What is somewhat disagreeable in his argument is his constant call-back to the medieval mystic Christians. The context of the time really made the mystics what they were, but I do not agree that they provide the best model for Christian living in a postmodern context. The lives of the mystics were elevated in popularity amongst the people because the mystics were dealing with issues which many of the church leaders were not, one of them being the black plague. The main church leaders were heading off into the hills with the other healthy people in order to avoid catching the black death while many of the mystics stayed amongst the sick, performing radical actions such as sucking the puss from people’s wounds and placing their face in their sores. These are some extreme examples, but none-the-less performed by Rollins’ excellent mystics. The educated had all run away and all who were left leading the Christian front were these Christian mystics. Even after the plague, some of the few remaining mystics performed weird actions of locking themselves in rooms for the rest of their lives or taking wild pilgrimages to holy locations. The problem with the mystics is that their faith was based more on emotion than on the Word of God. And we all know that zeal without knowledge is not the best of things.

What is agreeable in Rollins’ argument is that he leaves room for what I call “the ambiguity of God.” Rollins argues that theology is good for creating a general idea of who God is, but it can never draw a definitive boundary as to where God ends. We can never put God in a box so-to-speak. God has revealed certain characteristics about himself through scripture, but scripture does not tell us everything who God is starting with A and ending with Z. Now this can become dangerous as others may argue that other religions fill in some of those letters leading to Z, but any good thinker will discover that this line of thought leads to pluralism, which is never condoned in the Bible. There is a reason the prophets spoke so many times to Israel and her surrounding peoples concerning the worship of false gods.

Finally, I was forced to retire my reading of Rollins’ book somewhat early when I stepped into the second half, that being his practical application. Emergent leaders are so concerned with making the Bible “relevant,” which could also be interpreted as “impressive.” “Art” has all of a sudden become a buzzword among churches resulting in services being done in such an abstract fashion as to impress people as to how “artistic” the church can be in relating the message of Christ. But I ask, what are they relating by stamping the name “Judas” on every person who walks in through the door, having them dip their hand in a bowl of wine, and then giving them a small pouch with a Judas nametag on their way out in order to remind them that they are like Judas many times in life. That’s the most important lesson of them all is it not? Has teaching the grace of Christ become so dull? Or perhaps it is not impressive enough, or has been done too many times and has therefore lost its originality. Then again, I could possibly see Christ stamping “whore” on the forehead of the prostitute or “gimp” on the forehead of the paralytic so why should a certain church not stamp “Judas” on everyone else’s?

Preach the Word of God so simply that people may easily understand it, and let God worry about whether it is impressive or not.

What I appreciate most in this book is Cole’s emphasis on Jesus, the authority of Scripture, and the Holy Spirit. Human strategies and gimmicks are no match for the power of the Spirit in planting a church or changing lives. In the first chapter of his book, Cole argues from scripture that the Church belongs to Jesus and he is the one who builds it upon us. Therefore, we are not building it upon him. This may be a major paradigm shift for many of those power hoarding pastors who believe that they are building the Church themselves upon Jesus who is the cornerstone. Not so you foolish humans. Jesus, as the cornerstone, builds the Church upon us. We are all merely bricks among the mortar of the Holy Spirit.

Cole is very courageous in asking the question, “What is church?” He concludes that many attempt to form an answer out of personal experience rather than Biblical analysis and what is more is that Jesus is usually missing from most definitions. In a very Jesus fashion Cole describes what church is by proposing more questions. Where do we see children reconciling with parents and/or friends? Where do we see people restored to a life of holiness and responsibility? Where do we see addicts cured? Where are those people who are making restitution for past crimes? Where these things are seen, there Christ is present and the church is formed.

Cole suggests that many churches and Christians themselves are weak because many pastors have traded preaching “pure Word” for “well-meaning messages about the Word of God” (66). In Sunday School the students are given Bible verses to memorize, but nothing more is usually taught concerning the context of that given passage and its overall meaning within the Bible. Even in Seminary we read books about the Bible, but very seldom do we look into the teachings and themes themselves. Many think that movies, poems, literature, and other people’s opinions can do this better than the Bible itself. As a result, people become more dependent on these well-meaning messages than the pure Word itself.

For church planters, Cole’s book excels above many others because of his reverence for Scripture, Jesus, and the work of the Holy Spirit. His strongest principles are drawn from obvious exegesis, which motivate the reader to look deeper into Scripture. I was challenged from some of his off-the-hand comments from scripture. One was his mentioning of the church being the bride of Christ. I have read this metaphor many times through scripture, but never gave it pause until now. I came to the conclusion that we should work to please the coming groom. Instead, it seems that many Christians are putting on more make-up in order to hide our embarrassed features when attractiveness really comes out through personality, personality then makes beauty come alive.

Frost begins to support his argument by concluding that Jesus himself was an exile. Frost retells many of the Gospel stories concerning the actions of Jesus and subsequently tangents into medieval art and Latin derivatives in order to fluff his argument, which in the end come off more as milk than anything solid. The Bible stories are strong, but there is no application to today’s time and culture. Therefore, Frost’s argument merely provides information to pass a history test, but nothing else.

Frost remains in Biblical culture as he continues to propose that exilic Christians should “follow Jesus into exile” by doing the things that Jesus would do. His point of imitating Jesus is good and helpful as Christians would be wiser to participate in the “fears, frustrations and afflictions” of those whom they have relationships with while also using the language of the culture, being prepared to be more proactive in bringing the gospel to others, and to have confidence that the gospel can be shared through ordinary means (55). But is evangelism the only thing that Christianity is about? Do we live only to become a Christian and then share the gospel? Life sounds much more difficult if this is the case because at one time I was enjoying myself with friends and others and now that I have become a Christian my sole priority in life is to invade every social structure that I can in order to proclaim the gospel.

Furthermore, in his list of “promises” Frost argues that exiles are ones who are honest and authentic to their surrounding community. Another promise is to be missional in creating communities. Frost’s definition of creating community is the attitude of going out into secular culture and to begin forming communities out of the people one finds. But this is hardly authentic. Some people can do this because they simply enjoy making new friends. But for others it is very inauthentic as Christians enter these places where people go to hang out in order to intentionally create a strong community of friends. This sounds more like invasion than ministry where Christians automatically assume to be outside the experience of normal humanity as they can twist and turn people into community with each other. Christians are no better than non-Christians. The only difference is that Christians acknowledge and accept the grace of Jesus. This does not make saviors out of them.

Frost would do better to stick with his argument of “liminality” where communities are born out of a group of people gathered to achieve a certain goal (112). This explains why missions trips, sports leagues, and many types of small groups are effective in creating community among diverse individuals because there is a goal for which everyone unites to achieve.

In conclusion, I found Frost’s book to be full of preaching without any explanation or consistent praxis. For a Christian who so desperately wants to avoid Christendom and is suspicious of chain stores and major governments and corporations, Frost is very much a product of Christendom as he proposes a definition of church and what a Christian should look like. Frost is a modern day Simon of Styletes who climbed down from his platform. He would do better to return there, stop writing, and let the people who are interested travel out to him in order to hear his mere opinions.