Book Announcement: Kingdom Come

[BValentine]

John Mark Hicks (of David Lipscomb University) and Bobby Valentine (of Southside Church of Christ) have collaborated on a project called

Kingdom Come: Embracing the Spiritual Legacy of David Lipscomb and James Harding (Leafwood/ACU Press, 2006)

This work can now be ordered through Leafwood Press or Amazon.com (though at the moment Amazon is having some issues with the "image" of the book). 

This book is a combination of church history and theology aimed at kingdom living in a postmodern world.  The intended audience are those who sit on the pews on Sundays and go to the office on Mondays (or drive the truck).

You can order the book from Leafwood at this address http://www.leafwoodpublishers.com/

The Leafwood window will pop up, then click on "Church History" in the left column and you will see the image of the book (click and it will enlarge) OR simply type in the title of the book (Kingdom Come) at the top of the page.

I look forward to hearing from you on the book.

Shalom,
Bobby Valentine
http://stoned-campbelldisciple.blogspot.com/

[Lee Freeman]

Yesterday Amazon said it'll be available May 2. I think the subject matter is long overdue. How many of us actually know the true beliefs and legacy of these two giants from our history whom two of our universities were founded and named after? As Leonard Allen said in Distant Voices, for whatever reason, these two guys' voices (among many others) were relegated to the margins in churches of Christ. It's time they were restored to their rightful place. I think a lot of people will be pleasantly surprised.

Pax.

[BValentine]

That some will be surprised by DL's and JAH's veiws on things is beyond question.  Whether it will be a "pleasant" experience for them is something I am waiting to see.  I believe there are things in our book that will make folks on the right extremely unhappy and I think there are things in our book that will make folks on the left just as unhappy.

But I believe every line of the book. 

At the very least the book should be INTERESTING.   I believe that the things discussed in the book can help make us more spiritually healthy.

Shalom,
Bobby Valentine

check out my blog: http://stoned-campbelldisciple.blogspot.com/

[Lee Freeman]

The more I read by and about Lipscomb the more I appreciate him and his views. I'd love to go back in time and meet this venerable old patriarch (and one or two of his cronies). I'm amazed that Foy Wallace could've regarded Lipscomb's views as dangerous; disagreeing with him is one thing, but to call him a false teacher.

Pax.

[BValentine]

There are superficial resemblances between Lipscomb and Wallace in their theology. For example:

1) they both opposed IM
2) they both opposed a MS

However, at the core, the heart, DL and FEW's theology was radically different.  It is the internal differences that cause the surface agreement to vanish.  At its heart Lispcomb's theology was radically God centered and Kingdom oriented.  It was not human centered and "church" oriented.  Wallace's theology is radically anthropocentric and institutionally oriented (i.e. church). 

David Lipscomb's theology produced a man of profound humility and simplicity.  A man of incredible tolerance for diversity (this will blow most myths about DL completly out of the water . . . from whatever direction it might come). 

FEW's theology produced a man of incredible arrogance and often out of control in his personal habits.  He could not tolerate any disagreement with him whatsoever. 

Encourage folks to read the book there if Florence . . .

The book is easy to read but does have some challenging concepts in it. 

Shalom,
Bobby Valentine
http://stoned-campbelldisciple.blogspot.com/

[OldDad]

Bobby,

Could you share a little about how the collabration between you and your co-author worked?

I'm interested to hear how two people work together to write a book.

Thanks,

OD

[Lee Freeman]

Bobby,

Could you share a little about how the collabration between you and your co-author worked?

I'm interested to hear how two people work together to write a book.

Thanks,

OD

That's something I've always wondered. Did you each write certain chapters? As for gettin' the word out, Billy Ray's already written about it in the church bulletin and we'll get a copy for the church library.

Pax.

[BValentine]

Bobby,

Could you share a little about how the collabration between you and your co-author worked?

I'm interested to hear how two people work together to write a book.

Thanks,

OD

That's something I've always wondered. Did you each write certain chapters? As for gettin' the word out, Billy Ray's already written about it in the church bulletin and we'll get a copy for the church library.

Pax.

Great Lee.  What you and Billy Ray need to do is go up front with a copy and say "We need to out sell Dan Brown!!! :-)

Shalom,
Bobby Valentine

[kanham]

Why does what those men thought matter? A group in the CoC seems to be wrestling with what it means to be the CoC. Is that the reason some think it matters?

I still don't understand why it should matter what they thought. Anyone have thoughts? Is this not the place for the discussion?

[Arkstfan]

Why does what those men thought matter? A group in the CoC seems to be wrestling with what it means to be the CoC. Is that the reason some think it matters?

I still don't understand why it should matter what they thought. Anyone have thoughts? Is this not the place for the discussion?

Well it is useful in figuring out how we got where we are.

The politics can be quite interesting. The Campbells would have been run out of the movement by Wallace and company due to their "false" millenial views. To me that is quite interesting simply because it serves as an alert that our forebears did not see that as doctrine to divide over until more recent times.

[boringoldguy]

Why does what those men thought matter? A group in the CoC seems to be wrestling with what it means to be the CoC. Is that the reason some think it matters?

I still don't understand why it should matter what they thought. Anyone have thoughts? Is this not the place for the discussion?

Kanham

It's become my belief after getting a bachelor's degree in history and then spending close to 30 years since then reading history, philosophy and a little about the philosophy of history and the history of philosophy . . .

that we benefit from reading history books not because we learn much about what the purported subjects of the history thought,  but because we can learn something about what and how the authors think.

Just my two cents.

[Lee Freeman]

Why does what those men thought matter? A group in the CoC seems to be wrestling with what it means to be the CoC. Is that the reason some think it matters?

I still don't understand why it should matter what they thought. Anyone have thoughts? Is this not the place for the discussion?

Ark already said it pretty well. However if we don't know where "we as a people" have been how will we know where we're going? We need to be aware of our culutral, theological, social, political and historical biases, which we can do in part by knowing something about our history.  A large part of who modern churches of Christ are is directly traceable to our "founders" and the guys who came after them. Knowing our history in part helps us identify what's purely cultrual or historical and temporary in our tradition and what's biblical and eternal.


Twelve years ago when I first discovered Stone-Campbell history (I grew up in the CoC yet had never even heard of these guys) I was shocked, and I mean shocked, to discover that they held views which I had been taught all my life were false views. These guys were grace-centered nearly 200 years before Rubel Shelly or Max Lucado was even born! Ark is right, if Campbell, Stone, Richardson, Larimore, Loos, etc., came back to our time they would every single one of them get "written up" as "false teachers."

The modern church of Christ looks very little like the Movement founded by Stone and the Campbells. Personally, I want to know as much as possible about how it got off track and how we might get it back on track.

Pax.

[Lee Freeman]

Interpretation is a large part of doing history. No one approaches the past totally objectively anyway. However historians must attempt objectivity. Having known Bobby ever since junior high and read his articles for years I can reassure everyone that he has maintained his objectivity to the fullest extent humanly possible.

Pax.

[kanham]

I understand that but if it hasn’t impacted my experience then what does it matter? I was raised in a CoC like many others that would seem to have been influenced by Wallace et al. So what benefit is there to me, who has already rejected that way of thinking to find I wasn’t the first and in fact am more like the first ones?

How does it change things? What impact could it have? I guess I still don’t understand unless one is trying to say WE are the true owners of the CoC heritage not those who were influenced by Foy Wallace.

[boringoldguy]

Kanham's question raises a big issue -  what can we learn from studying history.

We're all familiar with George Santayana's aphorism about those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.  (Our high school history teachers made us learn it.)

Fewer are aware of Aldous Huxley's observation that the only thing we can learn from history is that nobody learns anything from history.

I happen to think Lee Freeman's statements about what we learn from history are so optimistic as to be almost fantasy.

A careful study of history is a good way to learn about human behavior, and especially about the ways people behave in relation to groups of one kind or another.   In my opinion, that's more than enough reason to study the subject.

But the idea that a knowledge of history can prevent us from making the same mistakes people before us have made is, as I said before,  fantastic.