One of my favourite series of books in recent years have been those by David F Wells, including 'No Place for Truth' and 'God in the Wasteland' etc. If you like books that deal in depth with what is wrong with the church in the 21st century then these are the ones to own. Look on Amazon or, if you have one, ask at a good local Christian bookshop.
Having said that, I'd have to admit that Dr Wells can be heavy going if you are not used to serious reading - these books are very serious and heavily foot-noted. His latest title, however, is much more accessible and that is the way he has intended it. It is right up-to-date, having been published this year, and it is well worth reading. It will open your eyes to what is happening in the church in the West; even though Dr Wells generally refers to America you can read it as any Christian with experience of the modern church anywhere and gain a great deal. Here's a quote that had a great impact on me:

We have enough Bibles . . . We have churches galore; religious organizations; educational institutions; religious presses that never stop pouring forth books, Sunday School materials and religious curricula; and unparalleled financial resources. What don't we have? All too often we don't have what the Old Testament people didn't have. A due and weighty sense of the greatness and holiness of God, a sense that will reach into our lives, wrench them around, lift our vision, fill our hearts, make us courageous for what is right, and over time leave behind its beautiful residue of Christlike character.
. . . . . . . .
Let us not mince words. If we could see more clearly God in the full blaze of his burning purity, we would not be on easy terms with all the sins that now infect our souls and breed easy compromises with the spirit of the postmodern age. This is what leads to the casual ways in which we live our lives with their blatantly wrong priorities. If we could see this more clearly, the church would be filled with much more repentance and, in consequence, much more joy, and much more authenticity.
David F Wells, pages 132-133, 'The Courage to be Protestant; truth-lovers, marketers and emergents in the postmodern world.' Grand Rapids, Michigan; William B Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2008 ISBN 978-0-8028-4007-3

I'll not mince words either! If you are concerned about the church in the 21st century, serious enough in that concern to want to understand what is happening and willing to read, then buy this book. You will not regret it.

A friend emailed today to ask if we were quite safe here in Johannesburg. The reports of violence against immigrants have inevitably made world news; the latest report I have read suggested twenty-two had died and some six thousand have fled the area to date. The violence is against black immigrants from other parts of Africa living in the poorer areas of the city, where black and coloured South Africans see them as a threat to their own opportunities for jobs. Yesterday there was a report of a man burned to death in the violence and a photograph of him obviously in the last moments of his life. The reporter said a local woman could not resist laughing as she described what had happened.

Johannesburg is a city of startling contrasts. It is in (and comprises most of) South Africa's most prosperous province, Gauteng. It has malls to rival anything Europe can offer and the obvious wealth that creates such places. But some areas such as the world-famous Soweto and also Alexandria (where much of the present violence has occurred) are very much a part of the same city. Alexandria has scenes that would not be out of place in much poorer parts of Africa and the everyday life of some people is lived in astounding poverty.

Zoo Lake, Johannesburg

There is a great deal of debate about how such problems can be solved and a high level of concern that they will damage South Africa's promotion as the 'rainbow nation' that is open to all colours and creeds. Many are openly asking where the country is going and making radical suggestions; just today a black man told me that he believed South Africa would be better back under white government. But he went on to say that the people of South Africa needed to consider their position before God and repent and seek him. He is right, of course. Political and economic answers to South Africa's problems may be both helpful and necessary, but at the heart of the difficulties is a nation turning more and more to a secular world-view, promoting 'human rights' of every kind while awash with false religion. The pedlars of false gospel are everywhere, pushing the charismatic extremes and the prosperity lies that delude and inevitably disappoint. Most politicians, especially the president-elect, are a thousand miles away from Christian faith or even an attempt to live by some sort of Judeo-Christian ideal. South Africa needs true revival, an assertion of biblical truth that emphasises the reality of God and the need to live in the light of his Word.

So are we in danger here? Right now there is no sign of the violence spreading outside the areas to which it has so far been confined. Johannesburg is a violent city by any standards, but as in any big city it is possible to live in peace while some areas are in turmoil. The picture of the boats was taken on a Sunday afternoon stroll around zoo lake; in the park round about the lake hundreds of people, black and white, enjoyed the day and were at peace. With such violence so near you may ask how that can be. Johannesburg is in some ways a microcosm of our world; people are getting married, buying and selling, enjoying the pleasures of life, fighting, hating, killing. All this is no real surprise because in a sense we are all doing exactly the same. The Lord Jesus Christ spoke of the days before his second coming by comparing them to the days of Noah before the flood (Luke 17:26-27). Perhaps like us you are blessed to be in a peaceful (or relatively peaceful) place right now. But make no mistake, the day of the return of the Lord Jesus Christ is coming and on that day you will not be asked whether you had decided on the solutions to the world's problems but where you stand in relation to him. Are you ready for that day?

In Spring, we are told, a young man's thoughts turn to love. Perhaps on similar lines you'll forgive an old man's thoughts turning to theology in autumn, especially as it is autumn here in the southern hemisphere!

My thoughts were turned that way by reading the Douglas Moo commentary on James which I got at a bargain price. It wasn't actually the price that drew me - I didn't know it was 'on offer' until I got to the till - but the fact that I am quite interested in James and Douglas Moo is a name I know and respect in the evangelical world. I have his commentary on Romans and other books in which he has a part in editing or authoring the material.

All the more disappointing then, to be faced with a thorny problem while reading the James commentary. There are a number of issues in interpreting biblical text and I am not an expert in any of them, but I do have my doubts about the way Scripture is treated sometimes. I can outline my view of Scripture this way:

1. Scripture is entirely and completely the Word of God, in the original (Hebrew and Greek) perfect in every way and still in translation infallible and inerrant.

2. I recognise the human authorship of the books of Scripture and that those authors have left their mark in terms of style and other non-essential matters. Nevertheless I believe the Holy Spirit to be the original author of Scripture because all Scripture is God-breathed.

3. This original divine authorship of Scripture means that the Bible is not like other books. Through it God himself speaks, judging, correcting and encouraging his people.

It is this last point I particularly want to comment on here. It is essential that we do not ever treat Scripture as merely a human book, because in that way we will find ourselves degrading the truths it is meant to convey and at the worst we will put ourselves in the position of allowing ourselves to judge Scripture rather than submitting ourselves to it, as we should.
Scripture really is unique. This is evident in Peter's comment (2 Peter 1:21) where he says:
For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
Quite plainly in the most natural sense Peter is referring to the Old Testament, but in that 'prophecy' in the context carries the meaning of conveying the Word of God it equally plainly applies to the New Testament as well. Peter has more to say:
Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied about the grace that was to be yours searched and inquired carefully, inquiring what person or time the Spirit of Christ in them was indicating when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glories. It was revealed to them that they were serving not themselves but you, in the things that have now been announced to you through those who preached the good news to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven, things into which angels long to look. 
(1 Peter 1:10-12)
The meaning here seems plain enough: the human authors of Scripture sometimes found their curiosity aroused by what they themselves had written. Or put another way, 'carried along by the Holy Spirit' they wrote things that were not wholly clear to them in meaning. They knew that, and although they sought to know more fully, the Holy Spirit revealed that what they had written was for a future time which Peter identifies as the age in which we live - the Gospel age, between the first and second coming of the Messiah, the Lord Jesus Christ.
If there is a lesson from these texts it must be that the idea that is regularly promoted even by evangelical authors, that the first and most important question in studying a passage in the Old Testament is its meaning to the author and original authors, cannot be true. I do not mean to suggest that historical context has no importance, indeed far from it. Knowing where we can the approximate dates of an author and gaining some idea of the political, economic and religious milieu in which the text was written is of great advantage and importance. But to imagine that what the author or original hearers understood of a text is of primary importance or even in some cases any major importance is to deny the truth of the two texts we have quoted. To give just a couple of examples, both from Isaiah, I have only a general idea who the prophet's original hearers or readers were, and certainly not too much clue about what they understood of what we call Isaiah 6 or Isaiah 53. But I do know this: that the real significance of the first part of Isaiah 6 is revealed in John 12, where we told that it was the glory of the pre-incarnate Son of God, the Lord Jesus Christ, that Isaiah saw; the significance of the last part of the chapter is revealed in a number of gospel passages where the Lord tells us that Isaiah spoke of the generation he was addressing (and by natural extension all who hear the gospel and reject it). I know too that the real meaning of Isaiah 53 only becomes apparent in the light of the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Back to Moo, who is wrestling with the text of James in a day when it is a very controversial text for some who want to find passages in the New Testament that will suggest that Paul is somehow a 'rogue apostle' promoting a gospel that differs from that of the Lord Jesus Christ and other apostles. Dealing with these issues and producing a coherent commentary on the text of James is no easy matter and I do not think that I could do better than Douglas Moo. But what does disturb me is the heavy reliance in this commentary on the early date for James (pretty certainly true) as a reason why James and Paul do not seem to agree: James is writing to a largely Jewish readership at an early stage in the history of the church and therefore the development of apostolic theology permits James to express things in a way he might not have done in the light of the later developments by Paul. (That is my summary of what Douglas Moo says at a number of points.)

Of course it all sounds reasonable enough, unless you bring to mind that the 'prime cause' author is not James but the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit knows perfectly well what he will inspire Paul to write, and everyone else. James leaves his mark on the text in many ways, but if Peter's comments mean anything we can be sure that the 'carrying along by the Holy Spirit' will mean that James will write beyond his own understanding where that is necessary. I say where that is necessary because James, as an apostolic author, writes under the promise that the Holy Spirit will reveal all truth to him and bring to mind the teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ and more. James is not doing his best in the circumstances. Instead, the Holy Spirit having illumined his mind and now carrying him along as he writes, he produces pure and accurate truth for the Gospel age. The truth is not limited to him or by him. He knows far more than you or I or Douglas Moo (or even NT Wright, for that matter!) and his work is not some 'early stage' production that we can now see the fault lines in. Here is apostolic truth that speaks into in our lives, judges us as a living word sharper than any two-edged sword, and gets right to the heart of our sinful problems. Here is the pure Word on which the church of God is founded. Here God speaks, as he does through all Scripture but with special clarity in the New Testament where the Gospel is revealed, expounded and explained.

I think Douglas Moo would agree with most of what I have said. But sadly, I think evangelical scholars sometimes now too easily adopt the methods and presuppositions of the liberal scholars, and thus undermine a high view of Scripture which is essential to a true and living faith.

(Quotations in this post are from the English Standard Version of the Bible.)