David A. Brondos, Paul on the Cross: Reconstructing the Apostle’s Story of Redemption (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006), 241 pages, ISBN 9780800637880.

It is always healthy to question what we think we know about the Bible, for the simple reason that it is all too easy to smuggle traditional readings into a text that often should be read on quite different terms. As the most explicitly theological section of Scripture, Paul’s letters deserve to be rethought more often and more rigorously than any other selection of biblical writings. David Brondos’ Paul on the Cross is one of many recent attempts to rethink Paul, and for that reason alone, it is worthwhile reading. Whether Brondos ultimately makes his case, of course, is a separate question.

Brondos’ thesis is a startling one: Jesus’ death and resurrection are not acts of power that destroy the power of death, and neither do they provide for a sacrificial offering in place of our sin. Rather, Jesus’ resurrection is God’s response to Jesus’ faithfulness (even unto death), and as such (according to Brondos) it represents the guarantee of the divine promises of salvation to us. Brondos does not express his exact understanding of how this works very clearly, but the gist of his understanding is that the resurrection was an act of vindication which backs up God’s promises to save us through some other (eschatological?) mechanism. The way Brondos works Jesus’ faithfulness into his understanding of salvation obviously trades in a notion that is currently very popular. (Whether it has the support that others purport to find in Paul’s arguments is another matter.)

One of Brondos’ favorite arguments against the usual forensic (satisfaction) and classical theories of atonement is that these theories are completely unlike anything we find in other streams of first-century Christianity. This means, according to Brondos, that one must suppose Paul to have been enormously creative to have fashioned one or both of these theories from the material that he received from the other apostles. It is better to suppose, he thinks, that these understandings are fundamentally wrong. Brondos, in fact, expresses this disjunction in terms of a direct comparison between the apostolic kerygma, on the one hand, and these theories of atonement (as attributed to Paul by virtually all modern readers) on the other hand.

The disjunction between Paul and his contemporaries is obvious—but does it count for as much as Brondos wants it to count? After all, there are many other issues on which Paul’s maverick ways are all too apparent—e.g., his understanding of Gentile inclusion apart from circumcision was probably just as much of a quantum leap for non-Pauline Christians as any theory of atonement would have been. It is also questionable whether we may compare Paul’s doctrine of atonement (whatever it was) with what is disclosed in the kerygma: the point of 1 Corinthians 3 seems to be that “Jesus Christ” (meaning the kerygmatic narrative of Christ’s death, burial, resurrection, etc.) is the foundation on which one should build one’s faith system, so that the kerygma represents the building blocks of the faith, but it does not represent the whole theological truth about the Christ event. Thus it is a category error to compare the components of a more fully developed interpretation of the kerygma with the kerygma itself.

What can the Reformer teach us about revival?

The emphasis by Martin Luther and other Reformers on the ultimate authority of Scripture and the priesthood of all believers opened the way for all the great revivals of the modern era. Luther’s work broke the paralyzing hold of a religious hierarchy that claimed final authority over the people, quenched the work of the Holy Spirit in their midst, and confined Biblical knowledge to the priesthood. His emphasis on the priesthood of all believers unleashed the masses to pray and expect answers from God. If there had been no Luther, there would have been no Methodist revival, no Great Awakenings, no Cane Ridge, and no Pentecostal-Charismatic revival.

Luther’s Early Life

One of the monastic cells at the Augustinian Cloister in Erfurt, Germany where Luther lived from September 1505, until he left to take up his position as a professor at the University of Wittenberg in 1511. Few monks lived in such a cell permanently. Image: Paul T. McCain June 2006

Luther was born into a poor, peasant German family where he was taught to pray to God and the saints, to revere the church and the priests, and was told frightful stories about the devil and witches. One day, at the age of 22, he was caught outdoors in a terrible thunderstorm and feared for his life. In a state of panic, he made a vow to become a monk if his life was spared. True to his vow he entered the Augustinian monastery at Erfurt that same year of 1505.

As a monk, Luther’s chief concern was to become a saint and earn a place in heaven. He, therefore, observed the minutest details of discipline, living a very austere life and learning the principles of mystical prayer and meditation. His days were spent in reading and studying, prayer and fastings, night watches, and self-mortifications. His fellow monks held him up as a model of sanctity and envied his self-denial. He later said, “If ever a monk got to heaven by monkery, I would have gotten there.” However, in spite his austere lifestyle and many religious works he found no peace with God.

While a monk, Luther continued his studies and in 1507 he was ordained to the priesthood and celebrated his first mass. In 1511 he was sent to Wittenberg to be the professor of Bible at the newly formed university there, and, in the same year, he received his doctor of theology degree. He began to lecture in the vernacular on the books of the Bible and, to do so intelligently, he began to study the Bible in the original languages. It was while teaching through the New Testament, particularly Romans and Galatians, that Luther began to see the truth of justification through faith in Jesus alone.

F. LeRon Shults and Andrea Hollingsworth, The Holy Spirit (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 150 pages, ISBN 9780802824646.

This book makes a significant contribution to the “Eerdmans Guides to Theology” series and helps us understand the place of the Holy Spirit in the faith and practice of the church over the centuries and today. This book by Shults and Hollingsworth does this in a compact (150 pages) and accessible way.

F. LeRon Shults is a Reformed theologian committed to the belief that the church must ever be reforming. Once professor of theology at Bethel Theological Seminary he is now professor of theology and philosophy at the University of Agder in Norway. He has written a number of other books, including Reforming the Doctrine of God and Reforming Theological Anthropology (both Eerdmans).

Andrea Hollingsworth is a Ph.D. student in constructive theology at Loyola University Chicago. Her research interests include spirituality and pneumatology, and she has published book reviews and essays in journals, including Pneuma: The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies.

The authors see pneumatology as “the attempt to interpret the transforming experience of the Spirit” (p. 2). And this is “implicitly or explicitly, always…within the context of trinitarian discourse” (p. 6). In the introduction we are given a succinct, refreshing account of Scripture’s witness to the Spirit. From there we move to some highlights of the church’s witness to the Spirit up to the present day.

The church has often sought to defend and promote the faith in a philosophical context, but philosophy has often not been kind to a biblical understanding of spirit. The dualism of Middle Platonism and neo-Platonic philosophy defined spirit in a way that devalued matter. This meant that the teachings of the healing of the body—even the incarnation itself—were in danger of being undermined or denied altogether. The church fathers sought to undo this influence in the Councils of Nicaea (325 A.D.) and Constantinople (381 A.D.). The focus was primarily on Christ as being one person undivided with two natures and speaking of God as Trinity, one God in three persons. Constantinople significantly added to the Creed what had developed from the Cappadocians’ theological work on the church’s understanding of the Spirit.

Augustine of Hippo’s work and analogy of Trinity as Father-memory, Son-intellect, and Spirit-will, along with Boethius’ definition of person as “an individual substance of rational nature” (p. 91) had a profound impact on Western theology in particular. In this formulation, substance had priority over being “in relation.” The Western filioque addition to the recitation of the Nicene Creed, “from the Son,” in describing the procession of the Spirit (influenced by Augustine’s writings), contributed to the eventual split between the East and the West of Christianity. The Eastern Church saw the Father as the eternal source or fountain of the Son and the Spirit, while the Western Church insisted on the Spirit’s procession from both the Father and the Son. But there have been some breakthroughs in recent times toward resolving this impasse.

For church leaders, preachers and even ordinary Christians, choosing a Bible translation can be a difficult task. This is made even more difficult for those who study translation in order to make an informed decision. It is unfortunate that discussions of Bible translations tend to be centred on personal opinions (for example Taylor 2007) or discussions over the techniques used to overcome small-scale linguistic problems (for example Fee and Stuart 2002, Neff 2002 and Hill 2006) rather than on objective facts.  However, to be in a position where they can make a truly informed choice, pastors and leaders would need to have some sort of reliable guide as to what they can expect in the translation as a whole. Based on recent translation research and my own professional experience as a translator, this article will suggest an approach based on the intended purpose of each Bible translation. It will show that it is this approach, and not the traditional approaches that spark the “free vs. literal” debate, that has the potential to help church leaders and preachers to make informed, objective decisions on the translation or translations they choose to use.

The Traditional Approaches and their Weaknesses

Historically, most Bible translation scholars have described their work in relation to two main translation schools. Fee and Stuart, in their book, How to Read the Bible for all Its Worth (SU, 2002), arrange nine translations of various dates along a line with “Literal” at one end and “Free” at the other (Fee and Stuart 2002: 36)¹. For them, “literal” translation is “the attempt to translate by keeping as close as possible to the exact words and phrasing of the original language, yet still make sense in the receptor language” (ibid, p. 35). Translators working using the “free” approach, on the other hand, would agree with Dr. Mark L. Strauss (2004: xx) who says that “translation is first and foremost about meaning, not form.” The goal of free translation is to get as close as possible to the ideas and meaning of the original and to express these in a manner more closely resembling modern-day speech. The following sample of possible translations of a simple question in French illustrates the differences between these two approaches.

French: Comment vous appelez-vous?
English 1: How yourself calls you?
English 2: What do you call yourself?
English 3: What is your name?

In this example, English 1 represents the version most likely to be generated if someone with knowledge of French grammar were to look each word up in a dictionary and translate the sentence accordingly. English 2 represents the version most likely to be generated by a translator using the “literal” approach—as few changes as possible have been made to the grammar of the sentence while still making sense in English. The verb “to call” has also been retained as the literal, dictionary translation of the verb “appeler.”

English 3 represents the “free” translation approach. In this case, more attention has been paid to the normal expectations and phrasings of English than to the grammar of the original. None of the words in English 3 can be found in any form in the original but this version has the advantage of being the version that most native English speakers would be familiar with.

In this simple example we can see that literal translation has the advantage of giving us an insight into the grammar of the original and the meanings of the individual words used. However, the disadvantage of this approach is that it is likely to generate translations that contain phrasings that are unfamiliar and do not reflect normal English use (Fee and Stuart 2002: 35; Strauss 2004: xix; Fee and Strauss 2007: 34). Free translation, on the other hand, has the advantage of offering translations that read more naturally. The disadvantage of this approach is that it makes it more difficult for readers to gain access to the patterns used in the original language (Van Leeuwen 2001: 30, Strauss 2004: xix, Fee and Strauss 2007: 57).

An example of the problems with either approach in Bible translation is found in how four different translations have handled 1 Kings 2:10. In this example, the first two translations can be roughly seen as traditional, literal translations with the second two representing the free approach to translation to differing degrees.

NKJV: So David rested with his fathers…
ESV: Then David slept with his fathers…
NLT: Then David died and was buried with his ancestors.
TM: Then David joined his ancestors.

It is clear from comparing these four translations that we have a phrase that can be loosely translated into English as “David died.” The NKJV and ESV, in order to translate literally, have tried to keep as much of the original Hebrew phrasing as possible. While their choice of phrasing may be clear enough for those who are used to reading the Word, they have turned a phrase that would have been natural and easy to understand to the original readers into a phrase that is foreign and, in the case of the ESV especially, can easily be interpreted in a sense that is completely different to that intended by the original author. In the two free translations, on the other hand, the phrase either had to be extended to include both elements of the Hebrew image, as in the NLT, or recreated to express these elements and keep the same meaning as the original, in the case of The Message. This verse, therefore, clearly illustrates the advantages and disadvantages of both approaches.

Donald K. McKim, ed., Dictionary of Major Biblical Interpreters (Leicester: InterVarsity, 2007), 1106 pages, ISBN 9780830829279.

This book is a revised edition of the Historical Handbook of Major Biblical Interpreters (1998). In concept, the work is ingenious—I know of no other work that treats major figures in the interpretation of Scripture in this way. With respect to the working out of this concept, however, the Dictionary of Major Biblical Interpreters has a number of serious drawbacks. Whether one can overcome these drawbacks, of course, will largely depend on how much one already knows, but that is an especially unfortunate way to have to read a reference work.

The Dictionary consists of more than 200 articles on “major biblical interpreters”, introduced by a series of overviews of interpretive trends within different periods, divided (where applicable) between North America and Europe. The quality of the articles is often very high, although it is hardly consistent. All the article writers were naturally drawn to their subjects’ work, but there are times when a bit more objectivity would have helped. Indeed, some of the articles are too adulatory for a dictionary—for example, the over-long article on Brevard Childs, written by one of his students, is a shameless mixture of hagiography and apology. (The “studies” listed at the end of that article exclude the works of Childs’s detractors, although he had several. Other articles in the Dictionary follow a much more objective policy with their bibliographies.)

The historical overview articles are uneven in quality. The articles on “Biblical Interpretation in Europe in the Twentieth Century” and “Biblical Interpretation in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries” are extremely tendentious: they seem to have no other object than to paint historical criticism as a fall from faithful reading practices. They attempt to make this case in the usual way: by associating everything undesirable (from the writers’ viewpoint) with the Enlightenment, even to the point of attributing the “modernist” concern for authorial intention to a (supposed) nineteenth-century development. (Unfortunately for the authors of these articles, other entries within the same volume set the record straight on some of this nonsense—e.g., the article on John Calvin speaks in very clear terms of the sixteenth-century reformer’s devotion to authorial intention as the primary hermeneutical goal.) These two articles sometimes get the more value-neutral facts wrong as well—e.g., Schleiermacher and Lachmann are credited with the idea that Mark was a source for Matthew and Luke (p. 62), but those early source critics argued only that Mark gave the clearest representation of the original gospel narrative that underlay all the synoptic gospels. In short, readers should look elsewhere if they want a reasonably objective history of biblical interpretation in these periods. It is especially unfortunate that articles like this can make it into a reference work. The editors of reference works usually set ground rules to avoid problems of this type.

Unfortunately, there are other significant problems with the Dictionary as well. The high quality of presentation that one finds in many of the articles on individual biblical interpreters is somewhat offset by the rather tendentious selection of “biblical interpreters”. It is difficult to know why some figures were chosen for inclusion, while others were excluded. Those familiar with important names within the biblical studies guild might be very surprised to learn that there is no entry for E. P. Sanders, arguably the most important figure in the study of Paul in the twentieth century (and one of the most important contributors to historical Jesus research as well). Those looking for other major interpreters of Paul will be equally surprised to find no entry for Krister Stendahl. Omissions like these are so huge that they border on bizarre. One cannot help but wonder whether these omissions reflect a prejudice against the so-called New Perspective on Paul, a general approach for which Sanders and Stendahl might be considered the founders. (This theory finds support in the only slightly less surprising omission of two other major figureheads of the New Perspective: N. T. Wright and James Dunn—although Dunn, oddly enough, is listed as a contributor to the Dictionary.) Whatever the explanation, the omission of names of this caliber is certainly strange. Indeed, failing to list Sanders or Stendahl in a list of 100 “major biblical interpreters” is like failing to list Jackie Robinson or Ted Williams in a list of 100 “major professional baseball players”.

Stephen W. Hill, “Would the Real Apostles Please Stand Up?: The truth about apostles, authority and the kingdom of God” Ministry Today (Jan 2009), p. 68-72.

This rather brief article is an attempt by Stephen Hill to question the pre-eminence given to apostles in churches today. Hill begins this task by recalling for the reader a story of, what he views as dishonorable, introductory comments of a leading apostle standing as the main speaker at a recent apostolic conference. He uses this as a platform to question the contemporary understanding not only of the role of the ‘Apostle’ but also the role of all church leaders. What proceeds is a passionate argument whereby Hill insists that the abuse of apostolic authority is an issue that is at the center of a widespread misunderstanding of true leadership in God’s kingdom. The argument concludes with a proposal of a solution to this problem to be found by adopting a church structure of ‘functional ministry’ whereby there is no hierarchical leadership in place but instead each believer takes on the mutual responsibility of serving ‘one another’. This review will present the strengths and weaknesses of the key elements of Hill’s reasoning and briefly suggest how such elements could open further areas for discussion regarding church leadership.

An obvious strength of Hill’s argument is his willingness to address problematic areas of ethical leadership—an issue that seems to be of growing concern in the church today. Arguing for a re-ordering of the understanding of true leadership within God’s kingdom, Hill asserts that leadership authority should be given by invitation. Likewise, leadership should always be exercised by example in order to ensure that leaders sustain a heart of servanthood. Hill states his reason for this model is that God always desires obedience through “free conviction rather than any form of coercion” (p.69).

However, instead of developing his ideas regarding ethical leadership within the church, Hill quickly divides his focus between discussing how leaders are meant to lead and what a leader should be in the first place. Evidence for this distraction can be seen from the outset in the tone of his writing. Also, while Hill’s criticisms of an unnamed apostle and an unnamed apostolic body seem to implicate ‘apostles’ in general, we would do well to remind ourselves that this correlation is not necessarily the case.

In equating the concepts of apostleship and kingship, Hill makes the mistake of using one aspect of inappropriate leadership as justification for questioning the position of apostles, and all leaders in general, and their overall place in God’s kingdom. The resulting anachronistic ‘mixing’ of the terms and definitions for kingship and apostleship (it is not immediately obvious how these terms relate to each other to form a leadership model) leaves the reader searching for their relevance to the practicality of church leadership. Hill argues that apostleship should not be based on an Old Testament model of kingship because true theocracy is based on the authority of the priest and prophet. In other words, kingly authority is essentially a “benevolent dictatorship” that controls by coercion and oppression whereas the authority of the prophetic and priestly office is supposedly inspired by the Spirit of God. But this does not entirely agree with biblical evidence. In the Old Testament, priests had the responsibility of teaching God’s law (Lev 10:11, Mal 2:6-7), yet in the book of Hosea we find a situation where the more the priests increased, the more sin increased among the community. As a result, God blamed the priests for the people’s lack of faithfulness (Hosea 4:7). Likewise, even though kingship is an example of an ungodly use of leadership authority (as argued by Hill) we find that David’s main purpose as Israel’s king was to shepherd God’s people (Psalms 78:70-72). If the importance of this notion of kingship in the establishment of God’s Kingdom was ever in doubt, one may find that the Davidic covenant (established in 2 Samuel 7) is of utmost importance in the prophetic foretelling of the coming of the Messiah as the ultimate fulfillment of a King who will be the ultimate Shepherd over His people. Furthermore, while Hill seems to disproportionately favor a New Testament perspective over an Old Testament one in determining the proper characteristics of godly leadership (p.71-72), he would do well to note that a number of dishonorable characteristics can be found among the leadership of the early church, which proves His argument to be inconsistent (Acts 15:36-41; Galatians 2:11-14; 2 Timothy 4:10, 16; Philemon 1:14, 17-21). Hill’s logic, therefore, is scripturally imbalanced.

Mark E. Dever, The Gospel & Personal Evangelism (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2007) 124 pages, ISBN 9781581348460.

Mark E. Dever believes that personal evangelism is the duty of every Christian. Although some may be more gifted for evangelism than others, he believes that all Christians have a responsibility to share the Gospel with unbelievers. This responsibility includes having a sound knowledge of the Gospel and a clear presentation that is supported by prayer and a life of faithfulness.

In his book, The Gospel & Personal Evangelism, Dever offers readers a number of reasons for sharing the Gospel on a personal level. He also includes some practical ways to conduct such a ministry. He supports his views with numerous Scriptures from the Gospels, Acts and other New Testament passages. He also draws on his personal experiences.

Dever serves as senior pastor of Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington, D.C. A prolific writer, he is the author of several books by Crossway, including Promises Kept, Promises Made, Nine Marks of a Healthy Church, and The Deliberate Church. He holds a Ph.D. from Cambridge University and a Th.M. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He also is the executive director of 9Marks (www.9marks.org).

In The Gospel & Personal Evangelism, Dever attempts to answer some of the most common questions people have about the Gospel and personal evangelism. He focuses on “the best news that there has ever been, and how we should share that news” (p. 17). His goal is that readers find they “can be more understanding and obedient in evangelism” (p. 17). His desire is to help the church to develop a culture of evangelism. He defines this culture as “an expectation that Christians will share the gospel with others, talk about doing that, pray about it, and regularly plan and work together to help each other evangelize” (p. 17). In short, he wants evangelism to be normal in the Christian life.

Dever covers his topic in seven chapters, each of which addresses an important question on evangelism. He begins with, “Why Don’t We Evangelize?” This is followed with, “What is the Gospel?” He then proceeds with, “Who Should Evangelize?,” “How Should We Evangelize?,” “What Isn’t Evangelism?,” “What Should We Do After We Evangelize?,” and finally, “Why Should We Evangelize?”

In Dever’s view, there are five basic excuses that Christians have for failing to evangelize. Three of them are: “Evangelism could cause problems,” “Other things are more urgent,” and “I don’t know non-Christians.” To address these and other excuses, he offers a 12-step program in which he advises the Christian to pray, plan, accept, understand, be faithful, risk, prepare, look, love, fear, stop, and consider.

On the subject of the “Good News,” Dever explains some of the popular misconceptions and poor definitions of what the Good News is. He writes, for example, that it is not simply that we are okay, it is not simply that God is love, and it is not simply that Jesus wants to be our friend. He states emphatically that the Gospel is about the sin problem that all people have, and what God did through Christ to address the problem. He writes that God is holy and He hates sin, and the only way a person can be saved is through the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. Using the Gospels and Acts as examples, he writes that the true, biblical message of salvation is that people should repent and believe the Gospel.

Image: Bjorn Simon

In this day of specialization, it seems we have a difficult time combining thorough Bible study and relevant practical application. Too often, practitioners do not get their principles from studying the Bible, and scholars do not produce relevant principles and practical application. I would like this essay to begin a dialogue that will bring these two together.

I will use Numbers 11 to demonstrate how we can derive relevant principles for our lives and ministry from an Old Testament text. My goal is to experience God speaking to us through such texts. The key is one of the distinctive attitudes of Pentecostalism—the Bible should be read as precedent for what God wants to do in our lives today. If God did it before He can do it again. To hear His voice clearly from such texts and apply their precedents the way He intends, we must read them carefully in context and see the principles in what God was saying to the original audience. Then, we can take those principles and, with the Holy Spirit’s guidance, apply them appropriately to our lives today. God wants us to learn how He related to Israel in their situations and how they responded (1 Corinthians 10:6, 11).

The Context of Numbers 11

In doing biblical theology, it is essential to describe carefully and analytically the context of a passage within the flow of the message of the whole book and, ultimately, within the message of the whole Bible. The broad principles of the message should be clearly articulated. I believe, then, we should understand the context of Numbers 11 as the journey of God’s people, Israel, from Sinai, where they were established as his covenant nation, through the wilderness to the Promised Land, where God would use them to bring the Savior into the world. They were on a mission in this world with eternal purpose. They were God’s newly established nation to provide a people through whom the Son of God, the Savior, could become incarnate. In Numbers 1-10, God instructed Israel through Moses on organization and holiness in preparation for the journey. With his holy presence among them and leading them, they would come to the place where they would be able to fulfill God’s purpose. The end of chapter 10 records they began with great faith and enthusiasm.

The Kingdom and the Power. The Pneuma Review has received permission to reprint chapters from this important work that asks: “Are Healing and the Spiritual Gifts Used by Jesus and the Early Church Meant for the Church Today?” The Fall 2009 issue will continue this series with Part 2 of “Power Evangelism and the New Testament Evidence.”

Cedarville Music Professor, John Mortensen, shares practical insights into “Forming the Life of the Congregation Through Music.”

Daniel D. Isgrigg tells us about a “Pilgrimage Into Pentecost: The Pneumatological Legacy of Howard M. Ervin.”

Some reviews to look for in the Fall 2009 issue:

Henry I. Lederle reviews one of Paul King’s newest books, Only Believe: Examining the Origin and Development of Classic and Contemporary Word of Faith Theologies (Word & Spirit Press, 2009).

Tony Richie reviews Laurie Guy, Introducing Early Christianity: A Topical Survey of Its Life, Beliefs & Practices (InterVarsity Press, 2004).

Wayne Cordeiro, Leading on Empty: Refilling Your Tank and Renewing Your Passion (Minneapolis; Bethany House, 2009), 213 pages, ISBN 9780764203503.

I know this author well. He is my pastor, and I love him. I am 22 years his senior and have been on his pastoral staff since 1995, longer than any other pastor still serving at New Hope Christian Fellowship in Hawaii. New Hope is the largest church in Hawaii with a weekend attendance exceeding 10,000.

When we first started the church in 1995, Wayne taught (and still does) a course on doing ministry at 5:30 on Tuesday morning. Early starts tend to separate the serious student from those less inclined. I took the course three or four times, and learned several things about Wayne: the first was that my Bible came alive as he taught. I saw wonderful things that I had never seen and my Bible’s pages were aglow while class was in session; the second was that Wayne was an unusually disciplined man who started early every day and on every task. I envied his discipline and drive. I still do.

When Wayne started this church, I was his backup speaker, and had a sermon all ready to go should he not be able to preach on any Sunday. I was never needed. He never missed a service. The number of our 90 minute Sunday services rapidly grew to five each weekend – two on Saturday evening and three on Sunday morning. Wayne’s ability to communicate led to invitations to speak beyond our church and he traveled far and wide to satisfy the demands that came his way. He began to write to meet the demands he faced.

I have read all or most of Wayne’s earlier books, and I have listened to him in person, on the radio and television countless times. I probably write 50 articles a year for newspapers and magazines, and the lead thought for most of these comes from something Wayne says on a Sunday morning.

A few years ago, Wayne ended up against the wall. His energy level was zero, and the demands he faced were overwhelming. I knew it was coming, and tried any number of times to suggest or hint at ways to diminish the draining I knew he had to be facing. But like so many of us in our late 40s and early 50s, we can do it all and better than anyone else. I know I felt that way, and I ended up with a stroke at 58, a heart attack at 61 and a triple by-pass at 67.

Leading on Empty is Wayne’s story of how his tank ran dry, and what he did to renew his passion for the Lord and life. Its content is excellent, he writes well, transparently and his principles are applicable to professions and careers beyond the ministry.

Wayne sought professional help and learned many things we really all know but so often ignore. He learned that solitude and silence are where you refine your soul, where you learn the difference between a concern and a responsibility. We must learn to take our concerns to Jesus, and invest our emotions and energies in our responsibilities.

We must settle that for which we are accountable if we are to be significant to others and to ourselves. We need to define what comprises the five percent of our life which only we can do, and then to do those tasks well since the condition of that five percent will determine the validity of the other 95 percent of our effort.