Tim Yearneau's Reviews > Crazy Love: Overwhelmed by a Relentless God

I have to be honest, I disliked this book. I respect what Chan tries to accomplish and for the choices he has personally made, but I disagree with him wholesale on many levels. The theme is very Catholic in nature; I deserve nothing, I am not worthy, I must constantly suffer, accomplishing personal goals and dreams are only a manifestation of greed and selfishness. Guilt, guilt, guilt. Ok, fine, I admit it; I am a former Catholic.

I applaud him for walking the talk; downsizing his house, taking the same salary as when he first started, choosing a much smaller footprint for church expansion, etc. But dreams and goals come from God to begin with. So why are they bad?

I don't agree we should all downsize and live at the same economic level to eradicate poverty. He mentions the movement where we all live on $46k per year and donate the rest. Redistribution of wealth has been tried and it doesn't work, i.e. communism. I don't think it's a requirement to demean ourselves and jump on the sword in order to help our fellow man.

I offer the Parable of the Talents. In it the Master rewards the servants who not only used their talents, but multiplied them. He punished the servant who played conservative and didn't use the talents given him.

I offer Doctors Without Borders as an example. They work hard to develop their talents and gain personally from those talents, but choose to share their talents, while at the same time not demeaning themselves.

Chan promotes a radical philosophy that says "you downsize so others can upsize." To back this up he refers to the Apostle Paul who mentions that in the Jewish culture those who had plenty shared with those who were needy, as someday it might be reversed. There is nothing wrong with this, in fact, it is admirable. However, he ignores that Paul also stated it shouldn't be a case of now the other person has is easy while you suffer.

Chan further points to a singular verse in the Bible where it says to sell all of your possessions and give to the poor as being the singular Truth we should all live by. His example of this Truth in action is of the guy at his church, upon hearing the Truth, donated his house to the church and moved in with his parents, stating it didn't matter where he lived as long as he has a house in Heaven.

While this is noble, it says God is finite. Everything I have read or heard says God is infinite. God's ability to provide isn't like a pie, where there are only eight slices, and if you have two slices someone else gets none.

My other problem with Chan's singular Truth is it focuses on one line, "...sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor..." He ignores what comes before and after that statement. In that passage, Matthew 19:16-26, Jesus prefaces his answer to the rich man by saying "If you want to be perfect..." After Jesus answers the rich man the passage states, "The disciples were astounded. 'Then who in the world can be saved?' they asked. Jesus looked at them intently and said, 'Humanly speaking, it is impossible. But with God everything is possible.'"

The before and after is significant and can't be ignored for it makes the entire passage less dogmatic and open to other interpretations than just what Chan offers. For example, perhaps Jesus is reminding us that as humans we think and operate in terms of limits, and God does not. Personally, I'm focusing on "'But with God everything is possible.'"

In summary, my fundamental problem with Chan's book is the idea that it's a requirement that we demean ourselves in order to help out our fellow man. He gets dogmatic in that he tends to focuse on one line in a passage without considering the whole context.

The way Chan presents it, success is evil. I contend that dreams and goals are not bad, they're good. For example, Milton Hershey didn't skimp on his dreams and goals, yet gave away his fortune for the greater good. Every Tech Ed program in America can thank him for that.

I contend that opportunity eradicates poverty...give a man fish or teach him how to fish. Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Chuck Feeney, and Abraham Flexner are modern day examples of those, like Hershey, who multiplied their talents in the spirit of the Parable of the Talents, and gave back to society. We should share our skills, talents, and abundance, but I don't think it's a requirement that we tear ourselves down to do it. Thanks for listening.