Customer Reviews

Beyond Radical

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(4)

 

 

I'm a Christian who agrees one hundred percent that the questions asked in this book deserve critical consideration. Unfortunately, rather than objective and critically considered responses supported by referenced research, we find a presentation, excessively sarcastic much of the time, of Mr. Edwards personal opinions. It is clear that Mr. Edwards has done a bit of research and has formed his own conclusions, but there is not a full or even a partial presentation of the evidence. If the subject matter were presented as opinion then I suppose this would not be of great concern, but the opinions are mixed with a sufficient smattering of uncited facts and scriptural references that an undiscerning reader will probably percieve the text as authoritative. In spite of the author's apparent good intentions to help make Christians aware of the issues surrounding the practices of the modern protestant church, I was turned off by the lack of any support for the presented arguments, and especially by the "holier-than-thou" attitude and negative sarcasm that pervade the text.

Beyond Radical is precisely that! It asks the questions we always took for granted such as, why do we meet every Sunday at 11:00 am for church, why do churches have stained glass windows, pews, pulpits and yes even PASTORS! What! Aren't pastors scriptural? Well, after reading this book, much of modern day Christianity is left empty, naked and shallow w/ the Lord nowhere to be found. It will challenge everything you were taught about Christianity and "church". But do not fear, Gene also unfolds a beautiful alternative, namely church life the way it was meant to be experienced, New Testament style! If you are content w/ modern church life and all it's cliche formulas, then this book is not for you. However, if you are seeking a radical and exciting new way to live church life, than this book is for you! Gene will be your guide through history and scripture, revealing why we do all the things that are supposedly in the "clear teachings of God". After putting it down you will have to re-evaluate EVERYTHING you ever learned about church life and it's offices.

While it is important for us to question our practices, it is also important not to make groundless assumptions about them, or to be historically or scripturally presumtuous or inaccurate.

I had never read any of Mr. Edwards' books (he has written scores of them), but the title of this book intrigued me so I bought a copy and read it. I know that what is practiced by the "churches" today may well be wrong or misguided. I was looking for a book that would lay out a historical foundation and give a biblical answer. This book does neither.

Mr. Edwards makes broad assumptions about historical facts. He tosses out statements that may or may not be true. He makes statements such as, "The inventor of [the normal order of a Sunday service] was John Calvin. About 1540." (page 39). But Mr. Edwards gives no references, no documentaion whatsoever. Are we simply to believe his assertions without any historical proof at all? I think not.

The same with Scriptural references. There are very few Scriptural references in this book. There are a couple of reasons for that, I believe. The first reason is that Mr. Edwards rails against the use of chapters and verses in the Bible. Since he opposes the use of chapters and verses it would be difficult for him to use those things to reference what he is trying to convey as Scriptural. The second reason for a lack of Scriptural references is that much of what Mr. Edwards teaches is Scripturally incorrect.

For instance, on page 73, Mr. Edwards states, "Paul left every church he ever raised up... without any leaders. No leaders of any sort." Then he says on pages 57-58, "If you have anyone local who is a leader; if you have leaders... there will be no revolution. No, we must move far beyond such worn out ways." Does Mr. Edwards give Scriptural references for such outlandish statements? Of course not. How could he? The Bible teaches just the opposite of what he pridefully tosses out. Consider Acts 14:21-23. "And when they [Paul and his companions] had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed." (verse 23 KJV). Mr. Edwards evidently considers the Book of Acts "worn out ways" that must be gone beyond. Perhaps we should reference 2 John 9 about how far we should go.

Having ranted, let me also say that Christianity does desparately need reformation. We need to become what the Bible calls us to become. However, haphazzard historical "facts" and unbiblical religious ideas are not the way. We need a radical return to Scripture - to Spirit and Truth, Word and Practice.

If you believe that I am being too critical, please consider just what it would take to convince you of historical facts or Scriptural teachings. Are you easily convinced of things without historical or biblical proof? There are those who claim that the holocaust never happened. But the historical facts prove otherwise. Mr. Edwards' historical claims MUST be backed up with documentation or they hold no power at all. As to Scriptural teachings, we MUST be Berean. "These [Bereans] were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so." (Acts 17:11 KJV).

I have nothing against house churches. They may well be the most biblical of all Christian gatherings. But you won't find any legitimate fodder for that idea in this book. I suggest that the seeker read the works of T. Austin-Sparks or even Watchman Nee.

Dr. Mike Kear

I can't even begin to describe the shake-up this book is causing and will continue to cause. It's a straight-up, stream-lined preach on what is (and why it's like that) the fundamentals of church life.

If you're a believer who *knows* that what there is in 'church' is not all that it should be, or could be, then read this book. If you're a believer who senses the coming revolution and want some solid insight, read this book. If you want a bone-rattling read regarding your faith and its tenets - READ THIS BOOK. You'll not view your church (institution) life the same ever again.

Can't recommend this title highly enough. Read the full body of Mr. Edwards' works; they're all gems.

Gene Edwards sees himself as a modern-day prophet who wants to call the Church back to its apostolic roots. These are noble goals, and Edwards is not afraid to think outside of the box.

But unfortunately, his arguments do not hold water, and his pride is overwhelming.

The primary argument of the book is that today's church should operate exactly like the apostolic church, as far as we know it in the book of Acts. Now Christians should should based their practices on the Bible. But that does not mean that we should do _nothing_ that is not contained in the book of Acts (which is basically Edwards' argument). Should we read Scripture on scrolls, because the early Christians did? Should we bathe irregularly to mimic first-century hygene? Unfortunately, Edwards' argument follows exactly along these lines.

In addition to this problematic idea, Edwards does not execute his argument well. He distorts and misuses Scripture to prove his point. Example: he says that churches should not be led by elders. His reason--the New Testament talks more often about brothers than elders. This is seriously his argument. (He uses the fact that most epistles were addressed to "The brothers in [city]" to imply that there were no elders in that city, which is an obvious fallacy.) He then goes on to ignore the Timothy passages about elders and overseers.

A quote that sums up the book:
"Most of the things we Protestants practice had their beginnings long after the first century. None of them began with any thought of being scriptural. _No one_ was thinking of the Word of God when they started these practices."

The pridefulness of this statement (and the rest of the book) is incredible. No one (his words) even thought of the Bible in developing Christian practices.

Edwards is even so prideful as to say that no one knows understands the New Testament except for him, because no one knows the chronological order of Paul's epistles. This is simply and obviously false--anyone who has taken a single college class on the New Testament has learned their chronological order. And yet, Edwards says, "even seminary professors with several doctoral degrees cannot tell you that story" (the story of Paul's epistles, in chronological order).

My advice: be wary of anyone who thinks that he alone knows the truth, and that no one else has ever understood the Apostles' teachings.

This book would likely appeal to conspiracy theorists. From a non-theological point of view, the text reminds one of an infomercial rather than an objective, or even mildly subjective, argumentation. I was very surprised by the language of this book. No doubt the church needs some changes, but the author misses a few facts, as stated in previous reviews, as well as the idea that acts of worship that got their roots in "hedonism" are still acts of worship. I don't buy that just because choirs began as a hedonistic practice, that God can't be worshiped through the act of harmonized, practiced singing in a group. I think it would be fair to say that people knelt at false alters long before the first century... should we not kneel before our God when praying for fear of hedonism? However, through the salesmen-like text, he pushes his points regardless throughout the book. Be careful of anything you read that is "sold" in this way, for it maybe betrays the author's trust in his own reasoning.

While Edwards' premises are factual, he does not document them, thus the analysis underlying his positions comes across as 'prideful' (as one reviewer put it). The same thesis is presented with considerably better documentation in Frank Viola's "Pagan Christianity: The Origins of Our Modern Church Practices". I understand that Viola is a friend and compatriot of Gene Edwards; he has done a far better job of making the case, in my view.

I'm a Christian who agrees one hundred percent that the questions asked in this book deserve critical consideration. Unfortunately, rather than objective and critically considered responses supported by referenced research, we find a presentation, excessively sarcastic much of the time, of Mr. Edwards personal opinions. It is clear that Mr. Edwards has done a bit of research and has formed his own conclusions, but there is not a full or even a partial presentation of the evidence. If the subject matter were presented as opinion then I suppose this would not be of great concern, but the opinions are mixed with a sufficient smattering of uncited facts and scriptural references that an undiscerning reader will probably percieve the text as authoritative. In spite of the author's apparent good intentions to help make Christians aware of the issues surrounding the practices of the modern protestant church, I was turned off by the lack of any support for the presented arguments, and especially by the "holier-than-thou" attitude and negative sarcasm that pervade the text.

The history of where we get all of our familiar items in the religious institution is quite interesting. However, there are two areas where he shows verse numbers and the ordering of the books of the New Testament are apparently not of God, in that we have them this way by man and of man's traditions. Gene seems to leave out the crucial part about God being sovereign over and over again. Did not God promise to keep His Word pure and preserve His Word? In my studies I have found the verse numbers to be inspired of God. As far as the arrangement in chronological order of the books, Gene apparently was able to understand this and I believe that God had purposely placed them in this order. Gene has a tendency in these areas to deny the sovereignty and power of God to do what He has promised. It is not only apparent that Gene denies the sovereignty of God, but that of Jesus as well in being the head of the Church as in this, the brethren displace Jesus to do what they see fit in every situation. There is never shown a waiting on the Lord, but the decisions of the brethren to do what they will.
Gene shows the seminaries to not be of God and then turns right around later in proving his reasons for supporting the order of the books of the Bible, by these seminary trained religious scholars. This seems like some type of circle logic, in that a thing is supported by things that have been denied as being false. Shouldn't we stand on the truth and measure all things by the truth, the very Word of God?

It would seem that Gene is able to understand all things, even though God did not do His job right in preserving the Word of God through man, as God had promised. Gene has been able to compensate for the failings of God, by showing how God should have, not numbered His verses and that He should have placed them in the chronological order that Gene wants.

Where does Gene praise the Lord or lift up Jesus? Where does Gene give glory to God? Is this praise and glory to continue to go to the "brethren" instead of the head of the brethren, Jesus Christ? Why is it that God and Jesus are denied thought the whole book?

The experiencing of "church" life is in experiencing Jesus, lead and direct His Church through the obedient brethren in any proper group under Jesus Christ as the Head of the body of Christ. Remember He is the author and finisher of our faith.

Gene is right in studying the things of God and placing them in a chronological order in the mind of the believer, but remember that Jesus spoke in parables, so are these things in our Bibles, not in chronological order. Thinks of the books of the prophets in the Old Testament. Some of their prophecies are not yet come to pass and would have to be split up in order to put all that is written in a chronological order. Many of these things have more than one meaning as well as for different time periods.

The general concepts are correct in that the church does not need leaders as in pastors or priests, however Gene is wrong in not showing the that the head of the Church is Jesus Christ and the brethren are to obediently follow and operate in the leading of Christ in all they do.

As Gene has written here, the praise and the glory are to be given to the brethren instead of Jesus as the head of the "Church".

'Beyond Radical' was a timely & refreshing view (for me) of some insights about the disciples in the 1st century, & their 'view' of church 'government'... Or as Edwards makes the case; the lack of church government, ie. pastors & elders as we would think of them today. He lays a quickie foundation of church history, & then travels chronologically through Acts while paralling that story with Paul's epistles, focusing on the terms & ideas expressed by the writers to bring home his points. He brings his points out 'rapid fire', and however, is sometimes heavy with what sounds like bitter sarcasm.

As a 'layman', I've long been troubled by the fact that there doesn't exist one single example of a full time pastor in the New Testament; yet the local 'christian' church is built on that cornerstone. Edwards sheds light on this reality & other realitys like it, and although everyone won't agree with all his conclusions & what they imply, (myself included) I think everyone SHOULD consider his insights & arguments.

B.A. Davis