Tom Blackaby

This review formed part of the literature review for my dissertation, "Does God use people?"

http://carterclan.me.uk/dissertation

Blackaby and Blackaby (1999) wrote this book in order to call men to live out their lives as faithful disciples. Core to the argument is the concept that men are called to be used by God and that in order to be used, their characters must be Godly and their relationship with God must be strong. This argument is made from Scriptural examples, personal anecdotes, and from the examples of well known historical Christian men.

This work contains more parallels, more widely used, than any of the other texts. Of these, almost a third relate to being called or chosen by God. The remainder are very task orientated, either God using men as tools to accomplish tasks or men being given tasks to do. Every aspect of discipleship is cast in the language of being used by God. For instance “Our prayers allow us to become more aware of how God wants to use us.” (p.174)

At this point it is worth remembering that this book is written specifically for men. It may be that the focus on task is deliberate, driven by a perception that men respond more favourably to the language of task and mission. However, as a man, whilst I agree with much of what is written in terms of practical discipleship, I find unhelpful the underlying, and unexamined, assumption that men are of value if they can be used by God.

Whilst there are many Biblical characters held up as examples of men that God used, either despite certain failings or because of Godly disciplines, there is no evidence of Biblical occurrences of “God used.” There is a brief reference to 1 Corinthians 1:27-28 which does refer to people as things. (p.3)

One Biblical character is mentioned in this context, uniquely among these texts, in a formulation that is worth considering separately. The authors write that “Christ is our primary example of how God uses a man in relationship to himself.” (p.33) This does seem to imply some problematic consequences for Christology, the doctrine of the Incarnation, and the Trinity, not all of which we have space to discuss.

These problems are further illustrated by the authors’ understanding of the relationship between Christ and the Bible. Based on their understanding of John 1 they write “Scripture is not a concept; Scripture is a person….The Word is a person. The Word is God speaking to you and me. The Word became flesh in Jesus Christ and lived among us.” (p.83) However, they also see God’s word as a tool in God’s toolbox “God used his Word to speak clearly to me during my prayer time with him.” (p.91)

I think that this confusion runs through the book. I do not agree that “the Word” in John refers to Scripture, it refers to Jesus. (Beasley-Murray, 2002, p.1ff) They are different but are conflated in this book. Perhaps this blurring of the distinction contributes, or is a part of, the blurring of the distinction between people and things that is implied in the concept of God using people.

The sovereignty of God appears to be a very important aspect of the theology that underpins this work. This sovereignty appears to be understood as an absolute control by God of people and circumstances. This is seen in the argument that is put forward that humility of attitude is necessary in the service of God. People are tools in God’s hands and God’s plans, and pride has no place. (p.88) This point is made even more strongly later, that Christians have submitted to Christ as Lord, and that “God has the right to help himself to your life anytime he wants.” (p.93) It is also seen in the assertions made that God uses circumstances to shape people, especially their character. The argument follows this path: God uses circumstances, good and bad, to form us into tools that God can then use for other purposes. (p.27ff)

Here again we have “God uses” language carrying a weight in the discourse of yielding and surrender that may be appropriate. However, the formulation appears to me to be overly manipulative and mechanistic. Later I will address the theology of God’s sovereignty and discuss whether there might be other ways of understanding and describing it that might more adequately preserve the depth of surrender without eliding our created personhood.

There is a fairly unrelenting emphasis throughout the book on God using men, and being prepared to be useful. Despite this, there are hints that there is more than a utilitarian manipulation in view. “God wants to commune with us in a reciprocating love relationship.” (p.17) and “We are not called to a task, a mission, a job, or a ministry. We are called to a relationship with our heavenly Father.” (p.32) However, there seems to be no recognition that the very language that is being used might destroy relationship and that the over bearing volume of the task focussed language almost drowns these whispers of love.

In what appears to me to be one of the most internally contradictory statements made in any of these books, the authors write “The man God uses is first encountered by God.” (p.92) I will argue later that you cannot authentically encounter with someone you use, because you use things not people.

“God use” language is so prevalent in this book that it could not be written without it. I believe that its aims could be met more effectively without “God uses” language, but it would be a fundamentally different book.… (mer)