Simple Church critique: That’s not how you make porridge

Things have slowed down on this blog but not quite to a standstill. I have been reviewing the book 'Simple Church' and there is a lot to like from it but in this post I review what I think is the biggest downfall to the book – their use of Scripture.

'That's not how you make porridge! You remember those ad's don't you?'Some little Irish guy saying how there is only one way to make porridge, well my last post about Simple Church is that for all the good that comes out of the book the use of Scripture, in my opinion, left a bit to be desired. Let me give you some examples

On p16ff they talk about Jesus as the man who knows simple, he simplified the Law with its myriad of Laws down to a single commandment. While it is true that he did this but is the application of this Scripture therefore that we should simplify everything because Jesus summed up the Law into a single phrase? I'm not convinced that if I was preaching on Matt 24:34 that I would come to the conclusion of a simple church based upon the logic of what Jesus does here.

Then on p18ff they use the story of Jesus clearing the temple as a justification for decluttering anything that gets in the way of encountering the 'simple and powerful message of Christ'. I would have that the main and obvious (read simple) barrier to encountering the message of of Christ is our own sinful hearts as opposed to clutter that invades church programs. Don't hear me wrong on this one, if there are things in church that we do that make it difficult for the message to be heard they need dealing with but Jesus clearing the temple and us decluttering our churches seems like a big theoligical and exegetical jump to make.

On p78ff they talk about Hezekiah (he was one of the good kings!) and when he destroys the bronze snake made by Moses (Num 21:6-8). And perhaps this line is delibirately provocative but they say, 'He got rid of it because it was clutter'. Once again I'm just not convinced that this is the main point of 2 Kings 18 or that if you were preaching it it would naturally flow as a point of application out of the text.

So, what exactly is my beef – well as the litte Irish boy said – it's just not how you use Scripture! The fancy word for it would be eisegesis which is when you read into the text rather than letting the text speak to you.

It is my gut feeling that the ideas in this book are brilliant and as they did their research they have stumbled across something very helpful but then gone looking for some Scripture to back up the 'simple church' idea.

Or maybe I'm not reading some of these passages well enough and not seeing the broader scope of application that may be present.