TIM DAY. God Enters Stage Left. Oakville, ON: The Meeting House, 2013. Pp. 154.
Reviewed by John R. Yeatts
Tim Day is the senior pastor of The Meeting House, a congregation that, as the book cover says, is “a safe place away from the shadow of traditional religion to have open-minded discussion about life, God, and Jesus.” The book seems to be an apology for the ministry of this congregation. It provides a fine overview of the biblical message for a popular audience. Unfortunately, it is replete with denunciations of religion, which often come as non sequiturs in the development of the chapters but really seem to be the overall thesis of the volume.
Surprisingly, Day never defines religion in any systematic way. The Oxford Dictionaries defines religion as “the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.” This definition specifies that religion is “a particular system of faith and worship” or “a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.” Day does not seem to be employing this common definition. Instead, he seems to be equating religion with rules, rituals, ceremonies, and laws.
Searching through popular and social science sources, it was difficult to find a definition like the one Day assumes in his book. Webster’s Dictionary has one subsidiary definition as an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods. That seems to be what Day means, but because that is not the assumed or comprehensive definition of religion perhaps he should use “rules” or “ceremonies” instead of “religion” in the book. Indeed, Day affirms much that is part of religion as commonly defined: a personal God, the pursuit of what is ultimately important, obedience, and trust. To assume that religion is rules and ceremonies is very misleading and undermines his entire enterprise—though to be fair, he is certainly not the first person to make this mistake.
Day begins with an overview of the message of the Bible, where he rightfully mentions that God chose for his people “the weakest, most vulnerable group” (p. 13); that his people were called to peace but continuously waged war; and that their message was that people could live at peace. All this is excellent, but his contention that they were “without the need for religion, including temples, rituals, priesthoods, and sacrifice . . . relentless rituals or strict codes” (p. 14) is, of course, a contention that will need much support, which unfortunately does not come. Indeed, it seems the pages of our Old Testament includes a lot of those elements—and with God’s blessing.
Day starts his theology in an Anabaptist manner by focusing on Creation rather than the Fall, as Reformed/Calvinist thinkers are wont to do. His emphasis on imago dei is an appropriate starting point. He then indicates that the garden was a place without “rituals or rulebooks” (p. 19). True enough, though God started with one rule: Do not eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Day is correct in his analysis of what this rule means: “I will decide for myself what is right and wrong” (p. 20).
In his chapter on the Fall, Day recognizes a point that we Anabaptists could learn from our Calvinist brothers and sisters: “The curses God speaks out to Adam and Eve make it clear that the natural order is broken” (p. 35). Even so, to be picky, the curse is not placed on Adam and Eve, only the earth and serpent. Predictably, the chapter ends with a statement against religion: “God did not say, ‘If you go through such-and-such religious ritual . . . I will . . . save you.’ No. God committed himself to rescue humanity on his own, without qualifications (p. 38).” This seems to border on universalism. Does Day really want to say this? The Bible certainly does give qualifications—sorrow for sin, confession, obedience—all of which are “religious things.” Fortunately, Day’s chapter on Noah recognizes the need for obedience.
In line with his argument against religion, Day says that Abram’s status does not flow from religious rituals and regulations. Yet, immediately after his call, Abram builds four altars (Gen.12:7-8; 13:4,18), probably with the intention of doing something religious. Moreover, Day recognizes the radical obedience and trust in Abraham’s offering his son Isaac. Yet, again, in the midst of that story, Day offers this non sequitur: “Abraham was not declared righteous by God because he was legalistically religious or profoundly enlightened” (p. 43). The word “legalistically” is anachronistic at this time; there was no law. Moreover, are not trust and obedience religious attitudes?
Day’s chapter on Moses appropriately begins by emphasizing Moses’ obedience and trust. Indeed, he recognizes that Israel performed the ritual of placing blood on the doorposts so that the death angel would pass over their houses. Inexplicably, these do not seem to be considered religious activities by the author. After all of this, Day asserts that Israel gets religion, including the Ten Commandments and “additional rules” for “every detail of their daily lives” (pp. 50-51), which Day sees as impediments.
The Jewish people, Jesus, and Paul view these laws differently from Day. Jews see the 613 laws as a blessing—as 613 ways that they can please God. Jesus says that he did not come to “abolish the Law, but to fulfull it” (Matt. 5:17). And Paul says that the “law is holy and the commandment is holy, just, and good” (Rom. 7:12). Admittedly, Day is right to note that “[k]eeping the Law will not work to change hearts” (p. 52); that ability only comes from the faithfulness of Jesus on the cross, which gives us not freedom from the Law but the ability to fulfill it.
Day’s critique of the Jewish monarchy seems fair enough. Yet his chapter on the prophets has some curious statements. Perhaps the most surprising is the statement: “The old covenant, given through Moses to the Israelites, did not work, so a new one is needed” (p. 63). That statement diminishes the importance of Jesus: Day is practically asserting that what God tried first did not work, so he sent Jesus instead. No! In the beginning, the plan was to send Jesus; Jesus was not Plan B.
The end of the chapter on the prophets confuses religion with Western humanism. Day seems to be saying that human self-improvement is the underpinning of every world religion (p. 68). That seems to be an overstatement. Indeed, it is truer of Western humanism than religion, which by definition is dependent on God for transformation.
In his chapter on Jesus, Day seems unfair in calling the disciples “nobodies,” although they are a “motley crew” (p. 72). Yet, his statement that Jesus “consistently does the opposite of everything religious leaders thought God wanted” and that Jesus “trashes religion” (p. 72) is sloppy thinking. Actually, Jesus does not reject the Pharisees’ religion, but their hypocrisy—their claiming to be religious but not doing what the Law taught. Moreover, Day says that Jesus is “dishing out forgiveness free of charge” (p. 73); yet two pages later he quotes Jesus’ words to the woman taken in adultery: “Go and sin no more” (p. 75).
The chapter on Jesus exhibits other problems. Day includes two passages on the same page that seem inconsistent: “God is . . . interested . . . in wiping out a religious approach to life that makes it hard for people . . . to get close to God” and “Jesus meets with his twelve disciples to share the Passover meal with them” (p. 79). Passover was a religious ritual that Jesus seemed happy to celebrate. Moreover, a misreading of Jesus occurs in the words: “Religion, even the religion God himself instituted, is now obsolete” (p. 85). Jesus seems to think that the religion God instituted is “fulfilled,” not made obsolete by his work on the cross (Matt. 5:17).
In his chapter on the New Testament church, Day speaks of “God’s grace . . . turning average people into world-changing, irreligious revolutionaries” (p. 87). In fact, these early Christians did change the world, but they were neither irreligious nor revolutionaries; they continued to worship as devout Jews in synagogues and did not try overthrow Roman oppressors. Specifically, Day says that Paul targets every form of religion; yet the chapter ends with no support for that statement. Indeed, Paul spends a lot of time telling people to be religious—to worship together, to select leaders and obey them, and even to share church suppers.
Day’s chapter on Christendom and those that follow seem fair for the most part. Indeed, his treatment of persons “who have willfully chosen to reject God’s grace” is particularly profound: “they will be judged by the one who has the perfect intimate knowledge, wisdom, and grace. . . . I am glad that is not my call” (p. 102). Nevertheless, his statement of “God’s solution” is questionable: that “receiving God’s grace [makes us] free to be who we really are” (p. 114). The Gospel has more to do with transforming us into the likeness of Jesus, than enabling us to self-actualize.
In summary, this volume is helpful in bringing perspective on the overall message of the Bible. Yet it fails as a critique of religion, which seems to be its unstated thesis. Overall, the book comes across as rebellion against the rules of the Divine Parent (p. 83). The danger of rejecting religion is that we replace it with our own personal religion. Indeed, Day as much as makes this point, saying,
Each person must find their own approach to praying, learning, serving, and giving according to their personality and stage in life. . . . This is the freedom that Jesus gives to all who follow him. (p. 135)
This sounds like Day’s understanding of the promise of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil: “deciding for yourself what is right and wrong” (p. 27).