Book Review - Trust, Hope, Pray: Encouragement for the Task of Waiting
[amazon 0982577354 thumbnail]
In the interest of full disclosure, I have to admit to being a friend of Trisha Priebe; well, in so far as those relationships from college go. But we are Facebook friends, and I’ve been anticipating this book, Trust, Hope, Pray, since I first read her status update nearly two years ago about sleeping with a book contract under her pillow.
Co-authored with her husband Luke, Trust, Hope, Pray first took shape in their personal journals while they were waiting for an international adoption to be finalized. As they sought spiritual guidance for their long, often frustrating journey, they realized that not much Christian literature is devoted to the task of waiting on God. Trisha, who works in publishing, and Luke, who is finishing his M.Div. from Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary (and who together admittedly have a “book budget bigger than their grocery bill”), felt God leading them to contribute to the conversation through their own experience.
Trust, hope, pray, wait
The book is comprised of 365 page-length entries that explore what it is to trust, hope, pray, and wait. Each entry begins with a verse on one of those themes and includes the Priebe’s reflections and experiences, as well as quotes from notable Christian authors and hymn writers. In this sense, the book is designed as devotional literature and is not intended to be read in one continuous flow.
I began Trust, Hope, Pray nearly a year after my own family had been in a holding pattern of sorts and immediately recognized the wisdom of structuring the book in this way. When you are enduring a difficult season of waiting, your spirit very easily becomes worn out, overwhelmed, and exhausted. In such seasons, the last thing you are able to read is an extensive theological analysis of waiting. In these times, what you need most are daily, quiet, simple reminders of what you already know: God is in control, He loves you, and you must continue to trust Him.
And the Priebes offer just that.
Even though the book grew out of their own process of waiting for an adoption to be finalized and while there are allusions to their trials, they are never so direct that someone dealing with an entirely different trial would feel alienated from the comfort they offer. Personally, I would have loved to have read a more detailed account of their adoption story, but perhaps that will some day find its way into another book contract under Trisha’s pillow.
New directions
Still one of the more interesting things about Trust, Hope, Pray isn’t necessarily the content—though that is worthwhile—but what it represents. Trust, Hope, Pray is among the first book-length literary offerings from the “young fundamentalists.” And while there is nothing particularly distinguishing in the text itself, there is something notable about who they choose to quote. And how they do it.
The opening pages of the book pair a recommendation from Michael P.V. Barrett of the Free Presbyterian Church with one from Justin Taylor, the conservative evangelical blogger and managing editor of the ESV Study Bible. The forward is written by Dave Doran, and in the introduction, the Priebes quote from Paul David Tripp. Interspersed throughout the entries are quotes from Mark Minnick, Alan Cairns, Sam Horn, John Piper, C.J. Mahaney, and Kevin DeYoung. And these are accompanied by quotes from notables of Christianity past – Spurgeon, Tozer, Mueller, Lloyd-Jones, Wesley, Lewis, and Augustine to name a few.
I found this significant in two respects. First, it shows that the baton has passed in fundamentalism, that young fundamentalists view the baby boomer generation of Minnick, Barrett, and Doran as the elder statesmen and do not look to the leaders from previous generations. And secondly, like many young fundamentalists, the Priebes feel no need to distance themselves from the very individuals they quote. Gone are the ubiquitous disclaimers and qualifications. They quote Minnick, Horn, and Barrett with the same ease that they quote Piper, Mahaney, and Tripp and as easily as they quote Spurgeon, Tozer, and Wesley. This represents the general direction among younger fundamentalists to be less concerned with ecclesiastical divides as with finding commonality around the truth.
The rest of the story
Trust, Hope, Pray was completed and released before the Priebes reached the end of their own waiting process and they finish the book with this question: “What about the stories that do not have a happy ending?” In many ways, this is fitting because the rest of us who read it are not guaranteed that our waiting will end when we close this book either. But as they have all along, the Priebes remind us that so much of what God is accomplishing happens during the waiting and that no matter what, God will “do what is best on our behalf” (p. 363).
Within months of the book’s release, however, they finally received word that they could travel oversees and soon were united with the son they had so long loved but had yet to meet. In many ways, this too mirrors the lessons driven home throughout the book; for if they had not endured their own extensive period of waiting, we would not have been able to benefit from their insights. Ultimately then, as the Priebes tell us, we must learn to trust our sovereign God, hope in His love for us, and pray that in all things He would be glorified.
Update: To read an author interview on Hannah’s blog, click here.
handerson Bio
Hannah R. Anderson lives in Roanoke, VA where she spends her days mothering three small children, loving her husband, and scratching out odd moments to write. She blogs at Sometimes a Light and has recently published Made For More.
- 2 views
Good review and interesting perspective on the young fundamentalists. I wonder if part of the reason for the lack of disclaimers is that fundamentalists have finally figured out
a. that ministry leaders are not either safe and fully endorsable or unsafe and untouchable
b. that quoting someone isn’t a blanket endorsement, anyway
I hope so. There are no perfect leaders and there are very few that have nothing at all to say that is worth reading or quoting.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.
For anyone else that’s interested, Trisha answers a few more questions about her and Luke’s process of writing and what happened after the book’s release in an interview at my http://www.sometimesalight.com/1/post/2011/09/trust-hope-pray.html blog .
Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.
And secondly, like many young fundamentalists, the Priebes feel no need to distance themselves from the very individuals they quote. Gone are the ubiquitous disclaimers and qualifications. They quote Minnick, Horn, and Barrett with the same ease that they quote Piper, Mahaney, and Tripp and as easily as they quote Spurgeon, Tozer, and Wesley. This represents the general direction among younger fundamentalists to be less concerned with ecclesiastical divides as with finding commonality around the truth.Of those for whom this statement is true, they are well on their way to not being fundamentalists. The unifying truth of fundamentalism is contention for the faith and doing battle royal for the fundamentals. To the extent that ethos is eschewed, to that extent the ‘eschewer’ is not a fundamentalist.
But I wonder about the phrase “ubiquitous disclaimers and qualifications”. I am not sure that this is as ubiquitous as is assumed, but it does seem to betray at least some resentment of pastoral care. As my subject line suggests, I can find “commonality around the truth” with a wide variety of people. Should I carelessly quote someone as an authority who represents an area of serious error, just because he happens to have said something I agree with at some point? What kind of care does that display for one’s readers or hearers (in a sermonic context, say)? Certainly it isn’t pastoral care.
Obviously there are disclaimers and disclaimers, but it is hardly a credit to say, “wow, look how mature, he/she even quotes XYZ without a disclaimer”. I think it shows little regard for one’s readers. Or a lack of discernment on the part of the writer.
However, why do I bother? The younger fundamentalists have moved beyond concern about ecclesiastical divisions. (As if they don’t matter.)
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
However, I do think the extent that past Fundamentalists have unnecessarily distanced themselves from brothers (my understanding of “commonality” is very narrow) has actually led to legitimate disclaimers falling on deaf ears. If you feel the necessity to distance yourself from say MacArthur in your writing and preaching, your warnings about Joel Osteen or Joyce Meyers will carry little weight.
And I do think for a certain generation, there has been a culture of ubiquitous disclaimers. And a lot of it, IMHO, has been driven by a fear of man — an unwillingness to be marked or deemed by the rest of the network as straying outside the fold. Hence the careful process of distancing ourselves and not being honest enough to say I benefited from so and so.
My point, however, is that the unwillingness to hold to the ecclesiastical distinctions is a failure to appreciate what fundamentalism is and consequently leads to a rejection of fundamentalism as such. No fundamentalism without contention.
As for disclaimers, I have used stuff from MacArthur, with disclaimers along the lines of: “MacArthur doesn’t stand exactly where we stand” or “there are some areas of significant difference but…”
For Osteen, I would NEVER use anything of his. Period. I would expose him and oppose him as a dangerous heretic.
I think there is a big difference and it isn’t really that hard for the person in the pew to get it.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
As he aged, Dad became more and more of a separatist. But he also began to assume that all the young men should just know why they had to be in certain circles and not venture off the reservation. He sometimes saw the younger generation as liberal or weak. I wonder if our fundamental colleges have failed to properly communicate the history of fundamentalism in terms of loyalty to the Lord Jesus Christ and not to man made circles.
I know YFs who love Christ and His Word. They contend for the faith locally, even if they aren’t worried about issues 1,000 miles away. They have been disappointed by some fundamentalists of my generation who seem to be more worried about religious politics than praying with their younger colleagues. The YFs who stand against false teaching and evil practices in their own churches have often experienced great heartache. They have been forced from churches and have not received support from older men who should understand. There is an assumption that the YF’s are “soft” when they are really courageous in their desire to be Biblical. When faced with issues that need a stand, they take it. They just don’t want to play politics or be tied to circles. They don’t want to be unnecessarily contentious. I am hopeful that God will use this new generation to proclaim Christ and stand against false teachers.
As to the main topic, this devotional book sounds like a great reminder that “The Lord is good; a stronghold in the day of trouble, and He knows them that trust in Him.” Nahum 1:7
L Strickler
I find several things disheartening about Mr. Johnson’s response(s). First of all, let us return to the reality that we don’t really know what the authors had in mind when they excluded extensive disclaimers from their book. We have surmised that they did it for a number of reasons, even alluding that they are … “well on their way to not being fundamentalists.” It could be anything from a publisher’s decision to an oversight to a who-knows-what. Not including a disclaimer says little more than … they did not include a disclaimer.
It is my opinion that one of the reasons the “old fundamentalism” is at risk for driving the “young fundamentalists” away is because of language like Mr. Johnson used (which, unfortunately, is not unique to him). A young couple who wrote a book (not about fundamentalism) and because they didn’t burden it with disclaimers, the discussion has strayed to whether or not they are in danger of leaving fundamentalism. Really? What about the fact that the book is FULL OF THE GOSPEL. Or is that a moot point? Has fundamentalism become so much about who is defending or not defending whom that we’ve lost sight of what is most important?
Mr. Johnson asks,
“Should I carelessly quote someone as an authority who represents an area of serious error, just because he happens to have said something I agree with at some point? What kind of care does that display for one’s readers or hearers (in a sermonic context, say)? Certainly it isn’t pastoral care.”This book is not a sermon. This couple is not practicing pastoral care. But larger than that, quoting someone is not giving a full or public endorsement of the individual. To quote anyone human is to necessitate disclaimers. If fundamentalists believe that being a fundamentalist is the ticket to not needing disclaimers, that raises serious questions about the true nature of fundamentalism and the people who belong to it.
However, why do I bother? The younger fundamentalists have moved beyond concern about ecclesiastical divisions. (As if they don’t matter.)This last comment, to me, is saddest of all. With the broadest brush in the basket, Mr. Johnson has painted an entire group of young people the same way. If the strategy is to turn young fundamentalists away by categorically criticizing them and their attempts to spread the gospel and love Christ, well … it’s working.
I appreciate your point that the Priebe’s book is not about fundamentalism and that not including disclaimers may mean little more than they didn’t include disclaimers. I agree that had they added anything, it would have distracted from their main point as it has for so long in other fundamentalist writings. In essence, the process of qualification can teach your audience that the need to qualify the differences between brothers is more significant than what makes us brothers in the first place.
BUT… the Priebe’s not qualifying is a significant departure from the way that fundamentalists have traditionally handled quoting sources and that is worth noting. The change is telling, not the impact that the lack of disclaimers has on the book itself.
BUT… the Priebe’s not qualifying is a significant departure from the way that fundamentalists have traditionally handled quoting sources and that is worth noting. The change is telling, not the impact that the lack of disclaimers has on the book itself.It depends on which branch of fundamentalism that one came from. I grew up going to several GARBC churches (my father was a music pastor for several decades at several churches) and I am still a member of a GARBC church. I don’t remember any disclaimers in books that I read that came from my branch of fundamentalism and I don’t remember any coming from the pulpit. I do remember some coming from my pastor who was mentoring me in some one-on-one situations and small group situations. I remember some coming from certain professors who wanted to make sure that we were “eating the chicken, but spitting out the bones” of those Christians that come from a broader evangelical context. Disclaimers don’t necessarily have to come from books or from the pulpit to teach people discernment.
[JoshuaDGraw] First of all, let us return to the reality that we don’t really know what the authors had in mind when they excluded extensive disclaimers from their book.First, I wasn’t really commenting on the book, more commenting on Hannah’s observation. I was making an observation about her observation. I haven’t read the book and was not/am not making a comment about the book.
[JoshuaDGraw] A young couple who wrote a book (not about fundamentalism) and because they didn’t burden it with disclaimers, the discussion has strayed to whether or not they are in danger of leaving fundamentalism. Really? What about the fact that the book is FULL OF THE GOSPEL. Or is that a moot point? Has fundamentalism become so much about who is defending or not defending whom that we’ve lost sight of what is most important?Again, not commenting on the book at all.
But really… just saying something is full of the Gospel? Is that now a trump card that shuts down discussion? Billy Graham is/was full of the Gospel too. I guess no one should have ever said anything about him either?
[JoshuaDGraw]Uhh… please drop the “Mr. Johnson” bit. “Don” is fine.
Mr. Johnson asks,
…However, why do I bother? The younger fundamentalists have moved beyond concern about ecclesiastical divisions. (As if they don’t matter.)This last comment, to me, is saddest of all. With the broadest brush in the basket, Mr. Johnson has painted an entire group of young people the same way. If the strategy is to turn young fundamentalists away by categorically criticizing them and their attempts to spread the gospel and love Christ, well … it’s working.
Actually, it was Hannah’s comment that painted the picture this way. Are you saying that Hannah’s description is incorrect?
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
And there is no escaping the fact that my own experience is crucial to my perspective as well. I guess I feel like I had a fairly broad fundamentalist background, influenced in my formative years by everything from Hyles to BJ. And what I experienced was a constant couching of quotations and sources, both in public and private, and I rarely got the impression that it was from pastoral care. It seemed more like looking over one’s shoulder lest anyone think we were straying across ecclesiastical lines of separation. (I realize that this could have been an impression formed by the broader context of guilt by association.)
Regardless, THAT is what I was addressing - not the need to offer pastoral counsel or guidance about a certain author or teacher (even evangelicals do that :-)), but the unwillingness to use a quote because of how other people in your circles would view it. And that is where YF are not concerned with qualification or disclaimer. They are not as concerned that people would associate them with a certain person; they are not as concerned with possibly been seen as straying outside the lines of demarcation; they simply are not as bound to the group as much as they seem bound to fundamental truths that cross group lines.
Perhaps I could have explained that more clearly in the review… but then we wouldn’t be having this conversation, would we?
Discussion