I recently received a complimentary copy of a new book by Christian Focus Publications entitled, "Enough." The author is Helen Roseveare, who was a missionary in the Congo in the mid-20th century and witnessed (and suffered through) some terrible atrocities. In the book, Roseveare describes how she came to understand God better through the many of years of her missionary activity. You can really understand a woman who is united to Israel, which means "wrestles with God." The notions of God with which she grew up prove, in one case or another, largely untrue, and often Roseveare reaches a more BIblical understanding of who He truly is.
Let me start by saying that I liked this book. I would not recommend it to anyone, but it is nonetheless the story of a woman united by faith to her Lord and learning to find sweet repose in Him. The book itself is rather short (only 74 pages, including the Prologue and Epilogue), so there wasn't a lot of material apart from her thoughts with which to ground oneself in her story. All the reader knows about Roseveare is what she reveals in her thoughts about God. Despite that, she is forthcoming about her deficiencies and faults as a sinful human. One can sense that despite the book's short size, Roseveare wrestled to write every page.
Now let me turn to what I did not like. Again, I want to be clear that overall I liked this book. If Roseveare's conclusions about the nature of God were not Biblical, I would not be as gracious. Though she does not use the language, she clearly comes to an understanding of law-gospel and admits her semi-Pelagian attitude formed early in her life and that appeared to influence much of the rest of the book. But I never quite got the sense that she truly understood Pelagius' error. Roseveare appears unwilling to let go of the mistaken notion that somewhere, despite her sin, there is something good inside her that can grasp God's infinite holiness.
Perhaps her reference to having attended a Keswick Convention early in her Christian walk has something to do with this. The book itself reveals a woman not entirely reliant upon something completely "other," or "holy," but rather upon her ability to comprehend such a being through her personal experiences with Him. Yet the Bible describes our God as univocal - though man is created in His image, there is not even one aspect of God that is in any way identical to man. For this reason, God condescends to communicate Himself to man through man-made forms, such as covenants. In other words, God and His means are entirely external to man. Though He changes man internally, that is the fruit of His labor. We need not seek the fruit to explain who God is, for the fruit itself will not be perfectly revealed until our Lord returns in glory. Rather, we need to seek Him where He reveals Himself - through His Word and His church, which administers His Word and His sacraments. Where is the church in Roseveare's book? It is completely absent. Where is the Word? Apart from snippets here and there, again, the Word is absent. Indeed, I was left to conclude after finishing the book that had Roseveare not experienced what she did in Congo, she would be no more mature in her understanding of God than at the beginning of the book, when her own friends doubted her self-professed faith. Should we conclude that apart from such life-transforming experiences, mere humans cannot grow in their knowledge of God?
It is possible that this book touched a nerve in me, specifically since what Roseveare describes appears to be the norm for much of modern evangelical Christianity. We seek God in our thoughts. God becomes a subjective reality rather than an objective one. We internalize Him rather than find Him externally. This "god" is nothing more than a golden calf, crafted by human hands to make us feel good about who we really are. But it certainly isn't the God of the Bible. I don't doubt that Roseveare knew that God, for her understanding of Him is clearly informed by having wrestled with Him through His Word and, possibly, through His church. Unfortunately this isn't apparent in the book itself. Like I wrote before, I liked it for what it was, but I wouldn't recommend it.