a new Jesus. A new slant and formula of how his disciples and learners thought and lead their life. Stealing terms and meaning to fit his own mindset. Esteeming ideas that have no reason to be taken seriously. What is the bottom line. Is it that Jesus Christ wants or doesn’t want us to mimic barbarians. The barbarian heart is the one from which He has delivered us, it would seem to me. That “primal”, sensual, I’ve-got-to-be-me attitude that casts off restraint has no place in the Christian walk. As romantic as that distant era of violence and wild living might seem to Erwin, we can’t go back, and we don’t really want to. There’s nothing back there for us to admire of Barbarism and todays barbars are just as corrosively wicked. The true barbarian way—brutal, self-serving, impulsed—needs to remain exposed and be resisted today by every new barbarians on the block. His book seems to stand up for The Dissembling Way; but in the end, I think it is only The new religion of McManus Way.
“So let us know, let us press on to know the LORD,
His going forth is as certain as the dawn;And He will come to us like the rain, Like the spring rain watering the earth”
(Hosea 6:3).
