Mark Herringshaw

This book is an ambitious attempt at retelling stories of God speaking in such a way that people will be moved beyond the expectation or lost hope of hearing a voice in the sky, and so begin to listen for God in the variety of other ways that he may choose to communicate.

The word ‘always’ in the title is relatively spurious. It put me off when I first skimmed through the book and I was relieved to see that the book was not some kind of how-to guide for getting a slot machine God to drop out messages on demand. The general message that God wants to speak to us is useful, and for some lay-people this book may offer some neat or inspirational stories.

Better to get the Bible stories from the Bible, though. The story-telling is a bit flat – more like narrative information listed quickly to get you to the point – and so the Bible stories do suffer from a kind of compression and perhaps even a bit of misinterpretation. The result is that I was suspicious of other the included stories. Between the lines one discovers a book with stories gathered only to make a point, rather than a book reflecting on stories or anecdotes to see what point they stories might actually be making.

The power of the stories is further lost because of the volume that seem to come back again and again to the same point – “see that, they heard God too!” A large volume of stories is no substitute for the quality of one that forces larger questions. A focused book of 1/3 the size might have more power for people who really doubt whether God’s speaks. Lacking an investigative tone, and a deeper exegesis of the stories included, the redundancy makes the book a bag of candy rather than a substantive meal. Like candy, as I read the book, I kept wondering if 344 pages of the diet would prove spiritually healthy.

This concern was exacerbated whenever the movement of the argument came from speculative illustrations. On pg 174, for example, the book wonders whether people’s attachment to their pets actually reflects “a misplaced desire to talk to God”. It then wonders if this is really God’s purpose for pets: that our response to animals would teach us something about ourselves so that we would become aware of our desire to relate to God.

I’m sure these are neat ideas for speculative and inconsequential conversations over a beer, but they are no grounds for theological argument or apologetics. If a book refers to the fanciful or quirky ideas of the author once or twice it can be charming. More than that and the whole book feels indulgent, and perhaps even just opinionated.

For a skeptic concerned about whether God does speak, or a person desperate for an answer from on high, the ground for the argument must be solid, and the stories must be potent, direct, and verifiable. As soon as you read authours defending their own stories and their means of collecting and verifying them – right in the book itself – veracity flags go off. If the story is neat and inspirational, but needs extra defense because sincere doubters won’t buy it otherwise, then you can only hope to be heard by the converted. Only when stories are compelling to the point that they cry out for the reader’s engagement can you expect to interact well with open-minded skeptics or people who are wracked with doubt or even have lost their faith.

A couple of further comments.

- An occasional rhetorical question is fine, but two or three on a page gets tired quick, especially when there is page after page of them. Worse still, it’s just pretentious if the author is clearly acting open minded to the possibilities of the universe. If you think something might be so, just say it. Don’t feign wonder, it makes you untrustworthy.

- Lastly, I might note too, that the format of breaking up sentences or listing occasional short sentences as though they were poetry just made the book plain hard to read. This isn’t Jean Vanier writing, it’s not poetry, and neither the profundity nor power was near significant enough to ask me to meditate on sentence fragments.… (mehr)

“Do we really reap what we sow?”

This question is the basis for Mark Herringshaw’s new book, The Karma of Jesus. In mostly conversational dialogue with a young man named Andrew, Herringshaw explores the concept of Karma and how it relates to grace found in Jesus Christ. He gives a brief explanation of the teachings of Hinduism, Buddhism and Greek mythology, showing how each one holds to some form of Karma. Due the small size of the book, Herringshaw obviously doesn’t present an in-depth portrayal of the teachings of each, but overall seems to do a fair job. Throughout the book, he writes in a manner that is very easy to read and follow, using mostly illustrations and stories from his life and the life of others. His narration of Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem is especially good. You can sense the expectation of the Jews building, wondering how the grand finale would play out. Towards the end of the book, he outlines the Karma of Jesus in the following way (pp.193-194):

- I reap what I sow – Karma
- I sow trouble; I get trouble.
- If someone lived a perfect life would they have perfect Karma?
- Jesus lived a perfect life.
- He offers to exchange lives with me.
- He takes my trouble—my Karma.
- He gives me his consequences—his Karma. I can accept his offer.

Herringshaw does a fair job of describing not only Jesus taking our “Karma” but also the benefits we get from Jesus, answering the question, “If Jesus gets my Karma, what do I get of his?” In some respects, Herringshaw answers this question well, saying that we get Jesus’ abilities to love, to care, to “manifest his attitudes through my body, mind and emotions.” He says “I can ‘channel’ Jesus ‘ patience when that’s what I need most.” (p.169)

Unfortunately, this is about the only thing that Herringshaw’s Karma/grace comparison gets right. There are several very serious errors in the underlying theology of the book. First is the actual comparison between Karma and sin. Herringshaw says, “Karma doesn’t obey motives. And it doesn’t discriminate. It’s not personal; it’s cold, calculating mechanics, with no capacity to make an exception. Karma answers with hard-core reality in response to what actually happens” (p.47). This description of Karma does not at all fit the description of sin. When we sin or “do bad things,” Karma is simply the universe bringing itself back into balance. The Bible, however, teaches that sin is not something that we do wrong to an impersonal force. Sin is an offense against a holy God and as such the consequences of sin are a very just result meted out by a just and holy God. Herringshaw’s comparison of Karma and sin completely misses this point.

The second issue is when Herringshaw gives a brief description of the three “theories of atonement.” The first by Origen says that Jesus paid the debt that all humans owe to Satan. The second, put forth by Peter Abelard, says that Jesus’ death “inspires us to love in the face of evil,” that Jesus’ life is the perfect example. (p.129) The third theory as written by Anselm of Canterbury says that Jesus paid man’s debt to God himself. Herringshaw gives objections to all three of these theories, concluding with the astonishing statement that “Bottom line…we don’t know how Jesus takes bad things out of the world and releases good things in their place.” (p.132) His objection to Anselm’s theory of atonement is simply that “the Almighty comes off looking like a bloodthirsty sadist or vengeful street gang member who practices child abuse on his own son just to pacify his own anger issues.” (p.131-132) Amazingly, Herringshaw does not even attempt to use Scripture to either support or deny any of these theories of atonement. It’s as if none of these theories line up with his own set of reasonings regardless of whether or not Scripture supports or denies them. In fact, very little Scriptural support is used throughout much of the entire book, relying more on anecdotes and illustrations. Herringshaw does go one step further, saying “Maybe Jesus’ death becomes whatever we expect it to be, or whatever we need him to be. He’s a warrior, he’s an example, he’s an advocate who intercedes for us, and he’s all these things all at once. Maybe the power of each role gets activated once we decide based on our own need and act in faith for one or the other.” (p.132)

The third issue I have with the book is Herringshaw’s borderline denial of the self-sufficiency of God. In discussing creation he says, “God said, ‘Let there be light…and oceans…and elephants…and man and woman.’ Until then, everything was God and God was everything. But Christians believe that when God created, God divided and made things distinct. There’s something lonely and dangerous about this, but it makes giving and receiving love possible. How could God love selflessly if God was all there is?” (emphasis added) (pp.170-171). In this short quote, Herringshaw has seemingly proposed a pantheistic theology (God is everything and everything is God) that denies the self-sufficiency of God (God needs the creation in order to love.) This is evidenced earlier in the book when Andrew asks the question, “What’s in it for him [Jesus]?” Herringshaw’s answer not only hints at God’s seeming need for his creation, but also points to a man-centered salvation: “You are. I am. Evidently, we’re all he really wants out of life.” (p.132)

Although Herringshaw’s style of writing is very easy to read, the theology beneath the comparison between Karma, sin and grace is incredibly lacking in any Scriptural support. The premise of the book – that we are forgiven based entirely on the grace of God through the death of His Son, Jesus – is one well worth studying. However, this book falls disappointingly far short of that goal.

(Thanks to Bethany House for providing a review copy of this book.)… (mehr)

NCLA Review - How does God speak to Christians? Does God speak all the time? Do you know what God is saying to you? Herringshaw and Schuchmann answer these questions and more in this book. According to them, God has spoken down through the ages in several ways: directly in a clear voice, through circumstantial evidence, in the words of prophets, in lessons of history, in dreams, in infection from others, through an individual’s conscience, and in the pages of scripture. Personal anecdotes, which comprise most of the book, are interwoven with historical examples and references from scripture. Individuals seeking to validate an experience or questioning whether God does speak to them would be the most likely to find this book useful. Rating: 2 —AMB… (mehr)

As a seminary student the title intrigued me. Yet when I started to read the book, I was not so sure that I could make time to finish it. In fact I did not finish reading the book.

As a seminary student you are living and breathing the church. In my personal setting I was working with individuals who are learning how to live out their faith.

My biggest struggle with the book was that the stories appeared to be more in the author's voice than the original voice of the participants. I understand that this is tough to accomplish.… (mehr)