Customer Reviews

A Tale of three Kings: A Study in Brokenness

5 star:		(85)
4 star:		(14)
3 star:		(7)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(7)

 

 

Do you work or live with a tyrant? Got a spoiled brat in your life? David did. Had both. He served a crazy king who tried to kill him and had a vain, self-absorbed son who tried to usurp him. Both nearly succeeded.

How David coped with these insane situations with God's love, grace, and wisdom have changed my life. The patience, respect for God, surrender, and trust in the Lord spoke powerfully to me through the years of history between us. David's unique reactions revealed Jesus Christ to me in a new way.

David's struggles dwarfed mine but the lessons of his life challenged me to become a better Christian - a man of honor - a man of God.

Gene Edwards has a gift for cutting through difficult topics on a unique slant. He brings a new level of understanding to old problems, stories, and issues. There were times when reading this book that I had to stop, lay it down, and catch my breath as new revelation washed over me.

A strong recommendation for the thoughtful believer who is willing to go to the next level of faith.

A Tale Of Three Kings is a an awesome piece of Christian literature. If you are tired of all the "holy spirit, healing, prosperity, achieving wealth through biblical principles" type books, than Gene Edwards is your man. In this book, Gene lays out a refreshing perspective on brokeness that is not quite traditional in mainstream "Sunday school, pulpit preachings". Through his wonderful and simplistic story telling style, Gene goes into the depths of the hearts of three kings, namely King Saul, King David, and King Absolom. Not only will this book aid in your journey towards the deep things of the Lord and His ways, but it will cause us to look into our very hearts and ask the question, "which heart of these Kings do I have....." Indeed men fix things that break, but after we read this book we emerge w/ the understanding that God breaks men to fix them.

In "A Tale of Three Kings" author Gene Edwards examines two relationships in the life of David - Saul and Absalom - and from them he draws insights that believers can apply to their own authority-related issues. Instead of approaching these Scriptural accounts like a traditional devotional writer, he retells the stories in a semi-fictionalized fashion. This approach yields some beautiful, moving prose that almost reads like poetry in places, but it also leaves the door open to the author inserting his own conjecture into the story. I'm willing to accept a little artistic license, but Edwards goes over the top in my opinion. For example, in the prologue he spins a pure fable in which God tells Gabriel to allow the yet-to-be-born spirits of David and Saul to choose their destinies. This "Mall of Unborn Destinies", as Edwards calls it, sounds more like Mormonism than Biblical Christianity. I doubt that the author meant it that way, but it illustrates the pitfalls of the fictionalizing approach.

Aside from style-related problems, Edwards does cull some meaningful insights from the story of David and Saul in Part 1. David's refusal to rebel against Saul, especially when he had the chance to kill him, is a powerful illustration of how we need to react to our authorities, even those who are abusing their position. The author makes some excellent points about how God used David's suffering to bring him to a point of brokenness, and how David always treated Saul as God's anointed despite his wicked behavior.

His observations in Part 2 are less helpful. He makes some good points about David's humble heart and how we need to examine ourselves and trust God when someone is challenging our authority, but he wrongly portrays David's reaction to Absalom's rebellion. When Joab asks David how he plans to respond, David says he plans "to do absolutely nothing" (p.72). As presented here, David knows about Absalom's rebellion before it happens, but refuses to do anything to forestall it; he just puts everything in God's hands and quietly leaves Jerusalem so God can reveal His will.

Edwards closes the book with this passive withdrawal, but the rest of the Biblical account gives some needed balance. Yes, David was submitted to Gods' will (cf. 2 Sam 15:25-26) but the Biblical text makes it pretty clear that David's departure was not a gracious withdrawal - Absalom had blindsided him, and he was fleeing for his life! "Arise, and let us flee; or else we shall not escape from Absalom. Make haste to depart, lest he overtake us suddenly and bring disaster upon us" (2 Samuel 15:14, NKJV).

After escaping capture, David sends several allies back to Jerusalem as spies (2 Samuel 15:27-37), and in 2 Sam 18:1-6, he organizes his loyal forces and sends them to attack Absalom's army. David was hardly doing "absolutely nothing"!

To sum it up, "A Tale of Three Kings" is skillfully written and has some helpful insights, but it overlooks the fact that a rebel can be confronted without being either a spear-throwing Saul or a complacent pacifist.

This book is must reading for every church leader. It is a study of the use and misuse of authority. In it, Edwards examines the lives of King Saul who demanded allegiance and held onto power at all cost; the life of King David who would not pursue power or hold onto it by force even when faced with rebellion; and David?s son, Absalom, the man who would become king by leading a rebellion.

The book was written especially to address the problem of submission and authority in the modern church. An underlying theme of this magnificent tale is that one cannot know for certain who are anointed by God and who are not; whom God has blessed and whom He as not. True leaders often make mistakes and pretenders to the crown can often look Godly; therefore, we should be very careful about passing judgment on our leaders.

These three simple stories convey more meaning and impact than a scholarly tome on authority. Edwards follows the example set by Jesus by telling simple stories to convey deep theological truths. His insight that leadership, even Godly leadership, is inherently flawed because God works through flawed people is excellent. Also worthy of note is the insight not to rush to judgment when condemning authority. The message needs to be heard in our impatient culture. Edwards notes that men who thought they were doing the will of God murdered both Jesus and Stephen.

There are two significant weaknesses in this book.. First, the story is incomplete. It ends with David retreating from Jerusalem with Absalom holding power. Edwards fails to tell us that the story really ends with David doing battle with the rebels and Absaloms subsequent death. David did fight for his throne. Second, we live in an age where everyone believes they have the inherent right to question authority. Edwards does not address the need to teach on authority and submission as contrasted with demanding it. Boomers and Xers often have no idea of submission. Even many who were born before World War II do not understand the biblical concept of authority; like Korah who rebelled against Moses, they hold to a democratic model of authority. If we do not each our people the biblical concepts of authority and submission, how will they learn?

This book is a sobering reminder that all church polity is ultimately congregational. Leaders cannot demand the allegiance of their people. If my people choose not to follow my leadership by withdrawing their attendance, offerings and service, I will fail as a leader. I was especially helped by Edwards observation that all kings have their critics. Leaders are flawed vessels of God?s anointing. Rebels may promise the world, but they can only deliver it with the cooperation of the people. If the people grow tired, wither the rebels dream may fail, or a dictatorship must be established.

Again, this book is must reading for all church leaders. As a political science major, B.S. University of Oregon, 1973, I found this book intriguing.

Gene Edwards uses the story of 3 kings (Saul, David and Absalom) to show the difference between the heart of Saul and the heart of David. It is written in a very simple format to read, but worded so that we reflect upon our own lives and see how much of a Saul or a David we are. There is a Saul in all of us that we need to realize, and Edwards writes reflectively to help reveal that Saul in us. Edwards also portrays David in a way that is not common, but yet I see the great possibility of David being such a king. It shows what a man after God's heart is like, as compared to a man after his own heart.

God is after brokenness in a person's life, but brokenness does not mean weakness, but it is strength under God's control. So why does God put us under authoritarian leadership? Edwards writes, "David the sheepherder would have grown up to become King Saul II, except that God cut away the Saul inside David's heart. That operation, buy the way, took years and was a brutalizing experience that almost killed the patient. And what were the scalpel and tongs God used to remove this inner Saul? God used the outer Saul. King Saul sought to destroy David, but his only success was that he became the instrument of God to put to death the Saul who roamed about in the caverns of David's own soul. Yes, David was virtually destroyed in the process, but this had to be. Otherwise the Saul in him would have survivied." (pg. 24-25)

Rebellion, legalism, power, authority, submission... are all shown in this story. How do we handle all these areas of our lives? Sometimes, we can come up with even the best reasons to do something that the Saul in us would want, rather than what God would want of us.

So how does Absalom come into the story? Read it and see for yourself the struggles that the man after God's heart would have to go through, literally all the days of his life.

A mystical quality lingers about this tale of the biblical kings Saul, David, and Absalom, and so it grows even on readers who have been well vaccinated against insipid allegorizing.

Anyone who has led and been hurt in the process-this may include anyone who has led-is a candidate for reading this brief, short-chaptered invitation to reflect upon power, who has it, what it does to those who hold it, and when to let go.

Edwards has worked in particular with members who have limped out of authoritarian Christian movements and appears to recognize the scars with clinical ease. Fortunately, he has in his sack a remedy or two, or perhaps an innoculation against similar misfortune in future. Oh, and salve for the enduring wound.

A very quick read, well worth the time invested.

I first read this book in one night at work 10 years ago, and it continues to affect my outlook and spiritual life today. This book has affected my life more than any other I've ever read (except the Bible, of course!) Gene Edwards takes emotionally- laden issues like submission to authority and pride, and presents them in a way that forces you to look at not the situation, but your response to it. Mr Edwards offers us a unique way to measure our motivations and responses to challenges we face against a godly framework. You will want to order several more to give away after you read this. God bless!

I have owned this book for years. The other night God had me to read this book at 11:30 pm. I read the first chapter and I wanted to put it down (it made me weep). Gene Edwards said I know you didn't like that chapter and you won't like the other chapter either. He was right. It showed me of myself. When I read I heard myself saying the same words that I was reading. After each chapter, God said keep reading. This book was awesome. I never looked at David the way he was protrayed in this book. I read the whole book before going to bed. I learned alot about myself, people in church and especially leadership over me. Everyone should read this book.

Please do not be fooled. This book is not a safe haven for those who have been wounded by authority. It is a recipe for spiritual abuse. I truly believe Gene Edwards means well. I believe he wants to point the reader to God. I even believe he wants to comfort the wounded in a way. But I also believe his hyper-authoritarian agenda needs to be exposed for what it is. Hence this review.

Gene Edwards' A Tale of Three Kings, which he claims to have written to "comfort" (p. xii) those who have been abused by authority, uses a combination of highly selective Scriptural accounts of the life of David, fictionalization and fabrication to lead readers into practicing denial of truth, isolation and passivity in the name of "healing" (p. xii). Edwards' approach goes way beyond a call to love and do right by those who hate and wound us, and potentially deceives wounded believers into enabling the victimization of themselves and others, while at the same time it seeks to deny them the ability to recognize their victimization for what it is.

Edwards' story is presented as a fairy tale, yet it is also presented as a model for living. This model specifically advocates denial of the truth in chapter 7. "First of all, he must pretend he cannot see spears. ... Last, he must pretend nothing happened" (p. 19). Thus Edwards irresponsibly encourages victims to brainwash themselves into ignoring problems, and potentially sets up further victimization.

Furthermore, Edwards pressures victims into isolation.
There's only one way to leave a kingdom:
Alone.
All alone. [p. 28]
Edwards' apparent purpose is to avoid "split[ting] the kingdom" (p. 27). Yet while it is valid to point out the danger of creating factions for the sake of wounded pride, Edwards' approach potentially shuts down communication altogether, along with sources of support. He simply goes too far when he tells victims they must flee abuse alone - what if there are other victims who need to leave? What if there are neutral parties who could work toward a true resolution to the problem?

Finally, Edwards advocates passivity. In response to the question of whether a victim should leave an abusive authority, what they are to do in a "spear-throwing contest," Edwards answers, "'You get stabbed to death.'" It is not Edwards' fanciful language here that is the problem. The problem is that he goes on to suggest that the victim is wrong not to accept the abuse, suggesting such a person is behaving as a King Saul. He presents as his normative example, "David accepted this fate. He embraced the cruel circumstances. ... Because of this he was deeply wounded. His whole inner being was mutilated. His personality was altered. When the gore was over, David was barely recognizable" (p. 25). Then he has the audacity to say that no one likes the answer "Except God" (p. 25). Who is Edwards to know how much God likes his take on "the answer," when he claims no one can else can know certain things, which God actually does tell us in Scripture?

For example, Edwards seeks to train readers to ask themselves the question "Is this man the Lord's anointed? And if he is, is he after the order of King Saul?" then proceeds to claim that no one can tell because God "never tells" (pp. 21-22). Scripture itself begs to differ: it identifies Saul as the anointed, and then points out what was wrong with him. Yet this is often the wrong question to ask anyway. Believers need to be able to ask when an authority is overstepping its boundaries, or otherwise abusing its authority. God often does tell who is abusing authority: Scripture points out what was wrong with Saul, David, Solomon, and right on down the line. In fact, far from teaching us to practice denial, isolation and passivity, Scripture instructs us to love truth (see 2 Thessalonians 2:10), bear each other's burdens (Galatians 6:2), help the weak (1 Thessalonians 5:14), and take up the Sword of the Spirit, the Word of God (Ephesians 6:17).

Edwards fails to qualify the things he says or explain David's circumstances in adequate detail, because that would go against his storytelling style. His extremist approach may be fanciful, but it fancifully twists Scripture for shock value. Such extremism demonstrates a false piety, however successful it may be at convincing the broken and suggestible to adopt it. Thus the book may serve as a remarkably effective tool to crush dissent. It is a tool that could be powerful in the hands of the very "authoritarian movement" whose "doctrine [...] or the inordinate practice of this doctrine" Edwards says is "causing such widespread carnage" (p. xi). It is the type of tool that may indeed be popular in a victim-blaming church culture that charges victims with wrongdoing for even noticing they have been harmed.

I think it not too strong to call this particular book a perversion of Scriptural truth.

This book, in my opinion, is very misleading and could be harmful to anyone under the authority of a pastor who is abusive or misusing his authority. It makes an interesting point that we cannot know if someone has been placed in leadership by God or by their own doing. But it goes on to teach that you should always submit to such a leader and just hope that God will change the situation (as David did not get involved in Saul's removal as king). However, the New Testament is full of instruction on confronting and correcting sin, in love, even of our pastors. They are representing God and should only hold their positions if they are emulating Jesus, the Good Shepard. To do nothing in response to an abusive leader, is not love or godly submission at all.